So... i guess you've read lots of Nietzsche

When we were reading him in highschool and we were somewhere in the middle of Geneology of Morals and I remember we had to write a short essay about his chapters on religion and add a question we might have stumbled upon and I wrote that maybe today science is replacing religion in the sense that it explains what happens after death and helps us find peace in us being just a bunch of atoms like religion says there is life after death from an individual perspective, science says that from global perspective, simply put as I can't write for shit in english.
And next week we continued and in the next chapter Nietzsche says basically the same thing. The teacher probably thought I read forward... God damn you, Nietzsche!

>he doesn't know prose isn't just a meme
are we going to have to make allusions a meme again soon so you can understand they're in there?
i like hate you
you jew
i'm so tsundere
for you
i hate like you
you jews
OH FUCK NO CHRISTIANS
WHAT DID YOU DO?!?!?!

I will answer your question. While reading Lolita, I would have been given the impression that Nabokov very intentionally found the line of what was then considered unpublishable and stretched her legs across it. I wrote would, because I have never read Lolita. I wrote about Nabokov instead of Nietzsche because I don't like you, but I didn't dislike your question enough to discard it entirely.

No, "prose is not the meme", the sentence "in your best prose, write x" is the meme here

that is a meme which you mangled with horrid prose which demands taking all your memes off you, for their own protection.

Sorry, English is my native language. Was this fact worth 4 posts of you writing entire paragraphs of condensed hatred?

Hey Veeky Forums please do my homework for me, but I'll formulate it so it doesn't seem too obvious

If it was about homework I would have asked for specific books/treatises/paragraphs.

I was just wanted to know how his writings affected you, that's it.

>Sorry, English is my native language
You should be.
>Was this fact worth 4 posts of you writing entire paragraphs of condensed hatred?
Holy shit you think that's hatred. Not just hatred, condensed hatred.

Nietzsche is not for you, young padawan. See I can make allusions you'll get, just not about anything Nietzsche or lit for obvious reasons You'd have PTSD before finishing a book of his with skin that thin.

I've read all of his published major works (there are a few minor, shorter books that I still so not own).

>Nietzsche is not for you, young padawan. See I can make allusions you'll get, just not about anything Nietzsche or lit for obvious reasons You'd have PTSD before finishing a book of his with skin that thin.

Fuck, I thought you were being serious. Whatever, this is the last answer you'll get from me, you pathetic vermin.

>sure I read Nietzsche
>I just don't recognise allusions to main themes or figures in his work from the most famous and accessible of his works
>that's where reading all his work got me
Yeah, I don't think you're a real loss if you leave forever.

Looks like you just proved that no one on lit actually reads and they're all taking it out on you.

Having my wife fucked by 5 black men builds character.

I've read other books, just not Lolita.

>user writes poem in Veeky Forums vernacular that explains most of genealogy/antichrist
>user knows Nietzsche's prose better than OP, and got to enjoy it by actually reading him
>user even drops titles of chapters in context for OP to catch on easily
This is like trying to prove a kid didn't read Spot the Dog because he thinks there's a dog in it.

OP's obviously illiterate and a crybaby bitch, but unless you're OP, you just fucked yourself. If you're OP you're fucked anyways and _desperate_

his model of nihilism is plausible, his proposed countermeasures are counterintuitive. made me self-conscious about resentment. towards the end it becomes difficult to distinguish where he is wrestling or fucking with an idea, thats how i interprete the abyss quote.

>towards the end it becomes difficult to distinguish where he is wrestling or fucking with an idea, thats how i interprete the abyss quote.
>abyss quote
Do you mean the one in BG&E? because that is nowhere near the end and I have no clue how you would interpret that as
>towards the end
or
>difficult to distinguish where he is wrestling or fucking with an idea

for example the "hammer" of eternal return is pure nihilism while being conceived as tool against nihilism. the abyss quote appears in it's first recognizable form in 1884.
>sehnsüchtig starr blickt er hinab in den Abgrund‚ in seinen Abgrund‚ der sich dort in immer tiefere Tiefen ringelt! Plötzlich‚ geraden Flugs‚ scharfen Zugs stürzt er auf seine Beute.
everything that came after zarathustra is "towards the end", the last 5 years conventionally.

Dog is dead.

Dude take your autism/schizo pills, at this point you're just being pathetic.

OP here
I've read both the Genaology of Morals and the Antichrist recently. I haven't read them in English, so I have not noticed any of your references.

Care to point them out?
By the way I did not want to criticize your prose, I just wanted people to articulate their opinions by appealing to their literary narcissism.

>everything that came after zarathustra is "towards the end", the last 5 years conventionally.
It's not really if you're talking in terms of his philosophy. That aside, I guess if you judge a writer who wrote most of his most famous work in the last ten years of his life, then yeah, it's all pretty late. Even TSZ is late by that marker, though, and that doesn't really make sense to divide his work there, or even to go by publication date, it's pretty a debatable "late" even at 5 years.

>pure nihilism
Okay, I get you're putting this on the eagle/hammer, but they aren't eternal return by themselves, or pure nihilism that I can see. I'm thinking you need to define pure nihilism and how you think it relates. And relate how you think the hammer is "of eternal return".

>tool against nihilism
This is why the eagle and the hammer as a pair seems really fucking odd to choose as either pure nihilism or a tool against them.

There seems to be some weird kind of fan interpretation going on here, which can be interesting, but it kind of ignores how the bird metaphors or hammer metaphors are usually within the context of other elements.

That sounds like a really convincing argument that OP is totally familiar with the text
>I've read both the Genaology of Morals and the Antichrist recently. I haven't read them in English, so I have not noticed any of your references.
>>user writes poem in Veeky Forums vernacular that explains most of genealogy/antichrist
Wirklich? Du kannst Nietzsche verstehen... Aber du kannst die Juden, "tsundere", oder die Poesie hier nicht sehen/finden? Wirklich?

>Wirklich? Du kannst Nietzsche verstehen... Aber du kannst die Juden, "tsundere", oder die Poesie hier nicht sehen/finden? Wirklich?
kek
>Aphorisms: not even once

I've read them in Italian, not in German, sorry for not having been specific enough.

I'll trust you can work out what looks like a poem.

>It's not really if you're talking in terms of his philosophy. That aside, I guess if you judge a writer who wrote most of his most famous work in the last ten years of his life, then yeah, it's all pretty late. Even TSZ is late by that marker, though, and that doesn't really make sense to divide his work there, or even to go by publication date, it's pretty a debatable "late" even at 5 years.
what. there are three deacades in which his work can be conventionally divided, you agree with that. you also agre that what i mentioned was written down during last half of last decade, so basically towards the end, even if he discharged something over which he might have been brooding way earlier, for which there is no written evidence.
so basically you havent disagreed with anything i wrote there.

>rest
not in an examination mood really. except let me prove that he equates eternal return with a hammer himself via nietzschesource.org. there are similar passages in the notes which ended up as will to power. the eternal return is like fighting fire with fire, accelerationism against nihilists with a blackpill chemo. but since he never finished will to power or whatever the book's name was intended to be, the exact function of eternal return remains questionable.
i'm using no other definition or model of nihilism than nietzsche's own "european nihilism".

It sounds like you want people to do your homework for first year philosophy college class. fuck off.

Socrates was a NIGGER!

It sounds like you don't even know what first year phil homeworks look like.

>what. there are three deacades in which his work can be conventionally divided, you agree with that.
The last less than a decade is his time as a nonwage slave philosopher, starting with Dawn. It's the defining period of his philosophy in terms of his greatest production and the most commonly known works. I'm sure enough that if you quizzed anyone on Nietzsche titles, that they'd name things pretty much only from that period as the works they know, that I'd would lay money on it.

The surreal thing here is that you think I've agreed with this 3 decades point you've just raised, so maybe check your psychic antennae because even if you meant to communicate that point psychically to me, I didn't psychically agree to it.

>you also agre that what i mentioned was written down during last half of the decade
Er, no. No, I didn't. You actually presented an example of the idea before 1886, from 1884. If you go with the BG&E publication date, yes, that is four years before his death. But you purposefully quoted the 1884 edition, six years before his death, as when it gets written and as the example you intended over the one I suggested. So, no. Published within the last five years, yes. Written in the last five years: no, you provided the example that it was *not* written within five years of his death.

>so basically towards the end, even if he discharged something over which he might have been brooding way earlier, for which there is no written evidence.
Except after BG&E comes a lot of work. Genealogy comes after that. Twilight comes after that. And The AntiChrist. The no written evidence thing is just weird, because his madness letters are pretty heavily studied too.

>so basically you havent disagreed with anything i wrote there
Except I clearly did, and had to restate that repeatedly, because you seem to be pretending that when I say "I disagree" it means the opposite.
>Die schwerste Erkenntniss als Hammer
That equates "the hardest learning" with the Hammer. Not eternal return. It literally says that the Hammer is The Hardest Knowledge. Not eternal return. I do not see how you think that equates eternal return with the Hammer.

Sure, it plays the transvalutation of values and later on he goes to talk about similar ideas to eternal recurrence down the line, but that passage is clearly titled as a turning point of history in the transvaluation of values, and labels the hammer as not part of the eternal recurrence. The eternal recurrence remark would actually dissolve not just what the hammer helps in producing, but also the hammer if you read on a few lines.

That really did not prove it to me, so much as prove you didn't read the entire passage which, in fact, disproves what you say.

> the eternal return is like fighting fire with fire, accelerationism against nihilists with a blackpill chemo.
lol I bet that sounded cool in your head, but no.

>european nihilism
So... gonna be lost about the transvaluation of values comment.

>I do not see how you think that equates eternal return with the Hammer.
>die lehre der wiederkehr
>die neuen lehrer... die schwerste erkenntnis
>heraufbeschwören der feinde

the new teachers amplify the mindset of their enemy with the heaviest possible teaching of eternal return... in the name of compassion for the the coming generations.
nothing unequivocal about it

structure the rest of your post, so other people can read it, or pay me money to talk with mentally ill people. there's no way you are this complex of a person that it cant be said with more brevity.

>>die lehre der wiederkehr
which means "eternal return" is called
>der Wendepunkt der Geschicte.
which means something like "the fulcrum of history"

So that sentence equates Eternal return with the axis point of history. Not a hammer.

The next sentence, which isn't linked to that statement at all, and in many Nachgelassene comes lines before hand doesn't talk about the hammer. Just after the brackets after that sentence, what the Hammer is
>Die schwerste Erkenntniss
which is not eternal return but, again, the hardest learning.

So basically, Nietzsche says
>Eternal return is the fulcrum of history.

Unrelated, but yes, nearby, he says
>the Hammer is the hardest knowledge.
----

What you're doing is much like what his sister did but to clarify how dumb it is in English:

>The big red button is the release for the emergency doors.

>The black plastic tab is the soda dispenser.

>Therefore, the big red button is the soda dispenser.

It's hilarious that your excuse when you fuck up something that retardedly that you might actually count as mentally deficient is that the other person must obviously have mental problems.

And that the proof of their lack of structure and therefore mental problems is if they wrote a long post with quotes and formatting in response to your post.

Your post, which is the one where all you could manage as a structure was to lump your word salad and misinterpretation of Nietzsche under the title
>rest
when replying to the parts of my content that wasn't just a giant aunt sally of what you quoted; where you even got recent history so wrong you thought I agreed with you on a point you hadn't even made yet for me to agree or disagree with, and then claimed I had already agreed, when I didn't agree at all and when the points even contradicted your own points previous in ways I certainly didn't plan on but that was beautiful.

---
I'd say you're trying to be retard at this point because, well, most people would have to be. You've twice now provided examples that lean completely against the point you think you're trying to defend.

I bet I know what hurts more than calling you mentally ill for all that though

YOU'RE SO WRONG

WRONG LIKE YOU CAN'T EVEN RECOVER

WRONG LIKE IF YOU REVEALED YOURSELF AS A SCHOLAR RIGHT NOW THE ONLY WAY I COULDN'T RUIN YOUR CAREER WOULD BE IF BY SOME MIRACLE OF CRAZY YOU HAD TENURE AND EVEN THEN I COULD MAKE IT HURT

WRONG LIKE GERMAN TEENAGERS READ NIETZSCHE BETTER THAN YOU

WRONG LIKE ANY TEENAGER WHICH GOOGLE TRANSLATE WOULD BE BETTER AT READING NIETZSCHE THAN YOU

YOU'RE SO FUCKING WRONG IT'S GLORIOUS

YOU'RE WRONG LIKE EVEN A THREE YEAR OLD WOULDN'T GET THAT EQUIVALENCY WRONG LIKE YOU DID BECAUSE THEY CAN TELL A HAMMER IS NOT A FULCRUM SINCE THEY KNOW ONE OF THOSE WORDS, WHICH IS APPARENTLY 2 BETTER THAN YOU

WRONG LIKE SO WRONG I COULD BREAK NUMBERS JUST THERE BY MAKING YOUR SCORE OF WORDS YOU GOT RIGHT IN THAT COMPREHENSION OF BASIC SENTENCES MINUS ONE.

U WRONG LIKE *WRONG*