Threaded index     Date index     FAQ


Some personal thoughts on Nietzsche

Posted by diogenes on 2024-September-6 18:46:49, Friday
In reply to An appreciation of Nietzsche-manny-pedos only! posted by Scotusbaby on 2024-September-6 13:57:13, Friday

I first encountered Nietzsche as a teen as well. I was fourteen, and the first work of Nietzsche's I read was Twilight of the Idols. The effect was one of tremendous excitement; which was reinforced by my reading The Anti-Christ and Beyond Good and Evil. I think Nietzsche's prose, his rhetoric, appeals to a certain kind of boy who is perhaps a bit repressed. Nietzsche's anti-feminism appealed to me as well. I felt smothered by my mother, hated her in fact, so Nietzsche's attacks on women were highly congenial.

Over the decades, however, I have come to feel that Nietzsche's appeal is rather too much an emotional one. His ethics, which is the centre of his philosophy, is incoherent. On the one hand, he values nobility and pride and manly virtues; on the other, he opposes the socialist revolt of the proletarian slaves as ignoble. But if it is the slavishness of the slaves that makes them contemptible, then how can Nietzsche oppose them when they cast off their slavishness and claim the same dignity and means to flourish as their masters?

As soon as the slaves revolt against their masters, Nietzsche ought to grant that they thereby become noble, and become worthy of being regarded as the equals of their erstwhile masters. Certainly, the slave revolt can be an outcome of resentment and mean-spiritedness. But this is not true of all revolutionaries. Does anyone really think of Spartacus as an ignoble figure?

Nietzsche criticises Christianity for supposedly being the source of the belief in equality due to the doctrine of 'the equality of all souls before God'. But this is a threadbare connection, and in fact things surely go the other way. Christianity, through its doctrine that the meek shall inherit the Kingdom – but only in another world, and by supernatural agency – has always reconciled the poor to their status in this world. Socialism has little to do with Christianity and more to do with industrialism.

Again, Nietzsche claims that Christianity poisons the minds of the nobles, makes them despise themselves. But this seems improbable. Throughout the many centuries when Christianity was dominant in Europe, the aristocracy rarely evinced any bouts of conscience over its privileges. The authentic voice of the nobility in Christian Europe is surely represented by the wonderfully contemptuous words of Richard II to the peasants: 'Villeins ye are, and villeins ye shall remain!'

Outside of ethics, when Nietzsche puts forward positive theories, they are usually of little theoretical value. Take the will to power. The whole notion that all human passions and drives are actually disguised versions of a single drive is most improbable. Not even Freud thought that. Nor is the doctrine seriously argued for. It is merely announced in Zarathustra as a private epiphany, to which we are to offer humble acquiescence.

The same is true of the eternal recurrence. Here, the thesis might be true in an unbounded space-time. But so what? Any duplicate of myself in some other region of space and time is not a continuation of me, and I find that it is no consolation for my death to think that a qualitatively identical life unfolds elsewhere or elsewhen in the universe.

Far from finding the thought of eternal recurrence an overwhelming burden, I find that I am totally indifferent to it. Furthermore, I believe that this is the attitude that it is rational to adopt. Any other attitude falls into the trap of thinking that my duplicates are somehow me, even though no incarnation can recall a previous incarnation, and there is no psychological continuity or connection between one incarnation and the other. Nietzsche's thought on this matter is muddled.

Nietzsche's valorisation of pain makes sense within the context of a perfectionist virtue ethics, but only because he carefully restricts his consideration to the sorts of pains and sufferings that are consistent with writing books. He never deals with what one might call annihilating suffering, the sort that simply destroys. What would he make of the trenches of WWI, of Auschwitz, of Hiroshima, of the AIDS epidemic, or of the threat of global nuclear war? Nietzsche doesn't face up to real suffering; his view of suffering is always abstract, sentimental and unreal.

Indeed, his devotees often do the same, talking of confronting 'the nihil', or similar abstractions, rather than the piles of dead bodies at Auschwitz. The problem is that Nietzsche was born in an epoch that was relatively civilised and peaceful (for Europeans). And he is bored with civilisation and craves war and suffering. But we who have lived though the times since Nietzsche know what real suffering is; and we can hardly be expected to take quite the same view.

This doesn't mean that Nietzsche is always wrong. One of the aspects of Twilight of the Idols that makes it such an exciting book is that it opens with an attack on the figure of Socrates as represented by Plato. This figure has been valorised by endless scholars, but Nietzsche argues that there was something unGreek, even anti-Greek, about Socrates. I am inclined to agree. Socrates and Plato are somewhat disastrous in the ethical sphere, and Nietzsche was right to try to strip these figures of the aura of reverence that surrounds them.

But mostly, Nietzsche simply doesn't address the philosophical questions that are of most interest to me. I feel that the twentieth century has finally brought some genuine progress in philosophy, after millenia of endless systems. In the writings of such philosophers as Honderich, Parfit, and Donald Davidson, basing themselves on the earlier work of Moore and Russell, it seems to me that our understanding on substantive questions has been advanced. It is through such careful analytical means, not through 'storming the barricades' in Nietzsche's grand rhetorical manner, that genuine progress is possible.


diogenes

Follow ups:

Post a response:

Nickname:

Password:

Email (optional):
Subject:


Message:


Link URL (optional):

Link Title (optional):


Add your sigpic?

Here are Seven Rules for posting on this forum.

1. Do not post erotica or overly-detailed sexual discussions.
2. Do not request, offer, or post links to illegal material, including pictures.
3. Don't annoy the cogs.
4. Do not reveal identifying details about yourself or other posters.
5. Do not advocate or counsel sex with minors.
6. Do not post admissions of, or accuse others of, potentially illegal activities.
7. Do not request meetings with posters who are under age 18.

Posts made to BoyChat are subject to inclusion in the monthly BoyChat Digest. If you do not want your posts archived in the BC Digest, or want specific posts of yours removed after inclusion, please email The BC Digest.