4 ms·

> scientifically discredited by the mid-19th century I mean the science is bunk but it wasn't "discredited" in the sense that you mean among the scientific com

> scientifically discredited by the mid-19th century I mean the science is bunk but it wasn't "discredited" in the sense that you mean among the scientific community or the policy community across the West who enacted policies based on it well until after the mid 20th century. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugenics_in_the_United_States > the Nazis may have adopted it, but that's proof that they weren't motivated by anything like scientific rationalism The Nazis adopted scientific racism and this is proof they weren't motivated by scientific rationalism? I suppose your contention would be that Hitler didn't really believe any of that or something and it was all just about power. That's such a lazy position to take IMO. If you really want to die on that hill I don't think we can go forward with the discussion at least on this front. The Nazis established a whole body of thought and policies around racial hierarchies that were in part dependent on the work of eugenics and phrenology. And yes I do believe they really believed this stuff. > But the reason I can say that Italian Fascism and German Naziism expressly adopted your Nietzschean view is because both said they did, and praised Nietzche for presenting it. Nietzsche was highly derisive of nationalism and the examples he would deride were actually those of German nationalism. You can read Beyond Good and Evil to see that. What you're talking about is actually highly ironic considering that Nietzsche actually predicts some sort of Hitler-like figure coming to power due to how weak-minded and herd-like Europeans were. He didn't call them herd-like as a compliment. What they adopted among other things was his method of attack on morality itself and in particular Christianity and Judaism. This is what he meant by going "Beyond" Good and Evil (morality itself) to replace it with Strong and Weak or Beautiful and Ugly which was more of the Greco-Roman system of values. That does sound more like Nazism doesn't it? You can see it in the iconography of the Nazis and all the Roman stuff they adopted (e.g. the Nazi standards which harken to the Roman standards). https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Ngy5XGuS2Y/U_kCNxwY_5I/AAAAAAAAJvI/QPmLmX3Hb7I/s1600/Nazis%2Bon%2Bparade..jpg https://2.bp.blogspot.com/--Ngy5XGuS2Y/U_kCNxwY_5I/AAAAAAAAJ... Nietzsche wasn't perfect IMO. You can read Psychological Types by Carl Jung who does a beautiful job of analyzing and filling in the holes in Nietzsche's positions.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> I mean the science is bunk Since you dismiss the existence of objective, non-ideological facts, isn't that necessarily your position on all science? > but it wasn't "discredited" in the sense that you mean among the scientific community or the policy community across the West who enacted policies based on it well until after the mid 20th century Yes, phrenology was discredited , and why you posted a link about eugenics to support your rebuttal of a point about phrenology that had nothing to do with eugenics, I don't know. > The Nazis adopted scientific racism and this is proof they weren't motivated by scientific rationalism? That wasn't my actual argument, but it works, since “scientific racism” doesn't actually follow the methodology of post-enlightment empiricism, merely adopting it as an elaborate rhetorical flourish for propaganda purposes, much the way that, say, intelligent design does. It recognizes that some of it's audience might be positively disposed to the superficial appearance of empiricism, rather than actually embracing it itself.
- googthrowaway42 6y ago
  > Since you dismiss the existence of objective, non-ideological facts, isn't that necessarily your position on all science? I already said I believe in an objective set of values so for you to say this means you've clearly missed the entire point of the discussion.

dragonwriter 6y ago

> I mean the science is bunk Since you dismiss the existence of objective, non-ideological facts, isn't that necessarily your position on all science? > but it wasn't "discredited" in the sense that you mean among the scientific community or the policy community across the West who enacted policies based on it well until after the mid 20th century Yes, phrenology was discredited , and why you posted a link about eugenics to support your rebuttal of a point about phrenology that had nothing to do with eugenics, I don't know. > The Nazis adopted scientific racism and this is proof they weren't motivated by scientific rationalism? That wasn't my actual argument, but it works, since “scientific racism” doesn't actually follow the methodology of post-enlightment empiricism, merely adopting it as an elaborate rhetorical flourish for propaganda purposes, much the way that, say, intelligent design does. It recognizes that some of it's audience might be positively disposed to the superficial appearance of empiricism, rather than actually embracing it itself.

googthrowaway42 6y ago
> Since you dismiss the existence of objective, non-ideological facts, isn't that necessarily your position on all science? I already said I believe in an objective set of values so for you to say this means you've clearly missed the entire point of the discussion.