NationStates Jolt Archive

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

I haven't read Nietzsche but I think it's quite likely that those with both the desire and ability to dominate others will inevitably do so.

Which bits in particular? The whole Übermensch malarky?

There are none. Nietzsche is God and God is dead.

Obliterate the stupid, ignorant, frail, and useless. Only the strong of body and mind shall prevail. (And by the way Letila, you ain't in the aforementioned category.)

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

Wow, a fellow anti-Nietsche! At least we agree on something! ;)

*Hands Letila a cookie*

Letila is having a crisis of Atheist faith. Her liberalism is clashing with her inherent existentialism. Woe, woe. We've all been there. You can still be for the kids in Tibet whilst reading Will To Power. Just tread lightly, or you'll find yourself becoming a conservative.

Many people use the fact that he was insane from syphillis to refute him.

Letila is having a crisis of Atheist faith. Her liberalism is clashing with her inherent existentialism. Woe, woe. We've all been there. You can still be for the kids in Tibet whilst reading Will To Power. Just tread lightly, or you'll find yourself becoming a conservative.

Unless I'm mistaken, Letila is a male.

Letila is having a crisis of Atheist faith. Her liberalism is clashing with her inherent existentialism. Woe, woe. We've all been there. You can still be for the kids in Tibet whilst reading Will To Power. Just tread lightly, or you'll find yourself becoming a conservative.


Confusing Letila for a girl is soooo last year.

Many people use the fact that he was insane from syphillis to refute him.

That itself has nothing to do with the work he wrote before hand, and in the world of philosophy its best to criticise actual ideas rather than the person.

Confusing Letila for a girl is soooo last year.

My bad. I'm only on the forums every other year anyways. :P
I still think Letila's hot.

That itself has nothing to do with the work he wrote before hand, and in the world of philosophy its best to criticise actual ideas rather than the person.

Also, what kind of strong minded person goes insane after seeing a horse get beat to death? That's just... sad.

Unless I'm mistaken, Letila is a male.

Yes, the name of my nation was apparently poorly chosen. It meant Beautiful-land in a language I made up, though.

But surely someone has managed to refute Nietzscheanism without invoking medical conditions or biographical incidents.

Yes, the name of my nation was apparently poorly chosen. It meant Beautiful-land in a language I made up, though.

But surely someone has managed to refute Nietzscheanism without invoking medical conditions or biographical incidents.

Well, in essence it is a system of ethics, and in such systems one can make up whatever one wishes and have it be unfalsifiable.

But there are plenty of problems with his analysis, though. For one, he doesn't effectively distinguish between the ressentiment embodied by the humble acceptance of one's fate ("blessed be the meek, for they shall inherit the earth") and the ressentiment embodied by revolutionary tendencies among the common people ("proletarians of the world, unite!"). In fact he conflates the two, and some of what he says is nonsensical as a result.

Furthermore, universally applying his ideology would result in exactly what he despises so much, with weak, spoiled people who don't accomplish anything at the top of society and potential "supermen" oppressed at the bottom by accident of birth or circumstance.

But there are plenty of problems with his analysis, though. For one, he doesn't effectively distinguish between the ressentiment embodied by the humble acceptance of one's fate ("blessed be the meek, for they shall inherit the earth") and the ressentiment embodied by revolutionary tendencies among the common people ("proletarians of the world, unite!"). In fact he conflates the two, and some of what he says is nonsensical as a result.

So how does that help me? Does it provide a way out from having to resign myself to submission to those with more power?

So how does that help me? Does it provide a way out from having to resign myself to submission to those with more power?


Irrelevant within a Nietzschean worldview - shape your own WTP so that you stand outside of the historical master/slave opposition and fight against those who believe themselves still to be trapped within that historical paradigm. One is not just trying to drag down the masters to the level of the slaves, or raise the slaves as new masters - that was the very birth of the Good/Evil distinction for Nietzsche, instead one is trying to revert back to the good/bad opposition and create a set of values and world where goodness (ie. ability to operate within the world or simple expertise, or even something close to Aristotelian excellence) is of primary importance.

So how does that help me? Does it provide a way out from having to resign myself to submission to those with more power?

Why do you feel any obligation to resign yourself to submission in the first place?

Why do you feel any obligation to resign yourself to submission in the first place?

Because Nietzsche said the strong should rule the weak. Since I'm weak, I would be required to submit to comply with this natural order.

I suppose I agree with Nietzche in many ways. But I disagree that the "will to power" is more important then the desire to survive. I think that egotism is the basis of all hu,an emotions and that includes survival and will to power, but survival is more important then power, so just like to gamble.

besicides, who says your weak? if you submit you weak, stand and you are strong. Was Gandhi weak? He was only an old man afterall...

Attack him at his roots. Why is it justified that the strong rule the weak absolutely? Is it because it makes society better? I doubt that; slavery and colonialism both can be justified by this mentality, as the people with guns controlled those who didn't have them. Essentially, any claim to subordinate another group can be done in the name of the strong ruling the weak ("Men are stronger than women," "Whites are the smartest race," "the rich must be stronger than the poor.") If you win that argument, all you need to prove is those things are net bad for society, i.e, that oppression leads to a worse society than equality.


That is of course incredibly oversimplified, but I'm in class at the moment.

Attack him at his roots. Why is it justified that the strong rule the weak absolutely?

He considered it life affirming for them to exert their power without restraint.

Is it because it makes society better? I doubt that; slavery and colonialism both can be justified by this mentality, as the people with guns controlled those who didn't have them. Essentially, any claim to subordinate another group can be done in the name of the strong ruling the weak ("Men are stronger than women," "Whites are the smartest race," "the rich must be stronger than the poor.") If you win that argument, all you need to prove is those things are net bad for society, i.e, that oppression leads to a worse society than equality.

Actually, Nietzsche was ultra-individualist to the point that the good of society simply didn't matter much to him.

Because Nietzsche said the strong should rule the weak. Since I'm weak, I would be required to submit to comply with this natural order.

But why accept what Nietzsche said?

Why is it any more valid than any other perspective?

the player of nietzsche heretics (who is too damn lazy to log off and re-log in) would like to announce that nietzsche is neither dead nor bad.

she is, unfortunately, also too lazy (and too hungry) to furtherly elaborate at this point. she does, however, promise to come back.

But why accept what Nietzsche said?

Why is it any more valid than any other perspective?

Because I can't refute him, which would appear to make him correct. If it is the natural order of things for me to be a slave or even die, as the quote in my signature suggests, then how can I seriously defy it?

Because I can't refute him, which would appear to make him correct. If it is the natural order of things for me to be a slave or even die, as the quote in my signature suggests, then how can I seriously defy it?

Do you really think it is impossible to defy the "natural order"?

Humans long ago radically distorted the "natural order" of things, and have continued to do so since.

Our society is not one where the "will to power" actually leads to power, nor are any human societies, really.

Do you really think it is impossible to defy the "natural order"?

Humans long ago radically distorted the "natural order" of things, and have continued to do so since.

Our society is not one where the "will to power" actually leads to power, nor are any human societies, really.

I don't mean civilization vs nature, I mean that the strong are meant to rule the weak, that order that Nietzsche proclaimed. Since I am weak, I don't have the privilege of being free and by all accounts shouldn't even be alive since I can't refute Nietzsche's argument that I should die.

How do you define strong? Do you mean like strong politician, orators those who can rule. Or do you mean physical strength? I presume you mean, the strength of will, and you say you are weak, are you saying you are feebleminded? to use a word.

You could argue that a meritocratic society is needed for the "ubermensch" to blossom or even one without class boundaries. That way if two people are born "strong" then they should cross, religious, racial and class boundaries to procreate. Although I suppose Nietzche would refute this because it would be unnessesary as the poor are poor because they are weak. I really don't know...

I don't mean civilization vs nature, I mean that the strong are meant to rule the weak, that order that Nietzsche proclaimed. Since I am weak, I don't have the privilege of being free and by all accounts shouldn't even be alive since I can't refute Nietzsche's argument that I should die.

"The strong should rule the weak" is a statement about a theoretical ideal that you can reject if you don't believe it because it's unprovable and unfalsifiable. It's no more valid than "the weak should rule the strong."

"The strong do rule the weak" is simply false, as indicated by both Nietzsche and observation of the world.

"The strong should rule the weak" is a statement about a theoretical ideal that you can reject if you don't believe it because it's unprovable and unfalsifiable. It's no more valid than "the weak should rule the strong."

But didn't he provide strong arguments in favor of that idea that haven't been refuted?

But didn't he provide strong arguments in favor of that idea that haven't been refuted?

All the argumentation in the world cannot prove that "the strong should rule the weak," or any other such statement.

Perhaps it could be proved that "the strong should rule the weak if the objective is a society built in accordance with humanity's basic nature," or some such statement, but if you reject the objective there is no need to refute the argumentation.

All the argumentation in the world cannot prove that "the strong should rule the weak," or any other such statement.

Perhaps it could be proved that "the strong should rule the weak if the objective is a society built in accordance with humanity's basic nature," or some such statement, but if you reject the objective there is no need to refute the argumentation.

Then how did Nietzsche argue in favor of it?

Then how did Nietzsche argue in favor of it?

He didn't, really. He simply portrayed a perspective on the way humans should behave.

He did argue (unconvincingly in my view) that the "will to power" is part of man's primal nature, but he never really demonstrated that man's primal nature is at all relevant to ethical behavior.

He didn't, really. He simply portrayed a perspective on the way humans should behave.

He did argue (unconvincingly in my view) that the "will to power" is part of man's primal nature, but he never really demonstrated that man's primal nature is at all relevant to ethical behavior.
This is true, Nietzsche just kind of said stuff and then rolled with it.
Also, his ideas of how morality ruined the "noble" Roman empire were a little off. Crazy leadership and military ineffectiveness led to the fall of Rome, not a moral system.

Then how did Nietzsche argue in favor of it?

Complex question...

As Nietzsche saw it modern Western society is one wherein the weak rule over the strong, and has been in this state ever since the invention of the 'slave morality' by the Jews under the Egyptians and the later adoption of their ideas by the Roman empire through Christianity (this is a mythopoetic explanation rather than a strictly historical one). He saw this current prevalent morality as one which makes dwarfs of giants, and so sought for an alternative which would remove the shackles from humanity.

Nietzsche is sometimes read as stating that there is some kind of moral imperative for the strong to rule over the weak, but this is a purely and self-consciously invented ethical position, and many times when he states this kind of position he can be seen with not directly advocating the dominion of the strong over the weak, but instead providing a spur to destroy the slave morality which is prevalent.

Nietzsche does not believe in any absolute moral values, and sees each and every individual as able to create their own moral systems, judgements and values. One can stay within a Nietzschean framework and invent an ethical position where the primary objective is not to place the strong above the weak, but rather to raise the weak to positions of individual strength.

Olara']This is true, Nietzsche just kind of said stuff and then rolled with it.
Also, his ideas of how morality ruined the "noble" Roman empire were a little off. Crazy leadership and military ineffectiveness led to the fall of Rome, not a moral system.

Don't mistake Nietzsche's mythopoetic explanations for actual historical ones - he is not above self-consciously altering the facts if they get in the way of a good story.

So you're saying that Nietzsche both made up history to back up his ideas and was more or less stating his own values while not implying we should all agree with him on everything?

What I want to know is why you consider yourself weak?

I don't mean civilization vs nature, I mean that the strong are meant to rule the weak, that order that Nietzsche proclaimed. Since I am weak, I don't have the privilege of being free and by all accounts shouldn't even be alive since I can't refute Nietzsche's argument that I should die.
I have never read Nietzsche but from reading this thread I'll say try and refute the strong always rule over the weak thing: the weak always outnumber the strong so it's only by convincing the "weak" they can do nothing that the "strong" can rule.

What I want to know is why you consider yourself weak?

Well, I'm physically very weak for one, and I have no political or economic power, so I wouldn't say I'm strong in any sense.

Well, I'm physically very weak for one, and I have no political or economic power, so I wouldn't say I'm strong in any sense.

Fair enough - but political and economic power are more like (immaterial) possessions. Just because you don't have them doesn't mean you couldn't get them. Doing so would be possible if you have strength - not physical strength but a strength in your mind. An ability to let your will turn into reality - it's more of a "letting" than a "making" if you think of the ability as that of letting go of the anxieties that hinder you, anxieties making your actions weak as if you were moving through syrup.

Well, I'm physically very weak for one, and I have no political or economic power, so I wouldn't say I'm strong in any sense.

Neither of which is really relevant in a Nietzschean sense.

The question is one of competence, really; the capability to utilize power effectively.

Interesting stuff

Indeed. I have not read Neitz, so I can't refute his argumments, as I have never heard them, but I think I may need to read up on it.

I have never read Nietzsche but from reading this thread I'll say try and refute the strong always rule over the weak thing: the weak always outnumber the strong so it's only by convincing the "weak" they can do nothing that the "strong" can rule.

The weak already rule the strong - they have placed Judaeo-Christian values as foremost in importance in Western society, and thus the strong are crippled by the paradoxes of the beatitudes.

So you're saying that Nietzsche both made up history to back up his ideas and was more or less stating his own values while not implying we should all agree with him on everything?

I wouldn't say that he made up history, as such, rather he drew on instances which were philosophically interesting, whilst ignoring those which weren't. As far as whether he was stating his own values - certainly, that was the whole point of his operation, to call for a new transvaluation of all values to repalce the one which was the product of Judaeo-Christianity.

The weak already rule the strong - they have placed Judaeo-Christian values as foremost in importance in Western society, and thus the strong are crippled by the paradoxes of the beatitudes.

So you consider yourself a Nietzschean or believe in Nietzsche's ideas?

So you consider yourself a Nietzschean or believe in Nietzsche's ideas?

I would say that I have much time for what he has to say: even if one is not entirely enamoured with the conclusions he reached his approach to the hard questions remains fresh, and his writing has a dynamicism which cannot be ignored.

I would say that I have much time for what he has to say: even if one is not entirely enamoured with the conclusions he reached his approach to the hard questions remains fresh, and his writing has a dynamicism which cannot be ignored.

So how do I get around his conclusion that people like me should die or be enslaved?

So how do I get around his conclusion that people like me should die or be enslaved?

Cite, please.

So how do I get around his conclusion that people like me should die or be enslaved?You can simply deny it.
Does he actually conclude it at all?

And you can always redefine what 'weak' and 'strong' means. A cripple with a gun beats a caveman with a club.

I went through the same phase until i realised that was allowing myself to be judged by someone who has been dead for over a hundred years.. and was crazy to boot!

Cite, please.

"What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is Bad? Everything that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome. Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness. The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle is our love of man." — The Antichrist

So how do I get around his conclusion that people like me should die or be enslaved?

I would say resisting death/enslavement is enough. The only way you could "deserve" it is by accepting it.

"What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is Bad? Everything that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome. Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness. The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle is our love of man." — The Antichrist

Letila
So how do I get around his conclusion that people like me should die or be enslaved?

No mention of enslavement in there, and within Nietzsche even the strong perish (although they are sometimes able to chose how they die).

I suppose you can always reach the conclusion that because you can't find a flaw in someone's theory, then perhaps it is true and you are wrong. I used to be a libertatian, then I read a book on utilitarianism and I was naturally against it. But I couldn't reconcile what it said with my previous beliefs, it just seemed to be right. In the end I changed my own opinion and consider myself a utilitarianist. Look at things with an open mind, like you obiviously have done, and you never know maybe Nietzche was right after all.

PS People tend to like Nietzche straight off the bat becuase, being human, we naturally think of ourselves as Ubermensch.

No mention of enslavement in there, and within Nietzsche even the strong perish (although they are sometimes able to chose how they die).

Ok, but I am still expected to die. If I don't like that conclusion, is there any way to refute it, so that I don't have to die?

Ok, but I am still expected to die. If I don't like that conclusion, is there any way to refute it, so that I don't have to die?

Everything dies.

Hang on while I track down the opening of his Truth & Falsity In An Ultramoral Sense...

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of “world history,” but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die.

No one gets out alive.

Everything dies.

Hang on while I track down the opening of his Truth & Falsity In An Ultramoral Sense...

Once upon a time, in some out of the way corner of that universe which is dispersed into numberless twinkling solar systems, there was a star upon which clever beasts invented knowing. That was the most arrogant and mendacious minute of “world history,” but nevertheless, it was only a minute. After nature had drawn a few breaths, the star cooled and congealed, and the clever beasts had to die.

No one gets out alive.

No, what I mean is, how do I get around being required to be killed for being weak? How do I refute that idea Nietzsche argued for?

No, what I mean is, how do I get around being required to be killed for being weak? How do I refute that idea Nietzsche argued for?

You stop being weak - you become effective in the things you do in and upon the world - you reject the slave morality which you have been raised with and recognise your real potential. Check The Antichrist Section 5.

You stop being weak - you become effective in the things you do in and upon the world - you reject the slave morality which you have been raised with and recognise your real potential. Check The Antichrist Section 5.

So basically, I go from the slave to the master? But I don't have a real mean streak in me, so I would make a poor master. I don't have a will to power to begin with.

So basically, I go from the slave to the master? But I don't have a real mean streak in me, so I would make a poor master. I don't have a will to power to begin with.

The master is not about mastery over people - you are falling into the trap of thinking of it in terms of the slave morality. The slaves view the world as one which is comprised of people who are either Good or Evil - the Good are the self-denying people who make up the herd and live in accordance with the crippling tenets of Judaeo-Christianity, while the Evil are the self-affirming people who rule over the herd and value the self-negating values at nothing, however this opposition is one which is produced by the slaves as a way of condemning their masters.

Nietzsche argues that we should reject the Good/Evil opposition and so return to the Classical good/bad opposition instead. Here being good is defined as being good at operating in the world and affecting it or shaping it, while bad is being bad at operating in the world and affecting it or shaping it. Thus Nietzsche would view a master of a musical instrument or a skilled dancer or a great composer as someone who is good, whereas someone who is a bumbling and inept dabbler would be viewed as someone who is bad.

Nietzsche's philosophical project is centred upon a revolution in the arts - they are one of the things he values most. One can be a master without reigning over other men or oppressing them, instead if one displays or strives towards excellence, then one can fit his description of a master. Thus my earlier mention of Aristotelian excellence earlier in the thread.

Nietzsche, great reading.

I will offer you my suppositon on this Nietzsche quagmire you seem to find yourself in, but first I want to point out that you are refering to portions of Nietzsche as if it was gospel, sacred scripture, tenets which are afforded some divine truth which denote a supernatural truth beyond a philosophers suppositions--stop it.

Now as to my opinion in the area of Nietzschean thought where find yourself.

Nietzsche I feel was using a type of backwards logic to apply some manner of order to the dynamic organism that is human society.

He in fact abandoned the Natural world by supposing Morality of any type.

The Wolf and the Deer do not have a master/slave relationship, the Wolf is no more the master of the Deer then the Deer is the master of Tree.

The natural order dictates that the one who is stronger dominates the weak, but does the Deer know it is Dominated? Does the Wolf know it is Dominating?

No.

You find yourself seeking a place for submission, I offer you this--you have already submitted to those "stronger" then you, as you have no other option.
You no other option as it is such a natural course you have little to no perception of even being dominated.

Nature does not subject itself to morality, to slaves, or masters, those are functions which by their nature are constructs of flawed human logic.

You are who you are, nature does not make distinctions--there are labels for the weak minded to have some grasp over what is happening around them--the Strong--do not need Nietzsche to explain their course--so Who then is his writtings for?

Your only problem with the concepts laid by Nietzsche is that you have been made aware of your state, stop considering, and act.


Or maybe I am just crazy.

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

Well, another problem will occuer when you realize he doesn't have a single coherent philosophy. Reading through his books, it is very clever to see him playfully refute his previous positions. But this is exactly what he wants, to be able to see 'beyond good and evil.' He talks of how betrayed someones' followers feel when a leader refutes himself, but "one should be careful lest and idol slay you." Taking the opposite stance, as an anti-follower, one could take heed to his warning. I think what he accomplished with his changes was a firm stance against dogmatism, if that's possible.

In anycase, to approach a material with a preheld prejudice against the author will not do any good (it isn't possible to approach a material without preheld prejudices, maybe this isn't possible either?). Trying to incorporate the best parts of Nietzsche while ignoring or challenging the unneccessary parts is better.

Nietzsche I feel was using a type of backwards logic to apply some manner of order to the dynamic organism that is human society.

He in fact abandoned the Natural world by supposing Morality of any type.


...but to be fair, Nietzsche doesn't suppose the existence of any morality, other than that which is self-consciously created.

touche'

There seem to be a lot of Nietzsche fans on Nationstates.

A fan of Nietzsche, yes.
A subscriber to his peddled line of thought, no.
I am not buying what he is selling.

I think you would do well to look at Neitzsche's ideas regarding this as more descriptive than normative.

It isnt that you should die, its that under ideal condititions, you would die.

The idea is that under ideal conditions, which do not exist in the world, due to the 'pollution' of the judeo-christian slave morality, your weakness would lead to your death or enslavement.

A good example of a Nietzschean ideal society would be some sort of anarchism where the government which protects your right to live and be free is non-existant. In such a set-up, the strong would have a free hand to kill or enslave you and set up their own rule.

A fan of Nietzsche, yes.
A subscriber to his peddled line of thought, no.
I am not buying what he is selling.

Ok, so how do you refute him?

Ok, so basically, there is no defence against Nietzscheanism other than guns, lots of guns, an arsenal to defend against the übermensch. Damn, I was hoping for some kind of refutation of his ideas.

Ok, so basically, there is no defence against Nietzscheanism other than guns, lots of guns, an arsenal to defend against the übermensch. Damn, I was hoping for some kind of refutation of his ideas.

In a quick read of wikipedia I found this:

The will to power is something like the desire to exert one's will in self-overcoming, although this "willing" may be unconscious. Indeed, it is unconscious in all non-human beings; it was the frustration of this will that first caused man to become conscious at all. The philosopher and art critic Arthur C. Danto says that "aggression" is at least sometimes an approximate synonym. However, Nietzsche's ideas of aggression are almost always meant as aggression toward oneself — a sublimation of the brute's aggression — as the energy a person motivates toward self-mastery.

It seems that what he's saying is that the greater person is a state everyone can and should achieve, not something you either have or don't.

Well, at least I can rest assured that the number of people who actually practice Nietzschean philosophy is relatively small, so I'm in no real danger of being killed by a Nietzschean. Still, I'd feel better if I knew that Nietzsche was incorrect in saying I should die.

Well, at least I can rest assured that the number of people who actually practice Nietzschean philosophy is relatively small, so I'm in no real danger of being killed by a Nietzschean. Still, I'd feel better if I knew that Nietzsche was incorrect in saying I should die.

But did Nietzsche actually advocate killing people just because they are weak?- I thought he advocated following your will, and if your will was something other than killing people, then by killing people you would be submitting to an order to kill.

Somebody already said that all this is ethics, and ethics can never be really 'refuted'. Scientific statements can be refuted, ethical ones not.
But I've read Also sprach Zarathustra long ago, and some of his other works, and I know the feeling: when you read Nietzsche, you start to feel uneasy, uncomfortable. His philosophy is supposed to be a philosophy for the 'strong' ones, which will never be accepted by the 'weak' ones, and of course, nobody really wants to be considered as being 'weak' and that's why many readers hastily want to agree with his philosophy. On the other hand, deep inside you do NOT want to agree... Indeed, very ambiguous feelings.
My best advice is: take some distance for a while, read something else, let it all slumber for a while in your unconsciousness, and then get back to it in a few months or a year. Then you will be better prepared, and it will be easier for you to keep a certain distance. And then you can see what you really think about his philosophy.
Personally, I admire Nietzsche as a writer, and as a rather dramatic personality, but I don't agree with his philosophy. In my opinion, Nietzsche himself was not an Ubermensch or a very strong person. Just before his mental illness (which made him very weak indeed), he attacked a guy who was mistreating his own horse...

I see what you mean. I certainly don't like his conclusions at all, but as you said, ethical statements are statements of what should be, so there isn't much I can do. What I really want is to be able to build a case against his ethics the way he was able to build a case against conventional ethics, but I'm not sure how I would do that.

You can simply deny it.
Does he actually conclude it at all?

And you can always redefine what 'weak' and 'strong' means. A cripple with a gun beats a caveman with a club.


*makes mental note to buy gun*

Well, at least I can rest assured that the number of people who actually practice Nietzschean philosophy is relatively small, so I'm in no real danger of being killed by a Nietzschean. Still, I'd feel better if I knew that Nietzsche was incorrect in saying I should die.


Of course he was. "power" may give one the means to exercise one's will over others, but to my mind "because I can, and you can't stop me" isn't the most convincing arguement for doing something.

So how does that help me? Does it provide a way out from having to resign myself to submission to those with more power?

Get more power than them.

I think you would do well to look at Neitzsche's ideas regarding this as more descriptive than normative.

It isnt that you should die, its that under ideal condititions, you would die.

The idea is that under ideal conditions, which do not exist in the world, due to the 'pollution' of the judeo-christian slave morality, your weakness would lead to your death or enslavement.

A good example of a Nietzschean ideal society would be some sort of anarchism where the government which protects your right to live and be free is non-existant. In such a set-up, the strong would have a free hand to kill or enslave you and set up their own rule.

No, no, no, Nietzsche held in highest esteem someone like Napolean or Alexander. Nietzsche had no ideals, most of his philosophy attempted to destroy the ideaologies man had created. In that sense there would be no 'ideal' Nietzschaen society.

As for anarchism, he despised this as being 'nihilistic.' The weak wanted to destroy power entirelly, and that is something that anarchy strives for. Although differnet forms of anarchism have been advocated by Nietzscheans, he would not have agreed with it.

The enforcement of a morality on society, a religion, is neccessary for the masses. He does not want to destroy ethics, but wants leaders to use it as a tool to acheive greatness rather than submit themselves to it.

No, no, no, Nietzsche held in highest esteem someone like Napolean or Alexander. Nietzsche had no ideals, most of his philosophy attempted to destroy the ideaologies man had created. In that sense there would be no 'ideal' Nietzschaen society.

As for anarchism, he despised this as being 'nihilistic.' The weak wanted to destroy power entirelly, and that is something that anarchy strives for. Although differnet forms of anarchism have been advocated by Nietzscheans, he would not have agreed with it.

The enforcement of a morality on society, a religion, is neccessary for the masses. He does not want to destroy ethics, but wants leaders to use it as a tool to acheive greatness rather than submit themselves to it.

Hmm, so maybe that is a weakness I can attack. The assumption that leadership is good even when conventional morality is rejected.

Ok, so basically, there is no defence against Nietzscheanism other than guns, lots of guns, an arsenal to defend against the übermensch. Damn, I was hoping for some kind of refutation of his ideas.Actually, as people have been trying to say. It's about self empowerment.
If you want to take him literally, then sure, guns are the great equalizer.
But it's more about mental/spiritual self empowerment.
Don't let other people tell you what your place is, determine it yourself. Make your own choices and accept what it brings you (since you have no control beyond doing your best and it'd be futile to worry about it).

What I really want is to be able to build a case against his ethics the way he was able to build a case against conventional ethics, but I'm not sure how I would do that.Try any other branch of ethics, try Kant, utilitarianism, Social contracts, natural ethics, Confucian ethics, etc. Most contradict each other and lead to different conclusions, other are compatible. Choose whichever makes sense to you, or think up something yourself.
And by making your own choice and not letting others, least of all Nietzsche, prescribe what you should do, you're consequently acting Nietzschean. Be strong, and deny it.

No, no, no, Nietzsche held in highest esteem someone like Napolean or Alexander. Nietzsche had no ideals, most of his philosophy attempted to destroy the ideaologies man had created. In that sense there would be no 'ideal' Nietzschaen society.

As for anarchism, he despised this as being 'nihilistic.' The weak wanted to destroy power entirelly, and that is something that anarchy strives for. Although differnet forms of anarchism have been advocated by Nietzscheans, he would not have agreed with it.

The enforcement of a morality on society, a religion, is neccessary for the masses. He does not want to destroy ethics, but wants leaders to use it as a tool to acheive greatness rather than submit themselves to it.


I only used anarchy as an example inasmuch as it would allow people like Napoleon or Alexander to more easily subjugate the rest, as even the most basic social structures which enforce the 'slave morality' would be gone.

I only used anarchy as an example inasmuch as it would allow people like Napoleon or Alexander to more easily subjugate the rest.Neither would have had command of an army to start with. OR existing infrastructure to support one.
But I suppose that's nitpicking.

Neither would have had command of an army to start with. OR existing infrastructure to support one.
But I suppose that's nitpicking.

All the same, I think Nietzsche would view anarchy kindly, not as an end but as a means to effect the transvaluation of values and return the world to the 'more pure' state before it was polluted by 'slave morality.'

I dont think that a true conqueror figure would have any trouble raising an army, I think that this would be evidence of his fitness to rule, in Nietzsche's opinion.

So why did he view power as the new good? What did he base his believe in aristocracy, power, etc. on?

Actually, as people have been trying to say. It's about self empowerment.
If you want to take him literally, then sure, guns are the great equalizer.
But it's more about mental/spiritual self empowerment.
Don't let other people tell you what your place is, determine it yourself. Make your own choices and accept what it brings you (since you have no control beyond doing your best and it'd be futile to worry about it).


There are always going to be situations where you have less power, or no control - it helps to plan for those eventualities.

It's nice to have a gun - but having a gun without the proper attitude doesn't work. It's the person behind the gun, not the gun itself, that is truly dangerous.

He said something like - when you stare long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you. - can anyone see the anit-reality of that statement. However, could it possiblly be we all of us count ourselves within the Domminance that Prevails. I would be most interested in hearing what you would not like to resign, Power, Greed, Glutiney

and for those of you listening at home and are still wondering about Anti- Reality be sure and order your compilmentory copy of Anti - Reality and other divissions of perception by D H. Johnson

He said something like - when you stare long into the abyss, the abyss stares back into you.

So basically, that applies here as well?

I rather like the sound of this Nietzsche fellow! *makes metal note to read Beyond Good and Evil.*

I rather like the sound of this Nietzsche fellow! *makes metal note to read Beyond Good and Evil.*

Why? He was incredibly anti-social. He doesn't sound too likeable if you ask me.

Why? He was incredibly anti-social. He doesn't sound too likeable if you ask me.

Well he makes sense.

I dont think he needs to be refuted, he was a philosopher not a scientist, you can simply say "I disagree".

So why did he view power as the new good? What did he base his believe in aristocracy, power, etc. on?

OK, let's go with a simple Nietzsche, who saw Christianity as attempting to destroy the master morality. Power, honor, pride, proportional equality, self-respect, and an admiration for the human body and the world were all part of the older 'master' morality. The master morality viewed the world as 'good or bad.' When Christianity or other such ascetic religions came along ,they reversed all of these. Weakness was held in higher esteem than power, humility over pride, total equality over proportional (everyone is equal in the eyes of God) asceticism over self-respect and admiration, and a pessimistic outlook on the world, that this world is lower than God's rather than an optimistic enjoyment of the world. These slave moralities viewed the world more gogmatically as 'good or evil.' Nietzsche held the ancient 'master' morality in higher esteem than the contemporary morality which surrounded him (we must take into account how Christian morality has changed within the overindulgent American populace. He was arguing against a different Christianity than the one we know.) This would be a better place to start arguing. Again, this is a simple explanation.
As for his 'basis,' he held in high esteem people like Jesus who did not prescribe to a contemporary morality but instead created their own. Jesus not only created his own, but believed he was God, that he had the power to create this morality. It's amazing, I think Jesus becomes far more admirable from an atheistic point of view than a Christian one. For Christians, that was his God given destiny. For atheists (who are not so proud to simply dismiss Jesus) he made himself into the greatness he was.
Anyway, he relates power quite often with life, in that power is neccessary to live (but power is far more important than life) To ask why he thiks it is 'good' is hard to answer, since a lot of his philosophy dealt with trying to see "beyond good and evil." A first step would be to start thinking, "such and such a concept (i.e. life) is not good or evil, but at depending it could be either." This is not what he means by seeing "beyond good and evil" but would be a nice first step. I think the final step would be to try and think 'life is neither good or eivl, it just is," but that statement alone holds too many assumptions for Nietzsche to even moderately like.

I see, I understand precisely what you're getting at, but surely there must be some mistake in his ideas that renders his conclusion of killing the weak and supporting aristocracy invalid. That's what I'm interested in finding, the way to avoid the conclusions that render me unworthy of life.

I see, I understand precisely what you're getting at, but surely there must be some mistake in his ideas that renders his conclusion of killing the weak and supporting aristocracy invalid. That's what I'm interested in finding, the way to avoid the conclusions that render me unworthy of life.

Ah, but you're approaching a new topic with a predetermined conclusion, listen to Marx my friend, what is needed for a philospher is;

"a merciless criticism of everything existing, merciless in two senses: this criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions and must not shrink from a collision with the established powers."

When one philosophizies (sp?) one must never be afraid. I always have a hard time with this, perhaps it is impossible?
I warn you against rationalization, if you go into an argument wanting to acheive a set conclussion, you'll end up with a very intricate and confusing rationale of what you want rather than a logical conclussion that may not be what you intended (much like what Nietzsche would say the slave morality is).

Ah, but you're approaching a new topic with a predetermined conclusion, listen to Marx my friend, what is needed for a philospher is;

"a merciless criticism of everything existing, merciless in two senses: this criticism must not be afraid of its own conclusions and must not shrink from a collision with the established powers."

When one philosophizies (sp?) one must never be afraid. I always have a hard time with this, perhaps it is impossible?
I warn you against rationalization, if you go into an argument wanting to acheive a set conclussion, you'll end up with a very intricate and confusing rationale of what you want rather than a logical conclussion that may not be what you intended (much like what Nietzsche would say the slave morality is).

So you mean I shouldn't start from the conclusion that I should live? I don't want to die, though. Surely there is some way out of this that would allow me to live, some loophole or mistake on Nietzsche's part that would allow me to get around the conclusion requiring my death. Yes, I know, I shouldn't start with a predetermined conclusion, but I really would prefer it if I didn't have to kill myself.

So you mean I shouldn't start from the conclusion that I should live? I don't want to die, though. Surely there is some way out of this that would allow me to live, some loophole or mistake on Nietzsche's part that would allow me to get around the conclusion requiring my death. Yes, I know, I shouldn't start with a predetermined conclusion, but I really would prefer it if I didn't have to kill myself.

Nietzsche would definitely not require you to kill yourself, do so would be nihilistic and anti-life. He wanted us to realize we do enjoy life, every painful, suffering, supressive minute of it, and if we don't we'll create elaborate lies so we do! Who told you Nietzsche would require you to kill yourself? I don't think he was that mean of a guy, to pick you out individually an say "DIE!" He was far to subjective for that.

A quick skimming of this thread reveals that no one has ever discovered the Fiddlebottoms superdebating Nietzsche refuting technique yet, so I shall illumine you all.
The moment someone starts speaking in favour of Nietzsche, you pull a shotgun out of your pocket and shoot them in the face, spattering brains all over the place. Then, you yell out "WHOSE WILL IS TRIUMPHANT NOW, BITCH!"
In all my years of filosofizing I have never once seen someone present a good rebuttal to this argument, in fact most people will simply slump over and bleed all over the place in reaction to your awesome debating prowess.

Nietzsche would definitely not require you to kill yourself, do so would be nihilistic and anti-life. He wanted us to realize we do enjoy life, every painful, suffering, supressive minute of it, and if we don't we'll create elaborate lies so we do! Who told you Nietzsche would require you to kill yourself? I don't think he was that mean of a guy, to pick you out individually an say "DIE!" He was far to subjective for that.

But then how do you account for this quote below (emphasis mine)? What is it if not a call to slaughter the weak?

"What is good? Everything that heightens the feeling of power in man, the will to power, power itself. What is Bad? Everything that is born of weakness. What is happiness? The feeling that power is growing, that resistance is overcome. Not contentedness but more power; not peace but war; not virtue but fitness. The weak and the failures shall perish: first principle is our love [sic] of man. And they shall even be given every possible assistance..." — Nietzsche's The Antichrist

I mean, really, how do you refute that idea? I have looked for some kind of way around him, but is clear by now, there simply is none. He did a superb job on that, if nothing else. I wanted so badly to live, but if he is right, there simply is only one course of action I can take and that is to follow as he prescribed.

I mean, really, how do you refute that idea? I have looked for some kind of way around him, but is clear by now, there simply is none. He did a superb job on that, if nothing else. I wanted so badly to live, but if he is right, there simply is only one course of action I can take and that is to follow as he prescribed.

First, that quote is not a good summary of Nietzsche's life philosophy. I've read plenty of quotes that specifically say the ubermensch wouldn't be some bloody tyrant who took pleasure in killing or tricking the masses. This would be a form of weakness, the tyrant relies on the emotions of the masses as a source of his power. I'd like to see what the rest of the surrounding paragraph was talking about before I made a judgement on what he was saying, and even if he is saying what you fear, he might have just been in a bad mood (can you say you've never had a moment where you thought "kill all my enemies!"?) It's clique, but judging a philosopher by a quote is like judging a picture by an extreme close-up, with little idea of what the entire picture is.

If you wanna start arguing with Nietzsche, don't start with his 'morality' start with his logic. Much of his logic is against the Hegelian dialectic. If you can prove Hegel right, you can prove Nietzsche wrong.

So you mean I shouldn't start from the conclusion that I should live? I don't want to die, though. Surely there is some way out of this that would allow me to live, some loophole or mistake on Nietzsche's part that would allow me to get around the conclusion requiring my death. Yes, I know, I shouldn't start with a predetermined conclusion, but I really would prefer it if I didn't have to kill myself.
Letila, you must have "The strong must kill the weak" engraved in your mind. It was about intellectual/spiritual strength. You could exert it over others, but that wasn' the point. :rolleyes:

Letila, you must have "The strong must kill the weak" engraved in your mind. It was about intellectual/spiritual strength. You could exert it over others, but that wasn' the point.

Then why was he so fond of aristocracy?

First, that quote is not a good summary of Nietzsche's life philosophy. I've read plenty of quotes that specifically say the ubermensch wouldn't be some bloody tyrant who took pleasure in killing or tricking the masses. This would be a form of weakness, the tyrant relies on the emotions of the masses as a source of his power. I'd like to see what the rest of the surrounding paragraph was talking about before I made a judgement on what he was saying, and even if he is saying what you fear, he might have just been in a bad mood (can you say you've never had a moment where you thought "kill all my enemies!"?) It's clique, but judging a philosopher by a quote is like judging a picture by an extreme close-up, with little idea of what the entire picture is.

There's a certain level of professionalism you're supposed to have in a philosophical text, I thought. Would a professional philosopher exclaim something out of anger like that if they didn't mean it?

Nietzsche himself said, I forget now the source but it was one of his main works, that he disbelieved in Darwinian/Spencerian "Survival of the fittest" because the weak triumphed over the strong again & again in nature, so it didn't hold true. The strong, need not be the physically strong. It is the "morally" strong, by Nietzschean standards. If Nietzsche had meant the physically strong, he would have excluded himself, as he was not the apogee of human framework.

Then why was he so fond of aristocracy?



There's a certain level of professionalism you're supposed to have in a philosophical text, I thought. Would a professional philosopher exclaim something out of anger like that if they didn't mean it?

Nietzsche was not a 'systematic' philosopher. He based his ideas not around a logiticians method, but around aphorisms and sentiment. He sought to break the mold of philosophical professionalism.

He was fond of the aristocracy as a concept, a focalization to invest ideology with, to focus ones orientation for vitality around. For if everyone is equal, there isn't the energy and vitality possible in making one the source of loyalty and direction in comradship. It doesn't necessarily have anything to do with ones own individuality if their leadership has traits about themselves any different, it is the individuals acts to the spirit of the law, rather than the letter of the law to Nietzsche anyhow. The spirit of Nietzsches law in his idea of 'philosopher kings' was one of uninhibited vitalism and not of leaderships directive influence in the commonly known sense within our christianized society.

If you wanna start arguing with Nietzsche, don't start with his 'morality' start with his logic. Much of his logic is against the Hegelian dialectic. If you can prove Hegel right, you can prove Nietzsche wrong.

This would only work if you operate on the assumption that there can only be one single truth, which is a particularly un-Nietzschean outlook on the world.

There's a certain level of professionalism you're supposed to have in a philosophical text, I thought. Would a professional philosopher exclaim something out of anger like that if they didn't mean it?

Nietzsche doesn't follow the standard rules of philosophy - he likens his method to philosophising with a hammer instead. As to this notion of a certain level of professionalism in philosophical texts... no. You have obviously not read the well-respected philosophical texts I have which include long discourses on lying naked screaming on the bathroom floor while smashed out of your head on cheap whiskey (Nick Land - Thirst For Annihilation). Nietzsche changed the rules when he came on the scene, and those following from him, Bataille, for example, even though at heart he remained something of a Hegelian, expanded and tweaked these new rules until we arrive in the 1980s and the very idea of proper rules of philosophical discourse is not only called into question but also rejected outwrite by several prominent figures.

philosophising with a hammer

i always loved nietzche's use of language

i always loved nietzche's use of language

So you wouldn't happen to know of any good anarchist critiques of Nietzsche, would you?

So you wouldn't happen to know of any good anarchist critiques of Nietzsche, would you?

hmm, mostly what i can think of are anarchist interpretations of him. cause mostly people have thought he had valuable things to add to our discourse.

hmm, mostly what i can think of are anarchist interpretations of him. cause mostly people have thought he had valuable things to add to our discourse.

Isn't that kind of like trying to do an anarchist interpretation of George Bush? Exactly what would he have to add to anarchist discourse? How do you deal with his arguments in favor of hierarchy and such?

Ok, I've been reading this for quite awhile. Tell me why it is so important to discredit the man? It's philosophy, not law.

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

Having not read over 8 pages of material, you'll forgive if I'm merely rehashing someone else's point:

Nietzsche is not about the strong ruling over the weak. Nietzsche is about defining the strong as having power over themselves. The overman has rational faculties, but is not a slave to it. He has emotional faculties that he recognizes and enjoys, but he is not a slave to his passions, either. Rather, both of his faculties are slave to the exercise of his will.

People forget that in The Birth of Tragedy, he defined his overman as an artistic Socrates, not an embryonic Adolph Hitler. He also claimed that one ubermensch in history was Goethe, a man with a brilliant mind but with a body that was incredibly frail, meaning that ubermensch's must be something else/more than simply the people best able to oppress other people. Yet another was Jesus, and I don't see him oppressing many masses in the Bible.

If you want to refute Nietzsche, the best way to do so is to critique the foundation of his theory. His original base for the theory goes back to a reaction to the utilitarians in England. Basically, when asked why people should act in such a manner as to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness, people like Bentham and Hutcheson argued that this is how people in the state of nature act; it is therefore natural for man to do this, and by extension, since this is the natural function of man, it is therefore the course of action most conducive to man's well-being.

Nietzsche, a philologist by trade, argued that if you look at how people used language in ancient societies, it clearly shows that Bentham and Hutcheson were wrong: when people talk about goodness in ancient languages, they don't speak in terms of good and evil, but in terms of good and bad. As such, it isn't "natural" for man to be morally virtuous in an utilitarian sense, but it is natural for them to be virtuous in the sense of being excellent; an idea, ironically enough, that happens to coincide very closely with Nietzsche's concept of the will to power.

The will to power is precisely about developing an idea of excellence based on your own reasoning and passions, and then implementing it without regard for social conventions or tired notions like moral law or categorical imperative. There is only finding what you do well, and excelling at it. That is man's natural function. Now, it might be that what you are best at is subjugating people, in which case that is your natural function. Someone like Napoleon would an ubermensch in this sense. It might also be the case that you are best at healing or tending to people's artistic or spiritual needs. In that case, that is just as much excellence, and because of it, Jesus and Goethe were considered ubermensch's as well. The point is that in either case, the deciding factor is not whether they helped people or oppressed them, but whether they did so because they mastered their passions and became creative, and as a part of that process did what they did, or not.

The way to critique this is obvious: this may well be what people in the old days talked about; hell, it may well be natural. But that doesn't make it right, and a society in which people are bound by such notions as the moral law and categorical imperatives are better, both in their functioning and in the health of their citizenry, than are societies that employ a Nietzschian ethic.

There's a certain level of professionalism you're supposed to have in a philosophical text, I thought. Would a professional philosopher exclaim something out of anger like that if they didn't mean it?

Yes, yes he would, that's why he's so much more entertaining to read than other philosophers. He goes off on irrelevant tangents just to poke fun at (rather mercilessly) women and the apostles.

Ok, I've been reading this for quite awhile. Tell me why it is so important to discredit the man? It's philosophy, not law.

Because philosophy is supposed to be true. I mean, I'm facing reasoned out proof that I shouldn't be alive. I can't help but feel compelled to accept it just as anyone would if they believed in following what was rational.

Because philosophy is supposed to be true. I mean, I'm facing reasoned out proof that I shouldn't be alive. I can't help but feel compelled to accept it just as anyone would if they believed in following what was rational.

If it was the case that you shouldn't be alive, surely you wouldn't be. The fact that you're alive proves that you should be, at least in an amoral sense.

Exactly what would he have to add to anarchist discourse?

well, he has this tendency to say things like the following:

"Why so hard?" the kitchen coal once said to the diamond. "After all, are we not close kin?"

Why so soft? O my brothers, thus I ask you: are you not after all my brothers?

Why so soft, so pliant and yielding? Why is there so much denial, self-denial, in your hearts? So little destiny in your eyes?

And if you do not want to be destinies and inexorable ones, how can you one day triumph with me?

And if your hardness does not wish to flash and cut through, how can you one day create with me?

For all creators are hard. And it must seem blessedness to you to impress your hand on millennia as on wax.

Blessedness to write on the will of millennia as on bronze--harder than bronze, nobler than bronze. Only the noblest is altogether hard.

This new tablet, O my brothers, I place over you: Become hard!"

which bears more than a passing resemblence to the old line about how "the great only appear great because we are on our knees", and we should therefore rise up.

you can't refute nature.

which bears more than a passing resemblence to the old line about how "the great only appear great because we are on our knees", and we should therefore rise up.

Yes, but he also praised aristocracy and hated anarchism, calling it a "slave morality" that glorified weakness (see the link on him in my signature). Just because he said a few things with an anarchist bent doesn't make him significant to anarchists any more than the Republicans cutting taxes make them an ally.

Here's an answer: if the weak perished, the strong would have to do all the boring jobs themselves. Thus, the weak shall not be destroyed. Your life is safe.

Yes, but he also...hated anarchism, calling it a "slave morality" that glorified weakness

well, it has to be said that at least some part of anarchism (and socialism in general) has in fact been motivated by a sort of heretical christian morality, which is really what he means. if you think that slave morality is a bad thing, and that it is a necessary component of anarchism, well then i guess you are out of luck.

stirner said things i don't particularly agree with. so did proudhon. and dear bob, so did bakunin.

meh.

as to your general issue with nietzsche, it seems to me that our friend who already has his higher degree in philosophy covered it well enough, starting way back at the beginning of this.

Yes, but he also praised aristocracy and hated anarchism, calling it a "slave morality" that glorified weakness (see the link on him in my signature). Just because he said a few things with an anarchist bent doesn't make him significant to anarchists any more than the Republicans cutting taxes make them an ally.


Given time I'm pretty sure that I could find passages in Nietzsche lashing out at any ideology you care to mention.


I still find the idea of Letila having a bee in his bonnet about this whole refuting Nietzsche despite never having read one of his works to be quite frankly farcical.

Letila, if you want to refute him, you must engage with him, and to do that you must find out what he actually said, rather than relying on the interpretation of others. If you are happy sheepishly accepting their perspective, fine, but it is your loss. If you actually took the effort to read his works you might just find something of value, rather than letting yourself be blinded by prejudices shaped by others.

If you actually took the effort to read his works you might just find something of value, rather than letting yourself be blinded by prejudices shaped by others.

at the very least, he's good for tossing out amusing turns of phrase

"Besides, the desert of which I just spoke, into which the strong, independent spirits withdraw and isolate themselves—oh, how different it seems from the desert educated people dream about. For in some circumstances these educated people are themselves this desert. And certainly no actor of the spirit could simply endure it—for them it is not nearly romantic enough or Syrian, not nearly enough of a theatrical desert! It's true there's no lack of camels there—but that's the only similarity between them."

well, it has to be said that at least some part of anarchism (and socialism in general) has in fact been motivated by a sort of heretical christian morality, which is really what he means. if you think that slave morality is a bad thing, and that it is a necessary component of anarchism, well then i guess you are out of luck.

But things like equal opportunity, lack of authority, and mutual aid are what make anarchism anarchist, aren't they? Hense the so-called slave morality would have to be part of anarchism unless it was redefined.

Letila, if you want to refute him, you must engage with him, and to do that you must find out what he actually said, rather than relying on the interpretation of others. If you are happy sheepishly accepting their perspective, fine, but it is your loss. If you actually took the effort to read his works you might just find something of value, rather than letting yourself be blinded by prejudices shaped by others.

Ok, I'll see about it.

Yes, the name of my nation was apparently poorly chosen. It meant Beautiful-land in a language I made up, though.

But surely someone has managed to refute Nietzscheanism without invoking medical conditions or biographical incidents.
I think the best way to refute Nietzche is by remembering the following:

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

I think the best way to refute Nietzche is by remembering the following:

"God is dead" - Nietzsche

"Nietzsche is dead" - God

Uh-huh. You have missed the fact that it wasn't Nietzsche that killed Him, but instead the people/herd/mass/society. Nietzsche was just providing the oration.

Uh-huh. You have missed the fact that it wasn't Nietzsche that killed Him, but instead the people/herd/mass/society. Nietzsche was just providing the oration.
Nietzsche pretended to declare God dead. In the long run, God is still around, regardless of whether or not you admit His existence, while Nietzsche is a name that pops up only in certain circles.

Ok, I'll see about it.

The Antichrist isn't a bad place to start,and Twilight Of The Idols isn't too shoddy a point to dip your toe in the waters - although both only deal with aspects of his philosophy, they are both short works (<100 pages) and stand alone pretty well when covering certain facets of his thought.

The hard stuff is in works like The Will To Power, The Genealogy Of Morals and too a lesser extent Beyond Good And Evil*. If nothing else the greater length of these ones makes it a bit harder to see the wood for the trees. Also Sprach Zarathustra, despite possibly being attractive as it is written in the form of a novel, is probably best left until you have more of a grip on what's going on and are able to read into his at time opaque allusions and metaphors.


_________

* Some chapters of BG&E are actually pretty self-contained and useable as introductions too - Part Five: On The Natural History Of Morals covers the birth of the slave morality in a reasonable compact and comprehensive fashion.

________

Word of warning: when attempting to refute Nietzsche bare in mind his words...

He who fights with monsters should look to it that he himself does not become a monster. And when you gaze long into an abyss the abyss also gazes into you.

Damn, he's so eminently quotable - frex:

I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.

'I don't like it' - Why? - 'I am not up to it.' - Has anyone ever answered like that?

BG&E: 185

Nietzsche pretended to declare God dead. In the long run, God is still around, regardless of whether or not you admit His existence, while Nietzsche is a name that pops up only in certain circles.

Nietzsche wasn't actually talking about the question of existence of a divine being, but instead whether the belief in that divine being actually held sway over the minds of the masses. He was the late coming herald of the age of atheism. Even if God is (still) alive, Nietzsche's point stands - the Western world has entered a phase where there is no longer the constant recourse to a deity or his church as the ultimate form of authority.

Taking Nietzsche out of context and placing him against the backdrop of the Muslim world, for example, where that form of authority still stands is to misrepresent him, and similarly imagining that he made the statement with reference to those of the Judaeo-Christian tradition who still firmly believe as a minority of the greater populace is to miss the point.

In the long run, God is still around, regardless of whether or not you admit His existence

even if that was true, it's completely irrelevant to the point that was being made

Then why was he so fond of aristocracy?

Why? Because with the exception of the folk arts, throughout history the economic conditions have dictated that the vast majority of great artistic achievements have either been created by the aristocracy or funded by their patronage. Nietzsche is not just calling for a new aristocracy for the sake of it, instead he is calling for a new society which lets the excellence of humankind shine through creativity. There were no historical examples of such a culture where the aristocracy or slave-masters were not present and the guiding forces, but it is not a necessary truth that the aristocracy must exist as we conventionally understand the term in such a society. Oft-times the aristocracy are used as a short-hand metaphor for those individuals that have started to transcend the limitations of the normal human being in the same way that the normal human being has transcended the limitations of the other apes.


Yes, I know I'm ranting, but its 6:30am in my part of the world.

Why? Because with the exception of the folk arts, throughout history the economic conditions have dictated that the vast majority of great artistic achievements have either been created by the aristocracy or funded by their patronage. Nietzsche is not just calling for a new aristocracy for the sake of it, instead he is calling for a new society which lets the excellence of humankind shine through creativity. There were no historical examples of such a culture where the aristocracy or slave-masters were not present and the guiding forces, but it is not a necessary truth that the aristocracy must exist as we conventionally understand the term in such a society. Oft-times the aristocracy are used as a short-hand metaphor for those individuals that have started to transcend the limitations of the normal human being in the same way that the normal human being has transcended the limitations of the other apes.

Would that mean he was refering more to the meaning when looking at the words roots then how it was conventionally used?

Probably a stupid question. But I have no idea what aristocracy is in German or how he refered to.

Yes, I know I'm ranting, but its 6:30am in my part of the world.

Up early or slowly regaining sobriety or other?

Nietzsche pretended to declare God dead. In the long run, God is still around, regardless of whether or not you admit His existence, while Nietzsche is a name that pops up only in certain circles.

Nietzche was entirely accurate in what he said regarding god. If you imagine that he meant god was once alive and is now dead, you missed something significant.

Damn, I'm still no closer to that refutation than when I started.

Damn, I'm still no closer to that refutation than when I started.

In all fairness, it really doesnt seem like you're actually trying ernestly to refute Nietzsche.

Also, you havent responded to many of the explanations you've been given.

Because philosophy is supposed to be true. I mean, I'm facing reasoned out proof that I shouldn't be alive. I can't help but feel compelled to accept it just as anyone would if they believed in following what was rational.

Wrong. Philosophy is not Science. Nothing about philosophy can be proven or tested to assert its "truthfullness."

In all fairness, it really doesnt seem like you're actually trying ernestly to refute Nietzsche.

I'm trying, but I'm just a mere member of the herd held back by slave morality and weakness. I can only do so much in refuting an expert philosopher like Nietzsche. I can only get so far without a degree in philosophy, you know.

I'm trying, but I'm just a mere member of the herd held back by slave morality and weakness.

then don't let yourself be held back by it or act out of ressentiment.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9865856&postcount=16

then don't let yourself be held back by it or act out of ressentiment.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.ph...6&postcount=16

But as I understand it, opposing the power of the élites is the keystone of anarchism. You cannot be an anarchist and a master at the same time last time I checked.

But as I understand it, opposing the power of the élites is the keystone of anarchism. You cannot be an anarchist and a master at the same time last time I checked.

You can be a master of the world, but not a master of men, despite what Nietzsche claims - although he draws a conection between societies with elites /aristocracies/nobilities and the arisal of the higher men, his arguments there are weak and unconvincing. Historical examples show us that it is possible to achieve great things without lording it over others or being their political masters. Nietzsche skirts around the issue when discussing examples of higher men - frex, Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama* both exercised their will without ruling over men.


* despite his disagreements with both of them, although it would be fairer to say that he had a bone to pick with Christians rather than CHrist, and his attitude to Buddhism is one of admiration for a group who have chosen a different path to his.

You can be a master of the world, but not a master of men, despite what Nietzsche claims - although he draws a conection between societies with elites /aristocracies/nobilities and the arisal of the higher men, his arguments there are weak and unconvincing. Historical examples show us that it is possible to achieve great things without lording it over others or being their political masters. Nietzsche skirts around the issue when discussing examples of higher men - frex, Jesus or Siddhartha Gautama* both exercised their will without ruling over men.

* despite his disagreements with both of them, although it would be fairer to say that he had a bone to pick with Christians rather than Christ, and his attitude to Buddhism is one of admiration for a group who have chosen a different path to his.

So basically, that is his error that I've been looking for, or rather one of them?

Hmm, it looks like I might have a chance. Now I just need to find another flaw.:sniper: :mp5:

Hmm, it looks like I might have a chance. Now I just need to find another flaw.:sniper: :mp5:

I find it odd what you perceive to be a flaw. Maybe this is why none earlier could help you in your venture.

I find it odd what you perceive to be a flaw. Maybe this is why none earlier could help you in your venture.

What do you mean? Isn't a mistake in his reasoning a flaw?

What do you mean? Isn't a mistake in his reasoning a flaw?

This is what I mean, that he opposes Christians but not Jesus you see to be a mistake in reasoning? or Grampus' opinion that Nietzsche's "arguments there are weak and unconvincing."? If the latter, then all it took for you to believe Nietzsche was wrong then was for someone else to say his arguments were weak and unconvincing?

This is what I mean, that he opposes Christians but not Jesus you see to be a mistake in reasoning? or Grampus' opinion that Nietzsche's "arguments there are weak and unconvincing."? If the latter, then all it took for you to believe Nietzsche was wrong then was for someone else to say his arguments were weak and unconvincing?

Maybe what NSGeneral needs is some kind of virtual Nietzsche reading group... we could shed some light on him for the uninitiated and fight tooth and claw as the anarchos fight with the elitists.

Of course, I could always point out the simplest and most direct way of refuting Nietzsche*, but that would spoil all the fun.


* That being to refute his primitive assumptions, such as the whole notion of the WTP being an adequate or sufficient metaphor for the nature of the drives of hiumanity, or the whole idea that 'great' works are somehow linked to a social divide or a particular class, or pointing out the folly of a human attempting to describe the characteristics of a 'higher man' - would we ask an ape to provide a definition of a human being?...

What do you mean? Isn't a mistake in his reasoning a flaw?

Not for the Nietzschster, no - internal contradictions trouble him little, he was happy to leave that to the post-Hegelians. He takes whatever rules previously applied and smashes them. Nietzsche may not cast as long a shadow as Plato over philosophy, but just about anything following him save for the purely analytic must play by his new set of 'rules'. (inverted commas used to show the shifting sands upon which we find ourselves.)

Got round to reading any actual texts by the chap yet? If not then this whole discussion is rendered utterly pointless and is left as just a collation of tawdry second-hand interpretations.

Not for the Nietzschster, no - internal contradictions trouble him little, he was happy to leave that to the post-Hegelians. He takes whatever rules previously applied and smashes them. Nietzsche may not cast as long a shadow as Plato over philosophy, but just about anything following him save for the purely analytic must play by his new set of 'rules'. (inverted commas used to show the shifting sands upon which we find ourselves.)

So in other words, he has built-in defences to make refutation incredibly hard?

Got round to reading any actual texts by the chap yet? If not then this whole discussion is rendered utterly pointless and is left as just a collation of tawdry second-hand interpretations.

It's not all that easy for someone on my budget. When I scrape together enough money, I will read him.

It's not all that easy for someone on my budget. When I scrape together enough money, I will read him.


Here you go.

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/n#a779

Though I suspect that you are actually not all that interested in substantively critiquing Nietzsche.

Many people use the fact that he was insane from syphillis to refute him.
I'd use this one...

Here you go.

http://www.gutenberg.org/browse/authors/n#a779


Some more here:

http://epistemelinks.com/Main/TextName.aspx?PhilCode=Niet

Dover Press also do printed versions of his texts in their Thrift Editions line which sell for two dollars each ($3.50 for The Will To Power).

Do they not have public lending libraries in the US?

I'd use this one...

That doesn't 'refute' him though, in the definitional sense of the word "refute", just discredits him.

So in other words, he has built-in defences to make refutation incredibly hard?

Isn't that what philosophy is?

That doesn't 'refute' him though, in the definitional sense of the word "refute", just discredits him.

Deosn't even do that - it is a purely ad hominem attack, and there is no evidence of actual madness until his complete mental collapse and with it the end of his writing.

Well, I'll give these books a look, then.

Isn't that what philosophy is?

'What is philosophy?' remains one of the questions that philosophy cannot satisfactorily answer.

Hmm, this Thus Spake Zarathustra is very interesting so far. I have dizzy feeling just from reading it.

Agreed. And thank you for using "Spake", not "Spoke". Archaisms of the world, unite!!!

Sincerely,

Number III

now then, i have never read Nietzsche but will do my utmost to refute him.

The strong should rule the weak. it has also been stated that the strong are those who are naturally good at ruling.

so this strikes me as being similar to Plato's idea of Philosopher kings. Nietzsche however does not seem to suggest who does the other jobs. if there are rightful rulers why are there not rightful toothbrush testers? for his theory of the strong being the rightful ruler it should really be replicated in all professions. i think it should be consistent.

this is all i can think of at the moment. if you can give me a week or so to read the relevant book then maybe i can come up with more (or maybe i'll consign myself to a life of subservience like Letila)

This is the problem I had with philosophy majors.
They always felt compelled to disprove one philosopher or another.

Mel Brooks had it right - anyone who is a philosopher for a living is a BS artist.

Why bother to refute Nietsche? What do you gain by doing so?

Are you compelled by the Will to Power to overpower his ideas with your own?

Why bother to refute Nietsche? What do you gain by doing so?

Are you compelled by the Will to Power to overpower his ideas with your own?

To defend my life and freedom. If I can prove Nietzsche wrong, I won't have to kill myself in accordance with his support of killing the weak and failures nor would I have to submit to his proposed hierarchy. I have no interest in power itself.

To defend my life and freedom. If I can prove Nietzsche wrong, I won't have to kill myself in accordance with his support of killing the weak and failures nor would I have to submit to his proposed hierarchy. I have no interest in power itself.

*bangs own head off wall*

Nietzsche isn't directly concerned with killing off the weak, rather dispatching the sources of weakness. He wants to have done with Christianity and consign it to the ashtray of history, not to kill Christians.

It helps if you understand his most basic points before you try to refute him.

Hmm, this Thus Spake Zarathustra is very interesting so far. I have dizzy feeling just from reading it.

It isn't the easiest starting point - the prose style renders his meaning often opaque, and it is hard to see the wood for the trees. Despite seeming initially attractive because it is a novel, it I would reckon you would learn more from his works written as 'straight' philosophy.

*bangs own head off wall*

Nietzsche isn't directly concerned with killing off the weak, rather dispatching the sources of weakness. He wants to have done with Christianity and consign it to the ashtray of history, not to kill Christians.

It helps if you understand his most basic points before you try to refute him.

Yes, but look at what he considered weakness: social equality, kindness, love, the very things that we hold dear, not surprisingly because they make live liveable. Whether he directly called for it directly, the values he supported would surely have those effects.

It isn't the easiest starting point - the prose style renders his meaning often opaque, and it is hard to see the wood for the trees. Despite seeming initially attractive because it is a novel, it I would reckon you would learn more from his works written as 'straight' philosophy.

Which ones would you suggest?

Yes, but look at what he considered weakness: social equality, kindness, love, the very things that we hold dear, not surprisingly because they make live liveable. Whether he directly called for it directly, the values he supported would surely have those effects.

Unless I'm very much mistaken, he wasn't down on kindness and love. Pity, yes, but not kindness or love. Social equality is a more thorny issue - he would certainly be for equality of opportunity though.

Nietzsche's argument is that the Christian values don't make life liveable at all, instead they are a kind of death cult which makes midgets out of giants. Would we all need the Christian values if we didn't have the shackles of Christian tradition holding us in our squalor? The values which Christianity promotes and which you claim make life liveable are in fact just ways of making the cage look larger and the chain look longer.



Which ones would you suggest?

http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9890359&postcount=128

Unless I'm very much mistaken, he wasn't down on kindness and love. Pity, yes, but not kindness or love. Social equality is a more thorny issue - he would certainly be for equality of opportunity though.

Then why did he praise aristocracy and power? Aristocracy is hardly compatable with equal opportunity and power with kindness. Indeed, how do you account for this quote if not a call for slavery:

"257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the
work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a
society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and
differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in
some form or other."

Nietzsche's argument is that the Christian values don't make life liveable at all, instead they are a kind of death cult which makes midgets out of giants. Would we all need the Christian values if we didn't have the shackles of Christian tradition holding us in our squalor? The values which Christianity promotes and which you claim make life liveable are in fact just ways of making the cage look larger and the chain look longer.

I would not be alive today if it weren't for those values, though. In either case, I would lack freedom, so being alive and having fake freedom would be preferable.

Then why did he praise aristocracy and power? Aristocracy is hardly compatable with equal opportunity and power with kindness. Indeed, how do you account for this quote if not a call for slavery:

"257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the
work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a
society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and
differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in
some form or other."

His idealized conception of aristocracy was purely meritocratic in nature. He assumed that only a few people would ever be overmen, and naturally assumed that they. . .I don't want to say that they should control society, because that would be a misconstrual of what he was talking about: overmen were not about (or at least not purely about) social control. Rather, they should be allowed to supercede the laws of society if they choose to.

But that being said, Nietzsche recognized that overmen arise from anywhere in society; they are not unique to any one class, race, or gender. As such, Nietzsche was strongly for equal opportunity because the one unforgivable in his conception of society was that an overman should be hindered in his development.

As for kindness, keep in mind that the test for whether or not an overman should or should not take an action is that of eternal recurrance: whether you could will that such an action be done over and over ad infinitum. Most kind acts certainly fit this bill. Ergo, there is nothing about overmen in their nature or in their development that means that they can not be kind or even would not be kind. It is just that they would not be kind out of a Christian or Kantian sense of obligation or moral imperative.

I see, but there is one thing I don't quite understand. If Nietzsche didn't believe in a concept of good or evil, then why did he condemn Christianity for glorifying weakness and so on? Maybe I missed something, but it sounds to me like that might be a major contradiction, claiming there is no good and evil and then making value judgements, anyway.

I see, but there is one thing I don't quite understand. If Nietzsche didn't believe in a concept of good or evil, then why did he condemn Christianity for glorifying weakness and so on? Maybe I missed something, but it sounds to me like that might be a major contradiction, claiming there is no good and evil and then making value judgements, anyway.

He didn't believe in Good and Evil, instead he advocated a return to an imagined classical set of values which judged things on the basis of good or bad (in the sense of 'good at doing X' or 'bad at doing Y') - thus 'Beyond Good & Evil'.

Lets run back over the vistory of the slaves: the slaves find themselves lorded over by a set of masters who judge on the basis of good and bad. The slaves cannot directly tear down thier overseers, so instead they cunningly subvert them by claiming that all those things the masters view as 'good' are actually 'Evil' and all those things the masters view as 'bad' are actually 'Good'. Thus the slaves appear justified to themselves even though they have no power over themselves, and in time the slaves' values come to be taken on by the masters (cf. Constantine) and the herd morality rules over everyone.

He was all for making value judgements, but did so knowing full well that the value system he was using was one he had invented himself. He did not believe that values existed in the world, instead they were inventions of human beings, either culturally or as individuals. He is not calling for an end to value judgements, instead the valuation of things on the basis of whether they are life-affirming (yea-saying) things or not.

Once again, this is all really basic stuff here.

He was all for making value judgements, but did so knowing full well that the value system he was using was one he had invented himself. He did not believe that values existed in the world, instead they were inventions of human beings, either culturally or as individuals. He is not calling for an end to value judgements, instead the valuation of things on the basis of whether they are life-affirming (yea-saying) things or not.

Ok, so how did he decide what was life-affirming and what wasn't?

bump

Ok, so how did he decide what was life-affirming and what wasn't?

Does such and such a quality or course of action tend to lead to a world where 'good' is able to thrive?

bump

It's simple, really, Letila. You feel like you're one of the weak? Well, humans, in comparison to the Universe, or even one of its phenomena (a large star, for example), are quite puny and weak.

In fact, as a percentage of the total matter and energy in the Universe, we're a statistical anomaly - even if we set off all our nuclear weapons. And we haven't been around more than a fraction of the existence of the Universe, and haven't changed any appreciable portion of it.

Whenever life gets you down Mrs. Brown, and things seem hard or tough, and people are stupid, obnoxious or daft and you feel that you've had quite enough...

Just remember that you're standing on a planet that's evolving
And revolving at 900 miles an hour

That's orbiting at 19 miles a second,
So it's reckoned

A sun that is the source of all our power

The sun and you and me and all the stars that we can see
Are moving at a million miles a day
In an outer spiral arm, at 40,000 miles an hour
Of the galaxy we call the Milky Way

Our galaxy itself contains a hundred billion stars
It's 100,000 light years side to side

It bulges in the middle, 16,000 light years thick
But out by us it's just 3,000 light years wide

We're 30,000 light years from galactic central point

We go round every two hundred million years

And our galaxy is only one of millions of billions
In this amazing and expanding universe

The universe itself keeps on expanding and expanding

In all of the directions it can whiz
As fast as it can go, the speed of light you know

12 million miles a minute and that's the fastest speed there is

So remember when you're feeling very small and insecure
How amazingly unlikely is your birth
And pray that there's intelligent life somewhere up in space
Because there's bugger all down here on Earth

Does such and such a quality or course of action tend to lead to a world where 'good' is able to thrive?

But my ideas of what makes good able to thrive are vastly different than what Nietzsche believed would. If someone's will to power leads them to bomb a hospital because they believe that the people there are weak or showing pity, then what if I disagree that is life-affirming?

Deosn't even do that - it is a purely ad hominem attack, and there is no evidence of actual madness until his complete mental collapse and with it the end of his writing.

I meant discredit his person pejoratively rather than his philosophy which would require a 'refutation', though in terms of the adversity of madness, its true, is again argueable.

'What is philosophy?' remains one of the questions that philosophy cannot satisfactorily answer.

Yes Indeed. However most stand-points taken within anything dubbed "philosophy" are reinforced to withstand scrutiny and are built to maintain themselves from logical holes. This is about the one common factor throughout all philosophy.

I see, but there is one thing I don't quite understand. If Nietzsche didn't believe in a concept of good or evil, then why did he condemn Christianity for glorifying weakness and so on? Maybe I missed something, but it sounds to me like that might be a major contradiction, claiming there is no good and evil and then making value judgements, anyway.

He argues that the dichotomy between good and evil is an unnatural one for people to make. Instead, they should focus on the dichotomy between good (in the sense of excellence in a craft or skill) and bad (in the sense of inadequacy in a craft or skill).

I've been reading a lot about Nietzsche's position and ideas and the more I read, the more I wonder, how exactly do I refute them? I really don't want to resign myself to being ruled by the powerful simply because I'm weak, but I can't really see any clear ways to refute the will to power, slave/master morality, etc.
In unity there is strength, Grasshopper! :)

He argues that the dichotomy between good and evil is an unnatural one for people to make. Instead, they should focus on the dichotomy between good (in the sense of excellence in a craft or skill) and bad (in the sense of inadequacy in a craft or skill).

I understand that part, but I'm talking more about how he concluded what was life-affirming and what wasn't. How strong are his arguments that the whole will to power thing is life-affirming?

I understand that part, but I'm talking more about how he concluded what was life-affirming and what wasn't. How strong are his arguments that the whole will to power thing is life-affirming?

The will to power is by definition life-affirming. In its exercise it is a yay-saying to life. In opposition to it is its twisted, stunted form - the will to nothingness which is life-denying and nay-saying.*



* Although it is entirely possible for the WTP to decide upon a course which leads to non-existence, however it should be noted that it selects and embraces this end on its own terms.

The will to power is by definition life-affirming. In its exercise it is a yay-saying to life. In opposition to it is its twisted, stunted form - the will to nothingness which is life-denying and nay-saying.*

So my options are to find a way to prove that he was mistaken here. Hmm, I assume that when he says "life-affirming", he mean his life specifically, and not life in general, which is how he is able to call aristocracy, etc., life-affirming even though they hardly affirm life in a broader sense.

bump

"EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the
work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a
society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and
differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in
some form or other."

Have you taken that into context with Nietzsche's philosophical beliefes rather than taking it on face value? Throughout your entire Nietzsche thread you have been searching for a call for mass murder that wasn't there.

It's a direct quote from Nietzsche himself in the book Beyond Good and Evil. I don't see any other possible interpretation of that quote. If Nietzsche meant something else, then why did he write what he wrote? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to come out and say what he meant instead of obfuscating it with a lot of deliberately misleading language?

It's a direct quote from Nietzsche himself in the book Beyond Good and Evil. I don't see any other possible interpretation of that quote. If Nietzsche meant something else, then why did he write what he wrote? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to come out and say what he meant instead of obfuscating it with a lot of deliberately misleading language?

Now maybe I have the context wrong, and I am very thinly read on Nietzsche (and a bit tipsy), but it appears that N is just explaining society rather then giving his vision of it.

And I would think that you would agree with some of the sentiments there. That those at the top dictate dictate the society's virtues. That it will always be like that. And that such a society will require slavery of one kind or another.

But maybe that's just me and the pissant's view of Nietzche.

It's a direct quote from Nietzsche himself in the book Beyond Good and Evil. I don't see any other possible interpretation of that quote. If Nietzsche meant something else, then why did he write what he wrote? Wouldn't it have made much more sense to come out and say what he meant instead of obfuscating it with a lot of deliberately misleading language?


Do you believe that what he said is true, though?

Do you think it is incorrect or just distasteful?

As the other fellow brought up, can you demonstrate whether or not it was descriptive or normative?

Do you believe that what he said is true, though?

Do you think it is incorrect or just distasteful?

I'm not sure. I find it very distasteful, but I'm not sure if I can prove it's inaccurate.

As the other fellow brought up, can you demonstrate whether or not it was descriptive or normative?

It was descriptive, stating his conclusion of what kinds of societies did what.

The best way to refute/fight Nietzsche, and indeed any idea you disagree with, is to cling to your own beliefs and become increasingly violent everytime they're proved false. The armed and dumb can always crush the wise and rational.

It was descriptive, stating his conclusion of what kinds of societies did what.

So find a counter-example, and you will have refuted him. Though as I am not entirely clear what your problem is, other than he wants to kill you, I can't help you until you reduce your complaint.

The best way to refute/fight Nietzsche, and indeed any idea you disagree with, is to cling to your own beliefs and become increasingly violent everytime they're proved false. The armed and dumb can always crush the wise and rational.

Wise words. And compassionate too.

I'll concede that Nietzsche was right about how society works, but not that it should necessarily stay that way.

Now maybe I have the context wrong, and I am very thinly read on Nietzsche (and a bit tipsy), but it appears that N is just explaining society rather then giving his vision of it.

Well indeed then, more should you read by him;

"I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been."

- Nietzsche
...

"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"

- Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, p 225 )

It is the strongest and most evil spirits who have up till now advanced mankind the most: they have again and again re-ignited the slumbering passions - all ordered society makes the passions drowsy - they have awoken again and again the sense of comparison, of contradiction, of joy in the new, daring, untried, they have compelled men to set opinion again opinion, model again model. Most of all by weapons, by overturning boundry stones, by wounding piety: but also by new religions and moralities! The same 'wickedness' is in every teacher and preacher of the new as makes a conqueror infamous. The new, however, is under all circumstances the evil, as that which wants to conquer and overturn the old boundry stones and the old pieties; and only the old is the good! The good men of every age are those who bury the old ideas in the depths of the earth and bear fruit with them, the agriculturalists of the spirit. But that land will at length become fundamentally false theory of morality which is especially celebrated in England: according to this theory the judgements 'good' and 'evil' are the summation of experiences of 'useful' and 'not useful'; that which is called 'good' is that which preserves the species, that which is called 'evil' is that which injures the species. In truth, however, the evil impulses are just as useful, indispensable and preservative of the species as the good: - only their function is different.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Well indeed then, more should you read by him;

"I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been."

- Nietzsche
...

"You want, if possible - and there is no more insane "if possible" - to abolish suffering. And we? It really seems that we would rather have it higher and worse than ever. Well-being as you understand it - that is no goal, that seems to us an end, a state that soon makes man ridiculous and contemptible - that makes his destruction desirable. The discipline of suffering, of great suffering - do you not know that only this discipline has created all enhancements of man so far?"

- Nietzsche (Beyond Good and Evil, p 225 )

It is the strongest and most evil spirits who have up till now advanced mankind the most: they have again and again re-ignited the slumbering passions - all ordered society makes the passions drowsy - they have awoken again and again the sense of comparison, of contradiction, of joy in the new, daring, untried, they have compelled men to set opinion again opinion, model again model. Most of all by weapons, by overturning boundry stones, by wounding piety: but also by new religions and moralities! The same 'wickedness' is in every teacher and preacher of the new as makes a conqueror infamous. The new, however, is under all circumstances the evil, as that which wants to conquer and overturn the old boundry stones and the old pieties; and only the old is the good! The good men of every age are those who bury the old ideas in the depths of the earth and bear fruit with them, the agriculturalists of the spirit. But that land will at length become fundamentally false theory of morality which is especially celebrated in England: according to this theory the judgements 'good' and 'evil' are the summation of experiences of 'useful' and 'not useful'; that which is called 'good' is that which preserves the species, that which is called 'evil' is that which injures the species. In truth, however, the evil impulses are just as useful, indispensable and preservative of the species as the good: - only their function is different.
-Friedrich Nietzsche

Can you give me a w00t for trying to someones huge body of work with a few weak quotations.

Well indeed then, more should you read by him;

I am doing that, as best I can, but have other commitments at the moment. Anyway, I would prefer to get to 'interesting' bits in my own time so I might understand the context...

"I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been."

Where, when, why di he say this one? It sounds compelling.

To be fair, I think what he's saying is that suffering has a very important rôle in life and that without it, we wouldn't do much. Suffering motivates us to take action and reminds us why pleasure is important. You can't have pleasure without pain to make that pleasure significant. I might be giving him too much credit, though. Maybe he was just being sadistic or something.

Incidently, if Nietzsche doesn't believe in any objective moral standards, why can't I simply create my own moral standard that rejects authority? Isn't arguing that his moral standard is objective a contradiction of his claims against the concepts of good and evil?

Where, when, why di he say this one? It sounds compelling.

I wish I could give a better source, though I don't doubt its veracity; http://www.nietzsche.com/

Throughout your entire Nietzsche thread you have been searching for a call for mass murder that wasn't there.

Missed this one, here you go;


"The tendency must be toward the rendering extinct of the wretched, the deformed, the degenerate...Satisfaction of desire should not be practised so that the race as a whole suffers, i.e. that choice no longer occurs, and that anyone can pair off and produce children. The extinction of many types of people is just as desirable as any form of reproduction"

- Friedrich Wilheim Nietzsche (from 'The Racial State' Cambridge University Press, p 34; Friedrich Nietzsche, 'Nachgelassene Fragmente Anfang 1880 bis Sommer 1882', in Giorgio Colli and Mazzino Montinare (eds.), Nietzsches Sämtliche Werke (Munich, 1980), Vol. 9, p. 250., "Nietzsche, 'Nachgelassene Fragmente', p. 189)


"(The supermen) would mold man as an artist would...(to) achieve that immense energy of greatness, to mold the future man by breeding, and, at the same time, by destroying, millions of bungled humans - we must not be deterred by the suffering we create, the equal of which has never been seen!"

- Friedrich Wilheim Nietzsche (from 'Der Führer' by Konrad Heiden, p 230)

Damn, he was even worse than I thought. Now I just need to find a way to refute him and I think I've finally found it:

Nietzsche posits that there is no objective right or wrong, it seems. Therefore, he cannot claim his ethics are anything other than personal opinions. If so, then at best, he is locked into a stalemate by those who reject his values and create their own and if anything, it seems that he has contradicted himself greatly.

If there is no objective right or wrong, then what is to stop me from creating my own standards just as Nietzsche has? He can't seriously claim that my standards are invalid because he has dismissed all morality already. While that doesn't refute him, it does allow me to live and even retain my values.

Damn, he was even worse than I thought. Now I just need to find a way to refute him and I think I've finally found it:

Nietzsche posits that there is no objective right or wrong, it seems. Therefore, he cannot claim his ethics are anything other than personal opinions. If so, then at best, he is locked into a stalemate by those who reject his values and create their own and if anything, it seems that he has contradicted himself greatly.

If there is no objective right or wrong, then what is to stop me from creating my own standards just as Nietzsche has? He can't seriously claim that my standards are invalid because he has dismissed all morality already. While that doesn't refute him, it does allow me to live and even retain my values.


Thats more or less in the spirit of what you've been told to do from the outset.

Simply say "I disagree with his opinion, mine is different."

Thats more or less in the spirit of what you've been told to do from the outset.

Simply say "I disagree with his opinion, mine is different."

Is that really philosophically sound, though, to dismiss a philosophy on nothing other than a gut feeling? I mean, isn't that like saying "I disagree with the theory of evolution because I just don't like it" without providing any hard reasons why not?

Nietzsche posits that there is no objective right or wrong, it seems. Therefore, he cannot claim his ethics are anything other than personal opinions. If so, then at best, he is locked into a stalemate by those who reject his values and create their own and if anything, it seems that he has contradicted himself greatly.

If there is no objective right or wrong, then what is to stop me from creating my own standards just as Nietzsche has? He can't seriously claim that my standards are invalid because he has dismissed all morality already. While that doesn't refute him, it does allow me to live and even retain my values.

That Nietzsche doesn't express that there is a 'moral' right or wrong, he still does express that there is a logical right (or correct) and wrong (or false). Tying morality with what is socially proper to refute Nietzsche is missing Nietzsche's main goal; which was exactly to separate a 'morally' right & wrong from a humanly responsible right & wrong. A "revaluation of values" toward what is not based of a basic reward system of pleasurable/contentment for good and suffering/discontent as evil. To Nietzsche, discontent & pleasure are both external impulses which are proper, and 'correct' to the functioning of a healthy mankind that shouldn't be taken out of the equation. It is pity, shame, etc, which are built out of the basic moral reward structure which are the 'improper' and false means of managing a logical (yet irrational, in the philosophical meaning of "irrationalism") human value system.

So even if you disobey Nietzsches amorality, it doesn't refute what he posits as the "correctness" of his philosophy.

Is that really philosophically sound, though, to dismiss a philosophy on nothing other than a gut feeling? I mean, isn't that like saying "I disagree with the theory of evolution because I just don't like it" without providing any hard reasons why not?

If you have a philosophic basis for trusting your own intuition and instincts / immediate precepts, i.e. not needing to analyze everything to a determining cause, or changing your belief in determinate causes, this is a way to bypass the source of Nietzsches theory altogether. His is based on a certain cause and effect to life. If you change the orientation of aesthetical value away from raw human capacity for affluence toward its surroundings, this is a way of taking a legitimate alternate stand-point to Nietzsche's.

That Nietzsche doesn't express that there is a 'moral' right or wrong, he still does express that there is a logical right (or correct) and wrong (or false). Tying morality with what is socially proper to refute Nietzsche is missing Nietzsche's main goal; which was exactly to separate a 'morally' right & wrong from a humanly responsible right & wrong. A "revaluation of values" toward what is not based of a basic reward system of pleasurable/contentment for good and suffering/discontent as evil. To Nietzsche, discontent & pleasure are both external impulses which are proper, and 'correct' to the functioning of a healthy mankind that shouldn't be taken out of the equation. It is pity, shame, etc, which are built out of the basic moral reward structure which are the 'improper' and false means of managing a logical (yet irrational, in the philosophical meaning of "irrationalism") human value system.

So even if you disobey Nietzsches amorality, it doesn't refute what he posits as the "correctness" of his philosophy.

Damn. Please tell me that you know of a way to refute his ethical values, though.

If you have a philosophic basis for trusting your own intuition and instincts / immediate precepts, i.e. not needing to analyze everything to a determining cause, or changing your belief in determinate causes, this is a way to bypass the source of Nietzsches theory altogether. His is based on a certain cause and effect to life. If you change the orientation of aesthetical value away from raw human capacity for affluence toward its surroundings, this is a way of taking a legitimate alternate stand-point to Nietzsche's.

I'm not sure I understand all of that, but basically, are you saying that the way around is to find a sound philosophical reason for trusting intuition and also to value something other than the will to power?

Is that really philosophically sound, though, to dismiss a philosophy on nothing other than a gut feeling? I mean, isn't that like saying "I disagree with the theory of evolution because I just don't like it" without providing any hard reasons why not?

If philosophy were science, it would be, but philosophy isnt science.

If philosophy were science, it would be, but philosophy isnt science.

Yes, but "It bothers me" is simply a very weak responce to the collected works of Nietzsche. I'd feel much better if I had something more solid to go on than that. I want to know that he was incorrect, not merely fear his ideas and dismiss them for that reason.

Yes, but "It bothers me" is simply a very weak responce to the collected works of Nietzsche. I'd feel much better if I had something more solid to go on than that. I want to know that he was incorrect, not merely fear his ideas and dismiss them for that reason.


IMHO, where Nietzsche fails is that he doesn't satisfactorily justify the continuation of his world view.

Yes, but "It bothers me" is simply a very weak responce to the collected works of Nietzsche. I'd feel much better if I had something more solid to go on than that. I want to know that he was incorrect, not merely fear his ideas and dismiss them for that reason.

He wasnt a scientist though, nothing he said has ever been "proven" because he didnt make testable hypotheses.

The confusion of science and philosophy, made worse by the misnomer "political science," is one of the things that leads people to passionately embrace utopian fantasy worlds like anarchism or communism.

He wasnt a scientist though, nothing he said has ever been "proven" because he didnt make testable hypotheses.

The confusion of science and philosophy, made worse by the misnomer "political science," is one of the things that leads people to passionately embrace utopian fantasy worlds like anarchism or communism.

So? He made arguments in favor of his views and simply ignoring them without trying to show that they are invalid is dodging the issue. I want to confront his philosophy and find its flaws, not live life not knowing whether he was right but ignoring him out of disgust.

I'm not sure I understand all of that, but basically, are you saying that the way around is to find a sound philosophical reason for trusting intuition and also to value something other than the will to power?

Yes. You can 'revalue' in much the way he did, but to different ends. Also the more abstract possibility remains of postulating a philosophy which places intuitive reaction above logical reason, but I won't attempt to elaborate due to the many ways one could go, and the complexities involved in creating something coherent out of that on such a whim.

Though back to revaluing, if you can find positives in 'slave-morality', even rename/redefine Nietzsche's slave-morality (or the characteristics which he dubbed as such) to a useful and meaningful imperative structure, of intrinsic value to the world/being/life/universe, there is a major alternate and just as legitimate take on philosophy as he has.

He sets his sights on the fact that 'slave-morality' makes humans not as pervasive/cunning, or as able to articulate themselves and the world around themselves to their own will as fully as they could, not able to "mold our own future evolution" as it were and take control of our manifest selves outside of our 'giveness' as we are. Well, maybe to say the purpose of humanity has nothing to do with such blind utility, ability for the sake of ability ruins the diversity inherent in defects and inferiors. That the purpose of life is aesthetical in a much different way (Nietzsche saw his world view as aesthetical too, but here I'm putting up a different way), meaning life is a 'art in motion' a living art. Well then, the bad, weak & ugly add to the colourations of that art, it is then a matter of taste.

Also consider, that maybe if humans take control of their destinies in the way Nietzsche desires, we would have removed our innate counterpoints; that is; the opposites necessary for relation to things. There is no measure of weak to strong if most kinds of weakness are destroyed, only then transparent weaknesses, ones that get under our radar of common sense and sensory observation, would survive and this could be more deadly for humanity because maybe the apparent weaknesses balance them out in a social/ecological way that is equally as unapparent, which is far from illogical if the weaknesses are unforeseen to begin with. It is the diversity of types unjudged which keeps the matrix of society and civilization afloat, when all different sub-strata of different, less effective, types of people are gotten rid of, all those socially unimportant people of certain mindsets and blind faith cease to relate to the whole of society for the free-thinkers (that is "Nietzsche's supermen" by one of his considerations of criteria for 'superman') and vital functions which society as a rule does not focus on, because of it being set up to focus on the elite, will be lost due to the fact of us having overlooked it or having been unable to perceive it.

Then again, this is all speculation because Nietzsche's ideal society has never swept away all other social variants, but these arguments hold up against anyones individual view of a "perfected" society when it is a total reappraisal of the current one.

To be honest, your posts are rather confusing to me. I am having trouble understanding some of what you're righting.

Yes. You can 'revalue' in much the way he did, but to different ends. Also the more abstract possibility remains of postulating a philosophy which places intuitive reaction above logical reason, but I won't attempt to elaborate due to the many ways one could go, and the complexities involved in creating something coherent out of that on such a whim.

Though back to revaluing, if you can find positives in 'slave-morality', even rename/redefine Nietzsche's slave-morality (or the characteristics which he dubbed as such) to a useful and meaningful imperative structure, of intrinsic value to the world/being/life/universe, there is a major alternate and just as legitimate take on philosophy as he has.

So basically, if I decide that aspects like kindness or equality have value or positive qualities inspite of what Nietzsche says, it is legitimate for me to reëvaluate them as worthwhile to hold?

He sets his sights on the fact that 'slave-morality' makes humans not as pervasive/cunning, or as able to articulate themselves and the world around themselves to their own will as fully as they could, not able to "mold our own future evolution" as it were and take control of our manifest selves outside of our 'giveness' as we are. Well, maybe to say the purpose of humanity has nothing to do with such blind utility, ability for the sake of ability ruins the diversity inherent in defects and inferiors. That the purpose of life is aesthetical in a much different way (Nietzsche saw his world view as aesthetical too, but here I'm putting up a different way), meaning life is a 'art in motion' a living art. Well then, the bad, weak & ugly add to the colourations of that art, it is then a matter of taste.

So in other other words, you are saying that a case could be made that those Nietzsche disapproved of do in fact add something to life in the form of diversity?

Also consider, that maybe if humans take control of their destinies in the way Nietzsche desires, we would have removed our innate counterpoints; that is; the opposites necessary for relation to things. There is no measure of weak to strong if most kinds of weakness are destroyed, only then transparent weaknesses, ones that get under our radar of common sense and sensory observation, would survive and this could be more deadly for humanity because maybe the apparent weaknesses balance them out in a social/ecological way that is equally as unapparent, which is far from illogical if the weaknesses are unforeseen to begin with. It is the diversity of types unjudged which keeps the matrix of society and civilization afloat, when all different sub-strata of different, less effective, types of people are gotten rid of, all those socially unimportant people of certain mindsets and blind faith cease to relate to the whole of society for the free-thinkers (that is "Nietzsche's supermen" by one of his considerations of criteria for 'superman') and vital functions which society as a rule does not focus on, because of it being set up to focus on the elite, will be lost due to the fact of us having overlooked it or having been unable to perceive it.

So destroying apparent weakness could leave us open to the danger posed by unapparent weakness?

I wish I could give a better source, though I don't doubt its veracity; http://www.nietzsche.com/


Yes I found that too when I Googled the phrase. Though it doesn't help much because I wasn't challenging its authenticity. Just wondering the context in whixh he said it.

If there is no objective right or wrong, then what is to stop me from creating my own standards just as Nietzsche has? He can't seriously claim that my standards are invalid because he has dismissed all morality already. While that doesn't refute him, it does allow me to live and even retain my values.

Nietzche would be proud of you :)

Nietzche would be proud of you

Given his repudiation of "slave morality", I doubt it. If anything, he would be furious that I refuse to accept what he said as correct even though I have no logical arguments against him and only my own desire to stay alive.

Given his repudiation of "slave morality", I doubt it. If anything, he would be furious that I refuse to accept what he said as correct even though I have no logical arguments against him and only my own desire to stay alive.

Surley by wanting to stay alive you are merely exercising your "Will to power" the fact that others will kill you is irrelvent, you will still try to surive and dominate others, were you given the chance. who knows you maybe Ubermensch and have no idea.

His ideas have self-refuted.

Couple of observations about Nietzche, his ideas are very much a product of the 19th century Imperialism, like Wagner and Schopenhauer. They are very dualistic, in the sense that it posits one against the other, us and them etc.

I think that modern philosophy and science for that matter tends to be more unifying and less splintering, or divisive. Really the world has "shrunk" a lot, since the 19th century. There are more people and we have to get a long.

The Superman still hasn't shown up, so obviously he was a myth.

Most of Nietchze's ideas have not born any sort of positive fruit, or taken root really. Well they took root, we had WWII and that was a bit of a refutation.

His ideas have self-refuted.

Couple of observations about Nietzche, his ideas are very much a product of the 19th century Imperialism, like Wagner and Schopenhauer. They are very dualistic, in the sense that it posits one against the other, us and them etc.

I think that modern philosophy and science for that matter tends to be more unifying and less splintering, or divisive. Really the world has "shrunk" a lot, since the 19th century. There are more people and we have to get a long.

The Superman still hasn't shown up, so obviously he was a myth.

Most of Nietchze's ideas have not born any sort of positive fruit, or taken root really. Well they took root, we had WWII and that was a bit of a refutation.

I don't agree with Nietzsche on many points but you could argue that the Supermen have not yet arrived but will do one day...when the stars are right..

Most of Nietchze's ideas have not born any sort of positive fruit, or taken root really. Well they took root, we had WWII and that was a bit of a refutation.

Care to show a tangible causal link between Nietzsche and WWII?

So basically, if I decide that aspects like kindness or equality have value or positive qualities inspite of what Nietzsche says, it is legitimate for me to reëvaluate them as worthwhile to hold?

Yes, but first ask, "What are positive qualities" without having the answer 'kindness / equality' at hand. By which I mean, start from what you believe the purpose of the universe is. If you believe it is the same as Nietzsche, you will more than likely arrive at the same conclusions (possibly). Alternately, you could work your way backwards and ask, what, out of the results of (example) 'kindness & equality' are positive qualities to the over-all scheme of the universe. From there your own philosophical mode of thinking will develop, which may well be what you personally need to feel secure in not adhering to Nietzsches views.

So in other other words, you are saying that a case could be made that those Nietzsche disapproved of do in fact add something to life in the form of diversity?

Yes. Who is to say memetic diversity (the diversity of thought, mores & custom) is more valuable in its heated conflict within itself than is genetic diversity? Nietzsche seems to be drawing a line of association in that memetics should mold genetics (through his philosophy) which in turn will increase the potential for greater 'memetics' by how genetics are engineered. Firstly, there is no means of knowing how, through genetics, we can increase our capacity for memetics. It is simply beyond us since we are in the midst of it and stopped short by 'the horizon' of our own limitation in the midst of it. Nietzsche's assumptions on how to, can only be intuition and going down metaphorical blind alleys. Secondly, who is to say memetic diversity is more important than genetic? Memetic diversity is rarer, i.e. animals and other life besides humans don't have it yet they have greater genetic diversity, though this doesn't necessarily mean its more valuable. It is what the human mind values alone, that is memetics, and maybe no matter what form thought takes to the human (memes) they are still all equally meaningless and useless whereas genetics is tangible, or at least concrete (in terms of idealism versus realism).

So destroying apparent weakness could leave us open to the danger posed by unapparent weakness?

It could, this is no more verifiable or not than Nietzsche's claim that what he considers to be 'slave morality' is dangerous to mankinds future.

Given his repudiation of "slave morality", I doubt it. If anything, he would be furious that I refuse to accept what he said as correct even though I have no logical arguments against him and only my own desire to stay alive.

Furthermore, I agree with AlanBstard. It is assuming for whatever reason, that facet or feature of your own as 'inferior' that you believe you must not agree with Nietzsche to justify yourself in light of his critique of humanity. Though the only thing keeping you an 'untermensch' in his eyes would probably be the fact that you are cowed into believing you're inferior. Form follows function, and to think a certain way is the initial means to being it. Taking heed of something you believe to be true rather than reacting to it is a sign of the Ubermensch.

Yes, but first ask, "What are positive qualities" without having the answer 'kindness / equality' at hand. By which I mean, start from what you believe the purpose of the universe is. If you believe it is the same as Nietzsche, you will more than likely arrive at the same conclusions (possibly). Alternately, you could work your way backwards and ask, what, out of the results of (example) 'kindness & equality' are positive qualities to the over-all scheme of the universe. From there your own philosophical mode of thinking will develop, which may well be what you personally need to feel secure in not adhering to Nietzsches views.

What if I don't believe the universe has any inherent purpose? Then there are no positive qualities because there is no basis for any quality being better than another.

Care to show a tangible causal link between Nietzsche and WWII?

I'm not sure it's a causal link, but it does sound likely:

"[The supermen] would mold man as an artist would...[to] achieve that immense energy of greatness[sic], to mold the future man by breeding, and, at the same time, by destroying, millions of bungled humans - we must not be deterred by the suffering we create, the equal of which has never been seen!" - Nietzsche ('Der Führer' by Konrad Heiden, p 230)

What if I don't believe the universe has any inherent purpose? Then there are no positive qualities because there is no basis for any quality being better than another.

'The value' is what value you ascribe to things yourself, from an existential stand point. So a 'purpose' would at very least be nothing more than a delineation of value along some relative axis of conceivable value by some achieveable circumstance. How do you orient yourself? The priorities that you take when you conceive simple matters in daily life, self-analyzed, makes apparent any values you may have, in which has shewn the purpose you take to yourself when relating to other things and yourself. "Purpose" is by no means a mystical revelation, it is the most minor & atomistic of drives. The fact that 'no basis' for the superiority of 'any quality' over another is in itself a value. Which leads to (or from) purpose.


Most of Nietchze's ideas have not born any sort of positive fruit, or taken root really. Well they took root, we had WWII and that was a bit of a refutation.

WWII, if Nietzsche is taken as the German position, doesn't necessarily refute anything in its loss, if only for the reason of its loss since it wasn't implemented to a full end. Not that I believe WWII represents Nietzsches exact beliefs. For example, Nietzsche was not an anti-semite and was much more opposed to the religion of Christianity than to Judaism.

'The value' is what value you ascribe to things yourself, from an existential stand point. So a 'purpose' would at very least be nothing more than a delineation of value along some relative axis of conceivable value by some achieveable circumstance. How do you orient yourself? The priorities that you take when you conceive simple matters in daily life, self-analyzed, makes apparent any values you may have, in which has shewn the purpose you take to yourself when relating to other things and yourself. "Purpose" is by no means a mystical revelation, it is the most minor & atomistic of drives.

At this point, I don't really ascribe purpose to anything and don't hold any particular values. Are you saying that I need only give myself a new purpose and set of values in order to refute or get around Nietzsche? If so, can you explain further? If not, then can you clarify?

The fact that 'no basis' for the superiority of 'any quality' over another is in itself a value. Which leads to (or from) purpose.

I see, so even not valuing anything is a value.

bump

At this point, I don't really ascribe purpose to anything and don't hold any particular values. Are you saying that I need only give myself a new purpose and set of values in order to refute or get around Nietzsche? If so, can you explain further? If not, then can you clarify?

Not ascribing purpose to something is simply not objectifying purpose, rather than being bereft of purpose. Your purpose is then found as an immanent, relational purpose. Subjectivism, where the orientation toward abstract conceptions have value, over objectified topics or 'subjects' / abstract conceptions in themselves.

I see, so even not valuing anything is a value.

In the sense of the nihilists or liars paradox. Yet it should be understood more in my above reponse. The "any thing" that you conceive seems to me to be only a 'thing' in the meaning of an abstract objectification, i.e. not just physical objects but also thought topics which are fixed, rather than the concrete, immediate to your senses which is an organic orientation inherent in your self. You're not valuing anything except a "proper" (in your eyes) methodology of relating to things by not fixing any topic. Though this is still a value and a world view in itself. This, if I am reading your position correctly, is very near to Giovanni Gentile's philosophy of Actual Idealism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Actual_Idealism)

Not ascribing purpose to something is simply not objectifying purpose, rather than being bereft of purpose. Your purpose is then found as an immanent, relational purpose. Subjectivism, where the orientation toward abstract conceptions have value, over objectified topics or 'subjects' / abstract conceptions in themselves.

So in other words, I do have purpose, it's just on a case by case basis rather than a set thing?

In the sense of the nihilists or liars paradox. Yet it should be understood more in my above reponse. The "any thing" that you conceive seems to me to be only a 'thing' in the meaning of an abstract objectification, i.e. not just physical objects but also thought topics which are fixed, rather than the concrete, immediate to your senses which is an organic orientation inherent in your self. You're not valuing anything except a "proper" (in your eyes) methodology of relating to things by not fixing any topic. Though this is still a value and a world view in itself. This, if I am reading your position correctly, is very near to Giovanni Gentile's philosophy of Actual Idealism

I see, so I'm a nanometer away from fascism.

Ok, I'm still not much closer to finding a way to refuting Nietzsche than when I started. I understand where he's coming from, but I can't seem to find a way to refute his theories. Maybe I can find a way to show that his ideas are not really life-affirming.

So in other words, I do have purpose, it's just on a case by case basis rather than a set thing?

Not that you revalue through each object as your response implies, but that you are in the mode of subject and not governed by the mode of object, but extrinsically, that can be an objectified mode.


I see, so I'm a nanometer away from fascism.

Ok, I'm still not much closer to finding a way to refuting Nietzsche than when I started. I understand where he's coming from, but I can't seem to find a way to refute his theories. Maybe I can find a way to show that his ideas are not really life-affirming.

That would be an 'ad hominem' fallacy, unless you can say that his theories really did constitute Fascism, let alone fascism as it appeared and was carried out. However, it does probably place you in a nonrelativistic subjectivism. In terms of life-affirming, life as experience and life as physical vitality are two separate things. Above I posited how his theories of an exclusive brand of strong and how those could give way to counter efficients in humanity in the apparent weak balancing the unapparent weak, that is a good argument in terms of life as physical vitality and not truly being life affirming, excepting that then we are dealing with the unverifiable. In terms of life as experience, I'd have to go with life as an aesthetic experience, which I also posited earlier. Maybe try reading Kierkegaard, and getting familiarized with his concept of the aesthetic, ethical & moral (or was it moral then religious without ethical?) levels of human existential value, each below but more broad than the latter.

Not that you revalue through each object as your response implies, but that you are in the mode of subject and not governed by the mode of object, but extrinsically, that can be an objectified mode.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Are you basically saying that I view purpose in a subjective way rather than an objective way?

That would be an 'ad hominem' fallacy, unless you can say that his theories really did constitute Fascism, let alone fascism as it appeared and was carried out. However, it does probably place you in a nonrelativistic subjectivism.

Yes, but he was more or less the co-founder of fascism along with Mussolini and actual idealism was basically a component of his fascism.

In terms of life-affirming, life as experience and life as physical vitality are two separate things. Above I posited how his theories of an exclusive brand of strong and how those could give way to counter efficients in humanity in the apparent weak balancing the unapparent weak, that is a good argument in terms of life as physical vitality and not truly being life affirming, excepting that then we are dealing with the unverifiable. In terms of life as experience, I'd have to go with life as an aesthetic experience, which I also posited earlier. Maybe try reading Kierkegaard, and getting familiarized with his concept of the aesthetic, ethical & moral (or was it moral then religious without ethical?) levels of human existential value, each below but more broad than the latter

So you think that Kierkegaard might have some way to refute Nietzsche? Even if that is so, I am merely switching masters from a totalitarian übermensch to a totalitarian god. At least I can kill übermenschen and even in theory possibly become one. Not so with a Kierkegaardian god. Indeed, maybe I should be hoping that Kierkegaard is wrong and that Nietzsche isn't.

So how does that help me? Does it provide a way out from having to resign myself to submission to those with more power?

Not having read the book I don't know what arguments are put forth. What is it exactly that you want to refute and why do you want to refute it?

Not having read the book I don't know what arguments are put forth. What is it exactly that you want to refute and why do you want to refute it?

Well, basically, what I'm opposed to is the master morality/übermensch ideal of Nietzsche. He argued that the strong should rule the weak because it is supposed to be natural and life-affirming for them to exert their will on them. Obviously, I don't want to fall victim to a totalitarian aristocracy.

So far, I have yet to find a way to refute him. Mainly, the problem is that I'm not even sure what he bases his ethics on. I know he regards life and nature as good and nihilism as bad, but I'm not sure how he shows them to be so, particularly in light of his otherwise skeptical attitude toward claims of truth.

Well, basically, what I'm opposed to is the master morality/übermensch ideal of Nietzsche. He argued that the strong should rule the weak because it is supposed to be natural and life-affirming for them to exert their will on them. Obviously, I don't want to fall victim to a totalitarian aristocracy.

So far, I have yet to find a way to refute him. Mainly, the problem is that I'm not even sure what he bases his ethics on. I know he regards life and nature as good and nihilism as bad, but I'm not sure how he shows them to be so, particularly in light of his otherwise skeptical attitude toward claims of truth.

I'm afraid that I agree with Freddy. Perhaps your acceptance problem lies in your definition of strong. It's a very ambiguous word and if you give it the right meaning a very desirable political system could arise. Nietzche is right. Unfortuately not everybody thinks like everybody else. There will be people that just want power, people that are more economically motivated and people that are more socially motivated in Nietzche's system. In theory it's perfect but the one area where it all falls down is practicality. Give meaning to the word strong so that it suits you, then say that it's all well and good under perfect conditions but it just wont work in reality. Then you would have accepted it but you won't have to use it at any point.

It's just so frustrating. There is no way around it. All my options suck. If I resist, I am bad for engaging in resentiment. If I accept my slavery instead of resisting, I am bad for being weak. If I kill myself in a last-ditch effort to deny my masters the pleasure of enslaving me, I am bad for being nihilistic. No matter what I do, I am by definition unworthy in the eyes of Nietzsche.

No matter what I do, there is simply no way for me to escape in a Nietzschean ethical framework. The only option is to refute Nietzscheanism alltogether. So far, I have yet to find a way to do that.

I'm not quite sure I understand what you're saying. Are you basically saying that I view purpose in a subjective way rather than an objective way?

No, not that you view purpose in a subjective way, this is where it gets a little confusing. What I mean is purpose to you has an absolute quality in a subjective mode, not "subjective" as a conditional relation of objects in temporally alternate situations, but rather as purely subject. You say you do not believe there is purpose to "any thing", how you mean that in a deeper sense has to be taken into account, I am assuming here you mean "any thing" as any absolute object, even thought or theory object (religion, conventional ideas of right & wrong), which excludes everything except that which is theory in itself, or a working relational mindset of ideas; which you must invest value in to take to using in the first place. There must be some ultimate purpose you have in arranging these values of yours in such a way to begin with, the answer to this lies in yourself and the roots of the way you remove value from any object at the behest of, and in favor to, your conceptual subject matter that is at the root of your value system, absolute but subjective (not relative-subjective).

Yes, but he was more or less the co-founder of fascism along with Mussolini and actual idealism was basically a component of his fascism.

True, it would be associated historically, if for only those who knew the implications, but what I meant was does that have any actual bearing on the theories? You could reconstruct most of those theories from Fichte with taking his theories from certain view point, and he had no such associations. Not that it actually matters to someone who can separate each point as being its own justification without falling back on its relations.

So you think that Kierkegaard might have some way to refute Nietzsche? Even if that is so, I am merely switching masters from a totalitarian übermensch to a totalitarian god. At least I can kill übermenschen and even in theory possibly become one. Not so with a Kierkegaardian god. Indeed, maybe I should be hoping that Kierkegaard is wrong and that Nietzsche isn't.

This would involve 'turning Kierkegaard on his head', though I gave Kierkegaard's three levels of human value, he's taking them in the opposite direction that I propose for moving against Nietzsche, not that Nietzsche might agree with me in some way, but if you value the primal aesthetic level above what Kierkegaard saw as the most proper & final, religious level, running his theory backwards, you'd also go back behind Nietzsches ethical revaluations, which go back as they do only to run forward in the same direction again as new ethics and morals, presumably, pre-heralding a new religion which he hadn't gotten to yet.

No, not that you view purpose in a subjective way, this is where it gets a little confusing. What I mean is purpose to you has an absolute quality in a subjective mode, not "subjective" as a conditional relation of objects in temporally alternate situations, but rather as purely subject. You say you do not believe there is purpose to "any thing", how you mean that in a deeper sense has to be taken into account, I am assuming here you mean "any thing" as any absolute object, even thought or theory object (religion, conventional ideas of right & wrong), which excludes everything except that which is theory in itself, or a working relational mindset of ideas; which you must invest value in to take to using in the first place. There must be some ultimate purpose you have in arranging these values of yours in such a way to begin with, the answer to this lies in yourself and the roots of the way you remove value from any object at the behest of, and in favor to, your conceptual subject matter that is at the root of your value system, absolute but subjective (not relative-subjective).

I see, so my only purpose is a lack of purpose.

True, it would be associated historically, if for only those who knew the implications, but what I meant was does that have any actual bearing on the theories? You could reconstruct most of those theories from Fichte with taking his theories from certain view point, and he had no such associations. Not that it actually matters to someone who can separate each point as being its own justification without falling back on its relations.

Yes, though I'd prefer a more ideologically neutral metaphysics.

This would involve 'turning Kierkegaard on his head', though I gave Kierkegaard's three levels of human value, he's taking them in the opposite direction that I propose for moving against Nietzsche, not that Nietzsche might agree with me in some way, but if you value the primal aesthetic level above what Kierkegaard saw as the most proper & final, religious level, running his theory backwards, you'd also go back behind Nietzsches ethical revaluations, which go back as they do only to run forward in the same direction again as new ethics and morals, presumably, pre-heralding a new religion which he hadn't gotten to yet.

I see, so in effect, I would be saying that I value personal æsthetics over the commandments of God or Zarathustra. Is that really a viable method?

bump

I see, so my only purpose is a lack of purpose.

Again, not qualifying it, that obfuscates it a bit saying "lack of purpose", there is no true lack. Your purpose for not investing value to "things" is to "save" purpose.

I see, so in effect, I would be saying that I value personal æsthetics over the commandments of God or Zarathustra. Is that really a viable method?

Taking Kierkegaards idea, it is the first principle to every method, and the most viable to the human experience of all. Simply not diluting it by further going into a particular limitation of aesthetics, namely morals or ethics, should not be a difficult stance to take.

OK, thanks, AC.

Maybe the will to power is something I can attack. How strong is the case that everything can be explained by the will to power? If it isn't strong at all, does that undermine Nietzsche significantly?

Many people use the fact that he was insane from syphillis to refute him.


Actually, more recent research says that Nietzsche's symptoms were not consistent with syphilis, as reported in the Journal of Medical Biography. It's now believed by some that the assertion that Nietzsche suffered from syphilis started as a smear campaign by Anti-Nietzscheans.

There's more about it here:

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/wniet04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixworld.html

Actually, more recent research says that Nietzsche's symptoms were not consistent with syphilis, as reported in the Journal of Medical Biography. It's now believed by some that the assertion that Nietzsche suffered from syphilis started as a smear campaign by Anti-Nietzscheans.

There's more about it here:

http://www.opinion.telegraph.co.uk/n...4/ixworld.html

Interesting article.

bump

I guess this thread is more or less dead. Oh well. It was an interesting thread while it lasted.