u/TWOTN78

Many people who call themselves Nietzscheans—or worse, claim to be the Übermensch—are nothing more than cynics. They insist that society makes them sick, that happy people are pathetic, and they carry themselves as if they alone see the truth while everyone else stumbles through life blind. Ironically, this mindset is almost the opposite of what Nietzsche advocated.

They have far more in common with the Underground Man from Notes from Underground than with Nietzsche. Nietzsche was an active nihilist: he sought to overcome nihilism by creating new values, not by wallowing in resentment or endlessly condemning society.

Turning Nietzsche into an idol of self-proclaimed superiority is precisely the kind of misreading he feared. His philosophy was never meant to validate people who simply believe they’re smarter than everyone else.

Thinking you’re intellectually superior, despising ordinary people, and hiding behind cynicism doesn’t make you Nietzschean. It makes you bitter.

Ok so I don’t if it’s an unpopular opinion or if many people here have already said what I’m about to say, I just want to share this :
- Leonard might be the most annoying character in the show (and it’s a show with Sheldon). I get that he had a very bad mother and not a very happy childhood, but honestly he has no respect for himself when it comes to Penny and it’s very annoying. I mean she can do whatever she wants with him.
- Penny is not a good girlfriend. She is nice in the show with everyone except Leonard, it’s like he’s her pet, she doesn’t know what’s she wants with him for practically all the show and I feel that she’s with him because she has no other valid option. And I think it might be like that with all of her boyfriends. So not a keeper.
- Raj is not a good friend. At first he seems like he takes care of his friends but the moment it comes to literally any girl he meets he doesn’t know what friendship means.
- Amy is the sweetest character I have nothing to add.
And I’m speaking about the characters not the actors

I’ve been reading some existentialist philosophers, especially Sartre, and I’m struggling to understand how their conception of freedom survives what seems to me to be a strong determinist objection.

It seems that none of us chooses our genetics, upbringing, culture, social environment, personality traits, or many of the experiences that shape our character. Yet these factors appear to influence our desires, values, beliefs, and decisions.

Even when I make a choice, I seem to choose according to preferences and motivations that I did not originally choose for myself. In that sense, the choice may be mine, but the causes behind it appear to be largely outside my control.

Existentialists often argue that we are free because we can choose how we relate to our circumstances. My question is: why should I think that this attitude itself is free rather than determined by prior psychological and environmental factors?

How do Sartre and other existentialists respond to this challenge? Do they reject determinism entirely, or do they simply mean something different by “freedom” than what determinists are criticizing ?

While reading Nietzsche, I came to realize how demanding his philosophy really is. It seems almost impossible not to experience ressentiment, to affirm eternal recurrence, and so on. I know Nietzsche himself wrote that his philosophy could only apply to a small elite, but I sometimes think that this elite may not even exist. The only person truly capable of being Nietzschean may have been Nietzsche himself. I do not think many people possess the kind of inner strength that he displayed throughout his life.

I have read many of his books (though of course not all of them), and since reading the first one, I have always wanted to learn more about his work, which eventually led me to online discussions like this one.

One thing that has struck me is the way people view Dostoevsky and how they "use" him in their lives. First, I genuinely think that many people who talk about him have never actually read one of his books (I'm not necessarily talking about this subreddit). I think this is something characteristic of our era: people want to turn everything into a trend instead of truly learning about it.

Many people want to identify with Dostoevsky's characters, get tattoos of his quotes, or build an image of themselves around him. I'm not saying this is either good or bad, but I do worry that authors and philosophers can end up being misunderstood or misinterpreted because of the trends that form around them.

In his books, I think we can easily see the difficult relationship he has with religion, and particularly in the Brothers Karamazov and Demons. But even if I admire the author and his work, I feel like sometimes he becomes a little bit preachy, and this something that I don't see in Pushkin's work. I don't know if any of you ever felt that while reading Dostoevsky.

Hello everyone,

I have been reading Nietzsche for the past 3 years now, I still have a lot of questions on his philosophy but the one that really troubles me is his statement on free-will. I know he rejects the one created by Christianity but he also rejects complete determinism. I myself think that we are very determined and I don't really believe in free-will, but as much as I admire the work of Nietzsche, I still can't see how he accepts a form a free-will and how it works. I hope you will be able to help, and I would be happy to also have a discussion on determinism and free-will with anyone who disagrees with me. (ps: sorry if some parts don't feel natural to read, I'm not a native english speaker)