Printable View
i reckon that in freudian terms that would sum up nietzche. he wouldnt like the terminolgy, but he'd have to admit that "systematically" it grasps his psychological philosophy. however, the idea of the ego was a nemesis of nietzche and i think he showed it to be illusionary, or rather, a tool used by ascetic priest to coax followers into guilt.Quote:
Originally Posted by dramasnot6
Wikipedia: “God is Dead”Quote:
Nietzsche believed there could be positive possibilities for humans without God. Relinquishing the belief in God opens the way for human creative abilities to fully develop. The Christian God, with his arbitrary commands and prohibitions, would no longer stand in the way, so human beings might stop turning their eyes toward a supernatural realm and begin to acknowledge the value of this world. The recognition that "God is dead" would be like a blank canvas. It is a freedom to become something new, different, creative - a freedom to be something without being forced to accept the baggage of the past.
Nietzsche's Anthropomorphic God may be dead but not the Transcendental God of the Mystics.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
Nietzsche is Dead or so its said....B
For those who God is dead, it has been replaced with mother earth and all this environmental religion. ;)
don't forget the animals Virgil :)Quote:
Originally Posted by Virgil
some may have replaced the metaphorical deity with mysticism/nature worship, but for others it is a liberating affirmation of humanity's decision making capacity. or at least an attempt to teach productive activation of humanity's reason.
I was thinking about something along these lines this morning. Atheists have to defend their reasoning for doing good. For example, a Christian when asked why they don't commit adultery can rely on the easy explanation of "God says not to". Whereas an Atheist can't rely on such an easy answer. Know what I mean?
I guess what I mean is that an Atheist probably has to do more soul searching and questioning regarding their morality choices as oppossed to a religious person.
As between "God says not to" and I prefer not to interfere in an existing relationship and run the risk of hurting at least one other person, which do you consider the more mature and the more moral response?Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
Brilliant answer but it beats me why those who believe in a supernatural deity have contempt for those who revere the planet and are concerned about the preservation of it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Il Penseroso
Ooo oo! I have to shamelessly promote my Nietzsche thread, where we have touched on this!
http://www.online-literature.com/for...ad.php?t=21555
And that was an amazing answer,IP
Sorry about that. I was too lazy to go searching but I will have a look at it now.Quote:
Originally Posted by dramasnot6
It's cool! Can never get enough Nietzsche ;)
I'm not sure you could say one answer is "more moral" than the other, that's like saying someone is more dead than someone else.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
You see something moral in doing something because an authority told you to do so?Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
You're not looking at the other side of the coin: An atheist also has to come up with much better reasons to justify killing someone (or a group of people) than a religious (theistic) person does. An atheist cannot kill people en masse and suffer no guilt from it because, hey, God wanted 'em to kill some infidels.Quote:
Originally Posted by papayahed
I prefer to give the religite the benefit of doubt, that they have thought about their reasons behind following God's word.Quote:
Originally Posted by PrinceMyshkin
I was an atheist at the time I read Nietzsche-- maybe it is accurate to call myself an atheist now, since my definition of God is undefinable. It's inaccurate to all myself anything, in fact. I have faith of Nietzsche but I have no qualm in saying that my "soul" is not "my body." Before anyone complains about my use of "soul", then should consider that I, like everyone, have my own understanding of it, and there shouldn't be a prejudice about my understanding before any knowledge of my understanding. In an extreme example, my understanding could be that the soul is inexistant. Then if someone objected to my use of the word on the strong, convicted faith that there is no soul, that would objecting prematurely, but I did not in fact believe it extant.
Now, my understanding of the soul is a metaphor- or it could be thought of (as it is described in Hinduism), as an atomic soul. Hinduism talks about three different types of soul, including the personal soul and the Supreme soul; I forget what the third is (bad Hindu!). Or it could just be "myself". I don't know what my self is, but I do knot what it is not- my body. My body is always changing. I do not have the same body I had a year ago. It is the same, but it's also not the same. I don't judge myself by any or all of my body- I could lose a limb, and still be whole, psychologically- perhaps if I lost my entire body I would lose my mind, or perhaps this is why "bardo" is so difficult to traverse. I don't know.
So mentioning my soul, I also think of the spirituality of everything that goes with it. Nietzsche's philosohpy is parallelly similar to my own, almost all of the values of Nietzsche's (excepting most his value of women, although this is a minute part of it all) about morals, and different problems. Nietzsche knew the falseness of langauge, and he had a similar mind to my own. In fact I don't rate Nietzsche's mind higher than my own; he was more brilliant in some ways- one way being of course his wonderful, wonderful talent at writing, and showing his ideas; but I simply recognize a similar way of understanding things, I get an affirmation of my own mind and insights; Nietzsche applied similar tools to problems which I also found as insubstantial and inessential, but in reading his works, like I said, I do not find myself comparing myself to him, but only his ideas, and they affirm my own thinking in so many matters, in particular in the belief that I'm capable of solving problems only a very few in the world are. And in pain and pleasure in my life, I believe I face the same scale of abysses and heights. Nietzsche might have been thought of as arrogant, but to get to the heights he- and I- have reached, you must put any doubt far behind you. You must always face the truth, and the sad, unfortunate fact is that your peers in your environment will probably always treat you with derision, at least some of them, and if they can they will gang up on you. It always seems the main struggle is about truth; so in this arguing about truth is one of the most divisive obstacles. If you say anything, absolutely anything, to an audience of any size, there is a porportionate size of the audience which is hostile, and hostile in the worst way: that it wishes to breed more hositility. This is the sad truth of things.
So I see other people have mentioned God. I will just say a couple things.
First, just as when I say "soul" I do not mean the same metaphor others do, also when I say "god" I do not mean the same thing anyone else does. Although, if certain people thought about it, I'm sure at least someone else thinks god is the same I do.
My god does not speak to anyone. Sources of information of the bible are not from god. Sources of information from people about anything else I would not believe. If the entire world told me the source to god was in gum on the pavement and cockroaches squished in guano, I would think they had gone insane. So there is no authority in the book itself, nor in the people themselves. I haven't read all of the bible. But stories whose content is "Israel asked god. God told Isreal, kill," I find to be pure lies. So this is not my god. May be god talks to people, but this question could not be a greater obstacle to anything about god.
Long after this obstacle has been set aside and the senses and the soul have been nourished on pure, true sources of knowledge, poetry, art, nature, fresh air, tai chi, and meditation, all of the good things in life, then we might begin to think about god. After all, beginning from an unbiased view, god has been to presented to us as "holy." God has been presented to us as "good." Now, there are, I suppose, Transcendental Experiences which lead one to believe one has felt god's presence. Now, since I Know Nothing about Transcendental Experiences, I can not say anything about them, I am only assuming their existence. I have had my own experiences, which have given me riches beyond imagining- I only use these words because they describe what I'm trying to best, as I do when I speak any words- and I can describe them, though of course I won't here, but that's what I've experienced.
Nietzsche would be proud :thumbs_upQuote:
Originally Posted by NikolaiI
I love how in his writing, Nietzsche shamelessly plunges past the critics of his time and directly expresses his thoughts right on the page, for everyone to fear and love.
Nietzsche is in constant exploration of the subjectivity and hypocracy of morals- how moral systems are corrupted and destroyed to benefit those who impose the systems only. With the corruption of morals, comes the corruption of "truth". We are always taught that "speaking the truth" is the moral thing to do, but there is no universal truth, as there is no universal moral system.
Sorry, getting of the point a little :p
I agree with you Nik in that it is sad that many people must be hostile in receiving "truth", but I also think it is good to question any truths we come across. Nietzsche loves to question and explore the validity of the truths and morals preached by his contextual society, there is a beauty in the freedom of speech and thought it requires to be able to reject some teachings, and accept and change others.
However, we can not all be the peace-loving sort of philosophers. As the concepts of truth and morals are so harshly embedded in the mind of the individual, the rejection of other's opinions can be violent and irrational- not justified or logically discussed. That is why so many immediatly reject Nietzsches "God is Dead". The words in one line carry such nasty connotations for those coming from a religious background, those accepting the truths preached to them from their religion only, that they respond with amazing hostility and don't take any time or patience to even consider what Nietzsche could have meant by such a statement.
That, that is truly, as you say Nik, sad. Oh, the tragedy of ignorance.
Excellent essay. One can best understand Nietzsche as a poet, describing the world from a greek(homer) perspective. Nietzche was a very fragile, very physically ill individual who knew he was going to die young. His choice was that of Achilles. A short passionate life was his choice: Nietzsche makes use of his illness in his works. Half blind, fingers twisted in pain, he wrote about embracing this life.
That is so beautiful, heraclitus.
I mean "infuriating" in a good way. This from Beyond Good and Evil (II, 34):
It is no more than a moral prejudice that truth is worth more than mere appearance; it is even the worst proved assumption in the world.
"But... but... "I sputter, "truth is a virtue, an absolute!" I believe this, I need to believe this, but blow me over if I can find a way to prove it. This is what makes Nietzsche infuriating-- he threatens my tidy world-view!
Likewise my veneration for Socrates. Nietzsche attacks lovable, rational Socrates. Whose philosophical view is so pure and aesthetically pleasing, cutting as it does through layers of "mere appearance" to uncover the reality beneath. But to Nietzsche Socrates is self-denying, will-denying world-denying.
that's a nice quote. i'm actually reading beyond good and evil right now. i'm at the chapter on virtue--which is a yawn fest for me. maybe i'm not reading it astutely??Quote:
Originally Posted by curlyqlink
everyone is searching for something beyond mere appearance--appearances are too fleeting, immoral at times, contradictory, final (death). instead of listening to this rabble, N embraces it, affirms it. he created a reasonable philosophy, a philosophy grounded in sense experience-- his dionysus world view-- which convinces that part of us that wants to believe in the "beyond appearances" that we need not do so. cool stuff
This is such an enlightening thread. I'm not entirely enamored with Nietzche but I think his ideas are pervasive and should be investigated. My favorite idea of his is embracing the Dionysian facet of life. However I do not think the Dionysian advocates evolution. I might be mistaken but I don't think N. was in favor of the evolutionary model to take place. His overman is not a character to likely multiply and become the norm. It seems evident from that point that he would denounce Nazism since it is herd mentality. Correct me if I'm wrong but I remember one passage where he insists that the plentiful and most apt to survive were the normal and lazy and not the overman.
Excuse me if I have soften N. ideologies but personally for me what N. suggests is that while slave and moralities exist we should not immediately place slave morality on a pedastal.
Nietzsche is really great, one of my favorite philosophers. The core idea that we are essentially free to live our own life, is very refreshing compared to other philosophies. Through Nietzsche, I've also found other philosophers and their philosophies, such as Derrida and Schopenhauer.
I just started this chapter myself, and I too am bogging down in it. I find much of it uninteresting. Nietzsche, at his worst, gets involved in petty mud-slinging. When he's good, he's brilliant. When he's not, he can seem terribly smug and self-satisfied.Quote:
i'm at the chapter on virtue--which is a yawn fest for me. maybe i'm not reading it astutely??
His opinions on Shakespeare are fascinating. Unconventional, perhaps wrong-headed, but fascinating!
this is true. but i think i like him so much bc even when he's smug he's entertaining and refreshing, though occasionally--not often though-- drab and dense. his arrogance regarding women is a case in point of his smugiffery. he bashes on truth throughout the virtue chapter, --To believe in "truth" is to allow one's perspective to become locked, so that one is unable to see a matter from any different point of view--then he starts talking about women like he knows the "truth" about femininity. I think this is his own little smug joke, punning that all of us have unquestioned "truths"---even nietzche. that said, his thoughts on women seem accurate to me, though overly generalized.
Well, it is not the strong I worry about but the greedy. There religion or irreligion makes no distinction. What a man builds by his strength or will, I have no trouble giving him. But sheer greed, the acquirment of anything just for the purpose of cutting another's throat is the road to madness. Profit is one thing, reaming a person is quite another. The oil madness is a good example.
A decent profit on their product, costs, etc. is to be expected. Kicking the economy when people are down is quite another. The same can be said of everything.
Even in times of war we don't shoot those who surrender if we are decent. Lack of compassion and death camps are the shame of the human race.
By some of the arguments I have seen presented, all moral people should be killed along with the religious and those who cannot keep pace with others who are deemed strong. Is this the world we really want?
Intolerance has no color or group to its name, be they religious intolerents or atheist, humanistic, philisopher, or what-have-you.
I don't think N. specifically was in favor of greed. His creed was to accept the reality of life and not worship the morality that preaches humility and ineptitude. His view is against what is taught in the bible specifically passages such as the tower of babel and Jesus's turn the other cheek.
I am visiting from the "book of the month" forum, where we were reading The Idiot by Dostoyevsky. Has anyone come across any Nietzsche references to "The Idiot"? I have some thoughts about the protagonist, Prince Myshkin--and I suspect that Nietzsche would have had some thoughts about a protagonist like Prince Myshkin--but I've been unable to locate the reference.
Any thoughts?
Cicadamoon
According to Wikipedia, Nietzsche encountered Dostoevsky's works in 87, so, only a couple years before his collapse. It says he read The Possessed- I don't know what others- and it also quotes, which I have heard before, Nietzshce saying Dostoevsky was the only psychologist from which he had anything to learn. I don't know if he read The Idiot.Quote:
Originally Posted by cicadamoon
I think basically Prince Myshkin is exactly what Nietzsche viewed Jesus and "the all good man". Now this is just far off topic but man isn't Dostoyevsky the most overrated author that ever lent himself to the canon? Raskolnikov depicts the human psyche, give me a ****ing brake.Quote:
Originally Posted by cicadamoon
Now Notes from the Underground I enjoyed, well these are just my humble opinions of course.
Yes, I believe that somewhere there is a reference Nietzsche made to Jesus, calling him an "idiot"--in the sense of Prince Myshkin--not in the dictionary sense of the term. But, I cannot remember where I read that! Anyway, I've just come off of a debate on the book of the month club, where I take what I suspect would have been Nietzsche's approach to an analysis of the character of Prince Myshkin.
Re: Dostoyevsky--I felt that neither he nor Tolstoy have an adequate grasp of the female psyche. They rely on stock characterization, in my opinion. But, I guess, neither did Nietzsche!! The only way that I can read Nietzche is if I abandon the role of gender.
Which translations would you recommend of "The Birth of Tragedy"? thanks
walter kaufman. he's the authority on Nietzsche
Hamlet was written, most scholars suggest, in the first years of the 17th century, just so you know.
gay science, book 3. N says,
HTML Code:"All experiences are moral experiences, even in the realm of sense perception."
seems to go against Nietzsche's usual high regard for the senses
i'm curious about this statement, any thoughts?
To be quite fair, not many in the 19th century could claim an understanding of the female psyche that we would consider accurate today. Times change the common perception; we must never forget the background of which a work was written - especially when making such statements about the role of gender in literature ;).Quote:
Originally Posted by cicadamoon
On a less pedantic note, I recently started reading Nietzsche's teachings. I started with Thus Spoke Zarathurstra, but being eighteen I felt lacking in the maturity that is required to grasp what makes it special to many. Anybody else felt that way? I probably could have trudged through it, but I reckon to wait five years and then read it would be more rewarding. Can anyone suggest another of his works as a decent starting point? :D
I'm not sure any of his books could be reccomended as being 'easier' for an 18 year old, as opposed to a 23 year old (btw, I am 23). I'm re-reading Human, All Too Human at the moment, and really, I think there's no reason that at 23 you'd necessarily be in any better position to read it. The very way it is written (i.e. the aphorisms) probably makes it more digestable than Thus Spoke Zarathustra though, so maybe it's a better place to start (it was also written before TSZ, so even from a chronological standpoint, it makes more sense to begin there).
In my opinion though, the most important question is: what other philosophy have you read? I am very much of the opinion that the first philosophical work anyone should read is The Republic by Plato. I think some knowledge of the Greek philosophers is really useful if you're going to read Nietzsche, as he does refer to them a lot. Personally, I could never enjoy Aristotle's work, but The Republic is an incredible read in its own right, so if you haven't read it, you probably should, before heading for Nietzsche =)
i'd start with twilight of the idols. personally, my first N experience was will to power, which might not be a bad spot to start either being that it got me interested enough to read the rest of his works
i read zaruthustra recently, i'm 26, and it was probably the toughest book to get through that i've read by Nietzsche.
Thanks for your reply Neeman and Billyjack.
I haven't read many philosophical texts to be honest. Right now I am in the middle of The Problems of Philosophy by Russell; epistemology seems to be the usual starting point for newcomers. But yeah Neeman, The Republic looks quite a tasty prospect and is safely waiting in my Amazon shopping basket. Thanks for the suggestion there. (Oh and for the record, I didn't presume waiting to read TSZ would make it any 'easier'... just that in a few years time, my knowledge will be more equal to the task :D)
Billyjack, I will take a gander at Twighlight of the Idols as well; cheers for the idea.
Before setting down TSZ, something did occur to me: is Zarathustra's coming down from the mountain supposed to be symbolic of Nietzsche's decision to give up the isolation of scholarly life? I read somewhere in a letter of somekind that Nietzsche was desperately lonely and thought of becoming a gardener at one point!? I know that he eventually decided to maintain his writing lifestyle.
So my question is: How does this episode of conflict in Nietzsche, correspond to Zarathustra?
If it doesn't relate at all, let me know. If I'm being stupid, be merciful.
But hey, I'm here to learn :D
I enjoy reading Nietzsche, and in many ways he was an incredibly brilliant mind. When it comes to his pronouncements about women, however, he is embarrassing. A bigoted fool. And I don't believe his foolishness can be excused by taking a historical perspective. Plenty of men in his day, and earlier, did not share these commonplace and simpleminded prejudices. Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...Quote:
To be quite fair, not many in the 19th century could claim an understanding of the female psyche that we would consider accurate today.