# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  darwin, nietzsche and thoreau...

## country doctor

this is a good sequence for the philosophy chatters to become familiar w/...

first, darwin and w/ his ideas all the implications...

then nietzsche and w/ his attempt to coerce meaning out of a post-darwin world...

and when you find out where you stack up in the world...move on to thoreau, philosophy chatters...

there you'll be able to further work towards a peace and contentment in your own existance...

it's worked for the doc and it should work for you, philosophy chatters...

ROAR!

----------


## Darcy88

I like all three. Nietzsche and Thoreau have some affinities. Both were deeply contemplative men who wrote from the quiet corner of solitude. Nietzsche from his mountains and Thoreau from his woods, they both went far and deep, getting as near as they could to the truth. I haven't read either in some time. Perhaps I'll revisit them. I got half-way through the Origin of Species but it was too dry for me.

----------


## country doctor

change through time, philosophy chatters, change through time...

once you understand the concept and the implications, it's time to head to the woods...

you'll find all your answers in the woods, philosophy chatters...

darwin, nietzsche and thoreau in that order...

and then to the woods, philosophy chatters, to the woods...

ROAR!

----------


## cafolini

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, 
But I have promises to keep, 
And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost

----------


## AuntShecky

I'm not sure Thoreau belongs in this trio, Doc. Darwin's contribution was, in the "philosophical" sense, more or less neutral, secular if you will, though it is not in any way a denial of how he irreversibly transformed understanding of natural science. The second person you cite is indeed a member of the philosophical profession, though his influence found its way into a tragic realm of misinterpretation, possibly helping to cause subsequent political nightmares. Again, both of these thinkers are secular, despite Nietzsche's famous declaration that God is dead.

Thoreau is a thinker as well, but light-years away from the other two, possibly antithetical to Nietzsche. Though rooted in the glories of nature, Thoreau's philosophy is more or less "religious" in the sense of its mystical power of transporting one to a certain awareness of the Eternal. "Transcendentalism" and all that. 

I get what you're trying to propose, though, and perhaps in your frame of mine these triple thinkers aren't mutually exclusive.

----------


## cafolini

Nietzsche was not a philosopher. In fact, philosophy was finished after he finished saying what he had to say. Those were the nightmares and they were umprecedented and healthy for the long run.

----------


## Darcy88

> Nietzsche was not a philosopher. In fact, philosophy was finished after he finished saying what he had to say. Those were the nightmares and they were umprecedented and healthy for the long run.


Philosophy is not dead. Philosophy will live as long as man continues to draw breath. And Nietzsche was a philosopher, a self-proclaimed one at that.

@Auntshecky: Nietzsche drew heavily on Darwin. His theory of mankind's development differed from Darwin's in some aspects but the two corresponded for the most part. Without Darwin I don't think you get Nietzsche, or at least the Nietzsche we know.

As far as Thoreau and Nietzsche.... I have not read Thoreau in quite some time and my memory is a little foggy. The two were both very spiritual, very contemplative, very principled and reclusive. Thoreau had much in common with Emerson and Emerson exercised a profound influence on Nietzsche's thought.

----------


## cafolini

> Philosophy is not dead. Philosophy will live as long as man continues to draw breath. And Nietzsche was a philosopher, a self-proclaimed one at that.
> 
> @Auntshecky: Nietzsche drew heavily on Darwin. His theory of mankind's development differed from Darwin's in some aspects but the two corresponded for the most part. Without Darwin I don't think you get Nietzsche, or at least the Nietzsche we know.
> 
> As far as Thoreau and Nietzsche.... I have not read Thoreau in quite some time and my memory is a little foggy. The two were both very spiritual, very contemplative, very principled and reclusive. Thoreau had much in common with Emerson and Emerson exercised a profound influence on Nietzsche's thought.


Hey we have lots of museums full of philosopher. It's gossip that will not die. But it no longer has influence of any important kind for the future.
Nietzsche predicted the nihilism of the 20th century as a consequence of the false values posited by philosophers, and in the Gay Science cheered the advent of science. Philosophy is done for keeps where the action is.
Nietzsche was a philologist and one of the best historians that ever lived. And a humorist. All attempts at absorbing Nietzsche through philosophy have failed miserably, including Foucault who wrote the most about it. Humanities have been fully overcome, lasting only in museums.

----------


## Darcy88

> Hey we have lots of museums full of philosopher. It's gossip that will not die. But it no longer has influence of any important kind for the future.
> Nietzsche predicted the nihilism of the 20th century as a consequence of the false values posited by philosophers, and in the Gay Science cheered the advent of science. Philosophy is done for keeps where the action is.
> Nietzsche was a philologist and one of the best historians that ever lived. And a humorist. All attempts at absorbing Nietzsche through philosophy have failed miserably, including Foucault who wrote the most about it. Humanities have been fully overcome, lasting only in museums.


So you get nothing from Plato, Descartes, Hume, Mill, and all the other "gossipers?" That's preposterous. Philosophy is no longer what it was, no longer the main avenue of knowledge, but it surely has not died. There's still political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, existentialism, and it goes on, even Platonism, that millenia old school of thought, remains viable to this day. 

And you extend your pronouncement to embrace all the humanities. So history too is no longer relevant? Nor the study of literature? 

The liberal arts will remain relevant until the sun explodes some billions of years hence.

----------


## cafolini

> So you get nothing from Plato, Descartes, Hume, Mill, and all the other "gossipers?" That's preposterous. Philosophy is no longer what it was, no longer the main avenue of knowledge, but it surely has not died. There's still political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, existentialism, and it goes on, even Platonism, that millenia old school of thought, remains viable to this day. 
> 
> And you extend your pronouncement to embrace all the humanities. So history too is no longer relevant? Nor the study of literature? 
> 
> The liberal arts will remain relevant until the sun explodes some billions of years hence.


History is extremely relevant. That's precisely why we had to get rid of them so that they don't keep making history. It was preposterous that they did make history from ignorance, tyranny and prejudice.
I approve their study as historical pieces. There is nothing beneficial to learn from most of them today. One hundred ways to fry an egg is a better book today. Ha! Good luck.

It is no longer justifiable to confront humanistic studies with science.

----------


## Darcy88

> History is extremely relevant. That's precisely why we had to get rid of them so that they don't keep making history. It was preposterous that they did make history from ignorance, tyranny and prejudice.
> I approve their study as historical pieces. There is nothing beneficial to learn from most of them today. One hundred ways to fry an egg is a better book today. Ha! Good luck.
> 
> It is no longer justifiable to confront humanistic studies with science.


I think you make a good point, one I've heard many times before. I studied a lot of philosophy and before I switched to English I was planning on making it my major. So I've heard this before.

Much of philosophy's history of naturalistic speculation is outdated, incorrect, like some of Aristotle's work. But the core concerns of philosophy - the study of human nature, the way to live the good life, grappling with things like God, science, existentialism, politics - these will never fade, never become null or beside the point. 

Plato's Republic is applicable to the here and now, as is Spinoza's Ethics, the writings of the stoics and epicureans, even those of the pre-socratics, and the list of relevant texts goes on and on. 

You say science has rendered philosophy a pointless pursuit. Science has little to say on matters of meaning, virtue, aesthetics, right-living, spirituality, ect. Science itself rests on a philosophical foundation, that of empiricism. 

What I'm saying is that there is room for and need for both. Read Emerson's Essays and then come tell me that philosophy is a dead relic. The observations he made back in the 19th century contain no less relevancy or power than those now being made in laboratories the world over.

----------


## cafolini

Humanism will linger. But without any significant effect. It'll eventually disappear even from the museums as mayor exhibits.

----------


## Darcy88

> Humanism will linger. But without any significant effect. It'll eventually disappear even from the museums as mayor exhibits.


Then we can all be soulless mechanistic automata lacking spirituality, imagination and passion.

----------


## cafolini

> Then we can all be soulless mechanistic automata lacking spirituality, imagination and passion.


Nonsense. Passion is not a product of humanism. Soul is not a product of humanism. How much credit do you want to give the idiots who instituted the circular ruins of human/inhuman behaviour at the expense of all possibilities of development?
They already did enough with the slautherhouses of history. They are finished. Don't believe it, because it is happening. No need to believe or disbelieve. Watch it closely. Recognize it.

----------


## Darcy88

> Nonsense. Passion is not a product of humanism. Soul is not a product of humanism. How much credit do you want to give the idiots who instituted the circular ruins of human/inhuman behaviour at the expense of all possibilities of development?
> They already did enough with the slautherhouses of history. They are finished. Don't believe it, because it is happening. No need to believe or disbelieve. Watch it closely. Recognize it.


I can't make any sense of this. You can go right on ahead and deny yourself the enrichment to be had by studying history, literature, religion, philosophy. I for one believe there's more to be learned than what is revealed by the microscope.

----------


## Theunderground

More direct than science or literature (which are both second hand mediums needing personal verification.) is personal experience. Benefit can be gotten from literature and even science but both are full of bombast,hot air,wild gesticulations and wishful thoughts. Most writers,theologians,post modernists,philosophers and especially scientists dont even understand themselves,so i will be tickled pink if they have any good advice to give on the human condition. If i need to make mass produce a cup i may ask a scientist otherwise forget it. Shakespeare humbles 99% of what is written to dust.

----------


## russellb

The end of philosophy will be when as in the hitch hikers guide to the galaxy by douglas adams we realise the only question that really matters is 'what are we going to have for lunch?' Perhaps the intellectual gas chamber of post modernism will finally make us focus fully on our stomachs. This is almost certainly complete rubbish but it seems to fit in somewhere with this thread.

----------


## country doctor

connect the dots, philosophy chatters, connect the dots...

and you'll soon be joining the doc in the woods...

ROAR!

----------


## country doctor

have any philosophy chatters found their way to the woods yet?

all you need to do is connect the dots, philosophy chatters...

ROAR!

----------


## country doctor

the philosophy chatters have the doc's permission to add the name of mann and the book 'the magic mountain' when connecting the dots...a nietzschian influence to be sure...but in the end the dots should still be able to be connected and a return to the woods should still be the final destination, philosophy chatters...

ROAR!

----------


## cafolini

I say hello, doc, and I'm glad you made your pick. I'm going with Frost, 'cause "I have promises to keep and miles to walk before I sleep."

----------


## Heteronym

> I like all three. Nietzsche and Thoreau have some affinities. Both were deeply contemplative men who wrote from the quiet corner of solitude. Nietzsche from his mountains and Thoreau from his woods, they both went far and deep, getting as near as they could to the truth.


How much truth can social animals find living in self-imposed solitude? You'd think that would actually distort their conception of human nature, no?

----------


## country doctor

BUCKLE UP!

there's really only one thing you need to do in a post-darwinian world, philosophy chatters...

find your own woods and learn to dance in them...this is how you make a combo platter of herr nietzsche and thoreau...

dance, philosophy chatters...dance...

ROAR!

----------


## miyako73

May I know why the doc can't spell "existence"?

----------


## Freudian Monkey

Darwin and Nietzsche tore down my lovely fairy forest, it's all bleak and filthy now. Using Thoreau as a detergent isn't working too well, it only makes me hallusinate from all the fumes that now fill my forest. Dancing is still pretty fun though.

----------


## ralfyman

For a moment, I thought I read "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx," which is an essay by Foucault.

I'm also reminded of a similar sequence I realized after reading one book on the matter:

Nietzsche: Man is a power-hungry animal.

Marx: Man is a political animal.

Freud: Man is a crazy animal.

Darwin: Man is an animal.

----------


## Tucker Hoog

In Ecce Homo Nietzsche writes "....learned cattle have suspected me of Darwinism on account of this word." Nietzsche despised the English. He certainly was not fond of Darwin.

And it was Freud who believed that man was motivated by power and money, not Nietzsche. The Will To Power certainly is not what Freud described.

----------


## osho

> More direct than science or literature (which are both second hand mediums needing personal verification.) is personal experience. Benefit can be gotten from literature and even science but both are full of bombast,hot air,wild gesticulations and wishful thoughts. Most writers,theologians,post modernists,philosophers and especially scientists dont even understand themselves,so i will be tickled pink if they have any good advice to give on the human condition. If i need to make mass produce a cup i may ask a scientist otherwise forget it. Shakespeare humbles 99% of what is written to dust.


Whishing is what our masters do when it boils down to defining the meaning of life and human conditions no matter where they belong epochally. They write from the height they have seen and every height precedes a bigger height and height is only a metaphor and all we do is come up with bulks of metaphors to interpret life. We make allusions and comparison, analogy and end up with absurdity in point of fact. Let us see life from a number of heights and yet height is only one dimension of the object. The object is not always what we sensorily perceive and Quantum Mechanics or the Hicks Boson idea today analyze things differently than the school of materialism in the early twentieth century empiricists

----------


## cacian

> For a moment, I thought I read "Nietzsche, Freud, Marx," which is an essay by Foucault.
> 
> I'm also reminded of a similar sequence I realized after reading one book on the matter:
> 
> Nietzsche: Man is a power-hungry animal.
> 
> Marx: Man is a political animal.
> 
> Freud: Man is a crazy animal.
> ...


Now my turn if I may.

Man is man. 
and
Animal is well animal. 
Two very different spellings. Two different meanings.

----------


## Cioran

> Now my turn if I may.
> 
> Man is man. 
> and
> Animal is well animal. 
> Two very different spellings. Two different meanings.


Man is an animal, nothing but an animal, sharing common ancestors with other animals via evolution.

----------


## country doctor

BUCKLE UP!

all the answers to all the great questions were simply wrong prior to 1858...

now what are you gonna do about it, philosophy chatters?

that's where you need to reach for your nietzsche and thoreau and head to the woods...

dance in those woods, philosophy chatters...dance in those woods...

ROAR!

----------


## cacian

> Man is an animal, nothing but an animal, sharing common ancestors with other animals via evolution.


Haha I wish I could agree with you but I fail to see the link.

----------


## cafolini

> BUCKLE UP!
> 
> all the answers to all the great questions were simply wrong prior to 1858...
> 
> now what are you gonna do about it, philosophy chatters?
> 
> that's where you need to reach for your nietzsche and thoreau and head to the woods...
> 
> dance in those woods, philosophy chatters...dance in those woods...
> ...


Although you know that I think like Frost regarding the woods, I have to agree that these philosophy chatters would do much better in there.

----------


## country doctor

spring in the heartland, philosophy chatters...time to grab your books and head to the lakes and woods...

and don't forget to dance under that natural canopy...

the doc types...

dance, philosophy chatters...dance...

and...

then...

ROAR!

----------


## hypatia_

if philosophy is dead then thinking is dead.

----------


## cafolini

> if philosophy is dead then thinking is dead.


There is no doubt about that for you. LOL

----------


## hypatia_

no because i think thinking is still alive and well  :Smile:

----------


## country doctor

BUCKLE UP!

the doc re-read many of the works from the german master this summer, philosophy chatters...nutritious, as always...

this fall he's gonna work through thoreau's contemporary, emerson...pretty much his whole catalog...should be a nice yin to the german master's yang, if you know what the doc's typin'...

ROAR!

----------


## Barnackian

Doc, what do ye prescribe?

----------


## country doctor

BUCKLE UP!

plenty of yin and yang, barnackian...plenty of yin and yang...

ROAR!

----------


## Bad Horse

The usual set is:
Darwin
Nietzsche
Freud
Marx

These are the people who showed the self-satisfied 19th century, which thought it finally understood everything and had morality and right behavior neatly wrapped up, that in fact they understood nothing. Marx's presence is traditional, but questionable when your viewpoint is more philosophical than historical. He's there because his impact was tremendous, but his insights into alienation are overshadowed by his bad economics and bad psychologizing. It might be better to replace him with Einstein and/or Maxwell.

Thoreau might belong on that list, but his work is fundamentally dishonest. He praised his life of simplicity, yet it was entirely enabled by the work of others; the very industry that he ridiculed provided the food that he ate (contemporaries said during his Walden period he generally dined at various houses in Concord), the books and conversation he enjoyed, the clothing he wore, the town he frequented, the peace and security he required. Nor would his lifestyle have been possible for a man with a family. There may be wisdom in it, but I would rather see its efficacy demonstrated honestly.

----------


## mal4mac

> It might be better to replace him with ... Maxwell.


Useful to work out how to get your dynamo working. But for a way to dance with modern life? Try reading Conrad instead.

----------


## country doctor

BUCKLE UP!

thoughts while walkin'...

the german master's instincts were quite good vis-à-vis the theories of Darwin...a good fit, so to type...

still...you want to find some peace in a world gone wrong, philosophy chatters?

you eventually need to turn to Thoreau for those last few pieces to the 'good livin' puzzle...

thus typed the doc...

ROAR!

----------


## country doctor

the doc isn't so sure anymore...he might not agree with all of his philosophical thoughts from years past...then again he might...the doc does know one thing still...and that is to be totally free one must know how to...

ROAR!

----------


## NikolaiI

haha  :Smile: 
Yeah, the Lion's Roar  :Smile: 
That is true my friend

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9B5EluJhpqw
Tara Brach -- Lion's Roar

Come around some more.

----------

