For Nietzsche:
Posted by ObjectiveAnalyst 12 years ago to Philosophy
Hello Nietzsche,
Thank you for your reply and perspective. (Ref. topic “Is selfishness the solution to our country’s problems?”)I quite enjoyed and approve of the general thrust of your distillation. I have moved this conversation to its own page because I believe it deserves its own examination and I believe it is out of place where our conversation originated.
I have noted his rational approach to recognizing the relationship between mind and universe. His rejection of the idealists view of the universe being interpreted as the essence of mind and therefore friendly to man’s values, as opposed to an independent existent indifferent to the will of man is a most practical, pragmatic approach. His perspective when making the “will to power” the essence of the universe makes the case for his contrary view. His is a pessimistic view but a rational one. The universe has no cognition and doesn’t give a wit about man, or his values.
His recognition that inequality is the natural state of man, that they have individual strengths and that their differing talents dictate different vocations and consequently different fortunes, is again rational. He is much like Plato in this regard, yet I do not recall any silly assertions like are contemplated in Plato’s Republic which asserts a utopian view where the Elites (read philosophers) determine/ dictate the occupations and set up a de-facto caste system. However his perspective on the “will to power” in regards to a natural law of survival of the fittest has been interpreted as a little harsh when he advocated the notion that the nature of things is such that the most powerful/ stronger should win and the weak should be destroyed to make room for the strong! A harsh reality to be sure, but it is unnatural to exchange it with forced equality.
I have not read any of his works, only highlights from general philosophy books. You mentioned “The Gay Science” and “How One Philosophizes with a Hammer”; my material makes note of his most famous book “Thus Spake Zarathustra”. Have you read this piece and if so what is your opinion?
How do you answer the criticisms as offered by Rand regarding Nietzche? Her appraisal is that he is a mystic and an irrationalist, because his metaphysics consist of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe. His epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling, instinct, blood or innate virtues of character. As a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual terms. He rebelled against altruism by replacing sacrifice of oneself to sacrifice of others to oneself. He asserted that the ideal man is moved not by reason but by “blood,” by innate instincts, feelings and “will to power”—that he is predestined by birth to rule others while they are predestined to be his victims and slaves-- that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, morality useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” a “beast of prey” who’s ultimate standard is his own whim. Thus his rejection of the witch doctor consists of elevating Atilla into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the witch doctor. (paraphrased from The Ayn Rand Lexicon, excerpts from “Introduction to The Fountainhead,” TO, March 1968,6. and “For the New Intellectual,” FNI, 39; pb 36.)
For me the answer is that like all philosophers I have studied, they were mere mortals and had great contributions and insight, yet were not infallible. I find something of value from many, but do not buy everything. I believe Rand is no different and her appraisal of his “malevolent universe” may be a bit of a misinterpretation, but I am not an authority. What say you?
Respectfully,
O.A.
Thank you for your reply and perspective. (Ref. topic “Is selfishness the solution to our country’s problems?”)I quite enjoyed and approve of the general thrust of your distillation. I have moved this conversation to its own page because I believe it deserves its own examination and I believe it is out of place where our conversation originated.
I have noted his rational approach to recognizing the relationship between mind and universe. His rejection of the idealists view of the universe being interpreted as the essence of mind and therefore friendly to man’s values, as opposed to an independent existent indifferent to the will of man is a most practical, pragmatic approach. His perspective when making the “will to power” the essence of the universe makes the case for his contrary view. His is a pessimistic view but a rational one. The universe has no cognition and doesn’t give a wit about man, or his values.
His recognition that inequality is the natural state of man, that they have individual strengths and that their differing talents dictate different vocations and consequently different fortunes, is again rational. He is much like Plato in this regard, yet I do not recall any silly assertions like are contemplated in Plato’s Republic which asserts a utopian view where the Elites (read philosophers) determine/ dictate the occupations and set up a de-facto caste system. However his perspective on the “will to power” in regards to a natural law of survival of the fittest has been interpreted as a little harsh when he advocated the notion that the nature of things is such that the most powerful/ stronger should win and the weak should be destroyed to make room for the strong! A harsh reality to be sure, but it is unnatural to exchange it with forced equality.
I have not read any of his works, only highlights from general philosophy books. You mentioned “The Gay Science” and “How One Philosophizes with a Hammer”; my material makes note of his most famous book “Thus Spake Zarathustra”. Have you read this piece and if so what is your opinion?
How do you answer the criticisms as offered by Rand regarding Nietzche? Her appraisal is that he is a mystic and an irrationalist, because his metaphysics consist of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe. His epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling, instinct, blood or innate virtues of character. As a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual terms. He rebelled against altruism by replacing sacrifice of oneself to sacrifice of others to oneself. He asserted that the ideal man is moved not by reason but by “blood,” by innate instincts, feelings and “will to power”—that he is predestined by birth to rule others while they are predestined to be his victims and slaves-- that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, morality useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” a “beast of prey” who’s ultimate standard is his own whim. Thus his rejection of the witch doctor consists of elevating Atilla into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the witch doctor. (paraphrased from The Ayn Rand Lexicon, excerpts from “Introduction to The Fountainhead,” TO, March 1968,6. and “For the New Intellectual,” FNI, 39; pb 36.)
For me the answer is that like all philosophers I have studied, they were mere mortals and had great contributions and insight, yet were not infallible. I find something of value from many, but do not buy everything. I believe Rand is no different and her appraisal of his “malevolent universe” may be a bit of a misinterpretation, but I am not an authority. What say you?
Respectfully,
O.A.
http://freestudents.blogspot.mx/2010/03/...
I missed any suggestion from what I have read by Nietzsche that capitalism was bad or that slavery was good. I wish there foot notes to annotate where that comes from.
Wouldn't it be awesome to have world exceptionalism today? I tremble at what the last 100 years would have been like had the rest of the world moved to a CLIMATE that allowed american exceptionalism to spread and be world exceptionalism rather than having individuals all over the world never find out just how exceptional they could be.
I remember an interview with Rand I saw some years ago and she was asked if most people are worthy of love and she responded no. So she was not completely consistent on this.
I assert that in a free society, heroes are everywhere and in a non free society monsters are everywhere.
The article was quite interesting and informative. I have saved it to my philosophy folder for future reference.
If anyone can come up with the author, I would appreciate an update.
Regards,
O.A.
You may not be aware of this, but thirty years after its initial publication, 150,000 copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra were printed and issued as inspirational reading, along with the Bible, to the Kaiser's Army during WWI! The man had influence. But, if this were the only source used to interpret Nietzsche, I think his core arguments would be largely missed.
Using fictional characters speaking in parables and short narratives, his thoughts are left open to a variety of interpretations. This may also explain part of its appeal. It is his only work where he mentions the übermenschlich (superhuman) in a substantial way. It has been a long time since I read it and I retain more of an impression than memory of the actual dialogue, but I view it more an exploration of ideas for a possible future and not necessarily central to Nietzsche's thought as a whole. The Nazis latched onto and perverted this idea of the superman master race. What the Nazis did has nothing in common with Nietzschean thought, although some have tried to equate these disparate ideas.
I do not understand why Rand would call him irrational or mystic unless she interpreted that from some passage in Thus Spoke Zarathustra and was not familiar with his other many writings.
Nietzsche did challenge the established moral idea that exploitation or domination of the weak are universally objectionable behaviors. But he did not say they were necessarily desirable behaviors either, he just says that's the way it is - a version of survival of the fittest. I see a pragmatism in Nietzsche. He was, in my opinion, quite rational and was strongly influenced by Darwin. He saw the universe not as malevolent, but rather indifferent.
He placed great value on feeling and life affirmation. He proposed not the exclusion of Socratic logic or reason, just that the pre-Socratic "Dionysian" approach to life was more life affirming. With all the critiques he wrote of the other philosophies and religions, Nietzsche was certainly capable of using reason and using it to great effect.
That's why I like the hammer metaphor. He would propose skeptically tapping at any philosophy, including his own, to see how sound it is.
I think Rand was opposed to him for the following reasons:
1) He did not believe in an objective reality
2) He did not believe in absolutes in Morality
3) He believed in altruism, he just suggested the superhuman should be the leader
4) he believed in the primacy of emotion.
Here is a chart that lists a number of philosophical points and compares Nietzsche and Rand’s point of view http://www.atlassociety.org/nietzsche-an.... I cannot verify the chart is correct on all points – but it seems consistent with my knowledge of Nietzsche.
My impression of his view on altruism however, is that he found it self-destructive.
You are correct that he believed in the primacy of emotion. This is the Dionysian vs. Apollonian thing. Although I would emphasize he did not dismiss nor deny logic and reason, he only placed them as subordinate to the creative life force.
As to the table at the Atlas society link... WOW. "68 points", really? It would take years of study to refute or support so broad a spectrum of concepts. Just agreeing on the meaning of the labels down the left side could take months.
I am much more familiar with Nietzsche than I am with Objectivism, so I find it difficult to comment on how the table has categorized, let alone defined the positions represented. I came to Rand through Atlas Shrugged. Being foreign born, I was not exposed to Rand in any of my formal education and it is only in the last ten years or so that I have started to learn about her.
I do not consider myself an Objectivist and from what little exposure I have thus had to Objectivist philosophy, I find it more confusing than Nietzche and Nietzsche can be confusing!
Unlike Nietzsche, I am a fan of Socrates and defining terms is a big part of his logical method. When discussing any issue, I like to establish what all parties exactly mean by any assertion. Having said that, I do not know where to even begin to compare Rand and Nietzsche, but I do find it fascinating that she embraced his writings in her early life.
Sometimes we become so involved in daily activities, we do not take time to step back and examine some of the core values of our existence. I must say that Galt's Gulch has been a stimulating diversion and caused me to reconsider things I haven't thought about or debated in years.
This is an interesting conversation. I sincerely thank all of you who are participating.
As Rand defines selfishness and altruism, N. 's ideas were consistent with altruism in my view. Would you mind discussing the idea of the super human and what rules applied to the super human compared to the rest of mankind?
"Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss."
"What is great in man is that he is a bridge, not an end."
These two statements are a complete contradiction with Objectivism, not a departure.
We are all philosophers developing our own world view and understanding. In this way my philosophy is the product of many. My affection for Objectivism stems from my desire to be objective and use reason as my guide for any conclusions. I too have great appreciation for the Socratic Method. It is unfortunate that the only material available regarding Socrates is second hand. I stand on the shoulders of those who came before me with great benefit of the legwork they have done.
This discussion has intrigued me. I must now investigate further one of the philosophers of note I have heretofore largely passed over. Thank you for your input above and your other posts on this thread. I hope this thread continues to provide further food for thought.
Hammer on!
O.A.
Nietzsche was a very prolific writer and many of his writings are relatively short critical essays.
This Wikipedia article lists most if not all of his writings with synopses of their subject matter. I find it difficult to recommend anything in particular, because it depends upon what aspect of his philosophy you are interested in, but Thus Spake Zarathustra, although his most famous work, is a difficult way to get acquainted with Nietzsche. I think "Beyond Good and Evil" may be a good start, but if you browse the Wiki article, I am certain you can find a jump off point.
Nietzsche is unconventional and often subtle in how he conveys his ideas. If you are not already familiar with the Greek Dionysian and Apollonian philosophies, Nietzsche can easily be misunderstood.
I applaud your wishing to form your own opinion first hand and I think Nietzsche would as well.
I would be most interested first in his work most closely related to politics and organization of society. In this case which of his writings would you recommend first?
O.A.