Perhaps philosophy needs a few romantic bohemians to create inspired writing. In some ways, he may be one of the role models, certainly more so than Kant. What may have been important is his writing style. That was what drew me to his writings and I read his writings long before many of the importance philosophers. But it does seem that he is the consolation for adolescent angst, almost like emo music, and for times of distress later. He is probably read by many who don't read many other philosophers. — Jack Cummins

I don't agree at all.

Many think Kant is profound, whereas he is just a bad writer.
Many think Nietzsche is poetic, whereas he is just a good writer.

The mistake in the OP is to take Nietzsche seriously. — Banno

No idea what you're doing at all. Probably should stop reading your comments.

Romantic, hey? Don't you really what to be like him? — Banno

I really don't know what you're talking about. Is this a philosophy forum?!

Yes, he lacked the social skills needed to keep a job, or a friendship. — Banno

He was a professor of philology.

I think it would be true, for the simple reason that there are far more unfulfilled adolescent males of all ages than folk with wit, intelligence and a desire to understand. — Banno

Like, wow. Yeah.

Even if that were true (and I am no Jung enthusiast) it has no impact on the quote. — Tom Storm

Oh.

A friend of my mums was a close colleague of Carl Jung's - I asked him about FN on the basis that I though Jung was FN friendly. He described Nietzsche as a 'deplorable teenager'. — Tom Storm

I suspect there are far more people influenced by Nietzsche than Jung.

In other words, he was well aware of the danger of allegations of impiety and atheism. So, the first thing to be said about first things must be said about the gods. But perhaps what is most revealing is what is not said. A prime mover is not something to be prayed to or sacrificed to. Prime movers do not protect or intervene on our behalf or reward and punish. They do not have priests or oracles or occult mysteries. — Fooloso4

Yes, Aristotle was clearly opposed to religion. He calls God (theos) the Prime Mover, but it has no properties of subjectivity.

Literature is an evolving concept. It reflects the issues that arise and complicate our lives, and it has in this "relevance" and moves with the times. This is very different from philosophy which has its world grounded in basic questions, questions that do not change with politics, ethics and social norms. — Constance

The history of philosophy shows changes in the issues philosophers take seriously.

Well, you asked if Aristotle distinguished the realm of Becoming from some conditions that were not bound by those limits. In the context of asking what is 'theological', that is an important difference to bring to mind. — Paine

What are you saying Aristotle's theology is?

I'd have to do more research to find it. But I cited his description of God as pure thought. God/Prime Mover causes motion for both physical things and mental.

St. Thomas and Christian theology makes God the creator of the physical world, but Aristotle explicitly denies this.

Generated beings happen because they appear through time and so have beginnings and endings as organisms. That element of this life is sharply distinguished in Aristotle from what is presumed to be timeless. — Paine

I don't think Aristotle believes anything is timeless. His ontology is that both intelligence and materiality are coexistent. Neither precedes the other. The physical universe always existed and nous/intelligence always existed.

I think that is true. On the other hand, he based his model upon separating the 'realm of becoming' from what is timeless:

So, it is evident from what has been said that what is called "a form" or "a substance" is not generated, but what is generated is the composite which is named according to that form, and that there is matter in everything that is generated, and in the latter one part is this and another that.
— Metaphysics, 1033b 15, translated by H.G. Apostle — Paine

What does that have to do with "the realm of becoming?"

Looks like Plotinus; but I won't enter further into that discussion. — Banno

"Therefore it must be of itself that the divine thought thinks (since it is the most excellent of things), and its thinking is a thinking on thinking." Metaphysics, Aristotle; BkXII, 9.
http://classics.mit.edu/Aristotle/metaphysics.12.xii.html

Well, that sort of follows from his dates.

But we see Aristotle through a Christianising lens, one that came via Islam and neoplatonism. I won't pretend to knowing what he really thought. — Banno

I do. God, the prime mover is thought thinking thought. The cause of motion yet itself not in motion. Christians used this idea directly but made it into a person, giving it subjectivity.
God, for Aristotle, has no subjectivity.

But here's the thing; and correct me if I am in error; I do not think that Aristotle made use of the scriptures in his arguments. He was looking for the cat; he didn't start from the assumption he had found it. — Banno

Aristotle was explicitly opposed to religion. I do not remember the passage, but he criticized making god into a form like a human or animal. So, no Jesus, no Christianity.

Are you onboard with Aristotle saying that the first principles that bring about the realm of becoming we live in is a matter of what he called "theology"? — Paine

That does not sound like Aristotle. Can you cite something with him saying that?
What exactly are these "first principles?"

In the Metaphysics he explains the concept of God, or prime mover, but it is not the cause of becoming.

Where's that Derrida extract from, Joshs? — Tom Storm

Me too. When quoting a text please cite the source.

My point is that Rorty is impugning to Derrida something that Rorty thinks we should do instead of philosophy, but this ‘private fantasizing and free-associating’ is not what Derrida is doing. — Joshs

Derrida is a sceptic. So a lot of his arguments are about the impossibility of knowledge.

In my view, Derrida's eventual solution to the problem of how to avoid the Heideggerian "we," and, more generally, avoid the trap into which Heidegger fell by attempting to affiliate with or incarnate something larger than himself, consists in what Gasch6 refers to disdain­fully as "wild and private lucubrations."lo The later Derrida privatizes his philosophical thinking, and thereby breaks down the tension between ironism and theorizing. He simply drops theory - the attempt to see his predecessors steadily and whole - in favor of fantasizing about those predecessors, playing with them, giving free rein to the trains of associa­tions they produce. There is no moral to these fantasies, nor any public (pedagogic or politicat) use to be made of them;” Rorty, Contingency, Irony and Solidarity) — Joshs

And yet, if we take Rorty seriously about pragmatism, he makes the same claim. One just argues about which words or descriptions are better.

But I don’t want you to be lonely. Besides, I’m driving home in rush hour traffic, which makes it hard to satisfy you need for scholarly rigor at the moment. — Joshs

Thinking and driving don't mix.

From “Heidegger, Contingency, and Pragmatism

“There is no validating reality behind our narrative; Being and interpretive narrative arise together. Therefore, Rorty appropriates for pragmatism only Heidegger’s sense of contingency and the transitory condition of human life, along with the ability to radically redescribe Western culture. He sets aside Heidegger’s nostalgia for an authentic world-view that says something neutral about the structure of all present and possible world-views. By doing so, Rorty aligns himself more with John Dewey’s brand of anti-essentialism and anti-foundationalism than with Heidegger’s project.”( Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy) — Joshs

I think Heidegger's notion of the being of beings is meaningless. Some philosophers think Heidegger himself realized that the ambition of fundamental ontology cannot be realized. So he dropped the idea from Being and Time in his later writings.

In some cases, I've heard that theology is a specific branch/subset of philosophy of religion. In this case, theological posts would therefore belong on a site like this. But to me, how would we differentiate a theological post/claim from a philosophical one? — Paulm12

All theology I've read starts with belief in God. Philosophy does not start with such assumption.

Yes, Rorty respected Derrida for deconstructing the metaphysics of presence but misread his method as mere poetic playfulness. — Joshs

I don't remember Rorty saying that. And if you cannot cite something, there's nothing to talk about.

He also misread Heidegger’s notion. of transcendence as the use
of skyhooks. — Joshs

Not familiar. Where does that observation come from?

He thought Derrida was just being a trickster, — Joshs

Rorty: "Admirers of Derrida like myself"

https://web.stanford.edu/group/csp/phi60/rortyintro.pdf

To say that the world , language and mind undergo continuous change does not mean the inability to discern ongoing themes and patterns in the flux. — Joshs

Exactly. I agree.

You homed in on a very important point. I congratulated you on it. You went berserk! — Agent Smith

I did not go berserk. Being rational is normal.

God is often described as omnipotent. By that definition it can manifest physically anytime it wills it.
If it can't do that then it is not omnipotent so it would fail one of the omni definitions of god — universeness

Ok. How would a physicist investigate those physical properties?

I'm afraid that I am also ignorant about the nature of spirits as well. Please enlighten me. — praxis

You have no idea what people mean by spirit?

Nowhere. It also does not define God as a non-physical entity. — praxis

So, "spirit" to you means physical?

God
(in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.

(in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
"a moon god"

Nope. What dictionary did you use? — praxis

Where did those definitions say God is a physical entity?

I'm asking how anyone (myself included) could know whether or not God is a physical entity. — praxis

By definition.

I haven't asserted that God is a physical entity. I asked how anyone could determine that God is not a physical entity. — praxis

You don't believe God is a physical entity. Nor do I. Why would we debate something neither of us believe?

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests? — praxis

What definition of God makes it a physical entity?

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests? — praxis

Stay safe :mask: — Agent Smith

Okay. How does science examine the existence of God. You're much smarter than me. Explain.

Sorry. Carry on. — Agent Smith

Goodbye.

That's deeeeep, dude! Deeeeeep — Agent Smith

Not in the mood for jerks. Debate or keep quiet.

So, I am asking more about how people see the idea of God as a basis for beginning to think about the existence of God. Is it simply best to dismiss the idea of God in relation to scientific knowledge? Or, is time to rethink the notion of God, in line with mythic or symbolic ways of understanding the philosophy of reality, including the underlying source of everything ? To what extent is arts and a basis for understanding the symbolic aspects of the God question, rather than simply asking about the existence of God from a scientific approach. Is science and art completely divided here , or is it about juggling different models to understand the nature of reality? — Jack Cummins

Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it.

What is the beingness of beings? That’s being itself. The openness of being needs the human, and the human is only human insofar as he stands in the openness of being— according to Heidegger. — Xtrix

I've studied Heidegger. I have no idea what he means by "being."