Shy nerdy weakling irl

>shy nerdy weakling irl
>alpha tough guy in his books
>stupid facial hair
when did you realise nietzsche was a neckbeard?

He very clearly is not a neckbeard.

neckbeard means more of a set of traits rather than someone who has an actual neckbeard

>word doesn't mean its definition

Kill yourself

>words can't have multiple definitions
autism

>What are connotations

He was an alpha of the intellectual sphere. He still is.

Meh. Dostoevsky covered the same material in more depth, much more carefully considered. And it was truly worthwhile fiction as well

>Dostoevsky covered the same material in more depth
did he though

did he actually

>be sickly, depressed, lazy, neurotic, homosexual, hopelessly empathetic and people-pleasing, have bowel problems and worst fear is vomiting and the associated loss of control
>find vitality, health, power, discipline and violence viscerally attractive
what do?

instead of writing like a loser faggot, faggot, hit the GYM faggot!

Have you read Karamazov?

I suppose he wasn't as heavy-handed with it. More was left to the reader, you could say, for sure. But you can truly FEEL the intellectual depths that Dostoevsy has gone to and returned from, and analyzed painstakingly from every possible angle

We'd all like to think we're Alyosha but we're really Ivan (especially Dostoevsky)

Actually this. Get your life on track before returning to fantasy/intellectual world (whichever is your particular vice).

>alpha tough guy in his books
I suggest you stop reading philosophy and return to comic strips.

It's tongue in cheek but it captures that particular quality of Nietzsche that you must have noticed if you've any real depth in the western canon

>I suppose he wasn't as heavy-handed with it. More was left to the reader, you could say, for sure.
so you could say, for instance, that he didn't cover it in more depth than nietzsche, who you know, actually covered it in more depth
>But you can truly FEEL the intellectual depths that Dostoevsy has gone to and returned from, and analyzed painstakingly from every possible angle
can you though

can you actually
>lol brah don't forget your whip
>the real heroes of the world are in fact sociopathic mass murderers

Well, I can. If you can't, that's on you, I guess?

But The Grand Inquisitor definitely left me with more to think about than all of Zarathustra.

Though I can see from your smug bullshittery that you're not actually interested in discussing

Which is to be expected of a Nietzsche fanboy, I suppose

>that particular quality of Nietzsche
His most particular quality is sordid mockery and abuse of the text, if you fail to recognize it then I have no cure for you.

>tfw 3 years after reading nietzsche seriously and still can't find a writer i like as much
anyone here have this problem but solve it?

just read more

abuse of what text

>lol brah don't forget your whip
>the real heroes of the world are in fact sociopathic mass murderers
Incredible insights you have right here, now go back to wherever you was squeezed out from.

>But The Grand Inquisitor definitely left me with more to think about than all of Zarathustra.
that says more about your understanding of zarathustra than it does about dostoevsky

don't pretend that you've made an actual argument other than MUH FEELS anyway
>Though I can see from your smug bullshittery that you're not actually interested in discussing
what's there to discuss, you're saying that a piece of entertainment taught you more than serious philosophical writing
dialectics are for bitches
tell it to nietzsche not me

There's a difference between depth of thought and depth of writing. Large and complicated systems of thought can produce as output relatively simple text, which, given a well-prepared reader, can reconstruct the same large and complicated systems of thought

Of any text. Of the text as a philosophical means, which is a Germanic literary notion he loathed.

So why did he write philosophy

Alright, well we can keep abusing each other and their favorite author because we're on Veeky Forums, or we can come a little bit cleaner.

Even if I accept that most of Karamzov is 2bit mystery theatre (which I don't, but let's assume), do you really consider The Grand Inquisitor nothing but entertainment? You got no philosophical message out of it?

>dialectics are for bitches
You see no value in examining issues from multiple angles?

>can reconstruct the same large and complicated systems of thought
exactly, the same large systems of thought

you're arguing for parity of depth, not superiority which is what that guy was doing, saying dostoevsky was deeper than a philosopher writing about the same subject
>You see no value in examining issues from multiple angles?
that is literally what nietzsche says about dialectics in twilight of the idols

>tell it to nietzsche not me
>lol brah don't forget your whip
Unfortunately you failed to grasp his understanding that both slavery and mastery are nothing but a two-fold parasite of human existence.
>the real heroes of the world are in fact sociopathic mass murderers
Unfortunately you failed to look deeper into his thoughts and see that the real heroes of the world are in fact those who stand against the inertia of humanity which gives birth to all sociopathic mass murderers.
Perhaps Batman's more up your alley.

It's been a while. Can you sketch the argument against dialectics for me?

I'm a little confused - parity of depth between the author's ideas and the reader's interpretation? Whereas somebody else was arguing for superiority of reader's interpretation over author's ideas?

All FAGtheists are neckbeards.

>Unfortunately you failed to grasp his understanding that both slavery and mastery are nothing but a two-fold parasite of human existence.
it's a reference to what he said about women
>Unfortunately you failed to look deeper into his thoughts and see that the real heroes of the world are in fact those who stand against the inertia of humanity which gives birth to all sociopathic mass murderers.
those people who standa against the inertia of morality tend to be sociopathic mass murderers like caesar and napoleon
dialectics aren't very convincing? idk it's pretty plain
no parity between dostoevsky's text , the simpler one, and nietzsche's text, the more complicated one
like you realise you're arguing for parity right
>the same large and complicated systems of thought
>the same

That wasn't quite what I was talking about. I wasn't saying Nietzsche's and Dostoevsky's large systems of thought were the same (though they are remarkably similar, if you ask me). I was saying that not every part of a system of thought needs to be enumerated in text in order for it to be conveyed through text. The fact that one doesn't see the immediate depth in the writings of Dostoevsky doesn't mean that the entire experience of it isn't designed to trigger the same ideas that led to its creation, and says nothing about the depth of those ideas.

>I wasn't saying Nietzsche's and Dostoevsky's large systems of thought were the same
well then i fail to see how what you said refers to what i was discussing with the other guy

he said
>Dostoevsky covered the same material in more depth
and i was arguing with him about that

>when did you realise nietzsche was a neckbeard?
He's a mouthbeard.

Mostly in the last part -
>...and says nothing about the depth of those ideas.

I don't know that Dostoevsky's thought was superior to Nietzsche's, but I don't think the superficial quality of his text being presented as detective fiction says anything about its depth being inferior to Nietzsche's

I guess I don't get what "convincing" means here? I mean, my understanding of "dialectic" is that it just refers to the examination of an issue from multiple angles of interpretation in the aim of acquiring a fuller picture. I guess it could be argued that if one interpretation is better than others, the consideration of those others could do nothing but harm to the overall gestalt - but wouldn't the dismissal of those, even within the framework of the "best" interpretation, be a gain, a more fuller understanding of the topic at hand?

>its depth being inferior to Nietzsche's
i am not saying that its depth is inferior to nietzsche's

i accept that they may be at parity

i do not accept this;
>Dostoevsky covered the same material in more depth
>more depth

this is just you pouncing on me exaggerating for dramatic effect here
>so you could say, for instance, that he didn't cover it in more depth than nietzsche, who you know, actually covered it in more depth
in response to the ludicrous claim that dostoevsky understood more about nietzsche's philosophy than nietzsche
dialectics is when you try to convince someone else of something using reason and logic and nothing else

it doesn't make sense most of the time because it's in most people's interests most of the time not to be convinced by words and nothing else

Dialectic is not about convincing the opposition of your view, but to work together to find a "higher order of truth". Atleast that's my understanding of the term.

yeah and the higher order of truth tends to be "you are stupid and wrong"

THIS.

NIETZSCHE IS A WEAKLING I WOULD LITERALLY DESTROY THIS "UBERMAN" MORE LIKE HE'D BE DRIVING A UBER NOW. LOL

>Dialectic is not about convincing the opposition of your view, but to work together to find a "higher order of truth"
i mean in theory, yes

in practice, as seen in the socratic dialogues someone loses out and is humiliated

Nah m8 I'm Lize the Loli.

>Implying "neckbeard" doesn't have a connotation.

ad hominem

t. shy nerdy weakling irl

Why tf did he choose to look like that?
I never understood his stache
So gross

>what is noble
>Apparent frivolity in word, dress, bearing, through which a stoic severity and self-constraint protects itself against all immodest inquisitiveness.
so pretty much autism

Lol stop being pretentious on the internet pls i come here to post and have fun

i'm quoting nietzsche to explain nietzsche's behaviour

has anyone on here actually read the guy

I am.
Doesn't change the ideal of the Übermensch.

say it to my face not online fucker

oh wait i forgot who i was talking to

say it to my face not online virgin see what happens

those pics are after his mental breakdown

you actually have aspergers