But I don’t see the point of battling wits in internet Nietzsche camp. — Fire Ologist

The point is you say things that are more so said about common caricatures of Nietzsche's work.

And Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of what he thought being Christ-like means for the Christian. It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables. — Fire Ologist

There you go again, refusing to interpret his complexity not by the forces behind Nietzsche's mask (as Nietzsche did with Zarathustra), but rather interpretation through your own... it's for reasons like this that make it all too easy to spot "not Nietzsche," but rather a caricature there of. To get at the essence of Nietzsche

For once the entire symbolism of the body, not only the symbolism of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantomime of dancing which sets all the members into rhythmical motion...the votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! — Nietzsche

If you want me to get into the nitty gritty of it all, I'm more than happy. Most here seem to find it pedantic though.

If you want me to get into the nitty gritty of it all — DifferentiatingEgg

Why would I want that from you? Why would I think you had anything to say about Nietzsche that I didn’t already know?

So hard no.

It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables.
— Fire Ologist

There you go again, refusing to interpret his complexity — DifferentiatingEgg

I wasn’t “interpreting his complexity” in that statement.

You are definitely subject to your own mask, and it is obstructing your view of what I said.

You sound like a religious zealot for Nietzsche now. Really kind of weird to me when people who basically agree on something won’t admit that.

I would think it would be interesting to you to wonder, how could someone who knows and loves Nietzsche also claim to know and love Jesus as God? But instead, you’ve got me all figured out and your answer is “he doesn’t understand Nietzsche. Or Jesus.” No curiosity, or self-awareness of the fact that you have no idea who I am or how far this could go.

Are you a musician? I mean a real musician? I am.

Have you truly lived the Dionysian? Experienced the ecstatic intoxication, the undertow, that drives as much as it inspires the willing to drive?

Notice, my only characterization of your words has been “insightful”.

To be honest, you are the caricature of person who truly understands Nietzsche - and there are a lot of you.

I have no idea how deeply you understand Nietzsche, nor do I really care anymore.

I just point that out because you are missing out. I’m trying to find something new here in these exchanges. Sort of the point of communication, if exchanging information. You aren’t. You already know all about me and are just hinting at how much I am missing, as if there was something wrong, or dare I say, immoral, about thinking not-Nietzsche was Nietzsche. Who gives a shit what you think you know?? I don’t anymore.

I gave you an opportunity (many opportunities) to show some respect. You blew it, for sake of your own aggrandized self-importance. You don’t need my respect. Happy for you, but it’s a shitty way to engage with others - why do you bother???

If I was you, from what I can tell about you, I wouldn’t respond. (I would actually apologize, but that’s just because I actually respect others as I respect myself.). But then, I wouldn’t have posted your very first response either.

And you suck at Christianity. Just don’t get it at all.

"Interpretation reveals its complexity when we realise that a new force can only appear and appropriate an object by first of all putting on the mask of the forces which are already in possession of the object." Deleuze

This is our difference. There's nothing of self importance in being able to critique a person's inability with understanding Nietzsche. You have a personal reading of Nietzsche, I'm not doubting that. I'm not attacking your personal relationship with Nietzsche's works. Im mostly critiquing as you said and obviously from your own mask...

But he was a horrible judge of others (Christ, Kant, Hegel, Socrates, Napoleon, etc). He would not deny his own biases, and he let them color all he made of Christianity, of morality, of science and of most other philosophers. So he was a bad judge of himself as well...

He was a metaphysician (of the Apollonian and the Dionysian), a truth seeker, a new type of moralist...

He was impoverished at identifying beauty and good... — Fire Ologist

Before that you made him sound like a oxymoron of hypocrisy and is just such a base way of examining Nietzsche through the antithesis of values... which he rolls his eyes at.

Nietzsche wasn't a metaphysician at all, Nietzsche values in Beauty and Good simply don't match your own hence you don't understand Nietzsche's values of Beauty and Good...

You see him through your own mask...

You have yet to go beyond your reification of Nietzsche...

Nietzsche wasn't a metaphysician at all — DifferentiatingEgg

I’m glad you responded with a small move towards a conversation. Although you are still in school teaching me, the student.

It is my claim that Nietzsche was a metaphysician, not Nietzsche’s (which I think you know). So if I addressed that, I would have to tell you what I think, not what Nietzsche thinks.

You don’t ask what I think, but, the quote from Deluze is a metaphysical claim. Mask upon mask is a metaphysic of masking. An epistemology that begs for subjects/objects as much as any other claim about the reality of being human in itself.

My claim of metaphysics is not meant to contradict the complexity of right interpretation, but just admit the presence of the word “right” in this sentence, like Deluze used the words “can only” and “already in possession” - these are absolute-speak words, building metaphysical claims.

Nietzsche didn’t value metaphysics, but he didn’t hide its presence. He just didn’t care. That’s fine. Allowed for other insights to flourish. Was a breath of fresh air in the long history of stuffy monasteries.

I don’t expect you to accept this or really think it’s anything new, or important, that you haven’t already digested and disposed of. “To the flames.” - Hume

And I can see why you assume this Deluze quote helps clarify the difference between us.

The difference between us is that I am not assuming anything about you. Other than you are basically just like me and everyone else - a person. I don’t know you. Other than you think you know Nietzsche and think you know me.

I agree you know Nietzsche. I disagree that refuting what I am saying is helping you bring that across.

you made him sound like a oxymoron of hypocrisy — DifferentiatingEgg

I know. You don’t understand what I am saying. I am the oxymoron - I know and love Nietzsche and Christ. You won’t allow that to be the case.

I see some contradictions in Nietzsche, but they are not my focus, just the admission that he is just another jackass philosopher, like Socrates and you and me. The wisdom and the error is not lost on me (can’t tell about you).

There’s a question - is there anywhere in Nietzsche where you think he was talking out his ass? Or is he more like Jesus to you, the way and the truth incarnate? If that question isn’t to assuming.

Nietzsche values in Beauty and Good simply don't match your own hence you don't understand Nietzsche's values of Beauty and Good...

You see him through your own mask...

You have yet to go beyond your reification of Nietzsche... — DifferentiatingEgg

Well you have yet to admit your assumptions about me. Your reification of Christians perhaps?

Do you have any masks?? Don’t you see Mietsche through your own masks? Or are you the reincarnation of Buddha?

If you say you have no masks, you’re blind or a liar; if yes, then what is the point of focusing only on mine? We both have masks - such is the shitty condition of life. Let’s tear them down together instead mocking the pimples on each other’s masks.

I certainly have masks. Do you have any reifications?

How do you know my values? Maybe you don’t know what a Christian really is. In my view, a Christian is NOT 99.99 percent of those who call themselves Christians, including myself, so how do you know what my values or sense of beauty or good is?

I’ll give you a hint - you don’t. You simply don’t. I haven’t said anything about it, and no interpretation of some ideology that you might have can summarize anyone, let alone my wonderful self.

You haven’t touched the surface of this mask, let alone seen underneath. Try something else.

Talk about Nietzsche or Deluze if you want. Ask me some questions about me if you want. But the conclusions of yours about me are seeming like some sort of mechanism or medium for you to engage here. You need a foil to defeat to make a positive contribution. So tedious.

You don’t ask what I think, but, the quote from Deluze is a metaphysical claim. — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know what you think, I know what you said. Saying Nietzsche was a metaphysician when he wasn't doesn't matter what you think about that. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 5. I don't need to know the logic behind it.

I disagree that refuting what I am saying is helping you bring that across. — Fire Ologist

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective.

I know. You don’t understand what I am saying. I am the oxymoron - I know and love Nietzsche and Christ. You won’t allow that to be the case. — Fire Ologist

Actually if we go back, we can clearly see you're the one who denies Nietzsche's correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible... You won't allow Nietzsche's interpretation to be the case. This is one way you start twisting Nietzsche. You should try self abnegation before handling his works.

How do you know my values? Maybe you don’t know what a Christian really is. In my view, a Christian is NOT 99.99 percent of those who call themselves Christians, including myself, so how do you know what my values or sense of beauty or good is? — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know your values to know that you don't understand Nietzsche's values... thats why you said he was impoverished and unable to understand beauty. Thus his understanding of beauty is so far beyond you comprehension it's alien to you.

Do you have any masks?? Don’t you see Mietsche through your own masks? Or are you the reincarnation of Buddha?

If you say you have no masks, you’re blind or a liar; if yes, then what is the point of focusing only on mine? — Fire Ologist

Logic dictates me bringing it up that I do... the point was literally in the words... you choose not to see Nietzsche from his modality, rather through your own caricature.

More or less, I told you to revisit Nietzsche and do so under the forces that brought him about... not your own, from the slave moralist's point of view.

As Deleuze explains adequately enough, you find contradiction and metaphysics within Nietzsche's works because it reflects your mask.

I dont need to know what you think, I know what you said. Saying Nietzsche was a metaphysician when he wasn't doesn't matter what you think about that. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 5. I don't need to know the logic behind it. — DifferentiatingEgg

“…he wasn’t…”

You said what is not. You didn’t say what is. So nothing to discuss in this whole passage besides me.

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg

“…you should….”

No new content. Oh, “…shit post…”. Too vague.

Actually if we go back, we can clearly see you're the one who denies Nietzsche's correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible... You won't allow Nietzsche's interpretation to be the case. This is one way you start twisting Nietzsche. You should try self abnegation before handling his works. — DifferentiatingEgg

Haven’t twisted one word. Nietzsche was a lot of things - like all other great ones, he was profound, insightful, revealed truth, and blew the punchline, got it wrong - he was all of those. He was a social critic, a critic of academia, a critic of western thought and art, a psychologist, a crappy scientist, etc. Bit most of all, he changed the game, made it new again.

Not inclined to offer specifics with someone who just asserts “ correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible” both as if I didn’t know that and as if it was enough to support your overall assessment of what there is to know about Nietzsche.

Are you saying if I only understood Nietzsche as deeply as you, I would understand the Bible better or something?

Thus his understanding of beauty is so far beyond you comprehension it's alien to you. — DifferentiatingEgg

Or maybe I ate Nietzsche’s beauty for breakfast and used it to make my “shit post.”

What can I say to make you see something more than you are seeing?

Plato saw appearance and reality where the appearance was the world of objects and all illusion; reality is the formal, the permanent and fixed. Nietzsche turned this upside down. The appearance is the Apollonian, the flashing facade, where people like Socrates build their formalities and “truth” all of which is more akin to lies, to mask their weakness, unpossessed of the deeper source of truth, the Dionysian, not rigid and reified, but alive as instinct, this life, the raw existential beast of life, and only tamed honestly as will, not truth, and as art, made most beautiful in the tragic and in intoxication.

The dance is real. We need both Apollo and Dionysius to discern the human (therein lies the metaphysics, but forget I said anything if “metaphysics” is such a dirty word in Nietzsche’s mouth - I’m sure Nietzsche would curse me for accusing him of ever saying something metaphysical, right?.). But, the world tended too far away from the Dionysian, and Nietzsche reset it all. Every institution that hinted at truth, took blows and many lies were uncovered.

That’s my own take of course. I could be wrong. Or maybe you think I’m correct, only shallow? Hard to tell how little I know about Nietzsche from what you are saying.

So there is some more actual content for you to pillory and dismiss, more content than you’ve provided in this whole exchange. And you’re the expert.

Oh that’s right, you said “Nietzsche was correct” and “I didn’t know that.” About Jesus and God. And I twist words. Maybe actually saying something about him, and maybe not for the sake of refuting something I said, but just to share something you love about him. Just a thought. I mean does everyone you know say they love Nietzsche? Maybe I’m a dime a dozen to you. That’s probably it. You must really be a teacher. Do you treat all of your students this way?

you choose not to see Nietzsche from his modality, rather through your own caricature. — DifferentiatingEgg

Is it even possible that you are choosing to read my words through your modality? Through the lofty perch beyond good and evil (even though you are making me feel like a sinner against your St. Nietzsche).

Logic dictates — DifferentiatingEgg

Careful, that could be a mask creeping in. Who is logic? Whose will be done? It’s not logic, it’s you brother. Own that driver. What would Nietzsche do?

I told you to revisit Nietzsche and do so under the forces that brought him about.. — DifferentiatingEgg

Show me how my brother, like a chorus, sing to me of his forces. Or, wait, you want me to just revisit Nietzsche. You point is just “wrong, see Nietzsche.” Not helpful as Inalready did and obviously that’s not been enough for you to deign to share something you think. Besides I’m wrong.

…your own, from the slave moralist's point of view. — DifferentiatingEgg

That’s an assumption. That’s your mask showing again. You have no idea of how I work out my will. You can’t know who is a slave and who isn’t by some posts here.

And of course this is all cursory, prompting your accusations of “shallow” on any given point. I’m not writing my thesis here, and we aren’t fashioning a Platonic dialogue. At least your make a shitty Socrates to my mere Thrasymachus.

I wish you’d answer one question: is there anything you don’t like about Nietzsche - no loose ends or nits to pick anywhere? Because I don’t think anyone in history has said enough while avoiding all missteps. Do you? (Maybe Heraclitus, the greatest of the great ones. But Nietzsche is by far my favorite one to read.

And seriously, the metaphysician thing is a small piece, who cares, ignore it. It’s the point you stuck on, not more than 10 percent of what is great about Nietzsche. Don’t I get any credit towards my final grade for spelling his name right so many times?

How about some content that isn’t about me, not posted for the sake of refuting me, just a quick piece of something important about Nietzsche that the novice can understand. That’s what the thread was for wasn’t it? I gave a bunch. You called it shit, but actually you mostly just shit on it. So it’s hard to tell whose shot is who anymore. Start us over how about it?

“…he wasn’t…”

You said what is not. You didn’t say what is. So nothing to discuss in this whole passage besides me. — Fire Ologist

You don't want to hear "what is" about Nietzsche, doesn't mean I won't point out what you said about Nietzsche was halfassed at best. That you've no interest in why it's half assed, that's on you. So we'll reiterate the next point.

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg

Haven’t twisted one word. — Fire Ologist

Never said you did, I said you've barely got an understanding of Nietzsche especially from the Dialectical point of view.

Not inclined to offer specifics with someone who just asserts “ correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible” both as if I didn’t know that and as if it was enough to support your overall assessment of what there is to know about Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist

...I said Nietzsche utilized Jesus as a basis for the Ubermensch because of equation of Jesus's life in the gospels which is vastly different than the Judaism errr "Christianity" of the Disciples...

And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations... — DifferentiatingEgg

You wanted to talk about the disciples equation of Christ...rather than Christ's equation...

but he rejects so many of the things we do, for which we need to be forgiven to become his friends — Fire Ologist

But we can see that even Christ brings those who sets the laws of God aside into the Kingdom of Heaven, and as you've shown through Christ aka God, we're already forgiven... is wasted breath. We're already forgiven for following the equation of Jesus...

In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.

The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”).[12] He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.—

[12]Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”

The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith.... — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33

Do keep in mind Nietzsche feels pretty much only Christ was a Christian... (AC 39)

We got this bit here of you accusing Nietzsche of being a slave moralist:

That is to say ...

I’m telling you, Nietzsche was high priest of a new religion with Zarathustra as prophet — Fire Ologist

A priest is the highest form of slave moralist... Nietzsche wasn't a slave moralist, but rather a higher human who affirmed the demands of his own life.

The dance is real. We need both Apollo and Dionysius to discern the human (therein lies the metaphysics, but forget I said anything if “metaphysics” is such a dirty word in Nietzsche’s mouth - I’m sure Nietzsche would curse me for accusing him of ever saying something metaphysical, right?.) — Fire Ologist

In tragedy the Dionysian hero is represented in the Apollonian form.

It's actually of this world and a phenomenon that occured in reality thus not metaphysics... Socrates was the final death of Tragedy... (Parmenides>Euripides>Socrates) Plato comes after... so it's Plato who flips it on it's head... Not Nietzsche... you see it from the slave moralist perspective so you saw it from Plato's point of view...

See what I mean?

You keep saying Nietzsche flipped it over... but Nietzsche points to "them" flipping it over ... so we can logically say Nietzsche's flipping it right side up... by your analogy...

And I showed that's the case with the whole bit on Plato...

while in all productive men it is instinct that it is the creative-affirmative force, and consciousness acts critically and dissuasively, in Socrates it is the instinct that becomes the critic and consciousness that becomes the creator" — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 13

Seeing instinct as the creative life affirming force is one of those forces behind Nietzsche's mask that brought about Nietzsche. One you probably understand instinctally as a musician... but confuse through your concept of beauty created through consciousness...? (Socrates > Plato>...>You)

Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demon, called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 12

but Nietzsche points to "them" flipping it over — DifferentiatingEgg

So he’s flipping it back. It’s the flip that’s my point. In order to show how the shallow lovers of form (Plato, Socrates, slave moralists) built a world based on facade and ignored rhe undercurrent that gives birth to these forms, he flipped 2000 years since Plato/socrates back over. He revealed the repressed underbelly.

You are nit-picking me about which version of Socrates we are taking from Nietzsche to sustain the narrative that your deeper understanding of Nietzsche can mean something to anyone else but you.

Look I see your neck-deep into Nietzsche, maybe intoxicated a bit with it.

Thanks for trying to elevate my understanding.

I do wish you would point out some limitations he had, if any in your view. Since you don’t like my criticisms, I am curious of the degree critical thinking you would apply. It’s fairly not-Nietzsche to find no flaws in anything some other human does. I’m sure you have some criticisms.

He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33

This is as much theology as it is Nietzsche-ology, but Nietzsche was wrong here. In my free-thinking, adult, pre-schooled, considered, tested, humble opinion.

Jesus didn’t reject the law which creates judgment of sin and the need therefore of repentance - Jesus was sinless, so unable to be judged and so remained free to make his own laws and show us what to become of ourselves. But he walked a particular path and did not skip around in the mountaintops. Although Jesus never needed the law to guide him in his life, his life not once deviated from the law. That means something. And Jesus flat out said he was not to abolish the law. That means something too. Nietzsche didn’t bother to explain how Christ could be beyond the law AND subject to it. The overman Christ, though he did not need any law, ended up honoring his parents, not ever lying, not ever stealing, no adultery, etc etc. He commanded us to live God and seek God’s will. Jesus could use himself (more precisely, his Father) to seek what to do, and did not need the law as guide, but what he actually did was not whatever he wanted to do - he had to eat when hungry because his stomach demanded it, and bleed when broken, like anyone, subject and enslaved. Jesus still IS the law by taking form, making an appearance.

So there is analysis of the meaning of the Jesus story, and a psychology of Christ, that Nietzsche didn’t address that precisely misunderstands Christs relationship to his Father, himself and to us. The law set out before Jesus was born is in the mix of what Jesus meant.

But so what - because of Nietzsche we are digging deep into our relationship with ourselves and what we are to make of the limitations we encounter, like other’s laws.

I’m hopeless. I still hope you aren’t hopeless.

You could muster up a criticism of Nietzsche.

I hope someone else is enjoying this. I am to a degree. Are you?

Russell portrayed he of the moustache as [ ... ] — Banno

There's very much to admire about Lord Russell's works (& logic-chopping) but his potted and unscholarly A History of ... is certainly not one of them.

Nietzsche remains the [twilight] idol of post-pubescent males. Someone to consider and grow beyond.

As Freddy Zarathustra himself cautions his close readers (foreshadowing his Ecce Homo) ...

Now I go alone, my disciples, You too, go now alone. Thus I want it. Go away from me and resist Zarathustra! And even better: be ashamed of him! Perhaps he deceived you… One pays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil. And why do you not want to pluck at my wreath? You revere me; but what if your reverence tumbles one day? Beware lest a statue slay you. You say that you believe in Zarathustra? But what matters Zarathustra? You are my believers – but what matter all believers? You had not yet sought yourselves; and you found me. Thus do all believers; therefore all faith amounts to so little. Now I bid you to lose me and find yourselves; and only then when you have all denied me will I return to you… that I may celebrate the great noon with you. — Also Spoke Zarathustra

(emphasis is mine)

There's very much to admire about Lord Russell's works (& logic-chopping) but his potted and unscholarly A History of ... is certainly not one of them. — 180 Proof

Yet it sufficiently impress the Swedish Academy that they awarded Russell the Nobel Prize for Literature .

Something that Zarathustra, with his swollen, distended prose, did not achieve.

We can go over Russell's poor analysis of Nietzsche if you'd like. Although Nietzsche was a disciple of Dionsysus, he clearly states in HATH Book 2 that the highest presentment of man was under the doctrine of Athena. Athena the Wise, Athena the Serpent, Nietzsche's Serpent, the Serpent that is known for the fall of man under the Semites...

Just as Russell's inaccuracy in detailing the Tractatus... Russell left a rather laughable critique on Nietzsche, thinking Nietzsche was a misogynist.

Yet [Russell’s History] sufficiently impress the Swedish Academy that they awarded Russell the Nobel Prize for Literature.

Something that Zarathustra, with his swollen, distended prose, did not achieve. — Banno

Without any judgment on the merits, couldn’t that lack of award simply point out that more folks besides Russell misunderstood Nietzsche? Or maybe the Academy is wisely highlighting Nietzsche’s genius by not putting his work in the human award-worthiness box? I think more likely the former, because who doesn’t like a good award.

Just from the précis via Haymarket Books:

"In a work widely regarded as the most important contribution to Nietzschean studies in recent decades, Domenico Losurdo instead pursues a less reductive strategy. Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking—his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics—he nevertheless refuses to treat these from the perspective of the mid-twentieth century. In doing so, he restores Nietzsche's works to their complex nineteenth-century context, and presents a more compelling account of the importance of Nietzsche as philosopher than can be expected from his many contemporary apologists."

The book is over 1000 pages, quite meticulous and the arguments powerfully stated; looking beyond Nietzsche's philosophical texts towards his letters and other written material. The book changed my outlook on Nietzsche. Even if you will not fundamentally agree with Losurdo (who does not claim that Nietzsche should be discarded, by any means), I think there is a lot to grapple with. Highly recommend.

Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. :wink:

The book is over 1000 pages, quite meticulous and the arguments powerfully stated; looking beyond Nietzsche's philosophical texts towards his letters and other written material. The book changed my outlook on Nietzsche. Even if you will not fundamentally agree with Losurdo (who does not claim that Nietzsche should be discarded, by any means), I think there is a lot to grapple with. Highly recommend. — Maw

Seems like hot garbage by a dumbass who doesn't realize Nietzsche's so far from Nationalism it's pathetic... Otium is far from Eugenics that the this loserdo interprets Nietzschean values from.

his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

If you think Nietzsche celebrates any of that from the Nationalist view point rather than from the individual view point such as colonial expansion then it's quite obvious you've missed the mark on Nietzsche as he is quite overtly against those concepts in any form of Nationalist expression of them...

To impose slavery upon others is to impose slave morality upon them... it shows this 1000 page book is a blustery blunder. Specifically denying the life of anyone in slavery to an objective perspective and outcome, which is literally the definition of what Nietzsche declares as slave morality.

Really just goes to show what you're interested in...

Looking at the table of contents, It does not seem to challenge Heidegger's claim that Nietzsche produced the last metaphysic.

A bit of text toward clarification upon that topic would be appreciated.

Edit to Add: Pardon my question. It is too off-topic.

Where precisely in my comment is 'Nationalism" mentioned? Losurdo explicitly acknowledges Nietzsche's disdain for intra-European Nationalism. Maybe read the book before making stupid comments about it, and insulting comments towards the author (and me).

Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking—his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

Oh, right colonial expansion and eugenics isn't about Nationalism at all... :roll:

The fact dude even suggest Nietzsche celebrates those things is straight trash.

That the masses prop up the higher social rank is what Nietzsche details for OTIUM... not eugenics... The Superman isn't about domination over others...it isn't about literally breeding a new type of man.

How the fuck is suffering with them from them (the only time Nietzsche declares the superman becoming reality) the same as breeding a new type of superman?

the type "Superman" already exists...

The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes...

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

You insulted Nietzsche with that donk post about Nietzsche... Maybe read Nietzsche vs someone's work about Nietzsche which lead you astray. Also, I'm sitting here watching my father waste away in hospice. I was bitter.

Not interested in engaging with anyone who posts like this. You can either read the book, as I innocuously suggested, or continue to cowardly lash out to anyone who critiques your concept of Nietzsche, like a child.

I doubt anyone here can muster much, if any critique of my knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology. His thoughts are like trees, with roots trunks branches and fragments, all of which details Nietzsche's thoughts. Not my concept of Nietzsche's thoughts.

Can you tell me two useful things Nietzsche has contributed to your thinking and life? In simple dot points. — Tom Storm

His approach to science - the gay science. Meaning, each step towards "knowledge" must be made with an awareness that we are likely fooling ourselves. Seek the truth, but never claim truth is the only, highest goal, and never assume the truth you find may not one day be made false.

He flipped the Reality-Appearance divide for me. I saw appearance as the world of changing things, more material in nature, and the world of reality as hidden, only seen in ideas and truth. Nietzsche reminded me that we only claim to see "reality" and formal ideas at all because by unmasking material appearances, and that really, these appearances are as formal as ideas ever get to be. The appearances, the Apollonian, the rational-knowing-truth seeking, are all aligned; but reality, the Dionysian, the tumultuous world of instinct and power, this is the hidden reality. He toppled the age-old distrust or hatred of the body that favored only things of the mind. He reminded us of the body, of man's absurd place opposed to this body. And he didn't deny the absurdity or the opposition, just that we have been looking at it from one side, and of the two sides, the less real side.

:up: Thanks.

And what do you say about the Übermensch? As humans we should aspire to transcend our limits building doctrines beyond current traditions. Love that one!