God is dead? Friedrich Nietzsche.

[ssfanatic]

Im just curious to hear peoples stance on this. This is essentially true atheism, the denial of morals, but as Nietzsche said, few are truly ready for his truths. I want to hear opinions of Friedrich Nietzsche's work. In my opinion, whether i agree with him or not, he was truly a great philosopher and a brilliant man. He spoke truth from his perspective, and proved his thoughts, ironically, by going insane.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[UMRJ]

Note that if you strongly believe in the "ideas" that you find in Nietzsche, you've partially missed the point.

Nietzsche's main strength was to read things that other people had written, turn it inside out and point out how it was all horribly wrong. So when you read Nietzsche, assume it's mostly bullshit. He'd have wanted it that way.

[ssfanatic]

Note that if you strongly believe in the "ideas" that you find in Nietzsche, you've partially missed the point.

Nietzsche's main strength was to read things that other people had written, turn it inside out and point out how it was all horribly wrong. So when you read Nietzsche, assume it's mostly bullshit. He'd have wanted it that way.
Really? So he lived, and mentally died for that matter, for the soul purpose of "turning others writings inside out?"
Because i disagree. A brilliant man does not go insane unless he is truly pasionate about his topic and feels conviction to it.

[UMRJ]

I suppose. I'm honestly talking out of my ass. :p

I don't really know what to think of him. He's brilliant without a doubt, one of the greatest philosophers in history, but I always feel theres a big hole in his ideas. I don't really like the 'true atheism' and abandoning of morals, nihilism and the like. That's just me and I can understand why that would appeal to certain personalities. The Nazis misinterpreted his work, yes?

[Jgib5328]

Really? So he lived, and mentally died for that matter, for the soul purpose of "turning others writings inside out?"
Because i disagree. A brilliant man does not go insane unless he is truly pasionate about his topic and feels conviction to it.

No, don't listen to him. Nietzsche truly believed what he was saying. When he critiqued other writers, he used it to express his own philsophy. URMJ doesn't understand Nietzche's philosophy. He had his own unique & evolving philosophy that you can see developing throughout his works. I'm currently reading all of his stuff in chronological order and it's amazing. He was INCREDIBLY passionate about his philosophy and his ideas. URMJ, don't degrade someone as great as Nietzsche.

[Victor Tango]

Because i disagree. A brilliant man does not go insane unless he is truly pasionate about his topic and feels conviction to it.

How strongly do you believe that?

[Jgib5328]

I suppose. I'm honestly talking out of my ass. :p

I don't really know what to think of him. He's brilliant without a doubt, one of the greatest philosophers in history, but I always feel theres a big hole in his ideas. I don't really like the 'true atheism' and abandoning of morals, nihilism and the like. That's just me and I can understand why that would appeal to certain personalities. The Nazis misinterpreted his work, yes?

He wasn't nihilistic, he was one of the first guys to bring up existentialism. He was all about finding your own truths in the world after coming to accept that the universe is inherently meaningless. He wasn't about abandoning morals either, he was about abandoning 'society's morals' and developing your own.

[Rohsiph]

He wasn't nihilistic, he was one of the first guys to bring up existentialism. He was all about finding your own truths in the world after coming to accept that the universe is inherently meaningless. He wasn't about abandoning morals either, he was about abandoning 'society's morals' and developing your own.

Excellent synthesis--

His work wasn't just misinterpreted by the Nazis, but is, to this day, commonly misinterpreted by a large portion of the people who read him.

He is one of the few great modern aphoristic philosophers, building his models through creative & intuitive observations more often than building indubitable premise-based arguments. Almost every line of his can be taken in multiple directions, and much of the time more than one of the possible directions is "correct." He plays with paradox more successfully than any other philosopher I've come across in my studies.

Nietzsche lived like very few, sharpening and commanding his will in the face of battling debilitating physical conditions and, in the end as UMRJ points out, going insane.

The foundations of my personal philosophies would probably look more like Nietzsche than like any other philosopher at this point in my life. I strive to embody my own principles in the face of everyone who gives in to easy answers, eternally questioning myself and my surroundings. Satisfaction is necessarily temporary--and so I must always be raising my own standards to become more than what I previously would have thought possible.

[Jgib5328]

Excellent synthesis--

His work wasn't just misinterpreted by the Nazis, but is, to this day, commonly misinterpreted by a large portion of the people who read him.

He is one of the few great modern aphoristic philosophers, building his models through creative & intuitive observations more often than building indubitable premise-based arguments. Almost every line of his can be taken in multiple directions, and much of the time more than one of the possible directions is "correct." He plays with paradox more successfully than any other philosopher I've come across in my studies.

Nietzsche lived like very few, sharpening and commanding his will in the face of battling debilitating physical conditions and, in the end as UMRJ points out, going insane.

The foundations of my personal philosophies would probably look more like Nietzsche than like any other philosopher at this point in my life. I strive to embody my own principles in the face of everyone who gives in to easy answers, eternally questioning myself and my surroundings. Satisfaction is necessarily temporary--and so I must always be raising my own standards to become more than what I previously would have thought possible.

Yeah Nietzsche's philosophy seems very similar to the INTJ mindsight, well he was an INTJ himself. But yeah, my own personal philosophy is similar to his.

[NoahAddle]

I'm no expert and it's definitely been a while since I read any of his works, but I think Jgib5328 and Rohsiph are on the right track. If my understanding is right, Nietzsche's philosophy was ultimately meant to be interpreted as uplifting instead of nihilistic. Here he was, showing people that they didn't have to be tied down by limiting frameworks and paradigms such as those found in religion. He wanted to give people ultimate personal freedom.

However, as much as I appreciate that thought, it seems to run into a limitation when considering the problem of ethics. If people have ultimate personal freedom to behave according to their own core values, then what exactly is a community supposed to appeal to in order to ensure ethical behavior within the community? At least with religion, you get a common appeal to God. Or maybe you can appeal in some way to a set of virtues or ideals. But without some moral anchor, it would seem hard to build a coherent set of ethics.

[Nausved]

However, as much as I appreciate that thought, it seems to run into a limitation when considering the problem of ethics. If people have ultimate personal freedom to behave according to their own core values, then what exactly is a community supposed to appeal to in order to ensure ethical behavior within the community? At least with religion, you get a common appeal to God. Or maybe you can appeal in some way to a set of virtues or ideals. But without some moral anchor, it would seem hard to build a coherent set of ethics.

This is the problem I have with treating morality as if it were prescriptive (that is, pre-determined—whether by God, by society, or by the individual). It makes little sense in light of what we now know about human behavior. It is obvious that morality has a biological basis; morality (or at least its framework, which is later refined through upbringing) is innate.

Philosophers often seem to ignore scientific evidence. Granted, our scientific knowledge was rather lacking in the 1800s, when Nietzsche was plying his trade.

[Jgib5328]

However, as much as I appreciate that thought, it seems to run into a limitation when considering the problem of ethics. If people have ultimate personal freedom to behave according to their own core values, then what exactly is a community supposed to appeal to in order to ensure ethical behavior within the community? At least with religion, you get a common appeal to God. Or maybe you can appeal in some way to a set of virtues or ideals. But without some moral anchor, it would seem hard to build a coherent set of ethics.

The people in a community who have developed their own core values will have meetings to come to a consensus on what some of the fundamental societal values should be. Human beings aren't that different, we all feel that killing is wrong, most people believe stealing is wrong etc. We can just come together and see where our core values coincide. The morals that coincide most frequently can become the morals of the society, which is more or less what our real society has done. I don't think it's a big problem.

[ssfanatic]

He wasn't nihilistic, he was one of the first guys to bring up existentialism. He was all about finding your own truths in the world after coming to accept that the universe is inherently meaningless. He wasn't about abandoning morals either, he was about abandoning 'society's morals' and developing your own.
But his own morals were based on the fact that you should do what benefits you the greatest. That personally does not seem like it would make a very happy world. I guess this traces its way back to necessary illusions.





ssfanatic added to this post, 2 minutes and 30 seconds later...

I'm no expert and it's definitely been a while since I read any of his works, but I think Jgib5328 and Rohsiph are on the right track. If my understanding is right, Nietzsche's philosophy was ultimately meant to be interpreted as uplifting instead of nihilistic. Here he was, showing people that they didn't have to be tied down by limiting frameworks and paradigms such as those found in religion. He wanted to give people ultimate personal freedom.

However, as much as I appreciate that thought, it seems to run into a limitation when considering the problem of ethics. If people have ultimate personal freedom to behave according to their own core values, then what exactly is a community supposed to appeal to in order to ensure ethical behavior within the community? At least with religion, you get a common appeal to God. Or maybe you can appeal in some way to a set of virtues or ideals. But without some moral anchor, it would seem hard to build a coherent set of ethics.
No no, his teachings were suppose to be realistic, to observe reality, not to uplift people.

[Jgib5328]

But his own morals were based on the fact that you should do what benefits you the greatest. That personally does not seem like it would make a very happy world. I guess this traces its way back to necessary illusions.
Lol he wasn't about being happy, he was for finding your own truths in the world at all costs, and he mentions a multitude of times that this is the unhappiest of lives.

[NoahAddle]

No no, his teachings were suppose to be realistic, to observe reality, not to uplift people.

Sorry if it didn't come across in my earlier post, but what I meant by 'uplifting' was the sense that he wanted to free people from being chained by certain limiting social paradigms and allow them to 'rise up' so that they would be able to observe reality. I agree with you that he never wanted to give the idea of uplifting people beyond reality to something supernatural.

The people in a community who have developed their own core values will have meetings to come to a consensus on what some of the fundamental societal values should be. Human beings aren't that different, we all feel that killing is wrong, most people believe stealing is wrong etc. We can just come together and see where our core values coincide. The morals that coincide most frequently can become the morals of the society, which is more or less what our real society has done. I don't think it's a big problem.

To me, deriving a coherent set of ethics from an existiential perspective is actually a pretty big problem. It's one thing to get people to come to a consensus on something that they already agree upon is bad like whether or not people should be allowed to kill one another. Besides, the stakes for a community are just too high to allow a decision to made the other way. However, most moral problems aren't that black and white. The stakes aren't as high either. Most times, there is a grey area and the moral problems can quickly become very thorny. Often times, both sides of a moral argument have valid points and neither side can conclusively knock the other one out. So, how do you decide which set of core values gets priority? Do you really want to allow the tyranny of the majority to be the authority that sets the rules? Maybe more importantly, the more certain the norms are in a community, the less personal freedom an individual can potentially attain. Nietzsche's main thrust seems to be that he wanted to maximize the individual's personal freedom and for me this can act as a roadblock to developing a common set of ethics a community can follow in practice.

[Jgib5328]

Sorry if it didn't come across in my earlier post, but what I meant by 'uplifting' was the sense that he wanted to free people from being chained by certain limiting social paradigms and allow them to 'rise up' so that they would be able to observe reality. I agree with you that he never wanted to give the idea of uplifting people beyond reality to something supernatural.



To me, deriving a coherent set of ethics from an existiential perspective is actually a pretty big problem. It's one thing to get people to come to a consensus on something that they already agree upon is bad like whether or not people should be allowed to kill one another. Besides, the stakes for a community are just too high to allow a decision to made the other way. However, most moral problems aren't that black and white. The stakes aren't as high either. Most times, there is a grey area and the moral problems can quickly become very thorny. Often times, both sides of a moral argument have valid points and neither side can conclusively knock the other one out. So, how do you decide which set of core values gets priority? Do you really want to allow the tyranny of the majority to be the authority that sets the rules? Maybe more importantly, the more certain the norms are in a community, the less personal freedom an individual can potentially attain. Nietzsche's main thrust seems to be that he wanted to maximize the individual's personal freedom and for me this can act as a roadblock to developing a common set of ethics a community can follow in practice.

Well Nietzsche wanted just 'you' to strive for personal freedom. He states many times that most people cannot reach this personal freedom & that most people decide to take the easier path, than searching for inner truth and the highest stage of development. So when he says he wants you to maximize personal freedom, he is talking about the rare individuals in society who are actually capable of doing this. The community will always exist with their societal moral standards, but you yourself should try to maximize your own personal freedom and reach your highest self.

[ssfanatic]

Lol he wasn't about being happy, he was for finding your own truths in the world at all costs, and he mentions a multitude of times that this is the unhappiest of lives.
I should not have used the word happy ;D
I meant to say something like "bearable" lol

[raconteur213]

There are no facts, only interpretations.
Friedrich Nietzsche

[TheLastMohican]

God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Too funny. :laugh:

[futureperfect5]

Ah the insanity escape ... I will read the info on the website before commenting.

First thought, How can "god" be dead, if s/he were never alive?
If "god" is something eternal and infinity -- there is no beginning or end involved, is there?

I think that even immortality is about "being" and not "life" ...

[Jgib5328]

Ah the insanity escape ... I will read the info on the website before commenting.

First thought, How can "god" be dead, if s/he were never alive?
If "god" is something eternal and infinity -- there is no beginning or end involved, is there?

I think that even immortality is about "being" and not "life" ...

Have you ever heard of a metaphor?

[vkut79]

Have you ever heard of a metaphor?

There are different ways of thinking about it. No need to put his interpretation down.

[Vortex]

Im just curious to hear peoples stance on this. This is essentially true atheism, the denial of morals, but as Nietzsche said, few are truly ready for his truths. I want to hear opinions of Friedrich Nietzsche's work. In my opinion, whether i agree with him or not, he was truly a great philosopher and a brilliant man. He spoke truth from his perspective, and proved his thoughts, ironically, by going insane.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Your misinterpreting Nietzsche. He was specifically saying that God is dead, and we killed him. That modern societies were now well past the need of a God to define themselves or their moral structures. Ergo, he posited the question how we should go about defining ourselves in the age of post-Deism. He also recognized that society - despite having crossed this threshold - may not actually be ready to admit to it.

[futureperfect5]

Have you ever heard of a metaphor?

Heard of yes ... understood is a different tamale, please explain (or, at least understand) I think quite literally at times -- multilingual, sorry :embarassed:

[ssfanatic]

Your misinterpreting Nietzsche. He was specifically saying that God is dead, and we killed him. That modern societies were now well past the need of a God to define themselves or their moral structures. Ergo, he posited the question how we should go about defining ourselves in the age of post-Deism. He also recognized that society - despite having crossed this threshold - may not actually be ready to admit to it.
I dont see how i misinterpreted him in that statement at all. It specifically states in his short story that we killed God, there is no room to misinterpret. He also states that if we are even able to kill God, then how are we to repent? We would have to make ourselves Gods. In essence, he was portraying the fact that we are masters or our own fate. We control everything; including morals.
And you would describe your interpretations of morals how? If it harms someone it is wrong? Are morals not suppose to be higher than preference? I would say so. And one man's pleasure is another man's pain.





ssfanatic added to this post, 2 minutes and 58 seconds later...

There are different ways of thinking about it. No need to put his interpretation down.
We are not talking about any way to interpret the statement, we are speaking of Nietzsche's meaning of the statement. If you interpret another way, is it not misinterpreting Nietzsche himself?

[vaguely dissatisfied]

It appears to me that Nietzsche suffered from depression. He may very well have seen the world for what it is, but that doesn't necessarily make his philosophy of life helpful for showing people how to live a mentally healthy life.

Atheism does not mean abandonment of morals. A person who believes this seems to me to believe that morals = theism. Why would anyone think this?

[Santana28]

Atheism does not mean abandonment of morals. A person who believes this seems to me to believe that morals = theism. Why would anyone think this?

because people are small-minded and weak-willed and would rather toss labels around and live by momentary expectations rather than actually KNOWING what they are talking about and living accordingly.

i can respect true atheists - but people who are too lazy to contemplate the concept of God and use Atheism as an excuse i loathe more than anything.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

because people are small-minded and weak-willed and would rather toss labels around and live by momentary expectations rather than actually KNOWING what they are talking about and living accordingly.

i can respect true atheists - but people who are too lazy to contemplate the concept of God and use Atheism as an excuse i loathe more than anything.
Well........ I cannot understand why you would loathe people who don't contemplate god, but there is really no 'knowing' about this particular subject.

I see the problem of faith as a continuum that needs to be balanced carefully in order for an individual to be mentally healthy. Perhaps certain individuals do better having faith in an unproven deity than others. It may be that there are many people who just don't need to contemplate the 'god' question because they don't need faith to be mentally healthy.

[Santana28]

Well........ I cannot understand why you would loathe people who don't contemplate god, but there is really no 'knowing' about this particular subject.

I see the problem of faith as a continuum that needs to be balanced carefully in order for an individual to be mentally healthy. Perhaps certain individuals do better having faith in an unproven deity than others. It may be that there are many people who just don't need to contemplate the 'god' question because they don't need faith to be mentally healthy.

i don't mean "contemplate God" as in "to dwell on His glorious presence" - i mean, contemplating the subject of/possibility of/role of God in your life and this world. i think part of knowing ourselves is knowing the world we live in, and to know the world we live in we must at least on a minor level examine the concept of God and how it applies to our lives (if not directly, then through society).

if you don't spend minimal time contemplating the very nature of the world you live in and must function in (and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the concept of God plays a role), then you not only demonstrate that you don't care for God or religion, but even life and yourself... Nietsczhe cared about life enough to ponder the concept of God... many atheists i've met care so little about their life that the concept of God is simply a nuisance or distraction. and a convenient excuse not to think.

[Deadgod]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Nietzsche wrote nice music.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

i don't mean "contemplate God" as in "to dwell on His glorious presence" - i mean, contemplating the subject of/possibility of/role of God in your life and this world. i think part of knowing ourselves is knowing the world we live in, and to know the world we live in we must at least on a minor level examine the concept of God and how it applies to our lives (if not directly, then through society).

if you don't spend minimal time contemplating the very nature of the world you live in and must function in (and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the concept of God plays a role), then you not only demonstrate that you don't care for God or religion, but even life and yourself... Nietsczhe cared about life enough to ponder the concept of God... many atheists i've met care so little about their life that the concept of God is simply a nuisance or distraction. and a convenient excuse not to think.
I have to disagree with the necessity to think about the question of whether or not there is a god in order to show interest in life or yourself.

[Santana28]

I have to disagree with the necessity to think about the question of whether or not there is a god in order to show interest in life or yourself.

well, i guess if one wants to be a recluse who lives only in their own world (i'm not saying you are) that would be possible. but if everyone in the world believes in God, and you walk around thumbing your nose at that concept, you will reap the consequences of THEIR belief. i'm saying the concept of God is relevant to an Atheist if only due to the inevitable repercussions of those who believe.

[vaguely dissatisfied]

well, i guess if one wants to be a recluse who lives only in their own world (i'm not saying you are) that would be possible. but if everyone in the world believes in God, and you walk around thumbing your nose at that concept, you will reap the consequences of THEIR belief. i'm saying the concept of God is relevant to an Atheist if only due to the inevitable repercussions of those who believe.
I understand your logic. As an atheist I really hope that I don't thumb my nose at theists. I try to be as accepting of peoples beliefs as possible. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I have to be disrespectful of it. If it is important to you, then it is important to you.

I have seen many atheists (not me) who have not contemplated the existance of god. They do not go around arguing for their disbelief......they just don't care to bother with that particular aspect of humanity. They are people who have many other interests and are very much interested in their lives.

[Santana28]

I understand your logic. As an atheist I really hope that I don't thumb my nose at theists. I try to be as accepting of peoples beliefs as possible. Just because I don't agree with something doesn't mean that I have to be disrespectful of it. If it is important to you, then it is important to you.

I have seen many atheists (not me) who have not contemplated the existance of god. They do not go around arguing for their disbelief......they just don't care to bother with that particular aspect of humanity. They are people who have many other interests and are very much interested in their lives.

well, "thumbing your nose" is a figure of speech - moreso, that is the interpretation these people will make of your decision not to believe. this is group-think we are talking about here. your life can have value in and of itself, and it can have value in its relationship and role in the workings of society. i dont think you can have one without the other, because like it or not we are born into a world of people, and raised in society. i think if you neglect one aspect of this, you are in essence disrespecting yourself aka "dont value your life."

but we can of course agree to disagree :)

[Rohsiph]

aka "dont value your life."

or perhaps lack something we might call, oh, a "will to power" :)

[vaguely dissatisfied]

well, "thumbing your nose" is a figure of speech - moreso, that is the interpretation these people will make of your decision not to believe. this is group-think we are talking about here. your life can have value in and of itself, and it can have value in its relationship and role in the workings of society. i dont think you can have one without the other, because like it or not we are born into a world of people, and raised in society. i think if you neglect one aspect of this, you are in essence disrespecting yourself aka "dont value your life."

but we can of course agree to disagree :)
Agreed. Or disagreed?

[Santana28]

or perhaps lack something we might call, oh, a "will to power" :)

i agree!!

I'll go ahead an put out there that Hammer of the Gods is my favorite book of his.

[Deadgod]

God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Too funny. :laugh:

Nietzsche is God.
-Death
:laugh:

[Antares]

Nietzsche is God.
-Death
:laugh:

Haha. Deadgod. Haha.

[TheLastMohican]

Nietzsche is God.
-Death
:laugh:

Clever one. :thumbsup:

Completely untrue, of course.

[thod]

i don't mean "contemplate God" as in "to dwell on His glorious presence" - i mean, contemplating the subject of/possibility of/role of God in your life and this world. i think part of knowing ourselves is knowing the world we live in, and to know the world we live in we must at least on a minor level examine the concept of God and how it applies to our lives (if not directly, then through society).

Perhaps atheists have already done this. I know that things would be easier if I accepted God. I would have a framework to guide my every decision, instead of having to work it out myself. I would have the security of knowing that there is someone up there looking out for me, that cares for me. But I am not a child seeking a substitute parent. I will look at the world in all its ugliness and emptiness and add that to my understanding. I will not hide under the blankets because I do not like what I see. I seek not to worship God but to become alike to him. Self delusion to obtain happiness or truth to obtain understanding is the choice.

When I examine the established knowledge of world I don't see a complete system. There is much I cannot explain, more than I can. Yet being logical, I cannot attribute this to God. All I can say is I don't know. I am happy to leave things at that, I will hopefully learn more later, I continue to build my knowledge of the world.

Now you may argue that I am simply ignorant. When I was 12-13 the local church hall pulled the youths in with table tennis, pool tables etc. The price being you had to listen to the sermons and read passages and I learned but didn't believe. If fact I learned so well that after a year I won a free holiday by winning the county bible knowledge contest for the kids. Me from a couldn't care less family, beating the kids from Christian families. They had their chance to convince me and I did my part beyond expectation. They failed to convince.

if you don't spend minimal time contemplating the very nature of the world you live in and must function in (and whether you want to acknowledge it or not, the concept of God plays a role), then you not only demonstrate that you don't care for God or religion, but even life and yourself... Nietzsche cared about life enough to ponder the concept of God... many atheists I've met care so little about their life that the concept of God is simply a nuisance or distraction. and a convenient excuse not to think.

Perhaps people have spent time contemplating this issue. They have examined all the religions because they want to understand, not because they want to believe. They have looked at the definitions of God from old bearded man on a cloud, to bodyless spirit permeating everything, to a natural force. And after all this research they conclude that there is no need for God either now or in the past. I do believe God exists. But he exists only in the minds of believers. I believe that Fred Flintstone and dragons exist too in this manner. I do not believe he exists in what is called objective reality.

Nietzsche was a nihilist. I am more an existentialist with nihilist undertones. I cannot say there is no God because I am not omniscient. I can say that I see insufficient evidence to to convert me to theist.

well, i guess if one wants to be a recluse who lives only in their own world (i'm not saying you are) that would be possible. but if everyone in the world believes in God, and you walk around thumbing your nose at that concept, you will reap the consequences of THEIR belief. i'm saying the concept of God is relevant to an Atheist if only due to the inevitable repercussions of those who believe.

I am happy to be reclusive and live in my own world, its the only one I have. I constantly update it from the information I gather from other people, experience, books etc. Perhaps it is where you live. I have met thousands of people very few are Christian. Most don't give a damn. If you ask them they may report Christian as a default, but they don't really care, they don't attend services or read scripture. The Christians are a tiny minority. Even those who report themselves as Christian are in the minority. Where I live saying I don't care or atheist is the majority and being Christian is seen somewhere between a quaint hobby and psychological illness.

well, "thumbing your nose" is a figure of speech - moreso, that is the interpretation these people will make of your decision not to believe. this is group-think we are talking about here. your life can have value in and of itself, and it can have value in its relationship and role in the workings of society. i don't think you can have one without the other, because like it or not we are born into a world of people, and raised in society. i think if you neglect one aspect of this, you are in essence disrespecting yourself aka "don't value your life."

As stated when theists are thin on the ground their reactions are not that important. The US is still a Christian society, much of Europe is now post Christian seeing the US as throwbacks.

[Rohsiph]

Nietzsche was a nihilist. I am more an existentialist with nihilist undertones. I cannot say there is no God because I am not omniscient. I can say that I see insufficient evidence to to convert me to theist.

Except that Nietzsche was the paradigmatic anti-nihilist . . . he raised the problem of nihilism clearer than anyone before him, and then wrestled with it until he went insane.

Why do so many people miss this point? It's alarming.

[zarathustra]

He was specifically saying that God is dead, and we killed him. That modern societies were now well past the need of a God to define themselves or their moral structures. Ergo, he posited the question how we should go about defining ourselves in the age of post-Deism. He also recognized that society - despite having crossed this threshold - may not actually be ready to admit to it.


Very well said vortex.

god is dead, Man killed him
Man created god out of need
Man surpassed his need for god
Man needed to surpass Man
Man had to kill god

Not every man can see that


P.S. It should be clear to anyone who has studied Nietzsche that he is existentialist.

[NephilimAzrael]

In the ideas of Nietzsche, yes God is dead, but also God is just a creation of man - not the other way round. To negate morals, being that we negate the morals that we have not prescribed ourselves. Being Confident in his viewpoint, analyzing and reassessing all that was supposedly "truth" and coming to your own judgments. Nietzsche was an INTJ, and in my opinion a rather attentive man to his expression and ideals. Though he can be rather confusing to some, it is wonderful to read his works and look beneath.... Ranting now, to return. Nietzsche did not really prove anything by his psychological breakdown. He contested the idea of conviction in Anti-Christ. Rather the deconstructive approach he took to knowledge, as to establish truth as an extension of oneself and stemming from the power of themselves, is rather inspirational. (particular examples, Thus Spake Zarathustra and Genealogy of morals).

[Monte314]

The foundations of my personal philosophies would probably look more like Nietzsche than like any other philosopher at this point in my life. I strive to embody my own principles in the face of everyone who gives in to easy answers, eternally questioning myself and my surroundings. Satisfaction is necessarily temporary--and so I must always be raising my own standards to become more than what I previously would have thought possible.

Really? Raising your standards?

In a meaningless universe, how do you tell which way is "up"?

Tell you what: since I get to define my own meaning, I can "raise my standards" by just lowering the bar... and it costs me not a minute's work or thought.

In fact, according to "meaning" as I have just courageously decided to concoct it, I am now perfect and complete in every way, whereas Herr Nietzsche falls woefully short. Fortunately, as arbiter of the only value system that has any significance for *me*, my judgements are unassailable.

[Gwargh]

We are not talking about any way to interpret the statement, we are speaking of Nietzsche's meaning of the statement. If you interpret another way, is it not misinterpreting Nietzsche himself?

No. I think Nietzsche would understand a different interpretation completely. Isn't the whole point of existentialism the fact that you see the world and understand it based on your past experiences and views? So no matter how I look, Nietzsches texts will look different to me than to you, simply because I come form an entirely different background? This is not misinterpretation, it's understanding according to one's experience.

Misinterpreting Nietzsche would be to see something that is not there (like nihilism). Nihilism is a logical follow-up of Nietzsche's existentialism, in a sense, but it is a follow-up nonetheless. To say Nietzsche is a nihilist is to say that the man who invented the wheel also invented the bicycle.

[zibber]

Really? Raising your standards?

In a meaningless universe, how do you tell which way is "up"?

Tell you what: since I get to define my own meaning, I can "raise my standards" by just lowering the bar... and it costs me not a minute's work or thought.

In fact, according to "meaning" as I have just courageously decided to concoct it, I am now perfect and complete in every way, whereas Herr Nietzsche falls woefully short. Fortunately, as arbiter of the only value system that has any significance for *me*, my judgements are unassailable.

Why is it so unacceptable that the universe is meaningless? Or am I reading this wrong? (This reads as expressed annoyance at someone creating their own values in a world without values set in stone.)

[Monte314]

Why is it so unacceptable that the universe is meaningless? Or am I reading this wrong? (This reads as expressed annoyance at someone creating their own values in a world without values set in stone.)

I'm sorry, but your question has no meaning.

[NephilimAzrael]

Tell you what: since I get to define my own meaning, I can "raise my standards" by just lowering the bar... and it costs me not a minute's work or thought.

In fact, according to "meaning" as I have just courageously decided to concoct it, I am now perfect and complete in every way, whereas Herr Nietzsche falls woefully short. Fortunately, as arbiter of the only value system that has any significance for *me*, my judgements are unassailable.

Why not? It seems that in a constant attempt to assail the ranks of value one is only achieving in the judgement of others and their constructed systems anyway. Should a person construct their own values and wish to create a challenging system for themselves alone, then they may choose values that present these challenges.

[Antisocialite]

Maybe I don't know the philosophical text from which it sprang (doubt it though) but since when is atheism a denial of morals? I think Vortex has the right idea.

[gioanpj]

Well Nietzsche wanted just 'you' to strive for personal freedom. He states many times that most people cannot reach this personal freedom & that most people decide to take the easier path, than searching for inner truth and the highest stage of development. So when he says he wants you to maximize personal freedom, he is talking about the rare individuals in society who are actually capable of doing this. The community will always exist with their societal moral standards, but you yourself should try to maximize your own personal freedom and reach your highest self.

Where does Nietzsche make this argument? Nietzsche was not a philosopher of freedom. He believed strongly in aristocracy, and that slavery was the best state for the majority of people ("the herd" or "rabble"). I don't really think that the Nazi's had to step too far away from Nietzsche's conclusions and non-arguments to arrive at their positions.

Keep in mind that Nietzsche's "Atheism of the right" is not the only brand of Atheism. There is also Marx's "Atheism of the Left," which came out of the young Hegelian tradition.


Here is a pretty basic outline of Nietzsche's ideas in this three part article:

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Julien]

Nietzsche, like other great men, like INTJs, even like people in general, was a person of deep contradictions. Your interpretations are all valid somehow. You read what you want to read. :)

[zibber]

Atheism does not mean abandonment of morals. A person who believes this seems to me to believe that morals = theism. Why would anyone think this?

It comes down to moral realism/objectivism vs. moral relativism. I'd say 99% of theists are moral realists (I don't think I need to explain my reasoning there), and atheists are a mixed bag. It's true that atheism doesn't say whether someone is a moral realist or relativist, but I like to think atheists tend to lean towards relativism (having denied the notion of universal divine law).

(ps. Nihilism doesn't necessarily imply the abandonment of conventional morals, just the denial of their universality.)

Nietzsche, like other great men, like INTJs, even like people in general, was a person of deep contradictions. Your interpretations are all valid somehow. You read what you want to read. :)

Whoa, you can say that about anyone. Let's relax with the relativism a bit. Just because someone preached nihilism doesn't mean that there wasn't one general idea they wanted to convey.

I'm sorry, but your question has no meaning.

Touche, ya bully ;)

[Iscariot]

Unfortunately, you are all wrong. You should take from Nietzche, like you should from all philosophers, what you get out of it. It doesn't have one meaning and it's not supposed to. I'm reading Thus spoke Zarathustra right now and this is what I got so far (I'll try to say it in a manner using the least amount of thou shalts neccesary): Thou shalt make up you're own mind, free thyself from the herds hyvemind and create thy own morals. The only road to the übermensch is through individualism. And man is something to be overcome, a bridge between beast and übermensch.

But again, this is what I got. I think I failed with the thou shalts.

[NephilimAzrael]

Yup, "The overcoming of man is in fact the overcoming of oneself - the mastery of one's desires and the creative use of one's powers"
Kinda sounds like 'Don't be lazy, you lazy bum, pish, Laziness'

[zibber]

Why the hate for passive nihilism? Apathy is quite relaxing, I can tell you.

[6dbl5321]

"God is dead" simply references the notion, 'God didn't create man -- man created God.' That notion is based on the different 'God's' throughout the world conveniently filling the voids of the adherents -- i.e. Jewish slaves and overtaxed Christians believing that the powerful possessed a vanity that displeased their God.

When we can find comfort in our wordly passions, personal growth for ourselves and our loved ones, and personal accomplishments, we have killed the need for God -- and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.

[NephilimAzrael]

".. and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.

Must be very sensitive then. :sneaky:

[6dbl5321]

Must be very sensitive then. :sneaky:

Well, the Judeo-Christian God is proclaimed by the scriptures to be a jealous God.

[JRR]

This is the problem I have with treating morality as if it were prescriptive (that is, pre-determined—whether by God, by society, or by the individual). It makes little sense in light of what we now know about human behavior. It is obvious that morality has a biological basis; morality (or at least its framework, which is later refined through upbringing) is innate.

Philosophers often seem to ignore scientific evidence. Granted, our scientific knowledge was rather lacking in the 1800s, when Nietzsche was plying his trade.
Science and philosophy are different entities that serve different purposes.... science answers the questions of "how" and philosophy answers, or attempts to answer "why." This is why science and philosophy/religion are complimentary, and not contradictory whatsoever.





JRR added to this post, 1 minutes and 49 seconds later...

"God is dead" simply references the notion, 'God didn't create man -- man created God.' That notion is based on the different 'God's' throughout the world conveniently filling the voids of the adherents -- i.e. Jewish slaves and overtaxed Christians believing that the powerful possessed a vanity that displeased their God.

When we can find comfort in our wordly passions, personal growth for ourselves and our loved ones, and personal accomplishments, we have killed the need for God -- and when God no longer feels necessary, he ceases to exist.
Ever see the t-shirt that on the front reads, "God is dead. ~Nietzsche" and on the back reads, "Nietzsche is dead. ~God" ?

[NephilimAzrael]

Well, the Judeo-Christian God is proclaimed by the scriptures to be a jealous God.

Jealous? Wow that IS very fallible of it.

[6dbl5321]

Jealous? Wow that IS very fallible of it.

The condemnation of idolatry is much more abstract than a statue on an altar.

[SM FURY]

[QUOTE=ssfanatic;60533]But his own morals were based on the fact that you should do what benefits you the greatest. That personally does not seem like it would make a very happy world. I guess this traces its way back to necessary illusions.





I think That Ethical Egoism is also misunderstood as a black and white nihilistic theory, most often when people are adimately opposed to the idea of only doing whats in your own best interest they jump to the conclusion that this is a theory for anti social, or psychopathic types, but applied to psychologically healthy human beings acting on empathy can also be in your best interest to sacrifice your own life for the life of your child for instance. What I really respect about Nietzsche was his ability to see the need for us to reevaluate our values, Most people would say cheating on your significant other is wrong yet something like 80% do it (sorry if this is the incorrect number) on our current moral value system of ethics we have trained people to do one thing and say another While we promote virtues like "honesty". Any happiness that derives from manipulation and deception is not real and certainly not "moral" and we wonder why are political leaders are such scumbags, it is current morality that has made society increasingly dependant on manipulation, not the lack of morality, of course that is only my opinion.

[CaptainFantasy]

“The world itself is the will to power—and nothing else! And you yourself are the will to power—and nothing else!”


Nietzsche’s conception of the individual is based on his conception of the ‘Will to Power’—the fundamental drive behind everything in the universe. Guided by this ‘will to power’, every living being seeks, above all, to release its strength into the world, so as to satisfy this will. In order to best fulfill this Will to Power, individuals must learn to focus it inwards, upon itself (ourselves), thereby refining it into higher, finer, nobler, stronger, and subtler forms. The undertaking of such a task can only be taken on by the most flexible and cunning of minds: those who Nietzsche describes as free-spirits. The ultimate goal of these free-spirits is to realize the greatest affirmation possible for the human being: the eternal recurrence of the same.

I. Will to Power as Overcoming

Nietzsche understands the universe to be in state of constant change and therefore is critical of any fixed position of understanding, as it would run contrary to the nature of the universe and the will to power. For Nietzsche, solid ‘truths’, and the language used to construct those ‘truths’, are a distortion and debasement of reality and are limiting to a higher appreciation of life. And although Nietzsche sees dependence on language and truth as limits to our potential, he still recognizes them as products of our will to power. Nietzsche believed that before the will to truth, there was a more primal will— the will to deception. It was from the will to deceive that “the belief in the opposition of values” was created, and along with it— the will to truth.

A similar development that Nietzsche describes is the creation of a 'subjective ego', which is distinct from the 'objective world'—and made so through its ‘consciousness’. Nietzsche points out that though we often think of consciousness as being distinct from the unconscious, consciousness has actually taken form out of unconsciousness and is constantly informed by unconscious instinctual drives.

Thus, when contrasted with ‘unconsciousness’ and ‘ignorance’ – ‘consciousness’ and ‘knowledge’ represent higher, or nobler, forms of the will to power. The will to power is displayed in a ‘nobler’ form through the turning of the ‘base’ instincts, inwards—upon themselves—thereby strengthening (remembering) the foundation of their (our) being to give those instincts a more refined, subtle, and higher expression. This process is what Nietzsche describes as the sublimation of the will to power.

II. Will to Power as Morality

Nietzsche examines the two polemics of moral valuation, and describes them as representing 'master' and 'slave' morality. He suggests that master morality represents a ‘yea-saying’ attitude towards life that promotes the creation of 'noble' values and excellence through through 'self'-punishment. Slave morality on the other hand, represents democratic, herd values, and a “nay-saying” attitude towards life and its values. Slave morality considers “good” to be equivalent to the herd and mediocrity, while it identifies any exhibition of exceptionalism as “evil”, and something to be suppressed.

Through the sublimation of the will to power Nietzsche contends that the human race has little by little increased its self-awareness. Nietzsche proposes a conception of the history of morality: In the pre-moral period, Nietzsche says, “an action’s value or lack of value was determined by its consequences: the action itself was taken into consideration as little as its origin.” Over the last ten thousand years, however, a gradual shift into a ‘moral’ period has taken place, along with the refinement of valuation, so that actions are no longer judged according to their consequences, but according to their origins, and more finely, according to the intentions of the origins of action. Nietzsche explains that that notion of intention is a fiction that hides the prejudices of unconscious instincts. The way in which we understand the world, and act in it, is according to a morality that makes its claims to ‘truth’ according to a limited and subjected, and therefore—prejudiced— ego. For Nietzsche, all claims to knowledge and morality stem from the sublimation of the will to ignorance, and more fundamentally from the will to power.

As humans continue to gain a deeper self- awareness, Nietzsche anticipates another “reversal and fundamental shift in values” and suggests that we may be “standing at the threshold of a period that … would at first have to be described as extra-moral”. In this period, an “action’s decisive value [will be] demonstrated precisely by that part of it that is not intentional”. Nietzsche declares that “[t]he overcoming of morality, or even (in a certain sense) the self-overcoming of morality” should be “the name for the long, clandestine work that has kept in reserve for the most subtle and honest (and also the most malicious) people of conscience today, living touchstones of the human heart.“

III. Will to Power as the Eternal Recurrence

To experience life in the fullest, Nietzsche believes that persons must give themselves completely over to the will to power. To do so, would mean the willing of the eternal recurrence of the same. Nietzsche believes that only a very select few, if any, will be able to take on such a weighty task, and he suggests that it may be the new philosophers of the future, those ‘living touchstones of the human heart’, who begin to approximate that goal.

These so-called free-spirits and philosophers of the future, Nietzsche cautiously describes as ‘experimenters’, who are unwilling to ‘get stuck’ in any perspective, always willing to take on new perspectives—never shying away from ‘evil’ perspectives but always seeking new ‘evils’ to pry their fingers into. By freeing themselves of their own prejudiced truths, these free-spirits are able to criticize the existing remnants of the moral stage, and are also free to experiment with new forms of valuation. These free-spirits thrive on solitude and independence, and it is through this solitude and independence that new forms of valuation arise: not valuations of the herd, but rather the valuation of the individual and the individual’s creative capacity towards independence.

Free-spirits inevitably lead a difficult and dangerous existence in a world which punishes and suppresses exceptionality, and Nietzsche suggests there is a need for these free-spirits to adopt masks. He says, “every deep spirit needs a mask: not only that, around every deep spirit a mask is continually growing, thanks to the constantly false, that is to say, shallow interpretations of his every word, his every step, every sign of life that he gives.”

Nietzsche sees himself as a proto-type to these philosophers of the future, in that he has begun the difficult shift towards exposing the accepted truths of his time as something to be overcome. He has done so most forcefully by declaring the death of God:

"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 the deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it*?"
*emphasis mine

By suggesting the mortality of God, Nietzsche is attempting to convey the primacy of ‘worldly’ nature over ‘other-worldly’ or ‘divine’ nature. To value ‘other-worldly’ things which devalue ‘worldly’ things— to hold on to our ‘truths’ while the foundation of our truths no longer holds any meaning in the world— is to be a nihilist and to exhibit the will to nothingness. Nietzsche had a close and complex relationship to the concept of nihilism. Nietzsche did not consider himself a nihilist, and was critical towards nihilism, yet he still praised nihilism as the deepest moment of self-reflection for humanity and considered it valuable towards the destruction of limiting meaning. But, as subject to the will to power, nihilism and the will to nothingness, along with everything else in the universe, are essentially things to be overcome…

Nietzsche proposes a goal for humanity in the affirmation of the Eternal Recurrence of the Same, which supposes that the same circumstances will play themselves out in the same manner over and over again, throughout eternity. Nietzsche considered the eternal recurrence to be a most weighty thought:

"The greatest weight. – What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: 'This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!' – Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you have answered him: 'You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!' If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you; the question in each and every thing, 'Do you desire this once more, and innumerable times more?' would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal?–"

For Nietzsche the Eternal Recurrance represents both, a moral imperative against nihilism, and the highest affirmation of life possible for humans.

IV. Individuality as Will to Power

Nietzsche presents us with a picture of life that, “in its essence, means appropriating, injuring, overpowering those who are foreign and weaker; oppression, harshness, forcing one’s own forms on others, incorporation, and at the very least exploitation.” This picture runs counter to our conventional ‘moral’ idea of the meaning of life. Nietzsche takes it as him aim to overcome the falsely conceived truths and forms of valuation held by our selves and society. At the heart of Nietzsche’s philosophy is an instinctive valuation of the creative tendencies of the individual, and a devaluation of the democratizing tendencies of the herd. Thus, the will to power could be seen as a will directed towards the strengthening and refinement of our individuality.

Nietzsche has come to see every great philosophy to date as “the personal confession of its author, a kind of unintended and unwitting memoir” whereby the philosopher states their prejudiced perspective and their particular instincts to be ‘the truth’. Any attempt to provide rational grounding for their beliefs, Nietzsche sees as a disguised attempt aimed at persuading the reader to adopt the philosopher’s prejudices and particular instincts. Nietzsche describes these instincts as all being tyrannical in nature, each wishing to “represent itself as the ultimate aim of existence and as the legitimate master of all other instincts.” We are left to wonder if Nietzsche’s philosophy of the ‘Will-to-Power’ represents a new kind of philosophy, or is it yet another display of a philosopher’s prejudiced truths?

Through his conception of the will to power, Nietzsche presents his own version of the ultimate aim of existence in his conception of the Eternal Recurrance of the Same. Although Nietzsche expends considerable energy criticizing the existing truths and moralities of his time, this does not stop him from constructing his own ‘truths’. This tendency of philosophizing and construction of 'truth' could be seen as an ‘experiment’ taken up by an aspiring free-spirit, meant to temper his independent spirit and test the strength of his own being. This tendency can be seen to be a result of his will to power: his attempt to overcome himself through the willing of the recurrence of the same. Furthermore, his idea of great minds adopting masks can help us understand his philosophy as merely a mask or representation, on the surface, hiding a much deeper form of valuation, held in his own individuality.

[LaoTzu]

Nietzsche's sister has more to do with the misinterpretation of his writing than anything else... once he lost his mind, she took over authority for his writings and compiled them in the ways they were compiled. This is the same broad who was setting up a camp with her hubby in South America dedicated to 'living free of Jews'... Any wonder she offered up her bro's writings to the fascists?

Nietzsche as an Atheist??? If God died, that must mean there was actually a God.... The idea that God is dead is that there are no people left who really follow their God's will. They are all disingenuously following, for if you really believed in a higher omnipotent, omnicient power; you would better damn be sure you would bloody well do what is commanded of you!!!

That's what Freddie was railing against... Not religion itself. The fact that...there is no real religion anymore. It's outlived its usefulness (to the rabble).

There's quite a bit more to it than this, but I just woke up....

[Imposcillator]

Where does Nietzsche make this argument? Nietzsche was not a philosopher of freedom. He believed strongly in aristocracy, and that slavery was the best state for the majority of people ("the herd" or "rabble"). I don't really think that the Nazi's had to step too far away from Nietzsche's conclusions and non-arguments to arrive at their positions.

People are notorious for misinterpreting things and taking them way out of context to fit their own ideals and view of the world. It is usually the idiotic fanatics that do this but sometimes even the greatest minds fall into this pitfall. Nietzsche is all about individual freedom. I think what you're misinterpreting here is his statement that all men are not born equal. That does not imply a preference for slavery, despite its elitist nature.

Nihilism doesn't necessarily imply the abandonment of conventional morals, just the denial of their universality.

Agreed. I don't see Nietzsche as a nihilist, though. If anything, he cared deeply about finding the meaning of life, individually.

He wasn't nihilistic, he was one of the first guys to bring up existentialism. He was all about finding your own truths in the world after coming to accept that the universe is inherently meaningless. He wasn't about abandoning morals either, he was about abandoning 'society's morals' and developing your own.

Very true. *points to previous point made*

Really? Raising your standards?

In a meaningless universe, how do you tell which way is "up"?

Tell you what: since I get to define my own meaning, I can "raise my standards" by just lowering the bar... and it costs me not a minute's work or thought.

In fact, according to "meaning" as I have just courageously decided to concoct it, I am now perfect and complete in every way, whereas Herr Nietzsche falls woefully short. Fortunately, as arbiter of the only value system that has any significance for *me*, my judgements are unassailable.

If you were going for funny, you failed. If you were trying to make a point, you also failed.
You seem to be reacting very strongly to this, as if you were offended by that statement.

Why do you have to rely on something external to "tell which way is 'up'"?
What does "lowering the bar" mean to you? Who set that bar at its current height? Does it have to be the same for everyone?

Meaning does not have to be universal. Why can you not accept that in the same way that each individual is unique their morals and personal philosophy can be just as different?

Objective perfection is non-existent. If you are comfortable with yourself and the goals you have achieved, you can achieve your own brand.

“At bottom every man knows well enough that he is a unique being, only once on this earth; and by no extraordinary chance will such a marvelously picturesque piece of diversity in unity as he is, ever be put together a second time.” — Friedrich Nietzsche


God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Too funny. :laugh:

Now that was funny. :laugh:

[Monte314]

Near the end of his life, Elizabeth, the sister of the incompetent FN took over his affairs and custodianship of FN himself (to insure her own social importance), and shortly after his death published (without her brother's permission) his personal notes as The Will to Power. She became a favorite of Hitler, who threw a huge, open-casket state funeral for the dead lunatic.

By substituting the state for the individual in TWTP, Hitler found an effective vehicle for his ideas of the Ubermensch ("superman"), the need to acquire lebensraum for the grossdeutsch ("living space" for those living under the new Germany), and men stepping into the vacuum left by the god they have murdered. We all know where this went.

*disingenuous disclaimer*
"Of course, FN's work cannot necessarily be faulted for how others use it."

[Imposcillator]

1. You didn't answer any of my questions or address the points I made. Do you not care to reply or do you have nothing to say to support your argument (if there even was one in the first place)?

2. Are you actually saying Nietzsche is guilty for Hitler's crimes? This is hilarious. Guess I was wrong about you not being funny. If you're not, then what is the point you're trying to make?

[ssrprotege]

God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Too funny. :laugh:

How it is used in Korea (they are written in a toilet wall)

God is Dead.
-Nietzsche

Nietzsche is dead.
-God

Both of you guys are dead.
-A cleaning maid

[Monte314]

1. You didn't answer any of my questions or address the points I made. Do you not care to reply or do you have nothing to say to support your argument (if there even was one in the first place)?

2. Are you actually saying Nietzsche is guilty for Hitler's crimes? This is hilarious. Guess I was wrong about you not being funny. If you're not, then what is the point you're trying to make?

1.) I didn't even read your post, and was not responding to it... so, "it's not about you".

2.) My disingenuous disclaimer made it quite clear that I was not blaming the corpsified nutzoid for Hitler's crime... as you well know.

Every statement I made was factual. As I'm sure you agree, I cannot be held responsible for how others might infer from them things I did not intend.

FN was a great writer, who compellingly presented his ideas in an intuitive way. But I do not understand how the term "genius" applies. His work has had a significant, if largely unintended, impact on history. Does this prove "genius"? In the sciences, ideas must be demonstrated to be true before the "G-word" is applied.

Is there any sense in which any of FN's ideas are "true"? Which ones? If the answer is "none", in what sense do they rise to the level of "genius"?

[zibber]

"God" represents either a sort of superstitious adherence to certain mythological notions or a sense of oneness with and/or love for "nature" or "world". It comes down to the same thing, really. The metaphor "God is dead" describes the human population's partial (principal) loss of these things. It's really sort of a shame, when you first contemplate it. Upon deeper inspection, though, it becomes clear that this clears the way for decisive, deliberate faith. I've come to believe that this is even more meaningful; it opens up a whole new realm of meaning.

[Imposcillator]

1.) I stopped reading your posts a long time ago; I did not read the ones in this read, either, and was not responding to them... so, "it's not about you".

A.K.A you have no way to support your argument or explain your opinions. And I doubt you read any posts before responding. If you want to talk to yourself, a mirror or a wall would be a better solution. That's why they're called discussion forums.

2.) My disingenuous disclaimer made it quite clear that I was not blaming the corpsified nutzoid for Hitler's crime... as you well know.

"Corpsified nutzoid". How amusing. Clearly you know genius when you see it.
If you really don't blame him for Hitler's crimes then your disclaimer is not disingenuous and there is just no point to your post(s) whatsoever. I guess that shouldn't surprise me.

EDIT: I responded to the post as it was before you edited it. As for your statements being factual, I don't see how vague mentions of "knowing which way 'up' is" and "lowering the bar" or failed sarcasm about a false sense of perfection qualify as concrete facts.

[Monte314]

We seem to be out-of-sync here. My comments were with respect to the post about FN's craziness... just one of the difficulties associated with asynchronous conversations.

Let me directly address the question asked in the OP. I assert that FN was an excellent writer, whose literary skill made his deep and provocative ideas compelling despite their lack of merit.

So... where is CaptainFantasy? I was hoping he would jump all over me, since he clearly has depth of knowledge in this area. Does FN "deserve" to be called a "genius" in other than a literary sense? How so?

[Imposcillator]

As your forensic skill matures, resorting to ^^^ will become unnecessary... in light of this, we will overlook it.

"We"? Also, I won't take any comments about maturing or maturity of any kind from the person that argues with this kind of posting (To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.).

We seem to be out-of-sync here. My comments were with respect to the post about FN's craziness... just one of the difficulties associated with asynchronous conversations.

Perhaps. Quoting is always a good idea if you want to ensure that your reply is aimed at someone in particular. Also, regardless of who you were talking to, I addressed some of your points from your previous post and asked questions to examine the basis of your opinion. Your lack of response means you're not willing or able to discuss your views, making your posts seem like mere statements or an expression of thoughts in the manner one would write in a journal. Hence my comment about talking into a wall/mirror. I do not need to "resort" to anything as I was simply making an observation.

Back to the OP, I don't see how he "proved his point by going insane". Hist most important writings (and the ones discussed here in particular from what I can see in other's posts) were written when he was perfectly sane. His "insanity" has been attributed, in all likelihood, to physical maladies rather than a psychological breakdown.

[uncon]

FN was a great writer, who compellingly presented his ideas in an intuitive way. But I do not understand how the term "genius" applies. His work has had a significant, if largely unintended, impact on history. Does this prove "genius"? In the sciences, ideas must be demonstrated to be true before the "G-word" is applied.

Is there any sense in which any of FN's ideas are "true"? Which ones? If the answer is "none", in what sense do they rise to the level of "genius"?

I think that Nietzsche is certainly a genius in the literal way - like Goethe or Mozart. I mean he was super smart and inventive. I'm not sure which ideas are valid but there are diamonds there.

It's like Mozart - a lot of hits really but the majority of Mozart is pretty bland - but those hits are incredible! Nietzsche has some big hits. Also, we should keep in mind that artists don't create as much as they are conduits for what's going on at the time in the bigger picture. Nietzsche and Hitler we both conduits of their times - fate chosen representatives, if you will. They aren't the truth but they point to it.

People forget that Plato also called for slaves and a very hierarchical structure of society based on inherited traits - but did this cause eugenics or Hitler's absurd application of it? The idea of purity I think is inside of all of our psyches and in a few particularly paranoid types this belief takes hold and becomes an obsession as a neurosis (a distraction from repressed traumas). Nietzsche was crazy, no doubt, but also very lucid at times and ahead of his time in some areas and sadly stuck in his time's prejudices in other areas.

Nietzsche proclaimed God as dead but he was only reporting what was going on at the time, namely a wave of atheism that culminated in the founding of soviet Russia. He was expounding on the cultural trends, not creating that culture. He was correct and at that time he was expressing what an upheaval it is for a society to realize that God is a choice, not a requirement and that no lightning will strike you if you choose not to believe. Nietzsche is as symbolic as Jesus or Socrates - all were possibly real people but that's not why we remember them. They are civilization's equivalent of mythical figures who pointed out some heavy truths that need to be passed on.

What is Nietzsche's greatest hit? "God is dead". Pretty f-cking genius cool!

[Imposcillator]

Nietzsche was crazy, no doubt, but also very lucid at times and ahead of his time in some areas and sadly stuck in his time's prejudices in other areas.

I certainly agree with the rest of your post, but could you please elaborate on this? For one I'm interested to see how you think he was stuck in prejudices (actually interested, I don't worship the man blindly in case that's what some were led to believe) and I am curious as to why everyone keeps saying he was crazy or stupid or insane (not just in the forum, things I've heard). Just because something is radical and peculiar it doesn't mean it's nonsensical or insane in my opinion.

[uncon]

I certainly agree with the rest of your post, but could you please elaborate on this? For one I'm interested to see how you think he was stuck in prejudices (actually interested, I don't worship the man blindly in case that's what some were led to believe) and I am curious as to why everyone keeps saying he was crazy or stupid or insane (not just in the forum, things I've heard). Just because something is radical and peculiar it doesn't mean it's nonsensical or insane in my opinion.

I just meant that he was literally crazy, meaning syphilis made him actually have a mental breakdown and he had to be taken care of by his anti-Semite sister. I think he was probably bipolar and prone to megalomania. Everything he wrote made sense but that doesn't mean it wasn't megalomania at times also and not a way to really live your life. I see Nietzsche as a stage of intellectual development that one must go through. If you don't feel like Nietzsche at times then you aren't a smart person but you don't have to be like him per se to be intelligent or wise. He's a mirror for our society's stage of atheism but also reactionary things that follow that sort of freedom we may not be ready for.

He supported some totalitarian and elitist ideas of his time. He was more artist than scientist. He's the crazy artist archetype that went the edge of sanity and went off the cliff for either physical (syphilis or bipolar disorder) or psychological reasons (narcissism) or both. He was a genius but one shouldn't worship a genius - everything he didn't wasn't right - but he's like a seer for his age. A chapter in our collective book of development like Socrates, Aristotle, etc.

I'd consider him like I would any other artist. Not like a philosophical method for living your life - all laid out logically. He's more of a poet that points out elements in the richest aspects of being alive, good and bad. I read it like I listen to Bach - it's an experience.

One thing he said is pretty cool, that life without music isn't worth living (paraphrase). That's the spirit of Nietzsche - to truly live life as fully as your personality permits and explore everything under the sun. Do what you love.

That's just my reading of it though.

[CaptainFantasy]

As your forensic skill matures, resorting to ^^^ will become unnecessary... in light of this, we will overlook it.

We seem to be out-of-sync here. My comments were with respect to the post about FN's craziness... just one of the difficulties associated with asynchronous conversations.

Let me directly address the question asked in the OP. I assert that FN was an excellent writer, whose literary skill made his deep and provocative ideas compelling in spite of their lack of merit.

Where is CaptainFantasy? I was hoping he would jump all over me, since he clearly has depth of knowledge in this area. Does FN "deserve" to be called a "genius" in other than a literary sense? How so?

Thanks for your interest. I didn't jump all over you because after a few moments of considering your post to me, in my intro thread, I figured that's exactly what you wanted me to do, but I didn't think it would be productive. I'm sorry if my intuition was off, but your series of posts in this thread seems to support my intuition, in which case I'll be even more sorry if my intuition is off. No matter; I'm glad that you came forth in a more direct manner; here is my perspective on the issue:

I think the bolded part of your post is all mixed up. It seems to contain a prejudiced conception of merit, one which excludes 'excellent writing' and 'deep and provocative ideas' from relevance. That may be fine for you as it is your prerogative to establish and be responsible for the values you hold.

Another thing is, what constitutes genius? Personally I would say lasting effect, like a stain on the history of humanity. But there are so many ways to go; depending on what you take to be your prerogative, "genius" can mind many ways to define itself.

By substituting the state for the individual in TWTP, Hitler found an effective vehicle for his ideas of the Ubermensch ("superman"), the need to acquire lebensraum for the grossdeutsch ("living space" for those living under the new Germany), and men stepping into the vacuum left by the god they have murdered. We all know where this went.

I agree with you that the Nazi regime used Nietzsche's ideas to justify their ends and that their interpretation is understood to be a perversion of Nietzsche's original ideas (from one perspective, any interpretation besides his own is a perversion of his ideas). To me, the genius of Nietzsche was his foresight. He knew that something like that was all too likely to happen. He forewarned against it, which only played into it. Simply the fact that he 'could' be held partly responsible for one of the most consequential happenings of human history, testifies to his genius, in my opinion.

Is there any sense in which any of FN's ideas are "true"? Which ones? If the answer is "none", in what sense do they rise to the level of "genius"?

Nietzsche says truth is a woman. When I consider what he means when he says that and apply those considerations to some of his other truths, I find that those other truths are not what they originally appeared to be (damn whimmin!). Can you believe the amount of complicity that was necessary for the Holocaust? The ideals of nazism were once, and still continue to be (in some pockets), considered as "good"-relatively. That is, they serve a purpose. And that purpose is displayed as nihilism, "the deepest moment of self-reflection for humanity". And it has brought us here! The nihilism which was once so acute to our senses are now seeping into every nook and cranny of society; internet forums like this one are flush with it, but it is a much more subtle kind of nihilism, one we were born into.

So, Nietzsche is a self-proclaimed danger as well as a self-proclaimed liar. But at the same time, he seems to me to be a stalwart of authenticity. Given his paradoxical nature, I tend to be very careful with what Nietzsche presents. I see him to be telling the truth when he calls himself a liar; and the danger he claims to be, is from the recognition of his own potential for idolatry, which he spent so much of his life battling against. And now, that potential has become realized, in people like me.

In other words, I make Nietzsche a genius; and I am dangerous. Though I cannot deny that I am a fool.

This is a perspective I currently subscribe to:
Transcendental Perspectivism challenges Nietzsche's claim that there is no absolute truths while fully accepting his observation that all truth can only be known in the context of ones perception. This is accomplished through an appreciation of the emotional relationship between two perceptions (the "perceiver" and the "other").
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[darynthe]

I just meant that he was literally crazy, meaning syphilis made him actually have a mental breakdown and he had to be taken care of by his anti-Semite sister. I think he was probably bipolar and prone to megalomania. Everything he wrote made sense but that doesn't mean it wasn't megalomania at times also and not a way to really live your life.


Was he crazy while he wrote the books? I think that being clinically insane and being a genius in the sense of making breakthroughs for humany can hardly happen at the same time. Never heard of any case at least. Following the ideas of such a person may lead you to dangerous roads.

I haven't read any FN myself, I am not into philosophy. But a lot of people I know are crazy about him so I think him as the pop culture of philosophy. Am I wrong?

[Rohsiph]

Was he crazy while he wrote the books? I think that being clinically insane and being a genius in the sense of making breakthroughs for humany can hardly happen at the same time. Never heard of any case at least. Following the ideas of such a person may lead you to dangerous roads.

Some of the letters he wrote while 'insane' were lucid enough that they are often considered to expand upon the ideas he developed before succombing, but mostly the work that is scrutinized these days was written before that period.

I haven't read any FN myself, I am not into philosophy. But a lot of people I know are crazy about him so I think him as the pop culture of philosophy. Am I wrong?

It's easy to get Nietzsche wrong, especially as a philosopher. I think the sentiment above, to consider him less a philosopher in the modern scholarly sense but instead, using modern qualifications, considering him more like a poet is best. That said, he was a philosopher first, and a poet, a musician, an artist second. But he was an aphoristic philosopher, a kind that doesn't really fit into the academic world anymore, so it's difficult to place him when using modern ideas.

Sooo . . . I don't think you're wrong. I take it that you're not saying he's necessarily a pop icon, but that common perceptions often name-check him in such a way that I couldn't deny it looks like he is right now. I'd say the same about H. P. Lovecraft, though obviously he was working more directly as a literary artist. Which is also to say both men's work can teach us important things if we take it seriously, or we can follow the crowd and name-drop them to sound cool.

[LaoTzu]

FN is easily the greatest philosopher (albeit more of an author of ideas like suggested) of all time. Seriously. He may not be the most 'creative', but in regards to the struggle of the self; he will, in time, be considered a giant among his peers.

That he still engenders such emotional reactions like Monte's is a testament to the propagandists who either used his works to promote their ideology; and the propagandists who railed against his works for the same reasons.

It's unfortunate that sarcasm doesn't translate to the written word, as I think most people would find FN to be one of the most genuine and DECENT people to have ever lived. I avoided FN for a long time for similar reasons as outlined here; but was fortunate enough to realize that I was making choices based on bad information provided me.

It's fairly obvious why Monte is so disapproving of FN; however FN never said "Don't Believe in God".... He said "Suspect your Beliefs...". There is nothing wrong with this.
I would expect even the Pope to ask himself the 5 W's regarding his faith... if he's a genuine person; and not just the representation of an idea.

As for him being "crazy"... I disagree. In the last 10 years of his life yes, but he wasn't writing then.
Megalomaniac? I don't think he took himself that seriously (his chapter titles are more of a joke IMO).

[jakeordie]

I just meant that he was literally crazy, meaning syphilis made him actually have a mental breakdown and he had to be taken care of by his anti-Semite sister.
This sentence is the key to understanding your opinions of Nietzsche's work.

[Night Runner]

Monte314,
Your irrational and highly emotional reaction to the writings of a man who died 109 years ago is both telling and entertaining.

It's telling because, in your passionate defiance of FN's work, you're helping his supporters make their point: FN died five score and nine years ago, and the very fact that otherwise rational people can become so riled up because of him shows that, genius or not, his work has withstood the test of time. People are still debating it, interpreting it in new ways, building their personal philosophies around it.

It's entertaining because, prior to reading this thread, I had thought you to be a detached yet brilliant mathematician with a supreme grasp of logic and no concerns for silly mortal things such as philosophy. I shall never be able to read your posts the same way again. :)

[Imposcillator]

I just meant that he was literally crazy, meaning syphilis made him actually have a mental breakdown and he had to be taken care of by his anti-Semite sister.

As discussed before, the main teachings and ideas that are argued on (at least in this thread) were written when he was still sane.

I think he was probably bipolar and prone to megalomania. Everything he wrote made sense but that doesn't mean it wasn't megalomania at times also and not a way to really live your life. I see Nietzsche as a stage of intellectual development that one must go through. If you don't feel like Nietzsche at times then you aren't a smart person but you don't have to be like him per se to be intelligent or wise. He's a mirror for our society's stage of atheism but also reactionary things that follow that sort of freedom we may not be ready for.

Sort of playing devil's advocate really, but why is megalomania so wrong after all? If we (even loosely) subscribe to the idea of individual morals I see no harm in embracing one's uniqueness, even in a self-indulgent way. That's the only way to create a "superman". By simultaneously worshiping and killing the self.

Also, I don't believe anyone in this thread argued in favor of being exactly like Nietzsche or taking his teachings at face value or adhering to them blindly. I doubt, in fact, that any intelligent person that's into philosophy ever follows writings blindly.

He supported some totalitarian and elitist ideas of his time. He was more artist than scientist. He's the crazy artist archetype that went the edge of sanity and went off the cliff for either physical (syphilis or bipolar disorder) or psychological reasons (narcissism) or both. He was a genius but one shouldn't worship a genius - everything he didn't wasn't right - but he's like a seer for his age. A chapter in our collective book of development like Socrates, Aristotle, etc.

I'd consider him like I would any other artist. Not like a philosophical method for living your life - all laid out logically. He's more of a poet that points out elements in the richest aspects of being alive, good and bad. I read it like I listen to Bach - it's an experience.

Again, I don't think even the more passionate supporters among us actually worship Nietzsche. Genius or not, he was still human, and he was imperfect and erred like the rest of us.

Do you consider philosophers scientists? If anything I figure they'd be way closer to poets than anything else. Philosophy never was about concrete instructions, trial and error and formulated proof. It's all about individuality and the perception of the world and how we act within it.

As for the disorders you mention, it could be argued they were just part of his philosophy. Even his alleged insanity might've been a sign of brilliance so profound it blinded on sight. :)
As dear Mr. Poe would say,

"Science has not yet taught us if madness is or is not the sublimity of the intelligence."

One thing he said is pretty cool, that life without music isn't worth living (paraphrase). That's the spirit of Nietzsche - to truly live life as fully as your personality permits and explore everything under the sun. Do what you love.

That's just my reading of it though.

I think I would agree. Nietzsche loved music and art passionately and he believed it was probably the ultimate purpose of life, it seems (if he could define a universal one, that is). That idea is definitely something I can support!

[John F Kennedy]

A brilliant man does not go insane unless he is truly pasionate about his topic and feels conviction to it.

Nietzsche went insane because of a progressing syphilis - a disease that attacks the genitals, muscles, and brain. The genesis of his madness had nothing to do with his ideas, though as a result of his madness his ideas got involved in the mix.

[jakeordie]

Nietzsche went insane because of a progressing syphilis - a disease that attacks the genitals, muscles, and brain.
You might want to double-check that.

[Kenetics]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I remember reading a longer critique of the syphilis hypothesis, but I can't find it.

[Ekagra]

Note that if you strongly believe in the "ideas" that you find in Nietzsche, you've partially missed the point.

Nietzsche's main strength was to read things that other people had written, turn it inside out and point out how it was all horribly wrong. So when you read Nietzsche, assume it's mostly bullshit. He'd have wanted it that way.

Almost - Nietzsche understood that one's own will is primary and other things such as moral codes, theories of knowledge, science, art, etc. have value only as tools to leverage the will. His philosophy breaks down ideas with the idea of leaving one alone and faithful only to one's own existential truth: "as a ship tossed on restless seas". Finding this chaos one creates the dancing star and the God that dies is the God of belief in an 'other'. Thus also the many contradictory statements Nietzsche has made: "God is dead" but also, less exposed to the popular mind: "It was some God in me that led me to declare that God is dead". He is not the philosopher for those who need 'answers', rather his philosophy is much like a gigantic Zen Koan designed to shake one up and find the personal truth that stands beyond convention and rebellion, beyond good and evil.

[reb]

God just told me that Nietzsche is dead. i'm trying to understand this...if they're both dead, what difference does it make what either one says? i like zen koans...what is the sound of one Nietsche clapping?

in all seriousness, Nietsche likely probed deeper than most of the philosophers i have tried to read. however, i don't know if he ever turned a shovel of dirt, and that is what makes me think that most philosophers take up the profession in order to avoid working for a living. i wonder, when i think of Nietzsche, Sartre, Kant-even Freud and Jung, et al, at the moment their breath stopped, what their conclusions were 'right then'? is that moment the only real answer-when the soul, if it exists, 'gets it', or is there no answer? intellectual logic will only take one so far. i am as inebriated as i hardly ever get anymore...so take this as the wanderings of a drunk....there are no answers. logic does not reach to the ends of existence. belief does not reach there, either. exploring is all well and good, and is a nice exercise, like pumping iron for the mind; however, living well is the only answer i can find, and i strive to live well within my means. Nietzsche....note the references to later madness, possibly caused by syphilis (also Henry VIII, supposedly). many 'geniuses' in history have succumbed to syphilis. we are adoring of madness, in some sense, but yet, we see not the madness we now possess. if one examines the wiki article, one sees patterns....a seeking, yet not finding....the support of the 'system' in Nietzsche's day...of those who have no support. the ones living under bridges, or locked away in prisons, buried in gangs, locked away in corporations, in servitude not of their liking...are they not philosophers of the same rank? is not each person a philosophy unto themselves? to elevate Nietzsche, does this not do a disservice to his serious pursuit of the edges of madness and the edges of human consciousness? were it not for the 'informed opinions' of those around him-untreated syphilis is no trifle!..... i would declare him a psychic explorer extraordinaire.....yet, what is madness, and what is philosophy? is not philosophy madness, when one lives in squalor, sweeps no floors, but writes at length? sweep the floor, for god's sake, then elucidate.

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

barkeep, another drink! burp....

[Xanthippe]

I wonder how bad a hangover you currently have, or if you took one of those preventative pills. :p

But in all seriousness, I sort of half agree with you. Every person has a 'philosophy' of some kind - the question is, is one conscious of one's philosophy? Has one thought it through? If the answers to those questions are yes, one is a thinking human being. Only after one has articulated one's thoughts is one a philosopher. It's like scientists - if you do an original experiment but don't share the results, you're not really following the scientific process.