ask me about Friedrich Nietzsche

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
He has accurate criticisms of basically every philosophical system that predated him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please direct me to his accurate criticisms of British empiricism?

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody really thought the way he did before him

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure they did. Insanity wasn't THAT rare.

[ QUOTE ]
He's also arguably the most significant philosopher since Descartes (and it's hard to name a more significant one since him)

[/ QUOTE ]
You had better be quite good at argument. Perhaps you meant to say "Apart from David Hume, he's also arguably...".
You'll have to work hard to get in the top 5. If I get political philosophers, he isn't making the top ten.

Just in case I'd forgotten my Nietzsche over the last decade, I trotted out Copleston's History and Flew's Dictionary. An amusing quote from the latter: "In the English-speaking world Nietzsche has only rarely been considered an important philosopher. Instead, he is still popularly seen as, at best, an impressive aphorist whose psychological apercus partly anticipated the theories of Freud, and, at worst, as one of the latest and perhaps the most inflammatory of a long line of German opponents of the ideals of liberal enlightenment."

[moira]

[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is really sad, as it shows such a lack of insight.
As Kant isnt my favourite thinker at all, u just can not deny that he is one of the greatest when u try to read his stuff without prejudice - and I dont only mean the short "Groundwork of the metaphysics of moral" (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten) but especially the "Critic of pure reason" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft).
I dont know the english titels really...

[moira]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mbillie -

if i'm going to study a philosopher or painter for a bit i like to take the same drugs as them for a stretch to get into their state of mind.

so. nietzsche... suggestions?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche suffered from a variety of stomach illnesses; he didn't even smoke cigarettes (rare for his time/social place). He eventually contracted syphilis (it is believed from a prostitute; he was awful with women and it shows in his venomous writings about them) which led to his mental breakdown.

So I guess get syphilis, don't treat it for years and years and years, then eventually go insane? Although that aspect of his life is greatly exaggerated; his writings got more eccentric as he aged, but the disease didn't affect him until well after he had finished his last works.

Interestingly (and awesomely) it is reportedly the case that this is how he snapped... he was walking down the street in his town and saw a man beating a horse. He just lost it, it was the traumatic event that triggered a full on mental breakdown due to untreated syphilis.

[/ QUOTE ]

I was under the impression that he used chloral hydrate and morphine to deal with his health problems.

[/ QUOTE ]

this is true, he tried to cure his many health problems by himself and just went to pharmacies with prescriptions he wrote by himself: for a variety of different stuff.

many artists didnt need to take drugs, as they may have had diseases or mental sispositions that had the same/or very similar effects than some drugs.
if ure not gifted, than u cant experience their origin way of thinking and perceiving even with drugs - but u can come closer...
just try marihuana, psychedelic drugs?

[moira]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has accurate criticisms of basically every philosophical system that predated him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please direct me to his accurate criticisms of British empiricism?

[ QUOTE ]
Nobody really thought the way he did before him

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure they did. Insanity wasn't THAT rare.

[ QUOTE ]
He's also arguably the most significant philosopher since Descartes (and it's hard to name a more significant one since him)

[/ QUOTE ]
You had better be quite good at argument. Perhaps you meant to say "Apart from David Hume, he's also arguably...".
You'll have to work hard to get in the top 5. If I get political philosophers, he isn't making the top ten.

Just in case I'd forgotten my Nietzsche over the last decade, I trotted out Copleston's History and Flew's Dictionary. An amusing quote from the latter: "In the English-speaking world Nietzsche has only rarely been considered an important philosopher. Instead, he is still popularly seen as, at best, an impressive aphorist whose psychological apercus partly anticipated the theories of Freud, and, at worst, as one of the latest and perhaps the most inflammatory of a long line of German opponents of the ideals of liberal enlightenment."

[/ QUOTE ]

hume may be the only brit, that may be considered a philosopher...
Nietzsche agreed with him in quite a few cogitations. But his basic critics on cognition for example apply for every system evidently.

[Jigsaws]

I have not read Nietzsche as extensively as you have, but it is my impression that a large part of his drive to thinking came from the realization expressed in the famous quote "God is dead! And it is us who have killed him!" (paraphrasing from memory here). Nietzsche was brought up as a Christian - yet it was impossible for him to be a Christian. It always seemed to me that much of his philosophy is an attempt to devise a base to live life on, now that it is impossible to believe in God. Would you agree with this impression?

[xorbie]

[ QUOTE ]
I have not read Nietzsche as extensively as you have, but it is my impression that a large part of his drive to thinking came from the realization expressed in the famous quote "God is dead! And it is us who have killed him!" (paraphrasing from memory here). Nietzsche was brought up as a Christian - yet it was impossible for him to be a Christian. It always seemed to me that much of his philosophy is an attempt to devise a base to live life on, now that it is impossible to believe in God. Would you agree with this impression?

[/ QUOTE ]

This is certainly a principal driving force.

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has accurate criticisms of basically every philosophical system that predated him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please direct me to his accurate criticisms of British empiricism?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why, you're still fond of systematic metaphysics? How cute!

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody really thought the way he did before him

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure they did. Insanity wasn't THAT rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, yes. He was, of course, insane his entire life.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's also arguably the most significant philosopher since Descartes (and it's hard to name a more significant one since him)

[/ QUOTE ]
You had better be quite good at argument. Perhaps you meant to say "Apart from David Hume, he's also arguably...".
You'll have to work hard to get in the top 5. If I get political philosophers, he isn't making the top ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche was predominantly a philosopher of morality and meaning. His only ideas (will to power, eternal recurrence) that could be construed as "systematic" in the Western tradition were neither his best nor particularly consistent with his larger ethos. That's probably why you're unable to grasp his significance.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
Could you please direct me to his accurate criticisms of British empiricism?


[ QUOTE ]
hume may be the only brit, that may be considered a philosopher...

[/ QUOTE ]
Categorization may have changed since I was in school. British, not English.
Hobbes, Locke, Berkeley, Hume.
I studied way too much for my oral exams if Hume was the only British empiricist. [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]
Outside the empiricists, I'll claim Thomas Reid, David Hartley, Richard Price, William Paley, Jeremy Bentham, Adam Smith, Edmund Burke, JS Mill, the Cambridge Platonists, okay now I'm reaching...a lot of others who are only of real interest for their reactions to Hume, and whose names I may not remember correctly without looking them up.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He has accurate criticisms of basically every philosophical system that predated him.

[/ QUOTE ]
Could you please direct me to his accurate criticisms of British empiricism?

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Why, you're still fond of systematic metaphysics? How cute!

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm still fond of Hume. As the label "metaphysics" has been applied to many different things, I can't speak to your claim without clarification. It appears that you were only intending to insult, not to discuss. To that end, I'll admit that I was irked when first reading your reply. You are leading one-nil in assbaggery.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Nobody really thought the way he did before him

[/ QUOTE ]
Sure they did. Insanity wasn't THAT rare.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, yes. He was, of course, insane his entire life.

[/ QUOTE ]

If the DSM had existed in his time, he would have had multiple diagnoses. They were clearly evident prior to his quitting his Chair at University. This was well before he wrote the majority of his work. To dispute that he was mad is to ignore history.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
He's also arguably the most significant philosopher since Descartes (and it's hard to name a more significant one since him)

[/ QUOTE ]
You had better be quite good at argument. Perhaps you meant to say "Apart from David Hume, he's also arguably...".
You'll have to work hard to get in the top 5. If I get political philosophers, he isn't making the top ten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche was predominantly a philosopher of morality and meaning. His only ideas (will to power, eternal recurrence) that could be construed as "systematic" in the Western tradition were neither his best nor particularly consistent with his larger ethos. That's probably why you're unable to grasp his significance.

[/ QUOTE ]

My graduate department wasn't able to grasp his significance either. They didn't offer a course on Nietzsche then, and they still don't now. They do offer courses/seminars on 13 other individual philosophers (occasionally paired). You will of course be able to get him in an undergraduate survey class, which is exactly where he belongs.

[Triumph36]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Wow, this is really sad, as it shows such a lack of insight.
As Kant isnt my favourite thinker at all, u just can not deny that he is one of the greatest when u try to read his stuff without prejudice - and I dont only mean the short "Groundwork of the metaphysics of moral" (Grundlegung zur Metaphysik der Sitten) but especially the "Critic of pure reason" (Kritik der reinen Vernunft).
I dont know the english titels really...

[/ QUOTE ]

The Critique of Pure Reason is one of my favorite philosophical works. I <3 Kant's work about reason. I just think he applied the same sort of thinking to morality, where it looks foolish.

Nietschze may not have refuted the English empiricists, but he hated their way of thinking (and rightfully so). I'm sure mbillie can come up with all sorts of great Nietschze zings on what English empiricism produces.