/edu/ - Education

Education, Literature, History, Science

catalog
Mode: Reply
Name
E-mail
Subject
Message

Max message length: 8192

Files

Max file size: 20.00 MB

Max files: 3

Password

(used to delete files and postings)

Misc

Remember to follow the rules


(1.73 MB 1956x2940 Nietzsche187c.jpg)
What's the deal with Nietzsche and his rabid followers? Comrade 06/24/2020 (Wed) 19:33:23 No. 2055
Is he like an old Jordan Peterson? A Rorschach test that says "water is wet"? Tolstoy wrote that Nietzsche wrote nothing insightful, that had he been alive earlier no one would have paid attention to his writings, that he and his prominence is a sign of intellectual decay. Trotsky wrote that the reason why Nietzsche's followers can be so radically different from each other is because they take what they want from Nietzsche and ignore whatever else is inconvenient for them. When someone points out the terrible things Nietzsche wrote, the response is either a) you're misinterpreting him! or b) his personal views are not reflective of his philosophy! or even c) you can't critique the genius of Nietzsche because he has rejected reason! Does this strike anyone else as eerily similar to Jordan Peterson and his rabid followers?
a friend of mine is a big fan of Nietzsche. the way I understand Nietzsche's philosophy, based solely on what he told me, is that you can't rely on written doctrines to design your code of ethics because relying on others to have one is what results in slave morality and self-subjugation. so the goal is to create values by contrasting them with the will to power (which includes self-control and the ability to attain personal desires). I think this is a train of thought that gets taken for granted in the 21st century, so it's too easy to say he wrote "nothing insightful". you could argue that a lot of what the great philosophers wrote are "nothing insightful" to the average secular human of the 21st century, so of course it seems superfluous. Additionally I think the reason his followers are "so radically different" is because there is both a left wing and right wing interpretation, where the left wing one is that the master-slave dynamic has to be eradicated from society entirely by subverting the master-slave binary (GWF Hegel, Jacques Derrida), and the right wing one is that a certain caste of individuals in society are entitled to primitive domination because they they reject slave morality (Ayn Rand, Adolf Hitler). I think Trotsky's points about Nietzsche are inevitably going to happen with any philosopher or philosophy. But most importantly I think it's important to reject the idea that the left wing interpretation supports the ideas of utopian anarchist horizontalism, as I've seen with a lot of Anarchist postmodernists. Hegel's theory of history and sublation does not support the idea of "undoing hierarchies" in the traditional anarchist sense, but rather that hierarchies themselves reconfigure in such a way to make room for new hierarchies which counteract exploitation, abuse and struggle. It seems a lot of strains of postmodern Derridians and Foucauldians don't understand this and choose to preach the pseudo-dialectic towards radical horizontalism.
Nietzsche is above all a skilled writer of insults and epigrams, but the entirety of his positive project is built around a rejection of metaphysical objectivity and social equality, so trying to get anything systematic out of it results in stupidity and evil. Nietzsche is good to read - reading the enemy is a crucial part of any radical education, he can help you think of something in a new way, above all he's FUN - but only within that context. Frankly attempts to be "Nietzschean from the left" always end up taking what could be a sensible Marxist critique of ideology ("official truth always reflects power" or whatever) and taking it in an excessive direction that undermines the goal of searching, however imperfectly, for the real truth underneath. Jordan Peterson is by contrast just... a lot less interesting. Nobody's going to remember Peterson in ten years, let alone a century; they barely remember him today. A better comparison for Peterson is someone like Duhring, a flash in the pan only remembered because more durable writers like Nietzsche and Engels made fun of him.
>>2056 Tolstoy was Nietzsche's contemporary though, and he was pretty well-read too (he names several philosophers in his criticism of Nietzsche). Even Trotsky argues that Nietzsche was not original at all, or rather that the only originality stems from him being a complex character. Trotsky says that humanity has reevaluated and adjusted ethics since the dawn of philosophy, and furthermore Trotsky writes that even Nietzsche's will to power isn't original because it is derived from a common thread Nietzsche observed studying morality throughout history, the slave morality and the master morality. The following quote in particular reminded me of a critique of Jordan Peterson I read: "One of the least critical critics of Nietzsche recognizes that ā€œif we remove from his ideas the paradoxical and poetic form in which they are incarnated in his writings they are often much less novel than they appear on first sight.ā€ (Lichtenberg, Die Philosophie F. Nietzsche). And on top of all that Trotsky with such anatomical precision describes the type of people who are "Nietzschean" by circumstances, parasites who want to watch the world burn. Sound familiar? Sounds like the stereotypical 4channer/8channer. Trotsky was really on point.
> Trotsky wrote that the reason why Nietzsche's followers can be so radically different from each other is because they take what they want from Nietzsche That's so true. I've been guilty of it too.
(102.04 KB 809x1080 D6i1gXZXkAANzJG.jpg)
(504.34 KB 752x708 D6i1eNVWwAEDokC.png)
>>2055 I read one of his books and the retard was just dissing other philosophers with no further argument something like: >aristotle was a faggot and Im super smard and thats it no further explanation, he might still be smarter than someone like Camust but he is one of those meme philosophers who are just a waste of time.
>>2093 I haven't read Nietzsche but I doubt your summary is accurate if he's such an esteemed philosopher
>>2100 he's acting retarded on purpose to prove a point about the validity of argumentation and ad hominems later in the book. at least that's what I've heard, haven't read it myself.
>>2055 >Does this strike anyone else as eerily similar to Jordan Peterson and his rabid followers? Come on, making grand statements out of superficial similarities like this is for dilettantes. Nietzsche had his problems and I'd be skeptical of anyone who claims to be a follower of him, but he was no empty self-help peddler like Peterson. Let's be clear about this, Nietzsche is a respected philosopher widely agreed to be of enormous importance, he introduced many ideas which are still discussed to this day, and influenced a LOT of later philosophy. This isn't to say he was right about everything or even most things, but he cannot be dismissed as a charlatan.
What did he say that wasn't plagiarized from Stirner?
>>2093 What's wrong with Camus
>>2111 He did not know Stirner and Nietzsche's "will to power" is not exactly the same as Stirner's egoism. I think it's not wrong to say that Nietzsche helped at great deal to spawn existentialism. He influenced Heidegger too who then influenced a lot of important 20th century philosophers.

Delete
Report

no cookies?