Nietzsche reading tips

[GePap]

Originally posted by elijah
Standing on the shoulders of giants. Still, the only difference between a book and a good summary is the language used. If there is significance in the langauge and discourse itself, as opposed to the concepts they illustrate, then I'll read the discourse.

Time is rarely in short supply for philosophers, so why deny yourself the enjoyment of the written word?

[Maniac]

Man, you gotta read Plato.

Well I did read some Plato due to Latin classes. Not complete books, but certainly more than a summary.

The Republic has allegories and little things in there that are very insightful.

I guess any philosophers writes a few insightful things by random chance. But IMHO that isn't worth reading a whole book of which the rest is crap.

we can't get all flustered because some stuff he has to say, in a conceptual virginity then, is politically incorrect now.

I don't care about political incorrectness. I have many of those myself. Actually Plato being a totalitarian is the least of my reasons to disagree with him.

Don't read because you agree. Read to disagree, and form alternatives. You're not going to turn a lump of iron into a sword by forging it with cold water!

Well I do read to disagree (or at least I read critically). However when you have read summaries of certain philosophies, and you see already in those the in your opinion faulty premises or logical errors, then there isn't much point in reading the entire philosophy. The summary suffices to form your alternatives. You can then focus on those alternatives, and read philosophies that lie closer to them. Then you can again use your critical thought, and judge what parts of that alternative you agree with and which you don't. You can then again focus deeper on that alternative alternative, and after that the alternative alternative alternative... That way you can refine and nuance your thoughts more and more. For example if I'm into oriental philosophy, reading the entire Bible isn't gonna learn me anything more than just knowing the basics of Christianity. Instead I should read books about eastern philosophy and partition the (in my opinion) "good" and the "bad" from those.

[Japher]

Time is rarely in short supply for philosophers

Don't feed the wolves.

[Whaleboy]

Time is rarely in short supply for philosophers, so why deny yourself the enjoyment of the written word?

At this point in my life, time is in short supply for me. I have to find time for college, writing three books at once (though concentrating mainly on one), article writing, thinking up new stuff, plus will have to get a job in February. Not to mention the whole "lets waste a third of the day sleeping" thing.

Well I did read some Plato due to Latin classes. Not complete books, but certainly more than a summary

Ummm, dude, Plato was, umm... Greek

I guess any philosophers writes a few insightful things by random chance. But IMHO that isn't worth reading a whole book of which the rest is crap

Personal taste I guess. As soon as anything gets published by one "Ben Joseph Elijah", make sure you buy!

I don't care about political incorrectness. I have many of those myself. Actually Plato being a totalitarian is the least of my reasons to disagree with him

Fair play, I know my share of being politically incorrect! (I think I got a thread deleted because of it ).

I know its tedious to read stuff you disagree with, but then, it is fun to knock it down. After all, all these "great" philosophers are no more men and intellects than you and me. I'll read a summary I disagree with, like some lame Utilitarian stuff, and critique it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by elijah


*elijah draws on his miniscule classical knowledge obtained through spurious encounters with the History channel*

Wasn't Sparta defeated by the Athenians and some other city states? Or am I thinking later?

The Thebans - at Leuctra

[Agathon]

Originally posted by elijah

The notion of being positively charged is a human construct to fit certain paramaters. Applying that artificial notion, one can say that protons are thus charged. There is no natural notion of positive, or even proton, but assume the two, and you have the two being synonamous.

This risks total idealism. Are events real things that occur in the world or are they too, mental constructs.

If everything is a mental construct then it turns out that reality is a form of intellectual masturbation.

[Maniac]

Agathon:

Well that is rather unfair. What you seem to forget is that Plato's political ideas ought to be judged in context...

I know I know. I just find it rather fun to depict Plato as some totalitarian bastard whenever I meet someone who adores him. As said to eLIJAH, his totalitarianism is the least of my worries. I rather disagree with the rest. Reasoning, the nature of reality...

So you believe that the common nature of being positively charged, which all protons share, is a mental construct rather than something all protons themselves have?

I believe the theories involving "positive charge" and "protons" are concepts to describe reality. However those theories and concepts don't have a 100% correlation with reality.

Ah I just see eLIJAH explains it much better.

But let me give a quote of me out of a discussion in the ACDG forum:

Value-neutral or paradigma-free knowledge of reality is probably impossible. You can only be a 100% sure of something if you set certain base axioms yourself. But you can't know 100% sure if those axioms, upon which you base your scientific theories, have a good relation to reality.

GePap:

I assume you will read it in Dutch or german..if in English, get a translation by Kaufmann..by far the best translator of Nietzsche into english.

Unfortunately there don't seem to be any English translations of Nietzsche in my library. But I guess a Dutch translation of a German book is much better anyway, as the languages are closer.

eLIJAH:

Ummm, dude, Plato was, umm... Greek

We saw Greek philosophy during Latin classes.

As soon as anything gets published by one "Ben Joseph Elijah", make sure you buy!

You mean for the Book Burning Barbecue?

I know its tedious to read stuff you disagree with, but then, it is fun to knock it down.

Well my brother knows I'm into philosophy (just not what sort), so for Xmas he bought me some "Philosophy for Dummies" of some American christian author. I browsed through the book, and reading his arguments to prove the existence of God and absolute morality were simply hilarious. Still, at least IMO, the novelty of it quickly weared off, and then you're just stuck with someone using silly concepts, and building even more silly theories based on those concepts.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac


I believe the theories involving "positive charge" and "protons" are concepts to describe reality. However those theories and concepts don't have a 100% correlation with reality.

But unless some of our concepts do we risk complete idealism.

How am I to know that my concepts don't have 100% correlation with reality unless I have some concepts which do in order to make the comparison in the first place?

Either you don't, in which case the statement is vacuous; or you do in which case the statement is false.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Man, you gotta read Plato.

Why can't he read a summary

You arguments for reading Plato, as GePap said, apply to all philosophers. Their arguements are much more in depth than some summary can show you.

As for Neitzsche, I think 'Beyond Good and Evil' is one of his finer works as well, and has some funny quotes .

Is Hegel really interesting?

He's pretty good. I'm intrigued by his dialetic and his ideas that war is required for progress (very simplified, I know). Though he's a PAIN IN THE ASS to read. Even worse than Kant.

[Provost Harrison]

I think Nietzsche has some fantastic quotes, some of my favourites in fact, although I have never read any of his work from beginning to end. He has a lot of interesting points...the problem has always how they have been interpreted...

[St Leo]

I like Will to Power. It's a bit like a blog, except that it was written on paper.

[GePap]

Ughh no, terrible book: it was put together by the sister after his death, and lets say his sister was not the most trustworthy editor out there.

[St Leo]

Haven't new editions been re-edited and re-arranged? I read the one translated and edited by Walter Kaufman.

[GePap]

Well, if he re-arranaged the work and undid the worse sins of the sister, it might be worth reading.

[Dis]

*sigh*

why do people like this guy?

You do know what his real life was like, right?

He was a loser. though he did have to endure some serious pain in his life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

So a person's life determines the value of his ideas?

People like this guy because he made some brilliant points. It totally altered my world view when I read Neitzsche. It made me thing about things I really hadn't before, such as the nature of truth and morality.

elijah may be happy to know that it hastened my slide into being a relativist .

[Dis]

but if he was so enlightened, why couldn't he get some *****?

that make me question his views on life.

[Imran Siddiqui]

It's because he was so enlightened that he didn't need it .

The value of a person's ideas is much more important in philosophy than how his life was.

[Dis]

ahh, but if he didn't need it, he woulnd't have got syphillis from a prostitute

[Maniac]

Imran Siddiqui:

I'm intrigued by his dialetic and his ideas that war is required for progress (very simplified, I know).

Hmm, that doesn't seem right to me. It may be a means for it, but required seems a bit exaggerated. Also, the word "progress" holds a value judgement. Wouldn't the word "change" be more correct?

It's because he was so enlightened that he didn't need it

Or perhaps he did want it, but because the rest of the world found him a fool, they didn't want him.

GePap:

Well, if he re-arranaged the work and undid the worse sins of the sister, it might be worth reading.

Ah yes, that brings me to another question I had. Are the four books you recommended most likely his work, or did his sister edit a few parts as well?

Agathon:

But unless some of our concepts do we risk complete idealism.

I don't understand that sentence. But what definition of idealism do you use? I would say that what I believe is about the opposite of idealism!

How am I to know that my concepts don't have 100% correlation with reality unless I have some concepts which do in order to make the comparison in the first place?

Interesting perspective... I of course can't know a 100% sure that concepts don't have a 100% relation with reality - I would be a lousy relativist if I claimed I could. But I think you are reverting the question, which should be: "Can I know whether or not my concepts have a 100% correlation with reality?" I believe the answer on that is you probably can't.

After all, we are not conscious of the entire universe. We are limited beings which perceive bits of sensory information. Our brains then interpret that information, categorize it etcetera. That in itself is already a construction of reality. We use paradigma to order information. We do not perceive "absolute reality".

Anyway, to construct our scientific theories, we base us on empirical data. But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

I know the above two paragraphs aren't very coherent or well-explained. I'm not really good at explaining those things... I could start explaining the entire scientific methodology here (after all any one who agrees with that should be a relativist), but that could take ages.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by elijah

Thinking it is better.

Isn´t Philosophy all about thinking?

[Drogue]

My favoutire was actually "Human, All Too Human". But then that would be more fit for an ACDG discussion Zarathustra is good, although so long winded, because he didn't managed to edit it properly. I haven't read that much, although I found his letters to his sister (IIRC) very informative to read. I have a set of Kauffman translations, and IMHO he is by far the best I've seen. He get's the German idiosyncracies right.

[Tattila the Hun]

A great Nietzsche reading tip:

Don't, you'll just get a headache.

[Kropotkin]

Originally posted by Dissident why do people like this guy?

You do know what his real life was like, right?

He was a loser. though he did have to endure some serious pain in his life.

Isn't it obvious?

[Whaleboy]

This risks total idealism. Are events real things that occur in the world or are they too, mental constructs.

If everything is a mental construct then it turns out that reality is a form of intellectual masturbation.

Then I, my friend, am an intellectual ******. Is there anything conceptually wrong with total idealism? I think your hillarious statement encapsulated my entire argument!

elijah may be happy to know that it hastened my slide into being a relativist

Fancy a beer? . I'm re-writing my relativism article, it'll be up on my next website update (end of this month or thereabouts), if you want to take a look.

Isn´t Philosophy all about thinking?

Yep! That's what I said. Ok, I should have said "thinking it, is better", as opposed to reading.

He was a loser. though he did have to endure some serious pain in his life

You honestly think he would have been a great man had he been happy and normal? .

[Brundlefly]

I can give you an introductory text -not- to read: "Nietschze for Beginners" by Marc Sautet, Writers and Readers Publishing 1994. I have enjoyed many of the "For Beginners" series by this publisher. Their introductions of Sartre, Heidegger, and Kierkegaard has spurred my interest in philosophy. Their Nietschze introduction, however, was rather disjointed and did not leave me with a good understanding of this philosopher's ideas. It was like the author was more intent on making witty observations about Nietschze that has peers would find funny, rather than provide a guide for beginners.

[Maniac]

I went the library and lent out "Dawn/Morgenröte/Morgenrood" and something about Heraclitus. Unfortunately, though the register said they have several books of "The gay science", I couldn't find any. It'll have to be for another time.

[Dracon II]

I'm not sure if this is final proof... but a doctor in maryland, looking at Nietszche's medical records, contends that his madness was more likely due to a slowly developing brain tumour than syphilis.
I would recommend Nietsche, though I have only read Zarathustra and a collection of summaries... I plan to read more when I have time (I have Ecce Homo, Genealogy of Morals, The Anti-christ and twilight of the idols).
An interesting summary I read contended that he was a forerunner of postmodern thought... and this is before modernism!
I think Nietszche is an interesting character, with a witty eccentricity to his writing... if you just want some mouthfuls of the guy, go to google and type "Nietszche quotes") entertaining stuff.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Maniac

I don't understand that sentence. But what definition of idealism do you use? I would say that what I believe is about the opposite of idealism!

Idealism = the doctrine that there is no external reality, only our ideas.

Interesting perspective... I of course can't know a 100% sure that concepts don't have a 100% relation with reality - I would be a lousy relativist if I claimed I could. But I think you are reverting the question, which should be: "Can I know whether or not my concepts have a 100% correlation with reality?" I believe the answer on that is you probably can't.

But there is no basis for the answer. You are attempting to compare one thing you know with something you admit there is no knowledge of.

After all, we are not conscious of the entire universe. We are limited beings which perceive bits of sensory information. Our brains then interpret that information, categorize it etcetera. That in itself is already a construction of reality. We use paradigma to order information. We do not perceive "absolute reality".

But this is the problem. You are asserting some claim about reality, namely, that "we perceive limited bits of sensory information" in order to bolster a claim about the relation between our beliefs and the world. Unfortunately, if you hold global relativism, then your claims about "sensory information" have no grounding and undermine your own relativist claim.

Anyway, to construct our scientific theories, we base us on empirical data. But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

All this obscures the fact that it's self contradictory to say this.

Either: (a) All our beliefs are do not represent reality correctly including the beliefs which explain the possibility of relativism, in which case it destroys its own support.

or: (b) Some of our beliefs (i.e. the ones that explain relativism) are non-relative, in which case one cannot hold that all belief is relative.

If you want to argue that we have no reason to think that our beliefs do represent reality accurately then at least a prima facie case is made by the fact that the alternative belief involves contradiction.

[Japher]

But there is no way we can know whether those observations are fully representative of reality. We can only hope it's an approximation. Also there's the notion that the observer influences the observed. Or has certain prejudices when looking at things. So again it is not "absolute reality" you perceive.

Most reasons for observation is for interpretation, prediction and replication... If this accomplished a subjective reality is really not applicable since interpretation, prediction and replication exist when this reality... Saying that the observed reality can be misconstrued as absolute reality has no bearing if all occurances exist within the set system...

If a tree falls in a forrest and no one is around to hear it, does make a noise?... My answer, does it matter?