All about Nietzsche

[billyjack]

"Howl the eternal Yes"
i think that was Nietzsche. it is the only way to truly live life.

is it possible to relate this to eternal recurrence? in that it is ok to make mistakes because everything is both good and bad at the end?
I don't quite understand your last point. Is he using the ancient greek dionysian lifestyle as an example of how what in his society(and still our society) what is considered immoral can actually be quite good if you take the will to experience it?

I agree with you that he is more playing the psychologist, just because people are in touch with their more primitive, instinctual side does not mean society will fall apart. It is in my opinion more likely that anarchy will be caused by over-repression, people will alienate themselves so far from their humanity that they will eventually crack and chaos will ensue. I'm not sure if that was what he was getting at.

agreed, "howl it"...i think allan ginsberg was a fan of this lifestyle too.

i'd say the yes to life goes hand in hand with the eternal recurrance. to quote will to power, "my dionysus world of the eternally self creating, the eternally self-destroying, the mystery world and the two-fold volumptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the cirlce (of life) is itself a goal." nothing is excluded in this view, nothing wished away. mistakes can be good in the end in that they have taught, if and only if, society is willing to learn.

about making mistakes. nietzche probably wouldnt call anything a mistake in the brood scheme of it all. mistakes for him only exist through the looking glass of moors and stigmas. he's a fatalist, "amor fati" is his war dance cry. he even reveres the mistakes of religions in that they give him an enemy to fight against. but as far as making mistakes went for nietzche, he saw a mess up as an instrament to teach. rather than saying, "i've done something wrong" he urges people to take the russian fatalistic approach and say, "something has gone unexpectedly wrong here." remorse about a mistake would be adding a second stupidity to the first.

i think he's using the dionysus view of the world to show that what we now call bad has had different meanings over the centuries. "words are pockets into which now this meaning, now that, now both go into."

he called himself the first immoralist. i noticed you said "will to experience." i wonder what exactly "will" means. it seems to have a lot of different ways it can be used.

i think you got his psychology down pat. he anticipated freud and jong, but i think he exceeded them in seeing through the illusion of the ego. but yeah, its alientation of natural instincts that leads toward anarchy--i like that.

[dramasnot6]

Wow...thank you billyjack. It's taken me a few reads to digest and I think I will need to sleep on it before I comment and ask questions. I think I really have an understanding of Nietzsches philosophy as a whole now. I have not realized the importance and impact of his philosophy on bigger scale of trends of ways of thinking in history and so many different areas in society.
What you have said above is the understanding of Nietzsche I have been so sorely searching for in my questioning of his ideas.

[billyjack]

glad that helped--nice to find another dionysian--not many on the forums. i'm starting thus spoke zarathustra--kaufman translated it. its supposed to be difficult in relation to some of his more straight forward books. i'll be in touch with questions and comments.

[dramasnot6]

agreed, "howl it"...i think allan ginsberg was a fan of this lifestyle too.

i'd say the yes to life goes hand in hand with the eternal recurrance. to quote will to power, "my dionysus world of the eternally self creating, the eternally self-destroying, the mystery world and the two-fold volumptuous delight, my "beyond good and evil," without goal, unless the joy of the cirlce (of life) is itself a goal." nothing is excluded in this view, nothing wished away. mistakes can be good in the end in that they have taught, if and only if, society is willing to learn.

I see nothing radical or ridiculous about philosophy such as this. So many criticize Nietzsche but spread these same messages "live and learn", "learn from your mistakes". He just places these concepts of "mistakes" on a larger scale, viewing the knowledge gained as a part of an eternal life cycle. The destruction of mistakes as the creation of knowledge in the larger scheme of eternal destruction and creation.

about making mistakes. nietzche probably wouldnt call anything a mistake in the brood scheme of it all. mistakes for him only exist through the looking glass of moors and stigmas. he's a fatalist, "amor fati" is his war dance cry. he even reveres the mistakes of religions in that they give him an enemy to fight against. but as far as making mistakes went for nietzche, he saw a mess up as an instrament to teach. rather than saying, "i've done something wrong" he urges people to take the russian fatalistic approach and say, "something has gone unexpectedly wrong here." remorse about a mistake would be adding a second stupidity to the first.

Ah- so there are no mistakes ,only learning oppurtunities. I am not too familiar with fatalism, only that it is the belief that you can not control your own fate. I actually find this suprising of Nietzsche, I always thought he asserted that humans were in control and need not be "fated" by religion or anything else. Perhaps he is fatalistic in a different sense?

i think he's using the dionysus view of the world to show that what we now call bad has had different meanings over the centuries. "words are pockets into which now this meaning, now that, now both go into."

I am irresistably reminded of a quote from Hamlet, "There is nothing good or bad but thinking makes it so".
That word and meaning quote is very interesting. I remember we discussed earlier on this thread how Nietzsche considers everything we know and can identify only a product of our upbringing and conditioning we only can call things "x" because we were taught "x". i think from these two concepts of the subjectivity of the interpretation of language give an even better understanding of the meaninglessness of small things that Nietzsche seems to present with eternal recurrence- it does not matter what we make of it, specific meaning is insignifigant in the end. Perhaps that is what you mean by his being fatalist?

he called himself the first immoralist. i noticed you said "will to experience." i wonder what exactly "will" means. it seems to have a lot of different ways it can be used.

i think you got his psychology down pat. he anticipated freud and jong, but i think he exceeded them in seeing through the illusion of the ego. but yeah, its alientation of natural instincts that leads toward anarchy--i like that.

by will to experience I was referring to the "howl". We should always be willing to experience if we are willing to live.
fascinating you bring up freud and jung, i have never even considered his philosophy as commentary on a societal subconscious. I suppose in freudian terms you could say he was criticizing how the super-ego from the dominance of religion and the ego dominant from our alienation from ourselves is repressing the id to the point where we lose track of our identity and humanity. I would think the individualism that seems to be focused on in his philosophy is more suited to a comparison with Freud rather than Jung, I would be curious to know how Nietzsche compared to him as well.
thanks again!

[billyjack]

i might need a day or so to respond. . .the movie "hot fuzz" is calling my name tonight.

but your absolutely right. there isnt anything wacko about nietzche's genious. no one has been more misunderstood in a world than nietszche, except maybe jesus christ.

mistakes as a furthering of knowledge and fuel for the eternal life cycle, YES . i couldnt agree more. nor could nietzche i bet.

but about fatalism. yeah, he doesnt use it in the typical, "i'm not in control of my life," sort of way. its more of a fatalistic view toward the past--not dwelling, remorsing, wishing things to have been different. his fatalism is one that lives in the present moment (which just so happens to also be winnie the pooh's favorite moment). the connection you made between language's relativity and tradition based existence in relation to nietzche's love of fatalism is interesting avenue of nietzche i havent looked down yet. perhaps "it not mattering what we make of it", in terms of translating experience into words is a fatalism in the sense that we dont control what words we use to symbolize reality, society and tradition do. so thought (which for me is the translating of reality into words) is fatalistic in so much that no thoughts are really our own. in reality, thoughts are a product of society, in so much as words and meanings are both products of society. . .this for me would mean that freedom from thought would mean freedom from societies contol mechanism--words. or better yet, not freedom from thought-- we have to think to communicate. . .but freedom from the typical mistake of seeing thought as reality, when its anything but.

this got off subject a bit. but i think nietzches fatalism is lies in not trying to change the past. to be done with it! to see it as neccessary. to realize that the past is completely responsible for you being where you are right now. and if you can love right now, then you affirm your past as well, or better yet, you love your past, "amor fati."

i tend to see nietzche as an eastern mind. i focus most of my reading on eastern thought, so often times i think i might see nietzche in a way that he might not have meant to be see. i'm not sure yet. my nietzche reading binge will encompass this whole summer, so maybe we'll know then.

[billyjack]

I
by will to experience I was referring to the "howl". We should always be willing to experience if we are willing to live.
fascinating you bring up freud and jung, i have never even considered his philosophy as commentary on a societal subconscious. I suppose in freudian terms you could say he was criticizing how the super-ego from the dominance of religion and the ego dominant from our alienation from ourselves is repressing the id to the point where we lose track of our identity and humanity. I would think the individualism that seems to be focused on in his philosophy is more suited to a comparison with Freud rather than Jung, I would be curious to know how Nietzsche compared to him as well.
thanks again!

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.

[PrinceMyshkin]

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.

Wikipedia: “God is Dead”

[Lote-Tree]

Wikipedia: “God is Dead”

Nietzsche's Anthropomorphic God may be dead but not the Transcendental God of the Mystics.

[B-Mental]

Nietzsche is Dead or so its said....B

[Virgil]

For those who God is dead, it has been replaced with mother earth and all this environmental religion.

[Il Penseroso]

For those who God is dead, it has been replaced with mother earth and all this environmental religion.

don't forget the animals 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.

[papayahed]

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.

[PrinceMyshkin]

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?

don't forget the animals 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.

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.

[dramasnot6]

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

[PrinceMyshkin]

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.