BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Head Shop >

Tell us what you know!..(about Nietzsche)

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Jackie Susann
01:46 / 18.06.03
Also:

A couple of people here have made the entirely predictable point that N was misunderstood or misused by the NSDAP. Now, if one claims that a certain writer is misunderstood by someone else then it is incumbent on the person making that claim to cite where that writer was falsely used by someone else, and how that was a falsification.

As is well known, and has been stated in part, Nietzsche's work was substantially altered to allow a nationalist reading. Most obviously, disparaging references to anti-Semitism were cut out, and passages critiquing Germany and German nationalism were deleted. There were also other changes, i.e., references to 'blond beasts' changed to 'a pack of savages' in Genealogy of Morals.
 
 
Thjatsi
08:10 / 18.06.03
…to treat his project as a failure because it is polyvalent is numpty-heidedness bordering on the psychotic.

My lack of interest in Nietzsche is not due to the fact that his work has many different meanings. Instead, it is the apparent contradictions in these meanings that caused me to abandon him. I simply do not have the time to sift through these contradictions, looking for the occasional gold philosophical nugget others assure me they have found.

Nietzsche might not be presenting a uniform theory, but I imagine that this is because he is wise enough to recognize that, since the world is not uniform, then a uniform theory is less apt to have a greater degree of influence on real lives, and less likely to show a better understanding of the way of things.

This may work for you, but I have little time or interest for anyone who does not present a uniform theory. My plan for the next five to ten years is to integrate all of my random, fragmented thoughts into a coherent, complete philosophy. This goal, and my other goals, do not allow me to waste time on philosophers without an intelligible consistent theory.

Such a well written and thought provoking thread, i hope i haven't commited some newbie social faux pas by resurrecting it.

Actually, I’m glad that you brought it back from the abyss. I never would have realized that two people responded to my post a year ago if you hadn’t.
 
 
—| x |—
10:24 / 18.06.03
“My plan for the next five to ten years is to integrate all of my random, fragmented thoughts into a coherent, complete philosophy.”

While I understand the drive, the goal is not possible: see here for why. Would you not become immediately bored with your creation and leave it to it sin and corruption? And what’s to say that there aren’t going to be further random and fragmented thoughts in eleven or more years, or do you plan to become like a stone? And what makes you think that you can create a philosophy without contradictions? Huh? HUH!?
 
 
Quantum
12:25 / 26.06.03
"Without music, life would be a mistake" Fred Neetsh said.
 
 
Jashugan
19:43 / 02.07.03
Nietzsche is very critical of a lot of things, humanity as a mass included. Thus Spoke Zarathustra (I confess it's the only one of his books I have yet read) at times reads like a catologue of modern society and humanity's flaws - and although he was writing over 100 years ago I would venture that not a lot has fundamentally changed.

Anyway, the point I wanted to make was that although he can be seen as negative and harsh, his criticisms almost always have a positive intent. One of the main threads I could see through T.S.Z. was that in order to create, you must first destroy. In order to by a creator you must be hard. Nietzsche, having pronounced God as dead, tells us that we - humanity - must create ourselves. In order to create this new ideal man (my translation calls him the superman) we must first 'destroy' mankind as it is. He talks about 'the great noontide' where this will happen, and how mankind must simultaneously 'go down' (i.e. destroy itself) and 'overcome' (i.e. grow beyond itself). Every man's purpose is to make the next generation closer to the superman, who will rule because he is the most fit.

The idea of the superman ruling over the other men, combined with a twisting of the 'will to power' (in my opinion not a particularly clear concept) and a literal interpretation of noontide (if you were going to join dots you could relate this to the holocaust I suppose) is what I think gives rise to the supposed Nazi connection. But the fact is, he never says that German/Aryeans are the supermen. In his eyes they are just as flawed as everyone else. The entire human race has to 'go downwards' and 'overcome itself'. Also, as Dead Pirate Crunchy points out, he strongly disliked anti-Semiticism.

While I'm at it, I think his comments on the necessity or otherwise of slavery shouldn't be taken too literally. I think his idea of a slave is someone who, by their own choice (or lack of will?) allows themselves to become servile to another - be that another person or to an abstract concept like God. As such I think Nietzsche would like there to be no slaves - if not, then why tell everyone that God is dead, and we should all be responsible for ourselves?
 
 
wiracocha
13:20 / 09.07.03
He was really misunderstood, when he says that everything that is weak should be destroyed I think he was talking more of our inner weaknesses than any particuar people.

He was interested in 'truth at all costs' as with the Russian Nihlists. Even though in one of his books, ('beyond good & evil' I think) he criticised man for always just assuming the usefulness of truth, he always seemed to uphold it.

But he recognised truth as something inherently monsterous and something not really relevant to the majority of mankind.
It was through this recognition of truth at all costs that he saw the reality behind morality. It was the revenge of the weak on the strong, as I said at the begining of the post, all that is weak, instead of taking the responsibility to grow and become stronger, turns weakness and suffering into a virtue. Therefore anything stronger than themselves becomes in their minds 'evil' or lacking in moral fibre.

So with this he recognised morality as slavish and the revenge of the weak on the strong. Nothing but Schillers 'man of resentment'.

Bearing this in mind its quite funny and ironic to think that Hitler, that most selective reader of dear freddy is guilty of a worse form of slave morality than the Jews, whom he turned Nietzsches ideas on. As it was his own resentment of the Jews as a young artist that sparked the whole thing. In this light we can see Hitler really as little more than a self styled tragic figure, embarking on a doomed course of revolt.
 
 
Thjatsi
22:27 / 10.07.03
While I understand the drive, the goal is not possible: see here for why.

We have definition issues. I was defining complete in that response as consistent within itself. You are defining complete in terms of Godel. I don't expect my system to be complete in that every possible proposition will either be proven true or false, only that it is consistent within itself.

Would you not become immediately bored with your creation and leave it to it sin and corruption?

It's a philosophy, not a sand castle. I consider philosophy a requirement for survival, and since I value survival I will not discard it.

And what’s to say that there aren’t going to be further random and fragmented thoughts in eleven or more years, or do you plan to become like a stone?

They'll be integrated into the philosophy as they occur. The system is dynamic, and I'm far from in danger of becoming a rock.

And what makes you think that you can create a philosophy without contradictions?

First, the fact that many people during the last three thousand years have achieved or come close to this goal. Second, the fact that I have access to a large section of these peoples' concepts and procedures.
 
 
—| x |—
06:51 / 11.07.03
“I was defining complete in that response as consistent within itself.”

Ah yes, the perfectly rational human being.

I consider philosophy a requirement for survival…”

Yep, me too. We are all philosophers-artists-scientists and so on.

“…integrated into the philosophy as they occur. The system is dynamic…”

Thumbs up here.

“First, the fact that many people during the last three thousand years have achieved or come close to this goal. Second, the fact that I have access to a large section of these peoples' concepts and procedures.”

I don’t think your first statement is true. I find that many people have come up what they feel at the time to be consistent systems, but typically on retrospective critical examination—usually undertaken by people later in time—this is not the case. As for your latter point I agree: read, read, and re-read & learn from people great and small: know what made them great and know what made them weak.
 
 
alas
16:14 / 11.07.03
I love reading Nietzsche, and I have enjoyed this thread tremendously, but I believe there is reason to be critical of some of the most basic notions in his thought, at the same time; it is arguable that he is in part responsible for his work's so readily lending itself to the Nazi interpretation--despite what Nietzsche's intentions (or his physical pain) may have been.

For instance, from The Genealogy of Morals, 1887--thus an even later work than BG&E. Start from: "Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and the great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. . . In reference to the grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context (BG&E), to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals . . . "(Kaufman trans., section VII, read through-XII, at least, for context).

Now, I understand that he's got a very complex take on the relative merit/demerit of the "noble" (which is explicitly racialized, and asssociated with European/Aryan thought) versus the "priestly" values that he associates with Jewish thought and from there links to Chistianity. I grant that he's exploring this dichotomy in complex, polyvalent ways.

But does his writing not promulgate a continued racialism, even as it perhaps questions that racialism, and thus carries with it a not fully escapable taint of anti-Semiticism? His very fixation on Judaism and Jews per se--who are specially denoted as the _most_ priestly of all people, the most devious and inscrutible, which are of course classic racist qualities?

I'd also love to explore more critically--with others' help--whether there isn't a link between his focus on the "strong," his own sickness, and his frequent misogynist-tinged statements. Perhaps it all boils down to: what, precisely, is Nietzsche's evaluation of "weakness"--is it to be overcome and replaced by strength, or is it more complex than that?
 
 
alas
00:33 / 26.07.03
ummm ... bump? Having been reading the Policy threads, I'm just going to put this here, and hope someone decides to help me understand Nietzsche on strength/weakness, while taking the following advice "seriously"--

"This crown of the laughter loving, this rose-chaplet crown; to you, my fellows, do I fling this crown! Laughter I declare to be blessed: you who aspire to greatness, learn how to laugh!" (Zarathustra)
 
 
flufeemunk effluvia
01:19 / 22.08.04
I bump as well, mainly because i wanna discuss TSZ (I picked it up in a used bookstore). What I am getting from it so far is the only way one should live is as an individual so as to find your own beliefs and live for the man of the future (the superman), and because man is so flawed, get rid of man (man is something that must be overcome). Its quite a fun read, really.
 
 
osymandus
21:18 / 23.08.04
My sadly to brief analysis of Uncle freddy, (Will to Power Vol 3 , Twilight of teh Idols and half of Thus Spoke Zarathusa), had alway's given me the impression of a form of Western Buddishum but without the humor.

As mentioned the exestential parts of his thinking (IMHO) to grasp for the self spirital development of humanity (after the death of "god") and the ubermanch is his percived result of the self development and governance of humanity for itself.

The "anti-semetic" passage above , could also be N's refelection and admiration on the historical development of the Jewish peoples.

Historicaly repressed who certainly at the time of writting had achieved socially (not just via wealth), parts of his ideal of the ubermanch , removing that which was "weak" (others hatred etc) to achieve this.

From what Ive personally read and diguested, his disgust and near hatred of nationalisum (leading to his breaking a long held friendship with Wagner) seem unlikley to me to show a man who would be so petty of mind to form any kind of irrational prejudice on a generalistion of any peoples.
 
 
ONLY NICE THINGS
01:33 / 24.08.04
had alway's given me the impression of a form of Western Buddishum but without the humor

Oh, what? He is *hilarious*. The most naturally gifted comic ever to write German philosophy. Have a read of Gotzendammerung.
 
 
alas
19:37 / 25.08.04
I agree that he's funny--very funny. Yet I remain unconvinced that he bears no responsibility for the anti-Semitic cast that has been perceived in his writings. I would like to hear a reasoned reaction to that, if anyone is interested in providing one.

And I remain genuinely interested in how he works through 'weakness.' I sense that his writing moves in the direction I find in Buddhist work. As I understand "ressentiment," if you simply repudiate anything--reject it, you are most likely to be trapped by it. Therefore, if you simply reject "weakness" in yourself, you won't see it. You'll identify it as "not-me" as "other," and will mistake your own aggressive movements against it as "strength," rather than simple reactivity.

See, e.g., from Genealogy of Morals:

'The revolt of the slave in morals begins in the very principle of ressentiment becoming creative and giving birth to values—a ressentiment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. While every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself"; and this "no" is its creative deed. The volte face of the valuing standpoint—this inevitable gravitation to the objective instead of back to the subjective—is typical of ressentiment : the slave-morality requires as the condition of its existence an external and objective world, to employ physiological terminology, it requires objective stimuli to be capable of action at all—its action is fundamentally a reaction. The contrary is the case when we come to the aristocrat's system of values: it acts and grows spontaneously, it merely seeks its antithesis in order to pronounce a more grateful and exultant "yes" to its own self;'

If my reading is fair, thus far, I still feel like at some level his thought is, at times and in spots, 'weak' in the very sense he deplored: taking potshots at readily available, culturally-supplied scapegoats like women and Jews for, if nothing else, easy laughs. But I admit I may be missing something. I cannot read German, and may therefore suffer from some basic misunderstanding.

If I am essentially correct, however, I don't think we have to reject his thought because of this problem, but I do think it offers a legitimate ground for critique.

Thoughts?
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply