Nietchze is dead!

I will indulge just one more time.

I am suggesting that Nietzsche’s views are his own; well, they ought to be. If you are too weak to hold your own views you will worship something; again, it’s a functional thing. Get it?

I am happy to present my own views and defend them. If you are not happy to do the same then i would suggest you are a schill, a puppet, noise. If you are such for Nietzsche then maybe you don’t really know what you’re schilling for.

Look; if you hold your own views, and you got them from Neitzsche et al., great. They’re your views, you should be able to display and defend them; and quote Neitzsche all you like. But if you have to run to his writings to get understanding, then maybe there’s an issue.

I’d appreciate it if you’d stop using the word ‘you’. I have defended Nietzsche in very particular ways - frankly, in ways you have not adequately addressed, despite what you might believe. I have not, as you seem to imply, defended anyone’s pawning off Nietzsche’s thought as their own, or using him as a crutch for original meditation. You’re pompously barking at me as though I represent everyone whom you’ve ever seen use Nietzsche to make a point for them.

Instead, I made one post relative to Nietzsche’s fanbase, whom you attacked, saying, in effect, I find his following well-deserved. You disagreed, citing his results were ‘in error’. Thing was, you ignored (or overlooked) that when I used the word ‘results’ the context was his fanbase. When I asked, ‘Why the need to trample the results of the man’s lifelong efforts?’ I was talking about the fact dude busted his ass his whole life to write something significant; the fact he now has fans (‘results’ in context) is hardly something to be up in arms about - unless your issue is with something specific, the second point I raised.

In turn, I made a point relative to your saying you have no desire to study Nietzsche, but feel inclined to dismiss those who do. What can I say? I find that ironic and ignorant. If your understanding of Nietzsche is admittedly limited, I see no justification behind blindly ignorning the potential significance he may play in another’s life. This is the same logic I would use in relation to Lao Tzu, Jesus, Kant, whomever: until you understand something, it’s hardly a point of argument to say ‘people who follow this man’s writings are misguided’.

Only now have you made the (perhaps coincidental) effort toward saying the real issue you raise is with people who use others’ ideas as their own. Nietzsche is just a red herring, by your own admission. My disagreement was with your initial suggestion that people who highly value Nietzsche’s work are in some way inferior to those who do not - a baseless contention, unless supported by something more than what you initially offered.

Get it?

Perhaps with this in mind you may re-read my posts in this thread without such a condescending and defensive eye, fostering an actual moment of communication, opposed to jabbering on about someone whose work you’ve not even read.

Yes; i’m happy to replace it with ‘i’.

Good. If you can forgive me, and provide a link, we can proceed.

Yeah; overlooked; sorry.

Here i will reiterate the lemming analogy and ask that you reconsider. My issue is with something general. Divide and conquer is ages old and, in application here i think. If you could provide that link, i’d appreciate it.

Not at all. I wouldn’t even dismiss Neitzsche but, he’s dead. There’s a point about functionality that i’m trying to make; it’s obscure and has to do with writing something down as opposed to letting it float throught the noosphere.

Well, i see your point but; i see also justice and an opportunity for forgiveness in this.

If you can rationalize their views to your own then you can assume people who follow their writings are not misguided; if you cannot rationalize their views then you have every right to assume that those who follow their views are misguided, if you can see where the apparent error lay. Assuming you assume yourself to be not misguded. Don’t you think so? In the case of Neitzsche, i think it’s an issue of Truth.

I don’t recall saying.

Well, if the plagerism thing is true, then they do seem to be very forgiving. If there’s a reason for that, i don’t see it in the results of his work. By ‘results’ i mean an absolute relativism that seems reasonable grounds for rationalized deception.

Absolutely. If you could be so forgiving as to provide the links. Thanks in advance.

So i took the liberty. You seem a polite enough person; i figured you’d forgive me.

Here’ where i’d take issue:

I’d say the object is ‘self;’ every ‘you’ that is the one ‘self;’ i’m of the opinion that there is only one self. That’s probably what you meant, huh; something like that.

The theories of truth ought to converge; they ought not be grounds for cultural wars. I realize that’s just one theory of truth but; other theories identify such a convergence as the Face of Truth. Seeing that convergence is that meditative flash; again, part of my theory of truth.

The wars service the enemy, and you can tell the enemy by his war mongering.

That’s not what I mean. I’m saying your initial concern was with those who idolize (or, to use your word, ‘worship’) Nietzsche to the extent their devotion blinds them to other arenas of thought. I am not one of those, nor have I said anything that would warrant being included in such a group; hence my disagreement with your using the word ‘you’ in this context.

A link to the first page of the thread?

Assuming I’m placing this in proper context, this was the fact I had in mind when I said Nietzsche is just a red herring here. Your issue, as I understand it, is with people who use others’ ideas as their own. Am I missing something?

Again, I’m not sure what link you speak of, nor am I able to place what exactly you’re referring to when you mention ‘divide and conquer’. Care to elaborate?

I’ve understood that point from the start, and needless to say, I agree. Recall that what I initially responded to was the comment, and I’m paraphrasing, ‘Lots of Nietzsche worship here; if you people gave spirituality half the chance you give Nietzsche, things would be fine’.

My efforts have been only to show two things: how you’ve overlooked the outrageous depth of Nietzschean thought, and that while the man’s popularity here might be exaggerated, there is nothing to say his popularity is undeserved; and that while you’re correct in your above assessment, the same would be true of any writer or thinker. You’re, at bottom, describing idiots, not necessarily fans of Nietzsche - yet this is how you elected to begin your thread. Do you see the issue I’m trying to highlight?

Now there’s an actual issue! It’s about time! To think how this thread may have unfolded had you opened with something along these lines instead!

Again, I’m not sure how you’ve confused my references to this thread with posts that would require links. I was merely suggesting your tone and attitude was poor and condescending relative to the points I raised earlier in the thread, and that perhaps if this attitude was removed, you might see those earlier points a bit clearer.

As I imply above, I’m not sure this relates in any way to the present discussion.

That said, I see what you’re driving at, and, trust me, we’re not far from the same page. I could explain it in full, I suppose, but that would take considerable effort and an entire introduction to my theory of truth. What you’ve quoted from (i.e. what I posted) was just a segment of a rather large document.

Nietzsche would have never wanted anyone to worship him! Simply by suggesting that someone worship him is such an irony to me. He believed in life! He believed in questioning anything and everything that drained the joy and energy out of life - such as religion and the accompanying morals thereof. Worship Nietzsche??? Get a reality check! Now, agree with Nietzsche and question beliefs and practices which are not reality based…focus on life and not afterlife - ok, maybe then we might get somewhere.

It is up to each individual what they choose to question and what they choose to believe on face value. But, who would visit a discussion forum on philosophy and not appreciate, or at least respect, a great and daring philosopher who questioned the things that just weren’t questioned in the 19th century?

Just to fold this bit back in…

Forget the link, you’re right about that; i had a catagorization issue, starting with ‘results.’

It looks to me like some people like to breed chaos. I’ve been typing with people for some time and, one recurring theme is the ‘absolute relativism’ of truth. It’s hard to talk of convergence when it’s so easy for people to focus on deconstruction. The reconstruction that Truth compells is …wery, wery qwiet…; inevidably someone refers to Neitzsche, or less frequently some other deconstructionist. So neitzsche, as a herring, is not so red.

Well, no offense but as far as the outrageous depth of Neitzschean thought goes; i haven’t seen it. Maybe deep but, outrageously deep? And if he just transposed eastern traditions, which isn’t entirely inconceivable, then maybe undeserved.

Ehh; waddayagonado?

Any comment on the ostensibly reasonable ground for rationalized deception?

Well, i hope it’s not my attitude that’s keeping me from seeing Neitzsche’s outrageous depth or merit.

I am willing to consider the possibility. Actually, i am willing to conceed the possibility that the open perspective from which i sprang was in no small part a result of his work. Then again, i was 5yrs when i rejected the dogma of the day.

Care to provide a link, or start a thread?

Facial recognition is a political exercise. Humans are political animals. A political dynamic can taint one’s perception. Clear perception is free from politics. I can appreciate what people do without remembering them individually for it.

So, are you saying you are no longer human? As far as perception…sounds like if you cannot “remember” people individually for what they accomplish then you are limiting your perception.

Actually, I am just trying to understand the logic, if any, to your above statement. There’s thinking, and then there’s just mental masturbation.

Do you mean posts without content? Mundane babble? There’s a place for that.

No; i’m following the spartan lead but, in a more practical application.

Clearing it.

So… Do you have any content? What do you believe? Why?

.

Nietzsche is dead , Nietzsche is piss

.

No, I have no content. I am empty.

Just as an atheist or naturalist ought be able to read Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther or William James without taking exception to each word they read, so too ought one inclined toward spirituality, or even religion, have the capcity to enjoy the likes of Nietzsche, Ludwig Feuerbach, and Arthur Schopenhauer. Should you be at all inclined, I’d steer you a little thing I made on Amazon:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/richpub/listmania/fullview/2KF0I8DZ7PTHD/102-8949014-8730502?_encoding=UTF8

Books about Nietzsche head the list; books by him represent the second half, with the novice in mind throughout.

Although I have not taken the time to read all of these posts, I am farely confident that nobody has proved properly that Nietzche is indeed dead.

Nietzche was born in 1844
Everyone born in 1844 is now dead
Nietzche is dead.

good enough?

Thanks DB.

I got a kick out of this:

Is ‘sinister’ an accurate translation? It seems very appropriate to the european condition. The association of the left with justice is relevant here; as it should be, since the topic is knowledge, good and evil. This is why i say christians ought not become buddhists, they ought to testify.

Right away i took issue with his use of the word ‘spirit,’ when he talks about the travels of his spirit etc… The spiritual perspective that comes to humanity through the sacred writings seem to indicate rather unanimously that spirit flows through soul. It looks to me like the soul is yours and the spirit is not; like your soul has a material correlate and spirit has something to do with time, or something like that.

Very thought provoking stuff; as i’d expect. I don’t think i’ll mind getting into it at all; i hope i have time… …Wait a second… Nietzsche’s dead, why can’t we talk about what we think… Honestly, i’ll give any Nietzsche references full consideration. It ought to be good.

See?!?

In reading this, I am moved to say this is something that must be taken in the appropriate context. Not to suggest you’ve misread it, but when I see something like this isolated, all I envision is everything else he wrote it relates to: what he says about nihilism, about Buddhism, about European culture, about morality, about pity, etc. - there are pages upon pages upon pages of elaborations and interpretations of each concept. That is to say, it’s essential to recognize Nietzsche as one of the most - if not the most - misunderstood thinkers in history: something to certainly keep close to mind should you proceed to any further reading. (Certainly not an adequate response to what you’ve posted per se, but, at the same time, an example of the ‘outrageous depth’ of Nietzschean thought of which I’ve spoken: quite simply, there’s hours of dialogue involved in even this simple passage, trust me or not.)

It’s a tad strong, I suppose. The German word is unheimlichste, which means something like weirdest or most-uncanny, but also tremendous and something like it gives me the creeps. I wouldn’t necessarily choose another word, no, but you’re always going to lose something in translation.

My personal favorite work of Nietzsche’s is Ecce Homo, though I should mention it has been much-maligned by Nietzsche fans and critics alike (perhaps part of the reason I favor it). Regardless, if I were limited to recommending one volume, I’d choose it.

In terms of supplemental Nietzsche literature, there’s no better piece than Hollingdale’s biography - probably the perfect place for someone like you to start (and perhaps finish) insofar as, if nothing else, you may read it as you would any biography, while at the same time coming infinitely closer to understanding where someone like myself is coming from when they defend Nietzsche. Moreover, perhaps as a synopsis of what I’ve been trying to get at from the beginning, it is less about agreement as it is about experiencing another’s voyage into the depths - the possibilities - of thought: Nietzsche is a quintessential opportunity for the latter, if I may say, should one agree in the strict sense with what he has to say or not. (I believe I made this point already, ironically.)

In any event, see you around. I suspect I’m about finished in this thread.

Wait … one more thing:

The fact I am essentially the only person who came to Nietzsche’s aid pretty much shoots your ‘awful lot of worship’ theory to shit, no? I mean, try to get away with the same thing on a Jesus board. (Just something I’ve thought about more than once since this discussion began. )

And:

For the record, yes, I too see the humor here.

Thanks DB.

For me, the True world is the real world and, the apparent world is the personal world (i mean, one is compelled to ask, apparent to who? What follows is a description of, amongst other things, mechanisms of sense perception). It’s not the lie of the ideal, it’s the lie in the ideal; it’s an aspect of justice and meaning. And there are no ‘lofty rights,’ that would be a lie.