Nietzsche

[Yefim Zverev]

Simply: a winner ? or a loser ?

The op (me) voted for "loser"
I read a lot from him.

Pros:
He has some reasonable intelligence for sure, in many sentences he touches your heart deep like Dostoyevsky does. He is good in literature.
But in the end you can not make any assumption.

Cons:

-He does not have any clear philosophy that you can name.
-He rather writes like in a holy book.
-He is too much obsessed with christianity and writes a lot connected to that.
-He sounds too prophetic with a higher tone.
-With his style he inspired alot post-modernism
-Inspired individualism
-Inspired Fascism
-Übermensch (hell yes)
-His ideas perfectly cooperate with capitalism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism that s what he must have wished.
-He was too unrealistic and way too idealistic even past Platon.
-Wannabe aristocrat
-Being behind the ass of Wagner. Wannabe composer. Unsuccessful so go go Übermensch theory and find satisfaction in dreams end of story this last sentence explains why he was such a loser.
-Because honestly his philosophy in total was so weak, he chose such a vague and rhetorical, prophetical language where even germans most of the time barely understood him. Yet he claimed as being such a higher being that he would be understood many years later. A rare arrogance and ego hell yes.

In the end he was a loser in life. He was a prole and his philosophy could get him nowhere and not the humanity either. It is there to cause confusion, his philosophy just another useless obstacle before Marxism. Nietzsche is only good for kids of petite-bourg people. End of story.

Loser is loser. Those who vote for "winner" are petite burg. kids. Enjoying Nietzsche and his übermensch individualism ambitions.

[JustMovement]

Complete loser in life.

Winner in being a general philosophical legend/maniac.

I voted winner.

[Deicide]

Complete loser in life.

Why? He became a professor at the age of 24.. He's still one of the youngest tenured professors on record.

Regardless, the poll is silly.

[Azraella]

Simply: a winner ? or a loser ?


I dislike him.

I prefer philosophers like Spinoza or Hume.

[Anarpest]

It is clear that we have a sophisticated philosophical discussion on our hands.

That aside, I think that Nietzsche did have some interesting ideas relevant to socialist and, more specifically, anarchist theory, but this doesn't necessarily seem the best place to go into that in much detail. So, winner.

[The Jay]

His ideas were good enough to inspire this poll, so winner.

[Luís Henrique]

Obviously a draw.

Against whom was the game, btw?

Luís Henrique

[Vigilante]

He is a winner in philosophy. Don't know much about his life.

[hatzel]

Nietzsche was (and is) a fucking boss. If you're not a Nietzschean of some description you have absolutely no place in the 21st century, let alone amongst the radicals...

[Blake's Baby]

He's a winner, because egotistical neo-fascist ideas are very current. So, yeah, definitely a winner, but a fucking vile human being. Fuck Nietzsche and all who sail in her.

[Grenzer]

He's a winner, because egotistical neo-fascist ideas are very current. So, yeah, definitely a winner, but a fucking vile human being. Fuck Nietzsche and all who sail in her.

Have to say man, very disappointed to see you write this.

This is the kind of thing that only people who are entirely ignorant of Nietzsche's works and listen to the usual liberal propaganda say. After Nietzsche became incapacitated in 1889, his sister took charge of his literary estate. I believe she was essentially a proto-Nazi and presented his works in a way to be sympathetic to her ideas, but the reality is that Nietzsche's work endorse no such philosophy. He actually admired the Jews and was quite critical of authoritarian ideology, and hell, ideology in general.

Of course 99% of Marxists would just instantly write him off as a "bourgeois thinker" as they do with anything they dislike, but it's actually quite interesting to see what he had to say about Marxists. He did hold some reactionary views, particularly in regards to women, so it goes without saying that he should be criticized in that respect; but then as I recall, even Marx and Engels held some reactionary views.

[hatzel]

After Nietzsche became incapacitated in 1889, his sister took charge of his literary estate. I believe she was essentially a proto-Nazi and presented his works in a way to be sympathetic to her ideas, but the reality is that Nietzsche's work endorse no such philosophy

It's worth mentioning that Freddy himself wrote a load of stuff pointing out how his sister and all her racialist buddies were (to paraphrase) a bunch of fucking dickheads dragging humanity towards its own downfall, that is to say, they were the very people his whole philosophy intended to destroy. This isn't even a matter of us having to find sympathetic interpretations of Nietzsche's work, it's a matter of looking at his explicit statements that these people were pathetic wastes of oxygen. Okay that's not a quote but you know what I'm saying here...

[Ostrinski]

Well, without Nietzsche I wouldn't have ever gotten into Marxism because Nietzsche got me into philosophy in general (I was a mindless rebel at 15) so I gotta give him some credit. I also like quoting Nietzsche around religious folk.

[Grenzer]

It's worth mentioning that Freddy himself wrote a load of stuff pointing out how his sister and all her racialist buddies were (to paraphrase) a bunch of fucking dickheads dragging humanity towards its own downfall, that is to say, they were the very people his whole philosophy intended to destroy. This isn't even a matter of us having to find sympathetic interpretations of Nietzsche's work, it's a matter of looking at his explicit statements that these people were pathetic wastes of oxygen. Okay that's not a quote but you know what I'm saying here...

I only started reading Nietzsche about a month ago after I asked you about your views. I got into it furiously and found it to be incredibly fucking relevant to the world today. As much as Marxism, if not more so in certain respects. He really points out the limit of world views such as materialism and scientism(which seems to be a big problem on the left, as you are aware); and if I'm not mistaken, points out that it is not a fundamental break with the earlier "bourgeois" thinkers of the Scientific Revolution or previous thought. He also made some very acute critiques of Marxism, which I think should be helpful whether one considers themselves to be a Marxist or not.

I consider myself to be a Nietzschean before a Marxist, personally.

[Yuppie Grinder]

Nietzsche was (and is) a fucking boss. If you're not a Nietzschean of some description you have absolutely no place in the 21st century, let alone amongst the radicals...
That's rather close-minded of you.

I don't find much to agree with when reading the man, but I respect that he's of enormous importance to the development of continental philosophy. The master/slave ideology bit, his misogyny, and his nonsensical nihilism based around the idea that "Purpose is subjective(No shit, Shirlock) so it mustn't exist" all bother me, especially the last bit.
While he was responsible for doing away with many of the stubborn viewpoints of western philosophy that didn't have much basis in reality (strict dualist morality, for one), he failed to escape the classic misunderstanding of purpose as something that can only be derived from some fantastic metaphysical order (divinity, mainly). He sees no metaphysical order, and therefore sees real no purpose.
The material world is not a confining thing. If the world really were governed by a god or some fantastic metaphysical order, that would be awfully confining.

[Grenzer]

It seems to me that presumption of the supremacy of materialism is itself metaphysical.

[Ostrinski]

"Existence is ass."- Nietzsche

[zoot_allures]

He seems like a bit of a loser to me, and I think his philosophical work pretty much sucks.

[Ostrinski]

Where is August? I think he is a big fan of Nietzsche

[Rooster]

I found an article that Trotsky wrote about him if anyone is interested:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/trotsky/1900/12/nietzsche.htm

[hatzel]

That's rather close-minded of you.

Ah...is there some reason I should care? I mean seriously, why should this make any difference to me? Why can't I be 'closed-minded' in this case, when our being on this site is proof enough that we are 'closed-minded' enough to reject non-revolutionary non-leftist systems of thought? Why should I not forward my opinion, namely that those who have seemingly ignored philosophy for the last 100+ years (and there's literally no way you can escape Nietzsche if you've engaged with any of the 20th century's radical ideas) are of limited use to contemporary revolutionary movements? Simply because outdated wasters disagree? I'm sorry; we can't wait around for the stragglers, as we push on regardless...

[Grenzer]

I found an article that Trotsky wrote about him if anyone is interested:

http://www.cddc.vt.edu/marxists/archive/trotsky/1900/12/nietzsche.htm

Jeezus.

I guess Trotsky is as bad at philosophy as he is with basic Marxist economics.

[blake 3:17]

Thanks for the Trotsky reference. Emma Goldman wrote on him around the same time, but in much friendlier way.

Many of the Marxists of the time objected to Nietzsche for lack of system more than anything else.

[La Comédie Noire]

We found 11 unpublished novels about a character called the "Ubermensch" who "has a million friends."

Guy was a total loser in life, but he was really funny.

[Yefim Zverev]

You have to lose in life to win in philosophy

(Not the Stalin way of life :) )

[seventeethdecember2016]

Nietzche? The guy who coined the term Ubermensch? He's a loser!

[lombas]

Perspectivism being the basis of postmodernism, anyone not grasping or appreciating the practical side of it basically denies his own current existance.

[Yefim Zverev]

The op (me) voted for "loser"
I read a lot from him.

Pros:
He has some reasonable intelligence for sure, in many sentences he touches your heart deep like Dostoyevsky does. He is good in literature.
But in the end you can not make any assumption.

Cons:

-He does not have any clear philosophy that you can name.
-He rather writes like in a holy book.
-He is too much obsessed with christianity and writes a lot connected to that.
-He sounds too prophetic with a higher tone.
-With his style he inspired alot post-modernism
-Inspired individualism
-Inspired Fascism
-Übermensch (hell yes)
-His ideas perfectly cooperate with capitalism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism that s what he must have wished.
-He was too unrealistic and way too idealistic even past Platon.
-Wannabe aristocrat
-Being behind the ass of Wagner. Wannabe composer. Unsuccessful so go go Übermensch theory and find satisfaction in dreams end of story this last sentence explains why he was such a loser.
-Because honestly his philosophy in total was so weak, he chose such a vague and rhetorical, prophetical language where even germans most of the time barely understood him. Yet he claimed as being such a higher being that he would be understood many years later. A rare arrogance and ego hell yes.

In the end he was a loser in life. He was a prole and his philosophy could get him nowhere and not the humanity either. It is there to cause confusion, his philosophy just another useless obstacle before Marxism. Nietzsche is only good for kids of petite-bourg people. End of story.

Loser is loser. Those who vote for "winner" are petite burg. kids. Enjoying Nietzsche and his übermensch individualism ambitions.

[Thirsty Crow]

It seems to me that presumption of the supremacy of materialism is itself metaphysical.
Which leaves us with the option of epistemological relativism.
And that doesn't get any shit done, as opposed to materialism, i.e. science. All the talk of the inherent limitations of an epostemology is well and good, but the simple fact is that human practices mediates and tests epistemologies.

As far as Nietzsche is concerned, I once held him up to a high regard, without actually bothering to move beyond the impressionistic, superficial stage of understanding his work (and this mainly writing into it, and not reading out if it). Maybe the crucial question is whether the Will to Power should be considered as an integral part of his work, and if it is, then we have a problem. Namely, from memory, I can say that I found that piece very troublesome as it ventured into politics quite a bit (people should really disregard that stuff about Nietzsche abhorring politics). As a passionate opponent of the French revolution and the herd, it's as if he engaged in a philosophical defense of some practices of the feudal aristocratic structures of power. It's been some time since I read that work and take all of this with more than a pinch of salt.

But I'd like to hear just how his ideas are especially relevant for "radicals" nowadays since I'm actually of the opposite opinion.

[Yefim Zverev]

The guys is not actually only a loser but he is also an idol for losers that s where the importance of this thread starts

[hatzel]

-He does not have any clear philosophy that you can name.

:laugh:

Are you sure the problem isn't...like...that you just don't understand it?


-He rather writes like in a holy book.Problem?


-He is too much obsessed with christianity and writes a lot connected to that.And Marx just never stopped blabbering on about socialism all the time! GET A NEW SONG!!!

Anyway I get the feeling you haven't read much of his stuff.


-He sounds too prophetic with a higher tone.Oh now you're just repeating yourself. Before: holy book. Now: prophetic. That's the same. Anyway I see no reason people should write dumbed-down texts unless they're writing for idiots.


-With his style he inspired alot post-modernismOh nooooo! End of the wooooorld!


-Inspired individualismIs that so? Because I'm pretty sure he kind of ruled out the very possibility of individualism when he destroyed the notion of the subject. But even if it were so...what's wrong with that? Are we forbidden from being individuals or something?


-Inspired FascismAs did socialism. And in fact Nietzsche's impact was felt in pretty much all political and apolitical currents. That's what happens when you're good at what you do.


-Übermensch (hell yes)And that's a problem why? :confused:

I wouldn't be at all surprised if you don't know what that word even means, just so you know...


-His ideas perfectly cooperate with capitalism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism that s what he must have wished.Is that so? Because I'm pretty sure you just made that up; Liberalism in any form is the very antithesis of Nietzsche's thought, it is what his entire body of thought intended to destroy. That should be instantly obvious upon reading any of his works.


-He was too unrealistic and way too idealistic even past Platon....aaaaand you haven't read Nietzsche. Who was an anti-"idealist." All idealism is falsehood in the face of reality, boy.


Nietzsche is only good for kids of petite-bourg people. End of story.

Loser is loser. Those who vote for "winner" are petite burg. kids. Enjoying Nietzsche and his übermensch individualism ambitions.Sorry but this is probably the worst post this forum's ever seen. (EDIT: no actually you just did another post which takes the biscuit. So this is the second worst) Do you even pay attention to the words you type? Because I'm looking here and it's just noise and silliness and throwing in random buzzwords.

[Thirsty Crow]

Is that so? Because I'm pretty sure he kind of ruled out the very possibility of individualism when he destroyed the notion of the subject.
How did he destroy this simple grammatical category? :p
Or did he in fact destroy the philosophical notion of the subject? What are the consequences for human practice? How did he go about doing that?

I'd appreciate more clarity and a bit of a tidier presentation since you're basically claiming that fruitful radicalism is impossible without some kind of debt to Nietzsche (but yeah, I'm aware what you're deling with in the post I quoted).

[lombas]

-He does not have any clear philosophy that you can name.
-He was too unrealistic and way too idealistic even past Platon.


This really makes me wonder if you have ever read any of Nietzsche's books, and understood them?

[Rooster]

-Being behind the ass of Wagner.

This is only partially true. Nietzsche would go on to eventually dislike Wagner and his operas. I'm not even sure you know anything about the guy.

[Yefim Zverev]

I don't even need to respond to hatzel. He is a Nietzsche wanna be with that cynical tone. There are couple of those such I spotted in revleft just to be ignored at all. Petite bourg übermensch wannabe people. :)

Nietzsche had not even one concrete thought at all. Everything he wrote contradicted with each other. As a wannabe middle eastern prophet he wrote so vague as in holy books that everything he wrote could be understood in many ways. Nietzsche was an idealist even if he rejected that. China is ruled by communist party. Is it communist ?

Go read more Nietzsche. I highy regret reading so much Nietzsche in the past. Totally waste of time. Blabbering of a sick man who could not achieve anything on earth but found satisfaction in his übermensch idea which is the only mainline of his philosophy and simply chaotic and may be interpreted in may way. Useless.

[Yefim Zverev]

This is only partially true. Nietzsche would go on to eventually dislike Wagner and his operas. I'm not even sure you know anything about the guy.

Nietzsche was so blind in his jealousy to Aristocracy and natural talents that it does not matter if he did sometimes criticize it. You need to be mature in order to understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche is for ambitious kids who study in college and partially enjoying their deep intellectual philosophical thoughts and swimming in narcissism.

If you get older and still like Nietzsche then something is wrong with you. So if you are under 25 and petite bourg in a well fed imperialist/capitalist western country I perfectly understand that you like him.

[hatzel]

How did he destroy this simple grammatical category? :p

With a hammer, of course! :lol:


I'd appreciate more clarity and a bit of a tidier presentation since you're basically claiming that fruitful radicalism is impossible without some kind of debt to Nietzsche (but yeah, I'm aware what you're deling with in the post I quoted).This may be a question of...directness or indirectness. Example: Enrique Dussel said a few things about Nietzsche. I forget the exact quotes, but pretty early on in 'Philosophy of Liberation' Dussel accused Nietzsche's philosophy of effectively just being the last hurrah of the colonialist, the slave-holder, a frantic attempt to cling on to the dominance of the global core over the periphery, all that stuff. This may be a valid criticism, though there are certainly other readings. Given the explicitly 'peripheral' nature of Dussel's philosophy, though, as a rebellion against the colonialist, the slave-holder and the global core, this would appear to make Dussel and Nietzsche polar opposites, and would suggest that Dussel's primary intention is the destruction of 'Nietzschean' styles of thinking.

Despite this, Dussel also has no problem describing Nietzsche as a 'genius,' and he himself admits an indebtedness to various Nietzschean ideas. Which seems to go against...well, the other thing up there. There's a contradiction. But anybody who engages with Dussel would necessarily be engaging with a Nietzschean current, even if not with Nietzsche himself, and even if not consciously. In the same way anybody engaging with Goldman, Heidegger, Adorno, Foucault, Butler...is facing the shadow of Nietzsche. This should be obvious, given the prominence of Nietzsche in their thought. And I personally think a critical engagement with thinkers such as these and the philosophical currents running through them is necessary for the construction of a viable political project, hence I don't think it's possible to simultaneously escape Nietzsche whilst also retaining any real contemporary theoretical relevance.

At the same time, however, I don't think it's advisable to be simply a 'Nietzschean,' a committed adherent of Nietzsche's philosophy as it stood on the page back in the 19th century, as this individual too is irrelevant. To call Nietzsche the saviour of Earth or some shit like that would be crazy talk. To run around like a child wholly dismissing his legacy, however, may well be still crazier...

We could compare this situation to...I don't know, the writings of Luce Irigaray, which are simultaneously Freudian and anti-Freudian. Perhaps it would therefore be more suitable to say that 'fruitful radicalism' must be similarly Nietzschean and anti-Nietzschean. Here trying to avoid the word 'post-Nietzschean' because that sounds pretty stupid, though it does contain in it the suggestion of both a rejection and extension of Nietzsche's work, which means it's technically the perfect word to use here. Probably. Though it is also unfortunate in that it may be seen to elevate the engagement with Nietzsche alone as something central, as if it's more important than the engagement with other thinkers. To pluck a random example out of the air: Kierkegaard, whose philosophy is both inadequate and a vital component of contemporary thought.

I wouldn't raise Nietzsche (nor Kierkegaard for that matter, now that name's fallen into discussion for some reason) as a thinker who must be welcomed, only as one who mustn't be turned away...

[black magick hustla]

much more interesting than all the bullshit about "proletarian morality" and phony collectivism post-marx marxists were preaching on about. i rather read nietzche's juggernaut against moral mediocrity than the collective garbage of stakhanovism, "collectivism", and whatever other impoverished thoughts came out of people who worshipped fucking barracks.

[black magick hustla]

If you get older and still like Nietzsche then something is wrong with you. So if you are under 25 and petite bourg in a well fed imperialist/capitalist western country I perfectly understand that you like him.

you are from iran, speak english almost perfectly, and have enough money/time to waste on an internet connection. you aren't starving yourself motherfucker, i don't care if you come from iran or whatever

[Thirsty Crow]

Thanks for this exposition on the example of Dussel. And of course, due to a number of factors, readings which go into exactly opposite directions do tend to center on Friedrich, that much is clear.
But to press this issue further, I'd like to hear exactly which of Nietzsche's ideas are amenable to incorporation into a "philosophy" of emancipation both in the sense of the example of Dussel and a possible sense of proletarian emancipation (and forgive me for sticking to this issue, but I find it of utmost importance)



In the same way anybody engaging with Goldman, Heidegger, Adorno, Foucault, Butler...is facing the shadow of Nietzsche. This should be obvious, given the prominence of Nietzsche in their thought. And I personally think a critical engagement with thinkers such as these and the philosophical currents running through them is necessary for the construction of a viable political project, hence I don't think it's possible to simultaneously escape Nietzsche whilst also retaining any real contemporary theoretical relevance.Personally, I don't see why Heidegger or Adorno would be necessary for a critical confrontation as part of the elaboration of this political project. But I think I see what you mean with regard to the issue of Nietzsche's relevance for contemporary radicalism...it's just that I'd like to see two things:

1) an explanation of why the before mentioned authors are relevant for the elaboration of this political project (which implies the confrontation with "the Nietzsche in them") and

2) which specific ideas of Nietzsche's might be useful for such a project

[Grenzer]

Which leaves us with the option of epistemological relativism.
And that doesn't get any shit done, as opposed to materialism, i.e. science. All the talk of the inherent limitations of an epostemology is well and good, but the simple fact is that human practices mediates and tests epistemologies.

Thanks for the insight, it was interesting.

I'm well aware of the efficacy of materialism, which is why I use materialist analysis; but I am also aware of it's limitations. Those who presume the supremacy of materialism aren't really that much different than people who believe in a god in my opinion. I also don't think you can say materialism is science since I don't think there is anything about science which presupposes the world as a configuration of hard matter. Most people who are ontological materialists actually dismiss much of actually existing science as "bourgeois", without bothering to engage it on its on terms or make a serious analysis.

I cringe every time I see the statement: "Marxism is a science." Most actual scientists would probably disagree for reasons that have very little to do with politics. As previously mentioned, I think the materialist method is at this time the best way of analyzing the world; but at the same time I also have a big problem with those that put faith in it as being the ultimate truth.

The Will to Power is indeed somewhat problematic, as to my understanding it was a compilation of random, out-of-context writings put together and presented as if it were a true work. It's also important to take a critical view of his politics as you mentioned, and I would agree that in some regards they were reactionary; but again, didn't Marx advocate imperialism in India? Try to find a single 19th century figure that didn't hold some kind of reactionary political view.. I'd be surprised if there was one.

Yefim Zverev honestly seems like a troll. He's got a terrible, childish attitude, and whines that everyone who criticizes him are "trolling" or "flaming" him while he does the same. Why create a topic on Nietzsche when it's obvious that
1. He doesn't know anything about Nietzsche
2. Obviously has no intention of engaging in a constructive manner on the issue

[Thirsty Crow]

T Those who presume the supremacy of materialism aren't really that much different than people who believe in a god in my opinion.
I don't think it's valid to draw such an analogy.
And another problematic aspect is the notion of "supremacy". For instance, I do think that materialism, which is science (irrespective of the functional differentiation of actually existing sciences according to their field of research) is more suitable for both explaining existing things/phenomena/processes and for providing grounds for human intervention (for example, the intervention into nature via the development of technologies and techniques of production). Especially in the case of the latter the defficiencies of certain epistemologies are obvious. I don't think we should fall into the trap of trendy and essentially nihilistic epistemological relativism peddled by many of the post-modernist persuasion (nihilistic in that it actually enables completely contradictory statements about the real world to co-exist without bothering to posit the need for verification, which would lead to a clear evaulation of the merits of involved epistemologies).

Of course, there are fields of human life and experience which are closed off as far as science is concerned. For instance, the pervasive notion of "purpose" (of existence, for instance) can find no elaboration in science, and individuals necessarily cope with such question in other ways.


I also don't think you can say materialism is science since I don't think there is anything about science which presupposes the world as a configuration of hard matter. Most people who are ontological materialists actually dismiss much of actually existing science as "bourgeois", without bothering to engage it on its on terms or make a serious analysis.Science is materialism insofar as the basis for scientific inquiry, along procedures such as verification, is the position that the existing world actually exist irrespective of the work of the human brain - i.e. consciousness, as opposed to strands of idealism which would argue something along the lines of the existing empirical world being a product of the Absolute Idea. In that, science is inherently materialist, and it also delineates its field of operation.
And what can I say about those dismissals of existing science as "bourgeois"? Does it relate to their faulty methodology, faulty procedures of verification, faulty hypotheses? I think not and that's as much as I'm willing to say about such bullshit (which doesn't mean that there is no merit to the idea of the ideological function of science, or better yet, of particular sciences in borugeois society). From experience, I've found it almost impossible to engage such people who can't even bother to seriously address issues such as this one.


I cringe every time I see the statement: "Marxism is a science." Most actual scientists would probably disagree for reasons that have very little to do with politics. As previously mentioned, I think the materialist method is at this time the best way of analyzing the world; but at the same time I also have a big problem with those that put faith in it as being the ultimate truth.It depends on what they want to convey by this statement which can indeed induce serious cringing.
First of all, actual scientists might as well disagree with it due to the diferentition between so called natural and social sciences and humanities, the former being viewed as privileged areas and inherently scientific while the latter are exactly the opposite. This is the famous dillemma of the correspondance between scientific study of natural objects and processes and processes in human societies.


And with regard to the ultimate truth, the materialist, scientific method isn't "the truth" since it represents a set of rules, not empirical statements, but I think I see where you're going with this. In my opinion, notions such as "the ultimate truth" are quiote useless and I wouldn't bother with it, and nor do I regard this method as such.

[QUOTE=Grenzer;2400812]The Will to Power is indeed somewhat problematic, as to my understanding it was a compilation of random, out-of-context writings put together and presented as if it were a true work. It's also important to take a critical view of his politics as you mentioned, and I would agree that in some regards they were reactionary; but again, didn't Marx advocate imperialism in India? Try to find a single 19th century figure that didn't hold some kind of reactionary political view.. I'd be surprised if there was one.I'm not so sure about Marx and India but I'll take your word on it.
Even then, I don't think the analogy stands since in Nietzsche's case it is the core of his arguments in this compilation (and you rightly point to it being very problematic as part of the legacy of Nietzsche) are centered on notions of power which indiscriminately take the course I described.


Yefim Zverev honestly seems like a troll. He's got a terrible, childish attitude, and whines that everyone who criticizes him are "trolling" or "flaming" him while he does the same. Why create a topic on Nietzsche when it's obvious that
1. He doesn't know anything about Nietzsche
2. Obviously has no intention of engaging in a constructive manner on the issue
Yeah, a troll.

[Rooster]

Nietzsche was so blind in his jealousy to Aristocracy and natural talents that it does not matter if he did sometimes criticize it. You need to be mature in order to understand Nietzsche. Nietzsche is for ambitious kids who study in college and partially enjoying their deep intellectual philosophical thoughts and swimming in narcissism.

If you get older and still like Nietzsche then something is wrong with you. So if you are under 25 and petite bourg in a well fed imperialist/capitalist western country I perfectly understand that you like him.


Haha, fuck off. I like how you did not address anything that I said and then tried to throw some personal insults at me.

[Deicide]

So who didn't think Nietzsche was a bit of an asshole after reading the ''What is Noble?'' section of BGE?

[Rooster]

More to the point; why is Nietzsche on the marxist internet archive?

[Deicide]

Just wondering.. Was there any interaction between Nietzsche and Marx or/and Engels (or with any other marxists/communists/socialists)?

[Rooster]

Just wondering.. Was there any interaction between Nietzsche and Marx or/and Engels (or with any other marxists)?

Not as far as I know.

[KlassWar]

More to the point; why is Nietzsche on the marxist internet archive?


Probably cause some philosophy nerds started including random radical thinkers in the Archive? Plenty Marxists are philosophy nerds. :tt2:

[Decolonize The Left]

There's some good discussions going here, especially when you get past the OP's pathetic trolling. I'll jump in when I can but I'm so fucking hung-over right now I can barely sit up straight.

- August

[Rooster]

The one thing that I appreciate Nietzsche for is for giving me the idea of overcoming. I think this is comparable to the idea of the negation of the negation. And in the sense of marxism, it's not so much about being anti-capitalist but about overcoming capitalism. Not being anti-imperialist but overcoming imperialism, etc.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

much more interesting than all the bullshit about "proletarian morality" and phony collectivism post-marx marxists were preaching on about. i rather read nietzche's juggernaut against moral mediocrity than the collective garbage of stakhanovism, "collectivism", and whatever other impoverished thoughts came out of people who worshipped fucking barracks.

Like spoken from my mind!

When people claim Nietzsche to be some forrunner of fascism (particularly the historical german variety) I think it just exposes their lack of knowlege in Nietzsche´s work and/or lack of understanding of fascism as a social phenomenon. Honestly, it just says more of their feeble intellect as far as I´m concerned than anything.

Also, I´ve always interpreted his Ubermensch not as "superman" but as Overman. Being about overcoming your limitations and rising above shit but not some hero- worship.

Finally I would like to add that Trotsky´s article on Nietzsche is one of the most pathetic shit bullshit I´ve ever read. He can take his butterknife sharp wit and militarization of labour and shove it!

[Yefim Zverev]

nietzsche is for ambitious kids to feed their adolescent.. not for real men

[Rooster]

nietzsche is for ambitious kids to feed their adolescent.. not for real men

You don't even know how old I am. And you still haven't addressed anything.

[The Jay]

nietzsche is for ambitious kids to feed their adolescent.. not for real men

Using the term 'real men' stinks of patriarchy to me.

[Rafiq]

Virtually almost all serious bourgeois philosophers were Idealists, so that's no reason to to criticize them.

As a matter of fact, a lot of their concepts can be reversed (like Hegel's) in the service of materialism.

He's good. Especially on ethics.

I like him and Immanuel Kant.

[black magick hustla]

He wasn't an idealist. Read geneaology of morality.

[Os Cangaceiros]

I'm a casual reader of him, but I like some of the stuff he wrote. Especially some select passages from "The Gay Science".

He was a pretty funny troll. His claims of Christianity's Jewish nature would've scandalized his anti-semitic Victorian reader base...I also liked how he claimed that southern Europeans "civilized" the barbarian Teutonic peoples of Germany. Hard to imagine Nazis stomaching that.

But yes, from my understanding he did have a few rather unpleasant beliefs, including that socialism and the worker's movement was essentially pearls before swine.

[Thirsty Crow]

But yes, from my understanding he did have a few rather unpleasant beliefs, including that socialism and the worker's movement was essentially pearls before swine.
Againg, proceeding from the Will to Power, it seems to me that he essentially viewed socialism as secular Christianity, which in fact flies to the face of BMH's statement that he wasn't an idealist (it also seems pretty obvious to me how this assessment of socialism is in fact idealist).

[Os Cangaceiros]

A large part of my understanding of Nietzsche comes through Walter Kaufmann, though, admittedly. Some passages of his without the aid of editor's notes are puzzling to someone who doesn't read much philosophy.

[Os Cangaceiros]

This childish shit about whether Nietzsche was a "loser" or not, or whether Nietzsche is "for real men" is pretty dumb, too, I must say. :rolleyes:

[L.A.P.]

Why do people seem to talk about the Übermensch as if it's some fascist master-race concept? The Übermensch is the concept of being someone connected to the material world as opposed to the Christian man trying to be connected to other "worlds" such as heaven. Metaphysical truths and essence are supposed to be other things that stray people away from trying to live a full life in the material world. It has nothing to do with fascism, in fact it sounds quite compatible with communism.

[Rafiq]

He wasn't an idealist. Read geneaology of morality.

Well, to rephrase it, he certainly wasn't the same Materialist Marx was. There is more to Materialism than what the world is made of, you know.

[Decolonize The Left]

Againg, proceeding from the Will to Power, it seems to me that he essentially viewed socialism as secular Christianity, which in fact flies to the face of BMH's statement that he wasn't an idealist (it also seems pretty obvious to me how this assessment of socialism is in fact idealist).

Nietzsche most certainly wasn't an idealist as we understand the term. The major focus of his critique was contemporary idealism - most notably christianity (which he saw as the most perverted form of idealism). In short, his goals was to destroy the 'idols' (read: idealism) of the day.

But he wanted to do this because he saw the ideals humans were putting forth as twisted and self-denying; i.e. the idealism of the day was not serving humanity. He claimed that humans were serving the ideals instead. So he desired a better form of idealism, one which each human would make for themselves - a personal idealism, if you will. But note that this doesn't make him any less of a materialist, because for Nietzsche the material world was all there was. His point on the personal idealism is that humans cannot live without ideals - it's (and this is classic Nietzsche) what kind of ideals we are living with that matters. For Nietzsche it's always the how the ideals are made and for whom do they serve.

We are clear on the fact that modern idealism serves the ruling class as the ruling ideas are put forth by said class. So Nietzsche would effectively be the best tool for combating those ideals within the realm of idealism. He, of course, was not interested in 'the working class' and so the tactics employed by a modern Marxist would not be anywhere near the same as the tactics put forth by Nietzsche in a practical sense.

- August

[black magick hustla]

you can't live in the 21th century without being some sort of nietzchean. also, trotsky blows he was a moral midget

[gorillafuck]

I wish I was smart enough to read philosophy, philosophy is a great subject for really intelligent people!


edit: and uh, I voted neutral

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

I believe he is a "Winner" largely due to his large contrinutions to the Ideas of Exisentialism, which have made a very large impact on Human history. Besides that, I do have Existential Nihilistic tendencies.

[Rafiq]

I believe he is a "Winner" largely due to his large contrinutions to the Ideas of Exisentialism, which have made a very large impact on Human history. Besides that, I do have Existential Nihilistic tendencies.

Existential Nihilism...?

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Existential Nihilism...?

Yes, the philosophical doctrine that Life has no inherent meaning or purpose. It was practically created by Nietzche, but wasn't given a name until after his death.

I don't know if you would want to consider Wikipedia a reliable source, but here I recommend you look at this article, that is of course you don't know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, the philosophical doctrine that Life has no inherent meaning or purpose. It was practically created by Nietzche, but wasn't given a name until after his death.

I don't know if you would want to consider Wikipedia a reliable source, but here I recommend you look at this article, that is of course you don't know what it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existential_nihilism

Nietzsche was in no way, shape, or form, a nihilist. In fact, his entire philosophy of the eternal recurrence is an effort to destroy the slide into nihilism which he saw his society devolving into.

Furthermore, Nietzsche didn't create the idea that life has no inherent meaning or purpose - in fact, your link claims that Shakespeare expressed that idea long before Nietzsche ripped epistemology to shreds. What Nietzsche did express was the notion that all external ideals/morals are repressive to the human will, and 'absolute meaning' would fall under this in the sense that it is an idea put upon you by someone else in order to encourage your belief in some sort of meaning.

Nietzsche believed very much in meaning, and in shared meaning. But he believed that the most important thing was to create this meaning yourself. Hence the 'overcoming' of nihilism and the bridge to the superman. So Nietzsche was not an existential nihilist at all - in fact, he'd probably spit on that whole notion of developing some sort of generalized way of looking at things as weak and herd-like.

Why not make up your own creation story instead? Why not develop your own code of meaning? These are the hard questions which I think Nietzsche would want us to ask ourselves.

- August

[Grenzer]

Nietzsche was in no way, shape, or form, a nihilist. In fact, his entire philosophy of the eternal recurrence is an effort to destroy the slide into nihilism which he saw his society devolving into.


This, after the myth of fascism, is probably one of the most repeated misconceptions about Nietzsche around. We probably have adolescent-phase nihilism and pop culture to thank for that..

[L.A.P.]

We are clear on the fact that modern idealism serves the ruling class as the ruling ideas are put forth by said class. So Nietzsche would effectively be the best tool for combating those ideals within the realm of idealism. He, of course, was not interested in 'the working class' and so the tactics employed by a modern Marxist would not be anywhere near the same as the tactics put forth by Nietzsche in a practical sense.

In reagrds to that, look at the stuff he says in The Genealogy of Morality:

"Now the first argument that comes ready to my hand is that real homestead of the concept 'good' is sought and located in the wrong place: the judgement 'good' did not originate among those whom goodness was shown. Much rather has it been the good themselves, that is, the aristocratic, the powerful, the high-stationed, the high-minded, who have felt that they themselves were good, and that their actions were good, that is to say of the first order, in contradistinction to all the low , the low-minded, the vulgar, and the plebian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first arrogated the right to create values for their own profit, and to coin the names of such values: what had they to do with utility?"

How can anyone say this man was aristocratic and idealist?

[Thirsty Crow]

Nietzsche most certainly wasn't an idealist as we understand the term...
- August
This is all well and good, but it misses the point I tried to raise, which was very specific and not intended to paint him as a general idealist.
The thing is that his views on socialism employ a kind of an idealist analysis if you will. Arguing that socialism represents a kind of an secular Christianity can't stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous materialist methodology in thinking about social and political movements as it proceeds from the ideas put forth while essentially employing the unreliable, "impressionist" procedure of analogy. It misses out on both the differences of ideas and the real and practical differences. And that is to say nothing of the one-sidedness of his account of Christianity as a morality and ideology.
So, rather than being an obvious metaphysical hack, which he indeed wasn't in many respects, it seems that he indeed didn't remain imune from what we can broadly call the ideliast mode of thought or analysis of social, historical phenomena.

[Decolonize The Left]

This is all well and good, but it misses the point I tried to raise, which was very specific and not intended to paint him as a general idealist.
The thing is that his views on socialism employ a kind of an idealist analysis if you will. Arguing that socialism represents a kind of an secular Christianity can't stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous materialist methodology in thinking about social and political movements as it proceeds from the ideas put forth while essentially employing the unreliable, "impressionist" procedure of analogy.

I'm interested in what you're trying to say, but that sentence is extremely convoluted and I can't follow. He did argue in a sense that socialism (as he understood it) was a kind of secular Christianity. This had to do with the morals put forth by the socialists of the time, not with anything else.

Again, Nietzsche is valuating moral systems according to their health and how they work with, or against, the human animal. This critique is both idealistic and materialist - in fact, it resides at the juncture of the two.


It misses out on both the differences of ideas and the real and practical differences.

As I just wrote, Nietzsche wasn't interested in a complete and coherent critique of socialism. He only devoted like two or three amorphisms to the topic and his treatment of the idea is quick and passing.


And that is to say nothing of the one-sidedness of his account of Christianity as a morality and ideology.

Perhaps another topic...

- August

[L.A.P.]

This is all well and good, but it misses the point I tried to raise, which was very specific and not intended to paint him as a general idealist.
The thing is that his views on socialism employ a kind of an idealist analysis if you will. Arguing that socialism represents a kind of an secular Christianity can't stand up to the scrutiny of rigorous materialist methodology in thinking about social and political movements as it proceeds from the ideas put forth while essentially employing the unreliable, "impressionist" procedure of analogy. It misses out on both the differences of ideas and the real and practical differences. And that is to say nothing of the one-sidedness of his account of Christianity as a morality and ideology.
So, rather than being an obvious metaphysical hack, which he indeed wasn't in many respects, it seems that he indeed didn't remain imune from what we can broadly call the ideliast mode of thought or analysis of social, historical phenomena.

I think it's agreeable even among proponents of Nietzsche that his arguments against socialism were weak, and he mainly was referring to utopian socialism (which really was pretty similar to secularized Christian values). I think another poster mentioned this too that Nietzsche's complete silence on Marx's work just shows that he didn't have much room to talk about socialism, and he didn't really spend too much time talking about socialism anyways.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

In reagrds to that, look at the stuff he says in The Genealogy of Morality:

"Now the first argument that comes ready to my hand is that real homestead of the concept 'good' is sought and located in the wrong place: the judgement 'good' did not originate among those whom goodness was shown. Much rather has it been the good themselves, that is, the aristocratic, the powerful, the high-stationed, the high-minded, who have felt that they themselves were good, and that their actions were good, that is to say of the first order, in contradistinction to all the low , the low-minded, the vulgar, and the plebian. It was out of this pathos of distance that they first arrogated the right to create values for their own profit, and to coin the names of such values: what had they to do with utility?"

How can anyone say this man was aristocratic and idealist?

I agree. I never saw Nietzsche as some aristocracy worshipper, it´s a very bad and superficial reading. Nietzsche demands careful and interpretive reading.

Many may disagree with me here but I´ve never seen as strong undermining and exposition of bourgeois morality as Nietzsches criticism of morality. I find his analysis of master and slave morality to fit perfectly my own "marxist" understanding and expirience of today´s capitalist ideological "superstructure". "Freedom", "individuality" and all sorts of "rights" are for the upper class, while duties, submission and oppressive communalism are what is forced upon the working classes and other layers of similar social standing.
So Nietzsche and Marx mutually reinforce my communist conclusion that in order to live a "life- affirming" life we must overthrow the bourgeoisie and destroy capitalism for our own sake. Maybe this comes across for some as some bastardised idealist version of marxism, but so be it. I also share Nietzsches contempt for utilitarianism, I think it´s a very life- denying doctrine and oppressive. Fuck Bentham, Mill and all their pathetic disciples.

[La Comédie Noire]

Nietzsche is important because he elucidated the subtle yet much more dangerous consequences of excessive morality. You should follow a moralistic and philosophical system because it benefits you in some way and you should be very weary of any system that wants you to give more than you take. Whereas past philosophers thought it was merely a matter of finding the "right" moral system, Nietzsche's solution was to critisize all moral systems and create a synthesis that works for you.

Now he did not mean by this an extreme form of idealism where anything goes and all ideas are equal, but a much more pragmatic attitude towards morals which treats them as tools to be changed where applicable, not as idols to be worshiped for all time. Of course he also warns against this very process of picking and choosing and how it can be used to justify anything or reinterpret anyone.

Case in point, those leftists who think they can somehow paint Nietzsche as a pro-socialist man of the people. He most certainly wasn't. He wants you to take him in full "warts and all," certainly you may take what you like, but by no means does that mean he wants you to do him the disservice of misinterpreting him.

This enlightened view of morality sticks in the craw of the really hard lined Communists and even some Anarchists who think political action should be about self-sacrifice. Especially that special brand of crazy, Maoism Third-Worldism, that sees Nietzsche as the result of Western decadence and like Christianity would rather see you waste your vital life energies feeling guilty.

[Revolutionary_Marxist]

Nietzsche was in no way, shape, or form, a nihilist. In fact, his entire philosophy of the eternal recurrence is an effort to destroy the slide into nihilism which he saw his society devolving into.

Furthermore, Nietzsche didn't create the idea that life has no inherent meaning or purpose - in fact, your link claims that Shakespeare expressed that idea long before Nietzsche ripped epistemology to shreds. What Nietzsche did express was the notion that all external ideals/morals are repressive to the human will, and 'absolute meaning' would fall under this in the sense that it is an idea put upon you by someone else in order to encourage your belief in some sort of meaning.

Nietzsche believed very much in meaning, and in shared meaning. But he believed that the most important thing was to create this meaning yourself. Hence the 'overcoming' of nihilism and the bridge to the superman. So Nietzsche was not an existential nihilist at all - in fact, he'd probably spit on that whole notion of developing some sort of generalized way of looking at things as weak and herd-like.

Why not make up your own creation story instead? Why not develop your own code of meaning? These are the hard questions which I think Nietzsche would want us to ask ourselves.

- August

You're right, I guess I took some sources claiming that he was a Nihilist too literal, but am I right about him being an Existentialist?

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

You're right, I guess I took some sources claiming that he was a Nihilist too literal, but am I right about him being an Existentialist?

Isn´t the Existentialist term mainly used for the 20th century French school of thought?

I wouldn´t call him an "existentialist" but he is a clear influence on existentialism and is often (perhaps rightfully) considered one of it´s main predecessors.

[Doflamingo]

I enjoy reading his quotes, although I don't exactly agree with all of his philosophy. I'm going to go with neutral on this one.

[Decolonize The Left]

You're right, I guess I took some sources claiming that he was a Nihilist too literal, but am I right about him being an Existentialist?

No, in the same way that Kierkegaard was not an existentialist as the term "existentialism" didn't exist. Both of them, K and N, are widely considered the most important precursors to existentialism, although neither of them would be called an existentialist for two reasons: 1) the term didn't exist and the existentialist philosophy had not been established, 2) they each had a coherent individual philosophy distinct from what we now call existentialism.

- August

[Anarpest]

You should follow a moralistic and philosophical system because it benefits you in some way and you should be very weary of any system that wants you to give more than you take. Isn't that a bit backwards? 'You should follow a moralistic system because it follows these criteria' seems to presuppose a moralistic system.

[La Comédie Noire]

Isn't that a bit backwards? 'You should follow a moralistic system because it follows these criteria' seems to presuppose a moralistic system.

Well yes humans can never be value free and you may end up picking a moral and philosophic system based on some of the criteria of the prior system. For Instance, someone who was a Christian may feel comfortable with converting to another sect of Christianity than say to Hinduism. But if your particular sect of Christianity wants you to starve and beat yourself and feel guilty all the time, you may want to move to a more moderate, less demanding sect.

[Luís Henrique]

Which leaves us with the option of epistemological relativism.

Which, of course, is metaphysical too.

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

fucking barracks

Wow, these must be a triumph of architecture. Might you have any pictures?

Luís Henrique

[Luís Henrique]

nietzsche is for ambitious kids to feed their adolescent.. not for real men

Real men are not for real men.

Luís Henrique

[Questionable]

I've been looking at Nietzsche for the first time recently, but I'm getting mixed messages.

One is the version I thought he was, where he's just a nazi who believes that "masters" have the right to rule over the weaker "slaves" and stuff like democracy and kindness are just concepts created by slaves so they won't be ruled by masters.

Another version, which people who enjoy him are putting across, says he just believes people should always be freethinkers, and the "ubermensch" is merely someone who recognizes that morality must serve him, not the other way around. Which makes a lot of sense, and seems compatible with leftism.

Where can I learn more about him? His books are a bit too complicated for me to dive right into. Are there any reading guides or websites to help?

[Trap Queen Voxxy]

It is clear that we have a sophisticated philosophical discussion on our hands.

That aside, I think that Nietzsche did have some interesting ideas relevant to socialist and, more specifically, anarchist theory, but this doesn't necessarily seem the best place to go into that in much detail. So, winner.

The above sums it up pretty well. Me personally, I disagree with some of the con points listed in the OP though.

[TrotskistMarx]

Nietzsche is a winner. He is the philosopher of the superman. I believe that the superman stage, will be the communist-anarchist stage. Anarchist-communism and the theory of The Superman are compatible.

The thing is that most people in this world are too weak, too scared, too lazy for Nietzsche's philosopher of strength, power and optimism. Even leftists are too pessimists, too sectarian and are full of pessimism, weakness, sectarianism, utopianism, hatred, and many other negative emotions that are really impediment for the creation of a United Socialist Fifth International Front all over the world

He also stressed the importance of the diet and the physiology. And many people out there even in the left, think that they can overthrow the capitalist system with pure theories or by offending capitalists and offending other leftists.

People in this world are a big mess, mentally, spiritually and physically. I think that the sectarianism in the left is a trait of all humans. Humans are so narcissists, so pessimists, so negative, so unloving and so full of negative hateful emotions like many orthodox trotskists and orthodox marxists, that they prefer to see USA ruled by Mitt Romney than by Ralph Nader.

So Nietzsche is a sort of self-help Anthonny Robbins optimist thinker, he gives people a lot of strength, and he is realist, in the sense that Nietzsche says that the world is full of suffering, pain and problems and that all humans should indeed welcome pain, suffering and problems because they are part of our every day lives. People that hate problems, and pain, hate life indeed. So in that sense he gives people hope and Nietzsche is very anti-suicide philosopher, he fights against the pessimists who give up on life.

Thanks


.




Simply: a winner ? or a loser ?

The op (me) voted for "loser"
I read a lot from him.

Pros:
He has some reasonable intelligence for sure, in many sentences he touches your heart deep like Dostoyevsky does. He is good in literature.
But in the end you can not make any assumption.

Cons:

-He does not have any clear philosophy that you can name.
-He rather writes like in a holy book.
-He is too much obsessed with christianity and writes a lot connected to that.
-He sounds too prophetic with a higher tone.
-With his style he inspired alot post-modernism
-Inspired individualism
-Inspired Fascism
-Übermensch (hell yes)
-His ideas perfectly cooperate with capitalism and neo-liberalism. Neo-liberalism that s what he must have wished.
-He was too unrealistic and way too idealistic even past Platon.
-Wannabe aristocrat
-Being behind the ass of Wagner. Wannabe composer. Unsuccessful so go go Übermensch theory and find satisfaction in dreams end of story this last sentence explains why he was such a loser.
-Because honestly his philosophy in total was so weak, he chose such a vague and rhetorical, prophetical language where even germans most of the time barely understood him. Yet he claimed as being such a higher being that he would be understood many years later. A rare arrogance and ego hell yes.

In the end he was a loser in life. He was a prole and his philosophy could get him nowhere and not the humanity either. It is there to cause confusion, his philosophy just another useless obstacle before Marxism. Nietzsche is only good for kids of petite-bourg people. End of story.

Loser is loser. Those who vote for "winner" are petite burg. kids. Enjoying Nietzsche and his übermensch individualism ambitions.

[The Intransigent Faction]

I've been looking at Nietzsche for the first time recently, but I'm getting mixed messages.

One is the version I thought he was, where he's just a nazi who believes that "masters" have the right to rule over the weaker "slaves" and stuff like democracy and kindness are just concepts created by slaves so they won't be ruled by masters.

Another version, which people who enjoy him are putting across, says he just believes people should always be freethinkers, and the "ubermensch" is merely someone who recognizes that morality must serve him, not the other way around. Which makes a lot of sense, and seems compatible with leftism.

Where can I learn more about him? His books are a bit too complicated for me to dive right into. Are there any reading guides or websites to help?

Just did a course in university where not only did I have to read "Beyond Good & Evil", but explain how Marx might have responded to it. Pretty darn confusing sometimes.

I will say this though---he was no Nazi. At all. He wasn't overly fond of what he termed "fatherlandishness" (though I'm not sure he opposed it outright), or some guy claiming all Germans were some genetically superior "ubermensch".

His ideas are more of a personal philosophy than a political theory of how society should function.

The latter version you gave of him is more accurate, but he wasn't exactly a fan of democracy or democratic movements, either, as he saw greater equality as involving pressure on persons to bow to society's will as an imposed will external to themselves, stifling personal creativity, or somesuch. At least that's what I've been taught.

[Valdyr]

Winner, mostly for his views on the relationship between knowledge and power, which I see as being in a similar vein to the Marxist response to the (pseudo) problems of epistemology, and his critique of bourgeois morality.

I don't have to buy the majority of what he says to appreciate these aspects.