I’m making this thread as a list of a few questions and opinions about Nietzsche.
I’m guessing that Nietzschean philosophy is about coping with, and reacting to, certain types of ideas and situations.
His writings were examples of his thoughts, and his thoughts were how to cope with certain forms of ideas, such
as religious culture for example. This means in part that Nietzsche was trying to cope with philosophical errors.
He then portrays some of his method in how to deal with these things.
Perspectivism is a method for copeing with culture and politics and religion and things like that.
It says: “hey, slow down, that’s a perspective, not an absolute perfect truth.”
If something is true, it is human nature to try to invest in it and profit from it. But that leads
to problems whenever something isn’t true. Therefor, perspecitivism is about conservation of
mental investment, or a conservative way of not always fully buying into ideas and human experiences.
This is how Nietzsche coped with the philosophies about a real external world. Some people baught into
our ideas about the true nature of the world. Nietzsche couldn’t afford to completely do that. He needed
to save his strength in order to preserve his sanity for a longer period of time.
Also the overman is the new state of evolution which exists after humans and the apes.
Humanity at present should be celebrated because it is a bridge to an eventual post human
species which will be superior to humanity. This is a positive idea. It is another way which
Nietzsche tried to preserve his hope in the future, hope in some form of progress.
The overman is very life affirmative and “enlightened”. He doesn’t destroy himself or be all
stupid. He’s destined to succeed due to his nature.
So, these are some of my opinions about Nietzschean philosophy.
I could be wrong, but I posted to ask you folks if I’m wrong.
Agree.
But I would stress the world reaction - contra-dicere say-against.
I would not say it is wrong, but disagree. There are some perspectives that are better than others.
Disagree.
There are no things that as true or false. There is not some-thing, it is always a perspective and an interpretation. (Still, our senses don’t lie, they provide what we need to know. Considering their truth or falsity eventually becomes morbid).
Then there is no conservation of investment, nature (and hence men) are dissipatiing and prodigal, life is a force fatally tending to unbalance, so thoughts need to be
I guess that suspect is a motive in his philosophy.
I don’t know about the specifics but I think you have the gist of it. I’m not so certain about characterizing Nietzsche trying to cope with committing to an idea. I think that Nietzsche is fully committed to the idea of the great man. I think that the main idea of Nietzsche’s thought is that we should rebel against those things that are lies. Nietzsche wants us to live a life that is based upon an honest assessment of our situation. Religion and culture may or may not be impediments to this realization. It seems that we have to decide whether the argument for religion and culture outweigh the arguments against it. The main thing that I think Nietzsche is against is the brainwashing that religion and culture have caused. People mindlessly buy into religion and culture and by doing this never ask the big questions in life. In this sense they don’t do as well as freethinkers when it comes to addressing the big questions in life. Nietzsche sees religion and culture as being a cancer that has kept the human race in the pathetic condition that we are in. It is hard for me to grasp why Nietzsche is opposed to such brainwashing.
He was about immortalizing his own will. Same as any other man. Also, he created his philosophy about as much as it created him. That’s one of the most important things I learned from reading his works. Another very important thing is that, in the end, it doesn’t matter what he was all about, what he was saying. His role was to create an environment that makes self-enlightenment possible, and if one is willing to allow himself to be influenced enough in order to be able to open the doors of one’s inner self, stop hiding it from oneself and merge with it on a conscious level, that person will gain an advantage over his former peers, become better, more aware, more powerful. Beyond this point Nietzsche’s philosophy becomes redundant.
I’d just like to ask what a superior species to human would be like? ~ hope its not off topic.
There may be superior beings in mental/spiritual realms, or more likely we may be able to build a robot/computer superior to us. Have humans already reached the biological maxim for e.g. brain size? I think we may well improve massively with what we have, perhaps become less hairy, lighter framed etc, but the fundamental human form has already been arrived at.
Have you ever considered that we may be superior as mental beings to our human form! I quite often feel let down by human nature with all its flaws, the way the brain creates faux pas situations and generally fumbles around stumbling all over the place.
Our forms act/react in the distance between spirit and world/environment, its like a dualistic loop which creates all manner of nonsense between our desired effect and the real effect, then from the other direction between our desired input and what is presented before us. Sometimes the brain presents the mind with most undesirable notions, images and behaviourisms; did we ask for that? It’s like a stupid child that goes out and gets us information it thinks we want, it also presents us with extremes it assumes we need to gauge the balance.
“I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?
All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is the ape to man? A laughingstock or a painful embarrassment. And man shall be just that for the overman: a laughingstock or a painful embarrassment…”
I’m guessing N thought the overman would be more intelligent, reasonable and strong than a regular human being.
Brain size is a strange thing. It isn’t exactly the definition for intelligence. For example small dogs have about equal IQ to the largest ones, despite brain size differences. I’m guessing how active the brain is is a big factor also, and maybe there are other reasons I’m not aware of.
Dan: if you’re thinking of the overman in terms of a species, in terms of the biological difference between ape and man, you’re misconceptualizing him. The overman is a type – still human, just not all-too-human.
It is far, far more than that. Perspectivism is, I believe, the key to Nietzsche’s thought: it lies at the heart of his philosophy. Think of it in terms of valuation, will, interpretation and a redefinition of truth. Perhaps then you’ll find your way through his maze.
Again: emphatically not. Nietzsche had a very strong idea of the nature of the world. If you’ve read him, you’ve come across the phrase “innocent becoming.” Perception is falsification, logic is falsification, being itself is falsification. Here lies the importance of interpretation and perspectivism yet again.
Understanding Nietzsche is not a matter of being taught of his ideas, it is a matter of tarrying yourself with the difficulties in his thought, of working out for yourself the resolutions to his contradictions and complexities. Read him like poetry. Keep in mind what’s important: interpretation, will, valuation, perspectivism, power, overcoming, joy, affirmation, life. Re-read him. You’ll find your way.
Just an observation, but Dan~ has, over the years, produced some of the most thoroughly perspectivist thought that I have ever seen, here or anywhere else. I’m not sure that anyone, anywhere, understands perspectivism, first-hand, better than Dan~.
I’m not familiar with Dan~'s posts, so I will take your word for it. If he has a solid grasp of perspectivism, then so much the better – his reading of Nietzsche will flow well. My objection is aimed toward what Dan~ expressed to be the significance, rather than the content, of Nietzsche’s perspectivism.
Indeed, but I wouldn’t say that’s a different species. I have often thought of progression, invention and the creation of new and original thinking to be much like the crest of a wave [and time itself to be that wave]. My every meditation is an attempt to reach beyond what is already there, all my threads are aimed at that too. what do we mean by ‘strong’, i’d say he meant it as mental ability and dexterity, not suffering fools gladly, being able to out argue people and grind them into the ground in doing so etc.
Hmm maybe the tests aren’t adequate, especially as we consider human intelligence by its mathematical capability, where a great mathematician is nothing like as good at math as a 1980’s calculator. If we don’t even know how to measure the human intellect I guess we have little chance with another species.
I’d say that small dogs don’t need as much of their brain to control their bodies, so the comparative seems equal to big dogs with bigger brains. If though you had a big dog with comparatively larger brains, I’d assume that to be different.
A few neurons are enough to make basic connections, a jellyfish with just a few neurons will move away from a red object in fear, hence simplistic tests would only resolve simple issues. It seems straight forwards to me that the more neurons you add the greater the complexity of connections etc. then it’s a case of how much work the said brain has to do for non-thinking functions ~ in the sense of what the consciousness and intellect can utilise of the brain, as compared to what the brain has to use just to operate its form.
I believe many handicapped people are born with the same brain size as a typical human. If it is smaller, only by a little bit.
Genes and issues of quality-over-quantity also apply to a brain.
If we are talking about significance rather than content, I’d say N built his idea around the best of his self and environment. I’ve said this in other threads too, but it appears to be that things tend to evolve in an imbalanced way. Example: some areas of society and the world have super technology, and some have zero technology. - Some philosophers are super at a certain type of thought, then they may even fail miserably at another concept or type of thought. There are born people with great athletic ability, but mild intellectual ability. There are born people who cannot walk, but can imagine great amounts of information. If this principal rings true, then N will or can not offer the best most complete and perfect philosophical system. He can just give examples of a system which works best for him.
If perspectivism isn’t about conservation of mental investment, then what is it about?
Well, Dan~, I can tell you in all seriousness, that if you think Nietzsche at all intended to provide a complete philosophical system, then he probably just isn’t the right philosopher for you. That is literally the opposite of “what Nietzsche was all about” – I really doubt Faust’s observation; if you understand perspectival philosophy, you understand the concept that systems are to be done away with, not worked towards. You say: “He can just give examples of a system which works best for him.” I’m not even sure of what you mean here, but perhaps you’re trying to say that Nietzsche can give us pieces of his system, but not the whole thing? Even still: emphatically not. From Twilight of the Idols: “I mistrust all systematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity.”
From the famous Genealogy of Morality passage:
As Christoph Cox writes, in his Naturalism and Interpretation:
Here Nietzsche entwines the notion of “perspective” with the notion of “affective interpretation.” He claims that a perspective is constituted and directed by a matrix of “active and interpreting forces” that allow something to appear as a particular something. A “perspective,” then, would seem to be an ontological and evaluative horizon opened up by the operation of a particular “affective interpretation.”[4]
[4] See WP 616: “that every elevation of man brings with it the overcoming of narrower interpretations; that every strengthening and increase of power opens up new perspectives and means believing in new horizons—this idea permeates my writings.” On the relation between horizons and perspectives, see Heidegger, Nietzsche, vol. 3, §§13, 19.
As should be clear, perspectivism has little to do with conserving one’s mental energy. It’s actually more of an ontological claim. Your interpretation makes it seem like there is some ultimate reality out there accessible, but as humans we aren’t strong enough to apprehend it so we have to resort to conserving our strength and considering views simply perspectival. That really isn’t the point. Again: think valuation, think interpretation, think will.
No human being will or can offer an absolutely “complete” system. They instead offer life experience and life method.
Systems are replaced, added, removed, upgraded, spliced, etc. To form an active matrix of perspectives and ideas. Sometimes they are to be done away with, but usually, they aren’t. They are bits and pieces of life, which we use as best we can.
Yes. His life is mostly a mystery, and so is his expression. We only get a piece by all of his writings.
There is a difference between selectively using pieces of a system, and being a systemizer. Also one systemizer isn’t always like another. Some are good, some aren’t. In general, systemizers are limiters. This is why N avoids them, as he attempts to be expansive or positive and productive, mentally.
Perspectivism isn’t a metaphysical component. It can be ontological, but it’s not an ontology. It’s a life-state, first and foremost.
Whatever it is, we’ve got a little bit of it, and we want more.
With the handicapped the brains networks are broken and maybe some neurons defunct or destroyed.
I agree about “quality-over-quantity” and this is like what I was referring to in saying that the way we use our brains will change, perhaps more than us evolving into a different creature.
There’s too much emphasis on his perspectivism.
Yeah, he did believe in perspectives, but to claim this is his central thought is to overlook the decadence he spends a considerable amount of time trying to overcome.
Perspectivism is in the background, nobility is in the foreground.
I disagree, Fent. I think his perspectivism is bound up with interpretation, which is, in turn, bound up with the will to power, which is, of course, bound up with the ubermensch, which is, of course, bound up with what you’ve called nobility. There could never be enough emphasis on his perspectivism – as I’ve said above: I believe Nietzschean perspectivism to be an ontological conception.
Yes it is an ontological position. The will to power is his ontological base and perspectives grow out of the various configurations of that will to power.
But this is only half the story. Why does Nietzsche vigorously criticize various manifestations of will to power like Christianity, the herd, and Buddhism, and glorify others like Goethe and Napoleon? He has a socio/political project in mind, that’s why.
To claim it’s all about perspectives falls back into a relativism which is a position he rejects.
I agree with Dan~ - Nietzsche was all about conserving mental investment. All of metaphysics is a waste of time and mental energy, in N’s view. This is significant in the context of the philosopher’s task.
This is a good guess, as N spent most of his career discussing philosophical errors.
Perpsectivism is indeed a way of coping with religion - N appeared to be trying to cope with religion all his life. he thought the best way to cope with politics was to ignore it it (in the narrow sense) and to overcome it (in the broad sense). That is, he couldn’t care less about politicians - but he cared deeply about the politics of religion, for example.
The “true” ideas were like Plato’s “true knowledge of the true world” - in other words, metaphysics is required for truth, which Plato knew. Nietzsche also knew this, and so rejected truth in that sense.