From The Gay Science, aphorism 13: “[T]he state in which we hurt others is rarely as agreeable, in an unadulterated way, as that in which we benefit others; it is a sign that we are still lacking power, or it shows a sense of frustration in the face of our own [existential/volitional] poverty . . . It is only for the most irritable and covetous devotees of the feeling of power that it is perhaps more pleasurable to imprint the seal of power on a recalcitrant brow — those for whom the sight of the already subjected (the objects of benevolence) is a burden and a boredom.”
In aphorism 26 of The Anti-Christ (which ends up being more about Nietzsche's opposition to Paul and to what Kierkegaard called "Christendom" than about his opposition to Christ), Nietzsche describes the "administration of justice" and the "tending of the sick and the poor" as requirements "presented by the instinct for life" that are "valuable in themselves."
And despite his earlier criticisms of pity/compassion, Nietzsche writes in aphorism 57 of The Anti-Christ, "When an exceptional human being [e.g., the overman] handles the mediocre [i.e, those who aren't as fortunate, privileged, and/or sophisticated] more gently than he does himself or his equals, this is not mere courtesy of the heart — it is simply his duty."
Long story short: the will to power is the will to life, the will to live, the will to express oneself and to become who one is. (Even flowers turning toward the sun reveal the will to power.) And the need to have power over others? It stems from weakness, from sickness, from the inability to have power over oneself. It's the farthest thing from strength and greatness.
Thanks for adding that. Angles of Nietzsche I did not recall--and naturally our ignorance of these (or outright turning away from them) rather proves Brooks' point. Oh, and Aaron's too!
Of course! But I actually forgot the most astonishing piece of evidence: in a notebook from 1884, while outlining the type of education that an overman would require, Nietzsche describes him as "[a] Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ."
Nietzsche was never opposed to compassion or benevolence 'as such' (in fact, his last sane act supposedly involved throwing himself between a horse and its owner's whip); he simply believed (1) that most compassion was disingenuous — especially when it took the form of pity — and (2) that only those capable of cruelty were also capable of compassion. And so the overman is cruel toward himself while being genuinely compassionate toward the less privileged/advantaged.
Thanks so much Zachary, that was very helpful (particularly for an uneducated and poorly read fellow such as myself who relies on the kindness of strangers to allow me to eaves drop on their discussions!).
Well, dear philosopher, are you reading my mind? I watched a video on Nietzsche on Tues., Discussed it with a Christian friend on Wednesday and read this tonight. (Synchronicity?)
Anyway. How could one not think of Trumpism as one tries to understand Nietzsche's ideas.
My understanding of his ideas was very negative until I recently began to try to understand more. Your words reinforces where my thinking was trying to go. I have been talking with a friend about moving into one's own power as a way of becoming who you can be, (finding your true self) and not being afraid of allowing your talents (power) to be expressed because of your fear that you will be rejected. HIs ideas about Christianity holding its authority over its believers as an oppressive force is difficult to swallow if you are a believer. But it does make sense - if the beliefs are too literal. The will to realize your own power, not to will power to dominate (Augustine has said it is the greatest sin) is an affirmation of your spiritual energy which should be celebrated. I think this is what Nietzsche was saying. His idea that God is dead doesn't seem to me to be a stance against God but a cooperation with Him to believe in yourself as well as Him.
We often hold what we think of as typical of a philosopher’s center of thinking by grabbing a paragraph from a genuine thinker’s writing and presenting it as a final word. But nevertheless, people keep writing long texts with complex arguments. (Isn’t this what the advancement of knowledge is about?) so we take a prominent, well-known passage and declare to be a true lesson for the world. It’s a weak form of understanding. (I’ve tried it myself.)
Textual evidence comin' at ya!
From The Gay Science, aphorism 13: “[T]he state in which we hurt others is rarely as agreeable, in an unadulterated way, as that in which we benefit others; it is a sign that we are still lacking power, or it shows a sense of frustration in the face of our own [existential/volitional] poverty . . . It is only for the most irritable and covetous devotees of the feeling of power that it is perhaps more pleasurable to imprint the seal of power on a recalcitrant brow — those for whom the sight of the already subjected (the objects of benevolence) is a burden and a boredom.”
In aphorism 26 of The Anti-Christ (which ends up being more about Nietzsche's opposition to Paul and to what Kierkegaard called "Christendom" than about his opposition to Christ), Nietzsche describes the "administration of justice" and the "tending of the sick and the poor" as requirements "presented by the instinct for life" that are "valuable in themselves."
And despite his earlier criticisms of pity/compassion, Nietzsche writes in aphorism 57 of The Anti-Christ, "When an exceptional human being [e.g., the overman] handles the mediocre [i.e, those who aren't as fortunate, privileged, and/or sophisticated] more gently than he does himself or his equals, this is not mere courtesy of the heart — it is simply his duty."
Long story short: the will to power is the will to life, the will to live, the will to express oneself and to become who one is. (Even flowers turning toward the sun reveal the will to power.) And the need to have power over others? It stems from weakness, from sickness, from the inability to have power over oneself. It's the farthest thing from strength and greatness.
Amen!!! thanks for these passages. yes, this is what I didn't have ready to hand here in the hotel! ha.
Thanks for adding that. Angles of Nietzsche I did not recall--and naturally our ignorance of these (or outright turning away from them) rather proves Brooks' point. Oh, and Aaron's too!
Of course! But I actually forgot the most astonishing piece of evidence: in a notebook from 1884, while outlining the type of education that an overman would require, Nietzsche describes him as "[a] Roman Caesar with the soul of Christ."
Nietzsche was never opposed to compassion or benevolence 'as such' (in fact, his last sane act supposedly involved throwing himself between a horse and its owner's whip); he simply believed (1) that most compassion was disingenuous — especially when it took the form of pity — and (2) that only those capable of cruelty were also capable of compassion. And so the overman is cruel toward himself while being genuinely compassionate toward the less privileged/advantaged.
Thanks so much Zachary, that was very helpful (particularly for an uneducated and poorly read fellow such as myself who relies on the kindness of strangers to allow me to eaves drop on their discussions!).
Anyone else a liiiiittle distracted by Aaron’s exposed arms in that fishing* photo?
Sun's out, guns out???
*fishing for COMPLIMENTS, amiright?
Oh good grief. So glad you are my friend! hahah.
hahahhaahha.
Well, dear philosopher, are you reading my mind? I watched a video on Nietzsche on Tues., Discussed it with a Christian friend on Wednesday and read this tonight. (Synchronicity?)
Anyway. How could one not think of Trumpism as one tries to understand Nietzsche's ideas.
My understanding of his ideas was very negative until I recently began to try to understand more. Your words reinforces where my thinking was trying to go. I have been talking with a friend about moving into one's own power as a way of becoming who you can be, (finding your true self) and not being afraid of allowing your talents (power) to be expressed because of your fear that you will be rejected. HIs ideas about Christianity holding its authority over its believers as an oppressive force is difficult to swallow if you are a believer. But it does make sense - if the beliefs are too literal. The will to realize your own power, not to will power to dominate (Augustine has said it is the greatest sin) is an affirmation of your spiritual energy which should be celebrated. I think this is what Nietzsche was saying. His idea that God is dead doesn't seem to me to be a stance against God but a cooperation with Him to believe in yourself as well as Him.
We often hold what we think of as typical of a philosopher’s center of thinking by grabbing a paragraph from a genuine thinker’s writing and presenting it as a final word. But nevertheless, people keep writing long texts with complex arguments. (Isn’t this what the advancement of knowledge is about?) so we take a prominent, well-known passage and declare to be a true lesson for the world. It’s a weak form of understanding. (I’ve tried it myself.)
Paul C