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.
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.Originally Posted by Theunderground
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)
Haha, which is why there's a section in his autobiography called "Why I Am So Wise." He at least could appreciate irony.
J
Last edited by Jack of Hearts; 05-26-2012 at 01:09 AM.
but if he were not arrogant he had not been read so much.
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.
Last edited by Theunderground; 06-20-2012 at 08:28 AM.
What was warped about Newton or Einstein?
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.
"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?
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.
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.
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
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.
Last edited by E.A Rumfield; 08-19-2012 at 01:55 AM.
Her hair was like a flowing cascade and her breasts were real awesome also.
My ***** Better Have My Money by Fly Guy
My ***** better have my money.
Through rain, sleet, or snow,
my ho better have my money.
Not half, not some, but all my cash.
Because if she don't, I'll put my foot dead in her ***.
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.
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...?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks