thnx

I have no idea but i know that i tried to read The Genealogy of Morals and thought it is written badly. I cant follow what he is saying, although i have had it explained to me and it does make sense and seems logically. He was somewhat a child Prodigy becoming assistant professor at 23 but i think this just makes him wierd :D He must have accepted himself as a genius and therefore presumed that his thoughts were above all others' and so his writing comes across as arrogant and there is no attempt to reach the reader or explain his ideas but only to express his greatness and superiority. I think he's crap!

(My bias could be due to his great efforts to slander psychologists as a whole on the first few pages which he takes a considerable amount of time to do! Why would he do thid except maybe to keep them away from 'examining him' and discovering his true wierdness :p :D )

p.s. It is noted that this could be to allow a showing that morality does have a genealogy and is not 'inherent' (as such) however his writing is still arrogant and without and real cause. What he thought could have been expressed in a much better way than through is bitter ramblings.

Oh man am I glad I got to you before Xev.


"Neville I have no idea but i know that i tried to read The Genealogy of Morals and thought it is written badly"

Nietzsche's a difficult read.


"He must have accepted himself as a genius and therefore presumed that his thoughts were above all others' and so his writing comes across as arrogant and there is no attempt to reach the reader or explain his ideas but only to express his greatness and superiority. I think he's crap!"

Ludicrous. In every word I read here my expectations for how much Nietzsche you've read and understood went lower and lower. In all honesty, Neville, I would say that you seem to be stating Nietzsche's main, let's say, force or emotion behind his writings to be his genius. Replace that word with confusion or pain and maybe you'd have a better paragraph. But right now what you've written shows ignorance and arrogance.


"My bias could be due to his great efforts to slander psychologists as a whole on the first few pages which he takes a considerable amount of time to do! Why would he do thid except maybe to keep them away from 'examining him' and discovering his true wierdness"

A psychologist (or in training), are you? Or just a fan of psychology? My guess at the moment is the latter, as you seem to show very little depth in your (lack of) analysis of the man.



Anyway, the real question. I've not read Twighlight, so perhaps you could give us the context? Without having read the work I would say the obvious answer is just that he's going to shatter previous thought. But I wouldn't bet on my answer.

From what little I read of the guy, he wrote sometimes in stories rather than points. Lots or flowery language. I seem to recall in year 12 we covered a little of his work, and the teacher mentioned that his "philosophy with a hammer" was when he left the flowery language behind and constructed philosophical points based on almost point-form logic. Some may have noticed that occasionally I use extreme, exaggerated examples to make points in debate.

However, after once attending a convention of the Melbourne Existentialists Society, and hearing a hundred idiots quoting dead people and not producing a single original thought, I stopped reading the dead guys and concntrated rather on my own learning. Much better. Beware second-hand words from followers of dead men.

or How to Philosophize with a Hammer

From the preface:

"Another form of recovery in certain cases even more suited to me, is to sound out idols. . . . There are more idols in the world than there are realities: that is my 'evil eye' for this world, this is also my 'evil ear'. . . . For once to pose questions here with a hammer and perhaps to receive for answer that famous hollow sound which speaks of inflated bowels -- what a delight for one who has ears behind his ears -- for an old psychologist and pied piper like me, in presence of whom precisely that which would like to stay silent has to become audible . . . This book too -- the title betrays it -- is above all a relaxation, a sunspot, an escapade into the idle hours of psychologist. Perhaps also a new war? And are new idols sounded out? . . . This little book is a grand declaration of war; and as regards the sounding-out of idols, this time they are not idols of the age but eternal idols which are here touched with the hammer as with a tuning fork -- there are no more ancient idols in existence. . . . Also none more hollow. . . . That does not prevent their being the most believed in; and they are not, especially in the most eminent case, called idols. . ."