All about Nietzsche

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

I enjoy reading Nietzsche, and in many ways he was an incredibly brilliant mind. When it comes to his pronouncements about women, however, he is embarrassing. A bigoted fool. And I don't believe his foolishness can be excused by taking a historical perspective. Plenty of men in his day, and earlier, did not share these commonplace and simpleminded prejudices. Richardson, Shakespeare, Balzac...

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NEEMAN

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

---

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

men and women are not equal when you get specific

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

Quote:

---

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

---

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

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

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

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

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

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

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

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

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0=2

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 0=2

Ha. This subject. Done to death.

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

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

---

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

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

agreed he had nice quotables:

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

"

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by curlyqlink

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

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

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by billyjack

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

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

agreed he had nice quotables:

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

"

---

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

decadents of all the times

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

Nothing can truly be said to be dead while it still provokes a reaction.

Without incendiary catalysts such as Nietzsche, the Great Debate tends to grow stagnant and impotent.

Survey the course of philosophy from its inception, taking note of some especially profound and often lengthy periods of torpor, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theunderground

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

---

There is loads in Nietzsche that may appear to actually be objective. He is paradoxical there is no doubt about it. A man who thought as he did may perhaps be a loner to the extent that he took what he thought seriously. I think there's a lot of playfulness in Nietzsche and I would say wantonness or linguistic narcissism. There's no doubt that he was decadent...he didn't get his hands dirty nor did care for those who did.

Perhaps he is, however, the prime "political ideologist" for today. He saw a crisis at the heart of modernity that is a condition we live with today. Never mind the old bottles we don't have any new wine. It's the old 'crisis of meaning' thing. Ultimately what he did was point out that the bottle is empty. "God is dead." To his mind civilization was falling into bovine mediocrity, it was turning into a confederacy of the "Last men," comfortable, petty bourgeois types. So where exactly is superman when you need him? (saving a cat stuck up a tree probably)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

I think there's a lot of playfulness in Nietzsche and I would say wantonness or linguistic narcissism.

---

Haha, which is why there's a section in his autobiography called "Why I Am So Wise." He at least could appreciate irony.






J

but if he were not arrogant he had not been read so much.

I am just finishing Nietzsches 'Daybreak' and then have completed all his published canon of works.Along with the lead balloons there is some gold. He to me is representative of 'old testament morality and thinking'. You can see the various insights of post modernism,linguistic analysis and phenomenology in his writings,but ultimately his cultural political stance,his shrill rhetoric and basic subjectivity are human all too human...But he does uncover the fact most religious literature is mainly an expression of warped personalities...Ditto most philosophy and science.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Theunderground

But he does uncover the fact most religious literature is mainly an expression of warped personalities...Ditto most philosophy and science.

---

What was warped about Newton or Einstein?

I did say most,not all. The thing with Newton and to a much lesser extent Einstein is that people may not be aware of their 'humanistic beliefs' in addition to their scientific beliefs on how nature is structured. If science/philosophy/religion does not make a distinction between the realm of the human psyche and matter then warp fator nine always follows.

"There's no doubt that he was decadent"

I'm not sure you understand what decadence is. nietzche seems far from decadent, he lead a very simple almost ascetic lifestyle dedicated to thinking and writing, sometimes teaching.

"Linguistic Narcicism"

does this not border on meaningless?

you mean he enjoyed writing?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by IntravenousJava

Nothing can truly be said to be dead while it still provokes a reaction.

Without incendiary catalysts such as Nietzsche, the Great Debate tends to grow stagnant and impotent.

Survey the course of philosophy from its inception, taking note of some especially profound and often lengthy periods of torpor, and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

---

Very well put. I agree exactly with what you say here. Without Nietzsche and thinkers like him we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, Western thought would grind to a halt and we'd regress to the level dumb beasts. I don't agree with much of what Nietzsche wrote, in fact I vigorously oppose many of the principles and doctrines he and his adherents espoused, but taking him and his work as a whole I must give a high thumbs up. I value my copies of his books like they are precious ingots worth more than a million times their weight in gold. So much to learn in his books. So many question asked. His books really are profound, incredibly and beautifully profound. Its one of the great sad and tragic ironies of history how misinterpreted and misconstrued that man and his words have been.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Darcy88

Very well put. I agree exactly with what you say here. Without Nietzsche and thinkers like him we'd still be stuck in the dark ages, Western thought would grind to a halt and we'd regress to the level dumb beasts. I don't agree with much of what Nietzsche wrote, in fact I vigorously oppose many of the principles and doctrines he and his adherents espoused, but taking him and his work as a whole I must give a high thumbs up. I value my copies of his books like they are precious ingots worth more than a million times their weight in gold. So much to learn in his books. So many question asked. His books really are profound, incredibly and beautifully profound. Its one of the great sad and tragic ironies of history how misinterpreted and misconstrued that man and his words have been.

---

I studied Nietzsche meticulously for many years. I can't but agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. But apart from that, I have come to the conclusion that there was not much that was philosophical doctrine in his writings. I think he saw the fall of philosophy and wrote mostly satires about the ancient doctrines. This of course will always be controversial, but things like Philosophizing with a Hammer, for example, were some of the greatest satires ever written. And The Antichrist? Don't tell me that Nietzsche did not understand clearly the inevitable validity of Jesus ultimate position. But, of course, he also saw the validity of the upcoming nihilism as a consequence of philosophical interpretations based on false values. "I write the history of the next century," he said. "Convictions are not necessarily true. A note for asses," he stated. Of course he was interpreted as a philosopher. I personally think that was an error on the part of philosophers that for x reasons did not want to grasp a lot of his stuff and give up the fallibility of reason. "What matters reason?" he said.
Almost anything he claimed was going to happen in the early 20th century did happen, and when he traced the mad development of the Weimar republic, seeing the upcoming of national socialism, he exclaimed with disgust that he wished to have been born French.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cafolini

I studied Nietzsche meticulously for many years. I can't but agree wholeheartedly with what you are saying. But apart from that, I have come to the conclusion that there was not much that was philosophical doctrine in his writings. I think he saw the fall of philosophy and wrote mostly satires about the ancient doctrines. This of course will always be controversial, but things like Philosophizing with a Hammer, for example, were some of the greatest satires ever written. And The Antichrist? Don't tell me that Nietzsche did not understand clearly the inevitable validity of Jesus ultimate position. But, of course, he also saw the validity of the upcoming nihilism as a consequence of philosophical interpretations based on false values. "I write the history of the next century," he said. "Convictions are not necessarily true. A note for asses," he stated. Of course he was interpreted as a philosopher. I personally think that was an error on the part of philosophers that for x reasons did not want to grasp a lot of his stuff and give up the fallibility of reason. "What matters reason?" he said.
Almost anything he claimed was going to happen in the early 20th century did happen, and when he traced the mad development of the Weimar republic, seeing the upcoming of national socialism, he exclaimed with disgust that he wished to have been born French.

---

I find your interpretation fascinating Cafolini. I see what you are getting at. You are saying Nietzsche was a satirist, not a philosopher. That position does indeed have a lot of evidence, a lot of corroboration, in the writings of the man himself. I am kind of astounded. I've never actually encountered this position of yours stated so plainly and bluntly.

We know he loved Aristophanes. He DID mock pretty much every philosopher . I can see how the argument of placing him as a literary rather than philosophical figure can hold water. What people interpret as philosophizing was in fact satirizing, but he spoke so much on the topic of philosophy that the discipline of philosophy....the departments and professors and students....have labelled him a philosopher.

It brings into question the whole distinction between what is literature and what is philosophy. You can call what Nietzsche wrote philosophy but you can also call it comedy or satire or, in many cases, - tragedy.

I suppose one must ultimately conclude that a book is just a book. You can try to label it all you want but any attempt to categorize will end up as something false and lacking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ubercritter

"There's no doubt that he was decadent"

I'm not sure you understand what decadence is. nietzche seems far from decadent, he lead a very simple almost ascetic lifestyle dedicated to thinking and writing, sometimes teaching.

"Linguistic Narcicism"

does this not border on meaningless?

you mean he enjoyed writing?

---

Nietszche had a decadent attitude. I see no sign that he cared about ordinary people, or the 'little people' or the 'rabble'. Further he was not ascetic enough to not long after women who didn't want him. What? he wanted an ordinary life? well the moustache was a terrible idea.

'Linguistic narcissism' means he was in love with the 'richness' shall we call it of the way he wrote. "My fear is that one day i shall be regarded as holy" Wouldn't you just love writing that? Such a flourish. And I think that's a key word. In Nietsche's writing I discern a self regarding sense of flourishing. Wheras, say, Hemmingway's very spare style of writing conjures up a very different impression. Both, no doubt, enjoyed writing

Nietzsche said there is no right or wrong, no good or bad only the strong and the weak. Only the wolf and the sheep. He says human being are wrong for applying such terms. Is the wolf evil because it eats the sheep? Is the sheep evil because it eats the grass? He says and I do believe that morality, law and religion were nothing more then a way to control the (eager for control) masses. Nietzsche is only speaking the facts as he sees them, that is were must misunderstanding comes in. Is it arrogant that he says flatly most people are like sheep if it is true? I didn't like Nietzsche when I read him because I felt as the above poster felt. I said if Nietzsche was born perhaps 40 years later he'd go down in history side by side with Goebbels and the like. On an unrelated note I feel Dostoevsky was a bit of an anti-semite and a bit of an ******* but I like Dostoevsky.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by E.A Rumfield

I said if Nietzsche was born perhaps 40 years later he'd go down in history side by side with Goebbels and the like. On an unrelated note I feel Dostoevsky was a bit of an anti-semite and a bit of an ******* but I like Dostoevsky.

---

Nietzsche hated the anti-semites, bitterly detested them. I struggle with the issue of the Nazi appropriation of Nietzsche's works. Nietzsche was not political. He wrote some stuff about politics, but really he was an artist. Nietzsche did apotheosize power, and that is what the Nazis loved about him, but there was so much more to him than that. Nietzsche also valued INTELLECT, sophistication, higher thinking. He was in many ways the complete and total opposite of Goebells. Nietzsche wrote for the elite, Goebells spoke to the masses. So I do not understand why you would relate the two. Nietzsche had immense respect for the Jews.

A thought. Nietzsche it seems took very seriously the conditions under which thinking was to take place. He comments on diet (being english my diet is "cannibalistic") he speaks of climate, the need for fresh air and such like. Alcohol is definitely out. But doesn't someone who wants to get inside the human head ("psycobabble" some have called it) need to have...children? That is to deepen that journey through the powerful love for one's child. I have always had the feeling his writing is somehow very cold. His evocation of Jesus in 'the Anti Christ' is beautiful but love is made into an anomaly of an "idiot" mystic. I first had this sort of thought reading Faust. How different this self preoccupied man would have been if he had children? I'm assuming he didn't of course but as someone who doesn't have children I identify with this self absorption. Perhaps this is stopping me becoming who I am...?

Sadly there still exists a terrible misunderstanding of the man and his works after his sister took control of his writings. Both she and her anti Semite husband set about altering the works to meet their ideology. This was enthusiastically taken further by the Nazis who polluted the man's works further. That this misrepresentation of his ideas is allowed to remain, no doubt fuelled by his religious enemies, is a travesty.

I highly recommend Walter Kaufman's excellent biography. I also recommend actually reading the man to those who restrict themselves to articles about him and his phillosophy.

I read him when a teenager and consider him one of my greatest teachers. I learned to have faith in my individuality and that it was up to me to think about moral and ethical issues and take responsibility for my actions. My interpretation of the superman was simply that. Not to blindly follow, but to think.

I am pleased to own a first edition of Geneaology of morals.

You fine folks seem to have three fundamental ingredients,
1. Humans
2. God(s)/Devil(s)
3. Meaning.
Suppose moi sums the entire equation (0=T=0) with one wee YouTube vid
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LubuSAgB5s
There you/me/they/we gooooooooo!

Stay on groovin' safari,
Tor

http://www.amiright.com/photoshops/i...1144326206.jpg

The monkees skit reminded me that Nietzsche may have said something about Englishmen not liking Sundays.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by russellb

The monkees skit reminded me that Nietzsche may have said something about Englishmen not liking Sundays.

---

what about the English not liking sundays?
I thought they did not like being the midday sun?!!:D