Why do some incels like Nietzsche?

[caineturbat2003]

Nietzsche at his time was basically the proto-redpiller. He tells his readers to embrace their suffering and to transcend their weakness through suffering. That sounds like the redpill 101. The only reason people like his philosophy is because he shits on traditional bluepilled morality and advocates for his readers to sort of form their own values and belief systems. Other than that, Nietzsche sounds like he stared too much into the abyss and he was coping hard with his "will to power" and "ubermensch" philosophy. If he would have looked at our forum today, he would have called us weak, pathetic, decadent, etc.

Why not instead go for Schopenhauer? He was a blackpiller before the blackpill was even a thing. His philosophy revolves around shitting on foids and how this world is basically a shithole full of suffering and futility. Even his "Will to Live" philosophy is spot on for why most bluepilled truecels suffer.

I heard even Philipp Mainlander is worth reading. However, I don't know that much about him, so I can't comment. But he's there with the pessimists.

Also, if you still like Nietzsche, you should know he called Mainlander a virgin as an insult. Imagine what he would think of you.

 

[cathuluelitist]

Nietzsche was a virgin himself. He was calling him weak here

 

[caineturbat2003]

Nietzsche was a virgin himself. He was calling him weak here

Still, I wouldn't use that word if you want to call someone a weakling. He may have shot himself in the foot there if he was also a virgin.

 

[caineturbat2003]

Geniunely tho, why do some people here like Nietzsche?

 

[SewerGoat]

Nietzsche is very accessible to the average person in their teen, that starts to get into philosophy. Besides the typically known ancient greek philosophers, the name Nietzsche is easily to be found in pop culture. His accessibility is mainly due to his easy, quite poetic, and often times non analytical writing style in stark contrast to some others like Schopenhauer, Kant, Schelling and so on - which all had a more clinical approach when it comes to writing.

Besides that Nietzsche is with his nihilistic thoughts, his stark critique of platonic values a complementation to the average edgy and angsty teenager. Problem is that most of these individuals don't read him right most of times, and interpreting his works as a affirmation towards Nihilism instead of the other.

I wrote in another thread some thoughts of mine about him down. I'll just quote it here:

https://incels.is/threads/thoughts-on-nietzsche-and-his-philosophy.855743/#post-23639703

Nietzsche was a better writer than philosopher in my opinion. His critique of Plato is spot on though. There are many things to like about his philosophy, many things to ignore. But he really was more a visionary who was able to see the downfall of theological metanarrative, that would give open space for all sorts of "Götzen" in form of new Gods, material fixation, Ideologies - which was what essentially what happened later on in the beginning of the 20th century.

His Cope for the downfall of abrahamic religions and the antidote to Nihilism and lack of meaning being the Übermensch is quite silly on the other hand. Unless one interprets the Übermensch as the next evolutionary step of Homo Sapiens, in which case i still don't see how biological determinism is going to give the average Joe some kind of meaning.

I also don't agree with his assessment that there can't be a objective moral compass without a universal dictate. Nature is without any Ethics and does not care about the damage it does in the process of reproducing this Dna molecule, but we on the other should. It is a naturalistic fallacy, to mistake what Is as what should be. We are the only conscious beings on the planet and hold a responsibility as semi rational beings to come up with a way of living that tries to reduce suffering. I am with Kant and Schopenhauer regarding all Ethics.

 

[xek000000kk]

Because his philosophy sounds cool and close to "the truth," I guess, but I absolutely hate him. Obviously, he's been buffed up like Hawking, Einstein, Musk, etc.

 

[dumbozhina]

he shits on traditional bluepilled morality and advocates for his readers to sort of form their own values and belief systems.

this. I read some of his works, including The Antichrist and some parts of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, when i was deconstructing cucktianity. He really nailed it in The Antichrist.

If he would have looked at our forum today, he would have called us weak, pathetic, decadent, etc.

probably, but isnt himself sort of a loser and incel?

Schopenhauer

just read his wikipedia page, sounds pretty blackpill. all hindu religions are blackpill.

 

[autisticandugly]

since i was 16, he did help me and i always look back at his stuff form time to time, i have many of his works.

 

[Rapemaxxer]

Because he was right. There's nothing he was wrong about. Not a single thing.

advocates for his readers to sort of form their own values and belief systems.

He doesn't. He does not prescribe anything to the reader. Even his exposition of the Overman is just an open hypothetical, not a teleological "goal" to work towards.

He tells his readers to embrace their suffering and to transcend their weakness through suffering

He never does that. If anything, he says that stronger souls are more disposed towards turning suffering into art and strength. Which is true. He does not suggest the reader himself to do anything. He was well aware of the distinctions between human types psychologically. Most people are goyim who are not meant to live life dangerously.

Why not instead go for Schopenhauer? He was a blackpiller before the blackpill was even a thing. His philosophy revolves around shitting on foids and how this world is basically a shithole full of suffering and futility. Even his "Will to Live" philosophy is spot on for why most bluepilled truecels suffer.

You are retarded if you think shit like "redpill" or "blackpill" have any relevancy in discussions pertaining to philosophy. As for Schopenhauer, he too was right about a lot of stuff (he was one of the central influences on early Nietzsche after all) but personally, I don't find much appeal in his thought. Perhaps users here with a more pessimistic bent of mind would find more value in his works. Ultimately all philosophy is confessional and hence inherently subjective, you can only relate to philosophers who share your psychology.

If he would have looked at our forum today, he would have called us weak, pathetic, decadent, etc.

Which this forum most certainly is. But that's ok, since most congregations of the herd inevitably tend to lapse into slave morality and ressentiment mechanisms.

Also, if you still like Nietzsche, you should know he called Mainlander a virgin as an insult. Imagine what he would think of you.

Nietzsche was all about subtle irony and poetic metaphor. He was almost an incel himself (or rather mentalcel) so obviously this quotation is not meant to betoken his literal opinion of virgins. If he were alive today, I imagine he would describe most incels as ressentiment souls and wounded reactionaries (an assessment I would agree with, as I don't think incels are any different from other humans; most humans in general are inclined towards ressentiment) and would have insightful critiques and takes on this matter.

 

[X-MALICUR]

IDK. It's a fair question considering incels (including myself) operate in a mode of resentment, to the point where maligned and objectively loser traits about ourselves like being a KHHTV, NEET, etc. are turned into virtues because we can't overcome it - a literal form of slave morality that Nietszche would've criticized. The older and more virgin you are here = good. The more successful and younger you are here = bad.

On top of that, the majority of us are reactive nihilists that wallow in nihilism (including myself) and are pretty much like an anti-ubermesnch. We do not overcome anything. We avoid risk, discomfort, ambition, and transformation à la LDAR in the face of nihlism. Again, antithetical to Nietszche's philosophy. Moreover, it's not like we aesthetically justify our beliefs or existences in any way.

So IDK. It's a good question. I like him because he accurately described the rot and moral decay civilizational nihlism would bring in a rather portentous fashion. Also, the ubermensch as an unobtainable ideal is cool and probably something to strive for if you're aren't an incel.

 

[Zionist]

Because his philosophy sounds cool and close to "the truth," I guess, but I absolutely hate him. Obviously, he's been buffed up like Hawking, Einstein, Musk, etc.

 

[HTCcel]

I'm too dumb to understand what he worte. I likes his mustache though.

 

[kaloqn4o]

I'm too dumb to understand what he worte. I likes his mustache though.

Exactly why a lot of iqlets like his stuff, since he does write in quite a depressive tone and incels with a negative mindset who don't quite grasp the fullness of his writings (as it can often be complicated) think: 'Yeah this shit is pretty negative, I'm a negative guy, therefore I should probably like it.' even though his purpose is different from what incels actually believe.

 

[Judge Holden]

Because his philosophy sounds cool and close to "the truth," I guess, but I absolutely hate him. Obviously, he's been buffed up like Hawking, Einstein, Musk, etc.