Thomas_More
Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I dispute that I am motivated by ideology.
A Maoist is motivated by ideology. A Christian is motivated by ideology.
A flat earther is, and so is a Leninist.
These are all people whose “opinions” are not opinions, but mantras, laid down for them by others so that they might unquestioningly follow.I don’t claim that Marx must bear responsibility for the actions of pseudomarxists. I’m saying that he must, if we follow your logic, not mine.
Hobbes is important in the history of materialism. Maybe he is used, and maybe he himself was one, by apologists for a ferocious human nature that cannot be changed, but, as I said in my piece, the philosopher, unlike the ideologue and the conspiraloon, does not reject a thinker in his entirety because of one or two things he may have been wrong about.
Google:
” Nazism was not a direct, intended product of Nietzsche’s philosophy; rather, the Nazis warped and selectively appropriated his complex ideas, such as the Übermensch, the will to power, and his critique of egalitarianism, to create a facade of intellectual justification for their ideology. Nietzsche was a vehement critic of antisemitism and German nationalism, and his philosophy’s emphasis on individualism and aristocratic radicalism was at odds with the mass-based, state-centric, and racially motivated ideology of Nazism. However, the Nazis, particularly through his sister’s distorted editing and their own ideological spin, were able to present Nietzsche as a prophet of their cause, a claim that is fundamentally a misrepresentation of his work.
Nazi appropriation and misrepresentation of Nietzsche
Anti-antisemitism vs. Nazi antisemitism: Nietzsche was a vocal opponent of antisemitism, even going so far as to publicly denounce it, despite the fact that his sister and some initial publishers were antisemitic. Nazi propaganda actively ignored or twisted his anti-antisemitic views and presented him as a precursor to their racist ideology.
Philosophical concepts:
The Übermensch: The Nazis co-opted Nietzsche’s concept of the “Übermensch” (Superman) and reframed it as a racial ideal for the German “master race,” a concept completely foreign to Nietzsche’s original idea, which was a more abstract goal for human self-overcoming and spiritual development.
Will to Power: This concept was reduced by the Nazis to a justification for brutal, militaristic expansionism and a primitive, a power-over-others mentality, whereas Nietzsche intended it as a more complex psychological and existential drive for growth and achievement.
Nietzsche’s anti-political stance: Nietzsche was famously anti-political and famously described himself as the “last anti-political German”. Nazi propaganda twisted this by claiming that his critique of democracy and egalitarianism was a justification for the volkish, totalitarian state, which was the opposite of what Nietzsche intended.
Nietzsche’s anti-nationalism: Nietzsche frequently criticized German nationalism and was disdainful of the German state’s focus on national power and the “herd mentality” it fostered. The Nazis, however, saw themselves as the spiritual and intellectual vanguard of a powerful, nationalistic state they claimed he was the prophet of.
Scholarly opposition and the misuse of Nietzsche’s legacy
Distorted editing: Nietzsche’s sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche, who was a zealous antisemite and married to an early Nazi sympathizer, edited and published his works in a way that was highly biased and supported the Nazi cause.
Contradictory interpretations: While many scholars who knew Nietzsche condemned the Nazi interpretation of his work as a distortion, the Nazi propaganda machine was so successful that it created the impression that Nietzsche was a fascist intellectual precursor.
Nazi admiration: Despite the inconsistencies, many prominent Nazis were admirers of Nietzsche. Hitler had a bust of Nietzsche in his study, and he gave a gift of Nietzsche’s collected works to Mussolini. This further cemented the association in the public mind, even though it was a misrepresentation of Nietzsche’s views. “Just following your logic, that philosophers must bear responsibility for things done in their name. If Nietzsche must take responsibility for Hitler, then Marx must for Mao, Stalin and Pol Pot.
You no doubt judge Nietzsche on a non-existent link, which is just the same. In fact, for you, it seems the non-existent link is your definition of the man, just as anti-Marxists do with Marx.In fact, most people point to Soviet and Khmer Rouge atrocities and say “Look what Marxism has caused!”
“Editing and Publication of The Will to Power:
” After Nietzsche’s mental collapse in 1889 and subsequent death in 1900, Elisabeth became the curator and editor of his unpublished manuscripts. She compiled these notes into a book titled The Will to Power (published in stages from 1901) and presented it as her brother’s intended magnum opus.
“Distortion of Philosophy:
A staunch German nationalist and antisemite (she co-founded a failed “pure Aryan” colony in Paraguay with her husband, Bernhard Förster), Elisabeth manipulated her brother’s writings, removing or altering passages that were critical of antisemitism and German nationalism to align his philosophy with her own proto-fascist ideology.” (Google)Then Marx must bear responsibility for Bolshevism, Mao and Pol Pot.
Nietzsche meant by “Superman” the rational man who has emancipated himself from religion and bourgeois morality.
“The Will to Power” is not Nietzsche’s work at all, but his sister’s, who was a Nazi, and who passed it off as his.Ideorogues set up ideologies generally consisting of dogmas which are the total antithesis of the thinking of those they claim as their heroes.
Nietzsche / Hitler
Marx / Lenin, Mao, Stalin etc
Rousseau / Robespierre
Epicurus / Epicureanism,
debauchery.
Darwin / Social Darwinism.Are the originals to be blamed?
Only one thing here is inaccurate.
Stalin recreated the Moscow Patriarchate (the official Russian Orthodox Church) in 1927 so that there would be a Church friendly to the state. It is analogous to the Constitutional Church permitted by the French Revolution.
The Russian bishops had been killed or driven into hiding by Trotsky’s persecution of the Church. Most of those surviving refused later to have anything to do with Stalin’s patriarchate. Instead, they formed the Catacomb Church inside Russia, in communion with the Tsarist Russian Church in Exile.
So the Moscow Patriarchate today, which served to bolster patriotism in WW2, was Stalin’s baby, and has continued to honour him, rejecting destalinisation. The Tsarist exiles tended to sympathise with the Nazis, who were accompanied by white Cossack brigades.
The Tsar’s Moscow Patriarchate was set up in 1917 and had only one incumbent before it was dissolved. It had replaced the Holy Synod, which had governed ecclesiastical matters before 1917.
I wrote this some years ago to challenge a conspiraloon who claimed we were no different and likewise followed an ideology:
IDEOLOGY VS PHILOSOPHY.
The difference between brainwashing and thought is the difference between ideology and philosophy.
The ideologist adopts instantly the entire credo of a group because of an emotional / romantic / image-based need, or a need to belong.
This is what the “phases” of adolescents are, seeking belonging, or seduced by imagery.
It is true that most, having passed through this stage, and being working-class (99% of the world’s population are working class), have little time on their hands for thought beyond that of working for their living and struggling to raise families etc. Life under capitalism means it is convenient to rely on mainstream media, and hence be patriotic and trusting of whichever nation-state apparatus governs them and the news it puts out.
Minorities, some small, some large, will seek belonging, still, in groups and cults which, demonstrating some “rebelliousness” or “difference” from “the herd” give them the sense of belonging through difference. Such are converts to religions, racist groups, anything that has a leader or pundit to follow, and by following, belong. For some, the more outrageous and the more reviled, the better.
All these are ideology.Philosophy, however, is very different from ideology.
The philosopher does not accept the entirety of someone else’s thought, nor reject that entirety, on the basis of agreement or disagreement in one or two particulars. A philosopher does not require leaders to follow. S/he does not wish to lead. S/he is not interested in imagery. S/he doesn’t care about belonging to anything. S/he may be mistaken in things, but cannot be brainwashed. There is no danger for the philosopher in listening to or watching or reading any media or propaganda.
S/he is not susceptible to brainwashing, neither by the state nor by any cult, neither by the majority nor any minority.
The only way to damage the philosopher is to physically do so, by violence applied to the brain.
The philosopher sifts information in the light of views – philosophy – developed through the course of their lifetime. This is why philosophers usually disagree about most things. If s/he joins a group it is not to find belonging; it is not because of any need to be in a group. It is purely because of a shared interest.
The philosopher does not abdicate his/her thought in order to be part of a group or party.
