Neitzsche

[Enforcer Talen]

so, any opinions on him? have you ignored him entirely, worshipped his statue, or hated the ground he walks on?

for myself, I like the quotes that are presented as his. I own an anthology of his works, but havent acutually read it yet. its hard to wrap my mind around.

[Lord Zentei]

so, any opinions on him? have you ignored him entirely, worshipped his statue, or hated the ground he walks on?

for myself, I like the quotes that are presented as his. I own an anthology of his works, but havent acutually read it yet. its hard to wrap my mind around.

He is arguably one of the most misunderstood and misrepresented of the philosophers, hated by powerful lobbies both left and right. Most of this hatered is based on strawman distortions of his philosophy.

[Darth Wong]

Which of Nietzche's writings are relevant to any typical modern discussion? It seems to me that the only time philosophy is mentioned around here, it's either ethics (in which case numerous other names come up first) or the philosophy of science vs religion (in which case, once again, other names come up first).

[Lord Zentei]

Which of Nietzche's writings are relevant to any typical modern discussion? It seems to me that the only time philosophy is mentioned around here, it's either ethics (in which case numerous other names come up first) or the philosophy of science vs religion (in which case, once again, other names come up first).

I am not well acquainted enough with Nietzche's writings to answer that competently, particularly if I am to compare him with other philosophers at the same time. I do know, however, that he is typically misrepresented, which is of course not kosher, regardless of whether he is right and/or relevant.

[Lord Zentei]

OK, here is a quick breakdown of the ideas of N man. They are indeed relevant to the modern world. Points to consider...

1) There is no intrinsic or absolute morality or destiny, nor an afterlife.
2) The masses passively accept morality based on tradition.
3) The rational human creates his own moral philosophy and becomes a master of his own destiny, rather than passively accepting it. In so doing, he shapes the destiny of others. This is the oft misrepresented superman ideal.

One of Nietszche's fundamental contentions was that traditional values (represented primarily by Christianity) had lost their power in the lives of individuals, what he called passive nihilism. He expressed this in his infamous proclamation "God is dead". He was convinced that traditional values represented a "slave morality", a morality created by weak and resentful individuals who encouraged such behaviour as gentleness and kindness because it served their interests. Nietzsche claimed that new values could be created to replace the traditional ones, and his discussion of the possibility led to his concept of the superman (Ubermensch).

According to Nietzsche, the masses, whom he termed the herd or mob, uonform to tradition, whereas his ideal superman is secure, independent, and highly individualistic. The superman feels deeply, but his passions are rationally controlled. Concentrating on the real world, rather than on the rewards of the next world promised by religion, the superman affirms life, including the suffering and pain that accompany human existence. His superman is a creator of values, a creator of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid.

Nietzsche maintained that all human behaviour is motivated by the will to power. In its positive sense, the will to power is not simply power over thers, but the power over oneself that is necessary for creativity. Such power is manifested in the superman's independence, creativity, and riginality. Although Nietzsche explicitly denied that any overmen had yet arisen, he mentions several individuals who could serve as models, ncluding Socrates, Jesus Christ, Leonardo da Vinci, Michelangelo, hakespeare, Goethe, Julius Caesar, and Napoleon. The concept of the superman has often been interpreted as one that postulates a aster-slave society and has been identified with totalitarian philosophies. Many cholars deny the connection and attribute it to misinterpretation of Nietzsche's work.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

One of Nietszche's fundamental contentions was that traditional values (represented primarily by Christianity) had lost their power in the lives of individuals, what he called passive nihilism. He expressed this in his infamous proclamation "God is dead". He was convinced that traditional values represented a "slave morality", a morality created by weak and resentful individuals who encouraged such behaviour as gentleness and kindness because it served their interests.

Isn't it the "morality" taken by religious fundies today? Explaining various behaviours like "against gay marriage" and such? Hiding their resentful bigotries behind the "benevolence of God" bullshit?

When fundie Moslems criticizes my "westernized lifestyle" (I'm not writing this; it's their favorite remarks) such as pre-marital sex, I often question myself: do they really believe that pre-marital sex is wrong, or they actually desire such things while being jealous and resentful of people like me who choose to "disobey the will of God" and indulging ourselves by doing so?

According to Nietzsche, the masses, whom he termed the herd or mob, uonform to tradition, whereas his ideal superman is secure, independent, and highly individualistic. The superman feels deeply, but his passions are rationally controlled. Concentrating on the real world, rather than on the rewards of the next world promised by religion, the superman affirms life, including the suffering and pain that accompany human existence.

And aren't those common traits found in people who live happily and content with their live? Aren't these traits necessary to live happily and to the fullest, being thankful (not to God) for our existence and "make the most of it", realizing that we don't need such abstract entity like God to do so?

[Lord Zentei]

Both true. Which is why Neitzsche is very much relevant today and needs to be de-demonized.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Both true. Which is why Neitzsche is very much relevant today and needs to be de-demonized.

Some questions to Mike, then. You're a happy and content person without relying to "God" to be so (you're an atheist, right?). Then how come Nietzche's writings aren't relevant anymore, where people like you are basically falls into category of Neitzschean "superman"?

Granted not every one of us is Caesar nor Alexander, but aren't "secure", "independent", and "individualistic" required traits to live content without relying to "God"? To make us standing and walking tall, knowing we do the right thing, no matter how much the "peer pressure" and negative criticism we receive?

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

EDIT for my previous post: I guess "peer pressure" is a too specific example. Probably "outside pressure" is more accurate here.

[Mayabird]

Some questions to Mike, then. You're a happy and content person without relying to "God" to be so (you're an atheist, right?). Then how come Nietzche's writings aren't relevant anymore, where people like you are basically falls into category of Neitzschean "superman"?

Granted not every one of us is Caesar nor Alexander, but aren't "secure", "independent", and "individualistic" required traits to live content without relying to "God"? To make us standing and walking tall, knowing we do the right thing, no matter how much the "peer pressure" and negative criticism we receive?

I don't know about him, but for many of us atheists, secular humanism works better than the rantings of a guy who later went insane.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

I don't know about him, but for many of us atheists, secular humanism works better than the rantings of a guy who later went insane.

I was under the impression that Neitzschean "superman" traits are probably the same traits often found in athiests. I guess I just mislooked the difference between "personal traits" and "adopted philosphy".

[Lord Zentei]

Some questions to Mike, then. You're a happy and content person without relying to "God" to be so (you're an atheist, right?). Then how come Nietzche's writings aren't relevant anymore, where people like you are basically falls into category of Neitzschean "superman"?

Granted not every one of us is Caesar nor Alexander, but aren't "secure", "independent", and "individualistic" required traits to live content without relying to "God"? To make us standing and walking tall, knowing we do the right thing, no matter how much the "peer pressure" and negative criticism we receive?

I don't know about him, but for many of us atheists, secular humanism works better than the rantings of a guy who later went insane.

Bah, insanity is the mark of greatness.

[Joe]

Nietzsche philosophy when it comes down to it is just an elaborate, more sophisticated rehash of "might makes right," with heavy Darwinian influences. It is amazing how he railed against nihilism given the heavily nihilistic bent of his philosophy.

[Lord Zentei]

Nietzsche philosophy when it comes down to it is just an elaborate, more sophisticated rehash of "might makes right," with heavy Darwinian influences. It is amazing how he railed against nihilism given the heavily nihilistic bent of his philosophy.

That is a bit of an oversimplification. The power issues he raises revolve around power over the self, not others.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Nietzsche philosophy when it comes down to it is just an elaborate, more sophisticated rehash of "might makes right," with heavy Darwinian influences.

So there's actually some quality which is against atheistic morality because it legitimates exploitation?

[Jawawithagun]

Bah, insanity is the mark of greatness.

Though, he had a bit of syphilic help, didn't reach that state completely under his own power.

[Lord Zentei]

Nietzsche philosophy when it comes down to it is just an elaborate, more sophisticated rehash of "might makes right," with heavy Darwinian influences. It is amazing how he railed against nihilism given the heavily nihilistic bent of his philosophy.

That is a bit of an oversimplification. The power issues he raises revolve around power over the self, not others.

I didnt just type that did I? Looks like it.

The PURPOSE of the desire for power is mastery of the self, not mastery over others, though that results if the others are not supermen. It is about being in control over ones own destiny, not accepting morality based on tradition, but reason.

It is NOT "might makes right", it is "freedom from the shackles of mysticism and tradition plus reason and strength of will enable might", and "the desire for power on these terms is a posetive".

[Joe]

Well, that's one way to put it. I would say, rather, that it's for abandoning all traditional and commonly accepted accounts of morality in favor of a nihilistic system where the most powerful - the nobles - create and enforce their own systems of morality by fiat.

What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing--that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of our humanism: The weak and the failures shall perish. They ought even to be helped to perish.

If that is not a reaffirmation of might makes right morality dressed up in more sophisticated, philosophical language, I don't know what is.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

The PURPOSE of the desire for power is mastery of the self, not mastery over others, though that results if the others are not supermen. It is about being in control over ones own destiny, not accepting morality based on tradition, but reason.

It is NOT "might makes right", it is "freedom from the shackles of mysticism and tradition plus reason and strength of will enable might", and "the desire for power on these terms is a posetive".

Um, I'm getting confused. Is Nietzsche philosophy simply focuses on mastery of the self or mastery on others? Is it simply making our lives content and self-secure, without the need of relying to God or such (which I've seen on atheists I know), or there's actually something else less "benevolent"? (like exploiting others)



Damn, reading this "self" things starts making me thinking about a particular SELF-inflicted activity. I guess I'm going to emit some power from my SELF right now. grabs the lube*

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing--that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of our humanism: The weak and the failures shall perish. They ought even to be helped to perish.

Ah, I see. Forget my last post then.

[Lord Zentei]

The PURPOSE of the desire for power is mastery of the self, not mastery over others, though that results if the others are not supermen. It is about being in control over ones own destiny, not accepting morality based on tradition, but reason.

It is NOT "might makes right", it is "freedom from the shackles of mysticism and tradition plus reason and strength of will enable might", and "the desire for power on these terms is a posetive".

Um, I'm getting confused. Is Nietzsche philosophy simply focuses on mastery of the self or mastery on others? Is it simply making our lives content and self-secure, without the need of relying to God or such (which I've seen on atheists I know), or there's actually something else less "benevolent"? (like exploiting others)

As I understand it it is mastery over self..

"His superman is a creator of values, a creator of a "master morality" that reflects the strength and independence of one who is liberated from all values, except those that he deems valid."

The mastery over others comes from the challenge to traditional values and the creation of a rational morality, unfettered by promises of rewards or punishments in an imaginary afterlife. Certainly the point is NOT to exploit others.

[Lord Zentei]

What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing--that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of our humanism: The weak and the failures shall perish. They ought even to be helped to perish.

Ah, I see. Forget my last post then.

And I stand corrected.

[Lord Zentei]

What is good? All that enhances the feeling of power, the Will to Power, and the power itself in man. What is bad? All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is increasing--that resistance has been overcome. Not contentment, but more power; not peace at any price, but war; not virtue, but competence. The first principle of our humanism: The weak and the failures shall perish. They ought even to be helped to perish.

Ah, I see. Forget my last post then.

And I stand corrected.

Unless.. is he referring to weak people or is he referring to weak systems of thought, traditionalism and such? It is not clear from the context.

[Darth Wong]

Some questions to Mike, then. You're a happy and content person without relying to "God" to be so (you're an atheist, right?). Then how come Nietzche's writings aren't relevant anymore, where people like you are basically falls into category of Neitzschean "superman"?

Because the "you need God to have morality" argument can be addressed in a thousand different ways without appealing to his authority. It may have been considered groundbreaking to point out once that religious morals are nothing more than an appeal to tradition, but one hardly needs to quote philosophers in order to make that point now. It's virtually taken for granted except by morons who would be unmoved by Nietszche anyway.

Besides, a more enlightened form of morality goes beyond mastery of self anyway, and incorporates duty to others. We moved from "duty to God" to "duty to king and country" to "give me my rights", somehow skipping "duty to your fellow man" along the way.

[Kreshna Aryaguna Nurzaman]

Because the "you need God to have morality" argument can be addressed in a thousand different ways without appealing to his authority. It may have been considered groundbreaking to point out once that religious morals are nothing more than an appeal to tradition, but one hardly needs to quote philosophers in order to make that point now. It's virtually taken for granted except by morons who would be unmoved by Nietszche anyway.

I see. So it becomes obsolete due to the fact that it's already nothing more than mundane thoughts today, instead of groundbreaking philosophy it was on its start.