Originally posted by Fat mans revengeI was going to suggest Kaufmann as well. I don't understand your dismissal of his notes as 'biased'.
[
And thanks to VorozPlatz, I'm currently reading Kaufmann's translation of Zarathustra, but will look into the others. Kaufmann does a great job of translating and commenting on the writings, but I find his notes on Nietzsche's writings to be very biased.
Thanks for all the help![/b]
At one time, I was very much taken with Nietzsche's writings. Later, as a philosophy major, I thought less of them. Presently, I think his aphorisms are interesting, but there is not much supporting them except his personal opinions.
If you have the time, read C. S. Lewis and St. Augustine for contrast.
Jeb
Originally posted by jebrydzagin"Mere Christianity" by C.S. Lewis seems a far better read, by related comparison, than Phillips' "Your God is Too Small."
I was going to suggest Kaufmann as well. I don't understand your dismissal of his notes as 'biased'.
At one time, I was very much taken with Nietzsche's writings. Later, as a philosophy major, I thought less of them. Presently, I think his aphorisms are interesting, but there is not much supporting them except his personal opinions.
If you have the time, read C. S. Lewis and St. Augustine for contrast.
Jeb
Isn't this whole thread rather silly: a bunch of pseudo-sentients, pretending to judge the ostensible writings of another pseudo-sentient? Clearly, there never was any "Nietzsche" corresponding to the writings existing in my universe which are associated with this name. If there ever were any such writings, they have been vastly corrupted by non-sentient modifying processes (aka "the mindless pathology" ), since no sentient being would blather the sort of weak, anti-moral rubbish (posing as amorality) which is attributed to Nietzsche; it's merely pathological contrarianism, like books supposedly by sentient beings which claim that sentience is an illusion. Basically, if anyone called Nietzsche ever wrote anything vaguely similar to the writings in my universe attributed to him, they are now unrecognizable and likely contain much that is the exact opposite of what he actually wrote.
And what I've seen is not only full of logical inconsistencies and nonsense, but, like much of the older rubbish posing as "philosophy", is so vague and ill-defined that it is difficult even to evaluate logically.
As Wikipedia puts it: "His arguments often employed ad-hominem attacks and emotional appeals, and, particularly in his aphoristic works, he often jumps from one grand assertion to another (leaping from mountain-top to mountain-top, as he describes it), with little sustained logical support or elucidation of the connection between his ideas."
His writings spend vast amounts of time dealing with attitudes that no actual sentient beings have ever held, and a great deal more time misrepresenting the attitudes of sentient beings. Sometimes the two come together, as he uses the behavior of pseudo-sentients to "explain" the behavior of sentients. Just the usual bizarre, pathological, time-wasting rubbish. Not exactly the product of a roomful of monkeys laboring randomly at typewriters; more like the reaction of robots programmed to bad taste and vicious stupidity.
Originally posted by DrKFI suppose this is probably the bottom line of my issue. I read Schopenhauer before Nietzsche, and Nietzsche has very specific refutations of Schopenhauer's "Denial of the Will to Live" thesis. Perhaps going back to The World as Will and Representation during my readings will be a good idea.
I'm not sure how one would go about 'logically refuting', say, the 'will to power' thesis. It exists as bald assertion, as a thought experiment, as a rhetorical device and in a series of aphorisms, allegories and concepts - moreover, it is already caught up in, and delights in, its own paradoxes. It's like asking one logically to refute 'eternal recurrence'. I ...[text shortened]... way of thinking) - is it possible that Schopenhauer has the best refutation of him?
I'll also be sure to check out C.S. Lewis (Chronicles of Narnia C.S. Lewis?) and Alexander Nehamas. Thanks for the suggestions!
I suppose my question has been answered, appreciate everyone who has helped!
Let me paraphrase my appreciation of FW N. What was religion yesterday is superstition today, and what is religion today will be superstition tomorrow. The "Superman of FWN was Man without the need for religion". And yes. I agree in this respect, Thus Spake Zarathustra was one of if not the most beautiful of prosey philosophy. A great read.
Originally posted by Evil Pawn 666I've also been contemplating as to whether it is actually Nietzsche's writing style that really strikes me. He is a very gifted writer, and Kaufmann has clearly gone to extraordinary lengths to translate his beautiful use of language into an English version. Schopenhauer was my most recent read before Nietzsche, and his highly structured style of writing, specifically the inductive German style, really helped me to follow his reasoning to a clear thesis. Nietzsche uses a much more stylized and fluid writing style, especially in Zarathustra. His use of narration, and his personification of the character Zarathustra allows for a strong connection to the creation of the Übermensch.
Let me paraphrase my appreciation of FW N. What was religion yesterday is superstition today, and what is religion today will be superstition tomorrow. The "Superman of FWN was Man without the need for religion". And yes. I agree in this respect, Thus Spake Zarathustra was one of if not the most beautiful of prosey philosophy. A great read.
When I get hold of a copy of the C.S. Lewis book that was suggested, I have a feeling that I'm going to find a similar style of writing.
Originally posted by Fat mans revengeAbout which of his ideas you speak specifically?
I'm currently making my way through Nietzsche's most popular work, having already read a few other works of his. The Birth of Tragedy, Beyond Good and Evil, On the Genealogy of Morals, and Ecce Homo. I've also read a couple books that his main influence, Arthur Schopenhauer, wrote, with The World as Will and Representation and On the Fourfold Rout ...[text shortened]... at would help me to get a better view on the full spectrum of Nietzsche's ideas.
Thanks!