Nietzsche and Runaway Audio Consumption

Came across this today. A lot of posts bring up the issue of "how much is enough?" or "when is audio consumption justified" etc.

Does this Nietzsche aphorism apply to audio buying? You be the judge! 

Friedrich Nietzsche“Danger in riches. — Only he who has spirit ought to have possessions: otherwise possessions are a public danger. For the possessor who does not know how to make use of the free time which his possessions could purchase him will always continue to strive after possessions: this striving will constitute his entertainment, his strategy in his war against boredom. 

Thus in the end the moderate possessions that would suffice the man of spirit are transformed into actual riches – riches which are in fact the glittering product of spiritual dependence and poverty. They only appear quite different from what their wretched origin would lead one to expect because they are able to mask themselves with art and culture: for they are, of course, able to purchase masks. By this means they arouse envy in the poorer and the uncultivated – who at bottom are envying culture and fail to recognize the masks as masks – and gradually prepare a social revolution: for gilded vulgarity and histrionic self-inflation in a supposed ‘enjoyment of culture’ instil into the latter the idea ‘it is only a matter of money’ – whereas, while it is to some extent a matter of money, it is much more a matter of spirit.” 

Nietzsche, Friedrich. 1996. Human, All Too Human: A Book for Free Spirits. Cambridge University Press. (p. 283-4, an aphorism no. 310)

I'm pretty sure @mahgister will want to read this one! (Because they speak so artfully about avoiding the diversion that consumption poses to the quest for true aesthetic and acoustic excellence.)


We are an experiment being conducted by the universe.

I hope we pass.  We can call it 'winning', but it's just simple survival.

Don't touch nothing that your spirit can't kill.  (Steppenwolf, the band)


('BotShot vaccine unavailable at this time; please stand by)

Where is the criticism of the "envying"?  Is envy not also a fault?  Are only those with means capable of fault?  Poor and uncultivated need not mean amoral. I get that it sure seems easier to fault those with means, but not being well off is not an excuse to covet.

Yeah, and that is just one of the fundamental facts that the Nit man failed to address.  Thou shalt not covet.

I don't care much for streams of indecisive consciousness (better known as thought bubbles?) where little regard is had for addressing even the most obvious of internal inconsistencies and flaws in logic.

And there are other contentious issues that render any possible simple and clear truth being buried under their weight.  


"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter Heaven" - The Bible

The Bible doesn't say having money is wrong, but instead says the love of money is. Meaning putting anything in place of a relationship with God, including Godless human philosophy....

The rest of the verse: Matthew 19:25

When the disciples heard this, they were greatly astonished and asked, “Who then can be saved?”

26 Jesus looked at them and said, “With man this is impossible, but with God all things are possible


I'm stuck on the part where he implies more possessions equals more free time.  This has not been my experience and is one of the reasons I think before I buy.

I take "spirit" to mean someone who defines their own path, has their own intentions, and is not in the grip of others' sway. A "sense of what they are about" or "genuine character" might be a good way of seeing his
point. We are either creators or followers.

+1 @hilde45