An answer..

Re: An answer..

Borealis wrote:

I would appreciate a response on this as well. I have tried to read Nietzsche, but he is so clever.

OK, here's your response. Now, what was the question?

0 Replies

Some general suggestions: you pretty much have to read all (or most) of Nietzsche before you begin to grasp his particular ideas. It's like the dilemma of the hermeneuic circle: The parts can be understood only within the context of the whole and the whole can be grasped only by means of an understanding of the parts,
Also, Nietzsche is famous (I won't say notorious) for his willingness to contradict himself. He is anti-dualistic and is willing to acknowledge the contradictions inherent to reality. He is far from being a "rationalist". I would say he is more of an "intuitionist" (very French in some respects) with a limited appreciation for the constraints of logic. Indeed, much of his philosophy is expressed poetically/aphoristically.

0 Replies

I think Nietzche was brilliant.
His philosophy and his art are indistinguishable. And he's by far the most honest and unpretentious of all western philosophers I know of.

0 Replies

I agree. He is possibly the most influential philosopher of this post-modern era. His philosophy of art in central to my humble artistic efforts.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Also, Nietzsche is famous (I won't say notorious) for his willingness to contradict himself.

Where, exactly, does he contradict himself?

0 Replies

I havn't the energy and time to perform that task for you. He's famous for his MANY contradictions. Look at the secondary literature. You can't miss it.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I havn't the energy and time to perform that task for you. He's famous for his MANY contradictions. Look at the secondary literature. You can't miss it.

I thought so.

As I've explained before, I'm not going to do your research for you, JLN. If Nietzsche is indeed "famous for his MANY contradictions," it shouldn't be difficult for you to find one or two. In any event, I've already read enough of Nietzsche to come to the conclusion that Nietzsche is a remarkably self-consistent philosopher, so I don't feel the need to do any more "research." Furthermore, as far as I can tell, Nietzsche has never been famous for his MANY contradictions -- he's not even famous for his FEW contradictions. But if you say so, without any support whatsoever, well then I suppose that's good enough for me.

0 Replies

JLN probably takes his view from several works of those who have analyzed Nietzsche. One of the most popular and frequently assigned reading along with Nietzsche is Wolfgang Muller-Lauter's 1971 work: Nietzsche: His Philosophy of Contradictions and the Contradictions of His Philosophy. Boiled down to the simplest explanation, most see in a contradiction in Nietzche's ontological view while Nietzche himself I think attempts to reconcile those contraditions that exist in the world. I have my own quarrels with Nietzche's world view, but unusual inconsistency or contradiction is not one of them.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

JLN probably takes his view from several works of those who have analyzed Nietzsche. One of the most popular and frequently assigned reading along with Nietzsche is Wolfgang Muller-Lauter's 1971 work: Nietzsche: His Philosophy of Contradictions and the Contradictions of His Philosophy. Boiled down to the simplest explanation, most see in a contradiction in Nietzche's ontological view while Nietzche himself I think attempts to reconcile those contraditions that exist in the world. I have my own quarrels with Nietzche's world view, but unusual inconsistency or contradiction is not one of them.

IF JLN can't be bothered to present an argument and support it then his opinion should be considered a baseless opinion and thus ignored. Trying to guess what he means is not worth our time.

0 Replies

hawkeye10 wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
JLN probably takes his view from several works of those who have analyzed Nietzsche. One of the most popular and frequently assigned reading along with Nietzsche is Wolfgang Muller-Lauter's 1971 work: Nietzsche: His Philosophy of Contradictions and the Contradictions of His Philosophy. Boiled down to the simplest explanation, most see in a contradiction in Nietzche's ontological view while Nietzche himself I think attempts to reconcile those contraditions that exist in the world. I have my own quarrels with Nietzche's world view, but unusual inconsistency or contradiction is not one of them.

IF JLN can't be bothered to present an argument and support it then his opinion should be considered a baseless opinion and thus ignored. Trying to guess what he means is not worth our time.

Well, I think his view is incorrect, but as I indicated, I don't think we can say it is baseless. And while, if you challenge my point of view or stated facts, you should be able to support your challenge, I would prefer that otherwise people be allowed to express their point of view about something without having to hunt up something to cut and paste. I have also appreciated others posting something to support my opinion and therefore sparing me the task of having to do so.

I will agree with you and Joe, though, that if JNL cannot not produce an example or two in his own defense, he cannot be considered an authority on his stated point.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
Foxfyre wrote:
JLN probably takes his view from several works of those who have analyzed Nietzsche. One of the most popular and frequently assigned reading along with Nietzsche is Wolfgang Muller-Lauter's 1971 work: Nietzsche: His Philosophy of Contradictions and the Contradictions of His Philosophy. Boiled down to the simplest explanation, most see in a contradiction in Nietzche's ontological view while Nietzche himself I think attempts to reconcile those contraditions that exist in the world. I have my own quarrels with Nietzche's world view, but unusual inconsistency or contradiction is not one of them.

IF JLN can't be bothered to present an argument and support it then his opinion should be considered a baseless opinion and thus ignored. Trying to guess what he means is not worth our time.

Well, I think his view is incorrect, but as I indicated, I don't think we can say it is baseless. And while, if you challenge my point of view or stated facts, you should be able to support your challenge, I would prefer that otherwise people be allowed to express their point of view about something without having to hunt up something to cut and paste.

Yes, but when challenged JLN has a habit of going into a snit about how supporting his opinion is not worth the bother, last week he called it "casting pearls before swine" or there abouts. I don't mind arrogance so long as the arrogant one has a history of being correct a lot of the time. I mind his laziness though.

0 Replies

Foxfyre's support is much appreciated. I was just reporting what I've read ABOUT Nietzsche' general posture. I did suspect that Joe would jump in with his usual combative attlitude, and do something like make me work--and at my age. Joe almost always engages me within a "courtroom" framework. That is not my approach in A2K. I state positions, mine or others, and hope they are helpful to someone. Joe--[and Hawkeye, I guess] focuses on the "debate" part of this "philosophy and debate" forum.
Frankly, I very much like Nietzsche's overall perspective--indeed, his position of "perspectivism" and his (almost Whitmanesque) willingness to change his mind and even look at positions from shifting points of reference.
And Foxfyre: thanks for the Muller-Lauter reference. It's a new one for me and my wife.
Hawkeye, I don't think I go into "snits"--well, except with that Chicago lawyer, Joe. But I WOULD hire him if I needed aggressive and clever legal representation.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Foxfyre's support is much appreciated. I was just reporting what I've read ABOUT Nietzsche' general posture. I did suspect that Joe would jump in with his usual combative attlitude, and do something like make me work--and at my age. Joe almost always engages me within a "courtroom" framework. That is not my approach in A2K. I state positions, mine or others, and hope they are helpful to someone. Joe--[and Hawkeye, I guess] focuses on the "debate" part of this "philosophy and debate" forum.
Frankly, I very much like Nietzsche's overall perspective--indeed, his position of "perspectivism" and his (almost Whitmanesque) willingness to change his mind and even look at positions from shifting points of reference.
And Foxfyre: thanks for the Muller-Lauter reference. It's a new one for me and my wife.
Hawkeye, I don't think I go into "snits"--well, except with that Chicago lawyer, Joe. But I WOULD hire him if I needed aggressive and clever legal representation.

You're welcome JL. Of course we are probably 100% at opposite poles in our appreciation for Nietzsche. I have appreciated the passion of his arguments and the skill with which he makes them while being quite convinced that he frequently arrives at erroneous conclusions. And we disagree on the issue of his arguments being contradictory but, as you said, you were basing that on what others have said and there has been much written about perceived contradictions. I think both Nietzsche and I approach philosophy more abstractly and philosophically and recognize the many nuances inherent in a single thought. His 'contradictions' were recognition of these nuances. I don't think he himself was contradictory. I

He was both brilliant and tragic. And though I do not share most of his view of the world, I think he personifies a point of view that is important to understand in order to understand the evolution of human thought and character.

0 Replies

Foxfyre, our understandings of Nietzsche are less than identical, but I do appreciate your understanding of me. That's refreshing.
I very much resonate with N's perspectivism, as I have said, and his Heraclitian perspective. I see the world as consisting of ever chaning process rather than static things, of becomings rather than beings. I'm impressed with his three biggest and interconnected notions. Amor Fati; embrace your destiny is very consistent with zen Buddhism as I understand it But his notions of the Eternal Recurrence and the Overman are, as I see them only ideals, rather than descriptions of Reality. The former is essentially a criterion for self-guidance (i.e., live each moment AS IF you had to repeat it infinitely). And, of course it is critical that we follow Walter Kaufmann's abolition of the false associations of Nietzsche with Hitler's and Wagner's anti-semitism. The Will to Power is, of course, his principle concept. That's something one can only understand most subjectively.
One could go on, but I'd rather not, except in (constructive) response to other's contributions.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Foxfyre's support is much appreciated. I was just reporting what I've read ABOUT Nietzsche' general posture. I did suspect that Joe would jump in with his usual combative attlitude, and do something like make me work--and at my age. Joe almost always engages me within a "courtroom" framework. That is not my approach in A2K. I state positions, mine or others, and hope they are helpful to someone. Joe--[and Hawkeye, I guess] focuses on the "debate" part of this "philosophy and debate" forum.

I never would have questioned you if you hadn't made the assertion that Nietzsche was famous for his willingness to contradict himself. As it so happens I just finished re-reading The Genealogy of Morals last week, and I couldn't recall a single instance where he contradicted himself, nor could I remember such an instance in any of the other works of his that I have read. That's why I asked.

If you take that as a "challenge" or as engaging you in a "courtroom framework," that's fine, call it whatever you like. If you want to be able to state your positions without any factual backup and with no one questioning them, however, I suggest you try some other forum -- maybe a local tavern or a park bench where all the other old blowhards congregate would be best for you. And don't try to hide behind your age, as if there's some sort of "get out of substantiating your opinions free" card issued with your monthly social security check. There are plenty of people on A2K just as venerable as you, JLN, who have no trouble backing up their assertions. If you're too feeble and geriatric to make good on your claims, then maybe you shouldn't be making them in the first place.

And one more thing: I doubt that Nietzsche contradicted himself very much, but you certainly do it all the time. Maybe what we have here, then, is what a psychiatrist would call a classic case of projection.

0 Replies

So, I suppose, Joe, that you have found me "guilty".
Regarding contradiction, I recall N's rejection of "conviction", of the notion that one must be consistent in his intellectual commitments even at the expense of being closed to new experience and discoveries.
My efforts at humor, e.g., referring to my age. And my reference to N's "fame" in his willingness to contradict himself, were carelessly phrased; I should have merely referred to his various phases or stages, i.e., his "middle" or "analytic" phase (which led Danto to label him an analytical philosopher) or his more existentialist and at another time his pragmatic phases. The latter I think has caused some to identify Richard Rorty with Nietzsche. Anyway, N has been identified with, and claimed by, various "schools" because of the different--contradicting?--orientations he has taken.
I know I should go back through the above, to clean up my "brief", as it were, to protect myself from Joe's expected "challenges"--as if we were in some kind of contest (He is almost Nietzschean in his agonistic style)..
But Joe, my major criticism of you--regarding your interaction with me is that--forget the sarcasm--you rarely, and perhaps never (at least not that I have ever seen) make philosophical contributions; you only "pick at", in an almost petty and non-constructive way, those made by others.
And I'm not really hiding behind my age. I can outwork a man twice my age.
Good night.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

But Joe, my major criticism of you--regarding your interaction with me is that--forget the sarcasm--you rarely, and perhaps never (at least not that I have ever seen) make philosophical contributions; you only "pick at", in an almost petty and non-constructive way, those made by others.

No doubt, just as my major criticism of you is that you never make philosophical contributions; you only offer the occasional quasi-metaphysico-mystical mumbo jumbo when you're not busy kissing fresco's arse. Oh well, chacun á son gout.

But I'll make a deal with you, JLN. Since it appears that neither of us meets the other's exacting philosophical standards, let's agree that if you don't post to any thread that I start in the philosophy forum, I won't post to any thread that you start in this forum. Agreed?

0 Replies

Agreed, of course. That's the most constructive thing you've done yet. I was going to apologize to you for my outbreak--I think I've almost forgiven myself for it--but your last shot of venom--the worst you've spewed in the many years we have been talking--spared me that.
By the way, I've yet to see any of your "mumbo jumbo." I have little or no idea of what you think other than the fact that you oppose the thoughts presented by me and Fresco (sorry Fresco: I apologize for pulling you down into this mire)

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

By the way, I've yet to see any of your "mumbo jumbo."

You should look from my perspective: it's pretty evident.

JLNobody wrote:

I have little or no idea of what you think other than the fact that you oppose the thoughts presented by me and Fresco (sorry Fresco: I apologize for pulling you down into this mire)

I've explained my position so many times that to do so again would simply be heaping Pelion on Ossa. If you haven't figured it out by now, you never will.

0 Replies

An answer..

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know