What does Nietzsche mean by the statement that the world is only justified as an aesthetic phenomenon? Plz explain to me
>>12193432everything and everyone ugly need to fuck right off
>>12193482Blacks are so based. It’s too bad that by their own logic god does not like them.
Everything is meaningless in the sense that the concepts that we create and dogmatically prescribe to the world ultimately are all just metaphors of metaphors.As creative subjects, the aesthetic phenomenon is the only thing that really matters. That is, what we feel as individuals is all that matters to US. Everything else is meaningless.
>>12193432Where does he say this?
Everything about the world existing is irrational besides it's beauty. It's like a painting or a garden.
>>12193835the birth of tragedy
>>12193850If this is true then why is it beautiful to us?
>>12194002Because beauty = healthy. And more healthy = more power. It's all about will to power.
>>12193432Nietzsche views art as the purpose of life, or rather, affirmation as the most sublime expression of the will to power in lifeforms, bar none; will to power being all that everything essentially is, life itself. Therefore, where the aesthetic experience is, life is peaking.
>>12194072I don't really think beauty in something meaningful has anything to do with power. In fact you could argue that beauty is completely and unequivocally irrational by it's very nature.
His bow tie is the same as his moustache
>>12194105What the fuck? Did you even understand Nietzsche? Everything is about power. Everything. And reason is just a tool to achieve power. Power is potency, and Beauty = Healthy is in an evolutionary way.
>>12194105>it's very nature>it is very nature
>>12194127Will-to-power is not power. You're reading full pomo into Nietzsche
>>12194150Where did I imply will to power is power?
>>12194127I understand him I just don't agree with him blindly. Imagine being so smart your worldview creates a system where knowledge makes you an alpha and selling it to thousands of unwitting subservient followers. It's cool to imagine that end that's all philosophy really is, a resonant and impactful point of view that literally shapes the way entire generations of people think. I'm just weary of agreeing completely with anyone like that.
>>12193432For existentialists, ethics and aesthetics aren't easily separated. I'd need to see the passage you're referring to, but I'd guess it's an attack on nihilism. Think of it as N. saying that the only subjectivites/worldviews that are worthwhile are the ones that can appreciate the beauty of the world.>>12194167By positing power as being "about everything". Even as a simplification is a really bad one as it being behind everything. While N. anticipated Focault, reading F.'s notion of power into N. doesn't really cut it.
>>12194136I meant it's as in the possessive form nimrod.
>>12194327possessive form of it is its not it's
>>12194198No one is reading shit into anything. Will-to-power is all about power.
>>12193432It's all there figure it out
>>12194385Well, I guess we just disagree on our Nietzsche then.
>>12193432NEETzsche is incoherent even in single sentences.
>>12194174But we are not talking about what Mr anonymous thinks about world.
>>12194636>even in single sentencesThat's precisely where he appears incoherent: in out-of-context statements, which is what people who don't thoroughly read him (if they read him at all) always refer to.
>>12194997But he wrote in 'sentences' - in aphorisms. Some think that's how he's meant to be read. Others who suggest otherwise admit that he wrote them in parts due to health and that to find wholesome meaning is a lot of work.In one aphorism Nietzsche can talk about multiple things that are unrelated to each other, and that's okay, too.
>>12195001Writing aphoristically doesn't mean there's no connection between the aphorisms. There's a connection between aphorisms in each section, a connection between sections in each book, and a connection between books, because they are all written by the same author.
>>12193432It's about the Birth of Tragedy, he hasn't conceived of Will to Power at that point, he's still a complete Schopenhauerian. He equates the Dionysian (in Schopenhauers terms Will) with aesthetics because that's what Schopenhauer did. Music is direct knowledge of the Will, music acquaints us directly with the essence of the world. In Greek tragedy (pre-Socrates) and Wagnerian opera Nietzsche saw the perfect blend of Dionysos and Apollo -- today's world is way too Apollonian which is Plato's (Socrates's) fault. We have come to view the world too rationally (Apollonian). Art is the essence.
>>12194072Never listened to beautiful music or beautiful wacky avant garde art and thought wow such health and vigor...beauty is something surreal like a mirage or the color pink
>>12194127I've always seen this as the cowards way of justifying the status quo like the other caste system style thoughtsPower is just another idea or form that arose and will disappear I don't see it as intrinsic to much. it just seems arbitrary when you zoom out enough
>>12195781>>12196192Why? Do you have something to say or you want an answer to OP?If the latter, you can google it. It is said that Nietzsche abandoned his views on art in his later thinking but I don't know how else to make sense of something like eternal recurrence except by thinking of it as the aestheticisation of ethics.
>>12193432It may be mean but it sure is purty
>>12196222It is Socratic not Apollonian. The Socratic is a much lower drive.
>>12196260Then please, bring us some new axiom.
>>12196260you have no idea what power is or what you arw talking about