Yes, because he doesn't let you spew falsity — Agustino
You are sooooo full of yourself, dude. How about you go drop a pizza and then pick it up. That'll force you to stoop a little low for a change. — Heister Eggcart
So let's see. You come in a thread that I started and claim that the more I write the more the thread becomes intolerable - well, guess what, if it wasn't for me, the thread wouldn't exist in the first place :P >:OThe more Agustino writes, the more a thread becomes intolerable to participate in. — Heister Eggcart
The fact that he thinks so about his own works doesn't make it true to begin with (I find it quite laughable, poor Nietzsche), so you're creating a false alternative. No it is not offensive, but neither is it true. If you asked me the same question with regards to, for example, Plato's Republic, then I would affirm it is not for those who belong to the herd.Do you find it true or o offensive? — Beebert
Suit yourself. You are not offering any convincing counter arguments proving me wrong, so I have nothing to work with. You say I am wrong, but don't show how I am. — Lone Wolf
:s Nietzsche isn't even the first to discover this idea, what's so amazing about it?"Eternity in a moment" — Beebert
What do you find deep about this idea and why?"The marriage between light and darkeness" — Beebert
:-}Not just moral prejudice or a dry-headed intellect. — Beebert
Or maybe his works are just:That his statement that his works are not for everyone is true is obvious when one observers your understanding of him even AFTER you have read his works — Beebert
A tale, Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, Signifying nothing. — Shakespeare
Self-proclaimed, like Nietzsche was self-proclaimed ;)Self-proclaimed — Beebert
You could show WHERE I misunderstand Nietzsche.If Nietzsche cant even make you understand him, what makes You think I could? I lack faith in it. — Beebert
Pff there are so many. For example Bertrand Russell -Name these philosophers that are your friends. — Beebert
His general outlook remained very similar to that of Wagner in the Ring; Nietzsche’s superman is very like Siegfried, except that he knows Greek. This may seem odd, but that is not my fault.
In spite of Nietzsche’s criticism of the romantics, his outlook owes much to them; it is that of aristocratic anarchism, like Byron’s, and one is not surprised to find him admiring Byron. He attempts to combine two sets of values which are not easily harmonized: on the one hand he likes ruthlessness, war, and aristocratic pride; on the other hand, he loves philosophy and literature and the arts, especially music. Historically, these values coexisted in the Renaissance; Pope Julius II, fighting for Bologna and employing Michelangelo, might be taken as the sort of man whom Nietzsche would wish to see in control of governments. It is natural to compare Nietzsche with Machiavelli, in spite of important differences between the two men… Both have an ethic which aims at power and is deliberately anti-Christian, though Nietzsche is more frank in this respect. What Caesar Borgia was to Machiavelli, Napoleon was to Nietzsche: a great man defeated by petty opponents.
Nietzsche alludes habitually to ordinary human beings as the “bungled and botched,” and sees no objection to their suffering if it is necessary for the production of a great man. Thus the whole importance of the period from 1789 to 1815 is summed up in Napoleon: “The Revolution made Napoleon possible: that is its justification…”
It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters… He regards compassion as a weakness to be combated… He prophesied with a certain glee an era of great wars; one wonders whether he would have been happy if he had lived to see the fulfillment of his prophecy.
There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “Forget not thy whip”–but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks.
He condemns Christian love because he thinks it is an outcome of fear… It does not occur to Nietzsche as possible that a man should genuinely feel universal love, obviously because he himself feels almost universal hatred and fear, which he would fain disguise as lordly indifference. His “noble” man–who is himself in day-dreams–is a being wholly devoid of sympathy, ruthless, cunning, concerned only with his own power. King Lear, on the verge of madness, says: “I will do such things–what they are yet I know not–but they shall be the terror of the earth.” This is Nietzsche’s philosophy in a nutshell.
It never occurred to Nietzsche that the lust for power, with which he endows his superman, is itself an outcome of fear. Those who do not fear their neighbours see no necessity to tyrannize over them… I will not deny that, partly as a result of his teaching, the real world has become very like his nightmare, but that does not make it any the less horrible.
We can now state Nietzsche’s ethic. I think what follows is a fair analysis of it: Victors in war, and their descendants, are usually biologically superior to the vanquished. It is therefore desirable that they should hold all the power, and should manage affairs exclusively in their own interests.
Suppose we wish–as I certainly do–to find arguments against Nietzsche’s ethics and politics, what arguments can we find?… The ethical, as opposed to the political, question is one as to sympathy. Sympathy, in the sense of being made unhappy by the sufferings of others, is to some extent natural to human beings. But the development of this feeling is very different in different people. Some find pleasure in the infliction of torture; others, like Buddha, feel that they cannot be completely happy so long as any living thing is suffering. Most people divide mankind emotionally into friends and enemies, feeling sympathy for the former, but not for the latter. An ethic such as that of Christianity or Buddhism has its emotional basis in universal sympathy; Nietzsche’s, in a complete absence of sympathy. (He frequently preaches against sympathy, and in this respect one feels that he has no difficulty in obeying his own precepts.)
For my part, I agree with Buddha as I have imagined him. But I do not know how to prove that he is right by any argument such as can be used in a mathematical or a scientific question. I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end.
Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people. Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and , what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being 'high.' It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. 'Tommy was a good boy' is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. 'Tommy lived the higher life' is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, 'beyond good and evil,' because he had not the courage to say, 'more good than good and evil,' or, 'more evil than good and evil.' Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, 'the purer man,' or 'the happier man,' or 'the sadder man,' for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says 'the upper man.' or 'over man,' a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce
That's false. Aquinas and other Christians would not claim that they don't love other people because they are imperfect. So erecting a giant strawman is by no means profundity.As he starts on his journey he meets an old hermit, a saint. The saint tells Zarathustra that he himself loves God but not man, because man is too imperfect. Zarathustra replies that he loves man, and then he asks the saint what he is doing in the forest. The saint replies, “I make songs and sing them; and when I make songs I laugh, cry, and hum: thus I praise God.”
The two separate, laughing like young boys. But when Zarathustra is alone again he wonders to himself, “Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!”
The old saint says he loves God, not man because man is imperfect, and Zarathustra says he loves man, and God is dead… As it seems to me, obviously, in the depth of his heart, the common Christian, with very few exceptions(Aquinas NOT being an exception), is Zarathustra's hermit saint. — Beebert
I disagree, there are many things higher than myself, and a cursory glance around is sufficient to prove this.there is nobody higher than you — Beebert
Sounds like a citation straight out of Osho :PIt is very difficult to understand Nietzsche; he is so subtle, so deep, and so profound. It is beyond the reach of any idiotananda. Beyond the reach of most. You also need to be interested, brave and Independent to understand even a tiny fraction of his thoughts. — Beebert
Christianity does not suggest that man should hate himself because he is sinful. Rather he should repent out of love for himself and for God.This says christianity: If man is sinful through and through, then he ought only to hate himself. Fundamentally, he would have to treat his fellow men on the
same basis as he treats himself; charity needs to be justified and its
justification lies in the fact that God has commanded it. Love man for God's sake in other words, not man. Man is a villain. Why Love man at all? Because God so commnds? — Beebert
I haven't said they are deep.What makes you think Chesterton and Russell are deep while Nietzsche is not. And also Aquinas. — Beebert
Yes, I agree. However remember that you asked me for philosophers who don't agree with Nietzsche and don't find him deep. You didn't ask me for deep philosophers who don't agree with Nietzsche and don't find him deep. The problem, of course, is that apart from Wittgenstein there aren't any truly "deep" philosophers after Nietzsche.That would be like calling Bentham or John Stuart Mill deep. There Btw you have to mediocer Philosophers not worthy to be called deep. — Beebert
Why do you say that Aquinas didn't say what he felt in his heart? Do you think he was dishonest, and if so, why do you think so?What Aquinas said and what he felt in his heart, and what you discover If you can more in depth understand What is the heart behind words, is something else. — Beebert
Why do you say he lacks psychological discernment, and what exactly do you mean?While Chesterton is deeprr and better than Russell in his comments, he lacks psychological discernment. — Beebert
Chesterton didn't comment about Nietzsche's physical weakness. He commented about his weakness as a thinker:Chesterton is right that Nietzsche as a person was quite weak. Physicallt. So? — Beebert
This means Nietzsche wasn't bold as a THINKER, not physically.This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold.
Chesterton wasn't an insider. He was very witty, and different than most of the people you'd call insiders. He was also very critical of hypocrisy.Nietzsche was an outsider, Chesterton an insider. — Beebert
Aquinas is deep, but his depth hides behind the Scholastic method of exposition that he's under. The dry and exceedingly boring style in which he wrote makes his ideas difficult to understand for the common man. However, for example, Aquinas understood the limitations of reason and the necessity for revelation and/or mystical experience in order to truly know God. At the end of his life, for example, he looked at his Summa before he had finished it, and said that after his mystical vision, all that he had written is like straw. Aquinas was definitely not a dummy or an ivory tower intellectual, even though he did write in that tradition.And explain to me What makes you think Chesterton and Russell are deep while Nietzsche is not. And also Aquinas. — Beebert
I know. He thought the slaves had won for example, even though the slaves are the weak.Nietzsche Btw rejected Darwin's understanding of evolution. — Beebert
I haven't read those, but from what I know they were altered by his sister after he went insane, so I wouldn't say the best place to find out what N. thought.Read through his fragments of thoughts called "The Will To power". — Beebert
Russell was good at discussing irrelevant matters, as many modern day philosophers are. They wonder how many angels can dance on the head of a pin...And the laughable Russell was wrong in calling Nietzsche a romantic. All men are not born with a senare of artistry and art. Russell was one of them. So his words means nothing. — Beebert
As far as I am aware, Russell was never unfaithful to his wife, rather it was his wife who was unfaithful and Russell tried to go along with it and hide it to protect the children. Definitely not admirable, and quite possibly the trait of a coward in his case. But I don't remember ever reading he was unfaithful himself.being unfaithful to wifes he means? — Beebert
Yes, somewhat - however I have not read the Anti-Christ, where I heard he goes into most depth on this. But I do know he has statements both admiring and hating Jesus (it's Paul whom he hates the most it seems), but ultimately he seems to have preferred Dionysus.Have you btw heard this superficial philosopher's understanding of Jesus and comments on him? — Beebert
Was he?At least Nietzsche was honest in his likes and dislikes. — Beebert
It is commonly the loose and latitudinarian Christians who pay quite indefensible compliments to Christianity. They talk as if there had never been any piety or pity until Christianity came, a point on which any mediaeval would have been eager to correct them. They represent that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach simplicity or self-restraint, or inwardness and sincerity. They will think me very narrow (whatever that means) if I say that the remarkable thing about Christianity was that it was the first to preach Christianity. Its peculiarity was that it was peculiar, and simplicity and sincerity are not peculiar, but obvious ideals for all mankind. Christianity was the answer to a riddle, not the last truism uttered after a long talk. Only the other day I saw in an excellent weekly paper of Puritan tone this remark, that Christianity when stripped of its armour of dogma (as who should speak of a man stripped of his armour of bones), turned out to be nothing but the Quaker doctrine of the Inner Light. Now, if I were to say that Christianity came into the world specially to destroy the doctrine of the Inner Light, that would be an exaggeration. But it would be very much nearer to the truth. The last Stoics, like Marcus Aurelius, were exactly the people who did believe in the Inner Light. Their dignity, their weariness, their sad external care for others, their incurable internal care for themselves, were all due to the Inner Light, and existed only by that dismal illumination. Notice that Marcus Aurelius insists, as such introspective moralists always do, upon small things done or undone; it is because he has not hate or love enough to make a moral revolution. He gets up early in the morning, just as our own aristocrats living the Simple Life get up early in the morning; because such altruism is much easier than stopping the games of the amphitheatre or giving the English people back their land. Marcus Aurelius is the most intolerable of human types. He is an unselfish egoist. An unselfish egoist is a man who has pride without the excuse of passion. Of all conceivable forms of enlightenment the worst is what these people call the Inner Light. Of all horrible religions the most horrible is the worship of the god within. Any one who knows any body knows how it would work; any one who knows any one from the Higher Thought Centre knows how it does work. That Jones shall worship the god within him turns out ultimately to mean that Jones shall worship Jones. Let Jones worship the sun or moon, anything rather than the Inner Light; let Jones worship cats or crocodiles, if he can find any in his street, but not the god within. Christianity came into the world firstly in order to assert with violence that a man had not only to look inwards, but to look outwards, to behold with astonishment and enthusiasm a divine company and a divine captain. The only fun of being a Christian was that a man was not left alone with the Inner Light, but definitely recognized an outer light, fair as the sun, clear as the moon, terrible as an army with banners. — G. K. Chesterton
And as I close this chaotic volume I open again the strange small book from which all Christianity came; and I am again haunted by a kind of confirmation. The tremendous figure which fills the Gospels towers in this respect, as in every other, above all the thinkers who ever thought themselves tall. His pathos was natural, almost casual. The Stoics, ancient and modern, were proud of concealing their tears. He never concealed His tears; He showed them plainly on His open face at any daily sight, such as the far sight of His native city. Yet He concealed something. Solemn supermen and imperial diplomatists are proud of restraining their anger. He never restrained His anger. He flung furniture down the front steps of the Temple, and asked men how they expected to escape the damnation of Hell. Yet He restrained something. I say it with reverence; there was in that shattering personality a thread that must be called shyness. There was something that He hid from all men when He went up a mountain to pray. There was something that He covered constantly by abrupt silence or impetuous isolation. There was some one thing that was too great for God to show us when He walked upon our earth; and I have sometimes fancied that it was His mirth. — G. K. Chesterton
If you wanted to dissuade a man from drinking his tenth whisky you would slap him on the back and say, “Be a man.” No one who wished to dissuade a crocodile from eating his tenth explorer would slap it on the back and say, “Be a crocodile.” For we have no notion of a perfect crocodile; no allegory of a whale expelled from his whaley Eden. If a whale came up to us and said: “I am a new kind of whale; I have abandoned whalebone,” we should not trouble. But if a man came up to us (as many will soon come up to us) to say, “I am a new kind of man. I am the super-man. I have abandoned mercy and justice”; we should answer, “Doubtless you are new, but you are not nearer to the perfect man, for he has been already in the mind of God. We have fallen with Adam and we shall rise with Christ; but we would rather fall with Satan than rise with you.” — G. K. Chesterton
I do admire Kierkegaard because he was a righteous man, I don't admire Dostoyevsky personally (he had a mistress, he cheated people with regards to money, etc.), but I do admire his work.How a christian that admires Dostoevsky and Kiekegaard for example (which I do too) — Beebert
Well, in regards to Plato, Nietzsche is just one of Plato's characters. Nietzsche is like Thrasymachus from Plato's Republic. How can a tiny character be greater than the one who invented him? Plato created Nietzsche before Nietzsche was even born. There is no question of greatness there - Plato saw much beyond Nietzsche. Nietzsche had a very one-sided vision - and he himself, I remember, admits as much in his better moments.can for example prefer Aquinas and Plato to Nietzsche, I can't understand. I dont quite understand that... — Beebert
Well not completely. I'm half-way but everytime I'm re-starting it, I end up putting it back down and moving onto a book that I haven't read at all. I feel a bit bored with it because Dostoyesky goes over what I already know pretty much. I feel he's teaching me nothing helpful there.Have you read Notes from Underground by Fyodor Dostoevsky? — Beebert
This is true, and Aquinas would agree.This Faith transcends according to Kierkegaard both reason/rationality and [social] morality. — Beebert
Clarify what you mean by doing the impossible?In my eyes, and certainly in Dostorvsky's too, men like Aquinas, Hegel, John Calvin etc. did not really understand the possibility of doing the impossible — Beebert
That's entirely false, because what N. understood by morality was entirely different than what Aquinas, Plato, etc. understood by morality.In my eyes, and certainly in Dostorvsky's too, men like Aquinas, Hegel, John Calvin etc. did not really understand the possibility of doing the impossible, because they worshiped morality, necessity and rationality to much. — Beebert
Take Genealogy of Morals, the first essay for example. From memory, I remember N. argued that "good" originated from the nobles and aristocrats (and he specifically said he means noble and aristocrat in a social sense). Thus bad was meant to anything that is common, or plebeian. How is that deep? That's as crass and crude as Hume David who said that justice is what is useful. No wonder the powerful social class who initially was dominant determined good and bad according to itself, by taking itself as standard. And no wonder that the "slaves" sought to overturn their dominance out of spite (ressentiment) and therefore created "good" and "evil" where evil belongs to the traits of the aristocrats that were previously deemed good. What's with all this low quality crap? It doesn't even actually have anything to do with what morality is, but rather with what people call morality... why is that even interesting?
Indeed, it is precisely in this sense that Chesterton laughs at Nietzsche. Nietzsche lacks the courage to tread down the paths of real morality. That's why Nietzsche was a coward - he could not manage to pursue Truth - no, he was much more concerned about the petty truths of men - or better said what men think and how men act. That's of no interest to a seeker of Truth.
And keep in mind that I am somewhat sympathetic with N's anti-herd mentality but more along Platonist lines of thought than N's. — Agustino
What you do not see is that Kierkegaard for example did not say that morality was unimportant, just that it wasn't everything. Kierkegaard himself was quite a conservative and moral person. It seems to me that you and people like N. and Blake deem morality unimportant, which is a false view.To me, your worship of the concepts "Righteousness" and "morality" sounds too lawful. — Beebert
What's the core message according to you?Kierkegaard for example had a där better understanding of the core message of the gospels than did Aquinas — Beebert
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.