Reading Nietzsche here is what I think

All these philosophers and thinkers, and writers who just write what they think about things are just plagiarizing what they read or heard somewhere else. Nothing they have is original, or novel, or ground breaking. Yet people treat them special.

That's quite a wild generalisation, unless you have some sort of specific example then it's just pretty ridiculous. Yeah, of course different writers are gonna say similar things sometimes, or be influenced by older thinkers, but they are always bringing new interpretations, new insights, or else a new synthesis of other ideas. There is a the funny quip that all philosophy is simply footnotes to plato, but that is all it is, a funny little quip. Of course much of there work is original, novel and ground breaking.
 
Yea, I think Nietzsche's relationship to nihilism (actual and perceived) is a product of the tension between his desire to conduct a "revaluation" of Western values while also remaining thoroughly skeptical and outside the realm of "system-building" that he constantly criticized. I mean, you can't blame him for dying when he did, but it's notable that the 4-part series he had mapped out before he died (of which only The Antichrist was ever published) was 3 parts criticism and one part positive assertion. It's hard to tear down with one hand - especially the way he did it - and build with the other.

That said, touching on @Bullitt68's post above, a thorough reading of Nietzsche that results in proclaiming him a nihilist misses the whole purpose of his philosophy. Plus it's just lazy ;)

Nietzsche's relationship to nilhilism, either version, meaning "real" as opposed to phantom limb nihilism,, and, I know what you mean, but "desire" isn't the word, it's in there akin go Sartre and a Kierke sickness vomitous, bland existential. That 4 part series is as good as anything I've seen. Anybody really interested in knowing in the big circles or really past surface Nietzsche, you had forego a lot of what's out there because it's tinged with deep Nazi appropriation and just Kaufmann lineaar, which shit, what that doesn't mean anything, I just meant it's given and dry by academic and reading standards, it doesn't make you shit your pants or rip your soul apart. Nietzsche didn't go insane because he fucked a dirty girl. He died in his mind beause he was a fucking genius who didn't have anyone to talk to and his two heroes fell short and those who were supposed to love and look out for, exploit and shit and Freud-fuck ya to the wallpaper. You can never get the gist of Nietzsche unless you give a fuckload. His "simple statements" have reduced me to a rope and he's saved me forever, you don't have to be as thorough anymore, there's good shit out there.

..fuckk it
 
Really, Fred and Ray, just interchange, seriously, listen. & Both Green Bay Packers.

 
Well that's some gay shit. Youtube the best of Ray Nitschke
 
In la Cosa Nostra, he was known as Freddy the Neech.
 
Yea, I think Nietzsche's relationship to nihilism (actual and perceived) is a product of the tension between his desire to conduct a "revaluation" of Western values while also remaining thoroughly skeptical and outside the realm of "system-building" that he constantly criticized. I mean, you can't blame him for dying when he did, but it's notable that the 4-part series he had mapped out before he died (of which only The Antichrist was ever published) was 3 parts criticism and one part positive assertion. It's hard to tear down with one hand - especially the way he did it - and build with the other.

That said, touching on @Bullitt68's post above, a thorough reading of Nietzsche that results in proclaiming him a nihilist misses the whole purpose of his philosophy. Plus it's just lazy ;)

Totally agreed that calling him a nihilist is just plain inaccurate, and happens a lot because of lazy reading. It's a bit like Plato... You can honestly say that Plato is 100% against malicious forms of tyranny, but The Republic is pretty much a recipe book for precisely that whatever his intent was. Nietzsche abhors nihilism and tried to find philosophical grounds to avoid nihilism in the wake of metaphysics no longer serving as a font of value in society, and he doesn't quite make it. This brings me into what I was going to say to Bullitt - that I think his suggestion about Nietzsche in relation to Emerson misses the thrust of what Nietzsche actually accomplished that changed the world, and instead focuses on some of his more sensationalist, but less influential, contributions.



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.

Emerson certainly is a huge influence on Nietzsche (one of roughly five people Nietzsche actually likes) and did influence him tremendously. Apart from that, Emerson is just an awesome thinker. You're also quite right to point out that some of Nietzsche's central ideas were very close to those of other thinkers who Nietzsche attributes. The Overman? Yep, very much owing to Emerson. His conception of the great man? Also much owed to Emerson, along with some of Nietzche's conception of herd morality. The world as becoming? Hello Heraclitus - it has been a while, hasn't it?

The thing is, things like the Overman and the Eternal Return, while important to Nietzsche, are actually some of his less important ideas in the grand scheme of things - though the idea of the world as becoming is a cornerstone of what made him so influential, and he gets a lot of credit for that. The Overman and ER are both part of his positive project though - and, frankly, his positive project kind of sucks. It sounds good to young guys looking for their place in the world, but how do you actually make them happen? The Overman is a posthumanist dream that is literally not for humans, and the ER is somewhat interesting as some kind of tool of self edification, but it is only actually really valuable in terms of how it relates to Nietzsche's project to undermine metaphysics.

And that, precisely, is what Nietzsche was really important for - undermining metaphysics, and Emerson didn't offer that in nearly so comprehensive or influential a manner and why he's not nearly as important to the history of philosophy. Nietzsche's attack on metaphysics furrowed the channels of a century of thought to follow and arguably laid the ground for postmodernism, for better or for worse. Simply put, by undermining metaphysics in the comprehensive and compelling way he did, he creates the atmosphere where thinkers could start digging and couldn't find the bottom any more because the bottom had been taken away. This sets the state for the postmodern thought which has defined much of the 20th century.

On top of that, he opened the door for existentialism in a way that Kierkegaard didn't - though I do truly love Kierkgaard's presentation - because Nietzsche did it in a secular way. Kierkegaard's starting point for a notion of existence preceding essence is that God is present, but can only be known personally - so one does not know God in an essential way, closing the door for objective faith and opening it for an intensely, uniquely personal one. Voila - religious existentialism! This is great - but it does not give existentialism to a secular person, since it is still contingent upon God. Nietzsche's proto-existentialism says "There is no God, truth is an error, metaphysics are a false and human construction" - and one is then stripped of essence regardless of relationship to God. Again, this is important stuff for what happened in the century to follow.

Emerson was not the thinker to change the world the way Nietzsche did. You're selling old Freddy way short. On top of that, he's a fun read.


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.


But not his most influential project, by a longshot. The anti-metaphysical project Nietzsche leveled changed the world whereas, in spite of his efforts, I think he actually produced way more nihilists than he did away with. Again, Nietzsche's positive project sucks...

I'm also not sure about critiquing nihilism being his central reason. Maybe early on, in his more reactionary phase in relation to Schopenhauer, but not later on. Later on he sets his sights on God - or, more broadly, the metaphysical underpinning of how we conceive the world, and the creation of the "world as being." He spends a lot of his time KO'ing that and I think Nietzsche's truly lasting legacy comes from that more than anything else. On top of that, he succeeded in making that case strongly enough to change the world whereas, again, I think he really dropped the ball making an actual convincing case against nihilism.

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


Eh, can't argue. Nietzsche's positive project kind of sucks. He's good at tearing stuff down, not telling you what you should do after you're done smashing.

Perfect description. Succinct and spot-on.


Have to agree. Nietzsche is a questionable role model at best, and much of his thought isn't internally consistent, especially across time periods.

Yep. Beyond Good and Evil is a prototypical troll post :D


The Gay Science is where it's at. People always get drawn in by BG&E's cool title... TGS is a much better work.

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 ;)
Eh, to each their own... Though, are we even sure who would win in a fight? I mean, how many pro matches did Bruce have? Sounds like a bit of a can crusher ;)
 
I spent many hours pondering the meaning of life and nothingness of it all as a kid, and as a teen I naturally gravitated towards Nietzsche. Now I can't help but get off put by the self-aggrandizing of philosophy and the pompous and egomaniacal nature of it all. So much of it is nonsense and abstractions for the sake of it. It reminds me of a scene in The Believer:



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.






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.



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



Perfect description. Succinct and spot-on.



Yep. Beyond Good and Evil is a prototypical troll post :D



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 ;)



Rimbaud ragging on the dragon?

giphy.gif


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 :p

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)."
Excellent post. Maybe I needed absolute relativism, and philosophy, at one point. Not now though. I still doubt its usefulness.
 
Nietzsche's relationship to nilhilism, either version, meaning "real" as opposed to phantom limb nihilism,, and, I know what you mean, but "desire" isn't the word, it's in there akin go Sartre and a Kierke sickness vomitous, bland existential. That 4 part series is as good as anything I've seen. Anybody really interested in knowing in the big circles or really past surface Nietzsche, you had forego a lot of what's out there because it's tinged with deep Nazi appropriation and just Kaufmann lineaar, which shit, what that doesn't mean anything, I just meant it's given and dry by academic and reading standards, it doesn't make you shit your pants or rip your soul apart. Nietzsche didn't go insane because he fucked a dirty girl. He died in his mind beause he was a fucking genius who didn't have anyone to talk to and his two heroes fell short and those who were supposed to love and look out for, exploit and shit and Freud-fuck ya to the wallpaper. You can never get the gist of Nietzsche unless you give a fuckload. His "simple statements" have reduced me to a rope and he's saved me forever, you don't have to be as thorough anymore, there's good shit out there.

..fuckk it

Aye I hear you. Ray and Lou were a couple of hoe bags... couldn't handle the sheer viscerality.

Totally agreed that calling him a nihilist is just plain inaccurate, and happens a lot because of lazy reading. It's a bit like Plato... You can honestly say that Plato is 100% against malicious forms of tyranny, but The Republic is pretty much a recipe book for precisely that whatever his intent was. Nietzsche abhors nihilism and tried to find philosophical grounds to avoid nihilism in the wake of metaphysics no longer serving as a font of value in society, and he doesn't quite make it. This brings me into what I was going to say to Bullitt - that I think his suggestion about Nietzsche in relation to Emerson misses the thrust of what Nietzsche actually accomplished that changed the world, and instead focuses on some of his more sensationalist, but less influential, contributions.

Ooo touche Mr. Smartypants guy. Honestly I was just about to wade into American Transcendentalism around mid-summer and then Hannah Arendt pulled me back. Or maybe pulled me past it is the better metaphor.

Alright I have two questions for you, one difficult and one hard.

Assuming Nietzsche was successful in demolishing the metaphysical grounding for values, and you didn't want to go the religious route, where would you turn for the best defense of a grounding of values since then? An author or a school of thought or whatever comes to mind all totally work as recommendations, if you don't mind.

Also, if you know all this cool shit, why is your username so lame?
 
Totally agreed that calling him a nihilist is just plain inaccurate, and happens a lot because of lazy reading. It's a bit like Plato... You can honestly say that Plato is 100% against malicious forms of tyranny, but The Republic is pretty much a recipe book for precisely that whatever his intent was. Nietzsche abhors nihilism and tried to find philosophical grounds to avoid nihilism in the wake of metaphysics no longer serving as a font of value in society, and he doesn't quite make it. This brings me into what I was going to say to Bullitt - that I think his suggestion about Nietzsche in relation to Emerson misses the thrust of what Nietzsche actually accomplished that changed the world, and instead focuses on some of his more sensationalist, but less influential, contributions.

Even as a layman who's never read anything directly by him(I can sing both verses of the Pythons the philosophers song from memory though) this seems pretty obvious, your probably looking at a combination of both teenage pop psychology and religious nuts wanting to paint him in the most negative light possible due to his being one of the most obvious names linked to atheism that's pushed the idea otherwise.
 
I believe in God, abhor nihilism, and I like reading Nietzsche. He was bold and didn't pull any punches. His Amor Fati aligns with my bitchass stoicism.
But he's no Carl Jung!

Psychology is still 50% quackery, though.

100%. All this psychoanalytical crap is a fad. I cringe whenever I hear of someone claimining they can explore their unconscious and how dangerous it is. Only danger is overdosing on cocaine. Even Jung, he was a victim of his own hype, that and a couple million dollars from Edith Rockefeller. I doubt he could cure a papercut.
 
Cool thread. This is why I joined Sherdog.
 
Make the world pleasant for children. Existence is beyond our understanding, and it may be better that way. Understand the special nature of being able to appreciate the universe, because we are the universe appreciating itself; but don't take it too seriously. Just move towards keeping the world a decent place for children, and not overly unpleasant for adults, and we will keep moving as a species.
 
Back
Top