beyond good and evil|
[Most Recent Entries]
Below are the 20 most recent journal entries recorded in
fans of nietzsche's LiveJournal:
[ << Previous 20 ]
[ << Previous 20 ]
|Wednesday, February 16th, 2011|
Приглашаю в русскоязычное сообщество nietzscheana
, посвящённое Фридриху Ницше. Это одновременно и площадка для обсуждения философских проблем, и новостная лента о последних событиях вокруг имени Ницше. Присоединяйтесь, будем Вам рады.
Постоянный адрес сообщества: http://community.livejournal.com/nietzscheana
|Monday, October 15th, 2007|
Most consider Nietzsche a nihilist. I would say he goes beyond nihilism just as he goes beyond good and evil. Some of the essence of his philosophy is in response to Schopenhauer's philosophy. It is much akin to what Hume was to Kant, some strike and "awakening from dogmatic slumbers." Schopenhauer talked of the "will" which is where Nietz' got "the Will to Power." Schopenhauer de-values everything, but does not propose new values to come into their place. Nietzsche does.
Though he was "the great destroyer," he has left us with some core concepts. The Ubermensch
, his considerations of the Eternal Recurrence. His call that all should go "beyond good and evil"--the "revaluation of values." The call for a Dionysian confirmation of one's existence: a confirmation of it only and only as it is
and nothing more.
Nietzsche is fascinating. When you read a good writer's words, you become their mind. In this case, it's a philosopher's mind. Nietzsche was often pained whenever he wrote; he kept a variable cornucopia of "medicines" with which to destroy his headaches; some say he contracted syphilis. Here is a man pained
yet set to write down painstakingly, what he wrote.
Two-hundred years ago, he boldly proclaimed "God is Dead." He was speaking mainly of the Christian God especially. To this day, a dead God is still living, completely illusorly. Man is still warring over it--and other illusions of economy, government, and other likened things which are all at their core merely "values"--which should be re-evaluated.
"The last true Christian died on the cross," he writes. If only God would come off that tree in the shape of a t. "God is the TV," proclaims Marilyn Manson, who said he made his album Antichrist Superstar
in inspiration of Nietzsche and in appreciation of him. "I'm not a slave to a God that doesn't exist/ I'm not a slave to a world that doesn't give a shit," sings Manson in "Fight Song," also credited to Nietzsche. "God is dead and no one cares/ If there is a hell I'll see you there," sings Trent Reznor on The Downward Spiral
. Hitler claims him as his main inspiration. His influence is striking; what's all the more striking is how few truly seem to understand Nietzsche, or seem to implement all he had to say. Still exists the "herd mentality," and it's still not listening. To paraphrase, "In individuals, insanity is rare; but in nations, epochs, parties, it is the rule" says Nietzsche.
The man stroke an instant chord with me. His sharp, absolutely lacerating wit; his condemnation of Christianity, of any religion--his individualistic call and creedo for us to become
. His intellectual conquering, and brutality, like a mind of war to all the Gods making war. He is very Greek, very Homer; for he said of the Greeks before Socrates, Plato, and Aristotle: "they suffered much, and this made them beautiful." Here is a man so dedicated to some madness that it eventually overtook him; and that was that. Here is the beginner, they say, of Satre, of existentialism. He also influenced Freud; took reins from Darwin. His place is inestimable.
Nietzsche--a name often feared, in these times, shamefully so; the world could be so much more than it is--without religion we could already be in space, so far-advanced. Without so many illusions, we could be so much more real. "There is not enough love and goodness in the world that we can give it to imaginary beings." He saw us as just exulted apes; a product of the Earth to take the Earth beyond the Earth; our reason as a type of sickness, because of our distortion of it. But I suppose I speak too much--what do you have to say of him?
|Monday, September 10th, 2007|
Nietzche and Black Metal
Friedrich Nietzsche remains an enigma to this day. Rejecting objectivity, he appealed to the subjective sense of greatness and beauty in the individual in his appeal for a new society, with non-material and non-egomaniacal goals. He overthrew the illusion of morality, and defecated thoroughly upon the idea of Judeo-Christian moral supremacy. He embraced nature red in tooth and claw. Despite all of this seemingly negative outlook, much like the darkness and moribund misanthropy of black metal, his goal was ultimately one of renewal and hope for life, but one that acknowledged for life to rise we must reject the parasitic, delusional and controlling.
Some black metal bands, notably the tedious Judas Iscariot and the epic Gorgoroth, have openly embraced Nietzschean concepts like triumph of the will, the philosophical hammer, and "total war against Christianity." Others seem simply to echo the ideas he praises, such as rise of genetically supreme individuals through natural selection and a rejection of Social Darwinism, and a praise of unique native cultures worldwide. It is then quite possible that both in the first wave of black metal, and in whatever meagre remnants of it exist today, the philosophies of Friedrich Nietzsche have found a philosophical voice.
|Sunday, August 19th, 2007|
|Thursday, August 16th, 2007|
Hello fans of Nietzsche,
Please let me know if this is inappropriate to post and i will take it down.
It so happens that Nietzsche and i have the same birthday. I am turning 21 and he is turning 163. For our birthday this year, i am trying to raise money for Partners in Health (http://www.pih.org
), an organization which provides free health care in areas in the globe where there is no health care at all.
Please visit my fundraising page for more details, promote it wherever you can (blogs, profiles, etc), and donate a few dollars:http://www.firstgiving.org/raya3
Any help is much appreciated! Thank you!
|Thursday, August 9th, 2007|
World Moron Death
If we were able, hypothetically, to painlessly exterminate every person of low intelligence on planet earth, why would anyone be against it? After all, our societies would go farther, and the people alive would have a better experience of life. Society would function more intelligently. I can't think of a single logical argument against it. Any ideas?http://www.anus.com/etc/misanthrope/
|Friday, June 8th, 2007|
"One could say this form of self-reductive process, is a form of philosophical nihilism. Nihilism comes from the Latin word nihil, meaning 'nothing' or 'not anything.' The most common definition and use of nihilism, is the belief in nothing or a rejection of objective truth, social conventions, and moral meaning. Nihilism as a philosophy goes back several hundred years B.C., when certain philosophers used a scepticist outlook to claim that absolute concepts, like the Christian God, were illusions and thus had to be denied. During the latter half of the 19th Century, nihilism gained both a cultural and political revival, when Russian writers started to reject social conventions such as the traditional family, the church, and the State.
The German philosopher Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche developed a larger perspective on nihilism as a phenomenon. He claimed that the West, through science and secular humanism, had "killed God" by proving his non-existence. According to Nietzsche, this would mean that both Heaven was seen as an illusion but also that the Earthly life was a lie, since it had been demonized by the Christian doctrine. He called this "nihilism," or the state when the West had found that there were no gods up in the sky, but that the current life on Earth also was filthy, immoral, and violent, thus reducing the existential outlook on life to a state of emptiness..."
Interesting read. The full article is here:http://corrupt.org/data/open_courseware/nihilism/
|Friday, January 12th, 2007|
When Nietzsche Wept
Has anybody here read When Nietzsche Wept
It's a very good fictional novel about a Viennese doctor who Lou Salome gets Nietzsche to see. See, Salome feel guilty for driving Nietzsche to the brink of suicide--or so the story goes. It's amusing and well written. Here are a few excerpts:
He might, Breuer thought, have been speaking from a pulpit, exhorting a congregation--but, of course, his father had been a minister.
"Truth," Nietzsche continued, "is arrived at through disbelief and skepticism, not through a childlike wishing something were so! Your patient's wish to be in God's hands is not truth. It is simply a child's wish--and nothing more! It is a wish not to die, a wish for the everlasting bloated nipple we have labeled 'God'! Evolutionary theory scientifically demonstrates God's redundancy--though Darwin himself had not the courage to follow his evidence to its true conclusion. Surely, you must realize that we created God, and that all of us together now have killed him."
"Such fervor for the truth! Forgive me, Professor Nietzsche, if I sound challenging, but we afgreed to speak truthfully. Yiu speak about the truth in a holy tone, as if to substitute one religion for another. Allow me to play devil's advocate. Allow me to ask: Why such passion, such reverence for the truth? How will it profit my patient of this morning?"
"It is not the truth that is holy, but the search for one's own truth! Can there be a more sacred act than self-inquiry? My philosophical work, some say, is build on sand: my views shift continually. But one of my granite sentences is: 'Become who you are.' And how can one discover who and what one is without the truth?"
second selection:And the way Nietzsche dared to say things! Imagine! To say that hope is the greatest evil! That God is dead! That truth is an error without which we cannot live! THat the enemies of truth are not lies, but convictions! THat the final reward of the dead is to die no more! That physicians have no right to deprive a man of his own death! Evil thoughts! He had debated Nietzsche on each. Yet it was a mock debate: deep in his heart, he knew Nietzsche was right.
And Nietzsche's freedom! What would it be like to live as he lived? No house, no obligations, no salaries to pay, no children to raise, no schedule, no role, no place in society. There was something alluring about such freedom. Why did Friedrich Nietzsche have so much of it and Josef Breuer so little? Nietzsche had simply seized his freedom. Why can't I? groaned Breuer. He lay in bed growing dizzy with such thoughts until the alarm rang at six.
Even if your only vaguely familiar with Nietzsche, this book would prolly get a couple good laughs and more than a few thought provoking passages.
|Thursday, September 21st, 2006|
I'm taking an Honors course on Alienation, Liberation and Zen. Today, Nietzsche was brought up cause he influenced Herman Hesse and to a lesser degree Kafka, both of whom we are reading in the class.
The class (like most honors classes) are predominately female. One girl said that Nietzsche was a mysognist. I defended him, and must remember to make a point to bring him back up next week. If for nothing else than the below aphorism is not the work of a mysognist in any way.The perfect woman is a higher type of human being than the perfect man: also something much rarer. - The natural science of the animals offers a means of demonstrating the truth of this proposition.
-from Human, All Too Human
Now, it may be a touchy subject, but any and all imput is appreciated, to know what kind of criticism such a comment and any other things I could cite he wrote that explain his views on women clearly.
And yes, I know about Lou Salomé and Paul Ree. Course comments on them are welcome, as I am not all knowing--just mildly informed.
|Wednesday, September 13th, 2006|
Hi my best friends!
"I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you".
VISUAL NIETZSCHE'S APHORISMS OF LENA HADES THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSTRA http://www.art-tusa.com/
|Thursday, July 27th, 2006|
Why I Write Such Great Columns--A humor article
I took a journalism class this last semester, and upon reviewing my notes for the semester I found something that you learned people (unlike many of my classmates, sadly) may appreciate.
What is required to appreciate this: A sense of humor and at least a surface level familiarity with Nietzsche.
Hopefully you'll laugh harder the more Nietzsche you know. Enjoy!( Humor ColumnCollapse )
|Wednesday, July 26th, 2006|
Was Nietzsche a Daoist?
I'm a philosophy student at SUNY Plattsburgh and recently took a course on Nietzsche and another one on Ancient Chinese Philosophy. I'm considering writing my final thesis on Nietzsche and Chuang-Tse.
In Zarathustra, N writes:
"My brother, if you have a virtue and she is your virtue, then you have her in common with nobody. To be sure, you want to call her by name and pet her; you want to pull her ear and have fun with her. And behold, now you have her name in common with the people and have become one of the people and herb with your virtue.
You would do better to say, "Inexpressible and nameless is that which gives my soul agony and sweetness and is even the hunger of my entrails."
May your virtue be too exalted for the familiarity of names: and if you must speak of her, then do not be ashamed to stammer of her..."
He goes on, but what caught my eye was the "inexpressible and nameless" passage. It reminds me of the first line of the Daodejing. "The way that can be named is not the true way."
As far as I am aware Nietzsche never read anything about or by any Daoists, however it seems that Nietzsche's thought and Daoist thought intersect in alot of ways. I'm curios what others may think of any such connection.
|Sunday, May 14th, 2006|
I used to be a staunch determinist before coming across Nietzsche. I was adamant that it was the only philosophical argument that was uncontestable. I even managed to convert a few people to determinism and almost felt an obligation to explain it to the majority of people I met. It occured to me a while back how fragile a perspective can be. How one can be so certain of something, to the nth degree, and yet with time and 'knowledge,' how that perspective can gradually change.
I've yet to come across a detailed critique from Nietzsche that negates determinism, but that's not important. A lot of people even consider Nietzsche to be a determinist. The one thing that seems clear is that he never considered it a topic that
important to discuss, particularly in his major works. He sums it up brilliantly when he says, "We have arranged for ourselves a world in which we can live - by positing bodies, lines, planes, causes and effects, motion and rest, form and content; without these articles of faith nobody could now endure life. But that does not prove them. Life is no argument. The conditions of life might include error."
I don't like getting too much into the "how can you ever prove 'x's existence" type of philosophy. Frankly it bores me and leads to the least worthwhile type of discussions. I do however think it's important to realise the nature of certain beliefs and to understand why they have come about. Cause and effect, like any other notion, is completely dependant on its being understood, contemplated, discussed and accepted. It has no intrinsic value in itself. As we evolve there's every possibility that the idea will be wiped out, or replaced, or changed beyond recognition. Despite all of my reasoning, sense, knowledge and experiences so far (which indicates that cause and effect / determinism IS undeniable), it's important to realise that one's perspective is so fragile that it can potentially be revolutionised by simply words, a collection of audible patterns being processed by the brain, or an assemblance of shapes in the forms of letters being processed by the brain (a classic case of cause and effect in itself).
Does anyone else find themselves tying their self up in knots?
|Wednesday, May 10th, 2006|
|Wednesday, April 5th, 2006|
what do you guys think about Foucault?
I got the book Birth of the Clinic and so far I like it alot. Foucault is really Nietzschean to his approach to philosophy and I think this makes the book if nothing else interesting. He takes a very philological approach to tracing the history of medical health in western society. My only concern is that he is Nietzschean but his philosophy requires values because he is writing about what he thinks is moraly wrong in the west. I may be taking what he says the wrong way though. Any thoughts?
|Sunday, February 26th, 2006|
|Friday, February 17th, 2006|
"It is my ambition to say in ten sentences what others say in a whole book."
Nietzsche's brevity and concise statements are what make him one of the most beautiful and often most misunderstood writers of all time. He knew how to organize his flux of emotions with a couple of words that would allow the reader to search for themselves their own answers. Hitler found his answers and others found their answers. We only want the answers that WE believe; many can't find what is outside of them through other people but this is the whole endeavor of reading-"to be able to suspend one's will solely in order to see more."
"When one is misunderstood as a whole, it is impossible to remove completely a single misunderstanding. One has to realize this lest one waste superfluous energy on one's defense."
This best and worst aspect of Nietzsche's influence on 21st century thought is his inability to stirke the UN-profound without having to dumb-down his words in order for them to understand him. He doesn't have time to dumb-down himself if the people who really DO matter are understanding him. Maybe the people who think they understand him are the one's who have really degressed the Nietzschean influence on philosophy-usually they are cocky, close-minded, and haven't read much of anyone else. Nietzsche has read the world so I read him. Wouldn't he have wanted you to do the same? "One does a teacher poorly if one only remains a pupil." Like Shakespeare, he has "summed up" the wisdom of the past in his writings while still maintaining a firm sense indivuality and seperateness. It is the angle that he uses that makes him more entertaining than most philosophers-his delivery is like no one else yet to date.
"Socrates should be praised more for his silence than his explanations" because "the secret to being a bore is to say everything." Voltaire.
If there is one thing that existentialism teaches us is that we should be our own teacher once we have already studied every point of view. Hopefully all of this responsibilty won't lead to Sartre's "nauseua" that many-a-man fear all too much. That is why Nietzsche's Superman will have to rule: the herd is too scared and/or lazy to deal with themselves, so we have a "few good men" to guide the rest. Not far off from a democracy but too close to tyranny?
|Wednesday, December 28th, 2005|
It's really quite saddening that Nietzsche has been responsible for creating such bad air that the cunts on this community are breathing in. Do any of you actually read the books or do you read the synopsis and think how cool you may appear to be if you comment in such lacklustre terms about some of the issues that are brought up? I find it so hard to believe that you read his books with the passion they deserve. The community seems like it's full of people who are petrified of offending each other and are living by sickening, Christian, wooly morality.
I sincerely hope you are all wiped out. Current Mood: aggravated
|Monday, December 12th, 2005|
A reason why Nietzsche believed himself to have so much experience with emotion and life was not because of his encounters with everyday people so much as his professorship of Philology (literature) while teaching! He analyzed the greatest stories every told and, in doing so, he already knew the greatest captured emotions in existence through reading instead of having to look for them in the everyday world. He has read the world, so I read him. Like most philosophers, he cheated by pursuing knowledge instead of WAITING for it!
|Monday, November 7th, 2005|
I am a great reader of Nietzsche and know that most of his ideas aren't for everyone as he often says. (Perhaps that's why he hated democracy as a form of gov't, because it gave too much power to the 'average man' : why would we allow ignorant people to tell everyone what to do if, in fact, THEY were the ones without any experience?) But ideas are always good even if they are bad. What I mean is that being exposed to anything is better than not being exposed at all. Likewise, "It is better to have loved and lost than not love at all". Like Nietzsche says at the end of 'The Geneaology of Morals', "Man would rather will nothingness than not will anything." Though let's not go as far as, say, Hitler, who didn't only lie about the great Nietzsche but did so with the complete OPPISITE intentions of his whole system of philosophy. He took the Will to Power as literally as possible and that is the first sign of a lack of power! 'To make things simpler than they are.'
Despite how cynical Nietzsche can be, he was never an anit-semite by any means. He wanted to critcize everything but only to make it better! Not to worsen the problem by only showing the Description but by also giving Perscriptions to help solve the error. Anyway, corruption is easy to sink down to but that does not mean that the noble still shouldn't get a chance at success just because one guy messed it up for the rest of them. Whenever I read philosophy like this these are some things that have troubled me when I really try to find the so called 'truth of the situation'.
Why must Nietzsche leave us "hanging" so often? Why couldn't he explain his most controversial 'one-liners' instead of allowing the unintelligent to slander and misconstrue it? Did he not fully know the extent to which his ideas COULD be falsified? How far should metaphores be pushed to the limits of reality without blowing it all out of proprtion like Adolph succesfully did?
Is it not MORAL of Nietzsche to help us realize the 'immorality of morality'? Is it not 'beneficial'?
If Nietzsche was so experienced with emotions and knew ideas with such accuracy and precision then how come he was one of the most lonely souls to walk the earth? Because he was misunderstood? Then why couldn't he simplify himself and just cope with the ignorance of the world in order to fit in? Is the pursuit of truth worth the loss of the relationships in which you are criticizing and judging so often? I also have heard that his hygene was a problem and, not surprisingly, people won't listen to you if they are turned off by the way in which you 'present' yourself. In other words, by the way you smell...
Does Nietzsche's relative morality oppose Bob Marley's "One Love" where everyone can just 'get along'?
Bob is saying that we should unite our differences while Friedrich suggests a "pathos of distance" where different people go their different ways in a 'spirit of tolerance' that Einstien spoke of.