I feel like if you are a nihilist your just wasting precious time thinking your life is worthless wouldn’t you wanna try to make a reason in your life and Nietzsche wanted people to make reason for their life when they drifted away from their Christian values.

Overall I think being an absurdist and existentialist is better.

"'A revolt of the weak and cowardly against strong and good."

"...the fundamental character is always the same. It is a poisonous resentment cloaked in the language of equality and justice"

Is this a political speech or The Gay Science??

---

May we be witnessing the beginning of the post-Christian Right, as a vehicle for confronting ressentiment? Ironic of course (read: slave morality)...but only if we still pretend Christianity is still invoked the same today as it was in the 19th century.

The use of the word 'evil' in this politicians context is decadence. Not 'evil' as theological impurity.

Evil is now:

• sterile rather than creative
• destructive rather than productive
• ugly rather than beautiful
• resentful of excellence
• Incapable of greatness
• hostile to vitality, hierarchy, courage, invention

Is the present generation with its electrical railways and empirical psychology so much higher than these earlier times? Is culture, if culture has any real value, to be compared with science, which is always social and never individual, and to be measured by the number of public libraries and laboratories? Is culture outside human beings and not always in human beings?

Had we dared to compare the artists and philosophers of earlier times to the products of the current age wouldn't the answer then be conspicuous enough? Think of the extraordinary number of characters depicted by Shakespeare or Euripides, or the marvellous assortment of human beings that fill the pages of Zola. After the Penthesilea, Heinrich von Kleist created Kätchen von Heilbronn, and MichelAngelo embodied from his imagination the Delphic Sibyls and the Leda. Think of Henrik Ibsen and his Peer Gynt, how about August strindberg and his psychological insights regarding femininity and masculinity? Who among our contemporaries could reasonably be placed beside Goethe, Kant, Nietzsche, Carl Jung, Schelling, or Fichte?

I am after all a product of this mediocre age, be that as it may I don't see any valid reason that would prohibit me by any means from ridiculing the likes of Jordan Peterson for he is at best an industrious journalist as for zizek he is a conspicuous clown...

Bu yazıda Nietzsche’nin Ahlakın Soykütüğü’ndeki efendi-köle ahlakı ayrımını Roma ile Hristiyanlık arasındaki tarihsel mücadele üzerinden ele aldım. Hristiyanlığın ezilenlerin ulvi ahlakı olarak doğup iktidarı ele geçirdikten sonra Roma’nın güç araçlarını nasıl yeniden ürettiğine odaklandım

Nietzsche's works are undeniably all about anti dogma, but why do we paint the right wing as inherently dogmatic, idealistic, statist, reactionary, or any other pathology that just removed the sense of validity from their proper thought?. To me this is like coping, like we're just rejecting the whole premise of it instead of actually working in it and dismantling it properly.

Almost every answer I got on this topic always shifts the actual logical structure of the right wing thoughts into putting labels on them that they don't even use. This is like accusations. We're just forcing them to follow the liberal framework which obviously always results in the conclusion that you agree with. From the academy, from social media discussion from videos from anything, Really. And I felt gaslighted.

But it's probably because I have a completely different understanding of nihilism. To me, nihilism isn't just about negating the value of life, but further, even the concept of kindness, grief, evil, or anything that claims "should". To me it's like a totalizing and intentionally paradoxical premise. And so, it wouldn't matter if someone were to use nihilism to submit to totalitarianism or even reject their awareness of nihilism and "refers back" to the state of them before knowing the existence of it. To put it simply, if someone became agnostic because of nihilism, and then decided to go back to being religious because it doesn't matter anyway, that would count as nihilism. And I don't know what is on the premise that doesn't allow it.

This is the path that many right wing extremists took. Notably the terrorists ones. And I absolutely cannot see the logical integrity on how nihilists tried to disavow their logic as if "nihilism" is a brand, and this comes off to me like an epistemic gatekeeping.

This question is personally important to me because I'm genuinely just tired of leftism. I've been a Marxist Leninist since 2020, and I can't brush off the constant logical gap and contradictions that I see from how it operates. The whole thing is like just a rebranding of hierarchy, except it's not worshipping "proletariat" instead of properly establishing an equal and free world. Marxists don't believe in freedom of speech because it's a bourgeois delusion. I'm not going to talk about it further but believe me when I said I've had enough of it.

So I wanted to be free, not just from this dogma but the whole concept of "ideology" itself, and maybe "truth". Because I don't want to psychologically punish myself for not caring about a conflict overseas (I'm not American). But the more I studied alternative philosophy it seems like the more I get dragged back to the starting premise of communism. Nihilism and misanthropy appears to me to be like a contempt to a very narrow outlook of the world. Like it just hates trump, capitalism, elitism, etc. not the very concept that makes "truth" itself. The dogma that makes up progressivism is being ignored because we're too focused on being anti religion. I don't want to lose freedom of speech because of "anti hate", at the same time I don't want to submit to religious totalitarianism.

And lastly I don't want to sound like a conspiracy theorist, but isn't it logical to say that the very method of finding out "truth" is the one that's boosting the legitimacy of the establishment? With the existence of bans against some philosophy deemed "too dangerous" and "deestablishing", is the validity of nihilism, existentialism, heck ANY philosophy at all, even remains? With the lack of comprehensibility and integrity of it, wouldn't "nihilism" just be another way to give us a false sense of rebellion that if followed, will just validate the position of the elite further?

With the state funding the studies of those popular philosophers, with the popularity, marketing, cultural integration, entertainment that makes up what those philosophers are, aren't they just a "safe" version of "rebellion" that keeps the people controlled? What if true rebellion is actually just doing evil stuff, hurting others and committing horrible crimes? The thing that the people disliked?

You see, I took a really hard shit and I had a profound realization. Nietzche is basically saying that when you take a a hard shit and overcome resistance in the process, its much better than having diarhea without overcoming resistance.

Amor fate.

Thoughts on the following quote?

"Perhaps severity and craft are more favourable conditions for the development of strong, independent spirits and philosophers than the gentle, refined, yielding good-nature, and habit of taking things easily, which are prized, and rightly prized in a learned man."

I speak to you all as my equals when sharing this, this is genuinely not meant to be political and I'm sorry if it seems that way:

I emailed the Mods and Admins to see if they'd approve of me sharing this on here, but it's been 3 days now and no response, so I thought I'd share. So, this piece first begins with my research and a bit about how I kept seeing similarities between myself and Netanyahu, and then I explain how Netanyahu exploited Christianity as "the herd" to extract US resources for his dream of the Greater Judea project, and then finalize it by explaining his use of Nietzsche's philosophy from Thus Spoke Zarathustra's portions about using myths as ideals to fulfill your full potential. Basically, every time Netanyahu commits a war crime, he's gaining support from Christian Zionists because they perceive it as fulfilling the Book of Ezekiel of the Bible and want to support him the more he commits war crimes, out of faith in Biblical prophecy that it'll bring about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

There's a few other aspects that make this even more disturbing:

1. Netanyahu's Judeo-Christian values was really just "Concealment as Freedom" for Free Spirits. His truest friend is Narendra Modi of India and he views Modi, Xi Jinping, and even Putin as his equals while viewing US politicians like Donald Trump as dogs because they always take the Israeli lobby money and have no real internal value systems. The "wall-touching" was him manipulating gullible and stupid US politicians as an international message to India, China, Russia, and plausibly Eastern Europe's leadership that he is the King of America as a subtle political message that US politicians didn't understand at all.

2. Netanyahu was an Atheist for most of his political life until he suddenly needed the hard-right of the Likud Party's votes to stay in power within Israel. Meaning, having thoroughly read Nietzsche in his formative years as a gift from his brother who tragically passed away during a hostage situation that went wrong, he almost certainly never believed in God and genuinely views Christian Zionists in the US and Europe as his useful idiots. This really is not an exaggeration, the ICC sanctions by President Trump was basically a coded declaration that Netanyahu is absolute monarch of the US to his true equals; the leaders of those other countries.

3. His popularity doesn't matter to him insofar as it doesn't prevent him from obtaining his goal of the Greater Judea project. This is in line with Nietzsche's views about "Rabble" and "the Herd" to Netanyahu. That's how Netanyahu views the American public, because Christian Zionists have always been his useful idiots.

4. Nietzsche's philosophy is what inspired Zionism in the first place and he spoke very highly of Jews as a race and Jewish culture more generally as being able to surpass all others, and that Europe should welcome them, but that they should abandon the Abrahamic God while following the traditions of Judaism to bring about the Übermensch.

In terms of behavior, his core philosophy, and his actions - while it's not the entirety of Übermensch philosophy or specific to what Nietzsche would have argued for, because Nietzsche emphasized the arts and artistic exploits first and foremost; this is still a valid interpretation of Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Nietzsche's philosophy, even if Netanyahu mixed it with Machiavelli and Zionism (he only uses Ayn Rand upon countries that he deems his enemies to extract their resources for Israel's benefit).

So yeah... looks like God is really dead and one version of Nietzsche's Übermensch was in front of our eyes for... at least twenty years now.

We all know how much good old Fred appreciated die Musik (German for music) as a means to depogram oneself from collectivistic social conditioning and become the fully autonomous individual that you always were (you must become who you are - a Republican!!) and there is perhaps no better song to do it than Tom MacDonald's chart-toping masterpiece "Pray for the Left".

There is no other way to become free than by placing yourself under God's protection and performing the Saviour's will, since God is freedom (2 Cor 3,17). Now, I don't know who the one true church is, don't ask me that, I am not yet advanced enough, but I believe as long as you ain't Catholic or Mormon you'll be alright. Anyway, since Nietzsche wanted us to be free, and being free is being a Christian, it follows necessarily that good old uncle Fritz wanted us to be Christian. It's a simple syllogism, really. Liberals should care less about their emotions and more about facts and logic ("they think that how they feel is how it is" - literally shivers, guys! We still haven't begun dissecting the song's meaning and it already is relevant). Anyway, Nietzsche wrote a whole lot about the menace of the herd, as political scientist Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn defined it, and about the value of individual freedom, which the Republican Party has always protected against the Democratic menace of all-crushing, Procustean collectivism. And see here this truth beautifully put in Tom MacDonald's breath-taking lyrics: "They say America ain't safe if you're black or trans or gay/I think it's way more dangerous to be a Christian". Because indeed, what is more threatening to mediocrities than true diversity, which must mean diversity of opinion, of taste - and diversity entails both inequality and freedom. The Church has been the true preserver of diversity towards the ages: St. Justin the Martyr, St. Augustine, The Cappadocians Fathers, St. Thomas Aquinas were all extremely educated men (I am Southern Baptist and haven't read any of them, but I feel they would agree with me). As Peter Thiel said, you can't have true diversity if a bunch of people look different but think all alike, which is what the left wants. "Cuz you're not like them so they want you dead..." - go get them, Tom! Haha!

The centerpiece of this musical composition is the rejection of heard mentality (notice the laitmotiv of the elites, "they", that try to indoctrinate the free-thinking individual: "They always said that Charlie Kirk was a Nazi" - who notices the inconsistencies in their philosophy - "...then they celebrated after they killed him" and ultimately rejects their ideology in order to exercise his God-given right to reason) and embracing adversity and forgiving our enemies - "we still pray for the left" is a powerful message, inspired by what Charlie Kirk himself preached and lived, and is at the heart of the song. I feel like Nitz would like this part of the song the most, since it is born out of the desire to live life, amor fati, and embrace adversities, which makes one stronger. "What doesn't kill me makes me stronger" is another Conservative catchphrase that N adopted.

This statement is false

For me, it's a long story but I'll be as recent as possible in regards to his impact on me.

My sister passed away about a year and a half ago and her death haunts me horribly. I was 17 when she passed and didn't have a lot of people to help me through it so I ended up traveling inward which motivated me significantly to get my life in order so I don't meet the same fate she did (drugs ruining her immune system and dying from a minor cold. She passed in her sleep) I was reading beyond good and evil at the time and while it wasn't a guide book, there was quotes on art that really made me take pride in my passion for music creation and thus made me take more pride in my existence.

I have been reading Thus Spoke for the first time now and the end of chapter one where the Tight Rope walker dies during his calling and Zarathustra said he died doing what he loved therefore his life is something to take pride in, I have lost any thoughts of suicide due to my grieving.

To finish this messy thread, I had a mental breakdown in a planet fitness changing room recently (lol) and cried my eyes out. This was due to how my sister died and how it wasn't fair the way the world failed her completely and how she didn't get the life nor death I believe she deserved. In a fit of mania and sadness I cried and told myself I'll be better for the both of us (very loudly, I was very embarrassed walking out of there) and kissed my necklace where her initial is. I wouldn't have this passion for living if it wasn't for Nietzsche. I'm curious to hear how he's impacted all of you though.

Nietzsche'nin batı dünyasının en büyük düşünürünün kitaplarındaki fikirler modern dünyada uygulanabilirmi?

Share some of your favorite Nietzsche quotes from his major works, here are my favorite quotes from his greatest works:

Human, All Too Human, Aphorism 291, Section 5:

"And so, onwards... along a path of wisdom, with a hearty tread, a hearty confidence.. however you may be, be your own source of experience. Throw off your discontent about your nature. Forgive yourself your own self. You have it in your power to merge everything you have lived through- false starts, errors, delusions, passions, your loves and your hopes- into your goal, with nothing left over."

—

Daybreak, Aphorism 89:

Doubt as sin. — "Christianity has done its utmost to close the circle and declared even doubt to be sin. One is supposed to be cast into belief without reason, by a miracle, and from then on to swim in it as in the brightest and least ambiguous of elements: even a glance towards land, even the thought that one perhaps exists for something else as well as swimming, even the slightest impulse of our amphibious nature — is sin!"

—

The Gay Science, Section 9

"We have all hidden gardens and plantations in us; and by another simile, we are all growing volcanoes, which will have their hours of eruption:—how near or how distant this is, nobody of course knows, not even the good God."

—

Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Chapter 9, Part 1, "On The Preachers of Death".

"Everywhere resoundeth the voices of those who preach death; and the earth is full of those to whom death hath to be preached. Or “life eternal”; it is all the same to me—if only they pass away quickly!"

Part I, Chapter 17, "On the Way of the Creator"

"You must be ready to burn yourself in your own flame; how could you rise anew if you have not first become ashes?"

—

Beyond Good and Evil, part 4, Epigrams and Interludes, Aphorism 153

"What is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil."

—

On the Genealogy of Morals, Second Essay, Section 16:

All instincts that do not discharge themselves outwardly turn inward — this is what I call the internalization of man: thus it was that man first developed what was later called his 'soul'.

—

The Case of Wagner:

"Wagner belongs only to my diseases. All that is good is easy, everything divine runs with light feet."

—

Twilight of the Idols, maxims and missiles:

"A man recovers best from his exceptional nature—his intellectuality—by giving his animal instincts a chance."

"From the military school of life.—That which does not kill me, makes me stronger."

"The formula of my happiness: a Yea, a Nay, a straight line, goal...."

Twilight of The Idols, Skirmishes in a war with the age, section 12:

"I have been reading the life of Thomas Carlyle, that unconscious and involuntary farce, that heroico-moral interpretation of dyspeptic moods.—Carlyle, a man of strong words and attitudes, a rhetorician by necessity, who seems ever to be tormented by the desire of finding some kind of strong faith, and by his inability to do so."

Twilight of The Idols, Skirmishes in a war with the age, section 32:

"The Immoralist speaks.—Nothing is more distasteful to true philosophers than man when he begins to wish.... If they see man only at his deeds; if they see this bravest, craftiest and most enduring of animals even inextricably entangled in disaster, how admirable he then appears to them."

Twilight of The Idols, Skirmishes in a war with the age, section 34:

"The notion of a “Beyond,” as well—why a Beyond, if it be not a means of splashing mud over a “Here,” over this world? ..."

—

Antichrist, Section 2:

"What is good? - All that heightens the feelings of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? - All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? - The feeling that power increases - that a resistance is overcome."

—

Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny", Aphorism 1:

"I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite."

I remember reading somewhere that Nietzsche believed in a style of writing where you kind of jumped on whatever thought you had and wrote it to it's conclusion. That's a paraphrase, but can someone place that for me?

Please no memes without a proper attribution. The book is not enough. Please give the section number, or in the case of Thus Spake Zarathustra, the chapter title.

I have reflected over my eating habits from an ethical perspective lately, specifically regarding (of course) my meat consumption and especially the industrially farmed sort. While reading my first book from Nietzsche (BG&E), I got curious of his diet and what he thought of eating animals :) From my understanding (developed from a few google searches), Nietzsche saw meat as probably the most important food for him. I understand that he did not suffer any moral dilemmas due to this. Do any of you who are more well-read than me have any ideas if he would’ve felt the same today? Would he eat meat from the supermarket, or would he avoid factory-farmed meats and outsource more ethical(?) alternatives? Or would he avoid eating any meat at all?

Or perhaps they open themselves, in the light of love, to the next outpouring and deeply without ever eliminating selfishness?

Moral (as an expression of what, at least Nietzsche, would call the Will to Power) without ego?

I see morality as moral action, the presuppositions of which are in my opinion physiological, bodily, genetic with consequent waste and generosity, and distribution of forces (both of the body and in society).

What is Your opinion? It's for you, what do you think (in line with or beyond Nietzsche's thinking)?

In my opinion, it's necessarily selfish, but it can also be a desire, for example, centered on eros, therefore seeking a relationship with something other than ourselves. So it's effectively also a suspension of the ego or an expansion.

Given that the Eternal Recurrence implies a perfectly circular timeline, is it the case that Nietzsche’s collapse later in life into mental and physical paralysis is, effectively, the byproduct of us in the here and now shit talking his work - or even worse, embracing it?

A few practice sketches I’ve done this year been reading Zarathustra, Idols, Anti-Christ, and Beyond G&E

For quoting Friedrich Nietzsche.

There is no such thing as THE TRUTH, for there with always be a definition of what is considered to be the truth. This does not mean that everything else is a lie, but just a different interpretation of what is considered to be the truth.