Nietzche on Power as the demon of mankind

[Deleted member 16220]

^Martin Luther, a Christian, states that he could lose everything but still inherit Heaven and be happy. Nietzche quotes him as evidence that men could lose everything but satisfy their desire for power (Luther wants Heaven as eternal power/paradise).

 

[incel194012940]

blud thinks he's count chocula

 

[forevermirin]

why are men attracted to power? i loved reading his earlier works in college, but i can't help but notice his later works are very reliant on observation to come to conclusion as opposed to arriving at them through intuition. it's more practically helpful no. doubt, but for example here he describes power as some final boss that will come to collect when instead it's just another coping mechanism humans use to fill the void left in them by existential dread.

 

[nandor]

why are men attracted to power? i loved reading his earlier works in college, but i can't help but notice his later works are very reliant on observation to come to conclusion as opposed to arriving at them through intuition. it's more practically helpful no. doubt, but for example here he describes power as some final boss that will come to collect when instead it's just another coping mechanism humans use to fill the void left in them by existential dread.

yeah i was thinking why he wasnt adressing any reasoning on why its that way, its just like a dumb sigma alpha male kind of observation, still i dont know the context of the quote, he probably expands it more

 

[Deleted member 16220]

why are men attracted to power? i loved reading his earlier works in college, but i can't help but notice his later works are very reliant on observation to come to conclusion as opposed to arriving at them through intuition. it's more practically helpful no. doubt, but for example here he describes power as some final boss that will come to collect when instead it's just another coping mechanism humans use to fill the void left in them by existential dread.

Not sure if you understand the type of "power" nietzche talks about. It's not military power, it's just sort of fueling the ego. The constant desire to be better and in control over everyone, and everything.

Nietzche believed that EVERYTHING was just the desire to chase power. That was his main rebuttal against Christianity. He said that the weak Christians who were enslaved by the Romans only stated to "turn the other cheek" to their enemies because they couldn't fight back, they would die, so to gain a sort of mental "im more righteous than you" egoism, they invented a religion where it's moral to be weak, and ideal to allow yourself to be killed by your enemies.

Only because they didn't have a choice. They chose to be stronger by being weaker, and glorified humility instead of pride as a means to chase glory, and heaven as a means of justice and power instead of securing victory in this life by means of fire and sword, as all men have done, for all of time.

They were forced to be losers and so they made a worldview where being a loser is being a winner.

 

[gribsufer1]

Not sure if you understand the type of "power" nietzche talks about. It's not military power, it's just sort of fueling the ego. The constant desire to be better and in control over everyone, and everything.

Nietzche believed that EVERYTHING was just the desire to chase power. That was his main rebuttal against Christianity. He said that the weak Christians who were enslaved by the Romans only stated to "turn the other cheek" to their enemies because they couldn't fight back, they would die, so to gain a sort of mental "im more righteous than you" egoism, they invented a religion where it's moral to be weak, and ideal to allow yourself to be killed by your enemies.

Only because they didn't have a choice. They chose to be stronger by being weaker, and glorified humility instead of pride as a means to chase glory, and heaven as a means of justice and power instead of securing victory in this life by means of fire and sword, as all men have done, for all of time.

They were forced to be losers and so they made a worldview where being a loser is being a winner.

they won by changing what it means to win

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Nietzsche is so stupid. I've read nearly everything by him, literally just him making shit up page after page with no reasoning backing up anything. This is most likely because he had no ability to reason: he failed mathematics and only was allowed to graduate because his writing was good (AKA his prestigious family paid him through). As you understand more and more of his system, it just gets more and more schizo until you think the goal of humanity is to fight against the resentful to build god to trigger the eternal recurrence because of the amor fati of the powerful in a universe which is just the will to power, where the only moral rank is quantum of power. I get people who haven't read much taking him seriously because you don't know better at that point though.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Nietzche believed that EVERYTHING was just the desire to chase power.

Not to be reddit ACKSHUALLY guy, but Nietzsche thought everyone desired to expend their power. If everyone just desired to chase power, then people would just be collecting more and more power and holding onto it. But really, only the weak desire to chase power, since desire implies a lack. Those with overfulness of power want to expend their power more than anything. This is where his Dionysian pessimism comes in: tragedy is enjoyable because the strong imagine it as a scenario to expend their power.

 

[Deleted member 16220]

Nietzsche is so stupid. I've read nearly everything by him, literally just him making shit up page after page with no reasoning backing up anything. This is most likely because he had no ability to reason: he failed mathematics and only was allowed to graduate because his writing was good (AKA his prestigious family paid him through). As you understand more and more of his system, it just gets more and more schizo until you think the goal of humanity is to fight against the resentful to build god to trigger the eternal recurrence because of the amor fati of the powerful in a universe which is just the will to power, where the only moral rank is quantum of power. I get people who haven't read much taking him seriously because you don't know better at that point though.

If you're saying nietzche is stupid you're probably a moron.

You're saying he failed mathematics in reality he was so remarkably intelligent that he was made into a professor at age 24 without having to even write a thesis or anything for a doctorate. They just made him a professor because he was genius intellect.

He completely destroyed every philosopher before him and was studied by hundreds of famous people after him. Dr Jordan Peterson quotes him often to this day.

His quote "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" is in many songs and he quite literally invented it.

He defined the human condition and you won't find the content of his books anywhere else.

 

[subswork]

why are men attracted to power? i loved reading his earlier works in college, but i can't help but notice his later works are very reliant on observation to come to conclusion as opposed to arriving at them through intuition. it's more practically helpful no. doubt, but for example here he describes power as some final boss that will come to collect when instead it's just another coping mechanism humans use to fill the void left in them by existential dread.

Too many words dndr

 

[Deleted member 16220]

Not to be reddit ACKSHUALLY guy, but Nietzsche thought everyone desired to expend their power. If everyone just desired to chase power, then people would just be collecting more and more power and holding onto it. But really, only the weak desire to chase power, since desire implies a lack. Those with overfulness of power want to expend their power more than anything. This is where his Dionysian pessimism comes in: tragedy is enjoyable because the strong imagine it as a scenario to expend their power.

No you just don't understand it at all. You right now are trying to gain power over me in an intellectual sense to prove your ego, and i am doing the same to you. Life is will to power and every action you do is an attempt to gain control and justify you are better than me in some way, this is the basis of insults.

 

[forevermirin]

Not sure if you understand the type of "power" nietzche talks about. It's not military power, it's just sort of fueling the ego. The constant desire to be better and in control over everyone, and everything.

yes i understand, and this is exactly what im saying is further fuelled by an ultimate lack of control we feel about ourexistence - the passing of time, the inevitability of death. so we try to cope by trying to take more control of things we can. we know subcoscniously we are slaves to nature/the universe and hope to suppress this realization by exerting as much control as we can over our own subjective realities.

 

[gribsufer1]

Not sure if you understand the type of "power" nietzche talks about. It's not military power, it's just sort of fueling the ego. The constant desire to be better and in control over everyone, and everything.

Nietzche believed that EVERYTHING was just the desire to chase power. That was his main rebuttal against Christianity. He said that the weak Christians who were enslaved by the Romans only stated to "turn the other cheek" to their enemies because they couldn't fight back, they would die, so to gain a sort of mental "im more righteous than you" egoism, they invented a religion where it's moral to be weak, and ideal to allow yourself to be killed by your enemies.

Only because they didn't have a choice. They chose to be stronger by being weaker, and glorified humility instead of pride as a means to chase glory, and heaven as a means of justice and power instead of securing victory in this life by means of fire and sword, as all men have done, for all of time.

They were forced to be losers and so they made a worldview where being a loser is being a winner.

thats actually interesting its explored in Berserk, the holy iron chain knights use religion as an excuse to torture and kill people who they accussd of being heretics , and later there is a christian priest who refuses to fight for his town using religion as an excuse

 

[Deleted member 24586]

Nietzsche Is gay

 

[forevermirin]

Nietzche believed that EVERYTHING was just the desire to chase power. That was his main rebuttal against Christianity. He said that the weak Christians who were enslaved by the Romans only stated to "turn the other cheek" to their enemies because they couldn't fight back, they would die, so to gain a sort of mental "im more righteous than you" egoism, they invented a religion where it's moral to be weak, and ideal to allow yourself to be killed by your enemies.

Only because they didn't have a choice. They chose to be stronger by being weaker, and glorified humility instead of pride as a means to chase glory, and heaven as a means of justice and power instead of securing victory in this life by means of fire and sword, as all men have done, for all of time.

They were forced to be losers and so they made a worldview where being a loser is being a winner.

this actually is a great analogy for what i said - the lack of control over their military failure to the romans led to a cope that true power came from humility and subservience. so as to create a mental illusion of power despite the reality. being the exact opposite. similarly any power we seek is simply a cope for our ultimate lack of power in the way of the nature.

 

[Deleted member 16220]

yes i understand, and this is exactly what im saying is further fuelled by an ultimate lack of control we feel about ourexistence - the passing of time, the inevitability of death. so we try to cope by trying to take more control of things we can. we know subcoscniously we are slaves to nature/the universe and hope to suppress this realization by exerting as much control as we can over our own subjective realities.

Most people do not understand what nietzche means by power. You would probably understand if I gave you examples. Maslow's hierarchy of needs is probably just a description of how men chase power. First it's physical biological needs, then it's the environment around them, then it's power over the female selection market and having sexual access, then it's self actualization and the desire to be better than other men in every way.

Most men choose a religion as a means to power secretly. They want control over the world and to separate themselves from their enemies so they choose "non violence" as a means of overcoming their enemies. They believe they will go to heaven or be reincarnated in a better place by their behaviors. Non violence as a means to rising to power. Make no mistake, the christian wants to send every one of his enemies to hell.

It is everywhere. Even insults are a means of gaining mental egoism over your enemies. You just want to be better than everyone and everything. Even your friends may give you envy if they are more successful than you, and you will secretly want to get vengeance and bring them down or else, succeed just the same as them.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

If you're saying nietzche is stupid you're probably a moron.

It's alright, you probably haven't read much philosophy so I won't be that hard on you because reading Nietzsche too much can make you very arrogant and self-assured.

You're saying he failed mathematics

I'm not just saying it. it's fact. Look it up.

he was so remarkably intelligent that he was made into a professor at age 24 without having to even write a thesis or anything for a doctorate. They just made him a professor because he was genius intellect.

He had basically no students and was lambasted by other philologists after he wrote The Birth of Tragedy. Wagner liked it because it sucked him off though. I personally think his family paid him in, but it's possble he got in legit.

He completely destroyed every philosopher before him

No he didn't, and in saying this I doubt you've read those people he was supposedly destroying.

Dr Jordan Peterson quotes him often to this day.

lol

His quote "that which does not kill us makes us stronger" is in many songs and he quite literally invented it.

Having quotes in songs = true to you apparently. Guess the bible is even more true to you since it mogs in quotes in songs.

He defined the human condition

lol

you won't find the content of his books anywhere else

Wrong. See: Max Stirner, French moralists, Mainlander, Schiller, Herder.

 

[Deleted member 16220]

It's alright, you probably haven't read much philosophy so I won't be that hard on you because reading Nietzsche too much can make you very arrogant and self-assured.

I'm not just saying it. it's fact. Look it up.

He had basically no students and was lambasted by other philologists after he wrote The Birth of Tragedy. Wagner liked it because it sucked him off though. I personally think his family paid him in, but it's possble he got in legit.

No he didn't, and in saying this I doubt you've read those people he was supposedly destroying.

lol

Having quotes in songs = true to you apparently. Guess the bible is even more true to you since it mogs in quotes in songs.

lol

Wrong. See: Max Stirner, French moralists, Mainlander, Schiller, Herder.

The fact that you can't honestly see the truth in any of Nietzches claims tells me you have some strange interest in philosophy for an entirely different reasons than philosophers are drawn to it as a field. I am interested in philosophy because I find myself in an existential crisis from the mere fact of meaningless suffering. Nietzche addresses that exact issue so I love him for it.

You seem to not like nietzche probably because you don't even have these problems. Your arguments stem from entitlement instead of an actual desire to figure out what's true. You are insulting his character rather than the philosophy he stated when in reality I care very little about his character just the ideas he came up with and an admiration for his genius.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

No you just don't understand it at all. You right now are trying to gain power over me in an intellectual sense to prove your ego, and i am doing the same to you. Life is will to power and every action you do is an attempt to gain control and justify you are better than me in some way, this is the basis of insults.

"1009. The standpoint from which my values are determined: is abundance or desire active? ... Is one a mere spectator, or is one's own shoulder at the wheel—is one looking away or is one turning aside? ... Is one acting spontaneously, as the result of accumulated strength, or is one merely reacting to a goad or to a stimulus? ... Is one simply acting as the result of a paucity of elements, or of such an overwhelming dominion over a host of elements that this power enlists the latter into its service if it requires them? ... Is one a[Pg 392] problem one's self or is one a solution already? ... Is one perfect through the smallness of the task, or imperfect owing to the extraordinary character of the aim? ... Is one genuine or only an actor; is one genuine as an actor, or only the bad copy of an actor? is one a representative or the creature represented? Is one a personality or merely a rendezvous of personalities? ... Is one ill from a disease or from surplus health? Does one lead as a shepherd, or as an "exception" (third alternative: as a fugitive)? Is one in need of dignity, or can one play the clown? Is one in search of resistance, or is one evading it? Is one imperfect owing to one's precocity or to one's tardiness? Is it one's nature to say yea, or no, or is one a peacock's tail of garish parts? Is one proud enough not to feel ashamed even of one's vanity? Is one still able to feel a bite of conscience (this species is becoming rare; formerly conscience had to bite too often: it is as if it now no longer had enough teeth to do so)? Is one still capable of a "duty"? (there are some people who would lose the whole joy of their lives if they were deprived of their duty—this holds good especially of feminine creatures, who are born subjects)."

"619. The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to ****manifest**** power"

"935. Type. real goodness, nobility, greatness of soul, as the result of vital wealth: which does not give in order to receive—and which has no desire to elevate itself by being good, squandering is typical of genuine goodness, vital personal wealth is its prerequisite."

etc. etc.


You might wanna actually read the guy you worship

 

[Deleted member 6128]

Nietzsche is so stupid. I've read nearly everything by him, literally just him making shit up page after page with no reasoning backing up anything. This is most likely because he had no ability to reason: he failed mathematics and only was allowed to graduate because his writing was good (AKA his prestigious family paid him through). As you understand more and more of his system, it just gets more and more schizo until you think the goal of humanity is to fight against the resentful to build god to trigger the eternal recurrence because of the amor fati of the powerful in a universe which is just the will to power, where the only moral rank is quantum of power. I get people who haven't read much taking him seriously because you don't know better at that point though.

Every philosopher is schizo if you read up on someone and you agree with every single thing they say you're either retarded or the person you're reading about is

 

[Deleted member 16220]

"1009. The standpoint from which my values are determined: is abundance or desire active? ... Is one a mere spectator, or is one's own shoulder at the wheel—is one looking away or is one turning aside? ... Is one acting spontaneously, as the result of accumulated strength, or is one merely reacting to a goad or to a stimulus? ... Is one simply acting as the result of a paucity of elements, or of such an overwhelming dominion over a host of elements that this power enlists the latter into its service if it requires them? ... Is one a[Pg 392] problem one's self or is one a solution already? ... Is one perfect through the smallness of the task, or imperfect owing to the extraordinary character of the aim? ... Is one genuine or only an actor; is one genuine as an actor, or only the bad copy of an actor? is one a representative or the creature represented? Is one a personality or merely a rendezvous of personalities? ... Is one ill from a disease or from surplus health? Does one lead as a shepherd, or as an "exception" (third alternative: as a fugitive)? Is one in need of dignity, or can one play the clown? Is one in search of resistance, or is one evading it? Is one imperfect owing to one's precocity or to one's tardiness? Is it one's nature to say yea, or no, or is one a peacock's tail of garish parts? Is one proud enough not to feel ashamed even of one's vanity? Is one still able to feel a bite of conscience (this species is becoming rare; formerly conscience had to bite too often: it is as if it now no longer had enough teeth to do so)? Is one still capable of a "duty"? (there are some people who would lose the whole joy of their lives if they were deprived of their duty—this holds good especially of feminine creatures, who are born subjects)."

"619. The triumphant concept "energy" with which our physicists created God and the world, needs yet to be completed: it must be given an inner will which I characterise as the "Will to Power"—that is to say, as an insatiable desire to ****manifest**** power"

"935. Type. real goodness, nobility, greatness of soul, as the result of vital wealth: which does not give in order to receive—and which has no desire to elevate itself by being good, squandering is typical of genuine goodness, vital personal wealth is its prerequisite."

etc. etc.


You might wanna actually read the guy you worship

Poor quality insults from you, if anything, you are proving to me Nietzche is more right than ever, and I thank you for this.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

The fact that you can't honestly see the truth in any of Nietzches claims tells me you have some strange interest in philosophy for an entirely different reasons than philosophers are drawn to it as a field

Truth? You must not be very Nietzschean to use such a word lol. The "strange reason" I am drawn to philosphy is truth.

You are insulting his character rather than the philosophy he stated

There is nothing to insult, he barely ever makes arguments (though there are a few exceptions whenhe tries to prove the eternal recurrence near the end of Will to Power). He gets his no-argument writing style from the french moralists. He believes strong men should just state what is true without argument, he directly says this in an aphorism.
You seem like the typical retard who has read two philosophers in his life and so has no idea of standards of rigor in argument (of which Nietzsche has none) required for serious philosophy. Try opening the Critique of Pure Reason by Kant to get an idea of the rigor needed for actual philosophy.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Poor quality insults from you, if anything, you are proving to me Nietzche is more right than ever, and I thank you for this.

Insults? I directly proved you wrong with quotes from the philosphers works you worship. I clearly know much more about him than you.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Every philosopher is schizo if you read up on someone and you agree with every single thing they say you're either retarded or the person you're reading about is

Some philsophers are more schizo than others though. Nietzsche is extreme schizo. Thomas Reid's common sensism is barely schizo at all for example.

 

[Deleted member 16220]

Insults? I directly proved you wrong with quotes from the philosphers works you worship. I clearly know much more about him than you.

Seriously doubt you know more than me lol. I literally was thinking of this quote the entire time you're saying all this

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Seriously doubt you know more than me lol. I literally was thinking of this quote the entire time you're saying all this

View attachment 2217657

Nigga I destroyed your interpretation of him with direct quotes... extreme delusion. Just keep reading and you'll get out of this phase.

 

[Deleted member 16220]

this actually is a great analogy for what i said - the lack of control over their military failure to the romans led to a cope that true power came from humility and subservience. so as to create a mental illusion of power despite the reality. being the exact opposite. similarly any power we seek is simply a cope for our ultimate lack of power in the way of the nature.

Here is another example of how Nietzche explains how human nature is mostly vicious small attempts at mogging eachother.

He basically states that you are only kind to random strangers with the assumption that they are your enemies with evil intentions towards you. If you actually viewed them as non-enemies you wouldn't actually have a reason to be fake kind to them. You're kind to them as a sort of strategy to gain control over them. It's a form of manipulation, and a sly one.

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Here is another example of how Nietzche explains how human nature is mostly vicious small attempts at mogging eachother

Yeah, this part of Nietzsche is taken from the French moralists. They reduced everything to self-love. Nietzsche became obsessed with the french moralists after his break from Wagner, that's why this sort of writing is most common in his early aphoristic works (French moralist reduction to self-love is different from his will to power though, see the aphorisms I posted above). Check this out, it's by La Rochefoucauld:

Reflections; or Sentences and Moral Maxims by Francois Duc De La Rochefoucauld

www.gutenberg.org

In fact, you could probably find an analogue of that exact quote in the maxims of La Rochefoucauld.
The french moralists are a lot more enjoyable because it's just psychology, you aren't taking in a bunch of nonsense metaphysics, ethics, and epistemology in with it.

 

[nandor]

Seriously doubt you know more than me lol. I literally was thinking of this quote the entire time you're saying all this

View attachment 2217657

jacob you need to listen a bit to the arguments of other people and criticize them in a decent way, this quote was your final answer to the guy who has spent like 1 hour citing plenty of authors and supporting his main idea and you just grabbed a shitty phrase to answer, felt superior and call it a day jfl honestly it was kinda embarrassing reading the whole discussion, he clearly "knowleadge mog" you
try to learn from people that know some shit, dont just attack them bc they disagree with you

 

[Deleted member 16220]

jacob you need to listen a bit to the arguments of other people and criticize them in a decent way, this quote was your final answer to the guy who has spent like 1 hour citing plenty of authors and supporting his main idea and you just grabbed a shitty phrase to answer, felt superior and call it a day jfl honestly it was kinda embarrassing reading the whole discussion, he clearly "knowleadge mog" you
try to learn from people that know some shit, dont just attack them bc they disagree with you

To be frank i don't see his argument at all, and didn't read it because it was horribly copied and pasted long quotes that I didn't see how it correlated to the argument. Still haven't read it admittedly but his arguments just aren't true. He's attacking the character of Nietzche not his actual philosophy which I can't refute against.

He's literally insulting nietzche not saying his philosophy is bad, and there's no argument against insults. In philosophy that's called an ad hominem attack which I have no issue with, I love insults, but im not here to entertain insults which are really just a sign of dismissive behavior that HE has, not me.

If i insult you it really means I don't respect you enough to even listen to what you have to say. That's what he did to nietzche and then he expects me to sit there and read an essay, which I don't really have to do with such an a poor "argument" composed of ad hominems.

 

[Deleted member 21077]

solid post man good critical thinking skills ignore the other commenters and just internalize what you wrote youll do well in life

 

[Deleted member 16357]

To be frank i don't see his argument at all, and didn't read it

 

[inceI]

brutal iq mog in this thread by @Gingerman, came prepped with fax and logic

 

[Deleted member 21077]

@Gingerman

Nietzsche was a well renowned genius and youre a rotting incel i think we can see who wins

 

[Deleted member 16275]

@BrahminBoss who you agreeing with in this thread?

 

[Deleted member 16357]

@Gingerman

Nietzsche was a well renowned genius and youre a rotting incel i think we can see who wins

The phlogiston theory of fire was also well-renowned, I guess you believe in that too?

good critical thinking skills ignore the other commenters

Because good critical thinkers ignore criticism

 

[Gonthar]

Martin Luther, a Christian, states that he could lose everything but still inherit Heaven and be happy. Nietzche quotes him as evidence that men could lose everything but satisfy their desire for power (Luther wants Heaven as eternal power/paradise).

He was a heretic, the general consensus among real Christians is that's he in hell for trying to destroy the one and only true Church.

 

[Primalsplit]

Tbh I don't see both sides making any arguments or arguing over anything tangible at this point. What makes Nietzsche wrong? What makes Nietzsche right?

 

[Deleted member 16357]

Tbh I don't see both sides making any arguments or arguing over anything tangible at this point. What makes Nietzsche wrong? What makes Nietzsche right?

I already made my arguments, they were just never addressed.

I said Nietzsche hardly ever makes arguments (providing a hint to a quote by him that he believes philosphers and strong men should just state what they think without argument) and as such his philosophy lacks the rigor of serious philosophy (see Kant's critique of pure reason for an example), so that there are very few arguments to actually respond to in his philosophy (what is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence). I also pointed out the absurd conclusions his philosophy lead to in the first post of this thread. Finally, I corrected OP's interpretation of Nietzsche's concept of the will to power with direct quotes, and pointed out where his misconception originated from (Nietzsche's aphorisms influenced by the French moralist reduction to self-love of psychological phenomena).

I didn't get much of a concrete response and he admitted he ignored my posts, so the argument finished there. That's why the thread has reduced to the point where there is nothing tangible being said.

I am bored of the whole thread at this point, since the argument ended like ten posts ago when none of the content of my posts was being addressed and I just got lazy replies.

 

[Primalsplit]

I said Nietzsche hardly ever makes arguments (providing a hint to a quote by him that he believes philosphers and strong men should just state what they think without argument) and as such his philosophy lacks the rigor of serious philosophy (see Kant's critique of pure reason for an example), so that there are very few arguments to actually respond to in his philosophy (what is asserted without evidence can be denied without evidence). I also pointed out the absurd conclusions his philosophy lead to in the first post of this thread. Finally, I corrected OP's interpretation of Nietzsche's concept of the will to power with direct quotes, and pointed out where his misconception originated from (Nietzsche's aphorisms influenced by the French moralist reduction to self-love of psychological phenomena).

I didn't get much of a concrete response and he admitted he ignored my posts, so the argument finished there. That's why the thread has reduced to the point where there is nothing tangible being said.

Well, I agree. Nietzsche is more of a poet than an analytical thinker. But I don't think him not defending his points with arguments in and of itself makes his points incorrect.

I personally extremely liked his ideas about how society, monks etc. all cope basically. Society copes with fun, partying, circuses etc. Monk type of guys, by denying everything about the world as earthly. That they hide their cowardice as virtue. And he does offer a way out (not sure if it's a correct way out, but it's a way out).

Maybe the main problem stems from how you two relate to philosophy differently. You seem like a cold logic type of guy. I don't know how this constitutes as an argument, and perhaps it is a weak argument; but my experience with life and philosophy taught me that sometimes the hands on approach works the best. What works, not on paper; but on real life itself is the correct one (theory can be wrong). And following this logic, I think Nietzsche relies far far more on listening to himself, his own mind both conscious and subconscious to reach his conclusions. He actually ENTIRELY skips the argumentation stage in my opinion and sees no reason to indulge in it. He is more of a feeler than a thinker(he literally thinks like a foid lol). That's why his writings can go into schizo ramblings. But what we can not deny here is, all those schizo ramblings, as weirdly articulated as they may be or misleading as they may be, still stem from something very much real (with thousand years of evolution no less). I think it would be foolish to dismiss him that quickly and fill whatever gaps there might be in his reasonings. His style is more appealing to the more adventerous kind tbh. He offers you his direct conclusions and you are not meant to argue or believe in him. You are supposed to test his ideas in the real world. That has been my experience at least.

An entirely different experience from Kant.
Note: You might be right about French influence. I've no knowledge of that.

 

[Deleted member 21077]

The phlogiston theory of fire was also well-renowned, I guess you believe in that too?

Because good critical thinkers ignore criticism

Phlogiston gets mogged by Pakistan

and critical thinkers are critically thinking their way through criticism never giving into it lol