I actually think it's safe to say that most philosophers think too much. — SatmBopd

On the contrary, I think it’s safe to say most people think too little.

It's like brain popcorn — SatmBopd

irrespective of the constitution of the universe, as human beings we still need to address the question of how to interact with it — SatmBopd

I don't know which particular set of train tracks has bored you so quickly but there is a famous set of tracks that was designed to test our intuition about this problem -

Is letting a person die as bad as killing them?

Which is part of a wider problem:

Can we be credited or blamed as much for omissions as for actions?

That is again part of a wider problem:

How should we interact with the universe?

So the 'stale philosophical tradition' may have something to say. You need to get into the detail and give it thought.

It's like cooking. All recipes are about getting the ingredients, combining them in appropriate ways using the best equipment and presenting the result with pride. Ta-da! Now I'm a chef! No, I'm not. I can make sweeping statements about how I ought to interact with the kitchen and its contents. But I have yet to produce a meal.

How should we interact with the universe? — Cuthbert

This (and the two above) questions are answered (probably only?) by consulting a system of values. If you answer the train track question and decide that letting someone die is/ is not as bad as killing them, but you make no other inquiries about your values, when will you do your due diligence to make sure that assertion aligns with all your other values? Investigating individual values, or other influences on social engagement like game theory, and then comparing the train tack problem TO those might actually be useful. I don't mean to completely dismiss the thought experiment, just that I think if you engage in contemplating it without any greater context, it needlessly limits to the scope of the conversation. I was presented this (and similar questions) in introductory philosophy classes without any greater context. I did learn some things from it... so maybe its not bad to like start teaching people concepts, but I don't think that they represent the most interesting questions if that makes sense.

the 'stale philosophical tradition' may have something to say. — Cuthbert

, probably plenty in fact. But science makes progress in academia while philosophers keep meandering around the same old questions and (probably rightly) attracting less students. I think we're mostly postulating arguments back and forth without pushing the field forward much. More ambitious assertions and apparatuses of thought should be in play I think. Or it would be cooler if they were. Nietzsche had some ambitious ideas, and the only time I've heard him mentioned at my university was in a history class. Once.

I do keep learning lots from my Philosophy profs who don't address Nietzsche. The "stale tradition" thing was a strong remark, partially (though not completely) offered in jest. I guess I just think... why not go forward instead of (mostly only) looking back?

Yeah I feel that sometimes.

It's just hard for me to deny that some of the people who think less than me (or appear to) are doing just as well if not better.

I don't mean to completely dismiss the thought experiment, just that I think if you engage in contemplating it without any greater context, it needlessly limits to the scope of the conversation — SatmBopd

I think you have a reasonable complaint. After WWII there was frustration with moral philosophy. Philosophers had been spending their time dissecting language ever more minutely and discussing Kant and Mill. In the meantime gas chambers were being filled with human beings. After the 2008 financial crisis students were nearly rebelling in economics departments. They were being taught about marginal value and Pareto optimality. Meanwhile the entire banking system was apparently collapsing and nobody seemed to know why.

More ambitious assertions and apparatuses of thought should be in play I think. — SatmBopd

Perhaps we need both. Grand iconoclastic ideas are useless if we trip up on simple fallacies in logic. Nit-picking thought experiments are pointless if we cannot apply the lessons in life. Someone has to build the house and someone has to keep the tools repaired and do the accounts.

I don't think Frantic Freddie was a philosopher. — Ciceronianus

Perhaps you've read N. Perhaps, more likely, you've not bothered to study his work. So you'd agree that most (pre-PoMo) non-Anglo-European philosophers during the first half of the 20th c. just wasted their considerable efforts engaging critically / philosophically with N's thinking? And, almost single-handedly, existentialist-analytical philosopher & scholar Walter Kaufmann wasted decades (mostly from 1947-68) translating and reinterpreting N as a philosopher for post-war Anglophone philosophers, intellectuals, et al?

Someone who did not think as much as emote.

If deductive argumentation and/or conceptual system-building is what you mean by "think", you're quite right, sir. However, N shows that there are modes of thinking other than calculation or instrumentality or justification such as aporetics, reflective inquiry, genealogical hermeneutics & systematicity-without-system building (i.e. aphoristic treatment of interrelated concepts, ideas, values). His seemingly unrelated "declarations" call themselves into question and thereby his readers into question. N makes speculative jigsaw puzzles and says "think for yourself" prompting us to assemble the (often missing) pieces by our own lights in order to gradually uncover, or expose, our own (philosophical & religious) blindspots, biases and irrationality to ourselves (usually) in spite of ourselves. A provocateur for "the examined life", no?

Perhaps you've read N. Perhaps, more likely, you've not bothered to study his work. — 180 Proof

I've read Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil, and The Birth of Tragedy, I recall. I may have read The Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols; they seem familiar as they're described. I say "may have" because it was some time ago. It's fair to say I've never studied him.

I may have been too influenced by the Anglo-American philosophical tradition when it comes to my conception of philosophy. In that tradition, I think, we don't encounter writers like N or some others of the more modern "Continentals" as philosophers. We might encounter them as social critics, or satirists or non-philosophical authors, though.

But I don't think this is a purely Anglo-American prejudice. We don't see writers like Nietzsche in the tradition of ancient philosophy, or in Medieval philosophy, or in Enlightenment philosophy. Nietzsche and others like him seem to have appeared in the last two centuries or so, in Europe; I would say Europe of the Romantic tradition, post-Revolutionary and post-Napoleonic France.

Writers like Nietzsche can inspire, can be insightful, can provide new ways of viewing things. So can art, or religion, or mystical experiences. So, I suspect, might Buddhism, or Zen, or Taoism or reading works associated with them. I simply think philosophy is distinct; it isn't the same as those paths, and I think that when it tries to mimic them it fails.

Grand iconoclastic ideas are useless if we trip up on simple fallacies in logic. — Cuthbert

I think that when we find ourselves in a realm of concern where ‘simple fallacies of logic’ have become important to us, we are so far removed from any relevant and significant form of philosophizing that we have in essence substituted calculating for thinking.

Yes, I see. That's interesting. What's that quote from?

:up:

So you're a partisan in the "Analytic-Continental" divide to the degree that any discourses which do not meet the peculiar standards of the Anglo-American Analytical tradition (or schools) you consider "anything but philosophy"?

Maybe, because I'm an autodidact with respect to academic philosophy like most on this site, my perspective is somewhat broader and comparative (culturally & historically) and even – gods forbid – more eclectic than the Analytic schools allow. I recognize N to be an anti-Romantic Romantic Hellenist thinker – i.e. classical philologist, poet, composer, depth psychologist, cultural genealogist and philosophical-religious iconclast – and not a logician, political theorist or ethicist. N was a philosopher of 'post-humanity' amid, as he saw it, the ruins (decadence) of modernity, concerns apparently too speculative and grandiose (or anarchic) for mandarin sentential logic-chopping and quotidian utility.

Apologies, Cicero! (slow day) I'd like to think I'd outgrown my "angry young man's" Nietzscheanism a few decades ago with the calming help of the Hellenes, Enlightenment freethinkers, early pragmatists, absurdists ... and then Spinoza, but much of what N "emotes", as you say, I still think. :fire:

What's that quote from? — Ciceronianus

It’s from ‘On the Genealogy of Moraity’

I think that when we find ourselves in a realm of concern where ‘simple fallacies of logic’ have become important to us, we are so far removed from any relevant and significant form of philosophizing that we have in essence substituted calculating for thinking. — Joshs

Not substituting - adding. We need both.

Thank you.

So you're a partisan in the "Analytic-Continental" divide to the degree that any discourses which do not meet the peculiar standards of the Anglo-American Analytical tradition (or schools) you consider "anything but philosophy"? — 180 Proof

No, as that would exclude Dewey. I don't think he can be said to be in the Analytical tradition. And, it would exclude most philosophers in the Western tradition, who were still philosophers though misguided (e.g. Descartes).

I don't think it's a question of exclusion so much as a concern with inclusion. How big is the tent of philosophy? Was Dostoyevsky a philosopher? Timothy Leary? Is Eckhart Tolle a philosopher? What about Deepak Chopra? Erich Fromm? Max Weber?

I find it hard to consider someone a philosopher solely because they think or write about "big questions."

Distinguishing between analytical and continental philosophers “is like classifying cars as Japanese and front-wheel drive” - Bernard Williams

.....speculative jigsaw puzzles and says "think for yourself" prompting us to assemble the (often missing) pieces by our own lights in order to gradually uncover, or expose, our own (philosophical & religious) blindspots, biases and irrationality to ourselves (usually) in spite of ourselves — 180 Proof

You could put "Wittgenstein" at the start and it would fit just as well.

I really like this post. I hadn't thought about how Nietzsche was that important before, but I think you make a good argument. I also like Hume though, because of his thoughts on metaphysics and phenomenology (such as the is-ought dilemma).

I am inspired by this post to write a post of my own about the ubermensch.

With all this bs in mind, I am looking for some objections. Does anybody know of a philosopher or philosophical project/ question that is more interesting or important? Who addresses the above issues better than Neitzsche? Or alternatively, do you think that I just have a bad outlook and want to take issue with any of my opinions in the bullet points? — SatmBopd

Schopenhauer. Nietzsche tried to turn his one-time teacher on his head (Will-to-live becomes Will-to-power).. Compassion and asceticism become "Master morality over slave morality", and the like. A renouncing of life to a re-affirming of life with all its suffering for eternity.

I think just because a philosopher came later, doesn't mean they "perfected" or "corrected" a previous philosopher, simply because they came later. Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. No wonder he is praised all over this forum and in some other circles...The Randian businessman capitalist, the punk-bohemian, the travelling dilettante, and the dictator can all claim to be an ubermensch and draw from the same well.

I love what Nietzsche did with Schopenhauer's concept, He had a really primal take on it & embraced the harshness of life. I think it resonates with the modern man so much due to the moral grey areas he is constantly faced with if he has a traditional moral code. Nietzsche's philosophy seems to throw out the difficulties of navigating the moral codes & just lays out what the people really want to hear lol

Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. — schopenhauer1

So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:

'My Nietzsche' is primarily a cultural diagnotician-poet rather than a romantic individualist-decadent. Consider this old post, schop:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/684298

Lastly,

I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will). — 180 Proof

It surprised me a bit that, in this very interesting and informative thread, none of the participants addressed Dostoevsky to the discussion. The Russian writer was one of the main inspirations in Nietzsche's philosophy. The latter even states: "the only psychologist from whom I had something to learn ... among the most beautiful strokes of fortune in my life"

Only Ciceronianous mentioned Dostoevsky, but just to wonder whether he is a Philosopher or not.

Well, I don't know to what extent we can consider the works of Dostoevsky with philosophical content, but his works and characters (Karamazov, Raskolnikov, Svidrigáilov, etc) have influenced the post philosophers on realism, existentialism and pessimism, etc. :flower:

So you blame 'a philosophy' for the fads which misuse and fools who misread it? :roll:

'My Nietzsche' is primarily a cultural diagnotician-poet rather than a romantic individualist-decadent. Consider this old post, schop:

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/684298

Lastly,
I'm more Nietzschean (i.e. 'Dionysian' in approbation of the daily Sisyphusean grind) whereas Schopenhauer relies on music in a decidedly 'Apollonian' sense (i.e. to momentarily quell the (his) raging Will). — 180 Proof

First off, indeed you would have to qualify as "My Nietzschean", because his writing is not amenable to a straightforward or unambiguous interpretation, hence why there are so many "My Nietzschean"s. Schopenhauer can be interpreted in multiple ways, but you are essentially going to be circling around the same core ideas, as his ideas were clearly explicated, whatever you might agree or disagree with in those explications.

Secondly, from what I gather from Nietzsche, the idea of someone embracing the pains of existence eternally, just seems like coked up mania. That is to say, there are truly horrible things about life that are not to be embraced, and that is not how humans tend to live life except in brief bursts of enthusiasm- those peak moments. You can write about it afterwards poetically, "OH look at how my life of suffering is a work of art!".

I stand by what I stated earlier and don't think your appeal to Nietzsche here has countered what I stated earlier:

Schopenhauer. Nietzsche tried to turn his one-time teacher on his head (Will-to-live becomes Will-to-power).. Compassion and asceticism become "Master morality over slave morality", and the like. A renouncing of life to a re-affirming of life with all its suffering for eternity.

I think just because a philosopher came later, doesn't mean they "perfected" or "corrected" a previous philosopher, simply because they came later. Nietzsche goes hand-in-hand with individual self-involvement, and so it resonates with the modern man's sensibilities. No wonder he is praised all over this forum and in some other circles...The Randian businessman capitalist, the punk-bohemian, the travelling dilettante, and the dictator can all claim to be an ubermensch and draw from the same well. — schopenhauer1

And yes, because of his manic embrace for "Ceasing the day! and FATE!!!", it does lead to various forms of manic and/or self-aggrandized attitudes and mores- often faddish ones.

He could write in one sentence what others penned in entire books. An example of his masterful work is "Human, All Too Human." Not a single word extra, straight to the heart of the matter! Thus, he mastered both word and script.

He could write in one sentence what others penned in entire books. An example of his masterful work is "Human, All Too Human." Not a single word extra, straight to the heart of the matter! Thus, he mastered both word and script. — MorningStar

"I once saw Bill Brasky wrestle a grizzly bear with his bare hands, while simultaneously reciting Shakespearean sonnets in three different languages. Oh, and did I mention he did it on top of Mount Everest during a blizzard, wearing nothing but a swimsuit? That's just a regular Tuesday for Bill Brasky!"

In Philosophy I hardly can remember any Nietzschean contribution. In psychology (especially the psychology of the "pious/religious person") I did find Nietzsche very convincing.

His aphorisms are masterpieces of world literature, but nothing great happens in Nietzsche's "philosophy". This is what I came to believe :)

His aphorisms are masterpieces of world literature, but nothing great happens in Nietzsche's "philosophy". This is what I came to believe — Eros1982

But you also said in a previous thread that you have little background in philosophy, having wasted two years attempting to learn it.

You are funny. I probably said that 5 years ago (so now I have been 7 years reading philosophy lol)

Here in the USA, I know they teach Nietzsche at Fordham only, cause Fordham Theologians should know what an atheist said about them. Maybe there are a few, but most of the philosophy programs I have searched do not teach Nietzsche (I don't blame them).

I do like Nietzsche like a writer, but I have serious doubts on his contributions on aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, and whatever branches of philosophy are taught in schools nowadays. The reason why Nietzsche might be the most popular "philosopher" in Europe I think is his writing ability, not his philosophy. People love great writers and they think they are enlightened by the books that entertain them the most.

So decadent you go on resenting 'this abject life' which you apparently lack the courage to quit ... you're welcome to your fashionably shallow caricature of N.

I do like Nietzsche like a writer, but I have serious doubts on his contributions on aesthetics, ethics, epistemology, and whatever branches of philosophy are taught in schools nowadays. The reason why Nietzsche might be the most popular "philosopher" in Europe I think is his writing ability, not his philosophy. — Eros1982

Don’t believe it. It’s been 135 years since Nietzsche went crazy and his ideas still haven’t been absorbed by most of today’s philosophers. That’s how ahead of his time he was, and a statement of how stagnant today’s intellectual scene is. It has been said that all of today’s philosophy is built on Kant. I would add that all of postmodernist philosophy is built on Nietzsche.

It has been said that all of today’s philosophy is built on Kant. I would add that all of postmodernist philosophy is built on [deliberately misreading] Nietzsche. — Joshs

"Beware lest a statue slay you." :zip:

It has been said that all of today’s philosophy is built on Kant. I would add that all of postmodernist philosophy is built on [deliberately misreading] Nietzsche.
— Joshs
"Beware lest a statue slay you." :zip: — 180 Proof

I hear the Existentialists are mighty fond of him, too.