'>>23324860
That's not going to stop them. They only respect a ass beating. Do your duty.';

'>>23324866
an*
I was gonna say a severe ass beating, but they don't deserve that. Just a nice lovetap.';

'>>23324860
>>23324860
I don't know, most of those so called Nietzscheans are edgy teens who misunderstood his bibliography, trying to act deep and mature in front of others by being cynical and arrogant';

'>>23324860
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.';

'>>23324911
>The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster
Become a male prostitute then. You can similarly refute any philosophy of endurance by pointing out that it is pornstars who endure the most.';

'>>23324911
Meanwhile the average Nietzschean is some dork who's still crying that Jamal took his lunch money and he never fought back. He can't cope with hardship at all. Every day he whines and every day people have to hear his shit.
Reading these books is his cheap of way of being /fit/.. as if either is ever going to change their fates.';

'>>23324919
Nothing particularly difficult about it. Sounds like you have some experience though, I'm sure you would have been Nietzsche's favorite.';

'>>23324937
The amount of whining here and on /fit/ leaves me inclined to agree. You sound like a bitch though, keep crying about your lunch money.';

'>>23324949
It would take a good deal of self-mastery for a heterosexual man to overcome his instinct against being pounded in his throat with endless numbers of cocks: but I guess you're just not up for it because you belong with the herd.';

'>>23324919
Or a drug addict. Imagine going through the pain of withdrawal constantly and the ever present misery of knowing you've ruined yourself';

'>>23324964
I was already in agreement you had experience in the matter. I'm sure you're a cockmaster.';

'>>23324973
I'm not since I do not follow the faggot philosophy of Nietzsche. You, on the other hand, have two options: reject Nietzsche's philosophy or become a professional cocksucker. No middle path.';

'>>23324911
So Christian monks';

'>>23324860
They are the biggest midwits of all';

'>>23324976
You haven't made a case that it meets any standards other than fulfilling your desire to be one or possibly trying to affirm your choices to me. You can suck mine if you really want to prove your skills.';

'>>23324982
I did make a case though: it is the ultimate act of self-overcoming for a heterosexual man, the ultimate disaster and the burden, the ultimate power.';

'ITT';

'>>23324860
Yes';

'>>23324978
If you can find aphorisms to support yourself then sure you can make an argument.';

'>>23324986
Well it hasn't crushed all the homosexuals yet so clearly it isn't that burdensome or difficult.';

'>dark brown hair is dark blond hair, guys! Hail Odin btw';

'>>23324960
Don't try to turn this on me. I like just about every type of person except these little shits.';

'>>23325011
I turned nothing, you made the statement. I am inclined to say you started off by whining.';

'>>23325045
I didn't start off shit. This board and site is inundated with that mindset day after day. The whole place is flooded with bitter, dadless losers who shit on everything decent in society. If you're not one of them, it's your duty to grind them down. Here and elsewhere. It's nothing to be passe about.';

'>>23324860
Define “Nietszchean”

Nietzsche wasn’t systematic so it could produce multiple interpretations';

'>>23325072
Thank god I have a father then';

'>>23325083
Nietzsches philosophy reads like a teen girls journal';

'>>23325085
You already got a leg up on Nietzsche.';

'Yes. It’s one thing to appropriate this or that from Nietzsche but to be a Nietzschean one must be a midwit.';

'>>23325072
I am not inclined to argue with your point about the inundation. There is a pecking order to Nietzschean arguments, and I will say that high intelligence is not necessarily a requirement in order to make exceptionally good ones. In my experience over-rationalizing tends to produce too much conformity of thought and leaves too much sterility. Good Nietzschean arguments should leave an imprint of the person, this is more of an artform in all candor, and one can eventually scent the thought if exposed for some time, I have no doubt many of the regulars here can scent my thought, and I tend to be more rational. Variety of aphorisms, and incorporating Nietzsche at various stages is also an aspect, and ideally there should be some imperfection at prima fascie that is logically circuitous upon examination. I have seen some that appeared to be entirely bereft of any intelligent thought but ended up being quite enjoyable, and I have seen some that appeared innocuous and born of refined thinking that were at root quite barbarous. If enjoying Nietzsche makes someone a midwit then I will happily be a midwit to read what I enjoy, I am still not entirely sure why /Lit/ is so concerned about the stages of wittery but it seems to go in phases.';

'>>23325178
There's like 5 people on /lit/ with sentient thought and the rest are tourists and pseuds. I can recognize the 5 people by their styles by now.';

'>>23324911
Are you presenting this as an example of how Nietzsche was a deep intellectual, or of how he was basically just a pretentious self-help guru?';

'>>23324860
Yeah but the people who complain about Nietzscheans being midwits, and more so the people who in 2024 constantly use this term “midwit” to apply with anything they don’t like, are the biggest midwits of all

>>23325185
Agreed but you’re one of the pseuds';

'>>23325203
Based contrarian elitist';

'>>23325185
Well I hope I made it onto the short list of sentience.

>>23325202
According to popular sentiment he was a midwit, so I guess he was just making an observation in this case, or perhaps self-help is actually the real mark of intelligence, or perhaps the process of finding the burden that crushes others for one to play with is contingent on self-mastery. What does the aphorism mean to you?';

'>>23325083
>Define Nietzschean
You just did, and it's why he's for midwits. You either are smart or you sound smart, and Nietzsche is an easy way of sounding smart.

As far as continental philosophy goes stuff like Desiderata is more impressive to me then Nietzsche's entire corpus. It's like how Jordan Peterson will just spout any old bullshit for the purposes of SEO. These people say too much to say anything of consequence. They posit everything, or negate everything, or both, and therefore they say nothing meaningful.

Meanwhile taking a systematic approach means you risk being wrong. You can't just continue to speculate and spout as fact whatever hypotheses just occur to you in the moment. A systematised philosophy requires rigour, what Nietzsche, Sartre, Camus, et al. do only requires an inner narrative that you're willing to believe without question. It is just a totally credulous attachment to one's own thoughts.';

'>>23325009
lol Varg himself doesn't have blond hair, not surprising his son doesn't';

'>>23325215
Yeah. Just understand what it entails.
If I can recognize you by your words; so can others. Think deeply about what that means.';

'>>23325215
Perhaps you're the kind of person who has no practical skills but brags anonymously about his IQ.';

'>>23324860
look at his modern protégé, BAP. It's all a confused satrical LARP that has exposed the holes in right wing thought and pushed us further toward a revival of traditional Christanity.';

'>>23325230
>It's dark blond! Call me blond pls!';

'>>23324978
this';

'>>23324860
Discord raiding ten different threads to spam the catalog is a bit on the nose.';

'>>23324860
in not sure varg isn't a retard';

'>>23324887
This is pretty much it. His works are so polemical and laced with a sense of self important bitterness, and it breeds this same arrogant cynicism in his fans. His dislike of Socrates exposes him as a hack.';

'>>23325742
Nietzsche is definitely the most symbolic thinker of the time. The fact that you judge a thinker by their "fans" (who you are anxious not to be associated with) demonstrates what a reactive pseud you are';

'>>23325072
You are clearly projecting hard. Sorry you got beat up as a kid. I’m still going to be a Nietzschean because I believe purpose is as we make it though.';

'The issue with Nietzsche is that he is well known, memeable (thus culture war ammo), but still actually read as much as nearly any other philosopher (not at all). Meaning that there is a low barrier to entry to talking about him (even if the level of discourse is abysmal).

Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example. Marx too, obviously.';

'adulthood is realizing that Russell was right about Nietzsche the whole time.';

'>>23324866
>>23324874
Violence is the last resort of people who don't have an argument.';

'>>23325790
>Hegel is another, slightly less extreme, example.
It helps that Hegel is much more difficult to read than Nietzsche, but it is a double edge sword. That barrier being higher means that less people use him in such a way, but it also means that those who do have much wilder interpretations than they do of Nietzsche.';

'>>23324860
Damn, I just made a post in another thread staning Nietz.';

'>>23324937
Nietzsche is for artists you fucking retard. Not people who give a shit about minor inconveniences.';

'>>23325880
>Nietzsche is for artists
Wow look, someone who understood Nietzsche. A rarity';

'>>23325846
Idk about that. In many cases, I think that's true. But I also think people who believe in the value of "truth," dismiss or forget that for some people, violence is their argument.
Take Stalin. Stalin didn't give a fuck about communist ideology; he understood how it worked, and how the Party worked, and how to climb the ladder and secure his position. Once he secured the position, he consolidated it, then he enforced it through sheer brutality and violence against anyone who opposed him, or who he wanted to make an example out of; or just whoever he felt like fucking with, because he was absolute ruler.
So his argument from day one, was violence. There was no argument in the sense that you allude to. The argument was, "I really think I should be in charge of everything and that anyone who disagrees should die or be too terrified to ever even speak about it."
And he stated his case, directly, through the whip.
Guys like you and I, like to pretend that deep down, somehow, our rationalism or our articulation confers some objective benefit, or objective validity, but the guy who believes he can just beat us into submission, believes in the objectivity of his "argument" just as strongly.';

'Everyone in this thread is a retard expect for me.';

'>>23325902
It depends on your goal. If you want to change someone's mind with facts, feelings, and ethics, or if you want to appear correct, reasonable, or intellectual, then there's no worse thing you can do than resorting to violence.
But if you don't care about what people think, don't want to change anyone's opinion, and don't care too much about what's right or wrong - morally or factually - then sure, violence solves everything sooner or later.';

'>>23325240
Scent flows deeper than words.

>>23325247
I have nothing to brag about, I have never taken one of the tests. At any given time there are about a handful of IQ threads on here, so you must be addressing the people who brag anonymously about their IQ.';