All about Nietzsche

[Virgil]

that 'psychobabble' argument is just a way to turn off the discussion by putting me on the defense. so i'm not going to be seduced by it. i'll make this last point about psychology and move on. the fact of the matter is the field of psychology is based on case studies and terms like "unconscious" derived from them. the "unconscious" isn't an entitity, it's based on the processes of the human mind. over time theories are made that correspond with and come out of the empiricism.

Do yourself a favor and understand how psychology has been redefined in the last forty years or so. Freud hardly fits in. The problem with Freud is that he starts from a theory and then tries to find evidence in world. And then he resorts to myths like Oedipus as a confirmation of what he's stating. I'm an engineer. I'm familiar with scientific methodolgy. Freud is pseudo science. Garbage.

psychology is not like unicorns and god, they're based on patterns of evidence.

Modern psychology has cast itself of its unicorns. It had to. It became more scientific. Many years ago my mother developed depression. My brother who thinks along with you was trying to figure out what was going on with her "unconscious" and how she would have to work out the problems that were lurkng in her mind. What a crock. I took her to a psychiatrist who prescribed a drug that restored her and has kept her from depression for many years. What I'm saying is that it is biological not some witchcraft that works on the unconscious.

iimperfect, but the science has been shown to often work. read first about what a theory is, then about carl jung who wrote volumes about the unconscious.

Carl Jung who believed we have a collective unconscous that we pass on to our children genetically? How does that work. Yes Freud and Jung are equivalent to unicorns. Actually there is a whole slew of these early "psychologists" that if you read them carefully you would have to conclude they can't be all correct. They are not integratbale into a comprhensive model. They disagree fundementally. And you know why? Because they are all coming up with individual theories, not applying scientific methodology.

this idea you're looking for "evidence," are you serious? can i hold you to the same standard for your conception of god and the holy spirit? and that's not psychobabble.

I said I was not arguing on religious grounds. I have never said there is empirical evidence of God's existence. I wasn't even criticizing Neitzsche as a philosopher. I was focused on that one statement.

If you are saying that Nietzsche disputes Platonic metaphysical world, then I think that is a legitamate philosophic perspective. I would even agree personally with that. But was he the first to bring that out? I would have thought that David Hume and the empiricists were first to bring that out.

[Redzeppelin]

to address your last piece - i think you fail to realize the contribution of marx and freud to the fields of politics, law, and more generally, psychology. and the last i checked history didn't end, unless you're cut from the same cloth as francis fukuyama with his liberal democratic notion of an "End of History."

If you check my post, you'll see that I asked a question. Asking a question implies nothing like what you've attributed to me. I'm well aware of these men's contributions - some of them very impressive. But I asked a QUESTION.

i mentioned in my first post that mischaracterizations of nietzsche are prevalent. yet his view on power must be true because you said so.

Is that sarcasm? If so, why, and how is it beneficial to our conversation? Are you saying Nietzsche wasn't interested in power? If so, then correct me, but don't patronize me.

now to deal with your first response, I answer that "humbling" can be symptomatic of a neurotic disorder, which puts your assumption on notice that christian humility is ALWAYS pure and untainted when irrefutably the self is divided and at war with itself. why is it that christians can apply evil to human nature so long as it doesn't include themselves, especially when it comes to acts of good will and piety? the second the claim is waged that christians may be participating in the unseemly, they bat their eyelashes and say, "who, me??" ugh.

"Can be" isn't what Nietzsche's statement implies. He made a generaliztion of certainty as to what a specific behavior/attitude means, and his comment implied knowledge of human motive implicit in that behavior/attitude. Second, I wish you'd read my posts a bit closer: I never said humility was "ALWAYS" anything. I too spoke in generalized terms. Nietzsche's statement imputes a contradictory motive to "humilty" - we can't just toss out the meanings of words. Don't call it "humility" then if the motivation behind it is for self-aggrandizement. "Humility" which is masquarading as a desire for self-exaltation isn't "humilty" at all but merely manipulation of some sort. Unless it's an unconscious thing, but then there we go again: Nietzsche is making blanket statements about psychological motivation.

Finally, where did I invoke Christianity anywhere in my post? You are very quick to start criticizing Christianity, but don't you think you ought to wait until it's brought up? And, who says "humility" only has a Christian context?

[dramasnot6]

Finally, where did I invoke Christianity anywhere in my post? You are very quick to start criticizing Christianity, but don't you think you ought to wait until it's brought up? And, who says "humility" only has a Christian context?

I think it was more Nietzsche who brought it up first in this discussion Redzeppelin, he quote was "Jesus said" and Nietzsche's analysis of religion involved a lot of criticism of the Enlightment. It was a major part of his context.

Ahh, a good site:http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~dee/MODERN/NIETZ.HTM

[Kurtz]

I am and will always be a fan of Nietzsche. I think he had the ability to judge society and the forethrought to see the form it would take in the future. It is no secret that Nietzsche has his detractors (As do all great thinkers). Unfortuantely much of the hostility that is fired his way is on the basis of mis-judgements and "generalized stock responses". Arguing about the validity of his claims is a great way to make progress, but in my opinion, not the best way to teach people about his actual philosophy. Let us not be swallowed up by personal arguments and opinions and instead focus on spreading our objective opinions in a way that is conducive to a fresh and individual view on Nietzsche's philosophy. With that being said I only wish to present a short aphorism from Book 3 of Nietzsche's "The Gay Science".

Aphorism 191: "The good-natured"-

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

[dramasnot6]

I am and will always be a fan of Nietzsche. I think he had the ability to judge society and the forethrought to see the form it would take in the future. It is no secret that Nietzsche has his detractors (As do all great thinkers). Unfortuantely much of the hostility that is fired his way is on the basis of mis-judgements and "generalized stock responses". Arguing about the validity of his claims is a great way to make progress, but in my opinion, not the best way to teach people about his actual philosophy. Let us not be swallowed up by personal arguments and opinions and instead focus on spreading our objective opinions in a way that is conducive to a fresh and individual view on Nietzsche's philosophy. With that being said I only wish to present a short aphorism from Book 3 of Nietzsche's "The Gay Science".

Aphorism 191: "The good-natured"-

"The most perfidious way of harming a cause consists of defending it deliberately with faulty arguments."

Thank you for that wonderful insight Kurtz! I agree, let us try to concentrate on the philosophy and not it's validity, couldn't have put it better.
What I am curious about is the quote "God is Dead". I am trying to look at Nietzsche's context, particulary that around the Enlightment, to see what led him to such a philosophy. I have developed a little understanding of how all of this comes together, and have come to the conclusion that the enlightenment, that went about trying to prove the existence of God with reason, only served to disprove the existence of God with scientific knowledge.

People wanted to seek their own means of understanding of nature through observation rather then depending on figures of authority such as ancient philosopher like Aristotle or members of the church to provide answers. Aristotle believed truth could be discovered through processes of logic, they tried to prove that it is not pure logic but also observation of the world. They wanted to appeal to observations of nature rather then faith to provide explanations and guidance for action and ethics. But at the earlier stages of the Enlightment did not see an incompatibility between God and natural explanations of the world. This changed as more people(particulary contemporaries of Nietzsche) like Darwin and Gailileo just as easily could explain workings of nature with scientific information rather then using God. I used to think "God is Dead" was a proclamation of atheism, but after looking at it contextually I have discovered it does not make the assumption that there is no God, but rather he has become unnecessary. Brilliant stuff. Thoughts?

[Kurtz]

If you are curious about Nietzsche's death of God, I can only recommend that you go out and buy "The Gay Science". Taking the "God is dead" qoute out of context is dangerous. Much of book 3 of the gay science is peppered with aphorisms that lead up the section 125 "The madman" (which is the famous passage). What most people fail to realize is that aphorisims 108-125 are tied togethor and are the best way to decipher his meaning.

For example aphorism 108 "New Struggles"

"After buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave- a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. And we-we still have to vanquish his shadow, too."

Notice the way Nietzsche does not equate the death of god with the absence of believers or even more gods. We are all encompsed by the shadow of god and it will take more than the "devaluation of all values" before we are able to completely vanquish our need for meaning in life. Nietzsche thinks that people are meaning addicts and that people themselves must overcome the death of god and live in a society that is post-christian. More importantly he believes that the christian religion itself killed god. He believes it overcame itself.

In a way Nietzsche is teaching us how to act in a society after the death of god. He constantly alludes to us being a small ship set at sail in an infinite sea. Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster. But only insofar as people are bound to this code and without it will be unable to live in a post-christian world. He speaks of "god is dead" as a cataclysm. "Long plenitudes of destruction , breakdown and cataclysms that are now pending."

I will leave you guys with a short aphorism that follows the famous passage (125 "The Madman")

Aphorism 126. "Mystical explanations"- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial"

[jon1jt]

great to see you kurtz, an honor to have you aboard. i see you're reading N's gay science---i think i'm going to pick up his Anti-Christ now that this thread is rolling.

red zep - dont' mistaken my getting people's intellectual juices flowing in here for patronizing and whatever you said. according to nietzsche, pity and humility are forms of power, nothing more, nothing less. i respectfully disagree: humility that "masquerades..." IS humility, an instrument of power.

kurtz: i think the operative word in aphorism 108 is "vanquish" which suggests the end of god. but nietzsche understands that by negating god he creates a new myth. nietzsche took the proposition very seriously. he recognized that god was a postulate, and language needs god in order to come into being. you had mentioned earlier that you were reading Heidegger, who uses the word "abyss" in a similar way. nietzsche was more interested in shattering idoltry and self-righteous hypocricy - guilt and sin, part of the christian dogmatic. this got in the way of his call for a new spirituality of this world, a return to innocence.

christianity's demonization of the world, of humanity, requires an orderly allegiance to book and in most instances, institutions, and nietzsche would have none of it. greed, lust, gluttony, envy, pride, etc. are not evil, as the BOOK tells us they are. even Aristotle understood that vices can be quite practical and necessary, which depended on how they were used by the person. we're all aware that becoming angry sometimes allows us to assert ourselves in productive ways and can have revolutionary results, depending. aristotle and plato revered acts of pride, courage, etc. "the mean between the extremes is the just and orderly life," aristotle exclaims in Nichomachean Ethics.

do we need a religious foundation to understand ourselves against those conditions?? Neitzsche believes we set the course of our own lives, looking within ourselves. he was not just an atheist, but a very serious atheist, and there's a difference.

that's all i have time for.

[Virgil]

. he was not just an atheist, but a very serious atheist, and there's a difference.

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

[Redzeppelin]

red zep - dont' mistaken my getting people's intellectual juices flowing in here for patronizing and whatever you said. according to nietzsche, pity and humility are forms of power, nothing more, nothing less. i respectfully disagree: humility that "masquerades..." IS humility, an instrument of power.

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

greed, lust, gluttony, envy, pride, etc. are not evil, as the BOOK tells us they are. even Aristotle understood that vices can be quite practical and necessary, which depended on how they were used by the person. we're all aware that becoming angry sometimes allows us to assert ourselves in productive ways and can have revolutionary results, depending. aristotle and plato revered acts of pride, courage, etc. "the mean between the extremes is the just and orderly life," aristotle exclaims in Nichomachean Ethics.

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

[dramasnot6]

Notice the way Nietzsche does not equate the death of god with the absence of believers or even more gods. We are all encompsed by the shadow of god and it will take more than the "devaluation of all values" before we are able to completely vanquish our need for meaning in life.

So it is not so much the belief of God as it is the dependence on him that Nietzsche wants us to overcome?

Nietzsche thinks that people are meaning addicts and that people themselves must overcome the death of god and live in a society that is post-christian. More importantly he believes that the christian religion itself killed god. He believes it overcame itself.

This is exactly what I meant in my post about the Enlightment! A search for truth and observation leading to independence from older truths.

In a way Nietzsche is teaching us how to act in a society after the death of god. He constantly alludes to us being a small ship set at sail in an infinite sea.

Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster.

But only in so far as people are bound to this code and without it will be unable to live in a post-christian world. He speaks of "god is dead" as a cataclysm. "Long plenitudes of destruction , breakdown and cataclysms that are now pending."

This I find fascinating. The more and more I learn about this God is Dead idea and it's connections to his idea of Eternal Reccurence, the more I feel like I am peeling the layers away of an entire philosophical revolution. I have now gone from thinking Nietzsche to be an atheist, to someone just progressive but still inividualistic, and now his theory of eternal reccurence seems to be some sort of substition faith or comfort in place of an entire change of era.
"Nietzsche thinks that the death of god is a disaster. " So his beliefs were not so much a product of lack of religious faith but as a consideration for the spiritual stability of humanity.

I will leave you guys with a short aphorism that follows the famous passage (125 "The Madman")

Aphorism 126. "Mystical explanations"- Mystical explanations are considered deep. The truth is that they are not even superficial"

What i got out of it is basically they are meaningless?

And thanks so much for contributing such great info+analysis Kurtz! It really is an honor to have you aboard.

[jon1jt]

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

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

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

[dramasnot6]

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

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

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

[jon1jt]

Kurz:
few things:

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

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

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

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

[jon1jt]

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

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

[jon1jt]

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

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