Nietzsche on social existence

[Jazzman]

"Wer von seinem Tag nicht zwei Drittel für sich hat, ist ein Sklave."

english: "For he who does not have two thirds of his day to himself is a slave."

[de_budding]

What does Nietzsche consider to be time to himself? If it's just freedom to do what one wants (which may include volunteering some time to others), I think now-a-days this is a pipe dream, you know, with all the importance of getting material things 'n all work trumps free time.

I was under the impression that from an early age Nietzsche was a copious and productive writer and enjoyed it much, when your work just so happens to be your hobby things shift a bit. All work and no play makes Nietzsche a vivid boy, it would seem. So perhaps his oppinion here is not so valid?

Well either way, as a student I guess I am as free as could be (with the 3 months summer holidays 'n all), but often this is over shadowed by anxiety of grades and preparation, even my time to myself can be somewhat infringed on by such feelings.

Dan

[Jazzman]

I interpret this quote myself as a critique of the force of social orders. You may make a capitalism critique out of that easily: The working people work for the material maintenance of the whole society all day. But the elite has a maximum of freedom of action in return. That's what makes slaves out of workers. And I agree with you that students are out of line in this scheme, as artists, unimployed persons and so on.

[Ron C. de Weijze]

Marxism is invalid these days. The modern elite is politically correct, multiculturalist, positively discriminating anybody but their own (i.e. people of a lower class). The hippies of the 60s are in full post-modern power now and the children of the people they fought against back then are forced to live in city centres packed with 100+ cultures to bring home their globalist egalitarian dreams while they live upper-upper class lives themselves, the same lives of the elite they fought against. 'Umwertung aller Werten', wasn't it?

[Khethil]

Originally Posted by Jazzman

... english: "For he who does not have two thirds of his day to himself is a slave."

I like this very much. I believe we lose far to much of our existence, our will, our energy and growth to mechanisms that push us to achieve based on some social order's expectation. When we buy into all the 'stuff' ads push us to have, the cash we're supposed to want, we enslave ourselves.

Yes, it is perhaps a reality in *some* aspects, but I've long lamented the loss. About 7 months ago I quit my CIO position, grabbed my assets and moved to an area with a cheap standard of living. My wife and I now live on our retirements almost completely - smartest thing I've ever done and I've never been so happy.

So yea.. I wouldn't take too much of a literal interpretation of Fred's advice, but I very much applaud the sentiment.

[Didymos Thomas]

english: "For he who does not have two thirds of his day to himself is a slave."

Why not just a bit more than half; why two thirds?

What does Nietzsche consider to be time to himself? If it's just freedom to do what one wants (which may include volunteering some time to others), I think now-a-days this is a pipe dream, you know, with all the importance of getting material things 'n all work trumps free time.

If Nietzsche does mean self-direction, 'I'm going to do this because I wouldn't spend my time any other way', why wouldn't he suggest the whole of the day? If we are free to do what we will for two thirds of the day, and contracted to some other end for the remaining third, then we are only free for the two thirds of the day and we are slaves for the rest.

Either way, I think the concerns he raises are valid. How free can we claim to be if we spend our days doing what we do not want to do?

I was under the impression that from an early age Nietzsche was a copious and productive writer and enjoyed it much, when your work just so happens to be your hobby things shift a bit. All work and no play makes Nietzsche a vivid boy, it would seem. So perhaps his oppinion here is not so valid?

But Nietzsche was also speaking for, in his mind anyway, a sort of elite in the population. His ideal man would be capable enough to spend all of his time in something generally pleasurable and worthy of commitment. In Nietzsche's case, brilliant enough to teach and talented enough to write.

Well either way, as a student I guess I am as free as could be (with the 3 months summer holidays 'n all), but often this is over shadowed by anxiety of grades and preparation, even my time to myself can be somewhat infringed on by such feelings.

Yeah, I know what you mean. Again, I really think Nietzsche's general suggestion is valid. We should strive to do something worth doing; gambling is probably a poor choice, and studying probably a good one. Also, it is difficult to really excell at something when you have no interest.

I interpret this quote myself as a critique of the force of social orders. You may make a capitalism critique out of that easily: The working people work for the material maintenance of the whole society all day. But the elite has a maximum of freedom of action in return. That's what makes slaves out of workers.

Absolutely. And most people seem to spend a fair portion of their lives struggling in some work they would rather not do. Most have no other choice, but some chose a line of work because that path is the most lucrative even though a comfortable and worthy path was available. Those who had no other option we can sympathize with, but those who could have done otherwise and still maintained themselves comfortably I have trouble forgiving.

Marxism is invalid these days.

I don't see why. Communism is not even dead politically.

The modern elite is politically correct, multiculturalist, positively discriminating anybody but their own (i.e. people of a lower class).

Wealth has always been the descriminating factor. Political correctness, multiculturalism and the rest of the scharade put on by so many is out of necessity - so that the rest are not so appauled that they quit working.

The hippies of the 60s are in full post-modern power now and the children of the people they fought against back then are forced to live in city centres packed with 100+ cultures to bring home their globalist egalitarian dreams while they live upper-upper class lives themselves, the same lives of the elite they fought against. 'Umwertung aller Werten', wasn't it?

I'm not sure we can point to 'the hippies'. Again, the breakdown is on social lines. Whatever was going on in the 60's did not descriminate against anyone; the young, rich and poor, became involved. The difference was that the upper, upper-middle class youth finally went back home to mom and dad, went to college, and started voting Republican. The poor ended up with serious drug addictions and no where to go but the streets. A few on both ends managed to make something of themselves, and the positive ideas coming out of the era.

The elite today are not the hippies. Some are, but more often than not, they are the upper, upper middle class kids that were just out for the drugs. That's what the whole thing turned out to be - a few serious people and a swarm of drug addicts looking for a fix. The wealthy had a support net, the poor had doom.

But I get your general point - we see our leaders talk about equality and justice, and so forth while they keep the status quoe. And the status quo is obviously not equality and justice. So long as we vote for the lesser of two evils, we will always have something evil in office.

Yes, it is perhaps a reality in *some* aspects, but I've long lamented the loss. About 7 months ago I quit my CIO position, grabbed my assets and moved to an area with a cheap standard of living. My wife and I now live on our retirements almost completely - smartest thing I've ever done and I've never been so happy.

That's essentially my plan. Best wishes to you guys.