Russell On Nietzsche

[speed]

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.

Well i think we're having a fruitful discussion in this thread. I see alot of very interesting posts.

As for yours derbreder, I suppose what you've stated, is that there is the age old academic vs. creativity/world philosophical present in contemporary philosophy. Its present in almost all academic disciplines. Literature and history programs produce arguments and analysis, but generally no great works; its a problem for the humanities.

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

This quote I think sums its up. So yes, I suppose what shoud be replaced is the word academic with genuine, and I'd agree. But if you take out the new and interesting, I think philosophy dies or becomes a pointless pedantic exercise. Without the Descartes, Kants, Heideggers and Nietszches creating systems or ideas, what would be left to argue, examine, prove or disprove? And as Ive stated, this problem is not just limited to philosophy. It's a humanities-wide problem.

 

[judas69]

He's not saying you should exclude the new and interesting from philosophy, but that they should be filtered through the lens of philosophical history, and logical criticisms there of, otherwise they're just ideas ..and difficult to advance at that.

I guess it comes down to what philosophy means to you; is it just thinking, or is it thinking with direction and context?

 

[Blowtus]

You have nearly got the idea . It is not rising above nature, but working with nature.

Agree that it is definately 'working with' nature - but I still don't see that working with nature is at all a natural instinct To me it seems as artificial a philosophy as you can get - born purely of logic and observation, with little to no instinctual basis that I can see? Animals natural instincts appear to be 'working with nature' because they have had thousands upon thousands of years of adaptation and balancing between themselves and their own 'consumer' instincts. We are only causing 'problems' because we have become such capable 'consumers' in a short enough period of time that evolution of other animals / ecosystems is unable to keep up, imho.

 

[MURAI]

"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?

Many dislike his work for his tendencies to belittle the average man, his obsession with the ugly nature of man, and his extreme bias against traditional religion. Also, the arrogant attitude and his appeal to emotions over reason like the Russel comment you quoted.

The major flaw of modern Christianity and humanism is that they both cover up the unpleasant facts of life like suffering, death, conflict and disorder. They think you can get out of it and reach some utopia by buying a ticket so you join a church or get "rights" for whatever. So, Nietzsche said both of them are one and the same. But, I say ideas like humanism did not originate from Christianity but it seems to eventurally naturally breed out of weary, bloated civilizations ready to fall.

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.

Its likely because his philosophy is trendy in some circles of youth because his philosophy has a reputation of being edgy and rebellious. Like, fuck religion and fuck god, man.

I like his work and I have read The Anti-Christ and On The Genealogy of Morals. But, I find it a little much that he concentrates solely on the weaknesses and ugliness of man than the strengths. He does touch on what he means by the strong man and I can actually think of some known Japanese figures who he will no doubt consider to be strong. But, he never talks about how to become one or at least become stronger.

 

[OldScratch]

Its likely because his philosophy is trendy in some circles of youth because his philosophy has a reputation of being edgy and rebellious. Like, fuck religion and fuck god, man.

I like his work and I have read The Anti-Christ and On The Genealogy of Morals. But, I find it a little much that he concentrates solely on the weaknesses and ugliness of man than the strengths. He does touch on what he means by the strong man and I can actually think of some known Japanese figures who he will no doubt consider to be strong. But, he never talks about how to become one or at least become stronger.

I suspect your first observation here is quite true. Surely this phenomenon can be witnessed throughout the "extreme" Metal genre for instance.

On the second point, I must say that I don't see Nietzsche as hopelessly negative as some. While the focus may indeed be on the "ugliness," it seems we must first fully expose and diagnose the sickness before we can offer a cure. One of the great errors of our time(common in the business world, for instance) is that we continually seek to address problems we don't completely understand - and the results are generally predictable.
Works like the Gay Science or Beyond Good and Evil carry a message of, dare I say, "hope" by my interpretation. Yes, Nietzsche is hard on the "common man" and less than sympathetic to universalist/humanitarian ideas...but, it always seemed to me his point was that such destructively naive and foolhardy idealism could be overcome in order to create something better - even if it required a far less altruistic, charitable approach than we are attuned to.
Truly, we are our own worst enemy and we seem to never know where to draw the line between compassion and compulsion - particularly when fueled by religious zealotry or egalitarian fantasy. In this regard, we today have learned nothing from Nietzsche, that is sure.

If all this makes me naive or philosophically immature, so be it. I am hardly a wild-eyed 18 year old looking to randomly curse humanity for the sake of it, or exorcize some personal demons, or what have you...and still Nietzsche speaks to me on the whole.

 

[Seditious]

I like his work and I have read The Anti-Christ and On The Genealogy of Morals. But, I find it a little much that he concentrates solely on the weaknesses and ugliness of man than the strengths. He does touch on what he means by the strong man and I can actually think of some known Japanese figures who he will no doubt consider to be strong. But, he never talks about how to become one or at least become stronger.

he didn't?
paraphrasing a point in a lecture about Nietszche, he suggested we had to go through the process of suffering which comes from recognizing our inauthentic lives before we can ever truely begin to live the life of man. if that isn't talking about what we have to do to become stronger then Buddha never talked about how to become happier/enlightened even though he said attachment causes suffering. recognising what makes you weak and letting go of it, struggling to be free of it, if articulating these weaknesses you need to be aware of to change them isn't teaching how to be strong I can't possibly imagine what is.