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.
Nietzsche thought compassion was a strength but its effects led to weakness. This is correct, and means that compassion must be kept in check and that failure to do so is a mark of weakness. It’s like the peacock’s train: a peacock’s sporting a great train is an expression of fitness, but the bird’s fitness is reduced to zero if it dies before it could procreate; this however may happen as a result of sporting such a train. This is one more reason why the mind should rule the heart, philosophy religion.
Yeah, listen to Sri Sauwelios… he has a very favorable track record amongst Nietzscheans. Nothing fishy in his background that would cause half of you to drop his association and run. Great guy, a true atheist.
killdevilhill.com/gunschat/read. … =14149&v=f
But that was Nietzsche’s whole point. You’re a Nietzschian!
A useful and common analogy - or is it ontology - that the self is in pieces and some pieces or this or that piece should be in charge, here ‘should rule’. And internal government. And internal master slave to point a bit at other parts of the context. Let’s say there are parts to the self and that parts can be overemphasized, creating problems. Seems reasonable, can fit what a phenomenologist would describe. At this point most humans/theorists jump to certain modes of relation - here the metaphor of autocracy, with the mind as the autocrat. The heart being, well, a faction of the polis, perhaps often seen to be a kind of mob organ. Swayed irrationally, etc. Other possible relations are not chosen, and generally it is not explained why. For example, the mind could inform the heart. The mind could merge with the heart, sharing it’s awareness, memory, analysis. 'Suddenly the heart is not just focused on the sad face of the guy who has been embezzling and has just been caught redhanded, but the repetition of this situation is part of the awareness -categorizations, memories, logging - it is flooded with by ‘the mind’. (as an aside these days when one says heart and juxtaposes it to mind, most modernists really mean limbic system vs. frontal lobes or some such). Creating a unity, informing, working with as a partner…these potential relations/dynamics/analogies are left off the table. A unitary organism is encouraged to continue as a disjointed set of parts, and even to give up energy to have one part controlling another. Splits made during childrearing and via the media and by schooling and by loopy portions of culture and then reinforced by philosophers and psychologists and self-help book writers, who all KNOW intuitively, since it all goes without saying, that only these kinds of ruler/ruled, master/slave, guard/prisoner dynamics work. And their politics regarding the out world will tend to match (or be guiltily denied) their internal form of government.
I have sympathy for this. Both history and meditation seem to lead one in this direction. And so what is actually a distortion is taken for what is.
None of this, obviously, is a denial of the fact that one can be too focused on the feelings/pain of others. In specific situations, as a general pattern. I say it is obvious but sometimes I have to state the obvious since it gets missed. So we shift from a fact/ a reality many encounter to the solution, the only solution, it seems. If something can be out of balance, then it must be under vigilant control by something else. And the fact that mind, that something else, has always been the root of the imbalance is neatly hidden in all this ‘realism’. For it was mind that told heart it had to deny itself for others, even if the mind in question is not aware of that part of itself.
And I should have added, this idea of parts ruling over parts exceedingly Christian (Abrahamic, even major religion, in general) and in the end an odd fit for a philosopher so critical, if in a complex manner, of Christianity.
Ah yes, “mind” has always been the root of the imbalance. The heart is innocent! 
That can be the case, but is not what I was talking about. I was talking about the irrational, evolved selflessness. You’re talking about the carrot and stick, the superego.
You mean “Platonic”. It’s not at all Christlike, of course. What’s good about the Church is that it is a hierarchy, with the more spiritual human beings on top; what’s bad about it is that it has to tell lies–for example the lie of the equality of all souls before God.
No Exist… Im am three things, 1) A Catholic 2) A Cynic 3) A Machiavellian.
I already know about Nietzsche being heavily attracted to all three. In alot of cognitive tests, mapping brain function, he pops up on my end… but I am no Nietzschean. Nietzsche half assed, stole, and blundered in the execution of his ideas. Who you think is Nietzsche (especially you arminius the immunologist) is Jerome Cardan, a renaissance philosopher who’s autobiography somehow ended up in Ecce Homo.
So you are a humble, duplicitous Catholic? 
two loafs of brain james.