The fact that I know about LessWrong because of Behind the Bastards should say a whole lot about how "moral" their "rationalism" really neither of those things and personally I feel like their thought predecessors would be pretty embarrassed by them

Britt Hartley takes existentialists to the woodshed, pointing out that it's a fine philosophy if you're living a comfortable life, but if nothing means anything and your life sucks, might as well put a quarter in the suicide booth if existential philosophy is all you have.

Just quick short thoughts before I continue reading because I really thought these are immediately striking without further dissection:

Philosophy aside, the comment on LessWrong that said "Nietzsche is a great source of aphorisms, and may be able to trigger some Deep Thoughts in readers, but a lot of his writing seems more like a sort of performance art to me. At least on a superficial level, he's much easier to read than Kant or Hegel, but that also means he does not even try to argue his point in a rigorous way". Spot on, this is like the main barrier to his books. I see this as the first problem you'll encounter before getting to how fascists twisted his words into justifications for doing fuck-all

Then, I REALLY like this Monthly Review article. This passage pointed out a perspective of the problem initially sounding like a misread about how "this is just doing barbarism but with extra steps" but actually pretty accurately describes how greater powers in the world will take almost anything we try to do and turn it into barbarism: The liberalization and deregulation of the most intimate sphere of the person will completely achieve the fetishism of the commodity. And the sole revolt which will from here on be permitted to the Nietzschean by power, when an irreducible part of his disarmed consciousness has, through misunderstanding, fomented some insurrection, will be total annihilation, bestiality towards the other animal which his masters will have brought into the neighbouring cage.

I still need to finish it and get to the Marxist critique but thank you for this

In the text it means any choice you make that sacrifices long term benefits for instant gratification. Nietzsche was way into promoting things that give you pleasure, just not at the cost of your health and prosperity

Obviously Hedonic Philosophy isn't about that either but he wasn't thinking of hedonism as a philosophy, he was describing a problem humans have with how we make choices

Unironically, yes maybe. If it is seen as avoiding your responsibilities, and doesn't contribute to some area of society (but rather sees-to the "worship" of you yourself) then it is hedonistic

Edit: other guy said it better than me

I would personally have chosen No, and it's a big reason why I'm not going to have a kid. Very grateful that my wife agrees

only while the kids exist as you forced them into existence

Many parents have the same realization about their adopted children. You could argue that both types of parents are delusional but the causality isn’t relevant

imagine you could see your entire life

The capacity for imagining your whole life presupposes that you have already begun living, silly :3 but okay. Why would this primordial spirit be interested in life at all if it’s optional? Is living your life inherently worth considering, or something?

Oh, okay. Well with that summary I'm at least interested in reading more and trying to see if I can parse the satire. Thanks for pointing me in that direction

Edit: Jesus this is like way obvious after you read how his career in state politics ended. But we named a dark triad psychological trait after him. That's so dirty

Oh no. It turned him into anime