Philosophy Discussion Forums

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 8:41 pmAre you trying to prove something with semantic quibbles. It's not going to work. If you want to say you don't believe he was gay then just come right out and say it. Don't ***** foot around with academic obfuscation.

Steady! I believe neither that Nietzsche was gay nor that he wasn't; but if there is only some inconclusive indirect evidence, the conclusion that he was gay is pretty speculative, isn't it?

Consul wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 8:24 pmReally? An excerpt from a review:

"…The evidence, then, is exclusively indirect. …Still, while there are lingering questions and no conclusive evidence, Köhler’s case is strong: he makes it a very real possibility that Nietzsche was gay."

https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/zarathustra-s- ... nietzsche/

Other reviews:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/472 ... exual.html

https://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/06/book ... ideas.html

Consul wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:10 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 8:41 pmAre you trying to prove something with semantic quibbles. It's not going to work. If you want to say you don't believe he was gay then just come right out and say it. Don't ***** foot around with academic obfuscation.

Steady! I believe neither that Nietzsche was gay nor that he wasn't; but if there is only some inconclusive indirect evidence, the conclusion that he was gay is pretty speculative, isn't it?

At the end of the day we all believe what we want to believe. No argument will convince us otherwise. And any argument in one's favor will be believed. If one recognizes oneself in what one reads then one is thoroughly convinced. I love to read arguments and I pick and choose which ones I want to accept. I choose what I want to believe. I do the same with the gay Jesus, for whom I think there is a great amount of evidence that he was gay. Obviously, heterosexual fundamentalists will disagree, as well they should. I have no objection. If you think there is an air-tight perfect argument about these matters, then you are wrong.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 7:50 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 4:23 pm

Also, queer is the last thing someone like you should hold against him. Concerning mincing & lisping, Nietzsche ranks as one of the greatest of modern philosophers - whether you like him or not! There is also the outstanding brilliance of his prose even in translation. The style enforces further consideration of his thoughts even when presumed or acknowledged as error - though admittedly some are completely dispensable; philosophers also have their prejudices.

Nietzsche is one of my favorite philosophers. And I don’t hold it against him because he was queer; I am queer myself, though I don’t mince and lisp. In Zarathustra’s Secret and Nietzsche and Wagner, Joachim Kohler has very convincingly proven that Nietzsche was gay and he minced. He may have lisped. Whatever the case, people made fun of him. https://www.amazon.com/s?k=joachim+kohl ... _sb_noss_1

A few things...

1- How can Nietzsche be one of your favorite philosophers being a thorough materialist in light of your expressed views on materialism?

2- Joachim Kohler is a mass production writer who thrusts too many of his idiot ideas into the story. Upon reading reviews on Amazon, I'm not the only one who thinks so. I've also read a summary of opinions on his Wagner's Hitler: The Prophet and Disciple as if Wagner were responsible for the crimes of Hitler's short reign. What a stupid piece of trash that is. Look at the customer reviews; it's about as bad as it gets and no wonder. Kohler is full of crap, I wouldn't buy an honest German pretzel from the bastard expecting it to be made in China. This story is simply much more complicated.

3- Same with Nietzsche. Even if he minced words or had a lisp so have many including famous and not so famous politicians, actors, artists etc. Whether he was gay or not means less than nothing. It wasn't any less common then only much more hidden than it is now because it infringed the morality of all the rotten and disgusting religions out there. Religions are vastly more aberrant than being gay which has never been uncommon from day one.

Jklint wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 10:51 pm e]

A few things...

1- How can Nietzsche be one of your favorite philosophers being a thorough materialist in light of your expressed views on materialism?

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 11:19 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 10:51 pm e]

A few things...

1- How can Nietzsche be one of your favorite philosophers being a thorough materialist in light of your expressed views on materialism?

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

Good on you. I don't!

Jklint wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 12:31 am

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 11:19 pm

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

Good on you. I don't!

Yes, of course you don't.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:21 pmAt the end of the day we all believe what we want to believe. No argument will convince us otherwise. And any argument in one's favor will be believed. If one recognizes oneself in what one reads then one is thoroughly convinced. I love to read arguments and I pick and choose which ones I want to accept. I choose what I want to believe.

Then why care about arguments and evidence at all?

By the way, can we believe what we want to believe?

Doxastic Voluntarism: https://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:21 pm

Consul wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:10 pm

Steady! I believe neither that Nietzsche was gay nor that he wasn't; but if there is only some inconclusive indirect evidence, the conclusion that he was gay is pretty speculative, isn't it?

At the end of the day we all believe what we want to believe. No argument will convince us otherwise.

I believe that's only true for the brain-dead meaning brains without moving parts.

Jklint wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 3:32 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:21 pm At the end of the day we all believe what we want to believe. No argument will convince us otherwise.

I believe that's only true for the brain-dead meaning brains without moving parts.

It seems that for Gary theory choice in philosophy (particularly metaphysics) is just a subjective matter of aesthetic taste, pleasure, or preference—like the choice of a painting in an art gallery.

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 11:19 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 10:51 pm e]

A few things...

1- How can Nietzsche be one of your favorite philosophers being a thorough materialist in light of your expressed views on materialism?

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

What do you think it means?

Consul wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 3:59 pm

Jklint wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 3:32 pm
I believe that's only true for the brain-dead meaning brains without moving parts.

It seems that for Gary theory choice in philosophy (particularly metaphysics) is just a subjective matter of aesthetic taste, pleasure, or preference—like the choice of a painting in an art gallery.

...in that case they are merely subjective impressions of thought as an art form in conformity with ones aesthetic leanings; nothing more, value residing in preference only...a customized philosophy of bit and pieces.

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

What do you think it means?

Well, Nietzsche went mad, so that'll give him the sublime opportunity of going mad over and over again and appreciating every single minute of it.

Consul wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 2:36 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 9:21 pmAt the end of the day we all believe what we want to believe. No argument will convince us otherwise. And any argument in one's favor will be believed. If one recognizes oneself in what one reads then one is thoroughly convinced. I love to read arguments and I pick and choose which ones I want to accept. I choose what I want to believe.

Then why care about arguments and evidence at all?

By the way, can we believe what we want to believe?

Doxastic Voluntarism: https://www.iep.utm.edu/doxa-vol/

The point of argument is not to find or demonstrate truth, but to win. To beat the other guy over the head. To jam his face down into the mud. Or as with Socrates, it is to seduce a boy in the Garden of Academos. Read the Lysis.

As for whether or not we can believe what we want to believe. Kierkegaard said that depression is to be in love with that which you hate. It is often the case that we want what we don't want. A gambler or drug addict or fashionista wants and spends and wishes he or she could stop. There are atheists who want to believe in God but just can't. There are those who wish they could shake an abusive lover, but can't. Everywhere you look you see people who want against what they want, who believe against their own belief, who are depressed. At the end of the day, you are stuck with yourself. You have lost control. Arguments and evidence are a waste of time in the battle. They are no more that a way to kill time.

Sculptor1 wrote: ↑September 7th, 2019, 4:21 pm

GaryLouisSmith wrote: ↑September 6th, 2019, 11:19 pm

I like his Doctrine of the Eternal Return.

What do you think it means?

The Eternal Return is the Hindu idea of Samsara. It is the cycle of birth and rebirth. It is that which the religious person is ever trying to get off of. How do we get off the Wheel of Life? That is the great question of Hinduism and Buddhism.