Tfw finally finished my study of Nietzsche

I haven't actually read nietzsche past the first chapter of beyond good and evil but i believe there's a law of balance somewhat, as in we came from a volcanic and unstable world without atmosphere and then green flourished till green could no more, and now the world (and bodies) have reached a definite homeostasis (not counting seasons). Removing that homeostasis is akin to destroying the objectivity of the universe and so maybe there is a rule that is definitely followed, and beyond that, the mind is given free leeway to decide how he'll manage that stasis. And if (imo) the purpose of life is simply to survive and procreate, then the stopping of that in lowerly economic countries is like a mindal/ic chronostasis which covers the genius with an overbearing, impossible (regarding our, 'also' low condition par-moneyed people) strife for a proper economic balance which takes into account all living things.

This is a more religious output though which also has links to someone like aurelius where he states that humanity are like rows of teeth which are meant to come together equally in the ideal but which currently imbricate over one another selfishly. All it is is a law of metrication, law being an essential and also providing an impartiality to what existence is, it being but numbers. Necessitation is a quandary here (what people want and what people feel they need) but some like less and some like more so I figure there can be some reckoning of balance. Communism in a non-sanguinary pursuit.

Sorry for the tl;dr, I've probably missed a whole bunch of philosophic laws since i'm neophytic in my versatility of philosophic ideas but what 1st user said seems much like pointless nihilism and 2nd user descries indolence in the face of an absurd and offensive imbalance of power. Though Nietzsche did turn out to be a nut at the end of the day (no offense to mah boy).

Nietzsche specifically attacks the idea that there is, ever has been, or ever will be any state of stasis, balance or objectivity. Objectitivity to him cannot exist because even if there is a truly neutral viewpoint in the universe, humans being what we are cannot access it, we have not the eyes or ears for it. We'd project our will to power upon it merely by interpreting it. We do the same thing with our suppositions of truth. There is no truth in itself.

As far as socialism/communism or whatever goes he calls socialism an attack of illness on health. Though Nietzsche denies that society should be organized around the pursuit of money as capitalists would have it, he recognized that capitalism was a 'healthier' more willful mode of production. Capitalism is all about growth and that's what Nietzsche was about. He's called a radical reactionary but could just as easily be called a radical accelerationist progressive, in fact he spends almost as much time mocking conservatives for thinking that they can go backwards or maintain 'stasis' as he does mocking the socialists. He doesn't delude himself with the false promise that the future will be better tomorrow though.

Like in all other things, he sees a future, that if it is 'better', if it achieves a higher standard of good, so too must it achieve a higher standard of evil.

Just started zarathustra today, Im having lots of fun reading it, where should I go next?

>pic

Is this fuqing pic for real m8?

You will probably get lost in the third part and give up. Zarathustra is in no way an introductory work, though it contains almost all of his mature ideas you can only get so much out of it without being well read on him elsewhere.

IMO the three 'must reads' of his are Twilight of the Idols, Beyond Good and Evil, and On the Genealogy of Morality. Human, all too Human and The Gay Science (plus his earlier works that are often bundled with one of them like The Dawn) are great but not strictly necessary unless you want to track his development. Of his essays, I'd recommend On Truth and Lies in the Nonmoral Sense and On the Use and Abuse of History. I'd go as far as to say that those two essays should be a fundamental part of any humanities education. I wish I had been exposed to them earlier in life because though I had already reached similar conclusions to his by the time I read them, they would have btfo'd my teenage self so fucking hard that I could have left that idiotic stage of life more quickly.

Birth of Tragedy is probably his work that requires the most 'outside' reading since it's largely an analysis of the Greeks and a response to Schopenhauer. Other than BOT I'd argue that most of the people who say you need XYZ to read Nietzsche are full of shit. If you've got a decent grip on the Greeks you should be fine. It's not to say the works aren't a bit richer with a firm rooting in German idealism and Schoppy, but Nietzsche does stand apart in most ways in how he attacks everything that came before him and most things that came after him.

The Antichrist has some dank memes but I didn't really feel it brought much new to the table if you've read his previous works. Ecce Homo was a delightful read having read all of his previous works. Though some people recommend it as an introduction, I think that the average reader won't fully pick up on his intent without having a decent grasp of his corpus.

Of course it is, Nietzsche starred in several pornographic slideshows to supplement his pension.

Thanks
For now im just enjoying his literary talent

do he have big benin? :DD

Does he explain why evil is a necessary to counter good? Surely he means there's a greater potentiality for evil in a freer system right? And there can be growth inside a socialist society, all it requires is a satisfactory distribution of wealth and therefore less debt. Of course factory work everyone agrees is shit though so i feel the future will be leaned on robotics and as much automation and ease of production as possible. Also in this capitalist society it provides for schlockmeisters to make cheapo products with built in obsolescence in order to make undue product.

So all in all isn't there an ability for humans to hem in the boundaries of evil potentiality to a greater paradisaical world? Surely the system we have now is but a distention of the good and evil bind he mentions and through a sort of anarcho-individualism where all get to share how they feel and be incorporated we can create 'a better world for everybody' without that just being rainbows and pots of gold.

Surely there is truth if empirical knowledge exists, I don't believe that God created thought and science for it to be a red herring, a jibe at his own creation, that sounds cruel and anathema to true direct love as rendered by michaelangelo in the creation of adam. For if we get something wrong initially in our unworthy suppositions then it will be patted out with the accumulation of time and experiments; in that way truth is like a trickle from a dirty pool at the top of a mountain which abrades it's dirt out on the dead men of history, eternally.

I do agree with radical accelerationalism as pretty much the only thing I got from nietzsche was his concept of being an ubermensch which I sourced with raskolnikov (without the murder of course haha).

what the fuck is going on in that image?

Empirical knowledge does not exist, we can only roughly simulate such a thing. Go back to Heraclitus, Nietzsche operates from an almost identical epistemological starting point.

As far as the boundaries of evil go, his treatment of the last man is basically the fundamental explanation of that. Struggling, suffering, and strife are the fertilizers of an earth which grows great trees. Remove them from the human condition and you will grow only petty weeds. Lessen them and you will grow weaker and more feeble trees, more insipid goods in exchange for your less dreadful evils. Men capable of great things in general can only be generated through evil acts, and the greatest men come out of the greatest evils.

On the factory thing one of his funniest phrases was when he said, IIRC, that Napoleon was a very nice and generous man for offering the average Frenchman a death by one bullet instead of a death by making 10,000 buttons in a factory.

>Will to Power is actually great despite not being compiled by him and having a good deal of redundant material, but you can see in the fourth section exactly where and how the Nazis misinterpreted and appropriated him from this work.
Why don't you read the actual Nachlass, lad?

looks to be a young boy's anal prolapse.

Big pension yeah. Got more of N.. nudes?

...

Because I originally wasn't going to read WTP but found it for 50 cents at a garage sale right as I thought I was finishing my reading.

Now I've read WTP plus a bunch of assorted notes so actually diving into Nachlass would be a ton of redundant reading. I can't read long documents worth shit on a computer screen so I'd need to buy a hard copy. I might do it a few years down the road for a refresher.

Before commenting on or forming an opinion on Nietzsche, his complete works must be read chronologically. There's no way you can have ANY idea what Nietzsche is talking about if you don't start from his very first works (I'm talking Homer's Contest, On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense, etc.) and thence proceed through his other works. If you skip anything, like Morgenröte for example, you'll never have a valid understanding of his work. The Nachlass are not absolutely necessary but should be read anyway.

>he recognized that capitalism was a 'healthier' more willful mode of production

I think this is a slight stretch.

He attacked Anarchism/Socialism/Marxism interchangeably. It is true that he devotes far less attention to Capitalism, but I don't think that from this we can therefore assume he deemed it better. I'd say he thought along much the same lines as Evola in this regard (pic related).

>He's called a radical reactionary but could just as easily be called a radical accelerationist progressive

Not really. In one of his letters/correspondence, one of his friends calls him a "radical aristocrat" - to which Nietzsche responded, calling it the "shrewdest observation" ever made about him thus far.

Again, Evola was very much a radical aristocrat - though I'm aware that on Veeky Forums, Evola has been memed to death, and beyond the realm of respectability.

Wrong pic.

>Not really. In one of his letters/correspondence, one of his friends calls him a "radical aristocrat" - to which Nietzsche responded, calling it the "shrewdest observation" ever made about him thus far.
And this means?

Evola is a vulgar plebeian of the worst kind, a true degenerate in Nietzsche's sense. Get back to /pol/.

>And this means?

Shrewd as in astute/accurate, idiot. Keep a dictionary handy.

>Evola is a vulgar plebeian of the worst kind, a true degenerate in Nietzsche's sense.

That doesn't mean there wasn't commonality. And I highly doubt you've read anything he's written.

>Get back to /pol/

You sound triggered. Something tells me you don't tell people who talk about Marx/etc to "Get back to lefty/pol/."

So he sees the world as becoming Wall-E essentially. I don't see why education, art, video games, virtual reality and the threat of embolism wont keep people off their asses and remaining active in this idyllic society. Those who wish to die by obesity may, it already happens in america anyway. Heraclitus seems to agree with me that the flux of economy must be passed around more readily and not be held stagnant in a debt pit. As far as empirical knowledge not existing that's just flat out wrong since where does the simulation simulacrum come from and where is it perceived. What you say seems to suggest God is in his own higher dimensional world and we were just his accidental execration which I cannot submit to.

I do like that quote; I don't want to be so rote in routine, it screams death to me

I myself am right wing. Evola is garbage. Read Spengler.

>Shrewd as in astute/accurate, idiot. Keep a dictionary handy.
You quoted an anecdote yet didn't explain why you were quoting it. What are you trying to signify with this anecdote?

Nachlass is abour 4k pages, there's a lot you haven't read yet. I think a lot of it is more interesting than his published work.

You might also check out a good biography like the one by Curt Paul Janz. And his correspondence.

I've personally gotten fed up with it all and trashed all of that and never looked back to be quite honest though. There's only so much Nietzsche you can take before you stop being able to admire him imho.

The poster deemed Nietzsche to be a "radical accelerationist progressive."

I'm saying that Nietzsche, by his own admission, considered "radical aristocrat" to be his best descriptor.

And yes, I like Spengler. Just saying that Evola is disproportionately trashed on Veeky Forums, but whatever.

And how is being "a radical aristocrat" opposed to being a "radical accelerationist progressive"?

How about radical progress towards a more aristocratic society?

this is my point lol
I don't think you should be right wing or left wing absolutely if both sides are valid and can co-exist. Though what do I know I'm just rambling. His aristocracy was a resignation to his idea, the idea of a sleeping jesus figure by Joyce I think, overturning the money tables but fearing the debris on the other side; he wasn't insane, he was a worn down christ.

>His aristocracy was a resignation to his idea, the idea of a sleeping jesus figure by Joyce I think, overturning the money tables but fearing the debris on the other side; he wasn't insane, he was a worn down christ.
Yeah, you're rambling.

>How about radical progress towards a more aristocratic society?

All well and good, but "progressive" hardly has that connotation in this day and age.

I was contrasting progressive with reactionary, not with his aristocratic leanings. People see his fellation of the Greeks and men of the renaissance and label him a reactionary yearning for the past when he is an extremely forward thinking man looking to the future.

Fuck this day and age.

Also, this position of "radical progress towards a more aristocratic society" is why Spengler calls Nietzsche a socialist.

Why am I suddenly seeing your posts again, I still have your name filtered

What did he think about education and welfare?