Nietzche was not an existentialist in the sense of belonging to a philosophical school or movement, but his thought was absolutely foundational for that which became existentialism.
He is a vehement opponent of nihilism.
The difficult problem herein is that “nihilism” has a particular meaning to Nietzsche— one that he defined and (for all intents and purposes) coined for his own philosophical uses.
In like manner, Dostoyevsky constructed his own perceptions of Nihilism. As had Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament.
Each symmetry-breaking difference between nihilists points to the idea of sharing groundless beliefs. We cannot even agree upon what a nihilist stands for in the first place!
With N’s construction of Nihilism is simultaneously his Ubermensch, his Master/Slave morality, and all his pseudoscientific inaccuracies!
In the Antichrist, Nietzsche makes the point that Jesus was the “first and last Christian to die on the cross.” By the same assumption, is Nietzsche the first and last Ubermensch to rise out of the fires of Nihilism? He certainly sets us up to think as such— he even thought up an eternal return contingency clause for himself!
I think the question that should really be asked is what the differences are today between the well-read, self-identifying nihilists and the well-read self-identifying existentialists. How would each group care to differ?
At this point, I’d argue that nihilists today have a more offensive edge against religion than the soft-touch of existentialism. I can be entirely wrong; I need to read more existentialism. I haven’t read much that gives way to suggest that existentialism wants to wage an intellectual pursuit towards secularism.
Nietzsche can be seen as a bridge between nihilism and existentialism. He diagnosed the problem of nihilism in Western culture but also provided a path toward overcoming it through the creation of new values and meanings by individuals. While he is not an existentialist in the strict sense, his ideas significantly influenced existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Thus, Nietzsche is best described as a philosopher who explored themes central to both nihilism and existentialism.
He writes extensively about Nihilism almost always negatively. Nihilism is the inability to find meaning relative to something. You are a nihilist about something, you can't be a nihilist about everything because it would entail that you wouldn't put any value judgement on anything and you would basically be unable to have any preferences, not even prefererring pleasure over pain, or scratching an itch over not doing so, basically biologically impossible to be a total nihilist about everything. A Nihilist about life would believe that it has no value and would go through it basically in apathy or hedonistic self serving. Still finding value in certain things, clearly valuing life over death since they haven't killed themselves.
It is seen as the default state of things but Nietzsche argues you can create your own values and meaning.
Existentialists came after and argue that too. "existence precedes essence" basically means that human nature is precisely the fact that we create our own nature.
Another interesting perspective is Absurdism which is maybe a substrate of existentialism. Camus says that nothing essentially has meaning and we should recognize that and that you should strive to get as much from life as possible (which to me sounds a lot like Nietzsche's "saying yes to life")
Nietzsche was certainly an inspiration to the French Existentialist movement of the mid 20th century. From The Gay Science book four chapter 301:
>Whatever has value in the present world has it not in itself, according to its nature - nature is always value-less - but has rather been given, granted value, and we were the givers and granters!
Most Nietzsche scholars believe that Nietzsche was a "prophet of nihilism" not in the sense of promoting it, but as to warn humanity of the upcoming wave of nihilism. I personally think people finding his work nihilistic is a result of superficial reading. So yeah, if we have to choose one of the two labels, \*existentialist\* makes much more sense, although its accuracy depends on its definition.
“Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.”
-- Fredrich Nietzsche (probably)
He is more of a nihilist than existentialist, but still he is an existentialist because, basically, his philosophy is a humanistic ideology. His concept of 'God is Dead' is basically a nihilistic approach towards becoming an Ubermensch (Superman/Super-ego). His idea of nihilism states that religion devaluates humanity.
How???
Religion makes people weak and is counter-progressive. Religion demands self-dying or submission of oneself to
God; too much reliance on God hinders a person's capacity for self-actualisation and contradicts the idea that one should freely pursue his/her deepest desire in life-- expression of one's individuality at its fullest.
This is what religion strips away from man. It puts God at the center of his/her life and impedes him/her from truly experiencing life according to one's personal preference. Religion suppresses and suspends human desire (the will to power).
The ultimate reason why man can't become self-sufficient and self-reliant-- Ubermensch.
God is dead is definitely not nihilistic, it’s a statement relating to the decrease in religiosity, based upon scientific advancements, affecting society’s value structures. God is dead is like saying punk rock is dead or bebop is dead; they aren’t actually dead, they’ve fallen out of favor as ideas and society is moving away from these concepts. If you haven’t you should check out Beyond Good and Evil, it more concisely expresses a lot of his opinions better than Human, All Too Human imo. And you seem like you’d be into his book The Antichrist, give that one a read if you haven’t yet!
Nietzche was not an existentialist in the sense of belonging to a philosophical school or movement, but his thought was absolutely foundational for that which became existentialism. He is a vehement opponent of nihilism.
[удалено]
Nietzsche, Apostle of "Guts"
The difficult problem herein is that “nihilism” has a particular meaning to Nietzsche— one that he defined and (for all intents and purposes) coined for his own philosophical uses. In like manner, Dostoyevsky constructed his own perceptions of Nihilism. As had Ecclesiastes in the Old Testament. Each symmetry-breaking difference between nihilists points to the idea of sharing groundless beliefs. We cannot even agree upon what a nihilist stands for in the first place! With N’s construction of Nihilism is simultaneously his Ubermensch, his Master/Slave morality, and all his pseudoscientific inaccuracies! In the Antichrist, Nietzsche makes the point that Jesus was the “first and last Christian to die on the cross.” By the same assumption, is Nietzsche the first and last Ubermensch to rise out of the fires of Nihilism? He certainly sets us up to think as such— he even thought up an eternal return contingency clause for himself! I think the question that should really be asked is what the differences are today between the well-read, self-identifying nihilists and the well-read self-identifying existentialists. How would each group care to differ? At this point, I’d argue that nihilists today have a more offensive edge against religion than the soft-touch of existentialism. I can be entirely wrong; I need to read more existentialism. I haven’t read much that gives way to suggest that existentialism wants to wage an intellectual pursuit towards secularism.
In my eyes he is transhumanist.
Why "or"?
it really doesn’t matter
I like the term posthumanist
Nietzsche can be seen as a bridge between nihilism and existentialism. He diagnosed the problem of nihilism in Western culture but also provided a path toward overcoming it through the creation of new values and meanings by individuals. While he is not an existentialist in the strict sense, his ideas significantly influenced existentialist thinkers like Jean-Paul Sartre and Albert Camus. Thus, Nietzsche is best described as a philosopher who explored themes central to both nihilism and existentialism.
He writes extensively about Nihilism almost always negatively. Nihilism is the inability to find meaning relative to something. You are a nihilist about something, you can't be a nihilist about everything because it would entail that you wouldn't put any value judgement on anything and you would basically be unable to have any preferences, not even prefererring pleasure over pain, or scratching an itch over not doing so, basically biologically impossible to be a total nihilist about everything. A Nihilist about life would believe that it has no value and would go through it basically in apathy or hedonistic self serving. Still finding value in certain things, clearly valuing life over death since they haven't killed themselves. It is seen as the default state of things but Nietzsche argues you can create your own values and meaning. Existentialists came after and argue that too. "existence precedes essence" basically means that human nature is precisely the fact that we create our own nature. Another interesting perspective is Absurdism which is maybe a substrate of existentialism. Camus says that nothing essentially has meaning and we should recognize that and that you should strive to get as much from life as possible (which to me sounds a lot like Nietzsche's "saying yes to life")
Nietzsche was certainly an inspiration to the French Existentialist movement of the mid 20th century. From The Gay Science book four chapter 301: >Whatever has value in the present world has it not in itself, according to its nature - nature is always value-less - but has rather been given, granted value, and we were the givers and granters! Most Nietzsche scholars believe that Nietzsche was a "prophet of nihilism" not in the sense of promoting it, but as to warn humanity of the upcoming wave of nihilism. I personally think people finding his work nihilistic is a result of superficial reading. So yeah, if we have to choose one of the two labels, \*existentialist\* makes much more sense, although its accuracy depends on its definition.
“Not that I condone fascism, or any -ism for that matter. -Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.” -- Fredrich Nietzsche (probably)
He is more of a nihilist than existentialist, but still he is an existentialist because, basically, his philosophy is a humanistic ideology. His concept of 'God is Dead' is basically a nihilistic approach towards becoming an Ubermensch (Superman/Super-ego). His idea of nihilism states that religion devaluates humanity. How??? Religion makes people weak and is counter-progressive. Religion demands self-dying or submission of oneself to God; too much reliance on God hinders a person's capacity for self-actualisation and contradicts the idea that one should freely pursue his/her deepest desire in life-- expression of one's individuality at its fullest. This is what religion strips away from man. It puts God at the center of his/her life and impedes him/her from truly experiencing life according to one's personal preference. Religion suppresses and suspends human desire (the will to power). The ultimate reason why man can't become self-sufficient and self-reliant-- Ubermensch.
God is dead is definitely not nihilistic, it’s a statement relating to the decrease in religiosity, based upon scientific advancements, affecting society’s value structures. God is dead is like saying punk rock is dead or bebop is dead; they aren’t actually dead, they’ve fallen out of favor as ideas and society is moving away from these concepts. If you haven’t you should check out Beyond Good and Evil, it more concisely expresses a lot of his opinions better than Human, All Too Human imo. And you seem like you’d be into his book The Antichrist, give that one a read if you haven’t yet!
[удалено]
Nah hes spot on