Animalism, Earthism

And that’s all Trump is trying to do, really. Make the Chinese into competitors rather than the insidious plague they would have no problem also becoming.

Work WITH China, not against China, and cetainly not FOR China (that is probably the worst case, as the analyst in your quote accurately points out).

What matters is that the US remain supreme and capitalistic, as your analyst also points out. I myself am slightly less optimistic of how wrapped up that struggle is, but I do think we have a winning hand.

Anyway, thanks for that. That was pretty awesome to read.

What mistakes did Nietzsche make?

Avoiding an argument by instead drawing attention to the character of the person making it is literally the definition of ad hominem.

But there is of course the argument from fallacy, where a fallacy is legitimately pointed out to invalidate the argument, but the conclusion is still a correct one - just how you got there is dubious. Does Nietzsche’s health of mind affect his writings? Probably quite significantly. But can his arguments still be addressed in and of themselves regardless of their author? Yes, absolutely. Would the arguments in themselves be more or less valid if another person made them? No.

Whilst the rest of the post points out a legitimate and interesting psychological tendency to put on the rose-tinted glasses when it comes to the origins of something that you currently support, the ad hominem example is a logically invalid one even though your central point about rose-tinted glasses applying to Nietzsche’s personal life is a valid one.

Ironically, perhaps, Nietzsche’s state of mind seemed to somewhat go well with getting under the skin of a lot of issues where people had historically been putting on their rose-tinted glass - such as with art for art’s sake, the Socratic method, and obviously Christianity - to name just a few things. So in criticising Nietzsche as part of your point here, you’re actually criticising a proponent of the style of your criticism. Just something slightly amusing that I thought I’d point out :sunglasses:

you have to ask me this now? you need to get to me a little sooner, dude, because i get burned out on serious posting in a matter of minutes, these days. his defense of aristocracy, his conception of the state, his criteria for the overman, his analysis of darwinism, his views on women, his taking kant for granted, his WTP metaphysics, his infatuation with heraclitus, his dissing of spinoza (on one occasion), his self-deprecating in front of that russian hottie lou salome, his scolding schopenhaur for blasting on hegel, his failure to meet stirner and pay proper homage to the original gangsta, and his unwarranted dismissal of coffee… to name a few things.

but he got far more right than he got wrong, and he’s still a beast because of that fact.

Given that list, I guess the better question is: what did he get right?

And I do understand it is somewhat of an unfair question. He tends not to give you nice straight lines and neat lists. But as far as your energy has not been fully depleted, I’d like to hear it.

i suppose at the bottom of this question is: can there be a Nietzshce for the people?

My first guess is yes, but it is based on a premise that you named as one of the things he got wrong. Overcoming as pathos. But anyway, like to hear your take.

My philosophy teacher once told me a letter of Nietzsche’s had been found or something where he mentions Kierkeggard and how he seems interesting, but appearently it was shortly before he lost it, but potentially he would have ended up meeting up. Don’t know if that wins him any points.

I think of Stirner as a bit of a joke. A lot of fascile points. Not a lot of depth there.

Dostoyevski and Shopenhauer are the OGs of Nietzsche’s thoughts, if there is any. The ones who broke the ground he needed.

Where Stirner is smugly superior, Dostoyevski is in an abyss of anxiety. That safety Stirner felt, it betrays a lack of actual wrestling with the beast.

Fuck it, Imma say it. I think you would LIKE to be a Stirnerian nihilist, because of the feeling of safety, but have despite yourself found yourself face to face with the beast. Cracking jokes is an honourable response, but it doesn’t crack through like Nietzsche did, says I.

Kierkeggard also broke through in his way. He was a bit of a hippie at heart. I like that guy. A lot of people don’t catch his vast arrogance.

He did panic, though, and latched on to Christ for dear life.

Understandable as well. The way he did it is honourable. After all, his obsession was with Old Testament shit, which is the good shit.

Both my grandfathers were hard Communists and still I inherited from both of them a copy of Zarathustra.
No one who has any sense in his head disregards Nietzsche. That criterium runs through the entire ladder from the mud to the citadel.

Yeah it kinda made my day. Capable is some kind of cosmic elephant.

I first felt oh no what a waste, that would have been too cool if that had happened -
but then I thought maybe this was his way of getting to see Kierkegaard. Losing his wits - his military eye.

One of these people who make boring observations an art. They are the ruin of most bourgeoise lives.

The old testament is actually one of the best books ever.

The prodigal capitalist revealed.

Serendipper

Why do you insist I simplify it?
You can prefer something, and identify with it, and have reasons for preferring and identifying with it, without thinking it’s objectively superior.

You’re right. Good point.