PDA

View Full Version : Friedrich Nietzsche..Your thoughts?


SID
03-17-2010, 08:18 AM
What do you think about Nietzsche's concepts snd philosophy?

I personally believed he had some good half baked theories but they required more cooking.

I also believed he used "blashpemous" terminology during the 19th century to get a attention, and that is one major thing that lowers his credibilty in the philosophical world, when you are supposed to be tactful, respectful and reasonable.

He also went insane during the latter part of his life, make what you will out of that....

Beyond good and evil is a great read but i doubt you will come out of it with a strong beliefe in his viewpoint, i also disagree with his nihilist tendancies.

Uncle Steezo
03-17-2010, 09:22 AM
he tried to disprove divinity and went crazy.

Rollo
03-18-2010, 05:24 PM
Like most 19th century thinkers, he tried to solve complex issues with simple generalizations.
I consider him a pompous ass. Good riddance.

God is still alive...
Nietzsche is still a hack.... also dead.

TSA
03-20-2010, 11:00 AM
^LOL. from what i've read yeah, Rollo is right except the scortching anger.
a lot of the 'thinkers' of his age would just generalize and assume, i've read a little here and there about him but have never been interested in his work enough to read it.

Mumm Ra
03-20-2010, 03:41 PM
Like most 19th century thinkers, he tried to solve complex issues with simple generalizations.
I consider him a pompous ass. Good riddance.

God is still alive...
Nietzsche is still a hack.... also dead.
yeah from what i read this is what i got too -
i bought one of his books a year ago and i couldn't force myself to read through half of it because of that - i definitely wasn't learning anything new

Cthulhu
03-21-2010, 12:49 PM
1.) Nietzsche didn't go insane from "trying to disprove divinity." Although it's not universally agreed upon, his insanity has been attributed to late stage syphilis, which he may have contracted as a medical orderly during the Franco-Prussian war.

2.) Nietzsche didn't have "nihilistic tendencies." He was against nihilism, which he believed was affecting most of Western society in the growing secular age. His "God is dead" statement doesn't mean he believed in a literal god that died, but that with the rise of scientific advancements, the authority of religion as a source of wisdom dwindles, and nihilistic tendencies result. He defined nihilism not just as the philosophy of literal nihilists, but all tendencies that were against the celebration and actualization of life. Therefore, he also considered adherence to religion and hope for an afterlife to be nihilistic because it precludes striving for solutions in this life. He was all about rejecting metaphysical explanations and seeking fulfillment in the beauties and wonders of a material world. His wish was for humankind to discover a new kind of morality that did not derive principles from fleeting metaphysical justifications, but from valuing life on earth.

3.) He may have made generalizations, but then, every person does this. (You guys love to post Farrakhan videos where he makes tons of stupid generalizations based on an ugly religion.) Of course Nietzsche was limited by his cultural perspective and time period, but he at least acknowledges this as part of his philosophy. His idea was there is no such thing as a metaphysical and objective truth, but that all claims of truth are interpretations from various perspectives. This does not mean that all are relative and equally valid. He would of course considered those perspectives that constantly seek and re-evaluate (such as the scientific method, philosophical inquiry, sociological and historical research) to be more truth-seeking than a fixed dogma.

Rollo
03-21-2010, 02:41 PM
3.) He may have made generalizations, but then, every person does this.





No. Only philsophers do.
There is no room in objective inquiry for generalizations and the only people who do generalize are weak minded.
I feel like this, if you want to uncover truth, be a scientist or a researcher.
If you want to be a human being full of hypocrisy, feeling and sentimentality; be something else.

Philosophy is an absolutely worthless school of thought when it comes to revealing truth.
What is is, what is not is not. You have no say, your feelings don't matter. Your immediate observations with no data are biased.

If you cannot handle that, then do the world a favor and don't EVER comment in regard to discovery in the natural world. When he attempted to speak on great questions he used circular reason and superficial partial understandings to dismiss things we're still trying to answer today.

There should be no room in society for people like him.
The only people who allow their emotions and agendas to corrupt truth are hurt children.
This man is basically a scorn little girl with an inferiority complex.

I hate children, I hate zealots.

SID
03-21-2010, 03:13 PM
My main quarell with Nietzsche, is rogue approach to philsoophy, completely disregarding what philosophy is and what its based on...

He wanted attention and did it the chepeast way, to say "GOD IS DEAD" in the 1940's just to get attention, then drop some beliefs that have nothing to do with god or death.

Cthulhu
03-21-2010, 07:18 PM
No. Only philsophers do.
There is no room in objective inquiry for generalizations and the only people who do generalize are weak minded.
I feel like this, if you want to uncover truth, be a scientist or a researcher.
If you want to be a human being full of hypocrisy, feeling and sentimentality; be something else.

Philosophy is an absolutely worthless school of thought when it comes to revealing truth.
What is is, what is not is not. You have no say, your feelings don't matter. Your immediate observations with no data are biased.

If you cannot handle that, then do the world a favor and don't EVER comment in regard to discovery in the natural world. When he attempted to speak on great questions he used circular reason and superficial partial understandings to dismiss things we're still trying to answer today.

There should be no room in society for people like him.
The only people who allow their emotions and agendas to corrupt truth are hurt children.
This man is basically a scorn little girl with an inferiority complex.

I hate children, I hate zealots.

Look, I don't agree with everything Nietzsche thought, and by no means am I against science (which I will agree with you is the only tool we have to find unbiased results), but I don't know how you can make the sweeping generalization that all philosophy is worthless. My only point was to actually try to represent some of Nietzsche's philosophy to people who have their own agenda against what he thought. I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I'm the last person here who would be against science, but not everything humankind deals with is answerable by hard science.

I'm curious though which particular parts of Nietzsche's philosophy you think are corrupting truth and how you think science answers it better. Because as far as I can tell, Nietzsche was pro-science and never said anything that was against rational thought, but it's quite possible that I'm ignorant on some of his views.

Edgar Erebus
03-21-2010, 08:24 PM
He wanted attention and did it the chepeast way, to say "GOD IS DEAD" in the 1940's just to get attention, then drop some beliefs that have nothing to do with god or death.










































to say "GOD IS DEAD" in the 1940's



























Thread over.

Rollo
03-22-2010, 06:55 AM
Look, I don't agree with everything Nietzsche thought, and by no means am I against science (which I will agree with you is the only tool we have to find unbiased results), but I don't know how you can make the sweeping generalization that all philosophy is worthless.



In regard to uncovering truth about the natural world*
Philsophy is useful in business. It's useful in war.

Other than that, it's just conversation pieces and twaddle.


I'm not sure where you're coming from, but I'm the last person here who would be against science, but not everything humankind deals with is answerable by hard science.


Yes, it is.
Objective truth is the only truth.


I'm curious though which particular parts of Nietzsche's philosophy you think are corrupting truth and how you think science answers it better. Because as far as I can tell, Nietzsche was pro-science


In terms of truths...
Social truth

Nietzsche was of a philosophy known as social Dawinism.
He spoke on slave morality and the master's morality.
Tell people, that christianity was a slave religion(Which is retarded and baseless) and that masters(The elite of society and the people he percieved to be strong) to form their own inner morality.

The problem with that is that a subjective inner moral law, is no law at all.
What truth might be had in right and wrong is lost because instead of actual values, he has essentially said "might is right". The problem with that, is that anyone that can thrive can be called a master.
This means someone who kills, steals, rapes, spreads ignorance and does things that are negative and harm society as a whole can be masters.

In fact, the hypocrisy here, is that the leaders of that "slave religion" would be "masters" under his reasoning.

His idea of social justice is completely warped.


In terms of science, the thinking that eugenics, the cleansing of those with inferior intellect, motor skills and physical characteristics will somehow better the world is false.

For one, traits such as psychological/mental/emotional abnormalities don't last forever.
After enough generations go by, this rights itself.
It is actually harmful to the gene pool to take away individuals, because all of our resistances to certain ailments, as well as the evolution of our species as a whole is directly proportionate to the population in general.
The more people you have reproducing, the higher the rate of mutation, the more chances at beneficial mutation and beneficial adaptation.

Another problem is that he contended there was no purpose in this life.
It's painfully obvious there is.
AIDS has a purpose, to reproduce.
Symbiotic agencies have a purpose, they join together and instead of directly combating one another they form a collective that is stronger than any single organism alone.

what is anti-science about him, is his understanding of selection.
\He thinks it should be Bird A has a pointier longer beak than Bird B, therefor Bird A stabs Bird B's fucking eye out!"

When in reality it's "Bird A has a longer pointer beak than Bird B, therefor Bird B cannot reach as deep in mud holes for worms, Bird B dies off, it's species never to reproduce again"

If something is superior, it needn't waste it's time attacking it's counter parts mindlessly like that. That's not Darwinism, that's barbarism.
It's survival of the fit, not survival of the fortunate bastard to be left standing.

I could go deeper in detil into quantum mechanics, probability and information theory why a purposeless universe is more or less ridiculous according to todays standards...
I was just responding to your comment which seemed directed at me.

SID
03-22-2010, 07:41 AM
Thread over.

I was high when i wrote that, was thinking abour someone else.

What i said applies though he said some controversial shit just to get attention.

Cthulhu
03-22-2010, 12:24 PM
In regard to uncovering truth about the natural world*
Philsophy is useful in business. It's useful in war.

Other than that, it's just conversation pieces and twaddle.



Yes, it is.
Objective truth is the only truth.




In terms of truths...
Social truth

Nietzsche was of a philosophy known as social Dawinism.
He spoke on slave morality and the master's morality.
Tell people, that christianity was a slave religion(Which is retarded and baseless) and that masters(The elite of society and the people he percieved to be strong) to form their own inner morality.

The problem with that is that a subjective inner moral law, is no law at all.
What truth might be had in right and wrong is lost because instead of actual values, he has essentially said "might is right". The problem with that, is that anyone that can thrive can be called a master.
This means someone who kills, steals, rapes, spreads ignorance and does things that are negative and harm society as a whole can be masters.

In fact, the hypocrisy here, is that the leaders of that "slave religion" would be "masters" under his reasoning.

His idea of social justice is completely warped.


In terms of science, the thinking that eugenics, the cleansing of those with inferior intellect, motor skills and physical characteristics will somehow better the world is false.

For one, traits such as psychological/mental/emotional abnormalities don't last forever.
After enough generations go by, this rights itself.
It is actually harmful to the gene pool to take away individuals, because all of our resistances to certain ailments, as well as the evolution of our species as a whole is directly proportionate to the population in general.
The more people you have reproducing, the higher the rate of mutation, the more chances at beneficial mutation and beneficial adaptation.

Another problem is that he contended there was no purpose in this life.
It's painfully obvious there is.
AIDS has a purpose, to reproduce.
Symbiotic agencies have a purpose, they join together and instead of directly combating one another they form a collective that is stronger than any single organism alone.

what is anti-science about him, is his understanding of selection.
\He thinks it should be Bird A has a pointier longer beak than Bird B, therefor Bird A stabs Bird B's fucking eye out!"

When in reality it's "Bird A has a longer pointer beak than Bird B, therefor Bird B cannot reach as deep in mud holes for worms, Bird B dies off, it's species never to reproduce again"

If something is superior, it needn't waste it's time attacking it's counter parts mindlessly like that. That's not Darwinism, that's barbarism.
It's survival of the fit, not survival of the fortunate bastard to be left standing.

I could go deeper in detil into quantum mechanics, probability and information theory why a purposeless universe is more or less ridiculous according to todays standards...
I was just responding to your comment which seemed directed at me.

It sounds like you're talking more about Ayn Rand than Nietzsche. His thoughts were a little more nuanced than that. I don't agree with everything he had to say, and he was certainly mistaken on many points, but he didn't advocate Social Darwinism or eugenics, though many nasty people tried to use his ideas to justify such things, conveniently ignoring that he opposed oligarchy (which is what Social Darwinism and Randian Objectivism ultimately lead to) and opposed the strong taking advantage of the weak. His main point about Christianity is that as it was being practiced in his day, it led to a morality based on subservience to a few moral authorities. It was a spiritual crutch, not an active search for truth.

Cthulhu
03-22-2010, 12:45 PM
I was high when i wrote that, was thinking abour someone else.

What i said applies though he said some controversial shit just to get attention.

He said some controversial shit because that's what he believed, and he wrote it with poetic hyperbole. Have you actually read the passage where he says "God is Dead"? It's in the form of a parable where a madman is running from church to church telling everyone that God is dead, that we have killed him, and asking how we can possibly become worthy of this deed.

I find it funny that theists try to dismiss declarations of atheism or anti-theism as "just trying to get attention" when theistic speakers constantly make ignorant attention-getting remarks informed by their theology.

Cthulhu
03-22-2010, 12:52 PM
In regard to uncovering truth about the natural world*
Philsophy is useful in business. It's useful in war.

Other than that, it's just conversation pieces and twaddle.



Yes, it is.
Objective truth is the only truth.

But is there an objective truth in every circumstance? I love science and do believe it is the only way to arrive at objective conclusions, but social situations don't always have an objective solution. What does hard science have to say about the rights of workers to have fair wages vs. the right of employers to generate the maximum profit?

I always stick to the quote Richard Dawkins made in response to people who think that evolutionary theory is immoral: "is does not equal ought." Not only does this mean that the way things occur in nature does not mean they are moral perogatives for people, but it also that human morality is a messy, subjective battle of competing interest, that, while obviously having scientific basis, isn't solved by science alone.

I find it strange that you think philosophy is only useful in business and war. Have you ever read Wittgenstein? Sartre? Bataille?

SID
03-22-2010, 01:02 PM
If he dident call that passage "GOD IS DEAD" nobody would have read it.

Rollo
03-22-2010, 03:24 PM
It sounds like you're talking more about Ayn Rand than Nietzsche. His thoughts were a little more nuanced than that.


He still overstepped his bounds in regard to selection and purposefulness in the natural world.
For that reason his ideals are still indefensible from a scientific stand point.
It's not his fault, he lived in a certain era, but it's still wrong.

Yet sadly, his ideas are still taught today. And everytime I hear some pretentious puffery about the evolution of culture in the human species, that has no empirical evidence to back it, I wanna hack someone's head off.

If you don't have proof, you don't make factual claims.
This man had no problem making claims...



he didn't advocate Social Darwinism



I disagree, I think he did.
Master morality has its own values and stands above good and evil; slave morality is kindness, humility, and sympathy. Masters surpass the mediocrity of the common person.


That is social Darwinism.
Even if he doesn't want to call it that directly.


and opposed the strong taking advantage of the weak.


Hardly, as someone else put it "All higher civilizations, according to Nietzsche, arose from the barbarians, who with their will and desire for power, have preyed upon the weaker, moral and peaceful societies. A healthy society does not exist for its own sake, but exists for the sake of a higher type of person."

Cthulhu
03-22-2010, 08:27 PM
If he dident call that passage "GOD IS DEAD" nobody would have read it.

He didn't call the passage "God is Dead." It's called "The Madman." Of course it was meant to be inflammatory, but it wasn't merely a gimmick, and to think you can divorce it from the rest of his philosophy is naive. His ideas are built on a firm rejection of religion and metaphysical justifications. The funny thing is, that passage is not nearly the most vehement rejection, in fact the character is lamenting the death of god, not declaring it angrily.

THE MADMAN----Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.

"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."

Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"


Source: Friedrich Nietzsche, The Gay Science (1882, 1887) para. 125; Walter Kaufmann ed. (New York: Vintage, 1974), pp.181-82.]

This passage is far more concerned with the social repurcussions of society moving away from the all-encompassing influence of religion as the only means to view the world. There are plenty of passage where Nietzsche viciously attacks religion and believers, but this is not even one of them.

Clan Destine
03-24-2010, 11:41 PM
"God is dead' - Nietzsche



"Nietzsche is dead" - God



"Only the day after tomorrow belongs to me. Some are born posthumously" - Nietzsche



Many of the truly great thinkers and artists of 20th century needed to pass through Nietzsche's thought before formulating their own. Many do not agree with his more specific or personal points, but to dismiss him because of his idiosyncrasies is to miss the power of his critique entirely.