When did you realize this edgelord was the most intelligent person in the history of mankind?

No. I don't patronize self shilling morons.

That's not an argument. Come at me with the big guns Mr. Nietzsche lover.

Nice dubs. Yes, I too would like to see him justify why Nietzsche is superior to Molyneoux. Clearly he is familiar with Molyneoux's work and if he has actually read any of Mr. Edgelords work (Nietzsche) he should be able to defend his position.

I don't even like Nietzsche. I just hate you that much.

Nietzsche is superior because he has a wider readership. He has also published more books. People have written numberless texts about Nietzsche. I would be hard pressed to find anything written about argument man that wasn't a post on this site.

Popularity = superior philosopher? What kind of pseud logic is this?

That's not what I said. He is less popular than whatsisname but he is more relevant and more influential. His work has gone on to inspire further work.

>Nietzsche is superior because he has a wider readership.
>He has also published more books.
> People have written numberless texts about Nietzsche.
What you described was popularity.

But once again, you have failed to tell me why Nietzsche is superior to Molyneoux. Give me a worthwhile thesis. I'm beginning to suspect that you have not read anything from either of these people.

I haven't.

The value of philosophers is subjective. Someone who agrees with Molymeme might see him as superior to Nietzsche, and vice versa.

Something that is more objective is their importance in history. The other user is right. Nietzsche was far more influential and important to the history of thought than argument man.

Historical importance is not even remotely synonymous with truth. Once again, you are parroting what the other user said in a slightly different way.

All I want you to do is teach me something in order to help me change my mind. I seem to be at an impasse with Nietzsche fanboys who don't seem to have read his work.

The problem isn't that we haven't read Nietzsche the problem is that we haven't read the other guy. Kind of hard to compare the two based on that. If you want to argue so badly maybe give us some idea of what this guy thinks.

>Truth
Holy shit.
I haven't read Nietzsche, and neither am I a fanboy. But holy shit, you'll never get anywhere in philosophy if you compare the value of philosophers by how "true" they are.

>autists who think you can formally "argue" for value judgements
>autists who pay attention to memeneux
>autists who unironically suggest he's anywhere near fucking friedrich nietzsche

just lol

Kek, if you admit that you're uneducated to this degree, then why did you even bothered arguing in the first place? Why would you let your ignorance control you?

Another one of these "Nietzsche is better just because" people.

I've read Nietzsche and some of Molyneoux. They both have depth, however Molyneoux gets inside your head in such a strange way. He's incredibly smart, however, I believe that he harness an evil spirit. When I read his works, it's like I'm letting that evil spirit corrupt my thoughts. I stopped reading Molyneoux altogether because I couldn't fucking handle him. I could feel myself changing. (And not for the better) and that made me uncomfortable. Nietzsche is similar, yet not as intense, and his ideas are not all that original. Ideally, both should be approached with caution. YMMV, user.

>You guys aren't proving his worth based on my subjective criteria that I set out arbitrarily
Once again,
>Evaluating a philosopher based on how >>>true they are
What the fuck?

Another one of those "Nietzsche is shit because people like him" people.

He didn't understand the stoics because he was to undisicplined and unloved to see himself in all people and live a life of virtue.

He is the best example of an intelligent person who was thoroughly broken on the inside.

I didn't say he was shit. Read

>to see himself in all people and live a life of virtue
What do you think his amor fati is, then?

you might just be retarded if you're influenced by that giant bald baby

Then I dare you to read some of his works. See for yourself how deep that rabbit hole goes.

I have and they're a joke
consider amputating your brain, clearly it only sucks up nutrients and little else

What specific faults did you find in his work? And how do these supposed faults make him inferior to Nietzsche?

These pseuds haven't read either.

I don't know how you can call Nietzsche undisciplined. He managed to write some of the greatest works in philosophy whilst in extreme spiritual, mental and physical pain in near complete isolation.

Nietzsche was an amazing self-fulfilling prophet and seducer, i.e. a very great artist. 200 years from now he may even be viewed as a kind of philosophic Shakespeare.
>t. not a fan

When I met Wes Cecil irl.

I'll prove you wrong in a jiffy. I enjoy how people try to find meaning in nihilism but only stare into the abyss they created. At least I can laugh at nihilist and feel secure in my happiness of irony and sarcasm. THE END. FIN. BUSTED

...