Nietzsche denounced idea of social equality?

[Individual]

{ if I have observed correctly, the "unfreedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly personal manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in themselves, the personal right to their merits at any price. Others, on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to lay blame for themselves somewhere else. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit today of taking the side of criminals; a sort of sociality pity is their most attractive disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed ebellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine" ("the religion of human suffering"), that is its "good taste". }

Interpretation of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil by Walter Kauffman. Taken from: On the Prejudices of Philosophers, section 21

{ "nature's conformity to law," of which you physicists talk so proudly, as thought--why, it exists only owing to your interpretation and bad "philology." It is no matter of fact, no "text," but rather only naively humanitarian emendation and perversion of meaning, with which you make abundant concessions to the democratic instincts of the modern soul. "Everywhere equality before the law; nature is no different in that respect, no better off than we are"--a fine instance of ulterior motivation, in which the plebeian antagonism to everything privileged and autocratic as well as a second and more refined atheism are disguised once more. "Ni Dieu, ni maitre" ("Neither God nor master.")--that is what you, too, want; and therefore "cheers for the law of nature" }

Interpretation of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil by Walter Kauffman. Taken from: On the Prejudices of Philosophers, section 23


Here is my interpretation:

Nature is different everywhere, acquiring different circumstances to everyone. How can there be equality within such difference?

I get the impression he feels that Nature is different everywhere you go, therefore Nature is not set up for equality.

However of the contrary, Nietzsche can be rather deceiving and play devil's advocate. It almost seems that when brought down to it, he compares the two, only to mean the same. So in saying that we all care too much of ourselves, and our own inner being, that some of us don't wish to believe that blame be on the their own individual, yet elsewhere.

I am confused at this, and was hoping someone would have their own interpretation to add.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Just keep in mind Nietzsche is a perspectivist and believes truth is not static.

I'd go into more detail but I have an exam tomorrow but I mite try to do so.

[percept¡on]

Nietzsche believed that some were naturally 'strong' and some were naturally 'weak' and that 'equality' was the weak bringing the strong down to their level. In fact, Nietzsche believed that the weak and strong should be completly segregated, as the weak would infect the strong with their weakness, which he claimed was contagious.

Keep in mind he was insane.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nietzsche wasnt insane, comments like that piss me off.

He went insane.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 7 2004, 10:25 PM
Nietzsche wasnt insane, comments like that piss me off.

He went insane.
I know he wasn't clinically insane until like 1885, but after reading a lot of his work I think he was slipping in and out of madness much earlier. Remember, genius and insanity are never far apart.

[Trissy]

I know he wasn't clinically insane until like 1885, but after reading a lot of his work I think he was slipping in and out of madness much earlier. Remember, genius and insanity are never far apart.

Nietzsche was only insane for the last 11 years of his life from 1889 'til 1900. I think you could only doubt the sanity of the few months prior to his collapse, and I don't think he was 'slipping in and out of madness much earlier'. True, the last few years of his life were tragic but like you said that doesn't detract from the genius of the man.

[Individual]

In all honesty, can you blame him for going insane?

Using Nietzsche's logic, you have only interpreted him as going insane, when in fact this may have been the greatest thought of his existence.

Besides this nonsense argument, you are all the one's I was looking for a reply. I am confused at his idea on social equality, and would love to hear your interpretations on the subject.

So if you could..

[Trissy]

I sincerely doubt Nietzsche chose to go insane as such. Many have ascribed his insanity to his contracting of an STD (syphilis?) as a student in a brothel but that could easily be mere speculation. The idea of him choosing to act/be insane I find hard to believe because of his extremely troublesome relationship with his sister. They were very different individuals and I doubt Nietzsche would have chosen to fall into her despicable care.

In regards to social equality it can be argued that Nietzsche did indeed see it in a negative light. We all have many different strengths and weaknesses and this is what makes us who we are...the desire for equality could be seen as a nihilistic (and in that sense a Christain) urge to equate everything as equal and in doing so to remove all values from the world. Why would we wish to remove values from the world? Well maybe because we are weak like Perception mentioned and we see equality as a way of surviving (the herd instinct of the masses holding back the few strong individuals).

In regards to the two passages you mentioned (section 21 and 22 of 'On the Prejudices of Philosophers') I find section 21 the most interesting. In it Nietzsche can be seen to denounce freewill but I prefer to see it rather as a cautious warning. I think he is pointing out that freewill is a phemomenon (a thing as it appears) not a noumenon (a thing-in-itself), rather then Nietzsche saying that we are completely determined by the world around us.

[percept¡on]

Nietzsche speaks directly about this in the Geneaology of Morals. He says that weaklings should be put in a hospital and that only other weaklings should care for them because their weakness will infect any of the strong individuals who come into contact with them. He says that 'slave morality' (as he refers to the Judeo-Christian ethic) makes the strong feel guilty for being better than the weak and makes the weak treat weakness as some sort of virtue. I wish I had my copy of this on hand but I lent it out so I can't quote it directly.

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 01:06 AM
the desire for equality could be seen as a nihilistic (and in that sense a Christain) urge to equate everything as equal and in doing so to remove all values from the world. Why would we wish to remove values from the world?

That was actually exactly what Nietzsche wanted.


Well maybe because we are weak like Perception mentioned and we see equality as a way of surviving (the herd instinct of the masses holding back the few strong individuals).

Actually Nietzsche attributes it to jealousy.

[Trissy]

That was actually exactly what Nietzsche wanted.

Why would Nietzsche wish such a thing? That would place him in the camp of Nihilism (which he was quite critical of). Nietzsche wanted a 'revaluation of all values' and as such reappraisal of the world around us with the values of the individual (rather then the herd) playing a more important role.

[Wenty]

I too hate the 'insane' label. Its been said though that throughout his life Nietzsche had many 'voices' or 'masks' contradicting themselves constantly in his writing. Him going insane could be attributed to the various voices finally taking over.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I know he wasn't clinically insane until like 1885, but after reading a lot of his work I think he was slipping in and out of madness much earlier. Remember, genius and insanity are never far apart.

Its about 1889 after the AntiChrist although I reckon that book has tints of madness. Oh and by your logic Kant was probably insane since madness and genius are never far apart!

AQ it all really relates to Nietzsches idea of the ethic of pity. His suspicions are first turned towards the 'non-egotisitical instincts', remember Nietzsche thinks he is battling against nihilism and views concepts such as compassion and pity as weak and thus leading toward the part of nihilism, embodied for him in Christianity. He sense in pity and self sacrifice etc. a kind of stagnation or as he calls it, a will that has turned against life. The anti-life aspects of these feelings lead to nihilism.

He feels pity and the need for equality go against the development of mankind because it preserves the weak. He concludes basically that pity is harmful to us both psychologically and for some reason that dumbstucks him it is the cornerstone of civilisation!

So I guess you cann see why people like perception will misinterpet it, but remember that pity is basically what communism is based on, asserting the weak in society with the strong, his idea now not mine before somebody says it is!

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by [email protected] 8 2004, 05:48 PM

So I guess you cann see why people like perception will misinterpet it, but remember that pity is basically what communism is based on, asserting the weak in society with the strong, his idea now not mine before somebody says it is!
:huh:

wtf did I misinterpret?

God I wish I had this book on hand so I could son you.

[percept¡on]

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!"- Nietzsche, Thus Spake Zarathustra

[percept¡on]

"For let's admire the skilful counterfeiting with which people here imitate the trademarks of virtue, even its resounding tinkle, the golden sound of virtue. They've now taken a lease on virtue entirely for themselves, these weak and hopeless invalids—there's no doubt about that. "We alone are the good men, the just men"—that's how they speak: "We alone are the homines bonae voluntatis [men of good will]." They wander around among us like personifications of reproach, like warnings to us, as if health, success, strength, pride, and a feeling of power were inherently depraved things, for which people must expiate some day, expiate bitterly. How they thirst to be hangmen! Among them there are plenty of people disguised as judges seeking revenge. They always have the word "Justice" in their mouths, like poisonous saliva, with their mouths always pursed, constantly ready to spit at anything which does not look discontented and goes on its way in good spirits.

Among them there is no lack of that most disgusting species of vain people, the lying monsters who aim to present themselves as "beautiful souls," and carry off to market their ruined sensuality, wrapped up in verse and other swaddling clothes, as "purity of heart"—the species of self-gratifying moral masturbators. The desire of sick people to present some form or other of superiority, their instinct for secret paths leading to a tyranny over the healthy—where can we not find it, this very will to power of the weakest people! The sick woman, in particular: no one outdoes her in refined ways to rule others, to exert pressure, to tyrannize. For that purpose, the sick woman spares nothing living or dead. She digs up again the most deeply buried things (the Bogos say "The woman is a hyena").

Take a look into the background of every family, every corporation, every community—everywhere you see the struggle of the sick against the healthy, a quiet struggle, for the most part, with a little poison powder, with needling, with deceitful expressions of long suffering, but now and then also with that sick man's Pharisaic tactic of loud gestures, whose favourite role is "noble indignation." It likes to make itself heard all the way into the consecrated rooms of science, that hoarse, booming indignation of the pathologically ill hound, the biting insincerity and rage of such "noble" Pharisees (once again I remind readers who have ears of Eugene Duhring, that apostle of revenge from Berlin, who in today's Germany makes the most indecent and most revolting use of moralistic gibberish—Duhring, the pre-eminent moral braggart we have nowadays, even among those like him, the anti-Semites). They are all men of resentment, these physiologically impaired and worm-eaten men, a totally quivering earthly kingdom of subterranean revenge, inexhaustible, insatiable in its outbursts against the fortunate, and equally in its masquerades of revenge, its pretexts for revenge. When would they attain their ultimate, most refined, most sublime triumph of revenge? Undoubtedly, if they could succeed in pushing their own wretchedness, all misery in general, into the consciences of the fortunate, so that the latter one day might begin to be ashamed of their good fortune and perhaps would say to themselves, "It's a shameful to be fortunate. There's too much misery!" . . ." - Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals

[Trissy]

God I wish I had this book on hand so I could son you.

Never say I don't give you people things! Behold a precious link to a lovely supply of Nietzsche's work (not all of it but a very good site none the less). Look under Text: English...

The Nietzsche Channel (http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/)

or here

Alternative source for Nietzsche (http://www.inquiria.com/nz/)

[percept¡on]

"When the oppressed, the downtrodden, the conquered say to each other, with the vengeful cunning of the powerless, "Let us be different from evil people, namely, good! And that man is good who does not overpower, who hurts no one, who does not attack, who does not retaliate, who hands revenge over to God, who keeps himself hidden, as we do, who avoids all evil and demands little from life in general—like us, the patient, humble, and upright"—what that amounts to, coolly expressed and without bias, is essentially nothing more than "We weak people are merely weak. It's good if we do nothing, because we're not strong enough."

But this bitter state, this shrewdness of the lowest ranks, which even insects possess (for in great danger they stand as if they were dead in order not to do "too much"), has, thanks to the counterfeiting and self-deception of powerlessness, dressed itself in the splendour of a self-denying, still, patient virtue, just as if the weakness of the weak man himself—that means his essence, his actions, his entire single, inevitable, and irredeemable reality—is a voluntary achievement, something willed, chosen, an act, something of merit. This kind of man needs to believe in the disinterested, freely choosing "subject" out of his instinct for self-preservation, self-approval, in which every falsehood is habitually sanctified. The subject (or, to use a more popular style, the soul) has up to now probably been the best principle for belief on earth, because, for the majority of the dying, the weak, and the downtrodden of all sorts, it makes possible a sublime self-deception which establishes weakness itself as freedom and their being like this or that as something meritorious." - Nietzsche, The Genealogy of Morals

[percept¡on]

This is a good one:

—"I see nothing, but I hear all the more. It is a careful and crafty light rumour-mongering and whispering from every nook and cranny. It seem to me that people are lying; a sugary mildness clings to every sound. Weakness is going to be falsified into something of merit. There's no doubt about it—things are just as you said they were."

—Keep talking!

"—and powerlessness which does not retaliate is being falsified into 'goodness,' anxious baseness into 'humility,' submission before those one hates to 'obedience' (of course, obedience to the one who, they say, commands this submission—they call him God). The inoffensiveness of the weak man, even cowardice, in which he is rich, his standing at the door, his inevitable need to wait around—here these acquire good names, like 'patience' and are called virtue. That incapacity for revenge is called the lack of desire for revenge, perhaps even forgiveness ('for they know not what they do—only we know what they do!'). And people are talking about 'love for one's enemy'—and sweating as they say it."

—Keep talking!

"They are miserable—there's no doubt about that—all these rumour mongers and counterfeiters in the corners, although crouched down beside each other in the warmth—but they are telling me that their misery is God's choice, His sign. One beats the dog one loves the most. Perhaps this misery may be a preparation, a test, an education, perhaps it is even more—something that will one day be rewarded and paid out with huge interest in gold, no, in happiness. They call that 'blessedness'."

—Go on!

"Now they are telling me that they are not only better than the powerful, the masters of the earth, whose spit they have to lick (not out of fear, certainly not out of fear, but because God commands that they honour those in authority)—they are not only better than these but they also are 'better off,' or at any rate will one day have it better. But enough! Enough! I can't endure it any more. Bad air! Bad air! This workshop where man fabricates ideals—it seems to me it stinks from nothing but lies."

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I'm sorry but what are you trying to tell us?

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

If its that Nietzsche didnt like weakness, where does anybody disagree?

[percept¡on]

Originally posted by percept¡[email protected] 7 2004, 10:15 PM
Nietzsche believed that some were naturally 'strong' and some were naturally 'weak' and that 'equality' was the weak bringing the strong down to their level.
for some reason you were claiming that I am misinterpreting Nietzsche with this assertion.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You misinterpeted his view on morality. You claim he simply hates the weak when you fail to explain why although your later posts show a certain understanding. You seem to think Nietzsche was just some insane megalomaniac who hated the weak for no reason.

[elijahcraig]

{ if I have observed correctly, the "unfreedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly personal manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in themselves, the personal right to their merits at any price. Others, on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to lay blame for themselves somewhere else. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit today of taking the side of criminals; a sort of sociality pity is their most attractive disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed ebellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine" ("the religion of human suffering"), that is its "good taste". }

Interpretation of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil by Walter Kauffman. Taken from: On the Prejudices of Philosophers, section 21

{ "nature's conformity to law," of which you physicists talk so proudly, as thought--why, it exists only owing to your interpretation and bad "philology." It is no matter of fact, no "text," but rather only naively humanitarian emendation and perversion of meaning, with which you make abundant concessions to the democratic instincts of the modern soul. "Everywhere equality before the law; nature is no different in that respect, no better off than we are"--a fine instance of ulterior motivation, in which the plebeian antagonism to everything privileged and autocratic as well as a second and more refined atheism are disguised once more. "Ni Dieu, ni maitre" ("Neither God nor master.")--that is what you, too, want; and therefore "cheers for the law of nature" }

Interpretation of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil by Walter Kauffman. Taken from: On the Prejudices of Philosophers, section 23


Here is my interpretation:

Nature is different everywhere, acquiring different circumstances to everyone. How can there be equality within such difference?

I get the impression he feels that Nature is different everywhere you go, therefore Nature is not set up for equality.

However of the contrary, Nietzsche can be rather deceiving and play devil's advocate. It almost seems that when brought down to it, he compares the two, only to mean the same. So in saying that we all care too much of ourselves, and our own inner being, that some of us don't wish to believe that blame be on the their own individual, yet elsewhere.

I am confused at this, and was hoping someone would have their own interpretation to add.

I think you’ve missed it a little.

Nietzsche felt that the idea of “social equality” was a cry of the weak, the repressed, therefore the resentful. He did not wish everyone to be ‘equal,” and also thought it impossible for it to be so. He considered the, as Freud would say, “return of the repressed” an attack on the aesthetically strong, and an attack on the Will of the strong. The weak use ideas like “equality,” while the strong use the ideas of art, etc. He viewed any abhorrence of life a mistake.

He judged everything based on the aesthetics of a culture. Greece was great, not because it was ever “democratic,” but because it produced great artists. Nietzsche, like Sacher-Masoch, considered the greatest artists to be produced from social inequality and social hierarchy. Orson Welles thought this as well.


Nietzsche believed that some were naturally 'strong' and some were naturally 'weak' and that 'equality' was the weak bringing the strong down to their level. In fact, Nietzsche believed that the weak and strong should be completly segregated, as the weak would infect the strong with their weakness, which he claimed was contagious.

Keep in mind he was insane.

He did not believe people were “naturally” anything. He believed the social conditions could produce strong or weak individuals, based on the culture. Nietzsche was in his youth a devout Christian, they even called him the little preacher. He was a slave to the moralism of the Christian culture. When he revolted under the guise of Schopenhauer and others, he came into his own, became himself, and was a master.

He was not insane until the end of his life. Anyone who claims otherwise is misreading Nietzsche.


In regards to the two passages you mentioned (section 21 and 22 of 'On the Prejudices of Philosophers') I find section 21 the most interesting. In it Nietzsche can be seen to denounce freewill but I prefer to see it rather as a cautious warning. I think he is pointing out that freewill is a phemomenon (a thing as it appears) not a noumenon (a thing-in-itself), rather then Nietzsche saying that we are completely determined by the world around us.

He was neither a determinist or a free will philosopher. He considered them both to be drastically overstated, I think.


Nietzsche speaks directly about this in the Geneaology of Morals. He says that weaklings should be put in a hospital and that only other weaklings should care for them because their weakness will infect any of the strong individuals who come into contact with them. He says that 'slave morality' (as he refers to the Judeo-Christian ethic) makes the strong feel guilty for being better than the weak and makes the weak treat weakness as some sort of virtue. I wish I had my copy of this on hand but I lent it out so I can't quote it directly.

He means that the internalized morality produced in individuals causes an injury to the strength of the masters in society. The resentment of the repressed causes the guilt-factor (as Freud called it sometimes, and others) in the strong, thereby weakening all virtues.



We should also not miss the great psychological points most of Nietzsche’s writings make.

[Trissy]

He was neither a determinist or a free will philosopher. He considered them both to be drastically overstated, I think.

I agree. Hence I remarked on how freewill can be seen as a phenomena, yet we are also aware of being determined by some things. I don't see where your point disagrees with mine :huh:

[elijahcraig]

I think I was just rambling on about Nietzsche, not consciously disagreeing.

[redstar2000]

He judged everything based on the aesthetics of a culture. Greece was great, not because it was ever "democratic," but because it produced great artists. Nietzsche, like Sacher-Masoch, considered the greatest artists to be produced from social inequality and social hierarchy. Orson Welles thought this as well.

That might or might not be true; so what?

The resentment of social inequality and social hierarchy is not an aesthetic judgment.

Freedom from wage-slavery is worth more than all the art ever made or that ever will be made...put together!


We should also not miss the great psychological points most of Nietzsche’s writings make.

Yeah, like that "women being closer to nature" crapola that you posted.

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You are forgetting Redstar that Nietzsche wasnt interested in the idea of class, people here discuss his ideas they arent neccessarily accepting them. We are here so we are clearly Marxists or believe in social equality so dont worry.

You cannot be a Nietzschen by the way so dont think we are, your posts point out his flaws. We are aware of them, but we move on and discuss his thought because that is what philosophy is about.

He was considered for a long time before being called a philosopher a psychologist because his insights were so good, but hey he didnt like women so he is worthless eh! Good on ya Redstar.

[elijahcraig]

That might or might not be true; so what?

The resentment of social inequality and social hierarchy is not an aesthetic judgment.

Freedom from wage-slavery is worth more than all the art ever made or that ever will be made...put together!

The resentment created by “inequality” is not an aesthetic judgement, it is one done psychologically. It’s products ARE an aesthetic judgement.

Freedom from wage-slavery is not worth more than a third rate translation of War and Peace, let alone all art ever made.


Yeah, like that "women being closer to nature" crapola that you posted.

You are almost exactly like Christian dogmatists, merely in a different field of belief.


You cannot be a Nietzschen by the way so dont think we are, your posts point out his flaws. We are aware of them, but we move on and discuss his thought because that is what philosophy is about.

He has pointed out no "flaws." He has pointed out that he is a dogmatist and can reject all thought outside of that prduced by the Enlightenment.

[redstar2000]

You are forgetting, Redstar, that Nietzsche wasn't interested in the idea of class; people here discuss his ideas, they aren't necessarily accepting them.

I'm not criticizing Nietzsche because he wasn't a Marxist; I'm suggesting that his formula of "art comes from social hierarchy" is one that devalues art to the level of useless encumbrance and obstacle to our liberation.

In fact, Elijah Craig (who else?) furnishes a perfect example...


Freedom from wage-slavery is not worth more than a third rate translation of War and Peace, let alone all art ever made.

As long as this poor sap is entertained, he doesn't feel the chains on his own body...or in his own mind.

(Of course, it's possible that he's a "rich kid" and will never be a wage slave...then his comment would make a kind of sense.)

What is beginning to irritate me a little about this forum is not "discussion of ideas" but the failure to critically discuss those ideas.

When you read some quip from Nietzsche, do you stop and ask yourself: is this true?

Or do you "suspend disbelief"...as if you were reading a novel?


...we move on and discuss his thought because that is what philosophy is about.

I disagree. Philosophy as a summary of "great thoughts" would be about as useful as a book-length collection of Kant's grocery lists.

Philosophy is critical or it's just a waste of time.


He was considered for a long time, before being called a philosopher, a psychologist because his insights were so good, but hey, he didn't like women so he is worthless eh! Good on ya Redstar.

What are the merits of his "psychological insights" in the light of the fact that he "didn't like women"? That's half the human species, you may recall.

How would you evaluate my claims to having "good psychological insights" if I prefaced them with a startling assertion: men suck!?

As usual, by the way, Elijah has called me a "dogmatist"...and, as usual, he's right.

The fact that I decline to accept any of his irrationalist dogmatism is "proof" that I am, indeed, "confirmed in sin".

I predict that sooner or later Elijah will "find God" (with a name like that, he's got a head start)...and cease to trouble us with his visions of a new dark age.

:redstar2000:

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

[Raisa]

....Nietzsche denounced the idea of social equality?

Yes. Correct me if im wrong but didnt he come up with the theory of the super man who is better then every one else, that inspired the nazis?

[elijahcraig]

I'm not criticizing Nietzsche because he wasn't a Marxist; I'm suggesting that his formula of "art comes from social hierarchy" is one that devalues art to the level of useless encumbrance and obstacle to our liberation.

In fact, Elijah Craig (who else?) furnishes a perfect example...

Art does not “come from social hierarchy” in Nietzsche’s view. Social hierarchy is merely one of the circumstances in which it can function.

Liberation is not a state of being, it is an act of being; therefore, there is no “liberation,” in terms of “the promise land,” in the way you use it. Art has no “use,” as Wilde said, your idea that it should “motivate social outcomes” is ridiculous and against the artistic spirit, laid down by Eugene Jolas in his Manifestation of the Word, written with Joyce’s Wake in mind.


As long as this poor sap is entertained, he doesn't feel the chains on his own body...or in his own mind.

Entertainment has absolutely nothing to do with art.


(Of course, it's possible that he's a "rich kid" and will never be a wage slave...then his comment would make a kind of sense.)

Of course, it’s possible that I live in a rented duplex in a jobless town, where I qualify as lower-middle class.


What is beginning to irritate me a little about this forum is not "discussion of ideas" but the failure to critically discuss those ideas.

When you read some quip from Nietzsche, do you stop and ask yourself: is this true?

Or do you "suspend disbelief"...as if you were reading a novel?

“Critical discussion” in your sense means to dismiss all ideas which do not fit into your dogmatic belief system. “Critical discussion” in my sense means not to dismiss these ideas merely because they don’t fit the frame of Marxism.

Of course you ask yourself “is this true.” Then again, as I think Heidegger said, all questions imply that there is an answer which is sought, meaning all perception holds a grain of truth at least. A critical reading of all philosophy is necessary.

Suspension of disbelief applies to philosophy in no instance.


I disagree. Philosophy as a summary of "great thoughts" would be about as useful as a book-length collection of Kant's grocery lists.

Philosophy is critical or it's just a waste of time.

Philosophy is not a “summary of great thoughts,” but a discourse on the nature of life.


What are the merits of his "psychological insights" in the light of the fact that he "didn't like women"? That's half the human species, you may recall.

He did not dislike women, I don’t even know where you get this idiocy from.


How would you evaluate my claims to having "good psychological insights" if I prefaced them with a startling assertion: men suck!?

That you were an overthetop Feminist who merely wishes to further the cause of resentment.


As usual, by the way, Elijah has called me a "dogmatist"...and, as usual, he's right.

The fact that I decline to accept any of his irrationalist dogmatism is "proof" that I am, indeed, "confirmed in sin".

I have stated nothing which is “irrational,” in the sense that it is not logical. EVERY statement I have made is based on logical philosophical discourse. YOUR statements are a series of dogmatic assertions based on your pre-formed views of everything, non-Marxist.


I predict that sooner or later Elijah will "find God" (with a name like that, he's got a head start)...and cease to trouble us with his visions of a new dark age.

I’m not sure you know the brand of alcohol “Elijah Craig.”


....Nietzsche denounced the idea of social equality?

Yes. Correct me if im wrong but didnt he come up with the theory of the super man who is better then every one else, that inspired the nazis?

Nietzsche used the theory of the Ubermensch, Superman, Overman, etc. to mean the higher level of consciousness attained by those who reject herd-mentality. Examples are Socrates, Shakespeare, Joyce, Napoleon, Wagner, and many others.

His “inspiring” the Nazis is a common misunderstanding. Nietzsche’s ideas were butchered by his sister in “The Will to Power,” and in notebooks, therefore allowing the nazis to utilize his sister’s nazi ideas in favor of theirs. Nietzsche once refused to see his sister anymore because she had fallen into relation with an anti-semite, and become one herself. He even refused to go to her wedding. He also broke with Wagner over the question of anti-Semitism, among other things. Nietzshce is not responsible for what people do with his writings after his death. As Jung once said, Nietzsche’s writings are for psychologists, not for the masses who are easily corrupted.

[redstar2000]

Art does not "come from social hierarchy" in Nietzsche’s view.

I quoted you...this is what you wrote:


He judged everything based on the aesthetics of a culture. Greece was great, not because it was ever "democratic," but because it produced great artists. Nietzsche...considered the greatest artists to be produced from social inequality and social hierarchy. -- emphasis added.

Are you confused...or was Nietzsche?


Liberation is not a state of being, it is an act of being; therefore, there is no "liberation," in terms of "the promise land," in the way you use it.

Prior to 1865, black people in the Confederacy were owned by white people. After 1865, that was no longer the case.

Clearly a dramatic change in their "state of being".


Art has no "use," as Wilde said, your idea that it should "motivate social outcomes" is ridiculous and against the artistic spirit...

I suppose it would be "ridiculous"...if I had said it.

Unfortunately, I didn't.

I do have a definite personal preference for art that is highly critical of the prevailing social order...but I don't "universalize" my preferences in that regard.


"Critical discussion" in your sense means to dismiss all ideas which do not fit into your dogmatic belief system.

Dismiss? When I simply argue that assertions should be met with the simple question: does that make sense?

You are always free to put forward arguments and evidence to support the assertions of Nietzsche or any other irrationalist...why have you not done so in the case of that "woman is closer to nature" crapola?

Or pick something else. Pick your favorite Nietzsche quote and then defend it!

Show us why it is "really true", "really insightful", really "hits the nail on the head".

You can call me a "dogmatist" all you want...but until you offer something more substantive, what do you expect me to do?

"Oh, Elijah really likes this one, so it must be true."

In your dreams.


He did not dislike women, I don’t even know where you get this idiocy from.

From another Nietzsche fan, of course. Geist wrote...


...but hey, he didn't like women so he is worthless eh! Good on ya Redstar.

Of course when Nietzsche wrote "When thou goest to woman to teach, forget not thy whip", it's a pretty safe assumption that he didn't exactly have a real high opinion of female intellectual capacity.


I have stated nothing which is "irrational," in the sense that it is not logical.

The problem is not with your "logic" -- it is your premises that are irrational.


As Jung once said, Nietzsche’s writings are for psychologists, not for the masses who are easily corrupted.

Oh, I don't know. I read Nietzsche and he didn't "corrupt" me. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Stupidity in a women is unfeminine


Is there a more sacred state than pregnancy?


Women have intelligence, men have character and passion.


The surest remedy for the male disease of self contempt is the love of a beautiful women

All quotes by Nietzsche on women. Most likely he was celibate, straight and loved few women so this where you get all the anti-feminist quotes from.

Other questions that he poses that I among others have had difficulty with:


Man is for woman a means; the prupose is always a child. But what is women for man?

Just to add some realisation that Nietzsche spent his life hating women.

[redstar2000]

Well, if women "are intelligent", then why does Nietzsche need a whip to teach them?

Why didn't he say "women are intelligent", but "if you have to teach something to a man, bring your whip"?

How about this for an alternative explanation: Nietzsche didn't have a clue about gender "characteristics". He was just recycling 19th century romanticist platitudes.

Is that too "harsh"?

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Not at all, I agree with you. Nobody here is saying Nietzsche dosent hate women, its just when we debate another aspect of his thought you bring it up.

[Individual]

As has been established, and prior known. I have found yet another prime example of extreme individualism that results in the superiority of the un-superior; individual men.

Here is a section from Nietzsche in Book IV of The Gay Science:

Preparatory human beings.— I welcome all signs that a more virile, warlike age is about to begin, which will restore honor to courage above all! For this age shall prepare the way for one yet higher, and it shall gather the strength that this higher age will require some day—the age that will carry heroism into the search for knowledge and that will wage wars for the sake of ideas and their consequences. To this end we now need many preparatory courageous human beings who cannot very well leap out of nothing—any more than out of the sand and slime of present-day civilization and metropolitanism: human beings who know how to be silent, lonely, resolute, and content and constant in invisible activities; human beings who are bent on seeking in all things for what in them must be overcome; human beings distinguished as much by cheerfulness, patience, unpretentiousness, and contempt for all great vanities as by magnanimity in victory and forbearance regarding the small vanities of the vanquished; human beings whose judgment concerning all victors and the share of chance in every victory and fame is sharp and free; human beings with their own festivals, their own working days, and their own periods of mourning, accustomed to command with assurance but instantly ready to obey when that is called for, equally proud, equally serving their own cause in both cases; more endangered human beings, more fruitful human beings, happier beings! For believe me!—the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! Soon the age will be past when you could be content to live hidden in forests like shy deer! At long last the search for knowledge will reach out for its due:—it will want to rule and possess, and you with it!

Interpret it as you will, however I believe this goes on the further explain Nietzsche's feeling that the "strong" are superior. Though I could be wrong...

Any thoughts?

[redstar2000]

I welcome all signs that a more virile, warlike age is about to begin, which will restore honor to courage above all!

A rather prescient observation...World War I was just over the horizon.

But the outcome was completely different; courage was exposed as nothing more than a foolish act...the "honor" of murder and death for the material benefit of vampires!

Virile? Corpses don't get erections!


For this age shall prepare the way for one yet higher, and it shall gather the strength that this higher age will require some day-the age that will carry heroism into the search for knowledge and that will wage wars for the sake of ideas and their consequences.

Dubious...although the Nazis certainly claimed that they were fighting for an "idea".

In any event, our modern imperialist wars are fought for gain...all the rest is empty propaganda.


To this end we now need many preparatory courageous human beings...accustomed to command with assurance but instantly ready to obey when that is called for, equally proud, equally serving their own cause in both cases...

This is one the Nazis must have used...or should have. It's very much "in tune" with the fascist outlook on life.


For believe me!-the secret for harvesting from existence the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is: to live dangerously!

There's some truth here...as long as you remember that there are many kinds of dangers. Some "nerd" sitting at a terminal communicating a "dangerous idea" may be living far more dangerously than a NASCAR driver or even a "civilian" contractor in Iraq.

There are many people who do physically dangerous things; physical courage is common...which is why I'm not "in awe" of it.

Intellectual courage is far rarer...and far more admirable in my view.

I'm willing to grant Nietzsche his due; he did rebel against some of the "accepted bullshit" of his era.

Just not enough. Not nearly enough!

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Nietzsche isn't talking about politics there Redstar or what will happen in the world history wise but generally about ideas and the whole superman idea which has nothing to do with race or anything of the sort.

And I think you would enjoy the Anti-Christ and its criticisms of faith, it is just a massive polemic against Christianity, great stuff.

[redstar2000]

And I think you would enjoy the Anti-Christ and its criticisms of faith, it is just a massive polemic against Christianity, great stuff.

I probably would and it's even possible that I have; there was a small group of rebellious kids who read Nietzsche's anti-Christian polemics in the high school I went to...so I could have easily seen them and just forgotten.

But remember that there was "nothing new" in anti-Christianity by the middle of the 19th century. The German "Left Hegelians" and the scholarly "Higher Criticism" of the Bible were both well under way by that time. There was a tradition of atheism dating from the French Revolution. Christianity got hammered in the 19th century...scientifically, philosophically, and even morally.

I'm willing to give Nietzsche his due -- he did his share to demolish the "cathedrals of the mind".

But the work of destroying the chains of superstition has been a collective effort involving millions of people...and it continues today, of course.

I give credit to everyone who has helped...pretty much regardless of what else they might have thought about things.

Even right-wing parents who nevertheless decline to drag their kids off to church have done a progressive deed.

:redstar2000:

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

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Sure I am well aware that his hatred off Christianity is nothing new but its rarely as vicious especially with regards to faith than in Nietzsche, that is why you may enjoy it.