Posts
Nietzsche is certainly an important philosopher for *Pan-European* nationalists.
He is *not* an ideologue though, so one should not expect a kind of straightforward manifesto.
As a philosopher he recognised the necessary ambiguities and contradictions which always spring up in life when we begin to think *deeply*.
That Nietzsche inspired Mussolini & Hitler should be enough of a recommendation for us.
From this perspective we might want to slice German philosophy from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche & then to Heidegger.
Slave Morality: We must be strong enough to adopt its antithesis: Master Morality. This entails an absolute cruelty and ruthlessness that is hard for the majority to even imagine, let alone stomach. But it will be utlimately *necessary*.
The Jews were in a unique position to develop Slave Morality as they had only their priestly caste left.
It is not true that he only had praise for Jesus, although he blamed the Jew Paul for Christianity in the main. He wound up calling Jesus an "idiot" in his book 'Antichrist' for good measure.
As for the Germans, he did not regard the Germans of his day to be the purer race that Tacitus described some 2,000 years before. He also disliked their tendency towards a puritanical Christianity in his time, as well as the trend to democracy in Bismarck's Prussia.
His comments on the 'purity of Jews' was meant as a jibe at the Germans of his day who were breeding down in his opinion [to Nietzsche, for one class to breed with another was a down-breeding].
The 'Will to Power' doctrine is more questionable as a globalised metaphysics.
Heidegger develops this side of Nietzsche's thought into a full-blown Metaphysics though. I doubt if this is a direction that Nietzsche would've been happy with - although *we* might like it!
The eternal return is not easy - but then it is not meant to be; it is *the* test for entrance into Nietzsche's Zarathustrian philosophy.
Idealism; I think Nietzsche importantly showed that idealism is largely self-defeating if it is not subject to constant revision.
That brings us to the Dionysian/Apollonian opposition. He revised this, making the Apollonian incorporated/submerged into the vaster Dionysian world-view.
But here as with everything, he did not rest content with this world-view.
As I said, if we learn anything from Nietzsche, it is the need to keep constantly revising your world-view.
For a philosopher, Nietzsche is very readable, and some of his best books are quite short ['Beyond Good and Evil', 'Twilight of the Idols', 'The Antichrist', for e.g.,]
He is *not* an ideologue though, so one should not expect a kind of straightforward manifesto.
As a philosopher he recognised the necessary ambiguities and contradictions which always spring up in life when we begin to think *deeply*.
That Nietzsche inspired Mussolini & Hitler should be enough of a recommendation for us.
From this perspective we might want to slice German philosophy from Schopenhauer to Nietzsche & then to Heidegger.
Slave Morality: We must be strong enough to adopt its antithesis: Master Morality. This entails an absolute cruelty and ruthlessness that is hard for the majority to even imagine, let alone stomach. But it will be utlimately *necessary*.
The Jews were in a unique position to develop Slave Morality as they had only their priestly caste left.
It is not true that he only had praise for Jesus, although he blamed the Jew Paul for Christianity in the main. He wound up calling Jesus an "idiot" in his book 'Antichrist' for good measure.
As for the Germans, he did not regard the Germans of his day to be the purer race that Tacitus described some 2,000 years before. He also disliked their tendency towards a puritanical Christianity in his time, as well as the trend to democracy in Bismarck's Prussia.
His comments on the 'purity of Jews' was meant as a jibe at the Germans of his day who were breeding down in his opinion [to Nietzsche, for one class to breed with another was a down-breeding].
The 'Will to Power' doctrine is more questionable as a globalised metaphysics.
Heidegger develops this side of Nietzsche's thought into a full-blown Metaphysics though. I doubt if this is a direction that Nietzsche would've been happy with - although *we* might like it!
The eternal return is not easy - but then it is not meant to be; it is *the* test for entrance into Nietzsche's Zarathustrian philosophy.
Idealism; I think Nietzsche importantly showed that idealism is largely self-defeating if it is not subject to constant revision.
That brings us to the Dionysian/Apollonian opposition. He revised this, making the Apollonian incorporated/submerged into the vaster Dionysian world-view.
But here as with everything, he did not rest content with this world-view.
As I said, if we learn anything from Nietzsche, it is the need to keep constantly revising your world-view.
For a philosopher, Nietzsche is very readable, and some of his best books are quite short ['Beyond Good and Evil', 'Twilight of the Idols', 'The Antichrist', for e.g.,]
__________________
A Comparison of Friedrich Nietzsche & David Myatt
Using Nietzsche's 'What Is Noble?' [9th chapter of 'Beyond Good and Evil'] to make a comaprison between the ideas of Nietzsche and David Myatt.
Generally, I would say that Nietzsche's work in its raw state is not always 'user friendly' - it is volatile, and yes, extreme.
However, going through all the sections of WIN?, I found some excellent parallels with Myatt.
WIN? section 295 refers to Dionysos.
Nietzsche claims that this god is also a philosopher and is at the root of Nobility.
He says here that this god wants to make man "stronger, more evil, more profound and more beautiful".
These are the Noble virtues - strong will, master morality, profundity and beauty.
Compare this to Myatt who says that Beauty is the result of Honour; see also that Dionysos for Nietzsche is the aesthetic god, the ecstatic god.
In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche says;
"What did the ancient Hellene [i.e., Aryan Greek] guarantee to himself in these Dionysian mysteries? - ETERNAL LIFE, the eternal recurrence of life; the future promised and consecrated in the past; the triumphant 'Yes' to life beyond death and change; TRUE life as collective continuation of life through procreation, through the mysteries of sexuality".
This is very near Myatt's conception of Nature, and brings Dionysos close to Myatt's Cosmic Being. In both cases, we see that Nobility/Honour springs from the god Dionysos/the Cosmic Being, and the product is Beauty.
WIN? 257 Describes 'Aristocratic Values', or the 'Noble Ideal'; again, comparable to Myatt's 'Honour'.
Nietzsche's contention is that society MUST be led by a Nobility/Honour Guard; to Nietzsche there must be a hierarchy or 'Order of Rank', as he calls it.
While Myatt is not so insistent on this, we can see from his Constitution that he believes in an hierarchy, albeit a self-regulating one, to be necessary.
Also, he adheres to the Leadership Principle; likewise, Nietzsche [in WIN? 261] says that while the master always defines himself, others wait to be defined by the master race.
Nietzsche also says that only the Noble have an "instinct for rank"; where such a thing is missing, then so too is nobility missing.
Allied with this is the ability to REVERE; only the Noble are capable of reverence - another reason why nihilists and anarchists can never be Noble/Honourable.
Where Nietzsche and Myatt depart is in Nietzsche's call for Slavery; however, it must be remembered that 'slavery' can be viewed relatively - even Myatt asks that citizens do their DUTY for the State, and thereby SERVE it.
As we see from the anarchists on this forum, to serve your nation is for them, an anathema - a form of slavery.
We know better, and regard it an Honour to serve a great Leader.
WIN? 260 Expands on Master Morality vs. Slave Morality. Nietzsche aligns the former with Aryan Ideals and the latter with Semitic resentment. In Myatt we might compare Honour [master morality] and Dishonour [slave morality].
Going back to 'evil' as mentioned above - to the perverse slave/semite/dishonourable person, the Aryan master is 'evil'.
WIN? 262 Delineates the notion that one becomes Noble in adverse conditions only; this fits in well with Myatt's ascetic outlook.
Also, Nietzsche says that an aristocratic state is a means to BREED humans.
WIN? 264 This is where Nietzsche broaches what he calls the "problem of Race".
This hinges on his assertion that we are all what our ancestors have made us - and that this heritage CANNOT BE WIPED OUT. Again, Myatt would agree here, I hope.
WIN? 265/266/271/287 Talk of the Noble Soul; it is egoistic/self-reverencing, expansive and complex. It attaches great importance to the quality of "purity".
Here we are talking of the type of man who would be a Leader of Myatt's nation - a rare, honourable, ascetic type of man; albeit, with a triumphant Will.
WIN? 268 Nietzsche does here touch on what constitutes a Folkish nation; an ancestral evolving of self-understanding over thousands of years.
So, it is possible to read Nietzsche and Myatt in concert, always understanding that Nietzsche stands PRIOR to National-Socialism, and Myatt AFTER National-Socialism.
Generally, I would say that Nietzsche's work in its raw state is not always 'user friendly' - it is volatile, and yes, extreme.
However, going through all the sections of WIN?, I found some excellent parallels with Myatt.
WIN? section 295 refers to Dionysos.
Nietzsche claims that this god is also a philosopher and is at the root of Nobility.
He says here that this god wants to make man "stronger, more evil, more profound and more beautiful".
These are the Noble virtues - strong will, master morality, profundity and beauty.
Compare this to Myatt who says that Beauty is the result of Honour; see also that Dionysos for Nietzsche is the aesthetic god, the ecstatic god.
In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche says;
"What did the ancient Hellene [i.e., Aryan Greek] guarantee to himself in these Dionysian mysteries? - ETERNAL LIFE, the eternal recurrence of life; the future promised and consecrated in the past; the triumphant 'Yes' to life beyond death and change; TRUE life as collective continuation of life through procreation, through the mysteries of sexuality".
This is very near Myatt's conception of Nature, and brings Dionysos close to Myatt's Cosmic Being. In both cases, we see that Nobility/Honour springs from the god Dionysos/the Cosmic Being, and the product is Beauty.
WIN? 257 Describes 'Aristocratic Values', or the 'Noble Ideal'; again, comparable to Myatt's 'Honour'.
Nietzsche's contention is that society MUST be led by a Nobility/Honour Guard; to Nietzsche there must be a hierarchy or 'Order of Rank', as he calls it.
While Myatt is not so insistent on this, we can see from his Constitution that he believes in an hierarchy, albeit a self-regulating one, to be necessary.
Also, he adheres to the Leadership Principle; likewise, Nietzsche [in WIN? 261] says that while the master always defines himself, others wait to be defined by the master race.
Nietzsche also says that only the Noble have an "instinct for rank"; where such a thing is missing, then so too is nobility missing.
Allied with this is the ability to REVERE; only the Noble are capable of reverence - another reason why nihilists and anarchists can never be Noble/Honourable.
Where Nietzsche and Myatt depart is in Nietzsche's call for Slavery; however, it must be remembered that 'slavery' can be viewed relatively - even Myatt asks that citizens do their DUTY for the State, and thereby SERVE it.
As we see from the anarchists on this forum, to serve your nation is for them, an anathema - a form of slavery.
We know better, and regard it an Honour to serve a great Leader.
WIN? 260 Expands on Master Morality vs. Slave Morality. Nietzsche aligns the former with Aryan Ideals and the latter with Semitic resentment. In Myatt we might compare Honour [master morality] and Dishonour [slave morality].
Going back to 'evil' as mentioned above - to the perverse slave/semite/dishonourable person, the Aryan master is 'evil'.
WIN? 262 Delineates the notion that one becomes Noble in adverse conditions only; this fits in well with Myatt's ascetic outlook.
Also, Nietzsche says that an aristocratic state is a means to BREED humans.
WIN? 264 This is where Nietzsche broaches what he calls the "problem of Race".
This hinges on his assertion that we are all what our ancestors have made us - and that this heritage CANNOT BE WIPED OUT. Again, Myatt would agree here, I hope.
WIN? 265/266/271/287 Talk of the Noble Soul; it is egoistic/self-reverencing, expansive and complex. It attaches great importance to the quality of "purity".
Here we are talking of the type of man who would be a Leader of Myatt's nation - a rare, honourable, ascetic type of man; albeit, with a triumphant Will.
WIN? 268 Nietzsche does here touch on what constitutes a Folkish nation; an ancestral evolving of self-understanding over thousands of years.
So, it is possible to read Nietzsche and Myatt in concert, always understanding that Nietzsche stands PRIOR to National-Socialism, and Myatt AFTER National-Socialism.
I would say that Myatt's emphasis on Honour is actually a SHIFT for National-Socilaism, where hitherto BLOOD came first;
Blood AND Honour.
Or else Blood and Soil.
Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th century was the Blood Mythos.
Myatt shifts the emphasis; the Myth of the 21st century is the Honour Mythos.
Blood remains, but Honour becomes the most important element.
There is a shift from the biological to the ethical - and here is the connection with Nietzsche.
Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values' is essentially an ethical campaign. The re-valuation entails the recurrence of Aryan values; the very values that Myatt explores.
Blood AND Honour.
Or else Blood and Soil.
Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th century was the Blood Mythos.
Myatt shifts the emphasis; the Myth of the 21st century is the Honour Mythos.
Blood remains, but Honour becomes the most important element.
There is a shift from the biological to the ethical - and here is the connection with Nietzsche.
Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values' is essentially an ethical campaign. The re-valuation entails the recurrence of Aryan values; the very values that Myatt explores.
This is a very exciting departure, and gives a direction to those who may seem at a loss where to take nationalist philosophy.
As Myatt says, Race is our relation to Nature ... BUT, Honour is our relation to the Human, or rather the Overhuman.
I do not believe that the stand-by of a 'might is right' ethics is sufficient for this next ethical stage.
As Myatt says, Race is our relation to Nature ... BUT, Honour is our relation to the Human, or rather the Overhuman.
I do not believe that the stand-by of a 'might is right' ethics is sufficient for this next ethical stage.
We need a a far more nuanced revaluation.
This is why Myatt is important to us NOW.
This is why Myatt is important to us NOW.
Crime & Punishment in Myatt & Nietzsche
It strikes me that one of Myatt's most controversial ideas, his rejection of punitive measures against wrong-doers, is prefigured in Nietzsche.
While some may think it 'liberal' of Myatt to throw out 'punishment' in favour of 'compensation', they could not be more wrong.
It was Nietzsche who questioned the rationality of punishment, opining that it derived not from the desire to 'right wrongs', but from the festivals of cruelty.
In other words, public executions and tortures had no causal connection to the punishment of criminals, but were rather spectacles in their own right.
It was only later that the two became connected and eventually criminal punishment became punishment per se.
If we recognise that punishment naturally belongs to the impulse to cruelty, then we can separate it once more from our justice system.
Only then can we go back to the ancient system of compensation, and then also allow back the Noble duel and trial-by-combat systems.
The whole culture of the 'champion' can also reappear.
Nietzsche & Locke
While some may think it 'liberal' of Myatt to throw out 'punishment' in favour of 'compensation', they could not be more wrong.
It was Nietzsche who questioned the rationality of punishment, opining that it derived not from the desire to 'right wrongs', but from the festivals of cruelty.
In other words, public executions and tortures had no causal connection to the punishment of criminals, but were rather spectacles in their own right.
It was only later that the two became connected and eventually criminal punishment became punishment per se.
If we recognise that punishment naturally belongs to the impulse to cruelty, then we can separate it once more from our justice system.
Only then can we go back to the ancient system of compensation, and then also allow back the Noble duel and trial-by-combat systems.
The whole culture of the 'champion' can also reappear.
__________________
Nietzsche & Locke
Both are antipodes to each other.
Nietzsche wrote "I hate Locke", and also said that he didn't think that the English were a "philosophical race" [cf., BGE]
He certainly thought there were great differences between the Germans and English in cultural temperament.
For example;
Locke's 'individualism' is liberal, egalitarian and democratic.
Nietzsche's 'individualism' is aristocratic, hierarchical and anti-egalitarian.
Indeed, Nietzsche's so-called 'individualism' has little in common with the use of the word in England today.
He believed in a caste system; he believed in the necessity of slavery; he believed in a master race and a select few of higher men or Overhumans.
As he wrote;
"My philosophy aims at an Ordering of Rank: not at an individualistic morality".
[Nietzsche, WP 287]
Only the Few deserved 'individuality', according to this view of Nietzsche's.
So Nietzsche's is an aristocratic position, which is where he would greatly differ to Locke [and not necessarliy Locke "in particular" but the whole liberal tradition which stems from him].
It is unfortunate that in English the word 'Superman' doesn't resonate as 'Superhuman', as it should.
While Nietzsche believed in great individuals [a rare few], he also believed in elites and aristocracies.
His attitude towards women was a reaction against the beginnings of feminism which he saw - quite clearly - had intended to narrow the gap between men and women.
Nietzsche believed that there should always be distances between genders as well as between castes and peoples.
He certainly believed in the conception of race and he associated 'slave morality' with the Semites, as I have already said.
Nietzsche was greatly admired by Hitler who gave generous funding to the Nietzsche Archive while he was in power and visted there frequently.
If Nietzsche had had no racial aspects to his writing I doubt if Hitler would have paid the philosopher any mind.
Nietzsche was one of the first really 'modern' philosophers, in that he pursued not just one narrative, but many.
Often he subverted and deconstructed not just the ideas of others, but even his own.
This means he must be read in a nuanced fashion.
That Hitler was able to read Nietzsche in this way is clear from the Table Talk.
So he would've agreed with the Empiricists - such as Hume - that metaphysics was so much fiction. However, he found the empiricist philosophers - particuarly Locke, to be ultimately unphilosophical.
His philosophy transformed western thinking from the early 1900s onwards, particlularly on the European Continent, although not so so much on the North American continent and the British Isles, where the ideas of liberalism, empiricism, materialism, pragmatism and morality still hold sway [no doubt due to the Alled victory!].
There is therefore an essential Germanic quality of Nietzsche's thought - despite what he thought of the Germans of his own day.
Heraclitus balanced this kinetic principle with the notion of there being a law which governs the regularities of kinetic flux - those 'eternal returns of the same'.
Likewise in Nietzsche, there is also the hammer of Being which stamps itself upon Becoming.
So neither Heraclitus or Nietzsche posit pure, untrammeled, flux.
Without her activities we would have less Nietzsche, not more.
Also, the Archive got no funding during the Weimar period [nor did it get any after 1945 from the Communists], but the National Socialist government generously funded it, while Mussolini presented the Archive with a priceless ancient Greek statue of Dionysos!
Nietzsche was a racial thinker, and therefore regarded race as of vital importance in human affairs [see his Zarathustra, his Beyond Good & Evil, his Genealogy of Morals for examples, passim].
In terms of anti-Semitism, look to his contention that Slave Morality was invented by the Jews [although he certainly came down hard on Christian-anti-Semitism, seeing it as a way of sneaking Slave Morality in by the back door].
He did despise petty nationalism, that is true. This is because he expounded a pan-European nationalism instead and thought that petty nationalism would be destructive to Europe [he was prophetic in this].
Of course, before his break with Wagner, he shared that composer's views on the Jews and German nationalism as well.
But the point goes deeper.
Fascist philosophy evolved from out of the ideas of Nietzsche & a few other philosophers such as Heidegger, Spengler, Hegel, Plato & Heraclitus;- so there is a very profound philosophical basis to fascism.
Don't expect Nietzsche or Hegel or Plato to provide a 'point by point' fascist ideology!
This is because ideology differs from philosophy, the former being the application of certain philosophical ideas to political programmes.
All philosophers create contradictions [and Nietzsche revelled in that], so no philosopher's work can be used 'hook line and sinker' in an ideology; there will always be selection.
And selection is no bad thing - indeed, it is the inability to select that marks out the Modern Age in all its paralysis of action.
An Adolf Hitler rightly seized upon ideas he found in Kant, in Schopenhauer and in Nietzsche, and he used them as the basis for his own political ideology. That is how it is always done; one creates an ideology in that very fashion, usually in the crucible of debate.
Going back to Nietzsche's ideas, I would say he was right about petty nationalism which can create civil wars and therefore destroy the Folk.
I believe he was right to be sophisticated when it came to anti-Semitism, and to be one of the first to point out in detail the Semitic aspects of much of Christianity.
As a racial thinker he touched on both the spiritual & biological aspects of race at the same time - another important distinction.
That Nietzsche's thought was taken further in a fascist direction by Heidegger & Spengler suggests the importance of his iconoclasm [Spengler says that he had only two teachers: Nietzsche & Goethe].
To a philosopher, contradictions are not sins but the hallmarks of rigorous thought.
It is up to ideologists to pick from the rich field that they provide with their fertilising thought.
_________________Nietzsche wrote "I hate Locke", and also said that he didn't think that the English were a "philosophical race" [cf., BGE]
He certainly thought there were great differences between the Germans and English in cultural temperament.
For example;
Locke's 'individualism' is liberal, egalitarian and democratic.
Nietzsche's 'individualism' is aristocratic, hierarchical and anti-egalitarian.
Indeed, Nietzsche's so-called 'individualism' has little in common with the use of the word in England today.
He believed in a caste system; he believed in the necessity of slavery; he believed in a master race and a select few of higher men or Overhumans.
As he wrote;
"My philosophy aims at an Ordering of Rank: not at an individualistic morality".
[Nietzsche, WP 287]
Only the Few deserved 'individuality', according to this view of Nietzsche's.
So Nietzsche's is an aristocratic position, which is where he would greatly differ to Locke [and not necessarliy Locke "in particular" but the whole liberal tradition which stems from him].
Nietzsche never deviated from his aristocratic position - ever.
Of course it is 'common knowledge' that he took up many 'contradictory' positions as a way of "taking sides against himself"; philosophers often do this.
Of course it is 'common knowledge' that he took up many 'contradictory' positions as a way of "taking sides against himself"; philosophers often do this.
He certainly did much to destroy the concept of Absolute Truth. However, this done, he then established his own truth, with a small, 't' of perspectivism, and the world as Will to Power.
Most postmodern relativists do not make the latter move but rather remain with an aporia.
Most postmodern relativists do not make the latter move but rather remain with an aporia.
Nietzsche and National-Socialism
However there is a core of aristocratic thinking that goes through Nietzsche's work from start to finish.
In order to see this one has to seek below "face value" - indeed, the view that Nietzsche was merely a relativist is the superficial and 'common' one. But if one observes the core Nietzschean values of Master Morality, and Aristocratic Radicalism, then one realises that the prophet of the Ubermensch and the Will to Power is particularly important for the spiritual aspects of Fascism and National Socialism [NS].
However there is a core of aristocratic thinking that goes through Nietzsche's work from start to finish.
In order to see this one has to seek below "face value" - indeed, the view that Nietzsche was merely a relativist is the superficial and 'common' one. But if one observes the core Nietzschean values of Master Morality, and Aristocratic Radicalism, then one realises that the prophet of the Ubermensch and the Will to Power is particularly important for the spiritual aspects of Fascism and National Socialism [NS].
The NS/Fascist reading of Nietzsche is closest to his main and unchanging themes themes of Will to Power, Ubermensch, Masters of the Earth etc.,
Nietzsche opened up a way of thinking of morality which effectively contrasted Semitic Morality [slave morality] with Aryan Morality [master morality].
So these broad and powerful philosophical themes can be weighed against his remarks on the Jews and Germans which are often tainted by his rejection by his fellow Germans in his own lifetime.
Nietzsche opened up a way of thinking of morality which effectively contrasted Semitic Morality [slave morality] with Aryan Morality [master morality].
So these broad and powerful philosophical themes can be weighed against his remarks on the Jews and Germans which are often tainted by his rejection by his fellow Germans in his own lifetime.
Nietzsche and NS have another thing in common; they never developed a system in the traditional sense, nor did they found a single school, but rather a plethora of 'schools'.
NS inherited this will to fragmentation from Nietzsche.
The impetus of this will was prior to Nietzsche himself, and was/is due to a counter-movement against the unsurpassed systems of Kant and Hegel in German culture.
A return to the fragment; to the discrete sword-words of the Pre-Platonics on the one hand, and to coded Runic carvings on the other.
NS inherited this will to fragmentation from Nietzsche.
The impetus of this will was prior to Nietzsche himself, and was/is due to a counter-movement against the unsurpassed systems of Kant and Hegel in German culture.
A return to the fragment; to the discrete sword-words of the Pre-Platonics on the one hand, and to coded Runic carvings on the other.
They are part of the heritage shared by Nietzsche and NS.
By 'NS', I mean it all - in all its unsystematic will to power - as in Nietzsche.
But certain themes rise to the heights, in NS as in Nietzsche.
By 'NS', I mean it all - in all its unsystematic will to power - as in Nietzsche.
But certain themes rise to the heights, in NS as in Nietzsche.
It is unfortunate that in English the word 'Superman' doesn't resonate as 'Superhuman', as it should.
While Nietzsche believed in great individuals [a rare few], he also believed in elites and aristocracies.
His attitude towards women was a reaction against the beginnings of feminism which he saw - quite clearly - had intended to narrow the gap between men and women.
Nietzsche believed that there should always be distances between genders as well as between castes and peoples.
He certainly believed in the conception of race and he associated 'slave morality' with the Semites, as I have already said.
Nietzsche was greatly admired by Hitler who gave generous funding to the Nietzsche Archive while he was in power and visted there frequently.
If Nietzsche had had no racial aspects to his writing I doubt if Hitler would have paid the philosopher any mind.
Nietzsche was one of the first really 'modern' philosophers, in that he pursued not just one narrative, but many.
Often he subverted and deconstructed not just the ideas of others, but even his own.
This means he must be read in a nuanced fashion.
That Hitler was able to read Nietzsche in this way is clear from the Table Talk.
Nietzsche himself - while no-one would call him an 'empiricist' - was certainly not a metaphysician!
So he would've agreed with the Empiricists - such as Hume - that metaphysics was so much fiction. However, he found the empiricist philosophers - particuarly Locke, to be ultimately unphilosophical.
His philosophy transformed western thinking from the early 1900s onwards, particlularly on the European Continent, although not so so much on the North American continent and the British Isles, where the ideas of liberalism, empiricism, materialism, pragmatism and morality still hold sway [no doubt due to the Alled victory!].
There is therefore an essential Germanic quality of Nietzsche's thought - despite what he thought of the Germans of his own day.
__________________
Heraclitus balanced this kinetic principle with the notion of there being a law which governs the regularities of kinetic flux - those 'eternal returns of the same'.
Likewise in Nietzsche, there is also the hammer of Being which stamps itself upon Becoming.
So neither Heraclitus or Nietzsche posit pure, untrammeled, flux.
__________________
Nietzsche's Sister
Nietzsche's sister made *more* of her brothers' work available to the public, as she founded the Nietzsche Archive and undertook to provide a complete edition of his works.
Without her activities we would have less Nietzsche, not more.
Also, the Archive got no funding during the Weimar period [nor did it get any after 1945 from the Communists], but the National Socialist government generously funded it, while Mussolini presented the Archive with a priceless ancient Greek statue of Dionysos!
Nietzsche was a racial thinker, and therefore regarded race as of vital importance in human affairs [see his Zarathustra, his Beyond Good & Evil, his Genealogy of Morals for examples, passim].
In terms of anti-Semitism, look to his contention that Slave Morality was invented by the Jews [although he certainly came down hard on Christian-anti-Semitism, seeing it as a way of sneaking Slave Morality in by the back door].
He did despise petty nationalism, that is true. This is because he expounded a pan-European nationalism instead and thought that petty nationalism would be destructive to Europe [he was prophetic in this].
Of course, before his break with Wagner, he shared that composer's views on the Jews and German nationalism as well.
But the point goes deeper.
Fascist philosophy evolved from out of the ideas of Nietzsche & a few other philosophers such as Heidegger, Spengler, Hegel, Plato & Heraclitus;- so there is a very profound philosophical basis to fascism.
Don't expect Nietzsche or Hegel or Plato to provide a 'point by point' fascist ideology!
This is because ideology differs from philosophy, the former being the application of certain philosophical ideas to political programmes.
All philosophers create contradictions [and Nietzsche revelled in that], so no philosopher's work can be used 'hook line and sinker' in an ideology; there will always be selection.
And selection is no bad thing - indeed, it is the inability to select that marks out the Modern Age in all its paralysis of action.
An Adolf Hitler rightly seized upon ideas he found in Kant, in Schopenhauer and in Nietzsche, and he used them as the basis for his own political ideology. That is how it is always done; one creates an ideology in that very fashion, usually in the crucible of debate.
Going back to Nietzsche's ideas, I would say he was right about petty nationalism which can create civil wars and therefore destroy the Folk.
I believe he was right to be sophisticated when it came to anti-Semitism, and to be one of the first to point out in detail the Semitic aspects of much of Christianity.
As a racial thinker he touched on both the spiritual & biological aspects of race at the same time - another important distinction.
That Nietzsche's thought was taken further in a fascist direction by Heidegger & Spengler suggests the importance of his iconoclasm [Spengler says that he had only two teachers: Nietzsche & Goethe].
To a philosopher, contradictions are not sins but the hallmarks of rigorous thought.
It is up to ideologists to pick from the rich field that they provide with their fertilising thought.
__________________
__________________
No comments:
Post a Comment