# 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:** 4
**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 3, 2010, 11:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/61 "2010-03-03T11:45:23Z")
> [@SecretaryofEvil](#): > > 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. In that case, then, he probably viewed us as mostly irrelevant to his philosophy. As for John J. Reilly, **BrainGlutton,** I’m going to argue that the Nietzsche-fascism argument falls flat for two reasons: 1. It negates the whole of his philosophy by ripping the Concept of ‘‘Will to Power’’ out of context. Prior to ‘‘Will to Power’’ Nietzsche established his concept of the _overman_, which is specifically the creative endeavor of ideologically rising above the masses. Nietzsche was an individualist in its purest form, often ranted against systems of government for their tendency to impose the will of some upon others, and made specific remarks regarding the value of deviance in such a society. The physical embodiment of the _overman_ was closer to a criminal than it was to a dictator. _Overmen_ were not leaders, they were anti-heroes. He was interested in moral deviance and philosophical deviance for the purpose of self-liberation, but he didn’t suggest that deviance be imposed upon others. 2. It negates Nietzsche as a person, and as much as I think it’s necessary to understand the man behind the philosophy, in Nietzsche’s case I think it’s doubly so. By all accounts he was the meekest, most fastidious, sensitive guy you ever could meet. He had spent most of his life bullied by his cruel and domineering sister and aunt. He was physically fragile, prone to severe headaches and ‘‘weak’’ in every sense of the word… _from the perspective of mainstream values._ Nietzsche’s philosophy, I believe, was first and foremost an attempt to find power in his own situation, which is why he was so fascinated with early Christians and the way they inverted the morality of their day. Remember, they didn’t suddenly stop being slaves in the physical sense – their liberation occurred psychologically, in their ability to transform humility into a virtue. Leaving that aside, one of Nietzsche’s last living acts as far as we know was to throw himself between a man and the horse that man was whipping in the middle of a public square. This is not a person who practiced cruelty in his own life. Indeed, quite the opposite. Not only is Nietzsche not a precursor to fascism, I would argue that he would have despised fascism, specifically because it punished the deviants for daring to do their own thing. Keep in mind I’m going on 2.5 hours of sleep here. ---
**Author:** ![wintertime](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/c68b51/32.png) [@wintertime](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/wintertime)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 11:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/62 "2010-03-03T11:58:28Z")
> [@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 am neither **olivesmarch4th** nor a Nietzsche fan, so I hope you won’t mind my intrusion. “Fair” is certainly the wrong word to describe Russell’s stance in his great but not well-balanced book; his arguments against Nietzsche are mostly _ad hominem_ or deal with the consequences he attributed to his philosophy: mainly, Nazism. In his defense, he explicitly states “I dislike Nietzsche” and “His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.” But that’s not the last time Russell talks about Nietzsche. In _ **Wisdom of the West** _ (1959), he shows a less emotional and more mellow approach towards the man and his philosophy. There, he states: “One might perhaps describe him [Nietzsche] as an aristocratic humanist in the literal sense.” And further more, he doesn’t blame him anymore for Nazism: “It may well be that tyrants have drawn some inspiration from Nietzsche, but it would be inappropriate to make him responsible for the misdeeds of men who have understood him at best superficially.” I do understand, why Nietzsche can be misunderstood so easily; especially the idea of the “Übermensch” seems to trigger an immediate “eeekk, Nazi”-response that precludes any objective discussion. Russell and his disciples might be one of the sources of that reaction, but Nietzsche’s deliberately provocative writings aren’t innocent either. What is missed, is that the Übermensch is, in essence, an appeal towards the individual not a statement about races or peoples. And Nietzsche’s writings make it pretty clear that he was neither an anti-Semite nor a nationalist. He was a provocateur par excellence. And still seems to be. Ah, I see that **olivesmarch4th** has already answered your question. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 12:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/63 "2010-03-03T12:43:54Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > 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. That falls flat after only two sentences. “Everything is permitted” just as much in a theistic universe too; you just need to say “God wants X”, instead of “I want X” or “the Führer wants X”; a principle that has often been applied by believers. Its not like God is going to show up and contradict them. Yes, you can say “there is no God so I can do whatever I want”; but you can also say “God favors me, so I can do whatever I want”. He’s trying to falsely equate theism and morality. Nor was fascism “anti-theistic”; the opposite if anything; that’s why it got so much religious support against Godless Communism. Perhaps Nietzsche’s ideas led to fascism, but not because of any anti-theism; theists have never had any trouble justifying amoral, ruthless, tyrannical behavior when so inclined; theocracies throughout history demonstrate this. Fascism is quite compatible with religion; something history demonstrated. This seems like nothing more than the standard practice of “something bad happened, let’s blame it on not believing in God”. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 3, 2010, 2:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/64 "2010-03-03T14:45:42Z")
> [@wintertime](#): > > I do understand, why Nietzsche can be misunderstood so easily; especially the idea of the “Übermensch” seems to trigger an immediate “eeekk, Nazi”-response that precludes any objective discussion. As well as a great many pop-culture and literary tropes that probably distort [Nietzsche’s](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/FriedrichNietzsche) ideas just as much as the Nazis did. See [Nietzsche Wannabe,](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NietzscheWannabe) [Ubermensch,](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Ubermensch) etc. ---
**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 4, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/65 "2010-03-04T02:39:29Z")
> [@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. He was a deist so he was no atheist either. > [@Czarcasm](#): > > You quoted Wikipedia in your OP-now you claim your source is an Encyclopaedia Britannica from the '50’s? I used both sources. > [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > 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. I am judging by the attitudes of his times and he was in general quite progressive toward slaves compared to most other slave masters of his times. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/66 "2010-03-04T21:31:30Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I am judging by the attitudes of his times and he was in general quite progressive toward slaves compared to most other slave masters of his times. Oh, please. A progressive man for his times would have freed them. Slavery was controversial at the time; they were morally sophisticated enough to know it was wrong, they knew that it contradicted the very rhetoric they were spouting about “all men are created equal”. It violated their own moral standards; they just kept on doing it anyway, coming up with ever more elaborate and delusional justifications for it. Hypocrisy and willful self delusion is not a modern invention. ---
**Author:** ![penultima\_thule](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/penultima_thule/32/3833_2.png) [@penultima\_thule](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/penultima_thule)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 9:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/67 "2010-03-04T21:41:42Z")
FWIW I think the only appropriate answer to the OP is; “Do not feed the troll” ---
**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 4, 2010, 10:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/68 "2010-03-04T22:33:07Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > I am judging by the attitudes of his times and he was in general quite progressive toward slaves compared to most other slave masters of his times. That’s an attitude that can be used to defend most anything, really. By that logic, you should be pro-abortion, since that’s generally acceptable in the attitudes of these times. But it’s unfortunetly bollocks, since as you stated in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12167344#post12167344); [QUOTE=Curtis LeMay] Perhaps but I have **a moral duty to improve society and the human condition** and I say “d\*\*\* the press.” In fact were I president I would give special privileges (for example interviews) to decent news sources like PBS NewsHour or BBC. [/QUOTE] My bolding. If you have a moral duty to improve society, then we most certainly may not judge your attitudes by the times. Likewise, Jefferson, too, you should consider to have had that moral duty, which he most assuredly failed. So far as I can tell, these two beliefs are rather in dissonance. And, again, being “quite progressive” towards slaves doesn’t negate the fact that you _own slaves_. If he was, and I have no reason to believe that he was (so cite, in other words), a more kind slavemaster than others, that just makes him the _nicest_ piece of shit in the turd heap. It’s not a reason to let him off, it’s not a reason to consider him a moral person, and it’s _certainly_ not enough to declare that he is a good example of the ideal of human equality. Edit: You seem to have missed my question. Does indebtedness negate the moral penalty for owning slaves? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 11:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/69 "2010-03-04T23:03:07Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > Edit: You seem to have missed my question. Does indebtedness negate the moral penalty for owning slaves? I’m not him, but I’d say certainly not. No more than, say, assassinating people for cash or kidnapping people and selling their organs would be justified by debt. ---
**Author:** ![Blalron](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/35a633/32.png) [@Blalron](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blalron)\ **Post date:** [March 4, 2010, 11:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/70 "2010-03-04T23:59:15Z")
It’s not like Jefferson went into debt by accident. Jefferson deliberately chose to live a lavish lifestyle and run up massive debts. ---
**Author:** ![tomndebb](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/b9e5f3/32.png) [@tomndebb](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tomndebb)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 12:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/71 "2010-03-05T00:09:32Z")
> [@penultima\_thule](#): > > FWIW I think the only appropriate answer to the OP is; > “Do not feed the troll” Do not accuse other posters of trolling outside **The BBQ PIT**. [/Moderating] ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/72 "2010-03-05T03:07:40Z")
> [@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? OK, I’ve got my _History of Western Philosophy_ to hand. > [@](#): > > Nietzsche (1844-1900) regarded himself, rightly, as the successor of Schopenhauer, to whom, however, he is superior in many ways, particularly in the consistency and coherence of his doctrine. Schopenhauer’s oriental ethic of renunciation seems out of harmony with his metaphysic of the omnipotence of the will; in Nietzsche, the will has ethical as well as metaphysical primacy. Nietzsche, though a professor, was a literary rather than an academic philosopher. He invented no new techical theories in ontology or epistemology; his importance is primarily in ethics, and secondarily as an acute historical critic. I shall confine myself almost entirely to his ethics and to his criticism of religion, since it was this aspect of his writing that made him influential. Russell notes that Nietzsche was not consciously a romantic and often severely criticizes the romantics. (Compare the excerpt in post #9, which places Nietzsche squarely within the romantic tradition at least in political terms; a conventional analysis that, in fact, entirely accords with and probably derives from Russell’s, as explicated more fully in other chapters of the same book.) > [@](#): > > In spite of Nietzsche’s criticism of the romantics, his outlook owes much to them; it is that of aristocratic anarchism, like Byron’s, and one is not surprised to find him admiring Byron. He attempts to combine two sets of values that are not easily harmonized: on the one hand he likes ruthlessness, war, and aristocratic pride; on the other hand, he loves philosophy and literature and the arts, especially music. . . . > > Nietzsche’s criticism of religions and philosophies is dominated entirely by ethcial motives. He admires certain qualities which he believes (perhaps rigthly) to be only possible for an aristocratic minority; the majority, in his opinion, should be only means to the excellence of the few, and should not be regarded as having any independent claim to happiness or well-being. He alludes habitually to ordinary human beings as the “bungled and botched,” and sees no objection to their suffering if it is necessary for the production of a great man. Thus the whole importance of the period from 1789 to 1815 is summed up in Napoleon: “The Revolution made Napoleon possible; that is its justification. We ought to desire the anarchical collapse of the whole of our civilization if such a reward were to be its result. Napoleon made nationalism possibe; that is the latter’s excuse.” Almost all the higher hopes of this century, he says, are due to Napoleon. > > \ > > True virtue, as opposed to the conventional sort, is not for all, but should remain the characteristic of an aristocratic minority. It is not profitable or prudent; it isolates its possessor from other men; it is hostile to order, and does harm to inferiors. It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters. “Everything that pampers, that softens, and that brings ‘the people’ or ‘woman’ to the front, operates in favor of universal suffrage – that is to say, the dominion of ‘inferior’ men.” The seducer was Rousseau, who made women interesting; then came Harriett Beecher Stowe and the slaves; then the Socialists with their championship of workmen and the poor. All these are to be combated. > > Nietzsche’s ethic is not one of self-indulgence in any ordinary sense; he believes in Spartan discipline and the capacity to endure as well as inflict pain for important ends. He admires strength of will above all things. "I test the _power_ of a _will,"_ he says, “according to the amount of resistance it can offer and the amount of pain and torture it can endure and know how to turn to its own advantage; I do not point to the evil and pain of existence with the finger of reproach, but rather entertain the hope that life may one day become more evil and more full of suffering than it has ever been.” He regards compassion as a weakness to be combated. “The object is to attain that enormous _energy of greatness_ which can model the man of the future by means of discipline and also by means of the annihiliation of millions of the bungled and botched, and which can yet avoid _going to ruin_ at the sight of the suffering created thereby, the like of which has never been seen before.” He prophesied with a certain glee an era of great wars; one wonders whether he would have been happy if he had lived to see the fulfillment of his prophecy. > > He is not, however, a worshipper of the State; far from it. He is a passionate individualist, a believer in the hero. The misery of a whole nation, he says, is of less importance than the suffering of a great individual: “The misfortunes of all thse small folk do not together constitute a sum-total, except in the feelings of _mighty_ men.” (In these terms, I suppose the truest heirs of Nietzsche now living are not neo-Nazis, but [LaVeyan Satanists.](http://www.churchofsatan.com/)) > [@](#): > > Nietzsche is not a nationalist, and shows no excessive admiration for Germany. He wants an international ruling race, who are to be the lords of the earth: “a new vast aristocracy based upon the most severe self-discipline, in which the will of philosophical men of power and artist-tyrants will be stamped upon thousands of years.” > > He is also not definitely anti-Semitic, though he thinks Germany contains as many Jews as it can assimilate, and ought not to permit any further influx of Jews. He dislikes the New Testament, but not the Old, of which he speaks in terms of the highest admiration. In justice to Nietzsche it must be emphasized that many modern developments which have a certain connection with his general ethical outlook are contrary to his clearly expressed opinions. Nietzsche, Russell says, is contemptuous of women, for the most part. He is also a bitter critic of Christianity. > [@](#): > > Nietzsche’s objectio to Christianity is that it caused acceptance of what he calls “slave morality.” It is curious to observe the contrast between his arguments and those of the French _philosophes_ who preceded the Revolution. They argued that Christian dogmas are untrue; that Christianity teaches submission to what is deemed to be the will of God, whereas self-respecting human beings should not bow down before any higher Power; and that Christian churches have become the allies of tyrants, and are helping the enemies of democracy to deny liberty and continue to grind the faces of the poor. Nietzsche is not interested in the metaphysical truth of either Christianity or any other religion; being convinced that no religion is really true, he judges all religions entirely by their social effects. He agrees with the _philosophes_ in objecting to submission to the so-called will of God, but he would substitute for it the will of earthly “artist-tyrants.” Submission is right, except for these supermen, but not submission to the Christian God. As for the Christian Churches’ being allies of tyrants and enemies of democracy, that, he says, is the very reverse of the truth. The French Revolution and Socialism are, according to him, essentially identical in spirit with Christianity; to all alike he is opposed, and for the same reason: that he will not treat all men as equal in any respect whatever. > > \ > > What are we to think of Nietzsche’s doctrines? How far are they true? Are they in any degree useful? Is there in them anything objective, or are they the mere power-phantasies of an invalid? Russell then proceeds to a kind of psychoanalysis of Nietzsche: > [@](#): > > [T]here is a great deal in him that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac. Speaking of Spinoza he says: “How much of personal timidity and vulnerability does this masquerade of a sickly recluse betray!” Exactly the same may be said of him, with the less reluctance since he has not hesitated to say it of Spinoza. It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not they whip” – but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks. > > He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear: I am afraid my neighbour may injure me, and so I assure him that I love him. If I were stronger and bolder, I should openly display the contempt for him which of course I feel. It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man – who is himself in day-dreams – is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, cruel, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: > > ``` > I will do such things > > ``` > > What they are yet I know not – but they shall be > The terror of the earth. > > That is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell. > > \ > > It must be amitted that there is a certain type of Christian ethich to which Nietzsche’s strictures can be justly applied. Pascal and Dostoevsky – his own illustrations – have both something abject in their virtue. Pascal sacrificed his magnificent mathematical intellect to his God, thereby attributig to Him a barbarity which was a cosmic enlargement of Pascal’s morbid mental tortures. Dostoevsky would have nothing to do with “proper pride”; he would sin in order to repent and to enjoy the luxury of confession. I will not argue the question how far such aberrations can justly be charged against Christianity, but I will admit I agree with Nietzsche in thinking Dostoevsky’s prostration contemptible. A certain uprightness and pride and even self-assertion of a sort, I should agree, are elements in the best character; no virtue which has its roots in fear is much to be admired. Continued in next post. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 3:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/73 "2010-03-05T03:28:38Z")
Russell next considers the main ethical problem raised by Nietzsche: “should our ethic be aristocratic, or should it, in some sense, treat all men alike?” (Unreflectingly sexist language – Russell, remember, is writing in 1945.) Russell notes in passing that an aristocratic **ethic** is not the same as an aristocratic political theory: A Benthamite might hold that an aristocratic form of government best promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number; but Nietzsche’s ethic discounts the happiness of the common people. “All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.” Russell: sums Nietzsche’s sociopolitical ethic as follows: “Victors in war, and their descendants, are usually biologically superior to the vanquished. It is therefore desirable that they should hold all the power, and should manage affairs exclusively in their own interests.” Russell analyzes this to show that “desirable” in this context means only “desired by Nietzsche” and “this is not a philosophy; it is a biological fact about a certain individual.” > [@](#): > > . . . The word “desirable” is not synonymous with “desired by me”; it has some claim, however shadowy, to legislative universality. A theist may say that what is desirable is what God desires, but Nietzsche cannot say this. He could say he knows what is good by ethical intuition, but he will not say this, because it sounds too Kantian. What he can say, as an expansion of the word “desirable,” is this: “If men will read my works, a certain number of them will come to share my desires as regards the organization of society; these men, inspired by the energy and determination which my philosophy will give them, can preserve and restore aristocracy, whith themselves as aristocrats or (like me) sycphants of aristocracy. In this way they will achieve a fuller life than they can have as servants of the people.” Russell sees a practical objection to this, that as nowadays the idea of aristocracies of birth are discredited, the only practicable form of aristocracy is something like the Fascist or Nazi party, which must arouse opposition and turn into “a police State, where the rulers live in terror of assassination, and the heroes are in concentration camps. In such a community faith and honour are sapped by delation, and the would-be aristocracy of supermen degenerates into a clique of trembling poltroons.” But this is a modern objection; practically all governments of large states before the American and French Revolutions were aristocratic, and the principle unquestioned. The more important objection Russell sees is ethical, as to sympathy. “Sympathy, in the sense of being made unhappy by the sufferings of others, is to some extent natural in human beings; young children are troubled when they hear other children crying. But the development of this feeling is very different in different people. Some find pleasure in the infliction of torture; others, like Buddha, feel that they cannot be completely happy so long as any living thing is suffering.” Russell concludes with an imaginary debate between Nietzsche and Buddha, before God, trying to persuade him as to what sort of world He should create, one based on love or strife. Nietzsche accuses Buddha of having a purely “negative” ideal, the absence of suffering, which is the stuff of boredom and death; while Nietzsche loves life, and excitement, and the beauty of predatory beasts like the tiger, and positive heroes like Alcibiades Emperor Frederick II and Napoleon. Buddha responds that he does have his own heroes – Jesus and saints and scientists and “the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men who have ever lived.” Nietzsche, he charges, loves pain, and his purported love of life is a sham. > [@](#): > > For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their inning, but we may hope that is coming rapidly to an end. So, **olivesmarch4th:** Does Russell have a fair understanding of what Nietzsche is all about? Or is he missing something? ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 6:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/74 "2010-03-05T18:52:08Z")
> [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > In that case, then, he probably viewed us as mostly irrelevant to his philosophy. > > As for John J. Reilly, **BrainGlutton,** I’m going to argue that the Nietzsche-fascism argument falls flat for two reasons: > > 1. It negates the whole of his philosophy by ripping the Concept of ‘‘Will to Power’’ out of context. Prior to ‘‘Will to Power’’ Nietzsche established his concept of the _overman_, which is specifically the creative endeavor of ideologically rising above the masses. Nietzsche was an individualist in its purest form, often ranted against systems of government for their tendency to impose the will of some upon others, and made specific remarks regarding the value of deviance in such a society. The physical embodiment of the _overman_ was closer to a criminal than it was to a dictator. _Overmen_ were not leaders, they were anti-heroes. He was interested in moral deviance and philosophical deviance for the purpose of self-liberation, but he didn’t suggest that deviance be imposed upon others. > > \ > > Not only is Nietzsche not a precursor to fascism, I would argue that he would have despised fascism, specifically because it punished the deviants for daring to do their own thing. I suggest you read the [whole review,](http://www.johnreilly.info/fah.htm) which also states: > [@](#): > > In addition to Nietzsche, the other seminal influence on fascism whom Eatwell discusses at length is Georges Sorel. Now Sorel is remembered as the chief theorist of socialist syndicalism, and like Nietzsche his thought has influenced people who are not fascist by any definition. I know almost nothing of Sorel and so will not debate that point. But just because Nietzsche was not a proto-fascist does not mean that Reilly is wrong on the point that fascism would have been impossible without him, or at least without the will-to-power view Neitzsche enunciated and celebrated. Reilly (who is a conservative Catholic, and definitely writing from that POV) says later in the same piece: > [@](#): > > The distinctive thing about fascism, however, is that it has always been a doctrine for masters rather than followers. Eatwell has some very alarming things to say about the growth of “up-scale” fascism, of ideological resources for people who either belong to existing elites or would very much like to start one. This has been made immensely easier, at least in my own view, by the spread of relativist philosophies in the Nietzschean tradition in the last quarter of the 20th century, particularly at the elite schools. No matter the intent of the instructors, it always seemed singularly ill-advised to me to tell young people, who by virtue of native intelligence and social position were going to wind up running a fair slice of the world anyway, that life was really just about power. There is always some danger they might believe it. For the rest: Are seriously you suggesting that by the “Will to Power,” Nietzsche meant something **other** than power **over others?!** What do you base that on? Remember, he’s talking about **power,** not **freedom,** and what other forms of power are there that could be applicable to his philosophy? I can’t believe he meant anything like what the neopagan [Starhawk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhawk) refers to as “Power-With” (e.g., the power of social activists all together in a movement on an equal footing, etc.) as opposed to “Power-Over.” Scientists, engineers and inventors have a kind of power over matter and nature, but Nietzsche was completely uninterested in all of that AFAIK (despite the more-or-less-Nietzschean ravings one sometimes hears from “mad scientists” in popular entertainment). Politicians in a republic have a power to serve the people and make their lives better, but that is exactly the kind of thing Nietzsche expressly despises. Probably the “Power” Nietzsche speaks of **includes** an artist’s mostly harmless power to create beauty, but I can’t believe that encompasses the whole of it. No, **olives,** just practicing “moral deviance” or “doing your own thing” “for the purpose of self-liberation” would not be satisfactory self-actualization for a Nietzschean superman. **There can be no supermen without submen.** > [@olivesmarch4th](#): > > 1. It negates Nietzsche as a person, and as much as I think it’s necessary to understand the man behind the philosophy, in Nietzsche’s case I think it’s doubly so. By all accounts he was the meekest, most fastidious, sensitive guy you ever could meet. He had spent most of his life bullied by his cruel and domineering sister and aunt. He was physically fragile, prone to severe headaches and ‘‘weak’’ in every sense of the word… _from the perspective of mainstream values._ Nietzsche’s philosophy, I believe, was first and foremost an attempt to find power in his own situation, which is why he was so fascinated with early Christians and the way they inverted the morality of their day. Remember, they didn’t suddenly stop being slaves in the physical sense – their liberation occurred psychologically, in their ability to transform humility into a virtue. > > Leaving that aside, one of Nietzsche’s last living acts as far as we know was to throw himself between a man and the horse that man was whipping in the middle of a public square. This is not a person who practiced cruelty in his own life. Indeed, quite the opposite. All quite true, I’m sure; but none of that in any way negates the cruel content, nor the pernicious influence, of his philosophy. If anything, it just makes it all the more ridiculous. See Russell’s discussions above. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 10:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/75 "2010-03-05T22:36:53Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > I can’t believe he meant anything like what the neopagan [Starhawk](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starhawk) refers to as “Power-With” (e.g., the power of social activists all together in a movement on an equal footing, etc.) as opposed to "Power-Over. [Found relevant quote:](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Starhawk) > [@](#): > > I am a witch, by which I mean that I am somebody who believes that the earth is sacred, and that women and women’s bodies are one expression of that sacred being. My spirituality has always been linked to my feminism. Feminism is about challenging unequal power structures. So, it also means challenging inequalities in race, class, sexual preference. What we need to be doing is not just changing who holds power, but changing the way we conceive of power. There is the power we’re all familiar with — power over. But there is another kind of power — power from within. For a woman, it is the power to be fertile either in terms of having babies or writing books or dancing or baking bread or being a great organizer. It is the kind of power that doesn’t depend on depriving someone else. Not very Nietzschean. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 11:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/76 "2010-03-05T23:11:57Z")
> [@BrainGlutton](#): > > No, **olives,** just practicing “moral deviance” or “doing your own thing” “for the purpose of self-liberation” would not be satisfactory self-actualization for a Nietzschean superman. **There can be no supermen without submen.** As an aside, I think that this is an important part of where people who portray ( notorious in popular entertainment ) any attempt to improve humanity as inevitably leading to something Nazi-like go wrong. Any plan to improve everyone immediately breaks the mold, because if you improve everyone, where are the “submen” for the “supermen” to sneer at and exploit? Even if as likely it can’t be done all at once, any ideal that calls for the eventual transformation of all of humanity into “supermen” doesn’t fit what you describing as the Nietzschean superman. ---
**Author:** ![BrainGlutton](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/82dd89/32.png) [@BrainGlutton](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BrainGlutton)\ **Post date:** [March 5, 2010, 11:16pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/77 "2010-03-05T23:16:25Z")
> [@Der\_Trihs](#): > > As an aside, I think that this is an important part of where people who portray ( notorious in popular entertainment ) any attempt to improve humanity as inevitably leading to something Nazi-like go wrong. Any plan to improve everyone immediately breaks the mold, because if you improve everyone, where are the “submen” for the “supermen” to sneer at and exploit? Even if as likely it can’t be done all at once, any ideal that calls for the eventual transformation of all of humanity into “supermen” doesn’t fit what you describing as the Nietzschean superman. True. [_Gattaca_](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gattaca) explores some interesting themes, but none have any relevance to Nietzsche’s philosophy. ---
**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 6, 2010, 4:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/78 "2010-03-06T04:33:18Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > That’s an attitude that can be used to defend most anything, really. By that logic, you should be pro-abortion, since that’s generally acceptable in the attitudes of these times. But it’s unfortunetly bollocks, since as you stated in [another thread](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=12167344#post12167344); My bolding. If you have a moral duty to improve society, then we most certainly may not judge your attitudes by the times. Likewise, Jefferson, too, you should consider to have had that moral duty, which he most assuredly failed. So far as I can tell, these two beliefs are rather in dissonance. > > And, again, being “quite progressive” towards slaves doesn’t negate the fact that you _own slaves_. If he was, and I have no reason to believe that he was (so cite, in other words), a more kind slavemaster than others, that just makes him the _nicest_ piece of shit in the turd heap. It’s not a reason to let him off, it’s not a reason to consider him a moral person, and it’s _certainly_ not enough to declare that he is a good example of the ideal of human equality. > > Edit: You seem to have missed my question. Does indebtedness negate the moral penalty for owning slaves? He used much of his ability to abolish slavery-he clearly believed slavery was wrong and called for gradual abolition. Also I do not think indebtedness excuses you for owning slaves. ---
**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 6, 2010, 5:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/79 "2010-03-06T05:24:29Z")
> [@Curtis LeMay](#): > > He used much of his ability to abolish slavery-he clearly believed slavery was wrong and called for gradual abolition. If anything, I would argue that that makes his own ownership of slaves even worse. If he had simpy considered slavery acceptable, then his ownership would come straight from that ideal; vile, but an understandable act given his opinions. Believing slavery to be wrong, yet keeping slaves, not only means he committed the vile act but he did so while believing that what he was doing was wrong, a considerably more unpleasant situation. The problem with saying “he clearly believed slavery was wrong” is that it’s way too vague. Apparently, he considered slavery acceptable for him, and his circumstances. For who else, and what other circumstances, would he be in favour of allowing slavery? Given that his own acts suggest there were some situations he considered it a fine practice, he was either a rather vast hypocrite or he had some standards beyond “slavery is always a moral wrong, and unacceptable”; and there really aren’t any looser standards beyond that which aren’t wrong. Beyond even that, it’s worth mentioning that simply being against slavery did not in those days (nor, sadly, today) mean that Jefferson considered white and black people to be equal. > [@](#): > > Also I do not think indebtedness excuses you for owning slaves. Then why bring it up? ---
**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 6, 2010, 5:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733/80 "2010-03-06T05:34:41Z")
> [@Revenant\_Threshold](#): > > If anything, I would argue that that makes his own ownership of slaves even worse. If he had simpy considered slavery acceptable, then his ownership would come straight from that ideal; vile, but an understandable act given his opinions. Believing slavery to be wrong, yet keeping slaves, not only means he committed the vile act but he did so while believing that what he was doing was wrong, a considerably more unpleasant situation. > > The problem with saying “he clearly believed slavery was wrong” is that it’s way too vague. Apparently, he considered slavery acceptable for him, and his circumstances. For who else, and what other circumstances, would he be in favour of allowing slavery? Given that his own acts suggest there were some situations he considered it a fine practice, he was either a rather vast hypocrite or he had some standards beyond “slavery is always a moral wrong, and unacceptable”; and there really aren’t any looser standards beyond that which aren’t wrong.Beyond even that, it’s worth mentioning that simply being against slavery did not in those days (nor, sadly, today) mean that Jefferson considered white and black people to be equal But it was first step to full racial equality. Also had the government compensated the slave owners he certainly would have supported a plan of gradual abolition. > [@](#): > > Then why bring it up? To shows his reasons why. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/nietschze-the-anti-american-philosophy/529733.md?page=5)