The comments seem to be frozen except for here. So I'm commenting on your Nietzsche posting. Nietzsche felt that most people were not worthy to live, just happened to be alive, and would be better off dead. That's what he says, in so many (many) words. The Nazis took that idea up with great literalness. 30,000,000 corpses later, they had made their point. N. was instrumental in bringing forward and naming the elements of the psyche, especially the role of the Id, or "es," and the ego, or "ich," at a time when the unconscious was not at all understood. Freud built a lot of his theory of the mind on Nietzsche's work. You could say that the Übermensch is "es" driven and the B. "ich" driven. His idea of the id driven individual: lone, great, self sufficient, downright fantastic, does not have much to do with suit and tie wearing, professional, ego driven bourgy individualism. I always think of little Nazi lover and fan of the Übermensch Leni Riefenstahl climbing mountains, making films about the German Volk and the Nuremberg rallies, and aspiring to other forms of greatness while the world looked on and applauded. How they fawned all over her! This, of course, was a misunderstanding on her (and their) part, because Nietzsche felt that the great were so great that no audience was necessary for their greatness, although in the natural course of things the great would attract followers. The Randians felt that the superior, id driven individual would have lots of money and sex and power as a by-product of his absolute wonderfulness. More to come (if you can stand it), as I wend my way along with Zarathustra and the mouth breathers. They don't get much of a break, as Z. talks and talks and explosively proclaims his way through the countryside while the yokels gape. It's kind of a one sided discourse, if you can talk of a discourse as being one sided!
But of course, those who didn't deserve to be alive were those who slandered life with their ideas (and gut instincts) that life is horrible. It would have been their own judgment of life that condemned them, not some nazi officer projecting something into their identities.
And the Rand thing? Why do people combine it with Nietzsche, when the only thing it superficially has in common is the idea of aggrandising certain individuals? Nietzsche's idea of "the overman" was very abstract. It was of someone (or some thing) that went beyond petty calculations about reward and punishment, in order to justify human existence to humanity at large. Rand's idea is of the petty capitalist accumulator, making a buck whilst revelling in the opportunity that the nasty masses want to take away.
6 comments:
Water should not look like Gatoraid. Please tell me you do not live there now.
black humoured Zimbabwe jokes are quite common. Even when I lived there, they were quite prolific.
As we say around here: maintenance, maintenance, maintenance.
The comments seem to be frozen except for here. So I'm commenting on your Nietzsche posting.
Nietzsche felt that most people were not worthy to live, just happened to be alive, and would be better off dead. That's what he says, in so many (many) words. The Nazis took that idea up with great literalness. 30,000,000 corpses later, they had made their point.
N. was instrumental in bringing forward and naming the elements of the psyche, especially the role of the Id, or "es," and the ego, or "ich," at a time when the unconscious was not at all understood. Freud built a lot of his theory of the mind on Nietzsche's work. You could say that the Übermensch is "es" driven and the B. "ich" driven.
His idea of the id driven individual: lone, great, self sufficient, downright fantastic, does not have much to do with suit and tie wearing, professional, ego driven bourgy individualism.
I always think of little Nazi lover and fan of the Übermensch Leni Riefenstahl climbing mountains, making films about the German Volk and the Nuremberg rallies, and aspiring to other forms of greatness while the world looked on and applauded. How they fawned all over her! This, of course, was a misunderstanding on her (and their) part, because Nietzsche felt that the great were so great that no audience was necessary for their greatness, although in the natural course of things the great would attract followers. The Randians felt that the superior, id driven individual would have lots of money and sex and power as a by-product of his absolute wonderfulness.
More to come (if you can stand it), as I wend my way along with Zarathustra and the mouth breathers. They don't get much of a break, as Z. talks and talks and explosively proclaims his way through the countryside while the yokels gape. It's kind of a one sided discourse, if you can talk of a discourse as being one sided!
Good review. Many thanks
But of course, those who didn't deserve to be alive were those who slandered life with their ideas (and gut instincts) that life is horrible. It would have been their own judgment of life that condemned them, not some nazi officer projecting something into their identities.
And the Rand thing? Why do people combine it with Nietzsche, when the only thing it superficially has in common is the idea of aggrandising certain individuals? Nietzsche's idea of "the overman" was very abstract. It was of someone (or some thing) that went beyond petty calculations about reward and punishment, in order to justify human existence to humanity at large. Rand's idea is of the petty capitalist accumulator, making a buck whilst revelling in the opportunity that the nasty masses want to take away.
Post a Comment