Philosophy Now Forum

Hi Sob...

I have been trying to answer your question directly but you seen not to understand what I am saying....I think you should read the book and then you will understand. But here is a quote from Wikipedia that states the same as Chaz is trying to tell you:


"In § 1, Nietzsche expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity. He disliked the contemporary "lazy peace," "cowardly compromise," "tolerance," and "resignation."[6] This related to Schopenhauer's claim that knowledge of the inner nature of the world and life results in "... perfect resignation, which is the innermost spirit of Christianity ... ."[7]

Nietzsche introduced his concept of will to power in § 2. He defined the concepts of good, bad, and happiness in relation to the will to power. "What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome."[8] German militarists found pronouncements such as "Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war ..."[8] useful. Nietzsche's words were provocative and shocking in passages such as: "The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity ... ."[8] This is an example of Nietzsche's reaction against Schopenhauer, who had based all morality on compassion.[9] Nietzsche, on the contrary, praised "... virtue free of moralic acid."[8]

Nietzsche went on to say that mankind, out of fear, has bred a weak, sick type of human. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity's teaching of original sin.[10][11]

Mankind, according to Nietzsche, is corrupt and its highest values are depraved. He asserted that "... all the values in which mankind at present summarizes its highest desiderata are decadence values."[12] Mankind is depraved because it has lost its instincts and prefers what is harmful to it. "I consider life itself instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of forces, for power : where the will to power is lacking there is decline."[12] Depravity results because "... nihilistic values dominate under the holiest names."[12]"


We can't pick one thing out of the book to show you as it is an accumulation of ideas...N's thought process is a journey more than it is just a quote here or there.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob...

I have been trying to answer your question directly but you seen not to understand what I am saying....I think you should read the book and then you will understand. But here is a quote from Wikipedia that states the same as Chaz is trying to tell you:


"In § 1, Nietzsche expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity. He disliked the contemporary "lazy peace," "cowardly compromise," "tolerance," and "resignation."[6] This related to Schopenhauer's claim that knowledge of the inner nature of the world and life results in "... perfect resignation, which is the innermost spirit of Christianity ... ."[7]

Nietzsche introduced his concept of will to power in § 2. He defined the concepts of good, bad, and happiness in relation to the will to power. "What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome."[8] German militarists found pronouncements such as "Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war ..."[8] useful. Nietzsche's words were provocative and shocking in passages such as: "The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity ... ."[8] This is an example of Nietzsche's reaction against Schopenhauer, who had based all morality on compassion.[9] Nietzsche, on the contrary, praised "... virtue free of moralic acid."[8]

Nietzsche went on to say that mankind, out of fear, has bred a weak, sick type of human. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity's teaching of original sin.[10][11]

Mankind, according to Nietzsche, is corrupt and its highest values are depraved. He asserted that "... all the values in which mankind at present summarizes its highest desiderata are decadence values."[12] Mankind is depraved because it has lost its instincts and prefers what is harmful to it. "I consider life itself instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of forces, for power : where the will to power is lacking there is decline."[12] Depravity results because "... nihilistic values dominate under the holiest names."[12]"


We can't pick one thing out of the book to show you as it is an accumulation of ideas...N's thought process is a journey more than it is just a quote here or there.

I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

Not N, Philosophy is one of your loves, get it now?

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

Well...you have a point...but then again...who's not evil?

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

Well...you have a point...but then again...who's not evil?

That's a cop out, he real question is who's trying to negate their evil, and who's trying to further their evil?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

Well...you have a point...but then again...who's not evil?

That's a cop out, he real question is who's trying to negate their evil, and who's trying to further their evil?

Okay...then fine...let's say those are the real questions....now answer them.... if you can.....

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Well...you have a point...but then again...who's not evil?

That's a cop out, he real question is who's trying to negate their evil, and who's trying to further their evil?

Okay...then fine...let's say those are the real questions....now answer them.... if you can.....

That's easy, I can't speak for anyone but myself, and in all honesty, I'm always attempting to negate my evil tendencies, however minute they might be. Now it's your turn to speak for your self!

Edit: Spelling

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob...

I have been trying to answer your question directly but you seen not to understand what I am saying....I think you should read the book and then you will understand. But here is a quote from Wikipedia that states the same as Chaz is trying to tell you:


"In § 1, Nietzsche expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity. He disliked the contemporary "lazy peace," "cowardly compromise," "tolerance," and "resignation."[6] This related to Schopenhauer's claim that knowledge of the inner nature of the world and life results in "... perfect resignation, which is the innermost spirit of Christianity ... ."[7]

Nietzsche introduced his concept of will to power in § 2. He defined the concepts of good, bad, and happiness in relation to the will to power. "What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome."[8] German militarists found pronouncements such as "Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war ..."[8] useful. Nietzsche's words were provocative and shocking in passages such as: "The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity ... ."[8] This is an example of Nietzsche's reaction against Schopenhauer, who had based all morality on compassion.[9] Nietzsche, on the contrary, praised "... virtue free of moralic acid."[8]

Nietzsche went on to say that mankind, out of fear, has bred a weak, sick type of human. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity's teaching of original sin.[10][11]

Mankind, according to Nietzsche, is corrupt and its highest values are depraved. He asserted that "... all the values in which mankind at present summarizes its highest desiderata are decadence values."[12] Mankind is depraved because it has lost its instincts and prefers what is harmful to it. "I consider life itself instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of forces, for power : where the will to power is lacking there is decline."[12] Depravity results because "... nihilistic values dominate under the holiest names."[12]"


We can't pick one thing out of the book to show you as it is an accumulation of ideas...N's thought process is a journey more than it is just a quote here or there.

I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

Why did N write a book called 'beyond good and evil'? The thing about these threads is it sometimes difficult to refer to past postings and sub-conversations in the thread if one was not following along the whole time.

The reason you see these quotes as evil is because you are trapped in a reality of good and evil and so if one attempts to point out the fallacy of such an absolute morality you see that as offending your sense of good, in that what is informing you of your good is a particular moral scheme of good and evil. N is saying that such a scheme is flawed and, as merely an analogy, it is like trying to tell racists that their race is not superior and that even the concept of race is flawed: they will not hear of it and will decidedly assert that the person attempting to convince them otherwise is 'evil'.

Indeed they offend you because of your absolute position ( which we have discussed before ).

You are misinterpreting the texts because you are will not, as AS said earlier, set aside your preconceptions and just read the book, and as Chaz said, and not pick segmented quips to unpack. N is building as case.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

You might as well blame Darwin for the holocaust with more justification.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: That's easy, I can't speak for anyone but myself, and in all honesty, I'm always attempting to negate my evil tenancies, however minute they might be. Now it's your turn to speak for your self!

First you have to define evil or I won't know what you are talking about. N wrote a whole book talking about his "definition" of 'evil'. He thought Christianity was 'evil' as it bred 'weak' individuals.

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "evil"...I think what society calls 'evil' is just mental illness...and I think all of society is infected. Just some more than others.

But let me ask you another question...suppose no one on the planet thought anyone else was 'evil'? Suppose there was no such concept...Do you think there would still be atrocities commented by man against man?

Jets try this, SOB; pulled fomr page 7 or 8 or this thread.
(I posted this):

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

The same is going on here with you SOB.
N offends you in his 'bare' existance. He makes no excuses for his crass discursive demeanor; he expects that only a few people willl have the intellectual integrity to know what he is saying, to face the harsh reality.

In the AC, he talks about the Jews and Christ. His point is that Christ as he was, actually and effectively -- against the Jewish (of the time) version of him, which became the Christian version -- as the exstant individual, not the hierarchical power structure that was constructed around an idea of him, not what the Jews or Christians made of him -- was really: The Anti Christ.

Becuase the Jew could not make sense of him they resented him. Out of resentment, out of the inability to reconsile thier eixtsnace with existance itself, they were resentful, and so they 'elevated' him to 'Christ'. In true conformity to the only reality they could know, a reallity displaced by the basic offence of bare existance, they placed him in a discursive hierarchy of morals, a geneology of morals, to coid a term, and constructed this scheme of power by which we (typically) know reality today. And so we react to this power, we will our ideas within this scheme of morals and achive nothing but the shceme itself.

Thus one must withdraw from the transcending projection, the discursive ideology, the disctates of moralistic idol worship. One must 'transcend' the tendancy to proclaim a potential for transcendence.

It is easy to read N and say: WILL TO POWER, and have a good/evil notion of what that means. to some , it is great, like "yeah, POw-ER!", like Hitler; to others, they can say "Oh no, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
But N is not pseaking about such a Power.
In fact he speaks negatively; not 'badly of', but is making the argument through the negative inference.
He is clearly decrying such manifestations of power as 'of the herdsmen', of the 'sick-brute man'.

And, it is interesting that Chaz pointed out, thaty it was his sister post-humously who coined the term 'will to power'. (Am I correct in this last Chaz?)

lancek4 wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob...

I have been trying to answer your question directly but you seen not to understand what I am saying....I think you should read the book and then you will understand. But here is a quote from Wikipedia that states the same as Chaz is trying to tell you:


"In § 1, Nietzsche expressed his dissatisfaction with modernity. He disliked the contemporary "lazy peace," "cowardly compromise," "tolerance," and "resignation."[6] This related to Schopenhauer's claim that knowledge of the inner nature of the world and life results in "... perfect resignation, which is the innermost spirit of Christianity ... ."[7]

Nietzsche introduced his concept of will to power in § 2. He defined the concepts of good, bad, and happiness in relation to the will to power. "What is good? — All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? — All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? — The feeling that power increases — that a resistance is overcome."[8] German militarists found pronouncements such as "Not contentment, but more power; not peace at all, but war ..."[8] useful. Nietzsche's words were provocative and shocking in passages such as: "The weak and ill–constituted shall perish: first principle of our philanthropy. And one shall help them to do so. What is more harmful than any vice? — Active sympathy for the ill–constituted and weak — Christianity ... ."[8] This is an example of Nietzsche's reaction against Schopenhauer, who had based all morality on compassion.[9] Nietzsche, on the contrary, praised "... virtue free of moralic acid."[8]

Nietzsche went on to say that mankind, out of fear, has bred a weak, sick type of human. He blamed Christianity for demonizing strong, higher humans. Pascal, he claimed, was an intellectually strong man who was depraved by Christianity's teaching of original sin.[10][11]

Mankind, according to Nietzsche, is corrupt and its highest values are depraved. He asserted that "... all the values in which mankind at present summarizes its highest desiderata are decadence values."[12] Mankind is depraved because it has lost its instincts and prefers what is harmful to it. "I consider life itself instinct for growth, for durability, for accumulation of forces, for power : where the will to power is lacking there is decline."[12] Depravity results because "... nihilistic values dominate under the holiest names."[12]"


We can't pick one thing out of the book to show you as it is an accumulation of ideas...N's thought process is a journey more than it is just a quote here or there.

I see every bit of what you quoted as evil.

Why did N write a book called 'beyond good and evil'? The thing about these threads is it sometimes difficult to refer to past postings and sub-conversations in the thread if one was not following along the whole time.

The reason you see these quotes as evil is because you are trapped in a reality of good and evil and so if one attempts to point out the fallacy of such an absolute morality you see that as offending your sense of good, in that what is informing you of your good is a particular moral scheme of good and evil. N is saying that such a scheme is flawed and, as merely an analogy, it is like trying to tell racists that their race is not superior and that even the concept of race is flawed: they will not hear of it and will decidedly assert that the person attempting to convince them otherwise is 'evil'.

Indeed they offend you because of your absolute position ( which we have discussed before ).

You are misinterpreting the texts because you are will not, as AS said earlier, set aside your preconceptions and just read the book, and as Chaz said, and not pick segmented quips to unpack. N is building as case.

I hear what you're saying Lance. And I understand that sometimes philosophy goes out on a limb and says ridiculous things, fanciful things, but that doesn't change the fact that there is no such thing as beyond good and evil, and that to say that they are analogous with different races, is ridiculous. Where one is apples, the other is oranges. The race issue, is meant to make one above or below the other, merely due to superficial differences. Good and evil on the other hand, is in fact about equality for all, pure and simple, good and evil is not designed to keep one down so that the another can rise to the top. What he should have been talking about, if he truly wanted to make sense of things, is to deal directly with the definition of good and evil, because that's where the problem lies. For me, Good and Evil fit totally within the framework of my Fundamental Social Axiom (rewrite of the Golden Rule, to address philosophical concerns). Which is: "Treat others as you would have others treat you, to the extent that all parties, knowingly agree, at the time." Simple, there you have it, good and evil in fairness for all.

In essence, good is all that benefits the organism, which is ultimately decided by the organism in question. All that is evil, is that which harms the organism, and again, that which qualifies, is ultimately decided by the organism in question. The truthfulness of a particular thing of good or evil applying, can only be decided as of now, because one cannot see into the future, as to what may change. Obviously, all must agree, to negate the disparity of differing levels of knowledge and understanding between peoples. Done deal, good and evil have been repaired, instead of trying to negate them altogether, which is what going beyond them implies.

I am not trapped here with good and evil, I decide to be here as it's the only thing that makes any sense. So far what I've read of him, which is just the start, makes no sense whatsoever. And I refuse to buy into nonsense!

chaz wyman wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

You might as well blame Darwin for the holocaust with more justification.

You guys demean me in your assumption, I did not say I blamed him for Hitlers actions, I'm no fool, I understand that each man decides for himself what he will do. My point was that Hitler was the only one to truly understand him, as seen through his actions, that mimicked N's words. In other words, they are birds of a feather.

Of course I'm not saying this with certainty, as actual, I'm just saying that I can see an argument for this point of view based upon what I've read of N so far. Don't forget that I've clearly asked for evidence that he means things as you say he does, I, like you, don't necessarily want to believe it's true. But in the end, If I see no proof, in his own words and his words alone, that what you all say is true, then I'll think of him as evil and insane. I shall not care what the majority says, I absolutely refuse to be a parrot, just to fit in! Truth is all that matters to me! And like I told Lance earlier, I believe that what Socrates meant when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing,' is to question everything, especially so far as to question your questioning?

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: That's easy, I can't speak for anyone but myself, and in all honesty, I'm always attempting to negate my evil tenancies, however minute they might be. Now it's your turn to speak for your self!

First you have to define evil or I won't know what you are talking about. N wrote a whole book talking about his "definition" of 'evil'. He thought Christianity was 'evil' as it bred 'weak' individuals.

Personally, I don't think there is such a thing as "evil"...I think what society calls 'evil' is just mental illness...and I think all of society is infected. Just some more than others.

But let me ask you another question...suppose no one on the planet thought anyone else was 'evil'? Suppose there was no such concept...Do you think there would still be atrocities commented by man against man?

See the above response to Lance where I start by saying: "I hear what you're saying Lance," to find my definition of Good and Evil.