Nietzsche's philosophy is more than a bit fashy. Why do

>>8828289
it's not fascist, it's antiquarian

the parts of it that seem fascist are the parts that the fascists copied from the greeks and romans

never forget that socrates advocated genocide and dictatorship and aristotle was a racist

>>8828295
why is it whenever i post something that i think is interesting the thread dies

am i too stupid to know i'm stupid?

>>8828346
No this thread is...Es preddy gud

>>8828295
>copied
fascism is just an evolutionary step of traditionalism

File: Take the über pill.jpg (21KB, 442x383px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 442x383px

>>8828289

>Why do people say it isn't?

I say it is.

I also say this isn't a problem.

Seemingly anti-egalitarian =/= Fascist.

>>8828352
but traditionalism isn't fascist

therefore nietzsche isn't fascist

>>8828362
Proto-fascist. Which is a term I heard often in combination with Nietzsche.

>>8828371
>Which is a term I heard often in combination with Nietzsche.
You will hear all sorts of retarded shit about Nietzsche.

>>8828371
traditionalism isn't proto-fascist
proto-fascism is traditionalist

>>8828289
Fascism follows directly from Nietzsche's philosophy. Mussolini was a huge Nietzschefag

>>8828362
>Nietzsche
>traditionalist

Nietzsche idealizes in one of his poems in The Gay Science a man who is "neither slave nor master"; the master is enslaved by his own slaves, by the fact that he must devote all his time to overseeing them. Fascism imagines one abstract State/Society which everyone is subservient to, whether it's the master class by doing and ordering what is harsh and necessary to further it or the slave class by obeying the masters, no matter how harsh they must be with themselves. (Obviously, Nietzsche would not like to be either in such a society.)

Just because Nietzsche believes people are not equal, just because he glorifies harshness and strength of will, just because he thinks certain conquerors, cruel people and strongmen from history are admirable characters, doesn't mean he's a fascist.

Funnily enough, you could call him apolitical. His stuff is more psychological, more concerned with changing the reader's viewpoint than with talking about the "world" and systems of politics and trying to change them. A revolution in the minds of artists, instead.

>>8828389
he was tho

he wished to return to the traditions of antiquity

>>8828396
No he didn't. The character of the modern Ubermensch is necessarily non-traditional. Just because he glorified the past doesn't mean he yearned for it, he always thought about the "next step"

>>8828289
it is not that nietzche was a fascist, it is that fascism is nietzchean.

let me elaborate: the ultimate goal for fascism, behind all the authoritarianism and policies et cetera, is to form a new man, a better man, obviously not in materialistic terms as much as in intellectual and moral ones. that is why most fascisms looked up and got inspiration from the nietzchean ubermensch.

t. a person who is usually considered a fascist

>>8828295
can I have sauce on these socrates and aristotle my dude?

>>8828391
Fascism glorifies struggle and conflict though. It's not as simple as "listen and obey".

>Fascism emphasizes direct action, including supporting the legitimacy of political violence, as a core part of its politics.[10][188] Fascism views violent action as a necessity in politics that fascism identifies as being an "endless struggle".[189] This emphasis on the use of political violence means that most fascist parties have also created their own private militias (e.g. the Nazi Party's Brown shirts and Fascist Italy's Blackshirts).
Sounds very Nietzschean.

File: fYQRPgn.jpg (22KB, 494x482px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 494x482px

>>8828357
>liberate yourself from the tyranny of labor
>Larp as if you're part of the aristocracy while working a dead end job and constantly being dissatisfied with your life

>>8828399
>No he didn't. The character of the modern Ubermensch is necessarily non-traditional. Just because he glorified the past doesn't mean he yearned for it, he always thought about the "next step"
he wished for both

you can be multiple things you know
>>8828406
>fascism is nietzchean
no it isn't

the sources are "the republic" and "the politics", also the racism in aristotle is anti-white

>>8828414
>fascism is nietzchean
>no it isn't

nice argument faggot. care to elaborate?

>>8828406
The thing about fascism is that in the caricature most burgers are taught, the state "oppresses" the people and forces them to obey.

Fascism is just politics stripped to the bare without pretense. People forcing their wills and ideas on others and they, in turn, struggle for their wills to dominate others. Democracy and communism, in their search for a utopia, creates degenerate, stagnant, weak, and corrupt empires that no one wants to rebel against. Endless political conflict and anti-Utopianism is how things move forward. We need another Alexander the Great.

>>8828371
Nietzche's work doesn't contain any Ethno-Statist or Racial Supremacist ideas though.

Which are what most chucklefucks both for and against modern so-called "Fascism" recognise as being the key elements thereof.

Also, he wouldn't have cared much for Hitler's ideas about the German "Volk" - Nietzche held common people in utter disdain, German or not - Nietzsche's conceptions of nobility are not in commonplace folkish things, but in the powerful elite who rises to dominate the masses.

Also, he didn't really give much of a fuck about Jews.

People trying to associate Nietzche to fascism are usually doing so for ideological reasons - ironically, like his sister under the Nazis, who collaborated with the german government, and certainly helped to put more of a Nazi spin on Nietzche's works - shamelessly attempting to co-opt his ideas after his death for a cause he most likely would have found absurd.

>>8828412

Joke's on you, I come from an aristocratic European family whose history goes back for centuries. We're involved in diamonds.

>>8828421
People are just catastrophising. He can arguably be called an anarchist as much as a fascist, and both are very superficial characterizations of anything he has written.

>>8828427
post proof

>>8828415
>the ultimate goal for fascism, behind all the authoritarianism and policies et cetera, is to form a new man, a better man, obviously not in materialistic terms as much as in intellectual and moral ones
the fascist man is a hermaphroditic herd man

nietzsche wished for the creation of a herd man and a higher man, not some kind of hermaphroditic compromise between the two
>>8828427
did your family know napoleon

>>8828421
Ethnonationalism isn't the central defining element of fascism though. Just because he doesn't support the specific ideas doesn't mean that his stances weren't early fascism.

The "powerful elite controlling the masses" still exists. It's the Jews. But the issue with democracy is that it's manipulated people into being unable and unwilling to rebel. The Last Man. And in Nietzschean terms Hitler and Mussolini were both Ubermensch.

File: Pancor.jpg (82KB, 777x693px) Image search: [Google]

82KB, 777x693px

>>8828421

You might be interested to know what in a letter, one of Nietzsche's friends referred to him as a "radical aristocrat."

Nietzsche wrote back and called it the "shrewdest observation/evaluation" made about him thus far.

So "Radical Aristocrat" is as good as you'll get. His definition of 'Aristocracy' was either partially meritocratic, however. His 'Anti-Education' lectures make this somewhat obvious. On the other hand, he did clearly believe in a physically/mentally superior Human race - created by the interbreeding of superior Europeans/Jews. He believes the Greeks were correct in their belief that a strong body begets a strong mind - rather than vice versa, or worse, the (modern) belief that physicality and mentality are unconnected.

He was a bit of a clusterfuck.

>>8828436
Fascism essentially creates both herd men and higher men. But higher men can come from any system, because the "elite" can never go away.

>>8828431

We have our roots in the Antwerp Diamond District. My ancestor was Lodewyk van Bercken. That's all you'll get outta me.

>>8828436

I think so. European nobility, certainly.

>>8828447
>But higher men can come from any system
that's not really true is it

>>8828445
>/k/ and /lit/ browser
My nigger

>>8828418
it seems to me that you have on fascism a distorted vision of what burgers are taught in school.while I agree that it is less pretentious than other ideologies it has no more "people forcing their wills and ideas on others and bla bla" than any other form of government has, and fascism too aims to obtain a utopia: one that will be heralded by a new man.

in this fascisms are clearly nitzchean.

>>8828289
It's decidedly anti-fascist. The only way one could arrive at the conclusion that it was fascistic is by reading about his work rather than reading his work. To use some of his own words, the text has disappeared beneath interpretation. Stop perverting his words.

>>8828436
>the fascist man is a hermaphroditic herd man
no

the fascist man is the best version of oneself that everyone should be. there is no "herd", there is a spirit of unity and collaboration, that is a very different thing

>>8828471
What are your political views? The only people I've heard call themselves "anti-fascist" are liberal cucks and commies.

>>8828445
>He believes the Greeks were correct in their belief that a strong body begets a strong mind
yeah but a strong body does not mean lifting, like the 20 yo betas think

File: It's all over.jpg (84KB, 960x832px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 960x832px

>>8828471

See, this is the problem.

A lot of people whitewash Nietzsche's work. Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

>>8828473
>the fascist man is the best version of oneself that everyone should be
>that everyone should be
fine, that's not a nietzschean idea

his philosophy is a rank-ordering, not a universal ideal for everyone to strive for

>>8828480
>Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

Which I don't see as a problem.

>>8828475
yeah strong body means a strong self or individual

it's not literal, he's not saying get buff yo

>>8828488

So we're agreed that just because it's anti-fascist, does not mean he's opposed to the use of violence/etc.

>>8828486
This, Nietzsche has a huge individualist component. He really liked Ralph Waldo Emerson for example.

>>8828493

This is also true. He was very decidedly anti-state, which a lot of people don't know.

His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.

>>8828480
>A lot of people whitewash Nietzsche's work. Much of his work is diametrically and irreconcilably opposed to modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities.

Which doesn't make you a fascist. "Modern, Western, Liberal Democratic sensibilities" are at most, 400 years old.

>>8828519
>He was very decidedly anti-state, which a lot of people don't know.
a lot of people don't know it because it's not true
>His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.
that's a load of shit
his ideal society would be ancient rome with a bunch of ubermensch at the top and a bunch of plebs at the bottom

File: ISHYUDDT.jpg (21KB, 372x362px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 372x362px

>>8828526

>a lot of people don't know it because it's not true

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

“I, the state, am the people!’ That is a lie!”

“Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it...”

“The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist.”

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

“Culture and the state—one should not deceive oneself about this—are antagonists... All great ages of culture are ages of political decline: what is great culturally has always been unpolitical, even anti-political.”

>>8828538
he hated the herd, doesn't mean he was anti-herd

the herd and the state need to exist, but they need to be suboordinate to the individuals and culture

File: 1426341388143.png (45KB, 500x379px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 500x379px

>>8828545
He's very clearly anti-state you illiterate moron.

File: e47615c8745a7036bec0536d6ba9329441c70944.gif (676KB, 800x566px) Image search: [Google]

676KB, 800x566px

Anarchists like Renzo Novatore and Emma Goldman share the most with Nietzsche's philosophy out of people who are actively into politics. Literally the only reason that Nietzsche shat so much on anarchism was because he didn't actually know what anarchists believed. He never quotes any or references them by name. All in all, his philosophy isn't really a political project though.
>>8828545
>he hated the herd, doesn't mean he was anti-herd
wew

>>8828289
nietzsche isnt fashy at all.
to put oneself in the service of the state is slave moral. nietzsche is a stirnerite

File: 1481356446133.jpg (77KB, 852x852px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 852x852px

>waah I need my opinions validated by philosophers long since dead and their works long since made redundant or built upon by others

Why are alt-leftards so fucking insecure?

>>8828559
what the fuck does anti-state even mean

nowhere in your post does he say he wants to abolish the state, he just says it's an antagonist

nothing he says here is worse than what he says about the herd, but he doesn't want to abolish the herd

inb4 you say he's anti-herd
>>8828565
he was not anti-herd, he recognised the need for the existence of the herd, that the rule creates the exception

>>8828570
But how can you hate something without being anti-that thing?

File: Ressentiment BTFO.jpg (179KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

179KB, 1920x1080px

>>8828565

He mistook Anarchism for Socialism in a lot of cases, which he rightly hated.

>>8828568
the values of the herd should rule in the herd

you fucking anarchists haven't even read nietzsche
>>8828573
>But how can you hate something without being anti-that thing?
this explains all marxism in a nutshell

i hate you but i don't want you to not exist

wow look it's that easy

>>8828565
I don't know goldman, but wasn't renzo a fucking stirnerist? Not exactly the common model of anarchist.

>>8828577
But if you hate me while still wanting me here more or less, then does it actually mean anything that you hate me?

>>8828578
"Solidarity is therefore the state of being in which Man attains the greatest degree of security and wellbeing; and therefore egoism itself, that is the exclusive consideration of one’s own interests, impels Man and human society towards solidarity; or it would be better to say that egoism and altruism (concern for the interests of others) become fused into a single sentiment just as the interests of the individual and those of society coincide. " - Malatesta

>>8828582
>then does it actually mean anything that you hate me?
yes, because you can do things to things you hate OTHER than destroy them

wow i have just found the missing piece to marxism, it all makes sense now

>>8828588
What can you do with those things?

>>8828593
>What can you do to those things?
enslave them
extract resources from them
etc.

>>8828587
>ah of course if you're being mean to others you are literally hurting yourself
sounds like a justification to me

>>8828429
This tbqh.

If you look it's pretty easy to find leninist-nietzschean, marxist-nietzschean, fascist-nietzschean and capitalist-nietzschean materials out there, mostly because N didn't wrote about the state as a project, he only mentions the state in relation to the individual, never in relation to a better state.

>>8828595
But hating something that you rely on is not a strong position to be in.
>>8828597
That's not what it says anon. The whole point of the Union of Egoists in the first place is wellbeing for all, that nobody gets left out.

This is literally the fastest moving /lit/ thread in the past 2 years.

>>8828601
so don't hate things you rely on then

>>8828605
If you don't rely on something, and you hate that thing, what makes you think it should exist?

>>8828608
You respect the fact that others rely on it and don't hate it.

>>8828608
>what makes you think it should exist
no the state DOES exist

this is a fact, we're not debating whether it should exist or not

you're like those stoners who think DUDE SHOULD OUR HANDS EXIST

>>8828601
>That's not what it says anon. The whole point of the Union of Egoists in the first place is wellbeing for all, that nobody gets left out.
What will the union of egoists do if my creative nothing conflicts with the creative nothing of another egoists in a way that cannot be resolved to the benefit of both of us?

>>8828614
Doesn't sound very independent anon.
>>8828617
wow philosophy is over congratulations!
>>8828620
It would stop existing.

>>8828624
this isn't about philosophy though

don't get pissy just because your ideology is out of whack with reality

>>8828624
But I thought that egoism impelled me towards solidarity as the expression of my egoism?

>>8828629
It's a thread about Nietzsche's philosophy
>>8828636
It does for most people, Stirner talks about his fellow-feeling with all people. A Union of Egoists is just an arrangement that nobody has to sacrifice themselves for.

>>8828526
>>8828545
Don't worry, anon, I know you're right.

>>8828565
>Anarchists like Renzo Novatore and Emma Goldman share the most with Nietzsche's philosophy out of people who are actively into politics.

Of all the ambiguous things N. said that we could argue about, he explicitly says exploitation is central to human society and the creation of great individuals, c'mon. Anarchism is antithetical to N.'s hierarchical view of life.

>>8828642
"should the state exist or not" is not philosophy, it's politics

it's a politics that doesn't make any sense because politics presupposes the existence of a state but whatever

>>8828652
>Of all the ambiguous things N. said that we could argue about, he explicitly says exploitation is central to human society and the creation of great individuals
Where does he say that? He says that arbitrary restrictions can help you to be free, but to me it seems odd to think that he would support the kinds of restrictions that leveled people in a collective way, with all his individualistic feelings.
>>8828653
anti-politics

>>8828660
stop saying anti-this as if it means something

>>8828664
anti-christ
t. nietzschee

>>8828660
>259. To refrain mutually from injury, from violence, from exploitation, and put one's will on a par with that of others: this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization). As soon, however, as one wished to take this principle more generally, and if possible even as the FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLE OF SOCIETY, it would immediately disclose what it really is--namely, a Will to the DENIAL of life, a principle of dissolution and decay. Here one must think profoundly to the very basis and resist all sentimental weakness: life itself is ESSENTIALLY appropriation, injury, conquest of the strange and weak, suppression, severity, obtrusion of peculiar forms, incorporation, and at the least, putting it mildest, exploitation;

BGE, Chapter IX

>>8828673
it's antichrist not anti-christ

>>8828453
Bent u een jood ? Alsook voor wie heeft u gestemd in Antwerpen ?

>>8828677
stop being so anti-"-"

>>8828676
>this may result in a certain rough sense in good conduct among individuals when the necessary conditions are given (namely, the actual similarity of the individuals in amount of force and degree of worth, and their co-relation within one organization).
Anarchism wants to raise people to that level and have this be the end of it, it's not Babouvism, or equality before God/under the law or something like that where nobody is allowed to be smarter or stronger than anyone else.

>>8828578
Stirner's work was kept "alive" exclusively by anarchists up until Foucault, my dude

>>8828695
But all anarchists aren't stirnerites, right?

>>8828691
The american left (and americans as a whole) will never understand this. It almost looks like they're all equally capped at mediocrity save for the absolute elites. I blame it on protestantism, but I can't exactly explain why, it just seems very clear to me.

>>8828691
Nietzsche doesn't believe a society could consist and produce solely Great Men, though, and therein lies the fundamental difference between N. and Anarchism, imo. The quote even says "life itself is essentially... conquest of the strange and weak." I suppose if you interpreted "conquest" as "eliminate" then I could see where you're coming from, but we both know that's a misreading.

>>8828700
No, but non-anarchist stirnerites are a new thing, as far as I know.

>>8828705
Couldn't you say that conquest of the strange is something that herds would be doing? You're probably right though.

>>8828702
Read On the Genealogy of Morals

Nietzsche was a syphilitic weakling, of course he was a fashy.

>>8828715
I guess they would be, but only at the whims of the 'greater men' though, and I doubt that's what you're asking.

>Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

I think it's clearer to interpret 'strange' in #259 to mean 'foreign'----that is, Great Men seek to express their inner Will upon the world, and because your Will is different we must battle for domination.

Thanks for the conversation, I love talking about N. on here.

>>8828421
>r Racial Supremacist ideas though.
Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly racist and quite a bit social Darwinist as well.

>>8828791
>Nietzsche's philosophy is explicitly racist

Eh, not really, you definitely have to infer it from the text, and arguments to contrary aren't wholly without merit.

>>8828519
>His ideal society would probably look something like Stirner's Union of Egoists - with no formal bonds/etc.
More like one portion of the population would be a union of egoists. The rest of the population would be their property.

Kind of like the Ancient Greeks.

>>8828818
>what is Athenian democracy

>>8828391

This is an insightful post. Political interpretations of N. are almost always painfully bad in the sense of misrepresentation via de-contextualization of quotes.

>>8828406
>can I have sauce on these socrates
Have you even read The Republic?

>>8828289
it's not fascist, you just have no idea what fascism or nietzsche entail. the national socialism of the germans in the 1930s-1940s is not just anti-nietzschean in that it is both nationalist and socialist, it is also anti-nietzschean in that is borne directly out of the ressentiment of the german peoples both against the jews (see: Beyond Good and Evil, chap 8) and against the so called "war guilt" clause in the treaty of versailles (article 231)

lrn2 either read or fascism

>>8828799
He doesn't exactly try very hard to hide it.

>Let us consider the other method for “improving” mankind, the method of breeding a particular race or type of man. The most magnificent example of this is furnished by Indian [Aryan] morality, sanctioned as religion in the form of “the law of Manu.” Here the objective is to breed no less than four races within the same society: one priestly, one warlike, one for trade and agriculture, and finally a race of servants, the Sudras. Obviously, we are no longer dealing with animal tamers: a man that is a hundred times milder and more reasonable is the only one who could even conceive such a plan of breeding. One breathes a sigh of relief at leaving the Christian atmosphere of disease and dungeons for this healthier, higher, and wider world. How wretched is the New Testament compared to Manu, how foul it smells!

>Yet this method also found it necessary to be terrible—not in the struggle against beasts, but against their equivalent—the ill-bred man, the mongrel man, the chandala. And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak. Perhaps there is nothing that goes against our feelings more than these protective measures of Indian [Aryan] morality.

>Manu himself says: “The chandalas are the fruit of adultery, incest, and rape (crimes that follow from the fundamental concept of breeding).”

>4.-

>These regulations are instructive enough: we encounter Aryan humanity at its purest and most primordial; we learn that the concept of “pure blood” is very far from being a harmless concept. On the other hand, it becomes obvious in which people the chandala hatred against this Aryan “humaneness” has become a religion, eternalized itself, and become genius—primarily in the Gospels, even more so in the Book of Enoch. Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

>>8828827
What is the third sentence of that post?

>>8828844
>sickly, mentally ill man advocates for the eradication of "lower peoples"
hmm rly made me think

File: Socialism.png (186KB, 660x411px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 660x411px

>>8828429
Honestly he says some pretty rough shit about the state.

Imho he can be considered a "aristocratic libertarian". Not libertarian in today's meaning, of course. But in the sense of "the state is a bunch of parasites that leech off the best men, leave me be you faggots."

>>8828844
I agree with you. However, "the method of breeding a particular race or type of man" can just as easily change the interpretation of the passage to one of social Darwinism, class warfare predicated upon birth and culture. Especially with "And again the breeder had no other means to fight against this large group of mongrel men than by making them sick and weak," it becomes more arguable that these distinctions between types of men or 'race' are merely useful fictions, and not necessarily biological racial supremacy.

>>8828493
>He really liked Ralph Waldo Emerson
confirmed for pleb

>>8828844
That isn't racist at all. Did you read what you posted?

>>8829041
>Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege: it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity—the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored, against “race”: the undying chandala hatred is disguised as a religion of love.

Did you?

File: IMG_5624.jpg (162KB, 465x600px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 465x600px

>>8828295
>Aristotle was a racist

>>8828568
Nah he just stole shit from Stirner but was too spooked to understand him.

>>8828568
>>8829100
I'll never understand the "Nietzsche ripped off Stirner" meme.

Nietzsche's philosophy has fuck all to do with Stirner or anything related to Stirner like freedom, anarchy or spooks. As a matter of fact it's contrary to Stirner in almost every way.

File: 00.jpg (1MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1920x1080px

>>8829100
Much closer to Stirner, IE personal-anarchism, than Hitler/Mussolini nationalism though.

>>8829054
>I see the words Jewish, Christian, Aryan - conclusively racist!
He's saying that in the past there had been a focus on being pure bred and that this was "very far from being a harmless concept", not in some contingent at the time way but inherent in the idea of having a pure race is an inevitable harm. He also points out that this idea is not Christian. There is nothing advocating racism there.

inb4 you pull a sophomoric "but Neechee is against christianity!". Engage with the text we're looking at, he's criticizing pre-Christian religions and then saying Christianity sprung up as a response.

>>8829054
Cultural, not racial-biological.

>>8829122
then your dumb. read beyond good and evil and the genesis of morality or however its called in english.
nietzsche and stirner state the same from a different perspective.
where stirner emphasise, that you shouldnt let yourself be controlled by spooks, nietzsche states that you should posit yourself above all else and not succumb to slave morality.
please reread both

>>8829167
>where stirner emphasise, that you shouldnt let yourself be controlled by spooks
You're missing a vital point of Nietzsche. Nietzsche doesn't believe in free will.

As far as he's concerned yourself is just a struggling mass of of ideas and instincts fighting for supremacy. The goal is to cultivate this as best you can to favour your will to power in guiding your life, not to rid yourself of spooks and be free.

>>8828577
>quoting out of context
>not having read nietzsche

getting BTFOed on the internet:

"Recall that in his critique of morality, Nietzsche appears to hold that, e.g., “herd” morality is good for the herd, but that it is bad for higher men. He says, for example, that, “The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd — but not reach out beyond it” (WP 287; emphasis added); and elsewhere he describes slave morality as simply “the prudence of the lowest order” (GM I:13)."

>>8829178
>Nietzsche doesn't believe in free will.
Contentious. As far as I could ever make out, he believes in free will that's constrained by its ability to propagate itself. In order to continue being able to choose you must continue choosing things that lead to power.

>>8829178
>Nietzsche doesn't believe in free will (*citation needed)

>Implying the Ubermensch isn't free of spooks

>>8829189
From what I understand he was of the view that "free will" is a secularized post-religion leftover from the concept of the soul. In reality men like all the other animals are just like machines programmed by biology and life experience.

But, with that said freedom is a certain part of Nietzsche's goals in cultivating the will to power you may not be free, but you are more empowered over yourself to be as you may will to be. Even if that will wasn't really your idea.

>>8829193
>Nietzsche doesn't believe in free will (*citation needed)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will

>Implying the Ubermensch isn't free of spooks
In order to be an Ubermensch (or the ancestor of an Ubermensch as far as anyone alive today is concerned) you basically have to spook yourself into oblivion with aristocratic, romantic, ideas and morals. Not just level the field of all foreign ideas and fill the void with your own creativity.

File: 1470667881520.jpg (194KB, 649x1788px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 649x1788px

>>8829222
>believing life is a machine
>2016

mfw

File: 1393216825409.png (728KB, 798x1000px) Image search: [Google]

728KB, 798x1000px

>>8829235
>He's an atheist
>He hasn't yet accepted the truth that he, and everyone to ever live or will live, is just a machine built to kill, survive and breed.

Back to church, kid.

>>8828844
>People say this is fantastic prose
I don't get it, just sounds like something an edgy 13 year old could have come up with.

>>8829222
Yeah, on one level there's something like that. He mixes up a bunch of shit in there, like how we attribute responsibility, define causal relations and so on, but I don't think any of it amounts to not having a will, just that will rarely relates to consequences, moral or otherwise, in any obvious way. Or at least the way we perceive them doesn't.

>>8829232
The ubermensch is always becoming, they don't tie their actions down to some or other higher plan or being, even themselves. So I can see it realting to spooks. Spookermensch.

there is only one correct way to read nietzsche: as a queerfeminist anarchist

>>8829247
>has no clue of biology/chemistry/physics
>believes he is a "machine"

The ideology is strong in you my friend

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2eku4s_all-watched-over-by-machines-of-loving-grace-3-3-the-monkey-in-the-machine-2011_animals

http://thebaffler.com/salvos/whats-the-point-if-we-cant-have-fun

>>8829270
>they don't tie their actions down to some or other higher plan or being,
They do though. Nietzsche provides mankind with a specific goal and an underlying set of guidelines that may as well be considered values and morals. It has nothing to do with self-interest and everything to do with a quasi-religious pursuit of the greatness. In a lot of ways Nietzsche's philosophy takes a very religious character.

>>8829273
So you think he was always writing for Lou Salome?

>>8829285
>Nietzsche provides mankind
>implying

>>8829222
From what I recall and understood free will was just a model made to punish wrongdoers, he still believed in "will", just not free will. Like before the conception of free will you have achilles, who likes killing people, and that's just in his nature, it's how his will was formed. Whereas after free will achilles is free willing himself to kill people from some abstract zero state, and therefore he can be blamed and shamed by the christians. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong.

>>8829232
is i read nietzsche and the the wikipedia article nietzsche mocks the idea, that someone has an abolutely free will and is not influenced by his surroundings, where he of course is right.

i still think he entertains that we have the power to incorporate something into our personality or not and to choose, when we are confronted with several options

>>8829167
>Nietzsche
>shouldn't
>moralizing the neech

>>8829316
>implying nietzsche's work is merely descriptive

>>8829284
>He has no clue of biology/psychology/physics
>He thinks people have "free will" (aka souls) for some bizarre reason
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tourette_syndrome
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1053810008001311

>>8828587
"Malatesta" literally "badhead" in spanish

>>8829327
>http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/106/3/623
>>8829327


>implying that free will first has to manifest itself in the finger as opposed to the brain

>>8829341
>Implying what was observed in the brain wasn't explicitly recorded as subconscious activity rather than conscious.

>>8829073
He was a racist, he wrote about how Asians (aka Persians/Mesopotamians) made good slaves and purportedly advised Alexander the Great to treat them as such. He had the opposite view towards Europeans outside Greece, which he claimed were fiercely protective of their freedom, so much so that they'd never amount to much as societies. He believed, as all good Greeks did, that Greek civilization had hit a more or less ideal balance between European anarchy and Asiatic servitude.

>>8829345
so you're saying that there musnt be a lag in the brain. every fucking thing in the world takes time.
why cant a conscious decision?

>>8829345
of course there are unconscious elements in making a decision. however there are also a lot of conscious ones.

>>8829378
>so you're saying that there musnt be a lag in the brain
Conscious decisions and thought does happen simultaneously with our perception. If we make a decision at a certain time we will be able to note the exact time of that moment.

If there is a lag in the brain between the moment the decision happened and the individual perceived it as happening then this means the decision wasn't conscious, they didn't truly have a say in the matter as their subconscious mind already decided for them. They just realized it at that moment.

>>8829393
> however there are also a lot of conscious ones
Doesn't seem like it. Seems like you have nothing but unconscious elements, and conscious realizations of their decisions.

>>8829368
That doesn't sound like a racial issue, more like a cultural issue, it's just that those happen to temporarily coincide at the moment

>>8829398
i don't think that free will has to be conscious at once. a simple lag in my perception/action doenst prove determinism.
if i propagated panpsychism than this could easily influence my brain chemistry which in turn would influence my behaviour. however i dont believe in dualism.

>>8829436
The thing is your perception and action do run along the same time. In writing this reply the moment of pressing a key happens within the same second of moving to press it. Our thought in this way is just another form of perception, our perception of our uncontrolled subconscious mind. Rather than an active agent in its own right our conscious is pure perception.

There simply is no lag between perception and thought.

>however i dont believe in dualism.
If you don't believe in dualism you shouldn't believe in free will.

>>8829398
>Conscious decisions and thought does happen simultaneously with our perception. If we make a decision at a certain time we will be able to note the exact time of that moment.

i dont think this adds up. you can decide freely before being aware of it.
what if my soul or me is deciding before my body can recognize this.

>>8829465
>i dont think this adds up. you can decide freely before being aware of it.
u wot

If you aren't aware of a choice being made then clearly this choice was made for you by your instincts and experience.

>what if my soul or me is deciding before my body can recognize this.
1. Souls don't exist
2. If you were deciding this would register in your conscious mind immediately as "you" are your consciousness.m Your body/your subconscious is what appears to truly be in control.

File: reds don't read.png (71KB, 500x743px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 500x743px

I wouldn't consider him a fascist but he was highly influential to the fascist movement.

>>8829479
i dont believe in souls either.
have you ever considererd, that the whole universe has also has mind? even an electron has a free will. the body and the configuration of matter simply enhance this capacity. the decisions of my body as spirited matter and my free will are congruent, if i am aware of it 200 ms later or not doesnt matter

>>8829507
>even an electron has a free will
>unconscious things having free will
>implying

You cannot have free will if you're not even aware of anything or thinking in anyway way.

>inb4 the universe has free will
Proof?
Also that would be pantheistic determinationism anyway.

>>8829522
as stated before i dont see how a decision has to be totally conscious in order to be free.
i am not saying it is totally free neither, but there is a margin.
why can't my free will be subconscious in part?

>>8829566
>why can't my free will be subconscious in part?
Define what you understand by "free".

>>8829571
All sorts of questions are at stake in the debate, including the hoary problem of free will. As innumerable adolescents have pondered—often while stoned and first contemplating the mysteries of the universe—if the movements of the particles that make up our brains are already determined by natural laws, then how can we be said to have free will? The standard answer is that we have known since Heisenberg that the movements of atomic particles are not predetermined; quantum physics can predict to which positions electrons, for instance, will tend to jump, in aggregate, in a given situation, but it is impossible to predict which way any particular electron will jump in any particular instance. Problem solved.
Except not really—something’s still missing. If all this means is that the particles which make up our brains jump around randomly, one would still have to imagine some immaterial, metaphysical entity (“mind”) that intervenes to guide the neurons in nonrandom directions. But that would be circular: you’d need to already have a mind to make your brain act like a mind.
If those motions are not random, in contrast, you can at least begin to think about a material explanation. And the presence of endless forms of self-organization in nature—structures maintaining themselves in equilibrium within their environments, from electromagnetic fields to processes of crystallization—does give panpsychists a great deal of material to work with. True, they argue, you can insist that all these entities must either simply be “obeying” natural laws (laws whose existence does not itself need to be explained) or just moving completely randomly . . . but if you do, it’s really only because you’ve decided that’s the only way you are willing to look at it. And it leaves the fact that you have a mind capable of making such decisions an utter mystery.
Granted, this approach has always been the minority position. During much of the twentieth century, it was put aside completely. It’s easy enough to make fun of. (“Wait, you aren’t seriously suggesting that tables can think?” No, actually, no one’s suggesting that; the argument is that those self-organizing elements that make up tables, such as atoms, evince extremely simple forms of the qualities that, on an exponentially more complex level, we consider thought.) But in recent years, especially with the newfound popularity, in some scientific circles, of the ideas of philosophers like Charles Sanders Peirce (1839–1914) and Alfred North Whitehead (1861–1947), we have begun to see something of a revival.

>>8829584
Curiously, it’s largely physicists who have proved receptive to such ideas. (Also mathematicians—perhaps unsurprisingly, since Peirce and Whitehead themselves both began their careers as mathematicians.) Physicists are more playful and less hidebound creatures than, say, biologists—partly, no doubt, because they rarely have to contend with religious fundamentalists challenging the laws of physics. They are the poets of the scientific world. If one is already willing to embrace thirteen-dimensional objects or an endless number of alternative universes, or to casually suggest that 95 percent of the universe is made up of dark matter and energy about whose properties we know nothing, it’s perhaps not too much of a leap to also contemplate the possibility that subatomic particles have “free will” or even experiences. And indeed, the existence of freedom on the subatomic level is currently a heated question of debate.
Is it meaningful to say an electron “chooses” to jump the way it does? Obviously, there’s no way to prove it. The only evidence we could have (that we can’t predict what it’s going to do), we do have. But it’s hardly decisive. Still, if one wants a consistently materialist explanation of the world—that is, if one does not wish to treat the mind as some supernatural entity imposed on the material world, but rather as simply a more complex organization of processes that are already going on, at every level of material reality—then it makes sense that something at least a little like intentionality, something at least a little like experience, something at least a little like freedom, would have to exist on every level of physical reality as well.
Why do most of us, then, immediately recoil at such conclusions? Why do they seem crazy and unscientific? Or more to the point, why are we perfectly willing to ascribe agency to a strand of DNA (however “metaphorically”), but consider it absurd to do the same with an electron, a snowflake, or a coherent electromagnetic field? The answer, it seems, is because it’s pretty much impossible to ascribe self-interest to a snowflake. If we have convinced ourselves that rational explanation of action can consist only of treating action as if there were some sort of self-serving calculation behind it, then by that definition, on all these levels, rational explanations can’t be found. Unlike a DNA molecule, which we can at least pretend is pursuing some gangster-like project of ruthless self-aggrandizement, an electron simply does not have a material interest to pursue, not even survival. It is in no sense competing with other electrons. If an electron is acting freely—if it, as R. Feynman is supposed to have said, “does anything it likes”—it can only be acting freely as an end in itself. Which would mean that at the very foundations of physical reality, we encounter freedom for its own sake-which also means we encounter the most rudimentary form of play

>>8828406
>intellectual and moral ones
Yeah he's famous for being all about making people more moral

>>8828289
>fashy

who says this word other than gay nazis?

>>8829722
Communists and anarchists like saying "fash" which is kind of similar.

>>8829722
gay communists and anarchists (bisexuals)

If he can be said to have a quasi-coherent political philosophy it's aristocratic, not fascistic. Fascism demands, just like left socialism, the subsumption of the individual will to the general 'need'. Like in socialism, fsscism is the triumph of the herd's stupidity and fear, even if it's directed by a wolfish intelligence rather than a condescending benevolence. Neetch was vociferously critical of the German nationalist movements of his time, I see no reason why he would find something like NatSoc any more palatable.

>>8829584
>>8829594
The last books of the Xenocide/Ender's Game series really play with this idea of atoms and subatomic particles exhibiting something resembling will and thought. When I first read them I just thought Card was high as fuck but i think these posts inform the concept a little more.

Basically he postulates little guiding intelligences of varying strength, where strength is the ability to marshall other intelligences into a self-sustaining system of some kind. So each individual proton or electron or lepton or baryon or whatever has a sort of spark of the divine in it, and if it's good enough maybe it pulls together a few more and makes an atom and then if its better maybe a molecule, etc etc up to humans and aliens and stuff. I don't think he ever finished the idea but it was interesting.

>>8829584
>>8829594
>>8830053
These were very interesting and unusually high quality posts, anon. Is there some place I can read more about this idea?

>>8828410
OK, have you even read my post? In fact, don't even read it, just use logic. Just because they glorify the same things doesn't mean Nietzsche was a fascist.

In fact, fascism is a political ideology that was only elaborated AFTER Nietzsche's death ... so how prescient must the motherfucker have been to adhere to an ideology created after his death?

File: ds-fashy-standard_01.jpg (255KB, 650x650px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 650x650px

Comfy.

>>8828480
The fact that you posted that means you don't know shit all about what the over man is supposed to be.

In fact he said slave morality created the possibility for the over man to arise.

You're about dumb as shit.

>>8830313
These are the best made hot water bottles, no lie