/nhg/ Nihilism general pilot edition
>A nihilist is a man who judges of the world as it is that it ought not to be, and of the world as it ought to be that it does not exist.
>Nietzsche
Can't be more bothered to write something 2bh
Basically, you're a nihilist if (You)
- believe in nothing
- know that nothing has sense
- know that everything is useless
- have no loyalties
- want to see the world burn
inb4 edgy teen
Other urls found in this thread:
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
It's a self defeating, useless philosophy. It has no value. It has no meaning. It is pointless.
>FR
>Nihilism
you would m8
Nice digits
fucking waste dumb aussie
I'm Sup Forums user for a long time. Just testing the waters if making a gen would interest someone, as I think most of Sup Forums is nihilist without knowing it. If not let's scrap this, I don't care. 2bh I just want a big war to happen atm.
Nihilisim is the group of logical consequences derived from
there being no Truth with a capital T - or God, or hippy
dippy 'spirituality' or anything like it. It is not a
philosophy to live by. It is negative. Nietzsche was at
his best as a negative thinker, destroying anything in his
path by examining every moral concept from previously
un-thought of perspectives, rather than the 'frog'
perspectives of normal thinkers.
But he was a profoundly sickly man as well. He was the opposite
of the strong, virile hero type - the Homeric hero, for
instance, which he studied as a young man. He failed with
women, he was wracked with painful ailments, knew he was
dying, losing his mind, alone.
He was a self-hater and idolized his opposite - the super man.
His positive philosophy, if you call it that, is no better
grounded then the ones he criticized. It is grounded in his
own, personal self loathing as much as Kant's was grounded
in his own personal self-aggrandizing (Kant was notoriously
stoical; to Nietzsche, this meant Kant was able to overcome
his passions and desires - tyrannize them - and Kant's moral
philosophy told others to similarly obey, obey, obey the
duties imposed on them).
In short, one needs faith by which to live, not logic without
a faith to ground it. Nihilism provides no such grounding.
this is basically what led to the degeneracy we suffer from today as a society
Exactly. But if spread enough, nihilism could totally destroy society and make it rise again with a new purpose. Before order, chaos.
The very concept of Nihilism is a paradox.
A nihilist believes there are no inherent moral values.
That in itself, however, is a moral value.
also
>quoting Nietzsche
Please refer to rule 2.
>You will immediately cease and not continue to access the site if you are under the age of 18.
>believe in nothing
That is a belief.
>know that nothing has sense
Then the claim "nothing has sense" has no sense.
Nihilism is a shit ideology for emo teens.
>Basically, you're a nihilist if (You)
>- believe in nothing
>- know that nothing has sense
>- know that everything is useless
>- have no loyalties
>- want to see the world burn
That sounds really exhausting desu.
Which human morale values are absolute in the universe? We could go extinct, nobody out there, elsewhere, would care.
incorrect, a moral value is an idealized standard which you can compare possible actions with.
However, claiming that morality does not exist is a paradox. If one argues this, he admits that there is 1) objective Truth and 2) that truth is preferable to falsehood. This is a moral value (aka objective, optional behavioral prescription)
what?
without humans, morality doesn't exist. Neither does it exist when you're alone. Morality is about preferences that can be enforced on others.
Nietzsche criticised nihilism, but of course brainlet couldn't understand his work and pop culture regards him as the nihilist
also nihilism is so easy argued against that nowadays you really have to be 15 yo edgy teen or severely depressed person to buy this crap
Saying "I'm a Nihilist but I'm not an edgy teen" is like saying "I suck major cock 24/7 but I'm not gay"
Stupid burger, the Aussie just BTFO France in five words and kek backed him up. I suppose one of those words does have four syllables, must have taken a while for you to process it.
OP is a faggot anyway, Nietzsche was anything but a nihilist, I suggest reading E.M. Cioran if you want something more of that sort.
>morality without God
No. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.
On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?
Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.
I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.
For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.
Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.
The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.
I hope you all commit suicide asap
Too much Angst.
>you really have to be 15 yo edgy teen or severely depressed person to buy this crap
Go figure I did believe in my peers, in society, in science, in social-democracy when I was younger. Not anymore.
>For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.
That thing is called logic and consistency.
Christian morality is arbitrary and subjective; therefore the non-believer has an easy time just denying its validity.
"Murder is universally wrong". "Lol, why?" "Because God said it." "yeah right, fuck your imaginary friend then."
I don't see how you can overcome existentialism, the conclusion that humans make their own meaning. People look to god for meaning to adopt, and without that they are abandoned to decide for themselves. Where must one deny all possibility of meaning or morality?
I grew out of my nihilistic phase when I became an adult
I really dislike that believing that existence has no meaning is ALWAYS linked to wanting the world to burn. Embrace your existentialism guys, the absurd of existence is your friend!
why would you want that? you are such an spoiled brat
Nice story. What changed your mind?
requirement: objective secular morality.
inb4 "doesn't exist you misesnigger"
preferences do exist and are necessary for life
man is a livingorgansm and the result of preferences
there are universal preferences that are non-binding (you should eat in order not to die, you should use the scientific method if you want to discover truth about reality etc)
There is objective optional morality based on logic and First Principles.
Murder, theft, assault, lying, fraud are immoral. Not because god says it, but because any theory that claims otherwise is internally incosistent und thus invalid.
>want to see the world burn
Where do I sign up?
Christian morality was also determined by people. The difference is that is has been consistently used to oppress and control
yes, which is clearly immoral when you look at it from a secular perspective. Just because something is immoral doesn't people are somehow magically immune to breaking that "moral law".
But your statement shows how fragile a moral system is when you base it on subjectivism and arbitrary opinions. Christian morality is mostly identical to secular morality, but that's just a coincidence, because things like "theft is wrong" are intuitively "right" to the vast majority of sane people. Nevertheless, when a child asks "why?" the answer shoudl never be "because god said so" - that is not convincing at all
If you prefer to live, then you should prefer to eat over not eating.
But what if you don't? If your greatest preference is to steal and assault at first opportunity, you could form a consistent theory based on that.
Nationalism. If life is what you make it since there is no objective correct meaning then being happy is preferable to sadness,anger or death even if life is short lived in the long term. Otherwise just neck yourself right now then.
Then the laws of evolution are in effect if there is no God, so you should be wanting to pass on your genes and live a happy life with your wife and children and among people you care for. AKA fellow countrymen not shitskins as this is greatest long term happiness fulfillment. Drugs and cheap sex are temporary, and in effect you want your children to be happy and secure.
Which is in a non degenerate world based upon cultural and religious practices which are the best ways of keeping people who haven't worked all this out controlled and working for the betterment of society, as any other society full of "immoral" things has a much higher chance of total collapse or sadness,depression being prevalent
>Nationalism.
How disappointing
ITT: Christcucks that can't reason WHY things are considered immoral, so instead of thinking for once they say good things are good because GOD said so. Ignoring that fucking Socrates destroyed that argument before Christ was even born. Then relying in utilitarianism to argue against secular morality like utilitatianism (People need God for morals because otherwise society falls!!1! Look at this degeneracy!).
The reality is that the universe doesn't have an absolute morality guide. Morality is just a logic rulebook humans follow to form social contracts and survive.
Also calling Nietzsche a nihilist is stupid and shows you've never read his works.
Seems a lot of assumptions to me.
So you're saying your pursuit of happiness is justified to coerce the will and happiness of others?
For one thing, where does preference for happiness entail wanting to pass on genes, beyond just because that's what you want? At that level, you're on the same ground as those pursuing degeneracy because they like to. If you're going to say it's for their own good, then what about the virtue of self-determination?
I'm not seeing the part where you're reasoning is above might makes right to see your personal vision done.
How about you counter argue or show your outlook on life then try argue my "objective point".
Instead of shitty one word quote.
Or are you going to be one of those just do whatever makes you happy man" or one of those. "nothing matters man i just plan to kms when my cash runs out"
All of this talk is meaningless. It has no impact, no value, no consequence.
Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, he advocated against nihilism you dumb fuck.
If you were a true nihilist you wouldn't have posted this shit and you'd most likely be dead anyway.
Nihilism is the first step, it's not something you can be satisfied with in and of itself.
Read Nietzsche (for real, not the wiki article), Camus, Stirner, Schopenhauer
>b-b-but my life has purpose I s-s-wear
Everyone here is a faggot
Much like the lives of NEETs
Communication allows the exchange of ideas.
>If your greatest preference is to steal and assault at first opportunity, you could form a consistent theory based on that.
Yes! Some people clearly prefer stealing over working, and it works out well for them personally. That's why "what is good for man is good for mankind" is subjective BS.
A theory must be universal (objective) to be valid, that is a requirement of the scietific method.
So you'd have to make a theory that says "it is always better to steal" or "stealing is moral" - good luck with that, that cannot ever work and is completely illogical
If life is what you make it since there is no objective correct meaning then being happy is preferable to sadness,anger or death even if life is short lived in the long term.
And the most effective way too happiness is Having a wife maybe two or three or ten or six of them but one normally works out the best, a child a long lived happy filled life, since drugs and alcohol will destroy you in the "long run".
My happiness is only at the cost of non whites in my country when I realize we are all much happier even those who don't realize all of this living among their own kind in their own country abiding how they want as laws are put in place to attempt to keep peace and order, which is mostly necessarily for happiness. Serial killers and max max lovers need not apply
I grew out of nihilism and went to absurdism a while ago.
It's also way less destructive, edgy and depressive.
I recommend you the Mythe de Sisyphe, by Albert Camus.
Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist, defeatist cuck.
I'm assuming that you've adopted a value system after you "grew out of nihilism"
Unfortunately you've based it on a superficial/evolutionary perspective which in my eyes makes you nothing more than an animal
I respect the religious individual that values what they consider an objective source/Deity over an animal like you
You said those things are immoral. What the above reasoning indicates to me is that there is no nonsubjective morality, so you can't claim anything to be universally moral or immoral.
I swear if I see another guy coming itt to post NIETZSCHE WASNT NIHILIST
Where in the OP did I write that HE was?
pls don't read too hastily
>Nietzsche is a nihilist
>I'm not edgy teen
Pick one.
Why are French people obsessed with decadence and nihilism. 100 years of that shit not enough for you?
Absurdism is beautiful but irrational.
The only viable position is the complete rejection of all forms of ideology for their own sake.
Anyone who self-identifies as a nihilist, is not one.
It usually comes masked, sometimes with smiles and good wishes. It's something that happens to you, rather than a conscious choice. And that's on the personal level, there's the societal level where you can simplify it to roughly mean self-destructive, or at least, that's the ultimate effect.
Christianity is also a nihilistic religion, it places value on another life, this is just one life lived for an imagined other, better one. Also its connotations with shame and the body and so forth.
An monkey PRACTICAL analysis of nihilism and its current problems :
1- Nihilism makes males impotent. If you dont believe in nothing, and nothing makes sense eventually you will question your own value in society and will feel worthless leading to impotence.
2- The post modernists based on the Nietzsche observation that life has no meaning on itself, and that to give life meaning we must create meaning to it (Nietzsche actually created a very sophisticated ethical proposition ), and by that im targeting Michel Foucault, Started using the lack of meaning to impose a marxist agenda. "Since nothing has meaning, therefore marx". So everything goes in this flawed logic. Sciences cant say anything about sex unther that premiss, giving laverage to the lgbtqlsasldkjwheiquwdvb movement. its funny that in that logic even gravity is in peril. Its not that easy to break it down T. Jb Peterson for pointing that out.
3 - We are living in the Nitzschean nightmare we are drowing in the nihilism, a few people are trying to hold on to the sinking ship of Christianity, other ones (the SJW) belive that the cultural marxism and the state are a good and solid place to stay. The solution is far more complex than that, we need individuals to remember the masses what is really important. But to achieve that we must battle a internal war of values. Dont even try asking to Sup Forums whats wright and wrong, you must test it yourself and create updates regularly.
>there is no nonsubjective morality
Sure there is. You're debating with me, and you think that truth is preferable to falsehood.
If you correct me on an error that I have made, you are implicitly accepting the fact that it would be better for me to correct my error. Your preference for me to correct my error is not subjective, but objective, and universal.
You don’t say to me: “You should change your opinion to mine because I would prefer it,” but rather: “You should correct your opinion because it is objectively incorrect.” My error does not arise from merely disagreeing with you, but as a result of my deviance from an objective standard of truth.
What do you mean that it happens to you? Sounds like you're linking it to a psychological state, like trauma or grief
No I based it on happiness being preferable then being a defeatist cuck. And the greatest happiness for the vast vast majority of people is exactly what I've said, Those ideas came after. In truth I have no respect for you either.
You will fall in line and march with the masses or be whisked away meaningless and empty, you may say much like my life and the entire worlds life in the span of a universe but i would of had far more objective "happiness,Endorphins and fulfillment" then you.
I'll cut your johnson off
>No I based it on happiness being preferable then being a defeatist cuck.
What makes you any different than a hedonist druggie? They will probably experience far greater happiness/endorphins than you
>Nietzsche was a nihilist
Kys yourself bellend
Universal isn't the same as objective. Yes, those are the objective implications of my own preference framework. Not a universal morality that all rational life is compelled to accept.
Like how we live in one physics construct but can imagine other mathematical systems. Each has objective properties, but only euclidean geometry is universal for all humans, so those geometric facts are true for all rather than noneuclidean facts.
How do you go from accepting one can have a consistent preference framework preferring and advocating criminal acts, to then saying that that means such is inconsistent and illogical and thus objectively immoral?
>How do you go from accepting one can have a consistent preference framework preferring and advocating criminal acts, to then saying that that means such is inconsistent and illogical and thus objectively immoral?
Any moral theory proposing that “stealing is good” is also automatically invalid because it posits that property rights are both valid and invalid at the same time, and so fails the test of logical consistency. If I steal from you, I am saying that your property rights are invalid. However, I want to keep what I am stealing – and therefore I am saying that my property rights are valid. However, property rights cannot be both valid and invalid at the same time, and so this proposition itself must be invalid.
>Not a universal morality that all rational life is compelled to accept.
When did I say that? The scientific method exists as a concept, but that does not mean all humans are somehow compelled to use it. Ethics is not ontologic fact. Morality is objective and optional, like the scientific method.
How are you measuring happiness? Is it better to see a lifelong dream to fruition, or to have many small pleasures? Are there more meaningful forms of happiness such as satisfaction and contentment, or is it all about maximizing endorphins which would probably lead to drugs or wireheading?
>Nihilism
= Underman
>Post Nihilism
= Overman
kys
Not when he runs out of money or gets beat up for not paying the drug lord. His skin will rot he won't be able to support his habit and he may just end up with schizophrenia kept in a padded cell for the next 60 years of his life.
I am objectively more happy and will objectively feel more fulfilled with my life when I pass.
Zarathustra ties the Übermensch to the death of God. While this God was the ultimate expression of other-worldly values and the instincts that gave birth to those values, belief in that God nevertheless did give meaning to life for a time. 'God is dead' means that the idea of God can no longer provide values. With the sole source of values no longer capable of providing those values, there is a real chance of nihilism prevailing.
Zarathustra presents the Übermensch as the creator of new values. In this way, it appears as a solution to the problem of the death of God and nihilism. If the Übermensch acts to create new values within the moral vacuum of nihilism, there is nothing that this creative act would not justify. Alternatively, in the absence of this creation, there are no grounds upon which to criticize or justify any action, including the particular values created and the means by which they are promulgated.
In order to avoid a relapse into Platonic idealism or asceticism, the creation of these new values cannot be motivated by the same instincts that gave birth to those tables of values. Instead, they must be motivated by a love of this world and of life. Whereas Nietzsche diagnosed the Christian value system as a reaction against life and hence destructive in a sense, the new values which the Übermensch will be responsible for will be life-affirming and creative.
I am the Ubermensch, the druggie is the untermensch
Some mixture of both, would be preferable long term happiness say building your own mansion or something big like that, and other smaller ones like finding a $20 on the footpath or enjoying a dinner. And I believe that a well supplied druggie for 20 years will have less happiness and life fulfillment then I will.
However I don't pretend to have a correct or wrong answer only what I believe is more objectively correct. Good Question
>In short, one needs faith by which to live, not logic without
>a faith to ground it.
So does that mean that Hitler completed Nietzsche's philosophy of the Overman with his Aryan ideal of the New Man? A reason to live and reproduce...
>I am objectively more happy and will objectively feel more fulfilled with my life when I pass.
Following this line of logic, if you were to come across a horrible cancer and die writhing in agony, while the druggie OD's on heroin feeling complete bliss
He has lived and died a far more pleasurable life than you
Does not he become the Ubermensch and you the untermensch
Yes he did, the Nazis took Nietzsche along in the way they view the world. They get a bit of flack with the term untermensch meaning "subhuman to be controlled". Like the great masses of normies we have today who are controlled.
But unlike what (((wikipedia))) states it was not a racial one it's just Nazis viewed slavs as very corrupted and nihilist communists therefore untermensch. It was not a racial term
>a moral value is an idealized standard which you can compare possible actions with.
>Morality is objective and optional,
By you saying that and that it is objective, you are saying rationality compels it. To be rational then entails following that theory of morality. That that guidance of behavior is implied.
What would even be the point otherwise? Why would you even say it's objective morality yet optional. Yeah, the scientific method is optional in the same way logic is.
No one was talking about illogical actors that repudiate rationality.
If you admit others can hold other consistent frameworks, then it seems the premises/axioms are one's preferences which then imply morality or other guidance of action, and I don't see anything that logically determines them to all conform or converge to one moral theory.
So weak structures disappear and we can rebuild with purpose. This way, it will just be a slow descent into shitier and shitier...
Hitler lost the war so no, by his own accepted axioms he failed and therefore is a perfect example of an untermensch
see
Anyway then we have to compare if this cancer is to kill me and I end up drugged on painkillers but I live an extra 30 years and I complete my life goals maybe not even that . Just one my children growing up would be equal to all the overdoses this druggie can do on himself
The new values of Nietzsche became a Utopian cult either way. Marxists built one out of making Heaven and thus they got Hell. The National Socialists built a Heaven and made Aryans into the new angels. But they ended up with demons destroying everything of value and Hell (Communism) won.
Bad times bring forth good men.
Good men bring forth bad times.
And the only true God is war.
The new values need to be self mastery
>I don't see anything that logically determines them to all conform or converge to one moral theory.
This has no meaning unless you propse a moral theory (like "rape is moral") that we can compare to the framework ...
I'm saying that rape is immoral, and I explained why this statement is universal (rape can't be moral because that requires someone to resist virtue in order to enable virtue for eomense else, which again fails the test of logical consistentcy).
>If you admit others can hold other consistent frameworks
consistent is the important word here. If someone has a consistent moral theory, then I have to accept that - but there are no valid moral theories that calim "rape is good" or "aggression (violence) is good" as those fail internal consistency tests too. So this is a speculative scenario
Losing the war does not suddenly make all his ideals subhuman.
Example in some shitty animal form
A lion is Nazi Germany
25 wild dogs manage to bring it down over hours of fighting.
The Lion is still the superior ideological being. And if all the dogs kill all the lions everywhere the lion is still not an untermensch. In fact you could argue the Uber Lion was taken down by untermensch dogs which far outnumbered it
>Hitler lost the war so no, by his own accepted axioms he failed and therefore is a perfect example of an untermensch
A country the size of Ohio challenged the entire world and changed their perspective of usury and Jews forever. It's changes and scientific leaps have been defining the modern world ever since.
Hitler lost the battle, son. Not the war.
ITT: teenagers
The point of nihilism is not that "nothing matters" you braindead faggots. The point of nihilism is that you matter so little you must live your life to the fullest AND enjoy it because to do anything else is essentially caving to a PESSIMIST'S worldview. Fucking read a book you cunts.
SISYPHUS WAS HAPPY
Using a Nietzsche quote as your definition of Nihilism is fucking asinine considering he was criticizing you kiddies.
>The point of nihilism is not that "nothing matters" you braindead faggots.
That's not what it means you fucking moron. Go edit wikipedia and leave the grown ups to talk
...
The direct opposite of nihilist here
The fact that you're bothering to make this thread (or even open Sup Forums at that) makes you someone who cares, or not a nihilist. You're better described as an amoral hedonist - one who can't be bother to do anything other than get satisfaction in the easiest way possible, which tends to be the computer for you
Did you get mad that my post just challenged your view? Eh, tough luck pal, turns out you had an ego as well and actually did care a lot - enough that you were about to defend your ego and argue with my post. Don't be too worried kid, you'll grow out of it soon enough
In this thread: More retards who think Nietzsche was nihilist.
Nihilism is false. The statement that nihilism is true is true only if it is false. But if it's false it's not true.
ITT: More retards who just parrot the views of other people: Jordan Peterson, etc
kek the bottom half look like some disgusting hippie version of Waldo
i guess op has entered the angsty teenager phase
will to power, the book that the nazis took to enlarge their view over nazism was dropped by nietzsche, one proof is that in the original there is a groceries list in one of the pages. His syster got this book after his death and published it.
So that basically means you're a nihilist if you're an honorless, selfish and self-entitled piece of faggot. Sounds modern day liberalism to me.
>hey let's abandon everything that enabled us to abandon everything in first place
>hey lets fuck over everything that made society as advanced as it is today, because fuck you
>french
chuckled
Htiler knew he was going to lose the war, that was the whole point attack fast while they are not excepting it and free mankind.
He had a small chance of winning by catching those who where trying to consolidate power in Poland and Soviet Russia, off guard.
Sadly It's not Germany that lost the war but Japan, after 1939 after Japan got rekt in Mongolia , and later fucked up againts USA, this caused that the Soviet union could redeploy in time their forces to the western front.
And later USA who didn't give two fucks who would win as many where already pro national socialist with ties to Germany (as most high officicials and rich familes actually had German liniage)
Japan fucked up, he was a good ally by securing natural rubber production by colonial states of France and England, which caused them to be unable to fight a land war.
Guess what those rubber boots needed for modern warfare are quite good in allowing you be an effcient war machine.
en.wikipedia.org
Also the jews owned the papers and swayed public opinion towards the british.
Hitler fought a losing war that everybody knew it will fail if it last too long, sadly Japan fucked up by not pressing more in Syberia and spliting Soviet forces to deploy on two fronts.
Wikijudia says that "the will to power" was a collection of notes by his sister after his death. Who do I believe?
Japan always loses to Russia though. But that was interesting.
If the Chinese Nationalists had won and Japs hadn't of fucked up China so bad maybe their would of been a second front on Russia after Mao was fed to the dogs.
Maybe...
National socialism is not about purging or control subhumans.
It's goal was to create nations ruled by the people of the nations.
A germany for germans
A french for france
A Russia for russians.
and no like you see today A germany for turks,syrians and iraqist
A France for Tunisians and Algerians
A Britan for Mudshits and Pakis(who are also mudshits)
National socialism is to developt nations around the core values of the nationaility of those people
The whole Aryan crap was just a program to create 'super humans" by applying what we know about Eugenics that we've refiend on animals and plants.
The german people already had a cultural eugenics program and the result of it is highly efficiant people that dont mind paying 60% taxes and sharing the burden.
Thats why this is a meme
Hitler and national socialism wanted to free the people of France,Britan,Poland and Soviet Union that have fallen to judan control.
All of the revolutions in Poland,Soviet Union and Also germany were at most 80-90% composed of Jewish people that had pushed reform againts the national intrest only to suit Jewish intrest.
Look at whats happening today.
Nietzsche died in 1900, long before the Nazis. He dropped racial supremacy of the Aryan race though but even so the Nazis still completed Nietzsche's concept of Ubermensch. Whenever he liked "racism" or not.
Between 1894 and 1926, Elisabeth arranged the publication of the twenty volume Großoktavausgabe edition of Nietzsche's writings by C. G. Naumann. In it, following Köselitz' suggestion she included a selection from Nietzsche's posthumous fragments, which was gathered together and entitled The Will To Power. She claimed that this text was substantially the magnum opus, which Nietzsche had hoped to write and name "The Will to Power, An Attempt at a Revaluation of All Values". The first German edition, containing 483 sections, published in 1901, was edited by Köselitz, Ernst Horneffer, and August Horneffer, under Elisabeth's direction. This version was superseded in 1906 by an expanded second edition containing 1067 sections. This later compilation is what has come to be commonly known as The Will to Power.
Before Colli and Montinari's philological work, the previous editions led readers to believe that Nietzsche had organized all his work toward a final structured opus called The Will to Power. In fact, if Nietzsche did consider producing such a book, he had abandoned such plans in the months before his collapse. The title of The Will to Power, which appears for the first time at the end of the summer of 1885, was replaced by another plan at the end of August 1888. This new plan was titled "Attempt at a revaluation of all values" [Versuch einer Umwerthung aller Werthe],[2] and ordered the multiple fragments in a completely different way than the one chosen by Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche.
It looks like he intended to publish it though, unless someone has some better evidence to blow me the fuck out or I misread my own source
Okay It's late here that's why I just linked a source which goes against me. i just wanted to know the truth and now I do
This argument will always be inherently wrong as, whether you're religous or not, you'll never be able to prove or disprove God.
Because as long as God is in a state like Schrödinger's Cat so to speak, you will not be able to tell if there's a universal type morality - as simple as people knowing they do something bad when they do something bad, not necessarily what this "bad" means - or not.
And as long as this is the case, everyone arguing to be superior, because of "logical" arguments they came up with by deduction or whatever, is nothing but a self-entitled retard trying to upset others just for the sake of it.
And this is the Truth. God bless you.
Same and agreed. My life has been pretty damn cool ever since.
Droping redpills
Hitler didnt want war with Poland
But Poland was a cunt and threating germany with war after securing Britan gurantee. it was the jewish overloads that pushed Anti-german propaganda
While The germans pushed pro alliance, pro working together.
Hitler didnt want to kill poles, yet the jewish media in Poland brainwashed the people into thinking that the only way is to die protecting polish cities by creating sucidical civilian milita.
Germany bascily axed for rightful german clay Danzing