Nietzsche reading tips

[Whaleboy]

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

No external canonical reality. One can still have an independent situational reality.

global relativism

Global relativism, if you mean absolute relativism, is a contradiction in terms. One can easily defend personal, moral, cultural and cognetive relativism (as I'm sure you would), but saying that relativism applies in the whole universe is foolish. Of course, at that point, idealism takes over. Metaphysics rules!

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

And? Contradiction is fine! No sane man would say that his ideas/beliefs would hold true for the entire universe. Thats where the boundary for relativism is. Where one cannot make sweeping relative statements, its at a stage of cosmology where you're only choice is cognetive relativism, or god in any case. Quite simply, the absolute relativism you refer to does not exist, and an argument against is a strawman, at least according to my definition, for other lesser interpretations it may be a valid critique.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by elijah

No external canonical reality. One can still have an independent situational reality.

Not of one is a regular idealist.

Global relativism, if you mean absolute relativism, is a contradiction in terms. One can easily defend personal, moral, cultural and cognetive relativism (as I'm sure you would), but saying that relativism applies in the whole universe is foolish. Of course, at that point, idealism takes over. Metaphysics rules!

This is only aimed at this particular argument for this Quinean kind of relativism.

And? Contradiction is fine! No sane man would say that his ideas/beliefs would hold true for the entire universe.

One cannot hold contradictory beliefs in good faith. I can't say and mean "All triangles are four sided figures"

Thats where the boundary for relativism is. Where one cannot make sweeping relative statements, its at a stage of cosmology where you're only choice is cognetive relativism, or god in any case. Quite simply, the absolute relativism you refer to does not exist, and an argument against is a strawman, at least according to my definition, for other lesser interpretations it may be a valid critique.

Once global relativism goes the doctrine has no point since it starts allowing claims that can be used to undermine other relativist claims about belief and knowledge.

[alva]

Maniac, you're local library should be swamped with biographies, translations, germans + french + english versions, summaries, books about him and (semi) historical novels.

Try this btw:

http://www.bib.vlaanderen.be/servlet...toDo=open&id=1


-
Gepap:
Ever read Ouspensky?

[Whaleboy]

One cannot hold contradictory beliefs in good faith. I can't say and mean "All triangles are four sided figures"

Smoke pot.

Its a question of semantics. Is it conceivable of a people who refer to what we call a square, as a triangle? Of course!! . Needless to say, it is also possible to conceive of a universe with different rules and different logic system that allows a triangle in this area of perception to be a square in another. However, I'll spare you cosmology, lets assume this 4-d universe for all intents and purposes .

Nonetheless, even other beliefs that come under the lesser relativisms, like cultural or moral. "Democracy is best" or "freedom rocks" are beliefs that do not conceivably hold as true even for small contexts. The size of the context determines the breed of the relativism that applies to it.

This is only aimed at this particular argument for this Quinean kind of relativism.

If thats total relativism (iirc it is) then I concur. AS Philosophy is great for stimulating amnesia.

Once global relativism goes the doctrine has no point since it starts allowing claims that can be used to undermine other relativist claims about belief and knowledge

Not entirely sure I agree with that. As a relativist, if you say that "relativism is false", whereas I say "it is true", I have to hold that both positions are necessarily true for either of us respectively. I wouldn't hold your position as true because I do not concur with it, however, I hold that it is true for you.

[Elok]

I second everybody who said "just don't." Everything he says is just dithering psychosis prettied up to look like actual thought. Memorize the definition of "Antisocial Personality Disorder" in DSM-IV, then take some form of mind-altering drug(preferably one that causes paranoia) and watch a few hours of nonstop nature documentaries while repeating the definition to yourself over and over again and whacking yourself on the nut with a 2X4. It has basically the same effect with a lot less effort. If you want to really understand him, take to hanging around with Goths and drink excessive amounts of coffee for a few weeks afterwards, but you should be able to pass a college-level course on Nietzsche just by following the basic routine a few times and writing whatever comes into your head.

[Whaleboy]

Elok:

Still, you can get fantastic, but insane writers/philosophers/artists (though theyre all artists imo).

Thats a good question actually... Agathon: Philosophy - art or science?

[BeBro]

Originally posted by elijah


Smoke pot.

Its a question of semantics. Is it conceivable of a people who refer to what we call a square, as a triangle? Of course!!

Why?

[S. Kroeze]

Originally posted by elijah
Dont. Never read philosophy, except perhaps Satre, Wittgenstein and Platos Republic. In all else, get summaries.

This is why philosophy sucks (as a subject). Its like bloody literature!! It's meant to be about concepts, if I want to read god knows how much irrelevant paperwork, I'll be a bureaucrat! Just read summaries that tell you about the concept, the argument, the problems etc etc. Then use your brain. I hate flowery philosophers that base their entire profession around what some dead guy wrote (sorry Agathon ). Theyre not philosophers, theyre lovers of philosophy. The real philosophers are the ones that are out thinking new stuff, even if its crap, theyre the ones that are at least making a damn effort!

Dear Maniac,

How is life?
Though I cannot give you useful advice about Nietzsche -since I know hardly anything about him- I will give you my opinion about studying philosophy.
Someone (who in my view was quite intelligent) once recommended me to read 'Jenseits von Gut und Böse'(1886).

I do totally disagree with this post by elijah and recommend the very opposite.

• Try to read the original texts of the great philosophers!
• Try to read those texts in the original language!
• Hardly ever read summaries, though one good introduction to philosophy can be useful
  Why read a summary written by some thrid-rate pseudo-philosopher when one can read the REAL thing?
• the best introduction I have read is 'Lehrbuch der Geschichte der Philosophie' by W.Windelband
  (do not read the part about 20th century philosophy, which was written by someone else)
• since I enjoy reading great literature (the original texts, no summaries) in my view it is no impediment that some philosophical reading -Plato, Nietzsche, Sartre, St.Augustine- resembles literature
• there are very few philosophers who are truly original
  As a result I distrust "new" ideas on principle; Plato and Aristotle were dominant for about 2,000 years
  most philosophers just redid their debate
• Do not forget I.Kant!
  Kant is fundamental to Western philosophy. He acts like a watershed.
• Start with 'Kritik der reinen Vernunft'(1781) by Kant!
• Do not forget J.Locke!
• Non-Western philosophy (India, China) can be interesting too. They wrote some great literature too!

I agree with you about Plato, though he will always remain fundamental to Western philosophy. So one should still read Plato.
Long live Aristotle!

I hope you will enjoy reading TRUE philosophers,
Best wishes!

S.Kroeze

[Whaleboy]

Why?

Because!

Imagine a culture where they speak another language, coincidentally having triangle and square swapped.

I do totally disagree with this post by elijah and recommend the very opposite

How about a case of to each, his own. I prefer summaries to the originals, where the originals suck. Some might get more out of the originals, and thats fine. I just dislike it when paying too much attention to the original texts impedes new thinking, after all, we all have human brains, no different to Nietzsche, Plato, Sartre, and possibly even Wittgenstein!

[BeBro]

Originally posted by elijah


Because!

Imagine a culture where they speak another language, coincidentally having triangle and square swapped.

Makes no sense. Sure can they use another word, but they still mean "triangle". If I mean "car" I say whatever word means "car". I never say the word that means "bike" when I refer to a car.

[Elok]

As long as we're suggesting alternatives, I advise the Screwtape Letters. C.S. Lewis is the anti-Nietzsche; he is easily understood, unassuming, genuinely warm and almost completely applicable to day-to-day life. Even if you aren't a Christian it's a good read for the points made and the sheer humor. Screwtape is also a particularly good start for the study of philosophy, since it describes many of the big pitfalls encountered in the course of philosophical inquiry. I particularly like the part about the Historical Point of View.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Zarathustra is full of nice images and quotes (why SMAC quoted it so often), but as far as getting to his concepts, not the best method..beyond Good and Evil and Geneology are both much better.

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.

I dated a great niece of Kaufman, while I was taking a course on German philosophy (in english translations ) I quoted the go to women with a whip line - and whatever Kaufmans commentary was (I forget) , she said she couldnt imagine Uncle Walter in that context at all.

[lord of the mark]

im wondering if it really makes sense to read hegel without having gotten to a much greater extent into earlier philosophers? From reading ABOUT Hegel (mainly Fackenheim and Fukiyama) my sense is that Hegels main contributions are in putting thought in historical context, and require a familiarity with the history of western thought to really make sense. I wonder if Elijah isnt really right to suggest starting with Plato instead.

[GePap]

Originally posted by alva -
Gepap:
Ever read Ouspensky?

Nope, never.

Everything he says is just dithering psychosis prettied up to look like actual thought.

Worse summary EVER.

[Elok]

The worse ever, eh?

[GePap]

Yes: you have to try hard to do worse in the future.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap
Yes: you have to try hard to do worse in the future.

Hows this? "warmed over Schopenhauer"

[GePap]

Bad, yes, but not nearly as bad as eloks.

I mean, the best I could think of is saying kieregaard is:

The depressed and obtuse rantings of a nordic loser devoid of the barest immitation of intelliegence.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I agree with you about Plato, though he will always remain fundamental to Western philosophy. So one should still read Plato.

Someone smart once said that all modern philosophy is merely footnotes to Plato .

[Elok]

Gah, I was trying to rub the proper use of superlatives in your face. I'll have to be even less subtle next time.
I'm not entirely sure how that summary was bad. Actually it wasn't a summary so much a set of steps that might help you understand the man's thought processes, and about the best such instructions you can practically follow without a time machine or a syringe full of syphilis/neural carcinogens/whatever made him so nuts.

[GePap]

Nietzsche makes dozens of incrwdably improtant points about the construction of morality, as i said elsewhere the nature of punishemnt, the will to power, so forth and so on.

There are plenty of philosophers whom i do not like, but I recognize their ability and their contributions. Nietzsche is incredibly important to modern philosophy, or at least the philosophers of the 20th century believed, and I am more inclined to see their ideas on the subject to be more substantiated than, well, yours.

[Elok]

Perhaps a better question to ask would be:
Did Nietzsche's philosophy, which he seems to have followed himself, improve his life or those of others in any way? Was he happier or more productive for his ideas? And if so, how, since he quite clearly spent most of his life about two inches shy of full-blown insanity, and his writing gets closer and closer to that insanity the more "genius" it exhibits IYO? I mean, Ecce Homo wasn't long after Geneology of Morals and he was just about off his rocker when he wrote it. Even people who like Nietzsche admit that much.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Did Nietzsche's philosophy, which he seems to have followed himself, improve his life or those of others in any way?

It caused people to question traditional morality and that, I advance, improved life .

[Elok]

No, turning thirteen causes people to question traditional morality. Nietzsche just gave it a pretentious seal of approval.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Yes, they question traditional morality so much and then become the sheep they 'rebelled' against when they turn 30 .

[Maniac]

Agathon:

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

Ah, well personally I would say the opposite. That there is an external reality, but that our ideas are somewhat flawed. I of course have no proof at all for that assumption.

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.

It's option (a) I choose. I admit I do not have 100% proof that everything is probably relative. However based on the limited and probably imperfect research data of psychology, physics, etcetera, based on the scientific methodology, I think the most probable conclusion is that all our beliefs and concepts are probably relative.
Sure, I cannot give a full 100% waterproof evidence. But doesn't that count for all sciences: not making full proof theories, but making the most probably assumptions based on the - probably inaccurate - data we have?

Alva:

Maniac, you're local library should be swamped with biographies, translations, germans + french + english versions, summaries, books about him and (semi) historical novels.

59 to be precise according to the internet catalogue. Though half is German , which I am terrible at, or triple versions of the same book.

S. Kroeze:

Though I agree with you in principle about reading the original texts in the original languages, there are quite a few practical problems.
First, though I am fluent in Dutch, English and French, my vocabulary of German is very limited. This is of course a big problem since many of the European philosophers wrote in German.
Also there’s the issue of time. I don’t get where you and others such as elijah seem to find the time to read all those books! Of course, the fact that I mostly read science fiction and only from time to time a philosopher may have something to do with it… But still, due to time I have to make choices, and am more or less forced to be satisfied with reading summaries.

Do not forget I.Kant!

What I know of him indeed sounds interesting to further explore.

Do not forget J.Locke!

Though I would probably agree with his empiricism, I would probably completely start to disagree when he begins about his ideas on society and politics. But actually that’s true for about any philosopher…

How is life?

Busy busy busy. I have “tweede zit”. But fortunately my last exam is the 15th. After that I hope to have at least two weeks free before university starts again, hopefully time enough to read some Nietzsche.
Anyway, how are you doing? The only time I read you around here is when you’re bashing some neocon. ( )

[GePap]

Originally posted by Elok
Perhaps a better question to ask would be:
Did Nietzsche's philosophy, which he seems to have followed himself, improve his life or those of others in any way? Was he happier or more productive for his ideas? And if so, how, since he quite clearly spent most of his life about two inches shy of full-blown insanity, and his writing gets closer and closer to that insanity the more "genius" it exhibits IYO? I mean, Ecce Homo wasn't long after Geneology of Morals and he was just about off his rocker when he wrote it. Even people who like Nietzsche admit that much.

What exactly doesNietzshce physical state throught his life, and mental state at the end of it have anything to do with the validity of thought? The two things are at best tangentally connected. As for being prodcutive, well, how many world famous tracts of philosophy did he come out with? In the life of ideas he was extremely successful, which was the life he had the most aility ot flourish on, given his health issues.

In essence, up to this point you arguement against Niezsche is based on a strawman, that his phisicla state and final mental state matter: they don't. What matters is what he did in life, and what he wrote down. I have yet to hear you tackle his ideas, only his weak frame.

[St Leo]

I suggest Greg Egan's Luminous short story collection as an alternative. The world view he propounds is basically mine.

[Elok]

Philosophy is a way of thought, and thought an important aspect of living. He lived by his philosophy. His life frigging sucked, and not just because of health problems. I think they're connected. Nietzsche was an antisocial goon, and his big grand philosophy of ranting social constructs earned him squat other than misery. His claim to fame is the rejection of conventional morality, but like I said, any zitface teenager can say the same. Anyone can reject things he doesn't like. Talent is shown by creating viable alternatives, which he never technically does. Most of his propositions are obtuse daydreams that can't be applied to life. If you actually tried to implement any one of his ideological wet dreams, the result would be the ruin of human civilization, which he seems to find desirable. Look at other philosophers, on the other hand; Socrates, a very worthwhile school of critical thinking, Plato, well, a police state, but a properly spelled-out police state, Voltaire's Candide "cultivating his garden"...Nietzsche spends so much time railing against this and that as to fail utterly to tells us what he does like. Are we supposed to be improving the world via process of elimination?

[GePap]

Nietzsche did live his philosophy, which as I said before, is a philosophy that values creation above everything else: since to create something most be desryed, yes, it will be destructive.

Have you read his latter works or only Zarathustra? He goes into great detail about how he thinks the morality of the day came about, what it means, and why he disapproves of it: it is not only rantings, not by any fair assessment..what you wrote was much closer to a rant than his works.

As for viable alternatives: what is viable? What is desireable? You don;t get very far using loaded words in trying to critizice a work.