on Nietzsche

[Elok]

Originally posted by CrONoS

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

Actually, it's a compilation of several years of his writing. The earliest are from 1882 or thereabouts. I thought he went bonkers in 1888? I chose it because it's one of two books of Nietzsche I actually own. The other is the Penguin Nietzsche Reader. I guess I could have used that instead, but I didn't feel like mucking around with attributing to specific works, and half of it is Zarathustra, which Nostromo excluded. Besides, Will to Power is neatly divided into convenient blocks, a little over a thousand in total. I think Kaufmann put major work into undoing Sis's tinkering in this edition.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Elok


Actually, it's a compilation of several years of his writing. The earliest are from 1882 or thereabouts. I thought he went bonkers in 1888? I chose it because it's one of two books of Nietzsche I actually own. The other is the Penguin Nietzsche Reader. I guess I could have used that instead, but I didn't feel like mucking around with attributing to specific works, and half of it is Zarathustra, which Nostromo excluded. Besides, Will to Power is neatly divided into convenient blocks, a little over a thousand in total. I think Kaufmann put major work into undoing Sis's tinkering in this edition.

I know it's from wiki, but I had this book at home. And the author thought and my perception is well resumed into this wiki page.

IMO I think that, along with "Dithyrambe de Dionysos"(which I don't know the correct translation in english), they are the worst books to quotes from.

Mazzino Montinari and Giorgio Colli, who edited the complete edition of Nietzsche's posthumous fragments from the manuscripts themselves, have called The Will to Power a "historic forgery" artificially assembled by Nietzsche's sister and Peter Gast. Although Nietzsche had in 1886 announced (at the end of On the Genealogy of Morals) a new work with the title, The Will to Power: Essay of a Transvaluation of all Values, this project was finally abandoned and its draft materials used to compose The Twilight of the Idols and The Antichrist (both written in 1888).[2] The Will to Power, which Elisabeth Förster called Nietzsche's unedited magnum opus, was in fact abandoned as a book by Nietzsche himself. Nevertheless, the concept remains, and has, since the reading of Karl Löwith, been identified as a key component of Nietzsche's philosophy. So The Will to Power was not written by Nietzsche. But the concept of "will to power" is certainly in itself a major motif of Nietzsche's philosophy, so much so that Heidegger, under Löwith's influence, considered it to form, with the thought of the eternal recurrence, the basis of his thought.

[Elok]

Fine, pick your own fragments then.

[Nostromo]

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...

That's a weird tu quoque... And, in case you're wondering, a tu quoque is a a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior. And you can say whatever you want, I don't care. But you were so sure of yourself that I just had to put you in your place.

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.

Peirce is one of the greatest American philosophers (with Dewey and James). Some of his articles are online.
To learn more about Popper, try out Conjectures and Refutations. And Quine quite possibly one of the most important American philosopher of the second half of the 20th century. Hugely influential.

Wait, you're from Quebec AND a philosophy prof? No, I imagine you don't get along with him...

I believe you got it backwards. He doesn't get along with Agathon and, as a consequence, he hates a lot of the things Aggie likes or stands for. Including philosophy. As for Quebec, he's a good, patriotic Albertan and, as such, hates Quebec with all his heart. He's just doing his job, just to make his daddy proud.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Nostromo

a tu quoque is a a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior.

Vampire 1: You suck!
Vampire 2: No, you suck!
Vampire 1: No, you suck!
Vampire 2: Fine. We both suck.

-- Dinner and a Movie showcasing Interview with a Vampire

[Elok]

Originally posted by Nostromo
That's a weird tu quoque... And, in case you're wondering, a tu quoque is a a retort accusing an accuser of a similar offense or similar behavior. And you can say whatever you want, I don't care. But you were so sure of yourself that I just had to put you in your place.

Yes, I'm familiar with that. Isn't that one of the ones that's a logical, but not a rhetorical, fallacy? And technically it doesn't apply since I wasn't accusing you of what you accused me of...I was saying Nietzsche did. I have a glass of wine in me, and I'm a lightweight, but I believe it goes something like:

1. Nietzsche makes worthwhile arguments.
2. Nietzsche makes gross generalizations
Conc. Gross generalizations, by themselves, do not make someone's arguments worthless.

Peirce is one of the greatest American philosophers (with Dewey and James). Some of his articles are online.
To learn more about Popper, try out Conjectures and Refutations. And Quine quite possibly one of the most important American philosopher of the second half of the 20th century. Hugely influential.

I might try 'em later, when I'm totally sober. But I think it was Aggie who told me "empiricism has gone out of fashion," i.e. it's in vogue to think logic trumps reality these days. I seem to recall one of my profs saying as much too, when we were discussing that SOB Parmenides. These aren't some of THOSE people, are they? If so, I'd prefer Nietzsche. At least he's fun to (try to) read. "Rationalists" are not the mouths for my ears, I can tell you that.

I believe you got it backwards. He doesn't get along with Agathon and, as a consequence, he hates a lot of the things Aggie likes or stands for. Including philosophy. As for Quebec, he's a good, patriotic Albertan and, as such, hates Quebec with all his heart. He's just doing his job, just to make his daddy proud.

Can't you just unite in your hatred/thinly disguised envy of your neighbors to the south?

[Maniac]

Originally posted by McCrea
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.

Impossible to say for sure without context, but my assumption would be that the point is that evolution has no purpose or does not lead to something "better".

An earlier quote from this thread:

"the process of evolution does not necessarily mean elevation, enhancement, strengthening."

Social Darwinism is nonsense, in other words.

Of course I could just be interpreting his words conveniently in a way which fit my own beliefs. Who will tell?

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Elok


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.

false

Nietzsche at the right(from my POV) 1871

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

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.

As if you understand how that allegory is supposed to work.

[MOBIUS]

Originally posted by Elok
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...

I see it obviously worked on you...

[Elok]

Originally posted by Agathon
As if you understand how that allegory is supposed to work.

Probably no matter how I explained my understanding of it, you'd be a douche and claim I was getting it all wrong according to your ultimate philosoprof wisdom. So I won't bother. All I will say is that I don't know how cold fusion, raylines or phrenology are supposed to work either. All I need to know is that they don't.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Elok
I wasn't aware they taught Smug Wordplay 101.

Words do not a smug make.

Yea, it took me a whole day to came up with this line.

[McCrea]

Originally posted by Elok

[@ Me]

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.

Elok,

I do follow people. It's probably no surprise that I'm a recluse. I've said I'm not political. So, It's probably no coincidence that my best friend (in this city) is very political. He'll most likely seek public office someday, he's young yet, so far he's just on the district school board. When deciding my opinion on political matters, I strongly rely on his. He's done the research; I haven't. He has the interest; I don't. He cares. I trust him and follow him.

I just went to business school, with no intent of entering business. I went for the knowledge. I followed my teachers -- even the "dubious" ones. That's the way it works.

I have long followed (and sometimes fought) my mother's lead on many matters. It's somewhat depressing that she's old enough that I must lead her more and more often.

So, on following, I certainly follow a few. In general, I only follow leaders -- that's a precious few. Compound that to be leaders with similar goals, and, yes I feel very few people should follow anyone. Until I accept the proper political responsibility I have to followers, I do refuse to lead. I see it more as modesty, not conceit.

I realize I have abandoned my notion of independence. To live in society, I need society. Is there not some paradox evident? I have been an outcast, because I have been outcast. Yet I must live as part society. So yes, I chose not to preach to the masses. The why should be apparent. Society doesn't want me to.

I don't know what the point was of your statements about what the masses believe, but I'll try to work with it. If they know red and yellow makes orange, then good. If they figured it out own their own, better. The sun rising in the east can be fun. I might like to mention that you can circle the globe going east or west, but not by going north or south. Do the masses know that? I don't care. I hope anyone would be able to reason it out, but actually knowing the "fact" is essentially useless. The concept that someone could know the fact because someone told them, yet not be able to reason it out themselves is what bothers me. My recently reoccurring point is that no one can prove it. (I heard in this thread or the other N., I believe, that anti-logic philosophies, such as mine, are now trendy. Well, what do you know -- call me common.) I hate if someone believes something that I tell them, when they can't reason it, and when they have no reason to trust me. I'll also cough up something like "1+1 is 2"? My computer thinks "00000000000000001 plus 00000000000000001 is 00000000000000010" or "00000000000000001 and 00000000000000001 is 00000000000000001". Where's the beef? (I mean, "the 2?") Words (which compose most of these alleged "facts") are meaningless without context. Knowledge is worthless without reason, and I've said too much, so I deleted the next thought of that series :/ I've said it before and it's apparently trendy.

One more tiny point to address. Self-love? I advocate that for all. Self-assurance would help many 15-year old females, stereotypically.

Your presumptions are precisely what you accuse of us. I suppose the most apt term is "being presumptuous". What I am doing with this post is simple. I'm trying to get along with you. (Or, well, I think we have gotten along, barely. I'm trying to improve it. But I haven't bashed your character. Or, I didn't intend to.) 90% of this post is defensive. I admit it may be presumptuous for me to say that is enough for you to claim victory, if you so want.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Elok

Probably no matter how I explained my understanding of it, you'd be a douche and claim I was getting it all wrong according to your ultimate philosoprof wisdom. So I won't bother. All I will say is that I don't know how cold fusion, raylines or phrenology are supposed to work either. All I need to know is that they don't.

You have such an inferiority complex, don't you? The cave analogy is much more plausible than people realize, as is Plato's whole theory.

[Elok]

If you think we're fighting, you won't get far on this forum. I'm hardly the most polite person here, but when I'm actually being mean I'm much worse than I am now. And by 'Poly standards, fighting involves petty sniping dragged into unrelated threads, questioning your masculinity/sanity/sexual predilections/basic moral decency, and occasionally starting threads titled "Poll: Is [Person I'm Squabbling With] a jerkwad or what?"

I suppose I should be more polite, but I console myself by thinking that I'm less abrasive than Mobius. Anyway, what I meant was that, while I'm no populist, automatic disdain for what "the herd" thinks is annoying. Masses aren't always stupid or contemptible, as you seemed to be implying. That's one of the major problems I have with Nietzsche, his reflexive snobbery. If that worthless, stupid herd weren't working so hard to make stuff and keep the economy going, he wouldn't have anything like the luxury to sit around writing books critiquing Western civilization and getting into spats with Wagner.

And in the beginning of Thus Spake Zarathustra, I was definitely sympathizing more with the crowd. "Of course you're not the mouth for those ears, you smeg. They came to see a rope-dancer, not to hear your God-is-dead homilies. Especially not since you're so plainly contemptuous of and talking down to them. 'Attention dirty maggots, I've come to impart my wisdom to your unwashed ears...hey, stop throwing fruit! See, you're barbarians!' It's not like the superman needs you to clear his way. He's farther above you than you are above the apes, Zara, and so presumptively can do a far better job of controlling the herd than you." Also Sprach Elok.

Oh geez. Looking over that long post of yours, it seems you're something akin to a PoMo. Well, I'll try to be polite, but if we get into arguments I will probably feel a strong urge to reach through the net cables and strangle you.