Bill O'Reilly"s downfall

[Immanuel Can]

Your understanding of Nietzsche truly belongs in the first half of the twentieth century. It’s long been revised!

Lots of people are trying to redeem Nietzsche today. And they need him for a lot of their special pleading, so that's easy to understand.

But Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi, in that he was clearing the deck for them to use and providing them with the stock of concepts they needed for their Final Solution. When the concept of "übermensch" was taken up by Hitler, you know very well where he got it from. And his hatred of Jewish and Christian morality, again, you know where he got it from. And the idea of "will to power" -- straight out of Nietzsche. But even when he was not explicitly borrowing from Nietzsche, which he clearly did frequently, he was benefitting from the "beyond good and evil" (Nietzsche again) which he created with his "God is dead" (Nietzsche) wiping away of morality.

Hitler had the (bad) courage to be all that Nietzsche gave him the chance to be. To say, then, that Nietzsche isn't responsible philosophically is wrong, and to imagine that philosophy doesn't shape how people actually think and act is naive. Yes, Marx bears significant blame for the Communist atrocities, though he specified none: he gave the rationale necessary to justify what ensued. And Nietzsche is forever the progenitor of Nazism; like Lady Macbeth, he can never get that blood off his hands.

And that should warn us to be careful what we advocate.

[uwot]

It's well-known that Nietzsche hated Nazism.

But Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi...

Mr Can, have you actually read any Nietzsche?

...in that he was clearing the deck for them to use and providing them with the stock of concepts they needed for their Final Solution.

That's a very bold claim, Mr Can. Precisely what did Nietzsche say that leads you to this conclusion?

When the concept of "übermensch" was taken up by Hitler, you know very well where he got it from.

Yeah, but you clearly don't. Hitler's idea of Übermensch was racial. (It's ironic that someone who habitually capitalises nouns incorrectly, should fail to capitalise when it is actually appropriate.) In Nazi mythology, there's a race of 'Aryans', Germans, to you and me, who are better that anyone else. Nietzsche's Übermensch had nothing to do with race. He was not a nationalist and on at least one occasion, said he would have all anti-semites shot.

[Greta]

When the concept of "übermensch" was taken up by Hitler, you know very well where he got it from.

Then again, Charles Manson completely misunderstood The Beatles's Blackbird, but his inspiration from that song had nothing to do with Paul McCartney's ideas. So the co-opting of another's work need not reflect on the other at all.

[Immanuel Can]

When the concept of "übermensch" was taken up by Hitler, you know very well where he got it from.

Then again, Charles Manson completely misunderstood The Beatles's Blackbird, but his inspiration from that song had nothing to do with Paul McCartney's ideas. So the co-opting of another's work need not reflect on the other at all.

That's quite true. The fact that someone steals language from an ideology does not mean they are true representatives of that ideology. (Funny that so many people accuse people who do very anti-religious actions of being genuinely "religious," and then interpret the religion itself as abusive: for that's the logical fallacy you're pointing out above. But let that be.)

But to probe Nietzsche further, we need to ask ourselves if there was anything in Nietzsche's account of the amorality of the world and the absence of God that would tell us Hitler was abusing rather than legitimately using what Nietzsche gave him?

In other words, here's what Nietzsche's apologists really need to show: that he did NOT denude the world of morals, and thus make Hitler completely permissible. That he did not supply Hitler with warrant for what he did. And that means he needs to have had something positive in his Nietzschean ethics that argued persuasively that, "Even beyond good and evil, things like Hitler are not okay."

So what makes Hitler wrong after Nietzsche? Let's ask that.

[uwot]

In other words, here's what Nietzsche's apologists really need to show...

One second Mr Can; who here is a Nietzsche apologist, in your estimation? It is you making trite, unfounded and uneducated accusations against someone you clearly have no actual knowledge of. The onus is on you to show that Nietzsche is culpable in the way you claim.

[Skip]

Righteous fiber works wonders. Got O'Reilly sorted, anyway.

[Dubious]

But Nietzsche was a proto-Nazi, in that he was clearing the deck for them to use and providing them with the stock of concepts they needed for their Final Solution.

Your post is an outstanding example for only one thing ...rampant distortions invented by extreme opinion as substitute for already well known established fact. But that shouldn't surprise since that's been your main formula and contribution in most of your posts.

Enjoy your Bible Immanuel but having seen what's its done to you I'm clearly much safer with Nietzsche then with Christ when it comes to feeding the still live fishes in the old neuron tank. N is simply a thousand times more interesting in keeping one alert especially so when questioning his conclusions which, based on his style, he expects an intelligent reader to do...which unfortunately preempts you from understanding anything Nietzsche wrote.

In your case it's best to keep reading what you're preconditioned to accept...the one and only HOLY BIBLE!

[Dubious]

So what makes Hitler wrong after Nietzsche? Let's ask that.

...because Hitler was dead wrong about Nietzsche to begin with as those who have read him or read about him, already know.

...but also, let's ask what makes Immanuel so obnoxiously prejudiced after all his bible lessons?

[Immanuel Can]

So what makes Hitler wrong after Nietzsche? Let's ask that.

...because Hitler was dead wrong about Nietzsche to begin with as those who have read him or read about him, already know.

I've read Nietzsche. I see Hitler all over him. So do any but Nietzsche's late apologists, like yourself.

So if Hitler is not an acceptable interpretation of Nietzschean ethics, prove it. Where is it said by Nietzsche that Hitler-type actions are wrong? It's not remotely contestable that Hitler borrowed from Nietzsche, as he used all the same language exactly, and it's easy to establish that he not only knew of but greatly admired Nietzsche.

All you can argue about is the legitimacy of his borrowing.

Go for it. Quote where Nietzsche argues his morality cannot legitimately be expressed in that sort of way.

[Skip]

Quote where Nietzsche argues his morality cannot legitimately be expressed in that sort of way.

Then quote where Immanuel Can ever argued all the sorts of ways in which his own morality cannot be legitimately expressed.
I bet I can find at least one reprehensible person who admires him.

[Immanuel Can]

I bet I can find at least one reprehensible person who admires him.

If we are "beyond good and evil," then nothing is "reprehensible"...including me. You can thank Nietzsche for that.

[thedoc]

I bet I can find at least one reprehensible person who admires him.

Here I am. Oh, - are you talking about IC or N? I thought I was deplorable, not reprehensible.

[uwot]

I've read Nietzsche. I see Hitler all over him. So do any but Nietzsche's late apologists, like yourself.

So if Hitler is not an acceptable interpretation of Nietzschean ethics, prove it.

Mr Can, there is no need to provide further evidence that you are a blithering half-wit; we already know. By all means present your thesis that Hitler is all over Nietzsche, you could even cite some of the "any but Nietzsche's late apologists", that support your argument; but petulantly squawking 'I'm right, prove me wrong!' is how children and idiots argue.

[thedoc]

Nietzsche seems to be the main topic, it's been a long time since I read him, so

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche

From the article, might explain some of the confusion about Nietzsche.

"After his death, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche became the curator and editor of her brother's manuscripts, reworking Nietzsche's unpublished writings to fit her own German nationalist ideology while often contradicting or obfuscating his stated opinions, which were explicitly opposed to antisemitism and nationalism. Through her published editions, Nietzsche's work became associated with fascism and Nazism;[15] 20th-century scholars contested this interpretation of his work and corrected editions of his writings were soon made available. His thought enjoyed renewed popularity in the 1960s, and his ideas have since had a profound impact on 20th and early-21st century thinkers across philosophy—especially in schools of continental philosophy such as existentialism, postmodernism, and post-structuralism—as well as art, literature, psychology, politics, and popular culture."

[uwot]

If we are "beyond good and evil," then nothing is "reprehensible"...including me. You can thank Nietzsche for that.

So Mr Can, when you claim:

I've read Nietzsche.

what you mean is that you have read the titles of his books, but made no effort to open them and see what they say.