Recommend me the most devastating and vitriolic non-christian criticism of nietzsche

Recommend me the most devastating and vitriolic non-christian criticism of nietzsche

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

Black Rifle Cuck Company, Conservative Humor Shirt $21.68

Unattended Children Pitbull Club Shirt $21.68

  1. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    everyone today is born a slave, you have no power and can't get any

  2. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Most of his philosophy is ripped of from sade and heraclitus, his genuinely own concept (ubermensch) is cope because he himself was a weak impotent wordcel detached from higher life
    There, this sums it up. Theres no actual criticism for his stuff on morality since that lart is real (thanks to Sade)

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >his genuinely own concept (ubermensch) is cope because he himself was a weak impotent wordcel detached from higher life
      And by this I mean that he coined ubermensch as a new ideal because he couldnt achieve the actual ideals. All is made in mans image and so Ns 'new values' were in his own pleb academic imagw

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        he didn't even coin ubermensch. ripped straight from goethe. has this man ever made an original idea?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Probably his shitty moustache. I've never seen anybody else with such a moronic moustache.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          True originality does not exist.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >insipid ad-hominem
      Wow, you really convinced me!

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      There is no evidence of him reading Sade.

  3. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I don’t care for him because he was a garbage historian and his followers are annoying

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >nietzsche is a hack
      About what?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Why did you just say that? About sucking your own dick in front of your sister's face?

        Am I lying? From what?

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I accept your concession, you are free to stop polluting the thread now.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      But Socrates is Anti-life in the same way christians are anti-life:

      When Socrates was charged for corrupting the youth he was to be killed and was basically saying that he is content with it as now the soul can finally be free from his body.

      Socrates and Plato despises the body as it corrupts the soul to them. So death (soul separating from the body) is something like a goal as the soul will be set free and it will be pure if you were a philosopher.

      In christianity you might suffer in life but if you follow the commandments you will go to heaven and the suffering during your life doesn't matter anymore then.

      Both are life-rejecting.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You don't understand neither Christianity nor Socrates. You're as much as a midwit as Nietzche. No discussion will ever make you see your error. You should simply be put down like the dig you are for being annoying, a pseud, a Nietzche fan, and somebody who can't bother himself to read the 2000 years of Christian writen tradition. You'll simply keep believing this bullshit and think that you're smart for it. You're stupid and worthless - more wienerroach than human. Please, have a nice day and spare us from witnessing your self-importance infused stupidity.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          not an argument, therefore you lost and he is correct

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          You fricking illiterate Black person he explained perfectly the antilife attitude shown in Socrates philosophy.
          Nietzsche owns hylics like you.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >You're a midwit
          >Sells Nietzsche wrong twice

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nitchee

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >literally just seething the whole post
          >I'm smart
          just admit that you're bothered because you're a christian and it hurts your sensibilities

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Wow, it seems the other anon touched a nerve.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        This is what Nietzsche says of Plato. Try actually reading Plato. Nietzsche's Plato would get a D or C at any reputable program because it's a bunch of bold assertions, bad translations, cherry picking, and missing the point.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The same applies to what he says about Christianity. He misses the point entirely but keeps his stance so stubbornly, which actively contradicts years of Christian theology. But he still acts as if he found something everybody else was too stupid to find.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Oh i've read some Plato. Read Phaidon then if you aren't convinced.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Phaidon?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Phaidon
            Do Nietszchetards really...?

            >Phaidon
            You Danish, mate?

            German

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Welp, that would explain why you insist so much on not leaving Nitchee's titty. National pride. I bet your favorite composer os Beethoven.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Right now it is Beethoven because his sonatas are fun to play.
            Bach is also an OG.

            Nietzsche didn't even like germany that much.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            lmao you're such a caricature. i'm not implying that Nætchê loved Germany, but that YOU love Germany, which is why you will irrationaly cling to any homosexual that's German and popular. This is the actual essence of National Socialism, which is why it really isn't "the ultimate heckin' evil!!!" as Redditors think, but actually some cringe and pathetic shit.

            He didn't even die of siphillis lol

            You're right, he died of seeing someone beat a random donkey. He was too much of a virgin to get siphillis.

            You need to work on your ragebait.

            And you need to work on THIS DICK!

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You're kinda reminding me of Diogenes who would just start wanking in public.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            The horse story was made up years after his death and we don't know what truly killed him.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            He died of AIDS. Patient zero: Nîęcghtzhėé. Rest in piss, clown.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >that would explain
            Why he shows some hint of sincerity and understanding of the subject while you don't. All angloids are apparently completely ruined, their minds don't work anymore on any level. You don't even try to find things out, like you only know how to propagandize after the century of propaganda conditioning your mind.

            Please, tell me he is not implying incest.

            >implying
            He's explicitly telling you she abused him and that it fricked him up. She kept abusing him after his death. People will endlessly make excuses for a pretty girl, especially the men they abuse.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Phaidon
            Do Nietszchetards really...?

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Phaidon
            You Danish, mate?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Yes. All lifesuckers go to HELL.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't see these annoying followers of his
      what I do see is a whole horde of people who get irrationally angry whenever he is brought up, without ever having read or attempting to understand him, and that's likely you too. You're either a christgay, a platonoid, a commie, or believe in some other system that he devastates, and this leaves you with no choice but to boil with impotent rage toward him.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >You're either a christgay, a platonoid, a commie

        That's actually funny how two-dimensional thinking is found everywhere among nietzschegays. It can't cross your mind, that some people may disagree with a philosopher's stances and arguments just in virtue of their nature, and not because those people are a part of some group. Unfortunately you guys can't help attaching labels on everything. Indeed, the main enemy of resentment was the epitome of resentment himself. And this is clearly seen in the screenshot

        I don’t care for him because he was a garbage historian and his followers are annoying

        where he simply misquotes and mistranslates the saying just for shoehorning it in his formulaic headcanon.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          what an empty jerk-off of a reply
          pseud

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Still don't see a response to Nietzsche's misunderstanding at best, intentional obscurantism at worst towards Socrates as outlined in

            I don’t care for him because he was a garbage historian and his followers are annoying

            , which I imagine the average 15 year old Nietzsche fan would just respond to by saying "well Socrates is still a cuck and that's what matters"

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Socrates is saying he owes the god of healing for his health. This life being blessed by lack of disease only makes sense in a context where life in general is full of disease, the added line adds the context Nietzsche is focusing on.
            You're too dumb to try to bring up any sort of point relevant to anything. The guy you're replying to is also an idiot.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Socrates is saying he owes the god of healing for his health.
            The most widespread interpretation for the line is that he was directly calling life a disease, saying he owed a wiener in exchange for being cured of the disease of life.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >The guy you're replying to is also an idiot.
            i dindu nuffin im a good boy

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah. His knowledge of Church history and israeli culture is also trash. It's fine when he is attacking the German Christianity of his epoch, but he has a very poor understanding of the great variance in the faith across time and space and what it's thinkers actually advanced.

      This would be fine in most cases, no one can be an expert in everything, but he pronounces on things like he is a great sage and because he is a "great name" idiots take his bad understanding of history and philosophy as gospel.

      The only one to refute Nietzsche is himself. Every man’s philosophy is born from his physiology, says Nietzsche. So Nietzsche’s philosophy itself is just a reflection of Nietzsche’s character, and you are free to agree or disagree with it. Only time will tell if his philosophy will resonate with the truly strong.

      From a more specific angle, open individualism weakens a lot of his egoist anti-compassion sentiment. If we all share the same fundamental consciousness, then his cold indifference towards suffering seems a bit inapt.

      Right, that's Nietzsche's claim. It would be a lot more convincing if he could show he had a firm understanding of the people he was critiquing and showed how this was the case. Instead he mostly get hand waving. This is particularly bad in the case of earlier German idealists who it is pretty clear the man had not studied.

      Ok, you're more interested in the Greeks. Fine. Don't spew moron shit about things you haven't bothered reading. Stick to the Greeks. Problem is, he also didn't understand Plato very well or simply chose to ignore the reasons that Plato has for making rationality a precondition of freedom and self determination. His argument against this is quite weak. Ok, the "I" is a "congress of souls." Hume said much the same thing, but so does fricking Plato in the Republic. The whole point of prioritizing rationality is that it is the thing that can unify the soul.

      Nietzsche writes very pretty and sometimes says profound things. He also was not a good student of philosophy or history. There is a reason the guy is more influential in the arts than in philosophy proper.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        absolutely fuming

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I'm not fuming. I actually like Nietzsche. He was one of the first philosophers I read. I've just come to learn that you really need to enjoy him for what he is, not as an actual critic or other philosophers. His critiques are almost all bad strawmen.

          I think he was a forerunner of a now very popular internet style where you throw all manners and charity aside and pronounce like a sage with maximal authority while calling all other voices morons. The problem is that Nietzsche is very often the first and only philosopher people read, partly because he is definitely more fun to read that most, in part because he flatters his reader so much.

          But no one should think they understand any other philosophers because they read Nietzsche's version of them, least of all Plato. Actually, I think Plato is much closer to him than he realizes. Plato is all about becoming more truly yourself and thus more real by moving beyond the obvious and seeing the necessary and self sufficient. There is a big overlap that Nietzsche misses in the resentment that drips all over his writing, despite all the declarations of being beyond resentment. But he makes up for this with punchy prose.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >pronounce like a sage with maximal authority while calling all other voices morons
            This framing is rooted in your delusions about having direct access to truth on any subject, projection by a deeply conditioned angloid mind. Sprinkling in qualifiers that shouldn't have to be constantly reiterated like "in my opinion" doesn't make you more humble or open minded, it makes you a moron directing your words at other morons.
            The popular modes of interpretation are diseases, the way language now subverts thought will imprison everyone. I'm not stopping in your plague house built on stale memes about Plato and Christ. You will never bind the spirit of the hunter with angloid logic spells.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not really. Jung is the only critic worth listening to, and no one reads him because to read Jung is expand consciousness.

      People don't like doing that. Nietzsche's only fault was in failing to see that the israelites contained within themselves the germ seed of their own destruction, and thus so too does the superman. His only real failing is that he didn't marry.

      I don't even know what the frick these sorts of morons are going on about

      Nietzsche was a first rate philologist.

  4. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Gorgias dialogue of Plato is a retroactive refutation of Nietzsche (see Parmenidean shitposters. I actually used the term correctly).

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      What part of Nietzsche does it refute?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        nothing refutes Nietzsche, pseuds will name drop some idiots and never elaborate

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          I think the only thing we can refute is the ubermensch larp. It's a wordcel fantasy from someone who was domesticated. Civilizations with mass amounts of slaves is where it's at
          Rest of his stuff is solid imo even though much of it is plagiarized

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        https://www.reddit.com/r/Plato/comments/17ptgif/nietzsche_and_callicles/

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >reddit
          Lmao
          >Although Nietzsche never references this text
          Lmao
          >this must be where he got his idea
          Lmao
          >people ought to strive for even more power and enjoyment
          Nothing to do with Nietzsche's Ubermensch, which is also only a small part of N's work
          >and he repudiates Socrates' ideal of attaining the Good and the True
          Yeah
          >Socrates refutes Callicles by arguing that it means a life of intemperate craving that goes nowhere, as if a man keeps filling a cask that is full of holes
          Socrates fails to refute anything and makes a non-sequitur trying his best to hide his projection

          That's all? Yikes

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Not to mention that in the Republic, Thrasymachus basically makes Nietzsche's core arguments about justice and strength, only for Socrates to demonstrate that "justice is the will of the stronger" doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny.

  5. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He's a discount Kierkegaard and an edgy homosexual

  6. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Every ideology that took inspiration from him had to heavily distort his insane BPD rants into an amalgamation of anything resembling practicality, and even then they all only existed for a few years before getting BTFO by leftists every time.

    History is the harshest judge of Nietzsche.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >History is the harshest judge of Nietzsche.
      What does history judge harshly about Nietzsche's claims?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >BTFO by leftists
      ? the nazis lost to racist fascist brits and americans, and to nazbol stalin who threw your lot in gulags. A triumph of nietzscheanism if anything
      Cope harder peasant

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      He is literally antibiotic resistant bacteria you stupid frick. Attempts to weed him out of philosophy have been numerous and he keeps coming back stronger.

  7. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The only one to refute Nietzsche is himself. Every man’s philosophy is born from his physiology, says Nietzsche. So Nietzsche’s philosophy itself is just a reflection of Nietzsche’s character, and you are free to agree or disagree with it. Only time will tell if his philosophy will resonate with the truly strong.

    From a more specific angle, open individualism weakens a lot of his egoist anti-compassion sentiment. If we all share the same fundamental consciousness, then his cold indifference towards suffering seems a bit inapt.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      That depends on the extent at which his various philosophical concepts were theoretical and not scientific. Darwin didn't project his psychology in his theories (let alone observarions), for example.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sure, but now that you mention evolution, some argue that Nietzsche misunderstood evolution. He seemed to think that the theory suggests that life will naturally become more and more perfect and strong, whereas life simply adapts well enough to survive and reproduce, no more no less. His overarching “will to power” theory isn’t very convincing, especially in comparison to the theory of evolution (when properly understood). The WtP theory is only coincidentally useful as organisms naturally evolve to seek power in trying to attain their desires. But the WtP isn’t fundamental, the desires are. The desires that lead to survival and reproduction will be passed on, simple.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >He seemed to think that the theory suggests that life will naturally become more and more perfect and strong
          wrong
          >whereas life simply adapts well enough to survive and reproduce, no more no less
          that is the last man
          you clearly either haven't read Nietzsche well enough or didn't understand him

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            > wrong
            No. He noted that many men are average and weak, as if this refuted evolution.
            > that is the last man
            So? The last man exists because he can exist.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            you literally have no idea what you are talking about, read Nietzsche or stop posting your wrong takes

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >He seemed to think that the theory suggests that life will naturally become more and more perfect and strong
          Does he? I reckon he wrote a whole book on Last Men failing to do that
          >the desires are
          Motivated by a will to live. Nietzsche later distinguishes between to wills and this one matches the Darwinian one
          By the way evolution is the survival of the fittest. It's a competition and we have evolved various competitive strategies, often intrasexual ones. So it's not the truth (it's pseud shit after all like all philosophy) but it's not far off the mark

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            between two wills*

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            There is no need for a will to live or will to power. We’re just a set of desires which converge to an approximation of willing to survive, or seek more power. You can be Freudian and just generalize everything as will to sex. The desires are circumstantial and not easily categorized under one umbrella will. If everything were “will to power,” then we would expect humans to actually seek power more consistently, which they do not. Nietzsche did not have the insight that when we “discharge our strength,” we are actually just signaling status, which is a behavior we evolved to do to show our fitness and impress others and attract mates. It’s all explained by evolution. So his philosophy is unfortunately not scientific enough. But I actually like his description of the universe as a finite arrangement of a certain amount of energy with no borders, eternally repeating. That could be wrong, I’m no expert, but I don’t believe in heat death, so that’s my personal bias, too.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            Nietzsche's will to power is a step deeper than that. Nietzsche acknowledges the "will to live" explanation, but ultimately finds it unsatisfactory - 'one should try to avoid such tautologies'. He's also well aware that individuals are a set of desires/drives, it's one of his central ideas. Will to power is part of the vital argument against nihilism. It's more a hope, an attempt, at a moral idea, that the purpose of life is a drive towards self-expression, which may over time in an emergent manner itself create the justification for life. A hope for a miracle, really, but perhaps not so foolish when the emergent nature of life itself is considered. Talking about will to power as if it it's Nietzsche's explanation for reality, like "this is how humans really work", is in my opinion a misreading.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche's dad died and he was raised by his grandma and aunts or something. I'm not sure what this says about his philosophy but it might explain his seething about women and feminized values or morals.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >Nietzsche's seething about women
        "All the things on which Christianity vents its fathomless vulgarity—for example, procreation, women and marriage—are here handled earnestly, with reverence and with love and confidence. How can any one really put into the hands of children and ladies a book which contains such vile things as this: “to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband; ... it is better to marry than to burn”? And is it possible to be a Christian so long as the origin of man is Christianized, which is to say, befouled, by the doctrine of the immaculata conceptio?... I know of no book in which so many delicate and kindly things are said of women as in the Code of Manu; these old grey-beards and saints have a way of being gallant to women that it would be impossible, perhaps, to surpass."

  8. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
  9. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Read William James' Variety of Religious Experiences
    He has a part where he btfo Nietzsche

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      he doesn't tho

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      William James couldn't btfo anybody, his thought was no more inspired than a high school teacher.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Wow you got filtered hard

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          Nah I just actually read him and understand him. James is someone people praise but never read, despite his writing being simple.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            So what's your disagreement with his critique of Nietzsche?

  10. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Spengler pretty much refutes him entirely at various points in Decline of the West and dismisses him as deluded and idealistic. It’s not vitriolic though.

  11. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    cioran dismisses him swiftly

  12. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    He’s the Kanye West of philosophy.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      lol, this is suprisingly apt. A real demonstration that, so long as your famous, it doesn't really matter what you say.

  13. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >God is alive in me

  14. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche led to more individualism and moral relativism which led to the western transsexual. The chances of clever prostitutes and transsexuals enjoying Nietzsche is pretty high.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Nietzsche was in favor of master morality.
      Slave morality has won though as he stated and trannies, feminism, stephen crowder and Ben Shapiro are the consequence of that.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Transsexualism is born through delusion, negation of life i.e slave morality.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nothing more life-affirming than whining about your favorite composer being a heckin' antisemite and then dying of siphillis!

        NEETchee was the first Redditor.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          He didn't even die of siphillis lol

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Transgenderism's core premise is that the body you were born into is not the real "you", implying that the real "you" is something outside your body. Nietzsche was against that idea.

      It was mind/body dualism that led to transsexuals, not Nietzsche.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It was mind/body dualism that led to transsexuals, not Nietzsche.
        Finally, a take that isn't moronic!

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >It was mind/body dualism that led to transsexuals, not Nietzsche.
        Scholar-Black folk should had never done Aquinas dirty. This whole mess with trannies is because those modernist-Black folk thought Aristotle and Aquinas were "oppressive" or whatever. Fricking scum. Wish I could bring them to this day and have them raped by a 6'4" troony for them to see the consequence of their arrogance. I'll spit on Discartes' grave - fricking French-Black person.

  15. 5 months ago
    Anonymouṡ

    Try Robert Graves' essay ‘Nietzsche’ in his book ‘The Crowning Privilege’ (a collection of lectures he gave as Professor of Poetry at Oxford). It's just hilarious. He starts out laying into N. and then gets into his stride and starts laying into the Germans in general. Even the most ardent hater of F.N. & Germany will be like "steady on there Robert".

    A few representative extracts:

    — Germans have a way of protecting themselves from an awareness of their own incoherence by telling themselves lies. Nietzsche piled lie on lie, but in the writing of *Ecce Homo* he must have come to understand himself, for the sequel was the madness which he had so long deferred . . .

    — This bathing and swimming metaphor for spirituality is common to all Nietzsche's writings; as all Germans give a spiritual significance to bathing and swimming. (Tacitus remarked on how much bathing the Germans did.) The Germans are also mountain-mad. By climbing they metaphorically express hatred of themselves for living in what Nietzsche, speaking in spiritual terms, calls the Flatland of Europe.

    — Nietzsche felt strongly in himself the German dietetic dilemma: the choice between the two extremes of 'bestial' meat-gorging and drink-guzzling and the 'nonsense' of vegetarianism, to which he lent himself for a time. The guzzling and sousing is the natural German habit — Tacitus commented on it — and Nietzsche rightly linked it with German intellectual barbarity.

    — Nietzsche, in his attitude to women, is divided between a desperate need for their society and a fanatic desire to stand alone. One of the strongest German traits is the recourse to women in time of anxiety . . .

    Not all the book is as bad as this but it's often absurdly biased. Graves wrote some good poems but when he talks about other writers he's as catty as a teenage girl.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymouṡ

      OK, Graves is pretty harsh. But of course the most devastating take-down comes from . . . Herr N. himself.

      Check out <pic attached> for example. Poor Friedrich. Lying awake for hour after hour as his sister's FAT LITTLE FINGERS go to work.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Please, tell me he is not implying incest.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymouṡ

          Well hard to know how seriously to take it since he wrote it after his breakdown. Might all just be feverish delusions. But it's not impossible it happened. He's pretty clear about it.

          In another passage he talks about when some aunt or something is on her deathbed. She asks to see him in private and says, Friedrich, I'm leaving you some money, and I want to give you this bit of advice: you really should stop what you're doing with Elizabeth. Doesn't mean they actually banged, but I think it's quite possible they were a bit too close.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Nietzsche piled lie on lie
      citation needed

  16. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Losurdo

  17. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Kek. The best criticism isn't at all 'vitriolic'. In fact, it's more than a little appreciative.

  18. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Those that really think about and get influenced by his points go back to religion. The most fundamental form of your own will is creation itself.
    The victories of Islam during their expansion was the will of God. Same goes for the Christian victories over the decaying Islamic world.
    Simple minds are more attracted to Islam while real nobles see the complex and sustainable power Christianity can provide.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Christian victories
      ?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Beyond braindead.
        >vatican rules

  19. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    >neesha didn't live up his ideas, he was weak and died sickly and insane!!!!
    you mean the guy whose ideas you're discussing right now didn't live up to his ideas? the guy who still to this day makes christBlack folk seethe to their very core didn't succeed at life? that guy? the guy who set out to obliterate moralgays had no success in his project? really? that guy didn't succeed?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      I don't know who you homosexuals are talking about but it's not Nietzsche. It's some character you useless plebs made up.

  20. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    he was only listened because he was genuinely crazy while being somewhat erudite so his ramblings sound convincing to people already living in the crumbling world of cardboard grandiosity, that of the late industrial revolution, and didn't buy into the brain dead optimism so they were open to pessimistic views that also hinted a revolutionary way to a new human dawn.
    He is still used to effectively patch up sketchy ideologies, and there is quite a demand for that.

  21. 5 months ago
    Anonymous
    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I wish I had lived in x
      Russell and Pinker can't help but frame everything within their conditioning where the utopia must exist. They don't engage with the presented challenge at all, they don't know how to think.
      >If I could go back in time I might confront him as follows
      But you can't and you wouldn't. The only point made is that this moron can make up pathetic fantasy scenarios made to confuse what's being talked about and reinforce his own ego.
      In the end he reveals he's enraged by the idea that the worldview he's conditioned in himself isn't holy divine dogma handed down from God, it's an interpretation of the world.

  22. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    I just read a most gentle and loving Christian redemption narrative of Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals before seeing this thread

  23. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    This book reveals Nietzsche to be a reactionary eugenicist chud:

    >Perhaps no philosopher is more of a conundrum than Nietzsche, the solitary rebel, poet, wayfarer, anti-revolutionary Aufklärer and theorist of aristocratic radicalism. His accusers identify in his 'superman' the origins of Nazism, and thus issue an irrevocable condemnation; his defenders pursue a hermeneutics of innocence founded ultimately in allegory.

    >In a work widely regarded as the most important contribution to Nietzschean studies in recent decades, Domenico Losurdo instead pursues a less reductive strategy. Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking―his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics―he nevertheless refuses to treat these from the perspective of the mid-twentieth century. In doing so, he restores Nietzsche's works to their complex nineteenth-century context, and presents a more compelling account of the importance of Nietzsche as philosopher than can be expected from his many contemporary apologists.

    https://merionwest.com/2022/05/26/review-nietzsche-the-aristocratic-rebel-by-domenico-losurdo/

  24. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The Germans could avoided both wars by reading the Quixote instead of Nietzsche and Herder

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yeah, they would had followed the Spanish path of civil war instead of international war.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        I agree, that would mean less inconveniences to the rest of world, tho

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      hitler loved don quixote though

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        He also loved "Uncle Tom's Cabin". Hitler's taste in literature was all over the place.

  25. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Reading Oyish threads feels more and more like seeing dozens of people guarantee you that their way is the right way and the questions have been answered already if you spend a few years reading the authors they like, and yet the more you read the more they all seem wrong, and the search, pointless.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      If you don't read and aren't here to talk about books and authors and don't like what you see feel free to frick off.

  26. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy has been both praised and criticized. One notable non-Christian criticism comes from philosopher Martin Heidegger. Heidegger, while acknowledging Nietzsche's brilliance, criticized him for embracing nihilism and believed Nietzsche's philosophy didn't offer a proper solution to the problem of nihilism, ultimately leading to a dead-end. Heidegger thought that Nietzsche's ideas didn't adequately address the deeper questions of being and existence.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Heidegger thought that Nietzsche's ideas didn't adequately address the deeper questions of being and existence.
      True. Nietszche's books are more self-help than philosophy.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        They're all secret messages to me that only I can decode due to my inherent noble nature caused by millennia of hardship. He explains this over and over.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          The schizo shit didn't come naturally to him. Is obvious that not even him buys it.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            You simply don't understand because it's not for you.
            >schizo
            Mind controlled angloid moron.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >You simply don't understand because it's not for you.
            You're right! I'm not a teenager anymore.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            This implies you understood at some point but you clearly never did. Every post reveals more of you and the stale memes that shape your mind.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >criticized him for embracing nihilism and believed Nietzsche's philosophy didn't offer a proper solution to the problem of nihilism
      I guess Oyish and Heidegger have one thing in common, they never read Nietzsche

  27. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If you read this, you'll see that the claim that "all the guys before me were life denying dogmatists!" is just unsupported dogma itself.

    Hegel was a beer hall guy with close friends who drew big crowds, had a happy marriage with a younger woman, and had four sons. He had an active social and church life. He comes off a lot less "life denying" than Schopenhauer and Nietzsche, both of whom had misanthropic tendencies in different ways and both of whom seem to have their view of women colored by varrying degrees of inceldom.

    I think the other big contrast would be Saint Augustine and "the good life." He's a very life affirming guy and his biography shows you a worldly guy who always had close friendships and lived to the fullest. He had a brilliant career started in the imperial capital and gave it all up to start his own monestary after giving up his family's wealth. He isn't plagued by the resentment you see in some thinkers. Bad stuff happened to him. His son died, he had to break up with he defacto wife. But the Confessions is not the biography of a "life denying" man.

    Nietzsche's critique of Christianity gets some things right, but he makes it a universal critique despite it being based on a knowledge of the 19th century Protestant pietism of an an increasingly irreligious laity. In the object being critiques, you don't see the apophatic infinity of Saint Dennis' "darkness above the light," or Saint Bonneventure's overflowing love. Nietzsche would have found many kindred voices preaching the "love of fate" he proclaims if he had dug deeper. It's impossible to have actually read Saint Bonaventure, the philosopher of love par excellence, and come away with the idea that he is "life denying." The same is true for Rumi or the bombastic aesthetics or Hildegard. Even Eckhart and Boehme, who might superficially fit Nietzsche's critique in some ways, don't fit on closer example much at all.

    He does a bit better throwing rocks at the over intellectualization of the Origens and Erasmuses of the tradition, but even there he is missing.

    But where his critiques do land on target they are great. I tend to agree with Kaufman, Nietzsche is a great diagnostician. He errs in critiquing what he doesn't know, but when he talks about what he does know he is solid. But he's also not a great system builder. It's easier to attack arguments than build up, and that's why I think his reputation is a bit over blown. What he assets positivity is muddy.

    Now, given his vision of the ideal human life, of the ideal philosopher, of a overcoming resentment, I think this is a problem. What he wants to be, what he elevates, and what he ends up being (largely a critic chopping things down) end up at odds with one another. You can forgive poor readers in thinking the point was to simply dispense with all values, because a concrete vision never emerges about "what should be." In this, I think it's fair to critique Nietzsche got who his followers have been, BAP, etc.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >is just unsupported dogma itself.
      >Nietzsche literally quotes christcucks on their antilife stance
      lmao, read the Antichrist

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        You can selectively quote people and still misunderstand them. This happens with Nietzsche all the time. He was against antisemitism, to the extent that this partly motivated his break with Wagner and his sister, and yet antisemites has no problem quoting Nietzsche for their cause.

        You can especially misunderstand people while quoting them when you poorly translate them.

        But sure, I can already see where this is headed. Anyone who disagrees with your idol has a "diseased mind," or whatever.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          you literally have no idea what you are talking about, lmao

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Great post, anon. Genuinely very insightful.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Great post, anon. Genuinely very insightful.

      Excellent high-effort poast. Thank you.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Who Plato or Christ really were is not relevant in the context of criticizing the form their ghosts take in your mind.
      >he makes it a universal critique
      You're the one doing that, based on the assumption that a deeply Christian boy considered a historian prodigy didn't know Christian history. Even in the most anti-Christian texts he still shows appreciation for Christ himself. The target of criticism is your diseased mind, not Jesus or Plato.

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        >based on the assumption that a deeply Christian boy considered a historian prodigy didn't know Christian history.
        far more common than you could think. just take a look at most "Christian" Americans.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >far more common than you could think. just take a look at most "Christian" Americans.
          Do you really think you're presenting some kind of point? Yes, if I assume everyone is as moronic as Americans everything anyone ever said is moronic garbage.

          • 5 months ago
            Anonymous

            >Yes, if I assume everyone is as moronic as Americans everything anyone ever said is moronic garbage.
            Pretty much, yeah. Nietszche was an American at heart.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      >I think the other big contrast would be Saint Augustine and "the good life." He's a very life affirming guy and his biography shows you a worldly guy who always had close friendships and lived to the fullest.
      This the same guy who burst into tears about how evil he must have been as an infant?

      • 5 months ago
        Anonymous

        Triple replying Anon. Surely this is not overcoming resentment like an overcome, no?

        Maybe try reading Confessions. You would realize quite quickly that your characterization is a ridiculous strawman. It's towards the begining of the book.

        • 5 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Triple replying Anon
          the frick are you on?

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      Similarly, this. Not because Nietzsche is wrong about all Christians, or even the ones he knew, but because it turns out it's impossible to say simple things about 2,000 years of thought stretching from Japan to the Americas.

      You had some pretty wild heretic groups and some were a good deal more Dionysian than Nietzsche ever managed to be. Some were commies forsaking property, some were the ultimate wanderers, owning nothing and moving from place to place living for the day, some were far more life denying than the Christians Nietzsche knew and said the material world was a prison created and that Yahweh from the Old Testament was a demonic figure named Yaldaboath who gang raped Eve with his Archons, whole Christ was the snake in the Garden giving the fruit of Gnosis. Some believed in reincarnation. Others thought the last days were upon them during the Black Death. Some were fanatical warriors, others didn't need to be tied to their stakes so ready were they for martyrdom. You even have Buddah-Christ fusion statues in China for a spell in the early hundreds AD, nudists who wanted to return to the Garden as anarcho primitives, Cathars, Sethian, Bogomils, etc. Esotericists and mystics a plenty as well. People having ecstatic drunken gang bangs, polygamy, vol cels, and people cutting their dicks off to avoid sinning.

      I tend to agree with Tilich that Christianity only saw its universalism wounded later by conflict with Islam and the Reformation. Early Christians saw all truth, any apparent knowledge in Hindu thought, Persian tradition, Plato, etc. as necessarily part of the same universal Logos, the Logos that was Christ. So they weren't denying much of anything. All truth, even if corrupted, as much as it was truth had to be the eternal Logos, and so you could have Euclid read in churches. Praxis then, could be incredibly varied.

  28. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    His mature philosophy is a huge, years-long temper tantrum in reaction to his separation from Wagner.

  29. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    If NEETchy were alive today, he would be in a similar situation to Noam Chomsky - loved by Redditors, shilled by the media as a great dissident™, and a regular of Jeffrey Epstein's e-girlta Island. I bet he would be having a meltdown over people not wanting to defend Israel or getting the COVID vaxx.

    • 5 months ago
      Anonymous

      You need to work on your ragebait.

  30. 5 months ago
    Anonymous

    The most critical position you can take on Nietzsche is to simply not take him seriously, and that is a justified position.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *