Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 45

Thread: darwin, nietzsche and thoreau...

  1. #1

    darwin, nietzsche and thoreau...

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

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

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

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

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

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

    ROAR!

  2. #2
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    I like all three. Nietzsche and Thoreau have some affinities. Both were deeply contemplative men who wrote from the quiet corner of solitude. Nietzsche from his mountains and Thoreau from his woods, they both went far and deep, getting as near as they could to the truth. I haven't read either in some time. Perhaps I'll revisit them. I got half-way through the Origin of Species but it was too dry for me.

  3. #3

    Buckle up!

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

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

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

    darwin, nietzsche and thoreau in that order...

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

    ROAR!

  4. #4
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
    But I have promises to keep,
    And miles to go before I sleep. ~ Robert Frost

  5. #5
    Inexplicably Undiscovered
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    next door to the lady in the vinegar bottle
    Posts
    5,089
    Blog Entries
    72
    I'm not sure Thoreau belongs in this trio, Doc. Darwin's contribution was, in the "philosophical" sense, more or less neutral, secular if you will, though it is not in any way a denial of how he irreversibly transformed understanding of natural science. The second person you cite is indeed a member of the philosophical profession, though his influence found its way into a tragic realm of misinterpretation, possibly helping to cause subsequent political nightmares. Again, both of these thinkers are secular, despite Nietzsche's famous declaration that God is dead.

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

    I get what you're trying to propose, though, and perhaps in your frame of mine these triple thinkers aren't mutually exclusive.
    Last edited by AuntShecky; 01-27-2012 at 04:08 PM. Reason: "i" before "e" except after "c"

  6. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Nietzsche was not a philosopher. In fact, philosophy was finished after he finished saying what he had to say. Those were the nightmares and they were umprecedented and healthy for the long run.

  7. #7
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Nietzsche was not a philosopher. In fact, philosophy was finished after he finished saying what he had to say. Those were the nightmares and they were umprecedented and healthy for the long run.
    Philosophy is not dead. Philosophy will live as long as man continues to draw breath. And Nietzsche was a philosopher, a self-proclaimed one at that.

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

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

  8. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    Philosophy is not dead. Philosophy will live as long as man continues to draw breath. And Nietzsche was a philosopher, a self-proclaimed one at that.

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

    As far as Thoreau and Nietzsche.... I have not read Thoreau in quite some time and my memory is a little foggy. The two were both very spiritual, very contemplative, very principled and reclusive. Thoreau had much in common with Emerson and Emerson exercised a profound influence on Nietzsche's thought.
    Hey we have lots of museums full of philosopher. It's gossip that will not die. But it no longer has influence of any important kind for the future.
    Nietzsche predicted the nihilism of the 20th century as a consequence of the false values posited by philosophers, and in the Gay Science cheered the advent of science. Philosophy is done for keeps where the action is.
    Nietzsche was a philologist and one of the best historians that ever lived. And a humorist. All attempts at absorbing Nietzsche through philosophy have failed miserably, including Foucault who wrote the most about it. Humanities have been fully overcome, lasting only in museums.

  9. #9
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Hey we have lots of museums full of philosopher. It's gossip that will not die. But it no longer has influence of any important kind for the future.
    Nietzsche predicted the nihilism of the 20th century as a consequence of the false values posited by philosophers, and in the Gay Science cheered the advent of science. Philosophy is done for keeps where the action is.
    Nietzsche was a philologist and one of the best historians that ever lived. And a humorist. All attempts at absorbing Nietzsche through philosophy have failed miserably, including Foucault who wrote the most about it. Humanities have been fully overcome, lasting only in museums.
    So you get nothing from Plato, Descartes, Hume, Mill, and all the other "gossipers?" That's preposterous. Philosophy is no longer what it was, no longer the main avenue of knowledge, but it surely has not died. There's still political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, existentialism, and it goes on, even Platonism, that millenia old school of thought, remains viable to this day.

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

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

  10. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    So you get nothing from Plato, Descartes, Hume, Mill, and all the other "gossipers?" That's preposterous. Philosophy is no longer what it was, no longer the main avenue of knowledge, but it surely has not died. There's still political philosophy, the philosophy of religion, existentialism, and it goes on, even Platonism, that millenia old school of thought, remains viable to this day.

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

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

    It is no longer justifiable to confront humanistic studies with science.
    Last edited by cafolini; 01-28-2012 at 01:53 PM.

  11. #11
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    History is extremely relevant. That's precisely why we had to get rid of them so that they don't keep making history. It was preposterous that they did make history from ignorance, tyranny and prejudice.
    I approve their study as historical pieces. There is nothing beneficial to learn from most of them today. One hundred ways to fry an egg is a better book today. Ha! Good luck.

    It is no longer justifiable to confront humanistic studies with science.
    I think you make a good point, one I've heard many times before. I studied a lot of philosophy and before I switched to English I was planning on making it my major. So I've heard this before.

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

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

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

    What I'm saying is that there is room for and need for both. Read Emerson's Essays and then come tell me that philosophy is a dead relic. The observations he made back in the 19th century contain no less relevancy or power than those now being made in laboratories the world over.
    Last edited by Darcy88; 01-28-2012 at 03:33 PM.

  12. #12
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Humanism will linger. But without any significant effect. It'll eventually disappear even from the museums as mayor exhibits.
    Last edited by cafolini; 01-29-2012 at 12:07 PM.

  13. #13
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Humanism will linger. But without any significant effect. It'll eventually disappear even from the museums as mayor exhibits.
    Then we can all be soulless mechanistic automata lacking spirituality, imagination and passion.

  14. #14
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Posts
    3,890
    Quote Originally Posted by Darcy88 View Post
    Then we can all be soulless mechanistic automata lacking spirituality, imagination and passion.
    Nonsense. Passion is not a product of humanism. Soul is not a product of humanism. How much credit do you want to give the idiots who instituted the circular ruins of human/inhuman behaviour at the expense of all possibilities of development?
    They already did enough with the slautherhouses of history. They are finished. Don't believe it, because it is happening. No need to believe or disbelieve. Watch it closely. Recognize it.

  15. #15
    Registered User Darcy88's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    1,963
    Blog Entries
    3
    Quote Originally Posted by cafolini View Post
    Nonsense. Passion is not a product of humanism. Soul is not a product of humanism. How much credit do you want to give the idiots who instituted the circular ruins of human/inhuman behaviour at the expense of all possibilities of development?
    They already did enough with the slautherhouses of history. They are finished. Don't believe it, because it is happening. No need to believe or disbelieve. Watch it closely. Recognize it.
    I can't make any sense of this. You can go right on ahead and deny yourself the enrichment to be had by studying history, literature, religion, philosophy. I for one believe there's more to be learned than what is revealed by the microscope.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •