He informed me that he had no notion of natural relationships, and that he was prone to jump to conclusions unsubstanciated by fact.

I'm curious. What exactly do you mean by "natural relationships"? Also, what conclusions did he jump to?

And that is information (if it is information) about Nietzsche, not about philosophy, anyway.

2nd, last... In one instance he talks about the pleasure people take in the exactation of pain in payment of a debt, as though that were the object, as in Shylocks pound of flesh; and he seemed to think that was in some senses a practice of long standing, and it was not...In fact, it was always the other way around until quite recent times where the doing of an injury incured for the guilty a debt... We would call it blood money, paid even today in places like Iraq, and by us in cases of wrongful death; but in some places in Europe even a finger was worth something in a court of law...Only in recent times to Nietzsche was debt allowed to punish with injury the debtor...

Natural relationship are those that grow our of our navel so to speak, like nations, because in the proper sense of the word, Nations of people have a common mother, and natal=navel= natural...

There were other things too that caught my attention, but it has been a long time past reading him...I would have to dig up one huge error I am thinking of to show it to you...

Well psychoanalysis can be a murky thing. I'm sure we can find theories of Freud that we disagree with now. I don't see how he jumped to conclusions with that example, though. He was simply saying that people take pleasure in witnessing the suffering of those who cause them to suffer. I believe that he was mainly speaking of ancient law systems because he used certain words in the past tense in that passage. Civil law systems were not originally meant to protect the autonomy of the individual. Instead they were meant to protect the power and property of the elite.

As for "natural relationships", I think you're completely wrong. Nietzsche's critical analysis of human behavior and social cooperation was acute. The view of one's nation as a mother or navel is an expression of the herd mentality that Nietzsche spoke about.

This comment on natural relationships, and other comments you have made in the past, leads me to believe that you believe that the highest moral value is cooperation or community. However, I respectfully believe that you fail to see how collectivist social philosophies also have the tendency to lead to some of the greatest atrocities committed by man against his fellow man. Cooperation and community can be used for our conventional conception of the morally good or our conventional conception of the morally bad.

No; I dd not think you get his point as I did, that this cruelty was basic to our nature, that we take positive pleasure in it; but the example he used and treated as of long standing was recent in European and world history, and that what was normal was for people, and not as a herd, to determine what was justice as the essential of peace, and to bring it about...

What really shows his lack of understanding of natural relationships is the way Overman was so cut off from human sympathy...There was no Misses Overman, and no Baby Overman... He was just there as though self conceived, and it is non sense...His portrayal of humanity is false and disgusting...Do you really see such people as he painted them because they were no more deep than paint on a canvas, and as unreal...

People are moral out of their natural relationships, naturally moral; and while he was one of the first to recognize how irrational people are, nothing is more irrational than morality... Since the time of Socrates, as another who stood fast against the herd, people have been trying to find reason for moral behavior, and not one has succeeded...Moral reality is not just irrational, but at times antirational... And I would suggest that Neitzsche with his unusual circumstances, raise by mother and sisters did not have the physical basis of a moral life... Baudelaire was another knidred spirit preaching the same sort of immorality as rationality... Not until Freud did the whole idea actually get rational treatment, but by then much of the damage had been done...There was no getting Nietzsche back in a box...The whole weirdness and madness of WW2 had to be played out to see what Nietzsche led too...

Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?

He is a hero to all those dramatic, emotional people.

But he does not say that, does he?

No, he doesn't say that. TuringEquivalent's just being a jester so don't take him too seriously.

No, he doesn't say that. TuringEquivalent's just being a jester so don't take him too seriously.

...but what i said is true. All those emotional people love him. He is surely a moron.

That does not sound like a very good argument to me. Emotional people loved Mother Theresa, and Abraham Lincoln. But it did not follow from that they were morons (which you use simply as a term of abuse with no descriptive meaning at all).

Well, it sort of sounds as if N. might have said something like that. I would not have been surprised if he had. Didn't he think he was Superman?

...but what i said is true. All those emotional people love him. He is surely a moron.

hue-man;156419 wrote:

Whether or not cruelty is an essential characteristic of our nature is up for debate. It's certainly true that history, ancient and modern, provides plenty of examples of unimaginable human cruelty. Human nature is a murky thing to speak about. It's very pliable. I think that some level of cruelty is as essential to human nature as a certain level of mercy. Whether it be Nietzsche or you, I often feel that people paint with too broad a brush in their portrayals of humanity.

Certainly there are examples of cruelty, but on the other hand are many examples of accomdation, of justice, of intermarriage with enemies, and understanding...What I am refering to, is not human nature, but that does play a part in it...If one is normal and nurtured then it is natural to bond with ones group, to love those near and dear, and to base ones morality upon ones natural relationships, to parents, family, community, and etc... It is tough to tell about the Germans, because they have suffered much, but tend in my opinion to be great at thought and failures at feeling, which is to say morally and socially unbalanced...No one can understand what is common to humanity without grasping the elements that go into a moral person, as this is common to most people everywhere... If you look at a Bill Clinton, or half the children on America's streets, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and many others, you find one raised by his mother having little respect for women, or general humanity... A complete family is what is needed for a moral person's development, but early on the love of a Mother is needed for primary human bonding...It is difficult to say what Nietzsche had, early on; but clearly his valuation of the family and an appreciation for moral bonds was lacking...

Quote:

You're confusing understanding with valuing. On all accounts Nietzsche was a well mannered socialized individual. He seems to have understand human relationship quite well. What he did not value was the tribal herd mentality that suppressed the greatness of the individual. That's what his overman was all about. The overman is about affirming and overcoming suffering and overcoming the character flaws of the human species. Your response to this idea of strong individualism is very pre-conceived and even panicky. If you prefer collectivist optimism then so be it, but strong individualism, as Nietzsche conceived of it, has nothing to do with disregarding the value of other individuals. In fact, it is a cooperative social philosophy in my conception. It allows for individuals to believe what they want and to achieve the highest level of greatness within their power. One can conceive of an individualism that disregards the autonomy and moral value of other individuals, but that's not what Nietzsche was recommending.

He may have been able to behave himself, but then, he bought prositutes, and that is as close as he came to a normal sexual relationship...He flirted with the wives and lovers of other men, but no woman took him seriously...His morality was deliberate immorality, attacking St. Paul, democracy, equality, and supporting criminality in much the same fashion as Bismark of his day, using and abusing others without scruples..It does not matter what a person does if all the think is malignant, and he was the most malignant of all his malignant society... His words feel on deaf ears for the most part, took seed when soldiers took him to war in their haversacks, and bore fruit in the minds of thousands of war ophans to it full expression in Nazi tyranny... What you say of the individual is false...I am a true individual, and yet I recognize that there is no such thing as a moral individualist... Individualism is incompatible with a moral life...Community is morality...

Quote:

For starters, who are you to say that Nietzsche didn't have a moral life? How self-righteous is that? On all accounts the man was polite and well mannered. He was also very outspoken. He despised the popularity of antisemitism in Germany that was a result of the herd mentality that is common to our species. The man, like any other man, was not without his flaws, but to portray him as something he wasn't is fairly low. World War 2 wasn't the result of Nietzsche's ideas. While Hitler (a skilled rounder of the herd) did manipulate Nietzsche's words for his own purposes, Nietzsche often expressed views that were very contrary to Nazism and the horrors of WW2. Nietzsche would have been disgusted by the political philosophy of Nazism. If it is true that Nietzsche often jumped to conclusions (and I don't believe it is) then it is equally true that you have this in common with him.

No it's not true that all "emotional" people love him and only an ignoramus would believe such a thing. I have spoken to many "emotional" people who favor the Christian or Buddhist worldview over Nietzsche's worldview.

Christian, and Buddhist are alway quite ridiculous views, but Nietzsche is a moron. A lot of Morons uses Nietzsche to give other people that impression that they are not morons. This is why i hate the fucker( Nietzsche) so ******* much.

Nietzsche is so fascinating for philosophres because he wrote philosophical poetry and stated he wrote philosophy.
He just crossed a border. And all those who insist on borders (e.g. between philosophy and poetry ) got really agitated.