THIS 1000x this, I knew exactly where you were going with your criticism. I was just about too write up a synopsis of what you outlined here in this last post haha. You should add in some illustrative quote's for quick reference and impact. When making an argument against Nietzsche writing's we should examine his word's and grasp the interpretation's possible. Which will create multiple side's of interpretation of the work ofcourse but gives your debate more substance. I'm interesting in seeing Blowfish's intellectual rebuttal on this your core argument you've presented.
Nietzsche views arent meant to be looked at as absolute, but as relative. Neitzsches views and thoughts comes from... Nietzsche! and how do you know the perception of "we, the people" and their future-to-be reactions on this embodiment? perception is relative so the outcome of this imaginary event could be varried, as people are wired up differently. you're being a hypocrite by doing the very same thing you're accusing Nietzsche for doing in your OP - him not being objective enough, while you're letting your own feelings towards Nietzsche obscure your vision. most, if not all religions, teaches that knowledge of the self isnt usefull without practical application. like beatifull flowers without smell.. practice, based on the knowledge of self, is called power in my book. shit, i'd love to dominate my inner state and actions in the physical plane. i havent read any of his works however, so i cant tell what he meant by dominance. dont care either.. again, perception is relative and there are no absolute answers. and who are you to say what the whole race's ultimate goal should and shouldn't be? it only makes you sound like another deranged preacher..
1.) Actually, Nietzsche's philosophy is intended for contemporaries and posterity. Nietzsche's "ubermensch" is the ideal man; in his opinion - this ubermensch is supposed to transcend old ways of acting and thinking; they're, the ubermenschs, meant to precipitate a new world order. So, Nietzsche's world of ubermenschs is an objective goal, never forget that. And you keep saying perception is relative... yes, this isn't a new notion, but, you can NEVER vindicate an innocent murder - no matter whose "perceiving" it. I AM somebody who can manifest, my opinion, of what mankind's goal should be... because I understand the importance of empathy. I would NEVER liked to be dominated against my will... and I'm pretty sure no one else would like that, so, why not create a world where people are admonished with reasoning and the "knowledge of self", instead of being dominated and regulated, both mentally and physically?
you just confirmed my point - its his opinion. his reality. his senses. his thoughts. his feelings. all in his mind - therefore relative. übermenschs sounds like his ideal of humankind evolving - a quite beatifull topic. im interested.. what do you find so bad about it? my oldskool notion hadn't shit to do with vindicating murders of innocent people and the percievers thereof... maybe i explained my point poorly. sorry man, my english isn't the best. the point is, your OP reeked of personal attack against a man whom opinion you dont agree with. you accused him, in very basic terms, for stating his view which was influenced by emotions and personal experience. i thought it would be a new perspective for you to know that its something we're all guilty of, in our own unique way. you proceeded to make a hypothesis based on all people following the same philosophy and reacting the same way. i pointed the fallacy out of that, since peoples perception of the same thing make them react differently. thus removing the carpet under the hypothesis. then i explained my perception of power in contrast to yours, to test said relativity. everybody can manifest their wishfull thinking and justify it all they want. nothing wrong with that.. you see, should and shouldn't's are both whores in my book. fuck 'em
So he was enraptured by his own will? What the hell does that even mean other than he was strong willed? Given that that's one of the huge selling points of his philosophy it's hardly an argument against him, more of a description of his work. Nietzsche doesn't come across as a very socially warm man but one of the reasons he hated nihilism so much was the inherent pessimism, there's a whole passage dedicated to that effect in twilight of the idols. I think you need to read more Nietzsche. "Whenever a cardinal problem is at stake, there speaks an unchangeable "this is I"; about man and woman, for example, a thinker cannot relearn but only finish learning–only discover ultimately how this is "settled in him." At times we find certain solutions of problems that inspire strong faith in us; some call them henceforth their "convictions." Later–we see them only as steps to self-knowledge, signposts to the problem we are–rather, to the great stupidity we are, to our spiritual fatum, to what is unteachable very "deep down". After this abundant civility that I have just evidenced in relation to myself I shall perhaps be permitted more readily to state a few truths about "woman as such"–assuming that it is now known from the outset how very much these are after all only–my truths." That Nietzsche quote was discovered with less than 15 seconds of google usage. His philosophy advocates your OWN will, not his. Nietzsche, Schopenhaur and aristotle can all be viewed as mysoginistic, but it's not really an important part of his philosophy and isn't really relevant to his main ideas. Not to mention that his personal life (which is usually involved in any case against him) isn't really relevant to his works. He could have enjoyed privately fingering cats but it wouldn't have made a difference to his philosophy. In fact, it would only have strengthened it. If mysoginy is his will then he's acting according to his beliefs. It's difficult to have a debate when you don't back up what you say. I think he's suggesting that it's largely irrelevant and not really an argument at all. Doesn't sound like it. If we all followed Nietzsche's philosophy we'd be living in a world full of people willing to be intellectually honest with themselves. This is as ridiculous as saying we'd be slaughtering non believers if most people were Christian. Nothing really belongs to anyone from a certain point of view. Power belongs to whoever can take and keep it. History has shown this time and time again. There are plenty of passages where Nietzsche scolds people for not being honest with themselves, how is that not being "intune" with yourself? man's ultimate goal is be what he desires. Should isn't a word used lightly in philosophy unless you can prove your point to be axiomatic. This. Existentialists tend not to take many things as objective, least of all views alluding to ethics such as those being discussed in this thread.
[quote name='"gedio"'] So he was enraptured by his own will? What the hell does that even mean other than he was strong willed? Given that that's one of the huge selling points of his philosophy it's hardly an argument against him, more of a description of his work. Nietzsche doesn't come across as a very socially warm man but one of the reasons he hated nihilism so much was the inherent pessimism, there's a whole passage dedicated to that effect in twilight of the idols. I think you need to read more Nietzsche. "Whenever a cardinal problem is at stake, there speaks an unchangeable "this is I"; about man and woman, for example, a thinker cannot relearn but only finish learning–only discover ultimately how this is "settled in him." At times we find certain solutions of problems that inspire strong faith in us; some call them henceforth their "convictions." Later–we see them only as steps to self-knowledge, signposts to the problem we are–rather, to the great stupidity we are, to our spiritual fatum, to what is unteachable very "deep down". After this abundant civility that I have just evidenced in relation to myself I shall perhaps be permitted more readily to state a few truths about "woman as such"–assuming that it is now known from the outset how very much these are after all only–my truths." That Nietzsche quote was discovered with less than 15 seconds of google usage. His philosophy advocates your OWN will, not his. Nietzsche, Schopenhaur and aristotle can all be viewed as mysoginistic, but it's not really an important part of his philosophy and isn't really relevant to his main ideas. Not to mention that his personal life (which is usually involved in any case against him) isn't really relevant to his works. He could have enjoyed privately fingering cats but it wouldn't have made a difference to his philosophy. In fact, it would only have strengthened it. If mysoginy is his will then he's acting according to his beliefs. It's difficult to have a debate when you don't back up what you say. I think he's suggesting that it's largely irrelevant and not really an argument at all. Doesn't sound like it. If we all followed Nietzsche's philosophy we'd be living in a world full of people willing to be intellectually honest with themselves. This is as ridiculous as saying we'd be slaughtering non believers if most people were Christian. Nothing really belongs to anyone from a certain point of view. Power belongs to whoever can take and keep it. History has shown this time and time again. There are plenty of passages where Nietzsche scolds people for not being honest with themselves, how is that not being "intune" with yourself? man's ultimate goal is be what he desires. Should isn't a word used lightly in philosophy unless you can prove your point to be axiomatic. This. Existentialists tend not to take many things as objective, least of all views alluding to ethics such as those being discussed in this thread.[/quote] Well said, my friend.
1.) After Nietzsche read Schopenhauer's "The World As Will and Representation"... he began to expand on Schopes "will to live"; Schopenhauer believed pessimism to be a direct result of us, humans, being conscious to the fact of not being able to TOTALLY appease thee insatiable "will". Nietzsche sought after a legitimate way to overcome this inevitable pessimism... and he came up with his "will to power". Nietzsche respected those WHO could overcome "insurmountable" boundaries and who would set their own precedents... I respect and appreciate all of this; but, where I start to rebuke Nietzsche, is, where he starts vindicating impositions and aggressions against the weaker kind(the ones who are weak-willed); Nietzsche even went as far as allowing the "ubermench" to totally decimate and then regulate the "herd". And this is what I meant by him being "enraptured" by the concept of "the will". After contemplating its truth, it filled him with an ardent fervor, which ended up with him vindicating hegemony over the "weak" - basically, "Might is Right"... I'm going to come back to this. 2.) If we followed Nietzsche's philosophy, then we would have to start out the same way the Nazi's did... pure domination and decimation. 3.) If Nietzsche was such a proper existentialists... then why does he JUDGE and CRITIQUE the masses by his own personal standards and ethos? And finally, you said, "Nothing really belongs to anyone from a certain point of view. Power belongs to whoever can take and keep it. History has shown this time and time again." This idea of power simply comes down to ONE statement: "Might is Right" - this is Nietzsche's philosophy in a nutshell; power over your own will and power over the "herd"; but, I must raise one question, pertaining to "Might is Right" within civilization and society... "What is the validity of a right, which perishes on the same force it rests?"
Nietzsche's "will to power" is a result of something he despised - fear. If understanding and the "knowledge of self" are prevalent - which is the UNIVERSAL goal, there would be no need to fear your neighbor and fellow man; and consequently, you wouldn't NEED to lust for power and reign over the masses - like some sort of "superman".
That's an interesting tangent but I'm still not sure why any of that means he isn't just strong willed though? The weak willed, yes. The meek aren't blessed, I'm shocked if this comes as news. Right is a subjective term, might (a strong will and the ability to enact it) gets things done, it's the only thing that gets things done. Tyrants of the usual sort weren't of interest to Nietzsche, "you stronger and haughty minds, grant us only one thing; lay no new burdens on us but take some of our burdens on yourselves as becomes the stronger." Becase he wants to. As much is obvious if you're familiar with his work. It's valid because it has the power to say it is. That's all anything really comes down to. You can believe what you want about your rights but if you can't convince others of them then what use are your beliefs?
1.) My point isn't to prove that Nietzsche wasn't strong-willed, IN HIS WRITINGS, but, my point was to say that we, as a species of great potential, shouldn't aim for power and dominance. The most conducive fate for Man is harmony. 2.) What do you mean by "getting things done"... what things - slaughter and oppression? 3.) Pure atavism... Society was constructed for the benefit of all, and not ONE. If you want to live by the rules of the jungle, where it's the survival of the fittest, GO BACK to the jungles. Society's main goal IS to take Man out of this undesirable and tempestuous condition of the jungles. Again, harmony and the preservation of freedom is the goal - not atavistic and egotistic dominance.
Seems to be varying on some sort of spiritualist psuedo-philosophy now. Howis man harmony? History has demonstrated this to not be the case pretty much since the beginning of recorded history. People ONLY do things for personal gain, atruism is simply a pleasing lie. Anything at all. If you lack the ability to accomplish a task it won't get done.. ....If you think it's atavism then you're lying to yourself about the nature of human existance. It's largely relative. I'd argue that the main reason any sort of societies form is to benefit from trade with more ease. Societies (even this one) revolve around benefitting a select few.
1.) Harmony in a way, where people aren't slaves to their emotion's and animalistic volition's. Does freedom have a meaning if you're trapped in your ways? 2.) Okay, you can be strong-willed and not have a proclivity to dominate over fellow beings. Nietzsche's strong will is an atavistic depiction. We must be strong willed in the sense of an ascetic sense, but NOT to that extreme; to curb impulse and thee insatiable animalistic drive is a very strong power - for only people of the strongest kind can forsake their hardwiring. -This a power which is enough to create an ideal society, without the need to for physical power and dominance. "If understanding and the 'knowledge of self' are prevalent - which is the UNIVERSAL goal, there would be no need to fear your neighbor and fellow man; and consequently, you wouldn't NEED to lust for power and reign over the masses - like some sort of 'superman'." 3.) Yes, that's because those type of people still adhere to the rules of the jungle, while residing in a cohered society. Again, CONSENSUAL society was constituted for the benefit of ALL.. and not a few.
Trapped in your ways and embracing yourself are very similar things depending on where you're looking at it frombut there is a distinction and Nietzsche definately fell under the latter, as much is obvious through his works. Nietzsche's strong will is his will. Bending to others opinions because they call it atavistic (which I on't agree with) would be following the herd... And only the poor in vision try. There is no higher self to alude to or work towards, we are ONLY a product of our experiences, self improvement is little more than masturbation for the weak willed. "The only way to get rid of temptation is to yield to it." Oscar wild, the picture of dorian gray. Would it take willpower to subvert your own desires? Yes, but it's counterintuitive to will yourself against your will, and if you're only doing it becase you're scared of your willpower or your nature then no it's not strength, it's weakness. I'm sure you'll reply with a reductio ad absurdum though. - Whose ideal society? Again, you're taking Nietzsche's words slightly out of context here, I've already showed a quote where he speaks out against this type of tyraannical power. It isn't born from fear either, that's pop psychology at it's worst. Collectivism. Society benefits the individual, when it benefits groups seperately elitism develops. That's part of the reason society is where it is.
1.) Valid point; I'll give you this one. 2.) So... empathy is not a characteristic of "ubermensch"? 3.) Wow, this is where we disagree. So, self-improvement, in terms of prudence, hygiene, clarity of thought, and empathy shouldn't be considered self-improvement? Isn't understanding yourself and accepting yourself for what you truly are - a sort of self-improvement, in itself? 4.) Never should this yearning to mitigate your insatiable will, be imputed to "fear". It is the result of understanding what "life" is - an endless treadmill, where beings run, austerely, in vain; simply for the augmentation of their personal ego, and, for the WEAK desire of not wanting to be alone without attention and unheard. Nietzsche held a contempt for society because it SCARRED him abysmally, so, as Russell said, "He(Nietzsche)soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." 5.) The world's. For the world and it's inhabitants, harmony is the ultimate goal - which will be a product of the dialectic throughout history. One day mankind will evolve and manifest the society I allude to... a inter-connected network with realization of it's cohered potential and ability. A universal brotherhood. "He [Nietzsche] condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear: I am afraid my neighbour may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man could feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His ‘noble’ man – who is himself in day-dreams – is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: 'I will do such things – What they are yet I know not – but they shall be The terror of the earth.'" - And this is exactly what one of YOUR response's, "Nietzsche's strong will is his will. Bending to others opinions because they call it atavistic (which I on't agree with) would be following the herd...", alludes to; whatever terror awaits, it does not matter, as long as I am "strong-willed" - I can do whatever I please...
Very interesting discussion going on here, I'd like too chime in just my 2cents being it appears you both are covering this topic in a general sense currently which is the Master-slave morality idea's presented. I feel, Nietzsche did a very poor job as a philosopher maintaining any semblance of being non-biased. Nietzsche applies obviously positive/negative connotation too very specific faction's and idealogy. He employ's a good and honest approach trying to represent the master morality leading the morality's of the slave mortality. However, he goes on too clearly present master morality as being a positive/beneficial to society. This is not to say he wanted the obliteration of slave morality, why would he? Here's a question, how did "nobility" play such an important role in master morality. What dictate's nobility? "The noble type of man experiences itself as determining values; it does not need approval; it judges, 'what is harmful to me is harmful in itself'; it knows itself to be that which first accords honour to things; it is value-creating." Sound's like sociopath's too me, Why would Nietzshe valued this morality over what he dubbed the slave morality? Conditioning, probably even a man with ideas as expansive as his is obviously vulnerable too influence and conditioning. These are apparent in his specific targeted demographic's he chose to denounce as "slave-mentality", question's question's... Fucking Nietzsche man, guy was just another tool furthering the agenda of a forced duality and helping to justify the action's of the elite few that have the charisma, dominance, vision, and self-entitlement (nobility) too dictate the lives of the peon's.
I was waiting for your mention of the will to power.. .. But then you took it out of context. I feel as if you don't understand the figurative utility that comes from concepts like the ubermensch or the will to power... I believe Nietzsche does allude to harmonization of man and the self... But that cannot happen unless one does self-actualize and strive for power... In sum, I believe your "harmony" argument has been covered by Nietzsche... Just read Beyond Good and Evil again...