Friedrich Nietzsche (1844–1900) was a German philosopher and cultural critic who published intensively in the 1870s and 1880s. He is famous for uncompromising criticisms of traditional European morality and religion, as well as of conventional philosophical ideas and social and political pieties associated with modernity. - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
Question
Hi all,
I’ve known of Nietzsche for around a decade and a half now but I’ve only started looking deeply into his works this year. My own impression so far is that he’s a riveting, erudite thinker who’s quite often operating under false assumptions. Some of these assumptions are a product of the pre-anthropology/pre-archaeology/pre-psychology times that he lived in. Others are simply obfuscations within his own psyche. He seems to be very popular amongst bookish young men and I understand the masculine, individualistic appeal.
I was wondering why members of the group like him or why you find him interesting.
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I’m an old man who came to Nietzsche in my 40s. He asks you to be honest about your and others’ motivations. Stop coloring them with romantic or moral ideation or ideology. Once you learn this habit you can actually be nicer to yourself or others. Some of the humanistic psychologists like Fritz Perls in the 1970s are implicitly Nitzschean. Perls didn’t believe in “offensiveness” or allow patients to be passive-aggressive. Nietzsche actually gives rise to Freud and Freud’s critique of defense mechanisms. The Adlerians embrace Nietzsche more directly but they seem to have obnoxious personalities many times. Like some, they seem to think the “master morality” is what you aim for.
Nietzsche’s psychological readings of historical personalities are provocative and highly entertaining, but lacking in my opinion. Sometimes I wonder to what extent he’s being a provocateur and what extent he’s being a psychologist/cultural critic/historical critic. The two occupations were likely playing tag in his mind.
So maybe the world's first edgelord? :)
I wonder how his philosophy would have looked like if he grew up with a father in the house.
To argue just for the provacation or because your thoughts are provocative are entirely different things. Your surface impression of Nitzsche is lacking because you do not give examples exactly what you criticize.
He’s not the most careful, skeptical, rigorous of philosophers. There’s plenty of examples for that.
It’s impossible to know for sure whether he was actually trying to be provocative, but that is my informed speculation.
Skeptical for sure otherwise he would not have rejected so much of what was true in those days. Careful, rigorous in what way, because he proposed radical things?
He calls me on my shit like no other.
He makes me laugh at myself for my foolishness, and in the same breath consoles me.
He plants pride in me, but tends to that pride the way a gardener tends to superfluous roots.
He warms my heart ... not like how a hearth warms the home, but the way a furnace heats a forge.
He inspires me to reach him where he is, but even more so, to go beyond him, and only ever in a way that is necessary to me.
Perhaps this says more about me than it does him, but... to paraphrase him, he is the "good father procured."
Bro..
Cannot tell if Good "Bro.." or Bad "Bro.." 😂
(Also, for those curious: the paraphrased quote comes from Human, All-Too Human)
Good “Bro..” 🔥
Thanks for clarifying! 🎩
That's almost a poem. Nice.
Just bein' honest! Thank you kindly 🎩
Why do i feel like you were kicking your feet in the air and giggling when you wrote this
I admired his approach to nihilism.
The Superman and the transvaluation project you mean?
The superman, is not his appraoch to nihilism but the way to grow beyond yourself and those following after you. What did you read by him?
I would say that sometimes (though not always), the spirit and attitude with which he approaches a subject are more important than the contents of what he says. For me, personally, the most important aspects of his project are the deconstruction of seemingly stable binary opposites (good/evil, truth/untruth, reality/appearance, and so on), the exaltation of the active and creative spirit, his criticisms of resentment and reactionary thought processes, his skepticism towards universally accepted narratives and values, and his spirit of transgression. Even though he's wrong about a lot of things, he's one of the few thinkers who has the power to completely reshape the way you look at certain things, and I appreciate him for that.
Nietzsche wrote with a lot of passion and vitality, so it's not surprising that his thoughts would sometimes be contradictory or flat out wrong. But this, coupled with his disdain for systematization, make it so that if you don't like an idea of his, you can just move on to the next. He's someone you can read quite selectively while still retaining a lot of useful and interesting information. You don't have to either accept of reject all of it. And for what it's worth he was also right about a lot of things as well.
Agreed. Very good breakdown.
True, the meaning is left dubious at times, the content sarcastic or used to explain another point of view, statements contradict each other somewhat, because the context is different and so on.
The mustache
Combined with those hipster glasses. <chef's kiss>
His writings helped me say "yes" to life.
He’s definitely useful (with certain caveats) in the domain of willpower. I think his “yes to life” mantra is set against his “no to ascetic values” attitude which is a creative, stimulating dichotomy. Ultimately, it seems to be in the same spirit of Machiavelli:
“I certainly believe this: that it is better to be impetuous than cautious, because Fortune is a woman, and if you want to keep her under it is necessary to beat her and force her down. It is clear that she more often allows herself to be won over by impetuous men than by those who proceed coldly. And so, like a woman, Fortune is always the friend of young men, for they are less cautious, more ferocious, and command her with more audacity.”
He takes the typical traits associated with woman and describes how to take advantage of fortune in life. His „yes to life“ in this case is the most prominent way of taking risks, because then fortune may follow easier. His „no to ascetic values“ is contradicting life in what way? Stoicism was crticized for their rejection of their own emotions. Surely he excludes no values not even pity, after all he encourages to walk your own path, what is criticized is the excessive self pity and pity to boost your own selfesteem like so many do.
My suggestion is to read the books. At times it’s almost like he is calling you out to be better than what you are trying to represent, but at the same time teaching what is the best course of action to take. If you tend to go along with the crowd for whatever reason know that you are also just doing what is easier than what requires strength and resolve to accomplish. Often in stoicism you see that acceptance of fate is also a virtue, that doesn’t mean you have to lie down and die. Everything is worth fighting for, including authenticity. Be not like everyone else and spit in front of status quo ideology, free yourself. At least this is what I learned from this philosophy. Cheers!
This is awesome. I love stocism but like to think of it with that nietzschen edge. The will to be the best man I can be, even if no one around me wants to be. I will get it done but through a way that will be righteous and benefit the whole. “A man with a why can endure any how” combined with “Do not ask what it means to be a good philosopher, simple go be one/What is not good for the hive, is not good for the individual bee”. Also I love how he says to express yourself and get after it with things like “Many a peacock hide their tail from all eyes to see and call it their pride”….meaning if you know you have greatness share it with everyone!
I see you have done some research on stoicism, one book I found very helpful was Epictetus- Echridion (I believe that’s the spelling). I also like to use Nietzsche in my own writing and contemplative research, i have found Zizek helpful but he is just if not more complicated. Several ideas at once. Good luck on your endeavors!
Give an example of those assumptions.
A few that come to mind: 1) That Christianity was borne from the spirit of resentment. 2) That Greek tragedy was borne from the spirit of music. 3) That all values can, in fact, be transvaluated.
Those are not “assumptions” but conclusions. He doesn’t simply state those things as true unequivocally or begin with them as taken for granted in order to support other arguments, he marshals arguments in support of them. They are not ideas anyone else was positing or “assuming” to be true at the time … I don’t see how they are “assumptions.” They’re conclusions.
Now, his conclusions may be wrong, or it may be a matter of opinion, but in order to demonstrate that you’d have to actually refute the arguments he uses to support those conclusions. Part of that refutation may include highlighting actual assumptions he makes that are false in order to reach the conclusion. But you’re simply dismissing the conclusion by mislabeling it as an assumption.
I think you’re treating Nietzsche as an impartial philosopher who’s attempting a conscientious delineation of truth. I don’t agree with that.
I think he’d be the first to tell you that there’s no such thing as an impartial philosopher, or a conscientious delineation of truth. Of course, this is not to say that he achieved some sort of detached perspective or even believed it was possible, simply because he had that insight. His failure to do so is one reason why Heidegger somewhat ironically calls him “the last metaphysician” - ie, the person who pointed out the errors and deceptive usage of metaphysics, while still engaging in such error and deception.
In any event, my comment wasn’t about his motives, but the structure of his (or anyone’s) arguments. You said he made false assumptions, but then named a series of conclusions. This would be like saying a false assumption of Kant’s is that we should always treat others as ends, not merely as means. Whatever Kant’s motivation in wanting to reach that conclusion, it is indeed a conclusion, not an assumption, so to prove it false you have to point out how and where the argument in support of that conclusion fails.
You just don't know Nietzsche's perspective because you've not read enough to understand it from AC 39:
Nietzsche basis much of his Philosophy off of the example of Jesus Christ in the Gospels, from AC 33:
In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.
Greek Tragedy wasn't born out of music lmao... you've not even read Nietzsche, the hell are you doing here?
Tragedy was birthed out of these two artistic forces of nature inciting each other to higher births...
The transvaluation of values means to adhere to your own code and values, Hip Hop is a perfect example of this, as white society rejected the blacks, they said you know what, were tired of MLK Jr's "I wanna be like the white man." And instead went with Malcom X (who read Nietzsche in Jail) That's how they made wealth out of their poverty... they turned rags into crowns, all the cheapest shit was the original "bling." They took James Brown and capoeira martial arts and made break dancing, they turned record players into musical instruments, they took the concept of graffiti and hieroglyphics to make graffiti art... and now look at the power of Hip Hop. So powerful it could topple the governments of lesser nations if it truly wanted to.
I’m skeptical that you read Nietzsche.
There's a reason why I'm one of the few people here who can string along Nietzsche's chains of thought through his books from Birth of Tragedy to Ecce Homo. It's why I so easily quoted those other aphorisms in rebuttal of your lack of knowledge of Nietzsche, and it's obvious you've never read Nietzsche because you would have not blundered your hand so tellingly: You had the idea that Nietzsche said "Greek Tragedy was borne from the spirit of music" by watching some shit on youtube by someone who wasn't very informed on Nietzsche. Either that, or you're what Nietzsche details in HATH Book 2 Aphorism 137 of "The Worst of Readers."
So come back once you've read through some of his books, chap. And then ask less stupid questions...
not for religious people. just read something else.
He's a very different kind of thinker; I find him interesting in the fact that he's quite different than me. But because of those differences he challenges you. It's a unique perspective worth considering.
Agreed. Michael Sugrue on YouTube spoke of the “Luciferian” aspects of Nietzsche. In Jungian terms he might have been acting as the Shadow aspect of the entirety of Judeo-Christian civilization.
Michael Sugrue lectures are very thought provoking
I think he was a compassionate and misunderstood person, who suffered a lot from society’s expectations and made up rules. I simply can relate although in a different time and circumstance.
I tend to feel the same way (about him being fundamentally compassionate), but his philosophy invariably paints a different picture.
Probably because he was pissed off. I am a very compassionate person who’s tired of being this way and hurting myself in the process, so it is possible to come across completely different. What we feel is not necessarily how we express it
It's odd. I'm attracted to the things FN says. I'm not always sure why. It seems intuitive. That's why I'm only in the exploration stage.
I think I resonant with his views on morality.
So many people (theists and atheists) claim morals are objective - they are somehow independent of human creation.
FN differs: Humans have always created morals (although evolution also plays a part in hardwiring some moral grammar in us). The super-person realizes they must make their own morals. If they find themselves in a society that does not share their morals, they stand in defiance and, per Eric Cartman, "do what they want."
And of course, as an atheist and humanist, I find his rejection of Christianity to be pretty nifty.
He said it himself, he’s dynamite!
I’ve not studied him extensively, but his position in history is undeniably important. While being firmly placed within modernity, he does prophesize the beginnings of various post-modern trends (or how modern trends unravel themselves). His critiques are great, particularly about science, religion and the Enlightenment tradition. His death of god is a deep insight and his response of choice in the face of the abyss staring back is critical.
I’m not a Nietzsche Stan at all because his follower base seem to either not understand him or use his to justify their own unethical behavior.
But historically he can be considered the first post-modern philosopher, who lived his life on the razors edge of the existential void. He is also early in identifying the world view aspect of science and the modern world view which presents itself as neutral and objective.
I've only read him in English before, but his prose is beautiful. Zarathustra remains one of the greatest literary works of western history. He is a man who had an ego that would make Achilles blush, and still was modest.
He often bemoaned having no one to learn from or strive towards, a remarkably bold claim, and therefore invented him in the superman.
He was a very interesting man with a powerfully positive, yes affirming outlook on life. He writes to who he intends to be his audience - and for his disciples alone to discern and make use of his words.
I’m currently on a reading plan on him. Zarathustra at the end. Currently 2/5 books down, halfway onto “Twilight/Antichrist” His approach against Christianity is important to Nihilism, and so far, his allusions to Ubermensch become more interesting.
I like how his Nihilism in confrontation with Christianity has less to do with “disproving God in nature,” rather it has to do with “denying God BECAUSE of the evidence” described by the Church Fathers, the resentment opportunism in the New Testament, imposed mortification of the individual in perversion of innocuous honesty, etc.
His references to “modern science” are certainly antiquated. Important to also be aware of how his philosophy played a role in Nazism (see “Genealogy” for evidence LMAO). You might even have evidence to argue he is a collectivist fascist like Hegel, Plato, etc. Understanding that can influence your analysis, and it may taint his core writings. Despite these detractions, his advice for reinventing meaningful life and meaningful suffering remains valid.
Mostly I like his approach to morality. Treating it not as a problem to be solved but as an emergent social phenomenon to be studied scientifically and historically.
But really I suspect most people’s reasons for being attracted to Nietzsche are as difficult to summarise as the man’s own philosophy.
I think studying morality can help us solve the problems. Just my take.
How does studying something that’s entirely subjective and culturally dependent enable you to “solve it.”
I didn't say it enabled you to solve the problem. Maybe my verb choice was vague.
Imagine you wanted to solve the problem of poverty. It would make little sense to just wade into the problem without understanding context. Poverty is both relative and culturally dependent. You'd want to gather data. Understand why some nations have little poverty and others do not.
Same goes for morality. Understanding research in neuroscience helps us solve the "why" of many human actions.
Example: For centuries, we've tried to figure out why people can behave in a civilized and benevolent manner within their community (like a death camp commandant or colonial conqueror) and yet have no qualms about slaughtering humans outside their community (us vs. them).
Turns out evolution may hold the key. For most of our existence, we lived in isolated hunter-gather tribes. When we occasionally encountered other humans, our brains had evolved to identify them as the same kind of threat as a predator.
Experiments show that people who strongly identify as non-racists still show activity in their amygdala (stress area) when a photo flashes on a screen of a person from another race.
That’s precisely what I mean by treating morality as an emergent social phenomenon to be studied scientifically and historically. In contrast to those who are constantly looking for some proof or argument that definitively shows their moral intuitions to be the correct ones.
As for humans displaying benevolence to those they perceive as their in group and malevolence to those they perceive as their out group: to be honest, I will never understand how any educated person can treat something so simple as though it were one of the great mysteries of human existence.
Humans are FAR from the only social species that behaves this way. The same evolutionary pressures that give rise to cooperation also give rise to competition in an environment where resources are scarce. The only difference is that humans are capable of more complex forms of cooperation than creatures like wolves or chimpanzees, and this in turn gives rise to more complex forms of competition and thus a greater capacity for both compassion and cruelty.
This is not some new insight but something Darwin understood quite well. Darwin’s thoughts on the development of morality clearly influenced Nietzsche, and hence this conversation.
He looks at people like you and says, "He doesn't get it."
Like many angsty 20-somethings I became enamoured with Arthur Schopenhauer and other pessimistic philosophers. I owe a huge debt to those thinkers for spurring me on towards a BA in philosophy, but I came to the conclusion that the pessimistic mindset is extremely unhealthy. I would never have come to that conclusion without encountering the works of Nietzsche. I'm now pursuing a Master of Arts in Philosophy specifically on Nietzsche's overcoming of pessimism, and his thinking has pushed me onto philosophical heights I never thought of; IE the works of Marx, Freud, Deleuze, Bergson, etc.
Interesting. Good luck with your studies.
His idea that a healthy life doesn't want to just survive but thrive, live vigorously, and feel pleasure from being what it is, and that it also "wants" to achieve this through us (if it's healthy), which is what we essentially call "happiness", has really struck me. Plus many other ideas. That moral virtue can be about something else than altruism (about self-reverence, for example). That what we understand as "free will" is more of a social construct than a reality. That atomism, darwinism, or even the claim that there are laws in nature, are not purely objective scientific facts but interpretations based on certain moral or psychological prejudices. And many, many more.
He asks me to not love another world but this one
To love no imaginary heart but the one we already have
He tells me the point of my life is not to reach for a different life, but to embrace the sorrows and triumphs of this one.
He makes me understand the point of life is not to be happy, but to be alive
Nietzsche defined today's world with such clarity it would be considered prophecy in some circles. A lot of people like to cherry pick and try to discredit him because he has no tolerance for 'Democrats'. Remove all bias when dealing with Nietzsche or you won't get him at all.
I love him because he died 124 years ago yet he was way ahead everyone else, even today people like you dont understand him, and it will stay like that for a long time.
He was way ahead of everyone else 124 years ago. He was a genius armchair anthropologist/archaeologist/psychologist/philosopher. But aren’t many of his analyses antiquated today?
Some of his most immportant ideas are universal and will stand its ground forever. Not only his, but some informations from people in far past will never get antiquated.
Can you give examples of which analyses you find antiquated?
On the Genealogy of Morals is very antiquated. He doesn’t seem to understand where morality comes from fundamentally.
And what do you believe where does morality come from fundamentally?
He caught me at my "wildest lonesomeness", was a great slap to the face when i needed it, and helped me impress girls in public 😉