Nietzsche is the proof that we are all on the wrong side of history. His goal was to break history in two.
Yes but that effort was dampened to exposition of a third, namely the middle ages. It has been expunged , but remains, infallibly like a ghost busted simulation machine.
That was part of the plan or an unexpected byproduct one really never knows
Except a resurgence of Nature’s struggle with nurture.
So, basically, the Übermensch is closely related to building a strong, solid society.
There is no freedom at all. Everything is necessity. Even our will was build upon necessities, it was trained before it was released. The consciousness doesn’t make a will more free. It only means the will wanted something before it was objectively possible, and therefore the will suffered a lot. Such a will is sometimes “born posthumously”.
Actions and reactions in a complex world of causes and consequences are simplifications, slavish ones.
Kant invited slaves to the cathedra and gave them an innocent conscience.
The reason doesn’t differ animals from humans, animals have a reason too, but the sort of instincts the animals are lacking.
If I wanted more arguments against Kant, I would google Nietzsche on thenietzschechannel.com and ask him for help. But I am not worried about my opponents so much as about my non-existent friends.
Someone who wants something before it is objectively possible KNOWS they are capable of making “after objectively possible” happen.
Existent friends are objectively possible. Are they not actual? I find that very hard to believe.
Let’s say that Nietzsche, as the one who will be born posthumously, will be the best friend to all philosophers of the future who will overcome nihilism, give Europe new values and eventually create the Übermensch. - With his help, so that no new Plato will lead into nothingness.
Is he taking revenge on Plato with this new stuff? Just curious. rawr
Plato stands on his way. There is still a lot of aristocracy or royalty unable to get rid of the church or religion. Still claiming their “power comes from god”.
But I assume they are the weaker part of nobility. The stronger ones should be able to enjoy solitude and independent thinking.
The Republic is a riddle often misunderstood like what Kierkegaard was doing with his pseudonyms… not that I have completed my education.
I think it is good to ask if Nietzsche was an actor who became his character (Thrasymachus)… since he (& Hitler, who took him seriously) lived out Socrates’ thoughts on the subject. To their destruction.
God knows if we are pushed into isolation or choose it out of ease, and he knows the rate at which it is safe to draw the butterfly out of its cocoon. But out it will come, or die there, just as it would die if born too soon. Like the patch over the hole, or wine in the wineskin, or camel through the needle’s eye, or moved mountain. Sometimes the greatest power is seen in the greatest restraint.
Sorry, can’t follow you … a lot of confusing words.
If you don’t like Nietzsche, you shouldn’t interfere.
If you like him, you should start thinking in a classical way.
That’s all.
Well. I am quite fond of Nietzsche’s 3 metamorphoses (and some of his other thinking… and I think he’s hilarious at times) before his brain (apparently) cracked. Here is me thinking “classically” (maybe)…
docs.google.com/document/d/1j2N … Uk358/edit
Also… relatedly… to that paper^… is this thread on Kant doing Nietzsche/Hegel before it was kewl:
ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=198273
Nietzsche was cryptic. For a student there is not enough of time to decrypt him.
Only as a matter of life and death.
Do the people making life or death decisions agree with Hitler‘s interpretation of Nietzsche? I’m not sure there’s much you can do for people whose minds are equally cracked besides quarantine them from the rest of society. Who cares how they interpret whoever. All you need to know is the kind of decisions they’re making. On the other hand, if the people who make good decisions have stupid interpretations of Nietzsche that would make him roll over in his grave… well. As long as people run with the good decisions, and take that interpretation as granted… no harm, no foul.
So what is your goal with this thread?
Just as correlation is not causation, neither presequence nor consequence is origination for eternal truths, even ones that take time (for beings subject to time) to learn.
It isn’t “we are loved because Jesus died to show it”.
It is “Jesus died to show we are loved” or even “we KNOW WE are loved because Jesus died to show it”.
Jesus’ demonstration was necessary because love is not love without demonstration.
It was also necessary because we love (forgive ourselves/enemies) because he first loved us (demonstrated love/forgiveness).
First (hearing) the music (“you are loved” as demonstrated), then the dancing (demonstrating to self/enemies “you are loved”). It’s not from a lack or revenge.
Jesus’ wholeness and joy and love within the Trinity is a superabundance from eternity, not an inversion that nihilates meaning.
Nietzsche was okay with calling others cruel and vengeful when instead of wiping out the mass of humanity (as Nietzsche said would have been progress/improvement in sacrifice to a higher race of men…which Hitler took seriously), they took all that wiping out into themselves—absorbed it—from a position of superabundant love (not that Nietzsche would grant that).
I really should write a paper about what Kant really means by disinterested art and morality that isn’t morose or life-denying or contrary to happiness. Versus Ayn Rand. Versus Nietzsche. Even versus C.S. Lewis. And me prior to studying Kant—he gets a bad rap (and Nietzsche gets an easy pass!). And stuff. I have a million papers in me. But it’s probably never going to happen. Or I have to be patient.
Well. Here’s a quickie.
In his lecture, Ethics: Introductory Observations, Kant corrects the antinomy between coquettish ethics based on sensuous reward/punishment, and morose or sullen ethics which sets moral conduct in opposition to all pleasures, by reminding us that, “morality and happiness are two elements of the Supreme Good, that they differ in kind, and that, whilst they must be kept distinct, they stand in necessary relation to one another. The moral law contains within it a natural promise of happiness,” (EIO, 77) we can hope for. “To renounce happiness is to differentiate it from morality in a[n] … unnatural way,” (ibid, 78). When we do what is right for its own sake, we aren’t doing it for selfish motives, but the happiness we know will result sustains us through and over whatever harsh temporary consequences we take on in the process.
(EIO) Kant, Immanuel. “Ethics: Introductory Observations,” Lectures on Ethics, transl. Louis Infield, Hackett, 1963.
And: (ref for pic: Kant, Immanuel. Idea for a Universal History with a Cosmopolitan Purpose. (1784) KANT Political Writings, ed. Reiss, Hans, transl. Lisbet, H.B., Cambridge University Press.) … Third Proposition
Please all leave this topic. Disgusting!
I leave you with this.
“Happiness” resulting from or maintained by selfishness ~(self<=>other) (disclaimer: not rational altruism) is immoral and faux happiness. Do you think it will not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out?
Happiness resulting from or maintained by unselfishness (self<=>other) (not irrational self-nihilation) is moral and genuine happiness that does not leave one with dissonance and distortion one must work out.
The appearance of unselfish behavior is either a sign/fruit of happiness or maintenance/camouflage of faux happiness.
…and THEN you have the “happiness” of those who deify “selfish power” over the self<=>love freedom of servant leadership.