Freud, Marx...

Freud, Marx, and Nietszche are all alike in that they attempted to prove wrong the enlightment idea that everything can be explained rationally. Each made hugely ambitious contributions to their respective fields, as they tried to formulate complex systems of thought that are still being used and worked on today.

It goes without saying that Freud has been proven empirically wrong in almost all aspects of his work, and Marx has been defeated by the highly irrational forces of human nature that he neglected in his philosophies.

However, I have yet to see a complete critique of Nietszche. Is it possible he was the most accurate of the post-enlightenment thinkers? If so, should the political, economic, and psychological work that was formulated with his ideas be regarded as the best? What groups or philosophies have extended his ideas into the modern age?

>still trying to critique Marxist thought through political applications of marxism
it's like none of you faggots encountered so much as a Marxist analysis, let alone actually read Marx. Go to any fucking university class rather than spending your time shitpost in your mother's basement.

it's highly likely that you have no idea of what you're talking about

at all

but you could still read heidegger anyways

You're not answering my question.

Do expand on what you mean, though. I've read a little bit of Capital and his economics seem solid but I fail to understand how his systems would even work in real life. Greed is inherent, I know this because I'm greedy sometimes when I can get away with it. I'm genuinely interested in how this is accounted for by the academics jerking off over Marx.

It's very likely I don't, I've never taken a class in Philosophy or anything.

>Greed is inherent, I know this because I'm greedy sometimes when I can get away with it.
Ah, the common mistake of believing everyone is a piece of shit just like you.

Their response would be "Greed is inherent" is only something greedy people believe to excuse their greediness.

at least you're honest

for critiques of nietzsche there's malcolm bull and alastair mcintyre

heidegger is influenced by nietzsche and responds to him in ways that he thinks are completing the nietzchean project

no real refutation of the neetch except for the sheer number of douchey tryhards who namedrop him

Right but because there are greedy pieces of shit like me, is there anything built in to Marxist doctrine to prevent it? It doesn't have to be everybody, maybe 1 out of 20 people, but they have to be dealt with.

Craving semen is inherent, I know this because I suck cocks when I can get away with it.

Nice one user but you might be retarded. I exist. I'm greedy. Therefore, at least one greedy person exists in society.

You get killed or put in a gulag. This is the inherent problem in the system that academics won't acknowledge but secretly support.

I don't understand. I'm assuming in a communal society we only have to make sure that you lazy shits have the bare requirements for sustaining life. This isn't communism as described by a fifth-grade US textbook. You don't get to march into my house and take my stereo if you please. All your unproductive greed would get you is alienation from the community.

At least one serial killer exists at this moment but we don't use him as an example of 'human nature'.

your greed is a product of your society

Human nature is statistical and not the same for all people depending on which psychological school you follow.

That poster has something you guys don't --- honesty.

You guys are on Veeky Forums, telling us you're oh-so moral and ungreedy and castigating someone when being here is basically the epitome of jacking off in your own shit.

Did you get this idea from Ricouer's 'masters (or hermeneutics) of suspicion?" Because that isn't quite what he means. But if not, then I still wouldn't characterize Freud or Marx as anti-rationality as such, or that the former has been proven empirically wrong (his thought is metaphorical---just because the id, ego, and superego aren't the literal structure of our brain doesn't mean they're 'wrong' concepts) or the latter has been defeated by human nature.

Anyway, Nietzsche has no real critiques because his system isn't one that really makes use of arguments or falsifiable empirical evidence. It's more something you just disagree with, whether you believe there are moral facts that humans can discover or Christianity is actually good or whatever. But there are some, if you're interested (Chesterton's or Phillipa Foot's "Nietzsche's Immoralism").

>Is it possible he was the most accurate of the post-enlightenment thinkers? If so, should the political, economic, and psychological work that was formulated with his ideas be regarded as the best? What groups or philosophies have extended his ideas into the modern age?

Well, I think so myself, but many disagree, even some in the continental philosophical tradition in which N.'s thought dominates, as well as the entire analytic tradition, and they have some pretty good arguments and reasons. For those who I think expanded upon his ideas, you have two camps (the former vastly larger, and I'll explain why in a bit): the one's who expanded on his ideas of critique or method, aka the whole continental tradition (e.g. Foucault, Derrida), and the ones who have extended upon his more normative aspects (e.g. Heidegger, Jose Ortega y Gasset, Alain de Benoist). A large reasons why the former camp is so much larger are a) N.'s ideas aren't very normative---he doesn't really tell us what to do so much as describe the state of Man and the world---so there isn't really a Nietzschean economics or political system outside of rough sketches or avoiding aspects he didn't like, and b) the normative parts we can extract from his work are wildly unpopular in this age (try arguing we should move toward a system like the Roman Aristocracy or exploitation is a good for the higher men), and c) most of the people living out N's ideas aren't in philosophy, but become artists or politicians or businessmen---the reason for which I can only speculate, and I'd say in large part because (under my understanding of N.) anyone trying to purpose new morals that calls themselves a Nietzschean is just shooting themselves in the foot.

Let me know if you have any other questions.

Read Geras' "Marx and Human Nature: Refutation of a Legend." But putting that aside, many Marxists believe people are solely the product of their material and resulting ideological reality. You cannot deny the current and past systems reward greed; who knows what humans would be like under a different kind of system.

Marx was a utopian rationalist and a 19th century man to the bone, at least ostensibly, you stupid fuck.

Which is to say nothing like Nietzsche and Freud, who are also nothing like each other although Freud claims some bullshit lineage with literary ideas.

Nietzsche would probably consider this clinical, labeling tendency of Freud's to be nothing but a bunch of conformist hooplah which is what psychology ended up being besides.

>But putting that aside, many Marxists believe people are solely the product of their material and resulting ideological reality. You cannot deny the current and past systems reward greed; who knows what humans would be like under a different kind of system
I'm not that poster, and I appreciate your very well-thought out, detailed post in general, and also that you even seem to be detached from Marxism, so I don't mean this as a personal attack on you, especially because it's such a trite, simple objection to bring up compared to your long, detailed post.

But anyway, such a belief makes me facepalm. What do Marxists think such "systems" came from if not human nature?

Nietzsche is really the only person that matters nowadays. I say this as a former hardline Marxist.

I highly recommend y'all read Gilles Deleuze's "Nietzsche and Philosophy" in which he rehabilitates Nietzsche from the grasp of fascist chauvinism and into a philosophy of dynamic change and open-thinking. Escaping from the dualistic frames of thinking of his time (traditionalism, Hegelianism), Deleuze pushes us to see Nietzschean philosophy as a sort of philosophy that creates philosophy; in other words, philosophy is more than a clarification of things a la Wittengenstein or a pursuit towards the Absolute a la Plato but moreso a way of creating new concepts and realities.

The work was quite influential to many post-structuralist thinkers from Derrida to Foucault. I realize this may put off some people but I still think it should be read just out of pure curiosity.

What about the greedy corrupt folks who are running the whole shebang. You can't just gulag the head of the secret police

>muh greed muh gulags

>dude you don't even GET communism

every fucking thread

Isn't the whole point that capitalism was emergent behavior from our more primitive selves, and now that we are established, communism is the emergent behavior of capitalism? That the next derivative of a society with the communication and economies of scale of the 21st century actually could pool resources in a way that took all the players in the game to the next level?

I don't think it's feasible, but that was the impression I was under: that if you let capitalism run it's course long enough, you would have something resembling global market trotskyism

>Nietzsche is really the only person that matters nowadays. I say this as a former hardline Marxist.

trudat

>who are also nothing like each other
Freud wouldn't have existed without Nietzsche. The whole "people influenced by unconscious desires they don't know of"-shtick, philosophically and psychologically explored, is pure Nietzsche. Nietzsche gave the framework that Freud and pretty much almost all subsequent, "modern" psychology operated on, Freud attests to this, Jung and Adler both attest to this. Whereas with Nietzsche the unconscious desires he chose to see were "the will to power", ressentiment, manifestations of egoism, etc., Freud simply focused more on the will to pleasure, on sex, and on childhood/family dynamics; the whole "framework", so to speak, which we view as so revolutionary, was taken from Nietzsche and Freud admitted so. Freud called Nietzsche and expert psychologist.

Also, even Nietzsche has some pointed discussions on the role that sexuality can play in people's psyche, how what people think they are doing/what they are "consciously" is really influenced by their unconscious sexual desires.

From memory: an aphorism that goes "A man's sexuality extends to highest level of his being"

Another aphorism going "Women who are interested in intellectual fields almost invariably have something sexually wrong with them"

Saying poetically in Thus Spake Zarathustra how sexual abstinence, for some people, can simply be unhealthy and lead to sex being unconsciously expressed in their manifestations ("lust begs doggishly for a piece of spirit")

Obliquely conflating self-repression and asceticism with masochism in The Genealogy of Morals

Etc.

tldr u r dum

or, you could skip the second-hand understandings from French academics and just read Nietzsche.

>b-but I wanted to name drop the cool philosopher guys
>am I smart yet?

I even just said Freud claimed a lineage with Nietzsche's ideas and I know all of this, you sententious tryhard retard.

My statement had more to do with the implication "I don't give a fuck about Freud". I'll make myself more clear: I don't give a fuck about Freud. I'm wholly indifferent to what he thinks dreams are about and psychoanalytical theory in general.

Just read Nietzsche.

>Thinking normies directly reading Nietzsche and not immediately getting fashy vibes is possible,

I'm not such a moral hygienist that I even care about "fashy vibes". If some kid reads Nietzsche and goes off and outdoes Leopold and Loeb, well - so be it. Society will sort itself out.

Says something about how powerful and dangerous an author Nietzsche is if you think you need to dunk your sconce into next level postmodern philosophy to read it without turning into a nuisance. In fact, you just encouraged me more.

Read Nietzsche, obey the call of your own will and ignore faggots like this guy who want to impose their doctrine on you not think independently.

Thanks! Anything to foster charitable discussion and improve the quality of the board.

>What do Marxists think such "systems" came from if not human nature?

Putting aside the camp that don't reject the existence of a discrete, eternal, universal human nature within Marxism, they'd say the systems were a result of a specific material reality which influenced and shaped the way those men thought and behaved, leading them to create those systems. Yes, there is human nature is the sense that Man produces, needs to eat, needs to sleep, but the way he goes about this and organizes it all is based on the material situation he finds himself in.

Meaning, and I'm interpreting your question to basically be asking "where did the first systems come from," that the first societies were formed based on human biological and evolutionary reality---of course!---interacting with the materialist factors at hand, but that doesn't mean those biological factors are unchangeable and concrete. His nature/situation may have caused him to form tribes with distinct classes, but the situation today has changed, and so will man's nature.

>STILL discussing m*rx in the current year because commie retards can't admit they were wrong

well it's ok to discuss original marx and engels shit, but all the spinoffs and fanfic needs to be fucking flushed

Something cannot be proven empirically wrong you dumbass.
Human nature doesn't exist you dumbass.
Plus, if you hold Nietzsche to any respect, then you'd understand that Marx's post-capitalist projections are a potential outcome of the coming of the Übermensch.
Nietzsche wasn't a systematizier you dumbass. He doesn't even fit your undergrad thesis point, so why the hell did you even mention him?

There's nothing wrong with reading secondary sources.

just start with the greeks.

I'm not bothered by questions of who critiqued who's opinionated essay. nietszche, freud, marx, shopenhauer, jung, stirner, etc. etc. all suffer from "oughts" and subjective claims, and most of them don't pretend they are acting outside of subjectivity.

I recommend reading the ontological and epistemological materials of hume and kant to get an understanding of the arguments surrounding the base concepts of experiencing existence, then you won't care so much for these "ought" red herrings. I personally enjoy the phenomenological arguments, and toy with cognitive relativism and the roots of logical positivism and other unsolved areas of the field because there's actually something to be progressed unlike in the circular pool of my-opinion-is-better-than-your-opinion.

>Human nature doesn't exist you dumbass.
this is a semantical argument at best.

nietzsche doesn't come with no "ought" shit

an existentialist argument is inherently an "ought" argument. this is basic stuff.

Not him but the Ubermensch as an ideal is an ought.

what is nietzsche's "existentialist argument"?

Der Letzter Mensch
1. Semantics are extremely important, and making an argument in the realm of semantics is perfectly valid.
2. Human nature, or anything else you want to call this notion, does not exist because systems do not exist. One must distrust the systematizer, because the systematizer is an amateur illusionist.

does chimp nature exist? does cow nature exist? does corn nature exist?

the "ought" to invent meaning pertaining to your perspective. he doesn't even pretend it's not his opinion, he explicitly states this more than once.

he doesn't say you "ought" to invent meaning based on your perspective, he simply points out that you do

you are defining "systems" and "nature" to suit your arguments, but at least you are aware that the argument is semantical and are consistent in believing that that's not a problem.

read the material.

>trying to trick me into formulating a system
Nice try, Mr. (((Copperfield)))

i have, maybe you "ought" to

>ignore faggots like this guy who want to impose their doctrine on you not think independently.

OP wanted a "critique" of Nietzsche and offered Deleuze as a recommendation. This isn't about "hurr durr just read Gay Science and become ubermensch"; it's about sharing and knowing the various interpretations of Nietzsche.

Stop getting assmad over a French chainsmoker and give him an answer that isn't as a faggy as "read Nietzsche" because that shit isn't helpful.

OP's original talking point was erroneous and misguided to begin with and I don't really give a fuck about assisting his aim. I'd be more interested in some random user lurking through threads for recommendations than continuing on the original score that OP started on.

OP more specifically started on the score of drawing erroneous threads between Freud, Marx, and Nietzsche which is a cancerous academicism. An impulse I frown upon; hence "just read Nietzsche".

I, being fundementally disinterested in any of this circlejerking, have thereby decided to mock the very intentions of this thread. Why would I be interested in Deleuze's opinion? I am first of all not well enough convinced of his literary or intellectual merit to care about him and next I would say that an user who read the material's interpretation would be just as good.

Marxian thought hasn't been defeated at all. Only its vulgar economist interpretations have. Marx's description of society and economy is so devastating and impossible to ignore that it has simply been absorbed into the social sciences, and practically every other critical approach to human society.

Freud hasn't been proven empirically wrong either. Freud among others opened up an entire modality of conceiving of consciousness and self. Psychoanalysis as a clinical practice and cult was iffy, but Ricoeur's description of it as a "hermeneutics of the subject" is essentially correct, at least as therapeutic.

Nietzsche's three biggest inheritors are Heidegger, Foucault, and Derrida. Derrida is probably the most faithful to a certain reading of Nietzsche, because his critique of Heidegger as theologizing Being itself is correct.

>Plus, if you hold Nietzsche to any respect, then you'd understand that Marx's post-capitalist projections are a potential outcome of the coming of the Übermensch.

I know this leftist reading of Nietzsche is quite popular (usually along the lines of man can finally exercise complete freedom over his Will and art when he doesn't have to worry about capital), but I'm not so sure if you're referring to a classless society, because N. basically says the Higher Men exploit the herd to further their own ends, and that this is the essence of life. N. sees hierarchy as crucial, and any kind of leveling by socialism is antithetical to the flourishing of the potentially great and noble men among us.

Plenty, it's just that his 'oughts' are generally relative and, with a few exceptions, aren't about any specific normative moral rule but something along the lines of virtue ethics in cultivating a certain mindset and behavior.

This is a fine reading, and I generally hold to it too, but c'mon, it's obvious N. prefers and praises the Higher Men and the traits they exemplify, and from there he denounces Morality for neutering many potential Higher Men and other things for being in opposition to them, aka 'weak,' 'decay,' 'life-denying,' and so on. Yes, he doesn't ever say "you ought to be a Higher Man" outright, but it's clear he ascribes some kind of value to them, especially when he says the production of them is the sole goal of any society. Furthermore, he says herd morality is good for the herd, and the same for higher types, which is a normative proposition.

>next I would say that an user who read the material's interpretation would be just as good.

Compared to Deleuze's method of creative interpretation, it'd probably be even better!

>Derrida is probably the most faithful to a certain reading of Nietzsche,

As I outline in my other post here (), I'm not sure Derrida is an inheritor of N. in the sense OP was asking. Derrida's politics, for what we know and based on my limited reading, isn't Nietzschean at all---for starters Derrida isn't a relativist, especially not in the way N. is a relativist, and he also supports democracy and an unconditional embracing of the Other and Hospitality, all very opposed to the brutal domination and exploitation of N. Simply put, I don't think Derrida had much affinity for Napoleon or Caesar.

>Simply put, I don't think Derrida had much affinity for Napoleon or Caesar.

Definitely agreed, I only meant the peculiar French and Foucauldian reading of Nietzsche as a proto-leftist perspectivalist genealogist.

That's only one reading of Nietzsche, but it's one of the major ones these days and dominant in academia and shit.

Personally I like the Caesar-loving vision of Nietzsche more, but I also think he was a big sweetheart who wanted the best of all worlds (including Christian agape).

Something most certainly can be proven wrong at a given point in time but is subject to change. Freud wasn't right, he wasn't even wrong.What I should have written was "unfalsifiable".

I believe human nature to be incredibly complex and mostly an outcome of peer interactions moderated by culture. That's why I'm not totally discrediting Marx - I have some hope that an ideal communist state would do away with the detrimental aspects of human nature by changing the active cultural force.

You can go two ways interpreting the coming of the übermensch and I think the Marxist one is over-complicated and optimistic.

Nietszche was the first in a line of psychological systematizers. Also it's not my thesis, I wrote the OP while eating a burger to distract myself.

>Ah, the common mistake of believing everyone is a piece of shit just like you.
>he believe in the just world fallacy unironically
How did survive the world, or you're just another rich lib cuck?

Ah, for sure.

>Personally I like the Caesar-loving vision of Nietzsche more, but I also think he was a big sweetheart who wanted the best of all worlds (including Christian agape).

Yeah, by all accounts he was a soft-spoken, well-mannered, kind, sensitive guy---we all know the horse story! People often get too hung-up on his admiration for exploitation and warrior-culture, and overlook that his ideal Higher Men are compassionate, magnanimous, brotherly, and men of the people (Zarathustra coming down from the mountain to impart wisdom).

>hey what if some people are greedy, I know I am sometimes.
>not everyone is a greedy piece of shit like you.
This is your brain on Marxism

>this isn't communism as described by a fifth-grade US textbook
>its a Marxist backs down into a social democrat episode.
>this isn't communism

>I've read a little bit of Capital

I'm not even a leftist, but it's embarrassing how few supporters of capitalism posting on the interest have read Marx beyond the manifesto.

Continental philosophy.

Have the communists understood that humans can't understand their perfect communist ideals?

It doesn't look like it

Thanks for the post. Posters like you are rare but increase the quality of the board.

I'm that poster and I agree that Freud sucks lmao. I'm just saying that you suck too

This is a pretty serious misinterpretation of the temperament of all three of those guys.

First of all, to say that Nietzsche "attempted to prove wrong" anything is extremely inaccurate. Nietzsche doesn't deal in scientific theories and proofs like that. He deals in wisdom, which makes his work philosophy (love of wisdom), and makes him a sage (related to the Latin word sapere or "I taste"). He is as far off from the sciences as you can possibly get. He is a philosopher, like the pre-Socratics which he himself praised immensely as monolithic forces whose polytheistic culture was the source of their strength and timeless brilliance, a culture of which he recognized was what philosophy was founded and nourished on (and which he blamed Plato for ruining).

Meanwhile, Freud and Marx are more closely related to the sciences (and at this point, we understand their work to be PSEUDOscience, though their work certainly had a purpose at one time in history). They are not philosophers. They deal with scientific theories, theories which Nietzsche certainly recognized the value of, but who also understood to be philosophically immature. Note that I use the word immature here on purpose, rather than the word false, because he was philosophically elevated above the misconception of the black and white reality that monotheistic culture breeds, that "truth" and "lie" exist upon - which at the same time acknowledges its existence. This is why some scholars of Nietzsche attempt to theorize (all scholars just theorize, which is why they are not philosophers) his work as being "dualistic" in values. It's of course another bastardization if you grasp the abyssal insight of Nietzsche.

>However, I have yet to see a complete critique of Nietszche.

I haven't seen a complete critique of Heraclitus either. These men are beyond "complete critiques". It is like critiquing the philosophy of a veteran, it is improper based on the nature of said philosophy, which is wisdom.

good poast

>hasn't read the key text of marxism
>has no background in philosophy (or economics, presumably)
>thinks he will be able to effectively critique marxism anyways
>thinks he will understand reasoned defenses of it without context

gee you sure are smart. do you get your ideas from prager u?

Freud, Marx and Nietzsche are fun meme philosophers for you to pontificate stupid, incorrect conjecture about. Try reading Locke, Hume and Kant, philosophers who actually relate to what you're groping at, you stupid motherfucker - except they're dry and difficult and not easily condensed into Reddit memes.

right, but the fact that serial killers exist might be a valid response to an ideology which proposed that we could one day create a world in which murders could never occur.