Scintillating response. You should ask for your GED-tutoring money back...:)

Scintillating response. You should ask for your GED money back...:) — Thanatos Sand

What will I do with the money? :s I want my time back.

As to the latter question, I believe he referred to it lovingly as Life — Erik

: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.

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

A concept or an idea is "otherworldly".

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

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:

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

What I had in mind was the occasional exuberance he expressed towards life in its entirety, even in its darker and more questionable aspects. A sort of Dionysian intoxication.

To accept--better: to embrace the fact--that the last man recurs eternally along with everything else was, if I recall correctly, one of his most difficult thoughts.

His 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.

So by lovingly I meant that emotional pull he felt to defend this world against its many slanderers.

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.

A concept or an idea is "otherworldly". — Agustino

What do you mean by otherwordly?

I want to make sure we have the same thing in mind before commenting.

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

Is such an exuberance a good thing, and if so why?

His 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

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? :s

So by lovingly I meant that emotional pull he felt to defend this world against its many slanderers. — Erik

What's wrong with "slandering" the world where it is unjust?

What do you mean by otherwordly? — Erik

An intellectual abstraction, not life.

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.

An 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

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 :s

But intellectual abstractions are operative in this world, aren't they? So even the otherworldy is ultimately thisworldy.

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.

I'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. 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. That's probably at least partly true in my case.

But such criticisms from below are insulting to great thinkers like him. Instead of showing the limitations of Nietzsche's thinking it's more likely I'm only revealing my own.

He served as my initial impetus into philosophy, though, and will forever be important in my life in that regard. And I continue to go back to TSZ and Twilight of the Idols every few years. The dude knew how to light that fire deep in someone's soul, to get them to see the hollowness of modern bourgeoisie/commercial civilization, etc.

Nice Kierkegaard quotes by the way. He may have been a superior psychologist/philosopher compared to N. To repeat, I'm not an uncritical Nietzsche admirer. 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.

But perhaps we can discuss the merits (or lack thereof) of Nietzsche's thinking somewhere else?

Like start a new topic or something. :)

I'm not shying away from it, mind you, I just think it would be better had elsewhere.

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

Yes I think this is at least partly true.

I see asceticism as being an inherently aristocratic endeavor, as is genuine Christianity as exemplified by Christ. You'd think he'd show a greater appreciation for these things than he did in his writings (although a grudging respect is given to Jesus).

At times Nietzsche seems to want us to be more like beasts of prey guided by our animal appetites.

But at other times I feel he has something much different in mind than that return to raw animal instincts. His Zarathustra intimates this IMO.

But intellectual abstractions are operative in this world, aren't they? So even the otherworldy is ultimately thisworldy. — Erik

Okay, so Nietzsche's "will-to-power" is as abstract as Plato's Agathon then.

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

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.

I'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

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 LOL

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

Then I would take Christianity to have had a good influence on us.

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

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.

Being and Time is, in essence, a reading of Nietzsche and Hegel, and a reinterpretation of Husserl, through a Medieval theologian sensibility.

"]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

Nietzsche is targeting nihilism. His philosophy is about the separation between morality and meaning. He demands honesty about values and meaning. Rather than being dedicated to identifying what people ought to do, his philosophy is about undoing the pretence it’s morality or justice which deifies meaning.

Holding Nietzsche is taking a position that “all is good” is somewhat close, but also quite mistaken. His position would be better described as all has meaning. No matter how moral or immoral the world might be, meaning obtains. The meaning or “worth” of the world cannot be ransomed to appearing in the ways we demand or only those ways “which make sense” to us.

The nihilistic fool says: “I cannot go on. Life has too much pain to have any meaning. There needs to be a transcendent force which inputs meaning.”

A depressed Ubermensch says: “I will not go on. The meaning of my life is constant pain. I ought not go on. Death (whether it be a figurative death of an action which might have occurred or the literal death of suicide) is my meaning.”

Nietzsche’s point is existence is always a creation or affirmation. Moral or immoral, wonderful or horrific, meaning obtains. To exist is to mean, no matter what happens to you, whether you enjoy it or not, whether you live a month or a hundred years. He’s not discussing how to be moral, but rather describing how meaning is present regardless of moral status (morality, no matter how true, is just a social whim, concerned with possession and origination of finite states. Often important, but never any threat to meaning).

The distinction is is also clear in Agustino misunderstanding of asceticism and Nietzsche. If one is honest about asceticism, that one endures of because the world (i.e. you, the ascetic), then Nietzsche doesn't have a problem. It actually fits pretty with Nietzsche's thought ; the treadmill of seeking feeling pleasure often constitutes nihilism, where getting the next hit is a transcendent solution to meaningless.

It's the falsehood Agustino is telling which is the problem for Nietzsche. The ascetic doesn't succeed by renouncing the world, but rather in affirming it-- "I am the existence which denies petty desires, who does not fall into just seeking my wishes and pleasure. "

His position would be better described as all has meaning. — TheWillowOfDarkness

Interesting point. That is one of Kierkegaard's positions as well.

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?

Being and Time is, in essence, a reading of Nietzsche and Hegel, and a reinterpretation of Husserl, through a Medieval theologian sensibility. — Thanatos Sand

One of the best one sentence summations of B&T I've ever seen.

Good stuff, Willow.

Thanks, man. It took me a second reading to get that...:)

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

I'm like 99% convinced that Nietzsche's fundamental view of reality was very similar to Schopenhauer's. If that's true, Kierkegaard and Nietzsche were both atheist/mystics. Kierkegaard's overriding point was that Christianity is dead. He wasn't trying to build anything on its grave.

No, Kierkegaard was always a believing Christian/Lutheran. His attacks were on its tendencies towards A-Romantic dogma and institutions stifling the individual experience of Spirit and History. In this he saw them similar to Hegel's historical dialectics he despised so.

I meant atheist in the way Spinoza was an atheist, but yes, he saw the Lutheran Church as dried out and rigid.

Since that's a specific usage, you should probably note that. How exactly was Spinoza an atheist?

He rejected the standard dogma about divinity. Do you agree that Kierkegaard leaned toward mysticism?

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? Kierkegaard did not reject that. And a leaning towards mysticism doesn't preclude that either, as Meister Eckhart believed in God as well.

What exactly do you mean by leaning toward mysticism? Because if it is a rejection in a belief in God, Kierkegaard didn't lean towards that.

Sorry.. you're right, I should have noted it. My thought processes tend to be a little amorphous.

No worries. It's late in the week; it happens.

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.

I can think of comments Kierkegaard made that make it sound like he did believe that God is a person, but the image of Abraham in Fear and Trembling is one any mystic would understand.

The more mystical Christians are, the less they tend to believe in a personal God.

As someone educated by the Jesuits, I can tell you that is not the case, and you certainly haven't shown any support for that claim. Christian mystics tend to see God in more spiritual, more Romantic ways and more through personal experience than church experience, but they do not reject a personal God or the Godhead.

I tend to think of mystics of all types as having fundamentally similar outlooks. God is an underlying creative force... something like that.

This is wrong, too. Not only do mystics vary differently within the same religion, they definitely differ from mystics in other religions. Christian mystics do not reduce God to an underlying creative force, and neither do Jewish mystics either. Kabbalists definitely believe in God/Jehovah.

but the image of Abraham in Fear and Trembling is one any mystic would understand.

Maybe, but so would many non-mystic Christians, Jews, and Muslims.

Did Eckhart believe in a personal god?

Oh, yes, he was a devoted Dominican. He just investigated what "Personal God" meant in a neo-Aristotelian way.