Is anybody on this nigga's level

Why did he like Callicles so much?

He panders way too hard to /pol/ alt-righters

how do you eat with a stache like that

I just ignore that part because it's not interesting. His professional work is way more interesting than the lame pop culture debate.

The alt right is the only interesting political movement in 2016.

Communism became a stale meme decades ago
Sixties style radicalism is quickly becoming a parody of itself
Liberal democrats, conservatives, classical liberals, and socialists have been unable to deal with the massive social changes overtaking the world

The alt right reminds me of a two year old who has just learned the word "no" and the effect that word can have on his parents. Imagine the chaos when he turns sixteen, it'll be fantastic.

>Jew memes is the only interesting political movement in 2016

friend, no.

No, he is truly sui generis among philosophers.

on a side note why is Schopenhauer such a whiny untermensch?

His ideas don't mesh at all with the alt right. They just happen to have a common enemy (SJW's).

for faggoty undergrads who have just discovered philosophy? probably not

> the alt-right actually believe they're interesting and free

whew

memes have gone too far

define "this nigga's level"

His personality wasn't in sync with his height
He had a manlet's disposition

...

lol
the only philosopher who isnt a footnote to the greeks, nobody else is on his level

Can you explain why?

>the only philosopher who isnt a footnote to the greeks, nobody else is on his level
>implying he isn't a footnote to the sophists and Thrasymachus

na just the manlets are at their level fmm

No one has yet been able to match his furious nigger vitality
youtube.com/watch?v=Cvjgm_e454o

i can't wait for the alt-right meme to end
socrates and jesus were manlets tho

meillassoux and badiou

>Nietszche a footnote to the sophists

Please give me the real answer

nice le meme

>implying libtards and altrighters don't live the exact same google lifestyles
>twitter shitposters spouting greek sculpture memes will prevent the rise of a cybergenetically autoengineered elite

The only one I can even imagine he was influenced by was the sophist Gorgias. And that can't have been much influence either, because Nietzsche's goal wasn't simply to settle for nihilism.

Listen to the song I posted while you contemplate what I told you.
Some answers cannot be given they can only be found.

i get it now

Wittgenstein and Spinoza in terms of philosophers. I only place the three together because they managed to think so radically out of their times.

This is true, but sometimes I wish Wittgenstein was alive to see logical positivism destroyed.

>the NEET
>best rock band of the 70s of philosophers

I'm alright with this

Literally baby's first philosopher

what a forced meme

>first worlders shit-posting cuck and jew memes is the only interesting political movement in 2016

How is this even a question?

All cynics are.
>Didn't start with the Greeks, so doesn't know.
Seriously? No one mentioned Stirner yet?

egoism is a moral system, cuck.

>Muh atheist is a faith

>muh strawman
go fucking read a book you piece of shit

youtube.com/watch?v=4T4d075KDtg

...

Struggle is misery, you can't win at life.

me
leibnitz
david foster wallace
moot
wittgenstein
jimmy wales
homer

the list keeps goin'

>martin "what the fuck am i even writing" heidegger
I get it, my dude, but he is just a footnote to Freddy

>is anybody on this nigga's level
Any philosopher. NEETche wasn't a philosopher. He just wrote motivetional quotes for losers

>is anybody on this nigga's level

Yes. Study true Hermetic practice.

It is far more life-affirming than Nietzsche.

Can you give me even one non trivial insight from picrelated that isn't some lol so deep unfalsifiable statement?

This topic will include shitposting, insults, and incoherence, but we won't have non trivial insights from nietzche.

It is clear that he is a Rorschach test for pseudo intellectuals.

I don't expect to see anything deeper than "Dude, maybe Plato / Christians / popular wisdom was wrong!!!111" I figured that out after ten fucking minutes. I was just smart enough not to bother writing shitloads of books about it.

>I don't expect to see anything deeper than "Dude, maybe Plato / Christians / popular wisdom was wrong!!!111" I figured that out after ten fucking minutes. I was just smart enough not to bother writing shitloads of books about it.
It was a revolutionary idea in the 19th century though.

>Can you give me even one non trivial insight from picrelated

No. His shit was pretty decent but ultimately incidental compared to ancient thought.

>that isn't some lol so deep unfalsifiable statement?

This is you tacitly admitting that you have no real ear for him. I bet you barely see how artful the laid paradoxes were in his situational placement of aphorisms.

>Can you give me even one non trivial insight from picrelated that isn't some lol so deep unfalsifiable statement?

Why should that matter? Nietzsche didn't profess to be dealing in objective truth, nor necessarily even facts. He makes it perfectly clear that he is dealing with interpretation - just like everybody else, whether they want to admit it or not.

>It is clear that he is a Rorschach test for pseudo intellectuals.

Spoken like a true pseud.

Your whole attitude reeks of someone who longs for what Nietzsche himself called the 'Will to System' - you want your philosophy to be systematic, with everything clearly defined. In a way, you want it to be *mathematic* - arguments and claims presented in a formulaic
fashion, so that you can examine them in a black-and-white fashion to reach your binary conclusion: true or false.

Luckily for the rest of us, that's not what philosophy is about.

He dosn't pander to them at all. He thinks the alt right is a bunch of tetestable closet nazi's.

Stirner is on his level, in fact it's pretty apparent in Nietzsche's writing that he was heavily influenced by le spook man.

Does it follow from your post that anything that is non-falsifiable is pseudointellectual or am I mistaken and does that demand apply only to nietzsche?

>he still sticks to the spook of falsifiability

l m a o

Stirner = slave morality through and through.

>Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?

Some level Nietzsche was on. No wonder he never married.
I mean, he's right about a lot of things, but it's fairly basic stuff that was already implied by Hume a good century before (Nietzsche differs in that he was a more bitter man and took that to its radicalization: just read "the idol" in Zarathustra, he rejects everything about the state and society in a very bitter way).

Much of his views is also Greek ideals regurgitated in fancy prose, with some atheism added on (and even that the Greeks already did).

Finally his will to power was already well defined by Schopenhauer.

Has logical positivism been destroyed? Can you recommend me some reading material addressing it?

>Some level Nietzsche was on.

Retard. Nietzsche's views on women were actually remarkably nuanced. He implies, for example, that they are the most cunning sex - capable of enslaving a man, if they choose. Given his high praise for traits such as cunning, it's not hard to extrapolate.

>Nietzsche differs in that he was a more bitter man

Not really, though. If you want a genuinely bitter man, look at H.L. Mencken - who was basically Zarathustra's Ape without realizing it. Nietzsche was genuinely someone who "loved his enemies"/etc.

>just read "the idol" in Zarathustra, he rejects everything about the state and society in a very bitter way

And why shouldn't he?

For Nietzsche, the state is the opposite of what it is for Marx: "The executive of the modern state is but a committee for managing the common affairs of the whole proletariat/rabble/herd" - Nietzsche might say something to that effect. Indeed, unlike Marx, Nietzsche praises the state for precisely that. His qualms with the state revolve around the fact that it hinders 'Great Men' and steals their work/achievements/etc.

>Finally his will to power was already well defined by Schopenhauer.

Only retards conflate the Will to Power with the Will to Life.

Well he's not a philosopher, user. He's a hack continental charlatan as we all know analytic philosophy is the only philosophy that makes any sense.

>He implies, for example, that they are the most cunning sex
Oh, I never said he doesn't respect them. On the contrary, there seems to be a fear of them, present, only thinly veiled, throughout his work. The man denounces chastity but then says enjoying lust is bad.
>inb4 he was just too deep for you
Yeah because innocent childlike lust isn't just self-denial.

>His qualms with the state revolve around the fact that it hinders 'Great Men' and steals their work/achievements/etc.

And I'm sure to a pessimist or someone who feels similarly slighted, that doesn't sound bitter.
Hume had the right of it: society is the only tool through which great men of all sorts are protected enough to thrive. Peer pressure in tribes is far greater, the individual far less protected. The only freedom you have more of without the state is the freedom to violence.

>The man denounces chastity but then says enjoying lust is bad.

He's operating with something akin to Aristotle's Golden Mean. Chastity is, to Nietzsche, just as abhorrent as licentiousness/etc.

>Hume had the right of it: society is the only tool through which great men of all sorts are protected enough to thrive. Peer pressure in tribes is far greater, the individual far less protected. The only freedom you have more of without the state is the freedom to violence.

Nietzsche didn't believe the state should be scrapped. He saw it as a necessity, but one that Great Men/Higher Men/etc should be permitted to transcend - although he does at times imply that transcendence will occur in any case.

>The only freedom you have more of without the state is the freedom to violence.

You need to read more Nietzsche if you think he has some sort of problem with violence.

No, I know he loved war and the soldier.
I think it's ironic though, Nietzsche's the kind of guy (rich upbringing, sensitive, philosopher for a living), who owes everything he is to the way the State exists, and wouldn't last two days in some sort of tribe or wilderness.
I think he romanticized war and glory exactly because he only read about it from his isolated, academic life. He would shrink from the realities if he was in one.

Not that I'm denouncing war or violence, mind.

>I think it's ironic though, Nietzsche's the kind of guy (rich upbringing, sensitive, philosopher for a living), who owes everything he is to the way the State exists, and wouldn't last two days in some sort of tribe or wilderness.

I'll invoke Schopenhauer to defend him here:

>"It is therefore just as little necessary for the saint to be a philosopher as for the philosopher to be a saint; just as it is not necessary for a perfectly beautiful person to be a great sculptor, or for a great sculptor to be himself a beautiful person. In general, it is a strange demand on a moralist that he should commend no other virtue than that which he himself possesses.

>I think he romanticized war and glory exactly because he only read about it from his isolated, academic life. He would shrink from the realities if he was in one.

On the contrary, he was an up-and-coming cavalryman for the Prussian Army in his early 20s, prior to sustaining the injury that would plague him with ill-health for the rest of his life.

>In 1867, Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. He was regarded as one of the finest riders among his fellow recruits, and his officers predicted that he would soon reach the rank of captain. However, in March 1868, while jumping into the saddle of his horse, Nietzsche struck his chest against the pommel and tore two muscles in his left side, leaving him exhausted and unable to walk for months.[32][33] Consequently, Nietzsche turned his attention to his studies again, completing them and meeting with Richard Wagner for the first time later that year.

Read Quine and A.J Ayer.

>tfw the horse inflicts the wound which guides Nietzsche into the world of philosophy
>Nietzsche's last sane act was to embrace the horse

Really makes you think

>Someone slightly to the right of Marxism-Leninism panders to the Hard Right

Come on, this is lazy. Watch his lectures, his protest speeches, and his interviews- the man does venerable analyses of the hard Left and Right, how they grow, and how they can be thwarted.

>t. Mutualist
>simplification of NRx themes combining them with memespeak and Rules-For-Radicals tactic, those NRx themes themselves simplifications of Evola, Spengler, and Hegel

>Interesting

Yawn.

What did they mean by these?

how so?

His readers

ressentiment

Havent read a word of knee cha

Where the fuck do I start? Dont give me the greeks, I mean what book of his should I begin with and where should I go from there? Just go chronologically?

chronologically or if you want an quick overview of his late work go genealogy of morals -> beyond good and evil -> zarathustra

wow.

Early in his philosophical career Ayer was a heavy proponent of positivism so it's interesting to read how one could completely change their own philosophical beliefs. I would agree to start with Quine and any Ayer that was published after Quine's Two Dogmas.

nigga the greeks are a footnote to hegel

Explain why you think this as succinctly as possible.

What's your thesis?

I'd say Spinoza, if I were to assume your perspective

His ego was so big that he made his style readable for him only.

>Explain why you think this as succinctly as possible.

Because I don't think there has been a single notable/memorable philosopher since Nietzsche, with the possible exception of Wittgenstein whose notability derives only from his word/language games.

It's been over 100 years and philosophy is in dire need of another 'Copernican Revolution' à la Kant/Nietzsche/etc. Nietzsche once claimed he was 'dynamite', and it's high time we had another explosion. If I cannot be that explosion, then I will at least endeavour to light the fuse.

Don't disagree (though I wouldn't qualify anything Wittgenstein did with 'only'). That being said, care to share some of your ideas you think might be legitimately original?

I second this. Keep in mind, you could be lighting the fuse today!

I'm playing around with the idea of a 'return to Nietzsche' (similar to Lacan's 'return to Freud'). That would only be my starting point, however. I plan to go further than Nietzsche did.

It's a shame he died so young, leaving a need for people to pick up where he left off. Still, needs must.

you haven't said anything.

Why did you even make that post.

You didn't even use words to convey any information.

Don't make me transvaluate my boot up your ass.

>ao I know where this treasure is, right?
>and I really excel in cartography
>so I can draw you up the perfect map to find the treasure
>(here's a hint, you have to go through Detroit to get there)
>but here's the thing
>I don't have any paper
>and I left my pen at home
>and only I know how to get there but don't have any GPS coordinates
>but I swear, it'd be a perfect map
>Anyway, Detroit's awesome
>too bad it went into the economical shitter so soon

*sensibly chuckles*

*sensible he's right though you know*

What did he mean by this?

I guess that the guy didn't answer the question