Well... considering that he was an admirer of Napolean... I am not so sure whether he will consider diogenes to be powerfull. From what I have understood from Thus spoke Zarathusthra, his focus on self realization is grounded in more of a western individualistic context. I am not a fan of this glorification of the "self", this egoism is perhaps the prime reason why the state of the world today is what it is.

As for overcoming the political differences, I do not see why I should embrace someone who supports exploitation and subjugation of others... but I am always open for discussion, even with a fascist! At the same time I also understand the problems with the reactionary tendencies within the left, and I spend more time criticizing that than criticizing the far right. The solution, however, is not to simply overcome political difference, not to simply subjectify everything and say there is no right and wrong. Exploitation and subjugation are not ok, you can take a very clear political position without resorting to mere reactionism.

The trouble is that one needs quite a broad perspective and in depth knowledge of (at least) recent history to have a nuanced understanding of things, and the average person cannot afford that! We all deal with things in our own capacity, we often seek simplistic narratives because that is all we can afford. We end up focusing too much on individuals, painting them as good or evil, overlooking the fact that individuals are just... individuals! products of their circumstances. For me, the way to overcome reactionism is to look away from the individual, to forgive the individual, to understand that the problem lies with the system, not with the individual, and that the individual simply tries to navigate through the system however they can. Hence, I would, for example, not waste my time trying to "punch a Nazi" unless it serves to destabilize the system I am opposed to. The opposition towards the individual can be meaningful or meaningless only in so far that it serves to affect the system. But yeah I am... diverting away from the topic may be...

As for the alpha/rational people, I would ask where do they come from? What shapes them to be so? the genes? the environment? or the very narrative of "alpha/rational people" itself? while we may not be able to conclusively answer these questions, looking into the history of these ideas can help us better understand where they are coming from (spoiler... there's a whole lot of colonial ideology buried in these terms!). Also, do we necessarily need such people to "lead" us? do we necessarily need "leaders"? Could it be that these "leaders" and the system which necessitates their role and existence is a part of the problem?

Nietzsche is all nice and good, but the way he is being reinvented and appropriated into the prevalent liberal ideology (by the likes of peterson and tate) is rather problematic. If you know about Zizek and his concept of "ideology", you'll get a hint of where I am coming from.

Nietzsche was not a big fan of the modern veneration of the rational mind either.

But this discussion about self-realisation is an important one.
It is true that when this goal of self-realisation becomes an obsession, it can also be destructive and there is also a tendency to see everything as a zero-sum game.

But i tend to agree with nietzsche that when you become complacent, lose the will to grow, you are basically dead. And also that this will to live and grow is what makes us human, and that trying to deny it is both unnatural and, ultimately, impossible.

This theme is very relevant in the current climate crisis we're facing, because one the one hand, complacency about our current state will lead us to self-destruct.
But on the other hand, ideas of degrowing the economy are simply bound to fail and will therefore not prevent this self-destruction from happening. And on top of that it will eventually lead to a situation where good behaviour, trying to safe the climate, will be punished, and free-rider behaviour is going to be rewarded.

Yes it ultimately is a matter of interpretation, how one understands complacency and vigilance. The aspect I admire of diogenes is mainly that of saying "no" in a most radical sense. While our activism may often mislead us or be hijacked by the elites for their own purposes, there is still one thing which I believe every single person can do, and which cannot be appropriated by the forces of capitalism, and that is... saying "no" to consumption.

But since how we interpret something is greatly influenced by "ideology", it is important to be cautious of which ideological currents are shaping our view. Nietzsche was quite easily hijacked by the Nazis, and in the same way, today different groups are appropriating his ideas to fit their narratives. There's no shortage of incels and neo nazis who love to quote Nietzsche all the time. And this is not just limited to the extreme cases and fringe groups, the "hustle culture" has also appropriated his ideas of self realization.

Ultimately, it is not the philosopher or their philosophy which one needs to be wary of, but the ideological lens through which it is seen.

As for "degrowing economy", it would never work if the system itself stays the same... you cannot just keep capitalism and just downsize the economy and expect everything to change. The logic of the system dominates our minds in such a way that we cannot think of any true alternatives, but only different versions of the same system.

This was about the center of my point, you do not recognize these feats within yourself, but they are there, dormant of not activated or even hidden in plain sight, perhaps in denial.

I don't feel the need to sum up your arguments but you have been condescending towards people who might have other {personality treats + different life circumstances} that lead towards merits that Nietzsche bring on the table for those people in need for them.

I do understand that you see another mechanism in action, that you find it a fallacy to bother what Nietzsche is bothering about, that he is missing the ball, perhaps heavily and deviating from things that really matter. But your "I do not see..." is on your part, is my reasoning.
Maybe more careful would have been an expression like: "It does not apply to me, and I wonder at all why it would apply to others." That would leave out the condescending?

For those who do exploit-and-subjugate, for whatever reason, you might advise them to start reading Nietzsche? I think that would be a good idea. A sing along love song campfire round might be too far fetched, so get them first in a mental exercise a la Nietzsche might be lesser steep of a step towards the values we carry. That is the kind of "embracing" I proposed. To first understand they are as they are, not looking down on them. One has to break the stale mate somewhere, and not for the sake of it, but out of understanding their 'being at square zero' is just as anyone else, every day.. The same advice I give to any right-to-left-to-right hate I see these days. Another route would be the strict natural one, by laws of nature, to let them battle it out manu militari and let the strongest prevail.

Then there is that certain mental quadrant in every human (and this part might be of lesser importants for you perhaps) that is a treadmill of activity with a purpose, it's not an error or fallacy but all part of surviving strategies that constitute us. Yes it might be also too much active and counterproductive, but it does have a function and worth guiding. This is where I see Nietzsche of value, a guiding of the mental missile. For the one more needed than for the other, perhaps not for you, or more for you than you'd might expected when looking deeper?
I remember a docu about a boeddhist(?) monastery where they had a dedicated period of mental storming of whatever kind imaginable. They understood this necessity as part of being a human. They gave it a place and room. This is where I see Nietzsche having a role, in that part to let mind roam its potential.

I write this with love in my pen and I'm open for misconceptions I probably have.

It's difficult to disagree with someone on internet without giving the impression that you're being angry/condescending towards them... Unfortunately, our communication here is limited to text only, which doesn't convey the tone etc. But I didn't mean anything in a condescending way. I can only ask you to read my response while imagining a perfectly calm person with a gentle smile on their face. Perhaps you'll see things differently then. I mentioned multiple times that I don't hold anything against the individual, regardless of their political/moral views. But I don't hesitate to take a clear position on some matters. I used the words "I do not see" to convey the aspect of subjectivity, that this is my position and it originates from a certain position and perspective. Nevertheless, I do take a clear position instead of relativising everything. My words were not directed against anyone!

As for Nietzsche, we can all agree that his ideas have been co-opted by different groups in the history, right? And this is not just limited to Nietzsche, influential people, texts etc. end up being interpreted in a thousand different ways by different people. Now I'm not saying that Nietzsche is directly responsible for this, nor that the Nazi's interpretation of his ideas was the more correct one. I'm simply stating that... having read Nietzsche, I can see how his writings could be interpreted this way. I am also not saying that one should stay away from his writings, but that one ought to be cautious of a few things while reading him... one ought to understand his ideas in the context of the prevalent ideas of his time.

My response is not only directed towards you or any other people here, it's a product of several different conversations with varying people over the last 6 or so years. As mentioned before, I have come across incels, neo nazis, hustle boys, and several other groups of chauvinists who are inspired by Nietzsche. Then there's the again accusation of slave morality against socialists/communists which gets thrown around way too often. Here again, I would say that this can be interpreted in many different ways, but I strongly oppose using this idea to justify the dominance of one group over the other.

I hope you understand that I'm not looking down on anyone...

With certain kinds of philosophy, it often ís a problem how it is to be interpreted. Unlike with analytical philosophy, wich is usually very clear.

It is a bit ironic that those currents of philosophy wich are deemed "continental" tend to be much more popular in the united states and canada these days, while in europe, people tend to be much more interested in analytical philosophy.

Nietzsche is very continental. Vague, obscure, murky.

But "power". Is it realy such a negative thing to aspire?
Maybe, in a perfect world, it would be.

But what if you're living in a world that is not so perfect, where people dó tend to subjugate others?
Wouldn't you at least want to have the power to resist such agression?

Power has been seen, by enlightened or maybe pseudo-enlightened people, as a very bad thing to aspire. As something that decent people should not long for.
But doesn't that mean that the not so decent people will then inherit the earth?

Isn't that what has been, and still is happening, way too often?

Enlightened intellectuals in europe have been saying, or rather regurgitating, for decades, that if we would simply stop investing in the military and the arms industry, there would be no more wars.

Well congratulations enlightened european intellectuals, you've got what you wished for: a defenseless europe, while a madman is waging a genocidal war in our backyard. And we have to beg the americans again to come and safe us.

In my view nietzsche is totally right that this cultivated weakness is decadent and degenerate. It has been an open invitation to vladimir putin to start a genocidal war. Just like it has been to hitler and mussolini before.

And what did we achieve with this supposed enlightenment of ours? Only that we got to feel morally superior for as long as it lasted. But all of this moral superiority was a lie. It was something that we liked to believe in. But we where fooling ourselves.
And now we are paying the price, and millions of ukrainians are paying the price.

This is the best and most comprehensive account of Nietzsche’s philosophy that I have seen.

https://www2.grenfell.mu...olume%2014/9_Kierans.pdf

One might say that interpretation is the problem in almost every field of study, especially those that make claims about the world and are not a priori.

I think there may be an erroneous assumption and interpretation that is ubiquitous with regard to what he meant by "power." Are we sure it's not relegated more to personal power and power of self? It's hard to subscribe to only one interpretation, because as dragonrider stated, he's very vague, murky, and obscure. That being the case, it's it more prudent to observe and be open to multiple interpretations. He could've meant things in more than one way, ie polyvalent.

One love

Yes now I do, thanks for explaining. The inherent limitations of text in a forum is a shortcoming sometimes. Often I find myself battling to choose the best words to not be misunderstood as meant. As you say, the lack of seeing a person communicating is a caveat.

I think we were trying to distinguish ourselves from flesh-and-nature. The typical reaction that (near?) all religions do, all ethics try to do, to run away from the bone dry hard natural laws of violence, eat or be eaten, attack and defense, ...

For a while we can do that, this escape of needing to hunt for the meal of the day, to start reading books, to shave ourselves, dress nicely, talk nicely, be proud, ..., pedestal ourselves and look down on those that are still driven by nature's forces. We can do that as long as there is prosperity, food, materials, knowledge etc. But as soon as this prosperity is tapering off, this luxury of distinguishing ones selves from natural laws, of which power and handling of power is a fundamental part, this luxury is out the door very fast and the run to extremes, meaning rage, is back in business.
So all this vain, was it a lie?
I think of it as an escape from the hard life that nature presents to it's habitants, I understand this flea of it. The construct of an ideal. But is it strong? Nope, it hangs on a silk thread.

Just a word of insight about Nietzsche: Nietzsche is, fundamentally, a religious thinker of cosmic proportions. People often interpret him through liberal glasses. Wrongo. He’s interested in great individuals as manifestations of the cosmic will to power, but he’s not liberally individualistic. He’s not particularly interested in individualistic self help nonsense. He saw himself as a brilliant light in the history of philosophy (he was not shy about his self-evaluation) on par with the greatest of the great, and he’s not talking to us, for the most part… he’s talking to the history, almost like a prophet. He also didn’t give the slightest shit about any ethical category. Yes, he was opposed to antisemitism, but he would not have an ethical problem with things as extreme as the holocaust. He may have objected to Nazism, but not on ethical grounds. Bear it in mind when you engage with him. This guy, if you understand him correctly, will strike most sane humans as deeply, deeply fucked up. Liberals usually miss that point with this fellow. He’s terrifying, and in my estimate, while brilliant basically a shit stain of a human.

Yes, i think you're right. Wich is also what i meant when i said earlier on in the thread that nietzsche would have probably considered our beloved barrelman, diogenes, a powerfull person.

But the reasoning probably applies to "power" in a broader sense of the word as well, considering how nietzsche loathed christianity's and socialisms veneration of weakness.

And i think he does have a point there. If you compare the bible's statement:"the meek shall inherit the earth" to frank zappa's statement:"the meek shall inherit nothing", then i would personally say that i find the thinking behind what are supposedly jesus' words, much more beautiful and poetic. I would almost be inclined to add the word "ofcourse" to that sentence.

I see why people want to believe it. And i wish it where true.

But unfortunately, i find zappa's statement about the meeks fate the more realistic one. The much more realistic one.

And when i think of truly powerful people, like mahatma ghandi, nelson mandela or volodymyr zelensky, they also tend to be powerfull in the broader sense of the word. And it is true that what ultimately defines these men is not the "dirty" power they eventually had. It is rather their moral power and their resolve. But they did and do not shun the use of dirty power either, wich is the innevitable consequence of that personal resolve.

I usually use the term "Power" not to mean power in a general sense as in the capacity to do something, like self defense etc. but in the limited sense of "power over someone", power as the defining aspect of a dominant/subjugated relation. Now is the dream of abolishing this divide necessarily a veneration of the "weak"? For that, you would have to establish that the subjugated are necessarily "the weak", depending on your theoretical background, this may or may not be the case... the "powerful" of the world can hardly survive a single day of the downtrodden. On the other hand, it is also not a veneration of the "subjugated" in a sense that it calls for the annihilation of the subjugated. The accusation of celebrating victimhood would only be valid for those who seek to maintain that status...

As for the war in Ukraine, I wouldn't simply tie it to the same old nationalist narrative of "oh we appeared weak that's why". To understand why we have the kind of wars we do today (and those are much much different from the wars of the pre industrialist past) you have to understand their importance for modern states. There's a book I can recommend you, "Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992" specially the 3rd chapter "How war made states, and vice versa" is particularly interesting. If you see how modern warfare is a fundamental part of the structure of modern state, you will see that a simple demilitarization is futile. No amount of demilitarization will bring any peace as long as the state itself is not abolished.

"Who will protect you from the law of the jungle if there is no state?" This is usually the first response when people hear this... It comes from a particular understanding of the "law of the jungle", the one which reduces the complexities of life to a simple function of evolutionary struggle for survival... It is the same view which leads us to believe that we have morals because we have relative security in the matters of basic needs etc. and that without that security, we will eat each other alive. Some even go as far as to say that "civilization" is the one thing which clothes and hides the beast within. If you manage to free yourself from the simplistic explanations of 19th century biologists and sociologists (no blame on them, they were simply a product of their time!), you will realize that nature eludes any such simple analysis. You don't just have violence and cruelty in nature, but everything else as well! It is a folly of sciences to reduce everything to a simple function of survival, it is nothing more than dogma! Consider how we tend to think of the past? How we tend to think that back then was a time of ignorance, when sheer violence and cruelty prevailed, that only now we have become enlightened? This view is simply not backed up by any facts. Communities across the world have existed in relative harmony for centuries until the modern world disrupted those structures. Wars have been much less frequent throughout history as compared to the 19th and 20th century. The world has never seen misery and exploitation of this scale... To understand all that, you will have to understand how the world has been transformed in the last 300 years, how production has changed, how the concepts of property have changed and how has it all turned our world into such a mess. No, the west didn't simply become enlightened and abolished war, they imported it! wars have been raging all across the globe ever since the WWII, but just not in the west! and people easily blame it all on the ignorance and backwardness of the "third world", they say that they are still lagging behind on the path of progress and democracy, not knowing the fact that the third world is simply a product and a continuation of the colonial structures and policies. And we are all well aware of the direct and indirect involvements of the great powers in regime changes etc.

Now returning to Nietzsche, yes, he can be read as someone with a religious inclination towards seeing the cosmic power of will unfold, but is this power of will manifested in the individual? or community? or life itself in an abstract sense? You can read him in any different way, I tend to see him as more of an individualist. Yet, as I mentioned before, this individualism and the pressure to prove one's metal, leads only to perpetual suffering. The more you strive to make a god out of your humble self, the more insecure you become, and in the end, if you are mad enough, and given enough power, you burn the world down just to be the god of dirt. Its just ego and the so called "tiny penis syndrome", we are better off without that!

I don't see states being abolished anytime soon. And considering what kind of global catastrophe would be required to further such a goal, i definately don't look forward to it either.