First of all, I will start off by saying two things:
I just finished studying Heidegger and Nietzsche for the last 3 years (not that my studies were even approaching exhaustive)
There is intelligent way to have this discussion and a totally predictable/unintelligent way to have this discussion.
i’m aiming for the former.
An aspect of both Nietzsche and Heidegger that I appreciate is intuitionism. Niether Nietzsche or Heidegger would probably use this word, but what i mean is this:
Both of their philosophies are arguments vs. theology. with Nietzsche this is obvious in the Geneology of Morality, Beyond Good and Evil, the Antichrist, etc.
For Heidegger this point is a little less obvious. In Being and Time he uses theological language and refers to St. Augustine pretty often. Examples include: Guilty, the call of conscience, and the importance of the number three. for some reason many structures are described in terms of three (unity of care structure: mood, state-of-mind, understanding). But, Heidegger is an existentialist and he writes without talking about God. When he does speak of God, he speaks about the “they” concept of God and this concept is inauthentic. the “they” concept of God is often read as mainstream religions.
BACK TO MY POINT: with the ubermensch and with Heidegger’s authentic way of falling, being-towards-death, and dismissal of the “they”, it seems that both philosophers advocate a sort of…well, intuitionism. that is: we know what is best for ourselves. we should not just simply adopt what other people tell us to think, do, and be. we must…follow our intuitions in order to live out/discover our own destiny. etc.
i like this.
but, this intuitionism also…undoubtedly in some way…whether intentional on these philosophers’ parts are not…fostered Nazi Germany.
Its as if with the “death of god” and the falling apart of the church’s political reign on european peoples that people didn’t know how to fill an ethical gap. This ethical gap being: what do we believe in if not the church? who is to say what is right and what is wrong? Enter Nationalism. Or, shall I say, National Socialism. enter Heidegger’s refusal to deal with ethics (but, hell…what is inauthenticity and authenticity REALLY then–although Heidegger says one isn’t moral and the other immoral, etc).
That is, does intuitionism leaves us too relative? too nihilistic?
Of all ethical systems I actually appreciate Aristotle’s the most. But, he makes room for intuition with his diamon (sp?) I believe. So, intuition might be a double edge sword.
I guess i just hope anyone will contribute thoughts
thanks
For me intuition is a throwback. It’s just that you have to cross into the eastern writings to really see its presence.
The will to power is almost a direct copy of a certain Buddhist derivative. Neitzsche stole a lot of stuff.
I think your comments about intuition are on point but intuition is only dangerious in the nihilistic aspect if that said intuition is floating around somewhere between the external and the introspective mind. In other words a lack of a God is only a bad thing if people are stupid, short sighted and self ignorant to the point of operating without any real conception of a morality. If you’re not being told what to do by God or yourself… you’re being told what to do by someone else. Somewhat like what Nietzsche talks about with the WTP.
Personally I look at christianity as more of a 'if you follow these rules your society might not be the most free… but it won’t be shitty type thing. With the move away from the christian God we’re finding the new rules reside somewhere deep inside of us. If one does not have the intuitive/introspective abilities a lot of us ‘smart people’ seem to take for granted however, they may not find this new morality and we see dumb shit like Nazi Germany.
Nothing is worse than an idea in the wrong hands, look at the Nihilism we see in rap culture for instance.
If wer’e assuming intuitionalism as a doctrine of Nietzsche, only in different langauge, then do you propose that the Ubermensh, the “no longer human”, is a call for a new kind of intuition? Or do you interpret an adoption of intuition as an act of overcoming?
If the former, then which is better for dissolving German Romanticism, Existential Authenticity oder Nietzschean overcoming? And if the former can we call it nihilistic when we don’t know what it will entail?
I want to respond to this, but I think I’ll need you to explain it a little more.
Without straying too far from your existentialist, it’s certainly agreeable for me to say that ethically speaking our intuitions are about as unreliable as they could get.
I’m not a big fan of either N or H and until I see where you stand I wouldn’t want to go too deep as you probably would show me up.
do you think hitlers plan to create a super race/ pure race stemmed from nietzche’s apparent distaste toward individual countries losing their individuality?
no. historically it seems that nietzsche was not a nazi, his sister was. nietzsche never put together “Will to Power”, his sister did. i think hitler had a plan and then tried to rally pertinent people around him in order to be influential, not the other way around.
Nihilistic:
i think a little bit of both. the intuition isn’t really new…its always been there. its that we aren’t awakened to it. so…the latter is true too, but not in the true sense of adopt. we don’t have to adopt what we already have, we just have to look at it.
i’m sorry though, i don’t understand this second question:
do you mean: what interpretation of their texts would of gone some place better than nazi germany? i don’t know. i think thats at the heart of my posting question. which leads to your next question:
no…from there it would follow that all things we don’t know about would be nihilistic…like the future. but i see your point and i like it. it is meaningless in a way because its not here yet…so how can it have meaning? (very Heideggerian). But, i think the word nihilism signifies a different kind of meaningless…that i wouldn’t want to apply non chalantly. its bad BAD! which means you’re bad…just kidding. maybe
Old Gobbo:
I agree with you in some ways. my favorite text by nietzsche is the birth of tragedy (which nietzsche hates later in his life, oh well). on page 16-17 of the cambridge edition (here comes dorkdom) he talks about the principle of sufficient reason and the principium individuationis in terms of the veil of maya. its a footnote really, but it changed by whole world. its and idea that Nietzsche lifted from Schopenhauer and we all know that Schopenhauer was deeply affected by Hinduism and Buddhism. He didn’t realize so much (Schopenhauer) the difference between the two…making Schopenhauer a little frustrating for me.
i think you are listening to the wrong rappers. blackalicious is amazingly positive and i like El-P a lot (very political in a alternative way). so, i know what you mean but it doesn’t extend to all of rap (mos def).
OBW: show you up? nah…N and H are so inspiring to me in a lot of ways, but they also put you in an ethical bind for the reasons i explained in my original post. i like them but i don’t. i’ve learned from them and keep learning from them, but i wouldn’t want to be their friend i guess. and hey, i’m jewish…so it could be mutual (bad joke? maybe)
about the aristotle part…its been a while since i’ve read nichomachean ethics, i will read it again very soon. i do seem to remember aristotle talking about how at some point we all have to follow our intuition because ethics is not a science like physics. the exact same formula does not always apply.
I believe both of them realized that Christian morality was a later step in the process of, to use Heidegger’s term, a historical Dasein, and so it was not to be approached with the absolute reverance that Christian dogmatists had used to describe and expirience it. For them it was nothing more than a natural human phenomenom that had been swathed in the divine light of man’s metaphorical zeal towards an indisputable truth, and so hence was dubious and untrustworthy. Becuase of this it was necessary to referance the pre-christian, greek era and compare the phenomena of yearning, the unconcealment of truth, between the two seperate era’s and side with the more honest of the two expiriences, namely the Greek, which is probably why the ‘they’ concept is considered inauthentic. It’s based off of a ‘mass’ expirience instead of an individualistic one.
Yes, it is up to the singular being to determine for themselves the correct essence of what is right and wrong. Christian Morality is a shackleing of the spirit. “If thy eye offends thee, pluck it out,” ect. As for intuition (as a side note I wonder what the etymology of the word tuition is and how it effects the term intuition. My guess is that it must mean an ‘entering’ or something like that.) So, as for intuition, I think it has a great deal to do with Neitzche’s abhorrence of systemization. If one uses ones intuition to erect another system of moral or ethical behavior/guidance one has failed to stay true to the higher goals/ideals of the self. Maybe I am incorrect in this. The other difficulty I perceive with intuition, is in the sense of what is an excessive reign of power. Megalomania, Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot. Which is what you bring up next. I think the way I have always dealt with this problem is with the belief that there are consequences, both controlled by the duirnal, and the mystical which will detract in some undetermined way from ones existence. I know, my way of answering this problem leaves a great deal to be desired.
To jump forward a little I think once you apply this idea of intuitionism to anything other than an individual guidance you begin to see a system being created at the behest of an individual, who desires to enforce his own will upon a people. i.e. National Socialism. Was it the vacuum left by the defeat of European Aristocracy, and the slow erosion of the church’s power which led to the heights of Hitlers and Stalins dictatorships? Probably, but I doubt, at least in the way I understand it, that it was this intuitionism which led to the reality. I’m open to debate.
The fact that you dropped their name made me stare at the page wide-eyed for a couple seconds.
I think I might actually love you now; blackalicious is friggin GOOD not just in message but talent. The Gift beat eminem at the rap olympics in… 2003 or 4 if I remember correctly.
So… point taken, but you understand what I mean… the gift and Xcel comprise about 3%
of record sales, I was referring more towards the ‘whatever… thug life’ mentality that seems to prevade and give inner city kids a reason or rather a lack of a reason to try and do anything productive in the world. It’s Nihilism with a turd of hardcore materialism staining up their uninformed pants.
There seems to be a tendency, in this thread, to connect the individualism and atheism of Nietzsche and Heidegger, under the guise of intuitionism, to Nazi Germany; that somehow the Christian religions had lost their influence, and Hitler came to power. However, I think the Christian religions of that time were probably more culpable for what happened to the Jews than intuitionism, the truth criteria used by Kant. Nietzsche was definitely opposed to National Socialism, although his sister, who was very religious, was also very anti-Semitic. Nietzsche rebelled against this. Yes, the Nazis used some of his Ubermensch phrasings to support their cause, but Nietzsche would not have supported it.
Heidegger was a Nazi. He spoke of authenticity but wore a swastika to keep his job as college chancellor during WWII. I don’t respect him for this, but he didn’t bring about the Nazi movement. He didn’t make Hitler. He did contribute to Sartre’s thoughts, and Sartre was in the resistance during the war.
I can trace some of Hegel in Mein Kampf, as well as in the dialectic of Marxism, but this gets off the subject.
Its an old chestnut. There are some pieces of Nietzsche you can quote out of context esp from Beyond Good and Evil and Heidegger was, for sure a nazi for a while. I don’t claim to be an expert on either. But I think one possible Nietzschian line on Hitler and co would be that they were the ultimate result of “the slave revolt in morals” - This dictatorship seemed to be one of the weak with a severely turned in will to power.
Nietzsche always portrays the “over man” as alive to things, flowing with energy, super ethical. They might be wilful and cruel also but they seem very different to a dour totalitarian dictatorship implementing mass genoicide. Anyway its one possible line. probably also worth mentioning that N was a strong anti-anti semite and that his strongest wrath was always directed at the Germans themslevs.
On the other hand here is no doubt that the replacement of “reason” by pure will was a prop for the nazis.
As for rap I reckon MF Doom and Kool Keith are the boyz for pure “nietzschian” hip hop but that takes us way off topic -
“Intuitionism” would be Nietzschean, if it promotes the break with dogmatic morality, against which, religion as an example, hence enabling the return to scientific thinking, against which, metaphysics as an example, then ultimately, the utilisation of this thinking in controlling and sublimating the impulses, as parablized by the Dionysus in The Birth Of Tragedy eventually swallowing Apollon, which gives the final Nietzschean position as dialectical monist.
It’s necessary to live by the impulses should one desire true satisfaction, although unlike the uncooth manner of Caesar Borgias, as along as we are human. Both religion and nihilism advocate the breach with a certain fundamental humanity. They are “other-worldly” and “decadent”, hence forego ultimate happainess with the “self-deceptive” conscious, the ultimate ahappiness that is only attanable by the undecadent commitment to the will to power.
The herd lives by their humanity, but they’re “too human”. Christ in their hands has been turned out as even more of a decadent than the original. Nietzsche saw a certain strength and evolution displayed by Christ, as opposed to the herd. He chose to fight with the best, “has one understood me - Dionysus versus the Crucified”, also he said “alas, the wisest hitherto is to me, still human, all too human”. As Kaufmann pointed out, that to understand much of Nietzschean philosophy is to understand his attack on Christianity. Nihilism is a a mere case of barren decadent, against which Nietzsche didn’t spend nearly as much time.
The Ubermensch represents the embodiment of Nietzsche’s ideal humanity, which is supposed to fulfill the “ethical gap”. What Nietzsche really stressed however, is life as perpetual perishing, overcoming and elevating, by means of suffering, reflecting and creating. There’s no goal as there’s no end, “this I have baptised as the faith of Dionysus - one doesn’t want backward, nor forward”, “all happiness want deep, deep eternity”. The means is the end, life counts in the moment, beings do not exist for the sake of evolution but simply as evolution.
Ubermensch implies a new round in the evolution of humanity, which has not yet come, for Nihilism still persists in modern society since Nietzsche’s time and the latter “Jazz Age”. What’s more, that the herdish humanity of the majority is still as weak, as pathetic and as drunk as ever, despite the diminishment of Christianity. Those already Un-Charistian Christians who still hang around the church, together with those confused Nihilists who still seek comfort in liqour, are simply uncertain of where to go or what to do next. Nietzsche told us to long for the Ubermensch, and we know this, but we find it practically remaining an ideaology paralleling that of Christianity. Many thus are even led to believe that Nietzsche was a mere reaction against Christ and Schopenhaur, and that he “stole too much” hence has little new to preach. What this typical interpretation misses, however, is the essence of Nietzschean philosophy that lies there to support his proposed ideaologies.
Nietzsche sounds like an existential poet to many, which is not entirely irrelavent from the noveltic way that he wrote and the fantastic polemics that he waged, but it still greatly reduces the value and substance of Nietzschean philosophy. Historically, even this isn’t true, since it has been evident that many have utterly twisted Nietzschean philosophy, as himself predicted. Nietzsche to me sounds most likely an one-in-a-billion type of genius and I’m compelled by history to regard his critical message as containing some of the most encompassing, profound and practical ideas. One really should read none other in the Nietzschean literature than Kaufmann, at least.
Nicomachean Ethics had been developed by Nietzsche, for example, he unintentionally repudiated the racism expressed by Aristotle, while intentionally advanced the master-slave morality. After reading Beyond Good And Evil, Nicomachean Ethics simply reads hollow.
I would add the adjectives “powerful” and “insightful” before “an idea in the wrong hands”, because a lesser idea can’t even go far in the right hands.
The controlling of the impulses, and creativity, are what’s missing in overcoming by merely adopting “intuition”, a term which still needs much definition.
Maybe you are refering to Heidegger alone, even then, Hitler was incapable of comprehending much Heideggerian philosophy, as proven by his magnus opus.
Are you showing yourself off, or even, showing yourself up?
Hitler read The Will To Power, but we all know what his bloody interpretation of that term has bloodily proven to be. The point is that Hitler understood no philosophy. His racial plan was a political invention. Nietzsche promoted a mixed European race with an abunadnce of Jewish element and even “perhaps a drop of Chinese blood”. The air of Europe in Nietzsche’s time, is feverently Nationalistic, far from “losing their individuality”.
Nietzsche was not a Nazi, either biographically or philosophically. Ironically, The Will To Power, puablished by his Nazi sister, contains some of the most straightforward attack on racism.
Schopenhauer was attacked by Nietzsche, immediately after The Birth Of Tragedy, in Shopenhauer As Educater of The Untimely Meditations. By the time of The Twilight Of The Idols, Shopenhauer was repudiated beyond hope, along Hinduism and Buddhism. It’s therefore obvious that one should spend more time reading the preface of The Birth Of Tragedy that is An Attempt Towards A Self-Criticism, than the book itself. If you think that Schopenhauer’s Will somehow founded the Nietzschean Will, then for the sake of understanding the core of Nietzschean philosophy, please read Kaufmann.
concordant, like lenore and Kriswest, you’ve offered some of the most intuitively intellegent comment on Nietzsche that I’ve ever seen here. By the way, I hope she is alright.
If anyone is interested the link below is titled “Heidegger and the Nazi’s,” and contains quite a few articles written by a variety of people on that subject.
again, i think a lot of good points were brought up and i will respond to each person in turn.
uniqor:
that generally is my train of thought. We are sheep unless we think for ourselves and the individuality inherent in thinking for ourselves is unimaginable, to me, without intuition. but this begs the question:
What is intuition after all?–which is to concordant’s point too
we don’t even have to infer intuitionism for Nietzsche. i thought intuition was also a direct theme in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Of course with Heidegger this is a little trickier because of his notion of a collective destiny of a people…and historicity.
i can’t agree with this. if anything, i think that the master-slave morality aspect of aristotle is what is weak in its original context. its everything else that aristotle writes about (moderation, knowledge, virtue, and the good) that makes his work desireable to me. its been about 5 years and i have not revisited the slave morality part (which is stupid because i studied nietzsche, but anyways) and so i’ll look at it again. all this makes my point and disagreement only half valid i guess.
um: if hinduism and buddhism have been repudiated beyond hope, then are you saying that anyone who finds either religion (as philosophy…a whole other debate) enlightening is…WHAT?
krossie:
yep.
Nick0tani:
hard to say what was the catalyst. i was thinking wwI. i guess here we are entering into the difference between religion and religion as power acting as a state of some sort. religion as nationalism. it seems to me that nazi germany was anti-christian, but i’m not that strong in my ww2 history.
concordant:
i think that this is really helpful…and correct. thank you
i agree with this. of course, this is a catch 22 of sorts. we prescribe something normatively and it comes back to bite us for the reason that its prescribed. so now you are at the heart of what i’m really asking about.
Intuition of a one world order by one ultimate race, relgion, and culture. One dictator. Hitler and Nietzche are just the bones to pile onto the tower.
Children suddenly taking interest in individuality and identity within the last century, namely the flower children of the 60’s crying out for peace after WorldWar2. The media and technology coming together and forming a data base from which every person is informed of eachother. Discovery of space and satellites roaming the earth’s atmosphere. Leaders coming together and forming alliances. Businesses rising forth and taking the public by storm. It’s great having the internet, my car and planes, the local Wal-mart and people flooding the streets of my city. It’s funny how that 3rd world country tried to shake us around a bit by tearing down our towers of bones. But no worries, we can help them and their brainwashed people. They’ll join us eventually. They all will. We can be one. They won’t need Allah once we find our dictator. He’ll show us the way. Nuts? Mad? Mentally unstable? Or, a philosphical prophet? Bow to me! I love you! Let me kiss your babies!
this is scary for a couple of reasons. you write from the perspective of a detached observer listing some historical events you’ve noticed. at first, this perspective as voice doesn’t seem to take a political position. then, all of a sudden WHAMO! you are my worst nightmare.
Good to see the old debate flowing agin. To my mind Nietzsche is an incredibly complex philosopher open to many, many, many readings.
For example we have Kaufman (psychological/existentialist I suppose) Foucault (an anaylsis of power and history) Deulese (an alternative empiricism and metaphysics based on a pluralist competion between differntial forces containing differentialwills), Heidegger (- some how the philospher of becoming becomes one of being) etc etc etc.
The sort of crude reading here: (talk about “no finger for nuance”)
is pretty nonsensical for me.
Everyone wants to enforce their will and trys. But what is their will?
I am convinced that Nietzsche would have seen the Nazis as a further continuation of the slave revolt in morals of the Buddhist, Greek (well Greek after Plato) and Judeo Christian traditions. Its the old will to power turned in wards on itself in the aesthetic/preistly/slave mode again - nothing new there.
Surely it is the dictatorship of slaves over slaves.
No supermen are visible for me here!
Nietzshe’s concept of “overman” is one who overflows with will, creativity and yes, often, wantonness and cruelty.
But Hitlers crass need for adulation is surely ressentiment writ large! The superman is self contained its resentiment that needs/craves crude material power and praise
I don’t see a mass racist totalitarian state in Nietzsche (now Plato’s republic on the other hand…Has anyone seriously looked at that for a society!!)
…But, of course, thats my “lefty” read
As regards intuition I dug out a nice quote using that actual word for ya from Philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks - ah can’t find it
I’ll look it up if I ever get home!
As for the Nazi’s what about Nietzshe’s “anti - Germanic” stuff which becomes well hard by The Birth of Tragedy???
"One need only read German books: there is no longer the remotest recollection that thinking requires a technique, a teaching curriculum, a will to mastery — that thinking wants to be learned like dancing, as a kind of dancing. Who among Germans still knows from experience the delicate shudder which light feet in spiritual matters send into every muscle? The stiff clumsiness of the spiritual gesture, the bungling hand at grasping — that is German to such a degree that abroad one mistakes it for the German character as such.
The German has no fingers for nuances.
“That the Germans have been able to stand their philosophers at all, especially that most deformed concept-cripple of all time, the great Kant, provides not a bad notion of German grace. For one cannot subtract dancing in every form from a noble education — to be able to dance with one’s feet, with concepts, with words: need I still add that one must be able to dance with the pen too — that one must learn to write? But at this point I should become completely enigmatic for German readers.”
(((And look here he is raisning a socialist demand for better schoolin’ who’d a tunk it))))
“What the “higher schools” in Germany really achieve is a brutal training, designed to prepare huge numbers of young men, with as little loss of time as possible, to become usable, abusable, in government service. “Higher education” and huge numbers — that is a contradiction to start with…”
"It is already known everywhere: in what matters most — and that always remains culture — the Germans are no longer worthy of consideration. "
“Culture and the state — one should not deceive one-self about this — are antagonists: “Kultur-Staat” is merely a modern idea.”
“How much disgruntled heaviness, lameness, dampness, dressing gown — how much beer there is in the German intelligence!”
"One pays heavily for coming to power: power makes stupid. The Germans — once they were called the people of thinkers: do they think at all today? The Germans are now bored with the spirit, the Germans now mistrust the spirit; politics swallows up all serious concern for really spiritual matters. deutschland, Deutschland uber alles — I fear that was the end of German philosophy."
Sorry for all the but you just see the other (suppossedly) anti semitic stuff so much and the easy lie that Nietzsche is, some how, a slippery slope to Hitler
Nah I’m just not seeing a mass nationalist rasist german dictatorship here. I’ll let some one else go for teh break with Wagner his anti-anti semeticism etc etc
Good to see the old debate flowing agin. To my mind Nietzsche is an incredibly complex philosopher open to many, many, many readings.
For example we have Kaufman (psychological/existentialist I suppose) Foucault (an anaylsis of power and history) Deulese (an alternative empiricism and metaphysics based on a pluralist competion between differntial forces containing differentialwills), Heidegger (- some how the philospher of becoming becomes one of being) etc etc etc.
The sort of crude reading here: (talk about “no finger for nuance”)
is pretty nonsensical for me.
Everyone wants to enforce their will and trys. But what is their will?
I am convinced that Nietzsche would have seen the Nazis as a further continuation of the slave revolt in morals of the Buddhist, Greek (well Greek after Plato) and Judeo Christian traditions. Its the old will to power turned in wards on itself in the aesthetic/preistly/slave mode again - nothing new there.
Surely it is the dictatorship of slaves over slaves.
No supermen are visible for me here!
Nietzshe’s concept of “overman” is one who overflows with will, creativity and yes, often, wantonness and cruelty.
But Hitlers crass need for adulation is surely ressentiment writ large! The superman is self contained its resentiment that needs/craves crude material power and praise
I don’t see a mass racist totalitarian state in Nietzsche (now Plato’s republic on the other hand…Has anyone seriously looked at that for a society!!)
…But, of course, thats my “lefty” read
As regards intuition I dug out a nice quote using that actual word for ya from Philosophy in the tragic age of the Greeks - ah can’t find it
I’ll look it up if I ever get home!
As for the Nazi’s what about Nietzshe’s “anti - Germanic” stuff which becomes well hard by The Birth of Tragedy???
"One need only read German books: there is no longer the remotest recollection that thinking requires a technique, a teaching curriculum, a will to mastery — that thinking wants to be learned like dancing, as a kind of dancing. Who among Germans still knows from experience the delicate shudder which light feet in spiritual matters send into every muscle? The stiff clumsiness of the spiritual gesture, the bungling hand at grasping — that is German to such a degree that abroad one mistakes it for the German character as such.
The German has no fingers for nuances.
“That the Germans have been able to stand their philosophers at all, especially that most deformed concept-cripple of all time, the great Kant, provides not a bad notion of German grace. For one cannot subtract dancing in every form from a noble education — to be able to dance with one’s feet, with concepts, with words: need I still add that one must be able to dance with the pen too — that one must learn to write? But at this point I should become completely enigmatic for German readers.”
(((And look here he is raisning a socialist demand for better schoolin’ who’d a tunk it))))
“What the “higher schools” in Germany really achieve is a brutal training, designed to prepare huge numbers of young men, with as little loss of time as possible, to become usable, abusable, in government service. “Higher education” and huge numbers — that is a contradiction to start with…”
"It is already known everywhere: in what matters most — and that always remains culture — the Germans are no longer worthy of consideration. "
“Culture and the state — one should not deceive one-self about this — are antagonists: “Kultur-Staat” is merely a modern idea.”
“How much disgruntled heaviness, lameness, dampness, dressing gown — how much beer there is in the German intelligence!”
"One pays heavily for coming to power: power makes stupid. The Germans — once they were called the people of thinkers: do they think at all today? The Germans are now bored with the spirit, the Germans now mistrust the spirit; politics swallows up all serious concern for really spiritual matters. deutschland, Deutschland uber alles — I fear that was the end of German philosophy."
Sorry for all the but you just see the other (suppossedly) anti semitic stuff so much and the easy lie that Nietzsche is, some how, a slippery slope to Hitler
Nah I’m just not seeing a mass nationalist rasist german dictatorship here. I’ll let some one else go for teh break with Wagner his anti-anti semeticism etc etc
