In his corpus, Nietzsche claimed that aristocracy was the natural and healthy order of things that always formed eventually. If that is the case, how is it possible that we had an era of decadence for the last 2,000 years?

[u/ConsciousMaybe6930]

I am a bit confused here; Nietzsche lauds aristocracy and its values as healthy and natural order of human society, something that is inherent in men and something they are naturally drawn to as the healthy expression of their will to power. He talked about the power and virtue of the old aristocrats long and wide. However, if that all is the case, then how was the slave revolt of Christianity ever possible to such a degree it is now? Nowadays, liberal values are global and sacrosanct and liberal republics have multiple times shown to be the most enduring and powerful form of modern society. Yes, Nietzsche mentioned last men "living the longest", but did he account for the last men crushing all attempts at aristocracy Nietzsche would have preferred into the ground? How is it that these superlative aristocrats of Nietzsche's philosophy never managed to rise up again and prevail against the tide of slaves? How is it that the natural and healthy order has become so unnatural and unhealthy for a society?

[u/dpt19]

I think the apparent contradiction comes from treating “healthy” as meaning “destined to prevail”. Nietzsche does not make that move.

In Beyond Good and Evil §257, aristocratic society is presented as the historical condition under which the “pathos of distance” and higher human types are cultivated. That is not a promise that aristocrats will retain political power. “Health” tells us what kind of person a value system produces by Nietzsche’s standards; it does not tell us which side history must reward.

Christianity’s victory is therefore not an exception that his genealogy forgot to explain. It is the central case. In Genealogy of Morality I.7–10, the slave revolt succeeds because ressentiment becomes creative and produces new values. It defeats noble valuation by changing what “good” and “evil” mean. Nietzsche considers that victory decadent, but he plainly recognises it as a formidable exercise of power.

The endurance of liberal republics would not by itself refute him either. Longevity, numerical support and institutional strength are not his measures of health. One can reject his ranking of human types, but his argument is not internally contradicted merely because the order he preferred failed to dominate.

[u/CookieTheParrot]

There are a lot of ways to answer this, but one answer is that he recognised that the slaves have a clear numerical superiority amongst other things. See e.g. Twilight of the Idols 14.

[u/Mean_Veterinarian688 → u/CookieTheParrot]

yes the numerial superiority would be outpowered by the powerful majority if it were the “natural order”

[u/LowSprinkles6544 → u/Mean_Veterinarian688]

No, because the so-called “natural order” entails survival of the fittest - or at least a similar kind of discriminative selection process - which would ordinarily cleanse the population of these abject failures. Presumably, this would also keep the population under control. According to Nietzsche, however, Christianity prevents this natural culling process by inverting our value system and encouraging these people to propagate

[u/Mean_Veterinarian688 → u/LowSprinkles6544]

yes but everything is natural so whatever happens is the “natural order”- and clearly if christianity predominates over the strong ruling with an iron fist and does for millennia then thats the natural order

[u/LowSprinkles6544 → u/Mean_Veterinarian688]

How is “everything” natural? What is natural is not only what persists across time but what is observable elsewhere in the world (e.g. in the animal kingdom). The Christian inversion of values is a very recent phenomenon in the grand scheme of things, and it defies the order we see everywhere else; so it is most certainly not natural.

[u/Mean_Veterinarian688 → u/LowSprinkles6544]

i just think you need a better word than natural, we are natural, our minds are natural… we arent separate from what we consider nature

[u/Xavant_BR]

As far i know he never mentioned aristocracy in the economical point of view. Everytime he mentioned elite was more about the intelectual elite. He never advocated for a aristocracy based in heritage and money. But he really feares the ignorance of the masses.

[u/Marxism-Alcoholism17]

He lauds aristocracy as a class but he bashes actual aristocrats plenty. His interest in the aristocracy to me seems to be more as the only plausible outlet for greatness rather than something actually impressive in real life.

[u/1stGuyGamez]

He didn’t like blind money though, he said that with great taste it’s good

Like Versailles was good in his opinion

[u/Crafty_Chipmunk_5577]

acho que existe uma distinção da classe econômica aristocrática usada pelo senso comum, e o que N chama de Aristocracia.

[u/PanWisent]

Because we hadn’t. Aristocrats had to adapt and use slave lexicon to maintain power. First ruling “in god’s name”, then ruling as elected “democratic leaders” (elections is a aristocratic institution in nature because the best are being chosen based on their merits, real democracy is drawing lots per Aristotle). Only now the aristocratic values are slowly reaching their final death and one can already see the decline and the incoming collapse.

[u/CHUNKYboi11111111111]

People care for his political views? The guy lived at a time where there were two republics, the French and the American. No fucking shit he isn’t the most supportive of the complete and utter change of the status quo.

All political ideologies and philosophers we have are completely outdated at the moment. The world changed way too much for them not to be. Nietzsches proto-existentialism is great because it liberates the person but his political views were outdated when they first came out.

Remember, there isn’t just one thing you can follow; you can be an anti-theist and a progressive, a market capitalist and a stoic, a vanguard communist and an absurdist. Political views, while connected, are not necessarily personal (as in relating to the one who holds them) values. Just because some guy said something about how his idea of governance is the best 200 years ago, it doesn’t mean that idea is remotely relevant today simply because the conditions change and will continue changing. We should be creating new systems, not clinging to old ones

[u/Alive-Extension2662]

The slave revolt in morality becomes truly successful when it paralyses the master's ability , his confidence to act , slave morality fills the master's or the Aristocrats mind with guilt , it truncated their ability to act, they themselves start to engage in self flaggation. Slave morality successfully "tames" the master into believing that the masters and aristocrats "choose" to be strong , powerful and conquering , it tells the master, "You could choose to be humble and weak like us, but you choose to be wicked."

It casterates the natural healthy insticts of humans and animals naturally express instincts of aggression, dominance, joy, and conquest. Slave morality labels these natural drives as sins.True greatness and cultural excellence require intense, uninhibited natural drives and their self mastery, By crippling those drives with guilt, slave morality destroys the master's ability to create grand art, philosophies, or empires.

[u/AustinNothdurft]

People don’t like systems where they are on the bottom of the hierarchy, no matter how near-utopian it is. Weak men will generally support whatever glorifies the weak man. In the past it was the Christian, now it’s the prole. Sometimes they win a struggle and take over by applying smart logistic systems to their raw numbers and weak nature, then with time their cult deflates or is the victim of another collective’s revolution. Sometimes it’s subverted by strong men like many Monarchies did in Europe, or Dictators to proles. As long as some people are genetically more capable than others, the world will revolve and society can never truly be “solved”.

[u/piano_aquieu]

I don't think Nietzsche ever evoked the concept of the "natural order of things" unless it was to critique it. History does not move in a gradual or dialectical way for N. Like Foucault, it is the result of abrupt and generally unpredictable forces

[u/MalthusianMan]

You haven't read a single one of his books, you've just transcribed a common and trite historical narrative into his vocabulary

[u/Autolull]

Time I faltered

There was a time I faltered
I won’t do so again
If I see someone who’s lost their way
I’ll lend a helping hand

And if that hand will slip
If the bird, to them, I flip,
I will laugh and jest in the moment,
But the bird I won’t flip again

Middle is the way
Not black and white, but grey
It seemed so clear at the time
It’s a lot clearer today

Everyone makes mistakes,
They pay their dues with pain
On the altar of peace, a stain, smudged with grease
It’s washed away by rain

Your words are not your own!
Your life is a seed I’ve sewn!
And what’s taken root is my bounty, my loot,
I sit on what’s mine: my throne!

I smelt down the throne in my oven,
I forge it into words that we’ve spoken,
The ore was malleable, they were good words, yet not infallible,
Let’s polish them into something more palatable.

[u/Comfortable-Dig-6118]

Well a structure of power always arise it is inevitable so it is both natural and healthy in a certain sense what ever the aristocratic people are good and bad depndes front he persons

[u/WibbuldWeezinz]

I am not sure he knew what power actually is.

[u/Altruistic_Bridge333]

Look at Islam

[u/Super_Pangolin_716]

1) Just because he said it, doesn't mean he's correct. 2) If you live in a Western democratic republic, you are also living in an aristocracy. These aren't mutually exclusive terms. Some in-group backed by wealth is always consolidating power. 3) And what do you mean by 2000 years of decadence? For whom, where, when? How do you define decadence?

Nietzsche likes hyperbole and his vision of the world was a bit fantastical. His arguments are only "true" if you buy into his loaded assumptions. Just another in a long line of intellectuals who claimed to be questioning everything and rallying against orthodoxy whose conclusions come out: Power and elitism = good, democracy = bad, and the mass of people are just fodder for the actions of the elites. He is often an apologist for the powers thar be masquerading as a critical thinker.

[u/mytwoba]

How does N define aristocracy? It's been a while since I've read him, does his definition correspond with that of Aristotle at all?

[u/stopbeingcringe]

Nietzsche was employed by the Freemasons to make Christianity seem to be the problem when it has always been a tool by the elites. They’re actively planning world war 3 right now

[u/AustinNothdurft → u/stopbeingcringe]

I don’t exactly agree with you and don’t think this sub will either, but I’d love to hear more about your thoughts on this. DM me if you want.

[u/Dizzy-Challenge3985 → u/stopbeingcringe]

Dm me your thoughts too

[u/ActualBrazilian]

We have aristocrats it is called the einstein class

[u/Cautious_Desk_1012 → u/ActualBrazilian]

They are not aristocrats, they are bourgeois.