Nietzsche - understandable?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Nietzsche - understandable? » Nietzsche - understandable?

Nietzsche - understandable?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Nietzsche - understandable?

van keister

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 09/07/08 - 02:22 PM:	#11
Please! That is the old line or lie, to believe that certain radical ideas are attributed to Nietzsche's sister instead of Nietzsche himself. Modern Platonists do the same thing: differentiating the words of Socrates from Plato. All the controversial issues are ascribed to the mouth of Plato instead of Socrates. Of course you cannot prove it.

zjerome
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2009
Location: New Hampshire (US)

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 15

Posted 07/04/09 - 06:52 AM:	#12
Actually you can prove that Nietzsche did not "write" Will to Power. Its selected writings from letters to his sister and other published and unpublished writing that was edited and composed by nazi propagandists. Just look at the time line of his life. Aug 25 1900 N dies. 1901 Will to Power published by Elisabeth and she claims that it represents her brothers true philosophy. Pick up the book and read the Publishing notes. N died a little over a hundred years ago, socrates died quite a bit before that, so it is harder to prove who said what in socrates case. But technically socrates didn't write the books, so it all comes from platos mouth(or pen). "It is easy to see how talk of master morality and slave morality can be conflated with Hitler's ideas about the master race and slave races." Hitler's philosophy and N's Philosophy are totally different. N looks at slave morality as anyone who gives up their freedom for the security of the herd, such as the church or any group in which you must do or think or act this way or that way. He despises the church for that reason. I think his main idea was to think for yourself, and to rise above the common ideas, the "herd" mentality. N was a loner for the great majority of his life, why would he promote slave morality based herd like the nazis?(if you weren't one of the elite few you were part of the herd) Why wouldn't he have joined a political group if he supported them? Edited by zjerome on 07/04/09 - 07:19 AM

van keister

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 07/05/09 - 09:50 AM:	#13
How nice it is to blame all of Nietzsche's faults upon his sister! How easy it is to strike out of Nietzsche what one does not want to believe and blame it on his sister! Read Nietzsche in German instead of translations! The fact remains that Hitler hated Parlimentary government as well as democracy. He believed in greatness and the power of great man, The Will to Power, is often quoted by Hitler because it is inseparable to Geist. Man is a warrior, einer Soldat, and Nietzsche spoke to warriors. He idolized the "blonde beast" that would come down from the North and rule. He didn't believe in nationalism, but in the Reich! I could go on and on, but A. Taha, in her book, Nietzsche: The Cult of the Superman" has done it better than anyone. Please read her book before you make a judgment based upon what you want to hear. Kaufmann and others have warped your senses and have robbed Nietzsche of his spirit which can not be reduced to psychologism, because Nietzsche spoke to the superman, the first stages of superhumanity, a higher species of humans that will replace Homo sapiens!

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/05/09 - 01:10 PM:

#14

It's worth mentioning that Hitler was brought to the attention of Nietzsche through Nietzsche's anti-semite sister who most definitely mis-represented Nietzsche's philosophy:

Nietzsche, in a letter to his sister, wrote:
[. . .] You have committed one of the greatest stupidities—for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or meloncholy. [. . .] It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to anti-Semitism, namely, opposed to it, as I am in my writings. I have recently been persecuted with letters and Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheets. My disgust with this party (which would like the benefit of my name only too well!) is as pronounced as possible, but the relation to Förster, as well as the afteraffects of my former publisher, the anti-Semitic Schmeitzner, always brings the adherents of this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must belong to them after all. [. . .] It arouses mistrust against my character, as if publicly I condemned something which I favored secretly—and that I am unable to do anything against it; that the name of Zarathustra is used in every Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet, has almost made me sick several times. [. . .]

God is dead: the concept of a supreme intelligent authority is no longer a viable world-view as more and more contradictory evidence is brought to light, we must seek a new philosophy that operates without a dependency for God.

Zarathustra is best read in english with Kaufmann's translation as his translations are clear and accurate. Perhaps it would be best to read a couple of his other books or atleast some secondary sources for a supplement before reading Zarathustra so as to understand it more clearly.

This blog is a good place to start: http://dailynietzsche.blogspot.com/

van keister

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 07/06/09 - 04:03 AM:	#15
Ridiculous of course! Blame it on her sister! You would probably believe that Martin Heidegger would reject Hitler also?

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/06/09 - 08:37 AM:

#16

van keister wrote:
Ridiculous of course! Blame it on her sister! You would probably believe that Martin Heidegger would reject Hitler also?

Blame what on his sister? Specification is required. His sister was an anti-semite and did represent, misrepresent, Nietzsche's philosophy after he died (he died in 1900, Hitler doesn't become anything special for another 30 years.)

He was wrong in some cases but he wasn't as scientifically literate as we are today. His views on women are arguably false, for example. However, Nietzsche isn't great for the amount of things he misunderstood but for the amount and the profoundity of the things he understood.

Martin Heidegger did accept Hitler, so I wouldn't say anything like that. Though I don't discredit Heidegger's work because of this.

Read the letter I quoted. Nietzsche was strongly opposed to anti-semitism, so of course he would reject Hitler.

Nietzsche was a very apolitical thinker, so what his reaction to facism would be is extremely vague, undeterminable.

Nietzsche wrote:
Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not where we live, my brothers: here there are states. State? What is that? Well then, open your ears to me, for now I shall speak to you about the death of peoples.

State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: "I, the state, am the people." That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.

It is annihilators who set traps for the many and call them "state": they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them.

Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights.

Edited by Crackers on 07/06/09 - 08:56 AM

van keister

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 24, 2008

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 19

Posted 07/07/09 - 12:21 PM:	#17
Why is it so important in your psychological make-up to separate Nietzsche from Hitler? Why the warum?

Crackers
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: May 28, 2009

Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 519

Posted 07/08/09 - 07:06 AM:

#18

van keister wrote:
Why is it so important in your psychological make-up to separate Nietzsche from Hitler? Why the warum?

Nietzsche and Hitler are, by default, separate. I don't try to separate them because they already are. Just as it would be senseless as to try and alter your "psychological make-up" to portray apples and oranges as the same thing or more intertwined than they actually are, it would be senseless to do the same to Nietzsche and Hitler. They are separate entities. Nietzsche was a philosopher and Hitler was a politician. It helps to see separate things as separate for the sake of sanity.

So, the question is, why is it so important in your psychological make-up to match Nietzsche with Hitler?

It is not unheard of for people to find Nietzsche's philosophy distasteful and to go on to reason that he is somewhat of a Hitler character in order to justify their distaste.

alekos
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 13, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 07/13/09 - 07:12 PM:	#19
Indeed it is laughable that people still try to hold the view of Nietzsche as founder of Nazism (or whatever), just goes to show how much harm a bad sister can cause. Taha's book is ridiculous by the way, pulling quotes out of context exactly as the Nazis did.

youngphilosophe
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 6

Posted 07/19/09 - 11:02 PM:	#20
In some areas he is quite brilliant but I still can't shake my prejudice when it comes to his idea of the "overhuman". I understand that he simply wanted man to advance and progress as quickly as possible but he did not consider both sides of his vision.

Members currently reading this thread: MiyamotoMusashi
	Download thread as

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.