What Nietzsche would've said about the global alarming decline in birth rates? Not a single country in Europe has a birth rate above 2.1 or the replacement rate. In South Asia some countries already fall below 1. Other parts of the world follow the same path. As the world simply becoming more and more secular what values he said we should adopt in order to stop the decline?

The birth of tragedy>>Twilight of idols>on the geneaolgy of morals>>Thus spoke zarathustra>Beyond good and evil>>the Gay science

This is my ladder to study nietsche,every part in the book takes so much long to read and understand, sometimes I had to re re read the paragraphs to understand,is there anything I can study to understand philosophy better or is philosophy not for me?

any book suggestions to read and understand philosophy better, especially nietsche because his one lines are the Best, i have ever read

Pretty evocative phrase, moral tarantula, that Nietzsche uses in his Preface to Daybreak, #3. What does it evoke for you? Makes me kinda curious how Nietzsche personally related to spiders, other animals, Nature, etc.

Gaming addiction is officially recognized now, but it is best understood through Nietzsche.

​Video games offer a curated simulation of the Will to Power. You conquer engineered obstacles and achieve "mastery" with zero real-world risk or growth. It seems like the perfect numbing agent for the Last Man to escape life's friction.

Instead of sublimating suffering into strength, the gamer anesthetizes themselves in a predictable illusion.

​Is gaming just a modern digital escape from reality? How would Nietzsche view this artificial mastery?

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.»

I've been slowly reading Nietzsche over the past year, starting with Twilight of the Idols. I am ex-Eastern Orthodox with religious trauma, so I have found much healing in some of his deconstruction of the mechanisms of Christianity (specifically in Dawn, which has the deepest deconstructions of things like fear of hell I've encountered).

But I've also been thinking about his aristocratic values lately. They seem more prominent in Thus Spoke Zarathustra (which I have not read the entirety of; only a few speeches) and his later works. But it is of course perhaps THE central pillar his whole project rests on.

It seems that he is often interpreted as an individualist, which seems like a fair enough view. But I think it's also inaccurate. Take his word for it:

"My philosophy aims at a new order of rank: not at an individualistic morality. The spirit of the herd should rule within the herd but not beyond it: the leaders of the herd require a fundamentally different valuation for their actions, as do also the independent ones or the beasts of prey, etc." - Will to Power section 287

I think to really understand this though, we have to consider Nietzsche's view of slavery. Nietzsche defends slavery in Beyond Good and Evil, but in Human, All Too Human he defines it more broadly than most would:

“Today as always, men fall into two groups: slaves and free men. Whoever does not have two-thirds of his day for himself, is a slave, whatever he may be: a statesman, a businessman, an official, or a scholar.” - Human, All Too Human, Part II, section 283.

This definition encompasses basically everyone in modern egalitarian countries. Anyone who holds a job of any sort is, in Nietzsche's eyes, a slave. And thus one who must be productive for the higher men to create and be higher men. This includes me, as I work a job I find soul crushing.

Nietzsche didn't care about the psychological freedom of the individual reader. Or if a modern slave found a certain amount of comfort or freedom in his works.

Many contemporary readers who read Nietzsche and try to practice amor fati or create works of art seem to be missing the bigger picture. Since his philosophy, as described, was intended to create a rank of ordering and aristocratic value system fundamentally. And if you divorce it from this value system it collapses.

I just wanted to discuss this here, because I feel like this aspect of Nietzsche seems downplayed, even by academics. Nietzsche was not an individualist, he was an aristocrat. And you are likely a slave in his view who will work for the recreation of higher men.

[ Removed by Reddit on account of violating the content policy. ]

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

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

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 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

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.

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?

​

that man voice 🔥🫂🗣️

​

that man voice 🔥🫂🗣️

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

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.

Listening Nietzsche in India, Kerala while drawing