Why was Nietzsche okay with Suicide?

>Commiting suicide when you are down, have failed and are weakest is a pathetic excuse to not work on yourself and achieve something.

And Nietzsche would agree. After all, life is tragic and agonizing but the point is to continual overcome these "resistances", as he sometimes calls it. That is will to power, or at least one construal thereof -- affirming life in the face of adversity.

The cause doesn't matter. It's the one pushing the cause that matters. Even somebody pushing a slave ideology like Christianity can die in a life-affirming way for it.

I'm not disagreeing with you, but this does seem a bit perplexing since Christianity was born of ressentiment, or in other words, life denial.

>He accepts the modern idea
who the fuck is heraclitus come the fuck on

>being spooked by the will to survive at all costs

nietzsche talks about dying at the right time

if you're for example diagnosed with some horrible disease and choose to waste away to nothing out of the infinitesmal possibility that you're going to be cured, you're making a mockery of yourself, it would be much better to say, Oh well, my time is up, farewell dear friends! and kill yourself rather than be remembered as some wretched skeletal thing buried in a hospital bed

I was gonna say that you should do something productive beforehand, but then I realized that if you put off killing yourself, you might eventually become too weak to kill yourself and then everyone around you is fucked.

Still, it's a more complicated problem than you give it credit for.

if you have something that needs to be done, of course, fight for all your worth, but the sort of thing where you fight death just to stay alive for a few months more that we see so often in the medical world, that is ignoble

it was partly what made socrates so powerful, he chose death instead of trying to escape, and as an old man he was barely sacrificing any potential

He writes about it, the calm passage over rough waters. But he wouldn't be who he was if he endorsed it.

Destroy yourself for something, yes. Enjoy going to pieces building your home on the volcano. Merely destroy yourself out of misery because you can't hack it, no. Building your home *in* the volcano...there's a certain point where you have to laugh at the absurdity of what you are trying to do.

That moment of laughter is everything, where pain becomes hilarious. It's not always possible. But sometimes it is.

Quite an absurdist view on things. I sometimes wonder whether Nietzsche could be classified as the proto-Absurdist, once you get a good long look at the overall message of his written content.

It's not that Nietzsche thought suicide was super cool or something, just that suicide is this huge taboo, specially to christian thinking and all. Most people hate suicide to the guts, as if it was the ultimate harm you could do to yourself. It may be harm, but it is your doing, it is your decision and your will, that's why Nietzsche was, in comparisson, much more okay with it than others. It's not like admirable or something, also recall that a person may get her mind fucked by others into suicide. It's just that there is no such thing as that spectre of christian life-affirming values, in which there is almost like a great offense to life (and God) in killing yourself.

Higher cause? You don't know shit about Nietzsche, come the fuck on man. You think Nietzsche sat around "oh he killed himself for his country/religion/gf, such beauty!" That's the absolute opposite of everything he stood for.

>country/religion/gf
>implying these are what qualify as higher causes
God you make me sad.

I can't imagine that the cause doesn't matter. One can fall in love with a cause for dumb reasons (see: patriotism). I'm not totally sure what the right reasons would be. Does anyone know?

Then why did he so fervently conceive of the will to power as anti-darwinian? I know it prima facie sounds non-Nietzschean, but the tacit assumption must be that there are cases where sacrificing yourself (for what reason I don't know and did not specify) is an expression of the will to power, and thus life affirming. Pretty sure he hints at this somewhere in GoM, it's been awhile though.

>You don't know shit about Nietzsche durr hurr

>nationalism/patriotism, religion and romance
>not self-serving ideologies whose fulfillment comes at the expense of individual's well being

Will to power demands acting in your self-interest and in accordance with your Self. It is a glorification of the gift of individualism and these things are all but affirming an individual.

>implying these are what qualify as higher causes
>God you make me sad.

I'm implying they can be to some people, which makes me sad as much as it does to you. I'm mocking that shit, learn to read and interpret a text, idiot.

Indeed, the will to power is not darwinian at all. A darwinian way to see things puts the individuals in terms of their environment, their species, their history. Your struggle to survive is, in Darwin, a natural mechanism, just like that of all others, to stay around and hang around. Nietzsche's will to power, from what I know, is kind of indifferent to its own origins, it is the taking of what you have by the balls and appropriating yourself of it.

Think of the guys who say that we have sex for the survival of the species. That's completely incorrect, we do it because it feels so good, it's just that sex feeling good to me is so convenient for my species/genes/life (btw, do you also see how it's ironically a very christian way to view sex?). It is in the same vein that Nietzsche criticizes certain scientific points of views as not much changing their positions as sheep. It's easy to turn nature around itself and think we "ought to" because of a higher command (from god, nature, etc). It's the same mindset: "I'm attending my call" and not actually admitting to the responsibility of will.

>Think of the guys who say that we have sex for the survival of the species. That's completely incorrect, we do it because it feels so good, it's just that sex feeling good to me is so convenient for my species/genes/life (btw, do you also see how it's ironically a very christian way to view sex?). It is in the same vein that Nietzsche criticizes certain scientific points of views as not much changing their positions as sheep. It's easy to turn nature around itself and think we "ought to" because of a higher command (from god, nature, etc). It's the same mindset: "I'm attending my call" and not actually admitting to the responsibility of will.

This is a very poor argument to be made, even though your conclusion is not necessarily wrong.

Before I present my arguments, take into consideration that I consider Will to Power as an universal metaphysical phenomenon which can be applied to the world and reality as we know it, not necessarily and solely - human beings.

Firstly, there is such a thing as an instinctive, inherent drive to procreate and therefore, directly ensure the preservation and survival of species. You issue a claim that sex is done purely out of the desire for pleasure, which takes precedence to a non-existent instinct to procreate.

This can be brought into question by merely observing species in the wild, specifically some of the insects where the act of insemination involves penetrating the belly of the female and leaving behind a literal open wound which has plausible chances of becoming infected and causing death, not to mention the evidently existent pain during the process of copulation alone.

This is but one among the myriad of instances where the instinctive, natural drives place progeny on the higher priority than a progenitor in a Darwinian sense of things, so dismissing the existence of this observable fact is rather nonsensical.

Essentially, Will to Power is the Will to Effect - to exert oneself upon the surroundings and this too can be observed in all the things which form up the basis of reality as we know it, from simple atoms and fundamental interactions, to celestial bodies, rivers eroding the stones and finally - living beings.

There is a good reason why Nietzsche advocated being a recluse. It is first and foremost done with the aim of recognizing the competing forces within oneself and ultimately bringing about a decision as to which one of them shall be manifested and granted representation via Will to Power. This insight into the "Self" is essentially the crux of Nietzsche's philosophy, which is why so called "self-overcoming" takes so much precedence.

Why do people think Nietzsche is a nihilist when he specifically shits on nihilism in Beyond Good and Evil?

because they don't read beyond good and evil :^)

not to mention his unpublished notebooks, which is basically the Critique of Pure Nihilism

He thought pussies should kill themselves to reserve spaces for the ubermensch.

...

Dumb reasons can be life affirming. Take Garibaldi. He dedicated himself to Italian nationalism, a fairly petty thing in the grand scheme of things, yet it lead him to a life of greatness and meaning.

>not self-serving ideologies whose fulfillment comes at the expense of individual's well being

No. They come at the expense of the masses. Nietzsche doesn't care about the masses. To great individuals ideologies are their servants, they do not serve them. Thus Napoleon relied on French nationalism to stir up the French masses to do his bidding.

>No. They come at the expense of the masses. Nietzsche doesn't care about the masses. To great individuals ideologies are their servants, they do not serve them. Thus Napoleon relied on French nationalism to stir up the French masses to do his bidding.

Wrong. Even though Nietzsche respected conquerors, their accomplishment come at the expense of relinquishing their autonomy or individuality at some level and thus it defeats the purpose of self-dependency, making it essentially a glorified weakness.

>tfw too strong to be emperor

Why do Marxist waive Nietzsche around when he shits all over their ideals?

Marxists don't read... Or think

Because Marxists aren't brainlets and can interact with ideas outside of and even contradicting their own ideals, unlike yourself.

But I'm a stoic reading Nietzsche, I agree with his criticism of stoicism, but he out right shits on the fundamental and principal values of communism and Marxism.

We don't need you to demonstrate your personal problems as a brainlet, nor do we need you to talk about it.

That's a nice deflection and all, but how do Marxist incorporate Nietzsche when he stands in stark contrast to their fundamental principals?

his ideas are presented too vague you could nitpick parts of it and appropriate them with your own beliefs, almost like sophistry

youtube.com/watch?v=BJHp7JA8pnQ

Nietzsche's focus on individualism and the role that ubermensch have to play in the world are antithetical to communism. He calls it a crime to share our deepest insights to the "undestined", which stands in constant the Marx's belief in free exchange of ideas. Nietzsche tells us to be weary of those who claim "Equality of Rights" and "Sympathy with All Sufferers", he believes in a caste system where some men are simply born naturally superior to others.

How do you reconcile that with Marxism and Communism?

>which stands in constant the Marx's belief
which stands in contrast with Marx's belief

This is 201 from his Nietzsche's Assorted Opinions and Maxims from 1879 and although he isn't necessarily talking about himself, I think it nonetheless applies here:
>Error of philosophers. - The philosopher believes that the value of his phil osophy lies in the whole, in the building: posterity discovers it in the bricks with which he built and which are then often used again for better building: in the fact, that is to say, that that building can be destroyed and nonetheless possess value as material.

Nietzsche doesn't show why Marx's structural criticism of Capitalism's inherent weaknesses is flawed. The whole drive of Marxism is to overcome the pointless waste that Capitalism otherwise inevitably results in and surpass it, it doesn't even necessarily contradict or go against the idea that some men will be better than others in meaningful ways or that this should be enabled, but rather criticizes the problems of a particular, structural perpetuation of class.

>He calls it a crime to share our deepest insights to the "undestined"
really? wew lad, why's that?

If I'm not mistaken in The Antichrist he says almost word for word that higher causes are for plebs.

Because Lenin loved Nietzsche for not entirely misguided reasons given Lenin's approach to Marxism.

Some anarchists also love Nietzsche for very retarded reasons. Most egregiously Emma Goldman.

>Nietzsche doesn't show why Marx's structural criticism of Capitalism's inherent weaknesses is flawed.

Agreed

>The whole drive of Marxism is to overcome the pointless waste that Capitalism

Completely disagree, you are minimizing Marxism to just it's critique of capitalism, there is much more to Marxism than just the opposition to capitalism. What about the free exchange of ideas that Marx spoke of in the communist manifesto chapter 3? Nietzsche is not in support of that. What about the elimination of class struggles and equality? THE VERY FIRST LINE of the communist manifesto is about class struggle. Nietzsche calls that slave morality, and believes in a caste system with his ubermensch on top. What about ending oppression and subjugation? Nietzsche is fine with oppression, in fact oppression is USEFUL to Nietzsche. What about the people seizing the means of production? Nietzsche sees the proletariat as the unwashed masses too simple to rule their own lives much less a country.

I'm sorry but have you read the communist manifesto or Nietzsche?

>I'm implying they can be to some people, which makes me sad as much as it does to you. I'm mocking that shit, learn to read and interpret a text, idiot.

I understood what you meant, I was just saying that those aren't the only higher causes out there, and that I think there are some that Nietzsche may think worth sacrificing yourself for.

Then what did he believe overmen should fight for? (unless this is a semantic difference, and he's just not calling the things that they choose to value "higher powers"

> believes in a caste system with his ubermensch on top

So is the ubermensch just an effective capitalist? That's what you seem to be implying.

It seems to me that neither capitalism nor communism is really all that effective at creating these "great men" Nietzsche desired.

Modern does not mean new, it just means that it's not old. Modern ideas can be 100000 years old

>it doesn't even necessarily contradict or go against the idea that some men will be better than others in meaningful ways or that this should be enabled

Well it does though, because "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" is actually unfair if you have 150 IQ and work 80 hours a week.

>marxists aren't brainlets

Was he?

That harlot ought to close her brazier.

>all this teenage egoism ITT misinterpreting Nietzsche in the style of self help books

/thread

>, take into consideration that I consider Will to Power as an universal metaphysical phenomenon which can be applied to the world and reality as we know it, not necessarily and solely - human beings.
Because that's how it is, I agree.

But with your reading of nature, I disagree. There is no instinct to "directly endure the preservation and survival of species", there is an instinct to do it right here and right now. Even the gruesome insect sex or the osmosis of water flowing up a tree. The insect doesn't know what it does helps its species, it doesn't even acknowledge it. It doesn't take on a mission for it, it simply does what it feels like doing. When we look at stuff like that, we like to put it in a narrative form, like in nature shows: "in search of food, this group of baboons crossed to the other island", which makes it seem the animals are always calculating it with the logic we perceive and are not just feeling something on their stomach and wandering around with their irrational wisdom(nevertheless wisdom) of their surroundings.

You see how when we put it in terms of "we can observe it in everything", it's an attempt to jump it to an "ought to"? There is a clear narrative unfolding right before our eyes, but don't owe it nothing. A person who has kids and a person who doesn't have kids are not achieving anything more or less than each other. We also don't know by just looking at them if they do it because they will so or because they gave in to what the herd made them do.

The atoms do what they do, the animals do what they do, our society does what it does. We can acknowledge that but also realize we don't owe them nothing. None of observed history, religion or science is "your calling", what matters is what you are calling into existence.

bump

Yeah I guess it is
But why would Nietzsche be against that?

Doesn't Nietzsche's philosophy largely boil down to seizing control of your own life?

Read Nietzsche

>There is no instinct to "directly endure the preservation and survival of species"
> it simply does what it feels like doing.

And this is precisely what I am speaking of. All living beings are, to a certain degree (or an absolute one in case of many animal forms), slaves to their nature of inherent instincts. The fact that you choose to simply define it as a "feel" is merely playing into a game of irrelevant semantics.

Again however, you've reached a valid conclusion with:
>We can acknowledge that but also realize we don't owe them nothing. None of observed history, religion or science is "your calling", what matters is what you are calling into existence.

Because he rejects what they think are the only possible values.

Look at this guy starting with the Greeks.

>I always had feelings of suicide after I have been incredibly happy.

Have you confirmed whether or not you have bipolar disorder?

Perhaps, but it has a specific meaning with regard to philosophy
>who is descartes

But Stirner is completely OK with dying for higher causes, so long as you recognize the cause and affirm it.