Nietzsche as legend, the danger of myth.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I had planned origanally here to type out a damn good essay a postgrad I know wrote but instead I will just ask a question:

Is it dangerous to allow an ideology to gain such a status that even when it fails the idea seduces new followers? The relevence here is obvious...

The myth is a powerful thing the more I think about it, it propelled Nietzsche from obscure and lonely me to seminal thinker of the post modern age...

More thoughts on this later, just wanted to start a new fresh thread...

[Nickademus]

quickly i would say no.... but i believe most people will look at the 'failures' of an ideology and try to learn from those mistakes, thereby possibly bringing about that ideology, with some minor difference. the only time it is dangerous is when people blindly accept it without questioin. for example, many will say that communism as an ideology is great but they won't follow it because it doesn't work, its been tried and failed (of course we here all know that there has yet to be any true communism). but those who still or newly adhere to the communist ideology can observe what made that ideology falter where it did, and by learning from that actually create true communism. i'm not sure if i'm making sense, but not many understand me.

[BOZG]

Is it dangerous to allow an ideology to gain such a status that even when it fails the idea seduces new followers? The relevence here is obvious...

Of course it is, but what has failed is very subjective.

[Wenty]

Is it dangerous to allow an ideology to gain such a status that even when it fails the idea seduces new followers?

New followers can take the idea and change it. See where it went wrong and make it work, that is if the idea is fundamentally worthwhile.

[Trissy]

Is it dangerous to allow an ideology to gain such a status that even when it fails, the idea seduces new followers?

I think that it can be dangerous to let an ideology become held in such high esteem that even when it fails, it still attracts new follower. However I think depends on a few other circumstances.

I think the first danger is if an ideology has an error inherent within it, which cannot be resolved no matter how hard people try to correct it. An example of this could be capitalism with its tendancy to make a minority wealthy whilst the majority become poorer and poorer. Marx fortold the collapse of Capitalism and I think it is fair to say that if we followed it through to it's logical conclusion then it will collapse. Marx gave no timescale for this and nor did he foresee Capitalism being so resolute in its defence but we could argue Capitalism is a doomed ideology. However this doesn't stop people having a firm faith in it.

The second danger is linked in with what BOZG said. Failure sometimes can be very subjective and when this is the case then we are in danger of some people introducing a new version of an ideology whilst others cling to the mast of the old ideology. An example of this could be all the different branches of Socialism there are. Rivalry between two ideologies that are very similar can be very destructive.


511. Loyal to their convictions.— The man who has a lot to do usually keeps his general views and opinions almost unchanged; as does each person who works in the service of an idea. He will never test the idea itself any more; he no longer has time for that. Indeed, it is contrary to his interest even to think it possible to discuss it.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Good points everyone, well I was too sure what I was getting at when I made the post, its a little fragmented and the title suggests bigger things. However I was reading today just for an exam on Nietzschen aesthetics and came across an idea and an aphorism I hadnt thought about for a while so I thought I'd post them here:

When Nietzsche talks about Christianity he basically views it as a superficial mask for an underlying morality. It being the most successful way for the morality of ressentiment to flourish etc.

Well the more you think about his attacks on any of the modern ideas he alludes to such as socialism or liberlaism the more I feel he equates them with the idea of them being a form of the Christian ideal, talking the morality of ressentiment further. Wouldnt socialism essentially be this kind of morality talking to its logical conclusion and thus being the ideal Christian society, disregarding god here, the actual underlying morality of Chritianity being what I am alluding too.

Just on truth:


What is truth? - Who would not put up with an inference that believers like to draw: ''Science cannot be true for it denies God; consequently it is not true, for God is truth.'' The error is not contained within the inference but within the premise: what if God just were not truth, and if it were exactly that which was proven? if he were man's vanity, lust for power, impatience and terror? If he were man's delighted and terrible delusion?

Last line is especially amazing to me. This may well become my Nietzsche thoughts thread.

[Trissy]

Very interesting...very interesting indeed! I've been mulling it over for the last twenty minutes and it has got me into a Nietzsche loop
(yay! :D ).

I'd never thought of a link between Socialism and Christianity this way but now it has been mentioned I do think that it could be seen as a society based on a morality of ressentiment with the State replacing the Church as dictator of the morlaity of ressentiment. Could it be that Socialism is the first step towards us realising that the death of God is nigh? I think I'll have to ponder this over some more as it disturbs me slightly (only in the sense that it has shaken many of my previous thoughts right down to their foundations)...

My initial thought in regards to the aphorism is that he is trying to show that ideologies, as constructions made by man, are fallible (which is something followers try to ignore/hide/deny/skate over). The question this raises is how does one avoid such a revelation freezing one to the spot (as all of man's premises can perhaps be doubted and/or seen as fallible). It leads me once again to a ledge overlooking the abyss...maybe only noble ethics or the Superman (a rough ideology of sorts which is cappable of recognising its true purpose perhaps?) are able to help us avoid slipping in?

A Nietzsche thoughts thread? Bravo! *applauds loudly*