Nietzsche - the most important philosopher - discuss

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

If Comte can objectively prove why FN will hold the keys to their plight, whatever it is, over all philosophers of the past 3000 years, then I'm prepared to concede the argument to him.

Laughable. If you can throw me with using only one hand, standing on only one leg, I shall concede you are better in Judo than I am? Why should I concede such silly limitations?

One of the most important mathematicians of all time are Newton and Einstein. They paved the way. Sure, someone else could have done it, but they DID. In three thousand years, we will still recognise Newton and Einstein as pioneers. We won't recognise Charles Darwin, whose contribution to evolutionary theory is a modern fiction. It is possible that Friedrich Nietzsche will become less important over time, but that will be true for all past philosophers. I daresay no past philosopher has made a greater contribution than Friedrich Nietzsche. I am not saying that Nietzsche will for always be the most important philosopher. That is obviously reserved for myself..

I think you missed my point, especially since you only chose to respond to my last sentence. You say that FN is the most "significant" or "important" philosopher in the last 3000 years. And you have indeed backed up your assertion of why you find him important objectively and subjectively, though far from comprehensively. Setting the subjective aside, which I hope we can agree is not relevant unless you can demonstrate, somehow objectively, why all those "in the know" should share your subjective valuation, let us try to concentrate of the objective. I italicized "try to" because I have little doubt that you will see this breaks down to folly as well, heavily dependent on the subjective values of individual humans as well as the zeitgeist of the times. That's the point you missed.

I've been asked to explain why I think that Friedrich Nietzsche is the most important philosopher of all time. If you handle different criteria, of course you are going to disagree. Why should I care?

There are many objective means by which we find something important. Being first to discover a new solution to a major problem or a new way of thinking is good. But there are many philosophers with more firsts than FN. The Greeks come to mind.

Which is why I said 2000 originally. However, we can discuss the Greeks if you want to, and I'm willing to defend 3000 years.

FN is more indebted to those who came before than all philosophy is to him. I'm sure you're probably aware of the controversy concerning Max Stirner.

Controversy? You mean like how creationism and evolution is a controversy? Stirner is an anarchist, an individualist, one who believes in self-interest. If this is all you have found in Nietzsche and you have read Nietzsche's published works, I doubt discussing this will make much sense.

Though I don't believe the accusations that FN plagarized him, it's clear that many of the ideas for which FN is given credit originated earlier with Stirner. It also begs the question of how we rank the relative importance of the solution or way of thinking to all others. Do you have an objective way of doing that?

Like what ideas?

Utility and influence are other objective(?) criteria that you would also need to address to answer my last question. Both Newton and Einstein provided objective math solutions to problems that both have immense theoretical and practical usefulness in their time, today, and tomorrow. It would be interesting to hear you argue which one is more important given that the objectivity of their discoveries is unquestionably more objective than Nietzsche's. And to reiterate my original point, it could very well turn out that those most fundamental secrets of the universe and/or man's greatest technical achievements could come to turn on the foundation of mathematics of some 19th century mathematician rendering that relatively obscure contribution far more important than either Newton's or Einstein's. But that can only be known by the context of a future you can never grasp. So your claim's of the greatness of any human are completely dependent on your temporal context. Nowhere is this more evident than in the art world where artists constantly rise and fall in "greatness" depending on their influence on current artists and/or art historians.

Even if this were the case in mathematics, you would not have established that it were the case in philosophy, which is far less a project of cumulation than physics or mathematics.

After utility you can argue influence. There are two main types of influence. One is the influence on other philosophers and the other is influence on society. I could argue the former is rather irrelevant since you yourself acknowledge the flimsy nature of such an enterprise. All the philosophy since FN, to 2200AD let's say, where for sake of argument FN's influence reached its zenith, could be viewed as junk or lackluster by the most influential philosophers living in 2201. As for society, I really have a hard time estimating FN's importance. I see FN as distilling ideas that were percolating in his time (though he was very prescient) rather than inventing new ones. The ideas found in FN's work that have really impacted society can arguably can be found elsewhere in works of art and literature (e.g., Dostoevsky) which FN neither originated or influenced, some before, some during, and some after his time. It is through those works that society at large has really changed, not FN's.

Either influence is irrelevant to me.

[Epictetus]

Nietzsche - the most important philosopher

He’s important to me insofar as he provides me with ammunition I can use against the dunderheads of Christianity (or any religion). Nietzsche does quite well exposing/criticizing the death-wish and contempt for earthly life inherent in Christianity. Most scholars of Nietzsche probably aren’t that impressed with his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but it is my personal favorite (Nietzsche has suffered abominably at the hands of his translators, so it took me some time to find a decent translation, but that is another matter). At any rate, as much as I would like to study his other books (I’ve only read bits and pieces of them), I simply don’t have the time. “ Ars longa, vita brevis”.

...an opinion for everyone and no one.

[NoFreeWill]

Nietzsche - the most important philosopher

He’s important to me insofar as he provides me with ammunition I can use against the dunderheads of Christianity (or any religion). Nietzsche does quite well exposing/criticizing the death-wish and contempt for earthly life inherent in Christianity. Most scholars of Nietzsche probably aren’t that impressed with his Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but it is my personal favorite (Nietzsche has suffered abominably at the hands of his translators, so it took me some time to find a decent translation, but that is another matter). At any rate, as much as I would like to study his other books (I’ve only read bits and pieces of them), I simply don’t have the time. “ Ars longa, vita brevis”.

...an opinion for everyone and no one.

I'm struggling through "Beyond Good and Evil" at the moment. I think you are right the the translators have done a piss poor job. I can hardly comprehend it. But basically I think what he is saying that:

1. There is no morality accept what you define it to be.
2. Your basic drive is to achieve power.

I'm an Ayn Rand fan so I thought I'd look up what she had to say about him, given they at first glance would seem to have a bit in common:
http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/nietz ... drich.html

Philosophically, Nietzsche is a mystic and an irrationalist. His metaphysics consists of a somewhat “Byronic” and mystically “malevolent” universe; his epistemology subordinates reason to “will,” or feeling or instinct or blood or innate virtues of character. But, as a poet, he projects at times (not consistently) a magnificent feeling for man’s greatness, expressed in emotional, not intellectual, terms.

Nietzsche’s rebellion against altruism consisted of replacing the sacrifice of oneself to others by the sacrifice of others to oneself. He proclaimed that the ideal man is moved, not by reason, but by his “blood,” by his innate instincts, feelings and will to power—that he is predestined by birth to rule others and sacrifice them to himself, while they are predestined by birth to be his victims and slaves—that reason, logic, principles are futile and debilitating, that morality is useless, that the “superman” is “beyond good and evil,” that he is a “beast of prey” whose ultimate standard is nothing but his own whim. Thus Nietzsche’s rejection of the Witch Doctor consisted of elevating Attila into a moral ideal—which meant: a double surrender of morality to the Witch Doctor.

I wonder what how Comte would respond to that.

So Nietzsche sees others as mere fodder to be exploited whereas Rand sees others as fellow economic actors who should be negotiated with as at least moral equals not necessarily economic equals.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Rand is a reactionary pur sang. Her 'philosophy' is nothing but a counter-reaction to communism. It seeks to restate by idle celebration what she saw as the principle victim of evil, communism, the wealthy man. Rand's philosophy is at the heart nothing less than 'might is right' - but shaped by resentment -, and we have actually - quite amusingly - seen what it leads to. You may have heard of another fan of hers, Alan Greenspan. That nitwit, like many other nitwits in American politics and economics, actually believed that twits' writing had anything to do with reality.

I would be very surprised if Ayn Rand had read anything beyond 100 pages, let alone Nietzsche.

Oh, and I would keep this:

I'm an Ayn Rand fan

to yourself.

[Animavore]

I would be very surprised if Ayn Rand had read anything beyond 100 pages, let alone Nietzsche.

According to Robert Solomon in a lecture I heard him give about Neitzsche Ann Rand had read him and had a didn't have that much of an opinion of him but, Solomon quipped, that's because she was jealous of him because she couldn't write as well as him.

I'll try dig it out to get exactly what he says but I have over 20 hours of his lectures but I can narrow it down because it was one he did with his wife.

EDIT: I just realised that someone had already written what she said above. Anyway Solomon reckoned it was because she was jealous of his writing.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Ann Rand had read him

Like I said, I'm highly sceptical. Not that that is important - even if she did read him, that doesn't mean she understood him. Him being a far better writer is trivial compared to the quality of the philosophy.

[Animavore]

Ann Rand had read him

Like I said, I'm highly sceptical. Not that that is important - even if she did read him, that doesn't mean she understood him. Him being a far better writer is trivial compared to the quality of the philosophy.

I've never read Rand to be honest and I've no real interest in reading her. Apparently she's the mother of Libertarianism (?) and I don't really like Libertarians.

[NoFreeWill]

I'm not trying to attack Nietzsche here. I haven't read enough of his work. I'm trying to understand what he had to say. Though it seems to me that "Beyond Good and Evil" is one of his philosophical major works. I've listened to the audio book a couple of times and now I am reading it.

Ayn Rand believed in free will, so that is a big dent to her credibility, to my mind. But she wasn't aware of the recent findings of neuroscience at the time of her major works.

Her 'philosophy' is nothing but a counter-reaction to communism.

Yes I think that was a big motivating factor, but that does not make her wrong. She had a big insight into why a big powerful government is dangerous. It is a necessary evil but it just needs to be minimised to mitigate the damage it is inveterately prone to do.

It seeks to restate by idle celebration what she saw as the principle victim of evil, communism, the wealthy man.

Not necessarily wealthy men, the victims are: hard working, intelligent, talented or able men/women.

Rand's philosophy is at the heart nothing less than 'might is right' - but shaped by resentment -, and we have actually - quite amusingly - seen what it leads to.

No "might is right" is the motto of socialism. Try doing anything a socialist government doesn't want you to do and see what you get. Ayn Rand advocated non-violence and freedom.

You may have heard of another fan of hers, Alan Greenspan. That nitwit, like many other nitwits in American politics and economics, actually believed that twits' writing had anything to do with reality.

Greenspan gave up Objectivism. Ayn Rand would never have endorsed what Greenspan did. I suggest you spend 5 years working in a government department, then another 5 years trying to run your own business. I think you would then find her ideas somewhat more appealing.

I would be very surprised if Ayn Rand had read anything beyond 100 pages, let alone Nietzsche.

Oh, and I would keep this:

I'm an Ayn Rand fan

to yourself.

No, at this stage I'm going to lean towards the libertarian ideal. It resonates more with me and my observations/experience. Moreover, libertarianism make a lot of sense.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I'm not trying to attack Nietzsche here. I haven't read enough of his work. I'm trying to understand what he had to say. Though it seems to me that "Beyond Good and Evil" is one of his philosophical major works. I've listened to the audio book a couple of times and now I am reading it.

Ayn Rand believed in free will, so that is a big dent to her credibility, to my mind. But she aware of the recent findings of neuroscience at the time of her major works.

There were obvious conceptual and philosophical problems with free will. LONG before neuroscience was even conceived possible.

Her 'philosophy' is nothing but a counter-reaction to communism.

Yes I think that was a big motivating factor, but that does not make her wrong. She had a big insight into why a big powerful government is dangerous. It is a necessary evil but it just needs to be minimised to mitigate the damage it is inveterately prone to do.

She's resentful. That's all you are going to read in her books. And she can't even do that right. You want to read proper Christian resentment? Read: the jews and their lies, by Martin Luther.

It seeks to restate by idle celebration what she saw as the principle victim of evil, communism, the wealthy man.

Not necessarily wealthy men, the victims are: hard working, intelligent, talented or able men/women.

No, actually, they are not. She doesn't understand intelligence or talent, or hard-working. She understands only wealth, from the absence thereof. She never experienced talent, or intelligence.

Rand's philosophy is at the heart nothing less than 'might is right' - but shaped by resentment -, and we have actually - quite amusingly - seen what it leads to.

No "might is right" is the motto of socialism. Try doing anything a socialist government doesn't want you to do and see what you get. Ayn Rand advocated non-violence and freedom.

Yeah, bub. I think you should take another look at what Rand is propagating. Freedom is in the words, not in the philosophy. If you wish to argue that she inconsistently argues for freedom - sure. Rand's freedom is the freedom of the wealthy to exploit the poor. That's what she propagates in regards to the Middle-East as well.

You may have heard of another fan of hers, Alan Greenspan. That nitwit, like many other nitwits in American politics and economics, actually believed that twits' writing had anything to do with reality.

Greenspan gave up Objectivism.

Yeah, quite publically, after he had demolished the economy by following Rand's teachings. Amusing, because he is actually far more knowledgeable and intelligent than Rand..

Ayn Rand would never have endorsed what Greenspan did. I suggest you spend 5 years working in a government department, then another 5 years trying to run your own business. I think you would then find her ideas somewhat more appealing.

You want to be pedantic? Go play that somewhere else. I'm polite, to a point. I'll burn you to a crisp, bub.

I would be very surprised if Ayn Rand had read anything beyond 100 pages, let alone Nietzsche.

Oh, and I would keep this:

I'm an Ayn Rand fan

to yourself.

No, at this stage I'm going to lean towards the libertarian ideal.

Oh, Rand LOVED libertarians

It resonates more with me and my observations/experience. Moreover, libertarianism make a lot of sense.

Yeah, Rand HATED libertarians, bub. Go read a fucking book.

[jamest]

Ultimately, it's all subjective. That is, the most important philosopher - other than yourself - is the one that most closely resembles your own opinions.

Ultimately, the most important philosopher should be judged upon the impact that he/she had upon the world, as a whole. Therefore, how can we say that Nietzsche is the most important philosopher? Certainly, his impact upon the world seems small, except for the opinion of a minority of contemporary atheists/relativists and suchlike. As far as I understand, N's impact has been upon reducing the number of individuals that would normally have been converted to 'Christianity'. Or, consequently, upon persuading more individuals to become 'atheists'. But, that's small fry.

It seems to me that some people cannot differentiate between 'the world' and the 'self'.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

As far as I understand

Which is to say, not far at all. Thank you for your contribution James.. Your final say in the matter has closed the book for all of us.

[jamest]

As far as I understand

Which is to say, not far at all. Thank you for your contribution James.. Your final say in the matter has closed the book for all of us.

Looking for conflict again? That's all your response amounts to.

Your subjective opinion of Mr. N as the most important philosopher in history, is obviously bollocks. Deal with it.

[Twiglet]

I would shy away from making a value judgement about whether Nietszche is the most important philosopher of the last 2-3000 years, as I don't know enough about all the other philosophers to feel comfortable about making that kind of judgement. I found Nietszche compelling enough to read all his published works, which is more than I can say for most philosophers.

I think Nietszches work is very far reaching, and it is a testament to his insight that his works attracted very little acclaim during his own lifetime, and only came into the wider public domain has their relevance became clearer against the backdrop of crumbling religious authority, and the terms upon which humans elect to base their morality.

Nietszche said very clearly that he was writing for the future, and to a narrow audience (if you want followers, then look for fools - or something like it). He delights in both taunting and tantalising he reader with the propsect of evoloving into a super-man, defining their own personal morality, the measure of the success being a life without regret. I think that his work serves as both critique and instruction to the political elites, as much as his concepts were woefully misappropriated as a justification for eugenics and the final solution by others.

Nietzsche is a great deconstructionist, and he exhorts his readers to build their own structures of morality appealing to strength (in its broadest meaning) and is not prescriptive about his ideal world. Giants make their own footsteps.

Someone made the earlier point that Nietszche appeals to the young, and I think there's a lot of truth to that. He encourages us to assert our identity in crowds of mediocrity, to trust our sure-footedness and, in contemporary terms to "be all we can be". He is also quite dismissive of empathy, and scathing of charity which originates in weakness (people who give money to the poor because they fear being poor themselves). He empowers the reader personally, but he also dismisses the framework of beliefs which create morality, law and stability without really putting much in their place except the idea that the strong subsume power, qualified by how the weak bring down the strong by sheer weight of numbers.

Perhaps the exercise of understading him is more important as a journey than any of his conclusions. After all, he chose to make much of his work prosaic, and many truths coexist. Whatever his degree of influence as a philosopher, I think he provides some great insights into the human condition.

[NoFreeWill]

There were obvious conceptual and philosophical problems with free will. LONG before neuroscience was even conceived possible.

I agree with you there. But there are many famous philosophers still around today in government tenured positions still asserting the existence of free will.
At least she provided for herself and never relied on state support.

She's resentful. That's all you are going to read in her books. And she can't even do that right.

There does seem to be resentful overtones through her work. But she had justification to be so. Socialist bullies backed by the apparatus of a modern state pilfered everything her father had achieved in his life. However there is clearly more to her philosophy than resentment.

You want to read proper Christian resentment? Read: the jews and their lies, by Martin Luther.

I'm not that interested in reading about someone's resentment.

It seeks to restate by idle celebration what she saw as the principle victim of evil, communism, the wealthy man.

Not necessarily wealthy men, the victims are: hard working, intelligent, talented or able men/women.

No, actually, they are not. She doesn't understand intelligence or talent, or hard-working. She understands only wealth, from the absence thereof. She never experienced talent, or intelligence.

All taxpayers are victims whenever governments squander public funds or use those funds in ways that are not consistent with the interests of those that provided those funds in the first place.

Rand's philosophy is at the heart nothing less than 'might is right' - but shaped by resentment -, and we have actually - quite amusingly - seen what it leads to.

No "might is right" is the motto of socialism. Try doing anything a socialist government doesn't want you to do and see what you get. Ayn Rand advocated non-violence and freedom.

Yeah, bub. I think you should take another look at what Rand is propagating. Freedom is in the words, not in the philosophy. If you wish to argue that she inconsistently argues for freedom - sure. Rand's freedom is the freedom of the wealthy to exploit the poor. That's what she propagates in regards to the Middle-East as well.

There will always be niches for the small guys to fill, so if the poor feel that they are being exploited they can always walk away, in a free society at least.

You may have heard of another fan of hers, Alan Greenspan. That nitwit, like many other nitwits in American politics and economics, actually believed that twits' writing had anything to do with reality.

Greenspan gave up Objectivism.

Yeah, quite publically, after he had demolished the economy by following Rand's teachings. Amusing, because he is actually far more knowledgeable and intelligent than Rand..

Greenspan acknowledged that he needed to make compromises while chairman of the Fed.

Ayn Rand would never have endorsed what Greenspan did. I suggest you spend 5 years working in a government department, then another 5 years trying to run your own business. I think you would then find her ideas somewhat more appealing.

You want to be pedantic? Go play that somewhere else. I'm polite, to a point. I'll burn you to a crisp, bub.

How is that being pedantic? Do you deny that getting 10 years of real world experience will change your opinions?

I would be very surprised if Ayn Rand had read anything beyond 100 pages, let alone Nietzsche.

Oh, and I would keep this:

I'm an Ayn Rand fan

to yourself.

No, at this stage I'm going to lean towards the libertarian ideal.

Oh, Rand LOVED libertarians

It resonates more with me and my observations/experience. Moreover, libertarianism make a lot of sense.

Yeah, Rand HATED libertarians, bub. Go read a fucking book.

Libertarianism is a broad church. There are Christian fundamentalist libertarians and left-libertarians etc.
Ayn Rand was uncompromising individual, she didn't have much time for those that disagreed with her, that's why she created her own personal philosophy called Objectivism. That was her choice. That does not stop libertarians admiring Ayn Rand's work.

[charlou]

Whatever his degree of influence as a philosopher, I think he provides some great insights into the human condition.

Dismissing empathy not being one of them.

Interesting first post, Twiglet. Welcome to the forum