 |
| |
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
what we call social conservatism, if reached upon by the right way, would be in keeping with Nietzsche. |
Nope. It's putting in place a slave morality. Nietzche would have hated it and spoke out against the social conservatism of his time.
quote:
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? |
The point of the bolding was that he was anti-nationalist and anti-state. That's directly opposed to Fascism.
quote:
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. |
You've misread Nietzsche. He does not believe in any moral absolutes in anyway. Like he says, all ethics are interpretations of people and those who claim absolutes in morality are just totally wrong.
And imposing your will doesn't mean creating societies with slave morality (such as social conservatism definetly does). It means giving in to your baser desires (your id, in Freud speak) and not fighting it and put it in your pocket.
No matter how much you want it to, Speer, Nietzsche in no way is supportive of social conservatism or Fascism. He's an ultra liberal, believing in super individualism (society is bunk, which you'd never hear a social conservative claim) and moral relativity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
GePap:
quote:
One man somewhere proclaims a truth and forms a movement which is intended to serve the realization of his purpose.... may be that centuries, dissatisfied with the form of their religious life, yearn for a renewal, and that from this psychic urge dozens and more men arise who on the basis of their insight and their knowledge believe themselves chosen to solve this religious distress, to manifest themselves as prophets of a new doctrine, or at least as warriors against an existing one... The fact that such movements, parties, religious groups, arise entirely independent of one another, solely from the general will of the times to act in the same direction, is what, at least at first sight, seems tragic, because people incline too much to the opinion that the forces scattered among the different ways, could, if concentrated upon a single one, lead more quickly and surely to success.
This, however, is not the case. For Nature itself in its inexorable logic makes the decision, by causing the different groups to enter into competition with one another and struggle for the palm of victory, and leads that movement to the goal which has chosen the clearest, shortest, and surest way....
For as soon as a man appears who profoundly recognizes the distress of his people and then, after he has attained the ultimate clarity with regard to the nature of the disease, seriously tries to cure it, when he has set a goal and chosen the road that can lead to this goal -
immediately small and petty minds take notice and begin to follow eagerly the activity of this man who has attracted the public eye.
These people are just like sparrows who, apparently uninterested, but in reality most attentive, keep watching a more fortunate comrade who has found a piece of bread, in hopes of suddenly robbing him in an unguarded moment...
Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions. |
-Chapter 8 of Mein Kampf, "The Strong Man is Mightiest Alone" clearly has Nietzsche written all over it.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Nope. It's putting in place a slave morality. Nietzche would have hated it and spoke out against the social conservatism of his time. |
and yet Nietzsche made it clear that he favoured abstinence! why? not because God said so (THAT is slave morality) but because it contributed to the biological/psychological/spiritual betterment of the individual by making him feel stronger by the absorption of semen into the blood... in other words, to Nietzsche abstinence was good... was practical... it's wasn't good because God commanded it and it's opposite (sex) was declared evil by God!
quote:
You've misread Nietzsche. He does not believe in any moral absolutes in anyway. Like he says, all ethics are interpretations of people and those who claim absolutes in morality are just totally wrong. |
exactly but Nietzsche was also somewhat of an egoist. do i need to explain to you what the will to power is or do you already know that it is a doctrine by which all beings seek, biologically, to fashion reality in their own image...
it's inescapable. Nietzsche repudiated all objective values (though saying the will to power was an objective truth, contradictingly) and claimed that 'reality' was just one's perception of what he sensed. Perspectivism is necessarily egoistic as if all that is is only what one experiences or wishes to experience, then one has complete control over one's own reality so therefore, fashions reality in his image, and therefore, seeks to impose his will, his beliefs, his convictions, his personality, upon the reality that he has fashioned. perspectivism necessarily leads to egoism...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Imran:
quote:
He wants each individual to transcend. |
each individual? where in god's name did you get that? Selective reading?
only the uncommon may transcend! the masses are too weak, made weaker by religion, to do so.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Imran:
super-liberal? I quote from Twilight of the Idols:
quote:
My conception of freedom.— The value of a thing sometimes does not lie in that which one attains by it, but in what one pays for it—what it costs us. I give an example. Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic [genüsslich]—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization
These same institutions produce quite different effects while they are still being fought for; then they really promote freedom in a powerful way. On closer inspection it is war that produces these effects, the war for liberal institutions, which, as a war, permits illiberal instincts to continue. And war educates for freedom. For what is freedom? That one has the will to self-responsibility. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." The human being who has become free—and how much more the spirit who has become free—spits on the contemptible type of well-being dreamed of by shopkeepers, Christians, cows, females, Englishmen, and other democrats. The free man is a warrior.
How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves—most beautiful type: Julius Caesar—; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit—and forces us to be strong ... First principle: one must need to be strong—otherwise one will never become strong.— Those large hothouses [Treibhäuser] for the strong, for the strongest kind of human being that has ever been, the aristocratic commonwealths of the type of Rome or Venice, understood freedom exactly in the sense in which I understand the word freedom: as something one has and does not have, something one wants, something one conquers ... |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Arrian
|
 |
Kneel before Grog!
Jul 2001
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Liberal institutions cease to be liberal as soon as they are attained: later on, there are no worse and no more thorough injurers of freedom than liberal institutions. One knows, indeed, what their ways bring: they undermine the will to power; they level mountain and valley, and call that morality; they make men small, cowardly, and hedonistic [genüsslich]—every time it is the herd animal that triumphs with them. Liberalism: in other words, herd-animalization |
Anti-society, that's for sure. Uber-libertarian, perhaps.
The man was a wackjob. A smart one, but a wackjob nonetheless.
-Arrian
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
once again...
quote:
For what is freedom? That one has the will to self-responsibility. That one maintains the distance which separates us. That one becomes more indifferent to difficulties, hardships, privation, even to life itself. That one is prepared to sacrifice human beings for one's cause, not excluding oneself. Freedom means that the manly instincts which delight in war and victory dominate over other instincts, for example, over those of "pleasure." |
as for individualism...
quote:
The natural value of egoism.— Self-interest is worth as much as the person who has it: it can be worth a great deal, and it can be unworthy and contemptible. Every individual may be scrutinized to see whether he represents the ascending or the descending line of life. Having made that decision, one has a canon for the worth of his self-interest. If he represents the ascending line, then his worth is indeed extraordinary—and for the sake of life as a whole, which takes a step farther through him, the care for his preservation and for the creation of the optimum conditions for him may even be extreme. The single one, the "individual," as hitherto understood by the people and the philosophers alike, is an error after all: he is nothing by himself, no atom, no "link in the chain," nothing merely inherited from former times—he is the whole single line of humanity up to himself ... If he represents the descending development, decay, chronic degeneration, and sickness (—sicknesses are, in general, the consequences of decay, not its causes), then he has small worth, and the minimum of decency requires that he take away as little as possible from those who have turned out well. He is merely their parasite ... |
an individual is but the present form of those who came before him...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Imran:
the human-line concept of an individual is very much not anti-society. it says a man is a society within himself (politics of the soul).
quote:
it becomes clear in which people the hatred, the chandala hatred, against this "humaneness" has eternalized itself, where it has become religion, where it has become genius ... Seen in this perspective, the Gospels represent a document of prime importance [ersten Ranges]; even more, the Book of Enoch.— Christianity, sprung from Jewish roots and comprehensible only as a growth on this soil, represents the counter-movement to any morality of breeding, of race, privilege:—it is the anti-Aryan religion par excellence. Christianity, the revaluation of all Aryan values, the victory of chandala values, the gospel preached to the poor and base, the general revolt of all the downtrodden, the wretched, the failures, the less favored [Schlechtweggekommenen], against "race": the undying chandala hatred as the religion of love ... |
how are those the words of one believing in equality of all men? there is the uncommon man then there are the base, poor, wretched failures...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
OzzyKP
|
 |
Rockville, MD
Oct 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
quote:
it is a doctrine by which all beings seek, biologically, to fashion reality in their own image... |
And yet, Nietzsche has always spoken out against systems which perpetuate the slave morality. He believed in the Will to Power, but it was solely as an individual goal and not to change society into making the superman king and the rest of the people sheep. That's a twisting of Nietzsche which sounds similar to what his sister did.
His belief is one of utter individualism. He would abhor someone transforming society into making most people sheep and trapped in a slave morality. Fascism is by far the greatest slave morality system. Social conservatism is not far behind. |
You read Nietzsche with rose colored glasses. He isn't saying "everyone should be free to do whatever they will, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else." No, that, he reasons is a corruption of the will. Nietzsche says you have an absolute freedom to do whatever you will." Period. My will to power is directly in opposition to your will to power.
The highest state possible for a Nietzsche individual is to be dictator of a nation, or several nations. You are right, he doesn't care about states or nationality, so in that sense, sure he isn't fascist. But he IS authoritarian. He favors one person having absolute power. Absolute will to power.
He hates slave morality insofar as it hinders that one great man from pursuiing his will to power. I bet he would approve of a slave morality with the explicit purpose of serving one great man's will to power. The classical morality he praised explicitly had a component of hero worship and honoring, praising, and obeying great men.
Forget this namby-pamby "you can do what you want as long as it doesn't hurt anyone else" crap. That's not Nietzsche. That is slavish. Do what you want, if it hurts others, then who cares?
Maybe thats not fascism, but it sounds damn close.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
Arrian:
quote:
Speaking of which, Speer, how does a guy who supposedly favors abstinence acquire such a disease? Inquiring minds wanna know... |
he was quite healthy until the Franco-Prussian War where he served as an orderly. he contracted it there... and it is possible to spread syphilis through direct contact (it isn't just an STD)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Maybe thats not fascism, but it sounds damn close. |
take that quote I posted from Mein Kampf... sounds very Nietzschean as Hitler described men being disillusioned with religion and competing for command of a new movement to re-evalute all values. that is fascism and that is nietzscheanism.
Hitler says it best when he says...
quote:
Great, truly world-shaking revolutions of a spiritual nature are not even conceivable and realizable except as the titanic struggles of individual formations, never as enterprises of coalitions. |
|
|
| |
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 20:44
|