Yes, it does seem that Nietzsche's approach was about looking beyond the 'animal' aspect of the human being as @Gus Lamarch suggested. I was just looking at Colin Wilson's discussion of Nietzsche in, 'The Outsider'. Wilson suggests an interpretation which is more about the development of the inner aspects of the human being, saying how Nietzsche, asked himself about happiness and the nature of delusion and,
'His imagination set to work on the problem, to conceive a man great enough to affirm. Not the Hero- no hero could ever command a philosopher's complete admiration. But the prophet, the saint, the man of action; or, perhaps, a combination of all four? ' in this way, Nietzsche's emphasis can be seen as going beyond the animal and irrational aspects of human nature, and of becoming the highest possible example of how a person may become.

Funnily enough, when I spoke of Nietzsche creating a new romantic movement, the music of the new romantics came into my mind. I love the music of the electric eighties, including ABC, Ultravox and many others. If anything, the more gothic aspects seem more Nietzschian, such as Marc Almond and, he Tah Duran Duran's 'Seven and the Ragged Tiger,' especially the song, 'The Union of the Snake' seem a bit Nietzschian in questioning values. And, yes I am admitting to being a closet Duran Duran fan, and they are still going.

Yesterday, when writing on the thread I was thinking about how the idea of the superman relates to the idea of Satan, as the ultimate rebel. The complexity of it also relates to the idea of Lucifer, who was the figure who was the lord of light initially. Even though Nietzsche's ideas come from a critique of Christianity, the philosophy does go back to the symbolic drama between good and evil.

Part of the issue about Nietzsche's ideas being used by the Nazis says a lot about the way human thinking was going, especially in the early twentieth century. Neither Nietzsche's ideas or the Nazis ideas can be seen in isolation but were part of the developments of abstraction and involved a certain amount of inflation of ego consciousness..

One book which I read a long time ago was ' Glamour' by Alice Bailey and she spoke of the way that Hitler's ideas were based on glamour, which involved a wish to be rid of evil. This was projected onto those who were seen to be as inferior, who Hitler wished to destroy in reaching for the highest limits. Hitler himself was influenced by theosophy which spoke of different root races.

It is easy to see how the Nazis were able to draw on Nietzsche's idea of the transvaluation of values. Jung was more directly involved in developments in Nazi Germany because he was working there. He did speak of dangerous development in ideas being developed by some German thinkers, but he was also swept up in this too because he made generalisations about race and failed to speak out about the Nazi movement at the time, and did give therapy to Nazis.

I would go along with the idea of Nietszche as an 'antiromantic romantic'. If anything, his work could be applied to develop a critique of what it means to be a romantic, because he turns the idea of romanticism upside down to create a new romanticism, before the deconstruction of the postmodernists. In some ways, he could be seen as a forerunner to the countercultural developments in the arts.

What the quote you give, especially the idea, 'Write with blood' does suggest the Nietzschian path to be more about the call of being a writer than anything else. In this sense, his stance seems to be more of an emphasis on serious pursuit of writing as a way towards truth, and this is probably what makes him important as a philosopher.

My understanding of what Nietzsche meant by beyond good and evil was not about ignoring life and pain. It was more about the conventional superficialities and appearance of 'kindness' represented in the development of Christianity.

As far your argument about Nietzsche's ideas leading to a reversion to an 'animal state', it is complex because this may be a gross misinterpretation of his ideas. He was opposed to emotions in some ways but it is debatable how he understood the instincts and intellect, in understanding the role of the ego needs.

People vary so much in which philosophers appeal to them, but it is also worth thinking about the cultural contexts in which they were writing. In particular, Nietzsche's writing is particularly critical of Christianity whereas Kant was firmly rooted in the Christian church tradition. So, how one views Christianity is likely to be important as much as the styles of the two writers. Actually, the two writers make an interesting contrast in their entire approach to philosophy, but they were probably equally serious in their pursuit of philosophy and very intense individuals.

Perhaps philosophy needs a few romantic bohemians to create inspired writing. In some ways, he may be one of the role models, certainly more so than Kant. What may have been important is his writing style. That was what drew me to his writings and I read his writings long before many of the importance philosophers. But it does seem that he is the consolation for adolescent angst, almost like emo music, and for times of distress later. He is probably read by many who don't read many other philosophers.

Perhaps if Nietzsche was around today he would get so carried away on the forum and get banned.

The question may be whether Nietzsche himself would have been more in place on a philosophy forum or as a rock'n'roll star. He probably would not have been at ease on either and the worse thought is that if such a person existed in the twentieth first century they may be misunderstood completely, or ended up in a remote academic group or as a writer of literary fiction. There are probably not going to be any equivalent figures in the present times in philosophy circles.

It is likely that the idea of enhancements of transhumanism was very far from the scope of Nietzsche's thought. He had more in common with literary traditions and classical philosophy. The world he was writing in was such a different perspective that it probably needs to be interpreted in that context, because seeing it in the chaotic climate of the twentieth first century probably gives rise to distortions.

I do wonder if Nietzsche did really think that the animal side of human nature was something to be ashamed of because that would be more consistent with religious perspectives, or of Plato's distinction between the higher and lower self.

I am not sure that Freddie Mercury was influenced by Nietzsche, but Jim Morrison was, for better or worse. Of course, it was a specific interpretation of Nietzsche and it may have been slanted rather than a thorough reading of his work. In a way, Jim Morrison's references to Nietzsche, as well as Colin Wilson's discussion in 'The Outsider' brought his writings into popular culture or subculture and Nietszche became a romantic antihero.

The way in which I see the idea of the 'last man' is symbolic of the post-apocalyptic predicament and that may be where the idea of the posthuman condition comes in. There may be a parallel between this and Baudrillard's idea of the end of history. It is a possible source of despair with human beings on the verge of destruction. But, even then, it does involve the possibility of chaos 'giving birth to a dancing star'. So, the idea of 'superman' or 'the last man' can symbolize the highest possible, the outcome of history and civilisation as a culmination of human potential.

Yes, it does seem likely that Nietszche is making a critical attack on the way in which human beings are driven by instincts, especially in his depiction of the 'herd morality'. It is interesting to think of the way the issue of emotions comes in here, and it may be that he sees the way in which human emotions have a negative impact.

But, of course, it can go the other way with people being cut off from emotions and Nietzsche himself did experience difficulties in his personal life. So, trying to take the idea forward it may be about not being swayed by the emotions and instincts, but the quest for transcendence is complicated. We cannot be machines and there is a danger that in the twentieth first century, with the interface between mind and machine people may end up going in that direction and become cut off from sensory pleasures.

Yes, it may be that the understanding of the concept is understood BADLY often, like a caricature 'superman' in a Marvel comic.

I am not sure that Nietszche did intend to overcome hedonism, as his writings suggest that he valued the Dionysian principle of pleasure. I am inclined to think that he was more in favour of celebrating pleasure as opposed to categorizing acts into the division of 'good' and 'evil' as clear moral categories.

It may be that the finding of one's own individual voice is a central aspect of the philosophy quest and that Nietzsche's approach is compatible with this. Finding the individual voice may be complex amidst all of the battling voices within and it may be here that Nietzsche, and Jung on individuation come into play. The Emerson quote is interesting too, in relation to the idea of the devil. Some may see the devil inside and others outside, and this may be bound up with the nature of projection and the ideas of good and evil as opposites, especially within the dualism of many religious perspectives.

Thanks for the link. I will try to download the book and read it.

I do see the idea of the 'overman' as an ideal but the notion of 'revaluation of values' is ambiguous in many ways. I guess that I do subscribe to the idea of revaluation of values though because I have certainly questioned a lot that I was socialised to believe. It is not that I am opposed to his philosophy and the idea of the 'overman' but I am thinking that it is a rather elastic idea, open to being stretched in many directions.

I have read 'Homo Deus' by Yuval Noah Harari which looks at future possibilities and the idea of death as being a technical problem to be overcome. It is concerned with what is possible and I do see Nietszche's ideas as paving a starting point for trying to go beyond limitations but it is unclear if he was really thinking of this.

In comparison, Maslow's hierarchy of needs seems to point to self actualisation and peak experiences. Nietzsche could be seen as indicating the need to go beyond the state of 'robotic' consciousness, especially being enslaved by religious control. Also, I wonder how much of Nietzsche' s idea was related to his own mental health struggles. Even this is complicated though because it could even be that the philosophy he was developing were the source of his difficulties.

Generally, I do like his writings, especially, 'Thus Spake Zarathustra', but I see it more of being a psychological quest for freedom on an existential level. However, the actual translation of his ideas is potentially problematic, especially the idea of going beyond good and evil. What would this mean? It could be used to justify almost anything.

The importance of hermeneutics may be underplayed in philosophy, with so much focus on science and empirical validation. The understanding of texts, especially sacred ones, is a starting point for thinking about those who created them and the sources they incorporated. It is about coming from a different angle, with the arts drawing on creative imagination. If people try to interpret the texts in a concrete way as if they are scientific accounts it can lead to so much confusion. In this way, both the arts and science are complementary aspects of thinking about understanding reality, including symbolic versus evidence based accounts. Some may value science in preference to the arts and it may be important to see how the two approaches work so differently. When science is seen as all important it can lead to people losing touch with the mythical aspects of thought and even scientific models may have mythical aspects too.

Perhaps music is a doorway into peak experiences and the 'baby' walking down the street is symbolic of fantasy. The psychoanalyst Winnicott spoke of object relations in childhood, starting with the mother as being of transformational states of consciousness. Music and the arts facilitate such transformation as well as relationships. I know that if I am feeling low music is the best cure and that is why I seek music equally to books. Such journeying in the imagination through music seems complementary to the philosophy quest.

I would not deny that both Freud and Jung had faults in their philosophy. Freud may have overplayed sexuality, with the issue of the Oedipus complex being open to question. Similarly, Jung's writings may display racism, especially in his ideas about Jews, in the context of a critical time in Nazi Germany. Also, the idea of the collective unconscious is open to question.

Nevertheless, I would argue that both Freud developed such an important contribution relevant to both psychology and philosophy. Freud's critique of religion in 'Totem and Taboo' contributed to critical analysis of religion. Also, his model of the human psyche was extremely important, leading on to the development of thinkers such as Melanie Klein and Donald Winnicott. Jung's ideas on the shadow as the repressed side of human nature was also extremely important.

Of course, I would not deny that they were influenced by German idealism and vitalism. What I think was particularly great though, beyond the specific ideas which they developed was the scope of their thinking, as evident in the vast amount which they wrote, drawing from many diverse sources. In this sense; they were system builders in the tradition of philosophers of the past. It is probable that if they were writing in the twentieth first century they would be open to greater criticism, and they may not have risen to importance, amidst the tendency towards scientific materialism.
.

As far as I am aware Leonardo da Vinci was far ahead of his time in many aspects of thought. Some of the greater thinkers have gone beyond the scope of rigid divisions. This applies to Freud and Jung, who I find extremely interesting, but I am sure it applies to many others too. I am inclined to view the in between areas and edges, drawing upon models of science and the metaphors and imagery of the art offer scope for creative ways of seeing. They are like the wasteland of philosophy, the deserts of discovery where freedom and independence of thought may be found.

I am not suggesting that suffering or rejection are desirable, but that when they occur it is best to try and meet the challenges and not give up. The people who never have the negative experiences are fortunate. It is simply that I was discussing such experiences with a friend and we came to the conclusion that people who have been through difficult experiences are often deeper. The experiences may lead some on a philosophy quest, but, of course, not everyone who has an interest in philosophy has experienced rejection.

The new Lego building may be a better model than the original, as the revised upgrade. Beyond the metaphor, the person who has experienced the suffering of rejection. Both rejection and failure may lead to greater depths of awareness. Of course, it is not automatic and requires hard work, and this may be the challenge. Not all the rejected outsiders can put the fragmented aspects of the broken self together again.

The basis on which I say this is I have met different people who have been rejected or labelled as 'failures'. If they can overcome the woundedness they often have a greater depth than those who have been accepted always. There is a shamanic aspect to it.

Also, the more risks one takes, it is more likely that success will come eventually. Life is risky and not easy, but it may be it is not good for everyone to walk around with gigantic inflated egos all the time because humility rather than pride may be the path to compassion.

Rejection can be painful and it comes in many forms. Perhaps, the interpretations need revisiting, especially the labels of success and failure. It may that going beyond these can be a starting point for transforming negatives into positives. Bad experiences can be learned from and if the sense of rejection and rather than breaking down the ego and self esteem completely it may give rise to inner strength and resilience.

My understanding is that Jung read Kant as well as Gnosticism. He blends the two together to come up with the emphasis on 'God' as known within the psyche.

Intuition has some role in life and discovery but can be used in all sorts of erroneous ways in arguments. It is a bit like the idea of countertransference, which is intuition in therapy, in which it is possible to use as a basis for arguments for whatever one chooses to suggest or fabricate.

You present a good argument for agnosticism and one which counters Jung's argument, 'I don't believe, I know'. Jung's epistemology was based on his idea of knowledge not being possible but gained through intuition, which he derived from Kant. The problem is to what extent can intuitive knowledge be certain, and why in spite of ideas in the mind it hard to know to what extent they are fantasy or correct, making the idea of God an aspect of imagination and speculation. The outer basis of knowledge is evident, but the source is hard to trace, even though some may be try to fill in the gap of unknowing as 'God, because the mind itself can only go so far in the perception of everything...

I did realise that you said that Spinoza, spoke of immanence. I may have a read of his writings today. Of course, it is human beings who construct reasons rather than these being existent in nature itself. Even the idea of natural selection is the human grasp of how it works. However, it may be that human consciousness is part of the imminent reality often projected onto God, as Schopenhauer describes as will and the 'thing in itself' described by Kant. The source of the numinous may be part of the realisation of consciousness and awareness itself.

I definitely believe that there is a middle ground between theism and atheism. Spinoza may get into this area, as well as Jung, even though they are coming from a different angle. The middle ground is something which I have been thinking about since Easter last year. It was during a debate about Jung, and it seemed to me that both theism and atheism were true or false to some extent.

It is all about interpretation and I do wonder if there is a middle ground rather than theism and atheism and I don't mean agnosticism because that is like a waiting area to make a choice. I wonder if both the labels theism and atheism are too limited, because the essential aspects of reality, whether called God or not are way all encompassing. In some ways, what I am saying could be interpreted like some kind of mystical argument about reality and I am not intending to do so. That is because mysticism is inclined to dismiss explanations, whereas philosophy is about trying to find words and explanations. To use the word God may gloss over many gaps in philosophy, but, on the other hand, the theist vs atheist debate may be too neat and tidy from my point of view.

I don't know where this stands in relation to deism, but my concept of whatever reality or metaphorical reality of 'God' is that it is imminent in reality, as opposed to separate from it. From what I have read of or about Spinoza so far indicates a kind of imminent reality. However, that would imply, to some extent, more of an underlying reason underlying nature. This may not be entirely abstract, and may even be about the spirit of nature itself, including Gaia, the earth. But, I am sure that this is very different from Spinoza's philosophy, and, of course, he was writing in an entirely different era of history.

Yes, I did wonder if Dawkins was reading correctly in his understanding because I have not read that much on pantheism. I do wish to because all these aspects are important in thinking of the question of God's existence. Sometimes, reading interpretations which are misreadings can be problematic, and sifting them out.

I have started reading Spinoza's writings. Unfortunately, I often start too many at once, which mean that some get pushed aside. There just seems to be so much reading to be done and it does mean that it is likely to be a life long task.

I wonder to what extent those who believe in Spinoza' s God may be considered to be theists or atheists? That is one of the areas where the strict divisions between the two become complex. Dawkins argues that his ,'The God Delusion' is not intended to be about Einstein's understanding of God and that he simply wished 'to get Einsteinian religion out of the way to begin with: it has a proven capacity to confuse.' In spite of this intention, I found his discussion on Einstein, and on atheism and pantheism to be the best part of the book, because it is such a fuzzy area.

He does not regard Einstein as being a theist, but points to the complexities arising, especially in terms of the ideas of pantheism and deism. Dawkins says the following:
'In many theistic belief systems, the deity is intimately involved in human affairs. He answers prayers; forgives or punishes sins; intervenes in the world by performing miracles; frets about good and bad deeds, and knows when we do them (or even think of doing them). A desist too, believes in a supernatural intelligence, but one whose activities were confined to setting up the laws of the universe. The deist God never intervenes thereafter, and certainly has no specific interest in human affairs. Pantheists don't believe in a supernatural God at all, but use the word God as a non-supernatural synonym for Nature, or for the Universe, or for the lawfulness that governs its workings.'

He points to the way in which pantheists adopt 'a metaphorical or poetic synonym for the laws of the universe.' Dawkins also states, 'Pantheism is sexed-up atheism. Deism is watered-down theism. ' It seems that this whole area is blurry and this could be a problem with strict use of terms, including theism and atheism. It may be that use of the terms is a way of clarifying ideas, but it is important that it is done in such a way as to elucidate the concepts rather simply putting ideas into boxes because sometimes the boxes themselves are not strong enough to hold the concepts fully.

Part of the problem is whether the idea of God is meant to imply an actual entity or a symbolic picture of whatever exists metaphysically. The one aspect of Dawkins' writing which did impress me was the way in which he translates some of the incongruencies in Einstein's comments about God to be about 'God' as a metaphor. This may correspond with Schopenhauer's idea of will or Hegel's idea of spirit. Of course, I realise that this understanding of God is extremely different from the way most church-goers consider, although I would imagine that they may vary in their ideas.

Of course, the concept of God is a loaded term and, as @Tom Storm suggests, it may be that the idea of God is so imprecise that it is often better to use another one. Nevertheless, the issue or questions about God don't go away. It is rare for there not to be at least one thread on the front page of this forum for or against God. The concept seems to be central to understanding life and philosophy, including those who argue for and against the existence of God.

I am not sure whether God would have to be a person as such, because that is more the anthropological picture of what the concept means. In this sense, the human being imagines God as being a person. The idea that God is a person, apart from in the form of Jesus Christ, may lead to the conclusion that there is no God at all. On the other hand, it could be that the idea of God would make more sense of it were seen as the inner, or personal connection with the source of everything, including nature.

I am not saying that alcohol is not bad but I think death through nuclear war may be a bit worse. But I have not met anyone dying with cirrhosis of the liver yet. The worst thing which I have come across is alcohol induced dementia.

Alcohol is used by the military and many other professions. Most people don't drink on a daily basis although one of my friends admitted to being an alcoholic for many years. Of course, other drugs are used by soldiers and others. One thing which I read about was that Timothy Leary and Aldous Huxley chose to take acid while dying. But, I don't think that watching nuclear destruction on acid would be a good idea somehow. There was, however, a link between the psychedelic movement and the anti war campaign. Who knows, the threat of war may release some creative work. You probably don't know it but The House of Love sang a song which says, 'The Beatles and the Stones put the V in Vietnam...'

The thought of what may happen if there was a nuclear attack is hard to imagine. When I have spoken with friends about it, one question is whether it would be better to die at any early stage or live with the aftermath of devastation.