r/Nietzsche

In a Nietzschean perspective "Modesty" is merely a value invented by weak men to stifle the morale of strong women through resentment.

We can take the example of mens who says :

"Waaah, they use their beauty without modesty on OnlyFans and earning thousands of euros"

"Waaah, they're prostitutes on Instagram"

You see this kind of powerless talk? Well, that's what I'm criticizing

This morality of strong women consists of expressing their will to power through the force of their seductive beauty, and impotent men hate it.

We can also take the example of radical sunni islam who hate women who shows their beauty to give the control to mens

>Sahih Sunan Tirmidhi According to Abu Huraira, the Prophet said: "If I had ordered anyone to prostrate to someone else, I would have ordered the wife to prostrate to her husband"

Anyway strong womens use their beauty and weak mens create "modesty" value to criticize women who use their power

For the majority of my intermediate journey into philosophy, I largely dismissed Nietzsche. He was infamous and I knew it, but I didn't actually invest myself into any of his works. I instead started with the likes of Socrates (and by extension Plato), and with a foundational understanding of Hegelian dialectics. I think that there was a certain fondness when I delved into these other legendary philosophers. That is, the Platonian forms, which exemplify the "good virtues" in of themselves, and the absolute of Hegel's dialectic which seeks to reconcile the various antagonisms of the world. There was a certain fantastical aspect of these concepts, as if they had sprung from ancient, idyllic texts for lack of a better phrase. Plato was exalting the good of men, and Hegel was resolving their differences. Then came Nietzsche. "Why I am So Clever", "Why I Am So Wise", "Why I Am A Fatality", how conceit! When I arrived at Nietzsche, he was wholly profane, unconcerned and skeptic. He denounced Plato, even worse he rejected him as a "decadent" and the same with Hegel. How uncomfortable, unfond. His dismissal of these presumably established metaphysics was entirely repulsive to me. It seemed that as they had brought me closer, Nietzsche had pushed me further away. With his perspectivism, will to power, etc. With Nietzsche, there was no longer an "elevation" of life, that is beyond it's bounds themselves.

Yet, in that epiphany, Nietzsche's philosophy became something fond to me. There were no longer transcendent forms to inherit, nor dialectics to resolve. In Nietzsche, man is fondest. He is tethered to the indifferent realm which allows him to exist, and which will also kill him. So he must rise against it, not in an act of denial but in radical acceptance and adoration. This is to say that man is temporal, then so is the metaphysics. How Clever Nietzsche! How Wise Nietzsche! How Fatal! I am thoroughly fond of him now, in a way more than Plato and Hegel, and I intend to seek him out further.

P.S.

If there are any inconsistencies in my understanding of Nietzsche and those mentioned please correct me rightfully, I'm only a novice and I'd like to know as closely as possible.

Suppose you’re in the lion phase of the Three Metamophoses and you are rejecting and deconstructing (if that’s the right word to use) every moral value society has taught you. What if at the end of this deconstructing period, you still hold onto some of those values.

Let’s take civil rights for an example. You think, “Should everyone have equal protection under the law regardless of race, sex, gender, sexual orientation, etc?” You look at all the arguments both for and against civil rights, but at the end you realize, “Yes, everyone should have equal protection under the law!”

Does that mean you didn’t do it right, or is it fine because you came to that conclusion by yourself instead of automatically believing it because someone told you it’s right?

I'm quite new to Nietzsche and have been thinking about section 21 in Beyond Good and Evil. In this section, as far as I understand it, Nietzsche rejects the idea of free will and identifies a desire for freedom of will with the desire to bear the sole responsibility for one's actions. But he also diagnoses the opposite position - the belief in an unfree will - as stemming from a desire to absolve oneself of responsibility.

These understandings of each position make sense to me on their own - and I found them very revealing personally. But, my question is; if there is no freedom of will, but a belief in an unfree will is the desire to absolve oneself of responsibility - what is the alternative?

It seems to me that Nietzsche is getting at the possibility of avoiding the nihilism that comes with determinism but without conceding to any sort of belief in free will - but how?

Thanks!

Obviously Nietzsche speaks against Christianity quite often, so I wonder what people find to be the best responses theyve seen that attempt to take down his claims, be it in a paper, book, video, or what have you.

I'm just confused if he held any sort of psychological "superiority" over people and what it specifically was? Like, what was his stance on "inequality" and "equality" too?

But I'm not implying he was a racist German-nationalist philosopher or anything like that, and I also don't mean "superiority" in the physical or biological sense, as I'm aware of how Nazi's distorted the concept of the Übermensch. I'm just a little perplexed about the nuance here.

In the context of culture and evolution, the idea of the Ubermensch is pretty pointless. I’m sure it was a profound idea when Nietzsche came up with it, but man does it ever get more credit than it deserves in this forum.

Every value system in human history had to be created by human beings. Period. Cultures have always created values, destroyed them, redesigned them, and replaced them with new ones. All we’ve ever vet had are temporary values.

Humanity itself is no exception. Like every other living thing, we are always stuck in a moment suspended between what came before and whatever comes after.

This process does not culminate in perfection. It continues until extinction. There is no final human type, no ultimate set of values, no endpoint toward which evolution moves.

In response to Nietzsches ideas about the herd, where to even start. He misunderstood herd mentality because he treated it primarily as weakness, conformity, or mediocrity, rather than as one of the central mechanisms of human survival.

Human beings have survived as intensely social animals capable of coordination and shared norms. What Nietzsche dismissed as “herd morality” was often the cultural glue that allowed large groups to cooperate, share knowledge, and ultimately survive. To add to this, it allowed us to reduce internal violence. We wouldn’t be here today without our “herd mentality”.

Which Nietzsche book is the most thought provoking and transformational but also best for someone new to Nietzsche

Frankly, this may sound like a completely foolish question as I just began reading philosophy content, and this is my first post. Anyways, I just recently started reading Nietzsche's The Gay Science (Walter Kaufmann's translation, if that's important) and this question came into my mind during my reading of Book 1.

There is a couple quotes in specific that pointed me towards this idea, and they push me heavily towards thinking he had some sort of anti-liberal views--at the very least--hence my asking of this question. The quotes are as follows:

On page 96, it's written, "Indeed, in times of 'corruption' the power and force of the national energies that are expended are probably greater than ever and the individual squanders them as lavishly as he could not have formerly when he was simply not yet rich enough." (The Gay Science, 96)

On page 102, it's written, "Buying and selling have become common, like the art of reading and writing. Everybody has practiced it even if he is no tradesman, and gets more practice everyday." (The Gay Science, 102)

Then, on page 103, it's written, "One can imagine social conditions in which there is no buying and selling and in which this art gradually ceases to be necessary." (The Gay Science, 103)

The last bit there, where he says that 'this art' will gradually cease to be necessary, is what connected this idea together, although the underlying theme I had noticed long before. Like I said before, I may just be completely oblivious and be asking a question with an obvious answer, but I didn't want to turn to AI to answer questions for me. So, any insight would be appreciated!

Thank you in advance.

If “truth is a woman. Why not?”

What is the woman?