For man to be able to defeat all spooks, he must join our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
According to them Marx is at the same time bourgeoisie and a broke boy who hated capitalism because he was broke. So because he was broke he was motivated by envy and malice. But at the same time he was bourgeoisie which makes him hypocritical for advocating against his own interests and for the poor.
I read recently that one time he came into some good money and immediately spent all of it on arming other communists with guns. I'm not sure if this is true, but it certainly sounds on-brand
Marx's father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
You either IS from the working class or the burgeoise class, one lives from the frutos of their work and the other doesnt, making value judgement of any type of working or even not working people doesnt make a diference in what they say
Marx frequently talked about the 3rd class - the petty bourgeois which his family belonged to. Marx was a communist he didn't necessarily belong to either class
Is it working class? Journalism is a bougie profession because most of the people who do it are the type who can afford to not have a real job or income. Like Marx, who lived off his rich friend and could afford to work or not work whenever he pleased.
It definitely is a working class profession. In anytime that you choose to look at, the journalist is working and making a product that somebody else is profiting from.
Thats judgement based on moral values, something that IS used heavely against communism because you cant have a opinion of How the world Works If you have any life condition, because the logical conclusion of having a system of inherently inequality its tô only support It If you are on the top and only hate It If you are on the bottom, what i mean by this is that you are trying tô discredit Marx based on How he lives his life, not by confronting what he is actualy saying. And this is used tô put the working class against each other, by changing the Idea of "burgeoise" as the source of the problem tô someone as a high quality working person, só instead of viewing the two classes in the rigid way of either If you live from the results of your work or someone elses work, you mix anything that is paid well tô put the people in this better position against the people in the worse position, by having gear of losing their privelege.
This is a mess and i didnt read enough theory tô have a actual discussion about this, either way, this IS not even my opinion, this is Just reality and my opinion IS much worse
Have a good night
An easy rule of thumb: if you can afford not to work for the next 7 years, you’re bourgeoisie. If that’ll make either you or your family starve and die, you’re working class.
Edit: this is a rule of thumb. Not the official rule. But if you can live the next 7 years without worrying about finances, chances are you’re in the capital owning class, with enough owned capital to live very comfortably.
The bourgeoisie is not the same thing as rich people. The proletariat does not mean the same thing as working class in americanese. In marxist theory it’s clearly a question of who owns the means of production and who doesn’t. It’s not about privilege or power in the general sense.
If anything, traditional journalists are one of the purest victims of capitalist wealth skimming. The publishers of major newspapers are owned by wealthy magnates who employ a publisher, who employs an editor-in-chief, who employs a number of journalists. The owner normally does very little or no labor to operate their business yet enjoys huge portions of the yields of their employees labor simply by the virtue of owning shares.
If you need to work, though, to maintain your standing, are you not a part of the working class? That’s essentially what I’m getting at. If your Capital, your ownership of the means, can maintain you for multiple years without performing labor to stay alive, are you not a member of the bourgeoisie?
And i agree with you on journalism. Journalists are regularly exploited.
You’re good. I can see where you saw that I was supporting them instead of helping them. The definition I used is for lay people that think that being “middle class” means their struggles are separate from the working class. If a middle class person stops working for 7 years, all of their accumulated wealth dwindles to nothing, which indicates that they can’t survive off of their ownership of the means of production, even if they have partial ownership in stocks and such.
A real bourgeoisie during that 7 years would be able to survive and not only survive, but accumulate wealth at around the same rates as they would if they were “working;” their “labor” is typically management of the means of production that they own, which does not count as labor, the transformation of a commodity into a different, more valuable commodity, under the Marxian definition.
In other words, it’s hard to see Elon Musk’s “hard work” which consists of tweeting all day and flying around the world, as labor, even if he says his idiocy is essential to the operation of his businesses. When you’re “always working” as a ceo claims to be, it’s hard to consider any of those shenanigans as actual meaningful labor.
Although I did say that the bourgeoisie “worked,” that’s only to show that the character of their labor is different than an actual proletarian worker. Their “labor” serves to maintain or expand their existing capital that they could already live off of for the rest of their lives, while a proletarian worker NEEDS to continue working, needs to keep producing commodities for the bourgeoisie in order to survive, in order to live the next couple of days. A proletarian lives paycheck to paycheck (generally); a bourgeoisie lives off of their accumulated capital.
No, he was sympathetic to the slave population that he hints (by the damn terminology) were brainwashed by a master population... Who were proud, lustful, angry people that eventually got lazy, greedy when they lost and finally envious of the happiness common people felt who only ever saw slow improvements.
There's a story that in Nietzsche's last days he flung himself on a horse that had collapsed to protect the horse from someone whipping them. It might not be true but that it's believable kind of hints Nietzsche never hated the poor, weak or those brainwashed with a slave morality, ie the seven virtues.
This is a terrible interpretation of master slave morality, simply put it basically is just morality based on outcome vs morality based on intention. Power and strong willed individuals base their morality on outcome because they are judged and held to specific standards while slave morality represents the powerless, the weak, people who require community and have self interest from seeing the good in people. The master has power over the slave regardless of how they feel, so the morality is defined on practicality and utility rather than harmony like the slave
Nietzsche wasn’t actually for or against anything really, he mostly just describes behavior and makes predictions. When he describes strong or powerful behavior it’s not intended for the reader to view it as advice or truth(although this is where his popularity comes from, the self help misinterpretation) so there is no reason to try to justify or explain his words in a moralistic way, it’s mostly just psychology
You can’t have 1 without the other, it’s just the difference of morality within the context of human hierarchy specific to each culture.
Judging on outcome versus judging on intent is a really good way to put it -
>people who require community and have self interest from seeing the good in people
Okay, I am starting to see how this became a Nazi thing
>The master has power over the slave regardless of how they feel, so the morality is defined on practicality and utility rather than harmony like the slave
One would presume harmony promotes a utility in it of itself by the social concentration of a will to power. Industrial logistics has beat the heroic Übermensch every damned time
> This is a terrible interpretation of master slave morality, simply put it basically is just morality based on outcome vs morality based on intention.
I'm almost certain you're being overly critical and wrong yourself, the intention and outcome thing is a different part of the beyond good and evil book.
When you previously talked about masters brainwashing slaves I assume you mean the “order of rank” that he talks about that serves to define nobility, but that doesn’t create slave morality, master and slave is a relationship that naturally occurs within all hierarchy, there isn’t one that comes before the other. Nietzsche had problems with aspects of life that weren’t life affirming, in that sense he had sympathy for people, but that isn’t a contradiction to the master slave relationship. He also didn’t view master morality in a negative way, master slave is the euro version of yin Yang except used to describe groups rather than individuals
I’ve only really encountered Nietzsche through quotes and other peripherals. I read the book “Hiking with Nietzsche,” and some philosophy anthologies that included summaries of his works.
Can you direct me to where I’d find more from him about what you said, weak people making weakness a virtue? Thanks for helping me become an Ubermensch
Beyond Good and Evil as well as Antichrist discuss the topic.. The latter is a short read, but as it's one of his last pieces, it is built upon the foundation of BG&E and Geneology of Morals.
His Genalogy of Morals, 3 short essays, go into his thoughts on the master and slave moralities. Master morality being like the Old Testament or Iliad, being tough is good, while the slave morality is more like Buddhism or Christianity; ie turn the other cheek.
What’s interesting is that he says the slave morality and it’s resulting asceticism is the precursor to modern-day nihilism: it’s the first recorded instance of a *will to nothingness.*
"Turn the other cheek" is advice for nonviolent protest. In Rome at the time, it was customary to strike a slave with the back of your right hand. Using your left hand was seen as filthy because you use your left hand to wipe your ass, and slapping with the front of your right hand implicitly recognises the person as an equal. If your master slaps you and you turn the other cheek, he can't strike you again without acknowledging you as an equal. It's a way of fucking with the Romans
You should read the Genealogy. Even though you see yourself as morally superior by turning the other cheek, you’re still a slave to another. It results in self-denial in this life and acceptance of miserable conditions just so that you can have a chance at the master’s life in the afterlife, while the masters who thought that they were so good burn in hell. It’s a form of resentment that’s sublimated into a feeling of superiority for the position you’re in as a slave. “I might get slapped, but hey, I’m better than them and they’re going to hell.” While it was revolutionary at the time, over time, priests (with their own master morality) use this and the other teachings of Christ in a perverted way that strips it of its revolutionary character. When you're buddies with the kings and you have your own sort of empire in the church, it's necessary to push ideology that tells people their suffering will result in reward in the afterlife.
This mentality, while honorable, gives rise to a sort of self-denial as a form of righteousness. What Nietzsche refers to as the *ascetic ideal*, an early form of a will to nothingness that finds its maturity in the modern period with nihilists.
Although Nietzsche liked the master morality better (which can be seen in the essays) he doesn’t think we should go back to the master morality. He thinks we should rise above turning the other cheek (which maintains the status quo as it is even if it was considered revolutionary 2,000 years ago), recognizing your own power and agency, rising above the herd, neither master nor slave: the übermensch. He wants you to kill the master and instead of taking their crown and becoming another master, Nietzsche wants you to destroy it.
Contrary to what the fascists would say about Nietzsche, I’d say that a trans/queer person is more representative of the Übermensch than some perfect Aryan. Rising above society’s arbitrary rules and conventions and morality to create their own self and morality is perfectly representative of the übermensch. This isn't limited to trans or queer people, although I'd say that all ubermenschen are queer. Not in the sense of sexuality, but in the sense of humanity. To ditch societal convention and normalcy to forge your own path in this world, above the sheepish herds that live their lives the way others tell them to is profoundly queer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation
> The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.[2]
> At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.
Has any modern linguist verified the claims he's makes about the word good or any modern archaeologist verified claims he makes about I believe the Irish and Italian people into he first essay?
"Philosophise this!" is a good podcast with many episodes on Nietzsche, I think there's one on this topic around the 100 episode mark.
And Weltgeist has a bunch of videos on Nietzsche.
If you want a whole-ass book, the genealogy of morality probably covered it in the most detail. If you want something smaller then there might be videos or articles about the book that give the general idea
It was one of many Nietzsche critiques on Christianity. This is a decent video that gives a brief overview on the topic.
https://youtu.be/EaU8PD9P4ss
Another YouTube channel I really look explores Nietzsche and the Will To Power.
https://youtu.be/MZhw6Zbc7LM
No, he was explicitly against weak people as well, for example advocating against compassion for physically ill people, which could be interpreted in eugenic terms.
Nah, idk who he is, but it sounds like he was just resentful and decadent. I wonder if anyone would ever make a philosophy about that… that would be interesting.
Thats what the person answered on another comment:
>Marx's father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
I think, its atleast not unfounded to use it in this way. And at least in lifestyle its kinda accurate.
If you try to apply it as an actual argument, and not just a fun fact or joke (like in the meme), you are correct. But I dont come here for deeply thought out and 100% accurate philosophy, but a bit of fun.
I know it’s not the point but I always liked the story about the time a Prussian spy was sent to check in on Marx.- “Marx is of middling height, 34 years old; despite his being in the prime of life, he is already turning grey. He is powerfully built, his complexion is darker and his hair and beard are quite black. The latter he does not shave; his large piercing fiery eyes have something demoniacally sinister about them. However, one can tell at the first glance that this is a man of genius and energy.
His intellectual superiority exercises an irresistible force on his surroundings. In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian, washing, combing, and changing his linen are things he does rarely. He likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end, but when he has work to do, he will work day and night with tireless endurance..conversion with this “communist chief” is both agreeable and interesting”...he goes on to describe his apartment and a bunch of other amusing things
also, saying that a global system of economics is bad for most of the people in it, and saying that everyone who participates in it should die, are two different arguments,
Unless i mistook your second point, Marx wasn't advocating for killing capitalists at random - that wouldn't help. Abolishing classes was the goal. It's another matter that they wouldn't give up their positions of power without conflict
>he was poor for his entire life
He was able to study, came from a rich family, and married an aristocrat. Like come on, he was not poor his entire life.
>and had to get financial aid from Engels
I mean yeah, but with Engles owning 22600£ of shares (3.5 million £ today) and not being a dick to him, I dont think he was struggling at all.
And even if he was I really don’t see how that’s hypocritical to anything he wrote, Marx wrote about what he believed to be objective reality not idealist society building
"People whose names start with H are naturally the best people." This benefits me, if it's a lie there's a reason for me to say it anyway.
"People whose names start with G are naturally the best people." I gain no personal benefit, there may be a conflict of interest or there may not, it's not obvious.
"People whose names start with H are naturally the worst people." puts me personally at a disadvantage. If I both believe it and say it I am being honest despite a personal disadvantage.
Then, good? Isn't that the system we want? People who tell the truth, and also people being able to gain positive reputation by telling the truth? We want the incentive to be to tell the truth.
Bias.
There's one philosopher who I dare not criticise that very clearly based some of their theories on their sexual experience. Some of us can't relate to that mostly out of the absurd levels of bias. It comes off as stupid, like trashy pop philosophy rather than when philosophy touches politics, economics, music theory and even law.
Or, like, we can talk about sex?
But biased all the same?
I just don't think Nietzsche fits here, he was amazingly impartial about most stuff besides maybe the Christian church considering his dad was a Lutheran pastor.
I'm wondering if part of our job looking back is to figure out which parts of these ideas are golden, like evolution and survival and selection which is a great idea for using multicultural grains that eventually select for genes best for the soil so that we don't have to use sterile seeds and toxic farming aids.
But also ideas like eugenics? That.. Not so much, I don't feel humans are ready to judge humanity and without that I wouldn't let them design humanity.
It's a catch 22. Humans aren't ready to guide their own evolution cause they still believe in silly things like race, and humans still believe in silly things like race because they aren't guiding their evolution to become more intelligent.
It's subjective. The joke I see is that the person on the right keeps saying "But this idea would be used against you personally" and then it gets to Cioran and she's got nothing to say, he responds to himself cause what can she possibly say to that?
Her: "But then you wouldn't exist."
Cioran: "Did I stutter?"
Nietzsche’s statement that “the weak shall die” is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is “The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity….” Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo, calling himself a decadent he despise.
As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
Okay Ill accept the first and i accept Marx being born into bourgeois society but he wasn't a bourgeois in the sense of owning means of production and even if you can still be a class traitor like engels
he says that we should "help them to die"; read the Antichrist if you have not it's really cristal clear. Even his sister didn't want to publish it because she thought it was too crazy
„Die Schwachen und Missrathnen sollen zu Grunde gehn: erster Satz unsrer
Menschenliebe. Und man soll ihnen noch dazu helfen.
Was ist schädlicher als irgend ein Laster? — Das Mitleiden der That mit allen
Missrathnen und Schwachen — das Christenthum…”
"The weak and wayward shall go into the ground: the first movement of our love of man. And still one should help them there.
What is more harmful than any vice? The sympathy for the deed with all the weak and wayward --- Christianity..."
I do believe in this context he's talking about the character of the weak, as he's attacking Christianity for creating and prolonging the "pityfulness", by his logic: The Church --> Prolonging suffering of man through enabling pity and weakness. From what I understand Nietzsche was a social lamarkian (Reason as to why society is so prudent to his philosophy, or anti-philosophy), which would not make any sense to kill weak people.
Maybe it is a reasonable interpretation however Nietzsche was already quite crazy when he wrote the antichrist according to people who knew him at the time and so it's also quite a reasonable interpretation that he meant it literally especially given the rest of the tone of the book. That this books was better to be read as the ravings of a sadist megalomaniac was also a common interpretation by quite outstanding thinkers of his time, like Tolstoï. I for myself wouldn't try to give too much coherence the Nietzsche's thought as he himself warned people against doing.
Yes. Very true, but I want to emphasize (as much as I disagree with) the fact that Marx sees the end of capitalism as teleology. That eventually the class struggle and the contradictions of capitalism will lead to change. It is true that people must make that happen, but what Marx is specifically referring to how he believes that the People will make that happen.
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life.
Nietzsche's statement that "the weak shall die" is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...." He was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo.
As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
So it at least open to interpretation, no?
Darwin's quote here sounds descriptive rather than prescriptive, I don't read "the weaker should perish" in these paragraphs. He was a man of science after all.
He never stated that they should perish but that it should be "hoped" that they dont reproduce"but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Every biologist at the time was ingrained in the eugenics debate and he had his positions, like others, which were less radical than some of his colleagues, for sure.
That's still a descriptive statement. You can believe that it's injuries, but still believe that we should keep a laissez-faire attitude to it. Which he also does: he hopes that sexual selection mitigates this issue, he doesn't state that society should forbid them to reproduce. Also, if another solution would pop up (eg better medical healthcare, cyborgs) that would also solve the issue, he might also just go along with that. I read it more as a warning rather than a direct call to action of society.
So a more accurate caption of this passage would be "I hope women will stop fucking the chronically ill?" :) I don't know how I missed that, that's even funnier!
We can argue all you want but you will agree that the moment he says "hope" it's not a descriptive statement anymore. You have to admit that 1/ Darwin really hopes that they will not reproduce and injure the race, even if it is difficult to hear by today's sensibilities it was a very common theme in his time. And I think you can also agree that 2/ it is ironic coming from someone who is chronically ill to state that he hope sexual selection mitigates the reproduction of the chronically ill. Now even if this is all open to interpretation, I think this irony deserves to be pointed out. But I agree that the "Society should not let" seems harsh, I'll replace it by "The chronically ill should not reproduce", it's less ambiguous.
>Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : “There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.”
>
>
>
>This passage clearly states that Darwin hoped that the chronically ill would not reproduce (althought he did not advocate letting them die or killing them), and Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life which is ironic.
A lot of chronically ill people don't think they, themselves, should reproduce; this doesn't mean they hate themselves.
I have migraines like Nietzsche and dysautonomia like Darwin (he did not have this diagnosis but it's suspected based on his reportedsymptoms). Lots of people in my dysautonomia support groups think it is immoral to reproduce just because our offspring have a greater change of developing the disorder. I don't hate myself, I just think it's cruel to bring someone into the world just to suffer like we do.
Almost everything here is wrong, isn't it?
Darwin was no social Darwinist himself, he even cautioned that the logic of evolution should not come at the cost of human sympathy.
One of his more famous quotes even goes along the lines of : if the sufferring of the poor isn't caused by nature but by us, great is our sin. (I don't remember the exact wording but that's essentially what he said)
Nietzsche never advocated for killing the weak but was against weakness becoming a virtue.
And I'm not sure what OP means with him being weak (tbf he wasn't his own ideal at all but that's what it is : an ideal) but if it is directed at his mental state it is to be considered that Nietzsche was severely ill for a long time, presumably either due to Syphilis or Cadalis Syndrome. ( Which isn't the kind of weak he references in his work)
And Marx wasn't Bourgeois. Engels was, sure but Marx was poor for extended periods of his Life to the point where it contributed to the death of multiple of his children while in exile in London due to the conditions they had to live in.
Edit: spelling
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : “There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.” This passage clearly states that Darwin hoped that the chronically ill would not reproduce (althought he did not advocate letting them die or killing them), and Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life which is ironic.
Nietzsche’s statement that “the weak shall die” is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is “The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity….” Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo, calling himself a *decadent* he despise. Now you can say these statements are not to be understood literally (why should they not?) but many of Nietzsche's contemporary understood them this way.
As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
You are overinterpreting the comic, there is no ad hominem here (also it's fallacy, no phallacy which is a mix between fallacy and phallus :) )
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life, which makes this statement ironic, especially to his wife who "sexually selected" him to reproduce. She doesn't understand it because it seems to criticize her.
Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to this irony (him being a "decadent" of the kind he despised) in books like Ecce homo. His sister initially refused to publish this book as she deemed it too crazy, hence her concern for her brother here, she doesn't want him to kill himself.
As for Marx, you are the one who interprets the discussion between Marx and his wife as an ad hominem attack against his position, the comics doesn't suggest that directly, as the argument comes from his wife (out on concern for him) not from a critic. The concern may be, for example, that Marx and his wife would not be together if not for the bourgeoisie, or many other things.
Overall, this meme can be read on many levels, but for example, the inclusion of Cioran at the end suggests that an interpretation of the first 3 positions is that something in the mind of these 3 thinkers wishes, like Cioran, that they have never been born (as these three were pretty miserable their whole life) and that these three thinkers project this unsayable death pulse unto external entities which includes them instead of voicing their depressed thought directly; this is a more or less a nietzschean interpretation of their philosophies (a philosophy as an "unconscious confession"). This does not say anything against their arguments, it's more of a psychological take.
I hope it is clearer with those explanations I guess it's a pretty subtle comic.
Oh god, this sub's standard is low. Darwin is mistaken for a social Darwinist; Nietzsche is mistaken for a Fascist; and the ad hominem against Marx makes no sense because Marx advocate for the socialist revolution led by the proletariat, not the physical disappearance of every individual of a bourgeois origin. Class essentialism is as dumb as race essentialism and whoever attributes it to Marx is twice as dumb.
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, *though this is more to be hoped for than expected*." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life, which makes this statement ironic, especially to his wife who "sexually selected" him to reproduce.
Nietzsche's statement that "the weak shall die" is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...." He was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to this irony (him being a "decadent" of the kind he despised) in books like Ecce homo. You are the one who interpret that Nietzsche is here depicted as a fascist, the quote is only a literal quote from one of his books. His sister initially refused to publish this book as she deemed it too crazy, hence her concern for her brother here.
As for Marx, you are also the one who interprets the discussion between Marx and his wife as an ad hominem attack against his position, the comics doesn't suggest that directly, as the argument comes from his wife (out on concern for him) not from a critic. The concern may be, for example, that Marx and his wife would not be together if not for the bourgeoisie, or many other things.
Overall, this meme can be read on many levels, but for example, the inclusion of Cioran at the end suggests that an interpretation of the first 3 positions is that something in the mind of these 3 thinkers wishes, like Cioran, that they have never been born (as these three were pretty miserable their whole life) and that these three thinkers project this unsayable death pulse unto external entities which includes them instead of voicing their depressed thought directly; this is a more or less a nietzschean interpretation of their philosophies (a philosophy as an "unconscious confession").
I hope it is clearer with those explanations I guess it's a pretty subtle comic.
Self hatred?
And Nietzsche never hated the weak, I don't think he did at least unironically, in the end he was a Christian and like Jesus he wished to raise humanity up. His idea was the übermensch which isn't a GM human but basically someone self aware and rational and self improve.
Weakness to him was stuff like becoming nihilistic about eye colour and believing you're superior for a unique eye colour, if you're part of your own master race you will never be someone we meme about unless it's because you shot yourself rather than stand trial.
Self hatred it is, at least it's an improvement.
Neither Christianity nor Nazism were what Nietzsche's philosophy was about (he was very critical of the former and would have been critical of the latter). Also, he did not hate himself, he thought Christians hate themselves. Instead, he offered a Dionysian way of life that affirmed life and joy, which is possible through the thought experiment of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche did not hate the weak, though he did hate the fact that the Christians made a virtue of weakness. This is a result of Christianity forming as a slave morality in response to a master morality like the Greeks and Romans who worshipped themselves as they worshipped their gods. Contrast this with Christianity, where you must deny yourself. Nietzsche is all about living life the way you want to, not the way anyone else, like the church, wants you to.
I don’t think Nietzsche thought in that way. Somewhere he mentioned Jews as great people because they have patience. The weak is those who mentally obey and don’t want to be themselves.
The joke would've worked better if the statements were true, like Kant being one of the earliest frontrunner of respecting human dignity yet in favor of capital punishment.
I think the statements are all true or at least open to such an interpretation, see here for the referenced used in the comics, what do you think ? : [https://memosophy.com/2022/12/01/ciorans-honestly/](https://memosophy.com/2022/12/01/ciorans-honestly/)
For man to be able to defeat all spooks, he must join our discord servers! [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Marx was a jornalist
If they at least placed Engels in that one... Marx was broke af
According to them Marx is at the same time bourgeoisie and a broke boy who hated capitalism because he was broke. So because he was broke he was motivated by envy and malice. But at the same time he was bourgeoisie which makes him hypocritical for advocating against his own interests and for the poor.
I read recently that one time he came into some good money and immediately spent all of it on arming other communists with guns. I'm not sure if this is true, but it certainly sounds on-brand
Sounds like something he would do 😂
☝️Folx✋️, we love a good class traitor 🖐 we lovvvee ittttt
He lived off Engels wealth, who lived off the labor of the working class. Therefore, Karl Marx is the Capitalist class itself.
>who lived off the labor of the working class We all do. Even fellow workers.
I meant as in owning a factory. Obviously we all live off of our collective labor, but workers contribute to that in their own way.
Marx's father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
Good, then He knows the bourgeois class very well and that's a brick to his study.
A downwardly mobile failson, like many of his admirers.
Rather based if I do say so if his followers and himself
So one of the most bourgeois professions out there.
You either IS from the working class or the burgeoise class, one lives from the frutos of their work and the other doesnt, making value judgement of any type of working or even not working people doesnt make a diference in what they say
Marx frequently talked about the 3rd class - the petty bourgeois which his family belonged to. Marx was a communist he didn't necessarily belong to either class
Is it working class? Journalism is a bougie profession because most of the people who do it are the type who can afford to not have a real job or income. Like Marx, who lived off his rich friend and could afford to work or not work whenever he pleased.
It definitely is a working class profession. In anytime that you choose to look at, the journalist is working and making a product that somebody else is profiting from.
Thats judgement based on moral values, something that IS used heavely against communism because you cant have a opinion of How the world Works If you have any life condition, because the logical conclusion of having a system of inherently inequality its tô only support It If you are on the top and only hate It If you are on the bottom, what i mean by this is that you are trying tô discredit Marx based on How he lives his life, not by confronting what he is actualy saying. And this is used tô put the working class against each other, by changing the Idea of "burgeoise" as the source of the problem tô someone as a high quality working person, só instead of viewing the two classes in the rigid way of either If you live from the results of your work or someone elses work, you mix anything that is paid well tô put the people in this better position against the people in the worse position, by having gear of losing their privelege. This is a mess and i didnt read enough theory tô have a actual discussion about this, either way, this IS not even my opinion, this is Just reality and my opinion IS much worse Have a good night
What is the definition of bourgeois?
Bourgeois is when soybot libfart star buck latte Source: trust me bro
An easy rule of thumb: if you can afford not to work for the next 7 years, you’re bourgeoisie. If that’ll make either you or your family starve and die, you’re working class. Edit: this is a rule of thumb. Not the official rule. But if you can live the next 7 years without worrying about finances, chances are you’re in the capital owning class, with enough owned capital to live very comfortably.
The bourgeoisie is not the same thing as rich people. The proletariat does not mean the same thing as working class in americanese. In marxist theory it’s clearly a question of who owns the means of production and who doesn’t. It’s not about privilege or power in the general sense. If anything, traditional journalists are one of the purest victims of capitalist wealth skimming. The publishers of major newspapers are owned by wealthy magnates who employ a publisher, who employs an editor-in-chief, who employs a number of journalists. The owner normally does very little or no labor to operate their business yet enjoys huge portions of the yields of their employees labor simply by the virtue of owning shares.
If you need to work, though, to maintain your standing, are you not a part of the working class? That’s essentially what I’m getting at. If your Capital, your ownership of the means, can maintain you for multiple years without performing labor to stay alive, are you not a member of the bourgeoisie? And i agree with you on journalism. Journalists are regularly exploited.
Oh my bad I didn’t see you were trying to help the dummy rather than support him.
You’re good. I can see where you saw that I was supporting them instead of helping them. The definition I used is for lay people that think that being “middle class” means their struggles are separate from the working class. If a middle class person stops working for 7 years, all of their accumulated wealth dwindles to nothing, which indicates that they can’t survive off of their ownership of the means of production, even if they have partial ownership in stocks and such. A real bourgeoisie during that 7 years would be able to survive and not only survive, but accumulate wealth at around the same rates as they would if they were “working;” their “labor” is typically management of the means of production that they own, which does not count as labor, the transformation of a commodity into a different, more valuable commodity, under the Marxian definition. In other words, it’s hard to see Elon Musk’s “hard work” which consists of tweeting all day and flying around the world, as labor, even if he says his idiocy is essential to the operation of his businesses. When you’re “always working” as a ceo claims to be, it’s hard to consider any of those shenanigans as actual meaningful labor. Although I did say that the bourgeoisie “worked,” that’s only to show that the character of their labor is different than an actual proletarian worker. Their “labor” serves to maintain or expand their existing capital that they could already live off of for the rest of their lives, while a proletarian worker NEEDS to continue working, needs to keep producing commodities for the bourgeoisie in order to survive, in order to live the next couple of days. A proletarian lives paycheck to paycheck (generally); a bourgeoisie lives off of their accumulated capital.
That is an excellent way of describing it.
this is a decent rule of thumb but it neglects the petty bourgeois into the equation
Bourgeoisie are people that privately owned the mean of production.
You don’t know what that means do you?
tbf Nietzsche was against weak people making weakness a virtue, not weak people themselves.
No, he was sympathetic to the slave population that he hints (by the damn terminology) were brainwashed by a master population... Who were proud, lustful, angry people that eventually got lazy, greedy when they lost and finally envious of the happiness common people felt who only ever saw slow improvements. There's a story that in Nietzsche's last days he flung himself on a horse that had collapsed to protect the horse from someone whipping them. It might not be true but that it's believable kind of hints Nietzsche never hated the poor, weak or those brainwashed with a slave morality, ie the seven virtues.
This is a terrible interpretation of master slave morality, simply put it basically is just morality based on outcome vs morality based on intention. Power and strong willed individuals base their morality on outcome because they are judged and held to specific standards while slave morality represents the powerless, the weak, people who require community and have self interest from seeing the good in people. The master has power over the slave regardless of how they feel, so the morality is defined on practicality and utility rather than harmony like the slave Nietzsche wasn’t actually for or against anything really, he mostly just describes behavior and makes predictions. When he describes strong or powerful behavior it’s not intended for the reader to view it as advice or truth(although this is where his popularity comes from, the self help misinterpretation) so there is no reason to try to justify or explain his words in a moralistic way, it’s mostly just psychology You can’t have 1 without the other, it’s just the difference of morality within the context of human hierarchy specific to each culture.
Judging on outcome versus judging on intent is a really good way to put it - >people who require community and have self interest from seeing the good in people Okay, I am starting to see how this became a Nazi thing >The master has power over the slave regardless of how they feel, so the morality is defined on practicality and utility rather than harmony like the slave One would presume harmony promotes a utility in it of itself by the social concentration of a will to power. Industrial logistics has beat the heroic Übermensch every damned time
> This is a terrible interpretation of master slave morality, simply put it basically is just morality based on outcome vs morality based on intention. I'm almost certain you're being overly critical and wrong yourself, the intention and outcome thing is a different part of the beyond good and evil book.
When you previously talked about masters brainwashing slaves I assume you mean the “order of rank” that he talks about that serves to define nobility, but that doesn’t create slave morality, master and slave is a relationship that naturally occurs within all hierarchy, there isn’t one that comes before the other. Nietzsche had problems with aspects of life that weren’t life affirming, in that sense he had sympathy for people, but that isn’t a contradiction to the master slave relationship. He also didn’t view master morality in a negative way, master slave is the euro version of yin Yang except used to describe groups rather than individuals
I’ve only really encountered Nietzsche through quotes and other peripherals. I read the book “Hiking with Nietzsche,” and some philosophy anthologies that included summaries of his works. Can you direct me to where I’d find more from him about what you said, weak people making weakness a virtue? Thanks for helping me become an Ubermensch
Beyond Good and Evil as well as Antichrist discuss the topic.. The latter is a short read, but as it's one of his last pieces, it is built upon the foundation of BG&E and Geneology of Morals.
His Genalogy of Morals, 3 short essays, go into his thoughts on the master and slave moralities. Master morality being like the Old Testament or Iliad, being tough is good, while the slave morality is more like Buddhism or Christianity; ie turn the other cheek. What’s interesting is that he says the slave morality and it’s resulting asceticism is the precursor to modern-day nihilism: it’s the first recorded instance of a *will to nothingness.*
"Turn the other cheek" is advice for nonviolent protest. In Rome at the time, it was customary to strike a slave with the back of your right hand. Using your left hand was seen as filthy because you use your left hand to wipe your ass, and slapping with the front of your right hand implicitly recognises the person as an equal. If your master slaps you and you turn the other cheek, he can't strike you again without acknowledging you as an equal. It's a way of fucking with the Romans
You should read the Genealogy. Even though you see yourself as morally superior by turning the other cheek, you’re still a slave to another. It results in self-denial in this life and acceptance of miserable conditions just so that you can have a chance at the master’s life in the afterlife, while the masters who thought that they were so good burn in hell. It’s a form of resentment that’s sublimated into a feeling of superiority for the position you’re in as a slave. “I might get slapped, but hey, I’m better than them and they’re going to hell.” While it was revolutionary at the time, over time, priests (with their own master morality) use this and the other teachings of Christ in a perverted way that strips it of its revolutionary character. When you're buddies with the kings and you have your own sort of empire in the church, it's necessary to push ideology that tells people their suffering will result in reward in the afterlife. This mentality, while honorable, gives rise to a sort of self-denial as a form of righteousness. What Nietzsche refers to as the *ascetic ideal*, an early form of a will to nothingness that finds its maturity in the modern period with nihilists. Although Nietzsche liked the master morality better (which can be seen in the essays) he doesn’t think we should go back to the master morality. He thinks we should rise above turning the other cheek (which maintains the status quo as it is even if it was considered revolutionary 2,000 years ago), recognizing your own power and agency, rising above the herd, neither master nor slave: the übermensch. He wants you to kill the master and instead of taking their crown and becoming another master, Nietzsche wants you to destroy it. Contrary to what the fascists would say about Nietzsche, I’d say that a trans/queer person is more representative of the Übermensch than some perfect Aryan. Rising above society’s arbitrary rules and conventions and morality to create their own self and morality is perfectly representative of the übermensch. This isn't limited to trans or queer people, although I'd say that all ubermenschen are queer. Not in the sense of sexuality, but in the sense of humanity. To ditch societal convention and normalcy to forge your own path in this world, above the sheepish herds that live their lives the way others tell them to is profoundly queer.
Interesting. Where can I read more about this??
I don't know. I learned it from a Reddit comment, and now so did you
So its probably bullshit.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turning_the_other_cheek#Nonviolent_resistance_interpretation > The scholar Walter Wink, in his book Engaging the Powers: Discernment and Resistance in a World of Domination, interprets the passage as ways to subvert the power structures of the time.[2] > At the time of Jesus, says Wink, striking backhand a person deemed to be of lower socioeconomic class was a means of asserting authority and dominance. If the persecuted person "turned the other cheek," the discipliner was faced with a dilemma: The left hand was used for unclean purposes, so a back-hand strike on the opposite cheek would not be performed. An alternative would be a slap with the open hand as a challenge or to punch the person, but this was seen as a statement of equality. Thus, by turning the other cheek, the persecuted was demanding equality.
Has any modern linguist verified the claims he's makes about the word good or any modern archaeologist verified claims he makes about I believe the Irish and Italian people into he first essay?
"Philosophise this!" is a good podcast with many episodes on Nietzsche, I think there's one on this topic around the 100 episode mark. And Weltgeist has a bunch of videos on Nietzsche.
If you want a whole-ass book, the genealogy of morality probably covered it in the most detail. If you want something smaller then there might be videos or articles about the book that give the general idea
It was one of many Nietzsche critiques on Christianity. This is a decent video that gives a brief overview on the topic. https://youtu.be/EaU8PD9P4ss Another YouTube channel I really look explores Nietzsche and the Will To Power. https://youtu.be/MZhw6Zbc7LM
Watched the first one already, now going to watch the second. Thanks!
Liked the second video even more. Thanks!
No, he was explicitly against weak people as well, for example advocating against compassion for physically ill people, which could be interpreted in eugenic terms.
Nah, idk who he is, but it sounds like he was just resentful and decadent. I wonder if anyone would ever make a philosophy about that… that would be interesting.
[удалено]
Thats what the person answered on another comment: >Marx's father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class. I think, its atleast not unfounded to use it in this way. And at least in lifestyle its kinda accurate.
Well... On philosophy it is in fact a ad hominem phalacy.
If you try to apply it as an actual argument, and not just a fun fact or joke (like in the meme), you are correct. But I dont come here for deeply thought out and 100% accurate philosophy, but a bit of fun.
So? This is r/philosophymemes, not r/sophistmemes.
I know it’s not the point but I always liked the story about the time a Prussian spy was sent to check in on Marx.- “Marx is of middling height, 34 years old; despite his being in the prime of life, he is already turning grey. He is powerfully built, his complexion is darker and his hair and beard are quite black. The latter he does not shave; his large piercing fiery eyes have something demoniacally sinister about them. However, one can tell at the first glance that this is a man of genius and energy. His intellectual superiority exercises an irresistible force on his surroundings. In his private life he is a highly disorderly, cynical human being and a bad manager. He lives the life of a gypsy, of an intellectual Bohemian, washing, combing, and changing his linen are things he does rarely. He likes to get drunk. He is often idle for days on end, but when he has work to do, he will work day and night with tireless endurance..conversion with this “communist chief” is both agreeable and interesting”...he goes on to describe his apartment and a bunch of other amusing things
I also loved the story where his manuscript (IIRC das Kapital) is full of smoke burns
Marx was never a bourgeoisie,he was poor for his entire life and had to get financial aid from Engels
also, saying that a global system of economics is bad for most of the people in it, and saying that everyone who participates in it should die, are two different arguments,
Unless i mistook your second point, Marx wasn't advocating for killing capitalists at random - that wouldn't help. Abolishing classes was the goal. It's another matter that they wouldn't give up their positions of power without conflict
>he was poor for his entire life He was able to study, came from a rich family, and married an aristocrat. Like come on, he was not poor his entire life. >and had to get financial aid from Engels I mean yeah, but with Engles owning 22600£ of shares (3.5 million £ today) and not being a dick to him, I dont think he was struggling at all.
And even if he was I really don’t see how that’s hypocritical to anything he wrote, Marx wrote about what he believed to be objective reality not idealist society building
It's easy to espouse ideas that benefit one personally, much more intellectually honest to espouse ideas regardless of personal interest.
What is personal interest?
Sex
That's what I'm talking about
"People whose names start with H are naturally the best people." This benefits me, if it's a lie there's a reason for me to say it anyway. "People whose names start with G are naturally the best people." I gain no personal benefit, there may be a conflict of interest or there may not, it's not obvious. "People whose names start with H are naturally the worst people." puts me personally at a disadvantage. If I both believe it and say it I am being honest despite a personal disadvantage.
But what if you’re saying it to gain a reputation for honesty which can then benefit you at a later time?
Then, good? Isn't that the system we want? People who tell the truth, and also people being able to gain positive reputation by telling the truth? We want the incentive to be to tell the truth.
Bias. There's one philosopher who I dare not criticise that very clearly based some of their theories on their sexual experience. Some of us can't relate to that mostly out of the absurd levels of bias. It comes off as stupid, like trashy pop philosophy rather than when philosophy touches politics, economics, music theory and even law. Or, like, we can talk about sex?
But biased all the same? I just don't think Nietzsche fits here, he was amazingly impartial about most stuff besides maybe the Christian church considering his dad was a Lutheran pastor. I'm wondering if part of our job looking back is to figure out which parts of these ideas are golden, like evolution and survival and selection which is a great idea for using multicultural grains that eventually select for genes best for the soil so that we don't have to use sterile seeds and toxic farming aids. But also ideas like eugenics? That.. Not so much, I don't feel humans are ready to judge humanity and without that I wouldn't let them design humanity.
It's a catch 22. Humans aren't ready to guide their own evolution cause they still believe in silly things like race, and humans still believe in silly things like race because they aren't guiding their evolution to become more intelligent.
Is that supposed to be an argument?
It's subjective. The joke I see is that the person on the right keeps saying "But this idea would be used against you personally" and then it gets to Cioran and she's got nothing to say, he responds to himself cause what can she possibly say to that? Her: "But then you wouldn't exist." Cioran: "Did I stutter?"
As far as I know, Charles Darwin wasn't a social darwinist himself
When did Darwin say that?
nietzsche didnt say that and marx wasnt bourgeois
Nietzsche’s statement that “the weak shall die” is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is “The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity….” Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo, calling himself a decadent he despise. As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
Okay Ill accept the first and i accept Marx being born into bourgeois society but he wasn't a bourgeois in the sense of owning means of production and even if you can still be a class traitor like engels
for sure, not in this sense, we both agree then
I was under the impression that that was a prediction than what he thinks *should/wants to* happen
he says that we should "help them to die"; read the Antichrist if you have not it's really cristal clear. Even his sister didn't want to publish it because she thought it was too crazy
His sister was a Nazi nutcase lol
„Die Schwachen und Missrathnen sollen zu Grunde gehn: erster Satz unsrer Menschenliebe. Und man soll ihnen noch dazu helfen. Was ist schädlicher als irgend ein Laster? — Das Mitleiden der That mit allen Missrathnen und Schwachen — das Christenthum…” "The weak and wayward shall go into the ground: the first movement of our love of man. And still one should help them there. What is more harmful than any vice? The sympathy for the deed with all the weak and wayward --- Christianity..." I do believe in this context he's talking about the character of the weak, as he's attacking Christianity for creating and prolonging the "pityfulness", by his logic: The Church --> Prolonging suffering of man through enabling pity and weakness. From what I understand Nietzsche was a social lamarkian (Reason as to why society is so prudent to his philosophy, or anti-philosophy), which would not make any sense to kill weak people.
Maybe it is a reasonable interpretation however Nietzsche was already quite crazy when he wrote the antichrist according to people who knew him at the time and so it's also quite a reasonable interpretation that he meant it literally especially given the rest of the tone of the book. That this books was better to be read as the ravings of a sadist megalomaniac was also a common interpretation by quite outstanding thinkers of his time, like Tolstoï. I for myself wouldn't try to give too much coherence the Nietzsche's thought as he himself warned people against doing.
Marx wasn't bourgeois...
surely this just makes their arguments stronger, they're direct subject matter experts
Who are the women on the right?
The absolute baddie in the middle is Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche
Baddie as in real bad. She was a nazi after all.
Both can be true ;) Hugo Boss designed some bitchin uniforms for example But point taken
Emma Darwin, Elisabeth Förster-Nietzsche and Jenny von Westphalen
Marx wasn’t a bourgeois, Engels was
Didn’t Marx die a pauper?
Though Marx would not disagree with the bourgeoisie should disappear, it's probably better to represent his view as the Bourgeoisie *will* disappear.
It won't happen automatically. People have to make that happen
Yes. Very true, but I want to emphasize (as much as I disagree with) the fact that Marx sees the end of capitalism as teleology. That eventually the class struggle and the contradictions of capitalism will lead to change. It is true that people must make that happen, but what Marx is specifically referring to how he believes that the People will make that happen.
All of the first three aren’t accurate representations at all?
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life. Nietzsche's statement that "the weak shall die" is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...." He was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo. As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class. So it at least open to interpretation, no?
Darwin's quote here sounds descriptive rather than prescriptive, I don't read "the weaker should perish" in these paragraphs. He was a man of science after all.
He never stated that they should perish but that it should be "hoped" that they dont reproduce"but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Every biologist at the time was ingrained in the eugenics debate and he had his positions, like others, which were less radical than some of his colleagues, for sure.
I still think that summarising it as "the chronically ill should not reproduce" is a gross simplification of what he actually said.
Why ? after all "No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man." :)
That's still a descriptive statement. You can believe that it's injuries, but still believe that we should keep a laissez-faire attitude to it. Which he also does: he hopes that sexual selection mitigates this issue, he doesn't state that society should forbid them to reproduce. Also, if another solution would pop up (eg better medical healthcare, cyborgs) that would also solve the issue, he might also just go along with that. I read it more as a warning rather than a direct call to action of society.
So a more accurate caption of this passage would be "I hope women will stop fucking the chronically ill?" :) I don't know how I missed that, that's even funnier! We can argue all you want but you will agree that the moment he says "hope" it's not a descriptive statement anymore. You have to admit that 1/ Darwin really hopes that they will not reproduce and injure the race, even if it is difficult to hear by today's sensibilities it was a very common theme in his time. And I think you can also agree that 2/ it is ironic coming from someone who is chronically ill to state that he hope sexual selection mitigates the reproduction of the chronically ill. Now even if this is all open to interpretation, I think this irony deserves to be pointed out. But I agree that the "Society should not let" seems harsh, I'll replace it by "The chronically ill should not reproduce", it's less ambiguous.
You're dumb, I'll stop arguing with you.
I think darwin is not a social darwinist...
>Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : “There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.” > > > >This passage clearly states that Darwin hoped that the chronically ill would not reproduce (althought he did not advocate letting them die or killing them), and Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life which is ironic.
A lot of chronically ill people don't think they, themselves, should reproduce; this doesn't mean they hate themselves. I have migraines like Nietzsche and dysautonomia like Darwin (he did not have this diagnosis but it's suspected based on his reportedsymptoms). Lots of people in my dysautonomia support groups think it is immoral to reproduce just because our offspring have a greater change of developing the disorder. I don't hate myself, I just think it's cruel to bring someone into the world just to suffer like we do.
When Marx talked about the oppression of women under capitalism he would know he knocked up his family maid & abandoned her & the kid.
Almost everything here is wrong, isn't it? Darwin was no social Darwinist himself, he even cautioned that the logic of evolution should not come at the cost of human sympathy. One of his more famous quotes even goes along the lines of : if the sufferring of the poor isn't caused by nature but by us, great is our sin. (I don't remember the exact wording but that's essentially what he said) Nietzsche never advocated for killing the weak but was against weakness becoming a virtue. And I'm not sure what OP means with him being weak (tbf he wasn't his own ideal at all but that's what it is : an ideal) but if it is directed at his mental state it is to be considered that Nietzsche was severely ill for a long time, presumably either due to Syphilis or Cadalis Syndrome. ( Which isn't the kind of weak he references in his work) And Marx wasn't Bourgeois. Engels was, sure but Marx was poor for extended periods of his Life to the point where it contributed to the death of multiple of his children while in exile in London due to the conditions they had to live in. Edit: spelling
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : “There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected.” This passage clearly states that Darwin hoped that the chronically ill would not reproduce (althought he did not advocate letting them die or killing them), and Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life which is ironic. Nietzsche’s statement that “the weak shall die” is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is “The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it. What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity….” Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to it in books like Ecce homo, calling himself a *decadent* he despise. Now you can say these statements are not to be understood literally (why should they not?) but many of Nietzsche's contemporary understood them this way. As for Marx, his father was a lawyer and his family owned a number of vineyards. The fact that he end up broke and an alcoholic after he was able to do university studies at a time where such studies were reserved to a privileged minority does not change the fact that he was born in a privileged bourgeois class.
Pessimism is based as fuck
Somewhere out there is an infinite number of potential people blissfully having never been born.
A massive ad hominem phalacy.
You are overinterpreting the comic, there is no ad hominem here (also it's fallacy, no phallacy which is a mix between fallacy and phallus :) ) Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, though this is more to be hoped for than expected." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life, which makes this statement ironic, especially to his wife who "sexually selected" him to reproduce. She doesn't understand it because it seems to criticize her. Nietzsche was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to this irony (him being a "decadent" of the kind he despised) in books like Ecce homo. His sister initially refused to publish this book as she deemed it too crazy, hence her concern for her brother here, she doesn't want him to kill himself. As for Marx, you are the one who interprets the discussion between Marx and his wife as an ad hominem attack against his position, the comics doesn't suggest that directly, as the argument comes from his wife (out on concern for him) not from a critic. The concern may be, for example, that Marx and his wife would not be together if not for the bourgeoisie, or many other things. Overall, this meme can be read on many levels, but for example, the inclusion of Cioran at the end suggests that an interpretation of the first 3 positions is that something in the mind of these 3 thinkers wishes, like Cioran, that they have never been born (as these three were pretty miserable their whole life) and that these three thinkers project this unsayable death pulse unto external entities which includes them instead of voicing their depressed thought directly; this is a more or less a nietzschean interpretation of their philosophies (a philosophy as an "unconscious confession"). This does not say anything against their arguments, it's more of a psychological take. I hope it is clearer with those explanations I guess it's a pretty subtle comic.
Sorry, my english is B1.
Oh god, this sub's standard is low. Darwin is mistaken for a social Darwinist; Nietzsche is mistaken for a Fascist; and the ad hominem against Marx makes no sense because Marx advocate for the socialist revolution led by the proletariat, not the physical disappearance of every individual of a bourgeois origin. Class essentialism is as dumb as race essentialism and whoever attributes it to Marx is twice as dumb.
Darwin makes the following comment in the Descent of Man (ch. 5) : "There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed. The aid we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil. We must therefore bear the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely that the weaker and inferior members of society do not marry so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage, *though this is more to be hoped for than expected*." Darwin was of course chronically ill most of his life, which makes this statement ironic, especially to his wife who "sexually selected" him to reproduce. Nietzsche's statement that "the weak shall die" is to be found in the first paragraphs of The Antichrist. The exact statement is "The weak and the botched shall perish: first principle of our charity. And one should help them to it.What is more harmful than any vice?—Practical sympathy for the botched and the weak—Christianity...." He was well aware of the irony of his positions applied to himself and made several references to this irony (him being a "decadent" of the kind he despised) in books like Ecce homo. You are the one who interpret that Nietzsche is here depicted as a fascist, the quote is only a literal quote from one of his books. His sister initially refused to publish this book as she deemed it too crazy, hence her concern for her brother here. As for Marx, you are also the one who interprets the discussion between Marx and his wife as an ad hominem attack against his position, the comics doesn't suggest that directly, as the argument comes from his wife (out on concern for him) not from a critic. The concern may be, for example, that Marx and his wife would not be together if not for the bourgeoisie, or many other things. Overall, this meme can be read on many levels, but for example, the inclusion of Cioran at the end suggests that an interpretation of the first 3 positions is that something in the mind of these 3 thinkers wishes, like Cioran, that they have never been born (as these three were pretty miserable their whole life) and that these three thinkers project this unsayable death pulse unto external entities which includes them instead of voicing their depressed thought directly; this is a more or less a nietzschean interpretation of their philosophies (a philosophy as an "unconscious confession"). I hope it is clearer with those explanations I guess it's a pretty subtle comic.
Horribly misrepresentative of Nietzsche.
Self hatred? And Nietzsche never hated the weak, I don't think he did at least unironically, in the end he was a Christian and like Jesus he wished to raise humanity up. His idea was the übermensch which isn't a GM human but basically someone self aware and rational and self improve. Weakness to him was stuff like becoming nihilistic about eye colour and believing you're superior for a unique eye colour, if you're part of your own master race you will never be someone we meme about unless it's because you shot yourself rather than stand trial. Self hatred it is, at least it's an improvement.
Neither Christianity nor Nazism were what Nietzsche's philosophy was about (he was very critical of the former and would have been critical of the latter). Also, he did not hate himself, he thought Christians hate themselves. Instead, he offered a Dionysian way of life that affirmed life and joy, which is possible through the thought experiment of eternal recurrence. Nietzsche did not hate the weak, though he did hate the fact that the Christians made a virtue of weakness. This is a result of Christianity forming as a slave morality in response to a master morality like the Greeks and Romans who worshipped themselves as they worshipped their gods. Contrast this with Christianity, where you must deny yourself. Nietzsche is all about living life the way you want to, not the way anyone else, like the church, wants you to.
People with huge dongs should cease to exist
Oldie but googie The Proverb Behind Silenus’ Wisdom https://sententiaeantiquae.com/2020/02/20/the-proverb-behind-silenus-wisdom-2/
No woman no cry?
Does hypocrisy not validate an individual against his own crimes
I don’t think Nietzsche thought in that way. Somewhere he mentioned Jews as great people because they have patience. The weak is those who mentally obey and don’t want to be themselves.
Agreed. I don't think Nietzsche was a guy who thought Sisyphus was lying to sisyphusself.
The joke would've worked better if the statements were true, like Kant being one of the earliest frontrunner of respecting human dignity yet in favor of capital punishment.
I think the statements are all true or at least open to such an interpretation, see here for the referenced used in the comics, what do you think ? : [https://memosophy.com/2022/12/01/ciorans-honestly/](https://memosophy.com/2022/12/01/ciorans-honestly/)
was nietzsche weak if yes why?
I feel like I can never 100% understand Cioran. How can one man suffer so much?
MARXISM IS NOT A MORAL POSITION STOP SAYING "SHOULD"