All about Nietzsche

[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 .

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?

[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 )

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

[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...