Damage done
- Thread starter Birgith
- Start date
On Nietzsche: Clearly, the man went insane, whether it was brought upon by disease or not is of lesser importance, I hold. Him being insane did, however, produce some fascinating literature. I mean, to name chapters "Why I am so wise", "Why I am so clever" and "Why I write such excellent books" - did anyone say delusions of grandeur?
rahvin: Would you consider Nietzsche a troll if he wrote here?
It´s not like I satirize all the time; just the other day, I was contributing significantly to the "Which cd did you just buy"-thread, where my reply struck up a small conversation about Bloodbath´s latest record. I am rather helpful on other boards too, mind you. I gave invaluable information about Mikael Håkansson´s departure from Embraced and which band he later joined. To a fan of Mikael Håkansson (and Embraced) this is totally essential and imperative to know. See? I am the epitomy of helpfulness to many a person.
And just to clear something up: You ARE a woman, right, Birgith?
rahvin: Would you consider Nietzsche a troll if he wrote here?
It´s not like I satirize all the time; just the other day, I was contributing significantly to the "Which cd did you just buy"-thread, where my reply struck up a small conversation about Bloodbath´s latest record. I am rather helpful on other boards too, mind you. I gave invaluable information about Mikael Håkansson´s departure from Embraced and which band he later joined. To a fan of Mikael Håkansson (and Embraced) this is totally essential and imperative to know. See? I am the epitomy of helpfulness to many a person.
And just to clear something up: You ARE a woman, right, Birgith?
rahvin
keeper of the flame
@u[sic]m: But Ecce Homo was published in 1888 and Nietzsche didn't even have his breakdown (when he threw himself at a man in the street who was flogging his horse, ostensibly out of concern for the horse), which was the first sign of his insanity, until 1889. So yes, those chapter titles are great, and symptoms of some grandiose delusions, for certain, but not insanity.
Not to beat the dead horse, so to speak, but a lot of people think that Nietzsche was just a crazy man who published philosophical writings. And think those writings dismissable on these grounds. Which isn't even near the case. His writings were certainly a bit "out there," relative to the works of most 19th century philosophers, but he had a ton of great things to say.
Not to beat the dead horse, so to speak, but a lot of people think that Nietzsche was just a crazy man who published philosophical writings. And think those writings dismissable on these grounds. Which isn't even near the case. His writings were certainly a bit "out there," relative to the works of most 19th century philosophers, but he had a ton of great things to say.
Fathomless: While I won´t argue over years and such, I read recently that Nietzsche did fall into insanitys grasp a month or so after he had written "Ecce Homo". In retrospect then, one could claim that those titles were, if not indicative of full-blown insanity, at least showed that he was not entirely sane (I do believe delusions of grandeur are indeed a mental illness, if I´m not mistaken) and was headed for the loony peoples´ abode. Granted, I have not read the book in question, so I have no idea how serious the titles are to be taken. With past experience of Nietzsche´s writings, though, I assume they are to be taken as is and not with a grain of salt, pepper or any other such condiment.
I agree with your second paragraph, though; he has gotten a somewhat undeserved bad reputation (no thanks to the gigantic ´tasch, I´d bet) as a crazy man and not to mention the wrongful link to the nazis. But also, I think he has gotten a too good a reputation in certain circles. I have noticed that it has become common-place to quote Nietzsche from hither to thither, and while that in itself is not really that awful - as his writings have an abundance of great stuff to quote - I do feel that most of the time the quotes are just taken out of their respective contexts, and thus kind of lessening his standing as a serious philosopher and writer. Making him into a sort of pop-figure, if you will. Then, of course, one could discuss whether he was indeed a serious philosopher or just a writer with philosophical undertones, as his writings (the ones I´ve read, far from all, so I´m out on a limb here, I guess) had often not the characteristical argumentation and reasoning of philosophical works, but I´ll leave that to others to debate.
I agree with your second paragraph, though; he has gotten a somewhat undeserved bad reputation (no thanks to the gigantic ´tasch, I´d bet) as a crazy man and not to mention the wrongful link to the nazis. But also, I think he has gotten a too good a reputation in certain circles. I have noticed that it has become common-place to quote Nietzsche from hither to thither, and while that in itself is not really that awful - as his writings have an abundance of great stuff to quote - I do feel that most of the time the quotes are just taken out of their respective contexts, and thus kind of lessening his standing as a serious philosopher and writer. Making him into a sort of pop-figure, if you will. Then, of course, one could discuss whether he was indeed a serious philosopher or just a writer with philosophical undertones, as his writings (the ones I´ve read, far from all, so I´m out on a limb here, I guess) had often not the characteristical argumentation and reasoning of philosophical works, but I´ll leave that to others to debate.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
while i agree with u[sic]m's judgement of nietzsche's popularity (from bad guy to portable-quote guy), i'm not sure about the "insanity" part.
if you mean he was mad as in uncapable to behave by standards other ppl could understand and share, this doesn't automatically affect his works - since a fairly small amount of his theories had to do with dealing with society from the inside. on the other hand, i guess it's kind of hard to set a definite line stating what exactly are the consequences of madness on a philosophical theory, and how they can be perceived while reading said theory.
i'm sure other philosophers nurtured ideas that were a far cry from even the most shameless avant-gardes, yet in order to value their works i'd say inner logic and formal correctness are safer grounds than some general measuring of any hypothetical objective worth. for instance, i tend not to agree with most of what plato wrote, and i think it's not really appliable to reality. yet i'm not inclined to think he was mad or - if i were to know he was from other sources - that the effect of his illness was reflected in his works.
rahvin.
if you mean he was mad as in uncapable to behave by standards other ppl could understand and share, this doesn't automatically affect his works - since a fairly small amount of his theories had to do with dealing with society from the inside. on the other hand, i guess it's kind of hard to set a definite line stating what exactly are the consequences of madness on a philosophical theory, and how they can be perceived while reading said theory.
i'm sure other philosophers nurtured ideas that were a far cry from even the most shameless avant-gardes, yet in order to value their works i'd say inner logic and formal correctness are safer grounds than some general measuring of any hypothetical objective worth. for instance, i tend not to agree with most of what plato wrote, and i think it's not really appliable to reality. yet i'm not inclined to think he was mad or - if i were to know he was from other sources - that the effect of his illness was reflected in his works.
rahvin.
Noteworthy is that the book in question, "Ecce Homo", is an autobiographical one and, to my knowledge, deals with no new theories or ideas. That said, I think that one is not completely far off in thinking, given those chapter-titles, that the man was on the verge of going insane, and that he was a couple of facial hairs shy of a moustasch (figuratively speaking, of course).
Speaking of mad, I´ve noticed that the general opinion among people - not educated and scholar chaps like us - is that philosophers are rambling lunatics. It´s easy to pin, say Plato, as mad simply because that which he has written is not instantly accessible (in comparison to, say Tolkien or other fiction-writers). The same goes for phenomenological writings, idealist works etc; if I was to say to any one individual in the street that the outer world which we see is not actually real and that everything out there is just a construct, (s)he would undoubtedly think me a fool, say "Bah, no it isn´t!" and trot merrily along the street. Of course, with the utterance of two simple words I would have careened her/his life into total despair: "Prove it.".
Being thought of as mentally unstable is probably both the curse and blessing of the philosopher, I suppose.
Speaking of mad, I´ve noticed that the general opinion among people - not educated and scholar chaps like us - is that philosophers are rambling lunatics. It´s easy to pin, say Plato, as mad simply because that which he has written is not instantly accessible (in comparison to, say Tolkien or other fiction-writers). The same goes for phenomenological writings, idealist works etc; if I was to say to any one individual in the street that the outer world which we see is not actually real and that everything out there is just a construct, (s)he would undoubtedly think me a fool, say "Bah, no it isn´t!" and trot merrily along the street. Of course, with the utterance of two simple words I would have careened her/his life into total despair: "Prove it.".
Being thought of as mentally unstable is probably both the curse and blessing of the philosopher, I suppose.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
that's why i think it's perhaps too stern a judgement the one about nietzsche's actual insanity seeping through the pages of his works. i have no problem admitting that his views were pretty far-fetched, but it's maybe just a matter of common feelings getting the hang of other philosophers more easily.
although not a theoretical essay, "ecce homo"'s breaking point is not the fact that it's closely related to the author. the frame where nietzsche puts himself there, and the model he uses to do so are untraditional and open to vibrant criticism. still i see it as a problem of method, that i couldn't just as easily put down to madness merely because it doesn't relate to my logic. i would certainly do so if it was a matter of content. i'm inclined to call mad someone who claims he's seen a unicorn, but not much so if i have reason to believe it's some sort of metaphorical unicorn.
as for proof, i daresay something can be objectively proved or disproved only among those that accept the same underlying framework. but i can't prove it.
rahvin.
rahvin
keeper of the flame
But I actually don´t find Nietzsche´s works that "hard" compared to other philosophers´, perhaps simply due to the fact that they aren´t really that philosophical in form. Mostly (and again, I am no Nietzsche-afficionado by any means, so thou may strike me down with words if I am in error), his works seem more akin to "regular" books. No fault in that, though, as many a philosophical problem may be illuminated in greater extent outside a philosophical context (this is perhaps also a reason why he has gained such great success outside of philosophical communities and is not really thought of as the most serious philosopher in these communities - he doesn´t neccessarily write exclusively to philosophers). However, when proclaiming oneself a writer of excellent books (I am, by the way, not suggesting insanity be the culprit behind his other works or writings), I think it´s legitimate to question his mental state. "Why I write such excellent books" is not the most objective claim to be uttered, and to include it in a book about oneself and argue for that fact for the length of several pages and paragraphs does, I think, point to some irrational or illogical behaviour. It does bode for some amusing reading, though.
However, I admit to not having read the book, so I will have to come back with a more substantiated view once I have. One shouldn´t judge a book, or writer as such, by the cover, or the name of the chapters in this case.
If I said with the firmest of conviction that I saw a unicorn in my dream last night, would you call me mad?
However, I admit to not having read the book, so I will have to come back with a more substantiated view once I have. One shouldn´t judge a book, or writer as such, by the cover, or the name of the chapters in this case.
If I said with the firmest of conviction that I saw a unicorn in my dream last night, would you call me mad?
Similar threads
