Nietzsche's Deeper Truth

[speed]

I read this article online this week, and thought it a very fair presentation of many of Nietzsche's core ideas: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6103

I am also harboring the idea that Nietzsche was the Socrates of the modern era. His written philosophy I think asks questions, not solves them. And since modern man's problem is existential, his interior written philosophy and extortations I think mirror Socrates' verbal exterior philosophy and exhortations.

Ive noticed that my adolescent love of Nietzsche, which somewhat disappeared, has somehow returned the older I get. I believe it is because of the truth Nietzsche sought--and his unwavering thirst for the truth, never once finding solace in any idea or cause,etc that would make this quest easier.

 

[Norsemaiden]

I read this article online this week, and thought it a very fair presentation of many of Nietzsche's core ideas: http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=6103

I am also harboring the idea that Nietzsche was the Socrates of the modern era. His written philosophy I think asks questions, not solves them. And since modern man's problem is existential, his interior written philosophy and extortations I think mirror Socrates' verbal exterior philosophy and exhortations.

Ive noticed that my adolescent love of Nietzsche, which somewhat disappeared, has somehow returned the older I get. I believe it is because of the truth Nietzsche sought--and his unwavering thirst for the truth, never once finding solace in any idea or cause,etc that would make this quest easier.

Nile577 said

I think he means totally the opposite; truth should not get in the way of convictions. Nietzsche abhorred the pursuit of "truth" and the view of philosophy as the pursuit of knowledge. If the truth of life is that it would be better for man to never be, the impelling force of "Life" is more important than "truth." This impelling force is the will to power, which allows man to overcome man and become the superman.

In the Intransigence of Religion thread.

This was in response to my view that when Nietzsche said (and this time I will quote it accurately) "Truth has never yet clung to the arm of an inflexible man", it was meant that it is important not to have convictions but to have a reasonably open mind that is always ready to change when better evidence comes along.

I would agree that Nietzsche dismissed the idea of any absolute objective and ultimate Truth, as do I, but did acknowledge subjective shared truth as existing in a useful sense.

Socrates, as represented by Plato, is a rationalist to a large extent, and Nietzsche said this was naive, and preferred empiricist idealism instead .

 

[Blowtus]

Cheers for posting that Speed... a lot in there I've never picked up on. (though have only read a couple of his works so far)

Found this paragraph particularly striking, much as I can't quite grasp how 'truth' is self denying...

"It is a frenzied perfectionism of the intellect that “forbids itself the lie involved in belief in God.” Saying no to dogma in obedience to pure reason still involves saying yes to the logic of self-denying service to the truth."

 

[speed]

Nile577 said
In the Intransigence of Religion thread.

This was in response to my view that when Nietzsche said (and this time I will quote it accurately) "Truth has never yet clung to the arm of an inflexible man", it was meant that it is important not to have convictions but to have a reasonably open mind that is always ready to change when better evidence comes along.

I would agree that Nietzsche dismissed the idea of any absolute objective and ultimate Truth, as do I, but did acknowledge subjective shared truth as existing in a useful sense.

Socrates, as represented by Plato, is a rationalist to a large extent, and Nietzsche said this was naive, and preferred empiricist idealism instead .

To me, the truth of Nietzsche, is that of the void: the individual adrift in essentially in valueless, meaningless, nothingness and trying somehow to make something out of it--some meaning, etc.

SO I implicitly think of Nietzsche's truth to be that of the void, sorry.

 

[panzerfaust666]

Nietszche is a existentialist, simple

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

I think the most useful thing Nietzsche contributed was the concept of the Last Man. I've only read The Anti-Christ and Zarathustra, but that was the part I found most interesting. The Overman sounded utterly ridiculous to me... most of it, anyway.

 

[Dimebaggage]

Very interesting read indeed. Thanks for that.

So do you guys believe that Nietzsche was a genius child or not?

I very much believe so.

 

[speed]

An interesting question I read today regarding Nietszche's thought from a Polish philosopher: in outlining Nietzsche's doctrine of "the will to power," he remarks, "Nietzsche tells us to exercise the will to power and create the meaning of life for ourselves, regardless of traditional moral laws and inherited ideas of good and evil," and he then asks, "How, on this view, does a great artist differ in his greatness from a great criminal? Are we to admire both equally, since both created the meaning they wanted in their lives?"

 

[WeAreTheLastMen]

An interesting question I read today regarding Nietszche's thought from a Polish philosopher: in outlining Nietzsche's doctrine of "the will to power," he remarks, "Nietzsche tells us to exercise the will to power and create the meaning of life for ourselves, regardless of traditional moral laws and inherited ideas of good and evil," and he then asks, "How, on this view, does a great artist differ in his greatness from a great criminal? Are we to admire both equally, since both created the meaning they wanted in their lives?"

That's about when you begin to realize that Nietzsche is a foo' (most of the time).

 

[Astrum]

Nietszche is a existentialist, simple

Hey, congrats on typing Nietszche into wikipedia or something.

An interesting question I read today regarding Nietszche's thought from a Polish philosopher: in outlining Nietzsche's doctrine of "the will to power," he remarks, "Nietzsche tells us to exercise the will to power and create the meaning of life for ourselves, regardless of traditional moral laws and inherited ideas of good and evil," and he then asks, "How, on this view, does a great artist differ in his greatness from a great criminal? Are we to admire both equally, since both created the meaning they wanted in their lives?"

If the accomplishments (for lack of a better word, but you know what i mean) of the two are equal, then the greatness of the two does not differ. Greatness and it's opposite aren't on the same spectrum as good or bad. One being a criminal and one being an artist has no bearing on the measure of their greatness.

To answer the end question, technichally; if we are following some base principles of Nietszche, we are to admire neither, or both. Just because you admire the criminal as much as the artist because of how they succsessfully lived out their lives the way they wanted does not mean you promote criminal behavior (or being an artist, for that matter). If you were to "admire" them at all, it would be for the fact that they succeeded in fufilling their life's potential.

 

[Blowtus]

I think that is a good way of looking at it... people / ideas / things can be admired / acknowledged, even as we dislike / fight against the results upon us of such.

 

[The Poona of Peshwa]

That was the most interesting modern Christian apologetic I've ever read.

"The human animal wishes to give itself to something higher. It is a need more basic than our instinctual urges. It is a nature more fundamental than everything our age wishes us to affirm as natural."

If we should dare to point out that Nietzsche's anthropology and cosmology are flawed, and that there is not one lick of evidence for the metaphysical claims of religion we're missing the point, and are absolutely, finally doomed. The only destination besides the Nietzschean artist-tyrant and absolute despair is self-denial, or the Will to Power being exercised over oneself. Being a willing slave is better than being an unknowing slave to slave morality, which is entailed by our "devotion to subhuman primal powers". Chilling.

This is a blurb for Reno(the author of the article)'s new book:

"He shows how modern philosophers have argued that people are self-sufficient, that they do not need God to complete their identities, and that whatever changes they experience are momentary and of no ultimate significance.Countering modern philosophy, Reno contends that the only meaningful change occurs in Christ. At the moment of atonement, people experience an enduring change that has momentous consequences for their lives. We matter, he says, only insofar as we are more dependent upon and changed by Christ."

 

[Flal]

I am also harboring the idea that Nietzsche was the Socrates of the modern era. His written philosophy I think asks questions, not solves them.

His earlier work asks more questions than they solve, but I find a lot of answers in Zarathustra and other later works.

On Poona's Chritian note, from what I've read, it almost seems like Nietzsche is describing what Tolstoy and later Wittgenstein proclaimed as being Christian anarchy (Christianity without a church and without a structure). What I mean is that Christian Anarchy is meant to look at the bible from an entirely subjective platform, as both mythos and logos. It also absolves itself from any dogma, stating that only and individual can better him/herself, and should strive to better him/herself. I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like the Superman/Overman to me!

 

[speed]

His earlier work asks more questions than they solve, but I find a lot of answers in Zarathustra and other later works.

On Poona's Chritian note, from what I've read, it almost seems like Nietzsche is describing what Tolstoy and later Wittgenstein proclaimed as being Christian anarchy (Christianity without a church and without a structure). What I mean is that Christian Anarchy is meant to look at the bible from an entirely subjective platform, as both mythos and logos. It also absolves itself from any dogma, stating that only and individual can better him/herself, and should strive to better him/herself. I don't know about you guys, but that sounds like the Superman/Overman to me!

Indeed, his early works do ask quite a fw questions. I know I described him as a 19th century Socrates before; as they are perfect opposites using similar methods of pealing away the layers and asking questions.

I see some analogies with this Christian anarchy you speak of. I dont know enough to comment too intelligently, but I do know that these christian anarchist ideas seem classically inspired, as was Nietszche's thought.

 

[St. Onan]

His written philosophy I think asks questions, not solves them.

I disagree. It asks questions, points in a direction, and leaves it to those in ages past Nietzsche's demise to connect the goddamn dots.

If you write down in pure form what you think, idiots will make a mockery of it.

 

[Seditious]

An interesting question I read today regarding Nietszche's thought from a Polish philosopher: in outlining Nietzsche's doctrine of "the will to power," he remarks, "Nietzsche tells us to exercise the will to power and create the meaning of life for ourselves, regardless of traditional moral laws and inherited ideas of good and evil," and he then asks, "How, on this view, does a great artist differ in his greatness from a great criminal? Are we to admire both equally, since both created the meaning they wanted in their lives?"

I must be too much of a Nietzschean: it didn't intrigue me, I just gave a simple, slightly nuanced, 'yes'.

The only qualification is the doubt to cast upon the claim of how viable sustainability ad self-satisfactium (i.e., of a longevity not falling shy of your desire for it to continue) is, in proportion to that of the alternatives. This qualification of course means it might be better to be a plumber than either an artist or a criminal, or a drug addict than 'a professional'. There's certainly no relevant distinction alone for the criminal, as if 'morality' was to yap away at us as we calculate the alternatives, less, again, a minor qualification, the society itself improve (which it presently shows no desire to do).

 

[Seditious]

That was the most interesting modern Christian apologetic I've ever read.

"The human animal wishes to give itself to something higher. It is a need more basic than our instinctual urges. It is a nature more fundamental than everything our age wishes us to affirm as natural."

I think you left out the crucial phrase which exposes the authors Christian bias: "Nietzsche’s almost unwilling final affirmation of the ascetic impulse..." This being his source for the claim to my mind invalidates it, as the inference is simply unwarranted, and clearly a mere Christianizing of his statements, not a fair explication of them.