Nietzsche, ours or theirs?

[Holden Caulfield]

so after many failed attempts to get Nietzsche on the menu here i decided to try again,

anybody who gives detrement to a legend must explain themselves, i.e. no unfounded 'he was a nazi' comments just coz that is what you have heard,

ya'll think his ideas are socialist for equality, antitheism etc or do you think him a fore-father Nazism as he has been labelled (but so have many philiosphers; Kant for instance)

discuss

[Hit The North]

This is a difficult poll to vote in because, let's be frank, he was neither.

[ÑóẊîöʼn]

Neither. He was a loony.

[apathy maybe]

This is a difficult poll to vote in because, let's be frank, he was neither.

Neither. He was a loony.

Yeah, neither. He had some ideas that could be interpreted as socialistic, and some that could be interpreted as fascistic. But his sister was the one who pushed the fascistic aspects (and the so called anti-Semitic aspects as well).


Just because a person is/was anti-theistic, doesn't make them socialistic. Indeed, As I understand it, Nietzsche was anti-theistic because of his individualism. He wanted people to take responsibility for themselves, and for their own actions. (In that regard you could say that he was a fore-runner of existentialism. Which a quick look at Wikipedia, and yes they do say something like that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Existentialism .)

[Kropotesta]

well slave morality isn't really a socialist idea.....

[Anashtih]

I wouldn't say any of his ideas were fascist in nature. He was very individualist. Sortof like Max Stirner. He was amazing.

[Dean]

He was crass, with little interest in altruism or social responsibility. He was a right-wing style individualist, even though he had some interesting existential ideas.

I don't think he was a pre-nazi, but I do think he has more compatibility with fascist, rather than socialist ideals.

[Kami]

Neither. He was a loony.
This. Although I'll add in that he has some of the best quotes one could ever ask for, which redeems him a little in my eyes. And a killer 'tasch.

[Plagueround]

I think many of his ideas were important as a foundation for later works, but anyone who reads Nietzsche and stops there is missing out on a lot.

[Kropotesta]

I seriously don't understand why some people here likw Nietzsche. His ideas are horrible, before his sister twisted some of them.

[RedAnarchist]

He's neither.

[Holden Caulfield]

Neitzsche theory of man freeing himself from the bounds of society suits socialist ideas, reject the binds that mankind has made for ourselves such as religion and destroying the morality of willingly submitting to opressive authorities due to traditionalist ideas,

the idea of 'super man' is not based on racial eugenics as often suggested but rather on the progression of humans intelligence, and freedom from opression, (Hegal also said that all history is the progesssion of the idea of freedom)

this seems rather socialist to me,

and yes he did have mental illness but i do not think this makes him anyless of a thinker i think it makes you intolerant, "i think what he says is wrong as they are disabled" is hardly socialist maybe you should be introspectivly critical before you start in others...

he was still a man of his times, as were many philoposhpers and so they become martyrs of their own ideas (i rememer reading on here Engels was homophobic and everybody jumped in to defend him saying if he were alive to day he wouldnt be for an example that nobodies ideas are perfectly socialist) but he still expressed ideas relevant to socialism

as for social responsibility, his ideas freedom of man to be human away from external moral codes would seem to apply to anarchism to me, but what do i know of that..

and ergo he is not just a loony or a proto nazi, and you are all wrong, lulz

EDIT: members of the HPG (especially but not exclusivly) who expressed 'he is a looney' as an argument should be ashamed of their own eugenically based thoughts on fellow humans)

[Hit The North]

Neitzsche theory of man freeing himself from the bounds of society suits socialist ideas,

No, I'd argue that socialists are interested in making society more human so that individuals can live together in mutual solidarity. We are not interested in freeing the individual from society. It's a false dichotomy: there is no individuality without society.

[Holden Caulfield]

the bounds of the society he is trapped in, in the case of 'Zarathusa' an ignorant religious one, in ours an intolerant opressive capitalist one,

obviously im not saying i support or Nietzsche says society needs removed or destroyed rather tailored to be more human and freer for all,

[gilhyle]

He is theirs.....and that says a lot about what their intellectuals look like

[Demogorgon]

His ideas point more in the direction of the right wing Libertarianism that appeared in the twentieth century.

He wasn't a Nazi, but he was sure as hell not a socialist either.

[Holden Caulfield]

the analogy of the three metamorphisis of being a camel (worker) then a lion (revolutionary) would seem to infer revolutionary ideals to free humans from opression and ignorance,

(the third stage is to be a child to rebuild and start anew btw)

[Bilan]

He wrote some good stuff, and some shit.
I don't think he's 'either'. He belongs to no one but himself.
His ideas...well, they belong to his ego.

[Kropotesta]

Neitzsche theory of man freeing himself from the bounds of society suits socialist ideas, reject the binds that mankind has made for ourselves such as religion and destroying the morality of willingly submitting to opressive authorities due to traditionalist ideas,

yeah he also says about slaves not having the right to fulfil their appartently natural desire for power. Real socialist.

[Dystisis]

He was neither yet both.


the analogy of the three metamorphisis of being a camel (worker) then a lion (revolutionary) would seem to infer revolutionary ideals to free humans from opression and ignorance,

(the third stage is to be a child to rebuild and start anew btw)
Sounds like an old alchemical allegory.

[Holden Caulfield]

'slave morality' does not encourage slavery yet it shows that opressed groups can form their on morals but which to live and on which to push forwards for their own means, i.e. freedom,

[Kropotesta]

'slave morality' does not encourage slavery yet it shows that opressed groups can form their on morals but which to live and on which to push forwards for their own means, i.e. freedom,
no. If I remember rightly he says they do not have the right to pursue freedom or power as they're allegedly inferior.

[Djehuti]

so after many failed attempts to get Nietzsche on the menu here i decided to try again,



Nietzsche was absolutely no nazi, but he was no socialist either.
But I believe that Nietzsche is an important thinker for us, he has influenced many prominent socialists. His idea of the übermench is much closer to the idea of man under communism than the nazi version of the übermench.

[RedBarrette]

I've been thinking about this lately, as I am a great fan of Nietzsche's. Not always in agreeance with him but he has a flair for writing and presents interesting thoughts. I think given his time period he was more socialist, where as now we've seen him misappropriated so terribly that it's hard to distinguish what was what. I did a course in university on the misappropriate of Nietzsche, a fascinating topic, because so many groups were able to claim him for their own. Long topic, anyhow I think the point of his writing was to go beyond all that. That is why we can pull bits, but not the whole thing, because his aim was beyond that. That is where the ideas of Revolution can be found. It has to be to live the way he wanted.

That's the general direction of my thoughts at this point anyhow, I'm curious to hear what others think.

[Volderbeek]

Perhaps we should let Nietzsche himself tell us:


Socialism—as the logical conclusion of the tyranny of the least and the dumbest, i.e., those who are superficial, envious, and three-quarters actors-is indeed entailed by “modern ideas” and their latent anarchism; but in the tepid air of democratic well-being the capacity to reach conclusions, or to finish, weakens. One follows —but one no longer sees what follows. Therefore socialism is on the whole a hopeless and sour affair; and nothing offers a more amusing spectacle than the contrast between the poisonous and desperate faces cut by today’s socialists—and to what wretched and pinched feelings their style bears witness!—and the harmless lambs’ happiness of their hopes and desiderata. Nevertheless, in many places in Europe they may yet bring off occasional coups and attacks: there will be deep “rumblings” in the stomach of the next century, and the Paris commune, which has its apologists and advocates in Germany, too, was perhaps no more than a minor indigestion compared to what is coming. But there will always be too many who have possessions for socialism to signify more than an attack of sickness—and those who have possessions are of one mind on one article of faith: “one must possess something in order to be something.” But this is the oldest and healthiest of all instincts: I should add, “one must want to have more than one has in order to become more.” For this is the doctrine preached by life itself to all that has life: the morality of development. To have and to want to have more—growth, in one word—that is life itself. In the doctrine of socialism there is hidden, rather badly, a “will to negate life"; the human beings or races that think up such a doctrine must be bungled. Indeed, I should wish that a few great experiments might prove that in a socialist society life negates itself, cuts off its own roots.

So yeah..., 6 of you don't know what you're talking about.

[Holden Caulfield]

slave morality is, to me, the idea that those who are opressed do not and should not have to follow the morality of their opresors, be that the church and religious preaching or the capitalists and their ladders many ignorantly still hope to climb

and to Volderbeek:

i'm not putting him on a plinth free from attack and he has many faults but let us not forget that philosophy moves with time and meaninhs can still be drawn as i have already said many philosophers are matyrs to their own work,

Hegal said autocratic monarchy of Prussia was the best form of government that there can ever be and yet Marx was a Hegellian...

[Volderbeek]

i'm not putting him on a plinth free from attack and he has many faults but let us not forget that philosophy moves with time and meaninhs can still be drawn as i have already said many philosophers are matyrs to their own work,

Take whatever meaning you like from it, but don't go around claiming his ideas were "mainly socialistic" because, as I showed, that's very wrong.


Hegal said autocratic monarchy of Prussia was the best form of government that there can ever be and yet Marx was a Hegellian...Um, where exactly did he say that? Some of his followers (the "Right Hegelians") interpreted it that way while others didn't (the "Left Hegelians"). Hegel himself simply argued that society progresses through a dialectical process towards absolute freedom.

Besides, Marx considered himself an "upside-down" Hegelian. :lol:

[Holden Caulfield]

i cannot find the quote as i took the books from the library a while ago but Hegal does point to this conculusion, and im sure if Rosa comes back to post she can verify this, The 'Right-Hegallians did litte expanding of the origional works

Left-Hegellians used the words of Hegal to attack Hegals faults, i aim to use the strong points of Nietzsche which can be transferred and put next to my socialist beliefs as a form of 'young/left-Nietzschan, surely this is refinement or as you say 'a dialectical process' of his works

many of Nietzsches works fit into place next to my marxism and so i find much of what he said is in accordance to socialism and could be fully so with some refinement of ideas, (his own personality may have gotten in the way of his own work at some points but this is minimal in the grand scheme of ideas and such)

[Volderbeek]

i cannot find the quote as i took the books from the library a while ago but Hegal does point to this conculusion, and im sure if Rosa comes back to post she can verify this, The 'Right-Hegallians did litte expanding of the origional works

He favored constitutional monarchy because he thought it granted the most personal freedom. He does acknowledge monarchy as despotism at some point.


Left-Hegellians used the words of Hegal to attack Hegals faults, i aim to use the strong points of Nietzsche which can be transferred and put next to my socialist beliefs as a form of 'young/left-Nietzschan, surely this is refinement or as you say 'a dialectical process' of his works
I think the situationists did something of that nature:


The will to power is the project of self-realization falsified - divorced from any attempt to communicate with, or to participate in, the life of others. It is the passion of creating and of creating oneself caught in the hierarchical system, condemned to turn the treadmill of repression and appearances. Accepting being put down because you can put others down in your turn.


many of Nietzsches works fit into place next to my marxism and so i find much of what he said is in accordance to socialism and could be fully so with some refinement of ideas, (his own personality may have gotten in the way of his own work at some points but this is minimal in the grand scheme of ideas and such)It looks more like a substantial refinement to me. That whole long quote directly bashing socialism (consistent with his idea of slave morality no less) was nothing more than a personality quirk?

[Holden Caulfield]

the quote itself i would say is not as bad as it first seemed, (the latter part is but i would not reject the first parts out of hand) but he is wrong, simple as, i do not take him as the source of my ideals i only claimed to find parallels to them,

Freddy Engels was a homophobe, this would discredit him if for example i found an article by him attacking homosexuality is the way you did for Nietzsche and socialism, yet i do not just pluck my ideas from the minds of great men and assume them as my own,

Hegels defence of monarchy as opposed to a Republic is roughly the same as Nietzsche attack on socialism; believing that the confusion and nature or the masses would lead to an inept government,

and Marx was a Hegellian a yet again add, surely then, i can just as easily draw parallels with my own form of socialism (marxism) and the works of Nietzsche just as Marx based many on his ideas on the works of Hegel

[gilhyle]

Hegel was Hegel Marx was Marx....the politics of the two are not linked except in one respect : Marx rejected ultra-leftism in favour of a working class politics which builds on what is possible, just as Hegel argued for what he thought was the best of the immediately practical political forms.

Nietzsche is a personal philosopher, Marx is not. Nietzsche advocates a neo-Schopenhauer-ian personal credo which is incapable of illuminating the work of a revolutionary movement. It might motivate you, thats great. So might Christ or Buddha. Your personal issues, and mine, are irrelevant to the cause of socialism. All our personal philosophies are outgrowths of capitalist society, none of them are 'socialist' in character. The only socialist perspective is Marxism, which is a perspective not of you or me or anyone, but of a revolutionary class that can end the appropriation of dead labour to capital. So lets get real about this.

[Holden Caulfield]

Hegel was Hegel Marx was Marx....the politics of the two are not linked except in one respect : Marx rejected ultra-leftism in favour of a working class politics which builds on what is possible, just as Hegel argued for what he thought was the best of the immediately practical political forms.

Nietzsche is a personal philosopher, Marx is not. Nietzsche advocates a neo-Schopenhauer-ian personal credo which is incapable of illuminating the work of a revolutionary movement. It might motivate you, thats great. So might Christ or Buddha. Your personal issues, and mine, are irrelevant to the cause of socialism. All our personal philosophies are outgrowths of capitalist society, none of them are 'socialist' in character. The only socialist perspective is Marxism, which is a perspective not of you or me or anyone, but of a revolutionary class that can end the appropriation of dead labour to capital. So lets get real about this.

now that is a good answer...
i agree with you but i also still hold my own thoughts on the subject, even if ignorantly so,

[RoterAnarchie]

ofcourse he was neither, I'd almost dare say he even had some libertairian things in his theories

[Incendiarism]

I find myself oscillating between liking Nietzsche and hating him. I primarily see his philosophy as a means of self-empowerment, but it's impossible to lean towards socialism and not scrutinize the man! On one hand he had some neat ideas, but if he was serious on others such as restricting luxuries such as music, reading, entertainment to a few righteous thinkers than I most definitely can not defend him, but I can bring myself to seeing where he is coming from. When I see things from his view in some oddly abstract way, I can understand what he means by the trivializing of culture, and the dumbing down of humanity.

I also don't think that you can really credit him with his ideas on religion because he actually likens socialism to christianity.

And just to make clear on the nazi issue...he most definitely was not, and any likeness is purely coincidental and the product of twisting his ideas. He loathed the government, especially the stronger it became because it destroyed culture. He dedicates an entire chapter to it in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Basically his idea is that the government is a creation for the all-too-human, and those who take the path of the superman will inevitably transcend beyond it.

[sonicbluetm]

I'm pretty sure he didn't believe in human equality.

[JGH]

Personally, I think his critical work on values, religion, and anything that 'decent' people generally hold dear, is worthy. He is a good motivational writer; his attempts at metaphysics seem to be ironic untruths, meant to inspire. He also attacks the limitations of the conventional morality of his time, opening up new possibilities for human freedom.

However, he is an elitist, his attack on the state appears to be an attack on bloated government, not hierarchy. He is no egalitarian. He doesn't subject the concept of 'race' to critical evaluation. He is a misogynist.

I would place him closer to the right Libertarians than to the National Socialists, although I believe parts of his work could easily have influenced the early Nazis without the intervention of his sister.

[KrazyRabidSheep]

well slave morality isn't really a socialist idea.....
Neither was his Ubermensch.

As to why people associate Nietzsche with fascism, I think it is partially because they associate Ubermensch with the Aryan race (and therefore Hitler.) This is over-simplifying matters a bit, but in essence. . .

[Holden Caulfield]

As to why people associate Nietzsche with fascism, I think it is partially because they associate Ubermensch with the Aryan race (and therefore Hitler.) This is over-simplifying matters a bit, but in essence. .


the slave morality & ubermensch criticisms seem to be from people who (im im not trying to sound better than thou here seriously) read about them and are either making uninformed judgements or just guessing that it is bad from the name

[RevolutionaryKluffinator]

COMRADES, Nietzsche is not even close to supportive of socialist ideas.

An excerpt from The Anti-Christ (Section 57)

Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence–who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights.
Nietzsche is more of a nihilist theorist. Some of his work is worth while.

[Decolonize The Left]

I feel as though many of those who have posted here have done so without reading deep into Nietzsche. He was most certainly not a socialist, nor a nazi. On this note, I feel the community has reached proper consensus - he was neither (although I voted for socialism, for I feel as though his values can be synthesized with my understanding of socialism).

Unfortunately, or perhaps rather fortunately for now we can have a dialogue, I feel as though he is not well-understood. I would like to clarify my understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy, as I am rather well versed in philosophy and theory, and have read much of Nietzsche's works.

RevolutionaryKluffinator:

Nietzsche is more of a nihilist theorist. Some of his work is worth while.
Nietzsche's entire philosophy was dedicated to overcoming nihilism. Hence he was most certainly not a "nihilist theorist."

Volderbeek's offering of Nietzsche's perspective on socialism is apt. Yet I would caution the reader against assuming that Nietzsche means exactly what you think when he uses words like "socialism" and "possessions." I assure you that he does not mean this community of thinkers who debates many worthwhile issues. It is my understanding that he speaks more of the blind follower who dons the Marxist logo without understanding the nature of Marxism, his/her life, the capitalist society, or the value of such a fight. His attack on socialism stems from the ability of slave morality to subvert the master moral values into their own. Hence the real critique of socialism is the question of where the values come from, rather than the actuality of the values themselves.

Gilhyle:

Nietzsche is a personal philosopher, Marx is not. Nietzsche advocates a neo-Schopenhauer-ian personal credo which is incapable of illuminating the work of a revolutionary movement. It might motivate you, thats great. So might Christ or Buddha. Your personal issues, and mine, are irrelevant to the cause of socialism. All our personal philosophies are outgrowths of capitalist society, none of them are 'socialist' in character. The only socialist perspective is Marxism, which is a perspective not of you or me or anyone, but of a revolutionary class that can end the appropriation of dead labour to capital. So lets get real about this.

This is highly problematic. Firstly, all philosophies are personal - hence Marxism is a personal philosophy as well. It may be geared towards a personal understanding of social phenomena in a certain way, but it remains none-the-less a philosophy which one adopts for one's own life (hence, personal).

Furthermore, your personal issues and mine are absolutely vital to the cause of socialism. If I am not mistaken, I believe socialism is dedicated to the betterment of one's own personal situation - and by extension, that of society. Hence the fact that you do not have enough money to purchase X, or that you are dissociated from your labor in profession Y, are extremely personal issues which are the groundwork of the socialist movement.

You want to "get real about this." You want to ditch your identity and become nameless in the revolutionary mass? Just another faceless proletariat fighting for freedom to continue to be faceless? Perhaps I'm confused?

- August

[NerdVincent]

Sartre was communist. Sartre was inspired by Nietzsche.

Actually, I like Nietzsche for his subversive and do-it-yourself way of thinking. Morality is subjective, God is lame, freethinking is great. Revolution is good. On the social level he was rather quiet but somewhere near anarchism, or so he sounded in a chapter of "Thus Spake Zarathustra". But exept for this little part, we don't have much matter to make a serious debate.
What we must remember is that no philosopher got a perfect way of thinking. I just pick some ideas of Plato, Spinoza, Nietzsche, Marx, Sartre... and I make a big salad out of it.

[ChristianV777]

Well, anyone can have interesting ideas. That doesn't make them of the Left.
Dostoevsky is one of my favourite writers, even though he was extremely Right-Wing.

Nietzsche was opposed to the Left. He had very, very negative ideas about Anarchists especially, but he didn't think much more of Socialists.
I believe his assessment of Anarchists is that they were "jealous of those in power, so instead of working to get that power, they want to take power away from everyone" or something reactionary like that. I think he also called them "little better than wild animals roaming the streets".
His ideas were very elitist, which is the exact opposite of everything that the Left should stand for.

In this poll, the answer is neither. I'd say his ideas are far closer to the Right though.

[Decolonize The Left]

Nietzsche was opposed to the Left. He had very, very negative ideas about Anarchists especially, but he didn't think much more of Socialists.
I believe his assessment of Anarchists is that they were "jealous of those in power, so instead of working to get that power, they want to take power away from everyone" or something reactionary like that. I think he also called them "little better than wild animals roaming the streets".
His ideas were very elitist, which is the exact opposite of everything that the Left should stand for.

I'm not sure if you fully understand Nietzsche. He was most certainly critical of any mass ideology whereby individuals become nameless members of the herd. He was also highly critical of slave morality and all ideologies which stemmed from it - and given the proper critique, most ideologies can be argued to stem from slave morality.

And you're right that he was opposed to the "left," but there are many different interpretations of the "left." It is almost certain that he did not mean what we mean by anarchism, socialism, communism, and the left. Hence it is not coherent to argue that he opposed our ideas, for he meant different things by the same words.

Nietzsche was primarily interested in why an ideology came to rise, and why an individual holds an ideology.

But in another sense, Nietzsche's philosophy is entirely compatible with communism and anarchism. One need only let go of strict party/ideological guidelines and interpret/appropriate the general ideas for one's own. In other words, Nietzsche would be highly critical of sectarianism.

- August

[Foreverrain]

for those who know him, you know that he is not to be catergorized. he knew the truth, and yet, he is still catergorized. those of you who know him know that his sister devastated his character. he knew what should be known. I started with "twighlight of the idols" and moved backward, as anyone should. out of everything that i have read there is only one truth,"Reason is the cause of the falsification of the evidence of the senses". there is no more true a statement than this. you should have no questions beyond this. if you do, then move on and find something a bit more easier to swallow, cause you don't want to know the truth.

[ChristianV777]

I'm not sure if you fully understand Nietzsche. He was most certainly critical of any mass ideology whereby individuals become nameless members of the herd. He was also highly critical of slave morality and all ideologies which stemmed from it - and given the proper critique, most ideologies can be argued to stem from slave morality.

And you're right that he was opposed to the "left," but there are many different interpretations of the "left." It is almost certain that he did not mean what we mean by anarchism, socialism, communism, and the left. Hence it is not coherent to argue that he opposed our ideas, for he meant different things by the same words.

Nietzsche was primarily interested in why an ideology came to rise, and why an individual holds an ideology.

But in another sense, Nietzsche's philosophy is entirely compatible with communism and anarchism. One need only let go of strict party/ideological guidelines and interpret/appropriate the general ideas for one's own. In other words, Nietzsche would be highly critical of sectarianism.

- August

I'm not sure how you couldn't argue for the same on Ayn Rand's philosophy based on what you wrote.
Rand was also opposed to herd mentality.
Her quotes about how the individual should never be subsumed by majority opinion sounds like it would fit perfectly with Anarchist priniciples, and I agree with her assessment. The greatest minority is the individual. Any system that asks me to give up my individual identity for the greater good is not a system compatible with freedom.
But, where she took those ideas is something else entirely.
And, I'd argue the same is true of Nietzsche.
His ideas fit in quite well with post-modernist ideology. Post-modernism has shown itself as a completely non-useful tool for change.
Extremist individualism is something I have always been opposed to.

How do you reconcile his idea of the "will to power" with the Left?
Doesn't it totally destroy any hopes of our struggle as anything except utopian?

And, I think, yes, he did mean exactly what we mean by the Left, at least to a large extent. I'm not saying that I think he totally understood the position of all on the Left, but that's a different matter.
I think he would say that those of us fighting against the Capitalist system are practicising the master/slave mentality.

[ChristianV777]

for those who know him, you know that he is not to be catergorized. he knew the truth, and yet, he is still catergorized. those of you who know him know that his sister devastated his character. he knew what should be known. I started with "twighlight of the idols" and moved backward, as anyone should. out of everything that i have read there is only one truth,"Reason is the cause of the falsification of the evidence of the senses". there is no more true a statement than this. you should have no questions beyond this. if you do, then move on and find something a bit more easier to swallow, cause you don't want to know the truth.

Can I ask you how saying that "Nietzsche knew the Truth" (allow me to capitalize that for you) is in any way compatible with Nietzsche's own philosophy?

[farleft]

Nietzche is a nihilistic legend.

[Decolonize The Left]

How do you reconcile his idea of the "will to power" with the Left?
Doesn't it totally destroy any hopes of our struggle as anything except utopian?

I have to ask what you mean by "will to power" before I attempt to answer.


And, I think, yes, he did mean exactly what we mean by the Left, at least to a large extent. I'm not saying that I think he totally understood the position of all on the Left, but that's a different matter.
I think he would say that those of us fighting against the Capitalist system are practicising the master/slave mentality.

Well, for Nietzsche you are either practicing the master or the slave 'mentality' - so everyone is practicing one or the other, unless of course, you have "revalued all values"... in which case, you are not fit for description.

- August

[Decolonize The Left]

Nietzche is a nihilistic legend.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist... and furthermore, how can you be a "nihilist legend?" Isn't that self-contradictory?

- August

[Le People]

Nietzsche was a regretful nihilist. He hated nihilism, but considered it a reality, and attempted to solve the problem of nihilism through his whole "will to power" and what not. As Camus put it in "The Rebel", concerning the problem of nihilism
"Stirner laughs in his blind alley; Nietzsche beats his head against the wall."

[shorelinetrance]

the analogy of the three metamorphisis of being a camel (worker) then a lion (revolutionary) would seem to infer revolutionary ideals to free humans from opression and ignorance,

(the third stage is to be a child to rebuild and start anew btw)

I could never fully understand that part of thus spoke zarathustra, i always thought it was some metamorphosis of the self to a higher level maybe the overman which is directly referred many times in thus spoke, but it's interesting how to linked it to a revolutionary perspective.

But to answer the op, neither.:)

[Le People]

The camel, as I've understood, symbolize the everyday man who clings to the tradtional values of society, like Christianity, and who is burdened by them. The lion symbolizes the individual who shakes off these values, and destroys them, though they do not create anything anew, they are simply nihilists. The child, however, is the overman, as you correctly assessed, because, like a child who is new to the world and begins discovering new things, the overman discovers new values, quite above that of the society the overman may live in. To say, like HC, that it is a metaphor for revolutionary activity, is utterly ludcrious, due to the fact Nietzche would consider working with an organization that would bring about revolutionary change as accepting another value onto the camel's back, rather than shaking all values off. Hence, Nietzche should be treated more apolitical than anything else, and his philosophy is great in the context of self development, though potentially harmful if applied to the whole of a society.

[chimx]

The importance of Nietzsche is his attempt to undermine Christian morality and replace it with a morality that is more firmly grounded in material reality.

[Le People]

Perhaps, Chimix, but you should read up on Nietzsche's attitude towards the natrual sciences. He is rather critical of them, especially in the First Untimely Meditation.

[chimx]

Could you offer specifics?

[gla22]

no. If I remember rightly he says they do not have the right to pursue freedom or power as they're allegedly inferior.
Everyone even slaves have the right to pursue power, they are inferior because they don't. In a way Nietzsche speaks of class struggle as the history of all hitherto history because he sees the will to power" as the driving force in history whereas Marx sees it as class relations.

[Le People]

He sees history as being, in a useful capacity, which to explain what is meant by a useful capacity would be a these in itself, as split up into the Momumental, the antique, and the critical. The Momumental history is that of action, like Caesar conquering Rome. It is essentially a flash in the pan, with the effects of the action not being soldified into anything. The Antique is the preservation of history of a culture, while the Critical is the destruction of the old. The relationship between these three histories are complicated, with the Momumental moving history, while making no impact, the anitque preserving the impact of Momumental history while simultaneously stifling any new actions, and the critical clearing the way for action to take place. Then he gets into the Supra Historical, which is the capacity to forget about history at the right moment of action, like all great men like Napolean would do.

[Decolonize The Left]

The camel, as I've understood, symbolize the everyday man who clings to the tradtional values of society, like Christianity, and who is burdened by them. The lion symbolizes the individual who shakes off these values, and destroys them, though they do not create anything anew, they are simply nihilists. The child, however, is the overman, as you correctly assessed, because, like a child who is new to the world and begins discovering new things, the overman discovers new values, quite above that of the society the overman may live in.

I do not believe you have interpreted the three metamorphoses correctly, at least third. For Nietzsche did not mean the child to be the overman - on several occasions he mentions how no one who lives today could possibly be the overman. Nietzsche is asking for those who understand and can will, to be the bridge to the overman. This is the child, the third metamorphosis. The one who can create new values, and revalue old ones, this is not the overman - the overman becomes when the current values have been revalued. But this takes an intermediary step, it takes the child.


To say, like HC, that it is a metaphor for revolutionary activity, is utterly ludcrious, due to the fact Nietzche would consider working with an organization that would bring about revolutionary change as accepting another value onto the camel's back, rather than shaking all values off. Hence, Nietzche should be treated more apolitical than anything else, and his philosophy is great in the context of self development, though potentially harmful if applied to the whole of a society.

Nietzsche's philosophy was not meant for 'the whole of a society.' Why would you give his philosophy to the herd? Quite the contrary, Nietzsche was meant for the individual.

And no, Nietzsche may not consider working for a revolutionary organization as being the camel. You simplify what is not simple. Nietzsche was not concerned with what your value was, he was concerned with why you held it. If you re-read the three metamorphoses, you will see that the lion must fight the 'thou shalt', or 'you should.' These are not values, but reasons for valuing.

So, in a nut shell, Nietzsche would say that if you are joining a revolutionary organization because you think it is a duty, or that you should do it because you owe it to someone/something, then you are a fool.

But, if you are doing it for reasons which are your own and you have (metaphorically speaking) constructed said law table for yourself and hung it above your door, then it matters not what you do, for you are actually doing it.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

Nietzsche's philosophy was not meant for 'the whole of a society.' Why would you give his philosophy to the herd? Quite the contrary, Nietzsche was meant for the individual.



it you yourself carry on the path that Nietzsche seems to be taking in most of the things he says it does seem to point to the fact that in the future overman will be all humans only risen up from the herd all individual yet all entwined, no longer assuming the morality of the opressors. Be it christianity tellin us to wait for our reward in death, turn the other cheek, or the capitalists telling us there is hope for us to climb the ladder; both belief systems make us part of the herd as we are mindlessly assuming what we are being told to be our own ideas.

Only when we are all working for ourselves together will we have reached this. Such as under socialism.

The way Nietzsche talks about the Jews as a people that have bettered themselves gives insight to my idea, as well as most of Zarathusa.

[Decolonize The Left]

it you yourself carry on the path that Nietzsche seems to be taking in most of the things he says it does seem to point to the fact that in the future overman will be all humans only risen up from the herd all individual yet all entwined, no longer assuming the morality of the opressors. Be it christianity tellin us to wait for our reward in death, turn the other cheek, or the capitalists telling us there is hope for us to climb the ladder; both belief systems make us part of the herd as we are mindlessly assuming what we are being told to be our own ideas.

Only when we are all working for ourselves together will we have reached this. Such as under socialism.

The way Nietzsche talks about the Jews as a people that have bettered themselves gives insight to my idea, as well as most of Zarathusa.

I agree, but it seems I have been misunderstood. Nietzsche cannot be handed to the herd, his philosophy cannot be torn into points of interest and digested like so many others - for to do so is to return to the point of departure. This was my claim.

You are absolutely correct that Nietzsche is compatible with communism/anarchism, but I do not think his philosophy can be understood in the same fashion as Marxism. They both involve serious introspection, but Marxism can be lectured or discussed by many in one setting. Nietzsche is inevitably an individual discussion.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

^^ yeah i agree fully, it was mentioned earlier in this (or perhaps another of my Nietzsche threads) that Marxism is a science based on material conditions, whereas Nietzsche is a personal philosophy and always will remain so no matter how applicable it is to our own ideals

[gla22]

Revleft: people who haven't read Nietzsche talking about Nietzsche.

His philosophy can be used for multiple purposes, including the left's.

[Le People]

And Nazis. But at the end of the day, to say that one can use a philosophy, or more accurately, aspects of a philosophy, for an Ideology does not neccesary allow for a lumping of it into the particular Ideology, making, as I can see this thread has reiteratted time and again, this poll futile.

[Le People]

To August West: What is your intepretation of the overman?

As to your arguement regarding Nietzsche analyzing the reasoning behind one having a value rather than the actually value: Would not having a reason, meaning a purpose, a meaning to the existence of a value in fact being making a value in itself.
For example, in Christianity, chasitity is a value highly coveted. However, the reason for this value is because it is perceived as good. Nietzsche strove to go beyond what is good and evil, hell, he even named a book after this. It was not values per se, nor reasons, but rather the fundemental nature of good and evil Nietzsche sought to over throw.

[Decolonize The Left]

Revleft: people who haven't read Nietzsche talking about Nietzsche.

His philosophy can be used for multiple purposes, including the left's.

All philosophy can be used for all purposes, your point is irrelevant.

And before you make remarks that have no bearing on anything, it might be helpful to note that you don't know how much of anything anyone's read. I've read quite a bit of Nietzsche: Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, The Will to Power, parts of the Geneology (not my favorite), and many secondary texts. So take your worthless absurdities elsewhere.

Now, onto someone who actually had something to say:

To August West: What is your intepretation of the overman?Big question... the overman is that which comes about when the child has succeeded in creating the bridge. It is the next and final stage in becoming after the child - final because possibilities become endless. And since, for Nietzsche, we ought to 'become who we are,' the overman's becoming is always constant.


As to your arguement regarding Nietzsche analyzing the reasoning behind one having a value rather than the actually value: Would not having a reason, meaning a purpose, a meaning to the existence of a value in fact being making a value in itself.
For example, in Christianity, chasitity is a value highly coveted. However, the reason for this value is because it is perceived as good. Nietzsche strove to go beyond what is good and evil, hell, he even named a book after this. It was not values per se, nor reasons, but rather the fundemental nature of good and evil Nietzsche sought to over throw.

"The fundamental nature of good and evil" is the nature of value. For as you yourself mentioned, good is itself a value, and hence evil as well. And so indeed! The reasoning behind a value is itself a value. And so we return to the necessity of revaluing all values. For, as I mentioned, Nietzsche was concerned with why one holds value X. And as you mentioned, this is in itself a value. Hence to concern oneself with the reasons for one's values is to truly concern oneself with one's values.

- August

[Le People]

"The fundamental nature of good and evil" is the nature of value. For as you yourself mentioned, good is itself a value, and hence evil as well. And so indeed! The reasoning behind a value is itself a value. And so we return to the necessity of revaluing all values. For, as I mentioned, Nietzsche was concerned with why one holds value X. And as you mentioned, this is in itself a value. Hence to concern oneself with the reasons for one's values is to truly concern oneself with one's values.

- August[/quote]

Ah Hah! So we had a problem with semantics!

August West, I wish not to clog up this thread with a discussion on the overman, so I was wondering whether if you would entertain the creation of a thread regarding various interpretation of the overman?

[Decolonize The Left]

Ah Hah! So we had a problem with semantics!

August West, I wish not to clog up this thread with a discussion on the overman, so I was wondering whether if you would entertain the creation of a thread regarding various interpretation of the overman?

Indeed. The thread has been created.

- August

[IAmLeviathan]

"Nietzsche, ours or theirs? "

i think Nietzsche would adamantly insist he was very much his own. :p

[leftist manson]

He was crass, with little interest in altruism or social responsibility. He was a right-wing style individualist, even though he had some interesting existential ideas.

I don't think he was a pre-nazi, but I do think he has more compatibility with fascist, rather than socialist ideals.
This.:thumbup1:

[YadaRanger]

I think that his individualism was honorable, but to me it seems like he just *****ed alot and just gave up.

in thus spake he acknowledges the problems of the society but then runs away instead of confronting them....?? Whats the point of that? It just seems that he lacked the courage to struggle on. A great thinker who lacks courage might as well be unknown.

no disrespect to the followers of him. And ive only read thus spake so idk.... maybe im wrong.

[gla22]

I think that his individualism was honorable, but to me it seems like he just *****ed alot and just gave up.

in thus spake he acknowledges the problems of the society but then runs away instead of confronting them....?? Whats the point of that? It just seems that he lacked the courage to struggle on. A great thinker who lacks courage might as well be unknown.

no disrespect to the followers of him. And ive only read thus spake so idk.... maybe im wrong.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra preaches Existentialism more than anything. The end of book has him emerging into the outside world content. He confronts the problems of society by preaching and trying to make people become higher men (not the last man nor the ubermensh). it is the higher man that can begin to think for himself and become a creator. A creator of values and a creator of art. I do not see if read correctly it can be taken pro-nazi or fascist. He wants people to think for themselves and not to think along the same lines as society. That seems like a precursur to leftist revolution and an honorable goal. If the proletariat and the majority of people could realize what really benefits them and could think for themselves they would obviopusly overthrow their capitalist overlords. Nietzsche disliked both master and slave morality. To get rid of both these moral codes masters and slaves must be rid of.

[Decolonize The Left]

in thus spake he acknowledges the problems of the society but then runs away instead of confronting them....?? Whats the point of that? It just seems that he lacked the courage to struggle on. A great thinker who lacks courage might as well be unknown.

Care to elaborate a bit? What do you mean by "instead of confronting them?"


no disrespect to the followers of him. And ive only read thus spake so idk.... maybe im wrong.

Who's "following" Nietzsche? He would seem to be the hardest philosopher to follow.

- August

[trivas7]

Who's "following" Nietzsche? He would seem to be the hardest philosopher to follow.

Ayn Rand, IMHO. :rolleyes:

[Reclaimed Dasein]

Perhaps I’m being unsophisticated, but I don’t understand the grounding of this question? What can be gained by asking if Nietzsche is “one of theirs?” The question seems to be “How can one use Nietzsche for some liberatory project?” This seems clear. Through his challenging of the sovereign notions of Western rationalism and religion one can create a method for destroying idols.

For those, especially anarchist, who claim Nietzsche isn’t useful at all, I recommend you read The New Idol in Zarathustra. Furthermore, most anti-capitalist projects after about 1960 owe something to Nietzsche’s thought. Everything from Heidegger’s critique of instrumental logic to Foucault’s analysis of power can serve a liberatory aspect.

Perhaps I shall write more later.

[Adam KH]

Neither. Nietzsche's ideas were about, for lack of a better word, spirituality. I've never seen him advocate a certain political system. I've never seen him advocate a certain economic system. Both communists and fascists can agree with Nietzsche's ideas, just as both communists and fascists can be Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

[Decolonize The Left]

Neither. Nietzsche's ideas were about, for lack of a better word, spirituality. I've never seen him advocate a certain political system. I've never seen him advocate a certain economic system. Both communists and fascists can agree with Nietzsche's ideas, just as both communists and fascists can be Christians, Muslims, or Jews.

"Spirituality" only in the metaphorical sense, as used in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche's philosophy was about, in one word, life. More specifically, the situation of human beings as living creatures forced to reflect upon that fact. Nietzsche's ideas were about existence - what it means.


Perhaps I shall write more later.

Please do - your name intrigues me.

- August

[Apeiron]

Perhaps I’m being unsophisticated, but I don’t understand the grounding of this question? What can be gained by asking if Nietzsche is “one of theirs?” The question seems to be “How can one use Nietzsche for some liberatory project?” This seems clear. Through his challenging of the sovereign notions of Western rationalism and religion one can create a method for destroying idols.

For those, especially anarchist, who claim Nietzsche isn’t useful at all, I recommend you read The New Idol in Zarathustra. Furthermore, most anti-capitalist projects after about 1960 owe something to Nietzsche’s thought. Everything from Heidegger’s critique of instrumental logic to Foucault’s analysis of power can serve a liberatory aspect.

Perhaps I shall write more later. I think you're right on.

I just posted in the 'Existentialism' thread about how Nietzsche's thought can be quite useful for leftist critical philosophy (which it clearly has in thinkers such as Butler, Agamben, Foucault, etc.), and certainly holds an emancipatory potential (this is, in many ways, his project.. though it's not articulated as necessarily political).

[Trystan]

If I remember rightly, Nietzsche was concerned with human passion and "irrational" drives. In other words, he was concerned with living fully and of self-realization, much like Marx. He had a reactionary attitude towards the conformity of capitalism, as well as the "slave morality" of socialism.

So I don't think that you can categorise him as left or right. He's a fascinating guy whatever your politics.

[Holden Caulfield]

as well as the "slave morality" of socialism.


i think i have already drawn meaninf from this in this thread,

[RadicalRadical]

I think many of his ideas are very compatible with leftist philosophy, but I would not go as far as to call him a Marxist.

For example on the origin of the word good:


That everywhere "noble," "aristocratic" in the social sense of with "aristocratic soul," "noble," "with a soul of high order" necessarily developed: a development which always runs parallel with that other in which "common," "plebian," "low" are finally transformed into the concept "bad."

Here is theorizing that religion has been controlled by the rich and powerful to define morally good as being royalty, nobility, bourgeois, etc.


In this phrase of conceptual transformation it becomes a slogan and cathword of the nobility as distinct from the lying common man.

This explains how as this evolved the rich and powerful were viewed as honest and truthful and the poor and commoners were viewed as lying or morally bad. This shows how the church and other religion has helped keep the bourgeois in power.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I think you're right on.

I just posted in the 'Existentialism' thread about how Nietzsche's thought can be quite useful for leftist critical philosophy (which it clearly has in thinkers such as Butler, Agamben, Foucault, etc.), and certainly holds an emancipatory potential (this is, in many ways, his project.. though it's not articulated as necessarily political).

Boundless,

I would say there is a strong understanding of Nietzsche to be had as ONLY political. Let me make a brief argument. First, the corpus of work. Nietzsche as a philologist would have been familiar with all of various implications of Greek Life. As such he would have been clearly familiar with the civic and political implications of Tragedy. Moreover, he explicitly offered social and political critiques in the untimely meditations. The "free spirit" period (Human all-to-Human-Gay science) included vast social commentary on the nature of politics explicitly along with issues such as religion, sexuality, and punishment. Late Nietzsche (Zarathustra-Ecce Homo) all offers a radical envisioning of human life sundered from "work" as self-realization. Strong political threads can be drawn through out.

Secondly, an argument for Nietzsche's particular political problem.

1) Nietzsche argues for a theory of types (Zarathustra, Geneology, etc).
2) Nietzsche argues that the Overman is different and combination of types (Zarathustra, will to power).
3)Nietzsche argues that only a pluralistic city can accommodate different types (Tragedy, Free thinker period, Zarathustra, notices especially his rejection of domination by one type).
4)Humanity should pursue the Overman.
(C) Humanity should pursue a liberated pluralistic interaction of different types for the sake of the Overman.

Perhaps I'll write more later.

[Labor Shall Rule]

Socialism with regards to its means.— Socialism is the visionary younger brother of an almost decrepit despotism, whose heir it wants to be; thus its efforts are reactionary in the deepest sense. For it desires an abundance of executive power, as only despotism has ever had; indeed, it outdoes everything in the past by striving for the downright destruction of the individual, who it sees as an unauthorized luxury of nature, and who it intends to improve into a useful organ of the community. It crops up in the vicinity of all excessive displays of power because of its relation to it, like the typical old socialist Plato, at the court of the Sicilian tyrant [In 388 B.C. Plato visited the court of the Sicilian tyrant Dionysius the Elder in Syracuse, where he returned in 367 and 361 B.C., hoping to realize his political ideals there.]; it desires (and in certain circumstances, furthers) the Caesarean power state of this century, because, as we said, it would like to be its heir. But even this inheritance would not suffice for its purposes, it needs the most submissive subjugation of all citizens to the absolute state, the like of which has never existed; and since it cannot even count any longer on the old religious piety towards the state, having rather always to work automatically to eliminate piety—because it works on the elimination of all existing states—, it can only hope to exist here and there for short periods of time by means of the most extreme terrorism. Therefore, it secretly prepares for reigns of terror, and drives the word "justice" like a nail into the heads of the half-educated masses, to rob them completely of their reason (after this reason has already suffered a great deal from its half-education), and to create in them a good conscience for the evil game that they are to play.— Socialism can serve as a rather brutal and forceful way to teach the danger of all accumulations of state power, and to that extent instill one with distrust of the state itself. When its harsh voice chimes in with the battle cry [Feldgeschrei] "as much state as possible, " it will at first make the cry noisier than ever; but soon the opposite cry will be heard with strength the greater: "as little state as possible."


(Fred on the Paris Commune)
"Hope is possible again! Our German mission isn't over yet! I'm in better spirit than ever, for not yet everything has capitulated to Franco-Jewish leveling and ‘elegance', and to the greedy instincts of Jetztzeit (‘now-time').... Over and above the war between nations, that international hydra which suddenly raised its fearsome heads has alarmed us by heralding quite different battles to come."

No, he's not ours.

[Drace]

I like to use him for PETAers. So anything anti - stupid is pro socialist.

[Decolonize The Left]

No, he's not ours.

Hmm.. this is terribly confusing as in the quote you provided, Nietzsche is most clearly not speaking of left communism, or anarchism. The quote almost speaks for itself in this regard.

So I fail to see what you mean unless "ours" implies state-centered, anti-individual, reactionaries.. and as far as I understand, this is not the revolutionary left.

- August

[Os Cangaceiros]

I feel that there are some good parts to Nietzsche's philosophy, and some bad parts.

Much like most philosophers, actually. I don't consider him to be either "ours" or "theirs".

[Labor Shall Rule]

Hmm.. this is terribly confusing as in the quote you provided, Nietzsche is most clearly not speaking of left communism, or anarchism. The quote almost speaks for itself in this regard.

So I fail to see what you mean unless "ours" implies state-centered, anti-individual, reactionaries.. and as far as I understand, this is not the revolutionary left.

- August

To explain the second quote, "Jetzeit" is a 'greedy instinct' that he felt trigured the Paris uprising. Nietzschean ideas (like others in bourgeois philosophy) normally credit the general breakdown of society with socialist (including anarchist) ideas. He was being quite honest with how he felt about egalitarianism when he said "the socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights."

The Marxist hypothesis on philosophy is that "the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of the ruling class". Fred's metaphysical idealism views the organized state through abstract lenses - rather than viewing that a class is behind political governance, he pimp-pushed the bourgeois liberal idea of 'power' and 'authoritarianism' as a institution that is untouched from the fetters of non-governing elites.

The fact remains that Fred is a stupid bourgeois philosopher that upheld notions that do not correlate with the genuinely liberating ideologies and programmes of revolutionary communists and anarchists on this board.

[Decolonize The Left]

To explain the second quote, "Jetzeit" is a 'greedy instinct' that he felt trigured the Paris uprising. Nietzschean ideas (like others in bourgeois philosophy) normally credit the general breakdown of society with socialist (including anarchist) ideas. He was being quite honest with how he felt about egalitarianism when he said "the socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker's sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge. The source of wrong is never unequal rights but the claim of “equal” rights."

I don't believe you have an adequate understanding of Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche was not directly concerned with the name of X movement, or Y movement. He was concerned with where those feelings/belief/values came from.

He makes an extremely compelling argument that conventional socialism is guided by 'slave morality.' But this isn't to say that revolutionary leftism is incompatible with Nietzschean philosophy - merely that one must be willing to accept a certain degree of critique and analysis of 'leftist' value-systems.


The Marxist hypothesis on philosophy is that "the ruling ideas of an epoch are the ideas of the ruling class". Fred's metaphysical idealism views the organized state through abstract lenses - rather than viewing that a class is behind political governance, he pimp-pushed the bourgeois liberal idea of 'power' and 'authoritarianism' as a institution that is untouched from the fetters of non-governing elites.

I agree with the Marxist hypothesis on philosophy, but can you site any time period in which Nietzschean philosophy was a 'ruling idea?' I can't - in fact, Nietzschean philosophy has never been a 'ruling idea,' quite the opposite actually...


The fact remains that Fred is a stupid bourgeois philosopher that upheld notions that do not correlate with the genuinely liberating ideologies and programmes of revolutionary communists and anarchists on this board.

Says... you... :thumbdown:

- August

[Labor Shall Rule]

Yes, and he was wrong, and more importantly, he was a rapid, metaphysical idealist.

Nietzsche believed "instinct and powerful illusions" outweigh the future benefits of human advance since we are "less living" by knowing, for example, that alligators are most aggressive before they seek a mate. To him, we are happier if we stick to the dictum that they are angry simply because they have all those teeth and no tooth brush (as some mothers tell their children in bed-time stories).

I'd like to hear your 'argument' (which Fred simply didn't have—he used idealist anti-communist assumptions ["they'll take your individuality!"], rather than a systematic approach to history and ideology based on the class realities that industrial Europe was faced with) to prove that 'conventional' socialism is somehow infected with a "slave morality". It's important to note that 'beliefs and morality' are also not universal—they are relative to whatever social realm that they exist within.

[Decolonize The Left]

Yes, and he was wrong, and more importantly, he was a rapid, metaphysical idealist.

This is amusing. "Wrong?" About what, exactly? And do you mean rabid 'metaphysical idealist?' If so, he was not metaphysical at all... in fact, he spent much of his time and efforts railing metaphysics as total nonsense.


Nietzsche believed "instinct and powerful illusions" outweigh the future benefits of human advance since we are "less living" by knowing, for example, that alligators are most aggressive before they seek a mate. To him, we are happier if we stick to the dictum that they are angry simply because they have all those teeth and no tooth brush (as some mothers tell their children in bed-time stories).

This doesn't make any sense at all.


I'd like to hear your 'argument' (which Fred simply didn't have—he used idealist anti-communist assumptions ["they'll take your individuality!"], rather than a systematic approach to history and ideology based on the class realities that industrial Europe was faced with) to prove that 'conventional' socialism is somehow infected with a "slave morality". It's important to note that 'beliefs and morality' are also not universal—they are relative to whatever social realm that they exist within.

First, are you familiar with the distinctions between slave and master morality according to Nietzsche?

- August

[gauchisme]

The means to real peace.— No government admits any more that it keeps an army to satisfy occasionally the desire for conquest. Rather the army is supposed to serve for defense, and one invokes the morality that approves of self-defense. But this implies one's own morality and the neighbor's immorality; for the neighbor must be thought of as eager to attack and conquer if our state must think of means of self-defense. Moreover, the reasons we give for requiring an army imply that our neighbor, who denies the desire for conquest just as much as does our own state, and who, for his part, also keeps an army only for reasons of self-defense, is a hypocrite and a cunning criminal who would like nothing better than to overpower a harmless and awkward victim without any fight. Thus all states are now ranged against each other: they presuppose their neighbor's bad disposition and their own good disposition. This presupposition, however, is inhumane, as bad as war and worse. At bottom, indeed, it is itself the challenge and the cause of wars, because, as I have said, it attributes immorality to the neighbor and thus provokes a hostile disposition and act. We must abjure the doctrine of the army as a means of self-defense just as completely as the desire for conquests. And perhaps the great day will come when people, distinguished by wars and victories and by the highest development of a military order and intelligence, and accustomed to make the heaviest sacrifices for these things, will exclaim of its own free will, "We break the sword," and will smash its entire military establishment down to its lowest foundations. Rendering oneself unarmed when one had been the best-armed, out of a height of feeling—that is the means to real peace, which must always rest on a peace of mind; whereas the so-called armed peace, as it now exists in all countries, is the absence of peace of mind. One trusts neither oneself nor one's neighbor and, half from hatred, half from fear, does not lay down arms. Rather perish than hate and fear, and twice rather perish than make oneself hated and feared—this must someday become the highest maxim for every single commonwealth. Our liberal representatives, as is well known, lack the time for reflecting on the nature of man: else they would know that they work in vain when they work for a "gradual decrease of the military burden." Rather, only when this kind of need has become greatest will the kind of god be nearest who alone can help here. The tree of war-glory can only be destroyed all at once, by a stroke of lightning: but lightning, as indeed you know, comes from a cloud—and from up high.-- http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/was.htm (http://www.anonym.to/?http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/was.htm) --

that's a critique of of the xenophobic construction of national security threats, an advocacy of radical demilitarization, and a preemptive reply to those who propose gradual reform. ...written in 1879.

if only the nazis would've been more influenced by nietzsche!
___________

"The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it."
-- nietzsche, will to power #898 (emphasis added).

_

zizek writes there are three main readings of nietzsche: a traditional one, a modern one, and a postmodern one. first, there's the nietzsche of the return to pre-modern aristocratic warrior values against decadent judeo-christian morality. second, there's the hermeneutics of doubt and ironic self-probing. and lastly, there's the play of appearances and differences.

klossowski effectively turns this three-part distinction on its head; he writes of three cruxes of the all-important doctrine of the eternal return: (1) either the doctrine of the eternal return selects in and through itself, apart from any conscious or unconscious intervention, or else the return was revealed to nietzsche so that a conscious and voluntary selection might intervene (as it has been revealed innumerable times). (2) but if it's been revealed numerous times, it doesn't matter, because the experience of nietzsche at sils-maria poses the question with a new urgency. (3) either the selection depends on the disclosure, or it's a selection that will take place in secret and undertaken in the name of this secret, i.e. a political project.

notice how these line up with zizek's triad: an eternal return which goes on without any need of us, or uses us only as its tools, is postmodernity - the play of appearances and differences that move through us without our conscious intervention (memes in a simulacrum). in the modern version, we're still not in charge, but our self-probing is what's important (oddly enough, this is the oracle's philosophy in the second matrix film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYvtuuOZJKY): 'you've already made the choice; you're here to try to understand why you made it'.) lastly, however, is an eternal return that's still capable of calling us to a willed project of training and selection (one that can/may or cannot/may not change the future, dependent on what we decide to do).

what klossowski brilliantly demonstrates is that this last option - the nietszchean political project - has nothing to do with any traditionalism ('the return to pre-modern aristocratic warrior values', paraphrasing zizek): that's the misuse of nietzsche which we must dispense with. chapter six, p114:


Nietzsche's 'aristocratism' has nothing to do with a nostalgia for past hiearchies, nor, in order to realize this aristocratism, does he appeal to retrograde economic conditions.(remember too that 'the over-man' isn't exactly an individual or group of individuals, but a state of being or becoming.)

instead of returning to the past, nietzsche focuses on untimely interventions which can sow the seeds of a neo-barbarian collective ready to push the empire over its breaking point. there's no room for either nihilism or nostalgia here - it's a practical creativity that's most needed. this will happen due to a ineradicable surplus, an excess of industrialism that won't fit into the general interest. p119:


The importance of increasing gregariousness and the growth of populations is only the obverse side of the industrial phenomenon. If there are more and more needs to satisfy, even if new needs imply a so-called 'rise in the standard of living', they are vulgarized by their very multiplication as well as by their satisfaction - a new form of gregariousness.

Nietzsche registers the distant moral and social consequences of this phenomenon with the precision of a seismograph. As exploitation developed, it demanded, under the pretext of a massive (and thus average) saturation, that completely conditioned reflexes be substituted for the appetitive spontaneity of individuals on a vast scale. Consequently, it also arrogated to itself the 'moral' and 'psycho-technical' mission (inherited from the essentially punitive element of the economies of the two world wars, which were prototypes of planetary planning) of exterminating any impulse that might induce human nature to puts its 'useful' specificity at risk by seeking that which exceeds it as an agent: namely the most subtle states of the soul, which are capable of inducing a rapture that surpasses congenital servitude, and therefore of producing an intensity that corresponds to the impulsive constraint of its own phantasms - even if they are themselves due to this congenital servitude, thus magnified...

{S}uch is the luxury (but such is also culture) - the 'aristocratism' which, according to Nietzsche, must be represented by at least one group, one particular case, not as a fraction of humanity but as its surplus (and hence, for the totality, as an exterminable, shootable, odious leech). This group or particular case - if it wants to assume a surplus existence - can live only in the distance it must maintain, morally speaking, from the totality, drawing its strength from the indignation, hostility and reprobation heaped on it by the totality, which necessarily rejects its own 'surplus', since it is unable to see it as anything other than a rebellious, sick, or degenerate fraction of itself.it's here we get to the point of who's really in charge: it's not the rulers (capitalists, militarists, bureaucrats); it's the rare souls hidden among the masses, so-called parasites, who're cultivating an insurrection that's waiting for the right time to erupt. this dispenses with all the guilt trips thrown at those labeled 'non-productive'. this precludes the marxist belief in the dignity of work from reducing to simple careerism or workaholism. it describes imperial structures as essentially self-destructive. and it displays the positivity of being isolated and useless - provided one has the spiritual discipline to do so. there's an big difference between disciplinary training and a taming that's akin to domestication. in fact, that distinction is what informs the political project of experimentation -- p99:


If the meaning of all eminent creation is to break the gregarious habits that always direct existing beings towards ends that are useful exclusively to the oppressive regime of mediocrity - then in the experimental domain to create is to do violence to what exists, and thus to the integrity of beings. Every creation of a new type must provoke a state of insecurity: creation ceases to be a game at the margins of reality; henceforth, the creator will not re-produce, but will itself produce the real.so what does all this spell for actual revolutionary projects? ... the love of fate doesn't negate the importance of selection or training, of decisions or projects; rather it forces us back to the concrete urgency of the question: complacency or terror? for nietzsche's children, honestly confronting the current situation means never finding solace in incoherence. rather it's a rigorous challenge directed at what is.

if you don't relate to this, if you're not up to the task, then be glad... you're one of the herd.

[Tribune]

Probably not the best thread in which to splash first, but Nietzsche offers an insight into kinesis, into the translation of potential into action. The antidote to centralization, perhaps, and the dangerous desire to solidify all human society into a perfect and final state.

I think Popper was onto something in outlining the unintended consequences of the Platonic-Hegelian influence on Marx (and to a greater extent, Engels; Marx was open to possibility, Engels the "scientismo" of absolute inevitability): the idea that there is a perfect outcome leads a community to destroy itself in the search for the same.

The logical conclusion of a literal reading of Hegel's variation of Platonism is absolute conformity to the moving Spirit of the age, be that Proletarian revolution, or for fascist Hegelians, the Total State and Economy.

Marx, to his credit, did not succumb to the temptation to isolate out only one aspect of the human condition, for elevation into a Final Form. Engels, though, was lured by that siren, and more than once.

Nietzsche, his idealism aside, offers a shot of immunization - which is why Bey, Goldman and Berkman drew influence from his ideas, among others.

[Drace]

I have read in a textbook that it was his Nazi sister that edited his works and put in the Nazi mumbo jumbo.

Hers a good link. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article3634609.ece)


When the colony inevitably failed, Elisabeth returned to Old Germany and set about transforming her brother, now irretrievably insane, into a symbol of her own twisted philosophy. She edited his works, wrote her own prejudiced versions of his life, and gathered his rejected jottings and published them as if they were real books, most notably Will to Power, which would be adopted as a sort of totalitarian textbook.


Elisabeth avidly offered up her brother's writings in support of militarism and Nazi world domination. Mussolini, she declared, was “the genius who rediscovered the values of the Nietzsche spirit... Nietzsche would have regarded him as the splendid disciple”. Nietzsche, I am certain, would have regarded Mussolini as a dangerous buffoon.

[Decolonize The Left]

I have read in a textbook that it was his Nazi sister that edited his works and put in the Nazi mumbo jumbo.

Hers a good link. (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/ben_macintyre/article3634609.ece)

I believe that the books which she edited were few, perhaps his 'notes' published after his death? In any case, his main works are his own.

- August

[Le People]

The Will to Power was the most heavily edited by his sister. Today, anything edited and translated by Walter Kauffman is pretty reliable.

[Decolonize The Left]

The Will to Power was the most heavily edited by his sister. Today, anything edited and translated by Walter Kauffman is pretty reliable.

I will also add R.J. Hollingdale to the "reliable" translator list.

- August

[Van]

Nietzsche was NOT a socialist....not by any stretch of the imagination.

Nietzsche loathed socialism for the same reason he loathed Christianity. He viewed them as both "mob doctrines" that undermined the natural aristocracy that successful, powerful cultures are built on (in his view, not mine).

Anyone who wants more info on this should read "The Anti-Christ". Nietzsche discusses his position on this in the second half of the book.

In my view, Marx and Nietzsche had very little in common. They were both influenced by Hegel's master/slave dialectic. Nietzsche developed the master principle, Marx developed the slave principle.

Also, Nietzsche would have viewed Hitler as gutter scum. Nietzsche favored an aristocracy based on talent, not race.

[Le People]

Like hell Nietzche was influenced by Hegel. The whole uniquness of Nietzshe is his distanance from Hegel, his lack of a system, his lack of a dialect. In Twilight of the Idols, he routinely bashes Socrates' philosophy, which is the basis for 90% of Western Philosophy. Nietzsche was pre-Socratic through and through.
Marx took Hegel and "put him on his head" as he is often quoted as saying. He stripped the idealism from History, and instead of the Spirit move history, he thought it was human relations (the socio-economics). Hence dialectical Materialism.

[Comrade_Red]

He was neither ours nor theirs, with elements that appeal to both. His ideas are neither right nor left, but neutral...neither strongly left or strongly right, but strongly neutral.


but, i'm going to vote "Nazi" just because i want to see the results. so don't count one of those votes.

[Van]

Like hell Nietzche was influenced by Hegel. The whole uniquness of Nietzshe is his distanance from Hegel, his lack of a system, his lack of a dialect. In Twilight of the Idols, he routinely bashes Socrates' philosophy, which is the basis for 90% of Western Philosophy. Nietzsche was pre-Socratic through and through.
Marx took Hegel and "put him on his head" as he is often quoted as saying. He stripped the idealism from History, and instead of the Spirit move history, he thought it was human relations (the socio-economics). Hence dialectical Materialism.

No, you're wrong.

For starters, you get the "put on his head" line wrong. Marx "stood Hegel on his feet". The "head" line is a misquote.

Secondly, Nietzsche WAS influenced by Hegel in that he did reject much of what Hegel taught. Nevertheless, he WAS influenced by Hegel just as he was influenced by Socrates. "Influenced by" is not synonymous with "agree with."

The master/slave dialectic was central to Hegel's thought, and it was the master principle that Nietzsche borrowed and developed in his own way.

[Van]

This forum won't let me post a link because I don't have enough entries.

Google: Viriato Soromenho-Marques "Ontological Nihilism: How Hegel Was Read By Nietzsche"

It's a good essay. Here's a quote:



"Firstly, we have to acknowledge the fact that Hegel was a major contributor to the development of Nietzsche's philosophical tools
and problems....." (p. 2)

[Le People]

So...There is one and only one absolute interpretation on Nietzsche's highly interpretable philosophy? I think we've encountered a case of two different intepretations of Nietzchean thought bucking each other. No one here is either right or wrong, which is in acordance with Nietzche's ideas.

[Decolonize The Left]

So...There is one and only one absolute interpretation on Nietzsche's highly interpretable philosophy? I think we've encountered a case of two different intepretations of Nietzchean thought bucking each other. No one here is either right or wrong, which is in acordance with Nietzche's ideas.

There is obviously not one absolute interpretation (that is self-contradictory, as interpretations cannot be absolute). The point is that an interpretation can be based on reasoning, evidence, logic, and texts, or it can lack such justification. There is no absolute interpretation, but there are better and worse.

- August

[Le People]

Yes, I know. I was merely making a sarcastic reply to Van's proof that Hegel and Nietzsche are like two peas in a pod.

[Reclaimed Dasein]

This forum won't let me post a link because I don't have enough entries.

Google: Viriato Soromenho-Marques "Ontological Nihilism: How Hegel Was Read By Nietzsche"

It's a good essay. Here's a quote:



"Firstly, we have to acknowledge the fact that Hegel was a major contributor to the development of Nietzsche's philosophical tools

and problems....." (p. 2)

Obviously the Master and Slave dialectic had some influence on Nietzsche since we see echos of it in the Genealogy. However, Nietzsche explicitly said in several of his untimely meditations and Human all-too-human that Hegal had done a great job, along with Lessing, of ruining the German language and spirit. They were above all "too German."

[berlitz23]

ultimately, nietzsche was a perspectivist This means that there are many perspectives which determine any possible judgment of truth or value that we may make; this implies that no way of seeing the world can be taken as definitively "true", but does not necessarily propose that all perspectives are equally valid.

[casper]

i'm currently reading "the will to power" some of his ideas could be used to support socialism, or really... anything.
i would say he was his own man, if i understood it correctly, he believed that the "superman" and the herd are complementary to each other in a sense like male and female. he has amazing quotes. i do disagree with him on some points, "the deed of suicide", some of his ideas seem like they are kinda akin to " if your left hand offends you, cut it off" or what ever ideology but on a grand society scale. i would rather heal a diseased "hand" then cut it off, even if that "hand" makes the rest of my body weaker when its healed, becuse sometimes, its not an hand, its a trigger finger, or an heart, depending on the situation. i do agree with him on alot of other things, i love how he found words to partially explain what i always found impossible, it has to do with "the real world". i'll probally finish reading it, then in a few months reread it again.

[casper]

i like your reply berlitz23

[Decolonize The Left]

i'm currently reading "the will to power" some of his ideas could be used to support socialism, or really... anything.

Anything can be used to support anything else if it is distorted enough...


i would say he was his own man, if i understood it correctly, he believed that the "superman" and the herd are complementary to each other in a sense like male and female.

No. The herd was Nietzsche's term for the 'common, everyday, person' who was marred in the beginnings of nihilism and unable to seize hold of the meaning of their life. The superman was Nietzsche's form of ultimate meaning - that which gives meaning to all human life.

They were not complementary by any means, rather, he saw them both in existence: the herd everywhere, and the superman in the minds of the few who would become 'the bridges' to the superman.


he has amazing quotes. i do disagree with him on some points, "the deed of suicide", some of his ideas seem like they are kinda akin to " if your left hand offends you, cut it off" or what ever ideology but on a grand society scale. i would rather heal a diseased "hand" then cut it off, even if that "hand" makes the rest of my body weaker when its healed, becuse sometimes, its not an hand, its a trigger finger, or an heart, depending on the situation. i do agree with him on alot of other things, i love how he found words to partially explain what i always found impossible, it has to do with "the real world". i'll probally finish reading it, then in a few months reread it again.

You read him too literally. Nietzsche wrote in metaphor much of the time. Take, for example, the chapter "On war and warriors" in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. One might believe that Nietzsche is actually speaking about war and warriors, though the entire time he is speaking of an ideological battle between theories and moralities. He uses the literal terms to provide a sense of grounding for the reader, but this grounding is weak as one must leave it to interact with the ideas themselves. And this, of course, is what Nietzsche wanted.

- August

[Holden Caulfield]

I cba reading back in this most magnificent of thread I made so long ago, but I would like to comment on the "too German" line, and say that this is probably reflected today in (or in what was the origional base of) the group Anti-deutsche, and are in fact very German (and very introspective) ideas. The whole anti-German/anti-deutsche thing I find pretty interesting.

Also


i would say he was his own man, if i understood it correctly, he believed that the "superman" and the herd are complementary to each other
I like to think of it in the way of there being what communists call 'advanced workers', those who are part of the masses but who see the way forwards for the whole 'herd'. There are those who are more 'enlightened' and the goal is for more and more people to free themselves from the trappings of the herd and 'hegemonic slavery' (i made that term up i know it is clumsy) and to become enlightened and therefore freer, its not really about 'individuality' in itself, in my eyes

[Pogue]

He opposed mass movements and he was not nazi. I'd have to read him more to determine whether I think he'd be left or right wing.

[lombas]

Nietzsche was definitely not a proto-nazi. I would not go as far as to call him a socialist (or anything of that sort), but his ideas can be implemented in socialist theory.

It was his sister who sold his work to the Führer.

[Le People]

[quote=casper;1314467]i'm currently reading "the will to power" some of his ideas could be used to support socialism, or really... anything.




Mr. Casper, the will to power was derived from his various notes and what not. The ideas developed in the Will to Power are very hard to follow, due to the fact that he only wrote it so he could understand. That's how I percieved it when I read a little bit of it. (it was a wee bit tedious)

[CHEtheLIBERATOR]

He's neither.



I agree he just has bad ideals.I see a little bit of both though

[Reclaimed Dasein]

I agree he just has bad ideals.I see a little bit of both though
Could you elaborate a little bit upon what bad ideals you saw him having? Nietzsche's corpus is wide and diverse, and I don't think it can be summed up with just a sentece. However, I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the matter.

[Invincible Summer]

I've only read "On the Genealogy of Morality," and he seems to be pretty into this whole Social-Darwinistic idea of the Noble and everything. Doesn't seem too socialist, but not quite a Nazi although I'd say he was more right wing.

[Decolonize The Left]

I've only read "On the Genealogy of Morality," and he seems to be pretty into this whole Social-Darwinistic idea of the Noble and everything. Doesn't seem too socialist, but not quite a Nazi although I'd say he was more right wing.

Nietzsche was fundamentally apolitical. My argument is that his ideas and theories could be applied to a leftist ideology with ease, and may shed light on many difficult issues.

- August

[Blackscare]

It's just stupid to try to assign Nietzsche to a political faction. He stood for rejection of almost everything in society as it was in his time period. Thankfully, he wasn't a blind loyalist to any cause and instead showed that every current of thought is flawed and ruthlessly attacked them. He if anything stands for emancipation from mental slavery (realized afterward this is a Marley quote, lol). His unending questioning of the world as we see it is nothing less than revolutionary even as he refrains from telling us what should come next (the ubermench concept is a means to the discovery of a higher state of being, not an end).

As for antisemitism and proto-nazism, the whole allegation is just silly. Nietzsche and Wagner were once close, and Nietzsche even wrote a very favorable musical critique of Wagner in his early days (he did dabble in musical review). However, Nietzsche broke with Wagner after the latter's descent into antisemitism and proto-fascism. Hence his writing of Nietzsche Contra Wagner (Nietzsche against Wagner).

Finally, if I were to describe him politically (though you can't really do that anyway), I would say he is more Anarchistic than anything else. Sure, he belives in an Anarchism based on individual achievement (although since the majority of his subject matter had nothing to do with economic factors, I think this really means artistic, intellectual, and philosophical achievement). My basis for saying he leans toward Anarchism comes from an early book (which I can't exactly remember, a little research would dig it up if you were interested) in which he discusses the differences between the two great Greek ideals embodied by Dionysus and Apollo. On the one hand, Dionysus, who he describes (paraphrasing) as chaotic creativity incarnate, the wild, overflowing fountain of change. On the other, Apollo, properness and structure, moral virtue. He goes on embrace Dionysus and to lament his absence in modern culture and the dominance of Apollo. So to me there is certainly a basis for calling him anarchistic (if not an anarchist).

Nietzsche is 100% revolutionary in broad sense, so we shouldn't reject him because he doesn't fit into our camp. He saw the world as being fundamentally broken and stagnant, and didn't see a solution in socialism or fascism (fascism being inherently reactionary and stagnant). Remember, he's not fighting for us, he's fighting vehemently against our enemies. Some people, like Marx, Bakunin, and Kropotkin, look to what needs to be done with society in concrete terms. Others serve the vital purpose of showing us life as we know it is not ideal, that's Nietzsche.

[Blackscare]

Also, four Nietzsche quotes that relate to what's going on in this thread really well:

There are no facts, only interpretations.

The surest way to corrupt a youth is to instruct him to hold in higher esteem those who think alike than those who think differently.

In Germany there is much complaining about my "eccentricities." But since it is not known where my center is, it won't be easy to find out where or when I have thus far been "eccentric". That I was a philologist, for example, meant that I was outside my center (which fortunately does not mean that I was a poor philologist). Likewise, I now regard my having been a Wagnerian as eccentric. It was a highly dangerous experiment; now that I know it did not ruin me, I also know what significance it had for me — it was the most severe test of my character.


I've seen proof, black on white, that Herr Dr. Forster has not yet severed his connection with the anti-Semitic movement. ... Since then I've had difficulty coming up with any of the tenderness and protectiveness I've so long felt toward you. The separation between us is thereby decided in really the most absurd way. Have you grasped nothing of the reason why I am in the world? ... Now it has gone so far that I have to defend myself hand and foot against people who confuse me with these anti-Semitic canaille; after my own sister, my former sister, and after Widemann more recently have given the impetus to this most dire of all confusions. After I read the name Zarathustra in the anti-Semitic Correspondence my forbearance came to an end. I am now in a position of emergency defense against your spouse's Party. These accursed anti-Semite deformities shall not sully my ideal!!
Draft for a letter to his sister

Yes, this came from wiki quote. Because typing all that out would suck.

[Blackscare]

Not to beat a dead horse (or embrace a beaten horse), but this quote to me clarifies his point on fascism (since I realized that I focused on antisemitism before).

But thus I counsel you, my friends: Mistrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful. They are people of a low sort and stock; the hangman and the bloodhound look out of their faces. Mistrust all who talk much of their justice! Verily, their souls lack more than honey. And when they call themselves the good and the just, do not forget that they would be pharisees, if only they had — power.

[Merces]

I like him.

[Comrade Anarchist]

i have read nietzsche and i think him to be on his own but i can see him as a socialist. His views were constured by hitler and that has tarnished his legacie but i think that he would never have supported hitler's actions.

[TheMotleyCow]

I find Nietzsche to be profoundly positive, he encouraged people to take responsibility for themselves and a popular misconception of him is that he was a nihilist - he most certainly was not. He encouraged a rejection, or at least suspicion, of existing morality and values and felt that development of new morality was needed - a NEW morality, as opposed to NO morality.

"A new pride my "I" taught to me, and i teach that to men: no londer to thrust one's head into the sand of heavenly things, but to carry it freely, a terrestrial head, which creates a meaning to the earth!"

With the death of God it was up to man to take responsibility for his own actions (or woman/her own actions - i use man in the sense of everyone, man or woman. Not looking to offend anyone with my first post!) - previously Christian morality had held everything good in the world to be God's work, all the bad to be Man's. But he idolised creativity - artists, writers, composers (until he fell out with them :lol:).

"Without music, life would be a mistake. "

The Ubermensch is entirely about self actualisation. Bluntly, if it is your ambition to be the single greatest banjo player in the world, then that should be your life's work. Whether you achieve it or not does not matter - it is a creative, rather than destructive endeavour, and you have lived as you would have wished to live any amount of lifetimes (eternal recurrance).


In response to the thread title, though - is he "ours" or "theirs"? i see him as pretty a-political and as someone else here has pointed out he'd definitely see himself as his own.

To ask of him "ours" or "theirs" on a politically based forum is wrong. His philosophy was psychological rather than political in nature.

Apologies if im simply repeating what others have already said - its getting close to bedtime and ive not had time to read the entire thread. Nietzsche always creates a heated debate and after 7 pages im sure all of the above has been said elsewhere.

[jaxik]

I agree with boby the builder on that one, he was niether nazi or socialist, he was merely one of the greatest philosophers of the last millenia. His ideals may have sparked that of great nazism and socialism but really, if you want to get technical, they are the same thing, you cant call a man a nazi without saying he was first a socialist, hence the term nazi is derived from, National SOCIALIST. This poll is not only flawwed, it is rather unintelligent.

[Kezia]

He wasn't an altruist, so not a socialist..

[Holden Caulfield]

He wasn't an altruist, so not a socialist..

altruism isnt socialism, muppet

[Hit The North]

Holden, please don't abuse the posters.

[Comrade_XRD]

Nietzsche was never a Nazi, nor could he ever of been due to the fact that he resented anti-semitics and that he died before Nazi Germany even existed. I'm not certain of his political leanings though, but I know they don't veer too much to the right.