Just become who you are

Just become who you are

Just enjoy my shitty philosophy because it sounds really romantic and mind-blowing

his philosophy isn't shitty. he predicted that the western world would explode into terrific warfare and it did. he was the one who really seized upon and grappled with the problem of nihilism creeping through the western world. he is regarded by virtually as 100% of scholars on the subject as being completely brilliant.

but, i would love to hear your detailed criticism of nieztche with specifics about how you disagree with him and why. without that, it just sounds like you're a careless shitposter who has not read or cared much about philosophy at all, and probably has read little or no nieztche.

'a man has achieved maturity when he can approach his adult life with the same seriousness which he approached play as a child.'

i assert that you can not be said to understand nieztche at all if you haven't read his conclusions in his magnus opus, 'The Will To Power'. everything prior to that was rumination, his thoughts as journey to a conclusion, valuable as insight into the work that went into it, but not the final statement of nieztches investigations.

What are some other good math based philosophers?

Just forget it.

that was a shitpost, I never read Nietzsche and probably never will because it requires a reading & understanding of all of The Bible, Kant, Plato and probably Leibniz, which is hardy possible without an academic formation. No need to be mad m8, we're on an anime imageboard

I think the way he uses aphorisms to share his philosophy is kind of dangerous tho. He brainwashes teenager because he makes himself difficult to understand, all on purpose. I dislike this. But maybe your full reading of Nietzsche could help me understand his method.

Bro you do -not- need to understand read Kant or Leobnitz to get value from Neizsche.

>because it requires a reading & understanding of all of The Bible, Kant, Plato and probably Leibniz, which is hardy possible without an academic formation
You badly fell for the meme

>that was a shitpost, I never read Nietzsche and probably never will because it requires a reading & understanding of all of The Bible, Kant, Plato and probably Leibniz, which is hardy possible without an academic formation. No need to be mad m8, we're on an anime imageboard

well ok. i'm not mad, i just consider it duty to make good posts if one has the ability to do, because my philosophy guru taught me "if you're not here to help, why are you here'.

i don't think you really need to have a comprehensive education in the history of philosophy and more in order to read nieztche. he doesn't speak in highly technical language and honestly, yes, reading the bible and reading plato will increase what you get out of nieztche, but so will almost anything to some extent. you can always remember what you read and then relate that to the bible the next time you read it, just as easily as you can read the bible and then relate that to nieztche.


>I think the way he uses aphorisms to share his philosophy is kind of dangerous tho. He brainwashes teenager because he makes himself difficult to understand, all on purpose.

i actually think that his style of philosophizing is far superior to the old standard 'philosophese' that you literally CAN'T pick up and understand without preparatory study. because aphorism, illustration, and just plain talk are natural modes of communication. anyone who uses the verbosity and patterns of ancient philosophy in anything except a study of ancient philosophy today is probably a pretender. in this, nietzche merely demonstrates that he is dead serious about philosophy. he was dead serious, extremely good at it, and this is why he did not attempt to continue a tradition, but to make a sharp break from it. he's not famous for nothing.

he enjoys poetic wit and pithy statements. and he's speaking profoundly when he uses them. yes, people tend to run with that, for example, "god is dead" is always quoted as if he was gloating, when he actually said, "god is dead, and we have killed him. and where will we find enough water to wash away all the blood?". quite a different story. this is a sentiment almost impossible to express in the language that a thomas or plotinus or wittgenstein etc would use. he speaks about things that MATTER very much. he does not perform lofty metaphysical investigation into being and substance and efficient causes and so forth, he considered such, which is for many philosophers their bread and butter, to be asinine frippery.

teenagers are liable to get brainwashed by just about anything. especially anything that is powerful. nieztche wrote some powerful stuff, but that doesn't mean power is bad. i'm not too worried about the teens, it's few that are sensitive and intellectual enough to be seriously taken with nieztche, and they're smart enough to get over it eventually probably.

i'm not some big nieztcheist. i just recognize that he's significant and value many of his ideas and perspectives.

thanks for that long answer, I take it into consideration. I'll be honest, I don't think I'll really like Nietzsche (I'm a christian), but maybe I'll read it sometime, who knows.

Veeky Forums is the best board

i was a christian for a long time and still put christian down on forms, even though i think there's a lot more going on. (i actually believe in a much more old-testament kind of god, a god which is not very human and who is certainly not forgiving, but the knowledge of whom lent to the hebrews the savage survival morality that led to the primacy of their monotheism)

yes, christianity as it is understood by most people is quite contrary to neiztches ideas. specifically the admonishement in christianity to be kind, seek forgiveness, be humble, etc. except nieztche didn't tell people how to live their lives, it's not a self help book. he dealt with the phenomenon of a society that desires forgiveness for sins, where it came from and where it's going. i will however say that many modern christians, usually eastern orthodox or baptist/methodist/lutheran christians, have a rather averaged view of christianity that understands, for example, that everyone is not your fucking neighbor and you shouldn't necessarily be very nice to them all the time, or as the Quakers felt, that worldly prosperity was proof that god approved of how you lived - which is quite an interpretation of the INTERIM MORALITY christ preached, where nothing this-worldly mattered because this world was about to end. much of the history of philosophy is actually the catholic church attempting to rationalize the fact that since jesus isn't coming back any time soon, they have to address worldly issues in the meantime.

if you've ever felt that christianity has led to a sort of pathological altruism in the west where eventually our society attempts to perform self-sacrifice on a vast scale, supposedly 'for the sake of the world' just like the christ which has been insinuated into the way we think for millenia, you might be amenable to nieztche.

if you're a pacifist sort who interprets turn-the-other-cheek literally as many do, you may not like nieztche at all.

there will be similar ideas in nieztche as in christianity relating to this world as a 'vale of tears', or suffering as education. they have this in common to some extent.

>The Bible, Kant, Plato and probably Leibniz

You should read and study the Bible regardless, since it's the subject of so many masterpieces in most artistic mediums, from literature to music, from paintings to architecture.

You obviously don't need to read Kant and Leibniz to understand Nietzsche. Read the SEP article qbout him in order to understand what he was trying to go for, and keep in mind that N. never delves that much into his theory (he usually just discredits it altogether). Leibniz is just quoted every once in a while, the same applies to Spinoza, never for what they said but for how they said it.

You should read Plato regardless of Nietzsche, at least his main works, same for Aristotle.it takes less time than one would think, unless you're planning to read EVERYTHING by then, but Nietzsche does not require that.
Always speaking about greek philosophers that can be read in a very short amount of time, you should read Parmenides and Heraclitus too. The texts themselves will take you a few hours, maybe even less, and the prefaces and notes are omnipresent, given how obscure these writings are.

You could read all the prerequisite for Nietzsche in 1-2 weeks of 3-4 hours of daily reading, probably even less.

yeah the bible should be read by any scholar of the humanities, and plato should be read by any scholar at all if only for edification; however, reading plato will only help you with nieztche if you also read heraclitus, anaximander, etc, (true hellenic philosophers) and understand the difference between the apollyonic pre-platonic philosophers and what came after. because nieztche considers plato/socrates to have been the very fucking doom of the hellenic world.

Your imitation of a high school sophomore is amazing. 10/10, really enjoyed seeing you get into character.

fuck you too?

Explain to me how Will to Power is Nietzsche's 'magnus opus.'

the only thing of his I've read

because that's what he was writing it as, and the concept of 'the will to power' (his largest idea ever, involving the reason why things do what they do at the most basic level) was the final goal of his philosophy, as he said. he died before it was completely finished and arranged but there's still like 800 pages of roughly organized content.

if you read his earlier works and read 'the will to power' you find much more concrete conclusions on the questions he was addressing earlier in a more exploratory and tentative fashion.

Not him, but the current version of Will to Power is not the one doctored by Elisabeth. The modern editions are almost entirely based on chronology, and take in account pretty much everything when it comes to ordering of the contents.

There is no reason anymore to discriminate against Will to Power and, in fact, virtually no Nietzscheian academic has done so in the last 50 years.

>his magnus opus
>i just consider it duty to make good posts if one has the ability to do, because my philosophy guru taught me "if you're not here to help, why are you here'.
>actually think that his style of philosophizing is far superior to the old standard 'philosophese'

You can't back your way out being this much of a faggot.

i'm in no way at all embarrassed by or interested in retracting my posts here.

There is nothing wrong in those stances, you're just mad because they "look" pretentious, even though they make perfect sense in this context.

Stop namecalling him and respons to his arguments

My original comment was about his style. I can't read his arguments.

What is a philosophy guru? Asinine frippery? Explaining religious beliefs no one asked for? Everyone in this thread can kys.

>My original comment was about his style. I can't read his arguments.
which was my point. They look pretentious, but those are all respectable positions.

>What is a philosophy guru
A mentor, I guess.
Nothing wrong with it, every good philosopher had one. It is pathetic only as long as you don't overcome him in your maturity, but until then there is nothing wrong in having guidance that can be constantly questioned.

While we are at it, what version of the bible?

Good replies. And just like one of these user's said, "Will to Power" contains some of N.'s most important aphorisms, essential to elucidating and contextualizing his entire project.

KJV.

How do I shed my resentment?

Just b the u that believes in urself Simon

All things are flux. The grammar of mind structures our thought; things as they are (as opposed to how they appear) cannot be conceived outside of these structures, and so can never fully be known. The boundary of appearance forms the limit of knowledge, on the other side of which exist the unintelligible things as they are. Where do we go, if our destination is unknowable?

If we are to be directionless, the transcendent can only be approached through negation - by determining what it is not. Conceptions must battle and subjugate negations to bring the next conception, closer to the thing as it is, into being. All things outside the ego are negations to it. We must destroy that which is outside ourselves: to be re-born to fight again.

You've got it wrong.

It's become WHAT you are.
You already are who you are.

think that was the joke m8

>that hollow sound when a skull collides with a book

Pindar said that first.