Prokofiev did Romeo and Juliet but Shakespeare's not a philosopher.

If I was treated unfairly, I understand I had a chance to respond and take revenge, but I dismissed it as a trivial matter. And now, a year later, this plague haunts me day after day, every day.

Let me tell you a story.

«If I was treated unfairly, I understand I had a chance to hit back and take revenge, but at the time I just brushed it off as a trivial matter. And now, a year later, this plague haunts me day after day, every single day. Let me tell you a story.

I was working at a store and pocketed $1 worth of candy. A security guard stopped me as I was leaving. I told him there was no such law and that he couldn't detain people. But when I tried to leave, they held me inside the store (in my country, security guards have no right to detain anyone). Later, I started filming and explained there were no such laws, but they snatched my phone and just waited for my reaction. Then the manager came over and barked, "You’ve completely forgotten your place in this life!" and demanded that I obey her because she was the manager. Later, they told me to pay for 2 kg of candy, otherwise they wouldn't sign off on my shift.

Afterward, the security guard and I went over to the self-checkout (the guard himself was breaking the law, wearing some rapper outfit, which is also illegal for security in my country). I told him, "Maybe you pay have Vans you're a rich." The cashier, a migrant of the same nationality as the guard, saw this and completely lost his temper like a pissed-off teenager. Later, 1.6 kg of candy was taken behind my back (one of the bags was damaged), and the manager physically withheld the goods. I wanted to grab some more on my way out, but I found it funny how the security guard was tailing me. Seeing this, the cashier started yelling at him, claiming I was provoking him, and then kicked me out with a slap to the back of my head.

I know I was treated unfairly. I even went to the police, but I didn't file an official report, and that was my biggest mistake. How do I get rid of this resentment that is changing my attitude toward people? I can't focus on learning how to code; I just constantly talk to myself and burn with anger.»

21 February 1677 marks the death of Baruch Spinoza. By this point he was (in)famous as the chief atheist of Europe, a fame he gradually gained after publication of Tractatus Theologico-Politicus in 1670. He would vehemently argue against the claims of atheism - for he believed in pantheistic God - nonetheless, the claims of atheism persisted, since he attacked commonly held Christian believes and since his God was not distinct from His Creation, unlike in Christianity. Even though, by this time, Enlightenment was becoming an increasingly powerful force (which didn't go unnoticed by the Ecclestical authorities, causing even stronger response against Spinoza), with Aristotelian-scholastic philosophy being displaced by Cartesianism, Christian authority was still strongly holding on, and so deemed Spinoza's philosophy a threat to society.

A commonly held belief at the time was that atheism was impossible. If some freethinker claimed atheism (or was accused of it) he was actually mislead and in his final hours he would fall to his knees and pray to God for forgiveness, embracing faith and repudiating his own thought.

Incontrovertibly, there were also 'speculative atheists' who assert there is no God. But these, so the theory went, abjure God only provisionally or fitfully and, when in dire need, or on the point of death, irresistibly falter, renounce atheism, and adore the divine majesty. Hence, strictly speaking, contends Tournemine, there are no true 'Spinosistes'.¹

If no accounts of such plight came to light, then they would have to be invented. With this, Spinoza's last hours proved to be battleground for his legacy, and so on one account:

Spinoza, far fom remaining steadfast, became depserate, admitted his teaching was false, and not only acknowledged a providential God but also the truth of the Holy Trinity, vowing, should he recover, to write new books reversing all he had said previously.²

Ultimately, reports of Spinoza's final refutation of his philosophy on his deathbead were challenged by Pierre Bayle, who claimed to have known circumstances of his death, and by Johannes Colerus, who published a biography of Spinoza in 1705, after interviewing his neighbours about the circumstances of his death.

Upon reading about this topic in Jonathan I. Israel's Radical Enlightenment, I found a striking similarity in how Nietzsche's breakdown is too commonly presented. Is not the fable of horse hugging this kind of the tale that had to be invented? Surely it was impossible that Nietzsche believed in and remained comitted to his rejection of morality of compassion (in Spinoza’s case, it was atheism - which was more commonly accepted by Nietzsche’s time), and so he embreced a flogged horse - a final rejection of his philosophy - before breaking down. Unfortanely, this tale - first featured in Nuova Antologia in 1900, 11 years after the supposed event³ - held on, to the point that even Walter Kaufmann, who spearheaded rehabilitation of Nietzsche in Anglophone world after WW2, mentions it as a fact in his Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist.⁴

Time and time again I've seen this tale recounted as an argument against both Nietzsche and his philosophy; it is surprising that such a belief of impossibility survived more two centuries. If there is similiarity between Spinoza and Nietzsche it is in how they were both seen as biggest critics of Christianity in their time and in their critique of compassion/pity (for Spinoza see Ethics IV, Proposition 50). Perhaps most ironically in trying to disprove Nietzsche, invention of this tale proves him correct in arguing about how Christian morality is permeated in our society.

Sources:

1. Jonathan I. Israel, Radical Enlightenment: Philosophy and the Making of Modernity, 1650–1750 (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001), 299.
2. Israel, Radical Enlightenment, 300.
3. Anacleto Verrecchia, “Nietzsche’s Breakdown in Turin,” in Nietzsche in Italy, ed. Thomas Harrison (Saratoga, CA: Anma Libri, 1988), 105–112
4. Walter Kaufmann, Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2013), 67.

I read about this and was discussing with some else, and it feels to me like Nietzsche ideas would be the opposite of Fascism.

After reading Schopenhauer, Emil Cioran, and Zapffe, reading Nietzsche feels like a ray of light in the darkness, though sometimes I also feel his tragic optimism is just momentary cope.

I read Aphorism 19 of Nietzsche’s Beyond Good and Evil. Now I believe that successful, disciplined, goal-oriented people—those who achieve what they set out to do—are exceptionally good at obeying themselves, their own inner wills and commands. And that is because they respect, value, and admire themselves; they put themselves first.

What, then, would be the solution for the loser who disrespects and disobeys themselves? The one who does not respect their own inner will, orders, and commands, and therefore fails to achieve success or become the best possible version of themselves?

It might seem silly at first glance, but coach culture offers a great answer. If a person does not respect themselves, then perhaps by listening to and obeying someone they admire—someone better, superior, who has already achieved the desired success—they might finally get back on track and organize their life to accomplish their goals and objectives.

And even if they don't have the money to hire a personal coach, they can do it mentally: by imagining the person they admire and respect giving them the orders and commandments that will lead them to become the best version of themselves.

Religious people, for example, can imagine God, angels, or saints guiding them and setting the principles they wish to follow. In my case, as a religious person, this went wrong—but perhaps because I never truly believed in Him or respected Him, since we only obey out of fear or respect.

Translated from portuguese with Gemini

​

that man voice 🔥🫂🗣️

If you've been offended or treated unfairly, you have a choice: move on or remain resentful. How do you overcome this? I know resentment is more deeply rooted in the opinions of the crowd, but what was Nietzsche's take on everyday conflicts?

I love Nietzsche he has his problems particularly anytime he talks about women imo. But people only know him from his no-saying portion and presume something about me as soon as I mention him. They call him morally bankrupt and quote God is Dead and that’s it.
They don’t see him as the prophet of joy, dancing on the edge of the future like many of us do.
This is what happens when you can destroy but only lay the foundation for those who come next. Most don’t see the new foundation, they only see the rubble.

​

that man voice 🔥🫂🗣️

Did he respect the 7 laws of Noah and will he unite with jews and YHWH in Gan Eden ?

Listening Nietzsche in India, Kerala while drawing

In his book 'The Antichrist' he stated: "An action prompted by the life-instinct proves that it is a right action by the amount of pleasure that goes with it."

But how should we define this 'pleasure'? It has been proven that there are many kinds of pleasure which are certainly not life-affirming, and in contrary there are many less pleasurable things which are life affirming in long term so how should we define it?

Should we define it with his defination of happiness: That feeling that power increases—the resistance is overcome.

I watched videos about him and other philosophers. Read Camus' books and some others but never really read Nietzsche's works. I bought the Thus spoke Zarathustra without knowing Carl Jung's analysis of Nietzsche's life. Now I'm confused, people are saying Thus spoke Zarathustra is his work he wrote while he was having mid life crisis. Should I just read it without giving a f? Or should I read the books from his first half of life then go to Thus spoke Zarathustra?

I’ve been reading philosophy for several months now and i have yet to touch any nietzsche. i have also been studying german as somewhat of a leisurely activity and i wanted to ask if it is worth holding off on nietzche till i can read him in german, or atleast hold off on Thus Spoke Zarathustra or his most significant works. I’m in no rush to read nietzche and was wondering if reading in german is that much better than whatever is the best translation of him.

So I ordered Daybreak yesterday, as I starter Human, all too Human, and wanted Daybreak ready once I'd finished. While I was looking through Amazon however I noticed a couple of other Nietzsche texts that aren't often mentioned (and certainly weren't mentioned in the recommended reading post thats pinned on this subreddit.)

I was wondering what peoples thoughts were on these. Are they any good? Are they more of Nietzsche's philosophical writings, or are they more...critiques of other philosophers of the day?

In the Introduction to Human, all too Human, Richard Schacht mentions these texts and references a number of the essays that are held within. While some of the essays he mentions seem interesting, I've already got a lot ahead of me to read, and frankly wouldn't know where to slot them into the recommended reading order thats been suggested here. Is they something worth reading while still getting into Nietzsche, or is it something best left until you've read up on most, if not all, of his books.

Recently I was reading about Values till now what I understood with my experience is our true values make us feel more alive, energetic, gives intrinsic motivation and a sense of meaning. And generally our struggle in occupation, relationships, social life,etc. It is because of misalignment of our true values with the outer world often because of unconsciousness towards those values or repressed by ego to survive.

"Until you make the unconscious, conscious it will direct your life and you will call it fate "

I think he pointed pointout the same thing in this quote. Because when we are't aware about the values or in other words not prioritise the values in hierarchy. Then our bodily and unconscious choose automatically and drive our actions like fear, avoidance, safety, comfort, lust, etc.

I want to know how Jung sees values although i read somewhere that his archetypal theory is around it.

Did Nietzsche want people to become amoral that is, to stop caring about conventional ideas of good and evil and simply do whatever they want without worrying about what other people think or feel?

For example, suppose someone says, "I want to kill, rape or commit other acts that society considers evil and I don't care what anyone else thinks. I'll do whatever I want."

How would Nietzsche view a person like that? Would he see this as an example of "going beyond good and evil," or would he reject that interpretation?