Friedrich Nietzsche's Fatal Mistake And Error

You know I was talking about you, right?

If you were then you have greatly misinterpreted or misunderstood what I was saying. Coming from you I’m not at all surprised.

I’ve never heard anyone say that.

Nietzsche knew that.

This view is to be expected from a thought which moves only in one dimension and along a single plateau. Because you cannot see deeper into how various moral ideas are different from each other, from where morals come, or why they even exist, let alone “what morality is”, you are forced to conclude as you do – simplistically and fallaciously. And also psychologically self-servingly.

Nietzsche was not afraid of moral nihilism. He was afraid of the kind of nihilism which you represent, and because he saw your type coming into power and staying in power.

For one thing, you are eminently moral yourself.

No it isn’t.

Self-value is the natural expression of this existence.

It’s just that you happen to manifest your self-valuing by attempting to cut if off and deny it – “nihilism” is only a philosophy of weakness.

You really don’t understand Nietzsche at all, do you.

Creative destruction is always prevalent in the world.

And “anarchy” is and never will be a valid philosophy, much less politics.

Try Humanarchy instead.

Order and rules are an inherent part of existence, especially of organisms and “life”. Let alone consciousness itself, as we experience it and are manifested thusly.

No wonder you want to kill yourself.

Exactly!

Well, by that sort of thinking–i.e., morally nihilistic thinking–, it’s not true that moral nihilism should be embraced, as there are no shoulds or should-nots.

Ah, but it’s not the end result. You see, you were mistaken when you said:

If there is no reason to be truthful, why should people not start believing in imaginary carrots and sticks again?

All of that is an extrapolation of moral nihilism not against it.

Once the transparency of the fraud is exposed there is no going back to it again. Mental adaptation and such.

We don’t get fooled again.

The collective consciousness begins to take note.

And?

What about the mental adaptation to the notion that there is no reason to be truthful? As Palahniuk wrote, “If you watch close, history does nothing but repeat itself.” (Palahniuk, Survivor.)

History often enough does repeat itself but there is several transformations also to be of note.

If the general population comes to a conclusion that they’ve been conditioned to believe in mass delusion all these thousands of years in what is described as civilization we are looking at a major transformation and not some repeat of business as usual.

I believe this awakened collective consciousness is very much possible.

I’m not suggesting some sort of positive collective consciousness either but one of eternal rebellion and defiance where moral nihilism will become dominantly paramount.

Oh, such a cataclysm is definitely possible. It’s just that, sooner or later, a similar mass delusion will again emerge. The rebellion and defiance will by no means be eternal. Anarchy is only an intermediary stage.

And after the genie his epigones, his copyists, his copycats, his imitators come and get “high” outside the bottle.

Probably - or probably not?

Can you give evidence?

When you first set out in philosophy, did you ever have dreams and hopes, ambitions and desires, a sense of beauty in studying the unknown and coming into a better working knowledge of the universe?

Why has it, after reading some dead Prussian, philosophy has become nothing but one short, meaningless narrow road to murder and suicide, with commentary?

Why is this the sum of philosophy for you? All Nietzscheans are addicted to suicide. Knock it off or get on with it, pick a date when you all want to do it, and leave the living to their own devices.

Impossible to imagine a more dreary and worthless philosophy where everyone either wants to die or enslave and whip one another… just… come on, its clearly a lunatic religion, right up there with the Heaven’s Gate Cult.

Go ride a bicycle, and eat some icecreme in the park, play with a puppy… the puppy knows better than to do this to itself, let it rub off on you a bit.

No more suiciding dammit. If you suicide, we will jail you, and you’ll pay a fine, and do community service after. Playing with a puppy sounds alot better now, doesn’t it?

Why not?

I did.

It hasn’t for me. In fact, I find my life much more meaningful post-studying Nietzsche than pre-studying Nietzsche.

Why is this the sum of philosophy for you?

I’m not sure which Nietzschians you are talking about. I am not that way. Maudmarie Clark is not that way. Brian Leiter is not that way. etc. etc.

You can read the slave stuff somewhat metaphorically as about intellectual sparring. Many American Nietzschains read him this way. Nietzshe is certainly not, however, commanding you to have slaves. He’s playing with possibilities, possibilities that perhaps might be more healthy ways of having a society. I for one, disagree with him if his conclusion is that slavery creates a more flourishing society, as i think many Nietzschians would.

Nietzsche would have no problem with any of this. In fact, insofar as it is life affierming, he’d encourage it for sure.

Suicide isn’t immoral, but it’s also very unhealthy, perhaps the unhealthiest way of dealing with life. To me, the Nietzschian action would be to not take your life, even if you are in extreme suffering. I don’t go with Nietzsche all the way down that path. I think someone with a horrible terminal cancer or a soul crushing depression that’s eaten at them for a decade, suicide can be rational or justified. That doesn’t mean it’s the only or best solution.

Just wanted to try and rebut a bit on the behalf of the Nietzschians, of which I count myself among these days.

Okay, that is a cynical statement, but nevertheless: Nietzscheans are endangered …:

What shall we do with him?

Probably Nietzsche didn’t overcome nihilism, but brought more nihilism than all other nihilists before him, because he spread nihilism all over the world.

Who is really able to overcome nihilism in times of nihilism?

 Moral relativism fails as a system, because it cannot arbitrate ethical conflicts. Entitlement literally begs this question.

Well, I think Nietzsche was a great life philosopher, a great scepticist, a great psychologist (and b.t.w.: the real or original founder of the psychoanalyse), a great immunologist, a great writer, a graet aphorist, a graet essayist, a great poet, a great philologist, but that’s all. I don’t know whether he overcame nihilism, but I know that it is nearly impossible to overcome nihilism in nihilistic times because it is impossible to eliminate the thought of nihilism in times of nihilism.(Cp.: Zeitgeist). When you think you do not want to think about nihilism, you think about nihilism.

Then how is it I manage to get through life without such a hypothetical state; for if nihilism is anything, it’s a chronic lack of dopamine. Its a state of perception, occurring from anatomy, not a abstract nominal idea that is shuffled around in debate.

I have been systematically confronted with the very worst of life. Far worst than anything you can offer in return. I have sat with many of you, heard your arguments for years… honestly, short of some debilitating lesions in the brain completely warping your neuro-chemical make-up, this concept of nihilism being completely independent of time or ante rem structural mathematics in reorienting the entire perceptive universe around itself, as the most sure and absolute thing in existence… is a crock of self defeating bullshit. It is sadistic and retarded. If your on Prozac, get off it, and if your off it, ask your doctor for a prescription…

I mean shit, we got all these pounds of brain mass, a wide array of possibilities, and this is the miserable shit philosophy is whittled down to for you guys.

Nihilism is put of the bag, but so are puppies and long walks on the beach. Remarkably nothing has actually changed… the structure and chemical make up of brains havent changed in the last few hundred years…

Every grave in the graveyard you pass, who died old, managed. They reject this miserable synthesis by the virtue of living.

Don’t make me sing the happy puppy love song. I will if you suiciders continue with this miserable de sade “Justine” mockery of life.

Just try living instead. And don’t confuse living by being a complete sado-masochist douche.

Life is worth living. Outside of some inexperienced drugged up teenager, Nietzscheans are the only group I gotta tell this to.

How creepy, how German!

In the 70’s he whote that a life dedicated to truth is the purest life of all.

[tab]19 [175]

Was thut den Menschen die Wahrheit!

Es ist das höchste und reinste Leben möglich, im Glauben die Wahrheit zu haben. Der Glaube an die Wahrheit ist dem Menschen nöthig.

Die Wahrheit erscheint als sociales Bedürfniß: durch eine Metastase wird sie nachher auf alles angewandt, wo sie nicht nöthig ist.

Alle Tugenden entstehn aus Nothdurften. Mit der Societät beginnt das Bedürfniß nach Wahrhaftigkeit. Sonst lebt der Mensch in ewigen Verschleierungen. Die Staatengründung erregt die Wahrhaftigkeit. —

Der Trieb zur Erkenntniß hat eine moralische Quelle.[/tab]

[tab]“Nitimur in vetitum: (We strive for the forbidden) in this sign my philosophy will triumph one day, for what one has forbidden so far as a matter of principle has always been—truth alone.”[/tab]

[tab]Nietzsche wrote:
The good four. Honest with ourselves and with whatever is friend to us; courageous toward the enemy; generous toward the vanquished; polite-always that is how the four cardinal virtues want us.[/tab]

Asocial dogs will always follow only the path of destruction!

Nietzsche’s mistake was that he was compassionate and his error was that he thought compassion is weak. A syntax error that became fatal but not before he created the finest religion alive.

Ah see now, you won me over.

Chain me up and whip me, so long as you tell me more of these bittersweet lies.

I’m not sure where, but I’m pretty sure Nietzsche says somewhere that the Romans made a grave mistake in taking the Christians seriously. Well then, we Nietzscheans, we representatives of Roma, should learn from the past! That is, we should not take rants like Contra-Nietzsche’s seriously. I’ve known him since 2009, and he’s a self-proclaimed Christian. Don’t engage him.

I will now say some things that may throw some light on some of my earlier comments. I do not consider Nietzsche a moral nihilist. That is to say, I consider him a slave-moral nihilist, but not a master-moral nihilist. Or, considering that he often speaks of “morality” when he means only slave or herd morality, I consider him a “moral” nihilist, but not an “ethical” nihilist. Compare:

[size=95]“Nietzsche’s ‘antimoral propensity’ […] is rooted in a counter-morality, an opposing ethic, an alternative conception of what is good, right, and fitting for a human being. Thus, his criticism of morality is in fact ultimately moral or, to avoid confusion, ethical.” (Peter Berkowitz, Nietzsche: The Ethics of an Immoralist, page 48.)[/size]

This is crucial to understanding Nietzsche. It’s the difference between the values “good and bad” and “good and evil”. The inconsistency I immediately caught in the OP is resolved as soon as this distinction is made. It’s good as opposed to bad to embrace slave-moral nihilism. The mistake and error is not Nietzsche’s but Tyler’s.