Kip

[edited to add new comments]

I have discovered Nietzsche recently. His reputation is mixed. I have heard him called the greatest philosopher of his day (that, however, may not be saying much) and others have said that he was all shock-value with no coherent system and no real VALUABLE contribution.

These thread is for people (there are obviously many people here who know much about philosophy) to review Nietzsche and offer opinions.

Personally:

The Will To Power. I doubt that Nietzsche was making a scientific claim here, but I think modern neoDarwinism has shown that Nietzsche was wrong. The end that all life seeks is not power but survival, it just happens that those who have more power tend to survive more.

Eternal Recurrence. This, I think, is a brilliant idea. Nietzsche's point is that, if we truly regard our lives are worth living, we must be willing to live them indefinitely. The brilliance of the idea is that Nietzsche is exposing how we often do not truly wish to live. We compromise. We are only willing to live because we know we are going to die soon and so we can bear just a little more life. To the extent that eternal recurrence makes us uncomfortable, Nietzsche has diagnosed our own sickness.

The Ubermensch. I am unsure the extent this idea is relevant to ourselves or whether N was just intoxicated by the Darwinian idea of a post-human organism (which we now know will only be realized technologically and not biologically). The idea is popular, I think, because intellectuals (such as Kubrick) like to bash humans. I think that keeping humanity in perspective, compared to history and the future, is important, but I unsure what we gain by doing so, other than a burdensome humility.

God Is Dead. Obviously N was right about this one. (Evil grin.) Although the superman is apparently a God surrogate for N but is this a contradiction?

How accurate are N's ideas of slave revolt in morality?

How helpful are the ideas?

Another question I have is about Nietzsche's saying that "if gods existed, how could I tolerate not be a god? THEREFORE, no gods exist!" My question is, does N sincerely claim that this is a logical proof? Is he saying "If gods existed, I could not tolerate to not be a god, however, I can now tolerate to not be a god, THEREFORE no gods exist,"? Or he is amusingly saying "if Gods did exist, I could not emotionally tolerate that, therefore I refuse to believe gods exist, to protect myself from that anxiety, regardless of whether or not gods truly do exist?" These are two quite different claims but I cannot determine which Nietzsche intends. How serious is N being?

Any comments are welcome.

[ May 09, 2002: Message edited by: Kip ]</p>

pug846

I should be studying for finals and Ender will give better answers than I, but what the hell…

I think one thing that is often overlooked about Nietzsche (and this is in general in relation to the Eternal Recurrence) is that Nietzsche always claims to be a psychologist or doing psychology. I think Nietzsche was right and “NeoDarwinism” is wrong to an extent. People don’t just act to increase their survival chances. What drives us in life isn’t merely to survive, although our genetics do push us that way. What pushes the businessman to work insane hours and act viscously to conquer his opponents? Is it his drive to merely survive to reproduce? Or is there something deeper at work? What drives people like Hitler or George Bush? What drives the woman who breaks through the glass ceiling or someone like Bill Gates?

I think the WTP is far from Nietzsche’s best idea and I don’t think I agree with it for the most part, but I do think it is interesting and thought provoking. Then again, I guess pop-psychology (and by pop-psychology, I mean all of psychology) is always interesting.

I agree that this is a brilliant idea. I just wrote two papers on it and I don’t feel like reliving that, so I’ll let someone else have at it.

When Nietzsche says, “God is dead,” he isn’t merely trying to point out what should be obvious to most of us: God doesn’t exist. He is coming to the same conclusion as a certain Danish philosopher who wrote at the same time: People no longer really believe in God. The social Christian is born and people are merely Christian and theist by birth. We no longer fear God and worry about Her judgment on us. So no, it isn’t a contradiction for the Ubermensch to take over where God left off. Nietzsche was worried about the death of God, because “so much was based on it…including all of Western Morality.” The bottom of western morality had disappeared and he worried that we would fall into moral nihilism. The Ubermensch is supposed to be the ideal for each of us based on our own makeup, genetics, strengths, weaknesses, etc.

I think most of Nietzsche’s historical analysis, like pretty much every time a philosopher gives an historical analysis, is somewhat contrived and forced. But it is very interesting when you look at the virtues of the Greeks and the vices of Christians. The individual is being suffocated and the weak are being allowed to thrive at the expense of the strong.

If someone is saying Nietzsche made no real contribution to the Western tradition, then that’s quite a mouthful. He has influenced so much of 20th century philosophy. I’m not sure what it is about Nietzsche, but the people who don’t like him REALLY don’t like him. He is definitely one of my favorite philosophers (the gay science is my favorite philosophy text), but don’t know where I would rank him simply because I’m not familiar with enough people to give any sort of placing.

kankara

I have read only pieces of the works mentioned. And only wish to say, he is certainly not one of my favorites. I found him to state the obvious and take from others thoughts and call them his own. Its more his character and mannerisms, that I suppose turned me away. To say he was not an influence would certainly be foolish. However, a good influence, I am uncertain. Though we must then define good.

pug846

Such as?…

Like what?

I think I’ve heard it all now. Crazy? Heard it. An idiot? Heard that too… Says nothing interesting? Yup…heard that one. But unoriginal?! Stating the obvious!?