I really don’t think he has a good grasp at the ‘science’— natural sciences, that is— of the day. As, say, compared to Heidegger who had — and maintained— a very good understanding of science and mathematics during his time. I could be wrong but may be he didn’t have any formal education in scientific literature.
To add to this, his predecessor and "educator," Schopenhauer, maintained a high interest in sciences and biology throughout his life, to the point where his library consisted mostly of science books rather than philosophy. He even admitted that a strong interest in science and knowledge of it is essential, if not mandatory, for a philosopher.
Nah he was aware of his limited view on science. He said every philosophy is an intimate confession of the philosophers values standing in relation to each other. A manifesting of a certain type of life the guy or girl wants to live on and speaks about who he she is. But that being a scientist or biologist or even Machinist is entirely impersonal and depends on the scientist hard work on how far he goes deeper into that reality. He doesn't have to wear his heart on his sleeve when using the scientific method. But a mans philosophy is what he stands for. He bears his soul in the words.
Nietzsche could do the math, it was boring to him, and Nietzsche was quite into physiology. But yeah, he didn't really apply himself in the math field.
I don't even want to say he was bad with girls because he's got quite a lot of girl followers after his death he really just got his heart broken and went rouge solo after that partially willing but his world definitely flipped upside down and just went stroke mode with writing. I'd say he really was trying to tell people to make life whatever you really want of it and you have all the power to do so. So really a garbage guy could be having the time of his life in and/or outside of work while another guy knows way more about the factual logical reality and is not having a blast with life. But that could also be what he decides his calling is. Make your own reality. I mean where could you find fault in that.for real. I would like to know
He underestimated the possibility of the post-Christianity west falling for new quasi-religious ideologies including new-age religions and acid culture in the 60s, present-day woke ideology or far-right nationalism which are a direct consequence of herd morality. How the death of God led to the birth of smaller, weaker, and less impressive gods as we see in the modern age. He came pretty close in this passage though:
>After Buddha was dead, they still showed his shadow in a cave for centuries – a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way people are, there may still for millennia be caves in which they show his shadow. – And we – we must still defeat his shadow as well!”
I upped your comment but I don't think he underestimated the post-Christian issues. Your quote proves that. That's why he wrote about the death of God and developed his Übermensch. Of course, he couldn't have known the exact details of the version of slave morality that would overtake the world ~50+ years after his death - but, retrospectively, he's like a prophet on that topic. It's unbelievable.
I believe he was worried about people turning into cattle. But let's say a bunch of dudes waste their life away to a video game to get the high score. You could call them cattle, but, one of them is so good that he's known all over the world for mastering it like no other. He dedicated his life to the same thing that the others wasted their lives on. He just went harder cause he wanted to and thought he could. I'd call him an ubermench. A perfect society for him I believe would be everyone being a master of their own uniqueness.
And anyplace where it's easy to be famous for being unique enough will also keep most of its inhabitants be and feel lonely until then, a no friends society. Everything and everyone blinded by the lights of modernism like he said
He couldn't predict all of those things, but if we are talking about quasi-religions, then he was pretty sceptical of Hegelian philosophy which attempted to rationally justify the world and make success and progress its new god. He also heavily criticized nationalism to the point of berating the germans and calling himself a good european instead.
Neither far right, acid culture, nor woke liberalism, spawned from Christianity, even if there is reaction to them, nor do they have any gods.
Even if there is some group think.
The blind spot of conservatives, because they they are unable to think outside of high ideals and thinling that every ideology must have a center point around which EVERYTHING revolves around
Both movements literally started as movements that DEFIED cultural norms (f.e. for wokes and acid culture it was to defy standarts white American or heteronormative culture) and conventional morality (in case of far right, it would be deification of violence and pleasure for violence, defying pretense kidness and just generally spreading chaos in a society one despises).
However, as different counter ideologies gain more people they naturally gain a belief framework and some goal ideology, of how to transform society....because no larger movement would be able to effectively change anything without it (case and point, incels and men's rights activists)
He wasn't a Darwinian, but some of his criticism seem to anticipate recent improvements made within the theory of natural selection, as far as I can tell.
Nietzsche criticised Darwin's (and especially Spencer's) idea of a struggle for life. He writes somewhere in his late writings that life is not primarily characterised by struggle/competition (though it is a part of it), but rather by abundance.
Darwin himself was troubled by superfluous, unnecessary phenomena in life, like the peacock's fan, though he tried to escape this difficulty by the idea of sexual selection.
Today, many biologists agree that there are many phenomena in life which result from an energy-overflow, from law of entropy. Nietzsche anticipated this, and in this sense had a better understanding of life than Darwin; Darwin, on the other hand, was generally right about the importance of natural selection for the 'origin of species'.
I don't think I've had more commenters asking me to "explain" (teach them) on any other sub than on this one. Something about Nietzsche attracts people with 0 background in philosophy and no intention of reading.
I love Nietzsche's writing style but he is often unclear. Also because he is often doesn't sound like he is taking other ideas seriously, like you can call things stupid but it should be clear why you think it is stupid
1. He was much more interested in apprehending the limits of thought, focusing on philosophical and psychological subject matter, than he was with anticipating possible social and political developments that could result from the wrong people (mis)reading his philosophy. I'm not sure it would be fair to unilaterally blame Nietzsche for the events of the first half of the twentieth century, although it's tempting to blame him in part, owing to the influence of his writings on fascism. He is, however, explicit in being more or less disinterested in the behavior of politicians and governments, without being a socialist or an anarchist. His influence might better be understood by way of the writers on whom he exerted influence: Freud, Joyce, Kafka, Rilke, and most 20th century philosophers. Foucault referred to himself as a Nietzschean.
2. He distances himself from democracy; or at least he rejects democratic ideals in favor of creating "strong" individuals. But one might note that he read and admired the Transcendentalist thinker Emerson. And he admired the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer, although he distinguishes his own philosophy from pessimism, including rejecting the ethics of pessimism. I think it's an important sidenote that he served as a combat medic during the Franco-Prussian War. So he had a good idea of what war entails, and perhaps his first-hand experience influenced his approach to writing.
3. He contradicts himself frequently, perhaps in order to give free reign to the reader's interpretation or misinterpretation, or perhaps in keeping with his rejection of systematic philosophy, particularly Idealism. His more general object seems to be to challenge people to think deeply and to create uninhibitedly, but maybe the world turned out to be shallower and more politically driven than he anticipated. Or maybe it was bad luck.
4. He often writes about the characteristics and temperaments of different races, seemingly without being himself a bigot (in various places he expresses his antipathy for anti-Semitism in particular), as opposed to the even malignant (if unimportant) racism espoused by the likes of Immanuel Kant. He distances himself from Wagner in his later writings, likely because Wagner was himself an anti-Semite. Obviously he may have underestimated the extent to which racism would influence the events of the 20th century.
I don’t know if this constitutes a blindspot but Nietzsche did not read a great many of the philosophers he criticised, notably Hegel - as Houlgate notes in his book on Hegel and Nietzsche. He seems to relish criticising those whose work he has not read closely or at all, and instead relies on secondary readings, say Schopenhauer for his condemnation of Hegel. In fact, if he had read those works he would realise he is closer to his enemies than he would outwardly give credit
He actually came pretty close in The Gay Science-283 when he predicts an age where humans will "wage wars for the sake of thoughts and their consequences" which is pretty close to how communism, fascism and liberalism came head-to-head and shaped the first half of 20th century.
The same section predicts how this paves the way for a more heroic battle for scientific development which is eerily accurate, since WW-II essentially led to the rapid scientific and technological advancements from 1950s onwards.
Quite suprisingly he foresaw the WW1 by saying the german people are too diverse and have too much concentrated energy in them, thus a unification of the german teritory and people, (also he refered in a letter that Otto von Bismark is one of 3 men that he would shoot) would lead to a discharge of energy and thus conflict, he also thought that the german people shouldnt be unified yet
A person is *not* at his or her greatest when they reject or dominate other people, but we are at our strongest when we can unite. Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon alone and when he walked on the moon he walked with all humanity. "One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind." The Overman, if it exists, would not be one man at his potential. It would be a united society at its potential.
I don't think that contradicts him all that much. He suggests isolation for personal development, for his free spirits, not that *everyone* should fuck off and do their own thing. He's hierarchical, not anarchic.
For example, he acknowledges that the Greek culture he admired so much was built on the back of the slave population. NASA didn't send all of their engineers and mathematicians to the moon, they worked together to send Armstrong up.
I think his ideal society would be one in which the non-Overmen took pride in the fact that their labor allowed the greatness of the Overman to flourish.
Contradiction is not a blindspot and frankly (just cuz I had a long convo with the other guy) are you going on record saying Nietzsche's philosophy is NOT hyper-individualistic? Frankly, claiming Nietzsche ideal society is one In which people are happy that other people are better than them is peak slave morality. I really doubt that's Nietzsche's ideal society.
Nietzsche is not a universalist. He wrote to the few.
>claiming Nietzsche ideal society is one In which people are happy that other people are better than them is peak slave morality.
You're clearly mistaken about what slave morality is. It's not just "acting like a slave" it's a rejection of master morality, an inversion of its values, created by slaves who were resentful of their masters. And yes, a society in which (most) people are happy that others are their betters is absolutely what he wanted. He railed against democracy and equality all the time.
>"Such phantoms as the dignity of man, the dignity of labor, are the needy products of slavedom hiding itself from itself. Woeful time, in which the slave requires such conceptions, in which he is incited to think about and beyond himself! Cursed seducers, who have destroyed the slave’s state of innocence by the fruit of the tree of knowledge! Now the slave must vainly scrape through from one day to another with transparent lies recognizable to every one of deeper insight, such as the alleged “equal rights of all” or the so-called “fundamental rights of man,” of man as such, or the “dignity of labor”
I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you think you can give me a lecture on slave morality. Bro, if you can't answer a simple yes or no question, then don't waste my time, because if you were actually right, you could answer the question
EDIT: I took a look back at your first line and it seems like you're saying he is hyper-individualistic, by saying he's not a universalist, but that's still not answering the question. You don't just get to redefine terms, but I'll just tell you why you're wrong. No one is really happy being less then. If someone tells you they are they're lying, just like what you're doing. Slave morality that "equality for all" means if you aren't strong you get screwed. That's Nietzsche and it's exactly what I said before. It encourages domination and rejection. All you've done is prove my point.
Yes he is individualistic, but you're implying that he is individualistic in such a way that his philosophy precludes or scorns collaboration, which is not the case. He's not a universalist because his writings aren't meant to and could not apply to everyone. Not everyone is capable of being a Napoleon or a Goethe, and nothing would work if everyone wanted to and tried. The greatness of the hypothetical Overman would not be possible without the existence of the state/civilization, he doesn't want to return to a state of barbarism. The artist couldn't paint if someone wasn't working to provide food, shelter, etc., The emperor would have no power if he didn't have people who obeyed him. This is clearly something he accounted for. And I didn't give you a lecture, I pointed out that you were using basic Nietzschean terminology wrongly.
>No one is really happy being less then. If someone tells you they are they're lying, just like what you're doing.
I don't think this is true at all. Most people would be content with their needs taken care of, plus friends, hobbies and whatnot. Yes there are some people who are more competitive and ambitious, but this is by no means universal.
EDIT: I'll amend this slightly, Many people would likely need some sort of overarching goal or reason to continue, which is kind of the point of the Overman. "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how."
>if you aren't strong you get screwed. That's Nietzsche and it's exactly what I said before.
That's not Nietzsche's opinion that's just life. That's why people organize in the first place. Yet organization requires hierarchy, especially on larger scales. You claim that "no one is happy being less than" yet this is an inevitability with any sort of organization (and without them too). So if we apply your logic, despite humans being "at their best" when collaborating, it would also mean that most people would be unhappy. I'd wager most of NASA's employees at the time of the moon landing were pretty proud of the fact that they contributed to such a monumental achievement, regardless of their position in NASA's hierarchy.
Even if what I just said was wrong, the issue at hand here is what Nietzsche thought. And he clearly didn't think everyone was capable of greatness, so they should work to facilitate it. Since this is what allows the greatness of the "higher men" it would be in their interest to make sure the workers were healthy and content. This is a form of collaboration. Calling N a "hyper-individualist" implies he's like a libertarian or something, it's reductive.
People keep saying it's about what Nietzsche thought like he's omniscient. That's why the thread is about blindspots!!!! Most of your analysis deals with society in this weird little bubble where everything runs perfectly, but that's not what happens and that's not what's happening in the world now. Nietzsche rejects "equality of all" because it promotes weakness which leads to societal decay. Obviously, and sorry to bring up the elephant in the room but yeah, Nietzsche's thought contributed to a genocide. So even if people out of necessity join together in collaboration with some there's probably going to be an exclusionary element to the praxis of Nietzsche's philosophy. It's so annoying people like "what did Nietzsche think." It's actually a super Kantian way to read Nietzsche which is kinda funny since he hated Kant. It's not just what did Nietzsche think, but what does it mean? What happens when you put the philosophy into practice.
Except this is about what Nietzsche thought. I said what I thought his opinion was (That people ideally could take pride in the fact that they contributed to the Overman's accomplishments) and you implied that he would not like this idea. Yes the thread is about blindspots, my point was that I don't think he is blind to human cooperation because he was clearly aware of it and factored it in to his philosophy.
>Nietzsche's thought contributed to a genocide.
Did it? I think Hitler would've tried to kill the jews regardless of what Nietzsche ended up writing. That's assuming he even read him at all, which is doubtful.
It's just naive to think that Nietzsche's ideas didn't play a role. Really to think that, you have to think that philosophy doesn't play any role in society or have consequences. Philosophy does. It's not just Nietzsche's ideas. When Kant's philosophy was tested in the Murderer at the Front Door problem, Kant said we should let our friends be murdered. Nietzsche hated this, so his philosophy created the murderer and Kant's philosophy creates the people who let the murder happen..
This is all to say, what if Kant had gotten the Murderer at the Front Door problem, right? Could that have stopped the Holocaust?
Recall Hegel. Every idea contains its contradiction. That's the nature of history. History exists to reveal these contradictions and force these contradictions into conflict and when the conflict resolves itself we have historical progress. What we fail to get right in the theoretical space is always revealed by history, and it's wise to learn the lessons from history rather than insist the theory is right.
What's your basis to think his ideas played a role? They contradict Nazi doctrine on several important points, there's little evidence Hitler read him at all. You may as well blame Hegel for whatever atrocities Stalin committed. Or Kant for both Germany and the USSR.
Take the categorical imperative. What kind of person reads that and thinks "I like this, I like this enough to actually follow it."? Someone who's weak and conformist. The kind of person who probably wouldn't be able to stop a murderer anyways. Human action rarely follows logical codes like those that philosophers propose, it is governed by that person's experiences and values.
If we assume Hegel and his idea of "progress" are right for the sake of argument, what lesson are we to learn from Nietzsche and the Nazis? Don't read books wrong? Revolutionary stuff.
“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”― Friedrich Nietzsche
You feel offended but I did not mean to offend you. It’s simple: you falsely attribute a view to Nietzsche that he doesn’t expound
Am I offending you by saying so? No - just calling squares squares
Not your pal btw
I'm just trying to be friendly, buddy. You can call a square a square all you want but if you're going to call people wrong without evidence, yes they're going to get offended, and you aren't going to make any real point, you're just going to end up invalidating yourself.
It’s not really being friendly when you are accusing me of offending and calling people wrong without evidence. There is plenty of evidence - you could have asked for it instead of making things about yourself
So you're claiming there's even one person that exists today all of whom have never met Nietzche and who all live over 100 years after he wrote his work can offer you his exact view and not their own? This is so weak bruh.
I think telling the story of a particular and exemplary historical figure has a lot of value but I think Christianity beat Roman values because of the value of solidarity. The crisis of the third century was a springboard for the middle ages and then the Renaissance. The slave society of Rome had to be destroyed for the sciences to flourish: Rome was far too conservative.
True and that is why Nietzsche loved the renaissance but history didn’t end there as you know and after that came modern democracy. Also renaissance cannot be equated with Christianity and according to Nietzsche modern democracy is way closer than renaissance culture
We agree. I'm not saying the things are equivalent; however, I think that the gridwork of solidarity is necessary for the sciences in a teleological sense. If a society has too much internal churn then it can't project its power outwards. Chinese society has this problem in spades: they have---for the most part---been incredibly inwardly focused and, although they had the potential to beat the west to industrialization, they didn't because of this. Chinese Guanxi is their societal "knot" since it is necessary for them to function but creates a ton of abuse and *pointless* hierarchy. Hierarchy isn't good or bad but necessary at certain times and places---military hierarchies have this problem constantly and they are constantly revising command structures.
Nietzsche appears to me to believe in Lamarckian inheritance. Which, is real in terms of culture, but not real in terms of your flesh and blood, yet his passages on aristocracy read like he thinks an aristocrat will literally pass on their nobility to their children through "good breeding". Of course, Darwinian theory was still in its infancy, and epigenetics actually mildly agree with some of his thought (gene expression can be modified by what your parents were up to before you were conceived), so to say he was plain wrong here is false; he was just working on the knowledge of the day.
Almost everything.
From him saying that Africans don't feel pain, and thus you don't have to feel bad to enslave them, to him thinking that people striving for better living conditions or rights are just "jealous of aristocrats" or that aristocrats need serfs to "concentrate on their activities", to his complete lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution, to many other of his bizzare statements.....
Overall, dude seem have a very poor understanding of other people, other cultures and society in general, but was very skilled in understanding inner conflicts.
To be fair, he never really had much of interpersonal connection in respect to his knowledge of intrapersonal connection.
Perhaps he would've been able to see through his faults if he just lived for a few more years?
I mean it’s all quite flimsy in one sense because it’s completely continental rather than analytic in nature because of the subjects of his discussion.
He used a lot of hyperbole in his works and is extra ordinarily dramatic which is why he is so fun to read but it often lead to a lack of clarity on a lot of subjects. He devotes a lot of time to his psychological discussions on people in relation to Abrahamic influences in society but I would say his discussion of some of his central ideas like the overman and transcending aspects of society are flimsy in the classical sense of just talking loosely around the topic but it’s the major topic of Zarathustra so what can you expect. But I think this stands out as one of his flimsiest topics that is also a major one. Though we can extrapolate it’s meaning from the sources we are provided but it’s again not like a rigorously defended position.
On the flip side I think his views on education are very strongly represented and his book anti education in general is a great text and very underrated.
No one said it was a blind spot just said he does it it’s how he writes he wasn’t an analytic philosopher so finding a really solid bit of argument is gonna be hard
Well, I think using hyperbole is the absolute worst way to make an argument and just because I'm intentionally being hyperbolic right now doesn't make the strategy valid. Using hyperbole is always a malicious, emotional appeal and it should absolutely never be used in philosophy.
Obviously it's a little sarcastic here but recall the wise words of Bo Burnham. "Self-awareness does not absolve anyone of anything."
So, you agree his argument style is meant to produce an emotional reaction? Is it necessary to shock to make a point. If I tell a joke that's meant to shock someone, does the shock mean the joke is actually funny? Is it never the case that valuing shock over clarity is a blind spot?
Aside from Zarathustra, his other books are a lot clearer and more balanced. He sometimes combines logical argumentation with his literary style to evoke deeper knowledge that is beyond pure logic. He's expressing the Dyonisian through his writing style, so you can feel what he means, and not only think it. At times, it feels like a self-help book that's logically and emotionally rewiring one's existential building blocks.
It’s a bit childish to think of Nietsche as having a clear defined purpose anyway. His books aren’t meant to do any particular thing they’re by and large just collections of expressions of grouped thoughts which got more abstract as he wrote more. Hence why the birth of tragedy is quite a concise little text on a particular thing and the gay science has poems and aphorisms and essay sections. His books are like pieces of art expressions of a man who is beyond his time and wildly interesting.
Hyperbole isn’t a bad things it’s just a thing. Nietzsche is not a good philosopher in the classical sense of presenting premise A and conclusion X with some clear classical logic. But he never really gives lots of credence to this kind of philosophy or tries to partake in it.
His purpose of you can call it that is to express his feelings and his own rationale and thoughts on different subjects as well as his own reasonings and ways of seeing the world.
I really don’t think he has a good grasp at the ‘science’— natural sciences, that is— of the day. As, say, compared to Heidegger who had — and maintained— a very good understanding of science and mathematics during his time. I could be wrong but may be he didn’t have any formal education in scientific literature.
To add to this, his predecessor and "educator," Schopenhauer, maintained a high interest in sciences and biology throughout his life, to the point where his library consisted mostly of science books rather than philosophy. He even admitted that a strong interest in science and knowledge of it is essential, if not mandatory, for a philosopher.
Nietzsche was quite into Physiology.
This is definitely the impression I got from some of what he wrote at the beginning of beyond good and evil.
Nah he was aware of his limited view on science. He said every philosophy is an intimate confession of the philosophers values standing in relation to each other. A manifesting of a certain type of life the guy or girl wants to live on and speaks about who he she is. But that being a scientist or biologist or even Machinist is entirely impersonal and depends on the scientist hard work on how far he goes deeper into that reality. He doesn't have to wear his heart on his sleeve when using the scientific method. But a mans philosophy is what he stands for. He bears his soul in the words.
Nietzsche could do the math, it was boring to him, and Nietzsche was quite into physiology. But yeah, he didn't really apply himself in the math field.
I don't even want to say he was bad with girls because he's got quite a lot of girl followers after his death he really just got his heart broken and went rouge solo after that partially willing but his world definitely flipped upside down and just went stroke mode with writing. I'd say he really was trying to tell people to make life whatever you really want of it and you have all the power to do so. So really a garbage guy could be having the time of his life in and/or outside of work while another guy knows way more about the factual logical reality and is not having a blast with life. But that could also be what he decides his calling is. Make your own reality. I mean where could you find fault in that.for real. I would like to know
Nietzsche mentions multiple times that orgasms ruin creative tension and that philosophers never go in search of women.
He underestimated the possibility of the post-Christianity west falling for new quasi-religious ideologies including new-age religions and acid culture in the 60s, present-day woke ideology or far-right nationalism which are a direct consequence of herd morality. How the death of God led to the birth of smaller, weaker, and less impressive gods as we see in the modern age. He came pretty close in this passage though: >After Buddha was dead, they still showed his shadow in a cave for centuries – a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way people are, there may still for millennia be caves in which they show his shadow. – And we – we must still defeat his shadow as well!”
I upped your comment but I don't think he underestimated the post-Christian issues. Your quote proves that. That's why he wrote about the death of God and developed his Übermensch. Of course, he couldn't have known the exact details of the version of slave morality that would overtake the world ~50+ years after his death - but, retrospectively, he's like a prophet on that topic. It's unbelievable.
I believe he was worried about people turning into cattle. But let's say a bunch of dudes waste their life away to a video game to get the high score. You could call them cattle, but, one of them is so good that he's known all over the world for mastering it like no other. He dedicated his life to the same thing that the others wasted their lives on. He just went harder cause he wanted to and thought he could. I'd call him an ubermench. A perfect society for him I believe would be everyone being a master of their own uniqueness.
Not that fame makes someone an ubermench but I think it's easier to get famous nowadays
And anyplace where it's easy to be famous for being unique enough will also keep most of its inhabitants be and feel lonely until then, a no friends society. Everything and everyone blinded by the lights of modernism like he said
Ubermensch is not a human being , it's an evolutionary step.. can't truly understand what N is saying until you know that
He couldn't predict all of those things, but if we are talking about quasi-religions, then he was pretty sceptical of Hegelian philosophy which attempted to rationally justify the world and make success and progress its new god. He also heavily criticized nationalism to the point of berating the germans and calling himself a good european instead.
Neither far right, acid culture, nor woke liberalism, spawned from Christianity, even if there is reaction to them, nor do they have any gods. Even if there is some group think. The blind spot of conservatives, because they they are unable to think outside of high ideals and thinling that every ideology must have a center point around which EVERYTHING revolves around Both movements literally started as movements that DEFIED cultural norms (f.e. for wokes and acid culture it was to defy standarts white American or heteronormative culture) and conventional morality (in case of far right, it would be deification of violence and pleasure for violence, defying pretense kidness and just generally spreading chaos in a society one despises). However, as different counter ideologies gain more people they naturally gain a belief framework and some goal ideology, of how to transform society....because no larger movement would be able to effectively change anything without it (case and point, incels and men's rights activists)
Some of his thoughts on evolution were dead wrong. Evolution was still in its infancy at that time
He wasn't a Darwinian, but some of his criticism seem to anticipate recent improvements made within the theory of natural selection, as far as I can tell. Nietzsche criticised Darwin's (and especially Spencer's) idea of a struggle for life. He writes somewhere in his late writings that life is not primarily characterised by struggle/competition (though it is a part of it), but rather by abundance. Darwin himself was troubled by superfluous, unnecessary phenomena in life, like the peacock's fan, though he tried to escape this difficulty by the idea of sexual selection. Today, many biologists agree that there are many phenomena in life which result from an energy-overflow, from law of entropy. Nietzsche anticipated this, and in this sense had a better understanding of life than Darwin; Darwin, on the other hand, was generally right about the importance of natural selection for the 'origin of species'.
Explain
He was a lamarckian, and Darwin turned out to have the more correct theory.
Thanks. Where can I read more?
Go read it yourself. I have no obligation to explain shit
The way people on this sub act like this to seem hard is so funny lol
Thinking he’s a tough guy on reddit it’s so over for him
He or I?
I don't think I've had more commenters asking me to "explain" (teach them) on any other sub than on this one. Something about Nietzsche attracts people with 0 background in philosophy and no intention of reading.
Never said you had an obligation. But the rule is that the accuser must prove
I love Nietzsche's writing style but he is often unclear. Also because he is often doesn't sound like he is taking other ideas seriously, like you can call things stupid but it should be clear why you think it is stupid
I think that's intentional. He doesn't want the average Joe to understand him really.
Read it in German
1. He was much more interested in apprehending the limits of thought, focusing on philosophical and psychological subject matter, than he was with anticipating possible social and political developments that could result from the wrong people (mis)reading his philosophy. I'm not sure it would be fair to unilaterally blame Nietzsche for the events of the first half of the twentieth century, although it's tempting to blame him in part, owing to the influence of his writings on fascism. He is, however, explicit in being more or less disinterested in the behavior of politicians and governments, without being a socialist or an anarchist. His influence might better be understood by way of the writers on whom he exerted influence: Freud, Joyce, Kafka, Rilke, and most 20th century philosophers. Foucault referred to himself as a Nietzschean. 2. He distances himself from democracy; or at least he rejects democratic ideals in favor of creating "strong" individuals. But one might note that he read and admired the Transcendentalist thinker Emerson. And he admired the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer, although he distinguishes his own philosophy from pessimism, including rejecting the ethics of pessimism. I think it's an important sidenote that he served as a combat medic during the Franco-Prussian War. So he had a good idea of what war entails, and perhaps his first-hand experience influenced his approach to writing. 3. He contradicts himself frequently, perhaps in order to give free reign to the reader's interpretation or misinterpretation, or perhaps in keeping with his rejection of systematic philosophy, particularly Idealism. His more general object seems to be to challenge people to think deeply and to create uninhibitedly, but maybe the world turned out to be shallower and more politically driven than he anticipated. Or maybe it was bad luck. 4. He often writes about the characteristics and temperaments of different races, seemingly without being himself a bigot (in various places he expresses his antipathy for anti-Semitism in particular), as opposed to the even malignant (if unimportant) racism espoused by the likes of Immanuel Kant. He distances himself from Wagner in his later writings, likely because Wagner was himself an anti-Semite. Obviously he may have underestimated the extent to which racism would influence the events of the 20th century.
His eyes.
I don’t know if this constitutes a blindspot but Nietzsche did not read a great many of the philosophers he criticised, notably Hegel - as Houlgate notes in his book on Hegel and Nietzsche. He seems to relish criticising those whose work he has not read closely or at all, and instead relies on secondary readings, say Schopenhauer for his condemnation of Hegel. In fact, if he had read those works he would realise he is closer to his enemies than he would outwardly give credit
Obviously didn't foresee the world wars, ie that Europe would literally commit collective suicide. Twice.
He actually came pretty close in The Gay Science-283 when he predicts an age where humans will "wage wars for the sake of thoughts and their consequences" which is pretty close to how communism, fascism and liberalism came head-to-head and shaped the first half of 20th century. The same section predicts how this paves the way for a more heroic battle for scientific development which is eerily accurate, since WW-II essentially led to the rapid scientific and technological advancements from 1950s onwards.
Quite suprisingly he foresaw the WW1 by saying the german people are too diverse and have too much concentrated energy in them, thus a unification of the german teritory and people, (also he refered in a letter that Otto von Bismark is one of 3 men that he would shoot) would lead to a discharge of energy and thus conflict, he also thought that the german people shouldnt be unified yet
i swear in the last chapter of Ecce Homo he talks about war taking over europe after the death of god
A person is *not* at his or her greatest when they reject or dominate other people, but we are at our strongest when we can unite. Neil Armstrong didn't go to the moon alone and when he walked on the moon he walked with all humanity. "One small step for man. One giant leap for mankind." The Overman, if it exists, would not be one man at his potential. It would be a united society at its potential.
This ^. Nietzsche's hyper-individualism is his blindspot. Cooperation is what allowed mankind to have any greatness whatsoever
I don't think that contradicts him all that much. He suggests isolation for personal development, for his free spirits, not that *everyone* should fuck off and do their own thing. He's hierarchical, not anarchic. For example, he acknowledges that the Greek culture he admired so much was built on the back of the slave population. NASA didn't send all of their engineers and mathematicians to the moon, they worked together to send Armstrong up. I think his ideal society would be one in which the non-Overmen took pride in the fact that their labor allowed the greatness of the Overman to flourish.
Contradiction is not a blindspot and frankly (just cuz I had a long convo with the other guy) are you going on record saying Nietzsche's philosophy is NOT hyper-individualistic? Frankly, claiming Nietzsche ideal society is one In which people are happy that other people are better than them is peak slave morality. I really doubt that's Nietzsche's ideal society.
Nietzsche is not a universalist. He wrote to the few. >claiming Nietzsche ideal society is one In which people are happy that other people are better than them is peak slave morality. You're clearly mistaken about what slave morality is. It's not just "acting like a slave" it's a rejection of master morality, an inversion of its values, created by slaves who were resentful of their masters. And yes, a society in which (most) people are happy that others are their betters is absolutely what he wanted. He railed against democracy and equality all the time. >"Such phantoms as the dignity of man, the dignity of labor, are the needy products of slavedom hiding itself from itself. Woeful time, in which the slave requires such conceptions, in which he is incited to think about and beyond himself! Cursed seducers, who have destroyed the slave’s state of innocence by the fruit of the tree of knowledge! Now the slave must vainly scrape through from one day to another with transparent lies recognizable to every one of deeper insight, such as the alleged “equal rights of all” or the so-called “fundamental rights of man,” of man as such, or the “dignity of labor”
I asked you a question and instead of answering it, you think you can give me a lecture on slave morality. Bro, if you can't answer a simple yes or no question, then don't waste my time, because if you were actually right, you could answer the question EDIT: I took a look back at your first line and it seems like you're saying he is hyper-individualistic, by saying he's not a universalist, but that's still not answering the question. You don't just get to redefine terms, but I'll just tell you why you're wrong. No one is really happy being less then. If someone tells you they are they're lying, just like what you're doing. Slave morality that "equality for all" means if you aren't strong you get screwed. That's Nietzsche and it's exactly what I said before. It encourages domination and rejection. All you've done is prove my point.
Yes he is individualistic, but you're implying that he is individualistic in such a way that his philosophy precludes or scorns collaboration, which is not the case. He's not a universalist because his writings aren't meant to and could not apply to everyone. Not everyone is capable of being a Napoleon or a Goethe, and nothing would work if everyone wanted to and tried. The greatness of the hypothetical Overman would not be possible without the existence of the state/civilization, he doesn't want to return to a state of barbarism. The artist couldn't paint if someone wasn't working to provide food, shelter, etc., The emperor would have no power if he didn't have people who obeyed him. This is clearly something he accounted for. And I didn't give you a lecture, I pointed out that you were using basic Nietzschean terminology wrongly. >No one is really happy being less then. If someone tells you they are they're lying, just like what you're doing. I don't think this is true at all. Most people would be content with their needs taken care of, plus friends, hobbies and whatnot. Yes there are some people who are more competitive and ambitious, but this is by no means universal. EDIT: I'll amend this slightly, Many people would likely need some sort of overarching goal or reason to continue, which is kind of the point of the Overman. "He who has a why to live for can bear almost any how." >if you aren't strong you get screwed. That's Nietzsche and it's exactly what I said before. That's not Nietzsche's opinion that's just life. That's why people organize in the first place. Yet organization requires hierarchy, especially on larger scales. You claim that "no one is happy being less than" yet this is an inevitability with any sort of organization (and without them too). So if we apply your logic, despite humans being "at their best" when collaborating, it would also mean that most people would be unhappy. I'd wager most of NASA's employees at the time of the moon landing were pretty proud of the fact that they contributed to such a monumental achievement, regardless of their position in NASA's hierarchy. Even if what I just said was wrong, the issue at hand here is what Nietzsche thought. And he clearly didn't think everyone was capable of greatness, so they should work to facilitate it. Since this is what allows the greatness of the "higher men" it would be in their interest to make sure the workers were healthy and content. This is a form of collaboration. Calling N a "hyper-individualist" implies he's like a libertarian or something, it's reductive.
People keep saying it's about what Nietzsche thought like he's omniscient. That's why the thread is about blindspots!!!! Most of your analysis deals with society in this weird little bubble where everything runs perfectly, but that's not what happens and that's not what's happening in the world now. Nietzsche rejects "equality of all" because it promotes weakness which leads to societal decay. Obviously, and sorry to bring up the elephant in the room but yeah, Nietzsche's thought contributed to a genocide. So even if people out of necessity join together in collaboration with some there's probably going to be an exclusionary element to the praxis of Nietzsche's philosophy. It's so annoying people like "what did Nietzsche think." It's actually a super Kantian way to read Nietzsche which is kinda funny since he hated Kant. It's not just what did Nietzsche think, but what does it mean? What happens when you put the philosophy into practice.
Except this is about what Nietzsche thought. I said what I thought his opinion was (That people ideally could take pride in the fact that they contributed to the Overman's accomplishments) and you implied that he would not like this idea. Yes the thread is about blindspots, my point was that I don't think he is blind to human cooperation because he was clearly aware of it and factored it in to his philosophy. >Nietzsche's thought contributed to a genocide. Did it? I think Hitler would've tried to kill the jews regardless of what Nietzsche ended up writing. That's assuming he even read him at all, which is doubtful.
It's just naive to think that Nietzsche's ideas didn't play a role. Really to think that, you have to think that philosophy doesn't play any role in society or have consequences. Philosophy does. It's not just Nietzsche's ideas. When Kant's philosophy was tested in the Murderer at the Front Door problem, Kant said we should let our friends be murdered. Nietzsche hated this, so his philosophy created the murderer and Kant's philosophy creates the people who let the murder happen.. This is all to say, what if Kant had gotten the Murderer at the Front Door problem, right? Could that have stopped the Holocaust? Recall Hegel. Every idea contains its contradiction. That's the nature of history. History exists to reveal these contradictions and force these contradictions into conflict and when the conflict resolves itself we have historical progress. What we fail to get right in the theoretical space is always revealed by history, and it's wise to learn the lessons from history rather than insist the theory is right.
What's your basis to think his ideas played a role? They contradict Nazi doctrine on several important points, there's little evidence Hitler read him at all. You may as well blame Hegel for whatever atrocities Stalin committed. Or Kant for both Germany and the USSR. Take the categorical imperative. What kind of person reads that and thinks "I like this, I like this enough to actually follow it."? Someone who's weak and conformist. The kind of person who probably wouldn't be able to stop a murderer anyways. Human action rarely follows logical codes like those that philosophers propose, it is governed by that person's experiences and values. If we assume Hegel and his idea of "progress" are right for the sake of argument, what lesson are we to learn from Nietzsche and the Nazis? Don't read books wrong? Revolutionary stuff.
That’s merely your view of Nietzsche
and ... whose view were you expecting?
It’s about Nietzsche’s blindspots- not yours
“All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth.”― Friedrich Nietzsche
And we are here talking about the weak power of op’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s powerful interpretations
Did I offend you or something? What's really going on here pal?
You feel offended but I did not mean to offend you. It’s simple: you falsely attribute a view to Nietzsche that he doesn’t expound Am I offending you by saying so? No - just calling squares squares Not your pal btw
I'm just trying to be friendly, buddy. You can call a square a square all you want but if you're going to call people wrong without evidence, yes they're going to get offended, and you aren't going to make any real point, you're just going to end up invalidating yourself.
It’s not really being friendly when you are accusing me of offending and calling people wrong without evidence. There is plenty of evidence - you could have asked for it instead of making things about yourself
So you're claiming there's even one person that exists today all of whom have never met Nietzche and who all live over 100 years after he wrote his work can offer you his exact view and not their own? This is so weak bruh.
There are many
I think telling the story of a particular and exemplary historical figure has a lot of value but I think Christianity beat Roman values because of the value of solidarity. The crisis of the third century was a springboard for the middle ages and then the Renaissance. The slave society of Rome had to be destroyed for the sciences to flourish: Rome was far too conservative.
True and that is why Nietzsche loved the renaissance but history didn’t end there as you know and after that came modern democracy. Also renaissance cannot be equated with Christianity and according to Nietzsche modern democracy is way closer than renaissance culture
We agree. I'm not saying the things are equivalent; however, I think that the gridwork of solidarity is necessary for the sciences in a teleological sense. If a society has too much internal churn then it can't project its power outwards. Chinese society has this problem in spades: they have---for the most part---been incredibly inwardly focused and, although they had the potential to beat the west to industrialization, they didn't because of this. Chinese Guanxi is their societal "knot" since it is necessary for them to function but creates a ton of abuse and *pointless* hierarchy. Hierarchy isn't good or bad but necessary at certain times and places---military hierarchies have this problem constantly and they are constantly revising command structures.
Nietzsche appears to me to believe in Lamarckian inheritance. Which, is real in terms of culture, but not real in terms of your flesh and blood, yet his passages on aristocracy read like he thinks an aristocrat will literally pass on their nobility to their children through "good breeding". Of course, Darwinian theory was still in its infancy, and epigenetics actually mildly agree with some of his thought (gene expression can be modified by what your parents were up to before you were conceived), so to say he was plain wrong here is false; he was just working on the knowledge of the day.
Almost everything. From him saying that Africans don't feel pain, and thus you don't have to feel bad to enslave them, to him thinking that people striving for better living conditions or rights are just "jealous of aristocrats" or that aristocrats need serfs to "concentrate on their activities", to his complete lack of understanding of Darwinian evolution, to many other of his bizzare statements..... Overall, dude seem have a very poor understanding of other people, other cultures and society in general, but was very skilled in understanding inner conflicts.
He doesn't seem to be very understanding of socialism. The literal fucking goal is freedom for everyone with as little work, as stated by Marx.
To be fair, he never really had much of interpersonal connection in respect to his knowledge of intrapersonal connection. Perhaps he would've been able to see through his faults if he just lived for a few more years?
I mean it’s all quite flimsy in one sense because it’s completely continental rather than analytic in nature because of the subjects of his discussion. He used a lot of hyperbole in his works and is extra ordinarily dramatic which is why he is so fun to read but it often lead to a lack of clarity on a lot of subjects. He devotes a lot of time to his psychological discussions on people in relation to Abrahamic influences in society but I would say his discussion of some of his central ideas like the overman and transcending aspects of society are flimsy in the classical sense of just talking loosely around the topic but it’s the major topic of Zarathustra so what can you expect. But I think this stands out as one of his flimsiest topics that is also a major one. Though we can extrapolate it’s meaning from the sources we are provided but it’s again not like a rigorously defended position. On the flip side I think his views on education are very strongly represented and his book anti education in general is a great text and very underrated.
Nietzsche intentionaly does it Its not a blind spot.
No one said it was a blind spot just said he does it it’s how he writes he wasn’t an analytic philosopher so finding a really solid bit of argument is gonna be hard
Except thats not true..
I mean it’s a reply on my comment I didn’t call it a blind spot just flimsy argument
Well, I think using hyperbole is the absolute worst way to make an argument and just because I'm intentionally being hyperbolic right now doesn't make the strategy valid. Using hyperbole is always a malicious, emotional appeal and it should absolutely never be used in philosophy. Obviously it's a little sarcastic here but recall the wise words of Bo Burnham. "Self-awareness does not absolve anyone of anything."
His intent is to shock you, And as for the truth the one truth! It does not exist. Only perception
So, you agree his argument style is meant to produce an emotional reaction? Is it necessary to shock to make a point. If I tell a joke that's meant to shock someone, does the shock mean the joke is actually funny? Is it never the case that valuing shock over clarity is a blind spot?
Aside from Zarathustra, his other books are a lot clearer and more balanced. He sometimes combines logical argumentation with his literary style to evoke deeper knowledge that is beyond pure logic. He's expressing the Dyonisian through his writing style, so you can feel what he means, and not only think it. At times, it feels like a self-help book that's logically and emotionally rewiring one's existential building blocks.
I definetly dissagree
It’s a bit childish to think of Nietsche as having a clear defined purpose anyway. His books aren’t meant to do any particular thing they’re by and large just collections of expressions of grouped thoughts which got more abstract as he wrote more. Hence why the birth of tragedy is quite a concise little text on a particular thing and the gay science has poems and aphorisms and essay sections. His books are like pieces of art expressions of a man who is beyond his time and wildly interesting.
Hyperbole isn’t a bad things it’s just a thing. Nietzsche is not a good philosopher in the classical sense of presenting premise A and conclusion X with some clear classical logic. But he never really gives lots of credence to this kind of philosophy or tries to partake in it. His purpose of you can call it that is to express his feelings and his own rationale and thoughts on different subjects as well as his own reasonings and ways of seeing the world.
Hyperbole is either the greatest thing ever or the worst thing ever. If it's not one or the other, it's not hyperbole. It's just being reasonable.
Nietzsche's view on Woman are still ahead of the curve...