>>17448903
He advocated for white genocide and MAP rights

>>17448903
> In language a child could understand

Nietzsche was low-key vibin’ that we gotta slay our own paths and snag that fire life meaning instead of just being a bunch of sussy bakas. He was all about that sigma grind, tackling life like a true rizz god. He threw down the idea of the ‘Übermensch,’ basically a boss-level legend who carves their own lane and lives life 100% legit. He wasn’t down with old-school morals or religions, especially that crusty Christianity, 'cause he thought it was making peeps soft af. Nietzsche was like, “Ain’t no one-size-fits-all truth, senpai!” Everyone got their own drip. He wanted us to find our own flex instead of feeling like life’s a total skibidi toilet. So go out here and create your own bussin’ meaning and let’s get that livvy energy rizzed up!

>>17448947
See I know you're memeing but this is my whole problem with Nietzsche.

He advocates for nothing of actual substance or value. It's just a free for all, chaos. There's no foundation for men to find common ground upon. And when you look at his own life, and how he lived, his philosophy is an utter fucking joke. The man is a joke.

>>17448954
Nietzsche, saw human beings as socially conditioned and subconsciously restrained into living worthless lives

He wanted ‘greatness’ through the overcoming of the self, setting oneself apart from the human masses. This was to be achieved by becoming an ‘ubermench’ a type of person who possessed the virtues of courage, intellect, free thought, love of life, etc.

Is it fair to say that Nietzsche philosophy failed as no Übermensch was produced?

>>17448903
Morality is bullshit

>>17448974
>he doesn't know

>>17448903
Its hard to take little Nietzsche seriously knowing I could beat the shit out of him.

>>17448974
What about all the wise men/scientists, professional sportsmen, writers, actors and other artists who make a living out of self-improvement? Many of them are eccentric and ignores societal norms yet people worship them.

>>17448903
i dont know what he advocated, but i'll say this
when he wrote, "God is dead," he was not advocating atheism. he was reacting to Darwin's recent revelations about evolution.
just to repeat: he was not advocating atheism.

>>17448903
1/2
I assume you mean the more important points that people actually discuss, and not everything.

Live a life without regrets, which doesn't mean that you just post-rationalize everything away, but you make damn sure that the choices you make in life are the ones that will produce good results.

Morality is situational. In general, there's going to be the obvious guidelines that you'll follow, like don't lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc, but they're not universally true, and because of that you shouldn't be bound to them all the time. There might be a situation, where the correct action is lying, and in that situation, lying is the correct thing to do.Those that are able to achieve this level of moral thinking, will be better than those who are stuck with just following the "don't lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc" as universals. This person is reevaluating and redefining morality as the situation arises. It's very likely that the general "don't lie/cheat/steal/kill/etc" will be followed, but you should never be a slave to rules that will produce a worse result.

I want to talk about the "God is dead" quote, since it's by far the most popular thing that he's known for, but I hit the character limit.

>>17448903
2/2
>https://s3.amazonaws.com/saylordotorg-resources/wwwresources/site/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/PHIL304-4.3.2-ParableoftheMadman.pdf
This is where the "God is dead" quote comes from.
He's discussing what is humanity to do, now that he sees that we're moving away from Christianity, both in belief and in culture.
>How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent?
He's talking about the fact that with Christianity, we had rituals and a process to deal with the problems of morality, evil, etc. But now that we're moving away, what do we do now?
>Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us—for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
Do we re-internalize our religious beliefs, that we'd externalized into religion?
Then it ends with him saying that when he's writing, it's too soon for people to realize that the shift away from Christianity has already begun.
>>17448947
If someone is able to read all the slang, this is unironically a really good summary.
>>17448974
I'd say his main points were actualized, even if they didn't come from him.
>>17449122
That's true, he's not advocating for it. It's not just Darwin, but it certainly included him.
He's just saying that Christianity's time has begun to be over.

>>17448903
He just wanted people mirin the moustache

>>17449116
They're not ignoring societal norms, to be moral.
They're ignoring societal norms, to be immoral.
If you want to use them as an example then there's the odd one, such as some wise men/scientists.
>Dr. Barry Marshall deliberately infected himself with the bacterium Helicobacter pylori in 1985 to prove that it causes stomach ulcers.
Dr. Barry Marshall would qualify, since he went against the societal norm of following ethics boards for human testing. The ethics board rejected his proposed study, so he tested it on himself. It was good, because he was able to show other doctors that his hypothesis about the cause of ulcers, was correct. Aiding people who have ulcers.
The average sportsball, writer, actor, artist, etc aren't doing those things for a certain moral good, but for fame/riches/Diddy Parties.

>Some people are masters and some people are slaves.
Or something.

>>17448903
Basically: fuck normies & lift (And Ray Peat carrot salads)

>>17448974
Jesus, Muhammad, Zarathushtra, all Übermensch

>>17448903
>what Nietzsche advocated for
The rejection of morality as a set of immutable laws set by intangible concepts like "God" or "divinity".
>what he rejected.
The farcical charade put on by those who wield power pretending to adhere to these laws when in reality, they are the sole arbiters and enactors of morality on their subdued populace.

>>17448903
i remember in 8th grade i was just getting into metal and i had to do a presentation on a musical genre of my choice. ofc picked metal. i was then really into browsing ANUS/DMU and they had a massive page about how nietzschean thought influences metal so i pretty much took a massive chunk of it word for word and used that. everyone hated it because i just kept talking about i got an A. was one of the most cringiest things i ever did. thanks for reading my xanga.

>>17448954
He said numeros times that his philosophy is for the higher men,the Ubermensch,the winers of genetic lotery and such. The comon men can read it and understand it,but he cannot live it out, Nietzsche in essence wrote a philosophy of aristocratic spirit. He himself couldn't live up to his philosophy.

Has anyone here actually read beyond good and evil? After the first half of the book he just goes into a schizo rant about his favorite German Opera writers or whatever. Even in the first half he spends most of his time bashing Schopenhauer. I think people take him too seriously.

>>17450975
>I think people take him too seriously.
You're correct, because he himself didn't take himself too seriously. A lot of what he wrote was basically shitposting. With that said, any time he engages in cultural or artistic critique, he's showing you "the rainbow, and all the steps to the Overman" (TSZ).

>>17450975
I can't take anyone who shits on Schopenhauer seriously. with the exception of Schopenhauer every philosopher in the German tradition after Kant has been a grifting wanker.