Why is Nietzsche held in such high regard by Leftist theorists such as Focault, Deleazue, and others?

...

I've heard from people that Nietzsche's idea was that he was anti-slave morality just not anti-slave and that he actually wanted the slaves to be led towards betterment through the Ubermensch who would emerge from the aristocratic race to led society as a whole toward the true development of higher values rather than the subversion of them through impotent critique

that still just sounds like a Reactionary fedora's pipe dream to me though

Just ascribe your own meaning to the words

Maybe this is correct. I really don't want to make any claims about Nietzche.

I did find through Google search that he was also critical of master morality also.

okay

"Leftists"=No true scotsman

Word salads=buzz word

Did I do a good job Mr. True Leftist? :^)

I guess I'll keep reading then before I dismiss and disregard him. Nietzche is interesting and a wonderful writer I just think his conclusions are stupid because they are huge jumps from tiny grains of truth to things that have almost no basis or can't be argued well beyond just being opinions.

Hush, didn't you know this place is not actually Holla Forums but /lit/ 2.0?

...

So you prefer the 90000th "is porn/veganism/christianity/islam/ahteism/bronyism/ compatible with leftism?" or "Why Social Democracy is good" thread then?

It sure is a good thing you had meme arrows and a comic which is completely inapplicable to the current conversation prepared. Otherwise you might have had to develop an argument for yourself and that's difficult for people who hate intellectualism, such as yourself

Mainly because of his critique of bourgeois society and morality. Nietzsche himself was more ambiguous in his politics, but his writings are capable of inspiring people from many different political perspective simply due to the width of subject matter he addresses. He's like a philosophical mirror: one can find whatever they wish in his thought if they look hard enough, from commies to liberals to reactionaries.

Deleuze sucks tho

Yes.

His critique of bourg society seems to stem entirely from a presupposition that it emerges from the slave morality of "lesser races" though, so do people literally just try to forget that he said this? in doing so don't they invalidate a part of their own philosophy by being selective about their reading of other philosophers?

Sorry if these are all newb questions I'm just restarting my philosophy studies after like 8 months so I might just be ignorant

Shut the hell up you uninteresting tripfag

anarcho-bronyism when

you sure showed him with that well thought out response

hopefully never

pic related

I think we were waiting for yui to exlain the similarities between Zizek and Stirner's philosophy before taking him seriously.

Why?

His critique of bourg society seems to stem entirely from a presupposition that it emerges from the slave morality of "lesser races" though,
Not so much 'lesser races' as 'lesser cultures', Nietzsche uses shorthands like 'what is German' to mean more of a general societal attitude rather than some stupid Darwinian racialist meaning.
I would agree with you here, many readers of Nietzsche try to abstract his conclusions without understanding his genealogical method of understanding them, and then they go on to use them with non-Nietzschean methods and it becomes a bit of a clusterfuck.

Quality post!

Hopefully soon. Combining two different form of autism is always riotously funny.

Faggot

Nice false dichotomy fam. /lit/fag mysticism and idpol "leftism" are both garbage.

...

How do you feel about this then?

Is Nietzsche trying to say that through understanding the roots of morals stemming from the nobleness innate in those who are good, since in primitive society good was a rather concrete thing seen as being that which was not negative, rather than from the usefulness of acts towards the least of these by the more priveleged which is the theory of those British psychologists he criticizes in the beginning of the essay, we can create entire societies that function with a higher and happier system through slaves (within modern society) attempting to make themselves into the nobler aristocratic types by understanding that "good" and "evil" aren't definite and that good is something which spontaneously emerges within certain "races" (in the cultural sense)?

Faggot

You are both really butthurt because people like discussing things you don't like and keep trying to make a relevant argument over it. It's cute but I don't get why you're wasting your time

Well Marxist socialism isn't based on some lovy-dovy idea of protecting everyone society in some utopia, its a materialist philosophy that more or less aims to establish a union of egoists

Alt rightist who talk.shit trying to use Nietzsche have clearly never read past Genealogy of Morals because the obsession over traditionalism for.its own sake would make Nietzsche sick to his stomach

So he is responsible for this cancer..

I think he's talking a little bit about how certain "workerist" socialists in a way very reminicient of Christians sort of glorified poverty and demonized indulgences and so therefore turned class-struggle into more of a moralist identity-struggle.
This partly fucked up the USSR, because the state-apparatus that owned everything consisted of "workers" (the identity) rather than workers (the function) and so therefore it was just fascism with red flags.

/thread

...

...

Nietzsche was just buttmad that anarchists transcended bourgeois and religious morality and he couldn't.

More seriously though, Nietzsche is so fucking contradictory that you can pick any of his claims and thoughts and adapt it to your own.
For instance, he was against antisemitism and criticized anti-semits, yet, these same anti-semits, who later became the nazis, used Nietzsche's philosophy for their ideology.

That's just one example, it's been a while since I reread any of his works.
But in the end, because of his fetishization of civilizations such as the Roman and so on, the "Ubermensch", etc, we could put him on the right side of the political sphere, altough I, personally, think that Nietzsche is one of the rare that is outside of all political categorization.

The "Übermensch" kinda goes against traditionalists and reactionary thought. The Übermensch is one that has transcended good and evil, moved beyond both master and slave morality. It is a new Man, neither master nor slave but driven by egoist self-interest and will to power.

Sounds like the milk-man doesn't it?

Beyond Good and Evil.

Everything you posted is out of context.
Nihilism is inded rampant because of that, but that is actually the true nature of existance.

Also "noble".

Ye… It's all out of context.

That's the thing with Nitzsche. You can't take "this paragraph" and say "oh, he's X wing".

He doesn't actually have any wing.

You can see the Class Con prol in the Übermensch.
You can see the "pure aryan".
You can see whatever you want to see. If you take it out of context.

And this is why, it's not about wings. It's about self theory. It's about

BEYOND IDEOLOGY

Mad Max: Beyond Ideology. Starring: Max Stirner

Also, this is one of the few times we Yui is usefull

You're right, I included the nazi/far right interpretation of the Ubermensch. My bad.

nigger, anarchists just want to destroy society, they've transcended nothing

...

They want other comrades to transcend it too, not to destroy society, which already destroys itself by being shitty. Otherwise they wouldn't have been so repressed throughout their history, the bourgies wouldn't be so obsessed by quelling them if they weren't dangerous.

DUMB

AND

PROUD

smh.

Wahhh no criticism allowed pls no bully ;_;

Is Nietzsche trying to say that through understanding the roots of morals stemming from the nobleness innate in those who are good, since in primitive society good was a rather concrete thing seen as being that which was not negative, rather than from the usefulness of acts towards the least of these by the more priveleged which is the theory of those British psychologists he criticizes in the beginning of the essay, we can create entire societies that function with a higher and happier system through slaves (within modern society) attempting to make themselves into the nobler aristocratic types by understanding that "good" and "evil" aren't definite and that good is something which spontaneously emerges within certain "races" (in the cultural sense)?
Yes, that's exactly what he's saying. Nietzsche believes that moral categories have become abstracted toward subtle but still tyrannical social rules in modern bourgeois society. Instead of the ancient king deciding what is good based on his authority, now every subject is expected to have authority over themselves in liberalism, so they must all also punish themselves by making morality into voluntarily imposed system in each and every slave. For Nietzsche even the rich bourgeois are slaves the morality of the market economy.

>Also, this is one of the few times where Yui is useful
I take what I can get!

You idealists are only good for thread like this!
but you are good at it. TOO GOOD!

...

This.

At no point Zarathustra says "see what you are doing? Keep doing it, because these random activities our ancestors did are the only way to go, no need to question or change anything"

He certainly didn't stop and say "GODDAM POSITIVISTS AND FEMINISTS RUINING MUH WHITE SOCIETY REEEEEEEE"

DUMB

AND

PROUD

...

This is actually sort of correct.
If you cannot explain theory in fairly simple terms, then you either don't understand it well enough, or your just a religious person.

SO DUMB

SO PROUD

I think these are fairly simple terms.

That would describe /lit/

...

Then why did he hate Socialism so much? Was he just being a special snowflake or was he just opposed to what he perceived as an excessive emphasis on the "goodness" of movements and ideas based around the collective and cooperation? Because if the latter is the case I kind of see where he's coming from, as the late 19th century and the early 20th century Labor movement WAS pushed forward by a lot of spooky propaganda and rhetoric about "workers identity" and "nothing to lose but our chains" which didn't really do anything but build up a false idea in people's heads that literally everyone who was a worker was equal and that it was about achieving a "worker's world" rather than actually implementing a Socialist system that would fundamentally transform society in general rather than just for Labor.

But it seems to me that Nietzsche rather couldn't stand Socialism merely because he thought individuality was sacred in itself, which is a bit hypocritical on his part, if I am correct.

He felt that socialists made too many appeals to moralism and that it glorified communitarianism and poverty, just like Christianity.
In this he was right, and this was also a criticism of state-socialists that Max Stirner made.

Yeah I think I would have to agree withe Nietzsche on this one. My problem though is that this is something I already thought about after reading Stirner and thus I'm starting to realize that Nietzsche just kind of seems to be a long winded version of Stirner in some respects, at least in the Genealogy.

is this an unfair thing to say?

...

Not really.
Nietzsche is really only superior in his answer to nihilism and his analysis of slave-master morality.
A lot of good stuff from him, but I like Stirner better.

...

This tbh. Every. single. time.

wow rebel ur shitposting is really rising in quality lately

God is dead though.

Which is good.
Now we can focus on all the other tyrants.

CRAWLING

IN

MY

SKIN

You know what's edgy?

Being a member of an organization that subjugated and killed millions historically and still glorify suffering as a virtue.

Now that is edgy.

THESE

WOUNDS

THEY

WILL

NOT

HEAL

...

Uhh, he tore Anglo scum a new one in Beyond Good and Evil specifically because of their fedora autism

ANCOM DUMB

ANCOM PROUD

ANCOM DUMMIST AND PROUDIST THER IS

You could almost say… Proudhon…

He didn't say white because he was well acquainted with the history of civilizations and saw the rise and fall of different races but he did say god damn positivists and feminists and he did believe in 'national characters'. So…

Here is Foucault discussing Nietzsche from an interview in 1983 from "The Essential Foucault" (New Press):

I do not believe there is a single Nietzscheanism, There are no grounds for believing that there is a true Nietzscheanism, or that ours is any truer than others. But those who found in Nietzsche, more than twenty-five years ago, a means of displacing themselves in terms of a philosophical horizon dominated by phenomenolgy and Marxism have nothing to do with those who use Nietzsche nowadays. In any case, even if Deleuze has written a superb book about Nietzsche and although the presence of Nietzsche in his other works is clearly apparent, there is no deafening reference to Nietzsche, nor any attempt to wave the Nietzschean flag for rhetorical or political ends. It is striking that someone like Deleuze has simply taken Nietzsche seriously, which indeed he has. That is what I wanted to do. What serious use can Nietzche be up to?…The only rather extravagant homage I have rendered to Nietzsche wsa to call the first volume of my History of Sexuality "The Will to Know"….My relation to Nietzsche, or what I owe to Nietzsche, derives mostly from the tests of around 1880, where the question of truth, the history of truth and the will to truth were central to his work."

because fuck the jews. until Holla Forums throws off their ideological blinders and understands this simple facts (a fact known by marxists of an earlier age) they'll never fucking get it

So I guess the Nietzschen influence on Foucault and Deleuze is more in taking the radical questioning of the origins of particular social norms and the tracing of their development with a dialectical eye, rather than just the general, ontological conversations of the phenomenonologists on the one hand and the repetitive hardline Socialism of the young radicals of their day on the other regarding Marxist and Anarchist orthodoxy?

Basically, that the influence on Foucault and Deleuze of Nietzsche is more in his radical tracing of social development and thinking outside the box of how modern social norms (and perhaps even modernity itself) emerged as constructs of things outside of itself?

As for Foucault, that does seem to be what he is saying, for Deleuze I really do not know. I've not read Deleuze or Nietzsche. I intend to but there's too much else going on. I hope the Foucault quote helped.

why are you saging

apparently Nietzsche wasn't racist or very much political at all and his sister rewrote everything he wrote to fit a nazi narrative.

Flawlessly played.

ebin

...

so cringe worthy

Hating on Deleuze. You are truly an idiot.

This thread says to disregard Nietzsche because he doesn't fit with typical leftist beliefs.

Is that not incredibly dishonest, not to mention cowardly?