The Nietzsche Talk

[The_Author]

I could interpret it as "in a low consequence situation, direct your focus towards things you admire not things you hate"

You would be diverging from his work at that point, because that is not what it says. It seems like you do not need Nietzsche at all to discourse on this very simple idea. Why cling on to the framework of this vaguery at all then? Sometimes it is necessary to focus on unpleasant things and sometimes not. Unpleasant things are, of course, unpleasant in themselves, but that is not a good enough reason to ignore them. I mean everyone knows that. What are all these poetic PSYOPs for? They get you to adhere to a principle that acts in the stead of the common sense understanding of these things. I am not in favor of common sense and against principles per se, but something as simple as this is like adhering to a principle about how to drink a bottle of water. If you don't like something then go away from it, unless there's some other long term reason to stay, or a reason pertaining to another factor. That does not even need explanation because it is built in to ordinary rudimentary level decision making. 

So Nietzsche replaces ordinary decision making with an inferior fixed principle. Then he throws it into a parable. That is not wisdom at all.

[The Green Groyper]

I read the Genealogy of Morals a few months ago. It was a rambling book in which Nietzche babbled on about his Hellenic obsession for something like a third of it. Once you get past the anti Christian or anti bourgeoise rhetoric-his work is not that shocking.

Personally I don't find Nietzche's ideas that convincing, his metaphysics(he does have a set of metaphysics) are bad. His atheism is pitiful. His ethics circumstantial and arbitrary.

Now part of this is my Christian leaning, as well as Platonist disposition so I'm not inclined to like Nietzche anyway-but regardless I don't find his ideas convincing or inspiring.

[Guest]

The most consistent critique of Nietzsche(and the only in this thread) is “I don’t like him.”

[The_Author]

The most consistent critique of Nietzsche(and the only in this thread) is “I don’t like him.”

Nietzsche's philosophy is "Nietzsche likes this".

But it's not. The critiques of Nietzsche in this thread are, variously: Nietzsche uses ad hominems and does not make arguments, Nietzsche makes aphorisms that are worse than common knowledge and obscures them in parables, Nietzsche does not define or make an argument for will to power, various possible arguments for will to power are nonsensical.

But every dumb motherfucker who likes something and doesn't bother to read the criticisms has to say "so you just don't like it", yes, I don't like it, but I don't "just" don't like it, because I have objectively provided arguments that go beyond "I don't like him" if your sorry eyes happened to digest them.

[The Green Groyper]

The most consistent critique of Nietzsche(and the only in this thread) is “I don’t like him.”

The most consistent argument Nietzche has against things he opposes is “I dislike them”

Fixed it for you.

Nietzche’s entire bread and butter is personal animus or aesthetic distaste.

[Guest]

The most consistent critique of Nietzsche(and the only in this thread) is “I don’t like him.”

The most consistent argument Nietzche has against things he opposes is “I dislike them”

Fixed it for you.

Nietzche’s entire bread and butter is personal animus or aesthetic distaste.

I don’t understand why you think anyone should listen to your opinion when you’ve openly admitted to the fact that you didn’t understand his book.

[The Green Groyper]

The most consistent critique of Nietzsche(and the only in this thread) is “I don’t like him.”

The most consistent argument Nietzche has against things he opposes is “I dislike them”

Fixed it for you.

Nietzche’s entire bread and butter is personal animus or aesthetic distaste.

I don’t understand why you think anyone should listen to your opinion when you’ve openly admitted to the fact that you didn’t understand his book.

I understood it just fine. I wasn’t impressed or awed by it.

[Guest]

But every dumb motherfucker who likes something and doesn't bother to read the criticisms has to say "so you just don't like it", yes, I don't like it, but I don't "just" don't like it, because I have objectively provided arguments that go beyond "I don't like him" if your sorry eyes happened to digest them.

Arguments without evidence. Claims unfounded. But I guess Nietzsche does this too, right?

[The Green Groyper]

The best argument against any Nietzchean is asking them if gravity applies to the slave and master equally.

Or really any other absolute physical law. “Why the Ubermenschen can overcome entropy and break the second law of thermodynamics”-a soon to exist Nietzchean twitter post.

I also have never seen or read a Nietzchean cogently explain why their aesthetic preferences should be cherished over others, beyond “I want it to be so fuck you”

Why should one affirm the world? Why should beauty be prioritized? What is the point of any of it?

All the Nietzchean has in response, he who rejects absolute truth and morality is “because I like these things”.

It’s a powerful argument, without a doubt, but it’s a fundamentally weak one as well. As the Nietzchean has to justify why their aesthetic preferences, or distaste holds merit over any other.

They’ll do this by claiming something something aristocracy or what have you-asking their interlocutors to respect them for what amounts to self aggrandizement and ultimately meaningless posturing.

(Also the bodies slaves and aristocrats of 3,000 years ago are both dust now so why does this distinction mean anything?).

Ultimately the way Nietzche tries to overcome Nihilism boils down to “there is no truth, or value beyond what I say or wish, I don’t have to justify this because that’s appealing to some higher principle that doesn’t exist, it’s just my wish, coming from my station”.

The solution to Nihilism is thus subjective valuation. 

The obvious response to this is “why should anyone respect you or yours?”

[Guest]

Green and Author...This display is only getting worse as it goes on. Read the primary material that you are trying to discuss. Very embarrassing.

[The Green Groyper]

Green and Author...This display is only getting worse as it goes on. Read the primary material that you are trying to discuss. Very embarrassing.

I have read it. 

Like no really I have.

I knew you were going to say this btw.

[The Green Groyper]

The obvious response to this is “why should anyone respect you or yours?”

To play devil's advocate here Mr. Green Groyper:

The most intelligent defenders of Nietzsche's ideas, see his metaphysical foundation as an abstracted "might is right" where Beethoven is not stronger than Goethe "because his music was louder".

You wonder how they show that such a metaphysics is present. Well, they see it as the self-evident natural belief of all, which is on you, the proposer of a moral order, to disprove.

A moral order is a presupposition. Nietzche dispenses with it for an assumed nihilism. It’s on him making this claim to demonstrate its merit. 

Why is Beethoven better than Goethe? Who is to say so? You? Why does your opinion hold more weight? What if one prefers Bach? You Nietzcheans reject objectivity, replacing it with subjective preference expressed aggressively.

Sometimes when I’m frustrated with the state of the world I imagine a great bonfire consuming everything, cities, vegetation, people, all of it. Why is that preference any better or worse than someone who cherishes every leaf and tree? Or who wishes to cultivate his field and never once views the world with hate or disdain?

If there is no truth, then all things must be reduced to preference, and if that is the case-then one preference is as good as any other. Whether that preference is simply the social norm or is imposed via violence. It makes it no less true or false.

Nietzche accepts as a given there is no truth, and then insists without evidence or any reasoning whatsoever that his particular aesthetic preferences hold superior weight. Why? Well because he said so!

I’m sorry, I don’t find this convincing at all. Because there is no argument; no reason, no logic. No higher principle invoked beyond one man’s subjective tastes, which in the grand scheme of things mean nothing.

[Zed]

Nietzsche's 'philosophy' is not a philosophy. It is a spirit - and it is one of laughter, dance, and eternity. If you read him as a philosopher, you misread him. He would, after all, have preferred to be read as a mystic or a prophet. And if you are looking for him to offer meaning to fill the god-shaped hole, you'll be disappointed - because living bravely, in his eyes, amounts to an acceptance of the emptiness of these fictions. 'Absolute truth and morality' is such a fiction.

What lies past these fictions? Or - rather - how does one live without them?

His answer: Instinct, the blood-level knowledge that exceeds the fragility of earthly wisdom - and intuition, our heuristic-derived refinements of such. Do away with true and false, and allow your reason to operate within the scope of your limited sensory experience - where the prevailing assignment is neither 'true' nor 'false', but 'unknown and unknowable'. You cannot know God, not even with any of the Abrahamic traditions, nor can you know such absolutes. And if you cannot know them, why speak of them? Belief in such knowable absolutes is a form of epistemological childishness on par with 'all truths are accessible with reason alone'.

[The Green Groyper]

As a man of reason and who has loved the concept of truth since before he knew philosophers debated it I find that offensive to start with. Truth may be a wind, but if that’s so I’ll chase it to the earth’s edge.

Secondly, why? Why should anyone listen to their instincts or sensory inputs over any other source? One could make some sort of “true nature” argument that listening to or abiding by one’s own natural inclinations, drives or behaviors one may find happiness, peace or achieve their potential but again why are any of these things valuable at all?

If I may be so charitable, I’d argue Nietzche is telling people “philosophy is a winding road to nowhere and you’ll just end up chasing phantoms, so live in fullness of yourself” which fine, that might be good counsel for people frustrated and empty when pursuing philosophy and are disenchanted with religion.

It says nothing about his applicability outside of that segment of the population.

[Zed]

As a man of reason and who has loved the concept of truth since before he knew philosophers debated it I find that offensive to start with. Truth may be a wind, but if that’s so I’ll chase it to the earth’s edge.

Secondly, why? Why should anyone listen to their instincts or sensory inputs over any other source? One could make some sort of “true nature” argument that listening to or abiding by one’s own natural inclinations, drives or behaviors one may find happiness, peace or achieve their potential but again why are any of these things valuable at all?

If I may be so charitable, I’d argue Nietzche is telling people “philosophy is a winding road to nowhere and you’ll just end up chasing phantoms, so live in fullness of yourself” which fine, that might be good counsel for people frustrated and empty when pursuing philosophy and are disenchanted with religion.

It says nothing about his applicability outside of that segment of the population.

I was trying to avoid bringing autism to the surface, because that goes against the spirit of Nietzsche - but fine:

Nietzsche was not a philosopher of science or mathematics, but he didn't completely avoid the topic. In fact, he was quite fond of both mathematics and science - well speaking harshly on platonic transcendentals. Mathematical truth is the most perfect form of all truth, at least to my subjective tastes - and it is worth considering how a Nietzschean treatment of mathematics would go. I would suggest reading this https://philarchive.org/archive/STENPO-7, but the crux is that Nietzsche implicitly supported a form of intuitionistic logic.

The statement "Your car is covered in snow." is neither true nor false. Sometimes you car is covered in snow, sometimes it is not, sometimes you wake up on a winter morning and do not know if your car is covered in snow. If you consider the implication "Your car is covered in snow."=>"To drive your car, you will need to wipe snow off your windshield", then the implication is almost always true even as the antecedent varies (and it still might be sometimes false, if there is snow on the roof but not the windshield!). This is the practical and experienced logic of reality. It is how we actually reason and how we actually do science. Things have varying degrees of truth, varying probabilistically, temporally, and along a thousand other axes. You cannot obtain truth - only refine your understanding, and improve your confidence. And these understandings - they are guided by intuition, observations that come to us in sparks of insight - irreducible to any definite origin.

To put it plainly, truth is an unnecessary fiction, when what we really seek is identification and elaboration on the nature of patterns.

[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.

[Zed]

@Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean

I agree with all of this. I feel like it is a very boring way to understand him and I cringed at myself to write it. Later Nietzsche, after he went prophet-mode, would have mocked this kind of analysis. Still, it is an entry-point for his thoughts for those of autistic inclinations.

[Guest]

As a man of reason and who has loved the concept of truth since before he knew philosophers debated it I find that offensive to start with. Truth may be a wind, but if that’s so I’ll chase it to the earth’s edge.

Secondly, why? Why should anyone listen to their instincts or sensory inputs over any other source? One could make some sort of “true nature” argument that listening to or abiding by one’s own natural inclinations, drives or behaviors one may find happiness, peace or achieve their potential but again why are any of these things valuable at all?

I am losing context from the chain of conversation preceding this. This is an aside.

Your only inputs that you've got are "sensory" in some sense, including logic. If you were on drugs you would be unable to use logic correctly as you may reasonably presume to be using it now. The whole "can't know nothing" epistemology crap except the point being that you can trust things more and more the more consistent they are. My instincts are consistently against some things. I can reason about my instincts and why they are why they are but I don't need evopsych etc to confirm or validate them. I just want to do things where instincts say "this is definitely right" because that is a neat coordination between body and mind. None of this is at all incompatible with searching for truth. No clue if this is niche's stuff

[Guest]

As a man of reason and who has loved the concept of truth since before he knew philosophers debated it I find that offensive to start with. Truth may be a wind, but if that’s so I’ll chase it to the earth’s edge.

Secondly, why? Why should anyone listen to their instincts or sensory inputs over any other source? One could make some sort of “true nature” argument that listening to or abiding by one’s own natural inclinations, drives or behaviors one may find happiness, peace or achieve their potential but again why are any of these things valuable at all?

I am losing context from the chain of conversation preceding this. This is an aside.

Your only inputs that you've got are "sensory" in some sense, including logic. If you were on drugs you would be unable to use logic correctly as you may reasonably presume to be using it now. The whole "can't know nothing" epistemology crap except the point being that you can trust things more and more the more consistent they are. My instincts are consistently against some things. I can reason about my instincts and why they are why they are but I don't need evopsych etc to confirm or validate them. I just want to do things where instincts say "this is definitely right" because that is a neat coordination between body and mind. None of this is at all incompatible with searching for truth. No clue if this is niche's stuff

Yes, this is the best understanding of a part of Niche in the thread. Ironic, yet true. He essentially asserts that this instinct is what guides life to its specific end, life being individual, or a group (such as a species, race, nation, etc.)
Hence his attacks on "the moral instinct" as he could see where it was leading, and what it had replaced (the heroic instinct.)

[Guest]

Oh of course, some might ask "how" such a thing could happen. You can consult Eternal Return, or the cycle of forests (thickening to the point of suffocation, and then forest fires.). Or you can consider why the "monstrous instinct" exists, its function in nature. A god in the machine.

Anyhow, it is un-necessary to read him unless you are curious. One is what one is. I still remain unsure if the other posters have read any of his work, or are merely incapable of reading. It is probably the latter. The quality in all places is exceedingly low.