All about Nietzsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I am A little late, but as they say better late! :)
I think that This quote is not pyschobabble for this reason; Nietzsche is separating 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:

---

It makes perfect sense. :thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

It makes perfect sense. :thumbs_up

---

Oh thank God. :thumbs_up I was worrying there that I didn't make any sense to anyone.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

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:

---

For whatever reason one humbles themselves, it is still specualting on a person's motivation, and that is psychobabble. For instance, the reason Mother Theresa might humble herself by subjecting herself to God's will may be completely different than why some abused wife might humble herself to her abusive husband. You don't know why. You would be specualting and so would Neitzsche and that is psychobabble. Do you know why Mother Theresa became a nun? Can you figure out her psyche? Can Nietsche? No, and to think otherwise is psychobabble.

I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.

---

Absolutely true.:thumbs_up No philosophy can fully satisy everyone at the same time nor can ever be completely true, speculation is often neccesary to explain things.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I hardly think Specualtion Is "psychobabble." Simply Thinking about why someone does something is not neccesarily Pyschobabble, it is merely philosophy.

---

Allow me to speculate: I think that Asa participates on lit net becuase he has an irritable relationship with his father and an over indulging love for his mother. He reads because he wants to escape the hard reality his father is forcing on him. His love to analyze literature is due to an over developement of the feminine side of his brain. He humbles himself to his father in fear of rejection.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Only kidding Asa, but you can see how rediculous psychobabble is. If you go back to my original post on this you'll see I wasn't commenting on all of Nietsche, just one particular sentence where he degenerated into what i consider psychobabble. Anyone that thinks they can understand what makes a person tick is in rediculous territory.

Please refrain from making this discussion personal

I think Nietzsche was not trying to sum up the entire human condition or assume he knew every motive behind every individual, but just made a statement as to the tendencies of human nature based on his experience and context. All of us do that in our own way, without some prediction or assumption actions would be entirely random.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

. All of us do that in our own way, without some prediction or assumption actions would be entirely random.

---

Surely, but we don't claim some philosophic insight.

Drama, do you want people here on this thread to just agree with Nietsche or do you want to hear some opposing debate?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Surely, but we don't claim some philosophic insight.

Drama, do you want people here on this thread to just agree with Nietsche or do you want to hear some opposing debate?

---

I am more than happy to see opinions not supporting Nietzshce here, just as long as it does not get personal or turn into an attack.Labelling things without support is more of an attack then a contribution to a discussion.
I dont idealize Nietzsche as the ultimate philosopher, my previous statement meant that Nietzsche is no more speculative than any other philosopher, not that his speculation was right.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

I am more than happy to see opinions not supporting Nietzshce here, just as long as it does not get personal or turn into an attack.Labelling things without support is more of an attack then a contribution to a discussion.
I dont idealize Nietzsche as the ultimate philosopher, my previous statement meant that Nietzsche is no more speculative than any other philosopher, not that his speculation was right.

---

Ok, let's go back to my original comment.

Nietsche says:

Quote:

---

Jesus said, "He that humbleth himself shall be exalted." Nietzsche answered, "No. He that humbleth himself wants to be exalted."

---

And I said in a bantering response to Jon:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

I know there is more to Nietzche than that. I don't remember any of my Nietzche but there were aspects of his thoughts that I remember I found interesting.

BTW, you know my sensitivity to psychobabble.

---

and later I said:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

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.

---

And I said to Asa:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

For whatever reason one humbles themselves, it is still specualting on a person's motivation, and that is psychobabble. For instance, the reason Mother Theresa might humble herself by subjecting herself to God's will may be completely different than why some abused wife might humble herself to her abusive husband. You don't know why. You would be specualting and so would Neitzsche and that is psychobabble. Do you know why Mother Theresa became a nun? Can you figure out her psyche? Can Nietsche? No, and to think otherwise is psychobabble.

---

I think I was on topic and supported my responses. If I didn't make myself clear enough, let try once again. To speculate into why someone "humbles" themself is to speculate into the makings of another person's mind. It is comparable to the rediculous psychobabble that Freud puts out when he says boys have Oedipal complexes and girls have penis envy. This is all nonesense.

Let me also say, Nietsche may be a great philosopher, but the line i point out is hardly profound and certainly not one of his finer moments.

Plus I wasn't attacking anyone, and certainly not Asa. I was trying to show how rediculous one comes across when one attempts to psychanalize another human being.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Virgil

Allow me to speculate: I think that Asa participates on lit net becuase he has an irritable relationship with his father and an over indulging love for his mother. He reads because he wants to escape the hard reality his father is forcing on him. His love to analyze literature is due to an over developement of the feminine side of his brain. He humbles himself to his father in fear of rejection.

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Only kidding Asa, but you can see how rediculous psychobabble is. If you go back to my original post on this you'll see I wasn't commenting on all of Nietsche, just one particular sentence where he degenerated into what i consider psychobabble. Anyone that thinks they can understand what makes a person tick is in rediculous territory.

---

I understood what you were arguing, I was merely rebuting the fact that it was an incorrect argument. :lol: :lol: :lol:

You can't mention Nietzsche in front of conservative Christians. It's not personal or anything, it's just that Nietzsche ridicules their entire philosophy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You can't mention Nietzsche in front of conservative Christians. It's not personal or anything, it's just that Nietzsche ridicules their entire philosophy.

---

Such a statement sounds as if you're concerned about our feelings. Considerate as that is, don't worry: we can handle the criticism of a philosopher whom we consider to be absolutely misguided in his thinking. Philosophers who are wrong are never a real threat. Mention away.

(The good news is that our primary Philosopher would have happily forgiven Nietzsche for his philosophic mistakes and welcomed him into heaven as His own son. :D )

One analyst of Nietzsche said this, approx: The fundamental self-betrayal of the human race is to submit it's freedom to the fictitious demands of an imaginary god. Thus the abundance of the downtroden. He also felt that even ethics was a submission to superior economic forces. He may have gone too far in this case. My view. RJS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

. Considerate as that is, don't worry: we can handle the criticism of a philosopher whom we consider to be absolutely misguided in his thinking.

---

Question: Why do you think his views are misguided? Do you think bringing mankind to next level of consciousness is misguided?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Philosophers who are wrong are never a real threat.

---

Ding, Ding, Ding! Opinion alert, opinion alert.:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

The good news is that our primary Philosopher would have happily forgiven Nietzsche for his philosophic mistakes and welcomed him into heaven as His own son.

---

Mistakes? Verify these so called "mistakes".

You enjoy nitpicking the flaws of other philosophies yet you forget that your own philosophy is flawed as well....or maybe you just haven't admitted it yet.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Question: Why do you think his views are misguided? Do you think bringing mankind to next level of consciousness is misguided?.

---

That's a matter of opinion (see alert below).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Ding, Ding, Ding! Opinion alert, opinion alert.:D .

---

Very good. Much of what goes on in these threads is opinion - including what you claim as truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Mistakes? Verify these so called "mistakes".

You enjoy nitpicking the flaws of other philosophies yet you forget that your own philosophy is flawed as well....or maybe you just haven't admitted it yet.

---

Nietzsche's worship of power is a flat-out mistake. The possession of power has led very few people to true and lasting happiness. No, I'm not nit-picking - I'm voicing a disagreement - that sort of thing happens here. Go check out some of the things said on the atheism and evolution threads. Don't take it so personally - I'm sure if Nietzsche were here he wouldn't be sweating my objections one bit.

I dont like people who out and out say's its wrong or right; It is the sake of arguing, I know, but we know nothing.

I wish people who believed as you do, not be so righteous and sure footed with their philosophy. I know there are many truths in this life. Nietzsche is not among them, nor is Jesus. Though I accept them as being either correct or not. Not misguided, nor perfect. Just that they may hold merits of their own. As simple as that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I dont like people who out and out say's its wrong or right; It is the sake of arguing, I know, but we know nothing.

---

You mean I'm not entitled to the opinion that Nietzsche is wrong and hyperborean is not entitled to his opinion that Jesus (or Christianity, or Plato) is wrong? Really? Opinions as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of something are - wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

I wish people who believed as you do, not be so righteous and sure footed with their philosophy. I know there are many truths in this life. Nietzsche is not among them, nor is Jesus. Though I accept them as being either correct or not. Not misguided, nor perfect. Just that they may hold merits of their own. As simple as that.

---

Who's claiming the higher moral ground ("righteous") here? What's wrong with believing in my position? Don't all my opponents do the same?

Did you just tell me that Jesus (the primary "philosopher" I follow) is wrong? Did you just "out and out" say my "philosopher" is wrong? Are my italics properly communicating the irony I'm pointing at? I'm not trying to goad you, but you committed the very act you are criticizing me for. Why?

The reason why I said "opinion alert" is because every time I criticize Christianity I'm shunned for scrutinizing "purity". You make it seem like your philosophy is all good and mine is completely wrong. If anything, I've promoted Jesus and his philosophy...I've criticized organized religion. You are probably one of the only Christians I know who won't admit the faults of organized religion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

The reason why I said "opinion alert" is because every time I criticize Christianity I'm shunned for scrutinizing "purity".

---

Who's done this? I don't recall ever making this charge. You're free to criticize away - I don't post here because I think everybody will agree with me or my theological/philosophical position. It is generally the tone of many atheist/evolutionist posts that I take issue with.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You make it seem like your philosophy is all good and mine is completely wrong. If anything, I've promoted Jesus and his philosophy...I've criticized organized religion. You are probably one of the only Christians I know who won't admit the faults of organized religion.

---

I have difficulty in criticizing the "philosophy" of a Divine Being capable of creating the universe. That doesn't mean that I don't sometimes struggle with what I've been told is right or required of me. Living the Christian life is not easy - it is very challenging, primarily because God asks us to do difficult things - things that often are at direct odds with human nature.

Second, I do not believe Nietzsche is a total wacko. I think he was a thoughtful and a smart man - but so was Freud (and I think much of what he thought is wrong too - though he [like Nietzsche] was capable of great insight); nonetheless, I am not required to whole-heartedly support men whose grand themes I disagree with. Philosophic positions based (even in part) on power over others is disagreeable and false to me - just as the Christian ideal of service to each other and self-denial is just plain silly to atheists (at least some of them).

Organized religion is full of problems - no doubt. I have never defended a particular church; I have been defending Christianity in its ideal incarnation - as the teachings of Jesus Christ as laid out by Him, Paul, and God in the OT. I think organized religion is in need of a serious overhaul, but that doesn't mean I don't think it has value. So, I guess your list of Christians unwilling to admit the "faults of organized religion" just went down by one - but a perusal of my posts will reveal that religion was never the subject of my defense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

I have difficulty in criticizing the "philosophy" of a Divine Being capable of creating the universe.

---

Who said that modern Christianity is what "God" wanted? I'm not an atheist and I understand that true Christianity is great. However, man has warped the religion and the philosophy. Divine inspiration aside, the bible has been molded into what man wanted and not what God wanted. The Vatican and the church are completely corrupt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Second, I do not believe Nietzsche is a total wacko. I think he was a thoughtful and a smart man - but so was Freud (and I think much of what he thought is wrong too - though he [like Nietzsche] was capable of great insight); nonetheless, I am not required to whole-heartedly support men whose grand themes I disagree with. Philosophic positions based (even in part) on power over others is disagreeable and false to me - just as the Christian ideal of service to each other and self-denial is just plain silly to atheists (at least some of them).

---

Nicely put, but I wouldn't compare mr. psychoanalytic and Nietzsche. Freud is wrong because there is no proof of the unconscious.

Nietzsche, by the way, isn't all about "will to power". You also seem to have a misconception on what the will to power really is. My impression is that you interpret is as something "nazi like" (dictators who have read Nietzsche have all misinterpreted will to power).

Also, the ubermensch and eternal recurrence are two philosophical ideas you seem to forget about. I would think God would want us to strive for the "overman". I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with Nietzsche because of the overman ideology.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

You mean I'm not entitled to the opinion that Nietzsche is wrong and hyperborean is not entitled to his opinion that Jesus (or Christianity, or Plato) is wrong? Really? Opinions as to the "rightness" and "wrongness" of something are - wrong?

---

Did I say you weren't entitled? Don't put words where they do not belong, Redzeppelin. ;)

My key words were I didn't like

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Asa Adams

Did I say you weren't entitled? Don't put words where they do not belong, Redzeppelin. ;)

My key words were I didn't like

---

OK, fair enough. But I don't get the problem you seem to have with people who are confident in their position. Doubt and skepticism are fine, but if I'm doubtful and skeptical of everything, then what do I believe in? I'll paraphrase an old quotation: "Nothing contributes to peace of mind more than having no opinion at all." I don't know the author, but I like the idea.

I keep feeling that Nietzsche was suffering from a point where his thoughts were going beyond the limits offered by his language.

That led him into his rants, his 'lightning' so as to speak, and his more incoherent works.

N was frustrated because he didnt ahve language. But language is not the product of one man (not just vocabulary). It is the work of a society. If everybody is 'stupid', then the language cannot evolve to speak of the more abstract concepts. In which case people like N, who think abstractly, lack the entire infrastructure for self expression. Leading to madness.

Wittgenstein and Confucius both talked about how nothing can be spoken of where language does not exist.

[QUOTE=jon1jt;316973]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. ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

Nietzsche, by the way, isn't all about "will to power". You also seem to have a misconception on what the will to power really is. My impression is that you interpret is as something "nazi like" (dictators who have read Nietzsche have all misinterpreted will to power).

Also, the ubermensch and eternal recurrence are two philosophical ideas you seem to forget about. I would think God would want us to strive for the "overman". I actually know a lot of Christians who agree with Nietzsche because of the overman ideology.

---

anyone who still thinks nietzche is a nazi supporter need only take a look at one walter kaufman translation. kaufman says N is not a nazi. nazi's misread him. anyhoot,

the overman is nietzche's ideal of a man without any "will to power" controlling him, except his own (that is how the overman becomes the new stage of evolution: he follows no rules, no dogma--thereby he is free to evolve rather than degenerate). and, the eternal recurrance says there never was a creation, its always been. just check out the very last page of "will to power" and see for yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

OK, fair enough. But I don't get the problem you seem to have with people who are confident in their position. Doubt and skepticism are fine, but if I'm doubtful and skeptical of everything, then what do I believe in? I'll paraphrase an old quotation: "Nothing contributes to peace of mind more than having no opinion at all." I don't know the author, but I like the idea.

---

i like the idea tambien. no opinion means no thought. no thought is very mystic, very eastern, very non-western.

I haven't seen zeppelin talk about the overman. Anytime Nietzsche is brought up we see Christians attack "will to power".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

I haven't seen zeppelin talk about the overman. Anytime Nietzsche is brought up we see Christians attack "will to power".

---

that shouldnt be suprising. he take shots at christianity the whole book. i mean he takes shots a dogma, bad translations of jesus. nietzche loved jesus. not like a god, but like an overman.

In my interpretation Nietzsche didnt so much attack the concept of God as he saw it as not neccesary in society anymore.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dramasnot6

In my interpretation Nietzsche didnt so much attack the concept of God as he saw it as not neccesary in society anymore.

---

If God is nothing more than a "concept," then perhaps Nietzsche's right. But if God is not merely "concept' but actually a Divine Reality, then Nietzsche is wrong and the world needs Him now more than ever.

A question for anyone who has it, or would know anyway; the book published by Modern Library, The Basic Writings of Nieztche contains Beyond Good and Evil, The Birth of Tragedy, The Case of Wagner and Ecce Homo. Are these complete? I bought a book called The Portable Nietzsche which contained Thus Spoke Zaratustra, Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist in their entity and I want to make sure that the Modern Library book is the same with the works that it contains before I get it. That way, I can pretty much have all the important Nieztche works in two volumes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by metal134

A question for anyone who has it, or would know anyway; the book published by Modern Library, The Basic Writings of Nieztche contains Beyond Good and Evil, The Birth of Tragedy, The Case of Wagner and Ecce Homo. Are these complete? I bought a book called The Portable Nietzsche which contained Thus Spoke Zaratustra, Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist in their entity and I want to make sure that the Modern Library book is the same with the works that it contains before I get it. That way, I can pretty much have all the important Nieztche works in two volumes.

---

my opinion, if walter kaufman translated it, its good to go.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

If God is nothing more than a "concept," then perhaps Nietzsche's right. But if God is not merely "concept' but actually a Divine Reality, then Nietzsche is wrong and the world needs Him now more than ever.

---

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not. We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

You're missing the point. It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not. We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.

---

i'm not sure that is the point. "rationality ( aka concepts) is a dangerous force that undermines life." REd Zep is putting god out there as a thing that might exist outside the realm of concepts (aka the ideal). the ideal and reality need to be seen clearly, and the latter needs to be affirmed, the former rejected as a decadent of life itself. so what is concept and what is reality is of the utmost importance to nietzche.



if by moving ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves you mean deconstructing the typical image of man in favor what man truly is, then i agree. we need to get past ideals, tradition, and other systems of contol to find what we "are" and quit looking for "what we should be." amor fati!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

if by moving ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves you mean deconstructing the typical image of man in favor what man truly is, then i agree. we need to get past ideals, tradition, and other systems of contol to find what we "are" and quit looking for "what we should be." amor fati!

---

indeed:thumbs_up

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

It doesn't matter if God is really up there or not.

---

This statement is only true if God does not exist. If He does exist, then this statement is meaningless.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hyperborean

We as a civilization need to move ourselves forward by overcoming ourselves.

---

Which, as the Bible indicates, we are incapable of doing on our own, in-and-of ourselves. That's why the atheist society that Dawkins seems to be advocating would not work - crime, sin, hypocrisy, manipulation and everything else would still be here because human nature, not Christianity or God, is what's causing our problems. We cannot transcend human nature by ourselves; and, once God's out of the picture, why control ourselves at all? As Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamozov: "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

We are incapable of creating the Utopia that you (and/or Nietzsche) seem to believe lies just beyond the horizon. We can only create chaos, pain and suffering.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

This statement is only true if God does not exist. If He does exist, then this statement is meaningless.

---

Wrong. Enough of this "we need God to survive" BS.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redzeppelin

Which, as the Bible indicates, we are incapable of doing on our own, in-and-of ourselves. That's why the atheist society that Dawkins seems to be advocating would not work - crime, sin, hypocrisy, manipulation and everything else would still be here because human nature, not Christianity or God, is what's causing our problems. We cannot transcend human nature by ourselves; and, once God's out of the picture, why control ourselves at all? As Dostoyevsky wrote in The Brothers Karamozov: "If God does not exist, then everything is permitted."

We are incapable of creating the Utopia that you (and/or Nietzsche) seem to believe lies just beyond the horizon. We can only create chaos, pain and suffering.

---

Your post alone is the reason behind western civilization's downfall. I laughed out loud when reading that post. I love how you reference the bible as if it's something not to reckon with. Keep worshiping some book.:lol:

I also like how you believe we need God in order to retain our human morals. {edited} I'll quote maynard once again..."Deaf and blind and dumb and born to follow.
What you need is someone strong to guide you."

Hyperborean> Please do not personalise your arguments.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

my opinion, if walter kaufman translated it, its good to go.

---

Yup, it's Kaufman!

I believe Nietzche's big beef with Christianity and European Christians was that they took The Old Testament and New Testament to be the same book, or Bible if you will. To him, they were completely different in form and message. I think the message in both was salvation through sacrifice which was ultimetly made real when God took mortal form as Jesus Christ. Nieztche did not like the God of the Old Testament and couldnt understand the underlying message beneath the message in it. As a believer I myself am having a hard time understanding how God acted in The Old Testament compared with The New Testament. Neiztche was all so a very cynical person, but very caring as well. I don't think it's fair to describe him as an atheist. Definetly agnostic, as he always felt the real truth was knowing that there would always be a question and a question mark. He was constantly searching and he definetly tried to break barriers when it came to what was moral and what was ethical. For that I commend him. I just wish he could have done it in a more cohesive way. Like most philosophers I've read, he doesn't make much sense, especially when he gets into metaphysics. But hey, that's why they are so intelligent, they think so much and really, in the end, what you think and how you feel only really makes sense to you. Right?