# Nietschze: The Anti-American Philosophy? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [February 20, 2010, 4:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733 "2010-02-20T04:20:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 6:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/41 "2010-02-27T18:32:54Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > In other words against general American attitudes. No, that is not “in other words”. “Nietzsche’s philosophy was the antithesis of Americanism” does not mean the same thing as “Nietzsche would in general be against American attitudes.” If you want to ask a different question then you are free to do so, but don’t try to tell me that the title and first post of this thread say something that they do not. ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 6:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/42 "2010-02-27T18:43:38Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > No, that is not “in other words”. “Nietzsche’s philosophy was the antithesis of Americanism” does not mean the same thing as “Nietzsche would in general be against American attitudes.” Well, isn’t he talking about “Americanism” as a philosophy? ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 8:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/43 "2010-02-27T20:51:11Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > Well, isn’t he talking about “Americanism” as a philosophy? So what? “Nietzsche’s philosophy was the antithesis of Americanism as a philosophy” still does not mean the same thing as “Nietzsche would in general be against Americanism as a philosophy.” That’s not what “antithesis” means. I suppose we could have a long, drawn-out semantic argument on this point, but I don’t care to do so. What I find more interesting is that this is the only part of my post that **Curtis** disagreed with. He quoted but did not address my suggestion that he is not interested in a serious discussion about Nietzsche and is simply looking for a reason to dismiss Nietzsche’s work. I guess he saw nothing to argue with there. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 27, 2010, 9:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/44 "2010-02-27T21:24:58Z")
Sorry **olives** , I forgot to address this before: > [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > Ok, I see your point. I wasn’t overly optimistic about the OP’s motive either, but I do think if we slightly tweak the question – i.e. ‘‘What Would Nietzsche Think About The Modern-Day United States?’’ we’ve got a legitimate inquiry and potential for a really interesting thread. I think that would be an interesting thread too, but I also think the OP would just cherry-pick the statements that support what he’s already decided is true. I’m uncomfortable playing along with that game. I wouldn’t want something I posted here to be twisted around and used against someone else later: “That sounds like something Nietzsche would say, and as we all know Nietzsche was anti-American. Why do you hate America?” ---
**Author:** ![Captain\_Amazing](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/6de8d8/32.png) [@Captain\_Amazing](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Captain_Amazing)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/45 "2010-02-28T00:56:08Z")
> [@Lamia](#): > > I suppose we could have a long, drawn-out semantic argument on this point, but I don’t care to do so. What I find more interesting is that this is the only part of my post that **Curtis** disagreed with. He quoted but did not address my suggestion that he is not interested in a serious discussion about Nietzsche and is simply looking for a reason to dismiss Nietzsche’s work. I guess he saw nothing to argue with there. I think the OP meant to disagree with both parts of your post. ---
**Author:** ![DanBlather](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/f4b2a3/32.png) [@DanBlather](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/DanBlather)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/46 "2010-02-28T01:59:14Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I mean the idealistic version of Americanism: propounded by Thomas Jefferson and continued by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. Let’s ask one of Jefferson’s slaves if they liked Nietschie. ---
**Author:** ![Lamia](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Lamia](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lamia)\ **Post date:** [February 28, 2010, 1:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/47 "2010-02-28T01:59:40Z")
> [@Captain\_Amazing](#): > > I think the OP meant to disagree with both parts of your post. If he meant to do that then he failed to actually put it into words. Perhaps it slipped his mind. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/48 "2010-03-01T03:43:40Z")
> [@Czarcasm](#): > > Then you don’t have any legitimate stance on his works, do you? What you have is yet more posturing about what someone _wrote_ about yet another Wiki article. In fact, it seems lately that _most_ of your threads here are nothing more than second-hand Wiki rants. Do you ever actually read books on the topics you post about, or is Wikipedia pretty much your sole source? I do. In one of my recent debates one of the sources I cited was a book. Also I gained my information about Nietschze from a late 1950s _Encyclopaedia Brittanica_ not Wikipedia. > [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > **Curtis** , I’m curious, how do you feel about the responses here? Quite intelligent and reasoned-usual SDMB quality. > [@](#): > > Can you elaborate on what you understand to be key components of Nietzsche’s philosophy? That most men are stuck in a “herd” or “slave” mentality which currently dominates the world but the superior ideal is the morality of the “aristocrats” who have the will to power and for humanity to be truly great the herd mentality must be overthrown and be replaced by the ubermensch morality of the will to power. > [@](#): > > How would \*you \*answer your own question? I would say mostly he is against the general principles of what can be called “Americanism”. > [@Lamia](#): > > So what? “Nietzsche’s philosophy was the antithesis of Americanism as a philosophy” still does not mean the same thing as “Nietzsche would in general be against Americanism as a philosophy.” That’s not what “antithesis” means. > > I suppose we could have a long, drawn-out semantic argument on this point, but I don’t care to do so. What I find more interesting is that this is the only part of my post that **Curtis** disagreed with. He quoted but did not address my suggestion that he is not interested in a serious discussion about Nietzsche and is simply looking for a reason to dismiss Nietzsche’s work. I guess he saw nothing to argue with there. I do want a serious debate about Nietschze. > [@DanBlather](#): > > Let’s ask one of Jefferson’s slaves if they liked Nietschie. Thomas Jefferson actually did want abolition in Virginia but that effort was prevented due to slave revolts. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 3:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/49 "2010-03-01T03:47:23Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > Thomas Jefferson actually did want abolition in Virginia but that effort was prevented due to slave revolts. Surely that is no reason to mean he should have his _own_ slaves? That someone personally has slaves but wishes for abolition in general doesn’t strike me as someone who’s doing so out of a moral standpoint. ---
**Author:** ![Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/q/f04885/32.png) [@Qin\_Shi\_Huangdi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Qin_Shi_Huangdi)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/50 "2010-03-01T04:02:19Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Surely that is no reason to mean he should have his _own_ slaves? That someone personally has slaves but wishes for abolition in general doesn’t strike me as someone who’s doing so out of a moral standpoint. He could not free his own slaves mainly because he was greatly in debt. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/51 "2010-03-01T04:12:57Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I mean the idealistic version of Americanism: propounded by Thomas Jefferson and continued by Abraham Lincoln and Franklin Delano Roosevelt. [http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm](http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm) You mean this Thomas Jefferson who saw religion as a problem and a threat to freedom and freedom of thought? He was no idealist. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/52 "2010-03-01T04:19:42Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > He could not free his own slaves mainly because he was greatly in debt. Indebtedness negates the moral penalty of owning slaves? ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/53 "2010-03-01T04:23:35Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I do. In one of my recent debates one of the sources I cited was a book. Also I gained my information about Nietschze from a late 1950s _Encyclopaedia Brittanica_ not Wikipedia. You quoted Wikipedia in your OP-now you claim your source is an Encyclopaedia Britannica from the '50’s? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/54 "2010-03-01T16:49:41Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > [http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm](http://www.nobeliefs.com/jefferson.htm) You mean this Thomas Jefferson who saw religion as a problem and a threat to freedom and freedom of thought? He was no idealist. Certainly he was an idealist; he just wasn’t a Christian. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 1, 2010, 4:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/55 "2010-03-01T16:53:24Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Indebtedness negates the moral penalty of owning slaves? It has been said of Jefferson that his life was a constant struggle between his principles and his appetites. He owned slaves because a Virginia gentleman of his time had to have domestic servants and farm laborers, and practically no free ones were available (and, of course, if you could find any you did not have a legal right to fuck them). He did not free his slaves in his will because he was not a good manager of his money, and got in debt, and would rather see his slaves sold off at an estate sale than screw his creditors and his heirs. ---
**Author:** ![Revenant\_Threshold](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f1d935/32.png) [@Revenant\_Threshold](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Revenant_Threshold)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/56 "2010-03-02T02:00:01Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > It has been said of Jefferson that his life was a constant struggle between his principles and his appetites. He owned slaves because a Virginia gentleman of his time had to have domestic servants and farm laborers, and practically no free ones were available (and, of course, if you could find any you did not have a legal right to fuck them). He did not free his slaves in his will because he was not a good manager of his money, and got in debt, and would rather see his slaves sold off at an estate sale than screw his creditors and his heirs. Honestly, this still doesn’t sell me on him being even an acceptable person. If the choice is between owning slaves and being bankrupt or in great debt, then the latter is the unfortunate but only moral choice. Not wanting to screw creditors and heirs, while laudable, is not so when the means of getting out of it is profiting from slave labour and then selling them off. There’s plenty of evil or cruel acts which could be mitigated by circumstances. Stealing medicine you can’t otherwise afford to save a life, is the usual example. But owning slaves and taking considerable advantage of them is too far beyond the pale for any kind of real-life mitigating circumstances. Which is why i’m asking the question of **Curtis** , who seems to feel that they are, at the least, mitigating, and at the most, absolving. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 8:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/57 "2010-03-02T20:40:46Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > For one thing, I would take exception to the idea that Nietzsche is a ‘‘pessimist.’’ He rejected nihilism very explicitly. He sought to go beyond moral relativism and believed that simply declaring life to be meaningless and stopping there was a weak-minded thing to do. Ultimately we have to embrace the lack of ultimate truth and create our own truths. He totally believed people should stand for something, he just believed that something people stood for should be of their own making. I consider his philosophy personally very encouraging and empowering. As a Nietzsche fan, do you think Bertrand Russell gave a fair account of him in [_A History of Western Philosophy?_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy) ---
**Author:** ![Spice\_Weasel](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/spice_weasel/32/5435_2.png) [@Spice\_Weasel](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Spice_Weasel)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 11:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/58 "2010-03-02T23:13:25Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > As a Nietzsche fan, do you think Bertrand Russell gave a fair account of him in [_A History of Western Philosophy?_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_History_of_Western_Philosophy) I’ve never read Russell’s book but the wiki makes it sounds very interesting. My philosophy background is rather unbalanced (mostly existentialism, Eastern philosophy and a handful of 17/18th Century philosophers), so an overview like that might be educational for me. Would you mind summarizing Russell’s perspective? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 2, 2010, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/59 "2010-03-02T23:37:29Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > I’ve never read Russell’s book but the wiki makes it sounds very interesting. My philosophy background is rather unbalanced (mostly existentialism, Eastern philosophy and a handful of 17/18th Century philosophers), so an overview like that might be educational for me. Would you mind summarizing Russell’s perspective? I’ll do it shortly, when I have his book handy. Meanwhile, from [John J. Reilly’s review](http://www.johnreilly.info/fah.htm) of [_Fascism: A History,_](http://www.amazon.com/Fascism-History-Roger-Eatwell/dp/0140257004/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1267572671&sr=8-1) by Roger Eatwell: > [@](#): > > Fascism would not have been possible without Friedrich Nietzsche. There has been no lack of anti-theistic philosophers both before and after Nietzsche, but he is almost alone in honestly facing the consequences of living in a world in which everything is permitted. Most thinkers have sought to preserve some fragment of the intellectual structure that depended from the hypothesis of the Christian God, and so they appeal to reason or history or science. Nietzsche would have none of it. If the skies are really empty, then there are no imperatives. There is, however, life, which in the case of human beings expresses itself not just as biology but as the will. Now Nietzsche, unlike Schopenhauer and unlike many of his own followers, recognized the will is itself a composite entity. It is not a primary physical force, and it is not a god. It does, however, actually exist, and its exercise is all the meaning that life can ever have. > > The proposition that the meaning of life is the exercise of the will leads to two kinds of conclusions. The most obvious, and the most popular, is the cult of cruelty. Naturally, the street-fighters who normally figure in the public activities of successful fascist parties are rarely well-read in the literature of philosophical nihilism. Nevertheless, even the nihilist violence of the German SA and the Italian “squadristi” chimes with high theory. Fascism promotes ruthlessness for the same reason that it promotes conspiracy theories: for a fascist, nothing is going to happen unless some will makes it happen. One suspects this consideration is also a factor in the usual fascist suspicion of free markets. > > The other conclusion to which an ontology of the will leads is the transformation of politics into art. Whole societies become instruments for the expression of the will of elites, or often of a single great individual. In fascist theory, this is all that politics ever was, no matter what purportedly disinterested purposes the ruling elites of the past believed they served. The difference that Nietzsche made was that this reality could become conscious. > > Fascism is not quite coincident with the great man theory of history. Since human beings are social animals, the will is to some extent a social phenomenon. Thus, reality is an intersubjective construct, a fable that people make up amongst themselves. The construct is not entirely arbitrary. Most fascists have also posited a strong racial or biological element conditioning the way that leaders and their peoples behave. Still, even in highly racialized forms of fascism, the leader stands to the people as the will stands to the individual. Politics, then, is not an arbitrary art, but an art whereby the leader makes the unconscious will of the people explicit. ---
**Author:** ![SecretaryofEvil](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/e95f7d/32.png) [@SecretaryofEvil](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SecretaryofEvil)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 7:48am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/60 "2010-03-03T07:48:12Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > Now this is where my knowledge of world history is lacking, but wasn’t the U.S. a pretty irrelevant part of the world landscape during the 1800s, when Nietzsche lived? The U.S. was hardly the superpower it is today, and the concept of ‘‘globalization’’ didn’t really exist, so I’m not surprised he didn’t say much about Americans. > > In today’s world, though, the U.S. is a larger part of the international dialog, and our culture and our policy has a huge impact on other countries. I am guessing Nietzsche would have more reason today to consider American culture than he would a hundred and fifty years ago. > > Again, I reiterate, I am ignorant of history. There was was a great deal of trade between America and Europe in the 19th century. Wealthy Americans vacationed in Europe and wealthy Europeans vacationed in America. 19th century Germans would have probably had friends or relatives who had emigrated to America. I don’t much about German literature specifically, but 19th century English literature has plenty of references to America. There are lots of American characters in Sherlock Holmes, an American with a Bowie knife stabs Dracula, and I think an American shoots and wounds the Invisible Man. I think that as a well educated man, Nietzsche probably knew a few things about America. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733.md?page=4)