Nietzsche - the most important philosopher - discuss

[Animavore]

Nietzsche is the only philosopher who tells it like it is that I've read. I've said it before but it's worth mentioning that before I read Zarathustra I was a "spiritual not religious" type who, despite not believing in God, believed in every type of woo from telepathy to reincarnation, astrology to UFOs. The only philosophers I had read at the time were Plato, Lao Tzu, Chuang Tsu, Buddhist philosophy, Spinoza and some Celtic stuff which didn't do any thing to remedy the situation at all.
I heard about Nietzsche in a book called Decipher by Stel Pavlou. A book, ironically, so full of woo it should throw a sheet over its head and run around on Halloween. At the beginning of it it had a quote which said (something like) "It is a curious thing that God turned Greek when he wanted to become an author and he did not learn it better"- Friedrich Nietzsche. For a reason I can't explain I found the quote intriguing and so the next week I bought Thus Spoke Zarathustra and within the few hours it took to read it every single piece of woo in my head was destroyed; and not even in a bad way, I remember laughing after reading it. Here was a guy who managed to make a mockery of every known religious institution, every moralist, every trumpeting, political wind-bag, every metaphysical philosopher banging on about other worlds beyond ours (which more or less made a show of Plato and the others), nihilists, the press and exposed mob mentality for what it is.
A lot of people today talk about self-expression, not being a sheep, being strong in character and fighting for what they desire; this is mainly a 20th century attitude but I would argue the Nietzsche started this off. I often say to people that he's the greatest philosopher they've never heard of but his influence on writing, art and attitude in the last century is undeniable. And best of all he does it with lucidity, brevity and verve. He doesn't have to harp on about complicated "proofs" or "axioms". With one paragraph he can make you pause and think and nearly knock you over. Something you hadn't considered now becomes so obvious.
Generally I can barely stand to read any book more than once but Nietzsche's Zarathustra I've read 9 or 10 times and will still be reading it and others in future.
And for the anti-theist amongst us; The Antichrist absolutely excoriates religion. For those who can survive the harsh battering their is nothing left of it or it's "morals". Most theists however will just feel insulted and start feeling enmity towards it. Definitely not for the faint-hearted.

As far as I'm concerned Nietzsche is the best philosopher I've read so far. I find it hard to imagine I will find one better although that said I have a lot more to read on this subject.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

I have not come across any philosopher that so polarises opinion. I tried reading him and found him heavy going and repetitive - mind you, I did so without that much of a grounding on the people that came before him and the ideas that he were prevalent in his time. So I am thinking I should give him another try, perhaps. Should I? Or was I right the first time?

Perhaps your error is in believing there is a right way in the first place.

I do find a lot of his (infinitely quotable) aphorisms brilliant - but surely, a truly great philosopher needs to have more than just a turn of phrase, doesn't he?

Well, he did put an end to metaphysics, provided an essential, value-based criticism of Christianity, diagnose a crisis of complete loss of values in Europe (nihilism) following Christianity, provided a cure for said crisis, developed a new method of criticism (philosophising with the hammer - do values have value outside of their reliance on tradition) as well as a new style of analysis (genealogical, the origins of a tradition can tell us something about the nature of a concept - per example, morality analysed as how it developed leads us to greater insights about religious morality, as well as the direction it takes - and other movements take in contemporary culture (namely, whether they are based on ressentiment or something more 'noble')).

So, if you agree with FN's lofty opinion of himself, please take this opportunity to explain exactly why he was such an extraordinary genius. And, if you think he was an overblown bag of wind, then share your reasons for that too. (Just be gentle with each other!)

Friedrich Nietzsche started out as the most eloquent and important contributor of Schopenhauerian theory of music and aesthetics. The Birth of Tragedy can be seen in this light, as a perspective on Greek Tragedy, its components, and how modern music, modern aesthetics have lost this. Wagner followed Schopenhauer in this. The idea is basically that life is misery, and that we can alleviate this misery shortly by enjoying music. Greek Tragedy, in Nietzsche, can do a little more than that, but nothing permanent.

This is what Nietzsche later develops in the Eternal Recurrence of the Same. He diagnoses Christianity as a nihilistic philosophy that inspires values (like science) that create its own demise and the destruction of its values. Something like humanism, where Christian values are maintained:

"After Buddha was dead, his shadow was still shown for centuries in a cave - a tremendous, gruesome shadow. God is dead; but given the way of men, there may still be caves for thousands of years in which his shadow will be shown. -And we- we still have to vanquish his shadow, too.
The Gay Science, s.108"

Nietzsche does not seek to show that God does not exist - he considers that pretty much settled. He seeks to solve the crisis of post-mortem Europe. He diagnoses nihilism, the devaluation of all values, and he seeks to end it. He does this by the eternal recurrence of the same, where one considers the idea that one would live not once, but an infinite amount of times. To answer to this affirmatively, to consider each moment to be of the greatest possible importance, we end up valuing life as it is lived for its own sake. Life is not valued for what it can become, or what it could be, or to where it leads (Heaven &c.), but simply as it is.
From this, Nietzsche proposes a philosophy that considers values - like 'compassion' and 'empathy'. Values that are associated in our culture, and he considers what they are, what they mean. Per example, the idea of guilt - adding a second mistake to the first.

He deals with various other topics, indeed, he wrote one of the best analyses of Greek philosophy (the pre-Platonics) you can find. The best criticisms of Wagnerian music you'll read..

I would also appreciate any recommendations for which of his writings to read and any good books about him.

It depends on your interests. Considering your atheism, start with the Antichrist.

Cheers,

XC[/quote]

I prefer Sartre

Why? What ideas, specifically, do you find in Sartre and Nietzsche that you find, at a competitive level, more interestingly developed in Sartre? I dare maintain that one third of what Sartre wrote was tosh (nonsense like free will, a blank slate, ultimate responsibility for the world in the individual), the other third was communism, and the other third was plagiarised Nietzsche.

I originally commented that no theologian or christian has hitherto seriously responded to Nietzsche, but removed it. Considering some of the comments I read rereading the thread, I think it is important to make this comment nonetheless. The ENTIRE response to Nietzsche has been to marginalise him or ridicule him. The current Pope is actually to be praised for merely marginalising Nietzsche, rather than to ridiculing him. It speaks to the intellectual character of the pope that he can't ridicule Nietzsche - as Lion irc does here - but no one has offered any defence against what Nietzsche mounts against Christianity. In a nutshell my problem with the new atheists.. They could have better republished Nietzsche's Antichrist.

[Animavore]

^^^That as well

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, Back on another forum that got destroyed by its creator, I started a thread called "Is Nietzsche vastly over-rated?" I've read enough of Freddie to have not found him to be very interesting, and I've even given him more than one chance. One of the things we all got out of that thread was the most complete education about syphilis I've had in my entire life. (I'm very glad I got that education on the internet than from real life experience.)

All things considered, I'll give FN credit for being brilliant, and he certainly made some important contributions to the history of ideas. Still, calling him "The most important philosopher of all time" is giving him much more credit than he deserves. Besides, brilliant and fucked-up is still brilliant and fucked-up...

The Shadow Knows

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Xamonas, Back on another forum that got destroyed by its creator, I started a thread called "Is Nietzsche vastly over-rated?"

Others have made similar comments about Mozart or Bach. The point is that it is never really about Mozart, Bach - or in this case, Nietzsche. It's always about the lack of taste or musical, in this case intellectual, understanding. A proper appreciation of Nietzsche takes (for most people) years, because they are simply not educated enough in the history of philosophy to understand all the subtleties and all the nuances. Add to that many find Nietzsche's style offensive, you have a recipe for underappreciation.
That's okay, though - Nietzsche never pretended to write for everyone, and he expected to be written off on these kinds of terms.

I've read enough of Freddie

Why do you call him 'Freddie'? If you wish to pretend to be closely related to him, his 'nickname' was Fritz - as you can find in his letters to his sister. Not 'Fred' or 'Freddie'.

to have not found him to be very interesting, and I've even given him more than one chance. One of the things we all got out of that thread was the most complete education about syphilis I've had in my entire life. (I'm very glad I got that education on the internet than from real life experience.)

Syphilis was brought up because some people thought it was likely Nietzsche had been infected by it. Silly, of course.

All things considered, I'll give FN credit for being brilliant, and he certainly made some important contributions to the history of ideas. Still, calling him "The most important philosopher of all time" is giving him much more credit than he deserves.

You'd expect this to follow some sort of exposition of ideas, some comparison, some analysis, some critique. Rather, it is the start and the end of the argument. It's so insufficient it's just sad.

Besides, brilliant and fucked-up is still brilliant and fucked-up...

Well, you would know about one of these at least..

The Shadow Knows

Sure.

[LaMont Cranston]

Comte, My, you look just like I guy I used to know named Jerome. Yes, others have made similar comments about Mozart, Bach and countless others, and, of course it has to do with the lack of musical tastes of the listerer or the deficient intellect of the reader; it couldn't possibly have anything to do with what the creator created. I get it that FN is your, personal intellectual hero, and, apparently, at a young age, you have done what it takes to have what you refer to as a "proper" understanding of FN.

What you don't seem to get is that many of us who are seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought have checked out your boy and have not found him to be all that interesting. By the way, I call him Freddie to soften my image of him. It's really not such a reach to get Freddie out of Friedrich, but you can call him Fritz if you like. I hope you'll excuse some of us if we don't want to spend years getting next to what this guy had say, but, after checking him out, some of us decided we had better things to do with our time.

It's a good thing that FN never pretended to write for everybody, and I'd say that he succeeded at his goal. I'd say that we could make a pretty good case that somebody with such limited appeal could hardly be regarded as the most important philosopher of all time. Yes, Freddie's ideas influenced many other thinkers who came after him, but if we are going to use the sheer impact on the world that somebody had, there are quite a few people who kick Nietzsche's ass. I'd also say that Nietzsche is the kind of philosopher that certain people become infatuated with when they're young, but many of these same people outgrow their infatuation in much the same way that young girls embrace somebody like Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus and then find better role models.

The reason that other thread contained so much information about syphilis is that one of the posters had a wealth of information about it, and he offered it up to address the long-held idea that FN's craziness was syphilis induced. Hey, for what it's worth, I'm more than willing to believe Nietzsche was crazy for some reason other than syphilis. In fact, I find it hard to believe that he ever got laid.

Please don't be sad that I dismiss Nietzsche in a manner that you find to be insufficient. I actually have a pretty good working knowledge of what both brilliant and fucked-up are about. At the very minimum, some people tend to be overly impressed with what they'd like to think of as brilliant because it agrees with what they choose to believe. Some people might think that's fucked-up. If you'd like to talk about those things in regard to FN or in more general terms, I'm more than willing to do that.

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

Comte, My, you look just like I guy I used to know named Jerome. Yes, others have made similar comments about Mozart, Bach and countless others, and, of course it has to do with the lack of musical tastes of the listerer or the deficient intellect of the reader; it couldn't possibly have anything to do with what the creator created.

Obviously. Anyone doubting the musical talent of Bach or Mozart is idiotic. If you know anything about music, you know that their music is some of the best music ever written. Similarly, when it comes to importance of ideas when matched to the last 3000 years, Nietzsche is clearly on top.

I get it that FN is your, personal intellectual hero, and, apparently, at a young age, you have done what it takes to have what you refer to as a "proper" understanding of FN.

Personal intellectual hero? I don't even know what that means. I've read most of what he wrote, I understand it, and I agree with much of it. Appraising him, by means of his importance, has little to do with whether I agree with him or not. I disagree with what Augustine or Thomas of Aquinas wrote, but they are certainly dominant and important church fathers. Similarly, when it comes to philosophy, Nietzsche is one of the most - if not the most - important philosopher of the past 2000 years. I can't stand Mozart's music. I find it awful. That doesn't mean I don't recognise it as some of the best music ever written.
A proper understanding of Nietzsche is quite simply an appreciation of Nietzsche that includes context. If you insist on looking at a quote, and not the book and manner in which it has been published, you won't get very far with Nietzsche. Seeming contradictions can be resolved simply by study. Gurdjieff needed to use long sentences, Nietzsche has the complexity of his thought to thank for requiring attention when being read.
My age? Mozart had composed 31 symphonies when he was 22. Alexander crossed the Hellespont. Newton was working on calculus, optics and the law of gravitation. Only along the lines of mediocrity can one discern anything remarkable about my age and my incursion into philosophy.

What you don't seem to get is that many of us who are seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought have checked out your boy and have not found him to be all that interesting. By the way, I call him Freddie to soften my image of him. It's really not such a reach to get Freddie out of Friedrich, but you can call him Fritz if you like. I hope you'll excuse some of us if we don't want to spend years getting next to what this guy had say, but, after checking him out, some of us decided we had better things to do with our time.

Amusing how we went from 'seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought' to 'checking him out' and 'don't want to spend years getting next to what this guy had to say'. Serious as cancer, I suppose.

It's a good thing that FN never pretended to write for everybody, and I'd say that he succeeded at his goal. I'd say that we could make a pretty good case that somebody with such limited appeal could hardly be regarded as the most important philosopher of all time. Yes, Freddie's ideas influenced many other thinkers who came after him, but if we are going to use the sheer impact on the world that somebody had, there are quite a few people who kick Nietzsche's ass. I'd also say that Nietzsche is the kind of philosopher that certain people become infatuated with when they're young, but many of these same people outgrow their infatuation in much the same way that young girls embrace somebody like Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus and then find better role models.

The molecules in your body will soon outgrow their attachment to you. I hardly see what such transience has to do with Nietzsche's importance. We are jumping from one fallacy to the next, all lined in shallow and pathetic attempts at insults.

The reason that other thread contained so much information about syphilis is that one of the posters had a wealth of information about it, and he offered it up to address the long-held idea that FN's craziness was syphilis induced. Hey, for what it's worth, I'm more than willing to believe Nietzsche was crazy for some reason other than syphilis. In fact, I find it hard to believe that he ever got laid.

Please don't be sad that I dismiss Nietzsche in a manner that you find to be insufficient. I actually have a pretty good working knowledge of what both brilliant and fucked-up are about. At the very minimum, some people tend to be overly impressed with what they'd like to think of as brilliant because it agrees with what they choose to believe. Some people might think that's fucked-up.

Passive-aggressive much?

If you'd like to talk about those things in regard to FN or in more general terms, I'm more than willing to do that.

Xamonas Chegwé,

This is the kind of person who disagrees with me. I don't contend with powerful intellectuals, academic philosophers who have some deep insightful beef with Nietzsche. They don't exist. Either they disagree with Nietzsche on minor points - they no longer find him 'riveting' (hence, they are academic) and have moved into the way that Nietzsche has cleared for them, or they have set out in another direction, like analytic philosophy and aren't that interested by him because he does not address their questions in a way they would like.
You're not going to find a wild, brilliant musical theorist who thinks Mozart wrote rubbish. If you want to meet people who find Mozart rubbish, you are going to run into fans of (to borrow from our friend here) Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus. If you want to meet people who find Nietzsche rubbish or 'not that interesting' for a 'serious student of the history of philosophy' - blablabla - you are going to run into Christians whose education is self-inflicted or well, this sort. To be quite honest, I don't care enough about Lamont cranston to find out what his reasons for disliking Nietzsche are.

[piscator]

What you don't seem to get is that many of us who are seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought have checked out your boy and have not found him to be all that interesting. By the way, I call him Freddie to soften my image of him. It's really not such a reach to get Freddie out of Friedrich, but you can call him Fritz if you like. I hope you'll excuse some of us if we don't want to spend years getting next to what this guy had say, but, after checking him out, some of us decided we had better things to do with our time.

It's a good thing that FN never pretended to write for everybody, and I'd say that he succeeded at his goal. I'd say that we could make a pretty good case that somebody with such limited appeal could hardly be regarded as the most important philosopher of all time. Yes, Freddie's ideas influenced many other thinkers who came after him, but if we are going to use the sheer impact on the world that somebody had, there are quite a few people who kick Nietzsche's ass. I'd also say that Nietzsche is the kind of philosopher that certain people become infatuated with when they're young, but many of these same people outgrow their infatuation in much the same way that young girls embrace somebody like Britney Spears or Miley Cyrus and then find better role models.

CSG is right...this^^^="Billy Ray Cyrus critiques Beethoven"

[epepke]

I like Nietzsche, but I call him the punk rocker of philosophy.

[epepke]

Comte, My, you look just like I guy I used to know named Jerome. Yes, others have made similar comments about Mozart, Bach and countless others, and, of course it has to do with the lack of musical tastes of the listerer or the deficient intellect of the reader; it couldn't possibly have anything to do with what the creator created. I get it that FN is your, personal intellectual hero, and, apparently, at a young age, you have done what it takes to have what you refer to as a "proper" understanding of FN.

No.

Nietzsche is a lot like Bach or Mozart or, actually, Frank Zappa. It is quite possible to dislike him, to dislike the conclusions he came to, or to dislike his reasoning, or to dislike the stuff he said. One can loathe him entirely, or be indifferent, or bored.

Only severe mental retardation or brain damage, however, can account for failing to recognize his importance or genius.

[LaMont Cranston]

Xamonas, I am not saying that you won't find value in going back and taking another look at what FN had to say. He was a brilliant thinker, but the idea that Nietzsche thoughts are "clearly unmatched" when compared to many others of the last 3000 years is laughable. (Or is it "Nietzsche is one of the most - it not the most - important philosopher of the past 2000 years") What would we expect from a guy who compares himself to Mozart, Alexander and Newton?

I took another good, long look at Nietzsche about a year ago, and it all came back to me why I rejected him in the first place. Even our friend Comte says that it may require years of study to have a proper understanding of him. For a moment, let's forget about the brilliance of FN and consider your priorities. I know very little about your life, but at this time and place, do you want to dedicate years of study so you can carry on at cocktail parties or other gatherings? Purely from a practical point of view, does it appear that what you might get out of those years of study will be worth the time spent...especially when you undoubtedly have many other possibilities available to you?

What Comte has reminded us of is that such things as musical tastes and appreciation of ideas is a personal thing. I love Mozart and think he was the greatest musical genius of all time. That doesn't mean that I don't love the music of many others.

To be quite honest, I don't care enough about Comte to find out his reasons for being so infatuated with Nietzsche. What does appear to be true is that he is infatuated, but it must be others who are the ones who are passive-aggressive.

[LaMont Cranston]

piscator, Excuse me, but did you say something? I was busy admiring that girl who's butt crack is partially covered by a salmon.

Just as a point of information, is that a king salmon, a silver, a coho or what?

"Many fish bite if you have good bait..." Taj Mahal

[Comte de Saint-Germain]

What you don't seem to get is that many of us who are seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought

I know very little about your life, but at this time and place, do you want to dedicate years of study so you can carry on at cocktail parties or other gatherings?

Apparently, those of 'us' that are seriously interested in the history of philosophical thought are interested so they can carry on at cocktail parties or other gatherings. How much further do you intend to disqualify yourself?

What Comte has reminded us of is that such things as musical tastes and appreciation of ideas is a personal thing. I love Mozart and think he was the greatest musical genius of all time. That doesn't mean that I don't love the music of many others.

Indeed. Musical preference is personal. Musical quality is not. I like Nietzsche and I like his style, like I dislike Mozart and Mozart's style (mainly his early, actually.. I find his later Romanticism as he approaches Beethoven - or rather the reverse - better) . This is separate to his genius and his importance, which are great - like Mozart's talent.

[LaMont Cranston]

piscator, I was thinking a bit about one of our conversations from the other day regarding being a "fisher of fish" or a "fisher of men." I'd rather be a "fisher of women." (In the case of The Shadow, her name is Margo Lane.)

[piscator]

piscator, Excuse me, but did you say something? I was busy admiring that girl who's butt crack is partially covered by a salmon.

Just as a point of information, is that a king salmon, a silver, a coho or what?

that's a pollock