(December 19, 2018 at 3:39 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 19, 2018 at 3:28 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Do you have a source for this?  Some of the claims seem questionable, so I'm curious about who came to these conclusions.  Not saying it's a wrong synopsis of the person's view, but still would like to know the origin of it. Thanks in advance.

Slave/master morality system is articulated in Beyond Good and Evil. The stuff about decline is mentioned throughout his works, but the most clear description of the phenomenon is outlined in a chapter of Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols. I'm taking stuff from a bunch of sources (all books by Nietzsche) put together with a few years of reflection.

If a particular item seems questionable, quote it from my last post, and I will dig up the corresponding work by Nietzsche and quote the passage if you'd like. It would be fun for me, actually. Been steeped in Plato a bit too much lately.

edit: here's my last point touched upon in The Will to Power

Quote:1. Nihilism stands at the door: whence comes this uncanniest of all guests? Point of departure: it is an error to consider "social distress" or "physiological degeneration" or, worse, corruption, as the cause of nihilism. Ours is the most decent and compassionate age. Distress, whether of the soul, body, or intellect, cannot of itself give birth to nihilism (i.e., the radical repudiation of value, meaning, and desirability). Such distress always permits a variety of interpretations. Rather: it is in one particular interpretation, the Christian-moral one, that nihilism is rooted.

2. The end of Christianity--at the hands of its own morality (which cannot be replaced), which turns against the Christian God (the sense of truthfulness, developed highly by Christianity, is nauseated by the falseness and mendaciousness of all Christian interpretations of the world and of history; rebound from "God is truth" to the fanatical faith "All is false"...

http://nietzsche.holtof.com/Nietzsche_th...book_I.htm
(see the bold)

Sure, and appreciated. I read through what you said again. There were a couple parts where I couldn't tell if it was you referring to Nietzsche's view or it was you interpreting.  Not going to claim to be an expert on Nietzsche though, so good enough.  Thanks for sharing.

(December 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: I haven't read him myself, being allergic to reading and all, but I hear that he is a difficult philosopher to categorize or say definite things about.  He is a very literate philosopher, from all I'm told, so I think it would likely be a mistake to judge him without having read him.

Jor, I recommend Twilight of the Idols. It is a very brief book (well under 100 pages)... you could knock it out in a day or two. He wrote it rather late in his career. He intended it to be an introduction to his philosophy, and (it being one of his later works) his ideas are stated more clearly there than elsewhere (he was working out some kinks in his earlier stuff). If you end up purchasing Twilight of the Idols, I'd go for the english translation by Duncan Large*. If you want a more immersive introduction to him, I'd go for Beyond Good and Evil or Thus Spoke Zarathustra (you must get Walter Kaufmann translations for both of these).

The Portable Nietzsche is available free online and has an abridged Zarathustra in it. (Kaufmann translation, too)




*Best. Porn. Name. Ever.

(December 18, 2018 at 2:14 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: What about you?  If you are, likewise, occasionally the monster, are you the monster that you want to be?  Or am I simply making a tempest in a teapot?

You can be a bastard (or B'stard if you prefer) all you want, if for the right reasons.

My rule is, if they try to fuck you over, fuck them right back.

(December 19, 2018 at 4:57 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote: *Best. Porn. Name. Ever.

The Portable Nietzsche...or Zarathustra? 

(December 19, 2018 at 4:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sure, and appreciated. I read through what you said again. There were a couple parts where I couldn't tell if it was you referring to Nietzsche's view or it was you interpreting.  Not going to claim to be an expert on Nietzsche though, so good enough.  Thanks for sharing.

Obviously, my take on the hippie movement was interpretation/conjecture (Nietzsche lived in the late 1800s, so, duh). But I think my assessment there is pretty accurate. I can defend all other points I made in the post.

If you want elaboration on any points, feel free to ask. Like I said, it would be fun for me, and it would (at the very least) be an interesting conversation to have. Plus, I'd base all my discussion on the source material rather than wiki articles. Could be educational... if not for you, for readers of the thread. Anything that you are curious about?

This is the monster I want to be:

(December 19, 2018 at 5:05 pm)vulcanlogician Wrote:

(December 19, 2018 at 4:49 pm)T0 Th3 M4X Wrote: Sure, and appreciated. I read through what you said again. There were a couple parts where I couldn't tell if it was you referring to Nietzsche's view or it was you interpreting.  Not going to claim to be an expert on Nietzsche though, so good enough.  Thanks for sharing.

Obviously, my take on the hippie movement was interpretation/conjecture (Nietzsche lived in the late 1800s, so, duh). But I think my assessment there is pretty accurate. I can defend all other points I made in the post.

If you want elaboration on any points, feel free to ask. Like I said, it would be fun for me, and it would (at the very least) be an interesting conversation to have. Plus, I'd base all my discussion on the source material rather than wiki articles. Could be educational... if not for you, for readers of the thread. Anything that you are curious about?

Fair enough. I haven't studied Nietzsche in years, so I'm sure you could teach me a thing or two.  So much knowledge out there, and too little time to absorb as much as I would like to.

I wonder how nietzsche would have viewed the relationship between his heavily traditional truth emphasis and his polarizing notion of a will to power.  This was already a bit murky in his own time, but with the rise of our modern day alternative facts and their clear ability to seize the power that forms the basis of his valuations.........well...

Could it be that he might no longer see honesty as a virtue, or, failing that, realize that something is deeply amiss in the confluence between those two currents in his thoughts?

(December 19, 2018 at 5:15 pm)Gae Bolga Wrote: I wonder how nietzsche would have viewed the relationship between his heavily traditional truth emphasis and his polarizing notion of a will to power.  This was already a bit murky in his own time, but with the rise of our modern day alternative facts and their clear ability to seize the power that forms the basis of his valuations.........well...

Could it be that he might no longer see honesty as a virtue, or, failing that, realize that something is deeply amiss in the confluence between those two currents in his thoughts?

I agree with what you're saying. Given that Nietzsche rails so hard against the religious for their dishonesty, something certainly does seem amiss when he seemingly refers to truth as something so subjective. But I think his position is defensible. Let me give it a try:

The greater truth to Nietzsche is the truth which affirms life. Nietzsche's truth esteems life and the world, despite how fucked up the world is. Any truth which fails to affirm life is false right out of the gate. This doesn't mean that things are only true or false subjectively. This merely means that, to Nietzsche, for a truth to be true, it must affirm life first, then it is given consideration for truth or falsity.

All of this is best understood in its proper context. Much of his thinking is a reaction against Plato, Christianity, and Schopenhauer or --more generally-- all modern philosophy. He was a critic and a gadfly. He questioned our most fundamental assumptions. That's what makes him such a great philosopher.

Imagine Platonic Truth (life denying) and Nietzschean truth (life affirming) as sort of a yin and yang which (when observed together) form a more whole and complete ideal. Nietzsche wants to be a yin to philosophy's yang. And (in this capacity) I think he does a great job.

I err on the side of Plato in my views of what truth is, but Nietzsche does have a point. Much of philosophy really is life denying.

When we aren't philosophizing, much of our life is falsehood built upon falsehood, with a little bit of truth built on top of that. That's life. But philosophy can't handle that. Philosophy only wants to deal with truth. Philosophy wants to analyze the human condition but it ALSO wants to dispense with all falsehoods. To Nietzsche, you can't do both at the same time. This is why he thinks Plato fails so hard. Plato urges the philosopher to detach himself from his instincts and inclinations, then go about discerning the truth. Nietzsche sees Plato and philosophy as some kind of alien force... opposed to life... a spectral presence trying to inflict its inward inclination toward "truth" upon life and upon the world.

Christianity carries this to a worse extreme. The Christians see the world as some horrible, unjust state of affairs that needs to end as soon as possible. Life is a burden. Instead of enjoying the world and drinking from the fountain of life, the Christians say the world (and life) is some contemptible thing. They prefer their imaginary "kingdom of heaven" to the the real and actual world. In other words, they prefer death... they are deniers of life. And as such, they make life out to be some bleak and depressing thing that needs to be apologized for instead of enjoyed.

(December 19, 2018 at 12:12 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote: @Drich:

Well, given your frequent emphasis on using primary sources rather than secondary sources, I find it odd that you would form conclusions about him based on secondary sources alone.  I haven't read him myself, being allergic to reading and all, but I hear that he is a difficult philosopher to categorize or say definite things about.  He is a very literate philosopher, from all I'm told, so I think it would likely be a mistake to judge him without having read him.  As to his contribution to the ideology of the Nazis and 30s Germany, I have studied that, but I don't recall the specifics.  I believe the general conclusion was that attempting to draw a straight line between Nietzsche and those ideologies is a mistake, and that he was largely misrepresented by them, but that's a weak memory, at best.  I would have to read him and study him to draw any conclusions.  Not having done so, I must remain somewhat agnostic as to his whole programme.  I find some of his pithier quotes prescient and useful, independent of any relation to his greater philosophy, such as the monster quote.  I think it stands on its own merits, whether or not Nietzsche's philosophy itself does so.

the conclusion made are based on his inability to communicate whole ideals. as with hitler he made an observation that people are defined by two forms of morality and as a net result will eventually ruled by a super class of human. his observation are sound in that hitler used his model to sell germans on the idea that they were or had the super human gene with in them. the rest of his ideas on how this could better the world was lost in favor of hitler's own ideologies. His failure to tie his observation with his ideologies is the failure as a philosopher I am speaking of. as he did not make it clear or warn people of the opposite hitler took and ran with. 

I look at it this way a true philosopher must be the complete package. there are many parts to philosophy being a philosopher. one observation of the human condition two diagnosing a problem describe obstacle that humanity/society will have while on current path. 3 finding the cause 4 prepare a plan to fix said problem and 5 sell people on your plan scare them enough to keep from buying other models of said plan.

nietzsche was good at 1 ok at 2 sucked at 3 was no better for 4 and bombed on 5. Even hippies took his core anti God humanity  fist nihilistic views and twisted them into bra burning and flower power free pot and love. again took the observations and diagnostic ability and the hippies a whole generation a completely different societal plan. Which again means he fail in part 4 and 5 of being a philosopher.


why do I need to study a guy who has twice in the two previous generations (baby boomers and the greatest gen/german side) failed at his craft? why do I need to be able to quote him when history has born out his philosophy and predictions in utter failure. If this man has live another 20 years his ideas would have come full circle and he would have canceled himself out, and maybe hold a foot note status due to his link with WWII.

for example his bit on slave mentality/morality and master morality.. it has nothing to do with being a slave per say but he is describing a submissive personality having different values than a more aggressive take no prisoner types.

 which is very good observation, but his conclusion was in error as he assumed there is no God, there is not a supreme authority. that the Master class among us among us will rule more submissive classes. the problem is the real power is not in the master class, even though their morality cenrers aound a might makes right, the master class is the easier class to control and rule as they are being lead around by their pride, (again something missed by mr nietzsche as there is not traditional sin, and as a proud nation (as nazi germany will attest) can be fooled into committing any of the most horrible things IN SERVICE to their country and not realize they themselves are truly the slaves. 

Power in the world without God is an illusion, and those who seek and wield it are far easier subject to rule and authority than those who serve. As we DONOT serve the master class when you allow God into the equation the serving class has access to power and authority not as a rule or mandate to our class but as a direct charge from God.

His observation was correct as humanity is divided but because he is limited in his scope and vision/no God he wrongfully assumes the source or seat of human power over and over and over again. as a result his final conclusions his suggested 'repair' for the human condition is always off.

Which is why it is so easy for other to start with his observations and apply their own conclusion that like him puff people up on their pride and that way they can think they are superior when infact they are the servants...

So again why bother with the quotes when the framework will never support the structure?

If you want to crack open one of his books and do a read along like the genesis study I would follow it, but I'm not going to make a sole effort.. as my bills will be the same if I learn a second quote or stick with 'what doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.'