This man's philosophy has been destroyed by post-war apologetics

>He would have been appalled by fascism
As much as he was by Democracy?
>He was an anti-antisemite
He thought man should kill the Jew ideologically, rather than physically, because that's a bigger struggle, so in a way, he was the Uberantisemite
>He would have been ashamed to be associated with the holocaust
Assuming it actually happened, have you completely overlooked everything he said about revenge?
>His sister changed passages in his work
What's it say about his philosophy if a few passages being changed can change the whole context of his work?
>He predicted massive destruction with The Death of God if man replaced God with the state
So the 20th Century was a confirmation of his philosophy? He would have been appalled by this why?
>He didn't mean Blonde Beast literally
And The Germans (known for their intellect) took it literally?

20th century academic apologetics shit all over his work much more than the Nazis.
Don't believe zee hype.

bump

I think he is more relevant than ever, especially with his writings on willpower. Anyone like me who has struggled to lift and work out regularly has only himself to blame, we are weak-willed. Nietzsche should have a daily thread here in the context of the iron pill.

...

I like how you mentioned lifting user because I use that as a prime example of how one of the pillars of his philosophy has been misconstrued during the 20th century.
>Eternal Recurrence of the Same
This is an Indian concept, and the academics thought Nietzsche was fond of it as a metaphor.
Imagine living the same life over and over again, you have to experience ever day and every thought and every pain and [pleasure forever and ever, but right now, you have the will to choose how that eternal recurrence will play out.
That is a metaphor one can use to live a great life, make every moment triumphant.
While I agree its a nice spin, it's completely missing the point in the context of Nietzsche's philosophy.
Eternal recurrence of the same is meant as a feedback loop for the Will to Power.
The analogy I use to illustrate this, again, is lifting.
in order to make gains while lifting, one needs to lift more and more weight or else they plateau and this brings about degeneracy.
Power, like muscle, needs bigger and bigger things to overcome, or else it risks degeneracy,
Overcoming the same thing each day doesn't keep power at the same level, no, its causes it to degenerate.
In Nietzsche's words:
>Once one has achieved their goal, their ideal, they transcend it.

>Overcoming the same thing each day doesn't keep power at the same level, no, its causes it to degenerate.
He explains that notion very succinctly in Twilight of the Idols:

>How is freedom measured, in individuals as in nations? By the resistance which must be overcome, by the effort [Mühe] it costs to remain on top. The highest type of free men should be sought where the highest resistance is constantly overcome: five steps from tyranny, close to the threshold of the danger of servitude. This is true psychologically if by "tyrants" are meant inexorable and dreadful instincts that provoke the maximum of authority and discipline against themselves — most beautiful type: Julius Caesar — ; this is true politically too; one need only go through history. The nations which were worth something, became worth something, never became so under liberal institutions: it was great danger that made something of them that merits respect. Danger alone acquaints us with our own resources, our virtues, our armor and weapons, our spirit — and forces us to be strong ...

I consider myself an intellectual
But why does reading something like that make me feel akin to the intellectual prowess of early 1990s Keanu Reeves ?

Because our language has been dumbed down to the point of quasi-illiteracy, probably around the time classical studies stopped being required in public schools.

You know your stuff
General question:
Do you think something akin to his Ubermensch, can, even under ideal circumstances, be achieved?
Or is The Death of God the death of man?

Hitler was by definition the the prophesied Overman, and if he wasnt the coming Overman will make Hitler look like a fucking joke.

I like you're view, user
However, the way I see things, the Ubermensch is not a single person nor single event (even one as massive as WW2)
But rather the next paradigm, which will be achieved through a many trail and error. And that paradigm itself is not an end, but rather the next phase of man, one in which he will again have to grow, and overcome and move beyond, but being where we are now, we can't see past it or even speculate on how it will look.
So, I think you may be onto something when you say Hitler will be dwarfed in the future.

Can someone explain what the hell his philosophy was?

I tried reading his books and they were more like uberman Larping than philosophy.

The death of God is just another part of the resistance that needs to be overcome, in my opinion. If you understand the Übermensch to literally mean a type of individual, as he implied in some of his books, then yes, there will be more and more of these "artist-tyrants" (such as Napoleon, Cesare Borgia, etc) as humanity evolves further on through its cycles of growth and decay.

"Man is something that shall be surpassed," he said in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, and I don't think he meant it as possibility but as a fact. The Eternal Return and this succession of letzte Menschen and Übermenschen will keep happening until we're extinct.

Of one thing I'm sure though, eugenics and racial realism will be the central to this whole thing. I was recently reading some parts of Beyond Good and Evil that are relevant to what you asked, so I'll post them here.

>272. The Purification of Races
>It is probable that there are no pure races but only races which have become purified and even these are extremely rare. We more often meet with crossed races among whom together with the defects in the harmony of the bodily forms (for example when the eyes do not accord with the mouth) we necessarily always find defects of harmony in habits and appreciations. (Livingstone heard someone say" God created white and black men but the devil created the half-castes. ") Crossed races are always at the same time—crossed cultures and crossed moralities: they are as a rule more evil, cruel and restless. Purity is the final result of innumerable adjustments, absorptions and eliminations; and progress towards purity in a race is shown by the fact that the latent strength in the race is more and more restricted to a few special functions whilst it formerly had to carry out too many and often contradictory things. Such a restriction will always have the appearance of an impoverishment and must be judged with prudence and moderation. In the long run however when the process of purification has come to a successful termination all those forces which were formerly wasted in the struggle between the disharmonious qualities are at the disposal of the organism as a whole and this is why purified races have always become stronger and more beautiful. The Greeks may serve us as a model of a purified race and culture! And it is to be hoped that some day a pure European race and culture may arise.

This is from Daybreak actually.

The one from Beyond Good and Evil is this one:

>223. The hybrid European--a tolerably ugly plebeian, taken all in all--absolutely requires a costume: he needs history as a storeroom of costumes. To be sure, he notices that none of the costumes fit him properly--he changes and changes. Let us look at the nineteenth century with respect to these hasty preferences and changes in its masquerades of style, and also with respect to its moments of desperation on account of "nothing suiting" us. It is in vain to get ourselves up as romantic, or classical, or Christian, or Florentine, or barocco, or "national," in moribus et artibus: it does not "clothe us"! But the "spirit," especially the "historical spirit," profits even by this desperation: once and again a new sample of the past or of the foreign is tested, put on, taken off, packed up, and above all studied--we are the first studious age in puncto of "costumes," I mean as concerns morals, articles of belief, artistic tastes, and religions; we are prepared as no other age has ever been for a carnival in the grand style, for the most spiritual festival--laughter and arrogance, for the transcendental height of supreme folly and Aristophanic ridicule of the world. Perhaps we are still discovering the domain of our invention just here, the domain where even we can still be original, probably as parodists of the world's history and as God's Merry-Andrews,--perhaps, though nothing else of the present have a future, our laughter itself may have a future!

What about when CRiSPR and neural augments make all races arbitrarily intelligent, disciplined etc? It won't be 100 years before that happens. If civilization doesn't collapse of course.

Have you read Devi?

>Purity is the final result of innumerable adjustments, absorptions and eliminations

Nice argument against race mixing and the idea that hybrids are better, which I doubt though I have no data.

> The Greeks may serve us as a model of a purified race and culture!
kek. He wasn't writing that long ago, either. Had he ever met real Greeks, or was he going by their statues?

The books that best explain his philosophy without sounding like "larping" are On the Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols. His philosophy is basically a concern with the mental and physiological health of humanity and what kind of culture, in the broadest sense, is the best bet for the future.

Chances are we'll have an augmented elite ruling over a shitload of arbitrarily stupid and indulgent slaves. Nietzsche says something about slavery being necessary to achieve great things, I'll see if I find the exact quote.

>Can someone explain what the hell his philosophy was?
I will make a poor attempt to briefly summerize his philosophy (although he spoke on many subjects, this is the one that he is most known for) for the layman.
>Man no longer uses the Christian God to underline his Governence(God is dead)
>Yet man still governs morality according to Christian morality
>This is a conflict which will haunt man in times to come (20th century)
>If man is a mountain, God is high, but not at its summit, by killing God, we risk falling, if we do not look above and climb beyond
>Man needs a new morality, one which can take him higher and is not based on Juedo-Christian value
>Classic Christian values ma be a part of mans next morality, but only to have been come about by secular means, not Biblical
>In order for man to achieve this, he needs power, more power, and more power (will)(fulfillment) which is only achieved through struggle
>We're heading in the opposite direction
Then he wrote The AntiChrist which was his critique of Christian morality, and now that that has been dealt with, it was time to move on to better values
And he went insane and never was able to achieve it

>kek. He wasn't writing that long ago, either. Had he ever met real Greeks, or was he going by their statues?
He's talking about ancient Greeks.

And then he went insane and never was able to achieve it*

>257. EVERY elevation of the type "man," has hitherto been the work of an aristocratic society and so it will always be--a society believing in a long scale of gradations of rank and differences of worth among human beings, and requiring slavery in some form or other. Without the PATHOS OF DISTANCE, such as grows out of the incarnated difference of classes, out of the constant out-looking and down-looking of the ruling caste on subordinates and instruments, and out of their equally constant practice of obeying and commanding, of keeping down and keeping at a distance--that other more mysterious pathos could never have arisen, the longing for an ever new widening of distance within the soul itself, the formation of ever higher, rarer, further, more extended, more comprehensive states, in short, just the elevation of the type "man," the continued "self-surmounting of man," to use a moral formula in a supermoral sense. To be sure, one must not resign oneself to any humanitarian illusions about the history of the origin of an aristocratic society (that is to say, of the preliminary condition for the elevation of the type "man"): the truth is hard. Let us acknowledge unprejudicedly how every higher civilization hitherto has ORIGINATED! Men with a still natural nature, barbarians in every terrible sense of the word, men of prey, still in possession of unbroken strength of will and desire for power, threw themselves upon weaker, more moral, more peaceful races (perhaps trading or cattle-rearing communities), or upon old mellow civilizations in which the final vital force was flickering out in brilliant fireworks of wit and depravity. At the commencement, the noble caste was always the barbarian caste: their superiority did not consist first of all in their physical, but in their psychical power--they were more COMPLETE men (which at every point also implies the same as "more complete beasts").

It's a very specific interpretation rather losely based on the actual text. the translation is somewhat poor even for what is really possible and most won't pick up on the irony and metaphors.
This is one "stream" of arguments in his work. But to him the semitic god was always just an empty suit to start with; a poor exuse for people who are too weak to live and too unworthy to die cursed to live nowhere, to live by the lie and be hated for what they are and what they will become, even hate themselves for what they are.

>the translation is somewhat poor even for what is really possible and most won't pick up on the irony and metaphors
Can you expand on that?

In an age of disintegration where the races are mixed together, a person will have the legacy of multiple lineages in his body, which means conflicting (and often not merely conflicting) drives and value standards that fight with each other and rarely leave each other alone. A man like this, of late cultures and refracted lights, will typically be a weaker person: his most basic desire is for an end to the war that he is. His notion of happiness corresponds to that of a medicine and mentality of pacification (for instance the Epicurean or Christian); it is a notion of happiness as primarily rest, lack of disturbance, repletion, unity at last and the “Sabbath of Sabbaths,” to speak with the holy rhetorician Augustine, who was himself this sort of person. –

He means the European races, as in the "french" or "german" or "brittish" race...by which he means a man cultured (though biology certainly plays a major role, too, though not as we think of it) in order to resemble the ideal of that place. Each race aims at the ideal man (the "goal") for that race. The point of his 1000 and 1 goals, for instance, is based on his idea that these races, these 1000 people with their various ideal men, ideal goals, as well as the accompanying mores which make sense only insofar as they contribute towards the attainment of that ideal man, have blended together.

What has blended together, to be clear, is the mores, and norms, which made sense only when they were in service of bringing about the ideal man of that "race." However, blended together, they do no longer make sense, in that they are not aimed at making any kind of man except the mish-mash man, the jester, the motley fellow, the democratic man, one which is ultimately, lacking a goal himself. The 1 in the '1000 and 1 goals' is the one which Nietzsched hoped would unite and make sense of the existing mish-mashed 1000 goals norms....each of which was a "race,"

>It's a very specific interpretation rather losely based on the actual text
I interpret it based on our current historical context. At his time those none of those subjects were as developed as they would become in the 20th century, although we do see an increasing emphasis on eugenics in his later works.

Good explanation. Would that one goal be feasible though? I wonder if this new European race wouldn't simply be subjugated by a purer one.

And what to make of the role of the Jews in it?