Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 12, 2020, 1:18am
100
Antithesis:
Stirner and Nietzsche, S&N were similar, in that they both weren’t afraid of moral gods, ghosts or ectoplasm,
Not afraid, but N completely rejected morality and moral gods.
Nietzsche was against all morality, he never advocated Master Morality. He just said it existed.
Nietzsche did ethics differently than our Judeo-Christian, liberal-social tradition, in fact he stood that tradition on its head, but he wasn’t an ethical nihilist, he didn’t do away with ethics altogether, he was an elitistic and individualistic ethical subjectivist.
He believed objectively strong, smart, healthy people would tend to subjectively esteem strong, smart, healthy people, attitudes and behaviors both in others and themselves, as well as those with biopsychological potential to develop themselves into such people.
He was sort of a proto-social Darwinist.
His ethical thinking had both aretaic and consequentialist components.
Not all ethical subjectivists are going to think and feel alike about ethical matters, just as not all ethical objectivists do.
In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul.
N was nuanced, his ethics were broad, dynamic and intricate, but I don’t think I’m going out on a limb by saying the gist of his work is elitist.
And, ‘higher civilizations’?
That sounds like more ethicizing from N.
I say ethicizing rather than moralizing because I think of ethics as more of an introspective and philosophical approach to valuation N took than the usual impersonal, theistic, objectivist or cultural relativist approach.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 12, 2020, 2:01am
101
Antithesis:
Nietzsche valued great men.
They could be great architects, engineers, artists, athletes, industrialists, philosophers, scientists or statesmen.
Great men are men who bring great value to themselves and others, primarily other great men like themselves, great men aren’t emancipators of small men.
They would either be in favor of maintaining and rising within old hierarchies, or erecting new, better ones, not overturning all hierarchy.
For Nietzsche, ubermensch are not Buddhachrists, Robin Hoods, Spartacuses, anarchists, democrats, classical liberals or socialists.
No more important point in N than that men, up to and at least 100 years beyond him, had not been great enough.
Not even Napoleon had his respect, because of the cause he led.
The concept of Uebermensch, I don’t know what’s so difficult to understand about this. (lol yeah of course I do but it’s mean ) is the conceptualization of mankind as being by definition insufficient to please his tastes.
All this about already existing Uebermenschen is from other sources than Nietzsche.
Yea, you’ve presented it in black & white terms, but I, and N, prefer to think of things in degrees, where some individuals and civilizations at least came closer to embodying his ideals than others.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 12, 2020, 2:24am
102
In this sense, America as being a mechanism for rank-creating, did, I think, have his respect.
Naturally he wasn’t so silly as to believe men have intrinsic rights, he wasn’t as silly as to disregard reality of how men interact, nor did he value men in particular as more ontologically significant than animals, so he did not value the base narrative of the USA, but he must have valued the massiveness of its power machinations.
And since he considered overcoming and self-overcoming as a crucial aspect of noble nature, he would definitely have had some pleasure in the path to power of the African gene pool. He certainly wasn’t racist.
N was a white supremacist who’s been appropriated by liberal-socialists because he’s hip.
While Italian Fascism and German Nazism may’ve been too crude, collectivist and egalitarian for his tastes, as they were too crude for the likes of individualistic elitists like Julius Evola, still clearly they came closer to meeting his ideals than our Judeo-Christian, liberal-social democracies do.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 12, 2020, 3:52am
103
You can be a hip elitist, or a square equalist, the left doesn’t have a monopoly on hipness.
N was the archetypal proto-Nipster.
N and Evola did for the right what Sartre and Camus did for the left.
Stirner and Novatore were hipper still, they didn’t quite fit into either camp, left or right.
Fixed_Cross
(Fixed Cross)
February 12, 2020, 12:14pm
104
You’re throwing out pretty random responses here man. Yes, clearly N is speaking to elites. Elites who don’t hold moralities.
Ethics isn’t the same as morality.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 13, 2020, 8:38pm
106
Stirner’s burns were pretty bad ass too.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 13, 2020, 8:47pm
107
He’s got a fiendish, scoundrelly look to him.
The original Dieter from Sprockets (SNL)
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 14, 2020, 1:37am
109
The resemblance is uncanny.
Antithesis
(Antithesis)
February 14, 2020, 1:39am
110
I wouldn’t trust him with the plastic cutlery, looks like the worst elements of Antifa, PETA and Hitler’s brown shirts combined.
Fixed_Cross
(Fixed Cross)
February 14, 2020, 4:59pm
111
Alright meine Herren, denn… who of yous is an ubermenschennnn???
Antithesis:
Nietzsche valued great men.
They could be great architects, engineers, artists, athletes, industrialists, philosophers, scientists or statesmen.
Great men are men who bring great value to themselves and others, primarily other great men like themselves, great men aren’t emancipators of small men.
They would either be in favor of maintaining and rising within old hierarchies, or erecting new, better ones, not overturning all hierarchy.
For Nietzsche, ubermensch are not Buddhachrists, Robin Hoods, Spartacuses, anarchists, democrats, classical liberals or socialists.
The Superman is not a man as we know it. He’s not a great or “higher” man. He’s not a Napoleon or Caesar. He’s not some amalgamation of characteristics picked and chosen from great men in history. He’s not even one of Nietzsche’s “creating ones.” He doesn’t necessarily go through the phases in Zarathustra (camel/lion/child).
Everything in TSZ is about creating ones literally sacrificing themselves (like Nietzsche nobly did) for the future of the Superman. There’s something about this sacrificing of noble men that will bring about the Superman. Nietzsche(as far as I know) never says HOW the Superman will come into being.
The only thing N said that can be tied to the Nazis and the Soviets was something like, ‘there will be massive experiments, and mankind may perish of them. Oh well!’
If you look at the nazi leadership, they were all frail, unappetizing neurotic dwarflike men. Their idea of a master race was a gigantic herd. About as un-Nietzschean as possible. That can be said about the particular values. But the general, brutal audacity of the Nazi and Soviet experiments (both forms of Marxist atheism) was something by which N would not have been shocked in the least - something he saw coming, too.
The central idea of popular nazism however was not bravery but coziness, Heimlichkeit, belonging to a great group. The USSR was a little more manly, if you ask me. At least it sent us into space, which is a Nietzschean accomplishment.
Where the state ends, the Superman begins… So does that mean that even “good” ethnocentric nationalist governments are only good insofar they get in the way of unchecked globalism (which could potentially end the possibly for the Superman to come into being (Nietzsche’s big fear with the Last Man)
Meno2
(Meno_)
March 22, 2020, 7:40pm
113
perpetualburn:
Antithesis:
Nietzsche valued great men.
They could be great architects, engineers, artists, athletes, industrialists, philosophers, scientists or statesmen.
Great men are men who bring great value to themselves and others, primarily other great men like themselves, great men aren’t emancipators of small men.
They would either be in favor of maintaining and rising within old hierarchies, or erecting new, better ones, not overturning all hierarchy.
For Nietzsche, ubermensch are not Buddhachrists, Robin Hoods, Spartacuses, anarchists, democrats, classical liberals or socialists.
The Superman is not a man as we know it. He’s not a great or “higher” man. He’s not a Napoleon or Caesar. He’s not some amalgamation of characteristics picked and chosen from great men in history. He’s not even one of Nietzsche’s “creating ones.” He doesn’t necessarily go through the phases in Zarathustra (camel/lion/child).
Everything in TSZ is about creating ones literally sacrificing themselves (like Nietzsche nobly did) for the future of the Superman. There’s something about this sacrificing of noble men that will bring about the Superman. Nietzsche(as far as I know) never says HOW the Superman will come into being.
The only thing N said that can be tied to the Nazis and the Soviets was something like, ‘there will be massive experiments, and mankind may perish of them. Oh well!’
If you look at the nazi leadership, they were all frail, unappetizing neurotic dwarflike men. Their idea of a master race was a gigantic herd. About as un-Nietzschean as possible. That can be said about the particular values. But the general, brutal audacity of the Nazi and Soviet experiments (both forms of Marxist atheism) was something by which N would not have been shocked in the least - something he saw coming, too.
The central idea of popular nazism however was not bravery but coziness, Heimlichkeit, belonging to a great group. The USSR was a little more manly, if you ask me. At least it sent us into space, which is a Nietzschean accomplishment.
Where the state ends, the Superman begins… So does that mean that even “good” ethnocentric nationalist governments are only good insofar they get in the way of unchecked globalism (which could potentially end the possibly for the Superman to come into being (Nietzsche’s big fear with the Last Man)
May be, on the contrary, the more, the merrier. That is, of it really is contrary!
Anomaleigh
(Anomaleigh)
March 23, 2020, 10:16pm
114
In order to become the ubermensch, you must vanquish the ubermensch.
There can be only one.
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ooN9xdAgi5w[/youtube]
Omg. That dumbass just walked right into that sword.
Anomaleigh
(Anomaleigh)
March 23, 2020, 10:53pm
116
IKR
Here’s his likeness–
Dang, he ugly.
That’s what generations of noble incest will do to yuh.
Meno2
(Meno_)
March 23, 2020, 11:15pm
117
Nathaniel Rothschild. Looks like.
Anomaleigh
(Anomaleigh)
March 23, 2020, 11:51pm
118
You’re not just a pretty face.
Anomaleigh
(Anomaleigh)
March 24, 2020, 12:36am
119
perpetualburn:
The Superman is not a man as we know it. He’s not a great or “higher” man. He’s not a Napoleon or Caesar. He’s not some amalgamation of characteristics picked and chosen from great men in history. He’s not even one of Nietzsche’s “creating ones.” He doesn’t necessarily go through the phases in Zarathustra (camel/lion/child).
Everything in TSZ is about creating ones literally sacrificing themselves (like Nietzsche nobly did) for the future of the Superman. There’s something about this sacrificing of noble men that will bring about the Superman. Nietzsche(as far as I know) never says HOW the Superman will come into being.
If N only defined the Ubermensch negatively, by what he’s not, then he’s nothing, just like N’s philosophy.
Many theologians only defined God by what it’s not, not by what it is.