Was Nietzsche a fraud?

Disclaimer: I have not read Nietzche. Just gonna accept the premise of this thread as is.

Even if he were a pathetic loser in all aspects of life, it doesn't actually diminish his teachings. If a heroin addict, for example, were to scold somebody for trying heroin, preaching that "heroin is bad for you", even though the addict was hooked on the drug, it doesn't invalidate the truth in what he's saying. Take Nietzsche's writing on its own terms rather than trying to discredit it because of the author.

"Women are considered deep - why? Because one can never discover any bottom to them. Women are not even shallow."

But yes, he could be nice to women in fits and starts.

Just because you read the Kaufman book on Nietzsche doesn't mean you're an expert. He held anti-semitic views before and after Wagner. His family, notably his mother and sister, had actually nothing much to do with Jews which is why they did not care about them at all. Only Nietzsche himself after studying in Bonn got into contact with Jews and started to despise them alongside his friends Rohde and Gersdorff who were both vicious anti-semites. He taunted his sister with these views (as evident in the letters). Shut the fuck up idiot. Way to whitewash Nietzsche's anti-semitism. There's plenty of research on that topic.

Can you give me a source for this?

I think it is a mistake to say he was an outright anti-semite. His attitude toward Jews can probably be more aptly described as ambivalent. There are certainly passages as far back as Human, All to Human to his late writings that speak of Jews in a seemingly praiseworthy manner. For example, not excluding Jews when he talks approvingly, in many places, of race-mixing among European nations to build a stronger race of humans - i.e. more sophisticated and coarser because of there being inherently more "resistances" to be overcome in a psyche/physiology with a more diverse conglomeration of drives, etc.

I did. It's in the letters, KSB 2.
>talks approvingly, in many places, of race-mixing among European nations to build a stronger race of humans
Absolute hogwash. Did you even read him? Mixing of blood as such he despised because of its inherent cross-contamination of traits and sensibilites, which could only be remedied by the purification of it. All to counter the effects of the mixing of European blood. He's pretty clear on that in Dawn (Fourth Book) and in the Genealogy.
Your assertion of Nietzsche's ambivalence is entirely unfounded and goes completely against what we have in the letters and in the Nachlass.

Well, what you say seems directly at odds with HATH section 475, wherein he seemingly advocates for an "abolition of nations" which will result in "continual crossing a mixed race". Insofar as Jews are concerned, he states:
>As soon as it is no longer a question of the conserving of nations but of the production of the strongest possible European mixed race, the Jew will be just as usable and desirable as an ingredient of it as any other national residue.
He then goes on to end the section with:
>If Christianity has done everything to orientalize the occident, Judaism has always played an essential part in occidentalizing it again: which in a certain sense means making of Europe's mission and history a continuation of the Greek.
He is obviously speaking favorably about Jews here, considering how much he valued the greeks. These aren't the writings of an inveterate anti-semite. He was inconsistent and thus ambivalent.

that's not what fraud means

one of us

To be fair, he was deathly ill and mentally ill for a large portion of his life

>Dawn (Fourth Book)
directly at odds with HATH section 475

Does this mean anything?
Human, All Too Human 1878
The Dawn 1881

as much variety as Nietzsche could think in a week or month, imagine 3 years

>conflating success with women with anything of merit
top kek untermensch

did Kaufman just make up that letter in which Nietzsche said Spinoza was his favorite philosopher?

So what's the criteria here? The later the work, the more accurate the picture of Nietzsche's thought? If so, I could point to BGE 200, which although says the mixing of races *typically* produces weak men, also states that it can also be a stimulus for life, producing great men the likes of Caesar , Alcibiades, and Leonardo Da Vinci. Without question, all men who embody the "free spirit" archetype, who create their own values, which is pervasive throughout his corpus.
And back to the Jewish issue, what of the letters where Nietzsche admonishes his sister for marrying an anti-semite, or that all anti-semites should be shot?
I'm not arguing that he doesn't have harsh words for the Jews, but rather that he is inconsistent and there isn't a definitive stance to be extrapolated from his works. What you're doing amounts to the same thing that you reproached the other guy of doing, except it is a kind of reverse-whitewashing. The truth is somewhere in the middle, in other words, ambivalence. Stop acting like you're an authority on the matter, making Nietzsche a neonazi 1488er. Back to /pol/ with you.

Dostoyevsky literally says nhilists is a lackey school of thought in demons

Yeah, the sentence before that where he proposes that reasoning as why they are likely to be closer to truth might be relevant to context. Let's not pretend that when he compares them to Schopenhauer's philosophy, he's not being more cruel to Schopenhauer, throughout the rest of his writings on opacity as depth.
Sure if you thought that facts are necessary to truth, or depth to worthwhile mystery, unlike Nietzsche, you could take these things as insults, but then you might as well take the ubermensch as a horrible warning of what to avoid in life and join a monastery with a missionary focus.

This guy knows what he's talking about, in this matter at least. Good post.

My personal thoughts on the matter, is that a race/ethnicity should desire and attempt to keep a large percentage of itself pure, while also noting the Potential for mixed offspring to contain best of both worlds, high qualities from each (though its also possible, as is, "relatively anywhere with anyone" for children to not come out perfect), but the reason I mention the first at all, is because if an ethnicity went for the latter all gung ho willy nilly, then over time they could greatly lessen the numbers of the purity of their blood. One might think the numbers of ethnicities are so massive that there is no reason to stress or consider anything of the sort, that it would be almost impossible to breed out an ethnicity, what percentage of it over how many generations would have to mix, to jeopardize a striking loss of net total purity.

This was a mechanism for dealing with his crippling fear of women and social anxiety

Interesting. I'm not really sure where I stand on the issue. I'm inclined to ask, why enshrine this notion of "purity"? Isn't there a sense in which dividing humanity upon racial/ethnic lines is arbitrary? That is to say, that race isn't a real feature of the world in itself, that we haven't carved nature out from its joints, so to speak, But instead, we've simply chosen difference over sameness, and knowledge, the discourse of demography, is built on this distinction, but since it is wholly contingent, it could be another way...race is a social construct blah blah blah. But I know nothing of human biology so perhaps I shouldn't say anything.

There are differences between human ethnicities, not as striking between dogs necessarily, like a massive dog, dunno name, masstif? and like a poodle or pug (though maybe), and within an ethnicity there can be a great difference of size of body and shape of face, so that there can be more in common between individuals of different ethnicities who are both 6 foot 7, 250 lbs. triathlon models, 1 from race A one from race B, and two other individuals from race A and B, both 4 feet tall 300 lbs. and severely ugly born from birth defect or otherwise.

The people who go into these arguments, I suppose tend to, I dont know exactly what percentages or cant even geuss aprox %, of what is a 'physical look' thing and what is a 'cultural' thing.

But, if we can admit there are different physical features in the races (certainly cultural differences), asian, indian, middle eastern, polynesian, european, mediterranean, etc. and then even more subtle distinctions yada yada

the human race, does so much to try to prevent styles of creature from going extinct, it could only make more glaring sense for their to be desire to do such among their own kind.

black lab, yellow lab, golden retriever, german sheaperd, husky, pit bull, pincer,

we wouldnt want the population size of these unique forms to be jeopardized do we, and certainly we could understand, if they could speak, and had any pride, they would not want their kind to dwindle?

Solid points. I need to reassess my thinking on the matter.

not really. Nietzsche's views on women, like all his views are very nuanced, but he definitely wasn't "nice." He talks a lot about them in Beyond Good and Evil. My favourite one is that he believes that women who are interested in academics have something wrong with them sexually.

wtf i hate nietzche now

>Solid points. I need to reassess my thinking on the matter.

Looks like someones gonna cancel their subscription to BLACKED and find a nice white woman to impregnate to secure the existence of the white race

I also understand some fantasyastical idea, if we were born on some planet and there was only one race, to hopeful lessen all the problems that humanity experiences due to differences (in culture and appearance).

If everyone racemixed, and then in 1000 years (way after everyone becomes robots anyway) everyone looks relatively the same, or equally differentish, from all the uber unique combinations of dna.
So one might expect everyone to then bond by being equally different, 'hey we are all extremely mixed, we all have a bit of every ethnicity'
or who knows, maybe then just new cliques would form anyway, categorizing and grouping in similarities,

and if everyone turns into robots, theres no way to assure they will all look the same, or what kind of discrimination will occur, not to mention arms races.

Some people like the way they look, think they look good, like their aesthetics, like their culture, and would like their children to look the same,

I think its cool that cats, at least to my ignorance, do not mind all the different patterns and styles, you see the mixing all the time, and a mother might have a variously aesthetic litter, but again, this is different, there are only so many ways a cat can look, and they arent particularly known for their culture:

certainly a tough but interesting topic, as always, I wish there were easy answers

Then there is, that there are over a billion chinese and indian each, it is extremely unlikely that there can be a threat to their numbers, I mean 50 million from each could race mix, and thats hardly a dent. So, the people who are 'pushing' race mixing, likely think, they can blur the edges between the races a bit, soften the blows, make ambassadors, bridges, make more mixed race people, maybe it is thought...well that is just a natural thing that has always happened, people can fall in love, but also, that is potentially a way to try to move towards a more peaceful uniting of the disparate world,

and in relation to the dog stuff, you can go to a dog park and see all different types of dogs playing with each other, you can go to a people park and see all different types of people playing together...you can bring some dogs near and they will growl and bark, and foam, and try to fight, and, same with some people

I don't get how someone's personal experience discredits what they preach. You can be a lousy example and still preach good values. Maybe you do so *because* you're a lousy example.

Hypocrites irritate us for good reason. Doesn't mean they aren't right.

>then over time they could greatly lessen the numbers of the purity of their blood.
Purity of blood is a meme. An ethnic group is a snap-shot in time of what a changing group looks like and all ethnic groups are intermingled with other ethnic groups. The Celts came and bred into the population that was before them, it didn't harm them, no one calls the Celts universal race traitors, and this sort of ethnic mixing is a universal characteristic of any ethnic group. No matter what group you look at and call pure is the product of ethnic mixing at some point earlier. Say an ethnic group splits into two geographic locations with no other peoples so there is no mixing. They will both over time become different ethnically from each other. This is exactly how the Polynesian peoples broke into different groups. Which one of the sibling groups is the pure one? You are just taking a look at an arbitrary point in time and saying here they are pure in this location, and here they are pure in this time, to which the reply is and why not here in this time, or here in this place.

>the human race, does so much to try to prevent styles of creature from going extinct, it could only make more glaring sense for their to be desire to do such among their own kind.
You mean some people like to try to preserve certain things for various reasons. It is far to large a leap to just assume that people generally want to keep things distinctive for the very narrow set of ideas you have for it.

I don't understand from your argument as I understand it why biology is unique from everything else. If it is true for dog breeds and human groups why not styles of music, or architecture? If we want to stop things from mixing with alien elements does that mean that classical music, due many of the orchestras most important instruments being of non-European origin is garbage?

It's intent that makes you ubermensch, not the result.
If he struggled all his life and got nothing he still ended up being ubermensch.

Don't forget:
>his mom and sister took care of him even though he badmouthed them in his books
he was the proto 4channer NEET shitposter

Nietzsche isn't the fucking overman, why would he need to tell of the overmans coming if he already was here?

the questions regarding race and ethnicity are ridiculously easy to answer, but the leftist lunatics are deliberately making them sound hard. third worlders are trash, it is as simple as that. i don't want niggers and towelheads in my town - they are subhumans that do not belong here. i don't give a flying fuck about all the theory that is supposed to explain that immigration/racemixing is good and that whites and other races are essentially the same. it's bullshit and you know it.

/thread

Just cause he can't get to their bottom doesn't mean that none can.

Nietzsche is the /r9k/ of philosophy.

>who are interested in academics have something wrong with them sexually.
to be honest, a lot of them do. it's not normal, which is why their female friends are often few and far between because they don't understand why other women view their academic "interest" as not academic but husband browsing.
ask any female biologist who's been surprised by her colleague's wife's jealousy over talking about yeast production.
he's clearly very fond of women, and compared to his tirades against other groups, you're essentially complaining that he didn't dip the kid gloves in cotton candy first. women are not such frail and inanimate things that any criticism of them must be invalid. pulling that trick requires a whole lot of skill, to have any genuine criticism thrown out if it falls on the wrong side of a social divide; you're using the same scapegoating nietzsche accused the germans of using on the jews, which he thought highlighted the neurotic frailty of the german belief in their own superiority if they were threatened by lesser beings.

sure it would be nicer if it was normal for women to think books weren't just about procuring sex, we could talk about yeast counts more freely over dinner without anyone thinking there was a subtext, what a wonderful world you want to live in where women are STEM robots too.

Honestly this, could not possibly say it better myself.
Another problem I have with the whole racial purity idea is that, even if you ignore how it makes little sense biologically, I dont see it solving any problems for the individual. Even in a pure society there will still be struggles and conflicts, racial tensions and cultural disagreements will be substituted by others. What would be the advantage of a pure society? There is not more intrinsic merit in being forcefully pure than there is in forcing diversity for its own sake.

watch it

>the individual

And there's my whole problem with racial purists, be they left or right. They aren't individualists.

Same for me, otherwise I would not have the problems I listed with the idea. It seems to me like obsessing over culture, ideology, nations, religions etc and comes from a desire to not only solve your own personal problems by abstracting them and trying to generalize them but also to champion a cause said individual wants to see a higher meaning in and thus wants to be able to claim this meaning as a way of justifying their own existence and if this is how people deal with an uncaring universe without purpose I dont want to be the one to take this meaning from them, in fact I envy them for being able to find such a meaning. I just cant agree on a rational level.

To be fair he hated everyone except Plato, Muhammad and Dostoyevsky.

Nietzsche:
>stop treating people and things and ideas like they're fucking jesus, even jesus was just a person, thing and idea
OP
>zomg Nietzsche you must be like SuperJesus i bet i'll find all kinds of miracles in your life story :D:D:D
that's how he got the expression in your picrelated OP.

>Dostoyevsky literally says nhilists is a lackey school of thought in demons
I always found it odd Nietzsche was so enamored with Dostoyevsky and claimed he was the only one who understand him. The two are quite different apart from their identifying nihilism as the menace of the times.

>anti-semitism

I love this word

imagine if there was 'anti-caucasianism'

>The later the work, the more accurate the picture of Nietzsche's thought?
There is a coherence to Nietzsche's thoughts which does not care that much for chronology. You yourself used the "have all antisemites" shot thing to have the last say on Nietzsche's stance on antisemitism, as if that would end the discussion by bringing up the very last thing Nietzsche wrote.
>which although says the mixing of races *typically* produces weak men,
At least I don't have to point that out. This is what I said in my first post to which you responded with some tripe about how Nietzsche actually loved mixing of blood. Now it doesn't look that way, does it?
>And back to the Jewish issue, what of the letters where Nietzsche admonishes his sister for marrying an anti-semite
You apparently have no idea how Nietzsche actually reacted to Förster when they met, how he was kind and nice to him even after he knew that he was an agitator. I already said his sister _developed_ antisemitic views.
You take something Nietzsche said at the end of their relationship and immediately infer it has been like that at the beginning. Again, you have no idea. Another pointer I could give is his relationship to Schmeitzner which is very similar to that with Förster.
>Stop acting like you're an authority on the matter, making Nietzsche a neonazi 1488er. Back to /pol/ with you.
Go fuck yourself, cretin. That sentence alone tells me you actually don't have any idea, and you'd rather scream and yell than take note of my arguments. Antisemitism or racism or hatred of any kind should be pointed out and not buried. By today's and yesterday's standards he was an antisemite. Again, I take it you don't have the kind of critical literature in German to take your information from, but at least be somewhat honest that what you have is a whitewashed and Kaufmanized view of Nietzsche, not informed by biographies and research. I have throughout my posts given enough information for research and all you say is that it's not true.

OP is just projecting because he either has so weak self, or can't just find his true self. A weakling crybaby that will perhaps never grow tall and strong mentally.

He must be a cuck also, since he gives value to woman like that. Like using ''rejected by girls'' as an argument.

The masses are stupid and ignorant, if you are being hated or not understood, you are probs doing something wrong. Rejection is not a valid point to anything.

Solitude and silence is gold, I'm sorry if you have not yet found that out. You need to deal with yourself to find the treasure of reality.

I know this is a shit trollpost but c'mon atleast try.

Anyone bumping this garbage has not read Nietzsche or his biography.

OP is factually inaccurate.

Christ, stop whiteknighting, you pussy. He's not 'nice' to women in his work. He isn't 'nice' to anyone, including himself.

>I don't understand from your argument

I was attempting to express what I have found and considered to be the potential reasoning behind why there are any people who are hesitant, resistant, to all in race mixing (as I have seen on /pol/).

Music or architecture. Some people do complain about modern music and modern architecture being ugly. There are still classical recordings, there are still classical examples of architecture, but lets say some exploration group came across a lost tribe of people who had no contact with humanity for 100,000 years, lets say there were 100 people, and they were astonishingly unique in appearance ( I mentioned in one of my responses, I am not sure collectively, the resistance, where the percentages of importance lies in relation to 'purely aesthetic' and 'culture'), does 'beauty' mean anything (of course, considering that every possible human is beautiful in their own way), it may be difficult to image, as there are already so many different types of human looks, there being such a starkly unique, looking human tribe, but lets try to imagine an exploration team coming across one.

And so we invite them to civilization, and then time goes on, and they start race mixing, all of them, with unique races, 10 years, 40 years, 70 years, 300 years. and then eventually, how those found 100 appeared, may not exist, and may not ever again. You might say, this does not really matter or mean anything, this is not important in any way, and you might be right.

It also might be said, as I said, there are ethnicities which number in the billions, a sea compared to the droplet of 100.

What do you think of, after the holocaust, the jewish people wanting to make an effort, to strongly breed among jews to keep their numbers up? If after the holocaust an exponential trend of race mixing occurred, eventually, the jewish people might look different (which an overwhelming many might suggest could be a good thing)

I guess there is also the fear, of little by little, chipping away at the aesthetic, could include chipping away at the culture.

And I think there is a natural inclination, for some people at least, to feel comfortable around people that look like them, and think like them. To not be the black sheep, or ugly duckling. The cries heard from /pol/ are merely desires, and loves of ones kind, and desires for ones kind, aesthetic and culture, to grow in number and strength, instead of dwindle.

Can you post some excerpts, or relay some of the essence of things he said?

>we could talk about yeast counts more freely over dinner without anyone thinking there was a subtext

"So, Deborah, I hear you have procured quite the yeast count, might you fancy a rising sausage to go with your bun in the oven?"

Indian and Chinese have a billion, why should the Aryans not want a billion of their kind?

well, because Indians are Aryans, so they already have plenty, are in the lead of the race of races

>constantly rejected by women

absolutely, categorically untrue. He had several female suitors. He just wasn't interested in them. He got rejected by the only two women that he actually had any interest in but that doesn't mean he was some incel loser.

He's probably nicer than average for a philosopher but philosophers as a class aren't generally very kind to women from an intellectual perspective.

he was rejected cause he had asperger's
he was a genius cause he had asperger's

Do you think man has free will? Any thoughts on determinism? Do you think collectivism is always illogical?

Nietzsche BTFO

you're seeing a reflection of your own anger towards feminists. When I said "my favourite" I wasn't sarcastic. I think it is a little extreme, but that's Nietzsche's style and I don't fully disagree with him.

>No one should listen to a guy who doesn't practice what he preaches
what a stupid thing to believe.
what if I preach for something that has not yet come to earth?

...

Your argument is just explaining away, by whatever means, any textual evidence that suggests the contrary to the picture you paint of Nietzsche. I'm not arguing for Kaufmann's Nietzsche. I simply don't agree with your assertion about the coherence of Nietzsche thought. I think this is a contentious point. My argument all along has been one of ambiguity.
>YOU OBVIOUSLY HAVEN'T READ NIETZSCHE
Really?

You strive to implement it.

I.e. Communism. Hasn't been achieved as of yet but communists still strive for it.

His "anti-Semitism" was justified. Not sure what your point is.

DELET THIS

>you're seeing a reflection of your own anger towards feminists
you mean like i read what nietzsche had to say about feminists too, unlike you? (you probably even mean modern feminism because that's where your focus is)
>He's probably nicer than average for a philosopher but philosophers as a class aren't generally very kind to women from an intellectual perspective.
this really depends on the philosopher, and to say nietzsche isn't noticeably kind, even to the point of foolishness at times (as "fond" means), is just wrong. it's like the people who think jews come out worst in his work, when they get the most praise and if anything his criticisms of them seem to be more of disappointment with their potential in his mind. (a flaw even by his own judgment). philosophers as a class don't even deal with genders often enough to categorise their intellectual judgment on the matter, and this seems to suggest that feminist philosophy (which is a fairly large wing of philosophy since the enlightenment) isn't categorised as philosophy because that might question your heuristic of philosophers being anti-women.
the dinner table doesn't necessitate word salad; we're quite well provisioned for.

hes somewhat of a fraud, hes got some good ideas, just as he has some very terrible ones. be critical

>nietzsche can't pay women compliments i don't like
think he's been doing that since before you were born, babba. hell, half the time the board mocks him for all the accounts of him trying to treat prostitutes like they were on a date which might lead to something deep and meaningful.

I guess you could say that only the biggest failure can understand what success truly means

a true ubermensch would have no reason to understand his own position
he is already above everything

>but philosophers as a class aren't generally very kind to women from an intellectual perspective.

Why, whats so bad about women? The worst thing I can think is waste their husbands money on clothing, shoes, makeup, jewelry. Besides that, they cook, clean, birth and raise children, provide stimulation, dont see much to complain about.

>money on clothing, shoes, makeup, jewelry
(but these are things men 'demand' and find attractive)

Men demand that women are beautiful/attractive/pretty/sexy.

Women compete with women to be most, to attract the most virile man, who assumedly, is attracted to the most beautiful/sexy.

If one or some women stopped wearing make up, nice clothes, nice shoes, stunning jewelry, that would not mean all other women would stop.. so those women who do, would slip/lose their potential odds position in the lottery.

I think you mean this guy because I'm arguing there isn't a common perspective. Chicks are pretty awesome though.
>Men demand that women are beautiful/attractive/pretty/sexy.
bullshit. Most of philosophy of beauty is about the male form, and pretty fucking macho gay. Even pedophilia is ahead in the running for demands for beauty. It's women who notice what brand your shoes are and what shade your lipstick is be, and if they all stopped, it would not make men less likely to put their dick in them as a general class. This is just pretending that females are incapable of setting up internal competition amongst themselves, which is ludicrous. Give women some credit for these things, they didn't beat the shit out of each other in the streets over dress reform because they gave a shit what men think about sailor suits. Men were against them

>is be
is

>I think you mean this guy
I guess I was throwing the thought out there, asking anyone, why that user said, or if it is actually true, that generally philosophers are harsh on women, when the only things I could think of were so few 'minor negativities', what are the other negativities?

They generally are not as into rigorous science and labor? They can cheat (takes two to tango)?

>they didn't beat the shit out of each other in the streets over dress reform because they gave a shit what men think about sailor suits

So you are saying men were for women dressing more conservatively (ala islam?), and the women that were for it, new that if they could dress more scantily that they would increase their odds of receiving attention/power/money, if they could advertise their goods around town more compellingly, they would increase the chance of wallets with penises being drawn to them?

Was OP a fag?

"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. To repeat abstractly, universally, and distinctly in concepts the whole inner nature of the world, and thus to deposit it as a reflected image in permanent concepts always ready for the faculty of reason, this and nothing else is philosophy."

-Schopenhauer

He rejected both slave and master morality. Which means living optimistically one's own way. This is a fairly common sentiment, but it is always preached as a 'common sense', which means being the tool of another or a 'well-informed leader' or whatever contemporary ideologues are telling primary-school children these days.
He is only an anti-semite in the sense that he held a stereotype of Jews. While most contemporary anti-semites holding the stereotype see it as negative, he saw it as somewhat positive.
>systematizing
Logic is sick morality, if you didn't realize.

>>systematizing
>Logic is sick morality, if you didn't realize.

I dont get entirely what you mean so I will assume you are attacking me by which I must offer a rebuttal.

When I was a baby one fine morn I greatly proclared, from my Crib Mount "a goo goo, a gaa gaa, a bee bee, a baa baa"

ought this hold equal or more weight than my currently being fashioned magnum opus?

>systematizing
>logic
>Nietzsche was strictly harshly analytic, and offered nothing of personal perceptions, perspectives, opinions, feelings

You don't understand because you're stupid. Stop being stupid.
>Nietzsche was strictly harshly analytic, and offered nothing of personal perceptions, perspectives, opinions, feelings
Can you not read bud? The conclusion of der Wille zur Macht is to reject systematizing as a whole and the logic of others. Stop wasting my time.

Reason is unhealthy ethics, the metaphysics of the dialectic exasperates the 'protean' protean 'seminal jism' of the succubus of capitalism. The tantamount paramountism of paramount tantamountism percolates distributingly through a moxy proxy approximating an eigen value through the non quantum non foam of hyperdimensional 'politics' as seen from the unbirthed timeless perspective, strictly unstrictly semi pseudo anti deluvian

>'protean' protean

'protean' protein*

epin

>Troll thread on Nietzsche
>91 replies

This board needs a new meme philosopher

My vote goes to Boethius

He kind of is already though, through the Confederacy of Dunces

>One must strive for himself to get what he wants

How do you find out what you want?

What book/title of his is considered to be most representative/essential?

Non he fucking didn't he actually thought Plato was boring.

None. He was going to write the Will to Power as his magnum opus but he went crazy before he could finish it

Just get Basic Writings of Nietzsche, The Portable Nietzsche, and The Gay Science edited and translated by Walter Kaufmann and read them all straight through

>Kaufmann

The great Nietzsche sanitizer. I'm glad his project failed.