on Nietzsche

[Elok]

I wasn't aware they taught Smug Wordplay 101. I should've gone to a better college.

[McCrea]

Josh Waitzkin's Columbia University philosophy professor insisted that intuition doesn't exist; I'm not too confident in "better colleges".

[Elok]

Oooo-kay. I don't know WTF you're talking about, but I hope whatever it is works out for you.

Here are some Nietzsche quotes chosen more or less at random (I'm choosing short ones to have mercy on my typing fingers) from Walter Kaufmann's translation of "The Will to Power," billed as a good survey of his thought in general on the back cover.

542 (1887-88)
"If the character of existence should be false--which would be possible--what would truth, all our truth, be then?--an unconscionable falsification of the false? The false raised to a higher power?--"

709 (1887)
"That we do not make our 'desiderata' judges of being!
That we do not also set up terminal forms of evolution (e.g., spirit) as another 'in-itself' behind evolution!"

417 (1883-88)
"My first solution: Dionysian wisdom. Joy in the destruction of the most noble and at the sight of its progressive ruin: in reality joy in what is coming and lies in the future, which triumphs over existing things, however good. Dionysian: temporary identification with the principle of life (including the voluptuousness of the martyr)."

There's more to 417 but I'm sick of transcribing it. Please explain to me how all of these are clearly written and explain Nietzsche's thought in a straightforward way.

Or pick your own fragments, with one caveat: I acknowledge I was overly hasty in characterizing all of Nietzsche's aphorisms as obscure. Generally his negative ones are quite clear. There is no doubt that he hates Judaism, that he hates Christianity more than he hates Judaism, and that he does not care for women. What's less clear is what the dickens he proposes as an alternative. Something "heroic" and "life-affirming," no doubt, but what that means is...? I'm not sure he thought that through all the way himself. Mostly he talks about how terribly wrong people like me are.

[Kidlicious]

Someone would have to be horribly arrogant to torture themselves with all that crap.

[Nostromo]

Originally posted by Elok


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

*sigh* Oh, you got me there! You really did. I don't know if you noticed it or not, but my mother tongue isn't English, so I make mistakes once in a while.

On the one hand, I applaud your disrespectful attitude; on the other, I'm quite frankly astounded by your cocksureness. When I talk about something I don't know much about, I'm much more careful and I try not to make sweeping statements. But not you. You read a couple of philosophy books and then you feel confident enough to make sweeping generalizations like:

Other philosophers are unclear because they try to explain what they're thinking, but poorly, and they come across like rambling stoners.

Plato, a rambling stoner? Really? Aristotle, a rambling stoner? And Hume? And Mill? And Peirce? And Quine? And Popper? I certainly hope that you weren't serious here, that you were merely trying to be cheeky.

Not exactly. I can understand the literal meaning (most of the time)

That's reassuring.

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. [...] 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.

Well, that's unfortunate. Maybe you should check out some good introductory books about Nietzsche? They could probably help you out. I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, so wouldn't know what to recommend. Just to reassure you, I'm a philosophy teacher and I don't get it all. (Not that I care, mind you.) That said, I don't feel that his philosophy is hopelessly obscure. However, Nietzsche did say repetitively that he was writing for a select few. But he was also full of ****. He definitively wasn't writing books for the masses. And then again, few philosophers do: most of the time, they write for their peers, just like in any other discipline. And when they do write books for the general public, they're generally aimed at well-educated individuals.

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!

You cheeky little bugger, you...

[McCrea]

Wanted to not reply, but then had to reply to Kid.

Originally posted by Kidicious
Someone would have to be horribly arrogant to torture themselves with all that crap.

Dang.

542 (1887-88)
"If the character of existence should be false--which would be possible--what would truth, all our truth, be then?--an unconscionable falsification of the false? The false raised to a higher power?--"

The first rings true, but he starts with "if" so I have no guess at all if idea if he believes the statement, it's converse, or something else entirely. As I did in my last sentence, any IF leads to any infinite number of choices. Most logics start with "if this is not true, then it is false". That is only 2 choices, which are usually not enough, since we need the infinity of "something else". [If true, then false, unless something else.]

Sky is blue. --> If sky even exists, AND blue even exists, then the sky is blue (presumably). Well, "if sky exists" is infinite. "if blue exists" is infinite. Typically these days, we do not treat one infinity AND another as neither one infinity, nor two. It is usually infinity TIMES infinity, known often as the next order (power) of infinity.

existence = false, truth = ? (well there is why we need more than two choices, because if existence is false, truth is not existant. that is false, which is why I explained we need the choice of "something else entirely".)

to answer the question he posses: If the character of existence should be false -- which would be possible -- truth, all our truth, would then be something else entirely.

Honestly, it doesn't look like he knew what he was talking about, unless he proceeds to give an answer. I think the remaining ramblings are brought about because he's trying to use a true/false system, and any system that is not infinite is doomed to failure. (Any false is false to the HIGHEST order.)

But, He's asking questions... I don't infer anything about anyone from their questions, and I wouldn't try to. Yes, that's a good way to make one look foolish.

One down?

[Edit: I didn't sum up. Summary: If existence is false, truth does not exist. Nietzsche is correct to question that.]

[Cort Haus]

The sky appears to be blue according to the sensory-perception systems of certain carbon-based life-forms, where 'blue' is defined as a particular range of frequencies of light, and when a blanket of cloud-cover is not present, and when the sun is on the right side of the planet.

etc.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Elok
Here are some Nietzsche quotes chosen more or less at random (I'm choosing short ones to have mercy on my typing fingers) from Walter Kaufmann's translation of "The Will to Power," billed as a good survey of his thought in general on the back cover.

Will of power?

Even when you bought the complete works of Nietzsche, they usually don't include this "book". It was never completed, it was found in disorder, reworked by his sister (who had nazi and anti semitic sympathies).

So, please you'll find many others online books of Nietzsche which you could take quotes from him...

Edit:
And it was wrote in the last moments before he fall in madness

[McCrea]

I assume much of it gets lost in the translation. In the third (Dionysian wisdom), I know what the attraction to martyrdom is, but not "the principal of life". I assume I'm missing the backstory.

That we do not make our 'desiderata' judges of being! Is obviously completely out of context. But no man can perfectly judge any man's character, so he has my attention. I would not quickly make anyone a judge of another.

That we do not also set up terminal forms of evolution (e.g., spirit) as another 'in-itself' behind evolution!" In short, don't define evolution before you define evolution. Well duh, so be it. Again, these are both clauses ("THAT") which are meaningless without the parent.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Kidicious
Someone would have to be horribly arrogant to torture themselves with all that crap.

???

[CrONoS]

What is funny from Nietzsche, his is very last moment of consciousness was when he saw a horse beat by an "horseman". He run to the horse and fell on the ground, he never recovered his sanity after this events.

He hated one thing; compassion. But he had his mental breakdown at the very moment, where he had compassion for a horse. Which is a kind of... ironic.

[CrONoS]

from wiki:

What actually happened remains unknown, but the often-repeated tale states that Nietzsche witnessed the whipping of a horse at the other end of the Piazza Carlo Alberto, ran to the horse, threw his arms up around the horse’s neck to protect it, and collapsed to the ground.

In Nietzsche book, Ecce Homo, (which is the sentence(in Latin) that Ponce Pilate say at the mob when he asked the mob if they want to release Jesus, Ponce Pilate said: "Ecce Homo" ;in french " Voici l'homme", "here the man", which is title of one book, which Nietzsche only spoke about him and his opinion on many thing". At the end of Ecce Homo he finished his work by saying:
"Dionysos versus teh crucified" (or something like this);

Whenever I read this and this book, I think in myself. He was the crucified... he crucified himself.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Cort Haus
The sky appears to be blue according to the sensory-perception systems of certain carbon-based life-forms, where 'blue' is defined as a particular range of frequencies of light, and when a blanket of cloud-cover is not present, and when the sun is on the right side of the planet.

etc.

Would be so much easier if language was an infinite system, n'est-ce pas? [Edit, thanks Chronos. That's why I practice ]

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by McCrea


Would be so much easier if language was an infinite system, n'est-ce pas?

[Elok]

Originally posted by Nostromo
*sigh* Oh, you got me there! You really did. I don't know if you noticed it or not, but my mother tongue isn't English, so I make mistakes once in a while.

Actually, the state of English education is no longer so good that the mistake you made would not be made by a native speaker in the U.S. Confusing "it's" and "its" happens all the time, and your mistake isn't much worse than that.

On the one hand, I applaud your disrespectful attitude; on the other, I'm quite frankly astounded by your cocksureness. When I talk about something I don't know much about, I'm much more careful and I try not to make sweeping statements. But not you. You read a couple of philosophy books and then you feel confident enough to make sweeping generalizations like:

How about generalizations like "The European intellect is diseased and debased, monotono-theism has poisoned our minds and a total annihilation of our existing culture is in order?" Is it just because I don't have a philosophy degree, that I'm not allowed to make vast pronouncements about things I've only ever encountered in fragmented form? That's awfully elitist of you. Then again, Nietzsche was elitist too...

Plato, a rambling stoner? Really? Aristotle, a rambling stoner? And Hume? And Mill? And Peirce? And Quine? And Popper? I certainly hope that you weren't serious here, that you were merely trying to be cheeky.

That's reassuring.

Well, looking at that list, I don't recognize the last three names. Mill was too afraid of having fun to be an actual stoner, and he's actually one of the more lucid philosophers IMO. Hume...hmm, don't know much about Hume, but I suspect he'd be boring while high, from what little I do know. Rather acidic personality, wasn't he? Aristotle would be too busy classifying the marijuana's characteristics and defining its telos to smoke it. As for Plato, if he wasn't stoned when he thought of the Cave allegory, I'd hate to meet him when he was. He'd claim the universe was a giant avocado or something.

Well, that's unfortunate. Maybe you should check out some good introductory books about Nietzsche? They could probably help you out. I'm not an expert on Nietzsche, so wouldn't know what to recommend. Just to reassure you, I'm a philosophy teacher and I don't get it all. (Not that I care, mind you.) That said, I don't feel that his philosophy is hopelessly obscure. However, Nietzsche did say repetitively that he was writing for a select few. But he was also full of ****. He definitively wasn't writing books for the masses. And then again, few philosophers do: most of the time, they write for their peers, just like in any other discipline. And when they do write books for the general public, they're generally aimed at well-educated individuals.

To be fair, I started out serious and slowly degenerated into yanking your chain for the hell of it. I was just thinking I ought to apologize for being so nasty, but I'm too childish and vain to admit being wrong most of the time. Thanks for being the mature one and lightening the tone first.

For my serious opinion on Nietzsche...hmm. I'd say I generally take him with an enormous grain of salt, since he's so obtuse that ten different experts on him will give you ten radically different interpretations. I have similar policies on economics, meteorology, and most modern literary criticism. Well, that last one also has to do with modern schools of lit crit being contaminated with postmodernist if-I-can-see-it-it-must-be-there horse****, but hopefully you get what I mean.

You cheeky little bugger, you...

Oh, I was mostly channeling Asher/Mr Snuggles. Give credit where it's due. Wait, you're from Quebec AND a philosophy prof? No, I imagine you don't get along with him...