Hacker News Reader

Comment by misterdoubt | Hacker News Reader

Cherry-picking sentences out of a famously enigmatic writer is a disservice to both his thought and your own.

Being hard to understand is not a virtue, and maybe it's overthinking to claim that someone saying "The great majority of men have no right to existence" somehow means something other than what that sentence quite plainly implies.

So far, I haven't seen a clear exposition of what Nietzschd meant by these phrases, if not the obvious thing. The guy quite clearly had an obsession with concepts of "great men".

People have thought that some people are more fundamentally valuable than others in some moral is-ought sense for most of existence, there's nothing new or enigmatic about it and most reasonable people are done with it.

You don't understand his philosophy of life, so of course these statements seem peculiar (i.e. why he placed such a value on greatness). With a great age of complacency coming upon us, I think you'll witness first hand what happens when weak people rule and excellence is abandoned for equality.

Who, then, understands his philosophy of life? I've tried looking up various interpretations and they all seem to range from "gross" to "really gross", and are just rehashings of might makes right, which is the least imaginative and most ancient philosophy in existence.

Example: https://rafal.io/posts/nietzsche-slave-morality.html

Please point me to the correct interpretation of Nietzsche, because I'm apparently failing to find it.

Or maybe we all who are not fans of him understand what it seemed Nietzsche wanted to get at just fine and are not interested in sugar coating the consequences of such belief sets.

> I think you'll witness first hand what happens when weak people rule and excellence is abandoned for equality.

Question: do you consider Stalin a weak or a strong person in this context?

I honestly don't agree with the premise that you can just read someone's recap to understand him. He wasn't that type of philosopher. It's just like reading someone's interpretation of a poem -- you will get that person's perspective, not necessarily that of the author. I know this makes western minds ill, in the west we believe truth can be separated from the mind and put on a page, available for everyone to understand by merely downloading it. Some things you can only understand by experience -- something eastern philosophers are more open to. So Nietzsche is the correct interpretation of Nietzsche. Why would we ever believe a philosophy of life would be a logical argument anyway? Isn't purpose and perspective more in the realm of the arts? Again, I know this is highly unsatisfactory to sons of the west and moderns completely submerged in political correctness.

I don't consider people that terrorize others to be strong, that's what weak people do.

A serious reader of Nietzsche should, at a minimum, read Kaufmann's foundational book.

https://press.princeton.edu/titles/10109.html

If you want a single source for a "correct interpretation" (a term that's hard to take seriously), read that book.

Excellence is often used as by the vicious to hide their atrocities. Power is not simply the application of power, it's about knowing when to apply the appropriate power. Equality of opportunity is not weakness. Equality of outcome is not guaranteed. The finest line is that those with the power are expected to be responsible for those who have yet to achieve that power. Naked selfishness is weakness as much as naked reliance. He himself created a teacher in Zarathustra and shared his writings with the world. I think you've misunderstood a great deal of what he wrote.

Some people have trouble understanding. Some don't. I always felt he was the clearest philosopher of them all.

Right?! It makes me feel weird that people always say he's cryptic.

When reading Nietzche the next sentence was never hard to predict or digest. I didn't have to reread paragraphs out of confusion but simply because I marveled at how beautiful and clear it was expressed. I'm dyslexic and have ADD and have always thought in more abstract terms--more parallel than serial. Maybe that had something to do with it.

I had the same experience and I have dyslexia as well. Hmm. It was because the musical rhythm he wrote with I think.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com