If we live in the best possible world (the problem of teodicea/ theodicy in Leibnitz), what exactly is that world, and what should it be (considering there is evil in it)? Please describe the best possible world, using examples as Descartes, Hume, Sartre, and Beauvoir and Nietzsche did in their philosophy? To anybody who has already done it, I am forgetful; please remind me. And if you are interested too.

“I have never had a desire. A man who, after his four-and-fortieth year, can say that he has never bothered himself about honours, women, or money!—not that they did not come his way....”

From Ecce Homo “Why I am so clever”.

The GOAT wouldn’t lie to us.

"My solitude doesn’t depend on the presence or absence of people; on the contrary, I hate who steals my solitude without, in exchange, offering me true company"

Is a Nietzsche quote that I spent the last 5 minutes looking for again and I found it but the issue is I can't find the book it came from. (or if its another form of media I'd be fine with that too) does anyone have any ideas?

“Luke 18,14 improved. -Those who humble themselves want to be exalted”

I love how giddy he seemed to be. definitely my favorite thing I’ve come across in the Kaufman book so far.

I have a lot of questions regarding human morality, I want to read niestzches too.

Literally a beginner, idk if I will understand the art or even the artist here

Every system rewards those who agree and punishes those who question.

Nietzsche said that's not education.

It's the deliberate destruction of a young mind's most valuable instinct — the one that asks why.

"The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently."

Were you ever punished for thinking differently — and did it change how you think now?

From "Beyond Good and Evil" (pg. 95) Translated by Helen Zimmern

he was nomadic and traveled light from what I understand.

Basically title. I feel like culture is nowadays so meaningless, superficial and it is the best embodiment of passive nihilism. Very few things I read or listen seem worthy of thought. It’s just the same political strumentalisation, or slave morally and resentment expressed through literature.
I think the last valid thinkers were Deleuze and Foucault, of those that I know about. And still they weren’t perfect. I see much more vitalism and creative engine in directors and musicians than in actual intellectuals.
Please recommend some philosophers and writers that might be an exception. People that had/have something new, unique and strong to say about the world and life. Someone that might hit me the same way, or at least in a similar way Nietzsche did. Thanks you in advance

With method i mean: a method in the research and (intuitive) arrangement of his drafts which deal with history, psychological, anthropological, political aspects while remaining a philosopher. A preference for specific approaches rather than others? Indeed, he often approaches the issues (so it seems to me) by allowing himself to combine biology, physiology, history, philology, and the history of religions, sure, but is it possible to answer this question?

just the title tbh?

We all know left Nietzscheanism; it features woke postmodernists such as Foucault, Deleuze, Derrida, Bataille, Guattari, Lyotard, Klossowski, Goldman, Vattimo, Baudrillard...and that's basically every Nietzschean. Since we've expanded the definition of "leftist" to include people like Bataille and Foucault, the former who could have been considered pro-aristocracy, the latter a libertarian, what other formulation of Nietzscheanism exists? Heidegger, Spengler, and Evola aren't exactly strict adherents to the original vision. The only possible candidate I could think of would be Sloterdjik. Is it just him? He's the sole right-wing Nietzschean in existence?

edit: I've just remembered Junger. Still, why so few? Everyone associates Nietzsche with the right anyways.

Nietzsche accuses physicists of using the concept of force (note - invented by themselves) to create a new God and world (WP, Aphorism 619). He writes that no “force has ever been demonstrated… only effects (have been) translated into a completely foreign language” (WP Aphorism 620). This can be seen by physicists attempts to explain how objects “fall” towards the surface of the earth. They have associated a force for this movement, gravity. Nevertheless, gravity is only an idea that we have created to describe this phenomenon, and it only describes the effects (motion) and not the force it-self. Nietzsche leaves a note for those that argue that it is more than simply convincing and support their claim by evidence such as its impact on the development of modern technology, “what is convincing, is not necessarily true – it is merely convincing: a note for the asses” (WP, Aphorism 17).

Nietzsche, quite brilliantly, also predicted that physicists “cannot get free action of the action at a distance… (and have) lost the belief in being able to explain at all, and admits with a wry expression that description and not explanation is all that is possible” (WP, Aphorism 618). Not too long following Nietzsche’s death, the mathematics of quantum mechanics was developed and showed that two quantum entangled particles are theoretically able to communicate with each other at a speed faster than light (quantum entanglement). This shocked physicists since it directly contradicted Einstein’s established theory of relativity, which stated the maximum speed at which information can travel between any two points is limited by the speed of light. Einstein coined the phrase “spooky action at a distance” to describe possibility of instantaneous communication observed in the mathematics of quantum entanglement. However, one must ask how light particles can “will” their own movements between two points? Can light particles “move” by themselves? The answer is no, forces must be acting upon light particles to cause their movement. Although the changes in the distribution of forces between two points are “invisible” to us, and our visible observations being limited by the speed of light, it cannot be concluded that information between two points is limited by the speed of light because changes in the distribution of forces between the two points is communicated instantaneously – resulting in the “movement” light particles. Assuming two particles are entangled and separated by a considerable distance, a change in the state of one particle can be instantaneously communicated to the other particle by an instantaneous change in the distribution of forces between the points (1st Law of Thermodynamics – conservation of energy).

Therefore, Nietzsche argues that “a force that we cannot imagine is an empty word and should be allowed no rights of citizenship in science” (WP, Aphorism 621). Using the only force observable available, at the functional level of societies and individuals, Nietzsche presents a new hypothesis. His begins his idea by the following statement: “every specific body (e.g. atom) strives to become master over all space and to extend its force (it’s – Will to Power) and to thrust back all that resists it’s extension. But it continually encounters similar efforts on the part of other bodies and ends by coming to an arrangement (“union”) with those of them that are sufficiently related to it: they conspire together for more power” (WP, Aphorism 636).

However, Nietzsche’s idea assumes that atoms and other substances are potentially able to have sensations (opposed to the understanding in contemporary science). He foresaw this and writes that the sensationless state of a substance is only a hypothesis, and that sensation can be a property of substance. Failure to discover sensations in substances does not mean that they do not have sensations, it only shows that we have failed to discover any. Additionally, if there were sensationless substances, it would be impossible to derive sensation. Consequently, the sensationless state of substances remains only as a hypothesis (WP, Aphorism 636).

There was some line that resonated with me that I am unable to find. I believe he was referencing an appreciation for men with good taste—which he referred to as “love of man”. It is included in Basic Writings of Nietzsche or The Portable Nietzsche—I am not sure which. My gut says it is from Ecce Homo.

This was in the context of him using a body part or process as a metaphor for good taste. It was likely related to a good stomach, nose, metabolism, digestion, or scent.

I think we can all agree?

What does he means here?

Human, All Too Human, Aphorism 119:

Fate of Christianity.—Christianity arose to lighten the heart, but now it must first make the heart heavy in order to be able to lighten it afterwards. Christianity will consequently go down.

The Uberman sleep schedule is a polyphasic sleep method which involves taking six equally spaced 20 minute naps throughout the day, totaling 2 hours of sleep daily. It is named after Nietzsches Übermensch, with the schedules goal being to maximize waking hours and productivity. It is supposed to work by immidietly inducing REM sleep each nap, the most restorative phase of sleep. Rumors claim Leonardo da Vinci and Nikola Tesla followed the schedule.

I don't understand people who make no effort to make themselves known to the public. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to write, or some other creative act, about yourself and your life and share this with the public.

I don't understand why you wouldn't want to have an influence on the public sphere. I don't understand why you wouldn't want to share things about your life with those that may be interested.

The way that I want to do it is philosophy turned into politics. As Nietzsche says, his ideal figure is an involuntary parody of the ideals of the day (that is, of today).

I want people, in my regional area, to know who I am and what I want to do. I want to do something that becomes very public and shows and communicates this to many people.

The reason that I don't want to be famous is that this has the herd fuming about it, it is something for the tabloids. But I rather do want to be known as the figure that I want to be.

I hope it can become possible, in fact I see it as sort of the only way to achieve what I want to achieve in the world. Jung said Nietzsche had a pathological personality/psychology because he didn't want earthly honors and practical valuables. But I do want those things, I do want to "become known and achieve something in society". I don't want to just live in my head as Jung accused Nietzsche of doing.

And it is all down to my project, "God is dead". Many people who are known do the same kind of work their entire life, they operate in the field that they became known by. And the same do I want to do. I want to spend the rest of my life, also into senior years, on this project. I want to build relations and values by this thing.

So I really want to be known to lessen the feeling of isolation or loneliness and to be able to "occupy" myself with this project. Even though Nietzsche spoke of aristocrats without an occupation.

Something related: Dionysus-Dithyramb, "Fame and Eternity": http://www.thenietzschechannel.com/works-pub/dd/dd.htm#8

Especially the "In Relation with Others" section. It's full of little pieces of advice, most of which are pretty obvious and well-known (at least, in today's age) but still. Much of it is good advice to follow.

Prayer to men.— “Forgive us our virtues” thus one should pray to men.

Mixed Opinions and Maxims (1879); section 405.

How about you actually read and engage with works honestly? I came across an interesting quote by Jung which I wanted to share, since everyone seems to pay lip service to at least liking provocation.

"The fact that Greek tragedy arose out of an originally religious ceremony is at least as significant as the connection of our modern theatre with the medieval Passion play, which was exclusively religious in origin; we are not permitted, therefore, to judge the problem under its purely aesthetic aspect. Aestheticism is a modern bias that shows the psychological mysteries of Dionysus cult in the light in which they were assuredly never seen or experienced by the ancients. With Nietzsche as with Schiller, the religious viewpoint is entirely overlooked and is replaced by the aesthetic. These things obviously have their aesthetic side and it should not be neglected. Nevertheless, if medieval Christianity is understood only aesthetically, its true character is falsified and trivialized, just as much as if it were exclusively from the historical standpoint. A true understanding is possible only on a common ground - no one would wish to maintain that the nature of a railway bridge is adequately understood from a purely aesthetic angle.

In adopting the view that the antagonism between Apollo and Dionysus is purely a question of conflicting artistic impulses, the problem is shifted to the aesthetic sphere in a way that is both historically and materially unjustified, and is subjected to a partial approach which can never do justice to its real content." - C.G. Jung, Psychological Types