Is Nietzsche just affirming lame bourgeoise values?

[Nihilist]

When I was a kid, I thought Nietzsche’s “Thus Spake Zarathustra” was great. I re-read it every year or so, and still have a close relationship to that book (even if I hate it, it’s still a part of me).

My latest reading, it strikes me as very tame, and even bourgeoise (although it has some beautiful parts). It’s fundamental message seems to be “Try really hard, do you best- your life may be pointless, but if you make a good effort, and believe in ‘life’, it will be somehow worthwhile.” Really, just the horrible Protestant capitalist ethics, for people who don’t believe in God- like advocating “Faith without God”.

It’s seems to me that Nietzsche is less bold, less daring than Thomas a Kempis- and more of a tedious, preaching moralist. Like a football coach, shouting meaningless slogans…Like this:
“I know than the hatred and envy of your heart. Ye are not great enough not to know hatred and envy. Be ye then great enough not be ashamed of them.”

In other words- just a lame affirmation of the status quo.

Now, Schopenhauer, and Cioran, they were the real honest nihilists- seeing the vanity of all earthly things, but giving nothing, except renunciation or transcendence, as an answer. Nietzsche seems to be only a ‘domesticated nihilist’- he sees the vanity of life, but gives a lame, egotistical, bourgeuise ‘Superman’, as a substitute- some kind of stupid, naive humanism.

Does anyone have this impression. Is Nietzsche just another conformist ‘jerk’?

 

[Iron_Donkey]

Yeah, I’ve always found that particular “there is no good or bad, no meaning, but realizing that can make us upset and, even though it ultimately doesn’t matter if we’re upset, that is bad for some reason (even though there is no bad), and so if we work really hard at pretending there is meaning, then this might at least, even if it doesn’t actually make meaning, allow us to pretend that their is meaning and be more or less happy (even though there is no reason why we should be happy), which is good (even though there is no good), and so is what we should do (even though there is no “should” and certainly no “what we should do”),” approach to nihilism to be both mildly amusing and kind of dumb.

I think it’s meant to give a framework in which people can continue having normalish lives while being nihilists, but given that it is obviously self contradictory and that there is no reason (within nihilism) for people to continue having normalish lives, there’s no real reason to accept it.

But then again, that’s the thing about nihilism. There’s no reason not to either. Or to do anything else. Watch the world burn, start more fires, try to put out the flames, stick your head in the sand - all are equally pointless under nihilism, and it gives no reason to do or not to do any of them. No reason to do or not to do anything, logical or not.