The Nietzsche question

Sorry if this is a repeating topic, but I figured this is the best place to ask
While talking about philosophy with some comrades of mine, they got somewhat agitated when I mentioned him, I never personally read anything of his work, but apparently he is a nazi and not worth reading
Is there any truth to this statement or is it just bullshit?

Attached: Friedrich-Nietzsche_252133747.jpg (734x1000, 392.59K)

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

It's bullshit. Nietzsche is basically Stirner but edgier and more misanthropic. I wrote a paper on it.

neat, I'll give it a read. what are you studying?

Political science and history.

don't listen to them, the neetch is great. i recommend the gay science especially.

i used to think this way, too, but nietzsche is so much more

He's a plagiarizing incel, just go read Stirner user.

Steiner is fucking stupid. People should be serving for the good of the community, not themselves. Like capitalism, Stirner’s ideas are extremely selfish and only focused on bettering onself at the expense of the community.

Knee-Chee hated nazis and other nationalists, his sister tried to paint his philosophy as being way more reactionary that it really was. He's actually pretty based. His stuff on why suffering is an important aspect of humanity and the concept of amor fati are really cool.

(checked)
It's bullshit. Nietszche praised jews and their culture in his books if you read them; when his sister got married to an anti-semitic nationalist he was so disgusted that he didn't attend her wedding. He was so disgusted by what germany and germans were becoming that by the end of his life he claimed that he was descended from Polish nobility, which, at the time, was the equivalent of apostasy (he was actually Prussian and descended from Lutheran priests.) He was, for the most part, sick most his life suffering from syphillis and brain tumors, so he was kept taken care of by his sister, she took his works and changed them to appease Hitler and so he paid her. Despite him being insane, he attempted to tutor his sitser in philosophy, but discontinued; he said that his sister was a brainlet literally incapable of doing philosophy.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elisabeth_Förster-Nietzsche

Nazis latched onto his philosophy because he talks of an ubermensch, the superman, the overman, which falls in line with the nazi ideology. However, Nietzsche's conception of the ubermensch wasn't biological, but ethical. The ubermensch was the person who would transcend master-slave morality and use their abilities for the good of humanity, anyone can be one regardless of race. At one point he talks of a "blonde, blue-eyed beast" as an example to strive for…he was talking about lions.

Attached: wwjd.png (540x518, 216.98K)

The community is worthless if it isn't able to be selfishly maintained by its participants.
Although Stirner's ideas are only focused on bettering oneself, bettering oneself in his context includes the bettering of your comrades, since they are both extensions of your own capacities and your greatest means of expression. An egoist loves his society because it is his society, and only wants the best for it. He wants his comrades to be pleased because he can share in their joy.

Lions still eat other animals though, and are generally lazy as fuck.

Yes, and?

They aren't some noble king of the beasts defending the animal kingdom.

I was being ironic; clearly lions are the ubermensch as they embody the values that transcend judeo-christianity, such as being lazy.

Sounds pretty fun

Attached: image0.png (540x489, 270.1K)

Attached: Socialism is the morality of the master.jpg (1489x261, 126.76K)

I'm deeply convinced that Stirner spam is a COINTELPRO psyop designed to confuse and discredit leftists.

he comes back on the lion symbology in Zarathustra, the lion is only the second stage of a 3-step transformation. in a sense it's similar to the "Atlas Shrugged" stereotype, or the "Just do it", although he surely would have rejected Randian stupidity and of course corporate marketing. the third stage is a toddler.
I think you could say the overman only seeks to increase his abilities. What he's precisely not is self–sacrificing.

do you have any arguments against this picture?
seriously, what is wrong here exactly? I keep seeing people whine about it but I 100% agree with it. what's the problem?

I mean it itself is full of its own spooks, but that kind of rhetoric is a good way to make leftism more alpha, which is something it sorely needs.

Was Stalin an ubermensch?

he isn't worth reading because his great contribution boils down to moral relativism.
this is why he was accepted by fascists, it made justifying violence easy while seeming progressive and intellectual. he has since been "rehabilitated" by postmodern cultural leftists like foucault and judith butler.
In case you're wondering, the idea of there being nothing positive to ground morality on was shown to be false by hegel already. Nothing is. Nothing, either through rational thought, or because it was already flawed, betrays itself as being. From this idea you acknowledge becoming as being aswell. And so on and so on until you find yourself having constructed a positive identity, or idea, out of (literally)nothing.

And setting aside whether his philosophy was good. He was personally a real reactionary piece of shit. Forget all that about if he admired the jews or hated them(the admiration was of the "we should all be conniving and treacherous like the jews" kind though). He spoke out against the paris commune, defending private property. I see nothing of value in him or his works for a marxist.

yes, that's exactly what Nietzsche said. you're a fucking retard.

It's incredibly disingenuous to claim that values themselves are spooks and then talk about what you should or shouldn't do, or, phrased another way, spend hundreds of pages "totally not justifying" why you think self-interest is the highest good without any real reason just because, like, spooks maaaan.

He never said this. His most famous attempt at finding a grounding was historically- and etymologically-centered (although, do note, it wasn't dialectical).

This isn't true. His admiration was generally based on the cultural contributions of Jews; he also admired the Old Testament in part because most of it wasn't based in ressentiment (unlike the New Testament).

Nietzsche wasn't a Nazi his sister was. It was his sister's misrepresentation of his philosophy the Nazis lached on to not his actual philosophy. Also even though he's a nihilist philosopher he himself was against nihilism and wanted people to rise above it.

Totally worth reading for fun and thought, hillariously juvenile at times though, and whether or not he is a Nazi is kind of irrelevant because he's still enough of a dick that he might as well be. I'm currently reading the Genealogy of Morals which is really fun and really fucked up. Though he is a right-winger, he's not the boring pious dutybound Kantian, no he's more of a bloodhungry fascist, wanting to watch the world burn lol

Many leftists do like him, such as Alain Bodiou (a really great lecture on youtube regarding this) and Hannah Arendt was also a enthusiastic reader of his (eventhough she of course does not agree with him). I'd love to read Arendts criticism of him actually.

If I was to reccomend a right-wing author with fucked up views i'd reccomend him because he is fun to read.

Stalin was too resentful and seething, at least i imagine that's what Nietzsche would say.

He would, however, be faced with an interesting problem when watching the athletic parades in the USSR because this doesn't jive with how Nietzsche sees the world. For Nietzsche its inconceivable that slave-morality such as socialism can breed healthy strong happy roman-like citizens. At least i suspect so, I'm no scholar.

nietzsche brainlet confirmed

I literally called Nietzsche wrong and an asshole, i also conceded that i might be wrong, what more could you possibly want from me, internet-soldier?

maybe is nietszche the brainlet

imagine being this much of a brainlet

stfu brainlet

this. i wrote about Nietzsche and antisemitism for a paper, ill just excerpt it here. ill citations of Nietzsche are for On the Geneology of Morality unless stated otherwise.

"Nietzsche writes that as of his time there has been no greater moral conflict than that preceding the Christianization of Europe, "Rome against Judea, Judea against Rome," the victor of which "there is no doubt at all." (Nietzsche 31) The conflict he finds is one between the Jewish morality, a morality of ressentiment that is "neither sincere, nor naive, nor honest and frank," (Nietzsche 20) and the pagan "noble races…who roams about lusting after booty and victory," (Nietzsche 22) who have a morality of "confidence and openness." (Nietzsche 20) Whether or not this antisemitism is an intentional misdirection as evidenced by the subtitling of the text as a polemic (and therefore as intentionally provocative) is debatable. Antisemitism of course would not itself be the provocative element, as it was the norm in most of Europe, especially Nietzsche's Central Europe that was overwhelmingly Lutheran and included Luther's "On the Jews and Their Lies," among their holy texts.
What is controversial in Genealogy, however, is not any of the antisemitism doubtless present, but instead that his assessment of German Christians ties them to Jews in a way that makes each inextricable from the other, so that any condemnation of Jews becomes a condemnation of Germans, and any praise of Germans a praise of Jews. He speaks of Jewish people as a "priestly people…in whom there dwelt a popular-moral genius without parallel: just compare the peoples with related talents — for instance the Chinese or the Germans — with the Jews in order to feel what is first and what fifth in rank." (Nietzsche 31) He manages, in his apparent condemnation of Jews, to compare them to Germans in such a way that even if the Jews are bad, the Germans are far worse. Their qualities, those "related talents" they share with the Jews, make it so that whether both Jews and Germans be good or bad, they remain in that same category — and Germans always as the less talented. If Nietzsche's assessment of Judaism is taken at face value, so too should his moral categories be taken at face value, a morality that praises "the innocence of the beast of prey conscience", and holds highest the "lusting after booty and victory." (Nietzsche 22) This would mean that Germans are not only possessing the same resentful morality as Jews, but that even within a society defined by such a morality the Germans are the more resentful and scheming caste by virtue of their inferior ability to more effectively use their resentment and schemes for the acquisition of wealth and conquest.
But Nietzsche does not only present Christianity as a mere extension of or cousin to Judaism, but only the pitiful weapon Judea wielded to conquer Europe, Jesus of Nazareth himself the bludgeon, "this 'redeemer' bringing blessedness and victory to the poor, the sick, the sinners — was he not precisely seduction in its most uncanny and irresistible form, the seduction and detour to precisely those Jewish values and reshapings of the ideal?" (Nietzsche 17) This is, regardless of whether Nietzsche himself believes its truth, a crucial part of his argument for the deconstruction of morals. The offense of his polemic is the conflation of Christianity with Judaism, and any attempt to disentangle them after reading this forces a further analysis of morality's origins. Further, the invoking of the Judaism Christian Europe feared, the spectre of "a truly great politics of revenge…far-seeing, subterranean, slow-working and precalculating," (Nietzsche 17) serves effectively as a challenge for the antisemite to think in that way they consider Jewish ("far-seeing…slow-working and precalculating," (Nietzsche 17)), in analytical abstraction, perhaps so that they can assure themselves that Nietzsche is wrong. But by forcing consideration of morality in the abstract to try to discount Nietzsche, Nietzsche has effectively smuggled into Christianity an understanding of morality as contingent. And if it is conceivable that there is a historical origin for Christian values, that the condemnation of suffering was a contingent inverse of its celebration and not a divine altruism, Christianity can no longer claim itself as simply and intuitively true based on its addressing of suffering. And so as in his genealogy Judaism smuggled itself into Rome via Christianity, Nietzsche smuggles contingent origins of morality into Christian Europe with antisemitism."

Attached: 1540734298492.png (900x723, 597.06K)

Not worth reading tbh

Reading from Kaufmann's Portable Nietzsche I read that FN sees the übermensch (over-human) to be a cross between the aristocrat and the anarchist. This is always what I've had in mind when I thought on anarchism.

Nietzsche quote?

Humans work much too hard. This isn't our natural state.

Attached: Pippi is dynamite.jpg (700x567, 139.21K)

...

The material world and all that?
Plainly we have molded our minds to thinking we must work very very hard for our master classmen in order to live. It wasn't always so of course

damm that girl kind of cute