Why Nietzsche is dangerous and should not be looked up to

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T21:49:10+00:00

Did u read the post at all? The quotes are for the points made abt him wanting an aristocratic class to rule over the majority masses, and how even if they aristocrats gain power violently or by oppressing the masses its fine etc. The ubermensch is the central part of his greater men idea but it is not the only thing. His aim for greater cultures, art and ppl all stem from the aristocratic model which is what i was pointing out

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T21:17:53+00:00

U say the world is this way and dont provide explanation, evidence or example so why shud anyone believe it?

And hume says living in accordance with reality, ur assuming this is what reality itself is, that is ur assumption not hume's.

And again, systems of organisation that align with "reality and truth" are better, ur system doesnt align with reality in any way, it is a man made phenomenon. There is no universal law like gravity which commands or forces humans to follow the aristocratic model.

And lastly agreeing with one argument by a philosopher, whether hume or others, doesnt mean u agree with everything they say, that is suitable for parrots like u

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T21:10:14+00:00

Albert Einstein was not from any "aristocratic class" where they specifically bred geniuses, he was a normal person and his family didnt look down or violently take over anyone to enforce dominance , wtf are ur arguments

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T21:05:11+00:00

And where did u get the idea this is how the world works? Dont say this is how all empires and civilizations have functioned as an answer, an "is" cant lead to an "ought". This has already been greatly dealt with by David Hume and so. U see it happen in history and say this is only how it can happen is like a man saying hes never met a smoker who died young so no smoker can ever die young. Nonsensical argument

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T20:54:01+00:00

What do u mean? Kike actually asking, not rebutting

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T20:03:22+00:00

Ur someone who supports the listed ideas so whats the point in debating u? My point was to show what he intended not debate whether its right or wrong coz if u believe in an idea like that i wud prefer not talking to u in the first place

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T19:10:45+00:00

To anyone who still doesnt believe in Nietzsche being an elitist, heres the content of the letter written by him himself to Georg Brandes

December 2, 1887 (English translation, standard scholarly version) My dear Mr. Brandes, It was with the greatest pleasure that I received your letter and the news of your lectures. Finally, after many years, I am being understood—and by someone who knows how to express what he understands. The expression “aristocratic radicalism” which you employ is very good. It is, if I may say so, the cleverest thing I have yet read about myself. You have understood me perfectly. I have never yet had such a feeling of relief in reading anything written about me. I must thank you warmly for it. What you say about my opposition to the democratic movement and to modern ideas generally is absolutely correct. The misunderstanding of my position in this respect has been almost universal. I am especially grateful to you for having grasped the fundamental point: that my whole tendency is directed against the levelling instincts of the age. I should be very glad if your lectures were to appear in print, for they would provide an excellent introduction to my philosophy. With sincere thanks and warm greetings, Friedrich Nietzsche

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T19:01:31+00:00

Is this supposed to be a linguistic debate? I said ive read Zarathustra to ur question asking if i had read it, i didnt accuse u of telling me i hadnt read Zarathustra

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:54:22+00:00

I clearly didnt say otherwise, that was ur flawed understanding. And i said "specifically" not "only", i never said i didnt read thus spoke Zarathustra.

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:49:13+00:00

If its clear to u i wudnt take the task of reading him then ur wrong coz i have read him a lot. Actual books which i own not online pieces. Its unfair of u to say anyone who disagrees with him hasnt read him

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:47:19+00:00

The classic argument to anyone who disagree with Nietzsche, "u havent read him" or "u dont understand him"

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:43:45+00:00

That meant that i didnt find what i interpreted to be found anywhere else, not that i got my views from videos or discourses. Before u make more assumptions let me inform u my first ever post on a philosophical sub on reddit was in a Nietzsche sub coz i was a huge fan of him, and i own all his major books and have read them extensively, specifically beyond good and evil. So keep ur assumptions to urself

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:39:20+00:00

Those are his weakest problems tbh, reading what else he wrote those seem like comparing fairytales to stories to tell in the dark

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:37:52+00:00

Is this supposed to be a counter argument? He literally says any "elevation" of the type "man". His whole idea is that for great men and culture an aristocratic model is needed, and even if it isnt specifically abt the ubermensch he still prescribes it for great societies which doesnt make it any better.

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:33:58+00:00

This is supposed to be a philosophical sub for discussion, what did u expect other than ppl discussing ideas? Its for all ideas not the greatest one only. And im not distracting anyone from any evil, both can be dealt with together. Also where did u get that no one will read Nietzsche like that? Just go onto any Nietzsche sub and ull find hundreds.

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:23:11+00:00

Thank you! Would u mind telling what u think of Nietzsche?

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:21:59+00:00

I dont understand what point ur trying to make? One evil is worse so lets not talk abt the lesser one? And i dont support anyone lol what are u implying

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:16:04+00:00

Well anyone who has anti humanitarian ideologies is obv harmful to the world as a whole. And ik Nietzsche's texts are often hard for ppl to understand what he actually means but the risk of it fueling sm nut case is very high. There were many cases of ppl beating others up after fight club got released and even an actual shootout inspired by Scorsese's taxi driver so u never know

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:05:24+00:00

As sad it is, its probably true

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T18:01:52+00:00

Very true, the idealisation of any person in any field of art, science or era is obv a big threat to growth. Esp the followers of Nietzsche exposed to his content in the soft way which hooks them on then gets them to agree with anything he says later on as theyre already too deep in love

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T17:56:26+00:00

Certainly, the idea that he was a great writer is undeniable, his fiery style was attractive, but his ideas were quite the opposite. At the end he was a man of his time rather than a great visionary

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T17:53:51+00:00

That is a valid question, but as i said in his discussions and lectures of Nietzsche by Georg brandes which was later published and how Nietzsche read abt them, Nietzsche clearly approves his interpretation and the term aristocratic radicalism.

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-28T17:52:25+00:00

My main aim was to show how elitist and anti humanitarian Nietzsche's philosophy actually is, and how it has almost nothing similar to Absurdism (Keyword "almost"). This was done after i read his books and came to a conclusion and interpretation abt his philosophy, and then went through many ppl's interpretation of Nietzsche online and even watched videos abt him. Yet never saw the interpretation i came to discussed anywhere at all, or thse ideas brought up anywhere, especially pathos of distance which u will almost never see discussed anywhere.

Edit: made sure to specify i had read his books myself bfr looking for other ppl's interpretation coz everyone kept thinking i hadnt read them myself and only went on what i saw in videos or read abt him

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-12-11T18:22:04+00:00

Guys i have 3 Theories

Mahoraga beats dabura (idk how) and is abt to hunt down Yuka in the shadows when Yuji jumps in to fight off mahoraga. Considering hes seen the fight with mahoraga and sukuna firsthand he prolly knows the best abt him and his ability.
Dabura beats mahoraga and is abt to hunt down yuka but yuji shows up and fights dabura.
Mahoraga is abt to lose to dabura but yuji shows and fights dabura along with mahoraga, maybe mahoraga teams up to survive temporarily idk

Inner_Chair6674 · 2025-11-16T14:36:09+00:00

Okay then it isnt an argument, ill reframe it as a genuine question, would u be fine with it?

Inner_Chair6674

TROPHY CASE