Nietzsche

fair enough, although I don't think things are like that everywhere.

0 Replies

On the same theme, that of philology, he frequently wrote aphorisms--that is to say, having determined what he believed was a truth, he stated it. It makes what he writes subject to a good deal of perversion (witness his sister's twisting of his writing in the attempt to serve National Socialist "ideology"), and it makes it seem contentious. His writing therfore is and will always be controversial.

0 Replies

It just seems strange to me that he would write merely about his observations rather than his own view of those things he's observing. He was a philosopher wasn't he???

0 Replies

Well, yes and no.

In the first place, you posit an absurdity when you inferentially attempt to contend that his observations and his view of things he is observing are somehow different. One's observations in such a context are statements about what one views.

His writing is taken to be philosophy, yes--but he was, technically, a philologist. That is to say, he was a "comparative linguist." Therefore, the starting point of his philosophy is the meanings of words in cultural contexts. This takes one into the realm of hermeneutics, although not necessarily exegesis. Because he studied languages in cultural contexts, his philosophy is based on an assumption that our language is a product of our world view, and that language conditions how we view the world.

This is deeper into his philosophy, however, than i ought to delve. I have not read Nietzsche for more than thirty years (he is a horrible writer), nor biography nor commentary on his work. I would prefer that Nietzsche (the member here so self-named) would comment, which is not to say that i assert he will agree with what i have posted.

0 Replies

By his fields of study, Nietsche was a philologist par excellence.

I have not read Nietzsche for more than 38 years, when I had to do in philosophy class at school. [Just heard one semester philosophy at university for fun - but only because it dealt about environmental protection :wink: ] .... but I've visited his home in Weimar [and took some photos there, which is strictly forbidden]. Laughing

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Well, yes and no.

In the first place, you posit an absurdity when you inferentially attempt to contend that his observations and his view of things he is observing are somehow different. One's observations in such a context are statements about what one views.

His writing is taken to be philosophy, yes--but he was, technically, a philologist. That is to say, he was a "comparative linguist." Therefore, the starting point of his philosophy is the meanings of words in cultural contexts. This takes one into the realm of hermeneutics, although not necessarily exegesis. Because he studied languages in cultural contexts, his philosophy is based on an assumption that our language is a product of our world view, and that language conditions how we view the world.

This is deeper into his philosophy, however, than i ought to delve. I have not read Nietzsche for more than thirty years (he is a horrible writer), nor biography nor commentary on his work. I would prefer that Nietzsche (the member here so self-named) would comment, which is not to say that i assert he will agree with what i have posted.

OK well thank you for explaining philology to me.

So if his observations are the same as his views of his observations, then he does think that this is "how the world should be." So why do you keep saying that he doesn't necessarily think so.

0 Replies

Don't twist what i say into your self-serving terms. How he states the world is does not necessarily constitute how he believes the world should be--that may or may not be the case, and it certainly is not axiomatically the case. I have little interest in continuing a discussion in which you see fit to pervert what i've written into a statement you are prepared to agree with, without regard for what i actually wrote.

0 Replies

Setanta wrote:

Don't twist what i say into your self-serving terms. How he states the world is does not necessarily constitute how he believes the world should be--that may or may not be the case, and it certainly is not axiomatically the case. I have little interest in continuing a discussion in which you see fit to pervert what i've written into a statement you are prepared to agree with, without regard for what i actually wrote.

Fine. What I'm saying is that is the way he thinks the world should be. That's how I interpret him.

0 Replies

Have fun . . .

0 Replies

Nietzsche, I just finished Geneology of Morals. I'm intrigued by Friedrich's analysis of the mentally sick and their relation to the healthy. Is there a certain book where he goes more in depth about this subject???

Also, how exactly would you describe "The Will to Power?" This concept also intigues me. He said that doing charitable works is a form of this urge to obtain a "minimum superiority." Could you explain that?? Fascinating.

0 Replies

I'm impressed by A2KNietzsche's grasp of the complex and multi-sided perspective of the historical Nietzsche. His critique of the rise of Christianity (and the role of the Jewish priestly class) is devastating, as his perspectivism is liberating.
BTW, he was an admirer of the Jewish people, especially the strength they've demonstrated throughout their diasporic history.

0 Replies

That actually clears a lot of things up, him being a philogist. No wonder his works have been interpreted in many different ways.

BTW, there is this one thing that disturbs me. Though I have not read Nietzche's works fully, or even carefully, there was this one line in one of his works, about upholding "evil" or something. Is this showing his disgust of what society considers evil? If so, what part of society's idea of "evil" does Nietzche despise?

0 Replies

Nietzsche was, as I understand him, an A-morallist (he is translated as saying "immoralist"). I believe he rejected the absolutism of all moralities. In order to uphold some actions and intentions as "moral", he argued, societies had to condemn their opposites. These become "evils". Moral and immoral actions are thus social constructions rather than objective phenomena. His Genealogy of Morals attempts to demonstrate how this process of moral construction may have emerged. BTW, he depicted morality as a political product, reflecting the will and interests primarily of the powerful. Then, of course, the "losers" in this historical process, develop an ideology (a herd or slave mentality) that glorifies humility, altruism, etc., putting a good face on what is forced upon them. This includes an insistence on the moral requirement of "justice", a value promulgated only by the powerless.

0 Replies

Much like "anarchy", the concept of "amoral" is often misunderstood:
amoral means to reject the ethical system of a community; to develop an independent ethical system. Definately not "without morality" ... like it often seems to be mistranslated.

(Besides, I think, Nietsche's translaters really have to undertake a difficult job: even his German isn't easily to understand for normals. :wink: )

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Nietzsche, I just finished Geneology of Morals. I'm intrigued by Friedrich's analysis of the mentally sick and their relation to the healthy. Is there a certain book where he goes more in depth about this subject???

Also, how exactly would you describe "The Will to Power?" This concept also intigues me.

Geneology is, in a sense, Nietzsche's third attempt at a critique of morality; the first two being Human, All Too Human and Daybreak. Those books are going to differ considerably from Geneology, however, in that they're written aphoristically while Geneology is more sustained in its delivery. Moreover, if I'm understanding the question correctly, there's discussion of this subject in virtually everything he wrote; it's a major undercurrent of his thought and relates very closely, coincidentally, with the will to power.

At the most fundamental level (i.e. a gross simplification) Nietzsche sees the will to power as the basic drive of all human efforts, the positive motive that makes us strive for something. Moreover, he comes to assert that the quantitative degree of power is the measure of all value. Power is only enjoyed as more power - 'overcoming'. His conceptions of the weak and strong, too, may be understood in these terms: the weak are those who have overcome less, who achieve their power by way of force and barbarism (e.g. the terrorist), opposed to the strong, who achieve their power by inspiring awe and envy, overcoming the most (e.g. the saint, artist, and philosopher). But Nietzsche's central assertion is always the same: man seeks power, that is his nature: "You yourself are the will to power, and nothing besides." The central question, therefore, is by what means does one seek power, and by what motives: this is the crux of Nietzsche's system of valuation (or revaluation as he often calls it).

As I mentioned before, Nietzsche is relentlessly complex, and I say that again because I'm not exactly confident what I say here is adequate. The hard fact is everything he said connects with everything else: it's virtually impossible (at least for me) to give adequate synopses of his small ideas, let alone his major ones. I hope this at least approaches a satisfactory response in your view, but the bottom line, perhaps, is that if you're liking what you've read so far, dive in - he won't disappoint you.

Quote:

He said that doing charitable works is a form of this urge to obtain a "minimum superiority." Could you explain that?? Fascinating.

If you refer me to the exact passage, I'll give you my interpretation.

0 Replies

I'm VERY impressed, Nietzsche. You have earned your name.

0 Replies

Nietzsche wrote:

If you refer me to the exact passage, I'll give you my interpretation.

"The most common form of curative pleasure is the pleasure of "giving pleasure" (i.e. charity, the alleviation of stress, comforting, praise, friendly advice). In prescribing love of one's neighbor, the ascetic priest really prescribes an excitation of the strongest, most affirmative urge there is (the will to power), albeit in most cautious doses. The satisfaction of "minimum superiority," which is provided by all charitable, helpful, encouraging acts, is the best tonic for the physiologically incapacitated, so long as it be well administered...."

Wow! I thought he was describing me here, I must be physiologically incapacitated.

That is so true, but how is that the will to power???

0 Replies

I don't recognize this statement from Nietzsche (?). But it should be noted that "power" (in the phrase, will to power, is far more general in meaning that we might think. It is easy to assume this refers to political power. It refers to ALL forms of growth, expansion, enhancement, even the artistic urge to create beauty. Moreover the will to power is an aspect of all of nature, even the inorganic. The world, as I recall, consists fundamentally of "quanta of energy" that come to be organized into phenomenal patterns that grow in power through both struggle and cooperation with other quanta of energy. The "world," according to Nietzsche, "is a monster of energy, without beginning, without end." I suspect this is consistent with the world of the New Physics. The "will" in this sense is not just motivation; it is deeper than that. It is inherent in all of nature, although it is manifested in humans as intention, urge, desire, drives, etc..

0 Replies

Is that what leads to subjectivism, like Sartre's?

What does he mean by power anyways?

0 Replies

John Creasy wrote:

Nietzsche wrote:

If you refer me to the exact passage, I'll give you my interpretation.

"The most common form of curative pleasure is the pleasure of "giving pleasure" (i.e. charity, the alleviation of stress, comforting, praise, friendly advice). In prescribing love of one's neighbor, the ascetic priest really prescribes an excitation of the strongest, most affirmative urge there is (the will to power), albeit in most cautious doses. The satisfaction of "minimum superiority," which is provided by all charitable, helpful, encouraging acts, is the best tonic for the physiologically incapacitated, so long as it be well administered...."

I'm not able to locate this. Perhaps you can give me the essay and section number.

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know