Detached9

I've always had trouble defining Philosophy outside of "love of wisdom". What exactly is Philosophy? What exactly is it that Philosopher's do?

Another question... this has to do with Nietzsche. Many people who aren't well read on Nietzsche say that his works are a form of neo-nazism. Is this from a distortion of the overman concept? I'm not sure.

pug846

There are several reasons why this is such a huge misconception. First off, several of his doctrines, such as his “overman” concept gets taken to support some sort of Aryan superiority. Second, his sister was a Nazi sympathizer and after Nietzsche went insane because of his syphilis, his sister printed a book in his name called the Will to Power where his position was severely distorted – his sister took great liberties in…creatively editing quit a few of the sections. (It’s worth noting that Nietzsche actually refused to go to his sisters wedding because of the character of the man she was marrying. Her husband was severely anti-Semitic) Finally, many of the Nazi storm troopers had a copy of “Thus Spoke Zarathustra” in their backpack.

Even a cursory reading of Nietzsche shows that he would have been utterly appalled at the Nazi movement, not to mention their silly anti-Semitism. The claim that Nietzsche had anything to do with the movement or somehow motivated Hitler is laughable. It’s unfortunate that most people still think of the Nazi’s when they think of Nietzsche. Most Christians won’t even touch a single one of his books. He is horribly mistreated by most Christian and many Secular philosophers a like.

For those of you who are interested in Nietzsche, I highly recommend the Gay Science as a starting point.

Kenny

Agreed; this is one Christian who actually enjoys (not agrees with, of course) his writtings (though I have not yet had time to go into them in depth).

God Bless,
Kenny

Ender

I think Nietzsche cites the all-too easily misunderstood phrase "blonde beast" about three or four times in his collected works. There is a famous and much-debated passage in the book On the Genealogy of Morals, First Essay, section 1 where Nietzsche cites the phrase "blonde beast" that might've led certain people with a certain horseblinder on and equate it with the Nordic race. of course they neglect to read the following sentences: "...blonde beast prolwing about avidly in search of spoil and victory; this hidden core needs to erupt from time to time, the animal has to get out again and go back to the wilderness: the Roman, Arabian, Germanic, Japanese nobility, the Homeric heroes, the Scandinavian Vikings- they all shared this need."

One could argue that there has never been anybody of Nietzsche's repute who has consistently criticized the prevalent nationalism of his country in his time- but this is conveniently overlooked (or surpressed) by a few scummy individuals that Pug mentioned.

Back to the opening post- what is philosophy, beyond the socratic datum? Could it be possible that you're attempting to do "metaphilosophy" and assume a position outside the philosophical stream in order to assess the entire corpus? I would argue that philosophy is the critical task of human existence in all phases.

Fodder for thought.

~WiGGiN~

Happy Wonderer

Almost all of the physical sciences descend from Philosophy; a biologist would have been called a philosopher in the 1700's. PhD means "Dr. of Philosophy" (not "Pre-Historic Dinosaur", which is what my Dad told me the letters after his name meant.) It wasn't until fairly recently (in geologic time) that the upstart sciences broke away. I think my Dad had to study Latin and/or Greek to get his degree simply because it was considered a requirement for the well-rounded philosopher.

So the answer to what Philosophers consider is "anything that those pretenders with PhD after their name don't understand." The scientist's ripost might be "a Philosopher studies anything that doesn't require experimental evidence or advanced math."
(Just kidding, although one philosophy professor I knew seemed quite miffed at the theoretical physicists and thought they exhibited faulty logic...)


HW

jpbrooks

I have to run. But here are definitions for <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/p5.htm" target="_blank">philosophy</a> and <a href="http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/m7.htm" target="_blank">metaphilosophy</a> (in reverse alphabetical order).

philosophy {Gk. filosofia [philosophia]}:

Literally, love of wisdom. Hence, careful thought about the fundamental nature of the world, the grounds for human knowledge, and the evaluation of human conduct. As an academic discipline, philosophy's chief branches include logic, metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics, and the appropriate aims and methods of each are the concern of metaphilosophy.

metaphilosophy:

Branch of philosophy that tries to determine the proper aims, methods, and conditions for the discipline of philosophy itself.

-John Phillip Brooks

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: jpbrooks ]</p>

pug846

And if we are going to point the finger ( ) at a few philosophers who have bashed Nietzsche in their works...yet have shown an utter and complete misunderstanding of what Nietzsche said...at the top of my list would be G.K. Chesterton, C.S. Lewis and Ayn Rand. (Obviously only my opinion - I really don't feel like quoting their works to support my point.) Valid critiques are always worthwhile, but it's really frustrating that someone would take the time to bash a philosopher yet have seemingly read so little of his work.

pug846

Kenny, as a Christian...I'm curious...What about Nietzsche's philosophy interests you? What have you read?

Ender

Wanna bet it's not the <a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/1884365205/qid=1013031128/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_11_1/104-0389864-9111914" target="_blank">Antichrist</a>?

By the way, which of his books is your favorite, and why?

~WiGGiN~

pug846

Actually, it’s funny…I was going to ask Kenny what he thought of the AC.

My favorite work of Nietzsche’s is the Gay Science – I’ve actually never been able to get through Beyond Good and Evil in any reasonable amount of time. I would assume that is most people’s favorite work; it certainly seems to be the most popular. The short version of why GS is my favorite book: it spawned more creative thinking from myself than any of his other books. I had to put that book down more than any other book I’ve read to really think about a particular section. I’ve always liked the ‘moral’ motivation of the eternal recurrence and the way he presents “God is dead.”

Which of his works do you enjoy the most? What of his major works have you not read?