[gioanpj]

Originally Posted by Jgib5328 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well Nietzsche wanted just 'you' to strive for personal freedom. He states many times that most people cannot reach this personal freedom & that most people decide to take the easier path, than searching for inner truth and the highest stage of development. So when he says he wants you to maximize personal freedom, he is talking about the rare individuals in society who are actually capable of doing this. The community will always exist with their societal moral standards, but you yourself should try to maximize your own personal freedom and reach your highest self.

Where does Nietzsche make this argument? Nietzsche was not a philosopher of freedom. He believed strongly in aristocracy, and that slavery was the best state for the majority of people ("the herd" or "rabble"). I don't really think that the Nazi's had to step too far away from Nietzsche's conclusions and non-arguments to arrive at their positions.

Keep in mind that Nietzsche's "Atheism of the right" is not the only brand of Atheism. There is also Marx's "Atheism of the Left," which came out of the young Hegelian tradition.


Here is a pretty basic outline of Nietzsche's ideas in this three part article:


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.



To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Julien]

Nietzsche, like other great men, like INTJs, even like people in general, was a person of deep contradictions. Your interpretations are all valid somehow. You read what you want to read.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by vaguely dissatisfied To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Atheism does not mean abandonment of morals. A person who believes this seems to me to believe that morals = theism. Why would anyone think this?

It comes down to moral realism/objectivism vs. moral relativism. I'd say 99% of theists are moral realists (I don't think I need to explain my reasoning there), and atheists are a mixed bag. It's true that atheism doesn't say whether someone is a moral realist or relativist, but I like to think atheists tend to lean towards relativism (having denied the notion of universal divine law).

(ps. Nihilism doesn't necessarily imply the abandonment of conventional morals, just the denial of their universality.)

	Originally Posted by Julien To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nietzsche, like other great men, like INTJs, even like people in general, was a person of deep contradictions. Your interpretations are all valid somehow. You read what you want to read. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Whoa, you can say that about anyone. Let's relax with the relativism a bit. Just because someone preached nihilism doesn't mean that there wasn't one general idea they wanted to convey.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I'm sorry, but your question has no meaning.

Touche, ya bully
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Iscariot]

Unfortunately, you are all wrong. You should take from Nietzche, like you should from all philosophers, what you get out of it. It doesn't have one meaning and it's not supposed to. I'm reading Thus spoke Zarathustra right now and this is what I got so far (I'll try to say it in a manner using the least amount of thou shalts neccesary): Thou shalt make up you're own mind, free thyself from the herds hyvemind and create thy own morals. The only road to the übermensch is through individualism. And man is something to be overcome, a bridge between beast and übermensch.

But again, this is what I got. I think I failed with the thou shalts.

[NephilimAzrael]

Yup, "The overcoming of man is in fact the overcoming of oneself - the mastery of one's desires and the creative use of one's powers"
Kinda sounds like 'Don't be lazy, you lazy bum, pish, Laziness'

[zibber]

Why the hate for passive nihilism? Apathy is quite relaxing, I can tell you.

[6dbl5321]

"God is dead" simply references the notion, 'God didn't create man -- man created God.' That notion is based on the different 'God's' throughout the world conveniently filling the voids of the adherents -- i.e. Jewish slaves and overtaxed Christians believing that the powerful possessed a vanity that displeased their God.

When we can find comfort in our wordly passions, personal growth for ourselves and our loved ones, and personal accomplishments, we have killed the need for God -- and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.

[NephilimAzrael]

	Originally Posted by 6dbl5321 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	".. and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.

Must be very sensitive then.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[6dbl5321]

	Originally Posted by AZRAELtheGHOST To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Must be very sensitive then. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Well, the Judeo-Christian God is proclaimed by the scriptures to be a jealous God.

[JRR]

Originally Posted by Nausved To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This is the problem I have with treating morality as if it were prescriptive (that is, pre-determined—whether by God, by society, or by the individual). It makes little sense in light of what we now know about human behavior. It is obvious that morality has a biological basis; morality (or at least its framework, which is later refined through upbringing) is innate. Philosophers often seem to ignore scientific evidence. Granted, our scientific knowledge was rather lacking in the 1800s, when Nietzsche was plying his trade.

Science and philosophy are different entities that serve different purposes.... science answers the questions of "how" and philosophy answers, or attempts to answer "why." This is why science and philosophy/religion are complimentary, and not contradictory whatsoever.





JRR added to this post, 1 minutes and 49 seconds later...

Originally Posted by 6dbl5321 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

"God is dead" simply references the notion, 'God didn't create man -- man created God.' That notion is based on the different 'God's' throughout the world conveniently filling the voids of the adherents -- i.e. Jewish slaves and overtaxed Christians believing that the powerful possessed a vanity that displeased their God. When we can find comfort in our wordly passions, personal growth for ourselves and our loved ones, and personal accomplishments, we have killed the need for God -- and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.

Ever see the t-shirt that on the front reads, "God is dead. ~Nietzsche" and on the back reads, "Nietzsche is dead. ~God" ?

[NephilimAzrael]

	Originally Posted by 6dbl5321 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Well, the Judeo-Christian God is proclaimed by the scriptures to be a jealous God.

Jealous? Wow that IS very fallible of it.

[6dbl5321]

	Originally Posted by AZRAELtheGHOST To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Jealous? Wow that IS very fallible of it.

The condemnation of idolatry is much more abstract than a statue on an altar.

[SM FURY]

[QUOTE=ssfanatic;60533]But his own morals were based on the fact that you should do what benefits you the greatest. That personally does not seem like it would make a very happy world. I guess this traces its way back to necessary illusions.





I think That Ethical Egoism is also misunderstood as a black and white nihilistic theory, most often when people are adimately opposed to the idea of only doing whats in your own best interest they jump to the conclusion that this is a theory for anti social, or psychopathic types, but applied to psychologically healthy human beings acting on empathy can also be in your best interest to sacrifice your own life for the life of your child for instance. What I really respect about Nietzsche was his ability to see the need for us to reevaluate our values, Most people would say cheating on your significant other is wrong yet something like 80% do it (sorry if this is the incorrect number) on our current moral value system of ethics we have trained people to do one thing and say another While we promote virtues like "honesty". Any happiness that derives from manipulation and deception is not real and certainly not "moral" and we wonder why are political leaders are such scumbags, it is current morality that has made society increasingly dependant on manipulation, not the lack of morality, of course that is only my opinion.

[CaptainFantasy]

“The world itself is the will to power—and nothing else! And you yourself are the will to power—and nothing else!”


Nietzsche’s conception of the individual is based on his conception of the ‘Will to Power’—the fundamental drive behind everything in the universe. Guided by this ‘will to power’, every living being seeks, above all, to release its strength into the world, so as to satisfy this will. In order to best fulfill this Will to Power, individuals must learn to focus it inwards, upon itself (ourselves), thereby refining it into higher, finer, nobler, stronger, and subtler forms. The undertaking of such a task can only be taken on by the most flexible and cunning of minds: those who Nietzsche describes as free-spirits. The ultimate goal of these free-spirits is to realize the greatest affirmation possible for the human being: the eternal recurrence of the same.

I. Will to Power as Overcoming

Nietzsche understands the universe to be in state of constant change and therefore is critical of any fixed position of understanding, as it would run contrary to the nature of the universe and the will to power. For Nietzsche, solid ‘truths’, and the language used to construct those ‘truths’, are a distortion and debasement of reality and are limiting to a higher appreciation of life. And although Nietzsche sees dependence on language and truth as limits to our potential, he still recognizes them as products of our will to power. Nietzsche believed that before the will to truth, there was a more primal will— the will to deception. It was from the will to deceive that “the belief in the opposition of values” was created, and along with it— the will to truth.

A similar development that Nietzsche describes is the creation of a 'subjective ego', which is distinct from the 'objective world'—and made so through its ‘consciousness’. Nietzsche points out that though we often think of consciousness as being distinct from the unconscious, consciousness has actually taken form out of unconsciousness and is constantly informed by unconscious instinctual drives.

Thus, when contrasted with ‘unconsciousness’ and ‘ignorance’ – ‘consciousness’ and ‘knowledge’ represent higher, or nobler, forms of the will to power. The will to power is displayed in a ‘nobler’ form through the turning of the ‘base’ instincts, inwards—upon themselves—thereby strengthening (remembering) the foundation of their (our) being to give those instincts a more refined, subtle, and higher expression. This process is what Nietzsche describes as the sublimation of the will to power.

II. Will to Power as Morality

Nietzsche examines the two polemics of moral valuation, and describes them as representing 'master' and 'slave' morality. He suggests that master morality represents a ‘yea-saying’ attitude towards life that promotes the creation of 'noble' values and excellence through through 'self'-punishment. Slave morality on the other hand, represents democratic, herd values, and a “nay-saying” attitude towards life and its values. Slave morality considers “good” to be equivalent to the herd and mediocrity, while it identifies any exhibition of exceptionalism as “evil”, and something to be suppressed.

Through the sublimation of the will to power Nietzsche contends that the human race has little by little increased its self-awareness. Nietzsche proposes a conception of the history of morality: In the pre-moral period, Nietzsche says, “an action’s value or lack of value was determined by its consequences: the action itself was taken into consideration as little as its origin.” Over the last ten thousand years, however, a gradual shift into a ‘moral’ period has taken place, along with the refinement of valuation, so that actions are no longer judged according to their consequences, but according to their origins, and more finely, according to the intentions of the origins of action. Nietzsche explains that that notion of intention is a fiction that hides the prejudices of unconscious instincts. The way in which we understand the world, and act in it, is according to a morality that makes its claims to ‘truth’ according to a limited and subjected, and therefore—prejudiced— ego. For Nietzsche, all claims to knowledge and morality stem from the sublimation of the will to ignorance, and more fundamentally from the will to power.

As humans continue to gain a deeper self- awareness, Nietzsche anticipates another “reversal and fundamental shift in values” and suggests that we may be “standing at the threshold of a period that … would at first have to be described as extra-moral”. In this period, an “action’s decisive value [will be] demonstrated precisely by that part of it that is not intentional”. Nietzsche declares that “[t]he overcoming of morality, or even (in a certain sense) the self-overcoming of morality” should be “the name for the long, clandestine work that has kept in reserve for the most subtle and honest (and also the most malicious) people of conscience today, living touchstones of the human heart.“

III. Will to Power as the Eternal Recurrence

To experience life in the fullest, Nietzsche believes that persons must give themselves completely over to the will to power. To do so, would mean the willing of the eternal recurrence of the same. Nietzsche believes that only a very select few, if any, will be able to take on such a weighty task, and he suggests that it may be the new philosophers of the future, those ‘living touchstones of the human heart’, who begin to approximate that goal.

These so-called free-spirits and philosophers of the future, Nietzsche cautiously describes as ‘experimenters’, who are unwilling to ‘get stuck’ in any perspective, always willing to take on new perspectives—never shying away from ‘evil’ perspectives but always seeking new ‘evils’ to pry their fingers into. By freeing themselves of their own prejudiced truths, these free-spirits are able to criticize the existing remnants of the moral stage, and are also free to experiment with new forms of valuation. These free-spirits thrive on solitude and independence, and it is through this solitude and independence that new forms of valuation arise: not valuations of the herd, but rather the valuation of the individual and the individual’s creative capacity towards independence.

Free-spirits inevitably lead a difficult and dangerous existence in a world which punishes and suppresses exceptionality, and Nietzsche suggests there is a need for these free-spirits to adopt masks. He says, “every deep spirit needs a mask: not only that, around every deep spirit a mask is continually growing, thanks to the constantly false, that is to say, shallow interpretations of his every word, his every step, every sign of life that he gives.”

Nietzsche sees himself as a proto-type to these philosophers of the future, in that he has begun the difficult shift towards exposing the accepted truths of his time as something to be overcome. He has done so most forcefully by declaring the death of God:

"God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of the deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it*?"
*emphasis mine

By suggesting the mortality of God, Nietzsche is attempting to convey the primacy of ‘worldly’ nature over ‘other-worldly’ or ‘divine’ nature. To value ‘other-worldly’ things which devalue ‘worldly’ things— to hold on to our ‘truths’ while the foundation of our truths no longer holds any meaning in the world— is to be a nihilist and to exhibit the will to nothingness. Nietzsche had a close and complex relationship to the concept of nihilism. Nietzsche did not consider himself a nihilist, and was critical towards nihilism, yet he still praised nihilism as the deepest moment of self-reflection for humanity and considered it valuable towards the destruction of limiting meaning. But, as subject to the will to power, nihilism and the will to nothingness, along with everything else in the universe, are essentially things to be overcome…

Nietzsche proposes a goal for humanity in the affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same, which supposes that the same circumstances will play themselves out in the same manner over and over again, throughout eternity. Nietzsche considered the eternal recurrence to be a most weighty thought:

"The greatest weight. – What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!' – Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you; the question in each and every thing, 'Do you desire this once more, and innumerable times more?' would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?–"

For Nietzsche the Eternal Recurrance represents both, a moral imperative against nihilism, and the highest affirmation of life possible for humans.

IV. Individuality as Will to Power

Nietzsche presents us with a picture of life that, “in its essence, means appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker; oppression, harshness, forcing one’s own forms on others, incorporation, and at the very least exploitation.” This picture runs counter to our conventional ‘moral’ idea of the meaning of life. Nietzsche takes it as him aim to overcome the falsely conceived truths and forms of valuation held by our selves and society. At the heart of Nietzsche’s philosophy is an instinctive valuation of the creative tendencies of the individual, and a devaluation of the democratizing tendencies of the herd. Thus, the will to power could be seen as a will directed towards the strengthening and refinement of our individuality.

Nietzsche has come to see every great philosophy to date as “the personal confession of its author, a kind of unintended and unwitting memoir” whereby the philosopher states their prejudiced perspective and their particular instincts to be ‘the truth’. Any attempt to provide rational grounding for their beliefs, Nietzsche sees as a disguised attempt aimed at persuading the reader to adopt the philosopher’s prejudices and particular instincts. Nietzsche describes these instincts as all being tyrannical in nature, each wishing to “represent itself as the ultimate aim of existence and as the legitimate master of all other instincts.” We are left to wonder if Nietzsche’s philosophy of the ‘Will-to-Power’ represents a new kind of philosophy, or is it yet another display of a philosopher’s prejudiced truths?

Through his conception of the will to power, Nietzsche presents his own version of the ultimate aim of existence in his conception of the Eternal Recurrance of the Same. Although Nietzsche expends considerable energy criticizing the existing truths and moralities of his time, this does not stop him from constructing his own ‘truths’. This tendency of philosophizing and construction of 'truth' could be seen as an ‘experiment’ taken up by an aspiring free-spirit, meant to temper his independent spirit and test the strength of his own being. This tendency can be seen to be a result of his will to power: his attempt to overcome himself through the willing of the recurrence of the same. Furthermore, his idea of great minds adopting masks can help us understand his philosophy as merely a mask or representation, on the surface, hiding a much deeper form of valuation, held in his own individuality.

[LaoTzu]

Nietzsche's sister has more to do with the misinterpretation of his writing than anything else... once he lost his mind, she took over authority for his writings and compiled them in the ways they were compiled. This is the same broad who was setting up a camp with her hubby in South America dedicated to 'living free of Jews'... Any wonder she offered up her bro's writings to the fascists?

Nietzsche as an Atheist??? If God died, that must mean there was actually a God.... The idea that God is dead is that there are no people left who really follow their God's will. They are all disingenuously following, for if you really believed in a higher omnipotent, omnicient power; you would better damn be sure you would bloody well do what is commanded of you!!!

That's what Freddie was railing against... Not religion itself. The fact that...there is no real religion anymore. It's outlived its usefulness (to the rabble).

There's quite a bit more to it than this, but I just woke up....

[Imposcillator]

	Originally Posted by gioanpj To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Where does Nietzsche make this argument? Nietzsche was not a philosopher of freedom. He believed strongly in aristocracy, and that slavery was the best state for the majority of people ("the herd" or "rabble"). I don't really think that the Nazi's had to step too far away from Nietzsche's conclusions and non-arguments to arrive at their positions.

People are notorious for misinterpreting things and taking them way out of context to fit their own ideals and view of the world. It is usually the idiotic fanatics that do this but sometimes even the greatest minds fall into this pitfall. Nietzsche is all about individual freedom. I think what you're misinterpreting here is his statement that all men are not born equal. That does not imply a preference for slavery, despite its elitist nature.

	Originally Posted by zibber To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Nihilism doesn't necessarily imply the abandonment of conventional morals, just the denial of their universality.

Agreed. I don't see Nietzsche as a nihilist, though. If anything, he cared deeply about finding the meaning of life, individually.

	Originally Posted by Jgib5328 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	He wasn't nihilistic, he was one of the first guys to bring up existentialism. He was all about finding your own truths in the world after coming to accept that the universe is inherently meaningless. He wasn't about abandoning morals either, he was about abandoning 'society's morals' and developing your own.

Very true. *points to previous point made*

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Really? Raising your standards? In a meaningless universe, how do you tell which way is "up"? Tell you what: since I get to define my own meaning, I can "raise my standards" by just lowering the bar... and it costs me not a minute's work or thought. In fact, according to "meaning" as I have just courageously decided to concoct it, I am now perfect and complete in every way, whereas Herr Nietzsche falls woefully short. Fortunately, as arbiter of the only value system that has any significance for *me*, my judgements are unassailable.

If you were going for funny, you failed. If you were trying to make a point, you also failed.
You seem to be reacting very strongly to this, as if you were offended by that statement.

Why do you have to rely on something external to "tell which way is 'up'"?
What does "lowering the bar" mean to you? Who set that bar at its current height? Does it have to be the same for everyone?

Meaning does not have to be universal. Why can you not accept that in the same way that each individual is unique their morals and personal philosophy can be just as different?

Objective perfection is non-existent. If you are comfortable with yourself and the goals you have achieved, you can achieve your own brand.

“At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.” — Friedrich Nietzsche

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	God is Dead. -Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. -God Too funny. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Now that was funny.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Monte314]

Near the end of his life, Elizabeth, the sister of the incompetent FN took over his affairs and custodianship of FN himself (to insure her own social importance), and shortly after his death published (without her brother's permission) his personal notes as The Will to Power. She became a favorite of Hitler, who threw a huge, open-casket state funeral for the dead lunatic.

By substituting the state for the individual in TWTP, Hitler found an effective vehicle for his ideas of the Ubermensch ("superman"), the need to acquire lebensraum for the grossdeutsch ("living space" for those living under the new Germany), and men stepping into the vacuum left by the god they have murdered. We all know where this went.

*disingenuous disclaimer*
"Of course, FN's work cannot necessarily be faulted for how others use it."

[Imposcillator]

1. You didn't answer any of my questions or address the points I made. Do you not care to reply or do you have nothing to say to support your argument (if there even was one in the first place)?

2. Are you actually saying Nietzsche is guilty for Hitler's crimes? This is hilarious. Guess I was wrong about you not being funny. If you're not, then what is the point you're trying to make?

[ssrprotege]

	Originally Posted by TheLastMohican To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	God is Dead. -Nietzsche Nietzsche is dead. -God Too funny. To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How it is used in Korea (they are written in a toilet wall)

God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Both of you guys are dead.
-A cleaning maid

[Monte314]

	Originally Posted by Imposcillator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1. You didn't answer any of my questions or address the points I made. Do you not care to reply or do you have nothing to say to support your argument (if there even was one in the first place)? 2. Are you actually saying Nietzsche is guilty for Hitler's crimes? This is hilarious. Guess I was wrong about you not being funny. If you're not, then what is the point you're trying to make?

1.) I didn't even read your post, and was not responding to it... so, "it's not about you".

2.) My disingenuous disclaimer made it quite clear that I was not blaming the corpsified nutzoid for Hitler's crime... as you well know.

Every statement I made was factual. As I'm sure you agree, I cannot be held responsible for how others might infer from them things I did not intend.

FN was a great writer, who compellingly presented his ideas in an intuitive way. But I do not understand how the term "genius" applies. His work has had a significant, if largely unintended, impact on history. Does this prove "genius"? In the sciences, ideas must be demonstrated to be true before the "G-word" is applied.

Is there any sense in which any of FN's ideas are "true"? Which ones? If the answer is "none", in what sense do they rise to the level of "genius"?

[zibber]

"God" represents either a sort of superstitious adherence to certain mythological notions or a sense of oneness with and/or love for "nature" or "world". It comes down to the same thing, really. The metaphor "God is dead" describes the human population's partial (principal) loss of these things. It's really sort of a shame, when you first contemplate it. Upon deeper inspection, though, it becomes clear that this clears the way for decisive, deliberate faith. I've come to believe that this is even more meaningful; it opens up a whole new realm of meaning.

[Imposcillator]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	1.) I stopped reading your posts a long time ago; I did not read the ones in this read, either, and was not responding to them... so, "it's not about you".

A.K.A you have no way to support your argument or explain your opinions. And I doubt you read any posts before responding. If you want to talk to yourself, a mirror or a wall would be a better solution. That's why they're called discussion forums.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	2.) My disingenuous disclaimer made it quite clear that I was not blaming the corpsified nutzoid for Hitler's crime... as you well know.

"Corpsified nutzoid". How amusing. Clearly you know genius when you see it.
If you really don't blame him for Hitler's crimes then your disclaimer is not disingenuous and there is just no point to your post(s) whatsoever. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

EDIT: I responded to the post as it was before you edited it. As for your statements being factual, I don't see how vague mentions of "knowing which way 'up' is" and "lowering the bar" or failed sarcasm about a false sense of perfection qualify as concrete facts.

[Monte314]

We seem to be out-of-sync here. My comments were with respect to the post about FN's craziness... just one of the difficulties associated with asynchronous conversations.

Let me directly address the question asked in the OP. I assert that FN was an excellent writer, whose literary skill made his deep and provocative ideas compelling despite their lack of merit.

So... where is CaptainFantasy? I was hoping he would jump all over me, since he clearly has depth of knowledge in this area. Does FN "deserve" to be called a "genius" in other than a literary sense? How so?

[Imposcillator]

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	As your forensic skill matures, resorting to ^^^ will become unnecessary... in light of this, we will overlook it.

"We"? Also, I won't take any comments about maturing or maturity of any kind from the person that argues with
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
.

	Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	We seem to be out-of-sync here. My comments were with respect to the post about FN's craziness... just one of the difficulties associated with asynchronous conversations.

Perhaps. Quoting is always a good idea if you want to ensure that your reply is aimed at someone in particular. Also, regardless of who you were talking to, I addressed some of your points from your previous post and asked questions to examine the basis of your opinion. Your lack of response means you're not willing or able to discuss your views, making your posts seem like mere statements or an expression of thoughts in the manner one would write in a journal. Hence my comment about talking into a wall/mirror. I do not need to "resort" to anything as I was simply making an observation.

Back to the OP, I don't see how he "proved his point by going insane". Hist most important writings (and the ones discussed here in particular from what I can see in other's posts) were written when he was perfectly sane. His "insanity" has been attributed, in all likelihood, to physical maladies rather than a psychological breakdown.

[uncon]

Originally Posted by Monte314 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

FN was a great writer, who compellingly presented his ideas in an intuitive way. But I do not understand how the term "genius" applies. His work has had a significant, if largely unintended, impact on history. Does this prove "genius"? In the sciences, ideas must be demonstrated to be true before the "G-word" is applied. Is there any sense in which any of FN's ideas are "true"? Which ones? If the answer is "none", in what sense do they rise to the level of "genius"?

I think that Nietzsche is certainly a genius in the literal way - like Goethe or Mozart. I mean he was super smart and inventive. I'm not sure which ideas are valid but there are diamonds there.

It's like Mozart - a lot of hits really but the majority of Mozart is pretty bland - but those hits are incredible! Nietzsche has some big hits. Also, we should keep in mind that artists don't create as much as they are conduits for what's going on at the time in the bigger picture. Nietzsche and Hitler we both conduits of their times - fate chosen representatives, if you will. They aren't the truth but they point to it.

People forget that Plato also called for slaves and a very hierarchical structure of society based on inherited traits - but did this cause eugenics or Hitler's absurd application of it? The idea of purity I think is inside of all of our psyches and in a few particularly paranoid types this belief takes hold and becomes an obsession as a neurosis (a distraction from repressed traumas). Nietzsche was crazy, no doubt, but also very lucid at times and ahead of his time in some areas and sadly stuck in his time's prejudices in other areas.

Nietzsche proclaimed God as dead but he was only reporting what was going on at the time, namely a wave of atheism that culminated in the founding of soviet Russia. He was expounding on the cultural trends, not creating that culture. He was correct and at that time he was expressing what an upheaval it is for a society to realize that God is a choice, not a requirement and that no lightning will strike you if you choose not to believe. Nietzsche is as symbolic as Jesus or Socrates - all were possibly real people but that's not why we remember them. They are civilization's equivalent of mythical figures who pointed out some heavy truths that need to be passed on.

What is Nietzsche's greatest hit? "God is dead". Pretty f-cking genius cool!