All of the books I initially mentioned are part of his interest in reason and morals. I view it through my own lens which is admittedly interested with how religion has effected cultures through human history. I don’t know about ‘Thus Spake ...’ though, as I got halfway through and quickly realised I had little to no idea how he had arrived at that work or why he viewed it as his pinnacle achievement.

One day I’ll get back to it, but other books are more pressing tbh.

I don’t generally disagree with your take, but I have my thoughts and you have yours. What I believe your about doesn’t even interest me, and what I believe you’re correct about isn’t exactly my direct interest.

Either way there is some overlapping interest here I think. I’ll get to it in a fresh thread next week hopefully.

Thanks

The rest of your commentary includes too many questions. Could we limit ourselves to one? — David Mo

I might have expected you to reply to my comments by clarifying your interpretation of Nietzsche's use of the terms "instinct" and "race". I didn't think you seemed the sort who's reluctant to expound.

Thus far your interpretation strikes me as informed, articulate, and provocative. I'm no expert in Nietzsche or in anything else, and I'm interested to hear more of what you have to say on the matter.

I'll try to remember to ask you fewer questions going forward. To pursue the one you've selected:

My sentence referred to someone's Darwinian interpretation of the distinction between Nietzsche's "two races": the servants and the lords. I tried to explain that Nietzsche did not understand the will to power in terms of the survival of the fittest. Noble men are strong in excellence not in ability for survival. — David Mo

I had asked how your interpretation of Nietzsche at one point in your discussion "jives" with your interpretation of Nietzsche at another point in your discussion. Here are excerpts from the two passages:

PASSAGE ONE:

Nietzsche's racism divides humanity into two: races of lords and races of servants. Lords are dominant, individualistic, violent and instinctive. Servants are intellectual, weak, resentful, moralistic and religious. Lords are healthy, servants are ill. Aryans were masters in the past; Jews are a race of servants.

But these races do not exist in a pure state now. History has mixed them up. Therefore, the battle between lordship and servitude occurs in the same man.[....]

Nietzsche believed that he was the prophet of a new race - he was not very modest, I insist - in which the instinct of power would definitely triumph. The overmen. This is another story. — David Mo

PASSAGE TWO:

To summarize: "power", "strong", "lord", "life" refer to individual and vital forces that oppose the concept of species in biological Darwinism or of nation and race in social Darwinism. That's why he hated German antisemitism. — David Mo

On my reading, the first passage suggests that Nietzsche's talk of "race" does indeed involve some conception of distinct biological lineages or "stocks" -- feel free to supply your favorite term here -- at least some of which he characterized as "races of masters" and "races of servants", exemplified by Aryans and Jews.

The same passage attributes a historical dimension to Nietzsche's conception of race. It seems to suggest that Nietzsche held that we may distinguish biological lineages or stocks of people in the past -- e.g., Aryans and Jews -- in terms of his distinction between "master" and "servant" races.

I presume the "individual and vital forces" indicated in the second passage, including "power", "strong" and "lord" would be attributed to "master races" in the past, and their opposites would be attributed to "servant races" in the past, in keeping with your interpretation of Nietzsche's account. I presume the "racial" traits indicated in the first passage -- "dominant", individualistic", "violent", "instinctive" and their opposites -- are somehow associated with "individual and vital forces" as well as with past biological lineages or stocks, like Aryans and Jews, held by Nietzsche to be distinguishable in terms of such "forces" and "traits", according to your interpretation.

The first passage also seems to instruct that Nietzsche held "these races" no longer "exist in a pure state", as "[h]istory has mixed them up". Which seems to imply that Nietzsche thought they used to "exist in a pure state" before history mixed them up.

Thus far in your account, it seems open to question whether Nietzsche states or suggests anything about whether those traits might become purified again in biological lineages or stocks at some future point in history, for instance by selective breeding, eugenics, or genocide. And it seems open to question whether he thought the "new race" of which he called himself a prophet was destined to be, or had the potential to be, such a "pure" biological lineage.

Perhaps it's open to question whether Nietzsche thought the "purity" of historically (past and possible future) "pure" races was a matter of biology or a matter of culture. Thus far in the discussion it seems he may have poetically conflated biological and cultural factors in his use of terms like "race" and "instinct", which seems perhaps to amplify confusion in his use of such terms.

His account still sounds like despicable racist garbage to me.

Feel free to clarify.

Talking about race and culture doesn’t make the author ‘racist’. — I like sushi

An excellent point. I agree.

He openly deplores racism and calls the German attitudes of the time something like the ‘lowest’ because they think of groups of people’s as being the same — I like sushi

It remains to be seen in our conversation how this attitude you've attributed to Nietzsche is manifest in his views on race.