Ressentiment is the single most important concept. It is the problem of Descartes' deceiver (genius malignus, le mauvais génie) but with no 'I'/'Think'/'God' certainties to save you.
One lacks philosophical honesty and hygiene if they fail to account for it. The rest of Nietzsche's themes are slandered unless you keep it in the foreground. This is how we ended up with Nationalist, Socialist, German, Democratic, Relativist, even Christian, etc 'successors' to Nietzsche. Writers like Heidegger and Foucault who did not keep ressentiment in the foreground, and not surprisingly, it the source of their worst mistakes today.
>tranny negroidic ape feminist tells me that white men are evil and everything they do is bad because they are white and male >tell them that's stupid >they accuse me of having ressentiment for black feminist trannies
It was the most confusing moment of my life
Ian Mitchell
False flag post. It is less common for 'victims of oppression' to play the ressentiment card, when instead they could just moralise for the same effect.
If they DID do the former, then it would require more cognitive dissonance, since their ressentiment is what has come to define them as people, and they'd go down that slippery slope of undermining themselves too.
Austin Bell
If you're wondering why someone would false flag like this , it is because the 'alt-right'/'redpill' herd are just as motivated by ressentiment as their enemies are. So if they can paint the identification of ressentiment as a 'liberal'/'jews' tactic, they absolve themselves.
Henry Collins
Ok, but the real question is: was he good or evil?
Nathan Davis
Have you faggot finally decided what in what book should I start with him and what should I read before and along his work?
David Ramirez
>Ok, but the real question is: was he good or evil? Who, Nietzsche? If you read the Genealogy of Morality, you can see that he thinks Evil is a ressentiment-fuelled conception, therefore he moved to a position Beyond Good and Evil.
Kayden Sanchez
>Have you faggot finally decided what in what book should I start with him and what should I read before and along his work? I would start with Ecce Homo because it employs the artistic and philosophical strengths of his mature work in a short, clear autobiography in which he, himself, explains his life and books (a major problem with Nietzsche's reception is that people keep repeating falsities that other people said about him, instead of listening to the man himself; he was aware of this problem, and as a result, most of the time he uses very clear expressions within context).
I endorse the translations by Lange, Norman (and the translations she presides over), Kaufmann, or Hollingdale.. in order of preference, but any published translation is fine. If at any point you are struggling because of terminology you can refer to this encyclopedia entry for him: >plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/ and if you want more biographic sense: >plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-life-works
After reading Nietzsche's account of his own works in Ecce Homo, you might have your own idea of which work to try next. Personally, I recommend the Genealogy of Morality as the most potent, clear (though third essay can be difficult), and well-paced Nietzsche. Beyond Good and Evil, if you like the aphoristic style. Leave Zarathustra until you are well-versed in his philosophy, and even his poetry.
Charles Gonzalez
This actually makes sense, thanks!
Mason Brown
It's quite funny that the "redpill herd" and the tolerance clerics claim to negate Ressentiment by the same means: an appeal to the cultural admonition against intolerance. Those who fight for "minority rights" claim immunity from Ressentiment by virtue of its recognition (i.e. minorities must experience it due to systemic racism), while those on the "far right" claim that the very idea of systemic racism leads to intolerance toward whites, and so feel Ressentiment on that count. If only they could see the definite linkage between their political philosophies.
Isaac Evans
Did Nietzsche ever leave us an order-of-rank of fruits?
Red grapefruit would obviously be at the top.
Nolan Moore
I'm gonna read The Joyful Wisdom, what do I expect?
Last book I read was Darwin's The Origin of Species.
Owen Reyes
>I'm gonna read The Joyful Wisdom, what do I expect? >The Joyful Wisdom >what do I expect? A shit translation.
>Last book I read was Darwin's The Origin of Species. Nietzsche wants to reinstate the dignity homo sapiens had over the rest of the animal kingdom before Darwin demoted us to an evolutionary accident within it. He also thinks the latter Darwinists' 'survival of the fittest' is wrong on an individual level, the strong will be accidents and unlikelihoods, if they appear at all, and their existence will be a fight against the levelling/averaging instinct of the herd.
Cameron Sanders
I'm reading Moustache Man's Will to Power atm. It is really dense. Worried that I'm missing something by not reading in German. Thanks for reading my blog.
Parker Jenkins
A bit of research would have told you that Will to Power is a collection of unpublished notes rather than a comprehensive work. Read and stop following Heidegger's cancerous example.
Jayden Turner
>tfw nietzsche both makes you happy when contemplating him and using him to make sense of the world and makes you feel like shit for being such a piece of trash it's a complex feel
Jordan Mitchell
>and makes you feel like shit for being such a piece of trash Read his passage about Russian fatalism in Ecce Homo and act accordingly.
This should be pasta.
Mason Barnes
I've read it, and even before I read nietzsche I had deduced the importance of certain thinking being destructive in weak mental states, but sometimes I can't help it
though befire I reread the segment right now I had somehow got the impression that it's an ultimate psychological maneuver, not something you use in a state that you can recover from
Ethan Bell
Freedom from resentment, enlightenment about resentment—who knows what great debt of gratitude I ultimately owe my long illness in this respect, too! The problem is not exactly simple: you need to have experienced it from a position of strength and from one of weakness. If anything at all needs to be counted against being ill, being weak, then it is the fact that in that state the true healing instinct, in other words the instinct for defence and weapons in man, is worn down. You cannot get rid of anything, you cannot cope with anything, you cannot fend anything off—everything hurts you. People and things get intrusively close, experiences affect you too deeply, memory is a festering wound. Being ill is a kind of resentment itself.—The invalid has only one great remedy for it — I call it Russian fatalism, that fatalism without rebellion with which a Russian soldier who starts finding the campaign too hard finally lies down in the snow. Not taking, taking on, taking in anything at all any more—no longer reacting at all... The great good sense about this fatalism (which is not always just courage unto death), what makes it life-preserving amidst the most life-threatening of circumstances, is the reduction of the metabolism, the slowing of its rate, a kind of will to hibernation. Take this logic a few steps further and you have the fakir sleeping in a tomb for weeks on end... Since you would exhaust yourself too quickly if you reacted at all, you no longer react in any way: such is the logic. And nothing burns you up faster than the emotions of resentment. Anger, sickly vulnerability, powerlessness to take revenge, the lust, the thirst for revenge, every kind of poisonous troublemaking —for the exhausted this is certainly the most detrimental way of reacting: it brings on a rapid consumption of nervous strength, a sickly intensification of harmful excretions, for example of bile in the stomach.
Leo Gray
For the invalid, resentment is the absolute forbidden — his evil: unfortunately his most natural inclination, too.— This is what that profound physiologist Buddha understood. His ‘religion’, which ought rather to be called a hygiene so as not to conflate it with such wretched things as Christianity, made its effect conditional on defeating resentment: liberating the soul from that — first step towards recovery. ‘Not through enmity does enmity come to an end; enmity comes to an end through friendship’: this stands at the beginning of Buddha’s teaching—this is not morality speaking, but physiology.— Resentment, born of weakness, harms no one more than the weak person himself — or else, when a rich nature is the premise, it is a superfluous feeling, and to retain mastery over it is practically the proof of richness. Anyone who knows how seriously my philosophy has take up the fight against feelings of revenge and reaction, right down to the doctrine of ‘free will ’— the fight against Christianity is just a specific instance—will understand why I am disclosing at this point in particular my personal conduct, my instinctual certainty in practice. In times of décadence I forbade myself them as harmful; as soon as life was rich and proud enough once again, I forbade myself them as beneath me. That ‘Russian fatalism’ of which I was speaking came to the fore in my own case in that for years I doggedly stuck by almost unbearable situations, places, lodgings, groups of people, once I had chanced upon them — it was better than changing them, than feeling them to be changeable, than rebelling against them... If I was disturbed in this fatalism, violently awakened, I was mortally offended in those days—in truth it was indeed deadly dangerous every time.— Treating oneself as a fate, not wanting oneself to be ‘otherwise’ — in such circumstances this is great good sense itself.
Michael Ortiz
>though befire I reread the segment right now I had somehow got the impression that it's an ultimate psychological maneuver, not something you use in a state that you can recover from I don't think it's either. It's what the Russian soldier has to do.
Gavin Hall
I mean, obviously it's not since freddy said that he used it himself in , but the connotation I have, as a northener, is that sleeping in the snow kills you. I think the imagery misled me originally.
Isaiah Howard
Is Nietzsche just saying 'dont be mad about the past bro' or do I just have poor reading comprehension?
Caleb Cox
>That ‘Russian fatalism’ of which I was speaking came to the fore in my own case in that for years I doggedly stuck by almost unbearable situations, places, lodgings, groups of people, once I had chanced upon them — it was better than changing them, than feeling them to be changeable, than rebelling against them... If I was disturbed in this fatalism, violently awakened, I was mortally offended in those days—in truth it was indeed deadly dangerous every time.— Treating oneself as a fate, not wanting oneself to be ‘otherwise’ — in such circumstances this is great good sense itself. Always ending on such a high note!
Here's the difference.
The classic, the type, the case study -- Russian fatalism -- is the Russian soldier realizing he's not going to make it to the end of the campaign, so instead of demoralising the other soldiers and himself, he just goes for a sleep in the snow, which might (likely will) kill him, as you say. That Nietzsche used it himself is kind of irrelevant to the classic case. All he's saying is that he wasn't -sick enough- for it to kill him, for him it was just a cocooning sleep. Whether the person dies or sleeps, he (thankfully) misses out on the kind of venom that poisons everything the sick man does while awake, ressentiment permeates. >this fatalism (which is not always just courage unto death) >Resentment, born of weakness, harms no one more than the weak person himself — **or else**, when a rich nature is the premise, it is a superfluous feeling, and to retain mastery over it is practically the proof of richness
Dylan Clark
sup Veeky Forums
I just found this thread while searching for a guide on how to start with Nietzsche.
I've once tried to read Zarathustra but I quit since I wasn't able to comprehend what he tried to tell me.
Could you please share infographs, guides or simply personal recommendations on how and where to start with Nietzsche?
Thank you Veeky Forums
Btw: I'm German so I am not dependent on any translations (If that somehow matters).
Joshua Myers
>What is most striking about the theory of ressentiment is its unavoidably autoreferential structure... this ostensible "theory" is itself little more than an expression of annoyance at seemingly gratuitous lower-class agitation, at the apparently quite unnecessary rocking of the social boat. It may therefore be concluded that the theory of ressentiment, wherever it appears, will always itself be the expression and the production of ressentiment.
>yfw nietzsche was just a whiny bitch boy annoyed that poor people wanted to have food.
>yfw you've been swallowing upper class snobbery and passing it off as philosophical rigor >>he's not even upper class himself >>>one therefore cannot escape the conclusion that he does it for free
