on Nietzsche

[Nostromo]

*sigh* If you'd read my whole post, you'd know.

[Elok]

I did. My point remains: just because other philosophers are even more obtuse (since N was writing to communicate obtusely, whereas most other philosophers don't know how to communicate at all) doesn't make him easy to understand. He says things that sound stirring and powerful, but when you try to parse them you have a helluva time getting something sensible out of them.

Oh, and it's NOT a good thing if your work has no discernible, coherent message. Sure, you can get an infinite number of meanings out of such a thing, but you can also get an infinite number of meanings out of an inkblot or a fluffy cloud or a dream. An incoherent message is only marginally better than random data.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Elok
whereas most other philosophers don't know how to communicate at all

You're arrogance knows no limits, does it?

He says things that sound stirring and powerful, but when you try to parse them you have a helluva time getting something sensible out of them.

Carnap said something similar about Heidegger. He said that a lot of Heidegger's key sentences were devoid of meaning: there's nothing to understand, since they're meaningless. But I certainly hope the quote above is an hyperbole. You make it sound like you have absolutely no idea what Nietzsche meant in his sentences and aphorisms, which I have a hard time believing.

My point was that most of his sentences were fairly easy to understand, even though their meaning could be a bit fuzzy in some spots. My point was also that the major problem with Nietzsche wasn't interpreting the individual sentences or aphorisms, but interpreting the WHOLE of his philosophy, piecing it together.

Oh, and it's NOT a good thing if your work has no discernible, coherent message. Sure, you can get an infinite number of meanings out of such a thing, but you can also get an infinite number of meanings out of an inkblot or a fluffy cloud or a dream. An incoherent message is only marginally better than random data.

Although I agree with you about the value of coherence, I'm not quite ready to claim that Nietzsche was in fact incoherent. Remember, he wasn't building a system and he was opposed to philosophical systems like Hegel's. He was writing essays and he changed his mind from time to time, and he looked at things from different angles from time to time. A lot of philosophers love Nietzsche because, as a source of ideas, he keeps on giving. And the literary, metaphorical and fuzzy character of his philosophy probably has a lot do with that. You seem to have a hard time dealing with a fuzzy philosophy, a philosophy that isn't absolutely clear and rigorous. And I can understand that up to a certain point. If that's the case, Nietzsche isn't for you. You should check out philosophers like Rudolf Carnap instead.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I can imagine if a lot of your work consists of tearing down philosophical systems and the philosophers who make them, having a single coherent message isn't all that important. Though as pointed out, old Fred Neitzsche wasn't exactly incoherent, it was just, at times a bit "fuzzy" (to steal the term).

[Impaler[WrG]]

My understanding is that Neitzsche rejected 'system philosophies' such as Kant's in principle, he felt systems were little more then mental masturbation as a they can't prove the Axioms their built upon. He focused on developing several independent ideas large from observation such as the Will to Power and the Eternal Recursion, though he found links between them they still do not constitute an axiomatic system in the classic sense so its no surprise people see no system when he did not intend one.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
systems were little more then mental masturbation as a they can't prove the Axioms their built upon.

Ah, this is good, something for me to bear in mind as why I might read him someday -- but there's no lack of other authors.

Myself, I feel that many people's failure to realize that [that no system can be complete] causes much inefficiency in everyday life. The best examples seem to be in government (because so many people thus suffer the consequences), so I am glad I have no political nature myself. I'd hate to be a literary terrorist.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
The first paragraph sounds like drivel

Of course it's in my nature to defend my work, and I have been keeping my bias in mind.

The first point of my interpretation of the quote is that the liar is not of consequence. If you see the first paragraph (which regards the liar) as drivel, perhaps I did masterfully accomplish the intended communication.

However, I'll not dismiss the many other possibilities.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Not always... the intelligent among us don't have it "pass"

If you're a Nietschean, then I'm a ****ing Lockean.

[Elok]

Originally posted by Nostromo
You're arrogance knows no limits, does it?

My limits vary from day to day. How about you'res?

Carnap said something similar about Heidegger. He said that a lot of Heidegger's key sentences were devoid of meaning: there's nothing to understand, since they're meaningless. But I certainly hope the quote above is an hyperbole. You make it sound like you have absolutely no idea what Nietzsche meant in his sentences and aphorisms, which I have a hard time believing.

Not exactly. I can understand the literal meaning (most of the time) but he gives no clue why the things he talks about are supposed to be important to him or us. It's just a bunch of fiercely worded, mustache-bristling phrases addressed to people who are already in his own mindset. Other philosophers are unclear because they try to explain what they're thinking, but poorly, and they come across like rambling stoners. He fails deliberately because he just ejaculates short synopses of his opinions without trying to explain them. Explanations might cause the stupid masses to understand what he was saying, and that would of course be tragic. He wouldn't be a misunderstood genius anymore if that happened.

My point was that most of his sentences were fairly easy to understand, even though their meaning could be a bit fuzzy in some spots. My point was also that the major problem with Nietzsche wasn't interpreting the individual sentences or aphorisms, but interpreting the WHOLE of his philosophy, piecing it together.

Although I agree with you about the value of coherence, I'm not quite ready to claim that Nietzsche was in fact incoherent. Remember, he wasn't building a system and he was opposed to philosophical systems like Hegel's. He was writing essays and he changed his mind from time to time, and he looked at things from different angles from time to time. A lot of philosophers love Nietzsche because, as a source of ideas, he keeps on giving. And the literary, metaphorical and fuzzy character of his philosophy probably has a lot do with that. You seem to have a hard time dealing with a fuzzy philosophy, a philosophy that isn't absolutely clear and rigorous. And I can understand that up to a certain point. If that's the case, Nietzsche isn't for you. You should check out philosophers like Rudolf Carnap instead.

So an ever-changing series of unrelated, vociferous, and unqualified opinions constitutes a philosophy? Mein Gott, this whole forum is full of Nietzsches! Pekka is the second coming of Zarathustra!

[McCrea]

Elok:

Explanations might cause the stupid masses to understand what he was saying, and that would of course be tragic.

You're being sarcastic, yet I generally agree with the statement as given.

Well, Elok. I cannot be the only one who does not want the masses to understand me. [Hear ye! My words are backed by ten thousand sheep!]. That said, I don't precisely know why we obfuscate communication, but it is obvious to me that society ("all" societies, I don't know, but "most", yes) demands it. Also, I hate when sheep follow me, because they don't know why they're following anyone.

It is tragic. That's a fault of much religion and government. The hierarchy of levels of comprehension probably does and should exist within society. I do not believe in morality, but I feel morally obligated to not manipulate people via logic.

____
You didn't ask me, but here I am. Hi all! My arrogance does know no bounds. But fortunately my conceit does. Well met!

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Elok
So an ever-changing series of unrelated, vociferous, and unqualified opinions constitutes a philosophy?

Yes, of course.

I see: "blah, blah, unqualified opinions." Ok. There is no such thing as a qualified opinion. Hell, there's very few instances of qualified facts, to the point that there are no qualified facts in language. Thus the difficulty is explained.

[P.S. And "qualified" makes all more specific and less useful. We probably should strive for generalities. That's why facts are important -- facts don't have to be qualified.]

[Elok]

Er, are you being PoMo, or what? Of course there are qualified opinions. Try "sunny days are nice, provided they're not too humid" or, in a more Nietzschean vein, "Judeo-Christian morals are not as useful as they once were, because they no longer work or make sense in a faithless world." That would be a qualified (and more rationally explained) opinion.

Instead we get something like (from memory, probably wrong in spots) "the Pauline tradition has so diseased the European intellect that, two thousand years later, it is possible for a man to be anti-semitic without ever realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence!"

[Elok]

Originally posted by McCrea
You're being sarcastic, yet I generally agree with the statement as given.

Well, Elok. I cannot be the only one who does not want the masses to understand me. [Hear ye! My words are backed by ten thousand sheep!]. That said, I don't precisely know why we obfuscate communication, but it is obvious to me that society ("all" societies, I don't know, but "most", yes) demands it. Also, I hate when sheep follow me, because they don't know why they're following anyone.

Snuh? Do you know why you're NOT following anyone? Does it flatter your self-love to be independent, regardless of the virtues of the beliefs you espouse? Bear in mind that the masses also believe that the sun rises in the east, that one and one are two, and that red and yellow pigments blend to make orange.

It is tragic. That's a fault of much religion and government. The hierarchy of levels of comprehension probably does and should exist within society. I do not believe in morality, but I feel morally obligated to not manipulate people via logic.

Double-snuh? Are you saying that trying to convince people of the veracity/value of your opinions is manipulating them with logic? If so, aren't you manipulating me by trying to convince me not to convince?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Impaler[WrG]
My understanding is that Neitzsche rejected 'system philosophies' such as Kant's in principle, he felt systems were little more then mental masturbation as a they can't prove the Axioms their built upon. He focused on developing several independent ideas large from observation such as the Will to Power and the Eternal Recursion, though he found links between them they still do not constitute an axiomatic system in the classic sense so its no surprise people see no system when he did not intend one.

No need to confine yourself in an overarching "system". That causes some silly results when you have to believe ridiculous things in order to conform to your system (like Libertarians ).

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Elok

Try "sunny days are nice, provided they're not too humid"

sunny days are nice, provided they're not too humid.
I can easily not get past the first clause.

sunny days are nice.
Well "sunny" is confusing me, I'll see if I can't understand the rest, and then put sunny back in.

days are nice.
Oh ok,

days are not mean.
I don't get it.
_____
My refusal to understand your opinion is similar to your refusal to understand Nietzsche. [-- I mean, that's how I see it. I'm not trying to pretend I know how you think.]

As for the rest. Nope, I'll not persuade you, nor try to. (I decided the semantics are not worth my time in the past. -- No offense intended, but this is like 101 material.)

[the above was one of infinite routes I could have taken. The next would be "sunny days: If a day is 24 hours, how can it be sunny?" ]

_____

Are you saying that trying to convince people of the veracity/value of your opinions is manipulating them with logic?

Not quite. If they are unwilling, or have not decided whether or not they are willing to be manipulated, then influencing is evil to me.