NationStates Jolt Archive

I want to make a nation based on Nietzschean politics, can anyone give me info on the subject?

From what I understand, Nietsche was an existentialist. I think an existentialist framework would develop policies that were rather socially liberated, in as much as they allow the individual to make their own conclusions about what is meaningful int their life. So as far as religion goes, a Nietschean nation would be very humanist, with plenty of religious freedom. Socially, it might be very Right-leaning, with a stress on the individual's responsibilities for their own economic accomplishments. Existentialism is all about meaning-making. Imagine you're about to die and you want your life to have meant something - that is the existentialist goal.

I just did a research paper on existentialism and palliative care of cancer patients, so I'm putting my grade on the fact that I'm right. Pissflaps if I'm not!!

I want to make a nation based on Nietzschean politics, can anyone give me info on the subject?

Create your own arbitrary set of values which will proomote the growth of the arts (or any other field of human endeavour which you desire to have flourish), and use these as the guiding principles behind your nation. That's it in a nutshell.

I want to make a nation based on Nietzschean politics, can anyone give me info on the subject?


Nietzshe was a relativist: He claimed that morals were creations of man, that they did not exist by themselves. Therefore, the guideline for our actions was purely our will. Everything else could not be proven or demonstrated, so was useless and a lie.

A Nietzschean nation will therefore have the most absolute freedom, bordering almost anarchy.

Nietzshe was a relativist: He claimed that morals were creations of man, that they did not exist by themselves. Therefore, the guideline for our actions was purely our will. Everything else could not be proven or demonstrated, so was useless and a lie.

A Nietzschean nation will therefore have the most absolute freedom, bordering almost anarchy.

First paragrapht there is pretty much hitting the nail on the head, but the sentence you follow it up with misses the point that Nietzsche recognised that those with a greater will to power could force their values onto others: thus a dictatorship is as valid an outcome as an anarchy.

You'll have to do a few things:

First, ban religion.

Second, you must not aid suffering. Nietzche believed that when we feel a compunction to help those who suffer, our lives become centered around that suffering and subsequently lose any sort of value because the only importance to life is preventing its loss.

Third, have a very strong educational program. Nietzche's ubermensch was an intellectual being.

First paragrapht there is pretty much hitting the nail on the head, but the sentence you follow it up with misses the point that Nietzsche recognised that those with a greater will to power could force their values onto others: thus a dictatorship is as valid an outcome as an anarchy.


...True.

But i'm an optimist.

You'll have to do a few things:

First, ban religion.

Not neccessarilly: Nietzsche was against the religions that promoted the values of the herd (ie. Judaeo-Christian ones), while admiring those of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Ban religions that make midgets out of men, rather than giants.

Second, you must not aid suffering. Nietzche believed that when we feel a compunction to help those who suffer, our lives become centered around that suffering and subsequently lose any sort of value because the only importance to life is preventing its loss.

Sticking on the religious theme here, it should be pointed out that he had quite an admiration for Buddhism, and its final aim of creating an end to suffering, but it this is a special case as it recognises all existence as suffering. Nietzsche on Buddhism is something I haven't really made time to investigate further than this.

Aside from that, aiding the suffering is not in itself a bad thing for Nietzsche: if a more flourishing, artistically productive society can be created by alleviating suffering, then it should be alleviated.

Third, have a very strong educational program. Nietzche's ubermensch was an intellectual being.

Can't argue with that.

First paragrapht there is pretty much hitting the nail on the head, but the sentence you follow it up with misses the point that Nietzsche recognised that those with a greater will to power could force their values onto others: thus a dictatorship is as valid an outcome as an anarchy.
...True.

But i'm an optimist.


hah! :D as someone who has at times laid claim to the label "Nietzschean", I can say that in my opinion, a dictatorship would be as "optimistic" an outcome as anarchy. Either one is valid.


First, ban religion.

Second, you must not aid suffering. Nietzche believed that when we feel a compunction to help those who suffer, our lives become centered around that suffering and subsequently lose any sort of value because the only importance to life is preventing its loss.

Third, have a very strong educational program. Nietzche's ubermensch was an intellectual being.

Hmm... not sure about banning "religion"... banning organized religion, of course. But that's not quite the same thing...

And the education thing - I think Nietzsche pretty much saw traditional education as the antithesis of what you term the "intellectual being"; the Übermensch.

Not sure I agree with the second one either, but for reasons i'm not entirely sure of.

EDIT: by the by, I believe the running of my nationstate is pretty much in line with a form of Nietzschean philosophy... check it out:
The Empire of the Glorious Reich of Mythotic Kelkia (http://www.nationstates.net/cgi-bin/index.cgi/target=display_nation/nation=mythotic_kelkia)

Hmm... not sure about banning "religion"... banning organized religion, of course. But that's not quite the same thing...


Banning organized religion that promotes slave morality? I guess so, but one should be careful not to create another moral inversion such as happened with the ancient Jews. The slave morality religions thrive on being oppressed as it shows how blessed they actually are.

Banning organized religion that promotes master morality? Nah.

Not neccessarilly: Nietzsche was against the religions that promoted the values of the herd (ie. Judaeo-Christian ones), while admiring those of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Ban religions that make midgets out of men, rather than giants.
My apologies. I had assumed a conventional Western state dominated by the Judeo-Christian tradition (although Nietzche would also have problems with modern Islam)(an understatement, but hey)

Sticking on the religious theme here, it should be pointed out that he had quite an admiration for Buddhism, and its final aim of creating an end to suffering, but it this is a special case as it recognises all existence as suffering. Nietzsche on Buddhism is something I haven't really made time to investigate further than this.

Aside from that, aiding the suffering is not in itself a bad thing for Nietzsche: if a more flourishing, artistically productive society can be created by alleviating suffering, then it should be alleviated.

I don't think so, actually. I had just been talking about this aspect of Nietzche with a few of my friends, and we actually found some passages from Nietzche to support this interpretation. Hang on until I can find the exact cite; these friends live reasonably far away from me.

Nietzsche viewed Buddhism as essentially ritualised nihilism. It's slightly better than Christianity in that respect, but it doesn't make the crucial jump across that nihilistic gap to the Übermensch morality. I personally believe that Vedic Hinduism suits a Nietzschean worldview far better than Buddhism.

And the education thing - I think Nietzsche pretty much saw traditional education as the antithesis of what you term the "intellectual being"; the Übermensch.

I was trying to translate Nietzche as best as can be done into Nationstates. We can't set the educational guidelines of our nations so we don't know if "traditional education" is what's being taught in our school systems. However, a large department of education does imply an intellectual focus for a particular nation, which would be in line with Nietzchean philosophy.

I don't think so, actually. I had just been talking about this aspect of Nietzche with a few of my friends, and we actually found some passages from Nietzche to support this interpretation. Hang on until I can find the exact cite; these friends live reasonably far away from me.

If you accept suffering as a good in itself, then you have fallen for the slave morality. Similarly, if you see compassion as a good in itself, then you have fallen for the slave morality. However, if you see that by the possibility of alleviating suffering in order to bring about another end, such as producing a society where the arts and culture can flourish, then you are operating in accordance with themaster morality. No?

Nietzsche viewed Buddhism as essentially ritualised nihilism. It's slightly better than Christianity in that respect, but it doesn't make the crucial jump across that nihilistic gap to the Übermensch morality. I personally believe that Vedic Hinduism suits a Nietzschean worldview far better than Buddhism.

One of Nietzsche's main admirations for Buddhism is because of its honesty as compared to the faiths of the book: they seek to hobble mankind, while Buddhism (given a Nietzschean spin) can be seen as the will to power asserting itself over the cosmos. The fact that it eventually seeks the same aim as the will to nothingness doesn't automatically make this an undesireable thing for Nietzsche, as he is quite happy with self-willed suicides as expressions of choice and affirmation.


Rather than viewing Buddhism as just another form of self-contradictory nihilism which rejects the world on the basis of its lack of moral systems (and thus makes a decision based on a non-existent moral system), it can be seen to be not a condemnation of the world, but rather just a self-affirming choice to extinguish existence.

One of those things that requires more discussion.

In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche's best work (I think), Nietzsche describes how the 'Superman' must set himself apart from the crowd and become the master over the Plebians, or Proleteriat. He would suppress most religion as being 'harmful', as it supposedly stunts the progress of society. He was a nihilist in the very broad sense - basically you'll want to aim for a 1984 orwellian 'BigBrother' state, but with less people running it, and certainly less respect for the lower classes - the proles would be given less freedom, if possible, rather than running loose. Also, the leaders must be good philosophers, like Nietzsche claimed to be (!)

If I were you, read 'Beyond Good and Evil' (it's not that long) before you decide on the policies to take.

If you accept suffering as a good in itself, then you have fallen for the slave morality. Similarly, if you see compassion as a good in itself, then you have fallen for the slave morality. However, if you see that by the possibility of alleviating suffering in order to bring about another end, such as producing a society where the arts and culture can flourish, then you are operating in accordance with themaster morality. No?
It's not that suffering is good in itself. It's more complicated than that. The argument is that focusing the political or the social around alleviating suffering or saving lives has two problems: a. It's self defeating, because violence and suffering are inevitable as of right now and most attempts to fix it have made the problem worse and b. When we center life around suffering, life itself only becomes valuable when it's "not suffering," nixing any value to life (proving that it inherently prevents the arts and culture from flourishing) and justifying further atrocities (refer to Michael Dillon as to why eliminating value to life justified the worst atrocities of the 20th century).

In "Beyond Good and Evil", Nietzsche's best work (I think), Nietzsche describes how the 'Superman' must set himself apart from the crowd and become the master over the Plebians, or Proleteriat. He would suppress most religion as being 'harmful', as it supposedly stunts the progress of society.

Only those religions which spread the slave morality, but even then, those religions can prove useful if they keep the masses in line. while another religion or yay-saying set of beliefs governs their masters: for example Christianity before the conversion of Constantine.


He was a nihilist in the very broad sense -

This is exactly what he wasn't. His whole philosophical project is built on creating an alternative to nihilism. Nihilism is nay-saying and life-denying philosophies, while Nietzsche is arguing for yay-saying and life-affirming philosophies. Check out the start of The Will To Power, as this is where he probably is most clear about the aims of his work in creating an alternative to nihilism and examining the underlying mechanisms and non-productive contradictions involved in it.

One of Nietzsche's main admirations for Buddhism is because of its honesty as compared to the faiths of the book: they seek to hobble mankind, while Buddhism (given a Nietzschean spin) can be seen as the will to power asserting itself over the cosmos. The fact that it eventually seeks the same aim as the will to nothingness doesn't automatically make this an undesireable thing for Nietzsche, as he is quite happy with self-willed suicides as expressions of choice and affirmation.

That's basically what I meant when I brought up Vedic Hinduism - the Vedas talk about much of the same things, but arrives at a quite different conclusion; that the life/death cycle, that the universe itself, much like the Eternal Recurrance, is something to be wholy embraced in all it's magnitude. Like the Dance of Shiva, it takes as it gives, the two actions being one and the same. These are of course my own views; I am just saying that as a sometime enthusiast of Nietzsche these seem much more intriguing than the Buddhist philosophy...
Buddhism however does have some intriguing aspects, especially in it's earlier forms - I'd quite like to learn more about what variations of Buddhism occured when it was adopted by the Parthians and the Kushans, towards the end of their empires; but unfortunately much of this information is now lost following the Muslim expansions. The Buddhism we're left with now, in Tibet, China, Japan and South-East Asia strikes me as being derivitive and essentially pretty dull.

It's not that suffering is good in itself. It's more complicated than that. The argument is that focusing the political or the social around alleviating suffering or saving lives has two problems: ...

Yeah, we are pretty much in agreement. I'm saying that alleviating suffering in the name of a greater good - just because it is an obstacle, rather than an Evil in itself - is perfectly acceptable for Nietzsche, and in fact, one can view his whole attack on herd morality and Christianity as an attempt to replace the wide-spread suffering of humanity (which humanity sees as a blessing) with a society which allows people to flourish. Suffering in itself is not something he seeks to remove from the cosmos, but instead sees the slave religions' widespread embrace of suffering by choice as a hideously counter-productive idea.

This is exactly what he wasn't. His whole philosophical project is built on creating an alternative to nihilism. Nihilism is nay-saying and life-denying philosophies, while Nietzsche is arguing for yay-saying and life-affirming philosophies. Check out the start of The Will To Power, as this is where he probably is most clear about the aims of his work in creating an alternative to nihilism and examining the underlying mechanisms and non-productive contradictions involved in it.
I have to say, nihilist means different things to different people in the context of analyzing philosophy. For example, many argue Foucault is a nihilist because he seems to provide no alternative to modern biopolitics. However, many argue that the analysis itself provides an effective tool for resistance because at least people now have identified where the problem is coming from. In greater depth: Even if Foucault provides no way out of biopolitics as a whole, his entire philosophy is centered around the concept of "specific instances;" that is, because no absolute truth exists we can't say that any sort of action will always be good or bad. Therefore, we must resist the operations of biopower in the contexts where they manifest as harmful.

I got a little carried away, but I was trying to prove a point.

Yeah, we are pretty much in agreement. I'm saying that alleviating suffering in the name of a greater good - just because it is an obstacle, rather than an Evil in itself - is perfectly acceptable for Nietzsche, and in fact, one can view his whole attack on herd morality and Christianity as an attempt to replace the wide-spread suffering of humanity (which humanity sees as a blessing) with a society which allows people to flourish. Suffering in itself is not something he seeks to remove from the cosmos, but instead sees the slave religions' widespread embrace of suffering by choice as a hideously counter-productive idea.
Yeah, you're right - we've probably been agreeing the whole time.

Yeah, you're right - we've probably been agreeing the whole time.

Deleuze talking to Bodies Without Organs about Nietzsche. Had to happen sooner or later. When is Guattari going to show?

Deleuze talking to Bodies Without Organs about Nietzsche. Had to happen sooner or later. When is Guattari going to show?
Heh. After he gets out of prison.

Check out the start of The Will To Power, as this is where he probably is most clear about the aims of his work in creating an alternative to nihilism and examining the underlying mechanisms and non-productive contradictions involved in it.

Firstly, Nietzsche never wrote 'The Will to Power' - it is an out-of-context compilation compiled by his Nazi-sympathising sister. Hence taking Nietzsche out of context can spark all sorts of goings on - the Third Reich for example - Hitler tried to take Nietzsche out of context, and look what happened.

Also we need to take into account that Nietzsche is never being entirely serious - see parts of 'What is noble?' in BGE for what I'm talking about.

No-one can claim that Nietzsche definately meant 'x' or 'y' - people will interpret them as they like, according to their own predispositions. So saying he was/wasn't a nihilist won't convince anyone.

Firstly, Nietzsche never wrote 'The Will to Power' - it is an out-of-context compilation compiled by his Nazi-sympathising sister. Hence taking Nietzsche out of context can spark all sorts of goings on - the Third Reich for example - Hitler tried to take Nietzsche out of context, and look what happened.

Describing Elizabeth as a Nazi-sympathiser while talking about WTP is fudging the issue somewhat: she was ceratinly a vile and unpleasent anti-semite and exploited her brother's legacy (even before he was dead) for all it was worth, but it should be noted that the she published the first selections form his note books in 1901, which rather pre-dates the Nazi ideology. It should also be noted that the only evidence that Hitler actually read a word of Nietzsche was when he visited the museum run by Elizabeth, and so the claims that he was taking Nietzsche out of context are grossly exagerating the influence Nietzsche had on the upper echelons of the Nazi party.


As far as the authenticity of the WTP goes, it is certainly a less straight forward text than Nietzsche's other works, but one can still see that a fairly solid critique of nihilism exists within its pages, and does not appear to be one fabricated by piecemeal juxtaposition of unrelated pieces of writing - rather we see the same ideas repeated and modified and expressed again and again. I certainly would rather draw from other sources than WTP given the choice, but the explicitness of Book I (given the title European Nihilism) does provide a lot of meat.



Also we need to take into account that Nietzsche is never being entirely serious - see parts of 'What is noble?' in BGE for what I'm talking about.

No-one can claim that Nietzsche definately meant 'x' or 'y' - people will interpret them as they like, according to their own predispositions. So saying he was/wasn't a nihilist won't convince anyone.

However, even without resorting to reference to The Will To Power one can see that Nietzsche isn't a nihilist. Even in your favoured BGE we can see that he is interested in the transvaluation of all values in order to affirm life and the world. He is arguing for the yay-sayers against the nay-saying slave moralists and the nihilists. His entire project is based upon the creation of new values with which to judge and shape the world, whilst still living in it and affirming it: contrast this with the act of the nihilist, who finding no 'true' values in the world rejects it on the basis of being valueless, and is thus caught up in a non-productive self-contradiction - they make a value judgement on the non-existence of values and reject the world.


To recognise that Nietzsche's philosophical project is based on encouraging the yea-saying aspects of humanity (and, for that matter, post-humanity) whilst labelling still him a nihilist is to either misunderstand his works or to use 'nihilist' in a quite unusual sense.


Question 1: is Nietzsche interested in creating new values, arts and cultures?
Question 2: is a nihilist interested in creating new values, arts and cultures?

HE IS VERY INTERESTED IN CREATING NEW VALUES, YOU, ME EVERYONE. hE IS NIHILISTIC!!! THAT'S WHAT U WOULD SAY IF U DIDN'T KNOW MUCH...
YES HE IS (ANSWER TO 1 AND 2)

I read something concerning suffering. Nietzsche believed that suffering helped one over-come and its in connection with the WTP.

I Meant He Is Not Nihilistic No No No No No

HE IS VERY INTERESTED IN CREATING NEW VALUES, YOU, ME EVERYONE. hE IS NIHILISTIC!!! THAT'S WHAT U WOULD SAY IF U DIDN'T KNOW MUCH...
YES HE IS (ANSWER TO 1 AND 2)


I find it most gratiyfing to have found someone who has been driven even further to insanity by Nietzsche than I have. Greetings!

I think He is very serious. He speaks for different people, that's why it's sounds 'not serious'. It is not one side he shows, but many.

BEST PSICOLOGY OF THE MIND I READ :fluffle:

BEST PSICOLOGY OF THE MIND I READ :fluffle:I find it difficult to fathom how a fluffle found its way into a discussion of Nietszche.

I find it difficult to fathom how a fluffle found its way into a discussion of Nietszche.
Irony?

wHATEVER U JUST CALLED ME, I SENSE THE MEANING. i'M A BIT DRUNK MAN/GIRL WHATEVER U R.

The thing is, I luuuuve nietzsche and I don't agree with everything. He is just so pleasurable to read, inspiring.
DON'T PICK ON HIM, ENJOY THE RIDE AND HATE HIM, LOVE HIM...JUST ACNOWLEDGE HIM...

WHAT ELSE... TOMORROW I STAR ANOTHER THREAD WHEN I'M SOBER.
SEE YA U GUYS.

ohh I'm very.......whatever u said before :fluffle:

ps i'M RESPONSIBILITIES (MY nATION) just in my friends computer/his nation (crappy one, haha)

http://maddox.xmission.com/hatemail.cgi?p=1#CAPSLOCK

I find it difficult to fathom how a fluffle found its way into a discussion of Nietszche.

Friedrich Nietzsche wants to :fluffle: Lou Salome, but Lou Salome wants to :fluffle: Paul Ree?