Is Nietzsche the most misunderstood philosopher in history?

Is Nietzsche the most misunderstood philosopher in history?

slate.com/articles/video/video/2016/10/nietzsche_philosophy_myths_and_distortions_in_pop_culture_video.html

Maybe. But pop culture poisons and distorts anything it touches, Nietzsche is no exception.

Are you posting this article to display the correct understanding of Nietzsche?
Because its filled with just as much errors as the pop culture conception of him

Post your conception of him and point out the errors in the video

There's two big issues I find in it, one is what I think is a rather dogmatic insistence that Nietzsche had no association with Anti-Semitism or proto-fascist thought which I find nonsensical. Though I don't claim he was a proto-Fascist they are absolutely compatible and his opinion of Judaism is questionable to say the least. To clarify I'm a Leftist and have no personal interest in seeing him as a Right Wing figure, which he wasn't, but he was hardly incompatible.

Secondly the biggest problem is assuming Nietzsche was not a pessimist because his destruction of objective value systems gives way to the "freedom of choice" and "subjective meaning". While true I don't think Nietzsche or anyone with an understanding of its implications would see this as a pleasant road to go down which the author seems to twist into some consumerist "just be urself" happy permissivism.

>www.slate.
opinion discarded.

The only anti-semitic views expresed by Nietzsche were used out of context. There is a whole section in Beyond Good and Evil in which he espouses the superiority of the Jewish culture. Nietzsche was more anti-German than anti-Jew.

>A leftist who isn't an anti-semite

You see something new every day.

The "just be urself" (creating your own ethical standings) is what an Ubermensch would be, no?

No, the Ubermensch is actually the exact opposite, what you're talking about (and a figure this apparent expert in Nietzsche neglected to mention) is the figure of the Last Man.

The Ubermensch lives by a self cultivated morality in spite of any of his natural inclinations, comforts and surrounding culture that would contradict it.

How is that not the same thing?

I think its pretty obvious. An Ubermensch doesn't do something because it feels right, or it feels good, or because all his friends will like him more for it. He does something despite the fact it may make him feel bad, or feel evil or have everyone hate him.

Overall I feel like any attempt to explain Nietzsche secondhand just ends up cutting too many corners and rubs off every edge that didn't settle well with the reader. I notice this problem with basically everyone who tries to play interlocutor for him.

He basically agrees the the Nazis ironically, the biggest difference is in outlook. Nietzsche and the Nazis see many of the same traits in Jews, Nietzsche looks at how fucking cunning and crafty they are and says they are strong. Nazis look at these traits and call them evil. Most modern leftists who claim to be anti-anti-semites deny that the Jews have these traits at all. Nietzsche never denies that the Jews are exceptionally good at doing things that lesser men understand as evil. He had the same stance on Romans, they were evil by Christian standards which actually meant they were strong and that Christianity, the ULTIMATE refinement of Jewish ressentiment gifted to us by Paul, the ULTIMATE priest of the Jewish priestly caste (who Jesus revolted against!), stood opposed to them as a matter of course.

To Nietzsche, the Jews are a dangerous race which makes them a strong race. He once said that the ultimate European would be a Prussian officer mated with a Jewish banker.

As far as pessimism goes, Nietzsche wasn't a nihilist but he also had misgivings as to whether the human race, and Europeans in particular, would actually thrive in the wake of God's death or fall off the cliff into nihilism. He recognized that small men needed small myths to keep them moving onward and that if a better replacement for the now dead God wasn't found, that we'd all die of ennui eventually.

Looking at the modern world today, you can clearly see he had reasons to be pessimistic. The cult of 'humanity' they're pushing is no replacement for God and will actually result in the replacement of Europeans in their own homelands for the more virile and warlike races of the middle east and Africa.

>He once said that the ultimate European would be a Prussian officer mated with a Jewish banker.
Interesting. Citation plox?

Pretty sure it was in Twilight of the Idols, maybe BGE. Don't have my library with me atm.

Overrated, more like. He had no formulated arguments, just opinions. Also a knack for stating obvious philosophical problems everyone knew about already yet passing it off as somehow new and controversial.

One thing interests me and I wonder if you can answer, did Nietzsche have an explanation as to why Christianity overtook Europe and why the Roman Pagans fell?

He was a poet more than anything

Put things eloquently

>Also a knack for stating obvious philosophical problems everyone knew about already yet passing it off as somehow new and controversial.

Why is this always the go to for people who lack the ability to articulate why they dislike a thinker

He has a lot of little things about this. A few reasons I recall offhand:

1. Socrates and Plato prepared the soil of western civilization for Christianity. They were a degenerate phenomenon which gave the 'blond beast' proto-western men a taste of oriental mysticism for the first time. Fundamentally it's all their fault.

2. Women. It's well known in history that women made up a huge portion of early Christians, and ironically it was prostitutes and noblewomen who typically ended up converting men, first in secret but later in public. Nietzsche argues, in Human, all too Human, I think, that Roman women were deprived of pleasures of life and as such the slave-moralizer, the Jewish priest, the slanderer of life had a natural ally in them. Roman society placed a very high importance on controlling feminine sexuality which meant the only ecstasy that women could access without shame was that of religion, and Roman paganism couldn't compare to the fire and brimstone fantasies offered by Christianity.

Huh, that second point is quite interesting and new to me, thanks

but then why does he do it?

You'll have to ask him.

What part of DESCRIPTIVE philosopher did you miss in your intro to phi class?

He's not there to fix your problems, he's just pointing shit out

TRANS MORAL
DESCRIPTIVE
POST-DARWINIAN

Kind of unrelated but what is a good chart for the neech where to begin and progress etc.

Same poster but what's with all the gay new advertising on 4chins.

Hiroshima is fucking up

I am newfag so Is that a reference to the slopehead moot sold his child to.

Yes, don't be too harsh on him he no speaky Enrish too good

Having a term for "shitposters that contribute nothing" doesn't validate their existence.

How come Nietzsche couldn't get any girls if he was this handsome?

>He had no formulated arguments

And here's the problem with 99% of philosophy - this moronic 'Will to System', to which Nietzsche referred on several occasions.

If you need your philosophy to be systematic and formalised, you are essentially confessing your own stupidity, inability to read between the lines and a general incapacity when it comes to reading nuance.

>He once said that the ultimate European would be a Prussian officer mated with a Jewish banker.
Anglos?

What possible connection do you see between Fascism and Nietzsche?

He could. Nietzsche being some sort of neet virgin loser is a myth, he had quite a few female suitors, he just didn't care because he was only attracted to women who were complex like Cosima and Lou.

That and Italian prostitutes. Possibly male as well as female.

He regularly mocked anglo politics and philosophy as being the stuff of shopkeepers. Jews aren't shopkeepers, they're bankers and poisoners, much stronger professions.

All I know is, I'm not believing anything written by a man whose moustache looks like it's trying to forcibly remove itself from his face.

Look mate you can't just claim there is an external """"Will"""" every fucking somebody points out a problem with you. Be responsible for yourself for once.

>systemic philosophy is a spook
Its a basic requirement for ideas to stand on their own. You can plug a variable into a system and get your answer right there. Since Nietzsche's ideas are half opinions and half borrowed from other thinkers you need to instead guess what he thinks of x instead of applying his methods (of which there are none).

Not him, but Nietzsche's perspectivism fully enables all people to behave however they see fit. Of course, they are throughly misunderstanding him when they think that this was what it intended for, but it nonetheless has that effect.

This combined with his talk about will to power and how it is more fundamental than a will to survive, master-slave morality, all his use of dawn / the rising morning sun symbolism, the Overman, his apparent love for the military and war, his love for the labyrinth and both night- and light-abysses, his prophecy of future philosophers being even harsher and crueler, his antichrist Zarathustra who teaches comradery, a higher friendship, the separation of man and woman as warrior and warrior-recreation, striving against him as becoming closer to him, his stance against turning another cheek (it is more noble to slap back), his admiration for the chaste system and his personal notion of such a system...

Hell, it's not unreasonable to see why fascist leaders all read him and took things from him.

We both know that he meant more when he expressed these things than what some tyrant politician does with them. And yet, on the superficial level, Nietzsche appears almost 100% a fascist, in his relentlessly criticizing attitude, relentlessly self-improving desire, relentless goal forming, self-labyrinth building and hierarchy forming, etc.

But what's on the superficial level isn't exactly separate from the thing. Nietzsche is so far reaching that he really does end up loving all that is necessary things, the Apollonian and the tyrannical exploitation of the strong over the weak being a part of that.