[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 30 KB, 300x389, 1234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3627609 No.3627609 [Reply] [Original]

He wasn't an anti-Semite for sure, but he was a racist. So, why do people worship this syphilis ridden, closet-homosexual racist piece of shit?

>> No.3627617

Heidigger was a Nazi. Doesn't mean he didn't produce some important ideas.

By your belief nearly every work prior to 1850 should be discounted because it is almost certain the author would be racist.

>> No.3627615

>>3627609
>but he was a racist
In so much as he felt the saving grace of Germans was their mostly coming from Slav stock, sure.

>> No.3627623

because he was eloquent and had some good ideas

>> No.3627630

because he had good ideas

also
>closet-homosexual
>racist
[citations needed]
not that that would change anything

>> No.3627638

>>>/pol/
>>>/s4s/
>>>/reddit/

-1/10

>> No.3627647

>>3627630
Do you have trouble reading?

>> No.3627648

>>3627647
i'm not interested in your veiled ad homs
give some citations or get the fuck out

>> No.3627656

>>3627647
Not that guy, but Nietzsche clearly liked banging chicks and even by today's standards wasn't racist. That's part of what makes him so unusual as a philosopher at that time.

>> No.3627658

>>3627648
Better yet, read some works by Nietzsche and then post on /lit/.

>> No.3627660

>>3627648

1. respond to shitposts with sage
2. stop being trolled, retard

thanks,
-/lit/

>> No.3627661

>>3627609
Nice to see the level of intelligence and eloquence is lcd in here, we wouldn't want anyone to feel excluded or butt-hurt because they were stupid ignorants.

>> No.3627664

>>3627617
The whole notation of race is a fairly recent idea. People have been intolerant in the past but this intolerance has rarely been based on race.

>> No.3627666

>>3627648
so you're the kind of stupid asshole who thinks all insults are ad hominems.


i bet you're from reddit.

>> No.3627671

He was the kind of racist that I agree with.
While I wouldn't talk about it in open, I am to some extent racist myself. What he explains about Germany, I understand. What he says about, I've already thought, he is simply giving me the words. I don't understand the closet homosexual part, which isn't even necessarily a negative thing.
He certainly wasn't a piece of shit.
I don't worship him.
He had some great things to say and I read them attentively.

>> No.3627673

>>3627666
>>3627660
are you retarded or something

>> No.3627676

>>3627673
What a self-nullifying question.

>> No.3627682

>>3627673
we know you are

what's that? you want friends with similar circumstances?

>> No.3627683

>>3627647
A good member of the /lit/ community would abstain from lowbrow remarks such as the one you made here.

>> No.3627684

Jefferson was a racist as well.
And other founding fathers were mostly racist as well, to some point.
People were racist in the past, get over it (?)

>> No.3627689

>>3627683
You don't dictate what's good.

>> No.3627694

>>3627684
Pretty much all those people were super racists for sure. Nietzsche wasn't though.

>> No.3627696

>>3627689
I just did.

>> No.3627700

>>3627676
>>3627682
so yeah

>> No.3627703

>some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race which, organized for war and with the ability to organize, unhesitatingly lays its terrible claws upon a populace

gosh hitler was such a plagiarizer - the most evil of crimes

>> No.3627704

>>3627694
Are you sure? I mean I wouldn't call him racist, because I didn't find anything written by Nietzsche on race or anything, so I can't say.

>> No.3627708
File: 1.09 MB, 450x250, dint.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3627708

>>3627696

>> No.3627709

>>3627694
He felt there was something in the german, possibly through upbringing that was different from others. It wasn't exactly racist. Others today think the same, but don't speak their mind.

>> No.3627714

>>3627709
That's more nationalistic than racist.
There's a difference.

>> No.3627723

>>3627714
Is there?

>> No.3627725

>>3627714
not really

>> No.3627726

>>3627714
lol nope

>> No.3627729

How was he racist? And they believe he did not have syphilis and instead had a tumor and Bipolar Disorder.

>> No.3627735

>>3627709
Obviously there is. What is the problem?

>> No.3627740

>>3627735
>obviously there is

like what

>> No.3627749

>>3627709
>Others today think the same

Nope, prove it you nutcase.

>> No.3627750

>>3627723
>>3627725
>>3627726
Yeah it is. Well I thought there was, but now trying to refute your claims, I'm thinking...
I mean yeah being nationalistic means you think that your nation is superior to others, but does that also mean that you believe it's based on biological superiority.
Unless you count cultural superiority as a racist, which a lot of people do. But the problem is that cultural superiority is subjective, and doesn't try to use scientific discourse, while racism does just that...

>> No.3627764

>>3627750
yeah, i'm sure he was referring to german food, nitwit

>> No.3627770

>>3627709
>He felt there was something in the german, possibly through upbringing that was different from others.
Yeah, here it is from the horse's mouth as it were:
"Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins"
That is the closest you'll get to an actual racist statement by Nietzsche.

>>3627704
The easiest text to misconstrue to my mind are On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense as far as just racism goes, though a few others (Genealogy of Morals and The Antichrist I've noticed in particular) also get someone's ideology or views or whatever imposed on them. Perhaps the weirdest thing about Nietzsche is that he wasn't particularly racist, sexist or anti-semitic at all (in fact specifically against those things a lot of the time), and any time someone thinks they're reading prejudiced Nietzsche, they're either reading something into it that isn't there or taking something out of context (the latter is very easy to do to be fair).

>> No.3627778

>>3627770
Prove Nietzsche was an anti-racist.

>> No.3627781

He praised India's caste system.

That's not an example of racism, but it's hard to square that with what most of his contemporary fans believe.

>> No.3627782

>>3627764
Culture is more than just food, but less than "race".
So I think you're the nitwit here.

>> No.3627783

>>3627740
Shared cultural heritage? Specific customs and norms? Language? Do you think the world is covered in undifferentiated grey goo?

>> No.3627787

>>3627770
>Crossed races always mean at the same time crossed cultures, crossed moralities: they are always more evil, crueller, more restless

>> No.3627788

>>3627783
>Language

nope

>> No.3627789

>>3627726
>>3627725
>>3627723
I really hope you're some attention seeking anon triple posting because otherwise the quality of /lit/ has seriously gone downhill. Of course there's a difference between nationalism and racism, you moron. Racism is by nature excluding and ascribes different values to people based on race which does not have to be the case with nationalism. Although nationalism is such a wide -ism and has been used in very different ways that it can be hard to clearly define it.

>> No.3627795

>>3627789
not in practice.

>> No.3627798

>>3627778
So before anyone proves he was anti-racist they're racist? Yeah that's a sound logic there...
Prove that Marx was anti-racist (in some of his texts he's not really the most friendly to other races).
And so on and so on...

>> No.3627804

>>3627782
>Culture is more than just food, but less than "race"

of course, you peanut butter faggot

I'm only showing you how silly you look

>> No.3627807

>>3627795
Yeah in practice.
Nationalism was until 20th century the most important part of liberalism.
But then again, nationalistic liberalism of 18th and 19th century was at least a bit racist as well...

>> No.3627810

>>3627750
Being nationalistic does not necessarily have to include the notion of considering your nation superior to others. It can just as well be the idea that the people of a nation should have the right to self determination without being oppressed by others. There is no need to put a "value" on different nations.

>> No.3627819

>>3627807
>was
exactly

also

>nationalistic liberalism of 18th and 19th century was at least a bit racist as well...

a bit? are you fucking kidding me.

>> No.3627820

>>3627804
You're the idiot here.

There's a difference between nationalism and racism and don't try to bring your (post-)modern historical position when trying to equate two very different, even if a lot of times linked movements.

>> No.3627822

>>3627798
I was merely requesting quotations of Nietzsche denouncing racism. You seemed confident in your assertion. No need to be stupid.

>> No.3627830

>>3627810
Oh yeah classical liberal nationalism, you're completely correct.
I guess I forgot to step outside my historical position as well.

>> No.3627831

>>3627778
Herewith I am returning to you the three issues of your correspondence sheet, thanking you for your confidence which you permitted me to cast a glance at the muddle of principles that lie at the heart of this strange movement. Yet I ask in the future not to provide me with these mailings: I fear, in the end, for my patience. Believe me: this abominable ‘wanting to have a say’ of annoying dilettantes about the value of people and races, this subjection to "authorities" who are utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind (e.g., E. Dühring, R. Wagner, Ebrard, Wahrmund, P. de Lagarde – who among these in questions of morality and history is the most unqualified, the most unjust?), these constant, absurd falsifications and rationalizations of vague concepts "germanic," "semitic," "aryan," "christian," "German" – all of that could in the long run cause me to lose my temper and bring me out of the ironic benevolence with which I have hitherto observed the virtuous velleities and pharisaisms of modern Germans. And finally, what do you think that I feel when the name of Zarathustra is mouthed by antisemites?

http://www.dartmouth.edu/~fnchron/1887.html

>> No.3627834

>>3627788
Yup

>> No.3627837

>>3627787
is this real? seems racist enough

>> No.3627840

>>3627787
Misquoting from GoM won't get you anywhere with me, aside from being told to read the whole book, if possible in German.

>> No.3627843

>>3627831
>In the Latin malus (which I place side by side with m e l a V ) the vulgar man can be distinguished as the dark-coloured, and above all as the black-haired ("hic niger est"), as the pre-Aryan inhabitants of the Italian soil, whose complexion formed the clearest feature of distinction from the dominant blondes, namely, the Aryan conquering race: … good, noble, clean, but originally the blonde-haired man in contrast to the dark black-haired aboriginals. The Celts, if I may make a parenthetical statement, were throughout a blonde race; and it is wrong to connect, as Virchow still connects, those traces of an essentially dark-haired population which are to be seen on the more elaborate ethnographical maps of Germany, with any Celtic ancestry or with any admixture of Celtic blood: in this context, it is rather the pre-Aryan population of Germany which surges up in these districts. (The same is true substantially of the whole of Europe: in point of fact, the subject race has finally again obtained the upper hand, in complexion and the shortness of the skull, and perhaps in the intellectual and social qualities. Who can guarantee that modern democracy, still more modern anarchy, and indeed that tendency to the "Commune," the most primitive form of society, which is now common to all the Socialists in Europe, does not in its real essence signify a monstrous reversion – and that the conquering and master race – the Aryan race, is not also becoming inferior physiologically?

http://instruct.westvalley.edu/lafave/Niet2.html

>> No.3627851

>>3627840
So then, translate it correctly.

>> No.3627853

Darwin was a vicious racist, guess the theory of evolution is false then.

>> No.3627854

>>3627837
It's out of context. He's making a comment on the idea of his time of noble and ignoble races. Ultimately he boils this down to noble races being fundamentally barbarous and power structures in general, that is the noble races are only such because the coerce everyone else.

>> No.3627863

>>3627851
>spoonfeed me!
No

>> No.3627866

>>3627854
So, in essence Germanic tribes would be superior, because of barbarian virtues?

>lol i want your gold arab boy ima cut your head off

>> No.3627870

>>3627843
Read the book before posting quotes.

>> No.3627872

>>3627863
pathetic lel

>> No.3627902

>>3627866
I'm pretty sure it's in a venue similar to "noble savage" of Rousseau but with added concept of lording through force....

Also Germans played a minor role in crusades, the most major event was when Barbarossa drowned in the river.
They had more crusades on the north...

Also that's just over-simplification of history that nobody should ever use for whatever reason, especially one politically loaded.

>> No.3627916
File: 35 KB, 339x298, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3627916

>>3627609
>he was a racist
I have nothing to say but that you are wrong. Read the work and use any significant intellect (assuming you possess it) and you will see how wrong you are. He says that equality doesn't exist (which it doesn't), but makes it clear that inequality does not mean that anyone is more or less superior than one-another.
>syphilis ridden
It is common knowledge that he suffered from CADASIL syndrome, which was carried by and expressed in the males in his family. His symptoms all match it and his father's symptoms match it. We didn't know enough about medical-science to recognize the existence of this condition in the late nineteenth century (which was when he was diagnosed with Syphilis).
>closet-homosexual
The theory that he is gay is totally bullshit. He may have been gay, but I see no reason to believe it. The reasons he is considered gay by a (very small) minority of Nietzsche-scholars are based on modern sexual ideas and are totally irrelevant during his era. Even if he was gay (which I see no reason to believe), it doesn't affect his integrity as a great thinker.
>racist
Once again, he never made a racist comment. Ever.
>Piece of shit
I don't think he was a piece of shit. Give me a reason to think he was?

>> No.3627926 [DELETED] 

>>3627866
Sort of like that. It's also tied to this idea he sees in a lot of cultures (as partially quoted here >>3627843) that certain features are somehow pure (and so virtuous):
>One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings--they all shared this need...
>One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the
core of all noble races and in being on one's guard against it.

And to give a little more context to it:
>I used the word 'state': it is obvious who is meant by this -- some pack
of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race which, organized for war and with the ability to organize, unhesitatingly lays its terrible claws upon a populace perhaps tremendously superior in numbers but still formless and nomad. That is after all how the 'state' began on earth: I think that sentimentalism which would have it begin with a 'contract' has been disposed of.
The very justification of the state is tied to this justification of the race that for that time happens to be the noble or aristocratic one. It's nothing more.

>> No.3627931

>>3627866
Sort of like that. It's also tied to this idea he sees in a lot of cultures (as partially quoted here >>3627843) that certain features are somehow pure (and so virtuous):
>One cannot fail to see at the bottom of all these noble races the beast of prey, the splendid blond beast prowling about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings--they all shared this need...
>One may be quite justified in continuing to fear the blond beast at the core of all noble races and in being on one's guard against it.

And to give a little more context to it:
>I used the word 'state': it is obvious who is meant by this -- some pack of blond beasts of prey, a conqueror and master race which, organized for war and with the ability to organize, unhesitatingly lays its terrible claws upon a populace perhaps tremendously superior in numbers but still formless and nomad. That is after all how the 'state' began on earth: I think that sentimentalism which would have it begin with a 'contract' has been disposed of.
The very justification of the state is tied to this justification of the race that for that time happens to be the noble or aristocratic one. It's nothing more.

>> No.3627928

>>3627916
and once again the throll is fed.

>> No.3627937

>>3627902
>>3627931 here
I'd say the two are pretty similar, yeah. That Nietzsche discussed the creation of the state is often overlooked for some reason.

>> No.3627938

>>3627916

He thought race mixing was a bad move in general. He might not have been racist, but he was comfortable describing different races as greatly, and perhaps incompatibly different.

>> No.3627939

>>3627916
>He says that equality doesn't exist (which it doesn't), but makes it clear that inequality does not mean that anyone is more or less superior than one-another.

reflect on your faggotry

>> No.3627941

>>3627735
There is no problem.

>> No.3627943

>>3627749
I can't prove it.
An observation.

>> No.3627949

>>3627938
>He thought race mixing was a bad move in general.
No he didn't. That was an idea people had at the time and he discussed it, then discounted it entirely.

>> No.3627957

>>3627789
If you say so.

>> No.3627958

>>3627949
So, he was all for race-mixing?

>> No.3627961

>>3627703
If you decide to put that quote in context, you see that he is talking about the relation of morality in parallel cultures.
He talks about the things that have made the Germanic race so aggressive.
He never says that the Germanic race are better than any other race.
The book this comes from is "On the Genealogy of Morality" for god's sake! He was demonstrating the formation of morals!
>never said they were better or worse than other races
>only made such comments while tracking the formation of differing morals
>rejected those moral codes INCLUDING those of the "conqueror and master" morality

HE WAS NOT RACIST

>> No.3627968

>>3627961
>HE WAS NOT RACIST

Calm your arse, clown.

>> No.3627969

He just wrote down a lot of common knowledge in a way that made it sound all complicated and enlightening.

>blah blah blah, the sheeps lead the herd, most men are sheep

WOW THANKS NIETZSCHE I DIDN'T NOW THAT

>also, God isn't real, you idiots. you don't need God as a crutch. You don't need that crutch at all

WOW NIETZSCHE THANKS FOR ENLIGHTENING ME TO TEH FACT THAT RELIGION IS ONLY USED FOR SELF-DELUSION, AND THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ALREADY HAPPY WITH THEIR LIFE TO BECOME RELIGIOUS.

>> No.3627976 [DELETED] 

>>3627969
pretty much this

>> No.3627983

>>3627968
What's with all this passive-aggressiveness?

>> No.3627989

>>3627938
If you want to make that claim, I need a citation, because out of all the Nietzsche I have read, I have never encountered a word on this subject. I have encountered writings that SOUND like this, but I am smart enough to understand what he is saying.
>>3627939
There is no faggotry here.
Green eyes do not equal Brown eyes.
There is, therefore, an inherent inequality between green and brown.
Brown eyed people and Green eyed people are not equal.
There is no statement about which one is better or worse.
Nietzsche said that NOTHING is equal, but that to say that anything is better than another thing is subjective and totally artificial.
He rejected such judgements as bullshit.
>lrn 2 read

>> No.3627994

>>3627968
I am calm.
I wrote that to attract attention to the basic idea, incase anyone skipped the end.

>> No.3627996

>>3627969
You're again perceiving his writings from your historical position.
Guess what those things were revolutionary back then. Don't just declare that everything that is now regarded (by you) as common knowledge and what those before you perceived differently is due to their stupidity or whatever. That's bad way of thinking about history.

>> No.3627997

>>3627958
It's more like he thought the idea of race was nothing more than an arbitrary idea anyway, so "race-mixing" is completely meaningless as a concept. There is nothing inherently bad about not having pure blonde locks or curly hair or whatever else happens to be count as pure in your place and time. If you want to bend to your society's whims you can do so, but you'll just be subjugating yourself to a bunch of idiots that have nothing new to say, that are just the powerless trying to parrot and ape their powerful forefathers.

>> No.3627999

>>3627989
Holy fuck. You're dumber than /pol/.

>> No.3628002

>>3627969
It is so easy to tell who hasn't read Nietzsche.
They will make it clear as day, even if they pretend they have read Nietzsche.

>> No.3628012

>>3627989
Learn the difference between dissimilar and unequal before arguing on the internet.

>> No.3628015

>>3627999
And you don't even try to mask your "SJW" or whatever you want to call it position.
There's so much stuff that Nietzsche did that was important in creating modern subjectivity and main-stream discourse within which we perceive the world.

>> No.3628016

>>3627999
>immediately reverts to ad hominem
>claims I am the dumb one
oksure

>> No.3628021

>>3627969
>WOW NIETZSCHE THANKS FOR ENLIGHTENING ME TO TEH FACT THAT RELIGION IS ONLY USED FOR SELF-DELUSION, AND THAT IT IS IMPOSSIBLE FOR A PERSON ALREADY HAPPY WITH THEIR LIFE TO BECOME RELIGIOUS.
The point of the whole "God is dead" thing was to point out that, while humanity had tried to move beyond this idea of a God at the centre of everything, the value system had remained the same. In other words maybe you'd call yourself an atheist or whatever, but you might as well have been a Christian for the difference it made to your thinking.

>> No.3628025

>>3627664
Depends on what you mean by recent. Most of the european expansion is based on racism. Whites > Blacks. Whites > Asians. These are the mentality that still linger in the minds of the society.

>> No.3628026

>>3628012
>Unequal
Not of the same quantity, quality, value, rank, ability, etc...

>Implying Brown vs Green isn't a perfect example of two things being not the same in quality.

>> No.3628033

>>3628015
Give a a couple of examples.

>> No.3628034

>>3628021
Yeah, dude.
"God is dead," was about the social significance of religion as time moved on, not about the existence/nonexistence of god.
Nietzsche didn't write much about being an atheist.
He saw it as a no-brainer (which I think it is).

>> No.3628036

>>3627664
>The whole notation of race is a fairly recent idea.
stop posting m8

>> No.3628037

>>3628026
you're having two people tell you why you're stupid so it's time to drop the ego child

>> No.3628041

>>3628021
I'll be honest /lit/, I haven't read Nietzsche yet, but I've have been exposed to him through Foucault and his genealogy. GoM is on my to-read list for a long long time.
But reading this comment, made me realise that Nietzsche did serve Foucault genealogy on a silver platter...

>> No.3628045

>>3627656
>even by today's standards wasn't racist.
it's not racist to say blacks naturally have a higher pain tolerance and lower iq? interesting

>> No.3628048

>>3628026
that's exactly what he is implying because it isn't.

>> No.3628052

>>3628037
Once again, instead of actually pointing out what is wrong with what I wrote (there is nothing wrong with it because it is true), you revert to ad hominem.

>stay pleb

>> No.3628058

>>3628033
How about his entire enterprise of moving morals outside of religious frame.
It made stuff like "modern atheism" and various non-religious moral positions possible to conceive.

>> No.3628067

>>3628045
Provide the source where he said that. Exactly that.

>> No.3628071

>>3628037
Also...
>two people have said it
>it must be true

How many people are saying you are talking shit?
If your reasoning is right, I am amazed you are able to muster the will to move your finger and it is a fucking miracle that you could organize those finger-movements into words.

>popular opinions aren't true simply because they are popular
>also, two people doesn't make it a popular view

>> No.3628082

>>3627997
His whole concept of values is that they are arbitrary, he wouldn't mind sense of racial superiority theoretically as a realization of the will to power.

>> No.3628081

>>3628052
the fact you don't even know what inequality means limits me to laughing at you for being stupid

>> No.3628086

>>3627609
what's wrong with being racist? or homosexual?

>> No.3628087

>>3628067
In GoM he talks about how negroes are representative of "prehistoric man"

>> No.3628089

>>3628048
There is no denying that green and brown are different properties.
Green eyes require green pigment.
Brown eyes require brown pigment.
That is a qualitative difference, but no part of this observation makes the claim that X>Y or that Y>X.
The only claim made by saying that there is no such thing as equality is that X=/=Y

>> No.3628091

>>3628081
>says the person who doesn't understand inequality

Is 3 equal to 4?
NO.
Does the fact that there is inequality between the numbers mean that 3 is better than 4 or that 4 is better than 3?
NO.

>> No.3628092

>>3628087
So does he say that the prehistoric man had lower iq or higher pain threshold?

>> No.3628098

>>3628092
As a black man, I find it insulting. Are you fucking joking?

>> No.3628103

>>3628098
As a white man I don't consider myself that much different from the prehistoric man, just some added knowledge... (but then some knowledge lost).

>> No.3628104

>>3628092
>>3628087
Perhaps back then--to the comfort of delicate souls--pain didn't yet hurt as much as it does today; at least such a conclusion will be permissible for a physician who has treated Negroes (taken as representatives of prehistorical man--) for cases of serious internal infection that would almost drive even the best constituted European to despair;--in Negroes they do NOT do this." - 2nd Treatise, Genealogy of Morality as translated by Maudemarie Clark and Alan Swensen

I don't understand why you're arguing, we both know Nietzsche was prejudiced. Every fucking German in the late 1800's was.

Sorry your god isn't perfect, no man is.

>> No.3628105

>>3628071
With a strange sense of irony, you should be aware that personal insults and downplaying the number of people correcting you doesn't actually make your use of the English language correct.

>> No.3628109

>>3628092
>higher pain threshold

He said something about it but I'm too lazy to search for the source (also I'm not the one you're responding to)

>> No.3628110

>>3628087
no he doesn't

>> No.3628113

>>3628110
yes, he does?

>> No.3628114

>>3628098
>muh feelings

never
go
to /pol/

>> No.3628117

>>3628104
So he only claims that blacks have a higher pain threshold...
Where's the part where he says they have lower iq?

>> No.3628120

>>3627630
I was going to write a reply but this guy already wrote it.
Hiding this thread.

>> No.3628124

>>3628091
Seriously, learn English and stop humiliating yourself.

>> No.3628125

>>3628117
Did IQ measurement even exist back then?

>> No.3628129

>>3628117
as representatives of "prehistoric man"

what do you think he meant by that? Nietzsche believed in evolution, as I imagine you do. When you refer to another race as less evolved you're insulting it. Not only that, but its heavily implied that would lead to reduced intelligence as well. He only mentions pain tolerance because intelligence isn't directly relevant to his DISCUSSION OF PAIN.

>> No.3628130

>>3628105
My insult was a conclusion that came after I explained why your reasoning was bullshit AND after I explained that after following your reasoning would lead to no definitive answer.

And you clearly don't understand the word "quality." Without the word "quality," you can not understand the word "inequality."

>> No.3628131

>>3628124
he's le retarded

>> No.3628135
File: 71 KB, 437x400, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3628135

>>3628124
>>3628131
Samefag detected.

>> No.3628139

>>3628125
The idea of measuring intelligence started in 19th century France, so yeah...

>>3628129
Depends on what you see as a prehistoric man. Is that just early Homo Sapiens or is it Homo Erectus and others?

>> No.3628140

>>3628135
you're wrong, again

>> No.3628142

>>3628082
>he wouldn't mind sense of racial superiority theoretically as a realization of the will to power
I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, as the first bit doesn't make sense. But while race is a manifestation of will to power, as is pretty much everything, racism itself isn't a way to manifest your own power. If you look at how he talks about how aristocratic values and aristocracies come about, he talks about how new values are made and actual power is exercised only at that transition stage where a new aristocracy gains power. Beyond that, subsequent generations (even the aristocratic masters) have no actual power of their own, they're one way or another subject to the forces that began at that aristocracy's creation. And since racism seems to just be a way to coerce others to maintain this status quo, to my mind it isn't anything like a radical exercising of power.

As far as the whole establishing of aristocratic or noble values is concerned, I think the main arguments and ideas are in BGE if you want to follow it up.

>> No.3628149

>>3628104
Nietzsche was an obvious racialist, what makes him an oddity (and not exactly a racist) was that he turned the racism of the age on its head, and claimed the Germans would have done well to interbreed with the Jews. I don't think he'd ever argued that 'Negroes' were outright a weaker race.

>>3628129
>when you refer to another race as less evolved you're insulting it

Not necessarily, and especially not necessarily Nietzsche. All of his polemic was centered on the idea that the Germans had evolved to be a resentful and Slavish group and how that ought to have been fixed.

>> No.3628150

>>3628130
I have no involvement in this thread except facepalming whenever I press f5 and pointing out that you didn't use equal in the normal, modern English usage.

>> No.3628154

>>3628150
>pressing f5.
Oh lawdy

>> No.3628164

>>3628142
>I'm not sure what you're saying exactly, as the first bit doesn't make sense.

He said races are arbitrary, for Nietzsche values were also arbitrariy, they weren't objective truths.

>>3628142
>And since racism seems to just be a way to coerce others to maintain this status quo, to my mind it isn't anything like a radical exercising of power.

Why did he admire the cast system in India then?

>>3628140
>Beyond that, subsequent generations (even the aristocratic masters) have no actual power of their own, they're one way or another subject to the forces that began at that aristocracy's creation.

I have difficulties believing he said that. Of course those who found an aristocratic system have "more power" than their successors, but their successors are not just slaves of theses values, they use them to make great things, conquests for example, and as they need to make these conquests in the name of something, its when race can enter as a value.

>> No.3628171

>>3628164
>He said races are arbitrary, for Nietzsche values were also arbitrariy, they weren't objective truths.

i need to rephrase it, the one I responded to said race is an arbitrary concept, but values for Nietzsche are also, etc

>> No.3628182

>>3628164
>Why did he admire the cast system in India then?
You do know that caste system isn't racist per-se, but rather a social system.
I'm pretty sure that both Brahmans and the untouchables are still the same race (which ever that may be)

>> No.3628199

>>3628182
India is not racially homogonous and the caste system reflects racial stratification.

>> No.3628206

>>3628182
I don't know much about it but I'm pretty sure there were a preference for light skin people on the higher castes and the idea that light skin showed superiority.
Also, could they intermarry between casts? If not, this is racist, even if they are from the same "race" on a purely ethnical ground.

>> No.3628218

Did Nietzsche ever write about slavery?

>> No.3628223

>>3628199
Are you sure? Which races are there in India?
I really don't know, I think it's just a bit of change in a skin tone, because castes kept for themselves.
>>3628206
I think that you couldn't marry yourself into a higher caste, and if you marry someone of the lower caste you became a member of that caste.

But that's not racist. That's social stratification. Just like the royals in Europe didn't marry with peasants.
I don't say it's not wrong. But claiming it's racist, is a very wide conception of the word racism, which I just can't agree to.

>> No.3628227

>>3628218
His whole philosophy is based on the master-slave dialectic.

>> No.3628228

>>3628104
>to the comfort of delicate souls
That has got to be one of the worst translations ever. It's more like "said comfortingly to console". He's aping how people speak when they want to separate themselves from other based on arbitrary criteria. In this case saying they are like animals and we can be barbarous to them because they don't feel pain. The way you seem to want to read it, even in that translation, doesn't make sense with the rest of the paragraph really.

>> No.3628233

>>3628227
I meant literally. Like African slaves in the USA.

>> No.3628236
File: 236 KB, 2208x1380, 1362694200592.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3628236

Philosophers who give meaning to life, please. No nihilistic bullshit.

>> No.3628239

>>3628218
HE was kind of after slavery was abolished, so I don't think so.

>>3628233
That's not the literal interpretation of master-slave dialectic.
And again he was born in 1840's, slavery was (in US) abolished in 1860's.

>> No.3628242

>>3628086
This, seriously.

>> No.3628245

>>3628236
>implying any philosopher does that sufficiently.
>implying that philosophy should do that.
If you want quasi-religion just stick with the actual religion.

>> No.3628246

>>3628228
the paragraph is about how pain and suffering wasnt as reviled back then. His evidence for this is that negros, who he sees as less evolved, have a higher tolerance to pain.

Your complaint is irrelevant

>> No.3628250

>>3628164
>Why did he admire the cast system in India then?
As far as I can see, he favoured it to the Judeo-Christian love you oppressors deal, but I wouldn't say he admired it. But then I'm not so hot on Twilight of the Idols as a lot of his other stuff.

>I have difficulties believing he said that.
Read BGE.

>> No.3628252

>>3628223
>I don't say it's not wrong. But claiming it's racist, is a very wide conception of the word racism, which I just can't agree to.

I think your problem is that you absolutely want to see Nietzsche as an anti-racist. Nietzsche wouldn't care more about racism that he would care about purely social castes. What he wanted was a clear border between the masters and the slaves, race could do the trick.

And no, I don't see the difference between castes purity and racial purity, especially if you see racism as basically dividing races between different castes.

>> No.3628253

>>3627969
People have already done a good job pointing out what an idiot you are, but I have to say, all-caps lampooning has got to be the least clever style of insult commonly used today.

>> No.3628254

>>3628245
I don't like religion because I lack faith.

>> No.3628262

>>3628246
>the paragraph is about how pain and suffering wasnt as reviled back then.
You haven't read it.

>> No.3628263

>>3628041
Tbh, you should've skipped right to Nietzsche as soon as you realized he's a relevant precursor to Foucault. Do it soon, nigga.

>> No.3628260

>>3628250
>Read BGE.

What do you have to respond to what I said after it?

>> No.3628265

>>3628113
A proper citation would involve the text, the edition, page numbers, etc. But the book and the section will do for now.

>> No.3628275

>>3628262
what the fuck argument is that.

The entire paragraph is an aside about how pessimists will see the larger amount of suffering in the past and argue that life must have been worse back then. He goes on to say how it is now that life is terrible, back then it was great because man wasn't ashamed.

He basically argues that causing people to suffer was the bees knees and you might even be able to see it as alright because back then people might have even felt less pain (a la blacks)

>> No.3628278

>>3628252
I think the problem is that you want to see Nietzsche as racist. I don't care what he is, I think his works have merit no matter what.
And you're cutting some nice corners to equate social stratification with racial stratification.
Of course they work in a similar manner, but they're not interchangeable concepts.
For example Hutus and Tutsis.

>> No.3628280

>>3628265
ok, a handful of posts before that post is the quote.

>> No.3628286

>>3628263
Yeah I know. I did, but then I procrastinated on Genealogy of Morals and kind of sidetracked it. But Soon as I'm finished with Foucault's lectures I'll read it (at least it.)
Anything else you'd recommend.

>> No.3628291

>>3628278
>For example Hutus and Tutsis.
Oh I really shouldn't take stuff I hear as given, apparently this theory is seen as historical revisionism.
Damn...

>> No.3628292

>>3628278
>I think the problem is that you want to see Nietzsche as racist.

No, he was just indifferent to such moralism, it's my point. i don't want to defend racism at all. Actually I'm against the whole master-slave logic.

>>3628278
>And you're cutting some nice corners to equate social stratification with racial stratification.
>Of course they work in a similar manner, but they're not interchangeable concepts.
>For example Hutus and Tutsis.

Of course I'm not saying that Nietzsche would defend genocides, but there is a difference between a hierarchy between races and killing others races between hates. From what I know of Nietzsche, he would see the first as one manifestation possible of the will to power, and the second as a pure waste.

>> No.3628297

>>3628292
>and killing others races between hates

because of hate*

>> No.3628299

>>3628252
> What he wanted was a clear border between the masters and the slaves, race could do the trick.


that "race could do the trick" is your personal interpretation or nietzche actually say that?.

i

>> No.3628303

>>3628299
lolno of course it's me.

>> No.3628306

>>3628299
dude he makes it clear in his fucking post that its interpretation. Barely though, considering Nietzsche would have been fine with any arbitrary separator between the classes.

>> No.3628317

>>3628292
Now my example of Hutus and Tutsis aimed at the theory that they were same people who were socially stratified and made into two.

And I don't know why you're against master-slave dialectic.
MY interpretation, and this is really just my, which reads it through Lacan and Žižek is that master is absolute knowledge we want to attain and slave is our self-consciousness trying to achieve this knowledge. Slave, or rather serf, assumes that master has something more than himself and is thus convinced that he must attain that before he can try to incite a fight to the death for pure prestige. That's why the serf is the one doing all the work, he's trying to attain knowledge through it....

>> No.3628333

>>3628260
Chapter IX of BGE, he's talking about how the arrival of new aristocracies has been what has driven or elevated man (I would guess something like how we've developed human excellence), and that over time these aristocracies become more and more senile as it were, they lose that spark they had at the beginning. You'd really have to read the whole chapter to get an idea of where I'm coming from, but I think this bit works well enough out of context:
It is quite impossible for a man NOT to have the qualities and predilections of his parents and ancestors in his constitution, whatever appearances may suggest to the contrary. This is the problem of race. Granted that one knows something of the parents, it is admissible to draw a conclusion about the child: any kind of offensive incontinence, any kind of sordid envy, or of clumsy self-vaunting--the three things which together have constituted the genuine plebeian type in all times--such must pass over to the child, as surely as bad blood; and with the help of the best education and culture one will only succeed in DECEIVING with regard to such heredity.--And what else does education and culture try to do nowadays! In our very democratic, or rather, very plebeian age, "education" and "culture" MUST be essentially the art of deceiving--deceiving with regard to origin, with regard to the inherited plebeianism in body and soul. An educator who nowadays preached truthfulness above everything else, and called out constantly to his pupils: "Be true! Be natural! Show yourselves as you are!"--even such a virtuous and sincere ass would learn in a short time to have recourse to the FURCA of Horace, NATURAM EXPELLERE: with what results? "Plebeianism" USQUE RECURRET. [FOOTNOTE: Horace's "Epistles," I. x. 24.]

There's a small bit before where he says the persons soul has nothing to do with ancestry, but the whole thing's too long otherwise.

>> No.3628339

>>3628317
>Now my example of Hutus and Tutsis aimed at the theory that they were same people who were socially stratified and made into two.

I'm not sure to understand, how is it against my point?

>And I don't know why you're against master-slave dialectic.

I'm just against the idea of a society divided between aristocrats and sheep, nothing more.

>> No.3628350

>>3628339
>I'm not sure to understand, how is it against my point?
Well I was just trying to say that subjugation can happen from other reason than race or something.
And that saying that caste system is racist is just factually wrong, as it's based on social not racial stratification.

>>3628339
>I'm just against the idea of a society divided between aristocrats and sheep, nothing more.
If you didn't read my digression on my view, I know it's "just" my view. But everything I claimed can be found in Hegel...

>> No.3628376

>>3628333
>Chapter IX of BGE, he's talking about how the arrival of new aristocracies has been what has driven or elevated man (I would guess something like how we've developed human excellence), and that over time these aristocracies become more and more senile as it were, they lose that spark they had at the beginning.

Thank you for the quote, but I'm not sure he speaks about the same thing as you. You meant that the aristocrats who would come after the foundation would not express their will to power, but what he says here is just that they will inevitably decline. This doesn't change the fact that they need value to express their will to power, and that not only the act of creating value is expressing it.
Like the muslims, for example, they conquer much territories following their values, then decline after a while. But they continue expressing their will to power nevertheless even when not being the conquerors they were at first.

>> No.3628377

>>3628286
>Anything else

I'd recommend starting with BGE, but either way, everything after GoM (minus the Wagner shit) is worth reading. That's his best material (including GoM), and I honestly don't think you'll have any trouble getting up the drive to read it unless it turns out that you despise his writing or something.

>> No.3628390

>>3628350
>And that saying that caste system is racist is just factually wrong, as it's based on social not racial stratification.

That's the same idea anyway, hierarchying between populations and lineages, keeping your caste (race) pure from others, inferiors, castes (races)..

>>3628350
>If you didn't read my digression on my view, I know it's "just" my view. But everything I claimed can be found in Hegel...

I didn't read Hegel, and to be honest I'm not much interested by his dialectic.
Now sorry I can't respond anymore I must go to bed.

>> No.3628391

>>3628377
Thanks. As far as I read/skim GoM I don't think I will have any trouble.
The thing is I had other priorities then and decided that given I'm already procrastinating on it, I should just read it once I'll have "more time".

>> No.3628408

>>3628376
That's not what I was saying. There's a difference between Will to Power, which is like a force or drive, and actually having and exercising power. If you look up Nietzsche's metamorphosis of the soul, this becomes a lot clearer: Whether you're following someone else's values or stating your own, you're still not outside of the will to power or exercising your own. I think that's where the confusion is stemming from. Just because an master gets to dictate values doesn't necessarily mean it is the master himself actually deciding those values if you see what I mean. They are at the whims of their forefathers, their culture, and even to some degree the slaves (as alluded to in chapter IX with the example of France and corruption). One of the big ideas that's overlooked from Nietzsche is that slaves actually have quite the potential for power themselves. While the master can tell the slave what to do, ultimately it is the slave that affects changes to the world, they are not powerless by any means. So in a sense the slave has to be implicit in their own oppression as it were.

>> No.3628416

>>3627664
>The whole notation of race

No, no it isn't.
When the vikings settled in Iceland they called the natives ugly stout people.
The particular word "race" may not have existed in some languages but concepts do not need specific words.

>> No.3628420

>hating people because they disagree with your dogma

Why do you react with wild rage at "racism"? It's just an ideal.

>> No.3628421

>>3628391
You'll get more out of GoM if you read Birth of Tragedy first. Also bear in mind that neither GoM or Antichrist are the greatest in translation, but there aren't any good annotated versions for some reason of either. As such, some secondary literature is worth a look at too.

>> No.3628426

>>3628421
>You'll get more out of GoM if you read Birth of Tragedy first

How do you figure?

>> No.3628432

>>3628426
You'll get a better idea and explanation of his philological bent, which GoM is pretty heavy on.

>> No.3628450

its just me , or there are a lot in common between nietzche's master morality and Sade philosophy?

>> No.3628533

What I would give for an instant snapshot of everyone in this thread - have they or have they not read Nietzsche

OP clearly hasn't, she's just pulling some out of context nonsense off websites

I get the feeling most of you haven't either, but I see one or two who look like they have.

This board doesn't even read, in general. Fucking admit it.

>> No.3628544
File: 503 KB, 680x526, 1.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3628544

>>3628533

>> No.3628547

>>3628533
You'd know if you'd read Nietzsche if anyone else had read Nietzsche. He's not an easy read, but you tend to get a good idea of what one can take from him as a whole.

>> No.3628555

>>3628547
this

I smell leddit in this thread

>> No.3628560

>>3628555
i smell stormfag

>> No.3628570

>>3628555
P sure leddit would have just gone "Nietzsche lol denial of values right? Guy was a racist psycho. Ayn Rand right?"
My stomach is churning just thinking about it.

>> No.3628581
File: 23 KB, 479x358, 1362769143014.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3628581

>>3628560
...if I was Stormfag, wouldn't I say Nietzsche was racist and that he was right to be racist?

>lrn 2 critical thinking

>> No.3628582 [DELETED] 

>>3628570
one time there weas a thread about him and they were like

>he was a communist he was one of us we are ubermenschen!! leleel

i shit you not

>> No.3628841 [DELETED] 

/mlp/ here

consider yourselves trolled

>> No.3628843
File: 140 KB, 848x587, 1234.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3628843

/mlp/ here

consider yourselves trolled

>> No.3628850

Philosophers are basically history's neets.

>> No.3628856

Funny how my troll thread has the most replies.

>> No.3628861

>>3628850
How can they be neet with education and jobs?

>> No.3629129

>>3627609
What reason do you have to believe he was gay?