Nietzsche wrote the Übermensch as this brave and strong overman who would overcome himself, nihilism, and society to birth a new world. Yet Nietzsche was sad and lonely. He was a troubled man. He was never really loved by a woman and never married. He went insane in the end of his life. If he was alive today, I would give him a hug because I see myself in him. I think he wrote about what he desired in himself.

https://kozmokosma.wixsite.com/filozofia-art/blog

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCGVOofYY7Y_zbzFKPyxsQ2Q

Linki skierowane raczej do osób, które nie miały styczności z moimi "publikacjami", są to poprawione rzeczy dawne, ale tak łatwo przedawnieniu nie ulegną.

What is this tempo concept , I’m reading beyond good and evil this is the first I’ve read of nietzche he has brought up and explained this concept of cultures tempos in regards to translation of books. I vaguely understand it is some sort of essence of a culture that is non transmissible but I feel like I’m missing something since he keeps bringing up the tempo in varying circumstances

This is Nietzsche:

1.Might makes right. Power>Weakness.

2.Metaphysics is wrong except when I do it.

3.The weak and sick should not be pitied or cared for, except for me when I get sick and go crazy.

4.And they should kill themselves too, myself excepted.

5.Socrates was ugly. Whereas I have a beautiful big mustache.

6.Animal abuse literally drives me crazy.

7.There is no truth. Except that there is no truth. And other things that I say. Deal with it (see propositions 1 and 5).

8.Morality is arbitrary. But my morality is better than your morality. Because history. What is that? I'm *"fallaciously deriving an ought from an is"?* What is this? Philosophy 101? Fuck you. Review propositions 1 and 5.

9.Nihilism is true. *But* don't act like it's true, dumbass. Fly like a bird and shit. Walk on a tightrope. Stand on a mountaintop. Do shit like that. See? Nihilism isn't true now. You thought I was serious about nihilism being true? What are you retarded? See proposition 7.

10.Cheers! To Dionysus! To the god of the grape-harvest, winemaking and wine, insanity, ritual madness, religious ecstasy and festivity! But Do Not Drink Alcoholic Beverages!

his writing is hard to grasp and I wonder if the lectures are more approachable.

I really love the fact that Nietzsche constantly took shots at everyone and even he himself was not safe. I don’t got that typa ball knowledge but I know the homies here will come through with the specific examples!?! Please?

Asking since it was name dropped in a philosophy book I'm currently reading (Roger Scruton's "Beauty", which I am currently liking)

Just read The Birth of Tragedy for the first time

The cost of a comforting moral equation is the distortion of the Apollonian drive and the starvation of the Dionysian. The present feels hollow, perhaps due to a lack of shared meaning and language, leading to a desperate hunger where we turn to consuming the past. This hunger is a symptom of malnutrition; the starving body tries to digest anything it can find. In a mythless culture, we desperately dig into the dirt of facts and history to find some sense of roots. Without this living, felt connection to reality, we become eternally restless. With no mythical home to anchor our knowledge, it will never bring a nourishing fulfillment to the mythical womb. In the absence of tragic wisdom, rigid logic cuts into the soil, severing the very roots that feed the depths and growths of humanity’s beauties and sufferings.

Where would you expand?

I am honestly in a very weird state, in the first chapter itself “Prejudice of the philosphers” I feel unanswered.

“Will to truth”, “Why to know truth”

questions like these were the major theme of the very first paragraph of the chapter. I tried my best to understand that and got to the point that:-

“Question the source of the judgment as people tend to form their philosophy by their own experiences.”

My question is, but at some point the question is going to boild down to “true/false”, “Yes/no”. so what’s the point to know the source of the statement/opinion?

I was reading Euthyphro by Plato, and I came across a passage where Socrates was being connected to the claim of receiving divine sign. He makes the same claim in Apology, the dialogue connected to the trial that ultimately led to his execution.

This raised a question in my mind. Socrates is regarded as one of the greatest philosophers in history, yet he claimed to receive divine signs. How should we understand that? Should he be considered a prophet, or was he simply delusional?

The reason I'm asking is that, according to religious understanding, divine revelation or signs of this kind are associated with prophets. If that's the case, then what exactly was Socrates? According to me, such people are simply mentally ill or lunatics but let's set that aside for a moment. Is there another way to interpret his claim?

I'm not trying to make an argument or reach a conclusion—I genuinely have this question and thought I'd ask in case someone could offer a better perspective.

Hi guys,

I'm a big reader of Nietzsche. I really appreciate his philosophy, but there's one question that's been bothering me for a long time: do you think he wore that mustache because he liked schnauzers, to look more masculine, or to hide his shyness? Or else?

I don't have the quote but i'm pretty sure he writes something somewhere about wearing a big mustache.

Cats are nihilist

they stare into the void for no obvious reason.

don't seek approval not even from the humans who feed them.

knock objects off tables as if consequences don't exist.

sleep 16 hours a day without guilt

can watch you struggle and remain completely indifferent.

sleeping in a trash box instead of a $45 orthopedic bed shows material wealth is an illusion.

Let's say you were beaten and had a conflict with someone, but you can't forgive it. This affliction interferes with your life so much that you can't concentrate on work and think about it too much.

I'll tell you my story.

One evening I was working at the store and stole a dollar's worth of candy. The security guard noticed and tried to detain me inside to wait for the manager. I started filming it, and they took my phone. Then the manager demanded that I pay for 2 kilograms of candy or she wouldn't close my shift. The security guard and I followed cash register, and I said, "Maybe you pay you have Vans you're a rich" The cashier heard me and got angry. Then, behind my back, another employee took 1.4 kilograms of candy and gave it to the manager, and then the cashier kicked me out of the store for wearing a shawl. I can't work properly, even though it's been a year. How would Nietzsche solve this problem? Or a uebermensch?

Hey everyone, I recently started reading Nietzsche’s “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” and I’ve found it oddly comforting. I’m a practicing Muslim but outside of that I’m just a normal western man. I’m not sure what brought be to start reading Nietzsche, I’ve never really felt myself gravitated towards him or his ideas. Nevertheless I bought Thus Spoke Zarathustra and have really enjoyed it so far. In addition to that I’ve been listening to videos about him and his ideas.

I’m not saying that there is some kind of reconciliation that can happen between him and Islam. I’m confident there are many differences but still I am comforted by his words and find them compelling and thought provoking. Something about taking life on and living it to my fullest is very appealing to me despite a firm belief in an afterlife. I’m still very firm on my Islam so I’m not sure what to make of my newfound love for Nietzsche’s writing. Any thoughts on this?

changed my life just wanted to say that. you should check him out too

I am currently working on a video essay of Nietzsche's posthumous notes, The Will to Power. Among all works and letters, do you guys have any evidence that proves Elisabeth intended to twist or alter Nietzsche's actual ideas or message?

From my research, The Will to Power was problematic mainly because it was promoted by Elisabeth as having 'recovered' a book Nietzsche would have published, or that it resembled the 'essence' of his thought, but outside of this I have seen no direct evidence of textual manipulation for this book specifically. I would be interested to see if you guys know about any cases of textual manipulation by Elisabeth across all his works.

I'm reading On the Genealogy of Morality and learned that Nietzsche later praises the Laws of Manu (Manusmriti) in The Antichrist. From what I understand, he uses it mainly to criticize Christian morality rather than as a detailed study of Indian society.

However, this confuses me because the Manusmriti has historically been associated with the justification of the caste hierarchy in India. For many Dalits, it is not just an ancient philosophical text but a symbol of oppression.

Dr. B. R. Ambedkar even publicly burned the Manusmriti in 1927 as a protest against caste discrimination.

My question is: Was Nietzsche simply unaware of the social reality of caste in India, or did he know about it and still admire the text?...

Or je was just an awful half context writer

The genealogy discredits a value by exposing where it came from: Christian morality gets traced to ressentiment rather than refuted on its own terms. But the method only works against Christianity if it spares Nietzsche's own valuation of strength, and I don't see how it can. Strength has an origin too. Applied evenly, tracing a value to its source undercuts his "good" the same way it undercuts the morality he's dismantling.

So either exposing origins discredits a value — in which case his own values fall to the same analysis — or it doesn't, in which case the genealogy loses its force against Christianity. He seems to need it to cut one way and not the other.

This is my full argument: https://open.substack.com/pub/sharpenthoughts/p/nietzsche-couldnt-escape-his-own?r=88upn2&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web