Emerson is an author of words that he writes according to his perceptions of studying character behaviors in people. Which is good, and I agree with what he saw because we are creatures who believe in self preservation, no matter what situation we may find ourselves. Sometimes because of this, some of us find other individuals dispensible, sadly.

>Our ancestors were not all a bunch of deluded, doctrinaire fools

Yeah, no they very often were, and their tendencies to be deluded, doctrinaire fools gets passed down to their children.

Why is it odd? Half of any group of a respresentative cross-section of humanity is going to be stupid. And to the extent that other traits follow a similar normal distribution, half will be lazy, emotionally unaware, criminally inclined, etc. It is precisely because people in general are not very good at self-governing that we need heirarchal systems that put those handful who are good at governing in charge. It would be odder to believe in heirarchal systems and to believe that everyone was equally good at self-governing.

> But it's hard not to roll my eyes at the way he has been co-opted and overhyped by a certain subset of young people who seem to think that discovering Nietzsche makes them deep, edgy, and uniquely intelligent.

They like my band. I found them first. How could they not possible understand everything I know which is much deeper.

I also like how you bring up the potential dangers of missing the point of his work but never actually address them or illustrate actually one single danger of oversimplifying his work.

Nice blog.

Thanks for your insightful and respectful comment on my article. I'm sorry that my shallow, superficial perspective on Nietzsche didn't meet your expectations as a philosophy expert. How silly of me to think that my own thoughts and experiences as a casual reader of Nietzsche's work could be worth sharing. I'll be sure to consult with contemporary scholars and provide in-depth textual analysis in my next piece to better appease the gods of philosophical discourse.

Oh, and by the way, in case you were wondering, your original comment was: "Basically a blog about not liking young people listening to your favorite band." It was removed under the rule of "Be Respectful" because it consisted of personal attacks and did not contribute to the discussion. But please, continue to share your wisdom and condescension with the rest of us lesser mortals. We can always use a good dose of elitism to remind us of our intellectual inferiority.

Agreed. Your 3 part plan was really just one thing. And "When everyone is paid more, they hire illegal workers for less" is still true. And "The idea is to legitimize them and regulate the wages they need to be paid so that EVERYONE is paid more." Is still kinda bullshitty and won't work. We're kinda going in circles at this point.

That's going to really depend on what you mean by independent and self-reliant.

Prosperity and technology are derived from vast connected systems and simply being able to use the internet means relying on large numbers of people.

My first comment was removed for being an opinion. Which is comical as the article is also merely opinion. So I’ll expound upon it.

This is a superficial review of a common gripe of philosophy enthusiasts and second year university students. The complaint is that people like themselves posses a deeper understanding of the text of Nietzche than the casual reader who memeifies the complex psycho-philosophical writings for tshirts and well, memes. Their memification or dumbing down of a complex idea is offensive to the author.

There is no deep textual review of Nietzsche there is no factual review of student or public discourse regarding Nietzsche. There is no review, comment, quote from contemporary scholars on the misunderstandings the author is griping about. Each paragraph merely doubling down on the previous reciting the dilemma of the watering down of Nietzsche’s works.

So this is an opinion piece masquerading as a philosophy article.

I would call the people who have volunteered to defend the community. Anarchist societies would still have institutions and organizations - but they should be organized as least-hierarchically as possible, built by the community democratically.

Anarchism is a set of ideals and organizational principles, not some utopian end goal.

OK. I get your definition of private property.

I originally said:

> If we allow people to engage in voluntary market exchange, something looking like capitalism will organically emerge. It takes authoritarianism to disrupt that. You have to use force to stop it, or to rearrange it.

And I'll add to that, something like capitalism and private property (according to your definition) will organically emerge.

It will emerge the moment someone notices that foreign visitors to a particular town would like a place to bathe, eat, and sleep for the night, and that they don't want to buy a home. That someone will buy a or build a structure of some sort and charge people to stay there for the night, and he will call it an inn. At that moment, private property has organically come online. He has created capital that he uses to generate income for himself.

And the only way it doesn't come online is if you establish an authoritarian enforcement regime to tell the would-be capitalist that, "You are allowed to build or buy a structure for your own use, and you can sell it to someone else so they can use it, but you can't charge someone to use it temporarily. It doesn't matter if there are visitors to this town pleading for someone to build an inn so they have a place to sleep for the night. You are not allowed to do that, and if you try, we will use force to stop you."

That's how it has to go. If you're for it, and you believe this enforcement regime makes for a better world, fine. Just argue for that. But it does involve dominance. It does involve the threat of force.

The author argues that anarchy is the absence of dominance. But this is not the absence of dominance.

Boy, this escalated quickly...

These days, with prosperity, technology and the internet, it is more possible than ever to be independent and self reliant. We can research, find out how things work, and make choices better informed than ever.

[deleted]

>Meat-packers and hotels simply go get someone cheaper.

And that won't happen if they start getting punished for hiring illegally. Which was part one.

Its just vain people being vain it doesn't matter if they dont understand what nietzsche meant, its all about how others will think of them.

This, Chomsky often sums it up as authority needs to justify itself, otherwise it should be dismantled.

I said "The idea of the philosophy". https://www.ursulakleguin.com/postmodern-anarchism#:~:text=And%20in%20her%201974%20masterpiece,for%20any%20contemporary%20anarchist%20project.

There are quite a few articles on the finer points of this if you want to read up on it.

That's right on the money. It's unfortunate that so many people today seem to be drawn to Nietzsche's work without fully comprehending the depth and nuance of his ideas. Rather than cherry-picking and adapting Nietzsche's ideas to suit our own purposes, we should engage with his philosophy in its entirety. To fully understand Nietzsche's ideas, we must go beyond his own philosophy, just as he encouraged us to do.

"Doctor Expert is an authority on healthy habits"

>I think you're presenting a false dichotomy here. Be unequal and wealthy or equal and poor.

>In our extremely stratified and wasteful society, I think it is entirely reasonable to be equal without being poor.

Ah, but therein lies the rub; how does one achieve that? What if that really is the dichotomy? So far it always has been, and every effort to change it has been unsuccessful, or indeed just reinforced the nature of that dichotomy. Besides wishful thinking and theoretical ideas, there is nothing tangible to suggest that this isn't just the way things will always be in one form or another.

We can hope it won't be, and we can make progress to that end (as I said, we are far closer to that ideal today than ever before, regardless of what reddit memes suggest), but ultimately it may be the case that some amount of inequality and stratification is an inevitable part of a functional, organized society. Someone will always have to deal with cleaning up, disposing waste, digging ditches, and working agriculture, and those will always be tasks/roles that people would prefer not to have compared to other potential options, like those that involve sitting in soft chairs in air-conditioned offices. An organized productive society will need people to do both, and it's not clear how you could dole those roles out without someone getting something "better" than someone else. How would such a division of labor be equitably organized in our hypothetical utopia?

>I would argue that it's pretty clear at this point that continuing the capitalist mode of production is an existential threat to life on Earth, and so the choice ends up being between preserving whatever life we have now at the cost of an early death or looking for an alternative which allows us to continue to survive long term.

Moving on from the current capitalist model may indeed be inevitable, even desirable, but I think it's unreasonable to just assume that moving on from capitalism will automatically lead to a more equitable or environmentally balanced system. It was an upgrade to move from feudalistic serfdom to capitalism; it made things more equal and made life better. It follows then that whatever follows capitalism may be "better" in some or many ways, but just as capitalism has failed so many and done so much damage, in spite of being an objectively better, more efficient, more equitable system than feudalism, the next system may too fall short of utopia. Which isn't a reason not to move forward, but it's something to keep in mind as we do so.

Finally! It had to be told. It is a broader issue...not only with FN...with informatic age we trimmed broader ideas to short info. I cant find valid reason in doing so, but I believe it has something to do with feeding pigs with pearls. Irony of it all is that FN himself would condemn those people that follow him memealike.

Lol so you would call the local government in a system without authority???

Now we just moved on from talking about the subject and just started going all pedantic on grammar. He has a point, you can't just use words and decide they mean something different for you. In and an authority makes no difference if it is voluntary for me to obey. Where is the authority?

Socialism isnt anarchism. In neither is anarchy as a system really explored.

Please keep in mind our first commenting rule:

> Read the Post Before You Reply

> Read/listen/watch the posted content, understand and identify the philosophical arguments given, and respond to these substantively. If you have unrelated thoughts or don't wish to read the content, please post your own thread or simply refrain from commenting. Comments which are clearly not in direct response to the posted content may be removed.

This subreddit is not in the business of one-liners, tangential anecdotes, or dank memes. Expect comment threads that break our rules to be removed. Repeated or serious violations of the subreddit rules will result in a ban.

This is a shared account that is only used for notifications. Please do not reply, as your message will go unread.