― Nick, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― anthony, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Omar, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― nathalie, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― jel, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tom, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Josh, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Interesting you validate Freud but denigrate
Nietzsche: as a psychologist — rather than a
political, um, analyst — N is really quite like
F (as F himself pointed out).
― tracer Hand, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Sterling Clover, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― Tim, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
― anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
I buy into my own delusions too :)
― Omar, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
Within a couple of minutes I find, Freud on Nietzsche:
"a philosopher whose guesses and intuitions often agree in the most
astonishing way with the laborious findings of psychoanalysis."
you find that quote and further reading at
did that link work? Also for an interesting connection see Foucault's
rather good essay 'Nietzsche, Freud, Marx'.
Yes I'm afraid N was an unapologetic misogynist. I'm not really sure
what a fascist is so I won't comment on that.
As for being a depressive or a joyful fellow, he was both. I haven't
come across a single book or article that's mentioned it but it
seems obvious to me that N was a Manic Depressive. He experienced
delusions of grandeur well before the onset of syphillis.
72% classic for the exuberant "manic" stuff e.g. The Gay Science and
Thus Spake Zarathustra and 28% dud for the misogyny.
Btw, Man and Superman is a play by George Bernard Shaw.
― Chris, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink
"We children of the future, how could we be at home in this
today? We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at
home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for
its "realities", we do not believe that they will last. [...]
We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past
periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work
for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens
who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal
rights", "a free society", "no more masters and servants" has no
allure for us. [...] Is it not clear that with all of this we are
bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the
distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most
righteous age that the sun has ever seen? [...] We who are homeless
are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern
men", and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the
mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades
in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking [...]. [...]
The hidden Yes in you is stronger than all Nos and Maybes that
afflict you and your age like a disease; and when you have to embark
on the sea, you emigrants, you, too, are compelled to this by -- a
Alternatively: suggest good books for beginning to make sense of
Nietzsche. Esp. in relation to Heidegger and the overcoming of
metaphysics; poetry; the 'homeless' condition.
― alext, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― mark s, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Little Nipper, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
― Queen of the young uns who ask what exactly is rimminG, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
K-blimey I'm enjoying this book!!!
― alext, Friday, 5 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink
Where's a good place to start with Nietzsche? 'Birth of Tragedy'? or 'Zarathustra'?
― Chelvis, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:25 (nine years ago) Permalink
― provincial rube. Which you are (negotiable), Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:29 (nine years ago) Permalink
sorry wrong thread
― provincial rube. Which you are (negotiable), Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:30 (nine years ago) Permalink
On the contrary...
― Ich Ber ein Binliner (Tom D.), Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink
― harbl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink
Best place to start is Twilight of the Idols then maybe Beyond Good and Evil.
― NickB, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:59 (nine years ago) Permalink
depends on where you're coming from and what you want out of it
― max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 12:05 (nine years ago) Permalink
yeah but then Twilight of the Idols would probably be a good place to start for anyone. Maybe also Ecce Homo, for further lols and springboarding into other areas. I wouldn't start with either Birth of Tragedy (unless you feel like tracing the development of his thought in detail) or Zarathustra.
― Merdeyeux, Thursday, 23 October 2008 13:15 (nine years ago) Permalink
beyond good and evil, then genealogy, then gay science, then zarathustra, and then, well, whatever you like I guess....
― jackl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 13:31 (nine years ago) Permalink
I'd say The Gay Science.
― ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:30 (nine years ago) Permalink
i started with genealogy of morality and i think its as good a place to start as any--pretty good summation of ntz's late thoughts on religion, politics, morality, to some extent 'metaphysics'
― max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:30 (nine years ago) Permalink
i think gay science and zarathustra are great places to start, so im not sure why people are saying not to, but its fair to point out that theyre very 'poetic' and not quite as direct as something like birth of tragedy or genealogy
― max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink
sometimes i tell people to start with Heidegger's lecture course on nietzsche just to spite them.
― ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink
what a mean intellectual trick to play on them u bad grad student
― max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:38 (nine years ago) Permalink
you know, come to think of it, that's not a bad place to start!
― ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink
He does have some valid points, but when he expands on women... I run for cover.
^^^ this is OTM
― ℵℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜ℘! (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:01 (nine years ago) Permalink
Gorilla Mindset: A Book For Free Spirits
― The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:15 (one year ago) Permalink
There's probably some dumb psychological test you could do where you get people to read On The Genealogy Of Morals and then ask if they come away from it seeing themsleves as a master or seeing themselves as a slave.
― The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:16 (one year ago) Permalink
I will probably come to regret all of the above posts very shortly - but sometimes it feels helpful to put my thoughts into writing in this way.
― The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:19 (one year ago) Permalink
there are tactics for overcoming racism that don't involve using guilt to impose a slave morality on the oppressor class. left wing nietzscheans would probably frame the issue that way.
― Treeship, Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:22 (one year ago) Permalink
Freedom of will and isolation of facts. – Our usual imprecise mode of observation takes a group of phenomena as one and calls it a fact: between this fact and another fact it imagines in addition an empty space, it isolates every fact. In reality, however, all our doing and knowing is not a succession of facts and empty spaces but a continuous flux. Now, belief in freedom of will is incompatible precisely with the idea of a continuous, homogeneous, undivided, indivisible flowing: it presupposes that every individual action is isolate and indivisible; it is an atomism in the domain of willing and knowing. – Just as we understand characters only imprecisely, so do we also facts: we speak of identical characters, identical facts: neither exists. Now, we praise and censure, however, only under this false presupposition that there are identical facts, that there exists a graduated order of classes of facts which corresponds to a graduated world-order: thus we isolate, not only the individual fact, but also again groups of supposedly identical facts (good, evil, sympathetic, envious actions, etc.) – in both cases erroneously. – The word and the concept are the most manifest ground for our belief in this isolation of groups of actions: we do not only designate things with them, we think originally that through them we grasp the true in things. Through words and concepts we are still continually misled into imagining things as being simpler than they are, separate from one another, indivisible, each existing in and for itself. A philosophical mythology lies concealed in language which breaks out again every moment, however careful one may be otherwise. Belief in freedom of will – that is to say in identical facts and in isolated facts – has in language its constant evangelist and advocate.Human, All Too Human, book 3, paragraph 11http://nietzsche-explains-nlp.org/encyclopedia/fact/
Human, All Too Human, book 3, paragraph 11
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:16 (one year ago) Permalink
― jmm, Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:30 (one year ago) Permalink
he has some good stuff about lol numbers too
― AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 May 2017 17:10 (one year ago) Permalink
does anyone stand behind this guy enough that they want to take some pretty damning [GM] quotes and try to explain why they're not just apologetics for psychopathy? cause i've compiled quite a list and at this pt i suspect ppl who claim nazis or alt-righters misunderstand him are at the v least being disingenuous.
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 18:08 (three months ago) Permalink
i was reading him yesterday! so was my kid. FN makes my head hurt. or maybe deep voodoo causality talk just makes my head hurt. but he's always good for a laugh or two.
― scott seward, Sunday, 11 February 2018 18:22 (three months ago) Permalink
I’m a weirdo who thinks he was pushing toward a new Christianity à la Kierkegaard but you may judge that psychopathy. I don’t “Stan” for him (this is philosophy not fandom) but I think he’s one of the most interesting thinkers there’s been.
― droit au butt (Euler), Sunday, 11 February 2018 19:35 (three months ago) Permalink
His concept of the will to power is where I think he went completely off the rails and utterly fails to understand the nature of the world.
― A is for (Aimless), Sunday, 11 February 2018 19:39 (three months ago) Permalink
'will to power' is a phrase that he uses a lot I find but the actual book 'Will To Power' was a collection of unpublished notes that his nationalist sister put out to support her national socialism. I dont know if it was written before he went insane though, mark s to thread!
― Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Sunday, 11 February 2018 19:43 (three months ago) Permalink
here are a few quotes from GM:
"The Celts, incidentally, were definitely a blond race; we do them an injustice when we associate those traits of an essentially dark-haired population, that are noticeable on the more careful ethnographic maps of Germany, with any kind of Celtic descent and mixed blood, as is still done by Virchow: rather it is the pre-Aryan population of Germany that shows up in these places. (The same is true for nearly all of Europe: essentially the subjugated race in the end regained the upper hand there, in color, shortness of the skull, perhaps even in the intellectual and social instincts: indeed, who is to say whether modern democracy, even more modern anarchism, and specifically that penchant for the "commune," for the most primitive form of society that is common to all socialists of Europe today, does not signify a tremendous retaliation on the whole -- and that the conqueror- and master-race, that of the Aryans, has not succumbed physiologically as well?...)"
"Everything that has been done on earth again "the noble," "the mighty," "the masters," "the power-holders" is not worth mentioning in comparison with what the Jews have done against them: the Jews, that priestly people who in the end were only able to achieve satisfaction from their enemies and conquerors through a radical revaluation of their values, hence through an act of the most spiritual revenge. This way alone was suitable for a priestly people, the people of the most deeply repressed priestly vengefulness."
"'only the miserable are the good, the poor, impotent, lowly alone are the good, the suffering, deprived, sick, ugly are also the only pious ones, the only ones blessed by God, there is blessedness for them only -- whereas you, you noble and mighty, you are in all eternity the evil, cruel, lustful, insatiable, godless, you will also eternally be the unblessed, accursed and damned!'"
"That however is how it came about: from the trunk of that tree of revenge and hatred, of Jewish hatred -- of the deepest and most sublime hatred moreover, capable of creating ideals and re-creating values, whose like never before existed on earth -- grew something just as incomparable, a new love, the deepest and most sublime of all kinds of love: --- from what other trunk could it have grown? [...] that in front of the whole world Israel itself had to repudiate as its mortal enemy and nail to the cross the actual instrument of its revenge, so that the 'whole world,' namely all opponents of Israel could unhesitatingly bite into this very bait?""
"Seeing suffering feels good, making someone suffer even more so -- it is a harsh proposition, but an ancient, powerful human, all-too-human principle that, by the way, even the apes would probably endorse: for it is said that in thinking up bizarre cruelties they richly foreshadow and as it were play 'prelude' to humans. Without cruelty, no festival: thus the most ancient, longest period of human history teaches -- and also in punishment there is so much that is festive! [...] back when humankind was not yet ashamed of its cruelty, life on earth was more cheerful than now, where we have pessimists. The darkening of the sky above humanity has always increased in proportion to how humans' shame at humans has grown. The weary pessimistic gaze, the mistrust of the enigma of life, the icy No of disgust at life -- these are not the indicators of the most evil ages of the human race: rather they first come to light as the swamp plants they are, when the swamp to which they belong itself appears, -- I mean the pathological tenderization and moralization by virtue of which the creature 'human being' ultimately learns to be ashamed of all its instincts."
"On their path to becoming 'angels' (not to use a harsher words here) humans have bred themselves that ruined stomach and that coated tongue through which not only the joy and innocence of the animal have become repugnant to them, but even life itself has become distasteful."
"Perhaps back then -- and I say this to console the sissies -- pain did not yet hurt as much as today; in any case a physician could draw this conclusion if he treated Negroes (those taken as representatives of prehistoric people--) for severe internal infections that would drive even the best-constituted European nearly to despair; -- in Negroes they do not do this. (In fact the curve of human capacity for pains seems to drop extraordinarily and almost abruptly as soon as we leave behind the upper ten thousand or ten million of the super-cultured; and for my part I do not doubt that the suffering of all animals taken together that have so far been required to answer scientific questions at the point of a scalpel simply does not merit consideration compared with a single painful night in the life of one little hysterical educated woman.)"
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 20:44 (three months ago) Permalink
I'm still on BGE, you had to be awkward and jump to GM leaving sund4r & I behind, didn't you
― Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Sunday, 11 February 2018 20:55 (three months ago) Permalink
I always thought it was cool that he admired Emerson for his sunny disposition.
― scott seward, Sunday, 11 February 2018 21:29 (three months ago) Permalink
oh Mordy I thought you’d have dug deeper than those, the most obvious ones. What’s to be said about that hasn’t yet been said?
― droit au butt (Euler), Sunday, 11 February 2018 21:48 (three months ago) Permalink
nietzsche is prob not someone who can be fairly judged by taking quotes out of context, even the ones that sound most "damning." and yeah of course nazis and alt-righters misunderstand him, they're fucking morons.
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Sunday, 11 February 2018 21:54 (three months ago) Permalink
Do you have a link or reference for good commentary on these? It doesn't seem like they've been addressed on the thread.
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 11 February 2018 22:35 (three months ago) Permalink
I don't know much about Nietzsche other than having read a VSI, and just started BGE. So I'd quite like to read what has been said.
― Algerian Goalkeeper (Odysseus), Sunday, 11 February 2018 22:40 (three months ago) Permalink
yeah i posted them sincerely. i didn't like hit up an anti-nietzsche website. i'm reading through the book and pulling quotes as they strike me. speaking entirely as an amateur who has no right to say this, to "yeah of course nazis and alt-righters misunderstand him," i'm thinking maybe they don't?
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:05 (three months ago) Permalink
like i bet there are good apologetics but i've been thinking about it for a while and i'm not entirely sure what they could be. so if i could be pointed to some that would be cool!
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:07 (three months ago) Permalink
The reason nazis misunderstand him is not because they mistakenly thinks he hated Jews, but because they think he liked Germans.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:31 (three months ago) Permalink
I'm not sure 'psychopathy' is the right word, but the idea that N was a great genius all the way until january 1889 and completely ill thereafter is simplified imo. It's been a while since I've read anything by him, but there are parts I would consider lucid and insightful, and other parts that seem like pure hateful mania to me. In all I've read. The thing I remember clearest is his calling in Zarathustra for a Copernican turn in philosophy - to me that is achieved by Wittgenstein - and his spot on explanation of why Bizet is a greater composer than Wagner.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:41 (three months ago) Permalink
I listen to Die Walküre more than Carmen, though.
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:46 (three months ago) Permalink
(Tbf, I'd probably rather go see the latter and would be able to hum a tune from it more easily.)
a. i don't think he hates jews though he clearly blames them for the slave mentality & christianity. nb that i think he misunderstands judaism (which does not jettison discipline for mercy but takes a moderate path btwn the two).
b. putting aside whether he liked germans, his philosophy clearly resonated w the nazis. maybe the nazis didn't like the german either as having been corrupted by jewish meekness, but insofar as they were executing his program of strength, dominance, power etc (nb to the extent that it could be separated from ressentiment) they're on the same page.
c. "Cowardice is underlined in the word xaxo/v,12 as in deilo/v13 (the plebeian in contrast to the a0gaqo/v): perhaps this gives a clue as to where we should look for the ety- mological derivation of the ambiguous term a0gaqo/v.14 In the Latin word malus15 (to which I juxtapose me/lav)16 the common man could be char- acterized as the dark-skinned and especially the dark-haired man (‘hic niger est –’),17 as the pre-Aryan occupant of Italian soil who could most easily be distinguished from the blond race which had become dominant, namely the Aryan conquering race, by its colour; at any rate, I have found exactly the same with Gaelic peoples, – fin (for example in Fin-gal), the word designating the aristocracy and finally the good, noble, pure, was originally a blond person in contrast to the dark-skinned, dark-haired native inhabitants." i mean what are we talking about here if not the obvious.
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:48 (three months ago) Permalink
sorry the greek c/p got all fucked up
― Mordy, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:49 (three months ago) Permalink
I've never really gotten his theory of the a0gaqo, I have to admit.
― Frederik B, Sunday, 11 February 2018 23:56 (three months ago) Permalink
for some comparison and sorry i know i'm being as inflammatory as possible making this link but i think it lays out clearly some of the obvious sympathies btwn FN and AD:
"The Ten Commandments have lost their validity. Conscience is a Jewish invention, it is a blemish like circumcision." H. Rauschning Hitler speaks, p.220
"Providence has ordained that I should be the greatest liberator of humanity. I am freeing man from the restraints of an intelligence that has taken charge, from the dirty and degrading self-mortification of a false vision called conscience and morality, and from the demands of a freedom and independence which only a very few can bear." Rauschning op. cit. p.222
i do nietzsche suggests in other parts of GM that i've read that the jewish innovation into the human complicated but made more interesting the human figure - that in some way it was a contribution to humanity even if ultimately it corrupted humanity and needs to overcome. but by prioritizing and privileging the master (the blond, the powerful, etc) over the slave he is clearly taking sides and lo and behold it turns out to be the exact same side that the fascists took but i'm supposed to believe that they're the ones that are confused!
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:02 (three months ago) Permalink
sorry i'm typing one-handed while holding baby, getting kids ready for bed so so many typos
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:04 (three months ago) Permalink
I'd definitely say he hated Jews. He seems to have hated everyone. Nazis didn't read Nietzsche, they read Nietzsche as edited by his proto-nazi sister, which probably helped the resonance.
― Frederik B, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:09 (three months ago) Permalink
but they could've just read GM where all the quotes above appear
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:10 (three months ago) Permalink
He was forever railing against the stupidity of anti-Semitism, so I'm not sure how that tallies with the idea that he hated Jews.
― Video reach stereo bog (Tom D.), Monday, 12 February 2018 00:11 (three months ago) Permalink
Though I suppose it gave him another good reason to hate Germans.
― Video reach stereo bog (Tom D.), Monday, 12 February 2018 00:12 (three months ago) Permalink
I'm not quite sure what your argument is, but it's beyond discussion that Nietzsche loathed German nationalism, anti-semitism (while still, as I would say, hating Jews) and Wagner, and that that was toned down after his mental illness by his sister, leading to a much more unequivocal embrace by the nazis. They did very much get him wrong. That does not mean it's particularly wrong to call him a hateful psychopath or whatever you want to call him.
― Frederik B, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:13 (three months ago) Permalink
yeah i don't think he hates jews (tho my opinion on this is constantly evolving) but i do think he "hates" judaism but again i think a. he doesn't fully hate it (he appreciates that it forced humanity to change and in some ways that change was not good), and b. he doesn't really get judaism except as the progenitor of christianity. he blames the jews for jesus (and that their hatred of him was feigned in order to get the critique assimilated into hellenism) but he really should see that the reason jews hate jesus is the same reason he does - bc jesus abrogated the covenant and abolished the obligations entirely in favor of redemption/mercy. but judaism is not all that merciful as anyone who has read the OT knows. i thought "he must know this himself" and my conclusion is that maybe he felt like once the kernel of 'slave mentality' was permitted, even moderated and mediated, it is inherently totalizing and christianity was the inevitable conclusion. you can't just have a little bit of kindness/compassion/whatever - even a little bit keeps opening wider. it's kinda the fundamental logic of egalitarianism (there's always someone new to extend equality to) and BTW that nietzsche will not truck w/ equality i think should be troubling for anyone.
xp tldr if you follow nietzsche's breakdown you will come to a place of psychopathic anti-egalitarianism. that psychopathic anti-egalitarians like him should therefore not be a surprise.
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:17 (three months ago) Permalink
have only read the first half of this but it's an interesting read so far:
― (The Other) J.D. (J.D.), Monday, 12 February 2018 00:19 (three months ago) Permalink
I'm not sure he does hate Jesus tbh.
― Video reach stereo bog (Tom D.), Monday, 12 February 2018 00:20 (three months ago) Permalink
again insofar as he appreciates the wrinkle maybe not but idk he really seems to hate jesus
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 00:23 (three months ago) Permalink
i'm not committed to having a conversation about nietzsche or most philosophical writings anymore, because while i was once interested and invested a lot of time in them, i grew tired of them, but:
Do you have a link or reference for good commentary on these? It doesn't seem like they've been addressed on the thread.― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, February 11, 2018 2:35 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
― No purposes. Sounds. (Sund4r), Sunday, February 11, 2018 2:35 PM (three hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink
try alexander nehamas's book on nietzsche. it goes into how to read him and explains some of his perspectives. i wouldn't spend any money on it, though
also kaufmann is the one translator avid nietzsche readers prefer, at least while i was in university (it's been a very a long time)
anyway the rest of this isn't directed at you sund4r
iirc we spent an extra week reading nietzsche than any other philosopher, for a total of i want to say three weeks, give or take. the first day and a half we went through all the dumb, contradictory, potentially racist/immoral/wacky stuff with our prof saying there was strong indication that he suffered from mental illness and psychotic episodes from very early in life. so this contributed to his unconventional writings, because they weren't treaties or systematic texts, and at one point N actually said his writings weren't supposed to be systematic, which would make his writings professionally unphilosophical for the time, but you know, people got interested
and that's kind of the thing. the wacky stuff is due to him essentially dropping into a subject and taking a quick shit and bailing. he described it as taking a quick cold shower and getting out though, as far as i remember? so he knows what he's doing. and then there's his artist side, so he's not a philosopher in the classical sense
we spent a lot of time discussing his critique on christianity and christian-based morals in 19th c western europe. i thought his anti-semitism was debunked by jewish scholars, but i have never read any of them. we certainly never read N's writings as critique of judaism, and judaism was only mentioned, iirc, when comparing how christianity had strayed far from it, but this part is hazy in my mind
the thing i remember from it is how european society was supposedly built on christian morals but there was not a trace of it anywhere, and it was in a moral decline. and we spent a lot of time discussing why N basically hated christianity as it was practiced in 19th c europe
i also remember how N's erratic and meandering writings could be interpreted the opposite way our prof and the class was interpreting him, and there were pretty big assumptions made, which didn't seem to matter to anyone
meh, always felt bad for N but he is good for memes
― papa poutine (∞), Monday, 12 February 2018 02:05 (three months ago) Permalink
Erratic and meandering does sound otm. His arguments are pretty half baked.
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 02:08 (three months ago) Permalink
this book looks cool:
― scott seward, Monday, 12 February 2018 02:54 (three months ago) Permalink
mordy, i've only read GM a little bit, quite a while ago, but a few things come to mind
1. starting at least from GS, i think coincident with his heightened interest in the possibility of knowledge that can be 'incorporated', as well as his overt employment of highly rhetorical personae and tactics (not always the case: compare to the fairly cool restraint of HH), n. starts making what seems to be deliberately ambiguous use of a variety of ethical and philosophical concepts that have, etymologically, physiological or physical 'original' meanings - for instance connected to the roots of virtue in 'strength' as well as excellence, or to 'nobility' and ideas of heredity. but it goes the other way, too, so that he uses concepts with still primarily physiological or physical senses, which he tends to belabor, in senses that appear intentionally not to have repudiated traditional valences they had in religious or philosophical contexts, like the idea of virtue as the health of the soul. the point of the ambiguity is hard to suss out. but
2. in certain ways this makes the overt racialization and biologicalization of the GM genealogies suspicious.
3. i've read, somewhere - i checked a couple books and didn't see it, but perhaps i'm recalling a paper by ken gemes about GM being fairly ironic, which appears in the 'oxford readings in philosophy' collection of papers on nietzsche - a plausible argument that the three essays comprising GM are intentionally internally inconsistent, using among other things the blond beast framing to accomplish... something suitably critical. i forget what. the gemes paper leans on the opening line about how we're strangers to ourselves. the idea would be not that we find out about ourselves immediately from nietzsche's accounts, but that their misleading attractiveness to 'us' for various reasons enables quasi-psychoanalysic possibilities of uncomfortable/unwanted/terrifying self-knowledge.
― j., Monday, 12 February 2018 03:09 (three months ago) Permalink
i think very broadly Nietzsche's attitude towards the monotheistic faiths is similar to an orthodox Marxist's take on capitalism - a necessary evolutionary step in the development of human society which needed to be shucked off as part of the next evolutionary step. when/if he's thinking of humanity as a whole his stance is not the modern atheist's "no God because science". he's only thinking of faith as a human construct and its relations to other human ideological constructs.
how much he understood about the actual experience and meaning of individual people's Jewish/Christian faith in his own time i'm not sure, i think "not that much" and i don't think it mattered too much to him - he deals in archetypes or generalizations. he treats Faith in a similar way to Law - control mechanisms that were outliving their usefulness for the development of the species
the race archetype stuff - Aryans, Celts, Latins etc is indefensible bollocks but was considered reasonably mainstream scientific history at the time, especially in Germany which was the spiritual home of that kind of "science" in the latter 19th century. the notion of waves of racial types subjugating each race that came before them travels a long way into 20th century history, and not just the Nazi variety. which isn't a defence of Nietzsche but an observation of a part of his milieu.
i didn't mean to get into this at this time of the morning but one further thought for me is that there's a constant metaphorical/allegorical element to his work - stuff that can be entirely fairly considered to be political philosophy is always working on at least one level as personal psychological philosophy - "overcoming" and "the will to power" are as much fantasies of personal struggle with state power/ideology as they are blueprints for fascist aggression.
i agree Mordy that it's far too simple to say that right wingers are "misreading" Nietzsche when they find his ideas appealing - but the same is true of the interpreters of the central texts of monotheism - most "bad" actors, even bad faith actors, have based their arguments on defensible - if selective - readings of the texts
― "oh no my cheds" man had dark to black packet (Noodle Vague), Monday, 12 February 2018 03:23 (three months ago) Permalink
sorry i started writing that before j posted so i have to read back what he said too
― "oh no my cheds" man had dark to black packet (Noodle Vague), Monday, 12 February 2018 03:25 (three months ago) Permalink
neh i ain't got much to say, certainly nothing mordy wants to hear ('read slower!')
― j., Monday, 12 February 2018 04:05 (three months ago) Permalink
i'm not sure my reading comprehension is the problem! if anything maybe i need to read quicker to see more contradictions or complications.
― Mordy, Monday, 12 February 2018 04:10 (three months ago) Permalink
make him sound less like a goon, you mean
― j., Monday, 12 February 2018 04:46 (three months ago) Permalink
of GM in Ecce Homo N writes:
"Every time a beginning that is calculated to mislead: cool, scientific, even ironic, deliberately foreground, deliberately holding off. Gradually more unrest; sporadic lightning; very disagreeable truths are heard grumbling in the distance---until eventually a tempo feroce is attained in which everything rushes ahead in a tremendous tension. In the end, in the midst of perfectly gruesome detonations, a new truth becomes visible every time among thick clouds."
― droit au butt (Euler), Monday, 12 February 2018 13:49 (three months ago) Permalink
and then what is the "new truth" of Book I (the subject of your quotes, Mordy)? In Section 13 of Book I, N writes:
"For just as common people separate the lightning from its flash and take the latter as a doing, as an effect of a subject called lightning, so popular morality also separates strength from the expressions of strength as if there were behind the strong an indifferent substratum that is free to express strength—or not to. But there is no such substratum: there is no 'being' behind the doing, effecting, becoming; 'the doer' is simply fabricated into the doing—the doing is everything."
This is the will to power: a wholesale replacement of the traditional metaphysics of actor and action into a new metaphysics wherein there is only action, only motion; or maybe not such a new metaphysics, for maybe we are back to Heraclitus. But what N highlights here is the consequence of this new metaphysics for attributions of responsibility, on which traditional morality rests: there is no responsibility, the actor cannot be held responsible for his actions, the actor is his actions.
And yet. In the preface to GM (so important, and so neglected) and in Book III N indicates how there is no perspective-independent knowledge. So all the claims of the book, all claims whatsoever, including this one, are only glimpses of something wider, something perhaps ungraspable as a whole by agents like us. In the end a shrug, this is just my opinion, man; and the reader is left to assemble more and more such opinions, and if she has the power, to make herself into more and more of these opinions, of these perspectives, to have one's pro and contra in one's power.
"Admittedly, to practice reading as an art in this way one thing above all is necessary, something which these days has been unlearned better than anything else—and it will therefore be a while before my writings are "readable"—something for which one must almost be a cow and in any case not a "modern man": ruminating..."
― droit au butt (Euler), Monday, 12 February 2018 14:04 (three months ago) Permalink