/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20065251]

What is it that the modern far-right (the alt-right) sees in Nietzsche, when their interpretations of his works are clear misunderstandings down to every detail; Even his rare criticism of Jews is highlighted so greatly, despite him clearly having a great love for Jews

[Anonymous No.20065340]

It's not exclusively a far right thing, but the truth is that probably less than 1% of people who know about Nietzche have actually read his major works and the philosophers he was responding to. Everyone else hears phrases like "will to power" and "ubermensch" and fills in the details based on their personal headcanons and copes. They see Nietzsche more as a poet-prophet than a philosopher proper, so they ignore everything philosophical about his philosophy, which is all of it.

[Anonymous No.20065349]

>>20065251
Why would the right want to take Nietzsche's points as politically sterile facts instead of machined bullet points? Not even Elizabeth Nietzche could put up with that faggot but by God he was bright.

[Anonymous No.20065394]

>>20065251
Because he's anti-egalitarian

[Anonymous No.20065524]

>>20065251
Because his work is an incoherent unfocused mess that can be twisted and repurposed to fit pretty much every ideology and much like his fanboys he never shut up despite having nothing to say

[Anonymous No.20065534]

>>20065524
Is it not natural for a human to be an incoherent unfocused mess? Is coherency and the standards by which it has be given not what is in actuality the unnatural and therefore a lie?

[Anonymous No.20065544]

>>20065534
What a fucking strawman. Read other philosophers and you'll see a clear structure in their works, you absolute faggot.

[Anonymous No.20065600]

>>20065251
The only issue with Nietzsche for the right is that he was not a nationalist. It was only when the Nazis came to power that their intellectuals managed to pull off enough mental-gymnastics to reconcile Nietzsche with nationalism.
>despite him clearly having a great love for Jews
Nietzsche's opinion of Jews was ambivalent and changed multiple times during his live. He became quite anti-semetic when he got closer with Wagner. Though even when examining all of his letters, it can never be said with full confidence that he was a complete 'anti-semite' or 'philosemite'.

[Anonymous No.20066175]

>>20065524
>his work is an incoherent unfocused mess
It is quite coherent. You just have to have IQ score higher than 2-digit number.

[Anonymous No.20066402]

>>20066175

Section 57:

One catches the unholiness of Christian means in flagranti by the simple process of putting the ends sought by Christianity beside the ends sought by the Code of Manu—by putting these enormously antithetical ends under a strong light. The critic of Christianity cannot evade the necessity of making Christianity contemptible.—A book of laws such as the Code of Manu has the same origin as every other good law-book: it epitomizes the experience, the sagacity and the ethical experimentation of long centuries; it brings things to a conclusion; it no longer creates. The prerequisite to a codification of this sort is recognition of the fact that the means which establish the authority of a slowly and painfully attained truth are fundamentally different from those which one would make use of to prove it. A law-book never recites the utility, the grounds, the casuistical antecedents of a law: for if it did so it would lose the imperative tone, the “thou shall,” on which obedience is based. The problem lies exactly here.—At a certain point in the evolution of a people, the class within it of the greatest insight, which is to say, the greatest hindsight and foresight, declares that the series of experiences determining how all shall live—or can live—has come to an end. The object now is to reap as rich and as complete a harvest as possible from the days of experiment and hard experience. In consequence, the thing that is to be avoided above everything is further experimentation—the continuation of the state in which values are fluent, and are tested, chosen and criticized ad infinitum. Against this a double wall is set up: on the one hand, revelation, which is the assumption that the reasons lying behind the laws are not of human origin, that they were not sought out and found by a slow process and after many errors, but that they are of divine ancestry, and came into being complete, perfect, without a history, as a free gift, a miracle...; and on the other hand, tradition, which is the assumption that the law has stood unchanged from time immemorial, and that it is impious and a crime against one’s forefathers to bring it into question. The authority of the law is thus grounded on the thesis: God gave it, and the fathers lived it.—The higher motive of such procedure lies in the design to distract consciousness, step by step, from its concern with notions of right living (that is to say, those that have been proved to be right by wide and carefully considered experience), so that instinct attains to a perfect automatism—a primary necessity to every sort of mastery, to every sort of perfection in the art of life. To draw up such a law-book as Manu’s means to lay before a people the possibility of future mastery, of attainable perfection—it permits them to aspire to the highest reaches of the art of life. To that end the thing must be made unconscious: that is the aim of every holy lie.—

[1/3]

[Anonymous No.20066412]

>>20066402

The order of castes, the highest, the dominating law, is merely the ratification of an order of nature, of a natural law of the first rank, over which no arbitrary fiat, no “modern idea,” can exert any influence. In every healthy society there are three physiological types, gravitating toward differentiation but mutually conditioning one another, and each of these has its own hygiene, its own sphere of work, its own special mastery and feeling of perfection. It is not Manu but nature that sets off in one class those who are chiefly intellectual, in another those who are marked by muscular strength and temperament, and in a third those who are distinguished in neither one way or the other, but show only mediocrity—the last-named represents the great majority, and the first two the select. The superior caste—I call it the fewest—has, as the most perfect, the privileges of the few: it stands for happiness, for beauty, for everything good upon earth. Only the most intellectual of men have any right to beauty, to the beautiful; only in them can goodness escape being weakness. Pulchrum est paucorum hominum:[30] goodness is a privilege. Nothing could be more unbecoming to them than uncouth manners or a pessimistic look, or an eye that sees ugliness—or indignation against the general aspect of things. Indigna tion is the privilege of the Chandala; so is pessimism. “The world is perfect”—so prompts the instinct of the intellectual, the instinct of the man who says yes to life. “Imperfection, whatever is inferior to us, distance, the pathos of distance, even the Chandala themselves are parts of this perfection.” The most intelligent men, like the strongest, find their happiness where others would find only disaster: in the labyrinth, in being hard with themselves and with others, in effort; their delight is in self-mastery; in them asceticism becomes second nature, a necessity, an instinct. They regard a difficult task as a privilege; it is to them a recreation to play with burdens that would crush all others.... Knowledge—a form of asceticism.—They are the most honourable kind of men: but that does not prevent them being the most cheerful and most amiable. They rule, not because they want to, but because they are; they are not at liberty to play second.—The second caste: to this belong the guardians of the law, the keepers of order and security, the more noble warriors, above all, the king as the highest form of warrior, judge and preserver of the law. The second in rank constitute the executive arm of the intellectuals, the next to them in rank, taking from them all that is rough in the business of ruling—their followers, their right hand, their most apt disciples.—In all this, I repeat, there is nothing arbitrary, nothing “made up”; whatever is to the contrary is made up—by it nature is brought to shame....

[2/3]

[Anonymous No.20066414]

The same thing everyone sees in Nietzsche - self delusion.

[Anonymous No.20066417]

>>20066412

The order of castes, the order of rank, simply formulates the supreme law of life itself; the separation of the three types is necessary to the maintenance of society, and to the evolution of higher types, and the highest types—the inequality of rights is essential to the existence of any rights at all.—A right is a privilege. Every one enjoys the privileges that accord with his state of existence. Let us not underestimate the privileges of the mediocre. Life is always harder as one mounts the heights—the cold increases, responsibility increases. A high civilization is a pyramid: it can stand only on a broad base; its primary prerequisite is a strong and soundly consolidated mediocrity. The handicrafts, commerce, agriculture, science, the greater part of art, in brief, the whole range of occupational activities, are compatible only with mediocre ability and aspiration; such callings would be out of place for exceptional men; the instincts which belong to them stand as much opposed to aristocracy as to anarchism. The fact that a man is publicly useful, that he is a wheel, a function, is evidence of a natural predisposition; it is not society, but the only sort of happiness that the majority are capable of, that makes them intelligent machines. To the mediocre mediocrity is a form of happiness; they have a natural instinct for mastering one thing, for specialization. It would be altogether unworthy of a profound intellect to see anything objectionable in mediocrity in itself. It is, in fact, the first prerequisite to the appearance of the exceptional: it is a necessary condition to a high degree of civilization. When the exceptional man handles the mediocre man with more delicate fingers than he applies to himself or to his equals, this is not merely kindness of heart—it is simply his duty.... Whom do I hate most heartily among the rabbles of today? The rabble of Socialists, the apostles to the Chandala, who undermine the workingman’s instincts, his pleasure, his feeling of contentment with his petty existence—who make him envious and teach him revenge.... Wrong never lies in unequal rights; it lies in the assertion of “equal” rights.... What is bad? But I have already answered: all that proceeds from weakness, from envy, from revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same ancestry....

[3/3]

[Anonymous No.20066423]

Section 62:

—With this I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its “humanitarian” blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.... For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The “equality of souls before God”—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order —this is Christian dynamite.... The “humanitarian” blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the “humanitarianism” of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anæmic and “holy” ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself....

This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see.... I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race....

And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell—from the first day of Christianity!—Why not rather from its last?—From today?—The transvaluation of all values!...

[Anonymous No.20066427]

>>20066423
Section 43:

The vast lie of personal immortality destroys all reason, all natural instinct—henceforth, everything in the instincts that is beneficial, that fosters life and that safeguards the future is a cause of suspicion. So to live that life no longer has any meaning: this is now the “meaning” of life.... Why be public-spirited? Why take any pride in descent and forefathers? Why labour together, trust one another, or concern one’s self about the common welfare, and try to serve it?... Merely so many “temptations,” so many strayings from the “straight path.”—“One thing only is necessary”.... That every man, because he has an “immortal soul,” is as good as every other man; that in an infinite universe of things the “salvation” of every individual may lay claim to eternal importance; that insignificant bigots and the three-fourths insane may assume that the laws of nature are constantly suspended in their behalf—it is impossible to lavish too much contempt upon such a magnification of every sort of selfishness to infinity, to insolence. And yet Christianity has to thank precisely this miserable flattery of personal vanity for its triumph—it was thus that it lured all the botched, the dissatisfied, the fallen upon evil days, the whole refuse and off-scouring of humanity to its side. The “salvation of the soul”—in plain English: “the world revolves around me.”... The poisonous doctrine, “equal rights for all,” has been propagated as a Christian principle: out of the secret nooks and crannies of bad instinct Christianity has waged a deadly war upon all feelings of reverence and distance between man and man, which is to say, upon the first prerequisite to every step upward, to every development of civilization—out of the ressentiment of the masses it has forged its chief weapons against us, against everything noble, joyous and high-spirited on earth, against our happiness on earth.... To allow “immortality” to every Peter and Paul was the greatest, the most vicious outrage upon noble humanity ever perpetrated.—And let us not underestimate the fatal influence that Christianity has had, even upon politics! Nowadays no one has courage any more for special rights, for the right of dominion, for feelings of honourable pride in himself and his equals—for the pathos of distance.... Our politics is sick with this lack of courage!—The aristocratic attitude of mind has been undermined by the lie of the equality of souls; and if belief in the “privileges of the majority” makes and will continue to make revolutions—it is Christianity, let us not doubt, and Christian valuations, which convert every revolution into a carnival of blood and crime! Christianity is a revolt of all creatures that creep on the ground against everything that is lofty: the gospel of the “lowly” lowers....

[Anonymous No.20066465]

>>20066402
>>20066412
>>20066417
>>20066423
>>20066427

So if everyone in the thread can read these for me, and then read the definition of right wing in pic related. Then try and tell me again, that Nietzsche is not right wing

[Anonymous No.20066487]

>>20066465
Like does anyone here even read? Did y'all read anything that Nietzsche wrote, like at all? Like it's embarrassing. Here's the fucking link:
https://www.gutenberg.org/files/19322/19322-h/19322-h.htm

[Anonymous No.20066502]

>>20065340
>Everyone else hears phrases like "will to power" and "ubermensch" and fills in the details based on their personal headcanons and copes.
Unironically this

[Anonymous No.20066514]

>>20066487
Like for fucks sake you can read it in an evening. 29,000 words divided by an average reading speed of 250 words per minute, you get 108 minutes total. Now I understand that you might want to take your time with it, and really soak it in. However, seriously guys, you could really comfortably read it in a weekend. There are ZERO excuses to be this dumb

[Anonymous No.20067324]

[Anonymous No.20067394]

>>20065251

Nietzsche was an anti-systematic thinker who accepted that his work contained massive contradictions. It was never meant to be accepted as a whole worldview or metaphysical truth, but as a stimulus for individuals to transcend nihilism. He says as much in Ecce Homo and Will to Power.

You also clearly have no idea about the "modern far-right" because the "alt-right" was never anything more than a media term used to describe anyone in 2016 who was both a Trump supporter and vaguely racist or traditionalist. It describes a moment in time more than any coherent movement.

[Anonymous No.20067425]

>>20066465
Good that you can quote. Now ask yourself the following and see if you can provide either historical or scholarly evidence supporting your answer:

1. Is Nietzsche being prescriptive or descriptive in these paragraphs?
2. Does he view that aristocracy of the soul as an actually achievable ideal or a 'limit'?
3. Is that Wikipedia definition really congruent with Right-Wing as frequently used in the West today to denote everything from Christian Conservatives to Liberatarians? Do you think Nietzsche stands with any of those definitions?
4. Why does Nietzsche's three divisions sound suspiciously similar to Plato's Republic yet elsewhere he criticizes Plato?

[Anonymous No.20067880]

Idk how anyone can read his stuff. Its so boring and vague.

[Anonymous No.20068052]

>>20065251
He affirms hierarchies

[Anonymous No.20068093]

>>20067324
wow no wonder neetch went insane he got utterly btfo by fat man

[Anonymous No.20068118]

>>20065251
Nietzsche was a right-winger, that's it.

[Anonymous No.20068207]

what you dont see in nietzche he saw in you

[Anonymous No.20068301]

He literally advocates for "rights of the few" over "rights of the many" and calls Napoleon the synthesis of the "inhuman" and "superhuman"

[Anonymous No.20068308]

>>20065251
>his rare criticism of Jews
Bro he literally shits on the entire Jewish lineage in all of his books, what the fuck are you on about?

[Anonymous No.20068316]

>>20068308
It's because he insults the vulgar anti-Semites of his time and calls Jews powerful in their own right (the latter of which most anti-Semites would agree with, as they are usually ranting about how Jews rule the world, although in a different sense). Nietzsche would not consider himself a vulgar anti-Semite for two reasons: One is the fact that Jews are responsible for the inversion of values and the destruction of everything noble is the strength and inherent life of the Jews, and there is no universal good and evil by which to criticize them, secondly he considered Christians to be non-Semitic Jews, so that reducing Judaism to biological lineage was vulgar.

[Anonymous No.20068330]

>>20067425
>yet elsewhere he criticizes Plato?
He praises Plato as an example of a prime aristocratic philosopher in Beyond Good and Evil.
>1. Is Nietzsche being prescriptive or descriptive in these paragraphs?
Both. As Nietzsche says himself, there is no difference. In order to interpret (describe) at all one must be willing to make judgements and impose values (prescription).

[Anonymous No.20068345]

>>20068316
Nice post, but he hated the Jews.

[Anonymous No.20068554]

>>20068345
Post literary any Nietzsche quote to support that claim

[Anonymous No.20068564]

Nietzsche liked homosexuality

[Anonymous No.20068571]

Nietzsche:
>God is dead
>Me sad
Plebs who've (not) read Nietzsche:
>God is dead
>Me cool

[Anonymous No.20068590]

>>20068571
It's more like this:
Nietzsche:
>Dionysus and Apollo are dead
>me sad

>Yahweh is dead
>me happy

>out of these three corpses come the "Holy Trinity" of the Last Man


Plebs:
>Le God is dead
>Le science wins again

[Anonymous No.20068963]

>>20065251
He is both far left and far right. He advocates tearing down institutions and hierarchies so that new institutions and hierarchies can be constructed. Destruction that does not lead to creation is petty to him.

[Anonymous No.20069041]

>>20065394
/thread

[Anonymous No.20069051]

[Anonymous No.20069165]

>>20065251
National socialism was built on what they called the laws of life and one of these was the law of struggle. They saw constant struggle as the most important thing for a people to become better as this was the case in normal nature as well. So they wanted to return the people to a natural state aka a natural worldview. Nietzsche was heavily influenced by the pre-Plato and Socrates philosopher Heraclitus who instead of talking about morality as a cave so it coming from an unknown world morality was based on constant struggle against chaos. This is also where the title thus spoke Zarathustra came from. Zarathustra was someone who formulated a good vs evil idea of the world through religion which was against the idea of this struggle and the book was basically a confession on why he was wrong. It could just as well have been thus spoke Plato or thus spoke Socrates

[Anonymous No.20069286]

>>20065394
unrionically this. The new rights atheism combined with a disdain for democracy finds support in Nietzschean thought. The right loves him not for his take on Jews or the ubermensch but for his writings on the geneology of morals and the inherent anti-egalitarianism

[Anonymous No.20069477]

>>20067394
Alt right was carried by the media but they didn't invent the term. It means alternative right, and even some traditionalist conservatives are against it.

[Anonymous No.20069484]

>>20066175
His work is coherent, but it does not express a coherent political ideology.

[Anonymous No.20069505]

>>20065251
Because he's the most articulate "might is right" philosopher. Taking ideas from Nietzsche is simply good optics (especially because he's highly regarded by intellectual leftists as well) for your anti-egalitarian, anti-liberal anti-democracy, and pro-aristocratic ideals. Nietzsche's fanboyism of Homeric Greece is as right-wing as it gets btw, so their love for Neetch is justified

[Anonymous No.20070697]

>>20067324
Chesterton is such a pseud