Nietzsche - understandable?: Philosophy Forums

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

Nietzsche - understandable?

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

Nietzsche - understandable?

Erik
Professor

Usergroup: Moderators
Joined: Sep 20, 2002
Location: Sierra Madre, CA

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 623

Posted 11/05/09 - 10:03 AM:	#111
Hi wei, I'm pretty sure others will take issue with me, but here's my understanding of the issue(s) you brought up. Basically, Nietzsche is hostile to Christianity primarily because it's an otherworldly and life-denying religion. Life - or the will to power - is the prinicipal that everything he judges is measured against. He feels that Life (I'll capitalize to stress the metaphysical aspect of thsi concept) is antithetical to typical Christian virtues like selflessness, humility, the glorification of the weak and oppressed, etc. More secular movements like socialism and democracy are simply variants of this hatred for Life, it being understood by N. as appropriation, change, struggle, creativity, rank-ordering and the like, and are therefore attacked with equal vehemence. So Nietzsche's bitterness towards these movements can be best understood, perhaps, against the backdrop of his meptaphysical commitment to this concept of Life, since each of them - be they of a religious or even anti-religious nature - is, once again, based upon life-denying values. The consequence of this trend in the West has been nihilism, a situation in which a series of lies are uncritically taken as truths, and Life, instead of being joyfully-affirmed (and he doesn't shy away from glorifying even its "darker" elements), is robbed of it's worth. Is Nietzsche's philosophy of Life consistent with the "philosophy" of Nazism? This is obviously a tough issue. On the one hand Nietzsche was surely hostile to anti-semitism, nationalism, socialism, and generally mass-movements of any sort. We could therefore assume that he'd have been appalled at the spectacle that was National Socialism. On the other hand, however, the cynical manipulation of the masses, the glorification of confrontation, the appropriation of the weak by the strong, moving beyond tradition ideas of good and evil, the biological interpretation of phenomena, etc. each do seem to be consitent with his understanding of Life.I personally think he'd be disgusted by the movement, but that may be my own personal bias (being of the life-denying sort) speaking. I don't think it's a stretch to say that a strong case can be made, unfortunately, that Nazism was indeed the politcal expression of Nietzschean philosophy. Anyhow, taking the hammer to the idols of modern civilization, in all of it's self-satisfied complacency, was the precursor to Nietzsche's more positive goal of outlining a philosophy of the future, one which seeks to overcome the nihilism that pervades the West. Some hints of what this joyful affirmation of Life would look like are found in the person of Zarathustra, a figure who seems to take equal pleasure in both destruction and creation. Not sure if any of that helps.
I adore simple pleasures. They are the last refuge of the complex. Oscar Wild

wei
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/05/09 - 12:09 PM:	#112
Thank you for your response. Your explanation is very helpful to me. I was in the process of re posting. I wrote that early this morning and it was not at all clear. I also thank you for your patients. I am not a gifted writer or speaker so I beg your pardon. My trouble: In eastern thought. It is understood that good and bad are relative to the speaker. Truth is NOT relative. Thus good and evil is not truth. I have trouble treating them as such. Could the "good" and "bad" aspects that are raised be manifested in his own western mind? The conflict between Zath ( the overman) and others be a metaphor for N's own internal conflict? The internal "game" as Jung said.

SittinWSocratesTiff
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 65

Posted 11/05/09 - 01:20 PM:	#113
I have a thimblefull of understanding about Freddy the synergy between he and himself snd will humbly offer it in a few but maybe effective words. Nietzsche felt the need to have all aspects of an experience known to thyself. To believe that the good or the bad are relative to the speaker I think suggests that the words spoken by another carry no weight until you choose to attribute a possibly misdirected application/acceptence of such weight, either good or bad it makes no difference.

wei
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Apr 21, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 9

Posted 11/05/09 - 03:49 PM:	#114
I do like calling him Freddy. Nietzsche felt the need to have all aspects of an experience known to thyself I interpret this as enlightenment. Some of Freddy's statements seem enlightened. Then some statements seen tainted. I am referring to the bitter tone? To believe that the good or the bad are relative to the speaker I think suggests that the words spoken by another carry no weight until you choose to attribute a possibly misdirected application/acceptance of such weight, either good or bad it makes no difference. Is this Freddy, you, or a general opinion? If opinion, yours that begs retort, my answer is: I seek truth. Truth is NOT relative, it is absolute. Good and evil is relative. Relativism is a disease of thought. It clouds the mind. The result is to seek good and reject evil. This is pointless. The good of now may not be the good of the past or future. Because of its relative nature. When I say relative I mean to another. It adds complexity when none is required. Sir Occam suggests we don't do that. But, that is another matter. I hope I didn't give this retort out of place. I have to admit the first time I read your reply I wondered if it was written in a code. No disrespect intended, I am just A bit unclear. Since the nature of the story is zath's mental processes I assume N is speaking about Zaths experiences and superimposing his thought processes. I know the time thing doesn't work , but, I also assume that Zath's Opinion of Christianity would not be as harsh (relative to N's) due to the fact that He is Middle eastern and all middle eastern religion seems to have a respect for one another. Even N acknowledges such in saying Zath is a believer in all religion. Though he does not follow any one specifically. Is this a correct approach? What did he mean "God is dead"?

SittinWSocratesTiff
Student

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Nov 02, 2009
Location: Strolling on the Absurd Side of the Street

Total Topics: 3
Total Posts: 65

Posted 11/05/09 - 04:54 PM:	#115
"I do like calling him Freddy. Nietzsche felt the need to have all aspects of an experience known to thyself I interpret this as enlightenment. Some of Freddy's statements seem enlightened. Then some statements seen tainted. I am referring to the bitter tone?" I think that sometimes the bitter tone that you might be hearing is the side of Nietzsche that wanted to experience life thru the raw emotions, that to him was life. The need to dance was something he embraced thru his philosophy. "To believe that the good or the bad are relative to the speaker I think suggests that the words spoken by another carry no weight until you choose to attribute a possibly misdirected application/acceptance of such weight, either good or bad it makes no difference. Is this Freddy, you, or a general opinion?" Hmmm...that is an excellent question and one that does take some explaining. I think that my response to your post was one that may have covered all three; Freddy, me or a general opinion. I do think that as I run this reply thru my very small filter of the Hellinistica mindset that Freddy was still very careful of what issues he took to battle over. "If opinion, yours that begs retort, my answer is: I seek truth. Truth is NOT relative, it is absolute." I seek the truth as well however I am keenly aware that my truth is relative to my experiences, not Freddy's, not yours, just mine. I can expand my knowledge base which I almost always strive to do but I strongly believe that there is no 'absolute' truth just your own. "Good and evil is relative. Relativism is a disease of thought. It clouds the mind." Relativism is a dis-ease of thought and once that is defined the rest clears on its own. "The result is to seek good and reject evil. This is pointless. The good of now may not be the good of the past or future. Because of its relative nature. When I say relative I mean to another." I am not sure what you meant in your statement above 'relative to another'. Could you clarify? "It adds complexity when none is required. Sir Occam suggests we don't do that. But, that is another matter. I hope I didn't give this retort out of place." Nope your retort does not seem out of place to me. "I have to admit the first time I read your reply I wondered if it was written in a code. No disrespect intended, I am just A bit unclear." No it wasn't written in code but being left a bit unclear after entertaining a reply from me is not unusual. "Since the nature of the story is zath's mental processes I assume N is speaking about Zaths experiences and superimposing his thought processes. I know the time thing doesn't work , but, I also assume that Zath's Opinion of Christianity would not be as harsh (relative to N's) due to the fact that He is Middle eastern and all middle eastern religion seems to have a respect for one another. Even N acknowledges such in saying Zath is a believer in all religion. Though he does not follow any one specifically. Is this a correct approach?" I think there is an inherent danger in making an assumption in whether or not 'all' middle eastern religion, or any 'all' group based upon a perception that they all respect one another. Just because someone is willing to respect the religion or ideology of another does not me that they are also willing to accept it as their own. So I am not sure if your approach is correct. What did he mean "God is dead"? I have no clue.

MiyamotoMusashi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 61

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 11/07/09 - 12:54 PM:	#116
Nietschze is my only God and here is my contribution to the thread: 1. Moral is an invention of society. Objectively, there is no moral. You kill someone, it is not nor good nor bad, but is bad for SOCIETY so you get your ass in jail. 2. Will to power is a way of life for a fighter. This can be understood only by someone who has been in pain and seen true human nature. It is all Darwin out there, only thing real out there in society is will for power, but inside of you it is another deal. You don't achieve the superman, but you try to BECOME him each hour of your life. It is a frustrating but a very rewarding journey. You can achieve the Superman or get close to him only inside of you. Becoming the Superman means conquering yourself, killing sexual desire to some degree, turn anger and hate into positive energy and use it to advance in career and work harder. 3. Social relationships are a lie. Even your parents are a lie. Only thing real is STRIVING FOR THE SUPERMAN. 4. Do I have to mention that socialism and nationalism is for retards only? 5. Slave and master morality and christianity. I hope to see churches turn into museums in my life time. Then I will stand while they crush down the church with big machines, put a smile on my face and look in the sky, and say "Nietschze, you motherfucker" haha . Really Nietschze is killing Christianity, people like Richard Dawkinks and Daniel Dennett continue the war. 6. Is Nietschze for angry kids that watch Fight CLub? Nietschze is a guide for life not for teenagers but for everyone, above 10 let's say haha, I don't know, some kids are just not ready for Nietschze they might end up in a mental institution if they don't see Nietschze gradually, but get a strong unexpected hit. 7. Nietschze cried while hugging the horse, you have to admit the man was in pain and sick from the society. He was disgusted by the country boy that tortured the horse, a wonderful creation of Nature. Nietschze said yes to everything live, all he hated was mediocrity, stupidity and ignorance, and all religions as opium for some other world. 8. He was disappointed by his friend, he talks of Superman but he let stupid things like that destroy him. Even he was not strong enough, it is up to us new generations to get closer to the Superman. 9. I don't like that Nietschze felt in love with that girl, what was her name... I see a woman as a sexual partner and a human being like me, I respect a woman. But I can't see how I can live with one woman for a whole life. It would be slave morality if I do so, and master morality if I am successful and have more women on me. That is my Nietschze, crutiques welcomed. Thank you Edited by unenlightened on 11/08/09 - 09:34 AM. Reason: capials, etc.

Banno
Old goat

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Aug 15, 2004
Location: Oz

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6290

Posted 11/07/09 - 01:58 PM:	#117
MiyamotoMusashi wrote: Nietschze is my only God You should know that your god is dead, strung up by his own nasal hair.
Davidson: We make maximum sense of the words and thoughts of others when we interpret in a way that optimizes agreement. Russel Morris: There's a meaning there, but the meaning there doesn't really mean a thing... Ned: Such is life

MiyamotoMusashi
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Nov 07, 2009

Total Topics: 10
Total Posts: 61

Posted 11/07/09 - 02:24 PM:	#118
Hey, leave Nietschze's nasal hair alone!

Willowz
Wilson wants a smile.

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 14, 2008

Total Topics: 19
Total Posts: 609

Posted 11/07/09 - 05:50 PM:	#119
So the question still stands. Can a person live without morals? Animals have been doing it for ages.
This song will prepare you for a good smile.

Ghosthack
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 6
Total Posts: 126

Posted 11/07/09 - 10:10 PM:	#120
Willowz wrote: So the question still stands. Can a person live without morals? Animals have been doing it for ages. That's because animals don't make plans. They don't work and save money for some vacation they want to go on. They don't discipline their children. They don't realize the possibilities of action they have and they don't value things. Because people are aware of choice and of valuing, each person operates with a morality. I find Nietzsche to be quite comical. He is so busy deconstructing every other philosopher's system that he just glosses over the difficulties in his own. He esteems the will to power so much without giving any particular reason why. Why is this will so important? He gives examples where this will operates, but clearly this is just a matter of interpretation. He goes into minute detail about other philosopher's interpretations that they held to be truths and then reveals them as mere interpretation. Why doesn't he do the same to his will to power? And even if this is the operative will in nature there is still the is-ought problem. He finds some will in nature and he elevates to the highest willing as though we all ought to give ourselves to this will without giving any justification. He attacks Christianity but he doesn't address what Christianity is trying to provide for man, mainly a way for man to orient himself in the world. He doesn't delve into his alternative morality enough to find if it can provide a suitable replacement for Christianity and solve the problems of guilt, free will, and angst that exist for the Christian. He prefers a self-conscious morality that realizes itself to be merely relative without trying to account for the problems when having any type of moral relativism. He wants us to both command and obey, command some morality and then obey it. But is that really possible? He wants us to follow a baseless authority but what kind of authority is this? Is this not then no authority? It is just a blind following then. This isn't something to be celebrated but is something that happens on an everyday basis wherever blind following happens. If you asked someone 'why do you follow what the state/leader/priest says?' and they answered ' I do what he says because it is right to do what he says' we would laugh at them and think they were some type of lemming. Yet this is what Nietzsche wants us to do to become ubermensch's. Edited by Ghosthack on 11/07/09 - 10:16 PM

Page: First 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.