N.B.: Just what Shaw meant by “the Life Force” is no clearer than what Nietzsche meant by “the Will to Power.” (Perhaps you can puzzle something out of the lengthy preface to the play, “The Epistle Dedicatory to Arthur Bingham Walkley.”) But, in light of the above, “the Life Force,” whatever it is, would appear to be a distinctly non-Nietzschean concept – because one point that is clearly and repeatedly hammered home in the play is that the Life Force has nothing at all to do with esthetics.
Hubbard was influenced by LaVey?!
But in all the Greek myths it didn’t matter that the gods acted that way; they were, you know- the GODS. The idea of “might makes right” not as a cynical f-u but taken literally: power IS goodness. That sounds, if not truly Nietzschean, than similar to what many people took Nietzcheanism for.
It’s been to long since I’ve read Nietzche for me to comment intelligently on him. One word of caution though. If you’re getting your view of Nietzche, or any other philosopher, I would take anything in Russel’s History with giant boulders of salt. It’s an extremely tendentious work, dedicated to proving that the modern analytic school of philosophy is the only true one. It’s well written and an entertaining read but it barely pretends to be an objective history. You’re much better off reading Nietzche’s original writings, perhaps with Walter Kauffman’s commentaries. (Though of course Kauffman has his own agenda.)
a lot of what ITRChampion posts jibes with my dim recollection of Nietzche. One thing to remember is that he didn’t write in a vacuum. A lot of what he wrote was a reaction to Kant and Hegel, and their lengthy attempts to create rational metaphysical systems. IIRC, Nietzche saw a core of irrationality in philosophy, an act of will (or leap of faith if you will) to believe something. But again, it’s really been too long to comment intelligently.
You didn’t know? He lived with Jack Parsons (and stole his wife.) Parsons was a famous (Crowley) satanist. This was at roughly the same point as the SF Church of Satan was showing up with LaVey. Scientology ‘tech’ has a lot of both in it. More Crowley, of course, but some late additions have some kleptomania of LaVey’s work in it. It’s almost entirely revised Satanism of one kind or another, though.
I did not realize LaVeyan Satanism involved any stages-of-spiritual-progress, which seems to be pretty much the most important thing about Scientology (other than the making-money-for-the-leaders aspect, of which you’ll find little in Satanism).
BrainGlutton, do you actually have anything to say about Nietzsche, or did you start this thread just to post a bunch of quotes? I don’t understand what you’re trying to accomplish here. Is this even supposed to be a discussion?
I say that Nietzschehimself did not know, and this was a big part of why he was an utter failure. The man himself did not ever want to state anything clearly, and while I can certainly understand why people would get Nietzscheism from his work, the plain fact is that his writings are utter nonsense. I can’t find any idea which actually logically builds on anything. It’s a giant mash of random stream of consciousness dolled up with the philosophical pretensions of his day. Nietzschemay not have really wanted to admit what it was he was thinking, because it ain’t pretty down under the vague praise of power.
It’s useful to contrast him to Kant, who certainly developed ideas that were about as easy to approach as an old fruitcake, but who did have a clear concept, goal, and built a logical argument to end it.
In the end, however, two things are clear: it means whatever the individual wants it to mean, and Nietzsche’s name is a goddamn bitch to spell. (I use copy/paste).
“When walking in open territory, bother no one. If someone bothers you, ask them to stop. If they do not stop, destroy them.”
Much of ‘The God You Save May Be Yourself’, ritual as ‘Intellectual Decompression Chamber’ and the whole ego-focused thing show up. Especially, by the way, the bit where they focus on strong definitions of words. The word is the thing, to define it is to master it.
Some of it has been turned inside out, from an individualistic perspective to an organizationally focused perspective, but many of the premises and philosophy in LaVey have been, shall I say, deconstructed and plagarized into Hubbard’s work.
Occasionally, it may have happened the other way round as well.
Look, there weren’t many satanists ‘of standing’ during that era. Do you think they didn’t know and affect each other? Hubbard took whatever worked.