 |
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Nazi party? but i'm not racist.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
So? If you're gonna let one little difference seperate you from them, then how can you justify voting GOP? |
it's more than a little difference, you silly man.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Nietzsche also had the problem of him exaggerating to prove a moderate point... his first writings on Greek tragedy really epitomize this. His over-all point was that for a culture to flourish, it must equally embrace both the ordered, civilized culture of Apollo and the chaotic creativity of Dionysius. But because he felt (probably justly) that Apollo had so dominated modern culture and the raw creativity of Dionysius had been ignored, he had to bring attention to the positives of Dionysius and prove that Apollo wasn't perfect. if one skims through his words, one could easily believe that Nietzsche was opposed to the ordered culture manifested in Apollo while in fact, if the work is taken on a whole, Nietzsche was arguing for an equal balance between the two...
same goes for Nietzsche's ideas of the body vs. reason. Reading selectively, one only notices the exaggeration of his points and so thinks Nietzsche was immensely anti-intellectual while in fact he felt that the body was so ignored and reason so elevated to a divine status that he had to exaggerate the importance of one and say why the latter wasn't so great.
Nietzsche was trying to prove a point that was completely alien to many people at the time. when someone is trying to argue such a point, he necessarily has to over-argue his case.
and i can not re-iterate enough that nietzsche didn't take issue with social conservatism. he took issue with religion, much as i do.
to claim your beliefs are based on divine revelation given to some ancient is immensely ignorant... to put yourself, your life, and your fate in the hands of God and not be charged with the existentialist spirit of invictus is damaging... Nietzsche didn't take issue with the laws or even the following of the laws. he took issue with the lawmaker and why those who followed the laws did so. it was all for the wrong reason.
Last edited by Albert Speer on 30-11-2004 at 04:33
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
how many times have i heard liberals decry that conservatives are just bullies... that conservatives claim to be moral (socially conservative) but just want to impose their own views and their own will on others by any means? that conservatives are just the powers that be, the strong, trampling on the poor and weak (women, minorities, the poor, etc.)? |
Like Che said, sounds like the total opposite of Nietzche. His will to power was extrodinarily individualistic. He would be horrified in the social conservative 'superman' putting his morality upon others (after all, 'truth' is a natural concept and the strong imposing morality on the weak would be trying to perpetuate a 'slave morality').
If anything Nietzsche would have hated social conservativism, as he was anti-religion and believed in that our drives were important to realize, which social conservatism seems to want to push down (preaching abstinence, for one).
He is also a moral skeptic, believing that no ethical statement cannot be proven to be true, and are just mere interpretations rather than fact. A social conservative probably wouldn't like that sort of relativism.
As for nationalism:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche
quote:
It is worth noting that Nietzsche's thought largely stands opposed to Nazism. In particular, Nietzsche despised anti-Semitism (which partially led to his falling out with composer Richard Wagner) and nationalism, took a dim view of German culture as it was in his time, and derided both the state and populism. He was also far from being a racist, believing that the 'vigor' of any population could only be increased by mixing with others. In "Twilight of the Idols," Nietzsche says, "...the concept of 'pure blood' is the opposite of a harmless concept."
As for the idea of the "blond beast," Walter Kaufman has this to say: "The 'blond beast' is not a racial concept and does not refer to the 'Nordic race' of which the Nazis later made so much. Nietzsche specifically refers to Arabs and Japanese, Romans and Greeks, no less than ancient Teutonic tribes when he first introduces the term...and the 'blondness' obviously refers to the beast, the lion, rather than the kind of man."
While some of his writings on "the Jewish question" were critical of the Jewish population in Europe, he also praised the strength of the Jewish people, and this criticism was equally, if not more strongly, applied to the English, the Germans, and the rest of Europe. He also valorised strong leadership, and it was this last tendency that the Nazis took up. |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
once again...
quote:
and anyway nietzsche though often called the great Amoralist shouldnt be seen as against morality. morality to him was the rule of your own will which on a society level translates to the rule of the strong-willed. if the strong wish to ban abortion and stress abstinence and whatever else, so be it. Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with such social conservatism as long as it was reached through the proper means, not through any claims of divine inspiration. |
quote:
and i can not re-iterate enough that nietzsche didn't take issue with social conservatism. he took issue with religion, much as i do.
to claim your beliefs are based on divine revelation given to some ancient is immensely ignorant... to put yourself, your life, and your fate in the hands of God and not be charged with the existentialist spirit of invictus is damaging... Nietzsche didn't take issue with the laws or even the following of the laws. he took issue with the lawmaker and why those who followed the laws did so. it was all for the wrong reason. |
what we call social conservatism, if reached upon by the right way, would be in keeping with Nietzsche.
all your post did was say he wasn't a racist or pro-german... am i a racist? am i pro-german? no on both accounts yet i'm still a fascist. really, imran, what was the point of that quote and your bolding?
you said...
quote:
If anything Nietzsche would have hated social conservativism, as he was anti-religion and believed in that our drives were important to realize, which social conservatism seems to want to push down (preaching abstinence, for one). |
exactly. he was anti-religion... Nietzsche was actually quite reactionary on a few things such as women... he also favoured abstinence because he felt that the re-absorption of semen into the blood contributed to a feeling of power, making the would-be superman feel more confident and in control. I quote...
"The reabsoption of semen by the blood is the strongest nourishment and, perhaps more than any other factor, it prompts the stimulus of power, the unrest of all forces toward the overcoming of resistances, the thirst for contradiction and resistance. The feeling of power has so far mounted highest in abstinent priests and hermits (for example, among the Brahmins)."
Yes, Nietzsche favoured abstinence, but not for any "because God said so" reason.
quote:
He is also a moral skeptic, believing that no ethical statement cannot be proven to be true, and are just mere interpretations rather than fact. A social conservative probably wouldn't like that sort of relativism. |
and Nietzsche would also say that despite there being moral perspectivism, one must still treat his own interpretation of the world as an absolute. it is for that reason that all must impose or try to impose their will upon the world... but it must always be for the right reason... not for God or because God commanded it but because I commanded it.
Last edited by Albert Speer on 30-11-2004 at 20:51
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:18.
Apolyton Time is 00:18. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
30-11-2004 03:05
|