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:
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.
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.
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. )
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.
)