Nietzsche

speed

Member
Nov 19, 2001
5,192
26
48
Visit site
This thread is to correct the myths of Nietzsche on a variety of issues always incorrectly attributed to him--especially those sometimes incorrectly presented by some on this board.

THis is an excellent overview by Wikipedia -- really it is excellent, and Ive read everyone of his books except Ecce Homo, and I rarely have come across so objective and fair of comments.

As for Genetics, Nazism, Jews, and the Superman:
Nietzsche's sister Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche heavily edited Nietzsche's work in order to promote him as a proto-Nazi thinker (she was herself an ardent German nationalist and pro-Nazi); this bastardization was largely to blame for Nietzsche being associated in the 1930s with the Nazis, who primarily took Elisabeth's deliberately misconstrued versions of his works as one of their main sources.

It is worth noting that Nietzsche's thought largely stands opposed to Nazism. In particular, Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism (which partially led to his falling out with composer Richard Wagner) and nationalism. He took a dim view of German culture as it was in his time, and derided both the state and populism. As the joke goes: "Nietzsche detested Nationalism, Socialism, Germans and mass movements, so naturally he was adopted as the intellectual mascot of the National Socialist German Workers' Party." He was also far from being a racist, believing that the "vigor" of any population could only be increased by mixing with others. In Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche says, "...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."

As for the idea of the "blond beast," Walter Kaufmann has this to say in The Will to Power: "The 'blond beast' is not a racial concept and does not refer to the 'Nordic race' of which the Nazis later made so much. Nietzsche specifically refers to Arabs and Japanese, Romans and Greeks, no less than ancient Teutonic tribes when he first introduces the term... and the 'blondness' obviously refers to the beast, the lion, rather than the kind of man."

While some of his writings on "the Jewish question" were critical of the Jewish population in Europe, he also praised the strength of the Jewish people, and this criticism was equally, if not more strongly, applied to the English, the Germans, and the rest of Europe. He also valorised strong leadership, and it was this last tendency that the Nazis took up.

While his use by the Nazis was inaccurate, it should not be supposed that he was strongly liberal either. One of the things that he seems to have detested the most about Christianity was its emphasis on pity and how this leads to the elevation of the weak-minded. Nietzsche believed that it was wrong to deprive people of their pain, because it was this very pain that stirred them to improve themselves, to grow and become stronger. It should be noted that he did not disbelieve in helping people; he simply believed much Christian pity robbed people of necessary painful life experiences, and robbing a person of his necessary pain, for Nietzsche, was wrong. He believed that "that which does not kill us, makes us stronger."

Consider the possibility of a society such as that in Brave New World, where people are always happy thanks to drugs they always take. There's something missing in a life with no pain.

Nietzsche referred to the common people as "the rabble" and liberalism as "reduction to the herd animal." While he had a dislike of the state in general, he spoke negatively of anarchists and made it clear that only certain individuals should break away from it in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

It is, however, hard to classify Nietzsche's politics, as he avoided the topic and did not see it as his main concern. He seems to have very little interest in the economy. There are also some liberal strands to his beliefs, such as his distrust of strong punishment for criminals and even a criticism of the death penalty can be found in his early work. Since World War II, Nietzsche's influence has generally been clustered on the political left, particularly in France by way of Post-Modern thought. However, in the United States, Nietzsche appears to have exercised some influence upon certain conservative academics (see, for example, Leo Strauss and Allan Bloom).


And as for Religion and his infamous God is Dead statement:



Nietzsche is also well-known for the statement "God is dead". While in popular belief it is Nietzsche himself who blatantly made this declaration, it was actually placed into the mouth of a character, a "madman," in The Gay Science. It was also later proclaimed by Nietzsche's Zarathustra. This largely misunderstood statement does not proclaim a physical death, but a natural end to the belief in God being the foundation of the western mind. It is also widely misunderstood as a kind of gloating declaration, when it is actually described as a tragic lament by the character Zarathustra.

"God is Dead" is more of an observation than a declaration, and it is noteworthy that Nietzsche never felt the need to advance any arguments for atheism, but merely observed that, for all practical purposes, his contemporaries lived "as if" God were dead. Nietzsche believed this "death" would eventually undermine the foundations of morality and lead to moral relativism and nihilism. To avoid this, he believed in re-evaluating the foundations of morality and placing them not on a pre-determined, but a natural foundation through comparative analysis.

[edit]


Religion

In his important work The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche attacked German scholarly Christianity for what he called its "transvaluation" of healthy instinctive values. He went beyond agnostic and atheistic thinkers of the Enlightenment, who felt that Christianity was simply untrue. He claimed that it may have been deliberately propagated as an inherently bad and subversive religion (a "psychological warfare weapon" or what some would call a "memetic virus") within the Roman Empire by the Apostle Paul as a form of covert revenge for the Roman destruction of Jerusalem and the Temple during the Jewish War. However, in The Anti-Christ, Nietzsche has a remarkably high view of Jesus, claiming the scholars of the day fail to pay any attention to the man, Jesus, and only look to their construction, Christ. Nietzsche said that "there was only one true Christian, and he died on the cross." According to the American writer H.L. Mencken, Nietzsche felt that the religion of the ancient Greeks of the heroic and classical era was superior to Christianity because it portrayed strong, heroic, and smart men as role models and did not try to demonize healthy natural desires, such as creativity and writing poetry. According to at least one authority, the Slovenian scholar Anton Strle, Nietzsche lost his faith in the time he was reading the book Leben Jesu (Life of Jesus), written by the German theologian David Strauss.
 
There's little doubt the Jews are resilient. Just look at the power they hold despite being a relatively minor population.

Nietzsche was critical of the Jews despite recognizing them for the above:

"Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference"

"From the tree trunk of Jewish vengeance and hatred -- the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history, since it gave birth to ideals and a new set of values -- grew a branch that was equally unique: a new love, the deepest and sublimest of loves. From what other trunk could this branch have sprung? But let no one surmise that this love represented a denial of the thirst for vengeance, that it contravened the Jewish hatred. Exactly the opposite is true. Love grew out of hatred as the tree's crown, spreading triumphantly in the purest sunlight, yet having, in its high and sunny realm, the same aims -- victory, aggrandizement, temptation -- which hatred pursued by digging its roots ever deeper into all that was profound and evil. Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the "redeemer," who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner -- what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this "redeemer," this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that "the whole world" (meaning all the enemies of Israel) might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the "holy cross," the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God's self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind? One thing is certain, that in this sign Israel has by now triumphed over all other, nobler values."
 
"250. What Europe owes to the Jews?--Many things, good and bad,
and above all one thing of the nature both of the best and the
worst: the grand style in morality, the fearfulness and majesty
of infinite demands, of infinite significations, the whole
Romanticism and sublimity of moral questionableness--and
consequently just the most attractive, ensnaring, and exquisite
element in those iridescences and allurements to life, in the
aftersheen of which the sky of our European culture, its evening
sky, now glows--perhaps glows out. For this, we artists among the
spectators and philosophers, are--grateful to the Jews."
 
Demiurge said:
There's little doubt the Jews are resilient. Just look at the power they hold despite being a relatively minor population.

Nietzsche was critical of the Jews despite recognizing them for the above:

"Let us face facts: the people have triumphed -- or the slaves, the mob, the herd, whatever you wish to call them -- and if the Jews brought it about, then no nation ever had a more universal mission on earth. The lords are a thing of the past, and the ethics of the common man is completely triumphant. I don't deny that this triumph might be looked upon as a kind of blood poisoning, since it has resulted in a mingling of the races, but there can be no doubt that the intoxication has succeeded. The 'redemption' of the human race (from the lords, that is) is well under way; everything is rapidly becoming Judaized, or Christianized, or mob-ized -- the word makes no difference"

"From the tree trunk of Jewish vengeance and hatred -- the deepest and sublimest hatred in human history, since it gave birth to ideals and a new set of values -- grew a branch that was equally unique: a new love, the deepest and sublimest of loves. From what other trunk could this branch have sprung? But let no one surmise that this love represented a denial of the thirst for vengeance, that it contravened the Jewish hatred. Exactly the opposite is true. Love grew out of hatred as the tree's crown, spreading triumphantly in the purest sunlight, yet having, in its high and sunny realm, the same aims -- victory, aggrandizement, temptation -- which hatred pursued by digging its roots ever deeper into all that was profound and evil. Jesus of Nazareth, the gospel of love made flesh, the "redeemer," who brought blessing and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinner -- what was he but temptation in its most sinister and irresistible form, bringing men by a roundabout way to precisely those Jewish values and renovations of the ideal? Has not Israel, precisely by the detour of this "redeemer," this seeming antagonist and destroyer of Israel, reached the final goal of its sublime vindictiveness? Was it not a necessary feature of a truly brilliant politics of vengeance, a farsighted, subterranean, slowly and carefully planned vengeance, that Israel had to deny its true instrument publicly and nail him to the cross like a mortal enemy, so that "the whole world" (meaning all the enemies of Israel) might naïvely swallow the bait? And could one, by straining every resource, hit upon a bait more dangerous than this? What could equal in debilitating narcotic power the symbol of the "holy cross," the ghastly paradox of a crucified god, the unspeakably cruel mystery of God's self-crucifixion for the benefit of mankind? One thing is certain, that in this sign Israel has by now triumphed over all other, nobler values."

That was in the Antichrist right?
 
Personally on Nietzche, I think he's more famous (infamous) for the statements I disagree with him on, in contrast to the beliefsI agree with him on i.e. Wille Zur Macht.

In his time, nobody was Nihilist. Atheism was still in some places criminal. Many attribute him to being the creator of Nihilism in Western Philosophy. Yet he's going to assert his "god is dead" position without refuting the more... morally earnest folk like Descartes, Newton. Berkely and petty Idealistic esse es percipi is a stupid assertion that GE Moore has destroyed, so Idealism doesn't even deserve a response. But Descartes, he was making logical theorems to prove god's existense. And Nietzche will not even mention the name, nor write his own counter proof in Anti-Christ?
 
Samson said:
Personally on Nietzche, I think he's more famous (infamous) for the statements I disagree with him on, in contrast to the beliefsI agree with him on i.e. Wille Zur Macht.

In his time, nobody was Nihilist. Atheism was still in some places criminal. Many attribute him to being the creator of Nihilism in Western Philosophy. Yet he's going to assert his "god is dead" position without refuting the more... morally earnest folk like Descartes, Newton. Berkely and petty Idealistic esse es percipi is a stupid assertion that GE Moore has destroyed, so Idealism doesn't even deserve a response. But Descartes, he was making logical theorems to prove god's existense. And Nietzche will not even mention the name, nor write his own counter proof in Anti-Christ?

Probably because FWN is not that kind of philosopher. For one thing, he's anti-metaphysical. He's a historical philosopher.

All philosophers have the common failing of starting out from man as he is now and thinking they can reach their goal through an analysis of him. They involuntarily think of "man" as an aeterna veritas, as something that remains constant in the midst of all flux, as a sure measure of things.

Everything the philosopher has declared about man is, however, at bottom no more than a testimony as to the man of a very limited period of time. Lack of historical sense is the family failing of all philosophers; many, without being aware of it, even take the most recent manifestation of man, such as has arisen under the impress of certain religions, even certain political events, as the fixed form from which one has to start out. They will not learn that man has become, that the faculty of cognition has become; while some of them; while some of them would have it that the whole world is spun out of this faculty of cognition.

Now, everything essential in the development of mankind took place in primeval times, long before the four thousand years we more or less know about; during these years mankind may well not have altered very much. But the philosopher here sees "instincts" in man as he now is and assumes that these belong to the unalterable facts of mankind and to that extent could provide a key to the understanding of the world in general: the whole of teleology is constructed by speaking of the man of the last four millennia as of an eternal man towards whom all things in the world have had a natural relationship from the time he began.

But everything has become: there are no eternal facts, just as there are no absolute truths. Consequently what is needed from now on is historical philosophizing, and with it the virtue of modesty.


Someone who thinks like this probably isn't going to have much use for universal ideas of clearness and distinctness.

Plus, "God is dead" makes reference to a cultural "event." It isn't meant to be understood as a declaration of the literal death of some entity that was previously alive in any conventional sense.
 
Demiurge said:
Probably because FWN is not that kind of philosopher. For one thing, he's anti-metaphysical. He's a historical philosopher.

His metaphysics are the dissolving of metaphysics. And if he is going to dissolve metaphysics, he has to refute the arguments of metaphysics. When Moore dissolved Metaphysics, he wrote a 17 page essay logically discrediting Idealism. Nietzche does no such thing, except for state his own opinion. But simply stating an opinion is hardly driving home a point. There's only one kind of philosopher. A philosopher has science, math, history, and literature to use at his disposal. It's Nietzche's own fault that he refused to invoke the scientific method. This is why, Nietzche is no different from any idealist spewing foundationless bullshit around. It's interesting ranting, alas unproven ranting without evidence.

Ultimately, my point is if your not going to bother to prove something to the point of an axiom (logical proofs help), you haven't proven anything and I'm not going to bother to agree with you because I cannot defend that point. For my sake and integrity, I cannot agree with it.
 
now now, Voltaire, Schopenhauer, even Dostoevsky all either wer nihilists, or wrote about nihilism before nietzsche.