Anyone here read Nietzsche ?

[Devout Pessimist]

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.

I can't say I disagree with you at all. In fact I really like your term hyper-romanticism to describe Heidegger.

 

[Uchi Mata]

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 got through about 70 pages of Critique of Pure Reason before I just couldn't take any more. I considered that a decent run.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

I gotta go to practice.See you all later for some more discussion.

 

[Zankou]

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

Nietzsche can't ever be reconciled with Christianity. He is above all a historical genealogist.

I should say he can't ever be reconciled with historical Christianity. If you want a Christianity in which the afterlife matters, in which the last shall be first, in which an entity called God actually exists as something more than vapid metaphor, then there isn't a shred of possibility of reconciling them.

The only reason you are saying that Nietzsche freed the theologian is becaused, having killed off a God who is an actual being, he freed the theologian to speak of God as vague metaphor for aspects of human existence, like a poet. But that doesn't have the damnedest relation to historical Christianity, where people thought God mattered in a completely different way, much like the Mack truck barrelling down the street matters in a way very different than a poetic metaphor. And that's the part that Nietzsche is against. He is okay with having churches sitting around as the tombs of God, with theologians tolling the funeral service. It's actual Christianity he had a problem with.

 

[Spoken]

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.

go read the books I mentioned.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

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.

So what you are saying is that because we cannot have complete certainty we shouldn't bother taking anything seriously?

 

[Zankou]

I got through about 70 pages of Critique of Pure Reason before I just couldn't take any more. I considered that a decent run.

You deserve a medal. My philosophy prof in undergrad admitted he hurled the CCR across the room when he first read it.

That said, at least CCR is an incredible work of philosophy, arguably the best single work, to my mind, since Plato.

 

[Dungrove Elder**]

I was going to read it but then I remembered i was just going to die anyway so it didn't really matter you know

 

[JonesBones]

So what you are saying is that because we cannot have complete certainty we shouldn't bother taking anything seriously?

No, I'm saying that there are better ways to explore these things than just some guy sitting in his room making up stories. Freud was driven out of academia for a reason; because he was just telling stories, and more scientific psychologies appeared. Freud basically tried to introduce Nietzsche ideas into the scientific world and they were eventually rejected.

 

[Spoken]

Nietzsche can't ever be reconciled with Christianity. He is above all a historical genealogist.

I should say he can't ever be reconciled with historical Christianity. If you want a Christianity in which the afterlife matters, in which the last shall be first, in which an entity called God actually exists as something more than vapid metaphor, then there isn't a shred of possibility of reconciling them.

The only reason you are saying that Nietzsche freed the theologian is becaused, having killed off a God who is an actual being, he freed the theologian to speak of God as vague metaphor for aspects of human existence, like a poet. But that doesn't have the damnedest relation to historical Christianity, where people thought God mattered in a completely different way, much like the Mack truck barrelling down the street matters in a way very different than a poetic metaphor. And that's the part that Nietzsche is against. He is okay with having churches sitting around as the tombs of God, with theologians tolling the funeral service. It's actual Christianity he had a problem with.

His issue with authentic, historical Christian are indeed noted... but that's more to do with his view of ethics (or lack there of). The God of Nietzsche's setting, especially in the academy was one of two things: a Kantian, deistic God that is helpful on the conversation of being or practical ethics; or one rooted in platonic speculation.

His destruction of the unknowable God has been used by theologians for awhile.
That said, you cannot have an inherently Nietzschean Christianity, no. Christianity is at odds with the will to the power, and rightly so.

if I can get into my boxes of books and notes, I should be able to find an essay I did on some of this stuff... not much of it is fresh anymore as I've spend the last year on Augustine, Heidegger, and philosophical hermeneutics.

 

[Spoken]

I recall this being interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Pious-Nietzsche-Decadence-Dionysian-Philosophy/dp/0253218748

 

[Zankou]

No, I'm saying that there are better ways to explore these things just some guy sitting in his room making up stories. Freud was driven out of academia for a reason; because he was just telling stories, and more scientific psychologies appeared. Freud basically tried to introduce Nietzsche ideas into the scientific world and they were eventually rejected.

Please, history and psychology are different disciplines. Freud's psychology can be tested using psychological studies, because he purports to make empirical claims about test subjects. Nietzsche's *historical claims* about religion can be tested as well, but they have to be tested using the methods of historical analysis -- such as the means that Nietzsche used, which was reading the primary historical texts, in their original language.

Of course historical analysis is much harder, but that doesn't mean we have to just throw up our hands and say "everything that happened to humans more than 5 seconds ago is forever unknowable mythology that can never be explained by anyone, ever."

 

[Devout Pessimist]

No, I'm saying that there are better ways to explore these things just some guy sitting in his room making up stories. Freud was driven out of academia for a reason; because he was just telling stories, and more scientific psychologies appeared. Freud basically tried to introduce Nietzsche ideas into the scientific world and they were eventually rejected.

Are you arguing that Freud and Nietzsche had absolutely zero influence regarding the evolution of ideas and the knowledge we have discovered today?

Are you also arguing that Psychology would have been what it is today regardless of Freud's ideas?

 

[JonesBones]

Please, history and psychology are different disciplines. Freud's psychology can be tested using psychological studies, because he purports to make empirical claims about test subjects. Nietzsche's *historical claims* about religion can be tested as well, but they have to be tested using the methods of historical analysis -- such as the means that Nietzsche used, which was reading the primary historical texts, in their original language.

Of course historical analysis is much harder, but that doesn't mean we have to just throw up our hands and say "everything that happened to humans more than 5 seconds ago is forever unknowable mythology that can never be explained by anyone, ever."

But Freud and Nietzsche would try to explain why humans did this or that, and I consider that psychology. And so did Freud and others.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

You deserve a medal. My philosophy prof in undergrad admitted he hurled the CCR across the room when he first read it.

That said, at least CCR is an incredible work of philosophy, arguably the best single work, to my mind, since Plato.

Why do you read Heidegger, Nietzsche, Kant, etc.? What do you get out of reading their works?

 

[Taras Bulba**]

I recall this being interesting:

http://www.amazon.com/Pious-Nietzsche-Decadence-Dionysian-Philosophy/dp/0253218748

Well,he was studying Theology and his father was a Protestant Pastor.

I still think that you don't understand what his concepts were all about.

One question for you,not trying to mock you - are you religious ?

And what was the name of that book you recommended again ?

 

[Fishmonger]

Beyond Good and Evil

 

[Deleted member 159002]

What have you guys gained from reading the philosophers mentioned in this thread (and other philosophers)? What things have you read in them that have affected you? Explain how.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

Why do you read Heidegger, Nietzsche, Kant, etc.? What do you get out of reading their works?

It's good to view things from a different perspective and to hear different opinions.

This might sound crazy but I even learned some things about myself from reading Sherdog boards.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

What have you guys gained from reading the philosophers mentioned in this thread (and other philosophers)? What things have you read in them that have affected you? Explain how.

Reading books is just like conversing with those people.You read it then you reflect on it and give them back an answer.That way you learn new things about yourself.From being asked and being put in some situations life has to offer you learn about yourself.