How much was Nietzsche actually right?

... wait, when did he actually say that "man is a sick animal"???😲 🙄

They're absolutely right about this.😛

briskrider8 said:They've got a point.😛

Seriously? 😁

As far as I can tell, Nietzsche was seriously ill—neuroses, psychoses, eventually total madness—so you shouldn't really take him all that seriously 😉
In any case, his philosophy can be quite easily explained through psychology...

He’ll always have his target audience, though. Most people drawn to him are just as unstable as he was (in their own way)... you know the story 😉

jimmy said:I mean, he’ll always have his audience. Most of his followers are just people who are—in their own way—kind of unstable by nature. You know how it goes. 😉

👍 👍 👍 Preach, jimmy!

shadowgardener12 said:From what I gather, Nietzsche was seriously unwell—struggling with neuroses, psychoses, and eventually full-blown insanity—so you shouldn't really take him all that seriously. 😉
In any case, his philosophy can be easily explained away through a psychological lens...

Even if he’ll always have his cult following, most people drawn to him are just looking for validation because they're inherently unstable themselves... you know how it goes. 😉

That's nonsense. That is such a shallow, surface-level interpretation of Nietzsche that it's basically on par with how Hitler viewed things...🙄

Blue Eyes said:Nonsense... that's just a surface-level reading. You're interpreting Nietzsche at a Hitler level...🙄

If anything here is superficial, it's your comment. No actual arguments. My take is based on psychological perspectives...
I don't see how Hitler even fits into this..!? You feeling okay when you typed that?

shadowgardener12 said:From what I gather, Nietzsche was seriously unwell—neuroses, psychoses, and eventually full-blown madness—so maybe we shouldn't take him all that seriously 😉
Either way, his philosophy is pretty easy to explain through a psychological lens...

And he’ll always have his cult following, since most people drawn to him are just as unstable (in their own way) by default... you know the story 😉

And I'm sure you fall into that "perfectly stable" category 😁 😁 😁 who doesn't actually read Nietzsche—meaning you don't really know anything about him or his work... you know the story. 😁

placidorca16, you want to explain what I'm even reading here? please... my humility and my sensitivity aren't really the point of this thread. if you actually have a question, try asking it differently.

Let’s take it from square one...

For those of you who actually back him, what makes you think Nietzsche was on the right track?

And more importantly, why?

In the final years of his life, Nietzsche struggled with severe mental decline and bouts of disorientation.
History has taught us a hard lesson: when you take someone's philosophy out of context just to suit your own agenda—like how the Nazis twisted his ideas—you end up with something dangerous.
When he spoke about man being a "sick animal," he meant we need to heal ourselves and learn to master our own impulses.
He hammered home the idea of self-mastery throughout his entire body of work; it’s almost redundant to mention, unless you're one of those people trying to twist his words to soothe your own deep-seated insecurities.
Sociological studies have even noted a pattern: those who strip Nietzsche of his context often belong to rigid, fundamentalist religious groups or intolerant circles looking to force his genius into their narrow ideological boxes.
The irony is that Nietzsche was actually calling out the sheer hypocrisy of the Christianized Europe of his time.
😉

Of course Nietzsche had depth and wisdom. The external context is obvious, sure, but the internal one is really just a call for self-healing—projecting inward. It’s the struggle of trying to break out of your own cage. He was at his strongest when he was just expressing that raw feeling... a truly tortured soul. I’ll never deny his lyricism or his soulfulness, but that’s exactly why his philosophy is so bogged down by subjective tension and extremes. To me, it feels like a pretty unconstructive way to describe the world, especially since he's acting like a philosopher rather than a psychologist, assuming his own internal state applies to everyone else. In reality, most of it is just his psyche. He descended into depths that most people never even touch; and because he went there unprepared, he ended up merging with those primal forces of nature, much like what happened to him. When that happens... well, that's an individual issue.

Just a bit of a psychological take. Don't hold it against me if I'm right about psychology conditioning every single individual philosophy.

Whether you’re settling down or just catching your breath, if you aren't at the finish line, you're in for a fight.
That was Nietzsche’s whole philosophy.
He never pretended to be some detached observer; he lived every bit of that struggle himself.
In his book Beyond Good and Evil, he makes it clear: he isn't trying to be a psychologist. He’s a philosopher through and through.
Think about it—psychology actually grew out of philosophy. Philosophy, much like literature (which I mention because Nietzsche’s influence on postmodern lit is massive), has been around far longer than psychology. It takes decades, even centuries, for psychology to even begin to catch up to those disciplines. And if it ever does... who knows?
From Maslow all the way to transpersonal psychology, the field keeps trying to bridge that gap—but honestly, the connection feels tenuous and stays almost invisible when you look at the data.
I respect everyone's perspective, but before you try to label Nietzsche, you really ought to read him first.

Honestly, I’m loving this. It’s about damn time I ran into a philosopher who actually gets straight to the point without all the extra fluff. Most of these guys just ramble on in a million different directions only to drop some incredibly questionable take at the end. Kant is my go-to example of a "philosopher" who just talks in circles.

Nietzsche was already laying out the whole idea of principle relativism way back when, and honestly, a hundred years later, it’s still the only thing that actually holds up against the test of time.

Bottom line? Nietzsche is king.

People who are obsessed with Nazi ideology tend to bounce wildly between two extremes when they read Nietzsche, swinging from total determinism to complete relativism.
On one hand, they see him as a hardline determinist—someone solely focused on the pursuit of the Superman.
On the other, they claim he’s a pure relativist who couldn't care less about anyone failing to reach that superhuman status.
But it's actually the exact opposite. Nietzsche’s message is this: fight. Take ownership of your own fate and have the courage to face yourself. If you live like that, you won't become a threat to others through your greatness; instead, you'll actually elevate them.
😉

when I brought up relativism, all I meant was that everything has to be looked at through its own context and relationships. but since I'm always the one doing the looking, I guess you could say I'm the absolute. or better yet... my own personal absolute.

anyway dream, major props this time for that killer vibe.

Actually, it’s the exact opposite—Nietzsche says you gotta fight, take ownership of your own damn fate, and be brave enough to face yourself. If you do that, you aren't gonna go around threatening people with your "superiority." > In fact... you'll actually end up lifting them up.

man, that’s the whole damn foundation I’m talking about when it comes to political activism. 😉.

Look, let's just get straight to the point instead of dancing around it.
I respect him, but most people just misunderstand what he was actually saying.
And honestly, his sister really messed things up back in the day... I think she forged some of those letters...

That’s where all this whole "he was a Nazi" nonsense starts.

Like, back in the first half of the century, someone finally figured out that those letters were faked by his sister—or maybe it was some female relative, I can't be 100% sure—so the modern editions have been totally revised since then.
.................................................. .................................................. .....

Anyway, I'm wondering how many of you guys have actually read more than five pages of his work.

+

Nemruth Dagi said:.... when does he actually say "man is a sick animal"???😲 🙄

This isn't even a real debate.
Zero explanation. Just a random quote ripped out of context.
So I don't really have anything to say to that.
It's just stupid watching people argue without bringing any actual arguments to the table.
That's it.

Nemruth Dag said:... wait, when did he actually say "man is a sick animal"???😲 🙄

If you look at how he defines "man" versus his idea of the "superman," then yeah, I get where that quote is coming from.

But if not... then whatever. 😛

Dream said:Whether you're descending or ascending, if you aren't at the end of the road, a struggle is waiting for you.
Nietzsche talked about this struggle...
He didn't even try to hide that he fought it alone.
He wasn't aiming to be a psychologist, but a philosopher—he makes that clear in Beyond Good and Evil.
Psychology grew out of philosophy. Philosophy, much like literature (which isn't the point here, but I mention it because Nietzsche had such a massive impact on postmodern literature), is far older than psychology. It takes years upon years before psychology can even begin to catch up. If it ever does...???
From Maslow to transpersonal psychology, everyone is trying to find that connection—but it feels incredibly unconvincing and statistically almost invisible.
I respect everyone's opinion, but you really need to read Nietzsche before you try to attribute anything to him.

Exactly. Struggle isn't just something he talked about; his entire body of work—Zarathustra, specifically—is an embodiment of that fight. Nietzsche searches for the Superman to face those depths that haunt him (and anyone else who actually bothers to look into their own psyche; reactions vary, of course), but who is he looking for? Someone from the future? No, he's looking for himself. It's pure survival instinct facing the massive weight of chaotic psychic forces. But that path, the one he demands, clearly didn't work for him... (If I were being cynical, I'd call it escapism in this context.)
His teachings aren't some rigid, formal, closed system because they "base" themselves—or rather, they tremble upon—the irrationality of the psyche. The prelude to a future philosophy is precisely that: the psyche and its irrational foundations.

-> Sure, Western philosophy might be older than psychology as a scientific discipline, but the human psyche is older than any philosophy. The fact that it wasn't discovered, recognized, or developed in the West earlier just speaks to how little we understood ourselves in the Western sphere of humanity.
Since we're talking timelines, there are philosophies thousands of years older than Ancient Greece, and psychologies that evolved alongside them. Modern Western psychology is just a tiny fragment of all that knowledge (especially since "modern" psychology has only been around for maybe a hundred years...)
People just need to look around and open themselves up. Statements like "psychology will catch up to philosophy" are totally misguided and narrow-minded when you realize that, for example, Patanjali's brilliant psychological and philosophical work, the Yoga Sutras, emerged around the start of the common era, roughly 500 BCE or so. And it's available to anyone with even a shred of privilege compared to most of humanity.

It would take too long to comment on other claims like "statistically unconvincing" or bringing up Maslow. Feel free to DM me if you want to dive into that...