The biggest failure of Nietzsche and why he was common and elevated

[Oberon]

I contend that Nietzsche (I refer to him as Nacho) is a fool. Right from the beginning he begins his philosophies (there is no coherent philosophy with Nietzsche) without realizing that he creating the very thing he is criticizing, another true world view, another "alcohol" another "Christianity". What I am saying the following:

Nietzsche says that there are thousands of ideologies that are essentially the same thing, a view that there is a true world and then what is on the surface. But really, any form of utterance is a true world view. If I say there is a spoon on the table, the very act of communicating this is stating things that are implicitly going to resolve into a perception/reality continuum. Even if you do not buy my logic, Nietzsche is essentially selling his "view" as the real world view and what people did not know before they read him as the perceived world. Nietzsche's entire life work is a tautology. I could sit around with some bums and drink a beer and come to the same conclusions Nietzsche did in his many thousands of words in a few half hours. It is rediculous that htis fool is propt up as a great thinker. Instead I think it is Northern European hubris that has elevated this moron.

Why is my reaction so strong? I am doing what Nietzsche said, reaching my fool expression, my will to power. Yet the dumb ass defined his will to power using an ambiguous and vague term that can never be measures or defined. He built his castle on a house of cards and that is what you can expect from a sad man like Nietzsche.

I am not really having a strong reaction to Nietzsche here. Nietzsche is one of many philosophers who are idolized by people who claim to be very logical and unemotional. Yet Nietzche was an emotional, whiney prick by all biological accounts, weak willed, and unable to live a proper life - full of love.

I think these philosophers share another thing in common, particularly the kind that claim that gods are dead, and then create their own new gods, unconsciously. They are void of spiritual realities. They believe that belief is something that happens with thought. Belief is not about thought. There is a thing that humans do called believing that is separate from anything else like thinking or feeling. Believing changes your physical state, it allows for healing of the cells, it allows for things that go beyond our current understanding of science.

I can't be too mad at Nietzsche, he was born in a shitty place, and in a shitty time, but lived a life of luxury compared to the rest of the world. I think the biggest criticism here are those weird people who put this guy in the center. I know Jung did, but then eventually, everything that Nietzsche said was kind of destroyed by Jung. He essentially went, "ha dumb ass...lol your just an archetype....moron, there is a universal unconscious.." and then Nietzsche in his grave was shat on.

Well that's the way it seems to be....can you change my mind here? WTH is so special about this idiot?

 

[Mole]

I contend that Nietzsche (I refer to him as Nacho) is a fool. Right from the beginning he begins his philosophies (there is no coherent philosophy with Nietzsche) without realizing that he creating the very thing he is criticizing, another true world view, another "alcohol" another "Christianity". What I am saying the following:

Nietzsche says that there are thousands of ideologies that are essentially the same thing, a view that there is a true world and then what is on the surface. But really, any form of utterance is a true world view. If I say there is a spoon on the table, the very act of communicating this is stating things that are implicitly going to resolve into a perception/reality continuum. Even if you do not buy my logic, Nietzsche is essentially selling his "view" as the real world view and what people did not know before they read him as the perceived world. Nietzsche's entire life work is a tautology. I could sit around with some bums and drink a beer and come to the same conclusions Nietzsche did in his many thousands of words in a few half hours. It is rediculous that htis fool is propt up as a great thinker. Instead I think it is Northern European hubris that has elevated this moron.

Why is my reaction so strong? I am doing what Nietzsche said, reaching my fool expression, my will to power. Yet the dumb ass defined his will to power using an ambiguous and vague term that can never be measures or defined. He built his castle on a house of cards and that is what you can expect from a sad man like Nietzsche.

I am not really having a strong reaction to Nietzsche here. Nietzsche is one of many philosophers who are idolized by people who claim to be very logical and unemotional. Yet Nietzche was an emotional, whiney prick by all biological accounts, weak willed, and unable to live a proper life - full of love.

I think these philosophers share another thing in common, particularly the kind that claim that gods are dead, and then create their own new gods, unconsciously. They are void of spiritual realities. They believe that belief is something that happens with thought. Belief is not about thought. There is a thing that humans do called believing that is separate from anything else like thinking or feeling. Believing changes your physical state, it allows for healing of the cells, it allows for things that go beyond our current understanding of science.

I can't be too mad at Nietzsche, he was born in a shitty place, and in a shitty time, but lived a life of luxury compared to the rest of the world. I think the biggest criticism here are those weird people who put this guy in the center. I know Jung did, but then eventually, everything that Nietzsche said was kind of destroyed by Jung. He essentially went, "ha dumb ass...lol your just an archetype....moron, there is a universal unconscious.." and then Nietzsche in his grave was shat on.

Well that's the way it seems to be....can you change my mind here? WTH is so special about this idiot?

The value of Nietzsche to me is not intellectual but emotional. When I read Nietzsche my spirits are lifted, and the world becomes an amazing place. I might say Nietzsche puts my mind to sleep and awakes my sense of wonder. Perhaps Nietzsche is more to be felt than understood. He drives us out of our minds into something larger. It is impossible to be a Nietzschean so we are left with the shards of ourself, to put ourselves back together the best we can.

My only advice is take the Nietzschean trip. We don't know where it will take us, and perhaps that is point, discovered by 'Anonymous 700 years ago in his book "The Cloud of Unknowing".

 

[Lark]

The value of Nietzsche to me is not intellectual but emotional. When I read Nietzsche my spirits are lifted, and the world becomes an amazing place. I might say Nietzsche puts my mind to sleep and awakes my sense of wonder. Perhaps Nietzsche is more to be felt than understood. He drives us out of our minds into something larger. It is impossible to be a Nietzschean so we are left with the shards of ourself, to put ourselves back together the best we can.

My only advice is take the Nietzschean trip. We don't know where it will take us, and perhaps that is point, discovered by 'Anonymous 700 years ago in his book "The Cloud of Unknowing".

Which of Nietzschea's books have you read Mole? Which ones do you find particularly uplifting?

I've read more quotes from him than I've read complete books but then I suspect that this is how most people are acquainted with him and his thinking.

 

[Oberon]

The value of Nietzsche to me is not intellectual but emotional. When I read Nietzsche my spirits are lifted, and the world becomes an amazing place. I might say Nietzsche puts my mind to sleep and awakes my sense of wonder. Perhaps Nietzsche is more to be felt than understood. He drives us out of our minds into something larger. It is impossible to be a Nietzschean so we are left with the shards of ourself, to put ourselves back together the best we can.

My only advice is take the Nietzschean trip. We don't know where it will take us, and perhaps that is point, discovered by 'Anonymous 700 years ago in his book "The Cloud of Unknowing".

Mole, this is very fine, like a wine laced with a micro dose of LSD.

 

[Wunjo]

If you really want to understand the relationship between Jung and Nietzsche, do a cross reading of Zarathustra and Liber Novus. Insisting on the view that Nietzsche is creating another worldview is kinda contradicts with everything he suggested in Zarathustra. Your text is intellectually stimulating but lacks a concrete background regarding Nietzsche and his work, it's more of an ad hominem, rather than a criticism regarding the philosophy he tried to transmit.

 

[Lark]

Mole, this is very fine, like a wine laced with a micro dose of LSD.

My God, how terrible! :O

 

[Lark]

If you really want to understand the relationship between Jung and Nietzsche, do a cross reading of Zarathustra and Liber Novus. Insisting on the view that Nietzsche is creating another worldview is kinda contradicts with everything he suggested in Zarathustra. Your text is intellectually stimulating but lacks a concrete background regarding Nietzsche and his work, it's more of an ad hominem, rather than a criticism regarding the philosophy he tried to transmit.

I dont really see Nietzsche as resembling Jung in anyway, not any of Jung's books that I've read, I dont know Liber Novus. Zarathustra is mainly a work of aphorism, what I remember of it and interesting for it but Jung wrote in a totally different way, mind you Zarathustra is different to Nietzsche's other books.

What most people know of Nietzsche, in my experience, is simply that he was a critic of morality, considering them the product of the experience of slaves and only likely to guarantee more of that, instead be was big into classical beliefs about fortuna, tragic heroics that type of thing.

 

[Wunjo]

I dont really see Nietzsche as resembling Jung in anyway, not any of Jung's books that I've read, I dont know Liber Novus. Zarathustra is mainly a work of aphorism, what I remember of it and interesting for it but Jung wrote in a totally different way, mind you Zarathustra is different to Nietzsche's other books.

What most people know of Nietzsche, in my experience, is simply that he was a critic of morality, considering them the product of the experience of slaves and only likely to guarantee more of that, instead be was big into classical beliefs about fortuna, tragic heroics that type of thing.

Just as Liber Novus is different from Jung's other books, hence my point.

 

[Oberon]

If you really want to understand the relationship between Jung and Nietzsche, do a cross reading of Zarathustra and Liber Novus. Insisting on the view that Nietzsche is creating another worldview is kinda contradicts with everything he suggested in Zarathustra. Your text is intellectually stimulating but lacks a concrete background regarding Nietzsche and his work, it's more of an ad hominem, rather than a criticism regarding the philosophy he tried to transmit.

You cannot possibly avoid creating a worldview. You cannot transcend your biology. Anything you do, anything you believe, anything you transmit, by definition is a worldview. Nietzsche is not excluded...even more so the idiocy of his myopia is apparent, he said, "I am proposing an alternative to a worldview" which is a worldview, of course.

 

[Mole]

You cannot possibly avoid creating a worldview. You cannot transcend your biology. Anything you do, anything you believe, anything you transmit, by definition is a worldview. Nietzsche is not excluded...even more so the idiocy of his myopia is apparent, he said, "I am proposing an alternative to a worldview" which is a worldview, of course.

Didn't Nietzsche end up in an insane asylum, and didn't Jung's diary reveal him as a psychotic?

 

[Oberon]

Didn't Nietzsche end up in an insane asylum, and didn't Jung's diary reveal him as a psychotic?

Yes. Although the later is not as significant in invalidating the respective party's theory. In other words, I personally tend to lean towards Jung but yes, I can see, how analyzing dreams is a bit insane, as if the dream is the window to the soul, it cannot be analyzed and doing so is essentially killing it and stomping on it like a termite.

I personally find that when I analyze a dream using Jungian theory I get some relief around it initially and then later more neurotic, soon after that, deeper in the hole of my mood. The best course of action is to chalk the dream up to mystery and have faith in a higher order.

Nietzsche was a moron though. But as you mentioned, reading from the perspective of not interpreting it like a philosophy, it can be poetic.

 

[Mole]

Yes. Although the later is not as significant in invalidating the respective party's theory. In other words, I personally tend to lean towards Jung but yes, I can see, how analyzing dreams is a bit insane, as if the dream is the window to the soul, it cannot be analyzed and doing so is essentially killing it and stomping on it like a termite.

I personally find that when I analyze a dream using Jungian theory I get some relief around it initially and then later more neurotic, soon after that, deeper in the hole of my mood. The best course of action is to chalk the dream up to mystery and have faith in a higher order.

Nietzsche was a moron though. But as you mentioned, reading from the perspective of not interpreting it like a philosophy, it can be poetic.

I grew up in a relatively authoritarian society. for instance, my father, mother, uncles, and grandfather went to war, while I haven't gone to war.

My society changed in the 60's and I grew my hair long and practised the slogan 'make love not war' and learnt the arts of peace. And Nietzsche was a kind of antidote to authoritarianism.

 

[Oberon]

I grew up in a relatively authoritarian society. for instance, my father, mother, uncles, and grandfather went to war, while I haven't gone to war.

My society changed in the 60's and I grew my hair long and practised the slogan 'make love not war' and learnt the arts of peace. And Nietzsche was a kind of antidote to authoritarianism.

I will have to re-read him with this new lens.

 

[Wunjo]

Didn't Nietzsche end up in an insane asylum, and didn't Jung's diary reveal him as a psychotic?

It's better than ending up with 20.000 posts in a forum but not being able to create an argument. Jung's diary did not reveal him as a psychotic; but I remember Freud that you cherish a lot going through a psychotic episode after the death of his father. So, if mental illness discredits psychologists in your shoes, you should throw all your books away, I am afraid.

 

[Wunjo]

You cannot possibly avoid creating a worldview. You cannot transcend your biology. Anything you do, anything you believe, anything you transmit, by definition is a worldview. Nietzsche is not excluded...even more so the idiocy of his myopia is apparent, he said, "I am proposing an alternative to a worldview" which is a worldview, of course.

While that is theoretically true, it can be practically paradoxical, just like calculated spontaneity. Anything you transmit is not a worldview; because anything you transmit is not a a fixed perspective regarding the World.

 

[Mole]

It's better than ending up with 20.000 posts in a forum but not being able to create an argument. Jung's diary did not reveal him as a psychotic; but I remember Freud that you cherish a lot going through a psychotic episode after the death of his father. So, if mental illness discredits psychologists in your shoes, you should throw all your books away, I am afraid.

There is faith and reason.

Jung himself says his book "Psychological Types" is based on no empirical evidence. So we take it as a matter of faith.

So Jung's character becomes important. And Jung sexuality abused his female patients, and during WW II Jung took his orders from Reichmarshal Hermann Goering. Not to mention Jung's psychosis.

So we can choose to have faith in Carl Jung, or not.

 

[Cellmold]

Yes. Although the later is not as significant in invalidating the respective party's theory. In other words, I personally tend to lean towards Jung but yes, I can see, how analyzing dreams is a bit insane, as if the dream is the window to the soul, it cannot be analyzed and doing so is essentially killing it and stomping on it like a termite.

I personally find that when I analyze a dream using Jungian theory I get some relief around it initially and then later more neurotic, soon after that, deeper in the hole of my mood. The best course of action is to chalk the dream up to mystery and have faith in a higher order.

Nietzsche was a moron though. But as you mentioned, reading from the perspective of not interpreting it like a philosophy, it can be poetic.

I could never analyse my dreams.

I was caught up in them & carried along, even the ones I thought were lucid as a child. Anything I tried to pinpoint would be a rationalisation, much like my consciousness.

The only thing I was ever certain of when it came to my dreams; I'm out of my depth.

 

[Oberon]

While that is theoretically true, it can be practically paradoxical, just like calculated spontaneity. Anything you transmit is not a worldview; because anything you transmit is not a a fixed perspective regarding the World.

Not of the worldviews Nietzsche critiques are fixed either. This is why Jung erodes and destroys Nietzsche. Nietzsche points to Christianity and says, Christianity is fixed. Jung points to Christianity and says, look there is Christianity, it is evolving, it is an archetype, but the people have failed to download the updated.

You see? In admiring and leaning on Nietzsche, Jung inadvertently and implicitly stated, "Philosophy is dead." At least the kind that Nietzsche practices. Philosophy is alive and well.

- - - Updated - - -

I could never analyse my dreams.

I was caught up in them & carried along, even the ones I thought were lucid as a child. Anything I tried to pinpoint would be a rationalisation, much like my consciousness.

The only thing I was ever certain of when it came to my dreams; I'm out of my depth.

This is brilliantly said. I tried to convey the same premise but could not. I speak like a robot compared to you.

 

[Wunjo]

Not of the worldviews Nietzsche critiques are fixed either. This is why Jung erodes and destroys Nietzsche. Nietzsche points to Christianity and says, Christianity is fixed. Jung points to Christianity and says, look there is Christianity, it is evolving, it is an archetype, but the people have failed to download the updated.

You see? In admiring and leaning on Nietzsche, Jung inadvertently and implicitly stated, "Philosophy is dead." At least the kind that Nietzsche practices. Philosophy is alive and well.

- - - Updated - - -



This is brilliantly said. I tried to convey the same premise but could not. I speak like a robot compared to you.

What Nietzsche criticizes as "Christianity", is rather the moral and base sense of it; while Jung explores its relationship with mysticism and alchemy and also, we can infer that Jung agrees with the aphorism, "God is dead", and that does not erode but develop Nietzsche's concept.

If I recall correctly, in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung elaborates that we need to "revive" God, as a basis for his theory about the unconscious.

If I was to be concise, calling Nietzsche an idiot is a failure to see that he is in the midst of the archetype of rebirth, while stating that God is dead. I think I can say that he had tremendous access to the collective unconscious. A feat that would not be possessed by an "idiot". This reality will be clear as day for you as well, if you read Also Sprach Zarathustra. Yet, for a man as volatile as Nietzsche; the images stemming from it were so powerful that, they drove him to insanity for he was unable to reintegrate them within his Psyche, if I was to make a bold statement. Jung was more fortunate about this.

Also, saying that "the kind of philosophy Nietzsche practices is dead" is to disregard Liber Novus, the book that is the foundation of all Jung's work. I will again repeat, do a cross-reading. It'll be fun.

 

[Oberon]

What Nietzsche criticizes as "Christianity", is rather the moral and base sense of it; while Jung explores its relationship with mysticism and alchemy and also, we can infer that Jung agrees with the aphorism, "God is dead", and that does not erode but develop Nietzsche's concept.

If I recall correctly, in Modern Man in Search of a Soul, Jung elaborates that we need to "revive" God, as a basis for his theory about the unconscious.

If I was to be concise, calling Nietzsche an idiot is a failure to see that he is in the midst of the archetype of rebirth, while stating that God is dead. I think I can say that he had tremendous access to the collective unconscious. A feat that would not be possessed by an "idiot". This reality will be clear as day for you as well, if you read Also Sprach Zarathustra. Yet, for a man as volatile as Nietzsche; the images stemming from it were so powerful that, they drove him to insanity for he was unable to reintegrate them within his Psyche, if I was to make a bold statement. Jung was more fortunate about this.

Also, saying that "the kind of philosophy Nietzsche practices is dead" is to disregard Liber Novus, the book that is the foundation of all Jung's work. I will again repeat, do a cross-reading. It'll be fun.

I'll do you a service, yessum, and read the book.

What you say is sound, of course, but time will tell if I come to see your point of view. In the meantime, you have convinced me to take a step towards it.