Buddhism has been around for thousands of years and has stood the test of time as a philosophy that today 500 million people find brings them peace and happiness. Stoicism is another ancient philosophy of timeless wisdom which is experiencing somewhat of a revival . I don't agree with every precept of Buddhism, such as asceticism and it's religious beliefs. I wonder will Nietszche stand the same test of time. I know he's admired by 10s of millions of people today as one of the most popular thinkers , but Freud and Marx in the early to mid 20th century were also lionized , but who have gone out of vogue today. l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

And there are many religious extremists who keep thousands of years old ideas alive that are destructive to many people. Time is not any evidence for something being "good", it's just time. There's been a lot of things that's been kept alive for thousands of years that are not good for people, so your conclusions are a fallacy.

And neither Nietzsche nor Marx has "gone out of fashion". Just as any other philosophers, through philosophy, they don't go out of fashion, their ideas are blended together with the modern zeitgeist and contemporary thinkers and expanded upon. As a matter of fact, since the witch hunt for communists and the stupidity of pseudo-scholars trying to take a dump on Marx over the 20th century, his philosophical ideas are starting to gain attraction in the midst of awakening to how the pure free-market capitalism isn't all shiny and happy rainbow as the rightwing liberal policies have indoctrinated the herd to believe. So thinking Marx is "out of fashion" is not really seeing which direction political philosophy is moving for the general public. People have less trust in the BS capitalist ideals of wall street and billionaires and are starting to wake up from the sleep that keeps them suppressed.

I'm not sure what the foundation is for your conclusions, but thinking Marx and Nietzsche is "going out of fashion" is not only wrong, it's unsupported in society.

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. — Ross Campbell

So you prove that you actually don't understand what you are criticizing. You just take things out of context in order to prove he's an asshole who hates life.

I'd like to know what women would think about it. — Ross Campbell

It's not about women, try again.

As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway. — Ross Campbell

He didn't have a great experience with love, but that's not what the page you quote from is about.

There's absolutely nothing pseudo about selecting a quote from a famous figure. Journalists, academics etc do it all the time. — Ross Campbell

Ehm... yes, it's pseudo-intellectual bullshit to just quote something out of context and try to analyze it without that context. Journalists aren't really people I hold high up on the intellectual scale. There are very few journalists today that actually think on a higher level than the algorithms that are about to take over their jobs.

Perhaps Nietzsche should have been more careful about the some of the outlandish statements that he made. It takes away from some of his other very intriguing and thought provoking ideas. — Ross Campbell

Or maybe he wrote in a way that is both how people back then culturally wrote, while people reading his texts are required to actually think while reading it and not take things out of context. Maybe he wrote for a higher intellectual reader and not the cancel culture mentality of today. Maybe a hundred years from now, even your own ideas about society is so outdated that people call you out for the same judgement you have of Nietzsche? Most people today who judge others in society based on the ideas you judge Nietzsche for might be guilty of ideas that in a hundred years will be considered on the same level as racism, sexism etc. It's not really viable to judge a person of his time based on the current zeitgeist, that's an intellectual short circuit. Look at the time he lived in, acknowledge how that time was and deconstruct what he meant out of it. If you start judging them on the times they lived in but based on modern cancel culture mentality, you really need to bring out the cancel book, because 98% of people before the modern era were racist, sexist, and all sorts of modern-day trash.

It's impossible to engage in historical thinking and philosophy with that kind of thinking. Do you even know how women have been treated in Buddhist regions of the world? If you are criticizing Nietzsche for being harsh on women, maybe look into the very religion you so wholeheartedly praise.

Firstly I disagree that Nietzsche's comment should be only viewed in the context of his society. John Stuart mill another 19th century thinker who lived during the same patriarchal victorian society as Nietszche had a far more enlightened view of women, attacking his society for the oppression of women. Nietszche in company with Aristotle and Schopenhauer however seemed to have thought women were inferior.
Secondly in relation to your point about extremists and Buddhism here's a quote from Wikipedia
In Buddhism, one should not harm other sentient beings. ... Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat." These elements are used to indicate Buddhism is PACIFISTIC. It's Christianity and Islam which are dogmatic intolerant religions and not philosophies that are responsible for so much historical oppression and extremism.

Here is a passage I found in Wikipedia as follows:-

Nietszche admired Buddhism, writing that: "Buddhism already has - and this distinguishes it profoundly from Christianity - the self-deception of moral concepts behind it - it stands, in my language, Beyond Good and Evil."[23] Nietzsche saw himself as undertaking a similar project to the Buddha. "I could become the Buddha of Europe", he wrote in 1883.

The next line is “though frankly I would be the antipode of the Indian Buddha,” and the rest of the section largely describes how much Nietsz failed to have a good understanding of Buddhism.

The next line is “though frankly I would be the antipode of the Indian Buddha,” — praxis

That’s right, and much more like it.

“…anyone who has ever really looked with an Asiatic and supra-Asiatic eye into and down at the most world-negating of all possible ways of thinking – beyond good and evil, and no longer, like Schopenhauer and the Buddha, under the spell and delusion of morality –(Beyond Good and Evil)

“: think, too, of the whole metaphysics of the clergy, which is antagonistic towards the senses, making men lazy and refined, think, too, of their Fakir-like and
Brahmin-like self-hypnotizing – Brahminism as crystal ball and fixed idea – and the final, all-too-comprehensible general disenchantment with its radical cure, nothingness (or God: – the yearning for a union mystica with God is the Buddhist yearning for nothingness, Nirvâna – and no more…”

(Genealogy of Morality)

In Buddhism, one should not harm other sentient beings. ... Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat." These elements are used to indicate Buddhism is PACIFISTIC. — Ross Campbell

This is insipid. Aside from physical harm ( tribal warfare, punishment killings) , there have been throughout the history of buddhist culture , myriad forms of oppression, prejudice, caste stratification, forced ritual that arise from the need to live in this world until one’s soul is taken to Nirvana. In this world there needs to be a guide for making sense out of those who don’t share your ethnic background , language and religion, and buddhist teaching has done no better job of relativizing cultural differences in value systems than Christianity has.

l wonder how fashionable Nietszche will be in 50 years time. — Ross Campbell

Oh don't worry my friend. Nietzsche was saying "I'm 1000 years ahead my time". So you have to wait muchhhh more till he fades away. And gets out of "fashion".

He didn’t see the individual as atomic, like a billiard ball, but as variable in relation to other ‘individuals’.
— Possibility

I don't think we disagree on that. We think different in the way Nietzsche suggested of what individuals should do in relation to each other. But it's fine.I might be wrong. — dimosthenis9

This is what interests me about your position. You recognise that we are variable entities in relation to others, yet your view is that we should act as if this were not the case - as if we can (and should direct our efforts to) somehow consolidate our value structure, our intentions, against the influence of others. This sense of individualism, based on essentialism, is common in US attitudes towards individual freedom - but it seems to me to undermine, even guard against, what Nietzsche saw as our future potential (beyond the ‘ubermensch’). I do think that, in many respects, Nietzsche’s vision in TSZ went beyond the doors to thinking that he opened - which most rational thinkers (understandably) aren’t game to venture through. The ‘ubermensch’ was a bridge, not a destination: to an awareness of relational structure where language ultimately fails. A logical approach ignores this aspect of experience as irrelevant; Ross’s approach is more affected by it, but with an unpleasant valence.

From the introduction to BGE:

If one wants to account for the appeal of his writings, it is perhaps advisable not to look too closely at his actual teachings, but to think of his texts as a kind of mental tonic designed to encourage his readers to continue to confront their doubts and suspicions about the well-foundedness of many of their most fundamental ideas about themselves and their world. This would suggest that Nietzsche’s works may still be captivating because they confront a concern that is not restricted to modern times. They address our uncomfortable feeling that our awareness of ourselves and of the world depends on conceptions that we ultimately do not understand. We conceive of ourselves as subjects trying to live a decent life, guided in our doings by aims that ht the normal expectations of our social and cultural environment; we believe certain things to be true beyond any doubt, and we hold others and ourselves to many moral obligations. Although all this is constitutive of a normal way of life, we have only a vague idea of why we have to deal with things in this way; we do not really know what in the end justifies these practices. In questioning not the normality but the objectivity or truth of such a normal world view, Nietzsche’s writings can have the effect of making us feel less worried about our inability to account for some of our central convictions in an “absolute” way. It is up to each of us to decide whether to be grateful for this reminder or to loathe it. — Rolf-Peter Horstmann

Well you know how thoughts are. And I get tons of them. Sometimes you question yourself and your attitude also. So thoughts like that have crossed my mind also. But yes, I don't ask for anything that I m not willing to give. I try to take over my own personal responsibility for my actions and beliefs fully! That's why I hate when I see people complaining all the time. And that's why I see compassion and pity in many cases not helpful at all for the one who suffers. — dimosthenis9

Yes - there is comfort in a reciprocal expectation to human relations. It brings a sense of order and predictability to social interactions. But your frustration at those who don’t behave this way reveals an awareness that this is not a true account of reality - it’s an expectation we’re imposing on the world. If reciprocity was a truth, if there really was a clear delineation between me/mine and you/yours, then everyone would interact the way you say they should. But your perspective of any social exchange (in terms of where ‘I’ ends and ‘other’ begins) is just that: your perspective - bolstered in many cases by social structures that entitle you by law, custom or tradition.

As an example, the culture of Aboriginal people in Australia doesn’t have the same relational structure between individuals, property and objects that we do in Western culture. This difference criminalises the actions of Aboriginal people in incidents of theft, trespassing, property damage, assault and abuse based on intentionality that seems ‘normal’ to us. But this relational structure is not something we can just impose on others as a majority rule, or because our way is better, more civilised/moral, more logical, etc.

What you may see as ‘complaining’ is expressing a difference of perspective. That your perspective may be ‘normal’ - aligned with a shared/imposed sense of social structure - protects it against the potential variability in your own perspective by relating to this different perspective as ‘other’, and by extension varying your relation to ‘society’. If, as Nietzsche says, there is no society but what we construct through our relations with others, and if we too are variable entities in relation to others, then I wonder: on what grounds do you seek to consolidate your current perspective against this potential variability?

It seems you’re still looking at individuals as consolidated identities, as if my suffering is mine from birth
— Possibility

But it is mine from birth indeed! Despite it might got created in relation with others in society, at the very end I m the only one who will deal with it. Even if all people in the world feeling compassion for me, wouldn't change anything — dimosthenis9

ARE you really the only one, though? If you’re suffering, do you think it doesn’t alter your relations with those around you? Do you think your loved ones or co-workers are not impacted by your suffering? They may not understand why, or they might attribute any outbursts to some other cause, but I assure you that you are not the only one who will ‘deal’ with it. People around you adjust to your suffering every day - you just don’t notice, because you’re not recognising these adjustments as ‘compassion’, and you’re not recognising your variability - when you ‘hate’ what others do - as ‘suffering’. From your perspective, the adjustments they make are simply part of who they are, not how they vary in relation to how you vary in relation to them. That you don’t notice can be testament to their compassion, not necessarily to your self-reliance.

Firstly I disagree that Nietzsche's comment should be only viewed in the context of his society. John Stuart mill another 19th century thinker who lived during the same patriarchal victorian society as Nietszche had a far more enlightened view of women, attacking his society for the oppression of women. Nietszche in company with Aristotle and Schopenhauer however seemed to have thought women were inferior. — Ross Campbell

You cannot argue against the fact that almost every thinker since Socrates was a person of the times they lived. Just because Stuart Mill criticized society in that way doesn't render the ideas of other thinkers irrelevant because they don't fit the mold of a modern person. It's absolutely an intellectual downfall to demand such a thing. As I was saying, you may have ideas today that in a hundred years will be considered unwanted. This kind if historic cancel culture is fucking stupid. Especially when you don't even fully understand the quote you chose but rather attributed your own judgment to the interpretation instead of reading it with philosophical eyes. Women had their revolution at the start of the 20th century... the start. It was only during the consequent hundred years that they gained equality and even today we have so many structural problems with inequality that is a direct result of how deep such cultural opinions about women were before the 20th century. The number of people who didn't agree with the general idea about women before modern times was an extremely small amount and they were usually culturally shunned if they spoke too openly about it. We haven't seen equality on a global scale as we have today at any time in history, so judging philosophers for their cultural opinions during their lifetime and historic era is just plain stupid. You would have to dismiss the majority of philosophers throughout history. If you cannot accept that people throughout history can both be individually bad and still have valid, logical, and good philosophical ideas to contribute, then I don't think philosophy is something for you. If that is the filter you cannot see past, you are unable to actually conduct philosophy because you would dismiss the majority of philosophical ideas throughout history based on it.

Secondly in relation to your point about extremists and Buddhism here's a quote from Wikipedia
In Buddhism, one should not harm other sentient beings. ... Happily the peaceful live giving up victory and defeat." These elements are used to indicate Buddhism is PACIFISTIC. — Ross Campbell

You mean that there hasn't been any discrimination of women within Buddhist history because a wiki article points out that Buddhism is focused on pacifism. Are you for real? It's like reading the bible and point out that Christianity is also about pacifism, turn the other cheek, and so on, "and that's why there were no religious wars in the name of Christianity". Seriously. Go and look into the actual history of Buddhism. Check out papers like this https://nirc.nanzan-u.ac.jp/nfile/3516 or maybe this https://qz.com/india/586192/theres-a-misogynist-aspect-of-buddhism-that-nobody-talks-about/ this https://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?PaperID=75673 and so on...

Using a wiki text about what Buddhism is supposed to be might be the laziest effort available and it's blatantly obvious that you just want to whitewash Buddhism's historic sexism but condemn it in other historical figures that you don't want to agree with. This is a pure bias and an extremely non-philosophical way of addressing the actual ideas. It's just basic cancel culture on a historical scale.

Here's an example of a quote that is eerily similar to the ones you criticize other historical philosophical thinkers for:

“Of all the scents that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the tastes that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the voices that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman. Of all the caresses that can enslave, none is more lethal than that of a woman.”

yet your view is that we should act as if this were not the case - as if we can (and should direct our efforts to) somehow consolidate our value structure, our intentions, against the influence of others — Possibility

Yes more or less that's what I believe.

The
‘ubermensch’ was a bridge, not a destination — Possibility

Hmm. Sure about that? Nietszche in TSZ refers many times that Human is the bridge as to pass to the Ubermensch. I think Nietzsche was thinking of Ubermensch as the next evolution step that humanity should chase.A spiritual evolution that will lead to the new human "version",that his Spirit would break all the chains of the past. I think Nietzsche strongly believed in the power of human spirit and how it can lead humanity forward to its next evolution step,Ubermensch. For me I see Ubermensch as the highest spiritual potential that humans can reach, and we might be surprised of how high this potential actual can be.

If one wants to account for the appeal of his writings, it is perhaps advisable not to look too closely at his actual teachings, but to think of his texts as a kind of mental tonic designed to encourage his readers to continue to confront their doubts and suspicions about the well-foundedness of many of their most fundamental ideas about themselves and their world. — Rolf-Peter Horstmann

Don't know as to be honest what BGE stands for. But I couldn't agree more with the above statement.

What you may see as ‘complaining’ is expressing a difference of perspective. — Possibility

When i mentioned complaining to my previous post. I meant that if for example don't show compassion and then when I suffer I expect compassion from others and complaining about not acting like that. Well yes I would hate that to myself!
Don't get me wrong. I don't disregard compassion and thinking that shouldn't exist. Not at all. I just strongly question how people understand compassion and how they "practicing" it. Compassion and similar virtues are necessary when you live in societies. Cause exactly as you mention we are social entities who interact.And even sharing suffering, as you mentioned previously, is at our very own benefit at the end. Living in Society makes these virtues necessary but for different reasons.

then I wonder: on what grounds do you seek to consolidate your current perspective against this potential variability? — Possibility

Of course we are social entities who react to each other and society create many of our beliefs, I can't deny that. But we have to lift ourselves above all these social structures that gave to us since our birth (at the level that is possible of course).Like creating our own path inside societies and trying to keep it as "clean" as possible from society's stereotype nonsense. Acknowledging at the same time though, that we are part of the society and our acts affect others and we are affected by other's acts. It's like doing your "social" duty but with your own way!
In that way I think we contribute more as to change societies. Piece by piece. Making others to see our actions and start to doubt about their beliefs. Giving a living example that we can act differently as social members.
"The victory over ourselves,it DOES matter, cause that way we prepare the road for Ubermensch" TSZ

People around you adjust to your suffering every day - you just don’t notice, because you’re not recognising these adjustments as ‘compassion’, — Possibility

But I do recognize them. And they might adjust indeed. All I say is that this won't make any difference to me at all at the end. When the door closes I m the one who will give the "fight". And it's just fine.I don't say it as to "blame" their compassion. I just say that in some cases compassion doesn't make any difference at all.

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers on this blog just because I took a quote from Nietzsche and described it as a rather outlandish remark. Nietszche was not living in the middle ages when people used to have such highly superstitious, dogmatic, misogynistic ideas. He was living during the 19th century in a modern , industrialized country. I don't know of many other of his contemporary philosophers, apart perhaps from Schopenhauer who were in the habit of making inane statements like the one I quoted. Maybe he was trying to be provocative or controversial which is a great way, nowadays to draw attention to your writing or ideas. It seems to especially the rage in the modern media and maybe in academia too.

I seem to have ruffled a few feathers on this blog just because I took a quote from Nietzsche and described it as a rather outlandish remark. Nietszche was not living in the middle ages when people used to have such highly superstitious, dogmatic, misogynistic ideas. He was living during the 19th century in a modern , industrialized country. — Ross Campbell

You took a quote out of context of the entire text, provided no insight into understanding the meaning of that text, and used it as a means to criticize him in favor of Buddhism by pointing out how his ideas are negative compared to the positive of Buddhism, without providing any real philosophical argument that was asked for. You are on a philosophy forum, act like it, or you are just a Buddhist evangelist, which isn't allowed on this forum. Here, you need to argue with much more "quality" than in other forms of discussion. If you provide a thesis, you need to back that up with a proper argument, or we can just conclude you are wrong because you haven't provided any proper argument to the contrary.

Nietzsche was living in an era that was still treating women as second-class citizens. They didn't even have the right to vote and the suffragettes hadn't even truly begun their activism. You don't seem to have much insight into how the 19th century was really like. Finding a feminist guy or some white dude speaking up for the black population was extremely rare if not almost impossible to find. I don't really know where you get the notion that the 19th century was "modern" in the sense we use it today. Just because the enlightenment pushed critical thinking to dismiss the church as part of the state and academic philosophy started to push knowledge forward, doesn't mean they went into moral enlightenment that shifted the world overnight into what we see today. And we still to this day have structural problems with inequality both for women and people with other ethnicities than being white. We're not even close to pure equality yet and you think people were educated about these things over 120 years ago? That's just a ridicoulus conclusion that has no valid premises.

And you still haven't addressed the quote I provided. How does that fit into your argument about Nietzsche vs Buddhism?

Ok. They are interesting , thought provoking points you make. I note your point that on a philosophy blog proper arguments need to be made. I have been studying philosophy since I was 16 and my Degree from university is in Philosophy. I've been teaching it in schools part time for 11 years. Now Im not trying to be a know all and much of my knowledge of Nietszche is from secondary sources. Actually he used to be one of my favourite philosophers. I still think he's a profound thinker. I'm not comparing him unfavorably with Buddhism .
Look I think the discussion has digressed completely away from my original post about a week ago where I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity which are fundamental ancient virtues of Buddhism. Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. And it seems on this blog that SOME people have taken umbrage at that remark. Im not a Buddhist evangelist. It's not fair to label me as such. I just think that these above virtues in my opinion, which HAPPEN TO BE part of Buddhist philosophy are good ones. As I said before I think Nietszches critique of Christianity as a slave morality has a grain of truth. But I disagree with his attack on the virtues of love , etc. He somehow seems to think that these virtues encourage the weak and a slave morality. But I disagree. I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. And if Christian and Buddhist or Islamic extremists have abused certain ideas or beliefs for power that's a reflection on those evil individuals , it's nothing to do with the virtues themselves.

Hmm. Sure about that? — dimosthenis9

No, I’m not - so I’m happy to stand corrected on that one...

Don't know as to be honest what BGE stands for. But I couldn't agree more with the above statement. — dimosthenis9

Nietzsche’s ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

Ok Here's a Friedrich Nietzsche Quote:
“Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?” — Ross Campbell

I'm simply giving you what seems to be a famous quote from Nietzsche and giving you my opinion that it's a rather inane statement also seems a rather misogynistic comment. I'd like to know what women would think about it. As far as I'm aware Nietzsche didn't have a very high opinion of women anyway. — Ross Campbell

I wasn’t going to bite on this one - it didn’t seem worth the effort. As a woman, I’m aware of expectations that I should be offended by the many derogatory statements that Nietzsche appears to make regarding women. And taking each one out of context, that’s easy enough to do. While in most cases I think he was rendering as caricature the cultural view of women by men, there is one quote that always makes me smile, from the preface to ‘Beyond Good and Evil’:

Suppose that truth is a woman - and why not? Aren’t there reasons for suspecting that all philosophers, to the extent that they have been dogmatists, have not really understood women? That the grotesque seriousness of their approach towards the truth and the clumsy advances they have made so far are unsuitable ways of pressing their suit with a woman? What is certain is that she has spurned them - leaving dogmatism of all types standing sad and discouraged. If it is even left standing! — Nietzsche, ‘Beyond Good and Evil’

I think Nietzsche acknowledges that the men of his time, himself included, were entirely mystified by women in general, and made little attempt to understand them as anything more than social constructs. He certainly makes no claim to experience or knowledge himself - it’s all very obviously based on cultural assumptions. That’s enough for me to dismiss the apparent misogyny as simple ignorance. His ‘understanding’ of women was limited to imposed cultural views, caricatured beyond any relation to empirical reality. I think anyone who takes Nietzsche’s statements about women seriously as his personal or intellectual opinion doesn’t really understand his philosophical approach, or women for that matter. It wasn’t that he didn’t have a very high opinion of women, but that he didn’t have a clue, and he made that abundantly clear - to me, anyway.

That's an interesting point and the quote from Nietszche is interesting. He seems to be a hard philosopher to pin down because of his highly metaphorical style. What do you mean he didn't have a clue about women? Even Plato 2000 years ago who was living in a much more patriarchal society, a society where women weren't even allowed to perform any public role, did not go to school or did not even learn to read and write. Yet Plato, compared to Nietszche was enlightened enough about women to advocate that they should receive the same education and opportunities as men. And here we have Nietszche, one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century saying that he would prefer to fall into the hands of a murderer than a lustful woman. That sounds like an attack on the secular Enlightenment and progressive philosophy which was trying to usher in a more Enlightened culture free from the Catholic misogynistic culture of the old older in Europe.

I think Nietszches critique of Christianity as a slave morality has a grain of truth. — Ross Campbell

I'm not sure what he means exactly by 'slave morality' but all religions are rather the same in this regard, and Buddhism is in no way an exception.

That sounds like an attack on the secular Enlightenment and progressive philosophy which was trying to usher in a more Enlightened culture free from the Catholic misogynistic culture of the old older in Europe. — Ross Campbell

You’re confusing side issues with the main issue, which I see as the following: what are Nietzsche’s supporters claiming as his main thesis, and how is it original with respect to 19th (and much of 20th and 21at century) philosophy. If you decide that his central ideas are
not original and/or unproductive, then it will
appear to you that his comments on women are derivations of this unproductive philosophy. If however you embrace his ideas as ahead of their time and in some
ways still so , then you will be able to forgive his less than clear, quirky or irritating aspects , because we can dig up dirt on all great philosophers.
I think the focus here should be on those ideas that a consensus has developed around. These are concepts that one can find in the postmodern writings of French philosophers like Deleuze and Foucault , in social constructionism and even in phenomenology.
They deal with the relative bias of value systems, the shaping of individual views by participation in larger normative communities , and the impossibility of nailing down the meaning of goodness and badness outside of those normative communities.

If we remove Nietzsche from the discussion for a moment, what is your response to current day critiques of enlightenment liberalism and progressivism?
Everything you’ve written suggests strongly to me that you are wedded to enlightenment rationalism. If that’s the case, the. it’s not just Nietzsche that you likely object to but an entire era of of post-enlightenment thinking.
If you’re not a fan of current activism on campuses then you’re not going to be a fan of Nietzsche

Am I wedded to Enlightenment rationalism. The answer is no. I think there are SOME good aspects to it. The 18th century Enlightenment was primarily a reaction against the dogmatism, religious and political intolerance, superstition of the preceding age which had torn Europe apart in religious wars and persecution. Thinkers like, David Hume, Kant, Locke and Voltaire hoped to usher in a new age of freedom, liberty and democracy. While I think they are profound and great thinkers their belief in rationalism and utopian ideals about a society based on human Reason are naive and even led to the horrors and barbarism of The French Revolution and Napoleonic imperialism. Human beings are not rational creatures. Their psychology was amateurish.
No, I am more wedded to Stoicism and Buddhism. and Existentialism. I also am very interested in Ancient Greek philosophy. For me they provide my source of values for living and a treasure trove of wisdom. By the way Nietszche was an admirer of Buddhism.
My view is that too many western philosophers are ignorant of Eastern philosophy. They have a too west centric perspective. It's after I made some Chinese and Indian friends that it opened up my eyes to another culture. Eastern philosophy wasn't included at all on my Degree in philosophy unfortunately. I wish I had discovered it when I was a young lad back in college, It might have changed my life!

I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity — Ross Campbell

Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. — Ross Campbell

But I disagree. I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. — Ross Campbell

Well, I’m confused...which one is it that you’re presenting: a suggestion, a statement of fact, or an opinion?

I wonder if Nietzsche didn't approve of the herd instinct in the traditional morality, which is linked to the established authorities such as churches and the states. Traditional morality also crushes individual's autonomy by forcing the moral axioms which could be actually immoral.

What he approved was perhaps, morality based on autonomy of each person? Because he believed that people are born good, and have the ability to do good without the forced morality on them?

The virtues from compassion, kindness and pity are the typical morality stemmed from the traditional morality.

I have been studying philosophy since I was 16 and my Degree from university is in Philosophy. I've been teaching it in schools part time for 11 years. Now Im not trying to be a know all and much of my knowledge of Nietszche is from secondary sources. — Ross Campbell

With all due respect, the way you conduct a philosophical discussion here does not reflect this type of foundational knowledge. You don't consolidate Nietzsche's writing into argument form and you don't pit that against why Buddhism is better, and you don't really explain your criticism against Nietzsche past cherry-picked quotes out of context based on a fallacy of extreme in order to paint it in a negative light. It might work on uneducated people with no sense of historical context, but if you want to make a point you have to actually do a proper argument.

If all people ever do is post opinions it only goes two ways: either a brawl of opinions leading nowhere, or people posting opinions and no one really reading them since why would anyone care to just read opinions and not have a discussion? Proper arguments are there to actually drive the discussion forward.

I still think he's a profound thinker. I'm not comparing him unfavorably with Buddhism . — Ross Campbell

You are. You take quotes out of context and provide no argument in the matter. I also picked a quote by the actual Buddha himself which has the same kind of misogynic viewpoint as any other male figure throughout history, because it is impossible to view historical figures outside of the historical context they lived in. Doing that is trying to deify them into some superhuman form with a morality and stoic balance that transcends time and space. To only view historical people and thinkers as "valid" if they were morally perfect and had a viewpoint that was disconnected from the world around them at the time of their life is impossible because there are no such people, even proved by the Buddha quote.

This kind of historical cancel culture behavior is downright anti-intellectual. The key is not to find thinkers that were perfect, the key to understanding what these thinkers were actually talking about is to understand the times they lived in and even use that as a tool to decipher the meaning behind their writing. What did Nietzsche really mean by the chastity segment?

It is written through Zarathustra as a character that breaks down chastity in the eye of Christianity. He talks with poetry about how Christianity made sexuality a "moral sin" and how that kind of viewpoint and detachment from love creates beasts of man. The actual quote you cherry-picked comes from this segment:

I love the forest. It is bad to live in cities: there, there are too many of the lustful.

Is it not better to fall into the hands of a murderer, than into the dreams of a lustful woman?

And just look at these men: their eye saith it--they know nothing better on earth than to lie with a woman.

Filth is at the bottom of their souls; and alas! if their filth hath still spirit in it!

Would that ye were perfect--at least as animals! But to animals belongeth innocence.

Do I counsel you to slay your instincts? I counsel you to innocence in your instincts.

Do I counsel you to chastity? Chastity is a virtue with some, but with many almost a vice.

These are continent, to be sure: but doggish lust looketh enviously out of all that they do.

Even into the heights of their virtue and into their cold spirit doth this creature follow them, with its discord.

And how nicely can doggish lust beg for a piece of spirit, when a piece of flesh is denied it!

Ye love tragedies and all that breaketh the heart? But I am distrustful of your doggish lust.

Ye have too cruel eyes, and ye look wantonly towards the sufferers. Hath not your lust just disguised itself and taken the name of fellow-suffering?

And also this parable give I unto you: Not a few who meant to cast out their devil, went thereby into the swine themselves.

To whom chastity is difficult, it is to be dissuaded: lest it become the road to hell--to filth and lust of soul.

Do I speak of filthy things? That is not the worst thing for me to do.

Not when the truth is filthy, but when it is shallow, doth the discerning one go unwillingly into its waters.

Verily, there are chaste ones from their very nature; they are gentler of heart, and laugh better and oftener than you.

They laugh also at chastity, and ask: "What is chastity?

Is chastity not folly? But the folly came unto us, and not we unto it.

We offered that guest harbour and heart: now it dwelleth with us--let it stay as long as it will!"--

Thus spake Zarathustra.

So what does the quote really mean in the context of chastity? Isn't it a description on how Christianity formed a notion that it is better to be a murderous person than to feel sexual lust? That when you stigmatize sexuality and lust to be a form of sin while speaking of killing and murder almost as a lesser sin, it robs man of sexuality as a form of love. That those choosing chastity shouldn't be forced to it, but that they themselves choose it for as long as they feel it is good for them.

He speaks of how Christianity suppressed sexuality down to a sin worse than murder and how the form of chastity they conduct within the church only pushed the beast behavior further by suppressing people's urges. He speaks of a balance where choosing your own chastity, but not be bound to it, makes you a balanced person capable of not giving in to be beast of lust nor the suppression of irrational religious belief.

How is this in any way the same as a literal interpretation of the cherry-picked quote you chose? This is why I think that for someone who points out having a degree in philosophy, but not knowing how to read and decipher Nietzsche, it is irrelevant how many years you've been involved with philosophy and I'm a bit concerned that you actually teach philosophy. Is such a literal interpretation of a cherry-picked quote from Nietzsche's writing something you teach your students? Because that is pretty far from philosophy.

Look I think the discussion has digressed completely away from my original post about a week ago where I made the SUGGESTION that Nietszche hates the virtues of Love, compassion and kindness and pity which are fundamental ancient virtues of Buddhism. — Ross Campbell

The interpretation of the very text you took the quote from argues against your conclusion here. The quote from Buddha also argues against it by actually being misogynic. The only thing you have left is your opinion. Nietzsche didn't hate love, compassion, and kindness, he was only concerned of getting rid of Christian values without having a balanced viewpoint taking place in the moral vacuum after it's gone. Only the ones who can't read past a literal interpretation and are poetically blind reach such conclusions. It's the most common notion of Nietzsche from people who actually never really read his texts with a philosophical mind or who understood the actual conclusions he made.

If anything I can agree with, it's that the way of writing philosophy in poetic prose makes it harder for the majority of people to grasp the actual conclusions and arguments he makes. But such criticism has been made by philosophers throughout the 20th century as well. This hard-to-interpret way of writing clouds people's ability to understand into believing the conclusions to be something else than what he actually wrote. But then again, his writing wouldn't have been so widespread if it were not in prose form and poetic.

But for philosophers today, it should be no problem deciphering it. You read it while underlining premises and conclusions, you decipher the poetry into a proper philosophical argument and then read the text again. Then it becomes clearer what he meant.

Now that's not a bias or a misunderstanding of Nietszche. I'm merely making a statement of fact. — Ross Campbell

No, you are not. The only fact here is that you don't understand the very quotes you are picking out. And you ignore Buddha's own remark about women. So what "facts" are you talking about?

And it seems on this blog that SOME people have taken umbrage at that remark. Im not a Buddhist evangelist. It's not fair to label me as such. I just think that these above virtues in my opinion, which HAPPEN TO BE part of Buddhist philosophy are good ones. — Ross Campbell

Virtues in of themselves are nothing but hollow words. They mean nothing in applied philosophy. You can take any virtue and deform it through subjectivity into an immoral act. The "love" of the nation to battle against enemies as an SS soldier in a concentration camp, to find "compassion" towards the fellow german not of Jewish heritage, the "kindness" towards the neighbor by keeping the race clean. It's "carpe diem" t-shirt philosophy that can be twisted into the darkest corners of humanity. Whenever you dive deep into ethics, empty virtues have a hard time surviving practical reality. What Nietzsche speaks about is the process of dismantling religious constructs of living without falling into the nihilism of nothing being left. He describes the process of leaving the church behind and how to live without it, to be a balanced person.

To point out virtues in Buddhism without including the complexities of morality it becomes a shallow virtue signaling. Nietzsche did the hard work of digging deep past such virtues, into the core of humanity rather than religion. Anyone finding Nietzsche proposing nihilism and hate for virtues does not understand Nietzsche. If anything, he hated empty virtues, the kind of virtue signaling or being a slave to empty virtues used as power over the people. You can find a number of cases in Buddhist groups where the leaders used virtues as a means of power.

If something is easily corrupted as a means of power, it is not a powerful moral tool. Virtues in of themselves are nothing but empty air.

As I said before I think Nietszches critique of Christianity as a slave morality has a grain of truth. But I disagree with his attack on the virtues of love , etc. He somehow seems to think that these virtues encourage the weak and a slave morality. — Ross Campbell

He says the opposite. He speaks greatly of love while he attacks the church and Christianity of making sexuality into a form of sin that in turn creates beasts of men giving in to a destructive form of lust. He attacks the virtues of Christianity to be empty of substance, something that confuses people by going against their psychology. He positions that each and every man needs to think for themselves, to understand beyond empty virtues, and find balance in self-control. That he hates "love" or "kindness" is just an amateur interpretation of his texts.

I think I'm entitled to have that opinion. I'm sure there are millions of others who would share that opinion. — Ross Campbell

Of course, but as I mentioned, opinions don't mean anything in philosophy if you can't back it up by actual arguments. What is your interpretation of the quote you cherry-picked? How does that pit against Buddhist virtues? etc. I don't care about your opinions, I want your philosophically constructed conclusion in this matter. Why would I care about your opinion? It doesn't further philosophy, it doesn't add to the discussion about Nietzsche, it's just noise in the billions of people expressing their opinions every day, who the fuck cares? Want to be a relevant voice in philosophy... then do philosophy instead of just expressing opinions that have no substance without a proper argument underneath.

I don't think I need to back up my view about the merit of these virtues with Philosophical argument. — Ross Campbell

You're on a philosophy forum. Yes, you do. Why are you even in here expressing opinions if all you back them up with is that you are entitled to your opinion? Why would anyone care about your opinions if they have no relevant substance behind them?

This is the illusion of entitled people today. That everyone's opinion matters. No, most people's opinions are just irrelevant noise. The only opinions that matter are those who actually do the work of making proper arguments for them. Anything else is totally irrelevant. People express opinions every day, alone, online, on the street, during family dinners.

As a person who cares to build knowledge and wisdom, digging through opinions of the masses first needs to dismiss all the irrelevant ones, the ones who "feel entitled to opinions" but have nothing more than that. Those are irrelevant to wisdom, they are the noise of the people that can only be practically used as a form of mass statistics of opinions, but not opinions as facts. The wise should dismiss them all and focus on the ones who care to explain themselves, the ones interested in backing up their opinion, the ones who use self-scrutiny to clean up their viewpoints.

Anyone who backs up their opinion with "I'm entitled to my opinion" has nothing of worth to say until they back that opinion up with a substance of worth. In my mind, you are not entitled to an opinion if you cannot back it up. Until then, you are entitled to move your mouth, form words in a text, but I don't value someone's opinion before it has substance past the subjective ego of the speaker.

And if Christian and Buddhist or Islamic extremists have abused certain ideas or beliefs for power that's a reflection on those evil individuals , it's nothing to do with the virtues themselves. — Ross Campbell

The way you use "evil" and "virtues" like this just shows how lacking in moral knowledge you have. The nature of "good and evil" is the common man's idea of moral, but in philosophy, it's almost a joke and essentially a black and white fallacy. And the misuse of the ideas doesn't have to be extreme in order to be destructive, just as Nietzsche described in his text on chastity. It can be that the structural form of virtues and sins creates a psychology within people that become destructive on a large scale. The way sexuality was detached from love created beasts of lust that was a widespread problem, not something a few "extremists" did. All these tie into structural problems we have in today's society. The idea that some people are just "evil" is a sloppy observation of society that ignores the actual machine that creates them. And the virtues, ideas, sins, and vices that they misuse are only able to be misused through their simplicity in face of the complexity of life and society. This is why you sound like an evangelist. You speak of these virtues as good without explaining why, you speak of criticism of these ideas as bad and that people who misusing these as being evil, and you position yourself to be entitled to these opinions without anything else to back them up.

It's all shallow speak, no substance, no insight, the evangelical speech of the entitled ego. Why should we care?

And here we have Nietszche, one of the most important and influential philosophers of the 20th century saying that he would prefer to fall into the hands of a murderer than a lustful woman. That sounds like an attack on the secular Enlightenment and progressive philosophy which was trying to usher in a more Enlightened culture free from the Catholic misogynistic culture of the old older in Europe. — Ross Campbell

Yes, Nietzsche was critical of the Enlightenment’s approach to constructing a more secular culture based on prevailing assumptions they considered to be empirically beyond question. Their views on women would be among those assumptions, and while Nietzsche was in no position to question these gender assumptions himself, this ‘progressive philosophy’ had NO interest in freeing culture from its misogyny. Don’t try to make it out as if Nietzsche was critical of any existing gender progressiveness.

So what does the quote really mean in the context of chastity? Isn't it a description on how Christianity formed a notion that it is better to be a murderous person than to feel sexual lust? That when you stigmatize sexuality and lust to be a form of sin while speaking of killing and murder almost as a lesser sin, it robs man of sexuality as a form of love. That those choosing chastity shouldn't be forced to it, but that they themselves choose it for as long as they feel it is good for them.

He speaks of how Christianity suppressed sexuality down to a sin worse than murder and how the form of chastity they conduct within the church only pushed the bestiality further by suppressing people's urges. He speaks of a balance where choosing your own chastity, but not be bound to it, makes you a balanced person capable of not giving in to be beast of lust nor the suppression of irrational religious belief.

How is this in any way the same as a literal interpretation of the cherry-picked quote you chose? This is why I think that for someone who points out having a degree in philosophy, but not knowing how to read and decipher Nietzsche, it is irrelevant how many years you've been involved with philosophy and I'm a bit concerned that you actually teach philosophy. Is such a literal interpretation of a cherry-picked quote from Nietzsche's writing something you teach your students? Because that is pretty far from philosophy. — Christoffer

:up:

With all due respect, the way you conduct a philosophical discussion here does not reflect this type of foundational knowledge — Christoffer

Or he simply isn't good at his job.

Right. Ok then . Give me examples of hard evidence that Nietszche provides to BACK UP his ideas, not just clever aphorisms, or mythical narratives, like Zarathustra, concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count.

So you're saying I shouldn't be blogging on this site because I'm giving opinions without hard evidence. I find that an unfair comment. Show me please where it says in the administrators ground rules on this blog that people are not allowed express their OPINIONS on this site unaccompanied by hard evidence.

So you're saying I shouldn't be blogging on this site because I'm giving opinions without hard evidence. I find that an unfair comment. Show me please where it says in the administrators ground rules on this blog that people are not allowed express their OPINIONS on this site unaccompanied by hard evidence. — Ross Campbell

No, that’s not what I’m saying at all, and I don’t know where you got that from. Show me please where I made that comment.

I did ask you to clarify whether you were making a suggestion, expressing an opinion or stating a fact. You keep shifting from one to another, sometimes in the same post, and it’s quite confusing. If you’re making a suggestion or expressing an opinion in a philosophy forum, then you should be willing to at least temporarily entertain the possibility that you don’t have the full picture, and be open to hear and discuss other perspectives that don’t quite align with your own. But you seem a little too attached to your opinion to engage in a philosophical discussion of the topic. Which is why so many contributing to this thread are assuming that you’re making some kind of argument, and asking you to support it with reasoning and evidence.

You’ve been criticising a particular philosopher for what you assume to be his ‘hatred’ of certain virtues, based on an interpretation of his writings that many here have refuted. And then you’ve highlighted a particular quote that you believe supports your argument (or may at least render Nietzsche’s position indefensible). When it’s made clear that it doesn’t, and that your argument fails, your only defence is to try and refashion your statements as mere opinion, and to then appeal for the validity of expressing this opinion in a philosophical forum - which is what you are trying to deny Nietzsche.

I believe that you’ve made a number of unfair comments against Nietzsche in a thread that you started. Each of us are allowed to defend him in his absence with reasoning and evidence. You can express your opinion, sure - but if you want us to agree with you, to not dismiss them as unfair comments, then I’m afraid you’ll need to back them up with more than rhetoric.

Right. Ok then . Give me examples of hard evidence that Nietszche provides to BACK UP his ideas, not just clever aphorisms, or mythical narratives, like Zarathustra, concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count. — Ross Campbell

Or you should just pick up his books, go through and spot premises and conclusions for each segment, analyze through historical context, and find higher understanding than shallow interpretations of cherry-picked quotes. I've done enough job for you to show the meaning in that section on chastity alone to show that you have done a very shallow job of that quote you chose. The example is right in there, in my explanation.

It should be obvious to you how to decode philosophical texts like these, especially Nietzsche since he's pretty much one of the first philosophers you learn about. So with your degree in philosophy and your 11 years of teaching, it should be no problem for you to do this.

concrete examples, case studies of REAL people in REAL LIFE situations, including data, empirical findings. — Ross Campbell

This is not philosophy, or at least it is philosophy in an entirely scientific research form, which is not what philosophy has to be. It can be observational and analytical of those observations. That doesn't mean it's not logical, it can be purely logical in its inductive form when the deciphered premises and conclusions form an argument.

Because as far as I'm concerned without these his opinions remain just opinions, as you yourself have indicated that most people's opinions don't count. — Ross Campbell

I'm starting to see that you are just poetically illiterate. You are blind to the text in front of you and you don't understand it. I have provided so much information to you on this subject and you just ask for more without any argument yourself or anything other than your opinion.

I'm done with this, you are simply the worst academic philosopher I've ever encountered and I feel sad for the students under you. As long as you aren't bullshitting about your experience in order to look more educated than you actually are. Because you clearly have no idea how to read philosophical prose and you have no insight into Nietzsche based on how shallow you interpret your example quote alone.

You can express your opinion, sure - but if you want us to agree with you, to not dismiss them as unfair comments, then I’m afraid you’ll need to back them up with more than rhetoric. — Possibility

Exactly this. Enough has been provided in opposition to the original opinion and the request is for better support to that opinion.

As a matter of fact I had already decided that I'm done with this ridiculous fencing match of a discussion. You think I m the worst academic you've ever come across well I happen to think likewise that you're the worst blogger I've ever come across. I have never from all my students or colleagues in my 16 years of teaching literature and philosophy been attacked for my views in so virulent a manner .

As a matter of fact I had already decided that I'm done with this ridiculous fencing match of a discussion. You think I m the worst academic you've ever come across well I happen to think likewise that you're the worst blogger I've ever come across. I have never from all my students or colleagues in my 16 years of teaching literature and philosophy been attacked for my views in so virulent a manner . — Ross Campbell

Maybe you are just used to being looked up to by your students and the power of the teacher not having to deal with actual valid criticism. Maybe because you never really done something like arguing against other people than students who are new to philosophy makes you unable to conduct proper philosophical arguments for a conclusion or opinion you make.

The fact that you are teaching philosophy is not valid support for the inadequate arguments you are making. And I have no interest in arguing further if the other side is just writing opinions and never get involved with actual discourse.