[leobg]

I found your phrase “will to power” very fitting. I see Thiel as a modern day descendant of Nietzsche: Re-evaluation of values. Seeking solitude away from the herd. Not competing with the “barkers of the marketplace”. Not succumbing to mimetic impulses. Daring to create the future.

(“Will to Power” got a bad rap. It was published posthumously by Nietzsche’s sister who had ties with the Nazis. But Nietzsche’s concept of “power” has little to do with power over others. What he’s talking about is the power of the maker. Of the one who’s capable not of stealing value from others, but of creating value where none existed before.)

[CRConrad]

If he wrote so un-clearly that pretty much everyone ever since has interpreted his writings as supporting the Nazis (or rather, I suppose, authoritarian political ideologies in general), he only has himself to blame, hasn't he? I mean, he made his living from writing stuff; he can be expected to be good enough at it to at least get his frigging point across to a majority (or even a plurality) of his readers.

[leobg]

You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.

Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers. Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.

Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.

[CRConrad]

> You will understand, if you read him. Those who misunderstand just don’t do that. They read a few paragraphs, or a title, or, better yet, someone else’s interpretation of Nietzsche’s work. And then they “know” what it’s about.

So... all those "someone else’s" whose interpretations everyone else reads got it wrong? And that's because, while Nietzsche was great at writing clearly, they're all just too stupid to get it? William of Ockham disagrees.

> Your definition of a good writer: Someone who gets his point across to a majority of his readers.

Thank you for teaching me what I think, but no: That's certainly not my whole definition of a good writer. But, are you saying it's not a pretty big part of it?

> Well. Isn’t that what we’re seeing today? Clickbait and all of that. It’s all designed to get the point across to the majority of people. If that is your goal, you have to compromise.

What on Earth are you talking about? As in, A) WTF does "clickbait and all of that" have to do with anything?; and B) No, there is no evidence that clickbait is "designed to get the point across to the majority" -- are you claiming clickbait even has a point to get across?

> Antibiotics, steam engines, cars, airplanes... none of those things would have been understood by the majority of people. The majority of people declared them absurd. In those cases, the ideas succeeded in pulling up the people. In the case of marketing and politics, it’s the majority that succeeds in pulling down the ideas.

I can only assume you were rather tired and quite emotional when you wrote this, because it makes no sense and has nothing to do with anything we were talking about.