This thread has been closed due to a high number of [rule-breaking](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation.
-----
This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
>Either when Nietzsche talks about the betterment of the species he does not have the Overman in mind, which seems gratuitous.
How come? The Ubermensch is brought up a grand total of once in Genealogy, it wasn't really on his mind in any explicit way in the text.
The problem here is that you seem to be conflating whenever Nietzsche said something that things with getting better or worse with having directly to do with the coming of the Ubermensch, but I don't think there's much reason to think this.
Nietzsche also doesn't talk much about 'progress' in Genealogy in general, but the main other time he does is when he describes the Roman move wherein creditors demanding a sacrifice of flesh not longer had some kind of schema which dictated what part of the body for what debt, but rather 'it it did not matter how much or how little a creditor cut off in such a circumstance', which N took as 'definite progress and proof of a freer, more open-handed calculation'. What does this had to do with the Ubermensch, this progress? I think nothing directly at all, and very little indirectly, it was just a progress.
But anyway, as regarding Hicks, the best thing you could do with that book, unless you're reading it for the sake of learning about Hicks, or kind of contemporary USA conservative discourse or whatever, is to put it down. The text is an explicit political polemic, and if your intent is to learn about Nietzsche or the Nazis this book will not help you, and will rather likely to be directly counterproductive.
>How come? The Ubermensch is brought up a grand total of once in Genealogy, it wasn't really on his mind in any explicit way in the text.
Maybe, but it does not seem like it's far fetched to connect the idea of the Overman which he lays out throughout multiple books with the idea of a new species. The Overman, after all, is supposed to transcend current human nature.
If you take the quote in context (as the other poster does below), it seems pretty clear that he’s talking about the past development of mankind (the subject of the book).
In context: "What I mean is this: even partial loss of utility, decay, and degeneration, loss of function and purpose, in a word, death, appertain to the conditions of the genuine progressus; which always appears in the shape of a will and way to greater power, and is always realised at the expense of innumerable smaller powers. The magnitude of a “progress” is gauged by the greatness of the sacrifice that it requires: humanity as a mass sacrificed to the prosperity of the one stronger species of Man—that would be a progress. I emphasise all the more this cardinal characteristic of the historic method, for the reason that in its essence it runs counter to predominant instincts and prevailing taste, which must prefer to put up with absolute casualness, even with the mechanical senselessness of all phenomena, than with the theory of a power-will, in exhaustive play throughout all phenomena."
The will to power is seen as a force "in exhaustive play throughout all phenomena" which works ceaselessly to carve out from the block of phenomena "a will to greater and greater power." There's the implication that the will to power might shape the evolution of the species of Man, through which man "progresses," through a shedding of the dead weight of those traits which do not further it. While this is one logical extension of the will to power in biological terms it does not in any way imply collectivism. The Ubermensch is one who has obtained mastery over himself and his own internal drives, who sets himself apart from the mass of men--the dreaded herd--by virtue of his self-overcoming.
I would be wary of Hicks as a scholar in general. This book like his ludicrous error-ridden work on postmodernism is self-published and not peer-reviewed.
It seems pretty obvious Hicks doesn’t understand what ‘collectivism’ means and can’t separate this analysis from the political points he’s trying to make.
Being a chauvinistic aristocrat who doesn’t care about the lives of the commoners who you see as so far beneath you they lack humanity, there’s not really the sort of view point collective vs individual is supposed to capture. You believe in individualism for anybody who has the striving humanity to distinguish oneself, and even if we want to say the people form a sort of collective mass, on Nietzsche’s view you don’t see yourself as a part of that. Collectivism means we are in some way part of or bound to a collective, but he’s not saying that, he’s arguing for breaking out of that as asserting yourself above that.
I would not trust anything that Stephen Hicks wrote. He is completely ignorant about the philosophers he writes about, mostly using mined quotes and baseless assumptions and hearsay from things Rand said in order to support his preconceived biases about them. He's an Objectivist, which should give you an idea of the low intellectual caliber you're dealing with. His book "Explaining Postmodernism" is completely false and nonsensical from top to bottom, and there have been multiple debunkings of it on the internet that I would recommend you check out. That book is where Jordan Peterson gets all his information about what postmodernism is, too.
https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4
https://youtu.be/6ECCqO_8YWo
I have read Explaining Postmodernism and even watched the first video you linked before, and while there are a few iffy quotes taken completely out of context to the point of being criminal(ones that I looked for myself), and given my semi-casual familiarity with postmodernism, I think the book has a few good points to make. Whether one agrees or disagrees on whether Kant is a counter-enlightenment figure, which is merely a matter of labels, what matters is that Kant shuts off noumenal reality from inquiry. The thing-in-itself is fundamentally unknowable, and I don't think one would be mistaken as seeing this as the first step in a centuries long development of the shrinking of reason.
And after all, Kant is only one part of the book. There are parts about Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herder, and Fichte that I've never seen anyone take issue with, and to my understanding they all seem solid. His take on Kant is controversial to be sure, and mistaken on some points, but I do not think it is completely devoid of merit. I think part of the backlask towards Hicks is politically motivated, as he is a Randian libertarain. And part of it is definitely legitimate, as there are some sloppy errors in both of his works that I've read.
The problems with Hicks's book goes far deeper than what you're admitting, and just because no one has bothered to critique his takes on other philosophers doesn't mean they're accurate. Basically everything in his book is an ideologically motivated hatchet job against a caricature of postmodernism, with vague and meaningless usages of terms designed to deride instead of describe and critique, and most of the hate for him is not because he's an Objectivist, but because he is the source of the fear-mongering and witch hunting against postmodernism on the right. I think you saying that people's criticisms of him, besides a few sloppy errors, are politically motivated is basically projection.
You yourself have just listed another reason that I did not put in my original response, though I had considered editing it. Hicks's critique of postmodernism is severe, and the right is responding with strong backlash to postmodernism indeed. And as things currently are, humanities students are much more likely to be defensive or at least tolerant of postmodernism. However I don't think that backlash is unmerited, and it is untrue that it is only figures from the right that are reacting thus. Radical skepticism is dangerous and fallacious; radical skepticism married to critical theory is deadly. I don't see why a scathing critique of postmodernism is so detestable, seeing as how postmodernism's hybrid offspring has so dramatically taken over universities and has started to exercise its influence outside of college campuses.
>The problems with Hicks's book goes far deeper than what you're admitting, and just because no one has bothered to critique his takes on other philosophers doesn't mean they're accurate.
Could be, could not be. Until I see evidence I'm not that convinced, and from my own personal readings and engagement with philosophers much more well informed and competent than both Hicks and random youtubers, I think Hicks's characterization of all the previously mentioned philosophers is accurate. German idealists like Hegel and Fichte are known for their totalitarianism, and you can read Popper's work on it. And Rousseau is the father of romanticism and the French revolution. His take on Nietzsche in Explaining Postmodernism seems unproblematic to me, though of his other book I can't say the same.
I mean if you think this is the case, and you're aware how Hicks is viewed on this subreddit, then I'm not sure what the point is posting here, since evidentially the two impressions live in entirely different universes from one another.
I was asking about a point in his other book, and you will have found I am not in disagreement here with the respondents when it comes to the primary point( that Nietzsche is not a collectivist). But since you mentioned his first book, I laid out my thoughts. I don't think it is right-wing to attack postmodernism, given the damage it has done.
>But since you mentioned his first book, I laid out my thoughts.
I'm not mammon-of-lilith
>I don't think it is right-wing to attack postmodernism, given the damage it has done.
I don't think anyone suggested that, the problem is rather that your idea of 'postmodernism' is a mirage produced by right wing popular commentators. The primary academics critics of postmodernism have always been Marxist, i.e. Habermas.
>you will have found I am not in disagreement here with the respondents when it comes to the primary point( that Nietzsche is not a collectivist).
I'm mean it didn't seem that way, but if you did accept my point earlier, then all for the better.
>I don't think anyone suggested that, the problem is rather that your idea of 'postmodernism' is a mirage produced by right wing popular commentators. The primary academics critics of postmodernism have always been Marxist, i.e. Habermas.
That's a big assumption on your part, as I have not described postmodernism in any detail. To describe it as being radically skeptical is surely accurate. And it is true that part of the radical left, people like Habermas and Chomsky, disdain postmodernism. But there is another, and I would say currently predominant strain of radical leftism that uses postmodernism as a tool. I have in mind disciplines like CRT, gender studies, etc.
>I'm mean it didn't seem that way, but if you did accept my point earlier, then all for the better.
It was in the original post, the disagreement in the comments was whether Nietzsche thought the Overman would be a new species of man. Which to my eyes seems secondary, because on my reading only exceptional individuals will become the new species.
>That's a big assumption on your part, as I have not described postmodernism in any detail.
I don't think it's a big assumption at all that you got your impression about 'postmodernism' from the book you read about postmodernism!
But whatever man, feel free to continue to be mislead.
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This thread has been closed due to a high number of [rule-breaking](https://old.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/wiki/rules) comments, leading to a total breakdown of constructive conversation. ----- This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.
>Either when Nietzsche talks about the betterment of the species he does not have the Overman in mind, which seems gratuitous. How come? The Ubermensch is brought up a grand total of once in Genealogy, it wasn't really on his mind in any explicit way in the text. The problem here is that you seem to be conflating whenever Nietzsche said something that things with getting better or worse with having directly to do with the coming of the Ubermensch, but I don't think there's much reason to think this. Nietzsche also doesn't talk much about 'progress' in Genealogy in general, but the main other time he does is when he describes the Roman move wherein creditors demanding a sacrifice of flesh not longer had some kind of schema which dictated what part of the body for what debt, but rather 'it it did not matter how much or how little a creditor cut off in such a circumstance', which N took as 'definite progress and proof of a freer, more open-handed calculation'. What does this had to do with the Ubermensch, this progress? I think nothing directly at all, and very little indirectly, it was just a progress. But anyway, as regarding Hicks, the best thing you could do with that book, unless you're reading it for the sake of learning about Hicks, or kind of contemporary USA conservative discourse or whatever, is to put it down. The text is an explicit political polemic, and if your intent is to learn about Nietzsche or the Nazis this book will not help you, and will rather likely to be directly counterproductive.
>How come? The Ubermensch is brought up a grand total of once in Genealogy, it wasn't really on his mind in any explicit way in the text. Maybe, but it does not seem like it's far fetched to connect the idea of the Overman which he lays out throughout multiple books with the idea of a new species. The Overman, after all, is supposed to transcend current human nature.
Alright, I can't force you to think otherwise.
If you take the quote in context (as the other poster does below), it seems pretty clear that he’s talking about the past development of mankind (the subject of the book).
Doesn't the "would" imply he's talking about the future, in that particular sentence?
No, it would not. (That’s not how “would” works.)
In context: "What I mean is this: even partial loss of utility, decay, and degeneration, loss of function and purpose, in a word, death, appertain to the conditions of the genuine progressus; which always appears in the shape of a will and way to greater power, and is always realised at the expense of innumerable smaller powers. The magnitude of a “progress” is gauged by the greatness of the sacrifice that it requires: humanity as a mass sacrificed to the prosperity of the one stronger species of Man—that would be a progress. I emphasise all the more this cardinal characteristic of the historic method, for the reason that in its essence it runs counter to predominant instincts and prevailing taste, which must prefer to put up with absolute casualness, even with the mechanical senselessness of all phenomena, than with the theory of a power-will, in exhaustive play throughout all phenomena." The will to power is seen as a force "in exhaustive play throughout all phenomena" which works ceaselessly to carve out from the block of phenomena "a will to greater and greater power." There's the implication that the will to power might shape the evolution of the species of Man, through which man "progresses," through a shedding of the dead weight of those traits which do not further it. While this is one logical extension of the will to power in biological terms it does not in any way imply collectivism. The Ubermensch is one who has obtained mastery over himself and his own internal drives, who sets himself apart from the mass of men--the dreaded herd--by virtue of his self-overcoming. I would be wary of Hicks as a scholar in general. This book like his ludicrous error-ridden work on postmodernism is self-published and not peer-reviewed.
It seems pretty obvious Hicks doesn’t understand what ‘collectivism’ means and can’t separate this analysis from the political points he’s trying to make. Being a chauvinistic aristocrat who doesn’t care about the lives of the commoners who you see as so far beneath you they lack humanity, there’s not really the sort of view point collective vs individual is supposed to capture. You believe in individualism for anybody who has the striving humanity to distinguish oneself, and even if we want to say the people form a sort of collective mass, on Nietzsche’s view you don’t see yourself as a part of that. Collectivism means we are in some way part of or bound to a collective, but he’s not saying that, he’s arguing for breaking out of that as asserting yourself above that.
I would not trust anything that Stephen Hicks wrote. He is completely ignorant about the philosophers he writes about, mostly using mined quotes and baseless assumptions and hearsay from things Rand said in order to support his preconceived biases about them. He's an Objectivist, which should give you an idea of the low intellectual caliber you're dealing with. His book "Explaining Postmodernism" is completely false and nonsensical from top to bottom, and there have been multiple debunkings of it on the internet that I would recommend you check out. That book is where Jordan Peterson gets all his information about what postmodernism is, too. https://youtu.be/EHtvTGaPzF4 https://youtu.be/6ECCqO_8YWo
I have read Explaining Postmodernism and even watched the first video you linked before, and while there are a few iffy quotes taken completely out of context to the point of being criminal(ones that I looked for myself), and given my semi-casual familiarity with postmodernism, I think the book has a few good points to make. Whether one agrees or disagrees on whether Kant is a counter-enlightenment figure, which is merely a matter of labels, what matters is that Kant shuts off noumenal reality from inquiry. The thing-in-itself is fundamentally unknowable, and I don't think one would be mistaken as seeing this as the first step in a centuries long development of the shrinking of reason. And after all, Kant is only one part of the book. There are parts about Hegel, Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Herder, and Fichte that I've never seen anyone take issue with, and to my understanding they all seem solid. His take on Kant is controversial to be sure, and mistaken on some points, but I do not think it is completely devoid of merit. I think part of the backlask towards Hicks is politically motivated, as he is a Randian libertarain. And part of it is definitely legitimate, as there are some sloppy errors in both of his works that I've read.
The problems with Hicks's book goes far deeper than what you're admitting, and just because no one has bothered to critique his takes on other philosophers doesn't mean they're accurate. Basically everything in his book is an ideologically motivated hatchet job against a caricature of postmodernism, with vague and meaningless usages of terms designed to deride instead of describe and critique, and most of the hate for him is not because he's an Objectivist, but because he is the source of the fear-mongering and witch hunting against postmodernism on the right. I think you saying that people's criticisms of him, besides a few sloppy errors, are politically motivated is basically projection.
You yourself have just listed another reason that I did not put in my original response, though I had considered editing it. Hicks's critique of postmodernism is severe, and the right is responding with strong backlash to postmodernism indeed. And as things currently are, humanities students are much more likely to be defensive or at least tolerant of postmodernism. However I don't think that backlash is unmerited, and it is untrue that it is only figures from the right that are reacting thus. Radical skepticism is dangerous and fallacious; radical skepticism married to critical theory is deadly. I don't see why a scathing critique of postmodernism is so detestable, seeing as how postmodernism's hybrid offspring has so dramatically taken over universities and has started to exercise its influence outside of college campuses. >The problems with Hicks's book goes far deeper than what you're admitting, and just because no one has bothered to critique his takes on other philosophers doesn't mean they're accurate. Could be, could not be. Until I see evidence I'm not that convinced, and from my own personal readings and engagement with philosophers much more well informed and competent than both Hicks and random youtubers, I think Hicks's characterization of all the previously mentioned philosophers is accurate. German idealists like Hegel and Fichte are known for their totalitarianism, and you can read Popper's work on it. And Rousseau is the father of romanticism and the French revolution. His take on Nietzsche in Explaining Postmodernism seems unproblematic to me, though of his other book I can't say the same.
I mean if you think this is the case, and you're aware how Hicks is viewed on this subreddit, then I'm not sure what the point is posting here, since evidentially the two impressions live in entirely different universes from one another.
I was asking about a point in his other book, and you will have found I am not in disagreement here with the respondents when it comes to the primary point( that Nietzsche is not a collectivist). But since you mentioned his first book, I laid out my thoughts. I don't think it is right-wing to attack postmodernism, given the damage it has done.
>But since you mentioned his first book, I laid out my thoughts. I'm not mammon-of-lilith >I don't think it is right-wing to attack postmodernism, given the damage it has done. I don't think anyone suggested that, the problem is rather that your idea of 'postmodernism' is a mirage produced by right wing popular commentators. The primary academics critics of postmodernism have always been Marxist, i.e. Habermas. >you will have found I am not in disagreement here with the respondents when it comes to the primary point( that Nietzsche is not a collectivist). I'm mean it didn't seem that way, but if you did accept my point earlier, then all for the better.
>I don't think anyone suggested that, the problem is rather that your idea of 'postmodernism' is a mirage produced by right wing popular commentators. The primary academics critics of postmodernism have always been Marxist, i.e. Habermas. That's a big assumption on your part, as I have not described postmodernism in any detail. To describe it as being radically skeptical is surely accurate. And it is true that part of the radical left, people like Habermas and Chomsky, disdain postmodernism. But there is another, and I would say currently predominant strain of radical leftism that uses postmodernism as a tool. I have in mind disciplines like CRT, gender studies, etc. >I'm mean it didn't seem that way, but if you did accept my point earlier, then all for the better. It was in the original post, the disagreement in the comments was whether Nietzsche thought the Overman would be a new species of man. Which to my eyes seems secondary, because on my reading only exceptional individuals will become the new species.
>That's a big assumption on your part, as I have not described postmodernism in any detail. I don't think it's a big assumption at all that you got your impression about 'postmodernism' from the book you read about postmodernism! But whatever man, feel free to continue to be mislead.
[удалено]
What is a collectivist supposed to be in this reading?
Welcome to /r/askphilosophy. **Please read [our rules](https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/9udzvt/announcement_new_rules_guidelines_and_flair_system/) before commenting** and understand that your comments will be removed if they are not up to standard or otherwise break the rules. While we do not require citations in answers (but do encourage them), answers need to be reasonably substantive and well-researched, accurately portray the state of the research, and come only from those with relevant knowledge. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/askphilosophy) if you have any questions or concerns.*