babble home - news for the rest of us
today's active topics

Topic Closed  Topic Closed

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
FAQ | Forum Home

This topic has been transferred to this forum: humanities & science.  
next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » rabble content   » babble book lounge   » Is Nietzsche really peachy, or still just dead?

Author Topic: Is Nietzsche really peachy, or still just dead?
Erik Redburn
Babbler # 5052

posted 16 November 2006 10:19 PM      Profile for Erik Redburn     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Total drift from earlier thread on JR Saul but I'm now wondering what others here think of Neitzsche's ideas? I've found him sometimes lucid, sometimes incoherent, sometimes illuminating, sometimes downright turgid and hateful. Everyone who's read him seems to have some strong opinions about him, for or against, even on the left -particularly on the left. Difference between the natural anarchists and post-modernists and more traditional socialists and humanists perhaps, or just differing POV's?

Another thing I'm now wondering about is whether Friedrich was ever clear on just who his concepts of "slave morality" were directed against and For -the average illiterate worker of his time or the elites who he sometimes seemed to despise and other times idolize....? His "Will to Power" seems clearly contempuous of the masses but some say it was seriously altered by his bigoted sister after he died. Anyone else here have an opinion on this particular source of dispute? I don't have a particularly strong case to make on this one, either way.

(Oh, and side note, I'll definitely have to read more McLuhan, Plus=Minus, thanks. Recall that Saul does refer to him positively a couple times, may have borrowed some ideas on media from him but not clear enough on them to say for sure)

[ 16 November 2006: Message edited by: EriKtheHalfaRed ]

From: Broke but not bent. | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 7072

posted 17 November 2006 01:03 AM      Profile for -=+=-   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I only know of Nietzche through George Grant's critique of him, but Grant's account seems to address the points raised in the previous thread.

According to Grant, Nietzche's statement that Christianity contained the seeds of its own downfall refers to the fathers of the Church embracing Plato as a vehicle for their ideas rather than Socrates.

Plato was the philospher of the new literate, rational world (created by the alphabet). Socrates was the last flowering of the older, tribal oral tradition, where the culture was passed on in the memory of poets. Much of Plato's work critiques the old world that was dying, in favour of the new.

This rational, literate approach (which had many successes) also lead to Christianity's ultimate downfall from the assault of thinkers like Voltaire and Darwin. This is the source of Nietzche's aphorism "God is dead, and you have killed him."

I can see why Social Gospellers would despise Nietzche, but I'm not sure why the current crop of technocratic atheists on the left would. Grant at least saw him as seeing the situation clearly, and engaged his work.

[ 17 November 2006: Message edited by: -=+=- ]

From: Turtle Island | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
Babbler # 560

posted 17 November 2006 04:17 AM      Profile for Michelle   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
If you don't mind, I'm going to move this to humanities and science since it's isn't about a specific book.
From: I've got a fever, and the only prescription is more cowbell. | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

Post New Topic  
Topic Closed  Topic Closed
Open Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008