Well, it's not my desire to try and take that perspective from you. I assumed poorly, that you took it more seriously.

Faith is a style of guiding principle, a phenomenological structure that paves a path forward, a bridge over an abyss...

@Fire Ologist

I'd like you to add your perspective to that, as I'm quite interested in it. I have a sort of faith that you may see what I did there...

You're still a dualist who denies men and women come from a man and woman and thus genetic material of both is in the one. I don't give a fuck how you wanna hocus pocus your words you still sound dumb, it's literally why I said you think a little man is in sperm and the woman is just an incubator for man because you think: "Man is only male DNA." Little more than archaic metaphysics... which means under the same model, since woman is only female DNA, women reproduce asexually via an unfertilized egg.

You know what's interesting about humans is our cells show we likely came from two single celled organisms forming a symbiotic relationship. The cell and the mitochondria... the mitochondrial dna is always from the mother. The first man always had a mitochondria too because we came from something before male female pairing...furthermore it's characteristics towards dna are more similar to bacterial dna.

I wouldn't doubt that to be the truth as I was teasing you from the way your perspective seems to me. Sex isn't as simple as binary antithesis. Simone de Beauvoir's "The (Second) Sex" will bring you more up to speed on the pluralists conception of sex. I don't really care to waste time on detailing it to you because it's going to take a deep dive for you really, which Simone de Beauvoir has already provided. You either know it or you don't. What I was suggesting to you is that you don’t even have a your own generational understanding of sex... fr the age you live in but some archaic definition that needs a damn update.

I wouldn't say continuous fluidity... every flow has its breaks think something along the lines of anima and animus, which are symbolic for the unconscious femininity (in males) and masculinity (in females) due to the persons genetic material still coming from both man and woman... the genetic material a man takes from his mother is inherently feminine. And inside the man...doesn't mean his sex is some hybridization... just means there is genetic material within you that is fundamentally feminine in origin. Even if it's expressed in the form of man...

Sex is a concept to express a style of differentiation... human sex always comes from a plurality that differentiates, into a singular plant. But the roots of the flowering plant are always established in the plurality.

its kinda actually easy to understand you're a dualist who believes in the antithesis of values so it's nearly impossible for you to fathom beyond such a concept of two completely different un related types... that you thomk man and woman are.

You're a 1699 representative of sperm... that thinks there's a little man inside sperm that only grows inside a woman and doesn't combine with female genetic material to become a human... you think the little man in sperm becomes a man without a female egg.

In the 21st century though, we know sperm and egg combines and a person is both a combination of male and female genetic material from their father and mother... thus, they are part male and part female regardless of whichever sex they're statistically dominated by.

No

To build a better picture of what I'm discussing, let's first discuss another way Nietzsche uses the rope metaphor (other than the rope between animal and the overman). That is: "cultivating one's garden"

Think of that which intertwines two opposites as the roots of a plant that grows out of the soil of two (or even more) antagonistic forces.

The roots of the plant man are statistically dominated within the male soil, with some roots in the female soil (because the opposites are enmeshed by the intertwining of opposites by the roots of the plant), however it's almost always the case that the roots within the feminine for man are partitioned in a noncommunicating sense and vice versa.

And to be certain the most complete human beings recognize within themselves their combined genealogy, rather than "man is man with nothing inherited by woman and vice versa."

They are equally human was my point. — Gregory

And for Nietzsche the rope between two things makes them essentially one and the same, it's what he calls the dangerous perhaps. (BGE 2)

Thus human is the rope between man and woman. Because of the teleological cause.

men and women are equal — Gregory

Lol, no one is equal to any other person... we're all different, even clones would differentiate.

It's all about free will. — Gregory

Oh yeah? Free from what?

How many little terrible things that female do in their hearts and feelings throughout the day. More then men i surmise. — Gregory

So much for free will... you surmise that women have more terrible thoughts with their free will all day because of being woman.

Which means a difference between man and woman and that means man and woman aren't equal...

The relationship between body and mind exists only at the level of description. There is no specific relationship between the two — Wolfgang

Sigh... more disembodied minds... would really love seeing evidence of this.

Why type so much junk if you're just going to ruin it with silly shit like this?

*shrug*

We're dealing with emergence from the body ... but no specific relationship between the mind and body... wat :chin:

It’s called parable... Nietzsche is speaking in parable.

Before the Semites women weren't viewed as sin, corruption, and basically uttershit shameful... it was the Semites who detailed woman as shit.

Athena is the Goddess of War and Harsh Wisdom, she is associated with Owls and Snakes...

In the story of Genesis, the Snake is a complete reversal of the values of Athena. When become synonymous with sin and corruption. In HATH Nietzsche details at 415 That the love idolatry practiced by women was originally an intelligent device to reign in man. Though after centuries of becoming accustomed to it forgot the origin of the device and became ensnared and deceived by ot more than men.

At HATH 411 we see that Nietzsche details the perfect woman as a higher type of humanity than the perfect man.

Because having lost their way, women have come down from an elevation to be caged by man. (BGE 237A)

Now back to 23 on Corruption: here Nietzsche details that for the past 2000+ years corruption has been blamed upon woman and the feminine instinct, but Nietzsche critiques this by saying on thw contrary the feminine instinct is not responsible for corruption but rather the highest art of enlightenment through the birth of tragedy.

Nietzsche further details the patriarchal structure of how man keeps woman caged through her idolatry of love. Being more deceived by the device than men, man turns this upon women by creating the ideal of woman which women mold themselves to in order to obtain love. (GS 68) Further still, Nietzsche details the Semitic way of that in action through parable:

Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche, GS § 68

How to "educate" men to not corrupt women, well, one critique of Nietzsche I have is he offers few solutions, and the ones he does offer aren't exactly straightforward and prone to poor interpretations especially now that so many people have learned to read.

But that’s not all you said, and the picture you create of what a person is doing when they believe something absent logical proof behind it (faith), makes it sound like, in order to believe anything without absolute proof behind it, one has to resist or be in a state of resisting all reason. — Fire Ologist

What I was trying to say is like instead of absolute faith, you're now in the realm of educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith. I have admitted to equivocating a shift from absolute faith to an educated guess as necessarily a decrease in faith. But I decides that just because someone gains knowledge doesn't mean the faith is diminished. It means their perspective is now maybe 90% faith and 10% knowledge instead of absolute faith (100% faith) only if they converted faith into knowledge would it be a decrease of faith. But gaining knowledge about about something doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in faith.

All I'm saying is I don't care if others learn from this or not, I have. Ultimately, I came here to develop my evaluations by having others help fill gaps in my knowledge. Some people have, some people haven't. People came here to express a multiplicity of view points, I don't care who is necessarily saying what, I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing.

A lot of people just say stuff because they want their faith to be knowledge... I really don't care. Faith isn't knowledge. And attempting to prove faith via knowledge turns faith into knowledge. Thus now it's not faith. Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith. Perspective, our world view, etc etc arises from knowledge and faith.

If you want to pretend faith shares identity with a bunch of other concepts so you can cross reference them and interchange them in conversation via equivocation go for it, but I like to make my words more finite...

If I tell you how to eat and workout to lose weight, you still don't know the nutritional and dietary knowledge or even the fitness knowledge. If you act on the information I give you, you're working on faith that what I'm saying is going to actually work... because you don't know... after it works for you, you adopt the equation because you now know the equation works. Yeah you still dont know why it works, but you know it works... it's like learning applied calculus. Faith in calculus vs knowledge of applying calcus are two different things.

The question the OP asks is, Can the sound believer hold “god exists” — Fire Ologist

That's one equivocation of it aye.

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze

Sometimes it's best to leave an argument ambiguous so it brings out everyone's understandings. It allows for a multiplicity of interpretations. Doesn't mean you need to accept them all. Hell, I barely even understand who said what to me in this conversation... I'm taking what bits I find useful to deepening the nuance of my evaluations. It's not like my evaluation of faith will directly affect your life in any way. That isn't to say your evaluation is useless. But rather it's just not mine, and that's fine. There have been some interesting and productive developments within myself from the discussion here on various fronts.

If other people have gained from it, so be it, but ultimately I have, and that's mostly what matters to me. I don't care how obstinate others are...

The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
Skimming Nietzsche as I always do through the insights of post Nietzsche philosophers I'm currently reading.
The Pursuit of Truth by Quine
Nietzsche and Philosophy by Deleuze

And in the process he, and you, took for granted that believing (faith) had something to do with reason — Fire Ologist

No, faith still has nothing to do with knowledge and rationalism or reasonable reason. Faith is belief nothing more. It is a gap in knowledge filled by belief.

DiffEgg, “just to shit on people?” Come on man. — Fire Ologist

Shit on, critique, who gives a f "oh the word Critique is good, but shit one, come on man!"

As for Anslem and Aquinas, they're both people who clearly have a need to justify their faith. It's like he would need to justify to himself why his wife loves him ... or why he loves his wife...

Kinda dumb imo... the fuck do I need to justify my love for my wife to anyone?

"SEE SEE SHE DOES LOVE ME!" Sounds a lot like doubt...

"SEE SEE, GOD DOES EXIST! YOU SEE MY FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT, PRAISE BEFORE GOD HE DOES EXIST!" Pretty much a desperate desire imo.

Noone of real faith needs to do that... just saying.

And the fact that they would publish fallacies as logical arguments shows the desperation imo.

Regardless of how much faith they had, their desire to turn it into logic was greater.

I'm sure there were Nazi that had faith in their reasoning too... saying faith is reason because of bad reasoning is just saying faith is faith... cause that's what poor reasoning is: faith.

An educated guess is a mix of knowledge and faith, faith being the gap in knowledge behind the educated guess. If you got faith the educated guess will work its because you can perhaps visual and bridge the gap of knowledge. You never know until you're capable of demonstrating said thing multiple times with accuracy.

Quine actually has something pertinent to say about this... I'll have to go through the pursuit of truth again, I'll find it and post it. But it was something about evaluating where you went wrong in experimentation...

Guys seriously... If Nietzsche declares Tragedy the most beautiful art, and effeminacy is responsible for bringing it about, then we can clearly say Nietzsche is a god damned champion of the feminine...
On Corruption Gay Science 23:

Secondly, a society in which corruption takes a hold is blamed for effeminacy: for the appreciation of war, and the delight in war, perceptibly diminish in such a society, and the conveniences of life are now just as eagerly sought after as were military and gymnastic honours formerly. But one is accustomed to overlook the fact that the old national energy and national passion, which acquired a magnificent splendour in war and in the tourney, has now transferred itself into innumerable private passions, and has merely become less visible; indeed in periods of "corruption" the quantity and quality of the expended energy of a people is probably greater than ever, and the individual spends it lavishly, to such an extent as could not be done formerly—he was not then rich enough to do so! And thus it is precisely in times of "effeminacy" that tragedy runs at large in and out of doors, it is then that ardent love and ardent hatred are born, and the flame of knowledge flashes heavenward in full blaze. — Nietzsche

This is why for Nietzsche the highest presentment of man is under the feminine goddess of war... because of the feminine traits that temper the destructive qualities of the masculine...

Just because you're so used to seeing him bash the Semitic conception of "woman" doesn't mean you're assigning Nietzsche's belief correctly... you're assigning his critique about something that irks him as his belief...

There's a reason noone has challenged this thread. And any accusations of Nietzsche being overtly masculine to the point of undermining the feminine well, you're all wrong and I can throw the proof at anyone here until they are drowning in it.

And do note Effeminacy is the feminine instinct in man... Ariadne... that keeps man's minotaurs at bay. So the most destructive parts of masculinity doesn't break them.

There is always at least a double orbit going on for Nietzsche.

Dude, do you honestly know how much thought I even put behind my OP? This isn't some big issue to me. I started as a way to shit on people constantly defending their bloated fallacies and delusions, without budging due to a style of intellectual obstinance...

Hit me with your link. Do you know how often I even think about faith? Pretty much 0 because when it's something I have faith in, I have faith in it. I don't ever have a need to ever justify my faith to anyone. Not even myself.

its like that train game whisper in one ear the story is morphed to the next passing... eventually after 3000 or so years of Christian handling of the story Sisyphus has become tied to meaningless action because the Sabbath is Holy... In Sisyphus's day Eu Prattein was holy (Vita Activa). Vita Contemplativa was for the shameful.

Hannah Arendt discusses this at great length (Vita Activa and the reversal of its value). Through that ancient lens, we know Sisyphus was happy. There was no punishment. Instead of languishing in the underworld to rot away in stagnant contemplation, he got to live Eu Prattein/Vita Activa for eternity. Not sure if "living your ideal" for eternity is "punishment." Seems like the winning proposal from Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden...

Doing what you love over and over again.

"The human condition of labor is life itself." Hannah Arendt on the ancient perspective of Vita Activa (Human Condition). So Sisyphus was "punished" with life it self...

Okay so you think Santa Clause is big in Iran...

No? Why? Different Values? Ah...

Apply here...

Sisyphus was, in fact, like Autolycus and Prometheus, a widely popular figure of folklore—the trickster, or master thief.

He was popular for his excellence. Weird that a thief and trickerster would be popular vs infamous... because those were virtues then.

Its not appeal to Nietzsche... ffs it's literally an ancient Grecian Ideal... that you refuse to acknowledge... activity = happiness and somehow you think Sisyphus's eternal activity is mindless and meaningless because you refuse to accept that we know Sisyphus is happy because of Eu Prattein...

You gotta look at the situation from the Grecoan Ideal... not yours. Step outside your reification of the Sisyphus story that's been passed down via Christian scholars...

Do you think Santa Clause is big in Iran?

Sisyphus was punished for his defiance rather than rewarded, that punishment being condemned to rolling a boulder endlessly up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. That's what I meant by the reference. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus recast him as a heroic figure as an embodiment of human resilience and defiance against absurdity but I never found it persuasive. — Wayfarer

Camus simply does what Nietzsche does repackage Christian psychology with the Myth of Sisyphus. Absurdity is the secular notion of Sin. Still not the Grecian notion. There was no bad conscience, ressentiment, or responsibility in Sisyphus's day. That is fundamentally a Judaeo-Christian morality. We don't have to imagine Sisyphus as happy. He was a Noble who exemplified Eu Prattein. We know he's happy. Thus we know it's not punishment. Because activity = happiness.

Read it more carefully.

86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman"

You'll see quite clearly Nietzsche knows how to differentiate between women and this "woman" that women have scorn for...

The same "woman" Nietzsche discusses in BGE 232-239. I always found it weird that readers cant differentiate between the two... he literally uses an A instead of an E. The trick is noticing when he says woman is blah blah blah it's not women are it's about "woman." The Semitic ideal of woman...

it is pointless, in a way, sisyphean — Wayfarer

Erm... that's the Christian mythology of Sisyphus not the Grecian... I would perhaps place my faith in the Grecian perspective of the myth...that is Sisyphus is a Greek Noble who lived to the Grecian ideal of Eu Prattein and became a demigod of his own ideal... for outsmarting Zeus and Thanatos.

Attention again should be paid to the almost benevolent nuances which, for instance, the Greek nobility imports into all the words by which it distinguishes the common people from itself; note how continuously a kind of pity, care, and consideration imparts its honeyed flavour, until at last almost all the words which are applied to the vulgar man survive finally as expressions for "unhappy," "worthy of pity" (compare δειλο, δείλαιος, πονηρός, μοχθηρός]; the latter two names really denoting the vulgar man as labour-slave and beast of burden)—and how, conversely, "bad," "low," "unhappy" have never ceased to ring in the Greek ear with a tone in which "unhappy" is the predominant note: this is a heritage of the old noble aristocratic morality, which remains true to itself even in contempt (let philologists remember the sense in which ὀιζυρός, ἄνολβος, τλήμων, δυστυχεῑν, ξυμφορά used to be employed). The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon — Nietzsche, from GoM 10

Now now, I know it hurts that you of all people had to offer up a Nietzschean counter. But what's the best way to drum up conversation? To allow for a plurality of interpretations thus you leave the original syllogism ambiguous... :joke:

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy pg 4

That you of all people put on Nietzsche's mask is a "win" for me.

The syllogism itself took less than 60 seconds of pondering... but look how much conversation it's drummed up. I don't care about it being perfect... and in the process I've learned things. I already addressed that it was an ambiguous syllogism that allows for tons of equivocation.

Section 27 of Pursuit of Truth may be of interest to you from this regard. Quine speaks of responsible and irresponsible beliefs.

Is it supposed to be hard? ED?

or they grew out of each other. Still an excellent counter argument! The best in the thread imo.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

Cunning reversal, they are the faithful that overcome themselves in their opposite? To inciting to higher and higher... Nietzsche would be very proud of this from YOU of all people Banno.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Aka Nietzsche's foundation for Amor Fati from the Gay Science 276. Aka even if it doesn't bring you to love them, it will move you in the direction in which Nietzsche details the superman becoming a reality... to overcome your destructive and divisive animal nature, in suffering with them from them by simply looking the other direction "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet." Faith of faith isn't faith, but "faith of a sort..."?

I disagree. You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what will to power is... yes Nietzsche admires strength but for Nietzsche strength is formed by overcoming oneself, not domination, and most certainly not resentful or divisive like Trump.

The will to power is a sensation, it is that electricity that rushes down your spine, that feeling that fills you when you overcome some struggle or another... could be you discovered a new artistic technique that allows you to overcome and create your artistic vision in reality...

We can clearly see from Nietzsche's Amor Fati that waging war with what you find ugly is of no interest to Nietzsche, not even saying No. GS 276 And we can see that Nietzsche details this Amor Fati style of life by Jesus Christ and his Glad Tidings in AC 33. Furthermore from 33 we have several ways that Jesus transvaluates values to live towards his own evaluations, rather than that of the Semites, he lists several of these psychological evaluations and they're all found within the psychology of type who emulate an Ubermensch (EH § 1 of Excellent Books[refrencing Ubermensch as a type]).

The only time Nietzsche ever even points to the superman becoming a reality is in Ecce Homo, and he states it's when Zarathustra comes down from the mountain and treats even his adversaries with sincere kindness while suffering with them from them ..."Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet" (EH § 6 on Thus Spoke Zarathustra)

if God . . . has disappeared from his authoritative position in the suprasensory world, then this authoritative place itself is still always preserved, even though as that which has become empty.

The New Idol fills that spot. The problem with saying "Christianity" as Christ in the negative sense for Nietzsche comes in at AC 39...

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, AC 39

This is in part why Foucault discusses Nietzsche as giving Christ back the image of the ultimate in life affirming grace. (Madness and Civ pg. 78-79). Because the Earthquake at Port Royal was all omg it's Sodom and Gomorrah all over again ... for the next 200 years.

I want to say "I love you all," but I'm not quite sure I believe that. But I wonder what would happen if I had faith that I could have faith in that? Inspired by @Vera Mont

Thus Spoke Zarathustra ... § XI & XV even the philosophy forums is so divided by the new idol that we lack humanity... thanks for that gut check.

Fair point, my father is that style of obstinate so it hits home in a way I should have already realized.

Hehe, well to be fair I don't think OP is declaring "everything wrong in society is man's fault." But rather misogyny and the manosphere is something that's man's fault majority wise. Sure there may be some women counterparts to it but they're not the prime movers.

The subject isn't about Katz, it's about on misogyny and the manosphere, and how to oppose Trump's projecting of it...

on misogyny, the manosphere – and why men must oppose Trumpism. — Amity

Me bringing up points that Nietzsche discusses this in verbose style is both on topic and was to back precisely what @unenlightened said...

That you lot want to pretend Nietzsche doesn't belong here is the side track... not me, I know he brings a lot of food for thought to this table...

If you wanna say Nietzsche's a misogynist take it to my thread. Not cry about how he doesn't belong here.

Otherwise, that you can't muster a counter to my thread, declaring Nietzsche as a misogynist, then you're letting my argument stand...

hence

We must educate men better," said the wise man, — Nietzsche

But apparently it's not proper to speak about educating men on their patriarchal repression of women here in this thread. Even though this thread is seemingly about that.

Personally, I think a secure faith wouldn't even be phased by my assertion...

Sure but what I think you'll end up finding is the intuitive hunch in the unconscious providing stimulus based off knowledge and faith, which ends up falling victim to Hume's Guillotine. That last leap to close the gap in knowledge being faith.

You could be doing something that seems sus to your wife, and because (fake example follows) she's been cheated on in the past, her intuition is that you're cheating on her...

When you're really just planning some awesome for her.

Fair enough, I'll make another post to show you're wrong even here. Nietzsche details the aristocracy as responsible for allowing conditions to get so bad socialism is even an option considered...(will need to find the aphorism)

The highest and lowest are complementary to the same causes and both are required ...BGE200

Just as the Apollonian and Dionysian incite each other to higher and higher births so too do higher men and the masses... because higher men and the masses bridge over their mutual cause. Abusing the other to the point of life denial is slave morality...

Do you honestly think Nietzsche would be upset about the abused rising up to affirm the demands of their life? No. Literally what he details of master morality... but if the abused rose up to then make a system of life denial against those they overcame... yes.

I mean we're talking about misogyny and the manosphere

misogyny, the manosphere — Amity

Nietzsche brings this up time and time again when he bashes on the Semitic idea of "woman."
Not heeding Nietzsche is just willful ignorance.

I get it you guys don't like that you have a hard time understanding Nietzsche. But he's all over this topic in his philosophy. Remember there was a time before women were seen as Sin and Corruption... there was a time before women needed to be locked away and repressed.

I'm certain that Nietzsche is not relevant to the topic -- he was not a misogynist in your terms -- but he is very much a masculine philosopher. His philosophy is from the male perspective, through and through. — Moliere

Is that why the highest presentment of man is through the doctrine of Athena? A woman? (According to Nietzsche)

Odd that a masculine philosopher would state man's highest presentment is in the doctrine of a woman...when Nietzsche asks "who but I knows Ariadne?" He's asking: who but I know the feminine instinct?