All about Nietzsche

[dramasnot6]

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

Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something" It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"

(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."

How does Nietzsche's thoughts on truth connect with his ideas around eternal occurence though?

[jon1jt]

Am trying my best to get out of here ASAP! I use the mantra "The sooner I graduate, the sooner I can go to University and actually learn something" It reminds me of one of my fav quotes by Confucious: "Knowledge without education is dangerous, education without knowledge is a waste of time"

that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!

remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student?
"You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."

[dramasnot6]

that's exactly what i'm telling you NOT to do!!!!!!

remember what Matt Damon in Good Will Hunting says to the Harvard grad student?
"You spent 150 grand on an education you could have got for a buck fifty in late charges at the public library."

this is very true, i am probably much better off with just self-education. if only it counted for a better job selection and happy parents too I dont think University will be all that bad, if i can get into a good one. some of those philosophy courses can be really exciting. look at the profs in the Teaching Company, i would love to listen to them live!


I was recently thinking about how Nietzsche's ideas around inculturalization compared to his God is Dead and eternal reccurence thoughts, I am in search for a common theme. I am just starting to get a grasp on how Nietzsche was part of some huge revolution in thought, a branching off of more traditional thinking. All this ideas seem to promote an ideal lifestyle in which, by removing our value and belief system shaped by society and religion, we are in more touch with ourselves and therefore can improve ourselves morally. In a way Nietzsche's thoughts did embody various aspects of the Enlightment in that they force us to observe for ourselves. I hope I am making some sense?

[jon1jt]

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.

lust, pride, sloth...--- the particular degree of each on the spectrum depends upon the individual. there is no universal mean. what defines excessive/deficient is subjective as "normal, healthy feelings/attitudes." aristotle recognized that.

[Kurtz]

Wow this thread is getting interesting. I dont have time for a long post so here is a short poem from Nietzsche:

"Judgements of the Weary"

They hate the sun, find steep the grade,
And love trees only for their shade.

[Virgil]

[QUOTE=jon1jt;316342]

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

Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.

--- 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).

When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me.

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.

God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life.

[Redzeppelin]

good question, Red. i guess there's a part of me that believes nietzsche when he tells the reader that few will understand him.

That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such elitism is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever.

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.

Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.

[Jean-Baptiste]

in hume's view, the world WRITES on human beings - which harks back to Descartes Tabula Rasa (blank slate notion).

Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite.

jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.

Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.

[Redzeppelin]

Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense.

Thanks again

PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...

[jon1jt]

That's fascinating - because almost anybody could put up such a screen that implies a small faction of hearers will be "in the know" while the rest of us wander in blindness. That again harkens to Nietzsche's focus on power - because such elitism is based upon privilege - which is a type of power. "Only the enlightened will understand me" eh? That's a neat defensive technique, because what that means is this: if I reject Nietzsche because he provides me a vision of life, reality, etc that I don't buy, then he could respond "Well, you just don't understand - only a few will understand me" which essentially puts the failure of his philosophy on me. Very clever.



Good - I agree. Because you agree with the view he puts forth, you give authority to his definitions. That's fine - everybody does that. But that means that those of us who don't buy his vision are not bound by his definitions - especially when those definitioins are at odds with conventionally accepted definitions and even moreso when those defintions attempt to define human motivation that contradicts the very definition of the behavior being described.

i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.

what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "vision of life" in nietzsche.

the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.

[jon1jt]

Do you mean John Locke's Tabula Rosa? I've never seen any such term in Descartes's works, and it would seem contrary to his notion that one must make an effort to get rid of every encumbrance, and build up knowledged from a solid, clean foundation, which implies creating a blank slate, but does not suggest that we start life with one, rather the opposite.

jon, I admire your tacit insistence that the university system is for lame-oes and ninnies who can't find their way to the library. I was, to a much lesser degree, of the same opinion for a number of years. But the real benefit of academia is not so much in what it can teach about particular subjects, rather how it can teach people to find the same page. This is where I see your argument being derailed. This thread is overly confrontational, which is too bad. I have had some issues I'd like to discuss about Nietzsche, but I'd hate bring up the wrong thing and be merely passed off Christian.

Redzeppelin, your intellect and perception are stunning.

right on, jean - ol lockey uses that. descartes came to my mind referring to another point i was making about subject-object. still, descartes is foundational to locke's epistemology.

i'm happy you feel that way about the academy, excellent. so we have different opinions about it's particular value. you want to call my quoting the movie Good Will Hunting as an argument then go ahead.

you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.

[Redzeppelin]

i think your use of the word 'definition' is unfitting because nietzsche himself was constantly resisting categorization and system. if you haven't already, check out the first paragraph of Thus Spake Zarathustra. It's pure poetry. i referred to his writing as musical. in other books he resorts to the use of aphorisms. i think that's as unsystematic as it gets in philosophy.

Nietzsche's "resistance" to "categorization" is fine - but language must have some reasonably stable meaning; once we decide to define it as we wish, then its subjectivity now interferes with communication.

what do you mean when you say "conventionally accepted definitions." for what? and there is no "vision of life" in nietzsche.

The dictionary does not define "humility" as the desire for self-exaltation. That particular evaluation is Nietzsche's - an evaluation you buy because Nietzsche lays out some particular view that you agree with.

the bible is no less pretentious in what it calls for, demands.

Its "pretention" only exists if you assume it was inspired by, created by and written by (solely) men. If you proceed from the supposition that a Divine Being was in charge of what the Bible "calls for," then there's no pretention - God knows what He's talking about. Human agreement lends credibility to Nietzsche's ideas/statements. God does not require us to agree with Him for His statements to carry authority - He's GOD.

[jon1jt]

Thank you, Jean. Coming from you, your complement is very flattering. I have great respect for the postings of yours I've read. Sometimes I wonder if I'm making any sense at all, and kind words such as yours make me feel like I'm making at least some sort of sense.

Thanks again

PS - I agree to about this thread being very "confrontational" - I wanted to throw my 2 cents in (partly to learn more about Nietzsche from the experts) but I immediately felt I was being dismissed. Oh well...

i agree. i also want to learn about Nietzsche from the experts. oh well.

[jon1jt]

[QUOTE=Virgil;316414]

Isn't that what Kant was saying? Again before Nietzsche.


When philosophy starts talking in this way, it loses me.


God bless you philosophy majors. Someone has to like this stuff. No external world? This is arguing about how many angels can sit on the head of a pin, albeit from a different perspective. I like to try to understand real life.

i think we can find some commond ground here. i see what you mean virgil. philosophy uses a lot of jargon and some of it is just unavoidable. you also realize there's a lot of hair splitting, which can often make it feel inaccessible, but it's really not once you jump in and open up to it.

btw, i think your last sentence brings you closer to nietzsche than you imagine.

[Jean-Baptiste]

you found it in you to join the thread by criticizing the thread as being too confrontational. interesting. i wonder what nietzsche would say.

touché. I apologize for descending to your level of exposition.