@obi: "favorite" doesn't mean "the one to start with." It seems really obvious to that Nietzsche's philosophy doesn't get us anywhere. I realize he wasn't actually a Nazi or even really an anti-Semite, but he doesn't seem to have any coherent argument against the Nazis.

-Favorite Novelist: Walter Scott
-Favorite Poet: Achim von Arnim (and by extension - the Brothers Grimm)
-Favorite Playwright: Friedrich Schiller
-Favorite Philosopher: Jeremy Bentham (also Johann Gottfried Herder)
-Favorite Fifth/Other: Rudyard Kipling

So what's your coherent argument against the Nazis pastoralan? And what was Aristotle's argument against the Nazis? It is true that many of the ideas expressed by Nietzsche were incorporated by the Nazis but
Nietzsche was critical of anti-semitism and Pan-Germanism, and repudiated the tendencies he saw forming in Germany. That's usually considered sufficient. For example, he said in Nietzsche Contra Wagner, "he had condescended step by step to everything I despise -- even to anti-Semitism." And then "I have always been sentenced to the Germans". Nietzsche's writings were full of contradictions, it is quite easy to take what you like and discard what you don't like and so form just about any ideology you care to. That's part of why he is so interesting, I suppose. Certainly he was a problematic figure, but he was no Nazi.

Nietzsche didn't have a problem with Wagner's anti-Semitism until Wagner converted to Christianity, that was really the final straw that caused their falling out. He didn't much care for the Jews (and a lot of his anti-Christian rhetoric is simultaneously anti-Jewish) - he blamed them for being the originators of slave morality and for consequently infecting societies it.

While not a Nazi (National Socialism was probably too populist for Nietzsche's 'aristocratic radicalism'), it's easy to see why many fascists were attracted to Nietzsche's work. He certainly justified unrestrained militarism and social Darwinism, and opposed both race-mixing and class-mixing. Ironically Nietzsche is beloved by a good number on the left, when he loathed any and all egalitarian impulses most of all and pretty much rejected everything the left holds near and dear.

It's interesting that you would frame your argument in such definitive terms. I've been working with Nietzsche for years and think he is not so categorical as to be easily yoked with the labels "aristocratic radicalism", unrestrained militarist, social Darwinist, in opposition to race-mixing and class-mixing. It is certainly true that he presents severe problems for the left but also for the right. I would des Are you referring to particular writings? Can you provide references to back up what you are saying?

Er, I would suggest that he's not easy to pinpoint politically, and that his contribution to philosophy lies elsewhere.

Nietzsche himself happily accepted the description of his views as aristocratic radicalism. I do not believe Nietzsche's convoluted writing can explain away a number of themes which run through his work. Namely, that egalitarian ethics leads to the decline of civilization and reduces its creative power. The idea that the great are viewed with suspicion and shackled down to the level of the mediocre. The idea that in modern society mediocrity is glorified at the expense of the talented...Heroism is dead, etc.

This is a rather banal point (that he makes over and over). The idea that struggle leads to more advanced stages of development and the weak and decadent are weeded out in favor of the strong and vibrant.

From Beyond Good and Evil, Chapter VI - We Scholars

"For skepticism is the most spiritual expression of a certain many-sided physiological temperament, which in ordinary language is called nervous debility and sickliness; it arises whenever races or classes which have been long separated, decisively and suddenly blend with one another. In the new generation, which has inherited as it were different standards and valuations in its blood, everything is disquiet, derangement, doubt, and tentativeness; the best powers operate restrictively, the very virtues prevent each other growing and becoming strong, equilibrium, ballast, and perpendicular stability are lacking in body and soul. That, however, which is most diseased and degenerated in such nondescripts is the WILL; they are no longer familiar with independence of decision, or the courageous feeling of pleasure in willing--they are doubtful of the "freedom of the will" even in their dreams Our present-day Europe, the scene of a senseless, precipitate attempt at a radical blending of classes, and CONSEQUENTLY of races, is therefore skeptical in all its heights and depths, sometimes exhibiting the mobile skepticism which springs impatiently and wantonly from branch to branch, sometimes with gloomy aspect, like a cloud over-charged with interrogative signs--and often sick unto death of its will"

"The man of an age of dissolution which mixes the races with one another, who has the inheritance of a diversified descent in his body--that is to say, contrary, and often not only contrary, instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace--such a man of late culture and broken lights, will, on an average, be a weak man."

Now, he goes on to say that there are some exceptions, and that great men have been of mixed race, but that these great men come to exist when these 'weaker men' are predominant.

Sorry, the second quote is a separate quote from Chapter V. I originally posted that but it timed out and I had to post again.

From the Genealogy of Morals, Chapter 7.

Human history would be a dull and stupid thing without the intelligence furnished by its impotents. Let us begin with the most striking example. Whatever else has been done to damage the powerful and great of this earth seems trivial compared with what the Jews have done, that priestly people who succeeded in avenging themselves on their enemies and oppressors by radically inverting all their values, that is, by an act of the most spiritual vengeance. This was a strategy entirely appropriate to a priestly people in whom vindictiveness had gone most deeply underground. It was the Jew who, with frightening consistency, dared to invert the aristocratic value equations good/noble/powerful/beautiful/happy/favored-of-the-gods and maintain, with the furious hatred of the underprivileged and impotent, that "only the poor, the powerless, are good; only the suffering, sick, and ugly, truly blessed. But you noble and mighty ones of the earth will be, to all eternity, the evil, the cruel, the avaricious, the godless, and thus the cursed and damned!" . . . We know who has fallen heir to this Jewish inversion of values.. . . In reference to the grand and unspeakably disastrous initiative which the Jews have launched by this most radical of all declarations of war, I wish to repeat a statement I made in a different context, to wit, that it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals; a revolt with two millennia of history behind it, which we have lost sight of today simply because it has triumphed so completely."

I'm saying it doesn't matter whether Nietzsche was personally anti-Semitic or not. I'm saying that his ethics doesn't give him any grounds for opposing the Nazis.

@pastoralan: OK, and I asked which ethics does provide firm ground for opposing the Nazis.
@Putin: it almost sounds like he didn't like Jews. He's saying Jews, but he is I think referring to the Judeo-Christian tradition and in fact seems to be more explicitly referencing the ideals of the new testament, don't you think? But he says Jews. Why? Because "it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals". Because they are prior, seminal. But let's not confuse description with prescription. Of course, Nietzsche is offering a genealogy, which was really a great innovation, a powerful tool for philosophy. His writing is a stylistic tour de force. It is strong, powerful, full of will, he doesn't cringe from proclaiming his truths at the top of his lungs, he wills and he dares any challenger. And there isn't a thing there in that last long quote that I can find to disagree with. Is it anti-Semitism? I'd say no, it is simply and clearly a description of a genealogical moment, the moment of the reversal of the "aristocratic" Good and Bad and it's substitution with Good and Evil. There he uses the word "aristocratic" but is he referring to our modern day aristocracy, if we can be said to still have one? Or the aristocracy that was still lingering around during Nietzsche's 19th century? No, neither, he was referring to the aristocracy that applied its values, prior to the inversion, for after the inversion there was no going back, and what was the aristocracy too was forever changed. That aristocracy no longer existed and under no circumstance was it embodied or re-incarnated by the nazis. The values had been reversed, the Nazis made the mistake of thinking that the reversal could be undone, that they could simply define themselves in opposition to the Jews (or Judeo/Christian tradition). It was an error because what distinguished those early aristocrats is that they didn't define anything in opposition to anything, they simply defined and everything else was irrelevant.

It is undeniable that there is much in Nietzsche that is brash, and some that is probably reactionary. Is he against the mixing of races and classes because he finds some are inherently superior? I'd say no, but rather in a state prior to mixing, there is greater clarity of ideas, greater cultural unity. With mixing comes "contrary, and often not only contrary, instincts and standards of value, which struggle with one another and are seldom at peace". But there is no question there is much here to inspire the left. Scepticism is not the proper tool of genius. It is the will which we must be perpetually rediscovering and employing. It is the left, it is the opposite of conservatism which needs the will to pull it forward. What is a Revolution? Will or skepticism? What is revolution without it's leaders. And of course there will be great men and women that come from the mixing of races and classes. Lets not get so caught up in Nietzsch's aggressive and challenging rhetorical style that we leave behind what is essential and exemplary.

-Favorite Novelist: Raymond E. Feist
-Favorite Poet: Ba Sho
-Favorite Playwright: William Shakespeare
-Favorite Philosopher: Lao Tze
-Favorite Fifth/Other: C.S. Lewis
-Favortie YA literature series: Percy Jackson & the Olympians (at the moment)
-Currently Reading - Ranger's Apprentice II: The Burning Bridge & The Lost Hero

Any ethic which holds that life is valuable even if it doesn't provide any measurable benefit to others provides a consistent basis for not killing millions of people. So does utilitarianism, for that matter.

Huh. I'm not convinced, would you like to expound on that? what ethic holds a priori that "life is valuable even if it doesn't provide any measurable benefit to others" and what about utilitarianism, if it is believed that by killing millions we're benefiting hundreds of millions?

I'm a novels person, but my favourite would be Iain (M) Banks - either writing the jaw-dropping awesome Culture novels, or proper 'literature', I've never failed to be entertained, enthralled and enlightened.

Honourable mentions go to Sir Terry Pratchett, Jasper Fforde, Joe Abrecrombie, Ian Rankin, Peter F Hamilton and Isaac Asimov

Poetry; Robert Burns

Plays: Should be seen, rather than read, but Shakespear is the only choice

Philosopher: Calvin & Hobbes (small boy & tiger)

Other: Gary Larsson

"But he says Jews. Why? Because "it was the Jews who started the slave revolt in morals". Because they are prior, seminal. But let's not confuse description with prescription. Of course, Nietzsche is offering a genealogy, which was really a great innovation, a powerful tool for philosophy."

We can cut down your long statement and get to its kernel, all this talk about 'genealogy' simply means he is stating the following: the Jews started the catastrophic moral revolution which has led to our current miserable situation, of decadence, etc.

You can hand wave about how it's not anti-Semitic because all he is saying is the Jews 'just happened' to come first and he gives us a powerful new tool, but the point is there for all to see. Human civilization used to be growing, vital, creative, and life-affirming. The Jews more than other group, he says, is responsible for reversing all of this. He even goes as to far as to say the following:

"Rome viewed Israel as a monstrosity; the Romans regarded the Jews as convicted of hatred against the whole of mankind -- and rightly so if one is justified in associating the welfare of the human species with absolute supremacy of aristocratic values."

The Christians are lumped in because after all, they spread this Judaized morality, being a sect that is derived from Judaism.

Now, I suppose one can say that it's not anti-Semitic to declare the Jews responsible for all the world's ills hated all of mankind, that it's just honest reporting of the facts. But I think it's rather plain that Nietzsche cannot be absolved from responsibility for the Nazis using these words to mean that the Jews are a scourge on society and weaken every country where they come to be of influence. And since Nietzsche elsewhere rather gleefully expresses approval of "life-affirming" actions, like domination and violence, Nietzsche also provides a method for how to solve the problem.

From the Genealogy of Morals

"No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise. Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness."

"No, neither, he was referring to the aristocracy that applied its values, prior to the inversion, for after the inversion there was no going back, and what was the aristocracy too was forever changed. That aristocracy no longer existed and under no circumstance was it embodied or re-incarnated by the nazis. The values had been reversed, the Nazis made the mistake of thinking that the reversal could be undone,"

Where does Nietzsche say that this moral inversion cannot be undone? He didn't say it in this passage, and I haven't read anywhere where he says it. But if you can point this out to me it would do much to convince me that I am simply misinterpreting a man who just likes to write in an exaggerated and convoluted style.

In his genealogical account of "Rome vs Israel, the classical ideal vs vindictive popular instincts", he seems to indicate that Jewish moral supremacy has been anything but settled. It dominated from the Fall of Rome until the Renaissance, where the classical ideal reappeared. Then it fell again with the Protestant Reformation and the French Revolution, only to reappear again in the person of Napoleon.

Read here for his talk of the Battle of Rome vs Israel
http://teachers.sduhsd.net/gstimson/genealog.htm

Hitler could have easily interpreted this to mean that it was possible to restore the classical ideal and defeat what Nietzsche calls "Israel", and the world needed a Roman inspired militarist to do it.

"Scepticism is not the proper tool of genius. It is the will which we must be perpetually rediscovering and employing. It is the left, it is the opposite of conservatism which needs the will to pull it forward. What is a Revolution? Will or skepticism? What is revolution without it's leaders. And of course there will be great men and women that come from the mixing of races and classes. Lets not get so caught up in Nietzsch's aggressive and challenging rhetorical style that we leave behind what is essential and exemplary."

But this is not a matter of style. Nietzsche's message is plain. He explains exactly what he means when he talks of skepticism vs will. By 'will' he means the desire to dominate, to grow. He compares 'will' to a stomach. He is railing against skepticism because he is railing against the Enlightenment, science, the desire for objectivity, the , the desire to analyze and understanding things thoroughly, etc.
This desire for 'certainty' he says paralyzes the will to act. Nietzsche's ideal is not an intellectual endlessly studying the world in order to understand, but a man of action. He believes that his generation of philosophers were consumed with creating a system of objective moral values based on formulas, and of devising systems to deny life's impulse to grow, expand, create, dominate.

And what is a Revolution? The left does not advocate revolution for its own sake, because it is violent, because it is creative. The revolutionary left anyway advocates revolution to overthrow the very "noble morality" which says might makes right, which celebrates the strong's domination over the weak. Nietzsche abhorred the French Revolution as the triumph of Israel, and that revolution is the very essence of the Enlightenment and the progressive left, from which the Bolshevik Revolution and subsequent leftist revolutions was derived. The left also celebrates science, is skeptical of certainties, and strives for the creation and supremacy of values and laws based on an egalitarian ethos. All of these things disgusted Nietzsche.

I cannot simply ignore the message because Nietzsche writes 'forcefully'. This is not a stylistic issue. This is a simple issue of what is Nietzsche saying, what is he criticizing, what is he advocating. I think the answers to these questions are relatively clear, and nobody with progressive impulses should like the answers.

OK...Nietzsche talk AND its about Jews...

You HAD to know I'd get involved. :p

@Putin33: When discussing the Jews in terms of how Nietzsche views them (and actually I'd say in many cases just overall) its important to draw a distinction from the religion and the race/culture.

(And before anyone says "Judaism is a RELIGION, not a race," you're correct--but as Jews generally tended to live together, and often isolated/quartered off from the rest of the populace in a country, there DID arise a sort of Jewish culture that is somewhat secular...as an example, we might say O'Reilly is an example of a traditionally Irish name, Gonzalez a Latino name, and Friedman a Jewish name--those first two are ethnicities, and so I'd argue Jews are, to an extent, an ethnicity as well. I know I myself would identify myself as being "ethnically/culturally Jewish," as would most Jews that I know and have met.)

Why is this distinction important?

Because where Nietzsche hates the religion and the Judeo-Christian religious and moral concepts overall, he DOES quite often give respect and even credit to the Jews as a race.

"Beyond Good and Evil" gives many examples of his dual stance on Jews and Judaism--while he DOES attack the notion of the Jew/Christian/Slave Morality and say it began with the Jews (albeit in a way he said was somewhat understandable, even if he didn't condone the moralily--after all, as he acknowledges, if you're so often enslaved as a race you ARE likely going to develop a set of moral values that match that fact, and you'd probably be more inclined to say that this world and its rulers don't matter, a Supreme Ruler that has you as its "Chosen People" matters, as after all, if life is wretched now you're going to want to say "It doesn't matter, THIS life and THIS cruelty doesn't matter, I'm in well with the parties that ultimately DO matter) he also commends them as a race.

Examples of Nietzsche's complimenting the Jews as a culture/race/ethnicity:

-Saying that Europe could learn a thing or two from their ability to continually come back from setbacks, mesh into a country and eventually make it financially

-A brief comment in "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietzsche seems to suggest his stating that the Jews are so adept at returning and have such a tenacity that Nietzsche felt much of Western Europe lacked that they might gain power in the region; this of course raises the question of if he meant this in a complimentary way for the Jews, a cautionary way for Europeans along an Anti-Semetic, "Watch our or they'll take you over" slant, or both...given the context it has in this text and in Nietzsche's work as a whole I'd say that he's closer to saying "The Jews are very capable of gaining prominence, and you should really learn from them, Europe" than "Watch out or the Jews will bury you, Europe." In short, he's really complimenting the Jewish ability and telling Europe to adopt this ability to reinvent themselves that the Jewish people seem to possess in order to keep surviving in new places, in my view, and not really saying "Watch out or you're doomed." It's a bit shady, especially as he DOES comment on how many Jews there are in Europe now, but nowhere in there does he suggest anything bad about the race OR that that number should be lowered OR that the Jews should be exterminated as a threat...so easy for someone like Hitler to twist, yes, but viewed in context its complimentary if not somewhat dangerous for the time.

-Oddly enough Nietzsche also praises the Old Testament and the Jews for their conception of it, that they might concieve of "grand justice;" this is best understood in opposition to the Christian ideal of a loving, forgiving God and Jesus...Nietzsche, remember, was a great fan of Greek tragedy and THAT sort of ethos, that "go big and in a blaze of glory rather than submissively or as a passive person," so while he doesn't like Judaism as a religion he DOES in that passage seem to acknowledge he'd rather there be at least the idea of grander justice a la the Exodus plagues and fires and that sense of the grandiose and mighty that he loved in the Greek works rather than what he sees as a more wishy-washy, do-nothing Chrsitian/Western European idea of life and justice at the time.

-Nietzsche also, in some manner, refers to the Jews as being (paraphrasing here) one of the toughest people around, again speaking to the idea that he likes there never-die attitude and that tenacity of hanging on and moving foward rather than being totally submissive.

-Finally, Nietzsche REPEATEDLY THRASHES the idea of Anti-Semitism.



So while he doesn't care for the religion do NOT get the idea he was an Anti-Semite or disliked Jews as a people...he certainly had aspects he disagreed with, but between some compliments and his harsh chastising of Anti-Semites, to call Nietzsche one would be folly.

And yes, he DID have a problem with democracy, but to be honest, Putin33...

Practically I must agree with Locke that democracy is needed.

But as I get older, more and more I find myself IN THEORY agreeing with Plato and Nietzsche and Hobbes, that people are selfish and a democracy ammounts to a bunch of people out for themselves with weaknesses throughout the government as a result and a sort of parity of personhood that goes beyond making everyone social equals and stifles the extraordinary.

Again, in practice we obviously can't in good conscience agree to a Leviathan or one Philosopher King or a Nietzschean Ubermensch running it all, as a dictatorship just isn't practical with human beings and their corrupt nature.

But that doesn't mean that there aren't some things to see as praiseworthy in the boldness and celebration of the extraordinary Plato and, to a greater extent, Nietzsche took part in, as well as the fact that democracy IS, in some ways, rather ugly.

It's the most practical system possible, and has good features--but that doesn't make it a shining knight and doesn't mean that it can't have those blemishes on its armor as Nietzsche suggests.

@obi

Do you agree with my assessment of the Odyssey?

@abgemacht:

I'd agree that there is certainly some truth to that assessment, but I still think you sell Odysseus short as a sympathetic character.]

He sneaks and kills and all of that, yes...

But if you'll recall--he never wanted to leave home in the first place. He tried to get out of service and was forced in, and now, as a result of his government forcing him to fight a war that's essentially over pride (hmmm...) and who gets to take home the lovely first prize that is Helen of Troy (remember the good old days, when writers didn't have to worry about sounding incredibly mysogninistic in the least?) he's stuck in the middle of what's essentially for him a strange, alien land...

He didn't want to be a hero or an adventurer or to even HAVE an odyssey...he's the embodiment of that Shakespeare idea that some are born for greatness, some strive for it, and some have greatness thrust upon them.

Odysseus, with his actions taken in THAT context, I think makes for a great anti-hero of sorts, adn one of the earliest at that.

ugh, Nietzsche, awful, awful man.

if you judge philosophers from a psychological health point of view, Nietzsche is the last person you would want your children to hold as a role model. AWFUL!

...

Fair enough, he WAS a pretty tortured individual...

I don't think he was an awful person (though that's a bit ironic as Nietzsche himself was all about moving past that sort of "good person/bad person" distinction and just accepting people as people and on the merits of their achievements and personhood) though...

He's sort of like the philosophy equivalent of Edgar Allen Poe.

Great writers?

YES!

Would you want to live the kind of life they did?

NO!

;)

sounds like christianity to me!

except i seem to recall his idea to "murder all anti-semites"

i think he was confused ;)

so, to round off what could be a very long rant about how much I dislike Ntz, I will ask some sincere rhetorical questions....

"he WAS a pretty tortured individual" - why was he? because he made himself miserable right?

He did not know 'how to live', and I think this gives very little credibility to his writings. Indeed IMHO his writings are really only a demonstration of an unhappy, confused and angry persons mind.

It seems to me that the purpose of philosophy is to help us live better lives, the kind of philosophers I admire are Buddha, Montaigne, Schopenhauer et al, because they recognised the humble limits of the individual and society, and they lived good, honest, compassionate lives, at peace with themselves, and open to the beauty in life.

[/end rant]

Buddha? Schoepenhauer?

You mention them as GOOD examples of philosophy and yet you put down Nietz? He really carries on in that tradition; the Ubmermensch--ESPECIALLY in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra," he has pages and pages of this idea in there--can really be seen as a sort of combination of his own idea on how we should live, Kierkegaard's Knight of Faith (though he never read Kierkegaard its an interesting and well-known fact that the two share a lot of ideas, and even often sounding like two versions of the same song...Kierkegaard usually being the upbeat, tenor-baed versiona dn Nietzsche the more weighty, bass-heavy version) and Buddhist ideals.

Nietzsche's philosophy EMBRACES theidea of the Four Noble Truths, that life is suffering ans so you msut let go, or at least not be afraid to let go...as he writes in "The Birth of Tragedy" he believes the central conflict to much of human existence is between Applonian and Dionysian forces...think Batman vs. the Joker, order and the building up of laws and society vs. total freedom and acceptance or even prmotion of change and chaos, as the Appolonian sees the Dionysian as being a barbarian and the Dionysian sees the Appolonian as a fool who tries to control everything.

And Nietzsche sides with the Dionysian, the Joker, and states you shouldn't be afriad to "go under," as he puts it, to get off the wheel of life--VERY Buddhist there.



So before we go any further...really, if you like Schopenhauer and Buddha, and those ideals...what do you have against Nietzsche ither than he was a depressed person.

After all, why must our philosphers be perfect, white knights...I prefer DARK Knights (said in full irony as while I love Batman I often find myself almost rooting for Ledger's Joker each time I've watched "The Dark Knight") with life experience.

As Dionysus, the Joker, and Nietzsche would say...Why So Serious? ;)

If all you can charge Nietzsche with is "he was a depressed, unhappy fellow who himself didn;t have a good life and so therefore he doesn't have any wisdom on how to live life" I would again point to the ideas above, his connections and building upon those ideas, and ask if you feel the same way, and if you do, do you ahve a philosophical reason...or is it just because a depressed person can't possibly count as a great thinker (I think many artists, authors, adn philosophers would have an issue with you there...SCHOPENHAUER had a life-long spat with his mother, a lawsuit, divorces, and yet you like HIM--what makes THOSE life-ills OK but Nietzsche's depression not?)

End mini-rant response. :)

@mcbry: yes, that's where utilitarianism runs into trouble. But the Nazis weren't trying to help hundreds of millions of people. Their explicit goal was to advance a small group of people at the expense of everyone else in the world. As for the "human life is valuable, period," argument, that's the position a lot of Christians take. The application fails, but (again) this is about the capacity to critique immoral behavior.

If people are claiming Nietzsche's thought has a lot in common with Buddhism - the great self-denying philosophy par excellence, then I'm convinced that people must not have read anything he wrote. Buddhism and Nietzsche are about as polar opposite as you can get. Nietzsche believes in affirming life, in embracing desires, and removing all restrictions to human behavior. Buddhism says that the only way to happiness is through restraint, by eliminating desire, through ethical conduct. Buddhism and Nietzsche's philosophy come to completely different conclusions based on the point that 'life is suffering'. Nietzsche says that suffering is a creative force, that suffering should be embraced, people need above all the will to power. Trying to avoid struggle, avoid suffering will lead to decadence, to nothingness. Buddhism says that suffering should be avoided, and it will be avoided by eliminating desire, essentially eliminating the 'will to power' that Nietzsche demands.