All about Nietzsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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.

---

Ah ok. So that is why Nietzsche believed it was important to remain in touch with our Dionyssian side? Because the passion involved in that is the only thing actually real? And religion is part of our inculturalization? It is all connecting.

Quote:

---

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.

---

Gotta love that consumerism. But i agree, if they arent busy buying them then they are busy working overtime to make the money to buy them...sad.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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.

---

OK thanks.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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.

---

This is one of the reasons that philosophy after Aristotle becomes incomprehensible to me. I'm fine with this deconstruction of meaning, but followed to it's logical conclusion, your own words cease to have any stable meaning. I find it interesting that philosophers like Nietzsche and literary theorists like Derrida strip language of its inherent meaning but assume that their usage of language is somehow "outside" of their own definition. Once you tell me that language is an "illusion" we now must define all usage of language "illusory" - including the language that postulated the illusory nature of language in the first place. If that's what Nietzsche is saying, what good does that do? His own statements become as flexible as I wish them to be - or have I missed something? Despite all this abstract theorizing - we still have to communicate. But if words hold no (reasonably) stable "truth" in terms of what they mean, then any statement of "truth" becomes absurd.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jon1jt

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."

---

Poetic, yes; a reasonable conclusion? Not so sure about that. Insanity may be some sort of "second sight" (it is often romanticized as such), but it is also the disconnection of one's senses from reality - the deception of the mind upon itself. If truth emerges from that sort of chaos, it must be largely incidental.

My point is simply this: you cannot invalidate a tool that you're using to invalidate that tool. If Nietzsche wishes to believe language is an "illusion," his use of it to define it as such becomes absurd. Is that his point?

Red Zep, did you know that when blind people recover their sight, they see a swirling chaos of colour for some time before 'normal' vision returns. Or that our eyes actually see everything upside down and our brains turn them the right way up. Or that our eyes see only a tiny fragment of the entire colour spectrum. There is always an ordering that is always, to some extent, imposed. One of the interesting things about Kant and Nietzche is that they came to this realisation without scientific evidence.

Yes, stable meaning's a problem - and yes, that's recognised by Derrida and Nietzche, but no, I don't think they exclude themselves from that. Derrida says there is nothing outside the text. Nietzche often seems to be contradicting himself in Thus Spake Zarathustra and the aphoristic style he uses elsewhere allows him to create little parcels of thought, for argument's sake, that are not necessarily all consistent with one another - and to avoid a process of linear argument that will always, as Derrida shows, at some point end up contradicting itself.

If this means it's hard to communicate, well, quelle surprise. We see the difficulty of communication constantly, from arguments between forum visitors, to those between lovers to those between nations. One person says something, the other throws it back at them and the first claims they've been misinterpreted. Don't shoot the messengers who warn us of the pitfalls. A bit of honest self doubt would be a refreshing thing in most politicians, rather than the rhetorically bankrupt insistence on dubious positions we generally get from them.

In the light of some PMs I have received, I would like to remind that a general warning in a thread is addressed to everyone who has been posting and who think of posting to prevent things from deterioration. They are not necessarily aimed at the last person who has posted and when we would like to address indivual members, we do so by either singling them out within the thread or by contacting them via PMs.

Also, unfortunately, we have no way of gauging members' individual sensitivity levels and keeping a track of them; hence, we try to make sure that the Forum Rules are in place at all times. If you prefer communicating with certain members on more personal levels, you can always do so by PMs.

I'd imagine that most of us find Nietzsche intermittently very interesting and can easily see the madder proclamations as oddities we can ignore. After all the political creeds that leaned on Nietsche were soundly defeated but can probably never be totally eliminated.

Thank you for bringing the discussion back on track, Ennison, which is Nietzsche and his philosophies.

Please note that any off topic posts are likely to be deleted with or without any further notice form now on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ennison

I'd imagine that most of us find Nietzsche intermittently very interesting and can easily see the madder proclamations as oddities we can ignore. After all the political creeds that leaned on Nietsche were soundly defeated but can probably never be totally eliminated.

---

Very interesting point. But what exactly do you mean by this statement? I am aware that there were many political ongoings and discoveries in many areas at the time but what exactly is it that can not be eliminated?

Thanks for joining us!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

Very interesting point. But what exactly do you mean by this statement? I am aware that there were many political ongoings and discoveries in many areas at the time but what exactly is it that can not be eliminated?

Thanks for joining us!

---

I believe it is refering to the way the Nazis leaned on Neitschzes works due to a (mistaken?) understanding of his "superman" philosophy

I believe he is talking about Nietzche's idea on will to power. It was something that I hoped would be discussed and seems like the one signature Nietzsche thought. Here it is summarized in Wiki:

Quote:

---

The concept of the "will to power" in Nietzsche's thought has had many interpretations, most notoriously its misappropriation by the Nazis, which amounts to its characterization as a "desire for and of power" ("power" here specifically denoting the more limited concept of "dominance"). Some Nazis (Alfred Bäumler, etc.) also upheld a biological interpretation of the Wille zur Macht, making it equivalent with some kind of social darwinism, although Nietzsche explicitly criticized the latter in his works. This misreading was criticized by Martin Heidegger himself in his 1930s courses on Nietzsche. By Wille zur Macht, Nietzsche did not have raw physical or political power in mind. He didn't mean "Will to power", but rather "will-to-power": one particular and inedit concept, rather than the union of two different concepts, "will" and "power".

Opposed to a biological and voluntary conception of the Wille zur Macht, Heidegger and Deleuze both argued that the will to power and eternal recurrence are to be considered together. The concept must first be contrasted with Arthur Schopenhauer's "will to live": one must first of all take into account Nietzsche's background and criticism of Schopenhauer.

To understand the will to power, Schopenhauer posited a "will to live," in which living things were motivated by sustaining and developing their own lives. Nietzsche instead posited a will to power, a significant point of contrast to Schopenhauer's ideation, in which living things are not just driven by the mere need to stay alive, but in fact by a greater need to wield and use power, to grow, to expend their strength, and, possibly, to subsume other "wills" in the process. Thus, Nietzsche regarded such a "will to live" as secondary to the primary "will to power", and more generally there are varied manifestations of it, two prominent distinctions by Nietzsche are: a "life-denying" modality and a life-"enhancing" or -"affirming" one. Henceforth, he opposed himself to social darwinism, as he contested the validity of the concept of "adaptation", which he considered a narrow and weak "will to live".[6]

Another particular standpoint of the will to power is that it is a process of expansion and venting of creative energy that Nietzsche argued was the underlying – the "most fundamental fact" – "inner" force of nature.

"I do not speak to the weak: they want to obey and generally lapse into slavery quickly. In the face of merciless nature, let us still feel ourselves as merciless nature! But I have found strength where one does not look for it: in simple, mild, and pleasant p[eople], without the least desire to rule—and, conversely, the desire to rule has often appeared to me a sign of inward weakness: they fear their own slave soul and shroud it in a royal cloak (in the end, they still become the slaves of their followers, their fame, etc.). The powerful n[atures] dominate, it is a necessity, they need not lift one finger. Even if, during their lifetime, they bury themselves in a garden house!"
—Friedrich Nietzsche, Nachlass, Fall 1880 6[206]

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power

I wonder why Nietzsche keeps talking about people as "weak" or "slaves" versuses those that aren't? Any explanation?

Yes these are the very fellows I meant who used or abused his philosophy for their own ends but I think he remains interesting despite that. Maybe oddly that gives a kind of grim glamour to his ideas. I cant answer the last question but it is these problematic areas in his ideas which various political 'thinkers' were drawn towards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I believe he is talking about Nietzche's idea on will to power. It was something that I hoped would be discussed and seems like the one signature Nietzsche thought. Here it is summarized in Wiki:


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power

I wonder why Nietzsche keeps talking about people as "weak" or "slaves" versuses those that aren't? Any explanation?

---

It sounds like an attempt to question the notion of power. I can't help feeling that his description of the desire to rule as 'weak' does a pretty good job of anticipating Hitler. It's a bit like a more sophisticated version of the mother who tells her bullied child that the kid who's bullying him is probably only doing it because he's scared of something himself.

You know it has been a long time since I have given any thought to these things. I had in my college years studied a school of psychology call existential phenomenology. So Nietzsche, Hume and others were talked about much. I am thinking that these statements drive back into the idea of passion. Slaves are those who lack or who weakly exhibit the Dionysian energy.

Virgil you will hate this... back in the day, I couldn't help but think of "use the force Luke" when considering the "will to power" less midiclorians in our less passionate fellow humans. How is that for French fry philosophy?:lol:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by kilted exile

I believe it is refering to the way the Nazis leaned on Neitschzes works due to a (mistaken?) understanding of his "superman" philosophy

---

Oh yes, i have heard of this. It is rather sad I think too, gives Nietzsche a bad name. Ironically, Nazis tried to suppress the more free, natural behaviour and thinking where as Nietzsche promoted the Dionysian lifestyle.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orionsbelt

You know it has been a long time since I have given any thought to these things. I had in my college years studied a school of psychology call existential phenomenology. So Nietzsche, Hume and others were talked about much. I am thinking that these statements drive back into the idea of passion. Slaves are those who lack or who weekly exhibit the Dionysian energy.

Virgil you will hate this... back in the day, I couldn't help but think of "use the force Luke" when considering the "will to power" less midiclorians in our less passionate fellow humans. How is that for French fry philosophy?:lol:

---

:lol: I suspect that Nietzsche would have liked Dark Vador more.

I don't know who it was in this thread that called Nietzsche arrogant, but there is a tremendous hubris to divide people into weak or slave versuses master. I take it he considers himself on the master side. I am failing to really see what is so important about Nietzsche. Did he have an once of compassion for people or the totality of humanity? Everyone says he's been misinterpreted. While I think it is a stretch to assume he would have supported Nazism, I can see how corrolaries to his positions can lead to Nazism. Let me put it this way: his ethics (and I admit I have not read directly his works, but summarized passages) don't preclude Nazism. It doesn't rule it out.

Let us remember Nietzsche was long before the day of Nazism and would have no direct way of supporting it anyway. His works can, like many other pieces, be interpreted in many ways and obviously the Nazis had their own interpretation like everyone else. But when you look at many of his other ideas, such as Dionysian energy, they really don't fit with Nazi ideology.

What I have been meaning to bring up for a while is a fascinating event in Nietzsche's life, when he hallucinated the horse beating scene out of Crime and Punishment when he went mad. Does anyone have thoughts as to how this connects with his philosophy?

Perhaps, since Nietzsche believed everything but passion was basically a product of our minds, he felt as if it were possible to share memories, even with a fictional character? I do not know, it's a tricky one.

I've read most of Nietzsche's work and I have to say that I favor his ideas over all others (you can probably tell my member name).

If you guys think Nietzsche is arrogant, go take a look at Socrates. The guy knowingly knew his philosophy was flawed and he still continued to preach it like he was some sort of God. I respect Plato (mainly because of the republic), but not Socrates (especially after I learned that Socrates' last words were "life is an illness").

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

If you guys think Nietzsche is arrogant, go take a look at Socrates. The guy knowingly knew his philosophy was flawed and he still continued to preach it like he was some sort of God. I respect Plato (mainly because of the republic), but not Socrates (especially after I learned that Socrates' last words were "life is an illness").

---

This commentary presupposes that there is such a thing as "unflawed" philosophy. Considering the disagreement among philosophers, I doubt such a thing exists (meaning that all branches of philosophy would universally agree on some specific philosophic perspective as "unflawed").

Secondly, would you kindly provide some proof as to your statement that Socrates "knew" his philosophy was flawed? I'm not sure how Socratic questioning and Socratic irony (his two primary techniques) are "flawed." And, since Socrates' words only exist through the "filter" of Plato's pen, how can you dismiss one (who did not recored his own words for us) and like the other (who venerated Socrates, but nonetheless used him as a personal "mouthpiece")? We can only assume that what Socrates says is uniquely his own - authorial agendas might very well be embedded in Socrates' dialogues.

There is no right or wrong philosophy, you're right. Socrates famous quote before he dies proves that he knew his philosophy was wrong and that life is an illness (contradicting his own philosophy). Read this:

"With respect to this strange phenomenon of Nietzsche not only inserting his own words into the mouths of famous figures, but drawing conclusions about those figures based upon those words, we may note that he performs a similar piece of ventriloquy in the case of the dying Socrates. In that section of the Twilight of the Idols (1888) titled The Problem of Socrates, Nietzsche twice compels his Socrates to verbalise the unspoken sentiment traditionally ascribed to his life-culminating Phaedo reference to owing a c0ck (it means rooster but this forum blocks the word ****)to Asclepius. Writes Nietzsche:



Even Socrates said as he died: “To live - that means to be a long time sick: I owe a **** to the saviour Asclepius”. Even Socrates had had enough of it (1).


“Socrates is no physician,” he said softly to himself: “death alone is a physician here... Socrates himself has only been a long time sick” (12).


Since the tradition was to offer a **** to Asclepius, Greek god of medicine and healing, upon recovering from an illness, Socrates’ famous remark in Plato’s Phaedo (118a) has long been understood by scholars as suggesting a) that earthly existence is, or Socrates’ earthly life has been, an illness, and/or b) that death is the cure for the illness of life. While I will return to the sombre and suggestive conclusion that “Even Socrates had had enough of it” below, I now note that the actual words Nietzsche adds to Plato’s account of Socrates’ death-bed speech are broadly in keeping with the familiar life-as-illness, death-as-cure understanding of this famous scene, and accordingly, do little to alter the conventional interpretation of the passage in question."
-http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol10/Jesus.html

Nothing you have said do I have an objection to except: seeing life as "illess" is a comment about life, not about Socrates' philosophy. What exactly do you take Socrates' philosophy to be?

Everyone's philosophy is "flawed" borean. Very few people out there who promote their beliefs and ideas consider them to be absolute perfection, just maybe less flawed then the alternatives. All these philisophy pioneers and idols have a bit of a big head anyway, you need a good ego to fall back on when your works are so controversial.

I'll agree with that.

The thing is...Socrates never admitted he had flaws in his philosophy. He preached it as if it was absolute and perfect. His last quote before he died proved that on the inside he knew there were majors holes in his philosophy; holes that debunked his entire metaphysics. (I'm sure you guys already know about aristocratic philosophy and Socrates' "souls").

Sartre I believe admitted that existentialism was wrong before he died (not to say existentialism is entirely wrong. many existential ideas are great but in the whole grand scheme of things, living by the philosophy just doesn't work out).

Nietzsche admitted that "eternal recurrence" isn't scientifically proven, but it's good to live by for it increases the will to power.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

The thing is...Socrates never admitted he had flaws in his philosophy. He preached it as if it was absolute and perfect. His last quote before he died proved that on the inside he knew there were majors holes in his philosophy; holes that debunked his entire metaphysics. (I'm sure you guys already know about aristocratic philosophy and Socrates' "souls").

---

I'm sorry - I must be kind of slow because I just don't understand this. Philosophers are required to acknowledge "flaws" in their philosophies to be considered "legitimate"? Huh? What exactly do you understand Socrates' philosophic "system" to be? I always understood that his primary focus was asking questions and engaging in discussion - that's a pretty simplistic synopsis, but I'm lost as to what he was supposed to say about his philosophy and I still don't get how his final words indicate his knowledge of the flaws. But wouldn't this be considered acknowledging the supposed "flaws"? Could you help me out here?

Quote:

---

Nietzsche admitted that "eternal recurrence" isn't scientifically proven, but it's good to live by for it increases the will to power.

---

Eternal reccurence is definetly my favorite concept of Nietzsches.I compare to pretty much everything. Just finished writing a paper for drama comparing eternal reccurence to Stanislavski's emotional memory and also reincarnation. great stuff.

Eternal recurrence is an interesting concept.

And zeppelin, I'm referring to aristocratic philosophy (souls, freeing your soul from the body [its prison]). That's what it contradicts.

have you read Will to Power, hyperborean?

yes, to me it's one of nietzsche's best works.

Today i ditched work and went to the library and just read a short book that sort of explained Nietzche's philosphy. i have read the discussions although i am still unclear about the interpretations of some of his ideas i am attempting to do more research. Anyways.
Is the phrase "God is dead" a conclusion that he derived at. Can it be that since he concluded that the human intention is deceptive or selfish(Will to Power) that anyone wanting to reach Heaven, will or can do so in this manner only? So "God is dead" could just be that God is dead in the hearts of wo/mankind or that the concept of God is dead not God himself of course.
If i am way off please direct me to the right direction.

"God is dead in the hearts of wo/mankind or that the concept of God is dead not God himself of course. "

That is exactly right. :thumbs_up From my interpretation, he is saying God is no longer neccesary to explain life.

exactly. It doesn't matter if there is a divine being or not. The only way to overcome oneself is to live life without the influence of God's control. Nietzsche defines it as master-slave morality.

This is why I think Nietzsche is so easily comparable to many psychological concepts, he has such a fascinating take on the motives behind human behaviour. But the most brilliant part of his philosophy is that he not only identifies the motives behind being religious, but offers substitution concepts to help ease people from their religious dependence. I think he does this so well because he REALLY, genuinely believes in what he is saying. To me, he seems sincerely concerned with the death of God in society and it's effect on people. Maybe that is why he went insane, his passion for this beliefs was too strong. Like with creative writing, philosophy must contain a balance between raw belief and passion and also some objectivity. No one person can save the world, maybe Nietzsche went insane trying. Wow, lots of pro-Nietzsche, idealizing bias in that interpretation. Someone please argue against me.

that was nicely put; there's no way someone can argue against that.

I do hope some of you guys understand what a "hyperborean" is. I've got a feeling you guys think I made it up. My avatar is Ouroboros which is a symbol for eternal recurrence.

wow, i didnt even know there was a symbol for eternal reccurence! What is the context behind Ouroboros? I am intrigued by the symbolism. At first I thought it was just similiar to the dozens of reincarnation symbols people have put out, and then I realized it was completely different in that he was consuming himself. He eternally reccurs in his own life by endlessly consuming every inch of his life. And in this case, literally his LIFE as in body! Clever stuff.

This "discussion" of Nietzsche stalls on one bumper-sticker concept. Explore Nietzsche for half a year; take along a checklist of provocative questions:

A) What does Nietzsche argue about the world and willpower that had not been advanced by Schopenhauer?
B) Is truth, as Nietzsche insists, an illusion?
C) Is morality something to be dismissed?
D) Is there any connection between Nietzsche's glorification of a "Superman" (Overman) and the idea of a master race?
E) In Nietzsche's perspectivism, if there is no such think as truth but only different interpretations of truth, is the world without validity?
F) In what perspective, for that matter, does the history of Twentieth Century put Nietzsche's glorification of war?
G) In the history of philosophy, is there any rival to Nietzsche's contempt for women?
H) Is the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence a conclusion or a cop-out? How can anything recur unless it ends, or it turns back like a boomerang? Where does the recurrence start--at Jurassic Park? Is it a variation of "world without end"?
I) To what degree do Nietzsche's aphoristic writings show him 1) a philosopher, 2) and existential psychologist, 3) a poet with a program?
Et cetera.

Are you a teacher DrBill? That's a really good outline.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DrBill

This "discussion" of Nietzsche stalls on one bumper-sticker concept. Explore Nietzsche for half a year; take along a checklist of provocative questions:

A) What does Nietzsche argue about the world and willpower that had not been advanced by Schopenhauer?
B) Is truth, as Nietzsche insists, an illusion?
C) Is morality something to be dismissed?
D) Is there any connection between Nietzsche's glorification of a "Superman" (Overman) and the idea of a master race?
E) In Nietzsche's perspectivism, if there is no such think as truth but only different interpretations of truth, is the world without validity?
F) In what perspective, for that matter, does the history of Twentieth Century put Nietzsche's glorification of war?
G) In the history of philosophy, is there any rival to Nietzsche's contempt for women?
H) Is the doctrine of Eternal Recurrence a conclusion or a cop-out? How can anything recur unless it ends, or it turns back like a boomerang? Where does the recurrence start--at Jurassic Park? Is it a variation of "world without end"?
I) To what degree do Nietzsche's aphoristic writings show him 1) a philosopher, 2) and existential psychologist, 3) a poet with a program?
Et cetera.

---

My gosh DrBill. That list is sensational, it opens a world of Nietzsche I never even considered. I think you could write an entire thesis on each of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I'm not commenting on whether one believes in God or not. I'm commenting on this phrase:

Now one that humbles himself may have lots of motives. Where does Nietzsche get in speculating why? Now that's for one person. There are a whole host of people who may humble themselves. Is he saying they all share the same psychology? Well, that is patently crap if he is saying that. There are a complex range of motives why people do all sorts of things, some of which may be genetic some which may be environmentally acquired. No two people share the same experience or the same genetic make up.

Now to be fair to Nietzsche I'm reading that sentence out of context. He may clarify what he is saying. But as it stands it is psychobabble.

Psychobabble is an attempt to reduce humanity to an equation.

---

I am A little late, but as they say better late! :)
I think that This quote is not pyschobabble for this reason; Nietzsche is seperating himself from Christ by saying that Man will humble himself for the reason that he alone, without God's doing, will be exalted. Suggesting that man shall humble himself to satify himself without the need to satisfy God.
I hope that made sense :lol: ...then again! :lol: