So Nietzsche is not only a proto-postmodernist, and a nascent existentialist, he's also a progenitor of the New Age movement. :wink:

Perhaps Nietzsche was condemning the animal in us - low on rationality and high on emotions and you know what that does - and was suggesting that we leave that behind and become human (guided by mind-heart i.e. rational & compassionate). In other words, his übermensch = peak human, kinda like Steve Rogers aka Captain America who's both good, knowledegable, and strong (re Christian Manliness or Muscular Christianity).

I am not a fan of "names", "periods" and "ages". I see human thinking as a continuous chain. He was one of the greatest, who set solid foundations in human thinking as "movements" that could get us further to exist.

And if we could live for much longer, we would still see Nietzsche's name to appear even after hundreds of years.
"People can't understand me cause I m 1000years ahead" he said. So yeah,if we take that literally, there are many more years left yet I guess..

Ah.

I'll leave you to it then. Too much adoration for my taste.

No one has to like or to agree with Nietzsche. It is a matter of taste indeed. I don't agree with anything he wrote either. But that's a different thing than devaluing such a great thinker.Treating him as if he was a "0". Anyway.

People can't understand me cause I m 1000years ahead — dimosthenis9

That's the Treponema Pallidum talking.

Zombie Insects. Who knows, we could all be zombies too. Jesus was trying to tell us something!

Our brains hijacked, we're under the illusion that we're engaged in some highfalutin colloquy about love, honor, gods, transcendence, nous, aretê, whathaveyou, when in fact all we are are vectors for a sinister virus (DNA & RNA). :scream:

That's the Treponema Pallidum talking. — Agent Smith

It is a possibility.

"People can't understand me cause I m 1000years ahead" he said. So yeah,if we take that literally, there are many more years left yet I guess — dimosthenis9

such a great thinker — dimosthenis9

You say he is such a great thinker, yet you say he is still centuries ahead of us. How could you evaluate his thinking and find out he is great if you think you can't understand him ? Or perhaps do you consider yourself another "1000 years ahead of y'all" type of guy ?

It is a possibility. — dimosthenis9

:lol:

You say he is such a great thinker, yet you say he is still centuries ahead of us. How could you evaluate his thinking and find out he is great if you think you can't understand him ? Or perhaps do you consider yourself another "1000 years ahead of y'all" type of guy ? — Hello Human

I mentioned what he said. Who told you that I agree with that also? He is a damn great thinker indeed. One of the greatest for me,who will still influence human thinking after hundreds of years. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be arrogant at the same time.

I mentioned what he said. Who told you that I agree with that also? He is a damn great thinker indeed. One of the greatest for me,who will still influence human thinking after hundreds of years. That doesn't mean he couldn't also be arrogant at the same time. — dimosthenis9

Guess I jumped to a conclusion with no evidence and ended up misunderstanding. Sorry.

It's Ok.No hard feelings.

Funnily enough, when I spoke of Nietzsche creating a new romantic movement, the music of the new romantics came into my mind. I love the music of the electric eighties, including ABC, Ultravox and many others. If anything, the more gothic aspects seem more Nietzschian, such as Marc Almond and, he Tah Duran Duran's 'Seven and the Ragged Tiger,' especially the song, 'The Union of the Snake' seem a bit Nietzschian in questioning values. And, yes I am admitting to being a closet Duran Duran fan, and they are still going.

Yes, it does seem that Nietzsche's approach was about looking beyond the 'animal' aspect of the human being as @Gus Lamarch suggested. I was just looking at Colin Wilson's discussion of Nietzsche in, 'The Outsider'. Wilson suggests an interpretation which is more about the development of the inner aspects of the human being, saying how Nietzsche, asked himself about happiness and the nature of delusion and,
'His imagination set to work on the problem, to conceive a man great enough to affirm. Not the Hero- no hero could ever command a philosopher's complete admiration. But the prophet, the saint, the man of action; or, perhaps, a combination of all four? ' in this way, Nietzsche's emphasis can be seen as going beyond the animal and irrational aspects of human nature, and of becoming the highest possible example of how a person may become.

Funnily enough, when I spoke of Nietzsche creating a new romantic movement, — Jack Cummins

When I was at university back in the 1980's Nietzsche was described as a romantic and so were the post-modernists who were raging against foundationalist modernity the way the 18th century romantics raged against rationalism.

One issue with reading Nietzsche, and it's a good quote by someone (I forget who), is that Nietzsche is easy to read but hard to understand. I've read a bit of his work now and for me it is fun, pithy, clever, portentous, but I have no real use for it. I would be interested in hearing from others about what N has contributed to their understanding, rather than hearing about how influential N is or isn't.

Nietzsche’s concern was how humanity would ‘replace’ religion. — I like sushi

This is a common misunderstanding. He did not want to replace religion, he wanted to overcome Christianity. He recognized the importance of religion. People need something to believe in, something to follow. Nietzsche does what Plato did, the invention of a religion in the service of philosophy. Only Nietzsche's religion is to be an inversion of Plato's. A religion of the earth, a religion of becoming, a religion of the god Dionysus, of a god who philosophizes.
.

I, the last disciple and initiate of the God Dionysus: and perhaps I might at last begin to give you, my friends, as far as I am allowed, a little taste of this philosophy? In a hushed voice, as is but seemly: for it has to do with much that is secret, new, strange, wonderful, and uncanny. The very fact that Dionysus is a philosopher, and that therefore Gods also philosophize, seems to me a novelty which is not unensnaring, and might perhaps arouse suspicion precisely among philosophers. — Beyond Good and Evil, 295

I am not saying this is wrong but none of that makes any sense to me.

He did not want to replace religion, he wanted to overcome Christianity. He recognized the importance of religion. People need something to believe in, something to follow. Nietzsche does what Plato did, the invention of a religion in the service of philosophy. Only Nietzsche's religion is to be an inversion of Plato's. A religion of the earth, a religion of becoming, a religion of the god Dionysus, of a god who philosophizes. — Fooloso4

He certainly did like to throw around words like ‘gods’, but in what sense is becoming and self-overcoming religion? He did not simply encourage people to have something to believe in. That would be the ascetic ideal, which he critiqued. What he encouraged was recognizing that the ‘something’ one believes in is always transforming itself into something new, so it is the endless movement , the eternal return of the same movement , that he sees as fundamental , not the enslavement to something one believes in.

He certainly did like to throw around words like ‘gods’, but in what sense is becoming and self-overcoming religion? — Joshs

Indeed.

What he encouraged was recognizing that the ‘something’ one believes in is always transforming itself into something new, so it is the endless movement , the eternal return of the same movement , that he sees as fundamental — Joshs

Why is this important to him?

Hence parenthesis for ‘replace’

People need something to believe in, something to follow. — Fooloso4

In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche argues that religion has value as a means to an end , but not as sovereign. That is , not for its own sake, such as being something for people to believe in. For instance, it is valuable as a tool for rulers to control and pacify others. And asceticism can be used as a tool by rulers for controlling their own will in order to overcome certain drives and values. But nirvana or religious godliness should not be the goal.

“For people who are strong, independent, prepared, and predestined for command, people who come to embody the reason and art of a governing race, religion is an additional means of overcoming resistances, of being able to rule. It binds the ruler together with the ruled, giving and handing the consciences of the ruled over to the rulers – which is to say: handing over their hidden and most interior aspect, and one which would very much like to escape obedience. And if individuals from such a noble lineage are inclined, by their high spirituality, towards a retiring and contemplative life, reserving for themselves only the finest sorts of rule (over exceptional young men or monks), then religion can even be used as a means of securing calm in the face of the turmoil and tribu-lations of the cruder forms of government, and purity in the face of the necessary dirt of politics. This is how the Brahmins, for instance, understood the matter. With the help of a religious organization, they as-sumed the power to appoint kings for the people, while they themselves kept and felt removed and outside, a people of higher, over-kingly tasks.

Meanwhile, religion also gives some fraction of the ruled the instruction and opportunity they need to prepare for eventual rule and command. This is particularly true for that slowly ascending class and station in which, through fortunate marriage practices, the strength and joy of the will,the will to self-control is always on the rise. Religion tempts and urges them to take the path to higher spirituality and try out feelings of great self-overcoming, of silence, and of solitude. Asceticism and Puritanism are almost indispensable means of educating and ennobling a race that wants to gain control over its origins among the rabble, and work its way up to eventual rule. Finally, as for the common people, the great majority, who exist and are only allowed to exist to serve and to be of general utility, religion gives them an invaluable sense of contentment with their situation and type; it puts their hearts greatly at ease, it glorifies their obedience, it gives them (and those like them) one more happiness and one more sorrow, it transfigures and improves them, it provides something of a justification for everything commonplace, for all the lowliness, for the whole half-bestial poverty of their souls.

Religion, and the meaning religion gives to life, spreads sunshine over such eternally tormented people and makes them bearable even to themselves. It has the same effect that an Epicurean philosophy usually has on the suffering of higher ranks: it refreshes, refines, and makes the most of suffering, as it were. In the end it even sanctifies and justifies. Perhaps there is nothing more venerable about Christianity and Buddhism than their art of teaching even the lowliest to use piety in order to situate themselves in an illusory higher order of things, and in so doing stay satisfied with the actual order, in which their lives are hard enough (in which precisely this hardness is necessary!).

Finally, to show the downside of these religions as well and throw light on their uncanny dangers: there is a high and horrible price to pay when religions do not serve as means for breeding and education in the hands of a philosopher, but instead serve themselves and become sovereign, when they want to be the ultimate goal instead of a means alongside other means.”

Yes, it does seem that Nietzsche's approach was about looking beyond the 'animal' aspect of the human being as Gus Lamarch suggested. I was just looking at Colin Wilson's discussion of Nietzsche in, 'The Outsider'. Wilson suggests an interpretation which is more about the development of the inner aspects of the human being, saying how Nietzsche, asked himself about happiness and the nature of delusion and,
'His imagination set to work on the problem, to conceive a man great enough to affirm. Not the Hero- no hero could ever command a philosopher's complete admiration. But the prophet, the saint, the man of action; or, perhaps, a combination of all four? ' in this way, Nietzsche's emphasis can be seen as going beyond the animal and irrational aspects of human nature, and of becoming the highest possible example of how a person may become. — Jack Cummins

Well I :grin: did say something about what kinda lowlives h. sapiens are (vide infra).



Nietzsche: Guys, guys, guys, we're better than this! C'mon!

Nietzsche: Guys, guys, guys, we're better than this! C'mon! — Agent Smith

Wasn't it Frederick thinking people are parasites sucking on the skin of nature? Wasn't he thinking he stood far above the others, being an übermensch? Nietzsche über allen! His sister tried hard in South America. Nuova Germania... Stronghold of the über Aryans.

...in what sense is becoming and self-overcoming religion? — Joshs

They should be viewed in light of what they are opposed to. They are by themselves no more religion than being and obedience are.

He did not simply encourage people to have something to believe in. — Joshs

People do not need to be encouraged to have something to believe in. They desire to believe in something.

What he encouraged was recognizing that the ‘something’ one believes in is always transforming itself into something new, so it is the endless movement , the eternal return of the same movement , that he sees as fundamental , not the enslavement to something one believes in. — Joshs

In part this answers your question regarding what becoming and self-overcoming have to do with a Dionysian religion. Historical awareness leads to nihilism. What he calls in " The Use and Abuse of History for Life" "deadly truths". These are no truths that a majority of people can live by. It leaves them rudderless. Religious inventions are not for the philosopher, they are creations of the philosopher for the benefit of the people.

The eternal return of the same plays out in one way through the three metamorphoses of the spirit. From acceptance, I shall, to denial, the sacred no, to a new sacred yes, I will. The sacred yes is not enslavement, it is an assertion of the will to power. It is the end and the beginning of the turning of the wheel. The affirmation is not denied the moment it is affirmed. The stages of becoming follow one after the other, they do not happen all at once.

For instance, it is valuable as a tool for rules to control and pacify others. — Joshs

Yes, but this is not simply for the benefit of the ruler. A significant benefit of Christianity was a matter of self-control. But what was then a benefit is no longer so, and this as a result of its success.

But the real philosophers are commanders and lawgivers: they say "That is how it should be!" They determine first the "Where to?" and the "What for?" of human beings, and, as they do this, they have at their disposal the preliminary work of all philosophical labourers, all those who have overpowered the past - they reach with their creative hands to grasp the future. In that process, everything which is and has been becomes a means for them, an instrument, a hammer. Their "knowing" is creating; their creating is establishing laws; their will to truth is - will to power. - Are there such philosophers nowadays? Have there ever been such philosophers? Is it not necessary that there be such philosophers? . . . . — BGE 211

But this is not simply for his own benefit. The philosopher is a benefactor.

Who are you quoting in these four paragraphs. And why? If one takes to heart what Nietzsche says about idle readers then reliance on secondary sources, while helpful, should always be secondary. And to not cite sources is understandable if it is an oversight, but inexcusable when it is one's standard practice. — Fooloso4

Sorry it wasnt clear, but I meant to attribute these paragraphs to Nietzsche in BG&E, which is why I began my comment with: ‘In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche argues that religion has value as a means to an end , but not as sovereign.’

I recall that Napoleon was considered a megalomaniac Überdouche. Wouldn’t the world be better off without such creatures?

What he encouraged was recognizing that the ‘something’ one believes in is always transforming itself into something new, so it is the endless movement , the eternal return of the same movement , that he sees as fundamental
— Joshs

Why is this important to him? — Tom Storm

We have to begin by understanding the relation between the drives, values and knowledge for Nietzsche.
All knowledge is perspectival, and all perspective are drives.

Dan W Smith writes:
“… for Nietzsche, it is our drives that interpret the world, that are perspectival—and not our egos, not our conscious opinions. All of us, as individuals, contain within ourselves “a vast confusion of contradictory drives” (WP 259), such that we are, as Nietzsche liked to say, multiplicities, and not unities. Nietzsche’s point is not that I have a different perspective on the world than you; it is rather that each of us has multiple perspectives on
the world within ourselves because of the multiplicity of our drives—drives that are often contradictory among themselves.”

Moreover, these drives are in a constant struggle or combat with each other: my drive to smoke and get my nicotine rush is in combat with (but also coexistent with) my drive to quit. This is where Nietzsche first developed his concept of the will to power—at the level of the drives. “Every drive is a kind of lust to rule,” he writes, “each one has its perspective that it would like to compel all the other drives to accept as a norm” (WP 481)

It is the tension between our drives that produces
creativity , the creation of new ‘gods’ from the sublimation of old drives.

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche presents a famous fable explaining the transition from polytheism to monotheism (or what he elsewhere calls “monoto-theism”): when one of the gods declared himself to be the only god (the monotheistic god), the other gods (the gods of polytheism) laughed and laughed and slapped their knees and rocked in their chairs—until finally they laughed themselves to death! Polytheism died of laughter.”

We should pause to consider Nietzsche's idea of a god who philosophizes. This is part of his dialectic with Plato. He says:

I am complete skeptic when it comes to Plato — Twilight of the Idols,

Both are skeptics in the original sense of the term, and only a skeptic understands a skeptic. Skepticism in this sense is zetetic.

If Plato had been able to speak freely he might have said: "The gods are dead". The situation then was very much like it was for Nietzsche. The gods could no longer be taken as a viable option, but religion in some form was necessary for the masses. In the mythology of the Republic in place of the gods stands the Good, transcendent, eternal, and unchanging. The philosopher is transformed from one who seeks knowledge to one who possesses divine knowledge.

Nietzsche inverts this. Instead of the mythical philosopher who possesses divide knowledge, a god, Dionysus, is a true philosopher, that is, one who desires but does not possess wisdom. One who possesses what Socrates calls in the Apology "human wisdom", the knowledge that one does not know. In place of the fixed world of being is the changing world of becoming. But here too as in the Republic the philosophers are commanders and lawgivers (see above The Philosophers)

Nietzsche inverts this. Instead of the mythical philosopher who possesses divide knowledge, a god, Dionysus, is a true philosopher, that is, one who desires but does not possess wisdom. In place of the fixed world of being is the changing world of becoming. But here too the philosophers are commanders and lawgivers (see above The Philosophers) — Fooloso4

Let’s bring this down to earth a bit. Do you think Nietzsche can be called an atheist? And what is left of the notion of religion if the ‘Good’ is incoherent or irrational? That is, if there can be no concept of good transcendent to contingent, local and relative cultural formations. Don’t you think Nietzsche’s concept of the drives in relation to knowledge is crucial here?

What does it mean to ‘know’ for Nietzsche? Isn’t this just an expression of a drive? You make it sound as our knowledge is limited in the face of all ther is to know , as if knowledge were a matter of correctness of representation with respect to a n empirical world