What will I do with the money? :s I want my time back.Scintillating response. You should ask for your GED money back...:) — Thanatos Sand
:s Many of N. writings are quite the opposite of loving. N. often praises warriors and conquerors, and blood-thirsty men - certainly more often than he praises artists for example. I know some people have tried to disentangle his thoughts from this, but I've read his writings, and this is quite a hard job to do.As to the latter question, I believe he referred to it lovingly as Life — Erik
A concept or an idea is "otherworldly".taken in a metaphysical sense as constant struggle, appropriation, excretion, etc. (Heraclitus' polemos with all in a state of constant flux)
When I say metaphysical I don't mean something like an otherworldy Platonism, but rather as Heidegger understood it 'onto-theologically': as some concept or idea (typically God) which gathers together and grounds all particular phenomena at all times. — Erik
I don't understand why people think N. was great as a psychologist. To me, Kierkegaard read him perfectly, even though he had never heard of him:You can do that while still acknowledging his significance as (e.g.) a psychologist--of which he has interesting things to say about this topic of post-truth--and prescient critic of many aspects of modernity. — Erik
First comes despair over the earthly or over something earthly, then despair of the eternal, over oneself. Then comes defiance, which is really despair through the aid of the eternal, the despairing misuse of the eternal within the self to will in despair to be oneself.... In this form of despair, there is a rise in the consciousness of the self, and therefore a greater consciousness of what despair is and that one's state is despair. Here the despair is conscious of itself as an act.... In order to despair to will to be oneself, there must be consciousness of an infinite self. This infinite self, however, is really only the most abstract form, the most abstract possibility of the self. And this is the self that a person in despair wills to be, severing the self from any relation to a power that has established it, or severing it from the idea that there is such a power
Many of N. writings are quite the opposite of loving. N. often praises warriors and conquerors, and blood-thirsty men - certainly more often than he praises artists for example. I know some people have tried to disentangle his thoughts from this, but I've read his writings, and this is quite a hard job to do. — Agustino
Is such an exuberance a good thing, and if so why?What I had in mind was the occasional exuberance he expressed towards life in its entirety, even in its darker and more questionable aspects. — Erik
Yeah but it doesn't tell us much. In my opinion there are some things of value in this life, and there will be things of value in the afterlife too. Why must everything be of value? And furthermore, how does the afterlife being more valuable than this life rob this life of its own value? :sHis dislike of Christianity, for instance, seems based upon his belief that it robs this world of its meaning and value by positing a 'better' world in the beyond. That's a fairly straightforward and uncontroversial position to take on his philosophy, I think. — Erik
What's wrong with "slandering" the world where it is unjust?So by lovingly I meant that emotional pull he felt to defend this world against its many slanderers. — Erik
An intellectual abstraction, not life.What do you mean by otherwordly? — Erik
An ascetic does not despair if he doesn't became Caesar, because he has given up becoming Caesar. This doesn't mean he doesn't want it, only that he is not attached to the want. This renunciation of the world is paradoxically that which allows him to take it all back. But to N. the ascetic is weak - instead the strong is the madman, who loses his mind because of his failures... That madman is supposed to be the one who embraces his life, who wills the eternal recurrence of the same :sAn individual in despair despairs over something. So it seems for a moment, but only for a moment; in the same moment the true despair or despair in its true form shows itself. In despairing over something, he really despaired over himself, and now he wants to get rid of himself. For example, when the ambitious man whose slogan is "Either Caesar or nothing" does not get to be Caesar, he despairs over it. But this also means something else: precisely because he did not get to be Caesar, he now cannot bear to be himself. Consequently he does not despair because he did not get to be Caesar but despairs over himself because he did not get to be Caesar.... Consequently, to despair over something is still not despair proper.... To despair over oneself, in despair to will to be rid of oneself—this is the formula for all despair — Kierkegaard
For example Nietzsche's writings with regard to asceticism are pathetic. Asceticism is strength par excellence, not weakness. The ascetic is the man who can endure whatever it takes to achieve his goal - that's not a weak person. But the secret of the ascetic's endurance is precisely his renunciation of the world. That's why he is a master of fate, and not its slave. That's why he does not despair at setbacks. — Agustino
Okay, so Nietzsche's "will-to-power" is as abstract as Plato's Agathon then.But intellectual abstractions are operative in this world, aren't they? So even the otherworldy is ultimately thisworldy. — Erik
I'd be careful with identifying Being as historical consciousness. Historical consciousness reveals different aspects of Being as it moves through, but it's by no means identical to it.Life for us (human beings gifted with language) is almost always mediated through historical concepts, isn't it? The Being of beings is not a particular being, but the 'between' of subject and object which frames our understanding of the world and is subject to periodic shifts. — Erik
Yes agreed. It's starting to become unbelievable to me that some people claim that there are no such things to be found in Nietzsche. I often wonder if they're reading different texts LOLI'd also add that I'm not a Nietzschean by any stretch. I see some serious limitations in his thinking, including some pretty vulgar celebrations of things like cruelty and violence and slavery. — Erik
Then I would take Christianity to have had a good influence on us.Of course he'd consider such opinions on the matter to be shaped by Christianity's influence (even on secular culture), with its inherent hostility towards the supposedly hard truths of life as essentially will to power. — Erik
I've never finished Being and Time, but I've read a lot of Nietzsche. I was initially impressed by both, but I'm not so impressed by either of them at the moment.I think Heidegger was a vastly superior thinker in many ways, and he's been the primary intellectual influence for me in my journey thus far. But Nietzsche somehow got it going. — Erik
"]But it's an elevated, almost superhuman perspective to adhere to. It's a bit like that of Heraclitus, who felt that to God all things are good and just, but men typically think some things just and others unjust. — Erik
His position would be better described as all has meaning. — TheWillowOfDarkness
Being and Time is, in essence, a reading of Nietzsche and Hegel, and a reinterpretation of Husserl, through a Medieval theologian sensibility. — Thanatos Sand
Yes, but wouldn't Kierkegaard be saying it in a Thomist sense, as all things point to God in their own way, while Nietzsche would eschew such spiritual foundationalism? — Thanatos Sand
Sorry.. you're right, I should have noted it. My thought processes tend to be a little amorphous.
What is the standard dogma about divinity? The belief in God? — Thanatos Sand
The more mystical Christians are, the less they tend to believe in a personal God.
I tend to think of mystics of all types as having fundamentally similar outlooks. God is an underlying creative force... something like that.
but the image of Abraham in Fear and Trembling is one any mystic would understand.
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.