You Have To Read Nietzsche's Books

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

u have to read all Nietzsche books if you want to change the world, Nietzsche explains how the world works. We need revolutionary supermen that can understand the concept of the will to power, the superman and the eternal return. Without it you will be a smart revolutionary but not be able to change the world, to destroy old values for a new socialist libertarian world.

Read this: From Ecce Homo 'Why Am I Destiny?'



REVALUATION OF ALL VALUES

Revaluation of all values: that is my formula for an act of supreme self-examination on the part of humanity, become flesh and genius in me. It is my fate that I have to be the first decent human being, that I know myself to stand in opposition to the mendaciousness of millennia ... I was the first to discover the truth by being the first to experience lies as lies—smelling them out ... My genius is in my nostrils ... I contradict as has never been contradicted before and am nevertheless the opposite of a No-saying spirit. I am a joyful ambassador like no one before me, I know tasks of such elevation that any notion of them has been lacking so far; only beginning with me are there hopes again. For all that, I am necessarily also the man of calamity. For when truth enters into a fight with the lies of millennia, we shall have upheavals, a convulsion of earthquakes, a moving of mountains and valleys, the like of which has never been dreamed of. The concept of politics will have merged entirely with a war of spirits, all power structures of the old society will have been exploded—all of them are based on lies: there will be wars the like of which have never yet been seen on earth. It is only beginning with me that the earth knows great politics

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

How about no. It doesn't take a superman, literal or otherwise, to be a revolutionary.

[pandora]

I agree, no way, this is the point of capitalism "Ubermensh" superman over community. The only reason to read Nietzche is to understand the capitalist mindset.

BUt if you want to understand revolution and community try reading subcommandante Marcos, or Marx

Nietzche is a selfish twat who advocated Machivellian principles to a new generation of anti-humanists anxious to find a new level of hyper capilalism and Social Darwinism. With the polite society of the Victorians disbanded the hyper capitalists needed a new reasoning for their selfish behavior, enter Nietzche.

It's a load of selfish overly intellectual crap, but don't take my word for it just read Ghandhi or any Tibetan Lama, they will roll their eyes at you.

Self cherishing and self grasping ignorance are the greatest barriers to communist society.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Hugo ChaveZ+--> (Hugo ChaveZ)you have to read all Nietzsche books if you want to change the world[/b]

No we don't.


Nietzsche explains how the world works.

No he doesn't.


We need revolutionary supermen that can understand the concept of the will to power, the superman and the eternal return.

No, we don't need "revolutionary supermen". And the only "eternal return" that I've noticed lately is people bringing up this decrepit 19th century romanticist as someone whom we "should learn from"...over and over again.


Nietzsche
My genius is in my nostrils.

I would suggest another part of his anatomy...the part where the sun never shines. :lol:

:redstar2000:

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

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

GREAT MEN ARE LIKE EXPLOSIONS

you people are too closed minded like most utopianists, if you don't read Nietzsche you still will be revolutionaries and leftists but capitalists will stretch your ass cuz only Nietzsche explains how the world works, the conception of the will, the power games and the eternal return.

We need to be stronger not angrier


Ultimate Will

To die thus,
As once I saw him die —
The friend who threw divine thunderbolts and
Glances into my dark youth.
Sportive and profound,
A dancer in the battle —

The most cheerful among warriors,
The gravest among victors,
A fate standing upon his fate,
Hard, reflective, calculating:

Trembling because he triumphed,
Rejoicing in that he triumphed dying:

Commanding while he died —
And he commanded that one destroy ...

To die thus,
As once I saw him die —
Vanquishing, destroying ...

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 9 2004, 09:10 PM
How about no. It doesn't take a superman, literal or otherwise, to be a revolutionary.

HOW ABOUT *YES*!!! IT DOES TAKE AN EXTRA-STRENGTH SUPRA WILL TO BECOME A REVOLUTIONARY. Do u think that most revolutionaries are like Che? William Wallace? Luther King? Fidel Castro? Most people are too lazy, dumb and slave, most leftists out there are too lazy, too layedback and we won't change the world like this. Maybe in about 350 years or so


"What is good? All that makes you strong. What is evil? Every thing that makes you weak. What is happiness? The feeling of strength increases." -The Antichrist


Keep logging onto the internet, maybe you can change the 'cyberworld' but not the 'real world' :rolleyes:



Hugo_Chavez

[NovelGentry]

Keep logging onto the internet, maybe you can change the 'cyberworld' but not the 'real world'

Yeah, cause no one from the "real world" goes on the internet!

Seriously man, you seem to be batshit crazy on this idea that we need revolutionary supermen, did it ever occur to you that maybe the proletariat wouldn't want to follow the kinds of people you might consider revolutionary supermen? Super ideas or not, such men are still human and still need the support of the "unsuper" to survive.

[Essential Insignificance]

I agree, no way, this is the point of capitalism "Ubermensh" superman over community. The only reason to read Nietzche is to understand the capitalist mindset.

Capitalist "mind-set"... most certainly not, aristocratic, perhaps.

Some could say the same for Marx; he had a ardent penchant for the German aristocracy.


Nietzche is a selfish twat who advocated Machivellian principles to a new generation of anti-humanists anxious to find a new level of hyper capilalism and Social Darwinism.
Wrong.

Nietzsche was often accused of being a social-Darwinist throughout his active (writing) life, but he always denied it vehemently.

There is a general attitude, that Nietzsche was fundamentally negative and nihilist. This is totally wrong, and this is why Nietzsche "moved away" from Schopenhauer's radical pessimism.

Nietzsche had accepted Schopenhauer's basic conception that the world was a "irrational" and "godless" affair of unbridled striving and "suffering"; but he was repelled by Schopenhauer's radical pessimistic outcome, and sought for some way to counter Schopenhauer's -- by arriving a different conclusion.

Nietzsche was a profoundly positive thinker, concerned to find a "solution" and a way out of the "advent of nihilism", which he believed to be a impending reaction and inevitable reaction -- because of the collapse of traditional values and interpretation, to a new "affirmation" and "enhancement" life.


It's a load of selfish overly intellectual crap, but don't take my word for it just read Ghandhi or any Tibetan Lama, they will roll their eyes at you.

Can you explain what you mean by that sentence please.


With the polite society of the Victorians disbanded the hyper capitalists needed a new reasoning for their selfish behavior, enter Nietzche.

Once again, Neitizche wasn't capitalistic.


Self cherishing and self grasping ignorance are the greatest barriers to communist society.

Are you serious Pandora?

Are you against "self-love"?
Are you against "life affirmation"?
Are you afraid to say "yes to life"?

I know Nietzsche wasn't, and he wanted mankind to follow.

And the proletariat will to -- to fight against the ruling of capital.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
Some could say the same for Marx; he had a ardent penchant for the German aristocracy.

Translation: Marx was in love with his wife.

:redstar2000:

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

[Raisa]

We dont need a superman. Everyone is a superman.

[Xvall]

HOW ABOUT *YES*!!! IT DOES TAKE AN EXTRA-STRENGTH SUPRA WILL TO BECOME A REVOLUTIONARY. Do u think that most revolutionaries are like Che? William Wallace? Luther King? Fidel Castro? Most people are too lazy, dumb and slave, most leftists out there are too lazy, too layedback and we won't change the world like this. Maybe in about 350 years or so

At a first glance, none of them appeared to be supermen. None of them were born supermen, and anyone, regardless of background, can develop a strong enough will to carry something out. Look at some of the people you mentioned. William Wallace was nothing but a poor peasant. He didn't read Nietzsche's books. Also, most importantly, we can not put our faith in 'supermen'. None of the people you mentioned could have done anything without the support of the people, and you're not going to win the support of the people when you say that they are lazy, dumb, and slave.



Keep logging onto the internet, maybe you can change the 'cyberworld' but not the 'real world'

With that logic, why are you here? Why aren't you out they using your 'EXTRA-STRENGTH SUPRA' to become a revolutionary?

[XYZYX]

I read a little Nietzsche's stuff, I mean its decent reading if thats what you like to read, but not very applicable to anything revolutionary.

[Hugo_ChaveZ]

Originally posted by [email protected] 10 2004, 11:10 PM
I read a little Nietzsche's stuff, I mean its decent reading if thats what you like to read, but not very applicable to anything revolutionary.



yeah it is, because he is one of the smartest philosopher of all time, who explained how the world works, the power games in society, you see this world is a struggle of powers and interests. The thing is that most che fans in this community are not real Che scholars they are just pop punk filthy rich kids who never read a book in their whole lifetime. They would get annoyed when they see that their measly insults and offenses have no effect on you whatsoever. Some times they might even mail the community moderator, but because the moderator is cool he won't care too much.

The only revolutionary activity they do is listening to MTV, punk and insult each other in chat rooms and forums :-)

haha :lol:


Hugo_ChaveZ

[XYZYX]

Well, can you at least concede that there are many more philosophers that are more revolutionarily influential.

[BOZG]

Oh the irony of it all Hugo Chavez.

[Vinny Rafarino]

Nietzsche explains how the world works

:lol:


How can it be possible that kids still cling to the archaic and absurd ramblings of the clinically insane.

The only time you "need" to read this fool is if you suffer from insomnia.

[Individual]

RAF's explanation on how the world works:

How can it be possible that kids still cling to the archaic and absurd ramblings of the clinically insane.

The only time you "need" to read this fool is if you suffer from insomnia.

I would watch who you call a fool, you genius you.

Nietzsche did not explain how the world works. This is a common misconception. What Nietzsche did do was give his best interpretation of the human mind interacting within itself and within society. Nietzsche is not to be read by the weak-hearted for he will be misinterpreted.

I do not look to Nietzsche for answers, I wouldn't expect anyone to for that matter. I look to Nietzsche's thoughts in order to open up my own interpretation. As subtle as his thoughts are, each of his interpretations has depth that can only hold value to each individual. So you disagree with what he has to say, likely I disagree with what you have to say. Who is right in there thought? Who has the final judgment in that of correct answers within our minds? Nobody has that agenda of power aside from those that realize the balance of a subjective world versus that of an objective world. Nobody has that ability regardless, therefore where can the comparison of stupidity come into play?

Nietzsche, deny it or not, has had tremendous influence amongst most, if not all, of todays great thinkers. Whether in sharing his views or not, he has undoubtably influenced modernity.

I would suppose that your views on religion would not be as powerful as they are without a trickling of Nietzsche's influence. Take a deep look at yourself, yes the two of you whom know I am talking to. Take a deep look at yourself within this very web-forum. The interpretations of Nietzsche can be so closely related to yourselves that I cannot imagine where your denial stems from.

No matter Nietzsche's own agenda within his own works, an agenda that I have overly assumed on my own, for the two of you to deny the power of his thoughts and influence really goes to say something about yourselves.

What are your emotions? Can either of you answer this question in knowing the exact answer? I should love to hear it..

[Vinny Rafarino]

I would watch who you call a fool, you genius you.



You are correct son, how dare I rob you of the title you have held for so long.

Without dispute I may add.

[Essential Insignificance]

Translation: Marx was in love with his wife.

He most certainly was.

I remember reading recently, Jenny or Eleanor commenting on "the Moor's" love poems that he sent Jenny from Berlin whilst attending university. She remembered Karl and Jenny joking about it in "old age" , but they (Karl and Jenny) put it down as one of those "youthful follies". :lol: :lol:

Anyway, you have a point, but even still, Marx thought of himself as being a member of the culturally, ultra-refined aristocracy; and having an irrevocable "distaste" for the German and English (bourgeois) "philistines".


HOW ABOUT *YES*!!! IT DOES TAKE AN EXTRA-STRENGTH SUPRA WILL TO BECOME A REVOLUTIONARY. Do u think that most revolutionaries are like Che? William Wallace? Luther King? Fidel Castro? Most people are too lazy, dumb and slave, most leftists out there are too lazy, too layedback and we won't change the world like this. Maybe in about 350 years or so


At a first glance, none of them appeared to be supermen. None of them were born supermen, and anyone, regardless of background, can develop a strong enough will to carry something out. Look at some of the people you mentioned. William Wallace was nothing but a poor peasant. He didn't read Nietzsche's books. Also, most importantly, we can not put our faith in 'supermen'. None of the people you mentioned could have done anything without the support of the people, and you're not going to win the support of the people when you say that they are lazy, dumb, and slave.

I'm not to sure by what you ( Hugo_ChaveZ) mean by that paragraph; and the "heroic" names mentioned as a resultant.

But I think you have made a dogmatically and/or narrow-minded elucidation of Nietzsche's "superman" or more appropriately "overman".

Nietzsche's "figure" express's the proposal of human life being "enhanced" and "transformed" in a manner sufficient to render it worthy of "affirmation", in contrast to the "all to human" behavior of mankind, dispensing with the "other-worldly illusion and overcoming this all of this disillusionment.

The superman is the meaning of earth, established through a naturalistic reassessment.

Yet your interpretation is indeed your interpretation, and the historical figures that you mentioned my indeed be manifestations of Nietzsche's "superman".

Like Nietzsche said "there is no truth, only interpretation".

But Nietzsche would (if he could) disagree, and so do I.


yeah it is, because he is one of the smartest philosopher of all time, who explained how the world works, the power games in society, you see this world is a struggle of powers and interests.

What rubbish... "smartest philosopher of all time"... oh come on!

You haven't read to many have you?


The thing is that most che fans in this community are not real Che scholars they are just pop punk filthy rich kids who never read a book in their whole lifetime. They would get annoyed when they see that their measly insults and offenses have no effect on you whatsoever. Some times they might even mail the community moderator, but because the moderator is cool he won't care too much.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I have read five different Che biographies; does that make me a "Che scholar"? :lol: :lol:

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance+--> (Essential Insignificance)...Marx thought of himself as being a member of the culturally, ultra-refined aristocracy; and having an irrevocable "distaste" for the German and English (bourgeois) "philistines".[/b]

That's a rather "heavy" assertion. As a young man, I think he thought of himself as a philosopher; in his maturity, as a scientist and a revolutionary.

In both cases, he would regard "philistines" with contempt...but that hardly implies that he had an "aristocratic" view of himself.


Originally posted by Hugo [email protected]
The thing is that most che fans in this community are not real Che scholars they are just pop punk filthy rich kids who never read a book in their whole lifetime.

A thoughtful and well considered verdict from someone who's been here two days.

Only a "superman" could have done it. :lol:


Comrade RAF
The only time you "need" to read this fool [Nietzsche] is if you suffer from insomnia.

Quite so! Nietzsche's "works" are typical romanticist rubbish, a generalized attack on rational discourse, a semi-coherent flood of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

If you are so masochistic as to attempt to dig through his turgid muck looking for "gems of wisdom", you will emerge with nothing more than dirty hands.

For revolutionaries, Nietzsche is a total waste of time.

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

For revolutionaries, Nietzsche is a total waste of time.

Translation: If all you care about is revolution, then don't read Neitzsche. If however, you like a good 'mindfuck', then get on it.

[Essential Insignificance]

That's a rather "heavy" assertion. As a young man, I think he thought of himself as a philosopher; in his maturity, as a scientist and a revolutionary.

In both cases, he would regard "philistines" with contempt...but that hardly implies that he had an "aristocratic" view of himself.

Indeed it is a "heavy" assertion, but with some good reasoning following it.

I don't think Marx ever thought of himself as being a "full blown out" scientist. This, I think, was the doing of Engel's.

Engel's eulogy at Marx's funnel, is where Marxism's "scientism" stemmed from; comparing Marx's work to the "scientific" work of Darwin.

Engel's words have been echoed since.

Anyway, I disagree.


Quite so! Nietzsche's "works" are typical romanticist rubbish, a generalized attack on rational discourse, a semi-coherent flood of "sound and fury signifying nothing."

If you are so masochistic as to attempt to dig through his turgid muck looking for "gems of wisdom", you will emerge with nothing more than dirty hands.

I would never call Nietzsche's work "typical" or any other synonyms stalking from the utterance "typical".

Nietzsche's prose was incredibly profound and not, generally, archetypal of any German, continental, or European of the 19th century or the centuries preceding the nineteenth century -- writer or philosopher -- in particular.

Nietzche was against putting together a exposition of categorical systems; lacking system and indifference, was no accident, in the works of Nietzsche.

Nietzsche's aphoristic approach is of the fundamental nature of Nietzsche's technique. He is aphoristic not because he can't be systematic but because he chooses to be aphoristic, because he thinks that this is the right approach; he was the antithesis and thus contrary to German tradition -- coming from the works of Leibniz, Kant, and Hegel, of long build up, metaphysical exhibitions.

Nietzsche was a colorful writer, a great writer, a exceptional writer; recently I read an academic philosopher comment that if Nietzsche is to be considered a philosopher, so to, should Shakespeare -- for me, this is nonsense.

Why are you so anti-Nietzsche, redstar2000?


For revolutionaries, Nietzsche is a total waste of time.

Indeed.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by Essential Insignificance
Why are you so anti-Nietzsche, redstar2000?

Because he has nothing useful or even interesting to say about the real world.

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

We dont need a superman. Everyone is a superman.

How very.... Nietzschean of you :D

I can't believe the level of evasion in this thread - not one single person has actually attacked anything that the man wrote.

Ignorance is not an answer folks <_< Of those amongst you who "nay-say" his works, what exactly have you read? I think you&#39;d better go learn something, quick&#33; (http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/)

Here&#39;s a brief sampler for you:


In Beyond Good and Evil, Prelude to a Philosophy of the Future (Jenseits von Gut und Böse. Vorspiel einer Philosophie der Zukunft, 1886), Nietzsche identified imagination, self-assertion, danger, originality and the "creation of values" as qualities of genuine philosophers, as opposed to incidental characters who engage in dusty scholarship. Nietzsche also took aim at some of the world&#39;s great philosophers&#39;s key presuppositions, who grounded their outlooks wholeheartedly upon concepts such as "self-consciousness," "free will," and "either/or" bipolar thinking. Alternatively, Nietzsche philosophizes from "the perspective of life" which he regards as "beyond good and evil," and challenges the deeply-entrenched moral idea that exploitation, domination, injury to the weak, destruction and appropriation are universally objectionable behaviors. Above all, Nietzsche believes that living things aim to discharge their strength and express their "will to power" -- a pouring-out of expansive energy which, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks. As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank ranging from the noble to the plebeian: some moralities are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles; some are more suitable for subordinate roles. So what counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is strong, healthy, powerful and overflowing with ascending life, or whether one is weak, sick and on the decline.

[cormacobear]

Nietzsche is an early self help writer. I guess buying his book is cheaper than a shrink. How can anyone familiar with philosophy suggest "He describes how the world works"? Perception is relative, his interpretation is no more valid than mine, or Adam Smiths.

Sorry Hugo Chavez, I don&#39;t recall hearing any of your heroic revolutionary activities. There must be many after all you&#39;ve read Nietzsche.

" Let he who is without sin cast the first stone"

And I&#39;ve never even seen MTV.

[redstar2000]

Originally posted by DaCuBaN+--> (DaCuBaN)I can&#39;t believe the level of evasion in this thread - not one single person has actually attacked anything that the man wrote.[/b]

There have been threads in the Philosophy forum which discuss and criticize Herr Nietzsche&#39;s ideas...such as they are.

This thread was started by someone who thinks that revolutionaries "need" to read that guy...that there&#39;s something "useful" in his ideas that we should be "using".

And it&#39;s just not true, that&#39;s all&#33;

I suppose one could compile a "table" of his ideas and alongside it a check list: useful idea? []Yes []No []Incoherent.

I think all that you&#39;d get would be "no&#39;s" and "incoherent&#39;s".

From your sample...


Nietzsche identified imagination, self-assertion, danger, originality and the "creation of values" as qualities of genuine philosophers, as opposed to incidental characters who engage in dusty scholarship.

His "target" is a "straw man" -- Professor Dryasdust is a stereotype that&#39;s useful when you want to emphasize your own "originality", etc.

I&#39;ve used it often enough myself...referring to Leninists as museum curators throwing old bones at each other.

But where is Nietzsche&#39;s "originality", etc.?


Alternatively, Nietzsche philosophizes from "the perspective of life" which he regards as "beyond good and evil," and challenges the deeply-entrenched moral idea that exploitation, domination, injury to the weak, destruction and appropriation are universally objectionable behaviors.

Deeply-entrenched? The behaviors he lists are universally celebrated by all ruling classes at all times.

Of course, the words used are different...perhaps Nietzsche simply wished that our terminology be clearer and more revealing.

But an attack on the verbal hypocrisy of 19th century elites is hardly ground-breaking "originality".


Above all, Nietzsche believes that living things aim to discharge their strength and express their "will to power" -- a pouring-out of expansive energy which, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks.

That&#39;s nice. What&#39;s the evidence? Or does the gathering of evidence for a proposition have too great a resemblance to "dusty scholarship"?


As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank ranging from the noble to the plebeian: some moralities are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles; some are more suitable for subordinate roles.

Plato says the same thing and more elegantly.

So does every apologist for class despotism.


So what counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is strong, healthy, powerful and overflowing with ascending life, or whether one is weak, sick and on the decline.

How does one verify a claim to strength, health, power and "overflowing with ascending life"? The same way one "verifies" a claim to having received a direct communication from "God" -- one says it loud and often.

People might fall for it.


cormacobear
Nietzsche is an early self help writer.

That&#39;s rather well put. Just like all the modern charlatans, he offers a bunch of fuzzy generalities and metaphors as if they were true and invites the reader to feel good about himself by "joining the supermen".

Bah&#33;

:redstar2000:

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

[DaCuBaN]

This thread was started by someone who thinks that revolutionaries "need" to read that guy...that there&#39;s something "useful" in his ideas that we should be "using".

Fair enough, but I think it quite poignant - indeed there is something we can learn from the man - I will get to this. For now, I&#39;m going to have to do a little trawling, and perhaps perform a little necromancy...


Plato says the same thing and more elegantly.

So does every apologist for class despotism.

This is where you grossly misunderstand his point (or perhaps I do?). Let us re-examine the text in question:

"As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank ranging from the noble to the plebeian: some moralities are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles; some are more suitable for subordinate roles."

You evidently read this as a "confession" of sorts; I do not: From my perspective, what is implicated is just the "evidence" of the matter - that people do indeed seem to assume morality based upon their status within class-society. It doesn&#39;t mention where his "morality" lay, all it does is suggest that one morality is "superior" to another in a purely functional sense.


How does one verify a claim to strength, health, power and "overflowing with ascending life"? The same way one "verifies" a claim to having received a direct communication from "God" -- one says it loud and often.

People might fall for it.

Precisely&#33; :D
What is proposed possibly appears like trickery to you - but it is far from the case: In this instance, the idea proposed is to do as the cat when confronted - make yourself look big. Strength is perceived, seldom truly challenged.

[Don't Change Your Name]

We need revolutionary supermen

And what about Batmen? Or Aquamen?

This is real life, not a superheroe comic book.

[refuse_resist]

And what about Batmen? Or Aquamen?
Green Lantern&#33; :lol:

[Essential Insignificance]

And what about Batmen? Or Aquamen?

This is real life, not a superheroe comic book.

Alas&#33; Don&#39;t be so foolish&#33; Stop being a child&#33; You have interpreted, with mockery and distain without having the slightest idea of what the "superman" represents; nowadays Nietzsche&#39;s English translator R. J. Hollingdale translates the "ubermensch" to "overman" instead of "superman."

Don&#39;t let the metaphoric usage of the "superman" fool you&#33;


Green Lantern&#33;

Please -- remain unspoken for the rest of this thread... now that&#39;s funny&#33; :lol:

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 14 2004, 07:04 PM

nowadays Nietzsche&#39;s English translator R. J. Hollingdale translates the "ubermensch" to "overman" instead of "superman."


How is that any better, i&#39;d say that&#39;s worse. Why not translate it as boss, or ruler&#33;

It&#39;s rather hypocritical of a philosopher to critisize scholars, after all what do they do but sit around and think all day.

Action and competition without knowledge and scholarship is more often detrimental, than helpfull.

Nietzsche encourages competition, he thinks it&#39;s healthy, he never says anything supporting calculated cooperation. Which is what is intended by Communism.

I&#39;m glad you&#39;r inspired, but i see virtually nothing in philosophy that benefits mankind at all. Economics, political theory these are are relative and give practical advice on real world problems. Not wishy washy mutterings, by beret wearing beatnicks.

[Essential Insignificance]

How is that any better, i&#39;d say that&#39;s worse. Why not translate it as boss, or ruler&#33;

Because it doesn&#39;t translate to "boss" or "ruler"&#33;

You really need to read Nietzsche, if you think that the "overman" represents a "boss" or "ruler" of others -- it&#39;s a ruling of oneself&#33;


Nietzsche encourages competition, he thinks it&#39;s healthy, he never says anything supporting calculated cooperation. Which is what is intended by Communism.

Throughout the 20th century particularly post World War Two it has been fashionable to demean the works of Nietzsche, on the grounds that his thought is precarious, because it heads towards despotism and, more explicitly, to fascism.

And for this reason, Nietzsche&#39;s works has been tainted, to say the least, by reckless misinterpretation&#39;s and publication&#39;s by the academia. And this is were a lot of aversion and disgust stems from; few have never bothered to read Nietzsche and interpret it themselves.

Nietzsche didn&#39;t really encourage competition totality; he looked at history, looked at the animal kingdom, looked at our natural instincts, or natural character, our impulse for struggle and triumph -- this is where he extrapolated the human instinct of "competition" and rivalry. He thought, that the "best" come out of people when they challenge themselves; Nietzsche, wanted people to experience gloominess, despair, loss, hardship, so they could find their inner spirit of struggle, to over come adversity: to assert their "will to power".

This is why he felt an "affection" for "competition".

He did say a few things about socialism: "How ludicrous I find the socialists, with their nonsensical optimism concerning the "good man," who is waiting to appear from behind the scenes if only one would abolish the old "order" and set all the "natural drives" free."

There is no doubting, that Nietzsche has absolutely nothing useful to say about revolutionary politics... I do not dispute this.


It&#39;s rather hypocritical of a philosopher to critisize scholars, after all what do they do but sit around and think all day.

Action and competition without knowledge and scholarship is more often detrimental, than helpfull.

What the hell are you talking about?&#33;


I&#39;m glad you&#39;r inspired, but i see virtually nothing in philosophy that benefits mankind at all. Economics, political theory these are are relative and give practical advice on real world problems. Not wishy washy mutterings, by beret wearing beatnicks.

You&#39;re an idiot&#33;

[cormacobear]

Quoted from Da Cubans earlier post:

"Nietzsche identified imagination, self-assertion, danger, originality and the "creation of values" as qualities of genuine philosophers, as opposed to incidental characters who engage in dusty scholarship."

"It&#39;s rather hypocritical of a philosopher to critisize scholars, after all what do they do but sit around and think all day.

Action and competition without knowledge and scholarship is more often detrimental, than helpfull."


Sorry if I confused you apperantly you haven&#39;t been following along to closely.

I&#39;m stupid?
Wow witty retort, did you come up with that all by yourself or did you need your mommy to help you.

Instead of resorting to childish insults, prove me wrong. How has philosophy aided in the development of humankind?

[Essential Insignificance]

Wow witty retort, did you come up with that all by yourself or did you need your mommy to help you.

:lol: :lol: :lol:

What a contradiction&#33; What a prodigy&#33; What a sensation&#33;

You accuse me of "childish insults", and then reply: "did you come up with that all by yourself or did you need your mommy to help you."

Do you want to play games or not? It most certainly seems so. Perhaps you can do with some "help" from dear "mommy" with your spelling.


Instead of resorting to childish insults, prove me wrong. How has philosophy aided in the development of humankind?

Philosophy has developed and enhanced human understanding. It has abetted human understanding in all fields of enquiry: truth, life, death, appearance, reality, existence, morals, the mind, knowledge, language, psychology, natural sciences, time, etc.

I need not say more.


I&#39;m stupid?

Yes.

[cormacobear]

Originally posted by Essential [email protected] 14 2004, 11:45 PM
truth, life, death, appearance, reality, existence, morals, the mind, knowledge, language, psychology, natural sciences, time, etc.


Life, death, language, psychology, and real science are not relative. they are substantial, there is a right or wrong answer. psychology, is a Real Science, with theories that must be proven or disproven.

Truth, appearance, reality, existance, morals, these are relative. They are opinion. If you need someone else to tell you what to think, you should be very happy with the state of affairs in the world right now.

Personally i&#39;m capable of thinking for myself. I can form opinions just fine, I don&#39;t need to be told how, or what to think.

[DaCuBaN]

Quoted from Da Cubans earlier post:

Had you been following, you&#39;d have realised that those are not his words&#33; It&#39;s from a critique on one of his books I linked into this article.

You are very much missing the point that is trying to be made to you, though:


Truth, appearance, reality, existance, morals, these are relative. They are opinion.

Indeed they are - are you telling me you don&#39;t want to think? Why bother talking to people at all? Reading Neitzsche isn&#39;t all that dissimilar to reading a weblog; it&#39;s his opinions and observations on the world around him. If you bothered to read him, rather than simply "beret-bashing" you might find that you can associate with some of the observations he made, and in turn this could spawn thoughts of your own.

As far as I&#39;m concerned, that&#39;s what philosophy is really about.

Like all other humans, he was wrong as oft as right (in as much as either exist), but to simply ignore his works is insanity&#33; I presume then, that you also have not "bothered" to read any philosophy, deeming it utterly useless to you.

Well, if I&#39;m not mistaken that could quite easily be attributed as bigotry. I suppose you haven&#39;t bothered to read Rand either? Are you in the slightest interested in approaching people on the grounds of societal change? :blink:


Personally i&#39;m capable of thinking for myself. I can form opinions just fine, I don&#39;t need to be told how, or what to think.

You know, EI hit the nail on the head - you sir are an idiot. Reading a book isn&#39;t a process of indoctrination&#33; Exploring the ideas of another doesn&#39;t "magically" turn you into some lackey of his (presumably "evil" :lol: ) works. Our minds are, however, quite amazingly limited - reading anothers works allows you to view the world from a different perspective - a doorway to the mind, so to speak.

[The Garbage Disposal Unit]

1) Given the spare time, everyone ought to read, understand, and critique every goddamn philosopher they can get their hands on. They should proceed to butcher the works, republish them to suit their situation, and eat the photos of the original authors. Let&#39;s get some dynamic fucking philosophy&#33; The realm of ideas is a motherfucking openwiki&#33;

2) Great men (Nobody has mentioned what sexist trash this fellow is yet - worth noting, I think) is an absolutely lovely idea. Unfotunately, the tail does not wag the dog.

3) I want to elaborate on point #2, but I can&#39;t find my nutella, and it&#39;s driving me fucking crazy.

[cormacobear]

Actually i have read a few of Neitzsche&#39;s books, I&#39;ve taken a few philosophy courses, and found them to be virtually without exception fuzzy logic and a waste of time.

I must say I thought Neitzsche was quite eloquent, although I disagreed with most of what he said.

To this day I fail to see how having read his work influenced my life or thought, save to have used up a number of hours I could have been reading something educational.

Your entitled to spend your time how you wish. I just find endorseing him incomprehendable.

And amusingly that&#39;s the first time i&#39;ve been called &#39;stupid&#39; since I was ten years old, thanks for the laugh.

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;ve taken a few philosophy courses, and found them to be virtually without exception fuzzy logic and a waste of time.

This was one of the points that Neitzsche was making...


amusingly that&#39;s the first time i&#39;ve been called &#39;stupid&#39; since I was ten years old, thanks for the laugh.

Glad to oblige; on a lighter note, my apologies for the presumptuous insults - I often struggle with my self-control, and this results in "lashing out" in such a fashion.

Don&#39;t take it personally :redstar2000: