Amarna Forum

Nietzsche is renowned among all sorts of groups and subcultures, and in mainstream academia. Each group has their own favored interpretation. Such a multiplicity of interpretations is possible because his words are unclear. The definition of clarity implies only one, or few, immediately perceptible interpretations of a given statement. It should be a red flag, which none in the based-Nietzschean subculture perceive, when you adhere to the unclear statements of a man revered by the commoners.

Nietzsche, in fact, is a philosopher for unphilosophical dalits. His works are not rigorous. He spits out random opaque statements without providing any further arguments. He makes emotive gestures that are not arguments. He speaks, as in Zarathustra, utter nonsense that cannot be comprehended but by an existing bias in favor of Nietzsche, or a vague feeling of awe that grasps no actual propositions.

That is the preamble to the "Nietzsche Talk". To be more specific, it would be necessary to investigate one of his ideas in particular, and to show how that idea is poorly argued, vague, and false. I have done this in the following post, regarding "Will to Power":

https://templism.substack.com/p/kill-fri...-nietzsche

Feel free to quote it. It may be tl;dr to some, who may wish to respond with generalities to the general preamble. Philosophy, however, is a rigorous academic discipline which requires deeper analysis, as has been provided. Anyone who wants to support Nietzsche without conducting such an analysis is one of the dalits in question.

Such dalits, like Nietzsche himself, think they are worthy of something they are not. So it is that they spout philosophical inanities, and poison the minds of those who listen to them, because they are not humble enough to know that they do not understand things as a true brahmin would. In fact, this lack of humbleness and reserve is a very particular qualification needed to pretend that you "understand" Nietzsche. For, you must read a story in Zarathustra about a fat man on a tightrope, or whatever, and be incapable of admitting to yourself that you have no idea what it signifies, nor entertaining the possibility that it may signify nothing. Rather, the Nietzschean imbibes the bombastic statements of Nietzsche, poorly argued, some entirely meaningless, and lacks the reserve to do anything other than spit them back out, in a fit of excitement, at the helpless masses.

It is called testosterone ideology, it is a work of art- not reason- and it works.

(10-16-2023, 06:45 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]It is called testosterone ideology, it is a work of art- not reason- and it works.

If we are characterizing it by baseless adjectives regardless of its truth and without evidence, then it is in fact the loser small dick ideology, and it makes you a loser with a small dick.

But let me not get muddled into the utility question for now. It is enough of a hurdle to get you fools to admit its falsehood.

i haven't read nietzche but saying "will to power" made me run really fast in highschool

Quote:Nietzsche, in fact, is a philosopher for unphilosophical dalits. His works are not rigorous. He spits out random opaque statements without providing any further arguments. He makes emotive gestures that are not arguments. He speaks, as in Zarathustra, utter nonsense that cannot be comprehended but by an existing bias in favor of Nietzsche, or a vague feeling of awe that grasps no actual propositions.

The persistent action of various “dalits” to depict Thus Spoke Zarathustra as “what Nietzsche really though” has endlessly tormented me. Philosophers can have both exoteric(for the masses) and esoteric(for the learned) works, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is neither of these.

That is not to say Thus Spoke Zarathustra is “utter nonsense,” which is anything but the case. You may have heard people call Nietzsche a rhetorician, this is very much the case. But to call Thus Spoke Zarathustra a work of rhetoric would still be a gross mis-categorization, even if it’s a closer approximation than calling it a philosophical work. It’s a spiritual novel that resonated with the reader in an emotional way. It was meant to instruct by spirit. Think of the book as Zarathustra himself and you as his follower.

Still, I am limited in my explanation because this is a difficult thing to explain. You are either familiar with other novels like this or you are not and thus it is an inexplicable mess. Off the top of my head I could bring up Journey to the West as an example of a similar kind of work. Journey to the West is an edifying work that instructs its reader morally. The actual plot and story are just the tools for achievement.

Now, I know I leave you with not much of an explanation due to my own intellectual limitedness, but to try and clarify, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a novel.

(10-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]

Quote:[…]

The persistent action of various “dalits” to depict Thus Spoke Zarathustra as “what Nietzsche really though” has endlessly tormented me. Philosophers can have both exoteric(for the masses) and esoteric(for the learned) works, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is neither of these.

That is not to say Thus Spoke Zarathustra is “utter nonsense,” which is anything but the case. You may have heard people call Nietzsche a rhetorician, this is very much the case. But to call Thus Spoke Zarathustra a work of rhetoric would still be a gross mis-categorization, even if it’s a closer approximation than calling it a philosophical work. It’s a spiritual novel that resonated with the reader in an emotional way. It was meant to instruct by spirit. Think of the book as Zarathustra himself and you as his follower.

Still, I am limited in my explanation because this is a difficult thing to explain. You are either familiar with other novels like this or you are not and thus it is an inexplicable mess. Off the top of my head I could bring up Journey to the West as an example of a similar kind of work. Journey to the West is an edifying work that instructs its reader morally. The actual plot and story are just the tools for achievement.

Now, I know I leave you with not much of an explanation due to my own intellectual limitedness, but to try and clarify, Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a novel.

Btw, I felt I was unclear on a crucial point. Nietzsche is still a philosopher even if I called him a rhetorician as well. He is both of these things in the same way many people might have two occupations. You mistaking his non-philosophical work for a philosophical one I think discredits you from any critiques you’ve made on his philosophical qualifications. You’ve created a fatuous farce, so feel not the need to defend that specific critique of yours.

(10-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]The persistent action of various “dalits” to depict Thus Spoke Zarathustra as “what Nietzsche really though” has endlessly tormented me.

To Nietzsche it was his most important work, and full of truth. There is no evidence that he ever contradicted this, or characterized it as something lesser, or a mere novel. 

(10-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]It’s a spiritual novel that resonated with the reader in an emotional way.

This is a way of reiterating the problem, but you're doing it with a positive intonation. Intonations aside, Zarathustra is meaningless and designed to evoke emotive responses. If you want to read that kind of material, fine, but Nietzsche characterizes it as a work of unparalleled truth and complexity. His followers believe it, and so they consider it to be emblematic of the rest of his philosophy, and to them vague parables about "going down" or whatever stupid mouth-froth become philosophical justifications for follow-on stupidity.

Humans will rationalize the statements of their leaders ad absurdum. So to write a novel and to characterize that novel as philosophically important is irresponsible. Nietzsche clearly considered Zarathustra to be a part of his larger "work", not a literary side project.

(10-16-2023, 07:03 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]It was meant to instruct by spirit.

The proper way to do this, if it must be done, is to use pathos-rhetoric to prove a claim. This is not what Zarathustra is. It doesn't contain any particular claims. It is full of meaningless parable-seeming sections that lack the meaning that would normally be underneath a parable. The reader can make his own meaning of any of it. Hence it can be and is used to justify anything. So it isn't "instructive" of anything, because it imparts no meaning on its own.

Quote:To Nietzsche it was his most important work, and full of truth. There is no evidence that he ever contradicted this, or characterized it as something lesser, or a mere novel.

It may have been Nietzsche’s most important work, in his view, but I don’t think this means it can necessarily be categorized with his actual philosophical works. It was a work contrived by him, but it was not to be received in the same way as his other philosophical works(need I any more proof then the format) thus a critique on its “philosophical rigor” is misplaced.

Truth, is the Bible a philosophical work? Yet it is proclaimed by all its adheres as the truth(word of god). I am not trying to say that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is exactly the same as the Bible, but I think I have proven that a work that is not a academic philosophical work can be attributed with having truth. Again, this attribute can be interpreted broadly.

As for your term “mere novel,” I know I used the world novel, but I also specific it as a spiritual novel. I personally don’t think such a think like a novel is “something lesser.” Or do you perceive all tale and stories as something lesser? If Nietzsche saw the Bible, the Iliad, and other peoples forming stories as tales, would this mean he looked down on them? Or would he have seen their effect and sought to emulate their influence through his own skill?

Quote:Intonations aside, Zarathustra is meaningless and designed to evoke emotive responses. If you want to read that kind of material, fine, but Nietzsche characterizes it as a work of unparalleled truth and complexity. His followers believe it, and so they consider it to be emblematic of the rest of his philosophy, and to them vague parables about "going down" or whatever stupid mouth-froth become philosophical justifications for follow-on stupidity.

It’s not meaningless. It’s a collection of lessons spoke by Zarathustra. I think my favorite one is “Zarathustra’s ape” which tells of a Zarathustra imitator who intentionally goes to cities to critique them in a Zarathustrian fashion. Zarathustra then explains to him why his actions are foolish and reveals a deep truth about human nature and action. This lesson would be good for all those who seek what offends them and then proceed to mindlessly critique and attack it. An example to this character being “knights”(PIGWAS term). But, the actual lesson is a bit deeper than I’m letting on right now(because it’s been forever since I’ve read it). So yes, it is full of truth and very complex. His speeches are not just a random assortment of pretty words.

As for his followers, I don’t care about them. Most of them read it for the meme. Just because stupid people read a work of genius doesn’t mean that the work is stupid. It was not made for retards.

Quote:Humans will rationalize the statements of their leaders ad absurdum. So to write a novel and to characterize that novel as philosophically important is irresponsible. Nietzsche clearly considered Zarathustra to be a part of his larger "work", not a literary side project.

Well, I never said it was a “side project,” I just never agreed that it was meant to be read in the same way as other philosophical works(the format clearly shows this). I think I should explain that the format of a philosophical work would have only hindered the intended goal of Thus Spoke Zarathustra. It’s like you said, it’s not supposed to explain, it’s supposed to command. Its a work of will for a special few who would resonate with it and be influenced by it. It’s supposed to be a people forming work.

Quote:The proper way to do this, if it must be done, is to use pathos-rhetoric to prove a claim. This is not what Zarathustra is. It doesn't contain any particular claims. It is full of meaningless parable-seeming sections that lack the meaning that would normally be underneath a parable. The reader can make his own meaning of any of it. Hence it can be and is used to justify anything. So it isn't "instructive" of anything, because it imparts no meaning on its own.

It has a sub-rational appeal. Would you critique the Bible for its overt use of God as the reason for things? (Actually now that I reread this, I’m not sure what “pathos-rhetoric” is. Could you explain.)

As for its many interpretations, so what. Many people interpret the Bible differently. It’s true that there are more correct interpretations, but this doesn’t stop it from being misinterpreted. But I will concede that Zarathustra could have been clearer. What I will not concede is the meaning in it. It has a definite meaning. Maybe I will do a reading and then post my lessons in this thread as further proof.

Anyway, the whole argument that something is too complex to understand(so it must be meaningless) and is interpreted by many people differently is an easy and frequent accusation used against great works. If I were to word by word explained it perfectly would you believe me that it has meaning, or would you just say “that’s all just subjective clobber hobber.”? I mean, how do I prove it has definite meaning(objective) when you could endlessly deny all I have to say as something subjective?

(10-16-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]It was a work contrived by him, but it was not to be received in the same way as his other philosophical works(need I any more proof then the format) thus a critique on its “philosophical rigor” is misplaced.

It was to be received the same way. He never said otherwise. The only way he said that it should be received differently, was that it should be taken more seriously, and be regarded as more important.

It is received the same way. But even if it were not, even if it were received as something allegorical, or possessing any truth whatsoever, it would be shit.

(10-16-2023, 09:41 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]I think my favorite one is “Zarathustra’s ape” which tells of a Zarathustra imitator who intentionally goes to cities to critique them in a Zarathustrian fashion. Zarathustra then explains to him why his actions are foolish and reveals a deep truth about human nature and action. This lesson would be good...

Here is a good example. For the reader, this is in the chapter On Passing By. Zarathustra does not "explain" anything to him. The ape says some random shit then Zarathustra says some random shit in retort. And you call this a "lesson" on the basis of nothing. It made you feew a certain way devoid of any idea whatsoever, and there is your "lesson", and you can apply that feewing to any vague case of "all those who seek what offends them and then proceed to mindlessly critique and attack it". But you did not actually learn anything about "all those who seek what offends them and then proceed to mindlessly critique and attack it". You did not even read a distinct idea concerning "all those who seek what offends them and then proceed to mindlessly critique and attack it", you just read something that evoked your feewings in response to that general scenario.

And I don't need to say anything more about it because that example is sufficiently clear. Readers can just read that passage, that is all they have to do.

Nietzche's arguments rest on certain presuppositions that he never bothers defending. Many of his criticisms of things he dislikes boils down to some sort of Bulverism. Rather than addressing them on their own terms.

His epistemology is quite frankly...bad. His view of truth is nonsensical.

The concept of the eternal return works only if you accept either outright discredited or entirely speculative cosmological models-and is best seen as just an attitude towards life.

Take for example the entire concept of world affirming versus world denying.

Why is "affirming" the world good? Because that's what Homeric greeks did? Why are they special? Why is denying or rejecting the world bad? Why should a slave or really anyone borne into miserable and undesirable circumstances embrace the world? Nietzche's morality(such as it is) is entirely positional and arbitrary. The one counter argument is something something beauty, or life-why do these things matter? Why should anyone prioritize these subjective idealized constructs over any other? 

Nietzche's perspectivist epistemology frankly is stupid gravity is just a perspective you see, true ubermenschen can fly if they will it hard enough. I realize that's an extrapolated strawman, but its not inconsistent with his actual claims.

Nietzche's atheism is just taken as a given, “It is our preference that decides against Christianity, not arguments”. He is one of the greatest anti Christian polemicists of the last 2,000 years without a doubt, but he's sorely unconvincing as an atheist or nontheist. If God exists-then any claim about "slave morality" is utterly worthless. Or as I said on the chat-the resurrection makes every claim about Christianity void. 

In other words-he does not reject Christianity on empirical grounds, but simply because of aesthetic distaste. Which I am keen to say, is not an argument.

He presumes various religions, political movements or attitudes are motivated by resentment or jealousy-which while true perhaps if you look for the motivations of this or that follower, is no refutation. Any more than saying a libertarian just wants to be rich, or a religious person is afraid of death. He engages in frequent invective and ad hominem. I have zero doubt there are socialists who don't in fact envy the rich. People whose liberal leanings are absolutely sincere and do not come from a place of impotent frustration or resentment. And even if they did, or do, so what? Anyone's beliefs can be psychologized so its ultimately worthless to do so.

Nietzche holds a lot of sway because unlike most supposed philosophical writers he's very forceful and uses very emotive language. His actual arguments however are not near as strong, and if subjected to thorough scrutiny look weaker and weaker.

(10-16-2023, 10:31 PM)The Green Groyper Wrote: [ -> ]Which I am keen to say, is not an argument.

I think I like this guy.

(10-16-2023, 10:31 PM)The Green Groyper Wrote: [ -> ]He is one of the greatest anti Christian polemicists of the last 2,000 years without a doubt, but he's sorely unconvincing as an atheist or nontheist.

Here we see that fools like him are evil. Ideologues produce real consequences. Nietzsche has inspired many a rebellious anti-Christian fucking retard into teenage degeneracy, "black metal", etc. He inspires adults of the likes of Arktos Journal to twist the right wing subculture into meaningless worship of the "irresponsible nigger hero archetype". He inspires countless people to be "villain idolizers", etc. When people are led by inferior philosophies their actions are inferior, simple as that. I actually like black metal btw.

Wyrdfully speaking, he did undermine Christianity and thus spawn a couple of subcultures that would influence Templism, so he served his historical purpose and I thank him, or perhaps Woden who broke his mind and body so that he could no longer serve as an actual philological academic, for doing that.

(10-16-2023, 10:31 PM)The Green Groyper Wrote: [ -> ]He's very forceful and uses very emotive language

This is his only merit. But it is not actually a merit, because his ideas a shit, so he should have accordingly been a humble philologist in UBasel. I heard he was pretty good at that.

But, this is what attracts people to him. I can almost see, were we on Twitter, someone responding to you with "true ubermenschen CAN fly if they will it hard enough!" It complements "our thing" because forcefulness is memetic. But one should rather aspire to the forcefulness of the TEMPLIST SWORD rather than the NIETZSCHEAN HAMMER, not least because that hammer is made of plastic. The TEMPLIST SWORD is a kind of forcefulness that can actually win, that can make the likes of the previously addressed "guest" actually shut the fuck up, because he referenced a passage that is obviously meaningless, and in general actual reasons, and the inability of opponents to rebut those actual reasons, makes them shut the fuck up and lose, woe.

Quote:Thus slowly wandering through many peoples and divers cities, did Zarathustra return by round-about roads to his mountains and his cave. And behold, thereby came he unawares also to the gate of the GREAT CITY. Here, however, a foaming fool, with extended hands, sprang forward to him and stood in his way. It was the same fool whom the people called “the ape of Zarathustra:” for he had learned from him something of the expression and modulation of language, and perhaps liked also to borrow from the store of his wisdom. And the fool talked thus to Zarathustra:

First the setting and circumstance are introduced.

Quote:O Zarathustra, here is the great city: here hast thou nothing to seek and everything to lose.
Why wouldst thou wade through this mire?

The city is compare to a mire(swamp). What are swamps but places of lowly filth wherein the opportunity for positive interaction exists not. Mire also brings up the idea of mud. Pigs roll in mud. It’s lowly. If you walk into a swarm you’ll be covered in mud. The symbolism is pretty apparent, but let’s see if it continues with this and explains why it’s a mire.

Quote:Have pity upon thy foot! Spit rather on the gate of the city, and—turn back!
Here is the hell for anchorites’ thoughts: here are great thoughts seethed alive and boiled small.

The ape recognized Zarathustra as a anchorite and warns him that he will be “seethed alive and boiled small.” Our course this isn’t literal but rather colorful language to describe how he will only be angered and then reduced in character.

Quote:Here do all great sentiments decay: here may only rattle-boned sensations rattle!
Smellest thou not already the shambles and cookshops of the spirit? Steameth not this city with the fumes of slaughtered spirit?

Now the ape describes how this city isn’t for the sensitive but only the insensitive and crass. The warning for anchorites now makes sense. The spirit is related to one’s sensitivity and will to go on. This city demoralizes men.

Quote:Seest thou not the souls hanging like limp dirty rags?—And they make newspapers also out of these rags!

This is supremely clever. This is a critique on normie sadism and schadenfreude. How peoples misfortune becomes vital information to others. This also gives more information on he meant by rattle-bones sentiments.

Quote:Hearest thou not how spirit hath here become a verbal game? Loathsome verbal swill doth it vomit forth!—And they make newspapers also out of this verbal swill.

This goes along with the part before this one. The verbal game describes how no one takes this information to heart with empathy and instead it becomes gossip and impersonal information.

Quote:They hound one another, and know not whither! They inflame one another, and know not why! They tinkle with their pinchbeck, they jingle with their gold.

He now describes how they have no sense of community and can only have negative effects on each other. Also their need to impress and superficial nature.

Quote:They are cold, and seek warmth from distilled waters: they are inflamed, and seek coolness from frozen spirits; they are all sick and sore through public opinion.

They seek to escape their own misery from looking at the misfortune of others. The “public opinion” goes with the verbal game and news.

Quote:All lusts and vices are here at home; but here there are also the virtuous; there is much appointable appointed virtue:—
Much appointable virtue with scribe-fingers, and hardy sitting-flesh and waiting-flesh, blessed with small breast-stars, and padded, haunchless daughters.
There is here also much piety, and much faithful spittle-licking and spittle-backing, before the God of Hosts.
“From on high,” drippeth the star, and the gracious spittle; for the high, longeth every starless bosom.
The moon hath its court, and the court hath its moon-calves: unto all, however, that cometh from the court do the mendicant people pray, and all appointable mendicant virtues.

Now the ape is no longer talking about the gossip and lack of community, but rather how there actually is some. But it’s the self serving kind of charity. Stars, what could stars symbolize? Like Hollywood stars. It’s a sign of public Recognition. Virtue signaling. 

Quote:“I serve, thou servest, we serve”—so prayeth all appointable virtue to the prince: that the merited star may at last stick on the slender breast!
But the moon still revolveth around all that is earthly: so revolveth also the prince around what is earthliest of all—that, however, is the gold of the shopman.
The God of the Hosts of war is not the God of the golden bar; the prince proposeth, but the shopman—disposeth!”

Money. First virtue(stardom, attention) is given through public recognition. 
But it’s obtained through charity and money. This part probably needs deeper analysis.

Quote:By all that is luminous and strong and good in thee, O Zarathustra! Spit on this city of shopmen and return back!
Here floweth all blood putridly and tepidly and frothily through all veins: spit on the great city, which is the great slum where all the scum frotheth together!
Spit on the city of compressed souls and slender breasts, of pointed eyes and sticky fingers—
—On the city of the obtrusive, the brazen-faced, the pen-demagogues and tongue-demagogues, the overheated ambitious:—
Where everything maimed, ill-famed, lustful, untrustful, over-mellow, sickly-yellow and seditious, festereth pernicious:—
—Spit on the great city and turn back!—

By spit he means critique. To spit one’s vitriol. I don’t think I need to explain anymore in this because it’s just referencing things already stated.

Quote:Here, however, did Zarathustra interrupt the foaming fool, and shut his mouth.—
Stop this at once! called out Zarathustra, long have thy speech and thy species disgusted me!
Why didst thou live so long by the swamp, that thou thyself hadst to become a frog and a toad?

Zarathustra questions why if the city was so bad he sought not to escape. (Because obviously he has a reason to stay, but why? Coming up) Zarathustra then calls him a frog or toad. His existence is something that revolves around the loveliness that he critiques. He is defined by it. 

Quote:Floweth there not a tainted, frothy, swamp-blood in thine own veins, when thou hast thus learned to croak and revile?
Why wentest thou not into the forest? Or why didst thou not till the ground? Is the sea not full of green islands?
I despise thy contempt; and when thou warnedst me—why didst thou not warn thyself?

Why didn’t he have the wisdom to do as Zarathustra and escape up into his mountain? Why had he stayed so close to his object of hatred when he could have been freed from it and the burden it imposed on him?

Quote:Out of love alone shall my contempt and my warning bird take wing; but not out of the swamp!—
They call thee mine ape, thou foaming fool: but I call thee my grunting-pig,—by thy grunting, thou spoilest even my praise of folly.
What was it that first made thee grunt? Because no one sufficiently FLATTERED thee:—therefore didst thou seat thyself beside this filth, that thou mightest have cause for much grunting,—
—That thou mightest have cause for much VENGEANCE! For vengeance, thou vain fool, is all thy foaming; I have divined thee well!

Zarathustra associates his actions with love. He’s not the same as the ape. He seeks higher heights. Zarathustra is no toad.

Quote:But thy fools’-word injureth ME, even when thou art right! And even if Zarathustra’s word WERE a hundred times justified, thou wouldst ever—DO wrong with my word!

Zarathustra further goes on about the right method to things. 

Quote:Thus spake Zarathustra. Then did he look on the great city and sighed, and was long silent. At last he spake thus:
I loathe also this great city, and not only this fool. Here and there— there is nothing to better, nothing to worsen.

Quote:Woe to this great city!—And I would that I already saw the pillar of fire in which it will be consumed!
For such pillars of fire must precede the great noontide. But this hath its time and its own fate.—
This precept, however, give I unto thee, in parting, thou fool: Where one can no longer love, there should one—PASS BY!—
Thus spake Zarathustra, and passed by the fool and the great city.

 
And there is the moral: “where one can no longer love, there should one—PASS BY!”

Quote:I think my favorite one is “Zarathustra’s ape” which tells of a Zarathustra imitator who intentionally goes to cities to critique them in a Zarathustrian fashion. Zarathustra then explains to him why his actions are foolish and reveals a deep truth about human nature and action. This lesson would be good for all those who seek what offends them and then proceed to mindlessly critique and attack it. An example to this character being “knights”(PIGWAS term).

Now here’s what I said. Pretty close right. This lesson has always been important to me and helped me endlessly. To be defined by the object of your hatred is a lowly dishonor to yourself. One should seek their power through love. 



If I was unclear on anything let me know.

(10-16-2023, 11:52 PM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]If I was unclear on anything let me know.

There's no lesson. The story says, if it were written by someone honest, "the man spoke ill of the city, and he said those inside fed off of each other's misfortunes, but the man did not leave the city, because he too fed off of its misfortunes". There's nothing impressive about this statement. It actually just seems like a random hypothetical. It is not certain, or proven, how often that sort of thing would occur, or if it is psychologically normal for human beings. So a dishonest writer needs to dress it up in poetry.

So what is the lesson? You learn nothing from it. The summary "moral", that "where one can no longer love, there should one—PASS BY!" is a vague generality. If I do not love, for example, a philosophy that I gain followers and merit by publicly critiquing, should I pass by it? If I do not love an enemy combatant, should I endeavor to ignore him? If I do not love an opposing general, should I sleep without preparing for his attacks? If I do not love a city that I am studying as an anthropological curiosity, must I quit? If the ape can not afford to move, if he has family in the city, should he leave? But you may say, these all imply extraneous things that one loves. How mundane does the statement then become? "You should do things that are in your interest to pursue", wow, fuck. Or should I say, dishonestly, "Thou shalt fire up the machine, the machine, of greatness, bellowing smoke as it does to the heavens of ambition, driving the wheels and gears of mechanical arms, which shalt thou endeavor to move to the expanse of love, and away from the confining pit of hate!" Shall I add the word "lo!" to that a couple of times, and maybe a sudden "HEARKEN!" Then you will feel like it is greater than it is.

If you said that to me - where one can no longer love, there should one—PASS BY! - in itself, I would say in return, "I don't care", because the advice is not meaningful or actionable. Many people would say that. But what then if it is included in a narrative that says rath-bone this and foot-pity that? Gullible fools get an emotion from it, and so now this meaningless statement is a gospel of sorts. But intellectually, it is nothing.

Real philosophers skip over all artifices and condense such simple statements, though more specific versions of them, into larger meaningful arguments. The literary genre is not to be used to illustrate such arguments, because it is for the aforementioned reason a lie, and proof of nothing, but to many people "being convinced" is the same as "being overawed with feeling". And Nietzsche did intend to use Zarathustra as a philosophical tool, as in this case he "explains" ressentiment, but really he explains nothing, but takes his simple assertion and dresses it up. He then proceeds in all other works never to provide an argument as to why ressentiment is a psychological reality or in what capacity. Now shall I read psychological literature or Nietzschean fiction to decide this matter? My emotions won't decide it, so I should choose the former.

Quote:There's no lesson. The story says, if it were written by someone honest, "the man spoke ill of the city, and he said those inside fed off of each other's misfortunes, but the man did not leave the city, because he too fed off of its misfortunes". There's nothing impressive about this statement. It actually just seems like a random hypothetical. It is not certain, or proven, how often that sort of thing would occur, or if it is psychologically normal for human beings. So a dishonest writer needs to dress it up in poetry.

What is a lesson? Is a lesson still a lesson if you don’t like it(or who wrote it)?

Anyway, I have better things to do. You said this was just a bunch of nonsense but now agree that if you took two minuets to read it you’d understand it. I’ll read any actual critiques you have against Nietzsche, but use sources(and quotes).

Btw, sorry if I came off as mean. My main point was that it had meaning, not about how profound the meaning was. I’m not trying to convert you to becoming a Nietzschean. I’m not a Nietzschean myself, I just don’t like when intelligent people are gratuitously denigrated. Critique exists for a reason. It’s not simply a tool for the masses to pillory intelligent men.

(10-17-2023, 01:31 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]Anyway, I have better things to do. I’ll read any actual critiques you have against Nietzsche, but use sources(and quotes).

lol at OP
This is one of the worst readings of Nietzsche or anyone else I have seen in a while.

(10-17-2023, 01:31 AM)Guest Wrote: [ -> ]You said this was just a bunch of nonsense but now agree that if you took two minuets to read it you’d understand it.

Yes I did neglect to interpret it, and I'll do it again. It is time wasted to sift through such artifices in order to extract the meager statement, "you should go away from shit you don't like". For the emotional person, it is also harmful, because every such moment of interpretation is a moment for a poetical liar to manipulate your emotions, when really he is saying something mundane.

The definition of nonsense, generally used, INCLUDES something which upon gratuitous levels of interpretation yields a small level of meaning. Something which is not readily interpreted. There is no value in interpretation for its own sake, and the interpretable portions of this story are so for their own sake, since the meaning is just the simple statement aforementioned, and they provide no additional meaning.

Templist Canon speaks of the rhetorical utility of parables:

(10-17-2023, 01:31 AM)Templist Canon Wrote: [ -> ]the function of parables is to convince the unintelligent; unintelligent people read parables, and figure out what they mean. They mistake this cognitive task, figuring out what the parable means, with the cognitive task of reasoning about that which it means to determine if that which it means is true or untrue. Since they are not acquainted with the latter, with reasoning, they do not know it when they see it, and can mistake it for any act of cognition at all. To speak a parable, therefore, is to cause unreasonable people to engage in that cognition of which they are capable 98 (interpretation), which is then taken by them as a sign of truth, in place of reason, of which they are incapable. .But this is not to say that reasonable people cannot also learn from parables - just that the “parable” part of the parable is irrelevant to them. They must decode the parable and obtain the meaning, and then think further about the truth or untruth of the meaning.

So such a story allows one to exclaim, "I have found it!", which is a superficially similar act to discovering truth, and this "emotion of finding" is conflated with the meager "go away if you don't like it" message, and so you feel as though you have just reasoned through a great discourse, but all you have done is view a narrative slapped on to a trivial message.

So I'm not going to interpret it.

And how many Nietzscheans would take this vague statement, "where one can no longer love, there should one—PASS BY!" and make more of it than it is? How many would use it to justify, say, not showing kindness to strangers? How many would think this to themselves about a house that they needed to buy for practical reasons, but was not up to their ideal standards?

The vaguer the idea the more arbitrary the behavior that results from it, because it can be used to justify more things, and can be interpreted in more contexts. We see Nietzscheans making these kinds of arbitrary arguments all the time. We see people on Twitter frequently glorifying nigger-warrior behavior (for white people) because it "is will to power unshackled" or "is master morality expressed".

So it isn't about "I don't like vague things" or something, it is actually detrimental. And what Nietzsche gives you is no set of arguments, but bombastic statements, and a narrative, and he says, "here, interpret this".

Huh good example but I could interpret it as "in a low consequence situation, direct your focus towards things you admire not things you hate" which seems very relevant with contemporary internet kiwifarms cringing culture and suchlike. If true, I totally agree. You shouldn't watch videos that make you cringe. It acceptable to take a marginal strategic disadvantage to protect yourself from habitual cringing. You can choose to immerse yourself in visions of beauty to fill your every idle moment.

that said yeah the parables thing makes sense and this is sort of what they do with "logical fallacies" albeit more denatured. "Oh man, I processed an argument from an infographic- now I kind of feel that argument was good, so I guess I can use it anywhere I want!"