Nietzsche As Biological Visionary?

[CarbAppreciator]

"RP's SCIENTIFIC articles are awesome, but when he starts getting all philosophical and flowery, its a big turnoff. WTF does that ^ even mean? Whether you agree with Nietzsche or not, at least nietzsche is offering something digestable".

Going by your above quote and posts in this thread I think you have comprehension issues with anything that does not suit your current paradigm,your paradigm deciding what is digestible,it's like bringing somebody who loves pufa laden fast food to a gourmet restaurant where they tend to use more saturated fat and said obese fast food lover claiming the gourmet food is not digestible therefore it's pretentious and crap and Ronald McDonald is the real culinary genius.

(Currently administering ice for that burn)
You may be flattered that when i see a drareg post, an image conjures in my mind of a blue skinned budha floating three feet above the ground in a lotus position typing on a keyboard and sipping fair trade coffee.
Now, if that image is accurate, then as an all knowing deity, there must be more to your argument than "drareg's philosophy is gourmet food" so for us who cannot access your ultimate truth through telepathy, please elaborate.

 

[jaguar43]

Some people posting here seem to believe that Ray holds Nietzsche in contempt, but that isn't quite right. I've asked him about Nietzsche before, and specifically about Nietzsche's criticism of Darwin's theory of evolution (i.e.,that Darwin "forgot intelligence"). This was the relevant portion of his reply:

"Nietzsche got some things right, when he deviated a little from his commitment to Schopenhauer's "world as will and representation." Schopenhauer's Kantian taint is background for Nietzsche. Schopenhauer knew Goethe, and worked with him on color theory, but went in the direction of subjective idealism when he departed from Goethe's understanding of color as objective.
By making Will the ultimate reality, outside of time, they lost the possibilities of a real physiology of knowledge, since time, change, and development through interaction are essential aspects of realism. Aristotle, De la Mettrie, Lamarck and Goethe were framing things in an open way, that I think was generally lost in the mainstream 19th century culture, and subsequently, because of the interaction of the various philosophical idealisms with authoritarianism. (Bob Altemeyer's The Authoritarians is available free on the internet.) The idea of creation was confused with subjectivism and self assertion, because the Will/Self was hypostatized. Wilhelm Reich and Lenin recovered some of the vital realist attitude, in which the self develops and discovers by observing and participating in the complex involvements of reality. Nietzsche didn't see that biology and culture can interact constructively, expansively, but more by assimilation than by assertion. If the idea "He instinctively gathers his totality from everything he sees, hears, and experiences" had been generalized in different ways, it could have contributed to contemporary culture. The criticism of Darwin was right; Samuel Butler represented the Lamarckian view, that intelligence guides evolution. I think what Nietzsche missed was that assertion, displacing receptive perception, is the recurrent cause of "lowness." " - Ray Peat, Jan 2014

He clearly perceives some portion of Nietzsche's work as insightful and poignant, even if misguided or ill-founded in other aspects. He seems a lot more dissatisfied with Plato, Kant, Berkeley, etc. From the same email:

"Heraclitus, Aristotle, Blake, Lamarck, Goethe, Samuel Butler, Vernadsky, Lenin, Kropotkin, J.C. Bose, Albert Schweitzer, Maurice Merleau-Ponty are people that I think succeeded pretty well in avoiding misrepresentation of reality. Examples of toxic misrepresentation of reality are Plato, Berkeley, Hegel, Kant, and all the varieties of neo-kantians, including most US and European academics in all fields."

Nietzsche also held Heraclitus, Aristotle, and Goethe in high esteem, and plainly disliked Kant and Plato. I think Ray and Nietzsche have some important things in common, even if a superficial reading of their works might suggest otherwise. Labeling Nietzsche a "psychopath" with nothing of value to offer but "might is right" is incredibly ignorant. He was a brilliant man, even if he went off-kilter in his more manic moments.

Ray Peat is trying to disagree kindly while being humble at the same time. The email is a more in depth version of the quote I posted previously. I think their are fundamental differences between what Ray Peat prescribes too and what Nietzsche promotes. This is the difference in my opinion.


But thanks for the quote. It's nice for him to list philosophers who he thinks were on the right track.

 

[Pointless]

I think it's always good to view Nietzsche as a male who could not attract his desired sexual partners ,his outlook is driven by this imo.

I used to be a loser, getting syphilis from hookers, but now I can have all the women I want, using my patented seduction method! Buy my e-book "Zero to Sexy: Nietzsche's Seduction Method" for $49.99!

 

[Such_Saturation]

I give this another 5 pages before it's about anarcho-capitalism and pick up artist ebooks

 

[DaveFoster]

From CaseyL's reply, it sounds like Peat, echoing Samuel Butler, argues that "intelligence guides evolution," while Nietzsche would argue that "intelligence is the result of evolution, which is triggered by application of intent intent."

Confusions of causality and the root of deterministic mechanisms surafce here.

Both are somewhat confounding, as Darwin proposes a randomized accumulation of traits, with intelligence as a by-product.

I think there's increasing awareness of the reality of intelligence within matter itself, as well as memory.

@Such_Saturation

 

[jaguar43]

Interesting. See this is where I think Ray misunderstands Nietzsche- "By making Will the ultimate reality, outside of time, they lost the possibilities of a real physiology of knowledge, since time, change, and development through interaction are essential aspects of realism."

This isn't true. Nietzsches concept of time was more or less completely inherited from Heraclitus. Time, change, and development were essential aspects of Nietzsches philosophy just as they were essential aspects of Heraclitus' philosophy. This lies in Nietzsches concept of "becoming" rather than "being" as ultimate reality.

Regardless of what Nietzsche thought of time, he never incorporated it into his idea of "will' or his other concepts. That is the difference.

"I retained some doubt in the case of Heraclitus, in whose proximity I feel warmer and better than anywhere else. The affirmation of passing away and destroying, which is the decisive feature of a Dionysian philosophy; saying yes to opposition and war; becoming, along with the repudiation of the very concept of being —all this is clearly more closely related to me than anything else thought to date." -Nietzsche (Ecce Homo)

Again, this quote doesn't mean much because he doesn't incorporate any of those things Peat talked about into his concept and theories.

"German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche wrote that Heraclitus "will remain eternally right with his assertion that being is an empty fiction".[3] Nietzsche developed the vision of a chaotic world in perpetual change and becoming. The state of becoming does not produce fixed entities, such as being, subject, object, substance, thing. These false concepts are the necessary mistakes which consciousness and language employ in order to interpret the chaos of the state of becoming. The mistake of Greek philosophers was to falsify the testimony of the senses and negate the evidence of the state of becoming. By postulating being as the underlying reality of the world, they constructed a comfortable and reassuring "after-world" where the horror of the process of becoming was forgotten, and the empty abstractions of reason appeared as eternal entities."

I think you are misrepresenting Nietzsche to try to prove your argument that he is compatibility with Peat. It becomes more important to prove your point than to try to represent Nietzsche correctly.

People are reading way to much into the concept of the "will". Just like the "will to live" and the "struggle for existence" implies that life was this harding force that only the strong survive and the weak parish. So as the "will" from Nietzsche means that driving force of life was to reach the highest possible stage which was the Übermensch.

Ray Peat doesn't really subscribe to that ideology. If life was this harding force that entailed the "will" to arise then evolution would have never taken place. Because the higher stages of evolution preside with the need of a more stable and energy-required environment to meet the needs of the upward evolution. The organism assumes a certain environment for it's needs and requirements. But adapts to new environments.

Yes and Nietzsche was also a fan of Lamarck and disliked Hegel I believe. Literally every philosopher Ray listed as having an accurate view of reality- Nietzsche was in agreement with... the ones who existed in/before Nietzsches time anyway.

Nietzsche was not a proponent of lamarack's inheritance of acquired characteristics. He reference lamarck because it suited his "will to power" concept that the organism "wills" it power over the environment to meet it's need. This was a good way to promote his ideas while changing the definition of lamarackism.

 

[jaguar43]

So how does Ray as an Aristotlean come to know reality without assertiveness? It seems to me that a scientist needs willpower and assertiveness as a prerequisite to study reality... I wonder what Ray's opinion is of Ayn Rand, I couldn't find anything he said about her. If anyone has anything, please post.

I don't know what he thinks about Ayn Rand but here is a quote about libertarianism.

"I keep thinking about doing a newsletter about fructose, but I think the ideology behind the hatred of fructose is the real issue. The typical internet libertarian ideology thinks the killer ape doctrine of Konrad Lorenz, Robert Ardrey, and Desmond Morris is the essence of anthropology. For most of these people, hunter-gatherers were just hunters who found some seeds occasionally."

Ray Peat Email Advice Depository

 

[Amazoniac]

I think Ray Peats views on sexuality and the importance of it are getting under the skin of many young males who may be currently getting rejected sexually and are using intellectual reductionism as a method of expressing energy,the energy is frustration with society not giving them what they want,Nietzsche perfect for sounding smart while expressing rage while slowly tip toeing to psychopathology.

Is this Nietzsches fault? Possibly not as I believe he was mocking people with the will to power as a pointed out in the other thread on this concept which is not his in origin,he wanted a different system to Christianity which was getting power over everything at the time based on faith, nierzsches will to power has you take him with faith.
It's probably similar with many other of his writing,perhaps keeping satire at the back of your mind when reading him might be better.

Guru, I agree with a lot of things that you wrote, but coming from a bad place doesn't necessarily rotten (edit: I was going to fix it, but let's leave it like that because it's just so artistic..) your views. And you could say the same thing about many, many smart philosophers, mathematicians, physicists, artists, and so on. To be fair, those that don't have something, tend to be more apt at describing and elaborating on it than those that have; because in the majority of cases that you always had something (be it joy, money, women, cigars, cassinos, purple hat with a feather on it held by a zebra-patterned stripe), you take it for granted, whereas if you were deprived of that, you are more likely to try develop interest on it and dissect the thing.
When supercentenarians are asked what's their secret to longevity, in general is something really vague, along the lines of "you just got to do it and believe it", and they usually include their occasional treat on that answer "and a piece of chocolate a day".
Going back to that same quote posted previously here: you won't put much effort in understanding something if everything is going smoothly and you already have what you want/need..
Some people that are debilitated are not advised to be taken care of by relatives, because the person, feeling more comfortable and relaxed, just gives up and intuitively knows that in the worst case scenario, the family is there and will take care of them.

 

[Tarmander]

From CaseyL's reply, it sounds like Peat, echoing Samuel Butler, argues that "intelligence guides evolution," while Nietzsche would argue that "intelligence is the result of evolution, which is triggered by application of intent intent."

Confusions of causality and the root of deterministic mechanisms surafce here.

Both are somewhat confounding, as Darwin proposes a randomized accumulation of traits, with intelligence as a by-product.

I think there's increasing awareness of the reality of intelligence within matter itself, as well as memory.

@Such_Saturation

Ha Dave, do you listen to Stefan? He seems like the exact opposite of an environmental determinist.

 

[Regina]

I used to be a loser, getting syphilis from hookers, but now I can have all the women I want, using my patented seduction method! Buy my e-book "Zero to Sexy: Nietzsche's Seduction Method" for $49.99!

 

[Dopamine]

Regardless of what Nietzsche thought of time, he never incorporated it into his idea of "will' or his other concepts. That is the difference.

Yes he did and I know you haven't read him. He dealt extensively with time.

I think you are misrepresenting Nietzsche to try to prove your argument that he is compatibility with Peat. It becomes more important to prove your point than to try to represent Nietzsche correctly.

You are trying desperately to prove your argument that they are incompatible. I provided a clear rebuttal of Peats misguided views on Nietzsche and you ignored the evidence. Unlike you I have read both Peat and Nietzsche extensively. My view is not biased because I appreciate the work of both equally. Peat listed Heraclitus and others as having accurate views of reality- Nietzsche is literally in agreement with all of them and his views on time are derived from Heraclitus. Nietzsches views on biology/metabolism/helplessness etc fit into Peats biological paradigm. That is my opinion, I don't care if you agree with me.

People are reading way to much into the concept of the "will". Just like the "will to live" and the "struggle for existence" implies that life was this harding force that only the strong survive and the weak parish. So as the "will" from Nietzsche means that driving force of life was to reach the highest possible stage which was the Übermensch.

Nietzsche did not think "will to live" was what drove life so I agree with you on that.

Ubermensch means over-man which was created through Nietzsches concept of Uberwindung (translates roughly to self- overcoming or self mastery)
The "self" in Nietzsches system is the body:
"it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body."
So essentially mastering the body.

How do you master the body? It is the idea of manipulating nutrition, environment etc... (what we do everyday on this forum) to reach ever higher levels of physical development and health. Goethe was Nietzsches example of someone he believed was closest to his idea of Ubermensch. Goethe was an artist and natural scientist like Ray Peat. Nietzsche read every biology text he could find in his mid-life. This is why his later books (Ecce Homo, Will to Power) read more like biology texts then philosophy texts. He talks about metabolism, nutrition, biology, cells, etc extensively. It is obvious that he was aiming at a sort of unified biological/psychological theory.

"Put briefly: perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it ·is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations in the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be overcome."

 

[Dopamine]

I used to be a loser, getting syphilis from hookers, but now I can have all the women I want, using my patented seduction method! Buy my e-book "Zero to Sexy: Nietzsche's Seduction Method" for $49.99!

The key is having a giant cartoonish mustache.

 

[Regina]

Yes he did and I know you haven't read him. He dealt extensively with time.



You are trying desperately to prove your argument that they are incompatible. I provided a clear rebuttal of Peats misguided views on Nietzsche and you ignored the evidence. Unlike you I have read both Peat and Nietzsche extensively. My view is not biased because I appreciate the work of both equally. Peat listed Heraclitus and others as having accurate views of reality- Nietzsche is literally in agreement with all of them and his views on time are derived from Heraclitus. Nietzsches views on biology/metabolism/helplessness etc fit into Peats biological paradigm. That is my opinion, I don't care if you agree with me.



Nietzsche did not think "will to live" was what drove life so I agree with you on that.

Ubermensch means over-man which was created through Nietzsches concept of Uberwindung (translates roughly to self- overcoming or self mastery)
The "self" in Nietzsches system is the body:
"it is called Self; it dwelleth in thy body, it is thy body."
So essentially mastering the body.

How do you master the body? It is the idea of manipulating nutrition, environment etc... (what we do everyday on this forum) to reach ever higher levels of physical development and health. Goethe was Nietzsches example of someone he believed was closest to his idea of Ubermensch. Goethe was an artist and natural scientist like Ray Peat. Nietzsche read every biology text he could find in his mid-life. This is why his later books (Ecce Homo, Will to Power) read more like biology texts then philosophy texts. He talks about metabolism, nutrition, biology, cells, etc extensively. It is obvious that he was aiming at a sort of unified biological/psychological theory.

"Put briefly: perhaps the entire evolution of the spirit is a question of the body; it ·is the history of the development of a higher body that emerges into our sensibility. The organic is rising to yet higher levels. Our lust for knowledge of nature is a means through which the body desires to perfect itself. Or rather: hundreds of thousands of experiments are made to change the nourishment, the mode of living and of dwelling of the body; consciousness and evaluations in the body, all kinds of pleasure and displeasure, are signs of these changes and experiments. In the long run, it is not a question of man at all: he is to be overcome."

 

[DaveFoster]

Ha Dave, do you listen to Stefan? He seems like the exact opposite of an environmental determinist.

I do on occasion; he's not so much an environmental determinism in the common use of the word, but he is a genetic determinist. I would specify his stance as epigenetic determinism:

He believes patterns for human behavior to largely be determined during childhood, based on exposures such as the love and presence of both parents. He's a huge fan of "peaceful parenting," which is an argument to raise kids without violence (spanking or hitting,) and with plenty of care and attention; he views this to be the most practical way to avoid problems such as sociopathy, crime, and authoritarian justification. He bases this view on quite a bit of evidence, books, and interviews he has conducted.

There exists a strong correlation between stress early in life and various problems of mental illness, aggression, and schizophrenia later on, which Peat has mentioned as well.

 

[Tarmander]

I do on occasion; he's not so much an environmental determinism in the common use of the word, but he is a genetic determinist. I would specify his stance as epigenetic determinism:

He believes patterns for human behavior to largely be determined during childhood, based on exposures such as the love and presence of both parents. He's a huge fan of "peaceful parenting," which is an argument to raise kids without violence (spanking or hitting,) and with plenty of care and attention; he views this to be the most practical way to avoid problems such as sociopathy, crime, and authoritarian justification. He bases this view on quite a bit of evidence, books, and interviews he has conducted.

There exists a strong correlation between stress early in life and various problems of mental illness, aggression, and schizophrenia later on, which Peat has mentioned as well.

Yeah I've watched his stuff on IQ which is very much in the genetic deterministic model. In other videos though he talks about the influence of trauma and breastfeeding on IQ so I think he has somewhat of a well rounded view. His early life childhood trauma stuff is very poignant, and I have gained quite a bit of value from it. Also, his strict adherence to speaking clearly and directly has helped quite a bit of my personal relationships. I am amazed sometimes when I ask what someone really means by some statement they made and it's the exact opposite of what I understood it to mean.

 

[DaveFoster]

Yeah I've watched his stuff on IQ which is very much in the genetic deterministic model. In other videos though he talks about the influence of trauma and breastfeeding on IQ so I think he has somewhat of a well rounded view. His early life childhood trauma stuff is very poignant, and I have gained quite a bit of value from it. Also, his strict adherence to speaking clearly and directly has helped quite a bit of my personal relationships. I am amazed sometimes when I ask what someone really means by some statement they made and it's the exact opposite of what I understood it to mean.

I think he's becoming more of a genetic determinist as time goes on; he still references Peaceful Parenting because it's more palatable to his audience, and he still believes that it a loving childhood maximized individual potential, but his "Truth About Crime" video recognizes the high degree of crime around certain groups in the United States, and he credits this to race.

I also like his childhood trauma info; I've suffered from some high-stress period in the past, which helps me understand my behavior in the present. And yes, most people speak without verifying what they're actually saying in relation to the other things they say; I guess it all makes sense in their head.

 

[Tarmander]

I think he's becoming more of a genetic determinist as time goes on; he still references Peaceful Parenting because it's more palatable to his audience, and he still believes that it a loving childhood maximized individual potential, but his "Truth About Crime" video recognizes the high degree of crime around certain groups in the United States, and he credits this to race.

I also like his childhood trauma info; I've suffered from some high-stress period in the past, which helps me understand my behavior in the present. And yes, most people speak without verifying what they're actually saying in relation to the other things they say; I guess it all makes sense in their head.

Yeah he has definitely solidified some of his race and genetic stuff. Maybe it's true who knows. He's right that it is very little studied so it's kind of in the dark.

I like his definition of love as the spontaneous response to virtue. That really clicked with me and why I've had some failed relationships. It also explains my desires of my parents growing up, which just was not clear to me. He makes a lot of things clear but there is always the risk with getting clarity that something will sneak in there that is authoritarian or dogmatic. The emotion of it can muddy things.

What do you think of his slavery stuff? The history of that kind of opened my eyes.

 

[CarbAppreciator]

Stefan is dope, surprised the feds haven't shut him down for illegal red pill manufacture, but yeah he is too rigid in his racial IQ view imo, if he were to just say something like "but science shows there can be massive changes to the genome in just a few generations given the right environment" then i would agree with his philosophy for the most part. But yeah free red pills available in his "the thruth about..." series on youtube for anyone interested.

 

[tyw]

Stefan is dope, surprised the feds haven't shut him down for illegal red pill manufacture, but yeah he is too rigid in his racial IQ view imo, if he were to just say something like "but science shows there can be massive changes to the genome in just a few generations given the right environment" then i would agree with his philosophy for the most part. But yeah free red pills available in his "the thruth about..." series on youtube for anyone interested.

I always took Stefan's take on IQ to be:

- It is a largely heritable trait, developed through some environmental pressures over time.

- How quickly an upward pressure on IQ can occur is unknown, but obviously does occur -- he cites the differences between population average native West African IQ, and African-American IQ.

- It is likely that early developmental issues can reduce IQ from one's maximum potential. He uses the height analogy, wherein malnutrition is going to reduce your maximum height, but good nutrition isn't going to push you past your genetic limit.

- He then claims something along the lines of regardless of whether it is genetic or cultural or other issue, we still don't know how to push up IQ drastically over a single person's lifetime.

....

 

[kondevantoni]

Regina, I love you more than..........gummy bears! But I got to know more about jagsomenumber`s Nietzschean ideology.