How much longer until Jow Forums actually reads Nietzsche and then realizes that all moral arguments have a...

>moral arguments have a philosophically Semitic origin
Desert religions didn't invent moral arguments.

>I have read all of Neetzsche
Well, read him again, because you obviously didn't understand that much of him.

I agree, but if you're implying that I'm the left, you're mistaken.

William Plank demonstrates a solid understanding of Nietzsche in his assessment of Machiavelli:

>Machiavelli puzzled commentators and annoyed the morally righteous because he was not a Platonist. Thus, The Prince does not seek to provide any recipes for a utopia because utopias are not relevant to political science. The book is rather a presentation, to a prince, of the evolutionary fluctuations of the course of political entities and how an alert prince may occasionally exploit these fluctuations to seize and maintain power. On the other hand, Plato's Republic, as an aristocratic utopia contains no seed of political science. Only by the presentation of empirical observations from the past and by drawing lessons from them can Machiavelli present a real political science which may indeed be useful to an aspiring prince. The Prince presents a situation and is written in tone similar to the first sections of the Genealogy of Morals. The goal in these two works is not to promote the happiness of subjects, it is to show how power imposes itself and creates for itself a morality and a politics. Machiavelli was indeed the founder of modern political science because he was able to escape from the narrow idealism of classical philosophy. The Prince is a main chapter in the overall work of Machiavelli, a work which might be generally titled The Genealogy of Power.

If you think Nietzsche was in favor of the moral argument, you have misunderstood Nietzsche. Read Twilight of the Idols and Will to Power. Nietzsche charged Plato with degeneracy of the Greek spirit and claimed he and the Stoics resembled Semites more than Greeks due to their moralizing attitudes.

nice word salad

What is word salad there?

most of the pagan non-semitic religions had hell, while hell and afterlife at all was barely relevant in Judaism.

Nietzsche wasn't opposed to moral judgements, he was opposed to slave moralities that insist on universal values. He thought that the most developed natures had both the slave and master moralities battling within them and that eventually some kind of overman would be able to revalue all values entirely.

>Nietzsche wasn't opposed to moral judgements, he was opposed to slave moralities that insist on universal values.
Did you read that snippet of Plank's I posted? Nietzsche ultimately doesn't pick a side in his Genealogy where he lays out the master vs. slave moralities. His point was to show how power imposes itself in the world. The only "good" for Nietzsche is power and power alone.

Pagan religions did not teach eternal damnation based on moral worth before the Jews introduced the concept to them.

based on moral worth as measured by a good vs. evil dichotomy*

in case it isn't clear.

No, that's not true. Then a hurricane could come and destroy humanity and that would be a good thing; power expressing itself. Nietzsche did not respect power for power's sake but instead the most highly developed forms of power. That's why he valued the artist so highly.

wrong, retard. pagan went to hell for engaging in dishonorable act, in murder etc.
in fact pagan were the one who introduced it into Christianity
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Níðhöggr

The transcendent Platonic ideals inspire me, I don't see a path to the glory or "Apollonian" creative spirit (or whatever you call that thing born of will that Nietzsche likes, the thing that happens to build pyramids and cathedrals) without invoking universal ideals and virtue.
I grew up thinking in evolutionary and rather nihilistic terms but then built the platonic/Christian ideals of virtue on top of that later in life which is opposite from how the western world developed, just turn the worldview right side up and it makes sense. You have to be aware of the systems like the prince talks about but still strive for ideals in a way that may even result in short term harm or death. If you don't strive for high ideals you are guaranteed not to get a great result.

>No, that's not true.
You haven't read Nietzsche for shit, dude. He even says it straight at the beginning of The Antichrist:

>What is good?—Whatever augments the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself, in man.

That definition does not include anything besides power, and it certainly does not place favor in either slave or master morality.

You haven't read Nietzsche at all so get out of the thread and come back when you have.

>literally "read locki" argument
fuck off sargon

He's talking about how people define the concept of good, literally look at the last two words of that quote. Ultimately he thinks that good and evil are symbolic shorthand we use to talk about a variety of social, psychological and emotional realities and that we should go beyond them. You have fallen into babby's first misreading of Nietzsche you should probably consider suicide or at least castration so that the next generation doesn't have to put up with this retarded bullshit.

The Greeks lacked the good vs. evil moralizing up until people who hardly resembled Greeks (the Stoics, Socrates, Plato) came on the scene.

>The appearance of moralists belongs to an age in which morality is coming to an end. The moralist disintegrates the moral instincts, however much he may suppose himself to be their restorer. That which really drives the moralist is not the moral instincts but the instincts of decadence translated into the formulas of morality—he regards it as corruption when the instincts become uncertain.
Will to Power

>crypto-Semitic
6 grillion by EOY , buy now faggots or die poor , it like you literally hate money

wrong, they lacked the specific type of pure good vs pure evil morality, but all of them had sense of good and bad

>He's talking about how people define the concept of good
He's revising how people commonly define the concept of good into his own. That is his definition of it.

>Ultimately he thinks that good and evil are symbolic shorthand we use to talk about a variety of social, psychological and emotional realities and that we should go beyond them.
Yes, exactly. So why are you arguing with me?

Good and bad =/= good and evil. I didn't say they didn't have any sense of good and bad.

"Anti-God trash." tosses the whole book our after reading that part..

like I predicted, it turned into sematic argument.
etymonline.com/word/evil

>So why are you arguing with me?
Because only the biggest faggots reduce Nietzsche to a philosopher of blind power.

The word is semantic, and if you actually read the philosopher the thread is about, you'd know exactly how massive the philosophical gulf is between a good vs. bad attitude and a good vs. evil attitude. Just by understanding the difference alone you can more or less understand everything that Nietzsche condemned about Christianity and the whole Semitic realm of thought in general.

Who said anything about blind power? Blind power is never going to top calculated power. Yes, I agree with you that Nietzsche praised higher forms of power, as that comes with the territory of praising power at all; but the fact remains that that the rising of power in oneself alone is the qualifier for whether something is good for oneself or not and that is the whole of Nietzsche's morality.

so you can't explain anything nietzche said? I don't need to read neetche, but you are too much of a brainlet to do.
let's define evil as everything that opposes Yahweh, then paganism didn't have such thing, but all you would prove here is that they didn't have a very specific type of morality, they still had morality and moral argumentation.

>I don't need to read neetche
You obviously do.

One of the many points Nietzsche makes is that the good vs. bad dichotomy does not encourage a separation of the judgment from the judge, while good vs. evil does encourage this, and has encouraged this, and has completely changed our philosophical history as a result, to the point where it allowed us to become possessed by the erroneous concept of a thing-in-itself and to glorify an all-powerful God that is utterly separate from ourselves. On top of this, Nietzsche considers the Jews to have deliberately done this, in order to confuse the masters and weaken them; when the judgment and the judge become too separated, the value of the individual is lessened, to the point where the individual is not valued at all (hence the glorification of an all-powerful God removed from ourselves), which is at the detriment of the developmental process of stronger individuals (i.e. masters).

>(((God)))

Attached: 1530920114480.jpg (1362x779, 521K)

Patently false. Read Gorgias, for starters.

>"Guise, tone it down with the identity politics. What happens when the Goyim actually read Nietzsche and Heidegger? Can we blame Nietzsche's sister forever?"

Attached: allan-bloom.jpg (300x250, 10K)

You need to read Nietzche more like Aristotle and Plato i.e. not every sentence in their work is meant to be read as a truism or something the author believes to be a truism. Dullard.

You destroyed that idiot.

>"Relax, (((we))) will just tell the Gentiles that Nietzsche and Heidegger were actually and only about hating Christianity. That should work."

Attached: walter-kaufmann.jpg (328x400, 35K)

>He hasn’t read Empedocles
Cringe

Nothing about good vs evil separates the judgment from the judge. What the fuck are you trying to say with this bc it sure isn’t accurate to Christianity

The original edgemeister to be exact

>Nothing about good vs evil separates the judgment from the judge.
Do I really have to go through my Beyond Good and Evil notes to ward off you retards from spewing shit on works you have clearly not read / poorly read?

Another point Nietzsche makes is that the good vs. evil dichotomy is asserted by weaker types (people of poor spiritual and intellectual hygiene) whereas the good vs. evil dichotomy is asserted by stronger types. You gonna throw some shit at me like an ape over that one too?

>whereas the good vs. bad dichotomy is asserted by stronger types.
oops

pointing out your own mistakes is slave morality

Attached: trump.jpg (640x387, 34K)

Nah, being a man and owning your shit isn't slave like.

I’m not arguing against your reading of Nietzsche; I’m arguing against Nietzsche. Good vs bad does more to separate the judge from a judgment— “bad” acts in the Platonic sense are bad for the soul without needing a God to condemn them in the afterlife. But as soon as a God monad determines what is good and what is evil, his judgment is the only judgment and thus he is the the only judge. Where is the separation between judge and judgment in any monotheistic formulation?

>it's true because neet che said so but I can't explain why

Attached: 1516848601667.png (645x729, 105K)

>Where is the separation between judge and judgment in any monotheistic formulation?
The separation in the Semitic formulation is in God itself, because God is separate from the judge which is you. Master moralists don't believe in bullshit like "I get my values from an almighty"; bitch, they fucking ARE the almighty. Fuck you and your "God."

I can explain why, but I'd rather not spoonfeed a literal fucking retard any more than I have.

how convenient for you. you missed the whole point of philosophy, it's not reading it's thinking

You should have specified the difference between internal and external judgment before spouting off. Also you sound very unintelligent. I’m hoping you realize that an important cultural use of slave morality is in keeping the low IQ high appetite citizens of a nation in check, behavior-wise. Moral arguments are and always will be important. Thank God for God.

>I’m hoping you realize that an important cultural use of slave morality is in keeping the low IQ high appetite citizens of a nation in check, behavior-wise.
No shit. What's your point? That I shouldn't be making threads about Nietzsche? Fuck off.

You’re the one who misread Nietzsche, who isn’t even a difficult philosopher to read. He is, however difficult to wrap tidily in any philosophical system, which you seem to be trying to do. He was a man of great contradictions, even about morality. You’re a sad sort of “philosopher.” :)

I don't have much knowledge about Heidegger except for the fact that he used to be a member of a nazi party for a short period of time. Care to explain how he is relevant to our cause? Also should I even bother to try to read and understand him provided I'm below 140 IQ?

Attached: PepeDrooling.jpg (600x484, 23K)

>You’re the one who misread Nietzsche
Explain where and how I've misunderstood him.

>He was a man of great contradictions
lol. And you're saying *I* misunderstood him, when you're the one who can't figure out what he meant and consequently have to see "contradictions" everywhere.

The point is that your OP is totally useless to everyone here. Every poster that recognizes the Hebraic origins of Christian morality will also recognize that the use of said morality in maintaining a healthy nation state far outweighs its negative association with Jews. You should also know that one reason Nietzsche’s anti-Christian argument flounders is that the New Testament is an anti-Semitic text. Also God exists.

Pathetic. Nice try, Christcucks.

You cunts celebrate kike nailed to stick XDD

Attached: OP.jpg (225x225, 9K)

But there are contradictions between his earlier and later work, especially w/r/t his own anti-Semitism (which ofc has implications for his moral theories). If you don’t see where you’ve mistead, or where the contradictions in his corpus lie, I suggest you reread him. :)

>The point is that your OP is totally useless to everyone here.
It won't be for the inquisitive people here (i.e. the people with a triple digit IQ). They might go read him for once and actually learn what Jow Forums really is, which is a cesspool where society's most pathetic members congregate, and what 90% of Antisemitism is really about, which is hypocrisy of a devastating form.

>Every poster that recognizes the Hebraic origins of Christian morality will also recognize that the use of said morality in maintaining a healthy nation state far outweighs its negative association with Jews.
But what no poster seems to acknowledge is that this Semitic ordering of society is becoming useless. God does exist, and his name is the Overman now, and there are millions who are starting to follow this new God instead and are slowly achieving a consciousness of it.

Why would I want to listen to a dude who never worked a day in his life, hated himself, went nuts, and fucked a syphilitic whore to off himself because he was too pussy to go out like a man?

>Why would I want to listen to a dude who never worked a day in his life
Not only is this not true, considering he was a professor, briefly worked at a hospital during war, and published (and some self-published) over a dozen books, but you should want to listen to such a person if they take themselves seriously because they will be able to provide insights that working people won't possibly be able to have. Also, he had brain cancer, not syphilis.

... who do you think you are listening to right now?

> antisemitic
This is an anti jew movement, quit being subversive.

The idea that there isn't an underlying framework in Nietzsche's philosophy comes from the early Anglo "Analytic" retards. If you can't manage to see it yourself while reading Nietzsche, read guys like William Plank.

>Nueva Germania, Paraguay
What happened there user? Why does it say in the history books that his sister Elisabeth edited her brother's work after he went insane to make it sound more anti-Jewish? How many are aware of his actual concept of the Superman? Does one know that Adolf Hitler himself went to Elisabeth's funeral

>Why does it say in the history books that his sister Elisabeth edited her brother's work after he went insane to make it sound more anti-Jewish?
Because she did, even though it was unnecessary, because he was fairly anti-Jewish without her. She was another hypocritical moralizing cretin that he disliked.

How did they come to this conclusion? Are there any actual backed-up facts concerning this claim?

>How did they come to this conclusion?
Through scholarly work. I'm sure you can find a copy of the omitted text considered forged somewhere.

I’d say start by reading Being and Time (of course), Existentialism as a Humanism, and The Question Concerning Technology. Probably the most relevant to whatever cause you’re talking about, versus his later, more poetic work.

Don't you want to live a meaningful life in an authentic community? Heidegger is relevant if you want to look at the world beyond instrumental terms, beyond the rat race.

Also, he was fucking (((Hannah Arendt))), which makes him the Mike Peinovich of his time.

Attached: another-beginning.jpg (316x475, 34K)

>morality is stoopid
>i am beyond morals now, power and will and creation bitches
>this is deep
nietzsche is fine but let's not pretend he's anything but the 'hammer' he himself claimed to be, and built fucking nothing.

I find this highly unlikely. Consider the fact that German soldiers were reading his work on the battlefield. Do you know which book they were reading whilst laying in the trenches?

Attached: jhgcfgdsdfgh.png (548x1266, 164K)

These concepts originate in Zoroastrianism, which is about as "Aryan" as anything can possibly get.

White nationalism isn't inherently anti-Semitic.

Wow I love Jews now

What do you disagree with Nietzsche on? assuming you're capable of critical thinking

Atheism is in essence Luciferianism. All acts of worshipping self as a God lead to evil

>I find this highly unlikely.
Well, I don't, and I'm 100% positive I have done more scholarly research on the man than you have. His work is already anti-Jewish, fundamentally so. He stands opposed to many of the things Christian antisemites promote regardless however because Christianity is Jewish.

There is some delicious irony to you coming here to spend a few hours deconstructing everyone's morality into power while decrying any kind of universalism. And hating Christians, of course.

>while decrying any kind of universalism.
But I haven't been doing that at any point in this thread. Will to power is universal.

>I'm sure you can find a copy of the omitted text considered forged somewhere
Perhaps, perhaps I'll find a forged copy of a forged claim with no real way to establish its authenticity. We know who won the war, you can understand by reading Nietzsche that Hitler and Mussolini were inspired by him. They would have considered this a threat. There is reason behind the fact, that if you buy a Nietzsche-book today, you are reading the 70th translation/edition of it. Who controls the presses? Who won the war?

The question is for OP.

Sophists baka

Yeah but you know, at least the relativists realize that everybody has a viewpoint, while you cry and moan about universalism and then introduce a new kind of universalism, namely the power/will/strength/creation worship that's also been around since BC but whatever.

>with no real way to establish its authenticity.
You could discuss the text with other Nietzsche scholars to validate whether it is forged or not. We have a considerable amount of literature by the man and more than enough to make such assessments collectively.

There is no relativity without will to power as a universal, and there is no relativity when the only perceived universal is Semitic (Jewish, Christian or Islamic) universalism.

It's like you can't see the theory for the words anymore.

>I have done more scholarly research on the man than you have
Answer the question then
>Consider the fact that German soldiers were reading his work on the battlefield. Do you know which book they were reading whilst laying in the trenches?
I am not attacking you. Just trying to have a conversation

Isn't that everyone else here? Who is the one charging me for asserting something I wasn't asserting at all?

Ive read some of his stuff, its a black pill treasure trove, but youre gonna have to source your claims cause they smell like a load of bullshit.

Must be frustrating when everyone's a moron misinterpreting you and Nietzsche. Where is the power? Anyway I'm not trying to "charge you for asserting something you weren't asserting", just making some shitpost in a euphoric thread.
>I'm 100% positive I have done more scholarly research on the man than you have

I know Thus Spoke Zarathustra was handed out at one point, and possibly retracted later on, but whether it was being read in the trenches or not I don't know.

Sourcing Nietzsche is a lot of work, because these messages are spread out through multiple volumes of his work. If you want to give me an extra 30 minutes I could do it, if the thread lasts that long.

>You could discuss the text with other Nietzsche scholars to validate whether it is forged or not. We have a considerable amount of literature by the man and more than enough to make such assessments collectively
Can you recommend any scholars?
>We know who won the war, you can understand by reading Nietzsche that Hitler and Mussolini were inspired by him. They would have considered this a threat. There is reason behind the fact, that if you buy a Nietzsche-book today, you are reading the 70th translation/edition of it. Who controls the presses? Who won the war?
Have your read his work in German or translated?
>I know Thus Spoke Zarathustra was handed out at one point
Forget SIEGE, read this

Here is a decent passage from Ecce Homo:

>My life-task is to prepare for humanity one supreme moment in which it can come to its senses, a Great Noon in which it will turn its gaze backwards and forwards, in which it will step from under the yoke of accident and of priests, and for the first time set the question of the Why and Wherefore of humanity as a whole—this life-task naturally follows out of the conviction that mankind does not get on the right road of its own accord, that it is by no means divinely ruled, but rather that it is precisely under the cover of its most holy valuations that the instinct of negation, of corruption, and of degeneration has held such a seductive sway. The question concerning the origin of moral valuations is therefore a matter of the highest importance to me because it determines the future of mankind. The demand made upon us to believe that everything is really in the best hands, that a certain book, the Bible, gives us the definite and comforting assurance that there is a Providence that wisely rules the fate of man,—when translated back into reality amounts simply to this, namely, the will to stifle the truth which maintains the reverse of all this, which is that hitherto man has been in the worst possible hands, and that he has been governed by the physiologically botched, the men of cunning and burning revengefulness, and the so-called "saints"—those slanderers of the world and traducers of humanity. The definite proof of the fact that the priest (including the priest in disguise, the philosopher) has become master, not only within a certain limited religious community, but everywhere, and that the morality of decadence, the will to nonentity, has become morality per se, is to be found in this: that altruism is now an absolute value, and egoism is regarded with hostility everywhere. He who disagrees with me on this point, I regard as infected.

And from Daybreak:

>I should not, of course, deny—unless I were a fool—that many actions which are called immoral should be avoided and resisted; and in the same way that many which are called moral should be performed and encouraged; but I hold that in both cases these actions should be performed from motives other than those which have prevailed up to the present time. We must learn anew in order that at last, perhaps very late in the day, we may be able to do something more: feel anew.

And his statement from Will to Power which I posted earlier in the thread:

>The appearance of moralists belongs to an age in which morality is coming to an end. The moralist disintegrates the moral instincts, however much he may suppose himself to be their restorer. That which really drives the moralist is not the moral instincts but the instincts of decadence translated into the formulas of morality—he regards it as corruption when the instincts become uncertain.

There are many more such passages in his work. He considered Daybreak the start of his assault on morality, so if you're interested in learning more about that, consider reading that one.

And of course, if you read The Antichrist, you would know that Nietzsche considers institutional Christianity to be the product of St. Paul, a Jew, who created a Judeo-Pagan cult off of the momentum of Jesus, who himself was not at all promoting an institutional Christianity or hell and salvation / guilt and sin but rather a Buddhistic movement that was AGAINST the church of his time (i.e. the Jews).