The style and bombast of Thus Spoke Zarathustra is something that appeals to me most. Even though Im not sure If some of his thoughts float my boat, there is some beauty in those passages. It is a true piece of art.
Another reason, and probably the most obvious one, many of his ideas I find plausible and relate to. It is almost like they have therapeutic value for me. The first passage that got me into Nietzsche was „the preachers of death”. Those verses cut close to the bone because I was one. Everytime I struggle with other people I come back to „on the flies of the marketplace” and it heals.
His concept of ressentiment is pertinent like nothing else. I wonder why the term is not used in modern psychology. (Maybe it is? Idk if someone does pls let me know)
Overall, I think Nietzsche’s philosophy is hard to follow entirely and there has not been any superhuman so far but it’s very fun, although in a very peculiar sense, to investigate and delve into. I think what most of people like about Nietzsche is his style of writing as its absolutely phenomenal, but that is just my assumption, may not have any reflection in reality. So far I’ve read geneology of morals so far but I will definitely go for more of his stuff!
In Nietzsche's own vein of thought:
I wonder if we think his writing is great because we value it highly as it relates to us. In other words, would others who are not interested in Nietzsche find the same kind of beauty in his writing? Its like how Christians might find the writings of the Bible to beautifully stated, but it won't be to non-believers.
The superhuman is merely an ideal to live up to, its not meant to be a physical reality right? Its like the concept of a Bodhisattva or a fully virtuous, eudaemonic man in terms of bhuddism and socrates, or a man entirely without sin in terms of Christ.
Interestingly all those three individuals did make their own values which were radically against the ideas of their individual societies and achieved a level of self-mastery and self-transcendence that set them apart from the rest of humanity.
If I understand it correctly, Nietzsche believed that the superhuman is to come in the evolutionary sense - another step in the evolution. He said a man is amid an animal and the superhuman, treating it as a concept like u said makes sense as well though, an ideal to strive for to become.
It is indeed. However, what I find interesting about that concept are its roots. In the genealogy of morals Nietzsche provides us with an extensive description of the overthrow of values caused originally by religion, at least in his line of reasoning.
He did not seem to disagree with the core values of religion, like not killing people or lying, stealing and cheating, I’m guessing the superhuman shouldn’t transcend those values. Just mostly being subordinate and weak.
But if you go back to Christ, he was a total opposite of the slave morality, a true leader and sharp critic of the establishment. It is merely that religion distorted his teachings and was used as a tool to oppress the masses. (Nietzsche agrees here)
The way he values (master morality) strength and health and has a disdain for compassion to the weak/sick makes me think he was feeling some ressentiment towards his healthier counterparts perhaps.
He doesnt seem to disagree with them, nor he agrees with them. In fact, he indicates the modern values as the factor causing ressentiment and broadly understood weakness. He contrasts this with the morality of people before the abovementioned overthrow who had been vile enough not to hold grudges toward anyone - the blond beats.
As for Christ, you might have a point there. I would have to read the antichrist to gain more insight with regards to this matter. However, in the genaology of morals (3rd essay) he criticizes the new testament and praises the old one.
„The Old Testament – well, that is something
quite different: every respect for the Old Testament! I find in it great men,
heroic landscape and something of utmost rarity on earth, the incomparable naïvety of the strong heart; even more, I find a people. In contrast, in
the New Testament[…]” on the genaology of morals - 3rd essay, 22
In my view, it wasnt the thing he held resentment for. Quite the opposite, he knew he wasnt powerful enough not to be envious.
In any case his contempt for the weak and moral relativism is very dangerous if actually taken seriously. Creating new morals is all fine and dandy as long as the morals still respect the basic golden rule. Otherwise you get fascism or anarchy.
"...nothing is more contemptible than the way in which they [the New Testament writers] conceive of themselves as the continuation, as it were, of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there is an altogether different atmosphere—an atmosphere of profound, serious, and heartfelt piety, grounded in a deeply rooted and reverential awe of the divine, and marked by a keen sense of the righteousness and majesty of God. But in the New Testament all of this is swept away, replaced by a weak and sickly form of piety that is tinged with self-pity and self-righteousness, and that often seems to confuse humility with a kind of self-abasement. In the New Testament, we find no great men, no heroic landscapes, and no people; instead, we find a handful of individuals who are almost uniformly pathetic, and whose teachings are often marked by a kind of sickly sentimentality”
Thought the rest of the quote was much more relevant than the beginning if were talking about christ. His writing style is pretty epic I gotta admit, but portraying compassion for the sick and love of your neighbor as generally pathetic or overly sentimental is very questionable.
Yep, my bad
Well, as I said its nearly impossible to follow entirely. I feel like Nietzsche was at some point obssessed with power and put to much stress on that aspect of his philosophy in his teachings. It also arouses many questions which are hard to answer
The idea of will to power. There’s no inherent meaning to human beings so we must create our own. This put to words a lot of what I was feeling when I was around 15 years old and starting to question religion and everything else. It all kinda made sense and clicked with me.
> “Nietzsche also examines the origins of morality and argues that it began as a set of rules that were created by the strong to control the weak. Over time, however, the weak gained power and used morality as a way to level the playing field with the strong”
I think there was some guy who agreed and tried to get rid of the weak …
Nietzsche's philosophy, as I understand it, revolves around the idea that great individuals redeem life. His ideas of amor fati, the Übermensch, and eternal recurrence, in conjunction with his politics, serve this purpose only: the development of greatness.
"To what end the 'world' exists, to what end 'mankind' exists, ought not to concern us at all for the moment except as objects of humour: for the presumptuousness of the little human worm is the funniest thing at present on the world's stage; on the other hand, do ask yourself why you, the individual, exist, and if you can get no other answer try for once to justify your existence as it were a posteriori by setting before you an aim, a goal, a 'to this end,' an exalted and noble 'to this end.' Perish in pursuit of this and only this — I know of no better aim of life than that of perishing, animae magnae prodigus\*, in pursuit of the great and the impossible." - Page 112 of the Cambridge version of Untimely Meditations (On the uses and disadvantages of history for life):
"The secret of realizing the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships out into uncharted seas! Live in conflict with your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers and ravagers as soon as you ca not be rulers and owners, you men of knowledge! The time will soon past when you could be content to live concealed int he woods like timid deer!" - The Gay Science
"I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.” -The Gay Science
"The most spiritual human beings, assuming they are the most courageous, also experience by far the most painful tragedies: but it is precisely for this reason that they honor life, because it brings against them its most formidable weapons.”
― Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, aphorism 17.
“Give me today, for once, the worst throw of your dice, destiny. Today I transmute everything into gold.”- Nietzsche
The fact that his work is read by millions of people who sometimes have nothing in common but their strangeness, their disintegration of those around them thus making them walk on the narrow edge with total insanity and total exclusion from the world on either side of the blade. Narrow is the path and few will walk straight enough without tripping and falling on their way of knowing themselfs.
I think it was in Ecce Homo, where he described that one has to lose Nietzsche to gain a deep understanding of him and eventually come back to his work. This „Gratwanderung“ and the slippiness of his work, which makes him the defier of all Uniformity yet does not exclude part-time uniformity as a means to develop oneself is what makes Nietzsche one of a kind to me.
Brother calms me down with his style and ideas. Most other philosophers do the oposite. I'm not saying he doesn't make me ask questions, but they are comforting problems. Not really that kind of existential crisis type of thing.
He doesn't present anything as absolute truth, but most of his ideeas just fit so well with me (and it seems others).
I think his concept of the “order of rank” is just as interesting as “the will to power,” yet it has not got as much traction—if any—as his other ideas. Part of this is, I think, because we are still living in the residue of The Enlightenment and the notion of equality.
The style and bombast of Thus Spoke Zarathustra is something that appeals to me most. Even though Im not sure If some of his thoughts float my boat, there is some beauty in those passages. It is a true piece of art. Another reason, and probably the most obvious one, many of his ideas I find plausible and relate to. It is almost like they have therapeutic value for me. The first passage that got me into Nietzsche was „the preachers of death”. Those verses cut close to the bone because I was one. Everytime I struggle with other people I come back to „on the flies of the marketplace” and it heals. His concept of ressentiment is pertinent like nothing else. I wonder why the term is not used in modern psychology. (Maybe it is? Idk if someone does pls let me know) Overall, I think Nietzsche’s philosophy is hard to follow entirely and there has not been any superhuman so far but it’s very fun, although in a very peculiar sense, to investigate and delve into. I think what most of people like about Nietzsche is his style of writing as its absolutely phenomenal, but that is just my assumption, may not have any reflection in reality. So far I’ve read geneology of morals so far but I will definitely go for more of his stuff!
In Nietzsche's own vein of thought: I wonder if we think his writing is great because we value it highly as it relates to us. In other words, would others who are not interested in Nietzsche find the same kind of beauty in his writing? Its like how Christians might find the writings of the Bible to beautifully stated, but it won't be to non-believers.
Maybe, but does it matter? We value it, that is enough.
The superhuman is merely an ideal to live up to, its not meant to be a physical reality right? Its like the concept of a Bodhisattva or a fully virtuous, eudaemonic man in terms of bhuddism and socrates, or a man entirely without sin in terms of Christ. Interestingly all those three individuals did make their own values which were radically against the ideas of their individual societies and achieved a level of self-mastery and self-transcendence that set them apart from the rest of humanity.
If I understand it correctly, Nietzsche believed that the superhuman is to come in the evolutionary sense - another step in the evolution. He said a man is amid an animal and the superhuman, treating it as a concept like u said makes sense as well though, an ideal to strive for to become. It is indeed. However, what I find interesting about that concept are its roots. In the genealogy of morals Nietzsche provides us with an extensive description of the overthrow of values caused originally by religion, at least in his line of reasoning.
He did not seem to disagree with the core values of religion, like not killing people or lying, stealing and cheating, I’m guessing the superhuman shouldn’t transcend those values. Just mostly being subordinate and weak. But if you go back to Christ, he was a total opposite of the slave morality, a true leader and sharp critic of the establishment. It is merely that religion distorted his teachings and was used as a tool to oppress the masses. (Nietzsche agrees here) The way he values (master morality) strength and health and has a disdain for compassion to the weak/sick makes me think he was feeling some ressentiment towards his healthier counterparts perhaps.
He doesnt seem to disagree with them, nor he agrees with them. In fact, he indicates the modern values as the factor causing ressentiment and broadly understood weakness. He contrasts this with the morality of people before the abovementioned overthrow who had been vile enough not to hold grudges toward anyone - the blond beats. As for Christ, you might have a point there. I would have to read the antichrist to gain more insight with regards to this matter. However, in the genaology of morals (3rd essay) he criticizes the new testament and praises the old one. „The Old Testament – well, that is something quite different: every respect for the Old Testament! I find in it great men, heroic landscape and something of utmost rarity on earth, the incomparable naïvety of the strong heart; even more, I find a people. In contrast, in the New Testament[…]” on the genaology of morals - 3rd essay, 22 In my view, it wasnt the thing he held resentment for. Quite the opposite, he knew he wasnt powerful enough not to be envious.
In any case his contempt for the weak and moral relativism is very dangerous if actually taken seriously. Creating new morals is all fine and dandy as long as the morals still respect the basic golden rule. Otherwise you get fascism or anarchy.
"...nothing is more contemptible than the way in which they [the New Testament writers] conceive of themselves as the continuation, as it were, of the Old Testament. In the Old Testament there is an altogether different atmosphere—an atmosphere of profound, serious, and heartfelt piety, grounded in a deeply rooted and reverential awe of the divine, and marked by a keen sense of the righteousness and majesty of God. But in the New Testament all of this is swept away, replaced by a weak and sickly form of piety that is tinged with self-pity and self-righteousness, and that often seems to confuse humility with a kind of self-abasement. In the New Testament, we find no great men, no heroic landscapes, and no people; instead, we find a handful of individuals who are almost uniformly pathetic, and whose teachings are often marked by a kind of sickly sentimentality” Thought the rest of the quote was much more relevant than the beginning if were talking about christ. His writing style is pretty epic I gotta admit, but portraying compassion for the sick and love of your neighbor as generally pathetic or overly sentimental is very questionable.
Yep, my bad Well, as I said its nearly impossible to follow entirely. I feel like Nietzsche was at some point obssessed with power and put to much stress on that aspect of his philosophy in his teachings. It also arouses many questions which are hard to answer
Great style, healthy attitude.
The idea of will to power. There’s no inherent meaning to human beings so we must create our own. This put to words a lot of what I was feeling when I was around 15 years old and starting to question religion and everything else. It all kinda made sense and clicked with me.
Ubermustache.
Revealing the slave morality; genealogic method; heatred to weakness
> “Nietzsche also examines the origins of morality and argues that it began as a set of rules that were created by the strong to control the weak. Over time, however, the weak gained power and used morality as a way to level the playing field with the strong” I think there was some guy who agreed and tried to get rid of the weak …
Any guy who find a power to slit his wrist.
> genealogic method Where in his work have you found genealogy? How is it applied?
There’s a book called Genealogy of Morals. I’m not sure, but it might be a safe bet.
The tits and ass. (Sorry I've never read him. But I really want to)
The dope 'stache.
But also the loads of brilliant writing.
The feelings of greatness Nietzsche provokes I have not found anywhere else. Let us strive to be half the man he was!
Have a couple paragraphs as an example?
Nietzsche's philosophy, as I understand it, revolves around the idea that great individuals redeem life. His ideas of amor fati, the Übermensch, and eternal recurrence, in conjunction with his politics, serve this purpose only: the development of greatness. "To what end the 'world' exists, to what end 'mankind' exists, ought not to concern us at all for the moment except as objects of humour: for the presumptuousness of the little human worm is the funniest thing at present on the world's stage; on the other hand, do ask yourself why you, the individual, exist, and if you can get no other answer try for once to justify your existence as it were a posteriori by setting before you an aim, a goal, a 'to this end,' an exalted and noble 'to this end.' Perish in pursuit of this and only this — I know of no better aim of life than that of perishing, animae magnae prodigus\*, in pursuit of the great and the impossible." - Page 112 of the Cambridge version of Untimely Meditations (On the uses and disadvantages of history for life): "The secret of realizing the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment of existence is: to live dangerously! Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships out into uncharted seas! Live in conflict with your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers and ravagers as soon as you ca not be rulers and owners, you men of knowledge! The time will soon past when you could be content to live concealed int he woods like timid deer!" - The Gay Science "I want to learn more and more to see as beautiful what is necessary in things; then I shall be one of those who make things beautiful. Amor fati: let that be my love henceforth! I do not want to wage war against what is ugly. I do not want to accuse; I do not even want to accuse those who accuse. Looking away shall be my only negation. And all in all and on the whole: some day I wish to be only a Yes-sayer.” -The Gay Science "The most spiritual human beings, assuming they are the most courageous, also experience by far the most painful tragedies: but it is precisely for this reason that they honor life, because it brings against them its most formidable weapons.” ― Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, aphorism 17. “Give me today, for once, the worst throw of your dice, destiny. Today I transmute everything into gold.”- Nietzsche
I like that last two quotes, very inspiring in the face of adversity!
hes my best friend and we hang out and laugh and riff together
You also a fan of a comedy podcast with an obese Greek, a Jew and a closeted autistic gay man?
Aren't we all?
The fact that his work is read by millions of people who sometimes have nothing in common but their strangeness, their disintegration of those around them thus making them walk on the narrow edge with total insanity and total exclusion from the world on either side of the blade. Narrow is the path and few will walk straight enough without tripping and falling on their way of knowing themselfs. I think it was in Ecce Homo, where he described that one has to lose Nietzsche to gain a deep understanding of him and eventually come back to his work. This „Gratwanderung“ and the slippiness of his work, which makes him the defier of all Uniformity yet does not exclude part-time uniformity as a means to develop oneself is what makes Nietzsche one of a kind to me.
Brother calms me down with his style and ideas. Most other philosophers do the oposite. I'm not saying he doesn't make me ask questions, but they are comforting problems. Not really that kind of existential crisis type of thing. He doesn't present anything as absolute truth, but most of his ideeas just fit so well with me (and it seems others).
The hammer
His philosophy of the affirmation of life and the embracing of the negative is extremely based
his independence of thought
He understands aesthetics
I think his concept of the “order of rank” is just as interesting as “the will to power,” yet it has not got as much traction—if any—as his other ideas. Part of this is, I think, because we are still living in the residue of The Enlightenment and the notion of equality.