Message from @DOLBATIC
Discord ID: 480362435807805450
Not everything right to communism is on the right
I was referring to @theepicone
classical liberalism and neoliberalism are left-wing huh
Yes
And Im not An actual anarchist.
So dont tag me
I'd expect nothing else from an unironic Nietzchean
I know you dont expect sense, you're senseless
forgive me for questioning your ubermensch reason and logic <:merchant:323550879749898242>
You clearly dont know what the ubermensch even is.
I do know, I've read most of Nietzsche. He does raise a few interesting points, but I don't see how you can take him seriously when he only throws proclamations without argumenting them at all. It's very lyrical, I'll give you that. Somewhat like the Bible stylistically.
The biggest thing of interest is probably the philological work which you can still see a bit in *Twilight of the Idols*.
The books would be too long if he just argued through most of it. I highly doubt these were random claims though. He thought of them and thought of them deeply.
For example, if you read *The Wagner Case*, while I do agree with most of his points, he never delves into musicological analysis (even though he clearly has the ability to). And even the philosophical and psychological analyses are very brief.
I havent read his books yet but I have all his works except one I think. And Ill read that one online.
I'n sure he has, but the reader is left without any of Nietzche's thinking process. It really is like a religious text.
No wonder is seems familiar.
That's contrary to the way most philosophers write. A thesis needs clarity to be evaluated objectively.
I see.
What about eastern philosophers?
I suppose he would be closer to them, since he openly defecates on the Socratic dialectic which is at the base of Western philosophy.
I do love his writing style which is very inflammatory. Calling George Sand a "milking cow".
Dante a "grave-obsessed hyena".
No I mean do eastern philosophers write less materialistically?
Im sure they do compared to western philosophers but how much do they differ?
Well, the clearer way of writing is not really "materialistic" since it focuses on the purely intellectual process. Nietzsche claimed to be the first Western materialist (of course, this is factually false).
I'm not that familiar with Eastern philosophers since European philosophical education basically forgets their existence. Most of the books I've read by them are more practical, concerning matters of law and strategy.
I see. Makes sense
Nietzsche claimed to be the first western materialist?
I think this is from *Ramblings of an Inactual*, let me find my copy and translate the passage
well it's jot here but I think it went like this
"I am the first to have taken into account the physical body. The greatest crime of philosophy is to have discarded it by inventing faraway and metaphysical realities which have yet to be proven" (this is probably very imprecise paraphrase)
Would you think he was egotistical?
Probably an egoist, he despised all kinds of social policies
As well as the rise of authoritarian patriotism in Germany, which he viewed as a sign of degeneracy
I'd say he was a primitivist in a sense
Which would explain his dislike of how Judeo-Christian faith weakened man
Christianity was for him proto-socialism, the heavily Judaistic revenge of the oppressed against the Aryan hierarchical cult of Hinduism
I see.
Would he be an existentialist?
In some ways, Nietzsche might have been the first to state the intuition of Sartre's existentialism, Bergson's processism (see N's appreciation of Heraclites as the only Greek who accepted movement and duration) and even Husserl's phenomenology
Without creating a real system around them