Why Nietzsche?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by A4Ever, Aug 12, 2002.

  1. Pandaemoni Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,634
    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).
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Wisdom_Seeker Speaker of my truth Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,184
    Nietzche was above the conscience of a common person, but below the conscience of a Buddha. Hope this helps (=
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848

    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.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    That was a post of Xevs, and Xev is awesome.
     
  8. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    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.
     
  9. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    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.
     
  10. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I can't believe he didn't know that you were not a he.
     
  11. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    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.
     
  12. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    my mistake, sorry "her awesomeness was long winded"

    peace.
     
  13. EmptyForceOfChi Banned Banned

    Messages:
    10,848
    yeah i should be able to look through a computer screen and see her breasts. evolution must be behind in my genes.

    peace
     
  14. MGS_SOLO Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Poor Fred!

    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
     
  15. Oli Heute der Enteteich... Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Abso-fraggin-lutely not.
    Hi Xev.
     
  16. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    This is all I read of that...


    BOKBOKBOKimanidiotBOK.
     
  17. Xev Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    10,943
    nietzschefan:

    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:
    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 --

    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

    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.
     
  18. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    "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?
     
  19. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    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.
     
  20. §outh§tar is feeling caustic Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,832
    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.
     
  21. MGS_SOLO Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    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!
     
  22. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    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".
     
  23. Tnerb Banned Banned

    Messages:
    7,917
    I like how your ideal relates with how I think, I will post later about this.
     

Share This Page