How much was Nietzsche actually right?

shadowgardener12, you’ve hit on something massive here—the whole process of an individual finding their true self.
How do we actually know if we are true vessels for the art of our era?
To me, it comes down to the artistic act of *being*, rather than just the act of *having*.
I respect where you’re coming from, and I think there’s some heavy truth in your argument, but I have to diverge a bit and share my own take.
Who actually matters in this conversation?
Heinrich Hein once famously said: Where they burn books, they will also ultimately burn people.
Fast forward 120 years, and we're seeing those exact same patterns starting to emerge again right here in America.
Hein wasn't just making a point; he was being visionary. He was ahead of his time.
Even though he was primarily a poet, you could argue he was more than a philosopher—he was a visionary artist of the future, someone who saw what was coming.
I’ve always been fascinated by those persona-breakers—the outliers who exist outside the constraints of their time and space.
I see Nietzsche as the ultimate avant-garde figure in that regard. But look, we don’t all need to be Nietzsche; it’s enough to spend a lifetime chasing art, chasing philosophy, and striving to dismantle the stagnant systems within ourselves and the world around us.
Your perspective—which, granted, might feel totally irrelevant to how you perceive things—has one major flaw: it feels classical, outdated, and stuck looking backward.
That Nietzsche you’re observing so intently was operating on a level far beyond your current timeframe, because he was focused on experiencing the future in the present and evolving toward a new era.
The real magic lies in living the present as if it were the future, and treating the future as if it were happening right now.
In that sense, history has these critical turning points where certain souls leap forward spiritually, creating moments that can never be replicated.
When you look at it that way, Nietzsche is infinitely more advanced than any stale, traditional guru who acts perfectly moral while doing nothing to alleviate the actual suffering of the world.
By that standard, Nietzsche actually succeeded.
His struggle is cosmic, his innovation is absolute, the mark he left on the world is unique, and his art remains untouchable even today.
He succeeded because he actually had the guts to try, shadowgardener12—something I suspect you won't ever dare to do.
Honestly, labeling things as "Western" versus "Eastern" philosophy feels a bit too academic and textbook to me.
Trying to force Patanjali’s sutras into modern psychology is even more of a stretch; psychology is fundamentally rooted in philosophy—if it weren't, it wouldn't be philosophy to begin with—but trying to force philosophy into the mold of psychology? That’s a new one even for me.
And even A. Maslow’s concept of "self-actualization" is really just a repackaged application of philosophy.
But hey, that’s a whole other conversation.
😎

Look, dream... you act like certain psychological aspects are still a mystery. Some 20th-century philosophical schools basically pointed out that people gravitate toward specific philosophies based on who they are. Character. Psyche. So even the act of choosing is rooted in the mind itself...
On a psychological level, there’s really no distinction between philosophy and religion. Just think about it. And let Nietzsche help you out.

shadowgardener12 said:Oh man, you act like certain psychological aspects are some big mystery—as if 20th-century philosophers didn't "casually mention" that people gravitate toward specific philosophies based on who they are. Their character, their psyche. So, even the mere act of choosing is rooted in one's own mind...
At the level of the psyche, there’s really no distinction between philosophy and religion. Just think about it. And hey, let Nietzsche guide you!

By trying to inject psychology into the teachings of Patanjali, you’ve really shown just how little you actually know about philosophy and psychology.
Look, if you actually understood psychology, you’d realize that most 20th-century movements weren't driven by philosophical leanings, but by how an individual perceives the world—either externally or through a sociological lens. Choosing a school of thought isn't necessarily about your "inner psyche"; it's often just a byproduct of your upbringing, your schooling during adolescence, or
how your social environment shaped your self-image during those formative post-adolescent years.
You're completely off base here, man.
Especially when you try to discredit philosophy using that
ridiculous, childish distinction between "Eastern" and "Western" thought.
From the era of the Vedas until today, philosophy has remained philosophy. You can't say the same for psychology, which is still a relatively newborn discipline that only started finding its footing at the turn of the 20th century.
But honestly, the worst part is that you're lying to yourself.
And god, don't complain that some people can't even choose behaviorism based on their personality. For them, Nietzsche is out of reach.
Then again, plenty of people have said—Nietzsche isn't for everyone.
Let alone people who just twist his words to suit whatever mood they're in.
🙂

Honestly, it’s tough for me. It’s even harder trying to interpret one man’s life work on a forum like this—especially someone who actually cared about humanity.
It just makes me sad when something original, something born from a spirit and an ideal that both you and I value as human beings, gets dragged down into meaningless nitpicking, random personal tangents, or just pointless attacks.

I suppose it really comes down to style and taste—how people choose to criticize or how they choose to defend.
Any opinion, as long as it's thought out and fits someone's own knowledge or perspective, is welcome here. It's invited.

History has its own take on F. Nietzsche, just like different philosophical schools and various individuals do...
Whether I personally agreed with those views or not, I respect anything done with the right purpose, the right method, and above all, with respect—both to the work itself and to oneself.

My own experience with his work has changed so much. It depended on what I knew at the time, my own mental framework, and mostly, just my own human experiences.
I'll admit, I used to resent him for no real reason. I’d close my eyes to his ideas, get angry, or argue with some critical sentence he wrote. Then, eventually, I grew to love him—the way you love someone who is so vastly different from you that you can't find common ground on almost anything, except for one crucial point: Defense of Man. And, I guess, his poetry too.

I truly love and value his spirit, his love for humanity, for Life, and for philosophy.
Even if I don't quote his exact words, I read them for their meaning, leaning into the insight they provide.

Nietzsche’s philosophy is, above all else, raw. He saw things for what they truly were, and he had the guts to lay his ideas out there—no filters, no fear, just presenting his vision exactly as he conceived it...
Look, I haven't spent my entire life buried in N.'s books, but from what I've gathered, the takeaway is pretty clear: in a brutal society like this one, you have to fight for yourself by any means necessary. If you don't, people are going to eat you alive, leaving you small, pathetic, and dim-witted...
He also took this incredibly provocative stance against religions that manipulate how people live their lives. Honestly, that's one part of his work I really respect...

To avoid writing a novel, I'll keep this brief.
Nietzsche simply broke down at the end of his life. Many people who don't actually understand his philosophy view him as
sick or unstable because Hitler used his ideas—distorted, of course—to paint him as a "villain."
Hitler interpreted Nietzsche’s Übermensch as the Aryan race, whereas Nietzsche had an entirely different vision. He laid this out in his
work regarding "The Will to Power."

Furthermore, Nietzsche unconsciously negated the existence of altruism through his concept of the two wills.
Man is driven by two conflicting forces: the will to power and the will to live. Since altruism involves a person willingly surrendering and
risking their own life to help someone else, it denies the will to live and instead seeks the will to power.
If they survive, they gain multiple advantages and climb the social ladder. You can look at evolution
where the strongest prevail. His philosophy is flawless and profound. I have only read two of his books, but I spent months studying them to truly grasp them.
Everything he said, or anything any other philosopher says, makes sense within its specific context. You shouldn't take every sentence literally.
You have to think about it rather than just guessing or defaulting to criticism.
😁
Regards,

It looks like you guys are struggling here, so since my ban just expired—lucky for you—I'll step in and clear things up.
The "illness" Nietzsche was talking about is simply human self-awareness. It’s that exact thing that supposedly separates us from animals. This consciousness forces us to constantly hunt for meaning, answers, thrills, and risks... all the stuff a healthy animal wouldn't give a second thought to (and honestly, some people don't either, but I'm not trying to be rude).

Does anyone actually know the cause, or at least have a theory, for why he developed schizophrenia at that age?
I’d say you can interpret Nietzsche in a hundred different ways; it all just depends on how the reader perceives it.

wearyowl29 said:... wait, when did he actually say that "man is a sick animal"???😲 🙄

Good grief, man... that takes me back to 2003.😬

No, we really need to look at this within the proper context, specifically the one established by:

Where does this constant state of malaise actually stem from? There's no denying it: humans are far more prone to sickness, instability, and unpredictability than any other creature on the planet. We are, quite frankly, the most fragile species out there. But how did we end up this way? How did we become such an indeterminate mess?

"The truly sick represent man's greatest threat; I'm not talking about the villains or even the 'predators.' It's those who are broken from the very beginning—the downtrodden, the ones who have been crushed by circumstance. It is these individuals, the weakest of us, who ultimately undermine the fabric of society. They are the ones who cast doubt and poison our fundamental trust in life, in humanity, and in our own potential." (Nietzsche, Third)

What is it they’re actually chasing? They claim they want to stand for things like justice, or love, or wisdom, or even some sense of moral superiority. But let's be honest—it’s just a mask. That whole pursuit is really nothing more than the ambition of the "lowest" among us, the ones who are fundamentally broken.

It’s a pattern you see everywhere: these broken, fragile types try to claim a monopoly on morality. They act as if they hold the exclusive patent on being "good" or "just," looking down their noses at everyone else. It’s quite transparent, really. What we're actually witnessing is The Will of the Weak attempting to manufacture its own version of superiority. It’s an instinctual, almost desperate reach for a backdoor way to exert tyranny over those who are actually healthy and vibrant. Honestly, where do you *not* find this specific brand of power-seeking from the downtrodden? They are driven entirely by resentment—people who are, quite frankly, physiologically spent and spiritually decayed. It’s like watching a sprawling, trembling underworld fueled by nothing but petty, subterranean revenge.

This whole "sickly" concept is essentially the core malady of Christianity—it’s gifted humanity with a "diseased soul." It effectively kills off our primal instincts and the sheer will to live by imposing these pathetic restrictions on mankind, rules designed specifically for the weak and the subservient that everyone is forced to follow. To me, Nietzsche represents an even deeper level of misfortune; he’s reacting to an era of excessive rationality that lacks any Dionysian spirit. It’s nothing more than a negation of existence, a systematic strangling of every single spark of life.

Christianity has essentially declared total war on the superior individual. It’s positioned itself as the ultimate champion for everything mediocre, frail, and fundamentally broken. Instead of celebrating vitality, it has built its entire moral framework around opposing the raw instinct of a powerful, thriving life. In many ways, you could view Christianity as a coordinated uprising by those who crawl through the dirt, all aimed at pulling down anyone who dares to stand tall.

In that sense, Nietzsche says.

wearyowl29 said:Honestly, every single word here feels redundant...

...which is exactly how I feel about it...

It’s honestly such a cheap shot when people rip a single line out of context just to wave it around and claim that’s what the author actually meant.🙂

hollowtinker18 said:Does anyone actually know the cause, or at least have a theory, for why he developed schizophrenia at that age?
I’d say you can interpret Nietzsche in a hundred different ways; it all just depends on how the reader perceives it.

It’s like syphilis, except it isn't.
I believe his madness is precisely what proved his greatness. 🙂
However, he wasn't insane simply because being "mad" is some mysterious trait of great men—he just withdrew more seriously. Personally, I have a lot of respect for him because of everything he went through. 🙂