Is this the definite endpoint of philosophy?

Is this the definite endpoint of philosophy?
Did anyone ever manage to refute/improve on this?

>NEETSHITfag
Grow up, stop being so edgy

Look no further

>brilliant scientist
>insightful philosopher
>scholarly theologian
>redpilled
>10/10 aesthetic
Is Ben Stiller the true ubermensch?

I like you.

That's not how you spell 'I'm 16'

It's definitely underappreciated.

Like The Birth of Tragedy, it's one of Nietzsche's more impenetrable works. That's why everyone sticks to the aphorisms - which superficially appear to be 'easier', but which Nietzsche felt deserved much more attention than meets the eye. In the last part of 'On the Genealogy of Morals' (The Meaning of Ascetic Ideals), he devotes pages and pages to a mere several lines of Zarathustra's words in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Moreover, the key to Nietzsche is actually appreciating his musical/artistic aspect. In today's world, and indeed the world of philosophy in general, everything is far too sanitized of anything that does not bend the knee to "logic and reason" - that is to say, music/art/etc. Whereas for Nietzsche, these things were fundamental. Indeed, to the surprise of many, he considered himself an "old musician" above all else.

There are parts of Thus Spoke Zarathustra that are meant to be sung/etc.

>no rebuttal

Hell, the last treatise of the Geneaology is based on the last sentence of the last aphorism of the second treatise: he expanded that sentence into a 50 pages treatise wich avoided spectaculaely every sort of redunance in itself.

>tfw you probably won't ever have that many brilliant things to say
>tfw he wrote it in 1 week

Nietzsche blamed himself as being a defective youth in writing the Birth of Tragedy. He did, on the other hand, call it a "proven book" with respect to what he called "the best minds of the time"... alluding to Schiller in that one who satisfies the minds of the time has indeed lived for all times. The book is thus to abide, to outlive.

In his self-criticism, he comes to conclude that the greatest problem -- that there IS even a problem here -- is that the Greeks remain enigmatic insofar as we know not what is meant by Dionysian. Nietzsche changed the conception of the term throughout his works -- from the symbolization of tendencies of the godly festivals, and as diametrically opposed to the Apollonian, to the declaratory nature of the human spirit in laying stress on life -- the passions -- in the face of suffering.

Why were the Greeks so craving for beauty? Perhaps there was an underlying peculiarity in this relish; a deep-seated pain or melancholy. What then for the opposite craving -- for the ugly? What appealed the older Greeks to the rampant pessimism in tragic myth? The shift of the image from the good to life's dreadful riddle? Is there a secret madness in health?

The endemic youthfulness of the people perhaps did will the severity of pessimism. Nietzsche himself maddened over time, and along came his genius, as he references Plato that madness brings about a blessing upon Greece. Perhaps it was the logicizing of the world later on which engendered a more abundant optimism -- the rationality of a peoples as the first sign, or "symptoms of a decline of strength..."