Nietzsche - "Irrationality of a thing"

[imurray]

Ian:

Welcome aboard. I taught rhetoric at a university. Are you studying in America or abroad?

Adam

Thank you Selene, I'm studying in Massachusetts.

[Jules]

He loves to taunt his readers! To be honest, I'm not sure whether he's being literal here or not. I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun. It seems to me that he's trying to impose a specific mindset on his readers; perhaps transferring his contempt to us by making himself the object of it. Who can read this and not think "this guy is narcissistic s.o.b.!" It makes me ask: "what author would want their reader to go into their work with this mindset?" I don't know the answer, but my guess is someone who doesn't want to be read with any sort of reverence.

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it.

[imurray]

He loves to taunt his readers! To be honest, I'm not sure whether he's being literal here or not. I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun. It seems to me that he's trying to impose a specific mindset on his readers; perhaps transferring his contempt to us by making himself the object of it. Who can read this and not think "this guy is narcissistic s.o.b.!" It makes me ask: "what author would want their reader to go into their work with this mindset?" I don't know the answer, but my guess is someone who doesn't want to be read with any sort of reverence.

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it.

Jules,

How do you think Nietzsche would have regarded a person who couldn't spell his name? Sorry, you kind of had that coming.

You make an interesting case here and if I were arguing from the perspective of objective rationality I would agree with you - maybe. However, I was arguing for a phenomenological reading of Nietzsche (it may have been confusing because I argued for a phenomenological reading using objective rationality - in an attempt to place my argument in the context of a site dedicated to Ayn Rand), which is quite different and, in my opinion, closer to the type of reading he intended. I personally don't find it interesting to read Nietzsche searching for his intent or the "true" meaning of his words, e.g. for his meaning of "reverence". The basis of my argument is that Nietzsche can't be read as one would read traditional philosophical texts. I view reading Nietzsche as an experience and that "experience" is precisely what I'm interested in probing.

Aside from that, I don't think you had enough to go on to gauge my understanding of "reverence" or to make some of the other claims you've made about my comprehension of Nietzsche. I wasn't talking about reverence as "the respect of society" as you attributed to me before using it as your main argument against my understanding of Nietzsche. Please, while I can sometimes sound condescending in my writing (my apologies to Stephen) I do try to limit my arguments to what others have actually said.

Ian

Edited March 11, 2010 by Panoptic

[Jules]

He loves to taunt his readers! To be honest, I'm not sure whether he's being literal here or not. I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun. It seems to me that he's trying to impose a specific mindset on his readers; perhaps transferring his contempt to us by making himself the object of it. Who can read this and not think "this guy is narcissistic s.o.b.!" It makes me ask: "what author would want their reader to go into their work with this mindset?" I don't know the answer, but my guess is someone who doesn't want to be read with any sort of reverence.

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it.

Jules,

How do you think Nietzsche would have regarded a person who couldn't spell his name? Sorry, you kind of had that coming.

You make an interesting case here and if I were arguing from the perspective of objective rationality I would agree with you - maybe. However, I was arguing for a phenomenological reading of Nietzsche (it may have been confusing because I argued for a phenomenological reading using objective rationality - in an attempt to place my argument in the context of a site dedicated to Ayn Rand), which is quite different and, in my opinion, closer to the type of reading he intended. I personally don't find it interesting to read Nietzsche searching for his intent or the "true" meaning of his words, e.g. for his meaning of "reverence". The basis of my argument is that Nietzsche can't be read as one would read traditional philosophical texts. I view reading Nietzsche as an experience and that "experience" is precisely what I'm interested in probing.

Aside from that, I don't think you had enough to go on to gauge my understanding of "reverence" or to make some of the other claims you've made about my comprehension of Nietzsche. I wasn't talking about reverence as "the respect of society" as you attributed to me before using it as your main argument against my understanding of Nietzsche. Please, while I can sometimes sound condescending in my writing (my apologies to Stephen) I do try to limit my arguments to what others have actually said.

Ian

Ian,

It wasn't your academic prose. It was what you actually said that was offensive. I'm not picking on your style, so don't pick on my spelling (I don't know why you have to keep pointing it out). I am not a graduate student. I am a freshman in college.

You frankly used "reverence" as some sort of mob-respect issue. And actually, the "s.o.b" remark was the least offensive thing you said. You can probe Nietzsche all you want, but I don't care to probe what you mean.

True, Nietzsche can't be read exactly as other philosophers, but his work is not pure fiction, so it can't be read just for the "experience." It is primarily didactic. You don't have to search for Nietzche's "true" meaning or intent. If you're reading objectively and the passage is clear, it's either there or it's not. I don't care to argue about your understanding of Nietzsche. I just found what you said offensive.

[imurray]

He loves to taunt his readers! To be honest, I'm not sure whether he's being literal here or not. I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun. It seems to me that he's trying to impose a specific mindset on his readers; perhaps transferring his contempt to us by making himself the object of it. Who can read this and not think "this guy is narcissistic s.o.b.!" It makes me ask: "what author would want their reader to go into their work with this mindset?" I don't know the answer, but my guess is someone who doesn't want to be read with any sort of reverence.

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it.

Jules,

How do you think Nietzsche would have regarded a person who couldn't spell his name? Sorry, you kind of had that coming.

You make an interesting case here and if I were arguing from the perspective of objective rationality I would agree with you - maybe. However, I was arguing for a phenomenological reading of Nietzsche (it may have been confusing because I argued for a phenomenological reading using objective rationality - in an attempt to place my argument in the context of a site dedicated to Ayn Rand), which is quite different and, in my opinion, closer to the type of reading he intended. I personally don't find it interesting to read Nietzsche searching for his intent or the "true" meaning of his words, e.g. for his meaning of "reverence". The basis of my argument is that Nietzsche can't be read as one would read traditional philosophical texts. I view reading Nietzsche as an experience and that "experience" is precisely what I'm interested in probing.

Aside from that, I don't think you had enough to go on to gauge my understanding of "reverence" or to make some of the other claims you've made about my comprehension of Nietzsche. I wasn't talking about reverence as "the respect of society" as you attributed to me before using it as your main argument against my understanding of Nietzsche. Please, while I can sometimes sound condescending in my writing (my apologies to Stephen) I do try to limit my arguments to what others have actually said.

Ian

Ian,

It wasn't your academic prose. It was what you actually said that was offensive. I'm not picking on your style, so don't pick on my spelling (I don't know why you have to keep pointing it out). I am not a graduate student. I am a freshman in college.

You frankly used "reverence" as some sort of mob-respect issue. And actually, the "s.o.b" remark was the least offensive thing you said. You can probe Nietzsche all you want, but I don't care to probe what you mean.

True, Nietzsche can't be read exactly as other philosophers, but his work is not pure fiction, so it can't be read just for the "experience." It is primarily didactic. You don't have to search for Nietzche's "true" meaning or intent. If you're reading objectively and the passage is clear, it's either there or it's not. I don't care to argue about your understanding of Nietzsche. I just found what you said offensive.

I'm afraid we're not talking about the same thing. I apologize if what I said was offensive to you. As far as spelling which you claim I kept pointing out - I only mentioned it once as a joke. My advice to you, as a college freshman, would be to carefully read what someone has written before entering into an argument. I would have been happy to explain what I meant by "reverence" if you had asked for clarification and then you would have known I was not using it as a mob-respect issue. You will learn as you go through college that when you're arguing with people who know what they're talking about they will call you on these "straw man" arguments (for instance I never claimed that Nietzsche should be read like a work of fiction - why did you assume that?). I'm operating with a vocabulary that you may not be used to (as I am not used to the vocabulary I encounter here); you have to realize that we probably are not coming from the same philosophical background.

Sorry if this is harsh, but it is worth showing a little respect to people if you want to learn something from them. If you don't regard me as a person you can learn from or if your goal is merely to assert your intellectual superiority (perhaps you think you are the Ubermensch)then you are going to be very unhappy with some of the responses you get. Just my two cents. I've presented at and attended many conferences and have dealt with many types of people and those who show respect, listen, and try to understand almost always get the same in return.

Finally, I welcome any intellectual argument and freely admit that I may not be right and will admit when I am not or have accidentally misconstrued what others have said. I'd be happy to continue this with you, but since you "don't care to probe my meaning" it seems rather pointless. I enjoy hearing what others have to say as I am always looking for new ways of exploring ideas.

Ian

Edited March 11, 2010 by Panoptic

[Selene]

Jules:

I am not a graduate student. I am a freshman in college.

Having been both and then teaching at the university when I was 20 and a graduate student...

trust me neither category has anything to do with spelling or intelligence.

I think you are correct.

Adam

I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun

What a peculiar simile...

[imurray]

Jules:

I am not a graduate student. I am a freshman in college.

Having been both and then teaching at the university when I was 20 and a graduate student...

trust me neither category has anything to do with spelling or intelligence.

I think you are correct.

Adam

I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun

What a peculiar simile...

Hi Adam,

Technically his argument is correct, but that's because he was arguing with himself. I didn't say any of those things that he credited to me.

It is a peculiar simile. All that I meant by it was, in my opinion, he knew how to provoke people with words (although I believe the particular reaction varies between individuals); sometimes he fired with the accuracy of a sniper and sometimes he just sprayed his bullets. I certainly make no claim to be an expert on Nietzsche - this is just the reading that I find most compelling having already taken many other approaches to include the approach Stephen recommended above. I'd like to make it clear what I mean by "experience". I'm not advocating that one should read Nietzsche as fiction or not try to understand what he is saying, merely stating that I find it interesting to examine what the text is doing to me or trying to do to me as I read it. I agree that this can be considered a "sense of life" issue as Jules put it, but in the sense that he's trying to make us aware of our way of being in the world and shake us up a bit - hence what I meant by the term "uncomfortable". All I mean by "reverence" is I don't believe Nietzsche would have wanted his readers to read his work uncritically - to take him at his word or to regard his work as scripture that was only to be understood and not questioned. I wouldn't put it past him to purposely offend his readers to insure that they didn't begin to worship him - many of his ideas came from his own contempt for his former teachers and the philosophers of the day - is it too much of a stretch to think that he might try to recreate that tension between teacher and student, text and reader? Maybe it is, but I think it's at least worth thinking about. That's what I mean when I say I'm interested in the experience of reading him and I believe he was aware of the relationship and interaction that takes place at the interface of the text and the reader. I hope this clears things up.

Again, I don't need to be right or really understood - who am I after all? Also, I agree that age has nothing to do with intelligence or spelling, but sometimes experience counts. I was the best student in my class throughout high school and was rarely challenged even my teachers - once I met my intellectual peers and intellectual superiors at college I realized that many of my arguments were lazy - I'd just never been called on them. I was merely pointing that out to Jules, not to condemn him, but to share some of the wisdom that can come with getting older.

Ian

Edited March 11, 2010 by Panoptic

[Selene]

Ian:

Thanks. That made a lot of sense.

However, here is some "experience"...

Never say:

Again, I don't need to be right or really understood - who am I after all?

That will lead to laziness.

Unfortunately, what ineptly passes for primary education is laughable today. I have good friends who are clients and have 18-20 years in the NY City High School "system" which is essentially in total collapse.

The new buzz word out of the Federal Department of Dis Education is the obiwan the diminishing's Secretary of Education is buying into the new "racism" bullshit which is "cultural racism."

I will be putting up a topic thread on it later.

I am glad that you are being challenged.

I wonder whether Nietzsche, Rand or any thinker/philosopher/authoress/propagandist truly welcomes criticism.

I was only in the actual presence of just a few, and in Ayn's case, she did not even consider criticism of her ideas as far as I observed.

Adam

[imurray]

Ian:

Thanks. That made a lot of sense.

However, here is some "experience"...

Never say:

Again, I don't need to be right or really understood - who am I after all?

That will lead to laziness.

Unfortunately, what ineptly passes for primary education is laughable today. I have good friends who are clients and have 18-20 years in the NY City High School "system" which is essentially in total collapse.

The new buzz word out of the Federal Department of Dis Education is the obiwan the diminishing's Secretary of Education is buying into the new "racism" bullshit which is "cultural racism."

I will be putting up a topic thread on it later.

I am glad that you are being challenged.

I wonder whether Nietzsche, Rand or any thinker/philosopher/authoress/propagandist truly welcomes criticism.

I was only in the actual presence of just a few, and in Ayn's case, she did not even consider criticism of her ideas as far as I observed.

Adam

I can only speculate as to whether or not Nietzsche would welcome criticism. I don't think any thinker is ever happy to receive criticism when they feel that they are being misunderstood. In Nietzsche's case I think his writing demands it and that creates a whole different scenario; one in which he, through psychological and rhetorical tropes, remains the "puppet master" so to speak. Put slightly differently, he expects this type of "critical" reader because he knows it is necessary to one's understanding of his work. He needs to move you and in my mind this is at least one way he accomplishes that. I can see the same concept, applied differently, in Kierkegaard through indirect discourse and his use of pseudonyms. Not all philosophy demand to be read objectively as Jules states above (or insinuates above). And sometimes what you think is there and clear is just not what it seems. In fact if you were to do that or assume that with someone like Kierkegaard you'd be in big trouble - I think the same goes for Nietzsche. Sometimes a text demands working from a radically different ontological foundation than one is used to. How can you understand what Nietzsche is talking about if you work from an ontological foundation that is different from the one in which he is working? Invariably the reading will change as the perspective changes (not to mention the messy business of different translations). I'm not saying that one shouldn't subject Nietzsche to those types of readings, in fact they often yield interesting results, but we need to be aware of the ground we're standing on when we're drawing our conclusions. Are we on top of the mountain or down in the abyss?

[Selene]

Panoptic:

Fair enough. I received a heavy dose of Kantian critical philosophy in my graduate work. I was an Aristotelian in a department that was being over run by the Skinnerian/McLuhan behavioralists which made for some great wars inside the department.

http://web.cn.edu/kwheeler/resource_rhet.html

This is a decent Rhetoric site.

Adam

[Guyau]

That last quote [Daybreak 130] by N. that you posted seems to really show N. struggling with the dichotomy of free-will in a rule-oriented universe. It is an issue dealt with in numerous places on OL (of which I have attempted to contribute my own views), and it seems many a healthy thinker come upon this problem and must simply choose or reject one option out of necessity.

and how!

[equality72521]

I enjoyed reading Also Sprach Zarathustra, I say this is what I read rather than Thus Spoke Zarathustra because I had the benefit of someone who read and spoke German to discuss the work with. (Quite a different experience discussing the translation while reading the book). I have always wanted to write a complimentary piece since i first read this work. There are many things that Nietzsche says that I agree with, however I disagree with almost everything he means by what he says. The reason I have wanted to write a piece in this style and of this type is not only because it is a beautiful piece of Lit. but also because I want to see a work like that which is congruent.

[Peregrine777]

Mike, you may enjoy this short 3 part essay on Nietzsche's thought, from a fairly "balanced", i.e., non-doctrainnare writer:

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/2003/11/coming_to_grips_with_nietzsche.html

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001194.html

http://www.2blowhards.com/archives/001223.html

However, I must warn you that a study of Nietzsche runs the risk of unmooring you from the Objectivist notion of man as a purely, or at least potentially, rational actor.

That sort of thing will only be possible with radical genetic engineering.

"We are inherently irrational, although we like to fancy ourselves as rational beings. The truth is simple: we are irrational beings capable of rational thought." -- Christopher S. Hyatt

[Peregrine777]

With apologies to N. --

You want to <i>live</i> 'according to nature'? O you noble Objectivists,

what fraudulent words! Think of a being such as nature is, prodigal

beyond measure, indifferent beyond measure, without aims or

intentions, without mercy or justice, at once fruitful and barren and

uncertain; think of indifference itself as a power -- how <i>could</i> you

live according to such indifference? To live -- is that not precisely

wanting to be other than this nature? Is living not valuating,

preferring, being unjust, being limited, wanting to be different? And

even if your imperative 'live according to nature' meant at bottom the

same thing as 'live according to life' -- how could you <i>not</i> do that?

Why make a principle of what you yourselves are and must be? --

The truth of it is, however, quite different: while you rapturously

pose as deriving the canon of your law from nature, you want something

quite the reverse of that, you strange actors and self-deceivers!

Your pride wants to prescribe your morality, your ideal, to nature,

yes to nature itself, and incorporate them in it; you demand that

nature should be nature 'according to John Galt' and would like to

make all existence exist only after your own image -- as a tremendous

eternal glorification and universalization of Objectivism! All your

love of truth notwithstanding, you have compelled yourselves for so

long and with such persistence and hypnotic rigidity to view nature

<i>falsely</i>, namely Objectivistly, you are no longer capable of viewing

it in any other way -- and some abysmal arrogance infects you at last

with the Bedlamite hope that, <i>because</i> you know how to tyrannize over

yourselves -- Objectivism is self-tyranny -- nature too can be

tyrannized over: for is the Objectivist not a <i>piece</i> of nature?...

But this is an old and never-ending story: what formerly happened with

the Objectivists still happens today as soon as a philosophy begins to

believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image, it

cannot do otherwise; philosophy is this tyrannical drive itself, the

most spiritual will to power, to 'creation of the world', to _causa

prima_.

Edited August 7, 2010 by Peregrine777

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

However, I must warn you that a study of Nietzsche runs the risk of unmooring you from the Objectivist notion of man as a purely, or at least potentially, rational actor.

That sort of thing will only be possible with radical genetic engineering.

Eric (Peregrine),

As I understand Objectivism, this is not the correct characterization. The Objectivist notion of man is not as a purely, or even potentially, rational actor. It is as a fundamentally rational actor with volition.

To be clear, a fundament is only the bottom, not the entirety. Rand never denied emotions or the subconscious. And she claimed man can only be rational by choice. If he did not choose to use rational thought, the other stuff would automatically be in charge of his mind. She generally called this whim. This presumes that there is a hell of a lot of other stuff going on in his mind. (She even gives a few extra-rational mental processes in her "actions of consciousness" in ITOE.)

I do acknowledge that she went overboard in claiming that man could program his emotions and know the nature of all of them by conscious will through programming the subconscious. I disagree with the scope of this. Many emotions can be implanted and/or altered by conscious "programming," but many cannot. At any rate, as far as I know, she did not leave any practical step-by-step method for doing this.

So why was rationality the fundament to her in defining man? (More specifically, the distinguishing characteristic.) Because it is man's distinctive means of survival. The rest flows from that.

Agree or disagree, that is the correct Objectivist view. That's what I have read in Rand's works and I am sure if you read them (if you have not), you will come across this, too.

btw - Thanks for the article links. I started reading it, then stopped. I need to do this at another time, when I can kick back to enjoy it. That means it looked really good to me at the start.

Michael

EDIT: As to your second post, who are you talking to? Dayaamm!

It's a shame I'm no longer an addict (actually it's not a shame), because in my heyday, I would have paid good money for what it looks like you got. That was quite an outpouring of... er... something...

[Rich Engle]

"Certainly when one goes to sleep and dreams, one recovers a semi-illogical relationship with all things. When one reads a fictional work or sees a movie of fiction, one experiences a world not fully thick with the identities of the actual world, one experiences a sketch of a hypothetical world. Then, too, logicality in thought is not the whole of logical thought. Without creative generation, there are no mathematical proofs, no scientific hypotheses, no conversations, no thinking, and no logical thinking.

Nietzsche goes squarely wrong with his idea that only the illogical lends value to life. Human life without logic is pain and death. Logic is the weaver of value for human life. Small wonder we enjoy logic, as non-contradictory identification.

Any value coming from the “illogical” does not come from the truly anti-logical. There is nothing contrary to logic in expecting and acting in a physical world saturated with identity and offering opportunity."

I thought for one reason or another that this was a really nice tract to read.

[Guyau]

Thanks, Rich.

(#41 —> #5)

Michael,

The thought and eloquence of #39 are not from Eric, but from Nietzsche. Eric tried to indicate by “with apologies to N.” that he is quoting Nietzsche, but with substitutions (viz. Objectivists for Stoics). The quotation is section 9 of Beyond Good and Evil.

You are surely correct in #40. Rand’s view of man and the nature of his values stand in opposition to doctrine of the Stoics as well as to doctrine of Nietzsche. Rand stressed in Atlas (and thereafter) that man is a being of volitional consciousness. “Man has been called a rational being, but rationality is a matter of choice—and the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animal” (AS 1013).

[Guyau]

Introductions to Nietzsche

Robert Pippin, editor (Cambridge 2012)

From the publisher:

This volume offers introductory essays on all of Nietzsche's completed works and also his unpublished notebooks. The essays address such topics as his criticism of morality and Christianity, his doctrines of the will to power and the eternal recurrence, his perspectivism, his theories of tragedy and nihilism and his thoughts on ancient and modern culture. Written by internationally recognized scholars, they provide the interested reader with an up-to-date and authoritative overview of the thought of this fascinating figure.

[Guyau]

I recently watched the documentary Nietzsche and the Nazis by Stephen Hicks, its available “on demand” from Netflix. It was reminiscent of The Ominous Parallels, tying philosophy into history. . . .

Review of New Data on Nazism and Heidegger

The entanglement of Heidegger’s anti-Semitism with his philosophical critique of Western metaphysics should give us pause. At the very least it suggests that when he philosophized in a minor key about the modern age and the “abandonment of Being,” he was also thinking of the Jews as symptoms of this misfortune. Their reputed capacity for calculation was yet another sign, though it was not a cause, of the technological nihilism that he came to see as the metaphysical fate of the West. That Heidegger does not actually blame the Jews for the afflictions of the modern world invites the saving thought that his chauvinism was incidental, not intrinsic to his philosophy. But on the final page of a notebook from 1941 Heidegger writes that “the question concerning the role of world Jewry is not a racial but a metaphysical question.” According to Peter Trawny, the editor of the notebooks, such passages show that Heidegger subscribed to a highly unusual species of “ontological-historical” (seinsgeschichtliche) anti-Semitism. Lacking “worldhood,” the Jews became a philosophical category: an antitype to the artisanal innocence of being-in-the-world.

Peter E. Gordon

[Peter]

Peter Reidy wrote:
I read Beyond Good and Evil years ago with an eye to checking out the frequent assertion that he and Rand have a lot in common. This was before Rand's diaries and Those Passages from the original We the Living had been published. All I saw in common was a certain stylistic device that she may well have learned from him:
end quote

Hmmm? I am embarrassed that Rand held him in some esteem. There have been several political philosophies and pseudo-sciences that seem to have been built from Nietzche which includes Hitlers Nazism, black power, and Eugenics - and in my opinion, Rational Anarchism. I have several disturbing quotes from Dear Frederick which I wont use. So now weve got: Ebola. ISIS. Iran on the edge of nuclear weapons. Totalitarian expansion. Asteroids. A Flare from the sun.

Seriously, is Nietzsche worth saving? What books of his would anyone put in our Library of Alexandria?
Peter

Notes.
From The Ayn Rand Lexicon:
Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat Byronic and mystically malevolent universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to will, or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for mans greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

Nietzsches rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his blood, by his innate instincts, feelings and will to powerthat he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slavesthat reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the superman is beyond good and evil, that he is a beast of prey whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsches rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral idealwhich meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.
end quote

Harry Binswanger in the preface of How We Know, writes:
Mankind has existed for 400,000 years but 395,000 of those years were consumed by the Stone Age. The factor that freed men from endless toil and early death, the root cause of the elevated level of existence we now take for granted, is one precious value: *knowledge.* The painfully acquired knowledge of how to master nature, how to organize social existence, and how to understand himself is what enabled man to rise from the cave to the skyscraper, from warring clans to a global economy, from an average lifespan of less than 30 years to one approaching 80.
end quote

[Francisco Ferrer]

Stephen Boydstun recommends a documentary by Stephen Hicks above. Of yet greater importance is Professor Hicks's paper, "Egoism in Nietzsche and Rand," (The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies 10, no. 2, Spring 2009: 249–91.) itemizing the profound philosophical differences between the two.

Nietzsche disagrees entirely with all twelve constituent elements of
Rand’s egoist philosophy. In consequence, they disagree entirely on
the social and political implications of their ethical theories for issues
of freedom or slavery, political equality or aristocracy, production and
trade or war. And . . . Nietzsche and Rand disagree fundamentally on

the issues of metaphysics, epistemology, and human nature; those

disagreements lead logically to their radical divergences in ethics and

politics. (p. 287)

[Peter]

Thank you Francisco!

Francisco quoted Stephen Hicks:

Nietzsche disagrees entirely with all twelve constituent elements of Rand's egoist philosophy. In consequence, they disagree entirely on the social and political implications of their ethical theories for issues of freedom or slavery, political equality or aristocracy, production and trade or war. And . . . Nietzsche and Rand disagree fundamentally on the issues of metaphysics, epistemology, and human nature; those disagreements lead logically to their radical divergences in ethics and politics. (p. 287)

Paradoxically, as I mentioned, I think there is a persistent link from Nietzsche to Rand to Anarchism in the minds of many anarchists. Here is an old, edited letter of mine that I wrote to Chris M. Sciabarra at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS) pitching this idea. I have always hoped a scholar (one who is a higher man) would pursue this link and I hope someone reading this, WILL. (joke)

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

The Rational Anarchist says EVERYONE within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice. If some fail to meet this standard then the Rational Anarchist or their defense agency will administer justice. To simplify the message: the individual is more frequently right about judging and administering justice while The State is flawed and less likely to always administer justice. The "Higher Men" as Nietzsche calls them, who are Rational Anarchists, are born to rule their geographical area.

Ghs read that and responded:

. . . You should have given it some thought before posting this bilge.

[Francisco Ferrer]

Paradoxically, as I mentioned, I think there is a persistent link from Nietzsche to Rand to Anarchism in the minds of many anarchists. Here is an old, edited letter of mine that I wrote to Chris M. Sciabarra at The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS) pitching this idea. I have always hoped a scholar (one who is a higher man) would pursue this link and I hope someone reading this, WILL. (joke)

Nietzsche writes in Beyond Good and Evil:

Not one of these clumsy, conscience-stricken herd animals (who set out to treat egoism as a matter of general welfare) wants to know . . . that what is right for someone absolutely cannot be right for someone else; that the requirement that there be a single morality for everyone is harmful precisely to the higher men; in short, that there is an order of rank between people, and between moralities as well. (§228)

end quote

The Rational Anarchist says EVERYONE within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice. If some fail to meet this standard then the Rational Anarchist or their defense agency will administer justice. To simplify the message: the individual is more frequently right about judging and administering justice while The State is flawed and less likely to always administer justice. The "Higher Men" as Nietzsche calls them, who are Rational Anarchists, are born to rule their geographical area.

Ghs read that and responded:

. . . You should have given it some thought before posting this bilge.

GHS is correct.

I do not know of a single person who has written seriously on the topic of anarcho-capitalism who has claimed that everyone "within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice." Obviously, in any population of more than a few souls there will be members who are immoral, irrational or antagonistic to individual rights. It is the right of the non-aggressors in a community to protect themselves from predators, regardless of their motives.

Moreover, Nietzsche did not promote anything remotely resembling universal rationality.

[Peter]

I wrote:

The Rational Anarchist says EVERYONE within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational, and to administer their own justice. If some fail to meet this standard then the Rational Anarchist or their defense agency will administer justice. To simplify the message: the individual is more frequently right about judging and administering justice while The State is flawed and less likely to always administer justice. The Higher Men as Nietzsche calls them, who are Rational Anarchists, are born to rule their geographical area.

end quote

And Francisco responded:

I do not know of a single person who has written seriously on the topic of anarcho-capitalism who has claimed that everyone "within any geographical area, is fully capable of being rational."

end quote

That is incorrect. The adjective I used is *capable*. The Cambridge Dictionary defines capable as: having the ability, power, or qualities to be able to do something. Obviously, Rational Anarchism is not talking about mentally defective or deficient individuals, but only those persons capable of volition. The validity of my statement requires the understanding that volitional individuals will disagree on what is *rational,* *needed,* or *earned.* Yet, within a Rational Anarchist community *constantly given consent* is required of each citizen before interactions are *freely* performed. If consent is not bestowed then an action affecting another individual is coercive.

And there is no *constant consent* as with a Constitution or set of laws that all agree upon if they remain living in that geographical place. That is the Rational Anarchist's beef with Government. If the Rational Anarchist disagrees with a law it does not pertain to their actions. A government has no jurisdiction over them because they are *sovereign citizens.* And that mind set is what is required of Nietzsche's Higher Men.

By DAY TWO of any Rational Anarchist Territory the Higher Men will begin taking over. Look at history or watch the History Channel for the series of shows they did about what will happen after a break down in government. There were dozens of experts advising the producers of the show. The catastrophe can be an asteroid strike or the outbreak of a disease. It can be a declaration that there is no longer a government in charge. No matter how it occurs, by DAY TWO individuals will begin to band together for protection and the Higher Men will take what they want. Only if a semblance of order is restored by a home town sheriff for example will civilized life continue in that geographical area.

[Peter]

I would say manifestations and amalgamations of Rational Anarchists and Nietzsche's higher man are found in the Mafia, in motor cycle gangs and in warlords.

Murray N. Rothbard wrote about Mafia movies which extol the virtues of Nietzsche's Higher Man:

The key to The Godfathers and to success in the Mafia genre is the realization and dramatic portrayal of the fact that the Mafia, although leading a life outside the law, is, at its best, simply entrepreneurs and businessmen supplying the consumers with goods and services of which they have been unaccountably deprived by a Puritan WASP culture.

end quote

Robert J. Bidinotto wrote in The Contradiction in Anarchism:

In the market, by contrast, what's to stop thugs, and by what standard? Surely no private company would deliberately handcuff itself, with separations and divisions of powers, and checks and balances. Such silly, inefficient "gridlock" and "red tape" would only make it less competitive. No, a competitive company must be flexible to respond to shifting "market demand." That means the demand for whatever consumers may want, anything at all. It can't tie its own hands by limiting itself. After all, some other company or industry would always be willing to operate without such moral self-limitation. What firm would restrain itself, when the sleazy, unscrupulous Acme Protective Service across town is just itching for the same customer contracts, and willing to promise clients "no limits?"

end quote