Are you the monster you want to be?

[vulcanlogician]

the conclusion made are based on his inability to communicate whole ideals.

I somewhat agree with this particular point, as I said in my other post. It is important to note, however, that Nietzsche was himself aware of this. His first major philosophical work, The birth of Tragedy makes this very clear. There he compares two facets of human nature (Apollonian and Dionysian). More recently, a YouTuber renamed them "Moral" and "Aesthetic" qualities, which I rather like. He saw Christian culture and Western philosophy as overly-concerned with "moral" qualities and under-concerned with "aesthetic" ones... hence his contributions focus on the deficit. There's nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, it seems like a good course to take if you want to do real work and make a worthwhile contribution. And Nietzsche periodically admits that he is merely supplying arguments for the under-represented side of things.

I think it's unfair to associate Nietzsche with the Nazis, though. For one, he hated German culture and would have certainly opposed it being held aloft. Second, the Nazi's came AFTER Nietzsche. They distorted his ideas as it suited their needs. He can't be blamed for that any more than the Bible can be blamed when anti-Jewish sentiments in the NT are used to justify bigotry against the Jews. Of course, the Nazis used some of his ideas to justify their evil. So what? They used Christianity the same way, and any other ideology that spoke to their narrative.

I have no idea how you associate Nietzsche with the hippies. That just seems out of left field.

[Drich]

the conclusion made are based on his inability to communicate whole ideals.

I somewhat agree with this particular point, as I said in my other post. It is important to note, however, that Nietzsche was himself aware of this. His first major philosophical work, The birth of Tragedy makes this very clear. There he compares two facets of human nature (Apollonian and Dionysian). More recently, a YouTuber renamed them "Moral" and "Aesthetic" qualities, which I rather like. He saw Christian culture and Western philosophy as overly-concerned with "moral" qualities and under-concerned with "aesthetic" ones... hence his contributions focus on the deficit. There's nothing wrong with this approach. In fact, it seems like a good course to take if you want to do real work and make a worthwhile contribution. And Nietzsche periodically admits that he is merely supplying arguments for the under-represented side of things.

I think it's unfair to associate Nietzsche with the Nazis, though. For one, he hated German culture and would have certainly opposed it being held aloft. Second, the Nazi's came AFTER Nietzsche. They distorted his ideas as it suited their needs. He can't be blamed for that any more than the Bible can be blamed when anti-Jewish sentiments in the NT are used to justify bigotry against the Jews. Of course, the Nazis used some of his ideas to justify their evil. So what? They used Christianity the same way, and any other ideology that spoke to their narrative.

I have no idea how you associate Nietzsche with the hippies. That just seems out of left field.

I did not associate nietzsche with either in so far as his ideology spawn a specific group.

I said the hippies and nazis are two polar opposite examples of his failure to communicate his complete philosophy. I said he failed as a philospher because both groups took his observations in two very different directions. How can one man's world view spawn a society of two extremes and yet stem from a common core, unless the nietzsche open a pandora's box by killing God and creating a philosophy that justifies whatever humanity wants to 'moralize.' Maybe he can be identified as the father of popular morality.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nietzsche didn't actually "kill god"...he merely gave "god" a more genuine human face (more human, even, than the hellenic demi god of "christ").  God has always been some human asshole with a will to power...lol. It's his followers that are the weak willed detractors of the human race.

"God" is strength..."god" is power.."god" is life....I assume you don't disagree? "God"...you see, is very nietzschean, even if his followers aren't.

[energizer bunny]

I believe we all have a hidden monster inside us that can be triggered at a moments notice. Some more easily than others. Just a matter of acknowledging and becoming aware of it.

[T0 Th3 M4X]

What came first, the cookie or the monster?

Did he become a monster because he ate cookies, or does he eat cookies because he's a monster?

[Belacqua]

There he compares two facets of human nature (Apollonian and Dionysian). More recently, a YouTuber renamed them "Moral" and "Aesthetic" qualities

This seems a bit odd to me. 

The Apollonian faculty is purely aesthetic, in that it creates from the chaos of the world dream images which we need to function. Our perceptions are aesthetically produced by this faculty. I suppose we could say that morals are a part of this production. 

The Dionysian is aesthetic in a different way, since it allows us an honest vision of the chaos which the Apollonian conceals. It isn't quite direct, though, as the only way we can see the chaos and survive is through the eyes of Silenus, the satyr chorus, etc. 

Without making me watch a YouTube, can you clarify what this YouTuber had in mind? Thanks.

[vulcanlogician]

There he compares two facets of human nature (Apollonian and Dionysian). More recently, a YouTuber renamed them "Moral" and "Aesthetic" qualities

This seems a bit odd to me. 

The Apollonian faculty is purely aesthetic, in that it creates from the chaos of the world dream images which we need to function. Our perceptions are aesthetically produced by this faculty. I suppose we could say that morals are a part of this production. 

The Dionysian is aesthetic in a different way, since it allows us an honest vision of the chaos which the Apollonian conceals. It isn't quite direct, though, as the only way we can see the chaos and survive is through the eyes of Silenus, the satyr chorus, etc. 

Without making me watch a YouTube, can you clarify what this YouTuber had in mind? Thanks.

I like your assessment. But, at the same time, you seem to say that everything is aesthetic. Apollo offers one purely aesthetic vision and Dionysus another. Where is the real in all that? I assume (as Plato does) that there is a distinguishable reality behind all the appearances-- something upon which the appearances rest. Just like a mask creates a certain appearance because it is situated in front of a (very real) face, all appearances must be founded upon a (very real) reality--and only thus can they appear real. To know this fundamental reality is the goal. Once one knows "the real," knowledge of appearances becomes superfluous.
The Birth of Tragedy is not really my favorite work by Nietzsche, but here goes my assessment anyway.

As I understand Nietzsche, the Apollonian is our drive to accomplish great things: to improve society, to become moral exemplars, to live to our potential. But, in his opinion, the Apollonian gets too much attention. Sure, our highest goals, our achievements, and our greatest works are an essential part of the human experience. But Dionysus embodies our darker thirsts which must be quenched. He is the sweetness in our forbidden fruit, the darkness upon which our brilliance as a species is cast. A yin to the yang of idealism. A necessary "other half." A hungry and ruthless savage.

To me, Nietzsche sets himself up (in his later works) as a spokesman for the Dionysian (because he feels that Christianity and philosophy are too Appolainian. Might be a bit of interpolation in there, but that's the gist of what I got from the Birth of Tragedy.

I couldn't find the specific YouTube video I was referencing (I only remember the author, ContraPoints), so I guess you're off the hook.

Don't click the box below that says "show content." It's a waste of time. You'll thank me later. 

---

---

---

The genius of the heart, as that great hidden presence possesses it, the tempter-god and born pied piper of the conscience, whose voice knows how to climb down into the underworld of every soul, who does not say a word or cast a glance in which there does not lie some concern with and trace of temptation, whose mastery includes the fact that he understands how to seem - and not what he is, but what for those who follow him is one more compulsion to press themselves always closer to him, to follow him ever more inwardly and fundamentally: - that genius of the heart, who makes all noise and self-satisfaction fall silent and teaches it to listen, who smooths out the rough souls and gives them a new desire to taste, - to lie still as a mirror so that the deep heaven reflects itself in them -; the genius of the heart who teaches the foolish and over-hasty hand to hesitate and reach out more delicately; who senses the hidden and forgotten treasure, the drop of goodness and sweet spirituality under the thick cloudy ice and is a divining rod for every grain of gold which has lain buried for a long time in a dungeon crammed with mud and sand; the genius of the heart, at whose touch everyone goes forward richer, not divinely gifted and surprised, not as if delighted and oppressed with strange, fine things, but richer in his own self, newer to himself than previously, broken open, blown upon and sounded out by a thawing wind, more uncertain perhaps, more tender, more fragile, more broken, but full of hopes which as yet have no names, full of new will and flowing, full of new dissatisfactions and opposing currents . . . But what am I doing, my friends? Whom am I speaking to you about? Have I forgotten myself so much that I have not once named him to you? It could be that you have already guessed for yourself who this dubious spirit and god is who wants to be praised in such a way. For just as things go with anyone who from the time he walked on childish legs has always been on the move and through alien territory, so many strange and not un-dangerous spirits have crossed my path, too, above all the one I have just been speaking about, who has come again and again, namely, no less a spirit than the god Dionysus, that enormously ambiguous and tempter god, to whom in earlier times, as you know, I offered up my first work, in all secrecy and reverence - as the last person, so I thought, who had offered a sacrifice to him: for I found no one who understood what I was doing then.

---

[Belacqua]

(I only remember the author, ContraPoints)

I love ContraPoints! Nathalie is brilliant! 

I've followed her on YouTube and Twitter for a while now. It was a great surprise to see someone so unknown yet so deserving get written up in the New Yorker. I hope her new fame helps her do what she's always wanted. 

I don't recall the video in which she discusses Nietzsche, but it will be fun to review them now. 

As for your reading of Birth of Tragedy...  Well, it's a work that's open to interpretation. I didn't know that there could be an interpretation that was quite so far away from mine, I confess.

[vulcanlogician]

As for your reading of Birth of Tragedy...  Well, it's a work that's open to interpretation. I didn't know that there could be an interpretation that was quite so far away from mine, I confess.

It's not my favorite work by him, tbh. When I finally read Birth of Tragedy, I'd already been spoilt by hid later and middle works. Birth of Tragedy seemed a little like child's play and I didn't devote as much attention to it as I did other works. The concept of the Dionysian is something that he developed more in his later works. I may be having trouble differentiating the earlier conception from what is presented in later works, like Beyond Good and Evil.