Nietzsche‘s Thus spoke Zarathustra
In Thus spoke Zarathustra, Nietzsche has a chapter titled Of the new idol. In this chapter he describes The State in a very negative manner, illuminating it’s propensity for deceit, tyranny Etc.. Sometime ago I saw a documentary On Nietzsche where the claim was made that German soldiers would carry copies of Thus Spoke Zarathustra in their rucksacks .So I begin wondering how the Nazis reconciled such blatant models of Nietzsche’s philosophy which oppose their doctrines. Because there are many other aspects of Nietzsche‘s philosophy that contradict Nazism, even before it’s existence, I’m happy to open the conversation up to any other examples someone might have of these contradictions and hopefully some answers about how the Nazis could ignore or perhaps disregard many foundational aspects of Nietzsche’s philosophy.
Comments (37)
The Nazis could ignore this because they cared for appearances not meaning or truth. This is why they inserted socialism into thier name and why they designed cool uniforms that were more work to make and barely functional. The contradictions weren't something they had to overcome because they didn't care to begin with.
My favourite line from nietzsche that would go against Nazis was a letter he wrote to a friend after his mental break were he claimed he would personally see all antisemites killed XD
There are many aspects of Nietzsche's thought, however, which make the relationship more complex. These include: his glorification of war and power; his view that the essence of life involves struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc.; his rejection of egalitarianism and other values/beliefs underlying both liberal democracy and communism; his rejection of "herd morality"; his waxing enthusiastic about the establishment of a rigid and racially-based caste system by Aryan conquerors in the Indian subcontinent; his feeling that the leveling tendencies of modern democracies will pave the way for "higher" types to exploit them as malleable material for amoral, non-democratic ends; his ambiguous feelings about Jews, and specifically his associating them with the priestly class he so detested (e.g. their being responsible for the "slave revolt" in morality that he identified with Christianity); etc.
So yeah, I think it's a complex matter. And while I think it's safe to say that Nietzsche would have loathed many essential traits of Nazism, we should also concede that he was not a proponent of modern values and ideals.
That's not really accurate to what he is talking about in his notions of slave morality vs master morality. In the concept, he's not talking about domination and slavery in the usual sense, but rather whether an understanding of morality locates it meaning and power within its own perspective.
Christianity isn't held to be slave morality because it argues for some form of equality. It's understood as slave morality because it denies the worldly nature of values and powers. It claims God is responsible when it's the world at stake.
The slave/master morality opposition isn't about whether any instance of dominance in the world is justfied or not, it's about whether people recognise their morality as their own and a site of power.
(in this respect, the person who is in a lower postion of a hierarchy may have a master morality, when they recognise a moral relation is if the value of themselves and forms a power relation with others in the world).
I don't think the two - worldy vs otherworldy - can be separated so sharply, and I don't think Nietzsche felt they could either, unless of course he were to take the lofty "spiritual" pronouncements proffered by religious founders and practitioners at face value, which I don't think he did.
The fact is Christianity became a worldly power, and it did so through the creation/revelation of a new set of values (e.g. all souls equal before God, the meek shall inherit the earth, pride is a sin against God, etc.) that were hostile to those which reigned in the ancient pagan world of Greece and Rome. Paul supposedly knew very well what he was doing, which was using otherworldy hopes to inspire thisworldy ends.
But perhaps I'm misunderstanding you and missing some fundamental distinction here?
I'm honestly confused as to how a person could believe this. Its almost tempting to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you're just blatantly lying as much as you feel like... Their appeals to the fatherland, german-ness, fetishization of ancestors, notions of a true european from which certain people had to be violently excluded. One could argue that these were simply window dressing for the masses which is basically what you've done already with regards to christianity. But such an argument could be made for literally anything ever. There's simply no point in even spending time considering such an empty potentiality.
Quoting Erik
This is meant to be drawn from nietzsche talking about the laws of manu? It is best to remember the context in which people write. In nietzsches case this means being familiar with indian culture and philosophy at best almost entirely from reading louis jacolliot. Which is to say that his knowledge of india was mostly non-existent jacolliot having fabricated and/or exaggerated most of what he wrote. The orientalism of the time effected perception of india as well and nietzsche was not immune to this foolishness.
If you want to talk of nietzsche's rejection of socialism or egalitarianism stirner or novatore are much better points of comparison. And the nazis are a much better example of what nietzsche meant by herd morality than not.
And did you try to imply that nazis were socialists? Next you'll try to tell me that the cops serve and protect or that the kkk is just showing pride for their white heritage. And no doubt whites from northern states just use the confederate flag to show pride for their ancestors eh. In the future you should try considering that someone claiming a thing should not be considered proof of said thing.
Not sure what you seem so upset about. For the record I'm not trying to unfairly slander Nietzsche, nor am I trying to offer philosophical support for Nazism by suggesting there may be elements of his thought that are amenable to the use they made of him. There are other aspects of his philosophy that are at odds with their worldview (e.g. largely based on resentment), of course, which I thought I made clear. What I am trying to do is touch upon some of those more disturbing aspects of his philosophy - the subject of this thread being his purported misappropriation by Nazis. You're perfectly free to gloss over or ignore them entirely. Imo that's dishonest.
Quoting dork ichiban
What am I "lying" about? And what would my motivation be to lie?
More to the point, what do you understand by the term transcendence? That's a good place to start, I think, because it seems as though we understand different things by the term. I'm tempted to throw your accusation right back at you and say that your understanding of "transcendence" seems so broad as to include every possible morality and worldview which could conceivably exist. They're all transcendent, religious and non-religious alike. But feel free to offer a counter-example by way of useful juxtaposition to show a political or religious movement which has not made appeals to notions of a people, a nation, a race, a class, ancestors, etc. in a "transcendent" sense. One which has not posited an enemy or "other", etc.
And yes, I don't think it's too much of a stretch to say that most of these things are, in Nietzsche's estimation, "window dressing" for the masses. I find it hard to believe that anyone who's seriously read Nietzsche would dispute this, so I'm going to assume (once again) that I'm misunderstanding you. Having said that, I always try to qualify my tentative views ("To my knowledge...") and avoid making dogmatic claims, so if I'm wrong about anything then do me the courtesy of showing me where and I'll gladly change my position. You seem to be emotionally invested in this topic in a way that I'm not.
Furthermore, I wasn't giving my take on Christianity, but what I understand to be Nietzsche's. Do you disagree with his largely negative and cynical understanding of the religion? Is that consistent with his published work? If you're interested in my personal views, then I'll admit to holding a largely positive view of Christianity. In Nietzsche's estimation, however, I'd be a decadent: I favor the poor and oppressed, for example, over the wealthy and powerful. And yet there are many other things in his work that I find inspiring which I'd be glad to discuss.
Quoting dork ichiban
So Nietzsche's feelings about Indian religion and culture are irrelevant because he was working with a flawed understanding of it? However much Orientalists may have misrepresented the facts of the culture is a matter totally separate from Nietzsche's glowing affirmation of that alleged fabrication. He celebrated the idea of the caste system - however distorted his understanding was - and I will happily trot out relevant passages if you'd like which support this position.
Quoting dork ichiban
What does this even mean? We're not talking about Stirner or anyone other than Nietzsche here, so once again you've introduced an irrelevance presumably in order to distract from the fact that Nietzsche, too, had nothing positive to say about socialism. Do you dispute that?
Quoting dork ichiban
I'll tell you the cops serve and protect? Huh? I thought it was common knowledge that Nazism claimed to represent a "third way" beyond capitalism and communism. The one good thing about this most uncharitable strawman though - with its seemingly shameless and dishonest insinuations of my own beliefs - is that you've revealed your political leanings. I hate to break it to you, dork, but Nietzsche is no ally. I'll say it again: Nietzsche is a complex thinker who holds some disturbing and occasionally contradictory views. But he's far removed from the political left and right, at least those manifestations that are relevant these days. I'd even say that he "transcends" those superficial categories. IMO of course.
Indeed.
His sister prostituted the works of her dead brother.
He was a good person.
The Gestalt value of The Will to Power andTriumph of the Will speaks for itself.
Nietzsche was a good person.
I think of him as the philosophical version of Van Gough.
I would suggest that the impassioned notion of the eternal YES pretty much covers it.
if not for the word "dork", it would have been a KO.
But you do get the TKO.
:smile:
Ear of the Other is a publication of a lecture given by Derrida regarding Nietzshe.
In it, he talks about the notion of signature.
And it is rather complex and mostly over my head, but he distinguishes between those who sign their work and those who make their readers sign their work.
Those who sign their work are quickly forgotten.
People will be signing Nietzsche's works for hundreds of years, perhaps thousands if our species survives that long.
I trust no one who claims to understand Nietzsche.
There are only interpretations.
And I suspect that was his intent.
I don't think Nietzsche's notion of will to power means what you think it means. (not to mention, it is a posthumous publication of scraps collected by his sister. Nietzsche himself had already rejected the idea of publishing it in the preparatory outline that his sister used to organize disparate writings.)
The will to power was about overcoming the self, not about overcoming others.
Hey Arne. Nice to meet someone who shares my interests in Nietzsche and Heidegger.
You could be right. My views on Nietzsche are highly provisional, and I waver quite a bit on this particular issue. I do think one could interpret the two - self and others - as being essentially related in a Heideggerian way, with the overcoming the self necessarily involving a radical confrontation/overcoming of the conforming, inauthentic they-self that each of us initially are. We overcome/become ourselves only by overcoming the decadence we've come to embody within our nihilistic Western society.
But I do agree that I may have overstated the case a bit here in my attempt to highlight the fact that Nietzsche was not a liberal democrat - or an anarchist - whose primary goal was to inspire the individual to his or her true creative self. That's obviously a big part his agenda, but it seems a mere prelude to the much larger and world-historical task of cultivating (imposing?) a radical new set of life-affirming values for ALL of society. Some lead and others follow. So once again the self and others seem inseparable.
Finally, I do agree with the assessment that Nietzsche was basically a very kind and generous soul. That greatness of soul was one of the first things I sensed when I started reading him. And this is why it's so hard to reconcile his many positive comments on (e.g.) the caste system, Cesar Borgia, the desirability of human breeding, etc.
I'll have a look. I'm only vaguely familiar with Merleau-Ponty through secondary sources but would like to learn more - I'll definitely join the reading group if it gets off the ground. I'd also like to engage in the discussion on Being and Time that's been talked about for a few weeks now.
The "slave morality" aspect lies not in an absence of worldly power, but in the falsehood that it is otherworldly. Whether we are speaking about the God or the Chruch, the power in question is worldly. It deals with our value and treatment as living beings.
To say we don't matter, that we lack value and have to be saved from it by an otherworldly force of God, is a lie. We've never lacked value and have a certain status on account of ourselves, as living beings in the world (afterlives included).
The "slave" aspect is failing to recognise value is about ourselves, instead thinking it is granted by something else, some otherworldly force-- quite literally "I am nothing. You (refering to the otherwordly force) have all power and definition of me."
Very well put. And when dopes like Kant attempt to reaffirm the value of human life and dignity on the basis of some vague, indeterminate transcendental values (noumena -> practical reason -> moral law -> human dignity) they run the risk of setting the whole postmodern era on the path of once again failing to affirm the inherent value of life and world as lived from within. It's sadly a prescient concern, as our politics becomes ever-more focused on an internal power struggle in which individuals and groups battle each other by making claims to rights, and academia has almost no place for political philosophers who aren't simply doing an "analysis" of the logic of rights.
The "otherworldly" you reference is a reference to the objective. That is, to say I have value means I do regardless of what anyone else says or agrees to.
When you tell me you have value, but you deny value is rooted in something other than your own assessment of value, then would you not lack value if you decided you did? If not, then where is this value that cannot be destroyed and is eternal? Wherever it is and whatever it is sounds godly.
Such an account is already making the error of nihilism. It supposes value is absent only to come from someone or something else's assessment. There is no "making valuable" because it supposes contradictory circumstances. I cannot form a judgement upon what is valuable without already including awareness of what is truly value (thus, making my judgement correct and justified, as opposed to meaningless words). Value, in any case, is given in itself in the first instance.
For Nietzsche value is that which cannot be destroyed and is eternal. It's space is the world which expresses it. In the case of me, my actions. my relations to others, etc., that value is inseparably of me.
It might be defined independent of those who would disagree (i.e. true even is someone thinks otherwise, including me), but it is not seperate for the world we exist, and and speak about. I am never nothing and no-one has the power of definition over me because I am beyond them.
Even those with a social authority to order me about (e.g. a moral authority, a king, God, etc.) are stuck working with me as I am self-defined. God cannot command, for example, a group of people who lack the self-defintion of "under God's authority" in their existence.
As zizek states the problem with the Nazis was not that they went too far but rather they did not go far enough. If one extracts the antisemitic thought from mein Kampf, its content is very much in keeping with much of Nietzsche's 'gentle' thought.
Perhaps a little bit of evidence or even a specific criticism of the assertion would be a little more intellectually courageous than a simple stone throw from a safe distance?
Sounds familiar.
A similar type of dialogue was once equally disinterested in philosophy. It just put all the 'trash' into piles or ovens and burned it all, rather than suffer the indignity of having to think or justify its dictates. Thankfully most of us have moved on.
You post is as relevant as it is irrelevant.
Well done!
M
The question at hand pertains to the use or appeal of Nietzsche to the Nazis.
Nietzsche's calls to humanity to rise above itself and its delusions finds parallel in Hitler's notion of the state and the purpose of the state being to contain and facilitate a "higher form of civilization"
Hitler departs from Nietzsche on many levels, but of particular interest here is the departure when Hitler seeks to construct this 'higher form' out of a raw material of 'racial purity'. I do not believe there is any evidence to support the notion that Nietzsche placed any particular value upon racial purity. However Nietzsche undoubtedly felt that there were or are inferior beings worthy of contempt 'the herd', 'the stink of small people' etc. Whilst the Nazi's strove for a higher human form upon the basis of race and physical purity.. Nietzsche appealed for 'Philosophers of the Future' who arguably might posses an intellectual purity of sorts. As such it is not too difficult to see how Nietzsche's ideas or at least some of them could have been commandeered by the Nazi's
Hitler wrote in Mein Kampf:
"The current political conception of the world is that the State, though it possesses a creative force which can build up civilizations, has nothing in common with the concept of race as the foundation of the State. The State is considered rather as something which has resulted from economic necessity, or, at best, the natural outcome of the play of political forces and impulses. Such a conception of the foundations of the State, together with all its logical consequences, not only ignores the primordial racial forces that underlie the State, but it also leads to a policy in which the importance of the individual is minimized.
Mein Kampf 316
any new movement which is based on the racial concept of the world will first of all have to put forward a clear and logical doctrine of the nature and purpose of the State.
The fundamental principle is that the State is not an end in itself but the means to an end. It is the preliminary condition under which alone a higher form of human civilization can be developed, but it is not the source of such a development.
Mein Kampf 324
The State is only a means to an end. Its end and its purpose is to preserve and promote a community of human beings who are physically as well as spiritually kindred. Above all, it must preserve the existence of the race, thereby providing the indispensable condition for the free development of all the forces dormant in this race."
M
Where there is still a people, it does not understand the state and hates it as the evil eye and the sin against customs and rights. ...Only where the state ends, there begins the human being who is not superfluous: there begins the song of necessity, the unique and inimitable tune."
“The history of the state is the history of the egoism of the masses and of the blind desire to exist”
"As little State as possible!"
"Socialism ? or the tyranny of the meanest and the most brainless, ?that is to say, the superficial, the envious, and the mummers, brought to its zenith, ?is, as a matter of fact, the logical conclusion of “modern ideas” and their latent anarchy: but in the genial atmosphere of democratic well-being the capacity for forming resolutions or even for coming to an end at all, is paralysed. Men follow?but no longer their reason. That is why socialism is on the whole a hopelessly bitter affair."
Nietzsche, sic passim. So peddle your fucking ignorance elsewhere.
Hitler considered the state to be the thing that is consequenced by the will of a pure race. The purer the race the more powerful becomes the emergent state.
The comparison being contained in the notion that state is an emergent concept for both Nietzsche and Hitler. State arises as a consequence of will to power, and not as a communist socialist or paternal institution that fosters weakness and disability.
The distinction between the two ideals is in the notion of that which an emergent state considers as the qualia of human superiority and human weakness. Human equality in respect of ability was as much an anathema for Nietzsche as it was for the Nazis, the distinction being the grounds for this assumption or recognition of human inequality, for Nietzsche it was intellect for the Nazis race and physical purity.
If Nietzsche had a vision of state it might well have been along the lines of that envisaged by Thoreau, government being best which governs least. In Nietzsche' social order the need for state becomes diminished as the governed evolve beyond their weak dependencies upon both church and state.
Nietzsche, and Hitler sought to transcend human weaknesses not preserve them within the state. The horror lies in what Hitler misconstrued as weakness.
Both Nietzsche's and Hitlers political systems are 'emergent' they emerge from superiority and power rather then the current model of universal equality.
The power and appeal of Nazi ideology in a political state-generating sense is that upon the basis of race it is inclusive of all members of a pure racial and physical cohort. Therefore it has mass appeal and contains within it the implication that members of said cohort are superior upon the basis of their race.
Nietzsche considered the individual 'thinking -man' the philosopher, as the superior being. For Nietzsche the 'quality' or 'purity' of the thinking-man's thought, is generally correlative to the degree that it differs from that of the collective, and thereby it contains an inherent rejection of almost all pre-existing and presently existing social orders.
Nietzsche might well have smiled at Wilde's assertion that: 'I would never belong to an organization that would have me as a member'.
The Nazis were politically inclusive on the basis of race, Nietzsche was politically exclusive upon the basis of the intellect, which as it (the intellect) becomes more refined, it necessarily becomes more exclusive and more solitary.
This type of input into the discussion is most informative. It reminds one of the the selfish anger of the herd that proved most potent in the 1940's.
Anger is good! Angry people make things happen!
But Neitzsche would have you channel it into the quality of your thought, rather than simply letting it expire into the air as the brute exhalations of used gases.
M
The problem with the Nazis is that central to their creed was that they held themselves the highest form of the human race, justifying eugenics, genocide, and any form of racism they chose. It wasn't an academic philosophy, but a political movement, and it resulted in the deaths of 10s of millions of people. It was as morally bankrupt of a "philosophy" as there ever was, and it is often rightfully used an example of evil. If one were looking for a more evil and failed position, it would be difficult.
Quoting Marcus de Brun
The problem with this post and all your posts in this thread is that it reeks of Nazi sympathizing, elevating Hitler to the role of an important philosopher and comparing Mein Kampf to Thus spoke Zarathustra, as if those two books deserve to sit on the same book shelf. The simple distinction between Hitler and Nietzsche is that Nietzsche related superiority to the content of one's character whereas Hitler based it on race, making Hitler a murdering racist and Nietzsche an important philosopher. Your attempt to intellectualize this simple distinction is nothing more than obfuscation, and it's for that reason I think my accusation that you are Nazi-sympathizing is unfortunately accurate (despite your token references to the horror of the movement).
It is like if I should tell you that the Klan had many good ideas if we could just distill away their racism and we could better appreciate their desire to protect the simple values of the South. That is, if we look closely, we'd realize that the Grand Imperial Wizard of the KKK is no different than Martin Luther King, Jr. in that both just want a productive peaceful society. MLK wants to achieve it though equality of all races whereas the KKK wants to achieve it through intimidation, oppressive laws, and nooses, but, at the end of the day, they are one in the same.
I do believe, though, in some degree of social Darwinism, and I am comforted by the fact that Nazism and the KKK have been relegated to the dustbin of failed and entirely idiotic movements, with only a few misfits still adhering to those viewpoints, many of whom fill our prisons.
Nazi preoccupation with purity of race evolved out of German frustration with their inability to create a cohesive nation-state like France or Britain. They located the cause of their failure in their culturally diverse landscape. They tried to force assimilation through public education. It worked with some of their Czech population, but it didn't work on the Jews. Their Jewish population stood out as a reason that they couldn't be great like Great Britain.
I doubt if you are really interested in dialogue. However thats fine by me, I Love engaging in discussion even when it affords the sole benefit of considering and reviewing ones own thoughts upon a subject.
Therefore thank you for the opportunity to think upon this matter as it is one that is dear to my heart. Nietzsche was in my estimation the last Christian to die upon the metaphorical cross. I have to declare that I enjoy his thought almost as much as my own.
Your various two liners.. don't give much grist for the mill, but I do enjoy your anger. Nietzsche was (as we know) an angry man for all the right reasons. Hitler too was angry for all the wrong reasons..
The subject of this thread refers to the ideology of the Nazi's and the philosophy of Neitzsche as it pertains to the organized State. I use the words carefully as the Nazis had more of an ideology than that which might be correctly referred to as a Philosophy.
There are similarities, and the question as to the basis of similarity is not a new one. To understand the similarity we must consider the crucial difference.
The crucial difference between Nietzsche/Hitler's emergent notion of State, and that of other political systems vis: Communism or Socialism or Democracy etc., Is that in accordance with Nazi ideology and Nietzsche's philosophy, a valid 'State' is dependent upon and emergent out of 'spiritual' (Hitler's word, not mine) and or physical human qualia.
For Nietzsche the state (the best Government that is least) arises out of a supremacy of the intellect, and a subsequent independence from the state. Both apriori qualia might themselves be considered as emergent from the 'will' or the 'will to power'. Whilst Neitzsche's is rational and intellectual, the Nazi ideal correlates reason (as derived from the will) with racial purity. Nietzsche would not have succumbed to this kind of illogical correlate.
German soldiers might well have carried copies of Zarathustra, because they may have believed they were establishing a 'state' upon Nietizschean principles. This may not have been an entirely foolish assumption on their part. (hence the subject of this thread)
Other political philosophies do not recognize these complex qualia apriori as the impetus for the emergence and subsequent validity of the 'true' State. Other political philosophies see apriori common- 'needs' (health, education, justice, food etc) as the primary reason for an imposition of 'State' upon the governed. Hitler and Neitzsche see 'will' and not 'need' as the primary determinant of social order. In this they are alike, however they are grossly different in their definition of 'will' and or the will to power.
Other political philosophies value 'freedom', but do not define that freedom outside of the general freedom to do what one wishes as long as it harms no one else and is in keeping with an established moral code. All political philosophy struggles with the practical moral reconciliation of freedom and obligation to state and its imposed moral code.
Both Hitler and Nietzsche dismiss the notion that the state should impose pre-structured qualia in the form of; religious dogma, Communistic Sharing of wealth, Socialism, Nationalism, etc UPON the governed, but rather that the state (Nationalist or otherwise) should emerge out of inherent qualia that are apriori for both Hitler and Neitzsche.
In this sense both the ideology and the philosophy are predicated upon a rejection of religious dogma. In this sense both Neitzsche and Hitler are totalitarian and are entirely disinterested in (as you put it) : "the negotiation of political criteria of exclusion". For Hitler and for Nietzsche there is no negotiation. There is merely the Master and those beneath the master.
(Interestingly Donald Trump operates within a similar philosophical frame of non-negotiation on the assumption of various apriori, that are reminiscent of Race and Masters. (but this is another days work))
The current and previous Communistic or Socialist or religious notions of Statehood do not regard these inherent apriori qualia (race/philosophy/intellectual independence) as a basis for organizing the state, but rather impose the notion of 'equality' for all or most citizens within the State, regardless of physical or intellectual frailty.
Within Democracy all opinions no matter how unpalatable have equal rights (even yours). However within Nietzsche and Hitler's view all opinions are not equal in their rights. Nietzsche dismisses the right to an opinion if indeed that opinion is not philosophically sound. Hitler dismisses opinions if they are not originated by members of a 'superior' race. Although the intolerance is different, both the ideal and the philosophy are intolerant, and Nietzsche's philosophy would be as intolerant of cruelty as it is intolerant of wanton stupidity.
Personally I am not so intolerant of stupidity and enjoy banging my head against it, until it starts to hurt.
M
Quoting frank
I agree entirely.
M
Since Lincoln's decision to emancipate the slaves and provide citizenship for every black man was directly at odds with conventional wisdom, and in line with a tiny minority that was considered to be lunatic fringe, I'd love to know how he made that decision. All we can do is speculate.
Whether a multi-racial society can survive as a nation-state is something we're still trying to discover, I think. My prediction is that the problem will disappear through genetic blending. Races only stay separate where there is something institutional to outlaw blending.
I think that is a fair analysis Frank. One hopes that the multi-racial society will survive and ultimately consequence the demise of borders AND the ridiculous institution of the nation state itself.
However Trump's and Brexit's revitalization of Nazi type ideology would seem to suggest that currently social evolution is ebbing in the opposite direction, for the moment at least. Presently it is not race but ecology that is the emerging danger and interestingly this emerging threat has no interest in race or state.
M