Neitzsche

Affable

Spelling unsure.

Anyway, is he the most overrated philosopher ever?

Seriously, I've never read anything he said that was very profound.

Joycey

Affable wrote: »

Spelling unsure.

Anyway, is he the most overrated philosopher ever?

Seriously, I've never read anything he said that was very profound.

No way. Read Thus Spoke Zarathustra, possibly my favourite philosophy book.
Read the one translated by Graham Parkes, way better then the others. Also there is a really good companion to the book by a guy called Lampert, if your gonna read the book you should pick it up.

WinstonSmith

Is it possible for a philosopher to be over-rated?

Affable

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Is it possible for a philosopher to be over-rated?

Yes.

WinstonSmith

what I mean is that the philosopher often writes to please himself; his writings are often an attempt to make sense of the world for himself, first and foremost. In this respect, one cannot rate one philosopher above another, but only relates more to the arguments and experiences of one over another. opinions?

Offalycool

I think pronouncing the death of god is somwhat profound.. dont you?

ChocolateSauce

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Is it possible for a philosopher to be over-rated?

You should start a new thread for philosophical questions of that magnitude.

shelly2

Offalycool wrote: »

I think pronouncing the death of god is somwhat profound.. dont you?

He didn't pronounce the death of God he claimed the concept of God was dead

metrovelvet

No I dont think he is over rated but I think he is popular because he is often misunderstood. And if the same people who loved him actually understood him, they wouldnt like him so much.

He has the appearence of being a pleasant read, unlike many philosophers, he's a great writer also, but he is a very tough read. Zarathrustra is devastating.

kumate_champ07

WinstonSmith wrote: »

Is it possible for a philosopher to be over-rated?

It depends how you look at it

Joycey

shelly2 wrote: »

He didn't pronounce the death of God he claimed the concept of God was dead

I think the quote "God is dead" is evidence enough that the above isnt correct. One interpretation of the quote is that it is through our discovery of alternate worldviews which dont entail the existence of a divine being that the concept of God and thus "God" has died. However I think Nietzsche very deliberately phrased it in such a way that it was more concrete than simply saying "the concept of God has died".

Affable

metrovelvet wrote: »

He has the appearence of being a pleasant read, unlike many philosophers, he's a great writer also, but he is a very tough read. Zarathrustra is devastating.

Devastating like how?

Cannibal Ox

I think he's one of the most important philosophers of the past hundred odd years. He attacked the systematic thought that had been strangling western philosophy for + two thousand years, launched one of the finest assaults on truth in the history of mankind, challenged the idea of interpretation, and preceded a lot of (and dictated a lot of) the next hundred years of, particularly French, thought. Pretty impressive for a guy who was in constant pain, only spent about twenty years of his life working, and spent most of his time locked away from the world.

I also think Zarathustra is dodgy. It's possibly aimed at angsty teenage boys. If someone asked me what to read of him, I'd say Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals and Twilight of the Idols, in that order. Then maybe the Gay Science and then, maybe, Zarathustra.

Joycey wrote:

I think the quote "God is dead" is evidence enough that the above isnt correct.

I'm not really arguing with you here, but I do think that if you just focus on the "God is dead" part you loose out on most of the meaning. The madman, the market, the people, in the market, who already don't believe in god, and the difficulty of cleansing (?) themselves of the murder. I think if you ignore that, you loose a lot of the possible meaning/interpretation of it.

You could say that the death of god is the death of the old world, the old moral order, the old aristocratic/religious society, and the people in the market represent the new world, the capitalist society (maybe? thats a bit of a loaded phrase...), who don't belong to the old christian ethic, and so when he talks about the people in the market having to become gods to make up for the murder, which could be a reference to the ubermench, he could, possibly, be talking about the necessity for them to create a new moral order to avoid falling into a nihilistic society.

Maybe. Possibly. Dunno. He's a tricky bastard to talk about :pac:

Joe1919

Remember that much of what Nietzsche discusses is not entirely original but re-workings of previous philosophers and writers ideas. Nihilism 'was in the air' at that time and for example Dostoevsky tries to deal with same in his writings (e.g. Underground Man).

Hegel had already discussed the 'Death of God' in his 1807 phenomenology (paragraph 752) and is said to have got the idea from Martin Luther's writings.
http://infao5501.ag5.mpi-sb.mpg.de:8080/topx/archive?link=Wikipedia-Lip6-2/897486.xml&style

http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phc3c.htm#m752


Nietzsche's master/slave morality was also probably heavily influenced by Hegel's Lordship/Bondage chapter(paragraph 178 onwards) and his ideas on Stoicism (paragraph 198) and of course Schopenhauers ideas.
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/hegel/works/ph/phba.htm#m178

minusorange

I've read a few Nietzsche books including The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, and The Antichrist.

Some parts I take in, some parts go way over my head.

I'd say that is true for the lay person's reading of many if not all of the major philosophers.

The important thing to remember when you have trouble with a philosopher or philosophical concept is that while it may be too much for you, there are people who may experience the exact same piece with a sense of clarity.

Nietzsche has had a profound effect on western thought (so im told), and in particular on Sartre, a philosopher I can make sense of.

Its enough for me that his work has been understood and interpreted by greater minds than myself. I have no idea how many of my beliefs or assumptions have in some way been inspired or informed by Nietzsche, through Sartre. But I don't doubt that this is in fact the case.

Joe1919

minusorange wrote: »

I've read a few Nietzsche books including The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, and The Antichrist.

Some parts I take in, some parts go way over my head.

I'd say that is true for the lay person's reading of many if not all of the major philosophers.

The important thing to remember when you have trouble with a philosopher or philosophical concept is that while it may be too much for you, there are people who may experience the exact same piece with a sense of clarity.

Nietzsche has had a profound effect on western thought (so im told), and in particular on Sartre, a philosopher I can make sense of.

Its enough for me that his work has been understood and interpreted by greater minds than myself. I have no idea how many of my beliefs or assumptions have in some way been inspired or informed by Nietzsche, through Sartre. But I don't doubt that this is in fact the case.

Is there not a danger here that you are accepting 'Philosophical Authority' rather than the philosophical arguments themselves and reducing philosophy to the Dogma of the philosopher?

Is this philosophy? I think its better to think for yourself. Philosophic arguments that are so complex that there impossible to follow are suspect in both my and perhaps Ockhams (razor) opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

raah!

Joe1919 wrote: »

Is there not a danger here that you are accepting 'Philosophical Authority' rather than the philosophical arguments themselves and reducing philosophy to the Dogma of the philosopher?

I was going to start a thread on this topic but decided against it. It seems to me that the more someone knows of philosophy the less they express their own opinions or ideas. This might be because when talking to a layman there is little point espousing some complicated theory, but if every discussion with the student of philosophy ends up in a "well, X said this" then you can see how one would call into question the advantages of a great knowledge of philosophical theories.

minusorange

Joe1919 wrote: »

Is there not a danger here that you are accepting 'Philosophical Authority' rather than the philosophical arguments themselves and reducing philosophy to the Dogma of the philosopher?

Is this philosophy? I think its better to think for yourself. Philosophic arguments that are so complex that there impossible to follow are suspect in both my and perhaps Ockhams (razor) opinion.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam's_razor

I suppose I'm respecting the interpretation somebody else provides. If the original work is something I cant penetrate or digest the only choices I seem to be left with is to either research and evaluate somebody else's interpretation, or turn away from it altogether and have absolutely no opinion.

I use the words lay-person in my original post. That's exactly what I am. I have a general interest in philosophy so I'm happy enough with the interpretations I've accepted. If I was a philosophy student I most likely wouldn't be happy coming away from a book without my own firm interpretations in place. Because ultimately my success as a student would depend on it.

As a general reader I don't feel I have to strive for originality or such a rich vein of understanding. It's not why I read philosophy. I read up on things that interest me, if it becomes to dense or abstract I move on to what re-ignites my interest, but part of moving on for me is coming to some sort of conclusion about what I've just been reading, if that involves turning to someone else's interpretation it wont cost me a thought to do so. The only responsibility I feel I have in that instance is not to pass off any such interpretations as my own and be aware of the limits of accepting someone else at their word. Ultimately its something I'm comfortable doing. The whole process will start and end with me.


You ask is this philosophy?

I could say that there is a clear distinction between reading philosophy and practising philosophy. But part of reading philosophy is thinking about the arguments being put forward and agreeing, disagreeing or looking for alternative's to them. In that respect reading seems to include in part the practice of philosophy.

There are not often new ideas. Most ideas put forward will be based on interpretations, modifications and evaluations of previous ideas. Or maybe based on total negations of beliefs previously held. I think the history of philosophy will attest to this. To become involved in this subjective process at any level is in some way part of the philosophical method. Because as you and I will both know even to casually read philosophy requires an exercise of your mental faculties in a way a novel will not, at least not as often and to such a degree.

So I don't know, is this philosophy? Me, I'm not sure if I care or if it even matters..

My ramblings aside, I think we all have an idea of what truly practising philosophy means. It's the difference between a philosophy graduate and a philosopher. I don't claim to be either.

Joe1919

minusorange wrote: »

I suppose I'm respecting the interpretation somebody else provides. If the original work is something I cant penetrate or digest the only choices I seem to be left with is to either research and evaluate somebody else's interpretation, or turn away from it altogether and have absolutely no opinion.

I use the words lay-person in my original post. That's exactly what I am. I have a general interest in philosophy so I'm happy enough with the interpretations I've accepted. If I was a philosophy student I most likely wouldn't be happy coming away from a book without my own firm interpretations in place. Because ultimately my success as a student would depend on it.

As a general reader I don't feel I have to strive for originality or such a rich vein of understanding. It's not why I read philosophy. I read up on things that interest me, if it becomes to dense or abstract I move on to what re-ignites my interest, but part of moving on for me is coming to some sort of conclusion about what I've just been reading, if that involves turning to someone else's interpretation it wont cost me a thought to do so. The only responsibility I feel I have in that instance is not to pass off any such interpretations as my own and be aware of the limits of accepting someone else at their word. Ultimately its something I'm comfortable doing. The whole process will start and end with me.


You ask is this philosophy?

I could say that there is a clear distinction between reading philosophy and practising philosophy. But part of reading philosophy is thinking about the arguments being put forward and agreeing, disagreeing or looking for alternative's to them. In that respect reading seems to include in part the practice of philosophy.

There are not often new ideas. Most ideas put forward will be based on interpretations, modifications and evaluations of previous ideas. Or maybe based on total negations of beliefs previously held. I think the history of philosophy will attest to this. To become involved in this subjective process at any level is in some way part of the philosophical method. Because as you and I will both know even to casually read philosophy requires an exercise of your mental faculties in a way a novel will not, at least not as often and to such a degree.

So I don't know, is this philosophy? Me, I'm not sure if I care or if it even matters..

My ramblings aside, I think we all have an idea of what truly practising philosophy means. It's the difference between a philosophy graduate and a philosopher. I don't claim to be either.

I remember doing Shakespeare in Secondary School and mainly concentrating on the secondary guides, notes etc. (synopsis) to get me through. Many people doing degrees do the same and rarely read the original primary material.
Of course, some philosophical texts are so difficult that their almost unreadable. Other texts can be read but they are about as interesting as a maths book and sometimes it's actually hard to understand the purpose of the arguments been made.

Anyhow, I agree with you that Nietzsche is difficult to understand at (most) times but I did want to read some of his material first-hand and I found the below book very helpful, as it splits up his readings into themes.

http://books.google.ie/books?id=QMytLKlVpy8C&printsec=frontcover&dq=nietzsche+reader#v=onepage&q=&f=false

minusorange

Thanks for the tip, much appreciated

Hillel

Offalycool wrote: »

I think pronouncing the death of god is somwhat profound.. dont you?

Not if you don't believe in God in the first place.

kumate_champ07

the creation outlasts the creator?
music,literature,art,sons and daughters...

Offalycool

Hillel wrote: »

Not if you don't believe in God in the first place.

How can something you don't believe in die?

StormWarrior

Affable wrote: »

Spelling unsure.

Anyway, is he the most overrated philosopher ever?

Seriously, I've never read anything he said that was very profound.

I think the most overrated philosopher was wittgenstein.

scop

Nietzsche overrated? Bah; kids today. When they say the twentieth century is the century of Nietzsche they mean it. Nietzsche accurately predicated the current state of play a hundred years before it happened. When you manage to pull this off then you earn the right to deflate Nietzsche.

The important *new* concepts that Nietzsche introduces are perspectivism, ontological difference (no essence but consistent change a la out technological world), and becoming (anti-Plato and therefore anti-metaphysics).

Since twentieth century philosophy is the story of anti-metaphysics one cannot overlook Nietzsche's importance even if, as is quite possible, one does not agree in toto with his arguments.

Regarding style the important rhetorical stance that Nietzsche introduces to philosophy is precisely that question of language picked up later by the two giants of the twentieth century (Wittgenstein, Heidegger) and therefore is the source for the linguistic turn as represented in both analytic and continental philosophy hence why he appeals to both traditions equally.

If you are reading Nietzsche and the first thing you think is 'This is hollow' then I would add my own rhetorical claim that philosophy is not for you. There has never been a thinker who so deeply accepted the demand of philosophy. A thinker who brought himself to the edge of reason and paid the price in madness.

None of us have earned the right to casually dismiss Nietzsche. Have some respect and take your time with him.

Hillel

Offalycool wrote: »

How can something you don't believe in die?

How can pronouncing the death of something that doesn't exist, be profound?

scop

Hillel wrote: »

How can pronouncing the death of something that doesn't exist, be profound?

The world did not emerge in 2009. To pronounce the death of God in the later nineteenth century was a radical move and at the time God did exist as a concept among the majority of living people. Therefore it was neccessary to proclaim his or her death.

Further our entire concept of substance and casuality is derived from theology (via the scholastic tradition) and therefore Nietzsche managed to detach these from the tradition by noting that God is dead (metaphysics is dead). ]

Do you really think Nietzsche just meant 'Hey God, the real God with the beard, died...in fact he never existed!'. Do you think we'd have people talking about Nietzsche today if that is all he meant?

Offalycool

Hillel wrote: »

How can pronouncing the death of something that doesn't exist, be profound?

If it is right it is true, if it is otherwise it is false :rolleyes:

If it can bleed, it can need, if it can bleed it can die :P

Without absolutes, what are we all to do

If it must be, it must be, it just doesn't have to be true

Until we work it out we must imagine something new :cool:

Forget where we finish, forgotten the start

But the truth lingers on in the ash of forgone :eek:

Behold the deficiency of your pride, witness the folly of the proper :pac:

If truth be an absence of truth, who need certainty for a journey at heart

Joe1919

I think one can look at Nietzsche from different perspectives. This would probably meet with Nietzsche's approval.

From my perspective then, Nietzsche is a nihilist and a polytheist and a pragmatist.
He is a nihilist in terms of 'Truth' and 'Reason' but importantly, not in terms of 'Value'.
For Nietzsche, 'Value' is more aesthetic, it comes from instinct and intuition.

Because Nietzsche is nihilist in this way, the question of the 'Truth' or 'Falseness' of Gods does not arise. What counts is the 'Value' and 'usefullness' of the Gods. The Gods exist in terms of their value and in the way they are 'useful'.
These 'Values' were represented in Greece by (at least) the two great Gods, Apollo and Dionysus, who existed in a sort of harmony and represented two different ways of thinking, two different spirits and 'uses' so to speak.

Nietzsche resented Socrates, that 'tyrant of reason', because reason is bound by that tyrannical law of non-contradiction and leads towards the idea of absolute thinking, there is only one right answer and one perspective and hence there can be only one spirit and one God. (monotheism).
With Socrates and with Christianity then, we see the dying of these great Greek Gods and also the death of perspectivism.

Nietzsche's polytheism in apparent by his book title (Twilight of the IDOLS). He also directly praises polytheism in his texts. For example , in the Gay Science (143) Nietzsche states in a paragraph titled 'The greatest advantage of polytheism' that
'The wonderful art and gift of creating gods-polytheism-was the medium through which this impulse could discharge, purifiy, perfect, and ennoble itself......'
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/diefrohl7d.htm

To call Nietzsche a simple atheist and to interpret his 'death of God' as atheism then is a failure to fully understand Nietzsche in my opinion. Gods exist because they have value (and use) but will cease to exist when they no longer have any value.
Nietzsche declaration of the death of God (in this context) is not only the death of the Christian God but the death of all the Christian values that that God is (e.g truth, pity, humility, equality, etc.)

Nietzsche (IMO) perhaps hopes that this 'death of God' will be followed by the resurrection of a new man, who 'will never pray again, never adore again, never again rest in endless trust..........perhaps man will rise ever higher as soon as he ceases to flow out into a god. [Excelsior -Gay Science 285]
http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/diefrohl7e.htm