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 Last

Nietzsche - understandable?

Villon
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jan 31, 2009

Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 41

Posted 09/01/09 - 09:46 AM:	#31
yebiga wrote: Nietzsche's influence on modern philosophy is profound. Opaque! No body says, Descartes, Kant, Hegel,, Spinoza, etc, etc are opaque. Yet Nietzsche says in one line what these guys take a book to clarify. Opaque indeed. To understand Nietzsche you do need an good grounding in western history and thought. Thus you need to know a little about Greek Myths, Greek politics, Plato, Stoicism, Early Roman History, and in particular a grounding in the rise of Christiainity and it connection to neo-platonism, the reformation, the enlightenment, marxism, the nation state, the french revolution; some familiarity with Locke, Hume and the Utilitarianism. I willingly concede the point about Nietzsche's influence on modern philosophy being profound, but I would not be so certain about his being not opaque. The point I would like to underscore is this. As you have said, in order to understand Nietzsche one has to be well knowledgeable in Western history and thought? That comprises the good acquaintance with what have passed and been thought over in about 3 thousand latter years. To speak frankly, it can't but be a huge requirement. Your attempt to attenuate the weightiness of this demand by introducing a modificator "a little" before those subjects the knowledge of which you stipulate for being able to understand Nietzsche, doesn't really change their size. And yet I can dare to state that it is quite possible to understand Descartes, Kant, Spinoza, and even Hegel without the above said good grounding in Western history and thought. Of course a more or less greater acquaintance with the Western history and philosophy would enrich and deepen my understanding of these authors, but after all it is not necessary. These authors explain themselves. Your stipulation of so much for achieving the simple ability to understand Nietzsche doesn't seem to say much in favour of his being no more opaque than other great philosophers. I would be grateful for any clarification on this point.

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/05/09 - 03:11 PM:	#32
WolfSkull wrote: In order to read N, you have to start from his first and work your way to his last. He had an amazing ability of encrypting his writing to weed out the lazy. OR is his aim simply opacity?
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

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5117

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/05/09 - 04:44 PM:	#33
Banno wrote: WolfSkull wrote: In order to read N, you have to start from his first and work your way to his last. He had an amazing ability of encrypting his writing to weed out the lazy. OR is his aim simply opacity? Ol' Freddy's task was lucidity, I think, not mere clarity, or reportage. As he says quite often you've got to want what he's selling in order to buy it. So what do you want, Banno? If clarity is good enough, then N's got nothing for you.
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/05/09 - 04:51 PM:	#34
Transparency?
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

180 Proof
kynic

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: NOTHINGlifeNOTHING

Total Topics: 84
Total Posts: 5117

1 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/05/09 - 05:02 PM:	#35
Banno wrote: Transparency?
The question isn't "Which explanations do I believe?" but rather "Which explanations do I least disbelieve?" Absence of evidence THAT MUST BE THERE (i.e. implied by any claim, concept, or (its) predicates, that affects changes in/to the world) entails evidence of absence. [What cannot be done?[What cannot be hoped?[What cannot be known?]]]

Banno
Old goat

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

Total Topics: 111
Total Posts: 6293

0 of 1 people found this post helpful Posted 09/05/09 - 05:22 PM:	#36
180 Proof wrote: Damn. You saw right through my pretence...
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

yebiga
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 09/06/09 - 05:01 PM:	#37
Villon and others, He really is not that difficult to understand, nor does one need to read him systematically from his first to last work. Maybe we do not want to understand. Neitzsche is a philosopher of philosophy. There is nothing obscure in "a conviction is more dangerous than a lie" it is self evident or should be. There are various thought forms we are all trapped in and obsessed with to the exclusion of all else. Neitzsche merely makes us aware of this. The world of ideas, beliefs and aspiration we individualy or as a culture choose are just that: a choice. N simply says: look at this illusion you maintain as truth, it is but a choice. You made this choice because of these psychological reasons or these historical developments but there is nothing imperative or necessary about this choice. To highlight this point he examines the Christian thought form and dissects its assumptions, psychology and motives. He peels the layers off the onion and what is left - well that is for you the reader to decide. He spends a lot of time on this christian theme because its influence is omni-present in our culture. Think of the last time you were in an arguement with someone and perhaps it got heated and you may have said things you later regret. After reflection you realise something else was upsetting you and you took it out on that person. If you had your time again you would handle it differently. Well, Neitzsche is saying the same thing only about our entire culture and history of philosophy. Once you grasp this simple arguement it is difficult to sit on the fence, you either applaud or become offended because it is a very patronising and a deeply offensive arguement. To Neitzsche all metaphysics is tautological nonsense. In other words, Descartes, Plato, etc etc cannot say anthing that is not already implicit in the common everyday use of the words we use. "I think there fore I am" is just nonsense it means nothing. Who is I? What is it to think? If all is my thought than how can I have any meaning when there is nothing but I, thus I am thought, thus I am everything and probably I should just cut off my head and destroy the entire universe. Neitzsche is simply a cold bucket of water to wake me up!

changa
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 16, 2007
Location: here

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 3

Posted 09/06/09 - 05:28 PM:
Subject: Nietzsche understood

#38

I almost registered on this forum to reply to this thread, only to find I already have an account here! Very well strangers I must have known once, let us begin!

I do not pose as an expert on Nietzsche; I am an outrageous novice who has barely begun to study him. Yet I find him fascinating, and thusly dare to discuss him too early.

Somatica wrote:
Is Nietzsche difficult to read?

Having heard my whole life that he is difficult to read, I put off reading him. Now that I have begun, I find that he is not. But then, I am not truly reading Nietzsche, for I speak no German. Translation is an art, and how much of what I read is Nietzsche, how much Kaufmann, I cannot say.

iamtheother wrote:
Is Nietzsche sexist?

Nietzsche does not speak of woman as the sex without penis. Rather, Nietzsche speaks of woman as short-hand for feminine. This has nothing to do with sex, and everything to do with gender. This is evidenced by his reference to Christians as women, a view supported by the Bible's references to the Church as the Bride of Christ. No one supposes that the Bible meant Christians to literally be sans penis, so why must we assume this of Nietzsche. And once we accept effeminate men, it is a short step to masculine women. So we can speak of stereotyping, but surely not sexism.

newtonsapple wrote:
Can you explain what is a master-morality?

No -- this is what I seek in Nietzsche, and when I have finished all his works, I hope to be able to explain it to you, and to myself. I have my guesses, however.

Such: I am human (all too human) but I can overcome that and become something greater. That is to master, any lesser goal is slavery.

Van Keister wrote:
My question is why do we need to separate Nietzsche from Hitler. Why is this necessary?

Because Truth is superior to Fiction.

Now I am colored, as you accuse, by Kaufmann. But I cannot see the similarity between the writings I have read and Hitler's deeds. Hitler was a slave to himself, no matter what else he may have mastered. Hitler's weaknesses were precisely those Nietzsche seems to dispise most, no matter how Hitler may have viewed himself. To be Nietzschean is not to follow Nietszche. Perhaps even to not follow Nietzsche.

If you have specific evidence to the contrary, I would love to examine it.

Van Keister wrote:
differentiating the words of Socrates from Plato.

This is like separating the words of Zarathustra from those of Nietzsche, and strikes me as equally worthwhile.

youngphilosophe wrote:
In some areas he is quite brilliant but I still can't shake my prejudice when it comes to his idea of the "overhuman". I understand that he simply wanted man to advance and progress as quickly as possible but he did not consider both sides of his vision

Not Man: man. Not us: you. Nietzsche asked you to think for yourself and despised those who would not. Each person, by himself, must improve himself. Unless you believe in Lamarckian evolution, this has nothing to do with the advancement of species.

Banno wrote:
Doesn't the very existence of this thread indicate that his writing is opaque?

The existence of this thread demonstrates that his writing was German. This is a barrier for an English-only audience. Depending on translation is a major weakness in understanding anything, but is a flaw in you and me, not in Nietzsche.

yebiga wrote:
N simply says: look at this illusion you maintain as truth, it is but a choice.

This is fascinating. I shall keep this in my mind as I continue to read.

Edited by changa on 09/06/09 - 08:55 PM

"Be conservative in what you do, be liberal in what you accept from others." -Jon Postel RFC 793

Elston
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 10, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 17

Posted 09/13/09 - 04:22 PM: Subject: Master Morality	#39
Someone was asking about master morality and since no one has answered I figured I would give it a go. Before we start talking about what master morality is, it's important to understand what morality is itself. What is it? It's simply the codes and rules of behavior that a group or race of people have accumulated over time in order to live their life in the best way possible. It consists of two basic concepts 'good' and 'bad'. Things that are 'good' are those desirable for a community, things that are 'bad' are undesirable. In order to give the morality permanence and authority, it must be placed into the mouth of a God. Nietzsche identified 2 camps of morality that exist in the world today, they come from different cultures. One comes from Greco-Roman culture, the other from Judeo-Christian. Greco-Roman is the master morality because the idea of what is good and bad was defined by the aristocratic minority who was the ruling power. Their idea of good was simply what they enjoyed in life: luxury, art, strength, good food, knowledge, money...among other things. They lived glorious lifestyles because they had slaves to do most of the work. This allowed them to sit around and think of abstract concepts and come up with Greek philosophy, among many other great achievements. Now, what the Greeks thought was bad was anything that resembled the multitude: lowly, uncultured, plebeian, poor, weak, pathetic etc. And slave morality was a reaction against the dominant morality of the rulers. It was invented by the slaves who resented having to serve their masters at any cost, as if their lives were worthless. Their good involved: equality, selflessness, charity, meakness, love. Their bad: selfishness, materialism, excess, greed etc. The slave morality eventually toppled the master morality and has for a very long time been the dominant morality, as Christianity has been the dominant cultural force. I recommend you read the first part of 'The Genealogy of Morality', in which he describes both master and slave morality.

yebiga
Graduate

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

Total Topics: 11
Total Posts: 127

Posted 09/14/09 - 06:57 AM:	#40
A good summation Elston. Our culture has only ostensibly adopted a slave morality. The world of business which determines the distribution of power and wealth clearly subscribes to something closer to a master morality. Advertisers, for example, clearly target or appeal to a master morality. Yet, Christianity is clearly embedded in our popular culture. Public policy discourse often couches itself with the cloak of christian/slave morality. Again, In our closest interpersonal relations a slave morality seems to me far more active. Nietzsche's fear that slave morality would entirely subvert master morality appears, to date at least, to be unfounded. The two seem to paradoxically thrive in the one breast.

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

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