• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

What's so outstanding about Nietzsche?

fridgebuzz

fridgebuzz

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
318
Location
Florida, US
New thread! They don't happen very often but this has been on my mind.

So what was so special about Friedrich Nietzsche? He referred to himself as the last prophet, but was he at all?

I'd like to start out with some brief religious background. The Hindu religion promised a prophet who later emerged as Buddha. The Christian religion also promised a prophet who later turned out to be Jesus. I said brief, right, but do you see a pattern?

Now along comes Nietzsche to simply apply this same script to the so-called post-modern view. He says that eventually a "superman" will emerge and will look back on man as man looks back on apes. He said man is a rope tied between ape and the "superman". This view sounds a bit too scientific for a guy who openly denounces scientific progress claiming that science takes away who we are by turning us into equations and labels. He basically asserts science and religion are both incorrect methods of finding answers even though his views reflect both. It also seems as if he steals some aspects of Rationalism claiming answers can only come from you, which sounds a lot like A Priori, or innate knowledge.

For a guy who says "God is dead" because he is afraid of losing our humanity replacing god with science, I think it's rather counteractive to then claim that 'there is no universal moral and ultimately we make the rules > rules are written by people > rules are written by those in power > everyone seeks powers so they may write the rules'

His views on wealth/status vs. charity/compassion are at best conspiracy theories.

The final prophet? Ha. I understand we develop ideas today by standing on the shoulders of the ideas of those who came before us, but this guy's a ripoff. I can't believe he's actually considered a prominent philosopher.
 
Just a thought, and I'm a laymen when it comes to philosophy, maybe he was like the Rush Limbaugh of philosophical debate at the time? He says outrageous stuff just to gain attention, and then provides enough material for someone to think about for a while. I don't think he's considered in the same league as Kant or Hegel by any stretch, but he IS just as well known or probably better known than they are. I'm sure Hume would've taken him apart with his skepticism regarding his labels and conclusions.

He was perhaps acting out of his own philosophy of "will to power" meaning that he knew the more outrageous his claims would be, the more attention they got, and the more recognition he got the more power he had in the world. He seemed to misunderstand Darwin, or perhaps twist Darwin's theories to suit his own mindset.
He sort of was a mash-up of many schools of thought, which isn't the mark of the most highly disciplined thinker, but he certain provided something to think about. The fact that Hitler took him seriously isn't the greatest sign, but benevolence never seemed to be a part of Nietzsche's personality.
 
Last edited:
I enjoy Nietzsche's wit.
What I've taken from what I've read of his..
is that humans have had enough listening, advice and following.
In order to overcome the "herd" instinct which motivate us,
we'll have to do some of our own original thinking.
It's a fight in our world to be individual and to do our own thinking..
and I believe if by someone reading some of his work..and coming away with the want
to explore what he/she is and what they really believe instead of blindly following...
then the world's a better place for it.
There's alot of argument about whether he's any kind of philosopher or not..
I tend to think of him as more phsychoanalytical.

He can be fun to read. That is what I appreciate about him.
<3token
 
I personally really like Nietzsche. But to give a simple and short answer to the question why is he so outstanding: It's because he offered a new metaphor for reality and man that was not only novel but engaging. Whether or not one loves it or hates it, you must look at/comprehend it because it challneges you.

And for anyone who doubts if he was a real philosopher, he was one. Any one in the field can tell you that. He was one of the first to explore the topic of existentialism.
 
"In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule."

I think I would subscribe to that philosophy.

<3token
 
^ who says he was an atheist? The word "God is dead" doesn't mean that.

The word "God is dead" = the word "metaphysics is dead" = "supra-sensible moral order is dead" = the word "science is dead."


=> A respectable essay on Nietzsche can be found here

http://www.archive.org/download/Hei...IsDead./Heidegger-NietzschesWordgodIsDead.pdf

The "popular" Nietzsche and the interpretations about the word "god is dead" are really often too one-sided. This would be like reducing Shakespear to the phrase "to be or not to be" without understanding Hamlet.
 
He was only against "one type" of God, the one that has an explanatory function for the natural or moral order of the universe. This kind of God does nothing more but "fill the hole" of our incomplete understanding of the world. Also, he was against Christianity because of the slave morality. He rejected typically any kind of God which doesn't bestow life on earth. He didn't positively replace the old kind of God with a new kind of God, but he was definitely looking for a new God (e.g. Dynosian God)
 
If Nietzsche was an influential figure for existentialism he was 50 years late to the party, following in the footsteps of Soren Kierkegaard who was the father of existentialism. Kierkegaard grouped people into specific groups which thus forces these people to conform and live up to the standard that the group demands, ie: student, democrat, male, American. He claims by becoming these labels we remove ourselves. Sounds exactly like Nietzsche's later view that science is only teaching us equations and labels which isn't who we really are.

As for whether or not Nietzsche was an atheist, he was most likely agnostic, described as not driving a goal but rather observing. The quote that "God is dead" refers to replacing religion with science, and claiming scientific progress only leads to our own destruction. He questioned whether or not the modern "newer, bigger, better" view was indeed providing humans with a better future, asserting instead it is slowly destroying us. He claimed that the general mindset of humanity is that there is an objective truth and once we find that truth everything will be better, but asks how we can know an objective truth even exists and where is "progress" leading us. I believe this is a very loose statement without much backing. What direction do we take if not forward? I believe a lot of good has come out of scientific progress and with careful foresight humans can utilize our discoveries responsibly. Hopefully.

Sorry I cannot respond to all the posts right now. I need to go.
 
Nietzsche's master-slave morality theory is what people find most outstanding about his works. It is really hard to find many specific consistent opinions on Nietzsche if you're looking at the totality of his works. His biggest impact was his deconstruction of the moral systems of Europe. Nietzsche also was the last of the writers of existentialism that wrote primarily about the individual. After Nietzsche you have Heidegger, Sartre, Camus they talked primarily about death. 20th century existentialism is alot more depressing than 19th century existentialism. Doestoevsky and Kiekergaard where so life affirming.
 
I like Nietzsche's writings and enjoy teaching them. However, I have seen over and over that heroin users absolutely love Nietzsche. I know a few that have his writings copied on the walls of their bedroom. I know one or two that have his words tattooed as an homage, I suppose.

But of all the philosophers ever, Nietzsche isn't the worst or the best overall. I feel like he is almost "popular" if you get my meaning. People feel good discussing his works, probably because there are many lively discussions over Nietzsche's writings. The people I know who are totally enamored with Nietzsche seem to consider their understanding of his works as a badge of intellect. Not that they need it, but when I am with a group of people and someone starts talking about Nietzsche, people join actively in the conversation or they wander off to play video games or whatever.

Where is our Nietzsche? If I look at the body of work he and many other philosophers left us, I have to ask myself who is out there now, thinking and writing? Do we still have philosophers anymore, or are we left to deal with the dead philosophers and their works?
 
ugly said:
I like Nietzsche's writings and enjoy teaching them. However, I have seen over and over that heroin users absolutely love Nietzsche. I know a few that have his writings copied on the walls of their bedroom. I know one or two that have his words tattooed as an homage, I suppose.

But of all the philosophers ever, Nietzsche isn't the worst or the best overall. I feel like he is almost "popular" if you get my meaning. People feel good discussing his works, probably because there are many lively discussions over Nietzsche's writings. The people I know who are totally enamored with Nietzsche seem to consider their understanding of his works as a badge of intellect. Not that they need it, but when I am with a group of people and someone starts talking about Nietzsche, people join actively in the conversation or they wander off to play video games or whatever.

Where is our Nietzsche? If I look at the body of work he and many other philosophers left us, I have to ask myself who is out there now, thinking and writing? Do we still have philosophers anymore, or are we left to deal with the dead philosophers and their works?
Click to expand...


Just because someone is dead it doesn't mean they are smart.
 
CoffeeDrinker said:
He was perhaps acting out of his own philosophy of "will to power" meaning that he knew the more outrageous his claims would be, the more attention they got, and the more recognition he got the more power he had in the world. He seemed to misunderstand Darwin, or perhaps twist Darwin's theories to suit his own mindset.
He sort of was a mash-up of many schools of thought, which isn't the mark of the most highly disciplined thinker, but he certain provided something to think about. The fact that Hitler took him seriously isn't the greatest sign, but benevolence never seemed to be a part of Nietzsche's personality.
Click to expand...

Initially I liked Nietzsche's philosophy, but after turning it over in my mind for a few months I concluded there wasn't anything new or unique about it. I love Hume, and I think he would have lightly and easily torn most of Nietzsche's views to pieces.

Quantum Perception said:
I personally really like Nietzsche. But to give a simple and short answer to the question why is he so outstanding: It's because he offered a new metaphor for reality and man that was not only novel but engaging. Whether or not one loves it or hates it, you must look at/comprehend it because it challneges you.
Click to expand...

I guess then it's just a matter of what format you prefer it presented in. It seems Nietzsche took what was already known and altered the way it was delivered.

CrackAndScrabble said:
Nietzsche's master-slave morality theory is what people find most outstanding about his works.
Click to expand...

But his entire argument for this master/slave morality rested on, "Oh, well, the slaves somehow figured it out at some point in history." The gist of his master/salve argument says this: Slaves saw that they were controlled by those in power, so they thought in order to be free they needed to reverse the roles. They decided to propagate a message that would convince their masters that being a master is evil while being a slave is good. Using the whole silly 'consequences of the after-life' theme they could trick their masters into freeing them so the slaves can become the masters and enslave the masters. So the slaves taught that if you're not charitable, humble, compassionate, obedient and live in poverty you were going to hell, while the slaves sneakily usurp the wealth, strength and power. By tricking the masters into acting as if the slave morality were good, the slaves can have an opportunity to seize power and were thus no better than hypocrites.

It's an interesting idea, indeed, but can it be verified? Is it factual? Can we confirm it really played out like this? More importantly who in their sane mind would believe in an afterlife and be duped by this? I think the masters would have laughed and continued praising their version which said the master's morality was good. Who could honestly believe a slave's morality is better than intelligence?
 
Can it be verified like empirically? Can I run some sort of proof for philosophy that gets a statistical outcome? Philosophy was not really designed to satisfy the contemporary scientific paradigm. Nietzsche, and all the other existentialist writers, wrote about how the sciences could reduced individuality, or one's "humanity". So even if this could be verified or called factual, Nietzsche wouldn't even agree with the method one used to empirically test it.

Evidence of the slave/master morality theory can be seen from the different cultural epics of the Greeks and Christendom Europe. Most Greek epics have some protagonist as this sexy, intelligent, strong guy killing a bunch of people or going on some quest. Most Christian epics are about being meek and kind, like the Good Samaritan that story about Jesus making fish and wine. The fundamental moral of every story in the two cultures is different. Nietzsche separated the fundamental morality into the two groups slave and master morality.

Hume probably had a huge impact on Nietzsche. Hume is known for his accurate dissection of human nature. Nietzsche definitely read Hume but he probably called him an idiot in atleast one of his writings haha.
 
Can it be verified like empirically?

But?... this is just Nietzsche's major critique on western metaphysics... He attacks a representational way of thinking that tries "to justify" our (inner cartesian) thoughts with (outer) reality (similar argument for platonic dualism). Reality doesn't correspond to human thoughts, platonic ideas, etc. That's why he dislikes science too, reality is not reducible to the conceptual scheme we make of it. Science is just metaphysics which is trying to freeze the flux of becoming with steadyness.

Such a way of thinking is inherently flawed and nihlistic.
 
Gotta say, for me, it's ----->The Mythological 'Stache.
nietzsche+moustache.png
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top