Never understand the pull of Nietszche — Wayfarer

It makes sense that young people and disaffected folk really love him. He's so dazzlingly iconoclastic, with vicious and sparkling prose even in translation (Kauffmann). Personally I find him unappealing and have yet to finish any of his works. I am not really philosophically inclined.

My view is that if mankind is unable to acknowledge their difference from and separation from nature — Wayfarer

I know you're talking more in contemplative terms, but isn't it generally argued that it is precisely this separation and our failure to recognize our unity with nature that has resulted in us screwing the environment as just some 'other' to be dominated and exploited?

wholly and solely by the will to power. — Wayfarer


A bit of an exaggeration. In the opening pages of Zarathustra - to my view, Nietzsche's purest moment of visionary insight - the Superman is set out as evolution's aim: from worm to ape to man to Superman. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Yes, and also the "will to power" is grossly misunderstood by those who have never actually studied Nietzsche. It does not signify power over others, but power over the self, in order to reach one's fullest potential. I think it would be less misleadingly termed "the will to empowerment".

Yes, and also the "will to power" is grossly misunderstood by those who have never actually studied Nietzsche. It does not signify power over others, but power over the self, in order to reach one's fullest potential. I think it would be less misleadingly termed "the will to empowerment". — Janus

Good to hear from you.

If you have time I'd love to have a reference. I've read a lot of Nietszche but it's been awhile.

I think it would be less misleadingly termed "the will to empowerment". — Janus

Will to Power is Nietzsche's best work.

I concure.

...like any prophet... — ZzzoneiroCosm

Indeed; spouting delusive mistruths.

So Nietzsche doesn't precisely mean Goodall's apes. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Of course not, the anachronism is obvious. Few are those who have heard Goodall yet still think of apes as "A laughing-stock, a thing of shame". That you count yourself amongst them is sad. Nietzsche's analogy ought no longer hold sway given our better understanding of the humanity of the great apes. The implicit acceptance of the teleological misunderstanding of evolution underpinning that analogy adds to the delusion.

Philosophy for adolescents.

Nietzsche's analogy ought no longer hold sway given our better understanding of the humanity of the great apes. — Banno

As usual, you respond via your agenda and not to what I wrote. Take care.

Philosophy for adolescents. — Banno

If you had an ounce of humility you would have a pound of self-contempt.

It's a question of evolution: from ape to man to Superman.

(... And, of course, from Superman to Superduperman - a vision eternally projectable into the future.)

I've heard folks say that a figure like Napoleon ought to be considered, as it were, Supermanly. The passage above indicates an altogether different vision. As an ape can never be a man, a man can never be a Superman. — ZzzoneiroCosm

Putting this into the greater context of his writings, I take Neitzche's superman to be a rationally advanced person who rejects the slave morality of Christianity and derives his morality from this world. The need for such people arises from the death of God, who previously served as the central locus of morality.

The ape quote I take as metaphor, to illustrate the dramatic distinction between a person still adhering to the slave morality and the person who has risen above good and evil, as it were.

I do not read this quote to suggest humanity is in a literal state of continued genetic evolution or even that there is a superman ideal we all strive to emulate. To become a superman, as far I can tell, occurs from a pure act of the will based upon a heightened adherence to rationality and rejection of God. That is, you desire it and you do it.

I haven't read Nietzsche in a while either. Many years ago and over many years I've read Beyond Good and Evil, The Gay Science, Twilight of the Idols, The Antichrist, Ecce Homo, Genealogy of Morals and other bits and pieces.

Zarathustra hasn't held my sustained interest because I don't think much of Nietzsche as a poet. My understanding of what he means by "will to power" is a synthetic understanding gained by reading him over the years, and I don't have a specific reference ready to hand to support my interpretation. Do you have any references that speak against my reading?

Will to Power is Nietzsche's best work. — Jackson

Will to Power was not published by Nietzsche, but was compiled from his notes, notes which it is arguable he never intended to publish, by his sister, I think posthumously, but I'm not sure and can't be bothered looking it up.

Will to Power was not published by Nietzsche, but was compiled from his notes, notes which it is arguable he never intended to publish, by his sister, I think posthumously, but I'm not sure and can't be bothered looking it up. — Janus

You are correct.

isn't it generally argued that it is precisely this separation and our failure to recognize our unity with nature that has resulted in us screwing the environment as just some 'other' to be dominated and exploited? — Tom Storm

The popular view is that the Bible promisses to give man dominion over the earth and that Western culture has exploited that to ransack the planet. But I don't know how much of that is actually preshadowed in the Bible. It was Frances Bacon, one of the forefathers of modern science, who talked of 'putting nature to the rack to reveal her secrets'. That nowadays combines with the generally (and even hysterically) anti-Christian narrative that is predominant in popular culture. Christianity is associated with patrimonial hierarchy where environmental green left politics exalts diversity and equality.

Hence the reverence that is now expressed for first nations peoples and the natural environment. Of course it's a good thing to revere nature and to develop sustainable economics and to treat first nations peoples respectfully. But I wonder if the underlying motivation is that 'nature', and the kind of Rousseavian noble-savage mythology sorrounding first nations peoples is a kind of displaced religiosity. They collectively represent 'The Primordial' - the pure, the unconditioned, the unsullied. Nature has rushed into the vacuum left by the collapse of religion. I suppose the natural wilderness has always been associated with purity, but now its become the literal image of it.

I noticed in studying Eastern philosophies and non-dualism the centrality of the idea of 'separation', 'alienation', and 'apartness' which is at the root of the human condition. The meaning of non-duality is in the overcoming of the sense of otherness or separateness - which requires a complete change of outlook, a different way of life, a true 'metanoia'. In Christian culture that is the original motivation for compassion towards the poor and outcaste, and the sense of Christian fellowship - that 'we are all one in Christ' (Gal 3:28).

But actually going out into nature or living in the wilderness is plainly an impracticality - the overwhelming demographic trend is towards urbanisation. Now the idea of nature has become a substitute for God in secular culture (or one of them.) But it's a mirage, insofar as you're 'one with nature' then you're on your way to becoming compost, same as everything else that lives. A Christian would say that the real source of immortality, the spirit that gives life, is not to be found in the worship of nature.

As far as evolution is concerned, I'm probably inclined to accept an orthogenetic approach - that the existence of life is not 'a fluke', the outcome of the 'accidental collocation of atoms'. I see the existence of life as the realisation of horizons of meaning that could never develop in its absence. We're part of the cosmic story. And the impulse to say that 'we're no different to animals' is to evade the responsibility that this brings.

It does not signify power over others, but power over the self, in order to reach one's fullest potential. — Janus

But Nietszche doesn't recognise anything spiritual. I don't think he understands it at all. What kind of 'empowerment' could he envisage, other than political power, the domination of the strong over the weak? The religious cultures that he abjurs depict fulfillment in terms of divine union or transcending the self, but there's nothing that can be mapped against that in Nietszche's philosophy as there's nothing beyond the ego. Is there?

Philosophy for adolescents. — Banno

A facile characterization of a great, but admittedly flawed, thinker. (And who isn't flawed)? Let him cast the first stone...

A facile characterization of a great, but admittedly flawed, thinker. (And who isn't flawed)? Let him cast the first stone... — Janus

Nietzsche bothers those who never read him.

But Nietszche doesn't recognise anything 'spiritual'. — Wayfarer

That's dead wrong. He doesn't recognize anything transcendent might be more to the point.

That's dead wrong. He doesn't recognize anything transcendent might be more to the point. — Janus

Where does Nietzsche talk about spirituality?

,

...and predictably the adolescents pile on, with nothing worthwhile to say.

and predictably the adolescents pile on, with nothing worthwhile to say. — Banno

No need for personal attacks. All I said was Will To Power was his best work.

I agree; it certainly seems that way. I can't think of anyone I've ever spoken to, who has made the effort to read and understand him who thinks he is of no consequence, evil, or whatever. And having taken several University courses on Nietzsche's philosophy, courses with a lot of discussion, I've met and discussed his ideas with quite a few.

I agree; it certainly seems that way. I can't think of anyone I've ever spoken to, who has made the effort to read and understand him who thinks he is of no consequence, evil, or whatever. And having taken several University courses on Nietzsche's philosophy, courses with a lot of discussion, I've met and discussed his ideas with quite a few. — Janus

People mistake the fact Nietzsche was a good writer with him not being a good philosopher.

That's dead wrong. He doesn't recognize anything transcendent might be more to the point. — Janus

So what's the diff? Anyway, I'm not arguing the case, it's a supreme irony that Nietszche of all people has now assumed the status of Sacred Cow.

Gotcha. I might look into it and post here.

nothing worthwhile to say. — Banno

Then go away.

evil — Janus

He's a complicated man, certainly not pure evil, but has said things I'm comfortable with calling evil.

The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.

What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak— — Nietzsche - The Antichrist

It would take a truckload of charity not to call the above an evil thing to say, an evil teaching.

I would be surprised if anything positive said about Nietzsche would be worthwhile to you; mired in your self-imposed ignorance of his work as you seem to be.

Where does Nietzsche talk about spirituality? — Jackson

Nietzsche is constantly alluding to, if not unequivocally speaking about, the human spirit and realization of human potential; that is what his philosophy is all about.

So what's the diff? — Wayfarer

You think your transcendentalist conception of spirituality is the one true definition of spirituality? (Speaking of transcendentalists, Nietzsche greatly admired Emerson. He also admired Christ; but Christianity not so much).

He also admired Christ; but Christianity not so much). — Janus

"Caesar with the soul of Christ."

It would take a truckload of charity not to call the above an evil thing to say, an evil teaching. — ZzzoneiroCosm

I agree, but I think much of what he says is driven by the desire to provoke and shock. Remember this well-known reported incident, which if accurate shows that he did not lack compassion: when in Turin he witnessed a man beating a horse, Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck, tears streaming from his eyes, and then collapsed onto the ground.

"Caesar with the soul of Christ." — Jackson

I think for Nietzsche ethics is an aesthetic matter, and he saw great human beings as possessing the largeness of soul to allow them to be compassionate. Cruelty and indifference to suffering is not beautiful or admirable, and shows smallness of soul; so my personal opinion (and it is only that) is that Nietzsche was not an evil man, or an anti-Semite, or a Nazi, and so on with the other facile caricatures.

Nietzsche threw his arms around the horse's neck, tears streaming from his eyes, and then collapsed onto the ground." — Janus

Yep, he's a shock jock; yep, the horse scene.

would be surprised if anything positive said about Nietzsche would be worthwhile to you; mired in your self-imposed ignorance of his work as you seem to be. — Janus

I agree. I don't see Neitzche as evil or simplistic. I see his criticisms of traditional ethics as presenting significant challenges to it and I think he points out the consequences of the declaration of God's death.

:up:

It's indicative of a lack of critical capacity that those hereabouts are taken in by he of the moustache.

Here is my reply to the OP, again, for the simple-minded klutzes amongst you: Apes are no longer merely objects for amusement, except amongst the ill-informed or childish.

Hence to claim that quote as the "iconic passage from Zarathustra" suits my prejudices well; Zarathustra is a condolence for inadequate juveniles, something to be transcended as one reaches towards adulthood.

The ubermensch is your father, Luke.

(...this is fun...)