I don't like Nietzsche cause he talked bad about Socialism!!! I prefer author X!"

And when did Philosophy authors became a preference thing like Anime or Games, instead of subjects of study?

Such is the mind of the Ideologue…

Other urls found in this thread:


What are you on about, op?

How many layers of ideology are you on

Quite being a dipshit. The OP is saying there's plenty of truth to be found in Nietzsche's philosophy despite his critique of Socialism being a shallow copy+paste of liberal propoganda. Even your dumbest enemies have a lot more to teach you than you'd think.

Never heard anyone say anything to this effect here.

Nietzche's "critique" of socialism was like Russel's "critique" of socialism.
10-20 pages long and attacking broad conceptions of "colectivism" rather than ponctual socialist positions and theories.
It has no effect on us or on the legitimacy of the writers themselves.
Nietzche was still a spooked faggot though.

Who needs Nietzsche when you have Stirner tho

Stirner is brainlet Nietzsche.

terrible meme

Actually, politics is just a consumer identity where you consume as much philosopher names as possible to drop in conversations and reaffirm your identity as a leftist. They must be easy to use as a front for this or have already been interpreted by a smarter authority figure as being Leftist™ or they're too difficult to use towards this end and must be immediately discarded!

nietzsche is a brainlet stirner and also spooked*
fixed that 4 u

Stirner is spooked by his own ego. Nietzsche is spooked by nothing.

Nietzsche wrote literally thousands of pages on just about every topic imaginable and pretty much is exactly the same as Stirner, except he has a more developed corpus that can't be easily reduced to shitty memes that e-leftists spam at people.

There's literally no contest between the two. Stirner is only liked more than Nietzsche in leftist circles because unlike Nietzsche, Stirner didn't develop an explicit critique of socialism. But if you think that Stirner's ideas reduce down to vulgar anarcho-communism, you have entirely missed the point of his work (assuming anyone who thinks this has actually read him).

They aren't even remotely similar. You just got that impression because Holla Forums told you they weren't spooked on morality or some other equally shallow shit.

t. buttmad egoist
Take it up with

the milkshop thou



but the left can't meme, how is it possible that stirner's philosophy has been reduced to memes???

only right-wingers turn it into a preference thing.

Nietzche was in favor of autocracy, aristocracy, the caste system, and the wholesale slaughter of much of the human population. While his ideas on religion's "slave morality" are pretty provocative and he makes some valid points, he represents the world in such dualistic terms that its hard not to cackle here at there as he presents arguments for "strong vs. weak" and brute force with an air of bombastic pseudo-sophistication. He was an aesthetician of violence and exploitation, he was pro-slavery and subjugation, and believed that all of humanity and animals are locked in an eternal struggle in which mercy and compassion had no place. He was right in that people are losing the concept of gods in the face of technology and science, but wrong in his belief that the strong have a right to dominate the weak and especially, dangerously wrong when he said that instincts are the most powerful form of intelligence. Instincts are very primitive and relying on snap judgments, emotions, and "intuition" makes people go horribly wrong most of the time. And while he would have disagreed with the Nazis on anti-semitism and racism, his entire philosophy gave birth to MANY of the ideologies of the Nazis. Namely, Nietzche was a collectivist, he believed in the magnificence and essentially of war, he believed in might and deception, he believed in the ridding of guilt and conscience when suppressing the weak as he believed their subjugation was a biological, Darwinian inevitability, he believed that trade and economic liberalism were damaging, he was anti-intellectual, believed in strong government, the ridding of conscience and replacement of it with the opposite values to form a new "non-slave" conscience, and he believed in state regulation of marriage and sex, and eugenics. The Nazis believed all of that and made the Hitler Youth read some of his work. Not much room to counter argue for the Nietzche apologists or circle jerkers, you're all just angsty fags.


remember when you claimed wolf children prove language itself is a social construct, also due to its commutative properties and "correlation" to society? because i do.

The sad thing is people are going to take this post seriously because it's a wall of text that sounds sophisticated if you don't know anything about the subject.

And how is this related to this?


Probably since they were unfalsifiable, meaning it's impossible to tell who's right. So always.

Philosophy is a spook.

I wasn't even aware Nietzsche had things to say about socialism. I just generally kind of dislike him because he created kind of a false opposition to morality that was actually just a set of vague morals, and much of his writing was affected by his degenerative disease. He was also a preeminent existentialist, though, so I don't really write him off. And his fans insist that his dumb aristocratic ramblings were purely poetic allegory or something.

I don't like Nietzsche because he's the patron saint of edgelords

Spooks are spooks.


When the mammi hits hard.

Whenever i see people talk about Nietzsche they always misunderstand him. That always comes from a superficial reading and prior lack of philosophical education, or maybe because most here are underages from Reddit.

Heidegger and Jung were very both sensible, peace-loving people and they both appreciated Nietzsche's work a lot, and people still he's about "Cruelty is high-society"

falsifiability is a principle, not a theory to be tested

1. It is a principle you can't justify using itself, if you justify it you have to admit the ability for things to be justified without falsification
2. The principle requires a method of falsification, which is empirically unfalsifiable.

falsification is a principle applied to theories

OK? So philosophy can make justified and true statements and they don't need to be falsifiable because they aren't necessarily empirical.

method of falsification is simple
theory makes predictions - you test predictions to be true or false

if these statements are testable they can be true
but if they are not, how can you say that they are true or false?

You missed the entire point. The devil is two fold: Theories make predictions based on previously 'known' things of reality (even though radical falsifiability takes nothing to be 'known'), and testing a prediction to be false isn't as easy as saying 'I test a prediction to be false'
For instance, if I predict a large tide when the moon is directly north (just something stupid). What's the method of falsification? Testing that the moon is north and measuring the tides. So I have to assume that there's no optical trick with the moon, or my eyes, or the calculation, etc, if there was the theory could be incorrectly falsified.
Either somehow the methods and assumptions of falsifaction are falsifiable, in which you constantly expand the theory until you run into a wall of solispsism that you can't get past, or the method isn't falsifiable in which you're admitting a useful assumptions, methods, what have you that's unfalsifiable.

Read Kant or later Wittgenstein . There are synthetic and analytical truths for one. Personally I ascribe to the correspondence notion of truth, but whatever. Moreover don't be intentionally autistic, Modal realism can't be falsified but it's clearly false. Cogito, on the other hand is clearly true.


hahaha why even bother fam

It's fun.
Moreover it helps you structure your styles thinking

it's actually bad, with few exceptions. like
muh analytic synthetic divide btfo


I'm anarchist communist with nietzschean ethics, Goldman were also highly influenced by Nietzsche. I don't see the point.

There are things Nietzsche has to say that I definitely find useful, like his concept of the will, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Nietzsche criticized capitalism and greed more than socialism.

The whole point of judging hypotheses by their falsifiability is that you can't prove a hypothesis true.

I've gotta agree. Truth has political bias, attack the message, not the messenger.

I completely agree with Nietzsche in the second picture though.

The description of slave and master morality is NOT prescriptive, he was just describing them. When he says that the greatest societies were inherently hierarchical he was right, yet societal greatness is not defined as good or bad here. For example he also mentions that in such society who is at the bottom is forced to live miserable, meaningless lives, while who is at the top will necessarily lose their mind in a way or another (in this way he also demolishes the common prejudice that sees him as a celebrator of conquerers and warmongerers). Also the whole concept of "elevated man" was to take almost literally in its arbitrariety. He is quite explicit about it, in the sense that by "elevation" he literally meant the collective ideas of great men of the past, instead of some sort of inherent unconcievable superiority of said men.
Now, of course he is not an egalitarian, but your view is still skewed.

I have never heard any such criticism of his works, that said people tend to think very little about what he had to write, so I can see how someone might think that him criticizing socialism and anarchism might be the end of the debate.
That said, it might help knowing that Nietzsche associated only with leftist-anarchist political organizations during his lifetime, and that his critiques of socialism and anarchism are mainly about the proponents that were contemporary to Nietzsche.
Considering how positivistic were 20th century Marxists, this does not surprise me in the slightest, in fact I would say that most people here would have shared the same opinion, especially on the methods that were used.

Late Wittengstein and Kant are not analytic philosophy. Also while Kant is a hassle, Wittgenstein's PI can be read by pretty much everyone, and it is insightful and entertaining (due to the costant thought games) to say the least.

Describing the reality of the world is usually enough to scare people off. A way to dismiss his works is certainly to unfaithfully state that his descriptions are in fact prescriptions.

Jung was wrong about everything and a bad person

i dont like Nietzsche because Stirner is the original one and because Nietzsche had some spooks/ideology the guy was kinda a loser.

yet "the analytics" worshiped it just as hard as they did Tractatus, after he said "Academia is all empty word games" they were like

You have a very skewed understanding of history of philosophy. PI was absolutely ostracized from Anglo academia, and the European positivists, who were the main proponents of the Tractatus, all rejected it.

while i can't argue with those gets, my recollection is it was reappraised maybe a generation or so after the initial reception as a key text of logical behaviorism, along with Ryle, and of the "conceptual analysis" tendency focusing on natural language (usually meaning English) in usage as opposed to the more mathematical logic oriented side.