All about Nietzsche

[jon1jt]

[QUOTE=Redzeppelin;316536]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.

jon
but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."

red
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.


jon
so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me?

red
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.

jon
that's your supposition, not mine, nor is it Nietzsche's according to my understanding of him.

"he's god." and you even use personification here to bring him closer to my experience. but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing.

[blp]

I feel an obligation to point out shotty thinking.

[Virgil]

Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.

[blp]

Psychobabble taken to the ultimate degree.

What gobbly-gook. Can anybody interpret this for me?


What unconscious? The only empirical evidence of an unconscous is that the mind recycles bits of data while its asleep. There is no evidence of an unconscious that forms us beyond the control of our conscious minds. Show what part of the brain is the ego or the id or the superego. They don't exist. What bugs me about Freud is that he clothes himself in pseudoscience in order to give himself an air of authority. Plus he lied about his studies frequently and fabricated results.


Did you learn this in a psyche class or a liberal arts class? I'm willing to bet that Freud is laughed at in Psyche, just like Marx is laughed at in economics.

Each era creates myths and legends to understand the world. The 20th century is no different. I've said this before, the two greatest myths of the 20th century are that socialism works and that Freudian psychology understands man. What is fascinating about the 20th century myths are that they tend to cloak themselves in science. Empirical evidence is the final proof, my friend.

I'm willing to bet that you'd be laughed at in both.

Oh lordy.

[blp]

Psychobabble is shotty thinking. Including your beloved Freud.

I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing.

The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.

[Virgil]

I've never discussed Freud on these forums at all. You're just guessing.

The word you want is 'shoddy'. That's what I was laughing at.

Oh I'm sorry. Thanks.

[blp]

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

Yes.

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.

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

[jon1jt]

Yes.



See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!

he's got a point, virgil.

[dramasnot6]

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!

he's got a point, virgil.

Thank so much for bringing some logic to this thread blp! Now, shall we discuss some NIETZSCHE or what?

[Virgil]

See, now, if you don't like it, that's entirely up to you, but then why are you even in this thread? You're like someone hanging around a fish restaurant banging on about how you can't for the life of you think why anyone would want to eat fish. How do you think you can participate meaningfully when you've basically admitted that you find a fairly basic bit of philosophical discourse either too boring or too difficult to engage with?

that's exactly what i was thinking, blp. first he traced Nietzsche to Hume. When i made the distinction for him he came back saying the same for Kant!

he's got a point, virgil.

Well, I have a passing interest for intellectual purposes. I understand some philosophy and I'm really trying to understand what makes Nietzsche so important. His greatest statement is "God is dead," but atheism had been around in a serious way for at least 150 years before him. Jon says that Nietzsche refuses to have a system of thought, but that's what philosophy is suppose to be, a way of thinking. First Jon points a Nietzsche statement that frankly is nothing more than psychobabble. Jon then points something else out in Nietzsche and I identify it as a Kantian thought. So what gives? No one is actually saying what Neitzsche is all about. Can someone reduce him down to a paragraph?

[Redzeppelin]

but you speak of subjectivity as if it's outside the purview of language. i disagree: as heidegger said: "Language is the house of being."

I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.

so the dictionary is where understanding begins and ends?? i agree with the next part. and?? can you please clarify this point for me?

Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."

but god is just a postulate. i sometimes mistaken him for santa; other days a unicorn; today, nothing.

Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.

[Scheherazade]

Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming
and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.

Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.

[dramasnot6]

Please establish your arguments without personalising and/or resorting to name-calling/flaming
and feel free to ignore those posts you find disagreeable.

Now, let's go back to discussing Nietzsche and his philosophies.

Thank you Scher. I think before we were discussing God is Dead, Nietzsche's take on truth, and eternal reccurence. If anybody would care to go back a page or 2 you can pick up on this and make your own contributions.

[jon1jt]

I am asking you to consider the chaos that results from making language totally subjective in meaning. Connotation is the subjective component of meaning in language; denotation its concrete (hence more objective) meaning. I understand that words are symbolic - that they stand for meanings that are sometimes fluid in nature, but the meaning cannot be completely subjective.



Do you really not understand this, or are you just being condescending again? The dictionary is not where "understanding begins and ends" - someone who seems as well versed in philosophy as yourself certainly knows this. The dictionary is where we store agreed-upon meanings for words. Although meanings can "flex" to a certain degree, they cannot be stretched to any particular individual's personalized "definition."




Only to you. Your dismissal of God is a clear violation of the guidelines set forth in these forums where respect for others' beliefs is mandated. It's one thing to say "I do not believe in God"; it is entirely another make Him interchangeable with the imaginary figures you listed. I have not disrespected Nietzsche, nor have I spoken of him in any way that denigrates him - though I will tell you that I have little admiration for his philosophy. Your petty condescension reveals your lack of skill as a debater. It' s clear that - while you are clearly an intelligent person - you still have much to learn about engaging in respectful dialogue with others. Your patronizing condescension of spiritual beliefs that many people consider very profound and personally meaningful is unworthy of any serious thinker of intellectual caliber. As such, any relevant thing you might have to say in terms of setting forth a convincing argument for your position is lost on your listener, because all he can hear is your mockery.

first of all i don't mind if people flame me if they like. i'd rather people express how they truly feel. speak your mind, i'll listen. nor am i insulted in the least.

dramas, i'll get to the conversation about nietzsche, no problem, i understand. but we have to first get over this baggage or else we'll never have a constructive discussion. maybe we can't discuss this topic because Nietzsche draws the line in the sand between the moral herd and the infinitesimal percentage of anti-moralists ("herd" is nietzsche's term, not mine). as far as god goes, i stated my position up front, god is a postulate. so comparing her to santa or a unicorn just reinforces my heartfelt belief. you obviously disagree. when i referred to god as nothing, i was just invoking heidegger's language, not being patronizing as you say.

you seem to have a lot to offer this dialogue, red, so i hope you stay. just realize what you already know, nietzsche is not kind to god, and so i will not be either to remain true to the spirit of the nietzsche text. at the same time, i'm not insulting your religious beliefs, so not to worry.

[dramasnot6]

Thank you for clarifying Jon, I'm sure everyone will appreciate it I am still slightly confused about Nietzsche's take on truth though. And the logic behind eternal occurence, does he mean if an action is put out there, it being the only thing occupying a certain space at a certain time, it will adopt all forms of itself eternally?