The fact that you somehow associated "unleashing power" with "social mobility" coupled with your "You can do anything if the potential is there" attitude tells me that you missed my point. Nobody can do whatever he likes unless certain conditions are met. Individual's inner potential isn't the only thing that counts. Great men depend on the times and societies in which they lived as much as vice-versa, even more. That is why mankind doesn't produce great men anymore. We are in the age of unprecedented mediocrity.
I never said unleashing power, accumulating power, and I meant that in relation to the adulation of Napoleon, whom I see revered because of his accumulation of power. The social mobility comment was similarly tied to someone seeing greatness in those who accumulate power.
I agree that inner potential is not all that counts in what a person “accomplishes” in the end, but the excuses for why this day and age are different than those in the past will limit what you are able to “accomplish”. I see inner potential as a chassis, a frame on which you build. Your frame may not be the greatest, and it may be best suited to another place or time but you can still optimize it to fit your goals. This is the day and age we live in, for this lifetime you have to work within those confines, that is realistic. And if everyone is mediocre shouldn’t rising above that be even simpler?
But as I already said, this discussion is pointless unless you and I come to terms on what is greatness, mediocre, power, potential, master/slave and a few other things....and for that to happen, you would have to read and understand both the entire Classical literature and Nietzsche's opus. Mere reading it takes a lot of time, whereas understanding it is a whole new ballgame. I am sure you are equipped with the intellect to understand it but I am not sure that you posses other decisive prerequisites (although some of the opinions you displayed in this thread could be a sign that you actually do posses them). I am not sure that you belong to the type that is meant to understand it i.e. the type that instinctively identifies with it.
I don’t think it means I would have to read all of classical literature for us to have a discussion. I would have to understand where you stand, your opinion, and you would have to understand where I stand,my opinion. Each of us informed by different works, experiences, teachings, literature etc. but in the end we are each just putting forth our own version of philosophy.
My moral truth in regards to greatness is that the greatest achievement is to help others learn to take on something akin to Nietzsche’s master mentality. Attempts to subjugate others are, in my mind, immoral. Morally the concept of the golden rule is spot on in my own view. To create masters from slaves requires upholding some of the values that Nietzsche believes to be values of the slave. But taking those attributes and enacting them from a position of strength is different. I agree that those values taken from a perspective of timidity are “bad”but they are not inherently weak values. It is my belief that all of society can be made stronger by raising slaves into masters.
I stand behind some communist ideals not because they save the weak from the strong but because at their heart they seek to show all individuals that they are masters. A utopia to me is a citizenry who can stand individually as pillars holding up the lentil of society, but when one pillar falls it should be rebuilt, not taken advantage of. Advocating for a society of this sort, one that builds up the weak, is a weak position to take if you are the broken pillar. Advocating for a society of this sort when you are a functional pillar taking on the broken pillars load and assisting in the repair is not weakness or “bad”. Nietzsche’s ideas are his own, many of which I agree with, but the morality he draws from his ideals is also his own, and as a master of self I recognize that his ideas on morality are not necessarily moral in my view. I have never been one with a slave mentality, but I do not strive for mastery beyond that of myself, practicing acts of stoicism is helpful to me in that regard.
Nietzsche’s view of only master and slave I do not believe to be a complete view of the world. When he sees cloven hooves he sees lambs and calves, I see bulls and buffalo. I seek to be a bull in life, not a lion. And when a lion steps up I want my compatriots by my side to be bulls not calves. For me( and I may be wrong here, my understanding of Nietzsche is mainly in passing I never read much) I associate Nietzsche’s master concept with a predatory mindset that I as find as reprehensible for an adult to take in life as taking on the mindset of a slave/calf.
TLDR youre probably right that I don’t instinctually identify with his conclusion but I agree with a lot of what he sees to draw that conclusion.
You're right in one thing, though, and that is that philosophers don't fulfill the same role as people we mentioned, at least not what passes as a philosopher in people's mind. True philosophers on the other hand do fulfill the same role, not in the sense that they also conquer militarily but that they are masters in their own right (see Aristotle's and Nietzsche's definition of what constitutes a master before you add your own meaning to my words).
I really like the bold part, I always thought the greatest philosophers weren’t philosophers.
Thanks for giving me interesting things to think about at work. If I read one of Nietzsche’s works what would you suggest it be?