Hobbes and ILP's Nietzsche

It seems that you are the Hobbesian here. I, as a Nietzschean, adhere to the following:

“Be the sociable instinct in individual man as strong as it may, it is only the iron clamp of the State that constrains the large masses upon one another in such a fashion that a chemical decomposition of Society, with its pyramid-like superstructure, is bound to take place. Whence however originates this sudden power of the State, whose aim lies much beyond the insight and beyond the egoism of the individual? How did the slave, the blind mole of Culture, originate? The Greeks in their instinct relating to the law of nations have betrayed it to us, in an instinct, which even in the ripest fulness of their civilisation and humanity never ceased to utter as out of a brazen mouth such words as: “to the victor belongs the vanquished, with wife and child, life and property. Power gives the first right, and there is no right, which at bottom is not presumption, usurpation, violence.”
Here again we see with what pitiless inflexibility Nature, in order to arrive at Society, forges for herself the cruel tool of the State - namely, that conqueror with the iron hand, who is nothing else than the objectivation of the instinct indicated. By the indefinable greatness and power of such conquerors the spectator feels, that they are only the means of an intention manifesting itself through them and yet hiding itself from them. The weaker forces attach themselves to them with such mysterious speed, and transform themselves so wonderfully, in the sudden swelling of that violent avalanche, under the charm of that creative kernel, into an affinity hitherto not existing, that it seems as if a magic will were emanating from them.”
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]

Those who have imagination may see here yet another illustration of my idea of might. It is the charisma of the conqueror, of a Hitler, for instance, that cleaves the masses to him and forms the Fascist state: one people, one kingdom, one leader!

That Nietzsche did not abandon these ideas may be witnessed by the Genealogy, second treatise, section 17 (1887):

“That is after all how the “state” began on earth: I think that sentimentalism which would have it begin with a “contract” has been disposed of. He who can command, he who is by nature “master,” he who is violent in act and bearing—what has he to do with contracts! One does not reckon with such natures; they come like fate, without reason, consideration, or pretext; they appear as lightning appears, too terrible, too sudden, too convincing, too “different” even to be hated.”

This image of the “lightning” is important: it ties this section directly with Zarathustra’s first annunciation of the Overman:

“Where is the lightning to lick you with its tongue? Where is the frenzy with which ye should be inoculated?
Lo, I teach you the Superman: he is that lightning, he is that frenzy!”
[Zarathustra’s Prologue, 3.]

The genius of Hitler was due to his being “licked” by the lightning of Wotan, the Genius/Self/Archetype of the Blond Beast. Wotan is a shamanic god. As for the genius:

“He who contemplates war and its uniformed possibility, the soldiers profession, with respect to the hitherto described nature of the State, must arrive at the conviction, that through war and in the profession of arms is placed before our eyes an image, or even perhaps the prototype of the State. Here we see as the most general effect of the war-tendency, an immediate decomposition and division of the chaotic mass into military castes, out of which rises, pyramid shaped, on an exceedingly broad base of slaves, the edifice of the " martial society.” The unconscious purpose of the whole movement constrains every individual under its yoke, and produces also in heterogeneous natures as it were a chemical transformation of their qualities until they are brought into affinity with that purpose. In the highest castes one perceives already a little more of what in this internal process is involved at the bottom, namely the creation of the military genius - with whom we have become acquainted as the original founder of states. In the case of many States, as, for example, in the Lycurgian constitution of Sparta, one can distinctly perceive the impress of that fundamental idea of the State, that of the creation of the military genius. If we now imagine the military primal State in its greatest activity, at its proper " labour," and if we fix our glance upon the whole technique of war, we cannot avoid correcting our notions picked up from everywhere, as to the “dignity of man” and the “dignity of labour” by the question, whether the idea of dignity is applicable also to that labour, which has as its purpose the destruction of the “dignified” man, as well as to the man who is entrusted with that “dignified labour,” or whether in this warlike task of the State those mutually contradictory ideas do not neutralise one another. I should like to think the warlike man to be a means of the military genius and his labour again only a tool in the hands of that same genius; and not to him, as absolute man and non-genius, but to him as a means of the genius - whose pleasure also can be to choose his tool’s destruction as a mere pawn sacrificed on the strategist’s chessboard - is due a degree of dignity, of that dignity namely, to have been deemed worthy of being a means of the genius. But what is shown here in a single instance is valid in the most general sense; every human being, with his total activity, only has dignity in so far as he is a tool of the genius, consciously or unconsciously; from this we may immediately deduce the ethical conclusion, that “man in himself,” the absolute man possesses neither dignity, nor rights, nor duties; only as a wholly determined being serving unconscious purposes can man excuse his existence."
[The Greek State.]

Hail Nietzsche!

One may argue that the lions that arrive “as lightning” in that picture are all female. This is no argument against my theory, however:

“It is true that Wotan shares this possession quality [the quality of possessing or “seizing” men] with his cousin Dionysus, but Dionysus seems to have exercised his influence mainly on women. The maenads were a species of female storm-trooper, and according to mythical reports were dangerous enough.”
[Jung, Wotan.]

As the maenads in Euripides’ Bacchae are inspired by the man Dionysus, so the lionesses are inspired by the alpha male, who is the representative of the Genius der Gattung (“genius of the species”, a Nietzschean term) - even as the Pharaoh in Egypt and the Emperor in Rome were held to be incarnations of the Sun (which is a symbol of the Self). The word “king” is co-gnate with “gene” and “kind” - as is the word “[g]nation”.

How you arrived at that conclusion is beyond my ability to comprehend. In the 1970’s I dated a doctoral student who was obsessed with Faulkner. For me her obsession amounted to polishing the bones of the dead while the times demanded live, hopeful contributions from so-called intellectuals. I can understand how uncertainties in her life forced her to find some solid rock of personal value, some meaningful stasis in a world gone mad.
But the hiding in self-protective ideas, despite Nietzsche or Ayn Rand, offers little or nothing to an overall amelioration of the human condition. “Candide” ends with the observation that, in worlds not the best of all possible, one must cultivate his own garden. I don’t know where my garden ends and someone else’s begins. Neither their power nor mine provides the answer. Me good? No way! I’m just another organism trying to survive all static toxins. And as for your intrepretations of Nietzche, do you not recognize scholarly objections? I’ve found several, just based on Nietzsche’s life–friends, enemies, family.
Please spell my name correctly.

Considering preservation of the weak or infirm dysgenic, regardless of whether one comes to this idea through interpretations of Hobbes or Nietzsche, is riddled with controversy. First, who among us sets the standards for what is real without imposing on them what one thinks is ideal; then, proclaiming the ideal to be a universal truth? Second, memes from ideas from those considered expendable may do more to benefit mankind than could any wholesale extermination of persons not unilaterally considered pollutants in the gene pool. Third, no one can come to these consclusions without personal bias based on moot concepts about superiority or inferiority and advertising some personal inadequacy that is screaming for retribution.


This is just silly, the thread is about Hobbes and Nietzsche, and you misunderstood Hobbes argument, so I clarified it, then you call me Hobbesian… How exactly does that make me “Hobbesian”, it doesn’t even make sense. It’s just bizarre, but it does say something negative about the way you view philosophy, and perhaps, just perhaps, this odd way of internalizing philosophy explains why you adhere to Nietzsche in a doctrinal way.

The rest of your post is the same trash that I refused to reply to earlier, why you think I’m going to reply now, is not something I can pretend understand. However, like I said earlier, when you’re ready to use reasoned argument that holds relevance to the discussion I’ll probably engage you, but until then I will continue to ignore your random out of context loosely relevant quotes that have little to no commentary.

I don’t see any kind of destruction of ILP Nietzscheans here.

It’s a bit delusional to think that this has taken place…

Ah, look how good he is! How humble!

Yes, I know how irritating it is to have your name misspelled (for instance, without the capital it deserves). I didn’t misspell yours on purpose, by the way.

Why revert to infantilism? Your misspelling of my name was not from the capitalization of an I, it was from missing an r. If you’ve read any of my posts, you’ll find that humility is not my best foot forward. Can you not accept criticism and rebut it with ideas? Try the last three I proposed.

Hobbes observes. Nietzsche prescribes.

I was referring to Nihilistic’s habit of decapitalising his opponent’s names.

So Nietzsche has habits. Lighten up, dude. Some folks mind their Ps and Qs. I have to watch my Rs. :smiley: Using N. as a personal weapon against ideas up for consideration is infantile.
Personally, I like much that Hobbes had to say, except when he tries to regurgitate the worst that was Machiavelli. Likewise, I revere Nietche, just not some folks’ ideas about what his ideas are.

How about the idea that Nietzsche’s philosophy is at bottom only concerned with the Overman?

Relate this to Hobbes and I’ll get back with you. That was the OP, BTW.

While I admit that Nietzsche’s writings display an obsession with the concept of an “overman”, I cannot twist N.'s interpretations of the concept into any notions of Arian supremacy or eugenic necessity. N. detested his brother-in-law’s anti-Semitism. Kaufmann, the 20th century’s most acclaimed Nietzschean scholar, saw nothing in N.'s writings that could lend credence to Nazi or KKK historical revisionisms.

It should be remembered that “The Will To Power” is a posthumous work, neatly cardstacked by N’s sister. It should also be remembered that N.'s physical frailty doubtlessly made some contributions to his “overman” obsession.

I can find no Hobbesean/Nietzschean consensus on this matter.

first off, I had to chuckle at the idea of their even being an “ILP” Nietzsche as we constantly argue over him. :laughing:

I think you meant “Sau’s Nietzschean justification of Herbet Spenser’s ‘social Darwinism’”

Ergo, your premise is faulty, and your point is moot.

A refreshing moment of a shared consensus has been achieved. I concur.

The OP is better understood/corrected if it had stated “that N is about the fact that superior people dominating lesser people is not immoral, but natural to their superior natures. ILP’s Nietzsche destroys the mob mentality, and lives in an ethical self-defined reality of the moment as it is.”


If you don’t recognize a current of interpretation running throughout ILP in regards to Nietzsche, then I suppose this would be moot. Although, I had more than sauw. in mind when I wrote this…and I don’t believe I’ve seen one thread argue Nietzsche in a satisfactory way, or atleast in a way that other philosophers and ideas are argued on this forum. There is a certain interpretation that 5 or 6 people have held over the 3? years I’ve been here, and they dominate all discussions of Nietzsche with random quoting and usually abusive language. I firmly believe that this behavior has made discussing Nietzsche on this forum all but impossible, as they scare off others with lengthy out of context quotes, massive amounts of zeal, and interpretations that IMO are best ignored. Hence, why give your two cents about Nietzsche if 2-3 people are going to fire bomb anything you say with abusive quotes and bizarre Heideggerian understandings.

That is not to say that my somewhat post-modern interpretation with a heavy emphasis on perspectivism and ontology is right…I believe tat many are with me on this, in finding the “Elizabeth Forrester-Nietzsche”/social darwinism/abusive aristocracy interpretation boring, uninteresting, a waste of time, and makes Nietzsche not worth discussing or, perhaps, studying.