The Nietzsche Talk

[The_Author]

He expresses some of his ideas more systematically in the Genealogy of Morals, a work that you have not engaged with as far as I have seen from skimming the thread.

I actually like Genealogy of Morals as compared to his other works. He is in his element there, being a philologist. Although I'm not sure if his evidence means what he really thinks it means. The evidence for a difference in the conception of morality across time periods and populations is there, but the causal mechanism he uses to describe it is spurious.

The rest of your message is junk. Yes let me rebut your point concerning the number of quotation marks I use. Clown.

[The_Author]

If you have some concrete point to make about these people and their opinions, I must have missed it.

Although I should provide a summary of the work in question.

It lays out a positive view of pure biology and physics in contrast to will to power, to explain why the behaviors of organisms can only be explained mechanically by natural selection.

Then it introduces a number of DREADED QUOTATIONS from Nietzsche to show how he writes about will to power, and to give a vague idea of what he means by it.

Then it defines "power", saying that a proper definition is probably just the intuitive one. It notes that Nietzsche makes no concise definition of "will to power", but talks about in such a multiplicity of different circumstances that he must mean it according to its general definition.

It then notes that Nietzsche does not provide any arguments for will to power. So it goes on to provide a number of possible definitions, followed by a number of possible arguments, for will to power. This is followed by a number of counterarguments against will to power. The post does Nietzsche's work for him, since he preferred to only write about will to power aphoristically without defining it or advancing it rationally.

Then it conjectures about the psychological reason for which someone might believe empty aphorisms about such an empty concept. This portion is necessary, because people who believe irrational things are not susceptible to reason, and therefore the particular causes of their unreason must be attacked or brought to light in order to further convince them. This section is mostly polemical and not that important to the debate.

So regarding "concrete points", I'm not sure why you would ask that. It seems that you are just being a weirdo and you should stop doing that.

It is obvious when someone is being evasive. A reply either concerns the subject matter or it doesn't. If it doesn't, if it says "it sounds like you just don't like the idea that Nietzsche is a man of greatness" I can clearly see what that is and why you choose to say it.

[The_Author]

With regards to Nietzsche himself, it seems like you mostly criticize his aphoristic work for consisting of aphorisms (a conscious stylistic choice on his part).

This is also important. Certain methods are appropriate to certain types of claims. For example, one would not conduct a scientific study using the method of poetry. Aphorisms are good for simplistic and self-evident claims. Maxims and Reflections by Goethe, for example, is good. It contains many simple observations about human behavior.

Will to power, however, is a grand philosophical claim about the physical and metaphysical nature of reality, which asserts the ultimate animus behind all motion to be a striving for power over other things.

It is utterly silly to suppose that can be proven via aphorisms. You and I think some others here have spoken as if one can choose whatever method they want, and have the evidentiary standard of their claim appropriated to that method. Well, let me disprove Nietzsche using the method of cringeworthy slapstick comedy: "shut the fuck up"

[Drusus]

EEven as a mechanistic explanation for how organisms evolve over time, natural selection falls flat. There are too many examples of traits that, while advantageous in the present, couldn’t plausibly have developed through gradual changes wrought by random mutation. BAP cited flying squirrels as an example of this a few months ago; mimicry also, if I remember correctly. In both cases, the supposed earlier forms of the adaptation would not have given reproductive advantage and therefore wouldn’t have been selected for. Alternatively, if a squirrel was born with a mutation that conferred the full flap from the start, why or how would it have changed its instinctive patterns of behavior in such a way that would: a.) take advantage of the new characteristic, and b.) confer reproductive advantage? Same with, eg, a lizard that, to deter predators, imitates the movements of a beetle with an acrid taste, or a moth with a pattern that makes it look like an owl. Either these developed gradually through successive mutations, in which case you run up against the problem that the intermediate stages would confer no advantage, or would even be detrimental to an organism’s survival, and therefore wouldn’t be selected for, or their unique physical characteristics were formed in one singular mutation, in which case you have to explain why an organism would also suddenly manifest patterns of behavior that take advantage of the mutation. These are not new criticisms of the theory of natural selection. It’s because of flaws like this that people like Nietzsche attempted to think through alternate theories in the first place. Nor did those attempts stop with him. People are still trying to propose new models for evolution, precisely because they recognize the need for a theory with more explanatory power.

You’re right that Will to Power is not fundamentally a psychological theory. Stated in relation to the inorganic, the basic idea is that “at every moment, every power produces all the consequences of which it is capable,” (WTP 634) with observable phenomena being the products of the interaction of different forces. It’s an attempt to revive the Heraclitean idea of flux in the context of modern scientific discoveries. Nevertheless, I think that the process of theorizing the Will to Power was probably strongly motivated by discoveries in biology and psychology. A human being is not, as was once supposed, a unified consciousness inhabiting a physical body, but a mass of conflicting drives, a highly complex system of interlocking biological processes that determine its behavior far more than its conscious intentions. Given that we have found, in one domain, that apparent unities are really complexes of forces, why not attempt to apply the same reasoning in others? Hence the thought experiment with the amoeba. (This is my attempt to guess at Nietzsche’s motivations, not something he himself said.) It’s a provisional effort at unifying knowledge from different areas. The project is analogous to something like behaviorism, which is the same movement in reverse: supposing that matter behaves in uniform ways according to the application of unchanging laws, could we apply that same pattern to human psychology? Scientific progress, to say nothing of philosophical progress, is the result of experiments like this — assays at discovering or theorizing underlying principles. Even if you think the Will to Power is a failed attempt, a discredited thought experiment, it isn’t, as you said in the OP, the unrigorous emoting of a dalit. 

Incidentally, men who make scientific advances have a higher opinion than you do of philosophical “just so stories.” Darwin was inspired by Schopenhauer, as were Oppenheimer and Einstein. Newton’s work on the laws of motion was intended to provide a picture of the world coherent with his interpretations of the Bible. The originators of such theories are motivated, not by an impartial concern for “the evidence,” but by a desire to make a bold leap of thought, or to harmonize disparate sources, or to find a more beautiful model of the world. The validity of a theory isn’t determined solely by the evidence one can use to support it, that evidence being capable of supporting, not any explanation, but many competing explanations. Do you think we couldn’t, even now, construct a Ptolemaic model of the universe to fit all the observable data? Or that that model would be “disprovable” by some critical piece of evidence that would tilt the scales against it? Even now, we cannot “prove” the existence of something so fundamental to our physics as an electron. We preferred the Copernican and then the relativistic models, or the particle theory of physics, not just because they “fit the evidence,” but because they do so simply and elegantly, and because they can be used to accomplish things in the world like predict the movement of light through space or build rockets. In other words, because they work — that is, because they allow us to more effectively manipulate the world; that is, because they further our will to power — and because it’s more aesthetically pleasing to assume a Copernican galaxy than it is to tack on another half dozen epicycles every time there’s a challenge to the geocentric model. Thomas Kuhn’s book on scientific revolutions demolished the idea that science proceeds through a progressive accumulation of facts. There may be a line between science and aesthetics, but it’s not nearly as thick as you imagine it.

You write, on the subject of amoebas, that they “do not expand indefinitely as though reaching to conquer infinite space. They expand in front and contract in back in order to move, to capture food.” Yes. These are the actions that will increase it — expand its being — make it stronger. Put another way, this is a function of the amoeba — which has a relatively small amount of force at its disposal — discharging its energy and therefore producing all the effects of which it is capable. Your observation is also part of Nietzsche’s argument for perspectivism. WTP 637: “Even in the inorganic realm, an atom of force takes into consideration only what is in its immediate vicinity: in the distance, forces offset each other. This is the essence of what seeing in perspective is, and why a living organism is ‘self-centered’ through and through.” 

I find your antipathy to metaphysics strange in someone who would supposedly like to found a religion.

[capgras]

The devil's pig was angered by his subjection to the Farmer. His sole love, slop, was dependent on another. With a desperate jealousy he foolishly declared he could make better slop himself. The Farmer gave him what he wanted: for the rest of his life he would eat only the slop he produced, the only slop a pig can.

[The Green Groyper]

I find this digression into whether life is wholly mechanical or requires some sort of animating pneuma to be less than edifying.

With regards to Nietzche and morality, any moral instinct that is situational and parochial should not be considered a “moral system”.

That was part of Kant’s project as well as Christianity that morality has universal applicability. Even Jews with their Noahide commands for gentiles implies a universal baseline to which all men must adhere, even if the expectation is different depending on race, sex and so forth.

Nietzche’s master morality boils down to “aristocrats having fun is good”, “slaves being angry about their condition is bad”. *

What value is this to anyone who is not an aristocrat or pretends to be one? It’s not even tribal morality which at least covered the entirety of the tribe under its remit, limiting anti social behaviors and punishing deviancy that might lead to its destruction.

If the aim of Nietzche’s moral transvaluation is simply to allow people to indulge their base impulses without guilt or censure, then the Trads are absolutely correct-Nietzche is part of the problem of modern degeneracy.

From what I’ve observed of online Nietzcheans, they are.

If you want to say “fuck morality, I just wanna kill niggers and rape 14 year olds”-then at least you’re honestly admitting your true goals without any babble about “transvaluation of values”.

Call me whatever you like, but morality must be more than a single person or single class’s particular interests given justification in words. Else there is no difference between man and beast.

I suspect most people who are attracted to Nietzche are for this reason, as Nietzche tells them their impulses and urges are not things to feel ashamed of or discipline but are good.

Hence the 14 year old who discovered Nietzche meme.

Any moral system must make at least some theoretical pretense at universality. Even if that universality extends only to one’s race with those outside of it being “outside the law” and thus outside the universe. 

What I find most revolting about Nietzche is his insistence on rank amoralism.

*It’s not even historically accurate by the way. Elite classes absolutely believed in the moral codes of their time. Even if they waged wars, engaged in imperial ventures or otherwise exercised “will to power”. The Romans in particular treated their religion very seriously, and the Greeks likewise. Given how serious the charge of “atheism” was even in pre Christian times. Obligations of noblesse oblige in feudal times as well as Chinese Emperor’s legitimacy entirely deriving from their ability to rule well and ensure the country was stable and prosperous. Roman emperors and Greek Tyrants had similar expectations placed on them. Bread, stability, order. Which meant they were not free to do whatever they wanted, if it ever reached a point where they lost the masses, as well as other elite’s respect and acceptance of their authority. 

Elites have never been amoral open power seekers like pop culture super villains. (And immoral behavior was punished, depending on the severity of transgressions). Even cultures Nietzche idolized like Homeric Greece had concepts of personal honor and right behavior. Why did Agamemnon go to war? Beyond the gods inciting the conflict? Because Paris ran off with his wife, an insult and humiliation that had to be rectified.

So tbh I find the notion of a “revolt of slave morality” historically dubious. A just so story that whither under fair scrutiny.

Part of that is because human behavior is conditioned by our innate biology-so things like sibling cannibalism or patricide are alien to all human cultures, regardless of era. Other behaviors such as concern for one’s children, grief at the death of kin, rejoicing after a victorious battle or good harvest etc… are universal. And have never been “subverted” in any context.

[Guest]

"Good things are moral"
"Bad things are amoral"
"I have beaten Nietzsche"

[The Green Groyper]

Morality is either universally applicable and consistent in its direction and content or it is not “morality” at all.

[Guest]

"..."

[The_Author]

There is no such thing as an "irreducible, inexplicable" axiom.

We are choosing to discuss in a reasoned way, because we both agree that it is useful here, but skeptics would disagree about the ultimate utility of reason.

You previously alluded to such a thing. You did not use the word "axiom", but said:

All philosophies necessarily have presuppositions. Nietzsche made the will to power his. By consequence, all experience, thought and appearance is determined through it.

Now if Nietzsche made will to power his axiom, such that all things were determined through it, then how could that axiom be described without using something that is supposedly a consequence of it, and thus invoking the axiom again? This is what makes such an axiom inexplicable.

It is appropriate to do this for some things. For example, it is appropriate for empirical epistemology. The reason being that it is evident that perceived things are evidenced, through perception. The simple fact that perception grants knowledge is not explicable, any attempt to explain it results in a circular argument, yet it is clearly true. Nor are circular arguments a problem for it, because reason is also self evidently derived from observation.

But to say this of will to power or of any other random thing is just a lie. You know it is not self evident. Nor is it appropriate to make a non-self-evident thing the "ultimate presupposition through which all thoughts and experiences are determined", if you want to call it that, which is the same as saying "an inexplicable axiom" since any explanatory object would contain that axiom.

You assume that the world be that of the natural sciences. Again, philosophy is prior to that assumption.

Philosophy is not a claim. Philosophy is a subject. So I am not sure why you are saying this. You do the same thing with "metaphysics" after this. I am making philosophical and metaphysical claims.

You need to show that there are certain unquestionable assumptions that require us to restrict ourselves to "observances" and tell us, with perfect reliability, whether an "observance" is real or mere appearance.

The aforementioned epistemological view. The source of knowledge can only be reasoned circularly. To give reason, for example, as the epistemological foundation, is circular, and thus illogical, but this refutes reason as the foundation, because reason must be reasonable. To give experience, however, as said foundation, is circular, and thus illogical, but it does not refute experience as the foundation, because experience need not be reasonable, rather reason is only derived from experience.

I believe all experience is appearance. "Mere appearance" is a concept that is attached to things that first appear one way and then appear another. I believe a direct description of something that first appears one way and then appears another is "something that first appears one way and then appears another". Other things by contrast always appear the same. Experience in any case is just seeing how things appear.

[The Green Groyper]

"Why? If one takes it that there are gradients within a race or society then it is most reasonable to have morality vary accordingly. Priests are permitted what is forbidden to laymen. Soldiers and police are sanctioned with moral duties others lack. A father may beat his children."

Nietzche posits two different moral systems in conflict. As if Roman patricians and roman plebeians were living in two different universes. The expectations a moral system puts on an individual may vary by rank, sex, age, and so on. Within nations and tribes different expectations exist, not different moral systems all together. Or do you really believe a landless prole in Rome and a Roman patrician had fundamentally opposing views on what their society considered right and wrong? How a man should conduct himself, how women should behave and so on. These "basics" may very in their particularities by rank, but the essentials are uniform. A father may beat his children but he's also expected to provide for them, in return children must accept his authority, soldiers and police are allowed to kill or carry weapons-in return they may not turn them on their citizenry or rulers. Expectations for what is moral behavior vary as you say, but all elements of a society are presumed to be "on the same page". In terms of the underlying fundamentals.

[The Green Groyper]

Your previous interlocutor appears to have exhausted himself. Care to resume avec moi?

Any moral system must make at least some theoretical pretense at universality. Even if that universality extends only to one’s race with those outside of it being “outside the law” and thus outside the universe.

Why? If one takes it that there are gradients within a race or society then it is most reasonable to have morality vary accordingly. Priests are permitted what is forbidden to laymen. Soldiers and police are sanctioned with moral duties others lack. A father may beat his children.

Elite classes absolutely believed in the moral codes of their time. Even if they waged wars, engaged in imperial ventures or otherwise exercised “will to power”.

Nietzsche does not suggest otherwise. He praises the writers of certain moral codes, e.g. sharia law.

He sees the Man of the Future as the writer of a great many moral codes; ones that will be life enhancing and augment His will to power. It is most probable that the greater part of any future elite, taking little interest in philosophy, would move within a particular moral system or way of life. It would be hoped that a few will choose to "go beyond good and evil" and become moral pioneers, so to speak.

I find the notion of a “revolt of slave morality” historically dubious.

Nietzsche does not care. He is a psychologist. He is giving a reading of history to define and illustrate a psychological process.

our innate biology-so things like sibling cannibalism or patricide are alien to all human cultures, regardless of era.

This is not true. See the discussion in anthropology of the infamous incest taboo. To give another example, closer to your sentence, there is the old savage who, having converted to Christianity, remarked how odd it was, that his cadaver were to be eaten by worms rather than his grandchildren.

behaviors such as concern for one’s children, grief at the death of kin, rejoicing after a victorious battle or good harvest etc… are universal.

We are organisms, yes; but culture and morality are not organic.

Nietzche stakes his entire opus that something fundamental happened with Christianity in terms of moral systems. While I'd agree Christianity was revolutionary-the notion of a "slave revolt" as he describes it doesn't make much historical sense if one parses through the details. Or did you forget that Roman emperors were routinely criticized for things like obscene cruelty, sexual improprieties or unjust punishments by members of the Senatorial class? The notion the ruling elites of antiquity were some sort of amoralist caricatures and not men bound by a set of laws, norms and behaviors that were not in fact diametrical to Christianity is simply false. This includes things like adultery, the murder of family members, treachery, blasphemy, and so on. Why did Alexander's generals grow so resentful? It happened to include things like randomly killing his friends in drunken arguments or adopting persian customs-demanding they treat him as a god. Crassus' venture into Parthia was condemned as vainglorious and stupid(and Crassus reviled as a greedy man). Not celebrated as an act of aristocratic self affirmation. 

Did these men enjoy sex, wine and war? Yes absolutely, but to say they had some sort of "master morality" in whole opposition to what their descendants believed circa 800 AD is just nonsense.

"This is not true. See the discussion in anthropology of the infamous incest taboo. To give another example, closer to your sentence, there is the old savage who, having converted to Christianity, remarked how odd it was, that his cadaver were to be eaten by worms rather than his grandchildren."

I'm asking in good faith, has there ever been a culture, even the most primitive that encouraged young men to slay their entire families and bash their heads against a stone? Human moral behavior is not infinitely elastic, there are some things that are fundamentally alien to us.

"We are organisms, yes; but culture and morality are not organic."

Then where does culture and morality originate? If not a divine source? Humans are mammals, we give birth to live(and helpless young), we live for a measure of decades, we regulate our own internal body temperatures, we are omnivorous, etc...-all of these qualities effect our moral systems. In ways which define as they limit. If we ever met a race of sapient reptiles or jellyfish they would have truly "different" moral systems as befitting their biology.

[The Green Groyper]

Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean
Your previous interlocutor appears to have exhausted himself. Care to resume avec moi?

The Green Groyper
Any moral system must make at least some theoretical pretense at universality. Even if that universality extends only to one’s race with those outside of it being “outside the law” and thus outside the universe.

Why? If one takes it that there are gradients within a race or society then it is most reasonable to have morality vary accordingly. Priests are permitted what is forbidden to laymen. Soldiers and police are sanctioned with moral duties others lack. A father may beat his children.

The Green Groyper
Elite classes absolutely believed in the moral codes of their time. Even if they waged wars, engaged in imperial ventures or otherwise exercised “will to power”.

Nietzsche does not suggest otherwise. He praises the writers of certain moral codes, e.g. sharia law.

He sees the Man of the Future as the writer of a great many moral codes; ones that will be life enhancing and augment His will to power. It is most probable that the greater part of any future elite, taking little interest in philosophy, would move within a particular moral system or way of life. It would be hoped that a few will choose to "go beyond good and evil" and become moral pioneers, so to speak.

The Green Groyper
I find the notion of a “revolt of slave morality” historically dubious.

Nietzsche does not care. He is a psychologist. He is giving a reading of history to define and illustrate a psychological process.

The Green Groyper
our innate biology-so things like sibling cannibalism or patricide are alien to all human cultures, regardless of era.

This is not true. See the discussion in anthropology of the infamous incest taboo. To give another example, closer to your sentence, there is the old savage who, having converted to Christianity, remarked how odd it was, that his cadaver were to be eaten by worms rather than his grandchildren.

The Green Groyper
behaviors such as concern for one’s children, grief at the death of kin, rejoicing after a victorious battle or good harvest etc… are universal.

We are organisms, yes; but culture and morality are not organic.
Nietzche stakes his entire opus that something fundamental happened with Christianity in terms of moral systems. While I'd agree Christianity was revolutionary-the notion of a "slave revolt" as he describes it doesn't make much historical sense if one parses through the details. Or did you forget that Roman emperors were routinely criticized for things like obscene cruelty, sexual improprieties or unjust punishments by members of the Senatorial class? The notion the ruling elites of antiquity were some sort of amoralist caricatures and not men bound by a set of laws, norms and behaviors that were not in fact diametrical to Christianity is simply false. This includes things like adultery, the murder of family members, treachery, blasphemy, and so on. Why did Alexander's generals grow so resentful? It happened to include things like randomly killing his friends in drunken arguments or adopting persian customs-demanding they treat him as a god. Crassus' venture into Parthia was condemned as vainglorious and stupid(and Crassus reviled as a greedy man). Not celebrated as an act of aristocratic self affirmation.

Did these men enjoy sex, wine and war? Yes absolutely, but to say they had some sort of "master morality" in whole opposition to what their descendants believed circa 800 AD is just nonsense.

"This is not true. See the discussion in anthropology of the infamous incest taboo. To give another example, closer to your sentence, there is the old savage who, having converted to Christianity, remarked how odd it was, that his cadaver were to be eaten by worms rather than his grandchildren."

I'm asking in good faith, has there ever been a culture, even the most primitive that encouraged young men to slay their entire families and bash their heads against a stone? Human moral behavior is not infinitely elastic, there are some things that are fundamentally alien to us.

"We are organisms, yes; but culture and morality are not organic."

Then where does culture and morality originate? If not a divine source? Humans are mammals, we give birth to live(and helpless young), we live for a measure of decades, we regulate our own internal body temperatures, we are omnivorous, etc...-all of these qualities effect our moral systems. In ways which define as they limit. If we ever met a race of sapient reptiles or jellyfish they would have truly "different" moral systems as befitting their biology.

(apologies, quote function seems to not be working).

[The Green Groyper]

Nietzche posits two different moral systems in conflict. As if Roman patricians and roman plebeians were living in two different universes. The expectations a moral system puts on an individual may vary by rank, sex, age, and so on. Within nations and tribes different expectations exist, not different moral systems all together. Or do you really believe a landless prole in Rome and a Roman patrician had fundamentally opposing views on what their society considered right and wrong? How a man should conduct himself, how women should behave and so on. These "basics" may very in their particularities by rank, but the essentials are uniform. A father may beat his children but he's also expected to provide for them, in return children must accept his authority, soldiers and police are allowed to kill or carry weapons-in return they may not turn them on their citizenry or rulers. Expectations for what is moral behavior vary as you say, but all elements of a society are presumed to be "on the same page". In terms of the underlying fundamentals.

I see better what you mean. Thank you for the clarification.

Have you been around the lower classes of our country? My experience is that they are, with very few exceptions, full of seething resentment for those wealthier than them or simply more disciplined.

That's anecdotal, but we have the slave revolts of history, the revolutions of the last few centuries and Voltaire's quote that without belief in God, his servants would rob and murder him.

I agree that the members of a society share certain customs and a few morals, but it's a steep gradient when it is a shared ethics.

Do you have a quotation of Nietzsche's where he suggests that the morality of a higher caste will be completely separate from a lower? From my reading of him, only some section of an elite will go "beyond good and evil". As you know, I wouldn't usually ask for "evidence" but I feel it's appropriate here.

Depends on the lower classes-in the South, it used to be even the poor were dignified. Or at least made an effort of it. Wearing clothes that were at least presentable on Sunday, and so on. I'd say imitating niggers has really been bad for low class Whites.

I mean, my family used to run a small industrial plant. So I'm middle class, hardly wealthy-(my father absolutely hates unions as lazy and entitled). At the same time, we(my family) made efforts at noblesse oblige-often for the low class factory workers. (The company sold a few years ago).

As far as I can tell-the lower classes, at least where I grew up, respected the "notables". If not in formal deference, at least they were grateful for their patronage and opportunities provided(jobs, paying for things like little league baseball fields, and so on).

Again this is probably changing, but as someone who grew up in the South-there was a sense of enforced gentility and a general attitude amongst the lower orders that those wealthier or more educated were to be treated with gratitude. Not resented-whining about that so and so had more money got a quick and firm lecture.

Again this was a small town in the South, bible belt-so norms of appreciation and respect were probably stronger than the average.

I'll concede that's anecdotal on my end as well.

"Do you have a quotation of Nietzsche's where he suggests that the morality of a higher caste will be completely separate from a lower? From my reading of him, only some section of an elite will go "beyond good and evil". As you know, I wouldn't usually ask for "evidence" but I feel it's appropriate here."

I'd have to check.

[The Green Groyper]

I’d say the sort of society of the south was founded on, required the maintenance of the morality of the population as well as its discipline, and to some degree-hostility to outsiders.

I’m familiar with Southern agrarianism yes.

What makes this culture “work” is first and foremost discipline. The lower orders have their place, the upper echelons maintain their standards, and a certain spirit of deference is sustained, as well as purity.

Once the spirit of decadence or worse still indifference intrudes, then this order begins to crumble.

But definitely I like the idea of a revival of the South’s virtues. With a new aristocratic class to lead it.

Really it’s surprising the American south, post pre and post war has not gotten as much attention in DR circles. The relationship of hierarchy, Christianity, and race is fascinating and I’d say very instructive.

[Guest]

The trannies joining in is a stroke of genius in coming to the essence of both the author and green’s argument, which is they just don’t like Nietzsche. I predict when both the author and green can not longer continue after being brain mogged by these super trannies they will stick to associating Nietzsche and his philosophy with trannies and fags, which will then reveal that lack of substance in all of their arguments. Both of them will fall for this, because they lack intelligence, even after I state this.

This is why Amarna is an amazing forum. Even the most retarded statements are inherently funny.

You make this self-detached faggot nigger retard "I'm so above it all holy kek look at these chuds lmao" post in almost every thread you post in.

[The Green Groyper]

The trannies joining in is a stroke of genius in coming to the essence of both the author and green’s argument, which is they just don’t like Nietzsche. I predict when both the author and green can not longer continue after being brain mogged by these super trannies they will stick to associating Nietzsche and his philosophy with trannies and fags, which will then reveal that lack of substance in all of their arguments. Both of them will fall for this, because they lack intelligence, even after I state this.

This is why Amarna is an amazing forum. Even the most retarded statements are inherently funny.

You make this self-detached faggot nigger retard "I'm so above it all holy kek look at these chuds lmao" post in almost every thread you post in.

I genuinely find it amusing, but then admittedly I enjoy observing drama for its own sake. No ironic detachment at all.