Nietzsche reading tips

[Imran Siddiqui]

So a person's life determines the value of his ideas?

People like this guy because he made some brilliant points. It totally altered my world view when I read Neitzsche. It made me thing about things I really hadn't before, such as the nature of truth and morality.

elijah may be happy to know that it hastened my slide into being a relativist .

[Dis]

but if he was so enlightened, why couldn't he get some *****?

that make me question his views on life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's because he was so enlightened that he didn't need it .

The value of a person's ideas is much more important in philosophy than how his life was.

[Dis]

ahh, but if he didn't need it, he woulnd't have got syphillis from a prostitute

[Maniac]

Imran Siddiqui:

I'm intrigued by his dialetic and his ideas that war is required for progress (very simplified, I know).

Hmm, that doesn't seem right to me. It may be a means for it, but required seems a bit exaggerated. Also, the word "progress" holds a value judgement. Wouldn't the word "change" be more correct?

It's because he was so enlightened that he didn't need it

Or perhaps he did want it, but because the rest of the world found him a fool, they didn't want him.

GePap:

Well, if he re-arranaged the work and undid the worse sins of the sister, it might be worth reading.

Ah yes, that brings me to another question I had. Are the four books you recommended most likely his work, or did his sister edit a few parts as well?

Agathon:

But unless some of our concepts do we risk complete idealism.

I don't understand that sentence. But what definition of idealism do you use? I would say that what I believe is about the opposite of idealism!

How am I to know that my concepts don't have 100% correlation with reality unless I have some concepts which do in order to make the comparison in the first place?

Interesting perspective... I of course can't know a 100% sure that concepts don't have a 100% relation with reality - I would be a lousy relativist if I claimed I could. But I think you are reverting the question, which should be: "Can I know whether or not my concepts have a 100% correlation with reality?" I believe the answer on that is you probably can't.

After all, we are not conscious of the entire universe. We are limited beings which perceive bits of sensory information. Our brains then interpret that information, categorize it etcetera. That in itself is already a construction of reality. We use paradigma to order information. We do not perceive "absolute reality".

Anyway, to construct our scientific theories, we base us on empirical data. But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

I know the above two paragraphs aren't very coherent or well-explained. I'm not really good at explaining those things... I could start explaining the entire scientific methodology here (after all any one who agrees with that should be a relativist), but that could take ages.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by elijah

Thinking it is better.

Isn´t Philosophy all about thinking?

[Drogue]

My favoutire was actually "Human, All Too Human". But then that would be more fit for an ACDG discussion Zarathustra is good, although so long winded, because he didn't managed to edit it properly. I haven't read that much, although I found his letters to his sister (IIRC) very informative to read. I have a set of Kauffman translations, and IMHO he is by far the best I've seen. He get's the German idiosyncracies right.

[Tattila the Hun]

A great Nietzsche reading tip:

Don't, you'll just get a headache.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dissident why do people like this guy?

You do know what his real life was like, right?

He was a loser. though he did have to endure some serious pain in his life.

Isn't it obvious?

[Whaleboy]

This risks total idealism. Are events real things that occur in the world or are they too, mental constructs.

If everything is a mental construct then it turns out that reality is a form of intellectual masturbation.

Then I, my friend, am an intellectual ******. Is there anything conceptually wrong with total idealism? I think your hillarious statement encapsulated my entire argument!

elijah may be happy to know that it hastened my slide into being a relativist

Fancy a beer? . I'm re-writing my relativism article, it'll be up on my next website update (end of this month or thereabouts), if you want to take a look.

Isn´t Philosophy all about thinking?

Yep! That's what I said. Ok, I should have said "thinking it, is better", as opposed to reading.

He was a loser. though he did have to endure some serious pain in his life

You honestly think he would have been a great man had he been happy and normal? .

[Brundlefly]

I can give you an introductory text -not- to read: "Nietschze for Beginners" by Marc Sautet, Writers and Readers Publishing 1994. I have enjoyed many of the "For Beginners" series by this publisher. Their introductions of Sartre, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard has spurred my interest in philosophy. Their Nietschze introduction, however, was rather disjointed and did not leave me with a good understanding of this philosopher's ideas. It was like the author was more intent on making witty observations about Nietschze that has peers would find funny, rather than provide a guide for beginners.

[Maniac]

I went the library and lent out "Dawn/Morgenröte/Morgenrood" and something about Heraclitus. Unfortunately, though the register said they have several books of "The gay science", I couldn't find any. It'll have to be for another time.

[Dracon II]

I'm not sure if this is final proof... but a doctor in maryland, looking at Nietszche's medical records, contends that his madness was more likely due to a slowly developing brain tumour than syphilis.
I would recommend Nietsche, though I have only read Zarathustra and a collection of summaries... I plan to read more when I have time (I have Ecce Homo, Genealogy of Morals, The Anti-christ and twilight of the idols).
An interesting summary I read contended that he was a forerunner of postmodern thought... and this is before modernism!
I think Nietszche is an interesting character, with a witty eccentricity to his writing... if you just want some mouthfuls of the guy, go to google and type "Nietszche quotes") entertaining stuff.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac

I don't understand that sentence. But what definition of idealism do you use? I would say that what I believe is about the opposite of idealism!

Idealism = the doctrine that there is no external reality, only our ideas.

Interesting perspective... I of course can't know a 100% sure that concepts don't have a 100% relation with reality - I would be a lousy relativist if I claimed I could. But I think you are reverting the question, which should be: "Can I know whether or not my concepts have a 100% correlation with reality?" I believe the answer on that is you probably can't.

But there is no basis for the answer. You are attempting to compare one thing you know with something you admit there is no knowledge of.

After all, we are not conscious of the entire universe. We are limited beings which perceive bits of sensory information. Our brains then interpret that information, categorize it etcetera. That in itself is already a construction of reality. We use paradigma to order information. We do not perceive "absolute reality".

But this is the problem. You are asserting some claim about reality, namely, that "we perceive limited bits of sensory information" in order to bolster a claim about the relation between our beliefs and the world. Unfortunately, if you hold global relativism, then your claims about "sensory information" have no grounding and undermine your own relativist claim.

Anyway, to construct our scientific theories, we base us on empirical data. But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

All this obscures the fact that it's self contradictory to say this.

Either: (a) All our beliefs are do not represent reality correctly including the beliefs which explain the possibility of relativism, in which case it destroys its own support.

or: (b) Some of our beliefs (i.e. the ones that explain relativism) are non-relative, in which case one cannot hold that all belief is relative.

If you want to argue that we have no reason to think that our beliefs do represent reality accurately then at least a prima facie case is made by the fact that the alternative belief involves contradiction.

[Japher]

But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

Most reasons for observation is for interpretation, prediction and replication... If this accomplished a subjective reality is really not applicable since interpretation, prediction and replication exist when this reality... Saying that the observed reality can be misconstrued as absolute reality has no bearing if all occurances exist within the set system...

If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around to hear it, does make a noise?... My answer, does it matter?