It's cool! Can never get enough Nietzsche
It's cool! Can never get enough Nietzsche
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
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.Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
You see something moral in doing something because an authority told you to do so?
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.
I prefer to give the religite the benefit of doubt, that they have thought about their reasons behind following God's word.
Do, or do not. There is no try. - Yoda
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.
Last edited by NikolaiI; 02-07-2008 at 01:53 AM.
Nietzsche would be proud
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
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.
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
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.
That is so beautiful, heraclitus.
I declare after all there is no enjoyment like reading! How much sooner one tires of anything than of a book! When I have a house of my own, I shall be miserable if I have not an excellent library.
Jane Austen, Pride and Prejudice
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
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.
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.
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.i'm at the chapter on virtue--which is a yawn fest for me. maybe i'm not reading it astutely??
His opinions on Shakespeare are fascinating. Unconventional, perhaps wrong-headed, but fascinating!
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.
Last edited by billyjack; 11-14-2008 at 12:08 PM.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
