Nietzsche Thread

What is Cred Forums's opinion of Nietzsche?

Nietzsche was a prophet.

He was a philosopher of strength. He rejected Christianity - which considers weakness as an ideal. The philosophers of the 17th, 18th, and 19th centuries stripped Christianity of its logical justification, but kept its morality. This paved the West for Liberalism, which retains Christianity morality, though it is far more radical. The Christian denies himself and denies things that possess strength. Liberal have convinced us to behave passively. Liberals tells us to collectively eliminate ourselves for the Other.

Nietzsche was an aristocrat. The Ubermensch is the transcendent man from which all others receive their culture. The creation of a new morality is not the business of the massive - that is far too Democratic. It is only the business of the Ubermensch.

Nietzsche exalted differentiation and hierarchy, not equality. He despised Socialism, Feminism and Democracy.

you're misconstruing him like everyone else -- let the poor man rest in peace

In personal matters i love the part of "Do whatever the fuck you want without regrets".

...

A typical 19th century philosopher who's chosen as edgy teenagers' anti-degeneracy tripe misrepresenting him.

He was right that Christianity is slave morality (the first shall be last)
He was also an influence on Evola, who is the most based man who lived in the past hundred years or so.

>most based man who lived in the past hundred years or so
>defeatist

uwot

>He was right that Christianity is slave morality
he said that about every form of mysticism, including Buddhism, because his personal psychology is very materialistic. Hegel and Marx had the same mindset. The only thing these men were good for were psychosocial case studies.

>his personal psychology is very materialistic
and since it's coming from their own personal psyches, they're essentially reifying their own abstractions into something concrete.
Schopenhauer had a more accurate and clearer notion of psychology than Nietzsche or Hegel.

he was a pessimist not a defeatist.

If there is no immortality, the Liberal believes, one can still lead a civilized life; "if there is no immortality"-is the far profounder logic of Ivan Karamazov in Dostoyevsky's novel-"all things are lawful." Humanist stoicism is possible for certain individuals for a certain time: until, that is, the full implications of the denial of immortality strike home. The Liberal lives in a fool's paradise which must collapse before the truth of things. If death is, as the Liberal and Nihilist both believe, the extinction of the individual, then this world and everything in it-love, goodness, sanctity, everything-are as nothing, nothing man may do is of any ultimate consequence and the full horror of life is hidden from man only by the strength of their will to deceive themselves; and "all things are lawful," no otherworldly hope or fear restrains men from monstrous experiments and suicidal dreams. Nietzsche's words are the truth-and prophecy-of the new world that results from this view:

Of all that which was formerly held to be true, not one word is to be credited. Everything which was formerly disdained as unholy, forbidden, contemptible, and fatal--all these flowers now bloom on the most charming paths of truth. [4]

The blindness of the Liberal is a direct antecedent of Nihilist, and more specifically of Bolshevist, morality; for the latter is only a consistent and systematic application of Liberal unbelief It is the supreme irony of the Liberal view that it is precisely when its deepest intent shall have been realized in the world, and all men shall have been "liberated" from the yoke of transcendent standards, when even the pretense of belief in the other world shall have vanished--it is precisely then that life as the Liberal knows or desires it shall have become impossible; for the "new man" that disbelief produces can only see in Liberalism itself the last of the "illusions" which Liberalism wished to dispel.

>it's coming from their own personal psyches
Yeah, no.

He was a cynic, not a pessimist. He was very optimistic, but mostly to anesthetize his loneliness. He oozed with sexual outrage, as Jung pointed out.

He is a nihilist not a pessimist nor a defeatist.

He literally made nihilism into existence.

They had dialectic thinking styles, not empirical. All their notions of material reality were psychological and reified.

Ahead of his time

A new wave of nihilism will soon rise that will spread through the entire globe. Semi-nihilistic stuff like MGTOW that rejects morals, societal templates and instincts is just the beginning. In a couple of decades we will have a sociopathic, uncaring humanity devoid of any morals and a will to not enslave itself to societal templates pre-determined before them.

>not empirical
He is known to use Apollonian and Dionysian dialectics but merely as a tool. Nietzsche's principles were empirical though.

>Christianity considers weakness an ideal

wut...you got scriptural support for that?

Hardly a difference on a massive scale.

>Nietzsche's principles
He had no universal principles, and he mocked such an idea. People like Foucault who universalize his ideas, which were essentially aesthetic and subjective, completely miss the point Nietzsche was trying to make. HL Mencken had a better understanding of Nietzsche than most writers; 'One horse-laugh is worth ten-thousand syllogisms'

Christianity doesn't really consider weakness an ideal. It rejects the way of the world, that is the normal striving for money and social status, which might be similar but it's not the same. And people tend to forget that the new testament is mostly a series of letters of advice for social matters but also surviving under the radar in a hostile environment.

found the triggered meditation cuck

Wasn't Nietzsche's "will to power" an empirical principle?

As someone who hasn't read any of this guy's work, is there a reason to outside of its historical significance? I see discussions about him but they always seem like weird pretentious circle jerks that make me think there's no practical purpose.

Tryhard worshipped by psychopaths and autists.

This is how I start every morning. Every. Morning.

He was a realist, not a cynic
(just wanted to continue the chain)

No, it's an ideal, a personal value and intensity. Empiricism is based on observations and proved facts; there aren't universal principles other than what immediately works.

He can be both (in his mind), but he was definitely a cynic either way.

My biggest problem with Christianity is its world denying aspect.

I know you're not supposed to entirely retreat from the world, but motivations matter and being less emotionally involved in the world indirectly means placing yourself in a peasant-like state.

The one reason I could never give in and just take the leap of faith is because I know Christianity creates a sort of docility in the masses. I can't place abstract notions of dedication to God above becoming successful, starting a family, and defending my people. I know there doesn't need to be a direct conflict, but I'm not capable of emotionally placing those things below religion because someone promises "trust me it's worth it".

Most prominent Christian thinkers and saints were world denying ascetics who let Christianity deprive their lives of what makes it worth living. It's like a mind-virus that makes you want to exist somehow beyond humanity and makes you totally okay with abandoning the things you love because "lol its not God i dont need it"

He's a dumb cuck. Religion is necessary for a society as it establishes social norms and morals that the people follow. There is no higher will to power and the ubermensch ideal will never come to be.

But no, I guess it's better to refuse everything and just all re-create our own morals and values, on our own, inside of nihilism. Yeah that's not going to work with all the fucking retarded people out there, and him talking about it is nothing but moot.

Honestly, the best doctrine based argument against Christianity isn't that it is a peasant religion or something, but that it is a religion based on waiting for the end of the world. That is its core, or it was originally. I'm surprised people don't mention that more often.

you make no sense.

christianity is just believing in jesus and God. it's a form of guidance. we are put on this earth for a reason, we should live good lives. it's a form of humility. no peasant-like docility.

maybe you are just a hedonistic asshole and want to live out your carnal desires and instincts without reprecussions? humble yourself.

>Most prominent Christian thinkers and saints were world denying ascetics who let Christianity deprive their lives of what makes it worth living
Pascal's wager. Restraining passions is more beneficial in the long run, whether you believe in an afterlife or not.

Nietzsche for me was a titan that showed the hypocrisy in those who espouse the good of secularism while clinging onto Christian morality. It was interesting how much a man like him rejected many liberal ideologies but also rejected things like evolution because it contradicted his view of Man.

Can anyone explain the point of reading Nietzche to me? I am asking this seriously. Is his work supposed to be intellectual or emotional guidance for people who don't believe in religion?

It's related. Fundamentally, both of those are attributable to the world-denying aspect of Christianity. You don't care what happens to anything. Obviously that's not the case for most people, but the idea behind Christianity is to care less about worldly matters. It's not forward thinking at all.

"A living being wants above all else to realize its strength; life itself is the will to power." and "all animals strive instinctively for an optimum combination of favorable conditions which allow them to expend all their energy and achieve their maximum feeling of power."
He's saying that in an organism's constitution there's a principle at work. A primary instinctual drive if you will. How is evidence for this not empirical? Because one can't measure it? Is it a dialectical principle?

Come on dude, it's central to Christianity.

>He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

>And again I say unto you, It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God.

>Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.

Nietzsche was a beta male cuck who obsessed over a woman who teased him for years, never fucked him, then fucked his best friend. Lou Andreas Salome mindfucked this cuck to death. He died ravaged by syphilis because he could only get whore pussy. A disgrace.

>prophet

Not really. Good ideas tend to resonate.

>philosopher of strength

Absolutely.

>Christianity

Even the most effective philosophy falls prey to dwindling ideological adherents. Understanding his texts aren't too difficult, but understanding the long term cause and effect is beyond most people.

This is where Christianity dominates, with its ease of understanding and generally accepting nature. The perversion of Christianity throughout time has left it a mainstream subject of acceptable ridicule, and it's slow and steady pandering at the expense of tradition has relegated it to social acceptance instead of faith and works towards the will of God.

This is a broad description, and I'm fully aware of local clergy and nunneries doing actual good for their communities, however this is becoming the exception, in terms of resources allocated.

While I agree with most everything else you've brought up, I would say that the teachings of nietzsche and religion are not mutually exclusive.

Just as a Buddhist can read Sun Tzu, and apply it to his everyday life, a Christian can read nietzsche and use it as a tool to better himself, and his community.

Drawing arbitrary red lines between mutually beneficial ideologies regardless of the actual result leads to disastrous ideological purity. People holding beliefs separate from their religion will eventually be segregated, either voluntarily due to disagreements, or involuntarily due to not adhering to scripture.

Some moral dilemmas require a temperance that can be shared with many ideologies. Dividing ourselves among smaller and smaller groups is exactly what they want.

tl;dr faith and ideology should (for the most part) not be mutually exclusive. Division creates strife.

what is wrong wit that?

those are metaphors and examples, to not put anything before your creator. have reverence for your creator. forward thinking is bad, because it makes people scoff at the creator. the goal is for humans to live peaceful lives. discovery and progress can happen, but when it starts happening at the expense of others, that is unGodly. that's what it means to not love the world. you'll get caught up in the instincts and forget your spiritual nature

This. Nietzche was absolutely degenerate. OP should wait until after finishing his freshman intro to philosophy class before calling anyone a prophet.

No doubt, in fact the reason I'm so familiar with Christianity is because I find it inspirational in combating degeneracy. It's the reason I WANT to be a Christian, but the world denying aspect (some of which I quoted here:
)
makes it hard for me to make the full plunge. I want to experience God and live a fulfilling life and be a part of a bigger Christian community, but I can't get on board with its denial of ambition and complacency in worldly matters. Augustine abandoned his family. The Book of Job is basically "you're gonna be a bitch and you're gonna like it".

I found Nietzsche inspiring. He's basically Courage Wolf. He lacks the metaphysical aspects I find interesting in philosophy though. He's a lot more worldly than I thought he would be.

Well, forward thinking is anathema to biblical morality. Strip away the narrative and what do you have? An animal species given the knowledge of good and evil which creates strife in the world. This knowledge and the pain it brings is exactly what pushes humanity forward. Ideally it never would have happened at all. The anti christ is the final result of it. Mankind warring against the heavens.

His sister received a bouquet of flowers from hitler. In 1934 he presented her a wreath, saying to her 'to a great fighter'.

And I meant that literally. When mankind discovered itself it knew desire and that created economy, it created crime. Men set out to steal from each other which led to cities. This led to wars over resources, and wars led to our greatest inventions. Human progress is built on the dead. That is the irony of the alt right to me, that they want Christianity to uphold the west because the west is the most advanced society.

To expand upon that, the "religions" of theosophy and to a greater extent, Thelema borrow heavily from works such as Nietzsche.

I believe some people can easily adhere to nietzschian philosophy without ever reading any of it, and some people can pour over the texts without ever embracing it or completely understanding it.

I can see a national push towards traditionalism in terms of religions, economies, and societal acceptance being mutually beneficial to nietzschian philosophy, and homogeneity of culture.

lol i thought this thread was dead like an hour ago when I first posted it.

any thoughts on genealogy of morality?

Nietzsche was edgy as fuck bro.

Also, fuck you. I've read quite a bit on Nietzsche - particularly Will Duran't understanding. This isn't an 'edgy' interpretation. This is Walter Kaufmann - who turned Nietzsche into a fucking left-wing superstar. Nietzsche belongs to the Right, kike boy.

The genealogy of morals is a good book. If you want an introduction read The Antichrist.

whoever chooses to follow the law of God.

there is none. to say blacks are immoral, look at ethiopia, a very spiritual land. most people there want to live peaceful lives, low crime rates

to say whites are moral, look at netherlands, degenerate culture, the secular "progressive" times, or the dark ages of europe, or the nordic barbarians.

to say middle easterners are immoral, they are trying to uphold what they believe is the law set by God.

i am just addressing the stereotypes

well nvm, thought was asking if there is a genetic component to being more moral lol

Yeah, but have you read any other 19th century writers? Nietzsche is most definitely a typical 19th century materialistic philosopher.

Really, read the Antichrist. You'll have a good laugh and learn about what Nietzsche thought at the same time.

www.nationalvanguard.org/.../antichrist-friedrich-nietzsche-translated-h-l-mencken.pdf

I always have a skeptical attitude towards any gospels that don't describe the actions of Jesus, and I always relate the rules and morals to the context.

Jesus' rejection of worldliness makes more sense if you apply it to the corruption within the Jewish temples at the time, and his uncharacteristic anger towards the priesthood.

The book of Job reads more like a learning experience for God, in the way that "satan" means adversary, and careful reading equates him to an advisor-lIke entity that lacks the deified understanding of the human condition.

I'm not saying God did not already know the outcome of the events, merely a representation of the idea that life is not, and will never be fair. You can lose everything, but still keep your faith and walk with God without succumbing to degeneracy.

It's peace of mind for those that feel that their world is beyond any semblance of control.

was 404'd. whats it about?

Its akin to a dialectical approach, because it involves some degree of interpretivism

But its nothing like Hegelian or Marxist interpretivism

For example a Marxist could look at a class dynamic and place on to it buzzwords and terms that constitute a worldview but only because that worldview is simply created through their mind (they can bullshit out of their ass and call it real)

Nietzsche was talking about power in its very basic sense, to have something do something

Nothing bullshitty or buzzword like in doing that, thats called being candid

I know that's the way many interpret it, but I don't think it's a coincidence so many people who are serious about the faith tend to emphasize their rejection of the world. It seems it's a central aspect to truly understanding the teachings.

I already use Christianity as a basic moral framework, but the full plunge into dedication, the leap of faith, I just can't do. Everything I care about is in this world, and I don't want to lose that desire, even if it were possible (which I'm afraid may actually be a consequence of the full dive into the faith). That amounts to surrendering to your enemies and betraying those you love.

The two things that really bothered me was that he seems to ignore how the individual and society interact, and I wish he would've said something about that. But I think that's probably where Heidegger comes in, at least in part.

Second was his understanding of Buddhism seemed quite weak. But not really a major issue.
>defining yourself by how much sex you're having
you're a real inspiration
Nietzsche was probably the most anti-nihilist philosopher you can find, you moron.

>Nietzsche was probably the most anti-nihilist philosopher you can find
I agree. People who claim he is never read him.

which things do you care about that you don't want to lose? i don't understand how christianity would lead you to lose your desires. do you have evil desires?

A lot of loyalty for a tired pun

Well the most obvious conflict involves nationalism:

>white atheist country VS christian brown country

If you place your faith above your love for your people, the latter becomes the obvious choice for you. On a larger scale it also results in things like cheering the influx of "natural conservatives" because they're Christians.

Shifting your moral center away from "doing what's right for my nation/community/family" and toward "faith in the Christian God" seems to have a lot of potential negative externalities.

ah i had a feeling it was race.

nationalism and christianity don't conflict though. in fact, i think a nation with all believers in Jesus would lead the most peaceful lives possible.

your problem stems from race and genetics. you look at superficial results of genes and place genetic talent at the top of your envisioned world. what you have to understand is, that nature or your creator that you believe, created brown people to share earth with. so why distance yourself from your fellow humans even if you don't like their culture? hitler's nationalism was not a "keep brown people out" mentality, it was actually a christian movement to keep globalization not to be forced on his country and his german people. hitler wanted to preserve his culture, which is fine, it's nothing against christianity, in fact, if it goes against christianity all the more reason to reject it. but brown people are not inherently inferior, all ethnic groups and families have their talents.

this is coming from a brown person

The dialectic approach goes back to Heraclitus: 'Change he called a pathway up and down, and this determines the birth of the world.' It's the idea that the totality of everything in existence is a tension between two opposing and unifying forces.
Kant wrote about the 'thing in itself' that's separate from human interpretation, Hegel responded that the thing in itself is in fact the opposite of thought, and therefore created by thought. Nietzsche's Will to Power is based on the same exact thought patterns.
Heraclitus wrote 'Everything changes and nothing stands still.' Marx wrote that 'Hegel remarks somewhere that all facts and personages of great importance in world history occur, as it were, twice. He forgot to add: the first time as a tragedy, the second time as farce.' This is the same thing post modernists propose: the birth of an idea becomes obsolete and invalidated after its inception; after that it's just a farce or a narrative. Essentially the same idea behind Nietzsche's 'God is dead'. My point was that these men all have the same psychologies, regardless of the little aesthetic nuances in their writing.

Nietzsche was a literal cuck

He liked the ladies of easy virtue.

I think that's why it's easier for you to discount the potential conflicts between religion and race. There's no existential anxiety for you.

The nationalist aspect isn't the only one though, materialist motivation is a huge factor in improving your standing in life and Christianity almost explicitly rejects that type of ambition. There's also the sexual aspects that aren't really applicable in a pornified hypersexual culture that enables the worst aspects of female sexuality to manifest. There are a ton of others I can't think of off the top of my head, but there's always a conflict between how things are and the Christian ideal. Becoming a REAL, dedicated Christian is like committing suicide. Every time I think I can commit myself, one of the conflicts come up and I realize what's truly important to me.

He literally was not a prophet and said he was not a prophet.

It is fair to say that the unifying theme of his thought is extreme anti-egalitarianism. However let's be clear here, the aristocratic ideal to him wasn't necessarily just some fuckhead who had political power or control over a bunch of people, it was a person who had liberated himself from the herd. To even bother managing the herd for the herd's sake is simple breeder mentality which is what the Indian caste system was doing. Radical anti-egalitarianism, radical individualism for those capable of it.

He didn't oppose Christianity at the end of the day. He just said that smart people need to liberate themselves from its biases. Christianity is a herd morality and was very well refined for its purpose, of course its life denial elements made it fundamentally unhealthy for society on the long term but this can be adjusted. In his words, the herd needs a set of values that allows it to self-govern. The spiritual aristocrat shouldn't have to dirty themselves with the task of governance.

“If there is no extant God and no extant gods, no good and no evil, no right and no wrong, no meaning and no purpose: if there are no values that are inherently valuable; no justice that is ultimately justifiable; no reasoning that is fundamentally rational, then there is no sane way to choose between science, religion, racism, philosophy, nationalism, art, conservatism, nihilism, liberalism, surrealism, fascism, asceticism, egalitarianism, subjectivism, elitism, ismism. If reason is incapable of deducing ultimate, non-arbitrary human ends, and nothing can be judged as ultimately more important than anything else, then freedom is equal to slavery; cruelty is equal to kindness; love is equal to hate; war is equal to peace; dignity is equal to contempt; destruction is equal to creation; life is equal to death and death is equal to life. Nihilism represents the ultimate logical conclusion of our great values and ideals- because we must experience nihilism before we can find out what value these "values" really had.”
― Mitchell Heisman, Suicide Note

no man, christianity is not about being perfect. only God is perfect. but it is understanding God's law, having a relationship with him and believing that no matter what you do, you will be saved by his grace sending Jesus to die for your sins because the penalty for sin is death. and of course there are end time prophecies to be fulfilled but that's at the end. nobody knows. will be saved if you believe in him and repent. because it is natural to want to repent if you believe in God. it's literally a "religion" to become close with God again. i sin like a motherfucker but i pray everyday. i try you know?

this is in my opinion what true christianity is, you don't have to give up anything. it's more of a relationship with your creator.

well, one thing which i believe is the ultimate red pill, is that all humans are distant brothers and sisters. once we treat each other like we are, the world starts getting brighter. trust me. i'd predict that you will NATURALLY become less racist once you truly start to understand God's purpose for us. different things will become important to you, you won't commit suicide, you will just learn to drive out satan and evil from you.

for example read my post on stereotypes

His understanding of Hinduism was actually worse than his understanding of Buddhism, and his understanding of Islam worse than that. But this was an age before the internet made finding good translations easy, the secondary sources he read were poor and the translation of the Upanishads he read was absolute dicks. Nietzsche is kind of unique in how little he engages with primary sources outside of Schopenhauer/Kant and the Greeks.

I don't think you know what that word means. Nietzsche never raised anyone's children.

He only spent one year trying to be a hedonist and he got incredibly bored of it. He also never got syphilis, the diagnosis was faulty and upon review of his symptoms (in particular the fact that he lived for 10 years after his collapse which was literally unheard of in 19th century syphilitics) it's clear that he wasn't afflicted by it.

My favorite part of Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

>Thy Self laugheth at thine ego, and its proud prancings. "What are these prancings and flights of thought unto me?" it saith to itself. "A by-way to my purpose. I am the leading-string of the ego, and the prompter of its notions."
>The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pain!" And thereupon it suffereth, and thinketh how it may put an end thereto—and for that very purpose it IS MEANT to think.
>The Self saith unto the ego: "Feel pleasure!" Thereupon it rejoiceth, and thinketh how it may ofttimes rejoice—and for that very purpose it IS MEANT to think.

He did have a crush on someone his friend married, didn't he? In Spain I think.