Friedrich Nietzsche

[Socrastein]

I see nothing sexy about having to sacrifice one's individuality in an ironic attempt to glean individuality from conforming to nonconformity. It seems rather desperate and sad to me. So I return your smack

I object to philosophers in a general manner though (especially the German ones), because they lament endlessly over questions that the sciences have already answered, and I don't have a whole lot of patience with that... seems like mental mastrubation to me.

Utterly ridiculous. Science cannot touch metaphysics for one. Science has very little concern with epistemology or linguistics and the limits of our knowledge and its relationship to our language. Science cannot answer ethical questions, though it can help to address different points of them (Like testing the claim that the death penalty prevents crime, for example). Science doesn't deal with essence, with identity, with continuity, or any other such philosophical problems. And science sure as hell can't touch political philosophy.

I really don't get where you got the idea that philosophy has been answered by science. In fact, by definition, philosophy is no longer philosophy once it can be answered by science. Things that used to be philosophy and are no science are acknowledged by philosophers as such, nobody clings to psychology or astronomy or biology as the philosophical ideas they used to be.

 

[nadroj1985]

I'm a big fan of Nietzsche's. I've read pretty much all of his stuff, aside from a few of his earlier works. Just finished "The Gay Science" a month or so ago, actually. You really must read it, David. Anyway, a couple comments on what people have already said:

That which is best for humanity is likely the way Nietzsche saw it. I think that Nietzsche believed that if everyone acted in their own best interests, sought as much sensual pleasure as the could and tried to obtain as much power as they could, humanity would be better off.

I'm not sure I would read Nietzsche this way, though maybe Socrastein can correct me if he feels the need to, since he seems fairly familiar with Nietzsche as well. But, it seems to me that this is more of an altruistic, "slave" morality that Nietzsche at many times seems to shun. What, for instance, do you mean by "better off"? Nietzsche stresses individual greatness so much, and decries altruism so incessantly as a hindrance to this greatness, that I don't think any normal concept of "what's best for humanity" is what he's aiming for.

I agree with all of them, and I think that we all operate under them in any case. We cannot avoid the first - that is simply how humans operate. The second is again an obvious one: we all seek pleasure, and there is nothing wrong with the joys of the flesh, which in reality are all joys. Lust for power is always the stumbling block for me, as I do not think that I fully understand Nietzsche's take on this whole issue.

Actually, I think Nietzsche would say that lust for power is really the basic source of the other two. He says (somewhere early on in BGE, I don't have the text on me) that physiologists have been incorrect in seeing the will to survive as the basic human drive; rather, it is the "will to power," the desire to vent our strength on the world. I read Nietzsche as saying that all of our actions are manifestations of that will to power -- that every action I commit is done in a plot to subordinate the world around me to my will. This is, of course, a selfish drive, and gives pleasure when it is fulfilled, and it is in that sense that it is the basis for the other two things you mentioned.

It's of note that Nietzsche didn't actually turn this phrase. In both accounts the phrase comes from the mouth of one of the characters in his works. Nietzsche is foreshadowing the demise of morality as people abandon moral principles and succumb to nihilism and moral relativism. He is not a nihilist. Nietzsche is not a moral relativist either.

Emphasis mine.

Just curious, Socrastein, as to what you mean in saying Nietzsche is not a moral relativist. The man who teaches us to create our own values certainly doesn't seem to be a moral absolutist.

 

[David Gould]

I'm a big fan of Nietzsche's. I've read pretty much all of his stuff, aside from a few of his earlier works. Just finished "The Gay Science" a month or so ago, actually. You really must read it, David. Anyway, a couple comments on what people have already said:



I'm not sure I would read Nietzsche this way, though maybe Socrastein can correct me if he feels the need to, since he seems fairly familiar with Nietzsche as well. But, it seems to me that this is more of an altruistic, "slave" morality that Nietzsche at many times seems to shun. What, for instance, do you mean by "better off"? Nietzsche stresses individual greatness so much, and decries altruism so incessantly as a hindrance to this greatness, that I don't think any normal concept of "what's best for humanity" is what he's aiming for.

Maybe you are correct. I just get the impression that individual greatness is what he thinks is best for everyone. He wants everyone to be the superman, although he doubts the ability of everyone to acheive that. ANd if you cannot acheive it, step aside to let others do it or give birth to a child yourself and help them become the superman.

Actually, I think Nietzsche would say that lust for power is really the basic source of the other two. He says (somewhere early on in BGE, I don't have the text on me) that physiologists have been incorrect in seeing the will to survive as the basic human drive; rather, it is the "will to power," the desire to vent our strength on the world. I read Nietzsche as saying that all of our actions are manifestations of that will to power -- that every action I commit is done in a plot to subordinate the world around me to my will. This is, of course, a selfish drive, and gives pleasure when it is fulfilled, and it is in that sense that it is the basis for the other two things you mentioned.

Yes, I agree with this take on it.

 

[nadroj1985]

Hmm... I always see Nietzsche's concept of greatness as intrinsically involving a stepping up beyond the masses; IOW, if everyone became a superman, it wouldn't be so "super" anymore. I'd have to reread the first bit of "Zarathustra" maybe; I can't remember if he adresses this specifically or if it's something I unconsciously added in

 

[Eudaimonist]

If so...do you agree with him on anything?

N is a mixed bag. I approve of his criticisms of altruism, but I don't think his ethical alternative is much better. Both "master" and "slave" moralities aren't good for people.

I'd rather be an independent individual -- neither a master nor a slave -- and in line with that I think that Ayn Rand had the right sort of response to his ideas, which one can find in the Fountainhead, which is, in part, a critique of N. (Gayle Wynand is the ubermensch character in the story.)

I love some of the noble spirit of his philosophy though.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Selfishness, sensual pleasure and lust for power are what the world calls the three most evil things. Nietzsche thinks that these are in fact good things. That is simplistic, of course. Do you agree or disagree?

That depends. Selfishness for what? Sensual pleasure in what circumstances? Lust for the power to do what?

Yes, I think that self-interest, sensual pleasure, and power can be good things when pursued wisely and rationally, meaning: with proper regard for context, purpose, and a standard of goodness. But the seeming standardlessness of his ethics is troubling. Will is not enough.

 

[Socrastein]

Just curious, Socrastein, as to what you mean in saying Nietzsche is not a moral relativist. The man who teaches us to create our own values certainly doesn't seem to be a moral absolutist.

It is my admittedly fallible understanding of Nietzsche that his ethics is founded in the will to power, this universal absolute, this teleological explanation for not only humans but everything (Though it gets fuzzy when you're talking about things that don't really have a "will" per se). Do not suppress the will to power, do not waste your life, "say yes! to life" and seize every oppurtunity to better yourself. This may be an incorrect statement, but as I understand it, we are not to create our own values, because there is one supreme value we and everything else intrinsically possess - the will to power. This doesn't seem relativist, at least to me, but we may simply be disagreeing about terms. I'm sure that regardless of the word I'm using, you can see the concept behind my not finding this ethical system to be relativist.

 

[nadroj1985]

It is my admittedly fallible understanding of Nietzsche that his ethics is founded in the will to power, this universal absolute, this teleological explanation for not only humans but everything (Though it gets fuzzy when you're talking about things that don't really have a "will" per se). Do not suppress the will to power, do not waste your life, "say yes! to life" and seize every oppurtunity to better yourself. This may be an incorrect statement, but as I understand it, we are not to create our own values, because there is one supreme value we and everything else intrinsically possess - the will to power. This doesn't seem relativist, at least to me, but we may simply be disagreeing about terms. I'm sure that regardless of the word I'm using, you can see the concept behind my not finding this ethical system to be relativist.

Ahhhh..... Well, I don't see the will to power as prescriptive so much as descriptive. Nietzsche's not saying we should act in accordance with the will to power -- he's saying we do, regardless of what we should be doing. The will to power isn't an ethical principle, it's the fundamental principle of life itself.

As far as what we should do, I think you're right in pointing out that Nietzsche would have us affirm life; but I think that Nietzsche would say that the manner in which we do that will inevitably be different for each individual. Otherwise, they wouldn't be individuals. I tend to see Nietzsche as a relativist.

 

[Socrastein]

Hmmm. Well, good thing I didn't try to bully my view cause I'd really feel like a chump now. The key phrase I think is "I don't see the will to power as prescriptive so much as descriptive" and upon reflection I think you're quite right. Thanks for clarifying, I must say I agree with you now.

 

[Cheli]

Although I am a philosophy student at university, I haven't read as much of N as I should have I'm afraid. There are a couple of quotes that I love though (including the faith/asylum one):

You need chaos in your soul to give birth to a dancing star
Faith: not wanting to know what is true
The Christian resolution to find the world ugle and bad has made the world ugly and bad
Without music, life would be a mistake
Two great European narcotics, alcohol and Christianity
I'd only believe in a god who could dance
In heaven all the interesting people are missing

 

[Code-Monkey]

Selfishness, sensual pleasure and lust for power are what the world calls the three most evil things. Nietzsche thinks that these are in fact good things. That is simplistic, of course. Do you agree or disagree?

Sensual Pleasure -- Christian theologians (at least mainstream ones) say "sensual pleasure" was created by God. The sensual pleasures of sex for example are a gift from God as described in Song of Solomon. Perhaps like Nietzsche is mischaracterized as some of you are saying, so is sensual pleasure or pleasure in general with christianity.

Lust for power -- well christianity also describes power as a good thing, but not "lust for power". But this gets into how you define lust for power. If you change the meaning of the word lust, then it's not as bad.

Selfishness -- Again, sort of depends how you define it. But almost all cultures at all times have looked down upon selfishness. People have generally believed that one should not put oneself absolutely above all other things. You can sort of weazle out of this and say, "but it is better for me to go hungry and help this other poor slob". But I don't think that's rationally true. It might be better for society as a whole, and it may bring about better stuff for people in the future, but for you yourself it does not bring about more material goods. So christianity (and most people I think) would agree that selfishness is bad. What people generally disagree about is where to draw the line.

 

[grateful heart]

I'll agree. If everyone cared for themselves and stopped worrying about everyone else, I think the human race would be much farther along intellectually. Sensual pleasure is important to the human, why take away what is natural? Why consider it evil? To us as humans, admit it or not, we enjoy it, obviously. Lust for power can also be considered a good thing...I mean, we all do it. It seems to make me work harder at what I want to achieve.

Bless.

i disagree
if everyone cared about everyone else and treated others as they would treat themselves, our lives would be heaps better

 

[plmarquette]

This particular forum is for Philosophy* and Morality, and I don't see a whole* lot of philosophy in here I just thought I'd see how it goes over to talk about one of my favorite philosophers...Friedrich Nietzsche.. Does anyone here know much about him? If so...do you agree with him on anything? Do you completely disagree with him on anything? He was a great thinker...and a many of his works are utterly amazing.

Please share your thoughts.

Talk l8r.
Bless.

BTW...if you haven't heard of him, I'd suggest looking him up...he's awesome

fred was the grandfather of socialism & social darwinism ....
wrong , atheist , and a bit flakey ....

paul

 

[nadroj1985]

One of my favorite quotes:

"The hermit does not believe that any philosopher -- assuming that every philosopher was first of all a hermit -- ever expressed his real and ultimate opinion in books: does one not write books precisely to conceal what one harbors? Indeed, he will doubt whether a philosopher could possibly have 'ultimate and real' opinions, whether behind every one of his caves there is not, must not be, another deeper cave -- a more comprehensive, stranger, richer world beyond the surface, an abysmally deep ground behind every ground, under every attempt to furnish 'grounds.' Every philosophy is a foreground philosophy -- that is a hermit's judgment: 'There is something arbitrary in his stopping here to look back and look around, in his not digging deeper here but laying his spade aside; there is also something suspicious about it.' Every philosophy also conceals a philosophy; every opinion is also a hideout, every word also a mask."

...from Beyond Good and Evil, aph. 289

 

[Eudaimonist]

fred was the grandfather of socialism & social darwinism ....

So?

 

[nadroj1985]

So?

So that makes him an evil, bad man.

Duh.







Edit: I'm curious, Euda, what was Rand's response to Nietzsche's ideas? I've never really read any of her work.

 

[Infernal Freak]

whoa...I totally forgot about this thread! I'm so sorry, heh, *blush*, I was at camp and came home and realized a couple days later that I hadn't posted for a couple weeks. Well...if anyone still wants to discuss this, keep replying. I'll read up on what I haven't for a while.
Talk l8r.
Bless.

 

[angela 2]

Some of N's stuff is interesting and not offensive.

But let's not forget, he loathed Christianity for what it truly preaches, that the last shall be first, that he poor will inherit the earth, that the outcast and the marginalized get preferential treatment.

His thinking is the ground from which Nazism grew.

 

[David Gould]

His thinking is the ground from which Nazism grew.

The twisted interpretation of his thinking that his sister presented is what Nazism grew from.

Nietzsche hated German nationalism and anti-semiticism. 'All anti-semites should be shot,' was a comment he made in one of his letters: remember that from his perspective anti-semiticism arose out of Christianity. There is also the fact that he hated herd mentalities - 'the rabble' as he termed it. Nationalism was such a mentality.

The fact that one of his relatives, who did not understand his philosophy, changed it into something that it was not is not his fault. It is rather like blaming the authors of the Gospels for the Inquisition - it is hardly their fault if their message gets twisted by fools and scoundrels.

 

[maha]

Yeah, Nietzche was a strange cat. I read his compilation book--the one with most of his writings. I'll admit that the preponderance of his work evaded me. However, he did have some really good quotes strewn about intermittently. I had them written down somewhere, but I seem to have misplaced them. I'll discuss a few that I do remember, but I'll have to paraphrase:

"God is dead." This is of course a classic. But surprisingly, I would have thought that such an articulate and clever individual would be able to express the idea with more eloquent prose. But maybe the point was to be blunt. He did get people's attention after all.

"One need not hate so long as one can despise..." This too is a classic. I still don't know exactly what he meant by it. Maybe he was trying to say that if you can look down upon someone and they accept it, then you can settle with them existing as long as it's below you. Kind of like how whites treated blacks in the Jim Crow days. They didn't have to kill all the blacks even though they detested them. As long as the blacks stayed subserviant, then the whites would be satisfied with their position of superiority. Obviously this was a statement about human behavior (a bad behavior)...as are most philosophical quotes.

"Why do you not like me?
Because I am not as good as you.
A phrase never uttered by a human being." I really like this one. We would never admit that we disliked someone because we feel inferior to them...even if we believed it to be true. It's not in our nature to believe that we are somehow less than others. This plays into the previous quote as well. It's all very esoteric.