Human beings have in their bodies the heritage of multiple origins, that is, opposite, and often not merely opposite...

>Human beings have in their bodies the heritage of multiple origins, that is, opposite, and often not merely opposite, drives and value standards that fight each other and rarely permit each other any rest. Such human beings of late cultures and refracted lights will on the average be weaker human beings: their most profound desire is that the war they are should come to an end. . . . But when the opposition and war in such a nature have the effect of one more charm and incentive of life -- and if, moreover, in addition to his powerful and irreconcilable drives, a real mastery and subtlety in waging war against oneself, in other words, self-control, self-outwitting, has been inherited or cultivated too -- then those magical, incomprehensible, and unfathomable ones arise, those enigmatic men predestined for victory and seduction, whose most beautiful expression is found in Alcibiades and Caesar . . . and among artists perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear in precisely the same ages when that weaker type with its desire for rest comes to the fore: both types belong together and owe their origin to the same cause.

Can I use this quote as an excuse to not take my meds?

kill your self

Dont take meds, do like Frank Yang and get every mental illness you can

Is this quote a long-winded way of saying that one's handicaps are potential for tempered strengths?

At times I have trouble getting the FULL meaning of what Nietzsche is saying, so if anyone can offer advice, it'd be appreciated.

>inb4 brainlet

Making a joke that tastless and unfunny implies you didn't have the education to afford the meds in the first place. And, honey, with a thread this shite as unironic evidence, I'm telling you that you need them. Die.

It's not about individualism.

He's saying that the more modern a human is, the more different drives within them will be in conflict. For example, due to the invention of sedentary sources of information such as books or desktop computers, our drive for knowledge has come into contradiction with our drive for health. That's a really simple, physical example. He's also including more complex examples such as the fact that the most popularised morality right now is the humanitarianism/egalitarianism thing, if not collectivism, and these are in conflict with another modern philosophy that is popular: individualism.

The sense is that when a culture first forms, it is going to be dogmatically fixed onto those values that allowed it to thrive in the first place. If it retains strength and survives, naturally as it evolves it will incorporate more values, including ones that might harm it. In late cultures you have such a mix of these, if a culture is so strong it will continue to evolve for a long time incorporating many degenerate elements, simply because it is so strong that these are never enough to collapse it.

The majority of the people in late cultures are going to be bogged down in at least some of the many pit-falls (where this represents a conflict of drives, e.g. using some amazing technology like the internet for self-harming purposes) that civilisation has managed to accumulate. The exception to this are people like Alcibiades, Caesar, or maybe Leonardo da Vinci. They are able to construct a harmony out of their (and society's) competing drives.

No because chances are that your prescription in fact helps you to be a stronger human being than you would be otherwise (even if that is via sedation, because when you are less sedated you will be more self-destructive).

>Such human beings of late cultures and refracted lights will on the average be weaker human beings: their most profound desire is that the war they are should come to an end. . . .

So if you have physical or mental illness, it's a symptom that your drives are not in harmony.

>needing a textual pretext to stop your meds. . .

That is incredibly insightful, thank you. How is it that you know this is the "true" meaning behind the text? Is an intimate knowledge of Caesar and Alcibiades, or the culture of their time required? I assume the analogy he creates is what helps you reaffirm your understanding of the passage.

I have read The Gay Science, and while I did walk away with some insights, I feel I am not getting all the deeper meanings of the text, perhaps you may be able to help me more thoroughly understand Nietzsche when I read him. Teaching a man to fish.

Thanks.

This summary is the best.

Also, Nietzsche abandons the ship here, individualism, with which he gives the credit for inchoate cultures via their "great men," is the root of degeneracy in later cultures. Basically, the indivdualism that allows for those great leaders is the same that caused the downfall. Individualistic cultures are inherently in contradiction with themselves, a primacy of individual or country is impossible to discern and the revolutionary tendencies that feed into the original culture form the unity, and as this unity wanes it becomes important to weigh one's own needs against the countries, as successful cultures age, thus need for one's own success becomes greater as the surface level need of the country seems lesser in comparison. Aka why China will outlive the US but will fail to change itself

Read harder texts, those meanings were all intrinsic in the text but needed to be mused out

I will definitely do that. I guess what I am wondering is how do you know that you have arrived at the meaning behind the text and are not simply a little farther past where I am now? How do you know to settle?

With something so interpretive, when does one know to stop their musing? I am fairly new to this and find myself wondering whether my understanding of a passage is so base that I will always need guidance. It appears as if I might.

>That is incredibly insightful, thank you. How is it that you know this is the "true" meaning behind the text? Is an intimate knowledge of Caesar and Alcibiades, or the culture of their time required? I assume the analogy he creates is what helps you reaffirm your understanding of the passage.
Honestly, no. I've not read much about either historical figure, I've just read lots of Nietzsche, and re-read lots of Nietzsche. This is a passage where he is attempting to be very clear, as opposed to his more poetic stuff like Zarathustra. He is obviously still using metaphors and other non-literal language, but that's simply because he thinks it conveys the point most clearly.

Just imagine you're learning a foreign language. At first you can only understand literal constructions. But when you are more fluent you understand that languages idiosyncrasies, its folk sayings, the popular memes, etc. Just read all his books, Zarathustra last. His most clearly written books are the middle and late period. His philological essays are too specialist, his first book is too Hegelian, the early books are too aphoristic, Zarathustra is too poetic. Stuff like his Genealogy, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols, even Beyond Good and Evil, and the Antichrist, are all much more concise books by him.

Anything you miss the first time you might learn in another of his books.

Individualism is literally just one of the thousands of drives he's been considering for this point that has been quoted. Don't focus on it unless for an example.

Actually, Ecce Homo before Genealogy. The third essay of Genealogy is quite difficult when you aren't familiar with the rest of his work on the Abrahamic faiths.

Sorry to clarify:
not the drive itself, I was extrapolating for my own need.
For reference, I've been reading 2-3 hours a day and learning languages (German, French, Latin, Russian, Greek) for the past 4 years. I've also aged from 17 to 21 in that time, that's a substantial amount of time/intelligence given, optatively, I will admit. The interpretations are a function of intelligence, you test them against what was written to see what best fits and explains the most/least overarching, but the speed of coming to that accuracy is dependent on intelligence and practice. Professors are not brilliant, generally they are obsessed with a huge dedication to read secondary sources. Grad classes are ran the same way, very very very few people could give a reading with no secondary sources as user did and even less of them can derive any import. Secondary sources are always used. Not to say understanding is a function of IQ solely, but it's on two dependent axes of time and intelligence.
Also, I'm a pseud, so take everything with a grain of salt

I really appreciate your patience with my inquisitions. Thanks for helping me understand your approach.

I find it comforting knowing that you had to re-read Nietzsche, and that you are saying that it is analogous to learning a new language, as when I read Nietzsche it is certainly painstaking.

To add on to I will provide an example of my shortcoming and shallowness in interpretation.

>Human beings have in their bodies the heritage of multiple origins, that is, opposite, and often not merely opposite, drives and value standards that fight each other and rarely permit each other any rest. Such human beings of late cultures and refracted lights will on the average be weaker human beings: their most profound desire is that the war they are should come to an end. . . .

When I read this, I read that people have mixed blood. Opposites within them. Conflict. Drives and value standards within them that do not allow them any rest which I would take as indecisiveness and more conflict.

Humans of late cultures and refracted lights will be weaker. I read this as complacency, and a disharmonious temperament.

I think it is when he says "But when the opposition and war in such a nature have the effect of one more charm and incentive of life..." that you are able to discern some profound statement that I cannot. This vagueness is very difficult for me to understand, do I have autism?

What is the meaning of "...one more charm and incentive of life"? I read this as saying that when this conflict yields a positive experience, it yields the ability to carve oneself out of stone (or perhaps a society is able to carve and pry itself out of a past with new methods and ways of doing so, the new values and drives that become dogma (in your words)).

Thanks for the help.

I'm here just to say this guy knows.

>I think it is when he says "But when the opposition and war in such a nature have the effect of one more charm and incentive of life..." that you are able to discern some profound statement that I cannot. This vagueness is very difficult for me to understand, do I have autism?
>What is the meaning of "...one more charm and incentive of life"? I read this as saying that when this conflict yields a positive experience, it yields the ability to carve oneself out of stone (or perhaps a society is able to carve and pry itself out of a past with new methods and ways of doing so, the new values and drives that become dogma (in your words)).
Your reading seems fine.

>"...one more charm and incentive of life"?
To me this just means that if someone is incredibly strong and healthy, what would be toxic to most humans is instead just a challenge or game for them, it gives them yet another interesting thing about life to live for.

Your reading is quite good because he uses the sculptural metaphor somewhere else. He says that, as immoral as it might sound, you can consider 99.9% of humanity as valuable as mere rocks or glass or whatever material.. where that material serves to construct great men.

The charm and incentive of life is the war against ourselves and winning that war is done by the unusual person, modernity, or late cultures, breed a desire to have this war exterminated

Awesome, thanks. Very impressive that you are doing the things you are. I think you would be quite offended if you knew where I was in life.

Just out of curiosity, have you had an IQ test before? If so, do you mind sharing your score?

Thanks, good luck on your endeavors...assuming you're The desire would be a function of self-realization no? The war with oneself is self-actualization correct?

>Professors are not brilliant, generally they are obsessed with a huge dedication to read secondary sources
Exactly why I hated college and went for a trade. Anything you think of that isn't a plagiarization of previous ideas even if its well supported by the original text will likely be graded poorly

Buddy.
Pal.
You know you can just choose not to take them right?

Not the user you were quoting, but yes, I agree. I currently am taking a winter course on Philosophy of Science and its pretty much secondary source dogma from Peter Godfrey Smith. We've yet to read a single primary source other than quotes within the text.

Although it is a winter course, so it is expedited.

I had a class a while ago though where the professor had given us snippets of different primary sources to read from as they pertained to the topic and lecture. Rationalism - Descartes, Skepticism - Hume, etc. That was mind-opening.

>We've yet to read a single primary source other than quotes within the text.
I'm convinced most teachers are pure propagandists.

>I had a class a while ago though where the professor had given us snippets of different primary sources to read from as they pertained to the topic and lecture. Rationalism - Descartes, Skepticism - Hume, etc. That was mind-opening.
I had one or two good professors as well. Actually enjoyable when you get them.

>I'm convinced most teachers are pure propagandists.

Oh my god, you wouldn't even believe the propaganda I receive on a daily basis. Here's a hint: Silicon Valley.

We've yet to go a day without him saying something negative about Trump. What bugs is in doing so he fails to realize or acknowledge the adverse effect of such a teaching style.

I'm not exactly a huge supporter of Trump, but to openly share political views as a Philosophy teacher is a bit myopic I think.

>Philosophy teacher is a bit myopic
Every time he does it he's making an appeal to authority argument. It would be funny if you pointed it out.

I visited a family members unitarian church after the election and for the two months I took them 1/2 the service was whining and complaining about Trump so I empathize.

Ya, it's quite insane the echo chamber my classrooms become at times. All the "rebellious" coexist stickers and feminism and the like, I can't help but just laugh at the false radicalism.

I've thought about pointing it out, but he's not really making any controversial statements, it's just low hanging fruit. "He's a giant baby." "I don't think anyone should tweet as much as he does." "One article came out saying that he might even be illiterate."

To be honest, I don't think he would carry any of it into a heated debate, I think it's just small talk, but it's just not too terribly good for dialectical discussion.

Another thing I've noticed is the total distrust the college faculty has for conspiracy theories. The last election was like conspiracy mania, and it's all being written off as Russian interference. Which may or may not be true to some extent, but it's closed-minded to write it off.

I am genuinely curious about the future of education and Universities.

>Every time he does it he's making an appeal to authority argument.
What

He uses his classroom as a platform to push a political ideology when it's irrelevant to the subject matter of the class. Because he is the professor, arguing against him would cause one to risk failing the class out of spite. He's appealing to his own authority.

I think he's saying that the teacher is using his position of power as influence over the class's political beliefs. The class will trust him because he's the authority on a field about theories of knowledge, something that carries over to politics easily.

That's not what appeal to authority means, cretin. That's abuse of power. And he's not even wrong.

I've been the guy in the room that had the one deferring opinion. I stood my ground but it's not pleasant. The teacher is highly likely to say "we're getting away from the subject at hand" at any point and get back to the class subject if he starts to have trouble with your argument anyway.

Universites are discrediting themselves so badly that either a degree is worth nothing or the debt bubble destroys most schools.

admitting youre a pseud doesn't make it okay

>Admits professor is abusing power.
>Professor not in wrong.

So you're one of those huh?

Ya, I'm just in it to get my degree and a nice comfy research position...not like I'll be free then either though.

...

>Awesome, thanks. Very impressive that you are doing the things you are
I have no idea why people are responding in this way to my posts.

>Just out of curiosity, have you had an IQ test before? If so, do you mind sharing your score?
Never been tested.

>The desire would be a function of self-realization no? The war with oneself is self-actualization correct?
I'm not so sure about that. Sick people don't want to wage war, so their self-actualization would be peace instead, no?

>Anything you think of that isn't a plagiarization of previous ideas even if its well supported by the original text will likely be graded poorly
That's not true. Original thoughts are allowed if they are relevant, well-supported, and you also show understanding of the secondary sources that were recommended.

If anything the colleges discourage original ideas only because they tend to unintentionally plagiarise, or they're just weaker alternatives to the time-tested secondary sources. So in fact they take original ideas too seriously, to allow it much.

>I'm not so sure about that. Sick people don't want to wage war, so their self-actualization would be peace instead, no?

You could also argue that sick people are currently within war.

every human being on earth EXCEPT frank yang is mentally ill