On Nietzsche

[Liberty Lover]

I do not intent to deceive you all into believing that I am a Nietzsche expert or anything of the sort. Of his works I have read only Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, the former of which I found extremely difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, I believe I have acquired a thorough enough knowledge of his philosophy to question the reasoning behind the adulation many socialists heap upon him. As of yet I am yet to find anything in Nietzsche’s works that reveal socialist leanings, on the contrary, much of what he wrote is in complete opposition to socialist thought. I give you this example from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part 2, section 7, ‘On Tarantulas’, “I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality [the tarantulas]. For, to me justice speaks thus: ‘Men are not equal’. Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?”

This may be a gross misinterpretation on my part, but as it stands I find the Socialist obsession with Nietzsche to be bizarre at best.

Please explain.

[Monty Cantsin]

Well for me I’ve just started to read beyond good and evil so im not an expert but so far this is what I think. Now in the first chapter on the prejudices of philosophers he talks about how all philosophers look inwards to their “labyrinth of the breast” and hitherto used their writings to justify their aims and nature. Now Nietzsche himself come from an upper class so I think his whole Idea of the “will to power” is just him trying to justify his dominate position in life. So I think his anything but a socialist. Personally I find his writing very interesting and if his right then we can’t look forward for a bright future. To offer an explanation to why socialist would like him, I think that would have something to do with his anti-Christian stance.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

To be honest I dont think Nietzsche cared for any politics:

For example

On Liberalism

The polite term for mediocre is liberal

On Socialism

There will always be too many people of property for socialism to signify anything more than an attack of illness.

Socialism is the fantastic younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, which it wants to succeed.

Conservatism

The doctrine of free will is the invention of the ruling classes.

Nietzsche considered politics a prostituion of the intellect, in fact he believed politics was the death of truth, the art of being decieved.


Trust me Nietzsche was no socialist.

[enderisdragon]

Originally posted by Liberty [email protected] 4 2004, 07:04 AM
I do not intent to deceive you all into believing that I am a Nietzsche expert or anything of the sort. Of his works I have read only Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil, the former of which I found extremely difficult to interpret. Nonetheless, I believe I have acquired a thorough enough knowledge of his philosophy to question the reasoning behind the adulation many socialists heap upon him. As of yet I am yet to find anything in Nietzsche’s works that reveal socialist leanings, on the contrary, much of what he wrote is in complete opposition to socialist thought. I give you this example from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part 2, section 7, ‘On Tarantulas’, “I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality [the tarantulas]. For, to me justice speaks thus: ‘Men are not equal’. Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?”

This may be a gross misinterpretation on my part, but as it stands I find the Socialist obsession with Nietzsche to be bizarre at best.

Please explain.
you are a very humble person

[Solace]

I do not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality [the tarantulas]. For, to me justice speaks thus: ‘Men are not equal’. Nor shall they become equal! What would my love of the overman be if I spoke otherwise?”

Though I am trying, I harldy seen any socialist suggestion in there. If you want to interpret it superficially, I would say that that passage somehow advocates fascism. Meaning that the weak need to inclined himself before the strong.

Here is my interpretation of that statment and those around it in the book.

Nietzsche seems to view equality as an utopia. Something totally out of reach for humans.

The search for equality is something we always did and we will probably always do. But he questions if this "quest" is founded. Is equality really important or is it just another overly rated concept? Is equality a social creation?

It has been too often used to "tame" the population. To silent them. Their situation being more equitable and more fair than the others, they should enjoy what they have and shut up.

Furthermore, equality is "wrong" when people should be considered as the same. For example, if someone is refused for a job because he is black. Under some rightful justifications, inequality should be accepted.

But this is where Nietzsche starts to get shitty. He doesn't explain any further what are those "rightful justifications". His criticism is not very elaborate on that level.

[redstar2000]

I think Nietzsche appeals to some young "rebels" simply because of his "outrageousness" -- especially his scathing attacks on Christianity.

While he had some "good lines" on occasion, I really don't think there's much "substance" to what he had to say...and kids who go on to become actual lefties usually discard him for "meatier" thinkers.

His critique of the musical/cultural pomposity of Richard Wagner is still fun to read, though.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[monkeydust]

Some good Nietszche quotes:

'In revenge and in love, woman is more barbarous than man'

'Where neither love nor hate is in the game, the woman is a mediocre player'

'Science offends the modesty of all genuine women'

And of course:


'The sexes decieve one another; the reason being that fundementally they love and honour only themselves'

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I think Nietzsche appeals to some young "rebels" simply because of his "outrageousness" -- especially his scathing attacks on Christianity.

You could say the same for Marx, he appeals to young lefties who think his attacks on capitalism are a way of rebellion.




While he had some "good lines" on occasion, I really don't think there's much "substance" to what he had to say...and kids who go on to become actual lefties usually discard him for "meatier" thinkers

I think you need to start reading some Nietzsche, if you have re-read it then. Nietzsche's didnt create a system because he did'nt want to. He believed truth was easier to attain in short bursts, hence the aphorisms.

Plus weighty systems from the meatier thinkers usually have holes because they are so meaty if you follow. Truths dont neccessarily emerge from large complext meatier systems and that was just one of Nietzsche's many lessons.


First of all of course Nietzsche appeals to younger people for his outragoues ideas, he used to be called the dark mentor of University students because they wouldnt teach him in college for so long. There is an appeal there in that anything that is 'banned' always will.

You seem to think Nietzsche is about outrageous ideas, God is Dead which is just an aphorism for example or perhaps his attacks on Christianity in The AntiChrist is where you are getting there ideas.

The AntiChrist being in my opinion his most philosophically defunct book, I assume he was assume by that stage.

Seriously RedStar as somebody like me who was one of those first year university students Nietzsche was the outrageous thinker but now that I have moved through almost all the systems his criticisms often come into my mind. More of a spark to criticise than somebody with a major system of his own.

Just a rant but I hate people who relegate Nietzsche to some kiddie-leftie-philosopher.

He was not a leftie either if you are under that impression redstar.

[redstar2000]

He believed truth was easier to attain in short bursts, hence the aphorisms.

So does Woody Allen.


Plus weighty systems from the meatier thinkers usually have holes because they are so meaty if you follow.

Yes, but those holes stem from a serious attempt to comprehend the whole of existence. Compared to people like Kant, Marx or even John Dewey, Nietzsche was just "fooling around".


He was not a leftie either if you are under that impression, redstar.

Of course he wasn't. No leftie would ever say, "When thou goest unto woman to teach, forget not thy whip".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

So does Woody Allen.

Is that your argument, aphorism's can't lead to truths because Woody Allen used them?



Yes, but those holes stem from a serious attempt to comprehend the whole of existence. Compared to people like Kant, Marx or even John Dewey, Nietzsche was just "fooling around".

You must realise that the history of philosophy has reached a point since just before Nietzsche where all the major theories have more or less been put forth, Spinoza, Hume or Kant all contributed in their own way but Nietzsche used a different method.

Essentially you justification is that Nietzsche because he didn't work out a complex system was just foolinh around.

The words of a man more interested in science than philosophy I presume.


Of course he wasn't. No leftie would ever say, "When thou goest unto woman to teach, forget not thy whip".

I ask you what do you think it means and let us see how your mind works philosophically...

[Solace]

Nietzsche was just "fooling around"

That's it! Take off those ", Nietzsche is really fooling around. He raises questions, good ones, but they are immediatly forgotten in a sea of bla bla. He offers nothing tangible, nothing we can work it. It's all "in the air".

Nevertheless, it's fun to read. :P

[Guest1]

I'm still convinced Nietzsche was a Fascist. All that shit about Ubermench gives me the creeps.

[redstar2000]

I'm still convinced Nietzsche was a Fascist.

Well he was...kind of. You could call him a proto-fascist without misleading anyone too seriously.

But keep in mind that he wasn't a Nazi or even a proto-Nazi; he held both German nationalism and anti-semitism in complete contempt (hence his brilliant polemic against Wagner).


Essentially your justification is that Nietzsche because he didn't work out a complex system was just fooling around.

The words of a man more interested in science than philosophy I presume.

Yeah, that's fair.


"When thou goest unto woman to teach, forget not thy whip".

I ask you what do you think it means and let us see how your mind works philosophically...

I think it means he probably had real problems relating to women. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Solace]

Damn! Redstar, you always post a couple of minutes before me to say exactly what I want to say!


I'm still convinced Nietzsche was a Fascist. All that shit about Ubermench gives me the creeps.

I dunno.

Proto-fascist is the right word here.

The only fascist element that constitute his “philoshophy” might be the relation between the weak and the strong.

This Übermensch decides for himself and by himself what morality is. He cuts himself from the wide spread beliefs in society to find his own. And he changes them constantly. The overman thing is not restricted to a few. Humans might not start as equal because of the classes, but they all have the ability to “grow”.

The strong should lead the weak, so they can both progress, but he should never lower himself. The idea of overman is applicable to everyone since being alive means seeking to be perfect. (!)


"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him? All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment"

Yeah, and also his views on women too...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 02:11 AM









Well he was...kind of. You could call him a proto-fascist without misleading anyone too seriously.

What are you basing this opinion on, that he is a proto-fascist.

[redstar2000]

What are you basing this opinion on, that he is a proto-fascist?

I thought Solace answered that point...though perhaps you're not allowed to read her posts unless you have your whip to hand. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Guest1]

No, I know, but it is precisely the idea of the strong leading the weak that disturbs me. I'm not gonna say too much about him, cause I've read very little by him. I would think, however, that this ideal can't be reached by tying down those destined to lead.

I wouldn't be surprised if I was wrong, but I get the feeling he's more stereotypically Darwinian in his approach to power.

Uggh, poor Darwin, to be used and twisted in such a way. I say stereotypically, because Darwin in fact had alot more to say about evolution than what the Right politicizes.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 03:14 PM

I thought Solace answered that point...though perhaps you're not allowed to read her posts unless you have your whip to hand. :lol:



When he says bring your wip he means that he believes women enjoy men dominating them.

He did not mean this in some evil wife beating, physically use a whip manner. It was his way of providing a psycholigical insight.

But Redstar you a such a logical, extremely unhumourous boring old fart that the concept of non-literal meaning's or even context enters your mind.

[Solace]

You can justify that line, but there are others were he doesnt' give room to misinterpretation.


Woman was God's second mistake.


A woman does not want the truth; what is truth to women? From the beginning, nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than the truth - her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty


For the woman, the man is a means: the end is always the child.


The true man wants two things: danger and play. For that reason he wants woman, as the most dangerous plaything.


A woman may very well form a friendship with a man, but for this to endure, it must be assisted by a little physical antipathy.


Woman is not yet capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or at best, cows


And I thought RS2000's comment was actually funny.

[redstar2000]

But Redstar you a such a logical, extremely unhumourous boring old fart that the concept of non-literal meaning's or even context enters your mind.

As written, your statement was incoherent...I assume you were too upset with me to post an actual reply.

But what is your justification for taking refuge in "symbolic" interpretation of what is, after all, a fairly straight-forward statement?

Do you do that all the time...or just when the literal meaning is embarrassing? :D

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Monty Cantsin]

Nietzsche meets Marx
‘The Power of Will’
By John McGondel


The following story is a totally un-substantiated account of a conversation which was purportedly held between what many consider to be the two most powerful of the nineteenth century western philosophers: Friedrich Nietzsche and Karl Marx.

The setting for the conversation is a small pub in London called the ‘Black Rose’, and the year is 1882. After this meeting of these two men, Nietzsche was to write his famous ‘Joyful Wisdom’, and go on to write ‘Thus Spoke Zarathustra’ in 1884. Marx was to die the year after this meeting. On this night, though, Marx was 64 and Nietzsche was 38.

For the recording of this short but poignant meeting, we may thank one Richard Starkey, an obscure writer from the late nineteenth century, whom was criticized, following his release of this dialogue, as having put forth a work of an untrue nature. But by then his only source of corroboration, his friend Karl Marx was dead, and Nietzsche refused to comment on the alleged event. The assertions within the conversation have often-times been deemed questionable at best, and were generally accepted more for their humorous aspects than for their historical accuracy…Never-the-less, it remains a short but entertaining discussion. From this point on, is the tale as passed down by Mr. Starkey:

“Well it was a dark and raw night, the kind of night on which men of intelligence should refuse to leave the warmth and security of hearth and family. But not unlike suicidal moths which are drawn to the certain flames of death itself, we British alumni of the University of Bonn, Germany, though scattered about the countryside, steadfastly refused to miss the yearly meeting in London, which was followed by a few faithful with a drink or two at the Inn of the Black Rose. I had contrived to be there at an early hour, so as to reserve a place near the large fireplace, and was engaged in a philosophical discussion with Dr. Freud about the benefits of cocaine over opium, when Friedrich Nietzsche burst in through the doors, along with several of his boisterous and obviously drunken cohorts.

He stopped to survey the scene before him, and snorted derisively in the direction of the few tables of ale-drinking commoners. He made an intentionally half-heard joke behind his hand to his friends, then strode in a most erstwhile and swaggering manner to the table beside Dr. Freud and myself. Glaring around in a mocking, half-smile, he tossed his wet overcoat to a passing hand waiter and settled noisily into his chair. He and his companions became instantly engrossed in a conversation in which the words “lower class," “peasants," and “aristocrats” were heard loudly and repeatedly, and which were usually followed by snickering and other derogatory sounds.

It became quickly obvious to myself and the good doctor that the so-called “commoners” that Nietzsche referred to were, to say the least, less than pleased by the loud and scurrilous comments on Mr. Nietzsche's part. His words were obviously intended to goad someone into a verbal confrontation, and Dr. Freud and I had to exercise our powers of will to their extreme in order to not allow ourselves to be drawn whole-heartedly into the fray. To us, it seemed obvious that Mr. Nietzsche and his companions had been partaking of the spirit of drink for the better part of the day, and were out to instigate a fight of some sort.

It was shortly thereafter that I saw a rather elderly gentleman get up from a table in the far corner of the room. It was a quiet corner of low light. This man walked with the help of a walking stick, slowly but steadily over to the table that Nietzsche had commandeered and sat down with a tip of his hat to all whom sat there.

“And whom, sir, might you be?” asked Nietzsche in an overly polite and intentionally sarcastic manner.

To which the older man cleared his throat and answered in a loud, clear voice: “I am Karl Marx, and you are Friedrich Nietzsche.” This was said as a statement and not in any way like a question.

Nietzsche’s friends became instantly most humbled, while Nietzsche said, “Well well, I am honored Mr. Marx! I have head much about you. Please, join our modest discussion concerning the current state of the working classes.”

Marx, who was rather frail and needed his walking stick to keep his balance, spoke his thanks to Nietzsche and sat down, declining the free ale offered by one of the others at the table. Nietzsche was smirking openly.

“Well my dear Karl, but I find it a bit shameful to be forced to share my drinking environment with the likes of peasants such as we have here.” He waved his arm around to indicate the other tables where the regulars were drinking their beer and muttering under their breaths.

Marx merely looked at Nietzsche through his very clear and bright eyes and slowly nodded his head in a non-committal gesture.

Nietzsche took this as a sign to go on. “After all, Karl, we aristocrats would not exist unless we were deserved to be above the level of the peasant class. Survival of the fittest and all that.” Marx just nodded and said, “Please, go on.”

Nietzsche looked sneeringly at his companions and in an aloof manner, continued: “There are those few of us whom are destined by birth to be masters, while the vast common run of the people are predestined to be only of a slave class, to which they are imminently most suitable.”

Marx looked over at Dr. Freud and me and winked, almost imperceptibly. Somehow this warmed and excited me.

Nietzsche went on to expound upon the ability of only the aristocratic class to distinguish between good and evil, and of the theory that creativity is the privilege of the aristocracy, then he went on about the inherent resentment of the aristocracy by the ‘slave class.’ And all the while that young Friedrich Nietzsche was baiting the elderly Karl Marx, I was able to marvel at Marx’s imperturbability.

Nietzsche went on: “Peace and equality are the ideals of fools. Exploration and cruelty are the very keys to life itself.” All the while that Nietzsche was talking and drinking he had been getting louder, while Marx had been mostly silent. Nietzsche had not noticed that a considerable group of the regulars had gathered about him and now were blocking his way to the restrooms and exit door.

His rather tardy realization of that fact seemed to both shock and dismay him. Observing the look on Nietzsche’s face, Karl Marx finally cleared his mouth and spoke up.

“Young Friedrich, I must thank you most profusely for proving my point in such a poignant manner.”

Nietzsche was suddenly looking rather uncomfortable. Marx went on, “You see about you a group of people whom you have referred to as ‘lower class’. They realize that people like you control the product of their labor, and that to you they are mere objects. Perhaps you can feel their alienation, especially since you have just loudly and obnoxiously reminded them of this. Their loss of personal dignity causes them to feel as if reduced from the level of human beings to the level of lower animals, work horses if you will.”

Marx’s eyes were twinkling now, for he was in his element, but Nietzsche was showing signs of being noticeably shaken.

“For you see, young Friedrich, the only course of true freedom open to them is that which happens when they take control of the instruments of production. Only then, when society has no class structure, can the alienation be allowed to dissipate.”

The crowd had become louder as Marx had been talking. The room was hot and thick with animosity. We could see that Nietzsche was very nervous and was looking about himself quite apprehensively.

Marx was leaning back in his chair, tired but with a most satisfied expression on his face.

“I think that now you begin to see the truth of things, Heinrich. Only by overthrowing their masters can the so-called ‘peasants’ achieve equality. The killing of their former masters will release them from their feelings of alienation. Can you feel that alienation, Mr. Nietzsche?”

Nietzsche’s friends had surreptitiously left, one by one. He was now alone, and badly shaken. He nodded yes, his eyes cast down, a properly humbled man.

“Good, Heinrich, good.” Karl Marx stood up and winked at me again. I winked back, smiling. He moved as if to leave, and the crowd parted instantly before him. Nietzsche was rooted in his chair, sweating, red-faced, and trapped like the rat that he was. Marx turned around and spoke to Nietzsche: “Come, Friedrich, I shall walk you to your carriage.” This was said off handedly, almost as a second thought. Nietzsche stood up quickly and grabbed his cloak, and the two men walked out the door together, Nietzsche trembling in fear and Marx leaning on his cane. (I followed at close range lest I miss something.)

At Nietzsche’s carriage, Marx shook his hand and wished him well. And they went their very different ways, never to meet in this world again. Nietzsche’s ears rang for hours afterward with Marx’s last comment: “When the ‘peasants’ want control badly enough, they will take it, and nothing will be able to stop them.” I watched this and then I went back into the pub. The barkeep was cleaning Nietzsche’s soiled chair.

I chuckled to myself and wrote down this tale of that meeting on a piece of bar-linen. I now have rewritten it, before I get too old. Nietzsche suffered a serious and violent seizure last year, in 1889, which was the termination of his career, due to the resulting insanity.” That is the end of Starkey’s tale.

It is my opinion that while Nietzsche spoke of the ‘Will to power’, it paled in comparison to Marx’s ‘Power of the Will’

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

First of all the above post in bullshit so why post it.

Who know's what Nietzsche would have said, the interpetation above is almost the kind the Nazi's would have used.

Don't you think that view of Nietzsche is dead yet?

Redstar I will get back to you, I enjoy debating with you for one reason, your logical mind. (I have a friend just like who believes the same.)

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

As written, your statement was incoherent...I assume you were too upset with me to post an actual reply.


Maybe I was ;)


But what is your justification for taking refuge in "symbolic" interpretation of what is, after all, a fairly straight-forward statement?

First of all, I am looking at it from a symbolic manner because that is generally how Nietzsche works. We arent talking about mathematics or manner of lateral thinking. His is an irationalist philosophy, it is at times incoherent and contains a vasy array of downright sexist aphorims.

Nietzsche however isn't a social commentator, he is trying to provoke at every turn reactions about every topic.

His philosophy is a critical analysis of culture.His demands of science, religion and morality ask for a completely new orientation of the modern conciousness.




Do you do that all the time...or just when the literal meaning is embarrassing?

No when I am dealing with Nietzsche on his terms I look for symbolism literary critics are also known for this absurd act, God behold there is a symbolic non literal meaning to a philosophical aphorism. Unheard of... :D

Solace


For the woman, the man is a means: the end is always the child.

Are you omitting the rest of that sentence for effect or because the rest of the question might give it an entirely different meaning...

Here is the rest


But what is woman for man

Now we have a question even Frued had difficulty with.




With regards Nietzsche's sexism, some facts to take into account, not an excuse but it is important.

He was brought up by women, his father died when he was five, he never had a wife, masterabated excessively, had little contact with women and was generally a complete loner.

Hence the wandering Zarathusra.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Since we are quoting Nietzsche let me add some you have left out, for whatever reason that may have been.


Women have intelligence; men have character and passion


Stupidity in a woman is unfeminane


Is there a more sacred state than pregnancy?


The surest remedy for the male disease of self-contempt is the love of a sensible woman


The more womanly a woman is, the more she fights tooth and nail against rights in general. The natural order of things, the eternal war between the sexes, assigns her by far the foremost rank


Woman understands children better than man, but man is more childish thyan woman

That may give a less biased view of Nietzsche for the moment.

[redstar2000]

His is an irrationalist philosophy; it is at times incoherent and contains a vast array of downright sexist aphorisms.

And therefore?

I mean, aside from his ability to quip, in what way is he superior to the most narrow-minded country preacher? Or a wino on the streets? They have "irrational philosophies" too, you know.

Why would you (or anyone) even be interested in the views of someone unable to think clearly?

You see, that's what doesn't make sense to me. We humans have the demonstrated capacity to think rationally (at least most of us do)...although, granted, it is difficult for us and requires effort.

But how can one willingly abandon the "best part" of being human...and go off and wallow in what amounts to so much random babble?

What do you get out of it? Is it the intellectual equivalent of getting totally wasted? Without the hangover?

Does it "feel good"?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Of course he can think clearly, he wasnt an idiot. Comparing Nietzsche to a wino...I mean surely the fact that we are talking about him shows his views had a major effect.

What you get from irrationalists like say Nietzsche and Popper is a criticism of accepted norms, a turning of morality on its head, an intellectual challenge.




The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it

Nietzsche himself was such a diverse thinker that labouring over some system to gain truths would have taken up every moment of his life. He conciously avoided in depth discussion which he considered the trademark of a pedantic academic mind.


I mistrust all systemizers; the will to a system is a lack of integrity

[CODE]The free spirit is brought into disrepute chiefly by scholars who miss their thouroughness and ant-like industry in his art of recording things


For I regard profound problems as I do a cold bath - quick in, quick out. That one thereby fails to reach the depths is the superstition of hydrophobias. Does a thing remain intelligable and unrecognized if it is touched, viewed, illumined in passing? Does one absolutely have to sit down on it first, to have brooded on it like an egg?[QUOTE]

[redstar2000]

What you get from irrationalists like, say Nietzsche and Popper, is a criticism of accepted norms, a turning of morality on its head, an intellectual challenge.

I'm not under the impression that Popper was an "irrationalist" -- quite the contrary, in fact.

But are there no rational criticisms of "accepted norms" or "morality"?


The irrationality of a thing is no argument against its existence, rather a condition of it.

Couldn't Oscar Wilde have said as much? (He was another irrationalist, of course.)

If anything that exists is irrational (and does everything that is irrational also exist?), then there's no real possibility of understanding anything, is there?

Nietzsche, the first "post-modernist"?

I don't think you can fairly apply the distinction "intellectual challenge" to "questions" that have no answers.


For I regard profound problems as I do a cold bath - quick in, quick out.

Well, each to their taste, of course. It seems to me a good way to remain unwashed.


Does one absolutely have to sit down on it first, to have brooded on it like an egg?

If you want a living chick out of the process, it helps to brood.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.vze.com)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Can I just say then since neither of us are likely to convince the other that sometimes it is neccessary for somebody like Nietzsche to look at the world from a different perspective, just to shake things up rather than just somebody with another Kantian, Spinozian, Hegelian, Marxists system for the world?

[Kronos]

Nietzsche wasn't a philosopher or a logician. If anything, he was a psychologist. We cannot call him a philosopher because aside from his critique of religion, which was consistent, any attempt to formulate a philosophical theory was refuted either one page later, or one book later, by himself. It is easier to do gymnastics in a straight-jacket than to make any lasting sense out of anything he said regarding politics.

I have studied Fritz inside and out for over seven years, and I am better than him at everything except speaking Latin. This, ironically, is even worse that an insult....because I'm not that good...and if I can beat him.....well, you get the idea.

Philosophy ended with Spinoza. Spinoza is like the ever-lasting gob-stopper.

Really though, one has to taste all the other philosophies to see how Spinoza is always the last man standing.

[RGacky3]

Nietzsche seams to me like a rambling bitter old man. Because his philosophy tends to be intense statements with little or no logical backing, thats the best critique I can get from him, the old man at the bar *****ing :P.

[Kronos]

Your analysis forgets a critical element with Fritz: his life was full of turbulence, so his writing is very moody. When he is rejected by a date...temporary misogyny results. When his contemporaries at the academy reject his ideas...he becomes a pedantic nemesis. When he is vacationing in Turin and free from headaches, blindness, and relentless vomiting, he is temporarily satisfied and writes happy stuff.

"No man knew himself better than Nietzsche"- Freud

This is why Fritz is important. If you want to see how fucked up life and the world is...you send in Fritz. He is like that little canary that senses noxious gases that humans cannot sense, and which falls to the bottom of the cage in convulsions.

[Holden Caulfield]

somebody could have told me there was a Nietzsche thread!!

i am a socialist Nietzsche fan, i find him witty and interesting in ways that other philosophers can never hope to be, he is an amazing character and peron, however like all great philosphers he was a matyr to his own work due to his views on socialism and women in particular,

one of my Nietzsche threeads... (http://www.revleft.com/vb/nietzsche-ours-theirs-t79153/index.html)

a brilliant point by gihlye

Hegel was Hegel Marx was Marx....the politics of the two are not linked except in one respect : Marx rejected ultra-leftism in favour of a working class politics which builds on what is possible, just as Hegel argued for what he thought was the best of the immediately practical political forms.

Nietzsche is a personal philosopher, Marx is not. Nietzsche advocates a neo-Schopenhauer-ian personal credo which is incapable of illuminating the work of a revolutionary movement. It might motivate you, thats great. So might Christ or Buddha. Your personal issues, and mine, are irrelevant to the cause of socialism. All our personal philosophies are outgrowths of capitalist society, none of them are 'socialist' in character. The only socialist perspective is Marxism, which is a perspective not of you or me or anyone, but of a revolutionary class that can end the appropriation of dead labour to capital. So lets get real about this.

overall Nietzsche is a good read with many points parallel to socialism even if we have to use Nietzsche to combat himself to find the meanings, and a very very disturbed fellow