Nietzsche

[tecumseh]

i read twilight of the idols awhile back. i remember nietzsche refering to socialists as people who fail in life and therefore become socialists because they are whiners. if anyone who has read twilight recently please concur whether nietzsche really wrote that?

thanks

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Is this it?


Christian and anarchist. — When the anarchist, as the mouthpiece of the declining strata of society, demands with a fine indignation what is "right," "justice," and "equal rights," he is merely under the pressure of his own uncultured state, which cannot comprehend the real reason for his suffering — what it is that he is poor in: life. A causal instinct asserts itself in him: it must be somebody's fault that he is in a bad way.

Also, the "fine indignation" itself soothes him; it is a pleasure for all wretched devils to scold: it gives a slight but intoxicating sense of power. Even plaintiveness and complaining can give life a charm for the sake of which one endures it: there is a fine dose of revenge in every complaint; one charges one's own bad situation, and under certain circumstances even one's own badness, to those who are different, as if that were an injustice, a forbidden privilege. "If I am canaille, you ought to be too" — on such logic are revolutions made.

Complaining is never any good: it stems from weakness. Whether one charges one's misfortune to others or to oneself — the socialist does the former; the Christian, for example, the latter — really makes no difference. The common and, let us add, the unworthy thing is that it is supposed to be somebody's fault that one is suffering; in short, that the sufferer prescribes the honey of revenge for himself against his suffering. The objects of this need for revenge, as a need for pleasure, are mere occasions: everywhere the sufferer finds occasions for satisfying his little revenge. If he is a Christian — to repeat it once more — he finds them in himself. The Christian and the anarchist are both decadents. When the Christian condemns, slanders, and besmirches "the world," his instinct is the same as that which prompts the socialist worker to condemn, slander, and besmirch society. The "last judgment" is the sweet comfort of revenge — the revolution, which the socialist worker also awaits, but conceived as a little farther off. The "beyond" — why a beyond, if not as a means for besmirching this world?

This can be found here:

http://www.handprint.com/SC/NIE/GotDamer.html#sect3

Section 34.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Nietzsche isn't really one to talk about anarchism. He seemed to think communism was about the poor destroying the rich because they envy their power. Sure, that is a factor, but it is truly about creating a society where equality for everyone exists. In short, Nietzsche had a narrow view of anarchism.

[Bretty123]

Nietzsche isn't really one to talk about anarchism

Why don't you think he is one to talk about anarchism? I think he helped define the modern concepts of anarchism.



He seemed to think communism was about the poor destroying the rich because they envy their power. Sure, that is a factor, but it is truly about creating a society where equality for everyone exists.

I think you're forgetting that Nietzsche recognizes people as those who actively assist to determine the economic structure we live in. So if Nietzsche makes a comment on a socialist person, he is commenting on their nature. He doesn't believe that people are equal. He doesn't believe that communism can exist properly. He believes the socialist by NATURE believes in revolution as his form of revenge.


In short, Nietzsche had a narrow view of anarchism

What evidence can you show me that he had a narrow view of anarchism?

Mind-Revolution (http://www.mind-revolution.com)

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 23 2006, 09:36 PM
i read twilight of the idols awhile back. i remember nietzsche refering to socialists as people who fail in life and therefore become socialists because they are whiners. if anyone who has read twilight recently please concur whether nietzsche really wrote that?

thanks
and he also wrote...

"The greater the will the higher the stakes, and even the weakest can steal by secret paths into the castle and even into the heart of the more powerful - and steal their power".

The guy was a mish-mash of ideas, counter-ideas and mental instability.

For every 'critique' he wrote, somewhere else he wrote 'in praise' of.

[Bretty123]

I don't think that example has anything to do with his critique of socialism.


"The greater the will the higher the stakes, and even the weakest can steal by secret paths into the castle and even into the heart of the more powerful - and steal their power".

He is saying something along the lines of even those who are weak in position or authority in any day and time have opportunities to will themselves to attain power.

He was dismissive of formal logic in some sense, but he did have some consistency in his writing and ideas.

[Si Pinto]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 10:01 PM
I don't think that example has anything to do with his critique of socialism.

He is saying something along the lines of even those who are weak in position or authority in any day and time have opportunities to will themselves to attain power.

He was dismissive of formal logic in some sense, but he did have some consistency in his writing and ideas.
Firstly, I didn't say it WAS a critique of socialism.

Secondly, your assumption is...your assumption...but to everyone else I've ever talked to, the quote is about the 'will to power'.

Basically..' if the will, desire, belief is there then those considered powerless can achieve what was deemed 'impossible'.

Which is as relevant to revolutionaries as anyone else.

My final point was that it is pointless trying to 'pin' Nietzsche down to a coherent and consistant thought pattern, certainly as far as politics are concerned anyway, because his critiques on one page often turn into support on another.

[Bretty123]

Firstly, I didn't say it WAS a critique of socialism.

I'm saying it has nothing to do WITH his critique of socialism or governing and economics in general.


Secondly, your assumption is...your assumption...but to everyone else I've ever talked to, the quote is about the 'will to power'.

I think what i stated was also to do with his idea on will to power. "have opportunities to will themselves to attain power. "


My final point was that it is pointless trying to 'pin' Nietzsche down to a coherent and consistant thought pattern, certainly as far as politics are concerned anyway, because his critiques on one page often turn into support on another.

Well he is hard to interpret, because his form of politics is far different then usual western politics. He states in his zarathustra that the state must be dissolved if the overman will exist. And in his genealogy of morals Nietzsche states that people do not appreciate the benefits of society. So one has to examine his points of view in all of his works to establish something to pin him down as.

I think in most cases we are saying similar things but misunderstanding each other.

[which doctor]

I think that Nietzche is a vastly misunderstood man.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by [email protected] 24 2006, 04:39 PM

Nietzsche isn't really one to talk about anarchism

Why don't you think he is one to talk about anarchism? I think he helped define the modern concepts of anarchism.



He seemed to think communism was about the poor destroying the rich because they envy their power. Sure, that is a factor, but it is truly about creating a society where equality for everyone exists.

I think you're forgetting that Nietzsche recognizes people as those who actively assist to determine the economic structure we live in. So if Nietzsche makes a comment on a socialist person, he is commenting on their nature. He doesn't believe that people are equal. He doesn't believe that communism can exist properly. He believes the socialist by NATURE believes in revolution as his form of revenge.


In short, Nietzsche had a narrow view of anarchism

What evidence can you show me that he had a narrow view of anarchism?

Mind-Revolution (http://www.mind-revolution.com)
Believing that revolution is revenge and communism will fail makes Nietzsche someone anarchists should turn to for advice? Not on issues of anarchism, I hope. To my knowledge, Nietzsche simply inserted a few jabs and weak arguments to crticize communism. He didn't formulate a legitimate proof either deductive or inductive, to my knowledge.

This does not mean I dislike Nietzsche's work(s) or ideas. I simply think he was out of his element in his criticism of anarchism/communism.

I don't really think I require evidence that Nietzsche had no understanding of anarchism to discredit on the fly remarks about it. If we assume people have knowledge of something before determining if they do, we will be in a dangerous situation. Surely, I don't deny that Nietzsche had a good understanding of anarchism, but I don't see evidence to suggest that.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

I think Nietzche is vastly overrated myself.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Noxion, in many ways you are right, but his anti-metaphysical arguments and his analysis of the nature of 'force' are the work of genius.

[Bretty123]

Rosa, which arguments about anti-metaphysics and nature of force are you referring to? i'm interested to know your thoughts.

Also I think it is wrong to say he is overrated, many people don't read alot of his philosophical writings and they tend to misinterpret him and alot of people, younger people moreso then others, just like to think they know alot about Nietzsche but in reality they just enjoy his character and the presuppositions that come with being associated with him. This is my observation as a younger person who is genuinely interested in philosophy.

[blake 3:17]

I read Twilight of the Idols about five years ago -- I was working caring for the physically diabled and became injured myself. There were many elemts of the book that had resonance -- the important thing is to Nietszche as a questioner rather than a planner. His answers are poor but the questions very good. Why are there so many philosophies of the eye and none of the nose?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty:


Rosa, which arguments about anti-metaphysics and nature of force are you referring to? i'm interested to know your thoughts.

They are scattered throughout his rambling works, but they are well summarised in Poellner, P. (2000), Nietzsche And Metaphysics (Oxford University Press).

Nietzsche extends the criticisms of metaphysical accounts of force (as used by Newton etc.) -- those that had been aired by Leibniz, Boscovich, Kant and Schelling. He also links metaphysics to the misinterpretation of the grammar of Indo-European languages (a topic I have seized upon, and have coupled this with the more profound ideas one finds in Wittgenstein, to show that the whole of traditional philosophy is no more than the systematic capitulation to the misuse of language in general, not just Indo-European discourse).

I do this in several Essays at my site, but with respect to force I do this here:

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_01.htm

[Scroll down to Note 22.]

and here (more generally):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%2008_02.htm

My criticisms of traditional philosophy can be found here (but this is just a summary of my ideas -- the full account (which is over 100, 000 words long) will be posted next year some time):

http://homepage.ntlworld.com/rosa.l/page%20016-12.htm

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Blake:


Why are there so many philosophies of the eye and none of the nose?

Excellent question!

Push it further: why are there any at all?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 27 2006, 11:54 PM
Blake:


Why are there so many philosophies of the eye and none of the nose?

Excellent question!

Push it further: why are there any at all?
Why not?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


Why not?

Because they keep on asking empty questions like this.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

Originally posted by Rosa [email protected] 28 2006, 12:02 AM
Dooga:


Why not?

Because they keep on asking empty questions like this.
How is it empty?

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Dooga:


How is it empty?

Since you are the expert at such questions, you need to address it to yourself.

[JimFar]

Concerning Nietzsche, it is interesting to note that while the logical positivist, Rudolf Carnap let loose on Heidegger in "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language," he had nothing but praise for Nietzsche. There, Carnap discerned similarities between Nietzsche's critique of metaphysics as found in say Human, All too Human and his own. He seems to have regarded Nietzsche as a "metaphyscian" who had the good sense to avoid the errors for which he reproached other metaphysicians. He admired the "empirical content" of Nietzsche's work, including especially its "historical analyses of specific artistic phenomena, or a historical-psychological analysis of morals." And he praised Nietzsche for having chosen the medium of poetry in such works as Thus Spake Zarathustra for presenting his ideas rather attempting to present them in a theoretical treatise. The fact that Carnap found much to praise in the work of Nietzsche is significant since in "The Elimination of Metaphysics Through Logical Analysis of Language," Carnap went on the attack against Heidegger, whose metaphysical statements, Carnap dismissed as meaningless. Apparently for Carnap, part of Nietzsche's greatness was the fact that he used poetic means for expressing himself. This fit in with Carnap's view that metaphysics fails because it makes meaningless statements. For Carnap, language had a variety of functions to perform. One of those is the making cognitively meaningful statements. Other functions include the making of what Carnap described as emotive statements. Such language can express Lebensgefühl. Metaphysics attempts to express Lebensgefühl too but fails because it can only issue meaningless statements. The appropriate means for expressing Lebensgefühl is art rather than metaphysics, and Nietzsche was praised by Carnap for realizing that. For Carnap, Nietzsche was the metaphysician who had the greatest artistic talent.

BTW I have recently been reading Arthur Danto's Nietzsche book. There Danto makes the point that Nietzsche in his work anticipated some of the central ideas of 20th century philosophical movements such as logical positivism and existentialism. Curiously, enough, I can find no reference in Danto's book to Carnap.

And as I am sure that Rosa can point out, Wittgenstein was a great admirer of Nietzsche too. In fact, Nietzsche in his anti-metaphysics seems to have anticipated many ideas that would later be developed at greater elaboration by Wittgenstein.

[blake 3:17]

On a side note, Twilight of the Idols was the first thing of Nietszche's where I realized what a joker he was. Some of the aphorisms are so ludicrous that it begs the question of whether it is philosophy or something else/


Blake:


QUOTE
Why are there so many philosophies of the eye and none of the nose?



Excellent question!

Push it further: why are there any at all?


Can't say "why" there are philosophies. Challenging the hegemony of the optical seems a worthy task. In older or more "primitive" (yuck!) the sense of smell would be equally important as sight.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, quite right, except Nietzsche blew it, and ended up producing his own a priori superscience.

[JimFar]

Rosa,

Perhaps, we should start a discussion of Nietzsche's influence on Marxists. While, Nietzsche, himself, was a kind of political reactionary, he has, nevertheless, long had many fans on the radical left. And that is something that goes back a long way. As early as the 1890s, there were already discussion underway in the German SPD over Nietzsche and how his philosophy could be used to support socialism. However, it was in Russia where Nietzsche's influence among Marxists first began to really take off.

In Russia during the Silver Age that followed the failed revolution of 1905, Nietzschean thought became pervasive among Russian intellectuals and artists and this had an effect on Russian Marxism. Within the Bolsheviks, the "god-building" faction centering around Anatoli Lunacharsky and novelist, Maxim Gorky was very much taken with Nietzche's romantic individualism and his "amoralism" and they sought to reconcile these with Marxism. Whereas, Nietzsche had seen his ideal of the Overman as being reserved for the elite few, Lunacharsky as an egalitarian argued that under communism, this ideal would be realizable by the many. Lunacharsky, rightly or wrongly believed that there was common ground between Marx's critique of bourgeois morality and Nietzsche's "amoralism." Lunacharsky also became convinced that one of the reasons for the failure of the 1905 revolution was that Marxism came across to workers as being overly cerebral and lacking in emotional appeal. Lunacharsky proposed to remedy this by creating a new non-theistic religion which
would increase the appeal of Marxism to working people.

All this was a part of a general attempt by a portion of the Bolsheviks to rethink Marxism in the wake of failure of 1905. Lunacharsky had been closely allied with Alexander Bogdanov, who attempted to reinterpret Marxism in the light of the empiriocriticism of Richard Avenarius and Ernst Mach. Both Lunacharsky and Bogdanov challenged the 'orthodox' Marxism that was being promoted by Plekhanov and Kautsky. However, as it so happened, Lenin was not at all taken with these attempts to rethink Marxism, and despite his past political opposition to Plekhanov, he came down on his side in the dispute over Marxist philosophy, especially in his Materialism and Empiriocriticism. Bogdanov was eventually expelled from the Bolsheviks while Lunacharsky stayed on, eventually becoming the first Soviet commissar of education after the October Revolution. But in the meantime, he dropped the attempt to create a new Marxist-based religion.

And of course there have been many other Marxists who have been influenced by Nietzsche too. The philosopher, Georg Lukacs, was one famous example, as were the members of the Frankfurt School, like Adorno, Horkheimer, and Marcuse. And there are people like Sartre too.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Jim, once again I cannot disagree with you, but I think the influence was either not helpful (in that it encouraged the idea that Marxism needed a philosophy, even if a new one), or was misunderstood (and hence ended up doing the same).

And not only Nietzsche, but mystical thinkers in general became popular:

Rosenthal, B. (1997) (ed.), The Occult In Russian And Soviet Culture (Columbia University Press).

--------, (2002), New Myth, New World. From Nietzsche To Stalinism (Pennsylvania State University Press).

The god-botherers have re-surfaced in Marxism as dialecticians (latter-day Hermeticists) loooking for consolation for the failure of 1905 (hence Lenin's own dalliance with Hegel, etc.), then later for the reversal of 1917, and all the other disasters visited on our movement by such mystics. Hence also the irrational zeal with which they cling to this incomprehensible 'theory'.

My next essay but one will attempt to substantiate this allegation.

Today such hard core mystics (High Church Dialecticians), having given up on the working class, go in for 'systematic dialectics'. Consolation junkies.

Plus ca change....

[Bretty123]

I really dislike it when people take philosophies and try to interpret them to support a cause, even if they are completely against said cause. Nietzsche said, flat out the state must dissolve for the overman to exist. And as we've seen earlier in the thread he did not advocate socialism in any situation. So I'd like to know on what grounds people interpret Nietzsche as supportive to socialism. I guess this is a pet peeve of mine in philosophy and social studies.

[blake 3:17]

So I'd like to know on what grounds people interpret Nietzsche as supportive to socialism. I guess this is a pet peeve of mine in philosophy and social studies.

If Nietzsche were a socialist. he'd be of worst type.

Amongst critics of modernity, capitalism, Christianity, bureaucracy, he is amongst the best.

Three aphorisms from pp.192-93 Seventy-five Aphorisms from Five Volumes as found in On The Genealogy of Morals & Ecce Homo,Vintage, New York, 1969:
130 A dangerous resolve The christian resolve to find the world ugly and bad has made the world ugly and bad.

232 Dreams We have no dreams at all or interesting ones. We should learn to be awake the same way -- not at all or in an intersting manner.

258Those who deny chance No victor believes in chance.

[Rosa Lichtenstein]

Bretty, I think it was his anti-metaphysics that people were attracted to, but I have to say that apart from that there seems little in his work of interest to Marxists.