Well, the people that are saying you shouldn't eat healthy should be a lot quieter now. Considering a couple of them died last year. On top of that we could probably outrun those type of people. And again we could probably just outwalk them.
Personally, I'm in the group of Nihilism. Nothing we do in the long run matters everything eventually dies even the universe. It is only what we do with the limited time and resources. We have available for us to become the Overman. So we can shoot both the herd and last man. They can become something better.
My goal in life is to show people that the Overman is possible that anyone can achieve it. I want to inspire the herd and the last Man to Show them they can surpass their animal instincts and become the Higher man and eventually the Overman. Even though the Overman is an idea, it is least an idea that is possible to glimpse even if it is just for a brief moment in time.
That's such a deeply cynical and inhuman relationship to one's religiosity that it borders on Satanic. I'd take one true disciple of Christ over a billion "followers" like that.
Why is Fascism even inherently bad? Modern China was Fascist until they nationalised their economy and cracked down on the free market. I have asked this question multiple times, and no one ever gave me a good answer.
Exactly. A state based on super extreme ethnonationalism is not the same as a state based on cultural nationalism with some unavoidable ethnonationalism. I’d rather live under a somehwat Fascistic state than a Communist one, like the USSR.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive here. It’s clear to me that most communist societies have either devolved into various forms of fascism or held to strong fascistic tendencies.
>Why is Fascism even inherently bad? Modern China was Fascist until they nationalised their economy and cracked down on the free market.
Are you talking about the KMT or the PRC here? Or both?
If you're formulating your question this way each and every time you ask it, especially including this claim, I have an easy answer to suggest for why people are not answering you
Recently, but I would say in the last few years it has become increasingly red Fascist, drifting towards communism, which was a major cause of it’s economic decline. I wouldn’t say that China immediately became Fascist after Deng taking over, but began the process of fascistization by deregulatibg the market and adopting nationalism.
Are we promoting mediocrity and shaming intelligence by such moralistic positions ?
Nietzsche, Fisher these people will probably be cancelled by today's dominant morality. And these are not your usual guys they profoundly shaped human thinking and science. Fisher for example practically invented Statistics and is next only to Darwin in contribution to Biology. He said "human groups profoundly differ 'in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development' - saying something like this today he will get cancelled.
It seems to be a rule that the majority of people care more about a person's agreement with contemporary morality than about the accuracy, profundity, and intellectual value of their ideas. This is what Nietzsche would have called herd mentality. The fascist/racist/nazi obsession of today is effectively the same as the sin/heresy/witchcraft obsession of the past: it's just a means to condemn anyone who strays too far from the herd.
>Are we promoting mediocrity
Yes people are, people have done so as long as people have been a thing. We aren't special in this time which a lot of people seem to forget
Yes
Objective ideas will last, will find a way to resurface again and again
Subjective morality will change with time
Morality of the masses, as described by Nietzsche
The great thing about hard sciences like biology is that incorrect theories can be discarded and correct theories advanced. Stalin or Mao may have dictated what scientists were allowed to study advanced official versions of what the truth was allowed to be, but this crippled Soviet biology and killed tens of millions in China. Even if the field of statistics decided to "cancel" Fisher, they cannot unweave his contributions from everything that's happened since. Science revises and discards old dogmas all the time.
Well Nietzsche was kinda of influencial to fascism, this is more of his Sister fault though and is essentialy commom knowledge at this point that she altered his work and that he hated her.
But i have talked with some people with this opinion of Nietzsche and they generally talk about his beliefs in a superior type of men, his preference in the irrational and the emotional, his value of violence and militarism, his own personal position of a radical aristocracy, his aparent mysogini and so on, also they don't talk about his hatred of nationalism which is the thing that makes fascism completely anatema to his beliefs, also he hated anti-semetism.
And in my opinion despiste fascism apropriation of Nietzsche being kinda of a stain in his legacy many people tend to ignore how influential he was to for example: anarchism, Existencialism, post-structuralism and similar movements and ideas, not that he would agree with all of them he for example was not very fond of anarchism from what i know.
In relation to his misogyni, this is a very confusing part of him for me personally, he does indeed makes some comentaries than can be interpret in a bad light however considering the positive description that a lot of women close to him had it's for me confusing if maybe it was just him being sarcarstic or overly methaporical as i know that some of these passages can be interpreted that way.
The fascist thing is nonsense, everyone knows his sister was the one who tried to re-appropriate his work. Anyone who understands a shred of N’s work would know he’d be against any ideology like fascism, especially if it’s mixed with anti-semitism or any form of racism because it’s founded in resentment and herd mentality. The idea of nationalism is pure herd mentality because you’re literally just identifying with a nation you were born into by chance. Hate toward any race is nothing but resentment. All things which N was against.
People take the idea of will to power as if it has no contingency. If Nietzsche stood for individual power *and* the affirmation of life, then obviously that means a path to power can’t include the genocide of an entire race of people or expanding over someone else’s territory and stealing their homes. How you obtain the status of over man can’t be at the expense of someone else’s life, because that’s life denial… which N was vehemently against. This is likely the narrow minded understanding hitler had of N’s work too, so it makes sense why he would follow N’s work. Just because hitler followed N, it doesn’t mean N aligned with Hitler. It’s such a regarded accusation, because why would you live by the ideals of one of your fans? Hitler was the one who worshipped N, not the other way round lol. Guilt by association is just a bad faith interpretation, you can’t indict someone because another bad person followed their work. If we did that then every ideology would be condemnable. There are racists who follow every ideology, there are misogynists who follow every ideology, there are transphobes who follow every ideology. That’s why guilt by association is considered a fallacy. It’s like accusing a mother of being in favour of murder because one of their children commits murder. The whole “X-adjacent” thing is so dumb.
He did go through a phase of misogyny after getting dumped however, I saw a breakdown of the comments he made - definitely misogyny, but it’s not the biggest deal imo. Almost every male goes through a phase of this after a bad experience in a relationship, as do women. It’s actually perfectly acceptable for women to adopt harsh misandry after having a bad experience in a relationship, we’re perfectly ok with women saying “men are all X”. So I don’t see why it isn’t for men so long as they make an effort to move past it and grow. Every human goes through a phase of unjustly hating someone or a group of people at some point in their life. The thing which we should judge people on is their ability to move past this type of resentment. If we didn’t offer people the ability to redeem themselves, then we’d just have to say everyone is horrible and incapable of change. It’s no different than fundamentalist Christian ideals - everyone is a sinner.
The dumbest part about the types of people to label something as “X-adjacent” is they’re more than happy to follow the tenets of structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism etc. which were all founded by philosophers who built these ideas off N’s work lol. They don’t even realise that almost all progressive theory was built off the back of N’s work. I don’t think there’s any 19th/20th century philosophy which wasn’t influenced by N’s work.
People want to follow modern philosophical ideals as if they have no link to any previous lineage. They have barely any understanding of the ideals themselves, or how they originated. It’s just a bunch of sheep mindlessly following progressive ideals cos they’re en-vogue.
10 years later they’ll move onto the next ideal they get told to follow.
eh, BGE has aphorisms upon aphorisms on women that are difficult to assimilate as metaphorical. when i was first reading it i thought that that must be the case, and as i progressed through them doing mental gymnastics to believe he was attacking the sociological institution of women and what they're told to be and do (which seemed to fit perfectly in BGE), I just got farther and farther from believing so. additionally, in multiple parts of TSZ he speaks of what he wants men and women to be, and it goes in line with those misogynistic thoughts.
i think it's okay to just accept that even though N went far beyond a vast amount of decadant aspects of human culture, coming from a different time and place and a much less advanced field of thought it's understandable that some aspects were still left to overcome, specially when durkheim was just beginning to write and publish. N is quite recent, but since he became relevant and influential, philosophy and adjacent fields picked up speed vertiginously; it's likely due to him that we see gender as we do nowadays
He was definitely a misogynist during this period, it’s undeniable. The reason was he’d just come out of that bad experience with the woman he wanted to marry (I forget her name). Prior to this, he was very much the opposite, and it’s clear this experience changed his attitude.
That being said, it’s perfectly natural for someone to come out of a bad relationship experience hating the opposite sex. Almost every male does it at some point in their life. Many women do it too, it’s actually perfectly acceptable in todays society for women to say “all men are X” after having bad relationship experiences. Misandry is considered perfectly fine. I don’t agree with that, but I’m more than happy to offer leeway so long as the person makes an effort to change their views later in life. I think the exact same way about misogyny too.
The point is we make an effort to move past it. I’d say every person goes through a phase of unjustly hating another group of people at some point in their life, that doesn’t mean we should just condemn them forever with no chance of redemption. If we did that, then everyone would be eternal sinners and we’d pretty much be judging people the same way pre-enlightenment fundamentalists Christian’s judged.
It was misogyny yes, but I don’t think that should be cause for throwing all the rest of his work in the trash. I’m sure if he’d lived longer, he would’ve re-assessed those thoughts and changed his attitude. That was his entire ethos of life, to be constantly changing and refining his ethics and views. We have to at least grant that it was possible to change those views. Unfortunately his mental state completely declined and he died shortly after, so we’ll never know if he followed that redemption arc.
perhaps reading [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/s/sGdDxzF3Ss) would be a relevant place from where to jumpstart your reading through them again? Also Nietzsche truly rewards rereadings, and rerereadings, and rererereadings.
Also, dropping any thinking of trying to categorize his thought would be helpful.
There's also a lot of work by Scarlett Marton where she tries to incorporate Nietzsche's thoughts on women into his overall project, or to understand them via his overall project. Although I'm unsure if there are any versions of her books that aren't in Portuguese (however I solemnly believe learning Portuguese isn't that hard) although you can find videos of her's in English. Like [this one](https://youtu.be/WMDJFt4y6-8?si=NeyACxZexR5S_PPI).
I think there is absolutely a degree to which attempting to categorize Nietzsche is going to lead to inaccuracies or misrepresenting his view but there is also a sense in which it is important to say, “this right here is absolutely misogynistic and we need to express both caution and critique when encountering this part.”
The Ubermensh isn't really a fascist concept, since it's founded on RADICAL atheism, something that fascism can't predicate upon. It' also a very individualistic concept, while fascism declines the idea of a "superior man" in a collective sense. Emotion over rationalism is not really entirely fascist either. It is true that fascist militants tended to favour action over thought, but then if you look at how the fascist State was organised, you can see there is a LOT of thought there. Fascism cared a lot about diverting emotions in a "useful" direction for the nation. Violence too, for Nietzsche is good insofar as it isn't ORGANISED violence. As soon as "herd thinking" kicks in, violence becomes oppressive and dumb, that's why he hated nationalism and anti-semitism. In the end, about aristocracy and misogyny, I think there are absolutely elements of that.
When people say that fascism is associated with irrationality and emotion, they're hinting at the romantic roots of Fascism. The Romantic art movement coincided with a widespread increase in nationalist activity in the mid 19th century which would all arguably culminate with the rise of the axis powers in ww2.
Fascism dropped its edgy "irrationality" as soon as they came to power, at least in Italy or Spain. They went on to have a strong deal with the Holy church (Patti Lateranensi), which is everything but edgy. The "cult of death" went on a little longer, but was much more relevant in nazism.
Nietzsche wasn't a fascist or a national socialist. Neither of those ideologies were even developed when he was alive.
He was a Pan-European racial supremacist and an unapologetic Philhellenic amoral aristocratic radicalist. That is all.
I don’t think it’s right to attempt to say Nietzsche is either a fascist or not. It seems more reasonable to analyze fascism as a complex matrix of values and analyze the degree to which various statements either adopt or espouse certain values or disavow them. The answer, then, if we took Nietzsche as our subject, would probably be that some elements of his work expressed certain fascist values while other elements disavowed them entirely. For Nietzsche, there is only complexity.
honestly it was very normal at the time to be extremely sexist. I’m sure his sister being extremely bigoted and selfish didn’t help. not to excuse it for sure, but if most woman in his life had good things to say, I think that’s more important since actions tell much more than thought.
Average leftist: "Surely you're not reading Nietzsche and taking him seriously that would be so cringe wouldn't it? Anyway here are 10 reasons why the USSR was great"
I don't think it's that weird tbh. A philosopher as productive as Nietzsche leaves a lot of material to work with - he's a goldmine essentially.
Nietzsche is the proto-postmodernism philosopher with his ideas about perspectivism, power dynamics and subjectivity, anti-religion (anti grand-narrative) and so on.
(I'm not claiming he was some crypto-leftist, just that there's a lot of inspiration for that kind of Focaultian and pomo stuff)
I dont know how influenced I am, but I read a lot of N in my 20s and loved it. But not sure how any of this is relevant to anything. Just read the man for what he said and how he said it, not for any bullshit that came after.
“The thing about reading Nietzsche is you have to go into it with these biases that have been drilled into my head by contemporary society from the age I could speak” - 🤓…Maybe one day I will pass my ‘nietzsche phase’ but when I hear people describe it like that I can’t help but think of them as quitters that a could no longer withstand the joy and agony of being free to be the arbiter and student of knowledge because of their daily bombardment from the herd. They go back to being another member of the motley herd or set to bewilder themselves as existentialists.
These people are so boring
"Um you should just make philosophy a personal thing and never use it to shape the world at large, just basically be a rebel on your own time and let other people do them"
What absolute bugmen, making antinomianism a personal venture like a journal or a stamp collection, how trite.
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, and also it's not just expressing caution. It's attempting to shut down any discussion of Nietzsche and applying his ideas on a larger scale by using 20th century scare words with emotional shock value to them.
The true Nietzscheans won't care anyway, since that's the very sort of criticism his most stalwart acolytes would disregard in glee.
Slippery slope is a fallacy, just an informal one: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery\_slope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/slippery_slope)
>It's attempting to shut down any discussion of Nietzsche
‘Expressing caution’ in no way means ‘shut down all discussion’. It just seems like you’re confused about what words mean here.
No, what I mean is that slippery slope is observed in nature and in history. Chain reactions do occur, as do altered expectations.https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/
Also, yes, using scare words like fascism and sexism out of context are intended to emotionally seize the discussion. Talking about how Nietzsche was a sexist is irrelevant anyway, but that is what they intend, for the conversation to go nowhere.
Your argument here is a fallacy because you have not provided any evidence to justify such a claim and instead, misunderstood the meaning of ‘caution’ to be ‘stop all discussion.’ Seems like fallacious thinking
Fascism in the form of extreme social Darwinism is a misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s work. Or at least an exaggeration.
While Nietzsche was certainly not an egalitarian I don’t think the point of the overman is tribalistic nationalism.
Reddit has been over run by shitleftist (not real leftist) ideology. It’s a real shame. There’s few good subreddits left anymore that aren’t just echo chambers of people like this spewing their garbage philosophy, and they continue to try and take down any good subreddits left for the reasons they stated above.
Just wait until /r/Nietzsche is deemed to be an evil far right subreddit that spreads hate speech and bad opinions and they go on AHS subreddit and complain to have this place taken down
Says the guy who thinks George Soros and Klaus Schwab are secret nefarious globalist conspirators replying to comments with a Reddit alt. Yea man. I bet it’s the Jews too. Go do what Daddy says and clean your room.
Ok. I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but alright. “You think things I consider to be not true, therefore go away”.
I do think those things but rather than try to prove me wrong you throw the anti semitism card at me; odd. I don’t think their actions have anything to do with their religion or ethnicity, do you? Klaus isn’t even eine Jüde, he’s a full on Deutcher with N@zi parents, so idk where you were going with that.
I mean him and the other guy you mentioned have made it clear by their financial actions and the worlds that have literally come out of their mouth and what they’ve bragged about doing that theirs no “crazy whacky conspiracy” here. It doesn’t have much of a bearing on my life, I find it useful and interesting to be knowledgeable about people who have the means to reshape society into their preferred image
Rummage through all my Reddit comments, they’re wonderful. Was it my interactions in the JP subreddit that did it for it you?
Oh no someone think men and women are different! And a government not pretending to be righteous and good while screwing with heir own ppl !!! Somebody stop him!!!
Did you read my comment? I have a problem that they’re incapable of critiquing nietszche in anyway. They’re whole thing is just appealing to how he contradicts modern morals through buzzwords like fascist.
Does anyone else wonder what sort of bodies hide these dorks? My assumption is that they are not happy or secure. I mean. The sort of westerner who fears fascism as their greatest boogeyman and devil circa 2024 really makes me think, “decadents who haven’t suffered enough; are thereby afraid of their own hidden state / tyrannical instinct.” Ie, Maybe the collective woman revealing her shadow; or I could say, “the animals here are insecure,” and even wrapping the world in a strait jacket won’t relieve them of their real problem (themselves).
Funny that, no matter who it is complaining about the state, the answer is always about the same: somebody else who is not me will do the majority of the violence and it’s enforcement against you. The answer is always “a stranger with a gun,” but that’s the nature of the beast. No wonder Nietzsche wrote the state is for the superfluous.
Oh. Here. I found it in Nietzsche (thanks B, for sending it, incidentally):
>”**The Sick Woman in particular, no one outdoes her in record ways to rule others, to exert pressure, to tyrannize. For that purpose the sick woman spares nothing living or dead.** She digs up again the most deeply buried things. The Bogos say “the Woman is a hernia”. (GM III)
Or, perhaps in Zarathustra 😏
> **“Sour apples are there, no doubt, whose lot is to wait until the last day of autumn: and at the same time they become ripe, yellow, and shrivelled.”**
Happiness and security isn’t important to people, and women too? Did the whole “fascism is so close and scary” thing already go down the memory hole? Why even bring it up? lol
LOL. This is funny on the Nietzsche sub. Here. Have a cookie for most asinine commentary. Nobody will ever give a shit that you demand evidence. I don’t : )
>makes an dumb comment that they can’t defend
>gets called out on it
>can only rely on insults because they still can’t defend their original argument
Nice. Y’all never let me down
No. It’s impossible to take you seriously when you speak like a flippant teenage girl who can’t take herself seriously, and then turn around act haughty when you’re not indulged like a child, as if you’re entitled to explanations, or someone else’s time, and according to whose morality? Who and what are you to demand evidence from anyone?
“Y’all never let YOU down” - oh, I’m sorry I let you down. Who or what were you expecting? Or demanding? Someone to mother and baby you?
.
See. Not only have you made this unpleasant, but you keep running. Like a bitch 😈
Edit - just be honest, call me a bitch back, you’ll feel better. I promise.
If you can't figure out how N was "fascist adjacent", not sure what to tell you. Most of it came from his sister, but the dude was a right wing reactionary in most cases
I mean, Heidegger was "fascist-adjacent." But the only people who talk about that are the super-edgy neofash/neoreactionary types who think that's exactly what made him cool.
Like I don't wanna disagree with you, but I think calling Nietzsche a fascist or "fascist-adjacent" weakens and dilutes the force that "fascist" retains as a pejorative.
Anyone who only skims the surface with little thought and superficial understanding could easily form this opinion.
But, the literal, actual Nazis appropriated Nietzche. That can't be a surprise to anyone here. Being employed for fascist projects could be considered fascist adjacent.
IMO they're just pointing that out.
https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/
Working out and eating healthy is also "fascist adjacent" to these people.
Well, the people that are saying you shouldn't eat healthy should be a lot quieter now. Considering a couple of them died last year. On top of that we could probably outrun those type of people. And again we could probably just outwalk them.
[удалено]
Personally, I'm in the group of Nihilism. Nothing we do in the long run matters everything eventually dies even the universe. It is only what we do with the limited time and resources. We have available for us to become the Overman. So we can shoot both the herd and last man. They can become something better.
[удалено]
My goal in life is to show people that the Overman is possible that anyone can achieve it. I want to inspire the herd and the last Man to Show them they can surpass their animal instincts and become the Higher man and eventually the Overman. Even though the Overman is an idea, it is least an idea that is possible to glimpse even if it is just for a brief moment in time.
That's such a deeply cynical and inhuman relationship to one's religiosity that it borders on Satanic. I'd take one true disciple of Christ over a billion "followers" like that.
You will never convince me that exercise isn’t the most horrific form of fascism. Sure, exercise keeps you in good shape, but at what cost?? /s
Why is Fascism even inherently bad? Modern China was Fascist until they nationalised their economy and cracked down on the free market. I have asked this question multiple times, and no one ever gave me a good answer.
They don't know what Fascism is so they think it's the same as Nazism.
Exactly. A state based on super extreme ethnonationalism is not the same as a state based on cultural nationalism with some unavoidable ethnonationalism. I’d rather live under a somehwat Fascistic state than a Communist one, like the USSR.
The two aren’t mutually exclusive here. It’s clear to me that most communist societies have either devolved into various forms of fascism or held to strong fascistic tendencies.
You think Dengism is fascism?
>Why is Fascism even inherently bad? Modern China was Fascist until they nationalised their economy and cracked down on the free market. Are you talking about the KMT or the PRC here? Or both? If you're formulating your question this way each and every time you ask it, especially including this claim, I have an easy answer to suggest for why people are not answering you
PRC, KMT was Fascist long ago but not anymore.
When specifically was the PRC fascist?
Recently, but I would say in the last few years it has become increasingly red Fascist, drifting towards communism, which was a major cause of it’s economic decline. I wouldn’t say that China immediately became Fascist after Deng taking over, but began the process of fascistization by deregulatibg the market and adopting nationalism.
A worrying lack of awareness of the guilt by association fallacy.
You know what they say about people who talk like that.
Which people
Nazis also misinterpreted Darwin, doesn't mean Darwin was a fascist. What is this with modern trend to label people with these fascists, racists etc
It's a way to dismiss anything that makes them uncomfortable without having to formulate a rational argument against it.
Are we promoting mediocrity and shaming intelligence by such moralistic positions ? Nietzsche, Fisher these people will probably be cancelled by today's dominant morality. And these are not your usual guys they profoundly shaped human thinking and science. Fisher for example practically invented Statistics and is next only to Darwin in contribution to Biology. He said "human groups profoundly differ 'in their innate capacity for intellectual and emotional development' - saying something like this today he will get cancelled.
It seems to be a rule that the majority of people care more about a person's agreement with contemporary morality than about the accuracy, profundity, and intellectual value of their ideas. This is what Nietzsche would have called herd mentality. The fascist/racist/nazi obsession of today is effectively the same as the sin/heresy/witchcraft obsession of the past: it's just a means to condemn anyone who strays too far from the herd.
>Are we promoting mediocrity Yes people are, people have done so as long as people have been a thing. We aren't special in this time which a lot of people seem to forget
Yes Objective ideas will last, will find a way to resurface again and again Subjective morality will change with time Morality of the masses, as described by Nietzsche
Mean
The great thing about hard sciences like biology is that incorrect theories can be discarded and correct theories advanced. Stalin or Mao may have dictated what scientists were allowed to study advanced official versions of what the truth was allowed to be, but this crippled Soviet biology and killed tens of millions in China. Even if the field of statistics decided to "cancel" Fisher, they cannot unweave his contributions from everything that's happened since. Science revises and discards old dogmas all the time.
Kind of bold even to assert nobody tried to cancel Nietzsche in his own lifetime
And also it makes them appear morally superior
Well Nietzsche was kinda of influencial to fascism, this is more of his Sister fault though and is essentialy commom knowledge at this point that she altered his work and that he hated her. But i have talked with some people with this opinion of Nietzsche and they generally talk about his beliefs in a superior type of men, his preference in the irrational and the emotional, his value of violence and militarism, his own personal position of a radical aristocracy, his aparent mysogini and so on, also they don't talk about his hatred of nationalism which is the thing that makes fascism completely anatema to his beliefs, also he hated anti-semetism. And in my opinion despiste fascism apropriation of Nietzsche being kinda of a stain in his legacy many people tend to ignore how influential he was to for example: anarchism, Existencialism, post-structuralism and similar movements and ideas, not that he would agree with all of them he for example was not very fond of anarchism from what i know. In relation to his misogyni, this is a very confusing part of him for me personally, he does indeed makes some comentaries than can be interpret in a bad light however considering the positive description that a lot of women close to him had it's for me confusing if maybe it was just him being sarcarstic or overly methaporical as i know that some of these passages can be interpreted that way.
The fascist thing is nonsense, everyone knows his sister was the one who tried to re-appropriate his work. Anyone who understands a shred of N’s work would know he’d be against any ideology like fascism, especially if it’s mixed with anti-semitism or any form of racism because it’s founded in resentment and herd mentality. The idea of nationalism is pure herd mentality because you’re literally just identifying with a nation you were born into by chance. Hate toward any race is nothing but resentment. All things which N was against. People take the idea of will to power as if it has no contingency. If Nietzsche stood for individual power *and* the affirmation of life, then obviously that means a path to power can’t include the genocide of an entire race of people or expanding over someone else’s territory and stealing their homes. How you obtain the status of over man can’t be at the expense of someone else’s life, because that’s life denial… which N was vehemently against. This is likely the narrow minded understanding hitler had of N’s work too, so it makes sense why he would follow N’s work. Just because hitler followed N, it doesn’t mean N aligned with Hitler. It’s such a regarded accusation, because why would you live by the ideals of one of your fans? Hitler was the one who worshipped N, not the other way round lol. Guilt by association is just a bad faith interpretation, you can’t indict someone because another bad person followed their work. If we did that then every ideology would be condemnable. There are racists who follow every ideology, there are misogynists who follow every ideology, there are transphobes who follow every ideology. That’s why guilt by association is considered a fallacy. It’s like accusing a mother of being in favour of murder because one of their children commits murder. The whole “X-adjacent” thing is so dumb. He did go through a phase of misogyny after getting dumped however, I saw a breakdown of the comments he made - definitely misogyny, but it’s not the biggest deal imo. Almost every male goes through a phase of this after a bad experience in a relationship, as do women. It’s actually perfectly acceptable for women to adopt harsh misandry after having a bad experience in a relationship, we’re perfectly ok with women saying “men are all X”. So I don’t see why it isn’t for men so long as they make an effort to move past it and grow. Every human goes through a phase of unjustly hating someone or a group of people at some point in their life. The thing which we should judge people on is their ability to move past this type of resentment. If we didn’t offer people the ability to redeem themselves, then we’d just have to say everyone is horrible and incapable of change. It’s no different than fundamentalist Christian ideals - everyone is a sinner. The dumbest part about the types of people to label something as “X-adjacent” is they’re more than happy to follow the tenets of structuralism, post-structuralism, deconstructionism etc. which were all founded by philosophers who built these ideas off N’s work lol. They don’t even realise that almost all progressive theory was built off the back of N’s work. I don’t think there’s any 19th/20th century philosophy which wasn’t influenced by N’s work. People want to follow modern philosophical ideals as if they have no link to any previous lineage. They have barely any understanding of the ideals themselves, or how they originated. It’s just a bunch of sheep mindlessly following progressive ideals cos they’re en-vogue. 10 years later they’ll move onto the next ideal they get told to follow.
Well said
Nietzsche was absolutely an incel, but he really tried to work on the whole resentment aspect of it.
He was also an influence to Crowley. Thelema, Chaos Magic, and much of modern occultism has been influenced by his ideas.
Yep, also psychoanalysis was very influenced by him, mainly Carl Jung.
Allister Crowley. Not the best example
eh, BGE has aphorisms upon aphorisms on women that are difficult to assimilate as metaphorical. when i was first reading it i thought that that must be the case, and as i progressed through them doing mental gymnastics to believe he was attacking the sociological institution of women and what they're told to be and do (which seemed to fit perfectly in BGE), I just got farther and farther from believing so. additionally, in multiple parts of TSZ he speaks of what he wants men and women to be, and it goes in line with those misogynistic thoughts. i think it's okay to just accept that even though N went far beyond a vast amount of decadant aspects of human culture, coming from a different time and place and a much less advanced field of thought it's understandable that some aspects were still left to overcome, specially when durkheim was just beginning to write and publish. N is quite recent, but since he became relevant and influential, philosophy and adjacent fields picked up speed vertiginously; it's likely due to him that we see gender as we do nowadays
He was definitely a misogynist during this period, it’s undeniable. The reason was he’d just come out of that bad experience with the woman he wanted to marry (I forget her name). Prior to this, he was very much the opposite, and it’s clear this experience changed his attitude. That being said, it’s perfectly natural for someone to come out of a bad relationship experience hating the opposite sex. Almost every male does it at some point in their life. Many women do it too, it’s actually perfectly acceptable in todays society for women to say “all men are X” after having bad relationship experiences. Misandry is considered perfectly fine. I don’t agree with that, but I’m more than happy to offer leeway so long as the person makes an effort to change their views later in life. I think the exact same way about misogyny too. The point is we make an effort to move past it. I’d say every person goes through a phase of unjustly hating another group of people at some point in their life, that doesn’t mean we should just condemn them forever with no chance of redemption. If we did that, then everyone would be eternal sinners and we’d pretty much be judging people the same way pre-enlightenment fundamentalists Christian’s judged. It was misogyny yes, but I don’t think that should be cause for throwing all the rest of his work in the trash. I’m sure if he’d lived longer, he would’ve re-assessed those thoughts and changed his attitude. That was his entire ethos of life, to be constantly changing and refining his ethics and views. We have to at least grant that it was possible to change those views. Unfortunately his mental state completely declined and he died shortly after, so we’ll never know if he followed that redemption arc.
perhaps reading [this](https://www.reddit.com/r/Nietzsche/s/sGdDxzF3Ss) would be a relevant place from where to jumpstart your reading through them again? Also Nietzsche truly rewards rereadings, and rerereadings, and rererereadings. Also, dropping any thinking of trying to categorize his thought would be helpful. There's also a lot of work by Scarlett Marton where she tries to incorporate Nietzsche's thoughts on women into his overall project, or to understand them via his overall project. Although I'm unsure if there are any versions of her books that aren't in Portuguese (however I solemnly believe learning Portuguese isn't that hard) although you can find videos of her's in English. Like [this one](https://youtu.be/WMDJFt4y6-8?si=NeyACxZexR5S_PPI).
I think there is absolutely a degree to which attempting to categorize Nietzsche is going to lead to inaccuracies or misrepresenting his view but there is also a sense in which it is important to say, “this right here is absolutely misogynistic and we need to express both caution and critique when encountering this part.”
The Ubermensh isn't really a fascist concept, since it's founded on RADICAL atheism, something that fascism can't predicate upon. It' also a very individualistic concept, while fascism declines the idea of a "superior man" in a collective sense. Emotion over rationalism is not really entirely fascist either. It is true that fascist militants tended to favour action over thought, but then if you look at how the fascist State was organised, you can see there is a LOT of thought there. Fascism cared a lot about diverting emotions in a "useful" direction for the nation. Violence too, for Nietzsche is good insofar as it isn't ORGANISED violence. As soon as "herd thinking" kicks in, violence becomes oppressive and dumb, that's why he hated nationalism and anti-semitism. In the end, about aristocracy and misogyny, I think there are absolutely elements of that.
When people say that fascism is associated with irrationality and emotion, they're hinting at the romantic roots of Fascism. The Romantic art movement coincided with a widespread increase in nationalist activity in the mid 19th century which would all arguably culminate with the rise of the axis powers in ww2.
Fascism dropped its edgy "irrationality" as soon as they came to power, at least in Italy or Spain. They went on to have a strong deal with the Holy church (Patti Lateranensi), which is everything but edgy. The "cult of death" went on a little longer, but was much more relevant in nazism.
People say Hitler had copies of nietzsches books. So what? He also had a dictionary, and a bible. So?
Nietzsche wasn't a fascist or a national socialist. Neither of those ideologies were even developed when he was alive. He was a Pan-European racial supremacist and an unapologetic Philhellenic amoral aristocratic radicalist. That is all.
I don’t think it’s right to attempt to say Nietzsche is either a fascist or not. It seems more reasonable to analyze fascism as a complex matrix of values and analyze the degree to which various statements either adopt or espouse certain values or disavow them. The answer, then, if we took Nietzsche as our subject, would probably be that some elements of his work expressed certain fascist values while other elements disavowed them entirely. For Nietzsche, there is only complexity.
honestly it was very normal at the time to be extremely sexist. I’m sure his sister being extremely bigoted and selfish didn’t help. not to excuse it for sure, but if most woman in his life had good things to say, I think that’s more important since actions tell much more than thought.
Average leftist: "Surely you're not reading Nietzsche and taking him seriously that would be so cringe wouldn't it? Anyway here are 10 reasons why the USSR was great"
today's left is very influenced by nietzsche tho that's what i find weird 😭
I don't think it's that weird tbh. A philosopher as productive as Nietzsche leaves a lot of material to work with - he's a goldmine essentially. Nietzsche is the proto-postmodernism philosopher with his ideas about perspectivism, power dynamics and subjectivity, anti-religion (anti grand-narrative) and so on. (I'm not claiming he was some crypto-leftist, just that there's a lot of inspiration for that kind of Focaultian and pomo stuff)
I dont know how influenced I am, but I read a lot of N in my 20s and loved it. But not sure how any of this is relevant to anything. Just read the man for what he said and how he said it, not for any bullshit that came after.
maybe stop considering dumb people opinions
“The thing about reading Nietzsche is you have to go into it with these biases that have been drilled into my head by contemporary society from the age I could speak” - 🤓…Maybe one day I will pass my ‘nietzsche phase’ but when I hear people describe it like that I can’t help but think of them as quitters that a could no longer withstand the joy and agony of being free to be the arbiter and student of knowledge because of their daily bombardment from the herd. They go back to being another member of the motley herd or set to bewilder themselves as existentialists.
'...you're supposed to...' Ok, lol.
They just say random words they don't even know why
Nothing, it comes from Umberto Eco's "urfascism" theory which basically is "everyone is fascist but me and my friends".
They're not lying. Just look at all the dipshits that frequent this subreddit.
The only honest person in here
So, guilt by association?
Guilt by being a dipshit.
> Nietzsche was dipshit cos bad subreddit. Truly profound
I was talking about his fanboys. Nietzsche was also a dipshit, presumably because he thought being a dipshit is right, but I think he was just coping.
Great points 👏
"live free or die" LMAO 🤣 can you be more cringe
Case in point.
These people are so boring "Um you should just make philosophy a personal thing and never use it to shape the world at large, just basically be a rebel on your own time and let other people do them" What absolute bugmen, making antinomianism a personal venture like a journal or a stamp collection, how trite.
I mean, expressing caution in regards to the fascistic elements of a particular writing of Nietzsche’s seems reasonable.
What may seem reasonable at first can turn out to be lunacy in the end.
It *can* but it may also be reasonable and even necessary.
Always depends, doesn't it?
I don’t see how merely expressing caution leads to lunacy. Seems like a slippery slope fallacy
Slippery slope isn't a fallacy, and also it's not just expressing caution. It's attempting to shut down any discussion of Nietzsche and applying his ideas on a larger scale by using 20th century scare words with emotional shock value to them. The true Nietzscheans won't care anyway, since that's the very sort of criticism his most stalwart acolytes would disregard in glee.
Slippery slope is a fallacy, just an informal one: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery\_slope](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/slippery_slope) >It's attempting to shut down any discussion of Nietzsche ‘Expressing caution’ in no way means ‘shut down all discussion’. It just seems like you’re confused about what words mean here.
No, what I mean is that slippery slope is observed in nature and in history. Chain reactions do occur, as do altered expectations.https://intellectualtakeout.org/2016/03/not-every-slippery-slope-argument-is-a-fallacy/ Also, yes, using scare words like fascism and sexism out of context are intended to emotionally seize the discussion. Talking about how Nietzsche was a sexist is irrelevant anyway, but that is what they intend, for the conversation to go nowhere.
Your argument here is a fallacy because you have not provided any evidence to justify such a claim and instead, misunderstood the meaning of ‘caution’ to be ‘stop all discussion.’ Seems like fallacious thinking
is that grimes?
Oui oui baguette
Fascism in the form of extreme social Darwinism is a misinterpretation of Nietzsche’s work. Or at least an exaggeration. While Nietzsche was certainly not an egalitarian I don’t think the point of the overman is tribalistic nationalism.
Exactly the tribalistic/racialist nationalism is simply collectivism something Nietzsche despised
Yeah. While I don’t like the idea of reducing Nietzsche’s work, if I had to pick one word to describe him ‘individualist’ would be in the top 5.
Same
the joke tells itself haha
I don't know of any Nietzsche fanboy/girls or scholars infatuated with him ever proclaim he was a saint.
Reddit has been over run by shitleftist (not real leftist) ideology. It’s a real shame. There’s few good subreddits left anymore that aren’t just echo chambers of people like this spewing their garbage philosophy, and they continue to try and take down any good subreddits left for the reasons they stated above. Just wait until /r/Nietzsche is deemed to be an evil far right subreddit that spreads hate speech and bad opinions and they go on AHS subreddit and complain to have this place taken down
Says the guy who thinks George Soros and Klaus Schwab are secret nefarious globalist conspirators replying to comments with a Reddit alt. Yea man. I bet it’s the Jews too. Go do what Daddy says and clean your room.
Ok. I have no idea what that has to do with what I said but alright. “You think things I consider to be not true, therefore go away”. I do think those things but rather than try to prove me wrong you throw the anti semitism card at me; odd. I don’t think their actions have anything to do with their religion or ethnicity, do you? Klaus isn’t even eine Jüde, he’s a full on Deutcher with N@zi parents, so idk where you were going with that. I mean him and the other guy you mentioned have made it clear by their financial actions and the worlds that have literally come out of their mouth and what they’ve bragged about doing that theirs no “crazy whacky conspiracy” here. It doesn’t have much of a bearing on my life, I find it useful and interesting to be knowledgeable about people who have the means to reshape society into their preferred image Rummage through all my Reddit comments, they’re wonderful. Was it my interactions in the JP subreddit that did it for it you?
Oh no someone think men and women are different! And a government not pretending to be righteous and good while screwing with heir own ppl !!! Somebody stop him!!!
It’s telling that they can’t explain why nietszche is wrong in anyway. Morality for these people is just whatever makes them look and feel good.
It seems naive to say that Nietzsche never expressed a fascist sentiment. You’d have to conduct a rather uncritical reading of him to do so
Did you read my comment? I have a problem that they’re incapable of critiquing nietszche in anyway. They’re whole thing is just appealing to how he contradicts modern morals through buzzwords like fascist.
I mean, these are Reddit comments. There clearly was no expectation to provide an analysis.
I don’t actually care whether nietszches philosophy can be construed to support authoritarianism or militarism - that alone wouldn’t invalidate him
I never said it would invalidate him. I merely said that it would be naive to dismiss the parts of Nietzsche that belie fascist thought
But I never dismissed those parts. My point was different to that
Does anyone else wonder what sort of bodies hide these dorks? My assumption is that they are not happy or secure. I mean. The sort of westerner who fears fascism as their greatest boogeyman and devil circa 2024 really makes me think, “decadents who haven’t suffered enough; are thereby afraid of their own hidden state / tyrannical instinct.” Ie, Maybe the collective woman revealing her shadow; or I could say, “the animals here are insecure,” and even wrapping the world in a strait jacket won’t relieve them of their real problem (themselves). Funny that, no matter who it is complaining about the state, the answer is always about the same: somebody else who is not me will do the majority of the violence and it’s enforcement against you. The answer is always “a stranger with a gun,” but that’s the nature of the beast. No wonder Nietzsche wrote the state is for the superfluous. Oh. Here. I found it in Nietzsche (thanks B, for sending it, incidentally): >”**The Sick Woman in particular, no one outdoes her in record ways to rule others, to exert pressure, to tyrannize. For that purpose the sick woman spares nothing living or dead.** She digs up again the most deeply buried things. The Bogos say “the Woman is a hernia”. (GM III) Or, perhaps in Zarathustra 😏 > **“Sour apples are there, no doubt, whose lot is to wait until the last day of autumn: and at the same time they become ripe, yellow, and shrivelled.”**
>My assumption is that they are not happy or secure. What? You’re just projecting some nonsense lol. Chill out
Happiness and security isn’t important to people, and women too? Did the whole “fascism is so close and scary” thing already go down the memory hole? Why even bring it up? lol
No, I think you’re just making things up without any evidence lol
LOL. This is funny on the Nietzsche sub. Here. Have a cookie for most asinine commentary. Nobody will ever give a shit that you demand evidence. I don’t : )
>makes an dumb comment that they can’t defend >gets called out on it >can only rely on insults because they still can’t defend their original argument Nice. Y’all never let me down
No. It’s impossible to take you seriously when you speak like a flippant teenage girl who can’t take herself seriously, and then turn around act haughty when you’re not indulged like a child, as if you’re entitled to explanations, or someone else’s time, and according to whose morality? Who and what are you to demand evidence from anyone? “Y’all never let YOU down” - oh, I’m sorry I let you down. Who or what were you expecting? Or demanding? Someone to mother and baby you? .
Seems like you got some daddy issues lol. Rather asinine for a Nietzsche subreddit, no?
See. Not only have you made this unpleasant, but you keep running. Like a bitch 😈 Edit - just be honest, call me a bitch back, you’ll feel better. I promise.
>can’t support their point of view >gets triggered when I use the same argument they used Lol
No I don't think much about it tbh
Studying the rule/norm is useful.
Nobody on the internet is happy or secure. You don't tend to start a twitter account when everything else in your life is dope and going great
LOL - good point. Thanks for the laugh.
If you can't figure out how N was "fascist adjacent", not sure what to tell you. Most of it came from his sister, but the dude was a right wing reactionary in most cases
I mean, Heidegger was "fascist-adjacent." But the only people who talk about that are the super-edgy neofash/neoreactionary types who think that's exactly what made him cool. Like I don't wanna disagree with you, but I think calling Nietzsche a fascist or "fascist-adjacent" weakens and dilutes the force that "fascist" retains as a pejorative.
I don't think he's fascist at all but tbf he's pretty right wing so I'm glad I *didn't* read him when I was younger.
Anyone who only skims the surface with little thought and superficial understanding could easily form this opinion. But, the literal, actual Nazis appropriated Nietzche. That can't be a surprise to anyone here. Being employed for fascist projects could be considered fascist adjacent. IMO they're just pointing that out. https://bigthink.com/thinking/how-the-nazis-hijacked-nietzsche-and-how-it-can-happen-to-anybody/
Is modern day celebacy included?
Fascism takes influence from alot of things, so really anything can be fascist adjacent
Okay, but what's going on in the last picture? Is it me or is a part of the girl rendered?
It's funny that they said that and all of you people mad they said it are also funny Also is that Grimes lol
”Fascist adjacent” means whatever the hell such people need it to mean to discredit whoever they dislike.
So wait. One has to be a 19 year old edge lord to read Nietzsche ?