The man is obviously very popular around here, and I wonder why.

Of course he declared God dead and that straightforwardness can be attractive, but I'm sure there must be more.

I also know that his Zarathustra is a masterpiece of poetry, but that wouldn't explain the popularity, cause there are many great poets.

I read he is against many things, he is the philosopher with the hammer. But what always bothers me is that he doesn't do anything constructive. He waits for the ubermensh and that's it.

So I would like people to expand on what Nietzsche is all about, and on what he means to you.

Thanks!

Why not?

Cause I don't see what's so interesting about him, yet he is very popular.

(wasn't that answer implied in the first post?)

Oh come now Xev, for someone as intense a 'philosopher' as you I'd think you could come up with something a little more intelligent than what my cousin says.

Why Nietzsche? The biggest reason would be that he truly is the father of post-modern thinking. As far as philosophers go he is one of the greatest writers. The Will to Power was one of the most original ideas philosophy has seen in the last few centuries. There's tons of reasons.

Oh shut up and get a sense of humour, Tyler. :)

Okay, the real reason is because he was a utter and complete babe:
http://www.probertencyclopaedia.com/j/Friedrich%20Nietzsche.jpg

http://gabrieleweis.de/2-bldungsbits/philo-bits/bilder/nietzsche2.jpg

Mmmmm, Friedrich.....Friedrich.....

Irrelevencies out of the way, I'd be happy to discuss any other philosopher. You want to discuss Aquinas' synthesis of faith and reason? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Camus' criticism of capital punishment? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Mill's synthesis of the principle of utility and individual's rights? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Arendt's theories on totalitiarian governments? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Kuhn's theories about the scientific method? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Dennet's ideas about consciousness? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Bruno's synthesis of science and mysticism? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Armstrong's idea of the conflict between mythos and logos? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Bakunin's anarchism? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Pascal's agony at the dichotomy between reason and passion? Kewl. Start a thread. Shem-Tov's Hasidicism and doctrine that one serves God in even the most trivial actions? Kewl. Start a thread. de Jouvenal's critique of the growth of governmental power? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Gersonide's contention that the Jews can be proven to be God's chosen people? Kewl. Start a thread. Foucault's history of sexuality? Kewl. Start a thread.

And if you want to discuss Lucretius' materialism, or Epicuran ethics, or Hobbes' contention that even the worst government is better than the best anarchy you can.......

Start a thread. ;)

Editing is for wusses, I'm going to post again.

I don't mean to sound bitchy. But if you wish to discuss another philosopher, I'd be happy to do that. However, there aren't any discussions around here about somebody other than Nietzsche. It gets a bit boring (I STILL LOVE YOU FRIEDRICH -okay, okay) I admit.

Ok, I'll throw something out there if noone else will...

Some reasons Nietzsche is popular here at sciforums:
1. His works are good reading. Compare his writings with Kant or Plato. You will see what I mean.
2. He questioned the unquestionable. No standard, no matter how deeply engrained in society, was beyond his critique.
3. He shattered the myth of the 'absolute'. He was the first to question all absolutes. This has had tremendous influence as societies and civilization is becoming 'global'.

There are probably plenty more reasons but those are the main ones off the top of my head...

3000th post.

Friedrich is discussed partially because he was so influential. He was a forrunner of existentialism, of Freudian psychology, of deconstructionism, and of modern skepticism.

Originally posted by A4Ever
I read he is against many things, he is the philosopher with the hammer. But what always bothers me is that he doesn't do anything constructive. He waits for the ubermensh and that's it.


Sounds a lot like me... waiting for humans to sort themselves out, full of opinion, cant be fuggered doing anything about it.

To be honest, I find reading most philosophers rather boring. I cant sit still and read some person spouting stuff i already know about on either a conscious or subconscious level. Some people quoting the interesting bits of them can be interesting, but to sit and read an entire book? yeesh... i got some fishing to do.

Sounds a lot like me... waiting for humans to sort themselves out, full of opinion, cant be fuggered doing anything about it.

Then from now on you bother me too. It's not always fancy philosphers we need to bother us :p :p


3000th post.

I didn't know that. I thought personal attractiveness was not done before.

Feel free to hijack the thread, start with Hannah Arendt! :)


He shattered the myth of the 'absolute'. He was the first to question all absolutes.

Aren't the blind forces that govern reality a new form of this absolute?


However, there aren't any discussions around here about somebody other than Nietzsche.

Yeah, we need more discussions about philosophers, so every member of sciforums will know all there is to know about all the great minds!

Lets start with Nietzsche :eek:

Kidding, kidding! :) :)

A4Ever:

Feel free to hijack the thread, start with Hannah Arendt!

Kewl. I don't really know where to begin - I'll likely find time during work to scribble down a few musings. But until then, here's a bit of a intro:

http://www.nakayama.org/polylogos/philosophers/arendt/index-e-arendt.html

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/a/arendt.htm


He waits for the ubermensh and that's it.

Bloody ubermensch, always late.

I'll read what's under the links, thanks.


I don't really know where to begin

Well, I know a little about her book 'The human condition', but anything's fine.


Bloody ubermensch, always late.

Exactly my point! :p

Originally posted by A4Ever
Then from now on you bother me too. It's not always fancy philosphers we need to bother us :p :p


I'll endeavor to bother you as much as possible then... nah, I won't, too much bother.

As far as im conscerned, neitzsche was a sad usless prick who projected his phisical pain onto his philosophy.

As far as im conscerned,

Nobody cares.


neitzsche was a sad usless prick

Wow! You must have an IQ of 160! All Nietzschean philosophy debunked! Watch out Friedrich, some idiot on i-net has ripped the concept of ubermensch into shreds with one poorly spelled and grammatically improper statement! The Will to Power is no more. The death of God is dead.

Gee whillikers, nightmare, what philosopher will you debunk next? Please tell, I am all aquiver.


who projected his phisical pain onto his philosophy.

Friedrich's brilliance as a philosopher was well established before the syphilis began to really set in. Friedrich seems to have willingly forced himself to experience pain for - reasons that you haven't the intellect to grasp. I could explain them to you, but I do not have the patience to type "power through asceticism for dummies" now.

I mean, hell, it'd probably go something like:

"The higher man forces himself to experience physical torment as a means of reifying his power over himself"

but then, it would just be too cruel to make you look up big words like "asceticism", "reify", "experience" - hell, you already have trouble with the word "physical".

I don't know, do they have such complex words in your "Scholastic First Dictionary" ? I don't think they do.

Originally posted by Xev
"The higher man forces himself to experience physical torment as a means of reifying his power over himself"


IOW, Nietzsche was a sadomasochist. :p j/k :D

As far as im conscerned, neitzsche was a sad usless prick who projected his phisical pain onto his philosophy.

Even if you don't like him, you should be intelligent enough to appreciate his work.

Originally posted by Bohemian Nightmare
As far as im conscerned, neitzsche was a sad usless prick who projected his phisical pain onto his philosophy.

watch your back , when you dish Nietzsche at Sciforums

overdoze:

IOW, Nietzsche was a sadomasochist. j/k

*Xev giggles*

'Spose so.

"Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!"
--Old and Young Women, Also Sprach Zarathrusra, trans. Thomas Common


watch your back , when you dish Nietzsche at Sciforums

Hmmm, or contend with The Wrath of Grumpy Xev&#8482.

Hmmmkay, I was a twee bit over-bitchy&#8224. Sorry Nightmare, but please stop being an idiot.


&#8224: "Overbitchy"? Oh shit. I do read too much Nietzsche.

uber-bitchy even:rolleyes:

I am the lightning.

Shit.

Originally posted by Xev


Nobody cares.



Wow! You must have an IQ of 160! All Nietzschean philosophy debunked! Watch out Friedrich, some idiot on i-net has ripped the concept of ubermensch into shreds with one poorly spelled and grammatically improper statement! The Will to Power is no more. The death of God is dead.

Gee whillikers, nightmare, what philosopher will you debunk next? Please tell, I am all aquiver.



Friedrich's brilliance as a philosopher was well established before the syphilis began to really set in. Friedrich seems to have willingly forced himself to experience pain for - reasons that you haven't the intellect to grasp. I could explain them to you, but I do not have the patience to type "power through asceticism for dummies" now.

I mean, hell, it'd probably go something like:

"The higher man forces himself to experience physical torment as a means of reifying his power over himself"

but then, it would just be too cruel to make you look up big words like "asceticism", "reify", "experience" - hell, you already have trouble with the word "physical".

I don't know, do they have such complex words in your "Scholastic First Dictionary" ? I don't think they do.

Hahahahah What a sad loser you are.. getting all defensive and haughty over a dead philosopher!
Anybody would think id insulted you boyfriend or something.
Im sorry if my comments upset you.. i wasnt aware there was a policy against offering opinion that differed from that of the pretentious faux intellectual tryhards on this site. It wont happen again. And dont worry, my vocabulary, unlike your gene pool is not at all shallow.

Originally posted by A4Ever


Even if you don't like him, you should be intelligent enough to appreciate his work.

I appreciate some of his stuff. Overall though, i find his philosophy very whiney bitter and cynical. Like the man himself.

Nightmare:

Hahahahah What a sad loser you are.. getting all defensive and haughty over a dead philosopher!

Oh, actually I wouldn't have missed the oppertunity to lightly flame a pretentious psuedo-intellectual like yourself for the world.


Anybody would think id insulted you boyfriend or something.

*Grabs shovel*

Who's to say you didn't?


Im sorry if my comments upset you..

That presumes that I care....hmmm, do I care? No.


i wasnt aware there was a policy against offering opinion that differed from that of the pretentious faux intellectual tryhards on this site. It wont happen again.

Holy shit, you have opinions? I thought you were some sort of idiot-bot that has invaded sciforums.

My bad.


And dont worry, my vocabulary, unlike your gene pool is not at all shallow.

Which is why you cannot spell or use words that are not found in elementary school thesaurus'. :rolleyes:

Originally posted by Xev
Nightmare:


Oh, actually I wouldn't have missed the oppertunity to lightly flame a pretentious psuedo-intellectual like yourself for the world.




I never claimed to be an intellectual. That was you, fool.



*Grabs shovel*

Wow, youre a classy one.



That presumes that I care....hmmm, do I care? No.

Sorry sweetie, your posts sound a little shrill to convey that you 'dont care'.


Which is why you cannot spell or use words that are not found in elementary school thesaurus'.

Does it say any thing in your elementary school dictionary about how to spell the word "opportunity"?? lol what a loser you are. Too stupid to justify youre own pretentiousness. Are you going to stop now.. or shall i just keep making you look like an idiot? This is the most fun ive had all week!

xxxxx

Huston, we have another flamer detected:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Avatar
Huston, we have another flamer detected:rolleyes:

Im not a flamer. That moron attacked me without provocation. Im allowed to defend myself.

you started it

As far as im conscerned, neitzsche was a sad usless prick who projected his phisical pain onto his philosophy.

She was just defending her favourite phylosopher as you are defending yourself.

Now you are attacking her for it....:rolleyes:

Originally posted by Avatar
you started it


She was just defending her favourite phylosopher as you are defending yourself.

Now you are attacking her for it....:rolleyes:

Thats a girl? Hahaha. Kinda makes sense now.

Nightmare:

I never claimed to be an intellectual. That was you, fool.

*Bows graciously*

Excuse me, I pretty much automatically attach "pretentious pseud-intellectual blowhard" label to anyone who uses, well, pretentious pseudo-intellectual blowhard arguments.

How about I classify you better this time? Would "idiot who stumbled in on a philosophical discussion and has no fucking clue what he is gibbering about" work better?

B/W, have you read Nietzsche?


Wow, youre a classy one.

Fuck yes, I just fucking exude civility and charm.


Sorry sweetie, your posts sound a little shrill to convey that you 'dont care'.

Nah, I am like this all the time. Besides, I miss a good flamewar.


Does it say any thing in your elementary school dictionary about how to spell the word "opportunity"?? lol what a loser you are. Too stupid to justify youre own pretentiousness. Are you going to stop now.. or shall i just keep making you look like an idiot?

You were making me look like an idiot? Okay. I think we need to review what sort of mushrooms you have been snacking on...


This is the most fun ive had all week!

Wow.....haven't you ever heard of this thing called "sex"?

No wait....let's hope not, you might inadvertantly reproduce. Scary thought.

But this is fun.


Thats a girl? Hahaha. Kinda makes sense now.

Oh! I see. You don't know the difference between a man and a woman.

Well, to start with, women are generally the one's who say things like "not for any price" and "you've got to be fucking kidding me" when you approach them.

Actually, men probably do this too.

Originally posted by Xev




You were making me look like an idiot?




Well, yeah. Although you had a pretty good hand in it yourself. You berated me like an inane pedant over small spelling errors and then went and shot yourself in the foot by misspelling a simple word like 'oppOrtunity'. And now youve demonstrated your idiocy ever further by misspelling "inadvertEntly". Jesus, it just gets sadder and sadder for you. And funnier and funnier for me. Its almost like im looking forward to your next post just to see what stupid thing you do next. I think that "if you want to discuss bla bla bla, post a thread" post you made summed up what you are pretty aptly; a boring redundant try-hard with an intellectual insecurity complex. The only time i would ever make a thread for you would be for the entertainment value of watching you fall on your ass. Yeah ive read Nietzsche, and as i said, i find him whiney and boring. I dont think his….eh why the hell am i even bothering explaining myself to a tragic case in remedial psychology like you?. Im sure if Fred were here hed be truly ashamed to have utter tripe like you endorsing his works. Have a nice day, Xev :)

*ducking for flames going back and forward* :)

Bohemian, explain for other readers of this thread then why you don't like Nietzsche, but with a little more body than saying that he is boring and all.

After all, that was the question of the first post.

Happy flame war you guys! :D

Nightmare:

Oh come on! Don't give up this easily, I was just having fun. Besides, I'm beginning to like you, although your insults really leave much to be desired.


Well, yeah. Although you had a pretty good hand in it yourself. You berated me like an inane pedant over small spelling errors and then went and shot yourself in the foot by misspelling a simple word like 'oppOrtunity'.

Meh, I've made a couple spelling errors. However, I can at least spell most words well, as well as punctuate.

(Gee, I'm so special!)


Its almost like im looking forward to your next post just to see what stupid thing you do next.

*Bows*

Glad you have something to look forward to now...besides spending friday night beating off to furry porn.


Yeah ive read Nietzsche, and as i said, i find him whiney and boring. I dont think his….eh why the hell am i even bothering explaining myself to a tragic case in remedial psychology like you?. Im sure if Fred were here hed be truly ashamed to have utter tripe like you endorsing his works.

Really? What works? I had no idea they taught philosophy in the "special" schools.


Have a nice day, Xev :)

Thanks, you too. :)

as in one of my poems


Got no time to ask or talk,
Have no problem wire green or red,
I just sit and wait,
To watch the show begin!

*passing the popcorn to Avatar*

:D

*Pulls up a chair*

Oh come on! Don't give up this easily, I was just having fun. Besides, I'm beginning to like you, although your insults really leave much to be desired.

I wasnt giving up..there just seemed to be nothing more to say.
Never the less our argument does seem to be becoming redundant so fuck it.

Ill posts a more detailed theory on why I dislike Nietzsche later on. I got stuff to do now.

Aww man, Nightmare, you are letting down our audience.

*Audience promptly throws popcorn at Xev for not being sufficiantly entertaining*


I wasnt giving up..there just seemed to be nothing more to say.

Except substance-less insults. C'mon, you know you enjoy this.


Ill posts a more detailed theory on why I dislike Nietzsche later on. I got stuff to do now.

Eww, are you implying that you have a life outside the internet? Get away from me, you freak! :p

'Kay, peace and I'll look forward to your critique.

That moron attacked me without provocation

Moron? Sweetie, go home... Xev is twice as smart as you'll ever hope to be. And as far as her "misspelling", did you ever think it was a data entry error? Grow up...

Why Notzche?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.


Nietzche is very much a "nihilist" that appeals to people going through the throes of adolescence. If you hadn't noticed, people who frequent forums such as this tend to be adolescents (in psychology if not in age!).

I don't agree. There's more to him than the adolescent rebelion part of God is dead.

I don't know if you have read much already, but there are a lot of educated and intelligent people on the board. There's a thread in site feedback which has a poll about age of the members.

A nihilist? I don't know. He questions everything, but still strives towards an ideal: the ubermensch. Is somebody with an ideal a nihilist?

What happened to Bohemian Nightmare? I was just beginning to have fun.

Goddamnit, I just want to insult somebody.


Nietzche is very much a "nihilist" that appeals to people going through the throes of adolescence. If you hadn't noticed, people who frequent forums such as this tend to be adolescents (in psychology if not in age!).

Like you, kiddie?

"The grandeur of a philosophy does
not certify its truth." -Mason Cooley

in my opinion the reason he is so popular would require examination of the audience who holds him in such high self-esteem, its pretty evident that the ego's on this board border on self-worship so the idea of a superior person graced at birth with the right to rule over all would be very appealing even to the fat little virgin sitting at his comp trying to prove he's smarter than the rest with his thusaurus in one hand and his dick in the other. When it all comes down to it, Nietzsche was wrong, just like all the others, but to admit that would require the deflation of the grand ego-machine that this board feeds

Berkeley, Taylor, Augustine, these peeps had stuff to ponder, fuck Nietzsche

Originally posted by A4Ever
I don't agree. There's more to him than the adolescent rebelion part of God is dead.

I don't know if you have read much already, but there are a lot of educated and intelligent people on the board. There's a thread in site feedback which has a poll about age of the members.

A nihilist? I don't know. He questions everything, but still strives towards an ideal: the ubermensch. Is somebody with an ideal a nihilist?

The American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS) (http://www.anus.com/)

In my view, a nihilist is someone who denies inherent value.

A4Ever: Thought you might find this link interesting :)

http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/n/nihilism.htm

Nietzsche was opposed to what he saw as nihilism, but might be better described as "fatalism."

Originally posted by >_O
in my opinion the reason he is so popular would require examination of the audience who holds him in such high self-esteem, its pretty evident that the ego's on this board border on self-worship so the idea of a superior person graced at birth with the right to rule over all would be very appealing even to the fat little virgin sitting at his comp trying to prove he's smarter than the rest with his thusaurus in one hand and his dick in the other. When it all comes down to it, Nietzsche was wrong, just like all the others, but to admit that would require the deflation of the grand ego-machine that this board feeds

An excerpt from Modern Philosophy by Roger Scruton.


There are philosophers who have repudiated the goal of truth - Nietzsche, for example, who argued that there are no truths, only interpretations. But you need only ask yourself whether what Nietzsche says is true, to realise how paradoxical it is. (If it is true, then it is false! - an instance of so-called 'liar' paradox) ...A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative', is asking you not to believe him. So don't.

Originally posted by Platipus
An excerpt from Modern Philosophy by Roger Scruton.

"There are no truths, only interpretations" is not contradictory as he is asking you to believe his interpretation. Nietzsche speaks elsewhere and clarifies his theory of truth, partially to evade the linear thought pattern of dialectics.

Originally posted by *stRgrL*
Moron? Sweetie, go home... Xev is twice as smart as you'll ever hope to be. And as far as her "misspelling", did you ever think it was a data entry error? Grow up...

Oh fuck off groupie.. everybody is OVER the argument. Try and keep up.
"data enty error" hahaah not likely.
Not that it even matters, who gives a shit about spelling??

did i mention how much Nietzsche blows yet? ;) :p

Nightmare, did I mention that your mother - :p

Ach, this is no fun. Peace.

You know I will concede that after doing some research on Nietzsche ive found that his discourse is a lot defferent that what i thought it was. I think my main beff is more with alll the maralyn manson obsessed cynics who use Neitzschean philosophy to condemn humanity. As for Neitzschean, i think i was/am niave about him.

PS xev's mother is a roadwhore. :D

Nightmare:

Yeah.....she is...... (sorry mom) :D

"There are philosophers who have repudiated the goal of truth - Nietzsche, for example, who argued that there are no truths, only interpretations. But you need only ask yourself whether what Nietzsche says is true, to realise how paradoxical it is. (If it is true, then it is false! - an instance of so-called 'liar' paradox) ...A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative', is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

Possibly the least intelligent thing I've read in a good while, and I'm in public high school. It was already refuted in this thread nicely but I just have to say that I haven't read the book this guy wrote and I likely won't simply for this quote it is so dumb.

Invitation

Take a chance and try my fare:
It will grow on you I swear;
Soon it will taste good to you.
If by then you should want more,
All the things I've done before
Will inspire things quite new.
pg. 41

Being serious about truth, --- Being serious about truth: what
very different ideas people associate with these words! The
very same views and types of proof and scutiny that a thinker
may consider a frivolity in himself to which he has succumbed on
this or that occasion to his shame---these very same views may
give an artist who encounters them and lives with them for a
while the feeling that he has now become deeply serious about
truth and that is admirable how he, although an artist, has at the
same time the most serious desire for the opposite of mere
appearance. Thus it can happen that a man's emphatic
seriousness shows how superficial and modest his spirit has
been all along when playing with knowledge. ---And does not
everything that we take seriously betray us? It always
shows what has weight for us and what does not.
Pg. 144

Source:
Nietzsche - The Gay Science
[Walter Kaufman translation]

http://www.anus.com/anus/ideology/nihilism.html

I smile. I have kissed the abyss.

Nietzsche is also important in the rise of modern moral relativism (through his influence on the existentialists).

He felt that given the variety of people and situations they face that imposing a single ethical system on them was ultimately a form of dogmatism. At best, it displayed those things that the inventor of the system thought were important and gave an insight into that person or culture as a whole at the time they created it. At worst, though, it bound people to rules that might well be inapplicable to or counterproductive in the situations in which they find themselves, especially if they did not realize that "should" be constantly reevaluating such inherited systems in light of new experiences and circumstances and in light of their own personal inclinations.

The greatest people are those who ruthlessly dig into their own assumptions, preconceptions and prejudices in order to discard those that do not stand to scrutiny.

He recognized that this kind of extensive self-analysis and individualism will lead each person to his or her own separate sense of how to behave (and in that sense places that person "beyond ethics" in a certain sense, as all such decisions are individualized and hence hard to systematize). He also knew that it would alienate one who practices it from the society in which he lived, and that no one takes it to that extreme as a result (hence, he said he waits for his "Übermenschen" because they did not yet exist).

I also personally liked the notion of the "will to power" as a more satisfying explanation of life than the earlier concept of the "will to live" (used by Schopenhauer, amongst others) as being a little too meager a drive on which to base a theory of human nature. Admittedly, when I first read Nietzsche, I conceptualized the "will to power" a bit too naively as a "desire to dominate and conquer" (which not everyone has, and which Nature in general doesn't have at all), and I have in any event long since abandoned it as the organizing principle by which I try to conceptualize human nature (indeed, though, it applied to all of Nature itself, in Nietzsche's view), but I do see it as an interesting step beyond the basic views of Schopenhauer's philosophy.

(As a purely predictive theory of human and animal nature, I have begun to fall back more and more on simple marginal utility theory in recent years, despite not really liking that when I first learned it).

Nietzche was above the conscience of a common person, but below the conscience of a Buddha. Hope this helps (=

Irrelevencies out of the way, I'd be happy to discuss any other philosopher. You want to discuss Aquinas' synthesis of faith and reason? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Camus' criticism of capital punishment? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Mill's synthesis of the principle of utility and individual's rights? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Arendt's theories on totalitiarian governments? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Kuhn's theories about the scientific method? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Dennet's ideas about consciousness? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Bruno's synthesis of science and mysticism? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Armstrong's idea of the conflict between mythos and logos? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Bakunin's anarchism? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Pascal's agony at the dichotomy between reason and passion? Kewl. Start a thread. Shem-Tov's Hasidicism and doctrine that one serves God in even the most trivial actions? Kewl. Start a thread. de Jouvenal's critique of the growth of governmental power? Kewl. Start a thread. You want to discuss Gersonide's contention that the Jews can be proven to be God's chosen people? Kewl. Start a thread. Foucault's history of sexuality? Kewl. Start a thread.

And if you want to discuss Lucretius' materialism, or Epicuran ethics, or Hobbes' contention that even the worst government is better than the best anarchy you can.......

Start a thread. ;)


that was the most long winded annoyign post i have ever read, and i love philosophy.


seriously i was thinking to myself "ok this is the last time he is going to say kewl start a thread" but no it went on and on and on.

peace.

That was a post of Xevs, and Xev is awesome.

That was a post of Xevs, and Xev is awesome.

regardless of his awesomeness it was a long winded post lol, dont tell me you can finish reading that post without wishing it would end.



peace.

I am not a he.




And in response to the original question: Nietzsche is accessable in a way that, say, Heideigger or Quine isn't.

I can't believe he didn't know that you were not a he.

3000th post.

Friedrich is discussed partially because he was so influential. He was a forrunner of existentialism, of Freudian psychology, of deconstructionism, and of modern skepticism.

No guys it's a bit facinating.

Xev posted this stuff 5 years ago?

I can see how her opinions seem to have changed on Nietzsche since then by this post. I've had an "argument" with her a few months ago, concerning Nietzsche as a "nihilist". Well perhaps she thought he was then too. Well anyway if she has changed or not, she's got some good stuff here, outside playing in the mud with touchy feely kumbaya singing beatnik commentors here...

I think most people have a love or hate feeling after reading him(i mean REALLY reading his books, not what other big time philosophers have said about him). Sometimes they love and hate him at the same time.

What I found interesting perusing this old thread was, the truth argument and
the "apparent" paradox in Nietzsche's own words. Well you have to understand he believed strongly, very strongly that everything is in "flux" and yes even indeed things he said would sameday be looked upon as "childish" or...what was it "adolescent"? HA At least he was being, trying to be honest about us, and I would argue these critics(post modern philosophers) are very very ahead of themselves, of ourselves.

"We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error."

from Nietzsche's The Gay Science, s.121, Walter Kaufmann transl.

I am not a he.




And in response to the original question: Nietzsche is accessable in a way that, say, Heideigger or Quine isn't.

my mistake, sorry "her awesomeness was long winded"

peace.

I can't believe he didn't know that you were not a he.

yeah i should be able to look through a computer screen and see her breasts. evolution must be behind in my genes.

peace

Whether "God is Dead" is true or not is still debatable. One thing I do know, "Nietzche's (crazy ass) is Dead." He spent his last ten years in a loony bin, because he read too many of his own books! RIP

I am not a he.
Abso-fraggin-lutely not.
Hi Xev.

Whether "God is Dead" is true or not is still debatable. One thing I do know, "Nietzche's (crazy ass) is Dead." He spent his last ten years in a loony bin, because he read too many of his own books! RIP

This is all I read of that...


BOKBOKBOKimanidiotBOK.

nietzschefan:


I can see how her opinions seem to have changed on Nietzsche since then by this post. I've had an "argument" with her a few months ago, concerning Nietzsche as a "nihilist".

What was all this?
Anyways there are as many versions of nihilism as there are nihilists. Nietzsche's not specifically anything, he's a precurser and a critic, he's almost what Feyaraband would call an intellectual anarchist: brilliant, intuitive, leaping, but not so big on validation, proof or apparent consistancy.

I called him a forrunner of a lot of things, but I think he'd ruthlessly criticise everything that I just credited to his inspiration.

Pandaemoni:

I also personally liked the notion of the "will to power" as a more satisfying explanation of life than the earlier concept of the "will to live" (used by Schopenhauer, amongst others) as being a little too meager a drive on which to base a theory of human nature. Admittedly, when I first read Nietzsche, I conceptualized the "will to power" a bit too naively as a "desire to dominate and conquer"

Schopenhaur doesn't simplify human behavior down to the will to live, does he? It's been so long since I read him, and I suspect that he's not very sympathetic to one with my outlook -- or my outlook is not very sympathetic to his --


Admittedly, when I first read Nietzsche, I conceptualized the "will to power" a bit too naively as a "desire to dominate and conquer"

I went from the opposite direction, and would have thought you naive as well. But perhaps your naive conception of the will to power is closer to the truth


(which not everyone has, and which Nature in general doesn't have at all), and I have in any event long since abandoned it as the organizing principle by which I try to conceptualize human nature (indeed, though, it applied to all of Nature itself, in Nietzsche's view), but I do see it as an interesting step beyond the basic views of Schopenhauer's philosophy.

You don't think everyone has?
I suppose there are submissive people, and there are (bow) the perpetually stoned, but the "will to power" is the best common denominator for human behavior that I can think of.

Beyond that, it's annoying to anthropomorphize nature (although that was, all the late-romantic rage) and to make an artifact of our evolution as primates into a universal principle of will.

"but the "will to power" is the best common denominator for human behavior that I can think of. "

That's a good way of putting it. So how do you suppose we could (if it's possible) wrap a Morality upon this behavior? The best way for us to behave "for our own good". Surely there must be a "way", a basic(as basic as the will to power) morality, that can be taught so a person can take care of themselves to their best ability yet not harm their fellow humans. Though we are in "it" for ourselves, surely we humans must "conspire" for greater things. A morality for this goal.....thoughts?

"but the "will to power" is the best common denominator for human behavior that I can think of. "

That's a good way of putting it. So how do you suppose we could (if it's possible) wrap a Morality upon this behavior? The best way for us to behave "for our own good". Surely there must be a "way", a basic(as basic as the will to power) morality, that can be taught so a person can take care of themselves to their best ability yet not harm their fellow humans. Though we are in "it" for ourselves, surely we humans must "conspire" for greater things. A morality for this goal.....thoughts?

Indeed. Xev is incredible as I am sure you can tell from her posts.
That is a good way of putting it. There are many ways of putting it. You could say many things of course but the will to power is without a doubt a very good descriptor of human nature-- it's interesting.

Thoughts on a morality for this goal of ... I have thoughts. I have thoughts. And I do not post very often, am not seen very often, have not experienced my own .... anyway this is entirely different matter.

Your idea of a morality for this goal of ... can you please clarify yourself first? It would I am sure be appericated by many people, I am having a hard time understanding what you are asking.

I wouldn't call Nietzsche brilliant. More like polemical and recalcitrant. Not that I'm passing judgement here, of course. I found when I had read him that I had already reached (and moved past) many of his ideas. Maybe he was the first to look sub specie aeternitatis with what Spengler called "historical feeling"; I think (Western) philosophy before his time had been very (or completely) ahistoric. The idea was certainly innovative and helped usher in what we now call historical philosophy.

But I'd rather read Spengler than Nietzsche. Besides, Spengler repeats Nietzsche verbatim with maybe twice the mordancy. Sometimes I think he just transcribed parts of the Gay Science.

I would expect someone with a username like neitzschefan to have a sense of humor.
Wait a minute.
No I wouldnt.
FRED'S DEAD BABY......FRED'S DEAD!

Indeed. Xev is incredible as I am sure you can tell from her posts.
That is a good way of putting it. There are many ways of putting it. You could say many things of course but the will to power is without a doubt a very good descriptor of human nature-- it's interesting.

Thoughts on a morality for this goal of ... I have thoughts. I have thoughts. And I do not post very often, am not seen very often, have not experienced my own .... anyway this is entirely different matter.

Your idea of a morality for this goal of ... can you please clarify yourself first? It would I am sure be appericated by many people, I am having a hard time understanding what you are asking.

Well I'm still trying to figure it out. I figure if there is a way for a mean generally uncaring bastard(outside my family etc.) like myself to obtain the morality of the golden rule, then it would work for anyone. We have many methods for the "good" people, the farmers whom dig at the same old customs and thoughts and as Nietzsche said still get them to "bear fruit". We need a morality for evil people. People like me. I don't like the world and want to change it or rather I at least want a piece of it to suit me(live how I want as long as it doesn't hurt them), yet not disturb the other people so that they move against me and people like me.

I believe this kind of behaviour can come from within...the "self". Not imposed upon by society in the form of mantra and law.

Working title for a post(someday here in philosophy) - "The Self +1".

I like how your ideal relates with how I think, I will post later about this.

nietzschefan check your private messages please.