Wasn’t expecting much from a Twitter post but a pretty solid intro to Nietzsche. “Active nihilism” is a good word to describe most of the actually productive thought on the right and it’s nice to have a word for what I recognize.
Thanks for the comment. I have not thought much about the application of 'active nihilism' to politics as I usually understand these concepts from the individual perspective. Perhaps the majority of productive thought could be categorized as 'active nihilism', although it does presuppose doing away with previously held values. What do you think the relationship between holding onto legacy values and actively engaging in creating new values is on the right or anywhere else for that matter?
I don’t know. I’m going through a little rebirth of faith right now and I think it might have to do with reapplying some elementary Christian values (connected, I think, to the sort of simplicity of faith Dostoevsky describes, divorced from our conception of the modern-ideal).
But alternatively, everything could just burn down to the coals and we’d be too demoralized to keep society going anymore, and maybe in the ashes “the world-fear reveals itself for the first time as the human fear in the presence of death,” as Spengler put it, and we get a new religion once again.
Interesting, so are you saying that it may be necessary for there to be a major failure of society or major tragedy for some type of new overarching system of value to be birthed?
Much-needed overview and critique, thank you. It begs the question of cycles of civilization. If an active nihilist were to arise and lead society to a new ultimate values system, we would be in the same place as when Christianity did so. It would last for a time, collapse, and either end or repeat. Like an OODA loop at the superorgansim level (of societies)
Thank you and interesting comment. I do not believe Nietzsche was thinking about an active nihilist raising to power and leading society to a new value system, but it is an engaging thought. Christianity, as you pointed out, is what springs to mind as the most obvious complete overhaul of values in a short period of time. Or perhaps the totalitarian powers of the 20th century, albeit short lived. Responding to this directly, say a charismatic 'active nihilist' somehow comes into power and shifts societies value system, my belief is that it is only a matter of time before those societal values are diluted and and shifted to fit the masses, no longer representing what the original 'active nihilist' was reaching for. This sort of reflecting your OODA point. I believe what Nietzsche was more reaching at is an antidote for the individual, regardless of what time they live in, for the 'herd' will always be misguided to some degree and the individual will always need to become the active nihilist to combat it. Maybe by the time a charismatic 'active nihilists' value system starts gaining any popularity, the message is already diluted. Which would imply that no 'active nihilists' value system has ever actually been implemented at the societal level, only shadows of it. What do you think?
Thanks. Yes I think I understand what you’re saying. Not that it’s what he said, but I see societies as coalescing around a belief system. If/when that system recedes, there is an evolutionary crisis/filter for the super organism to coalesce around something new and useful or to fall apart. I believe that phenomenon is essentially what N is describing. The consensus system will always be imperfect and contingent to some degree, and can’t cater well to the desires of the best/outlier men, so they will always feel outside to one degree or another
(2) Alternately, you mention N’s belief in “moderate” values systems as opposed to ultimate ones. The former more flexible, the latter, brittle. What would an example of this be? I’d think democracy (in theory, as it sees itself)--but of course N did not like democracies.
Taking a stab at what I think you are referencing, moderate value systems would be systems built by action and reflection by the individual, whereas ultimate systems would be derived from supposed fundamental moral laws, e.g. Christian beliefs in an all powerful God who has certain undeniable moral 'preferences. With that said, I don't think I ever used the term 'moderate' value system or referenced Nietzsche's preference. If any, I believe his preference would either be for something Dionysian in nature, or individualistic and novel. Can you point out what you are referencing?
“Nietzsche’s understanding of psychology had him believe that when an extreme position that someone holds collapses(such as a belief in ultimate values-God), it is not replaced with a moderate or balanced belief, but with an opposite extreme position(such as a belief that no values exist).”
I infer from your use of ‘balanced’ that N views that as superior
Technically this is true, but I believe the search for purpose needs to be presupposed by the real possibility of uncovering some truth or state of being for it to be meaningfully or pragmatically true. But I agree with you, the active nihilist is birthed in the pursuit of some new thing.
Wasn’t expecting much from a Twitter post but a pretty solid intro to Nietzsche. “Active nihilism” is a good word to describe most of the actually productive thought on the right and it’s nice to have a word for what I recognize.
Thanks for the comment. I have not thought much about the application of 'active nihilism' to politics as I usually understand these concepts from the individual perspective. Perhaps the majority of productive thought could be categorized as 'active nihilism', although it does presuppose doing away with previously held values. What do you think the relationship between holding onto legacy values and actively engaging in creating new values is on the right or anywhere else for that matter?
I don’t know. I’m going through a little rebirth of faith right now and I think it might have to do with reapplying some elementary Christian values (connected, I think, to the sort of simplicity of faith Dostoevsky describes, divorced from our conception of the modern-ideal).
But alternatively, everything could just burn down to the coals and we’d be too demoralized to keep society going anymore, and maybe in the ashes “the world-fear reveals itself for the first time as the human fear in the presence of death,” as Spengler put it, and we get a new religion once again.
Interesting, so are you saying that it may be necessary for there to be a major failure of society or major tragedy for some type of new overarching system of value to be birthed?
Not necessarily, but possibly.
Much-needed overview and critique, thank you. It begs the question of cycles of civilization. If an active nihilist were to arise and lead society to a new ultimate values system, we would be in the same place as when Christianity did so. It would last for a time, collapse, and either end or repeat. Like an OODA loop at the superorgansim level (of societies)
Thank you and interesting comment. I do not believe Nietzsche was thinking about an active nihilist raising to power and leading society to a new value system, but it is an engaging thought. Christianity, as you pointed out, is what springs to mind as the most obvious complete overhaul of values in a short period of time. Or perhaps the totalitarian powers of the 20th century, albeit short lived. Responding to this directly, say a charismatic 'active nihilist' somehow comes into power and shifts societies value system, my belief is that it is only a matter of time before those societal values are diluted and and shifted to fit the masses, no longer representing what the original 'active nihilist' was reaching for. This sort of reflecting your OODA point. I believe what Nietzsche was more reaching at is an antidote for the individual, regardless of what time they live in, for the 'herd' will always be misguided to some degree and the individual will always need to become the active nihilist to combat it. Maybe by the time a charismatic 'active nihilists' value system starts gaining any popularity, the message is already diluted. Which would imply that no 'active nihilists' value system has ever actually been implemented at the societal level, only shadows of it. What do you think?
Thanks. Yes I think I understand what you’re saying. Not that it’s what he said, but I see societies as coalescing around a belief system. If/when that system recedes, there is an evolutionary crisis/filter for the super organism to coalesce around something new and useful or to fall apart. I believe that phenomenon is essentially what N is describing. The consensus system will always be imperfect and contingent to some degree, and can’t cater well to the desires of the best/outlier men, so they will always feel outside to one degree or another
(2) Alternately, you mention N’s belief in “moderate” values systems as opposed to ultimate ones. The former more flexible, the latter, brittle. What would an example of this be? I’d think democracy (in theory, as it sees itself)--but of course N did not like democracies.
Taking a stab at what I think you are referencing, moderate value systems would be systems built by action and reflection by the individual, whereas ultimate systems would be derived from supposed fundamental moral laws, e.g. Christian beliefs in an all powerful God who has certain undeniable moral 'preferences. With that said, I don't think I ever used the term 'moderate' value system or referenced Nietzsche's preference. If any, I believe his preference would either be for something Dionysian in nature, or individualistic and novel. Can you point out what you are referencing?
Yes this line:
“Nietzsche’s understanding of psychology had him believe that when an extreme position that someone holds collapses(such as a belief in ultimate values-God), it is not replaced with a moderate or balanced belief, but with an opposite extreme position(such as a belief that no values exist).”
I infer from your use of ‘balanced’ that N views that as superior
Technically this is true, but I believe the search for purpose needs to be presupposed by the real possibility of uncovering some truth or state of being for it to be meaningfully or pragmatically true. But I agree with you, the active nihilist is birthed in the pursuit of some new thing.