Does Nietzsche commit a 'Rapist's Fallacy'?

Post Reply New Topic

In reading the Genealogy of Morals, I'm trying to be very fair to Nietzsche in spite of some of the shocking and derogatory statements he makes in the book. In choosing to call it a 'fallacy,' I want to alert attention to a possible misuse of language involving the words 'happiness,' 'enjoy,' etc.

Nietzsche appears to use a motive-shifting device in which the victims of cruelty are said to desire their misfortune, and ultimately choose it so that they can do whatever they do in response to it ('enjoying' it, as he says). For instance, in the Third Essay, Section 7, he writes:

"Above all, we should not underestimate the fact that Schopenhauer ... needed enemies in order to keep in good spirits; that he loved bilious, black-green words, that he scolded for the sake of scolding, out of passion ... his anger was ... his balm, his refreshment, his reward ... his happiness."

Now let's rewrite the passage for a victim of child rape:

"Above all, we should not underestimate the fact that the victim of child rape ... needed her enemy in order to keep in good spirits ... that she screamed and whimpered for the sake of screaming and whimpering, out of passion ... her anger was ... her balm, her refreshment, her reward ... her happiness."

Doesn't this raise suspicion for you about the validity and purpose of Nietzsche's writings? It does for me.

Let's look at some other things he wrote:

"The suffering are one and all dreadfully eager and inventive in discovering occasions for painful affects; they enjoy being mistrustful and dwelling on nasty deeds and imaginary slights; they scour the entrails of their past and present for obscure and questionable occurences that offer them the opportunity to revel in tormenting suspicions and to intoxicate themselves with the poison of their own malice ..." -Third Essay, Section 15

"It was in this sphere then, the sphere of legal obligations, that the moral conceptual world of 'guilt,' 'conscience,' 'duty,' 'sacredness of duty' had its origin: its beginnings were, like the beginnings of everything great on earth, soaked in blood thoroughly and for a long time." -Second Essay, Section 6

"Without cruelty there is no festival: thus the longest and most ancient part of human history teaches -- and in punishment there is so much that is festive!" -Second Essay, Section 6

With all due respect to Jim Benton and others whose creations appear to be offshoots of Nietzschean philosophy, I think that we all need to be very careful when we read Nietzsche from now on.

was it nietzsche who popularized the thinking that "nice girls never get raped"?

Oh, really? When did he write that?

^^^ that's what i am asking. nietzche had a lot of weird ideas. it would not surprise that this is one of them.

I doubt it.

I also believe that Nietzsche may have inspired a great deal of the callousness we see in our culture today. We ridicule 'emos,' insult 'crybabies,' and blame others for their suffering, scapegoating them and accusing them of leading self-fulfilling prophecies. I would like to see all of that disappear one day.

impossible.

nietzche died nearly 109 years ago ( on august 25, 1900) at the age of 55. he could not have seen the callousness of today. more likely he helped to inspire it with his justification of suffering as an affirmation of life. that he spent the last eleven years of his life under the influence of some form of psychosis does not bode well for his overall credibility.

You use the word "fallacy" a bit too loosely. As far as Nietzsche's language, I believe it was German, and I don't read German. Many times words do not translate exactly. Perhaps Dussel could clarify some of the passages?


I don't think your rewriting is a correct interpretation... it looks to me like Nietzsche was referring to a specific individual (Schopenhauer) who seemed to have those traits, and the description may have been accurate when applied to Schopenhauer. Also, I think (but I could be wrong) the "enemies" of Schopenhauer referred to would be philosophical opponents, which would just suggest Schopenhauer was an argumentative fellow who enjoyed debate.


That particular passage, no, not really. I can't comment on his writings as a whole, since I've never studied Nietzsche in more depth than Wikipedia level, and I think the only thing I've actually read of his was the Parable of the Madman.

In response to iMark, even if Nietzsche weren't alive, his writings could have influenced our culture.

However, as I have shown, we must be very cautious before attributing truth to the statement in consequence of its form. If the general form of the statement doesn't apply to victims of rape, then without additional information, it might not have applied to Schopenhauer.

Incidentally, in the past I have had a furious temper, and I have scolded many, many times. Yet I would not say that scolding others (in itself) brings me happiness.



In the context of the Genealogy of Morals, I doubt that, as he speaks of cruelty with such seeming praise.

Of course the form of a statement does not make it true. But the statement about Schopenhauer could have been a simple description. It is as though I said "My shirt is black" and you countered "Let's apply that to snow- 'snow is black.' If the general form of the statement doesn't apply to snow, then without additional information it might not have applied to your shirt." I dunno, it just seems quite weird to switch out nouns in a simple description to try to criticize it.

I won't comment on the rest, I haven't read Nietzsche.

Even then, you would need information about Schopenhauer to distinguish him from me.

It's ridiculous to compare Nietzsche's sentiments against 'pity' to a child rape, you must be pretty desperate if you have to use that method. People don't like child rape therefore they shouldn't like Nietzsche? duh.

Most of his arguments are against christian derived 'pity', after all, he did pose as the antichristian philosopher & prophet. Maybe you need to read it with Twilight of the Idols/Antichrist to understand that it's an argument against christian notions and their domination of the world.

"The suffering are one and all dreadfully eager and inventive in discovering occasions for painful affects; they enjoy being mistrustful and dwelling on nasty deeds and imaginary slights; they scour the entrails of their past and present for obscure and questionable occurences that offer them the opportunity to revel in tormenting suspicions and to intoxicate themselves with the poison of their own malice ..." -Third Essay, Section 15

Wel live in a 'professional victim' culture now. People are always trying to portray themselves as weak in order to manipulate others.

"Without cruelty there is no festival: thus the longest and most ancient part of human history teaches -- and in punishment there is so much that is festive!" -Second Essay, Section 6

This is true. Is there something wrong with the truth of this statement?

You either like him or you don't.

That's true, but I don't see what relevance it has. If Nietzsche was describing Schopenhauer... then he was describing Schopenhauer. Not you, not a child rape victim, Schopenhauer.

I never could understand the motives behind Nietzsche's passages. I was eager to read him because he seems to be popular among the academically young.

I was pretty dissappointed and confused after reading his works like an emo. Never knew what made him so popular on subjects except nihilism and challenging religious morality especially for its time. The master slave morality doesn't make much sense to me other than that it is reversed and that values were in danger of being overturned by the submissive and "weak"...which sounds like the man had issues or I must've missed something. Now I'll be truthful to say I found his ideologies about the weak and "submissive" interesting in some factors but much of his beliefs on what morality should be made me picture Hitler. Had he not used his own ideology in saying it was wrong or a social illness then maybe it would've made some sense. I might offend Nietzsche fans but most of his beliefs and ideologies are like the pot calling the kettle black.

At least with Darwin, it was survival of the fittest without the involvement of personal morality or beliefs in what is defined as "superior" to "inferior". Anyway, maybe I'm putting too much opinion and not enough class and style such as quoting his works and interpretting them the scholarly way like many of you PPR folks.

Anything can be compared, and there is nothing wrong with rewriting the passage in order to gain insight, even if Nietzsche himself did not write it that way, and even if the latter statement did not logically follow from the former.

That's why I asked if it raised suspicion for others as it did for me, and I wish people would be more careful when reading my statements.



That would be a straw man fallacy.



Even then, you would not be able to infer that everyone who appears weak (or rather, victimized, as there is essentially nothing wrong with being weak) does so to manipulate.

I also want to add that Nietzsche begins his paragraph with, 'The sick are one and all...' which is a universal statement about all of the sick, and I doubt that many children with leukemia are 'professional victims.'



Yes. We need to make it false.

Just because his writings might not reflect those aspects of human nature that you prefer, does not make them incorrect.

At least he isn't Descartes, amirite?

As I just pointed out, they will only be correct if we allow them to be, by turning our species into a Race of Sadists -- if that is even possible, and I hope it's not. Someone could easily read Nietzsche with a kind of furious terror, thinking that everything he writes about the unfortunate reader is necessarily true, when in fact, we have only made it true through acts of cruelty and stupidity in our culture over the years, and this cruelty can be reversed.

That's not to say that there couldn't be outright lies in the book.

Isn't Descartes the one who kicked his dog, thinking it was a machine? I have a feeling that Nietzsche might have wanted to kick every 'unattractive' person on the planet, figuratively speaking. He writes,

"That the sick should not make the healthy sick ... should surely be our supreme concern on earth; but this requires above all that the healthy should be segregated from the sick, guarded from even the sight of the sick, that they may not confound themselves with the sick ..." -Third Essay, Section 14

It remains to be seen by us exactly what Nietzsche thought he had in store for the 'physiologically deformed and worm-eaten,' the same people who are so rampantly stigmatized and lured into violence in our present-day culture.