Marx and Nietzche [Archive]

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 16:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 03:25 am
I don't think they were opposite--Jean-Paul Sartre presents the case of a Marxist existentialist. If you look at this by observing Sartre, both are about freedom: in Marx' case, freedom of oppressed people to revolutionize against their exploiters, and in Nietzsche's the freedom of the individual to create meaning for himself or herself in a post-God world.
Nearly all philosophies will talk about freedom one way or another though. The thing is freedom can mean anything at all. People define it in such a way as suits themselves. There are similarities between Marx and Nietzsche of course, both are atheists after all, but even where they shared views, they arived at them for completely different reasons.

Overall though their views are completely controlled. Marx's view was ultimately one of collective action based on society. Nietzsche was entirely an individualist, saying nobody should be motivated by the needs of someone else. Of course he was never directly involved in politics except to denounce anti-semitism, but it is very clear he was the polar opposite to what Marx stood for.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 18:48

Nearly all philosophies will talk about freedom one way or another though. The thing is freedom can mean anything at all. People define it in such a way as suits themselves. There are similarities between Marx and Nietzsche of course, both are atheists after all, but even where they shared views, they arived at them for completely different reasons.

Not many have been directed as a liberating force against Western imperialism and consumerism.

Overall though their views are completely controlled. Marx's view was ultimately one of collective action based on society. Nietzsche was entirely an individualist, saying nobody should be motivated by the needs of someone else. Of course he was never directly involved in politics except to denounce anti-semitism, but it is very clear he was the polar opposite to what Marx stood for.

Now tell me, why do you think Marx set forth his socio-economic and revolutionary theory? So that the workers could have a revolution for the hell of it? No; to stop the alienation and reification of individual workers through collective movement. Could you imagine another intention? Also, collective property doesn't mean collective thinking or an eradication of individuality. Sadly, this has been what the totalitarians made Communism out to be for the rest of the world.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 19:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 06:48 pm

Now tell me, why do you think Marx set forth his socio-economic and revolutionary theory? So that the workers could have a revolution for the hell of it? No; to stop the alienation and reification of individual workers through collective movement. Could you imagine another intention? Also, collective property doesn't mean collective thinking or an eradication of individuality. Sadly, this has been what the totalitarians made Communism out to be for the rest of the world.
I am not hugely concerned with what Marx meant for the purposes of this thread. Everyone knows what he said. It's Neitzsche that seems to be confusing people. It ius hardly surprising. Neitszche has a certain value in modern culture which means a lot more people know about him than what he actually stood for.

To me, the main difference between the two is Marx stood for a philosophy based upon mutual aid: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" whereas Neitszche stood entirely on individual terms essentially saying one should not be troubled about the needs or aspirations of anybody else in favour of oneself. That is a huge difference and one that makes the two completely incompatible.

The second main difference is, Marx's theory is very grounded. It is essentially based on what should be done to move society in a certain direction through concrete political action. Neitszche's is the polar opposite. His is a very abstract and in my view uterly unrealistic philosophy.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 19:36

Neitszche's is the polar opposite. His is a very abstract and in my view uterly unrealistic philosophy.

Though Nietzsche, did right vaguely and abstractly, his philosophy is generally grounded in truth, you just have to think deeply, and apply to what is going on to see the full truth in his writings.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 19:45

To me, the main difference between the two is Marx stood for a philosophy based upon mutual aid: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" whereas Neitszche stood entirely on individual terms essentially saying one should not be troubled about the needs or aspirations of anybody else in favour of oneself. That is a huge difference and one that makes the two completely incompatible.

Now, do you think Nietzsche's theory involved material independence and material extreme individualism or mental independence, i.e. creativity, and mental extreme individualism?

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 20:21

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 07:45 pm

To me, the main difference between the two is Marx stood for a philosophy based upon mutual aid: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" whereas Neitszche stood entirely on individual terms essentially saying one should not be troubled about the needs or aspirations of anybody else in favour of oneself. That is a huge difference and one that makes the two completely incompatible.

Now, do you think Nietzsche's theory involved material independence and material extreme individualism or mental independence, i.e. creativity, and mental extreme individualism?
Both. There is no way you can try and construe him as compatible with Marx

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 20:26

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:21 pm
Both. There is no way you can try and construe him as compatible with Marx
Exactly, they are not compatible, and they are not polar opposites, they are indifferent of each other.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 20:37

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 02, 2006 08:21 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 02, 2006 08:21 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 07:45 pm

To me, the main difference between the two is Marx stood for a philosophy based upon mutual aid: "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" whereas Neitszche stood entirely on individual terms essentially saying one should not be troubled about the needs or aspirations of anybody else in favour of oneself. That is a huge difference and one that makes the two completely incompatible.

Now, do you think Nietzsche's theory involved material independence and material extreme individualism or mental independence, i.e. creativity, and mental extreme individualism?
Both. There is no way you can try and construe him as compatible with Marx [/b]
But they are compatible because they are indifferent, which differs from what Cryotank Screams said. Since they involve different realms of philosophy, can't someone be Nietzschean metaphysically and Marxian sociologically? Although they might not be too related, they are not necessarily conflicting, are they? Thus, someone like Jean-Paul Sartre could be both Nietzschean (existentialist) and Marxian.

Exactly, they are not compatible, and they are not polar opposites, they are indifferent of each other.

Not necessarily. Just because they are different doesn't mean they are incompatible, since they don't contradict each other due to their application toward different realms. For example, Marx tells us how people should act collectively, not that people should only act collectively. Similarly, Nietzsche says that people should act freely to preserve individuality--"the will to power"--, not that individuals should only seek to act freely. Furthermore, Marx was more concerned with material conditions, while Nietzsche with existential questions. Since they don't overlap the same fields of study, they don't contradict. And thus, they could be compatible despite being indifferent toward each other, couldn't they?

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 20:47

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:37 pm
[But they are compatible because they are indifferent, which differs from what Cryotank Screams said. Since they involve different realms of philosophy, can't someone be Nietzschean metaphysically and Marxian sociologically? Although they might not be too related, they are not necessarily conflicting, are they? Thus, someone like Jean-Paul Sartre could be both Nietzschean (existentialist) and Marxian.

Well you could take Neitszian ideas if you wanted to. But I don't see why you would. Anything Neitszche said that was not in direct conflict with Marx has been better put forth by other writers.

Ultimately one of the central points of Neitszche was that a person should primarily be motivated only by concern for themselves and they should not be bothered by the needs of anybody else. That is an impossible position for a socialist to hold.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 20:56

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 04:47 pm
Ultimately one of the central points of Neitszche was that a person should primarily be motivated only by concern for themselves and they should not be bothered by the needs of anybody else. That is an impossible position for a socialist to hold.
Your not understanding Nietzsche correctly, he was more against altruism, and not the individual helping others.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 21:07

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 02, 2006 08:47 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 02, 2006 08:47 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 08:37 pm
are[/i] compatible because they are indifferent, which differs from what Cryotank Screams said. Since they involve different realms of philosophy, can't someone be Nietzschean metaphysically and Marxian sociologically? Although they might not be too related, they are not necessarily conflicting, are they? Thus, someone like Jean-Paul Sartre could be both Nietzschean (existentialist) and Marxian.

Well you could take Neitszian ideas if you wanted to. But I don't see why you would. Anything Neitszche said that was not in direct conflict with Marx has been better put forth by other writers.

Ultimately one of the central points of Neitszche was that a person should primarily be motivated only by concern for themselves and they should not be bothered by the needs of anybody else. That is an impossible position for a socialist to hold.
That's not Nietzsche... that's Ayn Rand. I understand that Rand is against the revolutionary spirit and a proponent of capitalism, but, as Cryotank Screams stated, Nietzsche was not of the same opinions.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 21:11

Originally posted by Inviction+December 02, 2006 09:07 pm--> (Inviction @ December 02, 2006 09:07 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:47 pm

[email protected] 02, 2006 08:37 pm
are[/i] compatible because they are indifferent, which differs from what Cryotank Screams said. Since they involve different realms of philosophy, can't someone be Nietzschean metaphysically and Marxian sociologically? Although they might not be too related, they are not necessarily conflicting, are they? Thus, someone like Jean-Paul Sartre could be both Nietzschean (existentialist) and Marxian.

Well you could take Neitszian ideas if you wanted to. But I don't see why you would. Anything Neitszche said that was not in direct conflict with Marx has been better put forth by other writers.

Ultimately one of the central points of Neitszche was that a person should primarily be motivated only by concern for themselves and they should not be bothered by the needs of anybody else. That is an impossible position for a socialist to hold.
That's not Nietzsche... that's Ayn Rand. I understand that Rand is against the revolutionary spirit and a proponent of capitalism, but, as Cryotank Screams stated, Nietzsche was not of the same opinions.
Ayn Rand essentially plagirised Neitszche though. He does come in a different direction from her of course, but there is the same essential conclusion: you should be focused on yourself. The idea of socialism would have sickened Neitzsche for sure.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 21:15

Ayn Rand essentially plagirised Neitszche though.

No, she didn't, your misinterpreting Nietzsche work.

you should be focused on yourself.

You are exaggerating and misinterpreting Nietzsche's thoughts on individualism.

The idea of socialism would have sickened Neitzsche for sure.

Your not Nietzsche, your barely understand his work, don't speak for him, and certainly don't speak where he stayed silent.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 21:20

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 02, 2006 09:11 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 02, 2006 09:11 pm)
Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:07 pm

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 08:47 pm

[email protected] 02, 2006 08:37 pm
are[/i] compatible because they are indifferent, which differs from what Cryotank Screams said. Since they involve different realms of philosophy, can't someone be Nietzschean metaphysically and Marxian sociologically? Although they might not be too related, they are not necessarily conflicting, are they? Thus, someone like Jean-Paul Sartre could be both Nietzschean (existentialist) and Marxian.

Well you could take Neitszian ideas if you wanted to. But I don't see why you would. Anything Neitszche said that was not in direct conflict with Marx has been better put forth by other writers.

Ultimately one of the central points of Neitszche was that a person should primarily be motivated only by concern for themselves and they should not be bothered by the needs of anybody else. That is an impossible position for a socialist to hold.
That's not Nietzsche... that's Ayn Rand. I understand that Rand is against the revolutionary spirit and a proponent of capitalism, but, as Cryotank Screams stated, Nietzsche was not of the same opinions.
Ayn Rand essentially plagirised Neitszche though. He does come in a different direction from her of course, but there is the same essential conclusion: you should be focused on yourself. The idea of socialism would have sickened Neitzsche for sure.
Rand, I believe, renounced many of Nietzsche's ideas later on. The only real similarity is the love of individualism--you could say she plagiarized the Greeks or the writers of the Renaissance for this, also.

Now maybe Nietzsche as a scholar would have denounced socialism--he was against all types of mass movements. However, this is only due to the phenomenon observed in mass movements of the eradication of the individual and creation of a mindless, controlled, collectivized system. That's the stereotype most modern people have of Communism, after all, isn't it? The point is, Communistic societies led by mass movements could have enhanced the condition of the individual (which was the point, after all) if there would have been more leaders like Lenin and Che, instead of the unfortunate programs of Stalin and Mao, don't you think?

If being in a society where socio-economic conditions were common to all, a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but which still allowed the development of mental liberty, I'm sure Nietzsche would've favored it.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 21:25

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 02, 2006 09:15 pm
Your not Nietzsche
I am well aware (and thankful) of that fact. I am also guessing you aren't him either. Good? Can we move on?

What we are seeing here is the very odd but inevitable outcome of the fact that both Marx and Neitzsche are cool in certain circles. People trying to merge the unmergeable.

Tell me, how do we apply the will to power to Socialism? How do we be both ubermensch and socialists?

How do we apply the idea of Master/Slave morality which holds that the view of goog being what is good for the community as being a view only held by the weak?

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 21:29

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:20 pm

Rand, I believe, renounced many of Nietzsche's ideas later on. The only real similarity is the love of individualism--you could say she plagiarized the Greeks or the writers of the Renaissance for this, also.

Now maybe Nietzsche as a scholar would have denounced socialism--he was against all types of mass movements. However, this is only due to the phenomenon observed in mass movements of the eradication of the individual and creation of a mindless, controlled, collectivized system. That's the stereotype most modern people have of Communism, after all, isn't it? The point is, Communistic societies led by mass movements could have enhanced the condition of the individual (which was the point, after all) if there would have been more leaders like Lenin and Che, instead of the unfortunate programs of Stalin and Mao, don't you think?

If being in a society where socio-economic conditions were common to all, a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but which still allowed the development of mental liberty, I'm sure Nietzsche would've favored it.
Rand did find it useful later to distance herself from Neitzsche, that is true. At any rate though, let's not talk about her. Writers of Holywood scripts and paperback fiction don't belong in a philosophy section.

You are presuming everybody holds the same definition of freedom and liberty. Ask a Classical Liberal what they think freedom is and it certainly won't include everyone being on the same socio-economic plateau. And Neitzsche, while not being one of them did have the same sort of outlook as to what freedom was.

To him freedom was about the strong coming to the fore, becoming the ubermensch. That is not in any way compatible with any egalitarian outlook.

Inviction

2nd December 2006, 21:37

Originally posted by Demogorgon+December 02, 2006 09:29 pm--> (Demogorgon @ December 02, 2006 09:29 pm)
[email protected] 02, 2006 09:20 pm

Rand, I believe, renounced many of Nietzsche's ideas later on. The only real similarity is the love of individualism--you could say she plagiarized the Greeks or the writers of the Renaissance for this, also.

Now maybe Nietzsche as a scholar would have denounced socialism--he was against all types of mass movements. However, this is only due to the phenomenon observed in mass movements of the eradication of the individual and creation of a mindless, controlled, collectivized system. That's the stereotype most modern people have of Communism, after all, isn't it? The point is, Communistic societies led by mass movements could have enhanced the condition of the individual (which was the point, after all) if there would have been more leaders like Lenin and Che, instead of the unfortunate programs of Stalin and Mao, don't you think?

If being in a society where socio-economic conditions were common to all, a true dictatorship of the proletariat, but which still allowed the development of mental liberty, I'm sure Nietzsche would've favored it.
Rand did find it useful later to distance herself from Neitzsche, that is true. At any rate though, let's not talk about her. Writers of Holywood scripts and paperback fiction don't belong in a philosophy section.

You are presuming everybody holds the same definition of freedom and liberty. Ask a Classical Liberal what they think freedom is and it certainly won't include everyone being on the same socio-economic plateau. And Neitzsche, while not being one of them did have the same sort of outlook as to what freedom was.

To him freedom was about the strong coming to the fore, becoming the ubermensch. That is not in any way compatible with any egalitarian outlook. [/b]
But socio-economic equality doesn't mean mental or creative equality, thus the ideas of Marx and of Nietzsche aren't mutually exclusive.

Tell me, weren't great revolutionaries like Vladimir Lenin or Che Guevara Marxists as well as Übermenschen? Did they not display the qualities of both, despite Marxists self-admittedly and Übermenschen only upon analysis?

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 21:40

Der Übermench translates to the Over Man, which can be interpretated as the Man that over comes, which speaks of intellectually over-coming the constraints, and myths of society.

I. By using his will to power destructively, in the rejection of, and rebellion against, societal ideals and moral codes.
II. By using his will to power creatively, in overcoming nihilism and re-evaluating old ideals or creating new ones.
III. By a continual process of self-overcoming.

Could that be applied atleast in part to class-conscious, overcoming the myths, moral codes, and societal ideals of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, and over came that.

The Will to Power, is not talking about some socio-political conquest but a conquest of the mind and opinion, or will.

How do we apply the idea of Master/Slave morality which holds that the view of goog being what is good for the community as being a view only held by the weak?

Nietzsche was against morality, and I highly doubt Nietzsche thought if it was good for the community, then it was weak.

I am well aware (and thankful) of that fact. I am also guessing you aren't him either. Good? Can we move on?

Appears I struck a nerve, lol.

People trying to merge the unmergeable.

I am not trying to merge anything, I am saying that Nietzsche and Marx, are indifferent, and not incompatible, or related.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 21:44

Originally posted by [email protected] 02, 2006 09:37 pm
But socio-economic equality doesn't mean mental or creative equality, thus the ideas of Marx and of Nietzsche aren't mutually exclusive.

Tell me, weren't great revolutionaries like Vladimir Lenin or Che Guevara Marxists as well as Übermenschen? Did they not display the qualities of both, despite Marxists self-admittedly and Übermenschen only upon analysis?
I think you are missing the point here. You and me obviously agree that socio-economic equality does not stifle mental or creative thought. We are Marxian in outlook and know it can only enhance those things. But Neitzsche had a different outlook. He would have viewed socio-economic equality as unfair as it would not have rewarded those he regarded as deserving sufficiently.

As for wherever people like Lenin would have been ubermensch, I am not sure Neitzsche would have said they were. They were certainly extremely strong men and Neitzsche may well have admired that, but he wuld have said they sold themselves short. They believed in what he said was the slave morality, that good is what is good for the community.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 21:50

Could that be applied atleast in part to class-conscious, overcoming the myths, moral codes, and societal ideals of the capitalists and the bourgeoisie, and over came that.That has absolutely nothing to do with what Neitzsche believed though. He must be turning in his grave at people saying that.

Nietzsche was against morality, and I highly doubt Nietzsche thought if it was good for the community, then it was weakNo he thought that anyone who believed that morality was about what was good for the community was weak. Neitzsche wasn't against morality. He was quite specific about that. He was against traditional morality. That is what Master/Slave morality is about. Master morality is about the virtues of strength, nobility etc. Slave Morality about what is good for the community.

As I say again utterly incompatible with Marx.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 21:51

But Neitzsche had a different outlook. He would have viewed socio-economic equality as unfair as it would not have rewarded those he regarded as deserving sufficiently.

Quit speaking for Nietzsche! You don't know what his real view was, hardly anyone does, all we can do is study his work, and his words, not try to guess on things where he stayed silent, he was silent on socio-politics, so we don't know what his true views were, so quite speaking for him, thank you.

They believed in what he said was the slave morality, that good is what is good for the community.

Another misinterpretation.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 21:56

That has absolutely nothing to do with what Neitzsche believed though.

How do YOU know what HE truly believed? Were you friends? Did you personally knew him? Exactly you don't know what he believed, no one does.

No he thought that anyone who believed that morality was about what was good for the community was weak.

Where did he say this? Hmm? Where is your evidence to support your obvious bias.

That is what Master/Slave morality is about. Master morality is about the virtues of strength, nobility etc. Slave Morality about what is good for the community.

See above.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 22:02

Originally posted by Cryotank [email protected] 02, 2006 09:51 pm

Quit speaking for Nietzsche! You don't know what his real view was, hardly anyone does, all we can do is study his work, and his words, not try to guess on things where he stayed silent, he was silent on socio-politics, so we don't know what his true views were, so quite speaking for him, thank you.

He kept out of political issues most of the time (though not always, he had plenty to say about anti-semites) however that doesn't mean that his philosophy had nothing to do with politics. Anyone who thinks philosophy and politics can ever be two seperate fields is deluding themselves. Philosophy is by it's nature political.

And Neitzsche's philosophy is on the far right. There is no getting around that fact. Just because it's cool to like Neitzsche doesn't change the fact that the only political movement ever to draw from him was National Socialism. I appreciate he despised anti-semitism and The Will To power was maliciously edited by his sister but nonetheless that is the direction his ideas lead. I think a lot of people here just like him because he was an atheist. There are a lot better reasons to be an atheist than he came up with.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 22:12

Anyone who thinks philosophy and politics can ever be two seperate fields is deluding themselves. Philosophy is by it's nature political.

Oh please, I haven't read and studied Nietzsche for years just because "it's cool," that is really idiotic to say so, and I never said philosophy and politics were not interconnected in some respects, however, trying to apply something completely and utterly philosophical to politics will only delude and go against the philosophical.

And Neitzsche's philosophy is on the far right.

No it's not, you are just following the lies of the nazis, and are misinterprating his work just as they did.

Neitzsche doesn't change the fact that the only political movement ever to draw from him was National Socialism.

They did not understand his work, at all, not in any sense, and stupidly tried to take their misinterpretation and apply it to politics just as you are doing, because you are following their misinteprtations.

but nonetheless that is the direction his ideas lead.

No, it's not.

I think a lot of people here just like him because he was an atheist.

No, his work is very interesting in all respects, not just his atheism, and I feel deserves closer examination, and study.

Demogorgon

2nd December 2006, 22:22

Perhaps you have studied Neitzsche a bit more than me (though a load of good it has done you given your interpretation of him), but that is because I study philosophy for real. Neitzsche is ultimately a bit of a fringe philosopher. More notable for his strange writing style than a lot of his ideas (which can be drawn from other sources which predate him anyway).

This idea you are trying to msell me though that the idea of dominance by the strong having no political value is preposterous.

Incidentally, if you want a good idea of Neitzsche's political views, look at his association with Wagner.

Cryotank Screams

2nd December 2006, 22:30

Perhaps you have studied Neitzsche a bit more than me (though a load of good it has done you given your interpretation of him),

I am sorry that I studied his work and came to my own conclusions, and didn't follow someone elses interpretations, and criticisms.

but that is because I study philosophy for real.

As do I.

Neitzsche is ultimately a bit of a fringe philosopher.

Some of the most interesting people and ideas comes from obscurity and the fringe, a lot of truth can be learned from rebels.

More notable for his strange writing style than a lot of his ideas

His ideas are cloaked by his writing style, hence why there is so much confusion about what he actually thought, and was try to convey.

This idea you are trying to msell me though that the idea of dominance by the strong having no political value is preposterous.

It has political value if your a fascist, they twisted his work and their own misinterpretations, however again your intepretation is wrong, I feel.

Inviction

3rd December 2006, 04:26

I think you are missing the point here. You and me obviously agree that socio-economic equality does not stifle mental or creative thought. We are Marxian in outlook and know it can only enhance those things. But Neitzsche had a different outlook. He would have viewed socio-economic equality as unfair as it would not have rewarded those he regarded as deserving sufficiently.

I couldn't see how this could be, as Nietzsche rarely commented on socio-economics.

As for wherever people like Lenin would have been ubermensch, I am not sure Neitzsche would have said they were. They were certainly extremely strong men and Neitzsche may well have admired that, but he wuld have said they sold themselves short. They believed in what he said was the slave morality, that good is what is good for the community.

Uh, you don't think leading a great revolution is a transvaluation of all previous values?

Philosophy is by it's nature political.

That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that?

And Neitzsche's philosophy is on the far right. There is no getting around that fact. Just because it's cool to like Neitzsche doesn't change the fact that the only political movement ever to draw from him was National Socialism. I appreciate he despised anti-semitism and The Will To power was maliciously edited by his sister but nonetheless that is the direction his ideas lead. I think a lot of people here just like him because he was an atheist. There are a lot better reasons to be an atheist than he came up with.

Are you kidding me? A rejection of all previous modes of thought is far-right? I would think this to be far left, which is what it was in the 1890's. While the Nazis may have been politically motivated by a misinterpreted Nietzsche, why do you only focus on the political influences of Nietzsche? What about the literary and philosophical ones? The whole systems of existential and Continental philosophy have had Nietzsche as a major contributor.

Demogorgon

3rd December 2006, 12:04

I couldn't see how this could be, as Nietzsche rarely commented on socio-economics.It is heavily implied. Any philosophy which holds that there is an elite who ought to rule by definition holds them as the most deserving. At any rate, look at what his philosophy was. It rejected Christian values. A lot of people see that and think "Good". But look at why it rejected Christianity. It wasn't down to the bad elements of Christianity but rather because Chrstianity encouraged altruism. Again a rejection of common welfare.

Uh, you don't think leading a great revolution is a transvaluation of all previous values?No it isn't. Whoever now rules will have a different set of values to the old rulers, but these won't have been brand new, they will have been there for a while and now simply coming to prominence. At any rate, the values of people like Lenin would have been anathema to Neitzsche. It certainly didn't fit his idea of a new strong and noble people of rulers. It was by definition altruistic.

That's an interesting statement. What makes you say that?Well, in one sense everything is political. More specifically philosophy is political because no matter what field you look at, it has bearing on politics. Political Philosophy is obviously political, so leaving that aside: Moral philosophy is political because it is about how one should act and that has heavy bearing on politics because a political system will have to make sure the people act accordingly (they don't go around killing and raping for example), also morality extends beyond indivisual people to how society should behave and treat it's members. Heavily political there. Metaphysics will examine such things as whether God exists or not. I need hardly tell you why that is political and so on.

Are you kidding me? A rejection of all previous modes of thought is far-right? I would think this to be far left, which is what it was in the 1890's. While the Nazis may have been politically motivated by a misinterpreted Nietzsche, why do you only focus on the political influences of Nietzsche? What about the literary and philosophical ones? The whole systems of existential and Continental philosophy have had Nietzsche as a major contributor.First of ll the literary influence of Neitzsche is for other people to judge. That's not what interests me. It's the political and philosophical aspects only that influence me. He certainly had a literary influence that is well worth discussing, but you'll have to do that with someone that isn't me.

But anyway i cannot see how you thibnk just because he rejected previous modes of thought, that it must be on te left? I mean Nazi-ism was very much about overthrowing the prevalent system of thought (in this case liberalism) and replacing it with their own sytem (a lot of which was new). Did that put them on the left? To me Neitzsche's though is very reactionary. It looks to me more like a return to pagan values than progressing beyond Christian ones. And at any rate even if he were coming up with something new, it is certainly going in the wrong direction. Far away from idea of mutual co-operation and a unified community I value.

As for his influence on existentialism, it's there. He was a major influence. But why focus on him? He wasn't the first to come up with that kind of thinking after all. I mean the Marquis De Sade was using that kind of thinking in the previous century, do we need to glorify him too?

Cryotank Screams

3rd December 2006, 14:20

It is heavily implied. Any philosophy which holds that there is an elite who ought to rule by definition holds them as the most deserving.

Really? You got all that? From where might I ask? I seriously think your just using coattail criticisms, and things you have read about Nietzsche to map out your opinion of him, and being that the criticisms you are using, and add into the fact tha Nietzsche is not widely read, and even understood, you can slip, by and get away with it.

I have never heard of Nitzeche talking about an elite ruling, maybe your talking Lenin and the vanguard?

It wasn't down to the bad elements of Christianity but rather because Chrstianity encouraged altruism. Again a rejection of common welfare.

He was rejecting altruism, as a social-construct, and an engrained meme of the human will, he was NOT however rejecting helping others and common welfare, just the established and defined conceptual idea of altruism.

At any rate, the values of people like Lenin would have been anathema to Neitzsche.

You don't know this for sure, so why you keep saying this is beyond me.

It certainly didn't fit his idea of a new strong and noble people of rulers.

Another nazi lie, trying to fit social darwinism, and a very distorted and misinterpreted der Übermensch theory, into politics.

That's not what interests me. It's the political and philosophical aspects only that influence me.

Then in that case you limit both yourself, and your understanding of Nietzsche.

I mean Nazi-ism was very much about overthrowing the prevalent system of thought (in this case liberalism) and replacing it with their own sytem (a lot of which was new). Did that put them on the left?

Wrong, liberalism never got into the german public, and infact the german states were barely even affected by the enlightenment era, at least not to the same degree as britain and france, so thus liberalism, and such ideas were not terribly present in the german states.

There was however HUGE amounts of anti-semitism, that had been increasing, and spreading since the middle-ages onward, and also a large fear of Communism, due to propaganda, and the fear that the Communists, would make the property owners poor.

Thus national socialism, wasn't really new, you can find the ideas of it, from various german right philosophers, it was mainly all the hidden and small nationalistic, racist, feelings and fears of the german people brought forth, enlarged, and state mandated.

To me Neitzsche's though is very reactionary.

That is because you don't understand him.

And at any rate even if he were coming up with something new, it is certainly going in the wrong direction. Far away from idea of mutual co-operation and a unified community I value.

Nietzsche never intended to be a leader or philosopher of politics, or the community at large, it is in my opinion, that he intended his work for the individual, because he knew only a few people would be able to sort through his cleverly done smoke and mirrors writing style to get at the real heart of what he was saying.

Also, again, your wrong about the helping others thing.

I mean the Marquis De Sade was using that kind of thinking in the previous century, do we need to glorify him too?

Much can be learned from Sade as well, I think your main problem is that controversial figures such as Sade and Nietzsche acts as enema images for you, and you can't get past this, in order to what they really were about, and what you can learn from them.

Learning can be found anywhere, this is a lesson I wish all would learn, I have learned more from beggars, the perverse, "madmen," and rebels then I ever from scholars, and other various accepted forms of study, I mean sure you can learn some things form them, but their learning is more often than not stagnant, and is not creative or imaginative, to learn anything of true value and substance.

aruobaoruc

3rd December 2006, 20:22

Members better spell the name of Nietzsche correctly.

Inviction

3rd December 2006, 21:04

It is heavily implied. Any philosophy which holds that there is an elite who ought to rule by definition holds them as the most deserving. At any rate, look at what his philosophy was. It rejected Christian values. A lot of people see that and think "Good". But look at why it rejected Christianity. It wasn't down to the bad elements of Christianity but rather because Chrstianity encouraged altruism. Again a rejection of common welfare.

As far as I know, the only thing concerning "ruling" in Nietzsche's philosophy is the dominance of one's will--self-overcoming. There is no mention of socio-economic classes or the wealthy elite.

Wait, you say Nietzsche rejected Christianity, which is true. Now let me ask you, how many Christians do you know who have actually carried out Jesus' message and have been truly altruistic? Very few, I suppose. Nietzsche attacked not Jesus, but Christianity as an institution which drugged the masses with unhealthy and life-negating values (here he sounds like Marx, also). From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of...tion_and_Jesus: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche#Christianity_as_ an_institution_and_Jesus:)

In his book the Anti-Christ, Nietzsche fights against how Christianity has become an ideology set forth by institutions like churches, and how churches have failed to represent the life of Jesus. Nietzsche finds it important to distinguish between the religion of Christianity and the person of Jesus.

Apparently, he found the values of Jesus himself to have been healthy ones, and attacks Christianity because the Church has failed to represent these revolutionary values (though I am atheist, I'll admit Jesus was a great revolutionary in his own sense). And wasn't social welfare and caring for the oppressed one of Jesus' great values, and hasn't the lavish, corrupt Church throughout the ages continually favored the rich over the poor?

No it isn't. Whoever now rules will have a different set of values to the old rulers, but these won't have been brand new, they will have been there for a while and now simply coming to prominence. At any rate, the values of people like Lenin would have been anathema to Neitzsche. It certainly didn't fit his idea of a new strong and noble people of rulers. It was by definition altruistic.

A permanent revolution would cure this. Anyway, read my response to your above quote about altruism.

Well, in one sense everything is political. More specifically philosophy is political because no matter what field you look at, it has bearing on politics. Political Philosophy is obviously political, so leaving that aside: Moral philosophy is political because it is about how one should act and that has heavy bearing on politics because a political system will have to make sure the people act accordingly (they don't go around killing and raping for example), also morality extends beyond indivisual people to how society should behave and treat it's members. Heavily political there. Metaphysics will examine such things as whether God exists or not. I need hardly tell you why that is political and so on.

If you look at it, your statement that "Philosophy is by it's nature political" is meaningless, then, if you're going to go on and say "Well, in one sense everything is political." You see, everything can be political if you make them political. Thus, they don't have to be by their nature inherently political. Now, I really hope you'll agree that Nietzsche didn't intend for his philosophy to be political.

But anyway i cannot see how you thibnk just because he rejected previous modes of thought, that it must be on te left? I mean Nazi-ism was very much about overthrowing the prevalent system of thought (in this case liberalism) and replacing it with their own sytem (a lot of which was new). Did that put them on the left? To me Neitzsche's though is very reactionary. It looks to me more like a return to pagan values than progressing beyond Christian ones. And at any rate even if he were coming up with something new, it is certainly going in the wrong direction. Far away from idea of mutual co-operation and a unified community I value.

What...? Nietzsche as a reactionary? Wow. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reactionary:

Reactionary (or reactionist) is a political epithet, generally used as a pejorative, originally applied in the context of the French Revolution to counter-revolutionaries who wished to restore the real or imagined conditions of the monarchical Ancien Régime. Through the 19th century, it was used to refer to those who wished to preserve feudalism or aristocratic privilege against industrialism, republicanism, liberalism and in some cases socialism.

What did Nietzsche want to preserve? Nothing. He wasn't a reactionary; he was progressing beyond Christianity, beyond good and evil. What makes you think at all that he was pagan? Considering he said "God is dead" and challenged man to make his own morals, I fail to see how he's a reactionary.

What of Nazism was very new? Wasn't Nazism merely a fusion of all the great evils of earlier Europe (rabid nationalism, complete statism, militarism, racism, paganism, etc.)?

As for his influence on existentialism, it's there. He was a major influence. But why focus on him? He wasn't the first to come up with that kind of thinking after all. I mean the Marquis De Sade was using that kind of thinking in the previous century, do we need to glorify him too?

Please explain how the Marquis de Sade was a precursor to the existentialists. Nietzsche, along with Kierkegaard, was acknowledged by the philosophers of the twentieth century as one of their most important influences.

Angry Young Man

4th December 2006, 16:12

Random Question: How did Nietzshce get used by the Nazis if he argued for freedom and absolute autonomy.

Epoche

4th December 2006, 16:34

As I say again utterly incompatible with Marx.

Nietzsche is compatible with anything because he was a catalyst. What is done with his philosophy is the result of which parts are chosen to be emphasized. He argued both sides of every philosophical coin that has ever existed, and in the midsts of his endless non-sequiturs, and what another comrade described so perfectly as "mis-mash" opinions, you can quite literally do anything with his philosophy.

I think his affiliation with the Nazi ideology causes communists to hesitate in using him. Don't let that be an obstacle.

Is Nietzsche comparable to Marx? Sure, they are both "philosophers." But outside of this domain, Nietzsche is a joke when compared to Marx.

He is a catalyst and nothing more....a first come first serve basis. The Nazi's claimed him. So can we.

Epoche

4th December 2006, 16:42

The best diachronic use of Nietzsche "fundamentalism" I have ever seen is provided by a fella named "Sauwelios" who can be found at ILovePhilosophy.com.

A lot can be learned about the esoteric use of Nietzsche by reading this fella's posts. This is not to say that he is "correct," but that there are ways to organize Nietzsche's philosophy into an elaborate "plan," if you will. He certainly does just that.

Read his posts from a position of indifference.

Inviction

5th December 2006, 01:32

Originally posted by [email protected] 04, 2006 04:12 pm
Random Question: How did Nietzshce get used by the Nazis if he argued for freedom and absolute autonomy.
Did the Nazis use Nietzsche, or did they use what the Nazis believed to be Nietzsche?

phragit

7th December 2006, 03:33

What Nietzsche hated about capitalism was far different from what Marx hate about it. Nietzsche directly attacked all western society by calling it "decodant" and he supported a notion similar to Hiedeggar's attack on technology, note technology, not science. Nietzsche did not believe in egalatarianism, he supported the idea, though not to the extent most of his casual readers believe, that pain had a great meaning in life and should almost be celebrated. Nietzsche was an outright Aristocrat, not a communist; this is not to say his philosophy would not work in communism, rather it would work best. Nietzsche was mal-informed about communism and never thought of it working with his philosophy. Nietzsche was very similar to Mill and Marx in many ways, though he attacked Marx for opinons he had very ostentatious ideas on.

Inviction

7th December 2006, 03:40

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 03:33 am
What Nietzsche hated about capitalism was far different from what Marx hate about it. Nietzsche directly attacked all western society by calling it "decodant" and he supported a notion similar to Hiedeggar's attack on technology, note technology, not science. Nietzsche did not believe in egalatarianism, he supported the idea, though not to the extent most of his casual readers believe, that pain had a great meaning in life and should almost be celebrated. Nietzsche was an outright Aristocrat, not a communist; this is not to say his philosophy would not work in communism, rather it would work best. Nietzsche was mal-informed about communism and never thought of it working with his philosophy. Nietzsche was very similar to Mill and Marx in many ways, though he attacked Marx for opinons he had very ostentatious ideas on.
Well as far as I know, Nietzsche was an intellectual aristocrat--and to that extent, so were Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all of the other theorists of the "vanguard party." But that's not the point of Marxism, since Marxism focuses on the scientific aspects of history, socio-economics, and politics, not the artistic and intellectual heights reached by the individual.

As these two in no way conflict with each other, they can perfectly co-exist. I'd even say that a Marxist environment would be best suited for education and intellectual advancement. Also, I didn't know that Nietzsche criticized Marx. Did he address Communism anywhere?

Cryotank Screams

7th December 2006, 03:47

Nietzsche was an outright Aristocrat, not a communist

Bullshit, he was not an aristocrat, nor was he a Communist, he was a philosopher.

Nietzsche was mal-informed about communism and never thought of it working with his philosophy.

So you were in Nieztsche's head? You know what he thought about Communism, and to what extent he was informed about it?

No you weren't and no you don't, no one truly does, therefore you can not make this claim.

The question is not did he know and understand Communism, it was the relationship between Marx and Nietzsche, which they were indifferent and made no comment upon one another.

though he attacked Marx for opinons he had very ostentatious ideas on.

When did Nietzsche ever attack or even mention Marx?

Nietzsche did not believe in egalatarianism

Proof? Or baseless claim?

phragit

7th December 2006, 03:53

Originally posted by Inviction+December 07, 2006 03:40 am--> (Inviction @ December 07, 2006 03:40 am)
[email protected] 07, 2006 03:33 am
What Nietzsche hated about capitalism was far different from what Marx hate about it. Nietzsche directly attacked all western society by calling it "decodant" and he supported a notion similar to Hiedeggar's attack on technology, note technology, not science. Nietzsche did not believe in egalatarianism, he supported the idea, though not to the extent most of his casual readers believe, that pain had a great meaning in life and should almost be celebrated. Nietzsche was an outright Aristocrat, not a communist; this is not to say his philosophy would not work in communism, rather it would work best. Nietzsche was mal-informed about communism and never thought of it working with his philosophy. Nietzsche was very similar to Mill and Marx in many ways, though he attacked Marx for opinons he had very ostentatious ideas on.
Well as far as I know, Nietzsche was an intellectual aristocrat--and to that extent, so were Marx, Engels, Lenin, and all of the other theorists of the "vanguard party." But that's not the point of Marxism, since Marxism focuses on the scientific aspects of history, socio-economics, and politics, not the artistic and intellectual heights reached by the individual.

As these two in no way conflict with each other, they can perfectly co-exist. I'd even say that a Marxist environment would be best suited for education and intellectual advancement. Also, I didn't know that Nietzsche criticized Marx. Did he address Communism anywhere? [/b]
No, Nietzsche never attacked communism, he stated that politics is the lowest forms of thought. What Nietzsche did was attack people rather than ideas because he felt that people who represented an idea were more important than the idea itself, which is sort of ironic. I've never followed Marxism as a philosophy, save reading the German Ideology and Gramsci's notebooks. Despite this I do have an idea of what Nietzsche would have thought of most communists; I believe Nietzsche thought of communists as nihilists, the same way he viewed christians, as he also did with all who valued politics. To an extant I agree with him, but I do beleive that political thought and revolutionry should not be disregarded. I believe it should be put secondary to our lives and our personal greatness, which should be the main goal of communism.

Cryotank Screams

7th December 2006, 03:59

Originally posted by [email protected] 06, 2006 11:53 pm
Despite this I do have an idea of what Nietzsche would have thought of most communists; I believe Nietzsche thought of communists as nihilists, the same way he viewed christians, as he also did with all who valued politics. To an extant I agree with him, but I do beleive that political thought and revolutionry should not be disregarded. I believe it should be put secondary to our lives and our personal greatness, which should be the main goal of communism.
The more people try to say "Nietzsche thought this," and "Nietzsche thought that," on certain matters, the further we get from actually understanding his work and himself, and the more it demonstrates said person does not respect Nietzsche and does not understand him.

Like I have said to others, you don't know what Nietzsche thought, so don't claim you do.

phragit

7th December 2006, 04:06

Bullshit, he was not an aristocrat, nor was he a Communist, he was a philosopher.
I got this from an interpretation by Robert Solomon, there is not greater living Nietzsche expert.

So you were in Nieztsche's head? You know what he thought about Communism, and to what extent he was informed about it? From what I could tell from what I know about Nietzsche life and the german intellectual climate of the time, Nietzsche would know Marx as a Hegelian, of the orthodox variety, and would have known communism almost entirely as a utopian concept, which he would condemn as egalatarian.

The question is not did he know and understand Communism, it was the relationship between Marx and Nietzsche, which they were indifferent and made no comment upon one another.He would not have known communism because of the German political climate, Moore would have been common reading at the time and perhaps Mill's On Liberty would have been read, but Marx and Bakunin would be almost impossible to find in Germany at the time.

When did Nietzsche ever attack or even mention Marx?
Marx was the voluntary begger in Also Spracht Zarathustra

Proof? Or baseless claim?
I'll take it you've never so much as glanced at Nietzsche.......read the introduction to Also Spracht Zarathustra, the begining of his speach pretty much says it all.

phragit

7th December 2006, 04:08

Originally posted by Cryotank Screams+December 07, 2006 03:59 am--> (Cryotank Screams @ December 07, 2006 03:59 am)
[email protected] 06, 2006 11:53 pm
Despite this I do have an idea of what Nietzsche would have thought of most communists; I believe Nietzsche thought of communists as nihilists, the same way he viewed christians, as he also did with all who valued politics. To an extant I agree with him, but I do beleive that political thought and revolutionry should not be disregarded. I believe it should be put secondary to our lives and our personal greatness, which should be the main goal of communism.
The more people try to say "Nietzsche thought this," and "Nietzsche thought that," on certain matters, the further we get from actually understanding his work and himself, and the more it demonstrates said person does not respect Nietzsche and does not understand him.

Like I have said to others, you don't know what Nietzsche thought, so don't claim you do. [/b]
I did state that thus was my interpretation of Nietzsche and what I believe his opinon was and it was not baseless, it was through comparisons of what he wrote on each subject and his philosophy as a whole.

Cryotank Screams

8th December 2006, 02:10

got this from an interpretation by Robert Solomon, there is not greater living Nietzsche expert.

Ha! There is no expert on Nietzsche besides Nietzsche himself, I have studied his work and bios for years, and still don't think I'm an expert, and I also consider myself Nietzschean in philosophical terms to a certain degree, what makes this Solomon so special?

The more you try to understand Nietzsche and but him into boxes and categories, the less you will understand him.

would have known communism almost entirely as a utopian concept, which he would condemn as egalatarian.

Being that Nietzsche was an intellectual I highly doubt he would condemn Communism and all of Communist theoretics without fully understanding what it was, he would have at the very least read bout it, and then made a conclusion; he would no condemn it because Marx came from the Hegelian line of philosophical thinking.

Who said Nietzsche condemned egalitarianism anyway?

He would not have known communism because of the German political climate

So your saying the texts would not have been available?

Just because enlightenment era politics, and the fact that germany was horridly conservative, doesn't mean that Nietzsche would not have access to Marx's texts, if he really wanted to read it.

I also think that Nietzsche did not engage himself into politics, and was more concerned with the arts, the fundamentals of life, religion, and society.

Marx was the voluntary begger in Also Spracht Zarathustra

Says who? You and Solomon?

I'll take it you've never so much as glanced at Nietzsche

Correct, I have stared and absorbed Nietzsche like a fucking sponge, lol, ;).

I did state that thus was my interpretation

Yours? Or are your interpretations based on explanations, and interpretations from others?

what I believe his opinon

What YOU believe, you should have said this is what I think, not Nietzsche thought this, and try to pass it off as a proven fact.

phragit

8th December 2006, 02:53

what makes this Solomon so special?
What makes Solomon special is that he does not use Nietzsche for anything, where others constantly have. Solomon is as enthusiastic about Nietzsche as any of Nietzsche followers, which really seperates him from past interpretors.

Being that Nietzsche was an intellectual I highly doubt he would condemn Communism and all of Communist theoretics without fully understanding what it was, he would have at the very least read bout it, and then made a conclusion; he would not condemn it because Marx came from the Hegelian line of philosophical thinking.
Nietzsche often condemned people who were very similar to him philosophically because he wanted to seperate himself from them. Case in point Mill, Nietzsche and Mill were extremely similar, their only breaking point was psychology where modern psychology and Kierkegaard would indicate they were both wrong and right. Mill and Nietzsche expressed extremely similar empiricist views and each contributed greatly to empiricism, also to the point Hume or Locke did, they were also both strongly Aristotilian; despite thus, Hume was one of Nietzsche primary targets, behind only Plato, Socrates and Euripides. That sort of attack was extremely common in Nietzsche's writing and what I believe he did towards Marx. This is, in that, he more than likely thought of Marx as any Hegelian and, since high-profile communists were often expurgated from states, would have probably considered communism an objectivist idea because of this.

Who said Nietzsche condemned egalitarianism anyway?
Well I showed you his attack on it, wasn't that enough.

Just because enlightenment era politics, and the fact that germany was horridly conservative, doesn't mean that Nietzsche would not have access to Marx's texts, if he really wanted to read it.

I also think that Nietzsche did not engage himself into politics, and was more concerned with the arts, the fundamentals of life, religion, and society.
Show how much you know, Nietzsche hardly lived any of his sane adult life in Germany, but lived mostly in Switzerland Italy and Paris. Nietzsche would have had some chance to read Nietzsche's texts, but we have no proof that he did read or had any inclination to read Marx. I beleive Marx did not delve into politics, but had he the option to choose a goverment for a country to run under, I think he would have chose monarchal and highly Machiavellian state.

Says who? You and Solomon?
I never read that in Solomon

From The Voluntary Begger:
'For the hour has come, you know it well for the great, evil, long, slow mob and slave rebellion: it grows and grows!
Now all charity and any little giving away orivokes the base; and the overrich may be on their guard?'

does that satisfy you?

Yours? Or are your interpretations based on explanations, and interpretations from others?
I'd read much of Nietzsche long before reading any interpretation of him.

What YOU believe, you should have said this is what I think, not Nietzsche thought this, and try to pass it off as a proven fact.
proven facts, I would never.......I stated, or tried to, each time that this was what I believe Nietzsche said.

Inviction

8th December 2006, 03:03

From what I could tell from what I know about Nietzsche life and the german intellectual climate of the time, Nietzsche would know Marx as a Hegelian, of the orthodox variety, and would have known communism almost entirely as a utopian concept, which he would condemn as egalatarian.

Ah, and here you make your mistake in interpretation. Marx was influenced by Hegel; he was by no means an orthodox Hegelian. I mean, Marx was also perhaps even more influenced by Adam Smith, but was Marx an advocate of laissez-faire? No. You see, Hegelian idealism was seen by Marx as upside-down. Marx did originate his class struggle from the dialectic materialism of history, but Marx strongly reinforced the idea that economic conditions create ideas, not that ideas create economic conditions, as Hegel believed. Thus, this is why Marxism is "scientific" socialism whereas the socialism of the kind of Fourier and Robert Owen was denounced by Marx as "utopian" socialism.

Thus, Marx was neither Hegelian nor utopian.

Marx was the voluntary begger in Also Spracht Zarathustra

You've obviously interpreted this as a metaphor. How do you know this metaphor was what Nietzsche actually intended?

Case in point Mill, Nietzsche and Mill were extremely similar, their only breaking point was psychology where modern psychology and Kierkegaard would indicate they were both wrong and right. Mill and Nietzsche expressed extremely similar empiricist views and each contributed greatly to empiricism,

Uh, what? Mill had an ethical system of utilitarianism. Nietzsche's was strong individualism. These ethical systems are at odds.

Also, Nietzsche didn't really have an epistemology, did he? He was more of the anti-Enlightenment strain, wasn't he?

Cryotank Screams

8th December 2006, 03:14

I stated, or tried to, each time that this was what I believe Nietzsche said.

You talked in a authoritative manner, hence my interpretation of your posts made me think that you were saying, "Nietzsche thought this, and Nietzsche thought that."

I beleive Marx did not delve into politics

Then you don't know Marx.

I think he would have chose monarchal and highly Machiavellian state.

You also don't know about Marxist and Communist theory.

Show how much you know, Nietzsche hardly lived any of his sane adult life in Germany, but lived mostly in Switzerland Italy and Paris.

What's that have to do with Nietzsche and politics? Nothing, your just stating little tid bits I already knew.

Nietzsche would have had some chance to read Nietzsche's texts

I would hope so, considering he wrote his own texts? lol.

Well I showed you his attack on it, wasn't that enough.

No you didn't, Marx was never directly or indirectly attacked by Nietzsche, they were indifferent of each other.

phragit

8th December 2006, 03:25

Originally posted by [email protected] 08, 2006 03:03 am

From what I could tell from what I know about Nietzsche life and the german intellectual climate of the time, Nietzsche would know Marx as a Hegelian, of the orthodox variety, and would have known communism almost entirely as a utopian concept, which he would condemn as egalatarian.

Ah, and here you make your mistake in interpretation. Marx was influenced by Hegel; he was by no means an orthodox Hegelian. I mean, Marx was also perhaps even more influenced by Adam Smith, but was Marx an advocate of laissez-faire? No. You see, Hegelian idealism was seen by Marx as upside-down. Marx did originate his class struggle from the dialectic materialism of history, but Marx strongly reinforced the idea that economic conditions create ideas, not that ideas create economic conditions, as Hegel believed. Thus, this is why Marxism is "scientific" socialism whereas the socialism of the kind of Fourier and Robert Owen was denounced by Marx as "utopian" socialism.

Thus, Marx was neither Hegelian nor utopian.

Marx was the voluntary begger in Also Spracht Zarathustra

You've obviously interpreted this as a metaphor. How do you know this metaphor was what Nietzsche actually intended?

Case in point Mill, Nietzsche and Mill were extremely similar, their only breaking point was psychology where modern psychology and Kierkegaard would indicate they were both wrong and right. Mill and Nietzsche expressed extremely similar empiricist views and each contributed greatly to empiricism,

Uh, what? Mill had an ethical system of utilitarianism. Nietzsche's was strong individualism. These ethical systems are at odds.

Also, Nietzsche didn't really have an epistemology, did he? He was more of the anti-Enlightenment strain, wasn't he?
I never indicated that what I think Nietzsche's conceptions of Marx were correct, but what Nietzsche thought of Marx was based off the German intellectual climate when he was a professor, since most professors consort often with other professors, Nietzsche would have known almost exclusively orthodox Hegelians, since they were much more likely to be hired at German universities. True Socialism was also more popular in Germany and is likely what Nietzsche would know as communism. That, I beleive, is what Nietzsche would think of when reading Marx, if he read Marx; thus forming a biased opinion through subconscious association.

Nietzsche and Mill's individualism and utiliatarianism are the result in the split of psychology, aside from that they are almost identical in thought. There is even an argument, think Raskolnikov, in utilitarianism that the greatest people are more worthy because they did more for the people than the people could do for themselves. Nietzsche would be classified as an empiricist, he wrote a bit on it in, I think, Der Antichrist.

phragit

8th December 2006, 03:29

I beleive Marx did not delve into politics

Then you don't know Marx.sorry, meant to write Nietzsche.....it's been a long day.

Show how much you know, Nietzsche hardly lived any of his sane adult life in Germany, but lived mostly in Switzerland Italy and Paris.

What's that have to do with Nietzsche and politics? Nothing, your just stating little tid bits I already knew.
You'd implied that he lived in and was influenced by Germany durring his active period.

Nietzsche would have had some chance to read Nietzsche's texts

I would hope so, considering he wrote his own texts? lol.
As I said, 15 hour day.

Well I showed you his attack on it, wasn't that enough.

No you didn't, Marx was never directly or indirectly attacked by Nietzsche, they were indifferent of each other.
As I've been saying, The Voluntary Begger.

Cryotank Screams

8th December 2006, 03:38

You'd implied that he lived in and was influenced by Germany durring his active period.

No, I said he didn't engage, comment, or any such thing on politics at all.

As I've been saying, The Voluntary Begger.

It's a metaphor, a comment, a remark, and was not an attack on Marx, nor did it reference Marx in anyway.

phragit

8th December 2006, 03:53

No, I said he didn't engage, comment, or any such thing on politics at all.
I'd thought you were talking about the effects on him as a whole, not politics.

It's a metaphor, a comment, a remark, and was not an attack on Marx, nor did it reference Marx in anyway.I, personally, am pretty sure that The Voluntary Begger was a caricature of Marx.......but you don't seem to think so and bickering has gotten us nowhere, so we must agree to disagree on that. Being that we disagree on an argument central to Nietzsche and Marxism I do not see any further arguing culmanating into anything useful, so let us end this bickering over interpretation.

Cryotank Screams

8th December 2006, 03:58

Originally posted by [email protected] 07, 2006 11:53 pm
I do not see any further arguing culmanating into anything useful, so let us end this bickering over interpretation.
I wasn't bickering, just talking, and debating, but I agree we must agree to disagree.

Inviction

10th December 2006, 19:34

I never indicated that what I think Nietzsche's conceptions of Marx were correct, but what Nietzsche thought of Marx was based off. . .

That would be assuming that Nietzsche did, in fact, think anything of Marx, which you haven't been able to show. There's been no critcism of Marxian political economy from Nietzsche, nor a critique of dialectical materialism from Nietzsce.

True Socialism was also more popular in Germany and is likely what Nietzsche would know as communism. That, I beleive, is what Nietzsche would think of when reading Marx, if he read Marx; thus forming a biased opinion through subconscious association.

Do you even have any sources for the assertion that "[t]rue [s]ocialism" was "more popular" in Germany?

Nietzsche and Mill's individualism and utiliatarianism are the result in the split of psychology, aside from that they are almost identical in thought.

What "split of psychology" are you talking about? How are they "almost identical in thought" if you discount this split?

There is even an argument, think Raskolnikov, in utilitarianism that the greatest people are more worthy because they did more for the people than the people could do for themselves.

Raskolnikov was a fictional character... how do you know that Mill would've agreed with this?

Nietzsche would be classified as an empiricist, he wrote a bit on it in, I think, Der Antichrist.

Nietzsche also wrote on Christianity; does that mean he was a Christian?

phragit

11th December 2006, 00:36

That would be assuming that Nietzsche did, in fact, think anything of Marx, which you haven't been able to show. There's been no critcism of Marxian political economy from Nietzsche, nor a critique of dialectical materialism from Nietzsce.
Nietzsche never outwardly critiqued any philosophy, he attacked people and I've shown where I believe he attacked Marx.

Do you even have any sources for the assertion that "[t]rue [s]ocialism" was "more popular" in Germany?
The second volume of Marx's The German Ideology stated that.

Raskolnikov was a fictional character... how do you know that Mill would've agreed with this?
Raskolnikov was Dostoevsky's nihilist/extreme utilitarianist character, which is based off of Mill's philosophy. Also, Mill was not the only utilitarianist, the idea existed well over 100 years before him, he is just the most noted Utilitarianist.

Nietzsche also wrote on Christianity; does that mean he was a Christian?
He wrote negatively on christianity, in Der Antichrist he theorized on empiricism and layed the basis for several of Freud's theories.

Inviction

16th December 2006, 20:04

Nietzsche never outwardly critiqued any philosophy, he attacked people and I've shown where I believe he attacked Marx.

He mentioned Kant and Schopenhauer by name when critiquing them, I believe. Your previous example was an allegory, wasn't it? Thus, the meaning of that allegory was up to subjective interpretation by you. Since Nietzsche didn't mention Marx by name, how do we know that that was what Nietzsche really meant?

The second volume of Marx's The German Ideology stated that.

Even if it were more popular, it would only make Nietzsche less likely to consider it. Wasn't Nietzsche an intellectual aristocrat who had negative views of "herd" philosophy and morality?

Raskolnikov was Dostoevsky's nihilist/extreme utilitarianist character, which is based off of Mill's philosophy. Also, Mill was not the only utilitarianist, the idea existed well over 100 years before him, he is just the most noted Utilitarianist.

But Mill was no extremist. Oftentimes, an ideology and the extreme version of that ideology are quite different, even opposite (consider Islam and radical or extreme Islam).

He wrote negatively on christianity, in Der Antichrist he theorized on empiricism and layed the basis for several of Freud's theories.

Do you have a quote from Der Antichrist which could show this?

Epoche

17th December 2006, 01:35

Wasn't Nietzsche an intellectual aristocrat

What is that? Is that one of those guys who lives off a pension plan and wanders europe aimlessly while writing aphorisms and poetry?

Anybody else is either in the working class or is bourgeois. There were no "intellectual aristocrats" and there never will be. That's just a sophisticated name for a philosopher or ruling class figure. These types are not exhalted...they are parasitic.

Epoche

18th December 2006, 18:07

"[A]longside and in constant tension with Nietzsche's weighty cluster of opinions affirming that the world lacks a natural, rational, or divine order, that morality is artifice and pathology, and that the will is sovereign, exists a rival and equally weighty cluster of his opinions asserting that the cosmos has an intelligible character, that there is a suprahistorical ethical order, and that knowledge of these matters brings health, liberates, and ennobles. It is the unresolved antagonism between these sets of fundamental convictions that animates and orders Nietzsche's thought."
[Peter Berkowitz, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist, page 26.]

The resolution of this antagonism is the following. The intelligible - though not provable - character of the cosmos is that it is "to all eternity chaos" [La Gaya Scienza, section 109] - including the original meaning of "chaos", namely "void" - it is to all eternity devoid of meaning. Nietzsche's suprahistorical ethical order is based precisely on this insight: the measure of the rank of individual human beings as well as families, tribes, peoples, nations, and ages, is their truthfulness in this regard - how much of this deadly truth they can endure.

"It is here and nowhere else that one must make a start to comprehend what Zarathustra wants: this type of man that he conceives [the Overman], conceives reality as it is: it is strong enough for it—, it is not estranged or removed from it, it is reality itself and exemplifies all that is terrible and questionable in it, only in that way can man attain greatness..."
[Ecce Homo, Why I Am a Destiny, section 5.]

Taken from http://ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic...1853776#1853776 (http://ilovephilosophy.com/phpbb/viewtopic.php?p=1853776#1853776)

What does that even mean? Is the overman someone who simply acknowledges the meaninglessness of the universe? Tribes, people, societies, nations, etc., are all cooler if they know what "chaos" means? Seems simple enough. Sign me up.