I get the sense that he believed that it was inevitable, not desirable - not that strong men are nursed into existence in an environment of where inequity is maintained but that they rise from such environments where inequity is an inevitable condition - like he believes that there are simply more weak then there are strong. His thought that spirit is life cutting into itself doesn’t seems to align with the idea of some sort of state enforcement of inequality.
1 Like
I certainly don’t believe that Nietzsche was a supporter of white supremacy, simply for the fact that there is nothing lazier: such a person believes they are simply born into superiority and need not bother with the hard work of being qualitatively better in any way.
The worrying thing about Nietzsche’s books are the endless “scare quote” appearances they make in various movies. Kevin Kline aside, if you see one of his books on the shelf of a character in a movie, the studious book owner is usually a serial killer. This gives the books an evil glamour that makes them ripe for confused appropriation.
4 Likes
I can’t say Nietzsche’s ideas were fundamentally mistaken. But, as far as recommending that anyone else read him as a basis for their moral or political philosophy, knowing how likely it is they’ll misunderstand?
I just Kant.
3 Likes
IMO, yes. Part of what makes Kant to irritating to read is that, although he could be incredibly brilliant, he could also check logic at the door when he needed to confuse people into believing he was being brilliant. A fair fraction of Kantian philosophy is, IMO, deliberately confounding.
Hegel was an important philosopher no doubt, but not as smart as either Kant or Nietzche. Of course my opinion is worth the paper it’s printed on. Like Bertrand Russell said, “a stupid man’s report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.” And although I don’t consider myself especially stupid (most of the time), I’m undoubtedly dumber than any of them when it comes to philosophy, so I take my own analyses with a hefty dose of salt.
2 Likes
I honestly don’t get that. Hegel always read simpler to me. When I read them both in my undergrad years, Hegel was intelligible. Kant it took me years later before I could untangle his true insights from his obfuscation, and even then it was tough going.
1 Like
Does it come before or after a deep and abiding love of Ayn Rand?
1 Like
Now that is an IQ test.
1 Like
Just trying to get the developmental order correct! 
2 Likes
If one goes from Rand to Nietzsche there is hope. If it goes from Nietzsche to Rand… … … Rand isn’t a stage it’s a pathology
5 Likes
6 Likes
If you look at Nietzsche’s life, he was kind of a loser, so they do have that in common I guess.
Not that I’m much better, mind you.
1 Like
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.
