Didn't seem to follow the law very well though

Frankly, Daganev, I can't even figure out what point you think you're proving about Nietzsche when you claim that the fact that some Nazis liked what they thought he was saying proves it. But whatever it is, the fact that he disagreed with them about what he was saying, refutes it. There is only one person who can be definitive about what Nietzsche really meant, and that's Nietzsche. Case closed.

By the way, you also don't know what Godwin's Law says.

Nietzche died in 1900, 19 years before the Nazi party existed.

So what exactly are you trying to suggest/say?

I thought you were trying to say this:

http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace....20nietzsche.htm

My point however can be better expressed in articles such as this:

http://www.trutv.com/library/crime/notorio...e_crimes/7.html

i.e. Nietzceh would have been against a Nazi Germany because he didn't agree with Totalitarian governments, not because he dissagreed with A. The idea of superior and inferior human beings, or B. The idea that the Jewish religion brought a weakening to society in the form of charity. or C. That paganism was a better religious model than Christianity, which Nietzche says is a mix of paganism and Judaism.

Those are three main things of which the Nazis/Hitler appeared to take from Nietzche.



Or we just have a difference of opinion of what "approaches" means. To me, you can't approach something that you allready have from the begining.

Nietzsche does indeed believe in the idea of superior and inferior human beings and that certain pagan traditions were better for society than Christian or Jewish traditions, but point B is off. He believed that Judaism was a prototype for the master/slave duality in culture (which he believed was evil) and that Jews themselves were incredibly stupid for not realizing after thousands of years that being Jewish was a quick road to oppression, both internally and externally, while chanting pious things about freedom.

Meh, I remember reading at some point that he says that the "prototype for the master/slave duality in culture" can be seen most clearly in ideas such as charity.

as for :



He obviously doesn't know what Jews do or do not realize. (But I dissagree with you that he was making such a point)
That he thought that being Jewish was anithical to his ideas of freedom are certain, but he surely must have known, if he ever talked to a Jew, that Jews know that being Jewish means a quick road to oppression. (That is the first thing we are legally obligated to tell someone who wishes to convert)

Nietzsche died in 1900. Are you sure you aren't confusing him with... nobody?

@Dag: Xavius is right. Read Beyond Good and Evil. The Jews are clearly held up as the example of "slave morality" that Nietzsche considered a cancer in the world. Whether or not he would have advocated their mass extermination, I don't know, but he has nothing but bad things to say about their beliefs.

I was trying to avoid making this into a ten page position paper in which I described the historical underpinnings of the Nazi party and its relationship to the philosophies of Schopenhauer, Wagner, Nietzsche, and Kant, and their connections to the organizations from which the party was founded (surprise, it didn't just get made out of nothing one morning), since the entire thing is off-topic in this forum anyway. I regret having contributed as much as I did to the off-topic-ness. Anyone who cares is encouraged to spend some time reading up about this stuff and I feel confident they'll come to the same overall conclusion, that the association between Nietzsche and the Nazis was entirely one-sided and based on distortions and categorical revisionism. And that's more than anyone needs anyway. Or, you know, they could just recite the "Nietzsche was a Nazi" mantra instead. It's certainly easier.

I'm not denying that the connections are complex. I'm denying that Nietzsche hated the Nazis and opposed them at every opportunity. Since the Nazis weren't a party until 1918, and he died in 1900, that's at least 18 years between the actual Nazi party and any proto-Nazis he might have been opposing, and that's assuming that by "opposing them at every opportunity" you meant cursing them from his deathbed.

It's quasi-academic urban legends like what you introduced to this discussion that are a huge impediment to any actual analysis of these issues. Nietzsche wasn't a Nazi and couldn't have been because he died before there was a Nazi party. What he would or would not have opposed upon their formation is entirely hypothetical, although I would guess he probably wouldn't think much of the socialist agrarian economic plan.

But the fact is that he openly and directly castigates Judaism and blames the Jews for the bulk of society's moral and social failures, and several philosophers followed his lead, including Heidegger who -did- join the Nazi party and attributes this to Nietzsche's influence on his own philosophy. What Nietzsche -does- do is distance himself from anti-Semitism in alleged personal correspondence, because he felt that anti-Semites were motivated by race whereas he was motivated by ideal. If Jews were to, say, give up their moral system, then Nietzsche would have no qualms with them. So, we can probably safely say (assuming the letters are legit) that he's anti-Aryanist, and if that's what you mean, then I'd agree.

But it's just as much an oversimplification to say, "Nietzsche would have hated the Nazi party" as it is to say, "Nietzsche caused the Nazi party."

My point was, its more common to say that "A nazi was a follower of Nietzche" then it is to say that "Nietzche was a nazi"

Yes, I know... my point was only that I remember "charity" being sited as the prime example of what it means to behave with a "slave morality"
The idea that I am obligated to help You, because You are lacking, and not because of anything I did.

edit: Also, the letters to the sister is him condeming the idea of creating an aryan colony in south america, which later was decided to be done to Germany instead.



What an ironic thing to say.

The thread could stand to be moved to The Real World now.


He does mention charity, but he mentions it in the broader context of prescribed morality. He makes no indication that he would be opposed to freely given charity (and the concept of ubermensche seems to imply some degree of charity), but he does take issue with a moral system that tries to force these things on people. I don't have the book on hand, but if I remember the flow of the argument correctly, the problem with Judeo-Christian morality is that it enforces a sort of gnostic hierarchy of people in ritual contact with God having authority, rather than a proper hierarchy of better people having more respect and more weight in society. A system of prescribed morality must both 1) dictate actions to the masses, and 2) justify itself repressively. If it doesn't delineate right from wrong, it isn't impeding on people's freedom. If it doesn't justify itself repressively, then people are still free to ignore the system without threat of punishment or lessened status. It's the combination of the two that codifies slavery of the masses. If memory serves, he does not touch on governmental law at all, which follows the same format but aims for a different end.

Knowledge of Nietzche should not be interpreted as wholesale endorsement of Nietzche.

But it's both internal and external. I'm quite certain that it's a point he wanted to make because he goes on and on and on and on and on about it way longer than necessary. The argument is that Jews don't live good lives because Jews oppress Jews and the Jewish lifestyle leaves Jews less powerful than the rest of the world (which is another strictly Nietzchian evil--lack of power) and vulnerable to outside oppression. If you can't be free because both your kin and the world around you are out to deny you your rightful power and you don't gain any communal power in exchange, the decision to be Jewish is categorically poor.

Again, knowledge of Nietzche hould not be interpreted as wholesale endorsement of Nietzche. I don't want people to think that I'm going to argue in favor of most of his ideas when you start posting rebuttals. I like some, but Nietzche was a better orator than philosopher.

Gotcha, I guess I was just confusing Nietzche with his Rabinic counterpart, who focuses on Charity as being the most ultimate of evils. (For the same reasons that you gave up a above)

Just because he goes on and on about it, doesn't mean that he doesn't know that Jews allready know this. Basically, he wants to attack christianity, but he can't straight out attack that lifestyle of what the reader thinks is wholesome and good, unless he goes on and on and on about how the roots of christianity arn't good.

The very thing that Nietzche complains about Judaism is the very thing that Orthodox Jews of his time prided themselves on, (subserviance to the will of god) and its one of the main ideological points that the Reform seperated with the Orthodox on. (Expressed in different terms obviously) Though its very possible that Nietzche was writing for those sections with the Reform Jews reader in mind. (just speculation)

More that Nietzche realizes that people do this by choice and spends pages making fun of Jews for willingly partaking in self-abuse and evil.

I don't think your portrayal of what he was writing is accurate.

Books such as these:

http://ebooks.ebookmall.com/ebook/72358-ebook.htm

and passages from Human, all to Human such as this



Suggests a different angle.

I looked it up more closely and my hunch was correct. Nietzche was in direct communication with many of the founders/philosophers of Reform Judaism, before and after his various books.

To say that he was just mocking really ignores what he was trying to do. I believe he had genuine confusion and angst over the fact that Jews knew what they were doing and were proud to do so. In addition he wanted that to change.

Yes, my character's writings are a combination of Ayn Rand and Nietzsche. It's debatable which it has more in common with. I'd say more in common with Ayn Rand ideologically but more in common with Nietzsche in terms of its attitude and life outlook. There also is a vague hint of John Stuart Mill in there

As for Hitler, he (and even moreso Mussolini) also admired president Roosevelt before he started bombing Germany. He also admired Wagner's music and had good taste in fine art. It's not productive to oppose all things Hitler liked because not all things Hitler supported were directly related to his ideology. For example, your taste in sculpture really has little to do with your opinions on race. Even though I will admit that my taste in visual art probably has much in common with Hitler's and I am vegetarian (Hitler was almost vegetarian at the advice of his doctor but never went 100%), I can't find much else I like about the guy. Even his non-racial stuff like his view of economics, gun control, homosexuality, military conscription, etc. are all things I can't find much common ground.

Hitler did have some things in common with Nietszche and some differences. One could also say president Lyndon Johnson also had much in common with Hitler, mainly in regards to economic policy. So take that for what it's worth. The main difference is Hitler wanted the uber race whereas Nietzsche wanted the uber individual man, regardless of race. Some examples: Hitler preached in his speeches to the workers brigade that the lowliest, stupidest, toilet-scrubbing German worker was a greater man than the wealthiest, most successful, highest IQ Jewish business manager. Nietzsche would beg to differ. Nietzsche also praised the Jewish people (not to be confused with his attacks on their religion) and trashed Germans probably more than any other German author. The other thing to bear in mind about Hitler is he wanted to invent a new, strong Germanic culture to unite all the German society as one nation. This meant he had to pick German things and integrate them into his system. He HAD to find German artists and musicians like Wagner, he HAD to find German philosophers, etc. to support his goals. Imagine if instead of Nietszche he used Hinduism's "Book of Manu" to unite Germans into making a caste system with the Jews as the dalits and the Germans as the Brahmans. It would not have been politically effective. This means anything German that he embraced may have had to do more with its political usefulness than with its true meaning.

One of Nietzsche's flaws is his lack of coherency, so some things can be taken one way or another. For example, he speaks of a superior "blond beast" taking over the world, which a Hitlerian could interpret literally to mean Germanic Europeans. But then in "The Anti-Christ" he refers to the Japanese as being one of the blond beasts, which others would say means it's a figurative symbolic beast, not a literal beast, and could include non-Nordics...like the Japanese.

Some other key differences:
* Nietzsche saves his most venomous words for Christians first and then, in second place, his fellow Germans. Sure you can find plenty of venom directed at Judaism. But go look up what he says about the Christians, the Germans, and also the British. That stuff is much worse when taken as a whole.
* Hitler was OK with Christianity, Nietzsche was obviously not.
* Nietzsche and Hitler both opposed Judaism as a religion and did not like its influence on European religions. (Though actually their complaint on Jewish influence is very different. Hitler's arguments were more of the cliche Jewish conspiracy theory type of influence on Europe: taking over Europe's banks, governments, media, etc. Nietszche's complaint about influence was that Judaism gave Europe the Christianity he so loathed; he never addresses one way or the other the conspiracy theories you find with Hitler.) Unlike Hitler, Nietszche thought the Jewish people were to be admired for the hardiness and ability to succeed under very difficult situations. I think he even predicted that they could be role models for Europe if they could first shed themselves of their religion and all the negative things he saw in it. This is another point that gets confused. Just because someone attack Islam does not mean he is attacking Arabs. The same applies to Nietzsche's points on Judaism the religion and the Jewish people.
* Nietszche attacked the budding anti-semite movement in Germany that eventually became the Nazi party. Though his attacks were not the same types of attacks a modern liberal would make. I think it was more along the lines of it was a way for failures to make excuses for their own screw-ups. He didn't like making excuses for people's own personal failures.
* Nietzsche seemed to like Hinduism. Although I don't think he believed Hinduism was a perfect religion, he definitely found it preferable to the Abrahamic religions. Hitler probably would have had nothing to do with Hinduism since it's not a Caucasian invention. Nietzsche liked Hinduism's caste system, though he lamented how it was passed from father to son. He tried to improve it by having the superior castes cast out members that proved themselves stupid and inept, and conversely welcoming with open arms members of lower castes that proved themselves worthy. Essentially a meritocracy. Hitler would probably have preferred the ancient traditional Hindu approach since there is some evidence it may have been a racial segregation caste thousands of years ago with lighter skinned invaders from what is now Iran making themselves the higher castes over the darker skinned natives. Hitler would not have supported Nietzsche's merit-based caste idea since, to him, race came before the individual.

There are also some Nietschean influences in Nihilism. From the AB list:

Demonscales The pain of unholy scales strengthens your body.
- That which doesn't kill us only makes us stronger.

Fiend Command the will of a small fiend.
- The theory of Will to Power?

Torture Agony of the tortured heart: spasms of an unknown joy.
- That was a direct quote taken from one of his books I was reading while coding the skillset. It's totally taken out of context, but taking it out of context made it seem very appropriate for this skillset!

Barbedtail Transcend your physical body into a stronger form.
- Becoming the ubermensch, perhaps??

Spawn Innumerable nameless horrors hector your inferiors.
- Just general elitism, which is a trait of Nietszche's attitude.

There's probably more I've forgotten about. Two things I wish I put in there: something alluding to an abyss staring back at you and something making fun of the Pale Criminal in "Also Sprach Zarathustra".

As for the spelling, I honestly thought it was "ubermensche" with an e at the end. Oops!

So do I personally support Nietzsche's ideas? Maybe, maybe not. Even if I do to some degree, the caveat is: it would only be my interpretation of his writing, which is probably totally different than yours. I've seen people use Nietzsche to argue for Nazism, color-blind individualism, free market anarchism, socialism, Green eco-fascism, etc. I even once argued with a citizen of Celest and used a mix of Nietzeche and John Stuart Mill to convince him that my character's book is not conflict with Celest's goals of goodness and righteous justice. And the one rule of thumb when evaluating Nietzsche: he is easy to take out of context, so you have to read several of his books yourself to "get" him. And avoid the stuff his sister published after he died. She rewrote them and claimed they were his writings. Whether I agree with him or not, one thing I will say about him: I do love his writing style quite a bit. I have a second book I've never published that mimics his style a good bit.

Regarding Locke and Adam Smith, Nazi was short for "National Socialism". All Nazis argue for a massive welfare state, universal health care, environmentalism, etc. If you take away race then it is very left wing. There are some white nationalist movements that do like the free market economics of Adam Smith, but they usually do not call themselves "Nazi". The only link I could see with Nazis and Locke might be that Locke argued the family was the basis of government, which a Nazi could expand to say your family is the foundation of race, and therefore, if it is the foundation of government, then race is by extension the basis of government. I've never heard that argument made, though. Then again, I don't make a habit of reading much Nazi literature!

wow i go away for a few days and this topic sets off and gets moved. The whole nazi=Nietzsche idea i think may have been blown out of proportion, as it was a joke. I -am NOT- an expert on Nietzsche and never claimed to be just saw the mention of ubermensche in the book and wondered if anyone else noticed the similarities. I did know the idea of ubermensche -loosely- as a superior man, which i extrapolated to the superior race as others have mentioned, which was in error and ignorance of Nietzsche's point i suppose. I feel its an easy and honest mistake to make a connection between the ramblings of ubermensche and a superior race, albeit ignorant. I did hear the Hitler enter prison with Nietzsches book and leaves with Meine Kompf though from a teacher once, and that is where i got that conclusion i suppose.

Don't forget the snake and eagle as Roark's symbols!

No, your connection is valid because Hitler actually did use Nietzsche. I believe "Also Sprach Zarathustra" was issued to every German soldier, for example. Though ironically probably the average soldier didn't have the intelligence or proper educational background to really understand what's in that book. Someone probably could make a very powerful argument that Nietzsche and Hitler are one and the same. Nietzsche is just not a very clear writer and so he leads to many differing interpretations. I just like to write about philosophy, so if I see that brought up on the forums then expect a dissertation.

Also, the eagle and snake... Those come from two things. They were Zarathustra's pets in "Also Sprach Zarathustra" and they are also symbols of early America (the "don't tread on me" snake and the bald eagle). Since the Roark character's writings were largely influenced by those two ideologies (Ayn Rand essentially being a product of early American philosophy), I thought it was a neat way of getting symbols from both.

Bla bla bla bla.

You people worry too much.

People see what they want to see, nothing more nothing less.

Im convinced im God, dosnt make it any more true for you.

Dont try to talk sense to me, I wont give in any ways, as long as I keep insisting you cant dissprove my arguments with your petty words I still win.

Ha

Ha

Ha

I thought it would be interesting to point out that the things my character took from Roark's writings led the player to find out more about Ayn Rand, and helped begin and continue to form my own personal code.

So, in essence, Lusternia changed my life.