Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 22

Thread: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

  1. #1
    Senior Member Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Myatt and Honour

    Is it only me or does not anyone else see Myatt's outlook on Honour and Race as a reworking of Nietzsche's, What is Noble?

    While I appreciate his views, frankly speaking, I cannot grasp what is novel here.

    Thanks for any comments.

    Nietzsche's chapter 'What Is Noble?' [from the book 'Beyond Good and Evil'] online link;

    http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/bgept9.htm

    Last edited by Moody; Monday, May 24th, 2004 at 05:18 PM. Reason: added link/ pic

  2. #2
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    Is it only me or does not anyone else see Myatt's outlook on Honour and Race as a reworking of Nietzsche's, What is Noble?

    While I appreciate his views, frankly speaking, I cannot grasp what is novel here.

    Thanks for any comments.

    OK here goes.

    1) Myatt has produced a clear, concise, philosophy which can be understood by all.

    2) Nietzsche produced quite good aphorisms and a complex system which requires some effort to understood - qv. the notion of will to power.

    3) Myatt defines all his terms in a clear, easily understandable way.

    4) Nietzsche has no concept of the following: (a) the folk as a living being; (b) the folk-homeland as a living being; (c) the Cosmic Being; (d) the acausal.

    5) Myatt gives a clear ethics and system of law based upon honor. Nietzsche does not. This goes far beyonf N's conception of "what is noble".

    6) There is really very little about real race - the folk - in Nietzsche; just vague references. For Myatt, race is an expression of Nature, the Cosmos, of order.

    And so on

  3. #3
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Aethrei's reference to Nietzsche's 'What Is Noble?' [9th chapter of his 'Beyond Good and Evil'] is an interesting one, and I found rhadley's response to it useful.

    However, it prompted me to quickly re-read 'What Is Noble?'[WIN?], and then to try and take those ideas towards Myatt's.

    Generally, I would say that Nietzsche's work in its raw state is not always 'user friendly' - it is volatile, and yes, extreme.

    However, going through all the sections of WIN?, I found some excellent parallels with Myatt.

    WIN? section 295 refers to Dionysos.
    Nietzsche claims that this god is also a philosopher and is at the root of Nobility.
    He says here that this god wants to make man "stronger, more evil, more profound and more beautiful".

    These are the Noble virtues - strong will, master morality, profundity and beauty.
    Compare this to Myatt who says that Beauty is the result of Honour; see also that Dionysos for Nietzsche is the aesthetic god, the ecstatic god.

    In Twilight of the Idols Nietzsche says;
    "What did the ancient Hellene [i.e., Aryan Greek] guarantee to himself in these Dionysian mysteries? - ETERNAL LIFE, the eternal recurrence of life; the future promised and consecrated in the past; the triumphant 'Yes' to life beyond death and change; TRUE life as collective continuation of life through procreation, through the mysteries of sexuality".

    This is very near Myatt's conception of Nature, and brings Dionysos close to Myatt's Cosmic Being. In both cases, we see that Nobility/Honour springs from the god Dionysos/the Cosmic Being, and the product is Beauty.

    WIN? 257 Describes 'Aristocratic Values', or the 'Noble Ideal'; again, comparable to Myatt's 'Honour'.
    Nietzsche's contention is that society MUST be led by a Nobility/Honour Guard; to Nietzsche there must be a hierarchy or 'Order of Rank', as he calls it.
    While Myatt is not so insistent on this, we can see from his Constitution that he believes in an hierarchy, albeit a self-regulating one, to be necessary.
    Also, he adheres to the Leadership Principle; likewise, Nietzsche [in WIN? 261] says that while the master always defines himself, others wait to be defined by the master race.
    Nietzsche also says that only the Noble have an "instinct for rank"; where such a thing is missing, then so too is nobility missing.
    Allied with this is the ability to REVERE; only the Noble are capable of reverence - another reason why nihilists and anarchists can never be Noble/Honourable.

    Where Nietzsche and Myatt depart is in Nietzsche's call for Slavery; however, it must be remembered that 'slavery' can be viewed relatively - even Myatt asks that citizens do their DUTY for the State, and thereby SERVE it.
    As we see from the anarchists on this forum, to serve your nation is for them, an anathema - a form of slavery.
    We know better, and regard it an Honour to serve a great Leader.

    WIN? 260 Expands on Master Morality vs. Slave Morality. Nietzsche aligns the former with Aryan Ideals and the latter with Semitic resentment. In Myatt we might compare Honour [master morality] and Dishonour [slave morality].
    Going back to 'evil' as mentioned above - to the perverse slave/semite/dishonourable person, the Aryan master is 'evil'.

    WIN? 262 Delineates the notion that one becomes Noble in adverse conditions only; this fits in well with Myatt's ascetic outlook.
    Also, Nietzsche says that an aristocratic state is a means to BREED humans.

    WIN? 264 This is where Nietzsche broaches what he calls the "problem of Race".
    This hinges on his assertion that we are all what our ancestors have made us - and that this heritage CANNOT BE WIPED OUT. Again, Myatt would agree here, I hope.

    WIN? 265/266/271/287 Talk of the Noble Soul; it is egoistic/self-reverencing, expansive and complex. It attaches great importance to the quality of "purity".
    Here we are talking of the type of man who would be a Leader of Myatt's nation - a rare, honourable, ascetic type of man; albeit, with a triumphant Will.

    WIN? 268 Nietzsche does here touch on what constitutes a Folkish nation; an ancestral evolving of self-understanding over thousands of years.

    So, it is possible to read Nietzsche and Myatt in concert, always understanding that Nietzsche stands PRIOR to N-S, and Myatt AFTER N-S.
    Last edited by Moody; Friday, December 5th, 2003 at 08:07 PM.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  4. #4
    Senior Member Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Thanks Rhadley.

    I fully agree with your first three points, which is why it would be useful to tackle your remaining three points.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhadley
    4) Nietzsche has no concept of the following: (a) the folk as a living being; (b) the folk-homeland as a living being; (c) the Cosmic Being; (d) the acausal.
    5) Myatt gives a clear ethics and system of law based upon honor. Nietzsche does not. This goes far beyonf N's conception of "what is noble".
    6) There is really very little about real race - the folk - in Nietzsche; just vague references. For Myatt, race is an expression of Nature, the Cosmos, of order.

    Nietzsche's What is Noble? works on three concepts mostly - Honour (which includes self-honesty), Justice, and Innocence of Becoming(i.e. the rejection of the concept of Guilt, Sin, etc.). Let me present some of his views and when you compare it with the recently discussed views of Myatt on Honour and the Criminal System and Beauty, hopefully you'll see Nietzsche and Myatt are not far off.


    1."To give men back the courage to their natural drives-
    To check their self-underestimation (not that of man as an individual but that of man as nature-)" [Will to Power, 124]

    2. "The concept of honour" : resting on the faith in "good society," in chivalrous basic traits, in the obligation continally to maintain poise. Essential: that one does not think one's life important; that one insists unconditionally on good manners on the part of everyone with whom one comes in contact (at least when they do not belong to 'us");... that one always maintains poise." [Will to Power, 948]

    3. "Honour as recognition of the similar and equal-in-power." [Will to Power, 255]

    4. "It is richness in personality, abundance in oneself, overflowing and bestowing, instinctive good health and affirmation of oneself, that produce great sacrifice and great love: it is strong and godlike selfhood from which these affects grow, just as surely as did the desire to become master, encroachment, the inner certainty of having a right to everything. What according to common ideas are opposite dispositions are rather one disposition; and if one is not firm and brave within oneself, one has nothing to bestow and cannot stretch our one's hand to protect and support." [Will to Power, 388]

    5. "The rotted ruling classes have ruined the image of the ruler. The "state" as a court of law is a piece of cowardice, because the great human being is lacking to provide a standard of measurement." [Will to Power, 750]

    6. "What is noble? - Care for the most external things, in so far as this care forms a boundary, keeps distant, guards against confusion. Apparent frivolity in word, dress, bearing, through which a stoic severity and self-constraint protects itself against all immodest inquisitiveness." [Will to Power, 943]

    7. "Virtue (e.g. in the form of truthfulness) as our noble and dangerous luxury; we must not refuse the disadvantages it brings with it." [Will to Power, 945]

    8. "The ability and obligation to exercise prolonged gratitude and prolonged revenge both only within the circle of equals,--artfulness in retaliation, raffinement of the idea in friendship, a certain necessity to have enemies (as outlets for the emotions of envy, quarrelsomeness, arrogance--in fact, in order to be a good friend)a: all these are typical characteristics of the noble morality, which, as has been pointed out, is not the morality of "modern ideas," ..." [BGE, 260]

    9. "...every aristocratic morality is intolerant in the education of youth, in the control of women, in the marriage customs, in the relations of old and young, in the penal laws (which have an eye only for the degenerating): it counts intolerance itself among the virtues, under the name of "justice". [BGE, 262]

    10. "At the risk of displeasing innocent ears, I submit that egoism belongs to the essence of a noble soul, I mean the unalterable belief that to a being such as "we," other beings must naturally be in subjection, and have to sacrifice themselves. The noble soul accepts the fact of his egoism without question, and also without consciousness of harshness, constraint, or arbitrariness therein, but rather as something that may have its basis in the primary law of things:--if he sought a designation for it he would say: "It is justice itself." He acknowledges under certain circumstances, which made him hesitate at first, that there are other equally privileged ones; as soon as he has settled this question of rank, he moves among those equals and equally privileged ones with the same assurance, as regards modesty and delicate respect, which he enjoys in intercourse with himself... he honours himself in them, and in the rights which he concedes to them, he has no doubt that the exchange of honours and rights, as the essence of all intercourse, belongs also to the natural condition of things." [BGE, 265]

    11. "The noble soul has reverence for itself." [BGE, 287]

    12. "Duel. It can be said in favor of all duels and affairs of honor, that if a man is so sensitive as not to want to live if so-and-so said or thought this-and-that about him, then he has a right to let the matter be settled by the death of one man or the other. We cannot argue about his being so sensitive; in that regard we are the heirs of the past, its greatness as well as its excesses, without which there can never be any greatness. Now, if a canon of honor exists that allows blood to take the place of death, so that the heart is relieved after a duel according to the rules, then this is a great blessing, because otherwise many human lives would be in danger.
    Such an institution, by the way, educates men to be cautious in their remarks, and makes associating with them possible." [Human, All Too Human, 365]

    13. "Punishable, never punished. Our crime against criminals is that we treat them like scoundrels." [HH, 66]

    14. "Justice as a party's lure. Noble (if not exactly very insightful) representatives of the ruling class may well vow to treat people as equals, and grant them equal rights. To that extent, a socialistic way of thought, based on justice, is possible; but, as we said, only within the ruling class, which in this case practices justice by its sacrifices and renunciations. On the other hand, to demand equality of rights, as do the socialists of the subjugated caste, never results from justice but rather covetousness.
    If one shows the beast bloody pieces of meat close by, and then draws them away again until it finally roars, do you think this roar means justice?" [HH, 451]

    15. "We do not need forcible new distributions of property, but rather gradual transformations of attitude; justice must become greater in everyone, and the violent instinct weaker." [HH, 452]

    16. ""Man always acts for the good." We don't accuse nature of immorality when it sends us a thunderstorm, and makes us wet: why do we call the injurious man immoral? Because in the first case, we assume necessity, and in the second a voluntarily governing free will. But this distinction is in error. Furthermore, even intentional injury is not called immoral in all circumstances: without hesitating, we intentionally kill a gnat, for example, simply because we do not like its buzz; we intentionally punish the criminal and do him harm, to protect ourselves and society. In the first case it is the individual who does harm intentionally, for self-preservation or simply to avoid discomfort; in the second case the state does the harm. All morality allows the intentional infliction of harm for self-defense; that is, when it is a matter of self-preservation!" [HH, 102]

    17. "A rewarding justice. The man who has fully understood the theory of complete irresponsibility can no longer include the so called justice that punishes and rewards within the concept of justice, if that consists in giving each his due. For the man who is punished does not deserve the punishment: he is only being used as the means to frighten others away from certain future actions; likewise, the man who is rewarded does not deserve this reward; he could not act other than as he did. Thus a reward means only an encouragement, for him and others, to provide a motive for subsequent actions: praise is shouted to the runner on the track not to the one who has reached the finish line. Neither punishment nor reward are due to anyone as his; they are given to him because it is useful, without his justly having any claims on them. One must say, "The wise man rewards not because men have acted rightly," just as it was said, "The wise man punishes not because men have acted badly, but so they will not act badly." If we were to dispense with punishment and reward, we would lose the strongest motives driving men away from certain actions and toward other actions; the advantage of man requires that they continue..." [HH, 105]

    18. "History teaches us that that part of a people maintains itself best whose members generally share a vital public spirit, due to the similarity of their long-standing, incontrovertible principles, that is, of their common faith. In their case, good, sound custom strengthens them; they are taught to subordinate the individual, and their character is given solidity, at first innately and later through education. ...To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race. Rather, two things must coincide: first of all, stable power must increase through minds bound in faith and communal feeling; and secondly, it must be possible to attain higher goals when degenerating natures partially weaken or wound the stable power; it is precisely the weaker nature, as the more delicate and free, that makes progress possible at all. If a people starts to crumble and grow weak at some one place, but is still strong and healthy in general, it can accept being infected with something new, and can incorporate it to its advantage. The task of education is to make the individual so firm and sure that, as a whole being, he can no longer be diverted from his path. But then the educator must wound him, or use the wounds that fate delivers; when pain and need have come about in this way, something new and noble can also be inoculated into the wounded places." [HH, 224]

    19. "Beauty no accident. -- The beauty of a race or a family, their grace and graciousness in all gestures, is won by work: like genius, it is the end result of the accumulated work of generations. One must have made great sacrifices to good taste, one must have done much and omitted much, for its sake--seventeenth-century France is admirable in both respects--and good taste must have furnished a principle for selecting company, place, dress, sexual satisfaction; one must have preferred beauty to advantage, habit, opinion, and inertia. Supreme rule of conduct: before oneself too, one must not "let oneself go." The good things are immeasurably costly; and the law always holds that those who have them are different from those who acquire them. All that is good is inherited: whatever is not inherited is imperfect, is a mere beginning..." [Twilight of the Idols, Skirmishes, 47]


    Regarding your 4a), 4b), and 6, I understand these notions in Nietzsche when he goes after Christianity that he says is Jewish and a product of the Jews who have infected the "soil" itself and "detrimental to our life" -so he does see the folk homeland as a living being. Elsewhere too in BGE, he speaks of the necessity of Europe to unite with distinction against the Semitic communities. Nietzsche was a guardian of Tradition and traditional values, and his polemic was against those who tried to deteriorate all this that had taken ages to slowly build and perfect itself - his passionate Rome versus Judea in the Antichrist for instance.
    Regarding 4c) and 4d), ah no way! Nietzsche was Heraclitean in affirming Order; he upheld the great Goddess Dike/'Justice' as synonymous with Nature.

    I agree Nietzsche was not too explicit about all these things, but what Myatt says is there in him. (See point 12. for instance that was discussed here recently.)


    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    So, it is possible to read Nietzsche and Myatt in concert, always understanding that Nietzsche stands PRIOR to N-S, and Myatt AFTER N-S.
    Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for your comments.
    Last edited by Moody; Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 12:50 PM. Reason: merged two posts by same author/added quote marks

  5. #5
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    > So, it is possible to read Nietzsche and Myatt in concert, always understanding that Nietzsche stands PRIOR to N-S, and Myatt AFTER N-S.

    Yes, that is what I meant. Thanks for your comments.
    No, thank you.

    It strikes me that one of Myatt's most controversial ideas, his rejection of punitive measures against wrong-doers, is prefigured in Nietzsche.

    While some may think it 'liberal' of Myatt to throw out 'punishment' in favour of 'compensation', they could not be more wrong.

    It was Nietzsche who questioned the rationality of punishment, opining that it derived not from the desire to 'right wrongs', but from the festivals of cruelty.

    In other words, public executions and tortures had no causal connection to the punishment of criminals, but were rather spectacles in their own right.
    It was only later that the two became connected and eventually criminal punishment became punishment per se.

    If we recognise that punishment naturally belongs to the impulse to cruelty, then we can separate it once more from our justice system.

    Only then can we go back to the ancient system of compensation, and then also allow back the Noble duel and trial-by-combat systems.
    The whole culture of the 'champion' can also reappear.
    Last edited by Moody; Sunday, December 7th, 2003 at 06:57 PM.
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  6. #6
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    Thanks Rhadley.

    I fully agree with your first three points, which is why it would be useful to tackle your remaining three points.

    >4) Nietzsche has no concept of the following: (a) the folk as a living being; (b) the folk-homeland as a living being; (c) the Cosmic Being; (d) the acausal.
    >5) Myatt gives a clear ethics and system of law based upon honor. Nietzsche does not. This goes far beyonf N's conception of "what is noble".
    >6) There is really very little about real race - the folk - in Nietzsche; just vague references. For Myatt, race is an expression of Nature, the Cosmos, of order.


    Nietzsche's What is Noble? works on three concepts mostly - Honour (which includes self-honesty), Justice, and Innocence of Becoming(i.e. the rejection of the concept of Guilt, Sin, etc.). Let me present some of his views and when you compare it with the recently discussed views of Myatt on Honour and the Criminal System and Beauty, hopefully you'll see Nietzsche and Myatt are not far off.


    1."To give men back the courage to their natural drives-
    To check their self-underestimation (not that of man as an individual but that of man as nature-)" [Will to Power, 124]
    Here, as I understand it, you state one clear and essential difference between Myatt and Nietzsche. For Nietzsche, his "honor", ethics and so on are a means to return us to our "natural drives" and so on. For Myatt, honor, ethics and so on are a means whereby we control ourselves using our will and reason - undergoing or achieving a personal Triumph of the Will. That is, we judge ourselves, and others, according to clear, rational, ideals and not according to our instincts, our desires, or even our own "individual will to power". This is why Myatt emphasis Honor, Loyalty, and Duty to the folk and Nature. These give us a higher, supra-personal, perspective while still based on the ideal of personal honor.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    2. "The concept of honour" : resting on the faith in "good society," in chivalrous basic traits, in the obligation continally to maintain poise. Essential: that one does not think one's life important
    Here there is difference, and proof of just how annoying Nietzsche can be. First, contra Nietzsche, one's life is important - as a nexus to the folk, to honor, to the Cosmic Being. Second, we can and have to argue here as to what Nietzsche really means about "one's life is not important" by refering to elsewhere where he states, implicit or otherwise, that it is - qv. his will to power for a start. Third, even admitting for translation, we have undefined, in this passage, terms like "one does not think". What is thinking (to mis-quote Heidegger)? And so on. Fourth, what is meant by "society" and "good society"? Again, we have to assume, or deduce from other places. What is chivalry?

    I argue that in contrast Myatt is quite clear, precise - even simple and simplistic sometimes. Honor he defines by reference to a Code of Honor, which he gives. There is no vagueness. It does not involve "society" - only loyalty, duty to the folk and Nature, both of which are defined.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei

    4. "It is richness in personality, abundance in oneself, overflowing and bestowing, instinctive good health and affirmation of oneself, that produce great sacrifice and great love: it is strong and godlike selfhood
    Contrast this with the "one does not think one's life is important...." quoted above.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    from which these affects grow, just as surely as did the desire to become master, encroachment, the inner certainty of having a right to everything. What according to common ideas
    What are "common ideas"? What does "master" mean? Here again we have one of Nietzsche's recurring themes - master and common, which are pejorative terms, hardly in accord with the basic concept of true personal honor. As often, there appears - please note, appears - to be something of a contradiction in Nietzsche. he wants it both ways - a master-morality, the herd which the master "rules over" and rises above; and yet, he sometimes, as in your quote about honor, seems to sense the real meaniong of honor itself. Plus, of course, a great contempt for "the herd".

    In contrast, there is in Myatt a genuine socialism - a desire to raise the people, "the massess", up; to evolve them through honorable guidance and idealism. Myatt accepts as a fundamental principle that the vast majority of people have the potential to change, to evolve.

    This, from Myatt:

    "Why do I admire - why have I steadfastly admired, for thirty-five years - National-Socialist Germany? Because I found, and find, in it an intimation of beauty - a desire to bring beauty, joy, back into the lives of ordinary people; a desire to raise them up from the ugly. And what was wonderful, inspiring, remarkable was that this was done within the confines, within the constraints, of a modern nation with its cities, towns, industries: and that it involved all of the people, not a minority, not an elite. National-Socialism was a means whereby the beautiful could be felt and known - a means whereby beauty was once again presenced in the lives of ordinary people. A means whereby a connexion was made to those things which can and do elevate and evolve us, and which thus create an inner beauty. This is the simple, profound, beautiful message of National-Socialism."


    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    5. "The rotted ruling classes have ruined the image of the ruler. The "state" as a court of law is a piece of cowardice, because the great human being is lacking to provide a standard of measurement." [Will to Power, 750]
    Ruler, and the ruled... the great human being. Here are other recurring themes in Nietzsche, which point once again to a division within humanity.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    12. "Duel. It can be said in favor of all duels and affairs of honor, that if a man is so sensitive as not to want to live if so-and-so said or thought this-and-that about him, then he has a right to let the matter be settled by the death of one man or the other. We cannot argue about his being so sensitive; in that regard we are the heirs of the past, its greatness as well as its excesses, without which there can never be any greatness. Now, if a canon of honor exists that allows blood to take the place of death, so that the heart is relieved after a duel according to the rules, then this is a great blessing, because otherwise many human lives would be in danger.
    Such an institution, by the way, educates men to be cautious in their remarks, and makes associating with them possible." [Human, All Too Human, 365]

    Yes, indeed - but not in his view as the basic, the only, law, of society. Myatt in contrast insists that all the implications of honor - of which the duel is one - are applied to all, to society, and form the basis of all laws.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    13. "Punishable, never punished. Our crime against criminals is that we treat them like scoundrels." [HH, 66]
    Again, who is a "criminal"? How is crime defined? Who makes the law and why? Myatt gives clear simple answers - there are, and should be, only honorable and dishonorable deeds. That is, there should be no such thing as "crime" and thus no "criminals" - only honorable or dishonorable people.

    Once again, Nietzsche has part of the insight - but only part, and not very clear.

    Kudos to Myatt surely for making a clear, practical, unambiguous system.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei

    14. "Justice as a party's lure. Noble (if not exactly very insightful) representatives of the ruling class may well vow to treat people as equals, and grant them equal rights. To that extent, a socialistic way of thought, based on justice, is possible; but, as we said, only within the ruling class, which in this case practices justice by its sacrifices and renunciations. On the other hand, to demand equality of rights, as do the socialists of the subjugated caste, never results from justice but rather covetousness.
    If one shows the beast bloody pieces of meat close by, and then draws them away again until it finally roars, do you think this roar means justice?" [HH, 451]
    Quite insightful analysis - but the solution? The clear, simple, human and honorable solution? Again, Myatt verses Nietzsche. The simple - I would venture to even say vis-a-vis his The Numinous Way of Folk Culture - the gentle, tolerant, evolutionary and very human solution of Myatt, applicable to all, in contrast to the rather forceful often ambiguous solution of Nietzsche, applicable at best to some.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei

    16. ""Man always acts for the good." We don't accuse nature of immorality when it sends us a thunderstorm, and makes us wet: why do we call the injurious man immoral? Because in the first case, we assume necessity, and in the second a voluntarily governing free will. But this distinction is in error. Furthermore, even intentional injury is not called immoral in all circumstances: without hesitating, we intentionally kill a gnat, for example, simply because we do not like its buzz; we intentionally punish the criminal and do him harm, to protect ourselves and society. In the first case it is the individual who does harm intentionally, for self-preservation or simply to avoid discomfort; in the second case the state does the harm. All morality allows the intentional infliction of harm for self-defense; that is, when it is a matter of self-preservation!" [HH, 102]

    Here we see the limits of Nietzsche again. What is "immoral"? What is "criminal"? What is "society"? And so on.

    But the greatest error is in the last sentence. Honor, correctly defined, is very different. It is not self-preservation - it is honor. Self-preservation often belongs to the coward, the person of dishonor, and often leads to a person being dishonorable to "save themselves".

    The problem is, Nietzsche here as so often expresses a partial insight without clearly using a clear standard to judge all what he is discussing, as is evident in his use of the term "criminal" for instance.

    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    18. "History teaches us that that part of a people maintains itself best whose members generally share a vital public spirit, due to the similarity of their long-standing, incontrovertible principles, that is, of their common faith. In their case, good, sound custom strengthens them; they are taught to subordinate the individual, and their character is given solidity, at first innately and later through education. ...
    This seems to assume some type of organized State which the individual must somehow to subserviant to. Again, lack of clearness; lack of a moral principle which is applied absolutely.



    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    I agree Nietzsche was not too explicit about all these things,
    Which is to Nietzsche's disadvantage. Without clearly defining things; without certain principles clearly stated and applied in all instances, there is no complete Way of Life - just, perhaps, a "philosophy".

    This, for me is the crux. Myatt presents a Way of Life; Nietzsche, a "philosophy".


    Quote Originally Posted by Aethrei
    but what Myatt says is there in him.

    I disagree. Certain things may be prefigured in Nietzsche - but not much. The differences are great, especially in relation to the individual and The State - in applying honor; in relation to the potential of the individual; in relation of the individual to Nature and the Cosmos beyond. In relation to the folk, Nature, as living beings - beings which are defined in a rational, easily udnerstandable way, via the concept of the acausal.

    As I said above - Myatt presents a Way of Life; Nietzsche presents a philosophy. Or may be I should be more precise, and say Myatt presents two Ways of Life - his The Numinous Way, of Folk Culture, and his new evolutionary vision of National-Socialism.

    In respect of the relation between these two new Ways, he says:

    "The Numinous Way is the esoteric essence, the inner meaning, of National-Socialism - what National-Socialism is evolving to become and should become, given the ethic of honour. Or, expressed another way, National-Socialism is a more causal manifestation of the acausal apprehension that The Numinous Way manifests. Or, in another, older and less accurate terminology, these are expressions of Lightning, and Sun. As we evolve, we travel toward the acausal aspect, but while the peoples of the world remain as they often are - often ignoble, dishonourable, in ignorance of the truths of The Numinous Way - and while tyranny and oppression exist, there will be a need for a more causal manifestation to redress the balance and begin the process of change, of evolution, toward the numinous..." (From: In Pursuit of the Numinous)

  7. #7
    Senior Member Aethrei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, February 16th, 2005 @ 05:40 AM
    Subrace
    Other
    Gender
    Occupation
    Explorer
    Politics
    Caesareanism / Euronazi
    Posts
    44
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Nietzsche and Myatt

    Quote Originally Posted by Rhadley
    For Myatt, honor, ethics and so on are a means
    whereby we control ourselves using our will and reason
    - undergoing or achieving a personal Triumph of the
    Will. That is, we judge ourselves, and others,
    according to clear, rational, ideals and not according
    to our instincts, our desires, or even our own
    "individual will to power".
    Nietzsche addresses this too, and Myatt would be in
    agreement according to what you say; he says,

    ""Should one follow one's feelings?" - That one should
    put one's life in danger, yielding to a generous
    feeling and under the impulse of a moment, that is of
    little value and does not even characterize one. ...A
    higher stage is: to overcome even this pressure within
    us and to perform a heroic act not on impulse - but
    coldly, raisonnable, without being overwhelmed by
    stormy feelings of pleasure... Blind indulgence of an
    affect, totally regardless of whether it be a generous
    and compassionate or a hostile affect, is the cause of
    the greatest evils. Greatness of character does not
    consist in not possessing these affects - on the
    contrary, one possesses them to the highest degree -
    but in having them under control." [Will to Power,
    928]

    He states this again - "To create control and
    certainity in regard to one's strgenth of will through
    asceticism of every kind." [Will to Power, 921]

    proof of just how annoying Nietzsche can be
    That is a bit unfair; Nietzsche was working under severe strains of the eye and general illness.
    I have a tremendous respect for his views and owe him much for opening up a route to a solid and noble and what I believe - an enduring Aryan philosophy.

    First, contra Nietzsche, one's life is important -
    as a nexus to the folk, to honor, to the Cosmic Being.
    No, you see, 'because' one's life is important as you
    say as a nexus to the folk and the whole chain of
    generations, one does not think one's life important -
    in the sense, individuality does not take a priority
    before the good of the Volk community.
    Because the whole is important, Nietzsche says, the
    part must not lord it over the good of the society.
    Tradition is upheld over selfish Individualism.

    Third, even admitting for translation, we have
    undefined, in this passage
    Unless Nietzsche thinks something needs to be
    revalued, he usually leaves terms and notions
    undefined - these are then to be taken in the usual
    sense. Chivalry, honour, etc. are understood in the
    sense of magnanimity of character, in terms of Noble
    taste, honourable views, deeds that confer honour upon
    others and upon oneself, with the sentiment that one
    acts on behalf of all of one's ancestors or race or
    nation. To belittle difference in others and differing
    ways of life is a slight on their generosity and
    tolerance - this is considered dishonourable.

    I argue that in contrast Myatt is quite clear,
    precise - even simple and simplistic sometimes.
    I agree with this. I never meant to say Nietzsche was
    like this as well; just that Myatt's views on Honour
    and Beauty and Traditional-feeling was there in
    Nietzsche.

    There is no vagueness.
    Nietzsche is not vague either; its just that he is
    speaking to fellow free-spirits, and future
    philosophers.

    What does "master" mean?
    It means a man who has all his conflicting instinctual
    drives within him under control and in a certain order
    of rank, so that, one sees his taste is noble,
    cultured; he is a man of honour, affirms
    life-promoting values; he is profound and
    vast-hearted; he is generous, self-reverent, and is
    loyal to his own code of ethics that he has assigned
    to himself. Nietzsche writes something on the matter
    here that is comparable both with Myatt and the old
    Anglo-Saxon/Nordic/Homeric tradition - the idea of
    hospitality :

    "There is a noble and dangerous carelessness... the
    carelessness of the self-assured and overrich soul
    that has never troubled about friends but knows only
    hospitality, and practices, and knows how to practice,
    only hospitality - heart and home open to anyone who
    cares to enter, whether beggar or cripple or king.
    This is genuine geniality..." [Will to Power, 939]

    Here again we have one of Nietzsche's recurring
    themes - master and common, which are pejorative
    terms, hardly in accord with the basic concept of true
    personal honor.
    Not right. Nietzsche is being very honourable in my
    view in stating that each one of us must be true to
    our own natures. Self-honesty is a virtue. Nietzsche
    is actually being just as compassionate as Hitler was
    in showing that most people cannot handle the burden
    of this life, and so it must be the task of the few to
    bear responsibility to uplift this community as a
    whole by giving them direction, by freeing them to
    pursue their way of life and happiness. His philosophy
    therefore, is about (among other things) how best to
    allign these moralities of the few and the many so
    that the outcome is most fruitful, and life as a whole
    ascends, is improved, is justified.
    "Never to conclude "what is right for one is fair for
    another"" [Will to Power, 921]

    Myatt accepts as a fundamental principle that the
    vast majority of people have the potential to change,
    to evolve.
    So does Nietzsche; but he points out that the
    people/humanity lack a common aim, and this is to be
    shaped and provided by noble leaders and visionaries
    honourably. The leader acknowledges and feels the full
    power of his people in him, and bears the
    responsibility to give them expression.

    Ruler, and the ruled... the great human being. Here
    are other recurring themes in Nietzsche, which point
    once again to a division within humanity.
    Not really; this is the same leadership principle in
    Myatt as well.

    Myatt in contrast insists that all the implications
    of honor - of which the duel is one - are applied to
    all, to society, and form the basis of all laws.
    Thanks for clarifying that.

    Again, who is a "criminal"?
    Nietzsche distinguishing the petty criminal from the
    great one offers the following perspectives :

    "Perspective of evaluation:

    Influence of the quantity (great, small) of the aim.
    Influence of the spirituality of the means.
    Influence of manners during the act.
    Influence of success or failure.
    Influence of the opposing forces and their value.
    Influence of that which is permitted and forbidden."
    [Will to Power, 779]

    How is crime defined?
    Nietzsche defines it thus:
    "Crime belongs to the concept "revolt against the
    social order."" [Will to Power, 740]

    Who makes the law and why?
    Law is made by those few creative artist-type
    individuals whose inherent morality is that of a
    law-giver. They are "commanders" who say - "Thus it
    shall be!".
    "They alone determine the "whither" and the
    "wherefore" [Will to Power, 972].
    Why? Because the collective consciousness of strength
    and reverence is greatest in them.
    And because they are clear, confident and certain
    about the "why" of their lives.

    That is, there should be no such thing as "crime"
    and thus no "criminals" - only honorable or
    dishonorable people.
    Exactly; Nietzsche sees no criminal as such either,
    only "good" (honourable) or "bad" (dishonourable) - he
    rejects the Semitic mentality of good and evil with
    its concept of sin and guilt and upholds the Aryan
    view.

    Kudos to Myatt surely for making a clear, practical,
    unambiguous system.
    I'll second you on that.

    in contrast to the rather forceful often ambiguous
    solution of Nietzsche, applicable at best to some.
    Nietzsche says if everyone waited for the majority of
    the people to first agree on something, nothing would
    be accomplished. Sometimes, the visionary must take
    risk to set aims and tasks for them before their unity
    itself disintegrates. This is not hybris but to lead
    means to take responsibility for the whole.

    But the greatest error is in the last sentence.
    Honor, correctly defined, is very different. It is not
    self-preservation
    Nietzsche's foundation of the concept of Honour is
    simple; it is self-reverence. That self is the
    individual self as well as self as part of a certain
    race/community, as well as self as Being -
    "I wish men would begin by respecting themselves:
    everything else follows from that. ...This is
    something different from the blind drive to love
    oneself." [Will to Power, 919]
    Here, self-preservation is not meant in the crude
    Darwinian/Jewish/pure-Materialist sense of preserving
    oneself, but in the sense of upholding and maintaining
    one's self-respect. Defending one's way of being.

    This seems to assume some type of organized State
    which the individual must somehow to subserviant to.
    Nietzsche's soldier language! Subordination of the
    individual = affirming one's place in the whole, as
    part of the whole. The natural organic law of
    Hierarchy, and knowing when to command and when to
    obey before this law.

    lack of a moral principle which is applied
    absolutely.
    That's true, because Nietzsche belives in
    perspectivism.

    Which is to Nietzsche's disadvantage. Without
    clearly defining things; without certain principles
    clearly stated and applied in all instances, there is
    no complete Way of Life - just, perhaps, a
    "philosophy".
    Well, Nietzsche says become who you are -
    he does not think it right to coerce one truth for
    all. Everyone is an expression of their moralities and
    their will to power, but this does not mean there
    cannot be an overarching unity - an Aryan way of life
    is possible through the natural law of hierarchy and
    rank-ordering. This confers a coordinated unity and stability to the
    whole.

    As I said above - Myatt presents a Way of Life;
    Nietzsche presents a philosophy.
    I would rather say, while Nietzsche presents N-S TO the Few,
    Myatt presents N-S FOR the People; i.e. Nietzsche
    addressed his works to the Few so that they could be
    trusted with the task of giving a noble and honourable
    direction. Myatt speaks to the Volk as a whole and
    sees his task as the awakening of these people, to
    evoke their self-reflection that they may value our
    Aryan path - the Numinous way as you say. Both
    emphasize importance on Nature and the Natural way of
    being - this I cannot help but see in them both.

    When Myatt writes, "National-Socialism was a means
    whereby the beautiful could be felt and known - a
    means whereby beauty was once again presenced in the
    lives of ordinary people.", I see this sentiment in
    Nietzsche's expression, Apollonianism of the Dionysian
    will [in Will to Power, 1050], where beauty is
    presenced and won by struggle, through bravery and
    courage and will, a certain warrior way of life -
    beauty is victoriously brought into presence by
    honourable/noble conquest; Nietzsche says Beauty is
    not something that is just given, one feels it alive
    because one has willed it.

    I did not mean to push Nietzsche at the expense of
    Myatt; it only seemed natural to point out
    that all Aryanists and Nazis place Honour, Tradition,
    Nobility and Justice at the core of their values. That
    these 'necessarily' always happen to be the foundation
    of their works.
    I must however make clear that I see the fact while
    Myatt entertains Anarchism [in the other post on the Numinous], Nietzsche specifically does not.

    Heil Wotan!
    Last edited by Moody; Monday, November 20th, 2006 at 12:55 PM. Reason: added quote marks

  8. #8
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

    I would say that Myatt's emphasis on Honour is actually a SHIFT for N-S, where hitherto BLOOD came first;
    Blood AND Honour.
    Or else Blood and Soil.

    Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th century was the Blood Mythos.

    Myatt shifts the emphasis; the Myth of the 21st century is the Honour Mythos.

    Blood remains, but Honour becomes the most important element.

    There is a shift from the biological to the ethical - and here is the connection with Nietzsche.
    Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values' is essentially an ethical campaign. The re-valuation entails the recurrence of Aryan values; the very values that Myatt explores.

    This is why Myatt is important to us NOW.

    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  9. #9
    Senior Member rhadley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Last Online
    Wednesday, March 30th, 2005 @ 05:46 AM
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Gender
    Age
    42
    Politics
    National Socialism
    Posts
    174
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Post Re: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

    Quote Originally Posted by Moody Lawless
    I would say that Myatt's emphasis on Honour is actually a SHIFT for N-S, where hitherto BLOOD came first;
    Blood AND Honour.
    Or else Blood and Soil.

    Rosenberg's Myth of the 20th century was the Blood Mythos.

    Myatt shifts the emphasis; the Myth of the 21st century is the Honour Mythos.

    Blood remains, but Honour becomes the most important element.

    There is a shift from the biological to the ethical - and here is the connection with Nietzsche.
    Nietzsche's 'transvaluation of all values' is essentially an ethical campaign. The re-valuation entails the recurrence of Aryan values; the very values that Myatt explores.

    This is why Myatt is important to us NOW.
    I agree. Of NS and honor, Myatt writes:

    "I have made the ethic of honour, and the laws based upon honour, the foundation of The Numinous Way, the Warrior Way, and thus of National-Socialism itself. This honour was already implicit in both the Warrior Way and National-Socialism, but I have been able to consciously express it, to refine it, to state in words which cannot be misunderstood what such honour means and implies for individuals, for communities and for civilization itself. That is, I have made conscious what was hitherto mostly instinctive, and I believe this is of great importance for our future evolution." (In Pursuit of the Numinous)

    What has hitherto not been very well understood in respect of National-Socialism, is that it is not race which defines our humanity - it is honour and reason. Race is our relation to Nature: how Nature is expressed, is manifest, in us. As such race is important and indeed vital; but so is honour. It is the combination of an acceptance of both race and honour which is National-Socialism. An affirmation of race without an affirmation honour is not National-Socialism, just as an affirmation of honour without an affirmation of race is not National-Socialism. It is this living, organic, dialectic of honour and race which defines National-Socialism itself....(From: Esoteric Hitlerism)

  10. #10
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 09:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts

    Post Re: What Is Noble? - Nietzsche vs. Myatt

    This is a very exciting departure, and gives a direction to those who may seem at a loss where to take nationalist philosophy.

    As Myatt says, Race is our relation to Nature ... BUT, Honour is our relation to the Human, or rather the Overhuman.
    We have grappled with these notions on other threads which may be worth re-reading;

    Might Is Right?
    http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=5488

    Philosophy of the 'Human?'
    http://www.forums.skadi.net/showthread.php?t=7219

    Here the notion of an Aryan ethics is discussed. I do not believe that the stand-by of a 'might is right' ethics is sufficient for this next ethical stage. We need a a far more nuanced revaluation.


    Last edited by Moody; Wednesday, December 6th, 2006 at 12:29 PM. Reason: removed dead link
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. David Myatt and Islam: An Unusual Story
    By rhadley in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: Friday, August 6th, 2004, 05:40 AM
  2. Why We Must Return to the Land [Myatt]
    By Taras Bulba in forum Political Theory
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Friday, January 30th, 2004, 11:46 PM
  3. Honour Creates Beauty [Myatt]
    By rhadley in forum Philosophy
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Friday, December 26th, 2003, 01:10 PM
  4. Replies: 13
    Last Post: Thursday, November 20th, 2003, 11:44 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •