Defend Nietzsche

[Metamorph]

OK, inflammatory title out of the way: is there any valid defense for Nietzsche? Nietzsche is quoted a lot among people who haven't actually read him and the quotes that people pick are basically Goethe, Dostoevsky, and Emerson quotes that people interpret in Goethe, Dostoevsky, and Emerson ways but that Nietzsche was recontextualizing (or really decontextualizing) because he seems to have been insane, retarded, and resentful that he couldn't join the culture around him so he'd just mess it up instead. I think you seriously have to be a sick in the head Nazi to actually fully understand what this guy is saying and like it and ******, Himmler, Goebbels, and Mengele had it completely right. Since most people who think they like him don't actually like him, I have no problem with the vast majority of people who quote him. If it quacks like a Disney movie quote and walks like a Disney movie quote it might as well be a Disney movie quote, though it'd be better if it weren't even attributed to Nietzsche if you're not actively trying to be edgy and ironic. I know he contributed to "post/modern philosophy" but really he just seems like a rhetorician to me. I've compared his books to the retarded microscope on Rick and Morty before, it makes everything seem mystical by making you stupid if you completely buy into it.

[WVBRY]

Sorry, but I think this rant is a sign your that your thoughts are incoherent...

Alot of what you say is formulated in a confusing manner and I don't fully understand what you're arguing...

Do they people who think they like Nietzsche think they like him because they don't understand what he is really saying but the Nazis did? Why would this be they case? Why do you say people who quote him haven't read him? And how do Goethe, Dostyesvki, and Emerson, come into play here? And Disney?

If you can't explain it to a four year old, you really don't understand it .

[Metamorph]

Sorry, but I think this rant is a sign your that your thoughts are incoherent...

Alot of what you say is formulated in a confusing manner and I don't fully understand what you're arguing...

Do they people who think they like Nietzsche think they like him because they don't understand what he is really saying but the Nazis did? Why would this be they case? Why do you say people who quote him haven't read him? And how do Goethe, Dostyesvki, and Emerson, come into play here? And Disney?

If you can't explain it to a four year old, you really don't understand it .

I think Nietzsche just synthesized a lot of people's ideas into a form of fascism and people quote him because they like the individual ideas, which they are not well-read enough to know the original sources of, and not the philosophy as a whole. I'm not a fan of Marx, Freud, Jung, or other theories like that in general either. I'm wary of people who don't live their lives aka academic philosophers telling me how to live mine. I don't think Nietzsche would've liked the implications of his ideas (oh wait, he lived to see them and didn't, Captain Obvious to the rescue), but he didn't have to since he didn't have to live them either, just sit in his office.

Are you four years old? Maybe we should have a higher level of discussion than that.

[woofwoofl]

No Nietsche expert myself -- dude inspired lots of solid stuff.

Nazis sucked mainly imo due to race tribalist hierarchism + deliberate mass murder and beyond.

Disney can inspire Ghibli, Disney can inspire "calarts"

[strrrng]

I don't think Nietzsche should be defended, maybe just peripherally heeded. Personally I never derived a ton of value from his works, but for example it's important to see the social implications of a text like The Will To Power, where even if one doesn't agree about the naturally self-overcoming nature of consciousness and personal experience there's still a grain of truth to the implication that ascension is inevitable (see Hegel for more on this point). Or, from another angle, Thus Spoke Zarathustra can be read as a kind of penultimate commentary, where the gap between solitude and society is attempted to be bridged such that the currents of the times meet with spirit's progression into the next age. Ultimately it's an NiFe value, looking for objective truth or falsehood in this context past the most basic philosophical level misses the point and reduces things in the wrong way.

[Not A Communist Shill]

I agree with his moustache.

[Exodus]

Protip: don't take your life philosophy from someone who literally went insane.

[Desert Financial]

Protip: don't take your life philosophy from someone who literally went insane.

If we shouldn't take our life philosophies from someone who literally went insane, doesn't it seem reasonable that we avoid Jungian systems of thought?

[Exodus]

If we shouldn't take our life philosophies from someone who literally went insane, doesn't it seem reasonable that we avoid Jungian systems of thought?

Socionics is pretty far removed from the majority of Jung's thought.

[Tallmo]

Jung didnt go insane. He took a calculated risk and risked his sanity in a life crisis but came through

[sbbds]

Jung didnt go insane. He took a calculated risk and risked his sanity in a life crisis but came through

The same risk we must all now take when we start reading his material.

[Metamorph]

The same risk we must all now take when we start reading his material.

Or you can just have a Star Wars/LotR watch session while reading it and fight while making lightsaber noises. You can't die of poison if you don't thoroughly digest it all.

[Metamorph]

I don't think Nietzsche should be defended, maybe just peripherally heeded. Personally I never derived a ton of value from his works, but for example it's important to see the social implications of a text like The Will To Power, where even if one doesn't agree about the naturally self-overcoming nature of consciousness and personal experience there's still a grain of truth to the implication that ascension is inevitable (see Hegel for more on this point). Or, from another angle, Thus Spoke Zarathustra can be read as a kind of penultimate commentary, where the gap between solitude and society is attempted to be bridged such that the currents of the times meet with spirit's progression into the next age. Ultimately it's an NiFe value, looking for objective truth or falsehood in this context past the most basic philosophical level misses the point and reduces things in the wrong way.

To be honest, I think reading Nietzsche is kind of fun and he has a couple of good original ideas, but everyone here is taking their life's philosophies from him or Jung it seems and that's kind of really disturbing like @thehotelambush said. As much as Schopenhauer is a sourpuss and I can't agree with philosophical pessimism like Grendel, some of his ideas can be taken really seriously regarding the arts and Buddhism. You kind of have to watch some Wagner and Mahler and avoid slurs by Nietzsche fans to really understand the valuable parts though because it seems like 90% of Schopenhauer is just "look at me and how pessimistic I am" (he didn't go insane at least.)

[Not A Communist Shill]

If you are going to go insane, you should at least do so for a worthwhile cause e.g. from contracting syphilis from a prostitute or from watching a horse being cruelly treated.