Which fiction book did you learn the most from?

[A. Bandini]

You can say much about fiction, but do you really get smareter?

[rabid reader]

Thus Spake Zarathustra- Nietzsche

[FalseReality]

Thus Spake Zarathustra- Nietzsche

I came in here thinking the same thing.

[bluosean]

Well yeah. It's all part of the learning process. A book becomes part of your background. I like Coleridges Rime of the Ancient Mariner. I think about the things that are in it and how they relate to my life. Think about quotations from fiction. If someone uses a quotation than it means something to them.

[dfloyd]

Bambi!

[Saladin]

The Little Engine That Could!:thumbs_up

[DanielBenoit]

I came in here thinking the same thing.

Me too!

The book that introduced me to philosophy.


The Little Engine That Could!:thumbs_up

lol

[Nick Capozzoli]

Moby Dick, about politics, human nature, the soul, and America:).

[mal4mac]

If Pater and Bloom are right, as I think they are, that canonical literature should add strangeness to beauty, then I learned most from the Tempest, a Midsummer Night Dream, the Cossacks and Hadji Murad. They are beautiful and strange works, and it's the greatest of pleasures encountering their strangeness and beauty. After that, who cares if you get smarter or not!

[The Comedian]

Fiction, eh? My Antonia, by Willa Cather comes to mind first.

[Three Sparrows]

I read this post and immediately thought, The Brothers Karamazov! It taught me a lot about human nature and goodness, as does most Dostoevsky.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I know it is obvious to say Shakespeare, but I'll say him even so. There is little you can't learn about life, death and human nature from him, really I only have to read a line and I think wow, he writes as if he was 300 years old, such wisdom. Also Wilde, though he sometimes makes me think harder for it.

"Life imitates art, much more than art imitates life" etc, etc, and Wilde is always right...

[Barbarous]

Moby Dick, about politics, human nature, the soul, and America:).

agreed, but in the aspect of the book that deals with the limitations of reason.

[kiz_paws]

This is a really good question; I'll have to mull this one over.... :)

[kelby_lake]

Moby Dick, about politics, human nature, the soul, and America:).

Don't forget WHALES! :sick:

[virginiawang]

You can say much about fiction, but do you really get smareter?

I wonder what you meant by the word," smart". If you meant one becoming more sophisticated and polished after he reads a great deal of fictions, you would probably be disappointed more often than not. People discern more how other people think, feel, and act after they grow accustomed to it, so they learn by real experience rather than by reading. However we engage our emotions in the fictions we read, so after a long time we tend to act our life in a more or less fictitious way that is far from practical. Fictions adorn our life in a way we do not perceive.

[blazeofglory]

Maybe Ulysses is my favorite except for the fact that I cannot comprehend it fully notwithstanding the fact that it is a marvelous book, a book in which the artist in James Joyce has climaxed or therein the writer' s capacities fully exhausted or wherein the writer wrote in such an excellent way that no book could possibly beat its quality. Of course there are greater books, and yet it has something unique of its own that are incomparable and matchless.

I read it, and reread it but I could not comprehend it, the style he had was inimitable and matchless.

The beauty of the book is it is out of comprehensions of me or that it has something that is extra superb or it has gained such a height or state that was really unscaled or no writer could outsmart him.

Of course Tolstoy was a great story teller and his capacities for telling stories is unquestionable. He had craftsmanship, and attained a great degree of perfection but yet Joyce could not be outshone even by Tolstoy.

I do not mean by this that Tolstoy was of the lesser quality; no he was unequaled in the history of writing. Yet I cannot say, or at least I have no authority to say Joyce was a lesser sort.

Joyce' novel is intellectually heightened and he did something or expressed his ideas in such a masterful way that he remained and will remain a master of fiction.

To all of us, a world of writers he was a great reservoir of inspiration, craftsmanship.

[David R]

The Iliad and the Odyssey. They taught me about war and civilisation respectively.

[prendrelemick]

What ever you read, you glean little gems of knowledge. Fiction always needs to touch base with reality. So Moby Dick explains about the hiring of a whaleing crew, the Illiad about the diet of ancient armies. These snippets may be incidental to the plot, but the wider you read the more you learn.

[blazeofglory]

Ulysses by James Joyce and Resurrection by Tolstoy

[Griffith]

Thus Spake Zarathustra- Nietzsche

If we judge your signature we can see that you don´t learned nothing of this great work. Somebody that places a signature defending the democracy, cannot have been understanding Nietzsche, much less his more complex work. One wants to fake that it is intellectual, make that with its relatives and not in a serious forum of discussion.

[Madame X]

If we judge your signature we can see that you don´t learned nothing of this great work. Somebody that places a signature defending the democracy, cannot have been understanding Nietzsche, much less his more complex work. One wants to fake that it is intellectual, make that with its relatives and not in a serious forum of discussion.

It’s possible that he/she/it could have learned quite a bit through adverse example though, no?

[bigben]

For American stuff, Grapes of Wrath and East of Eden, O Pioneers and The Scarlet Letter. and the Nick Adams stories. Then War and Peace and The Bro Karimazoff.

[Griffith]

It’s possible that he/she/it could have learned quite a bit through adverse example though, no?
Yes, indubitably. It was not the case, meantime.

[Barbarous]

If we judge your signature we can see that you don´t learned nothing of this great work. Somebody that places a signature defending the democracy, cannot have been understanding Nietzsche, much less his more complex work. One wants to fake that it is intellectual, make that with its relatives and not in a serious forum of discussion.

I think you're absolutely wrong and it is cheap of you to say such a thing. Interpretation is something that is unvanquished, which is to say misreading are more fruitful than the common interpretation. I know that one could support Democracy and love Nietzsche. I'd say it's even more Nietzschean to go against the average Nieztchean figure stereotype.

[Griffith]

I think you're absolutely wrong and it is cheap of you to say such a thing. Interpretation is something that is unvanquished, which is to say misreading are more fruitful than the common interpretation. I know that one could support Democracy and love Nietzsche. I'd say it's even more Nietzschean to go against the average Nieztchean figure stereotype.


This thesis interprets Nietzsche's critique of democracy from the perspective of his moral philosophy. I argue that Nietzsche understands democracy as a form of government grounded upon a metaphysical type of morality whose origins can be traced back to the so-called "slave rebellion in morals"--an event that defined the course of Western history by separating the world of the senses from a supposedly transcendent and superior realm. Democracy is a peculiar expression of slave morality in that it makes of the slaves' metaphysical principle of equality, which formerly existed merely as an ideal, the foundation of the secular socio-political order. Under the creed of universal rights, democracy breeds homogeneity and precludes differentiation, thus leading man back to a pre-social or herd animal condition, and threatening the preservation of human life.


I´m completely wrong. :rolleyes:

[Barbarous]

I think you're absolutely wrong and it is cheap of you to say such a thing. Interpretation is something that is unvanquished, which is to say misreadings are more fruitful than the common interpretation. I know that one could support Democracy and love Nietzsche. I'd say it's even more Nietzschean to go against the average Nieztchean figure stereotype.

Yes, why you are still completely wrong lol :rolleyes:

[Griffith]

Yes, why you are still completely wrong lol :rolleyes:

Certainly. The intention of an intellectual, when he wrote a book, is to be misunderstanded, that makes an ignorant more Nietzschean than another. About the question of the common sense and the stereotyped view of Nietzsche, what i can say is that you are completely deluded. Great part of the studies about Nietzsche tries to make him a defensor of the modern world and denies his link with nazism. This is, obviously, an absurd.

[Barbarous]

When I spoke of the stereotypical Nietzschean figure, it was not one of Nazism, anyone who actually and attentively reads his work would understand that. The misreading of Nazism is not even a misreading of Nietzsche's work, but a scapegoat of a much larger plague. Nietzsche as an archetype of the modern age, yes I accept, but the common scenically Nietzsche is of the Übermensch. Yet we could go around and round with this.

[Desolation]

If we judge your signature we can see that you don´t learned nothing of this great work. Somebody that places a signature defending the democracy, cannot have been understanding Nietzsche, much less his more complex work. One wants to fake that it is intellectual, make that with its relatives and not in a serious forum of discussion.Someone that would make such a claim really could not have possibly understood Nietzsche.

His philosophy was apolitical. He did mentions politics from time to time, but he more frequently totes himself as being apolitical. As such, his views on democracy are a very very minimal part of his work.

Also, you seem to suggest in another post that it would be absurd to deny that Nietzsche had a connection with Nazism. Here are some things that Nietzsche was strongly against: nationalism(especially German nationalism), antisemitism, the state, the state suppressing the individual, brutes, the German Reich...This would pretty much be Nazism in a nutshell. Hitler was no Ubermensch. Hitler does not represent the Will to Power, as the Will to Power was about power over oneself, and Nietzsche expressed that the weakest of the weak were those that sought power over others(this meaning that they could not overcome themselves), as Hitler did. It's easy to misinterpret Nietzsche to go along with Nazism if you do not understand his deceptive use of terms. To Nietzsche, power and strength was all about intellectual integrity and separation from the herd, it had nothing to do with brute force. Hitler was nothing if not an enforcer of herd mentality, and another leader of the herd. In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra proclaims that he does not want blind followers and says that his true followers are those that surpass him and follow their own path. Thus, Nietzsche even severs any support to the leaders of herds.

Like Barbarous said, reading Nazism in Nietzshce is not necessarily a misreading due to deceptive wording, however, it goes staunchly against Nietzsche's intentions and connects him with ideals which he openly despised.

[Griffith]

In Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Zarathustra proclaims that he does not want blind followers and says that his true followers are those that surpass him and follow their own path. Thus, Nietzsche even severs any support to the leaders of herds.

"Ye highest men who have come within my ken! this is my doubt of you, and
my secret laughter: I suspect ye would call my Superman--a devil! "
A person degenerated by the modern views cannot understand the force of the hammer.
Now i can know why the subtitle of this brilliant work is "A Book for All and None". :lol:



His philosophy was apolitical. He did mentions politics from time to time, but he more frequently totes himself as being apolitical. As such, his views on democracy are a very very minimal part of his work.

Someone that would make such a claim really could not have possibly understood Nietzsche.

In his view he was not against the state. He was against the view of the state as a purpose, and not a mean to an end. Nietzsche supports the idea of an authoritarian state that makes the citizens healthy spiritual and physically. A strong people make it´s own rules. You can see that clearly in this quote: "Friedrich Nietzsche called the aristocratic predators who write society's laws "the splendid blond beast" precisely because they so often behave as though they are beyond the reach of elementary morality. As he saw things, these elites have cut a path toward a certain sort of excellence consisting mainly of the exercise of power at the expense of others. When dealing with ordinary people, he said, they "revert to the innocence of wild animals.... We can imagine them returning from an orgy of murder, arson, rape and torture, jubilant and at peace with themselves as though they had committed a fraternity prank-convinced, moreover, that the poets for a long time to come will have something to sing about and to praise.'' Their brutality was true courage, Nietzsche thought, and the foundation of social order."

See how democratic he was. He was a real defender of the equality of all human beings. :goof: I could put an end in this quarrel, destroying all your weak arguments(Nietzsche was against the german degenerated by the cristian morality, not against the germanic people) but it would be loss of time.

I suggest that you read this book and really think which opinion should be the true. The masters' of the subject opinion, or the opinion of aleatory users?

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_F1EQVw0V9EA/R5IMAIZd2YI/AAAAAAAABNg/zuA1NvuluWE/s400/Nietzsche+&+nazism.jpg

[Desolation]

I never claimed Nietzsche was democratic or supported "equal rights," I said that politics were a very minimal part of his philosophy at large, as his philosophy was mainly aimed at the individual. Politics stifle the individual. His philosophy was also built on the pretense that anyone who agrees with everything he says is not really his follower. So claiming that a supporter of Nietzsche could not be a supporter of democracy is absurd.

In response to your quote:
"It is often charged that Nietzsche exhorted us to be ruthless against others - and up to a point that is true, although he also insisted that up to the very end that to treat those who are weaker than oneself more tenderly than oneself or one's peers is 'not just a courtesy of the heart' but a 'duty'. That one must occasionally be hard against others for the sake of perfection of one's own soul - though not as hard as one must be against oneself - that is a truth that was not discovered by Nietzsche." - Walter Kaufmann

"Hatred against mediocrity is unworthy of a philosopher: it is almost a question mark concerning his 'right to philosophy.' Just because he is the exception, he must protect the norm and encourage self-confidence in all the mediocre." - Friedrich Nietzsche

Also, researching your book, and reading the first few pages online, it does not seem to really suggest that Nietzsche was Nazi, but rather that some of his views could be seen as an influence on the Nazi's ideas and intentions(and not their actual actions). It suggest that Nietzsche's philosophy has nothing to do with the majority and outspoken parts of Nazism, but rather it's "secret and spiritual doctrines." These statements are not quite untrue(although there is quite a bit of evidence that Hitler read very little of Nietzsche). However, the book takes the assumption that the Ubermensch was the most prominent part of Nietzsche's philosophy, which goes against Nietzsche own statements that the Eternal Recurrence and the Revaluation of All Values were the most important parts of his work. In short, the book does not seem to be a horrible misinterpretation as the cover and title would suggest, and the author has done his research, but I still hold to the belief that Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, and could only be considered such through the work of his sister and by taking his words and ideas out of context.

[Griffith]

I never claimed Nietzsche was democratic or supported "equal rights," I said that politics were a very minimal part of his philosophy at large, as his philosophy was mainly aimed at the individual. Politics stifle the individual. His philosophy was also built on the pretense that anyone who agrees with everything he says is not really his follower. So claiming that a supporter of Nietzsche could not be a supporter of democracy is absurd.


Where i told that a supporter of Nietzsche could not be a supporter of democracy?
A book about cookery could not be the most instructive unless you apreciate cooking. You can learn something interesting but it wouldn´t be the most productive book. What i criticized in her post wasn´t the incompatibility but the ostentaion.



In response to your quote:
"It is often charged that Nietzsche exhorted us to be ruthless against others - and up to a point that is true, although he also insisted that up to the very end that to treat those who are weaker than oneself more tenderly than oneself or one's peers is 'not just a courtesy of the heart' but a 'duty'. That one must occasionally be hard against others for the sake of perfection of one's own soul - though not as hard as one must be against oneself - that is a truth that was not discovered by Nietzsche." - Walter Kaufmann

We are discussing about Nietzsche. The opinion of others in this question is irrelevant. Besides, if you carefully perceive the surname of your quoted you can understand that he is not the best person to interpret Nietzsche. Distortion is inevitable.



"Hatred against mediocrity is unworthy of a philosopher: it is almost a question mark concerning his 'right to philosophy.' Just because he is the exception, he must protect the norm and encourage self-confidence in all the mediocre." - Friedrich Nietzsche


Hitler was not a philosopher. So what´s your point?




Also, researching your book, and reading the first few pages online, it does not seem to really suggest that Nietzsche was Nazi, but rather that some of his views could be seen as an influence on the Nazi's ideas and intentions(and not their actual actions). It suggest that Nietzsche's philosophy has nothing to do with the majority and outspoken parts of Nazism, but rather it's "secret and spiritual doctrines." These statements are not quite untrue(although there is quite a bit of evidence that Hitler read very little of Nietzsche). However, the book takes the assumption that the Ubermensch was the most prominent part of Nietzsche's philosophy, which goes against Nietzsche own statements that the Eternal Recurrence and the Revaluation of All Values were the most important parts of his work. In short, the book does not seem to be a horrible misinterpretation as the cover and title would suggest, and the author has done his research, but I still hold to the belief that Nietzsche was not a proto-Nazi, and could only be considered such through the work of his sister and by taking his words and ideas out of context.


Read the whole book and not just the introduction. :rolleyes: