All about Nietzsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

He's hardly the first. David Hume was way before him on this. So what makes him so great?

---

virg, there's actually a big difference between Nietzsche and Hume. you're right that Hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited --- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought). in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. Nietzsche's scheme conflates human and world, which is why he is so averse to perception.

sorry this is dense, i'm trying to sum a lot in a little time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

virg, there's actually a big difference between nietzsche and humen. you're right that hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited --- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought). in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. he conflates human and world. there's no need for world in Nietzsche's scheme, which is why he is so averse to perception.

sorry this is dense, i'm trying to sum a lot in a little time.

---

so much wonderful philosophy to study...so much pointless schoolwork eating up my time...the world is unfair. thanks for the great info+analysis jon! :thumbs_up

Kurz:
few things:

you mention "post-Christian world" -- and this is a term hotly debated. first of all nietzsche doesn't pay all that much heed to history. sure he was a military man and reveres courage and nation and felt there was a place for it, but there is no historical dialectic with Nietzsche in the sense of Hegel and Marx. All is flux, as Hericlitus said. Nietzsche's Will has no trajectory, no aim or purpose or end. "the long plenitudes of destruction" were well underway with christian morality (tracing back to Platonism)---the fact that human beings somehow managed to thwart their own impulses. hence Nietzsche's rage against christianity.

(Dramas) you mentioned search for "truth and "older truths" --- nietzsche saw truth as a chimera - a shrewd way for the self to view truth as "object" or as something to be sought, obtained via categories of knowledge, and it's not the case. there was no truth in Nietzsche's world, just energy unfolding. Amor Fati: love of fate. and as far as the "Enlightenment," it reminds me of Alfred E. Whitehead's famous quote that "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato (older truths)."

Nietzsche said: "We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from, we only heard of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist."

here's my favorite Nietzsche quote: "There is no "outside myself" But all sounds make us forget this; how lovely it is to forget."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

so much wonderful philosophy to study...so much pointless schoolwork eating up my time...the world is unfair. thanks for the great info+analysis jon! :thumbs_up

---

Dramas: don't waste another day in school; quit now before it's too late! :lol:

Red Zep said:
Call it what you want, jon, that's what it was. I consider questions a sufficient way to get people's "intellectual juices flowing." OK - so Nietzsche gave his opinion as to what humility means - what makes his definition authoritative besides the fact that you like it?

jon:
good question, Red. i guess there's a part of me that believes nietzsche when he tells the reader that few will understand him. you're right, i "like" Nietzsche, he's my favorite philosopher - not so much for what he WRITES, but for the way he SINGS to us. most of philosophy, by contrast, is comprised of words set alongside the empirical world. useless. there's something musical in Nietzsche that transcends speech. and yes, that's what i find so magical and yet so real.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Dramas: don't waste another day in school; quit now before it's too late! :lol:

---

:lol: Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something" :p It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"

Quote:

---

(Dramas) you mentioned search for "truth and "older truths" --- nietzsche saw truth as a chimera - a shrewd way for the self to view truth as "object" or as something to be sought, obtained via categories of knowledge, and it's not the case. there was no truth in Nietzsche's world, just energy unfolding. Amor Fati: love of fate. and as far as the "Enlightenment," it reminds me of Alfred E. Whitehead's famous quote that "All of Western philosophy is but a footnote to Plato (older truths)."

Nietzsche said: "We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from, we only heard of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist."

here's my favorite Nietzsche quote: "There is no "outside myself" But all sounds make us forget this; how lovely it is to forget."

---

How does Nietzsche's thoughts on truth connect with his ideas around eternal occurence though?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

:lol: Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something" :p It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"

---

that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!

remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student?
"You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!

remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student?
"You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."

---

this is very true, i am probably much better off with just self-education. if only it counted for a better job selection and happy parents too:( I dont think University will be all that bad, if i can get into a good one. some of those philosophy courses can be really exciting. look at the profs in the Teaching Company, i would love to listen to them live!


I was recently thinking about how Nietzsche's ideas around inculturalization compared to his God is Dead and eternal reccurence thoughts, I am in search for a common theme. I am just starting to get a grasp on how Nietzsche was part of some huge revolution in thought, a branching off of more traditional thinking. All this ideas seem to promote an ideal lifestyle in which, by removing our value and belief system shaped by society and religion, we are in more touch with ourselves and therefore can improve ourselves morally. In a way Nietzsche's thoughts did embody various aspects of the Enlightment in that they force us to observe for ourselves. I hope I am making some sense?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Perhaps - but your opening list of vices would generally be on the excessive side of Aristotle's "mean," largely because they are distorted/extreme permutations of normal, healthy feelings/attitudes.

---

lust, pride, sloth...--- the particular degree of each on the spectrum depends upon the individual. there is no universal mean. what defines excessive/deficient is subjective as "normal, healthy feelings/attitudes." aristotle recognized that.

Wow this thread is getting interesting. I dont have time for a long post so here is a short poem from Nietzsche:

"Judgements of the Weary"

They hate the sun, find steep the grade,
And love trees only for their shade.

[QUOTE=jon1jt;316342]

Quote:

---

virg, there's actually a big difference between Nietzsche and Hume. you're right that Hume was an atheist, but his philosophy falls into the field of epistemology, which basically strives to understand how we know what we know. in hume's case, he emphasized knowledge deriving from sense impressions, but that our perception - more so our ability to apprehend "things"/phenomena was limited

---

Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.

Quote:

---

--- and so there's a fierce skepticism in Hume. Nietzsche destroys the Humean paradigm of subject-object --- in the sense of person apprehending a world (Heidegger deals the death blow to cartesian/descartes thought).

---

When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me.

Quote:

---

in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion). Nietzsche literally shatters the subject-object and substitutes "Will" and energy force unfolding "in" human beings. there is no external - no world - WE are life-world. Nietzsche's scheme conflates human and world, which is why he is so averse to perception.

---

God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

good question, Red. i guess there's a part of me that believes nietzsche when he tells the reader that few will understand him.

---

That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such elitism is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

you're right, i "like" Nietzsche, he's my favorite philosopher - not so much for what he WRITES, but for the way he SINGS to us. most of philosophy, by contrast, is comprised of words set alongside the empirical world. useless. there's something musical in Nietzsche that transcends speech. and yes, that's what i find so magical and yet so real.

---

Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion).

---

Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite.

jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.

Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.

Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense.

Thanks again :)

PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such elitism is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever.



Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.

---

i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.

what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "vision of life" in nietzsche.

the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Jean-Baptiste

Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite.

jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.

Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.

---

right on, jean - ol lockey uses that. descartes came to my mind referring to another point i was making about subject-object. still, descartes is foundational to locke's epistemology.

i'm happy you feel that way about the academy, excellent. so we have different opinions about it's particular value. you want to call my quoting the movie Good Will Hunting as an argument then go ahead.

you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.

---

Nietzsche's "resistance" to "categorization" is fine - but language must have some reasonably stable meaning; once we decide to define it as we wish, then its subjectivity now interferes with communication.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "vision of life" in nietzsche.

---

The dictionary does not define "humility" as the desire for self-exaltation. That particular evaluation is Nietzsche's - an evaluation you buy because Nietzsche lays out some particular view that you agree with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.

---

Its "pretention" only exists if you assume it was inspired by, created by and written by (solely) men. If you proceed from the supposition that a Divine Being was in charge of what the Bible "calls for," then there's no pretention - God knows what He's talking about. Human agreement lends credibility to Nietzsche's ideas/statements. God does not require us to agree with Him for His statements to carry authority - He's GOD.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense.

Thanks again :)

PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...

---

i agree. i also want to learn about Nietzsche from the experts. oh well.

[QUOTE=Virgil;316414]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.


When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me.


God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life. ;)

---

:lol: i think we can find some commond ground here. i see what you mean virgil. philosophy uses a lot of jargon and some of it is just unavoidable. you also realize there's a lot of hair splitting, which can often make it feel inaccessible, but it's really not once you jump in and open up to it.

btw, i think your last sentence brings you closer to nietzsche than you imagine. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.

---

touché. I apologize for descending to your level of exposition.

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316536]Nietzsche's "resistance" to "categorization" is fine - but language must have some reasonably stable meaning; once we decide to define it as we wish, then its subjectivity now interferes with communication.

jon
but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."

red
The dictionary does not define "humility" as the desire for self-exaltation. That particular evaluation is Nietzsche's - an evaluation you buy because Nietzsche lays out some particular view that you agree with.


jon
so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me?

red
Its "pretention" only exists if you assume it was inspired by, created by and written by (solely) men. If you proceed from the supposition that a Divine Being was in charge of what the Bible "calls for," then there's no pretention - God knows what He's talking about. Human agreement lends credibility to Nietzsche's ideas/statements. God does not require us to agree with Him for His statements to carry authority - He's GOD.

jon
that's your supposition, not mine, nor is it Nietzsche's according to my understanding of him.

"he's god." and you even use personification here to bring him closer to my experience. but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing. :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I feel an obligation to point out shotty thinking.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree. :lol:

What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?


What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.


Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.

Each era creates myths and legends to understand the world. The 20th century is no different. I've said this before, the two greatest myths of the 20th century are that socialism works and that Freudian psychology understands man. What is fascinating about the 20th century myths are that they tend to cloak themselves in science. Empirical evidence is the final proof, my friend.

---

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I'm willing to bet that you'd be laughed at in both.

Oh lordy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.

---

I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing.

The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing.

The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.

---

Oh I'm sorry. :blush: Thanks. :lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.

---

Yes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me.


God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life. ;)

---

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

Yes.



See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

---

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant! :confused: :lol:

he's got a point, virgil. :D

Quote:

---

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

---

Quote:

---

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!

he's got a point, virgil.

---

:D Thank so much for bringing some logic to this thread blp! Now, shall we discuss some NIETZSCHE or what?:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blp

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant! :confused: :lol:

he's got a point, virgil. :D

---

Well, I have a passing interest for intellectual purposes. I understand some philosophy and I'm really trying to understand what makes Nietzsche so important. His greatest statement is "God is dead," but atheism had been around in a serious way for at least 150 years before him. Jon says that Nietzsche refuses to have a system of thought, but that's what philosophy is suppose to be, a way of thinking. First Jon points a Nietzsche statement that frankly is nothing more than psychobabble. Jon then points something else out in Nietzsche and I identify it as a Kantian thought. So what gives? No one is actually saying what Neitzsche is all about. Can someone reduce him down to a paragraph?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."

---

I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me?

---

Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing.

---

Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.

Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming
and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.

Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scheherazade

Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming
and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.

Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.

---

Thank you Scher. I think before we were discussing God is Dead, Nietzsche's take on truth, and eternal reccurence. If anybody would care to go back a page or 2 you can pick up on this and make your own contributions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.



Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."




Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.

---

first of all i don't mind if people flame me if they like. i'd rather people express how they truly feel. speak your mind, i'll listen. nor am i insulted in the least.

dramas, i'll get to the conversation about nietzsche, no problem, i understand. but we have to first get over this baggage or else we'll never have a constructive discussion. maybe we can't discuss this topic because Nietzsche draws the line in the sand between the moral herd and the infinitesimal percentage of anti-moralists ("herd" is nietzsche's term, not mine). as far as god goes, i stated my position up front, god is a postulate. so comparing her to santa or a unicorn just reinforces my heartfelt belief. you obviously disagree. when i referred to god as nothing, i was just invoking heidegger's language, not being patronizing as you say.

you seem to have a lot to offer this dialogue, red, so i hope you stay. just realize what you already know, nietzsche is not kind to god, and so i will not be either to remain true to the spirit of the nietzsche text. at the same time, i'm not insulting your religious beliefs, so not to worry.

Thank you for clarifying Jon, I'm sure everyone will appreciate it :) I am still slightly confused about Nietzsche's take on truth though. And the logic behind eternal occurence, does he mean if an action is put out there, it being the only thing occupying a certain space at a certain time, it will adopt all forms of itself eternally?

i'm going to get to red's point about language as it pertains to his dictionary remark. just want red to know i'm not avoiding it.

virgil:
you asked about kant. the short of it is, Kant considered how judgments are possible. he unpacks the inner workings of the mind, the mind constructed of 'categories' --- which is simply a template that joins like a puzzle piece to the world, more specifically, to objects or phenomena.

Nietzsche, by contrast, is concerned with why the belief in such judgments are "necessary." kant is concerned strictly with logic; nietzsche with psychology.

hope that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.



Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."

---

let me try to articulate the problem of language according to nietzsche:
when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. the object that you say we catalog in the dictionary is the sum total of a metaphor of a metaphor, thereby two degrees from the object. to put it another way, think of an interpretation of an interpretation of a book. yet you never have access to the author himself. so then, language becomes a sort of world of its own; what nietzsche actually calls a "second world." an illusion, and just because people identify with its - as you say - connotations and denotations - we ought not be duped by that which is far behind a world of flux. stability-seeking human beings created language to drive a wedge between world and themselves---to amuse themselves to death with the idea that there's a ground on which the mind can assemble itself and objects around which it can wrap itself.

let me round this obscure statement with an even more obscure one. When Nietzsche was in the throes of his insanity, his sister Elizabeth was reported to have said that people should not draw rash conclusions about her brother's work because "He is in the heights where he no longer speaks with words but with lightning."

in light of nietzsche's philosophy, can anyone think of why she might have said that? consider that Elizabeth was also the one who titled his book, "Will To Power" which was published posthumously, based on random notes found in his office and elsewhere she cobbled together, which were still being developed, such as the idea of eternal recurrence.

Quote:

---

let me try to articulate the problem of language according to nietzsche:
when you 'see' an image, what you're seeing actually is a metaphor of sense impressions, not the 'thing in itself.' so at this level human beings are therefore incapable of telling anything about the object's essence. now, consider the next layer: the word we attach to the image, which is also a metaphor of a sensory object. the object that you say we catalog in the dictionary is the sum total of a metaphor of a metaphor, thereby two degrees from the object. so language becomes a sort of world of its own; what nietzsche actually calls a "second world." an illusion and we ought not be duped by it.

---

This reminds me of I quote of Descartes I found in my research. "We can doubt everything but that we are doubting" or something along those lines. I love Nietzsche's philosophy as I am introduced to more and more aspects. Language and illusion are working together to create these metaphors,right? I think these ideas around language of Nietzsches would be fantastic to apply to child development. Is the metaphot created by the memory in terms of illusion strengthened when combined with a word recognition? And what about adjectives? How are we to apply words nonspecific to a certain illusion to different illusions, we must use our other senses. Is emotion an illusion too? Do all our senses, jsut because they are created by a development of memory, contribute to these complex metaphors? Does our entire being revolve around sets of metaphors? WHY DOESNT MY SCHOOL OFFER PHILOSOPHY!!!?? sorry...I am just so pumped with curiosity about this guy and have so little to work with! gah!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

This reminds me of I quote of Descartes I found in my research. "We can doubt everything but that we are doubting" or something along those lines. I love Nietzsche's philosophy as I am introduced to more and more aspects. Language and illusion are working together to create these metaphors,right? I think these ideas around language of Nietzsches would be fantastic to apply to child development. Is the metaphot created by the memory in terms of illusion strengthened when combined with a word recognition? And what about adjectives? How are we to apply words nonspecific to a certain illusion to different illusions, we must use our other senses. Is emotion an illusion too? Do all our senses, jsut because they are created by a development of memory, contribute to these complex metaphors? Does our entire being revolve around sets of metaphors? WHY DOESNT MY SCHOOL OFFER PHILOSOPHY!!!?? sorry...I am just so pumped with curiosity about this guy and have so little to work with! gah!

---

i can see that you're pumped...cool! my best guess regarding non-specific words is just a humanity's superfluous aid in the fruitless capturing of the object's essence, in the same way we can never capture god or world or universe. only passion is real, and we've repressed most of that out of duty to christian morality.

your school doesn't offer philosophy for the same reason that most American parents can't help kids with their homework: they're too busy buying new cars and plasma screen tv's. ugh.