Thus Spoke Nietzsche

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

(I apologise for how long this post is by the way)

I have recently been reading a Teach Yourself Philosophy book by Mel Thompson that I found to be fairly interesting (I am a philosophy student at uni and I thought this could help me brush up on it before my exams)

I came across my favourite philosopher in the book, Nietzsche, and I was not impressed/disagreed with what was written about him and I would like the opinions of Nietzsche readers (not those who read OF Nietzsche [far too many of them] but those who have instead read Nietzsche’s work themselves, i.e. those who have a real opinion on the matter) in helping me verify these claims.

Pg 173; “Nietzsche’s view was that the strong should not be retrained because of the needs of the weak. His views were that democracy and Christianity had a negative effect, weakening the human species by seeking special advantage for those who are weak or poor and handicapped in some way.”

I am not too happy about the terms “weak”, “poor” and especially “handicapped” as I do not believe these are clear representations of Nietzsche’s views.

“Weak” and “handicapped” as in physically weak/handicapped, are the more common/likely interpretation of the authors words here but Nietzsche himself suffered from a physical disability and was therefore physically weak and physically handicapped so these claim of Nietzsche’s contempt of them seems inaccurate/wrong.

“Poor” in the materialistic sense (i.e. money) seems wrong but is the more common interpretation of the term “poor” (duh). In defense of Nietzsche in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he claimed notions of the Ubermensch (beyond/super-man) and Zarathustra makes claims like “Truly he who possess the least is the least possessed” and “all that has a price, is of little value” etc. which would indicate that Zarathustra (as a hermit) was not against those who were poor and neither in turn was Nietzsche.

Weak willed, weak minded, weak/poor of spirit; all concepts of the spiritually weak/handicapped and are consequences of Christianity and the subsequence notions of morality that go with it, is all a more likely interpretation of Nietzsche’s works.

My questions are; 1. Is it clear what the author was been getting at here or is it misleading/wrong? 2. are my interpretations/views of Nietzsche/his work correct? or is the authors claims more accurate? and 3. any other opinions on Nietzsche’s work and how it is misinterpreted? (like the slave morality, which is made a big deal out of even though, as far as I can tell, the original idea is less than a page in reality [a short paragraph in Beyond Good and Evil]) as well as the notion of the link between the superman and Hitler as Nietzsche claims that a true ruler would have been “Caesar with Christ’s soul” (The Will To Power 983) and Hitler was certainly not that etc.

In my personal opinion I think Nietzsche was a genius and like any genius he is easily misunderstood/misinterpreted by those who did not understand his brilliance and unique way of thinking.

2

my claim of the slave morality concept seems wrong as i’ve just read on the plato.stanford site that it is more on it in “On the Genealogy of Morals”.

that makes a bit more sense but are the claims/ideas still focusing on Christianity/religion and not on mankind as a whole or is what Nietzsche writes in the genealogy a more universal claim of humanity?

3

In Beyond Good and Evil and Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche was teaching everyone to no longer to be narrow-minded in their notions of life (“beyond”, key word there), to understand the concept of god being dead/no longer a figure in our everyday lives and instead live free to your own desires/will instead of following old and dusty authoritarian/orthodox teachings. Reject the notions of a reward belief system (heaven/hell) to blackmail you into being good or “just” and instead overcome these adversities/weaknesses of humanity for yourself (crossing the bridge over the abyss) and become something more then the weak concept of a human (“God’s buffoons” as he said) and instead be an Ubermensch (beyond man, the flawed, narrow-minded of man/good and evil). He was concerned with loving life rather then damning it and censoring it as he believed Christianity did with its rules and beliefs. Zarathustra (the Godless) is a key figure in this concept as he frequently mentions the concept of Love and rejecting what you once knew to be true as life is full of surprises. Also in Beyond Good and Evil, a key quote there is “That which is done out of love always takes place beyond good and evil”

He loved the Free Spirit and hated the narrow-minded, the obeying, the slave, the masses, the sheep etc. He believed in the Free Spirit, one that was not held back by and was instead free of the notions of Christianity, narrow-minded morality, material aspects, the slave notion to the moral superior i.e. the priest etc.

4

Transcend what you know… what you think is good or evil… transcend desire and fear… Sing and dance… walk the tite rope… you are the Overman

5

“Thus spoke Zarathustra.”

6

heh… right on man

7

on a side note; Nietzsche’s contempt for the Jews as was portrayed by the Nazi party and those who are anti-Nietzsche.

a. i think Nietzsche hated Christianity more then he could ever hate the Jews (evident to anyone who has ever read Nietzsche) and b. he was very anti-religious regardless of what religion it may be. Like in the anti-christ, he mainly targets the core of the belief systems (Christianity/the main aspects of Judaism thought, the beliefs of Good and Evil, the traditions i.e. the priests, prayer, celebrations and the worship of a ruling, authoritarian God that can not be proven to exist) and therefore claiming that he was anti-jewish and anti-christian is narrow minded as he was essentially anti-religious, not limiting himself to just christians and jews.

He does not criticise Islam/Muslims as he most likely rarely encountered the religion/people in Germany and because it was not a prominent factor in everday German life in the 19th century he did not hold it in contempt as he did Judaism and Christianity which were more likely to be an imposing factor on everyday life/way of thinking back then.

the only religion he seems to be the least critical of is Buddhism which is obviously very different from religions such as Judaism and Christianity.

also i have seen an accusation that Nietzsche is sexist; in his defense, he lived in the 19th century, finding a non-sexist man or a woman who was not confined to the kitchens back then would be a rarity. if you look at media from only 50 years ago you can see how sexist men’s ideas were back then before the movements of the 1960’s etc so you can only imagine what it was like 160 years ago. On a more personal note, Nietzsche got rejected for marriage twice which was bound to have a lasting effect and leave him quite heart-broken and slighlty bitter about women.

to be frank, if he wasn’t the least bit critical of women in those days and after what he went through, then it would seem rather strange in my opinion.

8

read nietzsche for yourself, but my advice is to start with his VERY short essays “Truth and Lie in a Non-Moral Sense” and “Homer’s Contest”. these two writings will give more insight on what he was really “about” than anything else. Although, “Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks” isn’t too bad either.

9

how early were those writings? i ask because many say that his earlier work isn’t quite as good/decisive as his later work. i’ve read thus spoke, anti-christ, beyond good and evil, will to power etc. which i’ve all enjoyed and which have been his later work predominately

i can honestly say i’m not too fond of reading some of the greek work as, from what i know of it, i can’t say it sounds particulary interesting

10

Nietzsche was weak - but he hated to be weak. Think about this …

11

they were writings before he officially took up “philosophy”, well, sort of. but the give a an invaluble insight ot his direction… so if you’ve already read his later works, you may say to yourself “oh, well, damn that’s what he means”. obviously, if you can’t already tell, “truth and lie in a non-moral sense” is a take on Kant. and Homer’s contest is the reason he gives for living itself if you can see deep enough into it, but at least you may see that it is his reason for being such a revolutionary thinker/artist.

12

(I know i already posted this in another topic and i apologise to the mods but i wanted those who have been reading this topic to see it as well just in case they havent read the other topic)

Nietzsche on nihilisim, superman/monster and the abyss;

the problem is anyone who realises that morality and religion are nothing more then aspects of people and society that have no relevance to your existence because only you can truly control your existence, your way, who you are etc. can lead to chaos

A form of rejection in the concept of true nihilism can lead to chaos. you will no longer be held back by the traditions and ways of religion and morality and will be “free”. the problem with this is that this could lead to a breakdown in society when no-one obeys anything/one because they no longer fear the consequences of hell/heaven/god/society/morality/good and evil. without those you are left with nothing but the abyss and emptiness of human existence aka the abyss. psychopaths are those who are amoral and without fear/remorse and that is an example of someone who has stared at the abyss for too long as it gazed into him (i.e. the emptiness around us became the soul purpose of his exitence). he is a monster in the sense of all that makes us human.

it is too easy to give into the weaknesses of the body (greed, fear, lust etc) and so you must have a strong will to overcome this. you can choose to become either a great man or a monster which is why Nietzsche claims that man is on a rope, between superman and a monster, suspended over the abyss. nothing is there to catch you/hold onto you when you fall(religion, morality), so therefore you can just give in and be a beast (“man is an animal that must be overcome”) or you can become something greater then any man could ever be when held back by normal religion/morality, become “beyond man” so to speak.

that i believe is what Nietzsche was trying to write about for most of his life.

13

In answer to your original question and coming from someone not academically involved, although well read, especially when it comes to this enigmatic thinker (i’ve read the entire Nietzschean corpus about 3 times). I don’t think Nietzsche always said that the weak were bad and the strong good. That interpretation is a bit too narrow minded and absolute. The answer, as usual (especially with Nietzsche who’s writing is so easily misunderstood by all ‘skimmers’ as he intended), is a bit more complicated. Nietzsche was aristocratic, or anti-democratic if you prefer, but nevertheless saw most problems from many angles. I think it’s in the genealogy of morals that he talks about a primitive man who loses his sight but then has time away from the hunt to think and become an important member of the tribe. Nietzsche himself was often weak and sick but knew how to take those weaknesses and make strengths out of them as he talks about in Ecce Homo. Even Nietzsche’s attitude towards Darwin goes against the grain of what many people who would label him as a social Darwinist think of him. He said that the strong don’t necessarily always win. Your insight that Nietzsche was primarily talking about geist (mind, intellect, spirit) is right on target, and this frequently gets missed too.

14

thank you for your response and i’d just like to say i’m glad someone finally got round to answering my original points/questions

15

what are your opinions on my ideas of the claims that Nietzsche was sexist and hated jews? these are critiques of Nietzsche i have seen in the past and i would like to know if there is any justifications to these or my claims on the matter

also on a personal note, how good is Nietzsche’s work on tragedy, art, ancient greek etc? i have never read any of it but a quick introduction/explanation/view on the topic would be appreciated as i know very little on this aspect of Nietzsche’s work.

16

  1. there are different “schools” of Nietzsche and the one you have found in that book seems to be the most dominant and traditional.

  2. Your views are supported by other “schools” of thought, but they are less popular/abundant.

the best answer to question # 3 is this book http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0847689808/qid=1081807697/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/104-2123238-6937569?v=glance&s=books&n=507846

let me giva different list of things i think nietzche was

anti-democratic - but for different reasons than fascism or social darwinism. (the social-darwinism gets pinned on him because people who do have this view have been know to quote him, especially his use of the word unfairly translated into “superman”) rather his view like The republic was that democracy was mob-rule and that man as a group isn’t very sane.

anti-dualist - Nietzsche invented his own brand of “holism” (for lack of a better word). This was what the concept of “Will to Power” tried to describe.

Anti-Absolutist/ Anti-Metaphysical - Nietzsche’s philosophy goes right along with Heraclitus’ statement that “you never step in the same river twice”. His approach to philosophy and truth sought no absolutes, that is what made it revolutionary and also makes it hard to put into context as just a part of the continuing history of philosophy. In his way of doing thngs there is no stoping point, you have to dance and keep moving because thats what the world itself does. He wanted to de-capitalize all the BIG words that philsophy had invented, Truth, the Good etc. so if you try to jam him into the traditonal categorizing of philosophers his philosophy gets distorted.

As far as his views on pity, weak, strong ect. He was against the Lowest Common Denominator effect that the Moral world order pushed onto things. This is where he really goes against Kant, because he was against the idea of a Universial, his view being that trying to find universials for mankind stunts the growth of individuals and also that the world is everchanging.

He wasn’t a Nihilist especially an ehtical nihilist. Nietzsche simply saw that the current ways of seeing things was outdated, that our sytem of beliefs and understandings conflicted so much that something new had to be invented otherwise will succumb to nihilism. For instance, as much as we want to be ethical, our current ways going about it conflicted with our ways of attaining knowledge… His statement that “God Is Dead” signified that the very bedrock of our current value system was gone. Scientist may have thought that the Truth could replace God. But the bedrock wasn’t just a diety, it was that there is no possible Absolute to be found anywhere. This is what is symbolized by the abyss we all must travel over.

The reason why you will often find depictions of Nietzsche like the one you found is that Nietzsche has a reputation that precedes him. (he was the “saint” of the Nazi’s, and that’s a hard reputation to overcome) His philosophy is also revolutionary in style, and bucks a 2,500 year-old historical way of doing philosophy, and at the same time tries deal with what happened during all that time. If a reader can’t open his/her mind to this, i would honestly say his philosophy would look like a ragtag mess that doesn’t seem to fit together and all you could get out of it is a negative emotional reaction to his terminology. I’m also in the small camp of Nietzsche readers that sees Nietzsche as taking part in a esoteric tradition where all philosophy is written for two groups, those in “the know” and those who aren’t. He called Plato a Machiavellianist for this very fact.

Master/Slave morality - Is just an idea Nietzsche came up with to describe a situation. I found it better to look at it as though Nietzsche didn’t favor the slaves or the masters. He just showing how morality devolped from the codependent relationship of two basic groups of people, giving it a geneaological/historical/worldy basis rather than “other-worldly”. But out of all his books the Geneaology is the most approachable so writers may fall into the trap of trying to systamtize it into his “philosophy”.

17

He had mean things to say on occasions, but he had mean things to say about everyone. On the other hand, it has been very well established that he very much against the anti-semitism brewing during his life-time. What his sister did with him after he became catatonic is what caused him to be portrayed that way.

Brilliant. the concepts of Apollinian and Dionysian from his Birth of Tragedy spurned a whole new school of aesthetic theory. Nietzsche was someone who tried to find a new way for philosophy by going back to the ancients before we got on the wrong path. He had heavy influences in his early career from Schopehauer and Wagner but its good to get a grasp of this so you can see how he developed into his own ideas. he supported the tragic view of existence as opposed to Christianity’s pity.

for writings dealing with those topics see “Homer’s Contest”, “Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks”, “The Birth of Tragedy” and “Ecce Homo”.

18

thank you for your replies, they were very informative

19

for an interesting essay on Sartre and Nietzsche (predominately on “the will”) that i just found on the Essays and Theses forum go to: rideau.carleton.ca/philosophy/cu … milarities