Materialism>idealism

I’m not trying to get into a whole debate, it’s just interesting to me the way some people cling to these idealist philosophers. Same w the stoics imo. As a guy who used to read all of them… they’re useless to actually understanding life. Like it can be helpful to read them in order to understand how the Western worldview evolved, but they really shouldn’t be taken as some sort of handbook - which many seem to do. (reactionaries). People who read Nietzsche or Plato and think they have some sort of secret insight is my biggest red flag irt pseudo-intellectual who is just going to waste your time… same with Dostoevsky btw.

Confucius is based af though.

Edit: Also, yes these kinds of people exist- my former mentor/boss who spent decades at a white shoe DC law firm would accept any idea if you found a quote by Plato to justify it lmao.

    • SpaceCowboyOP
      link
      fedilink
      4
      edit-2
      2 years ago

      Read closely.

      Let us look a century ahead, let us suppose that my attentat on two millennia of anti-nature and the violation of man succeeds. That party of life which takes in hand the greatest of all tasks, the higher breeding of humanity, together with the remorseless extermination of all degenerate and parasitic elements, will again make possible on earth that superfluity of life out of which the dionysian condition must again proceed. — Friedrich Nietzsche, 1872

        • Oatsteak
          link
          fedilink
          62 years ago

          I really would like to hear the context behind how on earth that isn’t just a blatantly fascistic quote… How do you interpret it?

            • Oatsteak
              link
              fedilink
              42 years ago

              It’s not about genetics or race. But it’s about evolution.

              That doesn’t make any sense. Are we talking about a spiritual kind of evolution or something?

              • Muad'Dibber
                link
                fedilink
                62 years ago

                Nietzche absolutely was talking about race and genetics.

                Will this aristocracy be a caste, and their power hereditary? For the most part yes, with occasional openings to let in new blood.

                • Oatsteak
                  link
                  fedilink
                  62 years ago

                  Okay so IF I was trying my very hardest to interpret the quote in the most agreeable way possible I could MAYBE convince myself that “the higher breeding of humanity” actually refers to a spiritual/cultural evolution and that the “remorseless extermination of all degenerate and parasitic elements” is just an edgy way to say eat the rich or something.

                  But like… come on. That’s such a ridiculously generous interpretation. Am I wrong?

        • Muad'Dibber
          link
          fedilink
          4
          edit-2
          2 years ago

          I definitely recommend reading this if you have any positive thoughts about Nietzches philosophy. Its completely anti-feminist, anti-socialist, pro-war, orientalist, and a lot more.

          • Oatsteak
            link
            fedilink
            62 years ago

            Thanks for sharing this. He’s so much worse than I initially thought. I have a very hard imagining any context that could make him even remotely redeemable after reading that.

            • Muad'Dibber
              link
              fedilink
              52 years ago

              No probs! We have yet to see any Nietzche defender post a single quote.

              • Seanchaí (she/her)
                link
                fedilink
                72 years ago

                It’s almost like he only said really troubling things, and the people who like him are projecting their own views of what he actually meant. But he’s dead, so we can’t ask him, we can but read the things he published (and be pissed about how terrible they are)

                • SpaceCowboyOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  5
                  edit-2
                  2 years ago

                  I recommend Domenico Losurdo’s book on Nietzsche, this review on midwestern marx gives a decent snapshot of it, and directly addresses how Kaufman rehabilitated Nietzsche. Losurdo essentially follows Nietzsche’s life from beginning to end and situates every piece he wrote in that timeline to contextualize it.

                  • Seanchaí (she/her)
                    link
                    fedilink
                    52 years ago

                    Thank you! I’ll give it a read. I find it incredibly telling that the Nietzcshe defenders are largely relying on “no you’re not smart enough to get it” instead of like…actual writings that would lend some support to their arguments.

                    Doesn’t strike me as a particularly Marxist way to examine something, but hey, love to be told by some man on the Internet that he’s smarter than me because I didn’t arrive at the same conclusions as him.

            • Muad'Dibber
              link
              fedilink
              22 years ago

              I don’t think you read the right link, that’s a compilation of Nietzche’s own quotes, not a full analysis.

                • Muad'Dibber
                  link
                  fedilink
                  52 years ago

                  Yup I don’t get it. Nietzche says shit like “only men of intellect should hold property”, “all women do is lie, and their only role should be to sexually please warriors”, “socialism is for the weak and inequality is great”, and “blond beasts of prey need to hellenize the world”… and ppl act like he’s some profound thinker and not some incel from the 1800s.

                  • SpaceCowboyOP
                    link
                    fedilink
                    4
                    edit-2
                    2 years ago

                    Oh but you’re taking him out of context bruh.

                    I apologize for being so discourteous in this thread but this is really riling me up because it is so blatantly a repeat of the Foucault-era tactics in obscuring actual discussion about the power of ideas and thinkers like Nietzsche

                • Muad'Dibber
                  link
                  fedilink
                  62 years ago

                  This is a historically standard reactionary trend, to say extremely heinous shit, then their defenders say “context!!!”. You even see it a lot today with ppl like vaush, jordan peterson, ben shapiro, etc.

                • SpaceCowboyOP
                  link
                  fedilink
                  32 years ago

                  stupid lmao.

                  You read a whole book and certain lines jump out at you. You share the quotes which encapsulate the authors perspective. If you shut off the ability to share quotes then you shut off the ability to critique.

            • SpaceCowboyOP
              link
              fedilink
              2
              edit-2
              2 years ago

              Jfc dude. Tell me you don’t know how western academia works without telling me you don’t know how western academia works. I’ve literally read nietzsche as well and I stand by everything I’ve said here.

              “There are a lot of his stuff that looks controversial at first glance but it takes a bit of work to understand him.” Next thing you’ll tell me that Foucault actually made some intelligent observations…

              I’m sorry but this is pissing me off that you are this obtuse. The entire western bourgeois study of philosophy, especially in the 20th century is aimed at enshrining elitist, anticommunist ideas and rehabilitating the fascist worldview… which is still alive and well.

              This thread is about you. Learn what fascism actually is.

            • I agree with checking out Kaufman. Again I’m mainly speaking to readers of this thread. I read the criticisms that OP posted and they seem to be doing the same cherry picking as reactionaries. Nietzsche doesn’t advocate for systems. Nietzsche advocates for Nietzsche. I think that left critics are making him out to be something he wasn’t. Yes he was a professor and bourgeois for a period of his life. By the end he was not widely read, had few friends, and he died penniless and insane. It was only after his death that real interpretation of Nietzsche began (which he predicted). If you’re interested just read him and come to your own conclusions. I recommend Anti-Christ and Twilight of the Idols.

              • SpaceCowboyOP
                link
                fedilink
                12 years ago

                I’m really not. I’m not saying he was goose-stepping around europe but literally his ideological framework built the foundation of dehumanization which brought race science into the 20th century.

                you are so engrossed in his personal life you can’t see what his writing created and enabled.