Reading Nietzsche here is what I think

[dormammu]

I liked the Genealogy of Morality.

Currently reading Beyond Good and Evil. Feels insignificant. He just blathers on about how much he doesn't like other philosophers because they seemingly set out to pursue knowledge but rather used knowledge in the service of their latent moral assumptions.

That's decent, I guess. But everything he says just folds in on itself because there's no discipline to his writing. He's just gushing over with annoyances that are petty.

Seems to me that he's overrated by fan boys.

"Philosophy is a disease, for which it pretends to be the cure, a wise man does not pursue wisdom but lives his life. therein precisely does his wisdom lay"

Lee>Nietzsche

 

[Nimrod]

So we're not allowed to question his ideas? Sounds un-philosophical.

Whats the point in questioning? Hes dead you wont get an answer.

 

[Rimbaud82]

He's very overrated by edgy fanboys who want to be nihilist.

If you read all his work in chronological order you can try and pinpoint the exact moment the syphilis rots his mind.n

Well, of course, Nietzsche himself was certainly not a nihilist. But you are correct in that a lot of edgy teenage fanboys like to overrate him, based on their own half-baked reading of his philosophy.

 

[pookiyama]

You mean "Reading someone's explanation of Nietzsche."

 

[minute bull]

GUYS I JUST STARTED WATCHING THE WIRE (NO SPOILERS PLEASE)

 

[Amerikuracana]

"Philosophy is a disease, for which it pretends to be the cure, a wise man does not pursue wisdom but lives his life. therein precisely does his wisdom lay"

Lee>Nietzsche

Yeah but mosquitos live their life, and they aren't wise to many things. Fail.

 

[dormammu]

Yeah but mosquitos live their life, and they aren't wise to many things. Fail.

Comparing the human brain to a mosquitoes, can't argue with that logic

 

[Nimrod]

Comparing the human brain to a mosquitoes, can't argue with that logic

Maybe like living life without thinking?

 

[Dogstarman]

I liked the Genealogy of Morality.

Currently reading Beyond Good and Evil. Feels insignificant. He just blathers on about how much he doesn't like other philosophers because they seemingly set out to pursue knowledge but rather used knowledge in the service of their latent moral assumptions.

That's decent, I guess. But everything he says just folds in on itself because there's no discipline to his writing. He's just gushing over with annoyances that are petty.

Seems to me that he's overrated by fan boys.

He is ranting against the French Revolution and actually democracy as we know it. It seems like he is saying he doesn’t like other philosophers, but he thinks that we need to go back to an autocratic style government where only a select few people run the government. The reason he says god is dead, is not because he hates Christianity, he hates the reformation of Christianity and Martin Luther, where people have a voice and were able to interpret it to their own means and Christianity isn’t filled with esoteric materials anymore. This leads to his hatred of democratic types of government where even the layperson has a say in how the government is being run.

He isn’t as extreme as Heidegger in his views of autocratic government but he did give rise to Heidegger philosophy and the rise of the Nazi party, which, Heidegger never denounced.

 

[dormammu]

Maybe like living life without thinking?

Since you guys were discussing philosophers, I figured most would have a basic understanding of Zen Buddhism, apparently not.

 

[Rimbaud82]

"Philosophy is a disease, for which it pretends to be the cure, a wise man does not pursue wisdom but lives his life. therein precisely does his wisdom lay"

Lee>Nietzsche

If only it were that simple....but if human being's could just turn a switch and decide to be 'wise' and 'live their lives' then there would be no such thing as philosophy, or religion or any other form of spirituality for that matter. Lee's little quip is a nice sound-bite, but really it doesn't get at life as many people experience it. Even if you go through some kind of philosophical journey, or religious/spiritual practice, only to find that you should 'live your life' anyway...it's a reductive argument...because a person with that kind of disposition will have needed to go through those things in the first place.

 

[Nimrod]

Never assume anything

 

[DangDaGawd]

Nietzsche ain't a nihilist you kooks.

This.

He's one of the least nihilist philosophers there is if you're reading him properly.

 

[Bullitt68]

Seems to me that he's overrated by fan boys.

He is. Anyone who has the slightest interest in what Nietzsche was dealing with should just read Emerson instead. Emerson was a massive influence on Nietzsche, and as I've said before: Everything good in Nietzsche was ripped off from Emerson, and everything good in Emerson is better than Nietzsche's ripoffs.

He's very overrated by edgy fanboys who want to be nihilist.

I have not read Nietzsche, but wasn’t his Supermen philosophy much about building a bridge over nihilism after the religious and autoritarian moral structures were abandoned?

Nietzsche ain't a nihilist you kooks.

Well, of course, Nietzsche himself was certainly not a nihilist. But you are correct in that a lot of edgy teenage fanboys like to overrate him, based on their own half-baked reading of his philosophy.

To add to Rimbaud's response - which is correct in that not understanding Nietzsche hasn't stopped idiots from praising him for shit that he himself would've abhorred - Nietzsche's first real "direction" in philosophy was to critique the nihilism of Arthur Schopenhauer. It's not an exaggeration to say that critiquing and overcoming nihilism was Nietzsche's raison d'être.

I think his ideas on the concept of the ubermensch and his insights on human behavior and motives were groundbreaking.

Emerson's Over-Soul > Nietzsche's ripoff Overman

He's not coherent as a savior or role model, but he had some interesting insights sometimes

Perfect description. Succinct and spot-on.

He was one of the worlds first trolls.

Yep. Beyond Good and Evil is a prototypical troll post

"Philosophy is a disease, for which it pretends to be the cure, a wise man does not pursue wisdom but lives his life. therein precisely does his wisdom lay"

Lee>Nietzsche

For another Bruce line in this vein, here's a note that he made in 1963 while studying philosophy at the University of Washington:

"Many philosophers are among those who say one thing and do another, and the philosophy that a man professes is often quite other than the one he lives by. Philosophy is in danger of becoming more and more only something professed."

Bruce's philosophy also has a ton of affinities with Emerson's philosophy. You could even connect him to Thoreau - not insignificantly a disciple of Emerson's - who observed in Walden that "there are nowadays professors of philosophy, but not philosophers … To be a philosopher is not merely to have subtle thoughts, nor even to found a school, but so to love wisdom as to live according to its dictates … The success of great scholars and thinkers is commonly a courtier-like success, not kingly, not manly. They make shift to live merely by conformity … and are in no sense the progenitors of a nobler race of men."

I could do this all day, but I'll rein myself in for now. But yes, Lee > Nietzsche

If only it were that simple....but if human being's could just turn a switch and decide to be 'wise' and 'live their lives' then there would be no such thing as philosophy, or religion or any other form of spirituality for that matter. Lee's little quip is a nice sound-bite, but really it doesn't get at life as many people experience it. Even if you go through some kind of philosophical journey, or religious/spiritual practice, only to find that you should 'live your life' anyway...it's a reductive argument...because a person with that kind of disposition will have needed to go through those things in the first place.

Rimbaud ragging on the dragon?

In Bruce's defense:

1) Genius isn't something special out of the reach of certain people. It's there for the taking. This is an idea that crops up all over philosophy, most relevantly for my purposes in Emerson and his notion of self-reliance. But even if you go all the way back to someone like Boëthius, who said that "there are certain common conceptions of the mind which are self-evident only to the wise," you still get the same basic idea: That wisdom isn't extraordinary, it's just that most people bury their wisdom under nonsense. Hence Bruce's ideas to the effect that cultivation "is not a daily increase but a daily decrease" and that the process of wisdom is the stripping away of inessentials.

2) "Life as many people experience it" doesn't mean shit if those people are experiencing it wrong

3) Your last point was argued explicitly by Bruce himself and articulated as what he called "the three stages of cultivation." As he wrote in his unpublished 1963 book on kung fu (posthumously published as The Tao of Gung Fu):

"There are three stages in the cultivation of gung fu. Namely, the Primitive Stage, the Stage of Art, and the Stage of Artlessness. The Primitive Stage is the stage of ignorance in which a person knows nothing of the art of combat and in a fight he simply blocks and hits “instinctively.” The second stage (the Stage of Art) begins when he starts his training in gung fu. In his lessons, he is taught the different ways of blocking and striking, the forms, the way to stand, to kick, etc. Unquestionably he has gained a scientific knowledge of combat, but his original “self” and sense of freedom are lost. His mind “stops” at various movements for intellectual analysis and calculations. His action no longer flows by itself. The third stage (the Stage of Artlessness) arrives when his training reaches maturity; his techniques are performed on an almost unconscious level without any interference from his mind. Instead of “I hit,” it becomes “it hits!” This is the stage of cultivated ignorance. In other words, before I learned martial art, a punch was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned martial art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Finally, after I understood martial art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick.

These three stages also apply to the various methods being practiced in gung fu. Some methods are rather primitive with jerky, basic blocking and striking; on the whole, they lack the flow and change of combination. Some “sophisticated” systems, on the other hand, tend to run to ornamentation and get carried away with grace and showmanship. They, whether from the so-called external (firm) or internal (gentle) school, often involve big or fancy motions with a lot of complicated steps or circles toward a single goal. They are too philosophically involved (intellectually bound) and do not want to come off with sophistication. It is like an artist who, not satisfied with drawing a simple snake, proceeds to put four beautiful and shapely feet on the snake! When grasped by the collar, for example, these practitioners would “first unbalance and/or side step” (this, of course, is the divine principle of the circle—in order to do something you must first give) or break loose forcibly by striking the opponent’s hand (thus tearing one’s shirt), or “flow” with the movement and dissolve by turning or running circles (providing, of course, that your opponent just stands there holding on and watching all of this)—then they would strike and/or kick and/or lock and break the joints and/or throw their opponent. However, the direct way is to let him have the pleasure of grasping the collar and simply punch him in the nose! (To some martial artists of distinguishing taste, this would be a little bit unsophisticated, too ordinary and unartful.) On the whole, the followers of these methods are either too intellectually bound or too physically bound and do not wish to see the plain truth.

Which leads us to the schools of profound simplicity, a natural result of exhaustive experimentation of highly sophisticated complexity. All techniques are stripped to their essential purpose and the utmost is now expressed and performed with the minimum of movements and energy. There is no ornamentation or waste, and everything becomes the straightest, most logical simplicity of common-sense (this Stage of Simplicity is not basic or primitive and cannot be achieved without going through the second stage)."

 

[Tycho- Taylor's Version]

If only it were that simple....but if human being's could just turn a switch and decide to be 'wise' and 'live their lives' then there would be no such thing as philosophy, or religion or any other form of spirituality for that matter. Lee's little quip is a nice sound-bite, but really it doesn't get at life as many people experience it. Even if you go through some kind of philosophical journey, or religious/spiritual practice, only to find that you should 'live your life' anyway...it's a reductive argument...because a person with that kind of disposition will have needed to go through those things in the first place.

"...As for your principle that truth is always on the side of the most difficult, I admit this in part. However, it is difficult to believe that 2+2 is not 4; does that make it true? On the other hand, is it really so difficult to believe everything that one has been brought up on and that has gradually struck deep roots - what is considered truth in the circle of one's relatives and of many good men, and what moreover really comforts and elevates man? Is that more difficult than to strike new paths, fighting the habitual, experiencing the insecurity of independence and the frequent wavering of one's feelings and even one's conscious, proceeding often without any consolation, but ever with the eternal goal of the true, the beautiful, and the good?

Here the ways of men part: if you wish to strive for peace of soul and pleasure, then believe; if you wish to be a devotee of truth, then inquire."

- young Nietzsche in a letter to his Thot sister

 

[Rimbaud82]

Rimbaud ragging on the dragon?

lol, not going to lie, I like Bruce as an actor/martial artists...I'm honestly not at all familiar with his ideas other than that. I was just reacting to this particular quote.

In Bruce's defense:

1) Genius isn't something special out of the reach of certain people. It's there for the taking. This is an idea that crops up all over philosophy, most relevantly for my purposes in Emerson and his notion of self-reliance. But even if you go all the way back to someone like Boëthius, who said that "there are certain common conceptions of the mind which are self-evident only to the wise," you still get the same basic idea: That wisdom isn't extraordinary, it's just that most people bury their wisdom under nonsense. Hence Bruce's ideas to the effect that cultivation "is not a daily increase but a daily decrease" and that the process of wisdom is the stripping away of inessentials.

Well, that is a valid idea for sure. It is a very common within Eastern philosophy as well, obviously with the idea of sudden enlightenment in Chan/Zen, or various Daoist ideas. Whatever it is, it is a process...I absolutely agree with that. I also agree that some kinds of philosophy are just waffle, language-games and so on. But I don't think you can dismiss philosophy as a whole as a disease. Some of it, and I would place Nietzsche in that category, is very useful for those who come looking for it...the fact that they do is why it is useful.

3) Your last point was argued explicitly by Bruce himself and articulated as what he called "the three stages of cultivation." As he wrote in his unpublished 1963 book on kung fu (posthumously published as The Tao of Gung Fu):

"There are three stages in the cultivation of gung fu. Namely, the Primitive Stage, the Stage of Art, and the Stage of Artlessness. The Primitive Stage is the stage of ignorance in which a person knows nothing of the art of combat and in a fight he simply blocks and hits “instinctively.” The second stage (the Stage of Art) begins when he starts his training in gung fu. In his lessons, he is taught the different ways of blocking and striking, the forms, the way to stand, to kick, etc. Unquestionably he has gained a scientific knowledge of combat, but his original “self” and sense of freedom are lost. His mind “stops” at various movements for intellectual analysis and calculations. His action no longer flows by itself. The third stage (the Stage of Artlessness) arrives when his training reaches maturity; his techniques are performed on an almost unconscious level without any interference from his mind. Instead of “I hit,” it becomes “it hits!” This is the stage of cultivated ignorance. In other words, before I learned martial art, a punch was just like a punch, a kick just like a kick. After I learned martial art, a punch was no longer a punch, a kick no longer a kick. Finally, after I understood martial art, a punch is just like a punch, a kick just like a kick.

Nice paraphrase I suppose

"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters." - D.T. Suzuki (1926).

These three stages also apply to the various methods being practiced in gung fu. Some methods are rather primitive with jerky, basic blocking and striking; on the whole, they lack the flow and change of combination. Some “sophisticated” systems, on the other hand, tend to run to ornamentation and get carried away with grace and showmanship. They, whether from the so-called external (firm) or internal (gentle) school, often involve big or fancy motions with a lot of complicated steps or circles toward a single goal. They are too philosophically involved (intellectually bound) and do not want to come off with sophistication. It is like an artist who, not satisfied with drawing a simple snake, proceeds to put four beautiful and shapely feet on the snake! When grasped by the collar, for example, these practitioners would “first unbalance and/or side step” (this, of course, is the divine principle of the circle—in order to do something you must first give) or break loose forcibly by striking the opponent’s hand (thus tearing one’s shirt), or “flow” with the movement and dissolve by turning or running circles (providing, of course, that your opponent just stands there holding on and watching all of this)—then they would strike and/or kick and/or lock and break the joints and/or throw their opponent. However, the direct way is to let him have the pleasure of grasping the collar and simply punch him in the nose! (To some martial artists of distinguishing taste, this would be a little bit unsophisticated, too ordinary and unartful.) On the whole, the followers of these methods are either too intellectually bound or too physically bound and do not wish to see the plain truth.

Which leads us to the schools of profound simplicity, a natural result of exhaustive experimentation of highly sophisticated complexity. All techniques are stripped to their essential purpose and the utmost is now expressed and performed with the minimum of movements and energy. There is no ornamentation or waste, and everything becomes the straightest, most logical simplicity of common-sense (this Stage of Simplicity is not basic or primitive and cannot be achieved without going through the second stage)."

Well, I actually agree with Lee in general it seems. I just disagree that "philosophy is a disease", a lot of it can be, or needs to be for some people, part of the process where they work through these kinds of thoughts. Particularly within the western tradition. Personally I am still working through it

 

[MusterX]

Well, of course, Nietzsche himself was certainly not a nihilist. But you are correct in that a lot of edgy teenage fanboys like to overrate him, based on their own half-baked reading of his philosophy.

I would never read Nietzsche unless I was fully baked.

 

[Bullitt68]

I'm honestly not at all familiar with his ideas other than that.

The collection of letters, essays, and notes Bruce Lee: Artist of Life would be the best place to start if you're ever interested. Lots of cool shit where he's working his way through stuff like Plato, Descartes, Taoism, Buddhism, etc., as well as all of the rough drafts of his famous essay "Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate."

I don't think you can dismiss philosophy as a whole as a disease.

Neither do I. In fact, you end up in a weird paradox, for what is the intellectual activity of determining philosophy to be a disease...if not philosophy

There's a long tradition not only of trying to think through what actually constitutes philosophy, what it means to philosophize, etc., but also of trying to bring philosophy to an end, to philosophize enough to where you can go on no longer needing philosophy. For the latter, Wittgenstein is the best example IMO.

Either way, though, you can't escape philosophy (unless you come up with some circumscript definition to dispense with to satisfy yourself, though that likely wouldn't do anything more than show your own desperation to escape philosophy).

Nice paraphrase I suppose

"Before a man studies Zen, to him mountains are mountains and waters are waters; after he gets an insight into the truth of Zen through the instruction of a good master, mountains to him are not mountains and waters are not waters; but after this when he really attains to the abode of rest, mountains are once more mountains and waters are waters." - D.T. Suzuki (1926).

Bruce unfortunately suffers from having his notes and rough drafts of shit published posthumously, and one of the things he suffers from is accusations of plagiarism. That's definitely Zen 101 on Bruce's part. He even owned a copy of Suzuki's Introduction to Zen Buddhism.

He just never got around to his footnotes and References lists

I would never read Nietzsche unless I was fully baked.

 

[Rimbaud82]

The collection of letters, essays, and notes Bruce Lee: Artist of Life would be the best place to start if you're ever interested. Lots of cool shit where he's working his way through stuff like Plato, Descartes, Taoism, Buddhism, etc., as well as all of the rough drafts of his famous essay "Liberate Yourself from Classical Karate."

Sounds like it will be a worth a look anyway, I will get around to it in mid-september when my MA dissertation is submitted Right now I am too burned out to read/research anything other what is immediately relevant for my diss.

Neither do I. In fact, you end up in a weird paradox, for what is the intellectual activity of determining philosophy to be a disease...if not philosophy

There's a long tradition not only of trying to think through what actually constitutes philosophy, what it means to philosophize, etc., but also of trying to bring philosophy to an end, to philosophize enough to where you can go on no longer needing philosophy. For the latter, Wittgenstein is the best example IMO.

Either way, though, you can't escape philosophy (unless you come up with some circumscript definition to dispense with to satisfy yourself, though that likely wouldn't do anything more than show your own desperation to escape philosophy).

Wittgenstein is the best example for sure, but you can similar processes even in neoplatonic theologians like ps.Dionysus and my man John Scottus Eriugena (there is even a very nice article comparing the two, Eriugena and Wittgenstein that is).

Bruce unfortunately suffers from having his notes and rough drafts of shit published posthumously, and one of the things he suffers from is accusations of plagiarism. That's definitely Zen 101 on Bruce's part. He even owned a copy of Suzuki's Introduction to Zen Buddhism.

He just never got around to his footnotes and References lists

lol yeah I didn't think he was literally plagiarising Suzuki. Try explaining that to TurnItIn though

 

[thoughtsone]

I find Meditations by Marcus Aurelius or anything by Seneca much,much better.