The last chapter of 'Examined Lives' is a summary of James Miller's thoughts. The next to the last chapter is about Nietzsche.
[...] are references on my Kindle. I thought this was enlightening:
[5633] Nietzsche, deliberately it seems, left his written corpus open to endless disputes over how to understand it. "Tell me what you need and I will supply you with a Nietzsche quote" a german satirist quipped.
[5995] Here Miller is quoting from one of Nietzsche's letters to a friend: Not only is Spinoza's whole tendency like my own to make knowledge the most powerful passion--but also in five main points of his doctrine I find myself; this most abnormal and lonely thinker is closest to me in these points precisely: he denies free will, denies purposes, denies the moral world order, denies the non-egoistical and denies evil.
end quotes
I had thought Nietzsche was criticizing Spinoza in 'Beyond Good and Evil" but it appears from that last quote that Nietzsche admired Spinoza. This is from wiki on egoism:
ethical egoism (also called simply egoism) is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to do what is in their own self-interest.
Showing posts with label Nietzsche. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nietzsche. Show all posts
Monday, February 28, 2011
Friday, October 15, 2010
short biography of Nietzsche
There is a short biography of Nietzsche at the end of my e-book.
1844-born
His father and grandfather were both Lutheran ministers
Age 20-He studied theology at the Univeristy of Bonn but by the second semester shifts to philology (the study of language and literary texts)
Age 21-Nietzsche transfers to the Univ of Leipzig to study classical philoloogy and tries to study music there.
Nietzsche is a composer and a pianist
Age 23--Nietzsche enlists in an artillery regiment but later is discharged for injuries
1869
Age 24--appointed as professor in Philology at Basel University
Nietzsche renounces his German citizenship to become Swiss. But because of residency technicality he never becomes a Swiss citizen and so remains officially stateless for the rest of his life
Nietzsche becomes a vegetarian but it gives it up.
Age 25-He volunteers for the German side in the Franco-Prussion war
Age 26-He applies for a position as philosophy professor but is unsuccessful
Age27--students start avoiding Nietzsche's classes over the controversy of a book
Age 28-Ritschl reports Nietzsche is becoming unpopular the the university
Age 29--Nietzsche votes in favor of admitting women to doctoral programs
Age 31-He requests a year's leave from the university
Age 32-He leaves wth his new Jewish friend and scholar Paul Ree....to a community of free spirits ...in Sorrento, Italy
To help his eye condition, doctors recommend absolute avoidance of reading and writing for many years
Age 33--'Human, All Too Human' is published
Submits resignation to univ on grounds of ill health
1880
Age 35-Nietzsche goes to live in Venice
Age 37--The Gay Science is published
Age 39--He breaks again with his sister (after her engagement to the anti-semite Bernhard Forster)
Zarathustra Book 2 is published
Age 41-He begins Beyond Good And Evil
Age 42-Beyond Good and Evil is published
Age 44- He starts Ecce Homo. The Antichrist is published. Ecce Homo is published
On a street in Turin, Italy Nietzsche collapses unconscious.
Age 44 to 54--His mental and physical condition progressively worsens leaving him helpless and unable to write conherently
Age 55--he dies
1844-born
His father and grandfather were both Lutheran ministers
Age 20-He studied theology at the Univeristy of Bonn but by the second semester shifts to philology (the study of language and literary texts)
Age 21-Nietzsche transfers to the Univ of Leipzig to study classical philoloogy and tries to study music there.
Nietzsche is a composer and a pianist
Age 23--Nietzsche enlists in an artillery regiment but later is discharged for injuries
1869
Age 24--appointed as professor in Philology at Basel University
Nietzsche renounces his German citizenship to become Swiss. But because of residency technicality he never becomes a Swiss citizen and so remains officially stateless for the rest of his life
Nietzsche becomes a vegetarian but it gives it up.
Age 25-He volunteers for the German side in the Franco-Prussion war
Age 26-He applies for a position as philosophy professor but is unsuccessful
Age27--students start avoiding Nietzsche's classes over the controversy of a book
Age 28-Ritschl reports Nietzsche is becoming unpopular the the university
Age 29--Nietzsche votes in favor of admitting women to doctoral programs
Age 31-He requests a year's leave from the university
Age 32-He leaves wth his new Jewish friend and scholar Paul Ree....to a community of free spirits ...in Sorrento, Italy
To help his eye condition, doctors recommend absolute avoidance of reading and writing for many years
Age 33--'Human, All Too Human' is published
Submits resignation to univ on grounds of ill health
1880
Age 35-Nietzsche goes to live in Venice
Age 37--The Gay Science is published
Age 39--He breaks again with his sister (after her engagement to the anti-semite Bernhard Forster)
Zarathustra Book 2 is published
Age 41-He begins Beyond Good And Evil
Age 42-Beyond Good and Evil is published
Age 44- He starts Ecce Homo. The Antichrist is published. Ecce Homo is published
On a street in Turin, Italy Nietzsche collapses unconscious.
Age 44 to 54--His mental and physical condition progressively worsens leaving him helpless and unable to write conherently
Age 55--he dies
Monday, October 4, 2010
second half of 'Beyond Good and Evil'
What is the MAIN goal of the book ‘Beyond Good and Evil’?
I’d say that Nietzsche is trying to justify the existence of the philosopher.
Nietzsche said that the scientist was a tool of the philosopher.
Nietzsche seems to like the decision maker and despise the skeptic who he says just sits on the fence. He seems to be saying that the skeptic is weak willed, unable to decide.
Besides the skeptics, Nietzsche is also blasting the positivist. I think it's because positivists can't grasp the abstract. He seems to be saying that philosophy will be lost if it goes down the path that the positivists want to go.
Here is a definition of positivism from wiki: Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and positive verification.
One thing that I really don't like about Nietzsche is his elitism. I waffle about whether or not he is being tongue in cheek. Is he really an ass? Is he really an elitist? Is he just telling it like he sees it without judgment? Or does he truly believe that a certain elite should have more rights and privileges than other people…based on some arbitrary notion.
Another recurring theme throughout the book seems to be Nietzsche’s distain for mediocrity. On this topic, I have some sympathy for him. I do think we should encourage the brilliant and the gifted. I don’t think we should drag down the gifted to meet some equality standard. And I wonder if this annoyance that he has arose when he was a professor. I wonder if he wanted to concentrate on the gifted rather teach to all the students.
Why wouldn't philosophers want truth that inspires and elevates? I guess that's why I don't find Nietzsche's philosophy inspiring. He doesn't even want it to be? Although…I suppose….the truth is the truth…whether it inspires or feels good or not. If you want a certain outcome, then you might not really be looking for the truth. You’ll be bullshitting as Frankfurt says in his book.
Here is a quote from BYGE: “they [philosophers of the future] will not deal with the truth in order that it may please them, or elevate and inspire them.”
Nietzsche says that he believes the philosopher should "CREATE VALUES."
He says this: THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!"
When I first read the below I thought Nietzsche was contradicting the above. How can someone in solitude lead? Then I reread it and paid more attention to "betray something of his own ideal" and realized that negates what follows. I have to be very careful in reading Nietzsche. Nietzsche uses "he" a lot even when the noun hasn't been mentioned in many pages.
“the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal when he asserts: He shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary”
Is he talking about himself in the above quote? Was he a recluse when he wrote this book? Or is he blasting Spinoza again? BUT the thing about Spinoza, Spinoza lived during the time of the Inquisition. During that time period, it was probably very wise to keep to yourself and a small group of trusted friends. Otherwise, you might lose your head.
This quote makes sense to me. He is talking about discipline to achieve a goal:“Artists have here perhaps a finer intuition... they no longer do anything arbitrarily,”
This quote really bothers me:“People have always to be born to a high station, or, more definitely, they have to be BRED for it… the ancestors, the "blood," decide here also. Many generations must have prepared the way for the coming of the philosopher”
That is one of those quotes where I wonder if he is
1. Being tongue in cheek, ie making a mockery of the upper class
2. Telling it like he sees it without judgment
3. Actually advocating inbreeding with the higher classes getting more rights
If it’s #3, he is wrong of course. Inbreeding causes problems... NOT blending. Although....is he really talking about inbreeding? Does he correct himself when he says "bred for it." Is there any chance that he would be in favor of public schools if the brilliant could have their own class without having to include the mediocre students?
Chapter 7
I thought this was an interesting quote: “instinct is the most intelligent of all kinds of intelligence which have until now been discovered.” I think that people that can react quickly (that have an instinct for what is the right action) do well in the world.
This quote is one of the quotes that makes me wonder about Nietzsche: “for here truth has to stifle her yawns so much when she is obliged to answer. And after all, truth is a woman; one must not use force with her.” To me, it reveals a playful side…that makes me wonder if sometimes he just likes to be provocative.
The way he rambles makes it hard for me to understand his point. I wonder if he does that on purpose to escape scrutiny like Spinoza wanted to escape scrutiny. He talks about the mingling of classes and races. I’m not sure if he is mocking the aristocracy or if he is being sarcastic. See the section that’s at 16540 to 16545 on my Kindle. It almost seems to be saying that the mingling is good. Here is one of the quotes in that section: “where, with all our senses awake, we [the blended European] go our way, enchanted and voluntarily.”
See section 16559 to 16571 in my kindle. He is talking about suffering again. It seems he doesn’t think the goal of eliminating suffering is good. I think that’s crazy.
He talks in several places about “extravagant honesty.” I wonder if that is why he says provocative things. He doesn’t want to shrink from the truth even it is ugly.
At 16675 in my kindle, he says “learning alters us.” And then goes on to say “there is certainly something unteachable, a granite of spiritual fate…” I would think that Steven Pinker would agree with him. We are not a complete blank slate.
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Here is an interesting quote at 17161: “men of modern ideas believe almost instinctively in progress and the future, and are more and more lacking in respect for old age.”
That statement makes me think he was being tongue in cheek (sarcastic) in his previous praise for the aristocracy….the noble. I think the way he rambles, one can interpret this various ways.
I do agree with what he is saying at 17297. Here is a quote: “It is not sufficient to use the same words in order to understand one another: we must employ the same words for the same kind of internal experiences, we must in the end have experiences IN COMMON….to understand one another.”
I wonder if another translation would have been easier to read.
I’d say that Nietzsche is trying to justify the existence of the philosopher.
Nietzsche said that the scientist was a tool of the philosopher.
Nietzsche seems to like the decision maker and despise the skeptic who he says just sits on the fence. He seems to be saying that the skeptic is weak willed, unable to decide.
Besides the skeptics, Nietzsche is also blasting the positivist. I think it's because positivists can't grasp the abstract. He seems to be saying that philosophy will be lost if it goes down the path that the positivists want to go.
Here is a definition of positivism from wiki: Positivism asserts that the only authentic knowledge is that which is based on sense experience and positive verification.
One thing that I really don't like about Nietzsche is his elitism. I waffle about whether or not he is being tongue in cheek. Is he really an ass? Is he really an elitist? Is he just telling it like he sees it without judgment? Or does he truly believe that a certain elite should have more rights and privileges than other people…based on some arbitrary notion.
Another recurring theme throughout the book seems to be Nietzsche’s distain for mediocrity. On this topic, I have some sympathy for him. I do think we should encourage the brilliant and the gifted. I don’t think we should drag down the gifted to meet some equality standard. And I wonder if this annoyance that he has arose when he was a professor. I wonder if he wanted to concentrate on the gifted rather teach to all the students.
Why wouldn't philosophers want truth that inspires and elevates? I guess that's why I don't find Nietzsche's philosophy inspiring. He doesn't even want it to be? Although…I suppose….the truth is the truth…whether it inspires or feels good or not. If you want a certain outcome, then you might not really be looking for the truth. You’ll be bullshitting as Frankfurt says in his book.
Here is a quote from BYGE: “they [philosophers of the future] will not deal with the truth in order that it may please them, or elevate and inspire them.”
Nietzsche says that he believes the philosopher should "CREATE VALUES."
He says this: THE REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!"
When I first read the below I thought Nietzsche was contradicting the above. How can someone in solitude lead? Then I reread it and paid more attention to "betray something of his own ideal" and realized that negates what follows. I have to be very careful in reading Nietzsche. Nietzsche uses "he" a lot even when the noun hasn't been mentioned in many pages.
“the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal when he asserts: He shall be the greatest who can be the most solitary”
Is he talking about himself in the above quote? Was he a recluse when he wrote this book? Or is he blasting Spinoza again? BUT the thing about Spinoza, Spinoza lived during the time of the Inquisition. During that time period, it was probably very wise to keep to yourself and a small group of trusted friends. Otherwise, you might lose your head.
This quote makes sense to me. He is talking about discipline to achieve a goal:“Artists have here perhaps a finer intuition... they no longer do anything arbitrarily,”
This quote really bothers me:“People have always to be born to a high station, or, more definitely, they have to be BRED for it… the ancestors, the "blood," decide here also. Many generations must have prepared the way for the coming of the philosopher”
That is one of those quotes where I wonder if he is
1. Being tongue in cheek, ie making a mockery of the upper class
2. Telling it like he sees it without judgment
3. Actually advocating inbreeding with the higher classes getting more rights
If it’s #3, he is wrong of course. Inbreeding causes problems... NOT blending. Although....is he really talking about inbreeding? Does he correct himself when he says "bred for it." Is there any chance that he would be in favor of public schools if the brilliant could have their own class without having to include the mediocre students?
Chapter 7
I thought this was an interesting quote: “instinct is the most intelligent of all kinds of intelligence which have until now been discovered.” I think that people that can react quickly (that have an instinct for what is the right action) do well in the world.
This quote is one of the quotes that makes me wonder about Nietzsche: “for here truth has to stifle her yawns so much when she is obliged to answer. And after all, truth is a woman; one must not use force with her.” To me, it reveals a playful side…that makes me wonder if sometimes he just likes to be provocative.
The way he rambles makes it hard for me to understand his point. I wonder if he does that on purpose to escape scrutiny like Spinoza wanted to escape scrutiny. He talks about the mingling of classes and races. I’m not sure if he is mocking the aristocracy or if he is being sarcastic. See the section that’s at 16540 to 16545 on my Kindle. It almost seems to be saying that the mingling is good. Here is one of the quotes in that section: “where, with all our senses awake, we [the blended European] go our way, enchanted and voluntarily.”
See section 16559 to 16571 in my kindle. He is talking about suffering again. It seems he doesn’t think the goal of eliminating suffering is good. I think that’s crazy.
He talks in several places about “extravagant honesty.” I wonder if that is why he says provocative things. He doesn’t want to shrink from the truth even it is ugly.
At 16675 in my kindle, he says “learning alters us.” And then goes on to say “there is certainly something unteachable, a granite of spiritual fate…” I would think that Steven Pinker would agree with him. We are not a complete blank slate.
Chapter 8
Chapter 9
Here is an interesting quote at 17161: “men of modern ideas believe almost instinctively in progress and the future, and are more and more lacking in respect for old age.”
That statement makes me think he was being tongue in cheek (sarcastic) in his previous praise for the aristocracy….the noble. I think the way he rambles, one can interpret this various ways.
I do agree with what he is saying at 17297. Here is a quote: “It is not sufficient to use the same words in order to understand one another: we must employ the same words for the same kind of internal experiences, we must in the end have experiences IN COMMON….to understand one another.”
I wonder if another translation would have been easier to read.
Monday, September 20, 2010
'Beyond Good and Evil'
On September 20, 2010 I have begun to read Nietzsche's book 'Beyond Good and Evil' for the October 10th meeting of the philosophy club.
The introduction to the translation that I have includes this:
Explore Nietzsche yourself. He mostly wrote directly and clearly,without scholarly jargon. See if he brings out the artist or psychologist or dancer in you. ...... Nietzsche was what I would call a life experimenter. .....Part of Nietzsche's genius was a very simple method: He took the most widely believed, most important "truths" of his day, turned them upside-down, shook them a little, and watched with delight all the fascinating insights that flowed out.
Then the book starts "Supposing that Truth is a woman--what then...."
At the Sept 19th philosophy club meeting Ken wanted us to consider Truth vs truth. And here the book capitalizes Truth. For some reason that makes me giggle. I think we can explore that idea for a while. What is the difference between Truth vs truth?
Here are some more quotes from the book:
Stoicism is self-tyranny .... ..this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image ,
I'm having to look up terms on every page. IF I was more well read, perhaps I'd already know all these terms. Nietzsche is blasting all the philosophers. BUT I have to understand the philosophers in order to understand his criticism.
I think our perception can skew the "Truth" of a THING. So it makes sense to me the term "a thing in itself." Our perceptions do NOT change the thing BUT our perceptions alter our experience of the thing. And as we learn about all the attributes of the thing, our original definition of the thing will change.
At highlight 14960-63, he throws Kant and Spinoza under the bus. He doesn't think Kant proves his "categorical imperative" nor does he think Spinoza's has proved his moral principles via mathematics.
At location 15226, I'm thinking he is finally getting to his point. There is not black and white in morals...but many refinements of gradation.
At location 15242, he talks about solitude and how one can remain good in solitude. I thought that was funny.
At location 15270, he seems to be saying that animalistic (hunger, sex) desires are what motivate us. It makes me wonder if he has a bitter envy toward people like Spinoza that can rise above them.
At location 15304, he talks of independence. i wonder if this is his goal but I doubt if he ever achieved it. BUT I wonder if it's this part that attracts independent people to his writings. The problem for me is that on his way, he blasts others. For instance, read loc. 15316 where he talks of the higher and lower class.
I believe at location 15374 he is talking about gradations of truth. And he seems to be saying that a semblance of truth might be just as good as the truth. That seems odd to me.
See location 15399. Why can't will act on matter? In this section he uses the words "the power of the will" and "the will to power". This section doesn't make sense to me.
He mentions the French Revolution at location 15407. The French Revolution was 1789 and Nietzsche was born 1844.
At location 15413, he talks about the idealists who are enthusiastic about the good and beautiful. Here is a quote: "nobody will very readily regard a doctrine as true merely because it makes people happy [except the amiable idealists]."
At location 15472, he talks again about the green meadow happiness. He says that we need to suffer. He says "the will to life had to be increased to the unconditioned will to power."
He talks about suffering again in chapter 5. At location 16146, he talks about people that hate suffering.
At location 15418, he wants to talk about the wicked that are happy. BUT what about the unhappiness that the wicked cause others? Isn't that important?
At location 15455, he says that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. I agree with that. BUT he mostly throws things out without proving anything to be true.
Most of chapter 3 is railing against Christianity....but this one quote seems to show some empathy: "they honoured something in themselves when they honoured the saint."
I think the quote at location 15608, summarizes Nietzsche's anger: "they .sacrificed to their God the strongest instincts they possessed..., their nature." Then at 15612, he rails against Schopenhauer again. He seems to have a lot of anger toward any proponent of an aesthetic life.
But at location 15687, Nietzsche says that religion gives comfort to people. Contentedness. He says it again at location 15690.
Then Chapter 4 is just a series of aphorisms. Here is a link to all of them:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch04.htm
...#164, he is saying that he is quoting Jesus..but I googled that quote and can't find the Bible verse. I think Nietzsche made it up.
At #174 , he says the utiliarian's also use their philosophy to justify their own inclinations.
Chapter 5, I think he is finally making his point.
He is more pointedly attacking Schopenhauer. See bottom of this blog where I quote from wiki. I think we have to understand Schopenhauer to understand Nietzsche. I wonder if Nietzsche's "will to power" was a play on Schopenhauer's use of the word will.
This seems obvious: "many a moralist would like to exercise power...over mankind."
What about the quote at 1592? What is he saying? Is he saying we must have laws in order to accomplish anything?
What about 15955? His anguish was his lust?
Location 16045, he talks again about the will to power. "would like to play the master."
I want to defend Spinoza when he blasts him at location 16051. He claims Spinoza wants to destroy the emotions.
What about 16097? The golden rule is based on fear? That's an interesting slant. He says it again at 16106.
below are definitions of words Nietzsche is using:
And here is what wiki says about Stoicism:
The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage would not suffer such emotions.Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved
Prohairesis :variously translated as "moral character", "will", "volition", "choice", "intention", or "moral choice"
And here is the definition of positivism:
a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof.
And here is a definition of “thing-in-itself”:
the thing as it exists “by itself”, abstracted from our impression of it or our knowledge of it
So is Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' a railing against Schopenhauer?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer's_aesthetics?wasRedirected=true
For Schopenhauer, the Will is an aimless desire to perpetuate itself, the basis of life. Desire engendered by the Will is the source of all the sorrow in the world; each satisfied desire leaves us either with boredom, or with some new desire to take its place. A world in thrall to Will is necessarily a world of suffering. Since the Will is the source of life, and our very bodies are stamped with its image and designed to serve its purpose, the human intellect is, in Schopenhauer's simile, like a lame man who can see, but who rides on the shoulders of a blind giant.
The introduction to the translation that I have includes this:
Explore Nietzsche yourself. He mostly wrote directly and clearly,without scholarly jargon. See if he brings out the artist or psychologist or dancer in you. ...... Nietzsche was what I would call a life experimenter. .....Part of Nietzsche's genius was a very simple method: He took the most widely believed, most important "truths" of his day, turned them upside-down, shook them a little, and watched with delight all the fascinating insights that flowed out.
Then the book starts "Supposing that Truth is a woman--what then...."
At the Sept 19th philosophy club meeting Ken wanted us to consider Truth vs truth. And here the book capitalizes Truth. For some reason that makes me giggle. I think we can explore that idea for a while. What is the difference between Truth vs truth?
Here are some more quotes from the book:
Stoicism is self-tyranny .... ..this is an old and everlasting story: what happened in old times with the Stoics still happens today, as soon as ever a philosophy begins to believe in itself. It always creates the world in its own image ,
I'm having to look up terms on every page. IF I was more well read, perhaps I'd already know all these terms. Nietzsche is blasting all the philosophers. BUT I have to understand the philosophers in order to understand his criticism.
I think our perception can skew the "Truth" of a THING. So it makes sense to me the term "a thing in itself." Our perceptions do NOT change the thing BUT our perceptions alter our experience of the thing. And as we learn about all the attributes of the thing, our original definition of the thing will change.
At highlight 14960-63, he throws Kant and Spinoza under the bus. He doesn't think Kant proves his "categorical imperative" nor does he think Spinoza's has proved his moral principles via mathematics.
At location 15226, I'm thinking he is finally getting to his point. There is not black and white in morals...but many refinements of gradation.
At location 15242, he talks about solitude and how one can remain good in solitude. I thought that was funny.
At location 15270, he seems to be saying that animalistic (hunger, sex) desires are what motivate us. It makes me wonder if he has a bitter envy toward people like Spinoza that can rise above them.
At location 15304, he talks of independence. i wonder if this is his goal but I doubt if he ever achieved it. BUT I wonder if it's this part that attracts independent people to his writings. The problem for me is that on his way, he blasts others. For instance, read loc. 15316 where he talks of the higher and lower class.
I believe at location 15374 he is talking about gradations of truth. And he seems to be saying that a semblance of truth might be just as good as the truth. That seems odd to me.
See location 15399. Why can't will act on matter? In this section he uses the words "the power of the will" and "the will to power". This section doesn't make sense to me.
He mentions the French Revolution at location 15407. The French Revolution was 1789 and Nietzsche was born 1844.
At location 15413, he talks about the idealists who are enthusiastic about the good and beautiful. Here is a quote: "nobody will very readily regard a doctrine as true merely because it makes people happy [except the amiable idealists]."
At location 15472, he talks again about the green meadow happiness. He says that we need to suffer. He says "the will to life had to be increased to the unconditioned will to power."
He talks about suffering again in chapter 5. At location 16146, he talks about people that hate suffering.
At location 15418, he wants to talk about the wicked that are happy. BUT what about the unhappiness that the wicked cause others? Isn't that important?
At location 15455, he says that what is good for one is not necessarily good for another. I agree with that. BUT he mostly throws things out without proving anything to be true.
Most of chapter 3 is railing against Christianity....but this one quote seems to show some empathy: "they honoured something in themselves when they honoured the saint."
I think the quote at location 15608, summarizes Nietzsche's anger: "they .sacrificed to their God the strongest instincts they possessed..., their nature." Then at 15612, he rails against Schopenhauer again. He seems to have a lot of anger toward any proponent of an aesthetic life.
But at location 15687, Nietzsche says that religion gives comfort to people. Contentedness. He says it again at location 15690.
Then Chapter 4 is just a series of aphorisms. Here is a link to all of them:
http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/nietzsche/1886/beyond-good-evil/ch04.htm
...#164, he is saying that he is quoting Jesus..but I googled that quote and can't find the Bible verse. I think Nietzsche made it up.
At #174 , he says the utiliarian's also use their philosophy to justify their own inclinations.
Chapter 5, I think he is finally making his point.
He is more pointedly attacking Schopenhauer. See bottom of this blog where I quote from wiki. I think we have to understand Schopenhauer to understand Nietzsche. I wonder if Nietzsche's "will to power" was a play on Schopenhauer's use of the word will.
This seems obvious: "many a moralist would like to exercise power...over mankind."
What about the quote at 1592? What is he saying? Is he saying we must have laws in order to accomplish anything?
What about 15955? His anguish was his lust?
Location 16045, he talks again about the will to power. "would like to play the master."
I want to defend Spinoza when he blasts him at location 16051. He claims Spinoza wants to destroy the emotions.
What about 16097? The golden rule is based on fear? That's an interesting slant. He says it again at 16106.
below are definitions of words Nietzsche is using:
And here is what wiki says about Stoicism:
The Stoics considered destructive emotions to be the result of errors in judgment, and that a sage would not suffer such emotions.Stoics were concerned with the active relationship between cosmic determinism and human freedom, and the belief that it is virtuous to maintain a will (called prohairesis) that is in accord with nature. Because of this, the Stoics presented their philosophy as a way of life, and they thought that the best indication of an individual's philosophy was not what a person said but how he behaved
Prohairesis :variously translated as "moral character", "will", "volition", "choice", "intention", or "moral choice"
And here is the definition of positivism:
a philosophical system that holds that every rationally justifiable assertion can be scientifically verified or is capable of logical or mathematical proof.
And here is a definition of “thing-in-itself”:
the thing as it exists “by itself”, abstracted from our impression of it or our knowledge of it
So is Nietzsche's 'Beyond Good and Evil' a railing against Schopenhauer?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Schopenhauer's_aesthetics?wasRedirected=true
For Schopenhauer, the Will is an aimless desire to perpetuate itself, the basis of life. Desire engendered by the Will is the source of all the sorrow in the world; each satisfied desire leaves us either with boredom, or with some new desire to take its place. A world in thrall to Will is necessarily a world of suffering. Since the Will is the source of life, and our very bodies are stamped with its image and designed to serve its purpose, the human intellect is, in Schopenhauer's simile, like a lame man who can see, but who rides on the shoulders of a blind giant.
Saturday, April 24, 2010
Nietzsche
This is a link to a reference to Jung and Nietzsche
This is a ink to a chat about Nietzsche and sexism
I'm attempting to understand Nietzsche's philosophy. Sometimes I think he is being in tongue in cheek especially in the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." It seems he exaggerates some points of view to show their absurdity.
Philosophy bites podcast about Nietzsche
This is a ink to a chat about Nietzsche and sexism
I'm attempting to understand Nietzsche's philosophy. Sometimes I think he is being in tongue in cheek especially in the book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra." It seems he exaggerates some points of view to show their absurdity.
Philosophy bites podcast about Nietzsche
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)