Philosophy Now Forum

Arising_uk wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Overall I think Nietzsche wants to say that we live in a universe of clockwork precision. It is very much Newtonian, mechanical, fragmented, predictable and disconnected and very mundane. Nietzsche would probably say that we have lost our soul (figuratively speaking in the case of Nietzsche) in the face of modernism. In other words, in Newtonian universe there is no need to search for any sort of transcendental or higher standards- we have killed them off, "God is dead" we have pulled the rug out from under our own feet. ...

I'd have thought his 'God is dead' more a response to Darwin? As, if correct, he'd pulled the latest prop to Christian morality away, i.e. we were made by 'it' to be the apple of 'its' eye so behave.

Wyman wrote:

Melchior wrote:

Enigma3 wrote:Hello to all. I consider myself a philosopher by natural inclination. I really love good ideas in general. Like the idea in physics that there are many possible worlds or universes or histories and all of the possibilities that are latent in nanotechnology and potential alien life on other planets (or living in space somehow, like the Gods) and this type of thing.

My favorite book is Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. In my opinion it is one of the greatest books ever written. Of course I am prejudiced because after all I am a Modern like most of us (in that we are all skeptical of grand metaphysical systems).

Anyone who loves philosophy and great literature should love Beyond Good and Evil, the epochal book of modernity in which nearly the entire range of Nietzsche's mature philosophy is on display. The R.J. Hollingdale translation with running commentary (located at the end) is the best edition. The commentary is necessary if only as a beginning, and the text is a serious piece of artistic workmanship. But I don't believe anyone can grasp all that there is to grasp without also reading Kaufman's edition, which contains footnotes as well as a totally different approach in the translation.

But who can be such an individual as the type that Nietzsche calls for? apparently no one. The best ideas are the ones that nobody can bear. The Will to Power, his Schopenhauerian adaptation gets 'the hottest and most beautiful women in his bed, at its service. (The quote "Supposing truth were a woman, what then?", is the first sentence of the book.) Nobody seems to want to be this heated tragic hero of modernity, they seem to shun the idea of it.

To me its important to begin with Schopenhauer where nature is pointless and indifferent to human wishes. Nature is harsh and understanding is to suffer. And Nietzsche's Will to Power ideas are the proper correction of Schopenhauer's pessimism.

I love Nietzsche's and Schopenhauer's basic ideas because they coincide with the thrust of modernity that, we're on our own in the universe; it's up to us and not some resurrected (allegedly) god-man to save us. I love nihilism for what it does to us (hint: there will be no survivors) and I love modernity for the opportunities it provides me.

Thanks for reading.

Hollingdale's translations are excrement (I know, because I have made my own and checked his translations word for word). Nietzsche was a self-righteous, arrogant asshole by today's standards. If you 'like' him you clearly do not understand him.

Unlike what you say (that his ideas 'coincide with the thrust of modernity') he opposed everything 'modern', and by no means was he a 'philosopher'. He was a child of Victorian times and looked up to aristocrats and hated the common man. He was not one of us, and thought himself superior to everyone around him. He probably was. You should hate him. I don't, because I am just like him.

So is the motivating impulse of human life the will for survival or the will for power, or something else? - anyone?

uwot wrote:Not really my thing, Nietzsche, but I think "God is dead" was responding to the general development of science since the renaissance: Copernicus and Galileo showed we weren't the centre of the universe, Kepler did away with celestial spheres moving in perfect circles. Lavoisier demonstrated that matter is not made of the Greek elements; Pasteur that life wouldn't appear spontaneously. I can't remember who gets the credit, but science was coming up with compelling evidence that the world is substantially older than the OT implies. The world according to God, as taught by his Earthly representatives was well and truly dead.
I think superman was more directly a response to evolution; a brilliant idea, but still a young one, in Nietzsche's time, and his understanding and response was correspondingly crude. Which makes it popular amongst the hard of thinking.

Ginkgo wrote:

uwot wrote:Not really my thing, Nietzsche, but I think "God is dead" was responding to the general development of science since the renaissance: Copernicus and Galileo showed we weren't the centre of the universe, Kepler did away with celestial spheres moving in perfect circles. Lavoisier demonstrated that matter is not made of the Greek elements; Pasteur that life wouldn't appear spontaneously. I can't remember who gets the credit, but science was coming up with compelling evidence that the world is substantially older than the OT implies. The world according to God, as taught by his Earthly representatives was well and truly dead.
I think superman was more directly a response to evolution; a brilliant idea, but still a young one, in Nietzsche's time, and his understanding and response was correspondingly crude. Which makes it popular amongst the hard of thinking.

Yes, I think analytical philosophy is a very large blanket so it can cover a lot of things. I don't know if you have been reading d63's "Rhizomes" but d63 is an excellent source of knowledge when it comes to continental philosophy. Very impressive actually.
However, I do the thing that most existentialist philosophers don't like. I immediately begin to separate subjects from objects. I think this makes for excellent discourse. I'm sure he doesn't mind.

Wyman wrote:Oh c'mon uwot, you can't write off a major philosopher as 'crude' with a trite ad hominem to those who like him.

Wyman wrote:At least not without demonstrating a better understanding of his ideas.

What are the consequences of the death of a teleological explanation of life vis a vis ethics? Since his response was 'crude,' what is the refined explanation?

Ginkgo wrote:

Arising_uk wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Overall I think Nietzsche wants to say that we live in a universe of clockwork precision. It is very much Newtonian, mechanical, fragmented, predictable and disconnected and very mundane. Nietzsche would probably say that we have lost our soul (figuratively speaking in the case of Nietzsche) in the face of modernism. In other words, in Newtonian universe there is no need to search for any sort of transcendental or higher standards- we have killed them off, "God is dead" we have pulled the rug out from under our own feet. ...

I'd have thought his 'God is dead' more a response to Darwin? As, if correct, he'd pulled the latest prop to Christian morality away, i.e. we were made by 'it' to be the apple of 'its' eye so behave.

Probably was. Nietzsche was anti-anything that stood in the way of our "will to power" Naturally, Nietzsche was an existentialist philosopher and as, with most existentialists, he was reacting against the long standing analytical tradition. It is possible to argue that both Newton and Darwin were both products of this school. Certainly in hindsight it seems that way

Melchior wrote:

'Will to power' is a mistranslation of der Wille zur Macht, which means 'desire for power (or strength)'. The preposition zu does not mean 'to' here. The expression zum Beispiel means 'for example'. Zu Berlin means 'in Berlin', not 'to Berlin', which is nach Berlin. Zu Hause means 'at home', and gehen wir nach Hause? means 'are we going home?'

Ginkgo wrote:

Melchior wrote:

'Will to power' is a mistranslation of der Wille zur Macht, which means 'desire for power (or strength)'. The preposition zu does not mean 'to' here. The expression zum Beispiel means 'for example'. Zu Berlin means 'in Berlin', not 'to Berlin', which is nach Berlin. Zu Hause means 'at home', and gehen wir nach Hause? means 'are we going home?'

I don't speak German but there seems to be a difference between a desire "for strength" and a "desire for power". We can desire power by trying to impose our will upon others, but there is also the flip side of inner turmoil. Resolving this would require a willingness to strength.

Like I said continental philosophy is not my strength, but that's how I read him. Ask d63, he would know.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:The teachings of Neitzchlep are old, and primitive. We've got a'something that is better. Somethin' that changes all the rules. Don't fret, don't worry, or your little head will explode! Soon, wheel show you what we've got...

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:The teachings of Neitzchlep are old, and primitive. We've got a'something that is better. Somethin' that changes all the rules. Don't fret, don't worry, or your little head will explode! Soon, wheel show you what we've got...

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:The teachings of Neitzchlep are old, and primitive. We've got a'something that is better. Somethin' that changes all the rules. Don't fret, don't worry, or your little head will explode! Soon, wheel show you what we've got...

Impenitent wrote:why bother a philologist with speeling and grammer?

-Imp