Title y'all.
Quote from: TheReturnofLive on October 20, 2020, 01:03:12 PM
Title y'all.
There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.
As for Nietzsche's critiques of religion his arguments come across as contradictory & illogical. Just read the materialistic mad ramblings in his infamous book "The Anti-Christ."
"I come to a conclusion and pronounce my judgment. I condemn Christianity; I bring against the Christian church the most terrible of all the accusations that an accuser has ever had in his mouth. It is, to me, the greatest of all imaginable corruptions; it seeks to work the ultimate corruption, the worst possible corruption. The Christian church has left nothing untouched by its depravity; it has turned every value into worthlessness, and every truth into a lie, and every integrity into baseness of soul. Let any one dare to speak to me of its "humanitarian" blessings! Its deepest necessities range it against any effort to abolish distress; it lives by distress; it creates distress to make itself immortal.... For example, the worm of sin: it was the church that first enriched mankind with this misery!—The "equality of souls before God"—this fraud, this pretext for the rancunes of all the base-minded—this explosive concept, ending in revolution, the modern idea, and the notion of overthrowing the whole social order —this is Christian dynamite.... The "humanitarian" blessings of Christianity forsooth! To breed out of humanitas a self-contradiction, an art of self-pollution, a will to lie at any price, an aversion and contempt for all good and honest instincts! All this, to me, is the "humanitarianism" of Christianity!—Parasitism as the only practice of the church; with its anæmic and "holy" ideals, sucking all the blood, all the love, all the hope out of life; the beyond as the will to deny all reality; the cross as the distinguishing mark of the most subterranean conspiracy ever heard of,—against health, beauty, well-being, intellect, kindness of soul—against life itself....
This eternal accusation against Christianity I shall write upon all walls, wherever walls are to be found—I have letters that even the blind will be able to see.... I call Christianity the one great curse, the one great intrinsic depravity, the one great instinct of revenge, for which no means are venomous enough, or secret, subterranean and small enough,—I call it the one immortal blemish upon the human race....
And mankind reckons time from the dies nefastus when this fatality befell—from the first day of Christianity!—Why not rather from its last?—From today?—The transvaluation of all values!..."
Quote from: Sin of Adam on October 20, 2020, 02:07:55 PM
There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.
And Nietzsche would have conceded your point. Yet Christianity is simply not possible without the Jewish soil from which it sprang. In terms of "Judaeo-Christian morality," he was referring to morals as believed to be the diktats of a divine lawgiver, and a priestly caste which arrogated for itself the sole right to steward and interpret his revelation. This is common to both forms. The most salient aspect of his critique of Judaeo-Christian values is its ugly tendency to a slave-&-master relationship, which was realized most fully in Paul. Nietzsche saw no nobility in this. He was concerned with noble (Aryan) instincts, set against the common instincts toward the small, the petty, the obsequious, the self-aggrandizing (in his view, the Christian). If you have read more than just the last page of
The Antichrist, you will know this.
Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?
Quote from: Heinrich on October 20, 2020, 06:29:29 PM
Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?
Not that I know of. But I enjoy reading Nietzsche and consider him singularly wise. There was once an Origenist on this forum who said of Nietzsche: "his is one of the most beautiful pens to have ever written, without a doubt ... and this is only really appreciated in German, which is, I believe firmly, the most beautiful of all languages for too many reasons to describe." Sadly I have no German. He also called Nietzsche "corrosive," which at first I took in the negative sense. But now I believe it to be a positive. There is much dross in philosophy that deserves to be scorched. One thing that Christians can appreciate about Nietzsche is that he scorched Christianity's modern competitor, secular humanism. He was courageous enough to admit that if you reject God, you must necessarily reject objective morality. There are many atheist secular humanists who do not have such
cojones.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 20, 2020, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 20, 2020, 06:29:29 PM
Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?
Not that I know of. But I enjoy reading Nietzsche and consider him singularly wise. There was once an Origenist on this forum who said of Nietzsche: "his is one of the most beautiful pens to have ever written, without a doubt ... and this is only really appreciated in German, which is, I believe firmly, the most beautiful of all languages for too many reasons to describe." Sadly I have no German. He also called Nietzsche "corrosive," which at first I took in the negative sense. But now I believe it to be a positive. There is much dross in philosophy that deserves to be scorched. One thing that Christians can appreciate about Nietzsche is that he scorched Christianity's modern competitor, secular humanism. He was courageous enough to admit that if you reject God, you must necessarily reject objective morality. There are many atheist secular humanists who do not have such cojones.
I never thought much of Nietzsche. Sure he was a talented writer, but he's always given me the impression that if he was born in contemporary times he would be preoccupied with cruising truck-stops and public bathrooms for gay sex instead of writing.
Quote from: dellery on October 20, 2020, 06:51:49 PMI never thought much of Nietzsche. Sure he was a talented writer, but he's always given me the impression that if he was born in contemporary times he would be preoccupied with cruising truck-stops and public bathrooms for gay sex instead of writing.
He was not homosexual. That's a calumny. Plato, on the other hand, was some kind of flit. "Platonic," but nevertheless.
QuoteRe: What do you think about Nietzsche's critique on Judeo-Christian moral values??
What do I think? Well I've never read Nietzsche's writings nor am I familiar with his critique. But if you want to know what I think, I think Nietzsche is completely wrong and has no idea what he's talking about. Because I don't need to know much about Nietzsche to know that. It's simply the way philosophy works: if you start off with presuppositions/worldview opposed to Christianity, all you're going to end up with is well-argued falsehoods. (Particularly deceptive ones too, satanic in inspiration.) There's only one way to be right but one million ways to be wrong; anybody claiming to be doing "philosophy", who is hostile towards Christianity, is either a fool or a liar, not even worth listening to.
Quote from: Daniel on October 20, 2020, 07:00:01 PMIt's simply the way philosophy works: if you start off with presuppositions/worldview opposed to Christianity, all you're going to end up with is well-argued falsehoods.
Doesn't that presuppose Christianity, though? Tertullian would be proud.
Perhaps I have you confused with someone else, Daniel, but I thought you had studied philosophy in college. Did you not read a lick of Nietzsche? I suppose you might've gone to a conservative Catholic college, of course.
Zarathustra, anyway, is valuable for its rarefied prose style if nothing else.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 20, 2020, 06:00:53 PM
Quote from: Sin of Adam on October 20, 2020, 02:07:55 PM
There is no such thing as "Judeo-Christian" values as Rabbinic Judaism & Pauline Christianity have very different and irreconcilable values.
And Nietzsche would have conceded your point. Yet Christianity is simply not possible without the Jewish soil from which it sprang. In terms of "Judaeo-Christian morality," he was referring to morals as believed to be the diktats of a divine lawgiver, and a priestly caste which arrogated for itself the sole right to steward and interpret his revelation. This is common to both forms. The most salient aspect of his critique of Judaeo-Christian values is its ugly tendency to a slave-&-master relationship, which was realized most fully in Paul. Nietzsche saw no nobility in this. He was concerned with noble (Aryan) instincts, set against the common instincts toward the small, the petty, the obsequious, the self-aggrandizing (in his view, the Christian). If you have read more than just the last page of The Antichrist, you will know this.
I have read many of the works of Nietzsche, including some of his less known works such as
Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Nonetheless, I disagree with his assessments. Judaism & Christianity are intrinsically and fundamentally different in most major theological points regardless of Christian origins. In fact even Rabbinic Judaism and First/Second Temple Judaism are worlds apart (and no, not in the way that Nietzsche believed). Furthermore, as a Catholic Christian, I do not take seriously the metaphysical views on religion of a filthy, degenerate, semi-hedonistic, Godless, materialistic, blasphemous, fool who lost his mind due to his concupiscentious lifestyle, died an Atheist, and is presumably burning in hell. As a note of irony, and as the Talmudists say, "May his name be blotted out from memory."
Nietzsche's message really was against smallness of soul, which he associated with Christianity due to historical accident. But we are going to make Christianity great again. Nietzsche is going to be tired of winning.
Quote from: Graham on October 20, 2020, 08:00:14 PM
Nietzsche's message really was against smallness of soul, which he associated with Christianity due to historical accident. But we are going to make Christianity great again. Nietzsche is going to be tired of winning.
Christianity never stopped being great. It is the one true religion of God. Self proclaimed Christians, who are in reality heretics such as Protestants and modernists, are the ones who have smallness of soul and mind.
Quote from: Sin of Adam on October 20, 2020, 07:55:26 PMI have read many of the works of Nietzsche, including some of his less known works such as Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Nonetheless, I disagree with his assessments. Judaism & Christianity are intrinsically and fundamentally different in most major theological points regardless of Christian origins. In fact even Rabbinic Judaism and First/Second Temple Judaism are worlds apart (and no, not in the way that Nietzsche believed). Furthermore, as a Catholic Christian, I do not take seriously the metaphysical views on religion of a filthy, degenerate, semi-hedonistic, Godless, materialistic, blasphemous, fool who lost his mind due to his concupiscentious lifestyle, died an Atheist, and is presumably burning in hell. As a note of irony, and as the Talmudists say, "May his name be blotted out from memory."
As for me, I would prefer to take a phrase from the Mohammedans and say, "peace be upon him." I appreciate that you have read much of Nietzsche. Possibly we are talking past each other. Nietzsche would have wholly granted the particular distinctions between Christianity and Judaism. However, his concern was for what they carry in common. Certainly he was in agreement with the Church that Christianity is the
fulfillment of Judaism. Jesus and Paul, he said, were "superlative Jews."
Relax, I'm just fishing for coveted PDR upvotes.
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 20, 2020, 07:07:32 PM
Perhaps I have you confused with someone else, Daniel, but I thought you had studied philosophy in college. Did you not read a lick of Nietzsche? I suppose you might've gone to a conservative Catholic college, of course.
Yeah, I did major in Philosophy, and I'm a little surprised too. It was a secular university, and Nietzsche just never came up. Probably mostly because of his time period. (My required history classes ended with Kant, and my required non-history classes were mostly topical. So apart from John Stuart Mill (in ethics class), we pretty much skipped the entire nineteenth century as well as much of the twentieth century. I'm sure some of the electives probably covered Nietzsche, but none that I took. Coincidentally, there was a similar gap spanning the length of the middle ages. So many important Catholic philosophers also didn't show up much.)
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 20, 2020, 08:10:06 PM
Quote from: Sin of Adam on October 20, 2020, 07:55:26 PMI have read many of the works of Nietzsche, including some of his less known works such as Daybreak: Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality. Nonetheless, I disagree with his assessments. Judaism & Christianity are intrinsically and fundamentally different in most major theological points regardless of Christian origins. In fact even Rabbinic Judaism and First/Second Temple Judaism are worlds apart (and no, not in the way that Nietzsche believed). Furthermore, as a Catholic Christian, I do not take seriously the metaphysical views on religion of a filthy, degenerate, semi-hedonistic, Godless, materialistic, blasphemous, fool who lost his mind due to his concupiscentious lifestyle, died an Atheist, and is presumably burning in hell. As a note of irony, and as the Talmudists say, "May his name be blotted out from memory."
As for me, I would prefer to take a phrase from the Mohammedans and say, "peace be upon him." I appreciate that you have read much of Nietzsche. Possibly we are talking past each other. Nietzsche would have wholly granted the particular distinctions between Christianity and Judaism. However, his concern was for what they carry in common. Certainly he was in agreement with the Church that Christianity is the fulfillment of Judaism. Jesus and Paul, he said, were "superlative Jews."
Indeed, but in his view, they and the apostles were Chandala Jews, untouchables, due to their slave revolt morality. He despised Paul most of all and thought of Christianity as Jewish revenge on Rome & Greece for their supposedly superior values. In my view, the man is not worth taking seriously.
There is one thing I appreciate in his writing though, which is something you alluded to in of your posts in this thread.
"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place, and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"---As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?---Thus they yelled and laughed
The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried; "I will tell you. We have killed him---you and I. All of us are his murderers. But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying, as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition? Gods, too, decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him.
"How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whoever is born after us---for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto."
Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners; and they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern on the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering; it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than most distant stars---and yet they have done it themselves.
It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?"
That is the meaning of his infamous phrase that "God is dead."
I want to make a youtube video one day and discuss who I think are the great spiritual leaders of the modern age – Friedrich Nietzsche and St. Thérèse of Lisieux.
They are both great romantics, both heroic spirits, both born when the spirit of the modern age was reaching a fever pitch (pinnacle of romanticism / beginning of modernism). They both lived fairly secluded lives. Both were quite sickly in a physical sense. Both were very intelligent and gifted (Thérèse didn't get as much opportunity to develop her natural gifts, but she was very gifted). Both had a fierce spirit of independence and drive for excellence. Both suffered very, very intensely.
However, they took opposite paths. They divide the modern spirit between them.
It all comes down to this. Both of them were very interior souls, with an extraordinary talent for introspection; and both were acquainted with hidden, interior sufferings.
The essential difference between them is how they responded to their suffering.
Nietzsche responded in a kind of defiant, titanic, promethean, self-exalting, conquering, pagan fashion -- saying: OK I will suffer, but I will suffer like a man; like a superman; and through my suffering I will overcome my self and my surroundings, and place myself up on high.
Thérèse did more or less the opposite. She made herself small, humble, outwardly submissive, self-effacing, reliant on God, childlike in simplicity, and of course Christian.
Now regardless of what you think about these positions from a theoretical point of view; it's clear which one won out in reality, in practice: Thérèse by a hundred thousand miles.
Nietzsche collapsed into madness cringing at the hooves of a horse taking a beating; for all his big, megalomaniacal speeches about overcoming the morbid tendency to "pity", and embracing the will-to-power; that fact is he could not overcome the compassionate side of his humanity, and it broke him to pieces.
Meanwhile, by the end of her short life (24 yrs) Thérèse heroism in the face of suffering was so great, that her own sister (in a natural and religious sense) told Thérèse that she was 'scared' of her, because she couldn't comprehend her fearlessness. One day Thérèse had the inspiration to offer herself up as a burnt holocaust to God. She got permission to do it from her religious superior, and not long after she felt this 'burning' sensation come over her whole being; and from then on her life was constant suffering. But she complained so little and was in such kind spirits with the community, that nobody had any idea what she was going through. I'm really only scratching the surfaces of Thérèse's success morally and spiritually. She didn't just speak about being a hero, she became one.
Nietzsche failed, dramatically. I say this without any degree of spite (because I do like Nietzsche in a lot of ways), but I do believe that his 10 year long madness leading up to his death was God's judgement upon him and his 'philosophy', and in a sense Nietzsche's judgement upon himself (he was proud that his 'philosophy' amounted to madness).
Nietzsche's critique of Judeo-Christian moral values is superficially true. He's attacking a strawman. He's attacking Christianity when it has declined into its most decadent, "cultural" form. He misrepresents St. Paul. Spiritually speaking, where Nietzsche falls is his approach to human weakness. He thinks he can overcome human frailty by sheer will, defiance, strength, perseverance. It's an illusion, even a demonic illusion. Nietzsche's is in a sense a childish (or rather adolescent) error. The great spiritualists all know that real strength starts from the acceptance of one's weakness (humility). The Tao Teh Ching puts it like this:
BEND and you will be whole.
Curl and you will be straight.
Keep empty and you will be filled.
Grow old and you will be renewed.
and
NOTHING in the world is softer and weaker than water;
But, for attacking the hard and strong, there is nothing like it!
For nothing can take its place.
That the weak overcomes the strong, and the soft overcomes the hard,
This is something known by all, but practised by none.
I remember before my conversion to Christianity, back when Nietzsche and Plato were my biggest influencers, thinking that I'm going to have to choose either to be a pagan or a Christian. When I thought about paganism; I felt proud, but miserable. When I thought about Christianity; I felt humble, but happy. The neo-paganism of Nietzsche is only superficially strong. It really is the megalomaniacal power fantasy of a self-professed madman.
A madman, possessed by a devil, or perhaps by many, as a result of actively seeking spirit possession, who died in a lunatic asylum, while leaving behind to Germany and to the world a curse which continues to blight the souls of many.
There is often a tendency to read Nietzsche through the lenses by which he has been traditionally misinterpreted. Lest we forget, both the Nazis and Ayn Rand had a social Darwinist eisegesis of Nietzsche, even though he himself had said that was not what he was seeking. Any old brute can kick and claw his way to the top of the pile. If Nietzsche's philosophy had been nothing other than macho posturing, he would have been as insufferable as Jordan Peterson. When Nietzsche speaks of transcending through strength, he doesn't mean brute strength. He means strength of the mind, and the spirit, and the elusive instincts of the artist or the dancer. Neither did he speak against humility or modesty altogether. In his philosophy these things have their rightful place. "One must learn to look away from oneself in order to see much."
His bone of contention was with humility as a moral virtue, particularly the notion of humility before God: a grovelling, knee-bending, self-abasing, entreating kind of humility. Nietzsche's idea of humility would not have been terribly at odds with Lao Tsu's, which was a noble humility, not an embarrassing sort. I wonder if Lao Tsu ever cried out something like, "O Lord, have mercy!" And both had a quality of rascality to them. "Sinuously do all good things approach their goal. Like cats they curve their backs, they purr inwardly with their approaching happiness—all good things laugh."
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 20, 2020, 06:47:30 PM
Quote from: Heinrich on October 20, 2020, 06:29:29 PM
Ever the deconstructionist, eh Pon?
Not that I know of. But I enjoy reading Nietzsche and consider him singularly wise. There was once an Origenist on this forum who said of Nietzsche: "his is one of the most beautiful pens to have ever written, without a doubt ... and this is only really appreciated in German, which is, I believe firmly, the most beautiful of all languages for too many reasons to describe." Sadly I have no German. He also called Nietzsche "corrosive," which at first I took in the negative sense. But now I believe it to be a positive. There is much dross in philosophy that deserves to be scorched. One thing that Christians can appreciate about Nietzsche is that he scorched Christianity's modern competitor, secular humanism. He was courageous enough to admit that if you reject God, you must necessarily reject objective morality. There are many atheist secular humanists who do not have such cojones.
I personally find that "secular humanism" occurs in two distinct forms - one from cultural Marxist activism (I don't mean cultural Marxism as a buzzword, I mean the application of Marxist proletariat-bourgeious revolution to all aspects of culture and social structures) which is 100% Judeo-Christian, but Judeo-Christian to an extent that Saint Paul would blush.
However, secular-humanism also occurs as a facade stemming from an inward pure sociopathy, taking warrior morality to an extreme that is no longer human in any sense as you and I understand it. Corporations do this all the time, for example, when they put a minority character in a minor role or announce a character as gay on Twitter, yet they will never
not cast a straight, Aryan, blue-eyed blonde beauty as a hero of their films. Or the virtue-signaling on Twitter or statements made by companies to seem human, but aren't quite human.
It's almost like there's some deep-seated level of shame (whether this is their soul in hell or it's just a produce of cultural guilt-shaming, God only knows) to their behavior that they don't quite understand so they have to cover it up with some excessive Judeo-Christian moralistic actions that don't have any real meaning in of themselves. Or perhaps our culture just requires it as a relic of our Catholic past and people comply without a second thought.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 21, 2020, 06:15:31 AM
A madman, possessed by a devil, or perhaps by many, as a result of actively seeking spirit possession, who died in a lunatic asylum, while leaving behind to Germany and to the world a curse which continues to blight the souls of many.
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
-Nietzsche, the dead philosopher.
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it makes you retarded.
Quote from: queen.saints on October 21, 2020, 02:41:34 PM
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
-Nietzsche, the dead philosopher.
You may want to have another look at the quote. He doesn't say he can't be killed. If taken by the letter and not the spirit, of course, there are many things that refute it, such as amputations, strokes, dementia, &c. Nietzsche was certainly not made stronger by his debilitating mental illness. But I suppose there will always be pedantry.
Quote from: queen.saints on October 21, 2020, 02:41:34 PM
Quote from: Maximilian on October 21, 2020, 06:15:31 AM
A madman, possessed by a devil, or perhaps by many, as a result of actively seeking spirit possession, who died in a lunatic asylum, while leaving behind to Germany and to the world a curse which continues to blight the souls of many.
"What doesn't kill you makes you stronger."
-Nietzsche, the dead philosopher.
I always knew Kelly Clarkson was a dominatrix.
Quote from: Graham on October 21, 2020, 02:54:46 PM
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it makes you retarded.
Now you have
two Pon de Replay upvotes in one thread.
Quote from: queen.saints on October 23, 2020, 03:26:20 AM
Quote from: Graham on October 21, 2020, 02:54:46 PM
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it makes you retarded.
Now you have two Pon de Replay upvotes in one thread.
Making him two times stronger, thereby. :D
...............................
[ETA: Just in case it's not clear: my comment is not a dig on Graham or PdR.
At all. I'm interested in reading what each of them (and others) may have to say further on the topic -- if they choose to participate further on the thread, anyway!]
Quote from: queen.saints on October 23, 2020, 03:26:20 AM
Quote from: Graham on October 21, 2020, 02:54:46 PM
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it makes you retarded.
Now you have two Pon de Replay upvotes in one thread.
Ive nearly got it down to a science.
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on October 23, 2020, 06:38:25 AM
Quote from: queen.saints on October 23, 2020, 03:26:20 AM
Quote from: Graham on October 21, 2020, 02:54:46 PM
What doesn't kill you makes you stronger, unless it makes you retarded.
Now you have two Pon de Replay upvotes in one thread.
Making him two times stronger, thereby. :D
...............................
[ETA: Just in case it's not clear: my comment is not a dig on Graham or PdR. At all. I'm interested in reading what each of them (and others) may have to say further on the topic -- if they choose to participate further on the thread, anyway!]
My view on Nietzsche was encapsulated in my first post, as throw-away as it probably seemed.
Like JL I did read a lot of Nietzsche (and Plato) in the past and I think i would get precious about it if I tried to post at length. My interpretation of Nietzsche at the time was strongly influenced by Brandes (Nietzsche as "spiritual aristocrat") and that is a track whose destination lies beyond Nietzsche, as fabulous a writer as he was.
I took a fourth year seminar on Nietzsche and I got the distinct feeling that nobody else was actually reading the stuff, just using him as a prop for their other fairly blase liberal views. My seminar presentation was on the idea and metaphor of war in Nietzsche, and my main contention was that he advocated for war in a full spectrum sense from loose interior metaphor to literally killing ppl on the field of battle. I like to think it left an impression on my classmates. I wrote some good essays that year. That was a long time ago and I'm simply less interested in writing now. I much prefer talking with people, actually.
Quote from: Graham on October 23, 2020, 09:40:18 AM
I took a fourth year seminar on Nietzsche and I got the distinct feeling that nobody else was actually reading the stuff, just using him as a prop for their other fairly blase liberal views.
It's not that simple. There's a lot more going on than "blasé liberalism."
When I studied Deconstructionist philosophy, Nietzsche was the foundation. You started with Nietzsche before you eventually reached Jacques Derrida in the project to undo the very possibility of language conveying meaning. The satanic reversal of "The Word" began with Nietzsche, according to those in charge of the undertaking.
Quote from: Maximilian on October 23, 2020, 10:13:33 AM
Quote from: Graham on October 23, 2020, 09:40:18 AM
I took a fourth year seminar on Nietzsche and I got the distinct feeling that nobody else was actually reading the stuff, just using him as a prop for their other fairly blase liberal views.
It's not that simple. There's a lot more going on than "blasé liberalism."
When I studied Deconstructionist philosophy, Nietzsche was the foundation. You started with Nietzsche before you eventually reached Jacques Derrida in the project to undo the very possibility of language conveying meaning. The satanic reversal of "The Word" began with Nietzsche, according to those in charge of the undertaking.
Maybe, but it's not what I experienced, it's not a compelling reading of Nietzsche, and I don't agree that deconstructionism has had a very causative role in the problems of the modern world anyway.
Fortunately there is no dogmatic reading of Nietzsche. He would have been disappointed if there were. Yukio Mishima and Gabriele D'Annunzio are his two most striking and compelling descendants, I would say. Presently I am keen on his Japanese reception and his influence on its literature, but have not read anything beyond Mishima there. One book I would like to read on the subject is an anthology, Nietzsche and Asian Thought (https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3620194.html). Does he have a worthy heir among philosophers? Perhaps he sufficiently outdid all others.
There is of course the frequently recurring Nordic and Scandinavian aesthetic in his writings, something which I don't think has been sufficiently paid homage too—the Nazis were too literal and fanatical to the point of being a caricature. The Hungarian director Bela Tarr made a movie called The Turin Horse (https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1316540/), which stands as a curious and compelling exploration of his gloomier and more apocalyptic aspects. Artistically, though, it seems that those who draw too directly and heavily from Nietzsche are doomed to pridefulness and self-parody. "One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil." It's better to be careful and conservative in one's borrowing. There's only one Nietzsche, and you are not he.
Me with all my PDR upvotes:
(https://cdn.hipwallpaper.com/i/80/98/3DYUjT.jpg)
I'm going to shamelessly admit that I once sent PDR a PM just to make him aware that I left a lone dot post (by accident ;)) and that it was his duty to thank it. He did. I am not a superior poster (in PDR's sort of way, or in many ways) to get many upvotes any other way from him, but that is OK. ;D
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 23, 2020, 07:41:22 PM
I'm going to shamelessly admit that I once sent PDR a PM just to make him aware that I left a lone dot post (by accident ;)) and that it was his duty to thank it. He did. I am not a superior poster (in PDR's sort of way, or in many ways) to get many upvotes any other way from him, but that is OK. ;D
I did thank the lone dot, and have probably thanked more than a few of your posts. If the rate of upvotes is not high, it would only be due to a matter of opinion. We often disagree. But I think you are a superior poster yourself. The same thing goes for the forum user Michael Wilson. I would like to thank more of his posts, but unfortunately he is an anti-Jansenist.
One thing I might mention is that it's interesting that John Lamb and Graham both appreciated Nietzsche simultaneously alongside Plato. They also liked him before their conversion to traditional Catholicism. My experience has been the opposite. Before I became a traditional Catholic, I was a confirmed Platonist and could only tolerate Nietzsche for his writing style. Otherwise I found him corrosive in the negative sense. My preference was for the gooey and the dreamy, and that way lies Catholicism. Whereas in my apostasy I have found him corrosive in the finest sense. "One word from me drives out all the bad instincts." Ice and high mountains. And I now consider Plato as containing a lot of bunkum. Nietzsche and Plato are antipodes. If all of Western philosophy is but a series of footnotes to Plato, as A.N. Whitehead put it, then we are the descendants of an Athenian who was enraptured by the sight of male youths sporting under the Mediterranean sun and who wasn't content leave his aesthetics as they were—he had to suggest that they were shimmers of the divine.
Quote from: Non Nobis on October 23, 2020, 07:41:22 PMI'm going to shamelessly admit that I once sent PDR a PM just to make him aware that I left a lone dot post (by accident ;)) and that it was his duty to thank it. He did. I am not a superior poster (in PDR's sort of way, or in many ways) to get many upvotes any other way from him, but that is OK. ;D
:laugh: That's funny.
Speaking of upvotes and agreeing vs. disagreeing, etc., sometimes I think it would be nice if there were an "interesting" button in addition to the "thanks" button. Because there are times that I read posts which I do find interesting (or well-presented, etc.) but don't agree with so I don't "thank" them, but I would mark them "interesting" if I had the option. (
Aaand there are also times that I do go ahead and "thank" a post, but probably find it more "interesting" than something I'm in full agreement with.)
So anyway, the forum software might not even have the "interesting" option, and it's not a super-serious concern or anything; but that's my two cents.
P.S. A "funny" button would be great, too :D
Quote from: Pon de Replay on October 23, 2020, 11:22:41 AMOne book I would like to read on the subject is an anthology, Nietzsche and Asian Thought (https://press.uchicago.edu/ucp/books/book/chicago/N/bo3620194.html).
That book looks really interesting, thanks for mentioning it. I even like this cover illustration pretty well, too:
(https://qph.fs.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-c68bd5e11d61935a4884da3fb21883b4)
QuoteThere is of course the frequently recurring Nordic and Scandinavian aesthetic in his writings, something which I don't think has been sufficiently paid homage too—the Nazis were too literal and fanatical to the point of being a caricature.
What would you like to see more of along these lines? (If you don't mind sharing.)
Quote from: Lydia Purpuraria on October 24, 2020, 03:31:25 PM
QuoteThere is of course the frequently recurring Nordic and Scandinavian aesthetic in his writings, something which I don't think has been sufficiently paid homage too—the Nazis were too literal and fanatical to the point of being a caricature.
What would you like to see more of along these lines?
I'm not sure. It seems like something elusive, still waiting for someone to bring it to fruition. Perhaps there is a young Finn or Norwegian right now who has the history, iconography, and landscape of his or her people in his or her bones, and can honor it properly by not rendering a caricature. And is reading Nietzsche, and is surely no zer. Devouring the films of Bergman and Von Trier. Or perhaps fate is just not interested.