Nietzsche: What Else?

  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » Nietzsche: What Else?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 12:16 pm
Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 04:11 pm
@kennethamy,
You are boiling Nietzsche down far too much. Where are the will to power, the eternal recurrence, the revaluation of values, nihilism, building one's own life, amor fati, science, Socratism, the Dionysian life, the Appolonian life, philosophizing with a hammer, and all of the other main points that Nietzsche made throughout his work?

Nietzsche was a complicated thinker for many reasons, but it is far too easy to dismiss far too much due to the style in which he went about philosophy and the general condition of his own life.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 05:27 pm
@kennethamy,
One could, of course, read some of Nietzsche's works, understanding that they influenced many subsequent philosophers as well as musicians and authors of note, rather than pose what seems to be a rhetorical question.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 05:38 pm
@jgweed,
jgweed;114695 wrote:
One could, of course, read some of Nietzsche's works, understanding that they influenced many subsequent philosophers as well as musicians and authors of note, rather than pose what seems to be a rhetorical question.


That is an excellent post. Nietzsche influenced many good and bad people that followed so that is the main reason why he is held in high regards by many. It is not so much what he said, but what he influenced after that is of the greatest importance.
 
jgweed
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 06:07 pm
@kennethamy,
If for no other reason, he would be important for asking, perhaps in a demanding and personal way that cannot be easily dismissed, all the right questions, whether one agrees with his answers or not. It is a plus that he could do so in such striking and unique ways and unite perspectives and insights from so many disciplines.
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Sun 27 Dec, 2009 07:12 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114656 wrote:
Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?



Nice cartoon.
Yes, but you will have to read him..
 
attano
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 04:46 pm
@kennethamy,
 
Reconstructo
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 06:19 pm
@attano,
attano;134213 wrote:


Hi there! Welcome to the forum. May I suggest that you use to quote function so that we know who you are responding to? A friendly suggestion. Yes, Nietzsche is a jungle of thought. But then one must synthesize, find essence, as essence is the essence of philosophy.....

I agree w/ some of what you say, could debate some of the rest....but welcome to the forum... Nietzsche is a genius. I think we agree on that.
 
Insty
 
Reply Mon 1 Mar, 2010 09:29 pm
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;114697 wrote:
That is an excellent post. Nietzsche influenced many good and bad people that followed so that is the main reason why he is held in high regards by many. It is not so much what he said, but what he influenced after that is of the greatest importance.

I disagree. Nietzsche is a much deeper and more important thinker than any of the twentieth century figures whom he influenced. The only exception I can think of would be Heidegger, but the way in which Nietzsche might have influenced Heidegger is a complicated issue. Certainly Heidegger was not a follower of Nietzsche in the way that, say, Foucault was. Thinkers like Sartre or Derrida are lightweights compared to Nietzsche.
 
Pyrrho
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:46 am
@Theaetetus,
Theaetetus;114678 wrote:
You are boiling Nietzsche down far too much. Where are the will to power, the eternal recurrence, the revaluation of values, nihilism, building one's own life, amor fati, science, Socratism, the Dionysian life, the Appolonian life, philosophizing with a hammer, and all of the other main points that Nietzsche made throughout his work?

Nietzsche was a complicated thinker for many reasons, but it is far too easy to dismiss far too much due to the style in which he went about philosophy and the general condition of his own life.


Except that he is not boiling down Nietzsche to a few points; he is asking a question that few seem interested in actually answering.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 09:30 am
@Reconstructo,
Reconstructo;114714 wrote:
Nice cartoon.
Yes, but you will have to read him..



But if all he said was that God is dead (whatever that meant) that morality is a crock; and that everything is a matter of perspective (except, of course, for Nietzsche's own perspective which is true) what else is there to learn from him, except how to rant?
 
attano
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:53 pm
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;143548 wrote:
But if all he said was that God is dead (whatever that meant) that morality is a crock; and that everything is a matter of perspective (except, of course, for Nietzsche's own perspective which is true) what else is there to learn from him, except how to rant?


I do not think that N ever qualified his own "perspective" as "the true one".
N is not in the truth business, N is about what future men can shape.
Many centuries of seeming truth seeking has lead - and it's still leading - mankind on the brink of extinction.
Maybe we don't see it yet, and I guess that it is harder to see it coming observing from America, but it is a widespread feeling. At least, I guess you would not object that there are people having that feeling. (Kaczinski shared that feeling too, although I guess he did not know anything about N, at least when he wrote the manifesto).

If you believe that what has been used so far by the Christian West as reasons for living can no longer be used - and ultimately this is what the death of God is about - then N must have some appeal...

In this "perspective", why your main concern is learning? If he ever said something like "I hold the truth", then... it'd be understandable. But this is not in N - OK, maybe you would argue that Zarathustra... But in order to keep this post short let's leave the teachings of Zarathustra out of this.
N's philosophy is a continued, and IMO successful, attempt to show (and I don't mean "prove") how much what you hold as dear and sacred it is not what it seems. And "truth" is possibly the main victim.
It is also a continued, and IMO successful, attempt to show how much of what you condemn and reject is part of what makes you alive and thinking, seeking for truth.

And if you undergo this process, reviewing and rediscussing all those beliefs and truths - that maybe you do not even realize that you have - inherited and adopted, which have guided you so far in living, maybe you end up not adding some truth to your database, but with some wholly new approach to life and action.

Having said this, I do not imply that N is a kind of moral preacher.
The philosophy of N is his will to power. Not only that, N philosophy is will to power. I do not mean that the "will to power" is one of the elements of the system N (the man would have been horrified if somebody ever maintained that he had a system - which a number of scholars did, anyway). I mean that the will to power is the "real thing" and the subjects - Herr Nietzsche in this instance - only accidents. I can rephrase that saying that his philosophy it's not his perspective, it's the perspective that is him, N is the embodiement of this "perspective" - a perspective that has become what it is.
And that "perspective" must have occurred, occurred with no aim. (And will occurr again and again, for ever and ever, because the aimless eternal recurrence of the same things is the whole history of the world).
So, in this "perspective", your question "what to learn" is devoid of sense. (And probably you are going to think that what I wrote is perfectly alike :-).


And... yes, IMO he's an unsurpassed model as far as ranting is concerned. Indeed he perfected the art. I would not enjoy his work so much with no ranting - actually I see taste, style, art where you see "ranting".
Btw, there must be some deep link between Philosophy and ranting - a good deal of Plato is about ranting too, after all.
 
Diogenes phil
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 06:55 pm
@kennethamy,
Nietzsche was a troubled man.
 
Theaetetus
 
Reply Thu 25 Mar, 2010 08:23 pm
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;143787 wrote:
Nietzsche was a troubled man.

So, what is your point? Many people have been troubled and have done excellent things. In many cases, such as Nietzsche's, their troubles were integral to their excellence. Many people may not agree with Nietzsche or may find his word to be rather distasteful, but it is hard to deny that his look into the irrational side of human nature sheds much truth upon the nature of human existence.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 01:23 am
@kennethamy,
Nietzsche was an unconventional (at least by modern standards) philosopher who challenged our highest values and notions of the world. His philosophical contributions can only be truly appreciated by certain individuals. Those who crown logic king, truth queen and values and creativity subordinate are not these individuals. And to each his own . . .
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 04:01 am
@Diogenes phil,
Diogenes;143787 wrote:
Nietzsche was a troubled man.


But that does not entitle him to talk nonsense.

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 06:08 AM ----------

hue-man;155980 wrote:
Nietzsche was an unconventional (at least by modern standards) philosopher who challenged our highest values and notions of the world. His philosophical contributions can only be truly appreciated by certain individuals. Those who crown logic king, truth queen and values and creativity subordinate are not these individuals. And to each his own . . .


It is hard to know what you mean by "crowning logic as king". People who think we need to use logic are not worshiping logic any more that people who think that food is necessary, are worshiping food. They are just saying that we cannot do without logic anymore than without food. I see that you follow Nietzsche in exaggeration. Hasn't your mother told you at least a trillion times you should not exaggerate?

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 06:11 AM ----------

Theaetetus;143811 wrote:
So, what is your point? Many people have been troubled and have done excellent things. In many cases, such as Nietzsche's, their troubles were integral to their excellence. Many people may not agree with Nietzsche or may find his word to be rather distasteful, but it is hard to deny that his look into the irrational side of human nature sheds much truth upon the nature of human existence.


But to look into the irrational side of human nature does not demand that the person who does it be irrational, nor that his audience be irrational. In fact, on the contrary. You have to be rational to look into anything competently. And it is morally wrong to encourage irrationality in others, because it harms them.
 
Wisdom Seeker
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:17 am
@kennethamy,
i can't fully believe nietzsche unlike other philosopher, he is sometimes bias, he prefer what he feels rather than to think neutrally.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 08:25 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;155998 wrote:
It is hard to know what you mean by "crowning logic as king". People who think we need to use logic are not worshiping logic any more that people who think that food is necessary, are worshiping food. They are just saying that we cannot do without logic anymore than without food. I see that you follow Nietzsche in exaggeration. Hasn't your mother told you at least a trillion times you should not exaggerate?
Hasn't my mother told me not to exaggerate? I'm sure that someone told me, but I can't remember who it was. I should pose that question back at you, because you're exaggerating the meaning of my words. I'll give you a pass, though, because it was an aphorism.

I wouldn't say that we need logic. We do need logic for certain things, but it is fallacious to compare the necessity of logic to the necessity of food. That's a blatantly false analogy. I'm not saying that logic or reason should be rejected, though. What I am saying is that we humans need values just as much as we need logic (if not more). Nietzsche believed the value of logic and truth was secondary to axiological values. I appreciate the value of logic but if I had a choice between logic and truth and ethics and aesthetics, I would choose the latter two.

I understand your vivid disdain for Nietzsche. You are very much in the vain of the analytic tradition and Nietzsche's approach to philosophy is the antithesis of the analytic approach. Nietzsche did not focus on rigid logic or epistemology . . . nor did he focus on rigid system building. In fact, one of the things that make his philosophy so attractive is its water like adaptability. In light of a world where there is no natural moral order, a world where even the systems of humanity are often subject to disorder and failure, an axiological philosophy of affirmation can scene as realistic and pragmatic. I have no problem with analytic philosophy, but IMO a philosophy without the continentals, or without the analytics, would be an incomplete story. I tend to side more with analytics on fields like epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, but IMO their rigid system building does not work well with ethics and aesthetics.

Now I have no problem with those who don't find Nietzsche's approach to axiology appealing. However what I find most curious is the cynical, personal tone they often betray. They begin to sound like the very man they criticize and therefore conclude in hypocrisy. This leads me to believe that the disdain that some analytics have for the man is grounded more in the ego than anything else. This would be in line with Nietzsche's idea of every living body being an incarnate will to power.

With that said I will once again say to each his own . . .
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 09:14 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;156049 wrote:
Hasn't my mother told me not to exaggerate? I'm sure that someone told me, but I can't remember who it was. I should pose that question back at you, because you're exaggerating the meaning of my words. I'll give you a pass, though, because it was an aphorism.

I wouldn't say that we need logic. We do need logic for certain things, but it is fallacious to compare the necessity of logic to the necessity of food. That's a blatantly false analogy. I'm not saying that logic or reason should be rejected, though. What I am saying is that we humans need values just as much as we need logic (if not more). Nietzsche believed the value of logic and truth was secondary to axiological values. I appreciate the value of logic but if I had a choice between logic and truth and ethics and aesthetics, I would choose the latter two.

I understand your vivid disdain for Nietzsche. You are very much in the vain of the analytic tradition and Nietzsche's approach to philosophy is the antithesis of the analytic approach. Nietzsche did not focus on rigid logic or epistemology . . . nor did he focus on rigid system building. In fact, one of the things that make his philosophy so attractive is its water like adaptability. In light of a world where there is no natural moral order, a world where even the systems of humanity are often subject to disorder and failure, an axiological philosophy of affirmation can been as realistic and practical. I have no problem with analytic philosophy, but IMO a philosophy without the continentals, or without the analytics, would be an incomplete story. I tend to side more with analytics on fields like epistemology, logic, philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, but IMO their rigid system building does not work well with ethics and aesthetics.

Now I have no problem with those who don't find Nietzsche's approach to axiology appealing. However what I find most curious is the cynical, personal tone they often betray. They begin to sound like the very man they criticize and therefore conclude in hypocrisy. This leads me to believe that the disdain that some analytics have for the man is grounded more in the ego than anything else. This would be in line with Nietzsche's idea of every living body being an incarnate will to power.

What that said I will once again say to each his own . . .


But I didn't compare the necessity of logic to that of food. All I did is to say that those who think that logic is necessary are not worshiping logic anymore than those who think food is necessary are worshiping food. I did not say that logic is as necessary as food, as you seem to believe I said. People mean by "logic" lots of different things, but here, I think, is meant merely rationality by "logic". Of course people need values and rationality, both. It is not a matter of one or the other. And people need to be rational about values. Rationality and value are not opposed to one another. They complement each other. Rationality is a value, that Nietzsche does not appear to have. That is the problem. I am not sure what an incarnate will to power is, but suppose Nietzsche is right, whatever he is right about. Does that mean that people are only incarnate wills to power (whatever that means) and nothing else? Could they also be rational beings who have other concerns? The trouble with Nietzsche as with other philosophers, as Hume points out, is that once they latch on to what they consider a truth or insight, they forget about everything else, and they want to apply it exclusively as the only thing that counts. The world is complicated. It is philosophers who are simple.



The Sceptic. David Hume
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 11:54 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;114656 wrote:
Apart from his telling us that God is dead; that we should get beyond good and evil (and pull our socks up); and that there are many perspectives on the same thing (if there is anything) but that none of them are correct or incorrect; is there anything else Nietzsche informed us about that I should know?

He informed me that he had no notion of natural relationships, and that he was prone to jump to conclusions unsubstanciated by fact.
 
 

 
  1. Philosophy Forum
  2. » Nietzsche
  3. » Nietzsche: What Else?
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 11/27/2021 at 08:24:27