What's so great about Nietzsche?

[Buffalo Souljah]

Now that I've distanced myself somewhat from the writings of this charlatan who labored to create intricate "self-referring" texts that would lead readers into labyrinthine quests for a 'meaning' which the texts themselves failed to give, I can honestly say I find him quite repulsive and vulgar. I could repeat what I have just written, with special emphasis on select words, and get the same effect of reading a Nietzsche text.


What is the ape/monkey to man? A laughing-stock or a painful shame. And just such will man be when compared to the 'Uebermensch': a laughing-stock or a painful shame..
Verily, a dirty river is man. One must truly be an ocean, to take up this stream without becoming defiled.
Man is a rope, slung between animal and 'Uebermensch', - a rope slung over a precipice.
What is major about man, is that he is a bridge and not an end: what can be loved about man, is that he is a transcendence and an 'undergoing' (Untergang). The above are from Also Sprach Zarathustra, and the following are from Geburt der Tragoedie:


Is scientific scholarship perhaps only a fear and an excuse in the face of pessimism? A delicate self-defence against—the Truth? And speaking morally, something like cowardice and falsehood? Speaking unmorally, a clever trick?* (http://records.viu.ca/%7EJohnstoi/Nietzsche/tragedy_all.htm#n7) O Socrates, Socrates, was that perhaps your secret? O you secretive ironist, was that perhaps your—irony?—
What I managed to seize upon at that time, something fearful and dangerous, was a problem with horns, not necessarily a bull exactly, but in any event a new problem; today I would state that it was the problem of science itself—science for the first time grasped as problematic, as dubious. But that book, in which my youthful courage and suspicion then spoke, what an impossible book had to grow out of a task so contrary to the spirit of youth!What is redeeming about this satyr?
http://www.newanimal.org/tumnus_faun_satyr.jpg

[Invincible Summer]

I'm no philosopher, but I always found Nietzsche to be critical of the way current society upholds certain moral standards over others, how humankind is hubristic, and the need for humans to transcend our socially constructed "nature" to the point of becoming an independent body that is not concerned by morals (being constructed and reflecting a certain interest).

[A.R.Amistad]

I certainly don't agree with everything that Nietzsche said or believed, but I wouldn't call him repulsive. First, he is really abused by his ardent followers and used in incorrect instances, which has led many to distort Nietzsche as a "might is right" bourgeois kind of fellow. Nietzsche was indeed an elitist but he wasn't really a social Darwinist. First of all, he was quite inconsistent, and he slipped in and out of nihilism and back to existentialism, constantly contradicting himself. His central philosophy was that the individual had to learn how to cope in a world devoid of God. People use Nietzsche's work as some sort of universal philosophy that can be applied to society. But people forget that his main concerns were religious ones, and he write mostly about mankinds relation to "God" as an individual more than anything else. So really, Nietzsche is not as relevant as one would assume.

[BAM]

Nietzsche was an elitist. He thought his philosophy of greatness could only apply to a select few. He hated socialism because he felt it represented the same "slave morality" as Christianity. Slave morality is merely an inversion of "master morality". Instead of praising strength it upholds weakness. It depends on the master morality for its identity.

I think this is a mischaracterisation of socialism - at least from a Marxian perspective. Marx already criticises the "crude communism" that merely seeks to make everyone equal (as in the same income, etc.) in the 1844 Manuscripts. Nietzche's critique I think applies to crude communism. However, Marx's concept of communism involves something radically different, ie, the flourishing of all the different individualities, talents and excellencies.

[which doctor]

Nietzsche is interesting from the perspective of critical theory, since Nietzsche was a critic of the Enlightenment before the project of Enlightenment had even failed. Of course he said a lot of reactionary things, and he wrote a lot of non sense, but I think his philosophy still deserves serious study, because he can provide an insight into the question of 'why did the enlightenment fail and what elements were already perceivable in the 19th century?'

The following is the most interesting Nietzsche comment on socialism I've ever found. I'm still not sure what exactly to make of it.

A QUESTION OF POWER, NOT OF RIGHT.—As regards Socialism, in the eyes of those who always consider higher utility, if it is really a rising against their oppressors of those who for centuries have been oppressed and downtrodden, there is no problem of right involved (notwithstanding the ridiculous, effeminate question, "How far ought we to grant its demands?") but only a problem of power ("How far can we make use of its demands?"); the same, therefore, as in the case of a natural force,—steam, for instance,—which is either forced by man into his service, as a machine-god, or which, in case of defects of the machine, that is to say, defects of human calculation in its construction, destroys it and man together. In order to solve this question of power we must know how strong Socialism is, in what modification it may yet be employed as a powerful lever in the present mechanism of political forces ; under certain circumstances we should do all we can to strengthen it. With every great force—be it the most dangerous—men have to think how they can make of it an instrument for their purposes. Socialism acquires a right only if war seems to have taken place between the two powers, the representatives of the old and the new, when, however, a wise calculation of the greatest possible preservation and advantageousness to both sides gives rise to a desire for a treaty. Without treaty no right. So far, however, there is neither war nor treaty on the ground in question, therefore no rights, no " ought." - Human all too human http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Human_All-Too-Human


It's important to know that when Nietzsche talks about socialism, he's talking about pre-Marxian socialism, which was a hodge-podge of all sorts of nutty ideas. It's too bad Nietzsche never actually engaged with Marx's ideas, but I have a vague feeling he would have been sympathized with the bolsheviks.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

I was not sure how to reduce addresses into code or paste the text from this selection, but the below link has a section of Nietzsche I quite like. It speaks well to the Marxist notions concerning alienation.

http://books.google.ca/books?id=Vf8KETLiKXMC&pg=PA57&lpg=PA57&dq=now+there+are+rare+individuals+who+would+rather +perish&source=bl&ots=7oVzc7tOzQ&sig=fsn20DCIJNuMQ_dK1qCns7K6bfw&hl=en&ei=nfXIS5PhNojusgOC1rH1BA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CAYQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=now%20there%20are%20rare%20individuals%20who%20w ould%20rather%20perish&f=false

[black magick hustla]

The OP only quotes some of the most metaphysical statements of Nietzche. I think the most interesting statements he did are the ones against the grand philosophical systems of his time. Like stating that Hegel is gibberish. He also made an honest attempt to trace morality to something concrete, rather than the stupefying metaphysicial theories people had of values

[Belisarius]

Nietzsche was a visionary, but also somewhat of a madman. we have to understand that he knew much about greek society and philosophy (so when he talks about for example satyrs he's referring to the dionysian cult), since he was actually a classical literature professor. on the other hand his critiques are very to the point and destructive, his theories are revolutionary (but others refined them later in a better way) and some of his aphorisms are just funny. i agree that there is a lot of gibberish in his texts, but on the other hand there are also texts that can only be written by a genius.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

I have to agree with Maldoror, but with the added caveat that Nietzsche bottled it in the end, and came up with his own metaphysical theories.

[Lord Hargreaves]

Nietzsche's anti-metaphysics has to be a component of any critical theory. Most people can tell just by reading Nietzsche - they can feel it in his words - the scope of his anti-philosophical impulse, which far surpasses the actual positive doctrines he ended up holding (if we can concede that he did). His rejection of socialism, democracy etc. are thoroughly uninteresting, and tbh focusing on them is quite besides the point. No one is looking to Nietzsche for a safe political programme, something faceless bureaucrats can busy themselves with. As Adorno once remarked, it is impossible to imagine Nietzsche behind a desk.

The cold hard fact is that Marxism as such stagnated during the middle of the twentieth century, mainly due to the gagging of communists through the official Communist party appartuses, by order of Moscow. During these times, Western critical thought turned to Nietzsche over Marx because he offered something more radical. Of course Nietzsche could never replace Marx - if I thought that I couldn't call myself a Marxist - but I can't really conceive a critical Marxism today that dispensed with the Nietzschean legacy

[blake 3:17]

Nietzsche was a critic of the Enlightenment before the project of Enlightenment had even failed.

Maybe it already had.

[Buffalo Souljah]

The OP only quotes some of the most metaphysical statements of Nietzche. I think the most interesting statements he did are the ones against the grand philosophical systems of his time. Like stating that Hegel is gibberish. He also made an honest attempt to trace morality to something concrete, rather than the stupefying metaphysicial theories people had of values

However, it is interesting to note that, as opposed to carrying out his venture down the skeptical path, he proferred his own metaphysical system, which is to say he "denied the absolute only in appearance." For him, there were ultimately concrete metaphysical truths "out there", which he in turn "revealed". The fact of the matter is that Nietzsche had alot more in common with Hegel than he did differences.


his theories are revolutionary
Are they? He seems to hold that those in power "deserve" to be in power, something that appears extremely reactionary. His disdain for Christians is one example of this.


i agree that there is a lot of gibberish in his texts, but on the other hand there are also texts that can only be written by a genius.

Wy do you say that? Nieztsche was just as much a product of his time as were Parmenedes, Aristotle, Augustine, Duns Scotus, Descartes, Hume and any number of other thinkers along the line of history. It is arguable that we still would have had dada, surrealism, minimalism and any number of "revolutionary" philosophical or artistic movements without him. I think to say anything else is to lay the groundwork for a personality cult, which I would argue Nietzsche has garnered recently (in the past hundred years).


Nietzsche's anti-metaphysics has to be a component of any critical theory. Most people can tell just by reading Nietzsche - they can feel it in his words - the scope of his anti-philosophical impulse, which far surpasses the actual positive doctrines he ended up holding (if we can concede that he did). His rejection of socialism, democracy etc. are thoroughly uninteresting, and tbh focusing on them is quite besides the point. No one is looking to Nietzsche for a safe political programme, something faceless bureaucrats can busy themselves with. As Adorno once remarked, it is impossible to imagine Nietzsche behind a desk.

But therein lies the admission that his philosophy wasn't "for everyone and no one", as he claimed, but was an ultra-hyperbolic set of polemical dialogues between himself and his Straw man: sure, you can tear the hell out of select bits of Schopenhauer and arguably anything written by Hegel, but that doesn't vaccinate you from the same sort of criticism. Nieztsche is a perfect example of a philosopher who 'wanted it both ways', and, if anything, it is a wonderful representation of the ideological turbulence of the latter 19th century. As far as philosophical relevance, I would rank him along with Stirner and Fourier.

[Belisarius]

Are they? He seems to hold that those in power "deserve" to be in power, something that appears extremely reactionary. His disdain for Christians is one example of this.
i meant revolutionary in the sense that they were totally new and unheard of. His way of thinking was a break with the philosophical tradition of the time (allthough it can be argued that he was influenced by Schopenhauer, Hegel, etc.). Of course he was the product of his time, but he was also someone who had something new to offer. and that's exactly why he was still unpopular during his own time, while living in his cabin in the alps. He was only picked up later (as a philosopher, he was pretty known as a classical languages professor). i don't want to start a personality cult and i don't adore nietzsche at all (that's why i say he wrote a lot of gibberish), but we have to acknowledge it when someone was just ahead of his time.

[A.R.Amistad]

Nietzsche never asserted that those in power deserve to be in power. He had lots of disdain for politicians and the wealthy, and he considered them weak. "Power" and "weakness" mean something completely different to Nietzsche than economic and political terms. Nietzsche describes noble people as authentic people who recognize their existence in the world and create their own meaning "without God." This had nothing to do with class or political power.

[Turinbaar]

It's important to know that when Nietzsche talks about socialism, he's talking about pre-Marxian socialism, which was a hodge-podge of all sorts of nutty ideas. It's too bad Nietzsche never actually engaged with Marx's ideas, but I have a vague feeling he would have been sympathized with the bolsheviks.

Actually Lenin was quite found of Nietzsche and you can detect hints of "beyond good and evil" in his comments on morality in relation to class and revolution. One of Marx's contemporaries, Max Stirner, was perhaps what you might call the Nietzsche in the era pre-death of God, and a fellow young Hegelian. Marx's critique of his work is quite useful in understanding what a debate with Nietzsche might have looked like.

[More Fire for the People]

Nietzsche is over-rated. His thoughts are somewhat interesting and he has some insights to offer but his cult over-zealously worships him.

[black magick hustla]

Nietzsche is over-rated. His thoughts are somewhat interesting and he has some insights to offer but his cult over-zealously worships him.

Why would he be overrated? His thought was very original and groundbreaking for his time.

[Zanthorus]

Why would he be overrated? His thought was very original and groundbreaking for his time.

Except Stirner had a lot of the same basic ideas before him.

[A.R.Amistad]

Nietzsche is over-rated. His thoughts are somewhat interesting and he has some insights to offer but his cult over-zealously worships him.

I agree, and Nietzsche would despise his supposed "followers," the hyper-individualists and "might is right" types." Nietzsche would have seen them as possessing a slave morality.


Why would he be overrated? His thought was very original and groundbreaking for his time.

I like Nietzsche OK, but his thought wasn't all that ground breaking. In fact, it really isn't all that applicable (which is why it gets distorted into things like fascist politics). From what I read, basically Nietzsche confines himself to debating theology and theologians, and his philosophy deals with questions of God and not much else.


Actually Lenin was quite found of Nietzsche and you can detect hints of "beyond good and evil" in his comments on morality in relation to class and revolution. One of Marx's contemporaries, Max Stirner, was perhaps what you might call the Nietzsche in the era pre-death of God, and a fellow young Hegelian. Marx's critique of his work is quite useful in understanding what a debate with Nietzsche might have looked like.

Do you have any stuff on this? I am not debating you, I have read one quote where Lenin references Nietzsche in passing, but has he ever spoken extensively on him? I'm becoming more interested in Nietzsche's philosophy so this would be neat.

[Turinbaar]

Do you have any stuff on this? I am not debating you, I have read one quote where Lenin references Nietzsche in passing, but has he ever spoken extensively on him? I'm becoming more interested in Nietzsche's philosophy so this would be neat.

Apparently I can't post links, but if you google "Arthur Bullard Lenin Nietzsche" the first link is a google books excerpt detailing what I was talking about. Arthur Bullard was a liberal who lived with lenin while he was in exile in london. Page six (the paragraph with the *) is about Lenin and Nietzsche.

[A.R.Amistad]

Apparently I can't post links, but if you google "Arthur Bullard Lenin Nietzsche" the first link is a google books excerpt detailing what I was talking about. Arthur Bullard was a liberal who lived with lenin while he was in exile in london. Page six (the paragraph with the *) is about Lenin and Nietzsche.

So what are your thoughts on Nietzsche?

[Turinbaar]

So what are your thoughts on Nietzsche?

I posted this in the "anti-theist" group discussion about Nietzsche.

It's interesting that the secular apology for religion, and even the religious defense of itself, uses Nietzche as their intellectual foundation, if his work can even be called that. Nietzche simply concedes religion's main argument, which is that God and the Truth are one, just as God, and the Good are one, and the by basing those ideals on a diety, one can "ground" them objectively. He, like the religious, fail to see that a Diety offers no objective standard for truth,or morality, because by being a conscious intentional entity, God is by definition an arbitrator whose "truthiness" and moral standards are entirely subjective to his will. So far as our scientists know, the fundamental constants of the universe do not change, and if these laws were to change just a fraction then everything would be destroyed, but God is reported to have suspended these laws on several occasions throughout history and throughout anthropology. God may order "do no murder" be carved into stone, and then order his chosen people to commit genocide. It's entirely arbitrary, and not even attempt at objectively grounding standards of truth and goodness.

In other words I find most of Nietzsche's ideas to be simplistic and superficial. If you read Marx's critique of Stirner you'd pretty much understand what I feel about Nietzsche.

[Ocean Seal]

What is the ape/monkey to man? A laughing-stock or a painful shame. And just such will man be when compared to the 'Uebermensch': a laughing-stock or a painful shame..

Some of Nietzsche's quotes might seem elitist at first glance, but Nietzsche often painted a picture that the world did not want to see simply so that they would be forced to look at their own defects. It is often difficult to find Nietzsche's position that is if he had one at all on certain, because he was very critical of many things in society and well in everything. When he spoke of the Ubermensch I believe that he was criticizing the new elite who believed themselves a cut above the rest. In any case I have not studied Nietzsche much so I suppose that there is a deeper interpretation.
However, for negatives Nietzsche was accused of anti-feminism I suppose that's up for debate too.

[A.R.Amistad]

Some of Nietzsche's quotes might seem elitist at first glance, but Nietzsche often painted a picture that the world did not want to see simply so that they would be forced to look at their own defects. It is often difficult to find Nietzsche's position that is if he had one at all on certain, because he was very critical of many things in society and well in everything. When he spoke of the Ubermensch I believe that he was criticizing the new elite who believed themselves a cut above the rest. In any case I have not studied Nietzsche much so I suppose that there is a deeper interpretation.
However, for negatives Nietzsche was accused of anti-feminism I suppose that's up for debate too.

Although I admire a lot of Nietzche's works and ideas, I am not without my criticism of some of them, even his fundamental ideas. But the thing about Neitzche is is that he wanted to be read in depth and in context or not at all. Also, you have to realise much of the anti-society comments, particularly his "anti-semitism" were falsifications drawn up posthumously by his ill-minded sister and her proto-Fascist husband, both of whom did not understand Neitzche one bit.

[burnmyremains]

I like Nietzsche's thoughts on morality and faith but don't see why he had an influence on german militarism and national socialism.

[Durruti's Ghost]

I've always found Nietzsche's most important insight to be that morality changes over time (though I'm not sure if this insight was really his or if it was simply borrowed from someone). However, AFAIK, he does not ascribe a material cause to the process by which this happens, leaving his explanation of the process itself vague and underdeveloped.

[MilkmanofHumanKindness]

I think it's important to remember that Nietzsche himself did not promote Master Morality as being correct. Nietzsche merely states that it was infinitely better than the morality of Slaves. Nietzsche never actually was able to put forth his own theory of morality, as he had a mental breakdown before he ever wrote it.

[TheSamsquatch]

What makes Nietzsche so great to me, is the fact that he simply rejected Christian morality. (Not just the moral ideals of it, Christianity as a whole as well.) In my opinion, morality is necessary only to turn a man into a cog that society can benefit from.

[A.R.Amistad]

So, what are peoples thoughts on Nietzsche and Marxism? I think they are more than compatible, as long as no one tries to apply Nietzsche's philosophy to history. I thin his ideas of the Noble versus "Slave" mentality is consistent with Marxist socialism as long as it is not interpreted biologically, racially, etc. (which it wasn't supposed to be). Like I said, I don't agree with all that he said, but I see no real major contention between Nietzsche and Marx, since Marx was no Utopian.

[TheSamsquatch]

Although I'm totally enthralled by both of them, Nietzsche's philosophy was definitely one for the individual. As opposed to Karl Marx's, which would call for unity among peoples who share a very similar outlook on the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie situation. Not to say that they aren't compatible in some ways though.

[ZeroNowhere]

What makes Nietzsche so great to me, is the fact that he simply rejected Christian morality. (Not just the moral ideals of it, Christianity as a whole as well.) In my opinion, morality is necessary only to turn a man into a cog that society can benefit from.
What's the problem with that, though?

[A.R.Amistad]

Although I'm totally enthralled by both of them, Nietzsche's philosophy was definitely one for the individual. As opposed to Karl Marx's, which would call for unity among peoples who share a very similar outlook on the Proletariat/Bourgeoisie situation. Not to say that they aren't compatible in some ways though.

But see, thats the thing. I don't see why people think that Marx or Marxists re against "individuals" or "individuality." To deny individuals or people's individual drives would be Utopian. But it is important that we have view of individuality distinct from the bourgeois notion, which is false. In some way or another, bourgeois notion is tied up with alienation from peoples own labor and passion, and focuses "individuality" on private property and capital (which is not individual since it is not human). Marx understood this in his theory of Alienation and commodity fetishism. Beyond that Marx wasn't concerned with the individual the same way Neitzche was. After all, "men make their own history." Marx didn't deny the role of individuals, he just put forth historical materialism and a theory of socialism that was rooted in historical materialism, which accurately explains the evolution of the human condition, from which we develop our individuality. Neitzche's ideas on individuality seem beneficial to Marxist theory, especially since it rejects the fatalist myth of "Human Nature." And "equality" can only mean material equality in society, beyond that it becomes a utopian phrase. Everyone must live 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,' but from that it is up to people themselves to become noble and passionate in their lives. And even in capitalist society, and later proletarian democracy, it will be noble personalities who will form the vanguard of the revolution to win the masses, since as lenin said, an idea that captures the masses becomes a material force.

[A.R.Amistad]

Personally, wht I lie about Nietzche is the belief that man creaates his own individuality and essence, the transvaluation of values, etc.

[TheSamsquatch]

What's the problem with that, though?

Well, it's kind of like Chomsky said, that there is constant pressure to believe that one's only purpose in society is to consume and perform labor. We've been trained to believe that in any and all cases helpfulness is 'good' and hurtfulness is 'bad'. This is to directly benefit society more so than the individual. Thus we are all cogs, and nobody is truly free unless they break themselves of this innate morality.
In Marx's eyes, the proletarians are a large group, and in the name of unity one must think for the group more so than the individual. It would take cooperation to make it work.
Nietzsche sees things differently. His philosophy is individualist, you must be an Ubermensch, a creator of your own values.
That's my interpretation at least.

[TheSamsquatch]

But see, thats the thing. I don't see why people think that Marx or Marxists re against "individuals" or "individuality." To deny individuals or people's individual drives would be Utopian. But it is important that we have view of individuality distinct from the bourgeois notion, which is false. In some way or another, bourgeois notion is tied up with alienation from peoples own labor and passion, and focuses "individuality" on private property and capital (which is not individual since it is not human). Marx understood this in his theory of Alienation and commodity fetishism. Beyond that Marx wasn't concerned with the individual the same way Neitzche was. After all, "men make their own history." Marx didn't deny the role of individuals, he just put forth historical materialism and a theory of socialism that was rooted in historical materialism, which accurately explains the evolution of the human condition, from which we develop our individuality. Neitzche's ideas on individuality seem beneficial to Marxist theory, especially since it rejects the fatalist myth of "Human Nature." And "equality" can only mean material equality in society, beyond that it becomes a utopian phrase. Everyone must live 'from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs,' but from that it is up to people themselves to become noble and passionate in their lives. And even in capitalist society, and later proletarian democracy, it will be noble personalities who will form the vanguard of the revolution to win the masses, since as lenin said, an idea that captures the masses becomes a material force.

I understand what you mean. I think the direct goal of Marxism is equality in the truest sense of the word. In Marxist society, you can be an individual, and understand that anybody and everybody can be. It is the freedom to be an individual for everyone that defines Egalitarianism.