The Greek Woman

[elijahcraig]

http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/tgw.htm

Something I hadn't read, I found it on a site I had never been to also.

[redstar2000]

Amidst the babble, I found this...


Woman is more closely related to nature than man and in all her essentials she remains ever herself. Culture is with her always something external, a something which does not touch the kernel that is eternally faithful to nature...

A straight-forward statement...and completely ludicrous.

What is this fascination with Nietzsche?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Vinny Rafarino]

What is this fascination with Nietzsche?



I'm not actually sure, however his drivel tends to be "all the rage" with the "hip coffehouse crowd". I believe we used to call them beatniks.

I myself minored in Western Philosophy and found it to be tiresome, nonsensical drivel. What a waste of credit hours.

When I was younger, I reckon it made me feel "superior" in some way to "quote the famous philosopers" to people who were lucky enough not to ever bother with such nonsense. I later found that I was more interested in "quoting" chicks into the sack then anything else.

Philosophy...what crap.

[elijahcraig]

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearc...521452813&itm=2 (http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2U8VW2PF15&isbn=0521452813&itm=2)

That may be of more interest to Communists concerning Nietzsche.



I obviously disagree with you both about Nietzsche (and philosophy), but won't get into a boxing match over an opinion.

[Trissy]

What is this fascination with Nietzsche?

Mmm...I don't think I'm fascinated with Nietzsche as such, I think I am just relieved to have found someone who shared my views about certain aspects. I discovered him through my dislike of organised religion and from there I thought I should read on to see if he had anything else interesting to say. I must say I'm glad I did.


I myself minored in Western Philosophy and found it to be tiresome, nonsensical drivel. What a waste of credit hours.

Each to their own I suppose. Personally I find Philosophy interesting just because you get exposed to others thoughts, and from there you are forced to relect on your own. To be able to spot flaws in others arguments, and to be able to take things to their logical conclusions can be a handy skill even if it will be wasted when I'm begging for a living...


When I was younger, I reckon it made me feel "superior" in some way to "quote the famous philosopers" to people who were lucky enough not to ever bother with such nonsense. I later found that I was more interested in "quoting" chicks into the sack then anything else
I don't quote philosophers to feel superior, if I have to quote them I do so because they may have worded an argument or point better then I could do. I won't take credit for other people's work.

These lucky people might not need philosophy but maybe having a few thoughts now and then might help them. Lots of people around me don't give a damn anything in the world unless they can drink it, smoke it, eat it or f*** it. I don't have a problem with that but occasionally I do actually like to talk to people about the world in general...


Philosophy...what crap
Why stop there? Why not 'life...what crap'?

Science, politics and psychology all stemmed from philosophy and we would do well to remember that. It doesn't have to be all about insolent students riding around on their high horses. It can merely be people discussing how they see the world and what they think of things...

[redstar2000]

That may be of more interest to Communists concerning Nietzsche.

Elijah refers to this work Nietzsche and Soviet Culture: Ally and Adversary
edited by Bernice Glatzer Rosenthal.

It doesn't sound promising; here's how the publisher describes it...


This pioneering study shows for the first time the extent and diversity of the impact of Nietzschean ideas on Soviet literature and culture. It examines the Nietzschean roots of early Soviet literature, theater and architecture, Soviet political culture, the work of disaffected writers and thinkers and that of intellectuals of the non-Russian nationalities. It offers a fresh perspective on the origins, formative years, and subsequent development of Soviet literature and culture, and raises new issues for research and discussion.

Not to mention the price: $95.00!!!

That's a lot to pay for some graduate students desperate for a thesis topic.


I discovered [Nietzsche] through my dislike of organised religion and from there I thought I should read on to see if he had anything else interesting to say. I must say I'm glad I did.

I think I asked this before; what are the interesting things he had to say?

Consider the quote that Elijah posted: is it "true"? Does it "make sense"? Is it even "interesting"?

The 19th century romantics and neo-romantics wrote tons of that sort of drivel about "the eternal feminine". Utter crapola!

Why, therefore, does anyone find anything Nietzsche said "interesting" now?


Philosophy...what crap!

That's going too far...but not by much. Once in a while, they "guessed right"...but mostly they guessed wrong and usually badly wrong. See the quote that Elijah posted.

It looks to me like philosophy is "needle in a haystack" country. Both real history and real science seem to me to be far more informative...and thus interesting.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

If you consider ideas to be powerful which a communist should then doubting the power of philosophy, albeit more subversively, is idiotic.

Think of the Enlightenment from where are your wonderful ideas of rationality came from. The superstition you so fear would still linger around if not for the Enlightenment philosophers.

Think of Aristotles contribution's to science etc.

Think of wonder and how it challenged the ideas of religion which you hate. All the work of philosophers.

Redstar sometimes I wonder whether you are for real with some of your comments. For somebody who hates philosophy you spend an awful lot of time refuting it. As our good friend Nietzsche said, what you react against the msot influences you the most whether you hate it or not.

The fascination with Nietzsche is that he predicts all the problems we face in the post modern age, simple as. Marx was the in philosopher of the sixties and you are clearly the result, now its Nietzsche. We have moved on, we accept Marx more now because of it and in the future Nietzsche will be more accpeted by young minds.

I hate explaining this to somebody who considers themselves open minded.

[redstar2000]

For somebody who hates philosophy you spend an awful lot of time refuting it. As our good friend Nietzsche said, what you react against the most influences you the most whether you hate it or not.

Neat quip! But where's the substance?

I don't "hate" philosophy...as you pointed out, prior to the 18th century it was pretty much all we had in the way of trying to rationally understand the world.

But when people bring it up now, then it has to withstand the same critical examination that all other ideas are subject to.

You can't just say (or repeat) "bullshit, bullshit, blah, blah, blah!" and, when challenged, invoke the "holy name" of philosophy as a "cover" or an "excuse".

Does what this particular "great philosopher" says make sense? Is it legitimately part of our efforts to rationally understand the world?

Philosophers have, on occasion, "guessed right". Aristotle was right about the dolphin (it is a mammal). Kant was right about the origins of the solar system (it did originate as a large ball of gas). Husserl may turn out to have been right about how the mind actually works (it seems to form an on-going "picture" of the immediate future based on the immediate past...at least there are brain-scans that strongly suggest something like this is happening).

But the "needles of truth" are rare and the haystack of crap is very large.


The fascination with Nietzsche is that he predicts all the problems we face in the post modern age...

Does he indeed. That's a "big claim"...how do you justify it?

Let's get specific.


...and in the future Nietzsche will be more accepted by young minds.

I don't think there will be many young female minds that are going to buy into that "woman is closer to nature" crapola.

Some guys might like it though.


I hate explaining this to somebody who considers themselves open minded.

I'm not saying "don't discuss philosophy" -- I'm saying discuss it critically.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Individual]

Discrediting philosophy is infact practicing philosophy.

Being as bright as you are, I'm sure you already knew that, eh? :huh:


You can't just say (or repeat) "bullshit, bullshit, blah, blah, blah!" and, when challenged, invoke the "holy name" of philosophy as a "cover" or an "excuse".

Okay, then refute what perceptions you find "boring", "drivel", or lacking "substance".

I love how you get off discrediting something that you have no knowledge in. You obviously haven't bothered to read Nietzsche, therefore how do you find it manageable to refute it?


Philosophers have, on occasion, "guessed right".

No philosophers have been able to "guess right". Another prime example of why I know you haven't read Nietzsche.

What can a philosopher compare something to in order for this "something" to be considered "right"?

An interpretation on existence: I perceive truths to be true, while at the same time you perceive truths to be true. What infact makes them true? A comparison to another human's theory, another human's mind?

You can try and prove that something is "truth", yet explain to me how you came to the conclusion? Another human communicated it through a form of communication created by mankind? Did your individual mind come to the conclusion? Did thousands of individuals have similar thoughts, yet all stemming from one interpretation?

You cannot prove it. Go ahead with a petty sarcastic remark in that you can prove you are looking at a computer screen, or that you have intestines, anything of that matter. However all of this is interpreted from your individual mind, and you cannot deny this.

I think that brilliant Redstar can figure that out.


Does what this particular "great philosopher" says make sense? Is it legitimately part of our efforts to rationally understand the world?

Sure a lot of it makes sense. Do I follow it word for word, and idolize this man? No.

Nietzsche isn't the only Existential philosopher, so however we are stuck on him is beyond me.

I believe that most that read Nietzsche are intrigued by the many opposing interpretations. The man was that of controversy. His writings, due to language constraints, were put togethor with that of intelligence in that one can develop altering interpretations from one single statement. Reading Nietzsche, I have found some of his writing to contradict that of his own. However reanalyzing the words in front of you, one is able to interpret things entirely differently.

The members on the board are not ones that idolize him as with the majority of the members of Che-Lives versus Mr. Guevara.

I would say that most of us are merely intrigued. He is surely worthy of topic for debate, of which I believe is why he was a philosopher. Above all, the man was a psychologist. He interpreted the mind to great extent, and with that he developed an outstanding ability to capture the reader. His writings were directed towards human interpretation, and how in which his readers would interpret it. I believe he played subconcious mind games, of which did not necessarily have to do with philosophy but better yet a feeling of joy in toying with an entirely different individuals mind.

This is atleast how I interpret his writings, and one of the reasons I am intrigued by his particular style of Existentialism.

Redstar, let me ask you this: What is your fascination with politics? What drives you to continually acquire information concerning Marxism and that there of?

It is simple, a curiousity and on going presence in the mind for knowledge.

This is simply the reason I find myself engulfed in philosophies. Thought is a very powerful thing, and we are each entitled to our own. I would hope that you have respect for your own ability to inundate yourself with knowledge. Why can you not respect anothers?


I'm not saying "don't discuss philosophy" -- I'm saying discuss it critically.

Go for it, I seem to have no problem. If you wish to concoct something to discuss, then we have a conversation. Other than that, I know what my beliefs are.

[Raisa]

I dont hate philosophy, but I dont really read alot of the philosopher's works often.

Philosophy is all around us. I think of my life and my own philosophy all the time, and what amazes me is that most people are thinking about this crazy shit, or have thought about it too. We are all philosophers. Its not about going to the coffee house to talk crap, its about thinking for yourself. And you know you do it..... :ph34r:

[elijahcraig]

Does he indeed. That's a "big claim"...how do you justify it?

Let's get specific.

We could get into this, but I am sure we would disagree on what constitutes a “problem,” being that I am more concerned about Art, Psychology, and the workings of society in relation to these things than you are.


I don't think there will be many young female minds that are going to buy into that "woman is closer to nature" crapola.

Some guys might like it though.

Harold Bloom has written on “femininist” resentment in relation to society. I agree with him.

[redstar2000]

You obviously haven't bothered to read Nietzsche, therefore how do you find it manageable to refute it?

Bad guess...I have read a couple of his works. I found that they lacked substance, though his polemic against Wagner was quite enjoyable.

But here, on this message board, I note what parts of Nietzsche that people quote with admiration or at least interest...and attempt to refute them.

It's hasn't been terribly difficult so far...look at Elijah's quote about "women being closer to nature".

It was a common opinion in the 19th century and in the light of present knowledge is utter crapola.

I await still the production of a statement by Nietzsche that actually says something that is clearly both true and useful.

It looks like I'm going to have a long wait.


What can a philosopher compare something to in order for this "something" to be considered "right"?

Objective reality, of course. What else?


I think that brilliant Redstar can figure that out.

The "brilliant" Redstar can figure out a great deal...but your incoherent remarks about "truth" nevertheless elude his understanding.

Yes, truth is a "human concept"...but objective reality either confirms or falsifies that concept.

Of course if you wish to maintain that objective reality either does not exist or is inherently unknowable, then that terminates the discussion.


I believe that most that read Nietzsche are intrigued by the many opposing interpretations.

Meaning that he was either unable to express his ideas clearly or that he suffered from chronic confusion...occupational hazards for those who seek to be philosophers.


The members on the board are not ones that idolize him as with the majority of the members of Che-Lives versus [sic] Mr. Guevara.

For "better or worse", Che has become an "icon" for rebellious adolescents. They could have picked a lot worse.

But, in time, those who are serious read Marx and Engels...and learn useful stuff about how the real world works.

I don't think people have "idolized" Neitzche...but I do think that some have failed to read him critically.


Above all, the man was a psychologist.

I'm still waiting to see credible evidence for that claim. He may well have written "about" psychological matters...that doesn't make him a useful guide to human psychology.

On the other hand, I suppose it might be argued that he was a "good representative" of much of 19th century thought.

But that is for the historians to decide.


Redstar, let me ask you this: What is your fascination with politics? What drives you to continually acquire information concerning Marxism and that there of?

In order to change reality, one must first understand it. Marx and his methods were "good at that"...and they still are.

"Good", not "perfect". There's always more to learn and comprehend and put to the test of practice.

But up to now, at least, Marxism does it "better" than any alternative paradigms that I'm aware of.

It's quite likely, of course, that a truly superior paradigm will eventually emerge; it will probably include Marxism as a "special case"...but will be far more extensive and explain social phenomena far more deeply and usefully.

Newton had his Einstein; Marx still awaits his.


Why can you not respect another's?

I do indeed respect a "thirst for knowledge"...I just hate to see people "waste their time" in pursuit of unsubstantiated assertions.

Someone who studies "holy books" uncritically is gaining "knowledge" but is not gaining knowledge. They can quote all the "prophets" correctly...but have no clue why the prophecies all turned out to be crap.

The same often seems to be the case with students of philosophy. Not always...but often.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Harold Bloom has written on "femininist" resentment in relation to society. I agree with him.

That's nice. What did the distinguished professor at Yale and NYU say that "you agree" with?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Individual]

Bad guess...I have read a couple of his works. I found that they lacked substance, though his polemic against Wagner was quite enjoyable.

Right, and those were...?

Redstar, either you haven't read any Nietzsche, or you lack the capacity to interpret what he writes. Nearly every word in your last post proves this point, so choose one or the other.




But here, on this message board, I note what parts of Nietzsche that people quote with admiration or at least interest...and attempt to refute them.
It's hasn't been terribly difficult so far...look at Elijah's quote about "women being closer to nature".

I'm glad that you have bothered to read every post thus far concerning Nietzsche.

I am not here to debate Elijah's quote, instead debate your undeveloped arguments that Nietzsche lacked substance and was not a Psychologist.


Objective reality, of course. What else?

Objectivists really put a smile on my face. They deny the subjectivity of anything, only with the mere argument that human's have come to the conclusions. That "I saw it with my own two eyes", or that "We, as a group, came to the same conclusion". Isn't that funny, as that is what Subjectivists think, only with a logic in that perceptions may be deeper than what was to have been prior thought.

How can you prove Objective reality exists away from your own interpretation? Hopefully you can come up with a deeper answer than the common: I saw, touched, heard, and smelt it with my own senses. Or that it was not through another individual's interpretation repeated through communications created by individuals?

Everything that you perceive is through your mind, or the mind of another individual. How can you deny theory of a subjective reality?

Of course ignorance, blind faith, and lack of critical thinking will lead you to that conclusion; but that shouldn't be an issue, should it?




The "brilliant" Redstar can figure out a great deal...but your incoherent remarks about "truth" nevertheless elude his understanding.

Well I'm certainly pleased you can admit that something is actually beyond you.

And again, leading proof that you haven't read Nietzsche, as you would have an understanding of what I am trying to explain. ;)


Of course if you wish to maintain that objective reality either does not exist or is inherently unknowable, then that terminates the discussion.

I agree with that statement, which leads to me considering the irony of some of our "Existentialists".

Objectiveness must be interpreted on its own. While it doesn't necessarily need to be accepted, its presence and possibility seem to elude those that believe in individual thought.

The problem with this, is that objectivity would only exist within the individual human mind, and cannot be proven on a broader scale. So while an individual may believe in objectivism, you must really that for the entire spectrum of mankind, and human thought, Subjective reality prevails.



Meaning that he was either unable to express his ideas clearly or that he suffered from chronic confusion...occupational hazards for those who seek to be philosophers.

This is clearly not the case, and as you wonder in a later question, this is direct proof that Nietzsche was a psychologist first and foremost. I wouldn't expect you to be able to interpret what he writes as psychology, as that is the point.



But, in time, those who are serious read Marx and Engels...and learn useful stuff about how the real world works.

Yet another damper in proving you are not hiding behind ignorance.


I'm still waiting to see credible evidence for that claim. He may well have written "about" psychological matters...that doesn't make him a useful guide to human psychology.

I hope that isn't your argument.

Think of it this way: Does a musician write his lyrics about how to develop music?

No, most musicians compose music that they feel, not explaining how to make music.

Do authors always compose the topic of 'how to write books'? No.

Therefore, being a Psychologist, why would his theory need to be "A beginners Guide to Psychology"?

The reason you don't find as a Psychologist is simple, you obviously don't understand Psychology. Nietzsche wrote what he did in a manner that I find intriguing. He knows how to capture one's thoughts, and inject these thoughts with just that. Would Nietzsche be a good Psychologist if his readers knew that this was what he was practicing? An effort to subconciously grab the reader to his attention.

I find it extremely hard to believe that you have read any works of Nietzsche other than a page off the web. If you had, you would have an understanding of what I am trying to explain, instead you admit you don't understand.



But up to now, at least, Marxism does it "better" than any alternative paradigms that I'm aware of.

That is fine and dandy. One problem; Nietzsche wasn't a political philosopher. So I don't find the comparison there. :huh:


They can quote all the "prophets" correctly...but have no clue why the prophecies all turned out to be crap

Assuming that prophecies are considered "truth". Prophecies are an interpretation, and as I'd guess you've realized, individual interpretations adapt to these prophecies therefore making them "true", atleast to the individual interpretation.

Something I wrote in another thread:

Prophecies: Are they true, or has thought adapted to these prophecies therefore making them real? Are prophecies taken from history as an attempt at fortelling the future, or is the future fortold by confessing a prophecy assuming that only recognition would be made if mankind made the prophecy true? Do we adapt events into fulfilling the prophecy, or is the prophecy a "truth" of the future? Another answer that lacks an answer, as time cannot be repeated. However this leads to the existance of time, and whether or not time is progressing. Could time be in reverse? Does our existence regress? Does time go backwards in that we are going to hit the peak of human technology and existence, and begin to regress backwords repeating history, or in opposite, repeating the future. Let's assume time is regressing/going in reverse and compare this to a prophecy. The prophecy that will become true because it is made to come true. The prophecy that all living existence is on a turn table and will eventually go back in time. Who has the answer that time is not on a reverse scale of what is widely thought? How can it be proven that infact we are moving back in time? What if the future is known, but history/the past is forgeotten? These are again "maybes" in which people cannot know. These maybes constitute the ever progressing theories of man's existence, and whether or not we in fact truly exist.

I can hear it now, and you will come back pointing out how objective reality denounces any of these ideas. So be it, however it does nothing to show your capability of attaining information, and thus proving ignorance.

Here are some things from Nietzsche:


Nobody is very likely to consider a doctrine true merely because it makes people happy or virtuous--except perhaps the lovely "idealists" who become effusive about the good, the true, and the beautiful and allow all kinds of motley, clumsy, benevolent desiderata to swim around in utter confusion in their pond. Happiness and virtue are no arguments.

There is something about "truth", about the search for truth; and when a human being is too human about it--"He seeks the true only to do the good."

Books for all the world are always foul-smelling books; the smell of small people clings to them. Where the people eat and drink, even where the venerate, it usually stinks. One should not goto church if one wants to breate pure air.

Cyniism is the only form in which base souls approach honesty; and the higher man must listen closely to every coarse or subtle cynicism, and congratulate himself when a clown without shame of a scientific satyr speaks out precisely in front of him.

the lover of knowledge should listen subtly and dilligently; he should altogethor have an open ear wherever people talk without indignation. ... And no one lies as much as the indignant do.

you know that no philosopher so far has been proved right

Forgive me as an old philologist who cannot desist from the malice of putting his finger on bad modes of interpretation: but "nature's conformity to law," of which you physicists talk so proudly, as though--why, it exists only owing to your interpretation of bad "philology."

I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!

Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself; When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think", I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego", and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I know what thinking is.



All of the above were taken directly from Kauffman's interpretation of Beyond Good and Evil by Nietzsche. From parts "On the Prejudices of Philosophers", and "The Free Spirit".

You wanted quotes, there you go.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

I think AQ has managed to convey the feelings of many of us with that last post but lo and behold Redstar will ignore what he says and make it look like he has something to say. I wait in rabid anticipation for the comment that follows when he quotes me here!

[elijahcraig]

It's hasn't been terribly difficult so far...look at Elijah's quote about "women being closer to nature".

It was a common opinion in the 19th century and in the light of present knowledge is utter crapola.

I await still the production of a statement by Nietzsche that actually says something that is clearly both true and useful.

It looks like I'm going to have a long wait./QUOTE]

I never said I agreed with Nietzsche’s “fragment” (something he didn’t intend to be read most likely) on Greek Woman, though it goes along with Foucualt’s analyses to a point. Which I don’t particularly like.

In the “light of present knowledge”…you are such an arrogant jackass it’s “utterly” sickening. The common victim of the arrogance of the Enlightenment.

[QUOTE] Objective reality, of course. What else?

Kant showed how there is not necessarily an “objective reality,” but a “Universal subjective”.


Meaning that he was either unable to express his ideas clearly or that he suffered from chronic confusion...occupational hazards for those who seek to be philosophers.

Shut the fuck up. Do you ever debate a subject, or do you merely throw insults around and talk about “objective” reality in some sort of arrogant manner in which you place yourself in a position of “knowledge,” which is seemingly lacking in the rest of humanity?

If you had read Nietzsche, which I don’t think you have despite what you say, I think you would know that he despised systematic philosophy, and wrote in quite a different manner—quite like a literary man would.


I'm still waiting to see credible evidence for that claim. He may well have written "about" psychological matters...that doesn't make him a useful guide to human psychology.

On the other hand, I suppose it might be argued that he was a "good representative" of much of 19th century thought.

But that is for the historians to decide.

Heidegger and Foucault have provided us with great analyses of “historians” and their idiocy, mostly destroying “genius,” as Bloom would say.

Freud himself said that Nietzsche was nearly almost always right in terms of the psyche, or at least on the tip of the iceberg in his thought. Though your arrogant attitude towards Freud is probably going to void that statement of any factual truth.


In order to change reality, one must first understand it. Marx and his methods were "good at that"...and they still are.

No you don’t. No one “understands” reality, not Marx, not Nietzsche, not Freud, not anybody. That is why we have philosophy.

Reality is established not by philosophical understanding, but changes in representations of truth through generations.



That's nice. What did the distinguished professor at Yale and NYU say that "you agree" with?

Maybe read some of his critical writings (they’re everywhere), in which he constantly critiques feminist logic in relation to society, psychology, and art. Also read the Book of J which isn’t unkind to the female sex.


But, in time, those who are serious read Marx and Engels...and learn useful stuff about how the real world works.

Heidegger wrote an essay in reply to Marx’s “practicalism” entitled “Letter on Humanism.” I don’t disagree with him.

[elijahcraig]

I found this from Bloom for you RedStar, and you might look at his Invention of the HUman on Shakespeare which uses the psychology of man as theme as well.


EDIT: I once again forgot to add the link: http://www.bostonreview.net/BR23.2/bloom.html

[redstar2000]

In the "light of present knowledge", you are such an arrogant jackass it’s "utterly" sickening. The common victim of the arrogance of the Enlightenment.

Yeah, your silly irrationalist fantasies crumble into dust when subjected to the light of reason...and it upsets you. Here's a towel. :lol:


Shut the fuck up.

Not a chance!


Freud himself said that Nietzsche was nearly almost always right in terms of the psyche...

One fraud expresses admiration for another.

Surprised?


No one "understands" reality...

Simply because you don't?


Heidegger wrote an essay in reply to Marx’s "practicalism" entitled "Letter on Humanism." I don’t disagree with him.

The text of this essay doesn't appear to be online...though there is much commentary, most of it impenetrable, of course.

But it was not written as a "reply to Marx"...in fact one source says that Marx is hardly ever mentioned in any of Heidegger's works.

Capital and Technology: Marx and Heidegger (http://www.webcom.com/artefact/capiteen.html)

I did turn up the "down & dirty" on Heidegger though...

The Case of Martin Heidegger, Philosopher and Nazi - Part 1 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/heid-a03.shtml)

Part 2 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/heid-a04.shtml)

Part 3 (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/heid-a05.shtml)

Letter of Appreciation (http://www.wsws.org/articles/2000/apr2000/corr-a15.shtml)

Curious folks you like to hang out with these days, Elijah.

Still, better Professor Bloom than the odious Heidegger. I do enjoy Bloom's rants...in places they are hilarious. The barbarians are not only at the gates, they've overrun the citadel and now only "we brave few" stand between them and "cultural collapse". :lol:

Utterly without significance, of course, like most academic "power struggles"...but often very amusing.

Did you hear about the "De-constructionist Mafia"? They make people offers that they can't understand. :lol:

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[redstar2000]

Right, and those were...?

On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo if memory serves me...it was a long time ago.

The only thing that actually sticks in my mind, as I noted earlier, was his very amusing and delightful attack on Richard Wagner.

Perhaps Nietzsche should have stuck to being a music critic.


Redstar, either you haven't read any Nietzsche, or you lack the capacity to interpret what he writes. Nearly every word in your last post proves this point, so choose one or the other.

Either you're a mindless Nietzsche groupie or you lack all appreciation for rational thought, so choose, one or the other.


Objectivists really put a smile on my face.

Always happy to please.


How can you prove Objective reality exists away from your own interpretation?

When I interact with the real world, it responds "as if" my interpretation is correct. If that doesn't happen, then I have to assume that I'm wrong; reality is always right.


So while an individual may believe in objectivism, you must realize that for the entire spectrum of mankind, and human thought, Subjective reality prevails.

No, it does not prevail. Put your subjective understanding of reality to the test and see how the real world responds!


...this is direct proof that Nietzsche was a psychologist first and foremost.

What is? That he couldn't express his ideas clearly or that he was simply confused?


I wouldn't expect you to be able to interpret what he writes as psychology, as that is the point.

The point is that he's writing about psychology while disguising the fact that he's writing about psychology???

Ok.


Think of it this way: Does a musician write his lyrics about how to develop music?

Is that your argument? That Nietzsche was "like an artist"?

Well, perhaps you're right about that...and we should be discussing him in the Music or Literature forums.

His ideas would still be pretty weak...but "different standards" apply to art.


Therefore, being a Psychologist, why would his theory need to be "A beginners Guide to Psychology"?

Well, it would be honest. If I'm not mistaken, modern psychology (such as it is) began around 1900 or so.


...you obviously don't understand Psychology.

Even now there's not all that much there to understand...it's really still a "borderline" science.


I can hear it now, and you will come back pointing out how objective reality denounces any of these ideas. So be it, however it does nothing to show your capability of attaining information, and thus proving ignorance.

If objective reality denounces your ideas, my "ignorance" (real or alleged) is irrelevant.

Time does not regress no matter how "cool" you think that would be or what tower of babble you might build on such a conjecture.

Ok, now let's get to the old fraud himself...


Nobody is very likely to consider a doctrine true merely because it makes people happy or virtuous...

Quite so...especially since there's no evidence that such a doctrine has ever existed.


There is something about "truth", about the search for truth...

But he never says what.


...and when a human being is too human about it--"He seeks the true only to do the good."

Incoherent. (Bad translation?)

I infer that "seeking the true only to do the good" does not meet with Nietzsche's approval.

Who knows why.


Books for all the world are always foul-smelling books; the smell of small people clings to them.

Very "literary"...what is it supposed to mean?

Who are the "small people" who have a different "smell", presumably "foul"?

The working classes in the 19th century actually did "smell bad"...bathing was a luxury, soaps were expensive, and work was hard and sweaty.

And undernourishment in childhood was commonplace...hence adult stature was limited.

"Small people"?


Where the people eat and drink, even where they venerate, it usually stinks.

Yes, in those days it did.


One should not go to church if one wants to breathe pure air.

One of those quotes that would appeal very much to adolescent rebels...as it appeals to me.

But the reason is different. The odor of the people offends Nietzsche; the odor of sanctity offends us.


Cynicism is the only form in which base souls approach honesty; and the higher man must listen closely to every coarse or subtle cynicism...

Almost sounds like Mao: "learn from the people". :lol:

Seriously, there are no such things as souls, base or noble.

Nor is there any such thing as a "higher man".

So of what use is this "wisdom"?


The lover of knowledge should listen subtly and diligently; he should altogether have an open ear wherever people talk without indignation. ... And no one lies as much as the indignant do.

Why should the "indignant" be any more prone to lying than anyone else?


You know that no philosopher so far has been proved right.

About everything. A few have been proven right about some things.

Marx was right about quite a few things...but still made some gross errors.


I shall repeat a hundred times; we really ought to free ourselves from the seduction of words!

Rather unlikely as long as he keeps repeating words.


Let the people suppose that knowledge means knowing things entirely; the philosopher must say to himself; When I analyze the process that is expressed in the sentence, "I think", I find a whole series of daring assertions that would be difficult, perhaps impossible, to prove; for example, that it is I who think, that there must necessarily be something that thinks, that thinking is an activity and operation on the part of being who is thought of as a cause, that there is an "ego", and finally, that it is already determined what is to be designated by thinking--that I know what thinking is.

Yes, the problem of what we really mean when we say that we think we know something is quite thorny and perhaps intractable...but aside from Nietzsche making the reader aware that he is aware of the problem, what does he add of substance?

If I observe that it's raining and reach for my umbrella, the intricacies of epistemology need not concern me.

It's even quite possible that they could be purely semantic (talk about "seduction by words"! :lol:). That is, they could be "questions" that conform to the conventions of both grammar and philosophy...and yet have no real world referents at all.


I think AQ has managed to convey the feelings of many of us with that last post, but, lo and behold, Redstar will ignore what he says and make it look like he has something to say. I wait in rabid anticipation for the comment that follows when he quotes me here!

What do "feelings" have to do with rational discussion?

As you see, I did not ignore what AQ said but responded to it at considerable length.

Did I "make it look like I had something to say" or did I actually say something?

I trust I did not not disappoint your "rabid anticipation"...whatever that is.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Individual]

Before beginning, I want to make clear that you show no understanding of subjective thought. And the argument is not that you disagree with it, yet you merely lack understanding, which in turn makes me question your overall knowledge on objective thought.


On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo if memory serves me...it was a long time ago.

And just how long ago was this? Couldn't have been less than 10-15 years, as I'd think you'd still maintain some logic on the issue.


Either you're a mindless Nietzsche groupie or you lack all appreciation for rational thought, so choose, one or the other.

Considering I do lack appreciation for rational thought, when rational thought is only rational to each individual; it'd be fair to say you've got me.

How can you define something as rational thought, as this "rational" thought stems from what the mind conceives as "rational". Compare this to what I believe to be "rational", and it seems it isn't so rational anymore.


When I interact with the real world, it responds "as if" my interpretation is correct. If that doesn't happen, then I have to assume that I'm wrong; reality is always right

Assuming this "real" world is that where your life resides, internet message boards, you don't honestly accept something for "truth" due to other ignorant minds acknowledging your godly figure, do you?

Even if this "real" world is outside of the internet, you don't accept something for "truth" merely because you are acknowledged for it, do you?

If this is the case, start conversing with people that aren't like minded, then explain to me the "truth" of the matter.

Using your logic, when this happens, you would therefore accept these "truths" as not so true, correct?

Reality is always right? Reality is that of the individual mind. If the individual mind is always right, what makes the next individual with different thoughts incorrect? The "reality" is that which you make your own. The "reality" is interpreted, composed, and kept by each individual. You do not think as someone else, your mind is not anothers, therefore the "reality" is that of each individual mind.

I don't expect you to understand this, and have a feeling it has already been misinterpreted.

This isn't Nihilism, so don't become confused.


No, it does not prevail. Put your subjective understanding of reality to the test and see how the real world responds!

The "real world" is composed of each and every individual mind. These individual minds all think for themselves, interpret for themselves, and compose for themselves. Self acknowledgment is the driving force, and what makes something a "truth" because an individual mind agrees?

You are allowed to believe in objectivity, and this "rational thought". However what you should also believe, as being an objectivist, is the "truth" of individual interpretation.

I suggest that you take an in depth look at objectivity. Maybe try conversing with a logical objectivist, and you will soon find that being an objectivist, you therefore accept subjectivity realizing that the individual mind exists.

What your debate skills lack is that of playing devils advocate. You do not "rationally" look at the opposing view in depth, and therefore cease to understand your own, and the opposing argument. You fail to see this, and of course will come back further proving that you don't even understand objectivism.

Objectivism exists due to Subjective thought. Being objectivist, you would therefore understand that objectivity accepts subjectivity due to this "rational thinking". I'd recommend reading more about objective beliefs if you wish to disagree. Knowing the opposite is the driving force.

How can objectivity exists without any thoughts being composed from the human mind? Each and every thought that has existed has been interpreted through an individual mind. Whether or not you except these thoughts as "truths", they stem from that of the individual, thus existing subjective thought.

Some things go hand in hand.


The point is that he's writing about psychology while disguising the fact that he's writing about psychology???

Ok.

For starters, I wouldn't expect you to understand this concept, as you have admitted the lack of knowledge in Psychology.

Nietzsche wrote in the style that he did in order to capture the reader. A subconcious grasp that captivates the reader into interpreting life in his individual view. Nietzsche was quite the character, and I interpret him to be caught in a fancy of his own self. As are most intellectuals. This fancy has led to a "mind game", if you wish to call it, in which presented "self satisfaction". This is the psychological sense.

The man was a great psychologist, and to deny this would surely be ignorant. As what is the discussion, Nietzsche. This was likely the goal, this was likely the reason.

All of this was his own way of practicing Psychology, not necessarily teaching it. Do not misinterpret my words as denouncing Nietzsche as a philosopher, as this is not the case.

Psychology is the theory, interpretation, and interaction of the human mind in and of itself. Knowing this, analyze his writings within this depth, and discover that in which Psychology prevailed.


Is that your argument? That Nietzsche was "like an artist"?

Well, perhaps you're right about that...and we should be discussing him in the Music or Literature forums.

Again, another misinterpretation from yourself.

My analogy to a musician was in response to your previous misunderstanding:

I'm still waiting to see credible evidence for that claim. He may well have written "about" psychological matters...that doesn't make him a useful guide to human psychology.

Does a musician write lyrics explaining how to make music? No.

Does an author always write literature explaining how to write? No.

Does a Psychologist practice Psychology by explaining Psychology? No.

Nietzsche's writings were not "A Dummies guide to Psychology". Nietzsche's writings were that of practicing Psychology, why must he explain Psychology in order to practice it?


Even now there's not all that much there to understand...it's really still a "borderline" science.

Was this a joke? Or did you really mean that?

I'll let you practice analyzing by studying that statement. I can't help but marvel at your logic in philosophy. It's good to see you have an in depth understanding on philosophy in general, let alone Existentialism.


Time does not regress no matter how "cool" you think that would be or what tower of babble you might build on such a conjecture.

The key to debate is the ability to know the opposing theory.

I have again played devils advocate, and occasionally wonder if I should change my member name to such so that people will regularly remember.

While I don't "rationally" follow the belief that time regresses, I'd love for you to prove that it doesn't. Think real hard, and then think of the opposing view; no argument eh?


Quite so...especially since there's no evidence that such a doctrine has ever existed.

You didn't honestly think that he was referring to any particular doctrine did you?

He was referring to that of any doctrine containing proclaimed "truth". An objective doctrine, one in which was created, composed, interpreted, and communicated by an individual mind, or minds. Something that is considered "truth" by comparing one's theory to that of another "theory" all composed within a human mind.

You won't deny that all existing thought has been created from the human mind will you? You won't deny that all forms of communication come from that in which was created by the human mind will you? You won't deny that any form of interpretation is done from within the human mind will you?

Assuming you are logical enough to know the answer, you will accept that subjectivity has it's logic, whether you agree with it or not.



Who are the "small people" who have a different "smell", presumably "foul"?

The working classes in the 19th century actually did "smell bad"...bathing was a luxury, soaps were expensive, and work was hard and sweaty.

I love it Redstar! :huh:

To be honest, I really thought you were above this train of thought. That you could really pull your mind to a higher standard and interpret logic when it presents itself.

You know Nietzsche was actually a comic book writer. His analogies really hold no deeper meaning, and in fact he truly meant "smelly people".

You are able to interpret analogies, aren't you?



Seriously, there are no such things as souls, base or noble.

Nor is there any such thing as a "higher man".

So of what use is this "wisdom"?

What is the use of this "wisdom"?

Now your getting on to subjective thought. Now only if you realized the irony in that statement would you understand. ;)


Why should the "indignant" be any more prone to lying than anyone else?

Self satisfaction? The act of pursuing "truths" only to help ease one's thoughts. I suggest reading the first two sections of Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil. Sections "On the Prejudices of Philosophers" and "The Free Spirit". While you may not agree, it may give you a more in depth view on "truth" and the way in which you as an individual perceive it.

It is easily found online.


About everything. A few have been proven right about some things.

Compared to what? Another individual proclaimed "truth"? Think deeper, much deeper. Think above where you are thinking, and reach to the highest point. There you will find the final "truth", in which there are no "truths". You only believe in "truths" by what another individual mind/s have interpreted as truths. What have these individuals compared these to in order to proclaim them as truths? These thoughts are compared to other individuals which in turn nothing is true.


Yes, the problem of what we really mean when we say that we think we know something is quite thorny and perhaps intractable...but aside from Nietzsche making the reader aware that he is aware of the problem, what does he add of substance?

The substance is left to the mind to perceive. The seduction of words indicates the different perceptions stemming from something created by man's creation, communication. The seduction of words is that of being seducted by words. Plain and simple.

I have become a broken record, and am actually astonished at myself for trying to explain something that you seem to have no care to grasp.

I'd ask that you do not come back with silly inuendos, and illogical arguments that you know what the defense is. I'm not trying to disprove what you believe, instead open your eyes to the ability of the human mind, and each individual perception.

You show that you have a lack of understanding for subjective thought, which of course surprises me as being such an objectivist.

Remember the comparison of truth, and how all thoughts are created by the individual when responding. I will not proceed to reiterate the known if you proceed to lack understanding.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Redstar I cant believe I didnt realise this but it might show you just how you can misquote somebody out of context:


" 'You are going to women? Do not forget the whip!' "

Well you very nicely left out the preceeding line:


"Then I said: 'Woman, give me your little truth.' And thus spoke the little old woman:

But hey your extensive reading of Genealogy of Morals and dare I say it 'Ecce Homo' which is nothing more than Nietzsche commenting on his work in his mad manner.

Rest of the passage:


"[. . .] Then the little old woman answered me: 'Many fine things has Zarathustra said, especially for those who are young enough for them. It is strange: Zarathustra knows women little, and yet he is right about them. Is this because nothing is impossible with woman? And now, as a token of gratitude, accept a little truth. After all, I am old enough for it. Wrap it up and hold your hand over its mouth: else it will cry overloudly, this little truth.'

[redstar2000]

Considering I do lack appreciation for rational thought, when rational thought is only rational to each individual; it'd be fair to say you've got me.

Candor is always welcome...but what else is there left to say?


Reality is that of the individual mind.

Nope. It's "out there", existing independently of individual minds. And it's knowable.


What your debate skills lack is that of playing devil's advocate.

Possibly because I'm not in favor of the "devil".

Also possibly because I'm not playing.


Nietzsche wrote in the style that he did in order to capture the reader.

Fortunately, I had a "lucky escape".

So do most people.


Nietzsche was quite the character, and I interpret him to be caught in a fancy of his own self.

Yeah...but you admire him for this mental narcissism; I find it tedious and uninformative.


While I don't "rationally" follow the belief that time regresses, I'd love for you to prove that it doesn't.

While most processes at the subatomic level can take place in either "direction", there are some that are unidirectional.

They only go "forward" in time...never "backwards".


Think above where you are thinking, and reach to the highest point. There you will find the final "truth", in which there are no "truths".

Hopeless babble.

Here's a truth that even you should be able to grasp: deprive yourself of oxygen for 4 or 5 minutes and your brain will die!

This truth is entirely without regard to your "subjective belief" that you don't need to breathe in order to live.

The number of objectively true statements is very large and growing very rapidly.

It doesn't matter what you think is "subjectively true"...what matters is what is real.


I will not proceed to reiterate the known if you proceed to lack understanding.

Promise? :D


And thus spoke the little old woman, "You are going to women? Do not forget the whip."

I see. Nietzsche places his opinion in a fictional woman's mouth and that makes it "ok"???

To be honest, I was unaware of the context of the infamous quotation. I don't see that it makes any difference at all.

But thanks for the footnote.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Well you see take the story of Zarathusra, the old women is just somebody he meets along the way who expresses that opinion, it has no effect on the story or has anything to do with Nietzsche's philosophy, Thus Spoke Zarathusra is like a parable in which the lonely wanderer realises the world is not ready for his thoughts etc. He dosent place it in her mouth and I kind of expected you to say that, but I am sorry Redstar on this one you are wrong. But you havent read the book so you wouldnt know but then again it wouldnt appeal to you so I would hardly expect you to but you will have to concede even just on this quote that you were wrong and please dont use it in future.

[elijahcraig]

Nope. It's "out there", existing independently of individual minds. And it's knowable./QUOTE]

This is most likely true, and I highly doubt Nietzsche would dispute that reality exists as such. This also means that as human cognition is concerned, reality exists as it does through our subjective interpretation. For instance, the “out there” does not exist in this way for the toad or the lizard. The “out there” is a product of the human mind applying “concepts” and “interpretations” to the phenomena of the “objective” (or Kant’s Universal Subjective) reality. Our “subjective” reasoning is therefore what “forms” the world in our “minds,” not “direct links to the objective reality.”

I disagree with AlwaysQuestion that it is subjective in an “individual” mind, though to an extent this is true.

[QUOTE] Yeah...but you admire him for this mental narcissism; I find it tedious and uninformative.

By all accounts Nietzsche was anything but a narcissist in real life. In his writings he uses this device in many different ways, among them satire and wit used against things he disagrees with.

I admire his ability to produce thoughts which are not expressed by others, meaning he developed an individuated Self.


QUOTE
While I don't "rationally" follow the belief that time regresses, I'd love for you to prove that it doesn't.


While most processes at the subatomic level can take place in either "direction", there are some that are unidirectional.

They only go "forward" in time...never "backwards".

Time’s regression? Are we speaking of eternal recurrence, I can’t remember what AQ’s entire quote was. If it is eternal recurrence we are speaking of, I suggest you go read Heidegger’s remarks on “demystifying” this concept, meaning not taking it literally, just as all Nietzschean concepts are usually all or partly metaphorical or other. Eternal recurrence is the state of mind the Ubermensch as Artist or great man would have, for the most part.


Here's a truth that even you should be able to grasp: deprive yourself of oxygen for 4 or 5 minutes and your brain will die!

This truth is entirely without regard to your "subjective belief" that you don't need to breathe in order to live.

4 or 5 minutes? There are people who can hold their breath far longer than that! And that is not a fact, it can be easily variable based on the circumstances, training, etc. which a person (and his generation) undergo.


I see. Nietzsche places his opinion in a fictional woman's mouth and that makes it "ok"???

To be honest, I was unaware of the context of the infamous quotation. I don't see that it makes any difference at all.

But thanks for the footnote.

You just can’t stop being a jackass can you?

Uninformed arrogance...hmm.

[Individual]

Redstar.

I will acknowledge your points, but I don't want the real issue to be lost.

I'd appreciate, as I have been doing, if you would answer my post in full. Leaving out the biggest points in my post seems to indicate that you do not know how to respond.

If you could, would you please respond to my post in full, and I will then address your previous post.

[redstar2000]

Well, you see, take the story of Zarathustra; the old women is just somebody he meets along the way who expresses that opinion, it has no effect on the story or has anything to do with Nietzsche's philosophy, Thus Spake Zarathustra is like a parable...

Or perhaps it represents Nietzsche's desire to give his odious sister a taste of the lash.

If you want to treat Nietzsche as a novelist...that's a different discussion. It's also one that would "shut me up" fairly quickly -- as I am not skilled in dissecting literary works.


...but you will have to concede even just on this quote that you were wrong and please don't use it in [the] future.

Agreed.


Our "subjective" reasoning is therefore what "forms" the world in our "minds," not "direct links to the objective reality."

I have no problem with putting the matter in this way; there's no such thing as vision without eyes or ideas without minds.

But note carefully that this is not what AQ was saying; his view is that subjective reality is the only one there is.

As to Nietzsche's opinion on the matter, I defer to your superior knowledge.


I admire his ability to produce thoughts which are not expressed by others, meaning he developed an individuated Self.

There's an old quip from somebody that may serve as a reply: "What's true there is not original and what's original there is not true."


You just can’t stop being a jackass, can you?

No more than you could write a post that didn't contain at least one gratuitous insult. It would not surprise me to learn that you have "hotkeys" programmed to send them forth as "needed"...

F1 = idiot, F2 = moron, F3 = arrogant ****, F4 = jackass, etc.

If I'm mistaken about that, you should try it. It would allow you to think even less about what you write than you do now...approaching your goal of 100% invective and 0% rational content.

No wonder you admire Nietzsche.


Leaving out the biggest points in my post seems to indicate that you do not know how to respond.

Well, there is a lot that you say that I do not know how to respond to...although I think I did respond to the salient points as much as I could grasp them.

The "signal-to-noise" ratio in your posts is very poor...as was the case with Nietzsche himself.

Is there any legitimate reason not to speak clearly?

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Wow that was bullshit, you ignore everything and I guess we must all keep in mind how un well read you are in Nietzsche.

[elijahcraig]

I have no problem with putting the matter in this way; there's no such thing as vision without eyes or ideas without minds.

But note carefully that this is not what AQ was saying; his view is that subjective reality is the only one there is.

As to Nietzsche's opinion on the matter, I defer to your superior knowledge.

OK.

Although I don’t see the difference in AQ’s version and ours. If human cognition and experience is the only way through which we know the world (through mind and senses, “eyes or…minds”), then it is possible that we are entirely misapprehending the world, therefore making it completely subjective. I find this highly unlikely, but it is a fact which is hard to get past. I’m not sure that this voids any Marxist version or socialist version of reality, other than admitting that the common ground is that of human subjectivity grounded in mind and senses.


F1 = idiot, F2 = moron, F3 = arrogant ****, F4 = jackass, etc.

You’ve cracked the code, I’m ruined.

[Individual]

Thought I'd dig this nice gem up, seeing as how it was never finished to end with.

I'm still very curious as to just how long ago it was that you read Nietzsche's Ecce Homo...?

And speaking of which; which is also the reason for this post; I found a very nice section right out of that book in which you read... ;)

This should sum up the "truth" of your understanding of Nietzsche. And what do you know, written by the bugger himself:

5. From Ecce Homo

"In the end, nobody hears more out of things, including books, then he knows already. For that to which one lacks from experience, one has no ears. Let us then imagine an extreme case: that a book speaks of all sorts of experiences which lie utterly beyond any possibility of frequent, or even rare, experiences--that it represents the first language for a new sequence of experiences. In that case, simply nothing is heard; and people have the acoustic illusion that where nothing is heard there is nothing.

The has been my usual experience and, if you will, that originality of my experience. Whoever thought that he had understood something of me had merely construed something out of me, after his own image. Not infrequently, it was an antithesis of me--for example, an "idealist"--and those who had understood nothing of me would deny that I should even be considered."

Gee, coincedence? Must be in Redstar's objective reality...

[redstar2000]

In the end, nobody hears more out of things, including books, then he knows already. For that to which one lacks from experience, one has no ears. Let us then imagine an extreme case: that a book speaks of all sorts of experiences which lie utterly beyond any possibility of frequent, or even rare, experiences--that it represents the first language for a new sequence of experiences. In that case, simply nothing is heard; and people have the acoustic illusion that where nothing is heard there is nothing.

Rather muddled, in my view.

I will certainly grant that "things in books" concerning which you also have some relevant personal experience resonate or at least tend to.

On the other hand, I've have had the (rare) experience of reading something with growing surprise and excitement: "yes, this is really how it must be! This makes sense!" And this reaction was to something new to me...something of which I had little or no previous experience or knowledge.

So I think it is possible to "hear" new voices and new ideas.

Of course, there must be some minimal commonality. A book written in a modern European language wouldn't say much to me...I'd only recognize a few cognates. If it were written in an Asian language or some other language that didn't use the Latin alphabet, I would indeed "hear nothing".

Would it be "fair" for me to conclude that because I "hear nothing" that there is therefore "nothing to hear"? If I were somehow totally removed from any social context, the answer would be "yes!" -- I could use it to light a fire without any loss at all.

But, of course, I do live in a social context. I could, with a minimum of effort, drop off the manuscript at the foreign language department of a near-by university and let them decide if it was worth bothering to translate.

So there's a "little truth" to what Nietzsche said there...but not a whole lot.


The has been my usual experience and, if you will, that originality of my experience. Whoever thought that he had understood something of me had merely construed something out of me, after his own image. Not infrequently, it was an antithesis of me--for example, an "idealist"--and those who had understood nothing of me would deny that I should even be considered.

If someone complains of being "persistently misunderstood", is that really the "fault" of the readers? All of them?

Just so that I am not misunderstood, I do not claim to be a "well-read authority" on Nietzsche or any other philosopher (not even Marx!).

My criticisms are based purely on what those of you who admire Nietzsche post...both quotations from him and your commentaries.

And I confess that I find it intellectually enjoyable when you folks bring this stuff up...it gives me something to "chew on".

Certainly far superior to the odious mush that the godsuckers constantly inundate us with.

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas