The Christian demand for truth was its own demise.

[ataraxia]

Nietzsche is probably right though, the total of humanity probably doesn't advance like it could without the burden of picking up the less-fortunate. Incredible time and resources goes into attending to the less fortunate. Why bother being nice while the rest of us could be more successful in eliminating some of that effort towards the stupid, the sick, the handicapped, and the brown?

Unshackle ourselves from constraints of Christian pity, as it were.

Yeah, that kind of thinking really is problematic- that's why I prefer the pragmatists like Dewey over Nietzsche.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.1086/591813

 

[gboisjo]

Actually, the statement "God is dead," occurred first by Hegel.

Thank you for that, another ground breaker, born 1770.

As we slowly try to step out of our ancient mythical past ..one step at a time.

 

[Jacksprat]

But what he didn't have was a good social/ethical theory, or a substantive philosophy of science.

Most philosophers consider Nietzche's main writings to be in ethics. Not sure what you mean.

He wrote about science in the Will To Power. Again, not sure what mean.

 

[Jacksprat]

Perhaps we can acknowledge that Nietzsche offered a revolutionary new understanding, but perhaps pragmatism may be an improvement, bypassing the worst excesses of religious thinking on the one hand, and overly-relativistic postmodernist thinking on the other?

Nietzsche was not a relativist.

 

[ataraxia]

Nietzsche was not a relativist.

Yes. But he didn't really have any kind of social theory, nor a satisfying philosophy of science.

 

[Jacksprat]

'God is dead'. Hegel, #742.

http://www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Marxist_Philosophy/Hegel_and_Feuerbach_files/Hegel-Phenomenology-of-Spirit.pdf

 

[ataraxia]

Most philosophers consider Nietzche's main writings to be in ethics. Not sure what you mean.

He wrote about science in the Will To Power. Again, not sure what mean.

The ethics seem to emphasize individualism without regard or consideration to social consequences. It seems a little disturbing to me in that way.

 

[Jacksprat]

Yes. But he didn't really have any kind of social theory, nor a satisfying philosophy of science.

Nietzsche mostly wrote about social theory. Are you sure you know who he is?

And Nietzsche's idea of science (interpretation) is what Heisenberg said. There are no objective facts, just the way scientists explain things.

 

[Jacksprat]

The ethics seem to emphasize individualism without regard or consideration to social consequences. It seems a little disturbing to me in that way.

Nietzsche certainly was not an advocate of democracy.

 

[Jacksprat]

Thank you for that, another ground breaker, born 1770.

As we slowly try to step out of our ancient mythical past ..one step at a time.

Even Kant said there is no rational basis for believing in God.

 

[ataraxia]

Nietzsche certainly was not an advocate of democracy.

Yes. Whether you consider that a consequence of his emphasis on the individual, or just failure to consider how that emphasis might come into conflict with a functional society, I see that as a major failing of his philosophy.

This is an interesting book I read a while back talking about the tension between the individual and social considerations. It has some very interesting insight into Nietzsche and the problem of sacrificing the social good for the individual ubermensch.

Amazon.com

Dewey, on the other hand, was able to maintain a solid antifoundationalism while still arguing eloquently for democracy.

These are some of the reasons which, while being a great admirer of many aspects of Nietzsche's work, I see a dark underbelly. I know this is controversial, but I am not sure that there is not a strong tendency toward a sort of heartlessness in his philosophy which lays the groundwork for things like Nazism.

Amazon.com

 

[bomberfox]

This is the inherent problem with taking one philosopher to be your guide.

 

[Jacksprat]

Yes. Whether you consider that a consequence of his emphasis on the individual, or just failure to consider how that emphasis might come into conflict with a functional society, I see that as a major failing of his philosophy.

This is an interesting book I read a while back talking about the tension between the individual and social considerations. It has some very interesting insight into Nietzsche and the problem of sacrificing the social good for the individual ubermensch.

Amazon.com

Nietzsche never says the social good should be sacrificed for the ubermensch. The stability of a society is necessary for artists and other creative types to thrive.

 

[Jacksprat]

These are some of the reasons which, while being a great admirer of many aspects of Nietzsche's work, I see a dark underbelly. I know this is controversial, but I am not sure that there is not a strong tendency toward a sort of heartlessness in his philosophy which lays the groundwork for things like Nazism.

Amazon.com

Yes, the nazism thing. Hitler was a Catholic and used the Christian idea of messiah as a justification of God on earth.

 

[Jacksprat]

This is the inherent problem with taking one philosopher to be your guide.

Is this supposed to be a response to something someone said on this thread?

 

[ataraxia]

Nietzsche never says the social good should be sacrificed for the ubermensch. The stability of a society is necessary for artists and other creative types to thrive.

Well, in practice, if you try to be an ubermensch, some conflict is bound to happen with society. Who said that individual reaching for power and potential and being an artist with their own life is not going to run into some conflict with the good and interests of others or society in general?

The only thing that puts a brake on that is the feelings of empathy/pity/consideration for others. Once you urge people to forget about that stuff, the entire foundation of ethics is gone.

Think about someone who becomes so devoted to their career (becoming a prominent surgeon, artist, scientist, etc...): it is bound to have significant impacts on their family. He/she may be asking them to sacrifice a lot as he/she pursues their own interests and personal growth. What would Nietzsche recommend? I can't be sure, but all his comments about not worrying about others, not having pity, etc... are not very reassuring for how much time the kids or spouse are going to have with their ubermensch parent.

 

[Jacksprat]

Think about someone who becomes so devoted to their career (becoming a prominent surgeon, artist, scientist, etc...): it is bound to have significant impacts on their family. He/she may be asking them to sacrifice a lot as he/she pursues their own interests and personal growth. What would Nietzsche recommend? I can't be sure, but all his comments about not worrying about others, not having pity, etc... are not very reassuring for how much time the kids or spouse are going to have with their ubermensch parent.

Nietzsche never says we should not respect other people.

 

[ataraxia]

Yes, the nazism thing. Hitler was a Catholic and used the Christian idea of messiah as a justification of God on earth.

True. He did that to manipulate and exploit the faith of the masses. But it was clear from his actions that he saw himself more as a Nietzschean ubermensch than through any Christian ideal.

Now whether this was a complete misreading of Nietzsche can be debated, but there is no question that Hitler and the Nazis themselves found significant inspiration in the writings of Nietzsche:

"The term Übermensch was used frequently by Hitler and the Nazi regime to describe their idea of a biologically superior Aryan or Germanic master race;[15] a racial version of Nietzsche's Übermensch became a philosophical foundation for National Socialist ideas.[16][17] The Nazi notion of the master race also spawned the idea of "inferior humans" (Untermenschen) who should be dominated and enslaved;"

Übermensch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[Jacksprat]

True. He did that to manipulate and exploit the faith of the masses. But it was clear from his actions that he saw himself more as a Nietzschean ubermensch than through any Christian ideal.

Now whether this was a complete misreading of Nietzsche can be debated, but there is no question that Hitler and the Nazis themselves found significant inspiration in the writings of Nietzsche:

"The term Übermensch was used frequently by Hitler and the Nazi regime to describe their idea of a biologically superior Aryan or Germanic master race;[15] a racial version of Nietzsche's Übermensch became a philosophical foundation for National Socialist ideas.[16][17] The Nazi notion of the master race also spawned the idea of "inferior humans" (Untermenschen) who should be dominated and enslaved;"

Übermensch - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Bad scholarship. Scholars agree it was his sister who interpreted his texts to support Nazi ideology.

Personally, I find the overman the least interesting thing about Nietzsche. Something he talks about very rarely.

 

[ataraxia]

Nietzsche never says we should not respect other people.

For me, I have trouble seeing the difference between his attack on "pity" here in the quote below, and an attack on empathy. And I see empathy as the foundation of morality.

“Pity preserves things that are ripe for decline, it defends things that have been disowned and condemned by life, and it gives a depressive and questionable character to life itself by keeping alive an abundance of failures of every type. People have dared to call pity a virtue… people have gone even further, making it into the virtue, the foundation and source of all virtues, - but of course you always have to keep in mind that this was the perspective of a nihilistic philosophy that inscribed the negation of life on its shield. Schopenhauer was right here: pity negates life, it makes life worthy of negation, - pity is the practice of nihilism. Once more: this depressive and contagious instinct runs counter to the instincts that preserve and enhance the value of life: by multiplying misery just as much as by conserving everything miserable, pity is one of the main tools used to increase decadence - pity wins people over to nothingness! … You do not say ‘nothingness’ : instead you say ‘the beyond’; or ‘God’; or ‘the true life’; or nirvana, salvation, blessedness … This innocent rhetoric from the realm of religious-moral idiosyncrasy suddenly appears much less innocent when you see precisely which tendencies are wrapped up inside these sublime words: tendencies hostile to life.”​

-Nietzsche

 

[Jacksprat]

For me, I have trouble seeing the difference between his attack on "pity" here in the quote below, and an attack on empathy. And I see empathy as the foundation of morality.

“Pity preserves things that are ripe for decline, it defends things that have been disowned and condemned by life, and it gives a depressive and questionable character to life itself by keeping alive an abundance of failures of every type. People have dared to call pity a virtue… people have gone even further, making it into the virtue, the foundation and source of all virtues, - but of course you always have to keep in mind that this was the perspective of a nihilistic philosophy that inscribed the negation of life on its shield. Schopenhauer was right here: pity negates life, it makes life worthy of negation, - pity is the practice of nihilism. Once more: this depressive and contagious instinct runs counter to the instincts that preserve and enhance the value of life: by multiplying misery just as much as by conserving everything miserable, pity is one of the main tools used to increase decadence - pity wins people over to nothingness! … You do not say ‘nothingness’ : instead you say ‘the beyond’; or ‘God’; or ‘the true life’; or nirvana, salvation, blessedness … This innocent rhetoric from the realm of religious-moral idiosyncrasy suddenly appears much less innocent when you see precisely which tendencies are wrapped up inside these sublime words: tendencies hostile to life.”​

-Nietzsche

Cite the source please.

 

[ataraxia]

Bad scholarship. Scholars agree it was his sister who interpreted his texts to support Nazi ideology.

Personally, I find the overman the least interesting thing about Nietzsche. Something he talks about very rarely.

I am not sure it's THAT bad.

Nietzsche hated democracy. Why? Because he felt that the superior men should be free to make the most of themselves. It's hard to do that when you have to consider people in weaker or more vulnerable positions.

It reminds me too much of the liberterian anarcho-capitalist types today, feeling that a Darwinian freedom of the jungle in society is the best way to keep it healthy and prospering.

 

[Jacksprat]

Nietzsche hated democracy. Why? Because he felt that the superior men should be free to make the most of themselves. It's hard to do that when you have to consider people in weaker or more vulnerable positions.

Nietzsche's idea has more to do with ancient Greek idea of arate, or excellence. People strive for excellence in whatever ability they have.

He would have condemned any mass movement like fascism. Again, something critics overlook.

 

[ataraxia]

Cite the source please.

The Anti-Christ.

A quote from The Anti-Christ

Pity preserves things that are ripe for decline, it defends things that have been disowned and condemned by life, and it gives a depressive and questiona...

www.goodreads.com

 

[Jacksprat]

The Anti-Christ.

A quote from The Anti-Christ

Pity preserves things that are ripe for decline, it defends things that have been disowned and condemned by life, and it gives a depressive and questiona...

www.goodreads.com

Okay. But I never read text without an actual source. Saying it is from a book is not a citation.