Thus spoke Zarathustra -Nietzsche

sxt

I had this book on my shelf for a year or two, and only started reading it now. I was expecting it to be a vey difficult read. I'm only about 40 pages in but am astounded at how well written it is .

What do you think about his philosophy?

builttospill

You should read The Antichrist. It's a rant and is regarded as so and fobbed off by many as the result of his burgeoning madness but IMO its criticisms of religion are extremely relevant today. For all its hate it is still a masterpiece considering it was written pre-20th century when religion still had a stranglehold on society.

sponsoredwalk

A long time ago I read a bit of his diatrible against Socrates and was kind
of angered because I thought Sokrates, well Plato's version of Socrates :rolleyes:,
was unparalleled and couln't believe someone would actually justify the
charge that Socrates was indeed corrupting the youth :eek: I was only
thinking about it a few days ago & thought I'd re-read it now that I
know more and see what's actually going on. Neitzsche is definitely worth reading.

The Antichrist is brilliant from what I remember, I enjoyed it but hardly
remember anything of substance. I feel ashamed to say I've read more
about Thus Spoke Zarathustra than having actually read the text (I started it
but gave up due to studying) but I would argue that on what I know it seems to
be a full frontal criticism of Plato's argument about life existing on the walls
and we being mere observers, it's Neitzsche saying that you must exist
outside Plato's cave rather than in it and merely observing.
Another way to say it is to realise yourself, become your own Ubermansch
now and help mankind transition to what it is destined to become.
A line I vaguley remembered and just checked up on is this;

"I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome.
What have you done to overcome him?"

which has helped me form the opinion I have on this, but I could have
gotten it wrong relying on second hand accounts n'all

Nemi

I'm about three-quarters through "Beyond Good and Evil" at the present. I agree he's worth reading, but I'm glad I started by reading other philosophers (or, more correctly, books about other philosophers) as I think context is necessary. To an extent, he's pointing out how all attempts at moral philosophy come to a dead end.

The feeling I get of Nietzsche is that he's voicing a lot of the niggling points that others before him tried to waffle around. I even found myself wondering at the extent to which the thoughts that he was voicing have been half forgotten, so that the likes of Sam Harris can get away with continuing such dreadful waffle.

"Beyond Good and Evil" is quite readable, but he is given to rants about this guy and that. I notice he had to publish it privately, and I'm not surprised.

Nemi

Just finished "Beyond Good and Evil". I'd say its the most interesting thing I've read this year. One thing it leaves me with is some kind of understanding of why some folk, on leaving Christianity, take themselves into Paganism. He gives Christianity no end of slagging, and it does leave you with a curiosity about what people would have believed before it.

There's a quotable quote about every five pages, but two stick in my mind.

That which his ancestors most liked to do and most constantly did cannot be erased from a man's soul

and

He goes backwards as everyone goes backwards who wants to take a big jump

strobe

Nemi wrote: »

so that the likes of Sam Harris can get away with continuing such dreadful waffle.

Every single thread Nemi huh? Did he kinda run over your dog? Replace the word "kinda" with repeatedly and "dog" with son?

Nemi

strobe wrote: »

Did he kinda run over your dog?

No, its simply because his work is a little bit crap.

Seriously. Try Nietzsche. Or Aristotle. Or anyone who actually has something to say for themselves. Then pick up Sam again, and wonder at how people hand over real money to read his holy writ.

strobe

Nemi wrote: »

No, its simply because his work is a little bit crap.

Seriously. Try Nietzsche. Or Aristotle. Or anyone who actually has something to say for themselves. Then pick up Sam again, and wonder at how people hand over real money to read his holy writ.

Nietzsche, read him. Aristotle, smart man. Anyone else, hit and miss.

I disagree with Harris' musings frequently. But why so much focus by you, on him? I find it odd and fascinating. He might not be the best but he is very far removed from the worst. Why the focus?

Nemi

strobe wrote: »

Why the focus?

I'm not particularly conscious of a 'focus'. From my side, its more noticeable that a slighting reference to Sam seems to provoke a response. So I'd nearly turn the question around, and wonder why anyone would see a need to rush to defend him.

And, for the sake of argument, not rush to defend Cheryl Cole, who I think I compared Sam to in another thread.

So why do I throw in a mention of Sam? For effect, because some seem to hold him in regard. I mean, why have we ended up discussing him at all in a thread about Nietzsche?

sponsoredwalk

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not particularly conscious of a 'focus'. From my side, its more noticeable that a slighting reference to Sam seems to provoke a response. So I'd nearly turn the question around, and wonder why anyone would see a need to rush to defend him.

And, for the sake of argument, not rush to defend Cheryl Cole, who I think I compared Sam to in another thread.

So why do I throw in a mention of Sam? For effect, because some seem to hold him in regard. I mean, why have we ended up discussing him at all in a thread about Nietzsche?

If I was a fan of Cheryl Cole's racist rants I'd step in and defend her,
so I think it's safe to assume that people here like Sam's writings. I've
read him and he's fine, there's absolutely nothing in his work that would
make me think he's atrocious or anything so I'd be interested to read why
he ticks you off so much. Would it be one of those irrational hatreds that
you've built up, I've done that with too many things to hide the fact
so there's no shame here If we're going to use that New Atheist
terminology, i.e. rating him out of the famous four I'd rank him third,
after Dawkins and Hitchens and above Dennett who I'd be more partial to
a rant about

Nemi

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

If I was a fan of Cheryl Cole's racist rants I'd step in and defend her, so I think it's safe to assume that people here like Sam's writings.

Such is my hypothesis.

On the question of the former Mrs Cole's difficulties with toilet attendents, my thoughts are 'Leave it, Cheryl, she's not worth it.'

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

I'd be interested to read why he ticks you off so much.

Unfortunately, I'd be more interested in discussing Cheryl Cole.* There was already a lengthy Sam-related exchange on another thread, which is really where I noticed this apparently strong attachment to the man.

* This does not constitute an offer to discuss Cheryl Cole.

strobe

Nemi wrote: »

I'm not particularly conscious of a 'focus'. From my side, its more noticeable that a slighting reference to Sam seems to provoke a response. So I'd nearly turn the question around, and wonder why anyone would see a need to rush to defend him.

And, for the sake of argument, not rush to defend Cheryl Cole, who I think I compared Sam to in another thread.

So why do I throw in a mention of Sam? For effect, because some seem to hold him in regard. I mean, why have we ended up discussing him at all in a thread about Nietzsche?

You tell me Nemi. You introduced his name. I struggle to see why.

Nemi

strobe wrote: »

You tell me Nemi. You introduced his name. I struggle to see why.

The relevance of the passing reference is clear enough. What I'm saying, reasonably clearly, is that Nietzsche's work contains arguments that advance discussion beyond where some contemporary writers are stuck - Sam being a good enough example of that.

What I struggle to see is why this passing reference is then enough to derail the discussion.

Do you see how this might look from where I am? Here's someone opening a discussion on Nietzsche who, to give him his due, made a contribution to that whole debate about Life, The Universe and Everything. There's plenty of directions in which that discussion could go in.

Instead of which, we're talking about Sam. Explain please?

sponsoredwalk

Nemi you started the discussion on Sam Harris and wont stop throwing in
derrogatory comments without giving any specific details even after being
asked so that's your explanation of why we're still discussing him in a thread
on Nietzsche.

Harris didn't write a piece of literature he wrote a book coming from a
scientists perspective, which Nietzsche didn't, so I don't think it's at all
fair to compare authors. Furthermore your comment in the other thread
about Harris trying to find an objective basis for morality is just a classic
example of this confirmation bias of yours working it's magic. Harris didn't
write anything like that he's merely broaching the subject because, as is
painfully obvious, the very question of a scientific basis for morality is
just too taboo as you've illustrated through your preconceptions.
Anytime anyone tries to use the idea that has advanced humanity more
than any other on the mind we tick a lot of people off & he's simply
saying it's time to cut that out, that mindframe has no rational basis to
it's claims and if you seriously think going down this path will not
offer up something good you've got to be deluded.
The thing about Sam Harris is that he takes a simple idea and gets you
thinking about it, that is one of the novelties of science I might add and
in this situation it's a classic example of a work in progress - brainstorming
with no clear answer in sight.

strobe

Nemi wrote: »

The relevance of the passing reference is clear enough. What I'm saying, reasonably clearly, is that Nietzsche's work contains arguments that advance discussion beyond where some contemporary writers are stuck - Sam being a good enough example of that.

What I struggle to see is why this passing reference is then enough to derail the discussion.

Do you see how this might look from where I am? Here's someone opening a discussion on Nietzsche who, to give him his due, made a contribution to that whole debate about Life, The Universe and Everything. There's plenty of directions in which that discussion could go in.

Instead of which, we're talking about Sam. Explain please?

Explanation due: If it had been a once off I obviously would not have even noticed. It wasn't a once off. You seem to have a specific dislike for Sam Harris and/or his arguments. You mention him/them with an unusual frequency. I was just wondering why. Why him/them specifically?

I constantly disagree with some of his points. But not enough to single him out. The points he made were made before and usually made worse.

Why Sam Harris?

I presume there is a reason for you? I'm not trying to pick an argument. I'm just curious. Maybe you are right to single him out. Right in your motives or your reasons. I just wanted to know what they were, and wanted to slip in a Simpsons reference.

Nemi

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

Nemi you started the discussion on Sam Harris

Hmm. I referred to him in passing to illustrate a point. Yet, like the other thread I linked, we seem to end up with people defending the man rather than addressing the point.

sponsoredwalk wrote: »

the very question of a scientific basis for morality is just too taboo

Its not that its taboo. You can talk about it as much as you like. The only issue is that, as is being discussed in a thread on the Christianity forum at present, its senseless to talk about an objective morality in the absence of a god.

Without an objective morality to seek after, science has nothing to discover.

That's the point. I'd expect Sam knows this, but he has to earn a crust. He probably knows enough about religion to know you can make a living out of telling people what they want to hear. And if you leave them feeling happy enough, they'll even paper over the cracks in your argument when you're not there.

Nemi

strobe wrote: »

You mention him/them with an unusual frequency.

What frequency is 'unusual'?

strobe wrote: »

Why Sam Harris?

Because the fact you and others are investing time in responding to a passing reference means I'm correct in guessing that its a name people will recognise.

So the point will be made. That, IMNSHO, Nietzsche, more than 100 years ago, was making arguments that modern commentators, including Sam, are back to talking around.

Dawkins, incidently, doesn't talk around it in quite the same way. As I'm sure I've said recently, Dawkins actually does see the problem in there being no objective basis for morality.

sonicthebadger*

Nemi wrote: »

Without an objective morality to seek after, science has nothing to discover.

So it is not possible to say if an action will make things better or worse?

Pookah

strobe wrote: »

Nietzsche, read him. Aristotle, smart man. Anyone else, hit and miss.

That's it?

I'm a big fan of Robert Anton Wilson's non-fiction, myself.

A rejector of Aristotelian logic, and perhaps the most agnostic of agnostics.

Nietzsche is on the to-do list.

Rabble Rabble

Thus spake the incoherent ramblings of a mad man.

Nemi

sonicthebadger* wrote: »

So it is not possible to say if an action will make things better or worse?

Such a statement would not be objective, if we mean morally better or worse.

As I think I said in the earlier thread, science might tell me what the best poison is. But that's not a moral question. A moral question is whether I can poison someone and still be a good person.

I can't recall if you posted on the earlier thread, but just to repeat, we need to be careful about equivocation.

Taking it home to Nietzche, in "Beyond Good and Evil" he argues that our expectation that some stuff is morally wrong and other stuff morally right, and that judgment is called for, is part of a mindset that comes to us from religion. All the stuff about God and Jesus and redemption and so forth has etched itself into how we think. But, he contends, once you remove God from the equation, the rest of it actually ceases to make any sense.

For what its worth, I think he has a point.

sxt

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Thus spake the incoherent ramblings of a mad man.

He was of "coherent mind" when writing this book

ISAW

Nemi wrote: »

its senseless to talk about an objective morality in the absence of a god.

Realy?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law


http://law.jrank.org/pages/8759/Natural-Law-Secular-Natural-Law.html

In Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 (1888), Justice STEPHEN J. FIELD wrote that he had "always supposed that the gift of life was accompanied by the right to seek and produce food, by which life can be preserved and enjoyed, in all ways not encroaching upon the equal rights of others." In another case the Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural rights of man. To secure these rights … governments are instituted among men" (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 [1875]).

Read more: Natural Law - Secular Natural Law - Court, Liberty, Human, Nature, Supreme, and Process http://law.jrank.org/pages/8759/Natural-Law-Secular-Natural-Law.html#ixzz13RFOdPeE

http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf

http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/lch0302.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x2243x34h7627364/

ISAW

On the OP question. I am reminded to Sagan's comments on the "pale blue dot." We frequently hear about such agnostics but rarely about the atheists who caused the slaughter of hundreds of millions. Anyway, Sagan has a profound insight into the universe. To Nietzsche the acceptance ( or even development) of this idea of Sagan that "that is us we are all there is," the Superman idea, is brought up by asking "imagine if you had to live the exact same life again and again forever?" It requires some "faith" to believe that. To a theist this might be viewed as Hell or at least falling short in an "accept it" or "there is nothing we can do " way. But it isn't as if Nietzesche was novel the Jews had an "accept your lot" philosophy which is referred to in the oldest book in the Bible -Job.

Nemi

ISAW wrote: »

Realy?

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Secular+Natural+Law


http://law.jrank.org/pages/8759/Natural-Law-Secular-Natural-Law.html

In Powell v. Pennsylvania, 127 U.S. 678, 8 S. Ct. 1257, 32 L. Ed. 253 (1888), Justice STEPHEN J. FIELD wrote that he had "always supposed that the gift of life was accompanied by the right to seek and produce food, by which life can be preserved and enjoyed, in all ways not encroaching upon the equal rights of others." In another case the Supreme Court said that the "rights of life and personal liberty are the natural rights of man. To secure these rights … governments are instituted among men" (U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 2 Otto 542, 23 L. Ed. 588 [1875]).

Read more: Natural Law - Secular Natural Law - Court, Liberty, Human, Nature, Supreme, and Process http://law.jrank.org/pages/8759/Natural-Law-Secular-Natural-Law.html#ixzz13RFOdPeE

http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/Secular%20Natural%20Law%200915.pdf

http://www.eou.edu/~jjohnson/lch0302.htm

http://www.springerlink.com/content/x2243x34h7627364/

Can I short circuit all of that stuff?

Theist natural law may have a point. Because it answers the question 'where do these rights come from'? For example, the American Declaration of Independence asserts that people "are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights". Fine. God gives us rights. If you believe in God, you've a basis for natural law.

Secular natural law is just wishful thinking. Because what's natural varies quite a bit, both by location and over time. There is no basis for secular natural law.

robindch

Nemi wrote: »

There is no basis for secular natural law.

If, by "secular", you mean "does not involve one or more creator entities who are believed to hold the authority to endow humanity with the basis for its legal system", then there are plenty of options.

Even from something that's as apparently non-secular as the egregiously religious preamble to our own constitution, the basic idea is that:

Irish Constitution wrote:

We, the people of Éire, [...] Do hereby adopt, enact, and give to ourselves this Constitution.

Note the underlined bit.

In the Irish case, as with most modern constitutions, authority to enact constitutions is assumed by the ruled, and not handed to the whim of one or more invisible sky-bunnies, as it did when the idea of the divine right of kings held sway.

Superlativeman

Nietzsche has some of the best quotes out there.

He also has a way of making the reader angry, but unable to continue reading.

And then, he's just completely controversial. "The sick man is a parasite on society." I remember when I first read that title and I was like: "OK, this is where everyone says Hitler is Nietzsche". But when you read it, it actually isn't as bad as the title suggests.

He was a prophet also, look up his quotes on Socialism - ineffable.

ISAW

Nemi wrote: »

Can I short circuit all of that stuff?

No actually i dont think you can.

Secular natural law is just wishful thinking. Because what's natural varies quite a bit, both by location and over time. There is no basis for secular natural law.

[/quote]

how about treating science the same way? Science is just wishful thinking. Because what's natural varies quite a bit, both by location and over time. There is no basis for science!

Does that seem odd to you?

Nemi

robindch wrote: »

authority to enact constitutions is assumed by the ruled, and not handed to the whim of one or more invisible sky-bunnies, as it did when the idea of the divine right of kings held sway.

Grand, but in that case the Irish people are following Nietzche by asserting their will on the world, as they observe no higher authority.

If natural law is to mean something, it has to precede any such assertion. It has to be valid, whether or not the community recognises it, as is the case when the Irish Constitution deals with the rights of the family and recognises that is has "inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law". In other words, the Irish constitution recognises that the Irish people have no right to give themselves laws to regulate the family.

ISAW wrote: »

how about treating science the same way? Science is just wishful thinking. Because what's natural varies quite a bit, both by location and over time. There is no basis for science!

Does that seem odd to you?

Actually, no. At the same time, there's an element of equivocation in your post, so I don't see the need to widen the discussion any more than is necessary.

What's observed by science probably doesn't vary that much by location and time. I know the boiling point of water varies according to context. But if the same conditions are replicated in different locations and over time, its boiling point is the same.

However, what's asserted as 'natural law' is purely cultural. Usually 'natural law' amounts to an assertion of whatever biases are unquestioned in a particular milieu.

As I said above, for natural law to have meaning it has to be something that pre-exists the community.

CerebralCortex

ISAW wrote: »

No actually i dont think you can.

how about treating science the same way? Science is just wishful thinking. Because what's natural varies quite a bit, both by location and over time. There is no basis for science!

Does that seem odd to you?[/QUOTE]

I'm not sure which one it is but what you've just committed there is a fallacy. Just because you say science is wishful thinking doesn't mean it is. Science is something we use to understand and analyse nature. You're also guilty on top of that of a non sequitur while the nature of things are dynamic, the scientific method as such is fairly static.

ISAW wrote: »

...There is no basis for science!...

You should be embarrassed by that statement.

ISAW

Nemi wrote: »

What's observed by science probably doesn't vary that much by location and time.

Different claim!
probably is not certainly!

I know the boiling point of water varies according to context. But if the same conditions are replicated in different locations and over time, its boiling point is the same.

Because (one philosophy of science suggests) while experimental factors changed the underlying natural laws ( e.g. gas laws or laws of gravity) remained the same.

However, what's asserted as 'natural law' is purely cultural. Usually 'natural law' amounts to an assertion of whatever biases are unquestioned in a particular milieu.

LOL! When you get to a culture that believes you can fly try jumping off a cliff and testing whether the culture is right and gravity wrong!

As I said above, for natural law to have meaning it has to be something that pre-exists the community.

And legal argument would be it has but someone had not written it down! Hence we have proscribed rights.

But your point is valid in that it circumvents a genetic fallacy i.e. that of confusing origin with cause
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

However the problem of "social law" or even "perception of the universe" then gets back into the Mach problem of defining universes without anyone in them.( Mach's principle) If laws can't exist in the absence of people then the tree falling in the woods makes no noise and we are back into relativist solipsist and skeptical denial of reality.