Dear Guido,

 Nietzsche, to my understanding, was not nihilistic in the sense of denying all cultural values, but only those cultural values that say "No!" to life.  The expression, the "death of God" used so often in Also sprach Zarathustra refers to the destruction only of religious and cultural values hypostasized in the word "God."  It refers to the imposition of monotheism and to its fall only insofar as they  devalue what Nietzsche sees as truly divine. Hence Nietzsche leaves open the possibility of God insofar as He affirms life.

Nietzsche is a vitalist vis-à-vis Schopenhauer, who did deny the value of life. So I do not believe for one moment that Niezsche "introduced moral nihilism" into Western Europe.  Nor could Nietzsche be considered a materialist in any sense.  He rejects matter insofar as it does not service life and favors the spirit of lightness over gravity. 

In conclusion, consumerism is NOT the victory of Zarathustra's nihilism because (1.) Zarathustra does not favor total nihilism and (2.) Nietzsche disfavors materialism.

See the treatment of nihilism in Luis Jiménez Moreno, El pensamiento de Nietzsche (Madrid: Cincel, 1986), pp. 154-68.

I do not like nihilism! I am not able to express if Nietzsche is an absolute support of nihilism. I know that Nietzsche is a source even for postmodernism. It is not accidental that also postmodernism is accused for nihilism too. However, for me postmodernism is the introduction of many-valued logic, and deconstruction is the re-examination of some "truths" in the light of e.g. many-valued logic.

There is the well known joke:

The God is dead

          Nietzsche

The Nietzsche is dead

          God

Following up Nelson' s comment, it is necessary to clearly point out that to Nietzsche nihilism was not the absence of values - as, f.i. it is suggested by Guido's question - but, rather, the existence of so many values that anything goes the same. In other words, nihilism is exactly what the free market society is all about. Whence, yes!, the transposition of life under the existence of values. Nietzsche calls this technically "Die Umwertung aller Werten", namely: values (i.e. services and assets, f.i. go first, and the real life goes afterwards. Now, as we all know, values are currently a matter of strategies such as "top of mind", the segmentation of the market, the freedom to choose, and so on and so forth...

Consumption is important; but when reaching the targeted audience, the message is packaged differently- sometimes it hurts sentiments

Trading productivity for leisure will allow to reduce unemployment, while giving everyone time for social connection, recreation, restore neighborhoods, grow food, de-stress, and engage in our own favorite artistic, athletic, and cultural activities.

http://judithcurry.com/2014/03/21/growth-versus-sustainability/

Thank you all for your comments. I agree that Nietzsche was not rejecting any morality, but the morality of the weak (I try no formulate it in a politicaly correct way, and Nietzsche's work is a so delicate). Anyway  the fourth chapter of Nietzche's Zaratustra  (written many years after the other chapters) is a meeting of the representatives of Western civilization.Nietzsche forecasted the destruction of the Western culture and in consequence the deconstruction of the morality of the ' weak'. However, no morality of the 'strong' was created, I claim that the Western morality reduced to an empty box, filled up by unsatisfied consumption impulse. According to my opinion the cultural breakdown starts with the deconstruction of symbolism end ends with complete empty moral nihilism. But in an open society this makes place for the morality of the strong and that doesn't imply more or better protection of human beings.

Dear Guido, let's take into account -just to highlight what you say- that the moral of the weak in Nietzsche's term is exactly the moral of the mass; in other rewords, of all those who need be with others, follow others, etc.  Plainly said: it is exactly the moral of the society ruled by adds, propaganda and publicity. Coca-Cola, Marlboro, etc. Those are the weak!

The moral of the strong consists in the capacity of the individual to raise his/her own standards, without churches, parties, collectivities, clubs, and the like - in Nietzsche's terms. The struggle then is against corporativism and institutionalism in the broadest sense of the word.

Enlightenment is, indeed, in Kant's words, the sapere aude! Dare to know by yourself, with no authority no matter what.

And yet, Enlightenment is one of the core sources of modern liberalism - which is a most refined by-product of the western civilization, hence of the oral of the weak. If not: ask Fukuyama, and all those guys...

Thank you all. However, according to Nietzsche, te moral of the weak is the moral of the slaves and that means the morality of reactive behaviour, while the morality of the strong is the morality of  action and passivity when action has no sense. Perhaps most people are slave of their consumption pattern. If that way of life becomes the norm, Zarathustra's victory is overwhelming

Dear Roland,

I disagree with you about postmodernism! In my sense, as I said many times, is just the extension of 0-1 logic to many-valued logic and of course for those situation which are "gray" dialectics. In this way we keep all those of the classical logic and now we can treat things which were impossible before. There are many interpretations of postmodernism, even from those who introduce the term. The one here seem to be a kind of "constructive postmodernism".  

Right dear Guido: moreover, as you remember, Nietzsche rightly said that his philosophy was for the coming thousand years. We assist, indeed, to the triumph of Zaratustra's view.

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Verstraeten, 

I would not connect nihilism so closely with advertising. Nor am I a Nietzsche fan. 

Advertising is most clearly an expression of the values of the sellers of things, and its acceptability is more an expression of the values of the consumers of these things. But on the other hand, my experience, since childhood, has been that much of advertising simply passes by unnoticed or, if noticed, then it is regularly discounted by many, along the lines of something like, "Well, yes, I guess they would say that--given that they want to sell so-and-so." But who cares?  

Nihilism, much warned against, I think of as the conviction that there are no genuinely binding values. This may result from some deep disillusionment with a set of values which have seemed to fail someone in particular. The more thorough-going and deeper a prior set of values is, then the greater the degree of disillusionment or reaction there will tend to be in consequence of its perceived failure. A classic kind of illustration from the anthropological literature concerns isolated tribes coming into contact with the great world and finding that none of their prior beliefs, practices or authorities afterward have much power to deal with that larger world. The consequence has sometimes been the dying out of a group after contact, in part, at least, from a feeling of utter despair, inadequacy or powerlessness. There is always some need of a balance between social agencies which pass on existing values effectively (in socialization) and a society's capability to challenge and innovate in new situations--taking up new values or elaborations. 

In the modern world, I would tend to connect nihilism with cynicism, understood as the conviction that no values (or no higher values) are possible in the situations or general social environment encountered. Such cynicism may result from simple narrowness, ignorance or lack of concern with the diversity of the wider world. One might think of this as a matter of "specialization" regarding action and activity in the world. The idea is often that no "higher" values are possible, or that pursuit of them "doesn't pay."  Arising from people with that sort of conviction, one sometimes finds a systematic disregard for "higher" values in others. In consequence, if conflict arises, then you learn not to expect any consideration for one's own pursuits or values. Often this amounts to a kind of materialism: only money counts; but there are also more sophisticated version: only professional advancement (or "connections") leading to money counts. It is not hard to imagine other variations, once one sees the pattern involved.  

It is not so much that one will likely encounter a denial of "the achievements of the Enlightenment such as freedom and equality for all citizens," more often it is simply ignorance and disregard for these values--in favor of some particular personal interest or perspective.  The "cynic" (in the predominant contemporary sense of the word), simply has his or her own hobby horse or obsession and will walk over anyone or anything that gets in the way. Such people may view themselves as simply "focused," "smart," "clever" or  even "professional." It is the traditional aim of the liberal arts and broader liberal education for "well rounded people," to avoid these kinds of narrow human outcomes.  

H.G. Callaway

Ooops!, dear Bernard. No way! A Nietzschean aphorism is never the same as a slogan. That is simply ignoring Nietzsche's philosophy.

Many, many other cases can be mention along the way when talking about aphorisms… 

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Desroches, 

The question of the compatibility of capitalism and republican forms strikes me as the more interesting question --however it may be with aphorism and slogans. 

My sense of that question, though, is that a third term is missing here, and that term is required to mediate between markets and republican forms. It seems to be a matter of politics, or the character of our politics. I believe that any political culture which consistently encourages deference to existing powers, economic, social or political as a central means of self-advancement and "success," will fall into the trap presented by unrestricted power governing, in its own interests from the top down.

I don't believe that any aphorisms, however well crafted, will effect escape from that kind of bind. What helps, though, is an ear for those willing and able to make forthright criticisms and take a clear stand.  In my republican sympathies (small "r"), I'd say, its not the dissidents that are needed, it is the citizens --and politicians willing to act as citizens first. Even smaller business interests will eventually be damaged by the unrestricted growth of inequalities. 

H.G. Callaway

Philadelphia, PA

Dear Desroches, 

Many thanks for your interesting reply, which I am just seeing this morning! Please excuse the delay in getting back to you. (Usually, of course, there is nothing very pressing in philosophical questions themselves.) 

I like your emphasis on "fraternity" in the French motto, and your appreciation of the difference between a motto and a slogan is much to the point. Historically, the closest the U.S. has come to the French emphasis on "fraternity" is a philosophical theme and social practice of cooperativeness--which is openness to joint activities. I think this not as strong as the French "fraternity" but capable of building emotional bounds even among people in the country who may initially see themselves as quite distinct. 

The general social conditions of a country such as the U.S., so largely built up by immigration and integration is distinctive. But beyond "liberty" --impressed on every U.S. coin, as I recall, we have an equally old national motto, viz., "E pluribus unum," (out of many, one), which dates from the early republic and is to be found on every dollar note. 

I think this can easily be taken as an implied imperative of integration--which is a condition of national existence, as President Obama has often put the point, "We are one people." But remarkably, we recurrent need to reiterate the point. The unity is not (and has never been) entirely a pre-existing fact, and is always also a goal and aspiration. Great inequality of conditions is a threat to the process in which many are unified into one. We cannot say, both that "all men are created equal," with equal rights for all, and then allow the persistent development of such great inequalities of condition as to effectively exclude the voice and concerns of those people left behind in by the excesses of economic competitions. Nonetheless, viewed historically, the development of great economic inequalities is a recurrent threat arising from the tendency of purely economic interest to dominate political councils and to ignore the basic political and social conditions of the republic. Similar problems are not unfamiliar in Europe, and our "E pluribus unum," corresponds, more or less to the traditional E.U. motto (now lapsed?) of "Every closer union."

 You ask, "What kind of mediation or third term would here be possible?"

I am thinking of styles of social and political activity, though I would mention that I am no political activist. But in general, if the dominant economic, social and political tendencies are producing great inequalities, then the beginning of a solution is to look in the opposite direction. Instead of jumping on the bandwagon (or the "moving train" of the frequent European metaphor), and trying to ride it to personal "success," the idea is to look to the potentiality of the local, what is not yet consolidated into general trends, and seek out social and economic diversity and alternative means to personal ends. One need not wait until such time as the general tendencies have reversed themselves. Though no one believes it is possible to change everything at one go, there are always alternatives to explore and to try to implement. Such processes are capable of building even "fraternity," slowly, by steps, from the bottom up. It is much like making friends.

Very briefly, that is what I had in mind in my earlier contribution to this thread.

H.G. Callaway