Nietzsche vs Doolittle

NIETZSCHE VS DOOLITTLE : Critique vs Science. Value vs Truth. Inspiration vs Institutions.

[I] need to address this issue again for the little boys in the audience.

What I take from Nietzsche is his attack on supernaturalism, and submission, and his attempt to restore classicism – which is also what I am also trying to do: discover our origins (I have), and solve the institutional problem (i think I have) of restoring them.

Nietzsche created a Critique of semitic religion, and tried to articulate and express the ethic of the classical tradition (heroism, the dominance of man over nature) but was unable to solve the problem of how – just as many post-darwinist were. Unfortunately the abrahamists have nearly won again with marxism, feminism, and postmodernism. And they have won by continuing his technique: abrahamic critique.

—“Nietzsche’s thought after Hegel was to incorporate Evolution and to reverse everything possible in prior thinkers. So he reverses Hegel by searching for a way for the Noble to have self-consciousness. He reverses Schopenhauer by attempting to be positive about life and its prospects. He reverses Wagner by rejecting the Christianization of the Pagan mythologies. Of course he then reverses many long held beliefs that were unquestioned within the western worldview such as the necessity to kow tow to Christianity as a religious belief system. … So basically Nietzsche went after as many Sacred Cows of the European tradition as he could”— Kent Palmer

I systematically attack all our sacred cows and falsehoods – just as he did. Not for VALUE but for TRUTH. I look for everything FALSE not everything we VALUE. However, I attempt to restore classicism through formal INSTITUTIONS rather than the usual german sophomoric philosophy that is little other than a desperate attempt to restore the ‘woo’
of christian submission by rational sophistry rather than supernatural sophistry.

As for ‘spirit’ I see nietzsche’s ‘spirit’ as a choice, and an individual choice, not a truth,or a political movement, or an institutional solution – and I see nietzsche as having failed to discover a solution. And worse, I find his silly german ‘suffering'(struggling) abhorrent – the voice of the weak. The strong do not struggle they just do.

Nietzsche was prescient precisely because he FAILED. As did all german thinkers – desperate provincial romanticists appealing to the heartstrings of the pubescent.

I see nietzsche as ‘weak’. A polemicist. Like say, Rand, he is a gateway that gives you permission to abandon traditional religion, just as rand is a gateway to abandon traditional political ethics. But they are … childish … works by childish people. Which is fine, because we all work at some level of sophistication available to us at our own stage of maturity.

Nietzsche’s rant against his status who is nothing more than what all adolescent men do: express their identities and autonomy as unbound by parental debts, when they reach some level of agency.

But in the end, he just was an insightful polemicists that failed to provide a solution other than infinite skepticism and a return to a celebration of life. A pair of sentiments otherwise politically inactionable.

Nietzsche practiced critique: he remained an abrahamist. He offered us nothing to supplant the past. And understood the classical civilization only in silly germanic romantic and literary terms – rather than the tedious administration of half domesticated man by the use of military, law, bureaucracy, commerce, and education.

Rome was the adult that athens matured into.

We are only now, right now, restoring the state of development at which rome fell.

Leave a Reply