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
If you subscribe to most, but not all of Nietzche's philosophy, then in what parts you think he was misguided, and why?
Sort by:
Best
Open comment sort options
Best
Top
New
Controversial
Old
Q&A
I don't agree with everything he writes of eastern religion and philosophy, but this is because I believe it is possible to experience "transcendent"—a word which could mean nothing beyond the human perspective—states through practice. I think he is right that life denial is a problem in these traditions. Renunciation is a tool that shouldn't be used indiscriminately. It's unnatural. Conversely, to let go of the unnecessary as it becomes so, is natural, though it might appear as renunciation to the less experienced.
This is why I love Nietzsche. He is so prescient no matter what metaphysical beliefs one holds.
He specifically states that fasting and meditation are connected to these experiences, but claims that they are human perspectives - and not any beyond.
That's what I'd expect from this inquisitive atheist that saw God as an affront to the thinker.
A lot of Nietzsche boils down to a radical embrace of aesthetic, and a rejection of reason as the noblest pursuit. One of the ways this manifests is an acceptance of value creation through war, and a rejection of value creation through dialectic.
The aesthetic qualities of war have changed since Nietzsche's day, and I think the admiration of figures like Alexander, Caesar and Napoleon is now misguided. We need to look to other aesthetic approaches to value creation.
does nietzsche not say artists are the new warriors? that strength is a mental thing, and strong ppl aren’t just big muscled brutes.
and yea, modern war is just cowardly.
Indeed. Fat old bald politicans sending grunts out to die and get amputated. Disgusting!
If they want to fight wars, put them all in a room together and lock the door.
Yes. The problem for him today would not be war but modern war.
There hasn't been a proper war in centuries. These days "war" involves rich nations devastating regions from great distances through weapons of mass destruction, over some absurd political dispute. That is not the kind of war Nietzsche refers to. There is no honour in modern warfare, no courage, no "just cause," to speak of, nor even any real combat.
Ecce Homo "Why I Write Such Excellent Books" 5:
GoM First Essay 10:
When Nietzsche speaks of "war" it is not just in the literal sense. It is a struggle that takes place in various contexts and of different types, like the struggle of an artist who uses his art against his suffering. At this point, the idea of Dionysian pleasure and the connection it has with affirmative life is one of the foundations for the creation of new values.
In my opinion, Nietzsche's mistake is not considering politics. It is understandable from the point of view that he is the creator of values, and not the "men of action" who made the new values realized in reality (and he knew this, as he says in GS). But because of this, the idea of transvaluation of values remains very abstract and groundless in reality. That's why I see that the best path is radical political philosophy, as they focus on materiality and a radical change in current values (and a connection with radical philosophy and Nietzschean ideas is not difficult), and other Nietzschean authors who emphasize both aesthetics and politics (Bataille; Deleuze; Camus; Foucault).
I always thought art was more important to him
How'd you get that user flair?! 😲
Typing it in yourself, click the pencil next to the flair and an edit flair option should appear below? Type in what you want.
Yayyyy
There's plenty, but the first thing that comes to mind is that he seems not to realize (or underplays) how foundational guilt is to the human experience. Though christian guilt is its own, very real thing, it isn't the case that guilt in general is an artificial construct pushed onto people by religion and morality. It isn't "anti-nature", as he would put it.
I don't think guilt specifically is natural, but compassion which he thought of as something you need to rid yourself of. We find compassionate acts even in animals.
I don't think it's compassion that he thinks we need to get rid of. I'd say it's pity (dt.: Mitleid, engl.: to suffer with someone) which in german is very similar to compassion (dt.: Mitgefühl, engl.: to feel with someone)
Mitgefühl or compassion does seem mostly good. Mitleid/Pity as he describes in the Antichrist is "a contagious disease". In english it doesn't work that well i think. The word pity doesn't include the suffering that Mitleid conveys.
Nietzsche said rid yourself of Pity, not compassion.
Guilt via mores?
Guilt enters the child via the paranoic father/mother through Oedipalizing.
It's interesting that someone in Nietzsche sub would hold a psychoanalytic view on this, especially in regards to Oedipus which I think Deleuze undermined wonderfully from a Nietzschean standpoint. Oedipus ascribes a universal familial structure to all people and cultures when this isn't actually the case.
"Daddy Mommy Me"
It's actually the Schizoanalyst view.
The error of Oedipalizing is acting like the fault begins with the child. It begins with the paranoic father/mother. Thus "Guilt is an idea projected by the father before it is an inner feeling experienced by the son." Or as I put it Guilt enters the child through the paranoic father/mother via Oedipalizing.
I don't disagree that this could happen in some cases so if you weren't claiming it is the universal way in which guilt is formed then I have no problem with it, but I don't believe Deleuze & Guattari are claiming that this is a universal dynamic, and so it cannot be used to explain guilt in general. It would be ridiculous for them to claim that "the father is always first in relation to the child, it would go against other points they've made about psychoanalysis.
Where would guilt come from then in your opinion?
I would say that humans are radically embedded into their social fabric and there's no escaping it. We would (rightly) regard someone who doesn't ever feel guilt (or shame or empathy) as a disregulated person. If we want to use freudian language, the superego is not something that's out there, but rather something that's been internalized and is constitutive of the human subject.
For example, when lion cubs are playing, if one plays too roughly and bites the other one too hard, the other one will let out a loud yelp and the other will stop; from now on, this cub will know not to bite that hard—effectively self-regulating his behavior. Of course the lion cub isn't feeling guilt per se, but it tells you just how much our social being is conditioned by the other. There's no such thing as a true individual.
edit: I noticed how you and I have interacted on different subs, it's kinda funny
Wouldn't it have to be formed due to external influences unless you believe it is part of the structure of the brain? Even Freud sees the superego as being formed due to the influence of the father, and with the lions it is still learned socially (although obviously they don't really feel guilt).
Which subs ahaha
Well, for one, social circumstances do affect brain physiology. But I won't discuss that because I'm just not qualified.
My point is that many things that are learned socially are foundational and constitutive of subjectivity; they're not accidental, illusory, unnatural or dispensable. Much of our social being is conditioned by the kind of creature we are; for example, being a mammal growing up with other mammals (like the example of the lion cubs), or the fact that humans are born prematurely, and as such have to rely on our caregivers for the first few months of life. No doubt our social being would be much different if we were hatched from eggs, isolated from others and already self-reliant. Shame, guilt, empathy, and other affects are essential dimensions of the human experience, and they all likely evolved alongside humans, and almost certainly preceded homo sapiens.
Freud would say that the superego begins in the father's authority (the Law, if I can shamelessly switch to lacanian language), but this superego is nevertheless very much internalized and necessary for subjectivization. It isn't accidental and cannot be dispensed with. Crucially, the superego is also accompanied by the entry into language, which is even more necessary even though it comes from the other.
edit: there was here, on r/philosophymemes, r/askphilosophy, and I'm pretty sure there was also another sub, maybe the Deleuze or Lacan or Metaphysics sub. It's just that your name is very recognizable lol, that's why I notice you
edit 2: actually it was on r/criticaltheory I'm almost certain!
I think guilt comes from our biology, really.
Being able to feel empathy and having the ability to understand what others want from you is a characteristic not only present in humans, but also in other social animals.
That is because humans are usually pretty weak when left alone, so we needed to constantly build strong social bounds with people around us innorder to survive, hence why we have guilt, friendship, and the need for community.
Monkeys, together, strong.
I have to wonder if guilt is necessarily part of empathy though. I definitely agree that empathy is inherent to brain structure.
Once, i saw a psychology video wich talked about the culture of shame presented within traditional religions.
The video argued that shame and guilt, even thought were connected, are not really the same feeling: whilst guilt makes you feel bad for something that you did, shame makes you feel like there is something deeply wrong with yourself.
Guilt is what happens when you make a joke that offends someone you care for, shame is when you think you are inherently unworthy of any attention.
I believe guilt is natural, whilst shame is something that had to be built upon by tradition. Religion created the idea that man were inherebtly sinful in order to create shame, and then monopolized the redemption.
Guilt is a feeling that is directed towards how the other is affected by your behaviour, whilst shame is a feeling directed towards how your sole existence makes the other worse off.
I feel that, when Nietzsche is refering to guilt, he is actually talking about shame, most of the times. Even thought i think his philosophy criticizes both, i believe he criticizes the latter much more.
Have you read the GOM passages on the evolution of physical uncleanliness into a concept of spiritual/moral purity, and social debt into guilt as self-punishment to escape punishment? It’s Nietzsche as his most enlightening imo. Guilt really is unnatural, you just haven’t faced your shadow yet.
one of the best parts of that essay (the second one i think) is when he says civilisation turned our outward, physical violence upon the world into an inward mental violence upon ourselves.
Understandably a product of his time, own personal experiences and relationships ...... but his take on women is terrible. Those parts are always the worst bits of the books to me. Its like I have to completely concentrate on every sentence just to understand some intricate and in-depth concept; and then he just switches to having a good old rant about women.
Like I said, somewhat understandable given his biases - but those sections are just jarring to me.
I would answer that with a Nietzsche quote:
"The errors of great men are venerable, because they are more fruitful than the truths of little men."
I dont agree with his statement that mankind must be liberated from revenge. I think this is a silly idealism.
I think his love of the ancients and hatred of Christianity was flawed. I don’t think he realized how much of a G Christ was or how “meekness” can be more alpha than alpha. There’s a reason Christianity eclipsed the ancient moral systems. There’s a deep paradox of strength in seeming meekness that he seems to miss.
Also, though he himself is life-affirming. The subjective can of worms he opens with his philosophy has led to plenty life-denying modern nihilisms and ideologies.
I dont think his philosophy is the responsible for today's nihilism: It is just a consequence of the death of God. He just predicted the event and gave a solution, i dont necessarilly think he caused it.
Fair enough. How would you summarize his solution?
I could try, lol. Lets see...
To Nietzsche, platonic philosophy and platonic religion are the precursors of nihilism. Platonism is the idea that this world is a imperfect copy of a "better world", that lies beneath the curtains of death, enlightment or knowledge.
Before the popularity of platonism, humans simply experienced the world for what it was. We are naturally built for the challenges that reality can bring, no matter how harsh. But the idea of this better world above has made life unberable, has made the real world look pale to us.
For a moment, even thought this world had lost meaning, we still had the idea of a other world to strive for, until secularism has brought about the death of religious power, and the idea of a other world lost its relevance.
Now, we are left only with the idea of a broken world, but now we dont have a way of it.
Nietzsche's solution is to forget the idea that this world is somehow not worthy. To think so is to have a sick soul. We were, as any other creature, made and raised by this place. The reason we hate it and find no meaning in it is because we have been condition to do so, it is not a fruit of our natural state of being.
This took too long. Is it still a summary at this point?
His solution is to love THIS life, especially the pain. The deamon who chases after you in your darkest hour, amor fati plus the will to power on the other side,
I love all this and it saved my life. It was my Bible as a young man.
However, with no Universal touchstone, each of us making our own morality. Doesn’t it lend its hand to some of the Last Men moral relativists who created deconstructionism and by extension our modern theories and way of seeing things that arguably make us sicker than Christianity?
Definitely a lot of what he says about women. I think he was a man who struggled with an active homosexual drive personally. That's how I try to explain it. For example I don't believe it is the purpose of every woman to bear children and I think woman can have destinies other than only that.
Definitely what he says about comfort. Namely that comfort should always be despised. He reminds me of Maggie Thatcher when she said 'sleep is for wimps'. They both died of similar problems like dementia. I think Nietzsche would have lived to complete his works if he understood one cannot work without rest. One rests in order to work. One works in order to rest.
That the will to power is a thing on its own and not a byproduct result of genes trying to reproduce themselves.
Genetics is hollow science. It is further from the Ubermensch than biology. And if you don't understand why Nietzsche chose instinct to life, Dionysian instinct, will to life, will to power (these are all interchangeable terms) instead of secular, apathetic science terms you don't understand Nietzsche sorry.
There are no objective facts, only necessities. There are no laws, only beliefs. What one cannot will, one believes (principal of belief).
Baseless claim.
Genetics is a part of biology.
I understand why, out of the ignorance of the 19th century.
There are objective facts within our subjective human experience.
Sure our senses are limited. But within them qome things are truer than others.
If you choose to reject rationality altogether then there is no point even having ideas. Every idea has a component of rationality.
They knew about genetics in the 19th century. They were more interested in it then than now. We know now how useless it is. They didn't know that then. Nietzsche was a genius to understand even then it was and is of little worth.
They did not know about the DNA and its implication.
Nietzsche was ignorant on how evolution and genetics work and I have made a post about it. He did not have a proper understanding of genetics at all.
Studying genetics is not useless, pretty much every human behaviour is a result of evolutionary biology. Everything we do can be explained by evolution. The "will to power" is simply a manifestation of our genes trying to get passed on as is everything else we humans do. It is not a force on its own whatsoever.
I don’t share his dislike for systematizers. I believe a civilization would ultimately be better off if Nietzsche’s ‘philosophers of the future’ were competent systematizers. I could be wrong.
Read his section on philosophical laborers in BGE. Might prove insightful as being for and/or against this sentiment.
ill definitely look into that thanks.
Are you a systematizer?
I'm skeptical of his method of genealogy. I think it invites people to misunderstand him like in the case of morality, which means something completely different when Nietzsche says it. The method is a little bit like a straw man, creating a history of a word to criticize it, so if someone understands morality generally outside of Nietzsche's specific genealogy, Nietzsche can't be understood.
It's easily arguable they don't understand how morality works if one finds morality to be objective. And there's a reason why, as Jacob Golomb puts in his book Nietzsche and Zion :
Because Nietzsche's genalogical methods of unmasking help overcome long standing habits of traditional objective morality which is holding many Jews ( and people in general) back. Because Slave morality creates readymade and inauthentic individuals who are generally powerless.
So you know how morality works? lol.
Let me ask it like this. What's another area of study could one employ genealogy and come to useful results? If the only place that genealogy works is with challenging previously held notions about morality, then it seems like Nietzsche created a method to get the result he wanted rather than the method being neutral and generally applicable. It is not necessarily true that because the conclusion is interesting and useful that the methodology is sound.
I accidentally did a genealogy of corporations, and think it highly useful. You can draw lines between the nation and corporation, then from there to everything else humans have produced. You can trace this genealogy from the self up to nations, language, and other large structures made by humans, rooting everything in the humans drive for legacy and the creation of structures that can outlive their lifespans. I think it is fairly shattering to previously held notions about how things are in general, not just morality. If you’d care to take a look I’m happy to link you to the work
go for it
It might do some good for the two interlocutors, here, to reflect what has already been said with the idea of perspectiv/al/ism.
His critic of asceticism and of stoïcism
I really think ascetiscism can heal your body and your mind.
That’s pretty central to his perspective
Could explain what precisely was the critics? Why is it harmful to live like that?
I love how all of these comments are written using the douchiest words imaginable.
Forsooth, my friend, be not obnoxious.
Then don't hang here. 😒
Indeed. Let looking away be their only negation.
Most of those douchiest words are coming from Nietzsche's own use of them. So when a person says them here, they know what the person is talking about from Nietzsche's perspective, which is what the topic is about "What about Nietzsche's Perspective do you not agree with?" How the else will you talk about Nietzsche's concepts? What should I call "Will to Power?" A drive to strength? How exactly should I word it to fit your non douche needs and get the fucking point across? Or perhaps your douchey-non-douche needs don't fucking matter to anyone but you. You can affirm your life in isolation. Nietzsche did so too. So keep your douchey-non-douche needs, which only you adhere to, know, and understand, to yourself? Or write a convincing philosophy that's not douchey, about your douchey-non-douche needs and maybe other people might pick up your douchey-non-douche needs.
If you understand something completely you can articulate your understanding of that idea simply. Nietzsche was a crazy person that reveled In his own intellect. He also came from a time when many of these words were new and in fashion. Using them helped the user prove they were at the leading edge of philosophy. I don't think those things apply to most people here. Using his words won't make you Nietzsche, it'd be nice to see everyone use their own.
"Affirm your life in isolation" is hilarious. BTW, quite a reach. Very presumptuous.
Nietzsche would have a few more people to talk to today, than he did 150 years ago. Which the vast majority today, you included, can't even wrap their heads around Nietzsche philosophy and psychology.