/lit/ - Literature

Ignore the bait threads and let's have a real discussion.

Ignore the bait threads and let's have a real discussion.

Resigned after the first move?

>>17345896
Beyond Good and Evil 242, capitalization is mine to show italics:

>Now, let's call what we're looking for as the distinguishing mark of European "civilization," or "humanizing," or "progress"; let's use a political formula and call it simply, without praise or blame, Europe's DEMOCRATIC movement. Behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated with such labels, an immense PHYSIOLOGICAL process is completing itself, something whose momentum is constantly growing - the process by which the Europeans are becoming more similar to each other, the growing detachment from the conditions under which arise races linked to a climate and class, their increasing independence from every DISTINCT milieu which for centuries wanted to inscribe itself on body and soul with the same demands - thus, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man, who, physiologically speaking, possesses as his characteristic mark a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the DEVELOPING EUROPEAN, which can be held back by great relapses in tempo, but which for that very reason perhaps acquires and augments its vehemence and depth, the furious storm and stress of "national feeling" still raging today, belongs here, along with that anarchism which is just emerging - this process will probably rush ahead to conclusions which its naive proponents and advocates, the apostles of "modern ideas," are least likely to expect. The same new conditions which will, on average, create a situation in which men are homogeneous and mediocre - useful, hard-working, practical in many tasks, clever men from an animal herd - are to the highest degree suitable for giving rise to exceptional men with the most dangerous and most attractive qualities. For while that power to adapt, which keeps testing constantly changing conditions and begins a new task with every generation, almost with every decade, by no means makes possible the power of the type, while the collective impression of such future Europeans probably will be one of many kinds of extremely useful chattering workers with little will power, men who will NEED a master, someone to give orders, as much as they need their daily bread, and while the democratizing of Europe thus moves towards the creation of a new type prepared for SLAVERY in the most subtle sense, the STRONG man, in single and exceptional cases, will have to turn out stronger and richer than he has perhaps ever been before now - thanks to the absence of prejudice in his education, thanks to the immense multiplicity of practice, art, and mask. What I wanted to say is this: the democraticizing of Europe is at the same time an involuntary way of organizing for the breeding of TYRANTS - understanding that word in every sense, including the most spiritual.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Nietzsche's observation that democracy paves the way for tyranny the same as the quote in the OP? Or no?

>>17346445
Nationalism BTFO

Surf the Kali Yuga

Plant for the heights, breed the übermensch

>>17345896
There isn’t any democracy. We don’t have a democracy. Power and money determines the political views that determine the winners of elections. Democracy was a step backwards if anything, it makes people complacent because they have the illusion of control. Also the only reason you read is to confirm what you already believe

>>17346510
Western civilization has been democratizing for over a century now, but the real purpose of democracy has always been and will always be the total destruction of the middle class in favor of a far more distinct lower and upper class. The political scheme you seem to have in mind is socialism.

>>17346510
Not what democracy means in this sense.

>>17346445
My intention is not simply a contrast of these thinkers, not to argue who had the better critique of democracy, but to consider the essence of power as it is revealed in relation to their thought. If, and this seems clear in the conflict presented, Nietzsche was much closer to the democratic movement and leveling process than he would have ever admitted, or even understood, then this calls into question the central ground from which he is standing, while strengthening Tocqueville's position.

In other words, if the total mobilisation for power is entirely a reactionary force following the leveling process, or the will to equality, then Nietzsche's entire philosophy is grounded in that of his most prominent enemy. Beyond this, it is limited in time, which may explain his pathological relation to the Greeks and all of the great men who came before him, and who he would turn against. Perhaps the greatest examples of this are his attacks on Goethe, and even Homer, who he said destroyed Greek culture, even Greece. In this we see a willlessness, a ressentiment forced through mechanical opposition to an age he did not understand as well as those who came before him. In it there are also signs of liberalism and Enlightenment thought turned to sickness - in form his contest with the great thinkers is really no different from liberal historicity. All great men must become the history of his consciousness.

As Schmitt said of Nietzsche, 'a deformed visage who penetrates the private priesthood of romanticism, but who, in the end, becomes its sacrificial victim.' One should not confuse this with a willed sacrifice, but of one who is willless and seeks to be destroyed by ever greater power where his being is forever lost. This can be seen in Nietzsche's perpetual polemic, a critical pantheism which begins with a formalistic alliance with the sophists against Socrates, but then progresses to his own friends, his influences, the greats, and finally the Greek masters themselves. All signs of not just a bad character, but one who would be resigned to evil if he were not so weak.

>>17347397
The common analogy used in regards to Nietzsche's weaknesses is that of Thrasymachus, or Callicles. But it is more appropriate to say that Nietzsche was striving to become a figure like Alcibiades while imagining himself as both Achilles and Odysseus - a mechanical imagination forced through the gluttonous eyes of one completely without power, not even an understanding of it. Far from a soul of gold, one cannot even say that he ever figured out how to count up the coins so necessary before setting down the great path broken by figures like Odysseus. For all his calls to action, and critique of greats like Kant, his life was even less adventurous than the worst of them, he did not even have a servant to joke with about circus tents.

Law and values were beyond him, all of his perspectives were formed of an imagination without experience, the return to life of someone completely lost to it. Here one should consider what would happen to a Kantian-made-sick if he were to confront the Greeks and point out to them that they had no understanding of the Greeks, that they were in fact destroying Greece. A pudgy and half-blind man waving in circles at a crowd to "LEAVE THIS BLIND MAN! GO HOME! ABANDON HIM HERE IN TROY! GREECE IS DEAD! THIS MURDERER OF MURDERERS! WE MUST BECOME WORTHY OF THE SHIPS!" It is easy to imagine the result, he would be brought to the whip, leveled as a cur much like Thersites. But there was no need for this in his life, because Nietzsche self-flagellated himself into madness. Without a wife to have stolen, without a thread from which to fight death, there was only the heroism of the weakest, confrontation with fate was impossible for him - he had never even set out on the worst path of being born. His memory completely dependent on equality, of those he despised, his legacy that of Socrates' vision of Thersites reborn.

>>17346510
I know someone who didn't read Tocqueville. You naughty boy :)

>>17346445
But Nietzscheans hate polemics, so let's deal with the passage.

It is a decent understanding of democracy as it relates to types, the psychology or even physiology of these people, a materialist conception of political forces. However, more than anything it reveals Nietzsche's weaknesses and Tocqueville's strengths.

Where Tocqueville sees contradiction as a natural law of life and political power, Nietzsche sees it only as a tool, one which works against him, but strangely is his only, or at least main, tool in creating a vital philosophy. Tocqueville reads democracy as it exists within eternal laws, while Nietzsche sets it completely apart, as if it were not just the end of time but a period completely detached from time - and which can only be saved by the set apart, the overman.

This partial blindness continues in his critique of the democractic type, the lowest of slaves whose only value can be seen if he forces the overman into being. One may even see enslavement in this, this is neither becoming nor being, but a form of crude determinism - the vision of someone who must set himself apart because he is himself less than the herd.

The tone of Tocqueville's work, by contrast, is that of one with power, one who has a piercing vision, and can relate the most simplistic events to the highest laws. There is a natural calm and peace in the thinking as well, a further sign of one who holds power in his being rather than striving for it through a lack. This can be seen in Nietzsche's method, which is more often than not just like that of his madman - circling wildly in the hopes that he touches on a great point, even if it takes ten mundane and idiotic points to get there. This is why he is so loved by the herd, his power exists in his style more than anything else. He is a sacrificial example, abstract being in truth revealed through the absolution of failures. In form this is entirely democratic, it only appears to hold power on the surface.

>>17347757
As a concrete example one can look to Tocqueville's commentary on war. In it he makes clear the advantages of both the aristocratic and democratic armies, one of the greatest traits of the aristocratic army its patience and sense of peace before the law. But the democratic army is not without its strengths, which have nothing to do with enslavement to the coming great man or tyrant. It is their ruthless competitiveness which leads to a long-term authority, but also this ruthlessness is of a natural type, welling up like the elements to be unleashed.

Tocqueville's theories are entirely confirmed by The Great War, which was nearly 100 years after he wrote down his theories. It was generalisation, democratisation, which gave the allied soldiers their power, particularly with the colony volunteers. The greatest generals were one with them, while the worst were the tyrant aristocrats who generally turned out to be cowards. The democratised soldier wanted to raid because of adventure, because of the natural forces within him, or simply to avoid toil and the disappointment of poor meals. This is an important point that Nietzsche could not see: the worker actually hates toil.

This is confirmed in the many accounts of soldiers, they speak frequently of the great courage coming from the most unexpected places. Nietzsche's relentless attack on the lowest not only reveals his inexperience in matters of power, but also that his character was exactly the opposite of the Greek heroes who saw the lowest as one with them, equal to the nomos of the state.

There's probably no point in going further than that as I've written enough already and this gets to the heart of it.

>>17347765
The Thersites example also speaks to this. He is a slave in a greater sense than Nietzsche understands it. He is beaten down because of his stupidity before the laws, not only because he is calling for mutiny and insurrection, what he says is essentially correct - as the lines on Achilles suggest. It is his complete idiocy and making explicit the ineffable, the manner and intent of his protests which cause him to be beaten down.
Nietzsche continues to see in terms of class, and is never fully able to break free from this. His attack on Homer probably his greatest stupidity, even if in content it may be correct. The hardness and vulgar means through which it is approached cause the greater point to be lost. This is perhaps opposite to Christianity's method of diffusion to the lowest, as his method causes the crude truths to be generalised among the highest classes, much like his masters, the sophists.

>>17346445
Good find. He seems to be agreeing with de Tocqueville.

>>17346563
>the real purpose of democracy has always been and will always be the total destruction of the middle class in favor of a far more distinct lower and upper class
Are you retarded?

>>17347851
Only on the surface. And, again, this misses the point.

>>17347765
Another good point is in relation to the herd. Democracy really works against the creation of the herd, paradoxically it forms countless smaller groups which step away and allow powers to form independently. This is a necessary process of its establishing power, or even neutralizing it. Private interest is as much a formation of higher laws as it is a leveling process.

>>17347870
prolly or just a cum-fag

>>17347765
>while the worst were the tyrant aristocrats who generally turned out to be cowards.
Is that even true?

>>17347870
Are you a socialist? Must be with that sour answer.

>>17346445
>many kinds of extremely useful chattering workers with little will power,
This too. The modern and 'leveled man' is almost entirely one of will. He puts himself through pain that would have killed not only the slaves of the past but the heroes too.
Herakles perhaps would not have endured these labours, nor could he have.

>>17348079
It is well known. Especially among the British the officers were scared of being in the trenches.
And much of the democratisation of the command structure was due to the command structure which turned contests with the worst officers into a sport. They were seen to be weak by many of the farmer soldiers, of a 'slave morality of the masters'.

>>17347397
>>17347757
When he says that democracy prepares the coming of tyrants, he also means that in a physiological sense, because for him, "will to power" and "nature" are synonymous, and his notion of nature is Spinozian. Democracy makes people physiologically similar (mediocre) over time, because democratic institutions cause a leveling across the board for society, including diet, nutrition, what leisure activity everyone is afforded and so on. In turn, this allows all the physiological exceptions who have more strength and energy and who manage to survive the institutions' leveling (which some will, since it is impossible to account for everybody in society, especially a democratic one) to take control of the populace, and the populace will even be glad for it, because none of them will have the strength anymore to know what to do or where to go next, so such people will look like gods on earth to them.

I haven't read Tocqueville, but going by your post here >>17347765 where you say

>It is their ruthless competitiveness which leads to a long-term authority, but also this ruthlessness is of a natural type, welling up like the elements to be unleashed.

This is very similar to what younger Nietzsche said in his essay called Homer's Contest, where he talked about Greek agon and the Olympic games, and how competition was extremely important to the Greeks and the development of their culture. On the one hand, younger Nietzsche admired this aspect of democracy, and was practically in favor of it in Human, All Too Human, but as he got older (perhaps he observed how democracy was changing Europe) he became more critical of democracy and talked more about how society would become mediocritized and how this was something the future aristocracy had to repel. His philosophy changes a tad bit as he changes the audience he writes for, in other words. Later Nietzsche instead thought that it was not so much this competition that gave the Greeks their strength, but the earlier period in their history, the one that we have less historical records on, the more "chaotic" period where Nietzsche believed the men of that period to be more like the Titans in their mythos, cruder and rougher and far more evil overall, so he came to embrace the coming of tyrants that he imagined democracy was heading us towards as a way of reviving that energy in the world.

>>17348314
Good response.
Just a few quick questions, why do you think he was able to see this ruthless and natural force in the Greek contests but not in the people of his own time? And why does he seem to despise them if they are so close to his ideal type?
Human, All Too Human is also where he states that Homer destroyed the Greeks. Is this in favour of the ruthless man or the democratic?

>>17348522
>why do you think he was able to see this ruthless and natural force in the Greek contests but not in the people of his own time?
He did, or at least, he saw the potential. He distanced himself from German nationalists because he thought they worked against that force and would lose should a conflict arise. American democracy with capitalist-backed art projects (i.e., Greek democracy with Wagnerian art-collectives being protected by the state) is even turning up those tyrants now (Trump being the first).

>Is this in favour of the ruthless man or the democratic?
Neither. The Greeks perished through Homer, the Greek agon, and Athenian democracy. The wars between their city states would eventually absolve, with the winner being Athens, and the inner tensions that it left in everyone in Greece demanded for democracy so that they could be released as art, that release also being the release of their life force. Nietzsche is in favor of all of it, the eternal recurrence of history.

>>17348620
Trump is one of his tyrants?
And are you sure you know the Homer comment I am referring to? He specifically says it was a disaster for independence and art. Definitely not in favour of it.
And in any case, the eternal recurrence is not a belief so I don't know why you're using that to anoint his contradictions.

>>17348651
>Trump is one of his tyrants?
An early signal, perhaps. Can't say whether Nietzsche would have supported him or not, but I do think he would have at least supported the fiery debates and conflict between the parties that he revived.

>And are you sure you know the Homer comment I am referring to?
Maybe not, can you post it?

>>17348314
A couple other comments. The weakening of the diet may also be seen as a form of strength, as in a military campaign where rations become the norm, or plunder is the only means.
Democracy more than likely would cause diversity in physiology, as is clear in Greek art in its late period, as well as what we see today. There is an incredible competition which arises due to all of the new blood being elevated to the level of the aristocracy, or even to the ranks of the monarchy. Perfection (at least in terms of surface or decadent beauty) of the human body is more likely because of this.

Tocqueville mentions this important elevation of the classes rather than decline of the monarchy.

One of Nietzsche's other weaknesses is this enslavement to the certainty of the will and physiology. It seems a contradiction for someone who supposedly loves fate. Fate will give itself and take away only in accordance with its own laws, and there is no will that can resist once fate turns against it. This becomes more than clear in all of the monarchs who have died from insect bites, or simple maladies which are turned against a previously strong line.

>>17345896
nietzsche was a larping retard...houllebecq knows this

>>17348314
Another difficulty here is that of rising through the ranks. In a strict aristocracy many of the best will be prevcented from ever coming to power. This even intensifies the shift towards democracy.
And in keeping with the laws of fate one sees the democratic rising as a replacement where the leader no longer measures up to the task, or conditions present themselves in which the centralising force required is beyond that of a single leader, or even an oligarchy. All of the best political philosophers consider this problem, but Nietzsche seems to be of the moralistic aristocracy, despite his surface opposition to moralism.

>>17348884
houellebecq loves Schopenhauer and his idea of the denial of the will to life, no shit Houellebecq doesn’t like the guy that affirms the will to power (aka the will to life except “power” is the metaphysical basis of life)

>>17348314
It is interesting how Goethe and Holderlin, who preceded almost all of Nietzsche's ideas, are without fear of the democratising force, they even embrace it. Does this not also indicate an impoverishment on the part of Nietzsche, his being closer to the will to equality and the force of the herd?

For the most part I agree with the idea that the greatest era is pre-Homeric, although this really has little to do with Homer. There is also the problem that such images of decline are moralistic, and impoverished in their sense of time. The myth of the Golden Age is also a self-proscribing law. If one begins to see it as linear, or divided, then there is already historical time. An infinite conception of time must see all ages present, or at least possible at any point. Without this the eternal return, in the ancient sense, is impossible. Which is perhaps why Nietzsche could only rise to a thought experiment, an enlightenment figurehead where the Greeks were too much for him.

The Titans also were not ruthles, at least not as a whole. Their reign is of the Golden Age, what Nietzsche often criticised as the idyllic, a form of power was in it that he was incapable of seeing.

Should also clarify the difficulty in reading Nietzsche, and the near impossibility of critiquing him. There are many contradictory quotes, and one could find passages that seem to go against what I have said.
However, the purpose here is perhaps a bit like Nietzsche wherein critique is not really the point, it is a means of revealing or attempting to move forward.

>>17348856
>The weakening of the diet may also be seen as a form of strength, as in a military campaign where rations become the norm, or plunder is the only means.
That's not what I meant by a democratic leveling of diet. I meant as in a homogenized one. As people of different cultures and classes become equalized under the culture of democracy, they become homogenized, spiritually as well as physiologically and even racially. Races mix, and everybody's cuisine, dietary habits, and so on, eventually look similar. It has to be this way, otherwise people won't survive. If people don't adapt and homogenize they get marginalized in a democratic society and suffer, and then die out, since no one wants to breed with them anymore. In modern society, people are attracted to different skin colors, because this is one of the few remaining "exotic" features left, which excites our latent sexual urges, but the byproduct of that will be race mixing, and eventually, total racial homogeneity. Homogeneity in every sense is the endgame of democracy, and this gives the exceptions an opportunity to sweep in and take control.

>>17348950
Nietzsche doesn't fear democracy, he embraces it, but he has a unique understanding of it and a reason for doing so. He's not interested in equality, and thinks that democracy (the will to equality) will bring about a greater aristocracy (a will to inequality) in life.

>The Titans also were not ruthles, at least not as a whole. Their reign is of the Golden Age, what Nietzsche often criticised as the idyllic, a form of power was in it that he was incapable of seeing.
Can you elaborate on this?

>>17346445
Why even as a Catholic I can't ignore Nietzsche.

>>17349046
>diet
I was referring to another possible interpretation, rather than equality or homogenisation the diet may be a means to power.
Even equality is not the end of the modern state, it is only a means to a specific way of being, a response to the formative laws of the era.

>>17349396
>rather than equality or homogenisation the diet may be a means to power
Well, yes, it is. It's both. Nietzsche sees the will to power being expressed as the will to adapt in a democratic society. In a democratic society, it's the will to adapt that ensures survival, so this will is encouraged and strengthened, and for those who are good at adapting, they're able to experience their will to power more successfully in a democratic society. However, he also sees the will to adapt as being the cause of the exceptions / tyrants. The most democratic men, i.e. the ones who are the best at adapting and who have adapted to the greatest number of cultures / disguises, accumulate the most resources, and in turn give birth to tyrants, individuals who are spiritually much higher than the rest of society and morally outside of it.

>>17349522
That's not the point I was making. It's not all about Nietzsche, that's a humanist and enlightenment form of thinking.
We should be discussing laws and values rather than attempting to defend everything that our preferred author said.

Something cannot be both the will to power and the will to survival, as those are two very different things. The original point was in terms of a leveling of man, towards a homogenous and weakened character. I am saying this is not the case, which should be clear in the war example, or in the average person today who would dwarf Nietzsche.

>>17349684
>That's not the point I was making.
What was the point you were making then?

>Something cannot be both the will to power and the will to survival
Survival is one road to power among many. The will to power takes on many masks because there are many different physiological and spiritual types and many different environmental configurations that these types can find themselves in. They're not mutually exclusive at all and are easy to conceive together. Will to power isn't just the ego, it's nature itself.

>I am saying this is not the case, which should be clear in the war example, or in the average person today who would dwarf Nietzsche.
Your war example isn't exactly contradictory with Nietzsche. There is a case to be made that Nietzsche wanted separate spheres in society, one where the aristocracy can thrive, and another where democracy can thrive. However, he does seem to think that this situation won't last forever, and even when there are two separate spheres, one is working in service of the other even if the other doesn't realize it. I don't know what you mean by the average person dwarfing Nietzsche though, in what sense?

>>17349748
>What was the point you were making then?
That if the austerity diet is a product of war conditions then it is not only a means to weakening. The focus on physiology also ignores spiritual strength.
Again, the war example in that a democratic army can overcome a superior aristocratic army because of the greater spirit, or even ruthlessness and formative power.

I don't know why we would even discuss diet and physiology rather than these greater concerns like war. It seems entirely of a democratic and leveled mindset, probably Nietzsche's greatest weakness along with his atheism.

>>17349046
In regards to the Golden Age. It is well-known to be an idyllic period, where people lived in abundance and without need of war. The image we have of the titans as brute monsters is due to the war with the gods and what is a reading of the later ages, Bronze or Heroic, perhaps even the Iron. The gods are seen as good, having fought a just war, and the titans evil for their revolt (even though they were the rulers), but this was never the point of the myths.
Rejection of this age suggests a people incapable of living up to it, or unable to see its wealth. Nietzsche in particular seems unsettled by a loss of conflict, again suggesting his democratic or leveled character.

>>17349931
Which brings us back to the original point in a way that may be rephrased. If Nietzsche is of the Bronze, Heroic, or Iron elements can he even see the higher forms of state? Or is he stuck with the opposition of democracy and tyranny (that which the lower types can only ever make up)?
There is no indication in Nietzsche's writing that he has any sense of power, only a relentless desire for it. This is a sign of one who is in complete absence of power, and who should never have it.

>>17349953
By contrast, Tocqueville demonstrates an incredible level of power in every paragraph he writes, not a desire for power but mastery over it. This is what we see in noble spirits, power as an ease of ordering.

>>17349904
>That if the austerity diet is a product of war conditions then it is not only a means to weakening.
It's a strengthening for non-aristocratic types; for aristocratic types, it's a weakening, unless they can adapt and gain something from it. This is the great leveling. Eventually, a new aristocracy will form based on those who can adapt best.

>The focus on physiology also ignores spiritual strength.
Yes, but this all applies to the spiritual all the same.

>>17349953
>There is no indication in Nietzsche's writing that he has any sense of power, only a relentless desire for it. This is a sign of one who is in complete absence of power, and who should never have it.
In a democratic society, there is no difference between having something and having a desire for it. Only in an aristocratic society does it make a difference. Nietzsche believed he came from royalty and his evidence for this was his strong lust for power. I agree that Nietzsche lacked power as an individual, but I also see this as the reason as to why he knows its inner workings so intimately (why would anyone become a philosopher of something they already have enough of?), and he also admitted it about himself, so I'm not sure what the reason is for bringing this up.

>>17349999
Ultimately they seem to be saying the same thing, so this posturing comes off weird.

>>17350129
But they aren't.

>>17350045
Got to go to bed. May be able to answer tomorrow.
Thanks for the polite discussion. Nice to not have a bait thread.

>>17347397
Plenty of valid critiques of Nietzsche, he was too harsh with his own criticisms in many respects. I'm not fully sure what you're trying to argue so correct any misinterpretation I make (I haven't read Tocqueville myself), however Nietzsche specifically condones endless conflict in order to allow for the creation of the Superman, very roughly along evolutionary lines, at least as he knew it. A democracy, filled with will-less men, is only a potential pool of followers, with no challenge required to sort out the superior man; it is simply a wait until someone healthy enough to manipulate and tyrannize them comes along. Because there is no conflict, there is no adequate "selection" of superiority, and there is no progress towards the Superman.

The will to equality requires some sort of will to power obviously, this does not imply that Nietzsche's whole philosophy is based on the will to equality, just that the will to equality is one type. Fundamentally, the type of ideal, pure will to power Nietzsche speaks of is not a centralizing force in the style of absolutism and later democracy; this type of centralizing is what Nietzsche referred to as the "modern idol" in Zarathustra. The pure will does not will to control other peoples lives, merely to possess supremacy over them. Nietzschean "power" is fundamentally at odds with "absolutist" or "democratic" centralizing power. Look at the different between the early Roman Empire and the Napoleonic French Empire for two, nominally similar, but fundamentally different types.

>>17349046
>He's not interested in equality, and thinks that democracy (the will to equality) will bring about a greater aristocracy (a will to inequality) in life.
Can you please give me a citation where he says or obviously implies this? I can provide one immediate counter-reference right now, which proves the opposite of what you've said here (On Tarantulas, Thus Spoke).