The Queen for all l care is an old decrepit whore who deserves to be shot in the head for being a nuisance. It's a shame she represents the image of nobility in the UK. The noble class consists of great dictators ( Cesar for eg ) , military leaders ( Hannibal Barca for eg ), epoch defining thinkers (philosophers, scientists & artists ). You can include sportsmen ( free solo rock climbers ) who reflect the valor of ancient gladiators. Great actors and directors ( eg Brando and Stanley Kubrick ) should also be included

Contemporary "musicians" for the most part produce commercialized music. This explains the deplorable state of art. Music should not be made for commercial success . The state should be a patron to great musicians ( the music doesn't need to be classical ) and let them produce great art. The common people will obviously benefit from this in the long run. A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society

IS that the best folk can do in the face of autocracy? Quoting American mythology? — Banno

Do you have a better defense against autocracy? What, in your view, is the best defense?

But they are equal. They are all endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights. Among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. To secure these rights, Governments are instituted, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. — T Clark

Could you provide me with the theological roots of rights theory? Where in the Bible (or elsewhere?) is rights theory derived?

Noblesse oblige. It is incompatible with liberty.

for all l care — Wittgenstein

Peasants do not have to care.

servants — unenlightened

People say "I'm a servant of god" with great joy and immense pride!

@180 Proof

Non serviam!

The seeds of a revolution in there somewhere. Lather, rinse, repeat!

The Queen for all l care is an old decrepit whore — Wittgenstein

You maybe related to her! :snicker:

If you are nobility, then l am the second coming of Robespierre

You ain't no Robespierre, and I ain't nobility. I am a worthless philosopher, and you are a peasant.

Check the work of Julian Young, Brian Lieter, Thomas Hurka.If l get the opportunity , l will collect a list of all scholars with reference, past and present who share the same interpretation of Nietzsche as me — Wittgenstein

He does register a lot of disgust at what appears to him to be life-rejecting behavior and practice, but ultimately he's not offering a prescription for our world. Nietzsche makes it pretty clear that our world is the threshold of a new one which we would have trouble imagining.

You'd have to take his words out of context and extrapolate your own interpretation from there to get the OP.

So you're attacking a strawman.

Do you think a college professor will keep his job in this age if he spouts the elitist nonsense in my OP ? A few scholars have nevertheless dared to read Nietzsche as he ought to be read and l can drop their names in this thread but you will dismiss their interpretation..... — Wittgenstein

That sounds like a silly argument. There are plenty of conservative Christian institutions in the U.S. where such readings of Nietzsche would probably be welcome. Of the authors you mentioned I’m familiar with Brian Leiter. He reads Nietzsche as a modernist, existentialist and realist. This interpretation is more accessible to most people than the postmodern reading, because it doesnt require them to understand postmodern thought.

I’m not bothered by what Leiter’s
reading says in particular about Nietzsche’s approach to slavery. Rather, I think it completely misses what is most exciting, daring and radical about his work. For me the larger question is whether you have any acquaintance with the Nietzsche depicted by Heidegger, Derrida , Foucault , Deleuze or other postmodernists. If you don’t know what they claim to be his main thesis (for instance , what is Will to Power , Eternal Return of the Same and their relation to each other) then you are not in a position to ‘prefer’ your reading to an alternative you have no familiarity with.

Contemporary "musicians" for the most part produce commercialized music. This explains the deplorable state of art. — Wittgenstein

You sound like an old fogey. Not a fan of classic Rock or Punk? The Velvet Underground were not very commercially successful, but there’s more of Nietzsche in that music than in any symphony.

A system should be put in place which allows the crème da le crème of society to blossom into maturity, this will come at the cost of a non-egalitarian society — Wittgenstein

Do you have the slightest idea what would constitute the ‘crème de la crème’ for Nietzsche in terms of specific values, beliefs, taste in music and art?
Do you think he would embrace any of the specific arts, sciences or political forms that you consider to be superior? Here’s a hint: No.
This is simply because Nietzsche does not advocate for any particular content when it comes to forms of cultural creativity. On the contrary, he advocates for the endless overturning of specific cultural values , which includes all particular creative content.

Could you provide me with the theological roots of rights theory? Where in the Bible (or elsewhere?) is rights theory derived? — Moses

I don't know. I was speaking from personal conviction.

Do you have the slightest idea what would constitute the ‘crème de la crème’ for Nietzsche in terms of specific values, beliefs, taste in music and art?
Do you think he would embrace any of the specific arts, sciences or political forms that you consider to be superior? Here’s a hint: No.
This is simply because Nietzsche does not advocate for any particular content when it comes to forms of cultural creativity. On the contrary, he advocates for the endless overturning of specific cultural values , which includes all particular creative content

Physicist recognized the greatness of Einstein, mathematicians recognized the greatness of Grothendieck, logicians recognized the greatness of Gödel. Painters recognized the greatness of Picasso. Linguist recognized the greatness of Chomsky. You don't need to specify the content of art, science, philosophy to make the argument that there's a clear hierarchy of percieved importance in the eyes of those who are most capable of offering a judgment, ie the experts themselves.

Any student of history and culture knows that, each era brings forth new trends, values, ideas so it's stupid to fix greatness to a particular art,science,philosophy form. You should have understood why l didn't specify the content of high art form. My argument still stands, the system of elite artists/scientists/philosophers is capable of finding genius, just as Russell recognized the genius in Wittgenstein, who would go on to disagree with his mentor. Most people don't need a university education, the entry criterion to a elite university/institution/academy should be made sufficiently difficult that only those who are capable of producing work of genius gain entry into it. In fact, the education system itself should cater to the needs/training of geniuses at the expense of common people. When everyone is capable of getting a degree/certificate/qualification/title, you know education has been dumbed down

That sounds like a silly argument. There are plenty of conservative Christian institutions in the U.S. where such readings of Nietzsche would probably be welcome. Of the authors you mentioned I’m familiar with Brian Leiter. He reads Nietzsche as a modernist, existentialist and realist. This interpretation is more accessible to most people than the postmodern reading, because it doesnt require them to understand postmodern thought.

It's more of a remark and you are against the interpretation of Nietzsche as an anti egalitarian , anti democratic autocratic thinker, in line with my prediction. I don't think we should bother with postmodern thinkers as they don't interpret Nietzsche, they reinterpret his ideas/work for their postmodern projects. I am more concerned with knowing what Nietzsche had to say, without adding my own content, which the postmodernist do.

I’m not bothered by what Leiter’s
reading says in particular about Nietzsche’s approach to slavery. Rather, I think it completely misses what is most exciting, daring and radical about his work. For me the larger question is whether you have any acquaintance with the Nietzsche depicted by Heidegger, Derrida , Foucault , Deleuze or other postmodernists. If you don’t know what they claim to be his main thesis (for instance , what is Will to Power , Eternal Return of the Same and their relation to each other) then you are not in a position to ‘prefer’ your reading to an alternative you have no familiarity with.

As you can probably guess from my name, my background is in analytic philosophy ( OLP in particular ) . I won't even pretend to have read the work of Heidegger as it's incomprehensible and l would be surprised if you have read being and time. I am familiar with the work of Foucault but you can quote the "interpretation" of the philosophers you have listed and we'll see if it's really an interpretation. But make sure it's on the topic of slavery since we are not concerned about eternal resurrection, will to power etc as concepts in of themselves

Any student of history and culture knows that, each era brings forth new trends, values, ideas so it's stupid to fix greatness to a particular art,science,philosophy form. You should have understood why l didn't specify the content of high art form. My argument still stands, the system of elite artists/scientists/philosophers is capable of finding genius, just as Russell recognized the genius in Wittgenstein, who would go on to disagree with his mentor. — Wittgenstein

How do the new trends and values relate to those of the eras that precede them? With regard to the sciences in particular, does Einstein add cumulatively to the sum
of knowledge in physics, or is Relativity a qualitative transformation of previous physics that can’t be considered a linear progress? Is Einstein great because he brings science closer to understanding the way things really are , or because he simply ushers ina new perspective? For Nietzsche, the greatness of a scientist is not on how accurately they represent reality but in their ability to break free of the herd, as well as their eagerness to see their theories crushed.

I don't think we should bother with postmodern thinkers as they don't interpret Nietzsche, they reinterpret his ideas/work for their postmodern projects. I am more concerned with knowing what Nietzsche had to say, without adding my own content, which the postmodernist do. — Wittgenstein

You say postmodern thinkers reinterpret his ideas for their postmodern projects. This is precisely what every Nietzsche scholar or non-scholar does. There is no way to know what Nietzsche had to say without already interpreting him through one’s own perspective, which will likely line up with the perspective of one of a group of notated Nietzsche scholars. You don’t think Leiter filters Nietzsche through his own brand of modernist realism?

I am familiar with the work of Foucault but you can quote the "interpretation" of the philosophers you have listed and we'll see if it's really an interpretation. But make sure it's on the topic of slavery since we are not concerned about eternal resurrection, will to power etc as concepts in of themselves — Wittgenstein

You cannot spilt apart subtopics within his work and understand them in isolation from the whole. It is impossible to know what Nietzsche is saying about slavery without first understanding eternal recurrence and will to power. These are the means of decoding his views on all subjects.

How do the new trends and values relate to those of the eras that precede them? With regard to the sciences in particular, does Einstein add cumulatively to the sum of knowledge in physics, or is Relativity a qualitative transformation of previous physics that can’t be considered a linear progress? Is Einstein great because he brings science closer to understanding the way things really are , or because he simply ushers ina new perspective? For Nietzsche, the greatness of a scientist is not on how accurately they represent reality but in their ability to break free of the herd, as well as their eagerness to see their theories crushed.

I don't think Nietzsche had sufficient knowledge of physics to know how it's technically impossible to break free of the herd but l am sure he didn't mean it in a strict sense. Linear progress doesn't necessarily conflict with independent reasoning, as it can take genius to see the "next" step. Einstein's used the work of Riemann and Poincaré as inspiration for GR, so it's usually a combination of independent reasoning and following the herd which produces work of genius. I can see how this is also true for artist and philosophers alike since they are located in a specific zeitgeist.

You say postmodern thinkers reinterpret his ideas for their postmodern projects. This is precisely what every Nietzsche scholar or non-scholar does. There is no way to know what Nietzsche had to say without already interpreting him through one’s own perspective, which will likely line up with the perspective of one of a group of notated Nietzsche scholars. You don’t think Leiter filters Nietzsche through his own brand of modernist realism?

Nietzsche was situated in the modern era and we can easily distinguish interpretation from reinterpretation being used for some broader project.

It is impossible to know what Nietzsche is saying about slavery without first understanding eternal recurrence and will to power. These are the means of decoding his views on all subjects.

I don't think Nietzsche is a systematic thinker so it's not possible to present his ideas in a packaged form but will to power and other concepts do have a direct relation to his stance on slavery. Will to power in my interpretation, amounts to exercising influence and transforming the world by forcing your system of values/ideals on the world. Eternal resurrection means you should live life in such a manner that you should wish/be glad to experience life as whole in repetition for eternity. A high culture is the the manifestation of will to power, which can only be exercised by the elite in it's full meaning. So its neccessary to enslave the rest of people, so they don't become an obstacle in path of self realization of the ubermensch

The Queen for all l care is an old decrepit whore who deserves to be shot in the head for being a nuisance. — Wittgenstein

Deer mother of god... A fair fuck in the on the back, okay. That's what whores make money with. But a shot in the head?

it's not possible to present his ideas in a packaged form but you will to power and other concepts do have a some relation to his stance on slavery. — Wittgenstein

Forgive me if you went over this before. But where does Nietzsche discuss slavery, let alone be an advocate?

Read his book, "The Greek state"

The Greek state" — Wittgenstein

Okay. I've read almost everything of Nietzsche and cannot recall him ever talking about slavery.

Okay, you mean the Genealogy of Morals. Is there a specific part you can refer to?

:lol:

The queen getting fucked isn't a nice sight. The Royal family is only good for hiding pedophiles. If it were up to me, l would mutilate her....

Nietzsche literally advocates for slavery and many are other horrible practices in this book, the Greek state. It's also one of his earliest work, so you can't accuse his sister of tempering it

Nietzsche literally advocates for slavery and many are other horrible practices in this book, the Greek state. It's also one of his earliest work, so you can't accuse his sister of tempering it — Wittgenstein

"Accordingly, we must learn to identify as a cruel-sounding truth the
fact that slavery belongs to the essence of a culture: a truth, granted, that
leaves open no doubt about the absolute value of existence. This truth is
the vulture which gnaws at the liver of the Promethean promoter of
culture." (Genealogy; The greek state)

The queen getting fucked isn't a nice sight. The Royal family is only good for hiding pedophiles. If it were up to me, l would mutilate her.... — Wittgenstein

:lol:

Now we're talking philosophy! Royal philosophy. Pedosophy!

And who knows what Charles fools around behind the scenes. Motherfucker...

I don't think Nietzsche is a systematic thinker so it's not possible to present his ideas in a packaged form but will to power and other concepts do have a direct relation to his stance on slavery. Will to power in my interpretation, amounts to exercising influence and transforming the world by forcing your system of values/ideals. Eternal resurrection means you should live life in such a manner that you should wish/be glad to experience life as whole in repetition for for eternity. A high culture is the the manifestation of will to power, which can only be exercised by the elite in it's full meaning. So its neccessary to enslave the rest of people, so they don't become an obstacle in path of self realization of the ubermensch — Wittgenstein

In my reading, Nietzsche is very much a systematic thinker. The eternal return of the same does not refer to a repeating cycle in which the contents of one’s lived memories are lived again the very same way. On the contrary , eternal return of the same is the return of the same absolutely different. What repeats itself is absolute novelty , always in a new way. This is why Nietzsche does not believe that science progresses, that it represents, mirrors or corresponds to an external reality. The only reality is that of the incessantly changing relation of the drives to each other.

As Nietzsche says,

“ Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren’t
we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn’t enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean
comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of
reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect…”( Genealogy of Morals)

Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l.

“Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn,
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated." Geneology of Morality)

Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power.

Notion we need to challenge

1. Equality of people before the law and in possession of civil rights — Wittgenstein

What we need to advocate

2. To maximize cultural progress (enrichment) , the existence of a slave class is neccessary — Wittgenstein

3. The elite artists should fashion the taste of art in society... — Wittgenstein

In your OP, your responses to the above seem to position you as a supporter of this, as you say, "unpussified" reading of Nietzche. Then, however, you end your statement with,

Disclaimer : I disagree wholeheartedly ..... — Wittgenstein

So, maybe you're merely paraphrasing Nietzsche, not stating your interpretation of him.

Then maybe you weigh in on his pungent beliefs with a wholesale disavowal.

Hmm.

At present, I can't shake my sense you oscillate between embracing & reviling Nietzsche.

Anyhow, as pertains to my present point of interest,

Most people don't need a university education, the entry criterion to a elite university/institution/academy should be made sufficiently difficult that only those who are capable of producing work of genius gain entry into it. In fact, the education system itself should cater to the needs/training of geniuses at the expense of common people. When everyone is capable of getting a degree/certificate/qualification/title, you know education has been dumbed down — Wittgenstein

What approach should morally upright social scientists & legislators take regarding the naturally occurring inequality of human individuals grouped together within a state? (It seems we on the left have been rebutting Plato's Republic (somewhat ineffectually) for the past 2,400 years.)

Also, has Nietzsche written anything on the topic of strategically planned social stratification not previously written by Plato?

Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l. — Joshs

Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power. — Joshs

The above read like fast lanes to a nightmare of social instability, with frequent visits to thresholds of disintegration & collapse.

Perhaps Nietzsche's downfall in microcosm was personality disintegration due to an excess of Sturm und Drang.

The above read like fast lanes to a nightmare of social instability, with frequent visits to thresholds of disintegration & collapse. — ucarr

There are regions of political stability and hegemony , just as there are paradigmatic communities in the sciences. Most of the time we live within these relatively stable communities, so it’s not as nightmarish as it sounds. In fact , it is just a description of how things already work. The disintegration and collapse is something we see on a regular basis. What we don’t see is an understanding of the basis of such breakdowns and how to avoid their violence and disruptive effect. Nietzsche’s philosophy doesnt produce this regular violence of instability and disintegration , it mitigates against the kind of political world we already live in.

In my reading, Nietzsche is very much a systematic thinker. The eternal return of the same does not refer to a repeating cycle in which the contents of one’s lived memories are lived again the very same way. On the contrary , eternal return of the same is the return of the same absolutely different. What repeats itself is absolute novelty , always in a new way. This is why Nietzsche does not believe that science progresses, that it represents, mirrors or corresponds to an external reality. The only reality is that of the incessantly changing relation of the drives to each other.

As Nietzsche says,

“ Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren’t
we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn’t enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean
comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of
reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect…”( Genealogy of Morals)



Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l.

“Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn,
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated." Geneology of Morality)

Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power. — Joshs

I don't see how the passage of Nietzsche is against progress in science. New ideas do dominate and obliterate past mistakes in science but this doesn't challenge the notion of progress. It's difficult to think Nietzsche didn't see the incredible practicality of science in industry, which bears some sort of testimony to the continual improvement of our understanding of the world. I don't know if you have read Feyeraband, a famous post modernist who tried to undermined the idea of progress in science. Thankfully, other philosophers called him out and in this age, everyone can spot the sickening tendency of post modernism to entangle science in the realm of complete subjectivity. But if you turn to arts and philosophy, there's no point in making the argument that there's no progress, as it is the majority view of the historians of philosophy/art

I am not surprised you tried to reduce the "will to power" to merely a mental phenomenon which should be subject to psychoanalysis. It's funny how Nietzsche doesn't mention will to power in the paragraph you have quoted. You want to conflate inner mental drives with will to power and ofcourse it's important to mention the fragmented self. I'm sure Nietzsche pictured a mentally tormented lonely postmodernist loser in his mind when he thought of will to power. NO, will to power manifests in the form of Goethe, Lord Byron, Napoleon and everyone in history who shaped the world with the sheer force of personality & genius. Have you ever wondered why Nietzsche admired Paul despite his clear disdain for Christians. Paul managed to subvert Greco Roman values and reorder the world with new values

How does your interpretation of Nietzsche explain his desire to enslave a great number of people for the sake of an elitist culture ?