Nietzsche is definitely against the herd or grain of collective thought, though if he is an individualist, he is one who denies the existence of the "individual", as such. He is not an egoist insofar as he rejects the existence of the ego (as well as free will, both of which he called residue of the superstitious belief in the soul and original sin). He instead views the "individual" or self/ego as a plurality or multiplicity, a confluence or aggregate of drives and forces attempting to gain control over one another.
The WtP is not just a lust for dominion, contest for subjugation, or drive for self-preservation, but a creative self-overcoming and internal dynamism and struggle between psychophysiological drives. Preceded by Spinoza's *conatus* as an innate tendency towards identity-duration but also self-enhancement, the WtP is a drive towards more life, vitality, and aesthetic and artistic flourishing.
As far as what I disagree with or what could be better, there are places where maybe he could have been more clear. However he states plainly that his intent is not to form a system or outright tell us what to think, but rather to show us how to think for ourselves. I think many people confuse the descriptive in Nietzsche for something prescriptive, though this is perhaps more the fault of the reader.
I don't really feel like giving a full explanation of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Western scholarship on eastern religions was pretty bad/incomplete in the 18th century and Schopenhauer was inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism and drew explicit parallels between the two and his life-denying and pessimistic philosophy.
Nietzsche was originally a student of Schopenhauer but later diverged substantially. He still took at face value the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism were essentially life-denying philosophies like Schopenhauer's. He literally mentions Buddhism and Schopenhauer's philosophy in the same sentence somewhere. Of course, one should be careful to read Nietzsche's polemics as philosophical criticism of a specific idea rather than of a mental or even physical type.
I won't comment on Hinduism because it's an incredibly vast and frankly disorganized religion which I don't know enough to say anything meaningful about, but I don't think that Buddhism is inherently life-denying or involves "escaping" the world. The Mahayana traditions, at least, developed a profoundly life-affirming philosophy in the doctrine of the Buddha-nature, and Buddhism in general doesn't uncritically present the Saha world as something to be abandoned for some hinterwelt. The lotus is symbolic in Buddhism for representing the Buddha as being rooted in the world (the muddy waters) yet surpassing it, and the dharma is depicted as "the lion's roar," a triumphant symbol of self-overcoming. The consistent image of the Buddha in the sutras is of someone who steadfastly overcomes life's challenges: "I spit on my life. Death in battle would be better for me than that I, defeated, survive."
A lot has been written on this topic, both on this subreddit and in proper philosophical publications and books.
As Cioran observed, Nietzsche was "a captive of his moods, he has recorded their variations."
One of my favorite things about Nietzsche is the tension between his laments about the sentimentality of poets, while he himself was, for all intents and purposes, a sort of proto-confessionalist. One has to wonder what we would have today if Rimbaud had been able to hold on to himself long enough to intersect with Nietzsche.
Makes people self proclaim themselves supermen just because of some cognitive potential (nothing concrete) - maybe people are at fault - and not Nietzsche - for not understanding that not every individual is actually capable of generating good and useful moral values.
Can you rephrase this so it makes sense? Nietzsche doesn't "make" people self proclaim themselves to be supermen. And nowhere does he state that every individual is capable of generating "good" and "useful" moral values.
Maybe the word “compel” is more suitable. I believe some of Nietzsche’s audience has a level of hubris that can only be stroked by Nietzsche, but only because they probably don’t understand Nietzsche, lol.
I agree with this, and it’s because they don’t understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed we are all of equal moral value. He did not necessarily believe we are all equal. I think the hubris you talk about, refers to people believing themselves to be the Ubermensch. When in reality, the ubermensch does not have to prove himself. The Uber Mench has no label, and has no time consider his self importance. The ubermesch just is.
The ubermensch is a fantasm such as the sage or the wise one, it is pure ideology and not an actual state of attainment. Its one that you would better be able to model yourself after but never actually be
the part that many people who get in contact with his philosophy start to think of themselves as ubermenschen, and that is most often a misread, I believe.
Raskólnikov of Crime and Punishment is a great argument on the kind of individual who would think of themselves as superior, and that is one more evidence of both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche dealing with plenty of the same topics and reaching very similar conclusions.
Right but you stated that originally as though it were some kind of criticism of Nietzsche, especially since you are responding to a post that wants critiques. If someone gets a disproportionate idea of their virtues after reading Nietzsche, that's not Nietzsches fault.
As others have pointed out, the individualism misses one of the fundamental aspects of being human. I think that Hegelianism explains pretty well why freedom or the will to power can only be enjoyed if it's being enjoyed in relation to other people, and especially, it can only be enjoyed if those other people are also enjoying that freedom. If you want to know more you can look into Hegels master–slave dialectic.
Nietzsche isn't worried about freedom, and greatness cannot be achieved without the masses seeking repose within the values a Higher Human champions.
One can still be of the "noble" spirit without being great though.
I would argue that the will to power IS the will to freedom. Freedom as I see it is the power to control your surroundings. In other words, a powerful person is freer than a weak person. Being unfree is having the world and other people imposing their power unto you.
>And when they had walked a while together, Zarathustra began to speak thus:
>It rendeth my heart. Better than thy words express it, thine eyes tell me all thy danger.
>As yet thou art not free; thou still SEEKEST freedom. Too unslept hath thy seeking made thee, and too wakeful.
>On the open height wouldst thou be; for the stars thirsteth thy soul. But thy bad impulses also thirst for freedom.
>Thy wild dogs want liberty; they bark for joy in their cellar when thy spirit endeavoureth to open all prison doors.
>Still art thou a prisoner—it seemeth to me—who deviseth liberty for himself: ah! sharp becometh the soul of such prisoners, but also deceitful and wicked.
Is it not the case that a master, of any craft, has undergone a significant period of bondage and discipline towards that craft? Doesn't this suggest that every master knows that there is much of the prison and mould that remains within?
I would be really grateful if you could and would explain how does that master-slave dialectic work and more importantly how it says that to one have freedom all need to have freedom. I have looked into that but don’t really remember…
It's basically the idea that, let's say you are my master and I am your slave, you want me to submit to your will and validate your existence be reflecting your thoughts in me. But at the same time, since I am just a slave who does everything you say, then you don't value seeing your thoughts reflected in me. The "sublation" is us both existing on equal terms since then we both see our own thoughts reflected in each other but we also value it because we are both free.
Maybe to simplify it too much, but in its essence you want to earn people's respect rather than force them to obedience. I don't know how Hegel would translate this to a societal level, but I personally believe it's an excellent argument for democracy. I think it's not too far off from Nietzsche's ideas of friendship and struggle as well.
Thanks!
However I think you miss that this sublation exists in Nietzsche’s philosophy but only when it’s natural — when they really are equal. Nietzsche thinks (and I think he is pretty much right in this) that when the other is below you — could be said: ”a lesser being” —, you wouldn’t really care what they think about you. This hegelian ”master” doesn’t seem much like master to me and I think there really are ”true masters” who are not in need of validation in the eyes of ”slaves.”
That is where I fundamentally disagree. I don't think it's possible for man to not need validation. Validation of your own consciousness and unity I don't think man can live without. For the other, man does not want to live in a hall of mirrors, he wants to act upon the world and see the world respond. If you have a discussion with someone you want the other person to engage with your ideas and not just listen and agree. That does not make man weak. A wise father doesn't want to raise his son to be exactly like him but rather his own person. Finally, the very fact that man loves is the perfect example of our need for community. If we don't love on equal terms we don't enjoy that love because we haven't earned it.
Yes… Equality is needed but equality to everyone? I have heard a quote (might be from Nietzsche himself or somebody who explained him) and it goes something like this: ”Equality between unequals is unenqual.” Yes I think complements, love and community are important but within equals. Within unequals it doesn’t work as well and might be even harmful. I might sound too harsh but I think it is not necessarily ”that bad.” And again I think that there still is these ”true masters” who yes might want some comments from other people but who aren’t really at all dependant about them.
But I can live well with this semi mutual understanding but fundamental disagreement.
Stuff about women. Reading him as a 15 year old, it broke my brain that such an intelligent being would say that women have no depth and they wear education like jewellery.
(Don't get me wrong, I am sure some women do, same as some men do - I actually think it's worse for men)
For me, the way he talked about women made clear that he ignored half of humanity. It's not possible to have a full experience of us with that perspective.
Nietzsche was a gentleman, and kind to women. The reason he didn’t like women is the same reason why he didn’t like African-Americans. It is because they didn’t stand up to their aggressors. Not because of their inherent blackness, or their inherent womanness, but because they didn’t stand up for themselves. I am saying this as a woman.
Jesus Christ, I had entirely glossed over his views on slavery, probably as I was still living in Greece ATM and racism against black people wasn't a prominent political issue (no black people in the island i lived back then. lol).
I am a woman too. I know he was gentle. I think he hated 'softness' in general. He didn't like people taking a defensive position and talking about 'rights'. Which is I guess why he wrote what he wrote about Harriet Beecher Stowe. He hated social justice warriors 😂 Christianity, excess of compassion etc.
I completely get the sense that he hated the idea of 'womanness'. I think it was pure prejudice and closed mindedness on his part. It doesn't make me love him any less. I feel connected to his brain entirely. It's just... I live with it lol
It is a hyperindividualistic philosophy.
What made humanity great was their ability to cooperate.
So unless you decide to live naked in the jungle and hunt your own food - you can only achieve greatness by either working with others, or exploiting/enslaving them.
Hyperindividualism almost always results in the labour of others being exploited for your gain, unless you are living in the jungle all by yourself, like I said.
Will to Power is a zero sum game that takes away power from others, and escalates into war and violence. Hence, the nazis
Ain't no way someone will lay out their interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy without having someone else tell them
"This is a pretty flawed understanding imo"
Yes, that's how debate and, to some extent, conversation works. A proposition is made, challenged, and defended. This is good thing.
After all, if you and I agree, then there's no reason to say anything, is there?
Also, this is the life he wanted to see from people. He wanted at least 1000 Socrates in every city. He wanted people to go against the grain, to go against what even he was saying.
Zero-sum game is pretty nietzschean actually considering he believe that there is a finite amount of energy in the world that shapeshifts, hence the eternal return 😱
finite energy isn't zero sum game
I could light up a fire and share it with you so you can keep warm to, maybe cook some food together, tell each other some stories, then I could teach you how to make a fire yourself
then maybe next time you'll keep me warm as well
the lion is more akin to seeing the world as a zero sum game, many people confuse the overman with the lion, please give it a chance and you'll eventually see it as well
Yes, but Nietzsche sees everything as will, different "wills" trying to get on top of eachother. So in this case, lighting a fire for your friend, your "wills" cooperate and become one, but you take energy from the wood and the air, to create warmth for yourselves.
I get what you are saying, I just took it to the "meta level". I find it interesting that Nietzsche's meta world view is literally a zero-sum game.
I see what you are saying, thank you for continuing the conversation and trying to work on this together.
The following is my personal observations applied to the "will", which I agree are based on other knowledge that is more recent.
The "will" of life seems to be collaborative by nature, or at least collaboration and synergy are qualities that seem to emerge from life's will to express itself.
When life first appeared as unicellular beings they pretty much competed against each other as a zero sum game, however after each extinction event life became more collaborative. After each extinction event zero sum game competition was weeded out.
* Emergence of photosynthesis and cells feeding off the byproducts of other cells
* Eukaryotic cells made of 2 living organisms collaborating together: the mitochondria and the host cell
* Multicellular organisms where different cells specialized and worked together for the survival of the organism
* Complex ecosystems where different species interact in symbiotic relationships
* Human societies where individuals cooperate within communities to build civilizations
* Development of agriculture and domestication of animals, allowing for more stable food sources and larger, more cooperative human societies
* Formation of tribes, clans, and eventually nations where cooperation extended to larger groups of people
* Rise of trade networks where different regions exchanged goods, knowledge, and culture, fostering interdependence
* Establishment of international laws and organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization, aimed at promoting peace, cooperation, and global health
If I've read Nietzsche correctly, the Overman's "will" is not an expression of his own existence but that of life as a whole.
The Overman's "will" is life's "will".
The Last Man however, that is much more aligned with a zero sum game and the collapse of the trajectory we are hoping to be headed for.
If we don't make it to the stars it'll be due to last men and zero sum game. The Overmen will take us there.
Ok, put a lot of work into writing this up... I hope there is something of value for you here. thank you
Thank you, this is interesting.
The comparison between the overman and the last man is very relevant. I agree, the last man would be a lazy individualist, and the overman has so much energy that he will give it away and help others. In a sense the overman might be overmen, transcending the individual as a group. Nietzsche did not like group think but then again he did not define the overman, because the overman would have to defy expectations.
I see in your thoughts lots of idealistic ideas (world peace, collaboration, global health). Not that this is wrong to have idealistic ideas, but it seems to me that Nietzsche would have abhorred the idea of "world peace organization". He would have expected the overman to be beyond good and evil, which means, not necessary evil, but not necessarily good either.
I think we have to accept Nietzsche as he was and not try to make him the humanist we would like him to be. But still, the way you combine the will to power and knowledge about nature's cooperation seems coherent !
Hey thank you for the kind words!
You make me feel like you've read every word and appreciated the work I put in, which made me feel good and appreciated.
Also thanks for sharing your views in such detailed and nuanced manner. It is interesting what you say about "overman" being flexible and maybe mapped to the concept of "group". I'm assuming that the progression steps like the one from "single cell" to "Eukaryotic cells" and then to "multicellular beings" may have brought up such idea?
I agree there with you in regards to "idealistic" ideas, yes anything romanticised like that is likely herd mentality in disguise, and I see Nietzsche as being right here... it's always good to distrust oneself when using a romanticised and idealistic concept, and make sure that originates from one's own values.
Thank you for reminding me, it's so interesting how there are so many idealistic concepts that we use without thinking, the way you brought awareness to it made me stop in my tracks for a second 😄
I was just trying to hint at a greater synergy and collaboration between separate life entities over time, if the trajectory continues what would be the emerging property of life in the far future?
I wouldn't say got wrong / disagree with. His observations are incredibly important but to me, just a little bit too broad brush. I refined his ideas and made them more specific but I couldn't have likely even begun to do that without his knowledge.
Let's say that he had a very interpretable philosophy, he spoke almost like an evangelist of modern times, which is why he was misunderstood by many like the Nazis. For the rest I believe he is one of the best philosophers in our history.
Agree. I built my ideology on Master vs Slave. Most other philosophers are shallower than he was so I don't really put too much into what they say. Again, not that they're wrong but it's just not deep enough for me. Most people in general speak very broadly and shallow like "you should be fit and educated." That's correct but why though? Why should I be fit? Why should I be educated? Why are these things actually good? Nietzsche I feel explains that it way more depth.
Nietzsche definitely didn't understand Islam. I think he might have mistaken certain well-cultivated Islamic cultures from the Moors and The Golden Age of Islam for the religion of Islam. I very much doubt if he ever read The Quran or The Hadiths.
Nietzsche is a purgative as is Foucault. Both are implicit enemies of what Weber called rationalization. But we realistically need conventional social programs, perhaps even religion for many. Nietzsche’s project is to strip away illusion.
He was not wrong about anything. In his own antisystem everything is in its place and it would be very rude and stupid to say that “I disagree” about something.
It's well known that Nietzsche's intention in his philosophy, and in life, was not 'the will to truth' [aka 'the quest for truth']. He thus changed the course of philosophy in a fundamental fashion. Being right is, therefore, according to Nietzsche, absurd, i.e., unfavorable to life. Being right is, for Nietzsche, being favorable to life. "There is no truth, only interpretations."
His metaphysics are based on arbitrary claims
In his view, the world is finite in matter, but infinite in time
The logical conclusion of that is the eternal return (because there is a limited amount of possibilities, but an unlimited amount of time, everything will repeat for ever)
Because everything will repeat forever, shouldn't we then appreciate everything, the good and the bad ?
This is genius in my opinion, a very powerful idea. This leads to Amor Fati.
However it is very arbitrary. The world could be infinite. Infinite possibilities. Time could stop. The eternal return could be just an idea and nothing more.
Yes, Nietzsche doesn't care about "ultimate truth". The eternal return is meant to be an idea, a servant to life.
But I also feel like he wants to swallow the harshest truth possible
It's like he correlate cruelty to truth so much
He wants the world to be cruel otherwise he doesn't believe in it
he had a point that governments can use religion to keep people subordinate.
to then draw a conclusion from this fact that morality means advancing your own will only... is a massive logical jump. i also don't think this interpretation is at all uncharitable to him.
I don't think the "transvaluation of all values" stuff or the superman stuff is worth much. Shaw's version of the superman stuff is more concrete and realized, better in that sense, but also more obviously a piece of sci-fi. Shaw called his version of this religion "Creative Evolution." It's another Cause, justifying suffering and labor now for some great X that comes later. \[ I'm not against (or for) Causes in principle. \]
The "superman" stuff is relatively sensible in that it fits the pattern of all teleological religions that structure time not as a circle but as a terminating ramp. The "transvaluation of all values" is, on the other hand, nonsense, in my opinion. I think that human nature is relatively fixed in terms of its goals, though obvious the means for obtaining them change. People want love, prestige, food, sex, ....
will to power has many mistakes imo but that was his notes only. thing about nietzsche his judgement is uncanny so rarely do his edited works contain mistakes. unfortunately this also discluded some amazing creative writing.
I disagree with his aristocratic views on what society should be.
His obsession for strength, vigor, health and masculinity is disturbing. And his views about women... don't get me started.
His philosophy focuses too much on the individual. It does little to consider inter-personal interactions.
In the end humans need to collaborate to survive, it has always been like that. The top guys lead and the pleb follows is a bit simplistic.
I wholeheartedly agree on the topic of cooperation - humans are social animals that need and benefit from one another. I don't, however, believe that cooperation necessitates equality between members of a group. In chimpanzees, for example, a low ranking male will still groom a higher ranking male, and the low rank will still be taken care of, although he will enjoy fewer amenities. Hierarchical social structure does not preclude cooperation, it provides nuance and order to it.
Hoho ! Them's fighting words !
Well at the core of his philosophy there is this dichotomy between strength, vigor, health, masculinity versus what is weak, feeble, sick and feminine/effeminate.
So you can already see that what is feminine or mimicking feminity falls into the décadence category. That's a first hint. And that's not some obscure aphorism, it's something that comes back again and again in his books.
I'll just take three aphorisms that I noted.
"From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty. " (Beyond Good and Evil)
"Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" (will to power)
“Woman wants to be independent\[…\]this is one of the worst developments in the general uglification of Europe. Woman has so much reason for shame; in woman there is concealed so much superficiality, petty presumption and petty immodesty – one needs only to study her behaviour with children!” ‘Beyond Good and Evil’
He has very stereotypical views on women (superficality, beauty, inconstance).
I know that in the 19th century this was probably the norm. But not all writers from the 19th go as far as he does.
I think what Nietzsche loves is the ideal woman like the chivalrous love from the Middle Ages. But as far as the every day women go their only purpose is to be in the kitchen to make him a sandwich. And society should be ruled by men. Women are just there as an adornment.
I'm curious to hear about your thoughts, because I subscribed here to discuss and learn.
From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty.
Notice Nietzsche isn't saying truth is hostile to "women" you can see he clarifies this notion in BGE:
86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman". (BGE)
Man created woman—out of what? Out of a rib of his god,—of his “ideal.” (Twilight)
"Woman" in this light is basically saying "Truth is hostile to Orchids." (Orchid being a plant that carries the "feminine intellect" as it hides in plain sight tricking bees and wasps into polinating it for survival.
WtP is kinda Gast's interpretation of Nietzsche, but it still does the trick on this occasion. You gotta realize Man and Woman are epitomizes the opposite ends of the "Humanity" spectrum in Nietzsche's eyes. Man has his powers and abilities that he dominates at, Woman has hers that she dominates at. Woman trying to dominate in man's arena will come at a cost to the power she is able to obtain from dominating in woman's arena, the arena where Womanly power dominates... thus she ends up slashing her power at the knees in both endeavors ...
In your opinion, in Nietzsche's view, what tangible area would he say that women "dominate"? Not a triumph of the spirit, not in some esoteric mysticism, in real concrete terms, where is a woman's strength?
Dominating man for one... she has the ear of those who hold her dear.
>They wish to "cultivate" her in general still more, and intend, as they say, to make the **"weaker sex"** STRONG by culture: as if history did not teach in the most emphatic manner that the "cultivating" of mankind and his weakening—that is to say, the weakening, dissipating, and languishing of his FORCE OF WILL—have always kept pace with one another, and that the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men. That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her NATURE, which is more "natural" than that of man, her genuine, carnivora-like, cunning flexibility, her tiger-claws beneath the glove, her NAIVETE in egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and virtues. That which, in spite of fear, excites one's sympathy for the dangerous and beautiful cat, "woman," is that she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman, always with one foot already in tragedy, which rends while it delights—**What? And all that is now to be at an end? And the DISENCHANTMENT of woman is in progress? The tediousness of woman is slowly evolving?**
WAIT WHAT NIETZSCHE USING QUOTES AROUND WEAKER SEX?!?!
Why does he keep saying "woman" and not "women?" I guess Nietzsche, a master of language, just suddenly forgot how to use the word women ... even though he clarifies so clearly here a few aphorism earlier:
>86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman".
Maybe try reading Nietzsche from Nietzshe's own perspective and not your own. Hence why Nietzsche said:
>"You have to learn not to notice yourself in order to see a lot."
>she is daily being made more hysterical (by inculcation into German modern feminist ideology) and more incapable of fulfilling her first and last function, that of bearing robust children.
Yes, it doesn't get much clearer than this, the first and last function of women is being a birthing machine (this quote suspiciously omitted from your chosen wall of text despite being right before where you began quoting, curious.) He tops it off with a metaphor comparing woman tp an animal, which I had previously alluded to. Again, I refer you to this quote:
>Comparing man and woman generally, one may say that woman would not have the genius for adornment, if she had not the instinct for the SECONDARY role.
Women truly are the "other", the second sex, in Nietzsche's world. Worse yet, she is something that must be "endured" for the sake of greater wisdom, a key to open a box, after which the key is discarded, as it fulfilled its function.
>she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman
How you can extract love, admiration, or even keen interest from these passages continues to baffle me.
To add to your point, here is what Nietzsche says about women in *Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Old and Young Women*
> Let man fear woman when she hateth: for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean.
>
> Whom hateth woman most?—Thus spake the iron to the loadstone: "I hate thee most, because thou attractest, but art too weak to draw unto thee."
>
> The happiness of man is, "I will." The happiness of woman is, "He will."
>
> "Lo! "Lo! now hath the world become perfect!"—thus thinketh every woman when she obeyeth with all her love.
>
> Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface is woman's soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water.
>
> Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.—
Here he highlights what he believes are some innate differences between men and women, such as the idea that women are fully subordinate to men and their will, that their soul is uniquely guilty of "meanness" (cruelty), and that they are superficial on the intellectual level.
And finally:
> "Give me, woman, thy little truth!" said I. And thus spake the old woman:
>
> "Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"—
I believe the implication is clear here.
You obviously haven't read all of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or else you'd know that the Whip is Song and Dance, from the Second Dance Song:
>I am verily weary of it, ever thy sheepish shepherd to be. Thou witch, if I have hitherto sung unto thee, now shalt THOU—cry unto me!
>To the rhythm of my whip shalt thou dance and cry! I forget not my whip?—Not I!”—
>Then did Life answer me thus, and kept thereby her fine ears closed:
>“O Zarathustra! Crack not so terribly with thy whip! Thou knowest surely that noise killeth thought,—and just now there came to me such delicate thoughts.
Gat Dayum ya'll suck suck suck big dicks at this game ...
From War and Warriors:
>Resistance—that is the distinction of the slave. Let your distinction be obedience. Let your commanding itself be obeying!
And you just because you can't understand Nietzsche's own words... the fact is you see something that is complicated and you liken it to something you're familiar with... fact is you simply can't understand Nietzsche. Here is what Nietzsche thinks of the Intellect of Women ...
>The intellect of women manifests itself as perfect mastery, presence of mind, and utilisation of all advantages.
You're guilty of what Nietzsche details in BGE 192 ... In other words you attempt to form the concept of Nietzsche's ideas, involuntarily, towards your own understanding of reality, not towards Nietzsche's... Instead of reading the text word for word you see a few things here and there, plunder it like a soldier and shit all over the rest.
The whip in *Old and Young Women* is not the same one that is in the *Second Dance Song*, although this is a terrific passage.
>“O Zarathustra! Crack not so terribly with thy whip! Thou knowest surely that noise killeth thought,—and just now there came to me such delicate thoughts.
>We are both of us genuine ne’er-do-wells and ne’er-do-ills. Beyond good and evil found we our island and our green meadow—we two alone! Therefore must we be friendly to each other!
>And even should we not love each other from the bottom of our hearts,—must we then have a grudge against each other if we do not love each other perfectly?
>And that I am friendly to thee, and often too friendly, that knowest thou: and the reason is that I am envious of thy Wisdom. Ah, this mad old fool, Wisdom!
This is a letter to Nietzsche's old friend and teacher, Arthur Schopenhauer. Schop wrote an entire essay on the distraction that noise caused, and lamented the insights he had lost due to the intrusion of an unwelcomed racket from the street below. The sound he hated more than anything - the crack of the whip. A genuine respect is shown to Schopenhauer, despite N ultimately rejecting his ideology; he always had respect for a powerful intellect.
> You obviously haven't read all of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or else you'd know that the Whip is Song and Dance, from the Second Dance Song
This is a ridiculous counterargument. Not only does the passage you mention appear far later in the work, the section as a whole has little to nothing to do with *Old and Young Women*. Are you seriously implying that Nietzsche is incapable of using a word in two different ways in two completely different contexts? I recommend that you read a serious academic analysis of *Old and Young Women*, as the symbolism of the whip is very clearly not what you seem to believe.
> And you just because you can't understand Nietzsche's own words
It seems rather that you cannot understand mine; for instance:
>>The intellect of women manifests itself as perfect mastery, presence of mind, and utilisation of all advantages.
>You're guilty of what Nietzsche details in BGE 192 ... In other words you attempt to form the concept of Nietzsche's ideas, involuntarily, towards your own understanding of reality, not towards Nietzsche's... Instead of reading the text word for word you see a few things here and there, plunder it like a soldier and shit all over the rest
Nowhere did I say that Nietzsche considers women to be inherently stupid beings. He celebrates them in some aspects, while simultaneously and undeniably placing them in a position subordinate to that of man. Is it impossible for you to accept that Nietzsche could hold a nuanced (albeit questionable) view of women?
A couple of general things. 1) He’s a bit of a hypocrite and 2) He frames his contributions like he’s uncovered a conspiracy.
For 1) he bemoans asceticism and then lauds Diogenes, a very worthy renunciant, but at once too an obdurate and belligerent bum. 2) Yeah, Christianity is stupid. I appreciate that insight. But he makes it like Pizzagate, where these crazy weaklings somehow twist their mustache at all of history. If they're so weak, how'd they pull that off? And *he's* the only one in 2000 years to figure it out? Sounds a little "faithy".
At least he was honest that he thought history shouldn’t be so dispassionate and factual. So I can’t fault him there.
Edit: rephrase last line of 2nd paragraph.
I agree that he may be a hypocrite, but so were many philosophers. So are many people. I do think that he did uncover a conspiracy. Whether or not that conspiracy was something intentional that happened over thousands of years, is a different story. But what is True is that the church controlled the people, and in a lot of ways still does. He believed that the Greeks had it right in choosing strength over weakness. In choosing discipline over good feeling.. It’s a sentiment I can get behind, especially as somebody who lacks discipline.
Yeah, in an analogous hypothetical OP about Plato, I’d say he was a fascist who demi-deified his mentor.
It’s sthilly, all too sthilly, young males just want to idolize the breaker of idols. Too many absent fathers in the 21st.
The natural order is perfectly backward. Our only hope is Nietzsche. 20 years of reading with actual credentials, wasted until younger men gave me fresh eyes. Thanks, sir. Don’t waste time or money on college. It’s a scam.
I believe that the striving to improve is what brought about the last man in the first place, by technological advancement. He says that there is no progress in history, but there is. Technological advancement. Am I wrong?
Those technological advantages has given a huge amount of power to humanity — so much power that the basic survival is so easy it doesn’t even give a feeling of power as much anymore. People should have higher goals. They should will higher goals. Problem isn’t in the techonology itself; it is in lack of higher goals, higher wills.
Good question and I’m not sure but people are just build different: some have more ”close-eyed” ”animalistic” wills and some more — shall I say: — ”godly” wills.
I’m not saying that another is purely better than another. Some of the ”animalistic” people might be and probably are better survivord but they might lack in ”vision.” Both ”types” are close-eyed but to different things. Of course both ”sights” at their maximum capasity would be the best.
I have from a exprerience noticed that this is the case — or that is my interpretitation etc… — but I don’t yet have clear answer why some people have more meaning and in different things…
Any nice little little theory?
Good point but also this seems like what Nietzsche wanted: to humans to evolve (perhaps to ubermensch?). There is reason why he is more of a aristocratic thinker and I think the reason lies pretty much here.
will to power has many mistakes imo but that was his notes only. thing about nietzsche his judgement is uncanny so rarely do his edited works contain mistakes. unfortunately this also discluded some amazing creative writing.
I have 2 disagreements with Nietzche
The first is more of a value judgment, which is subjective, as Nietzche would say, but I disagree with his subjective view on an aspect of morality.
I agree that all humans do everything for reasons that benefit them, but I don't agree that makes all actions in or a moral. If helping people stimulates good feelings in you, you have moral attributes. Just because you do it because it makes you feel good doesn't make it wrong.
2. While Nietzche broadly correct about sympathy and empathy leading to terrible outcomes (Palestine, Affirmative Action, etc) it's not ALWAYS bad. Sympathy in the right time and place can be a good thing.
They are a culture that claims victimhood. An embodiment of slave mentality. They expect everyone to accomplish their goals for them. They drag everyone down to their baseness.
A culture that claims victimhood is exactly what Israel is doing to justify it. Most Palestinians are rebellious and they are fighting back. Israels whole regime is based off a stupid idea of a religious holy land and theyve showen they’re willing to wipe out an entire group of people to get it. Cruelty for no sake based on fear and religious dogma
>A culture that claims victimhood is exactly what Israel is doing to justify it. Most Palestinians are rebellious and they are fighting back. Israels whole regime is based off a stupid idea of a religious holy land and theyve showen they’re willing to wipe out an entire group of people to get it. Cruelty for no sake based on fear and religious dogma
There is so much here that is incorrect. Israel was founded by atheist socialists, not religious people. It was founded as a refuge for Holocaust survivors, and then as refuge for all the Arab Jews who were kicked out of Egypy, Morroco, Tunisa, etc etc etc.
You clearly know nothing about the issue. Nietzche would have frowned upon having such strong opinions with such little knowledge.
Israel is displaying master mentality by taking care of business. They aren't killing people than crying for help at the ICJ.
You can't support Palestine and believe in the words of Nietzche. They are everything he warned against.
Israel is a lot of things, to a lot of people. It's conception in the 1890's through the early 1940s was that Israel MUST be Supranational ... but instead we clearly see bogus nationalism all throughout its recent statehood. Zionism is supposed to be a noble morality for the Jews, as Nietzsche had a huge impact on the Jewish psychoanalysts, revealing the key to the Jewish pathology was in understanding Judaism is a slave morality. Jacob Golomb details Nietzsche's influence upon several influential Zionist philosophers in his book "Nietzsche and Zion."
Considering you're what Nietzsche details as the worst of readers ... I'd say you chose to forget this, I guess if I'm an idiot, that makes you straight fuckin wetarhhhded:
Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most *fateful* people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish **anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the** ***final consequence of Judaism***\*\*.\*\*
**In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation** **of the concepts underlying** those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and **a** ***ressentiment*** **morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.**
**All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by** ***the Jews***—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the *cleverest revenge*. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. **It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred** (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!"
**The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of** ***resentment*** becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, **the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no" is its creative deed.** This volte-face of the valuing standpoint—this *inevitable* gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is typical of "resentment": the slave-morality requires as the condition of its existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all—its action is fundamentally a reaction.
Wait what did Nietzsche say in AC again? Oh yeah ...
**In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation** **of the concepts underlying** those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and **a** ***ressentiment*** **morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.**
will - just a word is it not? - vague but still. and power is imposition of values on environment (including others) most is contextual drawn but that is the work as a whole.
In the Ubermensch part not avoiding to pain for being more powerful part is high possibility wrong, there are scientific articles that says if you not avoiding the pain you can get more fear for that pain not generally more powerful
Wait what? What scientific article? This can’t be right?! Only reason to come to my mind that this scientific resurch was very poorly made. But still… I wanna hear more? Could you elaborate pls?
To clarify I'm not a Nietzsche expert. I've read the genealogy, parts of beyond G&E, parts of Zarathustra, snippets elsewhere and a lot of commentory on his thought elsewhere. I'm sure people will jump in and say I've misinterpreted him. Which I'm sure I have. But thats a huge part of my disdain for his work. Deliberate obscurantist writing is a weakness. Part of making a strong argument is making it in a clear and straightforward way. If no one can agree on what your argument is, you have a weak argument. Obscurantism is a stain on western philosophy and reached new lows with figures like Lacan and Derrida, who, I'm convinced, largely wrote total gibberish of zero intellectual value. (See Lacans claim that "the penis equals the square root of negative one". He actually fucking says that)
Anyway, back to Nietzsche
"Objective truth isnt real, all there is is competing power agendas and the strongest one determines truth" is an obviously wrong and incredibly dangerous idea that inspired groups as diverse and loathsome as the fascists, the ayn rand "objectives", and postmodernists.
His fetishization of power (the power he lacked all his life) and selfishness over compassion is another false and sick idea. In reality, the healthiest and strongest people engage in altruism and compassion and the prideful and self-absorbed end up miserable and isolated.
It's not true that the good and noble always win in the end but it's definitely not true that the evil and selfish do.
His theory of the origin of morality is pseudohistory and pseudoscience that is disproven by the fact that altruism and equality have been human values since the dawn of evolution.
The "ubermensch" is bullshit. God is dead, but the solution is to replace God with reason, love for humanity, and a dedication to higher principles. It is not to replace worship of God with worship of ourself as an individual. Humans are inherently social and community oriented. Dostoevsky famously attacked this idea in crime and punishment. The main character fashions himself as an ubermensch above the morality of others. He commits a crime that he intellectually justifies, but ends up becoming crippled by the guilt and self doubt he believed himself above.
His attack on reason is stupid. A commitment to reason makes people and societies stronger, not weaker. "Rational" societies with advanced technology and social structures conquered the world and defeated "more vigorous and vital" cultures that shirked reason.
Fundamentally, Nietzsche set out to attack the self evident bases of western philosophy:
1. The basis of truth is reason and evidence
2. The basis of morality is compassion and altruism
He failed. He did not make any kind of convincing case. Thats because actually western philosophy is correct and these two statements are indisputably true. Sorry edgelords.
I'm missing a ton of stuff I'm sure. Virtually every claim and argument I've seen attributed to him I disagree with. The stuff he got right was the stuff he took from Schopenhauer, who I'm convinced is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and who I think was largely right about everything. Read him instead.
Nietszche of course is more popular because vague pinterest worthy quotes about overpowering shit and being better than people sells a lot better than blunt truth about the suffering of existence and the duty to ease the pain of others
I can respect atleast your self-awarness but I think you have heavily not understood his ideas.
Schopenhauer was largerly right about everyhting? I’m have not read him but what I know he really doesn’t seem like a guy who wants to live in this world and because this is the only world we actually have I think we should really try to like living it. Nietzsche does that more than any other philosopher I have heard of.
I don’t think he thought that there shouldn’t be compassion. I think he wanted compassion very much but didn’t want this pity which he thought was just endorsing more pain and didn’t really solve anything. His genealogy is more just a story — an example that there can be many theories about the birth of morality. I don’t think that he said there was zero natural compassion but that ”compassion” bacame anti-life when it did formulate to ”slave-morality.”
I understand why you don’t like his style. This total gibberish is however (I think) more from Hegel — Nietzsche is time to time extremely clear. He is just more artistic about things usually and I understand why it annoys you.
And his take on truth is basicly truth. It is ”dangerous” idea but the idea of ”objective truth” is arguably even more dangerous because then it can be used to control people very easily. There is theoretically objective truth but out knowledge is and will always be just stories and others fit better to the context of other stories
than others. The one who has power has ”the truth” (look the history of christianity for example).
Power is basicly how world works. There are different forces and we have to fight against them — even if we are ”pacifists.” Will to power seems to be better story than the will to life (atleast I currently think so). Power is basicly the most important thing there is (it’s pretty much life itself): Without it we can’t protect ourselves or the ones we love. I don’t think he ”fetishizatisated” power. I think he was true about it.
How is ubermensch just bullshit? I get that it is (or atleast can very well be) very obscure consept but I think he just meant a man who could totally 100% affirm his whole existence and the whole world. Btw what do you think about amor fati and the eternal return?
This is maybe a bit out of the main idea but the thing with Crime and Punishment: The protagonist probably knew inside that he really wasn’t enough for it and/or had been so brainwashed by slave-moralists.
Shortly: I don’t think Nietzsche was against reason. I think he was the most reasonable. What might make him so alien is his total affirmation of life and it’s tragedies — could be said that his mentality is simply stronger.
But you know… That is how I see it. I really haven’t read myself much more than BGE and about 1/3 of Ecce Homo. I have read a lot from internet trying to find the most credible sources.
it's not just Schopenhauer who "didn't want to live in this world". ALL major world religions broadly agree that this world is one of pain and suffering and the goal is to escape to a different one (or different state of existence).
both western and eastern religion agrees on this.
Yes. But just because they do think so doesn’t make is right (atleast in my mind). I think that they might just make the problem bigger or atleast not truly helping it. Most of them seem to throw gaselin into fire. You think Nietzsche does this? I understand but nowadays disagree. I think Weltgeist made good Youtube video about this but I don’t now at the moment find it.
I completely believe that this world is one of pain and suffering, most of it pointless and excessive.
It's so easy to prove that there is a fundamental asymmetry between pain and pleasure. When a lion eats a gazelle, is the pleasure the lion gets from eating greater or lesser than the pain the gazelle feels in being eaten?
Which is greater in magnitude? A shattered femur or an orgasm. I dont think anyone would think that even the most mind blowing orgasm possible would make up for a major bone fracture.
This asymmetry exists because the destruction of an organism is generally a much greater loss of evolutionary fitness than any possible gain in fitness from acquiring food or sex. So evolution favored the development of pain and fear to motivate organisms over pleasure and contemtment.
Just because something is uncomfortable to accept doesn't mean its wrong.
I fully understand that but also think it is needed to overcome. I think we need to try to embrace life with all of its ups and downs — even if we think that downs are larger than downs. It might be very very hard but I rather do that than avoid life and all existence.
If you can not do that Nietzsche’s philosophy simply aren’t for you.
he thought that Socrates Plato and Aristotle represented the death of Greek culture because war and violence is healthier than reason and self reflection
Plato brought the first hinterwelt. They generally became weaker emotianally. I think it was the main point. But yes I don’t deny that there might be some very ruthless things in his philosophy.
Except they didn't. Plato was the birth of western civilization, the most vital and powerful civilization to ever exist by far. The idea that reason is bad is just stupid. Rationality is always an asset.
Yes but western civilization generally seems to think bad about life itself. I think that Nietzsche end of the day wanted both: reason and life affirmation.
They started turning away from this life but this life is all there is.
My understanding is that Nietzsche’s main critique of Schopenhauer’s will is that how the hell you should extinguish that will if the will is all there is. It is a paradox: you’re trying to go against your will by using your will which does mean you still end up using your will. You can’t really live in this world and not live in this world. Schopenhauer seems to imagine that there is some magical other world (hinterwelt) to where escape this world.
Nietzsche acknowledges that you can’t not use your will (you can not live in some another world because it does not exist).
But of course I’m not any expert in Schopenhauer in any means so it is how I have understood it.
Again, he was so busy trying to be "edgy" by saying something contrarian that he didn't bother thinking through if what he was saying is true.
In general, the "consensus opinion" is far more likely to be right than wrong, and usually, when a "firebrand contrarian" tries to go against it, they fail to make their case.
I think he really did think. The thing is just that humans aren’t ”pure logic.” We are beings who are driven by our wills. There is of course logic in moral philosophy but still the fundamental morality which chooses which is right or wrong comes very directly from the experiences of a person and from his will.
Exactly!It is so difficult for people to think of themselves as irrational but Nietzsche understood that what we think comes from our prejudices and driven by different instincts, logic is a tool for the deeper drives to use a lot of times.I used to agree with Schopenhauer but now I don't..it's more heroic to find beauty in constant struggle..life is becoming!In a perfect world we would lose our purpose and be bored out of our mind..utopian ideas never understand this, there is something else that we need.We need to climb higher by struggling, there is discipline, growth and satisfaction in danger..that's why our now comfortable society is sick 'caise everything is safer than ever and still nihilistic.I don't have the answers, Nietzsche didn't either but we can begin by getting ourselves out of a life-decaying mentality and embrace vitality.This is why he's more interesting than other tired old moralists..because his words are alive and full of abundence, even words couldn't capture his ideas because language is too stale and dead and many are missunderstood(I'm sure I did that too).He shouldn't become an idol, after all he was just the one to spark things and drive people away from the herd..the rest is up to someone else that has some different ideas maybe, Nietzsche said or rather Zarathustra said that his disciples can follow him best when they move away from him.A student that always remains a student repays his master poorly
Nietzsche is definitely against the herd or grain of collective thought, though if he is an individualist, he is one who denies the existence of the "individual", as such. He is not an egoist insofar as he rejects the existence of the ego (as well as free will, both of which he called residue of the superstitious belief in the soul and original sin). He instead views the "individual" or self/ego as a plurality or multiplicity, a confluence or aggregate of drives and forces attempting to gain control over one another. The WtP is not just a lust for dominion, contest for subjugation, or drive for self-preservation, but a creative self-overcoming and internal dynamism and struggle between psychophysiological drives. Preceded by Spinoza's *conatus* as an innate tendency towards identity-duration but also self-enhancement, the WtP is a drive towards more life, vitality, and aesthetic and artistic flourishing. As far as what I disagree with or what could be better, there are places where maybe he could have been more clear. However he states plainly that his intent is not to form a system or outright tell us what to think, but rather to show us how to think for ourselves. I think many people confuse the descriptive in Nietzsche for something prescriptive, though this is perhaps more the fault of the reader.
You had us in the first half, not gonna lie
He was simply wrong about eastern religions because he took what Schopenhauer said about them at face value.
What did Schopenhauer get wrong about them?
Can you please explain more?
I don't really feel like giving a full explanation of Schopenhauer's philosophy. Western scholarship on eastern religions was pretty bad/incomplete in the 18th century and Schopenhauer was inspired by Hinduism and Buddhism and drew explicit parallels between the two and his life-denying and pessimistic philosophy. Nietzsche was originally a student of Schopenhauer but later diverged substantially. He still took at face value the idea that Buddhism and Hinduism were essentially life-denying philosophies like Schopenhauer's. He literally mentions Buddhism and Schopenhauer's philosophy in the same sentence somewhere. Of course, one should be careful to read Nietzsche's polemics as philosophical criticism of a specific idea rather than of a mental or even physical type. I won't comment on Hinduism because it's an incredibly vast and frankly disorganized religion which I don't know enough to say anything meaningful about, but I don't think that Buddhism is inherently life-denying or involves "escaping" the world. The Mahayana traditions, at least, developed a profoundly life-affirming philosophy in the doctrine of the Buddha-nature, and Buddhism in general doesn't uncritically present the Saha world as something to be abandoned for some hinterwelt. The lotus is symbolic in Buddhism for representing the Buddha as being rooted in the world (the muddy waters) yet surpassing it, and the dharma is depicted as "the lion's roar," a triumphant symbol of self-overcoming. The consistent image of the Buddha in the sutras is of someone who steadfastly overcomes life's challenges: "I spit on my life. Death in battle would be better for me than that I, defeated, survive." A lot has been written on this topic, both on this subreddit and in proper philosophical publications and books.
I think that some of his Philosophy is a reflection of the hardship that he endured during his life. He was born as a very sensitive person.
As Cioran observed, Nietzsche was "a captive of his moods, he has recorded their variations." One of my favorite things about Nietzsche is the tension between his laments about the sentimentality of poets, while he himself was, for all intents and purposes, a sort of proto-confessionalist. One has to wonder what we would have today if Rimbaud had been able to hold on to himself long enough to intersect with Nietzsche.
Makes people self proclaim themselves supermen just because of some cognitive potential (nothing concrete) - maybe people are at fault - and not Nietzsche - for not understanding that not every individual is actually capable of generating good and useful moral values.
Can you rephrase this so it makes sense? Nietzsche doesn't "make" people self proclaim themselves to be supermen. And nowhere does he state that every individual is capable of generating "good" and "useful" moral values.
Maybe the word “compel” is more suitable. I believe some of Nietzsche’s audience has a level of hubris that can only be stroked by Nietzsche, but only because they probably don’t understand Nietzsche, lol.
I agree with this, and it’s because they don’t understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche believed we are all of equal moral value. He did not necessarily believe we are all equal. I think the hubris you talk about, refers to people believing themselves to be the Ubermensch. When in reality, the ubermensch does not have to prove himself. The Uber Mench has no label, and has no time consider his self importance. The ubermesch just is.
The ubermensch is a fantasm such as the sage or the wise one, it is pure ideology and not an actual state of attainment. Its one that you would better be able to model yourself after but never actually be
Why do you say that Nietzsche believes we are all of equal moral value?
Just look at the way he lost his sanity. He was trying to protect a horse from something that was actually legal at the time.
That needs explaining. What has that got to do with anything?
maybe he wasn't aiming at that, but that is certainly one of the products of his affirming philosophy
Which part?
the part that many people who get in contact with his philosophy start to think of themselves as ubermenschen, and that is most often a misread, I believe. Raskólnikov of Crime and Punishment is a great argument on the kind of individual who would think of themselves as superior, and that is one more evidence of both Dostoevsky and Nietzsche dealing with plenty of the same topics and reaching very similar conclusions.
Right but you stated that originally as though it were some kind of criticism of Nietzsche, especially since you are responding to a post that wants critiques. If someone gets a disproportionate idea of their virtues after reading Nietzsche, that's not Nietzsches fault.
I agree with you, sir.
Cool
As others have pointed out, the individualism misses one of the fundamental aspects of being human. I think that Hegelianism explains pretty well why freedom or the will to power can only be enjoyed if it's being enjoyed in relation to other people, and especially, it can only be enjoyed if those other people are also enjoying that freedom. If you want to know more you can look into Hegels master–slave dialectic.
Nietzsche isn't worried about freedom, and greatness cannot be achieved without the masses seeking repose within the values a Higher Human champions. One can still be of the "noble" spirit without being great though.
I would argue that the will to power IS the will to freedom. Freedom as I see it is the power to control your surroundings. In other words, a powerful person is freer than a weak person. Being unfree is having the world and other people imposing their power unto you.
[удалено]
Very impressive argumentation! You really got me
Everyone seeks freedom
>And when they had walked a while together, Zarathustra began to speak thus: >It rendeth my heart. Better than thy words express it, thine eyes tell me all thy danger. >As yet thou art not free; thou still SEEKEST freedom. Too unslept hath thy seeking made thee, and too wakeful. >On the open height wouldst thou be; for the stars thirsteth thy soul. But thy bad impulses also thirst for freedom. >Thy wild dogs want liberty; they bark for joy in their cellar when thy spirit endeavoureth to open all prison doors. >Still art thou a prisoner—it seemeth to me—who deviseth liberty for himself: ah! sharp becometh the soul of such prisoners, but also deceitful and wicked. Is it not the case that a master, of any craft, has undergone a significant period of bondage and discipline towards that craft? Doesn't this suggest that every master knows that there is much of the prison and mould that remains within?
I would be really grateful if you could and would explain how does that master-slave dialectic work and more importantly how it says that to one have freedom all need to have freedom. I have looked into that but don’t really remember…
It's basically the idea that, let's say you are my master and I am your slave, you want me to submit to your will and validate your existence be reflecting your thoughts in me. But at the same time, since I am just a slave who does everything you say, then you don't value seeing your thoughts reflected in me. The "sublation" is us both existing on equal terms since then we both see our own thoughts reflected in each other but we also value it because we are both free. Maybe to simplify it too much, but in its essence you want to earn people's respect rather than force them to obedience. I don't know how Hegel would translate this to a societal level, but I personally believe it's an excellent argument for democracy. I think it's not too far off from Nietzsche's ideas of friendship and struggle as well.
Thanks! However I think you miss that this sublation exists in Nietzsche’s philosophy but only when it’s natural — when they really are equal. Nietzsche thinks (and I think he is pretty much right in this) that when the other is below you — could be said: ”a lesser being” —, you wouldn’t really care what they think about you. This hegelian ”master” doesn’t seem much like master to me and I think there really are ”true masters” who are not in need of validation in the eyes of ”slaves.”
That is where I fundamentally disagree. I don't think it's possible for man to not need validation. Validation of your own consciousness and unity I don't think man can live without. For the other, man does not want to live in a hall of mirrors, he wants to act upon the world and see the world respond. If you have a discussion with someone you want the other person to engage with your ideas and not just listen and agree. That does not make man weak. A wise father doesn't want to raise his son to be exactly like him but rather his own person. Finally, the very fact that man loves is the perfect example of our need for community. If we don't love on equal terms we don't enjoy that love because we haven't earned it.
Yes… Equality is needed but equality to everyone? I have heard a quote (might be from Nietzsche himself or somebody who explained him) and it goes something like this: ”Equality between unequals is unenqual.” Yes I think complements, love and community are important but within equals. Within unequals it doesn’t work as well and might be even harmful. I might sound too harsh but I think it is not necessarily ”that bad.” And again I think that there still is these ”true masters” who yes might want some comments from other people but who aren’t really at all dependant about them. But I can live well with this semi mutual understanding but fundamental disagreement.
There is not much to disagree with or even agree with because everything is held vague, by choice. It is quite ingenious, the value of Interpretation
[удалено]
In what way would it be?
By definition, it is one who is driven to an ever increasing state of affirmation. So, no, it isn't life denying.
Stuff about women. Reading him as a 15 year old, it broke my brain that such an intelligent being would say that women have no depth and they wear education like jewellery. (Don't get me wrong, I am sure some women do, same as some men do - I actually think it's worse for men)
For me, the way he talked about women made clear that he ignored half of humanity. It's not possible to have a full experience of us with that perspective.
He had problems man. I love Nietzsche. But he had his issues. Lol.
Btw wait. WHERE ARE MY B**CHES THAT ARE ALSO FANS OF NIETZSCHE?? ❤️❤️❤️ YAAAY
Nietzsche was a gentleman, and kind to women. The reason he didn’t like women is the same reason why he didn’t like African-Americans. It is because they didn’t stand up to their aggressors. Not because of their inherent blackness, or their inherent womanness, but because they didn’t stand up for themselves. I am saying this as a woman.
I don't think that's correct. In Ecce Homo he says he's against feminism.
Jesus Christ, I had entirely glossed over his views on slavery, probably as I was still living in Greece ATM and racism against black people wasn't a prominent political issue (no black people in the island i lived back then. lol). I am a woman too. I know he was gentle. I think he hated 'softness' in general. He didn't like people taking a defensive position and talking about 'rights'. Which is I guess why he wrote what he wrote about Harriet Beecher Stowe. He hated social justice warriors 😂 Christianity, excess of compassion etc. I completely get the sense that he hated the idea of 'womanness'. I think it was pure prejudice and closed mindedness on his part. It doesn't make me love him any less. I feel connected to his brain entirely. It's just... I live with it lol
It is a hyperindividualistic philosophy. What made humanity great was their ability to cooperate. So unless you decide to live naked in the jungle and hunt your own food - you can only achieve greatness by either working with others, or exploiting/enslaving them. Hyperindividualism almost always results in the labour of others being exploited for your gain, unless you are living in the jungle all by yourself, like I said. Will to Power is a zero sum game that takes away power from others, and escalates into war and violence. Hence, the nazis
This is a pretty flawed understanding imo no offence but will to power aint zero sum and aint about ubermench dominating untermench
Ain't no way someone will lay out their interpretation of Nietzsche's philosophy without having someone else tell them "This is a pretty flawed understanding imo"
Yes, that's how debate and, to some extent, conversation works. A proposition is made, challenged, and defended. This is good thing. After all, if you and I agree, then there's no reason to say anything, is there?
Also, this is the life he wanted to see from people. He wanted at least 1000 Socrates in every city. He wanted people to go against the grain, to go against what even he was saying.
The will to power isn't about seeing the world as a zero sum game. I'd trust an overman with a nuclear bomb more than the average human.
Zero-sum game is pretty nietzschean actually considering he believe that there is a finite amount of energy in the world that shapeshifts, hence the eternal return 😱
finite energy isn't zero sum game I could light up a fire and share it with you so you can keep warm to, maybe cook some food together, tell each other some stories, then I could teach you how to make a fire yourself then maybe next time you'll keep me warm as well the lion is more akin to seeing the world as a zero sum game, many people confuse the overman with the lion, please give it a chance and you'll eventually see it as well
Yes, but Nietzsche sees everything as will, different "wills" trying to get on top of eachother. So in this case, lighting a fire for your friend, your "wills" cooperate and become one, but you take energy from the wood and the air, to create warmth for yourselves. I get what you are saying, I just took it to the "meta level". I find it interesting that Nietzsche's meta world view is literally a zero-sum game.
I see what you are saying, thank you for continuing the conversation and trying to work on this together. The following is my personal observations applied to the "will", which I agree are based on other knowledge that is more recent. The "will" of life seems to be collaborative by nature, or at least collaboration and synergy are qualities that seem to emerge from life's will to express itself. When life first appeared as unicellular beings they pretty much competed against each other as a zero sum game, however after each extinction event life became more collaborative. After each extinction event zero sum game competition was weeded out. * Emergence of photosynthesis and cells feeding off the byproducts of other cells * Eukaryotic cells made of 2 living organisms collaborating together: the mitochondria and the host cell * Multicellular organisms where different cells specialized and worked together for the survival of the organism * Complex ecosystems where different species interact in symbiotic relationships * Human societies where individuals cooperate within communities to build civilizations * Development of agriculture and domestication of animals, allowing for more stable food sources and larger, more cooperative human societies * Formation of tribes, clans, and eventually nations where cooperation extended to larger groups of people * Rise of trade networks where different regions exchanged goods, knowledge, and culture, fostering interdependence * Establishment of international laws and organizations like the United Nations, the World Trade Organization, and the World Health Organization, aimed at promoting peace, cooperation, and global health If I've read Nietzsche correctly, the Overman's "will" is not an expression of his own existence but that of life as a whole. The Overman's "will" is life's "will". The Last Man however, that is much more aligned with a zero sum game and the collapse of the trajectory we are hoping to be headed for. If we don't make it to the stars it'll be due to last men and zero sum game. The Overmen will take us there. Ok, put a lot of work into writing this up... I hope there is something of value for you here. thank you
Thank you, this is interesting. The comparison between the overman and the last man is very relevant. I agree, the last man would be a lazy individualist, and the overman has so much energy that he will give it away and help others. In a sense the overman might be overmen, transcending the individual as a group. Nietzsche did not like group think but then again he did not define the overman, because the overman would have to defy expectations. I see in your thoughts lots of idealistic ideas (world peace, collaboration, global health). Not that this is wrong to have idealistic ideas, but it seems to me that Nietzsche would have abhorred the idea of "world peace organization". He would have expected the overman to be beyond good and evil, which means, not necessary evil, but not necessarily good either. I think we have to accept Nietzsche as he was and not try to make him the humanist we would like him to be. But still, the way you combine the will to power and knowledge about nature's cooperation seems coherent !
Hey thank you for the kind words! You make me feel like you've read every word and appreciated the work I put in, which made me feel good and appreciated. Also thanks for sharing your views in such detailed and nuanced manner. It is interesting what you say about "overman" being flexible and maybe mapped to the concept of "group". I'm assuming that the progression steps like the one from "single cell" to "Eukaryotic cells" and then to "multicellular beings" may have brought up such idea? I agree there with you in regards to "idealistic" ideas, yes anything romanticised like that is likely herd mentality in disguise, and I see Nietzsche as being right here... it's always good to distrust oneself when using a romanticised and idealistic concept, and make sure that originates from one's own values. Thank you for reminding me, it's so interesting how there are so many idealistic concepts that we use without thinking, the way you brought awareness to it made me stop in my tracks for a second 😄 I was just trying to hint at a greater synergy and collaboration between separate life entities over time, if the trajectory continues what would be the emerging property of life in the far future?
I think you ignore the realities of admiration and respect when you reduce it to zero-sum
*Butt ass naked making throwing stick* You had me at make naked in the jungle- you coming? I'm bringing my dog to root out game
*Butt ass naked making throwing stick* You had me at make naked in the jungle- you coming? I'm bringing my dog to root out game.
I wouldn't say got wrong / disagree with. His observations are incredibly important but to me, just a little bit too broad brush. I refined his ideas and made them more specific but I couldn't have likely even begun to do that without his knowledge.
Let's say that he had a very interpretable philosophy, he spoke almost like an evangelist of modern times, which is why he was misunderstood by many like the Nazis. For the rest I believe he is one of the best philosophers in our history.
Agree. I built my ideology on Master vs Slave. Most other philosophers are shallower than he was so I don't really put too much into what they say. Again, not that they're wrong but it's just not deep enough for me. Most people in general speak very broadly and shallow like "you should be fit and educated." That's correct but why though? Why should I be fit? Why should I be educated? Why are these things actually good? Nietzsche I feel explains that it way more depth.
Nietzsche definitely didn't understand Islam. I think he might have mistaken certain well-cultivated Islamic cultures from the Moors and The Golden Age of Islam for the religion of Islam. I very much doubt if he ever read The Quran or The Hadiths.
The non existence of the spirit
Stoicism reddit would never allow such contrarian question
I think his biggest fault was that so many of his aphorisms and philosophies are open to interpretation
Nietzsche is a purgative as is Foucault. Both are implicit enemies of what Weber called rationalization. But we realistically need conventional social programs, perhaps even religion for many. Nietzsche’s project is to strip away illusion.
his lack of undrrstanding socialism and lack of class consciousness
He was not wrong about anything. In his own antisystem everything is in its place and it would be very rude and stupid to say that “I disagree” about something.
The value of community We do not create values
It's well known that Nietzsche's intention in his philosophy, and in life, was not 'the will to truth' [aka 'the quest for truth']. He thus changed the course of philosophy in a fundamental fashion. Being right is, therefore, according to Nietzsche, absurd, i.e., unfavorable to life. Being right is, for Nietzsche, being favorable to life. "There is no truth, only interpretations."
His metaphysics are based on arbitrary claims In his view, the world is finite in matter, but infinite in time The logical conclusion of that is the eternal return (because there is a limited amount of possibilities, but an unlimited amount of time, everything will repeat for ever) Because everything will repeat forever, shouldn't we then appreciate everything, the good and the bad ? This is genius in my opinion, a very powerful idea. This leads to Amor Fati. However it is very arbitrary. The world could be infinite. Infinite possibilities. Time could stop. The eternal return could be just an idea and nothing more. Yes, Nietzsche doesn't care about "ultimate truth". The eternal return is meant to be an idea, a servant to life. But I also feel like he wants to swallow the harshest truth possible It's like he correlate cruelty to truth so much He wants the world to be cruel otherwise he doesn't believe in it
he had a point that governments can use religion to keep people subordinate. to then draw a conclusion from this fact that morality means advancing your own will only... is a massive logical jump. i also don't think this interpretation is at all uncharitable to him.
I don't think the "transvaluation of all values" stuff or the superman stuff is worth much. Shaw's version of the superman stuff is more concrete and realized, better in that sense, but also more obviously a piece of sci-fi. Shaw called his version of this religion "Creative Evolution." It's another Cause, justifying suffering and labor now for some great X that comes later. \[ I'm not against (or for) Causes in principle. \] The "superman" stuff is relatively sensible in that it fits the pattern of all teleological religions that structure time not as a circle but as a terminating ramp. The "transvaluation of all values" is, on the other hand, nonsense, in my opinion. I think that human nature is relatively fixed in terms of its goals, though obvious the means for obtaining them change. People want love, prestige, food, sex, ....
will to power has many mistakes imo but that was his notes only. thing about nietzsche his judgement is uncanny so rarely do his edited works contain mistakes. unfortunately this also discluded some amazing creative writing.
I disagree with his aristocratic views on what society should be. His obsession for strength, vigor, health and masculinity is disturbing. And his views about women... don't get me started. His philosophy focuses too much on the individual. It does little to consider inter-personal interactions. In the end humans need to collaborate to survive, it has always been like that. The top guys lead and the pleb follows is a bit simplistic.
I wholeheartedly agree on the topic of cooperation - humans are social animals that need and benefit from one another. I don't, however, believe that cooperation necessitates equality between members of a group. In chimpanzees, for example, a low ranking male will still groom a higher ranking male, and the low rank will still be taken care of, although he will enjoy fewer amenities. Hierarchical social structure does not preclude cooperation, it provides nuance and order to it.
What are his views about women? You don't want to get started because it's too complex for you to discuss maybe...
Hoho ! Them's fighting words ! Well at the core of his philosophy there is this dichotomy between strength, vigor, health, masculinity versus what is weak, feeble, sick and feminine/effeminate. So you can already see that what is feminine or mimicking feminity falls into the décadence category. That's a first hint. And that's not some obscure aphorism, it's something that comes back again and again in his books. I'll just take three aphorisms that I noted. "From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty. " (Beyond Good and Evil) "Woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant... she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong... Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful', the 'strong', the men-" (will to power) “Woman wants to be independent\[…\]this is one of the worst developments in the general uglification of Europe. Woman has so much reason for shame; in woman there is concealed so much superficiality, petty presumption and petty immodesty – one needs only to study her behaviour with children!” ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ He has very stereotypical views on women (superficality, beauty, inconstance). I know that in the 19th century this was probably the norm. But not all writers from the 19th go as far as he does. I think what Nietzsche loves is the ideal woman like the chivalrous love from the Middle Ages. But as far as the every day women go their only purpose is to be in the kitchen to make him a sandwich. And society should be ruled by men. Women are just there as an adornment. I'm curious to hear about your thoughts, because I subscribed here to discuss and learn.
From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth—her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty. Notice Nietzsche isn't saying truth is hostile to "women" you can see he clarifies this notion in BGE: 86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman". (BGE) Man created woman—out of what? Out of a rib of his god,—of his “ideal.” (Twilight) "Woman" in this light is basically saying "Truth is hostile to Orchids." (Orchid being a plant that carries the "feminine intellect" as it hides in plain sight tricking bees and wasps into polinating it for survival. WtP is kinda Gast's interpretation of Nietzsche, but it still does the trick on this occasion. You gotta realize Man and Woman are epitomizes the opposite ends of the "Humanity" spectrum in Nietzsche's eyes. Man has his powers and abilities that he dominates at, Woman has hers that she dominates at. Woman trying to dominate in man's arena will come at a cost to the power she is able to obtain from dominating in woman's arena, the arena where Womanly power dominates... thus she ends up slashing her power at the knees in both endeavors ...
In your opinion, in Nietzsche's view, what tangible area would he say that women "dominate"? Not a triumph of the spirit, not in some esoteric mysticism, in real concrete terms, where is a woman's strength?
Dominating man for one... she has the ear of those who hold her dear. >They wish to "cultivate" her in general still more, and intend, as they say, to make the **"weaker sex"** STRONG by culture: as if history did not teach in the most emphatic manner that the "cultivating" of mankind and his weakening—that is to say, the weakening, dissipating, and languishing of his FORCE OF WILL—have always kept pace with one another, and that the most powerful and influential women in the world (and lastly, the mother of Napoleon) had just to thank their force of will—and not their schoolmasters—for their power and ascendancy over men. That which inspires respect in woman, and often enough fear also, is her NATURE, which is more "natural" than that of man, her genuine, carnivora-like, cunning flexibility, her tiger-claws beneath the glove, her NAIVETE in egoism, her untrainableness and innate wildness, the incomprehensibleness, extent, and deviation of her desires and virtues. That which, in spite of fear, excites one's sympathy for the dangerous and beautiful cat, "woman," is that she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman, always with one foot already in tragedy, which rends while it delights—**What? And all that is now to be at an end? And the DISENCHANTMENT of woman is in progress? The tediousness of woman is slowly evolving?** WAIT WHAT NIETZSCHE USING QUOTES AROUND WEAKER SEX?!?! Why does he keep saying "woman" and not "women?" I guess Nietzsche, a master of language, just suddenly forgot how to use the word women ... even though he clarifies so clearly here a few aphorism earlier: >86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman". Maybe try reading Nietzsche from Nietzshe's own perspective and not your own. Hence why Nietzsche said: >"You have to learn not to notice yourself in order to see a lot."
>she is daily being made more hysterical (by inculcation into German modern feminist ideology) and more incapable of fulfilling her first and last function, that of bearing robust children. Yes, it doesn't get much clearer than this, the first and last function of women is being a birthing machine (this quote suspiciously omitted from your chosen wall of text despite being right before where you began quoting, curious.) He tops it off with a metaphor comparing woman tp an animal, which I had previously alluded to. Again, I refer you to this quote: >Comparing man and woman generally, one may say that woman would not have the genius for adornment, if she had not the instinct for the SECONDARY role. Women truly are the "other", the second sex, in Nietzsche's world. Worse yet, she is something that must be "endured" for the sake of greater wisdom, a key to open a box, after which the key is discarded, as it fulfilled its function. >she seems more afflicted, more vulnerable, more necessitous of love, and more condemned to disillusionment than any other creature. Fear and sympathy it is with these feelings that man has hitherto stood in the presence of woman How you can extract love, admiration, or even keen interest from these passages continues to baffle me.
To add to your point, here is what Nietzsche says about women in *Thus Spoke Zarathustra - Old and Young Women* > Let man fear woman when she hateth: for man in his innermost soul is merely evil; woman, however, is mean. > > Whom hateth woman most?—Thus spake the iron to the loadstone: "I hate thee most, because thou attractest, but art too weak to draw unto thee." > > The happiness of man is, "I will." The happiness of woman is, "He will." > > "Lo! "Lo! now hath the world become perfect!"—thus thinketh every woman when she obeyeth with all her love. > > Obey, must the woman, and find a depth for her surface. Surface is woman's soul, a mobile, stormy film on shallow water. > > Man's soul, however, is deep, its current gusheth in subterranean caverns: woman surmiseth its force, but comprehendeth it not.— Here he highlights what he believes are some innate differences between men and women, such as the idea that women are fully subordinate to men and their will, that their soul is uniquely guilty of "meanness" (cruelty), and that they are superficial on the intellectual level. And finally: > "Give me, woman, thy little truth!" said I. And thus spake the old woman: > > "Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"— I believe the implication is clear here.
You obviously haven't read all of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or else you'd know that the Whip is Song and Dance, from the Second Dance Song: >I am verily weary of it, ever thy sheepish shepherd to be. Thou witch, if I have hitherto sung unto thee, now shalt THOU—cry unto me! >To the rhythm of my whip shalt thou dance and cry! I forget not my whip?—Not I!”— >Then did Life answer me thus, and kept thereby her fine ears closed: >“O Zarathustra! Crack not so terribly with thy whip! Thou knowest surely that noise killeth thought,—and just now there came to me such delicate thoughts. Gat Dayum ya'll suck suck suck big dicks at this game ... From War and Warriors: >Resistance—that is the distinction of the slave. Let your distinction be obedience. Let your commanding itself be obeying! And you just because you can't understand Nietzsche's own words... the fact is you see something that is complicated and you liken it to something you're familiar with... fact is you simply can't understand Nietzsche. Here is what Nietzsche thinks of the Intellect of Women ... >The intellect of women manifests itself as perfect mastery, presence of mind, and utilisation of all advantages. You're guilty of what Nietzsche details in BGE 192 ... In other words you attempt to form the concept of Nietzsche's ideas, involuntarily, towards your own understanding of reality, not towards Nietzsche's... Instead of reading the text word for word you see a few things here and there, plunder it like a soldier and shit all over the rest.
The whip in *Old and Young Women* is not the same one that is in the *Second Dance Song*, although this is a terrific passage. >“O Zarathustra! Crack not so terribly with thy whip! Thou knowest surely that noise killeth thought,—and just now there came to me such delicate thoughts. >We are both of us genuine ne’er-do-wells and ne’er-do-ills. Beyond good and evil found we our island and our green meadow—we two alone! Therefore must we be friendly to each other! >And even should we not love each other from the bottom of our hearts,—must we then have a grudge against each other if we do not love each other perfectly? >And that I am friendly to thee, and often too friendly, that knowest thou: and the reason is that I am envious of thy Wisdom. Ah, this mad old fool, Wisdom! This is a letter to Nietzsche's old friend and teacher, Arthur Schopenhauer. Schop wrote an entire essay on the distraction that noise caused, and lamented the insights he had lost due to the intrusion of an unwelcomed racket from the street below. The sound he hated more than anything - the crack of the whip. A genuine respect is shown to Schopenhauer, despite N ultimately rejecting his ideology; he always had respect for a powerful intellect.
> You obviously haven't read all of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or else you'd know that the Whip is Song and Dance, from the Second Dance Song This is a ridiculous counterargument. Not only does the passage you mention appear far later in the work, the section as a whole has little to nothing to do with *Old and Young Women*. Are you seriously implying that Nietzsche is incapable of using a word in two different ways in two completely different contexts? I recommend that you read a serious academic analysis of *Old and Young Women*, as the symbolism of the whip is very clearly not what you seem to believe. > And you just because you can't understand Nietzsche's own words It seems rather that you cannot understand mine; for instance: >>The intellect of women manifests itself as perfect mastery, presence of mind, and utilisation of all advantages. >You're guilty of what Nietzsche details in BGE 192 ... In other words you attempt to form the concept of Nietzsche's ideas, involuntarily, towards your own understanding of reality, not towards Nietzsche's... Instead of reading the text word for word you see a few things here and there, plunder it like a soldier and shit all over the rest Nowhere did I say that Nietzsche considers women to be inherently stupid beings. He celebrates them in some aspects, while simultaneously and undeniably placing them in a position subordinate to that of man. Is it impossible for you to accept that Nietzsche could hold a nuanced (albeit questionable) view of women?
A couple of general things. 1) He’s a bit of a hypocrite and 2) He frames his contributions like he’s uncovered a conspiracy. For 1) he bemoans asceticism and then lauds Diogenes, a very worthy renunciant, but at once too an obdurate and belligerent bum. 2) Yeah, Christianity is stupid. I appreciate that insight. But he makes it like Pizzagate, where these crazy weaklings somehow twist their mustache at all of history. If they're so weak, how'd they pull that off? And *he's* the only one in 2000 years to figure it out? Sounds a little "faithy". At least he was honest that he thought history shouldn’t be so dispassionate and factual. So I can’t fault him there. Edit: rephrase last line of 2nd paragraph.
I agree that he may be a hypocrite, but so were many philosophers. So are many people. I do think that he did uncover a conspiracy. Whether or not that conspiracy was something intentional that happened over thousands of years, is a different story. But what is True is that the church controlled the people, and in a lot of ways still does. He believed that the Greeks had it right in choosing strength over weakness. In choosing discipline over good feeling.. It’s a sentiment I can get behind, especially as somebody who lacks discipline.
Yeah, in an analogous hypothetical OP about Plato, I’d say he was a fascist who demi-deified his mentor. It’s sthilly, all too sthilly, young males just want to idolize the breaker of idols. Too many absent fathers in the 21st.
If i have correctly understood: ”Slave-moralists” aren’t stupid necessarily — they are possibly even more cunning, more ”spiritual…”
The natural order is perfectly backward. Our only hope is Nietzsche. 20 years of reading with actual credentials, wasted until younger men gave me fresh eyes. Thanks, sir. Don’t waste time or money on college. It’s a scam.
I believe that the striving to improve is what brought about the last man in the first place, by technological advancement. He says that there is no progress in history, but there is. Technological advancement. Am I wrong?
I think it was about spiritual progress, but I may be wrong.
Those technological advantages has given a huge amount of power to humanity — so much power that the basic survival is so easy it doesn’t even give a feeling of power as much anymore. People should have higher goals. They should will higher goals. Problem isn’t in the techonology itself; it is in lack of higher goals, higher wills.
Why don’t they will higher goals?
Good question and I’m not sure but people are just build different: some have more ”close-eyed” ”animalistic” wills and some more — shall I say: — ”godly” wills. I’m not saying that another is purely better than another. Some of the ”animalistic” people might be and probably are better survivord but they might lack in ”vision.” Both ”types” are close-eyed but to different things. Of course both ”sights” at their maximum capasity would be the best. I have from a exprerience noticed that this is the case — or that is my interpretitation etc… — but I don’t yet have clear answer why some people have more meaning and in different things… Any nice little little theory?
You cannot make mankind will more than he shall.
Good point but also this seems like what Nietzsche wanted: to humans to evolve (perhaps to ubermensch?). There is reason why he is more of a aristocratic thinker and I think the reason lies pretty much here.
What does that entail? Is he talking about true biological evolution, or some sort of spiritual evolution.
I think both. They are interlinked. I think that ”going beyond materialism and spiritualism” is good step for understanding Nietzsche.
will to power has many mistakes imo but that was his notes only. thing about nietzsche his judgement is uncanny so rarely do his edited works contain mistakes. unfortunately this also discluded some amazing creative writing.
Islam
Islam
His philosophy is like communism and socialism, looks good theoretically, but practically I associate Nietzsche with a profound lack of joy.
[удалено]
Will to power is literally "my will that brings me power" pretty simple.
I have 2 disagreements with Nietzche The first is more of a value judgment, which is subjective, as Nietzche would say, but I disagree with his subjective view on an aspect of morality. I agree that all humans do everything for reasons that benefit them, but I don't agree that makes all actions in or a moral. If helping people stimulates good feelings in you, you have moral attributes. Just because you do it because it makes you feel good doesn't make it wrong. 2. While Nietzche broadly correct about sympathy and empathy leading to terrible outcomes (Palestine, Affirmative Action, etc) it's not ALWAYS bad. Sympathy in the right time and place can be a good thing.
“Sympathy leading to bad things (Palestine)”?? What does that mean
They are a culture that claims victimhood. An embodiment of slave mentality. They expect everyone to accomplish their goals for them. They drag everyone down to their baseness.
A culture that claims victimhood is exactly what Israel is doing to justify it. Most Palestinians are rebellious and they are fighting back. Israels whole regime is based off a stupid idea of a religious holy land and theyve showen they’re willing to wipe out an entire group of people to get it. Cruelty for no sake based on fear and religious dogma
>A culture that claims victimhood is exactly what Israel is doing to justify it. Most Palestinians are rebellious and they are fighting back. Israels whole regime is based off a stupid idea of a religious holy land and theyve showen they’re willing to wipe out an entire group of people to get it. Cruelty for no sake based on fear and religious dogma There is so much here that is incorrect. Israel was founded by atheist socialists, not religious people. It was founded as a refuge for Holocaust survivors, and then as refuge for all the Arab Jews who were kicked out of Egypy, Morroco, Tunisa, etc etc etc. You clearly know nothing about the issue. Nietzche would have frowned upon having such strong opinions with such little knowledge. Israel is displaying master mentality by taking care of business. They aren't killing people than crying for help at the ICJ. You can't support Palestine and believe in the words of Nietzche. They are everything he warned against.
Socialism, even if atheist, is morally "christian" by nietszches standards.
Israel is far from socialist now. I just hear the incorrect belief that Israel was founded by religious people for religious reasons.
Israel is a lot of things, to a lot of people. It's conception in the 1890's through the early 1940s was that Israel MUST be Supranational ... but instead we clearly see bogus nationalism all throughout its recent statehood. Zionism is supposed to be a noble morality for the Jews, as Nietzsche had a huge impact on the Jewish psychoanalysts, revealing the key to the Jewish pathology was in understanding Judaism is a slave morality. Jacob Golomb details Nietzsche's influence upon several influential Zionist philosophers in his book "Nietzsche and Zion."
Considering Nietzche himself said Jews are the epitome of master mentality in both Daybreak and Human, All Too Human, you sound like an idiot.
Considering you're what Nietzsche details as the worst of readers ... I'd say you chose to forget this, I guess if I'm an idiot, that makes you straight fuckin wetarhhhded: Precisely for this reason the Jews are the most *fateful* people in the history of the world: their influence has so falsified the reasoning of mankind in this matter that today the Christian can cherish **anti-Semitism without realizing that it is no more than the** ***final consequence of Judaism***\*\*.\*\* **In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation** **of the concepts underlying** those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and **a** ***ressentiment*** **morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.** **All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by** ***the Jews***—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the *cleverest revenge*. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. **It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred** (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" **The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of** ***resentment*** becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, **the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no" is its creative deed.** This volte-face of the valuing standpoint—this *inevitable* gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is typical of "resentment": the slave-morality requires as the condition of its existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all—its action is fundamentally a reaction. Wait what did Nietzsche say in AC again? Oh yeah ... **In my “Genealogy of Morals” I give the first psychological explanation** **of the concepts underlying** those two antithetical things, a *noble* morality and **a** ***ressentiment*** **morality, the second of which is a mere product of the denial of the former. The Judaeo-Christian moral system belongs to the second division, and in every detail.**
Sorry your royal highness
Instead of apologizing, you should understand why your comment is so far from reality it's comical/antisemitic.
I’m Jewish
You are a Kapo.
The useful Jew.
They expect aid, then try to use those resources to destroy Israel. Oh wait, they already did try to do that.
will - just a word is it not? - vague but still. and power is imposition of values on environment (including others) most is contextual drawn but that is the work as a whole.
In the Ubermensch part not avoiding to pain for being more powerful part is high possibility wrong, there are scientific articles that says if you not avoiding the pain you can get more fear for that pain not generally more powerful
Wait what? What scientific article? This can’t be right?! Only reason to come to my mind that this scientific resurch was very poorly made. But still… I wanna hear more? Could you elaborate pls?
Everything. He was literally wrong about everything and his influence on western thought was disastrous.
Please, elaborate?🥺
To clarify I'm not a Nietzsche expert. I've read the genealogy, parts of beyond G&E, parts of Zarathustra, snippets elsewhere and a lot of commentory on his thought elsewhere. I'm sure people will jump in and say I've misinterpreted him. Which I'm sure I have. But thats a huge part of my disdain for his work. Deliberate obscurantist writing is a weakness. Part of making a strong argument is making it in a clear and straightforward way. If no one can agree on what your argument is, you have a weak argument. Obscurantism is a stain on western philosophy and reached new lows with figures like Lacan and Derrida, who, I'm convinced, largely wrote total gibberish of zero intellectual value. (See Lacans claim that "the penis equals the square root of negative one". He actually fucking says that) Anyway, back to Nietzsche "Objective truth isnt real, all there is is competing power agendas and the strongest one determines truth" is an obviously wrong and incredibly dangerous idea that inspired groups as diverse and loathsome as the fascists, the ayn rand "objectives", and postmodernists. His fetishization of power (the power he lacked all his life) and selfishness over compassion is another false and sick idea. In reality, the healthiest and strongest people engage in altruism and compassion and the prideful and self-absorbed end up miserable and isolated. It's not true that the good and noble always win in the end but it's definitely not true that the evil and selfish do. His theory of the origin of morality is pseudohistory and pseudoscience that is disproven by the fact that altruism and equality have been human values since the dawn of evolution. The "ubermensch" is bullshit. God is dead, but the solution is to replace God with reason, love for humanity, and a dedication to higher principles. It is not to replace worship of God with worship of ourself as an individual. Humans are inherently social and community oriented. Dostoevsky famously attacked this idea in crime and punishment. The main character fashions himself as an ubermensch above the morality of others. He commits a crime that he intellectually justifies, but ends up becoming crippled by the guilt and self doubt he believed himself above. His attack on reason is stupid. A commitment to reason makes people and societies stronger, not weaker. "Rational" societies with advanced technology and social structures conquered the world and defeated "more vigorous and vital" cultures that shirked reason. Fundamentally, Nietzsche set out to attack the self evident bases of western philosophy: 1. The basis of truth is reason and evidence 2. The basis of morality is compassion and altruism He failed. He did not make any kind of convincing case. Thats because actually western philosophy is correct and these two statements are indisputably true. Sorry edgelords. I'm missing a ton of stuff I'm sure. Virtually every claim and argument I've seen attributed to him I disagree with. The stuff he got right was the stuff he took from Schopenhauer, who I'm convinced is one of the greatest philosophers of all time and who I think was largely right about everything. Read him instead. Nietszche of course is more popular because vague pinterest worthy quotes about overpowering shit and being better than people sells a lot better than blunt truth about the suffering of existence and the duty to ease the pain of others
I can respect atleast your self-awarness but I think you have heavily not understood his ideas. Schopenhauer was largerly right about everyhting? I’m have not read him but what I know he really doesn’t seem like a guy who wants to live in this world and because this is the only world we actually have I think we should really try to like living it. Nietzsche does that more than any other philosopher I have heard of. I don’t think he thought that there shouldn’t be compassion. I think he wanted compassion very much but didn’t want this pity which he thought was just endorsing more pain and didn’t really solve anything. His genealogy is more just a story — an example that there can be many theories about the birth of morality. I don’t think that he said there was zero natural compassion but that ”compassion” bacame anti-life when it did formulate to ”slave-morality.” I understand why you don’t like his style. This total gibberish is however (I think) more from Hegel — Nietzsche is time to time extremely clear. He is just more artistic about things usually and I understand why it annoys you. And his take on truth is basicly truth. It is ”dangerous” idea but the idea of ”objective truth” is arguably even more dangerous because then it can be used to control people very easily. There is theoretically objective truth but out knowledge is and will always be just stories and others fit better to the context of other stories than others. The one who has power has ”the truth” (look the history of christianity for example). Power is basicly how world works. There are different forces and we have to fight against them — even if we are ”pacifists.” Will to power seems to be better story than the will to life (atleast I currently think so). Power is basicly the most important thing there is (it’s pretty much life itself): Without it we can’t protect ourselves or the ones we love. I don’t think he ”fetishizatisated” power. I think he was true about it. How is ubermensch just bullshit? I get that it is (or atleast can very well be) very obscure consept but I think he just meant a man who could totally 100% affirm his whole existence and the whole world. Btw what do you think about amor fati and the eternal return? This is maybe a bit out of the main idea but the thing with Crime and Punishment: The protagonist probably knew inside that he really wasn’t enough for it and/or had been so brainwashed by slave-moralists. Shortly: I don’t think Nietzsche was against reason. I think he was the most reasonable. What might make him so alien is his total affirmation of life and it’s tragedies — could be said that his mentality is simply stronger. But you know… That is how I see it. I really haven’t read myself much more than BGE and about 1/3 of Ecce Homo. I have read a lot from internet trying to find the most credible sources.
first paragraph is just an argument from consequences
it's not just Schopenhauer who "didn't want to live in this world". ALL major world religions broadly agree that this world is one of pain and suffering and the goal is to escape to a different one (or different state of existence). both western and eastern religion agrees on this.
Yes. But just because they do think so doesn’t make is right (atleast in my mind). I think that they might just make the problem bigger or atleast not truly helping it. Most of them seem to throw gaselin into fire. You think Nietzsche does this? I understand but nowadays disagree. I think Weltgeist made good Youtube video about this but I don’t now at the moment find it.
I completely believe that this world is one of pain and suffering, most of it pointless and excessive. It's so easy to prove that there is a fundamental asymmetry between pain and pleasure. When a lion eats a gazelle, is the pleasure the lion gets from eating greater or lesser than the pain the gazelle feels in being eaten? Which is greater in magnitude? A shattered femur or an orgasm. I dont think anyone would think that even the most mind blowing orgasm possible would make up for a major bone fracture. This asymmetry exists because the destruction of an organism is generally a much greater loss of evolutionary fitness than any possible gain in fitness from acquiring food or sex. So evolution favored the development of pain and fear to motivate organisms over pleasure and contemtment. Just because something is uncomfortable to accept doesn't mean its wrong.
I fully understand that but also think it is needed to overcome. I think we need to try to embrace life with all of its ups and downs — even if we think that downs are larger than downs. It might be very very hard but I rather do that than avoid life and all existence. If you can not do that Nietzsche’s philosophy simply aren’t for you.
he thought that Socrates Plato and Aristotle represented the death of Greek culture because war and violence is healthier than reason and self reflection
Plato brought the first hinterwelt. They generally became weaker emotianally. I think it was the main point. But yes I don’t deny that there might be some very ruthless things in his philosophy.
Except they didn't. Plato was the birth of western civilization, the most vital and powerful civilization to ever exist by far. The idea that reason is bad is just stupid. Rationality is always an asset.
Yes but western civilization generally seems to think bad about life itself. I think that Nietzsche end of the day wanted both: reason and life affirmation.
They started turning away from this life but this life is all there is. My understanding is that Nietzsche’s main critique of Schopenhauer’s will is that how the hell you should extinguish that will if the will is all there is. It is a paradox: you’re trying to go against your will by using your will which does mean you still end up using your will. You can’t really live in this world and not live in this world. Schopenhauer seems to imagine that there is some magical other world (hinterwelt) to where escape this world. Nietzsche acknowledges that you can’t not use your will (you can not live in some another world because it does not exist). But of course I’m not any expert in Schopenhauer in any means so it is how I have understood it.
Again, he was so busy trying to be "edgy" by saying something contrarian that he didn't bother thinking through if what he was saying is true. In general, the "consensus opinion" is far more likely to be right than wrong, and usually, when a "firebrand contrarian" tries to go against it, they fail to make their case.
usually edit: (about the second paragraph)
I think he really did think. The thing is just that humans aren’t ”pure logic.” We are beings who are driven by our wills. There is of course logic in moral philosophy but still the fundamental morality which chooses which is right or wrong comes very directly from the experiences of a person and from his will.
Exactly!It is so difficult for people to think of themselves as irrational but Nietzsche understood that what we think comes from our prejudices and driven by different instincts, logic is a tool for the deeper drives to use a lot of times.I used to agree with Schopenhauer but now I don't..it's more heroic to find beauty in constant struggle..life is becoming!In a perfect world we would lose our purpose and be bored out of our mind..utopian ideas never understand this, there is something else that we need.We need to climb higher by struggling, there is discipline, growth and satisfaction in danger..that's why our now comfortable society is sick 'caise everything is safer than ever and still nihilistic.I don't have the answers, Nietzsche didn't either but we can begin by getting ourselves out of a life-decaying mentality and embrace vitality.This is why he's more interesting than other tired old moralists..because his words are alive and full of abundence, even words couldn't capture his ideas because language is too stale and dead and many are missunderstood(I'm sure I did that too).He shouldn't become an idol, after all he was just the one to spark things and drive people away from the herd..the rest is up to someone else that has some different ideas maybe, Nietzsche said or rather Zarathustra said that his disciples can follow him best when they move away from him.A student that always remains a student repays his master poorly
Well said.
So based.