Was he a determinist?

Kind off. Yes, he was a determinist in the sense that if we had knowledge about everything, we would know every factor that influenced us to do x choice and why each individual behave the way they do. And no, in the sense what we know is limited, and always will be, so we just have to roll with what we think is the best choice, even if our "choices" isn't strictly and truly ours to begin with, (Sidenote: what N. wanted us to do is that we should slowly and steady, test life ourselves, what our own values are etc.)

>if we had knowledge about everything, we would know every factor that influenced us to do x choice and why each individual behave the way they do
Gunna need a quote for that one nigga

Somewhere in Human all too Human

post thread

he wrote that there is no such thing as free will. only weak, and strong wills.

no, he also didn't believe in a self at all. Just Will and the focal points of Will to Life, Will to Power, which is the exertion of some organic vital force over nature. Its kind of organicist, but at the same time doesn't admit of any kind of ghost in the machine for humans to reify into a cult of Human. I'd assume he was strongly opposed to pantheism as well, so I wouuldn't know what to call it since we would all just be apertures of this one Will to Life, some exhausted or muted, others raging torrents of Willful exertion. Difficult to say what his metaphysics would have been, but it does seem as if it would have involved at least weak determinism. I have never seen Eternal Return explained properly, if indeed it implies events repeating exactly as before, then there is no room for agency. If however simply wills and circumstance are repeated in their general form, then there is room for diversity of iteration, but its still unlikely he intended free will as he was opposed to the idea of a Self, while simultaneously being vehemently against Objectivism and Empiricism which are the epistemological, ontological vantage points that negate the Self almost unfailingly in western philosophy. Probably the most bizarre metaphysics of any philosopher to ever live, at least of those taken somewhat seriously by the public

99% of Nietzsche scholars are fucking idiots.
You are painfully stupid. Please go back to plebbit.
>Probably the most bizarre metaphysics of any philosopher to ever live
Not at all
>at least of those taken somewhat seriously by the public
Nietzsche is not taken seriously. There are publications of his work which are prefaced by an onslaught of ad hominem attacks against him, by credible scholars and by credible publishers, in very recent years.

(You)

>I have never seen Eternal Return explained properly

Attached: 1A555503-FD8C-4BCE-BF56-4322454F46A1.jpg (1200x1600, 175K)

Friedrich Nietzsche, on Baruch Spinoza, to Franz Overbeck
>Spacing for the sake of emphasis

“I am utterly amazed, utterly enchanted! I have a precursor, and what a precursor! I hardly knew Spinoza: that I should have turned to him just now, was inspired by “instinct.” Not only is his overtendency like mine—namely to make all knowledge the most powerful affect-
but in five main points of his doctrine I recognise myself; this most unusual and loneliest thinker is closest to me precisely in these matters: he denies the freedom of the will, teleology, the moral world-order, the unegoistic, and evil.

Even though the divergencies are admittedly tremendous, they are due more to the difference in time, culture, and science. In summa: my lonesomeness, which, as on very high mountains, often made it hard for me to breathe and make my blood rush out, is now at least a twosomeness.

Of course Nietzsche was a determinist. I don’t know what genius cannot be and it baffles me that Aristotle and Schopenhauer believe in free will. How can you? You’re born and you’re a baby and your six months old. Your parents forget to feed you for hours until you cry. Obviously it’s not your choice here to cry. You’re one year old and you’re getting some cognitive development down and you break a neighbor kid’s LEGO blocks down. Even if you made a conscious decision to do so (lol) then everything leading up to that moment influenced that decision. Your parenting, your environment, your milk that morning, and your reaction to those LEGO blocks. But even if you sat and thought about doing something, every thought you have is preceded by another and another and another going back to your birth. Say you had leisure and money and you could do whatever you wanted—as Schopenhauer advocates for the nobility not to waste—even THEN would you not have free will in deciding what to do for the same reason. Now, to resume to the children... at what point do you think things stop becoming someone’s fault? When is it no longer the parent’s fault or an accident of nature or fortune that a kid is bad? I don’t want to trick you but it never becomes someone’s fault, and here we can praise Plato and the stoics for echoing his “no man is voluntarily evil.”

thoughts preceding each other needn't imply that they are causing behavior, just as we needn't assume that there is no agent thinking about thoughts and willing them into existence or contemplating them and then acting. The more dangerous argument is that the brain seems to precede thought in its activity, though we cannot be certain that the actual experience of thought and the purported neural correlate are happening at disparate times just because the explanation of the cognitive experience by the subject comes after the supposed nervous reaction. Though again this is still problematic because thought can cause brain states of itself, as in the experience of having a thought which is supposedly just an effect can itself lead to effects, which could be a kind of accidental causal agent, or a self that knows not what its really doing but is sometimes breaking through the surface of the causal wave field or whatever you want to call this correlated but definitely deterministic series of phenomena that makes up thinking

>Schopenhauer believe in free will.

You're an idiot.

He was a sort of compatibilist.

>The causa sui [cause of itself] is the best self-contradiction that has been conceived so far, it is a sort of rape and perversion of logic; but the extravagant pride of man has managed to entangle itself profoundly and frightfully with just this nonsense. The desire for "freedom of the will" in the superlative metaphysical sense, which still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated; the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui and, with more than Munchhausen's audacity, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the swamps of nothingness. Suppose someone were thus to see through the boorish simplicity of this celebrated concept of "free will" and put it out of his head altogether, l beg of him to carry his "enlightenment" a step further, and so put out of his head the contrary of this monstrous conception of "free will": I mean "unfree will," which amounts to a misuse of cause and effect. One should not wrongly reify "cause" and "effect" as the natural scientists do (and whoever, like them, now "naturalizes" in his thinking—), according to the prevailing mechanical doltishness which makes the cause press and push until it "effects" its end; one should use "cause" and "effect" only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication—not for explanation. In the "in itself" there is nothing of "causal connections," of "necessity," or of "psychological non-freedom"; there the effect does not follow the cause, there is no rule of "law." It is we alone who have devised cause, sequence, for-each-other, relativity, constraint, number, law, freedom, motive, and purpose; and when we project and mix this symbol world into things as if it existed "in itself," we act once more as we have always acted, namely mythologically.

Schopenhauer is a determinist - maybe the most famous one. Nietzsche was not. He only believed in strong and weak wills

Continued.

>The "unfree will" is mythology: in real life it is only a matter of strong and weak wills.— It is almost always a symptom of what is lacking in himself when a thinker senses in every "causal connection" and "psychological necessity" something of constraint, need, compulsion to obey, pressure, and unfreedom; it is suspicious to have such feelings—that person betrays himself. And in general, if I have observed correctly, the "unfreedom of the will" is regarded as a problem from two entirely opposite standpoints, but always in a profoundly personal manner: some will not give up their "responsibility," their belief in themselves, the personal right to their merits at any price (the vain races belong to this class—); others, on the contrary, do not wish to be answerable for anything, or blamed for anything, and owing to an inward self-contempt, seek to shift the blame for themselves somewhere else. The latter, when they write books, are in the habit today of taking the side of criminals; a sort of socialist pity is their most attractive disguise. And as a matter of fact, the fatalism of the weak-willed embellishes itself surprisingly when it can pose as "la religion de la souffrance humaine": that is its "good taste." ["The religion of human suffering." From the last line of Paul Bourget's novel, Un crime d'amour. Paris: Lemerre, 1886, 298-299: "Et il éprouva qu'une chose venait de naître en lui, avec laquelle il pourrait toujours trouver des raisons de vivre et d'agir: la religion de la souffrance humaine." (And he felt that a thing had just been born in him, with which he could always find reasons for living and acting: the religion of human suffering.)

So basically free will exists only in an hermeneutical sense

Didn't he say that we should drop both the concepts of free and unfree will?

Didn't he say the idea of free will was only invented as a way to make people guilty within the context of a moral system? The whole point is to go beyond good and evil.

take your pills

free will is moralistic you are basing your decision on what's good or bad

"The Water Fall.—At the sight of a water fall we may opine that in the countless curves, spirations and dashes of the waves we behold freedom of the will and of the impulses. But everything is compulsory, everything can be mathematically calculated. Thus it is, too, with human acts. We would be able to calculate in advance every single action if we were all knowing, as well as every advance in knowledge, every delusion, every bad deed. The acting individual himself is held fast in the illusion of volition. If, on a sudden, the entire movement of the world stopped short, and an all knowing and reasoning intelligence were there to take advantage[132] of this pause, he could foretell the future of every being to the remotest ages and indicate the path that would be taken in the world's further course. The deception of the acting individual as regards himself, the assumption of the freedom of the will, is a part of this computable mechanism."

Human all too human, section 106

He was insofar as it granted him more power.

Determinism is completely unrelated to free will

The question is 'what difference does it make?'

>Was he a determinist?

Literally a meaningless question. The word determinist doesn't exist outside of scope of speculative philosophical nonsense.

>eternal recurrence
>amori fati
Fucking obviously.

Attached: 1521519922746.jpg (850x889, 105K)

Wow, this thread is actually useful for how effectively and quickly it reveals pseuds pretending to have actually read Nietzsche. Sort of remarkable, usually you can't tell who's obfuscating who in Nietzsche discourse, but a simple yes or no here has made it all too clear most on this board are posturing philistines.

Attached: 1392339323501.jpg (800x648, 155K)

so was he a determinist

Seriously
My take: He said most people aren't free, because it's a lot of work to deconstruct all the ways we have been brainwashed and actually figure out what we want; although, with that being said, we are subjective beings and we do have individual temperaments which will predispose us to certain fates. You can be free to decide what you want, but there's a certain amount of inertia that accompanies any decision/path. Free will is the Ubermensches alone, and since Nietzsche didnt even think he was the Ubermensch: we are not free.