Suggestions: Wanted

[speed]

Ha!
Absolutely.

Well I havent read him in a few years, but Im always surprised how many people misquote, or misrepresent him; and, how all of these people are angry young kids who've read maybe a few quotes and a encyclopedia article, or maybe parts of the Antichrist. He's a very deep and multifaceted philosopher, who has become almost a parody. I suppose Marx and Freud, and even Hegel to some extent (when people actually read him one hundred years ago) have sufferred the same fate.

 

[ARC150]

Well I havent read him in a few years, but Im always surprised how many people misquote, or misrepresent him; and, how all of these people are angry young kids who've read maybe a few quotes and a encyclopedia article, or maybe parts of the Antichrist. He's a very deep and multifaceted philosopher, who has become almost a parody. I suppose Marx and Freud, and even Hegel to some extent (when people actually read him one hundred years ago) have sufferred the same fate.

Yeah -
I would argue that Thus Spake Zarathrustra is N's best known work that most people haven't read. He, at one point, took to writing in aphorisims...and so damed himself to misunderstanding by those who have read nothing else.

 

[speed]

Yeah -
I would argue that Thus Spake Zarathrustra is N's best known work that most people haven't read. He, at one point, took to writing in aphorisims...and so damed himself to misunderstanding by those who have read nothing else.

Im always surprised how few people even grasp or partially understand Eternal Recurrance, or how and why his view of ethics and morality shaped everything else. Essentially he says the same thing as Wittegenstein: there is no objectivity or truth, or right and wrong; thus, all of these philosophical and religious systems and logical tricks, are useless. (Massive generalization here). God who is the representation of the aforementioned is also dead or useless. And even then Nietzsche is no nihilist in the sense we know it. He rejects with a hope and faith for truth, not destruction. Its very pre-socratic, almost a classical skeptic, cynic view of the world.

 

[ARC150]

Im always surprised how few people even grasp or partially understand Eternal Recurrance, or how and why his view of ethics and morality shaped everything else. Essentially he says the same thing as Wittegenstein: there is no objectivity or truth, or right and wrong; thus, all of these philosophical and religious systems and logical tricks, are useless. (Massive generalization here). God who is the representation of the aforementioned is also dead or useless. And even then Nietzsche is no nihilist in the sense we know it. He rejects with a hope and faith for truth, not destruction. Its very pre-socratic, almost a classical skeptic, cynic view of the world.

Or very Marx-Engel...

 

[Anvil]

I totally agree with you on Nietszche. Most seem to be focused on the Antichrist or parts of Zarathustra, but are totally oblivious to the rest of his works. Personally, I'd start with his Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greekshttp://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/ptra.htm One would be surprised how much--if not all--of his philosophy is derived from his classical pre-socratic studies as discussed in this book.

When I first became interested in Philosophy, I came across Nietszche's 'Beyond Good And Evil' by pure chance. I then read 'The Gay Science', and have since refused to read more of Nietszche until I read more of his predecessors' works.

 

[derek]

Well I havent read him in a few years, but Im always surprised how many people misquote, or misrepresent him; and, how all of these people are angry young kids who've read maybe a few quotes and a encyclopedia article, or maybe parts of the Antichrist. He's a very deep and multifaceted philosopher, who has become almost a parody. I suppose Marx and Freud, and even Hegel to some extent (when people actually read him one hundred years ago) have sufferred the same fate.

I see evidence of this everyday. A student I know wheres a "God Is Dead" shirt to class quite often - seemingly obvlivious to the philosophy behind the arrival at that conclusion.

 

[speed]

Or very Marx-Engel...

When I first read that, I thought you may have meant like Nietzsche, how poorly understood Marx is today. But on second thought, I began entertaining the thought that Nietszche and Marx were somewhat similar in philosophical views and influences. Marx too was steeped first in classical philosophy: especially Democritus, Epicurean and Platonic thought. His disseration was on materialism or the difference of the perception of nature or some such thing, of Democritean and Epicurean thought. Both saw God and morality as essentially bankrupt.

However--and this is the big difference--Marx was a Hegelian, and Nietzsche was a devotee of Schopenhauer. Of course, Hegel and Schopenhauer were contemporaries who hated each other with passion. They were colleagues you know at the University of Berlin. Thus Marx took a social, materialistic view of the world, with that almost Christian idea of a future human utopia. And Nietszche took a individualist view of the world, with a Christian or buddhist/gnostic idea of personal salvation or attainment of the truth.

I could go on here, but I dont feel like writing an essay, and I'm not about to spend more than 20 minutes on this.



Heres a good example of perhaps a link between Nietszche and Marx:

Marx's acceptance of this notion of materialist dialectics which rejected Hegel's idealism was greatly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach. In The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach argued that God is really a creation of man and that the qualities people attribute to God are really qualities of humanity. Accordingly, Marx argued that it is the material world that is real and that our ideas of it are consequences, not causes, of the world. Thus, like Hegel and other philosophers, Marx distinguished between appearances and reality. But he did not believe that the material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on the contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific ideology prevented people from seeing the material conditions of their lives clearly.



And another suggestion: if you are curious about Marx, find yourself the Grundrisse. Its his best work, his clearest, it lays out all of his philosophy in a more eloquent and understandable manner than anything else, and perhaps, its still the most relevant.

 

[ARC150]

When I first read that, I thought you may have meant like Nietzsche, how poorly understood Marx is today. But on second thought, I began entertaining the thought that Nietszche and Marx were somewhat similar in philosophical views and influences. Marx too was steeped first in classical philosophy: especially Democritus, Epicurean and Platonic thought. His disseration was on materialism or the difference of the perception of nature or some such thing, of Democritean and Epicurean thought. Both saw God and morality as essentially bankrupt.

However--and this is the big difference--Marx was a Hegelian, and Nietzsche was a devotee of Schopenhauer. Of course, Hegel and Schopenhauer were contemporaries who hated each other with passion. They were colleagues you know at the University of Berlin. Thus Marx took a social, materialistic view of the world, with that almost Christian idea of a future human utopia. And Nietszche took a individualist view of the world, with a Christian or buddhist/gnostic idea of personal salvation or attainment of the truth.
I could go on here, but I dont feel like writing an essay, and I'm not about to spend more than 20 minutes on this.
Heres a good example of perhaps a link between Nietszche and Marx:
Marx's acceptance of this notion of materialist dialectics which rejected Hegel's idealism was greatly influenced by Ludwig Feuerbach. In The Essence of Christianity, Feuerbach argued that God is really a creation of man and that the qualities people attribute to God are really qualities of humanity. Accordingly, Marx argued that it is the material world that is real and that our ideas of it are consequences, not causes, of the world. Thus, like Hegel and other philosophers, Marx distinguished between appearances and reality. But he did not believe that the material world hides from us the "real" world of the ideal; on the contrary, he thought that historically and socially specific ideology prevented people from seeing the material conditions of their lives clearly.
And another suggestion: if you are curious about Marx, find yourself the Grundrisse. Its his best work, his clearest, it lays out all of his philosophy in a more eloquent and understandable manner than anything else, and perhaps, its still the most relevant.

Damn dude - that is a better reply than my ambiguous statement is worthy of!

For the record, I do not see Nietzche and Marx as being of the same mind. I would classify both as idealists, in a sense...but where Nietzche begs the common man to find truth in his meaning (as is the case with Schopenhauer), Marx begs that same man to find meaning in the truth of the status quo.

Schopenhauer always struck me as foolish notions backed by daydreams...Marx could be said to have the same daydreams, but ones tempered by a real-world understanding that disallows those same-said foolish notions.

/A long time ago, I fell in love with Marxism...I read everything he wrote...even took two years of mirco and macro economics (unheard of for a Psych/Philo major ) to better evaluate his ideas of utopian society. In the end, though - all these philosophers were looking for the same, perfect ideology.

Marx was the one to admit that it could never happen.

 

[speed]

Damn dude - that is a better reply than my ambiguous statement is worthy of!

For the record, I do not see Nietzche and Marx as being of the same mind. I would classify both as idealists, in a sense...but where Nietzche begs the common man to find truth in his meaning (as is the case with Schopenhauer), Marx begs that same man to find meaning in the truth of the status quo.

Schopenhauer always struck me as foolish notions backed by daydreams...Marx could be said to have the same daydreams, but ones tempered by a real-world understanding that disallows those same-said foolish notions.

/A long time ago, I fell in love with Marxism...I read everything he wrote...even took two years of mirco and macro economics (unheard of for a Psych/Philo major ) to better evaluate his ideas of utopian society. In the end, though - all these philosophers were looking for the same, perfect ideology.

Marx was the one to admit that it could never happen.

Your ambiguous reply was far more interesting and intelligent than you could ever imagine, and had me thinking about it for a whole day.

I too very much enjoy Marx, and have read the whole Marx Reader (everything he wrote, plus Engels) cover to cover. I dislike his political ideas, that have little to no relation to his philosophy. The first half of the communist manifesto is stunning, his second half is cringe inducing--because his first half is philosophy and criticism, his second half is half baked radical utopian hegelianism that has no relation to the core of his philosophical and economic ideas.

He was way off on making labor the focal point of his economic system, and he didnt foresee the easy-to-obtain credit we have today. Plus, his utopian idealism scares me as well. But as a critic of capitalism and social systems, he is perhaps unmatched. And his Grundrisse haunts my thoughts, because he may actually be right in another 50 years. His theory that there will be no labor left in advanced capitalist countries because of monopolies, efficiency and technology, is spot on. And thus as he said, if no one is working, no one has money; and thus, we can spend most of our lives cultivating our interests, not working.