/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12531986]

Am I the only one who finds that Nietzsche's Geneaology of Morals arrives at its conclusions more by rhetoric than by rigor?

[Anonymous No.12532016]

>>12531986
>DAE
>Unpopular opinion buuuuut
>We really need to talk about....
>Is it just me or...

FUCK OFF REDDIT

[Anonymous No.12532017]

>>12531986
Yeah, like pretty much all 'philosophy'.

[Anonymous No.12532020]

>>12531986
if that's true then all of Neitzsche is rhetoric, because GoM is the one book that actually lays out a system and justifies it historically, but you are a faggot who posts le edgy hitler quotes so you probably don't read to begin with and just want to bait.

[Anonymous No.12532045]

>>12531986
I mean yeah

But it's kind of the whole point of Nietzsche's philosophy to embrace pure aesthetics over any kind of logic. He thinks that logic and reason are themselves rhetorical forms, and we should be suspicious of those who "mask" their ideas in clarity and argument (e.g. What he has to say about socrates)

I don't agree with him but you can't dismiss him on the grounds that he isn't logical. To do so is begging the question against his irrationalism.

[Anonymous No.12532294]

have there been any scholars that confirmed/disproved his thesis in gom? i know that foucault uses his method but does he or anyone else actually look at the historical archives and check him out?

i disagree with >>12532020 "justifies it historically". it's not a justification but him simply creating a historical narrative without sources or evidence.

we're supposed to take it on his word and from the power of his rhetoric but i'd prefer a more nuanced historical perspective.

[Anonymous No.12532319]

>>12532045
Then what he said about faith being fear of truth is total bs

[Anonymous No.12532328]

>>12532319
He means the truth of the body which is one of the premises for hus polemic against philosophers and the rationalists.

[Anonymous No.12533903]

>>12532294
Yeah he (the philologist) mostly just gives us the etymologies of some ancient greek words…

[Anonymous No.12533914]

>>12531986
>The reason why the ancient world was so pure, light and serene
It wasn't any of those things

[Anonymous No.12533919]

>>12531986
Philosophy with rigor exists, it is called mathematics.

[Anonymous No.12534032]

>>12533919

analytic be gone

[Anonymous No.12534040]

Not entirely OP, but some of it clearly is.

What I do think is actual philosophy in that book though is the dialectic of morality between the Romans and the Christians.

I don't think he's wrong there, and whenever I read those chapters I get the feeling that Nietzsche had read Hegel's Phenomenology chapters about the master-slave dialectic.

[Anonymous No.12534206]

>>12534040
>and whenever I read those chapters I get the feeling that Nietzsche had read Hegel's Phenomenology chapters about the master-slave dialectic.

Yeah, no shit. Except he butchered Hegel.

[Anonymous No.12534380]

>did [continental] just ramble and make shit up rather than arrive at his conclusions in a sane say
Gee I fucking wonder. The sooner you stop obsessing over the syphilitic delusions of a lunatic, the sooner you'll be well.

[Anonymous No.12534403]

>>12532294
Nietzsche actually believed that theory. It is the reason the National Socialists are basically the only ones who interpreted him correctly.

[Anonymous No.12534452]

>>12532045
>>12532294
>>12532319
>>12534206
Why do the worst readers of Nietzsche congregate at such weird hours? OP idk if you lack a greater understanding of N’s system and project which contaxtualizes GM within a field of argumentative possibilities, you lack an understanding of theory, or you’re just being a pleb. I’d recommend checking out Gay Science 108-125, the preface to BGE, and The Errors section of Twilight of the Idols for a little help here. I will admit it’s sometimes weird figuring out what parts of GM are supposed to be ironic, but his actual geneological labouring doesn’t really require “rigor” in the sense you’re wanting because he is working at such a level of theory regardinc power and its psychological and historical implications. I can see how you may have missed his underlying metaphysical commitments that got us to this point, but N doesn’t give a fuck because understanding that in the way you want to is mostly a waste of time and antithetical to the sort of progress he wants in philosophy/he assumes throughout GM you have read and understood his prior works (which isn’t really fair, I know). Look up Brian Leiter or Maudemarie Clarke if you really want something like the formal logic articulated.

[Anonymous No.12534457]

>>12534403
If there’s a single reading of Nietzsche that has been discredited in the literature, it is this one. Yet again we have a N thread full of superficial readers unfamiliar with the most basic intro texts in the secondary literature. Never fails.

[Anonymous No.12534470]

>>12534452
Thinking Hegel pre-empts Nietzsche is not a bad or stupid reading of Nietzsche. It's a literal requirement for understanding Hegel.

>>12534457
It's actually "Nietzsche as wisdom writer" that needs discrediting. And even the idea that Will to Power is a text largely written by his sister.

Nietzsche wasn't a full blown NatSoc or even truly anti-semitic, but he was deeply aristocratic, reactionary, and anti-socialist. Nietzsche is the equivalent of a far-right pro-Zionist today. He forms part of the Conservative Revolution, which is essentially a far-right opposition to National Socialism.

[Anonymous No.12534484]

>>12534452
> Europeans are such bad readers of Nietzsche

Begone, Walter Kauffman.

[Anonymous No.12534498]

The best interpreter of N. is Klossowski

[Anonymous No.12534501]

>>12534498
Quick rundown?

[Anonymous No.12534529]

>>12534498
His reading of Nietzsche is almost identical to Deleuze's iirc (he even dedicated his book to Deleuze). What makes it stand out for you?

[Anonymous No.12534545]

>>12534484
Not even talking about Kaufmann, though I imagine the only thing he got rightwas this general sentiment (at least toward the Germans). I think Bataille or Deleuze are the most immediately good readers of N, though some work by Clarke, Higgins, and Leiter all are pretty convincing on the American side of things.

[Anonymous No.12534548]

>>12534498
didn't Derrida (or maybe it was someone else) call his reading of Nietzsche pro-fascist? He presented his reading of Nietzsche to some scholars and one had said it was the Nazi reading and Klossowski's response was essentially "No comment."

[Anonymous No.12534563]

>>12534548
Haven't read the essay about Nietzsche which was criticised, but his book about him didn't have any obvious fascism about it. Maybe it was just a case of screaming Nazi at everything.

[Anonymous No.12534570]

>>12534470
K that’s a cute interpratation and all but 1) Nietzsche gave zero shits about Hegel and 2) No, I’d say the concentrated effort that allowed N to be rediscovered and taken seriously in academia was that he was firmly against any sort of ideal promoted by NatSoc. I don’t really habe to rehash this because it’s such a well-known canonical point in literary any text written during the Kaufmann era. And I’m glad you think you’ve worked out N’s political implications but aside from this superficial veneer of aristocracy there is no discernible political view given in any of his works and certaintly not a coherent one given the totality of his works. Any such reading is a reach at best, and this part of the literature is always the weakest and least relevant to N studies.

[Anonymous No.12534576]

>>12534470
And I cant think of anyone in N studies (except for a few scattered American thinkers who do so merely out of nostalgia) who actually think of Nietszche as a wisdom writer. Wtf are you talking about?

[Anonymous No.12534750]

>>12534529
I agree that like Deleuze Klossowski focuses on the eternal return as a selective doctrine, but while for Deleuze this is mostly about active and reactive, negative and affirmative, with the former "not returning" or being transformed into the latter, Klossowski stresses the return's selection to be turning of intention into intensity, knowledge into chaos (in turn an influence on Lyotard's Libidinal Economy). What interests me is that he ties this in with the struggle against - or rather, the experimenting on and acceleration of - gregarity, i.e. the herd, the status quo of scientific and moral institutions. Probably with a nod to Bataillean sovereignty, he characterizes the inventors, artists, philosophers of the future as "surplus men" - excessive, useless, singular natures that would control and parasitize off the herd in taking part in a conspiracy centred around the eternal return. Because of this, it seems that he supports an (anarchic) aristocratism, inegalitarianism, etc., which did surprise me coming from this mostly leftist French Nietzschean milieu, given the praise it has gotten in turn from Deleuze, Lyotard etc.
>>12534548
Hence, I'm interested in this comment. Where did he say this? I'm thinking of the text "Circulus vitiosus" presented by Klossowski at the 1972 Nietzsche conference, after which there was a discussion with Derrida, Deleuze and others: if I remember correctly, Derrida didn't say something of this sort here, but others did compare the reading with authoritarianism and the conservative Stefan George Circle. I would say that, like Nietzsche himself, Klossowski's reading is at least politically ambiguous, which I don't take issue with. I suppose it resists being pro-fascist though since Klossowski centrally stresses that the eternal return is parodic or a simulacrum of a doctrine: ultimately, I think, a secret society of artist-aristocrats would already be too serious a move, and they would not seek to institute a new order but just to bring eternal experimentation, difference or chaos.

[Anonymous No.12534765]

>>12534380
/thread

[Anonymous No.12534797]

>>12532020
Imagine saying Rome had a master morality when it literally started as an asylum for ex-slaves. I don't get that. The society that seems to be the shining example of the rule is now the big exception.

With that, it seems that the system laid out by GoM cannot be justified historically. Yeah, I'd imagine with Nietzsche, everything is not perfect, but a society like Rome certainly cannot be the exception for his system.

[Anonymous No.12534857]

>>12534570
>his superficial veneer of aristocracy there is no discernible political view given in any of his works
I'd call his gushing about caste systems in Antichrist a bit more than a "superficial veneer".

>>12534797
What are you even on about? What kind of society did the Romans, a people who as ex-slaves would have known better than anybody the horrors of slavery, create? Did they say "we were once slaves and never again will anybody else have to live this way!"? They didn't sympathize with the slaves of the world, they didn't want to liberate the world from slavery and 'evil'. No, they seized the opportunity they had and took slaves of their own. They rose and became the masters knowing full well what it was like to be a slave because there was nothing inherently good or evil attached to something like slavery. Evil for them was being enslaved, and good was enslaving.

[Anonymous No.12534868]

>>12533914
Yea what was be smoking

[Anonymous No.12534883]

>>12534857
>Bad for them was being enslaved, and good was enslaving
good post; fixed this though

[Anonymous No.12534898]

>>12534883
That's true, evil implies resentiment whereas bad is just a preference.

[Anonymous No.12534928]

>>12532045
That makes no sense. If logic isn't a valid standard then there's no point to even attempting philosophy (or even communicating coherent thoughts). To prioritize aesthetics (ostensibly due to effectiveness) is a logical proposition.

[Anonymous No.12534946]

>>12531986
Pretty much all contemporary philosophers agree. Hard to find an argument in Nietzsche. Doesn't mean his ideas aren't valuable to discuss, just means you won't see him offering arguments for them.

[Anonymous No.12534987]

>>12534380
Generally true, but I think we can still find nuggets of wisdom here and there.

I think there's a lot of truth in his master/slave morality framework, which we can quite clearly playing out in current events. My only major issue with it is that I think morality is fundamentally about utility, whether that of master or slave.

[Anonymous No.12535003]

>>12534987
Well you can think that but the idea that all human action is about utility optimization is outdated.

[Anonymous No.12535045]

>>12535003 Sure, a lot of human action is just impulsive (or more impulsive than the rest, I should say). A moral/value though, is a kind of formula directed at achieving some utility for a valuing agent.

[Anonymous No.12535053]

>>12531986
Hitler never said that. Bait harder, useful idiot scum.

[Anonymous No.12535094]

>>12534857
It's obvious that Rome affirmed a "master morality" insofar as they resented their past slave lives. They sought asylum not from their masters, but from themselves. Only the weak and slavish deny life in such a way, denying their own selves. They held slaves so that if everyone else was lower, they would be higher, rather than grow themselves without predication on others. Their growth in power and development of morality is out of resentment for their previous masters and the original stain of their past slavish lives that will never leave them.


There is no genealogy to be had

[Anonymous No.12535114]

>>12535094
>rather than grow themselves without predication on others
taking slaves doesn't make you a slave retard. they did not try and build morality around resentment but instead took up the position of the master. following ypur take, the christians would have been the ultimate example of master morality

[Anonymous No.12535134]

>>12535114
>following your take, the christians would have been the ultimate example of master morality
Im fucking crying, maybe they are nigga lmao

[Anonymous No.12535169]

>>12535114
>they did not try and build morality around resentment but instead took up the position of the master
That's the issue. How do we know that they didn't build their morality around the resentment they had for their previous masters? That shit is like the nerdy kid in high school who becomes a rich, buff "chad" later in life out of pure resentment for his bullies. The fact that GoM is meant to be a historical justification and that Rome began as slaves make this idea plausible. Then it would be such that the GoM isn't so dogmatic as we would like to think.

And in regards to slave morality, it is slavish insofar as how much resentment of something else enslaves you. If you hate yourself like a slave, your escape from slavery, ie) rising to masterhood, is enslaved to the hatred of previous masters. That escape is out of self-hate of the stain of slavery, not the affirmation of the potentiality of being a master.

N's problem is that I can presuppose a master or slave title to anything and "force the cube into the circular hole" and scream no true scotsman

[Anonymous No.12535336]

>>12535094
>>12535169
>DUUUUUUUUDDDEEE WHAT IF SLAVERS ARE ENSLAVED TO THE FACT THAT THEY OWN SLAVES *HITS BLUNT*
Some of the stupidest mental gymnastics I've read on this board in awhile. The master morality isn't singular to the Romans, its something that was widespread throughout the pre-Christian world. That Rome descended from slaves and refugees before rising to become the preeminent enslaving power in the region really only serves to show the extent to which the master morality was pervasive. It's not as if Rome was some sort of historical anomaly with their slaving, everyone did it everywhere because it was profitable and because they had no moral qualms with it. Slavery wasn't considered so "evil" that it was off the table, which is what Nietzsche is getting at when he call Christian ressentiment life-denying. Under the master morality a freed slave is not constrained be ressentiment to be anti-slavery, he is not constrained to push for the liberation of all slave everywhere, he is free as an "individual" (not in the liberal sense but the pre-modern aristocratic sense, bad word I know) to enslave as much as he wants since he is in the position to do so. You can't "presuppose a master or slave title to anything", the fact that you think this shows that you don't understand the concepts behind the words and are stuck making shallow semantic arguments instead of actually interacting the the substantive ideas behind the words.

[Anonymous No.12535367]

>>12535336
Original Christianity didn't consider slavery evil....

[Anonymous No.12535369]

>>12535169
>That shit is like the nerdy kid in high school who becomes a rich, buff "chad" later in life out of pure resentment for his bullies
I don't think you read GoM, resentment would mean an inversion of master morality based around resentment; this anon put in the effort post just read him
>>12535336

[Anonymous No.12535387]

>>12531986
>>12532045
>>12534380
You guys are utter brainlets. Post a passage from Nietzsche and I'll school the fuck out of you on it. The idea that an underlying rationale doesn't exist in Nietzsche is pure bullshit.

[Anonymous No.12535392]

>>12535114
maybe the real slaves are the friends you make along the way

[Anonymous No.12535393]

>>12531986
How did you reach that conclusion?

[Anonymous No.12535418]

>>12535336
>mental gymnastics
this is literally hegel's dialectic of freedom. i don't know if you're being oblivious to his argument or not.

[Anonymous No.12535441]

>>12535418
not him but if you don't think Hegel is a massive exercise in mental gymnastics you have never read Hegel

[Anonymous No.12535468]

>>12535367
Ressentiment was/is a process that occurred over a long period of time as the values inherent to Christianity reached their logical conclusions. You can see early examples of a truly Christian view on slavery bleeding through thinkers like Saint Augustine. For Nietzsche, though, Protestantism is the true expression of Christianity as Jesus preached it and not coincidentally abolitionism reaches its zenith under Anglo-American efforts to outlaw slavery on an international level rather than just within the sovereignty of their own borders as previous Catholic nations had done.

>>12535393
>suicide is bad
get a load of this faggot

>>12535418
>this is literally hegel's dialectic of freedom.
And?

[Anonymous No.12535490]

>>12535468
>get a load of this faggot
Not an answer

[Anonymous No.12535501]

>>12535490
I'm not OP and I don't even know if I agree with him since I'm not sure what it is he was asking. But your post was ressentimental crap and you're probably a starbucks-drinking, apple-using, toyota-driving yeast spore.

[Anonymous No.12535505]

>>12535501
>being triggered at the picture
Fuck off /pol/

[Anonymous No.12535514]

>>12535505
But...that's exactly what you did. Is this your way of letting us know you're from /pol/?

[Anonymous No.12535525]

>>12535514
Why did you got so triggered? Stop defending OP

[Anonymous No.12535543]

Actually existing Christianity finally gave up on any pretense of actually enacting the master part of master morality during the decadent Victorian phase of European colonialism, not coincidentally, when slavery was abolished in the British empire (1807-1833, Victoria ascended the throne 1837). The Christian ruling classes had already given up what one could plausibly color as Nietzschean master morality by the time the Renaissance was maturing, e.g. the French monarchy began banning aristocratic dueling in the mid-16th century, essentially banishing it to the (then growing) colonial possessions and in attenuated form, consider the crafting of Sublimis Dei and the Valladolid debate in the first half of the 16th century. In sum, Christianity eliminated master morality in Europe in about 3 centuries (you should already know the history of this process, the rise and fall of church power vs church influence vis a vis state power, contemporaneous with the Crusades, if you're presuming to discuss Nietzsche).

[Anonymous No.12535544]

>>12535525
>open thread about Nietzsche
>everyone is having a constructive conversation about Nietzsche
>notice that the OP's picture has the evil German mustached supervillain in it
>"well somebody better respond to this!"
lad...

[Anonymous No.12535552]

>>12535468
>You can see early examples of a truly Christian view on slavery bleeding through thinkers like Saint Augustine.
Saint Augustine said slavery was good because parents would be less likely to kill their babies (since they could sell them). He also considered it divine judgement for criminals and captives to be enslaved. Read his full words in context, not secondary damage control spins

>logical conclusion
Dogma doesn't "progress"

The South was every bit as religious as the north, and are moreso today

[Anonymous No.12535559]

>>12535387
>Post a passage from Nietzsche
Why do Nietzschefags unironically do the George Lucas "it's so dense, every single image has so much going on" thing? I know that's a pleb reference but it's the only analogy I can find for how obsessed you people are with how every passage of Nietzsche needs some esoteric unpacking because it's so complex.

Nietzsche does have an underlying rationale, yes. But if you think that it's given a logical, or even semi-logical form in the works themselves, then you literally don't know what logical reasoning looks like. The substance of Nietzsche's work isn't in arguments, he doesn't even make explicit arguments. It's in his style and his artistic construction of his position, so as to appeal to what he sees as the reader's better nature, stirring in them the feelings he wishes to foreground. No one is saying Nietzsche is making up his philosophy on the spot, but whatever his rationale for arriving at it, the argument is implicit or non-existent in the works themselves. He asserts, because he sees all philosophers as merely asserting, based on their own individual wills and desires, while dressing this up with reasoning.

Perspectivism isn't subjectivism. But you're retarded if you want to claim Nietzsche believes we can reason towards moral propositions in the way previous philosophers did.

[Anonymous No.12535700]

>>12534576
The most famous anglo translator of Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.12535718]

>>12534570
> he was firmly against any sort of ideal promoted by NatSoc

So he was pro-communism? Don't kid yourself, there is overlap.

> I don’t really habe to rehash this because it’s such a well-known canonical point in literary any text written during the Kaufmann era.

Exactly what needs to be reconsidered. Kaufmann era is bad Nietzscheanism.

[Anonymous No.12535739]

>>12531986
Nietzsche btfo

[Anonymous No.12535753]

>>12532016
Based

[Anonymous No.12535756]

>>12532045
This is almost the complete opposite of what Nietzsche advocates, retard. He specifically wrote on the need to balance logic with passion.

[Anonymous No.12535771]

>>12534380
>dude, life is just one big puzzle to be figured out, lol. The meaning of existence and ethics are basically just the same thing as math because humans made math lmao

Fuck jannies and fuck analytics

[Anonymous No.12536232]

>>12535559
>But if you think that it's given a logical, or even semi-logical form in the works themselves, then you literally don't know what logical reasoning looks like.
Post a fucking passage then and prove your point. Until then, you're just blowing smoke up everyone's asses. If there was no rationale "in the works themselves," no one would be able to make sense of them.

[Anonymous No.12536423]

itt: everyone ignores OPs question and no one actually provides any evidence for the claims in gom

[Anonymous No.12536430]

>>12536232
>If there was no rationale "in the works themselves," no one would be able to make sense of them.
Yeah true. That's why I said there was a rationale in the works. But it's not given an explicitly logical form. I'm not going to go fishing through the genealogy because I'm moving house and don't have access to all my books rn, and I read it long enough ago that I can't paraphrase any of it from memory, but with almost every section of the genealogy we are presented with statement after statement by Nietzsche, to which we could press and ask "why? Why is this the case?" and not find any immediate answer in the text. However, we are disinclined to ask "why?" by Nietzsche's rhetorical force. And there's nothing wrong with that, in fact it's perfectly consistent with his implicit rational principles, operating behind the work.

Let me be clear, I'm not one of the anons who dismissed Nietzsche, I'm the one who said OP couldn't dismiss him on purely logical grounds (that he can't follow his reasoning) because it begs the question against Nietzsche's aestheticism and irrationalism. I *agree* with Nietzsche's statements regarding logicians using logic as a mask to hide their wills behind a wall of impartiality (look at any run of the mill analytic philosophy paper published in the last few years, *especially* in ethics if you want to see undeniable proof of this), and what I reject of Nietzsche's system, I reject on broadly aesthetic grounds (I.e his project of the ubermensch, which is distasteful to me)

For the last time, I've never said that Nietzsche wasn't systematic or that he had no reasons for what he said. All I claimed was that he deliberately rejected giving his work the conventional logical form of prior philosophical works. Like just open up some Kant and tell me the difference in style isn't immediately apparent

[Anonymous No.12536488]

>>12535771
I bet you believe in chakras

[Anonymous No.12536522]

>>12532016
This.

[Anonymous No.12536534]

>>12536430
>implying kant is more coherent than nietzsche
you do realize his major deductions of the two a priori sensible intuitions of space and time (what his synthesis of empirical and rationalist philosophy hinges on, as well as his subsequent critique) are some of the most logically lackluster arguments you can find in groundbreaking canonical works right? you don’t, because you havent opened kant, yet you fetishize “logic” (i dont know what you even mean by that at this point) as some ideal language crap that has pretty much been discarded even amongst the analytic camps.

[Anonymous No.12536551]

>>12535700
>>12535718
Most of Kaufmann’s hot takes on N have been refuted in the literature, I’ll be the first to agree to that, but find me a legitimate commentator who doesnt accept Kaufmann’s work on how N would've reviled NatSoc. And, yes, there is some overlap. I would never deny that. But again saying “there is overlap” is not the same thing as “oh yeah the NatSoc’s got N right.” And who the hell said anything about communism? N rejects communism outright in GM.

[Anonymous No.12536575]

>>12536430
>But it's not given an explicitly logical form.
Stop shifting the goalposts. It doesn't matter how "explicit" it is — such a thing isn't even demonstrable. There's nothing cryptic about any of his passages to me, so I don't agree with the assertion that the rationale is implicit in his work. Moreover, all that matters here is whether there is a rationale or not, and there is, and you've admitted as much, so why are you still responding? What is your point at all? And if you read it and you couldn't find an answer in the text, why are you saying that there is indeed a rationale to it? You have no way to perceive it yourself, so why claim that it's there? And Kant is no more clearer than Nietzsche; in fact, he's less clear than Nietzsche. The type of mathematical logic you seem to have a hard-on for does not at all bring clarity to philosophical matters, it obscures them far more often than not, because philosophical matters are life matters, and life is not very mathematical. Mathematics make up a very, very small portion of it. You rejecting Nietzsche's system on "aesthetic grounds" means you don't understand him, bottom line.

[Anonymous No.12536624]

>>12532016
FPBPOST

[Anonymous No.12537309]

>>12531986
rigor is a spook.

[Anonymous No.12537331]

>>12537309
That's like saying tools and building plans are spooks.

[Anonymous No.12537333]

>>12532016
/thread

[Anonymous No.12537620]

>>12531986
Picture of hitler when the caption is about Nietzsche why?

>His idea of ubermensch inspired Hitler

Wrong. In Nietzsche's own words "I am not responsible for what stupid people do with my words." Furthermore, Nietzsche was an individualist. In his own mind, Thus Spake Zarathustra was his magnum opus. Did Zarathustra try to enforce his ideas of Ubermensch over the unwashed masses? No. He withdrew to the mountains to wait for those who would join him.

In Beyond Good and Evil, he seemed to be advocating for a society which would foster the Ubermensch's potential... which would be a free society where, even if they are at odds with the powers that be, they can create the system of Values to lead humanity forward from the chaos caused by the death of god. And in that same manner, they would not develop a system which would quash later ubermensch either, so their system would be a fundamentally free individualist system as well

Meanwhile, Hitler oppressed. He rigidly imposed a collectivist society upon the masses which was, fundamentally, unfree and thus incapable of fostering the Ubermensch. It was against free speech, and so the Ubermensch, should he appear, would not be able to be useful as the ubermensch.

In addition to all that, in GOM he lays out how most "morals" up to that point in time were people acting in basic self interest, running on fear, fight or flight, anger, and disgust, then ad hoc creating moral justifications for their "moral outrage". That is precisely what Socialism is. Weak people incapable of providing for themselves asking for a system which provides - or at least promises to provide - for them the things they need: Food, healthcare, housing. And then the nazis added to that animalistic tribalism, Nationalism, another animal drive masquerading as "morals". While i will concede there is a little more to nationalism than that, that was what was at the base of Nazi's nationalism.

This is /b tier

[Anonymous No.12537629]

>>12537309
>Religion

[Anonymous No.12537645]

>>12534452
Nietzsche would hate you and anybody who obsessively tried to construct the "correct", "scholarly" interpretation of his work

[Anonymous No.12537689]

>>12537620
nietzsche wasn't an individualist at all. he demanded conditions be such that a de facto nobility might emerge that would dominate the weak and that the future of humanity absolutely depended on this. concern about the "ubermensch" and "the last man" are both inherently collectivist. the "individual" as an end that "individualists" talk about didn't matter at all to nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.12537697]

>>12531986
>Am I the only one who finds that Nietzsche's [x moral conclusion] arrives at its conclusions more by rhetoric than by rigor?
If so, I haven't read it.

[Anonymous No.12537788]

>>12537620
>Ubermensch. It was against free speech, and so the Ubermensch, should he appear, would not be able to be useful as the ubermensch.
The Übermensch is racial state (like The Last Man), not an individual.... libs need to stop reading their individualist frippery into Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.12537827]

>>12537788
Why did he say "Ubermensch" and not "ubermenschen", or "Uberleute"?

>Ubermensch is a racial state

No. Ubermensch is the one who can create value(s) on his own.

>>12537689
The de facto nobility was the ubermensch. They would lead the mensch. They would not necessarily dominate the mensch, they would create values that could stand rationally without god.

An individualist's end could also be the collective, as focusing on the individual can be a benefit to the collective.

[Anonymous No.12537866]

>>12537827
>Why did he say "Ubermensch" and not "ubermenschen", or "Uberleute"?
Same reason he said The Last Man instead of the Last Men

>No. Ubermensch is the one who can create value(s) on his own

This is Sartre tier retardation. Nietzsche was interested in a new paradigm of values to define the race, no "just b urself" existentialism.

[Anonymous No.12537912]

>>12537866

>just b urself

What? Did I say that at any point?

The new paradigm of values was needed because of the vacuum created by the "death of god" and Nietzsche's own destruction of the value structure created by the belief in god. The Ubermensch would be those who could create values without reference to god. Where is race in there?

[Anonymous No.12537928]

>>12537912
>The Ubermensch would be those who could create values
Those would be the "founding fathers" of the Übermensch

>Where is race in there?

The values would apply racewide, not just be limited to the individual snowflake

[Anonymous No.12537984]

>>12537928
Look you're just trolling. He was uninterested in and disliked ideas of race. Ubermensch was not a racial idea. The nazis simply appropriated it and made it one.

He was also an individualist. to quote him "the best way to corrupt a youth is to tell him to hold in higher regard those who think alike than those who think differently." He disliked groupthink. If the Ubermensch, in the creation of values, was encouraging groupthink, then it would be an Ubermensch which was exactly the opposite of what N wanted in his society, which would be quite odd.

[Anonymous No.12537997]

>>12532016
OP on the off chance you aren't from Reddit people hate you because by leading with
>Am I the only
you diminish the strength of your assertions by qualifying them as a question which makes you come across as gay and thus from Reddit.

[Anonymous No.12538006]

>>12535094
You're retarded.

[Anonymous No.12538558]

>>12537984

You're being extremely reductionist if you dismiss culture as groupthink (especially when Nietzsche talks about how important tradition is in Beyond Good and Evil). Nietzsche loathed individualism for the same reasons Tocqueville did.

>He was uninterested in and disliked ideas of race.

I can't believe you have read the work OP mentions. Have you?

[Anonymous No.12538563]

>>12532016
based

[Anonymous No.12538680]

>>12535739
/thread

[Anonymous No.12539776]

>>12536551
>But again saying “there is overlap” is not the same thing as “oh yeah the NatSoc’s got N right.

no one fucking said that, retard

> And who the hell said anything about communism? N rejects communism outright in GM.

yes, as was my claim...you're yelling at clouds, kiddo

[Anonymous No.12539798]

>that guy that writes about Nietzsche so often that now he just writes the one letter "N" instead of typing out the whole name

[Anonymous No.12540242]

[Anonymous No.12540457]

>>12532045
>I mean yeah
Go back to instagram

[Anonymous No.12540673]

>>12532016
Ding ding ding ding all of my this !

[Anonymous No.12540972]

>>12534750
so i typed all this for nothing