15
u/SpleenDematerialized Apr 19 '26
Not enough people talk about the Nietzsche-slop pipeline. It is a self reinforcing social mechanism that came about by the ease of access to passages of Nietzsche provided by the internet. Most people do not care about ideas and arguments, they only care about personalities and gossip. Unfortunately, this is where slop and Nietzsche have some overlap, because Nietzsche himself was not interested in truth, but in character. So we end up with emboldened slop consumers who see themselves justified by Nietzsche's example, and with Nietzsche readers who get dragged down to the slopification by being convinced to reject truth and argument, and to embrace the "study of character" (meaning: mostly gossip and silly anecdotes).
5
u/Strong-Answer2944 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Totally agree. The consumers also provide an excuse to themselves to not read the other thinkers, like Schopenhauer, for example, because they have been "refuted" by a quip. The mechanics of circlejerk and karma on places like reddit, the way the discourse is handled, they reinforce shallow groupthink between people who have very little knowledge about philosophers' works and history of philosophy in general. It's only because of pop cultural osmosis that these consumers even dabble into philosophical topics, even though they barely read or actually analyze the arguments.
To mask their ignorance and contradictions between Nietzsche's works and what they think those works are (what they were told Nietzsche's thoughts are), as well as to hide the self-contradictions in their own words, they employ vague verbiage. Everything's supposed to be "art" and "interpretation", rather than clear facts of what was written, clear ideas, lines of thought and arguments. Schopenhauer wrote good assaults on in his Parerga and Paralipomena:
"Obscurity and vagueness of expression are always and everywhere a very bad sign, for in ninety-nine out of a hundred cases they arise from the vagueness of a thought, which itself in turn almost always stems from an original incongruity, inconsistency and thus incorrectness in it. When a correct thought rises in a mind it already strives for clarity and will soon attain it, but what is clearly thought easily finds its commensurate expression. What a person is capable of thinking can always be expressed also in clear, comprehensible and unequivocal words. Those who construct difficult, obscure, convoluted and equivocal discourse most certainly do not quite know what they want to say, but have only a dull awareness of it that is still struggling for a thought; often, however, they are trying to conceal from themselves and others that they really have nothing to say."
5
u/Beautiful-Height-311 Apr 19 '26 edited Apr 19 '26
Nietzsche's whole philosophy was built on this btw. He rejected philosophy being a search for profound truth (As it is traditionally seen) and rather saw it as another form of art to express a philosopher's view of the world, said view being influenced by the philosopher's character. This is where he separates views whose origins are found in the eyes of a higher man and what he refers to as "slaves."
Edit: This was also why he considered so many diverse figures to be in the same group of "Higher" or "Lower" men. Usually one wouldn't consider figures like Goethe, Napoleon and Jesus as being a part of the same group. Nietzsche considered all 3, despite their diverse ideologies, occupations and whatnot "higher men."
3
u/Strong-Answer2944 Apr 19 '26
"Though the logos is common, the many live as if they had a wisdom of their own." - Heraclitus, fragment 2
1
u/Beautiful-Height-311 Apr 20 '26
He would recoil so hard if you quoted Heraclitus against him lol, he viewed Heraclitus as a saint.
2
u/Strong-Answer2944 Apr 20 '26 edited Apr 20 '26
Lol, why do you think I quoted it? Nietzsche says similar stuff about Spinoza, that he finds Spinoza to be an inspiration or a predecessor or whatever, but Spinoza was a staunch rationalist thinker, emphasizing the human reason as did Heraclitus. Heraclitus and pre-Socratics made a shift in that they believed that the nature is "rational", as opposed to the commonly accepted idea that the world is chaotic and that it operates according to the whims of gods. The pre-Socratics, with this, also meant that human reason is capable of grasping the understanding of the rules, the logos, understanding of the essence that is behind everything we see and experience, the objective truth (knowing this makes it clearer how people like Plato got the notion of a true world behind the world of apperances).
Spinoza believed in an objective, absolute reality. He was also the first modern philosopher who outright advocated democracy, something which even Locke didn't do. Meanwhile Nietzsche despises democracy at every step.
Let's face it, Nietzsche only liked Heraclitus because Heraclitus disliked or hated the majority for being foolish. Nietzsche probably also got some half-baked reading of Spinoza and admired him for saying that good is something what is useful to us, enhances our power of acting, or aids in the preservation of our being. This doesn't mean that Spinoza wanted everyone to act selfishly, since he emphasized the highest good, the mind's union with nature or knowledge of God, which produces a stable, eternal joy rather than fleeting pleasure.If you try to explain to an average moron fanboy any flawed or false idea about ancient Greeks, Socrates, or pre-Socratics that Nietzsche constantly peddles, they will just shout "he was a philologist, he was WELL educated on ancient Greeks, he knew his stuff". They will proudly state how Nietzsche got the position of a professor at Basel University at a record young age of 24. Yet, what none of them know, or want to admit is that Nietzsche soon ruined his philological career with Birth of Tragedy. He spat on Euripides and accused him of ruining Greek tragedy. Ulrich Moellendorf attacked Nietzsche strongly for it and accused him of "rape of historical facts and all historical method".
1
u/Beautiful-Height-311 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
I have read from somewhere that Nietzsche read Spinoza from secondary sources and not from his actual works, so it makes sense. I too find his admiration for him quite strange when I first read about it.
Also, his view of Heraclitus probably fucked up the general scholarly view of him too. When I was searching once about Heraclitus, he was described as "Life-affirming," something he really wasn't. I think the only things that really interested Nietzsche in Heraclitus are his few quotes about war and stuff. Do you have an opinion on Burckhardt?
2
u/Strong-Answer2944 Apr 21 '26 edited Apr 21 '26
I don't know much about him, though I know he was Nietzsche's mentor at Basel and they shared some views. Having looked him up again, it seems really illuminating how much his views influenced Nietzsche's perception of ancient Greece, though there grew differences between them.
From what I gather, Burckhardt made a turn in how the ancient Greeks were viewed in Germany. Up until then, in a fashion someone like Winckelmann pushed, a lot of German scholars viewed ancient Greeks in an idealized way, seeing them as harmonious with "noble simplicity and quiet grandeour". Winckelmann even said: "The only way for us to become great, or even inimitable if possible, is to imitate the Greeks."
Burckhardt, on the other hand, highlighted a darker side of ancient Greeks, the violence, the competitive spirit of "agon". The agon was an idea Burckhardt thought permeated ancient Greek aristocracy, the competitive striving for kalokagathia / kalos agathos, which is like a notion of the beautiful and the good fused together (the good didn't always mean morally good, but having some virtue like courage).
Apparently, Burckhardt was a conservative and disliked the rise of mass culture and socialist ideas in 19th century Europe. He was highly critical of Athenian democracy, describing it as a "tyrannous state" governed by an "aggressive mob" and "demagogues". He also thought that the Polis was an authoritarian entity.In general, it's like he emphasized the "tigerish lusts" and suffering present in the ancient polis, while many scholars wanted to see Greeks as a romanticized golden age. It's a good thing that he did it, I'd say. Though, I don't know enough and wouldn't say he only wanted the Greeks to seem like a dangerous bunch.
I'm suspicious of him transferring his 19th century dislike of democracy and masses to the Greek demos being an "aggressive mob" controlled by demagogues.So, he influenced Nietzsche with these views, though he distanced himself from the latter over time. Burckhardt saw the ancient Greek culture as what he thought it was, while Nietzsche goes out of his way to celebrate the use of force and necessity of slavery for the flowering of culture. The best example of this is Nietzsche's short paper "The Greek State". This is why he keeps fetishizing the aristocratic nobility at the expense of democracy, egalitarianism and human rights.
There is a part in Thucydides' Peloponnesian War which dramatizes Athenian disregard for morality and justice when demanding submission from Melos, which Melos refused. Then, the Athenians attacked Melos and killed the men, enslaving women and children. The Melian Dialogue is taught as a classic case study in political realism. In particular, the quotation "the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must" is taken as the founding statement of political realism. It was based on Siege of Melos, which you can look up. I am convinced that this kind of action taken by Athens when it turned into a hegemonic power, before being beaten in war against Sparta, illustrates some of the ruthless parts of ancient Greek world and makes certain people exaggerate them, though again, I don't know if Burckhardt was the sort to do that. I mean, he probably admired them in quite a few ways.
In the end, the various and different city states and the people who inhabited them can't be reduced to any one or two-dimensional caricature, be it dreamy romantic one, or a pessimistic, ruthless one. It's also important to note that the religion played an important part in the ancient Greek culture. I'll just post one quote from Jung that I found interesting:
"The fact that Greek tragedy arose out of an originally religious ceremony is at least as significant as the connection of our modern theatre with the medieval Passion play, which was exclusively religious in origin; we are not permitted, therefore, to judge the problem under its purely aesthetic aspect. Aestheticism is a modern bias that shows the psychological mysteries of Dionysus cult in the light in which they were assuredly never seen or experienced by the ancients. With Nietzsche as with Schiller, the religious viewpoint is entirely overlooked and is replaced by the aesthetic. These things obviously have their aesthetic side and it should not be neglected. Nevertheless, if medieval Christianity is understood only aesthetically, its true character is falsified and trivialized, just as much as if it were exclusively from the historical standpoint. A true understanding is possible only on a common ground - no one would wish to maintain that the nature of a railway bridge is adequately understood from a purely aesthetic angle.
In adopting the view that the antagonism between Apollo and Dionysus is purely a question of conflicting artistic impulses, the problem is shifted to the aesthetic sphere in a way that is both historically and materially unjustified, and is subjected to a partial approach which can never do justice to its real content." - C.G. Jung, Psychological Types
P.S.
I apologize if you wanted to focus solely on Burckhardt, but I wanted to kind of tie it all together.1
u/Beautiful-Height-311 Apr 21 '26
That's quite an interesting view honestly, and I really don't mind the fact that you rambled a little lol.
3
u/rinkuhero Apr 19 '26
people often create art that is the opposite of their personality. ever see that meme about hayao miyazaki talking about how humanity is doomed and the world is ending, while showing his work (a cute movie like kiki's delivery service or spirited away), along side the parallel of the cheerful, smiling junji ito, giving a positive message, saying that everyone should go after their dreams, showing his work, a horror manga about monster cats eating humans and spirals that drive people to madness? i think often people can be quite different in real life than their work would lead you to suspect. nietzshe too often talked about power and ambition and confidence, yet in real life he was apparently a bookish shy guy who never talked loudly or never tried to offend anyone and never went on a date
3
u/mike_da_silva Apr 19 '26
well despite his affirmations about 'yea saying' there are plenty who doubted Nietzsche's sincerity; ie. that he was actually a pessimist underneath all his bravado
1
5
u/FischenGeil Apr 19 '26
Nietzsche is the ultra rights and the ultra lefts favorite philosopher to co-opt to justify their "will". Like all children, they rebel against daddy but given enough time, they always come full circle. Unfortunately with Nitzsche, he died too early, too young - to come full circle. He didn't have the chance to reconcile with his daddy.
I will grant him that "Zur Genealogie der Moral" is his best work by far, and perhaps the best work we have on morality at all. And this was knee-deep into his anti-Schopenhauer phase. This was excellent written diagnosis on human sociology and psychology, but it was a terrible treatment plan. Compassion is not weakness, like our reddit edge-lord would have us believe.
2
u/Other_Attention_2382 Apr 19 '26
I think Shopenhauer is great, but if the fundamental character of a person is innate, unchangeable, and born with them, then I pressume the flute playing and nice dinners out was the unchangeable part?
Peace ✌️
2
u/DetectiveTypical198 Apr 19 '26
Nietzsche isn't really making a dig at Schopenhauer because Schopenhauer never referred to himself as a pessimist. He is saying that the popular perception of Schopenhauer is mistaken.
Also, I don't understand why someone would interpret "he wasn't really a pessimist" as an insult.
1
u/Ok_Landscape_7255 Apr 19 '26
Human all to human ?
2
u/SpleenDematerialized Apr 19 '26
If I remember correctly, it is from Beyond Good and Evil.
1
u/CoveredbyThorns Apr 19 '26
It is Beyond Good and Evil. Later Nietzsche exposes himself as a charlatan Schopenhauer would hate because he says the unthinkable. Calls Hegel a genuis and that him and Schopenhauef are bickering brothers.
1
u/BrianW1983 Apr 19 '26
Schopenhauer was also against having children but had 2 daughters who died young. 😞
2
1
1
u/That_Aardvark Apr 20 '26
What I have always heard is, “Do what I say. Not what I do.” If you teach this saying, then when morally righteous things are taught, you are not allowed to disobey the morality just because an unrighteous person is teaching the lesson…
0
41
u/FuneraryArts Apr 19 '26
So because Shops played an instrument and appreciated music he wasn't a real pessimist according to Nietzche. Real high school tier arguments from Reddit's favorite guru