I think you're conflating a few things about him here. HIs demeanor is not anxious at all. He's quick-tempered. Perhaps you're seeing that? He usually sits laid-back, laughs through responses and concentrates adequately when it's required. — AmadeusD

Sure, I might be wrong - I'm just describing what I see. I have worked in the area of mental health for 34 years, so I'm not flying blind. I just looked him up - seems like he had a significant addiction to benzodiazepines for anxiety. So there is that.

I have seen him interviewed many times but not for a couple of years or more. I have no useful view of his work.

I would recommend his interview with Helen Lewis, and another with Skavlan (in Scandanavia).

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff. He explains his positions, is patient with interlocutors and takes the situation seriously. I genuinely think these two are worth watching, even if the Peterson side of it was as off-putting as Candace Owens. He says great stuff that's worth hearing

Nietzschien thought is NOT an affirmation of nihilism, as you seem to suggest in your OP, but, rather, an (alleged) antidote to nihilism. Nietzsche hates nihilism, and associates it with pretty much every major philosophical movement ever created--e.g., he thought Christians are closeted nihilists.

If I had to summarize Nietzsche's works, then it would be that Nietzsche anticipated the slow, inevitable poisoning of society with nihilism due to the "death" of God; and his works are a wrestling with and overcome of that poison.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra is what Nietzsche considered to be the new bible: Zarathustra is supposed to be analogous to Jesus insofar as he has the ("divine") prophetic message (a gift) to give us. It's no coincidence that the story is riddled with religious, especially biblical, references and allusions (e.g., it is not a coincidence that Zarathustra descends down to earth's surface to give his gift to mankind).

The point of the book is to outline the Ubermensch, which is the ideal man in Nietzsche's thought that has completely overcome nihilism. The Ubermensch is the sublimation of slave and master that affirms life to such an extreme that they would live their life as an eternal reoccurrance. The Ubermensch is completely self-reliant, and is a law-maker and law-obeyer.

Your observation that Nietzsche's work has similarities to stoicism is understandable, but it is worth noting that stoicism is not compatible with his view; for Nietzsche considered the Ubermensch to be driven completely by passions, and not reason. Honestly, though, I drew the same kind of links to stoicism that you did, because Nietzsche often references principles of self-reliance that can be found (at least a little bit) in stoicism.

Although I disagree with Nietzsche on many things, I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance.

Both show him in a very different light and use his work as jumping points, rather than just political stuff. — AmadeusD

I've seen them. The GQ interview is my favorite of his that I've seen. I've watched at least 30. I've also watched around 6-10 of his podcasts and seen some of his early lectures. His comments on Dostoevsky often dismay me as I dislike him as a writer, apart from the Gambler which is a rare terse and targeted accoutn of an issue (in this case addiction) which so undermined D himself.

We're on similar "pages' here hahaha. Likely, for reasons we agree on Nietzsche too :P

Could be. If people find Peterson helpful I don't have an issue with that. There's plenty of things that don't work for me that work for others. Here's the thing. I'm around Peterson's age, a little younger. But I wonder what I would think of him if I were a young man today, say aged 20. Many of my friends at that age were seduced by Nietzsche, copying his prose style and making similar sounding declarations as though they had thought them up. Would Peterson, if he had been available to me then, appealed? Would I have started spouting Peterson's? I have no idea.

I think his chief contribution is his work on self-development and self-reliance. — Bob Ross

I think the chief result of this, though, is the bad side of what people call Peterson's followers. A commitment to words, only. Nietzsche didn't do academic philosophy, so spiritual by-passing, as it's terms, comes with his package basically. I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots.

I don't knwo a single person who hasn't grown out of Nietzsche once they get a job. Literally none. Though, half of them decided Zizek was the next guy, so it's probably that I went to High School with idiots. — AmadeusD

That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida...

I do wonder what Nietzsche's impact will be going into the future. Will he be be like Plato or St. Augustine, a mainstay on introductory philosophy syllabi millennia later? Or will he be like Eriugena or Henry of Ghent, one of the "deep cuts" of an era, hardly lost to history, but also not a major name in the field?

Nietzsche seems like he might be the most read philosopher today. He was the first philosopher I read. It's a little ironic considering his elitism. I do sometimes think though that he is more a voice for a particular historical moment, a diagnostician first and foremost. Already, a lot of his more provocative statements have become the norm, some to the point where they themselves have become stale dogma. I don't know if that lessens to appeal though. It doesn't seem to have so far.

That's very amusing. Good quesion however - who covers the same space in philosophical thinking in more recent times? I suspect you hate the postmodernists, but I'd say this is where Nietzsche's type of project (perspectivism and antifoundationalism) landed. Rorty was big on him - Deleuze, Adorno, Derrida... — Tom Storm

Nietzsche could claim some 'success', it seems. His voice can be heard amid more 'common' walks of life, in activism, in music, etc.

Awareness, in general, is blossoming everywhere. And counter-awareness, anger and desire, the many streams that overthrow any indoctrinated prison, are more in evidence. But often they are casual, un-profound and perhaps in an infancy of sorts. Still, the occasional work out there shows great wisdom, great rejuvenation of the dead God.

Peterson always strikes me as a man having a breakdown in slow motion — Tom Storm

I agree!

You might enjoy this article - here's a taste...

His idea (in chapter six of his book) that what leads to mass shootings in general, and school shootings in particular, is a kind of ahistorical, existential angst, or a “crisis of being” — that’s the phrase he uses! — about the despair and misery and suffering of human beings.

Peterson thereby takes on a huge burden of explaining why white women, people of color, nonbinary folks, and so on, almost never act on our existential angst and despair in this way. Because, as you know, the vast majority of school shooters have been white men. — A feminist philosopher makes the case against Jordan Peterson

Kate Manne? *sideeye*

Tsk tsk Banno.

Good Moral philosophy from Dow Nunder.

So strong women bother you?

That's funny. I live near the site of an almost forgotten mass shooting back in the 1980's in Melbourne. I was there yesterday and talking to a friend on the phone. The guy shot 13 people, killing 8 and he finally jumped from the building, plunging to his death. 'You never hear of a disgruntled 22 year-old woman doing this kind of shit,' my friend observed dryly.

Not at all.
Plenty of absolutely fantastic women in Philosophy. Manne just isn't one on my account :) poke poke ;)

Do you not like Mondays?

Do you not like Mondays? — AmadeusD

I hate Mondays. But I'm a cunt most days... :wink:

Twas a shitty joke (importantly linked within)

Manne just isn't one on my account — AmadeusD

Interesting. I find her analysis of the social and practice-based motivation in metaethics quite interesting. What is it that you find unsatisfactory?

I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting.

Sure, nietzsche didn't have a degree in philosophy; but he was still very much a philosopher, and one of the most influential, just like plato, aristotle, etc.

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate.

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening.

I do wonder what Nietzsche's impact will be going into the future. Will he be be like Plato or St. Augustine, a mainstay on introductory philosophy syllabi millennia later? Or will he be like Eriugena or Henry of Ghent, one of the "deep cuts" of an era, hardly lost to history, but also not a major name in the field? — Count Timothy von Icarus

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche. It assumes that Nietzsche’s ideas didnt stand out amongst his contemporaries as either the culmination of an era (Heidegger said he was the last Metaphysician) or the beginning of a new era.

It's possible; whole centuries get reduced to one or two names in the grand scheme of things.

I feel like Nietzsche is much more often described as the harbinger of an era than its culmination — the "opening shots," if you will.

But either way, this doesn't seem to safeguard one's place in history. I've seen lots of people refer to Eriugena's Periphyseon as a sort of Neoplatonic "summa," the culmination of Late Antiquity, etc. But he still has a fairly minor place in the canon of philosophy, a stand out in the "Dark Ages," an era normally passed over.

People sometimes talk about St. Bonaventure in a similar way. The last great mind in the more platonic tradition, his "The Mind's Journey Into God," a sort of condensation of centuries of effort, distilled into its culmination. But he is primarily read as a mystic and theologian today, his philosophical output overshadowed by the new Aristotleanism and St. Aquinas.

But, if influencing future movements is important, then Nietzsche seems more secure. I suppose it also depends how the 20th century is seen in the future. Is the struggle against nihilism the defining feature? Or is it the battle between Marxism, fascism, modern liberalism, and identity?

What is it that you find unsatisfactory? — Banno

Without delving into the history of my Internet reading, from what you've posted her entire passage about Huck Finn is risible.

I remember when the song came out. I forgot about that particular shooting. — Tom Storm

Fair enough :)

but he was still very much a philosopher — Bob Ross

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.

I am inclined to agree that most people out-grow his view in a holistic sense; but so did everyone out-grow kantianism. There are still, in both views, some positions (that each took) that seem very true and accurate. — Bob Ross

I agree, but I don't see them as at all analogous. Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

Likewise, I do think Nietzschien thought is found deeply rooted in post-modern thinking, and is the culprit for most of (what I would consider) radical political views. The core of his views have become the norm now, and it is disheartening. — Bob Ross

Very much agree, ignoring the above responses.

If that becomes Nietzsche’s fate, then it will also be the fate of Heidegger, Derrida, Foucault , Deleuze and others whose work is closely tied to Nietzsche — Joshs

One can only hope, Joshs ;) I do believe Foucault, at least, has gone beyond his 'mold' and will survive the jettison of PoMo thinking in general (if and when it occurs).

Your observation that Nietzsche's work has similarities to stoicism is understandable, but it is worth noting that stoicism is not compatible with his view; for Nietzsche considered the Ubermensch to be driven completely by passions, and not reason. Honestly, though, I drew the same kind of links to stoicism that you did, because Nietzsche often references principles of self-reliance that can be found (at least a little bit) in stoicism. — Bob Ross

Thank you for your response to my original post. Your perspective is welcome and refreshing.

In terms of the compatibility of Nietzsche's work and stoicism, you make an interesting point. And an important one; which I hadn't considered to this point. That stoicism is founded in reason, whereas Nietzsche's Ubermensch is rooted in passions. That does seem to make them rather different worldviews.

I enjoy learning like this, by sharing what I know to be true or "real", and having those with deeper wisdom(s) then inform, enlighten and/or uplift me to new heights of understanding. Much appreciated.

Vehemently disagree, but I also have no idea how I would enunciate why. I don't think he did philosophy. I do not take Shakespeare to be a philosopher, either.
…
Nietzsche would be analogous to something more like Sunday school, in my eyes. Interesting ways to teach children fairly obviously co-operative strategies.

What books have you read of Nietzsche?

:up:

"Will To Power", some of "Genealogy of Morals" and (Ijke, when i was 12) "Thus Spoke..."

I would suggest reading (in this order):

1. The Gay Science.
2. Twilight of the Idols.
3. Beyond Good and Evil.

Then, let me know if you still feel the same about Nietzsche. I find it really odd that you don't consider him a very influential philosopher akin to Kant, Plato, etc. and that he is basically for preschoolers. His work is very complex, and has (at least some) merit (even if you don't agree with him).

Autobiographies are somewhat of a rarity in general. Thankfully for us all, Nietzsche was merciful enough and left us a very significant one, Ecce Homo. Ecce Homo is a gateway into Nietzsche's own insights on his books, and the Dionysian dithyrambs. The dithyrambs are Nietzsche's greatest invention and by far the least understood; a simple search of these forums indicates no one has ever brought this up:

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, p. 26

Directly following this Nietzsche indicates, in my opinion, what is the greatest significance of his work:

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing?

The book Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a dithyramb concerning deliverance from one's own loathing. Hopefully, by the end of this post I will have detailed why this is the ultimate significance of his work...

The following two quotes are additional context Nietzsche provides from Ecce Homo:

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing. — p. 97

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb. — p. 109

So what exactly is a dithyramb? Well, first, we can ruminate upon what Nietzsche said about TSZ to begin with.... It is a book, and it is music, thus it follows that a dithyramb is music in literary form. To understand, more fully, what a dithyramb is we can consult Nietzsche's first book The Birth of Tragedy. In the second aphorism of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche suggests an intense visceral reaction occurs: "in the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature." To put it plainly, the dithyramb is literary music that incites one into a certain state of heightened intelligence and creativity.

So now that we know what a dithyramb is, I will point out how dithyrambs work. In aphorism 16 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche details how the art of music distinguishes itself from all other art, based off the influence of Schopenhauer, such that music is the direct copy of the will of the artist. Such that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a copy of the will of Zarathustra, or as Jung might suggest, a copy of the will of the archetype of the "wise old man."

TLDR: Go learn something you're super passionate about, and then go back and read the right dithyrambs, and be incited into the state of heightened intelligence and creativity, what kind of thoughts will flood you then? This, in my opinion, is Nietzsche's ultimate secret of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.