On a scale of Ceasarian to Democrat, what do you think was Nietzsche's preferred form of government?
>>862159
I don't have an answer but I'd like to read people's thoughts on this. What would be your answer OP?
>>862175
Considering his thoughts on the Ubermensch, it would probably be some sort of dictatorship, anything that isn't a Democracy would probably work though
"As little state as possible!"
Probably an aristocracy like they had during the Italian Renaissance
Nietzsche loathed democracy almost as much as he loathed socialism
>>862159
In his ideal world world everyone is an ubermensch, and the only logical form of government is anarchy or direct democracy
nietzsche's model of the individual did not really allow for any kind of endorseable government
source: philosophy major
>>862159
none
I'd imagine he like a mad max style world, where the was no government aside from the ones that the strong would set up, and there would be constant wars to prove your strength
>>862194
Its not possible for everybody to be Ubermensch
>>862159
None.
>>862215
Why?
>>862251
Because its reserved for the best of the best, some people are not genetically predisposed to it
>>862159
Dick sucking state with OP as the president
>>862256
>genetically
Is this bait?
>>862159
He hated politics and any form of government. He just wanted everyone to be great artists and philosophers.
>>862704
he seems to change his mind often. in one book he goes on about how there are only slaves and masters, which suggests that a government will always exist? or are you saying he hated the forms of government and not the idea of government? i have only read a few of his books.
>>862159
His ideal government was probably more in line with Plato's idea of philosopher kings.
>>862195
He had no ideological leanings as far as government went, he generally believed that christianity was liberalism was socialism was anarchism.
But he did have a sentimental preference for a decentralized, minimal aristocratic state. I don't think he would have cared if it was some sort of aristocratic republic or a monarchy. He basically said, I forget where, that Plato was correct in his model for government. And he doesn't say Plato is correct anywhere else, really.
>>862704
>>862194
>everyone
lmao no. He wanted there to be as little state as possible so that the great minds wouldn't be bound or tainted by it, He honestly couldn't have given less of a shit what happened to the 99% of people who weren't great minds, to him they were tschandala. Their existence as a class was necessary but any individual among them generally wasn't worth more than his brute labor.
In Twilight of the Idols he even provides a maxim where he says that the worst sorts of labor should go to those best able to bear it, aka the dumbest and least advantaged. A society can't just be poets and he knew this, there have to be tschandala.
I think it was in Ecce Homo where he advocated for socialism in the form of heavy taxation of the rich, but only to make the bourgeois class poorer. He didn't give a shit what the government did with the money but he thought a state ruled by businessmen would be just as bad as a socialist state, and he virulently hated socialism.
>>862680
Not him but genetics is just as important as environment. In fact, the dichotomy is problematic.
Obviously we've gotten a much more accurate idea of what genetic traits tend to predominant in people since then, but at the same time it's become a touchy subject, much unpleasant truths, too much dichotomy.
>>862817
in what sense do you think genetics are important? lifting objects, learning?
>>862829
Come on. We already know genetics influecnes just about everything.
Adoption studies show that even when two people of different racial make-up are put in similar families and environments they have different success rates in education.
A quick look at high end athletes should tell you exactly that genetics is a huge factor in the physical also. The winners of all the strong-man competition have Nordic transcend. The winners of all the sprint competition are from Kenya. Blacks can't swim and white's can't jump.
The idea that genetics do not influence major parts of a person's success is an outright conspiracy theory.
>>862829
Well I'd hate to open the great big fucking can of worms that IQ tends to create on here but maybe we can politely agree to the conservative concession that the field is professional and academic by most standards, and that the consensus is that at least a significant portion of the measurement seems to be genetic.
And then you have obvious stuff like genetic health defects, and the opposite in miraculously long lived communities.
>>862843
The sad thing is that it's still controversial among laypeople. But my point for this thread was to go even further beyond the stupid dichotomy. **Breeding** is the most obvious example, genetics and environment should both be taken seriously, not using one to slander unpleasant truths about the other.
>>862829
All of the above, genetics are everything. Upbringing can alter how genetics are expessed but think of it this way: All ideas originate in human minds. All ideas are transmitted by humans either individually or as collectives. All of this information, all of an upbringing is translated through genes not just by the student but through the teachers as well. As Nietzsche and some before him identified ideas have genealogies of their own and do not exist in a vacuum outside of humanity and history.
'environment' is ultimately meta-genetics. So a person's development is based on genetics influenced by genetics of those around him and the genetics of those who came before them.
>>862159
Probably neither, in the way that you ask it.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/#4
Politics is plebeian; at best, means to an end. What Caesar or Pericles did with a particular system isn't inherent in the apparatus itself.
>>863019
>Every philosophy which believes that the problem of existence is touched on, not to say solved, by a political event is a joke- and pseudo-philosophy. Many states have been founded since the world began; that is an old story. How should a political innovation suffice to turn men once and for all into contented inhabitants of the earth? [That people think the answer to existential questions might come from politics shows] that we are experiencing the consequences of the doctrine…that the state is the highest goal of mankind and that a man has no higher duty than to serve the state: in which doctrine I recognize a relapse not into paganism but into stupidity. It may be that a man who sees his highest duty in serving the state really knows no higher duties; but there are men and duties existing beyond this — and one of the duties that seems, at least to me, to be higher than serving the state demands that one destroys stupidity in every form, and therefore in this form too. That is why I am concerned with a species of man whose teleology extends somewhat beyond the welfare of a state…, and with [this kind of man] only in relation to a world which is again fairly independent of the welfare of a state, that of culture. (U III:4)
Top banter.
Does this paragraph describe Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau or Marx?
>>862159
for anyone interested:
>Nietzsche’s apparent illiberal and anti-egalitarian sentiments have raised vexing questions about what kind of political philosophy, if any, he had. One view (well represented in Detwiler 1990) is that Nietzsche was an advocate for the restoration of an aristocratic political order, one in which the “herd” of humanity would be put to service on behalf of geniuses such as Goethe and Nietzsche. Some (like Brobjer 1998) question the textual basis for ascribing this political program to Nietzsche, whereas others (Hunt 1985 is representative) call attention to Nietzsche’s astonishing hostility to politics and political philosophy: he may have been more the “esoteric moralist,” looking to transform the consciousness of select readers, than the proponent of a political program. Shaw 2007 suggests a new approach to the question of Nietzsche’s political philosophy, treating him as interested in the problem of how the modern state could be legitimate.
Brobjer, Thomas H. “The Absence of Political Ideals in Nietzsche’s Writings: The Case of the Law of Manu and the Associated Caste Society.” Nietzsche-Studien 27 (1998): 300–318.
>A shrewd, skeptical analysis of a famous passage from The Antichrist often adduced as evidence of Nietzsche’s commitment to an aristocratic political order.
Detwiler, Bruce. Nietzsche and the Politics of Aristocratic Radicalism. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1990.
>An accessible and careful assembling of textual evidence in support of the idea that Nietzsche was, as his contemporary Georg Brandes dubbed him, a proponent of “aristocratic radicalism.”
Hunt, Lester. “Politics and Anti-Politics: Nietzsche’s View of the State.” History of Philosophy Quarterly 2 (1985): 453–468.
>An important paper making the case that Nietzsche had no interest in politics or political philosophy.
>>863108
Shaw, Tamsin. Nietzsche’s Political Skepticism. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2007.
>Makes the novel argument that Nietzsche was concerned with the problem of how legitimate political authority is possible in a secular era, when religion is no longer a credible source of normative guidance and philosophy itself is ineffective in the public arena. The textual basis for ascribing these concerns to Nietzsche is debatable, but Shaw’s account is provocative and essential reading for graduate students and scholars interested in the question of Nietzsche’s political thought.
>>862817
Not denying that. Nietzsche had no idea that genetics existed and took issue with Darwinian evolution. It's just wrong to say that he thought genes had anything to do with anything.
>>863033
None of those. That's about Hegel.
>>863092
>>863122
>literally has a work titled "genealogy..."
>literally takes the Darwinian revolution as given, and works to restore the dignity of man in spite of it
Only a pedant would think that because he doesn't endorse contemporary genetics or darwinist reductions and mispsychologies of the time, then he doesn't entertain genetics and darwinism at all.
>guys, Nietzsche is not Spencer so he can't have talked about these evil things
>>863092
lmao, no. He didn't actually hate Darwinism but had problems with how it was constructed, but the problems he had with it were because he read "Darwin" through a German who misinterpreted him was in favor of a progressive evolutionary model, that creatures got stronger and more fit.
Nietzsche practically re-creates Darwin from his brief criticism of this work, saying that in essence that it is not the strongest of the species that survive, but those who reproduce the most and are amenable to the most conditions (ie the least specialized). Rats are weaker than elephants but rats ain't endangered. Nietzsche was fundamentally on board with Darwin's core assumptions though he didn't agree with the social Darwinism that came out of it. Evolution is about reproduction rather than strength, social Darwinism is a master morality, a breeder mentality.
Nietzsche was opposed to master morality but spent less time on it because he did think it was superior to slave morality and certainly less threatening than it to western civilization of the time.
>>863124
It's about Hegel directly but takes a swipe at all political philosophers. Nietzsche hated Marx more than anyone except for Plato though, but he preferred to follow the criticism back to what he understood as the source of most bullshit: Plato. Another burning criticism he has of Hegel and friends is The Last Man in Zarathustra.
Very few of his criticisms are actually just directed at one person unless he names them, that's the magic of his critique and why so many people from so many different perspectives incorporate his critiques and his methods into their work.
>>863236
Exactly.
>Nietzsche was opposed to master morality but spent less time on it because he did think it was superior to slave morality and certainly less threatening than it to western civilization of the time.
I think this is one of the more difficult parts because so much is left unsaid. How about this:
>And against Walter Kaufmann’s contention that “Nietzsche’s own ethic is beyond both master and slave morality,” Nehamas cites Nietzsche’s concluding line of that same essay: “[I]t has long been sufficiently clear what I will, what I will precisely with that dangerous slogan that is written on the trunk of my last book: ‘Beyond Good and Evil’ ... At least this does not mean ‘Beyond Good and Bad.’“ (GM I:17). From this Nehamas infers that for Nietzsche “to be beyond good and evil cannot therefore be to leave behind the mode of valuation that characterizes the barbarian nobles”; and he concludes that “Nietzsche accepts the mode of valuation that characterizes the nobles of On the Genealogy of Morals.”
Does this not basically confuse Nietzsche's trepidation for endorsement? There's no need to go beyond "good and bad" if that is the best we can obtain but the hesitation of "at least" suggests that's still far from decided.
>Nietzsche hated Marx more than anyone except for Plato
But there's even less evidence he read Marx than there is he read Stirner. Also. Marx is merely describing the socioeconomic form of Darwinism (though obviously he was also utopian and socialist) so why would Nietzsche hate him specifically?
People need to understand that Darwin's early model was simply wrong and that Nietzche did not right outright reject the idea but the details of it.
Darwin isn't infallible for fucks sake.
>>863469
It comes out more in some of his letters, but early Nietzsche in particular is very stern in his opposition to socialism, the child of Marx.
As far as transcending good and evil, Nietzsche was not a nihilist and was not happy with master morality because master morality is nihilism. Nietzsche struggled to create a system of values that
1. Ascended past nihilism
2. Did not have the same fundamental flaws as the Christian/Platonic morality
But he died before completing his work. He created only The Antichrist which was to be the first of four books, the one responsible for tearing down the old morality. He wrote Ecce Homo to clear his mind after that book, to take him out of the purely critical mode he had been in for most of his life and prepare for the act of creation. A few days after he finished it he went insane.
>>863516
>But he died before completing his work. He created only The Antichrist which was to be the first of four books, the one responsible for tearing down the old morality. He wrote Ecce Homo to clear his mind after that book, to take him out of the purely critical mode he had been in for most of his life and prepare for the act of creation. A few days after he finished it he went insane.
So was Will to Power supposed to be the third book?
What about the last book?
This like something out of a movie, the great pioneer dies on the eve of creating his world-defining master piece, leaving riddles and clueless so that future generations could finish what he started.
>>862774
>He basically said, I forget where, that Plato was correct in his model for government. And he doesn't say Plato is correct anywhere else, really.
Please produce that quote/source for me bro. Thanks.
>>863236
>Nietzsche hated Marx more than anyone
I don't think Nietzsche ever demonstrated that he was aware of Marx even existing
socialism wasn't something marx invented you know
>>863543
No, Will to Power was a working title for a book he was writing before he decided to scrap it and make it a 4 book project. His sister took the working title and assembled some of his notes under it for a posthumous book.
>>863595
Hell if I can remember, I don't have access to my library for the next week or so. It might have been in twilight of the idols, towards the end, last 30 pages or so. That's the best I can do from admittedly hazy memory. Haven't read Nietzsche thoroughly in 5 or 6 years so it kind of blends together.
>>863516
>It comes out more in some of his letters, but early Nietzsche in particular is very stern in his opposition to socialism, the child of Marx.
You're ignoring what I'm saying:
>The socialist political movement includes a diverse array of political philosophies that originated amid the revolutionary movements of the mid-to-late 1700s out of general concern for the social problems that were associated with capitalism
Marx is notable philosophically for translating Darwinism into socioeconomic terms, not for being a socialist or utopian (though sadly that is his legacy), so Nietzsche wouldn't hate him specifically.
>As far as transcending good and evil, Nietzsche was not a nihilist and was not happy with master morality because master morality is nihilism
How is master morality nihilism?
http://www.nietzschecircle.com/AGONIST/2008_12/PDFs/AgonistDEC2008LoebEssaySECURE.pdf
The above seems to imply Nietzsche can't help but assume master morality, as that is what is good and true.
>But he died before completing his work. He created only The Antichrist which was to be the first of four books, the one responsible for tearing down the old morality. He wrote Ecce Homo to clear his mind after that book, to take him out of the purely critical mode he had been in for most of his life and prepare for the act of creation. A few days after he finished it he went insane.
>>863543
>something out of a movie
Yes it does sound like that, like most of the Nietzsche myths. Kauffman says that the original project was Will to Power, expanded into four books under the title Re-evaluation, before finally deciding it should be 1 book which was released as Antichrist. Confusion afterwards is due to the sister.
>>863627
>
Ecce Homo has the tone of looking back on a completely productive life, recognising individual golden-ages, not that of unfinished business.
>>863627
>>863645
>
Wanted to write more but had no room..
>Hell if I can remember, I don't have access to my library for the next week or so. It might have been in twilight of the idols, towards the end, last 30 pages or so. That's the best I can do from admittedly hazy memory. Haven't read Nietzsche thoroughly in 5 or 6 years so it kind of blends together.
I do remember some reference to the philosopher-kings myself, but do you think you could also be confusing it with the time he points out none of the great philosophers (no matter how diverse) had much regard for pity?
>>863645
So realistically how much of Nietzche's intended writing did we get? Was the notes that became Will to Power really supposed to be the conclusion? And if so how complete do scholars think it is?
>>863687
>So realistically how much of Nietzche's intended writing did we get?
Well he got the Antichrist done, which was the big project Will to Power eventually narrowed down. Ecce Homo seems like a celebration of all that. It's likened to Socrates' Apology. The central theme is amor fati. He is able to assess and describe his own importance.
The "will to power" notes aren't a conclusion, they aren't even Nietzsche compiling his own thoughts and producing them into a published work, they are a compilation by his sister. Instead of reading or mentioning it people should refer to the nachlass/notebooks/unpublished works. Then the reality of what they are is clear. There is even a plethora of great stuff in there, although with a proper edition you see them as notes, not some arbitrary compilation suggesting there was systematic relation between all the notes.
I recall Napoleon being a contemporary muse
>>863776
>Napoleon
>Nietzsche
>contemporary
>>862184
Couldn't a democracy amongst the Ubermensche exclusively fall in line with his philosophy?
>>864009
Ubermench is a rare type of human.
A democracy of ubermech would be like Plato's ruling class where a handful of elite have very powerful positions.
The thing about democracy is that we already saw how it spiraled out of control. It started with only a few wealthy aristocrats being able to vote and than it slowly spread until everyone could vote and the plebs run things (or rather the plebs get tricked by rhetoric every election cycle). A system of government in Nietzsche terms, shouldn't really have a concept of equality built into it but rather many many hierarchies: it is the striving to become better that is the source of strength. The government must reflect this and thus have the stronger out rank the rest.
>>864225
Would this system of hierarchies allow social and class mobility?
>>863473
How was Darwin wrong?
>>864276
In his praise for the Hindu caste system he discusses how social classes in a hierachy can be 'breed' for their role.
On the other hand he also says that societies that are not constantly faced with conflict will eventually grow decadent. One can easily imagine a group of aristocrates that have their position secured by birth too easily and lose their noble spirit.
Nietzche has never explicitly stated what the ideal government would be in the way Plato did so we have to see we are improvizing here. I think a good example of something very Nietzchean would be a something like warring states: there is a hierachy, even a clear caste system but merit can allow one to to ascend to a state leader by being a proper leader. Weak principalities will be conquered and bring in new leaders who offer fresh blood.
