The will to power of the weak drives them to co-operate in order to defeat the strong by any means neccessary. Noble instincts hate to calculate. The weak man, on the other hand, is overwhelmingly clever. No means is too underhanded, too subterranean for him. ‘The lie at any cost!’ is emblazoned across his escutcheon - the truth is harmful to him, it makes him sick. He needs the lie. And it is this man, the weak man, who procreates. His law is supreme. The noble, the strong, are murdered, imprisoned or reduced to silence. Tragedy is everywhere. Everywhere swamp air fills the nostrils. The great man, the exception, must learn how to defend himself or perish. Away with democrats - what I have just described has been the rule ever since the slave revolt in morality.
If it is the weak man who survives, then isn’t he strong?
You act as though your strong man is being cheated of his victory, when really, whoever wins, wins. There’s no fair about it. If the strong man is truly strong, he’ll survive. If he dies and the weak survive, then the weak are really the strong.
The slave wins when he makes the master feel guilty for being a master. The master then turns against himself. His inner world becomes a torrent of savagery against himself. The master is metaphorically killed and the slave triumpths. The slave can only triumpth through cunning and deciet; never from the love of life and a free unfettered display of the passions.
Ergo the “noble” man should be freed from the constraints of morality and from the very idea of commonality with the weak.
A distinction must be promoted where the noble man is liberated from the moralistic idea that he owes anything but scorn to the rabble and human excrement that passes for humanity. He owes no more to them than to animals and the idea of guilt and the shame associated with pride and distinction should be exposed as a sham used by those that most fear this superiority unleashed and unchained by pseudo-altruism and the ‘original sin’.
Last time I checked, Sparta has disappeared from the map.
Should the noble man/woman include their parents, brothers, sisters, ,and other relatives in this equation?
It seems to me that the above is simply a justification for solipcisim, in which the self defined noble person, ignores the reality of their impotence, to run roughshod over other people.
Ahh well, some of us have no need to be “noble men,” and instead seek to create noble societies.
This is total rubbish. The “noble” completely conspire, “calculate”, to “defeat the (weak)”. The weak are imprisoned and murdered at a comparative rate of 1000-to-1. “Slave revolts” occur when the injustice becomes too great. Too few rich, too many poor.
It is the powerful that delude themselves and fools buy into it.
A society depends on keeping the ignorant and obtuse harnessed to a common goal.
The noble are not berserkers running “roughshod” over people.
What value does the love of an imbecile have or how can one depend on such shallow perceptions when the mind holding them can never and will never comprehend nor admit their origin or their nature?
It is only when one knows, with courage and honesty, when one can them offer and appreciate what is offered without delusions or romantic naive idealisms, that are here today and gone tomorrow.
The obtuse mind is controlled by his instinctive whims, not knowing why he loves today and hats tomorrow. His loyalty is shaky and only possible through childish idealism and threat/reward methods that remain unconscious because if they were to be made conscious the effect would be diminished.
It is only the aware, who admit and accept reality, by knowing who and what they are and what motivates them, who are capable of any longlasting and valuable compassion and loyalty and love.
A society depends on keeping the ignorant and obtuse harnessed to a common goal.
The noble are not berserkers running “roughshod” over people.
I dunno, having lived through Vietnam, and living through the Iraq Quagmire, both the creations of “Noble Men,” I would say that simple common sense trumps this self agrandisment that you postulate.
Noble Men? Is there a school? No, I guess not, it’s inherenet?
My own impression is that this theory is dead as a doorknob. Failed, a disaster. Never worked anywhere at any time. Just read the speeches of that Noble Man Mussolini as he built his “New Rome.” A skit for SNL.
As I said, it’s just an excuse for solipcism. Just another way of saying that reality is what I say it is - Sorry, doesn’t work like that.
Common sense is the bedrock of a stable society. Solipcists spend their time tearing it down, fighting each other for status…
Finally of course, I find your statements that only the noble man can truly feel love, loyalty and compassion to be, well, I seach for a euphimism…
But I will say nothing. It speaks for itself.
“If a society values its philosophers more than it’s plumbers, neither its pipes nor its philosophy will hold water.”
You mention “the slave revolt in morality”. This is a Nietzschean term. Nietzsche says the slave revolt in morality began with the Jews. Now consider the following:
“Thus they created an important new posture: the priest at the head of the chandala - against the noble orders…”
[The Will to Power, section 184.]
And he also says, quite autobiographically, that “the Protestant parson is the grandfather of German philosophy” [AC 10].
I think of Nietzsche as the priest (philosopher) who switched sides: instead of standing at the head of the chandala (the great number), he created the posture of the priest at the head of the noble orders: for he saw the following:
“Here precisely is what has become a fatality for Europe — together with the fear of man we have also lost our love of him, our reverence for him, our hopes for him, even the will to him. The sight of man now makes us weary — what is nihilism today if it is not that? — We are weary of man.”
[Genealogy of Morals, I, 12.]
“We may well be right when we hang onto our fear of the blond beast at the base of all noble races and keep up our guard. But who would not find it a hundred times better to fear if he could at the same time be allowed to admire, rather than not fear and no longer be able to rid himself of the disgusting sight of the failures, the stunted, the emaciated, the poisoned? Is not that our fate? Today what is it that constitutes our aversion to “manâ€? For we suffer from man—there’s no doubt of that. It’s not a matter of fear. Rather it’s the fact that we have nothing more to fear from men, that the maggot “man†is in the foreground swarming around, that the “tame man,†the hopelessly mediocre and unpleasant man, has already learned to feel that he is the goal, the pinnacle, the meaning of history, “the higher man,â€â€”yes indeed, he even has a certain right to feel that about himself, insofar as he feels separate from the excess of failed, sick, tired, spent people, who are nowadays beginning to make Europe stink, and feels at least somewhat successful, at least still capable of life, at least able to say “Yes†to life…”
[ibid., 11, with added emphasis.]
This “hopelessly mediocre” man is what Nietzsche called “the last man”. The Overman, on the other hand, has the blond beast at his base.
“And verily, ye good and just! In you there is much to be laughed at, and especially your fear of what hath hitherto been called “the devil!”
So alien are ye in your souls to what is great, that to you the Superman would be frightful in his goodness!
And ye wise and knowing ones, ye would flee from the solar-glow of the wisdom in which the Superman joyfully batheth his nakedness!
Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman - a devil!”
[Thus Spake Zarathustra, Of Manly Prudence.]
Not being blond, nor acting as a beast in my day to day activities, I guess I shall simply have to relie on my Mother being blond, to stay in your good graces…
I will simply point out that in any society that relied on slave labor, the masters did not go in fear of being mentally trashed with being “called” cruel, or mean.
They lived in daily fear of an honest to God revolt where the slaves would rightfully kill their stupid asses. And from time to time, that’s exactly what happened. Such being the case, then by the definitions which are implied in THIS diaglogue, the slaves were the superior men and woman, and the so called masters, fit only for elminination!
Yes, this is a good historical point. Sauwelios has a terrible tendency to forget that civilizations which consisted of “economic classes” existed long before Nietzsche, or any chosen starting point which Nietzsche chooses to use to address a theory of ethics. In short, no specific race began any “slave revolt”, and no specific race ever carried the title “noble” exclusively. But because Nietzsche chose to analyze a specific history, which was accessible to him in records and text, and singled out the “Jews” as being the first “slave race”, and the “blond beast” as being the first master race…Saully forgets about the millions of years which existed before these races appeared. My point is that the same fundamental economic structures must have existed IN ALL civilizations, and therefore, with this in mind, the Jews and the Germans mean squat. Their little dispute is meager when compared to the dispute of economic classes in general over the millions of years they have existed. This is why, when I want an accurate and thorough economic analysis of history, I get Marx.
Sauwelios doesn’t seem to notice a difference between an ethical conception of what a “slave” and “master” might be, and a functional, economic conception of what role a “slave” and “master” might take. He just loves to romanticize the whole thing and assume that a “slave” and a “master” is a kind of mentality…and not a economic position.
Saully seems to think that the universe began and will end with Nietzsche.
Sauwelios, you have strong leanings toward nationalism. Nationalism is the doctrine that one’s own ethnic interests should be prioritized over all other ethnic interests.
I want to make sure you understand that although there is no such thing as “evil” or “immorality”, it still isn’t possible to be a nationalist as a consequence of the truth of legitimate axioms; there is no way to assert that a national interest is “right” or “correct” in an evolutionary sense. You can choose to be a nationalist and even join a Nazi party is you desire. There is nothing philosophically illegal about that. But you cannot continue to post material that suggests a superiority of some race, with any scientific credibility. If you cannot do this (which you can’t) you must concede that your philosophy about cultural and ethnic morals is not substantiated by any historical or verifiable truth.
You just can’t go around quoting Nietzsche and expect to be treated like a historian. Nietzsche has insights about class psychology in general- whether this be a race of white, black, yellow, green, whatever. But he certainly is not speaking of the beginning of some new psychology exclusive only to two races- Jews and Germans. He may coin the terms “slave” and “master” morality…but the idea is not at all original to him…because the idea is not original to any specific race.
Again, there is nothing wrong with Nationalism. Only the means by which it is defended philosophically. Racism is a choice which is controversial…but nowhere does it say YOU CANNOT BE A RACIST!
You are trying to explain racism as necessary, based off of a few aphorisms written by Nietzsche. I think you are afraid to simply declare “I prefer the existence of one race over another”. Why? What’s wrong with that?
AND you are saying the world is doomed unless whitey keeps his blue eyes and blonde hair. Chill dude. We’re doomed anyway when the sun blows up.
On the other hand, if the philosophers are employed as plumbers, and use logic, the pipes will work correctly, and they’ll apply the same critical thinking skills to philosophical questions and thus reach right conclusions, rather than being unemployed and engaging in useless, worthless gibberish about whether or not pipes exist.
do you think a farmer cries over the cattle he leads to slaughter or that Napoleon felt remorse because others died at his command?
The horrors of existence were not invented by men nor are Vietnams avoided by some conception of common sense which has a moral ethical code.
Partly.
What makes you think Mussolini was the noble men mentioned?
You misconstrue nobility for power.
The Philosopher King has power thrust upon him.
How you’ve equated nobility with dictators of power is your prejudice and it speaks more about your psychology than about reality.
Is that what is being said?
If this comforts you then why not?
As far as I know reality doesn’t care what anyone thinks. It is what it is and how accurately you interpret or deduce what it is determines how insightful and able to predict what will be.
How this relates to your chosen straw man of solipsism is none of my concern.
As far as I can tell if someone were truly a solipsist he would not even need to debate, just as if someone were truly a nihilist he would not even choose to exist.
I’m guessing that in your ‘stable society’ this doesn’t occur.
Oh I think the idealism of the rabble can be witnessed in churches.
They speak of love and compassion and God and then send men to die and kill.
They love one moment and then hate another. Blaming the other for not living up to their delusional idealizations of him.
They love idols and then hate them for being flawed.
It’s like your worshiping of your ‘stable society’ devoid of status competitions and egotistical conflicts.
A Utopia.
Interesting.
I guess you’re one of the plumbers then.
Thanks, it’s good honest greese. I trouble shoot heating systems for six months of the year. And thank you for summing up my views on a variety of subjects I haven’t commented on. As a Noble Man yourself, no doubt you have the ability to read minds, speak for others, define what others are saying, and all this without even hearing them.
The problem with this arises when a man today succeeds in killing his adversaries only to be dragged down by moral courts who call his success
“morally wrong”.
This is why natural selection is nonexistent in the mythic imaginative willy nilly world of civilization.