What do you think of Neitzche?

>>24515756 (OP)
He was right about Christianity

>>24515756 (OP)
He was wrong about everything

>>24515756 (OP)
Interesting person, but very difficult to take seriously.

traumatized and sad man. a lot of insight but very little happiness in that life.

i really wonder who is pushing all this german crap.
is it thiel? ive noticed theres always 20-30 low quality threads in the catalog about edgy german shit

I picked up Human, all too human a couple of days ago and it's the first time I'm somewhat disappointed by big N. So far I've read Birth of tragedy, Untimely meditations and The gay science, and I've really enjoyed them to various degrees, however with HATH, it just feels.. I don't know weak and meek? I'm still only 100 pages in and may find some gems later on, but so far there's been only 2~3 good aphorisms that I found interesting. It seems like this book might be his really early attempts at overcoming Wagner/Schopenhauer but it's all over the place and generally he sounds more like a beta pseudo-historicist/darwinist shitlib than anything else.

A sort of inverted incel Dostoevsky who is led to insanity instead of the Logos. Being raised by women, and being an incel, we is in many ways a forerunner of modern man. The Overman is the fever dream of the Last Man. Unlike Dostoevsky, he couldn't bring himself to diagnose himself, and so remained ill, retreating into fantasy.

>>24515756 (OP)
>What do you think of Neitzche?
Haha, that's pretty close to what I ask ChatGPT, actually. After every philosophical, psychological, or literary discussion I'll ask her "how does this relate to Nietzsche?".

>>24515756 (OP)
Philosophically brilliant, arguably the final philosopher and everyone has to either pay homage or try to refute his works. The impact he left is immense.

>>24515756 (OP)
Brilliant, rich, deep
But I think he was wrong about some things.
If you cross reference and collate a lot of what he was saying
1. you get this sense he was a man of "Hellene vices", ie. a closet homosexual who wanted to frame himself as an aristocrat who would have more rights and protections than "lower caste men", including the right to take advantage of men of the lower castes to his own satisfaction, while treating them as lesser/caring less for their well being, or even having the right to harm them with impunity.
If he was a homosexual I can empathize with his desire for protections and rights against his 18th century christian culture. He's in his right, or would be in the right to want to be protected from harassment and hate from his community if he even was gay, or if that's what he was arguing for, he'd be in the right to argue for that.
However his idea that there should be a caste system seems extremely distasteful to me. He argues that this sort of structure, a pyramid built on slaves and warriors who serve aristocrats, creates "great" civilizations, but I see no greatness in the civilizations structured this way: I see unnecessary suffering, disharmony, decadence, and, worst of all, the destruction of nature itself in the face of "great empires". Chandala castes create more destruction and trouble than they're worth.
/lit/ is not ready for this conversation, but there are clear and historical examples of better structured societies: in terms of their treatment of the participants, including of homosexuals like Nietzsche might have been, and more importantly their Environmental effect (which is to say minimal harms against nature).
2. Carrying from this point, he obviously wants a chandala caste (and, of course conveniently he wanted to frame himself as an aristocrat, when he was really more chandala material himself, and he knew it). He also writes about how he admires the jews, refers to them as chandala, and writes about "the law of the knife - circumcision" which was practiced on chandala.
This comes across to me like the fetishistic interests of an uncircumcised man, who had unsatisfied curiosity about circumcised penises.
Circumcision is an evil, fetishistic cruelty, which creates evil men.
3. Nietzsche was naive about the jews and the force of destruction they represent.
You don't get to complain about the masses crushing the will of the aristocrats with their slavishness and mediocrity while arguing that chandala should exist.
If the revolt of the chandala succeeds this world will become a hell.

He has some great ideas and inspired a lot of my favorite artists.
Yoshiyuki Tomino, creator of Gundam and other classic shows, is very much inspired by Nietzsche and is perhaps my favorite living artist. A living legend. Tomino has perhaps stumbled on the best critique of Nietzsche, through his Japanese Shinto/Buddhist perspective.
Most of his more Nietzschean characters exhibit motherless behavior.

I loved him when I was younger but now his style is too “camp” for me, even though he is conscious of it and doesn’t take himself too seriously. Everyone should read his major works though to be exposed to his ideas

>>24519318
>/lit/ is not ready for this conversation, but there are clear and historical examples of better structured societies: in terms of their treatment of the participants, including of homosexuals like Nietzsche might have been, and more importantly their Environmental effect (which is to say minimal harms against nature).
I will add to this that the only disadvantage of these societies I allude to is that, although they are morally, socially, and aesthetically superior, they are powerless in the face of something with industrial or imperial ambitions.
I have been developing an idea I will call "Radical Industrial Paganism" which is the natural response.
The United States' founding position, which was that the government should be as small and unobtrusive as possible, should protect man's rights, should be by and for the people, and should be beholden to the people, who are free to arm themselves against oppression, is the right idea.
Buy guns.
Hell, buy nukes.

>>24515877
>*wooshing sound going over your (empty) head*

>>24519553
it's not their german quality i'm necessarily referring to, just what they have in common

>>24517093
He only really gets great by The Gay Science imo. HatH and Daybreak have some interesting stuff going on sure but they're some of his longer books and still kinda scattershot and underdeveloped. They're mostly interesting if you're trying to trace the development of his thought to be honest

>>24520460
>They're mostly interesting if you're trying to trace the development of his thought to be honest
That's what I'm doing now. I started with The gay science and really liked it but I realized that a lot of stuff goes over my head and that N is a tad bit more complex than the internet has memed him to be; So now I've started reading his works in chronological order.
I absolutely loved The birth of tragedy and found it especially funny and interesting how in his later preface to it, he calls his very first work juvenile, confused and naive. I also liked Untimely meditations and specifically the essay on the abuse of historicism, which is why I'm finding the stuff I've read in HATH so far a bit head-scratching; I understand that he's essentially trying to overcome Schopenhauer's metaphysics (or metaphysics in general) but he's been doing so in a very 'historicist' manner, almost sounding like a boring Whig. At any rate, I still love his style and will keep going at it as there's a lot more reading to do.

>>24519318
Id say its really modern technology that enabled jews to take over the world. Sure they could take over printing presses and media but thats rather limited. Once they got radio and tv and everything else the modern world had to offer there was no limit on their ability to control the masses.

However i think the real problem presented is the idea of people in leadership positions thinking they could make a deal with devils and get away with it, like Say Winston Churchill.

>>24515877
Thiel is Christian.

>>24515756 (OP)
His tolerance of Hegel tells me all I need to know about his "philosophy".

>>24515756 (OP)
He was right about all of philosophy and Christianity
>>24515867
You could say that for every German at that time

>>24523083
>Nietzsche's relationship with Hegel was complex, marked by both critique and respect. While Nietzsche engaged with Hegel's philosophy, particularly his concept of history and dialectic, he ultimately rejected Hegel's systematic approach and notion of historical progress
What?

>>24519553
You have to keep in mind that whenever Nietzsche was saying anything that contradicted Wagner in any way he was most likely being ironic or straight up lying.

>>24523142
>"What I say... You should not take seriously.)
Keep this in mind as you're perusing these tomes.

>>24519553
>i'm not like them!
...

The quintessential, proto-incel NEET faggot.

The Spinoza-Nietzsche axis of vitalistic technique against the Leibniz-Hegel fraternity of man. Same as it ever was.