Nietzsche and Buddha and Marx, oh my!

[Elok]

Yes, there is indeed a common thread between those three, at least according to my philosophy prof. He's teaching a special-topics class on those three, and I'm not sure how he'll tie them together exactly but there's some sense to his reasoning so far. He says he's been spending several decades of his life trying to develop a synthesis of the three, and he finally succeeded a few years back. One of our textbooks for the course is one he wrote on that solution:

Marx, Reason, and the Art of Freedom, 2nd Expanded Expanded Edition, by K.M. Brien.

Evidently he's shown it to scholars of all three and gotten positive reviews. So, now for the 'Poly review...I know there are at least some Nietzsche and Marx fanatics here. Has anybody encountered this book? Any thoughts on it if so? If not, I'd like to know what, say, GePap, or any of you wacko commies out there think of it after you do.

Um, I guess that's it.

[Fake Boris]

The link between Nietzsche and Marx is quite common. As of Buddha, I'm not sure, but I wouldn't be overwhelmingly surprised.

[Sandman]

Aren't they all atheists?

[chequita guevara]

The fact that it has positive reviews from other academics really doesn't mean much. Good ol' boy network means that you get positive reviews regardless of whether or not your work deserves it.

On the face of it, I'd have to say your professor is mad. The connection would have to be Marx, since I can't see Sid or Fred really meeting on anything.

[GePap]

Nietzsche would praise Buddah as an overman, since the guy went out and created a whole new value system, but in general he does not like the notion of giving up desires, which is so central to Buddhist thinking. Its not that he things nothing should be done in moderation, but that the whole idea that this world is illusionary, or just a waystation to another one is an idea he never seemed to support.

As for Marx, I generally don't see the simple connection- Nietzsche was not egalitarian in any way. Now, Marx's notion that in the end state of history man would be able to, without worry about supporting himself, do anything he wanted, would be something Nietzsche would support. But Nietszche most certainly would not have bought into Marx's view of history as driven by economics.

[Nostromo]

He says he's been spending several decades of his life trying to develop a synthesis of the three, and he finally succeeded a few years back.

Several decades? Someone wasted a lot of his time

Look at things on the bright side: at least you'll read interesting authors. And I'm willing to bet that the best part of that silly textbook will be the Marx and Nietzsche quotes, and the sayings of the Buddha.

[Fake Boris]

If Parmenides could draw the line between being and non-being, why couldn't this guy do it for Marx and friends?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
If Parmenides could draw the line between being and non-being, why couldn't this guy do it for Marx and friends?

As you well know Boris, there is no such thing as non-being according to Parmenides. It is an unthinkable concept.

[Last Conformist]

My initial reaction would be the same as che's - your professor is nuts.

Then again, I suppose Marx, Nietsche and Siddhartha would all have agreed I'm a bad person, so maybe there's something to it.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Agathon


As you well know Boris, there is no such thing as non-being according to Parmenides. It is an unthinkable concept.

[duke o' york]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
On the face of it, I'd have to say your professor is mad.

No, he's running a course with his books as the core material - if he can keep this going for more than one year then he'll get far more cash than all the buddy reviews will bring.

[bipolarbear]

^
That was kind of what I thought. But I'd assume the guy isn't just pimping his text for tha cheddar.