Has anyone ever noticed that in discussions about Nietzsche, the attempts to distance him from the Nazis usually accompany the claim that the Nazis misinterpreted him in regard to what it meant to be an ubermensche and never in regard to his claim that "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth"? It's strange to me that so many people care about properly interpreting those who deny the existence of proper interpretation.
Nietzsche did not deny the existence of a proper interpretation (Truth) rather he claimed that the prevailing interpretation of an idea in a society has got nothing to do with Truth and everything to do with Power. Note that by saying this he acknowledges that there is such thing as Truth. Moreover it is possible coincidentally or intentionally that Power can sometimes be equal to Truth.
“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think *the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions*." Was Russell's a fair assessment?
if you're talking about napoleon then yes he was a Revolutionary conqueror, but he also admires people like Beethoven, Spinoza and Goethe of whom I wouldn't categorize as conquerors but are Revolutionary geniuses !
@@DigiShack55 yes Wittgenstein himself was incredibly pretentious though, claiming only logical language counted and anything outside that was nonsense. such a claim as that is nonsense in itself.
@@DigiShack55 Russell had better breeding. He never spoke of Wittgenstein in this horrid manner. Imagine Plato’s speaking of Socrates in this dismissive manner, or Aristotle’s similarly snorting contemptuously at Plato’s teachings. 😄 Wittgenstein’s seems to have been a tortured spirit.
I think this was a good introduction for people who haven't read Nietzsche for the most part. But some things need elaboration. On Master and slave morality, another distinction between the two is that master morality is internally focused, why slave morality is externally focused. Meaning that master morality doesn't appeal to any force outside of itself for justification. And it's also more focused on the good of the subject of master morality rather than the negative aspects of an external force. For example, your enemies aren't necessarily "evil" or bad under master morality. In fact, you can both be good. Most of the time you are only enemies out of a mere conflict of interest, which if both are good in master morality, neither of you would seek to moralize it. Because good and bad in master morality is not defined by actions, but by the virtues or qualities the individual embodies. Courage, Honesty, generosity even(yes, Nietzsche thought that true generosity had it's origins in the master morality.) And let's not forget the whole point of this dichotomy. The main point is not an argument for or against one or the other necessarily. Even though Nietzsche appreciated master morality more then slave morality on a personal level. The main point of all of this, is to map out the origins of western morality in it's totality. There is master and slave morality with in all of us, some of us will lean more one direction then the other. The secondary point to this is to get us to question the morality we hold, to reevaluate. To get tp us realize that maybe we lost something with the advent of Christianity and fall of master morality.
I think it's interesting to read the old Icelandic eddas , old English orm like beowulf , for example , as they both can give us insight into the master mentality of a society and people's, being prevalent.
If his words are not understood, that is the fault of Nietzsche. His manner of writing: a mixture of eloquence, polemic and humbug. There is way too much ball washing where the windbag of Basel is concerned. We need some scathing analysis and no holds barred critique. Let us see if FN can withstand the hammer. The man was no Nazi, but (here it comes) much of his thought is very congenial with Nazism: contempt for democracy and the masses, glorification of power and hierarchy, affection for tyrants, and an easy going (to say the least) attitude towards ethics and morality. Thought problem: peruse FN's published works and note how many times he mentions slavery/servitude. Fascinating! I do not think he would have supported the Nazi Party but I suspect he would have conceded that Hitler was following his will to power. The final kick in the jimmy is that the Nuremberg trials are not possible in FN's world except as an exercise of revenge. Can you really see FN supporting international law and universal principles of justice? 🎉😅
A fascinating, very revealing view on a philosopher whose ideas are often distorted. Thank you!
Hidden Gem 💎, thank you!
Best philosopher ever.
Oui à la Vie ❤
😘
Has anyone ever noticed that in discussions about Nietzsche, the attempts to distance him from the Nazis usually accompany the claim that the Nazis misinterpreted him in regard to what it meant to be an ubermensche and never in regard to his claim that "All things are subject to interpretation. Whichever interpretation prevails at a given time is a function of power and not truth"?
It's strange to me that so many people care about properly interpreting those who deny the existence of proper interpretation.
Nietzsche did not deny the existence of a proper interpretation (Truth) rather he claimed that the prevailing interpretation of an idea in a society has got nothing to do with Truth and everything to do with Power. Note that by saying this he acknowledges that there is such thing as Truth. Moreover it is possible coincidentally or intentionally that Power can sometimes be equal to Truth.
“I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think *the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions*." Was Russell's a fair assessment?
Probably not
if you're talking about napoleon then yes he was a Revolutionary conqueror, but he also admires people like Beethoven, Spinoza and Goethe of whom I wouldn't categorize as conquerors but are Revolutionary geniuses !
No
As Wittgenstein himself said only his(Russell)books on logic were worth reading
Everything other belongs in a trash can
@@DigiShack55 yes
Wittgenstein himself was incredibly pretentious though, claiming only logical language counted and anything outside that was nonsense. such a claim as that is nonsense in itself.
@@DigiShack55 Russell had better breeding. He never spoke of Wittgenstein in this horrid manner. Imagine Plato’s speaking of Socrates in this dismissive manner, or Aristotle’s similarly snorting contemptuously at Plato’s teachings. 😄 Wittgenstein’s seems to have been a tortured spirit.
I think this was a good introduction for people who haven't read Nietzsche for the most part. But some things need elaboration.
On Master and slave morality, another distinction between the two is that master morality is internally focused, why slave morality is externally focused. Meaning that master morality doesn't appeal to any force outside of itself for justification. And it's also more focused on the good of the subject of master morality rather than the negative aspects of an external force. For example, your enemies aren't necessarily "evil" or bad under master morality. In fact, you can both be good. Most of the time you are only enemies out of a mere conflict of interest, which if both are good in master morality, neither of you would seek to moralize it. Because good and bad in master morality is not defined by actions, but by the virtues or qualities the individual embodies. Courage, Honesty, generosity even(yes, Nietzsche thought that true generosity had it's origins in the master morality.)
And let's not forget the whole point of this dichotomy. The main point is not an argument for or against one or the other necessarily. Even though Nietzsche appreciated master morality more then slave morality on a personal level. The main point of all of this, is to map out the origins of western morality in it's totality. There is master and slave morality with in all of us, some of us will lean more one direction then the other. The secondary point to this is to get us to question the morality we hold, to reevaluate. To get tp us realize that maybe we lost something with the advent of Christianity and fall of master morality.
I think it's interesting to read the old Icelandic eddas , old English orm like beowulf , for example , as they both can give us insight into the master mentality of a society and people's, being prevalent.
If his words are not understood, that is the fault of Nietzsche. His manner of writing: a mixture of eloquence, polemic and humbug. There is way too much ball washing where the windbag of Basel is concerned. We need some scathing analysis and no holds barred critique. Let us see if FN can withstand the hammer. The man was no Nazi, but (here it comes) much of his thought is very congenial with Nazism: contempt for democracy and the masses, glorification of power and hierarchy, affection for tyrants, and an easy going (to say the least) attitude towards ethics and morality. Thought problem: peruse FN's published works and note how many times he mentions slavery/servitude. Fascinating! I do not think he would have supported the Nazi Party but I suspect he would have conceded that Hitler was following his will to power. The final kick in the jimmy is that the Nuremberg trials are not possible in FN's world except as an exercise of revenge. Can you really see FN supporting international law and universal principles of justice? 🎉😅
Speaking of lunatics