I agree that there is another view, but much to suggest that he did have syphillus, including his remark to a doctor that he self infected not once, but twice...

---------- Post added 04-26-2010 at 05:53 PM ----------


It was not all madness, but even before madness began to affect the quality of his thought, he was not at all normal, what ever that is, certainly never average... The guy did have a brain...I disagree with many of his conclusions, and I disagree with anyone who says he was ever all right... He did not have the basis of a moral life in him, and he shows he did not get morality as a notion... Morality did not make sense to him...

Even though you may not have meant to, you insulted me by saying that anyone who takes Nietzsche's ideas seriously has probably had their IQ lowered.

---------- Post added 04-26-2010 at 11:26 PM ----------



I respect your opinion, as you do attempt to make your case with a serious and intelligent argument unlike some people in this thread. However, I think that his objection to morality wasn't due to the fact that he didn't get it as a notion. His objection was based on the fact that he saw our conventional notions of morality to be a wholesale condemnation of suffering. Nietzsche believed that suffering had a positive value, as he believed that it often leads the strong man, and a strong species, toward greatness. Hence he is quoted as saying "That which does not kill us makes us stronger".

A very good psychologist said (to me in a session) that he believed Nietzsche's philosophical conclusions were consistent with the definition of sociopathy. In that sense, is sane the correct word?

I just read him ! Fascinating ...

He did not see the world so black and white !

I'm with the scholars, it was syphilis, undoubtedly. All of the symptoms pointed to this, specifically, and not anything else. He picked it up 25 years prior to his death, apparently, from a prostitute during the beginning of his university studies.

There is nothing of his insanity that has made his last works any less impressive than his earlier works. I am a Christian, but not affiliated to any organized religion, and I read Nietzsche with an open mind. He lad a lot of relevant arguments that point to the absurdity of many supposed Christian dogmas. I certainly disagree with him on many crucial points, but he deserves a lot of credit for his works, which in my view are second to none. How could a self professed Christian say such a thing of the world's most famed Atheist (some say he is not simply an atheist -- he is the Atheist)? Well, even atheists tend to make more sense than theists, a lot of time. Nietzsche was a master philosopher, meaning a master of argument, but his arguments have not been convincing or cogent enough to make me renounce my faith in the existence of a Supreme Being. And I can say, even if Nietzsche had lived longer, and produced works ten times more forceful, they still would not have had power enough to convince me to step over to his side of the fence.