How is Nietzsche even relevant? I've read the first 50 pages of Thus Spoke Zarasthura. Beautiful title, quite good articulation, but it was like a madman scribble. Like, for example, why does he condemn crime against earth? Why does it even matter if a man commits crime against earth, especially for an atheist like himself? Why must a man live with virtue, when virtue itself according to him, a nihilist, is meaningless? Why does he hate the preachers of death, when death seems to be a better choice than his nothingness? And isn't Overman basically a transcendence into nothingness? What he calls liberation is what seems to me a vanity, an enslavement of man by the ideology of eternal recurrence of life or whatever this jackass believed in. This is like a book that leads you absolutely nowhere, rewards you nothing, like the worst aphorisms ever. I don't get all the praise for Nietzsche. Is he famous because he could write 300 pages of absolutely nothing? Or is it because he told other nihilists in the world that they could pretend to be something even though there is literally nothing?
Nietzschecucks, explain this
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
plato.stanford.edu
twitter.com
>nightstick
>nihilist
Honestly, stop reading Nietzsche, dude. Yes, he's an interesting thinker, and had a great deal of influence both philosophically and literarily (here's where you will probably find the most significant influence). But, he wasn't too much of a philosopher. It's not exactly that he just "spouted opinions" as some people might say, but Nietzsche truly does not have the same clarity of thought as other philosophers. His artistry, I think, got in his way. I learned this after spending way too much time with Nietzsche and regretting it. Just move on, and start with the real philosophers, like Heidegger or something.
This is what happens when people read Zarathustra first.
read heidegger's lectures on nietzsche dipshit
>Thinks Nietzsche isn't a real philosopher
>Recommends Heidegger
>hy does it even matter if a man commits crime against earth, especially for an atheist like himself?
Its his way of trying to explain his philosophy of only believing in what you can see and expect from the earth. Nietzsche believed people had religion because they hated the earth and themselves and only lived for an unseen imaginary world beyond it. So for Nietzsche, who obviously doesn't believe in the afterlife and thinks existence only amounts to what we experience on the earth, to truly live is to love the earth and our current state of existence. You bring up him being an atheist like it someone supports your issue with it but I think its just adding to your confusion. The very fact that Neitzche believes in nothing beyond the earth justifies his belief in the earth itself.
>Why must a man live with virtue, when virtue itself according to him, a nihilist, is meaningless?
Where does it say this in the book? Neitzche is awed by our power to create good and thus sees what he would call 'good virtue' as extensions our own being. Don't confuse this with the slave morality he discusses so much in Zarathustra. The difference between the two is the "slaves" have accepted what good has been presented to them and become docile in the art of creation.
> Why does he hate the preachers of death, when death seems to be a better choice than his nothingness?
Literally what. Every passage is about him justifying his existence wtf
>And isn't Overman basically a transcendence into nothingness?
Its an embracing of nothingness not a transcendence into it.
You've fallen for the meme that Neitzche is a nihilist which is interesting because he doesnt really ever allude to that in Zarathustra. The entire book is very anti-nihilism because its mostly responding to Christian virtues and the possibility of creating our own 'good' for ourselves in relation to such. Neitzche believes in a 'good' but states that the good is what we create from ourselves.
Idk, I can see that disorganization in earlier stuff but his later stuff is more structured. By the time the Genealogy of Morality roles around he's got some pretty clear and directed prose, and the essays tend to follow a more logical pattern while referencing his other texts.
>to truly live is to love the earth and our current state of existence
But there's nothing really worth loving on earth.
>Where does it say this in the book?
He talks about virtue a lot without telling us the point of virtue.
>Every passage is about him justifying his existence wtf
Yeah, justifying checkmate. He wants people to embrace the checkmate.
>Its an embracing of nothingness not a transcendence into it.
I think I read the word transcendence once.
>creating our own 'good' for ourselves
>not pseudo nihilistic
Like I said, he pretended that his existence and will mean anything. He never truly said the purpose of creating our own good, why is it good to create our own good. He's a closet nihilist. The fact that Nietzsche himself went insane means that his ideology is a scam, it couldn't even work on him.
You should've read BG&E first tbqh OP, because it's obvious you don't understand what Nietzsche was trying to do.