In my reading, Nietzsche is very much a systematic thinker. The eternal return of the same does not refer to a repeating cycle in which the contents of one’s lived memories are lived again the very same way. On the contrary , eternal return of the same is the return of the same absolutely different. What repeats itself is absolute novelty , always in a new way. This is why Nietzsche does not believe that science progresses, that it represents, mirrors or corresponds to an external reality. The only reality is that of the incessantly changing relation of the drives to each other.
As Nietzsche says,
“ Assuming that our world of desires and passions is the only thing “given” as real, that we cannot get down or up to any “reality” except the reality of our drives (since thinking is only a relation between these drives) – aren’t
we allowed to make the attempt and pose the question as to whether something like this “given” isn’t enough to render the so-called mechanistic (and thus material) world comprehensible as well? I do not mean
comprehensible as a deception, a “mere appearance,” a “representation” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer); I mean it might allow us to understand the mechanistic world as belonging to the same plane of
reality as our affects themselves –, as a primitive form of the world of affect…”( Genealogy of Morals)
Will to power is not the desiring to possess power by a freely willing autonomous subject. The ‘subject’ is a fractured community of competing drives, and power flows through it rather than being possessed by it. Each of these drives within the psyche is its own will to power, and it is their tension that is the creative force of genius l.
“Everything that occurs in the organic world consists of overpowering, dominating, and in their turn,
overpowering and dominating consist of re-interpretation, adjustment, in the process of which their former ‘meaning’ and ‘purpose’ must necessarily be obscured or completely obliterated." Geneology of Morality)
Will to power is in the service of the eternal return by being differential and multiple, transforming the arts, politics and the sciences through the constant clashes of the drives. The idea of a political class maintaining control is antithetical to the anarchic spirit of will to power. — Joshs
You say postmodern thinkers reinterpret his ideas for their postmodern projects. This is precisely what every Nietzsche scholar or non-scholar does. There is no way to know what Nietzsche had to say without already interpreting him through one’s own perspective, which will likely line up with the perspective of one of a group of notated Nietzsche scholars. You don’t think Leiter filters Nietzsche through his own brand of modernist realism?
It is impossible to know what Nietzsche is saying about slavery without first understanding eternal recurrence and will to power. These are the means of decoding his views on all subjects.
How do the new trends and values relate to those of the eras that precede them? With regard to the sciences in particular, does Einstein add cumulatively to the sum of knowledge in physics, or is Relativity a qualitative transformation of previous physics that can’t be considered a linear progress? Is Einstein great because he brings science closer to understanding the way things really are , or because he simply ushers ina new perspective? For Nietzsche, the greatness of a scientist is not on how accurately they represent reality but in their ability to break free of the herd, as well as their eagerness to see their theories crushed.
That sounds like a silly argument. There are plenty of conservative Christian institutions in the U.S. where such readings of Nietzsche would probably be welcome. Of the authors you mentioned I’m familiar with Brian Leiter. He reads Nietzsche as a modernist, existentialist and realist. This interpretation is more accessible to most people than the postmodern reading, because it doesnt require them to understand postmodern thought.
I’m not bothered by what Leiter’s
reading says in particular about Nietzsche’s approach to slavery. Rather, I think it completely misses what is most exciting, daring and radical about his work. For me the larger question is whether you have any acquaintance with the Nietzsche depicted by Heidegger, Derrida , Foucault , Deleuze or other postmodernists. If you don’t know what they claim to be his main thesis (for instance , what is Will to Power , Eternal Return of the Same and their relation to each other) then you are not in a position to ‘prefer’ your reading to an alternative you have no familiarity with.
Do you have the slightest idea what would constitute the ‘crème de la crème’ for Nietzsche in terms of specific values, beliefs, taste in music and art?
Do you think he would embrace any of the specific arts, sciences or political forms that you consider to be superior? Here’s a hint: No.
This is simply because Nietzsche does not advocate for any particular content when it comes to forms of cultural creativity. On the contrary, he advocates for the endless overturning of specific cultural values , which includes all particular creative content
Examples include - using physical strength and height to intimidate other people (especially women), hatred of gay people; hyper masculinity - sexually inappropriate towards women; use of violence (or threats thereof) to influence behavior or punish others; inability to access and fear of emotions (except aggression and anger).
If we should want to have a charitable look at the argument, maybe we should let the man speak for himself, since he did happen to make this exact argument in the greek state which boils down to this:
1. Life, suffering etc, can ultimately only be justified through art.
2. Slavery is necessary to enable a few to focus on creating said art.
"In order that there may be a broad, deep, and fruitful soil for the development of art, the enormous majority must, in the service of a minority be slavishly subjected to life’s struggle, to a greater degree than their own wants necessitate. At their cost, through the surplus of their labor, that privileged class is to be relieved from the struggle for existence, in order to create and to
satisfy a new world of want."
Since 1) is essentially a value-judgement one maybe could just say that one doesn't care about art or high culture, and the rest of the argument looses its potency.
2) is more of a statement of fact that one could maybe discredit (or credit) on empirical grounds. Essentially he saying that 1) you need specialisation to be able to create good art 2) which requires that some are relieved from the daily struggle for existence 3) which in turn requires that a part of the population produces more/is forced to produce more than it needs for itself.
Maybe this could be true in ancient times, like Greece, but certainly this isn't true anymore in fossil-fueled post-industrialised societies. Because of the amount of energy per capita we have access to, we essentially have all the energy slaves we want, Energy can be translated directly into work, which basically could free up almost everybody to produce art if we wanted to.
I would characterize Freddy Zarathustra as an advocate of Cultural (i.e. psychological-intellectual-artistic) Self-Mastery and not a defender of Civilizational (i.e. political economic) Slavery on the basis of teaching of Übermenschen bred (cultivated) to, as second nature, joyfully affirm (overcome the challenge of) the Eternal Recurrence of the Same (Ja-sagen "amor fati") contra decadent resentment (i.e. Nein-sagen "spirit of gravity") – Dionysius versus The Crucified :fire:
Special pleasing my ass. You really need to improve the quality of the Nietzsche interpreters you read. I have a shelf full of brilliant Nietzsche scholarship and none of it spouts the crap you’re referring to.
Healthy sexuality: mutually experienced physical and mental attraction toward other with intents of either bringing about offspring with other or, for those of us not utterly materialist in our thinking, of bringing about a closeness of being - an emotive bond, however transient - between those who are so sexually attracted and of a mature enough age to consent in informed manners (e.g., neither anal nor oral sex have anything to do with bringing about offspring, to keep things on the physical side). (Also, this applies to LGTBQs in terms of the second intent addressed - such that it occurs with the intent of bringing about offspring being absent rather than perverted … as is routinely the case in heterosexual sex as well.)
Masturbation regarding healthy sexuality: a semi-healthy sexuality in that it does not serve to actualize either of the intents of the aforementioned but keeps one going by satisfying these intents via fantasy, this without perverting the intents in question
Rape: a perversion of the intent for closeness … to not start mentioning the harm caused
Bestiality: a perversion of either intent involved in healthy sexuality
Necrophilic bestiality: a massive amplification of the perversion of either intent involved in healthy sexuality
Oh, and perversions of health is bad.
… this argument being a work in progress. This for those who don’t know why sex with dead animals is bad.
Whether or not a foetus has a right to life is the very thing being debated. And I would say that the woman's suffering very much is comparable, and at least in the early stages of pregnancy her rights take precedence of the foetus', just as I would say that a human's suffering takes precedence over any animal's right to life
Because condoms/pills etc. don't always work.
When does a foetus become conscious?
There's still the 9 months of pregnancy which a woman has to suffer through.
Best not to argue, then
Again, there are definitely resonances with the ideal of 'self-realisation' as taught by Advaita Vedanta or 'realisation of the true nature' by Buddhists. The term 'realisation' is loaded or highly ramified, without a counterpart in secular discourse.
Whence does 'other-worldly guidance' originate? Isnt that the meaning of 'revealed truth', that being the kind of insight which by implication is not spontaneously available to the untrained?
I would have thought that mystical knowledge is beyond human reach. Am I to take it you are a mystic in the Sufi tradition?
However, it's also true that this insight is essentially incompatible with modernity, which is grounded in the assumption that there is no 'vertical dimension' corresponding to the realm of quality, which the OP refers to, and which is the subject of the OP also. That is why most of the modern exponents of the perennial philosophy are hostile to the idea of modernity. (See Mark Sedgewick, Against the Modern World for a critical history and analysis.)
The "perennial philosophy" is ...defined as a doctrine which holds  that as far as worthwhile knowledge is concerned not all men are equal, but that there is a hierarchy of persons, some of whom, through what they are, can know much more than others;  that there is a hierarchy also of the levels of reality, some of which are more "real," because more exalted than others; and  that the wise men of old have found a "wisdom" which is true, although it has no "empirical" basis in observations which can be made by everyone and everybody; and that in fact there is a rare and unordinary faculty in some of us by which we can attain direct contact with actual reality--through the Prajñāpāramitā of the Buddhists, the logos of Parmenides, the sophia of Aristotle and others, Spinoza's amor dei intellectualis, Hegel's Vernunft, and so on; and  that true teaching is based on an authority which legitimizes itself by the exemplary life and charismatic quality of its exponents.
— Edward Conze, Buddhist Philosophy and its European Parallels
I would have thought that these kinds of transcendent 'truths' are the by product of other worldly beliefs, so this goes without saying, right?
Indeed. How are your claims any different to those made by Catholics; Mormons; Scientologists; Hindus? Or anyone who makes pronouncements about the nature of reality.
Artists, poets, writers, and philophers have always been the brave citizens who expressed their emotions against a cosmological dictatorship you pretend to defend: God.
I highlight your own words: learn from all of those who develop critical thinking
Neither God's existence
Damn believers. You waste so much time hating philosophy and knowledge
Two basic steps:
A) the universe itself doesn't need to be compared with that imaginary subterfuge called God because the universe exists and will exist doesn't matter if we live in earth or not.
B) you use contradictory arguments to pursue God's omnipotence, but do not worry, I do understand you can only achieve it through faith, not knowledge. What all you are writing is related to your own beliefs.
Be careful! Love is a serious mental disease - Plato.
Must have been a scary feeling. Being absorbed by the whole? Or was the feeling a great one?
According to this proposition... The war, inflation, COVID pandemic, unemployment, and other serious issues are upon to God's mercy... Or what?
Excuse sir, but what the f*ck is going on with your thoughts?