Well, that’s a pretty good comparison. For instance, I’ve “given up” Nietzsche with regard to his Lamarckian biology, which as it looks now is mostly wrong.
No, because science is actually good for something. Nietzsche is literally only good for making yourself look and feel cool. Once you become concerned with something other than yourself and posturing, he has nothing relevant to say to you anymore.
I thought Nietzsche was science.
Science is Gay.
That’s ironic, when gay science is coming out to be of an equivalent.
You can't really, in fact, give him up, either, if what you should do is governed by a disticntive good faith understanding of why it should be given up, irrespective of certain redeemable gestures and liscences taken. Such giving up may usually do. The reverse, too.
Actually nietzche seems invariably to play between a function and an interpretaton. It is the rebel which asserts itself in time of congruence between a possible and a probable approach to certainty.
It doesen’t mean Nietzche meant to alienate, it;s just that driving force, the power to assert the function of the will, I invariably depends of the very thing he denied: the limitless source. That source was existantialised, albeit unrewardignly for him.
I think constraint and candor are a pre requisite, while the other part waits to reoccur.
Now we appear to be getting somewhere.
But then, it seems as if you cannot give up Nietzsche? Gentlemen, it seems like we’re back to were we’ve started. That is, someone looking in from the outside, thinking, “Well then, those people cannot give up Nietzsche.” This is all to ask: what did Nietzsche do (apart from say, a cult leader), wherein once you read him, you cannot stop talking about him or referencing him?
It is an interesting phenomenon. Or perhaps just category. Or perhaps just a title that I suppose some philosopher would have to hold.
I read the post. I wasn’t sure if what Saweilious said was the answer to my questions or your response to what he said, but in either case it didn’t seem very Concrete to me, but more mystical, or abstract vague if one only had S’s Words to work with.
I mean, day to day, in interactions with others, how would you Communication be different? Or how would your thinking? What, exactly, would change?
Perspectives, boundaries, and points of view might change.
Sure, but I am trying to actually at specifics.
is this a choice one can make? What does that look like?
If I choose to give up smoking, I can know what actions that entails and make good guesses about the consequences.
Sure, giving up N is more abstract. But for the same reasons, I thikn, that it is hard to track the effects, I Think it is a strange issue.
Not mentioning N is not giving him up, though I suppose it might feel like it to some. Sometimes mentioning and using his ideas might also be part of having given him up, at least under some definitions. In a sense I am asking for Concrete descriptions because I Think the idea is kindof nonsense. But I am nto sure. I am not asking as a trap, since there may be some kind of observables here I don’t know about.
Clearly the answer lies in your definition of “giving up” - semantics.
Forget? Good luck with that. Just as likely as you forgetting anything else that has happened to you in your life.
Stop “relying on”? Well that’s easy, just stop reading him and do other things.
Stop referencing? Why would you want to prevent yourself from referencing the relevant and useful?
It sounds to me like we’re dealing with a person who has been accused of being unable to “give up Nietzsche”. Sounds like a trick to use someone’s values against them - most likely, in this case, someone’s values in being an individual and original thinker. “You can’t do that if you sound like someone else”. What?! Not even Nietzsche pulled that one off.
Moreno: I will give You as concrete example as I can. In fact it happened to me personally only last week. To cut to the chase, I was asked, again, by my son and my daughter in-law, to carry on as usual and babysit my 4 grandchildren, whom I have taken care of since birth, and now have attained to first grade.
All arguments to the contrary we’re to no avail, and there was no likely deference regarding other family members, or other necessary activities. The whole issue was solved, by juxtaposing other families members opinions and point’s of view, and these satisfactorily settled boundaries, as far as what can be expected in terms of a "real , workable arrangement. There was some hidden, un expressed feeling going on, but they were understood for what they were, within the closely related structure of family give and take. A power motive was used to work around these concepts,on many levels, and new boundaries laid down, as a result,among the adult piers. The children smarted from feelings of abandonment, but again, the so called abandonment lead to other significant others substituting into the role, and so the children gained more perspective from the change in boundaries.
I am probably being thick, but where does the giving up of Nietschze come in here or how did he Before?
I did see the Word Power. I can imagine how what you describe could relate to N and his ideas. But I am not sure, if this is a Before or after Picture.
In a sense, Nietzche cannot be given up. He is part and parcel of the consciousness of the thought we are using. We can’t give up spengler, or kant or anyone. As soon as we entertain a thought which becomes a modus operandi, we can only change that stream of consciousness, transvalue it, but the before will always correlate to the after. It is not apart, but a part of what defines us. Even the most die hard empiricists can’t dispense with Nietzche, because utalitrianism reacts to other points of view. They don’t have o accept it, and part of it will be a denial of it. What denial entails, is another picture, and part of it has been the misreading and misapplication of his thought. Nietzche through denial will come apart, and become apart from other viewpoints, bit in another sense, yet, it will become a part, as objective and so called subjective morality is able to be integrated.
This would be my guess and where the question came from, me being open to seeing what it might mean. Some things are very hard to undo, for those to whom it has been done or who did it themselves.
I can imagine that one gradually stopped being as Nietschzian (fill in any philospher and add -ian.) But I can’t really imagine deciding to give it up.
Nietzsche is philosophy, and philosophy includes but is not limited to science; it does not just include Ethics—social science—and Physics—natural science—, but also Logic and Metaphysics.
It’s true that by giving up one part of a thing, one gives up that thing as a whole. However, I have not given up most of what remains of Nietzsche’s philosophy when one strips it of his Lamarckian biology.
This is twisted…
Here’s one angle: Yes, it’s true that you can’t give Nietzsche up by doing what Nietzsche says, simply because he said it. (That’s the first sentence). But no, it doesn’t follow that therefore giving up Nietzsche means not actually giving up Nietzsche. I mean, for fuckssakes, that is about as bare of a contradiction as I’ve ever seen.
Here’s another angle: Are you really implying, in the second sentence, (for some bizarre reason), that the way to “give up” Nietzsche is to follow Nietzsche’s instructions for doing that. …Whhhyy?
Anyways, it’s simple…
I believe it was Baruch Spinoza who said, “Do or do not; there is no try”. Maybe not. Maybe it was John Locke. The 17th century kind of runs together for me. Maybe it was Yoda. But seriously, if you ever find yourself philosophizing with a hammer, like Nietzsche, and it’s not the right tool for the job, because what you really need is a good screw, something Nietzsche could have used, then put down the hammer and go and find someone to sleep with you, or a screwdriver, whichever really. It’s easy, and when you don’t need a hammer, you won’t miss it.
Knowing you need either a hammer or a screw driver, philosophically, knowing that is even more than half the battle.
All realizations required perception and questions. There is a pre-wisdom, too. Imagine that.
You’re not a very deep river, are you, Mo… It’s true, the second sentence does not follow from the first: for one could also just say, “Yes, I’ll give you up, but not because you’re telling me to!” I was writing with blood, however. My “giving up” Nietzsche (with regard to his Lamarckian biology, for instance) was already latent in 2009 or so, when on The Nietzsche Forum I said I would follow him in spite of his telling me not to, like King Midas pursued Silenus to ultimately catch him and force him to yield up his secrets…