Friedrich Nietzsche

“Whatever it is, I’m against it!”

Thinking hardly
or hardly thinking?
Philosophy

Major trains of thought

* Logic
* Morality
* Reality

The good, the bad,
and the brain fart

* Ethical altruism
* Lewis Trilemma
* Paleolibertarianism
* Modern art and architecture
* Integrity
* Adam Weishaupt
* Charity
* Modal logics

Come to think of it

* Religion
* Science
* Philosophy of science
* Ethics
* Psychology

v \- t \- e

“”It's easy to see why [Nietzche's] sociopathic ravings would have inspired so many repugnant movements of the twentieth and twenty-first centuries, including fascism, Nazism, Bolshevism, the Ayn Randian fringe of libertarianism, and the American alt-Right and neo-Nazi movements today. Less easy to see is why he continues to be a darling of the academic humanities. True, he was a punchy stylist, and, as his apologists note, he extolled the individual superman rather than a master race. But as Bertrand Russell pointed out in A History of Western Philosophy, the intellectual content is slim: it “might be stated more simply and honestly in the one sentence: ‘I wish I had lived in the Athens of Pericles or the Florence of the Medici’.”

—Steven Pinker[1]

“”But I want to see you disguised, you neighbours and fellow men, and well dressed and vain and worthy as the ‘good and just’.
And I myself will sit among you disguised, so that I may misunderstand you and myself: that, in fact, is my last manly prudence.

—On the desirability of masks, Friedrich Nietzsche[2]

Friedrich Nietzsche (October 15, 1844 – August 25, 1900) was ~~able to teach you much about the raising of the wrist~~ a very influential German philosopher, particularly thanks to his works from the late 19th century. Considered an important figure in continental philosophy, he is mainly represented his own philosophical school of Nietzscheanism; which bears hallmarks of irrationalism, anti-foundationalism, Dionysianism (or Dionysian pessimism) and perspectivism. He is also somewhat contentiously considered a nihilist[note 1] and a German romantist. His works are written in an aphoristic and poetic style, reflecting the declarative nature of his philosophy.[3]

Nietzsche's philosophy can be divided into several periods, during which his interests and approaches varied greatly. As such, the diversity of his works has given rise to differing interpretations. Overall, Nietzsche's philosophy is essentially a critical genealogy of modern Western culture and all its moral\- (derived from the Christian interpretation of the world), political\- (democracy, egalitarianism), philosophical\- (Platonism and all forms of metaphysical dualism), and religious (Christianity) values. This critique proceeds from a project to devalue these values ​and to establish new ones (i.e. transvaluation of values) that go beyond the "ressentiment" and "will to nothingness" that dominated the history of Europe under the influence of Christianity; which is achieved by the affirmation of an eternal return of the same and by the transcendence of humanity and the advent of the "superhuman" (Übermensch).[4]

After World War II, Nietzsche was reexamined apart from his sister's fascist interpretation. His philosophy has been cited as one of the antecedents of postmodernism by both defenders and detractors of postmodernism.[5][6][7] Of particular note for postmodernism is Nietzsche's idea of the idea of the eternal recurrence from Thus Spake Zarathustra.[8]

Nietzsche remains a complex topic that is challenging for the right reasons and... less right reasons. One of the lesser issues is his opposition to religion, which has caused him to be demonized as sort of atheist bogeyman. His most famous quotation is: "God is dead... and we have killed him". The line first appears within his book The Gay Science. The quotation is among the most widely misunderstood. However, the philosophical novel, Thus Spake Zarathustra, reiterates the repercussions of the declaration.

## Contents

* 1 Complex views and ideas
* 1.1 Eternal recurrence
* 1.2 The will to power
* 2 Notable works
* 2.1 Genealogy of the Morals
* 2.2 Beyond Good and Evil
* 2.3 The Anti-Christ
* 2.4 Thus Spoke Zarathustra
* 3 Atheist über-bogeymensch
* 4 Political assessment
* 4.1 Nietzsche vs. Socialism
* 4.2 Not a far-rightist
* 5 Negative influence
* 5.1 So, why do terrible people like Nietzsche?
* 5.2 Philosophical irrationalism
* 5.3 Fascists and Nazis
* 5.3.1 Elisabeth Nietzsche
* 5.4 Ayn Rand, libertarians and the technocrats
* 5.5 Misogyny and incels
* 6 See also
* 7 External links
* 8 Notes
* 9 References

## Complex views and ideas[edit]

As it happens, Nietzsche was a rather complex man (he was a philosopher—go figure), and his opinions are rather hard to pin down. This is further complicated by the fact that Nietzsche's mindset has been observed to evolve through-out his works - with specific "stages" that have been identified - meaning that early Nietzsche's writings may not fully correlate with later Nietzsche's writings.[9][10][11][12]

His fundamental concern was nihilism, specifically how all of Western civilization is (to his mind) dominated by it. In Nietzsche's view, the West is and has been for two thousand years fundamentally nihilist. This might sound odd, but if one follows his logic it makes a kind of sense. He argues that Platonism and Christianity (which he regarded as vulgarized Platonism) were nihilistic by positing the existence of a metaphysical "true world" beyond the reach of the human senses, and that the world detectable by the human senses is merely apparent.[13] By positing such a "true world," the ancient Platonists and Christians devalued the world in which we live by dismissing it as merely "apparent", essentially saying that it does not exist.

“  | I come again, with this Sun, with this Earth, with this Eagle, with this Serpent, not to a new Life, or a better Life, or an akin Life: - I come again eternally to this identical and same Life, in the Greatest and also in the Smallest, that I will teach again the Eternal Return of all things. - that I will again speak the word of the great Midday of Earth and Man, that I will announce again to men the Übermensch.  | ”

|
|

--Thus Spake Zarathustra: A Book for All and None[14]

At this point, his primary definition of nihilism comes into play: "that the highest values devaluate themselves." You see, Nietzsche was deeply concerned with values (he was the first person to use the term "values" in a social rather than economic context), and he argued that the fundamental values of society usually end up attacking themselves until there is nothing left. In the West, he identifies truthfulness as the driving value of its history (did we mention that, like any good 19th-century German philosopher, he was a historicist?). Christian morality values truthfulness very highly (perhaps not quite so highly as Zoroastrianism, but it's up there), and this value of truthfulness developed in Western civilization led to the creation of modern science. However, in time, science turned against its Christian forebear, finding that its discoveries about the truth of the objective universe made belief in Christianity unbelievable (or at least difficult). And thus was born the modern age, in which Christianity dies slowly at the feet of its child, modern science.

Yet the old morality of Christianity endures (or so Nietzsche claims), albeit unsupported by the old God who had created them. Thus enters the age of incomplete nihilism, where the Christian values, particularly the value of truth, remain current despite the death of the Christian God. Yet the other god, the god of modern science, remains, applying herself to human beings and creating the churches of liberal democracy, capitalism, and socialism. All aim towards a sort of Heaven on Earth (albeit, in the capitalist and liberal democratic forms, a deeply imperfect Heaven), and thus devalue the now. And the god of modern science (to Nietzsche) is Herself subject to criticism. For one thing, the modern scientist still believes in a "true world" distinct from an "apparent world", but the "true world" is now a material one of subatomic particles and invisible forces rather than a spiritual one of forms, gods, and souls. In other words, science remains metaphysical. For another, the distinction between facts and value judgments eats at itself (no matter how much Max Weber complains), because the very seeking after truth that characterizes modern science implies a value judgment about truth: that the truth is good.

Yet, by science's own admission, value judgments cannot be known, and thus are all equally false (from Nietzsche's perspective). So why pursue the truth? And thus comes radical/complete nihilism. Yes, our heads are spinning too.

### Eternal recurrence[edit]

Nietzsche taught the doctrine of eternal recurrence. Initially presented as a thought experiment in The Gay Science, and later elaborated upon, it is the idea that all the events of one's life, and more broadly the entire history of the universe, repeat without beginning and end – exactly the same each iteration. His main focus was on asking what would be the consequences of believing in it, or treating it as true. If someone truly loved their own life – as the Übermensch would – they would be supremely happy for it to recur endlessly, exactly the same every time. Whereas, if someone did not truly love their own life, if they hated or detested it, then such a proposition would be absolutely terrifying. In Nietzsche's view, people would do best to live in such a way that they would not mind their life repeating forever.

Russian esotericist P. D. Ouspensky was strongly influenced by Nietzsche's idea, came to believe in its literal truth, and explored it in his book Strange Life of Ivan Osokin, along with his ideas about the possibility of altering the future by becoming more conscious of it from one iteration to the next.

### The will to power[edit]

“”Unspoken and unrealised hath my highest hope remained! And there have perished for me all the visions and consolations of my youth! How did I ever bear it? How did I survive and surmount such wounds? How did my soul rise again out of those sepulchres? Yea, something invulnerable, unburiable is with me, something that would rend rocks asunder: it is called my will. Silently doth it proceed, and unchanged throughout the years. Its course will it go upon my feet, mine old Will; hard of heart is its nature and invulnerable. Invulnerable am I only in my heel. Ever livest thou there, and art like thyself, thou most patient one! Ever hast thou burst all shackles of the tomb! In thee still liveth also the unrealisedness of my youth; and as life and youth sittest thou here hopeful on the yellow ruins of graves. Yea, thou art still for me the demolisher of all graves: Hail to thee, my Will! And only where there are graves are there resurrections.

—Thus Spake Zarathustra

The will to power is a concept in Nietzschean philosophy that was established as a response to Schopenhauer's will to live and as a general account for all movements in reality. The Will to Power is also a book comprising Nietzsche's notes and drafts that was heavily edited by his sister to make him align more with Nazism. The will to power is basically the idea that as entities interact they will try to either subsume or reject each other in accordance with how much it agrees with each essence. For example, a man will eat an apple because he agrees with his essence (to stay alive and be healthy) but will reject poison (since it will break him down or could even kill him). The concept is very general, and like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche applies it to all phenomena. The underlying idea is that things are driven by self-expansion and want to see themselves reflected within the world as much as they can. The will to power has an interesting reputation because some Nietzscheans believe it to be a contradiction for Nietzsche to be such an anti-systematizer, but then at the same time construct a literally universal principle. Some postmodern philosophers like Gilles Deleuze still very much hold onto the idea and it is a central part of their works. It is also believed that Spinoza had preceded the will to power with his idea of conatus.

## Notable works[edit]

### Genealogy of the Morals[edit]

In this book, Nietzsche makes the argument that ancient civilizations shifted into anti-nature habits due to the necessity of remaining clean and eating properly for longevity. He argues that religion and the "ascetic ideal" were created by ancient civilizations to give meaning to their suffering because they couldn't rationalize the concept of meaningless suffering.

### Beyond Good and Evil[edit]

Nietzsche makes the argument that putting emphasis on the herd — i.e. the public — will engender someone to feel detachment and disappointed in expecting the public to improve or to consider their ideals. Typically, people can only expect unrepentant mockery from the public. He argues that nihilism will set in from the apathy of the world. To get away from feeling apathy and nihilism, he argues for concealment of one's true views from the world. He argues that a true free spirit isn't one who seeks to make positive social change, but rather someone who conceals their true views from the public. This, according to Nietzsche, is true freedom for the free spirit.

### The Anti-Christ[edit]

Nietzsche argues that it wasn't Jesus Christ but Paul the Apostle who twisted Christianity for his own sick delusions of the so-called end of times. He mocks Christianity for trying to steal the Old Testament from the Jews, along with the idea of dying for the faith as proof of its value or innate goodness, finding the idea insane. He argues that the ancient Jewish people created Christianity as revenge against the Romans by coming up with the blasphemous concept of a God dying through human actions, and further argues that the Jews are a warrior race that can surmount all obstacles and will be a beacon of human progress once they rid themselves of the Abrahamic God. Nietzsche also points out a theological blind spot in the Abrahamic faiths; chiefly, that once Judaism gains its prophet, then the believers of the new faith will immediately see the old faith as deceivers, and vice-versa — as was the case with the rise of Christianity, the rise of Islam, and the various schisms in both. Therefore, the Abrahamic faiths can never be truly peaceful.

### Thus Spoke Zarathustra[edit]

Nietzsche uses a fictionalized version of the founder of Zoroastrianism, Zarathustra, to lay the groundwork for his Übermensch philosophy. The Übermensch is someone who follows their own self-given meaning in life — their own self-satisfaction — and pushes against their own wretched complacency to follow their goal. Idealistically, the Übermensch is willing to carry the burdens of the struggle, to undergo "down-going" and "over-going" for their work, and to not allow the herd, self-doubt, the pious, or basically anyone else stop them from living for their highest valued goals. This, according to Nietzsche, is how to fight against the nihilism of existence and to consider eternal recurrence along with this mindset. Nietzsche offers several different higher men in the novel, including ascetics and people who are willing to serve the Christian doctrine of pity (shockingly, Nietzsche introduces a character in part 4 that mocks Zarathustra's isolationist and self-centered tendencies), and seems to leave it open for reader interpretation on whether or not these are bridges or different types of Übermensch. It can be implied from the characters that Nietzsche viewed people like Buddha and Jesus as types of Higher Men but for the ascetic ideal; this is along with the more traditional idea of people who seek self-empowerment and personal success.

Interestingly enough, the Übermensch that Zarathustra seems to be looking for in the novel could be argued to mean the reader of the book. If you agree with some or many of the philosophical arguments in the book, then Zarathustra has "found" you, and if not, then you aren't the one that Zarathustra is looking for.

## Atheist über-bogeymensch[edit]

According to some self-labeled Christians, Nietzsche was corrupted to his twisted beliefs purely because of "Darwin's teachings". The claim goes that Darwinism "had a way of corrupting the beliefs of all who submitted to it".[15] This is particularly silly, since Nietzsche had very little time for Darwin, condemning him in his later works as being one of the "English psychologists". Nietzsche opposed the idea of natural selection, thinking it would favour the worse simply because they  reproduce more (thus predicting Idiocracy), and instead envisioned a universal will to power. Nietzsche believed in some sense that mankind was favoring the weaker and weaker, but he felt that this was not because of natural selection, but because of what he called the "slave morality" of Christianity and, to a lesser extent, of Judaism, and that Darwin was actually too optimistic. Nietzsche's rather prophetic writings about the Übermensch (roughly, the "superman") envision not some kind of genetic drift of humanity to that state, but a determined individual crossing the bridge and becoming the Übermensch in his or her own life.

Some Nietzsche scholars dispute whether "atheism" is a good summary of Nietzsche's work. R. J. Hollingdale suggests that Nietzsche's thought can be divided into three main phases:

1. the Christianity of his childhood, more specifically Lutheran pietism - his father had been a priest, after all
2. the atheistic nihilism he adopted in reaction to the Christianity of his childhood, best represented in his earlier works
3. a reaction against that nihilism, a positive system of thought, which Hollingdale sees best represented by Thus Spake Zarathustra

Hollingdale views the third phase as a return to the substance of the Christian beliefs of Nietzsche's childhood, while avoiding the surface form of Christianity — a sort of "Christianity without Christ" or "crypto-Christianity"; in this Hollingdale locates the origins of many of Nietzsche's more unique views, such as eternal recurrence, the Übermensch, and the Great Noontide. One can view this final stage in Nietzsche's thought as a synthesis between the thesis of his Christianity and the antithesis of his atheistic nihilism.[16]

Arguably, this is inconsistent with Nietzsche's philosophy. Nietzsche made his disgust with Christianity known throughout his writings and proposed a philosophy that opposed its core precepts. In his writings, Nietzsche expressed far more support for Judaism and Islam[citation needed] than for Christianity; many believe Nietzsche was so harsh on Christianity and praised Judaism out of a deep desire for wanting European and Christian civilization to improve rather than viewing European civilization as inferior.

## Political assessment[edit]

Nietzsche was a radical individualist, a critic of modernity, and a philosophical iconoclast who was neither left nor right in any conventional political sense. He mainly advocated for the transvaluation of all values — a rethinking of morality beyond good/evil dichotomies. He challenged all dogmas and mass movements, whether religious, nationalist, or socialist, as expressions of the “herd instinct.” That said, Nietzsche did espouse values that are considered anti-egalitarian and aristocratic, a radical challenge to the democratic sentiments of his time -- even though he wasn't an aristocrat by birth.

His political beliefs are often summarized as aristocratic radicalism, with his philosophy - particularly in works like Thus Spoke Zarathustra and Beyond Good and Evil \- advocating for a hierarchical society ruled by a naturally superior, "noble" few who are intellectually and culturally elevated, rejecting modern democratic ideals like equality and favoring a radical revaluation of values to promote the rise of great individuals (such as the Übermensch). Ultimately an aristocratic society and a social hierarchy are preconditions for achieving Nietzsche's perfectionist ideals.[17][18][19][20][21] Werner J. Dannhauser (protégé of Leo Strauss) famously referred to this, when he wrote that; "Socrates was the plebeian dissector of an aristocratic society; Nietzsche is the aristocratic dissector of a plebeian society."[22]

### Nietzsche vs. Socialism[edit]

Although Nietzsche himself was critical of capitalism, he was even more opposed to socialism. Referring the ideology as "tyranny of the meanest", Nietzsche saw socialism as a system that elevates the "meanest and most brainless" individuals - the envious, superficial, and discontented - to positions of power, thereby hindering individual growth and vitality by promoting mediocrity. He also argued that socialism inherited its ideals from Christianity and its pursuit of universal happiness and pity was "a secularized version of Christian morality."

> “The ‘equality of souls before God,’ this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded, this explosive concept which finally became revolution, modern idea, and the principle of the decline of the whole social order—is Christian dynamite.” — The Antichrist, §62

> “Whoever fights for liberal institutions today, well into the heart of socialism, indirectly also takes part in the fight against the moral consequence of self-overcoming… one has taken the Christian moral hypothesis seriously: this is the catastrophe.” — Beyond Good and Evil, §202

Nietzsche saw socialism very much as a manifestation of "herd morality" and the "madness of egalitarianism," which elevates the weak and mediocre at the expense of the strong and talented. He criticized the socialist "idealism" that promised earthly happiness and believed it was a psychological illness to refuse to take responsibility for one's own life circumstances. He also believed socialism was driven by ressentiment, a form of bitter resentment that motivates the "inferior" to seek to bring down those who are superior. That the socialist aim of leveling society inherently worked against the development of individual genius and exceptional individuals. Overall, deeming it a destructive force which was product of "modern ideas" and democratic tendencies that lead to a collective paralysis and a stifling of unique human potential.[23]

After Nietzcshe lost his mental faculties, got famous and passed away, socialist thinkers would voice their own rebukes at Nietzsche's views. One of them being György Lukács, who saw Nietzsche not only as a mad defender of bourgeois decadence, but as a front-runner to various aspects of fascist philosophy. Lukács actually was a fan of Nietzsche early in his life, actually agreeing with Nietzsche's criticisms of bourgeois values and nihilism, which helped shape his theory of reification. But as Lukács matured (followed by World War II and all), he would deem Nietzsche's philosophy not as a revolutionary force but as a bourgeois force that ultimately served to reinforce existing capitalist structures and prevent genuine societal change. In addition, Lukács would come to see Nietzsche’s critique of the bourgeoisie and capitalism as being merely "pseudo-radical", as well as questioning whatever Nietzsche ever truly understood what socialism even was. Lukács also considered Nietzsche's concepts - like the will to power and the rejection of socialist ideas - as a deliberate effort to prevent the emergence of a proletarian class consciousness and a legitimate critique of capitalism. [24]

Another Marxist critic was Domenico Losurdo, who like Lukács, re-framed Nietzsche as a conservative thinker; proclaiming that the that the darker parts of Nietzsche's work, like his opposition to abolition, his sexist views, and his belief in inequality, were actually foundational to his philosophy, not just minor or surface-level traits. Losurdo's places Nietzsche within the specific political and social context of the 19th century and sees his philosophy as a response to political conflicts and the growth of equality, democracy, and socialism, and he highlights this as the main idea for understanding Nietzsche's ideas. As with Lukács, Losurdo also argues that Nietzsche's ideas - especially his views on "ressentiment" - being a convenient way to dismiss/explain away revolutionary and socialist efforts as being merely motivated by envy and as "desire for destructive leveling."

Though what separates Losurdo from Lukács is the former's critique of the more modern, liberal views of Nietzsche, suggesting Nietzsche is fundamentally a "aristocratic radical" and that his views are inapplicable to leftist politics. Losurdo was critical the trend of "left-Nietzscheanism" for picking and choosing which parts of Nietzsche's work to focus on, while leaving out his more reactionary ideas, and also hollowing out socialist thought. Losurdo was also skeptical about the interpretations of Nietzsche that rely on "hermeneutics of innocence" being used to downplay or ignore the more troubling and dark aspects of Nietzsche's writing, as well as post-modernism.[25][26][27]

### Not a far-rightist[edit]

A common misconception is that Nietzsche was nakedly some far-rightist - even a proto-Nazi - even though he was very critical of German nationalism and the rising tide of anti-Semitism in 19th-century Europe.[28][29] He was disgusted by Wilhelm II's militarism and the tribalism of the German Empire, stating that; “Every great crime against culture for the last four hundred years lies on the conscience of Germany.”[30]

Nietzsche' philosophy emphasized the individual, personal strength, and overcoming conformity — not submission to state or collective authority. Meaning its broadly incompatible with authoritarian practices and its support of herd mentality. Contrary to the proto-Nazi claim, Nietzsche praised Jewish intellectuals and regarded the Jewish people as culturally and intellectually significant. Indeed, he even broke ties with Richard Wagner, once a close friend, partly because of Wagner's increasing anti-Semitism.[31]

## Negative influence[edit]

“”As Interpreters of our Experiences. One form of honesty has always been lacking among founders of religions and their kin: they have never made their experiences a matter of the intellectual conscience. "What did I really experience? What then took place in me and around me? Was my understanding clear enough? Was my will directly opposed to all deception of the senses, and courageous in its defence against fantastic notions?" None of them ever asked these questions, nor to this day do any of the good religious people ask them. They have rather a thirst for things which are contrary to reason, and they don’t want to have too much difficulty in satisfying this thirst, so they experience "miracles" and "regenerations," and hear the voices of angels! But we who are different, who are thirsty for reason, want to look as carefully into our experiences as in the case of a scientific experiment, hour by hour, day by day! We ourselves want to be our own experiments, and our own subjects of experiment.

—The Gay Science

### So, why do terrible people like Nietzsche?[edit]

Lot of the absolute worst people in the world — including fascists, racists, and authoritarian ideologues — have claimed Nietzsche as an influence or at least quoted him. But the reasons for this are more layered than they might seem.

Firstly, Nietzsche's writing style intentionally poetic, aphoristic, and metaphorical, using irony, exaggeration, and contradictions. This made his philosophy not only strongly emotional but also very vague, especially when taken out of context. Nietzsche didn't like creating organized systems, which invites liberal interpretation and makes it easy to cherry pick his ideas. Because he often developed his thoughts in different books and sometimes changed his mind, reading just the surface can lead to oversimplified and conflicting interpretations.[32][33]

Many of Nietzsche's ideas, like the "Übermensch," "will to power," and the "death of God," are provocative and can be easily taken out of context and twisted. His confrontational and dramatic writing style, along with his social critique, often appeals to people who feel disconnected, angry, or superior—some of whom might be extremists. But like said, Nietzsche's work isn't a simple set of clear teachings, as it's full of irony, contradictions, and metaphors. This makes it easy for people to impose their own views onto it, even if they don't really understand what he's trying to say.

But, rebellion speaks to those who are unhappy. Nietzsche is usually seen as a potent critic of society, challenging things like morality, religion, traditions, and even the idea of truth. For people who feel disconnected or rejected by society, whether for good or bad reasons, Nietzsche can feel like someone who understands them. This includes the creative kind and don't fit in, but also includes some who twist his rejection of traditional values into an excuse for power or violence—something Nietzsche never supported.

Nietzsche also challenged liberal and progressive ideas, not just conservative or religious beliefs. He was critical of things like pity, equality, and liberal morality. Because of this, he appeals to reactionaries and anti-modernists, who see his ideas as giving intellectual support to their views against what they call "softness" or "weakness." But again, Nietzsche's work is philosophical, not a political plan. He isn't suggesting a new way to build society, but merely pointing out issues with current values and culture.

Of course, then there is the issue that sometimes people discover his work before they are fully matured in the brain. A lot of people encounter Nietzsche when they’re young, angry, or searching for meaning. If someone’s inclined toward narcissism, elitism, or nihilism, they can easily latch onto Nietzsche’s writing in a way that feeds that mindset — especially without historical, philosophical, or ethical grounding.

So, does Nietzsche deserve the association? Arguably no. Nietzsche was a strong critic of mass movements, nationalism, antisemitism, and the kind of thinking that follows the crowd. He was very reflective, really interested in how people can live well, and cautious about simple good vs. bad ideas. That said, his provocative style invites misuse. He didn't make it easy for people to read him carefully, and he probably didn't want to.[34][35]

### Philosophical irrationalism[edit]

+| This section requires expansion.

|

Later, other existentialists were inspired by Nietzsche's writings, although they did reject some aspects of his philosophy. Søren Kierkegaard was also a contemporary influence on existentialism, but Nietzsche did not read his work until the last few months of his life. If he had read it earlier he might have been a little more chillaxed (not that Kierkegaard was, especially).

### Fascists and Nazis[edit]

Despite not advocating nationalism, Nietzche and his ideas still endure in far-right ideologies, co-oping his concepts usually in direct contradiction to what he actually wrote. For instance, the concept of Übermensch - that was meant to be about personal transcendence - was taken as a justification for a master race ideology, especially by Nazi propagandists, who saw the Übermensch as a symbol of Aryan supremacy. Then will to power being interpreted as a call for domination, violence, and authoritarian control and Nietzsche's critique of democracy and Christianity being appropriated to justify anti-democratic and elitist ideologies. Thus Nietzsche is frequently linked to fascism, mainly because his ideas were used and/or misunderstood by fascist thinkers, especially the Nazis. However, this subject is highly controversial, with degree of Nietzsche's influence being still debated.[36]

György Lukács - who considered Nietzsche as anti-socialist and closet bourgeois defender - argued that Nietzsche's philosophy, by devaluing reason and systematized thought, paved the way for the irrationalism that undergirded fascist ideology. Lukács contended that Nietzsche contributed to the destruction of humanism by championing an ethos that was fundamentally anti-proletarian and exclusionary. In works like "Nietzsche as Forerunner of Fascist Aesthetics," Lukács accused Nietzsche of promoting a bourgeois aesthetic based on aristocracy, "genius", and a disregard for societal problems. Similar critique is echoed by John Rawls, who - like Lukács - saw Nietzsche as supporting cultural elitism and an aristocratic social order.[37][38]

Fascist pioneers like Georges Sorel and Gabriele D'Annunzio were self-professed Nietzsche admirers.[39][40][41] Additionally, the German Völkisch movement was very much into Nietzsche, due to his opposition to Christianity, socialism, as well as misreading Nietzsche's idea of Übermensch. Problem being that Nietzsche didn't associate Übermensch with the Aryans that the Völkisch movement championed, and this caused some squabbles over definitions. But Völkisch movement would eventually spawn this little entity known as Nazi Party, who had a plan on how to get Nietzsche writing to not only conform to Völkisch ideals, but to support the big Nazi program.[42][43]

Nietzsche had some ideas, which he may or may not have intended to publish in a book entitled The Will to Power, but he went insane before he could tell anyone. While he died before Nazism came around (and he actually thought that antisemitism should be "utterly rejected with cold contempt by every sensible mind"), his sister was a Nazi, and she pretty much quote mined and rewrote some of his scattered notes into the book The Will to Power in order to jive with her ideology. It's entirely clear that he wouldn't have wanted it that way, with some of his letters to his sister vehemently denouncing and being disgusted by her antisemitism and her husband's association with it.[44] On another occasion he said that ..."anti-Semites should be shot"[45][46] and his falling out with Richard Wagner was partially over Wagner's growing anti-Semitism.[31][36] Despite this, dumbass neo-Nazis somehow try to claim him as one of their own.

While Nietzsche was certainly not an antisemite, his various works had a profound impact on the ideology of the Third Reich. He pontificated against democracy and parliaments, praised war, and thought about the concept of a super-man. He, like Hitler after him, considered the State to be of greater import than any individual and hated Christianity for its focus on charity and pity. On war, Nietzsche mirrored many other 19th Century German thinkers. In Thus Spake Zarathustra, he writes "Ye shall love peace as a means to a new war, and the short peace more than the long. You I advise not to work, but to fight. You I advise not to peace but to victory… Ye say it is the good cause which halloweth even war? I say unto you: it is the good war which halloweth every cause. War and courage have done more great things than charity." Note that this was written before World War I, at a time when lots of people thought war was a wonderful, glorious undertaking.

#### Elisabeth Nietzsche[edit]

Although Friedrich is regularly and incorrectly accused of being a proto-Nazi, the allegation can be made far more correctly about his younger sister Elisabeth (1846-1935). She married Bernhard Förster, an antisemite and German nationalist, and they moved to Paraguay where they created an Aryan colony called Nueva Germania in 1886.[47] Nietzsche mocked her, calling her a "llama gone among the anti-semites". Nueva Germania soon failed, because their German agricultural methods were totally useless in the weathered tropical soils. Förster committed suicide in San Bernardino, Paraguay, and most of the colonists left the compound and became regular Paraguayan farmers.[48]

After this demonstration of Teutonic superiority, Elisabeth moved back to Germany in 1893, where Friedrich had meanwhile gone mad. She edited his unpublished texts to fit her own antisemitic ideas, and after his death continued to popularise him while twisting him to fit her beliefs. She befriended senior Nazis to whom she promoted Nietzsche as an intellectual forefather, sent Mussolini birthday greetings, and tried to get Albert Speer to build her a Friedrich Nietzsche Memorial Hall.[48] She probably did more than anybody else to ruin her brother's reputation.

### Ayn Rand, libertarians and the technocrats[edit]

+| This section requires expansion.

|

Much of Ayn Rand's philosophy and morals are blatantly ripped off from Nietzsche. She acknowledged his early influence on her work, but then spent a lot of time trying to show why she was different. She not only failed in this endeavor, but proved herself to be a complete idiot in the process. Her embrace of capitalism -- which Nietzsche criticized as being dehumanizing and stifling to the Übermensch -- also calls her original understanding of Nietzsche into question.

### Misogyny and incels[edit]

+| This section requires expansion.

|

Despite having no experience with them, Nietzsche considered women to be distinctly inferior to men, decreeing that their place was in the kitchen and the maternity ward. "Men shall be trained for war and woman for the procreation of the warrior. All else is folly." In Thus Spake Zarathustra he expanded on this concept with "Thou goest to woman? Do not forget thy whip!" This bit of silliness supposedly led Bertrand Russell to quip "Nine women out of ten would have got the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women."[49]

## See also[edit]

* Antihumanism
* Apollonian and Dionysian
* Atheism
* Existentialism
* Objectivism
* Richard Wagner
* Social Darwinism

## External links[edit]

* Complete Works online
* Nietzsche in a Nutshell

## Notes[edit]

1. ↑ Even though his works analyze the problem of nihilism, with him profoundly disagreeing with it and deeming it one of the things that his vision of "Übermensch" need to overcome.

## References[edit]

1. ↑ https://www.the-tls.com/regular-features/twenty-questions/twenty-questions-steven-pinker Twenty Questions with Steven Pinker] (PAYWALL)
2. ↑ Nietzsche, F., 2003, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, (translated with an introduction by R. J. Hollingdale) Penguin Books Ltd., pp. 164-166.
3. ↑ Trombley, S. (2012). Fifty Thinkers Who Shaped the Modern World. Atlantic Books. Chapter 14. "Friedrich Nietzsche". ISBN 9781782390381
4. ↑ Maudemarie Clark, Edward Craig (ed.) (2005). The Shorter Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Taylor & Francis. p. 726-741. ISBN 9781134344086. `{{cite book}}`: `|author=` has generic name (help)
5. ↑ "The Postmodern Turn in Philosophy: Theoretical Provocations and Normative Deficits" by Steven Best and Douglas Kellner (2019) UCLA Graduate School of Education and Information Studies.
6. ↑ "Postmodernism's Use and Abuse of Nietzsche" by Ken Gemes (1992) Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 62(2):337–60. doi:10.2307/2653702.
7. ↑ A Nietzschean Defense of Democracy: an Experiment in Postmodern Politics by Lawrence A. Hatab (1999) Open Court. ISBN 0812692969.
8. ↑ Postmodernism by Gary Aylesworth (First published Fri Sep 30, 2005; substantive revision Thu Feb 5, 2015) Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
9. ↑ McNeal, Michael J. (2024). Nietzsche’s Philosophy of Life Affirmation. Springer Nature Switzerland AG. p. 181\. ISBN 978-3-031-71689-8.
10. ↑ Meyer, Matthew (2019). Nietzsche's Free Spirit Works: A Dialectical Reading. Cambridge University Press. p. 35\. ISBN 9781108474177.
11. ↑ Fink, Eugen (2003). Nietzsche's Philosophy. Bloomsbury Academic. ISBN 9780826459978.
12. ↑ Clark, M. (1976). Nietzsche's Attack on Morality. University of Wisconsin. Page 17
13. ↑ For a fuller discussion, see Wikipedia's article on the Divided Line
14. ↑ Thus Spake Zarathustra, translated by Thomas Common and with notes by Anthony Ludovici
15. ↑ One example
16. ↑ R.J. Hollingdale's introduction to his translation of Thus Spake Zarathustra (the new introduction of 1969; specifically section 5, pp. 27-29 in 2003 edition)
17. ↑ Brandes, G. (n.d.). An Essay on the Aristocratic Radicalism of Friedrich Nietzsche. USA: Haldeman-Julius Publications.
18. ↑ Michalski, Jonathan James, "Nietzsche's Aristocratic Radicalism" (2012). Browse all Theses and Dissertations. 584.
19. ↑ Leiter, Brian, "Nietzsche’s Moral and Political Philosophy", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2024 Edition), Edward N. Zalta & Uri Nodelman (eds.), URL = <https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/fall2024/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/>.
20. ↑ Rowthorn, David. 2017. “Nietzsche’s Cultural Elitism.” Canadian Journal of Philosophy 47(1): 97–115. doi: 10.1080/00455091.2016.1233381.
21. ↑ Jordan Douglas (2013); "Nietzsche and governance: meritocracy, democracy, and agonal oligarchy"
22. ↑ Dannhauser, Werner J. (2019) [1974]. Nietzsche's View of Socrates. Cornell University Press. p. 37\. ISBN 9781501733963.
23. ↑ Jacobin: Why Nietzsche Hated Socialism, an interview with Daniel Tutt (05.04.2024)
24. ↑ Georg Lukács. The Destruction of Humanism in German Ideology, 1942. First published: as Die Zerstörung des Humanismus in der deutschen Ideologie, in: Wie ist Deutschland zum Zentrum der reaktionären Ideologie geworden? (Veröffentlichungen des Lukács-Archivs), 1982, pp. 299-311
25. ↑ Landa, I. (2025). Nietzsche, Extermination, and the Hermeneutics of Innocence. Historical Materialism, 32(4), 219-240. https://doi.org/10.1163/1569206x-bja10070
26. ↑ Rehmann, Jan (2022). Deconstructing Postmodernist Nietzscheanism: Deleuze and Foucault. Brill. p. 16, 20-23, 36, 42, 45, 59-60, 76, 120-132, 162, 168, 250-253, 306-313. ISBN 9789004515161. Retrieved October 5, 2025.
27. ↑ Sharpe, Matthew. (2022). Unifying, comparative, critical and metacritical : Domenico Losurdo’s Nietzsche as aristocratic rebel. Critical Horizons. 23(2), pp. 284-304. https://doi.org/10.1080/14409917.2022.2100978
28. ↑ Far right, misogynist, humourless? Why Nietzsche is misunderstood by Sue Prideaux (Sat 6 Oct 2018)
29. ↑ [https://www.vox.com/2017/8/17/16140846/alt-right-nietzsche-richard-spencer-nazism The alt-right is drunk on bad readings of Nietzsche. The Nazis were too by Sean Illing (Dec 30, 2018)
30. ↑ Ecce Homo
31. ↑ 31.0 31.1 H.L. Mencken. "Introduction to The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche".
32. ↑ Shapiro, G. (1984). Nietzschean Aphorism as Art and Act. In: Mohanty, J.N. (eds) Phenomenology and the Human Sciences. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-5081-8_10
33. ↑ "Why a good philosophical aphorism can be so powerful" by David Rutledge for The Philosopher's Zone (November 14, 2020)
34. ↑ "Nietzsche’s Bible: Imitation, Mockery, and the Art of Philosophy" by Ahmed Ehab (Jan 3, 2025)
35. ↑ Ionescu, Felix (2020); "Taking Rhetoric Seriously: Nietzsche’s Style and Philosophy", Wonderer Journal Vol. 1, No. 1 Winter (2020) DOI: 10.26494/WONDERER691450
36. ↑ 36.0 36.1 Golomb, J., & Wistrich, R. S. (2002). Nietzsche, godfather of fascism? : on the uses and abuses of a philosophy (Course Book). Princeton University Press.
37. ↑ Lemm, V. (2007). Is Nietzsche a Perfectionist? Rawls, Cavell, and the Politics of Culture in Nietzsche's "Schopenhauer as Educator". The Journal of Nietzsche Studies 34, 5-27. https://dx.doi.org/10.1353/nie.2007.0019.
38. ↑ Lefebvre, A. (2024). Stanley Cavell, John Rawls and moral perfectionism in liberal democracy. European Journal of Political Theory, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/14748851241240310
39. ↑ Sorel, Georges (1999). "Reflections on violence". In Jennings, Jeremy (ed.). Cambridge University Press. pp. ix-xxi.
40. ↑ Aschheim, Steven E. (1994). The Nietzsche Legacy in Germany: 1890 - 1990. University of California Press. p. 56\. ISBN 9780520914803. "With their stridently antiscientific, antirationalist bent and their wild Dionysian rhetoric the novels, poems, and polemics of the literary Nietzscheans sought to unleash the immoralist possibilities of the unconscious. In Italy, Gabriele d'Annunzio (1863-1938), future leader of the first Fascist republic at Fiume, wrote novels (The Triumph of Death [1894]; The Virgin of the Rocks [1895]) in which the Medi-terranean Übermensch discovers his hidden self through the experience of the perverse, the exotic, and an exquisite lust for death. By 1899 d'Annunzio had been translated into German, but well before then Germany had produced a literature with similar themes"
41. ↑ Righi, Andrea (2016). Italian Reactionary Thought and Critical Theory: An Inquiry Into Savage Modernities. Palgrave Macmillan US. p. 19\. ISBN 9781137476869.
42. ↑ Anderton, Rex (2009). A study of various Nationalist appropriations of Nietzsche in the Weimar Republic. University of Birmingham. M.Phil.
43. ↑ The Misappropriation of Nietzsche in National Socialism: Myth and Reality by Cynthia Ann Jones, Dissertation, University of Missouri - Kansas City (2000)
44. ↑ http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche
45. ↑ (November 1, 1934). "‘all Anti-semites Ought to Be Shot,’ Nietzsche Once Wrote". Jewish Telegraphic Agency.
46. ↑ Sue Prideaux (October 6, 2018). "Far right, misogynist, humourless? Why Nietzsche is misunderstood". The Guardian.
47. ↑ See the Wikipedia article on Nueva Germania.
48. ↑ 48.0 48.1 It wasn’t him, it was her, Jenni Diski, London Review of Books, vol 25 no 18, 25 September 2003
49. ↑ Shirer, William L., "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - A History of Nazi Germany." Pages 99 - 100.