Nietzche was a structuralist or existensialist?

[Suwalski]

I know he was'nt neither a real structuralist nor existensialist. But í think i've read that post-structuralist Focault([censored]) was inspired by Nietzche. What i don't get is that, as far as im informed, structuralism is sort of anti-democratic due to their believe that society is controled by 'structures' and discourses. In contrary is the existensialism who claims that people are them selfs and able to choose their own direction.

I do realize that Nietzche was very vague or unclear in his pholosphy, yet how can Nietzche be an inspiration to two so different beliefs?

Maybe i stated something wrong, feel free to correct me. i'd appreciate any thought, corrections or explanations! (sorry if any bad spelling).

[Subfallen]

[ QUOTE ]
...how can Nietzche be an inspiration to two so different beliefs?

[/ QUOTE ]

Nietzsche was almost pathologically fond of word play, paradoxes, and exoteric/esoteric double meaning. This, combined with his aphoristic method, makes it very easy to take him out of context and distort his meaning.

I'm not familiar with structuralism so beyond that I can't say.

[knowledgeORbust]

It seems Nietzsche wanted to come to terms with our [human] place in the world. Realize what we are, how we might have gotten here, and, above all, what we can do now that we're here. So a lot of his philosophy is insight into the nature of man and his various institutions and governments, where he tears down existing values and urges readers to construct their own values based on reason. At bottom, his entire discourse is like trying to find some kind of structure for ourselves within all this chaos.

So when you say [ QUOTE ]
existensialism claims that people are them selfs and able to choose their own direction.

[/ QUOTE ] this means, to me, creating your own structure of sorts. It's hard.

[hitch1978]

Warning: Hijack!

(OK, so I read the 6 word title to this thread, and understood 3 of them, the longest of which was 'was'. I have a deep interest in philosophy, but am very poorly read, and work 70hrs/week so don't have much time to read either. Can anyone recomend 1 book that would give the best simplistic overview of the subject? I know it's an impossable task, just thought I'd throw it out there.)

[I_teach_writing]

Foucault was primarily interested in how language and institutions created relations of power among "subjects," who have very little agency or free will in the face of webs of power, and the relations that surround them.

The most direct relationship I know of Nietzche to post-structuralism runs through Derrida, a French philosopher writing at the same time as Foucault. Both Derrida and Nietzche were interested in the Greek Sophists, who were rhetoricians who believed that language didn't exactly have the ability to access "Truth."

There is likely a direct connection between Foucault and Nietzsche, but my Foucault isn't as good as my Derrida. But if I recall correctly, what is common to both is the pessimism =)

[I_teach_writing]

[ QUOTE ]
Warning: Hijack!

(OK, so I read the 6 word title to this thread, and understood 3 of them, the longest of which was 'was'. I have a deep interest in philosophy, but am very poorly read, and work 70hrs/week so don't have much time to read either. Can anyone recomend 1 book that would give the best simplistic overview of the subject? I know it's an impossable task, just thought I'd throw it out there.)

[/ QUOTE ]

Oxford University press puts out a "Very Short Introduction" series on any imaginable intellectual topic. They are written in accessible language, although you will have to think as they are not as easy as the "Idiot's Guide."


The one you should check out is Craig's "A Very Short Introduction to Philosophy"

[Splendour]

An interesting link that mentions Foucault and others involved with Nietzsche:

http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/nietzsche.html

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
So a lot of his philosophy is insight into the nature of man and his various institutions and governments, where he tears down existing values and urges readers to construct their own values based on reason.


[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think Nietzsche would be too keen on being described this way, since this characterization of his view is the antithesis of the traditional understanding of his attitude toward reason.

What Foucault borrowed from Nietzsche, roughly speaking, is Nietzsche's genealogical approach to questions of social/political critique.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
Warning: Hijack!

(OK, so I read the 6 word title to this thread, and understood 3 of them, the longest of which was 'was'. I have a deep interest in philosophy, but am very poorly read, and work 70hrs/week so don't have much time to read either. Can anyone recomend 1 book that would give the best simplistic overview of the subject? I know it's an impossable task, just thought I'd throw it out there.)

[/ QUOTE ]

The short answer of course is "no," but a slightly longer answer is try reading Fifty Major Philosophers: A Reference Guide, by Diane Collinson. It's only about 160 pages long and includes the ancient Greeks up to 20th Century figures like Russell, Moore, Wittgenstein, Carnap and Sartre. Unfortunately it does not cover anyone in the analytic tradition more contemporary than Russell.