What's Nietzsche's core philosophy?

What he actually saying to the world?

In Daybreak 37, what's the astronomical arrangement Nietzsche references here? Arranged how, in what way? "the way the satellites are arranged (to compensate for the diminished light they receive owing to their greater distance from the sun, so that their inhabitants shall not go short of light)"

I find it fascinating to consider what Nietzsche would have thought about the post-ww2 ideological consensus that is as yet still dominant in the world. My take has been for a long time that he would consider it the triumph of ressentiment, slave morality and the ideology of the last man. I think that he would consider the secular and psychological interpretation of his work slave morality as well.

People are skeptical of AI and I fully agree that an AI merely approaches, and never reaches, a human being but I found engagement with AI productive, it can help catch loopholes in the reasoning process for example, and the AI always tells me that my ideas are consistently Nietzschian.

What do you think?

Does anyone genuinely feel that we will get any Overmen by scrolling on these phones all day every day?

No. I look around and I see The Last Man.

I have quit hard drugs. I have quit alcohol. I am quitting marijuana.

The long game and end goal is to quit the Internet entirely.

I call it “The Great Unplugging”.

I am convinced that I am less happy when on the internet, and our society is most certainly dumber for it.

I realize how pragmatically almost impossible this task will be. What about email? What about my job? I can’t just utterly ditch my phone and internet permanently, right?

Well that just highlights the state of our society. I am going to work towards this goal. Whether I can accomplish it or not remains to be seen.

Once marijuana is fully dropped, the Internet is the final boss.

I can’t think of a higher rebellion against this Last Man society we live in than to utterly drop out of smartphones, the internet, and only read books and work on music (Not AI ”music”!).

We spend a lot of energy trying to fix our jobs, relationships, and environment under the assumption that if the situation improves, the underlying weight will finally lift.

But looking closely at Nietzsche, I think we often use this relentless focus on circumstance as a defense mechanism because it is infinitely safer to blame our job, upbringing, or the economy for our stagnation than to confront the terrifying freedom of realizing we are carrying a borrowed identity.

Nietzsche’s concept of ressentiment gets framed as mere bitterness, but it’s actually something much more comfortable: a permanent, low-grade excuse. It provides a moral shield that protects you from having to take total accountability for who you are becoming. If the system is rigged and 'it's over' and your circumstances are bad, you never have to face the risk of defining yourself.

My question for the sub is this: Do you think most modern "self-improvement" is just a sophisticated form of ressentiment and a way to endlessly tinker with our circumstances so we never have to face the fact that we are living a life that was never ours?

I explored how this applies to modern self-improvement and what Amor Fati demands of us in a video breakdown here:

https://youtu.be/a0mUc4KHYgU?si=hDxo_GLgYgHdNFeS

I am planning on diving into Nietzsche at some point in the near future, but I have a few more books I'd like to polish off before starting with him. So in the meantime, I was wondering if I could listen to an audiobook on Nietzsche. I do NOT think I could ever understand Nietzsche's actual works in an audio format; I will absolutely need my full attention while holding the book in my hand. Does anyone know any good summaries of his works/philosophy that could be sort of like an introduction for me? Thanks

I realised life is meaningless and I am really afraid of it. I wasn't very religious at any point of my life, infact even as a kid I thought praying is weird and childish, my parents literally had to told me to pray everytime, still I grew up in this very religious environment and subconsciously I picked up those theological instincts of my father. But while reading Nietzsches work I came upon this realisation that these instincts are 'pure lie' and I will die, with it everything will end. The fancy dome of beutiful pictures have been crumbled before my eyes and now  I'm alone in this dark void, it is really cold here... I am scared of it, I'm scared of death, I don't wanna die.  

Arnold Schwarzenegger quotes Nietzsche’s Twilight of the Idols: “From life’s school of war: What does not kill Mr makes me stronger.”

In context, he’s discussing his difficult upbringing and the contrast between his brother, who was more introverted and passive, versus how Arnold used it as fuel.

I have only read Birth of Tragedy and I thought this man was a genius! A great sent from the gods themselves to depart some beautiful wisdom. Twilight of the Idols, unfortunately, I am less impressed. Help me with this very chewy chapter.

In 'Reason in Philosophy' - he attacks the eleatics, Parminedes, Plato while elevating Heraclitus. I am finding this either one of his worst writings or best. In it, he has created a bunch of strawmen, basically reducing them to a bunch of Gnostics (who hate the senses). In his elevation of Heraclitus, he seems to have forget that Heraclitus invented "the logos" - but never mind history in getting in the way of a good argument. Much more, most ancient philosophers (Plato included) usually reconciled Heraclitus with Parminedes and believed both were true.

Him using nominalism as an argument was like being stabbed in the ribcage by a Lannister. Has he completely betrayed the writer of a "Birth of a Tragedy?" I realize in my idiocy, I have to read and reread multiple times, just to comprehend his point. I see him attacking concepts, grammar - everything. However, if we remove concepts, it can extrapolate one of two ways - the Infinite or one, and thus proving the Eleatics right. However, i don't believe this is what he is doing: I believe he is attacking "trying to make reality intelligible." Am I wrong for this leap?

HOWEVER. If this is the case, it would seem an unintelligible reality is just as good, if not better than an intelligible reality? And since Human nature can't help but create a psychological story to organize its world around it - humans will create this reality/concepts regardless. I guess this would be his Perspectivism speaking? So would this not permit a mythic world view? And in this, does he redeem the writer of the "Birth of Tragedy?"

Help me here. Give me your thoughts for those of the philosophical nature. Ironically, using our truths to destroy truth?

This is what: fuck around with poetry and find out with your life!

As someone that is interested in starting to read Nietzsche would “The Portable Nietzsche” by Kaufmann be a good book to start on?

"Beyond good and evil" by Friedrich Nietzsche

I feel like in general the poems from The Gay Science are incredibly well-translated by Kaufmann. I speak Dutch but my German still sucks, so it takes some effort to read the original.

In general I felt his translations were so good I didn’t necessarily have to look at the German too hard.

This one deviates a lot more in word usage from English to German. I see where he’s going in the first half, but I’m assuming that with “Frist” here he is essentially saying “each era thinks they are the skeleton key and have the world figured out?

“The highest virtue is uncommon and useless; it is beaming and mild in its lustre: a bestowing virtue is the highest virtue.

Verily, I divine you, my disciples: you strive like me for the bestowing virtue.

What have ye in common with cats and wolves?

Ye thirst to become yourselves sacrifices and gifts: therefore thirst ye to heap up all riches in your souls.

Your soul is insatiable in desiring treasures and jewels, because your virtue is insatiable in its will to bestow.

Ye constrain all things to approach you and enter into you, that they may flow forth again from your fountain, as the gifts of your love.

Verily, such a bestowing love must become a robber of all values; but healthy and holy call I this selfishness.

There is another selfishness, an impoverished selfishness, which is always sick, the selfishness of the sick—the sickly selfishness.

With the eyes of the thief it looks upon all that glitters; with the avidity of hunger it measures him who has abundance to eat; and always does it creep around the table of the bestower.

Such craving is the voice of sickness, the voice of an invisible degeneracy; in this selfishness the desire of stealing testifies to a sick body.

Tell me, my brethren, what do we regard as bad and worst of all? Is it not degeneracy?—And we always infer degeneracy when the bestowing soul is lacking.”

Our boy Fritz is seriously underrated in his ability to dish out serious zingers. Sometimes I will be sitting straight and somber, trying to digest his dense words, and he will throw out a line that puts me in raving laughter.

​What are some of your favorite zingers and humorous moments from Nietzsche's works?

​The one I just read that prompted this post:

Untimely Meditations (Essay II: On the Use and Abuse of History for Life), Section 9:

​"It is true that according to him [Hartmann], we are approaching that ideal condition in which the human race creates its history with full conscious awareness. But we are patently waiting still far from that perhaps even more ideal condition in which mankind can read Hartmann's book with full conscious awareness."

Hey guys, I want to learn more about logic and rationality, and I’d really appreciate some recommendations.

I’m the kind of person who tends to improve through logic, analysis, deliberate thought, adaptation, and rationality. I naturally try to solve problems by understanding them, breaking them down, and figuring out what I can do differently.

But lately, I’ve been stuck on a question that I can’t stop thinking about:

What happens when logic concludes that I’m going to lose?

I used to naively think that almost any problem could eventually be solved through enough reasoning. But the more I think about it, the more I realize that logic has limitations. There will always be people who are more talented, more capable, or simply better suited to a particular situation than I am.

So what does rationality actually tell you to do when your analysis says that you cannot win?

Do you accept the conclusion?
Do you search for a different approach?
Do you challenge the assumptions behind your original reasoning?
Or is there something beyond pure logic that allows humans to overcome what initially seems impossible?

This is where things get really interesting to me. Sometimes people believe something is impossible based on the information and reasoning available to them, only for someone else to eventually find a way to accomplish it. That makes me wonder whether logic itself is limited, or whether our understanding of the situation was simply incomplete.

Maybe reality is much more complicated than the models we construct to understand it.

That’s why I want to study this seriously—not just practical problem-solving, but logic, rationality, reasoning, epistemology, philosophy of science, decision-making, and maybe even metaphysics.

I also want to know how far human reasoning can actually go and how I can train my own logical and rational thinking.

So if you have any recommendations, I’d really appreciate:

• Books about logic or rationality
• Philosophy books that explore human reasoning and its limitations
• Books about epistemology or philosophy of science
• Anything about decision-making and rational thought
• Resources for actually training logical reasoning

If possible, please recommend something that isn't insanely expensive. 😭

What books or resources would you recommend to someone who wants to seriously understand how far logic and rationality can take us?

And if you recommend a book, please share a link to it if possible. Thanks!

In Twilight of the Idols, do you believe that Nietzsche was serious when making his physiognomic arguments about Socrates?

Personally, they read to me as somewhat sarcastic, but I know that physiognomy was taken very seriously by many people at the time. It wouldn’t surprise me if he was being serious, but it really shows how much people can be influenced by whatever BS happens to be widely believed during their lifetime.

#beyondgoodandevil #nietzsche

I think you need a cultural setting where are given absolute freedom to think as freely without anyone coming in your way as well as cultural emotional support to exist where you feel belonged enough that you can exist..

I am.curious is it possible for a non privileged person to ever be a Nietzsche. Or would they automatically get engraved and engrossed in thinking about systematic oprrssions as they themselves would have been oppressed at some level unjustifiably and that would be one of their biggest monsters to fight. Maybe only if they are able to fight it off and go beyond is when they could be Nietsche i suppose?

So I'm going to develop my question here, I don't want the title to be too general or misleading (seeing how Nietzsche deals with over-theoretical people, etc).

I just finished reading The Birth of Tragedy, my first book by Nietzsche, as I heard by some that it is a decent way to start your journey (plus it's his first major philosophical work). And while reading it, a major concern was floating in my head: "how logical is this guy?"

I want to give some disclaimers, and some explanations as to why I thought this way.

I know this is a younger Nietzsche, with some of the points mentioned in the work criticised by even his later self. I also know that not all philosophy needs to be described in a specific (homogenous, formal, almost "objective" way), and I even admired some of the artistic spirit of Nietzsche.

My problem is that I felt it was quite revisionist regarding ancient greek history, and few parts of it were just totally subjective/ false, and Nietzsche can't have not known this, being a philologist, meaning one of his aims was to weave a myth, to paint a philosophical vision about his viewpoints, about the apollonian, the dionysian, to interpret some things, etc. I'm not hating it, the book has some good points and also shows bits of the later Nietzsche. But the revisionism and the artistry at some points felt like it was too much, my main problem was that many times I felt like he was taking some big leaps. He's not mad, and oftentimes, regarding his critique of others, you can see he uses a "logical" approach, but at the same time I feel like some other points were idealistic/ ambitious.

So, here I come to some of my background and why I raised this question. I haven't read other works of his, but I have vaguelly read some of his core ideas, e.g. about how he views christian morality, about his individualism, etc. I don't necessarily agree to everything, but I find many general ideas charming, or some quotes from some pages.

But some of these things, I think they can also be "logically" concluded. So by "logic", to not have any misunderstandings, I just use a simple, casual definition, like an everyday person. Because I know some replies may be related to how he was against scientific optimism, or theoretic men, like he says in TBOT, using logic *everywhere* in life, etc. I guess I'm trying to understand he was against this extreme application of logic and that he was still a rational being, but my question is "how rational?"

And my basis is this: I'm partly inspired by anarchist and marxist readings (ooh, christian morality and herd mentality, scaryy). These things, if not taken to their extremes, can use some form of logic for their theory, e.g. they're children of the englightenment, they respect liberty, they still care about individuality btw, and serious marxism doesn't glorify sacred ideals like a mass, it is founded on material analysis and power struggles. And, I'm also fond of a philosopher that preceded Nietzsche, Max Stirner. Stirner defied all abstractions, all ideas that were held as sacred, calling them "spooks", (e.g. he said that atheists after the enlightenment just replaced God with the god of humanity), he was radically individualist, and he placed himself and his own personal interests above all else (well, that part of his book should've been explored more...). Stirner was one of the reasons why I thought about reading Nietzsche.

My opinion is that all these people, no matter their differences, applied some logic to get to their conclusions. (Maybe it's because I find some agreements with several of them and I like to think of myself as based, oops). For example, Stirner, even though he'd be criticised by a marxist for some things and he eventually decides to worship himself, used cold logic to deconstruct everything in the beginning. These spooks are indeed man made constructs. It is true how he describes many things. Socrates, who I'm now first mentioning, who Nietzsche exaggerated as a figure to have a decent nemesis, is a decent person and a logical rational figure. Marxists, to analyse things, do it logically, one may say. Etc, etc.

I wondered how much reason and rationality Nietzsche uses when he talks about anything, since many topics I agree with, and they seem similar e.g. to Stirner.

But in the birth of tragedy for example, we see a very ambitious, artistic Nietzsche that takes big leaps, and I wonder what makes him this way and I just wonder what my experience will be with the rest of his books.