Get Email Updates • Email this Topic • Print this Page
Honestly, that link is pure crap. First off, Nietzsche would not condone rape. Not to mention, Nietzsche did not care about race. Of course, some translations would lead an English speaker to think otherwise, such as the one used for the Genealogy of Morals. After a semester of studying Nietzsche and the Kaufmann translations, I can say that while Nietzsche had his contradictions and flaws, he does key in on many problems with the human condition in modern society.
I disagree that Nietzsche's philosophy would permit any and all action, because of his concept of the noble morality. Would a noble go around raping women? Rape would be an example of resentment in action--and thus, it would fall under slave values. The rapist is a slave to his impulses and desires so I highly doubt that Nietzsche would be indifferent to rape.
The only time that I can see Nietzsche exalting conquerors is when they overcome or stifle slave morality or herd mentality. Not to mention, his break with Wagner suggests that he detested people who despised others based on their race.
Suppose that sometime a king and a beggar and a man like yourself should come to you. In their presence would you dare frankly to confess that that which you desire in the world, in which you sought your consolation, certain that the king in his majesty would not despise you even though you were a man of inferior rank; certain that the beggar would not go away envious that he could not have the same consolation; certain that the man like yourself would be pleased by your frankness?
Alas, there is something in the world called clannishness. It is a dangerous thing because all clannishness is divisive. It is divisive when clannishness shuts out the common citizen, and when it shuts out the nobleborn, and when it shuts out the civil servant. It is divisive when it shuts out the king, and when it shuts out the beggar, and when it shuts out the wise man, and when it shuts out the simple soul. For all clannishness is the enemy of universal humanity.
Do you now live so that you are conscious of yourself as an individual; that in each of your relations in which you come into touch with the outside world, you are conscious of yourself, and that at the same time you are related to yourself as an individual? It is no laughing matter, but it is laughable, or it is pitiable, that the frivolous ones laugh at a man because he is wiser or better than they. For even laughter calls for a reasonable ground, and when this is absent, the laughter becomes the very thing that is laughable.
How are you interpreting nobility? The definition of the word noble is as follows:
1 a : possessing outstanding qualities : illustrious b : famous, notable <noble deeds>
2 : of high birth or exalted rank : aristocratic
3 a : possessing very high or excellent qualities or properties <noble wine> b : very good or excellent
4 : grand or impressive especially in appearance <noble edifice>
5 : possessing, characterized by, or arising from superiority of mind or character or of ideals or morals : lofty <a noble ambition>
Below is a quote from Nietzsche that expresses some of his thoughts on nobility.
"And we are the first to admit that anyone who knew these "good" ones [nobility] only as enemies would find them evil enemies indeed. For these same men who, amongst themselves, are so strictly constrained by custom, worship, ritual, gratitude, and by mutual surveillance and jealousy, who are so resourceful in consideration, tenderness, loyality, pride and friendship, when once they step outside their circle become little better than uncaged beasts of prey. Once abroad in the wilderness, they revel in the freedom from social constraint and compensate for their long confinement in the quietude of their own community. They revert to the innocence of wild animals: we can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape, and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank -- convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise. Deep within all the noble races there lurks the [blond] beast of prey, bent on spoil and conquest. This hidden urge has to be satisfied from time to time, the beast let loose in the wilderness. This goes as well for the Roman, Arabian, German, Japanese nobility as for the Homeric heroes and the Scandinavian vikings. The noble races have everywhere left in their wake the catchword "barbarian." .....their utter indifference to safety and comfort, their terrible pleasure in destruction, their taste for cruelty -- all these traits are embodied by their victims in the image of the "barbarian," and "evil enemy," the Goth or the Vandal. The profound and icy suspicion which the German arouses as soon as he assumes power (we see it happening again today [i.e. 1887]) harks back to the persistent horror with which Europe for many centuries witnessed the raging of the blond Teutonic [germanischen] beast (although all racial connection between the old Teutonic tribes [Germanen] and ourselves has been lost). [pp.174-175, boldface added, note the terms, "blond" and "German," deleted or altered in the Golffing translation]"
Well, based on my reading of The Genealogy of Morals, I am interpreting noble as being a mix of 3a and 5. But that does not really matter because the criminal is a slave their passions, drives, and instincts and as a result, cannot be noble. Slave morality is reactive, and the criminal is reacting to what is overpowering their states of mind.
I don't think these are so much his thoughts on nobility, but on how most people of noble morality succumb to slave morality because their inner beast and their taste of cruelty ends up overcoming their being.
This is starting to remind me of christian apologetics. Nietzsche stated that the races of cruel, rapacious, murderous conquerors were noble. He also referred to their norms as master/noble morality. How much more lucid can you get than that? Your reinterpretation of master/slave morality is yours, not Nietzsche's, and that's fine. Take his work and make it as it should be, but don't try and make it seem as if your reinterpretation of his concepts is his interpretation.
I am sure you could be right, but then we would never know because we couldn't go question Nietzsche himself. I have studied nearly all of Nietzsche's work, but I have yet to come across the passages you have quoted (I assume that they are drawn from the Genealogy, which I am working on at the moment).
All philosophers are there to be reinterpreted by those who follow. Otherwise, philosophy is only history, which is what most philosophy merely is today. Philosophy should be a living force in which philosophers attempt to interpret other philosophers, and use that to apply to situations and concepts of today. But anyway, that is a different topic for a different time.