Heidegger's advice to his students

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:31 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129380 wrote:
Sometimes he did. I agree. But sometimes he provided the reader with weapons to use against all philosophers, including himself. I like to read Nietzsche against Nietzsche. The best part of Nietzsche survives this.


That's exactly what I took from Beyond Good and Evil. He seemed to attack everyone, so to me it was not his intent to build a new position. He talked about a new kind of philosopher, but never seemed to give a straight idea of what that was. Maybe he felt limited by the ideas of his time, maybe it is simply his insanity showing, or maybe I missed something...

Quote:
Nietzsche against Nietzsche. The best part of Nietzsche survives this.


I like that, sounds like the best way to read him from what I've read so far, not that it's been very much.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 02:42 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129412 wrote:
That's exactly what I took from Beyond Good and Evil. He seemed to attack everyone, so to me it was not his intent to build a new position. He talked about a new kind of philosopher, but never seemed to give a straight idea of what that was. Maybe he felt limited by the ideas of his time, maybe it is simply his insanity showing, or maybe I missed something...

He was raising some hell, clearing some space. He questions the will-to-truth itself at the beginning of that book. For him, philosophy was bigger than just a search for truth. It was self-creation, entertainment, the idleness of a god.

He was sane when writing Beyond Good and Evil, as far as I know. I've read several bios, for whatever that's worth. Also the book Beyond strikes me as the work of a sane mind. Ecce Homo, a later book, is something else. It's hard to tell when he's being awkwardly funny and when he's being possibly insane. But sanity is relative. He did start to dance naked in his rented room. Maybe we all should?

I bet he was frustrated with how dogmatic even the intellectuals seemed, or seemed to a mind like his. But this is guess-work.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 03:48 PM ----------

Scottydamion;129412 wrote:

I like that, sounds like the best way to read him from what I've read so far, not that it's been very much.


I recommend Beyond Good and Evil or Genealogy of Morals more than the rest. Birth of Tragedy is great, too. But that's by no means all that's worth reading of his.

He's a passionate guy, and passion is contagious. I think that's what Fido was criticizing. To take Nietzsche in a shallow way is perhaps to become an As-hole. You don't seem the type to have this problem. But I have seen the type. They make a religion out of anti-religion, missing the point.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 03:35 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129414 wrote:
He was raising some hell, clearing some space. He questions the will-to-truth itself at the beginning of that book. For him, philosophy was bigger than just a search for truth. It was self-creation, entertainment, the idleness of a god.

He was sane when writing Beyond Good and Evil, as far as I know. I've read several bios, for whatever that's worth. Also the book Beyond strikes me as the work of a sane mind. Ecce Homo, a later book, is something else. It's hard to tell when he's being awkwardly funny and when he's being possibly insane. But sanity is relative. He did start to dance naked in his rented room. Maybe we all should?

I bet he was frustrated with how dogmatic even the intellectuals seemed, or seemed to a mind like his. But this is guess-work.

---------- Post added 02-17-2010 at 03:48 PM ----------



I recommend Beyond Good and Evil or Genealogy of Morals more than the rest. Birth of Tragedy is great, too. But that's by no means all that's worth reading of his.

He's a passionate guy, and passion is contagious. I think that's what Fido was criticizing. To take Nietzsche in a shallow way is perhaps to become an As-hole. You don't seem the type to have this problem. But I have seen the type. They make a religion out of anti-religion, missing the point.


It becomes hard to respond to your posts, because I want to add something and then I read on and you've said it. You should be more vague so I feel less insecure! Razz j/k
I'm encouraged that I see some parallels with someone more well read in Nietzsche.

Quote:
It was self-creation, entertainment, the idleness of a god.


That's the part I didn't quite have. Thank you again Smile
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 04:26 pm
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129428 wrote:
It becomes hard to respond to your posts, because I want to add something and then I read on and you've said it. You should be more vague so I feel less insecure! Razz j/k
I'm encouraged that I see some parallels with someone more well read in Nietzsche.

That's the part I didn't quite have. Thank you again Smile


Thanks! Nietzsche has probably been the most important philosopher for me. He's the one who really set a fire in my mind. A first-science vortex from which I no longer feel the need to escape. To understand him is to doubt him is to salute him. I always enjoy a friendly conversation on the man with the mighty mustache.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 08:13 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129443 wrote:
Thanks! Nietzsche has probably been the most important philosopher for me. He's the one who really set a fire in my mind. A first-science vortex from which I no longer feel the need to escape. To understand him is to doubt him is to salute him. I always enjoy a friendly conversation on the man with the mighty mustache.


Before or after he went nuts?
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 08:35 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;129508 wrote:
Before or after he went nuts?

The picture most people associate with Nietzsche was taken long after he was insane... Follow your leader, facial hair and all...
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:10 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;129508 wrote:
Before or after he went nuts?

Whichever would annoy you more.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:11 AM ----------

Fido;129510 wrote:
... Follow your leader, facial hair and all...


Well, my leader has sideburns and gets a lot more sex than Nietzsche ever did.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:17 AM ----------

Fido;129510 wrote:
The picture most people associate with Nietzsche was taken long after he was insane...


That's true, but not all of us are "most people." Ever see that picture of him as a slightly chubby boy with longish hair? Your attack on respect for Nietzsche reminds me of Nietzsche. The same sort of contempt for reverence. Seems like we both understood him, except you have this mysterious grudge.

He was a screw-up in worldly terms. So what? So was Byron, a hero of his Nietzsche's youth. Homer is not Achilles. Achilles isn't Homer.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:24 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129526 wrote:
Whichever would annoy you more.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:11 AM ----------



.


Just concerned about you talking to the dead. Don't get the Achilles-Homer-Nietzsche analogy though. Doesn't there have to be another name paired with N.? Who is Achilles to Nietzsche's Homer?
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:25 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;129534 wrote:
Just concerned about you talking to the dead. Don't get the Achilles-Homer-Nietzsche analogy though. Doesn't there have to be another name paired with N.? Who is Achilles to Nietzsche's Homer?


Think about it. A good writer doesn't insult the intelligence of his readers. Just as a good comedian doesn't explain his jokes.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Wed 17 Feb, 2010 11:32 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129536 wrote:
Think about it. A good writer doesn't insult the intelligence of his readers. Just as a good comedian doesn't explain his jokes.


Makes no sense to me. Sorry. Maybe it's a shaggy dog story?
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:01 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;129540 wrote:
Makes no sense to me. Sorry. Maybe it's a shaggy dog story?


I think kenneth may be the "I don't get it" troll sent from god to annoy us on this forum...

Do you ever read fiction books? Like made up stories that never happened? Or would you stop before opening them and think "this is pointless, these stories don't exist!"
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:02 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129526 wrote:
Homer is not Achilles. Achilles isn't Homer.

For whom it may concern. This refers to one of Nietzsche's own passages. How does it apply to Nietzsche himself?

He lived on a pension, sickly, in hotel rooms. He was no Achilles. But he was the poet of Achilles, of the man with enough health to survive living dangerously. In this way he was a sort of Homer.

From a Bloomian perspective, Nietzsche was indeed stong, as a poet. His sentences proved to be viruses. In this way, he was something of an Achilles. And we, as we chatter about him, are playing the role of Homer.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 01:04 AM ----------

Scottydamion;129554 wrote:
I think kenneth may be the "I don't get it" troll sent from god to annoy us on this forum...

Ain't that the truth. And what a nice way to phrase it.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 12:49 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129554 wrote:
I think kenneth may be the "I don't get it" troll sent from god to annoy us on this forum...

Do you ever read fiction books? Like made up stories that never happened? Or would you stop before opening them and think "this is pointless, these stories don't exist!"


I would have a problem, though, if the author implied that the stones did exist, and I had to point out that they did not. What I don't like is to read fiction which is portrayed as fact, and turns out not to be. Authors have been sued for that kind of thing, and also fired from magazines and newspapers when they pulled that kind of cheat.

Do you get that stuff about Homer, and Achilles, and N. (which someone first said was a joke of some kind but doesn't appear to be one)? I still don't. Just too subtle for me.
 
Scottydamion
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 01:04 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;129575 wrote:
I would have a problem, though, if the author implied that the stones did exist, and I had to point out that they did not. What I don't like is to read fiction which is portrayed as fact, and turns out not to be. Authors have been sued for that kind of thing, and also fired from magazines and newspapers when they pulled that kind of cheat.

Do you get that stuff about Homer, and Achilles, and N. (which someone first said was a joke of some kind but doesn't appear to be one)? I still don't. Just too subtle for me.


But is it not our creativity and imagination that have gotten us this far?... You seem to keep representing our side of things with a strawman, confusing our use of possible with thinking we believe it to be true. That and the discussion of concepts as things solely existing in thought really just don't seem to be "getting through" to you. I can appreciate if you disagree, but it's hard when it feels like you don't know exactly what you're disagreeing with.


As far as the Homer/Achilles link, I think I would get it if I was more well read concerning Nietzsche, and remembered Homer's epic poems better. However I think I can see the type of thing he meant by considering what he wrote about Nietzsche's admiration and ignoring for a moment Homer/Achilles altogether. I just glossed over it as being a personal touch from Reconstructo, something I didn't need to understand to see what he was saying in the rest of his post.
 
Pepijn Sweep
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 01:06 am
@kennethamy,
:spam:
sometime sun;129369 wrote:
Its Lent;
Could you give up technology for 40 days?

What would you choose to give up for 40 days if you had the peace of mind to do so?

What do you know is not always good for you all of the time but you still could not live without for a single day?

Mine would be my cooker.


kennethamy;129575 wrote:
I would have a problem, though, if the author implied that the stones did exist, and I had to point out that they did not. What I don't like is to read fiction which is portrayed as fact, and turns out not to be. Authors have been sued for that kind of thing, and also fired from magazines and newspapers when they pulled that kind of cheat.

Is reading the newspaper (non)fiction? Sometime you need to use imaginatio to see through the "fact":whoa-dude:

Do you get that stuff about Homer, and Achilles, and N. (which someone first said was a joke of some kind but doesn't appear to be one)? I still don't. Just too subtle for me.


I love Ol Isis, Hermes. Bes, Tam-muz... Do not know were to START|:a-thought:
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 01:34 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129578 wrote:

As far as the Homer/Achilles link, I think I would get it if I was more well read concerning Nietzsche, and remembered Homer's epic poems better. However I think I can see the type of thing he meant by considering what he wrote about Nietzsche's admiration and ignoring for a moment Homer/Achilles altogether. I just glossed over it as being a personal touch from Reconstructo, something I didn't need to understand to see what he was saying in the rest of his post.


Thanks for being open minded. A little more on this:

Imagine two identical twins. Same body type. For whatever reason, one becomes a boxer and one becomes a sport's writer who specializes in boxing. The boxer is going to pride himself on his boxing. The writer on his writing. If the boxer had wanted to be a writer, he would and could have. The reverse is true with the writer.

Homer was blind, or so it has been suggested. Nietzsche was sickly. In the real world, we are sometimes steered toward one sort of excellence rather than another. I feel that Fido tends to imagine that those who appreciate Nietzsche mistake him for some warrior prophet. Who knows? Maybe some of them do. But as a person who has read him carefully and read several of his biographies, I see him as a maladjusted sickly person who happened to occasionally be a brilliant philosopher.

Some of his philosophy I object to. In fact, the Nietzsche threads are littered with this criticism even now. But then I don't ignore Hamlet because Titus Andronicus is over the top. Micheal Mann's last movie (Public Enemies) was quite a bit inferior to Heat and Collateral.

Nietzsche was an inventor of sentences. It's silly to expect him or any other creator to maintain peak quality. Sometimes, if a person's career is brief enough, this may actually happen. But it's an exception.

By all means, attack Nietzsche, but try mentioning a specific idea or expression of his. Bigoted cliches don't cut it.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 08:01 am
@Twirlip,
It is interesting to note that Thomas Mann's novels (and short stories) often linked physical disease with creativity. In music, one remembers that Handel composed the Messiah when almost totally blind, and of course, that Beethoven's late masterpieces were written when he was deaf.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 08:03 am
@Scottydamion,
Scottydamion;129578 wrote:
But is it not our creativity and imagination that have gotten us this far?... You seem to keep representing our side of things with a strawman, confusing our use of possible with thinking we believe it to be true. That and the discussion of concepts as things solely existing in thought really just don't seem to be "getting through" to you. I can appreciate if you disagree, but it's hard when it feels like you don't know exactly what you're disagreeing with.




I think it would be better if you told me what you mean by saying that it is possible that someone you meet on the street is a "figment of your imagination", since you don't think I understand what you mean. So, why don't you do that, and maybe we can short-circuit the dispute? And while you are at it, why not say what "your side of things" is? My side of things is that Heidegger tells us that "thinking" are "thanking" are semantically and conceptually related, and cites as evidence, etymology for which he has no evidence. What is your side of things? And of course, I gave you my understanding of what it would mean to say that it is possible that someone is a figment of your imagination. But you said that was not right. So now, I am waiting for you to tell me how I should understand what you meant.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 11:48 am
@jgweed,
jgweed;129641 wrote:
It is interesting to note that Thomas Mann's novels (and short stories) often linked physical disease with creativity. In music, one remembers that Handel composed the Messiah when almost totally blind, and of course, that Beethoven's late masterpieces were written when he was deaf.


Some ill people are creative. But it does not follow that they are creative because they are ill, if that is what you are driving at. Handel, and Beethoven might very well have been more productive, and at least as creative, if they did not have those deficiencies. There is certainly no reason to believe they were creative because they had these deficiencies. Edmund Wilson in his essay, "The Wound and the Bow" tries to argue the view you seem to be taking, but it is a hard slog. Adler's view of "compensation" is another attempt. Like Napoleon the first and being short.
 
Fido
 
Reply Thu 18 Feb, 2010 05:08 pm
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;129526 wrote:
Whichever would annoy you more.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:11 AM ----------



Well, my leader has sideburns and gets a lot more sex than Nietzsche ever did.

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 12:17 AM ----------



That's true, but not all of us are "most people." Ever see that picture of him as a slightly chubby boy with longish hair? Your attack on respect for Nietzsche reminds me of Nietzsche. The same sort of contempt for reverence. Seems like we both understood him, except you have this mysterious grudge.

He was a screw-up in worldly terms. So what? So was Byron, a hero of his Nietzsche's youth. Homer is not Achilles. Achilles isn't Homer.

Yes...Nietzsche did teach contempt, and he was my first...I prefer doubt to contempt...The problem with all people who talk with confidence is that they will some day be found out, and I have found out Nietzsche, and so can have no respect for him, and his words are enough to remind anyone that words of truth, if you think you have truth to speak should be spoken as words of love with snuggly all wrapped in coo's instead of from the roof tops like a braggart about a common whore... Speak softly the truth recon, because it always cuts both ways...Treat it with the respect you might have for a nest of razor blades...Softly...With a tender touch...

---------- Post added 02-18-2010 at 06:13 PM ----------

kennethamy;129686 wrote:
Some ill people are creative. But it does not follow that they are creative because they are ill, if that is what you are driving at. Handel, and Beethoven might very well have been more productive, and at least as creative, if they did not have those deficiencies. There is certainly no reason to believe they were creative because they had these deficiencies. Edmund Wilson in his essay, "The Wound and the Bow" tries to argue the view you seem to be taking, but it is a hard slog. Adler's view of "compensation" is another attempt. Like Napoleon the first and being short.

Seems as though syphilus has a very visual aspect as those nimble spirochetes dance upon the floor of ever neuron...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 06/16/2024 at 12:33:12