|
|
|
|
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/20/2007 11:09:27 PM | Again, Nietzsche is one of the most important philosophers of the modern age. From his philological analysis of the geneology of morals, we can trace a clear path to the post-structuralists and such philosophers as Foucault. The very idea that a single 'word' may stay the same but, that its meaning changes over time and in such a way that this shift can be documented by a close and careful reading of the textual traces of this 'word' as it occurs within the discourse of any particular time period... this is a major interpretive advance, applied as it was by Foucault to: madness, sexuality, prisons, and various other social institutions - but pioneered by Nietszche.
And really: why do so many people take exception to the 'darkness' of Nietzsche's writings without any mention of how, within a generation of his death, Europeans were slaughtering each other by the millions under unspeakably brutal conditions? | |
|
| |
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/21/2007 12:09:04 AM | It seems like Nietzsche reformed his entire consciousness to be architected with this view of master and slave "morality". Morality meaning that which roots behaviors, the will to achieve goals and defines actions, reasoning behind actions, and whatever leads to the goal.
Thats good and all, but he obviously has a lot of resentment over things that seem to be important to him because of the way he spent his life such as studying theology. He spent a lot of his time studying religion, he came to resent it, and he must be trying to preach something to someone, but I don't think that I would fit in that crowd and I'd be lost at times. I just think it would be a waste of my time to care about his resentments to religion.
My view on religion is that everyone who believes is misguided and mentally ill. To me, theres nothing more than a fairy tale. Its like a game that they play and I think its a silly waste of time. I think that any good purposes that religion may have served in the past are obsolete. I could speculate further on this matter, but I care not to at this time.
Nietzsche is an addict for dramatics. If you study his background, you'll understand that he built his vocabulary and study of written language just to make sure he could be heard. Whether or not he had anything of important value to say, he would present something of elaborate lengths to dazzle the audience. He integrated himself into a social environment that would support him to the extent of achieving his work's goals.
So my opinion now is mixed. I'd still say I'm 80% where I stood with my last opinion. 10% of me is in favor of his slave/master morality idiom. 10% of me believes he could have something of great value in his work. I still stand firm on the statement that he is ambiguous. I'm in most favor of the "truth" and precise definition and clear expression philosophy. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/21/2007 12:21:41 AM | I would be most concerned with philosophy dealing with reconstruction of society, social habits, beliefs, and systems like instutionalization, the basic needs for quality living, etc.
I don't know where to classify Nietzsche in regards to what kind of philosophy he wrote and whatnot because I don't know his work.
Him and I have something in common, maybe a couple things. I'm also extremely nearsighted. I made friends with the brightest peers I could. | |
|
| |
| |
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 57 | |
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 3:03:45 PM | I've read very little, but I like his perspective. I always thought he was looking at the world from outside of himself;
Regarding the only christian being christ, I think that while that's harsh, it's the truth.
Christ had his teachings, and they had their meaning to him, but his meaning was his, and no one else's.
That isn't to say that no one ever did good in the his name.
And to anyone that thinks his writings are dangerous, I wonder if you ever did read the bible - especially the Old Testament. Religion is great psychological weapon; the Great Crusades would probably never have happened if it weren't because of the Catholic Church.
Nietzche is greatly misunderstood, for certain. I never found any hard proof that he was an anti-semite, either; but I do agree with his Ubermann theory; we see it every day. What do you think a CEO is? I always thought that he was pointing out that there were people at the top, people at the bottom and people in between.
In retrospect, I would say that most of his philosophy was just a cold, unemotional view of his own world. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 4:23:10 PM | It is best to look at Nietzsche within the philosophic context in which he wrote, because that can really clarify what might otherwise be obscure points. For instance, the whole idea of "Master" and "Slave" as philosophic concepts does not come from Nietzsche - these are ideas that form the two poles of a classically Hegelian dialectic. Without a doubt, Hegel was "the" philosopher of philosophers in the academic world of Nietzshe's Germany. At that time, it was still expected that the Hegelian project of universal and encyclopedic knowledge would be realized; and, that the way to achieve mastery of such encompassing knowledge was to submit to the dictates of those who had already subsumed such knowledge onto themselves.
So, Nietzsche's concept of knowledge as will-to-power is more a critique of that system (recognizing as it does the true dynamics of power being expressed under the guise of knowledge); and his analysis of 'master' and 'slave' mentalities simply 'unconceals' the fact that the two are distinctly different, with no hope of willing servitude ever leading to true mastery.
What Nietzsche instead suggests is that mankind must overcome themself, rather than submit to determinations of what (s)he should be. In other words, Nietzsche proposes that people must create their own values, rather than accepting the value systems they have been taught to accept. Again, there is a rich philosophic history at play here that dates back to Plato: whereas Platonic idealism (of which Hegelianism may be the ultimate expression) makes of values an objective thing external to individuals (which individuals can mirror to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy), Nietzsche firmly locates the origin of these values within humanity - a truly revolutionary idea because now the worth and value of an individual becomes inalienable and intrinsic, as opposed to arbitrary and imposed. That is why he insists that there was only ever one christian.
Of course you won't find that kind of context in wikipedia; and I really have to wonder why anyone would want to engage in a conversation about Nietzsche 1) without having read him but 2) with a preformed opinion to argue and 3) with wikipedia as a surrogate for an actual understanding of any of the texts in question. What's up with that? | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 6:13:18 PM | Hes ambiguous and talks about God and preaches inside of a morality structure that is either of common man, of his own ideals, or random/whimsical and it doesn't make much sense and when he ties in God ontop of it, its completely whack. From what I've read, I wouldn't consider his philosophy useful to me for a second aside from the master/slave stuff. Ultimately, one must master himself to potentiate his workings and Nietzsche is a brilliant example of this. So in the total perspective, if you're doing anything but refining your knowledge and skills, you're living a slave mentality. Its almost impossible not to fit that model if you're speaking in terms of perceiving a model of the majority of the population, but not entirely so. The greatest, most efficient way by ethical standards is to master yourself and take a grasp on the world.
I just can't imagine the need to fill an entire book to state that. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 6:25:25 PM | If Nietzsche speaks of a "superman", does he speak of one or many?
Because when you start to imagine people pulling themselves together and specializing in areas, won't there always be a master who decides where and how to utilize that speciality?
The world moves much faster than it ever did. Nietzsche was a traveler. Before cars and aviation. The world has a dawned a beginning of a new era. The foundation has been set. Its an exciting time to be willing to enlighten and revolutionize. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 6:38:56 PM |
It is best to look at Nietzsche within the philosophic context in which he wrote, because that can really clarify what might otherwise be obscure points. For instance, the whole idea of "Master" and "Slave" as philosophic concepts does not come from Nietzsche - these are ideas that form the two poles of a classically Hegelian dialectic. Without a doubt, Hegel was "the" philosopher of philosophers in the academic world of Nietzshe's Germany. At that time, it was still expected that the Hegelian project of universal and encyclopedic knowledge would be realized; and, that the way to achieve mastery of such encompassing knowledge was to submit to the dictates of those who had already subsumed such knowledge onto themselves.
So, Nietzsche's concept of knowledge as will-to-power is more a critique of that system (recognizing as it does the true dynamics of power being expressed under the guise of knowledge); and his analysis of 'master' and 'slave' mentalities simply 'unconceals' the fact that the two are distinctly different, with no hope of willing servitude ever leading to true mastery.
What Nietzsche instead suggests is that mankind must overcome themself, rather than submit to determinations of what (s)he should be. In other words, Nietzsche proposes that people must create their own values, rather than accepting the value systems they have been taught to accept. Again, there is a rich philosophic history at play here that dates back to Plato: whereas Platonic idealism (of which Hegelianism may be the ultimate expression) makes of values an objective thing external to individuals (which individuals can mirror to greater and lesser degrees of accuracy), Nietzsche firmly locates the origin of these values within humanity - a truly revolutionary idea because now the worth and value of an individual becomes inalienable and intrinsic, as opposed to arbitrary and imposed. That is why he insists that there was only ever one christian.
Of course you won't find that kind of context in wikipedia; and I really have to wonder why anyone would want to engage in a conversation about Nietzsche 1) without having read him but 2) with a preformed opinion to argue and 3) with wikipedia as a surrogate for an actual understanding of any of the texts in question. What's up with that?
He ignored your last paragraph too.
I'd just add something there about the influence of antiquity on his master/slave. And that in all cases, he isn't talking about physical subjection but rather processes of psychological indoctrination. People just get antsy when they hear the word slave. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 7:36:43 PM | I interpreted ...
Master: In control of oneself, exercising creativity, forming methods for higher goals. An ambiguous term that could be a word with degrees of expression.
Slave: One who's personal desires take no precedence over a master's, not exercising high goals, but ones of servitude in exchange for personal needs or fear of persecution.
Without a master, there can be no slave. I'm not sure if it was this thread or another, but I touched base on an idea that people are generally bred into a system that gives them this slave mentality and they become beacons for spreading this mentality so they feel complacent with it.
If I'm way off, go on and spread the wisdom of Nietzsche to me. I'll gladly thank you for your teaching. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 8:34:41 PM | Going back to the value of a human's life. My thoughts on that subject, whether related to Nietzsche or not, are that with the movement for free rights and equality, we have lost some finer points of tradition. In the process of individuals being stripped of shame and indignity, they came out into a blinding light (akin to Plato's Parable of the Cave). My philosophy teacher drew it out on the board with thick, green grass, shady trees, a sparkling blue lake, and a vibrant and warm glowing sun. A comforting sight when you are one who sheaths himself under a blanket at night in a temperature controlled environment with a stomach full of a robust meal. Masses of people who's families bled and sweat for their footholds in kingdoms were led into a new age of capitalism. Their worth reduced to a treasury of coins and tax rolls. Human compassion was challenged by technologies where former necessity met excessive needlessness. People were simply lost with life.
So Nietzsche found himself awakening to this emergence of equality and nearing the apex at the peaking industrial era, but did he see it in as full a light as I portrayed it?
Or is believing that I've constructed something of truth and meaning a side effect of having smoked crack? | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 8:39:06 PM | | I don't know how to edit posts... So I'll clarify when I said apex, I am speaking about a point where historic tradition was challenged by "equality" and pretty much overtaken. He might have been near or past that point, but not far from it. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/22/2007 9:05:15 PM | Speaking on the loss of tradition...
I think people lost more of their territorial instincts, and gained an adverse reaction to brutality. No doubt, religion played a large role in this, but I'm not sure to whom this favor belongs. Religion was a force fed pill--eat it, like it, or die. The settlers of America (ones fleeing from religious persecution), I believe, were only a segregant horde of infected minds running from that which they couldn't escape. They were led by the tail, driven, seeded, and corrupted.
If we collectively accept reality and dismiss current forms of idolatry to a more industrious purpose, then we will have a chance at becoming a greater civilization globally.
Right now, to me, the American society is stone stupid. Don't forget to smile. | |
|
NateC
|
Joined: 4/10/2006
Msg: 66 | |
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 10/23/2007 4:42:34 AM | "Right now, to me, the American society is stone stupid. Don't forget to smile"
Heh, good thing you're 'merican :P Not that I care (I'm Canajan, eh?), but those that resemble the remark might ;)
I'm pretty sure that that was pretty much the point that Nietzche was trying to hammer home. He didn't see a world without religion (which, IMO, is actually a bad thing) so much as point out that groups of people, no matter how sane, form an insane collective, and that goes far, far beyond religion.
IMO, religion has little to do with the collective; the concept of the collective, though, has much to do with the exploitation of it. | |
|
| |
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 11/12/2007 6:10:41 PM | Being an american of african descent and growing up during the gang wars i can how one could come to the conclusion God is dead. but if you study the civil rights movment you will realizr that with out the church there would have been no civil rights movement of any kind. with all the atrocities blks had to learn to for give their white brothers and sisters for the things done to them. after changing my life and studying philosophy i realized one thing if God wanted us to be the same he would have made us robots. Nietzsche made us realize that humans are capable of two things, "GREAT GOOD OR GREAT EVIL" and thats what is going on in the world. for the first part of my life i was prejudice and hateful, didnt care about anything. now i try to do some good in life. life is all about choices, lets make some good ones and the world just may turn out to be ok. but remember since we do have free will people csan choose to do what ever they want.
3L's+KUW | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 11/13/2007 2:45:27 PM | I have always avoided Nietzsche in the past, because what I have heard of his writings, really did not make me feel like his was a philosophy I would learn from. However, recently, I posted on another thread about his beliefs on truth, and also consequently was referred to an essay by Emerson on self-reliance, where Emerson talks also about the idea of truth, and how it might be considered subjective.
So I looked up Nietzsche, and found that he was confusing, at least at first. Once I got a handle on his idea of the "will to power", and how his ideas on truth followed from that, I no longer saw him as a philosopher, as other philosophers appeared to be. I saw him as a psychiatrist, or a social commentator.
His main ideas seemed to be focussed on the idea of bias, that we are all potentially re-interpreting what we think, say and do, based on our desires, and how the entirety of our lives revolve more about our desires, and how we might achieve them, for good or ill.
I definitely think he had a lot to say on this, being that he saw how much of society was dependent on bias. He even claims that philosophy is just ideas that are constructed to justify our own desires.
I think as a social commentator, he has a lot to add, not about objective truth and reality, but about how we twist and turn those objective truths to subjectively fulfil our own desires, and how for most people, those desires are the main focus of their lives. I find it interesting that Nietzsche showed his own truth, for his own ideas were twisted and turned by the Nazis to justify their own base desires, even though his writings seemed to be speaking out against just that.
But when compared to other philosophers, who discussed the questions of objective truth and reality, it seems to me that he never takes the stand, for his pose is that we are never interested in the truth in the first place. So it is difficult for him to even be discussed in the same way as other philosophers, as he is talking about a different issue altogether, that of bias in every person's actions and beliefs.
However, it is possible to compare his philosophy when discussing how people function, individually and as a whole, with other philosophers when they too discuss the same issues, such as the Master-Slave mentality.
My only issue with such problems such as the Master-Slave mentality, is that a lot of it is dependent on psychology, and how such behaviour transforms over time. So at this point, I find that what is called philosophy, starts spilling over into psychology, and sociology. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 11/16/2007 11:55:17 PM | I think Nietzsche was a brilliant genius, something of an iconoclast. I think the biggest problem is people don't take care in reading and interpreting him; his aphoristic style of argument is unusual.
I think Nietzsche's strength is he foresaw various nihilisms in Western society in his time, and how these would unfold. Some are coming to pass, and some may still be to come. Perhaps what is refreshing is he also had hope that we could overcome nihilism, though given what I see in a lot of Postmodernist writing and theory, I am not so sure. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 11/18/2007 6:58:23 PM |
He is just a man on a couch. All the beautiful people do not like what he says because it is dead and dark. Sure some people like dark and evilsh things. Like murderers and killers some of those black haired kids with black jack boots and monotone voices like Nietzsche. People that love and choose to feel no they like Kant or Aristotle or they may like modern thinkers like John Lennon ,David Suziki, or Chomsky. Whatever they may like Hitlers style or the new Jewish thing Naziew kill everyone not whiteish or whatever our new war is about. What ever you think in the end your dead. I choose to feel (and be happy) So gfy NISHKY It seems you don't have to be into Nietzsche, to be an arrogant A-hole, who claims to have a deep insight into what life is all about.  | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 4/15/2008 12:24:36 PM | | Without him I wouldn't be where I am now intellectually and spiritually so well he was my first mentor and books like Also sprach Zarathustra and and the Gay Science are imperative to a seeker... | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 4/15/2008 1:02:52 PM | Nietzsche is one of the most powerful thinkers in the Western canon. He has been widely misinterpreted and misappropriated. Hitler quotes him approvingly here and there but there is no serious crossover there despite the best efforts of his sister Elizabeth who looked to manipulate the posthumous publication of his notes and writings in order to make her brother appear more in line with the biological determinism and fascism that then held sway. There is no question but that Nietzsche would have found National Socialism utterly vulgar, barbaric in the extreme. It is perhaps more interesting to note that German soldiers during the FIRST world war were required to carry a copy of Thus Spake Zarathustra to the front as part of their kit.
Thus Spake Zarathustra is Nietzsche's magnum opus(though Heidegger, who elevated Nietzsche's status in the middle of the 20th century through his intense engagement with him would give the laurerls ultimately to Will To Power) and it is of course a thematic and structural parody of the bible and, by extension, Platonism/Western Metaphysics...Nietzsche saw the history of the unfolding of Christianity as basically the unfolding of what he saw as an errant Platonism. Platonism for Nietzsche stood for a metaphysical legacy which suppressed the truth of becoming as the true, ineliminable and dangerous (one might say utterly historical) character of existence. It is not quite as clear if Nietzsche held that there was a more legitimate and authentic Christian experience available.
Nietzsche is probably the most gifted philosophical stylist since Plato. In other words, his rhetoric, use of metaphor and imagery is as dazzling as it is profound. He very self consciously uses his breathtaking skills as a writer to develop vehicles for thought in the words and images themselves. Lest we forget, a tablet was discovered some time back with the words of the first line of Plato's Republic written and rewritten 15 times or so. It is quite probably Plato's and is further evidence of how careful a writer he was particularly when one considers how simple the line is: "I went down yesterday to the Piraeus". If on one occasion he wrote and rewrote those particular lines 15 times or so...well it speaks for itself. Nietzsche is every bit as careful a writer. Every single word is very carefully crafted and "Zarathustra" is possibly one of the most powerful, poetic, philosophical visions in the history of Western thinking. He draws out some of the consequences of this attempt in later texts, for example - A Genealogy of Morals and Beyond Good and Evil, disappointed as he was with the misguided reception of the former, but the former stands as a monumental achievement. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 4/15/2008 2:46:24 PM | .
yes Nietzsche fan here too. Will to power rocked and I also liked beyond good and evil and its buried somewhere in my collection of western thought.
Unfortunately it has been well over 25 years since I bothered to look at it so I cant really comment to deeply except to say I liked it... LOL
. | |
|
| Regarding Nietzsche - what is your opinion of him?
Posted: 4/15/2008 3:02:48 PM | OMG a Nietzsche thread! Why havent I found this sooner.
I did my PhD on health starting with alot of Nietzsche's work. It isnt commonly known that Nietzsche discussed health extensively.
My favorite quote;;
How much did these people have to suffer to become so beautiful.
My experience of his work is this...at times you want to hurl the book against the wall because he seems to make no sense and is talking in circles. Then you go and retreive that book, read a bit more, and then nearly cry because finally he has put into words something you have felt all your life but didnt have the ability to formulate into a single concept. What a literary master he was!
Did you know that when he wrote Thus Spake Zarathustra that he exiled himself to the mountains for months, living above 2000 meters? And that he hated the Nazis and resented his sister for encouraging them to abstract his ideas of the Overman and the Will to Power. Or that he was very ill alot of his life, and wrote from that dark place.
His powerful contribution to me was the concept of ressentiment, the volcanic social chaos that would ensue when Christian, in his eyes, phony values collapsed. He predicted the rise of political correctness and the irrationality of crowd uprisings. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 5
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 |
|
Home
login 
