The Nietzsche Thread: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » General Philosophy » The Nietzsche Thread » The Nietzsche Thread

Page: 1 2

The Nietzsche Thread

Progression
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 60

Posted 09/12/02 - 01:00 PM:	#1
I wanted to start this thread for so long, but time keeps on getting away from me. I've been reading this chappie for about 6 months and I think he's just marvelous. Happen to dislike a lot of what he says, but he says it so well, that you've got to listen. As Xev has pointed out, Thus Spake Zarathustra is probably the best introduction to Nietzsches thought and if you haven't read it there's several online editions to browse through. If nothing else reading the first 10 sections (the prologue) is a good start...This is one I just found... http://digital.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/l... Here's a couple of sections to (hopefully) get some discussion going... ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- From: Thus Spake Zarathustra, chapter 3 And Zarathustra spake thus unto the people: "I TEACH YOU THE SUPERMAN. Man is something that is to be surpassed. What have ye done to surpass man? All beings hitherto have created something beyond themselves: and ye want to be the ebb of that great tide, and would rather go back to the beast than surpass man? What is the ape to man? A laughing-stock, a thing of shame. And just the same shall man be to the Superman: a laughing-stock, a thing of shame. Ye have made your way from the worm to man, and much within you is still worm. Once were ye apes, and even yet man is more of an ape than any of the apes. Even the wisest among you is only a disharmony and hybrid of plant and phantom. But do I bid you become phantoms or plants? Lo, I teach you the Superman! The Superman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: The Superman SHALL BE the meaning of the earth! I conjure you, my brethren, REMAIN TRUE TO THE EARTH, and believe not those who speak unto you of superearthly hopes! Poisoners are they, whether they know it or not. Despisers of life are they, decaying ones and poisoned ones themselves, of whom the earth is weary: so away with them! Once blasphemy against God was the greatest blasphemy; but God died, and therewith also those blasphemers. To blaspheme the earth is now the dreadfulest sin, and to rate the heart of the unknowable higher than the meaning of the earth! Once the soul looked contemptuously on the body, and then that contempt was the supreme thing:--the soul wished the body meagre, ghastly, and famished. Thus it thought to escape from the body and the earth. Oh, that soul was itself meagre, ghastly, and famished; and cruelty was the delight of that soul!" -------------------------------------------------------------- From: chapter 4 "Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman--a rope over an abyss. A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting. What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING." ------------------------------------------------------------------- I think in some ways Nietzsche was a rather suprising 'prophet', but if man has killed God, then why aren't there more Nietzscheans? Why are there so many people like the 'Last' or 'Ultimate' man? In some ways Nietzsche seemed to understand existentialism a little ahead of his time...do you think he still has things to say to people today? How would a Superman behave? (other than wearing tight spandex suits and flying around). how's that. If you don't have an opinion now...I don't know what to do edit(s)...who taught me how to spell?!!

Xev
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 776

Posted 09/12/02 - 10:29 PM:	#2
Thinkykid: I think in some ways Nietzsche was a rather suprising 'prophet', but if man has killed God, then why aren't there more Nietzscheans? Why are there so many people like the 'Last' or 'Ultimate' man? We've hardly reached saturation point? Nietzsche says, in "The Tomb Song" 33. The Grave-Song I think of you to-day as my dead ones. From you, my dearest dead ones, cometh unto me a sweet savour, heart-opening and melting. Verily, it convulseth and openeth the heart of the lone seafarer. Still am I the richest and most to be envied- I, the lonesomest one! For I have possessed you, and ye possess me still. Tell me: to whom hath there ever fallen such rosy apples from the tree as have fallen unto me? Still am I your love's heir and heritage, blooming to your memory with many-hued, wild-growing virtues, O ye dearest ones! Ah, we were made to remain nigh unto each other, ye kindly strange marvels; and not like timid birds did ye come to me and my longing- nay, but as trusting ones to a trusting one! Yea, made for faithfulness, like me, and for fond eternities, must I now name you by your faithlessness, ye divine glances and fleeting gleams: no other name have I yet learnt. Verily, too early did ye die for me, ye fugitives. Yet did ye not flee from me, nor did I flee from you: innocent are we to each other in our faithlessness. To kill me, did they strangle you, ye singing birds of my hopes! Yea, at you, ye dearest ones, did malice ever shoot its arrows- to hit my heart! And they hit it! Because ye were always my dearest, my possession and my possessedness: on that account had ye to die young, and far too early! At my most vulnerable point did they shoot the arrow- namely, at you, whose skin is like down- or more like the smile that dieth at a glance! But this word will I say unto mine enemies: What is all manslaughter in comparison with what ye have done unto me! Worse evil did ye do unto me than all manslaughter; the irretrievable did ye take from me:- thus do I speak unto you, mine enemies! Slew ye not my youth's visions and dearest marvels! My playmates took ye from me, the blessed spirits! To their memory do I deposit this wreath and this curse. This curse upon you, mine enemies! Have ye not made mine eternal short, as a tone dieth away in a cold night! Scarcely, as the twinkle of divine eyes, did it come to me- as a fleeting gleam! Thus spake once in a happy hour my purity: "Divine shall everything be unto me." Then did ye haunt me with foul phantoms; ah, whither hath that happy hour now fled! "All days shall be holy unto me"- so spake once the wisdom of my youth: verily, the language of a joyous wisdom! But then did ye enemies steal my nights, and sold them to sleepless torture: ah, whither hath that joyous wisdom now fled? Once did I long for happy auspices: then did ye lead an owl-monster across my path, an adverse sign. Ah, whither did my tender longing then flee? All loathing did I once vow to renounce: then did ye change my nigh ones and nearest ones into ulcerations. Ah, whither did my noblest vow then flee? As a blind one did I once walk in blessed ways: then did ye cast filth on the blind one's course: and now is he disgusted with the old footpath. And when I performed my hardest task, and celebrated the triumph of my victories, then did ye make those who loved me call out that I then grieved them most. Verily, it was always your doing: ye embittered to me my best honey, and the diligence of my best bees. To my charity have ye ever sent the most impudent beggars; around my sympathy have ye ever crowded the incurably shameless. Thus have ye wounded the faith of my virtue. And when I offered my holiest as a sacrifice, immediately did your "piety" put its fatter gifts beside it: so that my holiest suffocated in the fumes of your fat. And once did I want to dance as I had never yet danced: beyond all heavens did I want to dance. Then did ye seduce my favourite minstrel. And now hath he struck up an awful, melancholy air; alas, he tooted as a mournful horn to mine ear! Murderous minstrel, instrument of evil, most innocent instrument! Already did I stand prepared for the best dance: then didst thou slay my rapture with thy tones! Those who would be a road to the overman are destroyed in thousands of ways by the last men. In some ways Nietzsche seemed to understand existentialism a little ahead of his time...do you think he still has things to say to people today? Yes, he has things to say. To a certain sort of person. As Friedrich titled Thus Spake Zarathrusra "A book for all and none". How would a Superman behave? (other than wearing tight spandex suits and flying around). Almost as Zarathrusra did, but I do not believe the Superman would seek followers as Zarathrusra did. It's a good question....I wonder if Nietzsche knew. Edit to add: What do you dislike of what Nietzsche said? Maybe we could debate it, I'm sort of his bitch.

Progression
Student

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 14, 2002
Total Topics: 5
Total Posts: 60

Posted 09/14/02 - 08:56 AM:	#3
hello XEV, thank you for the post, as well as the grave song- I'll take a closer look at it later (when for once this week I'll have time). I agree that it seems Nietzsche answered this question... but I do not believe the Superman would seek followers as Zarathrusra did. It's a good question....I wonder if Nietzsche knew. it seems to me that the ubermensch would not need anyone but himself, although I read a commentary where the writer thought they might work as a group to develop themselves further. I'm not sure what to think about that... My feeling is that Nietzsche deified man and his will without basis. If I'm understanding him, we must be creators and actors of our own moralities, but why listen to him? In short, there has to be a reason that we choose to accept the Superman over other alternatives and I'm not convinced that that 'gay science' would actually be that pleasant...other than that, I'm not convinced about his slant on the history of morality. I'm going write again tomorrow when I've got my books/notes with me...question...have you read Kauffmans Nietzsche? I've heard it's a pretty good one to have and I was going to buy it the other day, would you recommend it?...let me know...

Xev
Professor

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 27, 2002
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 776

Posted 09/15/02 - 11:09 AM:	#4
Thinkykid: it seems to me that the ubermensch would not need anyone but himself, although I read a commentary where the writer thought they might work as a group to develop themselves further. I'm not sure what to think about that... I think that those close to the superman would have to work as a group to develop themselves further. My feeling is that Nietzsche deified man and his will without basis. If I'm understanding him, we must be creators and actors of our own moralities, but why listen to him? In short, there has to be a reason that we choose to accept the Superman over other alternatives and I'm not convinced that that 'gay science' would actually be that pleasant...other than that, I'm not convinced about his slant on the history of morality. The choice to listen to Nietzsche and create one's own morality is a personal one. For some, the superman strikes a chord deep in them and seems a revalation. For others, it does not. I have no idea how to put it. Is it rational to pursue the lightning? To attempt to be a bridge to the superman? Not unless you feel the desire in you. And few people do. As for the history of morality, "Geneology" bored me sooo much that I could not really pay attention. I tend to agree though. I'm going write again tomorrow when I've got my books/notes with me...question...have you read Kauffmans Nietzsche? I've heard it's a pretty good one to have and I was going to buy it the other day, would you recommend it?...let me know... Yes, it's very good. I'd definitely recommend it.

xxuxx
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 06, 2002
Total Topics: 100
Total Posts: 1184

Posted 09/22/02 - 08:43 PM:	#5
I don't know about any of you, but I like Nietzsche more than what he wrote. I love Nietzsche because a single idea, for which he would seek tireless realisation, could make him chronically ill. I don't doubt his philosophy was heart in mind, and not the other way round. One can see this by his voluminous, discursive writing. His massively verbose dialogues. The way he would phrase an aphorism just perfectly, nuance that few appreciate. I love how confused he was, and how true he was to his own confusion. I love how he desperately sought a resolution to something irresolvable. Without compromise. He would know truth, he would therefore know untruth, he would then spend his entire life knowing both as each other, without collapsing one into the other. Not easy. I love how he attacked slave morality, and yet he was the greatest and lowest of all slaves to his own morality. Maybe it was just his alienation and his passion which did this, but nonetheless, I don't think he had a choice. I love that he could be so profound, and in his own way romantic. And yet he would turn his back on women as a race after his girlfriend dumped him by suggesting that they have a threesome with his best friend. I love how he hated poets. He was the greatest of all poets. I love his aphorisms. Why wasn't he that concise more often? I love how little power he had in his own time, that he found humanity a place beyond good and evil, and then was only made truly noticable by the Nazis. I love how he wept hugging the neck of a beaten horse. I love that a 'morally astute' society then proclaimed him insane and locked him up. I love that he had a falling out with Wagner...I don't know why, I just love the guy so much Nietzsche is one of those philosophers that one who knows anything about him is compelled to love...or at least appreciate. On the side, uberman is overman, not superman. The distinction is subtle but important. As I understand it, the uberman is centered in human frailty more than most understandings of man. Indeed, the uberman has no anthropocentric place in the natural order...nay you say, the uberman does not conquer nature by controlling her, he does it by enduring her with the only dignity affordable. The mountain. I've only read Beyond Good and Evil and Zarathustra, so I'm not entirely sure. Nevertheless, Nietzsche truly earned his very own place in modern philosophy. More than most philosophers.

meeso
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 30, 2003
Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 6

Posted 07/30/03 - 03:30 PM:	#6
progression wrote: > How would a Superman behave? (other than wearing tight spandex suits and flying around). Xev wrote: Thinkykid: Almost as Zarathrusra did, but I do not believe the Superman would seek followers as Zarathrusra did. It's a good question....I wonder if Nietzsche knew. no, it's not a good question ! merely because I think it's not a legitimate question, in existential philosophy. I think the only philosophers I know who'd accept the question & provide an answer would be Plato & Kant. Yes, T.S.Zarathoustra is indeed a great book of ethics, but it's very particular to N, it's completely different than the way Plato, Kant, or Hegel wrote about ethics. You cannot actually seek 'morals' out of it. N says: "As soon as you feel yourself against me you have ceased to understand my positions and consequently my arguments! You have to be the victim of the same passion" hence, the question would be: "What is a superman ?". Zarathustra didn't seek followers as a goal in itself, however check "Of the Bestowing Virtue" - the last in part one. m e e s o

180 Proof
cult deprogrammer

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 27, 2003
Location: reason's raggedy edge
Total Topics: 74
Total Posts: 4029

Posted 07/30/03 - 04:54 PM:	#7
will to power post #11 eternal return post #14 ubermensch post #8 before i start philosophizing with my hammer, just some prior posts of mine so you folks know where i'm coming from.
If faith is irrational, then it is rational to dismiss "faith-based claims" out of hand. If faith is rational, then "faith-based claims" must be testable and/or sound -- but they are neither. If faith is a-rational, then "faith-based claims" are inexplicable and thus cannot explain anything.

zOOmz
ultraviolet

Usergroup: Sponsors
Joined: Apr 25, 2003
Location: SoCal
Total Topics: 33
Total Posts: 3965

Posted 07/30/03 - 07:54 PM:	#8
Some interesting facts about Nietzsche.. His father died from encephalomalacia (softening of the brain), when he was 4, and was raised by his mother, a sister, and maiden aunts, which certainly had a negative effect on his attitude toward women. His favorite all time composer was Schumann, not Wagner. He had bad eyesight, was frail, but his bad health and descent into insanity was caused by syphilis that he contracted in a brothel as a student in 1871. To understand Nietzsche's work and development, you would have to examine the political developments in Germany in the last half of the nineteenth century. I am a great admirer of Nietzsche. Considering that he was probably feeling physically like hell most of the time, I do not find him depressing nor hopeless. To me, he was an empassioned spirit and when I read his works I am inspired and uplifted. Strange but true. My favorite works so far are "Thus Spake Zarathustra" and "The Gay Science". For those who missed it, here is my adaptation of the modern... Fred.
got Zen? "Reality is that which doesn't disappear when you stop believing in it." Phillip K. Dick (thanks dimka)

Vert
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 29, 2003
Location: New York
Total Topics: 1
Total Posts: 8

Posted 07/30/03 - 10:56 PM:	#9
I don't know how much sense this made but one day I was thinking about Nietzsche's Apollonian and Dionysian aspects of art. I noticed that most debuts are tailored for the masses, therefore Apollonian, and then a sophmore slump occurs oftenly and the explanation the artist(s) give is that they tried to write some real music the second time around, but sadly the public didn't like it. I'm sorry if that wasn't too philosophical Also, I like his ideas about eternal creativity. I thought about how maximum security prisoners, when given the chance to do prison art, actually accomplished a lot. Compare that to children in art classes, they normally aren't graded on how good their drawings are. It's normally a non-competitive class. (Sorry if my post isn't too coherent) Then you think about how after elementry school, most art classes suffer budget cuts when budgets need to be cut. Most of our lives our creativity are limited by the things we learn in school now. We are thought to know theories and formulas...not thought true knowledge nor have many opportunities to be creative, ie art/poetry. Most things are all about tests and grades. Achievements. My point is that society suppresses creativity because creativity is one of the most basic elements of humans. Society suppresses it because too much change will destablize the status quo. To truly be human we need to be able to be creative in whatever ways we wish? Just some 3AM ramblings

Weary Locomotive
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Sep 19, 2002
Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 171

Posted 08/01/03 - 10:41 AM:	#10
I'd like to respond to the post made by "zOOms" above. Unfortunately I have nothing but prosaic objections to your entire collection of factoids about this philosopher. Let us start with the post-war invention that Friedrich Nietzsche died of syphilis. All would be fine with this conjecture (the disreputable illness was indeed commonplace in those days), except that the medical evidence (found in the records of the doctors who treated Nietzsche) rule out syphilis. If you are interested in the details of this matter, then you could read the following: http://www.dailytelegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2003/05/04/wniet04.xml&sSheet=/news/2003/05/04/ixworld.html Secondly, "his negative attitude towards women"... This "fact" really ought to be supplanted with an exact reference as to whose personal opinion you're citing here. Indeed there are hordes of feminists who have tried to claim Nietzsche's works as their "gospel" in the past and continue to do so now. They would "certainly" be very vocal in disagreeing with your interpretation of an editorial blunder made (most likely) by one Walter Kaufmann. You also state that one needs to examine the political movements that Nietzsche was a contemporary to in Germany to understand him. And yet, the philosopher describes himself as a classicist, and the themes of his work are anti-modern to the extreme! He strenuously denounces many of these political developments which you say one has to consider in order to approach his work. In short, there is as much to disagree with in this "fact", as in the others you have posted. Advice: whenever presenting factual information, always accompany it with some citations and references (depending on the amout of attention the situation calls for). Avoid re-presenting the published personal opinions of other people as factual information. -WL

Page: 1 2

You don't have permission to post.

Please login or register.