‹ First  < 2 3 4
 
   
 

Advice Request re Philosophy Reading

 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16544
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
27 August 2018 17:52
 
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM
ubique13 - 19 August 2018 06:28 PM

It’s really pretty disgraceful how Nietzsche’s historical significance is portrayed. Much of his work can be pretty heavy, and he was profoundly misanthropic, but there are few philosophers who possessed his gift for the prosaic (or his bizarrely prescient understanding of the issues facing modern man).

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2384
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
27 August 2018 18:50
 
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16544
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
27 August 2018 22:18
 
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 06:50 PM
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

It’s exactly like religion only without gods, and even more pretentious.

 

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  860
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
28 August 2018 03:32
 
GAD - 27 August 2018 10:18 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 06:50 PM
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

It’s exactly like religion only without gods, and even more pretentious.

 

Coming from you, GAD, I’m pretty sure that’s a compliment.

And anyone who would have actually recommended an introduction to Philosophy written by Bertrand fucking Russell is a masochist.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16544
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
28 August 2018 07:37
 
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 03:32 AM
GAD - 27 August 2018 10:18 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 06:50 PM
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

It’s exactly like religion only without gods, and even more pretentious.

 

Coming from you, GAD, I’m pretty sure that’s a compliment.

If selling bullshit is a compliment, I guess.

And anyone who would have actually recommended an introduction to Philosophy written by Bertrand fucking Russell is a masochist.

Why all the hate for Russell, not pretentious enough for philosophy?

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  860
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
28 August 2018 08:09
 
GAD - 28 August 2018 07:37 AM
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 03:32 AM
GAD - 27 August 2018 10:18 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 06:50 PM
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

It’s exactly like religion only without gods, and even more pretentious.

 

Coming from you, GAD, I’m pretty sure that’s a compliment.

If selling bullshit is a compliment, I guess.

And anyone who would have actually recommended an introduction to Philosophy written by Bertrand fucking Russell is a masochist.

Why all the hate for Russell, not pretentious enough for philosophy?

Hatred is a waste of energy. Regardless, why would anyone read someone else’s interpretation of a philosophical work when the original text is available (excepting any translator’s errors)?

Friedrich Nietzsche is only called a misogynist by those who fail to recognize that he was intensely misanthropic. Perhaps the distinction could be seen as minor, but it’s rather crucial in this case. If I’m not mistaken, Nietzsche’s infamous line which purportedly demeans women is something like, “God’s first mistake was man. His second mistake was woman.”

It takes a certain kind of magical thinking to read Nietzsche’s work and completely miss the point, unless we’re talking about ‘The Will To Power’, which was edited posthumously at his sister’s behest to align with Nazi ideology. Nietzsche himself loathed anti-Semites, referring to them in personal correspondences as ‘stillborn fetuses’.

He has also written quite extensively about the ‘decadent nihilistic’ religions, namely Buddhism and Christianity. If pretense is based on pretending, then I would go out on a limb and argue that it wasn’t Friedrich Nietzsche’s work that was pretentious.

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16544
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
28 August 2018 08:21
 
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 08:09 AM
GAD - 28 August 2018 07:37 AM
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 03:32 AM
GAD - 27 August 2018 10:18 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 06:50 PM
GAD - 27 August 2018 05:52 PM
Jan_CAN - 27 August 2018 05:38 PM

One doesn’t have to be a feminist to question the ‘wisdom’ of a man (Nietzsche) who despises half of humanity (women) and dislikes the remainder.  Also, Russell says that “He holds that the happiness of common people is no part of the good per se.  All that is good or bad in itself exists only in the superior few; what happens to the rest is of no account.”  Of course this is one point of view, but from what I’ve read so far, I don’t think I’m going to like Nietzsche.

Remember, to be philosopher you only have to give your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions, and then argue about it for ever. If you get famous, then people will give their opinions of your opinion of Nietzsche’s opinions.

I thought you were simply being amusing, but I’m starting to get what you mean by ‘opinions-of-opinions’.  Some ideas/theories seem to defy logic and common sense and yet get discussed ‘to death’.  There’s what a philosopher says, what he may actually mean beneath the surface, how he is interpreted by others, and then misinterpreted by others, and then some aspects integrated into another’s philosophy.  Some ideas are theoretical with no relevance or applicability in the real world; others might be applied but become distorted from the original and used as justification for unethical ends ...

I’m interested in history, politics and ethics, and how philosophy ties in with these to provide a better understanding.  However, I expect I’m too ‘practical’-minded to be able to think like a philosopher.  Although I expect that won’t stop me from philosophizing from time-to-time when it’s called for.

It’s exactly like religion only without gods, and even more pretentious.

 

Coming from you, GAD, I’m pretty sure that’s a compliment.

If selling bullshit is a compliment, I guess.

And anyone who would have actually recommended an introduction to Philosophy written by Bertrand fucking Russell is a masochist.

Why all the hate for Russell, not pretentious enough for philosophy?

Hatred is a waste of energy. Regardless, why would anyone read someone else’s interpretation of a philosophical work when the original text is available (excepting any translator’s errors)?

Friedrich Nietzsche is only called a misogynist by those who fail to recognize that he was intensely misanthropic. Perhaps the distinction could be seen as minor, but it’s rather crucial in this case. If I’m not mistaken, Nietzsche’s infamous line which purportedly demeans women is something like, “God’s first mistake was man. His second mistake was woman.”

It takes a certain kind of magical thinking to read Nietzsche’s work and completely miss the point, unless we’re talking about ‘The Will To Power’, which was edited posthumously at his sister’s behest to align with Nazi ideology. Nietzsche himself loathed anti-Semites, referring to them in personal correspondences as ‘stillborn fetuses’.

He has also written quite extensively about the ‘decadent nihilistic’ religions, namely Buddhism and Christianity. If pretense is based on pretending, then I would go out on a limb and argue that it wasn’t Friedrich Nietzsche’s work that was pretentious.

so your shade for Russell is the shadow of you standing in the light of Nietzsche.

 

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  860
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
28 August 2018 08:35
 
GAD - 28 August 2018 08:21 AM

so your shade for Russell is the shadow of you standing in the light of Nietzsche.

You nailed it. Friedrich Nietzsche is my Light, my Way, and my Truth.

Now all I need to do is find where his body is buried so I can skull-fuck that sexy, decrepit corpse.

You see right through me, GAD.

 
 
Jan_CAN
 
Avatar
 
 
Jan_CAN
Total Posts:  2384
Joined  21-10-2016
 
 
 
28 August 2018 09:17
 
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 08:09 AM

Hatred is a waste of energy. Regardless, why would anyone read someone else’s interpretation of a philosophical work when the original text is available (excepting any translator’s errors)?

Friedrich Nietzsche is only called a misogynist by those who fail to recognize that he was intensely misanthropic. Perhaps the distinction could be seen as minor, but it’s rather crucial in this case. If I’m not mistaken, Nietzsche’s infamous line which purportedly demeans women is something like, “God’s first mistake was man. His second mistake was woman.”

It takes a certain kind of magical thinking to read Nietzsche’s work and completely miss the point, unless we’re talking about ‘The Will To Power’, which was edited posthumously at his sister’s behest to align with Nazi ideology. Nietzsche himself loathed anti-Semites, referring to them in personal correspondences as ‘stillborn fetuses’.

He has also written quite extensively about the ‘decadent nihilistic’ religions, namely Buddhism and Christianity. If pretense is based on pretending, then I would go out on a limb and argue that it wasn’t Friedrich Nietzsche’s work that was pretentious.

[Sentence bolding above mine]

According to Russell, Nietzsche’s comments regarding women also included the following:

— “Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior.  All else is folly.
— “Thou goest to woman?  Do not forget thy whip.
— “Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridleness, and indiscretion concealed ... which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the fear of man.
— Russell says that in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche adds “that we should think of women as property, as Orientals do”.

As the history of philosophy has been male-dominated, one has to set aside modern views to a large extent in this regard; however, it is more difficult to do so entirely when considering such strong biases.

You seem to dismiss the fact that Nietzsche is misanthropic.  From my point of view, this would greatly affect his objectivity, including his ability to arrive at rational and ethical judgements/theories.

 

 
 
GAD
 
Avatar
 
 
GAD
Total Posts:  16544
Joined  15-02-2008
 
 
 
28 August 2018 09:22
 
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 08:35 AM
GAD - 28 August 2018 08:21 AM

so your shade for Russell is the shadow of you standing in the light of Nietzsche.

You nailed it. Friedrich Nietzsche is my Light, my Way, and my Truth.

Now all I need to do is find where his body is buried so I can skull-fuck that sexy, decrepit corpse.

You see right through me, GAD.

Oh you crazy Nietzscheans.

 
 
ubique13
 
Avatar
 
 
ubique13
Total Posts:  860
Joined  10-03-2017
 
 
 
28 August 2018 10:30
 
Jan_CAN - 28 August 2018 09:17 AM
ubique13 - 28 August 2018 08:09 AM

Hatred is a waste of energy. Regardless, why would anyone read someone else’s interpretation of a philosophical work when the original text is available (excepting any translator’s errors)?

Friedrich Nietzsche is only called a misogynist by those who fail to recognize that he was intensely misanthropic. Perhaps the distinction could be seen as minor, but it’s rather crucial in this case. If I’m not mistaken, Nietzsche’s infamous line which purportedly demeans women is something like, “God’s first mistake was man. His second mistake was woman.”

It takes a certain kind of magical thinking to read Nietzsche’s work and completely miss the point, unless we’re talking about ‘The Will To Power’, which was edited posthumously at his sister’s behest to align with Nazi ideology. Nietzsche himself loathed anti-Semites, referring to them in personal correspondences as ‘stillborn fetuses’.

He has also written quite extensively about the ‘decadent nihilistic’ religions, namely Buddhism and Christianity. If pretense is based on pretending, then I would go out on a limb and argue that it wasn’t Friedrich Nietzsche’s work that was pretentious.

[Sentence bolding above mine]

According to Russell, Nietzsche’s comments regarding women also included the following:

— “Man shall be trained for war and woman for the recreation of the warrior.  All else is folly.
— “Thou goest to woman?  Do not forget thy whip.
— “Woman has so much cause for shame; in woman there is so much pedantry, superficiality, schoolmasterliness, petty presumption, unbridleness, and indiscretion concealed ... which has really been best restrained and dominated hitherto by the fear of man.
— Russell says that in Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche adds “that we should think of women as property, as Orientals do”.

As the history of philosophy has been male-dominated, one has to set aside modern views to a large extent in this regard; however, it is more difficult to do so entirely when considering such strong biases.

You seem to dismiss the fact that Nietzsche is misanthropic.  From my point of view, this would greatly affect his objectivity, including his ability to arrive at rational and ethical judgements/theories.

Your point of view isn’t wrong, as far as I can tell. Based on my own interpretations of Nietzsche’s writing, his misanthropy was more a criticism of modernity (see: war/barbarism and religiosity) than it was of people themselves. And his contempt for the Saxon people (and the Russians, and the English…) seems to have been pretty extraordinary, too. I don’t see him as being the same sort of philosopher as someone like Marcus Aurelius, René Descartes, Albert Camus, etc.

Nietzsche notoriously resigned his position teaching at the University of Basel, going on to write and publish a body of epistemological work that I have not seen any real parallels to. He called for a ‘revaluation of all human value’, and in ‘Twilight of the Idols’, he described how the democratism of higher education had lead to its ultimate downfall, and characterized both alcohol and Christianity as the “great European narcotics,” further proclaiming that no nation can be educated by “grammar school teachers.”

‘Zarathustra’ is an interesting historical figure, indeed.

 
 
‹ First  < 2 3 4