I keep hearing people say that Hitler is what happens when Nietzsche is misinterpreted, yet I fail to understand it.
Hitler may not have been an intellectual or a philosopher but at least he had a strong will to power, a much stronger will to power than the people that I see sitting amonst the herd attacking him.
As Zarathustra says:
You say it is the good cause that hallows even war? I tell you: it is the good war that hallows every cause.
The fact that Hitler went against herd morality can hardly be anything against him as Nietzsche clearly overcame it. Hitler took on half the world to fight for his values. Is this not how life advances through will to power, and yet even the "wise men" here want stagnation of humanity, freedom from suffering, and herd morality?
The fact that Hitler went against herd morality can hardly be anything against him as Nietzsche clearly overcame it. Hitler took on half the world to fight for his values. Is this not how life advances through will to power,?
Yes, taking on the world to promote your values is fine, that is what many of the people are doing here, but from a rational perspective, to form an army, and go on a massive slaughter is the wrong approach to improve the state of affairs.
The will to power is an evil thing in feeble minds. It is only tyrants and scoundrels that will remember other tyrants and scoundrels as great men.
and yet even the "wise men" here want stagnation of humanity, freedom from suffering, and herd morality.
The herd mentality actually embraces suffering, which many of the philosophers here do not. Many of the speakers here at genius are merely suggesting that is wise to not sacrifice your freedom to suffer for the sake of a woman, or children, or status in society. The present state of affairs is the stagnation of humanity in my view. People are merely living out their lives unconsciously allowing their animalistic demands to dictate all their choices.
People are basically happy to be slaves to their own biology, but the philosopher is trying to overcome what it means to be human.
If, as you have outlined, the will to power should be the principle we adhere to (because it is "life"), and if, as you affirm, the will to power really only applies to power over people, then the logical consequence of this is that Hitler is one of the greatest and most alive people ever.
Yes, taking on the world to promote your values is fine, that is what many of the people are doing here, but from a rational perspective, to form an army, and go on a massive slaughter is the wrong approach to improve the state of affairs.
This is only true from your perspective and your understanding of what "improves". If you think killing jews or starting wars would improve the world then forming an army is the only way to accomplish it.
The will to power is an evil thing in feeble minds. It is only tyrants and scoundrels that will remember other tyrants and scoundrels as great men.
Someone hasn't made it "Beyond Good and Evil" yet?
People are basically happy to be slaves to their own biology, but the philosopher is trying to overcome what it means to be human.
We are our biology. We are nothing more. Any philosopher trying to overcome this has deluded himself, most likely with the herd morality and herd goals like a peaceful society of non-suffering.
If, as you have outlined, the will to power should be the principle we adhere to (because it is "life"), and if, as you affirm, the will to power really only applies to power over people, then the logical consequence of this is that Hitler is one of the greatest and most alive people ever.
It's a joke, isn't it.
You are laughing because you have a presupposition that Hitler was an evil man that you are unwilling to challenge. Hardly a counter argument David, though the herd will definitely agree with you.
Well, since I was one of those who said to you that there are many who have mentioned that the easiest reading of Nietzsche is a 'bad reading', and that National Socialists represented not much more than an unleashing of pure brutality, I guess I might as well pipe-in here.
At least from one perspective, Hitler and the Nazi regime represented and acted-out a 'social psychosis'---an enormous and destructive psychic rupture with terrible consequences for all of Europe and not Just those who died in the camps. I don't know where such an event fits in with the Nietzschean doctrine of 'will-to-power', but if that is what Nietzsche was talking about I guess Nietzsche would have to be reconsidered. It is true that some interpreters of Nietzsche cannot and do not separate him from the upswelling that produced National Socialism, and so they regard him with general suspicion, and it is also true that there are others who definitely separate Nietzsche from this sort of trend (Walter Kaufmann fro example, Jew and one of the best known translators of N's works) and say that all such interpretations of Nietzsche of that sort are a result of 'bad readings'.
"The fact that Hitler went against herd morality can hardly be anything against him as Nietzsche clearly overcame it."
Nietzsche didn't overcome anything. His philosophy was conducted from Italian inns, and as an actor on the stage of life he had no real role. What one comes up with in philosophy, in theory, is quite separate from those sorts who act in the world, who form and administer empire.
My impression of Nietzsche is that he lives out within himself an enormous conflict between two radically different value poles. I said that Nietzsche doesn't decide anything, he can't be related to like some prophet who provides marching orders for you or for anyone. The value in Nietzsche is that he exposes the nature of a vast conflict of values, and one that we all have to work out for ourselves.
"We are our biology. We are nothing more. Any philosopher trying to overcome this has deluded himself, most likely with the herd morality and herd goals like a peaceful society of non-suffering."
Now here you have stumbled into a very difficult and labyrinthine problem, and no part of this question is settled. You have perhaps rather boldly concluded that we are our biology and nothing more, and perhaps you assume this was Nietzsche's view, and with this I starkly differ from you, and say that such a reading is extremely shallow. I think this view is far too reductive, and the whole issue of what human consciousness is, and what happens in consciousness, is only something one could really understand with time (that is, with age) and also with much more familiarity with the traditions of art and literature that are part and parcel of Western culture (all human culture).
At least from one perspective, Hitler and the Nazi regime represented and acted-out a 'social psychosis'---an enormous and destructive psychic rupture with terrible consequences for all of Europe and not Just those who died in the camps.
Destructive can be good as can "terrible consequences". Why do you want to force your morality upon everyone?
I don't know where such an event fits in with the Nietzschean doctrine of 'will-to-power', but if that is what Nietzsche was talking about I guess Nietzsche would have to be reconsidered.
Nietzsche would have to go because you cannot possibly challenge your presupposition that war and terror are evil, nasty, horrible, bad things?
Nietzsche didn't overcome anything. His philosophy was conducted from Italian inns, and as an actor on the stage of life he had no real role. What one comes up with in philosophy, in theory, is quite separate from those sorts who act in the world, who form and administer empire.
He has a great role until present day, for example on this very thread. Having a role is having power. Thus I believe we can only judge will to power by the size of one's role.
I said that Nietzsche doesn't decide anything, he can't be related to like some prophet who provides marching orders for you or for anyone. The value in Nietzsche is that he exposes the nature of a vast conflict of values, and one that we all have to work out for ourselves.
I think Nietzsche, in the end, wants humanity to keep going. He is opposed to reaching some ideal states or being bogged up in stupid states for long periods of time. Thus he attacks all of the problems he sees and then does not give some strict philosophy for everyone to follow like a new religion. He could have written all his own personal values down and commanded everyone adopt them but this would be against his original intent.
Now here you have stumbled into a very difficult and labyrinthine problem, and no part of this question is settled. You have perhaps rather boldly concluded that we are our biology and nothing more, and perhaps you assume this was Nietzsche's view, and with this I starkly differ from you, and say that such a reading is extremely shallow. I think this view is far too reductive, and the whole issue of what human consciousness is, and what happens in consciousness, is only something one could really understand with time (that is, with age) and also with much more familiarity with the traditions of art and literature that are part and parcel of Western culture (all human culture).
I do think this is Nietzsche's view as he spends much time criticizing the notion of "free will". I also know that most people on this forum agree that there is no "free will". How do you differ?
At least from one perspective, Hitler and the Nazi regime represented and acted-out a 'social psychosis'---an enormous and destructive psychic rupture with terrible consequences for all of Europe and not Just those who died in the camps.
That would be the Jew-covertly-pleading-for-sympathy-from-others perspective, using the “look what those insane people did to all of us†mechanism.
Historically, however, Europe was fucked way before Hitler, which was the condition that precipitated his rise to power. Courtesy of WWI, a once thriving German Empire was now scattered and suffering from poverty and disease and in enormous debt by way of reparations to Britain and France (see Treaty of Versailles) who were in turn paying debts to the US who were then refinancing (by way of loans) Germany. Then there was the great depression, and everyone was screwed. So, “ethnic†Germans (you know, like you “ethnic†Jews) set out to regain their strength by uniting the German people (that is, socialism) as a nation (a la nationalism).
PS: I’d comment on Nietszche, but I haven’t read his material.
You are laughing because you have a presupposition that Hitler was an evil man that you are unwilling to challenge. Hardly a counter argument David, though the herd will definitely agree with you.
Not evil, but small-minded. He was a pathetic creature, really, a buffoon. An immature child who never managed to climb out of the sand-pit.
I have no doubts that Nietzsche would have shared this view. He was, after all, contemptuous of Wagner's own Nazi-like buffoonery.
I think Nietzsche, in the end, wants humanity to keep going. He is opposed to reaching some ideal states or being bogged up in stupid states for long periods of time. Thus he attacks all of the problems he sees and then does not give some strict philosophy for everyone to follow like a new religion.
You seem to be following his "will to power" script as though it were an edict from God. What's worse, you seem to be getting bogged down in it.
For example, it is impossible to budge you from the Nietzsche-inspired scripted view that wisdom is a static, ideal state. You're locked in good and tight there.
To be locked within someone else's iconoclastic corrective - isn't this the height of comedy?
"That would be the Jew-covertly-pleading-for-sympathy-from-others perspective, using the “look what those insane people did to all of us†mechanism."
No, that is not at all my perspective. The argument I make against Nazism is in relation to Nietzsche and his ideas, and the issue of misinterpretation of the idea of 'will-to-power' by numerous theorists, and to Neil I mentioned HL Mencken and his 'bad reading' interpretations of Nietzsche's philosphy in his turn of the century biography of N.)
Honestly, Leyla, I don't have any interested in 'pleading' to you or anyone about anything at all. My impression of you, as you know, is that you are immersed in anti-semitism and it pollutes your ideas, for all the reasons I mentioned in other posts. There is really no reasoning with you since the position is unconscious and essentially irrational.
DQ wrote:
"Not evil, but small-minded. He was a pathetic creature, really, a buffoon. An immature child who never managed to climb out of the sand-pit."
The laughing stock of Europe...a mere bufoonish caricature who danced a silly little dance on the stage of history until...he got the hook? His greatest failing was not a complete disruption of civil culture---whether one considers it vain culture, hedonistic culture or something else---and an unleashing of very pure forms of brutality and cruelty (and by no means only to Jews and other in the camps but against all of Europe), but that he was possessed of a 'small mind' and remained 'immature'? You seem very careful not to call him 'evil', and perhaps this category does not exist for you there in those rarified glacial regions of the mind?
;^)
Neil wrote:
"I do think this is Nietzsche's view as he spends much time criticizing the notion of "free will". I also know that most people on this forum agree that there is no "free will". How do you differ?"
Nietzsche could have this view, or he could be demonstrated to have 2 sets of views, or 10. What I find of value in Nietzsche is his willingness to drink the poison potion of modernity---of confusion of values, of outright conflict of values---and to go into spasms as these things are worked out in him, or as they were not worked out, as the case may be. What Nietzsche 'ultimately' meant---well, I leave that to the professional philosophers. Everyone, Neil, will appropriate Nietzsche for their own purposes, I suppose. You wouldn't know this---by your own admission your reading has to date been limited---but Nietzsche has been grappled with by so many of the major minds of his era and ours, all with different conclusions. This Nietzschean stuff is not a monolith. Encountering ideas is like encountering volatile 'spirits', and how they act in one is all the fun and interest of it. It will be interesting to see how you deal with the 'spirits' you are coming into contact with...
Sieg Heil young Nietzschean!
;-)
My view on free will is pretty simple. I think that we can indeed come into contact with a magical substance we call 'consciousness', but really you could put all sorts of different names and symbols on it, and there are many, perhaps some of the most potent ones being the Sanskrit terms (IMO). It is the quintessential mystery, it is something indescribable, a living miracle that takes place within us, and something that we can come into, augment, hone. Everything that is of value in the human world---art, ideas, philosophy, sane government, science---everything that you could name and the naming itself, is born out of this 'magical stuff', of which we can all partake.
It seems to me that to the degree that we are functioning 'automatically'---unconsciously, reactively, in distorted manner, from interior confusion, pain, upset---we are not really living up to our potential, and so we can't or don't employ our 'free will'. So, the more that we are asking questions of ourselves, the more that we are questioning all things, and also the more that we actually have contact with the Divine, the author of consciousness if you will, the more that we might---might---be able to excersize something akin to 'free will'. Using this free will brings marvellous things into the world, the best of the best! even if the world is not necessarily going to 'get better' and even if it is only a Tragic world, and the ones who have brought beauty and value into the world are the only ones we should emulate. And yes, we have free will.
David Quinn wrote:Not evil, but small-minded. He was a pathetic creature, really, a buffoon. An immature child who never managed to climb out of the sand-pit.
I have no doubts that Nietzsche would have shared this view. He was, after all, contemptuous of Wagner's own Nazi-like buffoonery.
Good point with Wagner. My understanding was that Wagner abandoned truth for his art and to appeal to the herd. I think Nietzsche was mainly opposed to Wagner being an actor rather than having any real person/values/creation of his own. I could be wrong though.
Does anyone know much about Napoleon vs. Hitler? Nietzsche held Napoleon in high regards even though his will to power was "unsublimated".
Well, then you can never become greater than what you are, with that conclusion, you are now stuck as you are forever. However, the ones that don’t come to such hasty conclusions can actually change their behavior and the quality of their thoughts.
Does anyone know much about Napoleon vs. Hitler? Nietzsche held Napoleon in high regards even though his will to power was "unsublimated".
These people aren’t worth studying, unless one is figuring out what not to do, and what not to be.
It is obvious that you admire low quality thinkers, and you fantasize about emulating their behavior because your notions of greatness are still quite childlike, and based on heroic fantasy.
Napoleon and Hitler were both insects in the eyes rational philosophers, and its so obvious that it seems absurd to have to make an argument to support the claim.
if you want to discuss a violent philosopher, perhaps we should analyze the life of Marcus Aurelius, who seemed to have better ideas than Hitler and Napoleon.
His life seemed like a contradiction to me though because on the one hand he was a Roman Ruler, who performed all sorts of brutal violent acts to others, but on the other hand, he wrote quite a bit of stoic philosophy. 'Mediations' is the book he was famous for.
Here is a quote from Wikipedia,
"His stoic ideas often revolve around the denial of emotion, a skill which, he says, will free a man from the pains and pleasures of the material world. He claims that the only way a man can be harmed by others is to allow his reaction to overpower him."
Here is another quote:
"According to Jonathan Dollimore, Marcus Aurelius had a kind of indifference towards the brutalities in life. As an emperor, he persecuted Christians and went frequently on military campaigns. He justified his deeds by pointing at the insignificance of worldly affairs"
However, this justification doesn't seem rational does it? It seems to me that he was born into a powerful position, and there was pressure on him to defend, and expand the empire. Much of his motivation was the result of honor and duty, which are rather emotional in their nature aren't they? so it seems that he lived a life that contradicted his own philosophy.
"His life seemed like a contradiction to me though because on the one hand he was a Roman Ruler, who performed all sorts of brutal violent acts to others, but on the other hand, he wrote quite a bit of stoic philosophy. 'Mediations' is the book he was famous for."
Like it or not, there are now and there will always be people who are involved in governing, and governing requires the use and application of power. There is absolutely no way around this it seems to me. So, there is probably some sane balance in the way that power is administered, and the way force is applied. There almost has to be.
It seems to me that if you (we, they) attempt to establsih a philosophical system that does not take into account some of the very real facts of existence, and of governance, then one is simply dealing in abstractions, useless abstractions at that.
Also, this is part of the problem of being members of states, such as we are: all states are enterprises that require, at times, the use of force, and all the existing states use such force. It is part and parcel of existence.
Also, this is part of the problem of being members of states, such as we are: all states are enterprises that require, at times, the use of force, and all the existing states use such force. It is part and parcel of existence.
Yes, but this is why any rational philosopher keeps himself out of politics because he intuitively knows that he will be forced into a position to make choices on behalf of large groups of irrational humans, where there is no right action besides non-participation.
"Yes, but this is why any rational philosopher keeps himself out of politics because he intuitively knows that he will be forced into a position to make choices on behalf of large groups of irrational humans, where there is no right action besides non-participation."
Sad news: there is little that politics does not touch. And old Soc said that 'he who does not participate in the business of the city has no business in Athens'. Taking your analysis and working it a little, there is no way for a 'philosopher' of your school to participate in the civil government of his city. Taken further, a 'philosopher' might not be able to participate in family life or the raising of children because he would have to advise them how they should respond to the laws of the city, community, state. It is easy to see that your analysis leads...to the life of a hermit, to one who has completely separated himself from his society, and from responsibility. It is really an impossible stance, and is certainly not in accord with 'dharma', the notion that we have a place and a role within this life, a role that we cannot negate.
(However, it is said that Goethe, after the fiasco of the Napoleanic wars, sort of threw up his arms in disgust and as a result of frustration withdrew into himself...but his participation prior to renunciation was very active.)
In regard to participation in the world, that is why Marcus Aurelius is not at all irrelevant, and that is perhaps also why we can only turn to certain historical examples for a model of decent, sane government---for example the Roman model.
So, it seems that you (and perhaps most people on this list) support a model of 'wisdom' that has no role in life, or a role of escapism, non-participation in dharma, but one might opine that that is an ineffective position, more or less a useless position, and in a certain sense a escapist position.
to the life of a hermit, to one who has completely separated himself from his society, and from responsibility. It is really an impossible stance, and is certainly not in accord with 'dharma', the notion that we have a place and a role within this life, a role that we cannot negate.
All one has to be responsible for overcoming his own delusions. And the expression of how he overcame his delusions is his dharma. Promoting sound reasoning is an invaluable service, which only a minority of intellectuals are strong enough to offer.
So, it seems that you (and perhaps most people on this list) support a model of 'wisdom' that has no role in life, or a role of escapism, non-participation in dharma, but one might opine that that is an ineffective position, more or less a useless position, and in a certain sense a escapist position
I am engaged with the world as I write this sentence; there is no reason that I have to be involved with the irrational madness that is civilization. Wisdom can be promoted through writing. Outward action is not necessary. Compare the life of Lao Tzu to the life of Confucius. Confucius was a public man, a figure who involved himself in the trivial affairs of humanity, whereas Lao Tzu was quite private, solitary and led a deep spiritual life. To my mind, Lao Tzu had the deepest consciousness.
Concentrating all ones effort to ones own inner depth of consciousness is much more important than putting all ones energy into duties performed for society.
The roads of life are open to all possibilities. So many different sorts of lives have been lived, and what I wrote about earlier in no sense was meant to negate the path of a Lao Tzu, or a hermit, or you, or anyone.
I have a sense that 'you' (plural) seem to have one basic model of what spiritual life can or should be, and what 'wisdom' is, and what 'truth' is. In that sense you seem to be a group of people who have come together to 'work out your agreements'. The danger is in a higher octave of groupthink.
Life is extremely diverse, it seems to me, and I could suggest to you a model of 'wise life' that could take so many different levels into consideration, from the lower levels of humanity and consciousness to the upper levels.
Like it or not, we are involved in the irrational madness of civilization, and thus we are uncomfortably implicated, and even complicit. Looked at 'rationally' I am not sure we can avoid all this condition ramifies.
"Concentrating all ones effort to ones own inner depth of consciousness is much more important than putting all ones energy into duties performed for society."
The choices you have made or make are respectable, no doubt of that, but I could very easily construct a persuasive argument that what you have expressed above is questionable, and especially if it is represented as a universal value. So much depends on world view, and on the nature of one's connection and relationship with, say, the 'Tao'. Your teleology is, apparently, some sort of personal state of awareness, it would seem. I could make an argument that that is a selfish preoccupation and compare it to a path of general service.
I am really not so sure that anyone who sets themselves the goal of 'overcoming delusion' necesarily gets to their goal. Sometimes I think they get just to other levels of delusion. Though I think I understand what you are saying, I could also suggest that perhaps you are delusional. Who gets to decide what is 'delusion'?
There are so many concretized predicates I discover in the general views here, and I question all those predicates...
I could very easily construct a persuasive argument that what you have expressed above is questionable, and especially if it is represented as a universal value. So much depends on world view, and on the nature of one's connection and relationship with, say, the 'Tao'. Your teleology is, apparently, some sort of personal state of awareness, it would seem. I could make an argument that that is a selfish preoccupation and compare it to a path of general service.
People that dedicate themselves to general service are usually very unreflective. Their sacrifice is an escape from facing reality at its deepest level. It takes a significant degree of single-minded solitary self-centeredness to develop a logical and deep mind. The type of dedication I’m advocating is only reserved for an elite minority of genetically lucky intellectuals. It takes great strength to negate the worldly parts of existence that most people revolve their lives around.
Alex wrote:
Who gets to decide what is 'delusion'?
The one who has gone beyond delusions himself is able to spot them in others. Delusion basically occurs when the experiencer thinks, acts, and feels as if he is separate from the experienced. The spiritual man feels at the deepest level that there is absolutely no separation between the observer and the observed, he basically realizes that there is no self to realize.
Delusion is basically pleasurable ego-comforting and reinforcing behavior.
Ryan Rudolph wrote:The one who has gone beyond delusions himself is able to spot them in others. Delusion basically occurs when the experiencer thinks, acts, and feels as if he is separate from the experienced. The spiritual man feels at the deepest level that there is absolutely no separation between the observer and the observed, he basically realizes that there is no self to realize.
I would say subjective realm, but truth can be exposed through the contents of someone’s subjective expression.
For instance: If I have a mystical experience, which can happen, and I don’t have the reasoning skills to deal with it, I may conclude something ridiculous afterwards such as: “I’m the most special being in the cosmos, or I can feel the energy of Jesus, or I am Jesus….
But all of these conclusions are the result of an immature thinker that hasn’t developed the sound reasoning necessary to adequately and humbly dismiss the worth of these experiences. A sane thinker is able to forget and move on, without any sort of ego-boosting conclusions.
So there is indeed absolute truth Neil, and absolute truth can be comedy, and good comedy can be a tragedy, and a good tragedy can be art, and good art can be science, and good science… well that’s just plain ol’ philosophy.
Alex Jacob wrote:"That would be the Jew-covertly-pleading-for-sympathy-from-others perspective, using the “look what those insane people did to all of us†mechanism."
No, that is not at all my perspective. The argument I make against Nazism is in relation to Nietzsche and his ideas, and the issue of misinterpretation of the idea of 'will-to-power' by numerous theorists, and to Neil I mentioned HL Mencken and his 'bad reading' interpretations of Nietzsche's philosphy in his turn of the century biography of N.)
Well, I fail to see the distinction between “your†perspective and the perspective “you offered.†Why did you not offer some other perspective, Alex? (That’s rhetorical, since I don’t actually expect you to understand even why I’m asking that particular question.)
Alex Jacob wrote:Honestly, Leyla, I don't have any interested in 'pleading' to you or anyone about anything at all.
I don’t disbelieve you on this, Alex. It's entirely unconscious, as is your definition of "Jew."
Alex Jacob wrote:My impression of you, as you know, is that you are immersed in anti-semitism and it pollutes your ideas, for all the reasons I mentioned in other posts.
Yes, sadly, it’s apparent (and very telling at the same time) that "anti-semitism" is all you’ve got.
Alex Jacob wrote:There is really no reasoning with you since the position is unconscious and essentially irrational.
My position is very far from unconscious, Alex. But, this could be an interesting topic. Please explain to me (without links and in your own words) just what you think the unconscious is.
