>Why I Am So Wise,
>Why I Am So Clever
>Why I Write Such Good Books
>Why I Am a Destiny
Tell me again how this guy isn't a total talentless hack?
if you think the title chapters are sarcasm or parody - what about the content?
from some of those chapters:
>only after me is it possible to hope again
>I am by far the most terrible human being ever to have existed
>I have with my "Zarathustra" given mankind the greatest gift that has ever been given it.
>I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something frightul — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite.
The titles are not ironic (they're not "haha, look how totally false this is but I will write it anyway", he actually considers himself being wise, clever, writing good books and an important turning point in philosophy) but I'd say they're self-aware of how pompous they sound
But anon, those are great titles.
He's winking at all the faggots that think they're so smart, like (you).
>"If this book is incomprehensible to anyone and jars on the ears, the fault, it seems to me, is not necessarily mine. It is clear enough, assuming, as I do assume, that one has first read my earlier writings and has not spared some trouble in doing so [...]"
As far as I can tell, the only people who dislike Nietzsche or who are opposed to Nietzsche are people who have barely—or entirely not— read Nietzsche.
Not all of his written works center on aphorisms; ex. Genealogy of Morals.
So many fucking plebs. Go actually read some of his books and then come talk shit.
Like in most of his writings the themes are interconnected. (To put it briefly, the transcendence of morality discussed in Beyond Good and Evil would hypothetically follow from an understanding of the concepts in Genealogy.)
I think that Genealogy is—in terms of the new territory it pushes and ideas it puts forward—a more important work than Beyond Good and Evil. Nietzsche was a very gifted philologist and linguist and part of his contribution to philosophy in Genealogy is the idea that we can observe how words have changed from their literal, original meaning and have become something else entirely, and that this demonstrates how morality has shifted over millennia. As an example, a Latin word such as Virtut (which later becomes our word "Virtue") means "Manly." (Virs meaning to be a man. Also where we get the word "Virility," etc.) Classically "Virtuous" actions would characterized by the choices of someone such as Achilles: viz. being brave, taking revenge, and so on. But in our modern era the meaning of the words has changed. Virtue no longer means the same thing. (An example of this would be a term such as "Virtuous Woman," itself a contradiction.) Part of Nietzsche's contribution was that he understood that we could graph how the use of certain words highlights the change in morals over time. This is, only in part, one important aspect of the Genealogy of Morals.
However much it takes. I read Antichrist, Beyond Good and Evil, and then Genealogy, and it was somewhere between Genealogy and Ecce Homo that I think things started to make sense. I'm reading Zarathustra right now.
Nietzsche's philosophy is very intricate, and if if you haven't read much of his work some of it can seem contradictory. For most people they're just familiar with his aphorisms, and—at least for Christians—with his "God is Dead" theme, which is probably one of his least understood ideas.
As you read more of his work you'll start to notice that it's actually quite similar to classical Stoic philosophy, at least in certain places: such as accepting that virtue doesn't necessarily lead to happiness, but that that doesn't mean you shouldn't try to live virtuously. Also that happiness shouldn't necessarily be your end goal anyways, since you'll frequently fail, and that suffering is a necessity—something that Nietzsche takes a step further when he says that we should actually be actively saying Yes to suffering alongside non-suffering since it'll lead us to a place higher than regular slave moralists.
>However much it takes
I've read BGE as well as Maxims & Arrows and the 4 Errors of Mankind from Twilight of the Idols, The four "Why I Am" chapters of Ecce Homo, the Penguin Nietzsche Reader and multiple isolated quotes either in Bataille's On Nietzsche (which I liked a lot) or elsewhere.
I think it's that I don't like him at an aesthetic level - and ironically by Nietzsche's way of thinking that's probably a worse indictment than thinking his ideas are worthless. It's easy for me to take Nietzsche for granted though because I've already read some of his work.
He was pretty much insane when he wrote this
3 Questions about Nietzsche
1. What is Slave Morality
2. What where Nietzsches views of Morality in general
3. Why did he enlist in the Prussian army if he was anti-German and had even renounced his citizenship?
You are on the right path. Atheists who claim Nietzsche simply can't read. Either that, or they don't bother and selectively quote to support their agenda. Bataille was the one who recognized that Nietzsche saw a renewal of religion as the best way forward for humanity. He attempted to forge a new one, which failed, and he suffered greatly. From N's dionysian (which subsumes the substance of mysticism) sublation of Appollonian social forces in Birth of Tragedy, to naming Thus Spoke Zarathustra, it's clear he felt compelled to renew the functional strength of mythology, the ideological adjunct or apparatus of religion. Zarathustra was, after all, the prophet of Zoroastrianism. By picking a middle eastern religion, it seems as Nietzsche saw a syncretic approach to Western and Eastern mystic traditions as the way forward. For all his invective against Christianity, his absolute valorization of suffering is a core part of the Christian ethos as well.
Bataille took it a step further, recognizing that the source and core of "the sacred" is human sacrifice.
>What is Slave Morality
Morals and value judgements that were created out of Resentment. Values that were esteemed not because of any quality that advocate on their own but because those very values give them an excuse to decry those whom oppressed them, the masters, while they were the slaves, hence 'slave morality'. The Jews were originally a slave people (think of their Egyptian escape), and Christians were heavily subordinated, initially, under the Romans.
He uses that 'argument' to denounce the modern Judeo-Christian value system as not in fact deriving from any origins of repute like those religious people like to claim. He tried to smash that false ideology.
Though keep in mind that he did not advocate for the 'master morality' just because of his rejection of the slave morality. \
The key point however is that of it stemming from Resentment, i.e. they did not have noble intentions in their formations but these were only added afterwards in attempt to justify them.
Most of this is covered in The Geneology of Morals.
>For all his invective against Christianity, his absolute valorization of suffering is a core part of the Christian ethos as well.
The difference is N. didn't like that the Christians DEVOTED their suffering to the eternal, suffering he was fond of yes but not Christian suffering, he saw that as a means of resignation to resignation itself.
1. Slave Morality is difficult to summarize succinctly, which is why most of an entire book (Genealogy of Morals) is dedicated to explaining it. Slave Morality is literally everywhere in today's society, so I'll try to use some common examples to point out to you what it is.
Whenever you hear someone say something like "It's not whether you win or lose, it's how you play the game," or any variation of "an eye for an eye leaves the whole world blind..." you're hearing someone echoing sentiments of Slave Morality. You'll notice that a winner never says the former, but is only said by someone who is trying to cope with losing; viz. having a lack of power. Likewise, people enjoy telling themselves that revenge is never the answer because, quite frankly, most of us aren't in a position to execute revenge on those who harm us, or at least can't without causing harm to ourselves (ex. going to prison). We cope with this fact by telling ourselves we're taking the moral high road by not executing revenge.
What Nietzsche is saying is that our modern morality comes from a time when Christians were a persecuted group, could not overpower their rulers by force, and therefore created a morality where force itself it a bad thing. Christians placate themselves by believing that they'll actually have their revenge when they go to heaven and the people they hate (or who have oppressed them) will go to hell. What this has led to (and what is evident in today's society) is that victimhood and weakness have become synonymous with having the moral high ground.
>"Weakness is being lied into something meritorious, no doubt of it [...} The inoffensiveness of the weak man, even the cowardice of which he has so much, his lingering at the door, his being ineluctably compelled to wait, here acquire flattering names, such as 'patience,' and are even called virtue itself; his inability for revenge is called unwillingness to revenge, perhaps even forgiveness [...] - Genealogy of Morals.
We've actually long passed the point where Slave Morality is used only by Christians; it's now used by essentially everyone in western culture now and is accepted as normal. This is in contrast to the traditional virtues of those in classical times—where, say, Achilles' revenge on Hector would be seen as supremely moral, today it would be viewed as immoral because it is revenge. The hypocrisy here is that Christian Slave Morality still has revenge as a central tenet, but the revenge (hell) is delayed rather than immediate.
2. Nietzsche's views on morality in general are also difficult to summarize. Nietzsche thought that if a man could successfully break away from Slave Morality (and he points out that knowing about something doesn't necessarily mean that you can change it) then he could transcend to a place beyond good and evil as we recognize them and become something else entirely; perhaps something more powerful.
3. His anti-German writing in Ecce Homo is probably pretty far removed in time from his service in the army, though I'm pretty sure he harbored anti-German sentiments fairly early on. Maybe his opinions changed after his time in the army. I don't think that that contradiction, in the way that you phrase it, was ever something that he discussed exactly, though I haven't read all of his books. That might be a question that a biographer has handled, however.
Also, for the Franco-Prussian War (as far as I can tell from a quick look at Wikipedia) it looks like the Prussians used conscription, so it's actually possible that Nietzsche was drafted—or is he wasn't drafted, there's also the possibility that by enlisting (knowing that he might be drafted) he gained some kind of advantage in terms of choosing what type of work he'd be doing. This is all speculation on my part though.
He valorizes suffering because because he believed that experiencing suffering makes you a more capable creator, and that it's stupid to try to avoid something that is inevitable in human life anyways. Suffering has a central role in Christianity, yes, but it's putative purpose is entirely different from the above.