on Nietzsche

[Nostromo]

I don't know if you guys noticed, but he had a huge-ass moustache. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my deep thought for the day.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


edit: It's an interesting problem. I'd say that he admired him for other reasons.

My reading of Nietzsche was years ago. He admired Napoleon, he admired his will for conquering Europe but ONLY if it would be able to UNITE Europe. And help them overcome the poison of nationalism.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Nostromo
I don't know if you guys noticed, but he had a huge-ass moustache. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my deep thought for the day.

I only quoted Nostrmo because I hate politics.

*sigh*

Does anybody have an opinion on my writing? Just in case I'm insane: I believe there are three paragraphs of creative analysis following the quotation in the first post of this thread. If there are not, then I am insane, and shall take a nap.

[Fake Boris]

The first paragraph sounds like drivel, the other two are cute.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Nostromo
I don't know if you guys noticed, but he had a huge-ass moustache. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my deep thought for the day.

I heard somewhere (not sure where) that the iconic photo of him that's in GePap's avatar was taken after he went bonkers. Supposedly he thought mustaches looked stupid, but after he lost his marbles his sister had him grow one and pose for the camera. Dunno if it's true.

WRT his philosobabble, Nietzsche was one hell of a writer and quite smart, but it's his own damned fault nobody knows what he's talking about. He decided to write in those obtuse aphorisms, apparently to keep the dumb masses from understanding him, with the result that tons of pretentious people turn to him after they've exhausted the fine film-spaz nuances of the Matrix trilogy. Personally, I think we need more diverse pretentious-poser interests. Have you considered Child Roland to the Dark Tower Came, or Stairway to Heaven? Both are perfectly meaningless but lend themselves well to deep thought, man.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap
"bull"? The Europe he described was about to destroy itself happily and willingly in two World Wars, and was about to commit horrible attrocities, and not oly in Europe.

Wars and atrocities happend enough during the renaissance. N idealizes guys like Cesare Borgia (for example in Beyond Good and Evil) who is often seen as one of the worst tyrants of the time. He draws a line from the "renaissance man" (well, his idealized version) to his "overman". This maybe makes sense when looking at the renaissance guys with the overman concept in mind, but it makes no sense to use it as example of a morally "better" or more peaceful Europe or Europeans.

And about two WWs he couldn't know in 1895. At best he could have a vague notion of another possible war in Europe, but the dimension of WWI was hardly something one could easily foresee 20 yrs before.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The first paragraph sounds like drivel, the other two are cute.

Thanks. hmm.

Might be because of some semantic problems I had with the original quote. Might be because it's easier for people to relate to the concept of "a visionary" than that of "a liar". Maybe I overshot because I have specialized in the study of lying and deception.

Merci.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by McCrea
Maybe I overshot because I have specialized in the study of lying and deception.

Then you're wrong here, something like this would never happen on poly

[SlowwHand]

An example of visionary vs. liar.

The Wright brothers thought that a machine could be made to allowed flight, and participated in the vision of actually piloting.

Had they said the same, but sent a hated mother-in-law off on the flight, that would lended itself to being liars, not visionaries.

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro


Wars and atrocities happend enough during the renaissance. N idealizes guys like Cesare Borgia (for example in Beyond Good and Evil) who is often seen as one of the worst tyrants of the time. He draws a line from the "renaissance man" (well, his idealized version) to his "overman". This maybe makes sense when looking at the renaissance guys with the overman concept in mind, but it makes no sense to use it as example of a morally "better" or more peaceful Europe or Europeans.

Nietzsche didn't care for "peaceful" or "moral." The people in the Renaissance were overthrowing old staid morality, were creating new things, studying the old but also making the new. This is what Neitzsche craved. For him the Europe of the late 19th century was wallowing in decadence, in idelogies he viewed with disgust.

And about two WWs he couldn't know in 1895. At best he could have a vague notion of another possible war in Europe, but the dimension of WWI was hardly something one could easily foresee 20 yrs before.

I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite. Ecce Homo

[Nostromo]

WRT his philosobabble, Nietzsche was one hell of a writer and quite smart, but it's his own damned fault nobody knows what he's talking about. He decided to write in those obtuse aphorisms, apparently to keep the dumb masses from understanding him, with the result that tons of pretentious people turn to him after they've exhausted the fine film-spaz nuances of the Matrix trilogy. Personally, I think we need more diverse pretentious-poser interests. Have you considered Child Roland to the Dark Tower Came, or Stairway to Heaven? Both are perfectly meaningless but lend themselves well to deep thought, man.

WTF are you talking about? You make him sound like he was Hegel or Heidegger. He's a LOT easier to read than either of them. With the possible exception of Thus Spoke Zarathustra, the aphorisms themselves are not that hard to understand. What's difficult, however, is making sense of the whole of his philosophy. The "problem" is that he isn't systematic, so his philosophy can be interpreted in a lot of different, and sometimes contradictory, ways. But some will argue that it isn't really a problem, that its a good thing. Its an idea well that keeps on giving, so to say.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
"Whatever does not destroy me, only ..."

delays the inevitable.

[falcon41]

You're lying to others only when you're lying to yourself.

Although I do see his point. It is about perceveirance. Not futile I'd hope.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by GePap


Nietzsche didn't care for "peaceful" or "moral." The people in the Renaissance were overthrowing old staid morality, were creating new things, studying the old but also making the new. This is what Neitzsche craved. For him the Europe of the late 19th century was wallowing in decadence, in idelogies he viewed with disgust.

Yes, N doesn't care "peaceful" or "moral." So if the quote is meant as some criticism of horror and atrocities of his time as opposed to a renaissance that actually had enough of those as well it doesn't make much sense.

The problem with his view on the rennaissance is that it's mostly a cliché. "Overthrowing old staid morality" for example didn't mean that they really turned against Christianity. There was often a different approach to religion, but it wasn't rejected as such on a large scale. In other situations, like the endless conflicts between Italian city states it was more a decline of any morale than a creative process with rejection of old values and introduction of new ones.

He idealizes the renaissance into something which it hardly has been. "Creating new things, studying the old but also making the new" could go for his contemporaries as well, just that N maybe doesn't like the change he sees.

I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite. Ecce Homo

Well, as I said, vague notion....this can be interpreted in so much ways, I don't think it means he had something like the WWs in mind here....

[Elok]

Originally posted by Nostromo
WTF are you talking about? You make him sound like he was Hegel or Heidegger. He's a LOT easier to read than either of them.

Yes, and Mussolini was a LOT nicer than Hitler or Stalin. WTF are YOU talking about?