Nietzsche: What Else?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

hue-man
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 12:15 pm
@Fido,
Fido;156099 wrote:
He informed me that he had no notion of natural relationships, and that he was prone to jump to conclusions unsubstanciated by fact.


I'm curious. What exactly do you mean by "natural relationships"? Also, what conclusions did he jump to?
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:04 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;156104 wrote:
I'm curious. What exactly do you mean by "natural relationships"? Also, what conclusions did he jump to?


And that is information (if it is information) about Nietzsche, not about philosophy, anyway.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 02:14 pm
@kennethamy,
2nd, last... In one instance he talks about the pleasure people take in the exactation of pain in payment of a debt, as though that were the object, as in Shylocks pound of flesh; and he seemed to think that was in some senses a practice of long standing, and it was not...

In fact, it was always the other way around until quite recent times where the doing of an injury incured for the guilty a debt... We would call it blood money, paid even today in places like Iraq, and by us in cases of wrongful death; but in some places in Europe even a finger was worth something in a court of law...Only in recent times to Nietzsche was debt allowed to punish with injury the debtor...

Natural relationship are those that grow our of our navel so to speak, like nations, because in the proper sense of the word, Nations of people have a common mother, and natal=navel= natural...

There were other things too that caught my attention, but it has been a long time past reading him...I would have to dig up one huge error I am thinking of to show it to you...

---------- Post added 04-24-2010 at 04:17 PM ----------

kennethamy;156134 wrote:
And that is information (if it is information) about Nietzsche, not about philosophy, anyway.

If you do not get natural relationships you will never get morality....
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sat 24 Apr, 2010 04:36 pm
@Fido,
Fido;156136 wrote:
2nd, last... In one instance he talks about the pleasure people take in the exactation of pain in payment of a debt, as though that were the object, as in Shylocks pound of flesh; and he seemed to think that was in some senses a practice of long standing, and it was not...In fact, it was always the other way around until quite recent times where the doing of an injury incured for the guilty a debt... We would call it blood money, paid even today in places like Iraq, and by us in cases of wrongful death; but in some places in Europe even a finger was worth something in a court of law...Only in recent times to Nietzsche was debt allowed to punish with injury the debtor...

Natural relationship are those that grow our of our navel so to speak, like nations, because in the proper sense of the word, Nations of people have a common mother, and natal=navel= natural...

There were other things too that caught my attention, but it has been a long time past reading him...I would have to dig up one huge error I am thinking of to show it to you...
Well psychoanalysis can be a murky thing. I'm sure we can find theories of Freud that we disagree with now. I don't see how he jumped to conclusions with that example, though. He was simply saying that people take pleasure in witnessing the suffering of those who cause them to suffer. I believe that he was mainly speaking of ancient law systems because he used certain words in the past tense in that passage. Civil law systems were not originally meant to protect the autonomy of the individual. Instead they were meant to protect the power and property of the elite.

As for "natural relationships", I think you're completely wrong. Nietzsche's critical analysis of human behavior and social cooperation was acute. The view of one's nation as a mother or navel is an expression of the herd mentality that Nietzsche spoke about.

This comment on natural relationships, and other comments you have made in the past, leads me to believe that you believe that the highest moral value is cooperation or community. However, I respectfully believe that you fail to see how collectivist social philosophies also have the tendency to lead to some of the greatest atrocities committed by man against his fellow man. Cooperation and community can be used for our conventional conception of the morally good or our conventional conception of the morally bad.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 05:52 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;156158 wrote:
Well psychoanalysis can be a murky thing. I'm sure we can find theories of Freud that we disagree with now. I don't see how he jumped to conclusions with that example, though. He was simply saying that people take pleasure in witnessing the suffering of those who cause them to suffer. I believe that he was mainly speaking of ancient law systems because he used certain words in the past tense in that passage. Civil law systems were not originally meant to protect the autonomy of the individual. Instead they were meant to protect the power and property of the elite.

As for "natural relationships", I think you're completely wrong. Nietzsche's critical analysis of human behavior and social cooperation was acute. The view of one's nation as a mother or navel is an expression of the herd mentality that Nietzsche spoke about.

This comment on natural relationships, and other comments you have made in the past, leads me to believe that you believe that the highest moral value is cooperation or community. However, I respectfully believe that you fail to see how collectivist social philosophies also have the tendency to lead to some of the greatest atrocities committed by man against his fellow man. Cooperation and community can be used for our conventional conception of the morally good or our conventional conception of the morally bad.

No; I dd not think you get his point as I did, that this cruelty was basic to our nature, that we take positive pleasure in it; but the example he used and treated as of long standing was recent in European and world history, and that what was normal was for people, and not as a herd, to determine what was justice as the essential of peace, and to bring it about...

What really shows his lack of understanding of natural relationships is the way Overman was so cut off from human sympathy...There was no Misses Overman, and no Baby Overman... He was just there as though self conceived, and it is non sense...His portrayal of humanity is false and disgusting...Do you really see such people as he painted them because they were no more deep than paint on a canvas, and as unreal...

People are moral out of their natural relationships, naturally moral; and
while he was one of the first to recognize how irrational people are, nothing is more irrational than morality... Since the time of Socrates, as another who stood fast against the herd, people have been trying to find reason for moral behavior, and not one has succeeded...Moral reality is not just irrational, but at times antirational... And I would suggest that Neitzsche with his unusual circumstances, raise by mother and sisters did not have the physical basis of a moral life... Baudelaire was another knidred spirit preaching the same sort of immorality as rationality... Not until Freud did the whole idea actually get rational treatment, but by then much of the damage had been done...There was no getting Nietzsche back in a box...The whole weirdness and madness of WW2 had to be played out to see what Nietzsche led too...
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:06 am
@Fido,
Fido;156368 wrote:
No; I dd not think you get his point as I did, that this cruelty was basic to our nature, that we take positive pleasure in it; but the example he used and treated as of long standing was recent in European and world history, and that what was normal was for people, and not as a herd, to determine what was justice as the essential of peace, and to bring it about...


Whether or not cruelty is an essential characteristic of our nature is up for debate. It's certainly true that history, ancient and modern, provides plenty of examples of unimaginable human cruelty. Human nature is a murky thing to speak about. It's very pliable. I think that some level of cruelty is as essential to human nature as a certain level of mercy. Whether it be Nietzsche or you, I often feel that people paint with too broad a brush in their portrayals of humanity.

Fido;156368 wrote:
What really shows his lack of understanding of natural relationships is the way Overman was so cut off from human sympathy...There was no Misses Overman, and no Baby Overman... He was just there as though self conceived, and it is non sense...His portrayal of humanity is false and disgusting...Do you really see such people as he painted them because they were no more deep than paint on a canvas, and as unreal...


You're confusing understanding with valuing. On all accounts Nietzsche was a well mannered socialized individual. He seems to have understand human relationship quite well. What he did not value was the tribal herd mentality that suppressed the greatness of the individual. That's what his overman was all about. The overman is about affirming and overcoming suffering and overcoming the character flaws of the human species. Your response to this idea of strong individualism is very pre-conceived and even panicky. If you prefer collectivist optimism then so be it, but strong individualism, as Nietzsche conceived of it, has nothing to do with disregarding the value of other individuals. In fact, it is a cooperative social philosophy in my conception. It allows for individuals to believe what they want and to achieve the highest level of greatness within their power. One can conceive of an individualism that disregards the autonomy and moral value of other individuals, but that's not what Nietzsche was recommending.

Fido;156368 wrote:
People are moral out of their natural relationships, naturally moral; and while he was one of the first to recognize how irrational people are, nothing is more irrational than morality... Since the time of Socrates, as another who stood fast against the herd, people have been trying to find reason for moral behavior, and not one has succeeded...Moral reality is not just irrational, but at times antirational... And I would suggest that Neitzsche with his unusual circumstances, raise by mother and sisters did not have the physical basis of a moral life... Baudelaire was another knidred spirit preaching the same sort of immorality as rationality... Not until Freud did the whole idea actually get rational treatment, but by then much of the damage had been done...There was no getting Nietzsche back in a box...The whole weirdness and madness of WW2 had to be played out to see what Nietzsche led too...


For starters, who are you to say that Nietzsche didn't have a moral life? How self-righteous is that? On all accounts the man was polite and well mannered. He was also very outspoken. He despised the popularity of antisemitism in Germany that was a result of the herd mentality that is common to our species. The man, like any other man, was not without his flaws, but to portray him as something he wasn't is fairly low. World War 2 wasn't the result of Nietzsche's ideas. While Hitler (a skilled rounder of the herd) did manipulate Nietzsche's words for his own purposes, Nietzsche often expressed views that were very contrary to Nazism and the horrors of WW2. Nietzsche would have been disgusted by the political philosophy of Nazism. If it is true that Nietzsche often jumped to conclusions (and I don't believe it is) then it is equally true that you have this in common with him.
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:25 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 is a hero to all those dramatic, emotional people.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:29 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156425 wrote:
He is a hero to all those dramatic, emotional people.


But he does not say that, does he?
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:49 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156427 wrote:
But he does not say that, does he?


No, he doesn't say that. TuringEquivalent's just being a jester so don't take him too seriously.
 
William
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 09:58 am
@kennethamy,
I find it reassuring to observe the thinking mind dig it's way "out" of Pandora's Box.

William

P.S. Don't forget to shut the lid when you are done and please lock it and throw away the key.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:00 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;156432 wrote:
No, he doesn't say that. TuringEquivalent's just being a jester so don't take him too seriously.


Well, it sort of sounds as if N. might have said something like that. I would not have been surprised if he had. Didn't he think he was Superman?
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:05 am
@hue-man,
hue-man;156432 wrote:
No, he doesn't say that. TuringEquivalent's just being a jester so don't take him too seriously.


...but what i said is true. All those emotional people love him. He is surely a moron.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:18 am
@TuringEquivalent,
TuringEquivalent;156439 wrote:
...but what i said is true. All those emotional people love him. He is surely a moron.


That does not sound like a very good argument to me. Emotional people loved Mother Theresa, and Abraham Lincoln. But it did not follow from that they were morons (which you use simply as a term of abuse with no descriptive meaning at all).
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:41 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156446 wrote:
That does not sound like a very good argument to me. Emotional people loved Mother Theresa, and Abraham Lincoln. But it did not follow from that they were morons (which you use simply as a term of abuse with no descriptive meaning at all).



You are right. It does not follow. The moron comment is just my opinion.
 
hue-man
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:47 am
@kennethamy,
kennethamy;156437 wrote:
Well, it sort of sounds as if N. might have said something like that. I would not have been surprised if he had. Didn't he think he was Superman?


Well he said nothing of the sort. No, he didn't think he was Superman smart guy. The concept of the overman and the character of superman can only be confused by those who intentionally do not seek to understand the concept. Therefore, this thread will only serve to reassure your ignorance.

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 12:51 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;156439 wrote:
...but what i said is true. All those emotional people love him. He is surely a moron.


No it's not true that all "emotional" people love him and only an ignoramus would believe such a thing. I have spoken to many "emotional" people who favor the Christian or Buddhist worldview over Nietzsche's worldview.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 02:42 pm
@hue-man,
Quote:

hue-man;156419 wrote:
Whether or not cruelty is an essential characteristic of our nature is up for debate. It's certainly true that history, ancient and modern, provides plenty of examples of unimaginable human cruelty. Human nature is a murky thing to speak about. It's very pliable. I think that some level of cruelty is as essential to human nature as a certain level of mercy. Whether it be Nietzsche or you, I often feel that people paint with too broad a brush in their portrayals of humanity.


Certainly there are examples of cruelty, but on the other hand are many examples of accomdation, of justice, of intermarriage with enemies, and understanding...What I am refering to, is not human nature, but that does play a part in it...If one is normal and nurtured then it is natural to bond with ones group, to love those near and dear, and to base ones morality upon ones natural relationships, to parents, family, community, and etc... It is tough to tell about the Germans, because they have suffered much, but tend in my opinion to be great at thought and failures at feeling, which is to say morally and socially unbalanced...No one can understand what is common to humanity without grasping the elements that go into a moral person, as this is common to most people everywhere... If you look at a Bill Clinton, or half the children on America's streets, Baudelaire, Nietzsche, and many others, you find one raised by his mother having little respect for women, or general humanity... A complete family is what is needed for a moral person's development, but early on the love of a Mother is needed for primary human bonding...It is difficult to say what Nietzsche had, early on; but clearly his valuation of the family and an appreciation for moral bonds was lacking...

Quote:

You're confusing understanding with valuing. On all accounts Nietzsche was a well mannered socialized individual. He seems to have understand human relationship quite well. What he did not value was the tribal herd mentality that suppressed the greatness of the individual. That's what his overman was all about. The overman is about affirming and overcoming suffering and overcoming the character flaws of the human species. Your response to this idea of strong individualism is very pre-conceived and even panicky. If you prefer collectivist optimism then so be it, but strong individualism, as Nietzsche conceived of it, has nothing to do with disregarding the value of other individuals. In fact, it is a cooperative social philosophy in my conception. It allows for individuals to believe what they want and to achieve the highest level of greatness within their power. One can conceive of an individualism that disregards the autonomy and moral value of other individuals, but that's not what Nietzsche was recommending.


He may have been able to behave himself, but then, he bought prositutes, and that is as close as he came to a normal sexual relationship...He flirted with the wives and lovers of other men, but no woman took him seriously...His morality was deliberate immorality, attacking St. Paul, democracy, equality, and supporting criminality in much the same fashion as Bismark of his day, using and abusing others without scruples..It does not matter what a person does if all the think is malignant, and he was the most malignant of all his malignant society... His words feel on deaf ears for the most part, took seed when soldiers took him to war in their haversacks, and bore fruit in the minds of thousands of war ophans to it full expression in Nazi tyranny... What you say of the individual is false...I am a true individual, and yet I recognize that there is no such thing as a moral individualist... Individualism is incompatible with a moral life...Community is morality...

Quote:
For starters, who are you to say that Nietzsche didn't have a moral life? How self-righteous is that? On all accounts the man was polite and well mannered. He was also very outspoken. He despised the popularity of antisemitism in Germany that was a result of the herd mentality that is common to our species. The man, like any other man, was not without his flaws, but to portray him as something he wasn't is fairly low. World War 2 wasn't the result of Nietzsche's ideas. While Hitler (a skilled rounder of the herd) did manipulate Nietzsche's words for his own purposes, Nietzsche often expressed views that were very contrary to Nazism and the horrors of WW2. Nietzsche would have been disgusted by the political philosophy of Nazism. If it is true that Nietzsche often jumped to conclusions (and I don't believe it is) then it is equally true that you have this in common with him.

I am fido the dog, and as a dog i am far more moral than Neitzsche... See the above.... No; I do not accept that there is anything incompatible with the words of Nietzsche and Nazism... It is that Nietzsche could not see the consequences of his words, and if he had he might have been horrorfied...There is a tendency, even among the intelligent to state a case too strongly out of the expectation that so often those seeds will fall on barren soil...If what one says is correct, then all one needs to do is say it, and let time be the ultimate judge...He was just another Socrates, stirring up discontent without anything better to replace the old form with... He saw no more clearly than did Socrates, and there is no excuse for it... In the case of Socrates, he had the example of the Iliad and Odessy, holding a wealth of knowledge, as well as knowledge of barbarians in detail...If his democracy was not working there were examples abundant did work, and he could have told why had he been inclined... Slavery and serfdom were not natural to the Germans, and the evidence was there that as a free people, not a herd of slaves, but free, that the whole people was irresistable while free, and that the yoke of slavery had only been gradually lashed around their collars... He could not see his own people as they were...
 
TuringEquivalent
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 04:13 pm
@hue-man,
hue-man;156460 wrote:

No it's not true that all "emotional" people love him and only an ignoramus would believe such a thing. I have spoken to many "emotional" people who favor the Christian or Buddhist worldview over Nietzsche's worldview.



Christian, and Buddhist are alway quite ridiculous views, but Nietzsche is a moron. A lot of Morons uses Nietzsche to give other people that impression that they are not morons. This is why i hate the fucker( Nietzsche) so ******* much.
 
Fido
 
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 08:19 pm
@kennethamy,
Some idiot skate boarder on the tube repeated that oft quoted line from Nietzsche in this fashion: Like they say, what ever doesn't kill you makes you stronger...

If that is not the greatest lie philosophy has told the world, then I don't know what is bigger... What does any one think they die of if not the totality of their injuries when they die of nothing else...I can count my bones... Some days everything hurts...Ironwork for thirty years and a rough and tough life besides has me hurting from what may be called sports injuries...I still power through them on will, but if the pain grows too great, then the will goes with it and once any one becomes immoble at an advanced age, then everything, especially cardio vascular starts to fail... We hurt from all that does not kill us, and the pain kills us eventually... He proved it himself with syphilus; only for him the mind was the first to go...Very often people have perfectly fine minds trapped in rotten bodies, and they see life as through a window, at a distance... I don't want that to be me...

---------- Post added 04-25-2010 at 10:24 PM ----------

TuringEquivalent;156529 wrote:
Christian, and Buddhist are alway quite ridiculous views, but Nietzsche is a moron. A lot of Morons uses Nietzsche to give other people that impression that they are not morons. This is why i hate the fucker( Nietzsche) so ******* much.

It is the young who love Nietzsche because he justifies them, because he is a sort of Peter Pan of lost boys who never grew up...He was trapped in boyhood, a juvenile, unable to see the point of morality, family, community, and adulthood...
 
walkingaround
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 09:15 pm
@kennethamy,
Nietzsche is so fascinating for philosophres because he wrote philosophical poetry and stated he wrote philosophy.
He just crossed a border. And all those who insist on borders (e.g. between philosophy and poetry ) got really agitated.
 
kennethamy
 
Reply Mon 17 May, 2010 10:21 pm
@walkingaround,
walkingaround;165540 wrote:
Nietzsche is so fascinating for philosophres because he wrote philosophical poetry and stated he wrote philosophy.
He just crossed a border. And all those who insist on borders (e.g. between philosophy and poetry ) got really agitated.


Nietzsche does not fascinate me. I just find him an annoyance because he gives philosophy a bad name.
 
 

 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 10/17/2021 at 10:16:37