Nietzsche on beauty, power, kindness, and self-conquest (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Part II)

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's statements above? Why or why not?

I generally do not use moral terms like "evil", but I still agree mostly with the overall sentiment. In fact, I fully agree assuming Nietzsche would allow me to rephrase his words as follows:

When conscious will becomes gracious and manifests from the spiritual into the physical — such self-actualization I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I appreciate such free-spirited beauty as much as from those who are powerful: let your kindness be the ultimate expression of self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom). Of extreme unkindness and selfish egotistical domination, I deem you capable: therefore I most appreciate loving restraint from you, the powerful. Indeed, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves righteous because they had no claws.

Insofar as my rephrasing is essentially what Nietzsche meant, then I wholeheartedly agree.

I think other ways of expressing a similar idea would be to say either of the following:

1. Power corrupts, thus the ultimate measure of a person is the ratio between their power and their lack of corruption.

2. The religious-like doctrines of consequentialist morality, that would make the devout believer a slave to an imaginary de-personified god of supernatural moral law, fail to fully acknowledge the value of inaction (of not doing) in relation to capacity--of conscious restraint, self-discipline, and transcendence of restlessness (namely in terms of excessive outer doing due to lacking inner peace). By overvaluing mere consequences rather than valuing conscious will and intent, the consequentialist overvalues the seeming kindness of the weak, and fails to fully see the maintaining of sheathness in a sheathed sword as being a greater expression of kind conscious will--of consciousness itself--than merely lacking access to a sword, or failing to use a sword out of cowardice rather than brave self-discipline. In other words, to the consequentialist a loving kind person who does significant damage but could do even more is worse than one who is capable of little damage despite being much more slavishly selfish and unkind in intent. In other words, the consequentialist prefers weakness--for one to be selfishly or slavishly willing to do great damage and atrocities but being physically incapable--versus strength and free-spiritedness, and by extension the glorious triumph of calm peaceful beautiful spirit over insatiable restless selfish enslaved flesh.

Do you think the two different items above are accurate paraphrasing of Nietzsche's ideas on the matter? If not, why not?

Regardless, do you agree with the concepts? If not, why not?

[Pattern-chaser]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's statements above? Why or why not?

To me, this is Nietzsche waxing poetic. I read these words as poetry, so I appreciate it, but I'm not at all sure if I agree with it. Agree with what, exactly? There are so many layers of metaphor that it's hard to extract what it is that you would like us to agree with, or not. Do you want me to laugh at those who lack claws? Will you take my beauty from me? Or should I demonstrate the evil of which I am capable? I can't see the sense or the point in asking analytical questions of poetry. Am I seeing this all wrong, misreading, or misunderstanding?

[Gertie]

No. Fetishing power and conquest and patronising 'weaklings' is macho childishness to me. And mistaking ethics for aesthetics smacks of privilege more than insight. In N's case it's perhaps his way of dealing with his lived experience, but it leaves a bad taste with me.

[Tegularius]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's statements above? Why or why not?

The way you interpreted it into a less poetic version is quite good, I think. But if the entire chapter were quoted called the "Sublime Ones", which, not uncommon with Nietzsche, is used more in an ironic way the meaning would have been clearer when contrasting it with how he qualifies and denotes who the sublime ones really are. In German the word "Erhaben" has connotations which its near English equivalent does not contain. This is often the case with Nietzsche more than with most others when quoting compared to Emerson for example, whom he steadfastly admired. With the latter, the quotes are usually direct in meaning whereas with N the meaning of words, especially in German, can be less concrete, more inverted or extra connotations added. That's why whenever there's an interesting Nietzsche quote its context is fundamental to its understanding which even then can be misconstrued and often is.

[WarrenZ]

I find the last line incredibly interesting: "I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Since the chapter is called the "Sublime Ones", it would be reasonable to presume that this is a jab at the Christians who are making a virtue out of weakness. This reminds me of one of Nassim Nicholas Taleb's Aphorisms: "Do not call someone brave when they have no other choice." As Scott said, the relationship between action and capacity is more important than simple consequentialist calculation. I find that the metaphor of the sword used in Scott's 2nd point evoked me of Jesus bringing a sword?—"I came not to send peace, but a sword" (Matthew 10:34)—the part of the Bible that is always very puzzling to interpret?

[BobS]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

It's already been pointed out that context is important in this case.

Does the quoted language occur in conjunction with, or is it at least related to, Nietzsche’s discussion of the Übermensch?

My recollection (and it's been over 50 years) is that he posited the concept of the Übermensch as something that could (would?) create new values as the solution to the loss of the belief in God and the consequent turn to nihilism. I can't remember (or maybe he wasn't clear on it) whether the Übermensch was a single guy or a category of people, but in either case, he conceived of it as something that was strong and therefore a good thing.

With that as a (very limited) background, my take on the quote, without further context, would be that he's simply asking powerful people ("Übermensch" kinda guys) to be nice, while observing, as a gesture of solidarity, that he's in the same camp as they in looking down on weak people. Restated: why isn't he just stating that it's nice to be nice, even (or especially) if you're strong?

Am I being too simple-minded, or have I taken the statement too much out of context?

[Belindi]

I love what Nietzsche wrote. I also like

Samson's riddle is a riddle that appears in the biblical narrative about Samson, which he wagered to thirty Philistine guests. The riddle can be found in Judges 14:14: "Out of the eater, something to eat; out of the strong, something sweet. ... Out of the eater came something to eat,. and out of the strong came something sweet.

Good intentions are not enough. If you have the power to bring forth good consequences then you should use that power. NB the most power is manifested in a man not by impulsive actions but necessarily also by knowledge and due reflection.

If power is indeed an attribute of God, i.e. power as a subsection of the good, then whether or not you talk God-language and do religious devotions, you should use for doing good what power you have .

BobS ,the Ubermensch is a man who not only exerts his power for good, he is a man whose notion of the good relates also to wisdom/knowledge and beauty.Therefore the Ubermensch is not a Nazi.

[gad-fly]

1. Power corrupts, thus the ultimate measure of a person is the ratio between their power and their lack of corruption.

2. The religious-like doctrines of consequentialist morality, that would make the devout believer a slave to an imaginary de-personified god of supernatural moral law, fail to fully acknowledge the value of inaction (of not doing) in relation to capacity--of conscious restraint, self-discipline, and transcendence of restlessness (namely in terms of excessive outer doing due to lacking inner peace). By overvaluing mere consequences rather than valuing conscious will and intent, the consequentialist overvalues the seeming kindness of the weak, and fails to fully see the maintaining of sheathness in a sheathed sword as being a greater expression of kind conscious will--of consciousness itself--than merely lacking access to a sword, or failing to use a sword out of cowardice rather than brave self-discipline. In other words, to the consequentialist a loving kind person who does significant damage but could do even more is worse than one who is capable of little damage despite being much more slavishly selfish and unkind in intent. In other words, the consequentialist prefers weakness--for one to be selfishly or slavishly willing to do great damage and atrocities but being physically incapable--versus strength and free-spiritedness, and by extension the glorious triumph of calm peaceful beautiful spirit over insatiable restless selfish enslaved flesh.

Do you think the two different items above are accurate paraphrasing of Nietzsche's ideas on the matter? If not, why not?

Regardless, do you agree with the concepts? If not, why not?

No. I do not agree. Let me deal with 2. later.

The ratio between a person's (not their) power, and his lack of corruption, is functional on the extent of power at his disposal. He who lacks power is likely less corrupt. It is difficult to find a corrupted slave. "ultimate measure" is blowing up before explosion.

[BobS]

BobS, the Ubermensch is a man who not only exerts his power for good, he is a man whose notion of the good relates also to wisdom/knowledge and beauty. Therefore the Ubermensch is not a Nazi. [Emphasis added.]

Merciful heavens! So you interpret what I said to mean or imply that I thought that the Übermensch is a Nazi? I must confess that how you got there is beyond my comprehension.

I expressed three simple thoughts.

(1) “[T]he Übermensch ... [Nietzsche] conceived of it as something that was strong and therefore a good thing.” He didn’t? My saying that he did meant that I thought that the concept of the Übermensch had something to do with Nazism? Really?

(2) “It’s nice to be nice.” A Nazi slogan? Really?

(3) “Looking down on weak people”? Well sure, Nazis are like that, but where’s the Nazi link to what I said? The Übermensch and the Nazis probably agree that two plus two equals four. So what?

Any fair interpretation of Nietzsche’s “Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws” entails that he (and therefore the Übermensch?) “look down on weak people.” I see no other way to look at it. But going further, to imply that I was drawing a link between the Übermensch and Nazism, is a pretty dramatic leap.

I am not a fan of Nietzsche, but only for stylistic reasons. I found reading him a slog, because he had so little regard for clarity, emphasizing his writing style, rather than substance, as the thing that was supposed to persuade anyone of anything. Others love his writing style; such are the differences among people that make this jolly world go 'round.

As for the exercise of power for the good, and relating the good to wisdom, knowledge and beauty, that just strikes me as rather mundane. The concept is in no way objectionable, but it is very far from novel, and hardly an advance on ideas that had been expressed by many others before Nietzsche came along.

Finally, so that inferences from what I just said in the last paragraph don’t get out of hand, I note the obvious: what strikes me as mundane is specifically the idea that was expressed in that paragraph: that the exercise of power for the good, wisdom, knowledge and beauty are all good stuff. Please don’t infer that I’m calling everything that Nietzsche wrote mundane. I beg you.

[gad-fly]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

I generally do not use moral terms like "evil", but I still agree mostly with the overall sentiment. In fact, I fully agree assuming Nietzsche would allow me to rephrase his words as follows:

What Nietzsche has said, plain and simple, is:
1. Power can (though not necessarily) be gracious.
2. Such graciousness can be seen to be beautiful.
3. I want nothing more than (though not exclusively) such beauty, from you who are powerful.
4. You have made a conquest.
5. I laugh at some weakling claiming virtue because he has no power to cause evil.

With due respect, I believe Nietzsche would not be pleased with Scott's rephrasing.

[Belindi]

Nicely expressed Gadfly.

[detail]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

Do you agree with Nietzsche's statements above? Why or why not?

I generally do not use moral terms like "evil", but I still agree mostly with the overall sentiment. In fact, I fully agree assuming Nietzsche would allow me to rephrase his words as follows:

When conscious will becomes gracious and manifests from the spiritual into the physical — such self-actualization I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I appreciate such free-spirited beauty as much as from those who are powerful: let your kindness be the ultimate expression of self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom). Of extreme unkindness and selfish egotistical domination, I deem you capable: therefore I most appreciate loving restraint from you, the powerful. Indeed, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves righteous because they had no claws.

Insofar as my rephrasing is essentially what Nietzsche meant, then I wholeheartedly agree.

I think other ways of expressing a similar idea would be to say either of the following:

1. Power corrupts, thus the ultimate measure of a person is the ratio between their power and their lack of corruption.

2. The religious-like doctrines of consequentialist morality, that would make the devout believer a slave to an imaginary de-personified god of supernatural moral law, fail to fully acknowledge the value of inaction (of not doing) in relation to capacity--of conscious restraint, self-discipline, and transcendence of restlessness (namely in terms of excessive outer doing due to lacking inner peace). By overvaluing mere consequences rather than valuing conscious will and intent, the consequentialist overvalues the seeming kindness of the weak, and fails to fully see the maintaining of sheathness in a sheathed sword as being a greater expression of kind conscious will--of consciousness itself--than merely lacking access to a sword, or failing to use a sword out of cowardice rather than brave self-discipline. In other words, to the consequentialist a loving kind person who does significant damage but could do even more is worse than one who is capable of little damage despite being much more slavishly selfish and unkind in intent. In other words, the consequentialist prefers weakness--for one to be selfishly or slavishly willing to do great damage and atrocities but being physically incapable--versus strength and free-spiritedness, and by extension the glorious triumph of calm peaceful beautiful spirit over insatiable restless selfish enslaved flesh.

Do you think the two different items above are accurate paraphrasing of Nietzsche's ideas on the matter? If not, why not?

Regardless, do you agree with the concepts? If not, why not?

Nietzsche in general talks about power in the sense of his will to power , in order to overcome the personal weakness and the perils attached to them. His ideal is nihilism as to overcome all values , the best way to it is the absolute victory of ones mind over the real existing wolrd , why he calls the status of the superhuman, that overcomes all perils and all obstacles by the sheer power of will to overcome oneself. The way in which this mode is used , shall abolish all values felt strange to the individual and neglect all false values and moral interpretation. The true power of beeing and i want it , thus it has to happen is the ideal of the will to power. Moral is in his mind just a handicap for all humans , that inhibits the true animalic power of oneself and creates this special statuts. Nietze himself, wants in his famous book " The will to power " this way the way to a europen buddhism. As the philosopher schopenhauer Nietsche believes in the all shaping power of the personal will and the imagination of the human mind, which can break all laws in order to create out of the person a higher beeing. All moral values are just created to blindfold people that they were intended for the profit of the few , the reality abolishes these moral values but in the end of a society the true form of nihilism is then everlasting.

[Ecurb]

Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

I have never shot anyone. Then again, I don't own a gun. I'll grant that I don't think myself "good" for never having shot anyone, but I think my innocence of murder is just as "good" as that of the gun owner. Why should he (or the clawed beast) get more credit than I? In fact, I think I'm BETTER than the man who keeps a loaded heater available in case of attack. Let's face it: that guy's a coward. If I don't need a firearm for protection, why should he?

I could grow claws (buy a gun), if I wanted to. But I don't want to, and, in fact, think myself (very slightly) superior to the coward who feels the need to grow them, a feeling born out of fear and cowardice, and one which is manifestly irrational (it's more dangerous to keep a personal protection firearm around, not less dangerous).

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

The following quote is from Part II, Chapter 29, of Nietzsche's book, Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

When power becomes gracious and descends into the visible — such descent I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I want beauty as much as from you who are powerful: let your kindness be your final self-conquest. Of all evil I deem you capable: therefore I want the good from you. Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

I generally do not use moral terms like "evil", but I still agree mostly with the overall sentiment. In fact, I fully agree assuming Nietzsche would allow me to rephrase his words as follows:

What Nietzsche has said, plain and simple, is:
1. Power can (though not necessarily) be gracious.
2. Such graciousness can be seen to be beautiful.
3. I want nothing more than (though not exclusively) such beauty, from you who are powerful.
4. You have made a conquest.
5. I laugh at some weakling claiming virtue because he has no power to cause evil.

With due respect, I believe Nietzsche would not be pleased with Scott's rephrasing.

gad-fly, interesting perspective.

For quick reference, my paraphrasing was as follows:

"When conscious will becomes gracious and manifests from the spiritual into the physical — such self-actualization I call beauty. And there is nobody from whom I appreciate such free-spirited beauty as much as from those who are powerful: let your kindness be the ultimate expression of self-discipline (a.k.a. spiritual freedom). Of extreme unkindness and selfish egotistical domination, I deem you capable: therefore I most appreciate loving restraint from you, the powerful. Indeed, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves righteous because they had no claws."

Which sentence do you suspect Nietzsche would find most objectionable or inaccurate in my above paraphrasing?

Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws.

I have never shot anyone. Then again, I don't own a gun. I'll grant that I don't think myself "good" for never having shot anyone, but I think my innocence of murder is just as "good" as that of the gun owner.

Ecurb, interesting example. Are you physically incapable of owning a gun? In other words, if you suddenly decided you really very much wanted to own a gun, could you make that happen?

[Ecurb]

interesting example. Are you physically incapable of owning a gun? In other words, if you suddenly decided you really very much wanted to own a gun, could you make that happen?

Of course I could buy a gun. I live in the land of the 2nd Amendment.

I also recognize the Nietzsche was wrIting in broad metaphors. He presumably meant that it is not meritricious for a eunich to abstain from lust. Still, here's another example, from the world of tooth and claw. Let's posit two mothers. One is a bear, the other a rabbit. Enter Mr. Fox, sniffing at the den and threatening to devour the babies. The bear, possessing size and great curved claws, charges at the fox and drives him away. The rabbit, having no claws with which to defend herself, also charges at the fox, kicking it with her powerful hind legs, and then racing away to get it to chase her. Who is the more noble? Is anyone (even Nietzsche) laughing at the rabbit?

If the rabbit had claws, her nobility would be less, not more.