• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Nietzsche Translation.

It wasn't simply those keen on punishing others. He is talking about being wary of those that preach too much about equality and justice because they are not driven by good intentions but by envy and jealousy.

I don't see that, I see see religious zealots.
 
I don't see that, I see see religious zealots.

While it was likely that was who he was directing it towards, it can be applied to anyone that uses a false cover of righteousness to hide what is really behind their motive. Orwell made the same critisms of some socialists in his "Road to Wigan Pier" even though he is an avowed socialist himself. It is simply an observation of human nature and using "justice" in order to hide more insidious goals. This can apply to a wide range of people and views throughout history and even modern politics.

For instance, Republicans that are in favor of limiting immigration for the overall good of society. There are certainly many who feel that it is both necessary and good, but there also some that are simply using the "protecting the working class jobs and wages" as a cover for their racists beliefs and preventing people of color from entering the country. It is simply a fact that both types of people of exist.
 
While it was likely that was who he was directing it towards, it can be applied to anyone that uses a false cover of righteousness to hide what is really behind their motive. Orwell made the same critisms of some socialists in his "Road to Wigan Pier" even though he is an avowed socialist himself. It is simply an observation of human nature and using "justice" in order to hide more insidious goals. This can apply to a wide range of people and views throughout history and even modern politics.

For instance, Republicans that are in favor of limiting immigration for the overall good of society. There are certainly many who feel that it is both necessary and good, but there also some that are simply using the "protecting the working class jobs and wages" as a cover for their racists beliefs and preventing people of color from entering the country. It is simply a fact that both types of people of exist.

No, "righteousness" is very specific. Nietzsche is referring to those who punish first and ask questions later; they have the most to hide and history bears that out. And the people that you describe above are indeed far right-wing and they have always been the first to point fingers and demand inquisitions.
 
No, "righteousness" is very specific. Nietzsche is referring to those who punish first and ask questions later; they have the most to hide and history bears that out. And the people that you describe above are indeed far right-wing and they have always been the first to point fingers and demand inquisitions.

Lol, it has nothing to do with left or right wing. It is simply an observation of the human condition or do you believe it is impossible for a left winger to have nefarious motives behind their actions?

Edit: Also, I believe Stalin had plenty of his own inquisitions, or is he a right winger now?
 
Lol, it has nothing to do with left or right wing. It is simply an observation of the human condition or do you believe it is impossible for a left winger to have nefarious motives behind their actions?

Edit: Also, I believe Stalin had plenty of his own inquisitions, or is he a right winger now?

Behavior is not a political thing; the behavior we have been discussing however is represented by today's right-wing and when we study those traits we find autocrats and despots and tyrants; like Stalin and emperors and religious zealots; like Oliver Cromwell and a host drawn form the old Sumerian priestly class whose personality type and practices are in line with today's far right.

It's a thread.
 
Most people I've found misunderstand, misinterpreted, or misapply Nietzsche.

Yes and no. I have been very confused by this. I have read many Nietzsche apologists like Kauffman who try to make him out to sound like some sort of secular humanist. But then you read him directly, and you realize that's not what he was saying at all, no matter how much you try to see him as a secular humanist.

When he talks of leaving behind feelings of guilt, pity, etc... as slave morality, and pursue the individual interests, what are we to make of the impacts of those private pursuits to those around us: our family, friends, community, etc... We don't live in a vacuum. Sometimes the pursuit of power must be tempered or balanced against the needs and potential hurt it may cause to those around us. For example, what would Nietzsche say to a promising surgeon, artist, scientist, etc... who decides to put aside their work because their children are being hurt by how much time they are spending at work? Are they succumbing to slave morality by having pity on their own kids? His complete absence of any sort of social/political philosophy while just concentrating on the individual self is a huge hole in a coherent philosophy of life.

There was a very, very dark side to Nietzsche that you really have to twist to try to overlook. You get the feel that he makes empathy to be the foundation of his scorned slave morality. It is not. It is hard-wired into biological organisms. Without it, without self-sacrifice, love, loyalty, empathy, species do not do well. Without it in humans, there is a pathologic condition known as antisocial personality disorder, more commonly called being a psychopath.

I have really tried to be sympathetic to Nietzsche and understand Kaufmanns apologist positions on him, and I just don't see it. This is not an ad hominem attack on Nietzsche. He had some very valuable insights. But he was no secular humanist. I can definitely see how the Nazis could quote him and justify some of the horrific things they did. I don't think it was quite as big a misreading as Kaufmann and other apologists try to make out.
 
Last edited:
Behavior is not a political thing; the behavior we have been discussing however is represented by today's right-wing and when we study those traits we find autocrats and despots and tyrants; like Stalin and emperors and religious zealots; like Oliver Cromwell and a host drawn form the old Sumerian priestly class whose personality type and practices are in line with today's far right.

It's a thread.

Except the fact that he clearly states that he is not speaking of despots, tyrants, or autocrats.

"Inspired ones they resemble: but it is not the heart that inspireth them-- but vengeance. And when they become subtle and cold, it is not spirit, but envy, that maketh them so.

Their jealousy leadeth them also into thinkers' paths; and this is the sign of their jealousy--they always go too far: so that their fatigue hath at last to go to sleep on the snow.

In all their lamentations soundeth vengeance, in all their eulogies is maleficence; and being judge seemeth to them bliss.

But thus do I counsel you, my friends: distrust all in whom the impulse to punish is powerful!

They are people of bad race and lineage; out of their countenances peer the hangman and the sleuth-hound.

Distrust all those who talk much of their justice! Verily, in their souls not only honey is lacking.

And when they call themselves "the good and just," forget not, that for them to be Pharisees, nothing is lacking but--power"

He is referring to those whom he considered to have the "Slave Morality". This entire excerpt is essentially about ressentiment. They are filled with envy and jealousy but lack the power, those are who we should be wary of. This is pretty much how I understood what was being said.

I have no clue where you get the "punish first ask questions later" idea.
 
If I am misinterpreting him, feel free to educate me on the matter.

I'm free to do as I Will.

Your response to me demonstrates that your ears are not ready for my words. But that you are reading and that you are asking questions is not to be taken lightly...


Allow me a few of my own, if you'd be so kind -- have you read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer? I'm not looking to name drop, I'm looking to see where you've been so I can see where you are.

Another question, if you would indulge me -- If you could sum up Nietzsche in one word, what word would that be?
 
Yes and no. I have been very confused by this. I have read many Nietzsche apologists like Kauffman who try to make him out to sound like some sort of secular humanist. But then you read him directly, and you realize that's not what he was saying at all, no matter how much you try to see him as a secular humanist.

When he talks of leaving behind feelings of guilt, pity, etc... as slave morality, and pursue the individual interests, what are we to make of the impacts of those private pursuits to those around us: our family, friends, community, etc... We don't live in a vacuum. Sometimes the pursuit of power must be tempered or balanced against the needs and potential hurt it may cause to those around us. For example, what would Nietzsche say to a promising surgeon, artist, scientist, etc... who decides to put aside their work because their children are being hurt by how much time they are spending at work? Are they succumbing to slave morality by having pity on their own kids? His complete absence of any sort of social/political philosophy while just concentrating on the individual self is a huge hole in a coherent philosophy of life.

There was a very, very dark side to Nietzsche that you really have to twist to try to overlook. You get the feel that he makes empathy to be the foundation of his scorned slave morality. It is not. It is hard-wired into biological organisms. Without it, without self-sacrifice, love, loyalty, empathy, species do not do well. Without it in humans, there is a pathologic condition known as antisocial personality disorder, more commonly called being a psychopath.

I have really tried to be sympathetic to Nietzsche and understand Kaufmanns apologist positions on him, and I just don't see it. This is not an ad hominem attack on Nietzsche. He had some very valuable insights. But he was no secular humanist. I can definitely see how the Nazis could quote him and justify some of the horrific things they did. I don't think it was quite as big a misreading as Kaufmann and other apologists try to make out.

Yes and Yes. No, Nietzsche was no secular humanist. Kaufmann however is the best of the worst. If you've read the commentary some of these *ahem* experts put out you'd throw it all on a pyre and gleefully dance as it burns. I personally think a better way to describe what Kauffman is guilty of is that Kauffman, among others of course, tries to tame Nietzsche.

Let me ask you, are the importance of friends, family and those around you important to you because they are important to you? Do you value their importance or have you learned to value their importance? Is their importance expected? Or do you value them truly, deeply, completely because of what, who they are?

Do you have empathy for the individual because of what has happened to them or because what happened to them as a result of?

I want to delve a bit further and provide my insight but I must stop as I'm waiting a response from another and I don't want any foreshadowing on my part to ruin the response. I apologize for this as there is much to be said, I can just say that that dark side isn't that dark. The Nazi's couldn't be more off target and psychosis is merely a human condition, all-too human. :)
 
I'm free to do as I Will.

Your response to me demonstrates that your ears are not ready for my words. But that you are reading and that you are asking questions is not to be taken lightly...


Allow me a few of my own, if you'd be so kind -- have you read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer? I'm not looking to name drop, I'm looking to see where you've been so I can see where you are.

Another question, if you would indulge me -- If you could sum up Nietzsche in one word, what word would that be?

I have only just begun exploring philosophy, it started out as trying to figure out where the origins of our political differences come from but is quickly becoming a hobby in itself for me. So no, I have yet to really dive into those you have mentioned other than discussions I have heard that tied those philosophers in. So a novice would be putting it lightly.

I haven't read enough to really sum him up, much less to do it in one word. Of course, I could take the easy route and simply say atheist but I doubt that is what you are going after. I reserve the right to change my opinion after more reading, but right now I would say individualist.
 
Last edited:
I'm free to do as I Will.

Your response to me demonstrates that your ears are not ready for my words. But that you are reading and that you are asking questions is not to be taken lightly...


Allow me a few of my own, if you'd be so kind -- have you read Kant, Hegel, Schopenhauer? I'm not looking to name drop, I'm looking to see where you've been so I can see where you are.

Another question, if you would indulge me -- If you could sum up Nietzsche in one word, what word would that be?

Rather than Individualist, I believe anti-egalitarian would be more precise.
 
Except the fact that he clearly states that he is not speaking of despots, tyrants, or autocrats.



He is referring to those whom he considered to have the "Slave Morality". This entire excerpt is essentially about ressentiment. They are filled with envy and jealousy but lack the power, those are who we should be wary of. This is pretty much how I understood what was being said.

I have no clue where you get the "punish first ask questions later" idea.

He speaks in general terms in the story. "Punish first" is a short cut phrase to tyranny; a fear based society of nationalism over people's rights: Master- Slave. None of these people will make it to Overman status.
 
I have only just begun exploring philosophy, it started out as trying to figure out where the origins of our political differences come from but is quickly becoming a hobby in itself for me. So no, I have yet to really dive into those you have mentioned other than discussions I have heard that tied those philosophers in. So a novice would be putting it lightly.

I haven't read enough to really sum him up, much less to do it in one word. Of course, I could take the easy route and simply say atheist but I doubt that is what you are going after. I reserve the right to change my opinion after more reading, but right now I would say individualist.

Well, Thus Spoke is his culmination. Are you reading the stand alone copy of 'Thus Spoke' or do you have The Portable Nietzsche? That last one and The Basic Writings of Nietzsche combined along with a copy of The Gay Science would be the most economic way to get an overall understanding of Nietzsche. (Portable has Thus Spoke in its entirety) All are by Kaufmann. He has his faults but he is the authority.

As to the 3 I mentioned, I'd recommend Schopenhauer first. Reading Kant would be only to thoroughly understand why Nietzsche loathed him so... And Hegel, my god, Hegel, I wouldn't want to put you through Hegel unless you were well prepared....I'd also suggest Spinoza and of course Kierkegaard. I'm currently taking on the endeavor of reading Soren's complete works. Princeton Press I believe it was has out a 26 (?) volume set I've picked up along the way.


I do believe Nietzsche is someone you have to "get" on your own. Which is why there are so many who misunderstand him, I suppose.

As to your question in the OP I cannot answer it because it is the wrong question you are asking, I'm not saying this to be belligerent, or haughty, or rude, but only to be kind. You'll resent me for it no doubt, but since you yourself said you're newly embarked on this journey and it would be irresponsible of me if I didn't tell you to correct your course.

The single word you've chosen is a common word people would use, it is the delight of the reader when they finally discover down the road what the word is.
 
Well, Thus Spoke is his culmination. Are you reading the stand alone copy of 'Thus Spoke' or do you have The Portable Nietzsche? That last one and The Basic Writings of Nietzsche combined along with a copy of The Gay Science would be the most economic way to get an overall understanding of Nietzsche. (Portable has Thus Spoke in its entirety) All are by Kaufmann. He has his faults but he is the authority.

As to the 3 I mentioned, I'd recommend Schopenhauer first. Reading Kant would be only to thoroughly understand why Nietzsche loathed him so... And Hegel, my god, Hegel, I wouldn't want to put you through Hegel unless you were well prepared....I'd also suggest Spinoza and of course Kierkegaard. I'm currently taking on the endeavor of reading Soren's complete works. Princeton Press I believe it was has out a 26 (?) volume set I've picked up along the way.


I do believe Nietzsche is someone you have to "get" on your own. Which is why there are so many who misunderstand him, I suppose.

As to your question in the OP I cannot answer it because it is the wrong question you are asking, I'm not saying this to be belligerent, or haughty, or rude, but only to be kind. You'll resent me for it no doubt, but since you yourself said you're newly embarked on this journey and it would be irresponsible of me if I didn't tell you to correct your course.

The single word you've chosen is a common word people would use, it is the delight of the reader when they finally discover down the road what the word is.

I haven't started reading it yet, the point of this thread was essentially to find the correct translation to begin. I had read that Kauffman essentially tried to "domesticate" Nietzsche and I wanted to see if there was a more direct translation.
 
Well, Thus Spoke is his culmination. Are you reading the stand alone copy of 'Thus Spoke' or do you have The Portable Nietzsche? That last one and The Basic Writings of Nietzsche combined along with a copy of The Gay Science would be the most economic way to get an overall understanding of Nietzsche. (Portable has Thus Spoke in its entirety) All are by Kaufmann. He has his faults but he is the authority.

As to the 3 I mentioned, I'd recommend Schopenhauer first. Reading Kant would be only to thoroughly understand why Nietzsche loathed him so... And Hegel, my god, Hegel, I wouldn't want to put you through Hegel unless you were well prepared....I'd also suggest Spinoza and of course Kierkegaard. I'm currently taking on the endeavor of reading Soren's complete works. Princeton Press I believe it was has out a 26 (?) volume set I've picked up along the way.


I do believe Nietzsche is someone you have to "get" on your own. Which is why there are so many who misunderstand him, I suppose.

As to your question in the OP I cannot answer it because it is the wrong question you are asking, I'm not saying this to be belligerent, or haughty, or rude, but only to be kind. You'll resent me for it no doubt, but since you yourself said you're newly embarked on this journey and it would be irresponsible of me if I didn't tell you to correct your course.

The single word you've chosen is a common word people would use, it is the delight of the reader when they finally discover down the road what the word is.

You seem to be well studied on Nietzsche. How do you feel about his idea of Master/Slave Morality recurring through history and it's application today? Do you find it ironic that the Master Morality is displayed more on the Right while the Slave Morality is seen more in the secular Left? Of course, I am going by Wiki's interpretation and summary of Nietzsche so it is possible that it is completely wrong about his views.
 
Well, Thus Spoke is his culmination. Are you reading the stand alone copy of 'Thus Spoke' or do you have The Portable Nietzsche? That last one and The Basic Writings of Nietzsche combined along with a copy of The Gay Science would be the most economic way to get an overall understanding of Nietzsche. (Portable has Thus Spoke in its entirety) All are by Kaufmann. He has his faults but he is the authority.

As to the 3 I mentioned, I'd recommend Schopenhauer first. Reading Kant would be only to thoroughly understand why Nietzsche loathed him so... And Hegel, my god, Hegel, I wouldn't want to put you through Hegel unless you were well prepared....I'd also suggest Spinoza and of course Kierkegaard. I'm currently taking on the endeavor of reading Soren's complete works. Princeton Press I believe it was has out a 26 (?) volume set I've picked up along the way.


I do believe Nietzsche is someone you have to "get" on your own. Which is why there are so many who misunderstand him, I suppose.

As to your question in the OP I cannot answer it because it is the wrong question you are asking, I'm not saying this to be belligerent, or haughty, or rude, but only to be kind. You'll resent me for it no doubt, but since you yourself said you're newly embarked on this journey and it would be irresponsible of me if I didn't tell you to correct your course.

The single word you've chosen is a common word people would use, it is the delight of the reader when they finally discover down the road what the word is.

Finished "Beyond Good and Evil" (Ian Johnston translation on Audible).

Was the word "Conservative", not in the modern sense but the traditional meaning of the word. I forgot which part it was that brought me to this conclusion except that it was on his remarks about women. It felt as if he were afraid of the possibility that equal rights would take away what he values in a woman. When viewing him in this context it also makes more sense on his views on liberalism and socialism. He sees the rise of these ideologies and is afraid of the eventual outcome.
 
I have found that a little history helps when you are trying to understand philosophy.

When he said god is dead, partly he was talking about what he saw. In the past, a village, the church had been the center of town, and the center for much of the town's communal life. As markets spread across Europe, they became the center of town, and an important part of the town's communal life.

As things progressed, nation states took power from the church. Technology broke the monopoly on information that the church had enjoyed. The first mass communication was Luther's Protests, and that resulted in a series of wars. Wars that also challenged Catholic authority.

I think of him as the first Modern thinker. He realised that this new era was not religious. The modern world would be the interplay of secular government, a strong economy, and strong, secular intellectual institutions. Looked at that way, saying god is dead is descriptive.

Nietzsche lived through the transition of the Germanic areas into a nation state in the modern sense. You also need to understand that... "After his death, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother's manuscripts. She reworked Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating Nietzsche's stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

He was a perspectivist, as are some contemporary philosophers of science, like Giere. I may do a post sometime, titled Philosophy, the Long Retreat to talk about that. Knowledge is limited.

If you read about the world he lived in, grew up in, it will help in understanding him. I'd suggest starting with books about him, about the country and his era.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom