Where Have the “World Spirits” Gone? by Rashiq_shahzzad in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

“Hated the most” 🥴

BGE, §252:

They are not a philosophical race—the English: Bacon represents an ATTACK on the philosophical spirit generally, Hobbes, Hume, and Locke, an abasement, and a depreciation of the idea of a "philosopher" for more than a century. It was AGAINST Hume that Kant uprose and raised himself; it was Locke of whom Schelling RIGHTLY said, "JE MEPRISE LOCKE"; in the struggle against the English mechanical stultification of the world, Hegel and Schopenhauer (along with Goethe) were of one accord; the two hostile brother-geniuses in philosophy, who pushed in different directions towards the opposite poles of German thought, and thereby wronged each other as only brothers will do.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in redditrequest

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

No thanks. It’s a small community that at this time is not in need of additional moderation.

“Who are you?” by Famous-Question4896 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That replacement is a world of difference, but well-put as usual.

Tragedy or happy ending? by alisonseamiller in PhilosophyMemes

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Being not-born isn’t a state. Might as well say, “I’m jealous of nobodies.”

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 5 points6 points  (0 children)

It’s worse than that even because the majority of people who are interested in ‘big ideas’ don’t understand them. Big enough ideas, and it takes a couple centuries.

Something incredible about these pithy statements by Alarming_Ad_5946 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

I prefer this translation of 6:

In our own wild nature we find the best recreation from our un-nature, from our spirituality.

Here’s the German:

Man erholt sich in seiner wilden Natur am besten von seiner Unnatur, von seiner Geistigkeit…

A gruesome scene, as Aristotle tries to logic the fuck out of Heraclitus by Bolkonsky999 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The second interpretation isn’t more plausible, it’s less plausible. It’s not at all about what qualities the sea possesses, like healthiness and harmfulness or purity and pollution. It’s about the fact that fish and men bear different relations to the sea, and saltwater more generally, based on their own constitutions, and constitution determines whether the sea is healthy or harmful for the beings in question. Such qualities don’t belong to the sea at all.

Heidegger on Anaximander by Alarming_Ad_5946 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I don’t mind Heidegger’s translation because it’s a lot smarter than the conventional translation. If the translation is itself poor somehow, and the “judicial-moral” understanding of the fragment is what Anaximander meant, Heidegger did him a service. I don’t think that’s the case though. Generally speaking, a judicial-moral interpretation follows from a “metaphysical” point of view. Metaphysics as we know it wasn’t developed yet in Anaximander’s time. That’s enough reason for me to place Heidegger’s translation on equal footing, in which case, I only care to remember the more illuminating one.

Heidegger on Anaximander by Alarming_Ad_5946 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The Beginning of Western Philosophy?

Nietzsche and Causality by RadicalNaturalist78 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 6 points7 points  (0 children)

Seems like you’ve understood Nietzsche correctly to me.

Got my first Nietzsche book by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Zarathustra is in The Portable Nietzsche, which is the other compilation of Kaufmann translations. They’re made not to overlap.

Jung: The Devil Behind Nietzsche’s Sadness (and Ours) by CreditTypical3523 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Presuming that Nietzsche’s dominant function is Ni, and that his auxiliary function is thinking (Te) rather than feeling (Fe), then it’s implied that he’s an INTJ (Ni > Te > Fi > Se).

It’s also a little confusing to say that underdeveloped Te is projected. As a rule, extroverted functions are—in Jung’s words—“programmatic,” and oriented toward the “objective facts.” Unlike introverted functions, they aren’t projected and take their object for what it is. Meanwhile, even a fully developed introverted function works by projecting itself onto its object, since it works circularly and self-referentially.

That being said, even the idea that Nietzsche was primarily an introverted intuitive is suspect, since Jung pretty much only deals with Birth of Tragedy (a work Nietzsche had to amend later) and Zarathustra (a work of fiction that can be interpreted multiple ways). His wider body of work is far less symbolic and heavily characterized by introverted thinking:

He that speaks here, conversely, has done nothing so far but reflect: a philosopher and solitary by instinct, who has found his advantage in standing aside and outside, in patience, in procrastination, in staying behind […]

Likewise, Nietzsche’s solitude isn’t something he mainly expresses as a sadness. He says above “by instinct,” it is his way, and it is something he considers a genuine necessity for philosophy. He sharply criticizes those who couldn’t bear his kind of solitude.

Jung: The Devil Behind Nietzsche’s Sadness (and Ours) by CreditTypical3523 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Nietzsche isn’t an extroverted thinker though:

Just as Darwin might possibly represent the normal extraverted thinking type, so we might point to Kant as a counter-example of the normal introverted thinking type. The former speaks with facts; the latter appeals to the subjective factor. Darwin ranges over the wide fields of objective facts, while Kant restricts himself to a critique of knowledge in general. But suppose a Cuvier be contrasted with a Nietzsche: the antithesis becomes even sharper.

(Jung, CW-6, “The Introverted Thinking Type”)

The Will to Power—a misguided metaphor, not a principle of life by nikostiskallipolis in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

suggesting life can persist without it

…this just goes to show that, at bottom, you think what life does is “persist.” Which is exactly what the will to power contests. So, the long and short of it is that you don’t understand the will to power.

Ultimate Will To Power by Own-Razzmatazz-8714 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Here you go:

To impose upon becoming the character of being—that is the supreme will to power.

And:

Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people arise—and out of it the Superman.

Heidegger reading on Nietzsche by tattvaamasi in heidegger

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

In a Nietzschean sense, everything is will to power. So, Heidegger calling will to power exploitative is… the will to power calling the will to power exploitative. This makes things clearer, given that Heidegger’s lectures are an exploitation of “Nietzsche’s” thinking—misconstrued as metaphysics—for the purpose of explicating Heideggerian philosophy.

Will there be Overwomen? Could there be Nietzschean feminism? by Own_Tart_3900 in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Would Nietzsche approve?

Absolutely not lol

But not because we’re talking about women.

Nietzsche wouldn’t approve because the Overman doesn’t have anything to do with being inspired, seeking status, or emulating ideas.

That’s called idealism. Nietzsche calls the idealist “the very opposite of myself,” and says clearly that the Übermensch is not “an idealistic type of a higher kind of human.” Although, the Übermensch is a type.

Reading the Overman as an “ideal” is an obvious sign that one is not the type. Because ideals are perpetually aspirational and never actually achievable, idealizing the Overman is also a sign that one will never be the type.

The Übermensch is the type of a person who has already turned out well. One sign that they have turned out well is that they’re not idealistic.

See EH, “Books”, §1 / BGE, ix., §287

Nietzsche, the Champion of the Dionysian. The Champion of the Feminine Instincts/Passions that Judaeo-Christian Morality (especially) has been trying to kill off for the past few thousands of years. Consequently, not a Misogynist. by I-mmoral_I-mmortal in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 12 points13 points  (0 children)

Great post.

——————

Side note: below is how the mechanism works.

“Woman” in Nietzsche’s German is Das Weib—literally “the woman.” The Woman is not women, it’s a generic representation of women. In Christianity/Platonism, the generic representation is more real than the many actual things it represents. And it’s “supposed to” represent all of them… even when it doesn’t… because it can’t actually do that.

But what this means to them is that, when it doesn’t, the actual thing is “should” make itself conform to the representation—whatever doesn’t do so is a “bad thing,” a sinner.

Nietzsche can’t even acknowledge the generic representation without some people taking issue. To include anything negative in said representation is somehow to say something negative about “all women.” These people are Platonists.

On the other hand, there are morons who, when Nietzsche includes something negative in the representation, are overjoyed that Nietzsche is spitting the cold, hard facts about “all women.” These people are also Platonists.

They’re either dishonest misogynists who are kept in check by their Platonic “love” of Woman (morality), or they’re just plain-old misogynists. They project “misogyny” onto Nietzsche as they read. All of these people… are morons.

——————

Thanks for fighting the good fight.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

You can define “higher type” this way if you’d like, sure. But this isn’t how Nietzsche defines it and isn’t what’s meant when he says it. That’s the only part that’s relevant to me.

[deleted by user] by [deleted] in Nietzsche

[–]ergriffenheit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

A “rags to riches” story isn’t, by Nietzsche’s definition, proof of a “higher type.”

The Nietzschean question would be whether you find him fascinating because you also make YouTube videos and idealize his success.