What Is Your Idol?

[saint fushimi]

You admire Nietzsche? He was lonely, unhappy, frustrated, sick, angry.

He was smart but did not live a good life at all. Unhappy people can think deeply, but not clearly.

You obviously do not understand his philosophy whatsoever if you have that opinion. He was sick and suffered immensely, but his philosophy is very joyful at its core. He found a deeper, more authentic joy in spite of his miserable conditions. Nietzsche hated nihilism and was a “yes-sayer” in all of life. His views on altruism and love are complicated and it’s true he had pessimistic ideas about relationships, but there is enormous richness in his philosophy about embracing life in all its pain. See his concepts of eternal return and the overman. Nietzsche is widely misunderstood by those who don’t care to have their preconceptions challenged. Was he entirely right? No, but even he insisted on being disagreed with. But his work is dialectic and complex and if you only read it through the surface layer, you will come away with the opposite idea of what he means, because that’s often how he wrote. Any more thoughtful reading will make it very clear he was none of what you suggest.

“I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses.”

 

[saint fushimi]

Double post because I meant to change my answer after realizing I misunderstood the question. I didn't realize that it was about dysfunctional goals. As far as money, pleasure, fame, or power-- none of these are really on my radar as vices. If anything, I don't value pleasure enough. I have a frustrating instinct to confront my fears and constantly grow, and i've been learning to be more receptive and still. I think my greatest unhealthy drive is that constant urge to expand, create, pursue and reach my goals, etc. It has served me well enough in terms of survival, but I am terrified of stagnation to the point where I don't know how to relax and let go of the reins. I have started studying Taoism and the I Ching this year and it has given me beautiful new clarity and guidance on the value of balancing the receptive nature of yin and the creative nature of yang, and learning how to loosen my fearful vice grip on my ambitions and desires. I spent many years living in the future to endure unbearable trauma, because the present had nothing to offer me. I had nothing, only what I wanted, and the only way out was to pursue those wants. But now I must learn how to trust the present and know I will not become trapped and wither if I let myself relax and just enjoy my life without feeling discontent and a need to constantly improve.

 

[philostam]

You obviously do not understand his philosophy whatsoever if you have that opinion. He was sick and suffered immensely, but his philosophy is very joyful at its core. He found a deeper, more authentic joy in spite of his miserable conditions. Nietzsche hated nihilism and was a “yes-sayer” in all of life. His views on altruism and love are complicated and it’s true he had pessimistic ideas about relationships, but there is enormous richness in his philosophy about embracing life in all its pain. See his concepts of eternal return and the overman. Nietzsche is widely misunderstood by those who don’t care to have their preconceptions challenged. Was he entirely right? No, but even he insisted on being disagreed with. But his work is dialectic and complex and if you only read it through the surface layer, you will come away with the opposite idea of what he means, because that’s often how he wrote. Any more thoughtful reading will make it very clear he was none of what you suggest.

“I am a forest, and a night of dark trees: but he who is not afraid of my darkness, will find banks full of roses under my cypresses.”

I know that his philosophy masquerades as being life-affirming and "positive". That's not the point. I don't believe that he was happy at all, however he spins it in his writing.

I tend to not take depressed and lonely people seriously. They have all kind of emotional baggage that is muddying the waters.

 

[Jexocuha]

What is your idol? Money, Pleasure, Fame, or Power?

If your idol isn't clear to you, figure it out by thinking about which one of these four you'd give up first. The last one you'd give up is your idol.

Care to expand on why this is your idol?

Has chasing after your idol made you happier, or not? Why?

Yeah, for me it would be money.
I never felt, and still don't feel, like I belong in this society. Money is the only barrier of entry into places(like college, lol) that without it you have to work extra hard.
I don't care about power, because most of the images of power are exactly that - images. Really powerful people are people everyone hates, and they are truly scary when you exercise power[like being the judge and executioner]. And once someone overthrows the man in charge, nobody gives a shit nobody cares about them.
I don't gaf about fame because nobody cares.
I want pleasure, but without money, you can't afford to keep pleasure going. You can do all the wonderous drugs in the world, experience pleasures beyond your wildest dreams, and you will still be stuck in a bathroom somewhere, puking your guts out, and can't afford to see a doctor and live in a way to properly detox. So much for pleasure.
Money makes the world go 'round...well, people, relationships, technology, and language makes the world go 'round. Money shows you what people actually care about. It shows you the "collective" values.
Could I give up money? Sure. I've lived many years without money. It sucks. Everybody will tell you, "you suck" too. Nobody gives a shit. Nobody cares. Life sucks. But without money, I'm bound for heaven, without a second guess. Fuck this life.

...ok I'm done.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I know that his philosophy masquerades as being life-affirming and "positive". That's not the point. I don't believe that he was happy at all, however he spins it in his writing.

I tend to not take depressed and lonely people seriously. They have all kind of emotional baggage that is muddying the waters.

His philosophy may not seem life affirming to you, because it's not a philosophy for happiness nor is it for the vast majority of people, but individuals he called free spirits which would be in our modern big five personality nomenclature people who are high in trait Openness to Experience, Low in agreeableness, and high in the facets of continuousness that correspond to industriousness who have IQs>125. Nietzsche doesn't care about making the vast majority of people happy. He cares about giving these individuals, "free spirit" a lens to free themselves from adopting the morality of the average person in western society which is either Christain morality or based on Christian morality or Platonism, so they can embrace a more traditional Grecian or Pagan morality that affirms life in the sense that in encourages one to pursue excellence, greatness, and nobility and favors strength as opposed to weakness. Nietzsche was aiming to liberate what he felt were individuals who could actually be creative geniuses or achieve some feat of religious or political greatness. He didn't care about making the mass of people happy. His philosophy is life affirming and positive if you're the right person. Nietzsche doesn't pretend like he's being objective or is interested in universal and absolute truths or ethics, but trying to call those who can strive for and achieve higher things that are more akin to the cultural and religious achievements of the Homeric Greeks, Goethe, Napolean, or Jesus away from the herd to do so. Which for the right individual will bring happiness, flow, and peak experiences, but also give them the power to make something out of tragedy, suffering, depression, and despair think Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. Also, Nietzche took depressed people seriously as well as he felt all philosophy was a symptom of temperament and health rather than objectivity, yet individuals who are creative are like alchemist. Suffering, depression, and tragedy is not bad for them as they have the will, talent, ability, and skill to make something out of them. As Jung said, "“No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.” One can't experience the most exhilarating and exuberant heights of positive emotions without entertaining the dark and depressive. If you didn't take these things from your reading of Nietzsche, then I'm afraid you did not read him well.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

My idol is greatness and excellence, though I value power; I don't idolize it and think many things are truly a pursuit of power like the pursuit of knowledge, competency, skill, and wisdom.

I idolize greatness and excellence, because they give me something to strive for that can be made unique to whatever it is one pursues and It genuinely feels good to be satisfied with the creations of your mind and the works of your hands, though I don't achieve this often when I do I feel the pursuit is worth it and frankly within a competitive space this usually puts my skills and knowledge at what I pursue excellence or greatness in superior to my peers and competitors which does make me happy. Yet, I don't care about being happy as much as I care about having significant and peak experiences, happiness can be a part of this, but I value the deep lows that can come with this as well, because they all act to make one's character into something like a work of art which in turns contributes to one's capacity for making an art out of one's life and activity to grace life with an aesthetic sensibility that gives it the potential to be something beautiful no matter what your experiencing or going through. I hope to make tragedy and death look good.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I know that his philosophy masquerades as being life-affirming and "positive". That's not the point. I don't believe that he was happy at all, however he spins it in his writing.

I tend to not take depressed and lonely people seriously. They have all kind of emotional baggage that is muddying the waters.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I know that his philosophy masquerades as being life-affirming and "positive". That's not the point. I don't believe that he was happy at all, however he spins it in his writing.

I tend to not take depressed and lonely people seriously. They have all kind of emotional baggage that is muddying the waters.

 

[Punk a chien]

For me,

1st to be given up : Power. Really dont care.
2nd : Money. It is a usefull tool, nothing else.
3rd : Fame. I'm neutral with that. i dont really care, but it can be a good feeling when someone shows respect to your skills or knowledge, for example.
4th : Pleasure. For sure, who dont care about pleasure ? But what is pleasure ?
- 4th.1 : a secret place where I can spend time alone. 5km deep underwater could be this place.
- 4th.2: collusion with my âme soeur (soulmate ?).

 

[philostam]

His philosophy may not seem life affirming to you, because it's not a philosophy for happiness nor is it for the vast majority of people, but individuals he called free spirits which would be in our modern big five personality nomenclature people who are high in trait Openness to Experience, Low in agreeableness, and high in the facets of continuousness that correspond to industriousness who have IQs>125. Nietzsche doesn't care about making the vast majority of people happy. He cares about giving these individuals, "free spirit" a lens to free themselves from adopting the morality of the average person in western society which is either Christain morality or based on Christian morality or Platonism, so they can embrace a more traditional Grecian or Pagan morality that affirms life in the sense that in encourages one to pursue excellence, greatness, and nobility and favors strength as opposed to weakness. Nietzsche was aiming to liberate what he felt were individuals who could actually be creative geniuses or achieve some feat of religious or political greatness. He didn't care about making the mass of people happy. His philosophy is life affirming and positive if you're the right person. Nietzsche doesn't pretend like he's being objective or is interested in universal and absolute truths or ethics, but trying to call those who can strive for and achieve higher things that are more akin to the cultural and religious achievements of the Homeric Greeks, Goethe, Napolean, or Jesus away from the herd to do so. Which for the right individual will bring happiness, flow, and peak experiences, but also give them the power to make something out of tragedy, suffering, depression, and despair think Shakespeare or Dostoevsky. Also, Nietzche took depressed people seriously as well as he felt all philosophy was a symptom of temperament and health rather than objectivity, yet individuals who are creative are like alchemist. Suffering, depression, and tragedy is not bad for them as they have the will, talent, ability, and skill to make something out of them. As Jung said, "“No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.” One can't experience the most exhilarating and exuberant heights of positive emotions without entertaining the dark and depressive. If you didn't take these things from your reading of Nietzsche, then I'm afraid you did not read him well.

I just don't really care for excellence in the Nietzschean way. What's more, true "free spirits" don't need to follow and read Nietzsche - they make their own path. We could say someone like Andrew Tate is free spirit and I don't respect him either. And I don't see him quoting Nietzsche. Perhaps I respect part of him, but his persona is very one dimensional and tedious.

It's an irony that most of the people I meet quoting Nietzsche are not independent at all. What might help them more is realizing that most of us are not that special, and that there's nothing wrong or embarrassing in living as an "every-man" archetype from time to time.

But people's egos get extremely attached to the idea of excellence, independence, over-coming etc., even if their own psyches are not in the slightest suited for this kind of "virtues". And if you're a free spirit, I can only say good for you. Congratulations, but no one really cares.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I just don't really care for excellence in the Nietzschean way. What's more, true "free spirits" don't need to follow and read Nietzsche - they make their own path. We could say someone like Andrew Tate is free spirit and I don't respect him either. And I don't see him quoting Nietzsche. Perhaps I respect part of him, but his persona is very one dimensional and tedious.

It's an irony that most of the people I meet quoting Nietzsche are not independent at all. What might help them more is realizing that most of us are not that special, and that there's nothing wrong or embarrassing in living as an "every-man" archetype from time to time.

But people's egos get extremely attached to the idea of excellence, independence, over-coming etc., even if their own psyches are not in the slightest suited for this kind of "virtues". And if you're a free spirit, I can only say good for you. Congratulations, but no one really cares.

You have to give historical context to his writings given he was writing in the early 19th century and Nietzsche in his writings says, " I write for those who want to follow themselves." Also, there is a reality that even great and creative individuals can be a mix of culture follower and creator like Goethe, Newton, and Pascal were all Christians. They followed and made their own paths. Nietzsche felt these higher types were burdened by their commitment to and adoption of Christain morality and had too great an inclination towards trying to resolve themselves with others when they clearly had the ability to determine more the future of culture and belief rather than adhere to it. You can make your own path without ever questioning the value of your beliefs and if they truly serve you in becoming the highest type of person in example Kanye West and Andrew Tate. No, we could not say Andrew Tate is a free spirit because he doesn't question the history of patriarchy or the history of capitalism, he fits neatly within a certain sector of relatively popular culture, the manosphere, and professes to be a Christian and he says he's one of Gods favorites and God has favorites and he's just one, Nietzche is calling for something more extreme and revolutionary. He gives an example of a Free-Spirit as Jesus Christ, someone who founded a completely new way of life that became the dominate religion of the west for the past 2,000 years. Andrew Tate is only going to be as relevant as his time in the sun permits him. He will not radically transform and change the way western culture, or some other culture evolves forever, so he fails to pass as a free spirit.

Most people are failures or are mediocre at most thigs period, so is it so ironic?

People's egos get really attached to Christianity, Buddhism, Feminism, or whatever other set of principles and beliefs you want to cite, that's just the human condition. Well, given you value the everyman archetype, I don't know why you would. My point wasn't that you should value being a free spirit or anyone else being one for that matter, but that you misrepresented and misunderstood Nietzsche's views, because you weren't who he was writing for like all those others who get his ideas and what he meant wrong, because most people are mostly average and unquestioning. Like you could have asked yourself, "do I really understand Nietzsche?"

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I just don't really care for excellence in the Nietzschean way. What's more, true "free spirits" don't need to follow and read Nietzsche - they make their own path. We could say someone like Andrew Tate is free spirit and I don't respect him either. And I don't see him quoting Nietzsche. Perhaps I respect part of him, but his persona is very one dimensional and tedious.

It's an irony that most of the people I meet quoting Nietzsche are not independent at all. What might help them more is realizing that most of us are not that special, and that there's nothing wrong or embarrassing in living as an "every-man" archetype from time to time.

But people's egos get extremely attached to the idea of excellence, independence, over-coming etc., even if their own psyches are not in the slightest suited for this kind of "virtues". And if you're a free spirit, I can only say good for you. Congratulations, but no one really cares.

You don't have respect a free-spirit, "creative genius", however, their ideas and achievements shape the culture as well as the psychological and material world that we're living in---this is Nietzche's point. For instance, you only use the word Ego because of the achievements of Indian Verdict Preist and Siddhartha Gautama. The "Every-man" archetype was coined by Carl Gustav Jung and excellence or arete was the highest values of the Ancient Greeks. Virtue is the creation of Greek culture, Plato, Aristotle, and Socrates. No, you may not respect a free spirit, but you wouldn't be able to effectively think, articulate your ideas, or have solid beliefs without them.

The mass of Judea crucified Jesus and the mass of Athens made Socrates drink Hemlock. Yet, 2.2 billion people are Christians and Socrates is considered the father of western Philosophy. Nietzsche died insane and in relative obscurity but clearly many people's egos get extremely attached to his ideas. It's not about whether people care or not; It's about if you transform and change culture, the way people think, and see the world-this is the measure of a free spirit, not the ideas and opinions of most people. They will always change their tune eventually.

There's nothing embarrassing in living as an "every-man", but if you do, then you're not really the one to be evaluating how well people are living as free spirits and how valid or valuable Nietzsche's ideas are.

Yes, many are unsuited and fail, but that's just a part of the process of the realization of the ideal expression of these values and over millennia will become the Übermensch.

 

[philostam]

Jesus a free spirit, but he was not low in agreeableness. How can that be? I thought you have to be a dick to be a free spirit.

Agree on Andrew Tate, he's far from free. But like I say, those who are really free don't need Nietzsche to tell them. Also, by your definition, who in our time would pass a test to be a free spirit?

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

Jesus a free spirit, but he was not low in agreeableness. How can that be? I thought you have to be a dick to be a free spirit.

Agree on Andrew Tate, he's far from free. But like I say, those who are really free don't need Nietzsche to tell them. Also, by your definition, who in our time would pass a test to be a free spirit?

Jesus is as disagreeable as they come:

Also, we may take Christianity for granted in modernity, but the idea of faith through salvation and not works, that the ultimate good is love, as well as the emphasis on mercy and redemption, and the idea of having a personal relationship with God were completely radical takes on Judaism and all religious practices that predate Christianity are absent of these features. It is truly one of the most successful, unique, and revolutionary religions of human history that we know of. Which is why Nietzsche considered Jesus a free spirit.

To be disagreeable doesn't mean your antisocial or narcissistic just competitive, interested in things, and tough minded, but you can be disagreeable and high in compassion like me, because being polite, nice, and socially deferential isn't the same thing as caring about the well-being of other people or liking people, but just because I care about the well-being of other people and general like people doesn't mean I'm not competitive, blunt, willing to be cruel and brutal at times or associate with most people.

You have to be a self-directed creator of new cultural forms and beliefs to be a free spirit which certain personalities will do; however, they may be arrested in the prejudices of their culture, time, or the dominant beliefs of their culture and so underachieve and fail in actualizing this ideal. To be a free spirit you have to strive towards being something like an autonomous, original person, liberated intellect, and creative genius. This doesn't preclude you're just a dick. A free spirit is like moral, intellectual, ethical, spiritual nomad directing their way by command of what they value as an individual creating culture in the process. Live like you're performing an original piece of music.

Nietzsche acknowledges that there is something herd like in all of us even higher types there's an inner mob, so a free spirit isn't about being a free person or free thinker, because there may be nothing new or higher in a particular person's pursuit of their freedom. A free spirit is an ideal that has never been fully realized perfectly in any person's life, but the creative genius was one if that makes sense. Who is the founder of a new way of seeing, living, and thinking in our time? They're the free spirits. David Bowie and Michael Jackon were pretty good examples of Free-Spirits.

"you have to become master over yourself, master of your own good qualities. Formerly they were your masters: but they should be merely your tools along with other tools. You had to acquire power over your aye and no and learn to hold and withhold them in accordance with your higher aims… You had to find out the inevitable error in every Yes and in every No, error as inseparable from life, life itself as conditioned by the perspective and its inaccuracy. Above all, you had to see with your own eyes where the error is always greatest: there, namely, where life is littlest, narrowest, meanest, least developed and yet cannot help looking upon itself as the goal and standard of things, and smugly and ignobly and incessantly tearing to tatters all that is highest and greatest and richest, and putting the shreds into the form of questions from the standpoint of its own well being."

Ideas that are most compatible with being a free spirit:

individuation:

self actualization:

mastery:

Things that are going to be realized or a free spirit is realizing.

It's a tall task to actually strive towards being a free-spirit in the way Nietzsche meant it, because this is an ideal, he erected with the death of God in mind.

Also, Nietzsche says one day you should no longer need his ideas and come to hate them and that you pay a teacher poorly by not becoming greater than they. As most people are not trying to overcome and be greater than Nietzsche and strive towards creative genius, I don't know of many if any contemporary examples.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

I think this also a good example of Jesus being disagreeable:

 

[philostam]

For me the process of individuation means that you integrate multiple facets of yourself, and to become multi-dimensional personality that can access different archetypes at appropriate times. That includes the everyman and and other less glamorous ones that are not attractive to the ego.

I actually really admire Jung and think he was an absolute genius. Nietzsche, however, I don't have much respect for. Although he was undoubtedly smart, that's just not enough for me. I think Jung was smarter, wiser, kinder and healthier.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

For me the process of individuation means that you integrate multiple facets of yourself, and to become multi-dimensional personality that can access all the archetypes at appropriate times. That includes the everyman and and other less glamorous ones that are not attractive to the ego.

I actually really admire Jung and think he was an absolute genius. Nietzsche, however, I don't have much respect for. Although he was undoubtedly smart, that's just not enough for me. I think Jung was smarter, wiser, kinder and healthier.

Nietzsche is who Jung developed the idea of individuation from as Nietzsche advocated: Become who you are. Jung also said, "my way is not yours" and "my God lives beyond good and evil" which again was inspired by Nietzsche. You're a tad to Christian in your sentiments to appreciate Nietzsche it seems, because there is nothing that Jung advocates that is incompatible with Nitzsche they in fact complement one another or rather Jung builds upon Nietzche's philosophy among others.

 

[Ok08Y567gA]

For me the process of individuation means that you integrate multiple facets of yourself, and to become multi-dimensional personality that can access different archetypes at appropriate times. That includes the everyman and and other less glamorous ones that are not attractive to the ego.

I actually really admire Jung and think he was an absolute genius. Nietzsche, however, I don't have much respect for. Although he was undoubtedly smart, that's just not enough for me. I think Jung was smarter, wiser, kinder and healthier.

 

[philostam]

I think Nietzsche was a bit of a fraud. Yeah he was articulate and creative, and had good education in the Classics, but 30% of his work is just he praising himself and criticizing others. Sure he had some insightful ideas that influenced others, but I don't see how his work can really help anyone. His work seems more like self-medicine and self-justification than anything else. He's an artist that had to create to make himself feel better, but he did it in a a very egotistical and alienating way. Similar to Schopenhauer, yet another such case - but at least that one had something more humane about him.

None of this people created anything lasting, were happy, had good relationships and/or a family. At least if you're a genius, try contributing to humanity like Newton, Tesla, Einstein etc. Of course artists are important too, but as an artist you have to be a bit more humane and sensitive, not just bashing others and praising yourself.

It's been long since I read Nietzsche or was remotely interested in him, and I don't even care about being objective though. That's just my opinion and I don't even bother revisiting it, since I have better things to do.

 

[philostam]

It's funny, recently I saw on twitter that Schopenhauer's mother wrote to him that he was a bitter loser and a failure who didn't use the conditions and wealth available to contribute anything to the world or made it a better place. Brutal, but spot on.

Honestly, if you're gonna be secluded all day in your room and have no friends or family, at least make something of it like Tesla did. We should not be idolizing these people.