Actually I do like Nietzche in the sense of having affectionate feelings for him, I just don't buy into a word of what he says. I'm always amazed when fans of his tell me that they felt liberated after reading him. Nietzche had no intention of liberating people like them. He would have been appalled at the thought! His desire was to subordinate them to a new master, the superman.I hate to say it, but Nietzche was not a nice guy. He was reputedly nice to his students and friends and some of his writings have an appealing quality, but when it came to content he was able to steel himself to astonishing harshness. He didn't care who got hurt. His philosophy seemed to be, you can't make an omelet without breaking eggs.
Of course the National Socialists loved Nietzche, in fact it's hard to imagine nazism without Nietzche. Fans like to say that his name was hijacked by thugs who didn't understand him, but I think they understood him surprisingly well. If you read what Nietzche actually said you see dozens of parallels with the kind of things that came out of Germany in the 30s. I don't think Nietzche would have approved of Hitler or the Holocaust but that doesn't let him off the hook. The spirit ofNational Socialism owed a lot to Nietzche and it's silly to ignore that.
One of the reasons Nietzche is so hotly debated is that his opinions are so hard to pin down. He's both mild and harsh in the same book, sometimes in the same paragraph. Nice guy, hard guy...it depends which sentense you're reading. It's well known that he was clinically crazy later in life but, reading him, it's hard to resist the notion that he was skewered even in mid-life. He had tons of literary talent but it's hard to imagine that he was ever taken seriously as a philosopher.
The other guy that I don't like is Machievelli. He looks like such a sweet guy in the portrait above, but he was anything but sweet in "The Prince, " which is a truly disturbing book.
I'm familiar with the argument that he was the founder of modern political science and was simply trying to save his city from ruin. It doesn't wash. We already had political science written by the Greeks and Romans. Machievelli simply added venality to it. As for the city falling apart, you wonder if the cure was worse than the disease.
The harm might have been contained if only a handfull of princes had the book but the printing press made it accessable to everyone. All of a sudden lots of ordinary people were wondering if they should fight dirty to get what they wanted. People who stuck to traditional ideals of honesty and charity must have found themselves wondering if they were patsies. I like the modern world but it has an undeniable coarse and abrasive tone to it. Machiavelli's one of the people responsible for that.
youre right about Nietzsche but least his personality is a goldmine for cartoonists
ReplyDeleteI know pop culture references dont jive with you and john k but what about high culture ones? I find parodies of nighthawks and american gothic, hamlets soliloquy just as grating as a transformers or star wars reference.
ReplyDeleteOutright stealings fine though, If youre going to have a western showdown scene in a cartoon you may as well rip off the one from high noon.
Its alright if you can still appreciate a scene without having any idea its a reference but if you watch shows like family guy and robot chicken theyll basically recreate a 2 minute scene exactly from a star trek movie and then throw in a gay sex joke
Niccolo Machiavelli seems to have provided the template for much of modern corporate culture.
ReplyDeleteI dont agree with Nietzches conclusions but theres still a lot you can get out of him.
ReplyDeleteIll take bombastic proclamations on the failings of mankind over the bland objectivity and pomo gobbledygook of todays philosophers
Did you ever see the movie "Baby Face"? The old German guy quotes Nietzsche at Barbara Stanwyck and then gives her advice based on his philosophies: "USE MEN! DON'T LET THEM USE YOU! YOU MUST BE A MASTER! NOT A SLAVE!" It's crazy!
ReplyDeleteplease use more stills from campy 1970s sex comedies as humorous counterpoints in your next post, preferably ones with nudity
ReplyDeleteI don't think Machiavelli invented playing dirty in politics. If anything I think he provided some warning for people who are inclined to play too nice.
ReplyDeleteIt's the 'prisoner's dilemma' situation - you want to be mean to people who are mean to you and nice to those who treat you well. If you don't know how to do both, you will be a patsy (or a villain).
In my reading of The Prince I got the impression that he wanted to say it's better to be virtuous, but his knowledge of history led him to the conclusion that it wasn't enough.
From Hasdrubal
ReplyDeleteSo Nietzsche and Machiavelli don't float your boat?
Does Mark Twain's "Huck Finn" agree with you a little more? Everyone likes old Sam Clemens. Another reading as an adult might lead you think it was more than a kid's adventure story. In the absence of social pressure, Huck, the hero, is capable of making ethical decisions on his own, but in his own childish way, he naturally prefers to be lead by others and not make his own ethical decisions. Huck's darker nature is his preference to be lead by adult and child con-artists.
It appears Nietzsche, Machiavelli, and Sam Clemens all offer similar messages about our darker angels. The generation of boys in the story grew up to be the sort of men who were mislead by the confederate leadership. Clemens shows the basis of real politics.
A good author knows how to hide things that were too dark a truth for people of his own time to accept.
I have heard it debated that there are those who feel Machiavelli's work was one of satire. The man apparently wrote quite a few comedies in his time.
ReplyDeleteI've heard his works compared to the Marquis de Sade (who was satirizing society at the time as well).
That being said, it's a scary notion that any writing of our day, political or serious could be taken as a philosophical standpoint sometime in the future.
Dave: De Sade's most outrageous stuff is interesting on some level but is incredibly shallow. His Philosophy of the Bedroom is uninspiring. In my opinion he's over-rated as a thinker.
ReplyDeleteHe's a satirist as you said, but it's satire without depth. His decadence doesn't give him a platform to criticize other people. Dickens was a far better social critic.
Hasdrubal: Huck Finn is a great book but I prefer Tom Sawyer. There's more of what I like about America in it.
Joe: Fascinating! Now THERE'S a subject for a blog!
Anon: Why isolate corporations? It seems to me that almost everyone's been effected by it.
Eddie, I'm gonna play out just like you said fans of Nietzsche would. But hopefully the explanation will be more helpful.
ReplyDeleteHe was an ardent mysogenist in real life and was miserable all the time due to migranes. I dunno where you heard he was a nice guy, but whoever wrote that must have a penchant for flattery.
Nietzsche was a philologist (study of language), so it's important to note that he wrote in German and his text are translated into English, where words might not have the same implications as they did in their native tongue. The translation "superman" is shunned amongst Nietzsche scholars, but instead is translated as "overman" (since it better elucidates Nietzsche's concept that the current state of "man" is something to be overcome, or transcended).
A key understanding of Nietzsche comes from his idea of the transvaluation of values. It refers to a reassesment of the definition of values and virtues. It's from this that he divides the German population into two different moralities: the slave morality and the master morality.
It is well known that Nietzsche was against the Christian "institution" as it had become, and it was in reference to THIS that he talked about slave morality and master morality. Slave morality refers to the herd thinking of the malleable masses largely for the sake of comfort. It shouldn't be too much of a stretch to see why he equated the Christian church of his day with slave morality judging by our current status quo today. Slave mentality focuses on the equality of everyone to promote complacency and to reinforce status quo.
However, on the opposite end is the idea of master morality. He unabashedly gives this morality a positive connotation as those who are in the creative seat to make decisions, rather than those of the slave morality that blindly follow. It really breaks down to a rejection of systemization and a rejection of faith for a demand for creative exploration and assessment of values.
I think you've got more in common with Nietzsche than you'd like to admit, although I'm sure it's largely more due to common assumptions about his literature than the actual content of the literature itself that you'd deny it. Your argument for the abolishment of cartoon writers is largely in the tradition of Nietzsche's writing. You argue against the idea of "cartoon writer's" ability to write cartoons equal to that of cartoonists. You reject the idea that cartoons these days are good just because they are accepted among the status quo, and you call into question the values that they purport. Ultimately, you are reassessing accepted beliefs.
In "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", Zarathustra rejects his disciples, for the concept of disciples is counter-intuitive to his principles: to have disciples follow exactly what Nietzsche says would be counter-intuitive to preaching about master morality. Hence, to understand Nietzsche at all, one must reject Nietzsche at some base level. At times his critique of pity can be heartless, and a lot of his specific ideas are very open to criticism. Your critique of style is very much this same idea. You stress learning fundamentals from Preston Blair to create your own style, rather than teaching style itself without substance. Hence, your goal is to breed those of master morality rather than chicken shit conformist that produce "bland" material.
I dunno, just my two cents. Maybe I've got it all wrong tho, I'm not Nietzsche scholar or anything. I'm just attracted to his fiery language and visceral approach to philosophy that makes it easy to read, rather than the likes of Sartre and Heidegger which can be unreadble unless you have proper motivations.
this makes me wish I knew more about philosophy.
ReplyDeletethe only thing I know is ,,"i think therefore I am" nice and straight forward :) why muddle with the complications of life when you can think and WOOP! there you are! :D
Chris: Interesting comment! My understanding of the superman (overman) is that his card trumps everyone else's. If yours is the master morality you still have to yield to the superman.
ReplyDeleteNietzche's notion of Christianity as a purveyer of slave mentality is silly in my opinion. It's true in the limited sense that, like most religions, it's dogmatic. Of course there's a zillion versions of Christianity so the consumer has a lot of choice about it.
It seems to me that if a reasonable person was making a list of the purveyers of slave mentality in the last two hundred years, that he would put secular governments headed by Stalin, Mao and Hitler at the top of the list, not Christianity. I don't mind seeing Christianity get the knocks it deserves, but seeing it being criticized for dogma by one of the fathers of National Socialism is too much to bear!
From Hasdrubal
ReplyDeleteI used to prefer "Tom Sawyer" to "Huck Finn" myself, but eventually I realized Tom's character never matured past being a childish con artist. I suppose Tom's character is appealing to most American's for that very reason, but he doesn't have Huck's character growth, (followed by a regression of character growth near the end of the book).
Clemen's earlier book is mostly indulgent nostalgia for a more comfortable antebellum world. The second book shows the character flaws of common men which contributed to the Civil War. It tells deeper truths about human nature which readers often fail to seek. Sam Clemens had enough sense not to express his ideas in plain sight like the great philosophers. The truth of human nature isn't usually palatable reading. That's why we need comedy.
I started thinking about "Huck Finn" one night after watching "Apocalypse Now". They are both basically the same story of what happens to people on a river in the complete absence of authority. Coppula's movie is even more darkly honest than Twain. The point of the movie is that in the absence of authority people eventually start playing God, which is a natural extension of being forced to make their own ethical decisions.
I would find "Apocalypse Now" more palatable if the story had been told as a comedy.
I think you should abandon the great philosophers and look to Walt Kelly for meaning. "We have met the enemy, and they are us."
Four reasons to like Nietzsche:
ReplyDelete1.) He was an early virulent critic of German antisemitism. When his sister married a prominent antisemite, he never voluntarily spoke to her again (after her scumbag of a husband killed himself and N. had his final breakdown, she came back to Germany and took control of his estate and what was left of him).
2.) He was an "anti-political thinker” (his term) who taught that the state tends to suck the life out of a culture and an individual.
3.) He is almost the only great philosopher who is hilariously funny. In Fitzgeraldian terms, this may be the greatest of all virtues.
4.) He persistently prevents you from taking him too seriously. He always presents his doctrine in the worst possible light. Thus gives up his reputation to protect your freedom to develop your own opinions, independently even of him.
Fun read! I wonder if Nietzsche appeals mainly to a younger audience... He was glorified in Little Miss Sunshine (am I right in thinking that?) by the mute kid. How about philosophers you do like?
ReplyDeletewhen was the greatest age for philosophy? Before there were any philosophers -emerson
ReplyDeletePart of the reason nietzsche gets such a bad rap is that the original translations of his stuff took all his sarcastic humorous comments deadly seriously. Same with Goethe.
Theres a few famous examples of people grossly misinterpreting him to justify their own ends but then "the devil can quote script- yada yada yada"
Its fun to see philosophical type discussions that arent spiteful hyper pedants screaming at each other.
ReplyDeleteIf you ever visit a "real" philosophy messageboard youll pray for another flood afterwards
nietzcsche is kind of like John K I completely disagree with a lot of his conclusions on what entertainment should be but I cant imagine a better teacher
ReplyDeletei like what neechee said about religion: being the opium of the masses and such. i saw a good documentary called "Root of Evil" and i think it's pretty clear how govt. architects love religion's role in keeping the general populace timid and subdued.
ReplyDeleteman i think it's so bloody hilarious when someone makes an arguement and use the bible as their proof/backing. without imperial religions f'ing up the world this planet would be a MUCH more interesting and enjoyable place. and people would actually become involved with the govt. rather than think their taxpaying and hour in church or whatnot each week covers their civic duties.
I'm really liking this Nietzsche conversation and I plan to look into him now, but it reminds me of something I learned growing up. Chiefly, it's that following is not always a bad thing.
ReplyDeleteI remember that as kids, we went through a faze where the only thing we wanted to do was to be different. It was so wide spread that in the effort to be different we all ended up the same again.
My point is that some ideas and philosophies are just too good to not use, such as the Golden Rule. And there's nothing wrong with following that even though people you don't like or don't respect use it too for different reasons.
Oh the joys of Theory Corner!
Great Post Eddie. You made Nistzche sound like he's handling good cop and bad cop simultaniously!
ReplyDeleteLester: Wow! Great article! I read half and will read the other half tomorrow!
ReplyDeleteAnon: Nietzche certainly has a likable personality in print, but he also strikes me as crazy. In my opinion people are too willing to give him a pass card because he had an appealing personality. At some point a writer has to be accountable for the things he says
For me all the nice and sensitive things he said don't make up for his beating the drum for a new Napoleon, the One who is "beyond good and evil", whose right to dominate trumps my own insignificant rights to life and happiness.
You can say that something offensive that he said was intended as a joke or was mistranslated but the sheer number of things like that make it unlikely that he was kidding.
Lester wrote a great article defending the idea that Nietzche was anti-political (the link is in Lester's comment above). If Lester's right it still doesn't let Nietzche off the hook. It only shows that the man was too much the artist or was too mentally disturbed to see how his writings could be translated into politics. Nietzche would have known all about Napoleon who did translate ideas like this into reality, so it's a little hard to believe that he was naiive in this score.
Akira: A lot of bad things have been done in the name of religion but we live in an era where people need to be reminded of the good things it accomplished. The puritans may have burned witches but they also gave us parliaments and the concepts of rights and liberty.
ReplyDeletewhat philosophers do you like eddie?
ReplyDeletei probably agree with secular humanists more than nietzsche but my problem is how lame those liberal gene roddenberry types are compared to him
ReplyDeletei think the united nations should vote on giving anarchy a try for a few years, i just read an article on it in wikipedia last week (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anarchy)and it seems really interesting
ReplyDeleteIf you want real political theory, go back to the Republic. A well-ordered society begins with a well-ordered self. Both Machiavelli and Nietszche were similar in that they had absolutist ideas about force, neither of them were in any place to exercise their ideas.
ReplyDeleteMachiavelli argued for the absolute power of government as necessary for the safekeeping of the state. However, the ubiquity of his work got the idea that the end justifies the means into everybody's heads, completely counter to the necessities of a deceptive empowered government.
Nietzsche came along and took it to the extreme, becoming what Rand calls the whimsical egoist, sacrificing even his own best interest to his desires. Nietzsche was a genius, especially in his assessments of human nature, but in the end, his Ubermensch is more like the Incredible Hulk than Superman.
If anything, I think our modern government needs a lesson in Machiavelli, Hobbes, and Plato. As much as I hate it as an individual, deception seems to be to at least some extent necessary in a stable society. Look at World War 2, probably the last really successful war we've had. The government wasn't afraid at all to manipulate public opinion. Just look at the propaganda, especially in cartoons. The government itself led a massive public support campaign, ignoring inaccuracies and stereotypes. You just don't want Nietzsche to get elected.
Anon: What philosophers do I like? Probably John Stuart Mill, Aristotle and Epictitus for a start. The reason the list is so short is that a lot of my philosophy is derived from novels, biographies and essays. Philosophers aren't the only people who write about philosophy.
ReplyDeletegood point, plus with art if its good its good but with philosophy you can say something true about life and have it nit picked to death by pedants under the guise of objectivity
ReplyDeleteJohnny: Interesting point! Every educated (that includes self-educated) man is going to have a philosophy that contains contradictions. I can understand someone who both likes and dislikes Nietzche at the same time.
ReplyDeletei think cartoonists have a better chance of getting philosophy to the "masses" than philosophers do
ReplyDeleteall good art is full of ambiguity and contradictions and logic is probably the only uncontroversial branch of philosophy
ReplyDeleteanyone who lives their lives by one philosophy is crazy. What I find particularly hilarious are manifestos
ReplyDeletekids who have just gotten into stuff like marxism existentialism etc. are cute http://www.theonion.com/content/node/28832
ReplyDeleteBear in mind that by all indications, Nietzsche was bipolar, which might explain a few things.
ReplyDeletephilosophies great for reading books and sounding smart and garbage but the only philosophy you should actually practice is the one of the almighty dollar, better to discuss nietzsche in your well furnished library than to scream his philosophies from a streetcorner
ReplyDeleteit seems that puritan liberty and rights were not exactly distributed equally/ some people were more equal than others.. and i know i wouldn't even exist without em but i think a country full of indians and witches would be a lot cooler than the current population..
ReplyDeletespreading diseases and customs from europe to the corners of the world (and obliterating their traditional cultures) wasn't exactly a good thing in my opinion. it would have been one thing, if the religion they were spreading was true.. but come on god is dead! interesting website: www.jesusneverexisted.com
can you name a pure philosopher (not chomsky stephen hawkings etc.) who has an impact outside of people who read philosophy journals?
ReplyDeleteI mean the only philosophers i can think of that get any press are the bland behaviorist secular humanist types like daniel dennet who seem to feel art is some kind of game theory problem or deconstructionist types like derridia, not exactly people who fill you with passion for living and wonder at the mysteries of existence
ReplyDeleteAkira: You dismiss parliaments and liberty as if they meant nothing at all. The puritans were really enegetic and interesting people. Read Milton's "Aereopagitica."
ReplyDeleteAnon: That Onion link was great!
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/content/node/40984
ReplyDeletethis article i think is even more relevant
what are your thoughts godwise eddie? no need to go in depth just a simple yay nay or ehh is fine
ReplyDeletehttp://www.theonion.com/content/node/39313
ReplyDeletethis one is more relevant still!
Can I name any philosophers who had an influence outside of the people who read philosophy journals?
ReplyDeleteWell, read the aricle about Nietzche and Machiavelli that this this comment page is attached to. What about Marx? What about Rousseau and Voltaire and the hippie philosophers? It seems to me that you live in a world that, for good or ill, philosophers helped to make. If you're like me some of your own ideas were created by philosophers and you're (me too) just mouthing the words.
If you mean current philosophy, it's in a dormant phase, along with pop music, novels, theater, fine art, and a bunch of other worthy things...but it won't stay that way.
definitely meant current philosophers. Youre right eddie, i cant see people putting up with detached pomo irony much longer
ReplyDeleteSome tvs not bad, at least till the sopranos went off the air
ReplyDeleteAnon: I stay away from current religious and political subjects on the blog. I'll gladly talk about Christian history and philosophy because it's easier to be objective about things like that.
ReplyDeletethats cool, definitely dont want this blog to turn into a flamewar I meant more along the lines of whether you have any spiritual leanings not your opinion on the current religious climate.
ReplyDeleteDo you know John K's views on religion (if hes cool with you sharing them of course) in some of his posts he comes across as an atheist but then says that god is your best teacher during posts on sunsets etc.
did you ever get in on any peter singer, eddie?
ReplyDeletefascinating guy. whether you agree with what he says or not.
i bring this up b/c you mention Mill. I was going to do a post utilitarianism soon, actually. it's the only philosophy that stuck in the ethics class i did.
Im not a christian but there certainly is an absence of christian values as far as compassion and kindness go. Like Vonnegut said "dammit you have to be kind!"
ReplyDeleteIm guessing that its his lack of compassion for normal everyday folk that puts you off nietzsche. I got the same thing from Ayn Rand, Theyre great inspiration if you want to be a great artist scientist whatever but that doesnt mean you should belittle everyone else who isnt trying to become a demigod
ReplyDeletethanks to my pop culture brain, I forever associate Nietzche with the quote at the beginning of CONAN:
ReplyDelete"that which does not kill me makes me stronger"
Wheel of pain scene
and of course richard strauss' Thus spake zarathustra:
2001 music
I bet the governator is a fan of Nietzche.
Do you know John K's views on religion (if hes cool with you sharing them of course) in some of his posts he comes across as an atheist but then says that god is your best teacher during posts on sunsets etc.
ReplyDeleteIt would greatly surprise me if John K isn't an Atheist. Besides Eddie, most of the people he surrounds himself with are Atheists. People tend to surround themselves with like-minded individuals.
"that which does not kill me makes me stronger"
ReplyDeleteThis quote proves he wasn't the most logical person on the block by a long shot.
Killing your brain cells and your immune system with liquor might not kill you but it certainly won't make you stronger either.
I'm sure with a little thought, you could come up with hundreds of things you could do to make yourself less strong without killing yourself.
"When his sister married a prominent antisemite, he never voluntarily spoke to her again (after her scumbag of a husband killed himself and N. had his final breakdown, she came back to Germany and took control of his estate and what was left of him)."
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of which--- the story of Nueva Germania (an Aryan colony in Paraguay she founded) is really, really bizarre.
eddie:
ReplyDeleteI think the problem most folks have with Nietzsche is that he pokes his head above moral platitudes to take a look around. No one really needs to be told that all men are not created equal, human life is not literally priceless or that, at the end of life, we simply die (according to the best evidence). Nietsche points out that idealism always stands in opposition to what science would call truth.
When we're contemptuous of the petty, anxious, lying dog-like herd mentality of TV execs who only value animation for its narrow utility in providing a maximum return or when we scorn hippies for their softheaded "selflessness" or misplaced pity, we're exercising a master morality. The notion that it is a master morality that assigns value doesn't seem to be a value judgement in itself.
Any old philologist can tell you how the words "noble" or "villain" came to reflect certain values. A slave morality values utility above all.
A slave morality invests evil with great power, strength & ruthlessness, qualities that inspire fear in a slave & which, by different names, are honored among the ruling classes. It values friendliness, compassion, patience, humility & industry, all useful communitarian qualities for the poor.
As I see it, after the starvation & the utter failure of democracy in the Weimar Republic, Hitler took this value-neutral observation of Nietzsche's & set out to instill a "winner's" attitude in a mass market of losers. It had in part to do with the failure of traditional slave morality to serve the people.
I think Nietzsche was anti-state in general principle. He had a lot of cutting things to say about the German people in particular.
You make a good point about purveyors of slave mentality. I wonder if, 200 years from now if Communism will be considered another Judeo-Christian sect. You certainly can't call it a "scientific theory" today.
Reading Nietsche I got the impression he really wanted to be a pop superstar of philosophy along the lines of Wagner. He's ahead of his time in that sense.
Ayn Rand always struck me as a dumbed-down pop Nietzsche. And what's with the "y", anyway?
any philosophers you dislike not because you find their conclusions reprehensible as much as you think theyre boring/lame?
ReplyDeletePappy: In my opinion you're being much too kind to Nietzche. I wish I had my old Nietzche books where I underlined all the inflammatory language. Of course all the post-WW2 translations probably tone down the harsh stuff. If you want to see something like the version that Hitler admired, get hold of an old translation and see if you still feel the same way.
ReplyDeleteEddie, the Puritans never burned witches. They hanged them. Common mistake.
ReplyDeleteJorge: They hanged them? That sounds more likely, come to think of it.
ReplyDeleteBTW, thanks for the great comment on the "Fantasy Island" post.
Anon: An awful lot of philosophers are boring! That's a profession that needs to clean its own house. How can they expect to have an influence if nobody can read them?
The Greeks and Romans were pretty clear, maybe because rhetoric and oratory were part of their training.
Anon: Good Grief! I wouldn't presume to write about John's religious beliefs. Ask him about them.
Anon: True! I can't forgive philosophers who promote violence!
I'm sure you're right, Eddie. I would read him again, but I don't like him either.
ReplyDeleteNeitsche may have galvanized the concept of the superman, but I don't think he ever discussed bizzaro superman, which is what will typically emerge from the incestuous inbred marriage of government and big business.
ReplyDeleteCall a system anything you like, but it will be crap in direct proportion to how much value it places on the priveleges of institutions over the rights of individuals.
Freedom is a vigil and its enemy is misplaced unearned confidence in its so-called leaders.
I don't know what the Puritans gave us, it seems to me they just brought their traditions, some of which evolved into things we can actually use. Hanging or burning witches can hardly be seen as great deep understanding or morality, science, jurisprudence or ethics. They reeked of cloistered intolerance and ignorance.
The founders of our great nation are the greatest philosphers I know. They actually believed that people can govern themselves. Actually there is evidence that they didn't entirely believe it but were willing to try.
They were the most optimistic philosphers in history, rejecting centuries of examples of kings and overlords to arrive at the stunning conclusion that there must be a better, more humanistic way for men and women to live.
In goverment they did not believe in leaders, they believed in representatives. When is the last time you heard a politician campaigning on his "strong representation?"
In order for them to be right, the superman has got to be wrong.
But Neitsche, Machiavelli, or anoyone else who claims that masters and slaves are part of the natural order will always remain popular among elitists, even if such philosphers were being sarcastic.
This is very much an issue in the present tense, and in present politics.
We are still fighting the battle of our founders, but we are unarmed and uninformed, and we may very well be losing. Many of us no longer even know what side to be on or who or what the enemy really is.
The Puritans were great people with a few flaws. They were one of the first truly democratic egalitarin societies, deeply principled, anti-corporate, and sincerely devout and faithful. If their vision of a "new England" had been realized we'd all be ecstatic.
ReplyDeleteOr do you prefer greedy murderous the slave owners of the Virginia tobbacco settlement along the Chesapeke bay? Puritans in New England and Virginians in Chesapeke Bay were the only two English colonies in North America.
By the way, everything "I Don't Realy Know" said about the founding fathers was done by the Puritans first. Did you know the Puritans did not allow anything to be sold with more of a 5% mark-up?
ReplyDeleteThey were the real yeoman fathers of Jeffersonian ideals.
Or do you prefer greedy murderous, etc.
ReplyDeleteI do not prefer either colony and would not really want to be a member of either. I can't think of a better time in history for a Black American than now.
Nor do I want to unfairly take anything from the Puritans that may be their due, particularly their pumpkin-scented farts.
I love any discussion that begins with Nietzsche and ends with "pumpkin-scented farts."
ReplyDeleteEddie,
ReplyDeleteI hate to break it to you but you've got Nietzsche almost completely wrong.
The Superman is not an existing race or being but a goal one aspires to. It's a concept of demanding perpetual refinement of self, not a means to exert your superiority over others.
This and many other concepts of Nietzsche were edited and repackaged by his anti-semetic sister who, when he went catatonic (probably from syphilis), she propped him up in a chair in her house, never washed or shaved him, and sold tickets to see him. Most of the photos we have of him with the crazy hair and the big mustache are from this time as a vegetable. She never let anyone see his notes or original manuscripts and it was these bastardized versions of his works that the Nazis got and loved. His actual work, as the man himself, would be adamantly opposed to all which the Nazis stood for. You mentioned that the copies of his work after WWII were toned down. CLose, but no cigar. The works after WWII were based on his actual writings, and the best translations are by Walter Kaufman. Perhaps you should revisit his works, or maybe I shoudl say sit down with them for the first time since what you read before were not his words, but words twisted by a nasty, anti-semetic cunt.
Nietzsche was opposed to systems, which is largely why there's so much confusion interpreting his intents. He felt that once you created and/or subscribed to a system, you're locked to it and unable to honestly question the validity of your positions. Again, this is why he's complicated because he'll question and seem to contradict in one book what he said in another. To him, he saw that as the greatest honesty, to perpetually challenge yourself, and that process is part of his Superman idea of perpetually challenging and refining yourself. As was mentioned by someone else here, he did have a sense of humor and he did promote laughter and laughing at one's self. He mocks himself outrageously in Ecce Homo (which some misread as him being boastful and arrogant) and indeed invites challenges to his ideas, but as long as you're actually challenging HIS ideas Eddie, and not the distortions of his ideas by others.
Have a nice day
...who the hell are Phil'n'Sophy?
ReplyDeleteWe should be chary and discriminating in all the information we give. We should be signally aware in giving advice that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to refrain from giving counsel which we don't follow when it damages those who transport us at our word.
ReplyDeletedrill
[url=http://drill-79.webs.com/apps/blog/]drill[/url]
We should be meticulous and fussy in all the par‘nesis we give. We should be signally aware in giving advice that we would not think of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to evade giving counsel which we don't tag along when it damages those who woo assume us at our word.
ReplyDeletemilwaukee
[url=http://milwaukee-92.webs.com/apps/blog/]milwaukee[/url]
We should be painstaking and discriminating in all the par‘nesis we give. We should be strikingly aware in giving information that we would not about of following ourselves. Most of all, we ought to avoid giving counsel which we don't tag along when it damages those who transport us at our word.
ReplyDeletepanel saw
[url=http://panel-saw-79.webs.com/apps/blog/]panel saw[/url]
Little one labor and pauperism are inevitably likely together and if you continue to manipulate the labor of children as the treatment pro the social disease of indigence, you inclination suffer with both beggary and youth labor to the end of time.
ReplyDeleteBe not indignant that you cannot make others as you hankering them to be, since you cannot prevail upon yourself as you thirst to be
ReplyDeleteChild labor and pauperism are inevitably obliged together and if you carry on with to object the labor of children as the treatment pro the group complaint of indigence, you inclination have both beggary and sprog labor to the end of time.
ReplyDeleteDescendant labor and pauperism are inevitably bound together and if you remain to use the labor of children as the treatment pro the social complaint of indigence, you pleasure own both beggary and child labor to the d‚nouement of time.
ReplyDeleteLittle one labor and poverty are inevitably bound together and if you remain to exercise the labor of children as the treatment on the sexually transmitted complaint of pauperism, you will have both destitution and child labor to the supersede of time.
ReplyDeleteDescendant labor and poverty are inevitably likely together and if you continue to use the labor of children as the treatment for the sexually transmitted disease of poverty, you will own both destitution and descendant labor to the close of time.
ReplyDeleteBe not fuming that you cannot win others as you desire them to be, since you cannot prevail upon yourself as you hope to be
ReplyDeleteChild labor and meagreness are inevitably bound together and if you carry on with to object the labor of children as the treatment after the collective complaint of want, you purpose have both beggary and youth labor to the d‚nouement of time.
ReplyDelete