Nietzsche

As for the question of pity, Nietzsche's conception of the term is driven by the literal meaning of the German word, Mitleid, which means 'suffering with'. It is along these lines he declares pity a sign of weakness (he who seeks pity asks you to suffer with them) and something that fails to benefit the parties involved (that you pity does not make you good, nor does it effect the pitied). This issue will tie closely with Nietzsche's ethics and as such is vastly more complex than simply this, but that's a basic read of it.

If you're finding yourself interested in Nietzsche, I'd recommend you take a look at What Nietzsche Really Said by Solomon and Higgins before diving straight into Nietzsche himself; it's probably the most accessable of the supplemental Nietzsche texts and will serve as an excellent prelude to future reading.

That's a gross canard about Nietzsche and the Nazis . . . that was the work of his racist and ultra-nationalist sister . . . This must be a new record, Godwin's Law invoked in fewer than five posts . . .

Nietzsche wasn't an antisemite, once again, that was his sister. He collapsed on the street (1911?) and was put into a home. His sister, whom he despised, along with her ultra-nationalist, antisemitic husband, threw it into high gear, and began editing his unpublished notes and drafts, and published them under the title The Will to Power. He certainly was a social troll, and i doubt any of us would have enjoyed his company for very long--but most of the slanders lodged against him result from his sister's concerted effort to pervert his written thoughts to support her husbands agenda. She was very thick with the Nazis, who were always eager to tart up their intellectual poverty . . .

Godwin's Law states:

As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.

Well I'm generally sceptical of books that claim to know exactly what somebody else was thinking.

As far as Nietzsches ethics, I think they are extremely fascist. He adored aristocracy and cleary supported a form of caste system. He pigeonholes anyone who desires peace as weak and impotent. He was clearly a social darwinist. I can certainly see why people give him credit for Nazism.

Is it your opinion that compassion does not help the recipient???

An honorable stance to be sure, yet a bit strange in present context. If you're not interested in reading other's opinions on Nietzsche, how do you justify creating this thread? That is, if you're skeptical of books written by professional Nietzsche scholars, what interest could you possibly have in the opinions of those on a message board?

No offense, but your opinions of Nietzsche's ethics are immaterial (and largely incorrect). My point was to illuminate that his position on pity is tied to a host of other factors - not the least of which are his position on Christianity and his relation to Schopenhauer's philosophy, for example - and would take serious invenstment to fully understand and appreciate. The same holds true with what you say above. You can't just throw out something like "he pigeonholes anyone who desires peace as weak and impotent" and think it's going to stick. Trust me, it's a great deal more complicated than that.

I can see his point about pity although I don't agree with it.

What's up with his admiration of aristocracy and opressors???

...he comes across as though anybody who's not agressive and hawkish does not deserve to be anything other than a slave.

As for the question of pity, Nietzsche's conception of the term is driven by the literal meaning of the German word, Mitleid, which means 'suffering with'. It is along these lines he declares pity a sign of weakness (he who seeks pity asks you to suffer with them) and something that fails to benefit the parties involved (that you pity does not make you good, nor does it effect the pitied). This issue will tie closely with Nietzsche's ethics and as such is vastly more complex than simply this, but that's a basic read of it.

If you're finding yourself interested in Nietzsche, I'd recommend you take a look at What Nietzsche Really Said by Solomon and Higgins before diving straight into Nietzsche himself; it's probably the most accessable of the supplemental Nietzsche texts and will serve as an excellent prelude to future reading.

Do you know if this term "mitleid" is rooted in German ethics historically? If you have the time or inclination, I would appreciate a point in the correct direction as far as learning more about ethics and the German language.

Nietzsche's 'aristocracy' simply states the strong should lead, the weak should follow. In layman's terms, it's 'get in where you fit in.' It's often overlooked, for example, Nietzsche was rather fond of Jesus. What happened to him? Nietzsche would say Jesus' crucifixion was abhorrent; that in times when great leadership emerges, humanity is all-too-quick in dishonoring, misrepresenting, and ultimately dismissing such leadership.

'Opressive' is a relative term, especially when considering Nietzsche's perspectivism. One could argue, for example, 'opression' is a mere fiction fabricated by the weak in ressentiment of the powerful. "Your life is yours to create"; "Become who you are": one's feeling 'opressed' would be, for Nietzsche, unequivocally weak. The 'opressors', then, would be only those who had established themselves as those in the proper position of rule.

anybody who's not aggressive and hawkish does not deserve to be anything other than what they are. Conversely, those who make those strides toward becoming what they are - disregarding social norms, moral prejudice, and the like - are justified in their Being.

Those who create ostensibly democratic institutions to protect "the weak" from minoritarian or majoritarian tyranny are in fact taking power and using it for their ends exactly as Nietzsche describes.

I don't accept that making observations on what is constitutes a statement that things are as they should be.