Discontinuity in Nietzsche

What was disconttinuous in Nietzsche was that he tested the limits of all thought. On the controversy of whether Nietzsche was a philosopher, as philosophy was to him one of many elements of thought to be struggled with, we must conclude that he was not.

I don't think philosophers struggle with philosophy. I think they struggle with the animal flux, to subjugate it in its terms.

The fire flux.
But this is philosophy.

By my beard, and his, this teaching to be deeper than one had thought, is this not philosophy?

Yes, I guess that's what Capable means by him being the first philosopher. As he said: before and after.

But he struggled with things that philosophers shouldn't have to struggle with. I'm convinced he was a demolisher, he was the no.

The yes is what he allowed. And its implications go beyond philosophy, there was an extra-philosophical tyranny. I think that what we are struggling with with Sawelios is beyond philosophy.

Nietzsche was first a psychologist, he went into the psychology of philosophy. But he talked about a type, which he was, that went up and down Jacob's ladder at his pleasure. Philosophy occupies certain rungs. He accessed those rungs through psychology, thus some mistake him for a moral philosopher (what a small perception).

As philosophy was refined from Aristotle's all encompasingness, so philosophy must be refined by philosophers from Nietzsche's. They are more specialized in those rungs, they must see psychology as below philosophy. This he proto-wanted.

No, you are right.

What Nietzsche saught wasn't refinement per se, it was a straight line.

But a straight line arranges things around it, and not only philosophy.

Rather this:

That Nietzsche's discovery was philosophy, and all else must be in its service, including for non-philosophers, for reasons that philosophy discovers in the animal flux.

Soil. Funk. Below and beyond philosophy, at one and the same time.

The Nietzschean no and yes are applicable in many other places also. We can't know what it means to be for or against something until we also understand the position opposite that "something", to formulate our no required for our yes.

That can be difficult as Nietzsche found out, because a huge part of the organism's biology and psychology are tied into values-declarations almost automatically, so that positive or negative connotations of need or feeling or expectation appear in almost everything. Thus there exists for these positions invisible "no" conditions that cannot easily be seen. Philosophy is daemonic because we must push past values and feelings and needs in order to arrive at a middle-point where both the object itself and its most perfect opposition are brought together in a single moment of consciousness, because only by doing so can we truly cause both polarized ideas to influence each other.

The forced position that compels no and yes to encounter each other authentically, and we will always know if the encounter is authentic because it will be radically new to us, the force of the insight and feeling that comes out of the clash. If the encounter is mundane and fits within established expectations and feelings- or values-parameters then the encounter wasn't complete or original, but merely a kind of re-configuration of existing perspectives.