A peculiar case of an incident of a word in Nietzsche.

[TheVisionofEr]

Nietzsche said that he “never met a German who was favourably disposed towards the Jews.”He did not say that he never met a German who was favourably disposed towards a Jew. One might suppose that he excluded himself from the comment for the reason that it is ridiculous to speak of meeting oneself. There is a stronger reason. Nietzsche did not regard himself chiefly as a German, but as a Pole. Remarking that he was often taken as such when he went among the Poles, regarding his ancestral name as Nietzky and often praising the genus of the Poles such as it was found by him in the physicist Boscovitch. However, among those dark questions, which, nonetheless through their graspable parts seem not beyond all questioning, there is the question concerning Nietzsche’s praise of the Jews. His praise of the Jews might be dismissed intelligently as follows. Because Nietzsche hated all things merely German as insufficiently grand, as not encompassing the whole of possibility, he praised the Jews merely in order to go beyond mere locality and its narrowness.

[Impenitent]

https://pjmedia.com/blog/the-bizarre-ca ... i-semites/

-Imp

[TheVisionofEr]

Ja, Genau. This is another thing. The contribution of the philosophy is its own life.

[Dubious]

In spite of all the philosophizing by Barry Rubin in the mentioned article the Nazis would have done what they did without without a single word from herr Nietzsche. All they got from him was a type of terminology which suited them but none of the underlying philosophy.

[TheVisionofEr]

All they got from him was a type of terminology which suited them but none of the underlying philosophy.

I don't think so. Leo Strauss suggests otherwise. Not that Nietzsche was the only factor. But, he was a very powerful one. Not because he was against Jews, but because he demonstrated the failure of the Western tradition. The obvious meaning is identical to the change in the meaning of science or philosophy since 1900 or so. The removal of the so-called values from science or philosophy: the "wertfrei" or worthless wisenschaft or science which is now everywhere in control.

[Dubious]

All they got from him was a type of terminology which suited them but none of the underlying philosophy.

I don't think so. Leo Strauss suggests otherwise. Not that Nietzsche was the only factor. But, he was a very powerful one. Not because he was against Jews, but because he demonstrated the failure of the Western tradition. The obvious meaning is identical to the change in the meaning of science or philosophy since 1900 or so. The removal of the so-called values from science or philosophy: the "wertfrei" or worthless wisenschaft or science which is now everywhere in control.

I was mostly referring to Barry Rubin's article in which he got overly complicated and made too many inferences.

What specifically Leo Strauss suggests I don't know. You haven't explained it in context.

Also "wertfrei" does not imply "worthless". Far more often it expresses a state of being unprejudiced, non-partisan or neutral. In that respect it completely aligns with "Wissenschaft" which requires neutrality to achieve. Wissenschaft is not normally regarded as worthless.

[TheVisionofEr]

What specifically Leo Strauss suggests I don't know. You haven't explained it in context.

Nietzsche showed with greater clarity (than anyone yet) the general atmosphere where judgement about good and evil have to be eluded from science/philosophy so that it becomes technology aimed at producing "economic competitiveness" on the world market. The fact/value distinction is a neutralized form of Nietzsche's demonstration that there are no moral phenomena, just moral interpretations of phenomena (and not even that! since one must "will" "the moral" into being).

Also "wertfrei" does not imply "worthless".

I know it sounds ridiculous. It might be regarded as a "pedagogical exaggeration." This is the literal meaning. Wert means worth. By usage wertfrei does mean the exclusion of value statements from the "scientific method." And the so-called "neutrality." But, that neutrality really means instrumentality or instrumental rationality replaces reason or rationality proper.

Wissenschaft is not normally regarded as worthless.

In German there is a distinction that doesn't exist in English. In English natural science and science mean exactly the same thing in normal usage. Wissenschaft has a wider meaning inclusive of rational normatives and is contrasted with the qualified form natura wissenschaft. So, for example, the whole field of mental disorders is not wertfrei or properly scientific in the modern sense. It involves a pre-experimental psychology claiming to be rational which distinguishes good and bad behaviors.