Jump to content
nathan_debate

What most directly connects Nietzsche and his concepts to Nazism and/or similar ideologies?

Recommended Posts

I think that the only connection directly between Nietzsche and Nazism is that his sister had taken his writings from when he went mad and used them as a way to help Nazi ideology, especially anti-semitism.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is obviously not a debate they will be unfamiliar with or not ready for.

 

I would think it would be necessary to clarify which quotes there is evidence of the sister manipulating or tampering with.

 

There is no shortage of questionable ideas that emerge from Nietzsche's philosophy:

 

In The Will to Power, a number of aphorisms present solutions to the decadence of Europe and the World. In aphorism 862, Nietzsche proposes a doctrine of breeding and annihilation:

A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world weary. The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe.-The annihilation of slavish evaluations.-Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type.-The annihilation of the tartuffery called 'morality.' The annihilation of suffrage universel; i.e. the system through which the lowest natures prescribe themselves as laws for the higher.-The annihilation of mediocrity and its acceptance (The one sided, individuals – peoples; to strike for fullness of nature through the pairing of opposites: race mixture to this end). The new courage – no a priori truths…

 

Here's a larger quote:

Nietzsche justified terror with the belief that it would bring a higher state for mankind. But what is the superman other than terribleness? Shirer cited Nietzsche's explanation of how the superman was prophesized to dominate the world (Shirer, 111):

The strong men, the masters, regain the pure conscience of a beast of prey; monsters filled with joy, they can return from a fearful succession of murder…when a man is capable of commanding, when he is by nature a 'master,' when he is violent in act and gesture … to judge morality properly, it must be replaced by two concepts borrowed from zoology: the taming of a beast and the breeding of a specific species.

Nietzsche's prophecy calls for a master to maintain beasts of prey through breeding and transvaluation, which was essentially Hitler's course of action following his appointment to chancellor. In The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, William Shirer cited an aphorism from The Will to Power that more clearly defined the Superman's qualities: "A daring and ruler race is building itself up…the aim should be to prepare a transvaluation of values for a particular strong kind of man, most highly gifted in intellect and will. This man and the elite around him will become 'lords of the earth'" (Shirer, 101f). Shirer analyzed this quotation with respect to how Nietzsche affected Hitler and the content of Mein Kampf:

Such rantings from one of Germany's most original minds must have struck a responsive chord in Hitler's littered mind. At any rate he appropriated them for his own – not only the thoughts but the philosopher's penchant for grotesque exaggeration, and often his very words. 'Lords of the Earth' is a familiar expression in Mein Kampf. That in the end Hitler considered himself the superman of Nietzsche's prophesy can not be doubted.

In Mein Kampf, Hitler also emphasized the importance of questioning values and the necessary terror to transform the blood-poisoned state of Germany into an Aryan utopia. Hitler wrote, "Only when an epoch ceases to be haunted by the shadows of its own consciousness of guilt will it achieve the inner calm and outward strength brutally and ruthlessly to prune off the wild shoots and tear out the weeds" (Hitler, 30). If Hitler's Mein Kampf was partly a derivative of Nietzsche's work, the brutality Hitler referred to is the terribleness which Nietzsche described; it is the necessary destruction to refine the masses.

Edited by nathan_debate
  • Upvote 2
  • Downvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think that the first quote you provided is really because of a matter of translation from English to German. I have seen 3 translations that all say things that are similar, but not quite the same, the phrasing is very precise. I also think in this section he may be talking about the choice that is made between being an animal or being the Ubermensch, lower or higher.

 

A doctrine is needed powerful enough to work as a breeding agent: strengthening the strong, paralyzing and destructive for the world-weary.

The annihilation of the decaying races. Decay of Europe.-- The annihilation of slavish evaluations.-- Dominion over the earth as a means of producing a higher type.-- The annihilation of the tartuffery called "morality" (Christianity as a hysterical kind of honesty in this: Augustine, Bunyan).-- The annihilation of suffrage universel; i.e., the system through which the lowest natures prescribe themselves as laws for the higher.-- The annihilation of mediocrity and its acceptance. (The one-sided, individuals--peoples; to strive for fullness of nature through the pairing of opposites: race mixture to this end).-- The new courage--no a priori truths (such truths were sought by those accustomed to faith!), but a free subordination to a ruling idea that has its time: e.g., time as a property of space, etc.

 

 

I UL'd something I think is important, my interpretation may be incorrect because I have not read a lot of Nietzsche, but I think from this translation he's saying that race-mixture is something that allows us to build stronger and form Ubermensch.

Edited by Dalotri

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting.  

 

So the Ubermench is supposed to be all about power and will--and this little 10 word aside is supposed to magically stop people who are trying to be Ubermench through power.

 

Not to mention he links back to his own arguments here through utilitarian framework.

 

Should we label this "rules for the ubermenches to follow?"  That would link back to his critique of norms  and ethics and probably the critique of the affirmative itself.

 

Also, lest you forget what this pairing of opposites brings--look to Hegel who is who this is drawing on.  Its to have a battle & confrontation.

 

Also, this means that his framework has to allow Hitler vs. Jews and Hitler vs. the US because they are opposites.

 

Or this is a warrant for the perm.  Hegelian/Nietzschian collision and conflict good.

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Jews, however, are beyond all doubt the strongest, toughest, and purest race at present living in Europe; they know how to succeed even under the worst conditions (in fact better than under favorable ones) by means of virtues of some sort, which one would like nowadays to label as vices-owing above all to a resolute faith which does not need to be ashamed before “modern idea…

It is certain that the Jew, if he desired-or if they were driven to it, as the antisemites seem to wish-could now have the ascendancy, nay, literally the supremacy, over Europe; that they are not working or planning for that end is equally sure… The resourcefulness of the modern Jews, both in mind and soul, is extraordinary…”

- Friedrich Nietzsche
German Philosopher (1844 - 1900)

 

I'm skeptical.

Edited by FUDGE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're looking at the problem micro, and its really macro.  Nietzche liking the jews doesn't mean the end result of the philosophy isn't power & domination that culiminates in things like dictatorships, including nazism.  That only answers one part of the larger question of how domination takes place in history.

 

What is the normative reason you aren't supposed to be a racist or a nazist, especially when he denies these very tools from modernity?  

 

Also, Nietzshce would say that strong and the strong should collide (a la his Hegelian roots).  So were're back in a world that justifies BOTH domination & war (and the violence that underlies it).

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please include quotes, facts, and/or insights which connect the two.

 

Helping answer this question might help provide more credible answers.

 

On the Overman: (The particular transcription I've read concerning Nietzsche is the Portable Nietzsche by Richard Kaufman): Nietzsche never believed in anti-semitism or Nazism. In his writings, he spoke often of the superiority of the Jewish race and its particular successes as well as its downfall to the Christian mentality. Also, like you said, he wrote about systems of domination and mediocrity, but never in the context of the ubermench, or Overman. Mediocrity was a reason to become the Overman, something to escape from. The Overman was never supposed to dominate the mediocre...

 

On the predictions/ prophecy of Nazism: Reading the Gay Science, I recognized some part of his writings to have almost predicted the Holocaust. Some of his words (I'm not going to go find the quotes, for reasons that will be explained later) describe, like Fudge said, the inevitable exploitation and suffering of the Jewish race, but not in the context of Hitler. Hitler treated the Jews as a menace to be destroyed, while Nietzsche only predicted Jewish suffering would continue as it had historically, never predicting their attempted destruction.

 

On his sister. Yes, Nietzsche was allegedly in love with his sister and yes, his sister and particularly her husband, were anti-semitic. However, there is NO evidence that his writings were ever altered or changed after his death and in fact this is almost impossible because only 3 (maybe 4?) of his true works (not including notes) were released after he became insane. Nietzsche actually wrote that he hated the fact that his works were quoted out of context in anti-semitism pamplets (he says this almost Verbatim) and thought that the party was entirely misunderstanding his work.

 

On a strategic note: I've debated Nietzsche off and on for a couple years and I can almost guarantee no debater will ever read from Nietzsche works themselves running the K. Most Nietzsche K's are based on cards from authors who wrote about Nietzsche, not Nietzsche himself. THAT is why you can't just get up on the podium and call Nietzsche a racist or antisemite. 

Also, counter to what nathan said, I have about a page of blocks for people kritiking Nietzsche directly. Here's an exerpt: 

-

First of all, we don’t actually read any of the direct writings of Nietzsche for two reasons: 1) Nietzsche, like Heidegger, was especially picky and spoke often of the impossibility of translation and hated the thought that his work would be conformed to fit a language's nouns and verbs, destroying the true meaning of his thought and stripping the fat off reason only leaving a thin strand of muscle: Heidegger actually suggested that his work would be impossible to truly translate 2) Interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy is what matter most in this context, that is why we use other authors: Reading his own words would be counterproductive because A) Nietzsche’s work is written as poetry and in fact one of his writings, Thus Said Zarathustra, is almost entirely composed of poetry B- Many of Nietzsche’s writings, while some still remain true, could not be applied in the same context as his philosophy, for the environment has changed drastically: His writings were composed more than a century ago, that is not to say they don’t maintain their value Also, regarding a philosopher by their beliefs alone itself is a crime: Heidegger was a Nazi, are you claiming none of his works have ANY value – If so, you had better be a perfect person without flaw or most of what you say has no value: Does not every person have a crime?

-

Finally, every judge will ask you WHY ON EARTH DID YOU ATTACK HIM ON RACISM. Nietzsche, unfortunately, like most pre-20th century philosophers was INCREDIBLY sexist. In Zarathustra, he described women as being unable of true friendship instead saying, "As yet woman is not capable of friendship: women are still cats and birds. Or at the best, cows." In addition, he makes many third-rate remarks about women in his other works, so it would be much easier to debate from this standpoint.

 

In conclusion, I don't think you really understand Nietzsche's works and if you are ever hit by the K, I suggest sticking to generic K answers like Utilitarianism or No Link ("We don't try to stop suffering") instead of trying to critique Nietzsche directly.

Edited by LeKritiker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you're getting lost in the weeds.  My last post I pointed out that it was larger than Jews & Hitler.  It was those types of relationships.  So, its a bigger picture claim. So you're functionally mischaracterizing my argument--that is providing a strawperson which is pretty useless.

 

This is the core argument:

Nietzshce = relativism and/or nihilism.  Both of those = global forms of domination and dehumanization.

 

And perhaps--functional moral anarchy leads to the same thing.

 

I made others in the context of Hegel's influence on Nietzsche that also feed my point.

 

And I would go a step further, you're in a double-bind, either the Aff is a good thing, or the same justifications that de-justify the aff are exactly what would be used to de-justify helping the Jews or any other group of people (Kurds, etc...).  Nietzsche's philsopophy and ideology actively disempowers the ability to stop international violence & the slaughtering of innocence.  It simply perpetuates the Hobbesian international arena of "nasty, brutish, and short."

 

You talk about language here:

 

First of all, we don’t actually read any of the direct writings of Nietzsche for two reasons: 1) Nietzsche, like Heidegger, was especially picky and spoke often of the impossibility of translation and hated the thought that his work would be conformed to fit a language's nouns and verbs, destroying the true meaning of his thought and stripping the fat off reason only leaving a thin strand of muscle: Heidegger actually suggested that his work would be impossible to truly translate 2) Interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy is what matter most in this context, that is why we use other authors: Reading his own words would be counterproductive because A) Nietzsche’s work is written as poetry and in fact one of his writings, Thus Said Zarathustra, is almost entirely composed of poetry B- Many of Nietzsche’s writings, while some still remain true, could not be applied in the same context as his philosophy, for the environment has changed drastically: His writings were composed more than a century ago, that is not to say they don’t maintain their value Also, regarding a philosopher by their beliefs alone itself is a crime: Heidegger was a Nazi, are you claiming none of his works have ANY value – If so, you had better be a perfect person without flaw or most of what you say has no value: Does not every person have a crime?

 

If you're argument is we can't know what Nietzsche meant or said.  I'll just conceed that.  Takes our your argument.  Its a massive-double bind for you. 

 

The other double bind is on application.  He's old, which means his writings don't apply.  I can conceed that too.

 

Both of these take out your argument.

 

Or we can understand him....and all my arguments kick in (see above).  Further, the risk of misinterpretation is incredibly high and the implications are huge.  Try or die for getting out the incomprehensible & nihilistic world of Nietzsche.

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Possible answer to Nietzsche=Nazi; Nazism and core tenets of racial purity and anti-semitism are prime examples of slave morality, meaning that Nietzsche's work is antithetical to Nazism. These are all reactive value systems that a) are used by the weak to paint the strong (see the earlier quote on Nietzsche's opinion on the Jews) in a negative light, B) are life negating because they don't place intrinsic value on anything, and only generate value on the basis of "they are bad, by killing them we are good", and c) explain Germany's problems using reasoning that only externalizes the causes and fails to recognize the flaws in the German culture ("oh no, we couldn't possibly be impotent, it must be the Jews that are dragging us down as a nation"). That last one is basically ressentiment.

Nietzsche does justify war, no way to get around that. Read secondary authors who only embrace certain parts of Nietzsche. Or if you really want to double down say war good because it's s a crucible for the strong, or some other noncontradictory reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't being anti-racist arguably a "slave morality" too.

 

Nietzsche doesn't have nice words for compassion either.

 

Nietzsche evacuates the moral claims to make claims that justify things like Civil Rights.

 

Or what if the justification was different.  (ie not anti-semitic for instance like presumably other dictators).  Its that Nietzsche justifies things like the Nazies.  Not that he justifies the Nazies specifically.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I feel like you're getting lost in the weeds.  My last post I pointed out that it was larger than Jews & Hitler.  It was those types of relationships.  So, its a bigger picture claim. So you're functionally mischaracterizing my argument--that is providing a strawperson which is pretty useless.

 

This is the core argument:

Nietzshce = relativism and/or nihilism.  Both of those = global forms of domination and dehumanization.

 

And perhaps--functional moral anarchy leads to the same thing.

 

I made others in the context of Hegel's influence on Nietzsche that also feed my point.

 

And I would go a step further, you're in a double-bind, either the Aff is a good thing, or the same justifications that de-justify the aff are exactly what would be used to de-justify helping the Jews or any other group of people (Kurds, etc...).  Nietzsche's philsopophy and ideology actively disempowers the ability to stop international violence & the slaughtering of innocence.  It simply perpetuates the Hobbesian international arena of "nasty, brutish, and short."

 

You talk about language here:

 

First of all, we don’t actually read any of the direct writings of Nietzsche for two reasons: 1) Nietzsche, like Heidegger, was especially picky and spoke often of the impossibility of translation and hated the thought that his work would be conformed to fit a language's nouns and verbs, destroying the true meaning of his thought and stripping the fat off reason only leaving a thin strand of muscle: Heidegger actually suggested that his work would be impossible to truly translate 2) Interpretations of Nietzsche’s philosophy is what matter most in this context, that is why we use other authors: Reading his own words would be counterproductive because A) Nietzsche’s work is written as poetry and in fact one of his writings, Thus Said Zarathustra, is almost entirely composed of poetry B- Many of Nietzsche’s writings, while some still remain true, could not be applied in the same context as his philosophy, for the environment has changed drastically: His writings were composed more than a century ago, that is not to say they don’t maintain their value Also, regarding a philosopher by their beliefs alone itself is a crime: Heidegger was a Nazi, are you claiming none of his works have ANY value – If so, you had better be a perfect person without flaw or most of what you say has no value: Does not every person have a crime?

 

If you're argument is we can't know what Nietzsche meant or said.  I'll just conceed that.  Takes our your argument.  Its a massive-double bind for you. 

 

The other double bind is on application.  He's old, which means his writings don't apply.  I can conceed that too.

 

Both of these take out your argument.

 

Or we can understand him....and all my arguments kick in (see above).  Further, the risk of misinterpretation is incredibly high and the implications are huge.  Try or die for getting out the incomprehensible & nihilistic world of Nietzsche.

 

Cool if you want to concede all these things and describe a double bind scenario, but are you being satirical? This isn't a debate... I was defending Nietzsche's ideals in the face on Nazism. If you want to argue that relativity and nihilism lead to forms of domination, that's a different forum: Also, MANY, MANY authors propose the same ideas just using a different word besides ubermench... And I'm not straw-manning your argument:

 

I answered your claim about his sister: Here you said, "I would think it would be necessary to clarify which quotes there is evidence of the sister manipulating or tampering with."

Also, I answered your description of the dominating sense of the ubermench: " Shirer cited Nietzsche's explanation of how the superman was prophesized to dominate the world (Shirer, 111):"

As for the other Nazism stuff: There are multiple people on this forum, and the title and the forum is asking for links between Nietzsche and Nazism.... Don't really understand your strawman argument.

 

Once again, I'm defending an author from being juxtaposed with ideals of Nazism, and other false statements: This isn't a debate! I'm not defending any action or an "Affirmative"??? What are you going on about???

 

In addition, you say that because we can't know what Nietzsche is saying, that this "turns" my argument: I'm saying Nietzsche K's don't actual utilize Nietzsche's works themselves because we can't truly know Nietzsche's philosophy in a couple speeches. Nietzsche's K's are truly just security K's that use other authors, and have a ressentiment impact...

 

Then you say "Try or Die" - What the fuck?

This isn't the V-Debate section, I'm defending an author, not debating -_-

If this is satirical, please say so...

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But isn't being anti-racist arguably a "slave morality" too.

 

Nietzsche doesn't have nice words for compassion either.

 

Nietzsche evacuates the moral claims to make claims that justify things like Civil Rights.

 

Or what if the justification was different. (ie not anti-semitic for instance like presumably other dictators). Its that Nietzsche justifies things like the Nazies. Not that he justifies the Nazies specifically.

It's a question of whether racism is a negation of an identity or an affirmation of one over another. Personally I think that it requires negation, so being anti-racist is arguably to demand the ability to affirm identity. Is it a "freedom from" racism, or a "freedom to" affirm oneself? I think of this argument as the same thing as saying "you don't like intolerance? That's intolerant!" Nietzsche isn't saying we can't express our opinions against things, but that we shouldn't base our sense of self (or in racism, our sense of superiority, the poor white feeling superior to the slave) in reaction. That's grounded in an inability to find strength in yourself, meaning you have to outsource your strength and agency.

 

Nietzsche is more into the why's of your actions than the actions themselves. He doesn't see many good reasons for compassion, but we can determine those independent of Nietzsche. Nietzsche does believe we should respect the Other, if not feel compassion. He's a perspectivist, so he believes that what we see in the Other is only a reflection of ourselves (we can only know our perspective, so what else can we know of the Other?) . If we hate the Other it stands to reason that this stems from hatred of the self.

 

Those arguments apply to all antagonisms against the Other. I just specified them to Nazis.

 

Nietzsche would not agree with the mainstream justifications of the civil rights movement. However, there could be less common justifications he might like (self-love and such). I'm not sure what his specific opinions were on PoC, but if we actually apply his theories consistently (how people do with the Founding Fathers) we get more of a criticism of the racists themselves than the conditions they create. He'd probably still want PoC to do some suffering acceptance or something, but we can't really know. Closest issue he talks about is anti-semitism against the Jews, for whom there wasn't a liberation movement in his lifetime. This is why peopld read more recent secondary authors who apply his work.

 

Also, there's always "not our Nietzsche" as a fallback argument.

Edited by seanarchy
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The right wing and left wing framing of Nietzsche ultimately collapse on themselves.  Nietzsches critique is a fools errand--no solvency.  Eglat 2017


(Guy Eglat, lecturer in the liberal arts at the School of Arts in Chicago and author of book on the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche, Why Friedrich Nietzsche Is the Darling of the Far Left and the Far Right, Tablet Magazine, May 8, 2017, p. online) [Accessed: May 8, 2017]


 


The secret of Nietzsche’s appeal to people from opposite ends of the political spectrum is thus revealed: To the radical right, it is his rejection of equality and the democratic ideas that are based on it that is scintillating and rings true (besides his often and—as I have argued—misunderstood flirtations with the concept of race); to the left, it is his anti-essentialism with its emphasis on the plastic nature of identity that promises liberation from societal oppression. But, as it is typical in politics, the catch is that each side, to maintain its political ideology, has to reject the other’s Nietzscheanism: The radical right cannot easily accept the idea that identity, including racial identity, is dynamic and malleable, and the left, in order to promote its progressive agenda in the democratic public forum, cannot easily give up on the idea of the moral equality of all.


The Nietzschean challenge, however, lies in the incorporation and combination of both extremes within one mind or one system of ideas, and it is perhaps this that explains why a Nietzschean political philosophy remains, to this day, an unstable and unrealizable notion: For a political ideal to be realized in actuality and motivate people, some unifying clarion call has to be possible to gather large groups of people behind it. But if there are neither equals nor fixed and unchanging hierarchies, if everything is fluid and in the process of becoming, no such call can be made: there will be no one to make it and no one to hear and respond to it.


 


Source: http://www.tabletmag.com/jewish-arts-and-culture/228455/nietzsche-left-right


 


You should read more than I highlighted.  I'm not sure I fully understand this argument, but I haven't given it time.


Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nothing, his sister hijacked his work. However, many might interpret his position on the slave-morality to apear Nazish. I disagree with those people and would be glad to explain more if needed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame that all on his sister.  Yes, his sister made the connections clear, but that doesn't mean those values weren't latent in his philosophy already.

 

How is someone who reject ethics reject racism.  Nietzsche is relativism in drag.  Relativism is a limp noodle versus racism.  It lacks any backbone to give us a Constitution, rights, or any means of rejecting racism.

 

What is the Nietzschean rejection of racism that doesn't also link to his own critique?  Which would mean his critique leaves the anti-racist without any tools.  

Historically proven--MLK couldn't have used Nietzsche to cause the civil rights change, because civil rights are critiqued by Nietzsche.  Nietzshce couldn't have been used to get rid of slavery, because Nietzsche would have said "they need to suffer" or this is just lame compassion.

 

What part of his overarching thesis statement certainly don't point in this direction:

 

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time?

 

Thats his words not mine.  Thats his thesis statement of his whole philosophy.

 

That infinite nothing is what is left to the moral infrastructure which helps maintain relationships based on love, compassion, kindness, mutual affirmation, fairness, and caring and replaces them with nothing or their opposites.  (or any part of civilization in terms of justice, fairness, democracy, or even the norms of debate--or basic respect and dignity).

 

What Nietzsche is describing is ultimately intellectual anarchy and political anarchy. Its that “war of all against all” that Hobbes warned us about. Violence, domination, dehumanization, not freedom or justice will be the legacy of that change.

 

His vision is Charlie Sheens & Trump & Machiavelli's rule the world.

 

It would seem that if you read parts of their own evidence back at them, they are going to be at a loss for words in terms of how to defend this (unless its just the security question, even then, I think he undermines all truth and ethics in his critique of security if you follow the logic out).

 

Piedude and others, hat did I miss exactly??????

Edited by nathan_debate

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't blame that all on his sister.  Yes, his sister made the connections clear, but that doesn't mean those values weren't latent in his philosophy already.

 

How is someone who reject ethics reject racism.  Nietzsche is relativism in drag.  Relativism is a limp noodle versus racism.  It lacks any backbone to give us a Constitution, rights, or any means of rejecting racism.

 

What is the Nietzschean rejection of racism that doesn't also link to his own critique?  Which would mean his critique leaves the anti-racist without any tools.  

Historically proven--MLK couldn't have used Nietzsche to cause the civil rights change, because civil rights are critiqued by Nietzsche.  Nietzshce couldn't have been used to get rid of slavery, because Nietzsche would have said "they need to suffer" or this is just lame compassion.

 

What part of his overarching thesis statement certainly don't point in this direction:

 

"Where has God gone?" he cried. "I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time?

 

Thats his words not mine.  Thats his thesis statement of his whole philosophy.

 

That infinite nothing is what is left to the moral infrastructure which helps maintain relationships based on love, compassion, kindness, mutual affirmation, fairness, and caring and replaces them with nothing or their opposites.  (or any part of civilization in terms of justice, fairness, democracy, or even the norms of debate--or basic respect and dignity).

 

What Nietzsche is describing is ultimately intellectual anarchy and political anarchy. Its that “war of all against all” that Hobbes warned us about. Violence, domination, dehumanization, not freedom or justice will be the legacy of that change.

 

His vision is Charlie Sheens & Trump & Machiavelli's rule the world.

 

It would seem that if you read parts of their own evidence back at them, they are going to be at a loss for words in terms of how to defend this (unless its just the security question, even then, I think he undermines all truth and ethics in his critique of security if you follow the logic out).

 

Piedude and others, hat did I miss exactly??????

I actually feel like you hit spot on. That's why when I run Nietzsche, i do it more as a FIAT/death K. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...