What's up with Christians trying to claim Nietzsche?

>Jesus was an ubermensch!
>Will to truth is the will to power!
>Spiritual aristocracy!

Silly mental gymnastics.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche getting mentioned in every other reply convinces me he is to pseudo smartarses what jordan peterson is to common plebs

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      No, its that Oyish hasn't read him and don't know his philosophy.

  2. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    No, the last man is a dung beetle. Who couldn't even get a job facilitating the logistics of the spatial movements of post-colon poo because he had no 'work experience.'

  3. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Probably the same reason why communists try to appropriate him.
    I say "probably" because i cannot possibly think of a single rational reason.

  4. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Only ones I see trying to claim him are trannies and their pals, which makes sense given how accommodating his thought is to their bullshit. As a Christian I want nothing to do with this turd.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      no, just because he didn't embrace universal ethics doesn't mean he implicitly endorsed everything that follows sans Christianity.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        He didn't believe in anything. Nothing he says has any meaning because.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          filtered christcuck

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      They are inflicting themselves with stigmata to become more christlike. They are closer to you than they are to Nietzsche, who you've almost certainly not read because you are filthy tourist

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Everything he said is up to interpretation because nothing he said is concrete or coherent

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          >Everything he said is up to interpretation
          this is true of everything ever said by everyone; not sure why you think this is a gotcha against Nietzsche and allows your position to be unassailable, maybe you are underage or moronic
          >because nothing he said is concrete or coherent
          this is bizarre coming from someone whose beliefs consist of taking fairy tales as evidence that we can enter into contracts of servitude with divine beings to get eternal life. Nietzsche is very concrete and coherent when he is talking about power, health, the psychological and social roots of different moralities etc. What is not concrete and what is not coherent is asking a dead wizard to save you from the earthen prison you believe his father built for you. "As a Christian" you should indeed "want nothing to do" with actual philosophy, and do take the advice of your founder Paul to avoid that most prideful and gentile sin of a man thinking for himself and in terms of what makes him good, and do stick to your sickly lusting for another world in which your astral father may spank all the children who were sharper and swifter than you, and seat you next to him as his heir.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            excellent read, you definitely have such a good grasp on Christianity that you have no issue btfoing it with your brutal honesty.
            as a Christian i was shaken to my core reading this, ive been found out

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >this is true of everything ever said by everyone;
            Sure, except their interpretations can be true or wrong. Not so with Nietzsche because he isn't coherent and his perspectivism is self refuting. I'm sorry you are too moronic to understand abstract thought. Now, define honesty

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            If I grunt and point at the moon is there no coherent interpretation you can think of that would be more valid than others?
            I wouldn't be making some coherent formal argument rooted in the authority of formal logic and philosophical traditions but would you use that to pretend I don't mean anything? Would that be honest?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >If I grunt and point at the moon is there no coherent interpretation you can think of that would be more valid than others?
            I'm not sure I follow this analogy. If all you are doing is grunting and pointing at the moon then that's what you are doing. Are you implying that the grunt means the moon?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >he isn't coherent and his perspectivism is self refuting
            you keep repeating this as if it were axiomatic, like water being wet, but what more can one expect from the sort of mind that believes something must exist because it can be conceived of. I could conceive of a (You) who has bothered to read Nietzsche instead of relying on a tradzoom cribsheet shared in crusader kings 2 discord servers, but that doesn't make him real.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Can you please stop strawmanning and using ad homs? Perspectivism is self refuting because claiming that perspectivism is absolutely true refutes it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Not sure what you're even getting at, is this some schizo metaphysics thing where you just assert something '[slobbering] because it's true!'without having any further context, criterion, etc.?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No, I'm saying that from the context of perspectivism.
            I'll just repeat myself
            perspectivism must be construed either as a fact or as one further interpretation—but in the former case the doctrine is clearly self-refuting, while in the latter case any reasons or arguments one may have in support of one’s perspective are rendered superfluous. It's meaningless

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Can you use your own words or is everything an ism to the rising generation?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >t. esl moron

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Can you actually say anything of value or respond to what I just wrote?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >uh it's self-refuting to argue against absolutism
            >there now I don't have to argue for my brand of abolutism, which is extremely particular and fantastical
            remind me where you said anything of value yourself ITT, christer

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >tu quoque

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You deserve a tu quoque for pretending god/platonism isn't dead and arguing against that position from the assumption that the contrary requires no demonstration

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >argumentum ad lapidem

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            sorry fallacygay, god as the larpers advocate it in order to rollback to the earlier version of nihilism (Christianity/Platonism) is indeed an absurd premise that requires no more discussion

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            My man, there is nothing to discuss in Nietzsche. His ideas are nebuluous and meaningless. He contradicts himself all the time.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            reductio ad absurdum

            Are these really the standard-bearers of 95 IQ theology?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >argumentum ad hominem

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's like Chesterton and reddit had a deleuzean butt-baby

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I already told you I'm mot a christian. Stop strawmanning and actually say something instead of grunting like a moron and getting mad when people, reasonably, don't understand you or think you are moronic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Well which is it? Are you some sort of atheist believer in a trascendental absolute? Or are you the the theistic version which is 99% of them? I am simply following your position to its end rather than going over all the needless minutiae.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I am a realist and I am wondering if you think perspectivism is objectively real.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            To use terms you seem to prefer, I am more inclined to nominalism, which perspectivism would seem to be a species of in any case. But I would hestitate on accepting labels as shorthand because precision is difficult when relying on few and contentiously abstract words. I would say an "objective real" is constructed by discoursing subjects for efficacy. Otherwise we will have to set up some exernal thing and blast it down to its atoms or reason it up to the heavens only to be no closer to any truth than before

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            reductio ad absurdum

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >>uh it's self-refuting to argue against absolutism
            That's not what I said. I said perspectivism is self refuting ON ITS OWN. Absolutism doesn't refute it, it refutes itself. Do you understand?(if you think "understanding" is possible)

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Also, I'm not a christian, schizo.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Other anon declared he was, and they only ever argue in bad faith because they don't believe anything can be demonstrated and ignore the bloated elephant corpse in the room

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What the frick are you talking about? The only corose here is Nietzsche and his perspectivism.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't have perspective there's only the absolute and undying truth of the great volcano demon
            metaphysics brainlets don't even understand what they're arguing for they just hate "nihilism/postmodernism" and think doubling down on what causes such things will get rid of them

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You can have perspective and opinions, but that doesn't mean reality and reason don't exist. Perspectivism literall just refutes itself, it is meaningless.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            In what sense is there a "reality" or a [faculty of] of "reason" beyond "perspective"? Is this reality perhaps void of all perceptions? Are we going to become Buddhists now to own Nietzsche?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that you are percieving something is real and you already implicitly take all these ideas for granted because you can't actually behave without them. You just ignore using the words themselves on principle because you are dogmatic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You already implicitly take all these ideas for granted because you can't actually behave without them
            This is backwards. We modeled the phenomena and behavior using ideas after, the description doesn't precede the phenomena.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >percieving something is real and you already implicitly take all these ideas for granted
            don't presume to know what I consider real, you minor phantasm
            >because you can't actually behave without them.
            sure, there is a heuristic fashion of dividing the world, or experience, into digestable perceptions owing to the efficacy of such a method for achieving our desires, but that is no reason to take up all our little volitions and snapshots of life as absolute truths, particularly if we are capable of relenting from them and governing ourselves. If I had to take everything I could think of or register as sensation as reality, I would surely be living in the street and screaming at people incoherently
            >You just ignore using the words themselves on principle because you are dogmatic.
            Having faith in the words themselves is dogmatic

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >don't presume to know what I consider real,
            That's not what I'm doing but that is indeed the only thing you are capable of. So do you consider anything to be real?
            >If I had to take everything I could think of or register as sensation as reality, I would surely be living in the street and screaming at people incoherently
            That has more to do with your opinions and hatred of life than reality itself I think.
            >Having faith in the words themselves is dogmatic
            Which is what you rely on as you can't actually explain or claim to know anything about meaning. I can use them because I know they have meaning and reference something meaningful.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I can use them because I know they have meaning and reference something meaningful.
            I can sit inside the house too and use the dishwasher but I can also point at things outside it. You apparently can't conceive of it even hypothetically that there might be things outside the house.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            This house anology makes zero sense. What things are outside the "house"? Don't use another moronic analogy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I am not him but it seems he is using a clumsy metaphor for umwelt or one's constructed environment which necessarily filters out data that others may not be filtering out, due to their differences of sensation, evaluation, consciousness, and so forth

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Then how can he be able to point outside it? What is outside it?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We are able to cheat because of imagination; as far as we can tell most animals don't do much in the way of imagining. They repeat. They're schizophrenic.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            And you know this. What does this have anuthing to say against logic?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            if by logic you means "thing causes other thing" that is observable but if by logic you mean "imaginary transcendental causality" then there is obviously a problem, that your stinky volcano demon is dead

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I already said the house is a logical construct and can represent any philosophy. The foundations of all philosophies are weaker than their dogmatic adherents claim.
            Part of the umwelt of a person can arise from the philosophical framework / ideas, the person pays more attention to some things over others which changes the perceived reality.
            It's possible that even logic or perceived absolutes can be constructed to serve a goal, so it's part of our "umwelt" in that sense. This idea rests in logic but that doesn't invalidate it. If what we're talking about is constructing logic by filtering out the parts of the world that don't adhere to logic there is still some form of higher rules/logic but it's not like our ideas of it.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >makes no sense
            Because despite appealing to logic constantly you don't know how to use it, how it actually works. All your logical constructs rest on foundations, when you go to the root foundations of all of them they are much weaker than you present them. In your case could never have made these constructs yourself, you don't understand anything about them so you're not really even appealing to them, you're just appealing to your cultural conditioning.
            >What things are outside the "house"?
            The foundations of the house. The assumptions needed to construct any logical system. This analogy applies to any system but becomes surreal when you apply it to the house that life built. What's outside that house? Maybe all coherence is part of the house that life built.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >life
            Is that real? Why are you using words you don't know the meaning of?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Is that real?
            You assign to much baggage to the word. It's the apparent state of things that I and my ideas are a product of life.
            I operate based on those assumptions generally like I generally assume logic works. Turns out my ideas of logic are also apparently a product of life and I have no reason to think I have access to anything "absolute".

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            And is that life real? What is "apperant"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >you can't actually explain or claim to know anything about meaning
            I wonder if we're making progress? Please show me your claims regarding value or meaning and demonstrate that they are absolute and real rather than partite and subjective. I'll wait. If I'm not mistaken we have all of eternity and may will this debate over and over until the sun dies and we have to start over from bacteria

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            The fact that I am thinking and typing and experiencing right now is absolutely true. As is the existence of logical constructs that correlate to reality. An assumption that is inferred by sheer intuition. Now tell me, is perspectivism correct?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I don't dispute that you think, but that you think at all is proof that you are garbling whatever there is (perhaps we could call this be-ing "reality") into partite scribblings and cacophonies, none of which ought to be reified as absolutely real for the simple reason that if they were known to be absolutely real by merit of you having thought them, it would make you the solipsist and the subjective idealist you claim to be arguing against.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            They are real by merit of having thought them. Ideas are real. And everyone is ideological is a fact of life.

            if by logic you means "thing causes other thing" that is observable but if by logic you mean "imaginary transcendental causality" then there is obviously a problem, that your stinky volcano demon is dead

            No it isn't, everyone is still religious/ideological and is influenced by their outside surroundings which exist regardless of their perceptions. The problem is one can infer which ideology is more correct and in accordence with observable reality with reason.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >one can infer which ideology is more correct and in accordence with observable reality with reason
            what's taking so long, eh Platon?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            It's true. The only assumption one ever needs is that Truth exists and isn't solely bound to "experience" for even thinking about experience as a concept requires you to assume it is true independant of the mind, it is objectively true that you are thinking about it. The words used are not as important as the real meanings they attempt to convey. Ideas exist and it is a fact that they influence us.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >even thinking about experience as a concept requires you to assume it is true independant of the mind
            You're already piling on ideological baggage with that statement. You're not referencing an experience but an abstract.
            It's not like we don't understand what you mean, you don't have to repeat it again.
            >it is objectively true
            Like an object, you're appealing to previously established conditioning, imposing preconceptions.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You're already piling on ideological baggage with that statement
            Your idea of "experience" is an idea.
            And aren't you supposed to think that one can only ever talk about experience?
            >Like an object, you're appealing to previously established conditioning
            I don't think so. I am ideological, but so is everyone. Ideas and their meanings are real and can only exist within the order of existence which we live in.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Your idea of "experience" is an idea.
            Yes and the idea is not the actual directly revealed experience I'm trying to reference with the word.
            You're constantly pointing at a map and demanding this map is not only a perfect representation of some territory, the map itself is the territory according to your arguments.
            >but so is everyone
            There are tools you can use to avoid being misled by your preconceptions. Tools like intellectual honesty.
            >Ideas and their meanings are real
            This is a statement not "absolute truth", it's a rough map that helps us navigate a territory but we don't really know what the territory is or how well our ideas of "objective truth" map on to that territory.
            I still operate based on logic and create models that I test. I just know they have weak foundations and could be basically completely invalidated by some subtle change in perspective. These criticisms also apply to ideas of "truth", especially your binary categories which you misuse constantly.

            What "true truth"? There is only truth, that's redundant.
            [...]
            And all assumptions can be true or false. It's still an idea that you are forced to communicate through because that is how you ultimately come to conceptualize and understand the world. So I'm trying to better understand what you truly mean by experience.

            >And all assumptions can be true or false
            False. That's a heuristic to simplify everything into manageable units. Powerful but not true, as in with more fine grained conceptualizations you can have more power over the world if you're capable of wielding more complex abstractions.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You're constantly pointing at a map and demanding this map is not only a perfect representation of some territory, the map itself is the territory according to your arguments.
            No I din't think so, I'd agree and say the map is not a fully perfect representation of a real territory, assuming it is a representation of a real territory.
            How can I be intellectually honest then?

            >Your direct experience is real
            Sure but that leads to Nietzsche and "perspectivism", not to Plato and an "absolute truth" shorn of the worldly particular. I've lost track of who is arguing what anymore ITT

            Not necessarilly, perspectivism refutes itself but I don't think Plato disregards experience. I mean, we may not experience reality completely or perfectly but the experience still happened.

            >Your direct experience is real
            That's a conceptualization of the event. I want you to relate what I say to the event itself as you experience it right now. You're some weird thing that can't begin to account for what it actually is except in physical terms and all those descriptions rest in a context that defined what you are which you have basically no idea what is. I'm using high level concepts again like "I" and all that but you can have these sorts of thoughts as a caveman with little language and no conceptualization of high level ideas like "I". That's apparently the starting place for all our other ideas like "I", assuming history happened and a demon didn't create me with all my memories 5 seconds ago or whatever but even then I can still talk about the fictional history and its logical relationship to the present. In that case I'm speaking within a context, the context of the fiction the demon presented.

            How do you want me to relate to it? Does that not count as my relation?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >we may not experience reality completely or perfectly but the experience still happened
            if "your direct experience is real" why would it be an incomplete or imperfect reality? Which is it? Are we to affirm our experiences as the reality which we must engage with, or are we to deny them as inferior and false so as to pine for a sur- or hyper-reality of trascendental realms and godhoods?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >if "your direct experience is real" why would it be an incomplete or imperfect reality?
            I don't see how one necessitates the other. I said that while we are really experiencing things and the things we experience are real, they may not necessarily be perfectly accurate.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Accurate to reality beyond our own perception, that is.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Experiences being degrees of reality which may vary in accuracy is a backdoor for "perspectivism." You've already taken an axe to us ever having perfect knowledge of an objective real, and all other things being real enough subjectively means we may dispense with the notion. So you have "self-refuted" yourself like all other metaphysics midwits.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You've already taken an axe to us ever having perfect knowledge of an objective real
            No, just that objective reality exists.
            Perspectivism refutes itself as I've explained countless times but you can only ever use ad homs to protect your fragile ego. This is pointless. Your ideology is useless.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >perspectivism is self-refuting
            >uhhh we all have our own little slice of truth that's true but that's not perspectivism with extra steps because I say so
            who has the fragile ego? the guy who needs there to be an inaccessible objective truth since he can't cope with the reality of experience, right? Why else would you need to deny your own life and accuse anyone who doesn't of being some sort of ideologue? This is just the Christian morality Nietzsche identified but wearing prostitute makeup

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >assuming it is a representation of a real territory.
            That assumption is also based on a map you made. I work from the same assumption generally but the point is basically these assumptions aren't as pure as we like to think.
            >How can I be intellectually honest then?
            Playing, hypothesizing, empathy. It's a game where you explore ideas so you try to enter new contexts without dragging baggage with you then enter a new meta context to evaluate the one you previously established. You can operate within the context the demon defined without accepting that context as some sort of holy truth.
            >How do you want me to relate to it?
            By understanding what I'm trying to point at with the words instead of focusing strictly on the words themselves as if I'm presenting something formal when formal thinking itself is part of the thing under scrutiny.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >You can operate within the context the demon defined
            There is no demon and I don't hate life as much as you
            I've been doing nothing but try to understand you but you explicitly believe that knowledge is an impossibility and you will never change. Instead you demand that everyone just turn their brain off and just take your word for it or just automatically understand your schizobabble. Now please take your meds and go to bed, you've been doing this shit for 24 hours and its clear you are extremely frustrated. Get help and goodbye

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >There is no demon and I don't hate life as much as you
            It's hypothetical. It relates to advice I was giving about being able to explore ideas using hypotheticals and play.
            >you explicitly believe that knowledge is an impossibility
            I know how it works. You have no clue and don't care. You apparently don't have a clue what I mean by logical contexts despite giving many examples. You appeal to what you don't understand while I honestly accept criticisms of the things I do understand.
            >its clear you are extremely frustrated
            Yes. I despise the daemon that controls you. You represent a trend of the people that think the least and pretty much despise thinking taking over all disciplines of thought. Seeing people like you spread decay and thought-stopping dogma everywhere you go is incredibly frustrating.
            It doesn't really affect me directly except here so I engage with you here. In my life I'm not exposed to any brainwashed burgers like you except through media. It's just as frustrating listening to you morons there spreading your dogmatic and destructive propaganda to groups that until recently were capable of reason.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >empathy
            >proceeds to spend 90% of posts using ad hom attacks calling people who even slightly disagree with him slurs

            >perspectivism is self-refuting
            >uhhh we all have our own little slice of truth that's true but that's not perspectivism with extra steps because I say so
            who has the fragile ego? the guy who needs there to be an inaccessible objective truth since he can't cope with the reality of experience, right? Why else would you need to deny your own life and accuse anyone who doesn't of being some sort of ideologue? This is just the Christian morality Nietzsche identified but wearing prostitute makeup

            You literally are too moronic to understand him

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I'd rather be a moron than a nihilist worshiper of volcano demons

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >proceeds to spend 90% of posts using ad hom attacks calling people who even slightly disagree with him slurs
            They're reasoned slurs based on empathy. The best thing I could hope for if I was in your position (which I was many years ago) was someone calling out my moronation. You're all morons appealing to conditioning. It's not that I don't understand the conditioned perspectives, everyone on the planet is exposed to them constantly.
            I have spent more time in my life arguing for the position of objective truth than against it. Burgers generally don't argue, like these threads demonstrate, they try to condition other people using the same tactics that programmed them.
            Proving me wrong is so easy, all you have to do is actually use reason instead of constantly appealing to lazy emotional conditioning like this moron

            >christians
            desert people larp for the mentally deranged

            and this moron

            >You can operate within the context the demon defined
            There is no demon and I don't hate life as much as you
            I've been doing nothing but try to understand you but you explicitly believe that knowledge is an impossibility and you will never change. Instead you demand that everyone just turn their brain off and just take your word for it or just automatically understand your schizobabble. Now please take your meds and go to bed, you've been doing this shit for 24 hours and its clear you are extremely frustrated. Get help and goodbye

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            it is apparently not true that we're all truth-discerners of the true truth by means of our truly true ideas, which are truthfully known in fact by the existence of their truths, since if we were, there wouldn't be any need for these debates and the endless task of suppressing simulacra

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What "true truth"? There is only truth, that's redundant.

            >How does "my" idea of "is" differ from yours?
            I'm referencing direct experience, you're referencing the constructed idea.
            To communicate the words "direct experience" I need to construct a statement that rests on a million assumptions but to experience what I'm attempting to reference it I need zero assumptions.

            And all assumptions can be true or false. It's still an idea that you are forced to communicate through because that is how you ultimately come to conceptualize and understand the world. So I'm trying to better understand what you truly mean by experience.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >What "true truth"? There is only truth, that's redundant.
            So all your appeals to just-believe-me logic are tautological and redundant? Who could have guessed...

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No no, I'm just saying that saying "true truth" is redundant, it's not wrong to say it but it is redundant.
            Let me but it this way:
            Your direct experience is real. That is: it is true that you are actually experiencing that specific experience, whatever it may be. What I am trying to do is to understand your experience, the *true* experience that you directly experienced and not a wrongfull one which you did not experience. I hope that's clear.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Your direct experience is real
            Sure but that leads to Nietzsche and "perspectivism", not to Plato and an "absolute truth" shorn of the worldly particular. I've lost track of who is arguing what anymore ITT

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Your direct experience is real
            That's a conceptualization of the event. I want you to relate what I say to the event itself as you experience it right now. You're some weird thing that can't begin to account for what it actually is except in physical terms and all those descriptions rest in a context that defined what you are which you have basically no idea what is. I'm using high level concepts again like "I" and all that but you can have these sorts of thoughts as a caveman with little language and no conceptualization of high level ideas like "I". That's apparently the starting place for all our other ideas like "I", assuming history happened and a demon didn't create me with all my memories 5 seconds ago or whatever but even then I can still talk about the fictional history and its logical relationship to the present. In that case I'm speaking within a context, the context of the fiction the demon presented.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Everything he said is up to interpretation because nothing he said is concrete or coherent

        He deliberately filters both of you.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          You unintentionally acts like a moron. What is the correct interpretation of N

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            We're both sitting in a house having tea and talking about how nice the house is. It's really nice and strongly built.
            I mention that it's built on wooden foundations which you take as a great insult. It turns out you actually think it's impossible to even leave the house, you don't think there are any foundations needed at all. You live in a constructed reality and refuse to acknowledge that it's not fundamental.

            The house is any logical structure, it can be Christianity or secular philosophy. All your ideas and cloud castles of logic apparently rest on biology, wood. These aren't binary, absolute problems where if you acknowledge the criticism of logic it completely invalidates logic. That you can't conceive of them in other terms than that is a demonstration of your mental slavery to old wizards like Zoroaster.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            What do you mean? The house does have a foundation. I live in reality. What is biology and is it real? Do ypu think biology exists in reality?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >The house does have a foundation. I live in reality.
            The connection between the house and the presumed reality is through you, an apparently "biological" thing, whatever biological is. You can't account for your experience, the only thing you actually know using any of these tools you claim represent "reality".
            When you keep appealing to your ideas of real you're refusing to acknowledge the house has foundations outside the house. You're appealing to the construct, saying all that is is inside the house we built.

            >If I grunt and point at the moon is there no coherent interpretation you can think of that would be more valid than others?
            I'm not sure I follow this analogy. If all you are doing is grunting and pointing at the moon then that's what you are doing. Are you implying that the grunt means the moon?

            >I'm not sure I follow this analogy.
            Try.
            >Are you implying that the grunt means the moon?
            Obviously I'm referencing the phenomena in some way, assuming we share experience of the phenomena. You should look where I'm pointing and make the same grunt back unless you're a moron, dumber than a caveman.
            In these threads instead of even looking in the same direction to begin criticizing my ideas of the moon you deliberately look down to the ground and ape out.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No I'm not, I'm not implying we will ever know the full truth. But you are appealing to reality by assuming biology exists.
            >Obviously I'm referencing the phenomena in some way, assuming we share experience of the phenomena.
            Ok? And can you tell me what the moon is or is it just a meaningless non-thing that can not be defined?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >But you are appealing to reality by assuming biology exists.
            I'm referencing my apparent situation, my perceived experience. Saying biology exists in some philosophical sense includes many more claims that do not have to do with my direct experience or the relevant criticisms of things like logic that you don't grasp. Your claims assume solipsism is false for example, my claims don't make any claims except about the direct phenomena.
            "I see a moon" as an absolute statement rests on a million assumptions, ideas about "I" and seeing etc. Pointing at the moon is just referencing the experience. I can't point at my own experience using fingers, I have to use flawed words so I cheat and say things like "I see a moon" as a reference to the experience, hoping you will be more interested in finding things out (noble curious spirit) than attacking the language (resentful slave spirit). It's not an absolute statement that includes the nature of "I" or seeing or moons.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >my perceived experience.
            Is that percieved experience really existing? Is it true that you are thinking right now?
            Solipsism just assumes reality isn't real which ironically bases it's ideas on reality. Then you'll go hungry and die or something.
            Is experience an assumption you think is truly happening?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Is that percieved experience really existing?
            I don't have to make any claims either way about your ideas of "existence". They are ideas, the things I'm referencing just are. The perceived experience is directly revealed to me unlike these ideas. If you have no direct revelation you're what they call a p-zombie.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >the things I'm referencing just are.
            Ok so they are real. Glad we figured that out and now we can infer that perspectivism is false.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You can think that but you spent all this time spamming your braindead perspective with no reason or any elaboration given, just to end up in the exact same place you started with no insight gained or anything learned.

            You are contradicting yourself massively here. You say they just are, what does that mean?
            >The perceived experience is directly revealed to me
            Who the hell is "me"? What is experience?

            >Who the hell is "me"? What is experience?
            I talked about all this in the previous post

            >But you are appealing to reality by assuming biology exists.
            I'm referencing my apparent situation, my perceived experience. Saying biology exists in some philosophical sense includes many more claims that do not have to do with my direct experience or the relevant criticisms of things like logic that you don't grasp. Your claims assume solipsism is false for example, my claims don't make any claims except about the direct phenomena.
            "I see a moon" as an absolute statement rests on a million assumptions, ideas about "I" and seeing etc. Pointing at the moon is just referencing the experience. I can't point at my own experience using fingers, I have to use flawed words so I cheat and say things like "I see a moon" as a reference to the experience, hoping you will be more interested in finding things out (noble curious spirit) than attacking the language (resentful slave spirit). It's not an absolute statement that includes the nature of "I" or seeing or moons.

            but you can't remember even one post back?
            >"I see a moon" as an absolute statement rests on a million assumptions, ideas about "I" and seeing etc. Pointing at the moon is just referencing the experience. I can't point at my own experience using fingers, I have to use flawed words so I cheat and say things like "I see a moon" as a reference to the experience, hoping you will be more interested in finding things out (noble curious spirit) than attacking the language (resentful slave spirit).
            Why do you keep repeating yourself and demanding I repeat myself? You seriously need some kind of help.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >spamming your braindead perspective
            How is my "perspective" braindead? Remember reason is an idea that isn't real, as N points out.

            Answer the question and stop refering to mindless assumptions and ad homs that led me to asking you that question. What is "me" and how can things "just be"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >How is my "perspective" braindead?
            You just repeat your conclusion and ignore all the points actually raised. You're not even part of any discussion about the subject yet. It's dumber than being wrong, someone wrong about a subject is at least talking about the subject.
            >Answer the question
            That was answered in the post you're replying to? Elaborate on what you don't understand. You don't understand the difference between pointing at a phenomena and creating a formal model to represent it?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            No, how do you *know* that my perspective is braindead? What conclusion are you talking about? That biology is real?

            What is "me" and how can things "just be"?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >What conclusion are you talking about?
            That your ideas dictate "reality". Your ideas are not reality and that includes your ideas about things being "real".
            My personal beliefs are separate from all this. There is objective truth and God exists but I don't need to appeal to any such ideas to point at the phenomena in my direct experience like Nietzsche did to point out to you that your house is made of wooden foundations which you would be grateful for if you were honest with yourself. If you had the intuition of a competent man worth anything instead of the programmed slave you are.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Listen, can you stop strawmanning me already and please tell me what "me" is and how you know some things "just are"? Don't skip around it and stop throwing around meaningless buzzwords

            >You already implicitly take all these ideas for granted because you can't actually behave without them
            This is backwards. We modeled the phenomena and behavior using ideas after, the description doesn't precede the phenomena.

            Sure, but they are still describing real phenomena that objectively exist

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >can you stop strawmanning me already and please tell me what "me" is
            I really don't get this. It's the biggest mystery in these threads how you can be this braindead. I believe I already answered so elaborate what you're confused about instead of demanding I repeat myself.
            That's an idea but I wasn't talking about ideas, like I explained in detail. I was trying to reference direct experience and hoping you would relate to the reference in the spirit of curiosity instead of attacking the language based on deciding that your ideas are right before even considering anything said.
            I'm referencing my direct experience without imposing preconceptions about what the phenomena I experience are. In that context all our best ideas seem incredibly weak because they don't account for anything fundamentally. They're just descriptions of apparent phenomena, you derive abstracts from those observations and then demand these abstracts apply to things you have no idea if they actually apply to.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Ok so you were expecting me to buy into your dogma. Now can you please tell me ONLY(without going on a tirade about how stupid I am, whatever that means) and tell me what "me" and "just are" means.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >tell me what "me" and "just are" means
            In this context they're attempts to reference what established language calls "my direct experience". To relate my experience to yours, it's a sincere attempt to relate to you which you responded to by sperging out with another disgusting display of your subhuman slave instincts.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >"my direct experience".
            Is that experience really happening? What does "just are" mean?

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >Is that experience really happening
            This is an appeal to your ideas about what experience "is". Imposing preconceptions before even establishing the basics. "I" is an idea with ideological baggage, the thing I'm attempting to reference with the word is not.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            That's what you are doing. I am just asking you if experience is really happening. You cant say yes or no because then your whole ideology falls apart and you have a nice day after realizing you've been spending your life 24/7 acting on Oyish like a moron. You are too cowardly to actually take a stance on anything so you try and pretend to be above ideology only to end up being so pbnoxiously ideological that it drives people away from you like magnetism

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >I am just asking you if experience is really happening
            You're asking me to accept your ideas of "is" etc instead of looking at what I'm referencing sincerely.
            >your whole ideology
            I already told you I believe in objective truth and God. My beliefs are not relevant to understanding these criticisms of any philosophy or ideology. The entire point is to criticize dogmatic adherence to ideologies yet all you can do is demand to frame that idea itself as an ideology.

            And is that life real? What is "apperant"?

            >What is "apperant"
            Direct revelation without ideological impositions.
            >And is that life real
            It's a word. You either know what I'm referencing or don't. There's not supposed to be any absolute claim involved, if you impose one you're not trying to understand what I'm referencing.
            Separately from all these points, despite the very valid criticism (from Nietzsche, not you) I believe that life is real, sacred and holy.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            How does "my" idea of "is" differ from yours?
            And how is it not an ideology?

            Words have meaning

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            >How does "my" idea of "is" differ from yours?
            I'm referencing direct experience, you're referencing the constructed idea.
            To communicate the words "direct experience" I need to construct a statement that rests on a million assumptions but to experience what I'm attempting to reference it I need zero assumptions.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            You are contradicting yourself massively here. You say they just are, what does that mean?
            >The perceived experience is directly revealed to me
            Who the hell is "me"? What is experience?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >to become more Christlike
        Kek
        Also crucifixion has nothing to do with genital mutilation.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous

          I am talking about stigmata, which is christer self-mutilation undertaken for ideological and identity-performance purposes. That to me sounds extremely familiar, and also extremely life-denying, so these behaviors—these moralities—share an underlying impulse, one which is resilient to being uprooted even after god is dead or the operation is regretted.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      >which makes sense given how accommodating his thought is to their bullshit
      His thought is accommodating for both trannies and the most masculine imperialists in history, and lo and behold, the most masculine ages in history also always had trannies.

  5. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Neetch = Heglel

  6. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    this doesnt happen. you're just amking things up because you hate christians

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      you absolutely have heard people try to claim Jesus was an ubermensch before

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Didn't Nietzsche say that himself? Pretty sure he did.

        There's not one honest person in this thread so far.

        There's plenty, except you

  7. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >neetchuds have to photoshop him with a fake chin to make him not look beta

  8. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Read Jordan Peterson.

  9. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    There's not one honest person in this thread so far.

  10. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    uh no the perspectivist and objectivist chuds are going at it again

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      It's called realist not objectivist

  11. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Coping

  12. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >there's no truth!
    >but mine that is!

  13. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    you have to be a mentally agile gymnast to cross over the narrow bridge: Nietzsche studied Deleuze on his long 5-hour long athletic rides. but the idea is not to speculate about ideas so to own a virtual symmetrical rival but to find ways that are not taken by the enemy: it is not enough to make a victim to stamp over it in a vulgar self-asserting move — that only affirms the world as we know it — the true emancipatory shift victimizes the paradigm itself, breaks it, denies it, commands it as a master: Christ momentum. and precisely in this spot the Christ and Nietzsche coincide.

  14. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    “Irony against those who believe Christianity has been overcome by the modern natural sciences. Christian value judgments have not by any means been overcome this way. ‘Christ on the Cross’ is the most sublime symbol—even today.” —Friedrich Nietzsche

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Does German have em dashes?

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        Haven't read Nietzsche tl notes in a while but iirc he wrote with lots of elipses, in a style that made his writing seem spoken, and these were replaced with dashes in English to avoid confusion around whether something had been omitted

  15. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Blind adherence to Nietzsche is the most anti-Nietzschean thing you can do, kek.

  16. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Things no one is saying for 500

  17. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    was an ubermensch!
    He was. But each ubermensch's path is unique. And if you follow Jesus's decrees, you are a gay.

    "And when a person goeth through fire for his teaching—what doth that prove! It is more, verily, when out of one’s own burning cometh one’s own teaching!"

    "Thou goest the way to thy greatness: it must now be thy best courage that there is no longer any path behind thee!"

  18. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    >christians
    desert people larp for the mentally deranged

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Good example of the dogmatic burgerisms I'm talking about. It's from all sides of all questions. If there's more than one burger or anglo involved with a question there's no hope of discussing it at all, everything will be overwritten by conditioning.

  19. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Nietzsche's philosophy is designed to be usable by anyone for any reason and there's nothing you can do about it other than b***h on Oyish. Cope and seethe, daydream warrior.

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      Liberals and women only use part of it though. To use the whole thing, you need to be a straight white male.

      • 2 years ago
        Anonymous

        >you can't just take one line from his work for your own purposes because...m-muh systematic philosophy
        Cope.

        • 2 years ago
          Anonymous
          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            Flip to a random page of Nietzsche's work and you will find something that contradicts your cute little quotable.

          • 2 years ago
            Anonymous

            I won't because Nietzsche never contradicted his philosophy, only his commentary.

  20. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Because everyone who reads Nietzsche wants attention, Christians included. They just want people to go WOW LOOK HE READ BABYS FIRST PHILOSOPHER. this guy sucks balls also gay mustache so if you like him your a gay. gay.

  21. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    Just like christoids raped and assimilated every other idea that wasn't theirs, it is just another new way for them to gain new converts to their cult. They see that their old ideas do not speak to anyone nowadays, which is why their religion is dropping in attendance like a stone in the western world so they are attempting to claim that actually Nietzsche is the gateway to christianity.

  22. 2 years ago
    Anonymous

    why are there 10+ Nietzsche bait threads on the catalog is what I want to know

    • 2 years ago
      Anonymous

      it just works, try it. you can type literally anything along with a picture of N and people will somehow fill in the gaps

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *