ask me about Friedrich Nietzsche

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
Did he really have a nervous breakdown as a result of seeing a horse being beaten?

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, he had syphilis which could not be effectively cured in the late 1800s. His eventual mental collapse was inevitable. In most cases of psychiatric distress there is an event (or a series of events) that "triggers" the collapse. Supposedly, it happened to be him witnessing the guy beating the horse. That's really more happenstance than causal though. Like, a schizophrenic won't just always exhibit the full set of symptoms/behavioral attributes, there's usually some event that triggers the full onset. Supposedly this triggered it for Nietzsche.

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
the best Nietschze quote ever?

[/ QUOTE ]

There are a lot of quotes that I think are just spectacular. Probably my favorite passage in all of Nietzsche is this:

" By many ways, in many ways, I reached my truth: it was not on one ladder that I climbed to the height where my eye roams over my distance. And it was only reluctantly that I ever inquired about the way: that always offended my taste. I preferred to question and try out the ways themselves.

A trying and questioning was my every move; and verily, one must also learn to answer such questioning. That, however, is my taste--not good, not bad, but my taste of which I am no longer ashamed and which I have no wish to hide.

"This is my way; where is yours?"--thus I answered those who asked me "the way." For the way--that does not exist."

from Thus Spoke Zarathustra, "On the Spirit of Gravity"

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
Your stomach--is it an eagle's? Does it like lamb's flesh the best?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sadly my stomach is a 21st century American's and it likes deep fried chicken fingers and beer the best.

[4 High]

Lukacs > Nietzsche

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
Lukacs > Nietzsche

[/ QUOTE ]

Lukacs isn't even in the same league [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[Astyanax]

In his Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche contends that all of life like tragedy is made up of Dionysian and Apollonian tendencies: Frenzied/Calm ...close/distant...destructive/creative. How far do you agree with this and should anyone care in this day and age? Do you have a balance of the two?

[Kaj]

[ QUOTE ]
There's a question at the end of this.

I consider Nietzche a turd of a man who didn't understand the most basic things about human emotion. So he went on a brave intellectual journey to discover how these mysterious feelings he felt fit within an intellectual framework. He basically reconstructed life from scratch using his intellect, breaking down any intellectual barrier or preconception he had. Extremely brave. Along the way he debunked God, the meaning of life, and lot of other stuff. His final conclusion: You must become an überdude to keep the abyss from swallowing you whole. He thought life was not worth living without being on the edge of a knife, and the only way to stay there was to constantly innovate yourself and never give up.

Is that an accurate portrayal of his philosophy? Do you consider that this is something that a good portion of "normal", positive people understand instinctively? Do you think Nietzche's deepest insights are a product of intellect or courage?

That's all for now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Have you read FN? If so, I can't see how you came to these conclusions.

[mbillie1]

[ QUOTE ]
In his Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche contends that all of life like tragedy is made up of Dionysian and Apollonian tendencies: Frenzied/Calm ...close/distant...destructive/creative. How far do you agree with this and should anyone care in this day and age? Do you have a balance of the two?

[/ QUOTE ]

I disagree with his claims in Birth of Tragedy, most of which Nietzsche also disagreed with (and recanted in his "attempt at a self-criticism" preface to the second edition of the book). The Apollonian/Dionysian analogy is useful in a sense, but in Birth of Tragedy he is much closer to a dichotomy than I (or he) feel comfortable with.

His "attempt at a self-criticism" though, that appeared later on as he matured in his thinking and writing, is one of the most beautiful things I've ever read. He really abandoned the "reason is bad, pure instinct/animal is good" thing and instead tried to advocate creating your character out of intellect and humanity (fear, lust, love, etc)... he juxtaposed this with Christianity, Schopenhauer, many other schools of thought that teach the suppression of the urges as the way to happiness/redemption/whatnot.

edit: I don't think his Birth of Tragedy conclusions are useful today because I think they're wrong. I also need to work very hard on restoring some sort of balance to my "Apollonian/Dionysian" sides of my life, lol, so I would say no I don't have any balance achieved yet.

further edit: bed for now, if anyone has any more questions I'll answer them tomorrow

[Triumph36]

mbillie1:

just wanted to say good thread. I also read Use and Disadvantage of History for Life? whatever the hell it's called.

And while Kant's moral philosophy is a worthless hole, his epistimology was pretty awesome. 'Cardo, I sincerely hope you're not a Kantian in that sense. The categorical imperative isn't that great and it goes downhill from there.

[SmokeyRidesAgain]

I read a small book of his works and half of it was how he has to eat the right food and how German food was too rich for him and how pollution disturbs him or similar. WTF is with that?