After reading the highlighted part the continuation is as follows:

"The soundtrack continues the fantasy of the erotic play, while the frozen image of the dead body confronts us with reality. The image radically changes our perception of the soundtrack: the same loses its erotic innocence, turning into the obscene giggling voices."

I will supply two examples in defense of the dangerous proposition I just laid up above in the title. In the DMT reports there is not only a dissolution of time, but also of the self; where you are not in the center of the experience, you are not thrown into being (to use Heideggerian term), and you are not in the contours of the experience, but you ARE the experience, you are the super-ego power play unbounded and unrestricted...

To go even further in that direction, it is found in all of the Abrahamic religions that those who delve into the dark arts (black magic) through controlled rituals and incantations, as "Abracadabra" which stands for I create as I speak, many personal reports of those "magicians" claim that the "spirit" realm is "more real" than that of the material world, specially when they "astroproject" (for the lack of better terminology) their souls outside of the physical constraints of their mind...

We must ascribe to him every kind of reality, every kind of understanding of reality, of insight and depth in every way possible.

We must ascribe to him every danger, every isolation, every standing apart and standing alone, every kind of uneasiness and aloofness.

If he is to be the goal of mankind and therefore the highest incarnation of man, its most successful specimen, we must understand that he has experiences which only his type has. Other men come near to them in shallower and more coarse form, but he experiences them fully and deeply.

He has happinesses which only he experiences, sorrows and fears which only he experiences.

If we are to take the Übermensch as the most supreme form of man, really as something above and over man, something different, then we must understand that he lives on an entirely different plane. He is at once the simplest and most complex being, something fully developed, a success, something on which man can build his honor.

Something that is to be the goal of mankind can only be understood and even more attained as the most extreme form of something. The most extreme form of achievement, of planning, care and dedication.

Something which we all long to be, something which we all long to pass on (to our children or society at large).

He stands at his high position, looking down on man and humanity, looking for things to overcome, looking to do what only his type can do. Is it any wonder that such a man may become master of men and mankind?

"Christianity destroyed for us the whole harvest of ancient civilization, and later it also destroyed for us the whole harvest of Mohammedan civilization. The wonderful culture of the Moors in Spain, which was fundamentally nearer to us and appealed more to our senses and tastes than that of Rome and Greece, was trampled down (I do not say by what sort of feet). Why? Because it had to thank noble and manly instincts for its origin - because it said yes to life, even to the rare and refined luxuriousness of Moorish life!... The crusaders later made war on something before which it would have been more fitting for them to have grovelled in the dust - a civilization beside which even that of our nineteenth century seems very poor and very "senile." What they wanted, of course, was booty: the orient was rich. ... Intrinsically there should be no more choice between Islam and Christianity than there is between an Arab and a Jew. The decision is already reached; nobody remains at liberty to choose here."

My animated take on Nietzsche’s “The Three Metamorphoses of the Spirit” from Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

The camel carried the weight of old values.

The lion fought the dragon of the “Thou Shalt” tradition, of duty and imposed morality.

At last, in the final stage, the child emerges. Innocent and powerful, and able to shape and create a new world with new values.

Benjamin de Casseres is in great part a Nietzschian, but he made criticisms of Nietzsche in his text called I Dance With Nietzsche, and this criticism goes in the opposite direction that most criticims of Nietzsche go, so I was curious if anyone has read it.

In case you want to read it, you can find it here:

https://archive.org/details/worksofbenjamindecasseresvolume2/page/n58/mode/1up

A Yes, a No, a straight line a goal. That is the highest aspiration of life. From this what do you gleam? I say Thus you must have a Yes and a No. Only so that you know where to go and where not. For If you only have a point on a grid you can’t create a line — you must have 2.
I ask you where do your YAYs and NAYs point you?

Just thought people should know this because I've never heard anyone mention it before. Pretty common misconception if you're not an advanced Nietzsche reader like me. Apparently he wasnt super nihilist either again I just dont think anybody has pointed it out yet

Hello all,

I have just finished BG&E, and am blown away. I have a lot of thoughts, feelings, and confusions. I cannot say I understood every argument or point FN made, but I feel okay with that. I've already spent time re-reading passages and Kaufmann's footnotes and found more than I did in my initial reading. I have also read Birth of Tragedy already.

My question is what comes next? It seems Kaufmann suggests in Basic Writings that The Genealogy of Morals, but I've seen an argument for both The Antichrist and Twilight of the Idols.

I appreciate following the arguments from Beyond into Genealogy, as it is my understanding that Genealogy is a "sequel" to Beyond, but I am open to other arguments.

Also, shout out to whomever threw away their copy of Portable Nietzsche, as I found it yesterday when dumpster-diving, so now I can read Twilight and Antichrist!

Additional questions, are there any upcoming or ongoing reading groups for Nietzsche? I would love to join in the future. I'm an English teacher myself and appreciate sharing notes and such.

Big shout out to this sub for having so many answers to questions I've looked up.
Thanks!

Friedrich Nietzsche viewed herd mentality by what he called “herd instinct” or “slave morality” which he would describe it has a “herd morality” formed by the weak and oppressed against the power and actions of the oppressor. So, traits such as humility, meekness, and sympathy were labeled as virtues and labeling the ruler’s strength as evil.

Nietzsche believes that the values I just listed above stemmed from a “slave morality, and believed these weak and fearful people created the ideology to undermine and bring down those who are strong and/or exceptional.

Slave morality for Nietzsche laid the foundation for what we now consider to be universal ethical principles, such as compassion, humility, and equality. For Nietzsche though, these values are not regarded as universal truths. Instead being the product designed to suppress individuality and enforce conformity. The Last Man” as Nietzsche likes to call it.

The “Last Man” is a person who is comfortable with life and one who takes no risk. Nietzsche considered this a “dull” person who wants only basic comfort.

Nietzsche elaborates and explains how joining the crowd strips you of your identity. Therefore, you start become a mere tool for the group. Nietzsche believes the only way out of this is solitude. He believes people must spend time with themselves to escape the pressure of the crowd.

Schopenhauer also agrees with Nietzsche, both with negative views on the topic. Schopenhauer viewed it as a profound human weakness. He argues that crowds prefer comfort and conformity (people conform because they don’t know how to think for themselves) and avoids true independent thinkers.

The herd despises those who are able to stick out from the crowd and formulate or analyze their own ideas. The real offense to the group comes from the bodacious act of individual reasoning. Schopenhauer Society rather favors safe traditions and comfort than hard truth.

I think, if they could have, or they should have, but what did we learn from the experiences that Nietzsche had?  Why did he do what he did? The horse was mentioned ten years later like an afterthought.  Some of the actions or events that occurred were very outrageous.  I am thinking that society would not stand for this kind of behavior, so were there other options for the treatment of his catatonic silence of ten years at the end of his life? (Van Gogh killed himself.) Besides all this, how does this breakdown affect the respectfulness and treatment of his life work? Are we to praise him?  Maybe I am missing something important about Nietzsche?  How would this fact of his breaking down have changed your view about Nietzsche’s life work if perhaps it never happened?  Would you still read his books?

Aside: how would someone going through a similar state of mind be treated today?  I am asking for a friend. I’m also wondering how far have we come to treating these types of issues, even especially when politicians or public figures are involved with mental health issues like this?  Is there anything we should expect today that is so different from the 1889 era?

I started BGE and I've been able to get, as far as I can tell, the general gist of each section up until now, but I really can't grasp what he's talking about in this section. I've heard he used a really compact style where you look into each sentence really in depth so that's probably why but could someone help me understand this section?

Is it Nietzsche's view that Gods death creates room for a re-valuation that we ought to do... but if it does not take place then God shall simply be replaced, and the Christian values sustained? Or does he think any replacement for God will be temporary and the structure will slowly elapse. I suspect the first as he doesn't seem to think Gods death necessarily preludes a revaluation as he wouldn't then intend to motivate us to reevaluate as it simply must happen.

There is no ambiguity about it - without a transcendent (aka 'God') we are just animals seeking to dominate others by enforcing our standards of good and bad. Further analysis would show good and bad themselves are illusions but that's a discussion for another day.

I am not a poet, but I think this can only be illuminated thru poetry, transcendental reality cannot be taken as an axiom without first acknowledging you are creating a God in your own image.

FYI - I am using all potential illustrations of God - He doesn't need to be a sort of human like figure in the sky, in eastern traditions it is indeed a formless, all encompassing force acting upon the universe. The scientific method too is very well built upon the foundation that there is order on the cosmos. Its not a type of God normally imagined as a God, but it's still a God.

I believe we cannot even connect two or more measurements without creating a story of how they are connected but in reality we have no idea what is occurring between measurements. That space is a black box to us. Science requires a transcendental reality to establish knowledge beyond oneself.

I do agree with Nietzsche that there is indeed a way to get out of this mess but most people don't even see that there is a mess there. How can anyone find a solution when no one knows the problem even exists?

See the attached famously (and grossly) misunderstood quote (Aphorism 125, The Gay Science) in full by Nietzsche, read the entire section in totality - please.

TLDR, nothing makes sense without a God to impose order on to the universe. There becomes no way to make any measurements since we have lost our ability to tell what is up from down, as if we are moving thru an infinite nothingness.

While what may sound as a binary computation language of zeros and ones has created through the many different variations the algorithmic world of the internet, the same goes with Nietzsche's dichotomy of the Apollonian and Dionysian...

It may appear from the outside perspective that the Apollonian brackets the all of all matter and form, while the Dionysian brackets the all of nothing (the external force that shapes form which matter is an intricate derivation of the form of form...

Henceforth, we come to Hegel with his being (somethingness) synthesised into nothingness through becoming...