What are your thoughts on Nietzsche?
What are your thoughts on Nietzsche?
I am just curious as to what the people here think about Nietzsche's philosphy as a whole. For several years, I have been focusing on Eastern philosophy and recently, I started attacking Nietzsche's "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." I guess the question is how much time and effort would one of the enlightened people here recommend putting into his work? I am guessing it will take more than 6 reads before the real picture is uncovered. How important (or potentially important) is Nietzsche on the path toward Enlightenment?
-
Dan Rowden
- Posts: 5739
- Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2001 8:03 pm
- Contact:
Re: ---
In terms of the "western tradition" of thought, I would rate Nietzsche is the top half of the top half dozen. He is absolutely recommended reading for anyone interested in thought let alone enlightenment.
What was the theme of your "attacks" on Zarathustra?
Dan Rowden
What was the theme of your "attacks" on Zarathustra?
Dan Rowden
Re: ---
Nietzsche like Kant laid down a groundwork for analysis of certain topics previously undiscovered in philosophy.
He also linked political and philosophical thinking to the religious traditions manipulating them.
He's quite important, and I hate Zarathustra.
He also linked political and philosophical thinking to the religious traditions manipulating them.
He's quite important, and I hate Zarathustra.
Re: On Nietzsche
It's not for nothing Nietzsche went berserk in the end. He forgot his, i.e. (wo)man's limits.
(To voce 'Scotty' io: the limits of consciousness & awareness. You're enlightened, so you'll understand.)
After an indepth & thorough examination, I say:
QRS are quite alright up till now.
(Of course MKFaizi is my favourite. Hah!)
[I'm learning here, Dan. Gimme a break.]
Re: On Nietzsche
When I said "attack Zarathustra," I was referring to how difficult it is to grasp Nietzsche's concepts in this book. I can already see that the progression of events and how they relate to each other is key to understanding it. I think he even mentions somewhere that he will not explain everything for you. I'm sure I'll be back here with questions as I dig deeper into interpreting his philosophy.
-
MKFaizi
Re: On Nietzsche
I like Nietzsche. I think I have discussed his work ad nauseum here. I have nothing further to say about him, really.
But, if you have never read his work, I think you will find the reading of it worthwhile.
Unfortunately, some of those who idolize Nietzsche are far more artistic in nature than philosophic. Some follow Nietzsche soley for his allusions to Dionysus. They interpret his philosophy as a philosophy of excess and nihilism. Reading his work in a narrow fashion, they consider him to be an artist. Artistic types associate Nietzsche with Derrida, a so called philosopher who truly turns my stomach.
In one sense, he was an artist but he was an artist borne of discipline rather than of emotional and egotistical ado. I think of Nietzsche as a humble man who thought and wrote from necessity. He may have been destined for madness: He would have gone mad from not writing sooner than he went mad from writing.
One only has to read "Ecce Homo" to discern his humility in the form of self effacement and parody. "Ecce Homo" was a small work but an important one in understanding the character of the man.
The most important thing in reading Nietzsche is to remember to read him backwards. He was earnest and ironic. What he imparts to his readers is judgment. He sets forth a great feast of written thought but the most important thing he "teaches" is the value of self creation and self annhilation and re-creation.
I never liked "Zarathustra," possibly because it is in the form of a poem. That could be prejudice on my part. I also never liked it because it seemed too pretentiously "eastern" for my taste. I am not particularly fond of oriental philosophy; though, from spending time on the list and the forum, I have learned to appreciate it some. I have some distaste for Buddhism because its adherents act like Christians.
You will likely glean much from Nietzsche. You may want to read some of Spinoza as well.
Faizi
But, if you have never read his work, I think you will find the reading of it worthwhile.
Unfortunately, some of those who idolize Nietzsche are far more artistic in nature than philosophic. Some follow Nietzsche soley for his allusions to Dionysus. They interpret his philosophy as a philosophy of excess and nihilism. Reading his work in a narrow fashion, they consider him to be an artist. Artistic types associate Nietzsche with Derrida, a so called philosopher who truly turns my stomach.
In one sense, he was an artist but he was an artist borne of discipline rather than of emotional and egotistical ado. I think of Nietzsche as a humble man who thought and wrote from necessity. He may have been destined for madness: He would have gone mad from not writing sooner than he went mad from writing.
One only has to read "Ecce Homo" to discern his humility in the form of self effacement and parody. "Ecce Homo" was a small work but an important one in understanding the character of the man.
The most important thing in reading Nietzsche is to remember to read him backwards. He was earnest and ironic. What he imparts to his readers is judgment. He sets forth a great feast of written thought but the most important thing he "teaches" is the value of self creation and self annhilation and re-creation.
I never liked "Zarathustra," possibly because it is in the form of a poem. That could be prejudice on my part. I also never liked it because it seemed too pretentiously "eastern" for my taste. I am not particularly fond of oriental philosophy; though, from spending time on the list and the forum, I have learned to appreciate it some. I have some distaste for Buddhism because its adherents act like Christians.
You will likely glean much from Nietzsche. You may want to read some of Spinoza as well.
Faizi
-
suergaz
----
Quote:Quote:<hr>The most important thing in reading Nietzsche is to remember to read him backwards.<hr>
Bollocks.
Nietzsches philosophy was one of excess, but not of nihilism.
What nonsense to say he was destined for madness!
As an 'artistic type' I curse your portrait of Nietzsche the self-effacing and 'humble' and your finding Zarathustra pretentious. I have never associated him with Derrida, and as regards allusions to Dionysus, do you know what you're talking about?
Bollocks.
Nietzsches philosophy was one of excess, but not of nihilism.
What nonsense to say he was destined for madness!
As an 'artistic type' I curse your portrait of Nietzsche the self-effacing and 'humble' and your finding Zarathustra pretentious. I have never associated him with Derrida, and as regards allusions to Dionysus, do you know what you're talking about?
Nietzsche
I've read a few Nietzsche books and parts of a couple of them. I've never read "Ecce Homo". I think "Human All Too Human" is the easiest. That's the most systematic book I've read from him. I find all his books difficult though. I can understand his stanzas, but I can't figure out why he wrote any particular book. They don't seem to have much of a point. But I think one of the main themes he stuck with is that no one can truly be accountable for their actions.
-
MKFaizi
Re: ---
Zag wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>I will never really understand anyone who doesn't like Zarathustra.<hr>
That is your problem, then.
In my post above, I stated that my lack of appreciation of the poem may be due to my prejudice. Maybe, so.
However, I see it as easy -- all too easy -- for any fool to understand. It is allegorical and romantic. It is too Buddhist for my tastes. What repulses me about it is exactly what attracts others to it. I consider it to be far too sweet. It reminds me of Tolkien. I realize that Nietzsche considered it to be his best work but, if he was living in present circumstances, I doubt that he would see it that way.
I prefer his "meatier" writings; his more dense topics that bear the marks of irony and truth.
That is my preference based on my opinion.
It is ridiculous for you to become emotional over expression of the opinion of another. How can the fact that I do not care for the poem effect you?
Your emotions caused you to stray from factual information. You said that I wrote that Nietzsche was destined for madness. That is not what I wrote. I wrote that he may have been destined for madness because, with his mind, he would have gone mad from not writing and mad from the writing of truth.
I did not state with certainty that he was absolutely destined for madness. Nevertheless, he was destined for it because he did go mad. No one will ever know why. My guess is that it was organic in nature but I doubt the popular notion that it was caused by syphillis. It could have been encephalytis -- a viral syndrome of the brain caused by infection with herpes simplex that is not sexually transmitted. My mother had it a couple of years ago and she was certainly mad. Some people recover from it and some people are left mentally debilitated.
Have you read anything of Nietzsche other than Zarathustra?
More importantly, have you given extensive thought to his writing?
You are quick to refute and defend on the grounds that you cannot understand -- tolerate -- anyone who does not like the Zarathustra poem but you neglect to explain any sound reasoning for this. Your response is entirely emotional.
Why?
You rarely write anything here other than quick blurbs intended to be humorous or entertaining.
If Zarathustra bears meaning for you, explain that meaning.
Whatever became of the paltry forum from which you sprang?
Faizi
Quote:Quote:<hr>I will never really understand anyone who doesn't like Zarathustra.<hr>
That is your problem, then.
In my post above, I stated that my lack of appreciation of the poem may be due to my prejudice. Maybe, so.
However, I see it as easy -- all too easy -- for any fool to understand. It is allegorical and romantic. It is too Buddhist for my tastes. What repulses me about it is exactly what attracts others to it. I consider it to be far too sweet. It reminds me of Tolkien. I realize that Nietzsche considered it to be his best work but, if he was living in present circumstances, I doubt that he would see it that way.
I prefer his "meatier" writings; his more dense topics that bear the marks of irony and truth.
That is my preference based on my opinion.
It is ridiculous for you to become emotional over expression of the opinion of another. How can the fact that I do not care for the poem effect you?
Your emotions caused you to stray from factual information. You said that I wrote that Nietzsche was destined for madness. That is not what I wrote. I wrote that he may have been destined for madness because, with his mind, he would have gone mad from not writing and mad from the writing of truth.
I did not state with certainty that he was absolutely destined for madness. Nevertheless, he was destined for it because he did go mad. No one will ever know why. My guess is that it was organic in nature but I doubt the popular notion that it was caused by syphillis. It could have been encephalytis -- a viral syndrome of the brain caused by infection with herpes simplex that is not sexually transmitted. My mother had it a couple of years ago and she was certainly mad. Some people recover from it and some people are left mentally debilitated.
Have you read anything of Nietzsche other than Zarathustra?
More importantly, have you given extensive thought to his writing?
You are quick to refute and defend on the grounds that you cannot understand -- tolerate -- anyone who does not like the Zarathustra poem but you neglect to explain any sound reasoning for this. Your response is entirely emotional.
Why?
You rarely write anything here other than quick blurbs intended to be humorous or entertaining.
If Zarathustra bears meaning for you, explain that meaning.
Whatever became of the paltry forum from which you sprang?
Faizi
-
Greg Shantz
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 8:20 am
Nietzsche's writings
Faizi wrote (on Zarathustra):
Quote:Quote:<hr>I realize that Nietzsche considered it to be his best work but, if he was living in present circumstances, I doubt that he would see it that way. <hr>
Does the value of a philosophical work fluctuate with the whims of the marketplace?
Greg Edited by: G Shantz at: 9/14/03 3:21 pm
Quote:Quote:<hr>I realize that Nietzsche considered it to be his best work but, if he was living in present circumstances, I doubt that he would see it that way. <hr>
Does the value of a philosophical work fluctuate with the whims of the marketplace?
Greg Edited by: G Shantz at: 9/14/03 3:21 pm
-
suergaz
---
Marsha on Zarathustra:--Quote:Quote:<hr>However, I see it as easy -- all too easy -- for any fool to understand. It is allegorical and romantic. It is too Buddhist for my tastes. What repulses me about it is exactly what attracts others to it. I consider it to be far too sweet. It reminds me of Tolkien. I realize that Nietzsche considered it to be his best work but, if he was living in present circumstances, I doubt that he would see it that way.
I prefer his "meatier" writings; his more dense topics that bear the marks of irony and truth.<hr>
There is no writing of Nietzsches that is 'meatier' than Zarathustra. None also that bear as much irony, as much truth.
Quote:Quote:<hr>That is my preference based on my opinion.
It is ridiculous for you to become emotional over expression of the opinion of another. How can the fact that I do not care for the poem effect you?<hr>
Do you mean affect? I do not care to hear people speak of Zarathustra who do not care for Zarathustra. Your writing on it reminds me of animal droppings.
Quote:Quote:<hr>]Your emotions caused you to stray from factual information. You said that I wrote that Nietzsche was destined for madness. That is not what I wrote. I wrote that he may have been destined for madness because, with his mind, he would have gone mad from not writing and mad from the writing of truth.<hr>
I was waiting for you to go on about this. And you go on...
Quote:Quote:<hr>I did not state with certainty that he was absolutely destined for madness. Nevertheless, he was destined for it because he did go mad. No one will ever know why. My guess is that it was organic in nature but I doubt the popular notion that it was caused by syphillis. It could have been encephalytis -- a viral syndrome of the brain caused by infection with herpes simplex that is not sexually transmitted. My mother had it a couple of years ago and she was certainly mad. Some people recover from it and some people are left mentally debilitated.<hr>
The notion of being 'destined' or 'fated' to anything is for slaves. The truth in it defeats itself.
Quote:Quote:<hr>Have you read anything of Nietzsche other than Zarathustra?<hr>
Everything apart from his letters which I own but have only looked through.
Quote:Quote:<hr>More importantly, have you given extensive thought to his writing?<hr>
More than you have and undoubtedly more than you are able to.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You are quick to refute and defend on the grounds that you cannot understand -- tolerate -- anyone who does not like the Zarathustra poem but you neglect to explain any sound reasoning for this. Your response is entirely emotional. Why?<hr>
Unlike little women and heavy-handed men I trust my emotions completely. All 'sound' reasoning is bound, let us say destined, to emotion.
Did you really not understand what I meant when I said I will never really understand anyone who doesn't like Zarathustra? If I must be related to all human beings, please do not demand that I understand all of them.
Quote:Quote:<hr>You rarely write anything here other than quick blurbs intended to be humorous or entertaining.<hr>
Is there a complaint in this observation? Do you feel compelled to be long-winded and anecdotal more often than not? Is it a great luxury for you to be able to speak at length in here?
Quote:Quote:<hr>If Zarathustra bears meaning for you, explain that meaning.<hr>
Why? The meaning it bears for me is enough explanation for myself, and for what would I explain it here? To confuse? To disarm? If I were more like you perhaps!
Quote:Quote:<hr>Whatever became of the paltry forum from which you sprang?<hr>
Do you mean genius-L?
What has come of your love?
Edited by: suergaz at: 9/15/03 3:06 am
-
Greg Shantz
- Posts: 147
- Joined: Sun Jul 07, 2002 8:20 am
Re: ---
<a href="http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschech ... exteng.htm" target="top">Here</a>'s a link to a good site that features nearly all of Nietzsche's texts and some interesting articles on his mental illness.
-
MKFaizi
Re: ---
Matt Gregory wrote:
Quote:Quote:<hr>Does the value of a philosophical work fluctuate with the whims of the marketplace?<hr>
I was not referring to the whims of the marketplace. I was referring to the whims of religious and philosophical trendiness.
At the time that Nietzsche wrote "Zarathustra," Buddhism was rarely mentioned in western philosophy. Nietzsche was interested in Buddhism because it offered a window to enlightenment that was not available in western thought in the nineteenth century.
In the twenty-first century, superficial allusions to the tenets of Buddhism are everywhere. There are commercials on television that purport to offer "uncommon wisdom" to bank investors in a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" sort of way: "What can glass teach us about .." and "What can a foreign film teach us about.." "What can a squeegee teach us about re-planning retirement?"
These "Buddhist" commercials appeal to neo-yuppie Americans who -- very much -- like to think of themselves as superior in every way to the rest of the world. These "Buddhists" live in mini-mansions with built-in mini-jacuzzis and mini-wine cellars.
I have never met a -- key word -- wise neo-yuppie. I don't think there is such a thing as a wise man who lives a life of superficial ease -- adding to his wine cellar and his financial portfolio.
I do think there is such a thing as a Buddhist hypocrite and clod. Such a thing was unknown in Nietzsche's time.
Nietzsche constantly referred to the Germans of his time as buffoons and pigs. I seriously doubt that he would find Americans -- including all Europeans, Canadians, Australians -- any different from the German pigs of his time.
Buddhism -- in a very superficial sense -- has become part of American culture. It is a pig culture.
For this reason -- not for market values -- I doubt that Nietzsche would have embraced eastern religious values today. Eastern religious values have been westernized and commercialized to the point that they are meaningless. They are common and degrading.
Nietzsche sought meaning; definition. He did not find it in his societal milieu and he would not have found it in this one. There is no meaning in trends.
Zarathustra was the "superman." He was the sage; the personification of rough, learned wisdom. He was wisdom honed on the sharp edge of the sharp stone of philosophical experience.
You cannot reach enlightenment by following a trend or a prescribed path of set-out rules.
You reach it through divine, original circumstance and mental devotion.
Faizi
Quote:Quote:<hr>Does the value of a philosophical work fluctuate with the whims of the marketplace?<hr>
I was not referring to the whims of the marketplace. I was referring to the whims of religious and philosophical trendiness.
At the time that Nietzsche wrote "Zarathustra," Buddhism was rarely mentioned in western philosophy. Nietzsche was interested in Buddhism because it offered a window to enlightenment that was not available in western thought in the nineteenth century.
In the twenty-first century, superficial allusions to the tenets of Buddhism are everywhere. There are commercials on television that purport to offer "uncommon wisdom" to bank investors in a "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" sort of way: "What can glass teach us about .." and "What can a foreign film teach us about.." "What can a squeegee teach us about re-planning retirement?"
These "Buddhist" commercials appeal to neo-yuppie Americans who -- very much -- like to think of themselves as superior in every way to the rest of the world. These "Buddhists" live in mini-mansions with built-in mini-jacuzzis and mini-wine cellars.
I have never met a -- key word -- wise neo-yuppie. I don't think there is such a thing as a wise man who lives a life of superficial ease -- adding to his wine cellar and his financial portfolio.
I do think there is such a thing as a Buddhist hypocrite and clod. Such a thing was unknown in Nietzsche's time.
Nietzsche constantly referred to the Germans of his time as buffoons and pigs. I seriously doubt that he would find Americans -- including all Europeans, Canadians, Australians -- any different from the German pigs of his time.
Buddhism -- in a very superficial sense -- has become part of American culture. It is a pig culture.
For this reason -- not for market values -- I doubt that Nietzsche would have embraced eastern religious values today. Eastern religious values have been westernized and commercialized to the point that they are meaningless. They are common and degrading.
Nietzsche sought meaning; definition. He did not find it in his societal milieu and he would not have found it in this one. There is no meaning in trends.
Zarathustra was the "superman." He was the sage; the personification of rough, learned wisdom. He was wisdom honed on the sharp edge of the sharp stone of philosophical experience.
You cannot reach enlightenment by following a trend or a prescribed path of set-out rules.
You reach it through divine, original circumstance and mental devotion.
Faizi
Re: ---
There is no writing of Nietzsches that is 'meatier' than Zarathustra. None also that bear as much irony, as much truth.
There is a Nietzche for everyone.
Do you mean affect? I do not care to hear people speak of Zarathustra who do not care for Zarathustra. Your writing on it reminds me of animal droppings.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
I was waiting for you to go on about this. And you go on...
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
The notion of being 'destined' or 'fated' to anything is for slaves. The truth in it defeats itself.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
More than you have and undoubtedly more than you are able to.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
Unlike little women and heavy-handed men I trust my emotions completely.
Limp.
All 'sound' reasoning is bound, let us say destined, to emotion.
Well I agree with this, as all people must who are not enlightened.
….please do not demand that I understand all of them.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man with a lot of priorities.
Is there a complaint in this observation? Do you feel compelled to be long-winded and anecdotal more often than not? Is it a great luxury for you to be able to speak at length in here?
Well I would have to go with this.
I realise my long windedness is a sign of femininity, but not one I desire to let go off.
Why? The meaning it bears for me is enough explanation for myself, and for what would I explain it here? To confuse? To disarm? If I were more like you perhaps!
Laziness.
There is a Nietzche for everyone.
Do you mean affect? I do not care to hear people speak of Zarathustra who do not care for Zarathustra. Your writing on it reminds me of animal droppings.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
I was waiting for you to go on about this. And you go on...
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
The notion of being 'destined' or 'fated' to anything is for slaves. The truth in it defeats itself.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
More than you have and undoubtedly more than you are able to.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man.
Unlike little women and heavy-handed men I trust my emotions completely.
Limp.
All 'sound' reasoning is bound, let us say destined, to emotion.
Well I agree with this, as all people must who are not enlightened.
….please do not demand that I understand all of them.
Ohh proud non-womanly non-gay man with a lot of priorities.
Is there a complaint in this observation? Do you feel compelled to be long-winded and anecdotal more often than not? Is it a great luxury for you to be able to speak at length in here?
Well I would have to go with this.
I realise my long windedness is a sign of femininity, but not one I desire to let go off.
Why? The meaning it bears for me is enough explanation for myself, and for what would I explain it here? To confuse? To disarm? If I were more like you perhaps!
Laziness.