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.

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...

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.

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

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! 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

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?

Before or after he went nuts?

... Follow your leader, facial hair and all...

The picture most people associate with Nietzsche was taken long after he was insane...

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?

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?

Homer is not Achilles. Achilles isn't Homer.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.