/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.20092537]

What book or passages in Nietzsche's books express his biological principles more directly? I'm asking because I'm curious to know what he would think of genetic modifications. Despite asserting the wish for healthy, strong men, Nietzsche does not think it would be attained through these utilitarian, materialistic means, which end up negating life, for life also consists of sickness, of difficulties, suffering. From this, it occurred to me to think about Nietzsche's biological and physiological theories. At the same time it was clear to him, as is today, that there are hereditary genetic factors building our organisms, an internal, individual force is also responsible for our whole being, reflecting on the physiological constitution likewise played a role.
Would he therefore be against technological procedures of genetic modifications? I suppose he would wish to impose it on some groups of people.

[Anonymous No.20092543]

>>20092537
>Nietzsche

[Anonymous No.20092792]

>>20092537
As Nietzsche said all is good that which increases power, so I guess he would be pro genetic modification.

[Anonymous No.20092822]

>He was wrong because...I bet he was ugly!!!

[Anonymous No.20092830]

>>20092792
Did he not believe masters are already born as masters? Maybe he would see these modifications as helpful in specific times, times in dire need of any expression of healthy and strength, distinction. But taking into account some of his principles, I don't think these technological tools would be the rule and necessary in themselves.

[Anonymous No.20092847]

Nietzche got cucked by Darwin. If the world is based solely on individual Will to Power, then why did will-rejecting collectivism get selected for? So he underplays biology in his theories.

[Anonymous No.20092858]

>>20092830
Not necessary, but it can be helpful. Masters follow their instincts, they will be strong either way, while the herd will be weak no matter what you give them.
>>20092847
He literally answers your question in the picture you posted.

[Anonymous No.20092884]

>>20092847
Darwin was a moron

[Anonymous No.20092890]

>>20092858
I think he does not answer it sufficiently. Because to Nietzche, the perfect man does not need anyone else or rely on the burden of rationality. But evolution selected for collectivism and intelligence to make humanity the dominant species on Earth. Instead of updating his model, he instead thinks evolution is the problem. He rejects its reality for the spiritual quest for the ubermensch, creating a contradiction between what he sees as desirable and actual human nature.

[Anonymous No.20092926]

>>20092890
There is no contradiction, there would be a contradiction if there is no chance for devolution. Not everything that evolves is good for survival. Some species have gone extinct because they selected things that made them weaker.

[Anonymous No.20093096]

>>20092537
I could crush this faggots skull 1v1

[Anonymous No.20094119]

>>20092830
Masters are born masters, but they are also only masters in the context of slaves.

[Anonymous No.20094172]

>>20094119
I don’t think Nietzsche believed in gullible dialectical paradigms. I think there is a psychology of master morality. In any case there will always be salvish people around.

[Anonymous No.20094195]

>>20094172
There is a psychology of it, yes. But perspectivism demands that one understand a thing only in relation to other things.

[Anonymous No.20095306]

>>20092822
Literally true, Socrates was a Pelasgian corrupter and ugly people have bad ideas.