Post: #26

(02-21-2013 11:16 AM)cardguy Wrote:  I think Nietzsche had some nice quotations. And had a fun take on life. But as a serious philosopher I can never figure what was new about his work? It seems pretty shallow stuff.

Despite the philosopher who, as a genuine Englishman, tried to bring laughter into bad repute in all thinking minds—"Laughing is a bad infirmity of human nature, which every thinking mind will strive to overcome" (Hobbes),—I would even allow myself to rank philosophers according to the quality of their laughing—up to those who are capable of GOLDEN laughter.
- Nietzsche

Post: #27

(02-21-2013 11:29 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Also - for those of you interested in philosophy. It is interesting to consider whether you see it as an art or as closer to a science? Of course as soon as something actually gets proven in philosophy - it usually becomes part of the field of science.

I never really considered these sorts of questions until I read the following (short) article by Daniel Dennett:

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/dennett_...al_p2.html

It really changed the way I think about philosophy. I really love Daniel Dennett. He mainly writes on the mind/body issue. Which isn't something I am that interested in. But he is such a wonderful thinker that he makes the topics dance. And because he is so smart - following his arguments on these subjects is really enjoyable. His clarity of thinking reminds me of Richard Dawkins (when writing about biology) and Milton Friedman.

The followers of Dawkins and Dennett don't usually tell of how those guys helped them to becoming swaggering, red-pill guzzling pimps. Nietszche is a different kind of philosopher. He can change your attitude and your life and is essentially an artist, not a rationalist.

Post: #28

I get all my pimp red-pill swagitude from AMG:





Not some 19th century virgin (do whores count?) with a life long crush on his best friend's wife.

But on a serious point. I guess Nietzsche was one of the first to approach philosophy in the artistic sense. Something which became so influential in European circles over the past century. So - yeah I can see where his reputation comes from.

Still - it is a shame that is hard to pin any of his ideas down though. And it definitely gets a mark down in my book.

Post: #29

(02-21-2013 11:29 AM)cardguy Wrote:  Also - for those of you interested in philosophy. It is interesting to consider whether you see it as an art or as closer to a science?

Philosophy means "love of knowledge". It used to encompass all fields of knowledge. Natural Science (Physics, Chemistry, Biology) started to break away around the time of Newton, and is now both freed from and more relevant than Philosophy. Mathematics is built on Logic, and Logic is studied by philosophers, so mathematicians and philosophers are not totally alienated from one another...

So, what is Philosophy? It is all that which has not yet developed to the point where it can break away. Philosophy is the embryo of all knowledge. When a field is born, it ceases to be Philosophy.

Art or Science? "Art" means technique, and "Science" means knowledge. Why should they be mutually exclusive?

Note that:

• "Science" comes from "Scientia", the Latin word for knowledge.
  

• "Sophia" in "Philosophia" is the Greek word for knowledge / wisdom.
  

In the old days, an artisan was someone with technical skill, like a blacksmith. In modern times, people decided that doing useless shit is nobler than doing useful things, and created the word "artist".

Post: #30

Did you read the Daniel Dennett link I provided? He addresses this question to a degree. Since he reckons most professional philosophers would rather be widely read, debated, argued over and influential over many generations. And wrong.

As opposed to being completely right. In which case you are rewarded with nothing but a footnote and silence.

If those were the two options offered - most would (guiltily) rather have the former than the latter.

This is probably why alot of philosophers write in as unclear a mnner as possible. Since they want their ideas to be debated as opposed to having them clearly exposed for consideration.

Post: #31

(02-19-2012 12:42 AM)Samseau Wrote:  What would you guys choose? Immortality, or man-whoring?

Post: #32

My favourite philosophers are Diogenes and Schopenhauer. I just saw a documentary about Nietzsche. Maybe I am too stupid to understand him but it all sounds like gibberish. Can someone summarise and explain what is so great about Nietzsche? Does anyone else feel confused with his ideas?

Post: #33

I suspect that you have to read Nietzsche with a companion reader. I picked up a copy of one of his books a long time ago and also found it to be indecipherable.

Post: #34

(02-18-2012 02:55 PM)Victorious Wrote:  For me, Nietzsche was the ultimate omega philosopher, a lonely man, raised by women, presumably only once had sex in his life (and with a prostitute, also there is some speculation that he got syphilis from this), poor health, serious one-itis with Lou Andreas Salome.

He also was insanely smart. For me, he is one of the persons that know more about what it really means to be human, he has serious insights about what is psychologically "behind" christianism, what drives human beings, the origins of morality and the way that it shapes our behaviour. And as you put, he was clearly an advocate of natural roles of men and women, if i remember correctly in one of his books he predicted the raise of movements of feminism and mocks from them. His philosophy was necessary for him, to try to overcome his condition (and try to become an alpha?).

so he was an original paper alpha.

Post: #35

Philosophy is difficult. Expect to be confused, and if you persevere, you will understand more over time. There is no other way.

Post: #36

An article on Nietzsche, courtesy of the American Nihilist Underground Society (ANUS):

Quote:The Four Great Errors

German philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche in his work Twilight of the Idols, perhaps primarily known for the immortal maxim: "Out of life's school of war: What does not destroy me, makes me stronger.", pointed out the four great errors which we constantly use to misinterpret reality and thus create many illusions that are used to show the world in a more convenient light for us.

The first error, which is also the most dangerous one, is mistaking the cause and effect, or in another words, mistaking the effect for the cause; an error that is the most recent and yet the most ancient habit of humankind, as Nietzsche says. This error is even praised by people as religion and morality, which always try to limit them with encouragement or prohibition of certain actions. Religion and morality supposes that man is, for example, ruined by certain vices like luxury or alcoholism and regard them as the cause of his downfall. But that is actually only the effect of his psychological deterioration, because he didn't have the strength to overcome or resist the hardships in life which he faced, so he instead turned to stronger and more frequent bodily stimulations to avoid confrontation with them. This inability to handle the unpleasant things in life is really the cause of his state of mind, and those vices are merely the effects, i.e. the actual representations of the cause.

The second error is that of a false causality. People, in their insecurity about themselves when compared to a far more greater and intricate system in which they live in, tend to invent causes that they think are behind their actions. This is especially evident in the "inner facts", as Nietzsche called them, which include the will, the ego and the spirit. Nietzsche argued that there are no mental causes whatsoever (causes that originate from will) and opposed the above mentioned human tendency which viewed the world through mental causes. With these "inner facts" humans project their subjectivity onto the world through the multitude of subjects (doers) from which every doing follows. This has led them to consider ego as the concept of being (thus creating the illusion of "being") and they have put spirit as the cause, instead of reality, thus establishing a measure for that reality, calling it "God". Instead of courageously going into the unknown and facing whatever lies there, we invent imaginary causes in order to feel better about ourselves and to drive away anything that could shake our familiar and boring shell of existence, but at the same time destroy any excitement and adventure in life.

The third error is the error of imaginary causes, which originates from one of the strongest and oldest emotions known to man: fear of the unknown. It is this fear that forces people to always try to explain everything that happens around them as something they have control of. When faced with something that has an unknown cause, we immediately draw from our memory some earlier familiar cause and apply it to the current situation, thus making the unknown into familiar, and since we have been doing it for so long, this application of imaginary causes became habitual process which obstructed the exploration of the real causes. Nietzsche explains this as our psychological need to drive away anything unknown which could force us to doubt our current mindset and start looking at things from a new perspective. This gives us comfort, feeling of relief, happiness and power as well. We don't want to be confronted with things that could shake our beliefs so we look for the easiest method for getting rid of them. That which is unknown is not considered as the cause, instead we convert it into a familiar imaginary cause which over time becomes dominant and turns into a system of beliefs, dogma, i.e. morality and religion. These imaginary causes conveniently explain "bad" things as death, pain, suffering as punishment for not comforming with the rest of the herd, and the "good" things are considered as "faith in God" and "a good conscience". So Nietzsche concludes that morality and religion constantly confuse cause and effect; truth is confused as the supposedly true effect and the state of consciousness is confused with its causes.

The fourth error is the error of free will. Nietzsche argues that the concept of the free will is an illusion, "the foulest of all theologians' artifices", as he said and that it was only established (invented) for imposing guilt on somebody, i.e. for the purpose of punishment, which morality and religion so zealously use as means of control. This is the psychology of making humans "responsible" and therefore punishable according to the ways of the priests, which act as God's hand on this world.

Nietzsche in the end concludes that the human being cannot be separated from the world, i.e. from the whole and completely rejected the idea that humans are something that came from some "special cause" in order to attain "the ideals of happiness, humanity and morality"; he thought that such devolving of human being to a certain goal or end (which was invented) was absurd and stood for the idea of unity, the idea of the whole, in which nothing can be judged, measured, compared or sentenced. Humans have always been over-subjective about the world they live in because of their uniqueness, thus they considered themselves detached and superior from it and thought that the world existed exclusively as a mean for their invented ends, and the clash of their illusions with reality was inevitable. We must always keep in mind that there is no world and man beside it, only the world and man within it.

November 11, 2007

Post: #37

(07-19-2017 11:08 AM)Stanfield Wrote:  My favourite philosophers are Diogenes and Schopenhauer. I just saw a documentary about Nietzsche. Maybe I am too stupid to understand him but it all sounds like gibberish. Can someone summarise and explain what is so great about Nietzsche? Does anyone else feel confused with his ideas?

His ideas veered all over the place and he changed his mind a couple of times, so it's hard to pinpoint exactly what his thought was.

He was, however, a very original thinker and had an interesting writing style.

He is most famous for his doctrine of the superman, which I'd summarize as follows:

You have a guy who wants to elevate and evolve society. To elevate society he needs to make new rules, which offends conservative parts of society. Despite the initial hostility from conservative elements, the revolutionary ideas of the guy take hold, and effectively elevate society to a new level of operating.

This is in order to elevate society to his own higher level of being. As apes had to evolve into men, so men have to evolve into something more than themselves - supermen.

Eventually, though, society becomes stale and uncreative and trapped in these rules, and is unable of any further elevation and evolving.

So then a new guy comes along, with new rules of how to live, and the cycle repeats, every time men evolving into a higher level of being.

So in order for society to evolve, a guy, a super-man or over-man, has to 1) disbelieve in the old way of doing things and 2) be willing to be sacrificed for the new way of doing things.

In essence, tomorrow's messiah is today's heretic. Jesus was a heretic in his day, but was a messiah for the new age. According to Nietszche, the next messiah will sweep away Christianity and will at first seem to be a heretic - hence Nietszche's declaration that 'God is dead'. That is, the old God and the old morality that came with the religion was stale and old, and a new God and a new morality would sweep it away, and eventually that new thing would become old and be swept away again.

Nietszche, I believe, was trying to explain why society crucified Christ, executed Socrates, scorned Buddha, etc; and yet later honoured the very men they spat at a few generations earlier.

The reason this particular doctrine became famous is 1) he wrote about it in a pseudo-religious style using vivid metaphors in his book 'Thus Spoke Zarathustra', which I guess was his way of paying homage to religious innovators in general and 2) he basically declared Christian society as dead and its morals outdated, and that Europe required a saviour to bring a new faith into it, at a time when Atheism was still a crime in many places and 3) because Adolf Hitler declared himself a superman, which did lead to a lot of people analysing his often opaque work.

Post: #38

(Just realized there are two threads opened about Nietzsche, this is reposted from the other thread)

Honestly it's hard to know where to begin if you really want to dissect Nietzsche's greatness.

What stands out the most to me is his incredible, instinctive grasp for human psychology: this is reflected in the astuteness of his cultural analysis, but I personally value the almost classical sense of urgency that he imparts upon his reader, urging us to transcend our limited, animal natures, our lazy, corrupt cultures and make something truly great out of our lives, the way that he so deeply understands so many of our own fears and insecurities that we think of only in our quietest, most thoughtful moments.

I will include some extracts for reference:

From On the Utility and Liability of History for Life

Quote:History pertains to the living person in three respects: it pertains to him as one who acts and strives, as one who preserves and venerates, and as one who suffers and is in need of liberation [monumental, antiquarian and critical history]. Above all, history pertains to the active and powerful human being, to the person who is involved in great struggle and who needs exemplars, teachers and comforters, but is unable to find them among his contemporaries and in the present age

That the great moments in the struggles of individuals form links in one single chain; that they combine to form a mountain range of humankind through the millenia; that for me the highest point of such a long-past moment is still alive, bright and great- this is the fundamental thought in the belief in humanity that expresses itself in the demand for a monumental history

Precisely this demand that what is great be eternal sparks the most terrible struggle, however. For every other living human being cries out: "No! The monumental shall not come into being"- this is the watchword of those who oppose it.

Dull habit, the trivial and the common, fill every nook and cranny of the world, gather like a dense, earthly fog around everything the path that greatness must travel to attain immortality, so as to obstruct, deceive, smother and suffocate it..

And yet again and again a few awaken who, viewing past greatness and strengthened by their observation of it feel a sense of rapture, as if human life were a magnificent thing…- all of them leaving behind the single lesson that the most beautiful life is led by those who do not hold existence in high regard.

He concludes that the greatness that once existed was at least possible at one time, and that it therefore will probably be possible once again; he goes his way with more courage, for the doubt that befalls him in his weaker moments...is now banished.

Probably my favorite passage (the source of my sig):

From Schopenhauer as Educator, Section 1

Quote:When the great thinker disdains human beings, it is their laziness he disdains, for it is laziness that makes them appear to be mass-produced commodities, to be indifferent, unworthy of human interchange and instruction.

The human being who does not want to be a part of the masses need only cease going easy on himself; let him follow his conscience, which cries out to him: "Be yourself! You are none of those things that you now do, think and desire."

Every young soul hears this cry night and day, and trembles, for when it thinks of its true liberation, it has an inkling of the measure of happiness for which it is destined from eternity.

As long as it is shackled by the chains of opinions and fear, nothing can help it attain this happiness.

And how bleak and senseless life can become without this liberation! There is no more desolate or repulsive creature in nature than the human being who has evaded his genius and who then casts furtive glances left and right, behind himself and all about.

But even if the future were to give us no cause for hope- our curious existence in precisely this Now gives us the strongest encouragement to live according to our own standards and laws.

We are accountable to ourselves for our own existence; consequently, we also want to be the real helmsmen of our existence and keep it from resembling a mindful coincidence.

We have to approach existence with a certain boldness and willingness to take risks: especially since in both the worst and best instances we are bound to lose it.

"None of this is you yourself," the young soul tells itself. No one can build for you the bridge upon which you alone must cross the stream of life, no one but you alone.

To be sure, there are countless paths and bridges and demigods that want to carry you through this stream, but only at the price of your self; you would pawn and lose your self.

There is one single path in this world on which no one but you can travel. Where does it lead? Do not ask, just take it.

He was truly an amazing character, with such an unparalleled level of insight into the human condition, his writings will continue to inspire men towards greatness for centuries to come.

From Human, All Too Human, Section 4

Quote:The most fortunate author is one who is able to say as an old man that all he had of life-giving, invigorating, uplifting, enlightening thoughts and feelings still lives on in his writings, and that he himself is only the gray ash, while the fire has been rescued and carried forth everywhere.