If Nietzsche believed in "might is right," then why was he against the herd, who he acknowledge has the might of numbers on their side?
If Nietzsche believed in "make up your own morals," then why was he a biological determinist whose perspectivism was rooted in one's physiology and genetics?
Will people ever realize that the liberal misreadings from Kaufmann were just that — misreadings?
 |
 |
|
> If Nietzsche believed in "might is right," then why was he against the herd, who he acknowledge has the might of numbers on their side?
Where did Nietzsche ever say might is right? The word “right” in this context isn’t exactly in his vocabulary. He is beyond good and evil, beyond right and wrong. Still, he as a human probably values the survival of our species, and wants humans to be greater and more capable than they are now. If the herd were to somehow prevent this from happening, then Nietzsche would describe that this happened because the herd was powerful, but he wouldn’t say “oh well, might is right, no reason to complain.”
He never did, that's my point. Those who ascribe "might is right" onto him haven't read much of his work and just saw the word "power" in one of his main ideas.
He said that power determines truth, that is equivalent to might is right. It always amazes how you moral homosexuals scrounge for character flaws instead of looking at a statements logical consistency. If Nietzsche said might is right, what does that have to do with him as a person, if he said triangles are four sided, would you ask why he was lonely or look at the consistency of the statement. Are you homosexuals unable to think about something without divorcing yourselves from lazy ad hominems?
>He said that power determines truth, that is equivalent to might is right.
This is a completely disingenuous and inaccurate paraphrasing of what he said.
"Truth is will to power" was his message — and that means that our truth, the one we see from our perspective, is BORN from that perspective, which is the will to power. We are, as individual, evolving organisms, a quantum of power, gravitating towards more power (the strong wish to discharge their strength, which is in itself a kind of power, while the weak wish to consume the strength of others like vampires). The quantum of power we are and this will to power that we are creates our "truth." In no way is this a declaration of "might is right" — if he believed such a thing, he wouldn't have rejected the herd, which he knew had might on its side, and wrote that the exceptionally strong were in greater need of preservation and protection than the masses for this reason.
>this will to power that we are creates our "truth."
how is this different from anyone claiming their will to power is more truthful than any other person's. It's a direct corollary to that statement. If you were to assume some individuals have more 'will to power' than others, then that leads to might is right by definition, and hence their truth is what the masses follow. The reference from will to truth alone proves this, you don't need to write a 1000 word essay detailing context as your contention.
>how is this different from anyone claiming their will to power is more truthful than any other person's
There's no such thing as "more truthful" and Nietzsche never implicated otherwise.
He doesn't need to lmao, that assumption follows from the statement, are you incapable of following statements to their logical conclusions? When i say the water is red and someone follows by saying that if you drink it, it will stain your teeth red, will you then tell the person that i didn't say that and therefore it can't be true?
>that assumption follows from the statement
No. There's a variation in strength between wills, but all truth is on an equal level, in the sense that all of it is a product of one function: will to power. The aristocratic spirit considers the truth of the exceptionally strong to be superior to the truth of the masses, but the masses have the greater might and influence; Nietzsche himself regarded natural selection as the process by which the mediocre in a species become the defining form of said species, and that the "higher species" does not have any lasting influence on its evolutionary development.
>but all truth is on an equal level
This assumes that everyone has their own truth and even if they did, only the powerful get to enforce their own version.
The masses might have the greater might, but they still need to follow someone. This is as you put it evolutionary and follows from humans being social mammals. So whoever gets to lead assumes the position of truth maker by definition and naturally of course. You don't even need Nietzsche to support this claim for it to be true or observable.
>This assumes that everyone has their own truth
They do. Nietzschean perspectivism means truth is only a product of your physiological, genetic, and neuropsychological makeup, not of some metaphysical ranking of life forms. It doesn't matter if you're the overman, the shepherd, or the herd, every truth is emergent, and bound only to these individual conditions.
Yes and the truth that floats to the top is mediated using might.
Yes, but the aristocratic spirit doesn't care about the truth that "floats to the top," because that's always the truth of the mediocre masses who are incapable of surviving the depths. If all Nietzsche cared about was this truth, the truths of the mighty, he would be just another shepherd, a loud-mouthed kraut like Wagner, i.e. a cult of personality moron who thinks fame and popularity among the masses are gateways into greatness.
You don't get me, the truth that gets to the top doesn't discriminate btn aristocracy or peasant, and for it to get to the top, it has to use might. That's what nietzsche meant and those individuals who manage to mediate their own truths are what he meant by ubermensch.
>That's what nietzsche meant
No it isn't, moron. You don't get him at all. The overman has nothing to do with this cult of personality bullshit. This is why he rejected Wagner and called Carlyle a homosexual.
The masses don't even know this individual exists, and when they do encounter him, they fear him and label him as the devil. Greatness is always also greatly "evil" — it moves unconditionally and without any concern for those around it. The masses lack the aristocratic spirit and therefore have no appreciation or taste for what the aristocrat cares about. They're utilitarians who don't care about anything beyond survival. The overman will never be recognized by the masses. Zarathustra faces this reality constantly throughout the book.
That doesn't refute what i said, moron. A person can mediate truth from the shadows and not be known by anyone, this moronic condition that he needs to be popular need not apply, as long as his brand of truth is accepted and applied, he can claim the title of ubermensch. You seem to have a proclivity to getting hang up on the most irrelevant details,
>as long as his brand of truth is accepted and applied, he can claim the title of ubermensch
The overman doesn't give a frick if he's "accepted." If anything, acceptance from the masses is a DISGRACEFUL experience for the overman.
What is "right" is only what is best at playing the game in question — the rest is moralhomosexualry.
It doesn't matter whether he cares, that's not the point, if he wants to call himself an ubermensch he can while alone or not, the point that i keep making is that truth whether peasant or aristocratic is created by might, and that might be through the effort of the ubermensch or the existing aristocracy, you don't need to read nietzsche or care about his pedantry about what the overman drinks for breakfast, or what he mutters to himself in the bathroom, this is clear from observing human history.
This sounds a bit like a misunderstanding of him, he can assert Will to Power as the truth of things because it's, according to him, the most comprehensive interpretation of facts. That's what allows him to argue against other interpretations of the facts. Whether Will to Power actually is the most comprehensive interpretation would be beside the point, namely, that there's still a standard for acceptance and rejection of perspectives as holding sway.
>there's still a standard for acceptance and rejection of perspectives as holding sway.
Any such standard is metaphysical and therefore subject to change.
>the point that i keep making is that truth whether peasant or aristocratic is created by might
If by "might," you simply mean the individual quantum of power one is, then sure. If mean something else, like a form of might that is influential in a worldly sense, or recognized in a worldly sense, then you make no sense, because the weak have their own truth. Again, the masses have the might on their side as far as evolution goes, and they regularly stomp out the truths of BOTH the weakest and strongest members of the species, over time.
Like i keep saying the masses having might doesn't mean anything as they need to follow someone. The weak can have their own truth but it doesn't apply to the strong, etc.
>masses having might doesn't mean anything as they need to follow someone
They will follow someone who panders to them, i.e., someone who will perpetuate their values. They will never follow someone with the aristocratic spirit, e.g., the overman. Which means that, historically, it's the will of the masses, i.e., of the mightiest, that survives to the next generation. But this does not mean this will is "right." Nietzsche and the "might is right" concept simply don't mix given this.
No they will follow someone who pretends to perpetuate their values while maintaining those of the status quo. This is what politicians, kings and aristocrats have been doing for thousands of years. Vote for me and i'll make your lives better is another way of saying, allow me to induct myself and my family into the ruling class. Every revolution usually starts with the masses intoxicated for change and mellows out into the aristocracy taking back power or the new revolutionaries settling into the usual roles of power. The masses are a tool for the elite, existing or new, to maintain control and order over society.
>while maintaining those of the status quo
The masses are the status quo. They elect shepherds, not overmen to lead them, when given the choice (and they raise hell when they lose that choice).
The structure you describe is merely vindicating what Nietzsche and myself are saying — the overmen need protection from the masses, who have might on their side, because they don't care about the values of the exceptional. We need institutions in place and shepherds to give space for the overmen to do their work.
What is right can't solely be what is mighty within Nietzschean perspectivism.
No they are not, the status quo doesn't serve the masses which is why the farce of democracy is a thing, and why they have to pay taxes, vote with options they don't like, work jobs they hate, listen to propaganda from the media, etc. The overmen don't need protection, they need compliance which is completely different lmao, what world are you living in? Just 10 yrs ago, big banks were bailed out after fricking the ignorant masses over, the govt is enriching pharmaceutical companies by enforcing forced vaccinations, and you think they need protection lmao, you need to get out of your safe idealisitic cocoon and see reality for what it is.
>they need compliance
For what? Organizing some ant colony?
The man we're the road to only needs a healthy aesthetic sense and the strength to not have it be crushed by pressure from the mediocre. Beauty is right, might is for terrified homosexuals.
compliance from the masses, they need the masses to listen to media, okay propaganda, fight in wars, participate in drug trials, go to school, pay taxes, consume etc.
Bureaucratic slaves to the system need those things, they're not the next step in human development.
>and why they have to pay taxes, vote with options they don't like, work jobs they hate, listen to propaganda from the media, etc.
The masses voted for all of these things. They wanted democracy. It doesn't matter if some of them are too moronic to understand this and complain about the bed they themselves made.
>The overmen don't need protection, they need compliance
Compliance is a form of protection, which they need, because they don't have the majority of the species on their side, and never will.
>big banks
>big pharma
What the frick does this have to do with anything, moron? The capitalist elite =/= the overmen.
You're fricking arguing about a concept that Nietzsche EXPLICITLY states will never be embraced by the herd. You're a special kind of moron.
They don't need the masses on their side you absolute homosexual, does a father need children on his side when he can command them about while they are in his house? Power does not negotiate, you take what we give you, and continue complaining. Nietzsche this nietzsche that, you are brainlet who is incapable of thinking for themselves without quoting some dead writer always being pedantic about the most moronic shit while not being able to understand the most basic definitions of power.
Nietzsche can't be reduced to might is right cult of personality homosexualry, which is the point of the thread and this conversation. Take your tantrum elsewhere.
No one said he could, take you misunderstanding elsewhere you misinterpreting brainlet.
>No one said he could
It was said with:
>He said that power determines truth, that is equivalent to might is right.
Will to power is not equivalent to might is right, it's an ontological concept with epistemological implications leading to Nietzschean perspectivism. Nietzschean perspectivism is not "truth is born from the strong" but "truth is born from the body." The overman is not "the strongest" either; his superiority is not about that, although he resembles the strongest more than the weakest.
In modern layman's terms, if the strong is the alpha and the weak is the beta, the overman is the sigma.
I did not say that truth is born from the strong or whatever other moronic equivalent you have come up, why do you insist on misinterpreting me, do you have a problem with parsing sentences? I said that truth is mediated by power regardless of who wields that power whether it be an alien or a human is irrelevant. That directly leads to might deciding what is right.
Define "might" because if we assume the standard definition (might = strength) then "might deciding what is right" is NOT what Nietzsche is saying AT ALL. Maybe as far as what the masses think is right, sure.
Might is power, and the masses don't wield it. The power to wrangle entire societies in a certain direction like sardines reacting together in a swarm. Nietzsche doesn't have to say it, like i have told you dozens of times, it follows from his assumption about truth being subject to will to power.
>Might is power, and the masses don't wield it.
Everyone is a certain quantum of power. This definition of power you're using isn't related to Nietzsche, and your ontological framing is more Abrahamic essentially, since it seems to deny the perspective of the other at bottom, or inch in that direction.
>truth being subject to will to power
It is not "subject" to it, it is emergent, as in created in tandem with it. His point was that truth is relative to the body that perceives it; it all comes back to the body for Nietzsche. Therefore, will to power isn't held by some and not by others, but something universally held, just in different measures, since everyone has a body of some form.
And that doesn't contradict my point. If some individuals have some measure of will to power and hence truth, and others follow that individual, then that individual decides truth for everyone else in society. By this defintion, it follows that the individual has a measure of power to decide truth regardless of whether everyone has their own truth since they still have to follow someone. The weakness to your assumption breaks down here, humans have to follow or submit or even have their minds changed by someone else, the quantum of will or power or whatever you want to call it is made irrelevant by this simple societal fact.
>If some individuals have some measure of will to power and hence truth, and others follow that individual, then that individual decides truth for everyone else in society.
They actually do not, because truth comes from within and nowhere else. It's synonymous with the body that perceives it. You can't know the truth of another body, only your own. There may be the temporary illusion that one person's truth has become another's, but the subjugation of one will to another does not eradicate the truth of the subjugated will at all. It simply goes underground, consciously or unconsciously.
You're a metaphysician attempting to grasp a philosopher who rejected metaphysics and did not put forward any metaphysical concepts.
Then truth like infinity doesn't exist, if your definition is correct. My definition of truth is what is accepted or perpetuated. You can't talk about such truth in any meaningful way, you are grasping at metaphysical ideals that have no bearing on any reality.
>Then truth like infinity doesn't exist
It doesn't. Nietzsche refuted infinity. There is no infinite body.
Then if it doesn't why are we arguing about it?
Because you're stupid and deserve to be told you're stupid.
i suppose that's the truth isn't it homosexual?
You can bet that it's mine, moron.
lmao i'm sure it only exists in your head schizo
Was that supposed to be a "gotcha"?
its certainly wasn't supposed to be your truth schizo anon
Yeah I'm aware that your peabrain has its own peatruth, peafren. Got any more based "gottems" to dish out?
>The power to wrangle entire societies
If your main concern is relating to idiots you lower yourself to their level. What can be called truth is that which survives. Because it survives it's eventually adopted by the plebs but the pioneer isn't concerned about if morons follow him or not.
>the overman is the sigma.
OH YEAH? More like SIGMA MY BALLS:
>A body-without-O, but with the dick,
>The horsened dick with giant flaming balls:
>The Dioscuri Twins—Rig Veda has it all
Eternally revolves the sphere of light
They've watched the laughing prophet dance the night,
& Madness dripping down his weary garb
He ate the book and shat the joyful branch
While peasants spied the UFOs up in the blazing sky.
What do you think about a human who do evil for evil sake
?
and those who are born evil in childbirth?what society should view these people?.
Jpg by anon not me.
The true question about Nietzsche is what did he mean when he wrote "Stick out thy gyat for thy rizzler, o thou skibidi, lest thy shall pay the fanum tax." in Thus Spake Zarathustra.
i think the meaning is clear when you place it in context with the idea of the "sigmamensch" that nietzsche develops.
>Sig Mem Mensch
>Rune Sieg hints the sun
>Mem is water in Aramaic
Fiery water. His project is the Alchemical Anthropos, i.e. Mercurius, Adam.
>If Nietzsche believed in "might is right," then why was he against the herd, who he acknowledge has the might of numbers on their side?
Quality vs Quantity. Might, in this sense, is the quality of this-or-that essence for self-intensification: its Heart.
>then why was he a biological determinist whose perspectivism was rooted in one's physiology and genetics?
Simply not true. You are reading Nietzsche from within the modern frame, but you must remember, as he himself said, he wasn't a man—he was dynamite. Meaning, his work is to blow up the logocentric mechanism from within and make way for future generations to go straight to mythic creativity, i.e.—*drum roll*—M E M E I N G.
The horse was wounded under heavy blows
The final straw in Nietzsche's Noble Work
'That's it', he thought, 'the perfect metaphor'
And pulled the triggered spirit went berserk
He shed his mortal shell and climbed the hill,
A body-without-O, but with the dick,
The horsened dick with giant flaming balls:
The Dioscuri Twins..............
>If Nietzsche believed in "might is right,"
we literally had this thread yesterday, can't we have a break?
i want answers!!!
You're a troony. Slit your throat.
Because christians are dishonest degenerates who lie up and down about their critics. They cannot bear to genuinely argue in good faith because it means their flimsy theology gets broken like a twig.
Nietzsche lived comfortably in a christian country.
Because niche is more complex than moronic shitposters understand
I recently read Beyond Good and Evil, and one of the problems I have acquired is that I now - type like him!
You conflate description with prescription. If I say "I will die" you don't ask "how come you'd rather live then". So why would you ask "why don't you want to be ruled" if Neetch tells you "the strong rule"? Which isn't to say that he put it that bluntly, because he didn't.
Hereditarianism then wasn't rooted in a gene theory and if you examine his life and works closely you'll find that he paid lots of mind to environmental factors on character development (religion, culture, diet, exercise). Regardless, even if your moral foundations were 100% reducible to genetics, what contradiction would there be?
He wrote of all that while believing Free will is a false axiom in his mind.
Read his page here just a simple summary not that hard to understand.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche_and_free_will
>links Wikipedia summary
The absolute state of IQfy
Not that guy, but that article has direct quotes on it — and if that's not good enough for you, then here's something straight from the horse's mouth:
>The demand for "freedom of the will," in that superlative metaphysical sense, as it unfortunately still rules in the heads of the half-educated, the demand to bear the entire final responsibility for one's actions oneself and to relieve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society of responsibility for it, is naturally nothing less than this very causa sui and an attempt to pull oneself into existence out of the swamp of nothingness by the hair, with more audacity than Munchhausen. Suppose someone in this way gets behind the boorish simplicity of this famous idea of the "free will" and erases it from his head, then I would invite him now to push his "enlightenment" still one step further and erase also the inverse of this incomprehensible idea of "free will" from his head: I refer to the "unfree will," which leads to an abuse of cause and effect.
>People should use "cause" and "effect" merely as pure ideas, that is, as conventional fictions to indicate and communicate, not as an explanation. In the "in itself" there is no "causal connection," no "necessity," no "psychological unfreedom," no "effect following from the cause"; no "law" holds sway. We are the ones who have, on our own, made up causes, causal sequences, for-one-another, relativity, compulsion, number, law, freedom, reason, and purpose, and when we fabricate this world of signs inside things as something "in itself," when we stir it into things, then we're once again acting as we have always done, namely, mythologically. The "unfree will" is a myth: in real life it's merely a matter of strong and weak wills.
>It is almost always already a symptom of something lacking in a thinker himself when he senses in all "causal connections" and "psychological necessity" some purpose, necessity, inevitable consequence, pressure, and unfreedom. That very feeling is a telltale give away - the person is betraying himself. And if I have seen things correctly, the "unfreedom of the will" has generally been seen as a problem from two totally contrasting points of view, but always in a deeply personal way: some people are not willing at any price to let go of their "responsibility," their belief in themselves, their personal right to their credit (the vain races belong to this group); the others want the reverse: they don't wish to be responsible for or guilty of anything, and demand, out of an inner self-contempt, that they can shift blame for themselves somewhere else.
Beyond Good and Evil §21
OP is based and has actually read Nietzsche.
However, only 1/50 IQfy posters have done the same, so this thread will be full of moronation and semantics.
Godspeed OP.
DEATH TO KAUFFMAN!
The average IQfy poster doesn’t even fricking read, they just watch a few YouTube videos about books and philosophers then head straight to the trenches of IQfy and misinterpret whatever they “learned” as egregiously as possible.
These are the kids who are constantly raising their hands in your literature, political science, etc, courses and saying some stupid shit surface level as if it’s pure gold, or just restating the main points of the reading and identifying some immediate and obvious “gotcha” critique, thinking they’ve made some deep comment, because they skimmed the reading the night before.
IQfy is where stoners go to feel like they’re still an intellectual despite dropping out of college because they couldn’t handle reading 20-100 pages a week and writing a few shitty essays a month.
Frick this place.
BGAE is just a more boring and less comprehensible version of Zarathustra by the way
But Zarathustra is already boring.
Not gonna lie my experience was very similiar to this image
First quarter: "ALRIGHT ALREADY I DONT GIVE A FRICK ABOUT SOME RANDOM POLITICS AND WHY CHRISTIANITY IS LE BAD"
The rest:
>another low effort nietzsche seethe thread
fricking christcucks are shitting up this board
Mustache is a sounding rod for the tone-deaf of Thought-- he is make A LOT of call backs particularly Hegel which are musical counterpoint to the development of German thought. This was his his totalproseart.
>might is right
>make up your own morals
Perfectly adequate table of values for Zarathustra's Ape. It takes a Kardeshev II civilization to raise an Overman from Camel to Child. Preferably one where LAW has instantiated the kind of OBJECTIVE FREEDOM that doesn't deign to accommodate the moral, spiritual, physical, and intellectual Beast Homunculuses of the body politic.
Numbers isnt everything. The herd is still unable to dominate with might which is why they have to invent their own morals in the first place.
isn't might is right kind of made moronic by just the fact that tools exist? you could give a basedent chugging 12 year old fortnite player a blicky and he could kill 6 muscular grown men in a fight
>isn't might is right kind of made moronic by just the fact that tools exist? you could give a basedent chugging 12 year old fortnite player a blicky and he could kill 6 muscular grown men in a fight
I argue this is why if might is right then the israeli elite using their strengths (deception & cunning) are right and outplayed the Nazi's
Your argument is faulty regardless of Neitzches' opinion on might is right.
Because 1,000 mice cannot beat ten tigers.
This is the reason why collectivists, unless they espouse the virtues of individualism, will always fail.
What are ten thousand or even a million useless people together?
Even if you are a collectivist and you believe individuals are less important than the whole, you should be espousing the virtue of each individual being the best they can be.
But, if you do that, no one will settle for a one room commie block apartment with the 'amenity' of a shared shitter and kitchen with three other blocks.
Because nietzsche was a crying loudmouth
How? He only wrote books for an intentionally very small target audience.
Exactly. What a life.
It is weird when you get a grasp of philosophy and what these books are about and then you start to realise just how ignorant the opinions of the people who comment on this stuff are
#Iknowright?
>#iknowright?
It is weird, it's like being a guy who did something as trivial as watching a movie before talking about it, and watching thousands of people who have never seen it talking avidly about the trailer
it is not correct to say that more numbers = better might. Might does not necessarily scale. Size has disadvantages and massive, wild groups are hard to coordinate and are unpredictable.