 |
| |
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
where oh where did you disabuse that notion out of me? I've just read all these pages since I last posted and do not see anything but misinterpretations of fascism and misinterpretations of nietzsche...
i'll just go through...
quote:
No, he does not "care about power" in the sense you talk about- he would view hitler as a great example of the slave mentality, a nihilist peddling ideas of fear, and a mob following him as slaves. |
where do you get this from? Martin Heidegger was the premiere Nietzsche scholar and a philosophy himself... he philosophied the metaphysics that he believed were a result of Nietzsche. Heidegger, of course, was a supporter of Fascism.
and I'll quote OzzyKP...
quote:
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. |
this sums it all up. The will to power is a biological and physical fact. Competition is the way of the universe. the chapter "The strong man is mightiest alone" that i quoted from Hitler's Mein Kampf shows fascism's rise from Nietzscheanism... Hitler describes how men become disillusioned with religion and the strong among them create new values on new tablets... they are new creators leading a movement to replace the old... these men compete among each other in order for the strongest man, the strongest view, to be dominant. How is Hitler's description of history and of fascism any different than Nietzsche?
quote:
The person having absolute power will only result in a slave morality type of system that stifles creativity. |
i think Nietzsche made it very clear that the chandalas must be separated from the higher men.
What are you two trying to argue? that Nietzsche favoured equality? I'm trying to understand... if so, that is very much not true... the chapter entitled "the tarantula" in Zarathustra addresses this and Nietzsche addressed it in nearly all of his works.
quote:
He doesn't focus on the one man, but on anyone who wants to be a creator. |
yeah but he makes it quite clear that there will always be a massive rabble that is too inferior to be the overman... these will be the chandalas that the Christians pander to... strong of espirit but weak. their sheer numbers will tend to crush the uncommon men.
Do you think Nietzsche believed that all common men could become uncommon men? is that what you're arguing?
maybe we need to get some foundation here... is moral perspectivism necessarily egoistic? can we agree on that? If an individual himself is the fashioner of his reality (the existentialist/perspectivist viewpoint which Nietzsche postulated) can he be anything but egoistic? he only knows himself and he operates under the biological fact of will to power, seeking with every part of his being to impose his will upon the reality that he creates.
Can we agree on that? if so, Nietzsche can not possibly be a libertarian philospher... where do you see equal rights and liberty in Nietzsche? Hitler, in Mein Kampf, seems to have extended the will to power and moral perspectivism to it's logical conclusion... history becomes a competition between millions of individuals, all seeking to impose their will upon others.
Unfortunately, Nietzsche felt, the masses had too much espirit and too many numbers. they could flood over the few uncommon men and impose their own will upon society... a will of a slavish society... a will of an equal society... equal rights and liberty were slavish ideals to make the uncouth masses feel like the equals to the uncommon men.
Nietzsche wanted these uncommon men to surpasses the masses, despite their numbers and espirit. He respected the rabble for managing to create new values (good and evil, etc.) and impose them so sucessfully by castrating the uncommon men but he hoped his ideas, along with the ideas of the times which he felt were already making God irrelevant and disproving equality, would give new strength to the uncommon men so that they may impose their will upon a society with it's precious chandala values of equality and liberty being made obselete.
quote:
Nietzsche saw some Asian religious values as verging very close to nihilism in their rejection of the exstence of this world and its meaning- also part of why he hated the slave mentality- at some point, they hate so much they hate existence itself and deny it: essentially totally devaluing the sensual world for a made believe afterlife |
what Asian religion? Nietzsche liked the relegation of the chandalas to an inferior status, exhibited in Hinduism... Buddhism has no after-life to speak of... and anyway, Nietzsche seemed to greatly prefer Buddhism over Christianity... I quote from The AntiChrist...
quote:
I hope that my condemnation of Christianity has not involved me in any injustice to a related religion with an even larger number of adherents: Buddhism. Both belong together as nihilistic religions—they are religions of décadence—but they differ most remarkably. For being in a position now to compare them, the critic of Christianity is profoundly grateful to the students of India.— Buddhism is a hundred times more realistic than Christianity: posing problems objectively and coolly is part of its inheritance, for Buddhism comes after a philosophic movement which spanned centuries. The concept of “God” had long been disposed of when it arrived. Buddhism is the only genuinely positivistic religion in history. This applies even to its theory of knowledge (a strict phenomenalism—): it no longer says “struggle against sin” but, duly respectful of reality, “struggle against suffering.” Buddhism is profoundly distinguished from Christianity by the fact that the self-deception of the moral concepts lies far behind it. In my terms, it stands beyond good and evil.— The two physiological facts on which it is based and which it keeps in mind are: first, an excessive sensitivity, which manifests itself in a refined susceptibility to pain; and second, an overspiritualization, an all-too-long preoccupation with concepts and logical procedures, which has damaged the instinct of personality by subordinating it to the “impersonal” (—both states which at least some of my readers, those who are “objective” like myself, will know from experience). These physiological conditions have led to a depression, and the Buddha proceeds against this with hygienic measures. Against it he recommends life in the open air, the wandering life; moderation in eating and a careful selection of foods; wariness of all intoxicants; wariness also of all emotions that activate the gall bladder or heat the blood; no worry either for oneself or for others. He prescribes ideas which are either soothing or cheering—he invents means for weaning oneself from all the others. He understands goodness and graciousness as health-promoting. Prayer is ruled out, and so is asceticism; there is no categorial imperative, no compulsion whatever, not even in the monastic societies (—one may leave again—). All these things would merely increase the excessive sensitivity we mentioned. For the same reason, he does not ask his followers to fight those who think otherwise: there is nothing to which his doctrine is more opposed than the feeling of revenge, antipathy, ressentiment (—“it is not by enmity that enmity is ended”: that is the stirring refrain of all Buddhism ...). And all this is quite right: these emotions would indeed be utterly unhealthy in view of the basic hygienic purpose. Against the spiritual exhaustion he encounters, which manifests itself in an excessive “objectivity” (that is, in the individual’s loss of interest in himself, in the loss of a center of gravity, of “egoism”), he fights with a rigorous attempt to lead back even the most spiritual interests to the person. In the Buddha’s doctrine, egoism becomes a duty: the “one thing needful,” the question “how can you escape from suffering?” regulates and limits the whole spiritual diet. (Perhaps one may here recall that Athenian who also waged war against any pure “scientism”—Socrates, who elevated personal egoism to an ethic, even in the realm of problems.)
Buddhism presupposes a very mild climate, customs of great gentleness and liberality, and the absence of militarism; moreover, the movement had to originate among the higher, and even the scholarly, classes. Cheerfulness, calm, and freedom from desire are the highest goal, and the goal is attained. Buddhism is not a religion in which one merely aspires to perfection: perfection is the normal case. — |
|
|
| |
|
|
|
GePap
|
 |
of the Big Apple
Nov 2001
time: 23:18
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
where do you get this from? Martin Heidegger was the premiere Nietzsche scholar and a philosophy himself... he philosophied the metaphysics that he believed were a result of Nietzsche. Heidegger, of course, was a supporter of Fascism. |
Heidegger is not the sole interpreter of Nietzsche-his ideas are his own.
quote:
this sums it all up. The will to power is a biological and physical fact. Competition is the way of the universe. the chapter "The strong man is mightiest alone" that i quoted from Hitler's Mein Kampf shows fascism's rise from Nietzscheanism... |
Ah, no. Nietzsche did not peddle is pseudo-biological nonsense that marked the National Socialist movement. You also utterly ignore Nietzsche's ideal of man as creator vs. the Nazi and general fascist notion that the nation follows one single leader without thinking. Specially after he condemns the state.
quote:
Hitler describes how men become disillusioned with religion and the strong among them create new values on new tablets... they are new creators leading a movement to replace the old... these men compete among each other in order for the strongest man, the strongest view, to be dominant. How is Hitler's description of history and of fascism any different than Nietzsche? |
Hitler may use Nietzsche's language, but that in no way means he got it- otherwise he would have seen Nietzsche's vehement attacks on anti-semitism and against Germanic influences which he saw as weak. And fascism came AFTER Nietzsche, so Nietzsche says nothing in particular about facism.
quote:
What are you two trying to argue? that Nietzsche favoured equality? I'm trying to understand... if so, that is very much not true... the chapter entitled "the tarantula" in Zarathustra addresses this and Nietzsche addressed it in nearly all of his works. |
Certainly Nietzsche does not favor equality, but he is also against Mass Politics, and fascism is a Mass political movement. Totalitarianism by a state is the impossition of values on all men, even the superior ones, by scared underlings. Note how he sees rampant anti-semitism as a sign of weakness, and for someone to peddle a mass political movement based on that is a grand testament to their slavish mindset.
yeah but he makes it quite clear that there will always be a massive rabble that is too inferior to be the overman... these will be the chandalas that the Christians pander to... strong of espirit but weak. their sheer numbers will tend to crush the uncommon men.
Do you think Nietzsche believed that all common men could become uncommon men? is that what you're arguing?
quote:
maybe we need to get some foundation here... is moral perspectivism necessarily egoistic? can we agree on that? If an individual himself is the fashioner of his reality (the existentialist/perspectivist viewpoint which Nietzsche postulated) can he be anything but egoistic? he only knows himself and he operates under the biological fact of will to power, seeking with every part of his being to impose his will upon the reality that he creates. Can we agree on that? |
For the most part, yes.
quote:
if so, Nietzsche can not possibly be a libertarian philospher... where do you see equal rights and liberty in Nietzsche? Hitler, in Mein Kampf, seems to have extended the will to power and moral perspectivism to it's logical conclusion... history becomes a competition between millions of individuals, all seeking to impose their will upon others. |
Sorry, that is NOT the logical conlusion whatsoever. That is where you are totally wrong. Because Hitler postulates a struggle between Nations, not individuals. Nietzschaen ideals taken to an extreme resemble something Ayn Rand said than anything Hitler says.
quote:
Unfortunately, Nietzsche felt, the masses had too much espirit and too many numbers. they could flood over the few uncommon men and impose their own will upon society... a will of a slavish society... a will of an equal society... equal rights and liberty were slavish ideals to make the uncouth masses feel like the equals to the uncommon men. |
And what does a totalitarian fascist system do but just that?
quote:
Nietzsche wanted these uncommon men to surpasses the masses, despite their numbers and espirit. He respected the rabble for managing to create new values (good and evil, etc.) and impose them so sucessfully by castrating the uncommon men but he hoped his ideas, along with the ideas of the times which he felt were already making God irrelevant and disproving equality, would give new strength to the uncommon men so that they may impose their will upon a society with it's precious chandala values of equality and liberty being made obselete. |
HItler does not at all fit this notion, for his is simply a very successful slave who came to lead slaves-
quote:
what Asian religion? Nietzsche liked the relegation of the chandalas to an inferior status, exhibited in Hinduism... Buddhism has no after-life to speak of... and anyway, Nietzsche seemed to greatly prefer Buddhism over Christianity... I quote from The AntiChrist... |
In the first sentence he calls Buddhism another nihilist religion like Christianity.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Albert Speer
not to sound... what's the word? but this thread was about me 
there's a number of crucial differences between fascism and american conservatism. both are socially conservative and at least marginally free market capitalist but beyond that...
fascism is irreligious (actually being existentialist), is not opposed to social programs, supports Keynesian fiscal policy, supports corporatist capitalism, supports a strong gov't especially with respect to security and defence, is nationalistic, and has an aggressive, unilateral foreign policy.
as we know, the GOP has at times been somewhat supportive of the above (Teddy Roosevelt comes to mind) but mostly not.
what option do i have? will the GOP represent me more fully, as some people claim or am i stuck with picking the closest option availible (the GOP)? |
There is no fascist option in the US. A Fascist in America wouldn't vote, or would have to write in someone. The Fascist parties in America are more concerned with the mystical-racial aspects than the socio-economic aspects of Fascism. If you're really a fascist then you couldn't in good conscience support either the Dems or the GOP.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by GePap
Fascism is not socially conservative: its socially disruptive.
But the fact Nietzshce was anti-nationalist makes him anti-fascist.
Fascism is a political ideology that at its base assumes that the most important association people make is to their culture and the nation it creates. This puts it in conflict with communism, that assumes ones job title is the most important association-hence the notion of class- worker vs capitalist and so forth. Just as Marx has proleteriat vs. bourgeouis, fascists have X nation vs. any others. Fascists hate communism because for them it destroys national unity (by pinning the proleteriat members of the nation from the bourgeouis members) and undemrines the common culture that makes the nation the nation.
The state, as he embodiment of the nation, is also a crucial piece of fascist ideals. One body is necessary to unite the nation and give it cohesion and purpose- and that body is the State.
Nietzsche was anti-State and anti-Nation. You can;t be anti-State and anti-Nation and be a fascist. |
Good summary Gepap.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Wycoff
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Fascism is by far the greatest slave morality system. Social conservatism is not far behind. |
I'd put Stalinist Communism on the exact same footing as Fascism in this regard.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Albert Speer
|
|
Puerile Polemic
Mar 1999
time: 00:18
|
|
quote:
Heidegger is not the sole interpreter of Nietzsche-his ideas are his own. |
true but he was still heavily influenced by Nietzsche. If Nietzsche was so opposed to proto-fascism, as you claim, how would his philosophical successor by a devout national socialist?
and it wasn't just Heidegger... Dadaist, expressionist, and futurist artists like Salvador Dali, Primo Conti, etc. who are often interpreted as the visual artistic sucessors to Nietzsche, with their emphasis on a devaluation of values, individualism, manly heroism, etc., were all fascists.
if Nietzsche wasn't at least neutral to fascism, why did all his intellectual and artistic successors embrace it?
quote:
Nietzsche did not peddle is pseudo-biological nonsense that marked the National Socialist movement. |
the will to power is a biological fact. Nietzsche said every organism (and perhaps even non-living forces) sought to impose their will upon the universe.
quote:
Hitler may use Nietzsche's language, but that in no way means he got it- otherwise he would have seen Nietzsche's vehement attacks on anti-semitism and against Germanic influences which he saw as weak. |
only the national socialists were anti-semitic. the majority of fascist states were not so this is a bit of an irrelevancy. fascism is not necessarily anti-semitic.
and Nietzsche's beef with Germany was similiar to Hitler's. Both didn't care much for modern Germany yet both cherished the pagan barbarism of ancient Germany. Both despised the Germany of Kant, Goethe, and Marx yet both loved the Germany of the Nibelungenlied.
quote:
HItler does not at all fit this notion, for his is simply a very successful slave who came to lead slaves- |
a very successful slave who came to lead slaves by paraphrasing Nietzsche in his manifesto of Mein Kampf? Hitler said clearly that history was made up of competing movements led by competing uncommon men. so no one would make a mistake that he wasn't referencing Nietzsche, Hitler even mentions the reason of a new, fascist movement... a disillusionment with religion necessitating a need for a revaluation of values.
your own interpretation of fascism is irrelevant. read the words of its proponents.
quote:
In the first sentence he calls Buddhism another nihilist religion like Christianity. |
and yet he goes on to say only positive things about Buddhism. did you even read it? His attitude seems to be that Buddhism may be a nihilist religion but it is a positivistic one and therefore, is the best there is. Its problem is that it assumes a certain high level of peace and civilization.
Nietzsche says that though the Buddhist concept of respecting and ignoring (transcending) suffering is far better than the Christian attitude of embracing suffering for a heavenly reward, it still does not match the barbarian attitude of preventing suffering. Taking suffering on the chin because that is all you can do is fine (far better than turning the other cheek to have heaven) but it is better to prevent it and struggle against it (as Nietzsche would favor)
|
|
| |
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 23:37
|
|