Hobbes and ILP's Nietzsche

From reading countless posts on Nietzsche through out my years of membership at this site, I have noticed a distinct conception of Nietzsche form, and be maintained by various people. Why this understanding has endured, I am not quite certain, but I think it has interesting parrellels with Hobbes conception of man in nature.

For one thing, ILP’s Nietzsche is centered around how to live a strong life, or perhaps more appropriately, how to dominate others. This has certain ramifications in regard to the development of politics at ILP, most importantly, it befouls government in general as some sort of hierarchy of power where the weak contract with the weak to form some illegitimate power structure, and opts, instead, for a state of nature. Besides the obvious contradictions of a purely mechanistic understanding of power that is assumed in the ILP Nietzsche, there is an underlying assumption here. That all things equal, i.e. man in a state of nature, the stronger will dominate, and shockingly enough that the stronger are morally obligated to dominate and it is some sort of grand sin for the weak to rule and the strong not to. Here’s where Hobbes comes in, his philosophy is centered around man in a state of nature having no order, and he makes a convincing argument that “every human being is capable of killing any other”. Meaning, no matter how strong, or how deadly your cunning, you s till have to sleep and you still have to eat. You are just as weak as any other person in a state of nature. Essentially, time equalizes every humans power down to 0, all we have is complete impotence. If we are to accept, generally, what seems to be a very plausible argument from Hobbes, where is the ILP Nietzsche left?

What’s left is a vast misunderstanding where government is befouled as the downfall of the strong, and a state of lawlessness is advocated. However, the state of nature is far more equalizing than even governments whose main concern is equality. Thus ILP’s Nietzsche destroys itself, and ultimately ends in self-defined immorality.

hmm… this in particular caught my attention:

Given enough time, surely. But a sick, weak person about to be destroyed by a powerful enemy will not likely be convinced.

Still, a good post. I’ll be interested to hear what Nietzsche’s advocates have to say about what you say they say about him. Repeat that three times real fast.

Perhaps just as easily, the sick-weak person, understanding his position, could preemptively destroy the “powerful enemy” while he sleeps/eats/copulates. Meaning, in a SoN, as per many significant demands of biology, we are all equal in regards to power…helpless and impotent.

I guess life can be organised: “equal” but short and “brutish”, or
disorganised: unequal, longer and more civil
I know what I´d rather choose.

“Having set his sights so terribly high, Zarathustra finds himself in agreement with Hobbes (Leviathan, ch. 13) that the equality of human beings based on weakness is a more essential moral fact than the existence of various forms of inequality or excellence. But in contrast to Hobbes, for Zarathustra, a teacher dedicated to establishing a new order of rank and articulating the supreme form of excellence, the recognition of mankind’s equality grounded in weakness must be poisonous. Indeed, it was Zarathustra himself who proclaimed that he did “not wish to be mixed up and confused with these preachers of equality. For, to me justice speaks thus: ‘Men are not equal.’ Nor shall they become equal! What wpuld my love of the superman be if I spoke otherwise?” (Z II “On the Tarantulas”). Indeed, Zarathustra should not be mistaken for the preachers of equality. In spite of his wishes and the teachings of justice, Zarathustra, by virtue of his teaching about will, eternity, and the spirit of revenge, must rather be seen as the high priest among them. For it is Zarathustra’s doctrine that annihilates the distinction between the greatest and the smallest and thus establishes an equality between the superman and the last man.”
[Peter Berkowitz, “Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist”, page 204.]

Wow, how uncharacteristic, you provide a fiat by authority by using what, at best, can be considered a marginally relevant quote. Such behavior is worthless, sub-standard, and will not be rewarded by allowing the poster of such posts to join in the discussion. Don’t get me wrong though, join the discussion, but don’t be worthless about it.

I don’t presume to know Nietzsche on a personal level and so I am left with interpretating his writings for myself.

I doubt Nietzsche would like the conformity of his thought.

What, and this is not worthless? I was just reminded of this passage by your ideas. Anyway, the solution to the problem you posed is in the quote, in a way. For it refers to The Convalescent in Thus Spake Zarathustra, where it is said:

“Naked had I once seen both of them, the greatest man and the smallest man: all too like one another - all too human, even the greatest man!
All too small, even the greatest man! - that was my disgust at man!”

These are not the overman and the last man, as Berkowitz seems to think, but the “good and just” and the last man.

“Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman - a devil!
Ah, I became tired of those highest and best ones: from their “height” did I long to be up, out, and away to the Superman!”
[ibid., Of Manly Prudence.]

Nietzsche mentions the bellum omnium contra ommes in The Greek State:

“[W]ithout the State, in the natural bellum omnium contra omnes Society cannot strike root at all on a larger scale and beyond the reach of the family.”

What’s that? Does Nietzsche mention a form of human community within the war of all against all - the family? But you thought it would be brother against brother - Kain versus Abel -, even! And do you think this is the nuclear family Nietzsche was thinking of?

Look how the lion appears in the state of nature: do you see any state there? At best, we can use the word “state” between quotation marks, as Nietzsche does in the Genealogy:

“I employed the word “state”: it is obvious what is meant—some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race”…
[Genealogy II, 17.]

And this kind of “state” is what Nietzsche advocates:

“It is the value of such a crisis [as Nietzsche tried to instigate with his doctrine of the eternal recurrence] that it purifies, that it pushes together related elements to perish of each other, that it assigns common tasks to men who have opposite ways of thinking - and it also brings to light the weaker and less secure among them and thus promotes an order of rank according to strength, from the point of view of health: those who command are recognized as those who command, those who obey as those who obey. Of course, outside every existing social order.
[The Will to Power, section 55.]

I am disappointed that you have called me worthless…

Just a simple clarification of what in my opinion was a confused understanding of my OP, it proved the point it needed to, it was not worthless.

Now, the rest of your post is like the post I criticized, only this time we have out of context quotes from the primary source, along with a confused understanding of Hobbes man in state of nature i.e. there is still familial obligations, which results in unfounded sarcism. All culiminating in a grand bolding of yet another out of context quote with no commentary. Not to mention that your entire post is a straw man, and seeks to refute my criticism’s of ILP’s Nietzsche by arguing an alternative interpretation. Or atleast what I think is an alternative interpretation, it’s hard to tell though, as it is all so muddled and contrived, and is just an orgy of random out of context quotes.

Now, I know there’s a point to all that, it’s just impossible to decipher or understand in the way it was presented. Perhaps if you try again, and use reasoned arguments instead of out of context quotes without commentary. Then, perhaps, the role of inverted state vs. “proper state”, will be related to the state of nature, and your post will be intelligble.

I did not mean your remark, pardicat.

Oh, I’m sure it had a function. But I was referring to the content…

I only seek your refute your criticism in so far as it is a criticism of my Nietzsche.

That is, you can’t follow me. Whose loss?

Perhaps you should just read The Greek State. Good luck with your crusade against “ILP’s Nietzsche”.

Well, I guess I have two options when discussing with you. Out of context, irrelevant, loosely associated quotes with no commentary or not at all. Perhaps you can pass the former off as meaningful discussion with other posters, but I will choose "not at all’ every time. When/if you’re ready to try the crazy experiment of reasoned argument that is relevant to the discussion, I’ll be happy to engage, but until then I imagine any discussion I involve myself in with you, will end in the same way.

People are not equal in the state of nature. Some have more cunning, some more physical strength, and others more leadership abilities.

If a physically weak man who is intelligent decides to come upon the physically strong while sleeping, then this weak man had an advantage over the latter.

Well, unless you want to claim that the majority of human beings are incapable of understanding the tactical advantage gained from killing someone in his sleep, we still have an equalization of power whereby everyone is subject to the same powerlessness i.e. anyone can kill anyone.

According to Hobbes, life in the state of nature is “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short”. To refute this, I point to the lion, for example: does the lion lead a solitary life?

“Lions are predatory carnivores who manifest two types of social organization. Some are residents, living in groups, called prides. The pride consists of related females, their cubs of both sexes, and a group of one to four males known as a coalition who mate with the adult females. Others are nomads, ranging widely, either singularly or in pairs.”

So actually, yes, lions sometimes do lead solitary life. Question: is a lion who lives in a pair or in a pride not in the “state of nature”? As for the solitary lion, let us imagine it sleeping. Do you think another, smaller, weaker predator might sneak up on it and kill it with a quick blow? Don’t you think the lion’s sense of smell will betray the assassin? Or any awkward sound the latter inadvertently makes? Do you think he will sleep like a human at home, in his bed, with doors and windows locked? Convinced of his own safety? Do you think sleep means a complete lack of consciousness, as a turnt-off computer or car shows no activity? Is the lion a machine or a living and breathing creature?

=D> Never has Nietzsche been more maligned than in the self-ordained, “true” interpretations of his worshippers. Kaufmann resolves these issues without such idolatry. The OP is a good one!

Yeah yeah, Nietzsche was really one of the “good guys” - like you, eh Ierellus?

Human beings were never solitary. They evolved in groups.

Within this group came specialization and the division of labor.

Alpha males came to dominate, usually.

Now now, sauwelios and nothingness, Hobbes State of Nature does not rule out small groups. Although it is, perhaps, best understood in individualistic terms, as groups present a tougher dynamic to be discussed, competition, mistrust, greed and vanity have an equally calamitous effect.

What is important, here, is that there is no positive law and everyone acts according their individual judgements, in Hobbesian terms ofcourse…It’s the prison’s dilemma of game theory, only the stakes are life and death.