OT/MISC Nietzsche: “Some are born to obey. Some are cursed to see.”

T

TFergeson

Non Solum Simul Stare
ETA: Edited to fix spelling. Thanks Auxman!

Philosophy time!

I think Nietzsche is apropos:

Nietzsche was right when he said: “Some are born to obey. Some are cursed to see.”​

ROCHE MAMABOLO
APR 06, 2026


“Some are born to obey”​

​

Nietzsche believed that many people are naturally inclined toward structure, certainty, and belonging.
These are the people who:
  • Find comfort in rules, traditions, and authority
  • Prefer clarity over complexity
  • Want stability more than disruption
There’s nothing “wrong” with this. In fact, society needs it. Without people who obey laws, follow systems, and maintain order, things would fall apart.
But Nietzsche saw this as a kind of inherited mindset, a way of being shaped by culture, religion, and upbringing.

“Some are cursed to see”​

​

This is where it gets heavier.
Nietzsche is talking about a different kind of person, the one who:
  • Questions everything
  • Sees through illusions, traditions, and social “scripts”
  • Feels unsettled by easy answers
To “see” is to notice things others don’t:
  • The contradictions in society
  • The masks people wear
  • The uncomfortable truths about power, morality, and meaning
And here’s the key: he calls it a curse.
Why?
Because once you see, you can’t unsee.
You may feel:
  • Isolated (“Why doesn’t anyone else notice this?”)
  • Restless (nothing feels fully satisfying or certain)
  • Burdened (you carry questions others don’t have to carry)
It’s tempting to read this as: “Some people are better than others.”
But Nietzsche wasn’t simply praising one group and dismissing the other.
He was pointing to a tension in human existence:
  • The need for order vs. the urge for truth
  • Comfort vs. awareness
  • Belonging vs. individuality
Both roles exist in all of us, but usually one dominates.
In real life, especially in entrepreneurship and leadership, this shows up beautifully:
  • The “obedient” side builds systems, follows through, executes consistently
  • The “seeing” side questions the model, challenges norms, creates new paths
The magic is not choosing one over the other.
It’s learning when to:
  • Follow, and when to question
  • Stabilise, and when to disrupt
Sometimes, the people who “see” don’t look powerful.
They look:
  • Quiet
  • Thoughtful
  • Slightly out of place
But they are often the ones who:
  • Build new industries
  • Rewrite narratives
  • Or simply… live more consciously
And yes, it can feel like a burden. But it can also be a gift, if held with care.

rochemamabolo.substack.com

Nietzche was right when he said: “Some are born to obey. Some are cursed to see.”

“Some are born to obey”
rochemamabolo.substack.com rochemamabolo.substack.com
 
Last edited:
marsofold said:
The guy had a total mental breakdown, followed by a stroke that disabled his ability to walk or speak. Not somebody that I could admire.
Click to expand...
His breakdown came late in his life. The vast bulk of his work is before his health issues. The depth, clarity and appropriate nature of his material speaks for itself.

You do not have to follow only comprehend.
 
Okay, so humanity as a whole are a bunch of idiots. So Philosopher ... whatcha going to do about it but sit at your desk and putz around with yet more words and zero action.

If all you do is complain about a problem and fail to do something about it besides spread some hot air, YOU are part of the very problem you are yapping about. You can sit up in your ivory tower with your attitude, that doesn't make you any better than the rest of us schlubs that actually walk on the ground and get things done.
 
Nietzsche would have loved this song

View: https://youtu.be/6s5jTXAqq7E


Don't Hold Back The Alan Parsons Project
Some are born to lose their heads
And some are born to use them
And some will never know their ends
And some are born to choose them

Don't you let your fantasies be blinded by the light
You don't have to save your wildest dreams for the night

Don't hold back, don't hold back
Don't hold back, reach out
Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out

Some you win and some you lose
And some will bring you sorrow
And some are born to lead the rest
And some are born to follow

Don't rely on miracles to open any door
And don't you let a shadow be your guide anymore

Don't hold back, don't hold back
Don't hold back, reach out
Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out

Ride the wave of destiny
Rise above the crest
And believe everything that happens to you
Happens for the best
Don't allow the world of men
To turn your head no more
'Cause if you can't let yourself go
What are you saving yourself for?

Don't hold back, don't hold back
Don't hold back, reach out
Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out

Ah, don't you let your fantasies be blinded by the light
For you don't have to save your wildest dreams for the night

Don't hold back, don't hold back
Don't hold back, reach out
Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out

Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out
Touch the sky with your mind's eye
Don't be afraid to reach out
 
Kathy in FL said:
Okay, so humanity as a whole are a bunch of idiots. So Philosopher ... whatcha going to do about it but sit at your desk and putz around with yet more words and zero action.

If all you do is complain about a problem and fail to do something about it besides spread some hot air, YOU are part of the very problem you are yapping about. You can sit up in your ivory tower with your attitude, that doesn't make you any better than the rest of us schlubs that actually walk on the ground and get things done.
Click to expand...
history of the world2.jpg
 
Grok, tell me why a person should be cautious of anyone who wants to emulate Nietzsche?
The answer it came up with was surprisingly philosophical...


Caution is warranted because Nietzsche’s thought is deliberately unsettling, incomplete as a life-program, easily distorted into license, and personally costly when treated as a blueprint rather than a diagnostic tool.

Nietzsche did not offer a ready-made ethics or lifestyle to copy. He wrote aphoristically, provocatively, and often against systems and followers. He repeatedly attacked the idea of disciples and mocked those who would turn philosophy into a new dogma. Anyone eager to “emulate” him therefore risks turning a critic of idols into a new idol.

His central ideas—will to power, the critique of slave morality, the death of God, the Übermensch, eternal recurrence—are powerful instruments for exposing resentment, herd conformity, and life-denying ideals. They are far less reliable as positive prescriptions. Taken selectively or without the surrounding irony and self-scrutiny, they can rationalize egoism, contempt for ordinary constraints, or a romanticized hardness that ignores consequences.

History shows how easily fragments of his work were pressed into service by movements he would have despised (his sister’s editorial interventions and later nationalist appropriations being the clearest examples). The same pattern recurs in smaller ways: people adopting a superior tone, scorning compassion or equality as “weakness,” while lacking the intellectual honesty or creative strength Nietzsche demanded of anyone who would go “beyond good and evil.”

Nietzsche’s own life supplies a practical warning. He lived in growing isolation, chronic illness, and eventual mental collapse. His philosophy is inseparable from that experience of suffering and solitude; it is not a cheerful self-help program for becoming “strong.” Emulating the persona without the underlying labor of self-overcoming, or without the capacity to create new values rather than merely reject old ones, tends to produce either brittle posturing or quiet despair once the exhilaration of negation fades.

A further reason for caution is psychological. Nietzsche’s attack on shared moral foundations and on the consolations of religion or progressive narratives can leave a person without reliable anchors. For some this is clarifying; for others it accelerates nihilism or a compensatory will-to-dominance that is more theatrical than genuine. The people most vocal about “emulating Nietzsche” are frequently those who have absorbed the style of provocation while skipping the harder demand: rigorous self-examination and the creation of something life-affirming in the absence of inherited certainties.

None of this means Nietzsche should be ignored. His diagnoses of modernity, ressentiment, and the costs of certain moralities remain sharp. The prudent response is critical engagement—reading him carefully, testing the claims, and refusing both uncritical discipleship and the opposite error of treating him as a cartoon villain. Those who announce that they intend to live as Nietzscheans often signal that they have already stopped doing the harder work of thinking for themselves.

Grok is an AI model
 
Last edited:
RB Martin said:
Jesus took specific exception to that claim when He stated, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life." There is no wiggle room there!
Click to expand...
Amen! Now this is the foundational truth right here. This is also “the line through the heart”.

Objective, absolute fact is biblical. Period. The Bible is the instruction manual and litmus for our lives.

Blacknarwhal said:
Same yutz who said God is dead. Scuse me if I don't take him seriously.
Click to expand...
For sure of all who are lost. Like all who deny God their ultimate conclusions are wrong. That doesn’t mean all of their work is useless.

The point of that saying is that oftentimes it is more matter of perspective, even in what would be considered “hard facts”. A perfect case in point is the sky.

If we looked at the sky, it would be blue. Hard fact, right? Or is it our interpretation? Let’s say someone walked up to you and said to them it was bottle green. You’re looking at it and it’s blue. Are they wrong? Are you? Or are you both right? Is that person interpreting the same thing you are, differently. The answer is yes they may very well be, and so your “hard fact” is really your interpretation of external stimuli.

Science also confirms this. This is the point he was making.


Kathy in FL said:
Okay, so humanity as a whole are a bunch of idiots.
Click to expand...
Yes
Kathy in FL said:
So Philosopher ... whatcha going to do about it but sit at your desk and putz around with yet more words and zero action.

If all you do is complain about a problem and fail to do something about it besides spread some hot air, YOU are part of the very problem you are yapping about. You can sit up in your ivory tower with your attitude, that doesn't make you any better than the rest of us schlubs that actually walk on the ground and get things done.
Click to expand...

If you were referring to me, then you assume an awful lot about a random stranger on the internet of whom you know very little.

I know you’ve built me up to be some monster, but in truth you know very little about me. That is a downside of internet anonymity, but it doesn’t outweigh the positives.

Also philosophy underpins everything we do and deal with, from law to commerce, religion to social interaction. I wouldn’t knock it until you try it. “Why” is one of the most powerful questions we have. You might be surprised at just what you can figure out and accomplish, and just who may be in the room with you.

raven said:
These are not the only two types. Don't try to shoehorn everyone into one or the other.

Remember, psychopaths can be members of either group as well
Click to expand...
If you read the article it states (as did Nietzsche) that every person has both. It is whichever side is stronger that expresses as their tendency, although this can change over time or due to pressure (COVID was a great example of switching as people saw the system betray them). There is no argument of “x” persons is only one type.
 
library lady said:
None of this means Nietzsche should be ignored. His diagnoses of modernity, ressentiment, and the costs of certain moralities remain sharp. The prudent response is critical engagement—reading him carefully, testing the claims, and refusing both uncritical discipleship and the opposite error of treating him as a cartoon villain.
Click to expand...

Concur. Thank you for the contribution.
 
TFergeson said:
Amen! Now this is the foundational truth right here. This is also “the line through the heart”.

Objective, absolute fact is biblical. Period. The Bible is the instruction manual and litmus for our lives.


For sure of all who are lost. Like all who deny God their ultimate conclusions are wrong. That doesn’t mean all of their work is useless.

The point of that saying is that oftentimes it is more matter of perspective, even in what would be considered “hard facts”. A perfect case in point is the sky.

If we looked at the sky, it would be blue. Hard fact, right? Or is it our interpretation? Let’s say someone walked up to you and said to them it was bottle green. You’re looking at it and it’s blue. Are they wrong? Are you? Or are you both right? Is that person interpreting the same thing you are, differently. The answer is yes they may very well be, and so your “hard fact” is really your interpretation of external stimuli.

Science also confirms this. This is the point he was making.



Yes


If you were referring to me, then you assume an awful lot about a random stranger on the internet of whom you know very little.

I know you’ve built me up to be some monster, but in truth you know very little about me. That is a downside of internet anonymity, but it doesn’t outweigh the positives.

Also philosophy underpins everything we do and deal with, from law to commerce, religion to social interaction. I wouldn’t knock it until you try it. “Why” is one of the most powerful questions we have. You might be surprised at just what you can figure out and accomplish, and just who may be in the room with you.


If you read the article it states (as did Nietzsche) that every person has both. It is whichever side is stronger that expresses as their tendency, although this can change over time or due to pressure (COVID was a great example of switching as people saw the system betray them). There is no argument of “x” persons is only one type.
Click to expand...


No, I was "talking" to Mr. N. My apologies if that wasn't clear.

​

 
library lady said:
Did you get to that last sentence?

Honestly, a Nietzsche post seemed too on the nose for my mood tonight. It made me laugh.
Click to expand...
Of course. I am not a Nietzschean, nor did I claim to be, so it didn’t apply.

I do concur with his assessment of human personality and how it affects their decision making.

There are many others we can discuss depending on whether or not we’re talking about people, society, or government.

I’ve been tossing around a post on Bastiat as well. Maybe Aquinus or Hobbes. We’ll see how that goes.

Exposes to these individuals and their philosophies is good for people, and good for discussion. We can all learn something from all of them.
 
My contention is any purely human philosophical attempt, if followed to its logical conclusion, results in despair. We need God not just for salvation but for sanity itself!

davidsteele.blog

Why Francis Schaefer Matters: The Line of Despair – Part 3

The Loss of Antithesis The loss of antithesis in American culture led to what Dr. Schaeffer coined the “line of despair” or giving up all hope of achieving a rational unified answer to knowledge an…
davidsteele.blog davidsteele.blog


Why Francis Schaefer Matters: The Line of Despair – Part 3​



francis_schaeffer-1


The Loss of Antithesis
The loss of antithesis in American culture led to what Dr. Schaeffer coined the “line of despair” or giving up all hope of achieving a rational unified answer to knowledge and life. Schaeffer outlines what he believes are the various steps below this line of despair. He begins with the German philosopher, Georg William Friedrich Hegel (1770-1831) who became the first man to open the door into the line of despair. Hegel taught what we really have is a thesis, and an opposite antithesis, with the answer of their relationship not a horizontal movement of cause and effect, but a synthesis, or dialectical thinking. In the end result, Hegel’s philosophy produced a synthesis as opposed to antithesis which could be arrived at by reason.
Schaeffer believes that while Hegel opened the door to the line of despair the Danish philosopher, Soren Kierkegaard was the first one to go below the line. Kierkegaard concluded that one could not arrive at synthesis by reason alone. Rather, one achieves everything of real importance by taking a “leap of faith.” Schaeffer, therefore, maintains that Kierkegaard’s conclusions gradually led to the absolute separation of the rational and logical from faith.
The Leap of Faith and the Line of Despair
What is this leap and what does it involve? Schaeffer teaches that Kierkegaard’s leap put away the hope of any unity. Schaeffer writes, “The leap is common to every sphere of modern man’s thought. Man is forced to the despair of such a leap because he cannot live merely as a machine . . . If below the line man is dead, above the line, after the non-rational leap, man is left without categories. There are no categories because categories are related to rationality and logic. There is therefore no truth and no nontruth in antithesis, no right or wrong – you are adrift.” (Escape From Reason, 241, 256).
Schaeffer continues to chronicle the subsequent philosophers who followed Kierkegaard’s thought including the atheistic existentialism of Karl Jaspers, Jean Paul Sartre and Martin Heidegger. These men reasoned below the line of despair and gave up hope of a rational answer to the questions of life. The end result: they are left with only the anti-rational.
Schaeffer proceeds to explain what he considers the further steps under the line of despair. The first as noted above began with philosophy. The second step was art. The third – music. The fourth – culture, and the fifth step was the new theology which was opened by Karl Barth. While most refer to this brand of theology as “liberal” or “neo-orthodox,” and rightly so, the issue at hand runs deeper than labels. Indeed, liberal theology rejects the deity of Christ, the inerrancy of Scripture and the New Testament miracles. The new theology knows nothing of man being created in the image of God. But Schaeffer adds further clarity to the issue: “All the new theology and mysticism is nothing more than a faith contrary to rationality, deprived of content and incapable of contentful communication. You can bear ‘witness’ to it, but you cannot discuss it. Rationality and faith are out of contact with each other” (The God Who Is There, 64).
Man, therefore, is left in a state of despair which “arises from the abandonment of the hope of a unified answer for knowledge and life. Modern man continues to hang on to his rationalism and his autonomous revolt even though to do so he has had to abandon any rational hope of a unified answer” (Escape From Reason, 235-236).
The Consequences of Despair
The consequences and despair of modern man can be found in three areas. alling prey to nihilism or embracing a worldview that offers no hope.
The second is found in the fact that he accepts a false dichotomy (what Schaeffer calls an “absolute dichotomy”) between nature and grace. However, the modern scheme is presently a dichotomy between contentless faith (no rationality) and rationality (no meaning). “All the new theology and mysticism is nothing more than a faith contrary to rationality, deprived of content and incapable of contentful communication. Rationality and faith are out of contact with each other” (The God Who Is There, 64).
Third, since there is no integration point between rationality and faith man engages in acts of desperation in order to find meaning, namely, he accepts a mysticism which gives an illusion of unity to the whole. Hence we understand why the influx of eastern religion such as Hinduism, i.e. the New Age Movement has gained such a popular foothold in America today. If there is no hope of a unified field of knowledge one must cling to a mystical world-view that has no rational base but promises hope for the present and the future.
Schaeffer enhances his discussion by contrasting the Christian faith with modern man’s faith which has turned inward. In Christianity the value of faith depends upon the object towards which the faith is directed. So it looks outward to the God who is there, and to the Christ who in history died upon the cross once for all, finished the work of atonement, and on the third day rose again in space and in time. This makes the Christian faith open to discussion and verification (The God Who Is There, 65).
Click to expand...
 
TFergeson said:
Of course. I am not a Nietzschean, nor did I claim to be, so it didn’t apply.
Click to expand...
As long as you don't follow up with a post on the joys of Wagner...

ETA:
“There are no facts, only interpretations” is stated as a fact.
If the statement is true, then it is only an interpretation.
Then there is no reason to accept it and/or treat it as authoritative.
If it is false, then facts exist.
Either way the absolute claim collapses.

Or put more simply: Gravity doesn't care if we believe in it or not.

This is why Nietzsche is not the best philosopher to promote. He'll have you walking off cliffs and laugh as you fall. Look what happened with the most prominent self-proclaimed group of Nietzscheans from the 1930s and 1940s. (Cue “Ride of the Valkyries.”)
 
Last edited:
library lady said:
As long as you don't follow up with a post on the joys of Wagner...
Click to expand...
Wagner! Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. Referencing the darkness of the human soul when you violently deny God, he is a case study all its own. Outside of that there isn’t much use for him.


library lady said:
ETA:
“There are no facts, only interpretations” is stated as a fact.
If the statement is true, then it is only an interpretation.
Then there is no reason to accept it and/or treat it as authoritative.
If it is false, then facts exist.
Either way the absolute claim collapses.

Or put more simply: Gravity doesn't care if we believe in it or not.
Click to expand...

Yes correct, but only in select circumstances. The principle behind this is a study of perspective rather than a blanket hard rule. For example, using gravity, if I am on earth and am speaking to an astronaut in space where there is no gravity, our perspectives are in contradiction but yet correct.

ETA: further if we wanted to keep it to earth, we can discuss a persons perspective on gravity when performing certain types of aerial maneuvers on planes, where the forces of flight cancel out the effects of gravity for a short period of time. At that moment, gravity does not apply to them either.

Philosophy is about how to think. Look up a few posts when I address this in regards to the sky.
 
Last edited:
TFergeson said:
Wagner! Now there’s a name I haven’t heard in a long time. Referencing the darkness of the human soul when you violently deny God, he is a case study all its own. Outside of that there isn’t much use for him.

ETA: further if we wanted to keep it to earth, we can discuss a persons perspective on gravity when performing certain types of aerial maneuvers on planes, where the forces of flight cancel out the effects of gravity for a short period of time. At that moment, gravity does not apply to them either.

Philosophy is about how to think. Look up a few posts when I address this in regards to the sky.
Click to expand...
No thanks. That's a time sink. I already passed philosophy sophomore year of college, which was the last time I heard Nietzsche taken seriously (and rejected).
 
Blacknarwhal said:
Same yutz who said God is dead. Scuse me if I don't take him seriously.
Click to expand...
I think you might have a different conclusion about that if you knew anything about the context and his conclusions about where that was to lead.

He basically foresaw the worst of the century to come - Communism, anti-Christian extremism, industrialized warfare, people assuming themselves as gods ( in wielding power.
 
Last edited:
raven said:
Schools and governments are built by the former.
Innovation and business are built by the latter.

These are not the only two types. Don't try to shoehorn everyone into one or the other.

Remember, psychopaths can be members of either group as well
Click to expand...

Nobody is all one or the other, but usually one trait it more dominant than the other, varying by domains.

IIRC, paraphrasing the author, many people tout their “law abiding“ personality as a sign of virtue, when in fact it is cowardice of being caught that drives them.
 
Marketing lives off........ Perception is reality. So they change the meaning of words, they suggest, they make up a reality that people perceive, and take as truth...........say it over and over enough.....
 
sy32478 said:
Nobody is all one or the other, but usually one trait it more dominant than the other, varying by domains.

IIRC, paraphrasing the author, many people tout their “law abiding“ personality as a sign of virtue, when in fact it is cowardice of being caught that drives them.
Click to expand...
Funny, Ive listened to more than one inmate say things similar.....
Lets try anarchy and see how things pan out for those that believe that line, being they all seem to think they are the ones that see and have a leg up one everyone else...im betting reality strikes them down hard.
 
subnet said:
Funny, Ive listened to more than one inmate say things similar.....
Lets try anarchy and see how things pan out for those that believe that line, being they all seem to think they are the ones that see and have a leg up one everyone else...im betting reality strikes them down hard.
Click to expand...

Our Founders loosely agree with you, but were wise enough to see that society can indeed be manipulated to moral madness, leading to tyranny, and referred to “anarchy”, i.e. the State of Nature, as a blessing, in comparison.

We are there…..and we’re there to the point that those who champion society, at any cost, are the cowards who fear their own incompetence to live apart from the dictates of their own preferred tyrant.

And that, is precisely why they preached so bitterly against the very DEMOCRACY the US has become, today, where 51% can and cheerfully do vote the 49 into oblivion.
 
Samuel Adams said:
Our Founders loosely agree with you, but were wise enough to see that society can indeed be manipulated to moral madness, leading to tyranny, and referred to “anarchy”, i.e. the State of Nature, as a blessing, in comparison.

We are there…..and we’re there to the point that those who champion society, at any cost, are the cowards who fear their own incompetence to live apart from the dictates of their own preferred tyrant.

And that, is precisely why they preached so bitterly against the very DEMOCRACY the US has become, today, where 51% can and cheerfully do vote the 49 into oblivion.
Click to expand...
Only one way it changes and it never turns out they way people want it to or expect.
 
sy32478 said:
I think you might have a different conclusion about that if you knew anything about the context and his conclusions about where that was to lead.

He basically foresaw the worst of the century to come - Communism, anti-Christian extremism, industrialized warfare, people assuming themselves as gods ( in wielding power.
Click to expand...
The worst of the century to come--all the things you listed--are all belief systems created in opposition to the beliefs of Christianity. And all of them have elements in common with Nietzsche.

It's ironic that the son of a German Lutheran minister was the one whose nihilism and "Will to Power" was taken up by a group of malcontents at the edge of society years later, and eventually led his country to utter ruin.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top