Ben - I just plain disagree. I suppose I could just give you a definition. But that’s what Google is for. There is some wiggling around as to the scope of different definitons, but there is nothing contentious about a definition of metaphysics per se.
I don’t know what else you’ve been reading, but I really think you are giving a view of Nietzsche that no one but a few disaffected teenagers have of Nietzsche, and then calling it illegitimate. I agree. He’s no Thomas Edison. I just want to know who thinks he is.
He does have great historical import, however - neither is this controversial, but (not oddly, I think) a matter of history. He was original in a couple of ways. He was also quite limited in scope - he didn’t cover all the bases the way Kant, for instance, tried to do. One of the things he didn’t include in his philosophy was metaphysics. He derided it, but did not include it in his own ideas. Can you provide some text or other basis for this claim that he did?
I’m not altogether sure how you can claim that Nietzsche was a metaphysician while also claiming that you are not sure what metaphysics is. Maybe you could explain that one, too.
I have reread your OP, and that’s about all of it that I can make sense of.
“Aristotle himself referred to the subject as “first philosophy”. Among Aristotle’s other works was Physics. The editor of Aristotle’s works, Andronicus, placed the books on first philosophy right after Physics. So those books were called τὰ μετὰ τὰ φυσικά βιβλια, ta meta ta physika biblia, which means “the books that come after the (books about) physics.” The name was first given to the work by Andronicus of Rhodes in c.70 B.C., referring to the customary organization of the Aristotlean corpus, but was misread by Latin scholiasts and became “the science of what is beyond the physical.”” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics#History_of_metaphysics
Even though he was a Classical scholar, Nietzsche used the word in the latter sense, probably because this was the usual sense of the word in his time (and he wrote in the language of the people).
“Philosophy defined by Kant as “the science of the limitations of reason”!!”
[section 448, entire.]
Now imagine what would be lost if we were to leave away those exclamation marks - though the sarcastic nature of that remark in The Antichristian is evident from the context:
“There are questions in which man is not entitled to a decision about truth and untruth; all the highest questions, all the highest value problems, lie beyond human reason… To comprehend the limits of reason—that alone is truly philosophy…”
[AC 55.]
Compare this to the following:
“The conception of a “true world,” the conception of morality as the essence of the world (these two most malignant errors of all time!), were once again, thanks to a wily and shrewd skepticism, if not provable, at least no longer refutable… Reason, the right of reason, does not extend that far…”
[ibid., section 10.]
no need to single anyone out, but aren’t we all frauds. As far as I can see, everything I think or do is based on some subtle deception or some manipulating of perceptions.
you’re right. the word “fraud” is somewhat meaningless. I guess I meant it in the sense of “what did he do to justify his fame?” Once someone acquires a certain level of fame there’s really no point in completely trashing him since it would only serve to make one look particularly biased. However, didn’t Nietzsche himself trash most of the West and seek to remold it to suit his own biased needs? Beyond that, he remains no more logical than the “unlogic” he attacks and is basically the forefather of the whole French scene which relies on rhetoric over argumentation; many might view them as “fraudulent”. Were the more staid, less rhetorical figures before Nietzsche less fradulent than Nietzsche or Derrida? I guess that remains highly debatable. I personally feel that continental philosophy got derailed somewhere along the line and maybe I blame Nietzsche.
You are surely talking about epistemology, which happens to be the topic some of us here have beeing ranting about since the N v K thread.
ben123,
If you rearange “staid” into another word, then you would pplausibly be saying something great. Until then, Nietzsche is not considered very convincing by the logicians and so on.
You are intuitively correct but reasonalby unessential. Your reason fails to keep up with your intuition, which is a result of western philosophical tradition. Nietzsche corrects that inheritage for the west. The guy did your guys a favour. You blame Nietzsche… that sounds incredibly in many ways.
That line from The Antichristian that you quoted is about epistemology - Kant’s epistemology, to be exact.
“Philosophy reduced to “theory of knowledge,†actually no more than a timid epochism and abstinence doctrine: a philosophy that does not even get over the threshold and painfully denies itself the right of entry”.
[BGE 204.]
With this, a philosopher, however great, remains only a critic, a nihilist. Thus Kant leapt into the arms of “God”, of “revelation”. But what is revelation?
“Plato […] convinced himself that the “good” as he desired it was not the good of Plato but “the good in itself,” the eternal treasure that some man, named Plato, had chanced to discover on his way! This same will to blindness dominates the founders of religions in a much coarser form: their “thou shalt” must not by any means sound in their ears like “I will” - they dare fulfill their task only as the command of a god; only as an “inspiration” is their value legislation a bearable burden under which their conscience is not crushed.”
[The Will to Power, section 972.]
“Revelation” was supposed to come from “beyond”, whereas reason was of “this world”; but “God is dead”, the transcendent (“real”) world has been abolished: this means that all revelation must come from this world, from nature, not from the supernatural. But a philosopher is not a mouthpiece of nature as a whole; he is only a mouthpiece of his nature:
"Concerning life, the wisest men of all ages have judged alike: it is no good… Always and everywhere one has heard the same sound from their mouths—a sound full of doubt, full of melancholy, full of weariness of life, full of resistance to life. […] What does that evidence? What does it evince?— Formerly one would have said (—oh, it has been said, and loud enough, and especially by our pessimists!): "At least something of all this must be true! The consensus sapientum [consensus of the sages] evidences the truth.“— Shall we still talk like that today? May we? “At least something must be sick here,” we retort.”
[Twilight, Socrates, 1.]
The ego is a mouthpiece of the Self, i.e., the body:
“Even in your folly and despising ye each serve your Self, ye despisers of the body. I tell you, your very Self wanteth to die, and turneth away from life.
No longer can your Self do that which it desireth most: - create beyond itself. That is what it desireth most; that is all its fervour.
But it is now too late to do so: - so your Self wisheth to succumb, ye despisers of the body.
To succumb - so wisheth your Self; and therefore have ye become despisers of the body. For ye can no longer create beyond yourselves.
And therefore are ye now angry with life and with the earth. And unconscious envy is in the sidelong look of your contempt.”
[Zarathustra, Of the Despisers of the Body.]
This is what Nietzsche means when he says that there are no philosophies, only philosophers: a philosophy is an expression of who (what) a philosopher is. And with the “death of God”, a man is no longer “good or evil”, but good or bad - healthy or unhealthy (relatively). The new God is the superman, the great man, the man of great health.
I quoted no line from The Antichristian. I quoted a line from The Antichrist. But seriously, you didn’t think I was sarcastic?
However, Nietzsche was not being sarcastic at all. It was a plain assertion, a statement without any rehtorical tune or funky puncturation mark. I have no idea where you get the idea that it was a sarcastic remark by Nietzsche.
It is about defining philosophy from the epistemological perspective. It is not about humiliating Kant.
Kantian epistemology defined a limit with regard to reasoning, but Nietzsche says Kant contradicts himself in the sense that he betrayed his own limit with his fantastical imaginations. Nietzsche, refuses to philosophise in the mainstream way, not because he was incompetent or ODD, simply becaus he follows his principle that reasoning must be strictly limited. Otherwise, one faces endless dangers of metaphysical traps, religious convictions and so on. One cannot stay purely human that way, yet staying purely human is the only way. One can be very purely human only by way of dehumanising metaphysics and religion. There is no contradiction here, except in the linguistic sense. You have to quantify, instead of qualify.
To dehumanise thinking. That is Nietzschean epistemology.
We are in essential agreement here. But,
This shows a dangerous tendency to qualify a dualism, nature versus human nature. This dualism should be strictly avoided when interpreting Nietzsche here. He himself explictly says that human nature is in one with nature. It is part of nature. So again, we must take a quantificational approach when comparing Plato, Kant, with the Nietzschean ideal. One should not remark that Kantian epistemology is a product of his secluded human being that has nothing to do with nature at large. One should only say that relative to Nietzschean epistemology, Kant was not adequately in one with nature, that is, Kant’s noumenal was relatively not perspectivally power enough.
This boils down to Perspectivism. It is ontology and epistemology in unison. It is the product of Nietzschean philosophy with two conceptional constructs, the will to power as the essence of Being and the enteral reccurence as the configuration of Becoming. Perspectivism defines beings. Every interpretation, ignoring such fundamental mentioning or reference to this perspectivist metaphysics, is unessential and unfruitful.
To confront Nietzsche most essentially, is to read Martin Heidegger and learn classical Greek. (Though Martin also advises us to study Aristotle for ten years, “Who Is Nietzsche’s Zarathustra?”, Martin Heidegger).
We must, Saully, come to a point to acknowledge that internet philosophers like us, are pieces of dumbshits compared with guys like Martin. That’s ok, there is no loss in admitting so. For our will to power, as long as it is, will push us one day beyond the best, the most creative, the most powerful. But unfortunately, most of us spend our lives believing that we’ve got something special, something untaouchable, something superior, so we never really dig into legendary lecture notes or books. We fight with something lesser instead.
To do philosophy, means nothing other than to gun down legendary philosophers.
That was exactly what Fritz did. His philosophy is nothing other than a critique of western philosophy.
Philosophy is the task to create more powerful humanity. Thus spoke Unithustra.
Uniqor - Nietzsche was being sarcastic, and sincere, at the same time. Ultimately, it doesn’t matter. The real juice here is in what the limits of reason actually are, anyway.
As to perspectivism being ontology and epistemology combined, what Nietzsche actually did was to wrap them into the same bundle and then toss them away together.
Nietzsche means no sarcasm whatsoever in that quote. Explicitly, none whatsoever. “Philosophy is to find out the limit of reason”, this is serious, it concerns the unique Nietzschean definition of “reason”. Modern sarcasm is a far cry from Nietzsche’s wit. One should resist it.
Saully was too busy to strike up another quote orgy. His self generated followups cannot substantiate his claim that the quote was sarcastic. Which is an unessential claim anyway and he knows it. But as long as he quotes, hiss aim is reached, and his followups did advance the matter. I mean no sarcasm here.
Away from what? Nietzsche quined not, sir, not at all. Quine is nihilist. You cannot imagine that Fritz, being alive today, does not smack Quine silly. Rorty is Nietzschean, if I may say so, Rortian politics provides a fillup to the Nietzschean nonpolitical positional gap. I think it’s great. On the other hand, I’m not sure exactly what Quine did that was particularly fruitful. Make no mistake, Quine is particularly successful at giving the impression of boost that his philosophy deserves the throne in panteon. Nihilists are, as a rule, always as such.
Perspectivism is where the will to power and the eternal return comes to gather. It most essentially explains beings in simultaneous terms of Being and Becoming. It can theoretically gun down the long line from Plato to Kant, opening up the purityand antiquity of the preSocratic Greece, id est, the original groun upon which western philosophy has ill grown for the most part. This is why one must do the Greeks to level himself up with Fritz, not as a rudiments, but as a means to level oneself up with Heideggerian interpretation and criticism of Nietzsche.
When Heideger says that Nietzsche pushed western metaphysics to the end point, he goes back in time and try to frame Nietzsche as a misinterpreter of Heraclitus’ idea of panta rhei. And so on. By doing so, Heidegger can plausibly claim a new start for western philosophy, with his idea of Being and Time. Heideger’s original metaphysics remains to be challenged by anybody hiterto. Much of the modern French school is his mere student. We must remember that Heidegger, using his metaphysics, challenged everybody hitherto. That is something. That is Nietzschean.
Now, who is Quine? If you care too much about Quine, you betray him. But most importantly, you are left with nothing to do about philosophy on the metaphysical level, unfortunately. It is a loss, make sure it doesn’t incur upon you. Pragmaticism and postanalysis should not be antiphilosophy, Rorty explicitly says so. Pragmaticism is the attempt to open up new starts for western philosophy that has been pushed to its limits, seemingly. It is a great movement, the fruitful way that can give us something to do besides quintifying intellectual history. Thanks Dewey.
Nietzsche never said that “I end philosophy”, ever. He constantly stress that future philosophers face immense and boundless challenges and tasks. These tasks are to do with an epistemological expansion into the sciences and the arts. For details, please refer to the chapters where Nietzsche formulates these tasks. And there are plenty chapters and aphorisms on them.
Therefore, the pragmatist movement is in one with Nietzsche in spirit. Whether they actually conjoin in content or not, we’ll still have to waite and see. They will, however, if the sciences one day reaches the same status of philosophy. Nowadays it is great, already, to see that quantum physics so very strikingly merge in line with dominating metaphysical ideas. Watch the concepts of quantity, energy, force, infity, probability, people, these concepts will replace the old concepts in philosophy which Nietzsche rejected.
As I explain in my Antichristian thread in the Essays and Theses forum, “The Antichristian” is a better translation of Der Antichrist than “The Antichrist”.
And you are considered (by some, or at least by one) the Nietzsche expert of ILP! I’m on the job now, but I will gladly make a little study of this section when I get home.
Whence did you derive the implication that a philosopher is not a part of nature? I never meant anything of the sort; to the contrary.
Uniqor - Niezsche is often sarcastic - about Kant, about “the English” (Empiricists), even about Jesus and Socrates. We know this. He is here jabbing at those who think the limits of reason are much further away than they really are. This includes Kant, I think it is safe to say. At the same time, he recognises that there are limits (the sincere part). He just thinks he has a better grasp as to where they are than do rationalists. I happen to agree. I don’t think he would play well in the Catskills, but his sarcasm is just as “modern” as mine is.
But again, what difference does it make? The limits of reason are the limits of reason. Surely we do not expect to be effective thinkers once insane. Nietzsche sure dropped off a bit in the coherence department once he went bonkers. You have to keep in mind that a word like “reason” can often be taken in two or three senses at once in Nietzsche. Again, this is minutiae anyway.
He tossed epistemology and ontology away from his set of operant ideas, of course. Nietzsche didn’t know Quine, I’m quite sure, so I don’t know why you bring him up. Jettisoning these elements is not nihilism. I also don’t care much what Heidegger had to say about Nietzsche. Again, N wasn’t familiar with Heidegger, so any “effect” Heidi had on Nietzsche was only in the mind of his readers. I’m not sure I follow you logic at all here. Ad hoc pronouncements are easily had. That’s what you and I do here. Nietzsche is dead.
First, you claim a particularly plain assertion as sarcastic. After realising that claim as mundane, you did a followup yourself.
But, I saw no advancement in that followup regarding epistemology. What you are thinking and talking about here, have been discussed in more fleshy content and depth in a few other threads recently. I pointed that out to you on top of this page, hinting that I am interested focusing on the issue of epistemological pre-eminence, that is, if Nietzsche’s critique against Kant actually encompasses Kant and in what way it encompasses him.
Then, you follow up with another string of quotes, only mounting up to say what has already been said in the N versus K thread. What you said above, much in agreement to me, are nevertheless the basics and summury points made by Nietzsche. Advancement in this issue cannot reply on such quotes at all. But that seems to be your means and end. Again, I am ready to go further than that, and I suggested and explained my readiness in my previous reply.
Following my reply to you, your post above directly ignores my will to proceed in this issue, rather, you showed me you sarcasm.
Well, I guess you are full circle here, from claiming sarcasm to demonstrating sarcasm. As I said, one must resist the bourgeois sense of humor or sarcasm in order to justify Nietzschean nobility and fine wit.
Brother, take your lead if you can. I never hoped for otherwise. But claiming The Antichrist should be translated as something else, or claiming Nietzsche as sarcastic in a bourgeois manner, is just disappointing.
Uniqor is often sarcastic. Not Nietzsche. Nietzsche is noble, at all time, by right of being. This nobility, you must know his definition for it. Sarcasm is bourgeois. We cannot equate our bourgeoisie with his nobility. This, my friend, you must understand. Because if you don’t, then you misunderstand him. Why? Regarding that quote I quoted, for example. Nietzsche was not refering to Kantian philosophy on its own, but you taking him as a sarcastic person, had Kant explicitly in your mind. Nietzsche, instead, refers to his unique view of epistemology against other epistemologies as a whole. So he does not mean something like “philosophy is furtile because philosophy mounts up to a knowledge of its own scope”. Neither does he mean that Kant refutes himself by his own doing. Not at all. As I explained to you previously, Nietzsche fully affirms the limits of reason, and the philosophical inquiry as a whole. The only difference he holds, is that one must resist the temptations to be intellectual disgenuine, which is to do with his concept of intelelctual integrity. He calls a lot of philosophers intellectually disgenuine, not just Kant, not even primarily Kant. In The Antichrit, not The Antichristian, Nietzsche talked about Socrates and Jesus primarily, not Kant. So the quote from The Antichrist, should not be assumed that it is directed at Kant as some twisted sarcastic overtone. There is no reason to assume that, your motivation, or Saully’s, to assume that, however, has been made clear to me by now.
Perhaps you should tell that to Saully. I think of it as irrelavent in all cases. I only spent the above posts to talk about it because I think you have a pretty incomprehensive idea of who Nietzsche was. But the overwhelming point of my posts in this thread has always been to point out the direction into which this discussion can bear fruits. This point of mine, has been turned into something rather nasty and ranty, or at least by Saully. Which is disappointing to me, that’s all. I could have easily ignored this thread half an hour ago. But I chose not to, for the same reason I chose not to ignore ILP as a whole. But I change my mind frequently, I am libra afterall, without faith.
I bring him up because he was somebody whom Nietzsche would have slapped on the face, had Nietzsche lived longer and migrated to America. I think that calls for enough reason.
Yes, and my posts here are beyond this.
Then, according to me, you stand a slim chance in grasping Nietzsche. You are welcome to demonstrate otherwise in the future, but
Did he ever really live in your world, for you, in your perception?
That is an epistemological question that can actually further this discussion.
What are you talking about? First, it is not a plain assertion; it is sarcastic. I first said “cynical”, but later changed it to “sarcastic”. This is because it is ironic, in a way, but stronger (more biting, more “bitter”) than that.
I know the expression “sarcasm is the lowest form of wit”, but that does not apply here, as that remark is not a witticism. There is nothing lowly about it here.
Now before I show why Nietzsche’s remark is sarcastic, I will first quote my own excellent argument for the translation of Der Antichrist (which is, needless to say, the actual title of the book: a German title of a German book) as “The Antichristian”:
This is important, as I have reverted to the original (German) text before correcting you about that remark you quoted. I shall use the translation of H.L. Mencken here, but may amend it to better render the German text.
“The priests, who well understand the objection that lies against the notion of a conviction, which is to say, of a falsehood that becomes a matter of principle because it serves a purpose, have borrowed from the Jews the shrewd device of sneaking in the concepts, “God,” “the will of God” and “the revelation of God” at this place [in place of the notion of a conviction]. Kant, too, with his categorical imperative, was on the same road: this was his practical reason [seine Vernunft wurde hierin praktisch, literally “his reason became practical in this”]. [At this point there is a large “dash” which Mencken does not render. It is important, as it announces that what follows is said “practicality”, said shrewdness, of Kant’s reason.] There are questions regarding the truth or untruth of which it is not for man to decide [for whom are they to decide then? Or should I ask “for Whom?”…]; all the capital questions, all the capital problems of valuation, are beyond human reason… [Note the periods!] To know the limits of reason–that alone is genuine philosophy. [At this point there are not one, but again three periods, which Mencken again does not render. It is not Nietzsche’s opinion which is expressed here, but Kant’s feigned “opinion” - his shrewdness!] Why did God make a revelation to man? Would God have done anything superfluous? Man could [in the German this is present simple, kann “can”] not find out for himself what was [is] good and what was [is] evil, so God taught him His will. [Again Mencken omits two periods.] Moral: the priest does not lie–the question, “true” or “untrue,” has nothing to do with such things as the priest discusses; it is impossible to lie about these things. In order to lie here it would be necessary to know what is true. But this is more than man can know; therefore, the priest is simply the mouth-piece of God.–”
[The Antichristian, section 55.]
I did not suggest that you compare this section to section 10 for nothing:
“Why all the rejoicing over the appearance of Kant [Mencken omits the italics here] that went through the learned world of Germany, three-fourths of which is made up of the sons of preachers and teachers–why the German conviction still echoing, that with Kant came a change for the better? The theological instinct of German scholars made them see clearly just what had become possible again… A backstairs leading to the old ideal stood open; the concept of the “true world,” [again, Mencken omits the italics] the concept of morality as the essence [and again] of the world (–the two most vicious errors that ever existed!), were once more, thanks to a subtle and wily scepticism, if not actually demonstrable, then at least no longer refutable… Reason, the prerogative [Recht, “right”] of reason, does not go so far… Out of reality there had been made “appearance”; an absolutely false [erlogne] world, that of being, had been turned into reality… The success of Kant is merely a theological success; he was, like Luther and Leibnitz, but one more impediment to German integrity, already far from steady.–”
[AC 10.]
Also, you have not replied to the problem of Nietzsche’s exclamation in The Will to Power (or the Nachlass, to be more precise):
“Philosophy defined by Kant as “the science of the limitations of reason”!!”
[WP 448, entire.]
Why do you think Nietzsche inserted two (not one, but two) exclamation marks there? Because he agreed so emphatically?
No; Kant is merely a critic. (By the way, The Nietzsche Channel just came back online. This means I have access to Walter Kaufmann’s translation of Der Antichrist now, which is much better than Mencken’s. I recommend you check it out.)
Kant is a philosophical labourer, a man of science, not a real philosopher:
“Those philosophical laborers after the noble exemplar of Kant and Hegel have to take some great fact of evaluation—that is to say, former assessments of value, creations of value which have become dominant and are for a while called “truthsâ€â€”and identify them and reduce them to formulas, whether in the realm of logic or of politics (morals) or of art. It is the duty of these scholars to take everything that has hitherto happened and been valued, and make it clear, distinct, intelligible and manageable, to abbreviate everything long, even “time†itself, and to subdue the entire past: a tremendous and wonderful task in the service of which every subtle pride, every tenacious will can certainly find satisfaction. Actual philosophers, however, are commanders and lawgivers: they say “thus it shall be!,†it is they who determine the Wherefore and Whither of mankind, and they possess for this task the preliminary work of all the philosophical laborers, of all those who have subdued the past—they reach for the future with creative hand, and everything that is or has been becomes for them a means, an instrument, a hammer. Their “knowing†is creating, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is—will to power.—”
[BGE 211.]
This section is echoed in The Will to Power, section 972, where admittedly Nietzsche does not distinguish between philosophical labourers and actual philosophers but between two kinds of philosopher. So I will concede this much to you - and this is a most magnanimous gesture of mine -: Nietzsche’s remark you quoted may be applied unsarcastically and without the three periods at the end to a certain kind of philosopher, of philosophy. It is a kind of philosopher that is primarily concerned with what Peter Berkowitz calls “right knowing”, whereas the other kind of philosopher is concerned with what he calls “right making based on right knowing” (my emphasis).
I am talking about that it is not sarcastic, but a plain assertion with no sarcasm in mind, no contradictionary word play. Reason is a way of thinking, for Nietzsche, it does not constitute the entireity of thhoughtation. Philosophy is traditionally reasonable, which Nietzsche opposes, philosophy should be more thoughtful as Nietzsche proposes. Intuition, is the mode of thoughtation whereby Nietzsche proposes to achieve fuller thoughtfulness. This is the philosophy behind. The philosophy behind is not to show how Kant exceeded his own limits as defined by himself.
Antichrist is pan European latin, it is a clean and pious way for monks to address and mention Satan/Mephistopheles/Devil. Satan, the name itself disrupts the holy atomosphere of the churchground. It serves grammatically as adjective, too. Antichristian is nonexistent. Its existence is unnecessary. Whatever a German means about Antichrist, an English can make it to mean the same thing, as I said, the word is pan European latin. This is linguistically speaking, though philosophically, the matter is as follows.
Nietzsche considers Christ misinterprets the meaning of life, of power, of happiness, therefore, he calls himself the Antichrist. The will to be a dark messiah, or the implication to level himself up with Jesus, is irrelevant to the philosophy behind. Again, you are humanising Nietzsche, as you did when you insist that his plain assertion is sarcastic. Stop this, for Nietzsche tells us to dehumanise. Is Nietzsche the new messiah, is him the devil, sure, because he firstly anounced that God is dead and firstly affirms that fact instead of retreating into a nihilist fright. This is all metaphorical, employed to express world views, basic ideas. Make sure that you are not stopping at metaphors.
Regarding the followers of Christ, Nietzsche believed that they misinterpret Jesus and distort his original teachings. So when Nietzsche brand himself as the Antichrist, he is up against both Jesus and the Church. He did not call himself as Antijesus or Antichurch, because of this reason of encompassion. Antichrist, afterall, encompasses both of these stances. The Christ in the Antichrist is, therefore, best interpreted as Christianity or Christendom, which consists of its originating ideas as well as its variants and developments. Fritz is up against them all.
These are the philosophy behind, knowing this is the matter here. Nothing else matters a damn. If your intension is to make sure that Nietzsche is well understood, then practically speaking, Antichristian will do nothing but to confuse and mislead. Its explicit grammatical dual functions and simultaneous prefix and postlude, add up to a word of inefficient communication, thus it has never been used. So in any case, whether linguistically or philosophically, you should stick with the Antichrist instead of turning him into someone else. In sticking with the German original, you do not betray its pan European essence by restricting its conceptual encompassion. You are therefore word playing, not properly translating.
This, however, strike me as far beyond reasonable. Or, it is just a case of communicational failure. In any case, I mean to imply and mean to mean that it is all superflous, unessential, unphilosophical. If you really want to distinguish between Imply and Mean, then that is no way to do it.
Mean directly deduces from the Saxon word, Meine, which is immediately the German word that suggests ownership, of both tangible and intagible assets. In German, therefore, the verb and the adjective are etymologically inseperable. In English, as it is often the case, old Saxon is seperated into a language of refined conceptual distinctions and definations. English is, as a result, a wealthily vocabularised and conceptualised language. It is very pan European, relatively easy for each and all them to learn. But that quality, creates the problems where you do not encounter with more ancient languages, like German. In German, compoundwording is commonplace precisely because each single word is rich and profound in its meaning, so words can be easily incorporated to gather to mean something more specific. The more specific the meaning you intend, the more words you glue up. In English, there is no such need, because usually each word is already specific enough. Both ways, English and German, have the same effect in reaching towards the same end. The reason that English went through all these trouble is because the latin element penetrated the English world, which killed the original Saxon culture, killed their German roots.
When I implying some thing, the though comes from me, I am making this thought. This thought is mine, therefore, I mean. Imply, hence, is a latin refinement to decorate and develop the Germanic Mean. Implying, means, meaning tacitly, not in a straightforward fashion, mediately. Suggesting, hinting, these are all similar Anglised words and concepts that can barely be distinguished. Some of them can be distinguished only in terms of traditional usage, grammatical paradiom. These distinguishments are not essential. They mean the same thing, you can safely say. The development and usage of these different exotic words meaning the same thing, are socially oriented, not philosophically oriented. There rise to preminence and stage is much due to class clash, culture struggle, literatural prosperity, et cetera, in short, superfacial social orientations.
We must, as philosophers, overcome these orientations and traditions. Language remains for many of us, all of us, the rimary barrier towards thoughtfullness. That is, towards a philosophy beyond mere reason, logic, conceptualisation, towards a philosophy of high intuitivity, originality and completeness. Completeness does not lie in the ensamble of a vast baskect of specific ideas, concepts, words. Completeness is a chaotic fusion of all things together. It is the grand style. The authentic perspectival power.
Texts, especially when reading Nietzsche’s, must not be treated the same way as the Bible.
He agreed that philosophy is the science of limitations of reason, but he did not agree that Kantian philosophy played within the boundaries of such limitations. Here he suggests the self contradiction commited by Kant. He does not suggests that philosophy should be otherwise.
Kant is not a man of science, his metaphysics is beyond the touch of his physics. Nietzsche does not abolish the scientific methods, niether does he abandons the metaphysical systems. For him, all possess intrinsic flaws because none of them are chaotic enough, complete enough, encompassing enough. What is needed, therefore, is not to endlessly qualify thinkers as either philosopher or scientist, but to set up a measure of quantity opon which thinkers and their ideas can be valued. Therefore, I claimed that the way you are quoting and juxtaposing things are unessential to the essence of Nietzschean philosophy. You qualify too much. What you are doing, is to quotes a few aphorisms and linguistically trying to use them to prove your claims regarding this or that idea, this or that thinker. It is not even eccentric. Eccentricity is superior than pedantry, always, because intuition hunting is always around the centre, hence eccentric, whereas pedantry is always a matter of word play, of concept tangle, not very centric.
What is the centre, the core, the essence of philosophy? It is to know that the abuse of pedantic reasoning, analysis, qualifying, serves against the authentic existence philosophy. By virtue of this knowing, the relative existence of a truer philosophy is most illuminately and firmly established. Postanalytical philosophy, interpreted correctly and powerfully enough, does not work against analytical philosophy, but work to encompass it. To encompass is ever the endeavour committed by all thinkers hiterto, because no man can do otherwise. The intellectual clash of the will to power is actualised in such encompassion of theories. The truer philosophy is always the more powerful philosophy.
Human philoosphy is more powerful than dog philosophy because men possess higher energies of perspective forces, thus men lords over dogs, his world surrounds the dog’s, penetrates the dog’s. For the dog, men are very much a part of nature beyond his grasp and control. For men, however, dog is distinguished from nature so men can establish his lordship firmly and constantly over it. The more man learns, the more techne he begets, the more powerful he is within nature. This is ever the human endeavour. But, when we focus too much on technology, which is one aspect of techne, we do bad to ourselves even though we believe otherwise. For example, industrialisation following scientific advancements have pretty much destroyed the environment beyond historicall recognation and killed millions of million of lives, people’s and animals’. Capitalist economy that replies on the technical functions of economic agents have enriched our material wealth, but it has reduced us as man, it diminished our spiritual prospects.
To accept chaos and try to organise it, not putting it off by building a system or sembling concepts and definitions, is to affirm existence. Existence exists in such affirmation. It does not exist in the concepts and definitions, not in words or lines. A more affirmed existence shows shattering creativity, as a sign, an energitic outburst to declare the victory of being. Hence, I prefer the eccentric over the pedantic, at all times. Hence, I prefer Nietzsche over Kant. But I say this as a Nietzschean, though not really, rather a Heideggerian. Yet, I look forward to say this as something else.
Uniqor–is English a second language for you or am I going crazy? You seem almost to be a native speaker but not quite or do you have your own style? I like your writing style, but I’m not sure if I can follow it. It’s a little over my head I think. Not as difficult as Heidegger but getting there. Speaking of Heidegger, didn’t he arguably render Nietzsche redundant? I.e. Heidegger seems to have implicitly rejected many of Nietzsche’s ideas. Nietzsche threw away ontology as someone mentioned, I think Faust, while Heidegger made it his central focus. Nietzsche made humanity interact with the world as will while Heidegger as da-sein. Does Nietzsche’s relevance end with the 19th century when Heidegger has become the big name in German philosophy, not as his follower and not as his enemy either but as someone much different? Not that Heidegger is the ultimate arbiter since he himself is rather controversial and some have called him a “fraud” as I called Nietzsche. I guess until someone decides just what it is a philosopher is supposed to be doing anyone could get that label. Personally, I would like to confine Nietzsche to the 19th century to a large degree and view him as a 19th century phenomenon. No one is entirely confined to his own era but everyone must be at least somewhat confined to his era. Times have changed so much between the 19th and 21st centuries, that can any philosopher back then have a lot to say about today’s world?
So for Nietzsche, philosophy is not just grasping the limits of reason. This makes that remark a case of saying the opposite of what one thinks. And because it is a cutting remark, it is not just ironic: it is sarcastic.
The word Christ means both “Christ” and “Christian” (noun) in German. Even if it were “pan-European Latin” for “the anointed one” (you are wrong, by the way, about Satan/Mephistopheles/the Devil: that is not the Antichrist), it would still also mean something else in German. And because Nietzsche called himself der Antichrist and did not believe in Christian eschatology, we must acknowledge the ambiguity inherent in that title - which is only done by translating it as “the Antichristian”, which contains the word “Antichrist”, and not by translating it as “the Antichrist”, which does not contain the word “Antichristian”.
Er, no, that is not at all the main concern of Der Antichrist. Nietzsche is concerned with what has been made out of the Galilean’s way of life - the travesty called “Christianity” -, he is against Christians, that’s why he called himself der Antichrist, “the Antichristian” - but with the notion of “the Antichrist”, the scourge of Christianity.
To level himself up with Jesus?? What are you talking about! Jesus is in no wise the highest man for Nietzsche. I never even suggested that Nietzsche wanted to be a “dark messiah”, but I assert that he wanted to warn the Christians, whom he opposed, by adopting the title “Antichrist”. “Here is the annihilator [Vernichter] of Christianity”, is what he wanted to say. And he did not stop at saying so, at saying no.
“Fritz”, o great expert in Nietzscheaniis?
At bottom, of course, Nietzsche is being The Antisemite: for so-called “Christianity”, the Church, was a continuation of Judaism. This is why he despises Christian “antisemites”:
“[T]he Jews are the most catastrophic people of world history: by their after-effect they have made mankind so thoroughly false that even today the Christian can feel anti-Jewish without realizing that he himself is the ultimate Jewish consequence.”
[AC 24, trans. Kaufmann.]
There is no proper translation of Der Antichrist into English, because the ambiguity is lost either way; but, whereas “The Antichristian” includes, as you can see, the sense of “Antichrist”, “The Antichrist” excludes the sense of “Antichristian”.
Nietzsche was in the first place a philologist, not a bullshitter.
See how I have unmasked this so-called “Nietzsche expert”: attack him, and he lapses into a ramble of pseudo-scientific language!
“Wealthily vocabularised and conceptualised”! “Very pan European” (sic)! I will not highlight his bad grammar.
The Latin element did not “kill” the German roots of English, it was resorted to because the English language was insufficient.
How interesting. The point was that der Antichrist does not mean (i.e., translate as) “the Antichrist”, but that it does imply that meaning (i.e., should include in its definition something along the lines of “with an obvious reference to the Antichrist”).
As I also said in the post where that quote came from:
Zarathustra is a counterideal to the Christian ideal, to Christ. So in this sense he is the Antichrist: “instead of Christ”. But Nietzsche is not Zarathustra. Nietzsche is not the Antichrist; he was the Antichristian.
The grand style is not “a chaotic fusion of all things together”: it is Apollinian - severe.
They must be read well:
“[T]o read well, that is to say, to read slowly, deeply, looking cautiously before and aft, with reservations, with doors left open, with delicate eyes and fingers…”
[Nietzsche, The Dawn, Preface, section 5.]
Er, no, he did not. Again: why the two exclamation marks?
Perhaps if you would read me well you might see that I had a point, and that that point was substantiated by Nietzsche’s writings, indeed, that I merely allow their point to become manifest…
You have just given a definition of philosophy which includes the defined in the definition.
