Log in

View Full Version : For Redstar, some ideas on Nietzsche



Pedro Alonso Lopez
13th May 2004, 22:18
Redstar believes that Nietzsche is one of the many philosophers who got it wrong, sometimes he asserts philosophers get it right but overall they get it wrong. Redstar is clearly somebody influenced by an Enlightenment version of reason, that is a strict combination of rationalism and empricism. All very well but he suggests that we are very uncritical of our idols here such as Nietzsche who we often quote because we want and I quote him here from this thread:


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

http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?s...32&hl=nietzsche (http://www.che-lives.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=22832&hl=nietzsche)

Perhaps Redstar fails to realise that Nietzsche is first and foremost not a political philosopher which causes obvious differences between Marx from whom we all I am guessing have taken an interest and most likely accepted his theories most likely in relation to class antagonism being irreconciable. Well Nietzsche' concern is not with wage labour or anything of the sort, his interest is in cultural spirituality regardless of the state of affairs that a society finds itself in. In fact he called for 'As little state as possible' which I sure we can all agree sounds very unlike anything a fascist would dare utter.



Also Nietzsche marks a departure from the Romantic peroid and is essentially reacting against Victorian morals, keep this in mind, context is important and you know it.

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.

All have systematic grand systems but all have been shown to have holes, Nietzsche avoided this by short aphorisms and quick dips into thought. Now I know you will say it is because he has nothing to say but thats besides the point, a problem with Nietzsche is that he is often provoking the reader to think and his aphorism are easily taken out of context. Now I know you will presume me to be being uncritical but I have pointed out elsewhere that Nietzsche was not always anti-feminist or why he may have been so wary of women considering his life. No excuse perhaps but sometimes you make posts with the aim of making him seem reactionary which is untrue.


The most obvious example:


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

When he says bring your whip 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.

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.

Some more quotes of his on women:



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

Some I posted elsewhere:


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


Just a few ideas I had to get out there, I just feel he is getting a hard time and some people will believe anything you say Redstar that it becomes neccessary to make posts like this.

Pedro Alonso Lopez
13th May 2004, 22:20
That only relates to women, Redstar I would like you to prove to me Nietzsche was a fascist or any of the other charges you bring against him. Or even his influence if you wish.

redstar2000
13th May 2004, 23:43
[Nietzsche's] interest is in cultural spirituality regardless of the state of affairs that a society finds itself in.

Ok, we have a problem right from the beginning. What is "cultural spirituality"?

What is it supposed to mean? How and why does it change from one historical era to another?


Also Nietzsche marks a departure from the Romantic period and is essentially reacting against Victorian morals...

Is he? It strikes me that there is much of 19th century romanticism in what he has to say.


Nietzsche avoided this by short aphorisms and quick dips into thought.

There's nothing inherently wrong with that as method...in fact, it's exactly what we do on a message board.

That doesn't change the fact that the aphorism, however witty, must stand the test of critical examination. Neither he nor you can slide by with "oh, I didn't actually mean that; I was just trying to be thought-provoking".

Imagine how I would get roasted if I said something brazenly stupid and, when called on it, tried to get by with "I was just being thought-provoking".


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

Does he indeed. Do women really "enjoy" being dominated by men? Did he make a true statement?

And how do you reconcile that aphorism with this one?


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.

Thus women not only "enjoy" being dominated by men, but they "enjoy" it especially because they "know" they are truly "superior" to those that dominate them.

Whether you chose to "interpret" this sort of thing literally or symbolically hardly seems to make any difference; it is a hopeless muddle that is completely unsubstantiated.


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

If I "interpret" your statement correctly, you're saying that he didn't mean a word of what he actually said.

I don't know...perhaps he was completely wacko all along.


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

In isolation, that's publisher's babble...what you find on the book jacket to get you to buy the book.

What "completely new orientation"?

The devil is always in the details.


...I just feel [Nietzsche] is getting a hard time, and some people will believe anything you say, Redstar, that it becomes necessary to make posts like this.

People should read what I say just as critically as they read anyone else; obviously there's little I can do if someone just "believes everything I say is true".

But yes, I am giving Nietzsche a "hard time"...I think he's earned it.


I would like you to prove to me Nietzsche was a fascist...

Nietzsche died several decades prior to the rise of fascism as a "coherent" doctrine. The Nazis borrowed some of his more colorful expressions ("the blond beast", "the superman", etc.) to illustrate their own ideological fantasies...but it's a matter of historical record that Nietzsche himself was contemptuous of both anti-semitism and German nationalism...assuming that he "meant" what he "said" on those occasions, at least.

I think it is fair to say that he was one of the sources of fascist ideology...but very far from an important one. The entire corpus of 19th century romanticism had, I think, a fascist "undertone". There were many intellectual "sources" of fascism and its Nazi variant.

Probably much more important than Nietzsche in this respect was the rise of "racial science" in the U.S. and England in the first quarter of the 20th century.

But I'm not giving Nietzsche a "hard time" because he was a minor-league "proto-fascist"...but rather because what he had to say makes no sense.

:redstar2000:

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

Pedro Alonso Lopez
14th May 2004, 10:23
Well I think most of what you have to say is fair especially from the viewpoint you come from so i'll just leave it. I'll take some of your points, maybe it will breath some life into some old texts.

elijahcraig
14th May 2004, 20:27
If I "interpret" your statement correctly, you're saying that he didn't mean a word of what he actually said.

That’s ridiculous, and I don’t agree with what Geist said either on this, though I think I know he meant it differently than you.