>the values of the herd should rule in the herd what

Pretty unambiguous.

You can tell how young lit is with the flooding of threads on babby's first philosopher.

>>8841803
He's trying to make those with herd mentalities feel bad.

All of them.

File: c726bef23c28ba89aab7ff03110aebe7.png (30KB, 576x206px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 576x206px

>>8841821
t. immanletuel kant

>>8841803
Is this not promoting utilitarianism?

>>8842244
>Is this not promoting utilitarianism?
elaborate because i don't know what you mean and you bumped my thread which i forgot about

>>8842244
Explain how you get utilitarianism out of that quote.

>>8841852
>people still read Kantlet

>>8841803

Glorify Hitler

Crucify Jesus

>>8842244
It's a partial defense of Christianity when used for a very specific purpose, that is, used by the shepherds to maintain the integrity of the flock. This isn't to say that everything about Christianity/Platonism was good, but that it served an important purpose and should not be discarded as irrelevant, but rather should be modified where possible to better serve this purpose.

The herd is a necessary entity as is the shepherd, but the ubermensch or higher kind of man is outside of this paradigm, a man who has risen above it. The shepherd should not be mistaken for an ubermensch. Simply by engaging in the act of guiding and controlling the herd, the shepherd becomes part of it, he becomes dependent on it.

But a healthy herd is a precondition for the rise of strong men. If the herd descends into nihilism it won't even be able to accomplish the most basic task of reproduction which is exactly what we're seeing in the post-Christian west.

"I simply hinted that an 'extraordinary' man has the right . . . that is not an official right, but an inner right to decide in his own conscience to overstep . . . certain obstacles, and only in case it is essential for the practical fulfilment of his idea (sometimes, perhaps, of benefit to the whole of humanity). You say that my article isn't definite; I am ready to make it as clear as I can. Perhaps I am right in thinking you want me to; very well. I maintain that if the discoveries of Kepler and Newton could not have been made known except by sacrificing the lives of one, a dozen, a hundred, or more men, Newton would have had the right, would indeed have been in duty bound . . . to /eliminate/ the dozen or the hundred men for the sake of making his discoveries known to the whole of humanity. But it does not follow from that that Newton had a right to murder people right and left and to steal every day in the market. (...) The first preserve the world and people it, the second move the world and lead it to its goal."

-raskolnikov

File: Wew.png (75KB, 500x448px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 500x448px

>>8841803

You could take a look at a similar line in Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

>Small people need small values.

Nietzsche hated the state, but nonetheless saw it as a necessity to keep the rabble in line. For example:

>“All-too-many are born: for the superfluous the state was invented.”

His ideal state would be one that accepts the fact that 'Great Men' are beyond its remit - whether in regard to obligations, laws or otherwise.

>“Where the state ends—look there, my brothers! Do you not see it, the rainbow and the bridges of the Overman?”

Unfortunately this was not (and has not) been the case - all are subject to state and at its mercy. As a disclaimer, any who *are* beyond the state today are most certainly not great men - but rather celebrities, bankers and the like. Most frustrating to Nietzsche was that the state took the achievements of Great Men as its own.

Here you can also catch a whiff of his disdain for Herbert Spencer, who 'countered' the 'Great Man' theory by arguing that Great Men are the products of their societies and NOT vice versa. This was contrary to Nietzsche, who strongly believed that societies are the result of Great Men.