Russell On Nietzsche

[Nile577]

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end." - Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy.

Thoughts? Is this the 'common sense' approach to Nietzsche? Nietzsche is affecting stuff - does anyone other than I remember a certain sense of 'oh, I don't have to feel that way (guilty) anymore' when reading him? Is this forsaking of conscience a transformation of men into beasts? If we agree with Nietzsche, is it an evolutionary or social failure that individuals in the West often possess a conscience attuned to Judaeo-Christian/Humanitarian values? Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that just like mathematics, ethics may be a universal, discoverable optimum for cohesive social behaviour. 'Thou shalt not steal' may be as intuitively plausible to developed, intelligent living things as '1' '+' '1' '=' '2'. Do you agree?

 

[OldScratch]

I distinctly recall the "don't have to feel this way" emotion you describe - though it was more affirmation than revelation as I technically felt this way already. Casting off the yoke of compulsory, random compassion or universal, far flung altruism is a liberating experience(like dabbling in something forbidden)and further intellectualizing it through the appreciation of Nietzsche's ideas just makes it that much sweeter. By and large these are the aspects of Nietzsche's work I relate to most readily and personally. I despise the "save everybody, love everybody" ideal. Not out of a lack of conscience...but a lack of willingness to be conned into believing myself my "brothers' keeper" on a global scale.

I don't know that we will be transformed into beasts by forsaking the judeo-christian version of conscience. Nor do I think Nietzsche wished us to become beasts or "natural" to to the point of savagery. Or to conduct ourselves as indifferently as nature. Just as selectively:

"You want to live 'according to nature'? Oh you noble Stoics, what deceit lies in these words! Imagine a creature constituted like nature, prodigal beyond measure, neutral beyond measure, with no purpose or conscience, with no compassion or fairness, fertile and desolate and uncertain all at once; imagine Indifference itself as a power: how could you live according to this indifference?" - Beyond Good and Evil

 

[Seditious]

If we agree with Nietzsche, is it an evolutionary or social failure that individuals in the West often possess a conscience attuned to Judaeo-Christian/Humanitarian values?

Honestly, I would say that is the social sucess! That is, after all, what they wanted, what those majorities and minorities who take major action have strived for and thus brought about. I hate it, and I'm working on my philosophy hoping to overturn it all, but I think the way things are are a success story in their eyes, just in need of a little fine tuning... (a little more protection here, a little more freedom there, a few more harsh sentences there... but nothing major, just making the existing system work a little better, not change its content.)

Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that just like mathematics, ethics may be a universal, discoverable optimum for cohesive social behaviour. 'Thou shalt not steal' may be as intuitively plausible to intelligent living things as '1' '+' '1' '=' '2'. Do you agree?

I'm not sure about this. personally i wonder if it is at all possible to have a 'proven' theory of ethics, as in, one that can prove all others wrong. even science (like our progression in understanding the atom, from billiard balls to quantum physics) seems right but can be overturned, and it seems to have far more falsifiable opposition.

 

[Seditious]

"You want to live 'according to nature'? Oh you noble Stoics, what deceit lies in these words! Imagine a creature constituted like nature, prodigal beyond measure, neutral beyond measure, with no purpose or conscience, with no compassion or fairness, fertile and desolate and uncertain all at once; imagine Indifference itself as a power: how could you live according to this indifference?" - Beyond Good and Evil

I think he's really missing the point here, as if all nature is randomness and as if humans have no innate tendencies which we could call our 'nature'

 

[Seditious]

I despise the "save everybody, love everybody" ideal. Not out of a lack of conscience...but a lack of willingness to be conned into believing myself my "brothers' keeper" on a global scale.

if I could flick a switch and make everyone on earth healthy and well fed and living in peace etc. etc. I wouldn't do it.
I don't like the population being this large while we're this foolish in our industrial behavior.
It seems like a good thing that a lot of people die off, especially when its people whose lives amount to less than termites building their little communities do, they're like an excess which aren't needed. by all means let them live, but help them? why? We can't even get a city of a million people working lawfully, why don't we see if giving people money, giving them medicine and food, helping them survive is actually worth it, after we find out if we can actually make our own shit work, whether people are already healthy and wealthy---why get the rest of the world up to a certain minimum standard as us so that we're lacking the funding for our own shit and they're stuck with the same problems as us which we stupidly neglected to help them!

I rant when I'm sleepy

 

[Seditious]

Quick clarification: The last question of my post should really read 'Over time, 'Thou shalt not steal' may become as plausible to intelligent living things as '1' '+' '1' '=' '2'. Do you agree?'

It is supposed to convey the idea that ethics exist as a discoverable optimum, not that they are necessarily present from birth. I will edit the post to prevent any confusion.

ah ok. so you mean there can be a 'best ethical standard' which with enough wisdom all could come to the conclusion of?

I think it's a difficult thing, because it seems most people want what is best for them, they don't want to go under the Veil of Ignorance and accept moral nihilism. I would say the best ethical standard is a certain absence of morality as we know it...

but I don't know if other people in their selfishness would ever want to agree the best standard is the one that doesn't work out the best for themselves, and I think that's exactly why we have the fucked up morality we have today (I can't blame religion for that political/social matter, if anything we should probably blame that social phenomenon for religion...)

 

[OldScratch]

if I could flick a switch and make everyone on earth healthy and well fed and living in peace etc. etc. I wouldn't do it.
I don't like the population being this large while we're this foolish in our industrial behavior.
It seems like a good thing that a lot of people die off, especially when its people whose lives amount to less than termites building their little communities do, they're like an excess which aren't needed. by all means let them live, but help them? why? We can't even get a city of a million people working lawfully, why don't we see if giving people money, giving them medicine and food, helping them survive is actually worth it, after we find out if we can actually make our own shit work, whether people are already healthy and wealthy---why get the rest of the world up to a certain minimum standard as us so that we're lacking the funding for our own shit and they're stuck with the same problems as us which we stupidly neglected to help them!

I rant when I'm sleepy

Well, fatigued rant or no...that's just what I was talking about - but in wonderfully blunt detail.

 

[Norsemaiden]

"I dislike Nietzsche because he likes the contemplation of pain, because he erects conceit into a duty, because the men whom he most admires are conquerors, whose glory is cleverness in causing men to die. But I think the ultimate argument against his philosophy, as against any unpleasant but internally self-consistent ethic, lies not in an appeal to facts, but in an appeal to the emotions. Nietzsche despises universal love; I feel it is the motive power to all that I desire as regards the world. His followers have had their innings, but we may hope that it is coming rapidly to an end." - Bertrand Russell, History of Western Philosophy.

Thoughts? Is this the 'common sense' approach to Nietzsche? Nietzsche is affecting stuff - does anyone other than I remember a certain sense of 'oh, I don't have to feel that way (guilty) anymore' when reading him? Is this forsaking of conscience a transformation of men into beasts? If we agree with Nietzsche, is it an evolutionary or social failure that individuals in the West often possess a conscience attuned to Judaeo-Christian/Humanitarian values? Philosopher Daniel Dennett argues that just like mathematics, ethics may be a universal, discoverable optimum for cohesive social behaviour. 'Thou shalt not steal' may be as intuitively plausible to developed, intelligent living things as '1' '+' '1' '=' '2'. Do you agree?

Judeo-Christian/Humanitiarian values are unsustainable. The universal love and charity idea has led to billions of recipient types growing and needing ever more assistence, while they demolish the environment. Capitialism, which is also responsible for much pollution and ecological damage, is also a Judeo/Christian phenomenon in that there is an assumption of resources being unlimited and only being there for the use of humans. It is a rejection of Nature in this way. It is out of tune with the Natural world to think in that way.

Nietzsche is a realist. He prepares us, indirectly, for the coming "dark age" that must come about when Judeo-Christianity/Humanitarianism has finally caused the inevitable collapse into chaos. If you can see this coming, you know that a philosophy of strength that prepares you for struggle is much more helpful than one that pretends that everything can be all lovely and nice and we can all be dumb,fat and happy for all eternity - such as Bertrand Russell would advocate.

The only way there can be universal agreement over ethics is if everyone is of the same mind on it. It is no good the majority agreeing on something and making it into a declared rule. Extreme homogeneity is necessary for everyone to be of the same inclination on ethical matters.

The ancient Germanics (according to Tacitus) felt that they would always rather steal what they wanted (from another tribe) than work for it. And, in any case, it will always be reasonable to steal if that is the only way to get what you need to survive - as anyone would surely agree. Infact if someone is hoarding what you need to survive and won't let you have it, then it is really the person hoarding it who is, in a sense, stealing from you. That's a lot like the Marxist "all property is theft" idea. That is right, in a sense.

 

[derbeder]

no philosopher i personally know takes nietzsche at all seriously. most don't even consider him a philosopher. this probably has to do more with how he writes than what he writes. there are no developed arguments to be found in nietzsche, and whatever rudimentary considerations resembling arguments there are, they are of little worth. it is easy to enjoy reading him, but it is hard to say anything definite about what he says and how he supports what he says.

ironically, he has become a philosopher for the masses (masses of angry 18-20 year olds, that is). his books probably sell a whole lot more than those by all major analytic philosophers together.

 

[speed]

no philosopher i personally know takes nietzsche at all seriously. most don't even consider him a philosopher. this probably has to do more with how he writes than what he writes. there are no developed arguments to be found in nietzsche, and whatever rudimentary considerations resembling arguments there are, they are of little worth. it is easy to enjoy reading him, but it is hard to say anything definite about what he says and how he supports what he says.

ironically, he has become a philosopher for the masses (masses of angry 18-20 year olds, that is). his books probably sell a whole lot more than those by all major analytic philosophers together.

It is obvious you identifiy with analytical philosophy derberder. But you raise some major points, that I for one, have been posting and arguing about for seemingly forever on this board.

First, I find it interesting that no philosopher you know takes Nietszche seriously. Are these only analytical philosophers? I say this because every major philosopher but Russell I am knowledgable of, took Nietszche very seriously--or expanded upon many of his ideas and thoughts. Foucault, Heidegger, even Wittgenstein built upon many of Nietszche's ideas.

Second, I find his writing and argumentation style wonderfully literary,poetic and creative. It requires a great deal of prior knowledge of philosophy, history, religion, etc, to truly understand it. It also--following Goethe and the ancients--has two planes of understanding: one low level plane for these 18 year olds, and a higher plane for those who better understand his true intentions. Of course, many of his ideas have been poorly understood to the point of parody; but is this not the risk a philosopher takes by writing in such a open literary, and personal style? A philosopher who instead of couching all of his language in ridiculous jargon and semantics to prevent the ordinary reader from even attempting to tackle his ideas (ideas which may be simplistic, have flaws, etc), chose to propound his ideas with langauge that is creative, on the surface clear, and can be easily misunderstood?

Third, I have read this attack of Nietszche by Russell, as well as most of his works. Being the good rational anaytical he is, he absolutely abhors the german school of philosophy. Essentially the split Kant made from Hume, he refuses to accept. Anything contrary to rationality and reason, Russell mocks, belittles, and if you ask me, poorly understands. And yet, his (Russell's) philosophy outside of logic, is painfully simplistic, common-sensical; bordering--if not completely--on utopian socialism (and obviously god-less as well). How naive! That being said, I still enjoy many of his ideas and his approach. And I find many of Nietszche's ideas as simplistic and naive as well.

Finally, as I ponder this, I 'm coming back to the thought that Nietszche was indeed a very rare bird for philosophy. He really doesnt fit the last 200 years of philosophical tradition very well. He was not a pedantic, systematic, scholasticist as philosophy now expects or has become. This is both his flaw and his attraction. In truth, I think he was more an artist, a poet, a creator, than he was a philosopher.

 

[derbeder]

First, I find it interesting that no philosopher you know takes Nietszche seriously. Are these only analytical philosophers? I say this because every major philosopher but Russell I am knowledgable of, took Nietszche very seriously--or expanded upon many of his ideas and thoughts. Foucault, Heidegger, even Wittgenstein built upon many of Nietszche's ideas.

I meant that the philosophers I personally know in universities don't take Nietzsche seriously. And since I am surrounded by analytical philosophers in the New York area grad schools, I don't get much discussion of Nietzsche.

Heidegger surely took Nietzsche seriously, especially in the 40s - enough to write 4 volumes on the interpretation of his philosophy. Wittgenstein hardly makes anything of Nietzsche, though it is known that he has read him and admired some of his writings (though, what exactly he admired, I don't know).

Second, I find his writing and argumentation style wonderfully literary,poetic and creative. It requires a great deal of prior knowledge of philosophy, history, religion, etc, to truly understand it. It also--following Goethe and the ancients--has two planes of understanding: one low level plane for these 18 year olds, and a higher plane for those who better understand his true intentions. Of course, many of his ideas have been poorly understood to the point of parody; but is this not the risk a philosopher takes by writing in such a open literary, and personal style? A philosopher who instead of couching all of his language in ridiculous jargon and semantics to prevent the ordinary reader from even attempting to tackle his ideas (ideas which may be simplistic, have flaws, etc), chose to propound his ideas with langauge that is creative, on the surface clear, and can be easily misunderstood?

I find much of analytical philosophy (with the exception of Wittgenstein) rather readable, certainly much more so than Nietzsche or philosophers in the continental tradition (with the exception of some parts early Heidegger and Merlau Ponty). There is also an enjoyment in reading something that tries to be very clear about a subject rather than being vague and poetic. It allows one to actually think through the issues and not go off wandering in a thought because of something vaguely suggested - which is what usually happens with Nietzsche.

Whatever jargon that is used in a good contemporary writing in analytic philosophy is explained (if the author is writing a book, that is) and assumptions are made explicit, rather than being left to the reader. This is especially so in the philosophy of language, philosophy of logic and philosophy of mathematics - areas I am especially interested in. If one is serious about thinking about a subject, one should not hide behind loose connection and mere suggestions. If one relies on arguments in one's thinking, than things should be made explicit and the relevance of evertyhing that is written to the conclusion one wishes to draw should be made clear.

Third, I have read this attack of Nietszche by Russell, as well as most of his works. Being the good rational anaytical he is, he absolutely abhors the german school of philosophy. Essentially the split Kant made from Hume, he refuses to accept. Anything contrary to rationality and reason, Russell mocks, belittles, and if you ask me, poorly understands. And yet, his philosophy outside of logic, is painfully simplistic, common-sensical; bordering--if not completely--on utopian socialism (and obviously god-less as well). How naive! That being said, I still enjoy many of his ideas and his approach. And I find many of Nietszche's ideas as simplistic and naive as well.

Another generalization about analytic philosophers today. Nobody really reads or discusses anything by Russell other than his (immensely important) contributions to the philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics. He has written some things of interest in the philosophy of mind, epistemology and metaphysics, and these are known and mentioned but there are fewer in depth studies of these. All the "popular" writings on religion, marriage etc. are left ignored, and probably rightly so. He is also not an important authority in the history of philosophy, though his writings there are readable and provide a decent introduction to the subject.

 

[speed]

I meant that the philosophers I personally know in universities don't take Nietzsche seriously. And since I am surrounded by analytical philosophers in the New York area grad schools, I don't get much discussion of Nietzsche.

Heidegger surely took Nietzsche seriously, especially in the 40s - enough to write 4 volumes on the interpretation of his philosophy. Wittgenstein hardly makes anything of Nietzsche, though it is known that he has read him and admired some of his writings (though, what exactly he admired, I don't know).



I find much of analytical philosophy (with the exception of Wittgenstein) rather readable, certainly much more so than Nietzsche or philosophers in the continental tradition (with the exception of some parts early Heidegger and Merlau Ponty). There is also an enjoyment in reading something that tries to be very clear about a subject rather than being vague and poetic. It allows one to actually think through the issues and not go off wandering in a thought because of something vaguely suggested - which is what usually happens with Nietzsche.

Whatever jargon that is used in a good contemporary writing in analytic philosophy is explained (if the author is writing a book, that is) and assumptions are made explicit, rather than being left to the reader. This is especially so in the philosophy of language, philosophy of logic and philosophy of mathematics - areas I am especially interested in. If one is serious about thinking about a subject, one should not hide behind loose connection and mere suggestions. If one relies on arguments in one's thinking, than things should be made explicit and the relevance of evertyhing that is written to the conclusion one wishes to draw should be made clear.


Another generalization about analytic philosophers today. Nobody really reads or discusses anything by Russell other than his (immensely important) contributions to the philosophy of language and philosophy of mathematics. He has written some things of interest in the philosophy of mind, epistemology and metaphysics, and these are known and mentioned but there are fewer in depth studies of these. All the "popular" writings on religion, marriage etc. are left ignored, and probably rightly so. He is also not an important authority in the history of philosophy, though his writings there are readable and provide a decent introduction to the subject.

Well, I think your replies and mine sum up the attraction, and non-attraction of Nietszche. As you state, you dont want so much of the thought left up to the reader, which I think is absolutely critical, and would rather not be told what to think, or how a certain conclusion was made. And this may also apply to the general theme you pointed out in the beginning: I like Nietszche (but dont necessarily agree with him) and I am not a academic philosopher in any sense; whereas you probably enjoy Frege and Quine, etc, persons whose works I find stale and scholastic.

I fail to understand what you call a generalization about Russell in the last paragraph of my last post. My comments on Russell were directly related to only Russell; rather I was discussing the oddness of Russell's negative findings of Nietszche. However, my point about Russell--which Ive not fleshed out fully--is that in those realms of philosophy outside of mathmatics, epistemology; this big idea everyday philosophy where Russell won a Nobel Prize--these essays on Happiness, Religion, Government, the history of philosophy--are areas where Russell is profoundly simplistic and naive. These are areas of principle concern to Nietszche's philosophy, and the areas of Russell's criticism of Nietszche. Thus the irony.

But I do find it troubling from your statements, that it seems your post-grad work is entirely focused on things seperated from everyday life, and many influential works and writings by Russell and Nietszche are totally neglected. I mean, they do have some importance, and they are the works the intelligent dabbler or interested non-academic philosopher will pick up and read.

 

[Justin S.]

There is an assumption that mistakes explicitness of language for precision of language, erroneously conflates intelligibility with transparency.

This is something that "analytic philosophy" is, by and large, guilty of.

Poetic expression is capable of capturing that which explicit formulations cannot- why?

Explicitness is inherently deductivist. The attempt to hone in on a fixed point of meaning is asymptotic, a pursuit where the bottom drops out and the abyss has no end.

Meaning and explanatory power are not merely matters of ordering of symbols, but of the task of expressing (communicating) the situation at hand- for certain tasks, logic/explicit-formulation/whatever-you-like may be appropriate, for most human endeavorers however, it is laughably inadequate- it is a "precise" imprecision.

 

[Cythraul]

Poetic expression is capable of capturing that which explicit formulations cannot

Care to provide an example?

Explicitness is inherently deductivist. The attempt to hone in on a fixed point of meaning is asymptotic, a pursuit where the bottom drops out and the abyss has no end.

What the hell does that mean?

 

[Blowtus]

Judeo-Christian/Humanitiarian values are unsustainable. The universal love and charity idea has led to billions of recipient types growing and needing ever more assistence, while they demolish the environment. Capitialism, which is also responsible for much pollution and ecological damage, is also a Judeo/Christian phenomenon in that there is an assumption of resources being unlimited and only being there for the use of humans. It is a rejection of Nature in this way. It is out of tune with the Natural world to think in that way.

How on earth is that out of tune with 'the natual world'?? I am not a biologist, but I'd be *extremely* surprised if there weren't many available examples of species and ecosystems fluctuating dramatically over time as changes in the species or ecosystem occurred, and slowly stabilising. Cows don't sit around regulating their intake of grass because of some concern for the greater scheme of nature - it is far more natural for them to consume what they want, when they want, and the broader consequences have to be dealt with later.

 

[derbeder]

But I do find it troubling from your statements, that it seems your post-grad work is entirely focused on things seperated from everyday life, and many influential works and writings by Russell and Nietszche are totally neglected. I mean, they do have some importance, and they are the works the intelligent dabbler or interested non-academic philosopher will pick up and read.

Indeed, popular works by Russell and Nietzsche are good to read, but one cannot do serious philosophical work based on them in the long run. Genuine philosophical work depends not just on thinking something new and interesting but also in paying attention to details and assessing arguments for and against the positions (I assume that Russell actually does this to some extent in his writings on more popular topics, but I am not sure. Nietzsche hardly ever does such a thing.). I find certain areas to be more apt for doing work of this sort and I tend to choose these areas in order to get definite views out and see how well they may be supported. Philosophy of logic and philosophy of mathematics are especially well suited for this purpose, but philosophy of language and certain topics in philosophy of mind (having to do with artificial intelligence and the problem of intentionality, for instance) are also notable in that respect. There are also subjects in metaphysics and epistemology where one can be rather rigorous.

The intelligent dabbler in philosophy might not find all of these issues interesting (the liar paradox and its various solutions, for instance). In some cases, he may find the issue interesting but he may not immediately see how some contemporary approaches to the issue will get us anywhere toward an answer (eg. the issue over realism and anti-realism in metaphysics). Yet, I suppose that issues that the dabbler doesn't find interesting might still be important. Work needs to be done in these areas as well as those that the dabbler finds interesting, eg. philosophy of religion, ethics and metaethics. I don't think that is in any way a bad thing.

 

[derbeder]

Poetic expression is capable of capturing that which explicit formulations cannot- why?

I don't see any reason to think that in a poem we can express a content that we cannot express otherwise by more prosaic means of expression. What distinguishes poetry seems to have more to do with how the content is expressed (in most cases, the content doesn't even matter) than what content is expressed. Hence, even if we think that the effects of reading a poem and reading an explicit prose are different, we may still think that whatever may be meant in one may also be meant in the other. If in saying that poetic expression can capture something explicit writing cannot, you mean that there are certain things you can say (express) in poetry that you cannot say in explicit prose, I will disagree. But, if you mean that in poetry way can say certain things and achieve an effect that we cannot achieve by expressing the same thing explicitly in prose, I will agree.

 

[Norsemaiden]

How on earth is that out of tune with 'the natual world'?? I am not a biologist, but I'd be *extremely* surprised if there weren't many available examples of species and ecosystems fluctuating dramatically over time as changes in the species or ecosystem occurred, and slowly stabilising. Cows don't sit around regulating their intake of grass because of some concern for the greater scheme of nature - it is far more natural for them to consume what they want, when they want, and the broader consequences have to be dealt with later.

Humans, unlike cows, generally know that damage is being caused to their environment and that resources are finite. We have no excuse not to know that the world population cannot continue to grow without more desertification, famine, pollution, and the inevitability of a plague of some sort which will cause many deaths and social chaos. Yet, knowing this, they continue to ignore these facts and try to conquer nature and harness it - which will only succeed in making the collapse all the more devastating.

 

[Blowtus]

Ok - so you are suggesting that we should somehow 'rise above' our natural instincts, through the use of our intellect? I would agree that seems worthwhile - would seem more of a rejection of nature (to me) than the all consuming style of existence favored by many though. Just semantics, I guess - though being able to put forward arguments with supposed 'nature' on your side lends a certain validity, to many.

 

[Norsemaiden]

Ok - so you are suggesting that we should somehow 'rise above' our natural instincts, through the use of our intellect? I would agree that seems worthwhile - would seem more of a rejection of nature (to me) than the all consuming style of existence favored by many though. Just semantics, I guess - though being able to put forward arguments with supposed 'nature' on your side lends a certain validity, to many.

You have nearly got the idea . It is not rising above nature, but working with nature. Accepting the constraints that nature puts on things such as that a world of peace and harmony free from hardships is not only impossible, but it would degenerate us and harm us, (Nietzsche stresses the necessity of struggle) and that attempts to build such an unnatural utopia actually cause more pain and devastation than if we had just accepted the natural constraints. You know the cliche "the road to hell is paved with good intentions".