Define “active” and “reactive”.
Perhaps you have missed this: that the natural ethical order I’m talking about is an order of rank among human beings (not a cosmic order).
Yes, this order is based on courage in the face of the vortex or vulva that is truth according to Nietzsche.
What imposed ethical order?
I might, if I knew what the hell you meant by being “necessarily natural to the will-to-power”.
I don’t know how anyone could have missed that, as its seemingly the fucking point of the thread.
So what if there are ranks? I fail to see how calling it natural and ethical means dick squat.
Shit on a stick!
ALL ORDER IS IMPOSED!
It would be unnatural to go against your will-to-power.
I tire of this conversation, you seem more determined to apply labels than you do to have any accurate or purposeful meaning. Unless your purpose is to justify tyranny with an imaginary “natural ethical” system, which does seem to be what you actually are trying to do.
Woo-hoo!!! brake the middle, brake the middle. Nietzsche was gay. He suffered ill shit, and tried to find loose women, but was ill… and totally gay!
I’ve often wondered about that, Nietzsche’s sexuality.
If I had to form a theory about why he was gay, if he was, it would look something like this:
First, he was not a very physically fit man, which means that he was probably not a popular item for the ladies.
Second, he professed a philosophy which emphasized masculine virtue. If you combine the above case with this…you get an extremely difficult and tense self relation; you get a man who did not add up to his own standards.
Now the next step would be an attempt to save face and compensate for this failure. To do this, Fritz must either imagine himself to be something more than masculine…something ultra-masculine: a man who can sexually dominate another man. This would be the case if Fritz, in his homosexuality, played the role of the giver rather than the reciever. He would be the one subordinating the other man by…[ahem]…“driving from the rear.”
The alternative to this symbolic gesture would be the reciever. In this case, Fritz would change from the dominator to the dominated. With this, he gets to pretend, since he cannot attain his masculine ideal, like he is offering himself to the greater masculinity which he cannot achieve himself. He lets the man “have him” and plays the role of the reciever. For the next best thing to not being able to attain the masculine virture is to at least be subordinate to the masculine virture: “If I cannot attain it…I will let it attain me.”
The homosexual is the original failure of the masculine virtue and the male symbol. What follows in homosexual activity is the simulation of “lost desires and capacities” in sexual relationships.
What really fucked Fritz, if in fact he was gay, is the fact that he aspired a philosophy that he could not, himself, achieve.
What we cannot be fooled by is the homosexuals claim that he is homosexual simply because he desires the male archetype. No, this is bullshit, because if he did, part of that admiration involves the effort to conclude the success of the masculine role. To respect the masculine role is to want it to be for and with the feminine, rather than inverting upon itself.
If you admire the man, you will find him a woman…not fuck him in the ass, or get fucked by him.
Consumerist culture is ruining men, despite their constant testimony “but the greeks did it, the greeks did it!”
Bullshit. The industrial homosexual is a gross disaster.
Fritz fucked a women, he never fucked a man.
Plus after his break down, his desire for Cosima became public through his letters.
Yeah but the stupid bitch probably gave him syphillis.
I told him to stay at the piano and ignore those whores, but nooooooo, he had pull the dionysus, and look where that got him.
Roger.
Symbolically(or whatever) though, he received from Richard.
Thanks a lot for completely perverting my thread.
As for Nietzsche’s alleged syphilis, the following article shows that it is highly unlikely that Nietzsche’s madness was caused by syphilis:
What was the cause of Nietzsche’s dementia?
I am not convinced that he ever slept with a woman.
I’m no doctor, but who gives a damn…
I do. Sex is one of the most powerful influences on one’s philosophy. The wrong kind of sex, or lack of sex, can result in an extremely distorted philosophy about sex and/or the opposite gender.
With Nietzsche, you have to wonder about his sex life because his views on women could very well be derived from failures in sexual relations.
Some of his views are very accurate, others are not. The one’s that are not, I suspect, are the result of a kind of revenge against the female gender.
When Lou denied him…that did a great amount of damage to his self-esteem.
Of course I speculate…but then again…how seriously do we take a philosophy about sex and gender from a man who was inexperienced?
Regarding Nietzsche’s medical condition, I advise not believing any of it.
It is very possible that his history and his medical records have been purposely manipulated by his family and or publishers.
Remember, this is Nietzsche we are talking about, the man who smashed Europe with a hammer.
This probably pissed a lot of people off. People with media control and ulterior motives. I wouldn’t doubt it for a second that the Jews got their dirty hands on his literature and history and changed it to accomodate their motives. Especially if they believed he was a catalyst for the Nazi movement.
I mean about if he had syphillis or eye cancer, hence “i’m not a doctor”.
Neither condition necessarily proves if he lived a monks like or not.
I do agree with you though, that knowledge about his sex life could shed light on his dealings with women in his philosophy, and possibly his philosophy in general.
The only reason his underlying condition would matter is if there was a large school of thought that tried to trivial Nietzsche as being the rantings of a mentally unstable idiot. There is a letter he wrote at the age of 14 describing his fathers condition as dementia, which could lead to the conclusion that Nietzsche inherited some sort of brain ailment, but Hollingdale did a sufficient job of refuting this, and proving that the young Nietzsche was confused about his fathers condition. I would think, however, that if there was severe tampering in the literature and documentation of Fritz’s condition it would be towards the conclusion that he was insane by constitution.
On the other hand his condition shaped who he was, and one can see elements of his battle with it in his philosophy. Point being…the symptoms matter, not the underlying condition.
Possible segments of his philosophy influenced by his condition:
His definition of health.
His view of suffering.
The emphasis on overcoming.
ect.
I give a damn, because the syphilis story is a smear story.
Like which?
How is syphilis a smear story, what person would think less of Nietzsche for having syphilis…A person who is irrelevant.
I often have the same thought: regardless of what the superfluous think, the truth remains the truth. Or is the idea that Nietzsche suffered from syphilis true from a certain perspective?
I have no idea what affliction Nietzsche suffered from, nor does anyone else with any certainty. If I have a choice between the scholars who helped me learn Nietzsche and some random doctor, I’m going to trend toward the scholars. As ultimately, on this point, I like you, simply have to choose who we want to believe.
Also, you need to come to terms with Nietzsche’s perspectivism, it is a giant part of his philosophy that cannot be ignored. Infact I don’t see how someone can claim to understand Nietzsche without understanding his perspectivism…
“Some random doctor” - you aren’t referring to Leonard Sax, are you? I do not just “choose what I want to believe”… My conviction (which is not absolute) is based on a thorough reading of Mr. Sax’s article (have you read it?), complemented by a careful reading of Nietzsche’s letters of 1887-88, among others.
“Understanding” his perspectivism? Is not your supposed “understanding” of Nietzsche’s perspectivism just a perspective on the latter?