Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Club for Open-Minded Discussion & Debate

[Markb287]

The only reason to read Nietzsche is if you are curious as to why a screwball can be so famous.

And why do you consider Nietzsche a screwball?

[Wayne92587]

Bad statement, forget I said it.

[Wrongnut]

The only reason to read Nietzsche is if you are curious as to why a screwball can be so famous.

All great philosophers must be "screwballs" to some extent. One who presents no new or unfamiliar ideas, and seeks merely to justify the status quo, would be, and is, simply a commentator.

In Nietzsche's case the appearance of madness may be extreme since his target is the very nature of our language and culture. His position is that our language has become saturated with Judeo-Christian "slave" morality which, motivated by jealousy and fear, has caused an inversion of values and seeks to retard the exceptional. Consequently, European man is driven towards mediocrity, most especially by the English (more accurately, Scottish) Enlightenment thinkers; all acheivement, all success, even improvement is tainted by a sense of isolation and guilt. One cannot lead, Nietzsche argues, unless one rises above herd morality, and goes...

BGE is not intended to explain, still less to instruct. As mentioned, many of Nietzsche's works do aim to describe his theories. Personally, I recommend On Truth and Falsehood in a Non-Moral Sense for his epistemology, and (of course) The Genealogy of Morals for the historical and ontological background. BGE is intended to be read by those who have already seen through the facade of morality, and have set themselves on a path toward the Will To Power. It cannot be an instructive work; he is not "preaching to the choir". The nature of that cliche itself should be enough to explain why. In writing this book Nietzsche is attempting to enter into a discussion with the "philosophers of the future", with those he refers to as "We few"/"We Immoralists"/"We free-spirits". In short, with those who belong to the Master race. For this reason, I believe that BGE is a poor choice for the discussion of Nietzsche's work.

Incidentally, isn't expressing curiousity about a person's fame itself a cause of their infamy?

[Pastabake]

Actually I think this guy has a much better understanding of what N was getting at.

Nietzsche, oddly, has suffered a similar fate. Because of his assault on religion and rationalist metaphysics, and because of the hints of anarchy in his assorted visions of the future (e.g., "the transvaluation of all values"), he's taken as the West's über-nihilist. But he saw himself as the scourge of European nihilism, and possibly also its remedy. Nietzsche saw nihilism as a disease, which grows from, in Alexander Nehamas' words, "the assumption that if some single standard is not good for everyone and all time, then no standard is good for anyone at any time." It presents itself as mindless hedonism and flaccid spirit, but also as fanaticism.

Full article at slate.com/articles/arts/culturebox/2011 ... ingle.html

[Barnabas]

Apologies, am new to the site, and overwhelmed by the sheer number of philosophers. My interests are mainly in ethical, and if one can call it psycho- philosophy. I have a copy of "good and evil" would someone be kind enough to point out the implications of his writings?

[Mishimas]

I always enjoy reading Nietzsche... I believe he did really proposed great concepts, and was the precursor of great philosophers he indeed influenced.... he also broke the moral contemporary way of thinking, he gives us an explanation of how and why he supposed the death of God, his books are great, and the books that speak of him are too... I recommend you all to read Michel Foucault and Gilles Deluze because they are excellent while interpreting Nietzsche. Two books that I loved by Nietzsche are: Genealogy of morals (Although it's a cruel book... that's why I love Nietzsche) and also The Antichrist.... those are my favorites.

[Wayne92587]

The would be Christ was prophesized to be a Man that would come to destroy the Law; What Law, God's Law?

Yes and No!

First, what some believe to be God's Law, Moral Law, is not God's Law.

As far as God is concerned the Only Good Law is No Law, Boundlessness, Freedom, Absolute Freedom of Motion.

Moral Law is born of the sel-fish righteousness of the Pharos, the Pharaoh, the Pharisees, is an abomination, Blasphemous.

Moral Law, the purpose of which is to bring order to the chaos caused by Freedom, is not only an abomination; moral Law is a dismal failure in its l attempt to bring any order to the chaos, Moral Law flying in the Face of God’s Law of Boundlessness.

Would that I could, I would destroy Moral Law.

Being Immoral is not the answer; the answer is to be like God, Amoral; God having no knowledge of Good and Evil.

[Low111]

If your looking for your average philosophical read don’t read Nietzsche, if you need definitive answers don’t read Nietzsche, if you need topics of conversation for late night dinner parties to impress your friends don’t read Nietzsche. The one fundamental problem with reading just one of Nietzsche’s works is his whole philosophical collection is intended to be taken as a progressive progeny of itself. His aphoristic style of writing which was very popular in his time was meant to lead the reader into his page margins to show us his rough work, which I find way more entertaining than someone who hides their doctrines behind endless theory’s, which in the end are just ideas and possibility’s. If BGE does what its intended to do it sets you free from the limitations morality imposes on our society, after reading it and comprehending it you stop worrying about what is good and what is evil because its all human nature and if we continue to punish the human race for “being human” soon we will cease to be human. Thats not to say that he didn’t think that the human race needed to aspire to be better, he founded the idea of the super-man which is a race of people not repressed by old traditions and that are culpable for there actions. Reading BGE 130 years after it was published was a pleasure because we are who he wrote the aphorisms for, he was speaking to the future generations of philosophers. Its been said that Nietzsche’s philosophy is all around us like the cosmic residue of the big bang, Freud was quoted saying “ no one man has ever known himself better than Fredrick Nietzsche.” Basically what im trying to articulate is it was not intended for everyone but the few that are able to unearth the treasures will be forever enlightened. If your looking for a philosopher who is in a class of his own read Nietzsche, if your not looking for the right answers but the right questions than read Nietzsche, and if your in need of late night inspirational thought than read Nietzsche.

Regarding the Will To Power, beware this was Nietzsche’s last published work but was not published by him. His sister put it together for him while he was basically catatonic and unfortunately published it with her own agenda, she twisted some of his aphorisms to suit the neo Nazi way of thinking back then that was prominent in Germany and is probably why he didn’t receive the publicity that he would have wanted throughout the western world.

[Barnabas]

(Nested quote removed.)


First of all the Christ was not sent to abolish the Jewish law but fulfill it (Math 5:17).


(Nested quote removed.)


1. First prove God's existence. 2. Prove that morality is not God's law, morality has been instrumental in generating social cohesion which is an adaptive in the survival of the fittest.


(Nested quote removed.)


What of fatalism, the subconscious, coercion, environmental constraints, genetics etc?


(Nested quote removed.)


As long as culture exists morality exists as well according to the practices of a particular culture how can you then attribute the origins of morality to the Pharos? Modern day Freemasonry perhaps?


(Nested quote removed.)


In the absence of social standards, there is no meaning, no meaning no emotional gratification, no emotional gratification NIHILISM


(Nested quote removed.)


Then destroy humanity as well!


(Nested quote removed.)

Dogmatic? Metaphysical? No offense intended, but I think you are a perfect candidate for the criticisms that Nietzsche had subjected philosophers to!

[Hoggy]

Nietzsche does not understand Christianity.

The 4 defendents testified someone else had already been executed for their crimes (therefore conviction would itself be a contempt of that court).

Of course they followed the whole pack of inevitably inconsistent "accordings" up and the alleged grave was empty so effectively that was it.

[Scribbling2much]

Nietzsche saved my life many times. His writing is filled not only with ideas that have heavily influenced our modern world to the point that today they seem cliche. They are cliche, because somewhere in our experience and psyche these ideas hit home, therefore we adopted them into our modern thought. His style is chaotic and diverges from the rigidity of the scientific methods of thought. HIs writings should be seen as thought experiments, and as an honest reflection and commentary of the way we as human beings exist in the world. His writing moves beyond what scientific method and logical argument can demonstrate. It is powerful and passionate, and demonstrates the "small-mindedness" of humanity, not just some of us but all of us. To read Nietsche, you must use more than just your mind, but you too must join him in his thought experiments, you must participate with your reason, your passion, your entire being. You must be open to the arguments of emotion, spirit, passion, not formal logic alone. You must see his brutal honesty in response to the world as he experienced it, as one human being flawed as all of us.

-- Updated April 21st, 2013, 12:03 pm to add the following --

I would like to suggest that Nietsche sees "society" as a false morality, an easy way to call oneself moral. Without ever being willing to see ourselves as we are, seeing all the ways that we rescue ourselves from our sense of inadequacy, we cannot be moral beings. Religion simplifies morality, tries to make it easier than it really is. It works for most people, and allows for a semblance of order in society, yet the human breaks through, and destruction ensues. It is the consequence of the limitations we place on ourselves, and of all types of false morality. To be moral we must see beyond formulas for morality. Constructs cannot achieve morality, nor can seeing humanity in part. We must be honest about the inadequacy of everything we have done thus far to attempt to create a moral society, religion and philosophy included. None of it has made us wholly moral as individuals, or as societies. We are terrified to live without these false structures, for good reason. But we can never be whole, moral beings until we shed them.

[Rayliikanen]

I approached Beyond Good and Evil the way I do most books, probably to my discredit. I read the first couple of pages and put it down, couldn't read any more. Then later, forcibly read through it, and deeply regretted putting myself through the torment. Yes however, there were some kernels worth chewing on. I can say the same for Kant's "Critique of Pure Reason." The worth of Nietzsche's book is to be found in these kernels, but I broke all my teeth getting to them. Suffice it to say I have a very strong distaste for Nietzsche's style. It is extremely over-burdensome. As to why such a screwball became famous, it's for the same reason Wittgenstein became famous. He wrote a book that nobody could understand, at least not without much painstaking effort, so they had no alternative but to declare him a genius.

[Hereandnow]

The only reason to read Nietzsche is if you are curious as to why a screwball can be so famous.

You realize you're talking about the man who is at the very foundation of postmodern thought. You simply cannot diss Nietzsche so blithely. He is great because he took the rationalists and the Christians to task. You should read Geneology of Morals or Twilght of the Idols and The AntiChrist. N is without mercy; the master of suspicion, as they say. I am not a follower, but I am a fan. Truth? What if truth were a woman? Not very kind to women, but what if truth were not this steady dependable compass of the Real as rationalists thought. What if it were just a tool for constructing a life--irrational, fickled, unsure. what if truth were a mere part of human values and not its centerpiece? What if style ruled, and those who were special were extaordinary, the aristocratic few, the ubermensch? N hated Socrates, didn't he? It was because Socrates was all about containing, circumscribing and devaluing this world! Ugh!--Christianity and its Platonism!

[Rayliikanen]

Hereandnow:

I'll visit my favorite bookstore and see if I can pick up those works you mentioned by Neitzsche. I'm a Christian, but not a Platonist, certainly not a Creationist, and I'm not a member of any organized religion. I force myself to try and keep an open mind. Maybe I'm not forcing myself to appreciate Neitzsche enough and I'm letting my preconceptions warp my reading of him. I've forced myself to appreciate Kant, so anything is possible.

[Hereandnow]

I myself lean toward rationalism--rationalism in an irrational world. I'm reading Husserl's Cartesian Meditations now. A definite philosophical adventure, which is what it should be.