What does Sup Forums think of Friedrich niestschze

What do you think?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=MCOw0eJ84d8
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

It don't matter. none of this matters.

Driven insane by his intentionally-contracted syphilis. His comments about the horse, for example, illustrate this.

Some of his writing is still interesting though, even if not true.

He was very smart. I read about 80 pages from one of his books while on the beach in California but then around the 6th beer I couldn’t focus on the book anymore, so I played beach volley ball with these random hot girls. I never got to bang any of them. Life is usually a disappointing journey

I think that Sup Forums is filled to the brim with unintelligent little newfaggots that have ruined the board.

which texts have you actually read, user...Be honest.

>Whoever fights monsters should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And if you gaze long enough into an abyss, the abyss will gaze back into you.
Pretty deep. Perfectly describe the Antifa state.

I don't think much of him at all

+0

He is addictive but ultimately pointless to read.

Misunderstood master of satire.

didnt he invent the nazis?

This. Although, he is good for motivational reasons, aside from that he's largely pointless.

The original emo kid.
Very, very smart though, he managed to predict the rise of todays leftism.
Pick up at least twilight of the idols, its a short read. If you have the time, thus spoke zarathustra is his best work
Keep in mind, he likes to overdramatize a lot

>God is dead, goyim

this

I liked GoM and BGE more than Thus Spoke desu

>God is dead, goyim
He literally criticises Christianity for being too Jewish. Read the Antichrist.

The Gay Science too

I think a lot less of him than he did of himself.
He was narcissistic juvenile cuck who wrote one book of interest, his first, and after that it was just a race to the bottom.
Pathetic amateur, not fit for the greats of western philosophy by any stretch.

matter of taste, ofcourse

babbys first "woke" read

Greatest philosopher of all time

just the man who has redpilled the world

He was right about everything

He's alright. He's baby's first philosopher through so people have memed his work to death

I'm not sure, the way I would describe Nietzsche's motivational effects on me is maybe 'spiritual sickness'. I don't even know where I stand on religion, but I know that you need to value something other than yourself. I agree 100% with the idea of striving to become the best you can, but not just as a goal in itself, there needs to be some purpose to what you're doing that isn't just you, and Nietzsche says that that is basically impossible. Same issue I have with Stirner, and the existentialists(Heidegger is the least culpable of this but I still think he places too much importance on the individual, and besides I don't like that entire mode of ontology).

Meaning in life is emphatically not just something within you, you aren't this disconnected thing, you are enmeshed in reality and your meaning is not contained within you.

He was a filthy perverted kike

bullshit continental philospher who was the forerunner to post-modernism and rick and morty fedorafags.

The Eternal Anglo produced the only good philosophers, except Voltaire.

At first, I liked him. Then I understood he is too edgy and dramatic. Then I understood he was actually right and most ''good'' philsophers fed to me actually suck balls.
I only like Nietzsche and Descrartes desu

Perverted yes, filthy maybe, a kike.....never.

>implying kierkegaard was somehow bad

youtube.com/watch?v=MCOw0eJ84d8

Stirner and Nietzsche were huge faggots. EVERYONE realizes the inherent lack of objective foundation of every conceptual framework or ideology before they turn 12. Only mega-autismos build the following decades of their life and identity development around that conclusion. It's like being a fedorafag in highschool and never growing out of it.

Have you read Nee-chee?
Totally Nihilist bro and I highly recommend.

Sup Forums doesn't think

>The Eternal Anglo produced good philosophers
You better kys now user. It won't get any better from here.

Checked.
You're not wrong. I started with Nietzche and then it was all downhill from there.

>syphilis
Nope.

Acta neurol. belg., 2008, 108, 9-16
"The neurological illness of Friedrich Nietzsche"


Abstract

Objective : To use historical accounts and original materials including correspondence, biographical data and medical papers to document the clinical character- istics of Nietzsche’s illness and, by using this pathogra- phy, to discuss formerly proposed diagnoses and to pro- vide and support a new diagnostic hypothesis. Materials : Original letters from Friedrich Nietzsche, descriptions by relatives and friends, and medical descriptions. Original German sources were investigat- ed. Biographical papers published in medical journals were also consulted.

Results : Nietzsche suffered from migraine without aura which started in his childhood. In the second half of his life he suffered from a psychiatric illness with depres- sion. During his last years, a progressive cognitive decline evolved and ended in a profound dementia with stroke. He died from pneumonia in 1900. The family his- tory includes a possible vascular-related mental illness in his father, who died from stroke at 36.

Conclusions : Friedrich Nietzsche’s disease consisted of migraine, psychiatric disturbances, cognitive decline with dementia, and stroke. Despite the prevalent opinion that neurosyphilis caused Nietzsche’s illness, there is lack of evidence to support this diagnosis. Cerebral auto- somal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leukoencephalopathy (CADASIL) accounts for all the signs and symptoms of Nietzsche’s illness. This study adds new elements to the debate and controversy about Nietzsche’s illness. We discuss former diagnoses, com- ment on the history of a diagnostic mistake, and integrate for the first time Nietzsche’s medical problems.

Come to /lit/ or /his/

wtf my life just flashed through my eyes

Interesting guy. I started reading him again this week. I never realized how much of a grecophile he was. Overall has some interesting ideas but his philosophy is entirely flawed from placing far too much worth on ((creativity)).

>he thinks that quote was some edgy statement made by nietzsche because he was anti-religious

How was he filthy and perverted?

Nietzsche is a very important read, but you have to take in mind that his primary goal is to critique the trends in the intellectual culture. His works really seem smart today because he predicts the endless shift towards what we like to call today as "leftist" thinking in both mass psychology and intellectual culture, proposing that these dangerous trends in thinking began when christianity was introduced to the west.

The fact that he identified as mutually interacting trends in both intellectual culture and mass culture is very important, because no one before him really understood that there was a connection between intellectual culture and the culture of the masses. Of course the few free thinkers left today now realize that the entire intellectual culture and mass culture has been fucked to death and nothing can save it, so in a way Nietzsche was totally correct.

One thing that people find confusing about him is his apparent rejection of prior philosophers like Plato and the stoics. Leftists especially like to pretend he was an existentialist, but if you read his work you will see that, although he criticizes the big past philosophers, it's never on the basis of their arguments, but on enabling the dangerous trends in intellectual and mass culture continue to run free.

Nietzsche is the single most important philosopher since Plato and sadly his work was corrupted by his sister and the NSDAP.

Atheists misinterpret his message all the time as him being some kind of advocate of their cause. Niestschze did not attack Christianity to break it down, but grieved over what he saw as a inevitability already happening before his eyes. Christians calling themselves Christians, but not living as if there was a real alive God. Treating the word like a rule book, rather then the declaration of what would be a final day of judgement. Niestschze hated the spiritual death of the modern age that he himself had fallen into, and hence attempted to both build a new ethos, while dismantling the false doctrine that had been building up around "modern Christians".

This is demonstrated when he writes about his encounter with a genuine Christian man living in the woods, and how he flees from him in fear he'll infect him with the disease of modernity.

He would HATE with all his passion the state of the West today.

The Golden One is unironically a bridge to the Overman

>his philosophy is entirely flawed from placing far too much worth on ((creativity))
I don't think this a fair criticism. His main argument is that intellectuals and the masses participate in and perpetuate a system of philosophy, which encourages most people to act like slaves as they don't think for themselves but instead do what the system of philosophy tells them. So he's definitely not arguing that creativity is a good in and of itself that is worth pursuing because of its goodness. He's arguing that being a slave is bad and not natural for humans because he thinks its clearly evident that humans possess a will of their own.

No, that was his sister perverting his writings. He never wrote "Der Wille zur Macht", his sister did and she even got a handshake from old Adolf for it.

no

...

this all happened because of his sister

No, Nietzsche was definetly an atheist. He never believed there was a God, what he said, was that, now that the masses could no longer put a God at the root of their morality, they should base it in themselves. Theat is Nietzsche's Übermensch, the human that has rid itself of the thought of a God and the meaning in life and morality based on that concept and replace the Gods as the root of moral and meaning in life.

I thought Nieto's Übermensch was the human who was able to revisit his past without feeling sadness or nostalgia

Kinda the same thing in context...

He outlined the problem with Slave Morality which is what's popular in the west but his solution is nothing more than an early poor attempt at Ayn Rand's Objectivism/hyper-individuality which in the modern day has shown to not be very conductive to a nation and civilization as a whole.

somewhat but not really, I feel you overblow the religious aspect of Niartch's corpus.

They are all somehow related

Charlemagne is literally a common ancestor of most European males

Probably my favorite quote of his.

I like his theory of slave morality. He basically believes that Christianity was a values revolution against the Roman Empire which valued strength, but now we're stuck with a system of morality that values weakness for no justifiable reason.

Yeah, you're right. My wording overemphasized how big of a flaw it was, but certainly i believe it to be a flaw.