Nietzsche isn’t special. He’s just one of the many philosophers have lived. I just was going over one of his thoughts and this occurred to me.
The only reason people fantasize over him is because it’s an excuse to act like an aspergers and not read other philosophy.
His theories are a weird mix of Buddhism and stuff that really doesn’t even make much sense. Wittgenstein is far more difficult to understand.
I guess what I’m trying to say is I have never met someone outside of a forum that was singularly preoccupied with Neitzsche. I’m trying to figure out if it’s just people think they’re badass because one of the books is called the antichrist, or if people just have nothing better to do than purposefully revel in the fact that his work is all-over-the-place, and refrains from being pinned down.
There is even that one guy whose title is ‘Lampertian Nietzsche.’ Others have it as a part of their name.
When you find any historic celebrated writer being over-celebrated, it is merely a direct indicator of social engineering preferences. Nietzsche represents selfish, “Me generation”, chaos, revenge, anarchy from the masses so as to inspire totalitarian justification (same trick pulled in Europe merely a few generations ago… and for the same purpose).
It’s no surprise, he wrote with lightening bolts, like dynomite, he could say in ten sentences what would take others an entire book, arrived 100 years early, and he knows you better than you know yourself, and everyone likes to see things smashed with a hammer. These are all the cliches that people use. And everyone of them is true, but if it leads you to make an idol of Fritz then the actual content of the message has been lost on you.
To me, in a nutshell, it’s about placing value back in this world… what underlies the rest. If you like things pinned down in horoscope form, then that’s all it is.
It’s mostly the same demographic that goes for objectivism. Young, educated/above-average-intelligence middle-class white males (each of those can be prepended by “predominantly”), who like the message that they are inherently superior and may - no, should - shape the world to their liking.
I like Nietzsche, he’s a great read (although the flowery bombast gets a bit wearing after a while) and he makes important points that thinking people should consider. I like Wittgenstein too; neither of them were above leaving contradictions and ambiguity in their pronouncements. I think Nietzsche is one of the easiest Proper Philosophers to read, and probably one of the harder ones to actually digest and work out the consequences of.
Not impressed. The godfather of perspectivism just isn’t a staple among objectivists, and about the rest, you could say that about anybody in the Western cannon, from Plato to Rawls. (I’m calling your comments empty). Obviously I’m leaving out the part about racism. This is to say nothing about the ignorant and embarrassing comment that Nietzsche is giving the message that these white males are inherently superior—that sort of racism. How average of you…
So you said they read him because they like the message that isnt there? And the objectivists are his demographic but he’s not a staple? Keep walking backwards…
Yes, but how close to or far away from coherence as you construe it does another’s point of view have to be? Mo being at one end of the continuum and me being at the other.
(I wish the yellow circle wasn’t smiling, but had an expression of awe and approval)