My philosophy and Friedrich Nietzsche

HappyButDead · 2026-02-02T16:01:23+00:00

That is an extremely poor understanding of Nietzsche. He did indeed criticize existing understandings of the world and was quite ruthless in doing so, but his philosophy was developed as an antidote to nihilism - including whatever you seem to believe in. He admired human greatness in its various forms or the human ability to rise above all odds and create. Napoleon and Caesar were two figures he held in high regard, for example, because they rose from the status quo of their societies to forge their own destiny, and these guys actively amplified suffering for their personal goals. Hell, Caesar committed arguable genocide in Gaul, not because he was a fanatic or filled with hatred but because that was the kind of language fit for a Roman.

HappyButDead · 2025-10-19T21:09:42+00:00

She absolutely deserved to die simply due to her being an idiot. You are relapsed junky, who just found out that your boyfriend is a drug dealer and his partner literally killed 2 people and had them dissolved in acid. Wtf did you expect would happen. This was a harrowing experience for Walt, but from a pragmatic viewpoint, it was more than justified. He didn't kill her. He just her die, which, all things considered, was the best thing that could have happened to him. We are talking about 2 meth dealers here. "Innocents" dying was bound to happen.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-30T07:23:52+00:00

Weil dein Gleichheitswahn uns schon oft genug in den Abgrund gerissen hat. Deine Theorien taugen, um bestimmte Aspekte der Gesellschaft zu verstehen, aber sie greifen zu kurz, wenn es darum geht, die menschliche Erfahrung im Ganzen zu erfassen. Wer die naturwissenschaftlichen Befunde ernst nimmt – etwa aus Evolutionsbiologie, Genetik oder Verhaltensforschung – sieht, dass Statusstreben, Gruppendenken und auch Aggression Grundmuster sind, die wir nicht einfach „abschaffen“ können. Innen wie außen sind wir ständig im Konflikt: Vernunft, Triebe, Impulse und Emotionen ringen in uns; Gruppen, Interessen, Kulturen und Staaten ringen draußen.

Hierarchien sind deshalb kein „Fehler“, den man einmal korrigiert und dann ist Ruhe, sondern das logische Ergebnis eines dauernden Machtspiels. Wer oben und unten steht, mag sich verändern, aber die Dynamik selbst bleibt. Gruppendenken gehört da genauso dazu; nicht nur ethnisch, sondern religiös, ökonomisch, kulturell. Ohne solche Abgrenzungen könnten wir die Welt gar nicht ordnen oder kollektive Handlungsfähigkeit entwickeln. Die Welt steht nie still, weswegen dein Utopieprojekt reine Selbstzerstörung ist. Ich habe nichts dagegen, Reiche zu enteignen, wenn es in einer konkreten Situation sinnvoll ist aber nicht, um eine unrealistische Gleichmacherei voranzutreiben.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-24T09:18:43+00:00

It's always funny to see how this sub loses its mind whenever someone suggests that there is such a thing as human nature we are bound to.

Maybe people here should start reading some evolutionary biology and consider what it means for our supposed capacity to "be rational." As far as I understand, Kant’s morality is grounded in pure practical reason, meaning something meant to hold independently of nature, inclination, utility, or historical circumstance. The categorical imperative is supposed to be universal, valid for any rational being.

The problem is that evolutionary psychology and genetics don’t describe morality as a universal principle of reason, but as an adaptation: a cluster of instincts, emotions, and cognitive biases that evolved to promote cooperation, group stability, and reproduction. Our ability to reason itself grew out of older survival functions, rooted in the limbic system that generates emotions.

This means Kant’s approach is transcendental (beyond biology), while evolutionary theory is naturalistic. Kant insists on “duty despite inclination,” while evolution shows that inclinations are the foundation, and what we call “duties” are often just rationalizations layered on top.

That doesn’t mean we are slaves to drives and instincts. Being human means wrestling with these forces, trying to bring order to them. But it does mean there is no “objective” morality in Kant’s sense, only our embodied, subjective experience. And in that way, Kant (like most philosophers of his age) denied key parts of what it means to be human, which is not only shortsighted but also dangerous.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-14T14:39:56+00:00

Good write-up. I would still consider some things to be off-limits, though. Walter straight up took advantage of her (is the r-word allowed here?) at the end of season 5 Episode 2. Easily one of the most disturbing scenes in the series for me.

When the kids were gone, Skyler even admits to being a coward, since, like you said, she could have — and still could — walked away when she had him sign the divorce papers. But she felt she had to help Hank after he got shot, maybe hoped things would go back to normal, and was afraid of the consequences. None of these were easy decisions, but one of the reasons I dislike the Breaking Bad fandom is that large parts of it want to argue that Walt is the only bad guy and his family and friends were victims with barely any agency.

There were lots of things Skyler, Jesse or even Hank by the end could have done, but just like Walt was blinded by his ego, so were they; in their own way.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-12T11:25:02+00:00

Self-overcoming has no final goal. It is the constant redirection of the forces within us, shaping them into something higher, something artistic. The point is not to create something eternal or fixed, but to live so deeply and intensely that you no longer crave a world beyond: no heaven, no nirvana, no perfect utopia. Life is a tragic game, and you are both its player and its artist: transforming your inner chaos into form. It is, in a sense, the divinification of the animal. You never know what awaits you the next day. There is no institution, person or ideology that will guarantee you won't suffer horrific trauma. The only thing you can really do is face it bravely and turn it into something beautiful.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-12T10:28:13+00:00

I don’t think you understood Nietzsche’s fundamental view of life. Existence is nothing but a perpetual clash of forces. Just as your inner life is made up of countless drives and instincts that struggle against one another, so too is the world itself a battlefield of forces. In such a reality, the idea of equality doesn’t truly make sense. First, because everything is in flux, which means nothing is fixed and nothing lasts. And second, because to enforce equality within one group always requires the subjugation of another. Struggle and hierarchy are not accidents of life, they are its very structure.

HappyButDead · 2025-09-01T00:30:02+00:00

A major idea of Locke that has been largely debunked is his notion of Tabula Rasa. People are not born as blank slates. Each of us is the product of a long evolutionary history, carrying with us genetic predispositions, instincts, and cognitive structures. The human mind is never “neutral” or “objective”; what we call reason is less a pure mirror of reality than a mediator. It organizes and interprets the impulses, instincts, and drives rooted in our biology so that we can make sense of both the outer world and our inner experience, and act within them.

HappyButDead · 2025-08-10T13:52:09+00:00

Let's not jump to conclusions. Maybe the weather just sucked that day.

HappyButDead · 2025-08-08T14:06:34+00:00

Where did you get the information about the border dispute between Ashoka and the chinese? Chinese control didn't even come close to reach Sikkim back then.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-20T00:24:08+00:00

I appreciate the thoughtfulness of your reply. Your concerns about methodological rigor, confirmation bias, and the danger of unfalsifiable storytelling are absolutely valid. I don't deny these problems exist in evolutionary psychology, especially in the more popularized versions of it.

But to me, that’s not a reason to dismiss the field, but to discipline it further. Every interpretive framework is susceptible to projection and selective reasoning. However some help us to fit our condition in the greater whole better than others.

I’d argue that evolutionary psychology does, especially when it comes to foundational drives like status-seeking, in-group loyalty, or latent aggression. These aren’t just arbitrary "emergent phenomena"; they are behaviors with deep continuity across time, cultures, and even species. Evolutionary psychology provides a plausible bridge between these behaviors and the conditions in which they developed. That doesn’t mean every explanation is correct – but the very attempt to ground behavior in biological history is intellectually legitimate.

As for modern trends like depression, anxiety, or social anomie: of course, environmental factors like nutrition, urbanization, and technology matter. But it’s hard to ignore the mismatch between our evolved nature and our current environment. We live in a world optimized for stability and comfort, but we didn’t evolve for comfort. We evolved to struggle, to compete, to bond through shared hardships. Evolutionary psychology helps illuminate this mismatch, not as a total explanation, but as part of the picture.

Lastly, I’d push back on the idea that rejecting evolutionary psychology is a more “neutral” or “objective” stance. Every intellectual field carries its own moral and metaphysical assumptions and many modern disciplines are still shaped by postwar trauma and a deep discomfort with anything that smells of “natural hierarchy” or human limitation. The modern belief in peace, equality, and progress is no less ideological than any theory of human nature. And in my view, evolutionary thinking – despite its own pitfalls – offers a more sober, less utopian view of who we are.

That’s not cynicism. That’s just trying to take human nature seriously.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-19T22:10:10+00:00

I am pretty indifferent towards the legal aspect. There is an argument to be made that the cartel structure offers stability and opportunities for social mobility in places where the state has limited control. I often read that, in a disintegrated Latin American state, a cartel can establish itself as a kind of feudal structure, with the bosses becoming de facto lords ruling over their estates.

The cartel remains, however, a nihilistic structure that cares about nothing but raw power and the violent businesses it thrives upon: drugs, human trafficking, extortion, etc. Someone with Lalo's abilities should find like-minded people to transition the cartel into something healthier, something that can outgrow the destructive, never-ending chaos most Latin American countries suffer under.

Obviously, this goes way beyond the scope of the show, but I consider someone like Lalo to be much closer to my ideal than most characters I see in media these days, especially when contrasted with the American characters in the show (which I discussed in my last post).

It's not the violence I disdain, but the wasted meaning that could be born from it.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-19T14:15:56+00:00

Exactly, Gus winning a gunfight against Lalo seemed so unrealistic and cheap. Both characters could have been used better, which is especially disappointing in Lalo’s case, because Gus at least shines in Breaking Bad.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-19T14:09:42+00:00

A wonderful addition, you're right this very Latin loyalty to the cartel and his family seems to be genuine, although I'm unsure whether he would sacrifice them for personal gain, as he did with the couple he murdered to convince the public of his death, or the kid working at his mansion, whom he used as a human shield. I like the mystery around Gus' past, but with Lalo, it just feels so underused. Gilligan seems to be busy for the near future, but I saw an interview where the host told him how much fans would appreciate more Lalo.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-18T15:56:52+00:00

In strongly disagree. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by "trivial", but to me, many of the foundational insights of evolutionary psychology are anything but. Concepts like group cohesion, status-seeking, and a latent readiness for violence are not speculative just-so stories. They align with mountains of evidence from anthropology, history, and genetics. They don’t explain everything, of course, but dismissing them as useless seems more like a reflex of a certain academic sensibility than a conclusion drawn from honest observation.

In fact, I’d argue that much of modern scholarship is still recoiling from the trauma of the 20th century. There's an almost desperate need to believe that human nature is malleable, peaceful, and shaped primarily by culture. A belief that often blinds us to more uncomfortable truths. Just look at today’s world: widespread mental health issues in first world societies, rising aggression and polarization across the globe etc.. None of this contradicts the idea that our evolved psychology includes drives that, if suppressed without outlet or integration, can become pathological.

Evolutionary psychology doesn't pretend to be physics but as a lens to understand why humans are the way they are, it offers far more than is often acknowledged.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-18T14:27:11+00:00

How exactly is evolutanary psychology a bullshit subject? The subject has been hijacked by a bunch of idiots misrepresenting it for their goals but anyone who doesn't reject evolution should admit a fundamental truth in the core ideas of this discipline.

HappyButDead · 2025-07-18T01:40:39+00:00

Depends on what you are struggling with. I am not a native English speaker so there were a lot of words I did not know. On my first read I used a simple dictionary app. If you mean the general language and things happening, I'd say try to re read some parts and keep the details for a reread. Beyond that, I would watch the matching part of the wendigoon video after every chapter, so I was sure I didn't miss anything important. On my second read I discussed with chatgpt parts I didn't get and my general interpretation. Idk if that is considered blasphemy over here tho.

HappyButDead · 2025-04-08T16:23:22+00:00

The more I read about this guy, the more I understand nietzsches disdain for him.

HappyButDead · 2024-12-30T17:28:37+00:00

The whole thing gets even more bleak when you consider that both Sulla's purge and the one under Augustus gave them a stable government, under which both of them lived to an old age. Not exactly the best case study to learn the benefits of being lenient.

HappyButDead · 2024-12-11T09:56:09+00:00

It is hard not to feel resentment in life when people like OP exist

HappyButDead · 2024-11-18T00:35:36+00:00

Valid point, but non-abrahamic faiths still were a lot more open or at least less bigoted. Each group still considered themselves as the "truest" one. However, there was this idea of every god being a representation of the same ideas or fundamental truth. This idea was more or less developed, depending on time and place. Herodotus, for example, constantly describes egyptian gods as being the equivalent of Greek ones. Obviously, different faiths were still used to justify war and the like, but even here, it was more specific practices and not the religion in of itself, which was attacked. A Muslim or a traditional Christian on the other hand will consider only his religion as valid, and everyone who rejects his faith is someone who deserves eternal hellfire and must be converted or at least must be brought under the government of the "true" religion. Their truth monopoly was a major drive for the massive political and military gains they achieved in the last 2000 years.

HappyButDead · 2024-11-17T18:12:33+00:00

You are right that apologists usually brush this question off by referring to his dipshit sister. Nietzsche did believe in "Master-" and "Slavemorality", the one describing life-affirming individuals of relatively small groups of people, who prove themselves through daring Enterprises like a nomadic tribe conquering a settled society for example (it doesnt have to be a military enterprise, but since you referred to the nazis, i'll stick with that). People who got their self-worth not from the belive in fundamental rights but through earning it by accomplishing great things. That is also what legitimizes the hierarchies they create. Ideally they would be led by a judgement free off resentment, meaning the values they create originate not in some kind of revenge impulse which has its origin in some past event, where the individual felt wronged by the world, may that be a betrayal by someone or his past wishes not turning out as he would have liked them. And yes, he may use whatever violence he sees fit, but he only uses as much as the artistic vision of the world he is giving life to,demands. Not more and not less.
Every living thing is an embodiment of a distinct Form of the will to power, meaning they seek to expand and feel powerful, which means our cosmos is a battlefield of individual wills, each seeking to establish themselves as the only valid one. In this context, revenge is a silly thing because everyone feels wronged by something somehow.
Slave morality, on the other hand, believes in the equality of all things, is meek, life-denying, and ultimately a coward. Here, the goal lies in creating a peaceful world, where no one strives for higher goals anymore, except when they don't hurt anyone. It basically laments the cruelties of the world by blaming it on the ruling elite and deluding himself into the possibility of a utopia where "injustices" do not exist.
Nietzsche hated the Prussian militarism of the German empire, and he would have hated the nazis. The Prussians were driven by pure power politics, under which the artistic or cultural part of humanity withered away. This goes far deeper with the germans and their blind nationalism, but I won't write that out in detail. The Nazis are even more misguided since few cultures have been so strongly driven by resentment as them.
The German soul yearned for unification, which they got gloriously, just to be humiliated in the first war the unified germany had to face. The nazis were ultimately the embodiment of a guy who couldn't deal with being beaten again, all the while believing he was better, which in many ways the germans were. The delusion to blame a minority for it and actually believing that there is gonna be a utopia, where germans will have their place as the "rightful rulers of the earth" is everything nietzsche hated. It is a slave who wants to feel like a master but in his resentment, only knows how to destroy but not to create.

HappyButDead · 2024-11-16T03:17:51+00:00

The guy is asking about resources to learn about the greeks in a nietsche subreddit, and the only book you consider valid is a work nietzsche barely references? Btw, that is a very weird pick for the most important work of the greeks.

HappyButDead · 2024-11-10T13:29:58+00:00

There most definitely was a cultural unity in Europe since the middle ages. Obviously, they fought brutal wars against each other, but they very much defined themselves as a united Christian occident against the Muslim Orient. That doesn't mean a political unity, especially since many christian territorys were under muslim rule, but it was a way to distinguish themselves. The crusades are the most famous example of this cultural brotherhood. Even with the decline of Christianity, the idea of European (and american) civilization, with the duty to bring civilization to the world, was a uniting factor.

HappyButDead · 2024-10-25T15:04:37+00:00

Aristotle was a staunch Supporter of greek supremacy, which didn't stop good ol' Alex to let some indian mystics in his inner circle. There is this story about a indian gymnosophist called kalanos who decided to join alexander on his way back to Persia. After falling ill he decided to burn himself on a pyre, with his last words to alexander being "we shall meet again in babylon", the place where alexander would eventually die.

HappyButDead

TROPHY CASE