# Reading > Philosophical Literature >  All about Nietzsche

## dramasnot6

Recently, after seeing so many references and admirers of him on the forum, I have been researching the philosophy of Nietzsche. I've done a bit of skimming of the forum and have not found a specific thread for him yet, so I hope I'm not being repetitive by creating this one. I thought here we could discuss various things about Nietzsche, his philosophy, and his life. 
Below is the link to an article I found especially clear and helpful to explain his basic philsophy if anyone is interested. 
http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/f...ies/nietzsche/. 
To get us started here are some extracts(i underlined what seemed to be the important points) from that article




> Nietzsche absorbed the German romanticist, and specifically Schopenhauerian, view that non-rational forces reside at the foundation of all creativity and of reality itself, identified a strongly instinctual, wild, amoral, "Dionysian" energy within pre-Socratic Greek culture as an essentially creative and healthy force. Surveying the history of Western culture since the time of the Greeks, Nietzsche lamented over how this "Dionysian," creative energy had been submerged and weakened as it became overshadowed by the "Apollonian" forces of logical order and stiff sobriety. He concluded that European culture since the time of Socrates had remained one-sidedly Apollonian and relatively unhealthy. As a means towards cultural rebirth, Nietzsche advocated the resurrection and fuller release of Dionysian artistic energies -- those which he associated with primordial creativity, joy in existence and ultimate truth. 
> 
> Reluctant to construct a philosophical "system," and sensitive to the importance of style in philosophic writing, Nietzsche composed these works as a series of several hundred aphorisms whose typical length ranges from a line or two to a page or two. Here, he often reflects upon cultural and psychological phenomena in reference to individuals's organic and physiological constitutions. The idea of power (for which he would later become known) sporadically appears as an explanatory principle, but Nietzsche tends at this time to invoke hedonistic considerations of pleasure and pain in his explanations of cultural and psychological phenomena. 
> Nietzsche set forth some of the existential ideas for which he became famous, namely, the proclamation that "God is dead" and the doctrine of "eternal recurrence"-- the idea that one is, or might be, fated to relive forever every moment of one's life, with no omission whatsoever of any pleasurable or painful detail. Nietzsche's atheism -- his account of "God's murder" (section 125) -- was voiced in reaction to the conception of a single, ultimate, judgmental authority who is privy to everyone's hidden, and personally embarrassing, secrets; his atheism also aimed to redirect people's attention to their inherent freedom, the presently-existing world, and away from all escapist, pain-relieving, heavenly otherworlds. To a similar end, Nietzsche's doctrine of eternal recurrence (sections 285 and 341) was formulated to draw attention away from all worlds other than the one in which we presently live, since eternal recurrence precludes the possibility of any final escape from the present world.


This is just some food for thought to get people started. You can discuss some of the points here, or anything you like involving Nietzsche.

----------


## jon1jt

the age of rationalism had its roots in early ancient greece with the decline of Pre-Socratic thinkers - Hericlitus being one of my favorite; and so while many point to Socrates as the truly embodied free thinker, Neitzsche rightly characterizes Socrates as an ugly old man who used philosophy as a mechanism of control in the very way christians use guilt. 

nietzsche is, in my mind, the greatest philosopher of all time for reasons that i'll share as this thread unfolds. for now, consider that if you deleted every single philosophical word ever written and left just one line for the world to come out from under its spell of god and creature comforts, it would be this: 

Jesus said, "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."

----------


## Virgil

> Jesus said, "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."


So Nietzsche reduces down to pychobabble?

----------


## jon1jt

> So Nietzsche reduces down to pychobabble?


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:  i knew there'd be a point we'd disagree on something!  :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

:Biggrin:  I know there is more to Nietzche than that. I don't remember any of my Nietzche but there were aspects of his thoughts that I remember I found interesting.

BTW, you know my sensitivity to psychobabble.  :Wink:

----------


## jon1jt

the true beauty of Nietzsche is that you won't find in his writing a philosophical "system." he admits that language fails him, which is why his writings go poetic at points, but that didn't stop him from doing violence to metaphysical/theology. there's a little something for everybody, not to mention all the misinterpretations of nietzsche.

----------


## Gallantry

My only problem with Nietzsche is that he was so arrogant. Very intelligent though, very intelligent.

----------


## jon1jt

> My only problem with Nietzsche is that he was so arrogant. Very intelligent though, very intelligent.



Nietzsche was no more arrogant than Christianity he put on notice. Jesus was an intelligent man too; it's Christian theology that is not. or so Nietzsche says.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Gallantry

" "God," "the immortality of the soul," salvation," a "beyond"-these are mere notions, to which I paid no attention, on which I never wasted any time, even as a child-though perhaps I was never enough of a child for that-I am quite unacquainted with atheism as a result, and still less as an event: with me it is instinctive. I am too inquisitive, too skeptical, *too arrogant*, to let myself be satisfied with an obvious and crass solution of things. God is such an obvious and crass solution; a solution which is a sheer indelicacy to us thinkers-at bottom He is really nothing but a coarse commandment against us: ye shall not think! . . . I am much more interested in another question which the "salvation of humanity" depends much more than upon any piece of theological curiosity: the question of nutrition. (Ecce Homo)

I'm not quoting this to point out anything concerning his philosophy, just his arrogance, which he himself claims.

----------


## jon1jt

> " "God," "the immortality of the soul," salvation," a "beyond"-these are mere notions, to which I paid no attention, on which I never wasted any time, even as a child-though perhaps I was never enough of a child for that-I am quite unacquainted with atheism as a result, and still less as an event: with me it is instinctive. I am too inquisitive, too skeptical, *too arrogant*, to let myself be satisfied with an obvious and crass solution of things. God is such an obvious and crass solution; a solution which is a sheer indelicacy to us thinkers-at bottom He is really nothing but a coarse commandment against us: ye shall not think! . . . I am much more interested in another question which the "salvation of humanity" depends much more than upon any piece of theological curiosity: the question of nutrition. (Ecce Homo)
> 
> I'm not quoting this to point out anything concerning his philosophy, just his arrogance, which he himself claims.


nietzsche was already in the early throes of insanity by the time he wrote ecco homo, so keep that in mind when you quote from it. also around that time he signed several pieces of correspondence with, "jesus christ."

still, even if i am to take his "too arrogant" line seriously, he's merely stating what most of us will not: there are a certain set of beliefs that will not be entertained because they're so utterly putrid, revolting, and vile to one's sensibilities. the particular point of departure depends on the individual. for Nietzsche, that was GOD.
don't you know, "GOD IS DEAD."

----------


## Scheherazade

Sorry to repeat a cliche but...


> don't you know, "GOD IS DEAD."


Don't you know, '"NIETZSCHE IS DEAD" - GOD'? 

 :Wink:

----------


## dramasnot6

> So Nietzsche reduces down to pychobabble?


I don't think it is psychobabble. I see the quote as Jesus, or traditional Christian doctrine, claiming that there is some sort of predestination through piouty and good works, where as Nietzsche sees it as an act of wilful self.

----------


## Virgil

> I don't think it is psychobabble. I see the quote as Jesus, or traditional Christian doctrine, claiming that there is some sort of predestination through piouty and good works, where as Nietzsche sees it as an act of wilful self.


I don't know where you get pre-destination from in that Jesus quote. 

Drama, anyone that can speculate into the motives of people to me is dabbling in psychobabble. Should I speculate what your motives are for being a vegan? I could come up with some psychobabble thoughts. It wouldn't mean much.

----------


## dramasnot6

> I don't know where you get pre-destination from in that Jesus quote. 
> 
> Drama, anyone that can speculate into the motives of people to me is dabbling in psychobabble. Should I speculate what your motives are for being a vegan? I could come up with some psychobabble thoughts. It wouldn't mean much.


Dismissing something as psychobabble is not very illuminating. We are discussing Nietzsche. If you want to discuss welcome, if you do not you are welcome to just observe.

----------


## Virgil

> Dismissing something as psychobabble is not very illuminating. We are discussing Nietzsche. If you want to discuss welcome, if you do not you are welcome to just observe.


I'm sure there is lots of good and important ideas from Nietzsche to discuss. I just don't find that statement very profound. And I disagree; pointing put psychobabble is illuminating. When I thinker resorts to finding underlying motives into the minds of people, then I feel an obligation to point out shotty thinking.

----------


## jon1jt

> Sorry to repeat a cliche but...Don't you know, '"NIETZSCHE IS DEAD" - GOD'?


hey, i didn't declare "God is dead!" nor did i say i disagreed with it.  :Tongue:  the words come from Nietzsche's Thus Spake Zarathustra. i like how you put it though.  :FRlol:

----------


## jon1jt

> I don't know where you get pre-destination from in that Jesus quote. 
> 
> Drama, anyone that can speculate into the motives of people to me is dabbling in psychobabble. Should I speculate what your motives are for being a vegan? I could come up with some psychobabble thoughts. It wouldn't mean much.


but the analogy doesn't work, really, because the fact is you're comparing a _belief_ in God to a _belief_ in good eating habits. and practicing healthy eating allows the doer to participate in the physical and mental transformation of such. in other words, the results of good eating are _verifiable_: via weight loss, improved energy, or simply feeling good about not participating in a practice that involves the vile practice of mass slaughtering animals. Such a belief is relevant and realizable in THIS life. and if more people were vegans, say in the millions, then less animals would be mass produced and sent to slaughterhouses. that too is VERIFIABLE. the rationale for believing in god is predicated on an afterlife, in part accessed by pious acts performed in this life to obstruct the demonic and elevate oneself, enticed by biblical passages like,

it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.

now that's not to say that people who _believe_ in god have NO reason. while reasons vary, generally the belief is that it "feels" right. Nietzsche's inquiry addresses this feeling. 

and as far as psychobabble, there are plenty of case studies involving neurosis to support the babble. psychology, in large measure, "observes" data, tests, and retests, all works performed in THIS world, THIS life.

----------


## Virgil

I'm not commenting on whether one believes in God or not. I'm commenting on this phrase:



> Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."


Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up. 

Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.

Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I agree with Virgil - the Nietzsche quotation offered by jon1jt is questionable in terms of its suggestion because Jesus doesn't tell us the person's motivation for humbling him/herself: He simple states what the _eventual outcome_ of that action will result in (an outcome He is qualified to know); Nietzsche, on the other hand, identifies a _motive_ for the action. Virgil's right: Nietzsche assumes that his view is everybody's view - because he (who seemed pretty fascinated with power) desires power, he imputes that desire to all mankind. That does seem a little _arrogant_ (to borrow terminology used elsewhere here).

----------


## jon1jt

> I'm not commenting on whether one believes in God or not. I'm commenting on this phrase:
> 
> Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up. 
> 
> Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.
> 
> Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.


i would like also to believe that human beings are so highly complex creatures that discerning patterns of behavior and mechanisms through which they exert such behaviors is impossible. but we know that commercials, by and large, get people to spend money they often haven't yet earned. through empirical observation, medications have been developed to effectively deal with mental illness. according to your thinking people are so dissimiliar that any attempt at deciphering basic determinants is absurd. but the evidence overwhelming disagrees with that claim on the grounds that millions of people - suffering from similar "conditions" - have been accurately and effectively treated. psychology is, above all, empirical---i.e. "this" world, which lends to my remarks above that the "condition"; nay, "affliction" governing the Christian notion of a 'god' and 'afterlife' is not only observable in its practices, but also in the exertion of _power_ its waged and wishes more to wage against non-Christians. and this power is, thus, observable -- from the hierarchy of the church to the strange bedfellows of high ranking church leaders and "public" lawmakers. 

that's why nietzsche, marx, and freud, (and others later) are known as the "masters of suspicion" because they strove to deconstruct the human complex inhered in its history and social institutions. to be so dismissive of nietzsche's inquiry is to presuppose no cause other than the biblical sources and other proselytizing devices from which christianity springs. nietzsche asserts that the metaphysical world has no place in THIS world. and such mental objects---i.e. god, heaven, ought be shelved next to unicorns.

----------


## Redzeppelin

But "humbling" oneself is not the equivalent of a mental affliction that a pill can address. To get the pill, one has to have a professional _tell_ him what it is he's suffering from. Humility is an internal response by an individual due to some realization of his position in relation to someone/something else - it is an admittance of one's humanity and limitations inherent in being a human. To decide that what that person _really_ wants is the _opposite_ is pure assumption based on what Nietzsche wants.

I don't know about Nietzsche, but the other two in the rogues gallery you mentioned, well - haven't they both been largely discredited in terms of their theories?

----------


## Nick Rubashov

fun Nietzsche site:

http://www.losanjealous.com/nfc/

It's the Nietzsche family circus. Randomly generated Family Circus comics with Nietzsche quotes

----------


## jon1jt

> I agree with Virgil - the Nietzsche quotation offered by jon1jt is questionable in terms of its suggestion because Jesus doesn't tell us the person's motivation for humbling him/herself: He simple states what the _eventual outcome_ of that action will result in (an outcome He is qualified to know); Nietzsche, on the other hand, identifies a _motive_ for the action. Virgil's right: Nietzsche assumes that his view is everybody's view - [B]because he (who seemed pretty fascinated with power) desires power, he imputes that desire to all mankind. That does seem a little _arrogant_ (to borrow terminology used elsewhere here).


i mentioned in my first post that mischaracterizations of nietzsche are prevalent. yet his view on power must be true because you said so.  :Biggrin:

----------


## dramasnot6

> but the analogy doesn't work, really, because the fact is you're comparing a _belief_ in God to a _belief_ in good eating habits. and practicing healthy eating allows the doer to participate in the physical and mental transformation of such. in other words, the results of good eating are _verifiable_: via weight loss, improved energy, or simply feeling good about not participating in a practice that involves the vile practice of mass slaughtering animals. Such a belief is relevant and realizable in THIS life. and if more people were vegans, say in the millions, then less animals would be mass produced and sent to slaughterhouses. that too is VERIFIABLE. the rationale for believing in god is predicated on an afterlife, in part accessed by pious acts performed in this life to obstruct the demonic and elevate oneself, enticed by biblical passages like,
> 
> it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to go to heaven.
> 
> now that's not to say that people who _believe_ in god have NO reason. while reasons vary, generally the belief is that it "feels" right. Nietzsche's inquiry addresses this feeling. 
> 
> and as far as psychobabble, there are plenty of case studies involving neurosis to support the babble. psychology, in large measure, "observes" data, tests, and retests, all works performed in THIS world, THIS life.


  
I agree, all these terms around psychology have evidence supporting them. More like observations then babble. 




> Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up. 
> .


I do not think he is assuming the same motives for "humbling" for everyone. I agree with you in that everyone has their own specific context that influences them, but why should Nietzsche be an exception? Isn't it HIS observations from HIS context that influences him to write that? If one never expressed their own opinion through philosophy or literature, where would be all the great texts?He is using it merely as an example of his point that there are other motives for religion rather then the obvious . The quote would be less effective if he had said "No. Some that humbleth themselves wants to be exalted." His "psychobabble" is merely an attempt to analyze the complexity of motive one may have.

----------


## jon1jt

> But "humbling" oneself is not the equivalent of a mental affliction that a pill can address. To get the pill, one has to have a professional _tell_ him what it is he's suffering from. Humility is an internal response by an individual due to some realization of his position in relation to someone/something else - it is an admittance of one's humanity and limitations inherent in being a human. To decide that what that person _really_ wants is the _opposite_ is pure assumption based on what Nietzsche wants.
> 
> I don't know about Nietzsche, but the other two in the rogues gallery you mentioned, well - haven't they both been largely discredited in terms of their theories?


to address your last piece - i think you fail to realize the contribution of marx and freud to the fields of politics, law, and more generally, psychology. and the last i checked history didn't end, unless you're cut from the same cloth as francis fukuyama with his liberal democratic notion of an "End of History."  :FRlol:

----------


## jon1jt

> But "humbling" oneself is not the equivalent of a mental affliction that a pill can address. To get the pill, one has to have a professional _tell_ him what it is he's suffering from. Humility is an internal response by an individual due to some realization of his position in relation to someone/something else - it is an admittance of one's humanity and limitations inherent in being a human. To decide that what that person _really_ wants is the _opposite_ is pure assumption based on what Nietzsche wants.
> 
> I don't know about Nietzsche, but the other two in the rogues gallery you mentioned, well - haven't they both been largely discredited in terms of their theories?


now to deal with your first response, I answer that "humbling" can be symptomatic of a neurotic disorder, which puts your assumption on notice that christian humility is ALWAYS pure and untainted when irrefutably the self is divided and at war with itself. why is it that christians can apply evil to human nature so long as it doesn't include themselves, especially when it comes to acts of good will and piety? the second the claim is waged that christians may be participating in the unseemly, they bat their eyelashes and say, "who, me??" ugh.

as to virgil's point about 'how do we know motives when there are a myriad of possibilities and all inquiries into it's nature are, therefore, impossible" disregards the last 150 years of psychological advancements and application. Nietzsche points to discernible patterns of behavior that denote an exercise of power under the guise of humility, conditioned by a theology that considers the metaphysical to be the "father" of the physical world.

Nietzsche - like freud to an extent - asserted that, for human beings to "see" what lies beneath their own unconcious would be too much for most to bear (not to mention the condition of repression). he goes on to suggest that the will in certain instances exerts itself usurping the psyche's tripartite struggle (a struggle which feeds on self-loathing - particularly the Christian brand). the will that arrives at the highest level of self-mastery becomes, according to Neitzsche, the ubermansch (superman). but the will can never be willed, for the will does as she will.  :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

> now to deal with your first response, I answer that "humbling" can be symptomatic of a neurotic disorder,


Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.  :FRlol:  




> as to virgil's point about 'how do we know motives when there are a myriad of possibilities and all inquiries into it's nature are, therefore, impossible" disregards the last 150 years of psychological advancements and application. Nietzsche points to discernible patterns of behavior that denote an exercise of power under the guise of humility, conditioned by a theology that considers the metaphysical to be the "father" of the physical world.


 What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?




> Nietzsche - like freud to an extent - asserted that, for human beings to "see" what lies beneath their own unconcious


What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.




> would be too much for most to bear (not to mention the condition of repression). he goes on to suggest that the will in certain instances exerts itself usurping the psyche's tripartite struggle (a struggle which feeds on self-loathing - particularly the Christian brand). the will that arrives at the highest level of self-mastery becomes, according to Neitzsche, the ubermansch (superman). but the will can never be willed, for the will does as she will.


Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.

Each era creates myths and legends to understand the world. The 20th century is no different. I've said this before, the two greatest myths of the 20th century are that socialism works and that Freudian psychology understands man. What is fascinating about the 20th century myths are that they tend to cloak themselves in science. Empirical evidence is the final proof, my friend.

----------


## jon1jt

> Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.  
> 
> What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?
> 
> 
> What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.
> 
> 
> Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.
> ...



that 'psychobabble' argument is just a way to turn off the discussion by putting me on the defense. so i'm not going to be seduced by it. i'll make this last point about psychology and move on. the fact of the matter is the field of psychology is based on case studies and terms like "unconscious" derived from them. the "unconscious" isn't an entitity, it's based on the processes of the human mind. over time theories are made that correspond with and come out of the empiricism. psychology is not like unicorns and god, they're based on patterns of evidence. iimperfect, but the science has been shown to often work. read first about what a theory is, then about carl jung who wrote volumes about the unconscious. i didn't get it from a college class; i'm not a product of the academy, i'm an intellectually curious person. and to add to what i already said in my preface, Niezsche is NOT psychology; there are existing concepts that correspond with psychology, but no "system." there was no freud or jung or unconscious label before nietzsche. i made this "system" notion clear to preempt silly claims like 'psychobabble.' 

this idea you're looking for "evidence," are you serious? can i hold you to the same standard for your conception of god and the holy spirit? and that's not psychobabble.  :FRlol: 




> as to virgil's point about 'how do we know motives when there are a myriad of possibilities and all inquiries into it's nature are, therefore, impossible" disregards the last 150 years of psychological advancements and application. Nietzsche points to discernible patterns of behavior that denote an exercise of power under the guise of humility, conditioned by a theology that considers the metaphysical to be the "father" of the physical world.





> What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?


yes, i can: God is dead.

----------


## jon1jt

and i used the term "unconscious" as a simple device to enlighten those who may not have read nietzsche. but let me stress the point: Nietzsche does not use psychological terms. they weren't even around in his day. he uses metaphor in the same way old Socrates did, when he opens the Republic with, "I went down to Pireaus." intelligent readers know he's talking about something more. similarly, Nietzsche's Zarathustra comes 'down' from the cave. so if you want to discuss specifics and avoid using terms familiar to those non-readers, i can do that too.

----------


## Gallantry

> nietzsche asserts that the metaphysical world has no place in THIS world. and such mental objects---i.e. god, heaven, ought be shelved next to unicorns.


I haven't read much Nietzsche. Does he assert that the metaphysical world has a place and it just isn't in this world? Or does he assert that it has no place at all?

----------


## Virgil

> that 'psychobabble' argument is just a way to turn off the discussion by putting me on the defense. so i'm not going to be seduced by it. i'll make this last point about psychology and move on. the fact of the matter is the field of psychology is based on case studies and terms like "unconscious" derived from them. the "unconscious" isn't an entitity, it's based on the processes of the human mind. over time theories are made that correspond with and come out of the empiricism.


Do yourself a favor and understand how psychology has been redefined in the last forty years or so. Freud hardly fits in. The problem with Freud is that he starts from a theory and then tries to find evidence in world. And then he resorts to myths like Oedipus as a confirmation of what he's stating. I'm an engineer. I'm familiar with scientific methodolgy. Freud is pseudo science. Garbage.




> psychology is not like unicorns and god, they're based on patterns of evidence.


Modern psychology has cast itself of its unicorns. It had to. It became more scientific. Many years ago my mother developed depression. My brother who thinks along with you was trying to figure out what was going on with her "unconscious" and how she would have to work out the problems that were lurkng in her mind. What a crock. I took her to a psychiatrist who prescribed a drug that restored her and has kept her from depression for many years. What I'm saying is that it is biological not some witchcraft that works on the unconscious.




> iimperfect, but the science has been shown to often work. read first about what a theory is, then about carl jung who wrote volumes about the unconscious.


Carl Jung who believed we have a collective unconscous that we pass on to our children genetically?  :FRlol:  How does that work. Yes Freud and Jung are equivalent to unicorns. Actually there is a whole slew of these early "psychologists" that if you read them carefully you would have to conclude they can't be all correct. They are not integratbale into a comprhensive model. They disagree fundementally. And you know why? Because they are all coming up with individual theories, not applying scientific methodology.




> this idea you're looking for "evidence," are you serious? can i hold you to the same standard for your conception of god and the holy spirit? and that's not psychobabble.


I said I was not arguing on religious grounds. I have never said there is empirical evidence of God's existence. I wasn't even criticizing Neitzsche as a philosopher. I was focused on that one statement.

If you are saying that Nietzsche disputes Platonic metaphysical world, then I think that is a legitamate philosophic perspective. I would even agree personally with that. But was he the first to bring that out? I would have thought that David Hume and the empiricists were first to bring that out.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> to address your last piece - i think you fail to realize the contribution of marx and freud to the fields of politics, law, and more generally, psychology. and the last i checked history didn't end, unless you're cut from the same cloth as francis fukuyama with his liberal democratic notion of an "End of History."


If you check my post, you'll see that I asked a _question_. Asking a question implies nothing like what you've attributed to me. I'm well aware of these men's contributions - some of them very impressive. But I asked a QUESTION.




> i mentioned in my first post that mischaracterizations of nietzsche are prevalent. yet his view on power must be true because you said so.


Is that sarcasm? If so, why, and how is it beneficial to our conversation? Are you saying Nietzsche wasn't interested in power? If so, then correct me, but don't patronize me.




> now to deal with your first response, I answer that "humbling" can be symptomatic of a neurotic disorder, which puts your assumption on notice that christian humility is ALWAYS pure and untainted when irrefutably the self is divided and at war with itself. why is it that christians can apply evil to human nature so long as it doesn't include themselves, especially when it comes to acts of good will and piety? the second the claim is waged that christians may be participating in the unseemly, they bat their eyelashes and say, "who, me??" ugh.


"Can be" isn't what Nietzsche's statement implies. He made a generaliztion of certainty as to what a specific behavior/attitude means, and his comment implied knowledge of human motive implicit in that behavior/attitude. Second, I wish you'd read my posts a bit closer: I never said humility was "ALWAYS" anything. I too spoke in generalized terms. Nietzsche's statement imputes a contradictory motive to "humilty" - we can't just toss out the meanings of words. Don't call it "humility" then if the motivation behind it is for self-aggrandizement. "Humility" which is masquarading as a desire for self-exaltation isn't "humilty" at all but merely manipulation of some sort. Unless it's an unconscious thing, but then there we go again: Nietzsche is making blanket statements about psychological motivation.

Finally, where did I invoke Christianity _anywhere_ in my post? You are very quick to start criticizing Christianity, but don't you think you ought to wait until it's brought up? And, who says "humility" only has a Christian context?

----------


## dramasnot6

> Finally, where did I invoke Christianity anywhere in my post? You are very quick to start criticizing Christianity, but don't you think you ought to wait until it's brought up? And, who says "humility" only has a Christian context?


I think it was more Nietzsche who brought it up first in this discussion Redzeppelin, he quote was "Jesus said" and Nietzsche's analysis of religion involved a lot of criticism of the Enlightment. It was a major part of his context. 

Ahh, a good site:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/NIETZ.HTM

----------


## Kurtz

I am and will always be a fan of Nietzsche. I think he had the ability to judge society and the forethrought to see the form it would take in the future. It is no secret that Nietzsche has his detractors (As do all great thinkers). Unfortuantely much of the hostility that is fired his way is on the basis of mis-judgements and "generalized stock responses". Arguing about the validity of his claims is a great way to make progress, but in my opinion, not the best way to teach people about his actual philosophy. Let us not be swallowed up by personal arguments and opinions and instead focus on spreading our objective opinions in a way that is conducive to a fresh and individual view on Nietzsche's philosophy. With that being said I only wish to present a short aphorism from Book 3 of Nietzsche's "The Gay Science". 

Aphorism 191: "The good-natured"-

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

----------


## dramasnot6

> I am and will always be a fan of Nietzsche. I think he had the ability to judge society and the forethrought to see the form it would take in the future. It is no secret that Nietzsche has his detractors (As do all great thinkers). Unfortuantely much of the hostility that is fired his way is on the basis of mis-judgements and "generalized stock responses". Arguing about the validity of his claims is a great way to make progress, but in my opinion, not the best way to teach people about his actual philosophy. Let us not be swallowed up by personal arguments and opinions and instead focus on spreading our objective opinions in a way that is conducive to a fresh and individual view on Nietzsche's philosophy. With that being said I only wish to present a short aphorism from Book 3 of Nietzsche's "The Gay Science". 
> 
> Aphorism 191: "The good-natured"-
> 
> "The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."


Thank you for that wonderful insight Kurtz! I agree, let us try to concentrate on the philosophy and not it's validity, couldn't have put it better.  :Thumbs Up:  
What I am curious about is the quote "God is Dead". I am trying to look at Nietzsche's context, particulary that around the Enlightment, to see what led him to such a philosophy. I have developed a little understanding of how all of this comes together, and have come to the conclusion that the enlightenment, that went about trying to prove the existence of God with reason, only served to disprove the existence of God with scientific knowledge.

People wanted to seek their own means of understanding of nature through observation rather then depending on figures of authority such as ancient philosopher like Aristotle or members of the church to provide answers. Aristotle believed truth could be discovered through processes of logic, they tried to prove that it is not pure logic but also observation of the world. They wanted to appeal to observations of nature rather then faith to provide explanations and guidance for action and ethics. But at the earlier stages of the Enlightment did not see an incompatibility between God and natural explanations of the world. This changed as more people(particulary contemporaries of Nietzsche) like Darwin and Gailileo just as easily could explain workings of nature with scientific information rather then using God. I used to think "God is Dead" was a proclamation of atheism, but after looking at it contextually I have discovered it does not make the assumption that there is no God, but rather he has become unnecessary. Brilliant stuff. Thoughts?

----------


## Kurtz

If you are curious about Nietzsche's death of God, I can only recommend that you go out and buy "The Gay Science". Taking the "God is dead" qoute out of context is dangerous. Much of book 3 of the gay science is peppered with aphorisms that lead up the section 125 "The madman" (which is the famous passage). What most people fail to realize is that aphorisims 108-125 are tied togethor and are the best way to decipher his meaning.

For example aphorism 108 "New Struggles" 

"After buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave- a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

Notice the way Nietzsche does not equate the death of god with the absence of believers or even more gods. We are all encompsed by the shadow of god and it will take more than the "devaluation of all values" before we are able to completely vanquish our need for meaning in life. Nietzsche thinks that people are meaning addicts and that people themselves must overcome the death of god and live in a society that is post-christian. More importantly he believes that the christian religion itself killed god. He believes it overcame itself.

In a way Nietzsche is teaching us how to act in a society after the death of god. He constantly alludes to us being a small ship set at sail in an infinite sea. Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster. But only insofar as people are bound to this code and without it will be unable to live in a post-christian world. He speaks of "god is dead" as a cataclysm. "Long plenitudes of destruction , breakdown and cataclysms that are now pending."

I will leave you guys with a short aphorism that follows the famous passage (125 "The Madman")

Aphorism 126. "Mystical explanations"- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial"

----------


## jon1jt

great to see you kurtz, an honor to have you aboard. i see you're reading N's gay science---i think i'm going to pick up his Anti-Christ now that this thread is rolling. 

red zep - dont' mistaken my getting people's intellectual juices flowing in here for patronizing and whatever you said. according to nietzsche, pity and humility are forms of power, nothing more, nothing less. i respectfully disagree: humility that "masquerades..." IS humility, an instrument of power. 

kurtz: i think the operative word in aphorism 108 is "vanquish" which suggests the end of god. but nietzsche understands that by negating god he creates a new myth. nietzsche took the proposition very seriously. he recognized that god was a postulate, and language needs god in order to come into being. you had mentioned earlier that you were reading Heidegger, who uses the word "abyss" in a similar way. nietzsche was more interested in shattering idoltry and self-righteous hypocricy - guilt and sin, part of the christian dogmatic. this got in the way of his call for a new spirituality of this world, a return to innocence. 

christianity's demonization of the world, of humanity, requires an orderly allegiance to book and in most instances, institutions, and nietzsche would have none of it. greed, lust, gluttony, envy, pride, etc. are not evil, as the BOOK tells us they are. even Aristotle understood that vices can be quite practical and necessary, which depended on how they were used by the person. we're all aware that becoming angry sometimes allows us to assert ourselves in productive ways and can have revolutionary results, depending. aristotle and plato revered acts of pride, courage, etc. "the mean between the extremes is the just and orderly life," aristotle exclaims in Nichomachean Ethics. 

do we need a religious foundation to understand ourselves against those conditions?? Neitzsche believes we set the course of our own lives, looking within ourselves. he was not just an atheist, but a very serious atheist, and there's a difference. 

that's all i have time for.

----------


## Virgil

> . he was not just an atheist, but a very serious atheist, and there's a difference.


 He's hardly the first. David Hume was way before him on this. So what makes him so great?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> red zep - dont' mistaken my getting people's intellectual juices flowing in here for patronizing and whatever you said. according to nietzsche, pity and humility are forms of power, nothing more, nothing less. i respectfully disagree: humility that "masquerades..." IS humility, an instrument of power.


Call it what you want, jon, that's what it was. I consider _questions_ a sufficient way to get people's "intellectual juices flowing." OK - so Nietzsche gave his _opinion_ as to what humility means - what makes his definition authoritative besides the fact that you _like_ it?




> greed, lust, gluttony, envy, pride, etc. are not evil, as the BOOK tells us they are. even Aristotle understood that vices can be quite practical and necessary, which depended on how they were used by the person. we're all aware that becoming angry sometimes allows us to assert ourselves in productive ways and can have revolutionary results, depending. aristotle and plato revered acts of pride, courage, etc. "the mean between the extremes is the just and orderly life," aristotle exclaims in Nichomachean Ethics.


Perhaps - but your opening list of vices would generally be on the _excessive_ side of Aristotle's "mean," largely because they are distorted/extreme permutations of normal, healthy feelings/attitudes.

----------


## dramasnot6

> Notice the way Nietzsche does not equate the death of god with the absence of believers or even more gods. We are all encompsed by the shadow of god and it will take more than the "devaluation of all values" before we are able to completely vanquish our need for meaning in life.


So it is not so much the belief of God as it is the dependence on him that Nietzsche wants us to overcome? 




> Nietzsche thinks that people are meaning addicts and that people themselves must overcome the death of god and live in a society that is post-christian. More importantly he believes that the christian religion itself killed god. He believes it overcame itself.


This is exactly what I meant in my post about the Enlightment! A search for truth and observation leading to independence from older truths.




> In a way Nietzsche is teaching us how to act in a society after the death of god. He constantly alludes to us being a small ship set at sail in an infinite sea. 
> 
> 
> 
> Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster.
> 
> 
>  But only in so far as people are bound to this code and without it will be unable to live in a post-christian world. He speaks of "god is dead" as a cataclysm. "Long plenitudes of destruction , breakdown and cataclysms that are now pending."


This I find fascinating. The more and more I learn about this God is Dead idea and it's connections to his idea of Eternal Reccurence, the more I feel like I am peeling the layers away of an entire philosophical revolution. I have now gone from thinking Nietzsche to be an atheist, to someone just progressive but still inividualistic, and now his theory of eternal reccurence seems to be some sort of substition faith or comfort in place of an entire change of era. 
"Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster. " So his beliefs were not so much a product of lack of religious faith but as a consideration for the spiritual stability of humanity. 



> I will leave you guys with a short aphorism that follows the famous passage (125 "The Madman")
> 
> Aphorism 126. "Mystical explanations"- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial"


What i got out of it is basically they are meaningless?

And thanks so much for contributing such great info+analysis Kurtz! It really is an honor to have you aboard.  :Smile:

----------


## jon1jt

> He's hardly the first. David Hume was way before him on this. So what makes him so great?




virg, there's actually a big difference between Nietzsche and Hume. you're right that Hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited --- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought). in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. Nietzsche's scheme conflates human and world, which is why he is so averse to perception. 

sorry this is dense, i'm trying to sum a lot in a little time.

----------


## dramasnot6

> virg, there's actually a big difference between nietzsche and humen. you're right that hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited --- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought). in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. he conflates human and world. there's no need for world in Nietzsche's scheme, which is why he is so averse to perception. 
> 
> sorry this is dense, i'm trying to sum a lot in a little time.


so much wonderful philosophy to study...so much pointless schoolwork eating up my time...the world is unfair. thanks for the great info+analysis jon!  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## jon1jt

Kurz:
few things:

you mention "post-Christian world" -- and this is a term hotly debated. first of all nietzsche doesn't pay all that much heed to history. sure he was a military man and reveres courage and nation and felt there was a place for it, but there is no historical dialectic with Nietzsche in the sense of Hegel and Marx. All is flux, as Hericlitus said. Nietzsche's Will has no trajectory, no aim or purpose or end. "the long plenitudes of destruction" were well underway with christian morality (tracing back to Platonism)---the fact that human beings somehow managed to thwart their own impulses. hence Nietzsche's rage against christianity. 

(Dramas) you mentioned search for "truth and "older truths" --- nietzsche saw truth as a chimera - a shrewd way for the self to view truth as "object" or as something to be sought, obtained via categories of knowledge, and it's not the case. there was no truth in Nietzsche's world, just energy unfolding. Amor Fati: love of fate. and as far as the "Enlightenment," it reminds me of Alfred E. Whitehead's famous quote that "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato (older truths)." 

Nietzsche said: "We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from, we only heard of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist."

here's my favorite Nietzsche quote: "There is no "outside myself" But all sounds make us forget this; how lovely it is to forget."

----------


## jon1jt

> so much wonderful philosophy to study...so much pointless schoolwork eating up my time...the world is unfair. thanks for the great info+analysis jon!



Dramas: don't waste another day in school; quit now before it's too late!  :FRlol:

----------


## jon1jt

Red Zep said:
Call it what you want, jon, that's what it was. I consider questions a sufficient way to get people's "intellectual juices flowing." OK - so Nietzsche gave his opinion as to what humility means - what makes his definition authoritative besides the fact that you like it?

jon: 
good question, Red. i guess there's a part of me that believes nietzsche when he tells the reader that few will understand him. you're right, i "like" Nietzsche, he's my favorite philosopher - not so much for what he WRITES, but for the way he SINGS to us. most of philosophy, by contrast, is comprised of words set alongside the empirical world. useless. there's something musical in Nietzsche that transcends speech. and yes, that's what i find so magical and yet so real.

----------


## dramasnot6

> Dramas: don't waste another day in school; quit now before it's too late!


 :FRlol:  Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something"  :Tongue:  It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"





> (Dramas) you mentioned search for "truth and "older truths" --- nietzsche saw truth as a chimera - a shrewd way for the self to view truth as "object" or as something to be sought, obtained via categories of knowledge, and it's not the case. there was no truth in Nietzsche's world, just energy unfolding. Amor Fati: love of fate. and as far as the "Enlightenment," it reminds me of Alfred E. Whitehead's famous quote that "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato (older truths)." 
> 
> Nietzsche said: "We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from, we only heard of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist."
> 
> here's my favorite Nietzsche quote: "There is no "outside myself" But all sounds make us forget this; how lovely it is to forget."


How does Nietzsche's thoughts on truth connect with his ideas around eternal occurence though?

----------


## jon1jt

> Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something"  It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"


that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!

remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student? 
"You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."

----------


## dramasnot6

> that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!
> 
> remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student? 
> "You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."


this is very true, i am probably much better off with just self-education. if only it counted for a better job selection and happy parents too :Frown:  I dont think University will be all that bad, if i can get into a good one. some of those philosophy courses can be really exciting. look at the profs in the Teaching Company, i would love to listen to them live! 


I was recently thinking about how Nietzsche's ideas around inculturalization compared to his God is Dead and eternal reccurence thoughts, I am in search for a common theme. I am just starting to get a grasp on how Nietzsche was part of some huge revolution in thought, a branching off of more traditional thinking. All this ideas seem to promote an ideal lifestyle in which, by removing our value and belief system shaped by society and religion, we are in more touch with ourselves and therefore can improve ourselves morally. In a way Nietzsche's thoughts did embody various aspects of the Enlightment in that they force us to observe for ourselves. I hope I am making some sense?

----------


## jon1jt

> Perhaps - but your opening list of vices would generally be on the _excessive_ side of Aristotle's "mean," largely because they are distorted/extreme permutations of normal, healthy feelings/attitudes.


lust, pride, sloth...--- the particular degree of each on the spectrum depends upon the individual. there is no universal mean. what defines excessive/deficient is subjective as "normal, healthy feelings/attitudes." aristotle recognized that.

----------


## Kurtz

Wow this thread is getting interesting. I dont have time for a long post so here is a short poem from Nietzsche:

"Judgements of the Weary"

They hate the sun, find steep the grade,
And love trees only for their shade.

----------


## Virgil

[QUOTE=jon1jt;316342]


> virg, there's actually a big difference between Nietzsche and Hume. you're right that Hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited


Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.




> --- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought).


When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me. 




> in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. Nietzsche's scheme conflates human and world, which is why he is so averse to perception.


God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life.  :Wink:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> good question, Red. i guess there's a part of me that believes nietzsche when he tells the reader that few will understand him.


That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such _elitism_ is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever. 





> you're right, i "like" Nietzsche, he's my favorite philosopher - not so much for what he WRITES, but for the way he SINGS to us. most of philosophy, by contrast, is comprised of words set alongside the empirical world. useless. there's something musical in Nietzsche that transcends speech. and yes, that's what i find so magical and yet so real.


Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.

----------


## Jean-Baptiste

> in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion).


Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite. 

jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.

Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.

----------


## Redzeppelin

Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense. 

Thanks again  :Smile:  

PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...

----------


## jon1jt

> That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such _elitism_ is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever. 
> 
> 
> 
> Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.


i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.

what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "_vision_ of life" in nietzsche. 

the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.

----------


## jon1jt

> Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite. 
> 
> jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.
> 
> Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.



right on, jean - ol lockey uses that. descartes came to my mind referring to another point i was making about subject-object. still, descartes is foundational to locke's epistemology. 

i'm happy you feel that way about the academy, excellent. so we have different opinions about it's particular value. you want to call my quoting the movie Good Will Hunting as an argument then go ahead. 

you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.


Nietzsche's "resistance" to "categorization" is fine - but language must have some reasonably stable meaning; once we decide to define it as we wish, then its subjectivity now interferes with communication. 




> what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "_vision_ of life" in nietzsche.


The dictionary does not define "humility" as the desire for self-exaltation. That particular evaluation is Nietzsche's - an evaluation you buy because Nietzsche lays out some particular view that you agree with.





> the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.


Its "pretention" only exists if you assume it was inspired by, created by and written by (solely) men. If you proceed from the supposition that a Divine Being was in charge of what the Bible "calls for," then there's no pretention - God knows what He's talking about. Human agreement lends credibility to Nietzsche's ideas/statements. God does not require us to agree with Him for His statements to carry authority - He's GOD.

----------


## jon1jt

> Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense. 
> 
> Thanks again  
> 
> PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...



i agree. i also want to learn about Nietzsche from the experts. oh well.

----------


## jon1jt

[QUOTE=Virgil;316414]


> Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.
> 
> 
> When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me. 
> 
> 
> God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life.


 :FRlol:  i think we can find some commond ground here. i see what you mean virgil. philosophy uses a lot of jargon and some of it is just unavoidable. you also realize there's a lot of hair splitting, which can often make it feel inaccessible, but it's really not once you jump in and open up to it. 

btw, i think your last sentence brings you closer to nietzsche than you imagine.  :Biggrin:

----------


## Jean-Baptiste

> you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.



touché. I apologize for descending to your level of exposition.

----------


## jon1jt

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316536]Nietzsche's "resistance" to "categorization" is fine - but language must have some reasonably stable meaning; once we decide to define it as we wish, then its subjectivity now interferes with communication. 

jon
but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."

red
The dictionary does not define "humility" as the desire for self-exaltation. That particular evaluation is Nietzsche's - an evaluation you buy because Nietzsche lays out some particular view that you agree with.


jon
so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me? 

red
Its "pretention" only exists if you assume it was inspired by, created by and written by (solely) men. If you proceed from the supposition that a Divine Being was in charge of what the Bible "calls for," then there's no pretention - God knows what He's talking about. Human agreement lends credibility to Nietzsche's ideas/statements. God does not require us to agree with Him for His statements to carry authority - He's GOD.

jon
that's your supposition, not mine, nor is it Nietzsche's according to my understanding of him. 

"he's god." and you even use personification here to bring him closer to my experience. but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing.  :Biggrin:

----------


## blp

> I feel an obligation to point out shotty thinking.


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## Virgil

Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.

----------


## blp

> Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.  
> 
> What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?
> 
> 
> What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.
> 
> 
> Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.
> ...


 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

I'm willing to bet that you'd be laughed at in both. 

Oh lordy.

----------


## blp

> Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.


I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing. 

The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.

----------


## Virgil

> I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing. 
> 
> The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.


Oh I'm sorry.  :Blush:  Thanks.  :FRlol:

----------


## blp

> Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.


 Yes.




> When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me. 
> 
>  
> God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life.


See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

----------


## jon1jt

> Yes.
> 
> 
> 
> See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?


that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!  :Confused:   :FRlol:  

he's got a point, virgil.  :Biggrin:

----------


## dramasnot6

> See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?





> that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant! 
> 
> he's got a point, virgil.


 :Biggrin:  Thank so much for bringing some logic to this thread blp! Now, shall we discuss some NIETZSCHE or what? :Smile:

----------


## Virgil

> See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?





> that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!   
> 
> he's got a point, virgil.


Well, I have a passing interest for intellectual purposes. I understand some philosophy and I'm really trying to understand what makes Nietzsche so important. His greatest statement is "God is dead," but atheism had been around in a serious way for at least 150 years before him. Jon says that Nietzsche refuses to have a system of thought, but that's what philosophy is suppose to be, a way of thinking. First Jon points a Nietzsche statement that frankly is nothing more than psychobabble. Jon then points something else out in Nietzsche and I identify it as a Kantian thought. So what gives? No one is actually saying what Neitzsche is all about. Can someone reduce him down to a paragraph?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."


I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.




> so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me?


Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."





> but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing.


Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.

----------


## Scheherazade

*Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming 
and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.

Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.*

----------


## dramasnot6

> *Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming 
> and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.
> 
> Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.*


Thank you Scher. I think before we were discussing God is Dead, Nietzsche's take on truth, and eternal reccurence. If anybody would care to go back a page or 2 you can pick up on this and make your own contributions.

----------


## jon1jt

> I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.



first of all i don't mind if people flame me if they like. i'd rather people express how they truly feel. speak your mind, i'll listen. nor am i insulted in the least.

dramas, i'll get to the conversation about nietzsche, no problem, i understand. but we have to first get over this baggage or else we'll never have a constructive discussion. maybe we can't discuss this topic because Nietzsche draws the line in the sand between the moral herd and the infinitesimal percentage of anti-moralists ("herd" is nietzsche's term, not mine). as far as god goes, i stated my position up front, god is a postulate. so comparing her to santa or a unicorn just reinforces my heartfelt belief. you obviously disagree. when i referred to god as nothing, i was just invoking heidegger's language, not being patronizing as you say. 

you seem to have a lot to offer this dialogue, red, so i hope you stay. just realize what you already know, nietzsche is not kind to god, and so i will not be either to remain true to the spirit of the nietzsche text. at the same time, i'm not insulting your religious beliefs, so not to worry.

----------


## dramasnot6

Thank you for clarifying Jon, I'm sure everyone will appreciate it  :Smile:  I am still slightly confused about Nietzsche's take on truth though. And the logic behind eternal occurence, does he mean if an action is put out there, it being the only thing occupying a certain space at a certain time, it will adopt all forms of itself eternally?

----------


## jon1jt

i'm going to get to red's point about language as it pertains to his dictionary remark. just want red to know i'm not avoiding it.

----------


## jon1jt

virgil: 
you asked about kant. the short of it is, Kant considered how judgments are possible. he unpacks the inner workings of the mind, the mind constructed of 'categories' --- which is simply a template that joins like a puzzle piece to the world, more specifically, to objects or phenomena. 

Nietzsche, by contrast, is concerned with why the belief in such judgments are "necessary." kant is concerned strictly with logic; nietzsche with psychology. 

hope that makes sense.

----------


## jon1jt

> I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."



let me try to articulate the problem of language according to nietzsche:
when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. the object that you say we catalog in the dictionary is the sum total of a metaphor of a metaphor, thereby two degrees from the object. to put it another way, think of an interpretation of an interpretation of a book. yet you never have access to the author himself. so then, language becomes a sort of world of its own; what nietzsche actually calls a "second world." an illusion, and just because people identify with its - as you say - connotations and denotations - we ought not be duped by that which is far behind a world of flux. stability-seeking human beings created language to drive a wedge between world and themselves---to amuse themselves to death with the idea that there's a ground on which the mind can assemble itself and objects around which it can wrap itself. 

let me round this obscure statement with an even more obscure one. When Nietzsche was in the throes of his insanity, his sister Elizabeth was reported to have said that people should not draw rash conclusions about her brother's work because "He is in the heights where he no longer speaks with words but with lightning." 

in light of nietzsche's philosophy, can anyone think of why she might have said that? consider that Elizabeth was also the one who titled his book, "Will To Power" which was published posthumously, based on random notes found in his office and elsewhere she cobbled together, which were still being developed, such as the idea of eternal recurrence.

----------


## dramasnot6

> let me try to articulate the problem of language according to nietzsche:
> when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. the object that you say we catalog in the dictionary is the sum total of a metaphor of a metaphor, thereby two degrees from the object. so language becomes a sort of world of its own; what nietzsche actually calls a "second world." an illusion and we ought not be duped by it.


This reminds me of I quote of Descartes I found in my research. "We can doubt everything but that we are doubting" or something along those lines. I love Nietzsche's philosophy as I am introduced to more and more aspects. Language and illusion are working together to create these metaphors,right? I think these ideas around language of Nietzsches would be fantastic to apply to child development. Is the metaphot created by the memory in terms of illusion strengthened when combined with a word recognition? And what about adjectives? How are we to apply words nonspecific to a certain illusion to different illusions, we must use our other senses. Is emotion an illusion too? Do all our senses, jsut because they are created by a development of memory, contribute to these complex metaphors? Does our entire being revolve around sets of metaphors? WHY DOESNT MY SCHOOL OFFER PHILOSOPHY!!!?? sorry...I am just so pumped with curiosity about this guy and have so little to work with! gah!

----------


## jon1jt

> This reminds me of I quote of Descartes I found in my research. "We can doubt everything but that we are doubting" or something along those lines. I love Nietzsche's philosophy as I am introduced to more and more aspects. Language and illusion are working together to create these metaphors,right? I think these ideas around language of Nietzsches would be fantastic to apply to child development. Is the metaphot created by the memory in terms of illusion strengthened when combined with a word recognition? And what about adjectives? How are we to apply words nonspecific to a certain illusion to different illusions, we must use our other senses. Is emotion an illusion too? Do all our senses, jsut because they are created by a development of memory, contribute to these complex metaphors? Does our entire being revolve around sets of metaphors? WHY DOESNT MY SCHOOL OFFER PHILOSOPHY!!!?? sorry...I am just so pumped with curiosity about this guy and have so little to work with! gah!


i can see that you're pumped...cool! my best guess regarding non-specific words is just a humanity's superfluous aid in the fruitless capturing of the object's essence, in the same way we can never capture god or world or universe. only passion is real, and we've repressed most of that out of duty to christian morality. 

your school doesn't offer philosophy for the same reason that most American parents can't help kids with their homework: they're too busy buying new cars and plasma screen tv's. ugh.

----------


## dramasnot6

> i can see that you're pumped...cool! my best guess regarding non-specific words is just a humanity's superfluous aid in the fruitless capturing of the object's essence, in the same way we can never capture god or world or universe. only passion is real, and we've repressed most of that out of duty to christian morality.


Ah ok. So that is why Nietzsche believed it was important to remain in touch with our Dionyssian side? Because the passion involved in that is the only thing actually real? And religion is part of our inculturalization? It is all connecting.



> your school doesn't offer philosophy for the same reason that most American parents can't help kids with their homework: they're too busy buying new cars and plasma screen tv's. ugh.


Gotta love that consumerism. But i agree, if they arent busy buying them then they are busy working overtime to make the money to buy them...sad.

----------


## Virgil

> virgil: 
> you asked about kant. the short of it is, Kant considered how judgments are possible. he unpacks the inner workings of the mind, the mind constructed of 'categories' --- which is simply a template that joins like a puzzle piece to the world, more specifically, to objects or phenomena. 
> 
> Nietzsche, by contrast, is concerned with why the belief in such judgments are "necessary." kant is concerned strictly with logic; nietzsche with psychology. 
> 
> hope that makes sense.


OK thanks.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. the object that you say we catalog in the dictionary is the sum total of a metaphor of a metaphor, thereby two degrees from the object. to put it another way, think of an interpretation of an interpretation of a book. yet you never have access to the author himself. so then, language becomes a sort of world of its own; what nietzsche actually calls a "second world." an illusion, and just because people identify with its - as you say - connotations and denotations - we ought not be duped by that which is far behind a world of flux. stability-seeking human beings created language to drive a wedge between world and themselves---to amuse themselves to death with the idea that there's a ground on which the mind can assemble itself and objects around which it can wrap itself.


This is one of the reasons that philosophy after Aristotle becomes incomprehensible to me. I'm fine with this deconstruction of meaning, but followed to it's logical conclusion, _your own words_ cease to have any stable meaning. I find it interesting that philosophers like Nietzsche and literary theorists like Derrida strip language of its inherent meaning but assume that _their_ usage of language is somehow "outside" of their own definition. Once you tell me that language is an "illusion" we now must define all usage of language "illusory" - including the language that postulated the illusory nature of language in the first place. If that's what Nietzsche is saying, what good does that do? His own statements become as flexible as I wish them to be - or have I missed something? Despite all this abstract theorizing - we still have to communicate. But if words hold no (reasonably) stable "truth" in terms of what they mean, then any statement of "truth" becomes absurd.




> let me round this obscure statement with an even more obscure one. When Nietzsche was in the throes of his insanity, his sister Elizabeth was reported to have said that people should not draw rash conclusions about her brother's work because "He is in the heights where he no longer speaks with words but with lightning."


Poetic, yes; a reasonable conclusion? Not so sure about that. Insanity may be some sort of "second sight" (it is often romanticized as such), but it is also the disconnection of one's senses from reality - the deception of the mind upon itself. If truth emerges from that sort of chaos, it must be largely incidental. 

My point is simply this: you cannot invalidate a tool that you're using to invalidate that tool. If Nietzsche wishes to believe language is an "illusion," his use of it to define it as such becomes absurd. Is that his point?

----------


## blp

Red Zep, did you know that when blind people recover their sight, they see a swirling chaos of colour for some time before 'normal' vision returns. Or that our eyes actually see everything upside down and our brains turn them the right way up. Or that our eyes see only a tiny fragment of the entire colour spectrum. There is always an ordering that is always, to some extent, imposed. One of the interesting things about Kant and Nietzche is that they came to this realisation without scientific evidence. 

Yes, stable meaning's a problem - and yes, that's recognised by Derrida and Nietzche, but no, I don't think they exclude themselves from that. Derrida says there is nothing outside the text. Nietzche often seems to be contradicting himself in Thus Spake Zarathustra and the aphoristic style he uses elsewhere allows him to create little parcels of thought, for argument's sake, that are not necessarily all consistent with one another - and to avoid a process of linear argument that will always, as Derrida shows, at some point end up contradicting itself. 

If this means it's hard to communicate, well, quelle surprise. We see the difficulty of communication constantly, from arguments between forum visitors, to those between lovers to those between nations. One person says something, the other throws it back at them and the first claims they've been misinterpreted. Don't shoot the messengers who warn us of the pitfalls. A bit of honest self doubt would be a refreshing thing in most politicians, rather than the rhetorically bankrupt insistence on dubious positions we generally get from them.

----------


## Scheherazade

In the light of some PMs I have received, I would like to remind that a general warning in a thread is addressed to everyone who has been posting and who think of posting to prevent things from deterioration. They are not necessarily aimed at the last person who has posted and when we would like to address indivual members, we do so by either singling them out within the thread or by contacting them via PMs.

Also, unfortunately, we have no way of gauging members' individual sensitivity levels and keeping a track of them; hence, we try to make sure that the Forum Rules are in place at all times. If you prefer communicating with certain members on more personal levels, you can always do so by PMs.

----------


## ennison

I'd imagine that most of us find Nietzsche intermittently very interesting and can easily see the madder proclamations as oddities we can ignore. After all the political creeds that leaned on Nietsche were soundly defeated but can probably never be totally eliminated.

----------


## Scheherazade

Thank you for bringing the discussion back on track, Ennison, which is *Nietzsche and his philosophies*.

*Please note that any off topic posts are likely to be deleted with or without any further notice form now on.*

----------


## dramasnot6

> I'd imagine that most of us find Nietzsche intermittently very interesting and can easily see the madder proclamations as oddities we can ignore. After all the political creeds that leaned on Nietsche were soundly defeated but can probably never be totally eliminated.


Very interesting point. But what exactly do you mean by this statement? I am aware that there were many political ongoings and discoveries in many areas at the time but what exactly is it that can not be eliminated?

Thanks for joining us!

----------


## kilted exile

> Very interesting point. But what exactly do you mean by this statement? I am aware that there were many political ongoings and discoveries in many areas at the time but what exactly is it that can not be eliminated?
> 
> Thanks for joining us!


I believe it is refering to the way the Nazis leaned on Neitschzes works due to a (mistaken?) understanding of his "superman" philosophy

----------


## Virgil

I believe he is talking about Nietzche's idea on will to power. It was something that I hoped would be discussed and seems like the one signature Nietzsche thought. Here it is summarized in Wiki:




> The concept of the "will to power" in Nietzsche's thought has had many interpretations, most notoriously its misappropriation by the Nazis, which amounts to its characterization as a "desire for and of power" ("power" here specifically denoting the more limited concept of "dominance"). Some Nazis (Alfred B&#228;umler, etc.) also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social darwinism, although Nietzsche explicitly criticized the latter in his works. This misreading was criticized by Martin Heidegger himself in his 1930s courses on Nietzsche. By Wille zur Macht, Nietzsche did not have raw physical or political power in mind. He didn't mean "Will to power", but rather "will-to-power": one particular and inedit concept, rather than the union of two different concepts, "will" and "power".
> 
> Opposed to a biological and voluntary conception of the Wille zur Macht, Heidegger and Deleuze both argued that the will to power and eternal recurrence are to be considered together. The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer.
> 
> To understand the will to power, Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".[6]
> 
> Another particular standpoint of the will to power is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that Nietzsche argued was the underlying – the "most fundamental fact" – "inner" force of nature.
> 
> "I do not speak to the weak: they want to obey and generally lapse into slavery quickly. In the face of merciless nature, let us still feel ourselves as merciless nature! But I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant p[eople], without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.). The powerful n[atures] dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"
> —Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlass, Fall 1880 6[206]


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power

I wonder why Nietzsche keeps talking about people as "weak" or "slaves" versuses those that aren't? Any explanation?

----------


## ennison

Yes these are the very fellows I meant who used or abused his philosophy for their own ends but I think he remains interesting despite that. Maybe oddly that gives a kind of grim glamour to his ideas. I cant answer the last question but it is these problematic areas in his ideas which various political 'thinkers' were drawn towards.

----------


## blp

> I believe he is talking about Nietzche's idea on will to power. It was something that I hoped would be discussed and seems like the one signature Nietzsche thought. Here it is summarized in Wiki:
> 
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power
> 
> I wonder why Nietzsche keeps talking about people as "weak" or "slaves" versuses those that aren't? Any explanation?


It sounds like an attempt to question the notion of power. I can't help feeling that his description of the desire to rule as 'weak' does a pretty good job of anticipating Hitler. It's a bit like a more sophisticated version of the mother who tells her bullied child that the kid who's bullying him is probably only doing it because he's scared of something himself.

----------


## Orionsbelt

You know it has been a long time since I have given any thought to these things. I had in my college years studied a school of psychology call existential phenomenology. So Nietzsche, Hume and others were talked about much. I am thinking that these statements drive back into the idea of passion. Slaves are those who lack or who weakly exhibit the Dionysian energy. 

Virgil you will hate this... back in the day, I couldn't help but think of "use the force Luke" when considering the "will to power" less midiclorians in our less passionate fellow humans. How is that for French fry philosophy? :FRlol:

----------


## dramasnot6

> I believe it is refering to the way the Nazis leaned on Neitschzes works due to a (mistaken?) understanding of his "superman" philosophy


Oh yes, i have heard of this. It is rather sad I think too, gives Nietzsche a bad name. Ironically, Nazis tried to suppress the more free, natural behaviour and thinking where as Nietzsche promoted the Dionysian lifestyle.

----------


## Virgil

> You know it has been a long time since I have given any thought to these things. I had in my college years studied a school of psychology call existential phenomenology. So Nietzsche, Hume and others were talked about much. I am thinking that these statements drive back into the idea of passion. Slaves are those who lack or who weekly exhibit the Dionysian energy. 
> 
> Virgil you will hate this... back in the day, I couldn't help but think of "use the force Luke" when considering the "will to power" less midiclorians in our less passionate fellow humans. How is that for French fry philosophy?


 :FRlol:  I suspect that Nietzsche would have liked Dark Vador more. 

I don't know who it was in this thread that called Nietzsche arrogant, but there is a tremendous hubris to divide people into weak or slave versuses master. I take it he considers himself on the master side. I am failing to really see what is so important about Nietzsche. Did he have an once of compassion for people or the totality of humanity? Everyone says he's been misinterpreted. While I think it is a stretch to assume he would have supported Nazism, I can see how corrolaries to his positions can lead to Nazism. Let me put it this way: his ethics (and I admit I have not read directly his works, but summarized passages) don't preclude Nazism. It doesn't rule it out.

----------


## dramasnot6

Let us remember Nietzsche was long before the day of Nazism and would have no direct way of supporting it anyway. His works can, like many other pieces, be interpreted in many ways and obviously the Nazis had their own interpretation like everyone else. But when you look at many of his other ideas, such as Dionysian energy, they really don't fit with Nazi ideology.

----------


## dramasnot6

What I have been meaning to bring up for a while is a fascinating event in Nietzsche's life, when he hallucinated the horse beating scene out of Crime and Punishment when he went mad. Does anyone have thoughts as to how this connects with his philosophy?

----------


## dramasnot6

Perhaps, since Nietzsche believed everything but passion was basically a product of our minds, he felt as if it were possible to share memories, even with a fictional character? I do not know, it's a tricky one.

----------


## hyperborean

I've read most of Nietzsche's work and I have to say that I favor his ideas over all others (you can probably tell my member name). 

If you guys think Nietzsche is arrogant, go take a look at Socrates. The guy knowingly knew his philosophy was flawed and he still continued to preach it like he was some sort of God. I respect Plato (mainly because of the _republic_), but not Socrates (especially after I learned that Socrates' last words were "life is an illness").

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If you guys think Nietzsche is arrogant, go take a look at Socrates. The guy knowingly knew his philosophy was flawed and he still continued to preach it like he was some sort of God. I respect Plato (mainly because of the _republic_), but not Socrates (especially after I learned that Socrates' last words were "life is an illness").


This commentary presupposes that there is such a thing as "unflawed" philosophy. Considering the disagreement among philosophers, I doubt such a thing exists (meaning that all branches of philosophy would universally agree on some specific philosophic perspective as "unflawed").

Secondly, would you kindly provide some _proof_ as to your statement that Socrates "knew" his philosophy was flawed? I'm not sure how Socratic questioning and Socratic irony (his two primary techniques) are "flawed." And, since Socrates' words only exist _through_ the "filter" of Plato's pen, how can you dismiss one (who did not recored his own words for us) and like the other (who venerated Socrates, but nonetheless used him as a personal "mouthpiece")? We can only _assume_ that what Socrates says is uniquely his own - authorial agendas might very well be embedded in Socrates' dialogues.

----------


## hyperborean

There is no right or wrong philosophy, you're right. Socrates famous quote before he dies proves that he knew his philosophy was wrong and that life is an illness (contradicting his own philosophy). Read this:

"With respect to this strange phenomenon of Nietzsche not only inserting his own words into the mouths of famous figures, but drawing conclusions about those figures based upon those words, we may note that he performs a similar piece of ventriloquy in the case of the dying Socrates. In that section of the Twilight of the Idols (1888) titled The Problem of Socrates, Nietzsche twice compels his Socrates to verbalise the unspoken sentiment traditionally ascribed to his life-culminating Phaedo reference to owing a c0ck (it means rooster but this forum blocks the word ****)to Asclepius. Writes Nietzsche:



Even Socrates said as he died: “To live - that means to be a long time sick: I owe a **** to the saviour Asclepius”. Even Socrates had had enough of it (1).


“Socrates is no physician,” he said softly to himself: “death alone is a physician here... Socrates himself has only been a long time sick” (12).


Since the tradition was to offer a **** to Asclepius, Greek god of medicine and healing, upon recovering from an illness, Socrates’ famous remark in Plato’s Phaedo (118a) has long been understood by scholars as suggesting a) that earthly existence is, or Socrates’ earthly life has been, an illness, and/or b) that death is the cure for the illness of life. While I will return to the sombre and suggestive conclusion that “Even Socrates had had enough of it” below, I now note that the actual words Nietzsche adds to Plato’s account of Socrates’ death-bed speech are broadly in keeping with the familiar life-as-illness, death-as-cure understanding of this famous scene, and accordingly, do little to alter the conventional interpretation of the passage in question."
-http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol10/Jesus.html

----------


## Redzeppelin

Nothing you have said do I have an objection to except: seeing life as "illess" is a comment about life, not about Socrates' philosophy. What exactly do you take Socrates' philosophy to be?

----------


## dramasnot6

Everyone's philosophy is "flawed" borean. Very few people out there who promote their beliefs and ideas consider them to be absolute perfection, just maybe less flawed then the alternatives. All these philisophy pioneers and idols have a bit of a big head anyway, you need a good ego to fall back on when your works are so controversial.

----------


## Redzeppelin

I'll agree with that.

----------


## hyperborean

The thing is...Socrates never admitted he had flaws in his philosophy. He preached it as if it was absolute and perfect. His last quote before he died proved that on the inside he knew there were majors holes in his philosophy; holes that debunked his entire metaphysics. (I'm sure you guys already know about aristocratic philosophy and Socrates' "souls").

Sartre I believe admitted that existentialism was wrong before he died (not to say existentialism is entirely wrong. many existential ideas are great but in the whole grand scheme of things, living by the philosophy just doesn't work out). 

Nietzsche admitted that "eternal recurrence" isn't scientifically proven, but it's good to live by for it increases the will to power.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The thing is...Socrates never admitted he had flaws in his philosophy. He preached it as if it was absolute and perfect. His last quote before he died proved that on the inside he knew there were majors holes in his philosophy; holes that debunked his entire metaphysics. (I'm sure you guys already know about aristocratic philosophy and Socrates' "souls").


I'm sorry - I must be kind of slow because I just don't understand this. Philosophers are required to acknowledge "flaws" in their philosophies to be considered "legitimate"? Huh? What exactly do you understand Socrates' philosophic "system" to be? I always understood that his primary focus was asking questions and engaging in discussion - that's a pretty simplistic synopsis, but I'm lost as to what he was supposed to say about his philosophy and I still don't get how his final words indicate his knowledge of the flaws. But wouldn't this be considered acknowledging the supposed "flaws"? Could you help me out here?

----------


## dramasnot6

> Nietzsche admitted that "eternal recurrence" isn't scientifically proven, but it's good to live by for it increases the will to power.


Eternal reccurence is definetly my favorite concept of Nietzsches.I compare to pretty much everything. Just finished writing a paper for drama comparing eternal reccurence to Stanislavski's emotional memory and also reincarnation. great stuff.

----------


## hyperborean

Eternal recurrence is an interesting concept. 

And zeppelin, I'm referring to aristocratic philosophy (souls, freeing your soul from the body [its prison]). That's what it contradicts.

----------


## dramasnot6

have you read Will to Power, hyperborean?

----------


## hyperborean

yes, to me it's one of nietzsche's best works.

----------


## AstroCity

Today i ditched work and went to the library and just read a short book that sort of explained Nietzche's philosphy. i have read the discussions although i am still unclear about the interpretations of some of his ideas i am attempting to do more research. Anyways.
Is the phrase "God is dead" a conclusion that he derived at. Can it be that since he concluded that the human intention is deceptive or selfish(Will to Power) that anyone wanting to reach Heaven, will or can do so in this manner only? So "God is dead" could just be that God is dead in the hearts of wo/mankind or that the concept of God is dead not God himself of course. 
If i am way off please direct me to the right direction.

----------


## dramasnot6

"God is dead in the hearts of wo/mankind or that the concept of God is dead not God himself of course. "

That is exactly right.  :Thumbs Up:  From my interpretation, he is saying God is no longer neccesary to explain life.

----------


## hyperborean

exactly. It doesn't matter if there is a divine being or not. The only way to overcome oneself is to live life without the influence of God's control. Nietzsche defines it as master-slave morality.

----------


## dramasnot6

This is why I think Nietzsche is so easily comparable to many psychological concepts, he has such a fascinating take on the motives behind human behaviour. But the most brilliant part of his philosophy is that he not only identifies the motives behind being religious, but offers substitution concepts to help ease people from their religious dependence. I think he does this so well because he REALLY, genuinely believes in what he is saying. To me, he seems sincerely concerned with the death of God in society and it's effect on people. Maybe that is why he went insane, his passion for this beliefs was too strong. Like with creative writing, philosophy must contain a balance between raw belief and passion and also some objectivity. No one person can save the world, maybe Nietzsche went insane trying. Wow, lots of pro-Nietzsche, idealizing bias in that interpretation. Someone please argue against me.

----------


## hyperborean

that was nicely put; there's no way someone can argue against that.

I do hope some of you guys understand what a "hyperborean" is. I've got a feeling you guys think I made it up. My avatar is Ouroboros which is a symbol for eternal recurrence.

----------


## dramasnot6

wow, i didnt even know there was a symbol for eternal reccurence! What is the context behind Ouroboros? I am intrigued by the symbolism. At first I thought it was just similiar to the dozens of reincarnation symbols people have put out, and then I realized it was completely different in that he was consuming himself. He eternally reccurs in his own life by endlessly consuming every inch of his life. And in this case, literally his LIFE as in body! Clever stuff.

----------


## DrBill

This "discussion" of Nietzsche stalls on one bumper-sticker concept. Explore Nietzsche for half a year; take along a checklist of provocative questions:

A) What does Nietzsche argue about the world and willpower that had not been advanced by Schopenhauer?
B) Is truth, as Nietzsche insists, an illusion?
C) Is morality something to be dismissed?
D) Is there any connection between Nietzsche's glorification of a "Superman" (Overman) and the idea of a master race?
E) In Nietzsche's perspectivism, if there is no such think as truth but only different interpretations of truth, is the world without validity?
F) In what perspective, for that matter, does the history of Twentieth Century put Nietzsche's glorification of war?
G) In the history of philosophy, is there any rival to Nietzsche's contempt for women?
H) Is the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence a conclusion or a cop-out? How can anything recur unless it ends, or it turns back like a boomerang? Where does the recurrence start--at Jurassic Park? Is it a variation of "world without end"?
I) To what degree do Nietzsche's aphoristic writings show him 1) a philosopher, 2) and existential psychologist, 3) a poet with a program?
Et cetera.

----------


## hyperborean

Are you a teacher DrBill? That's a really good outline.

----------


## dramasnot6

> This "discussion" of Nietzsche stalls on one bumper-sticker concept. Explore Nietzsche for half a year; take along a checklist of provocative questions:
> 
> A) What does Nietzsche argue about the world and willpower that had not been advanced by Schopenhauer?
> B) Is truth, as Nietzsche insists, an illusion?
> C) Is morality something to be dismissed?
> D) Is there any connection between Nietzsche's glorification of a "Superman" (Overman) and the idea of a master race?
> E) In Nietzsche's perspectivism, if there is no such think as truth but only different interpretations of truth, is the world without validity?
> F) In what perspective, for that matter, does the history of Twentieth Century put Nietzsche's glorification of war?
> G) In the history of philosophy, is there any rival to Nietzsche's contempt for women?
> ...


My gosh DrBill. That list is sensational, it opens a world of Nietzsche I never even considered. I think you could write an entire thesis on each of them.

----------


## Asa Adams

> I'm not commenting on whether one believes in God or not. I'm commenting on this phrase:
> 
> Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up. 
> 
> Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.
> 
> Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.


I am A little late, but as they say better late!  :Smile:  
I think that This quote is not pyschobabble for this reason; Nietzsche is seperating himself from Christ by saying that Man will humble himself for the reason that he alone, without God's doing, will be exalted. Suggesting that man shall humble himself to satify himself without the need to satisfy God.
I hope that made sense  :FRlol:  ...then again!  :FRlol:

----------


## hyperborean

> I am A little late, but as they say better late!  
> I think that This quote is not pyschobabble for this reason; Nietzsche is separating himself from Christ by saying that Man will humble himself for the reason that he alone, without God's doing, will be exalted. Suggesting that man shall humble himself to satify himself without the need to satisfy God.
> I hope that made sense  ...then again!


It makes perfect sense.  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Asa Adams

> It makes perfect sense.


Oh thank God.  :Thumbs Up:  I was worrying there that I didn't make any sense to anyone.

----------


## Virgil

> Nietzsche is seperating himself from Christ by saying that Man will humble himself for the reason that he alone, without God's doing, will be exalted. Suggesting that man shall humble himself to satify himself without the need to satisfy God.
> I hope that made sense  ...then again!


For whatever reason one humbles themselves, it is still specualting on a person's motivation, and that is psychobabble. For instance, the reason Mother Theresa might humble herself by subjecting herself to God's will may be completely different than why some abused wife might humble herself to her abusive husband. You don't know why. You would be specualting and so would Neitzsche and that is psychobabble. Do you know why Mother Theresa became a nun? Can you figure out her psyche? Can Nietsche? No, and to think otherwise is psychobabble.

----------


## Asa Adams

I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.

----------


## dramasnot6

> I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.


Absolutely true. :Thumbs Up:  No philosophy can fully satisy everyone at the same time nor can ever be completely true, speculation is often neccesary to explain things.

----------


## Virgil

> I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.


Allow me to speculate: I think that Asa participates on lit net becuase he has an irritable relationship with his father and an over indulging love for his mother. He reads because he wants to escape the hard reality his father is forcing on him. His love to analyze literature is due to an over developement of the feminine side of his brain. He humbles himself to his father in fear of rejection.

 :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:  

Only kidding Asa, but you can see how rediculous psychobabble is. If you go back to my original post on this you'll see I wasn't commenting on all of Nietsche, just one particular sentence where he degenerated into what i consider psychobabble. Anyone that thinks they can understand what makes a person tick is in rediculous territory.

----------


## dramasnot6

Please refrain from making this discussion personal

I think Nietzsche was not trying to sum up the entire human condition or assume he knew every motive behind every individual, but just made a statement as to the tendencies of human nature based on his experience and context. All of us do that in our own way, without some prediction or assumption actions would be entirely random.

----------


## Virgil

> . All of us do that in our own way, without some prediction or assumption actions would be entirely random.


Surely, but we don't claim some philosophic insight.

Drama, do you want people here on this thread to just agree with Nietsche or do you want to hear some opposing debate?

----------


## dramasnot6

> Surely, but we don't claim some philosophic insight.
> 
> Drama, do you want people here on this thread to just agree with Nietsche or do you want to hear some opposing debate?


I am more than happy to see opinions not supporting Nietzshce here, just as long as it does not get personal or turn into an attack.Labelling things without support is more of an attack then a contribution to a discussion. 
I dont idealize Nietzsche as the ultimate philosopher, my previous statement meant that Nietzsche is no more speculative than any other philosopher, not that his speculation was right.

----------


## Virgil

> I am more than happy to see opinions not supporting Nietzshce here, just as long as it does not get personal or turn into an attack.Labelling things without support is more of an attack then a contribution to a discussion. 
> I dont idealize Nietzsche as the ultimate philosopher, my previous statement meant that Nietzsche is no more speculative than any other philosopher, not that his speculation was right.


Ok, let's go back to my original comment.

Nietsche says: 


> Jesus said, "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."


And I said in a bantering response to Jon:



> I know there is more to Nietzche than that. I don't remember any of my Nietzche but there were aspects of his thoughts that I remember I found interesting.
> 
> BTW, you know my sensitivity to psychobabble.


and later I said:



> Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up. 
> 
> Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.
> 
> Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.


And I said to Asa:



> For whatever reason one humbles themselves, it is still specualting on a person's motivation, and that is psychobabble. For instance, the reason Mother Theresa might humble herself by subjecting herself to God's will may be completely different than why some abused wife might humble herself to her abusive husband. You don't know why. You would be specualting and so would Neitzsche and that is psychobabble. Do you know why Mother Theresa became a nun? Can you figure out her psyche? Can Nietsche? No, and to think otherwise is psychobabble.



I think I was on topic and supported my responses. If I didn't make myself clear enough, let try once again. To speculate into why someone "humbles" themself is to speculate into the makings of another person's mind. It is comparable to the rediculous psychobabble that Freud puts out when he says boys have Oedipal complexes and girls have penis envy. This is all nonesense. 

Let me also say, Nietsche may be a great philosopher, but the line i point out is hardly profound and certainly not one of his finer moments.

Plus I wasn't attacking anyone, and certainly not Asa. I was trying to show how rediculous one comes across when one attempts to psychanalize another human being.

----------


## Asa Adams

> Allow me to speculate: I think that Asa participates on lit net becuase he has an irritable relationship with his father and an over indulging love for his mother. He reads because he wants to escape the hard reality his father is forcing on him. His love to analyze literature is due to an over developement of the feminine side of his brain. He humbles himself to his father in fear of rejection.
> 
>     
> 
> Only kidding Asa, but you can see how rediculous psychobabble is. If you go back to my original post on this you'll see I wasn't commenting on all of Nietsche, just one particular sentence where he degenerated into what i consider psychobabble. Anyone that thinks they can understand what makes a person tick is in rediculous territory.


I understood what you were arguing, I was merely rebuting the fact that it was an incorrect argument.  :FRlol:   :FRlol:   :FRlol:

----------


## hyperborean

You can't mention Nietzsche in front of conservative Christians. It's not personal or anything, it's just that Nietzsche ridicules their entire philosophy.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> You can't mention Nietzsche in front of conservative Christians. It's not personal or anything, it's just that Nietzsche ridicules their entire philosophy.


Such a statement sounds as if you're concerned about our feelings. Considerate as that is, don't worry: we can handle the criticism of a philosopher whom we consider to be _absolutely misguided_ in his thinking. Philosophers who are _wrong_ are never a real threat. Mention away. 

(The good news is that _our_ primary Philosopher would have _happily_ forgiven Nietzsche for his philosophic mistakes and welcomed him into heaven as His own son.  :Biggrin:  )

----------


## quasimodo1

One analyst of Nietzsche said this, approx: The fundamental self-betrayal of the human race is to submit it's freedom to the fictitious demands of an imaginary god. Thus the abundance of the downtroden. He also felt that even ethics was a submission to superior economic forces. He may have gone too far in this case. My view. RJS

----------


## hyperborean

> . Considerate as that is, don't worry: we can handle the criticism of a philosopher whom we consider to be _absolutely misguided_ in his thinking.


Question: Why do you think his views are misguided? Do you think bringing mankind to next level of consciousness is misguided?





> Philosophers who are _wrong_ are never a real threat.


Ding, Ding, Ding! Opinion alert, opinion alert. :Biggrin:  




> The good news is that our primary Philosopher would have happily forgiven Nietzsche for his philosophic mistakes and welcomed him into heaven as His own son.


Mistakes? Verify these so called "mistakes". 

You enjoy nitpicking the flaws of other philosophies yet you forget that your own philosophy is flawed as well....or maybe you just haven't admitted it yet.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Question: Why do you think his views are misguided? Do you think bringing mankind to next level of consciousness is misguided?.


That's a matter of opinion (see _alert_ below).




> Ding, Ding, Ding! Opinion alert, opinion alert. .


Very good. Much of what goes on in these threads is opinion - including what you claim as _truth_.




> Mistakes? Verify these so called "mistakes". 
> 
> You enjoy nitpicking the flaws of other philosophies yet you forget that your own philosophy is flawed as well....or maybe you just haven't admitted it yet.


Nietzsche's worship of _power_ is a flat-out mistake. The possession of power has led very few people to true and lasting happiness. No, I'm not nit-picking - I'm voicing a disagreement - that sort of thing happens here. Go check out some of the things said on the atheism and evolution threads. Don't take it so personally - I'm sure if Nietzsche were here he wouldn't be sweating my objections one bit.

----------


## Asa Adams

I dont like people who out and out say's its wrong or right; It is the sake of arguing, I know, but we know nothing. 

I wish people who believed as you do, not be so righteous and sure footed with their philosophy. I know there are many truths in this life. Nietzsche is not among them, nor is Jesus. Though I accept them as being either correct or not. Not misguided, nor perfect. Just that they may hold merits of their own. As simple as that.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> I dont like people who out and out say's its wrong or right; It is the sake of arguing, I know, but we know nothing.


You mean I'm not entitled to the opinion that Nietzsche is wrong and hyperborean is not entitled to his opinion that Jesus (or Christianity, or Plato) is wrong? Really? Opinions as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of something are - _wrong_?




> I wish people who believed as you do, not be so righteous and sure footed with their philosophy. I know there are many truths in this life. Nietzsche is not among them, nor is Jesus. Though I accept them as being either correct or not. Not misguided, nor perfect. Just that they may hold merits of their own. As simple as that.


Who's claiming the higher moral ground ("righteous") here? What's wrong with believing in my position? Don't all my opponents do the same? 

Did you just tell me that Jesus (the primary "philosopher" I follow) is _wrong_? Did you just "out and out" say my "philosopher" is _wrong_? Are my italics properly communicating the irony I'm pointing at? I'm not trying to goad you, but you committed the very act you are criticizing me for. Why?

----------


## hyperborean

The reason why I said "opinion alert" is because every time I criticize Christianity I'm shunned for scrutinizing "purity". You make it seem like your philosophy is all good and mine is completely wrong. If anything, I've promoted Jesus and his philosophy...I've criticized _organized religion_. You are probably one of the only Christians I know who won't admit the faults of organized religion.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> The reason why I said "opinion alert" is because every time I criticize Christianity I'm shunned for scrutinizing "purity".


Who's done this? I don't recall ever making this charge. You're free to criticize away - I don't post here because I think everybody will agree with me or my theological/philosophical position. It is generally the _tone_ of many atheist/evolutionist posts that I take issue with. 




> You make it seem like your philosophy is all good and mine is completely wrong. If anything, I've promoted Jesus and his philosophy...I've criticized _organized religion_. You are probably one of the only Christians I know who won't admit the faults of organized religion.


I have difficulty in criticizing the "philosophy" of a Divine Being capable of creating the universe. That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes struggle with what I've been told is right or required of me. Living the Christian life is not easy - it is very challenging, primarily because God asks us to do difficult things - things that often are at direct odds with human nature.

Second, I do not believe Nietzsche is a total wacko. I think he was a thoughtful and a smart man - but so was Freud (and I think much of what he thought is wrong too - though he [like Nietzsche] was capable of great insight); nonetheless, I am not required to whole-heartedly support men whose grand themes I disagree with. Philosophic positions based (even in part) on power over others is disagreeable and false to me - just as the Christian ideal of service to each other and self-denial is just plain silly to atheists (at least some of them).

Organized religion is full of problems - no doubt. I have never defended a particular church; I have been defending Christianity in its ideal incarnation - as the teachings of Jesus Christ as laid out by Him, Paul, and God in the OT. I think organized religion is in need of a serious overhaul, but that doesn't mean I don't think it has value. So, I guess your list of Christians unwilling to admit the "faults of organized religion" just went down by one - but a perusal of my posts will reveal that _religion_ was never the subject of my defense.

----------


## hyperborean

> I have difficulty in criticizing the "philosophy" of a Divine Being capable of creating the universe.


Who said that modern Christianity is what "God" wanted? I'm not an atheist and I understand that _true_ Christianity is great. However, man has warped the religion and the philosophy. Divine inspiration aside, the bible has been molded into what man wanted and not what God wanted. The Vatican and the church are completely corrupt. 




> Second, I do not believe Nietzsche is a total wacko. I think he was a thoughtful and a smart man - but so was Freud (and I think much of what he thought is wrong too - though he [like Nietzsche] was capable of great insight); nonetheless, I am not required to whole-heartedly support men whose grand themes I disagree with. Philosophic positions based (even in part) on power over others is disagreeable and false to me - just as the Christian ideal of service to each other and self-denial is just plain silly to atheists (at least some of them).


Nicely put, but I wouldn't compare mr. psychoanalytic and Nietzsche. Freud is wrong because there is no proof of the unconscious. 

Nietzsche, by the way, isn't all about "will to power". You also seem to have a misconception on what the will to power really is. My impression is that you interpret is as something "nazi like" (dictators who have read Nietzsche have all misinterpreted will to power). 

Also, the ubermensch and eternal recurrence are two philosophical ideas you seem to forget about. I would think God would want us to strive for the "overman". I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with Nietzsche because of the overman ideology.

----------


## Asa Adams

> You mean I'm not entitled to the opinion that Nietzsche is wrong and hyperborean is not entitled to his opinion that Jesus (or Christianity, or Plato) is wrong? Really? Opinions as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of something are - _wrong_?


Did I say you weren't entitled? Don't put words where they do not belong, Redzeppelin.  :Wink:  

My key words were *I didn't like*

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Did I say you weren't entitled? Don't put words where they do not belong, Redzeppelin.  
> 
> My key words were *I didn't like*


OK, fair enough. But I don't get the problem you seem to have with people who are confident in their position. Doubt and skepticism are fine, but if I'm doubtful and skeptical of everything, then what do I believe in? I'll paraphrase an old quotation: "Nothing contributes to peace of mind more than having no opinion at all." I don't know the author, but I like the idea.

----------


## philipkd

I keep feeling that Nietzsche was suffering from a point where his thoughts were going beyond the limits offered by his language.

That led him into his rants, his 'lightning' so as to speak, and his more incoherent works.

N was frustrated because he didnt ahve language. But language is not the product of one man (not just vocabulary). It is the work of a society. If everybody is 'stupid', then the language cannot evolve to speak of the more abstract concepts. In which case people like N, who think abstractly, lack the entire infrastructure for self expression. Leading to madness.

Wittgenstein and Confucius both talked about how nothing can be spoken of where language does not exist. 

[QUOTE=jon1jt;316973]let me try to articulate the problem of language according to nietzsche:
when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. ...

----------


## billyjack

> Nietzsche, by the way, isn't all about "will to power". You also seem to have a misconception on what the will to power really is. My impression is that you interpret is as something "nazi like" (dictators who have read Nietzsche have all misinterpreted will to power). 
> 
> Also, the ubermensch and eternal recurrence are two philosophical ideas you seem to forget about. I would think God would want us to strive for the "overman". I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with Nietzsche because of the overman ideology.


anyone who still thinks nietzche is a nazi supporter need only take a look at one walter kaufman translation. kaufman says N is not a nazi. nazi's misread him. anyhoot,

the overman is nietzche's ideal of a man without any "will to power" controlling him, except his own (that is how the overman becomes the new stage of evolution: he follows no rules, no dogma--thereby he is free to evolve rather than degenerate). and, the eternal recurrance says there never was a creation, its always been. just check out the very last page of "will to power" and see for yourself.

----------


## billyjack

> OK, fair enough. But I don't get the problem you seem to have with people who are confident in their position. Doubt and skepticism are fine, but if I'm doubtful and skeptical of everything, then what do I believe in? I'll paraphrase an old quotation: "Nothing contributes to peace of mind more than having no opinion at all." I don't know the author, but I like the idea.


i like the idea tambien. no opinion means no thought. no thought is very mystic, very eastern, very non-western.

----------


## hyperborean

I haven't seen zeppelin talk about the overman. Anytime Nietzsche is brought up we see Christians attack "will to power".

----------


## billyjack

> I haven't seen zeppelin talk about the overman. Anytime Nietzsche is brought up we see Christians attack "will to power".


that shouldnt be suprising. he take shots at christianity the whole book. i mean he takes shots a dogma, bad translations of jesus. nietzche loved jesus. not like a god, but like an overman.

----------


## dramasnot6

In my interpretation Nietzsche didnt so much attack the concept of God as he saw it as not neccesary in society anymore.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> In my interpretation Nietzsche didnt so much attack the concept of God as he saw it as not neccesary in society anymore.


If God is nothing more than a "concept," then perhaps Nietzsche's right. But if God is _not_ merely "concept' but actually a Divine _Reality_, then Nietzsche is wrong and the world needs Him now more than ever.

----------


## metal134

A question for anyone who has it, or would know anyway; the book published by Modern Library, _The Basic Writings of Nieztche_ contains _Beyond Good and Evil, The Birth of Tragedy, The Case of Wagner_ and _Ecce Homo_. Are these complete? I bought a book called _The Portable Nietzsche_ which contained _Thus Spoke Zaratustra, Twilight of the Idols_ and _The Antichrist_ in their entity and I want to make sure that the Modern Library book is the same with the works that it contains before I get it. That way, I can pretty much have all the important Nieztche works in two volumes.

----------


## billyjack

> A question for anyone who has it, or would know anyway; the book published by Modern Library, _The Basic Writings of Nieztche_ contains _Beyond Good and Evil, The Birth of Tragedy, The Case of Wagner_ and _Ecce Homo_. Are these complete? I bought a book called _The Portable Nietzsche_ which contained _Thus Spoke Zaratustra, Twilight of the Idols_ and _The Antichrist_ in their entity and I want to make sure that the Modern Library book is the same with the works that it contains before I get it. That way, I can pretty much have all the important Nieztche works in two volumes.


my opinion, if walter kaufman translated it, its good to go.

----------


## hyperborean

> If God is nothing more than a "concept," then perhaps Nietzsche's right. But if God is _not_ merely "concept' but actually a Divine _Reality_, then Nietzsche is wrong and the world needs Him now more than ever.


You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not. We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.

----------


## billyjack

> You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not. We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.


i'm not sure that is the point. "rationality ( aka concepts) is a dangerous force that undermines life." REd Zep is putting god out there as a thing that might exist outside the realm of concepts (aka the ideal). the ideal and reality need to be seen clearly, and the latter needs to be affirmed, the former rejected as a decadent of life itself. so what is concept and what is reality is of the utmost importance to nietzche. 



if by moving ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves you mean deconstructing the typical image of man in favor what man truly is, then i agree. we need to get past ideals, tradition, and other systems of contol to find what we "are" and quit looking for "what we should be." amor fati!

----------


## hyperborean

> if by moving ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves you mean deconstructing the typical image of man in favor what man truly is, then i agree. we need to get past ideals, tradition, and other systems of contol to find what we "are" and quit looking for "what we should be." amor fati!


indeed :Thumbs Up:

----------


## Redzeppelin

> It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not.


This statement is only true if God does not exist. If He does exist, then this statement is meaningless.




> We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.


Which, as the Bible indicates, we are incapable of doing on our own, in-and-of ourselves. That's why the atheist society that Dawkins seems to be advocating would not work - crime, sin, hypocrisy, manipulation and everything else would still be here because human nature, not Christianity or God, is what's causing our problems. We cannot transcend human nature by ourselves; and, once God's out of the picture, why control ourselves at all? As Dostoyevsky wrote in _The Brothers Kara_mozov: "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

We are incapable of creating the Utopia that you (and/or Nietzsche) seem to believe lies just beyond the horizon. We can only create chaos, pain and suffering.

----------


## hyperborean

> This statement is only true if God does not exist. If He does exist, then this statement is meaningless.


Wrong. Enough of this "we need God to survive" BS.





> Which, as the Bible indicates, we are incapable of doing on our own, in-and-of ourselves. That's why the atheist society that Dawkins seems to be advocating would not work - crime, sin, hypocrisy, manipulation and everything else would still be here because human nature, not Christianity or God, is what's causing our problems. We cannot transcend human nature by ourselves; and, once God's out of the picture, why control ourselves at all? As Dostoyevsky wrote in _The Brothers Kara_mozov: "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."
> 
> We are incapable of creating the Utopia that you (and/or Nietzsche) seem to believe lies just beyond the horizon. We can only create chaos, pain and suffering.


Your post alone is the reason behind western civilization's downfall. I laughed out loud when reading that post. I love how you reference the bible as if it's something not to reckon with. Keep worshiping some book. :FRlol:  

I also like how you believe we need God in order to retain our human morals. *{edited}* I'll quote maynard once again..."Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
What you need is someone strong to guide you."

----------


## Scheherazade

*Hyperborean> Please do not personalise your arguments.*

----------


## metal134

> my opinion, if walter kaufman translated it, its good to go.


Yup, it's Kaufman!

----------


## Robert Jordan

I believe Nietzche's big beef with Christianity and European Christians was that they took The Old Testament and New Testament to be the same book, or Bible if you will. To him, they were completely different in form and message. I think the message in both was salvation through sacrifice which was ultimetly made real when God took mortal form as Jesus Christ. Nieztche did not like the God of the Old Testament and couldnt understand the underlying message beneath the message in it. As a believer I myself am having a hard time understanding how God acted in The Old Testament compared with The New Testament. Neiztche was all so a very cynical person, but very caring as well. I don't think it's fair to describe him as an atheist. Definetly agnostic, as he always felt the real truth was knowing that there would always be a question and a question mark. He was constantly searching and he definetly tried to break barriers when it came to what was moral and what was ethical. For that I commend him. I just wish he could have done it in a more cohesive way. Like most philosophers I've read, he doesn't make much sense, especially when he gets into metaphysics. But hey, that's why they are so intelligent, they think so much and really, in the end, what you think and how you feel only really makes sense to you. Right?

----------


## billyjack

> Which, as the Bible indicates, we are incapable of doing on our own, in-and-of ourselves. 
> 
> We are incapable of creating the Utopia that you (and/or Nietzsche) seem to believe lies just beyond the horizon. We can only create chaos, pain and suffering.


there are no "in and of themselves"...this is the way it is. 

the second quote is a pretty humbling view of mankind--

and humbling or selflessness is the cornerstone of religions, so i see how this quote could be construed. but, to quote N, "The loss of the center of gravity, resistance to the natural instincts--in one word 'selflessness'--that is what was hitherto called morality--the unselfing of man."

needless to say, this "humble attitude" is seen as an infection in nietzche's eyes.

----------


## dramasnot6

> I believe Nietzche's big beef with Christianity and European Christians was that they took The Old Testament and New Testament to be the same book, or Bible if you will. To him, they were completely different in form and message. I think the message in both was salvation through sacrifice which was ultimetly made real when God took mortal form as Jesus Christ. Nieztche did not like the God of the Old Testament and couldnt understand the underlying message beneath the message in it. As a believer I myself am having a hard time understanding how God acted in The Old Testament compared with The New Testament. Neiztche was all so a very cynical person, but very caring as well. I don't think it's fair to describe him as an atheist. Definetly agnostic, as he always felt the real truth was knowing that there would always be a question and a question mark. He was constantly searching and he definetly tried to break barriers when it came to what was moral and what was ethical. For that I commend him. I just wish he could have done it in a more cohesive way. Like most philosophers I've read, he doesn't make much sense, especially when he gets into metaphysics. But hey, that's why they are so intelligent, they think so much and really, in the end, what you think and how you feel only really makes sense to you. Right?


 :Thumbs Up:  Very much agreed. Nietzsches philosophy can be interpreted many ways, and i personally believe that he was not trying to attack religion but merely put societys use of religion into question.

----------


## hyperborean

> As a believer I myself am having a hard time understanding how God acted in The Old Testament compared with The New Testament. Neiztche was all so a very cynical person, but very caring as well. I don't think it's fair to describe him as an atheist. Definetly agnostic, as he always felt the real truth was knowing that there would always be a question and a question mark. He was constantly searching and he definetly tried to break barriers when it came to what was moral and what was ethical. For that I commend him.


Very true. "God" in the old and new testament differ. One unleashes locusts and the other brings down a savior.  :Tongue:  




> needless to say, this "humble attitude" is seen as an infection in nietzche's eyes.


pretty much. it's an infection in my eyes as well.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Wrong. Enough of this "we need God to survive" BS.


Sorry - it's true. You're not required to believe it for it to be true. Reality exists whether or not you wish to acknowledge it.




> Your post alone is the reason behind western civilization's downfall. I laughed out loud when reading that post. I love how you reference the bible as if it's something not to reckon with. Keep worshiping some book.


I'd be more impressed if you actually dealt with what I said rather than just make fun of if. Do you not have an argument in response? 

I worship the God _behind_ the Bible - not the book itself; the book in-and-of-itself has no power to transform life and (even more importantly) to redeem it.




> I also like how you believe we need God in order to retain our human morals. *{edited}* I'll quote maynard once again..."Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
> What you need is someone strong to guide you."



Morality only exists _because_ God exists. Believe as you wish. You are free to "follow" yourself - but we as humans have shown a remarkable ability for "following" ourselves into trouble of all sorts.

----------


## metal134

> Morality only exists _because_ God exists. Believe as you wish. You are free to "follow" yourself - but we as humans have shown a remarkable ability for "following" ourselves into trouble of all sorts.


Humans have been equally remarkeable, if not more, at following religion in touble of all sorts, be it in the name of God, Yaweh, Allah, etc.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> Humans have been equally remarkeable, if not more, at following religion in touble of all sorts, be it in the name of God, Yaweh, Allah, etc.



Well, you can't take the "human" out of humans - be they religious or not. That believers do stupid things only attests to their humanity, not religion's shortcomings. Because we stand for something, we rightly get a higher level of criticism when we fall - without justifying acts of atrocity and terrorism, I would say that it's much more difficult to live rightly when you've got a higher standard placed upon you.

----------


## billyjack

"morality as vampirism." (N, ecce homo) sucking the life out of life. if god is morality then god is a vampire. that can't be right. vampires don't exist, maybe god doesn't either, maybe morality neither. possibly vampires, god, and morality are the same things: all are ideas, fables, abstractions, conventions, traditions, myths, opinions, systems of control, babel, heresay, idealities, ect. . .

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "morality as vampirism." (N, ecce homo) sucking the life out of life. if god is morality then god is a vampire. that can't be right. vampires don't exist, maybe god doesn't either, maybe morality neither. possibly vampires, god, and morality are the same things: all are ideas, fables, abstractions, conventions, traditions, myths, opinions, systems of control, babel, heresay, idealities, ect. . .


Neat "logic" gymnastics - but no real response to what I posted. Your entire post is based on making an analogy which you failed to explain the legitimacy of. You state what you _believe_ things are, but fail to provide _reasoning_ for such statements of "reality."

----------


## hyperborean

vampires are myth and so is God. I can say that I have faith in the existence vampires, but that doesn't make them real now does it?

----------


## Redzeppelin

> vampires are myth and so is God. I can say that I have faith in the existence vampires, but that doesn't make them real now does it?


But you made a sort of syllogism: If God is morality then God is a vampire - and this statement unravels to this:

If A = B, then A = C 

This statement requires the following premise: B = C
Which leads to the following conclusion: A = B = C

Your response switches tracks, but I was asking about the logic of your original statement. So - how is morality a vampire?

(If you had said "the world is a vampire" then I'd say yeah, you and the Smashing Pumpkins agree...)

----------


## billyjack

> But you made a sort of syllogism: If God is morality then God is a vampire - and this statement unravels to this:
> 
> If A = B, then A = C 
> 
> This statement requires the following premise: B = C
> Which leads to the following conclusion: A = B = C
> 
> Your response switches tracks, but I was asking about the logic of your original statement. So - how is morality a vampire?
> 
> (If you had said "the world is a vampire" then I'd say yeah, you and the Smashing Pumpkins agree...)


"morality is vampirism" (nietzche, ecce homo) in that it sucks. its created a world where the strength is sucked out of the strong because weakness, selflessness, bowing down, and charity is seen as virtue, as strong. this argument basically comes down to this: morality put a stoppayment on evolution. everyone survives, strong and weak. this is great and full of puppy dogs and ice cream, but sooner or later this morality is going to find itself with a major overpopulation problem. wait, too late for that, we in the midst of one. morality makes it impossible to make the tough decisions reasonably because our legs of logic have become atrified and useless thanks to the crutches of morality. morality as falling off a cliff with useless wings and thinking you're flying. until we hit the ground we can keep on saying the flight is going just fine. but the ground comes nearer and nearer. instead of interpretting this as the wings not working, we just keep on pretending to fly, till splat. . .how to kill a vampire. shine some light on it. look at it. see it for what it is and watch its utility concamitantly fall apart the more light that is shed on it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> "morality is vampirism" (nietzche, ecce homo) in that it sucks. its created a world where the strength is sucked out of the strong because weakness, selflessness, bowing down, and charity is seen as virtue, as strong. this argument basically comes down to this: morality put a stoppayment on evolution. everyone survives, strong and weak. this is great and full of puppy dogs and ice cream, but sooner or later this morality is going to find itself with a major overpopulation problem. wait, too late for that, we in the midst of one. morality makes it impossible to make the tough decisions reasonably because our legs of logic have become atrified and useless thanks to the crutches of morality. morality as falling off a cliff with useless wings and thinking you're flying. until we hit the ground we can keep on saying the flight is going just fine. but the ground comes nearer and nearer. instead of interpretting this as the wings not working, we just keep on pretending to fly, till splat. . .how to kill a vampire. shine some light on it. look at it. see it for what it is and watch its utility concamitantly fall apart the more light that is shed on it.


Your advocation of "might makes right" leads us into an ugly existence where right/wrong cease to have any meaning; I don't get how you think moral anarchy is a good thing - and don't quote "it's reality, man" at me. What makes humans different from animals is that we have the inclination and desire to alter our reality so that it's _better_ than it is - we are different from animals because we have the idea and inclination towards the existence of "ought." Your vision of reality appears to be lay down and die, because to resist would be to challenge "reality." You've got to be kidding. The reason you have a reasonably comfortable, safe existence (I assume you're not writing from a cell, or are currently being persecuted) is due to the fact that the world has - for quite a while - been populated with people who thought differently than you - that there are things we _ought_ to do and _ought not_ do. The moral law you seem to despise creates the relatively safe social coccoon from within which you dismiss the necessity of "ought."

----------


## billyjack

> Your advocation of "might makes right" leads us into an ugly existence where right/wrong cease to have any meaning; I don't get how you think moral anarchy is a good thing - and don't quote "it's reality, man" at me. What makes humans different from animals is that we have the inclination and desire to alter our reality so that it's _better_ than it is - we are different from animals because we have the idea and inclination towards the existence of "ought." Your vision of reality appears to be lay down and die, because to resist would be to challenge "reality." You've got to be kidding. The reason you have a reasonably comfortable, safe existence (I assume you're not writing from a cell, or are currently being persecuted) is due to the fact that the world has - for quite a while - been populated with people who thought differently than you - that there are things we _ought_ to do and _ought not_ do. The moral law you seem to despise creates the relatively safe social coccoon from within which you dismiss the necessity of "ought."


don't pigeonhole this into some platonic "Might makes right". that's not what i am saying. i'm talking about "the way", and within the way, sometimes the strong or sometimes the weak prevail. it depends upon the situation. but right now, everybody prevails, and this is putting us in dire straits that we can't deal with because our morality doesnt allow us to move naturally. we've got a moral straightjacket on.

why does the lack of christian morality imply anarchy? red china does just fine, no chrisitan morality, no anarchy. and their system of morals actually allows them to make tough decisions. for example, china successfully cut its birth rate in half in order to reduce overpopulation in the 1970's. if the U.S. tried this people's free will would get its feelers hurt.

the only reason reality needs to be altered is to make it easier to swollow for some. this is fine, except now some has become basically everyone--not fine.

you are the one resisting or going against nature, i'm talking about going with the flow of things. 

i'm not saying ought doesnt have its place. i'm just saying it has its place. right below is.

"is" changes yet "ought" doesnt change with it. what do we find in fossil evidence to support this? extinction coincides with inabilty to adapt or change.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> don't pigeonhole this into some platonic "Might makes right". that's not what i am saying. i'm talking about "the way", and within the way, sometimes the strong or sometimes the weak prevail. it depends upon the situation. but right now, everybody prevails, and this is putting us in dire straits that we can't deal with because our morality doesnt allow us to move naturally. we've got a moral straightjacket on.


The denegrating language you devoted to Christian morality's defense of the weak, and your clear advocacy of Nietzschian philosophy implies an ethic based on might. Sorry if I misread you're language.




> why does the lack of christian morality imply anarchy? red china does just fine, no chrisitan morality, no anarchy. and their system of morals actually allows them to make tough decisions. for example, china successfully cut its birth rate in half in order to reduce overpopulation in the 1970's. if the U.S. tried this people's free will would get its feelers hurt.


China (the last great communist nation) has _dictatorial_ leanings and I'd hardly hold it up as a model government. As well, China's well-known birth-control policy resulted in numerous female babies getting tossed in rivers because the Chinese culture values males more than females; if you only get to have a certain number of kids, and girls are coming up, then many parents chose to re-stack the odds by eliminating the less "valuable" female baby; as a result, I recently (within the last year) read an interesting article about how many young men in China have been forced to go and marry their cousins due to the incredible disparity between the numbers of single males and females. Yeah - nice country.




> the only reason reality needs to be altered is to make it easier to swollow for some. this is fine, except now some has become basically everyone--not fine.


Obscure statements that beg clarification.




> you are the one resisting or going against nature, i'm talking about going with the flow of things.


Why don't you define your metaphoric "go with the flow" so I don't have to figure out exactly what you're suggesting (and risk misinterpreting you, since metaphoric language is very difficult to pin down sometimes). 




> i'm not saying ought doesnt have its place. i'm just saying it has its place. right below is.


Not unless _is_ is based on _ought_. What _is_ right now is horrible atrocities, immorality, war, suffering, grief, selfishness -you name it. Saying _ought_ should be subordinate to how things currently are is to accept evil _passively_ - and to do so is to _cooperate_ with it.





> "is" changes yet "ought" doesnt change with it. what do we find in fossil evidence to support this? extinction coincides with inabilty to adapt or change.


Where did evolution come into this discussion?

----------


## billyjack

> The denegrating language you devoted to Christian morality's defense of the weak, and your clear advocacy of Nietzschian philosophy implies an ethic based on might. Sorry if I misread you're language.
> 
> 
> 
> China (the last great communist nation) has _dictatorial_ leanings and I'd hardly hold it up as a model government. As well, China's well-known birth-control policy resulted in numerous female babies getting tossed in rivers because the Chinese culture values males more than females; if you only get to have a certain number of kids, and girls are coming up, then many parents chose to re-stack the odds by eliminating the less "valuable" female baby; as a result, I recently (within the last year) read an interesting article about how many young men in China have been forced to go and marry their cousins due to the incredible disparity between the numbers of single males and females. Yeah - nice country.
> 
> 
> 
> Obscure statements that beg clarification.
> ...


1) you misunderstand nietzche. might is not always right. after all, its the christians in nietzches time who have the might--and of course nietzche thinks they arent right.

2) regardless of your ethnocentric judgements of red china, it kicks butt in economics and takes care of its people. point is, without christian morality, humanity can thrive. maybe in your eyes its not really living, but maybe in chinese eyes your not really living. 

3) going with the flow. obscure? its the way of things. its falling in a river and swimming with the current rather than against it. 

4) this is a nietzche thread! some people might accept "evil" on it. nietzche most certainly did. at least he accepted and affirmed your christian ideal of evil. he even accepted christianity in that it gave him something to fight and argue against. 

5) evolution came up because it fits well with nietzche. the point was that inability to adapt to changes in reality results in extinction. my contention is that christian morality is ancient and lack the ability to adapt. after all, the bible isnt being written in anymore, so morality must be a finished product--yet the world keeps on changing. this spells trouble.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1) you misunderstand nietzche. might is not always right. after all, its the christians in nietzches time who have the might--and of course nietzche thinks they arent right.


I probably do misread Nietzsche, but his interest in power and self-will is fairly evident.




> 2) regardless of your ethnocentric judgements of red china, it kicks butt in economics and takes care of its people. point is, without christian morality, humanity can thrive. maybe in your eyes its not really living, but maybe in chinese eyes your not really living.


Oh please - "ethnocentric" - you almost say that as if it's an insult of some sort, as if it _invalidates_ the *facts* about China I listed. Its totalitarian leanings belie its other accomplishments. China's control lies more in its power over its citizens - power that must come into play when the law is essentially "might makes right" as opposed to a transcendant moral law.




> 3) going with the flow. obscure? its the way of things. its falling in a river and swimming with the current rather than against it.


Still speaking in metaphors; still speaking obscurely.




> 4) this is a nietzche thread! some people might accept "evil" on it. nietzche most certainly did. at least he accepted and affirmed your christian ideal of evil. he even accepted christianity in that it gave him something to fight and argue against.


O.K.




> 5) evolution came up because it fits well with nietzche. the point was that inability to adapt to changes in reality results in extinction. my contention is that christian morality is ancient and lack the ability to adapt. after all, the bible isnt being written in anymore, so morality must be a finished product--yet the world keeps on changing. this spells trouble.


Some change is good and _ought_ to be embraced; some change is detrimental and _ought not_. The moral law of the Bible is flexible enough to still provide guidance - it's just as authoritative a guide as long-dead Nietzsche.

----------


## billyjack

> Oh please - "ethnocentric" - you almost say that as if it's an insult of some sort, as if it _invalidates_ the *facts* about China I listed. Its totalitarian leanings belie its other accomplishments. China's control lies more in its power over its citizens - power that must come into play when the law is essentially "might makes right" as opposed to a transcendant moral law.
> 
> 
> 
> Still speaking in metaphors; still speaking obscurely.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some change is good and _ought_ to be embraced; some change is detrimental and _ought not_. The moral law of the Bible is flexible enough to still provide guidance - it's just as authoritative a guide as long-dead Nietzsche.


1) calling you ethnocentric isnt an insult, i do it too--everybody does. but still, at least might makes right has some bearing in the natural world (plato proved might makes right wrong, but big deal--there are no absolute morals that are always right in every circumstance). a trancendental moral law has most of its bearing in that which is beyond the natural world, which nietzche called ideality. meaning, might makes right has means and end here in reality, while the trancendental moral law has means in reality and ends in ideality or heaven. this makes the transcendental moral law a tough veil to see through, since its tied up with peoples fates in eternity. what i mean is, people fearing death makes the trancendental morality that much stronger. no one can see beyond fearing death, therefore no-one can see beyond the means (the trancendental morality) to make sure that death is not a thing to be feared. 

as morpheus said, in order to beat it, we must first shed our fear of it (he was talking about the machines, i'm using his quote to talk about morality and its relation with death). . . then we can shine some light on this moral vampire. 

2) you can't talk about "the way." maybe that is why i'm coming across as obscure. the way doesnt lie within turning reality into symbols and metophors--ie...thought--, it lies in reality--reality isnt a symbol.

3) i agree about some change good and some bad. but the problem i see is that your whole idea of good and bad is backward. so what you discgard tends to be what you should be keeping and vice-versa. example: when an organ in the body degenerates, the whole body degenerates with it. the physician takes no pity on this organ, he simply removes it if possible or attempts to correct it so as not to destroy the rest of the body with it. however, if humanity is seen as a body, and christianity and the physician, we see the doctor doing just the opposite of that which a physiologist would do. he takes pity on the weak, and throws the weaklling into the mix with the whole, thereby degenerating the whole. then he adds insult to injury and calls this whole stonger because of it.

----------


## hyperborean

> 1) my contention is that christian morality is ancient and lack the ability to adapt. after all, the bible isnt being written in anymore, so morality must be a finished product--yet the world keeps on changing. this spells trouble.


lot's of trouble indeed. it's time to reevaluate our morals, traditions, and overall way of thinking.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> lot's of trouble indeed. it's time to reevaluate our morals, traditions, and overall way of thinking.


You know, I've heard both of you say something similar more than once. Why don't you - just for the sake of argument - lay out this "new system" that does away with (and more importantly, _improves upon_) "outdated Christian morality" - OK? I'd like to see what this new system looks like.

----------


## billyjack

> You know, I've heard both of you say something similar more than once. Why don't you - just for the sake of argument - lay out this "new system" that does away with (and more importantly, _improves upon_) "outdated Christian morality" - OK? I'd like to see what this new system looks like.


 have a look for yourself. just look to the east, in non-monotheistic nations. i am not saying the east has it right, but they have another morality. the christian moral code is one system. the east has another, Islam another, tribal nations another, ect...who says your morality is where its at--wait, christian morality does, because christian morality and the christian god are one of the same--clever, useful, pragmatic. . . again, christian morality and other moralities are making this planet inhospitable for other life forms that god created. i think he would be angry about that. also, christian morality has caused a population explosion that cant be dealt with via Christian morality. also,christian morality is full of contradictions. thou shall not kill--but war in the name of the heavenly father is legit. the only thing keeping this out of date system of morals running anymore is fear of death and the tranquility of repetition and habit.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> have a look for yourself. just look to the east, in non-monotheistic nations. i am not saying the east has it right, but they have another morality. the christian moral code is one system. the east has another, Islam another, tribal nations another, ect...who says your morality is where its at--wait, christian morality does, because christian morality and the christian god are one of the same--clever, useful, pragmatic. . . again, christian morality and other moralities are making this planet inhospitable for other life forms that god created. i think he would be angry about that. also, christian morality has caused a population explosion that cant be dealt with via Christian morality. also,christian morality is full of contradictions. thou shall not kill--but war in the name of the heavenly father is legit. the only thing keeping this out of date system of morals running anymore is fear of death and the tranquility of repetition and habit.


1) The Eastern philosophy is very much a product of the eastern _mind_; there is a question as to whether westerners are even _capable_ (including the inimitable Mr. Watts) of incorporating the Oriental mindset due to our fundamentally _linear_ thinking modality - oriental philosophy does not embrace our dualistic, linear thinking. I doubt you'd have any success doing a west-to-east switch-over simply for that fact. Either way, Orientalism has some shortcomings in terms of the moral law. Since I don't believe it's possible to exchange western morality for eastern, why don't you scrap western Christian morality and then tell me a reasonable substitute.

2) Your continual contention that morality is "anti-life" and now "anti-nature" is groundless (unless you'd care to give some clear examples). Morality will not be that which contributes to the destruction of nature, reality, or the world; _we_ are the destroyers ("we" as in humanity) - adhering to a moral code does not destroy anything except the human tendency towards selfishness and self-interest (two qualities that communities rarely if ever benefit from). 

*The "thou shalt not kill" thing is moot, because the original language says "murder." As well, Ecclesiastes 3 clearly tells us that there is a "time to kill." Care to try again?

----------


## billyjack

> 1) The Eastern philosophy is very much a product of the eastern _mind_; there is a question as to whether westerners are even _capable_ (including the inimitable Mr. Watts) of incorporating the Oriental mindset due to our fundamentally _linear_ thinking modality - oriental philosophy does not embrace our dualistic, linear thinking. I doubt you'd have any success doing a west-to-east switch-over simply for that fact. Either way, Orientalism has some shortcomings in terms of the moral law. Since I don't believe it's possible to exchange western morality for eastern, why don't you scrap western Christian morality and then tell me a reasonable substitute.
> 
> 2) Your continual contention that morality is "anti-life" and now "anti-nature" is groundless (unless you'd care to give some clear examples). Morality will not be that which contributes to the destruction of nature, reality, or the world; _we_ are the destroyers ("we" as in humanity) - adhering to a moral code does not destroy anything except the human tendency towards selfishness and self-interest (two qualities that communities rarely if ever benefit from). 
> 
> *The "thou shalt not kill" thing is moot, because the original language says "murder." As well, Ecclesiastes 3 clearly tells us that there is a "time to kill." Care to try again?


i agree. easterners think different. there is a lack of a good substitute to christian morality in western thought and tradition because christianity is everywhere--this doesnt mean its unscrappable though--this argument of yours is an appeal to ignorance, and i dont buy it. Christianity has spread so well that basically humanity has become a cancer. Christianity is everywhere, so we cant see beyond it. unfortunately, telling this to people and asking them to think about it is like a dog chasing its tail or an eye trying to look at itself. it cant happen! in this case, it cant happen for Christians because their eye is Christianity. this christian eye cant look at itself, that isnt what eyes do, they look out at the world, not in at themselves. 

christian moral is anti-life-- christianity invented the subject and called that which exist only in language--the subject--something that truly exist in reality. once it did this it made people responsible for their actions, rather than making society or the environment responsible as well. basically Christianity takes a strong man and claims this man has the ability to choose strength or weakness, as if you could take cat and say it has a choice whether or not it hunts. once this false choice was created, you then held people accountable for their actions and called bad actions sins. then you said sins irritated god, so these people would add another stupidity to their first stupidity and feel bad about what they did--even though it was just their nature. feeling bad or the bite of consiousness is anti nature. it tells people that who they are is wrong. it makes people discontent with this life, because who they are naturally is most likely as sin, and therefore and afterlife is created to give these people eternal salvation. 


thou shalt not kill is the basic premise. but you still kill and justify it as in the name of justice or god. so hypocritical. you do exactly what the people you despise do, the sinners, but you say your cause is in the name of god or justice. basically, you do the same thing as everybody else and euphemism it.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> i agree. easterners think different. there is a lack of a good substitute to christian morality in western thought and tradition because christianity is everywhere--this doesnt mean its unscrappable though--this argument of yours is an appeal to ignorance, and i dont buy it. Christianity has spread so well that basically humanity has become a cancer. Christianity is everywhere, so we cant see beyond it. unfortunately, telling this to people and asking them to think about it is like a dog chasing its tail or an eye trying to look at itself. it cant happen! in this case, it cant happen for Christians because their eye is Christianity. this christian eye cant look at itself, that isnt what eyes do, they look out at the world, not in at themselves.


Lots of accusation here, but little demonstration as to the truth of the charges being levelled at Christianity. Care to substantiate some of these charges? - because _anybody_ can make the claims you're making.




> christian moral is anti-life-- christianity invented the subject and called that which exist only in language--the subject--something that truly exist in reality. once it did this it made people responsible for their actions, rather than making society or the environment responsible as well. basically Christianity takes a strong man and claims this man has the ability to choose strength or weakness, as if you could take cat and say it has a choice whether or not it hunts. once this false choice was created, you then held people accountable for their actions and called bad actions sins. then you said sins irritated god, so these people would add another stupidity to their first stupidity and feel bad about what they did--even though it was just their nature. feeling bad or the bite of consiousness is anti nature. it tells people that who they are is wrong. it makes people discontent with this life, because who they are naturally is most likely as sin, and therefore and afterlife is created to give these people eternal salvation.


People ARE responsible for their actions; society and environment can (to a degree) mitigate those choices, but people make their choices. Christianity was correct in placing responsibility with the person. Sins do not "irritate" God - they are behaviors/attitudes that conflict with His character - and things that conflict with the character of God result in death - not in terms of "God will destroy you" but "you'll destroy yourself." Conscience is proof that God exists - there is no reason to feel bad about anything unless we are aware that we're transgressing a moral law. Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless _opinions_ that do not reveal any truth - only bias.




> thou shalt not kill is the basic premise. but you still kill and justify it as in the name of justice or god. so hypocritical. you do exactly what the people you despise do, the sinners, but you say your cause is in the name of god or justice. basically, you do the same thing as everybody else and euphemism it.


Wrong - there is a clear difference between the verbs "kill" and "murder." As well, nobody defended killing "in the name of God." I simply contend that God does not prohibit all killing. Pay attention to what I post, please.

----------


## hyperborean

> Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless _opinions_ that do not reveal any truth - only bias.


If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) is producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.

----------


## Redzeppelin

> If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) are producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.


Same old song and dance. Without some sort of back-up for these claims, this is the equivalent of the many conspiracy theories circulating around. Nice try.

----------


## Scheherazade

> If we were to discuss why Christianity (and even zionism) are producing problems in the world there would be more infractions on my user account. I want to remain a member on this forum, and follow the "no-politics" rules. Let's just say that Christianity is being used as a tool for politicians.


And the topic of this thread is 'All About Nietzsche' so please let's carry on discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies rather than Christianity as a religion.

Any off topic posts will be deleted with or without any further notice.

----------


## billyjack

> things that conflict with the character of God result in death - not in terms of "God will destroy you" but "you'll destroy yourself." Conscience is proof that God exists - Your attempt to blame Christianity for the problems in this world are insubstantial. Offer some sort of evidence, but spare us the endless _opinions_ that do not reveal any truth - only bias.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong - there is a clear difference between the verbs "kill" and "murder." As well, nobody defended killing "in the name of God." I simply contend that God does not prohibit all killing. Pay attention to what I post, please.



1- save the god will destroy you speech for sundays

consciousness is proof that human beings can think and be fooled by thought, not proof of god.  NIetzche calls the bite of consiousness the greatest stupidity of man and at the same time the greatest tool of the ascetic priest. the priest calls this bite of consciousness a punishment from god and uses it as a tool. how is this tool used? well, there werent any psycholigist around back when the ascetic ideal was founded. so the people who knew the most about the mind were priest. they used their authority to tell the pious exactly why the had consciousness and remorse, and this in turn made the pious that much more indebted to the priest and god. because the priest not only knew how to createt the remorse, he knew how to end it too. once the social heirarchy was re-established with priest on top, the tool of consciousness came to fruition.

3-define kill and murder however you want. but notice you are just affirming nietzches notion that words are simple pockets that now this or now that meaning have been put into

----------


## Redzeppelin

> 1- save the god will destroy you speech for sundays


There was no such speech given. I was responding to a point you were making. Please make sure you're clear on what my posts are doing before you criticize them. Thanks.






> 3-define kill and murder however you want. but notice you are just affirming nietzches notion that words are simple pockets that now this or now that meaning have been put into


Webster's does the defining - not me. You're deflecting the discussion away from the real issue - the bottom line is that your charge of hypocrisy in terms of the Bible's stance on killing is incorrect.

Either way, the moderator has spoken, and this discussion has drifted away from Nietzsche, so I will discontinue this line of discussion.

----------


## dramasnot6

Hey guys, just to swing things back on topic-

I was reading some interesting articles and webpages on Nietzsches influence on post-modernism. 
A particularly interesting site a found:
http://www.focusing.org/apm_papers/madison2.html
Just to cite, this appears to be an article from the "McMaster University". It has some definite bias, but I find his wording very interesting. Like how he says "doing philosophy with a hammer", i thought that was amusing, although I don't quite agree with it or wholly understand it. In a way I think he means that Nietzsches philosophy was very assertive and sometimes a bit harsh on his society. But thats my interpretation from what I have read of his works, what do you think?





> We are now in the process of wakening from the nightmare of modernity, with its manipulative reason and fetish of the totality, into the laid-back ["joyful," as Nietzsche would say] pluralism of the postmodern, that heterogeneous range of life-styles and language games which has renounced the nostalgic urge to totalize and legitimate itself....Science and philosophy must jettison their grandiose metaphysical claims and view themselves more modestly as just another set of narratives.
> 
> In other words, what as a result of Nietzsche's Fröliche Wissenschaft has been called into question in these postmodern times is that which has served always as the ultimate legitimation of the philosophical enterprise: the search for Truth, for Knowledge, for, that is to say, Science (Wissenschaft, episteme). i.e., the One (Universal), True Account of Things (Reality) (true heirs to Parmenides and Pythagoras, present-day physicists are currently expending a great deal of money and energy in search of what they call the Theory of Everything, "a single equation that describes the entire universe"). What under the inspiration of Nietzsche postmodernism has called into question is the foundational, cultural authority of Science. 
> 
> The concept of Science is a Platonic invention, but it underwent a new twist at the beginning of modern times with the emergence of mathematical, experimental science of the Galilean sort. Modern philosophy can be said to have begun when, bedazzled by this new development, philosophers took the new science as the supreme model of genuine, foundational knowledge. They were, ever afterwards, to labor in the shadow cast by this great Idol. Even the "free thinking," godless philosophers of late modernity continued to pay a sort of religious hommage to it. As Nietzsche remarked in the Genealogy of Morals, "They are far from being free spirits: for they still have faith in truth." And as he went on to say: "It is still a metaphysical faith that underlies our faith in science--and we men of knowledge of today, we godless men and anti-metaphysicians, we, too, still derive our flame from the fire ignited by a faith millennia old, the Christian faith, which was also Plato's, that God is truth, that truth is divine." When at long last Nietzsche took to doing philosophy with a hammer, it was precisely this Idol that he sought to demolish.

----------


## dramasnot6

so no one actually wants to discuss Nietzsche?

----------


## billyjack

> so no one actually wants to discuss Nietzsche?


we were discussing nietzche. someone butted in and called the discussion off topic. i didnt get that, seeing how neitzche attacks christianity and that is exactly what was happening on this thread. i'd love to talk nietzche, but any topic goes.

if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).

----------


## Scheherazade

> we were discussing nietzche. *someone butted in and called the discussion off topic.*  i didnt get that, seeing how neitzche attacks christianity and that is exactly what was happening on this thread. i'd love to talk nietzche, but any topic goes.
> 
> if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).


*The someone will carry on 'butting in' and editing/deleting any off topic posts in future as well. 

Please do not turn this thread into yet another 'Let's Bash Christianity (or any other religion) Thread' and limit your discussions to the philosophical arguments of Nietzsche.*

----------


## dramasnot6

> if i remeember right, the whole philosophy with a hammer thing represents his breaking of stone (idols) that were once thought unbreakable with his hammer (dionysus and the eternal recurrance and perspectivism).


Interesting. So by introducing more concepts that supposedly let you be more in touch with your primitive,human nature he is "hammering" or breaking down societal barriers of repression of that nature.

----------


## billyjack

> Interesting. So by introducing more concepts that supposedly let you be more in touch with your primitive,human nature he is "hammering" or breaking down societal barriers of repression of that nature.


precisely. his dionysus view of the world is what he calls a YES to life. this means saying, or better yet feeling, that what stigmas call bad are in fact neccessary and therefore worthy of our reverence just as much as the good. he hammers away at traditions, morals, and virtues by showing that in past times, the contraries to these terms were what was virtueos and moral. . . making it clear that good and bad are relative, not absolutes. 

i think it important to note that he doesnt call for anarchy. rather, he's a psychologist. people associate themselves with the role society has told them to play. he is saying that we are much more than that role and we should feel accordingly. making life lighter, gayer, more enjoyable, less serious.

----------


## dramasnot6

> precisely. his dionysus view of the world is what he calls a YES to life. this means saying, or better yet feeling, that what stigmas call bad are in fact neccessary and therefore worthy of our reverence just as much as the good. he hammers away at traditions, morals, and virtues by showing that in past times, the contraries to these terms were what was virtueos and moral. . . making it clear that good and bad are relative, not absolutes.


"Howl the eternal Yes"
i think that was Nietzsche. it is the only way to truly live life. 

is it possible to relate this to eternal recurrence? in that it is ok to make mistakes because everything is both good and bad at the end? 
I don't quite understand your last point. Is he using the ancient greek dionysian lifestyle as an example of how what in his society(and still our society) what is considered immoral can actually be quite good if you take the will to experience it? 




> i think it important to note that he doesnt call for anarchy. rather, he's a psychologist. people associate themselves with the role society has told them to play. he is saying that we are much more than that role and we should feel accordingly. making life lighter, gayer, more enjoyable, less serious.


 I agree with you that he is more playing the psychologist, just because people are in touch with their more primitive, instinctual side does not mean society will fall apart. It is in my opinion more likely that anarchy will be caused by over-repression, people will alienate themselves so far from their humanity that they will eventually crack and chaos will ensue. I'm not sure if that was what he was getting at.

----------


## billyjack

> "Howl the eternal Yes"
> i think that was Nietzsche. it is the only way to truly live life. 
> 
> is it possible to relate this to eternal recurrence? in that it is ok to make mistakes because everything is both good and bad at the end? 
> I don't quite understand your last point. Is he using the ancient greek dionysian lifestyle as an example of how what in his society(and still our society) what is considered immoral can actually be quite good if you take the will to experience it? 
> 
> I agree with you that he is more playing the psychologist, just because people are in touch with their more primitive, instinctual side does not mean society will fall apart. It is in my opinion more likely that anarchy will be caused by over-repression, people will alienate themselves so far from their humanity that they will eventually crack and chaos will ensue. I'm not sure if that was what he was getting at.



agreed, "howl it"...i think allan ginsberg was a fan of this lifestyle too. 

i'd say the yes to life goes hand in hand with the eternal recurrance. to quote will to power, "my dionysus world of the eternally self creating, the eternally self-destroying, the mystery world and the two-fold volumptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the cirlce (of life) is itself a goal." nothing is excluded in this view, nothing wished away. mistakes can be good in the end in that they have taught, if and only if, society is willing to learn. 

about making mistakes. nietzche probably wouldnt call anything a mistake in the brood scheme of it all. mistakes for him only exist through the looking glass of moors and stigmas. he's a fatalist, "amor fati" is his war dance cry. he even reveres the mistakes of religions in that they give him an enemy to fight against. but as far as making mistakes went for nietzche, he saw a mess up as an instrament to teach. rather than saying, "i've done something wrong" he urges people to take the russian fatalistic approach and say, "something has gone unexpectedly wrong here." remorse about a mistake would be adding a second stupidity to the first.

i think he's using the dionysus view of the world to show that what we now call bad has had different meanings over the centuries. "words are pockets into which now this meaning, now that, now both go into." 

he called himself the first immoralist. i noticed you said "will to experience." i wonder what exactly "will" means. it seems to have a lot of different ways it can be used. 

i think you got his psychology down pat. he anticipated freud and jong, but i think he exceeded them in seeing through the illusion of the ego. but yeah, its alientation of natural instincts that leads toward anarchy--i like that.

----------


## dramasnot6

Wow...thank you billyjack. It's taken me a few reads to digest and I think I will need to sleep on it before I comment and ask questions. I think I really have an understanding of Nietzsches philosophy as a whole now. I have not realized the importance and impact of his philosophy on bigger scale of trends of ways of thinking in history and so many different areas in society. 
What you have said above is the understanding of Nietzsche I have been so sorely searching for in my questioning of his ideas.

----------


## billyjack

glad that helped--nice to find another dionysian--not many on the forums. i'm starting thus spoke zarathustra--kaufman translated it. its supposed to be difficult in relation to some of his more straight forward books. i'll be in touch with questions and comments.

----------


## dramasnot6

> agreed, "howl it"...i think allan ginsberg was a fan of this lifestyle too. 
> 
> i'd say the yes to life goes hand in hand with the eternal recurrance. to quote will to power, "my dionysus world of the eternally self creating, the eternally self-destroying, the mystery world and the two-fold volumptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the cirlce (of life) is itself a goal." nothing is excluded in this view, nothing wished away. mistakes can be good in the end in that they have taught, if and only if, society is willing to learn.


I see nothing radical or ridiculous about philosophy such as this. So many criticize Nietzsche but spread these same messages "live and learn", "learn from your mistakes". He just places these concepts of "mistakes" on a larger scale, viewing the knowledge gained as a part of an eternal life cycle. The destruction of mistakes as the creation of knowledge in the larger scheme of eternal destruction and creation. 



> about making mistakes. nietzche probably wouldnt call anything a mistake in the brood scheme of it all. mistakes for him only exist through the looking glass of moors and stigmas. he's a fatalist, "amor fati" is his war dance cry. he even reveres the mistakes of religions in that they give him an enemy to fight against. but as far as making mistakes went for nietzche, he saw a mess up as an instrament to teach. rather than saying, "i've done something wrong" he urges people to take the russian fatalistic approach and say, "something has gone unexpectedly wrong here." remorse about a mistake would be adding a second stupidity to the first.


Ah- so there are no mistakes ,only learning oppurtunities. I am not too familiar with fatalism, only that it is the belief that you can not control your own fate. I actually find this suprising of Nietzsche, I always thought he asserted that humans were in control and need not be "fated" by religion or anything else. Perhaps he is fatalistic in a different sense?




> i think he's using the dionysus view of the world to show that what we now call bad has had different meanings over the centuries. "words are pockets into which now this meaning, now that, now both go into."


I am irresistably reminded of a quote from Hamlet, "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so".
That word and meaning quote is very interesting. I remember we discussed earlier on this thread how Nietzsche considers everything we know and can identify only a product of our upbringing and conditioning we only can call things "x" because we were taught "x". i think from these two concepts of the subjectivity of the interpretation of language give an even better understanding of the meaninglessness of small things that Nietzsche seems to present with eternal recurrence- it does not matter what we make of it, specific meaning is insignifigant in the end. Perhaps that is what you mean by his being fatalist? 




> he called himself the first immoralist. i noticed you said "will to experience." i wonder what exactly "will" means. it seems to have a lot of different ways it can be used. 
> 
> i think you got his psychology down pat. he anticipated freud and jong, but i think he exceeded them in seeing through the illusion of the ego. but yeah, its alientation of natural instincts that leads toward anarchy--i like that.


by will to experience I was referring to the "howl". We should always be willing to experience if we are willing to live. 
fascinating you bring up freud and jung, i have never even considered his philosophy as commentary on a societal subconscious. I suppose in freudian terms you could say he was criticizing how the super-ego from the dominance of religion and the ego dominant from our alienation from ourselves is repressing the id to the point where we lose track of our identity and humanity. I would think the individualism that seems to be focused on in his philosophy is more suited to a comparison with Freud rather than Jung, I would be curious to know how Nietzsche compared to him as well. 
thanks again!

----------


## billyjack

i might need a day or so to respond. . .the movie "hot fuzz" is calling my name tonight. 

but your absolutely right. there isnt anything wacko about nietzche's genious. no one has been more misunderstood in a world than nietszche, except maybe jesus christ. 

mistakes as a furthering of knowledge and fuel for the eternal life cycle, YES . i couldnt agree more. nor could nietzche i bet.

but about fatalism. yeah, he doesnt use it in the typical, "i'm not in control of my life," sort of way. its more of a fatalistic view toward the past--not dwelling, remorsing, wishing things to have been different. his fatalism is one that lives in the present moment (which just so happens to also be winnie the pooh's favorite moment). the connection you made between language's relativity and tradition based existence in relation to nietzche's love of fatalism is interesting avenue of nietzche i havent looked down yet. perhaps "it not mattering what we make of it", in terms of translating experience into words is a fatalism in the sense that we dont control what words we use to symbolize reality, society and tradition do. so thought (which for me is the translating of reality into words) is fatalistic in so much that no thoughts are really our own. in reality, thoughts are a product of society, in so much as words and meanings are both products of society. . .this for me would mean that freedom from thought would mean freedom from societies contol mechanism--words. or better yet, not freedom from thought-- we have to think to communicate. . .but freedom from the typical mistake of seeing thought as reality, when its anything but.

this got off subject a bit. but i think nietzches fatalism is lies in not trying to change the past. to be done with it! to see it as neccessary. to realize that the past is completely responsible for you being where you are right now. and if you can love right now, then you affirm your past as well, or better yet, you love your past, "amor fati." 

i tend to see nietzche as an eastern mind. i focus most of my reading on eastern thought, so often times i think i might see nietzche in a way that he might not have meant to be see. i'm not sure yet. my nietzche reading binge will encompass this whole summer, so maybe we'll know then.

----------


## billyjack

> I
> by will to experience I was referring to the "howl". We should always be willing to experience if we are willing to live. 
> fascinating you bring up freud and jung, i have never even considered his philosophy as commentary on a societal subconscious. I suppose in freudian terms you could say he was criticizing how the super-ego from the dominance of religion and the ego dominant from our alienation from ourselves is repressing the id to the point where we lose track of our identity and humanity. I would think the individualism that seems to be focused on in his philosophy is more suited to a comparison with Freud rather than Jung, I would be curious to know how Nietzsche compared to him as well. 
> thanks again!


i reckon that in freudian terms that would sum up nietzche. he wouldnt like the terminolgy, but he'd have to admit that "systematically" it grasps his psychological philosophy. however, the idea of the ego was a nemesis of nietzche and i think he showed it to be illusionary, or rather, a tool used by ascetic priest to coax followers into guilt.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative - a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.


 Wikipedia: God is Dead

----------


## Lote-Tree

> Wikipedia: God is Dead


Nietzsche's Anthropomorphic God may be dead but not the Transcendental God of the Mystics.

----------


## B-Mental

Nietzsche is Dead or so its said....B

----------


## Virgil

For those who God is dead, it has been replaced with mother earth and all this environmental religion.  :Wink:

----------


## Il Penseroso

> For those who God is dead, it has been replaced with mother earth and all this environmental religion.


don't forget the animals Virgil  :Smile: 

some may have replaced the metaphorical deity with mysticism/nature worship, but for others it is a liberating affirmation of humanity's decision making capacity. or at least an attempt to teach productive activation of humanity's reason.

----------


## papayahed

I was thinking about something along these lines this morning. Atheists have to defend their reasoning for doing good. For example, a Christian when asked why they don't commit adultery can rely on the easy explanation of "God says not to". Whereas an Atheist can't rely on such an easy answer. Know what I mean?

I guess what I mean is that an Atheist probably has to do more soul searching and questioning regarding their morality choices as oppossed to a religious person.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I was thinking about something along these lines this morning. Atheists have to defend their reasoning for doing good. For example, a Christian when asked why they don't commit adultery can rely on the easy explanation of "God says not to". Whereas an Atheist can't rely on such an easy answer. Know what I mean?
> 
> I guess what I mean is that an Atheist probably has to do more soul searching and questioning regarding their morality choices as oppossed to a religious person.


As between "God says not to" and _I prefer not to interfere in an existing relationship and run the risk of hurting at least one other person_, which do you consider the more mature and the more moral response?




> don't forget the animals Virgil 
> 
> some may have replaced the metaphorical deity with mysticism/nature worship, but for others it is a liberating affirmation of humanity's decision making capacity. or at least an attempt to teach productive activation of humanity's reason.


Brilliant answer but it beats me why those who believe in a supernatural deity have contempt for those who revere the planet and are concerned about the preservation of it.

----------


## dramasnot6

Ooo oo! I have to shamelessly promote my Nietzsche thread, where we have touched on this!
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=21555

And that was an amazing answer,IP

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> Ooo oo! I have to shamelessly promote my Nietzsche thread, where we have touched on this!
> http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=21555
> 
> And that was an amazing answer,IP


Sorry about that. I was too lazy to go searching but I will have a look at it now.

----------


## dramasnot6

It's cool! Can never get enough Nietzsche  :Wink:

----------


## papayahed

> As between "God says not to" and _I prefer not to interfere in an existing relationship and run the risk of hurting at least one other person_, which do you consider the more mature and the more moral response?


I'm not sure you could say one answer is "more moral" than the other, that's like saying someone is more dead than someone else.

----------


## PrinceMyshkin

> I'm not sure you could say one answer is "more moral" than the other, that's like saying someone is more dead than someone else.


You see something moral in doing something because an authority told you to do so?

----------


## Dark Star

> I was thinking about something along these lines this morning. Atheists have to defend their reasoning for doing good. For example, a Christian when asked why they don't commit adultery can rely on the easy explanation of "God says not to". Whereas an Atheist can't rely on such an easy answer. Know what I mean?
> 
> I guess what I mean is that an Atheist probably has to do more soul searching and questioning regarding their morality choices as oppossed to a religious person.


You're not looking at the other side of the coin: An atheist also has to come up with much better reasons to justify killing someone (or a group of people) than a religious (theistic) person does. An atheist cannot kill people en masse and suffer no guilt from it because, hey, God wanted 'em to kill some infidels.

----------


## papayahed

> You see something moral in doing something because an authority told you to do so?


I prefer to give the religite the benefit of doubt, that they have thought about their reasons behind following God's word.

----------


## NikolaiI

I was an atheist at the time I read Nietzsche-- maybe it is accurate to call myself an atheist now, since my definition of God is undefinable. It's inaccurate to all myself anything, in fact. I have faith of Nietzsche but I have no qualm in saying that my "soul" is not "my body." Before anyone complains about my use of "soul", then should consider that I, like everyone, have my own understanding of it, and there shouldn't be a prejudice about my understanding before any knowledge of my understanding. In an extreme example, my understanding _could_ be that the soul is inexistant. Then if someone objected to my use of the word on the strong, convicted faith that there is no soul, that would objecting prematurely, but I did not in fact believe it extant.

Now, my understanding of the soul is a metaphor- or it could be thought of (as it is described in Hinduism), as an atomic soul. Hinduism talks about three different types of soul, including the personal soul and the Supreme soul; I forget what the third is (bad Hindu!). Or it could just be "myself". I don't know what my self is, but I do knot what it is not- my body. My body is always changing. I do not have the same body I had a year ago. It is the same, but it's also not the same. I don't judge myself by any or all of my body- I could lose a limb, and still be whole, psychologically- perhaps if I lost my entire body I would lose my mind, or perhaps this is why "bardo" is so difficult to traverse. I don't know.

So mentioning my soul, I also think of the spirituality of everything that goes with it. Nietzsche's philosohpy is parallelly similar to my own, almost all of the values of Nietzsche's (excepting most his value of women, although this is a minute part of it all) about morals, and different problems. Nietzsche knew the falseness of langauge, and he had a similar mind to my own. In fact I don't rate Nietzsche's mind higher than my own; he was more brilliant in some ways- one way being of course his wonderful, wonderful talent at writing, and showing his ideas; but I simply recognize a similar way of understanding things, I get an affirmation of my own mind and insights; Nietzsche applied similar tools to problems which I also found as insubstantial and inessential, but in reading his works, like I said, I do not find myself comparing myself to him, but only his ideas, and they affirm my own thinking in so many matters, in particular in the belief that I'm capable of solving problems only a very few in the world are. And in pain and pleasure in my life, I believe I face the same scale of abysses and heights. Nietzsche might have been thought of as arrogant, but to get to the heights he- and I- have reached, you must put any doubt far behind you. You must always face the truth, and the sad, unfortunate fact is that your peers in your environment will probably always treat you with derision, at least some of them, and if they can they will gang up on you. It always seems the main struggle is about truth; so in this arguing about truth is one of the most divisive obstacles. If you say anything, absolutely anything, to an audience of any size, there is a porportionate size of the audience which is hostile, and hostile in the worst way: that it wishes to breed more hositility. This is the sad truth of things. 

So I see other people have mentioned God. I will just say a couple things.

First, just as when I say "soul" I do not mean the same metaphor others do, also when I say "god" I do not mean the same thing anyone else does. Although, if certain people thought about it, I'm sure at least someone else thinks god is the same I do. 

My god does not speak to anyone. Sources of information of the bible are not from god. Sources of information from people about anything else I would not believe. If the entire world told me the source to god was in gum on the pavement and cockroaches squished in guano, I would think they had gone insane. So there is no authority in the book itself, nor in the people themselves. I haven't read all of the bible. But stories whose content is "Israel asked god. God told Isreal, kill," I find to be pure lies. So this is not my god. May be god talks to people, but this question could not be a greater obstacle to anything about god.

Long after this obstacle has been set aside and the senses and the soul have been nourished on pure, true sources of knowledge, poetry, art, nature, fresh air, tai chi, and meditation, all of the good things in life, then we might begin to think about god. After all, beginning from an unbiased view, god has been to presented to us as "holy." God has been presented to us as "good." Now, there are, I suppose, Transcendental Experiences which lead one to believe one has felt god's presence. Now, since I Know Nothing about Transcendental Experiences, I can not say anything about them, I am only assuming their existence. I have had my own experiences, which have given me riches beyond imagining- I only use these words because they describe what I'm trying to best, as I do when I speak any words- and I can describe them, though of course I won't here, but that's what I've experienced.

----------


## dramasnot6

> You must always face the truth, and the sad, unfortunate fact is that your peers in your environment will probably always treat you with derision, at least some of them, and if they can they will gang up on you. It always seems the main struggle is about truth; so in this arguing about truth is one of the most divisive obstacles. If you say anything, absolutely anything, to an audience of any size, there is a porportionate size of the audience which is hostile, and hostile in the worst way: that it wishes to breed more hositility. This is the sad truth of things.


Nietzsche would be proud  :Thumbs Up: 

I love how in his writing, Nietzsche shamelessly plunges past the critics of his time and directly expresses his thoughts right on the page, for everyone to fear and love.

Nietzsche is in constant exploration of the subjectivity and hypocracy of morals- how moral systems are corrupted and destroyed to benefit those who impose the systems only. With the corruption of morals, comes the corruption of "truth". We are always taught that "speaking the truth" is the moral thing to do, but there is no universal truth, as there is no universal moral system.
Sorry, getting of the point a little  :Tongue: 
I agree with you Nik in that it is sad that many people must be hostile in receiving "truth", but I also think it is good to question any truths we come across. Nietzsche loves to question and explore the validity of the truths and morals preached by his contextual society, there is a beauty in the freedom of speech and thought it requires to be able to reject some teachings, and accept and change others.
However, we can not all be the peace-loving sort of philosophers. As the concepts of truth and morals are so harshly embedded in the mind of the individual, the rejection of other's opinions can be violent and irrational- not justified or logically discussed. That is why so many immediatly reject Nietzsches "God is Dead". The words in one line carry such nasty connotations for those coming from a religious background, those accepting the truths preached to them from their religion only, that they respond with amazing hostility and don't take any time or patience to even consider what Nietzsche could have meant by such a statement.
That, that is truly, as you say Nik, sad. Oh, the tragedy of ignorance.

----------


## heraclitus

Excellent essay. One can best understand Nietzsche as a poet, describing the world from a greek(homer) perspective. Nietzche was a very fragile, very physically ill individual who knew he was going to die young. His choice was that of Achilles. A short passionate life was his choice: Nietzsche makes use of his illness in his works. Half blind, fingers twisted in pain, he wrote about embracing this life.

----------


## dramasnot6

That is so beautiful, heraclitus.

----------


## curlyqlink

I mean "infuriating" in a good way. This from _Beyond Good and Evil_ (II, 34):


_It is no more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere appearance; it is even the worst proved assumption in the world._


"But... but... "I sputter, "truth is a virtue, an absolute!" I believe this, I need to believe this, but blow me over if I can find a way to _prove_ it. This is what makes Nietzsche infuriating-- he threatens my tidy world-view!

Likewise my veneration for Socrates. Nietzsche attacks lovable, rational Socrates. Whose philosophical view is so pure and aesthetically pleasing, cutting as it does through layers of "mere appearance" to uncover the reality beneath. But to Nietzsche Socrates is self-denying, will-denying world-denying.

----------


## billyjack

> I mean "infuriating" in a good way. This from _Beyond Good and Evil_ (II, 34):
> 
> 
> _It is no more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere appearance; it is even the worst proved assumption in the world._
> 
> 
> "But... but... "I sputter, "truth is a virtue, an absolute!" I believe this, I need to believe this, but blow me over if I can find a way to _prove_ it. This is what makes Nietzsche infuriating-- he threatens my tidy world-view!
> 
> Likewise my veneration for Socrates. Nietzsche attacks lovable, rational Socrates. Whose philosophical view is so pure and aesthetically pleasing, cutting as it does through layers of "mere appearance" to uncover the reality beneath. But to Nietzsche Socrates is self-denying, will-denying world-denying.


that's a nice quote. i'm actually reading beyond good and evil right now. i'm at the chapter on virtue--which is a yawn fest for me. maybe i'm not reading it astutely??

everyone is searching for something beyond mere appearance--appearances are too fleeting, immoral at times, contradictory, final (death). instead of listening to this rabble, N embraces it, affirms it. he created a reasonable philosophy, a philosophy grounded in sense experience-- his dionysus world view-- which convinces that part of us that wants to believe in the "beyond appearances" that we need not do so. cool stuff

----------


## Ohmyscience

This is such an enlightening thread. I'm not entirely enamored with Nietzche but I think his ideas are pervasive and should be investigated. My favorite idea of his is embracing the Dionysian facet of life. However I do not think the Dionysian advocates evolution. I might be mistaken but I don't think N. was in favor of the evolutionary model to take place. His overman is not a character to likely multiply and become the norm. It seems evident from that point that he would denounce Nazism since it is herd mentality. Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember one passage where he insists that the plentiful and most apt to survive were the normal and lazy and not the overman. 


Excuse me if I have soften N. ideologies but personally for me what N. suggests is that while slave and moralities exist we should not immediately place slave morality on a pedastal.

----------


## Jeremiah Jazzz

Nietzsche is really great, one of my favorite philosophers. The core idea that we are essentially free to live our own life, is very refreshing compared to other philosophies. Through Nietzsche, I've also found other philosophers and their philosophies, such as Derrida and Schopenhauer.

----------


## curlyqlink

> i'm at the chapter on virtue--which is a yawn fest for me. maybe i'm not reading it astutely??


I just started this chapter myself, and I too am bogging down in it. I find much of it uninteresting. Nietzsche, at his worst, gets involved in petty mud-slinging. When he's good, he's brilliant. When he's not, he can seem terribly smug and self-satisfied.

His opinions on Shakespeare are fascinating. Unconventional, perhaps wrong-headed, but fascinating!

----------


## billyjack

this is true. but i think i like him so much bc even when he's smug he's entertaining and refreshing, though occasionally--not often though-- drab and dense. his arrogance regarding women is a case in point of his smugiffery. he bashes on truth throughout the virtue chapter, --To believe in "truth" is to allow one's perspective to become locked, so that one is unable to see a matter from any different point of view--then he starts talking about women like he knows the "truth" about femininity. I think this is his own little smug joke, punning that all of us have unquestioned "truths"---even nietzche. that said, his thoughts on women seem accurate to me, though overly generalized.

----------


## Pendragon

Well, it is not the strong I worry about but the greedy. There religion or irreligion makes no distinction. What a man builds by his strength or will, I have no trouble giving him. But sheer greed, the acquirment of anything just for the purpose of cutting another's throat is the road to madness. Profit is one thing, reaming a person is quite another. The oil madness is a good example. 

A decent profit on their product, costs, etc. is to be expected. Kicking the economy when people are down is quite another. The same can be said of everything. 

Even in times of war we don't shoot those who surrender if we are decent. Lack of compassion and death camps are the shame of the human race. 

By some of the arguments I have seen presented, all moral people should be killed along with the religious and those who cannot keep pace with others who are deemed strong. Is this the world we really want?

Intolerance has no color or group to its name, be they religious intolerents or atheist, humanistic, philisopher, or what-have-you.

----------


## Ohmyscience

I don't think N. specifically was in favor of greed. His creed was to accept the reality of life and not worship the morality that preaches humility and ineptitude. His view is against what is taught in the bible specifically passages such as the tower of babel and Jesus's turn the other cheek.

----------


## cicadamoon

I am visiting from the "book of the month" forum, where we were reading The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. Has anyone come across any Nietzsche references to "The Idiot"? I have some thoughts about the protagonist, Prince Myshkin--and I suspect that Nietzsche would have had some thoughts about a protagonist like Prince Myshkin--but I've been unable to locate the reference.

Any thoughts?

Cicadamoon

----------


## NikolaiI

> I am visiting from the "book of the month" forum, where we were reading The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. Has anyone come across any Nietzsche references to "The Idiot"? I have some thoughts about the protagonist, Prince Myshkin--and I suspect that Nietzsche would have had some thoughts about a protagonist like Prince Myshkin--but I've been unable to locate the reference.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Cicadamoon


According to Wikipedia, Nietzsche encountered Dostoevsky's works in 87, so, only a couple years before his collapse. It says he read _The Possessed_- I don't know what others- and it also quotes, which I have heard before, Nietzshce saying Dostoevsky was the only psychologist from which he had anything to learn. I don't know if he read _The Idiot._

----------


## hampusforev

> I am visiting from the "book of the month" forum, where we were reading The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. Has anyone come across any Nietzsche references to "The Idiot"? I have some thoughts about the protagonist, Prince Myshkin--and I suspect that Nietzsche would have had some thoughts about a protagonist like Prince Myshkin--but I've been unable to locate the reference.
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Cicadamoon


I think basically Prince Myshkin is exactly what Nietzsche viewed Jesus and "the all good man". Now this is just far off topic but man isn't Dostoyevsky the most overrated author that ever lent himself to the canon? Raskolnikov depicts the human psyche, give me a ****ing brake.
Now Notes from the Underground I enjoyed, well these are just my humble opinions of course.

----------


## cicadamoon

Yes, I believe that somewhere there is a reference Nietzsche made to Jesus, calling him an "idiot"--in the sense of Prince Myshkin--not in the dictionary sense of the term. But, I cannot remember where I read that! Anyway, I've just come off of a debate on the book of the month club, where I take what I suspect would have been Nietzsche's approach to an analysis of the character of Prince Myshkin. 

Re: Dostoyevsky--I felt that neither he nor Tolstoy have an adequate grasp of the female psyche. They rely on stock characterization, in my opinion. But, I guess, neither did Nietzsche!! The only way that I can read Nietzche is if I abandon the role of gender.

----------


## americanlit

Which translations would you recommend of "The Birth of Tragedy"? thanks

----------


## billyjack

walter kaufman. he's the authority on Nietzsche

----------


## JBI

Hamlet was written, most scholars suggest, in the first years of the 17th century, just so you know.

----------


## billyjack

gay science, book 3. N says, 


```
"All experiences are moral experiences, even in the realm of sense perception."
```

_
seems_ to go against Nietzsche's usual high regard for the senses
i'm curious about this statement, any thoughts?

----------


## The Beard

> Re: Dostoyevsky--I felt that neither he nor Tolstoy have an adequate grasp of the female psyche. They rely on stock characterization, in my opinion. But, I guess, neither did Nietzsche!! The only way that I can read Nietzche is if I abandon the role of gender.


To be quite fair, not many in the 19th century could claim an understanding of the female psyche that we would consider accurate today. Times change the common perception; we must never forget the background of which a work was written - especially when making such statements about the role of gender in literature  :Wink: .

On a less pedantic note, I recently started reading Nietzsche's teachings. I started with Thus Spoke Zarathurstra, but being eighteen I felt lacking in the maturity that is required to grasp what makes it special to many. Anybody else felt that way? I probably could have trudged through it, but I reckon to wait five years and then read it would be more rewarding. Can anyone suggest another of his works as a decent starting point?  :Biggrin:

----------


## NEEMAN

I'm not sure any of his books could be reccomended as being 'easier' for an 18 year old, as opposed to a 23 year old (btw, I am 23). I'm re-reading _Human, All Too Human_ at the moment, and really, I think there's no reason that at 23 you'd necessarily be in any better position to read it. The very way it is written (i.e. the aphorisms) probably makes it more digestable than _Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ though, so maybe it's a better place to start (it was also written before _TSZ_, so even from a chronological standpoint, it makes more sense to begin there).

In my opinion though, the most important question is: what other philosophy have you read? I am very much of the opinion that the first philosophical work anyone should read is _The Republic_ by Plato. I think some knowledge of the Greek philosophers is really useful if you're going to read Nietzsche, as he does refer to them a lot. Personally, I could never enjoy Aristotle's work, but _The Republic_ is an incredible read in its own right, so if you haven't read it, you probably should, before heading for Nietzsche =)

----------


## billyjack

i'd start with twilight of the idols. personally, my first N experience was will to power, which might not be a bad spot to start either being that it got me interested enough to read the rest of his works 

i read zaruthustra recently, i'm 26, and it was probably the toughest book to get through that i've read by Nietzsche.

----------


## The Beard

Thanks for your reply Neeman and Billyjack.

I haven't read many philosophical texts to be honest. Right now I am in the middle of The Problems of Philosophy by Russell; epistemology seems to be the usual starting point for newcomers. But yeah Neeman, The Republic looks quite a tasty prospect and is safely waiting in my Amazon shopping basket. Thanks for the suggestion there. (Oh and for the record, I didn't presume waiting to read TSZ would make it any 'easier'... just that in a few years time, my knowledge will be more equal to the task  :Biggrin: )

Billyjack, I will take a gander at Twighlight of the Idols as well; cheers for the idea. 

Before setting down TSZ, something did occur to me: is Zarathustra's coming down from the mountain supposed to be symbolic of Nietzsche's decision to give up the isolation of scholarly life? I read somewhere in a letter of somekind that Nietzsche was desperately lonely and thought of becoming a gardener at one point!? I know that he eventually decided to maintain his writing lifestyle. 

So my question is: How does this episode of conflict in Nietzsche, correspond to Zarathustra?

If it doesn't relate at all, let me know. If I'm being stupid, be merciful. 

But hey, I'm here to learn  :Biggrin:

----------


## curlyqlink

> To be quite fair, not many in the 19th century could claim an understanding of the female psyche that we would consider accurate today.


I enjoy reading Nietzsche, and in many ways he was an incredibly brilliant mind. When it comes to his pronouncements about women, however, he is embarrassing. A bigoted fool. And I don't believe his foolishness can be excused by taking a historical perspective. Plenty of men in his day, and earlier, did not share these commonplace and simpleminded prejudices. Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...

----------


## The Beard

> I enjoy reading Nietzsche, and in many ways he was an incredibly brilliant mind. When it comes to his pronouncements about women, however, he is embarrassing. A bigoted fool. And I don't believe his foolishness can be excused by taking a historical perspective. Plenty of men in his day, and earlier, did not share these commonplace and simpleminded prejudices. Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...


Fair enough curly; that is your opinion, and one amongst many. But I do have something to say in reply.

So you claim that Nietzsche was a 'bigoted fool' because you believe folly cannot be justified by taking a historical perspective. I agree but strongly maintain that allowances must be made in light of the consensus, during the 19th century, that woman were not equal to men. But are you suggesting that the presence of more modern minds (e.g. 'Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...') therefore makes everybody 'fools' in comparison?!? C'mon... 

Picture the world in 60 years time... the world will be in a crisis over global warming and the melting ice caps; but for the moment, the majority of people are not too bothered as long as there isn't a crisis right now, staring us in the face. There are people who are actively pursuing prevention of this problem and those not doing anything, regardless whether they care or not.

So does this make the vast majority of the world fools? simply because a select few show foresight. I don't think so mate. It's easy to make criticisms in hindsight, as you and I are.

Picking on Nietzsche's viewpoint on women is like disregarding the rest of his work because Hitler misinterpreted it, leading to the holocaust. 

Don't get me wrong, I totally disagree with what he says about women. But don't let that get in the way of enjoying what he has to offer  :Thumbs Up:

----------


## billyjack

i dont think you can discredit everything he says about women, little lone discredit other things he's said not in relation to women bc he's a tidge sexist. Let us not forget, the thing he despised most was Germany. anyways, we're probably misunderstanding him and here's an example that shows just this. 

i've read over and over again Nietzsche proclaiming his love for the greeks and their ability to stop at mere appearance and be happy with life's secrets being free from unearthing by the backhoe of reason. that said, look at this exert from Beyond Good Evil

"what is truth to woman? From the beginning nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth--her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."

now lest you misunderstand Nietzsche here, its paramount to realize that he's against truth. he thinks the "will to truth" is the "will to death" because life as we know it subscribes to both truth and un-truths (ex. i have to put on a false persona to procreate ). taking just the former as our idol is a sign of disease for Nietzsche. 

i take all this to mean that he idolizes gals like he did the greeks and hates to see them dirty their hands in works of reason and truth

----------


## NEEMAN

The other thing to bear in mind is that Nietzsche was not only a man of his time in terms of his beliefs, but in terms of what he observed. Most men and women today are essentially conservative, and wholeheartedly fall in line with normative values. In Nietzche's time, this was true to an even greater extent, and so what Nietzsche says about women, he says based on what he observed in most women of the age.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that Nietzsche's writings are to be taken at face value: he was not writing drama or literature, but _his own beliefs_, unlike, for example, Shakespeare. Most of the people you mention, were you to discover their real opinions, would clearly be total sexists every bit as trapped by the prevailing thought of their day as Nietzsche. You cannot take their dramatic & fictional works and induce what their beliefs are on that basis. Nietzsche at least allows that some day women could be allowed access to what were the perceived as being 'male spheres', but that at his time, he did not believe it was possible.

----------


## curlyqlink

Well, this is precisely my problem with Nietzsche's pronouncements on women: he was a "man of his time". This seems to me the essence of bigotry-- the unquestioning acceptance of stereotyped, prejudicial attitudes toward a group of people. Why I am so disappointed in Nietzsche in this area is because his was not an intellect to blindly accept the attitudes of his time. I expect better from him. He did not accept current attitudes toward the Jews, for example. (Nietzscshe, much to my surprise once I actually read him, thought very highly of the Jewish people). I just expect better from Nietzsche, and so I am disappointed at his bigoted railing against women. It is beneath him.

Incidentally, when I refer to his pronouncements as bigoted, I don't mean it as name-calling. It is simply the appropriate adjective.

----------


## NEEMAN

But I'm not sure that he was wrong. I interpret Nietzsche's remarks on women as being remarks on the female culture of the day (just as I interpret his comments on men, the state and politics). Was he wrong? Probably not. I can tell you, I have a lot to say myself about modern feminine culture. Will this make me a bigot in 100 years time? I have critical views of masculine culture too, but then again, so did Nietzsche!

Nietzsche's views are complex. Nietzsche clearly believes that women are capable of holding the same responsabilities as men, and says as much directly in some of his works. His criticism is of feminine culture.

Nietzsche was probably a sexist by our standards, but no more so than many other men of his time, and in fact a great deal less. Nietzsche takes no prisoners in his work: he says exactly what he thinks. So when he mocks the feminine culture of his day and age, it's because he finds it silly and ridiculous, and when he says he thinks women will one day be 'capable' of being part of the political process, it's because he means exactly that.

Nietzsche saw men and women as different, but not unequal, and that is an important distinction.

----------


## billyjack

> Nietzsche saw men and women as different, but not unequal, and that is an important distinction.


on the contrary. seeing similars as equal is a sign of weak eyes for Nietzsche. 

men and women are not equal when you get specific

----------


## dramasnot6

Woah...there sure has been a lot added to this thread since last I was on here! I need to put aside some time and catch up on it all. :-)
I think it is always difficult to judge the sexist content in works of the past. It is hard for modern readers to differentiate between what the author really believed and what is a dutiful reflection of their social context.



> The other thing to bear in mind is that Nietzsche was not only a man of his time in terms of his beliefs, but in terms of what he observed. Most men and women today are essentially conservative, and wholeheartedly fall in line with normative values. In Nietzche's time, this was true to an even greater extent, and so what Nietzsche says about women, he says based on what he observed in most women of the age.


I think Neeman is kind of expressing what I mean...it's difficult for some to judge a group of people as individuals with potential beyond what society allows them. Women experienced much greater limitations in Nietzsche's day, it is understandable that these same societally projected limitations could be ingrained in anyone as inherent fact. Everyone,then and now, is guilty of some degree of sexism. 
I consider Nietzsche a pioneer of thought,someone who rebelled against various popular ideas of his time. This makes interpretations of what seems like prejudice in his work particularly fascinating. Nietzsche seemed to judge everything with different standards, particularly when it comes to ethical issues. He also had a very peculiar personal context that surely informed some misogyny in the way he observed the world.

I really could not make an absolute statement about Nietzsche and sexism. I think that once again it brings us to the question of being able to separate an artist from his work. There are many great men and women I admire that have shared personal beliefs I detest but have produced great work nonetheless.

----------


## curlyqlink

Nietzsche, in his discussion of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy (he calls the latter "the oldest and most venerable 'scripture'") finds a close parallel in Hellenic Epicurianism:

_although it is arrayed in Oriental exaggeration, what is expressed is merely the same appraisal as that of the clear, cool, Hellenically cool, but suffering Epicurus; the hypnotic sense of nothingness, the repose of deepest sleep, in short the absence of suffering..._
Genealogy of Morals, III,17

I was surprised to read this. Ever since I stumbled across the ideas of Epicurus (via Marcus Aurelius) I realized that we in the West had our own version of "buddhism" with very deep roots. Stripped of its mysticism and the attractions of the exotic, Buddhism seems to me pretty much the same system of thought as Epicurianism, offering the same comforts (and pitfalls). It was nice to find that one of the world's great philosophers thought so too!

Nietzsche, of course, does not hold with these systems of thought that encourage quietude, passive acceptance, and denial of the self.

----------


## 0=2

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals. 

He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...

----------


## beatnic

> Ha. This subject. Done to death.
> 
> The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals. 
> 
> He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...


I disagree. I think that Nietzsche was not only one the founders of existentialism but also brought up and good point; that God is dead. Of course, not in the literal sense, but in the sense that humanity does not need anything other than themselves in order to retain self value and meaning.

----------


## billyjack

> Ha. This subject. Done to death.
> 
> The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals. 
> 
> He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...


lets argue over people anyways. who was more ahead of his time than N? had a bigger impact whether it be for good or bad (and since this is a Nietzsche thread, good and bad are relative terms)? questioned everything more than N? transcended being a white male in the 1800's as well as N?

step past? that's what the overman was, eh?

agreed he had nice quotables:

"the spirits increase, vigor grows through a wound." twilight of the idols

"

----------


## Jozanny

> Well, this is precisely my problem with Nietzsche's pronouncements on women: he was a "man of his time". This seems to me the essence of bigotry-- the unquestioning acceptance of stereotyped, prejudicial attitudes toward a group of people. Why I am so disappointed in Nietzsche in this area is because his was not an intellect to blindly accept the attitudes of his time. I expect better from him. He did not accept current attitudes toward the Jews, for example. (Nietzscshe, much to my surprise once I actually read him, thought very highly of the Jewish people). I just expect better from Nietzsche, and so I am disappointed at his bigoted railing against women. It is beneath him.
> 
> Incidentally, when I refer to his pronouncements as bigoted, I don't mean it as name-calling. It is simply the appropriate adjective.


I can make no claim of being able to truly grasp Nietzsche, though my portable edition is on the DVD, because I want to keep trying, his attitude about women might be more than sexism, and may point to the early stages of mental defect. The whip and flowers imagery certainly evince early symptoms of illness, not that I am offering a apologia for it.

----------


## 0=2

> lets argue over people anyways. who was more ahead of his time than N? had a bigger impact whether it be for good or bad (and since this is a Nietzsche thread, good and bad are relative terms)? questioned everything more than N? transcended being a white male in the 1800's as well as N?
> 
> step past? that's what the overman was, eh?
> 
> agreed he had nice quotables:
> 
> "the spirits increase, vigor grows through a wound." twilight of the idols
> 
> "


I dunno, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all seem to have sects that accepted the impermanence of things and the relativity of morals pre-Renaissance.

----------


## daniela

decadents of all the times

----------


## Theunderground

Nietzsche was a True Decadent,loner, and an exceptionally subjective 'self justifying' and wanton writer.(Shades of Kierkegaard.) His writing style though is superb at times,and he also throws out some tremendous postmodern insights here and there. As a political ideologist though He is DEAD!

----------


## IntravenousJava

Nothing can truly be said to be dead while it still provokes a reaction.

Without incendiary catalysts such as Nietzsche, the Great Debate tends to grow stagnant and impotent.

Survey the course of philosophy from its inception, taking note of some especially profound and often lengthy periods of torpor, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

----------


## russellb

> Nietzsche was a True Decadent,loner, and an exceptionally subjective 'self justifying' and wanton writer.(Shades of Kierkegaard.) His writing style though is superb at times,and he also throws out some tremendous postmodern insights here and there. As a political ideologist though He is DEAD!


There is loads in Nietzsche that may appear to actually be objective. He is paradoxical there is no doubt about it. A man who thought as he did may perhaps be a loner to the extent that he took what he thought seriously. I think there's a lot of playfulness in Nietzsche and I would say wantonness or linguistic narcissism. There's no doubt that he was decadent...he didn't get his hands dirty nor did care for those who did.

Perhaps he is, however, the prime "political ideologist" for today. He saw a crisis at the heart of modernity that is a condition we live with today. Never mind the old bottles we don't have any new wine. It's the old 'crisis of meaning' thing. Ultimately what he did was point out that the bottle is empty. "God is dead." To his mind civilization was falling into bovine mediocrity, it was turning into a confederacy of the "Last men," comfortable, petty bourgeois types. So where exactly is superman when you need him? (saving a cat stuck up a tree probably)

----------


## Jack of Hearts

> I think there's a lot of playfulness in Nietzsche and I would say wantonness or linguistic narcissism.


Haha, which is why there's a section in his autobiography called "Why I Am So Wise." He at least could appreciate irony.






J

----------


## kita

but if he were not arrogant he had not been read so much.

----------


## Theunderground

I am just finishing Nietzsches 'Daybreak' and then have completed all his published canon of works.Along with the lead balloons there is some gold. He to me is representative of 'old testament morality and thinking'. You can see the various insights of post modernism,linguistic analysis and phenomenology in his writings,but ultimately his cultural political stance,his shrill rhetoric and basic subjectivity are human all too human...But he does uncover the fact most religious literature is mainly an expression of warped personalities...Ditto most philosophy and science.

----------


## Heteronym

> But he does uncover the fact most religious literature is mainly an expression of warped personalities...Ditto most philosophy and science.


What was warped about Newton or Einstein?

----------


## Theunderground

I did say most,not all. The thing with Newton and to a much lesser extent Einstein is that people may not be aware of their 'humanistic beliefs' in addition to their scientific beliefs on how nature is structured. If science/philosophy/religion does not make a distinction between the realm of the human psyche and matter then warp fator nine always follows.

----------


## Ubercritter

"There's no doubt that he was decadent"

I'm not sure you understand what decadence is. nietzche seems far from decadent, he lead a very simple almost ascetic lifestyle dedicated to thinking and writing, sometimes teaching. 

"Linguistic Narcicism"

does this not border on meaningless? 

you mean he enjoyed writing?

----------


## Darcy88

> Nothing can truly be said to be dead while it still provokes a reaction.
> 
> Without incendiary catalysts such as Nietzsche, the Great Debate tends to grow stagnant and impotent.
> 
> Survey the course of philosophy from its inception, taking note of some especially profound and often lengthy periods of torpor, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.


Very well put. I agree exactly with what you say here. Without Nietzsche and thinkers like him we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, Western thought would grind to a halt and we'd regress to the level dumb beasts. I don't agree with much of what Nietzsche wrote, in fact I vigorously oppose many of the principles and doctrines he and his adherents espoused, but taking him and his work as a whole I must give a high thumbs up. I value my copies of his books like they are precious ingots worth more than a million times their weight in gold. So much to learn in his books. So many question asked. His books really are profound, incredibly and beautifully profound. Its one of the great sad and tragic ironies of history how misinterpreted and misconstrued that man and his words have been.

----------


## cafolini

> Very well put. I agree exactly with what you say here. Without Nietzsche and thinkers like him we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, Western thought would grind to a halt and we'd regress to the level dumb beasts. I don't agree with much of what Nietzsche wrote, in fact I vigorously oppose many of the principles and doctrines he and his adherents espoused, but taking him and his work as a whole I must give a high thumbs up. I value my copies of his books like they are precious ingots worth more than a million times their weight in gold. So much to learn in his books. So many question asked. His books really are profound, incredibly and beautifully profound. Its one of the great sad and tragic ironies of history how misinterpreted and misconstrued that man and his words have been.


I studied Nietzsche meticulously for many years. I can't but agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. But apart from that, I have come to the conclusion that there was not much that was philosophical doctrine in his writings. I think he saw the fall of philosophy and wrote mostly satires about the ancient doctrines. This of course will always be controversial, but things like Philosophizing with a Hammer, for example, were some of the greatest satires ever written. And The Antichrist? Don't tell me that Nietzsche did not understand clearly the inevitable validity of Jesus ultimate position. But, of course, he also saw the validity of the upcoming nihilism as a consequence of philosophical interpretations based on false values. "I write the history of the next century," he said. "Convictions are not necessarily true. A note for asses," he stated. Of course he was interpreted as a philosopher. I personally think that was an error on the part of philosophers that for x reasons did not want to grasp a lot of his stuff and give up the fallibility of reason. "What matters reason?" he said.
Almost anything he claimed was going to happen in the early 20th century did happen, and when he traced the mad development of the Weimar republic, seeing the upcoming of national socialism, he exclaimed with disgust that he wished to have been born French.

----------


## Darcy88

> I studied Nietzsche meticulously for many years. I can't but agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. But apart from that, I have come to the conclusion that there was not much that was philosophical doctrine in his writings. I think he saw the fall of philosophy and wrote mostly satires about the ancient doctrines. This of course will always be controversial, but things like Philosophizing with a Hammer, for example, were some of the greatest satires ever written. And The Antichrist? Don't tell me that Nietzsche did not understand clearly the inevitable validity of Jesus ultimate position. But, of course, he also saw the validity of the upcoming nihilism as a consequence of philosophical interpretations based on false values. "I write the history of the next century," he said. "Convictions are not necessarily true. A note for asses," he stated. Of course he was interpreted as a philosopher. I personally think that was an error on the part of philosophers that for x reasons did not want to grasp a lot of his stuff and give up the fallibility of reason. "What matters reason?" he said.
> Almost anything he claimed was going to happen in the early 20th century did happen, and when he traced the mad development of the Weimar republic, seeing the upcoming of national socialism, he exclaimed with disgust that he wished to have been born French.


I find your interpretation fascinating Cafolini. I see what you are getting at. You are saying Nietzsche was a satirist, not a philosopher. That position does indeed have a lot of evidence, a lot of corroboration, in the writings of the man himself. I am kind of astounded. I've never actually encountered this position of yours stated so plainly and bluntly.

We know he loved Aristophanes. He DID mock pretty much every philosopher . I can see how the argument of placing him as a literary rather than philosophical figure can hold water. What people interpret as philosophizing was in fact satirizing, but he spoke so much on the topic of philosophy that the discipline of philosophy....the departments and professors and students....have labelled him a philosopher.

It brings into question the whole distinction between what is literature and what is philosophy. You can call what Nietzsche wrote philosophy but you can also call it comedy or satire or, in many cases, - tragedy.

I suppose one must ultimately conclude that a book is just a book. You can try to label it all you want but any attempt to categorize will end up as something false and lacking.

----------


## russellb

> "There's no doubt that he was decadent"
> 
> I'm not sure you understand what decadence is. nietzche seems far from decadent, he lead a very simple almost ascetic lifestyle dedicated to thinking and writing, sometimes teaching. 
> 
> "Linguistic Narcicism"
> 
> does this not border on meaningless? 
> 
> you mean he enjoyed writing?


Nietszche had a decadent attitude. I see no sign that he cared about ordinary people, or the 'little people' or the 'rabble'. Further he was not ascetic enough to not long after women who didn't want him. What? he wanted an ordinary life? well the moustache was a terrible idea. 

'Linguistic narcissism' means he was in love with the 'richness' shall we call it of the way he wrote. "My fear is that one day i shall be regarded as holy" Wouldn't you just love writing that? Such a flourish. And I think that's a key word. In Nietsche's writing I discern a self regarding sense of flourishing. Wheras, say, Hemmingway's very spare style of writing conjures up a very different impression. Both, no doubt, enjoyed writing

----------


## E.A Rumfield

Nietzsche said there is no right or wrong, no good or bad only the strong and the weak. Only the wolf and the sheep. He says human being are wrong for applying such terms. Is the wolf evil because it eats the sheep? Is the sheep evil because it eats the grass? He says and I do believe that morality, law and religion were nothing more then a way to control the (eager for control) masses. Nietzsche is only speaking the facts as he sees them, that is were must misunderstanding comes in. Is it arrogant that he says flatly most people are like sheep if it is true? I didn't like Nietzsche when I read him because I felt as the above poster felt. I said if Nietzsche was born perhaps 40 years later he'd go down in history side by side with Goebbels and the like. On an unrelated note I feel Dostoevsky was a bit of an anti-semite and a bit of an ******* but I like Dostoevsky.

----------


## Darcy88

> I said if Nietzsche was born perhaps 40 years later he'd go down in history side by side with Goebbels and the like. On an unrelated note I feel Dostoevsky was a bit of an anti-semite and a bit of an ******* but I like Dostoevsky.


Nietzsche hated the anti-semites, bitterly detested them. I struggle with the issue of the Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche was not political. He wrote some stuff about politics, but really he was an artist. Nietzsche did apotheosize power, and that is what the Nazis loved about him, but there was so much more to him than that. Nietzsche also valued INTELLECT, sophistication, higher thinking. He was in many ways the complete and total opposite of Goebells. Nietzsche wrote for the elite, Goebells spoke to the masses. So I do not understand why you would relate the two. Nietzsche had immense respect for the Jews.

----------


## russellb

A thought. Nietzsche it seems took very seriously the conditions under which thinking was to take place. He comments on diet (being english my diet is "cannibalistic") he speaks of climate, the need for fresh air and such like. Alcohol is definitely out. But doesn't someone who wants to get inside the human head ("psycobabble" some have called it) need to have...children? That is to deepen that journey through the powerful love for one's child. I have always had the feeling his writing is somehow very cold. His evocation of Jesus in 'the Anti Christ' is beautiful but love is made into an anomaly of an "idiot" mystic. I first had this sort of thought reading Faust. How different this self preoccupied man would have been if he had children? I'm assuming he didn't of course but as someone who doesn't have children I identify with this self absorption. Perhaps this is stopping me becoming who I am...?

----------


## Sydneysider

Sadly there still exists a terrible misunderstanding of the man and his works after his sister took control of his writings. Both she and her anti Semite husband set about altering the works to meet their ideology. This was enthusiastically taken further by the Nazis who polluted the man's works further. That this misrepresentation of his ideas is allowed to remain, no doubt fuelled by his religious enemies, is a travesty.

I highly recommend Walter Kaufman's excellent biography. I also recommend actually reading the man to those who restrict themselves to articles about him and his phillosophy.

I read him when a teenager and consider him one of my greatest teachers. I learned to have faith in my individuality and that it was up to me to think about moral and ethical issues and take responsibility for my actions. My interpretation of the superman was simply that. Not to blindly follow, but to think. 

I am pleased to own a first edition of Geneaology of morals.

----------


## Tor-Hershman

You fine folks seem to have three fundamental ingredients, 
1. Humans
2. God(s)/Devil(s)
3. Meaning.
Suppose moi sums the entire equation (0=T=0) with one wee YouTube vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
There you/me/they/we gooooooooo!

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

----------


## russellb

The monkees skit reminded me that Nietzsche may have said something about Englishmen not liking Sundays.

----------


## cacian

> The monkees skit reminded me that Nietzsche may have said something about Englishmen not liking Sundays.


what about the English not liking sundays?
I thought they did not like being the midday sun?!! :Biggrin:

----------

