Anyone here read Nietzsche ?

[Zankou]

But Nietzsche is a just a bunch of opinions too. You're acting like his ideas were scientific or something. It sounds just like storytelling, much like Freud did later. Who was influenced by Nietzsche. They just tell stories of why they think religion originated and what the role is, that originated from their personal experiences and prejudices.

In fairness to Nietzsche, he was a history professor and classical philologist first, with much more fidelity to historical sources and texts than Freud. It's not just making up stories if you read the primary texts, it's critical history. Which is what genealogy really means.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

TS, which translations do you think are the best? Obviously Kaufman is considered king but I also try to get the R.J. Hollingdale translations. I find when certain Kaufman translations feel a little muddy I will go to the Hollingdale translation for better clarity.

I really enjoyed Josefine Nauckhoff's translation of The Gay Science. Especially her translation of Nietzsche famous 125 passage.

From the Nauckhoff Translation:


"-Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers.The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water will we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves?"

Paragraph 125 The Gay Science

 

[Spoken]

Nietzsche is very readable in English, and you definitely don't need to read it in the original German. Also, Nietzsche shares the distinction with Schopenhauer of being one of the finest writers among philosophers, a titan of German writing.

He's not like Heidegger, who coined his own oh-so-precious philosophical terminology because his concepts couldn't be expressed in ordinary words. Reading Heidegger is like being stabbed in the eye, over and over again, until you "get it."

I bought a Heidegger dictionary, shit you not... once you get used to the idioms, it got a lot easier.
I tackled being and time, starting with some secondary sources, and then read it twice... From there I moved on Phenomenology of Religious life, Intro to M. Physics, Bremen and Freiburg Lectures, and Poetry, Language, Thought. It really starts to flow once you're used to the idioms.

German analytic philosophers are brutal to actually read. I find phenomenology and existentialism so much less interesting than epistemology. At least Nietzsche is readable and thought provoking for any academically inclined person, even if they don't have the time/patience/endurance to make it through Being and Time.

Cant say I do much analytic philosophy nowadays, despite my one publication being in the field :/.
Being and Time is a monster... but I think that heidegger creates some interesting discussion on pragmatic stuff as well, like technology and what not.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

But Nietzsche is a just a bunch of opinions too. You're acting like his ideas were scientific or something. It sounds just like storytelling, much like Freud did later. Who was influenced by Nietzsche. They just tell stories of why they think religion originated and what the role is, that originated from their personal experiences and prejudices.

I think Nietzsche would be the first to agree with you on that.

There is no "ONE TRUTH".There is only "MY TRUTH".

Religion in my opinion did have an important role in civilization building but it's an outdated concept at best.It's also in my opinion an opium for the weak minded people just like all the ideals.

 

[Spoken]

TS, which translations do you think are the best? Obviously Kaufman is considered king but I also try to get the R.J. Hollingdale translations. I find when certain Kaufman translations feel a little muddy I will go to the Hollingdale translation for better clarity.

I really enjoyed Josefine Nauckhoff's translation of The Gay Science. Especially her translation of Nietzsche famous 125 passage.

From the Nauckhoff Translation:


"-Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers.The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water will we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves?"

Paragraph 125 The Gay Science

my profs always said Kaufman is best.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

TS, which translations do you think are the best? Obviously Kaufman is considered king but I also try to get the R.J. Hollingdale translations. I find when certain Kaufman translations feel a little muddy I will go to the Hollingdale translation for better clarity.

I really enjoyed Josefine Nauckhoff's translation of The Gay Science. Especially her translation of Nietzsche famous 125 passage.

From the Nauckhoff Translation:


"-Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him! How can we console ourselves, the murderers of all murderers.The holiest and the mightiest thing the world has ever possessed has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood from us? With what water will we clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what holy games will we have to invent for ourselves?"

Paragraph 125 The Gay Science

I can't tell for sure.I only read it in my own language and English.

 

[Spoken]

In fairness to Nietzsche, he was a history professor and classical philologist first, with much more fidelity to historical sources and texts than Freud. It's not just making up stories if you read the primary texts, it's critical history. Which is what genealogy really means.

This is true. Nietzsche was a bit more concerned with the historical developments when creating a theory to make sense of religion/Christianity. This doesn't mean his theory isn't flawed, but is far more rooted in something substantial and universal than Freud.

I gotta admit though, I read Freud and there are moments when shit rings true... freaks me out

 

[JonesBones]

In fairness to Nietzsche, he was a history professor and classical philologist first, with much more fidelity to historical sources and texts than Freud. It's not just making up stories if you read the primary texts, it's critical history. Which is what genealogy really means.

Still, Nietzsche's explanations of religion are just so stories and his own interpretation. Nobody really knows why religions were created or what that shit means, anymore than they know what a poem means or why Hitler hated Jews. You can be a scholar on the Napoleonic wars but still not know what made Napoleon tick, or what really caused those events. Nobody knows those things.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

This is true. Nietzsche was a bit more concerned with the historical developments when creating a theory to make sense of religion/Christianity. This doesn't mean his theory isn't flawed, but is far more rooted in something substantial and universal than Freud.

I gotta admit though, I read Freud and there are moments when shit rings true... freaks me out

Although they are both outdated,I think both of them are cornerstones in defeating the old ways of thinking.

The only thing that is constant in this universe is change(and that includes morality) and that's IMO Nietzsche's most important thought.

 

[Zankou]

Good discussion on Nietzsche translations and intro books. Basically there aren't really any bad translations of Nietzsche, he translates well:

http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.com/2004/12/where-should-beginner-start-with.html

Kaufman is a good translator, but his interpretations of Nietzsche should be avoided. Also, in my opinion, reviews and summaries of Nietzsche are almost universally terrible. He needs to be read directly. That actually goes for almost all philosophy; there are only a few philosophers (like Heidegger, Hegel, or Kant) where you will benefit from having a summary that guides you through it. Also, it's no coincidence that Heidegger, Hegel, and Kant are almost unreadable.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

I bought a Heidegger dictionary, shit you not... once you get used to the idioms, it got a lot easier.
I tackled being and time, starting with some secondary sources, and then read it twice... From there I moved on Phenomenology of Religious life, Intro to M. Physics, Bremen and Freiburg Lectures, and Poetry, Language, Thought. It really starts to flow once you're used to the idioms.



Cant say I do much analytic philosophy nowadays, despite my one publication being in the field :/.
Being and Time is a monster... but I think that heidegger creates some interesting discussion on pragmatic stuff as well, like technology and what not.

I had to read Heidegger in one of the general continental philosophy classes I took. I had to read his work on Technology. It was really a treat and extremely relevant even today.

His argument that our thinking in many ways has become very mechanical due to the over emphasis on the logical and technical is very relevant to today. I can understand where he is coming from when he says the over-analytical and mechanical mind has difficulty in seeing value is something for its own sake.

He gives an example of a specific spot in nature. He says instead of appreciating the nature for itself our minds have been trained to only see value regarding it dollar worth in terms of tourist dollars and resources. I would say its fair to argue this is one of the disadvantages of capitalism. It becomes difficult to see intrinsic value and worth for its own sake.

 

[Zankou]

Still, Nietzsche's explanations of religion are just so stories and his own interpretation. Nobody really knows why religions were created or what that shit means, anymore than they know what a poem means or why Hitler hated Jews. You can be a scholar on the Napoleonic wars but still not know what made Napoleon tick, or what really caused those events. Nobody knows those things.

Nobody knows those things if your definition of knowledge requires it to be absolutely certain with the exactitude of Newtonian physics.

But that doesn't mean you can't know a lot more about them by studying them. By definition, being a historian requires methodology and attending to the texts in a critical way. Religions are a social phenomenon like any other. Human societies are very complicated, and it's hard to make absolutist statements about them, but they aren't completely incomprehensible in the sense where we just have to throw our hands up and say "humans, nobody knows what they are or why they do things, we are all just completely ignorant forever, Amen."

 

[Spoken]

Although they are both outdated,I think both of them are cornerstones in defeating the old ways of thinking.

The only thing that is constant in this universe is change(and that includes morality) and that's IMO Nietzsche's most important thought.

His destruction of onto-theology will always be used by theologian. Nietzsche is more useful to Christianity than anything else, lol.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

Still, Nietzsche's explanations of religion are just so stories and his own interpretation. Nobody really knows why religions were created or what that shit means, anymore than they know what a poem means or why Hitler hated Jews. You can be a scholar on the Napoleonic wars but still not know what made Napoleon tick, or what really caused those events. Nobody knows those things.

I think you are mistaken.I think that religion was created for many reasons and that those reasons are well known.It was a norm managing factor in the ages of the anarchy where human death instincts were running wild.

1)It was due to the fact that people crave knowledge and yet they know so little so they explain the things they don't know through supernatural.We see the world through cause and effect and yet some things were still unexplained.

2)Further,all people need someone or something to obey(as Nietzsche said as well) and therefore need an external authority.People who are governed by an internal authority are very rare and they are most likely the creators of the fictional external authority.

 

[Zankou]

I had to read Heidegger in one of the general continental philosophy classes I took. I had to read his work on Technology. It was really a treat and extremely relevant even today.

His argument that our thinking in many ways has become very mechanical due to the over emphasis on the logical and technical is very relevant to today. I can understand where he is coming from when he says the over-analytical and mechanical mind has difficulty in seeing value is something for its own sake.

He gives an example of a specific spot in nature. He says instead of appreciating the nature for itself our minds have been trained to only see value regarding it dollar worth in terms of tourist dollars and resources. I would say its fair to argue this is one of the disadvantages of capitalism. It becomes difficult to see intrinsic value and worth for its own sake.

This is basically just hyper-Romanticism, which is about as good of a definition of Heidegger as you'll get. It's why he gets classified with Kierkegaard/Nietzsche etcetera as an existentialist, reacting against the growth of Enlightenment rationality, of which capitalism (and Marxism btw) are two socioeconomic examples.

 

[seatea]

Good discussion on Nietzsche translations and intro books. Basically there aren't really any bad translations of Nietzsche, he translates well:

http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.com/2004/12/where-should-beginner-start-with.html

Kaufman is a good translator, but his interpretations of Nietzsche should be avoided. Also, in my opinion, reviews and summaries of Nietzsche are almost universally terrible. He needs to be read directly. That actually goes for almost all philosophy; there are only a few philosophers (like Heidegger, Hegel, or Kant) where you will benefit from having a summary that guides you through it. Also, it's no coincidence that Heidegger, Hegel, and Kant are almost unreadable.

It interesting that he should say that Kaufman's book about Nietzsche should be avoided. Do you know why?

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Good discussion on Nietzsche translations and intro books. Basically there aren't really any bad translations of Nietzsche, he translates well:

http://brianleiternietzsche.blogspot.com/2004/12/where-should-beginner-start-with.html

Kaufman is a good translator, but his interpretations of Nietzsche should be avoided. Also, in my opinion, reviews and summaries of Nietzsche are almost universally terrible. He needs to be read directly. That actually goes for almost all philosophy; there are only a few philosophers (like Heidegger, Hegel, or Kant) where you will benefit from having a summary that guides you through it. Also, it's no coincidence that Heidegger, Hegel, and Kant are almost unreadable.

I would say out of the 3 philosophers you mentioned, Hegel is by far the most notorious when it comes to readability. I had to write an essay on his Spirit and Phenomenology and it was by far the most difficult thing I have ever done in my life.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

His destruction of onto-theology will always be used by theologian. Nietzsche is more useful to Christianity than anything else, lol.

If by that you mean to Christian demagogues then - yes.

It's rather easy to usurp any philosophy out there if you have a bit of rhetoric and demagogy skills.

Just like his theories were the "basis" for Nazism even though he was a strict anti-anti-Semite and anti-nationalist.

 

[Spoken]

Nobody knows those things if your definition of knowledge requires it to be absolutely certain with the exactitude of Newtonian physics.

But that doesn't mean you can't know a lot more about them by studying them. By definition, being a historian requires methodology and attending to the texts in a critical way. Religions are a social phenomenon like any other. Human societies are very complicated, and it's hard to make absolutist statements about them, but they aren't completely incomprehensible in the sense where we just have to throw our hands up and say "humans, nobody knows what they are or why they do things, we are all just completely ignorant forever, Amen."

I agree with you for the most part. Even to radical analytic philosophy, say the logical positivist, history is a synthetic science; things are knowable, but not analytically in the way that you noted.
Critical Realism, or the philosophy would Gadamer, would state that through the texts and the study of history (however that may be done), something does indeed stand, and yet, something is unknowable because of the sheer lack of data and because of the human bias in every interpretation of data/experience.

Like, we cannot analytically prove that Caesar Augustus was a real person. There is no mathematically certain approach to prove this... but the various methods of history show us that it's FAR more likely than not that he was indeed a real person.

 

[seatea]

His destruction of onto-theology will always be used by theologian. Nietzsche is more useful to Christianity than anything else, lol.

Can you explain this in more detail please?