My Argument Against Nietzsche...

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by Boats And Hoes, Mar 28, 2012.

  1. #1 Boats And Hoes, Mar 28, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 28, 2012
    The problem with Nietzsche is - when he understood the concept of "the will"... which was fomented by Good Ol' Schope-e, he let it, the concept of it, to totally enrapture HIS mind, in a unremitting, blind fervor, sort of like a "tiger" - until he was filled with ressentiment.

    I’ve read Nietzsche’s ramblings about how the weaker natures are dominated by ressentiment. After reading some of Nietzsche's work, I must say, that it is you, Nietzsche, who was dominated by ressentiment. I will do the favor of not pitying Nietzsche's childish pessimism; yet avoiding such pity is indeed a challenge.

    "There is a great deal in Nietzsche that must be dismissed as merely megalomaniac… It is obvious that in his day-dreams he is a warrior, not a professor; all the men he admires were military. His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear. “If you go to see the woman, do not forget thy whip” –but nine women out of ten would get the whip away from him, and he knew it, so he kept away from women, and soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks." -Damn! My man, Bertrand Russell, really hit it on the head there...!
  2. I'm curious what you get from posting this.
  3. Hopefully, an insightful conversation with a Nietzschean...
  4. Of course Nietzsche was resentful, its not like he had a lot to be happy about. But at least he tried forming a positive and up lifting philosophy. Thats more than most shut-in, possibly virgin loners with terrible and painful health problems can say.
  5. He wouldnt have wrote it if he didnt know what the fuck he was talking about it. :smoking:
  6. [quote name='"boats and hoes"']His opinion of women, like every man’s, is an objectification of his own emotion towards them, which is obviously one of fear.[/quote]

    what?...i am not afriad of you...not much anyway...
  7. Is it your "argument" (which btw, doesn't even seem like a concrete one) or Russell's pseudo psychological analysis of Nietzche?

    Which one is it going to be?

    Your shot.
  8. #8 Boats And Hoes, Mar 29, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 29, 2012
    Your improper, and haugty, objection is futile; I already stated... Nietzche's problem was - he preached of this ubermensch and all, who overcomes all obstacles and who sets their OWN precedent's, but, that was the last thing he acted like. His philosophy was actuated by reactive, mundane emotions. - like the "herd" he resented. And Bertrand Russell sums this notion up perfectly, he, Nietzsche, "soothed his wounded vanity with unkind remarks."

  9. or perhaps he was just speaking truthfully from his personal observations...there is that. :hello:
  10. A large deal of Nietzsche is not only megalomaniac, but open to interpretation. His misogyny is, by some, viewed as a rhetorical device.

    Russell comments on Nietzsche in a very harsh and dismissive manner. In regards to Nietzsche I don't consider him to be a fair judge.
  11. If he commented about what he saw as a universal, it should hardly be surprising if he was included in his own observation. There may be something to say regarding an observation like this - which often comes to mind when people judge other people - that just because things seem a certain way to me, it does not mean that things are that way for everyone.

    What I find lacking in this conversation is discussion about what he said, and instead it seems that you're focused on how he lived. That's a basic and over-abused fallacy. We should consider what he said independent of who he was. We should evaluate his work on its own, and yet it seems that all you're giving us is the words of someone who criticized him. Perhaps we should criticize him ourselves, directly, rather than by a proxy indirectly.

    If you object to this analysis, consider that many Christians are fond of explaining the philosophy of Jesus while failing to follow its example. Whether or not Jesus himself was ideologically pure doesn't matter here - anyone who says to others that those ways are the right ways hurts their claim by failing to faithfully follow. Yet, when they do, they tell us: I am not perfect! So does that mean the philosophy is inhuman and impossible to follow? Regardless of the answer to that, surely it would be unfair to cite their failure as a criticism of the philosophy itself.

    It's my understanding that he changed his ways a bit over his life (not really surprising, as I have done the same). I'm only familiar with a few of his later works, which I found fairly insightful.

    Would you care to get us started criticizing his words?
  12. [quote name='"postal blowfish"']

    We should consider what he said independent of who he was.

    i am not sure i am understanding you correctly or not, but that seems like a dangerous idea to me, that would easily led to taking what was meant tobe said by the author, whoever it is, out of context and putting our own special twist on it...

    to only consider what was said without the circumstances or the life and situation fo the person saying it being considered, can easily cause misinterpretations to the orignial meaning...iow's. it is easier to understand what a person is saying, if you actually understand something about their life experiences...

    if he screamed 'help me i am very hot...' we should evaluate what he said independent of the fact he is a man on fire screaming? we cannot get the full understanding of the message that way...
  13. You know that when you begin a thread title with "My Argument" posters expect a concrete argument with several points or perspectives.

    Although Intuition may be one of the more refined aspects of knowledge, it is difficult if not impossible to communicate fully one's intuition to another in the form with which it is presented in the mind. Therefore it is sometimes necessary to 'dumb down' our intuitive process in a manner which represents itself in a more solid or tangible way so that it might be intelligible to others and not dismissed as insubstantial or judgemental in nature.
  14. Yes, I agree, to a degree... I should have name this thread "My problem with Nietzsche is..." But, are you suggesting my post is unintelligible?
  15. ... Yes, that's only okay if, that person preaching isn't austerely trying to vindicate the extermination of "the weak". Nietzsche, implicitly, codemned himself... he was a slave to mundane barriers and emotions - just as "the herd" he despised.
  16. yes yes...funny that too...just like how luther would often, especially as he got older, display a lot of the same traits he railed against in the papacy when he was younger...perhaps sometimes it is easy to become what we pity or despise.....
  17. Still trapped in this dead end of judgement. I don't see this thread going anywhere.
  18. But this thread seems to be saying The Man Is This And That. It would be slightly better if you were to do as you are suggesting, but I don't see much of that.

    alright, but if someone says "do unto others as you'd have them do unto you," "love thy neighbor," etc. and then lives in the opposite, that does not invalidate those statements as ideas. if anything, it would create an impenetrable mystery... how is it possible that a person could have conceived ideas like that and then failed himself? but we don't say "LOVE THY NEIGHBOR, WHAT A STUPID IDEA THAT GUY NEVER EVEN DID THAT HIMSELF," or if we do treat it like that, we have failed to engage a meaningful analysis.

    btw, the fire analogy could not have been a clumsier, more incorrect way of arguing with me. i did not mean to say that who he was does not matter, what i meant is that who he was is not the point of focus. we can use who he was to analyze his ideas, but we're shortchanging ourselves if we just go on the internet and go HAHA THIS GUY WAS A HYPOCRITE and leave it at that.

    i seem to remember you being the type of person who loves to commit ad hominem as if it is a valid form of argument, so i'll leave you to be 1000% correct about everything evar.
  19. #19 fieryflora, Mar 31, 2012
    Last edited by a moderator: Mar 31, 2012
  20. My dude, I've read Nietzsche... I know he is very intelligent, and even inovative, to a degree, with his idea's. My problem with Nietzsche is - if we, the people, truly embodied Nietzsche's philosophy, there would be, actual, mass extermination..

    Nietzsches whole thing was, "the will to power". He adulated dominance, both mental and physical. -And this is where I start to rebuke his view. People don't need to be "powerful" and "dominant"; the earth doesn't belong to Man - Man belongs to the earth. Therefore, humans need to be intune with themselves, to have a "knowledge of self".

    Man's ultimate goal should NOT be power, but, harmony.

    So, I don't totally repudiate Nietzsche and his perspective, but the bad out weighs the good...

Share This Page