(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.'
