People are not animals.
There is no need for competition if we are perfect.
The need to dominate over something arises when that thing is a threat.
Master/slave
Not all of us can be masters, but we can all be slaves. If we take Nietzche the lunatic’s ideals to the extreme, there’ll soon be one person standing. Now, who is s/he going to seek dominance over? Himself?
Cruelty
Seeking knowledge brings about “only neccessary” cruelty.
Morality
Morality exists to serve the individual. A strong person beats a weak person, is permissable while he has power over the weak IS ABSOLUTELY STUPID REASON!!! Every human being must realise s/he is a MORTAL! We are all subject to God’s rule. Nietzsche the idiot holds the most short-sighted view EVER! If the strong suddenly becomes the weak, should he smile and say ‘thank you’ when receiving a beating? We are not “superman”.
Will to power
I agree, that a person should always try his best. But for what end? Nietzsche should first address the end, before attempting on the means.
There is a difference between speed and velocity!
Does anyone have the will to dominate a cat? Let’s all celebrate animal cruelty!
good thing we aren’t perfect in anything but competing…
is not a problem…
so? Nietzsche did not write for everyone, he never intended his morality to be adopted by everyone…
again with the ad hominems…
but you are exactly correct… dominion over himself… the artist, the creator, the diamond to shape the world to his will…
ban schools then
stupid for whom? the weak person? sure… but it is perfectly acceptable… are you going to steal from your neighbor? no? why not? are you not strong enough? if someone steals from you are you not going to do everything in your power to exact justice? call in the power and might of the police? the strong beat the weak again… how stupid can we be? ban police forces and prisons, they are nothing but abuses of power over the weak… absolutely stupid reason indeed…
mortality has nothing to do with it… everyone dies… B.F.D.
WHICH god? the DEAD one? the christian god? the jewish god? the muslim god? the greek god(s)?!? you may subject yourself to rule by the priestly class under the guise of god, but that is your shortcoming…
again with the ad hominems… you really need to argue against the points not throw insults…
he should try to win and when that fails, he should do what he can until he dies. period. that is life.
no you don’t, you just got done complaining about how the big bad strong guy was damaging the poor little weak wimp… as if the stronger should serve the weaker… just like a christian (no wonder you despise Nietzsche)
to make the strongest human possible. period.
dominate a cat? what for? celebrate animal cruelty indeed…
We are not animals. Who in their right mind want to get beaten? Survival of the fittest, for what? Where is the end? What is the point of suffering? People given the conscience is capable of destruction and restoration.
Remember, there can be only ONE master. The rest are all slaves!!! The thoughts are irational, no wander he got locked up in an asylum
People are animals…been a while since biology? And how could we be perfect? Through religion I guess you would say.
In Nietzche’s view, if there is only one person left then the rest were all weak. If the trully weak were picked off, then the strong would remain, and most would find a way to survive in such a world.
For who? You?
When did he ever say it was permissable? You are missing the point. He never sanctions cruelty, just to become stronger through your abilities and gaining control of your fragmentation’s of Will. A weak person is one who doesn’t even attempt to live up his potential and power.
People who beat up the ‘weak’ and say it is ok because they are ‘stronger’ are just one of many twisting his ideals into their own ideology…ie Hitler.
Wow, you are the master at stressing his point. That christianity is a crutch for many. And most short sighted view ever? Surely that distinction can be awarded to someone else…
Um…isnt the Ubermench the end? The strong existing, the ones who have trully reached the Will to Power within?
And wtf is with the speed and velocity? Random much?
This is what happens when the shallow minded attempt to debate. I mean really.
Im NOT a huge Nietzche fan, I disagree on many points, but I still have to appreciate his beliefs. Attacking the man himself is pointless.
Nietzsche by the end was undoubtedly a raving lunatic. The “Antichrist†is an irrational rant.
But what I took from his earlier writing was a plea to return to classical values, particularly Pride vs. Humility.
The Greeks and most of the Romans whose philosophy survives were the aristocrats, the masters. It is hard to believe that such a meek and mild man in his own life was saying that a bully can kick sand in the face of every one who is weaker. I think he was advocating taking pride in what ever you do. It has been said that Nietzsche would define someone like Goethe to be his ubermensch.
And just for informational purposes: No I did not read N in the German, I am obviously an uneducated bore who doesn’t know what he is taking about.
The language you read him in is far less important than how you read him. He obviously requires effort perhaps more than most other modern thinkers to whom he was great influence. I’ve read Nietzsche in German as well and all I can say is he translates extremely well into English. No matter how competent the translator this would not be the case for Goethe’s prose for example.
I gotta hand it to you, PoR- your posts are almost always inane drivel devoid of any shred of logic or reason, but I always read every damned one of 'em.
Though you’ve already received a couple of thrashings for this nonsense I thought I’d add a couple of points.
No, Nietzsche is dead. He was a lunatic and never claimed to be anything else (except the emporer of Rome, God, Christ and a few other things in his frankly bizarre letters towards the end).
No, they are people. Nietzsche never said people were animals. He said they were like animals.
True, but we aren’t perfect. As a Catholic I thought you’d realise that.
No, the need to fight arises when something is a threat. Dominion isn’t the point, the struggle is the point. You might never win, but that doesn’t invalidate the struggle. Have you actually bothered to read Nietzsche? You don’t seem to have grasped his basic understanding of life and morality at all.
True enough, but why would we want everyone to be slaves when that goes against the natural rank of things?
Probably. More like ‘His own life’ rather than ‘Himself’.
Terrific. Your point being…
And hence imperfect. And hence part of the struggle whether we like it or not
Nietzsche took a beating on occassion. You are still talking about him. I guess that this probably indicates and answer to your query as to what he would do when receiving a beating.
To be better, to be more powerful. I would have thought this was tautologous.
Don’t bother trying to dominate a cat. It won’t work. They are far smarter than humans, and can run up trees to escape. It’s simply not worth the effort.
good to hear I have at least one loyal reader! due to my post charisma. more’s one the way. If you liked my posts, just wait till I finish my book, you’ll be over the moon.
someoneisatthedoor
I didn’t realise someone replied in seriousness. Well here is my reply.
you added more than ‘a couple’.
By Nietzsche I was referring to his concept. Just like his ‘God is dead’. very appropriate juxtaposition. Do you agree with me that Nietzsche harbours the concept of lunacy?
I never said Nietzsche said people were animals. Yes, people are people, glad you realised that. I wonder if you read his animal spirit.
though we are not perfect, there is nothing stopping us from not attempting to become perfect. As a Catholic I believe in repentance, through and communion through which I become perfect in one with Christ.
but you also need to dominate over something when that thing is a threat. fight, dominate, what is the difference? you fight to win, not to lose. at least to fight to salvage the little you may salvage and not to give up on your fate. you fight, when you can’t win meaning you want to salvage. but if you can’t win, you ought to seek other alternatives. no need to fight against an intellectual giant if you are as punny as an earth worm.
because man is above nature. man creates his own rank.
what is ‘his own life’ but governed by ‘himself’
meaning if you want to know, you neccessarily suffer.
hench the struggle to achieve perfection which is achievable.
and you are talking about me.
is that the meaning of your life?
they may be smarter than you, but not me. I was being sacrastic regarding his will to power, i.e to dominate everything including a cat.
I think to stress the master/slave-survival of the fittest portion of Nietzsche’s writings is to vastly underestimate the importance of his work. Nietzsche specifically states in some important aphorisms that men have qualities of both, master and slave. To say that the masters will eventually totally dominate is a gross generalization which imparts an evolutionist perspective to those thoughts which is something he never intended. He was frequently at odds with Darwin and thought that the fittest are not always the survivors. It might be useful to read his comments on Herbert Spencer as well. The Walter Kaufmann translations are great.
OK. I’m not even going to endear you with the dignity of quoting this complete crap you’ve concluded about Nietzsche. You clearly have a pragmatic disability/naivety, or simply have not read Nietzsche. And don’t misinterpret me. There is a very clear difference between “reading” a book and “reading” Nietzsche.
frankly PoR, I’m pretty damned offended you haven’t been banned from this forum. You’re clearly an enemy of the free exhibition and exchange of free-will, unless it’s your own. And you clearly haven’t grasped an understanding of the reciprocal and subjective nature of philosophy; ergo not being you imposing your biased and dogmatic opinions on everyone else and not accepting it when they tear your poorly-constructed ideals to pieces. And you clearly have something against Nietzsche because he speaks for a freedom of will you cannot accept.
I may be repeating those before me, but it seems that no one is listening at any rate.
Again, yes- people are animals.
Right… thus far.
Well, actually, slave morality involves trying to dominate others while master morality is self-mastery. (is seeking dominance over ones drives so repugnant?-is it not even in accordance with christianity?)
Though I cannot tell if you really said anything here… I can tell that you are not refuting Nietzsche but simply attacking what happens to be your misunderstanding of Nietzsche. Nietzsche, first of all, is not speaking of a physical giant here. A strong person, by Nietzsche’s meaning, doesn’t beat a weak one. Though Nietzsche was a self-proclaimed immoralist, his writings aren’t so much moral as “meta-moral”- in the sense that he doesn’t so much posit a new morality as much as he gives the formula to all moral systems.
As Nietzsche posits- will to power is at the bottom of all life. -for what end? For self-overcoming.
An example- The acorn strives to become an oak tree, though this involves its ceasing to be an acorn and, to that extent, self-overcoming. (paraphrase from Kaufmann’s Nietzsche)
I am not sure that I follow what exactly this is supposed to signify…
-see above-
As for the ad hominems- I understand how hard it may be for you to refute (or even understand) Nietzsche, especially without reading him, but you may want to at least try. Don’t let your intellectual impotence frustrate you into that corner…
…
I’ll take a little spankin’.
Careful on blurring the line too much on Nietzsche and Darwin. N. appreciated D., but he didn’t buy it whole.
I am not entirely sure what you are asking exactly. Is there some inherent point to suffering? -Not that I am aware of. Yet, I can take the situation as a means to learn, grow and all around use to my advantage. Incidentally, Nietzsche assesses “the power of a will by how much resistance, pain, and torture it endures and knows how to turn to its advantage.” -Will to Power 382
Why only one? Again I do not follow you…
Read first. Comment later. (you don’t have to read the german- just read it)
Cute.
In fact, Nietzsche claims this of himself in Ecce Homo.
Overall, it was refreshing to read the responses to your post PoR- though you could work on your own. Don’t misunderstand my reply either; it is not so much that I am replying to you- I could only expect more drivel- I am more so exorcising out the feeling I got from reading your posts on Nietzsche.
On the origin of strong and weak spirits, from Beyond Good and Evil:
Saintantony - the desire to dominate ones desires is a desire just the same as the rest.
Dead inside - Nietzsche spoke out against freedom of the will as he considered it an invention of the ruling classes. There’s a common myth propagated by existentialists that Nietzsche believed in and was in favour of free will. That is complete and total garbage. No offence.
