Post philosophers that oddly enough fit Jordan Peterson's definition of Marxism

How you function in the world is partially determined by your beliefs. If they're dismantled and nothing's there to replace them, then you succumb to either nihilism or ideological possession. In that sense, a belief system is absolutely fundamental.

>I-I swear! Nietzsche wanted you to be a traditional conservative christian!

Jordan Peterson fans are hilarious.

Not at all what he implied. But Nietzsche would probably have preferred any sort of culture or tradition to your egalitarian daydreams.

>>I-I swear! Nietzsche wanted you to be a traditional conservative christian!
Literally no one is implying this. Recognizing that the death of God is an issue doesn't automatically suggest that we need to revive him.

>your egalitarian daydreams.
And I'm the strawmanner here?

>Recognizing that the death of God is an issue doesn't automatically suggest that we need to revive him.
>issue
That's not the dimension in which Nietzsche is analyzing this process: he is merely describing this new condition. I bet you think that Nietzsche was praising aristocracy in the Geneaology of Morals.

The epistemological foundations of Nietzsche are essentially nihilistic, for they are based on phisiology alone: metaphysics are completely discarded, everything refers to the Earthly experience. And one should also notice that even this phisiological system is laid down with Nietzsche with extreme skepticism, so much that he explicitly states how arbitrary said system is.

tl;dr: get fucked pleb, stop trusting youtube pseudointellectuals.

>I bet you think that Nietzsche was praising aristocracy in the Geneaology of Morals.
He sort of was. The fact that he doesn't believe in objectivity doesn't mean he didn't believe in preference. Nice try, though, pseud

Nietzsche constantly spoke about nihilism as an inevitable crisis that had to be overcome. What are you on about?

>He sort of was.
Confirmed for having a weak and unsophisticated mind. Read it again, and stop forcing your beliefs on Nietzsche.

I see. So I should assume he actually preferred what he describes as unhealthy?
>Confirmed for having a weak and unsophisticated mind
Your prose is that of a person dependent on mental crutches and easily reusable sentence formulae.

Nietzsche never said that nihilism can be overcome epistemologically, which it boils down to ''metaphysics and morals do not exist, but if people act just as if values and beliefs are true, life can be more pleasant, productive and fullfilling'', of course the emphasis now lies on which values and beliefs one should choose to adopt. Nietzsche gives us his hierarchical orders in a fractured, but ultimately comprehensive way. His principle is phisiological, he names it Will to Power. Everything else comes after this principle, and in the moments in which he analyzes his philosophy himself, he accept the fact that said principle is ultimately arbitrary and based on preference.
People like this guy think that something being ''unhealthy'' is for Nietzsche something inherently wrong, and fails to see that the judgement about this statement comes is not derived from that statement itself, but rather from the first principle (the will to power, and the phisiological basis for human understanding), which, as Nietzsche himself admitted, is essentially arbitrary and ultimately unjustifiable.

Instead of grasping Nietzsche's heuristics on what it means to create for one's self a new set of morals, values and hierarchies, these guys focus on the superficial matters, without ever being able to challenge them (which is the true criterion of excellence in a Nietzsche's reader).

>think that something being ''unhealthy'' is for Nietzsche something inherently wrong
No, I did not, seeHe can praise something without letting spooks like objectivity in. You're explaining tautologies over and over again because you struggle with basic english

As I've said earlier
>Confirmed for having a weak and unsophisticated mind.
It feels nice to judge things, but in debates it's ultimately useless. Formulating an argument could help your thesis (although I'm sure there is none).

None of this is relevant to the discussion. What are you even trying to shift things to? You said that Nietzsche praised nothing and were proven wrong, that's that.

I've said that the judgement calls you can derive from Nietzsche are only superficial when it comes to his philosophical system, and to treat them dogmatically is the sign of a weak mind.

Who's treating them dogmatically?

This entire thread outlines perfectly why everyone and theirs mother likes Nietzsche. It is because they can't stop projecting their own thoughts onto his and interpreting his vague writings in a different way. Do you ever notice how Nietzsche is quoted by both the political left and right and both defend his points as suppoting their ideology? Funny isn't it.

What were Nietzsche's real opinions? I couldn't tell you, but I could tell you what I THINK they are.

Peterson critics are hilarious, they're just SO fucking desperate to say something bad about him it doesn't matter at all if it's true or sensible or even coherent.

Just goes to show how important the man is in these debased times.

Nietzsche wanted you to be anything you want. Agreeing with Nietzsche is absolutely 'Unnietzschean'. Fundamentally and fully rejecting Nietzsche and doing so fully and actively is a way to be 'Nietzschean'.
Are you implying this is a bad thing? Are you saying one should submit their Will to some vague notion of 'truth' or 'proper interpretation'?

Not at all, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of arguing this topic because it always turns out like this thread.

>submitting one's will to absurdity

>submitting ones will to existence

Marxism is about the oppressor versus the oppressed, economic edition. With a goal. Postmodernism is the political power edition. Without a goal.

>le free speech is a human right
proto-peterson

Go back to 9gag you fucking mongloids

No, he wanted you to be a traditional civilization imperialist as apposed to a liberal german realpolitic nationalist that doesn't like prussia.

>le everything is relative jew

>he thinks Nietzsche is confusing
Why do so many faggots who never read the man insist on interpreting or parroting his supposed 'views's. There's nothing ambiguous about what Nietzsche expressed. It's fucking incredible because it's precisely because people do this, that they do this. It created this image of philosophical mystique that somehow gives him some kind of intellectual weight that people look to capitalize on by associating themselves with it. What's difficult to understand is how this happened, some sort of immaculate conception of self perpetuating faggotry.

Einstein believed in a deterministic Newtonian universe. Essentially that nothing is actually relative.

wtf i love prussia now

>people confuse Nietzsche because they want to suggest they aren't confused by him who is confusing

Postmodernist are trying to dismantle peoples fundamental beliefs, and rather than seeing the resulting nihilism as a potential problem, they welcome it.

Oh please, do you really believe that philosophers have or ever had an impact on what people believe? Those 'fundamental beliefs' are dead and have been killed off by nazism, communism, atomic weapons, the cold war (learned this from Peterson himself, that folks were sure the world was going to end; probably this is why the decadence in American culture happened).

>Oh please, do you really believe that philosophers have or ever had an impact on what people believe?
Yeah, who really cares about Plato or Aristotle, right? They influenced nothing. And the American revolution? The birth of modern democracy? Had absolutely nothing to do with the Enlightenment, nope, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, literally who?Lmao at your life.

>Those 'fundamental beliefs' are dead and have been killed off by nazism, communism, atomic weapons, the cold war (learned this from Peterson himself, that folks were sure the world was going to end; probably this is why the decadence in American culture happened).
>describes the nothing resultant of post modernist thought
>hurr hurr it doesn't affect nothing

You have no idea what you are talking about, you've just read some introductions to books that talked about those authors and contained the word "influential" but didn't bother thinking in what way. Yes, Plato and Aristotle influenced very little in their lifetimes. Literally the most important thing that Plato means to say is that people don't give a shit about philosophers like Socrates and will still keep their old politics and stuff. You know what did influence ancient Greece? Fucking Alexander the Great, a man who was intellectually null. And those Enlightenment dudes you mention, it's enormously ignorant to say that they single-handedly created those values. They were a product of their time and if you have any glimmer of knowledge about cultural history you'll see how their ideas had been developing ever since the end of the Middle Ages.

You mean to tell me that a bunch of men whom very few people heard about can ever hope to derail centuries of steady cultural development in what, 50 years? Or would it be better to direct our attention to the most horrifying war humanity has ever seen and its subsequent anxiety? Please take a break from watching Peterson videos and read something that will counter your reductionist views.

>Yes, Plato and Aristotle influenced very little in their lifetimes. Literally the most important thing that Plato means to say is that people don't give a shit about philosophers like Socrates and will still keep their old politics and stuff. You know what did influence ancient Greece? Fucking Alexander the Great, a man who was intellectually null
You are quite possibly the most stupid person to have ever graced his board for the sole purpose of pretending otherwise. I congratulate you.

Thank you, you've just reminded me of how wasteful my time spent in this place is. I'll probably forget this in a week unfortunately. I hope we meet again for one of these discussions then, so please stay here and carry on with what you're doing. I'll go read a book now.

>Postmodernist are trying to dismantle peoples fundamental beliefs, and rather than seeing the resulting nihilism as a potential problem, they welcome it.

What does that have to do with marxism?

>there are unironically people who think Jordan Peterson is a public intellectual

don't reply to me again

idiot

Postmodernism tries to dismantle the nihilism that inevitably results making the fallible organ of consciousness the sole arbiter of truth and meaning. The postmodernist position is 'well shit maybe there's more going on than we think'

>people

Stop making Peterson threads

It was pretty clearly a joke

Alexander the great was tutored by Aristotle. Wtf are you on about?

Nietzsche was contradictory, confusing and incredibly vague. This doesn't take away from the fact that he was an incredible philosopher (it only improves him I guess) and that you're a fucking pseud.

t. brainlet

and I mean that sincerely

>(it only improves him I guess)
I can give him the contradictory part because he was clinically insane at some point, but in no way it improves his philosophy
I can excuse him being vague because of his poor health and having little time to write

But come on, he said incredibly smart things, but at some point people have to notice that he tried to grab more than he could chew. He sure hit some good points, but others are just not well developed and that made people expand his ideas to just fit their narrative.
At some point Nietzsche became a juggernaut bigger than himself (and Hegel was before him, and Kant before, etc...) that people use to give credit to their personal agendas, they interpret even the small aphorisms to fit whatever their narrative is, without giving space to him to actually know whether the point is right or not. If he is confusing it's just because of the fad of "x interpretation of Nietzsche" that plague us, everyone tries to crack the guy because he was just sound. Hell, even Foucault can be blamed for this.

Nietzsche would be disappointed in the cult of personality that people created tbqhwyf

>Nietzsche was contradictory, confusing and incredibly vague.
The only thing I can agree with is that sometimes he was a bit vague, but there's nothing contradictory or confusing about Nietzsche. He wrote his ideas very clearly.

Yes, and he complained about him not following ANY of his advices and teachings.

>But come on, he said incredibly smart things, but at some point people have to notice that he tried to grab more than he could chew. He sure hit some good points
This is probably the most vague criticism I've ever witnessed.

>not being literally observed and obeyed exactly as you taught is the same thing as no influence or significance
Aristotle had a massive effect on history through Alexander, alongside countless others.

Imagine the mental contortions one has to subject himself to, for him to believe Nietszche didnt generally like traditional aristocracy

I've heard his name used to defend democracy. The guy who went around referring to the vast majority of people as 'herd mentality inferiors' dragging down the exalted select few. Anything is possible these days.

>arguably the first moral relativist
not the sophists? brainlet lmao

Democracy is perfect for herding the masses. In fact, it is the reason democracy is the dominant system at the moment. Mass media propaganda makes it certain that no revolts will occur, and any and every excuse for political control will be issued due to new threats that are artificially manufactured. Division has never been as easy.
>Make people fight and argue over new genders
>Make conflict revolve around issues barely anybody knows about (nuclear energy)
>offer solutions
>the only universal enemies are those who threaten the system (Socrates, Hitler)
These threats will have their respective analysts for both sides. No change will ever be too major, the machine keeps everybody asleep.

If someone like Jordan Peterson can invoke Nietzsche's name in defense of his brand of reactionary Christian conservatism, and not be shot down as a farcical fool, rather lauded as some kind intellectual hero of the times, doesn't it in fact prove the feebleness of proof itself? What Nietzsche objectively said or believed doesn't matter when such monstrous digressions, conflations, and contradictions are readily accepted and celebrated.

The nihilists have won.

>If someone like Jordan Peterson can invoke Nietzsche's name in defense of his brand of reactionary Christian conservatism
He doesn't take Nietzsche's whole philosophy, but a very narrow portion of him. Namely the analysis of pathology, the criticism of Christianity (which he leaves open) and his ability to predict the next century.
>and not be shot down as a farcical fool, rather lauded as some kind intellectual hero of the times, doesn't it in fact prove the feebleness of proof itself?
Yes. Proof is in fact, meek. It is far easier to slay Archimedes or Socrates than proving anything they said, for or against.
>What Nietzsche objectively said or believed doesn't matter when such monstrous digressions, conflations, and contradictions are readily accepted and celebrated.
I get what you are trying to say here, but one of Peterson's main points is the absurd amount of interpretations we can have, for any given information.

>The nihilists have won.
They're not playing. No goal no motion. Only automation.

>The nihilists have won.
Wasn't Nietzsche's critique of Christianity specifically in that it focused on the afterlife rather than this world?
Sounds to me that Nietzsche did to himself what he said Christianity had done to itself.

This world is not a world of winners.

i don't know what this means but it seems profound

>They're not playing. No goal no motion. Only automation.

this is fucking insightful, hysterical un-self aware meme machines

have a (you) well-earned

>This world is not a world of winners.

and this

some good shit here gents

>I get what you are trying to say here, but one of Peterson's main points is the absurd amount of interpretations we can have, for any given information.
And this is the man intended to slay post modernism? lol

All belief systems are some sort of "ideological possession"

>And this is the man intended to slay post modernism?
Only those influenced by neomarxist ideas and the narrative of oppression.

There's only a limited set of interpretations that are functional. He's a pragmatist.

cultural marxism, dismantling all identity and societal norms (particularly those belonging to whites) so that jews can be jews without drawing attention to themselves

eg. "well what exactly IS white culture?!", "so long as it's two consenting individuals what problem do you have goy?!" and "anyone can be american/british/german/swedish/french/italian, some somali goat fucker with 65IQ and no cultural or ethnic roots in the country and doesn't even speak the language is JUST as much of a citizen as you or I"

if they were in a more or less ethnically and culturally homogenous society then people would get suspicious and eventually angry when, hey, even though jews are 1-3% of the population of the country, they run all the media, banks, legal firms, financial services etc. and are massively over represented in the judiciary and parliament/congressional body

>''There are no facts.''
Is that a fact?

Heinrich Meier a Prof that teaches in Munich is one of the last persons, that really tries to get Nietzsche

try to remember him, he published a great book about nietzsches zarathustra this year

btw i visited his lectures in munich :3

What does this have to do with marxism?

Also, isn't it natural that jews attain high positions in society? They do have higher average IQs after all

>It may well be true, as one commentator suggested, that Nietzsche’s books are easier to read and harder to understand than those of almost any other thinker. A trip through Nietzsche’s books will reveal wildly disparate claims about truth, chastity, the Germans, Wagner, the Jews, morality, science, art, and Christianity—to mention a few topics that absorbed his attention. It is easy to quote Nietzsche to almost any purpose, and it is not surprising that his work has been mined to support ideas that he would radically oppose. Given his insistence that “one does not only wish to be understood when one writes, one wishes just as surely not to be understood,” this is hardly surprising. The existentialist philosopher Karl Jaspers offered the excellent advice that one should not rest content with any assertion in Nietzsche’s works until finding a passage that contradicted it: only then would one be in a position to decide what he really meant.

Nietzsche is a spook.