I

compassion. To pity is to feel the difference and find ways to justify it, based on social structures or assumptions (‘I/they probably deserve it’). — Possibility

I m not fan at all of that assumptions. I never say that someone deserves suffering (even if some do indeed).

Nietzsche believes we act with compassion only because we believe that suffering is bad, and he argues that suffering should be recognised instead as part of the human condition. — Possibility

I agree on that one, but my aspect is that Nietzsche meant people to embrace their own suffering as a part of human nature as you mention . And deal with that.Not so much about helping others with their suffering.

We act with compassion because we acknowledge that suffering, as part of the human condition, is to be shared rather than avoided or eliminated. — Possibility

That's what I mean when, at a previous response to you, i mentioned that at the end acting with compassion is at your very own benefit. Cause if you wanna live in organized societies and you want others to feel compassion for you (as you told me also at your previous post), then you have to act like that also. It's only fair. That's why I find compassion's root in Ego. But I understood your different view and your protest on that.

One of the reasons Nietzsche despises both Stoicism and Christianity is accepting the morality as supreme rule in cosmic term. As Stoicism says live according to nature means, be virtuous, however Nietzsche pointed out that the nature has no morality. In nature nothing is good or evil. For the nature the morality is not else than an arbitrary, artificially, man-made approach, and everybody’s free to set own moral rules, and everyone tyrannizes oneself with obeying own moral rule.

We’ll never have capacity to learn the objective truth in full depth anyways. Despite the fact morality does not exist on the level of nature indeed, Nietzsche failed to understand, and I began to understand that the morality is not social and cultural rather biological phenomenon in case of humans. Every person has a unique connection with transcendental morality without any social or cultural influence. The human race can make difference between good and evil for seventy thousand years at least and the cultures were built on this, sometimes hack this. This is comparable to that fact even the colors don’t exist in the nature, they are all merely illusion. Yet we perceive them, we see colors, moreover we all see particular colors at the same way without influencing each other.

How could it possible, since the colors don’t exist in reality? But they exist FOR US! And this is the key issue. Of course there’s some people who are color blind, who are unable sense colors, as there’s psychopaths, who are unable feel empathy and compassion, or the necessity of being virtuous, but this alone does not override the rule. Even a child has a sense of justice without learning it from others. How could it possible? The same point between the Nietzschean and Stoic views, they both deny the existence of free will. According to it we have no capacity to determine what we believe in, and in some sense they’re right about this indeed. Since the existence is not optional, we didn’t decide about whether we’re gonna be male or female either, we’ll have male or female brain structure.

No one chooses sexual orientation, preferences, even choosing sexual partner is not conscious choice. We can’t determine our intelligence level, which is genetical in seventy percent or even more. We didn’t select our traits and temper. We did neither choose mother tongue nor environment we were raised in. Those markers determine our behaviour and personality, and ironically we can’t decide whether we want to feel a sense of justice or necessity to be virtuous. At this point Nietzsche contradicted himself. On the other hand however, yet we still have choice, in that how we chase the best version of ourselves or remains coward, lazy, betraying our nature. This is a very interesting paradox. In fact it is very difficult if not impossible to imagine free will without considering our ability in making moral judgement and decision.

The nature has no morality indeed, we have by nature.

SP

It's also for some readers (me, anyway), a turgid, often dull book that makes you think of shopping lists, washing the car, clipping the dog's fur - anything to get away from a needy, monomaniacal polemicist. I can take Human, All Too Human and the Gay Science, but not TSZ. — Tom Storm

Yes - it’s not for everyone, and I don’t find it an enjoyable read, myself. Too much like wading through the King James Bible. I prefer ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ - I only mentioned TSZ because it was the source of Ross’s quote.

But that's exactly what the Buddha said 2000 years before Nietzsche, namely that "suffering is your teacher" . It increases your compassion and understanding. Nietzsche is not original in this idea. I think Nietzsche has in mind Utilitarianism which he hated, which argues that pleasure is the highest good and that pain is to be avoided. I would agree with Nietzsche , Utilitarianism which has been hugely influential is a life denying or running alway from reality . For me Stoicism and Buddhism has far more wisdom. Perhaps Nietzsche doesn't realize that Stoicism has had a huge influence on western thought and culture , not only Christianity. Up until the early 20th century latin and Greek authors were a major part of education, like Cicero, Seneca, and others. Shakespeare was immersed in the classical writers of antiquity and hence the philosophy of Stoicism. Nietzsche seems to think that it's only Christianity that has dominated western thought. But Christianity was imbued with ancient philosophy.

I think Nietzsche was a true philosopher but the number of his original ideas are limited. He had a lot to say about each nonetheless

I don't see how aphorisms can be seen as arguments. I disagree that Buddhism and Christianity are not based on everyday experiences. Love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness which they preach are part of the ways human beings relate to each other in a positive way . Ask any modern psychologist and they will tell you that practicing these virtues will enhance a person's happiness and those he/she interacts with. These virtues did not come from some academic textbook like Marx's theories they were developed by many thinkers over centuries, modified, built up and so on. They are drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE of ORDINARY people in ordinary situations. Let me be the devil's advocate for a moment and I put the question . Where did Nietzsche get his ideas, eg The Will to Power, from reading another academic, Schopenhauer? To what extent has he backed up his ideas by observation of real people in real life?

I disagree that Buddhism and Christianity are not based on everyday experiences. Love, compassion, forgiveness, kindness which they preach are part of the ways human beings relate to each other in a positive way — Ross Campbell

Religion has always been used as a form of class control. So why have trust in that compared to examining people outside of any religious form?

Ask any modern psychologist and they will tell you that practicing these virtues will enhance a person's happiness and those he/she interacts with. — Ross Campbell

Sure, but that's a very simplified way of looking at life. What about the complexity of justice, the entire field of moral philosophy? So many examples of complexities that make empty phrases that have no meaning in themselves.

These virtues did not come from some academic textbook like Marx's theories they were developed by many thinkers over centuries, modified, built up and so on. — Ross Campbell

These virtues are the result of complex empathy patterns that are basically built into our psychology. You cannot credit these virtues to religion, that's giving them credit for nothing but observing humans truthfully. Like saying the sky is blue but it was credited to a guy named Steve in the late 1800s so it is his idea that the sky is blue. We just have better tools to examine these behaviors today than before, religion is unnecessary as a factor.

They are drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE of ORDINARY people in ordinary situations. — Ross Campbell

So did many philosophers in thier work, what is your point?

Where did Nietzsche get his ideas, eg The Will to Power, from reading another academic, Schopenhauer? To what extent has he backed up his ideas by observation of real people in real life? — Ross Campbell

He got them from building on previous philosophical ideas and added his own. Why are you so obsessed with the observation of real people. Do you think Nietzsche didn't do this? How can a person go through life without observing other people? Why is this attributed specifically to religion in your opinion?

[reply="Christoffer;572396"
Ok let's talk about Buddhism , it is often dismissed by western thinkers who are ignorant of Eastern thought ( which is not normally taught in western education system), or because of western centrism. Buddhism is a PHILOSOPHY as well as a religion. And many people , like myself only take the philosophy component and disregard the religious component. Stoicism is also a philosophy. I recommend you watch the excellent videos on it on YouTube by Einzelganger who relates these two philosophies to contemporary culture. See what he has to say not just me. In my opinion the strength of these philosophies is that they are not just drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE but also in line with the way nature and reality works. They believe in living according to nature. I would hazard a guess that Nietzsche is selective in where he gets his ideas from, he despises so much of traditional culture and values that he's left with very little to work on.

Buddhism is a PHILOSOPHY as well as a religion. — Ross Campbell

I know this. Doesn't mean it is better or worse than other philosophies. But you also incorporate Christianity in your argument, which is much less of philosophy and a whole more of controlling mechanisms for a ruling class.

like myself only take the philosophy component and disregard the religious component. — Ross Campbell

So why even incorporate Christianity in you argument?

Stoicism is also a philosophy. — Ross Campbell

So?

In my opinion the strength of these philosophies is that they are not just drawn from REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE but also in line with the way nature and reality works. — Ross Campbell

As does Nietzche and many other philosophers. Don't see your point.

They believe in living according to nature. I would hazard a guess that Nietzsche is selective in where he gets his ideas from, he despises so much of traditional culture and values that he's left with very little to work on. — Ross Campbell

How much of Nietzche have you even read?

I don't get what point you are trying to make here? You are praising Christianity and Buddhism and try to convince through premises that Nietzche doesn't observe real life or make any valid points because... of what exactly? You don't agree with Nietzche, sure, but your way of criticizing his writings doesn't make any sense or have any philosophical depth. You just say that you don't like him or his writings and then strawman his texts in favor of Christianity and Buddhism because you like them... it's not really enough.

Imo Nietzsche focused on person as individual and what he personally can do, and not at all in relation to all ready collapsed (in his eyes) societies. — dimosthenis9

You’re missing a key point - I’m not saying in relation to society (I agree that he saw them as already collapsed), but in relation to other people. He didn’t see the individual as atomic, like a billiard ball, but as variable in relation to other ‘individuals’.

But I think Nietzsche's road to that society transformation comes mostly from personal change and spiritual development. Through that progression you change societies also. You can't change anything to a society if you don't change individuals first. If individuals aren't ready for change, you will never achieve anything. — dimosthenis9

I agree - but the focus shouldn’t be on changing society, but on changing ourselves by how we interact. What makes anyone think they can single-handedly change society? When we perceive ourselves and others as socially variable, and recognise that we construct and reconstruct our notion of ‘society’ through how we relate to each other, then potentially no change to society is beyond us.

I m not fan at all of that assumptions. I never say that someone deserves suffering (even if some do indeed). — dimosthenis9

That was only one example, and I certainly am not suggesting that you do say it, although your comment implies that you at least think or feel it. I notice you do identify pity - an awareness that John suffers in a way that you do not - without recognising any value, significance or potential in your relation to John more than identifying a difference. It’s a start.

But that's the thing. Since I don't show much compassion to others (except close friends and family). I expect NO compassion from others either, when I need it most. It's only fair for me. I wouldn't complain about others at all! It's just fine. — dimosthenis9

So why do you feel guilty? I see no issues with this. There are plenty of people who manage fine at this level of awareness, connection and collaboration. That I respond to an awareness of potential and you don’t makes little difference to my capacity to act with compassion towards you, if and when I see that you need it. This is where the religious definition of compassion fails. If I expect you or anyone else to edify my ‘compassionate’ action, then I reveal my intentions as lacking genuine compassion. I’m not doing it to share in an experience of suffering, then, but to relieve my own.

I agree on that one, but my aspect is that Nietzsche meant people to embrace their own suffering as a part of human nature as you mention . And deal with that.Not so much about helping others with their suffering. — dimosthenis9

I think this is an important point to make: I’m not talking about helping others with their suffering, but sharing in the suffering that makes us human - rather than considering ourselves above that kind of suffering, owing to our particular social position or value. It seems you’re still looking at individuals as consolidated identities, as if my suffering is mine from birth. I don’t agree with this, and I don’t think Nietzsche does either, although a relevant quote escapes me at this late hour.

Perhaps Nietzsche doesn't realize that Stoicism has had a huge influence on western thought and culture, not only Christianity. — Ross Campbell

In what way exactly? Westerners seem more than ever wanting to be told what to think and how to act, and are generally clueless about what may lead to well-being. Our culture values wealth and status far more than meaning and eudaimonia.

I didn't say I don't like Nietzsche. By the way I'm not a Christian, I would be critical also of other philosophers including Plato, for the same reasons Nietzsche attacks him for his denying the reality of this world. Also Marx's theories are not drawn from REAL LIFE but dreamt up from his own prejudices. I also think that the notions of sin , salvation and hell in Christianity are unhealthy and ridiculous Ideas. But few people nowadays believe in them anymore anyway. I'm entitled to my opinion that philosophy should be ONLY based on REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE and in line with NATURE and for me Buddhism, Taoism and Stoicism are good examples of that type of philosophy. Don't misunderstand me I think Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and many of his critiques of religion and some secular philosophys are very thought provoking and penetrating. But his ideas are not necessarily all valid. I think SOME are off the wall. I think there's a grain of truth in what someone else on this blog said "Nietzsche is a bit like a Germanic version of Oscar Wilde" who is another beloved, brilliant and widely quoted writer but I wouldn't go to him for guidance on how to live a virtuous life.

philosophy should be ONLY based on REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE and in line with NATURE — Ross Campbell

The ‘real’ doesn’t come and slap us on the face. It must be interpreted. There are thousands of ways of interpreting any event depending on our aims and purposes.

“… How about grasping the perfect incontrovertible truth, the frozen ultimate, the knowledge of the way things really really are; would not that end the confusion of having something happen unexectedly, end it once and for all? With such knowledge in our possession nothing could possibly occur unexpectedly and our lives would be lived out perfectly in peaceful contemplation of what was coming next.

This, it seems to me, is like a man teetering on what he thinks is the edge of the universe and daring anyone to push him off. He feels perfectly safe because he thinks he knows what is what and there is obviously no such thing as ever going beyond the limits of reality. Still, occasionally he makes a pretence of looking over the edge, just for laughs, and he says, ‘See, there really isn't anything there - just a lot of nonsense'. Then, out of the corner of his eye he does catch a glimpse of something moving out there in the nothing; at first, perhaps, no more than the shadows of his own imagination. All night long he wonders what is the perfect truth about them, how much further out their limits lie. So he secretly tests these shadows, tries to see if he can make them move. Soon he is working with his hands.

In time, there arise out there in the nowhere whole new cities, built outside the walls against which he once leaned so confidently. Now his world is different. Now his once ‘perfect' truths tell him what he can see is not so, and, faithful as he may try to be, he can offer no more than lip service to them. Now, each time he looks up from his work and peers beyond his latest achievement, he wonders who he is to have imagined such things, and what he is doing, and he shudders to think how much of his life was spent behind the city barriers, or what unseen walls may imprison him now. And then he wonders more; to what destinies has he been false - and why has the evening grown so late?

This tail-spin of thinking starts as all tail-spins do, from the stall that occurs when one tries to stand still in mid-flight. From the moment we assume that truth is a stationary achievement, rather than a stage in a lively quest, it is only a matter of time until things start spinning round and round. Truth is neither reality nor phantasy. It needs to be understood, instead, as a continually emerging relationship between reality and ingenuity, and thus never something that can be skewered by a phrase, a moment, or a place.”

George Kelly

Also Marx's theories are not drawn from REAL LIFE but dreamt up from his own prejudices. — Ross Campbell

How do you come to this conclusion? He didn't use the facts of the life of the workers' conditions during the industrial revolution?

I'm entitled to my opinion that philosophy should be ONLY based on REAL LIFE EXPERIENCE and in line with NATURE. — Ross Campbell

Opinions don't mean much in philosophy. Why are real-life experience and nature a better foundation for philosophy than any other method or observation? You need to make a proper argument for this opinion, otherwise, you are not doing philosophy.

Don't misunderstand me I think Nietzsche is a brilliant writer and many of his critiques of religion and some secular philosophys are very thought provoking and penetrating. But his ideas are not necessarily all valid. I think SOME are off the wall. I think there's a grain of truth in what someone else on this blog said "Nietzsche is a bit like a Germanic version of Oscar Wilde" who is another beloved, brilliant and widely quoted writer but I wouldn't go to him for guidance on how to live a virtuous life. — Ross Campbell

What are you even arguing for here? You provide nothing for why his ideas aren't valid, only that you prefer "lived experience and nature", which doesn't mean a thing within the context of this discussion. Explain how his ideas are invalid and your line of thinking is correct.

Then, philosophy doesn't necessarily give you answers on how to live, it can also be an observational deconstruction of the status quo, in order to force people into thinking in new ways. This is actually more of a foundation to philosophy than any other clear-cut answers on how to behave or what to think. More often than not, clear "answers" in philosophy tend to become framed "carpe diem" quotes decorated on someone's wall instead of actually being of any academic value. The deconstruct and critique of earlier ideas is how we move forward with philosophy, and Nietzche is one of the key figures in pushing philosophy forward through turning previous ideas on their heads. Philosophy also doesn't have to have any positive messages at all, it is irrelevant in the pursuit of truth. This is why many pseudo-philosophers don't like philosophers who conclude negative standing conclusions about the human condition.

I rarely see anything but biased opinions in fallacy-driven arguments.

Truth is neither reality nor phantasy. It needs to be understood, instead, as a continually emerging relationship between reality and ingenuity — Joshs

And let's also make clear to that point, that we can only talk about our "truth". Human truth. And what is reality according to it.So even truth is a relevant thing.
The absolute Truth and what is actual reality might be very very different than what people can realize with their limited senses. Human Truth is just what we people deal with cause it's what concerns us, but we have to be ready to accept that the absolute Truth (the general picture) most probably won't have nothing to do with our "limited truth".

Explain how his ideas are invalid and your line of thinking is correct.

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”

Now explain what kind of validity is in the above statement. It sounds like something you could hear from some street corner guru.

But that's exactly what the Buddha said 2000 years before Nietzsche, namely that "suffering is your teacher" . It increases your compassion and understanding. Nietzsche is not original in this idea. I think Nietzsche has in mind Utilitarianism which he hated, which argues that pleasure is the highest good and that pain is to be avoided. I would agree with Nietzsche , Utilitarianism which has been hugely influential is a life denying or running alway from reality . For me Stoicism and Buddhism has far more wisdom. Perhaps Nietzsche doesn't realize that Stoicism has had a huge influence on western thought and culture , not only Christianity. Up until the early 20th century latin and Greek authors were a major part of education, like Cicero, Seneca, and others. Shakespeare was immersed in the classical writers of antiquity and hence the philosophy of Stoicism. Nietzsche seems to think that it's only Christianity that has dominated western thought. But Christianity was imbued with ancient philosophy. — Ross Campbell

You seem intent on discrediting Nietzsche - you’re throwing everything at him, but I have to say that not much is sticking to his philosophical approach, as such. You’re arguing that Nietzsche ‘hated’ or ‘despised’ one thing or another, that he was selective, unoriginal, didn’t realise, etc. That’s highly likely - he’s a human being, and never claimed to be more than that. Your personal preference for Stoicism or Buddhism is fine - but it seems as if you feel threatened by the very fact that someone like Nietzsche - whose thinking you cannot dismiss - questions aspects of these foundations you hold so dear. You appear unwilling to accept it, as if to say “No, there must be something flawed in his attitude”. It’s a natural response when the foundations your thinking depends on are suitably shaken.

But Nietzsche wasn’t looking for a ready-made philosophy to hang his hat on. He witnessed the fall of Christianity as a foundation for society and philosophical thought, and saw that relying on a tradition of thinking, with all of its assumptions, is a dangerous dependency. There is wisdom in Christianity as well as in Stoicism and Buddhism, sure, but there is no foundation as solid as we once assumed, and we cannot simply discard wisdom that fails to align with a certain tradition. For Nietzsche, this realisation meant that even Buddhism or Stoicism, whose approach to suffering would have made more sense to him than that of Christianity, offered no alternative solid ground on which to set his philosophy.

For Nietzsche, it was no longer about a foundation, but a process. If we were to rebuild our social structures, then simply shifting them to another supposed foundation was not a solution. What rang true in all of these traditions was our relation to each other as human beings. How one human being changed in relation to another. It was a solid place to start.

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”

Now explain what kind of validity is in the above statement. It sounds like something you could hear from some street corner guru. — Ross Campbell

I’d rather explain the validity in the statement below, which I, along with many philosophers, find to be brilliant.

“During the longest epoch of human history (which is called the prehistoric age) an action's value or lack of value was derived from its consequences; the action itself was taken as little into account as its origin. Instead, the situation was something like that of present-day China, where the honor or dishonor of a child reflects back on the parents. In the same way, it was the retroactive force of success or failure that showed people whether to think of an action as good or bad. We can call this period the pre-moral period of humanity. At that point, the imperative “know thyself !” was still unknown. By contrast, over the course of the last ten millennia, people across a large part of the earth have gradually come far enough to see the origin, not the consequence, as decisive for the value of an action. By and large, this was a great event, a considerable refinement of outlook and criterion, an unconscious after-effect of the dominance of aristocratic values and the belief in “origin,” and the sign of a period that we can signify as moral in a narrow sense. This marks the first attempt at self-knowledge.

Origin rather than consequence: what a reversal of perspective! And, certainly, this reversal was only accomplished after long struggles and fluctuations! Granted: this meant that a disastrous new superstition, a distinctive narrowness of interpretation gained dominance. The origin of the action was interpreted in the most determinate sense possible, as origin out of an intention. People were united in the belief that the value of an action was exhausted by the value of its intention. Intention as the entire origin and prehistory of an action: under this prejudice people have issued moral praise, censure, judgment, and philosophy almost to this day. – But today, thanks to a renewed self-contemplation and deepening of humanity, shouldn't we be facing a renewed necessity to effect a reversal and fundamental displacement of values? Shouldn't we be standing on the threshold of a period that would be designated, negatively at first, as extra-moral?

Today, when we immoralists, at least, suspect that the decisive value is conferred by what is specifically unintentional about an action, and that all its intentionality, everything about it that can be seen, known, or raised to “conscious awareness,” only belongs to its surface and skin – which, like every skin, reveals something but conceals even more? In short, we believe that the intention is only a sign and symptom that first needs to be interpreted, and that, moreover, it is a sign that means too many things and consequently means almost nothing by itself. We believe that morality in the sense it has had up to now (the morality of intentions) was a prejudice, a precipitousness, perhaps a preliminary, a thing on about the same level as astrology and alchemy, but in any case something that must be overcome. The overcoming of morality – even the self-overcoming of morality, in a certain sense: let this be the name for that long and secret labor which is reserved for the most subtle, genuinely honest, and also the most malicious consciences of the day, who are living touchstones of the soul.”

He didn’t see the individual as atomic, like a billiard ball, but as variable in relation to other ‘individuals’. — Possibility

I don't think we disagree on that. We think different in the way Nietzsche suggested of what individuals should do in relation to each other. But it's fine.I might be wrong.

So why do you feel guilty? I see no issues with this. There are plenty of people who manage fine at this level of awareness, connection and collaboration. — Possibility

Well you know how thoughts are. And I get tons of them. Sometimes you question yourself and your attitude also. So thoughts like that have crossed my mind also. But yes, I don't ask for anything that I m not willing to give. I try to take over my own personal responsibility for my actions and beliefs fully! That's why I hate when I see people complaining all the time. And that's why I see compassion and pity in many cases not helpful at all for the one who suffers.

It seems you’re still looking at individuals as consolidated identities, as if my suffering is mine from birth — Possibility

But it is mine from birth indeed! Despite it might got created in relation with others in society, at the very end I m the only one who will deal with it. Even if all people in the world feeling compassion for me, wouldn't change anything.

Nietzsche's attack on the virtues of kindness and compassion seems to me an unfortunate flaw in his thinking. — Ross Campbell

Yeah, well. Just as unfortunate is the capacity for suffering and the likelihood of said virtues to be abused resulting in those who live accordingly to be taken advantage of in this world. Which can result in the very concepts (virtues) meant to prevent suffering sometimes creating more. You trust someone to borrow your car or a firearm, they might engage in a killing spree whereas if you did not they would have a knife. You may trust someone who said they broke down to enter your house and use the phone, needless to say what can happen there. It's a sad truth but, sometimes crime and cruelty really does pay. Or does it? What world does that create? An undesirable one in my view. That's where reasonable religion comes in. It teaches you to be just as smart as you are kind. If you actually pay attention.

his contempt for the virtues of pity and compassion regarding them as weaknesses which inhibit the "strong" individual — Ross Campbell

It's a tough one. The argument and counter-argument are best illustrated through anecdote. If you're a trained fighter and someone much smaller than you runs up, calls you a name, then knocks your hat off or even slaps you in front of someone you try to protect in life, it's easy to shake your head and laugh it off. If the person your with says anything you can just be logical and say hey, what do you want me to break his face open over some nonsense, learn to live and let live, and mosey about your day. Everyone around will think that's kind of awesome right away, and you'll feel awesome. However, in that scenario your biological fears were never tested since you knew you were never in really in danger, the other person was. But for sake of the anecdote let's say you're a highly spiritual pacifist both in this scenario and the following one.

In a different scenario, let's say someone much larger than you comes up and does the same. Now your biological fears are being tested, not the least of which being self-worth by proxy of peer approval. You had no interest in engaging in combat with someone who is lesser than you morally or mentally and so act in a way as to avoid it. Yet it's not the same, even if it really was. Humanity is a vain creature that can succumb to negative emotion at a moment's notice, especially when amplified by others whose approval is sought.

Long story short, people don't like that which they view as a hindrance to one's needs until one needs it themselves. Show me the man who lives adamantly by this about to face execution, and not a quick one either, and nine times out of ten I'll show you a hypocrite. After all, an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

Nietzsche attacks Christianity for weakening western culture and as not encouraging the strong independent minded , creative genius. But what about The Renaissance in the 14th -16th centuries. This was a period when the Catholic church was a very dominant powerful force in Europe, yet the Renaissance produced one of the most astonishingly creative periods of art and culture and learning in the whole of European history. Scholars argue that the period even surpassed the Golden Age of Ancient Greece. This "Christian" period which Nietzsche despises produced some of the greatest and far sighted geniuses such as Leonardo da Vinci and Michelangelo. How does Nietzsche explain that then. It doesn't seem to correlate with his theory that Christianity is a degenerative influence.

Is this all a quote from Nietzsche's work. It's certainly very hard to read. I have seen far more elegant and powerful writing of his in other passages. He's famous for his brilliant aphorisms and metaphors and beloved by many writers including WB Yeats from my country Ireland.
I'm wondering how does Nietzsche know what people thought like in prehistoric times . Scientists actually know very little about that, they're are no written records, they don't even know what kind of language they spoke. So how can Nietzsche comment on the ways of thinking of people pre civilization. It's hard enough for us moderns to even grasp how the ancient Greeks or Chinese thought. Again in my opinion Nietzsche is making vast sweeping generalizations which may sound very thought provoking and fascinating, but there's little to no substance or evidence to back up any of these statements. According to JP Stern, Nietszches knowledge of science, anthropology, etc was very scanty. So again his ideas about early human societies and their values would want to be taken with a grain of salt.
Personally I think where Nietszches thought is strongest is in his critique of Christianity and other secular ethical systems , such as Utilitarianism . But the alternative values that he posited to replace them I would again find partially dubious. His ideas about Amor Fati , perspectivism, and the Nihilism of contemporary society are very interesting points and very profound. But I don't think they're entirely original. Amor Fati comes originally from the ancient Stoics and perspectivism looks very similar to ideas in Buddhism or to Aristotle who describe perceiving things from different angles. Perhaps Nietzsche is to a certain extent reviving ideas that had largely disappeared from modern western thought . In Buddhism there is no God, nor is there the notions of Good versus evil, concepts which Nietszche attacks.

People always want to pit their best against somebody else's worst so as to declare themselves the winner. Pfft.

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?”

Now explain what kind of validity is in the above statement. It sounds like something you could hear from some street corner guru. — Ross Campbell

How is that in any way an argument for your opinion being correct? Did you deconstruct the entire page where this quote comes from? Like how you actually read philosophical books? Or did you just search for the quotes that sound the most outlandish out of context.

Please provide a proper philosophical argument that pit your opinion against Nietzche's ideas, I have no time for this pseudo stuff.

I agree with you. I think it’s possible to keep Nietzsche’s central ideas without having to articulate the movement of history in terms of weaker and sicker vs stronger and healthier will to power.
Foucault has done just this, keeping Nietzsche’s genealogical analysis of history and his depiction of subjectivity as a differential play of forces, but avoiding creating the impression that any previous eras were pathological.

I have seen far more elegant and powerful writing of his in other passages. — Ross Campbell

Before you judge its power and elegance , I’d be interested to see if you have the slightest idea of what he’s talking about here. Of course , my reading could be wrong , but I’d like to see if you can make sense of such a reading.

how does Nietzsche know what people thought like in prehistoric times — Ross Campbell

I think his anthropological accuracy is beside the point. I think he would be the first to tell you that he is not attempting an empirical description but rather constructing examples to illustrate a more universal grounding of the basis of moral thinking. By the way, we do know that many of the oldest civilizations we have records of did indeed determine moral guilt on the basis of the action rather than the intent. Whether the act was done on purpose or by accident was irrelevant to the punishment.
Nietzsche’s point about Buddhism is that it upholds what he calls the ascetic ideal in its elevation of a nirvana beyond desire. Nietzsche said that a desire for nothingness is still desire, and there is no way around or beyond will and desire.

Buddhism has been around for thousands of years and has stood the test of time as a philosophy that today 500 million people find brings them peace and happiness. Stoicism is another ancient philosophy of timeless wisdom which is experiencing somewhat of a revival . I don't agree with every precept of Buddhism, such as asceticism and it's religious beliefs. I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time.

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. I'd like to know what women would think about it. As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway.
There's absolutely nothing pseudo about selecting a quote from a famous figure. Journalists, academics etc do it all the time. Perhaps Nietzsche should have been more careful about the some of the outlandish statements that he made. It takes away from some of his other very intriguing and thought provoking ideas.

I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

The only way any philosophy stands the test of time is if it is constantly transformed and reinterpreted anew in each era, which is what we see with everyone from Shakespeare to Aristotle and Plato. The Buddhism that has been embraced by Westeners over the past century has more to do with our own Western philosophical heritage than it does with Eastern thought of two thousand years ago. Freud and Marx have ‘gone out of vogue’ not in the sense that their ideas have simply been rejected , but in the sense that their thinking has been a absorbed into and transformed by current neo and post-Marxist and neo and post-Freudian models.

The wokism trends sweeping universities around the world would be impossible without the influence of Freud and Marx.

I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

I am highly amused by your seemingly endless attempts to denigrate or undermine Nietzsche. This last one I have to say is particularly delicious - philosophy as a popularity contest. Please keep them coming.