German multicultural society "has failed" -- Chancellor Merkel

[Ajidica]

Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman--a rope over an abyss.

Yep. Man has not yet achieved Communism but we have triumphed over feudalism and seen the triumph of the Third Estate.

 

[Quackers]

Is it? So it is! Feck. I get the wrinkly old far-right "Pats" mixed up. That's what I get for bashing "pat buchanan haiti" into Youtube without really checking what I'm doing.

He's still daft, mind (and a Nazi sympathiser). Just not to the quite the extent that my poor, feeble mind had him pegged as.

One blogger?

MSNBC employ a nazi sympathiser for a pundit then

 

[Traitorfish]

One blogger?

That was just the first result that popped up for it. The quotes kind of speak for themselves.

MSNBC employ a nazi sympathiser for a pundit then

...Ok?

 

[Dachs]

He's still daft, mind (and a Nazi sympathiser). Just not to the quite the extent that my poor, feeble mind had him pegged as.

He's also a sympathizer for Imperial Japanese aggressive foreign policy, and blames the United States for pushing Japan into war and says Pearl Harbor was FDR's fault. Formaldehyde has used that article once or twice. Hasn't done it in about a year, though. Wonder why.

A communist who quotes Nietzsche? Here's a quote for you then:

I don't think you understand what the Übermensch was actually supposed to be.

 

[Ayn Rand]

I don't think you understand what the Übermensch was actually supposed to be.

Would you care to elaborate?

@Ajidica - the victory of the Third Estate wouldn't have happened without economic improvements. Concentrating various forms of capital in private hands is the only way to avoid an exploitative class system

 

[Dachs]

Would you care to elaborate?

The concept was intended to be deliberately vague, more or less, but one of the clearer senses of it was that an Übermensch develops a new system of morality (to replace outmoded ones, like what Nietzsche thought "established" Christianity was) for others to follow; he would probably have considered an Objectivist formulation of every-man-an-overman to have been nonsensical. It wasn't a condemnation of the concept of sheeple or collectivism per se.

 

[Ayn Rand]

The concept was intended to be deliberately vague, more or less, but one of the clearer senses of it was that an Übermensch develops a new system of morality (to replace outmoded ones, like what Nietzsche thought "established" Christianity was) for others to follow; he would probably have considered an Objectivist formulation of every-man-an-overman to have been nonsensical. It wasn't a condemnation of the concept of sheeple or collectivism per se.

Objectivism is not a system of every-man-an-overman. Ayn Rand categorically refutes Nietzsche and hammers him. Also, Objectivists don't believe in the concept of the overman.

I've read all of Nietzsche's works and I don't think the Übermensch develops a system of morality for others to follow. Others will be incapable of following it, otherwise they would be Übermensch themselves.

Christianity was also not considered a form of morality, but an expression of the will to power of slaves who were rising up in resenment against the reality of their condition, with the aim of enslaving all [their distorted concept of paradise]. The viciousness of this will created modern European civilisation by placing limits on exhausting conflicts between the strong and preserving the strength of civilisation [through accumulated knowledge, protecting the weak etc].

 

[Traitorfish]

the victory of the Third Estate wouldn't have happened without economic improvements. Concentrating various forms of capital in private hands is the only way to avoid an exploitative class system

The first part could've been lifted right out of The Communist Manifesto, so it's not exactly a novel insight. The second... Either you don't know what "concentrating", "exploitative" or "class system" mean, or you have some unique and as yet ill-explained ideas at play.

 

[Dachs]

Objectivism is not a system of every-man-an-overman. Ayn Rand categorically refutes Nietzsche and hammers him. Also, Objectivists don't believe in the concept of the overman.

Don't they? Isn't this kind of like saying communists aren't interested in a classless society? I confess that I haven't read a single work of objectivist thought, because frankly I can't be assed to read semiliterate drivel. Of course, I'm not particularly surprised that people have 'refuted' Nietzsche (although how one can 'refute' Continental philosophy is beyond me; wouldn't you just ignore it?) in the century since he wrote.

I've read all of Nietzsche's works and I don't think the Übermensch develops a system of morality for others to follow. Others will be incapable of following it, otherwise they would be Übermensch themselves.

Reading the works themselves doesn't really do much, although I commend you for your apparent willingness to sit through a crapton of books that don't make a whole lot of sense in English anyway. You get nowhere without reading the commentaries that have accumulated on Nietzsche over the last century. Rather like reading Thukydides without reading Kagan, and assuming that history and the interpretation of history hasn't changed in two and a half millennia. Surely philosophy, and the interpretation of what philosophers have said, has changed in the last century?

Christianity was also not considered a form of morality, but an expression of the will to power of slaves who were rising up in resenment against the reality of their condition, with the aim of enslaving all [their distorted concept of paradise]. The viciousness of this will created modern European civilisation by placing limits on exhausting conflicts between the strong and preserving the strength of civilisation [through accumulated knowledge, protecting the weak etc].

This seems like a distortion of what he wrote in Der Antichrist to me.

 

[aelf]

Another take on the Overman is one who is able to will the eternal recurrence. In short: no regrets and I'd relive every single moment of my life over and over forever. The anti-guilt tripping (and hence anti-Christian) thing is part of that.

Basically, it's kind of irrelevant to this thread.

 

[Traitorfish]

Well, it's psychotic and German, so it's not that irrelevant.

 

[aelf]

The later Nietzsche would have been very insulted by that.

 

[Traitorfish]

Obligatory Comic!



There should be some Godwin's Law-equivalent for these on OT threads. :crazeyes:

 

[Ajidica]

Didn't Nietzsche consider Christ an Ubermensch as he convinced a large number of people to follow his ideas?

 

[Ayn Rand]

Of course, I'm not particularly surprised that people have 'refuted' Nietzsche (although how one can 'refute' Continental philosophy is beyond me; wouldn't you just ignore it?)

Continental philosophy [of this type] is based on a single idea - that there is no real standard of truth [only human power, or some other piece of such nonsense].

So you only have to demonstrate that there is a real standard of truth, and the entire edifice of European philosophy is slain.

Reading the works themselves doesn't really do much... You get nowhere without reading the commentaries that have accumulated on Nietzsche over the last century.

I don't personally agree with this. They made perfect, chrystal-clear sense to me. Also, academic organisations etc promote interpretations to further their own goals, which in turn further the goals of the powerful.

So really, it is a bit of a slave mentality to read your philosophy through second- or third-hand distortions. I've never found the interpretations to be honest or without some obvious hidden agenda.

Surely philosophy, and the interpretation of what philosophers have said, has changed in the last century?

What the philosophers wrote has remained the same.

This seems like a distortion of what he wrote in Der Antichrist to me.

It's a badly written summary. An honest appraisal would offend too many people, besides Nietzsche wrote in a contradictory style, so that no-one would agree on his works.

Another take on the Overman is one who is able to will the eternal recurrence.

Good take


@Ajidica - no I don't think so. That's also not a connection/perspective that Nietzsche really took about Jesus, probably Nietzsche would see the religion as a force that had nothing to do with some random criminal who got executed.

 

[Arwon]

Why do I get the feeling someone is about to start quoting Mises?

 

[luiz]

I think that interpretation relies on the notion of assimilation and segregation as existing dichotomously, which I'm not convinced is the case. As I said before, "integration" does not necessarily imply assimilation, but can refer to a heterogeneous society in which atomic individuals form fluid relationships through shared culture at all levels. One can be American in this context, Asian in that context, a Catholic, a Metallica fan or a Microbrew enthusiast in others. Presenting it as a choice of how many homogeneous monoliths we construct is just over-simplistic.

That's why I think America genuinely is an effective example of a multicultural society- looking at not merely the range of diversity but the depth of diversity it is capable of representing, motivated above all by the recognition of the individual as the base unit of society, shows how such a thing is possible. It's just that, as I said, the only place where this really seems to be an issue in the country are were monoculturalists (on either side!) decide to butt heads and make the whole country look bad.

The crux of the matter is that for a multiculturalist, individuals are not the "atomic" elements of society. In their world view, society is composed of several ethno-cultural groups, and those groups ought to be officially represented in the government.

In the most extreme cases of multiculturalism, like Evo Morales' Bolivia (which defines itself, in the Constitution, as a multicultural state), different ethnic groups are even allowed and encouraged to have separate legal systems. This has led to bizarre cases of physical punishments applied by indian groups to people. This is considered repulsive by opponents of multiculturalism, that believe the Law should be the same for all citizens.

Opponents of multiculturalism don't oppose people recognising or even celebrating whatever background they choose. They just oppose any official recognition of the division of citizens in ethno-cultural groups.

 

[Traitorfish]

The crux of the matter is that for a multiculturalist, individuals are not the "atomic" elements of society. In their world view, society is composed of several ethno-cultural groups, and those groups ought to be officially represented in the government.

In the most extreme cases of multiculturalism, like Evo Morales' Bolivia (which defines itself, in the Constitution, as a multicultural state), different ethnic groups are even allowed and encouraged to have separate legal systems. This has led to bizarre cases of physical punishments applied by indian groups to people. This is considered repulsive by opponents of multiculturalism, that believe the Law should be the same for all citizens.

Opponents of multiculturalism don't oppose people recognising or even celebrating whatever background they choose. They just oppose any official recognition of the division of citizens in ethno-cultural groups.

The problem here is that you're only engaging with a very particular form of multiculturalism, and I don't think I'd be wrong in suggesting that this may be related to the fact that your own experience with the idea is one in which the non-mainstream cultures are indigenous tribal people, which naturally changes things. Certainly, this is not the multiculturalism proposed throughout much of Europe, where there simply aren't minority populations so set apart from the rest of society that this would even be a feasible idea, let alone a bad one.

I don't mean to offend, but, quite honestly, I don't think that the Latin American experience of multiculturalism, whatever it may be, is of much relevance here.

 

[Quackers]

That was just the first result that popped up for it. The quotes kind of speak for themselves.


...Ok?

Sounds like a self-fullfilling prophecy. If I typed into google david cameron + nazi i am bound to find loads of left-wing blogs etc etc.

Doesn't it seem strange to you, that a nazi sympathiser outed by traitorfish works for a major liberal cable tv organisation in the us? We all know how "right wing" america is compared to Europe, but this is ridiculous!

 

[Traitorfish]

Sounds like a self-fullfilling prophecy. If I typed into google david cameron + nazi i am bound to find loads of left-wing blogs etc etc.

And if you typed in "hitler nazi" you'd get a similar abundance. Let the quotes speak for themselves.

Doesn't it seem strange to you, that a nazi sympathiser outed by traitorfish works for a major liberal cable tv organisation in the us? We all know how "right wing" america is compared to Europe, but this is ridiculous!

Honestly? I'm passed attempting to apply any measure of sanity to the American media. Every metric I construct is cast down within the week.