All memes aside, was Nietzsche a little bit stupid?

I got into math, not too deeply at first, and learned about Russell, Wittgenstein, and Frege before learning about Godel so I thought that the idea of logical positivism seemed really cool and started reading into analytic philosophy and logic. Once I learned about Godel's incompleteness theorem I lost some of my enthusiasm for it and started looking into other philosophy but I definitely know more math than philosophy.

Just a little crazy. He forgets what he just wrote. To be fair his physical state in mid to late life was abysmal.

>Antifa enters the thread

>facts = antifa
imagine being a subhuman while decrying others as subhuman, must be hard to deal with so much cognitive dissonance

You are the shitposter.

What do you refer to exactly?

He can be kind of random. He frequently finishes his thoughts with grandiose sounding non-sequiturs. He contradicts himself every few passages.
I don't know what that user meant about lying to himself though. It seems to me quite obvious that he wrote this way intentionally.

bump

Shitposting is dead.

All memes aside philosophy goes:

Marx > Nietzsche > Aristotle >>>

so yeah he's pretty smart.

'i thought that the idea of logical postivism seemed really cool'

what do you mean by this? postivism is lame desu

Yes, but who isnt? hahahaha

He was fairly critical of nationalism, a key tenet of Fascism, so I don't understand how you square that circle.

>h-he doesn't adhere to muh contemporary moral standards therefore he's a FASCIST!!!1

Also

>literal subhuman
>extremely prolific writer, widely regarded as having an undeniably huge impact on modern philosophy even by critics

Pick one.

Seriously, look at the absolute state of you. Not to mention he died about two decades before Fascism was even conceived of.

>inb4 muh nazis took inspiration from Nietzsche

Don't even try that argument, you know it's absurd.

>positivism
terminate urself

Nailed it

>unfalsifiable

Why come to these threads if you don't actually know anything about philosophy?

>He forgets what he just wrote.
He never does this once. You just misinterpreted each thing he wrote.

No, he was VERY stupid.

>Nietzsche received a remarkable offer to become professor of classical philology at the University of Basel in Switzerland. He was only 24 years old and had neither completed his doctorate nor received a teaching certificate ("habilitation").

Far from it; he was ahead of his time.

>grandiose sounding non-sequiturs

any examples?

>contradicts himself every few passages.

Contradiction is the mark of truth. Read Heraclitus.

No. Just unsociable and overly emotional.
If you read his work alongside his biography, you can almost always link it to his personal experiences. Most notably "Der Fall Wagner".

>Contradiction is the mark of truth.
Hey, I didn't say anything against Nietzsche. I was just explaining why that user might have found him hard to comprehend.
When will people finally understand that he is a poet and not a philosopher?

Except he was a philosopher. Have you even read him?

Name something he said that didn't just "ring true".

Have you?

This. When you work through all of these obfuscated texts you start to realize philosophers really don't have anything interesting to say and are just good with words.

When will people finally understand that the Latin word sapere means "I am wise" AND "I taste" and that the wise sage is a man of value judgments, not a man of truth? And, that the first philosopher (Thales) was directly inspired by Homer and Hesiod? The Pre-Socratics were philosophers, too, and better ones than most of the Enlightenment thinkers even.

>he thinks that Nietzsche's prescription matters

Nope, he is just showing you how to use the genealogical method, and how to be a nihilist without being a pessimist. The conclusions he reaches are just a specific perspective, based on a strictly material outlook on the world (he even thinks that the value we give to truth is a prejudice, that's how far he is going), And as Nietzsche himself said
>There are no facts, only interpretations
And then
>There are no interpretations
And at the end of his life he was sure that he could not truly overcome all values in his lifetime.

Basically: try to understand Nietzsche's way of reasoning through his analyses, make up your own mind and from then on treat his prescription as a very sophisticated interpretation of his experience (that's what it was). Take him literally only when he is talking about epistemology and metaphysics, when he goes to the surface (society, human interactions, culture) keep in mind that not even Nietzsche believed in what he wrote for more than 2-3 years at a times. The only exceptions are the aforementioned ones: he used to think that he had the right ideas about epistemology, metaphysics right from his teenagehood, and he has spent his entire life playing and experimenting with these "discoveries" of his, mainly radical nihilism which is overcome through a vitalist philosophy.

Again. I did not comment on Nietzsche's philosophy in any way. I was pointing out why some might find his writing style nonsensical.

His sister edited his works to make them appear more nationalist and fascist than they really were. He was persecuted for being against fascism.

openculture.com/2016/12/nietzsches-10-rules-for-writing-with-style-1882.html

The more poignant one:
>Style ought to prove that one believes in an idea; not only that one thinks it but also feels it.

My point stands because his style is a beliberate choice, designed to give a better idea of what he is talking about, and the context in which he is exhamining it. It's not like he wrote only polemics and aphorisms, and him being contraddictory largely depends on the book you are reading: in certain ones he is more vague (usually to show you how equally reasonable and intertwined certain different points he is making are), in others he is far more rigid (the Dawn comes to mind).

>He was persecuted for being against fascism.

No he wasn't, considering there would be no such thing as fascism for quite a few decades after his death.

He criticized Pan-Germanism and Nationalism including the idea of a will to power. The idea of a better race based on ethnicity is a pretty common thread in fascism.

That still doesn't make it fascism. Also the majority of fascist strains, beginning with the original Italian one, didn't give a shit about race.

He sucked at French and was really bad at math. The only scholar disciplines he was really good at were ancient languages

On the flipside, there is a letter where Nietzsche apologizes to his sister, because they had lunch together and he revealed his philosophy to her and it shocked her.

Link to that letter? Also what exactly did he reveal about his philosophy?

>My point stands because his style is a deliberate choice
Just like I pointed out. I did not criticize his philosophy or his writing-style. I just pointed out the reasons why it might not meet some people's expectations.

It doesn't bother anyone else that he wrote in small jerks, quoting himself, never being able to let an idea develop into a coherent narrative

Inb4 reading suggestion

One need only read the first few pages of antichrist to get a whiff of the shit this monkey is throwing. I find neitzche a good reference, a marker to talking about the "re-evaluation of all values", but in general I find it all but too cringey to hear someone talk about neitzche in the same vein as competent writers of critical theory

I think a better and more relevant question would be either "Has anyone ever understood Nietzsche correctly?" or "Did Nietzsche even really understand himself?"

Gas yourself

Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher or a poet, he was the first and only anti-philosopher.

thenietzschechannel.com/correspondence/eng/nlett-1887.htm

At the bottom. But I believe there was a response letter... having trouble finding it. I had read this in a published compilation of letters and it may have been mentioned in the annotations.

stirner was an anti-philosopher before him

Stirner was more of an anti-Hegel, Nietzsche was inspired by the formula and became total anti-philosophy.

>One need only read the first few pages of antichrist to get a whiff of the shit this monkey is throwing.
If that's all you read then you guaranteed don't understand a damn thing about him.

>stupid?
No
>insane?
Yes

I'm writing my dissertation of how Hume, Nietzsche, and Deleuze are closet-Neoplatonists via Spinoza and Descartes. AMA.

bump

He was a pastor's and teacher's son. He had the roots of the petit bourgeoisie that he couldn't shake off, demonstrated by his whole "I hate German society so much le wrong generation and wrong country and Wagner is an asshole cause he doesn't like my music etc" stick he had going on. I don't know why but he always reminds me of Hitler in that way, who was even lower class and despite all autodidactism never managed to shake the pettiness of that heritage off.

His spent his life devoted to rethinking philosophy for the future, he just did it with more style than anyone else.

stfu

He actually explained why he hated the German spirit through extensive aphorisms and essais.
Stop strawmanning and attack the actual positions you're criticizing.

>this much of a plen

lmao