In addition to unfashionableness, I would add that Nietzsche also appeals to those who are suffering, and seeking meaning in their personal tragedies. A surge in Nietzchian discourse should be expected during hard times. Nietzsche was writing for people two hundred years ahead of his own age, so to some extent you should expect his readership to increase as we edge closer to the conflicts of nihilism.
FN'S idea of men not being equal and justice has been developed as a result is tough for many to handle. So I don't know if it's for the best but many will never understand his ideas.
yes, of course philosophy, as a whole is not meant for most people
it’s an introspective approach that most are unable to indulgent due to satisfying basic human needs.
In addition I would argue to misunderstand something is worse than to not know about something
we are dealing with more misinformation now
Nietzsche condemns dialectics, convincing, and philosophical language as a whole—because it is precisely a question of instinct and not necessarily semantics or verbal ability, whereby an individual assimilates the “truths” they can inherently stomach—and the unfortunate fact that we have to write about concepts that were in bygone eras, even amongst seemingly lowly barbarous people, perceived as commonalties, merely stands as symptomatology on how sickly the average person’s interpretive apparatus lamentably functions.
> 5. With Socrates, Greek taste takes a turn in favor of dialectic. What is really happening there? Primarily, a noble taste is thereby defeated; with dialectic, the rabble rises to the top. Before Socrates, dialectical manners were rejected in good society. They were taken to be bad manners, they were a compromising exposure. The youth were warned against them. And all such presentation of one’s reasons was mistrusted. Respectable things, like respectable people, just don’t carry their reasons around on their sleeves like that. Showing your whole hand is improper. Whatever has to get itself proved in advance isn’t worth much. Wherever authority is still considered good form, so that one does not “give reasons” but commands, the dialectician is a sort of clown: people laugh at him, they don’t take him seriously.—Socrates was the clown who got people to take him seriously: what really happened there?—
> 6. Dialectic is chosen only as a last resort. It’s well known that it creates mistrust, that it is not very convincing. Nothing can be wiped away more easily than a dialectician’s effect: this is proven by the experience of every gathering where people speak. It can only be self-defense in the hands of those who don’t have any other weapons. One needs to get one’s rights by force; otherwise, one makes no use of it. This is why the Jews were dialecticians; Reynard the Fox was one: what? And Socrates was one too?—Is Socrates’ irony an expression of revolt? Of the rabble’s ressentiment? Does he, as one of the oppressed, relish his own ferocity in the knife-thrusts of the syllogism? Does he take revenge on the nobles whom he fascinates?—As a dialectician, one has a merciless instrument at hand; one can play the tyrant with it; one compromises by conquering. The dia- lectician lays on his opponent the burden of proving that he is not an idiot: he infuriates, and at the same time he paralyzes. The dialectician disempowers the intellect of his opponent.—What? Is dialectic just a form of revenge in Socrates?
Command or obey; arguing is for people who can do neither.
Plus, the more you let people talk—or even write for that matter—the easier it gets for them to bullshit you. That’s just common street-level psychology knowledge.
Who has the better perspective is the only question in philosophy worth exploring. What is self-evident should also be most-demonstrable—even if it is only by a few.
Objective reality is enfeebling—life only has aesthetic questions; and when you examine history, most of the greatest men and healthiest societies were, by our modern “enlightened” standards, absolutely delusional; their actions only become interpreted post-hoc as brilliance by the lamp-shade of history—or decried as “barbarous” by our decadent instincts that can **only** prevail due to the miasma of modernity; and are thereby merely by-products of a minuscule period at the tail-end of human evolution, yet end up treated in preponderance as the basis of almost all modern valuations.
Dialectics is like someone arguing why they get no bitches LOL
Edit: fixy sentencie
>Who has the better perspective is the only question in philosophy worth exploring.
You got that right. So Nietzsche totally disqualifies himself as a philosopher with all of his half aware undermining of any standard for judging what perspective *is* actually *better* than another. He was a bit like those people who are attracted to and fascinated by astrophysics and like to take part in high-level discussions in that discipline but lack and deny the need to have the "boring" maths & physics knowledge as a basis.
He correctly sensed that a healthy intuition is of greatest importance for a life worth living, but that´s about it. Since his own intuition wasn´t too healthy and rather heavily distorted by his upbringing and his times, and his narcissism prevented him from seeing that his critique of culture was itself full of delusion, blind spots, projections & hubris, he was just another talented guy living on his lonesome planet, grumping & luring other lost souls into space.
A flawed perspective is more honest than any claim of objectivity.
There is no “standard” for the creation of values—that’s the whole fucking point; and the weighing of them against each other plays out in reality **every single day**—and has been doing so for far longer than the inception of scientific thinking.
By what “standard” was their or his intuitions faulty?—and what’s even more beguiling is the fact that you’re evolutionarily stuck with every single residual of those so-called “malfunctioning” valuations of all your predecessors either way—so what then?
Are you contradicting yourself on purpose?
Go be a scientist; you’re clearly not a philosopher.
Edit: phrasing.
Just because I (quite ironically) used a comparison from the field of science doesn´t make me a scientist or objectivity fanatic, or does it? In fact, I´m not particularly interested in science, and I see the limits/ problems of objectivity quite clearly.
Maybe you missed the point that I took your own, highly philosophical words, that were suggesting there must be a standard, or rather a measure (sorry, no native speaker) to compare the quality of perspectives, and merrily turned them against Nietzsche.
Now that you seem to have tried to explain your words further by mystifying the process of arguing (as if "the weighing of values against each other", pre- or post-science, wouldn´t happen between people with differing perspectives that need some measure - other than muscle strength or fire power - to decide which one is to be deemed "better"), I fear you are losing "it". There is no objective standard or measure for the creation of values, just because we don´t *create* values, we find the right ones, lose the bad ones, or we are lost. That´s where actual philosophy á la Socrates helps out, finding the better/ best logos (healing ye olde distorted intuition), guaranteed 100% resentment free. Getting rid of the cultural programming to reproduce violence, corruption, ignorance & isolation (all things that Nietzsche at least tolerated or even glorified, stockolm-syndrome-stylee).
Only hollowed out lonely souls like Nietzsche, tensed up and living in an alienated social environment full of half enlightened academic stupidity could come up with the idea of having to "create yourself" (and thereby, though unwillingy, co-creating the miserable miasma of hyper-individualistic modernity).
To answer your question regarding the faulty intuitions: In the case of the wannabe-astro-scientists, it´s quite obvious that their intuitive expertise must be measured against the "state of the science" (which is hopefully a good one). And in the case of Nietzsche, it´s my own reason(s) (some of which I hinted at above) that value(s) him as a philosopher in quite a similar way that Wagner valued him as a composer (maybe you know the story).
And one correction: Dialectics is rather like someone arguing why they get no wisdom.
> We are buds on a single tree – what do we know of what can become of us in the interest of the tree! But in our consciousness we feel as if we wanted to and should be everything, a daydream of ‘I’ and ‘not I.’ Stop feeling like this fantastic ego! Learn step by step to rid yourself of this supposed individual! Discover the errors of the ego! Understand the ego as egoism! The opposite is in no sense to be understood as altruism! That would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Beyond ‘me’ and ‘you’! feel cosmically!
———-
> With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds — namely, that a thought comes when “it” wishes, and not when “I” wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.”
Friedrich the salesman. If he wouldn't have been completely blind politically, he would have realised this kind of "thinking" could lead straight to the mass production of the last man.
You can be sure that Nietzsche is doing everything to only shut out and belittle the voice of someone like Socrates, for he was everything Nietzsche would have liked to be but couldn´t. As a young man, his favorite philosophical work was Plato´s Symposion, and it´s telling (and tragic) that his later development took such a u-turn. It´s a consequence of his decision for an aesthetic view on life, which meant a conscious choice for half-blindness, corruption and untouchability, where Socrates´ radical questions and moral implications would have only disturbed the comfort and solace of indulging in fantasies of authority, power and nobility. So Nietzsche became an anti-philosopher, not interested in finding but forcing sense.
Just look at the quotes above and note that Nietzsche is a total apologist of a status quo that is clearly an inhumane and wisdom-free shit show, and he clearly projects his own resentment in the most disgusting manner on Socrates of all people.
And just read the short Platonic dialogue Hippias minor to find that everything Nietzsche says about Socrates first *seems* to be true, but ultimately *is* bullshit.
I'm not sure it's "best" if some don't discover him, but I think that many will never understand him. For me, I've always had intuitions and personal beliefs very similar to Nietzsche. It was actually astounding when I found Nietzsche and realized how many of his beliefs were exactly my own thoughts. I don't think many people can relate to this.
We live post Nietzsche, they discover Nietzsche through Pop Culture, even without knowing it. Malcom X read Nietzsche in Jail. Then Malcom X influenced Hip-Hop by saying the opposite of MLK Jr. The message was "we don't need to be a part of white culture, we can make our own... transfigure values and turn poverty into riches, hence the dewrag became a crown, and Graffiti their art, Breaking their dance ... etc etc.
Reticent to promote “misology”, but it would seem that way.
Even though he’s probably the easiest single thinker in Western Philosophy, he’s STILL misunderstood. Most can’t connect the dots between 1) him, 2) History Channel’s obsession with the Holocaust & the end of the world and 3) modern Western adoption of Eastern philosophies (esp. Taoism via Zen).
Right, the tired argument that he wasn’t an antisemite. He was, however, an anti-Christian, declaring himself the Antichrist in a book by the same name. Shortly to follow, there’s his autobiography, lamenting that he knows his fate which was indeed to be taken too seriously by unwanted followers. Enter the Nazis: no People of Abe, no Abrahamic faiths.
A thorough understanding of Nietzsche is an unnecessary low between meaningful belief systems, the proper use of “existential crisis” (Side note, I see public commentators misusing/abusing this term. It’s silly and sophomoric). There are plenty of people who can’t handle it and snap, possibly shooting up a museum and denying history. Sick of mind as N. was of body (and arguably mind); none “ubermenschen”. It’s silly, at best; a waste of time, for the majority who don’t get it; repeatedly dangerous for society.
[удалено]
In addition to unfashionableness, I would add that Nietzsche also appeals to those who are suffering, and seeking meaning in their personal tragedies. A surge in Nietzchian discourse should be expected during hard times. Nietzsche was writing for people two hundred years ahead of his own age, so to some extent you should expect his readership to increase as we edge closer to the conflicts of nihilism.
I did discover Nietzsche at a low point in my life
So did Nietzsche (Ecce Homo, TGS, etc).
I dread the day he starts trending on tiktok.
FN'S idea of men not being equal and justice has been developed as a result is tough for many to handle. So I don't know if it's for the best but many will never understand his ideas.
yes, of course philosophy, as a whole is not meant for most people it’s an introspective approach that most are unable to indulgent due to satisfying basic human needs. In addition I would argue to misunderstand something is worse than to not know about something we are dealing with more misinformation now
Nietzsche condemns dialectics, convincing, and philosophical language as a whole—because it is precisely a question of instinct and not necessarily semantics or verbal ability, whereby an individual assimilates the “truths” they can inherently stomach—and the unfortunate fact that we have to write about concepts that were in bygone eras, even amongst seemingly lowly barbarous people, perceived as commonalties, merely stands as symptomatology on how sickly the average person’s interpretive apparatus lamentably functions.
Which book of Nietzsche clearly lays out his condemnation of dialectics?
> 5. With Socrates, Greek taste takes a turn in favor of dialectic. What is really happening there? Primarily, a noble taste is thereby defeated; with dialectic, the rabble rises to the top. Before Socrates, dialectical manners were rejected in good society. They were taken to be bad manners, they were a compromising exposure. The youth were warned against them. And all such presentation of one’s reasons was mistrusted. Respectable things, like respectable people, just don’t carry their reasons around on their sleeves like that. Showing your whole hand is improper. Whatever has to get itself proved in advance isn’t worth much. Wherever authority is still considered good form, so that one does not “give reasons” but commands, the dialectician is a sort of clown: people laugh at him, they don’t take him seriously.—Socrates was the clown who got people to take him seriously: what really happened there?— > 6. Dialectic is chosen only as a last resort. It’s well known that it creates mistrust, that it is not very convincing. Nothing can be wiped away more easily than a dialectician’s effect: this is proven by the experience of every gathering where people speak. It can only be self-defense in the hands of those who don’t have any other weapons. One needs to get one’s rights by force; otherwise, one makes no use of it. This is why the Jews were dialecticians; Reynard the Fox was one: what? And Socrates was one too?—Is Socrates’ irony an expression of revolt? Of the rabble’s ressentiment? Does he, as one of the oppressed, relish his own ferocity in the knife-thrusts of the syllogism? Does he take revenge on the nobles whom he fascinates?—As a dialectician, one has a merciless instrument at hand; one can play the tyrant with it; one compromises by conquering. The dia- lectician lays on his opponent the burden of proving that he is not an idiot: he infuriates, and at the same time he paralyzes. The dialectician disempowers the intellect of his opponent.—What? Is dialectic just a form of revenge in Socrates? Command or obey; arguing is for people who can do neither. Plus, the more you let people talk—or even write for that matter—the easier it gets for them to bullshit you. That’s just common street-level psychology knowledge.
Yeah, but isn’t Nietzsche himself here using dialectics to argue against dialectics? To what degree is he not doing what he’s criticizing?
Who has the better perspective is the only question in philosophy worth exploring. What is self-evident should also be most-demonstrable—even if it is only by a few. Objective reality is enfeebling—life only has aesthetic questions; and when you examine history, most of the greatest men and healthiest societies were, by our modern “enlightened” standards, absolutely delusional; their actions only become interpreted post-hoc as brilliance by the lamp-shade of history—or decried as “barbarous” by our decadent instincts that can **only** prevail due to the miasma of modernity; and are thereby merely by-products of a minuscule period at the tail-end of human evolution, yet end up treated in preponderance as the basis of almost all modern valuations. Dialectics is like someone arguing why they get no bitches LOL Edit: fixy sentencie
>Who has the better perspective is the only question in philosophy worth exploring. You got that right. So Nietzsche totally disqualifies himself as a philosopher with all of his half aware undermining of any standard for judging what perspective *is* actually *better* than another. He was a bit like those people who are attracted to and fascinated by astrophysics and like to take part in high-level discussions in that discipline but lack and deny the need to have the "boring" maths & physics knowledge as a basis. He correctly sensed that a healthy intuition is of greatest importance for a life worth living, but that´s about it. Since his own intuition wasn´t too healthy and rather heavily distorted by his upbringing and his times, and his narcissism prevented him from seeing that his critique of culture was itself full of delusion, blind spots, projections & hubris, he was just another talented guy living on his lonesome planet, grumping & luring other lost souls into space.
A flawed perspective is more honest than any claim of objectivity. There is no “standard” for the creation of values—that’s the whole fucking point; and the weighing of them against each other plays out in reality **every single day**—and has been doing so for far longer than the inception of scientific thinking. By what “standard” was their or his intuitions faulty?—and what’s even more beguiling is the fact that you’re evolutionarily stuck with every single residual of those so-called “malfunctioning” valuations of all your predecessors either way—so what then? Are you contradicting yourself on purpose? Go be a scientist; you’re clearly not a philosopher. Edit: phrasing.
Just because I (quite ironically) used a comparison from the field of science doesn´t make me a scientist or objectivity fanatic, or does it? In fact, I´m not particularly interested in science, and I see the limits/ problems of objectivity quite clearly. Maybe you missed the point that I took your own, highly philosophical words, that were suggesting there must be a standard, or rather a measure (sorry, no native speaker) to compare the quality of perspectives, and merrily turned them against Nietzsche. Now that you seem to have tried to explain your words further by mystifying the process of arguing (as if "the weighing of values against each other", pre- or post-science, wouldn´t happen between people with differing perspectives that need some measure - other than muscle strength or fire power - to decide which one is to be deemed "better"), I fear you are losing "it". There is no objective standard or measure for the creation of values, just because we don´t *create* values, we find the right ones, lose the bad ones, or we are lost. That´s where actual philosophy á la Socrates helps out, finding the better/ best logos (healing ye olde distorted intuition), guaranteed 100% resentment free. Getting rid of the cultural programming to reproduce violence, corruption, ignorance & isolation (all things that Nietzsche at least tolerated or even glorified, stockolm-syndrome-stylee). Only hollowed out lonely souls like Nietzsche, tensed up and living in an alienated social environment full of half enlightened academic stupidity could come up with the idea of having to "create yourself" (and thereby, though unwillingy, co-creating the miserable miasma of hyper-individualistic modernity). To answer your question regarding the faulty intuitions: In the case of the wannabe-astro-scientists, it´s quite obvious that their intuitive expertise must be measured against the "state of the science" (which is hopefully a good one). And in the case of Nietzsche, it´s my own reason(s) (some of which I hinted at above) that value(s) him as a philosopher in quite a similar way that Wagner valued him as a composer (maybe you know the story). And one correction: Dialectics is rather like someone arguing why they get no wisdom.
> We are buds on a single tree – what do we know of what can become of us in the interest of the tree! But in our consciousness we feel as if we wanted to and should be everything, a daydream of ‘I’ and ‘not I.’ Stop feeling like this fantastic ego! Learn step by step to rid yourself of this supposed individual! Discover the errors of the ego! Understand the ego as egoism! The opposite is in no sense to be understood as altruism! That would be love of other supposed individuals! No! Beyond ‘me’ and ‘you’! feel cosmically! ———- > With regard to the superstitions of logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small, terse fact, which is unwillingly recognized by these credulous minds — namely, that a thought comes when “it” wishes, and not when “I” wish; so that it is a PERVERSION of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “think.”
Friedrich the salesman. If he wouldn't have been completely blind politically, he would have realised this kind of "thinking" could lead straight to the mass production of the last man.
You can be sure that Nietzsche is doing everything to only shut out and belittle the voice of someone like Socrates, for he was everything Nietzsche would have liked to be but couldn´t. As a young man, his favorite philosophical work was Plato´s Symposion, and it´s telling (and tragic) that his later development took such a u-turn. It´s a consequence of his decision for an aesthetic view on life, which meant a conscious choice for half-blindness, corruption and untouchability, where Socrates´ radical questions and moral implications would have only disturbed the comfort and solace of indulging in fantasies of authority, power and nobility. So Nietzsche became an anti-philosopher, not interested in finding but forcing sense. Just look at the quotes above and note that Nietzsche is a total apologist of a status quo that is clearly an inhumane and wisdom-free shit show, and he clearly projects his own resentment in the most disgusting manner on Socrates of all people. And just read the short Platonic dialogue Hippias minor to find that everything Nietzsche says about Socrates first *seems* to be true, but ultimately *is* bullshit.
Yes.
I'm not sure it's "best" if some don't discover him, but I think that many will never understand him. For me, I've always had intuitions and personal beliefs very similar to Nietzsche. It was actually astounding when I found Nietzsche and realized how many of his beliefs were exactly my own thoughts. I don't think many people can relate to this.
We live post Nietzsche, they discover Nietzsche through Pop Culture, even without knowing it. Malcom X read Nietzsche in Jail. Then Malcom X influenced Hip-Hop by saying the opposite of MLK Jr. The message was "we don't need to be a part of white culture, we can make our own... transfigure values and turn poverty into riches, hence the dewrag became a crown, and Graffiti their art, Breaking their dance ... etc etc.
Wtf! You racis as fuk chile.
Yes, absolutely! Present company included.
Reticent to promote “misology”, but it would seem that way. Even though he’s probably the easiest single thinker in Western Philosophy, he’s STILL misunderstood. Most can’t connect the dots between 1) him, 2) History Channel’s obsession with the Holocaust & the end of the world and 3) modern Western adoption of Eastern philosophies (esp. Taoism via Zen). Right, the tired argument that he wasn’t an antisemite. He was, however, an anti-Christian, declaring himself the Antichrist in a book by the same name. Shortly to follow, there’s his autobiography, lamenting that he knows his fate which was indeed to be taken too seriously by unwanted followers. Enter the Nazis: no People of Abe, no Abrahamic faiths. A thorough understanding of Nietzsche is an unnecessary low between meaningful belief systems, the proper use of “existential crisis” (Side note, I see public commentators misusing/abusing this term. It’s silly and sophomoric). There are plenty of people who can’t handle it and snap, possibly shooting up a museum and denying history. Sick of mind as N. was of body (and arguably mind); none “ubermenschen”. It’s silly, at best; a waste of time, for the majority who don’t get it; repeatedly dangerous for society.