Did Nietsche Make Nazi-ism Possible?

[Tetedelacourse]

I have pledged to support the mirth of the cafe, and will not see it sullied by political topics.

Move this thread, or I'll be round with the Bernese Mountain dog and a plate of cocktail sausages!!

Nein - it must stay. Aperitif summed up why poifickly.

Delzeqq, no apologies necessary. It's linked to my question, I think.

OK here's my (limited) summing up of Niche's views - happy to be (and may well need to be) corrected of course:

Nietzsche believed that external morality (i.e. a commonly held sense, moral rules of society if you like) was an excuse to allow the weak off the hook, and that ultimately this sense of morality would perish.

He saw that conquest was the natural way to progress and the strong enslaving the weak would promote strength and ultimately serve the human race better in the long term.

He believed in autonomous creation of the self - you shouldn't conform to values imposed by, say, religion. To do so, he saw certain qualities as more likely to allow people to do this. These were things like "hardness", lack of sympathy for the weak etc.

There are very strong links to nazism here, and that's why I asked the initial question. Did this philosophy allow nazism to come about or would it have occurred anyway? I don't think that nazism would be quite what Nietzsche had in mind, although he was clearly anti-semitist. Rather, I reckon that instead of "supermen" (e.g. like Plato) Nietzsche's philosophy was warped in the hands of monsters.

And part of that twisting translated into race-hatred.

I think I've confused myself even more in trying to put that into words.

What sayest the cafe philosophers?

If this gets moved to P&L, I guess that will be the end of the discussion - although maybe that section of the forum has changed since I last visited.

 

[Aperitif]

Ah! That's 'coursedelatete' from tetedelacourse. Food for thought indeed. And now the debate begins. <----- CP did this to me..help

 

[yenrod]

Who the hell is 'Nietsche'

 

[marinyork]

I say Dover books . Specifically Thus Spake Zarathustra and Beyond good and evil.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Who the hell is 'Nietsche'

 

[Tetedelacourse]

I get the feeling I've just tried to put More Than Words on at a House Party.

 

[Aperitif]

I get the feeling I've just tried to put More Than Words on at a House Party.

Wrong choice of muzak tete - you need this to really underzstand.

I know niet. The zsche...a little understanding needed.

 

[NickM]

Most people would call it Nazism.

And him Nietzsche.

 

[Flying_Monkey]

If this gets moved to P&L, I guess that will be the end of the discussion - although maybe that section of the forum has changed since I last visited.

I really don't understand why people have this attitude. It is mostly perfectly civilised there, with one or two exceptions - and you would get a proper discussion. My advice is read Jonathan Glover's Humanity on this question. He regards Nietzsche as exemplary of the amorality that led not only to Nazism but to most of the dehumanised violence that characterised the C20th. However he also sees much of Nietzsche's basic premises as unavoidable statement of the fact of the decline of imposed religious morality. It's where he took this fact that was so wrong...

 

[Tetedelacourse]

That's the very book I'm reading FM. Do you mean where Glover took the fact was wrong, or where Hitler took it that was wrong? I'm really enjoying the book - in fact one of the few books I've decided to read for a second time, three years on. My spelling on this thread might not make you think so but I find his writing style really accessible. Very important for someone of my intellectual standing!

So what do you think FM? I am still undecided. The links are so strong, and yet the majority of opinion (here and I suspect elsewhere) is that nazism was unavoidable. Seems a bit fatalistic to me. And if it was avoidable, then Nietzsche's school of thought, or lack of it, would have played a big part in that. Maybe...

On the subject of P&L, I haven't been in since it was Soapbox so I'll take your word for it.

 

[Tetedelacourse]

ps I don't know how to change the spelling in the thread title!!! Sorry everyone!

 

[papercorn2000]

Well, I still blame Plato.

*goes off and sulks*

 

[NickM]

ps I don't know how to change the spelling in the thread title!!! Sorry everyone!

Don't sweat it - who knows, most people might be wrong!

After all, they are about lots of other things

 

[Tetedelacourse]

Well, I still blame Plato.

*goes off and sulks*

*follows p2k at a distance*

I can see the parallels, but Nietzsche was spouting all his guff at the time when a lot of young third reich head honchos-to-be would have been impressionable. Not 2000 years before (or thereabouts).

If nazism was a direct result of Plato's ramblings then it would have occurred much earlier, no?

I'm not saying it was cause and effect, but the links seem stronger than just an influence.

*gestures to come back to the table in this seldom visited part of the cafe*

 

[rich p]

*follows p2k at a distance*

I can see the parallels, but Nietzsche was spouting all his guff at the time when a lot of young third reich head honchos-to-be would have been impressionable. Not 2000 years before (or thereabouts).

If nazism was a direct result of Plato's ramblings then it would have occurred much earlier, no?

I'm not saying it was cause and effect, but the links seem stronger than just an influence.

*gestures to come back to the table in this seldom visited part of the cafe*

This may be simplistic but doesn't that imply that Nazism didn't need Hitler which is difficult to comprehend.