I just watched this really good video about Nietzsche vs Dostoevsky and liked how the commentator combines and contrasts the philosophers, and I see a lot of myself in that. I lean (a lot) more towards Nietzsche, but Dostoevsky does have good points about how Nietzsche's philosophy can be used to justify atrocious acts, but that's nature for you I guess.
Both have brilliance but I'm firmly Team Dostoyevsky, largely for the reason you stated.
I would go further - the descent into atrocious acts, aka slippery slope - is inevitable and undeniable by now. Had Nietzsche lived long enough to see WWI and the depravity of the 1920's he may perhaps have matured his philosophy to take into account all the things that Dostoyevsky so clearly saw.
Nietzsche could not have written "The Possessed" for instance.
@UncleIroh The issue is that while we held down the strong in the name of preventing fascism, we now have a fascism of the weak which is arguably more oppressive because the weak outnumber the strong, and there is nowhere to hide.
A cruel and tyrannical ruler can be overthrown, but how can we throw off the cruelty and tyranny of the majority of the people in a corrupt democracy?
> How can we throw off the cruelty and tyranny of the majority of the people in a corrupt democracy?
That's too easy. If you're a member of the ruling "We", you thin the herd and kill everyone. In 2023 there can be no doubt that this is the plan, or that it won't work on significant numbers of the weak and easily led.
The real interesting question is, How does that solution measure up if we backtest it against Dostoyevsky and Nietzsche's philosophy? I think both fail ultimately.
Dostoyevsky because while he could imagine the consequences of us personally losing God, he never imagined that we as a species have a religious impulse that has to be filled somehow.
He certainly couldn't have imagined the twisted foetus of horror that we have in Wokeism. I think he always believed we would either have religion or nothing, not the worst of both.
Nietzsche because while he could imagine the consequences of us collectively losing God, his genius prevented him imagining what true "banality of evil" looks like, which is your "fascism of the weak".
@UncleIroh You're right, but my issue is with the fact that you get tyranny either way, and I have a rule of thumb where if two paths lead to the same outcome, the correct path is the one that requires the least degree of effort and energy.
Allow the strong to rule, you get tyranny. Cultivate a society that allows the weak to rule, you also get tyranny, but at least the strong ruling is natural and automatic and thus requires less effort and energy.
In the end, life is just will to power.
@Tfmonkey
Tyranny IS unavoidable. The Jews understood this before anyone else.
At the very least the Old Testament proves this point with Israel trying out one thing after another on how to organize their society, and each time they hilariously fuck it up and receive an almighty ass-kicking from God.
Ironically, your way is the most efficient way to reach tyrannical collapse. But neither do I advocate the opposite, which is also the most protracted.
@UncleIroh I would say the quick path is better because people will learn from it.
Take how most people recognize that Communism is a bad idea but support Feminism. Why? Because Communism causes societal collapse within a decade or two while Feminism takes over a century.
When one generation can enjoy the fruits and leave subsequent generations with the cost, you will get corruption and decay.
Better to have the consequences of ones bad choices manifest within one's own lifetime.
There IS some value in the idea that if you can find the optimal failure cycle, we would have the ideal laboratory needed to course-correct and optimize.
Unfortunately, it's only an idea. We haven't found the optimal failure cycle and it will be forever unattainable because periods of stability actually introduce instability and blindness. Likewise periods of instability would cause catasstrophic collapse.
Also, I do not agree that human life is just mere Will to Power. It is a component, but nowhere near the whole truth.
I find that the materialist approach, like yours, is common among those with God issues or those without children. That's been my long observation. And that's fine, I used to be that way too.
I have since found in myself and others that materialism also serves to blind us to a whole class of errors and truths that the religious just get. Difficult to articulate.
@Tfmonkey
I can't disagree with that statement.
There is a Third Way however, hear me out.
Maybe we just need to accept that cycles of societal collapse are as inevitable as the seasons. If we can accept that, then the current goal always has be about optimizing for the inevitable least worst collapse.
The only thing wrong with that one is no-one wants to be without a chair when the music stops, so corruption just delays the cycle.
@UncleIroh we haven't found the optimal balance of truth and comforting lies to keep humanity from murdering itself yet.