Do ya'll ever discuss...Philosophy?

Child of the Light

I don't know much about Nietzsche (there is a member who uses that name and might reply) however, a central philosophical issue in your question is about the definition of "madness". This can range from a clinical "inability to cope with the world" to a sociologically relativistic "sane response to an insane society". The issue is therefore about the nature of "rationality" and the influence of culture on group consensus (....your Nazism issue). Anthropologists have pointed out that western "schizophrenics" are elevated to the position of tribal "shaman" in other cultures.

A more general point about the nature of "significant philosophers" is whether they must push at the boundaries of current "opinion". In order to communicate at all a philosopher must necessarily start with "the accepted" even if he/she immediately goes on to reject it. In other words "significance" is measured in part against "paradigm upheaval", rather than just "applicability".

Re: Do ya'll ever discuss...Philosophy?

Where are the contradictions and the insanity? Given Nietzsche's ultimate fate, it's tempting to look backward into his earlier writings to see if there is any hint of his eventual madness, but I haven't detected any and I have never seen any scholar suggest that Nietzsche was even a little bit insane when he wrote his major works.

As for "Nazi-influence," Nietzsche would have been appalled and sickened by the Nazis. The connection between his philosophy and Nazism was attributable in large part to the machinations of his sister, Elisabeth, who was his self-appointed literary executor and a Nazi sympathizer.


I don't understand this question.

For the contradictions one must only look at "Thus Spake Zarathustra", a book for everyone and a book for noone. And to clarify the question, should Nietzsche and his philosophies ...Well I understand that the question is bad. Honestly I just wanted to provoke a discussion in order to be presented new concepts and ideas, and the question was written in haste. His philosophies can be applied practically, if, of course, you share his ideas of our species being one of mental degeneration and such. It's quite a pessimistic stance, but a stance nonetheless. The same goes for the Nazi question, it's quite obvious that Nietzsche doesn't share the anti-semitic sentiment when he devotes numerous pages to praising Spinoza, a jew.

I really don't have a question, but it would be amazing if we could use this thread as general housing for Philosophy discussions. Everything from Kierkegaard to Thoreau, Leaps of Faith to material simplification. I, as it is, can't get terrible interested in exploring the topics given.

Apart from the paradoxical title, what is it that you find contradictory about Thus Spake Zarathustra?


I too have been disappointed with some of the recent discussions in this forum. Many of them are little better than asking "if you could be any animal, what animal would you be?" or long-winded ruminations that turn out to be nothing more than self-inflated navel-gazing. More pointed philosophical questions, however, often get sidetracked into discussions of non-dualism. It's a regrettable predicament.

For now I concede that the contradiction accusation was a bit hasty. I've read Beyond Good and Evil, and I have The Anticrist and Thus Spake Zarathustra waiting to be read. What would you sugget a soon to be college student(Depaul by the way) with a budding philosophical interest to read?

I recommend "The Cambridge Quintet" by Casti.

This is a fictional discussion of Artificial Intelligence amongst five major contributors to post war philosophy...an excellent introduction to modern philosophical ideas.

By Nietzsche or by anyone? For Nietzsche, I'd recommend Beyond Good and Evil as the best introduction to his philosophy -- since you've already read that, I'd suggest The Genealogy of Morals as a follow-up.

As a general introduction to philosophy/philosophers, that would depend on what interests you. If you're interested in ethics, I'd suggest Plato, Aristotle, Epicurus, Spinoza, Kant, Bradley, and Moore. If you're interested in epistemology, try Descartes, Berkeley, Hume, Reid, and Kant. If you have a more metaphysical bent, try Leibniz and Schopenhauer. For political philosophy, read Aristotle, Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau, Proudhon, Marx, and Rawls. If you are interested in the philosophy of science, read Peirce and Popper. These, of course, are the "classic" philosophers -- there's a lot of good work being done by modern philosophers, but you should have a good grounding in the classics before you tackle the modern ones.

Good luck at DePaul (you'll be coming to our get together in May, right?).

I live in Southern Mississippi and won't be leaving for Depaul until early September, so I don't think I will make it. But I will make it to a local bookstore for some Schopenhauer, whom I've seen referenced numerous times by Nietzsche. I think I'll also try out some Spinoza, and Kant, being that I've already a substantial amount of Political Philosophy. I'm very appreciative for the help, Joe, I'll see ya in the bleachers.

Unfortunately, I can't think of a good, short introduction to Schopenhauer's philosophy. His entire philosophy is summed up in The World as Will and Representation, which is in two volumes. It's densely packed, almost unrelentingly pessimistic at times, and it presumes a rather thorough knowledge of Kant's Critique of Pure Reason, but it offers great rewards for the reader who perseveres.

How long have you been reading philosophy?

I've read philosophy ever since high school, but I started reading seriously about six or seven years ago. I spend about an hour each day commuting to and from work, so that gives me a lot of time to read books.

Joe, what do you think of Plato's political view?

How do you rate "The Story of Philosophy" by Will durant? Thats the only book I have read on western philosophers. I found it very interesting...It has sections on Nietzche, Spinoza, Kant, Schopenhauer, George Santayana, Voltaire, and some more I cant recollect....

What other book would you recommend - preferably an introductory book on western schools of philosophy...

I think it's important to be familiar with Plato's political views -- that's why I put him on my list. Anyone who claims to be a student of political philosophy but who has not read The Republic is a fraud. That being said, I don't necessarily agree with many of his views.

I've read it. It's a fine introduction to some of the major philosophers of history, but it should be read with some caution. Durant didn't intend to give the entire story of philosophy -- there are some major gaps (Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Rousseau, and Hegel, to name a few, are all missing). The book really should be titled "My Favorite Philosophers." And the book was originally written in the 1920s, which means that he missed any philosopher that came later, and some of his choices reflect the opinion of the time that has since been revised (the reputations of Spencer, Santayana, Voltaire (as a philosopher) and Bergson have fallen since Durant's writing, although Bergson has staged something of a comeback recently). With those caveats in mind, it's a solid, literate, and readable introduction to philosophy.


I'm afraid I don't know. It has been a long time since I read any general works on philosophy.

Arguable assertion, but admire your dedication toward philosophy.

You said it all so well!

Thanks Chumly !

I have two B.Sc. degrees both in highly technical and mathematical fields but in the last 15 years I have been drawn towards the humanities especially history and philosophy. I find the Law extremely interesting but its challenge is probably what I find the hardest. Many say the Law is very technical but this is only half the story. Its technicality is based on morality and philosophy-- I cannot think of a more difficult avenue of study. I find technical things such as Physics, Math, and other Sciences fairly easy to understand, Philosophy much less so. The "hard" sciences seem easier because, for the most part there are right and wrong answers. The best and clearest example here is the field of mathematics. Compare this field of study to philosophy or psychology.

Psychology makes honest attempts at explaining animal behavior. These are informed by observations which may or may not be scientific. We may encounter Rumsfeldian unknown unknowns when observing and these are extremely hard to ferret out. So, psychological explanations are, at best, informed guesses.

Philosophy is harder still. This is simply because in order to understand a particular philosophy we must try to get inside that particular philosopher's head. This is the old "What is it like to be a bat?"problem (Thomas Nagel http://members.aol.com/NeoNoetics/Nagel_Bat.html ) . Sometimes this is just an uninformed guess but with considerable study it seems possible that an individual might pretty well understand a particular philosopher's viewpoint. But given a totally different subject or even one remotely related can the student predict and verbalize that philosopher's opinion before said philosopher? If not, how much validity can be placed on such "understanding"? Additionally, philosophical thinking backed up by "logic" is always suspect simply because in the beginning of "logical" thinking we always find it is based (necessarily so) upon assumptions. The recipe for bread is a good example. If one follows a particular recipe faithfully, different people should come up with the exact same product every time. But what if different individuals (with different personal backgrounds and experiences) assume different sources of grain to satisfy the original ingredient known as "Flour"?

Obviously, I am neither a Philosopher nor a serious student thereof but I find "The Oxford companion to Philosophy" helpful sometimes in giving me a little insight into specific "isms". These are necessarily general but many times it is the juxtaposition of two philosophies that somewhat clarifies both. But this never negates the value of further study involving the writings of those specific thinkers.

But perhaps the most valuable use of such study lies in our dealing with other societies. Surely our understanding Confucianism or the prophet Mohamed will help us. The value found on A2K, as I find, is not the verbatim disgorging of various classical or neo-classical thinkers but their use by A2Kers in bolstering their own philosophies freely arrived at by their own study and personal life experiences. Are these biased opinions? Certainly! But can you think of a better basis for any bigotry? Indeed given the latter two actions by A2Kers, intolerance is more likely removed and the word bigotry can then be replaced with the phrase "strongly held opinion"

JM