There is smth very toxic about "ideologies/philosophies" that induce ideas of "superiority" and "inferiority" among people. Of course everyone wants to see themselves as superior one way or another, and any ideology supporting this desire/belief is bound to brainwash people really fast.
I like this idea, political labels are often too broad and have been for so long that they've lost quite a bit of tangible meaning. Furthermore, there's a lot of intersection between 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' ideology whether they are at the 'center' or out at the 'boundaries'.
As for Nietzsche I think the problem is he doesn't have a broad political program that is to oversee everyone. He hints that there is an underlying political philosophy to be found in his works but he maintains that it is for a small few. As a result I wouldn't say that is philosophy promotes 'survival of the fittest' but rather encourages the survival of the few who through their absolute being destine themselves for greatness. This is where the Dionysian idealism arises, these individuals are the exceptions because they are not defined by moral standards around them and instead act out of pure primal instinct, they act in accordance with who they are instead of who they are expected to be. Hence, these individuals are beings absolute which he associates with the Dionysian cults of pre-socractic Greece. Finally you have the notion of the Übermensch who falls in the Dionysian category but is a special breed of this sort. The Übermensch not only acts in accordance whith his/her own being absolutely but that being is in synchronicity with some sort of Transcendental ideal. The best known examples of this may be Christ or Buddha, these individuals not only are exactly who they are but by being exactly who they are they manage to transcend what it means to be a Man. In conclusion the Dionysian and the Übermensch is not something the whole of society is supposed to be because only a small few can manage to do so, there will always be the mob and they have their place. The ideal relation between the mod and these beings in Nietzsche's view once again can be found in pre-socratic Greece with the Dionysian cults, instead of resenting these beings as the mod began to do in his time Nietzsche thinks they ought to be celebrated.
Perhaps the chart is forgetting a crucial category, Being. Plato and Nietzsche are not so concerned with truth as they are with Being. With Nietzsche it's explicit but with Plato that's hard to see if you do not concern yourself with etyomology and his original tongue. This is especially apparent in his two most political texts, the Republic and the Apology, in which he really isn't concerned with Hierarchy but rather having everyone be that which they are because by doing so they are the best version of themselves. It just so happens that in the Republic that a type of being is suited for management, that being the philosopher kings, because they are the most thoughtful and considerate of the whole. In fact the Atlantians who act as the protagonists in Timause and Critias are far more Hierarchical and Coercive which Plato points to as what leads them out of the favor of the Gods. Plato's position is that if everyone takes on the being that they are then there is far less potential for these elements to overstep their necessity.
"In conclusion the Dionysian and the Übermensch is not something the whole of society is supposed to be because only a small few can manage to do so, there will always be the mob and they have their place." he didnt say taht he said the entireyt of greek culture managed to do so and hoped that a future culture would be like the greeks again
"In conclusion the Dionysian and the Übermensch is not something the whole of society is supposed to be because only a small few can manage to do so, there will always be the mob and they have their place." he didnt say taht he said the entireyt of greek culture managed to do so and hoped that a future culture would be like the greeks again
Your accepting his view from the Birth of Tragedy which he himself later on critiques in a newly revised edition for which in the preface he states the Birth of Tragedy is "badly written, ponderous, embarrassing, image-mad and image-confused, sentimental, saccharine to the point of effeminacy, uneven in tempo, without the will to logical cleanliness." though given it was his first work I'd say it's pretty good. His matured views on the matter can be found in Thus Spoke Zarathustra in which he outlines the Übermensch at the start and then exemplifies in the rest of the text.
Those influenced by Nietzsche would make such statements, though not out of hope but instead with certainty. Most notably Spengler who states that this 'Dionysian' period can be found in the springtime of any culture because during such a period the people are closet to the rythm of the land without being completely subject to it.
You have to keep in mind that Nietzsche is obsessed with a very specific cult in Ancient Greece which all of ancient Greece is not subject to, Nietzsche too comes to realize this hence he has a shift of perspective that is apparent in his later works and letters.
My own position can be a bit fluid so I don't exactly know where I'd put myself on that graph, but generally I'd say I'm a mix of Plato/Hobbes when cynical and more like Gandhi/Arendt when optimistic. With more of a focus on pursuing truth than managing disagreements.
In all honesty, you are very Hobbes like in a broad sense.
