I agree with Betrand Russel about Nietzsche. I read about Nietzsche. His father was a strict Lutheran Pastor who I think bullied Nietzsche, who was often in poor health as a child and as an adult. I think Nietzsche felt he was weak and that is why he seemed to hero worship what he saw as the strong people (brutal, unsympathetic, and cruel people). Later in life, Nietzsche went mad. He saw a horse being whipped and he ran to over to the horse to help the animal and later he went insane. I think he felt he'd lost the battle, his battle to stamp out his compassion. I think he saw his compassion for the horse as weakness. And to me that is very sad for he did the right thing to help the horse. I don't think compassion is weakness. Nietzsche had some good points but to me he had an all or nothing approach to his philosophy (kindness is weakness; cruelty is strength). He had written that niceness isn't always nice. That some people are nice to those they feel superior to and it is pity not nicess and this is true. Being overly nice to someone you pity isn't nice at all. Any thoughts on the subject?
I briefly scanned the Wikipedia article on Nietzsche. I have a hard time understanding such things, but I wonder if that has something to do with the reason some people are drawn to Hitler. I (very briefly!) had a client last year who had established a shrine to Hitler in his house. He was very nice, but I was too freaked out to return. Yet the agency still sends CNAs out there, saying he's never given anyone trouble (being in Hawaii, nearly all of us are minorities). Now I wonder if this was his way of "gaining strength and health".
Come to think of it, this may be what draws people to join hate groups...
Kindness isn't weakness. I think some people are led astray thinking that kindness never involves violence. I've even heard in some health classes that we should not say we're fighting disease. What's wrong with the term fighting? After all, when doctors perform surgery, are they not taking a knife to the patient? It is through this act of violence that they are able to slay the invader and heal the person. Anyone who has successfully been through surgery appreciates that!
I will have to go back and review my education on Nietzsche and his principles. I am pretty sure he was the one that said, "God is dead" (what he meant by that, again, I need to revisit). I am curious to brush up on him again. He certainly was a character in history worthy of study... I will have to come back to this when I am better informed! But interesting question for sure....
If I remember correctly the "God is dead" thing was brilliant to say the least. The more me learn about the universe the more we realize the God of the bible can't be real. How do we morn that loss? How do we find meaning in life without God? For people of faith losing God would be like losing a loved one.
Well, RadMan, I do believe that you summed up Nietzsche's philosophy pretty well in a surprisingly short statement! Well done, there. I could not have put it so succinctly. However, I cannot concur with him (and can't personally attest to the brilliance of the idea), as I do believe in the bible and good and evil and an afterlife! I think he knew a lot of tragedy and was living in a time where his philosophy reflected the goings on in the world... oh yeah.. and he was MAD (at least for sure in the end). Anyway, I am polar opposite his philosophy, SandCastles. You gotta be nice and no, it is not weakness to be so... in most cases, at least!
God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us?
His fear of Man's struggle to find a moral compass without belief in a higher good was prophetic, considering the course of history since his death.
I thought Nietzsche didn't believe in good and bad (morality) and thought that a superman was the person who decided what was good and bad (which is scary to me. There was an Alfred Hitchcock movie about this idea. Two students, followers of Nietzschef, killed a classmate because they decided that murder wasn't wrong and that killing this person made them supermen; superior. The movie was called 'rope' ). A moral compass might not be tied to God (though I believe in God) but there must be a moral code; there has to be a right and a wrong. It can not be up to the individual to decide. Or one individual might decide that for him or her, it is right for them to rob you or kill you. No, it isn't up to each individual to decide what is moral and what is not moral or that means every individual gets to decide what laws to follow and what laws not to follow. Morality can be questioned and argued and debated but that does not been we abolish all law; it doesn't mean every individual gets to do whatever they like to whomever they like. Those students in 'rope' took away a precious life as an experiment; that was very evil.
by Richard VanIngram7 years ago
The short answer is, "Yes."Should he or she, though?My answer , after my own search, long, difficult, very individualistic is again, "Yes." Can I understand why some or many rational individuals...
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
It seems like the idea of survival of the fittest is at odds with the basic ideology of the Left.No?Yes?
by Alan3 years ago
Folks, I have just been sent a URL that cuts right across any argument about whether there is a "God" or not, this little video speaks of human need and human response in love. PLEASE watch it right...
by RFox6 years ago
1. Buddha is not God.2. Buddha never preached "the word of the God" and never considered himself a prophet. He said repeatedly to his students that he was merely a human being. 3. In teachings the Buddha...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.