Nietzsche and Christianity meet Hegel

I don’t think it is a question of turning the pyramid upside down; that reeks too much of slave transvaluation. But to understand what it’s like, we have to turn to the other leg, Of the Three Metamorphoses:

Illusion and arbitrariness - this sounds like Dunamis’s disillusionment with Nietzsche! So he, or she, may well be in the Lion stage. But now we must immediately add the following:

“Who will prove to be the strongest in the course of this [nihilist crisis]? The most moderate; those who do not require any extreme articles of faith; those who not only concede but love a fair amount of accidents and nonsense; those who can think of man with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account: those richest in health who are equal to most misfortunes and therefore not so afraid of misfortunes - human beings who are sure of their power and represent the attained strength of humanity with conscious pride.”
[WP 55.]

“Those who can think of man with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account”: does this only go for man as a whole? Or, if not, only for oneself? Or does it also go for individual other human beings - e.g., for Nietzsche? Can I, for instance, - a follower of Nietzsche’s - think of Nietzsche with a considerable reduction of his value without becoming small and weak on that account? Do I dare perceive him as - human, all too human?

A more accurate question, in this case - as my admiration of Nietzsche’s has nowise lapsed and is continually growing -, is: can I think of Nietzsche as a mortal human being instead of as a god? I have once, jokingly, suggested that Nietzsche be deified as the Hindu god Nitsha - and indeed, Nietzsche’s Works are the stuff epics are made of. But I can bear to read the desperation in his letters, the sickness, his struggle with his meningioma. I can bear to look at his grave, and assure myself of the fact that he is dead. The great god Nitsha is dead. Ah, but rejoyce, rejoyce! He hath been reborn - I am myself the spiritual incarnation of Nietzsche in many ways.

The difference between a follower in my style and a follower in the pejorative sense is at bottom the difference between a great spirit and a believer. A believer has his backbone in his convictions; a great spirit, a strong skeptic, on the other hand, avails himself of convictions.

What you suggest is that Dunamis takes Nietzsche too seriously. That is what I have suggested. Dunamis says the opposite.
Maybe now you understand why I considered fausts remark about Nietzsche’s humor the most Nietzschean post so far. This was when the thread was still in development.

Someone who needs to revere Nietzsche to sustain himself would certainly not have compared him to the Great Cornholio. Dunamis missed this.

I think that your focus on women in that thread was much noo serious. Being serious with regards to women is an error to begin with. Sexuality - that is another matter. But we’ve covered this territory for now.

As you hopefully see now, there are no blind followers here. All see Nietzsche in his all too human form. I cannot see Sauwelios’ will, but my will is to use Nietzsche - not to overcome him. I don’t care if that is inconsistent with his doctrine - in fact I am glad. And incidentally I’ve overcome him with that. Who cares?

More power to you. If misunderstanding Nietzsche is your way of “using” Nietzsche, may you continue to misunderstand him as much as possible. As for Nietzsche being a big joke, well of course, in this I agree.

Well, you really sound as if you’re enjoying it!

The distinction is that I take Nietzsche deadly seriously and still manage to be joyful [fröhlich] about it (cf. The Gay Science, section 382, “The great health”).

You are only here to debase Nietzsche. Where is your positive teaching? You refer us to Spinoza - and what did Nietzsche say about Spinoza?

“[C]onsider the hocus-pocus of mathematical form with which Spinoza clad his philosophy—really “the love of his wisdom,” to render that word fairly and squarely—in mail and mask, to strike terror at the very outset into the heart of any assailant who should dare to glance at that invincible maiden and Pallas Athena:—how much personal timidity and vulnerability this masquerade of a sick hermit betrays!”
[BGE 5.]

The dour face of Pallas Athena is all you have shown us in this thread. Is that, then, also only - a mask?

It’s who he really is, it seems. I’ve found the answer to the sour face, looked up some of his older posts to see how life afirming he is when he’s not reaction but acting.

I kept thinking he actually had philosophical a point, he seemed so confident of it. But rejecting Nietzsche is just a kind of penitence.
This is a nice illustration of what usually drives Nietzsche’s debasers - fear to look reality in the eye.

I suppose your anwer would be no. How predictable that you hate the idea of the eternal recurrence.
Your take on philosophy is typically modern - the numbing illusion that everyone shares your fears and inhibitions (because they are advertized on tv.)

Unlike you, I don’t habitually swallow whatever Nietzsche says. He, like the compulsive reative type constantly turns on those he once worshiped. What does Nietzsche say about Spinoza:

Oh poor little Nietzsche, his “dualitude” was broken when he couldn’t handle Spinoza’s truth, when it wasn’t anthrpomorphic enough for him, when it didn’t make Nietzsche grand enough for himself. The “sick hermit” whose form is meant to guard against others is of course not describing Spinoza (for his form was meant for access, not “protection”. He freely discussed it with others). This is typical of Nietzsche to accuse others of his own faults. Spinoza lived with the freedom of mind that Nietzsche could only dream of, away from the shadows of an infinite paranoia which has made Nietzsche “sick”.

It is a mask only in the mind of mask wearer, such as Nietzsche was, a hysteric. There is nothing dourer about Spinoza, it is a philosophy of joy–sans mythology and animal references–for those who have the mind to read it.

I suppose because you are driven by fear, you mistake “amazement” for some kind of negative feeling. That you see “fear” in these words, I suppose would make that your fear.

The lady doth protest too much. Such is the case of most “Nietzscheans”, they announce, shriek, “thunder” their affirmation of life, in slogan after slogan, fear after fear. So much whistling past the graveyard. How many times does the “I am great” talk have to reveal to others how weak one is? The Eternal Return is nothing but a myth the frightened make up to appease their insecure minds, that somewhere, somehow (by the force of some ridiculous logic) this moment, this effort is being recorded. It is nothing more than a God’s Little White Book of Deeds, and not even put into a clever disguise. It is pacifier that Little Nietzsche needed to suck on so that he wouldn’t slip into his dreaded Nihilism.

You have no idea what my philosophy is. If anyone projected his fears onto “everyone” (indeed) upon the entire universe, it was Nietzsche.

No, I don’t.

Enough said.

you don’t have a philosophy, Dunamis.

You are right. I have philosophies, as multiple as I am.

Most brilliant philosophers in history have had some sort of displeasing with life as a motivator for their philosophy. Otherwise their philosophy would not be far from the regular and dogmatic.

It’s true Nietzsche projected his weaknesses into his philosophy but so did every other groundbreaking philosopher. The reason his philosophy is the most powerful is that he was the most displeased with life and living.

Hey! I had forgotten that I’d closed my correspondence with you. Anyway, it was I who posted the above - not Jakob. And yes; you’re right: Nietzsche was himself a sick hermit. But that earlier passage about Spinoza only confirms that he could identify himself with Spinoza. It was actually Nietzsche’s irony that inspired that remark about a “sick hermit” (Nietzsche is full of such autobiographical allusions). And yet - Nietzsche’s philosophy is not armor-clad; his style is rather Aphrodisian than Athenean.

I get you Nietzschean followers confused sometimes, you sound so much alike. Nietzsche protects himself with the form of his writing, making it has slipperyas possible, playing with masks of every sort. As usual he accuses Spinoza of doing just what he himself does; one could say that the “sick hermit” calling another person a “sick hermit” is practically the whole of Nietzsche’s philosophy. Spinoza was very open with his philosophy, at least to the degree that it did not risk his life (friends were imprisoned or killed at this time). There was nothing that was “hiding,” his correspondences were frequent and oft times patient beyond reason. What we learn about from what Nietzsche said about Spinoza, says very little about Spinoza, but says alot about himself. To call this “irony” and not just “blindness” or “sickness” is to play a game of redemption through renaming.

Feel free though to honor your closure of correspondence with me, and reclose it, as a fine unreactive Nietzschean would.

The ER is not an attempt to escape from nihilism; indeed, it is the completion of nihilism:

"For a typical nihilist, it would be a nightmare. Suppose there is no “other world” to flee to; suppose there is only this world, condemned by Christian ideals as cruel, false, purposeless, meaningless; suppose then that it does not happen just once, releasing men forever to a dreamless sleep, but must repeat itself senselessly always, grinding in the horror of existence like a cosmic dentist’s drill - would that not produce a truly “ecstatic nihilism”?
[George Morgan, What Nietzsche Means.]

“The “chaos of the All” as exclusion of every purposiveness [Zwecktätigkeit] does not stand in contradiction to the idea of periodic return: the latter is precisely an irrational necessity, without any formal, ethical, aesthetic consideration.”
[Nietzsche, Nachlass, trans. Morgan.]

Blah, blah, blah. To listen to the excuses a weakminded man makes for himself, as elaborate as they are, is foolish. Nietzsche needs his tremendous “efforts” to be recorded somewhere, somehow, someway. It is the fantasy of a witness.

Anytime you want to show your Nietzschean spirit and renew your closure of our correspondence is of course looked forward to.

I don’t call it a correspondence if the one does not even respond to what the other posts.