Nietzsche... a fascist or not???

Any opinions…i imagine and hope there are many!!!

Anyone who has done any trivial reading already knows the answer

Jesus… a Communist or not???

Fascism was invented by Benito Mussolini in 1919. Nietzsche died in 1900. Think about this.

Indeed, he was certainly a fascist.

Might makes right.

Nietzsche really just plagiarzed everything from Thrasymachus in the Republic. Their argument is that justice and morality are to be rejected in favor of brute strength. Nietzsche was a proto-fascist.

that’s funny. I thought Nietzsche was just saying that justice and morality have a history. I didn’t know Thrasymachus gave the etymology of the german words for good and bad.

how much Nietzsche have you read? You go on and on about the “Sophists” but you really don’t seem to have actually read them. Please stop getting your philosophy lessons from the National Review and actually read the texts

By the way, this entire thread is a trolling thread if ever I’ve seen one.

Wouldn’t that be right up your alley?? Or are you just pissed off because he wasn’t?

My advice to you would be to read the text before commenting.

He didn’t. Thrasymachus rejected justice and morality in favor of brute strength. Nietzsche plagiarized this argument.

I’ve read every word he ever wrote. Since you’ve never even read or understood a word of Beyond Good And Evil, I find your quetion to be highly amusing and somewhat puzzling.

:unamused:

What’s National Review? Your prejudiced remarks prove that you are not a philosopher.

Says the biggest troll on here…:unamused:

Look, Nietzsche is not a proto-fascist. The only way he is a proto-fascist is if you read the posthumous book Will to Power out of context and with the commentary of his sister. Then you can begin to create a picture of Nietzsche as a fascist. But it’s a false picture that arises only from a rhetorical corral

Besides what exactly is a fascist?

Futhermore, Derrida is Dead, I truly doubt you have read Rousseau or Marx or others of these “sophists”. You seem to only use philosophy to justify this fashionable Islam-hating that is so cool in conservative circles. Finally, I think it is hillarious that you hate these “sophists” so much that you have named yourself after one of them and you trot around with his picture as you avatar. That’s pretty sad - you let what you hate define you - and very much in line with the essays in Genealogy of Morals.

Nietzsche’s views on education were that it shouldn’t be controlled by the Government, but also that it shouldn’t be allowed to the common man either, so in that respect at least, he was not fascist. His views on politics and government are complex and can not be reduced to a system like fascism (which, like Nazism, was not around while he was alive, alas, that he was misunderstood, as he knew he would be). He is anti-democratic, and at the same time, recognizes that government is essentially Machiavellian, but he also warned of the dangers of people who, “…think themselves right through the party.”

“Madness is rare in individuals, but in groups, parties, nations, and ages it is the rule.” F.N. Beyond good and evil

Um, where in the Republic does Thrasymachus reject justice in favour of brute strength? I am pretty sure he rejects justice in favour of injustice.

My advice to you is to read the text for once.

338c

“I declare justice is nothing but the advantage of the stronger”

I think you might be confusing Thrasymachus with Glaucon.

You misunderstand this quote, he doesn’t reject justice in favour of brute strength, but rather he acknowledges justice as being defined by brute strength.

If memory serves me correctly, T. was trying to show that the Unjust are happy, because the tyrant who commits wholesale injustice on the populace is happy, while the just people aren’t. I don’t remember Plato’s refutation, but I do remember it left alot to be desired.

“For once”? That’s fairly hostile of you. Bit unecessary!

Yes, you’re misunderstanding that citation. Thrasymachus is providing his own definition of justice, not rejecting it in favour of brute strength.

yes, in the sense that he thought that an act of will directed toward the self is like outfitting oneself with rules. A fascism of the self. Though I don’t think he was being prescriptive when he also talks about the slave and master mentality, which in a way is fascist. But this all depends on how one defines fascist.

no, in the sense that self overcoming was one of his highest values. To throw off your yoke is an anti-fascist point of view.

But most certainly he was elitist- by that I take to mean that there are in the final analysis (which we never arrive at) certain values worth having and for that individual once the self overcoming has been obtained, presumably the goal that the self overcoming drove toward is a better value than the one before it- thus an elite goal or value.

[contented edited by ILP]

please define fascist