Where did he go wrong?

Solo album

When he started writing his liquid shit down.

>It's a you akshuelly dun unnastan Neetchu post
>It's a Neetchu sez one thang but akshuelly totes means the other post
>It's a Neetchu rote a lyf philasafy so you gotsa reed him all yer lyf
Fuck off already you obscurantists. Go hug a horse.

Why do you think he went wrong?

Facts and free will both exist.

Nietzsche fell to nihilism in the final hurtle.
He gave the tools to foresee how humanity could overcome nihilism but then pessimistically claimed that it would never happen.

Kek, good one.

Daaaam so tru

Why is it good?

Not using his genius to invent a time machine to go forward in time and end your miserable life, kid.

In his later years, generally.

He started doing all the shit that he himself called out in his better, middle period work, such as coming up with metaphysical 'systems' (i.e. the 'will to power').

Essentially, he got greedy. He wasn't content to just be a culture critic with some nice psychological insights. He wanted to develop a comprehensive system of how the universe works, a project that's doomed to failure before it begins.

>will to power
>metaphysical
the lies of Heidegger

He spent his life writing philosophy instead of fragging Cossacks with a saber

Please talk like a normal person.

Not remaining a professor of the classics and choosing to write works of philosophy

Kys Leiter-fag

Veeky Forums should make make it mandatory for anyone posting Nietzsche to have read at least The Greeks, Kant, Spinoza and Schopenhauer

Way too many plebs talking out their ass

He didn't? He was incredibly prescient. His own descent madness was unfortunate but doesn't take away from his work.

When did he claim it would never happen? I had thought he expected to him happen but not in his lifetime at all..

Exactly in the same area where he did right: in being too honest.

>schopenhauer
kisslessvirgin.jpg

because it is comfy

In his understanding of Buddhism.

If he knew the fanbase he'd get, he probably would have never have published anything.

Aristotle in particular. This board would be tenfold better if everyone read Aristotle thoroughly.

By 'The Greeks,' who are you referring to specifically? To ask, why is their thought crucial to understanding Nietzsche?

Being too introverted,it crippled his thought.

God is immortal.

He was born into a family with a history of mental illness. Also, his parents were older than would be optimal to conceive a child (father in his 50s, mother in her 30s). His health was not amazing even before he contracted syphilis.

His behaviour, including his writings, could be understood in terms of sickness (which is probably why he looked at cultural phenomena in terms of symptoms), i.e. as a compulsion of some sort.

I never understood how a person could think when they're in pain. It might lead to periods of intense focus but, on the other hand, it could colour the content of your thoughts or cloud your judgement. His writing seems contorted in a way as well.

Of course, I'm not saying he was wrong right from the outset, but he was largely unfortunate in that he could not produce a sustained argument. I very much doubt Heraclitus' aphorisms came from the same 'place'.

having sex with a syphilitic prostitue

aristotle thought the world was flat and that slaves weren't humans

and people today have faith in scientific realism, especially those who have not studied science nor philosophy of science

...

Which is way better than thinking the world is flat.

So we could get an idea of everything he would BTFO of the western mind?

Except Schop, of course.

who loves auto erotic masturbation

Believing in great man theory.

I will say his friendship with Richard Wagner and his departure from the university are what really fucked him up.

How is Schopenhauer not the guy Nietzsche put the most effort into BTFOing?

He tried to hard to understand himself and forgot to just live.

Can Veeky Forums recommend translation of his works? I heard some are complete garbage.

Some people dislike Kaufmann because he's interested in reading Nietzsche a certain way and it shows, but broad strokes his translations are best. What you really want to avoid are old translations. Get the Beyond Good and Evil edited by Maudemarie Clark, she was one of my professors and so I have to plug her version.

>Some people dislike Kaufmann because he's interested in reading Nietzsche a certain way and it shows

This. He doesn't hide it in fairness.

I have his Portable Nietzsche, in which he freely admits his disagreements with Nietzsche are "legion."

ok thanks

Which one? YHWH, Allah, Zeus, Vishnu, Czernobog, the list could go on...

nietzsche was not a systematizer

REEEEEE

HE POSTED IT AGAIN
THAT ABSOLUTE MADMAN

Nietszche was a FAILURE who compensated for his personal FAILURE by attacking the rules of the society which labeled him as a FAILURE. it was an attempt to transvaluate FAILURE into SUCCESS. in other words, he was a delusional faggot. Just like Hitler who admired him so much.

true SUCCESS is learning to get along with people. that is the jewish way. that is the christian way.
true SUCCESS is learning to find your place in the world and to fit in with the masses.

Nietzsche's philosophy is a crutch for FAILURES like himself.

he made himself into an artificial superhero. a renegade Superman. he invented a fake superhero that doesn't exist, that isn't real, a purely artistic creation, for FAILURES to rally around.

and you all fell for it because you're a bunch of degenerate FAILURES. and Nietszche knew you would fall for it. he played the devil's advocate and by being honest about it you invested your trust in him and he lead you astray. he congratulates you for being a FAILURE and you love him for redefining SUCCESS so that you now fit the bill. sorry, no, you're just a delusional faggot. find some new friends. get a job. join a church. don't read this atomic shitbrain.

By writing anything after The Birth of Tragedy.

He should've stuck to that kind of stuff, that book is baller as fuck.

>tenfold
>not fourfold
Looks like someone hasn't been reading their Aristotle

kekekek

I loved it too but you can't downplay the value of his later works. I only really read his first but Ive been studying jaspers analysis of his philosophy.

fucking heavy stuff man

you sound mentally unstable

Absolutely demolished.

>aristotle thought the world was flat and that slaves weren't humans

Well he lived 2300 years ago. If you lived then you would probably have agreed with him.

If I were I slave I would have probably disagreed on one of those points.

Here's some advice.

Don't listen to current Veeky Forums's advice.

His sister fucked it all up

Without her his message would have boiled down to 'we need Europe'

But instead we got Nazi-Nietzsche

ponderingpepe.png

>Without her his message would have boiled down to 'we need Europe'

But certainly not the Europe we have today. He'd have hated the EU in its current form, so EU enthusiasts needn't dare try and appropriate him to their cause.

You can't possibly know that to be true.

>If I were I slave I would have probably disagreed on one of those points.

Yeah probably but it's easy for you to be chronologically smug when you live in the society that is the result of 2300 years of progress.

This reads 1:1 like the pamphlets a old crazy guy would deliver in the door to local shows at a joint near his house when I was a kid

You need only look at what he says about equality and democracy in general.

He died in the year 1900. Literally saw nothing of the 20th century.

Trying to extrapolate what he would've thought of global politics and society in the year 2016 based on writing from 1880 is ridiculous.

>liberals and libertarians have changed so much since they took power 200 years ago

ok dummy

Shut the fuck up you pseudo-intellectual.

your head is up your ass, pillpusher