All about Nietzsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

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...

---

Fair enough curly; that is your opinion, and one amongst many. But I do have something to say in reply.

So you claim that Nietzsche was a 'bigoted fool' because you believe folly cannot be justified by taking a historical perspective. I agree but strongly maintain that allowances must be made in light of the consensus, during the 19th century, that woman were not equal to men. But are you suggesting that the presence of more modern minds (e.g. 'Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...') therefore makes everybody 'fools' in comparison?!? C'mon...

Picture the world in 60 years time... the world will be in a crisis over global warming and the melting ice caps; but for the moment, the majority of people are not too bothered as long as there isn't a crisis right now, staring us in the face. There are people who are actively pursuing prevention of this problem and those not doing anything, regardless whether they care or not.

So does this make the vast majority of the world fools? simply because a select few show foresight. I don't think so mate. It's easy to make criticisms in hindsight, as you and I are.

Picking on Nietzsche's viewpoint on women is like disregarding the rest of his work because Hitler misinterpreted it, leading to the holocaust.

Don't get me wrong, I totally disagree with what he says about women. But don't let that get in the way of enjoying what he has to offer :thumbs_up

i dont think you can discredit everything he says about women, little lone discredit other things he's said not in relation to women bc he's a tidge sexist. Let us not forget, the thing he despised most was Germany. anyways, we're probably misunderstanding him and here's an example that shows just this.

i've read over and over again Nietzsche proclaiming his love for the greeks and their ability to stop at mere appearance and be happy with life's secrets being free from unearthing by the backhoe of reason. that said, look at this exert from Beyond Good Evil

"what is truth to woman? From the beginning nothing has been more alien, repugnant, and hostile to woman than truth--her great art is the lie, her highest concern is mere appearance and beauty."

now lest you misunderstand Nietzsche here, its paramount to realize that he's against truth. he thinks the "will to truth" is the "will to death" because life as we know it subscribes to both truth and un-truths (ex. i have to put on a false persona to procreate ). taking just the former as our idol is a sign of disease for Nietzsche.

i take all this to mean that he idolizes gals like he did the greeks and hates to see them dirty their hands in works of reason and truth

The other thing to bear in mind is that Nietzsche was not only a man of his time in terms of his beliefs, but in terms of what he observed. Most men and women today are essentially conservative, and wholeheartedly fall in line with normative values. In Nietzche's time, this was true to an even greater extent, and so what Nietzsche says about women, he says based on what he observed in most women of the age.

Furthermore, it should be remembered that Nietzsche's writings are to be taken at face value: he was not writing drama or literature, but his own beliefs, unlike, for example, Shakespeare. Most of the people you mention, were you to discover their real opinions, would clearly be total sexists every bit as trapped by the prevailing thought of their day as Nietzsche. You cannot take their dramatic & fictional works and induce what their beliefs are on that basis. Nietzsche at least allows that some day women could be allowed access to what were the perceived as being 'male spheres', but that at his time, he did not believe it was possible.

Well, this is precisely my problem with Nietzsche's pronouncements on women: he was a "man of his time". This seems to me the essence of bigotry-- the unquestioning acceptance of stereotyped, prejudicial attitudes toward a group of people. Why I am so disappointed in Nietzsche in this area is because his was not an intellect to blindly accept the attitudes of his time. I expect better from him. He did not accept current attitudes toward the Jews, for example. (Nietzscshe, much to my surprise once I actually read him, thought very highly of the Jewish people). I just expect better from Nietzsche, and so I am disappointed at his bigoted railing against women. It is beneath him.

Incidentally, when I refer to his pronouncements as bigoted, I don't mean it as name-calling. It is simply the appropriate adjective.

But I'm not sure that he was wrong. I interpret Nietzsche's remarks on women as being remarks on the female culture of the day (just as I interpret his comments on men, the state and politics). Was he wrong? Probably not. I can tell you, I have a lot to say myself about modern feminine culture. Will this make me a bigot in 100 years time? I have critical views of masculine culture too, but then again, so did Nietzsche!

Nietzsche's views are complex. Nietzsche clearly believes that women are capable of holding the same responsabilities as men, and says as much directly in some of his works. His criticism is of feminine culture.

Nietzsche was probably a sexist by our standards, but no more so than many other men of his time, and in fact a great deal less. Nietzsche takes no prisoners in his work: he says exactly what he thinks. So when he mocks the feminine culture of his day and age, it's because he finds it silly and ridiculous, and when he says he thinks women will one day be 'capable' of being part of the political process, it's because he means exactly that.

Nietzsche saw men and women as different, but not unequal, and that is an important distinction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEEMAN

Nietzsche saw men and women as different, but not unequal, and that is an important distinction.

---

on the contrary. seeing similars as equal is a sign of weak eyes for Nietzsche.

men and women are not equal when you get specific

Woah...there sure has been a lot added to this thread since last I was on here! I need to put aside some time and catch up on it all. :-)
I think it is always difficult to judge the sexist content in works of the past. It is hard for modern readers to differentiate between what the author really believed and what is a dutiful reflection of their social context.

Quote:

---

The other thing to bear in mind is that Nietzsche was not only a man of his time in terms of his beliefs, but in terms of what he observed. Most men and women today are essentially conservative, and wholeheartedly fall in line with normative values. In Nietzche's time, this was true to an even greater extent, and so what Nietzsche says about women, he says based on what he observed in most women of the age.

---

I think Neeman is kind of expressing what I mean...it's difficult for some to judge a group of people as individuals with potential beyond what society allows them. Women experienced much greater limitations in Nietzsche's day, it is understandable that these same societally projected limitations could be ingrained in anyone as inherent fact. Everyone,then and now, is guilty of some degree of sexism.
I consider Nietzsche a pioneer of thought,someone who rebelled against various popular ideas of his time. This makes interpretations of what seems like prejudice in his work particularly fascinating. Nietzsche seemed to judge everything with different standards, particularly when it comes to ethical issues. He also had a very peculiar personal context that surely informed some misogyny in the way he observed the world.

I really could not make an absolute statement about Nietzsche and sexism. I think that once again it brings us to the question of being able to separate an artist from his work. There are many great men and women I admire that have shared personal beliefs I detest but have produced great work nonetheless.

Nietzsche, in his discussion of Buddhist and Hindu philosophy (he calls the latter "the oldest and most venerable 'scripture'") finds a close parallel in Hellenic Epicurianism:

although it is arrayed in Oriental exaggeration, what is expressed is merely the same appraisal as that of the clear, cool, Hellenically cool, but suffering Epicurus; the hypnotic sense of nothingness, the repose of deepest sleep, in short the absence of suffering...
Genealogy of Morals, III,17

I was surprised to read this. Ever since I stumbled across the ideas of Epicurus (via Marcus Aurelius) I realized that we in the West had our own version of "buddhism" with very deep roots. Stripped of its mysticism and the attractions of the exotic, Buddhism seems to me pretty much the same system of thought as Epicurianism, offering the same comforts (and pitfalls). It was nice to find that one of the world's great philosophers thought so too!

Nietzsche, of course, does not hold with these systems of thought that encourage quietude, passive acceptance, and denial of the self.

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals.

He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0=2

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals.

He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...

---

I disagree. I think that Nietzsche was not only one the founders of existentialism but also brought up and good point; that God is dead. Of course, not in the literal sense, but in the sense that humanity does not need anything other than themselves in order to retain self value and meaning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0=2

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

The man had some points. Arguing over people seems fruitless, though so is argument I'd suppose, but on an aesthetic principle I prefer ideals.

He was an egotist and an *** and wasn't a genius nor the smartest of his time nor the "founder" of any of his ideas. Had some nice quotables and shook some white men up. Served his purpose and place. Like him for that. Wish he had the scope to take the step past...

---

lets argue over people anyways. who was more ahead of his time than N? had a bigger impact whether it be for good or bad (and since this is a Nietzsche thread, good and bad are relative terms)? questioned everything more than N? transcended being a white male in the 1800's as well as N?

step past? that's what the overman was, eh?

agreed he had nice quotables:

"the spirits increase, vigor grows through a wound." twilight of the idols

"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

Well, this is precisely my problem with Nietzsche's pronouncements on women: he was a "man of his time". This seems to me the essence of bigotry-- the unquestioning acceptance of stereotyped, prejudicial attitudes toward a group of people. Why I am so disappointed in Nietzsche in this area is because his was not an intellect to blindly accept the attitudes of his time. I expect better from him. He did not accept current attitudes toward the Jews, for example. (Nietzscshe, much to my surprise once I actually read him, thought very highly of the Jewish people). I just expect better from Nietzsche, and so I am disappointed at his bigoted railing against women. It is beneath him.

Incidentally, when I refer to his pronouncements as bigoted, I don't mean it as name-calling. It is simply the appropriate adjective.

---

I can make no claim of being able to truly grasp Nietzsche, though my portable edition is on the DVD, because I want to keep trying, his attitude about women might be more than sexism, and may point to the early stages of mental defect. The whip and flowers imagery certainly evince early symptoms of illness, not that I am offering a apologia for it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

lets argue over people anyways. who was more ahead of his time than N? had a bigger impact whether it be for good or bad (and since this is a Nietzsche thread, good and bad are relative terms)? questioned everything more than N? transcended being a white male in the 1800's as well as N?

step past? that's what the overman was, eh?

agreed he had nice quotables:

"the spirits increase, vigor grows through a wound." twilight of the idols

"

---

I dunno, Taoism, Buddhism, and Hinduism all seem to have sects that accepted the impermanence of things and the relativity of morals pre-Renaissance.

decadents of all the times

Nietzsche was a True Decadent,loner, and an exceptionally subjective 'self justifying' and wanton writer.(Shades of Kierkegaard.) His writing style though is superb at times,and he also throws out some tremendous postmodern insights here and there. As a political ideologist though He is DEAD!