Nietzsche: yay or nay?

[ChangeAndChance]

Opinions on Nietzsche's writings in general. Answer poll then elaborate your position in a post. :grin:

[Subversive]

Like all Philosophers, Nietzsche was just a man; The nature of which is prone to both successes and failures, and always to be misunderstood by even his most avid supporters and critics.
The very act of speaking of him, therefore, qualifies his existence.

... What more needs be said? It's hard to vote on such a vague poll.

[Anglo-Saxon Philistine]

Nietzsche was an alright philosopher; definitely not as influential as, say, Fichte, and not exactly original, he nonetheless wasn't bad by any stretch of the imagination. He doesn't really have anything to offer to the modern Marxist, apart from reminding him of that god-building embarrassment.

Teens who have read a few lines of the butchered Will to Power and consider themselves profound are one of the lowest forms of life on Earth though.

[Mass Grave Aesthetics]

Teens who have read a few lines of the butchered Will to Power and consider themselves profound are one of the lowest forms of life on Earth though.

Nah, middle aged (male) John Stuart Mill fanboys are worse. Worse than everything else (except for unrepentant child- molestors perhaps).

I appreciate Nietzsche most for his attacks on some of the sacred cows of philosophy and his delightful use of ad- hominems. He is delightfully poetic and makes me laugh.

[Dean]

He is like HL Mencken. You root for him only because he attacked sacred cows. Like Nietzsche, his anti-humanism is fundamentally just as absurd as the ideas he targets.

[Stirnerian]

Very much 'Yay!'.

[blake 3:17]

I'm actually reading Mencken's book on Nietzsche. So funny how we like to look back and criticize -- I was getting all huffed about something or other, with knowledge of various flaws etc and then saw the book was published in 1908.

The discussion of Apollonian and Dionysian is it extremely interesting. Very much looking forward to the discussion of Eternal Recurrence.

[o well this is ok I guess]

Nah, middle aged (male) John Stuart Mill fanboys are worse. Worse than everything else (except for unrepentant child- molestors perhaps).

I appreciate Nietzsche most for his attacks on some of the sacred cows of philosophy and his delightful use of ad- hominems. He is delightfully poetic and makes me laugh. He's not attacking nietzsche, he's attacking a peculiar sort of follower. And nah, middle aged js mill fanboys aren't any worse than anyone else middle aged, you could probably barely tell the two apart in any reasonably quiet suburb.
i mean cmon everyone knows that will to power was his worst work as a result of his sisters editing, and it's one of his more popular ones. Contrast this with human all to human which is almost never in bookstores.

[The Communard]

Nietzsche opposed reason, progress, science, egalitarianism, democracy and, most of all, socialism. According to him, the majority of mankind should be enslaved to serve the minority of "supermen" (Übermenschen) who shape the world like artists and to do such, suffering must be part of that world. He was a reactionary of the aristocratic kind because he also rejected the classic bourgeois ideals of the Enlightenment era. His criticism of Christianity was not a critique of religion. For Nietzsche, Christianity was the religion of the weak. He thought that the oppressed masses had no right to claim equality. That's why he hated socialism for teaching the masses to make such claims. It is thanks to the spread of postmodernist "philosophy" that Nietzsche became so popular among "leftists". All their attacks on reason, science, emancipation and progress come right from Nietzsche.

[The Modern Prometheus]

Nietzsche opposed reason, progress, science, egalitarianism, democracy and, most of all, socialism. According to him, the majority of mankind should be enslaved to serve the minority of "supermen" (Übermenschen) who shape the world like artists and to do such, suffering must be part of that world. He was a reactionary of the aristocratic kind because he also rejected the classic bourgeois ideals of the Enlightenment era. His criticism of Christianity was not a critique of religion. For Nietzsche, Christianity was the religion of the weak. He thought that the oppressed masses had no right to claim equality. That's why he hated socialism for teaching the masses to make such claims. It is thanks to the spread of postmodernist "philosophy" that Nietzsche became so popular among "leftists". All their attacks on reason, science, emancipation and progress come right from Nietzsche.

I rather like some of Nietzsche's work and he didn't really attack Christianity he instead attacked the very notion of a god and how religion was no longer a practical moral compass in his time and place. I don't agree with all his ideas but he was a good philosopher.

[BIXX]

Nietzsche opposed reason, progress, science, egalitarianism, democracy and, most of all, socialism. According to him, the majority of mankind should be enslaved to serve the minority of "supermen" (Übermenschen) who shape the world like artists and to do such, suffering must be part of that world. He was a reactionary of the aristocratic kind because he also rejected the classic bourgeois ideals of the Enlightenment era. His criticism of Christianity was not a critique of religion. For Nietzsche, Christianity was the religion of the weak. He thought that the oppressed masses had no right to claim equality. That's why he hated socialism for teaching the masses to make such claims. It is thanks to the spread of postmodernist "philosophy" that Nietzsche became so popular among "leftists". All their attacks on reason, science, emancipation and progress come right from Nietzsche.

If I remember correctly that's based on what his nazi sister said, not actually him. He died and she started fucjingnwith his work, etc...

[Comrade Jacob]

Meh. He seems a bit angst to me.

[Blake's Baby]

Nah, middle aged (male) John Stuart Mill fanboys are worse. Worse than everything else (except for unrepentant child- molestors perhaps)...

Hey!

I don't know what I did to piss you off, but... well at least you said it in public. That's a positive.

[Os Cangaceiros]

He is like HL Mencken. You root for him only because he attacked sacred cows. Like Nietzsche, his anti-humanism is fundamentally just as absurd as the ideas he targets.

I like Mencken more than Nietzsche. His satire and insults were pretty funny.

[Comrade Jacob]

Meh. He seems a bit angst to me.

All philosophers have a bit of angst but Nietzsche had a lot or at least people who claim to read him are a bunch of "radical" new-atheist teens.
3edgy5me

[Decolonize The Left]

Voted meh. I've read all of Nietzsche's works and multiple secondary texts as well, he is a difficult philosopher.

His critiques of religion, philosophy, science, humanism, etc. all hold value in some sense or another, and his writing style is pleasant and poetic, which I appreciate. On the other hand, he is purposefully deceptive and never reveals his true aims and therefore cannot be trusted. For those who are up for it, I suggest reading Nietzsche's Corps/e: Aesthetics, Politics, Prophecy, or, The Spectacular Technoculture of Everyday Life by Geoff Waite. It's a beast of a book but tackles the issue of Nietzsche's thought from a leftist perspective, based on Bataille's claim that "Nietzsche's position is the only one outside of communism."

[Flavius]

Of course I do not like Nietzsche's opposition to socialism, however, the poetic language he uses, and some of his views (like when he describes religion as a moral optical illusion in Götzen-Dämmerung) arew fascinating. And I think this is the keyword regarding me and Nietzsche: I don't agree with him on many things, but I still think he was among the greatest.

[Emmett Till]

Of course I do not like Nietzsche's opposition to socialism, however, the poetic language he uses, and some of his views (like when he describes religion as a moral optical illusion in Götzen-Dämmerung) arew fascinating. And I think this is the keyword regarding me and Nietzsche: I don't agree with him on many things, but I still think he was among the greatest.

That was just about exactly what Adolph Hitler thought about Nietzsche, if you rummage through Mein Kampf you would find a similar evaluation I am sure, though Hitler as a believing Catholic, or so he liked to claim, might have been slightly uncomfortable with some of his formulations.

Nietzche's guiding passion was his hatred for the lower classes and belief that the aesthetically superior ruling classes, the ubermenschen, should lord it over the proles without any Christian moral compunctions, which is why he hated Christianity, as the New Testament says nice things about the poor and criticizes the rich. He believed socialists and anarchists should be exterminated, his ideal model 19th century government that he hoped all the others should emulate was Tsarist Russia.

The Nazis parading him as their philosophical leader, with his widow spreading this all over Germany, was somewhat hypocritical, as Nietzsche was neither a German nationalist nor an anti-Semite. So he would have approved of Auschwitz as a general proposition, a glorious assertion of the superiority of the master class, "Beyond Good and Evil," but he would have disapproved of putting Jews in there, they were not on his extermination list.

For those who want to know the truth about Nietzche and get behind the mythology, I strongly recommend historian Arno Mayer's widely praised book about the 19th century in Europe, *The Persistence of the Old Regime."

[Emmett Till]

If I remember correctly that's based on what his nazi sister said, not actually him. He died and she started fucjingnwith his work, etc...

Her claim that he was an anti-Semite and a German nationalist were incorrect. But all the other stuff is absolutely true.

To know where he was actually coming from politically you have to read his letters, as his writing style is often difficult and he usually avoids coming out of the closet. To know where Nietsche was really coming from, you are better off reading Mayer than wading through his published works.

Or heading off to the right archive in Europe I suppose, and learning German and spending a few months studying said archive. But I doubt that would be practical for your average Revlefter.

[LeninistIthink]

Teens who have read a few lines of the butchered Will to Power and consider themselves profound are one of the lowest forms of life on Earth though.

As sadly having been the above in a past life, I can say that Xhar-Xhar is right

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

I'm not sure who I'd kill if I had the chance; Adolf Hitler or Nietzsche's sister. She totally warped his philosophy for many people; he was quite a sensitive man from what I've read. His idea of the "Ubermensch" is extremely misunderstood. Uber in German does not translate to super, but "over"; so it means "Overman", a man who can overcome his own humanity. I'm not sure where Nietzsche stood politically, personally; I never got the vibe he hated many of the things people claim him to hate, apart from Nationalism and such which he blatantly mocked, especially in reference to his once-favourite composer, Wagner. During the last few years he was sane, I remember reading that he saw a horse being whipped in the street and hugged it; an empath if there ever was one. I uphold that he certainly was one of the best philosophers of all time, up there with Plato, Descartes, Kant, and, of course, Marx in profundity.

[The Penguin]

I think that he's alright. I like some of his thoughts and ideas.

[Emmett Till]

I'm not sure who I'd kill if I had the chance; Adolf Hitler or Nietzsche's sister. She totally warped his philosophy for many people; he was quite a sensitive man from what I've read. His idea of the "Ubermensch" is extremely misunderstood. Uber in German does not translate to super, but "over"; so it means "Overman", a man who can overcome his own humanity. I'm not sure where Nietzsche stood politically, personally; I never got the vibe he hated many of the things people claim him to hate, apart from Nationalism and such which he blatantly mocked, especially in reference to his once-favourite composer, Wagner. During the last few years he was sane, I remember reading that he saw a horse being whipped in the street and hugged it; an empath if there ever was one. I uphold that he certainly was one of the best philosophers of all time, up there with Plato, Descartes, Kant, and, of course, Marx in profundity.

Hitler was a vegetarian who believed in being kind to animals, especially dogs, whom the SS loved to sic on Jews in the concentration camps.

Usually Nietsche kept his most obnoxious beliefs in the closet, but not always. Have you read Beyond Good and Evil? I mean when he praises "vengefulness, craftiness, rapacity and the lust to rule," just what the hell do you think he is saying? His contempt for the "herd animal" and his hatred for socialists is expressed there overtly.

He would have seen Auschwitz as a fine example of the "overman" transcending foolish "herd man" notions of morality, good and evil, to create something grand. Though misdirected, as he actually liked Jews, as he like all too many radicals of the time though of them as capitalists.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

Hitler was a vegetarian who believed in being kind to animals, especially dogs, whom the SS loved to sic on Jews in the concentration camps.

Usually Nietsche kept his most obnoxious beliefs in the closet, but not always. Have you read Beyond Good and Evil? I mean when he praises "vengefulness, craftiness, rapacity and the lust to rule," just what the hell do you think he is saying? His contempt for the "herd animal" and his hatred for socialists is expressed there overtly.

He would have seen Auschwitz as a fine example of the "overman" transcending foolish "herd man" notions of morality, good and evil, to create something grand. Though misdirected, as he actually liked Jews, as he like all too many radicals of the time though of them as capitalists.

Nietzsche inspired much of individualist anarchism, so it's doubtful he would've ever sympathised with a totalitarian fascist government. Not to mention, he was an outspoken critic on anti-semitism and nationalism in general, especially in reference to Wager with the latter. Besides, you have taken those terms of out context; Nietzsche referred to those as "strong and dangerous drives", so it seems like if he was praising them at all it was in a sardonic sense, or a social commentary on them at least.

His rejection of morals is mainly a rejection of Christian morals and their belief system; the fixed definitions of "good" and "evil" which he considered subjective, though he also hated the Christian definitions due to humility and self-sacrificial nature. It would be ignorant to claim that Nietzsche was in some way amoral and had no morals; he just had a different set of ones to the Christian norm. Could you honestly tell me the man who hugged a horse after seeing it being whipped in the street lacked emotion, the man who said that life without music was a mistake, would be so emotionally cold as to be accepting of the holocaust?

Nietzsche values risk, passion, strength, courage, determination, and a free-spirited, lofty sort of personality full of joy and activity. The ancient Greeks and Romans valued these things also. Christianity, on the other hand, values humility (the meek shall inherit the Earth), self-sacrifice, equivocation (e.g., "we are all equal in the eyes of God"), asceticism and a passive sort of lifestyle full of reflection, prayer, etc. Nietzsche praised the ancient Greeks and Romans because he saw them as transcendent, and perhaps he was using them as an archaic analogy to fit his idea of the "overman"; a man capable of transcending his peers, not necessarily enslaving them. He certainly believed in a hierarchy of some kind, but he would've scorned an ethnic based hierarchy.

[Luís Henrique]

Nietzsche?
Yay?
Nay?
Gay! (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gay_Science)

As most people, too complicated to boil down to a yes/no disjunctive.

Luís Henrique

[Os Cangaceiros]

Usually Nietsche kept his most obnoxious beliefs in the closet, but not always.

Nietzsche's obsession with nobility and elitism wasn't exactly a secret, lol. He's actually pretty open about it, at least in the works of his that I've read

[N. Senada]

Nietzsche was a nice romancer.
Well, a conservatory, small-beourgeoisie, amateurish one, but still a nice romancer.

[Emmett Till]

Nietzsche inspired much of individualist anarchism, so it's doubtful he would've ever sympathised with a totalitarian fascist government. Not to mention, he was an outspoken critic on anti-semitism and nationalism in general, especially in reference to Wager with the latter. Besides, you have taken those terms of out context; Nietzsche referred to those as "strong and dangerous drives", so it seems like if he was praising them at all it was in a sardonic sense, or a social commentary on them at least.

His rejection of morals is mainly a rejection of Christian morals and their belief system; the fixed definitions of "good" and "evil" which he considered subjective, though he also hated the Christian definitions due to humility and self-sacrificial nature. It would be ignorant to claim that Nietzsche was in some way amoral and had no morals; he just had a different set of ones to the Christian norm. Could you honestly tell me the man who hugged a horse after seeing it being whipped in the street lacked emotion, the man who said that life without music was a mistake, would be so emotionally cold as to be accepting of the holocaust?

Nietzsche values risk, passion, strength, courage, determination, and a free-spirited, lofty sort of personality full of joy and activity. The ancient Greeks and Romans valued these things also. Christianity, on the other hand, values humility (the meek shall inherit the Earth), self-sacrifice, equivocation (e.g., "we are all equal in the eyes of God"), asceticism and a passive sort of lifestyle full of reflection, prayer, etc. Nietzsche praised the ancient Greeks and Romans because he saw them as transcendent, and perhaps he was using them as an archaic analogy to fit his idea of the "overman"; a man capable of transcending his peers, not necessarily enslaving them. He certainly believed in a hierarchy of some kind, but he would've scorned an ethnic based hierarchy.

That he inspired individualist anarchists says nothing about Nietsche and all too much about individualist anarchism. QAnd yes, he disliked anti-
Semitism and nationalism, he wanted all the ruling classes of the world, a category in which he mistakenly included Jews, to unite and grind the uncultured "herd men" under their feet. "Strong" and "dangerous" were words of praise to Nietzsche.

Hitler, besides loving animals, also loved music, though his tastes were not identical to Nietzsche's. So I guess the man must just have been misunderstood, it's a shame people are so down on him.

One of the thingsNietzsche loved most about the ancient Greeks and Romans was slavery. Believing that it was cool to feed Christians to the lions is not my idea of transcendence.

And here's the key point. You are absolutely right he did not believe in ethnic hierarchy. He believed in class hierarchy. He wanted the European upper classes, the ruling classes, to drop Christian moral compunctions and just do to the rest of us whatever felt good to them and was most aesthetically pleasing.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

That he inspired individualist anarchists says nothing about Nietsche and all too much about individualist anarchism. QAnd yes, he disliked anti-
Semitism and nationalism, he wanted all the ruling classes of the world, a category in which he mistakenly included Jews, to unite and grind the uncultured "herd men" under their feet. "Strong" and "dangerous" were words of praise to Nietzsche.

Hitler, besides loving animals, also loved music, though his tastes were not identical to Nietzsche's. So I guess the man must just have been misunderstood, it's a shame people are so down on him.

One of the thingsNietzsche loved most about the ancient Greeks and Romans was slavery. Believing that it was cool to feed Christians to the lions is not my idea of transcendence.

And here's the key point. You are absolutely right he did not believe in ethnic hierarchy. He believed in class hierarchy. He wanted the European upper classes, the ruling classes, to drop Christian moral compunctions and just do to the rest of us whatever felt good to them and was most aesthetically pleasing.

I don't think it's fair to attribute a political tone to his work. His concept of "overmen" or higher human beings dropping their moral codes in favour of transcendence is arbitrarily fitting to your accusation, yes, but not the be-all-end-all interpretation. He saw morals, as I said before, as not being defined enough to ascribe oneself with a universal one; hence him wanting to free people from their false morality.

It is clear he had some very illiberal attitudes towards hierarchy and equality (especially concerning Christians); there's no denying that. But to say he favours a ruling class is presumptuous considering he never really outlined or ascribed himself a political philosophy, nor anything really to do with a government, state or the nature therein of either of the latter. I do not think your interpretation is wrong necessarily but I would insist that it's presumptuous.

[Emmett Till]

I don't think it's fair to attribute a political tone to his work. His concept of "overmen" or higher human beings dropping their moral codes in favour of transcendence is arbitrarily fitting to your accusation, yes, but not the be-all-end-all interpretation. He saw morals, as I said before, as not being defined enough to ascribe oneself with a universal one; hence him wanting to free people from their false morality.

It is clear he had some very illiberal attitudes towards hierarchy and equality (especially concerning Christians); there's no denying that. But to say he favours a ruling class is presumptuous considering he never really outlined or ascribed himself a political philosophy, nor anything really to do with a government, state or the nature therein of either of the latter. I do not think your interpretation is wrong necessarily but I would insist that it's presumptuous.

If it isn't wrong, it isn't presumptuous. And maybe a little presumptuousness isn't such a bad thing when dealing with somebody like this character.

It's true he restricted directly political stuff to personal letters, wherein he praised Tsarist Russia as his idea of an ideal government. Which pretty much says it all as to his politics.

[Kamp]

the ubermench guy that killed himself because he couldn't live up to his demented theories ? He clashes with equality on so many levels..

[Bolxevik]

I used to be a pretty hardcore Nietzsche fanboy, but in retrospect he's nothing too special or original, though i do enjoy his style of writing.

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

If it isn't wrong, it isn't presumptuous. And maybe a little presumptuousness isn't such a bad thing when dealing with somebody like this character.

It's true he restricted directly political stuff to personal letters, wherein he praised Tsarist Russia as his idea of an ideal government. Which pretty much says it all as to his politics.

Well, then I would consider it wrong if I had to choose between the two. I am not fascinated by his politics, but by his theories on morality and his deeply personal existentialism reflected in his work. He wasn't afraid to admit that he was human, and that once he was dead he would simply cease to be. I think we should just agree to disagree here. I don't think either of us with our strong opinions on this matter are going to be moved (though I mean this as a peaceful thing; diversity is after all welcomed by me).

[Communist Mutant From Outer Space]

the ubermench guy that killed himself because he couldn't live up to his demented theories ? He clashes with equality on so many levels..

He died of pneumonia, after a decade of acute dementia. He was a very sensitive human being, and it's a shame his life was so short-lived, especially in comparison with his Nazi sister who lived to a very old age.

[Flavius]

Nietzsche wasn't a socialist. Yes. And? If I was permitted to read and admire only those philosophers and writers who share my political beliefs, I would surely kill myself. I like if someone (even If he is dead and I read one of his books) challenges my ideas. Being in a state of peace and content is the death of the intellect. (In my opinion, of course.)

[Kamp]

It's a philosphy that's perfect for a capitalist system, dont be envius.. its an idea to embrace if you are tired and want to make sence about why you are being kicked from above, perfect for a class devided sociaty.. he wasn't a socialist,but i find his idea and the celebration of him lame. (imo...ofc)

[Emmett Till]

Nietzsche wasn't a socialist. Yes. And? If I was permitted to read and admire only those philosophers and writers who share my political beliefs, I would surely kill myself. I like if someone (even If he is dead and I read one of his books) challenges my ideas. Being in a state of peace and content is the death of the intellect. (In my opinion, of course.)

Nobody last I heard was proposing to send you to any gulag for the crime of reading this character. I confess, I've read him myself, let's hope I get no knocks on the door at midnight:lol:

But you're actually liking this worker-hating ruling class loving elitist is definitely in poor taste.

In my opinion, of course.

[Flavius]

Nobody last I heard was proposing to send you to any gulag for the crime of reading this character. I confess, I've read him myself, let's hope I get no knocks on the door at midnight:lol:

But you're actually liking this worker-hating ruling class loving elitist is definitely in poor taste.

In my opinion, of course.

Well, you know, gustibus non est disputandum.

[Sinister Cultural Marxist]

We don't have to agree with everything or even most of what a person says to respect aspects of their thought, or see it as valuable. I don't think of him as a useful source for how we should solve class struggle, but he has interesting ideas about how classes of people take different stances on morality. He also offers useful methods for how to think about ideas and their history which are taken for granted today.

It also doesn't mean we can't use his ideas - after all, he was famous for comments against women, but feminists (who were not naive about who he was or his views) used or were inspired by some of his arguments.

As for his respect of the aristocracy, he clearly respects the "blonde beast" and the "bird of prey", but he is not recommending a return to those states of being. After all, the tribal and feudal elites he respected created the conditions for the slave morality he despised to emerge.

[N. Senada]

You can like whoever you want.
Me, i like Borges and Cèline.
But what's improper is trying to transform a reactionary, conservative thinker, writer or artist to a progressive or even revolutionary one just because you like him.
That's really exchange facts with wishes.

[Comrade V]

I enjoy his essays on morality and his critiques of those who claim to hold any sort of absolute truth above all else.

Politically I don't agree with him, but I don't agree with ALOT of people in that respect so it's not so much of a turn off.