Nietzsche's sister got heavily involved with the early antisemitic movement. This led people to believe that he must also secretly hold similar views and the antisemites worked very hard to get him openly on their side despite his repeated denunciations. However after his mental break his sister gained control of his writings and set about bending them to the antisemitic cause.

The Nazis could ignore this because they cared for appearances not meaning or truth. This is why they inserted socialism into thier name and why they designed cool uniforms that were more work to make and barely functional. The contradictions weren't something they had to overcome because they didn't care to begin with.

My favourite line from nietzsche that would go against Nazis was a letter he wrote to a friend after his mental break were he claimed he would personally see all antisemites killed XD

Nietzsche's sister is responsible for altering his philosophy to make it amicable to the Nazi regime. Nietzsche would have hated this association.

Someone once pointed out that Nietzsche despised nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism, but if we're willing to overlook these facts then he may very well have made a great Nazi.

There are many aspects of Nietzsche's thought, however, which make the relationship more complex. These include: his glorification of war and power; his view that the essence of life involves struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc.; his rejection of egalitarianism and other values/beliefs underlying both liberal democracy and communism; his rejection of "herd morality"; his waxing enthusiastic about the establishment of a rigid and racially-based caste system by Aryan conquerors in the Indian subcontinent; his feeling that the leveling tendencies of modern democracies will pave the way for "higher" types to exploit them as malleable material for amoral, non-democratic ends; his ambiguous feelings about Jews, and specifically his associating them with the priestly class he so detested (e.g. their being responsible for the "slave revolt" in morality that he identified with Christianity); etc.

So yeah, I think it's a complex matter. And while I think it's safe to say that Nietzsche would have loathed many essential traits of Nazism, we should also concede that he was not a proponent of modern values and ideals.

That's not really accurate to what he is talking about in his notions of slave morality vs master morality. In the concept, he's not talking about domination and slavery in the usual sense, but rather whether an understanding of morality locates it meaning and power within its own perspective.

Christianity isn't held to be slave morality because it argues for some form of equality. It's understood as slave morality because it denies the worldly nature of values and powers. It claims God is responsible when it's the world at stake.

The slave/master morality opposition isn't about whether any instance of dominance in the world is justfied or not, it's about whether people recognise their morality as their own and a site of power.

(in this respect, the person who is in a lower postion of a hierarchy may have a master morality, when they recognise a moral relation is if the value of themselves and forms a power relation with others in the world).

@TheWillowOfDarkness

I don't think the two - worldy vs otherworldy - can be separated so sharply, and I don't think Nietzsche felt they could either, unless of course he were to take the lofty "spiritual" pronouncements proffered by religious founders and practitioners at face value, which I don't think he did.

The fact is Christianity became a worldly power, and it did so through the creation/revelation of a new set of values (e.g. all souls equal before God, the meek shall inherit the earth, pride is a sin against God, etc.) that were hostile to those which reigned in the ancient pagan world of Greece and Rome. Paul supposedly knew very well what he was doing, which was using otherworldy hopes to inspire thisworldy ends.

But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and missing some fundamental distinction here?

Also, according to that distinction you made (as I understand it) between master and slave morality, it would appear as though the Nazis were adherents of master morality. To my knowledge they made no attempt to posit values through some transcendent source, through anything other than will to power. Hence they may not have been misinterpreting Nietzsche as much as many of us would like to think. I don't want to believe that, but it does seem to be the proper conclusion of the reasoning.

Getting involved in these kind of places really does just lead to the most disgusting of interactions...

To my knowledge they made no attempt to posit values through some transcendent source, through anything other than will to power. — Erik

I'm honestly confused as to how a person could believe this. Its almost tempting to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just blatantly lying as much as you feel like... Their appeals to the fatherland, german-ness, fetishization of ancestors, notions of a true european from which certain people had to be violently excluded. One could argue that these were simply window dressing for the masses which is basically what you've done already with regards to christianity. But such an argument could be made for literally anything ever. There's simply no point in even spending time considering such an empty potentiality.

his waxing enthusiastic about the establishment of a rigid and racially-based caste system by Aryan conquerors in the Indian subcontinent — Erik

This is meant to be drawn from nietzsche talking about the laws of manu? It is best to remember the context in which people write. In nietzsches case this means being familiar with indian culture and philosophy at best almost entirely from reading louis jacolliot. Which is to say that his knowledge of india was mostly non-existent jacolliot having fabricated and/or exaggerated most of what he wrote. The orientalism of the time effected perception of india as well and nietzsche was not immune to this foolishness.

If you want to talk of nietzsche's rejection of socialism or egalitarianism stirner or novatore are much better points of comparison. And the nazis are a much better example of what nietzsche meant by herd morality than not.

And did you try to imply that nazis were socialists? Next you'll try to tell me that the cops serve and protect or that the kkk is just showing pride for their white heritage. And no doubt whites from northern states just use the confederate flag to show pride for their ancestors eh. In the future you should try considering that someone claiming a thing should not be considered proof of said thing.

Not sure what you seem so upset about. For the record I'm not trying to unfairly slander Nietzsche, nor am I trying to offer philosophical support for Nazism by suggesting there may be elements of his thought that are amenable to the use they made of him. There are other aspects of his philosophy that are at odds with their worldview (e.g. largely based on resentment), of course, which I thought I made clear. What I am trying to do is touch upon some of those more disturbing aspects of his philosophy - the subject of this thread being his purported misappropriation by Nazis. You're perfectly free to gloss over or ignore them entirely. Imo that's dishonest.

I'm honestly confused as to how a person could believe this. Its almost tempting to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just blatantly lying as much as you feel like... Their appeals to the fatherland, german-ness, fetishization of ancestors, notions of a true european from which certain people had to be violently excluded. One could argue that these were simply window dressing for the masses which is basically what you've done already with regards to christianity. But such an argument could be made for literally anything ever. There's simply no point in even spending time considering such an empty potentiality. — dork ichiban

What am I "lying" about? And what would my motivation be to lie?

More to the point, what do you understand by the term transcendence? That's a good place to start, I think, because it seems as though we understand different things by the term. I'm tempted to throw your accusation right back at you and say that your understanding of "transcendence" seems so broad as to include every possible morality and worldview which could conceivably exist. They're all transcendent, religious and non-religious alike. But feel free to offer a counter-example by way of useful juxtaposition to show a political or religious movement which has not made appeals to notions of a people, a nation, a race, a class, ancestors, etc. in a "transcendent" sense. One which has not posited an enemy or "other", etc.

And yes, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most of these things are, in Nietzsche's estimation, "window dressing" for the masses. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's seriously read Nietzsche would dispute this, so I'm going to assume (once again) that I'm misunderstanding you. Having said that, I always try to qualify my tentative views ("To my knowledge...") and avoid making dogmatic claims, so if I'm wrong about anything then do me the courtesy of showing me where and I'll gladly change my position. You seem to be emotionally invested in this topic in a way that I'm not.

Furthermore, I wasn't giving my take on Christianity, but what I understand to be Nietzsche's. Do you disagree with his largely negative and cynical understanding of the religion? Is that consistent with his published work? If you're interested in my personal views, then I'll admit to holding a largely positive view of Christianity. In Nietzsche's estimation, however, I'd be a decadent: I favor the poor and oppressed, for example, over the wealthy and powerful. And yet there are many other things in his work that I find inspiring which I'd be glad to discuss.

This is meant to be drawn from nietzsche talking about the laws of manu? It is best to remember the context in which people write. In nietzsches case this means being familiar with indian culture and philosophy at best almost entirely from reading louis jacolliot. Which is to say that his knowledge of india was mostly non-existent jacolliot having fabricated and/or exaggerated most of what he wrote. The orientalism of the time effected perception of india as well and nietzsche was not immune to this foolishness. — dork ichiban

So Nietzsche's feelings about Indian religion and culture are irrelevant because he was working with a flawed understanding of it? However much Orientalists may have misrepresented the facts of the culture is a matter totally separate from Nietzsche's glowing affirmation of that alleged fabrication. He celebrated the idea of the caste system - however distorted his understanding was - and I will happily trot out relevant passages if you'd like which support this position.

If you want to talk of nietzsche's rejection of socialism or egalitarianism stirner or novatore are much better points of comparison. And the nazis are a much better example of what nietzsche meant by herd morality than not. — dork ichiban

What does this even mean? We're not talking about Stirner or anyone other than Nietzsche here, so once again you've introduced an irrelevance presumably in order to distract from the fact that Nietzsche, too, had nothing positive to say about socialism. Do you dispute that?

And did you try to imply that nazis were socialists? Next you'll try to tell me that the cops serve and protect or that the kkk is just showing pride for their white heritage. And no doubt whites from northern states just use the confederate flag to show pride for their ancestors eh. In the future you should try considering that someone claiming a thing should not be considered proof of said thing. — dork ichiban

I'll tell you the cops serve and protect? Huh? I thought it was common knowledge that Nazism claimed to represent a "third way" beyond capitalism and communism. The one good thing about this most uncharitable strawman though - with its seemingly shameless and dishonest insinuations of my own beliefs - is that you've revealed your political leanings. I hate to break it to you, dork, but Nietzsche is no ally. I'll say it again: Nietzsche is a complex thinker who holds some disturbing and occasionally contradictory views. But he's far removed from the political left and right, at least those manifestations that are relevant these days. I'd even say that he "transcends" those superficial categories. IMO of course.

Someone once pointed out that Nietzsche despised nationalism, socialism, and anti-Semitism, but if we're willing to overlook these facts then he may very well have made a great Nazi. — Erik

Indeed.

His sister prostituted the works of her dead brother.

He was a good person.

The Gestalt value of The Will to Power andTriumph of the Will speaks for itself.

Nietzsche was a good person.

I think of him as the philosophical version of Van Gough.

I would suggest that the impassioned notion of the eternal YES pretty much covers it.

I'll tell you the cops serve and protect? Huh? I thought it was common knowledge that Nazism claimed to represent a "third way" beyond capitalism and communism. The one good thing about this most uncharitable strawman though - with its seemingly shameless and dishonest insinuations of my own beliefs - is that you've revealed your political leanings. I hate to break it to you, dork, but Nietzsche is no ally. I'll say it again: Nietzsche is a complex thinker who holds some disturbing and occasionally contradictory views. But he's far removed from the political left and right, at least those manifestations that are relevant these days. I'd even say that he "transcends" those superficial categories. IMO of course. — Erik

if not for the word "dork", it would have been a KO.

But you do get the TKO.

:smile:

Ear of the Other is a publication of a lecture given by Derrida regarding Nietzshe.

In it, he talks about the notion of signature.

And it is rather complex and mostly over my head, but he distinguishes between those who sign their work and those who make their readers sign their work.

Those who sign their work are quickly forgotten.

People will be signing Nietzsche's works for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands if our species survives that long.

I trust no one who claims to understand Nietzsche.

There are only interpretations.

And I suspect that was his intent.

I don't think Nietzsche's notion of will to power means what you think it means. (not to mention, it is a posthumous publication of scraps collected by his sister. Nietzsche himself had already rejected the idea of publishing it in the preparatory outline that his sister used to organize disparate writings.)

The will to power was about overcoming the self, not about overcoming others.

Hey Arne. Nice to meet someone who shares my interests in Nietzsche and Heidegger.

You could be right. My views on Nietzsche are highly provisional, and I waver quite a bit on this particular issue. I do think one could interpret the two - self and others - as being essentially related in a Heideggerian way, with the overcoming the self necessarily involving a radical confrontation/overcoming of the conforming, inauthentic they-self that each of us initially are. We overcome/become ourselves only by overcoming the decadence we've come to embody within our nihilistic Western society.

But I do agree that I may have overstated the case a bit here in my attempt to highlight the fact that Nietzsche was not a liberal democrat - or an anarchist - whose primary goal was to inspire the individual to his or her true creative self. That's obviously a big part his agenda, but it seems a mere prelude to the much larger and world-historical task of cultivating (imposing?) a radical new set of life-affirming values for ALL of society. Some lead and others follow. So once again the self and others seem inseparable.

Finally, I do agree with the assessment that Nietzsche was basically a very kind and generous soul. That greatness of soul was one of the first things I sensed when I started reading him. And this is why it's so hard to reconcile his many positive comments on (e.g.) the caste system, Cesar Borgia, the desirability of human breeding, etc.

have you read Merleau-Ponty? A woman from Greece needs assistance in understanding the sensory gaps left in Being and Time. I have offered to read the Phenomenology of Perception with her. Whether you have read it or not, please join the discussion at https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/3611/on-heideggers-the-origin-of-the-work-of-art-and-aesthetics

I'll have a look. I'm only vaguely familiar with Merleau-Ponty through secondary sources but would like to learn more - I'll definitely join the reading group if it gets off the ground. I'd also like to engage in the discussion on Being and Time that's been talked about for a few weeks now.

The "slave morality" aspect lies not in an absence of worldly power, but in the falsehood that it is otherworldly. Whether we are speaking about the God or the Chruch, the power in question is worldly. It deals with our value and treatment as living beings.

To say we don't matter, that we lack value and have to be saved from it by an otherworldly force of God, is a lie. We've never lacked value and have a certain status on account of ourselves, as living beings in the world (afterlives included).

The "slave" aspect is failing to recognise value is about ourselves, instead thinking it is granted by something else, some otherworldly force-- quite literally "I am nothing. You (refering to the otherwordly force) have all power and definition of me."

To say we don't matter, that we lack value and have to be saved from it by an otherworldly force of God, is a lie. We've never lacked value and have a certain status on account of ourselves, as living beings in the world (afterlives included). — TheWillowOfDarkness

Very well put. And when dopes like Kant attempt to reaffirm the value of human life and dignity on the basis of some vague, indeterminate transcendental values (noumena -> practical reason -> moral law -> human dignity) they run the risk of setting the whole postmodern era on the path of once again failing to affirm the inherent value of life and world as lived from within. It's sadly a prescient concern, as our politics becomes ever-more focused on an internal power struggle in which individuals and groups battle each other by making claims to rights, and academia has almost no place for political philosophers who aren't simply doing an "analysis" of the logic of rights.

The "slave" aspect is failing to recognise value is about ourselves, instead thinking it is granted by something else, some otherworldly force-- quite literally "I am nothing. You (refering to the otherwordly force) have all power and definition of me." — TheWillowOfDarkness

The "otherworldly" you reference is a reference to the objective. That is, to say I have value means I do regardless of what anyone else says or agrees to.

When you tell me you have value, but you deny value is rooted in something other than your own assessment of value, then would you not lack value if you decided you did? If not, then where is this value that cannot be destroyed and is eternal? Wherever it is and whatever it is sounds godly.

Such an account is already making the error of nihilism. It supposes value is absent only to come from someone or something else's assessment. There is no "making valuable" because it supposes contradictory circumstances. I cannot form a judgement upon what is valuable without already including awareness of what is truly value (thus, making my judgement correct and justified, as opposed to meaningless words). Value, in any case, is given in itself in the first instance.

For Nietzsche value is that which cannot be destroyed and is eternal. It's space is the world which expresses it. In the case of me, my actions. my relations to others, etc., that value is inseparably of me.

It might be defined independent of those who would disagree (i.e. true even is someone thinks otherwise, including me), but it is not seperate for the world we exist, and and speak about. I am never nothing and no-one has the power of definition over me because I am beyond them.

Even those with a social authority to order me about (e.g. a moral authority, a king, God, etc.) are stuck working with me as I am self-defined. God cannot command, for example, a group of people who lack the self-defintion of "under God's authority" in their existence.

Although not PC, I think that there was some beauty contained within the horror of Nazi ideology. This 'beauty' a love of social order, a rejection of religious power in favor of science pragmatism and logic, the power of the individual, before a subservience to creed, the subjugation of capitalism or the market to the service of the socialist state,. All of these ideals would to a greater or lesser degree have appealed to Nietzsche.

As zizek states the problem with the Nazis was not that they went too far but rather they did not go far enough. If one extracts the antisemitic thought from mein Kampf, its content is very much in keeping with much of Nietzsche's 'gentle' thought.

^ At some point, even saying 'every word of that post was wrong and steeped in the stink of intellectual sewerage' just doesn't cut it.

Perhaps a little bit of evidence or even a specific criticism of the assertion would be a little more intellectually courageous than a simple stone throw from a safe distance?

No the whole post is trash from top to bottom.

No the whole post is trash from top to bottom. — StreetlightX

Sounds familiar.

A similar type of dialogue was once equally disinterested in philosophy. It just put all the 'trash' into piles or ovens and burned it all, rather than suffer the indignity of having to think or justify its dictates. Thankfully most of us have moved on.

You post is as relevant as it is irrelevant.

Well done!

M

Here are a few choice lines from Mein Kampf. One hopes that one does not have to remind others that there is neither a promotion nor an apology for Nazism here.

The question at hand pertains to the use or appeal of Nietzsche to the Nazis.

Nietzsche's calls to humanity to rise above itself and its delusions finds parallel in Hitler's notion of the state and the purpose of the state being to contain and facilitate a "higher form of civilization"

Hitler departs from Nietzsche on many levels, but of particular interest here is the departure when Hitler seeks to construct this 'higher form' out of a raw material of 'racial purity'. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that Nietzsche placed any particular value upon racial purity. However Nietzsche undoubtedly felt that there were or are inferior beings worthy of contempt 'the herd', 'the stink of small people' etc. Whilst the Nazi's strove for a higher human form upon the basis of race and physical purity.. Nietzsche appealed for 'Philosophers of the Future' who arguably might posses an intellectual purity of sorts. As such it is not too difficult to see how Nietzsche's ideas or at least some of them could have been commandeered by the Nazi's

Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:

"The current political conception of the world is that the State, though it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of political forces and impulses. Such a conception of the foundations of the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized.
Mein Kampf 316


any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine of the nature and purpose of the State.
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the source of such a development.
Mein Kampf 324

The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race."


M

"State is the name of the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly it tells lies too; and this lie crawls out of its mouth: “I, the state, am the people.” That is a lie! It was creators who created peoples and hung a faith and a love over them: thus they served life.It is annihilators who set traps for the many and call them “state”: they hang a sword and a hundred appetites over them.

Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights. ...Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune."

“The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist”

"As little State as possible!"

"Socialism ― or the tyranny of the meanest and the most brainless, ―that is to say, the superficial, the envious, and the mummers, brought to its zenith, ―is, as a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of “modern ideas” and their latent anarchy: but in the genial atmosphere of democratic well-being the capacity for forming resolutions or even for coming to an end at all, is paralysed. Men follow―but no longer their reason. That is why socialism is on the whole a hopelessly bitter affair."

Nietzsche, sic passim. So peddle your fucking ignorance elsewhere.

It is (one would hope) commonly understood that Nietzsche was obviously not a proponent of statehood. There is little in his writings that describe the ideal state whereby 'philosophers of the future' might emerge.

Hitler considered the state to be the thing that is consequenced by the will of a pure race. The purer the race the more powerful becomes the emergent state.

The comparison being contained in the notion that state is an emergent concept for both Nietzsche and Hitler. State arises as a consequence of will to power, and not as a communist socialist or paternal institution that fosters weakness and disability.

The distinction between the two ideals is in the notion of that which an emergent state considers as the qualia of human superiority and human weakness. Human equality in respect of ability was as much an anathema for Nietzsche as it was for the Nazis, the distinction being the grounds for this assumption or recognition of human inequality, for Nietzsche it was intellect for the Nazis race and physical purity.

If Nietzsche had a vision of state it might well have been along the lines of that envisaged by Thoreau, government being best which governs least. In Nietzsche' social order the need for state becomes diminished as the governed evolve beyond their weak dependencies upon both church and state.

Nietzsche, and Hitler sought to transcend human weaknesses not preserve them within the state. The horror lies in what Hitler misconstrued as weakness.

Both Nietzsche's and Hitlers political systems are 'emergent' they emerge from superiority and power rather then the current model of universal equality.

The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.

Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders.

Nietzsche might well have smiled at Wilde's assertion that: 'I would never belong to an organization that would have me as a member'.

The Nazis were politically inclusive on the basis of race, Nietzsche was politically exclusive upon the basis of the intellect, which as it (the intellect) becomes more refined, it necessarily becomes more exclusive and more solitary.

Nietzsche, sic passim. So peddle your fucking ignorance elsewhere. — StreetlightX

This type of input into the discussion is most informative. It reminds one of the the selfish anger of the herd that proved most potent in the 1940's.

Anger is good! Angry people make things happen!

But Neitzsche would have you channel it into the quality of your thought, rather than simply letting it expire into the air as the brute exhalations of used gases.

M