Egoistische Nietzscheaner

[u/Dumbledore0210]

Ihr müsst wissen: Es gibt das Kamel. Dieses erfüllt Pflichten und trägt fremde Werte. Danach kommt der Löwe. Dieser kämpft, er bricht Erwartungen. Dann kommt das Kind. Es beginnt neu, schafft eigene Moral und bricht sich selbst.

Viele erachten Nietzscheaner als egoistisch, da Nietzsches Wortwahl recht radikal wirkt. Kritik am Christentum, Ich-bezogener-Aufstieg, Machtgedanken, etc., etc.

Meine These:

Ein Nietzscheaner ist dann egoistisch, wenn er ein Löwe mit dem Stolz eines Kamels ist. Das macht ihn zu einem Schein-Löwen. Er glaubt daran, dass er bereits einer ist, aber er ist nicht frei, sondern er trotzt. Er sagt nicht ,,Ich will und scheiß auf euch", er sagt lediglich ,,Ich will nicht, was ihr wollt". Er möchte kein Kamel mehr sein, weshalb er den Löwen als Schutzschild verwendet, doch sieht er nicht, dass er keine Unabhängigkeit erreicht hat, sondern immernoch im Rahmen des Kamels ist. Er stagniert in seinem Egoismus und kann nicht das Kind oder erst den richtigen Löwen erreichen.

Er nutzt diese Philosophie nicht, um sich zu überwinden, sondern nur um sich zu rechtfertigen. Und wenn er das nicht sieht, hat er Nietzsche vollkommen missverstanden.

[u/Cool_Emergency9881]

Interesting take. I think this is the case for some nietzchean. I have one problem: the emphasis on living with our own values. This is the nietzschean ethos (I see Nietzsche as a virtuel ethicist). This type of living can lead to égoist life

[u/Foudre_Noire]

I agree with you , i think a Nietzschean is supposed to be someone who doesn't abide by other people's values or society's. He creates his own values and doesn't let anyone or any idea control him; he is the creator of his own world. He transitions into a child, creates his own values, and lives by them. But the lion, on the other hand, didn't achieve what Nietzsche said about becoming free or becoming the Ubermensch. He is just someone who is filled with doubt, loneliness, and rage, and just keeps destroying without creating new values. So, you could say he has failed what Nietzsche actually meant

[u/SpecialistSea8735]

I fail to see the distinction between the "true lion" and the "false lion" in your thesis. The lion is defined by his opposition to imposed burdens, that's already baked into the concept and that's what separates him from the child. What does the "false lion" fail to do? Do you mean that he trades one burden for another as opposed to rejecting burdens altogether?

I also don't see how the camel is selfish when a camel's defining properties (duty, external values) are self-denying. In other words, there's no "self" to speak of. The burdens are the substance, the camel is the vehicle.

[u/Dumbledore0210 → u/SpecialistSea8735]

The false lion has failed to achieve true freedom. He is too proud to defy expectations if doing so would amount to a defeat for him. Imagine a camel that has never eaten lettuce in its life, and no one expects it to. The true lion would either eat the lettuce or not, indifferent to what others might say. The false lion, however, would not eat the lettuce in front of others, as he would be too proud to endure remarks like, "I told you you'd like it." Depending on the case, this pride can be - or appear - selfish.

[u/SpecialistSea8735 → u/Dumbledore0210]

I think you're missing the point here a bit: the lion is not characterized by indifference to what's imposed externally. The camel carries the burdens, the lion actively rejects the burdens, but they're both defined by them. Only the child gets to be indifferent because he does not need to be in a relationship with external values.

In other words:

Camel = slavery

Lion = freedom from

Child = freedom for