Anyone here read Nietzsche ?

[Spoken]

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 ?

eh, I'm somewhere between religious and not religious. It's a loaded question. Not that it makes a difference toward my objectivity or anything, considering you just noted a piece of a Fred's background.

And I do understand his concepts pretty well, considering I've probably read all the books you have, plus lectures, plus secondary sources on the subject, as well people that are 'Nietzschean' in their thought and that I'm inches away from completing an MA in the field.
I've just disagreed your logically fallacious comments.

I think Nietzsche's view of morality is incorrect. I think he's logically consistent with his worldview, which I appreciate. I think his view of Christianity is rooted in his view of ethics and power, but that his concern for onto-theology, especially the god propagated by enlightenment theologians and enlightenment philosophy (contexts I assume you don't know well?), is something contemporary theology values. Despite Nietzsche being a champion of atheism, you'll notice that the contemporary scientific atheist doesn't want his conclusions on ethics and power...
Nietzsche is used more by theologians and philosophers (who might not be religious, but are part of the same conversation) than anyone else.

I also reassert that Nietzsche, in my opinion, cannot be perfectly harmonized with Christianity. Any appropriation is done critically.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

eh, I'm somewhere between religious and not religious. It's a loaded question. Not that it makes a difference toward my objectivity or anything, considering you just noted a piece of a Fred's background.

And I do understand his concepts pretty well, considering I've probably read all the books you have, plus lectures, plus secondary sources on the subject, as well people that are 'Nietzschean' in their thought and that I'm inches away from completing an MA in the field.
I've just disagreed your logically fallacious comments.

I think Nietzsche's view of morality is incorrect. I think he's logically consistent with his worldview, which I appreciate. I think his view of Christianity is rooted in his view of ethics and power, but that his concern for onto-theology, especially the god propagated by enlightenment theologians and enlightenment philosophy (contexts I assume you don't know well?), is something contemporary theology values. Despite Nietzsche being a champion of atheism, you'll notice that the contemporary scientific atheist doesn't want his conclusions on ethics and power...
Nietzsche is used more by theologians and philosophers (who might not be religious, but are part of the same conversation) than anyone else.

I also reassert that Nietzsche, in my opinion, cannot be perfectly harmonized with Christianity. Any appropriation is done critically.

I don't think that Nietzsche would call himself an atheist,let alone a champion of atheism.He thought that all great minds must be skeptics and atheism is an absolute.

I don't think Nietzsche can even be in the same sentence with Christianity.Why is that a problem ?

 

[Taras Bulba**]

eh, I'm somewhere between religious and not religious. It's a loaded question. Not that it makes a difference toward my objectivity or anything, considering you just noted a piece of a Fred's background.

And I do understand his concepts pretty well, considering I've probably read all the books you have, plus lectures, plus secondary sources on the subject, as well people that are 'Nietzschean' in their thought and that I'm inches away from completing an MA in the field.
I've just disagreed your logically fallacious comments.

I think Nietzsche's view of morality is incorrect. I think he's logically consistent with his worldview, which I appreciate. I think his view of Christianity is rooted in his view of ethics and power, but that his concern for onto-theology, especially the god propagated by enlightenment theologians and enlightenment philosophy (contexts I assume you don't know well?), is something contemporary theology values. Despite Nietzsche being a champion of atheism, you'll notice that the contemporary scientific atheist doesn't want his conclusions on ethics and power...
Nietzsche is used more by theologians and philosophers (who might not be religious, but are part of the same conversation) than anyone else.

I also reassert that Nietzsche, in my opinion, cannot be perfectly harmonized with Christianity. Any appropriation is done critically.

Would you agree that there is no such thing as universal morality or do you think different ?

 

[Spoken]

I don't think that Nietzsche would call himself an atheist,let alone a champion of atheism.He thought that all great minds must be skeptics and atheism is an absolute.

I don't think Nietzsche can even be in the same sentence with Christianity.Why is that a problem ?

It's a problem for three reasons: people do it. people do it successfully.
Again, go read the books, lol.

Here is what you just did: Kierkegaard was a Christian, and I don't think an atheist (or someone who disbelieves in God) can use him... except Nietzsche is grounded in Kierkegaard.
see what I'm getting at?

Would you agree that there is no such thing as universal morality or do you think different ?

Nietzsche and I disagree on ethics. MacIntyre is, if anyone, my man.

 

[FREE BEER!]

Never read them man, but I agree with the Christianity being rooted in haterism interpretation that many around here are saying.

If you can't beat 'em, call the winner a sinner.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

It's a problem for three reasons: people do it. people do it successfully.
Again, go read the books, lol.



Nietzsche and I disagree on ethics. MacIntyre is, if anyone, my man.

In which part do you disagree with him ?

You think that there should be a fixed,universal moral code ?

You think that people are equal ?

You think that values are something that's not subjected to change ?

Please elaborate.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

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.

I have gained a lot of debt and unemployment.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

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.

Lol this looks like the last question of a first-year exam.

I started reading German philosophy for two reasons: the first was to get a new perspective on philosophical issues and the second was to trace the history of philosophy back into the modern era. Going through Kant is pretty daunting but it's really a treat, he's a key figure for so much of what happens after him and even his first introduction to CCR is quotable today.

I sort of skimmed through Hegel because I found he was completely unreadable, unlike Kant who just takes a lot of work to understand. I like the idea of starting epistemology from the subject, maybe not to the extent of Phenomenology of Spirit but something like that. Today's scientific zeitgeist places so much emphasis on the development of nature that people become simple cogs in the lawful, determined machine; I find that depressing and unremarkable, but convincing, and continental philosophy basically says 'fuck that' from the get-go and set out to establish all the domains that will forever be free from that sort of picture of the world.

It's similar to thought-provoking art, which has it's pros and cons. Nietzsche is a great example of that actually. Foucault as well. Do I take their history seriously? No. Do I take their ideas seriously? Yes! It's nothing if not interesting, and often very enjoyable and stimulating to read.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

I have gained a lot of debt and unemployment.

Philosophy was always something I said I'd never pay to be educated in. I probably get less out of it independently but I've got as long as I want to go through it in detail :icon_chee

In which part do you disagree with him ?

You think that there should be a fixed,universal moral code ?

You think that people are equal ?

You think that values are something that's not subjected to change ?

Please elaborate.

Dis gun b gud.

 

[Deleted member 159002]

Thanks for the response.

Lol this looks like the last question of a first-year exam.

I started reading German philosophy for two reasons: the first was to get a new perspective on philosophical issues

What philosophical issues? What things did Kant write that satisfied you?

and the second was to trace the history of philosophy back into the modern era. Going through Kant is pretty daunting but it's really a treat, he's a key figure for so much of what happens after him and even his first introduction to CCR is quotable today.

What things did Kant write that make you view his work as a "treat"?

It's similar to thought-provoking art, which has it's pros and cons. Nietzsche is a great example of that actually. Foucault as well. Do I take their history seriously? No. Do I take their ideas seriously? Yes! It's nothing if not interesting, and often very enjoyable and stimulating to read.

Can you go into some of these particular ideas?

 

[Fat Abbot]

I like this quote: "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

 

[Spoken]

In which part do you disagree with him ?

You think that there should be a fixed,universal moral code ?

You think that people are equal ?

You think that values are something that's not subjected to change ?

Please elaborate.

I've already dominated this thread, so I'll digress (bitch move, I know).
To sum up and point out some things:
-You gloss over my assertions and criticism.
-I'm more of a theist than not, so I pretty much disagree with Nietzsche's final assertions on all these questions. But his method, in a lot of ways, is helpful. He makes a lot of statements that are isolated easily that are really helpful to anyone and everyone.
now go read the books.

oh, and on Nietzsche's atheism:
"I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods."

 

[Spoken]

I have gained a lot of debt and unemployment.

pretty much.
Im hopefully doing a PhD after the lady finishes hers (or during) so I can hang in there.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

I've already dominated this thread, so I'll digress (bitch move, I know).
To sum up and point out some things:
-You gloss over my assertions and criticism.
-I'm more of a theist than not, so I pretty much disagree with Nietzsche's final assertions on all these questions. But his method, in a lot of ways, is helpful. He makes a lot of statements that are isolated easily that are really helpful to anyone and everyone.
now go read the books.

oh, and on Nietzsche's atheism:
"I will now disprove the existence of all gods. If there were gods, how could I bear not to be a god? Consequently, there are no gods."

You dominated ? By posting long,distracting posts and pulling quotes out of context ?

Explain your view on morality rather than changing the subject.

 

[BKMMAFAN]

I don't think that Nietzsche would call himself an atheist,let alone a champion of atheism.He thought that all great minds must be skeptics and atheism is an absolute.

I don't think Nietzsche can even be in the same sentence with Christianity.Why is that a problem ?

Sure it can. Nietzsche believed that Christianity was a champion (and an origin) of the slave morality.

Easy :icon_chee

 

[Spoken]

You dominated ? By posting long,distracting posts and pulling quotes out of context ?

Explain your view on morality rather than changing the subject.

What quote did I pull out of context?
By dominate, I mean posting long, distracting posts, lol.

On my morality: I don't do ethics. It's not really my field of study, so I couldn't say. MacIntyre was helpful, but so is Levinas and Sartre. Levinas is probably my favorite... but trying to write out my concept of ethics on sherdog, when i've never tried to formulate it, just isn't possible.

One day I'll get into ethicism, but I can't say I'm too interested in it.

 

[SevenSamurai]

my favorite.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

What quote did I pull out of context?
By dominate, I mean posting long, distracting posts, lol.

On my morality: I don't do ethics. It's not really my field of study, so I couldn't say. MacIntyre was helpful, but so is Levinas and Sartre. Levinas is probably my favorite... but trying to write out my concept of ethics on sherdog, when i've never tried to formulate it, just isn't possible.

One day I'll get into ethicism, but I can't say I'm too interested in it.

So it means we've been having parallel discussions.Great.

I read Sartre and I liked him a lot.

I will read Levinas and Macintyre next as you suggested.

Thank you.

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

Thanks for the response.

What philosophical issues? What things did Kant write that satisfied you?

What things did Kant write that make you view his work as a "treat"?

Can you go into some of these particular ideas?

What philosophical issues: in a few sentences -- what we can know about the world and how we can know it. How God fits into the picture (or doesn't). How rational and empirical ways of knowing can be reconciled. What we can really say about the world as it is and why past attempts at theology and metaphysics have fallen short. Did Kant "satisfy me"? Well, no, he was writing hundreds of years ago lol. But it's pretty amazing to read things like:

"Our age is the age of criticism, to which everything must be subjected. The sacredness of religion, and the authority of legislation, are by many regarded as grounds of exemption from the examination of the tribunal. But, if they are exempted, they become the subjects of just suspicion, and cannot lay claim to sincere respect, which reason accords only to that which has stood the test of a free and public examination.

"We do not enlarge but disfigure the sciences when we lose sight of their respective limits and allow them to run into each other."

I mean, science was barely even a thing at all back then and people are saying shit like this today still. And that's only from the introduction.

I can't get into ALL of Neitszche's or Foucault's interesting ideas here obviously. This is a Nietzsche thread though, so there's bound to be more discussion of the former. Here's one example though -- I read recently that Foucault "proved" that scientific theories were just products of history and sociology (in his Madness and Civilization), which I still think is bull-shit. All he did was show that the history of mental illness was sketchy as hell, that hardly dismantles all of science. His writing is pretty cloudy too. But he does bring up some questions about science being the arbiter of truth, and identifies some potential threats to that venture.

Watch Foucault's debate with Chomsky and you can really tell that they're speaking different languages.

I hope that's satisfying, I don't really want to hijack the thread any more. Suffice it to say that texts like these tend to encompass a great deal of the thinking of the age and that going through them is interesting and thought-provoking, especially when we consider what we think ourselves and why exactly we think that way in the first place.

 

[Taras Bulba**]

I like this quote: "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

Yes,a good one.Nietzsche tried to point out that Jesus was the creator and the one and only true follower of his philosophy, Christianity.

All the others were just actors of that ideal.

It is impossible to follow another man's philosophy since it is a fruit of the creator's nature,his being.

Therefore every great man should be a creator of his own values and moral code.He will be his own law-giver,judge,jury and executioner.

The rabble will,as always follow other people's values and morals(unsuccessfully) since they are unable to create their own.

All things must obey and if you cannot command yourself you will obey someone else.