Nietzsche - understandable?: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Introduction to Philosophy / Factual Issues / Books » Nietzsche - understandable? » Nietzsche - understandable?

Nietzsche - understandable?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Nietzsche - understandable?

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 10/08/09 - 11:36 AM:	#101
We are in a thread chatting about N.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

yebiga
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 25, 2009
Location: Australia

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 10/15/09 - 06:22 PM:	#102
I have come to the conclusion, Cadrache, that I no longer know anything. So when you say: "we are in a thread chatting about N" it's news to me.

jssbastiat
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: Bush, Alaska

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

Posted 10/17/09 - 04:00 PM: Subject: A thought about interpreting Nietzsche and the superman	#103
When reading Nietzsche and the superman, think about clearing yourself of cultural, philosophical, state/nationalistic, religious teachings, brainwashing, etc. In Zarathustra, he speaks of the 'warrior' in one of his chapters. When I first read this, it reminded me of the movie "Apacolypse Now" and the idea debated in it of a just/unjust war or warrior. Then, when I reread it, I saw that he was talking about the philosopher and his war against himself, to be free from past philosophies, axioms, religious beliefs. The war within himself to be free in thought, to truly will his actions free from outside forces. So to equate him to a Nazi philosopher or a forerunner to Hitler is a total misreading of Nietzsche, and to equate his superman to the Nazi ideas totally misses the internal, psychological battle that Nietzsche was waging within himself and encouraging other scientist and philosophers to engage in. I'm new to Nietzshe. But so far, this is what I've gathered from reading him and some various interpretations: the superman is the philosopher of the future that has freed himself from himself, as well as from the brainwashing of 'culture', although Nietzsche never stated this in black and white terms. One note. Has anyone ever thought of the movie The Matrix and if it is Nietzschean at all? The matrix vs. the real world, the point in Neo's life to either take the blue or red pill? To be conscious or to go on living in a dream world to avoid reality/pain/responsibility? The recurring history of Neo being present in each matrix, i.e. historical period, as the savior or superman? Morpheus becoming conscious of his religious beliefs not being true, having to accept it and go on not into nihilism, but supporting a cause/war that is his fate, although he does not seem to totally understand it, but simply that he is supporting Neo, the superman? Just a thought from a newbie here. Edited by Postmodern Beatnik on 10/17/09 - 06:25 PM. Reason: illiteracy.
Scotty in Alaska

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 10/17/09 - 06:45 PM:	#104
Nietzsche is not difficult to read, now Wittgenstein is a different story... The only problem with reading Nietzsche (like any other popular philosopher) are the frequent misinterpretations of his work. Take "God is dead" for example. For some reason people take this to mean that God does not exist. But it's obvious from the phrase itself that that can't be the case, because if he did not exist he could not be dead. Nietzsche, like Fuerbach before him and Sartre or Camus after him is not concerned with whether God exists but what role this plays in our own life. This is not some atheistic idea but is also found in Christianity like the "God is dead" movement of Altizer.

jssbastiat
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Oct 17, 2009
Location: Bush, Alaska

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 4

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/17/09 - 09:16 PM: Subject: This is how I was reading his idea about "god is dead."	#105
Ghosthack, This is how I was reading Nietzsche. He seem to be attacking the religious establishment, theologians, philosophers and then the state for using the idea, morals and values of 'god' to manipulate and control people. He also seem to be attacking people for using the idea of 'god' to not face reality, decisions, etc. So I agree that he does not seem to be directly dealing with the existence or not of god. Also, in reading some of his works, it seemed that he was commenting on the historical aspect of the era. That is, moving from the Catholic and protestant churches controlling much of the European states, to the states controlling the church, to finally the work of the philosophers and scientists pulling 'god' out of the state to where the state was a 'secular' state. But then, he seemed to criticize the philosophers and scientists for not destroying the old structures of the state, thus they continued on using them. It seemed to me that he was speaking specifically of the philosophers that were being funded by the state, maybe at the university level, in that they took money, awards and titles for their work, thus giving 'respect' to the state they served. Thus, the state seems to be an 'idol' that is just as 'religious' in nature as the 'religion' or 'god' they served before. It seems that the state now stands as an idol, that is something false, instead of the superman? But, the one thing I read a little about was 'naturalism'. I have not gotten very far into this article yet, but, would it be safe for a person to assume that Nietzsche had resolved this question earlier in his writing years and it is just assumed as part of his philosophy, that is: god does not exist? I hope that this is relevant. I'm enjoying reading Nietzsche for the first time in years. Before when I read him, I was totally in the dark as to what was going on. Now, his style is very enjoyable to read for me and it makes alot of sense the more I get into him.
Scotty in Alaska

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 10/17/09 - 10:12 PM:	#106
jssbastiat, I don't think you are completely off base but Nietzsche is a more nuanced thinker than you are giving him credit for. If you want to understand 90% of Nietzsche's views on God and religious morals then read 'On Redemption' and 'On the blessed Isles' in Thus Spake Zarathustra. In only a few pages you can get most of his thought. jssbastiat wrote: This is how I was reading Nietzsche. He seem to be attacking the religious establishment, theologians, philosophers and then the state for using the idea, morals and values of 'god' to manipulate and control people. He also seem to be attacking people for using the idea of 'god' to not face reality, decisions, etc. So I agree that he does not seem to be directly dealing with the existence or not of god. Nietzsche had no love for the religious establishment but this is not the main point of his criticism. His criticism would apply to idiosyncratic non-establishment religious thinkers as well. It is not that these institutions controlling people that he is attacking it is the limits that people place upon themselves. For Nietzsche the greatest act is willing and the act of creation. Nietzsche felt that the God concept limited man's creative powers. It made man less than a creator because he was beheld by the ultimate creator. If you search through religious thought, religious men usually are not striving to create but to find peace in reconciliation with God. This sounds very noble even to the non-religious, but to Nietzsche it is anathema. And I would say that Nietzsche attacks the concept of God so that man can focus on his own existence and the possibilities of his own existence. When you say it is to face reality that is somewhat right but it carries with it certain connotations about a rational world-view to replace it which I do not like. I think facing decisions is correct though. What Nietzsche is doing here is attacking the God-concept and he is an atheist in the sense of he chooses not to believe in a God because he wants to live his life as if there were no God. jssbastiat wrote: Also, in reading some of his works, it seemed that he was commenting on the historical aspect of the era. That is, moving from the Catholic and protestant churches controlling much of the European states, to the states controlling the church, to finally the work of the philosophers and scientists pulling 'god' out of the state to where the state was a 'secular' state. But then, he seemed to criticize the philosophers and scientists for not destroying the old structures of the state, thus they continued on using them. It seemed to me that he was speaking specifically of the philosophers that were being funded by the state, maybe at the university level, in that they took money, awards and titles for their work, thus giving 'respect' to the state they served. Thus, the state seems to be an 'idol' that is just as 'religious' in nature as the 'religion' or 'god' they served before. It seems that the state now stands as an idol, that is something false, instead of the superman? But if Nietzsche was seeing all of this then why would he say 'God is dead' if he was alive and well in other institutions? Nietzsche observed the decadence of these institutions and their harmful effects on man but when Nietzsche says 'God is dead' he means God is dead, that is that the God-concept is no longer active in the life of the Western European. What Nietzsche foresaw was a vacuum created by the death of God, a nihilism spreading over Europe and it was his aim in Thus Spake Zarathustra to replace this philosophy of death with a philosophy of life. His philosophy is very much dependent on the times he lived in and I don't think he would have been saying 'God is dead' in the 1770's even if we could somehow transport him there. It was a statement that had to be made at the beginning of the Godless era and Nietzsche was to be its prophet. The God-concept had already cannibalized itself and was its own downfall and it was Nietzsche's mission to show the nature of the God-concept, why it had died, and why it could not come back to serve the same function it had it the past which was to give meaning to men's actions and thoughts. It wasn't Nietzsche's job to kill God. He had already found him dead. His job was only to announce the time and cause of death.

Invictus_88
New Arrival

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Location: England,

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 10/18/09 - 11:19 AM:	#107
Ghosthack wrote: Nietzsche is not difficult to read, now Wittgenstein is a different story... Wittgenstein is awful, but still not as bad as Heidegger. Has anyone here read Nietzsche's poetry?

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 10/18/09 - 08:55 PM:	#108
The structure of Wittgenstein's thought is what makes him so difficult. He is the only true original thinker. Nietzsche and Heidegger are only difficult if one is not cognizant of the tradition in which they work in. Heidegger's and Nietzsche's thinking occupy a place carved out for them by Reformation thought that had existed in Germany since the time of Luther. The tradition that leads to Wittgenstein is a nascent tradition consisting of Frege and Russell but Wittgenstein operates in a completely different paradigm than the thinkers that inspired him. Neither Frege nor Russell could understand his Tractatus let alone his later thought. It is a completely different type of thought. It is like how those who speak German notice some things about English that an English speaker would not. Except Wittgenstein can observe all of language and logic from the inside and still make metalogical and metalinguistic statements. If you want to understand Wittgenstein I would suggest finding some piece of music to listen to. If you find the right bit of music it will help you see the connections between his isolated thoughts and it will put you in the right state of mind.

Invictus_88
New Arrival

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 13, 2006
Location: England,

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 133

Posted 10/19/09 - 06:58 AM:	#109
Wittgenstein doesn't seem to have much to offer to philosophy, as I see it. He's a linguist, and a logician.

wei
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/05/09 - 05:13 AM:	#110
Hoy hoy I have just started reading Zarathustra. I have a friend, whom I respect, that really likes N. My route of thought is primarily eastern. So in an effort to be more cowboy I have been mulling over western thought. I told my friend all of the reasons I don't like N. Then I was struck, I haven't read N. This thread has confused me some, so without further delay A question barrage: N is really really bitter. Why? Really HATES his native religion . why? Does it extend to all of government? I don't see the relevance of him being a Nazi. (I call them Nat-zzz) Or a homosexual, or a women hater. It was a different world. What is THE character of N? What do I need to know that would help me understand N better?

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.