45 minutes on a single paragraph of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil

It's quite good but i think he imposes his own ideas onto his interpretation of Nietzsche too much

I hate this website

Above average post desu.

lul

Source on this?

Ask stupid questions get stupid answers.

?

I thought this guy was a Jungian. Jung hated Nietzsche, so it better be 45 minutes refuting him. Also, Nietzsche is without a doubt the proto-postmodernist, which, needless to say, is a problem if he's endorsing anything Nietzsche is saying.

And no, I won't listen or read this clown to clarify. I expect him to be a self-contradictory pseud. It pleases me to no end that mental midgets are stepping over themselves to surrender to him.

you must be a catch with the ladies

>Jung hated Nietzsche
Incorrect, he may not have entirely agreed with him, but Jung was fascinated by Nietzsche and even gave a commentary on Thus Spake Zarathustra.

You should be reading more than just people you agree with.

user said in one sentence what has taken a great mind 1/4 of a dozen aphorisms to articulate.

I don't read nobodies. Take some advice from me and stop taking advice from nobodies.

Take a hint, bucko: make like a tree, and leave

How do you explain the obvious complicity between postmodernism and Nietzsche, and with Jungs and Peterson attempt to overcome Nietzsche and Pomo respectively? I think I get why this guy takes SSRIs like they're Wheaties. It must be one hell of a clusterfuck in that thick skull of his.

>I thought this guy was a Jungian. Jung hated Nietzsche

You don't know how scholarship develops do you. Noone follows a thinker to a 100%. Do you thinker ZIzek either follows Hegel or Marx fully?

Can you explain postmodernism as you understand it?
I don't really get the comparison, but then I haven't read Nietzche

He doesn't blatantly contradict them or himself, no. In fact Zizek is quite orthodox regarding his influences.

>obvious complicity between postmodernism and Nietzsche

Yeah, cause there's noooooo complicity between psychoanalysis and postmodernism. Jung is ultimately influenced by Nietzsche through Freud.

I'm on my phone, but Nietzsche is almost always seen as the ultimate critic of truth. Postmodernism is almost always seen as the critique of truth. If that's not clear enough the philosophical narrative traces directly back through Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger

Fuck this useful idiot. Came out against the far right, despite he knows we're true about the redpill. An absolute postmodern cuck that he deplores. Also jew

Yeah, I was thinking that. Though from what I've picked up, his whole will-to-power and such seems a far cry from the agenda minded people who have espoused post-modernism, especially in the context of Peterson's ideological boogeymen

>Postmodernism is almost always seen as the critique of truth.

This isn't a good account of what postmodernism is, since you can find the same sorts of critiques of truth in pragmatism, natural philosophy, and analytic philosophy.

The Will to Power was, according to Nietzsche, a fail attempt at reevaluating all values. This to him meant that he was still tangled in the narratives of his time, which he saw as arbitrary and lacking in any foundation. According to his epistemology, there is absolutely no true and all we tell us is virtually nonsensical blabbering that makes us feel in different ways. Philosophy is, according to him, a beautiful lie, nothing more. He also rejects the existence of facts, and discredit interpretations as a valid tool of analysis, while identifying interpretation as our only tool of analysis. Our preference for truth and good are merely prejudices, and morality is based on personal preferences, based on the lust of one's own will (which may bring the individual to be a ruthless dictator or a altruistic philantropist).
This is the position he tried to overcome all of his life, and according to him this struggle resulted in failure.

What's the issue? Philosophy is not very easy to grasp. Then again Peterson sounds as if he was in some weird LCD-induced tangent sometimes. But Nietzsche is very poetical so it's not so easy to interpret sometimes, actually - impossible.

>Dude, let me cover the Enchiridion, a 20 page book, in 100 videos lmao!

well, in essays like "on truth and lie" or "the uses and abuses of history" he describes certain aspects of the *problem* of nihilism with relative lucidity. for nietzsche, his strongest statements against Truth or whatever are very often diagnoses of a problem (christian-platonic metaphysics), rather than arguments he's making in support of a particular worldview. but through most of his life nietzsche was most keenly interested in overcoming the problem of nihilism. he wanted to make new values possible. to do this, however, nihilism must first be employed as a tool to clear away the rotten elements of established thought. nihilism for nietzsche doesn't fall into a simple good/bad dichotomy. it's not a permanently tenable psychological state, but it's also necessary for great men to pass through it during their "going under" in order for them to create new values. you have to read nietzsche through this lens. his writing is ultimately oriented towards the production of "great men", rare and high individuals, because that's the value he saw in the world. or so he says. i think he just liked to be a fucking edgelord and its what he was best at.