13 ms·
A new book about Nietzsche: tethering philosophy to the mess of daily experience
- oytis 8y agoDo you really want Nietzsche to be your guide in this subject?
- youngbullind 8y agoYeah, it's not been going too well for him since 1900.
- stewbrew 8y agoIt probably wasn't much better before.
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoIn what sense? He's been one of the most influential philosophers in the 20th century, both through Heidegger's influence -- especially in France, and through neo-Marxist (Frankfurt school) engagement with him. Finally there's Freud and his school of psychoanalysis, who took a lot of inspiration from N.
- johnchristopher 8y ago> Finally there's Freud and his school of psychoanalysis, who took a lot of inspiration from N. That doesn't really play to his advantage either.
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoThat doesn't really play to his advantage either. Could you elaborate on this? The parts of Freudian psychoanalysis that have not passed the test of time (e.g. Oedipus complex, sexual differentiation, theory of homosexuality) clearly don't come via Nietzsche, whereas Freud's approach to memory and its malleability by our desires and hopes, which is most clearly from N, is not only alive and kicking, but as far as I can tell, now (in suitably modernised form) the dominant understanding of memory in contemporary psychology.
- johnchristopher 8y ago> whereas Freud's approach to memory and its malleability by our desires and hopes, which is most clearly from N, is not only alive and kicking, but as far as I can tell, now (in suitably modernised form) the dominant understanding of memory in contemporary psychology. It's like saying that homeopathy principles are sound because vaccines are also based on `things that make you sick`. I'd rather suggest you try to get a copy of `the black book of psychoanalysis` as I completely subscribe to the views developed in it and it'd be more on the point than any tldr; I might give you. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/25/books.france https://www.theguardian.com/world/2005/sep/25/books.france
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoI don't understand what you are trying to say. I merely pointed to the undisputed popularity of psychoanalysis in much of the 20th century, and Nietzsche's undisputed influence on it, especially the conception of memory. This is orthogonal to questions of whether psychoanalysis is right or wrong. The Guardian article adds nothing to my claims about popularity and influence.
- johnchristopher 8y agoThat's not what you say about memory. The Guardian article is to tease you into getting the book.
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoI'm not sure what you mean. My position on N, memory and influence on P.A. has been consistent and clear, as far as I can see. I'm not terribly interested in reading about P.A.: it's dead branch of psychology, and has been dead for a long time. There are plenty of books / articles describing the shortcomings of P.A. some of which I've read.
- jkabrg 8y agoYou're judging Nietzsche using circular logic. You're saying that because he's respected by some academics, he is objectively worthy of respect. But that's contingent on those very same academics being worthy of respect. And I'm not sure that they are, personally. This is a major problem in academia and other areas. The academics end up being judged by fellow academics, and any claim to merit becomes completely circular. That's how you end up with things like Brutalist architecture -- it's because the architects are seeking approval from fellow architects; and not the people who have to live in, and around, what they build. Even worse, those academics who "suck up" to other academics end up having the favour returned to them. He scratches your back, you scratch his, then he scratches yours again... You end up with citation rings. See Taleb's Skin In The Game.
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoworthy of respect. I did not speak of "respect" or "merit", I was discussing "influence". They are distinct concepts. What is gained by conflating them?
- jkabrg 8y agoOK, fair enough.
- Emma_Goldman 8y agoThe person you're responding to never made a claim to objectivity. The fact that someone is one of the most influential figures in the history of twentieth century thought and culture is, in my view, a very good reason to engage with them. If you care about our common world, and its history, then you may well want to understand Nietzsche.
- trashtester 8y agoNietzsche is one of the great poeple of history. Such people often live short or troubled lives. Ie, Alexander, Joan of Arc, Mdm Curie or Van Gogh. Often, the tragedy and the greatness are deeply connected. This is, I think, the motivation behind formulating the idea of the Will to Power. The question, if you can chose: What is better, to be a great person, one that makes a lasting (hopefully positive) mark on the world, or to be a happy nobody, instantly forgotten when you die? Everyone is entitled to their own answer to that question.
- imartin2k 8y agoIn the future, we'll have "Elon Musk's Guide to Better Living", and then there'll be the same debate.
- trashtester 8y agoI think of Elon more as a modern Nocola Tesla. (As does, it seems, Elon himself.) The closest current analogy to Nietzsche would be Jordan Peterson, I think. Their problem definitions are very similar (ie to fight nihilsm), but it seems to me that Nietzsche's proposed path is more heroic, but also harder.
- ethelward 8y agoNicola Tesla actually invented thing. AFAIK, Musk didn't; he's above all a successful businessman but has little to no technical competencies.
- robfitz 8y agoIn that case, Tesla would have lived and died happier if he'd had a Musk around to help him find a way to scalably and sustainably bring what he invented to the world.
- erikpukinskis 8y agoThere is a lot of technical work to turning an invention into an affordable and dependable product. In fact, I would wager the majority of engineering/math/physics/etc happens after the proof of concept phase.
- p2detar 8y agoI've been thinking that too, but I remember something in his works along the lines of (paraphrased of course): "Although my philosophy/guides/writings may not work for me, they may work for others."
- plouffy 8y agoOscar Wilde "The only thing to with good advice is to pass it on. It is never of use to oneself".
- donquichotte 8y agoThis has to be one of the rare cases where there is shorter, wittier way than Oscar Wilde's to make the same statement: "Do as I say, not as I do."
- thundergolfer 8y agoThat's not really that same statement.
- anentropic 8y agonor is it wittier
- afarrell 8y agoIts more “do as I say, not as my younger self did. Sigh...”
- tirumaraiselvan 8y agoNo skin in the game !
- pasxizeis 8y agoWhy not?
- YorkshireSeason 8y agoYour question suggests a dismissal of N's work. Is that dismissal based on an serious engagement with his work? I'd be interested in seeing an argument why one should not let N be a guide. It would be nice (and unexpected) if that argument was informed by an actual reading of N's main works.
- scns 8y agoTalk is cheap, actions count.
- Bigpet 8y agoI just read it as a joke about how his own life ended. Not something many people want to emulate for themselves.
- yesenadam 8y ago(disclaimer: didn't/couldn't read article) Well, that's a rather snooty, snarky comment. Do you really want Nietzsche to be your guide in this subject? Of course not, geez. I didn't think the GP 'suggested a dismissal' of N, but of him as a one's guide to Better Living, which sounded very reasonable to me. And anyone familiar with N's writing can hopefully imagine many reasons why one might think that. It's sheer bluff to sound as if it's an unexpected or unreasonable question. (I had written a page in answer, e.g. starting 'Did he ever even have a girlfriend?', and started rounding up amusing and acute quotes from Chesterton and Santayana[0], but decided against including any of that. I'm a huge Nietzsche fan so answering properly would take a while; I decided your remark wasn't worth it. Sorry.) [0] Chesterton's Heretics and Orthodoxy contain good (and funny) critiques of Nietzsche, as do many of his other works, e.g. Varied/Twelve Types and GBS. Santayana's wonderful Egotism in German Philosophy has chapters on Schopenhauer and Nietzsche.
- jacobush 8y agoKafka didn't have a lot of fun either.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- bluewavescrash 8y agoYes
- ionised 8y agoYes.
- tim333 8y agoIndeed: >led the kind of maladjusted life that contemporary therapies and self-help books are designed to rehabilitate >... suffered the dramatic breakdown that would debilitate him until his death 11 years later > troubled relationship with food throughout his life, ricocheting from one extreme diet to the next isn't really selling my on the Nietzsche lifestyle.
- dang 8y agoPlease don't post cheap shots at titles. Authors mostly don't even write those, and a thread like this is shallow and ignorant enough as it is.
- zaarn 8y agoThat is quite a nice read and basic TL;DR on atleast some of what Nietzsche wrote in his books. People should read them more.
- rofo1 8y agoNobody is at a loss having read none of them. I say this as a person that has read some of them (probably majority of them, too)
- vfinn 8y agoI read Thus Spoke Zarathustra when I was pretty depressed. It gave me some hope and induced changes in me. It helped me to shake up my thoughts and look at myself in a new angle, if nothing more.
- dajohnson89 8y agoThis comment adds nothing to the discussion and is pure hyperbole.
- dschuetz 8y agoAnother ad article for some book interpreting Nietzsche's ramblings.
- sjnair96 8y agoIs your issue primarily with the ads or Nietzsche's "ramblings"?
- dschuetz 8y agoMainly with the "ad", because that article is about the book, not the actual interpretation that might be insightful (or not) in some way. Besides, much of Nietzsche's late work was indeed rambling, the guy was severely depressed, even mad at the end. It doesn't discredit his entire work, but that fact must be kept in mind dealing with it. His (even crazier) sister publicized some of his works that never were intended by him to reach public. But they did, and then Nazis happened. So, the issue is also that it's an another interpretation of Nietzsche's work.
- lihaciudaniel 8y agoThis is basically a book summary that underlines Nietzsche's philosophy.basically he hated smoking and Christianity. But Christianity is good under a certain extent (e. G not lying, being a Giver). My country of România both has the two thing Nietzsche thought were bad. Alchoholism, my country is huge drinker. And Christianity, majority of people are Christians and they go to church regularly. I co
- rawoke083600 8y agoI love these freaky minds !
- tcbawo 8y agoI rediscovered the classic "wear sunscreen" column/commencement speech recently and I was reminded of this quote: "Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling it for more than it's worth." http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-sunscreen-column-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-su...
- Cynddl 8y ago> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all readers with our award-winning journalism. Do you know another source for this column?
- nine_k 8y agoA VPN in a US datacenter?
- CiPHPerCoder 8y agohttps://archive.fo/Sr59B https://archive.fo/Sr59B
- jolers 8y agoIf you use pocket, you can add it and read it through there.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- wazoox 8y agoI just finished reading Irvin Yalom's "When Nietzsche wept", and though it probably didn't give a fair view of Nietzsche philosophy, it was great anyway :) Probably make it much nicer than it actually is.
- reptation 8y agoSidenote, but Yalom's book on group therapy is insightful in a variety of social settings: https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Group-Psychotherapy-Irvin/dp/0465092845 https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Group-Psychotherapy-I...
- this_is_not_you 8y agoLoved the book!
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoI've read two books by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre that deal with many of the issues Nietzsche was interested in and point out some flaws in Nietzsche's arguments. They are After Virtue and Ethics in the Conflicts of Modernity. MacIntyre thinks that Nietzsche got a lot right, but overlooked some things and made some assumptions that put him down the wrong path. If you're going to use Nietzsche as a guide for how to live it's worth reading some criticism of him as well.
- Emma_Goldman 8y agoMacIntyre is very good. But I wouldn't so much say that he points out flaws in Nietzsche's arguments, as argues that Nietzsche is not the appropriate answer to the problem of modern thought as he sees it. But very few people agree with MacIntyre's 'problem': that because we have inherited the remnants of pre-modern moral and political thought, while rejecting the metaphysical beliefs with gave them their original coherence, we must either turn back (to Aristotelianism), or give up on moral philosophy. There are three obvious problems with this: (1) the historical story is only partially true; (2) it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and secular framework; (3) this whole argument depends on a very particular view of what 'moral philosophy' is and can be. IMO the best introduction to Nietzsche is Christopher Janaway's 'Beyond Selflessness', though it concentrates on the Genealogy of Morality. It's also worth reading Walter Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist' - the book that originally rehabilitated Nietzsche's image in the English-speaking world in the 1950s. Before that, Nietzsche was either ignored, or thought of as proto-fascistic (Nietzsche's sister, who controlled Nietzsche's papers after he fell into insanity, famously had an important role in this. Hitler helped her open a Nietzsche archive).
- jeffreyrogers 8y agoYeah, that's probably a better summary of his attitude towards Nietzsche. Thanks for the recommendations. I have read most of Beyond Good and Evil, but am not too familiar with his thought except secondhand.
- hacknat 8y ago
- rofo1 8y agoAfter reading both to some extent (but Schopenhauer in great depth), IMHO Nietzsche is just wanna-be Schopenhauer. He even admits this in an essay dedicated to Schopenhauer IIRC! He was a weird person, just like the article portraits him to be. He might have been unstable mentally, to say the least. Not sure if he was in a position to tell others how to live. He kinda reminds me of Weininger; I mentally group them together as "awkward philosophers with some insane ideas masquerading as deep thoughts" even though he was technically a philologist.
- gcb0 8y ago> He might have been unstable mentally it's widely accepted that he was very unstable. the last days in turin avant gard movie even focus on that.
- cheeko1234 8y agoAs someone clueless about philosophy, can you give some examples of some insane ideas masquerading as deep thoughts?
- pdsouza 8y ago"There is a false saying: "How can someone who can’t save himself save others?" Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my lock be the same?" (Nietzsche) ref: https://academyofideas.com/2017/02/nietzsche-psychology-become-who-you-are/ https://academyofideas.com/2017/02/nietzsche-psychology-beco...
- wu-ikkyu 8y ago>Supposing I have the key to your chains The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How do you know you have the key?
- Sileni 8y agoYou don't. You try the key on the lock, and if it doesn't work you keep looking for another key. Nietzsche is saying "I FOUND A KEY! Anyone care to try it in their lock?" Eh, that might be a bit more euphemistic than I meant to be, but the point is there.
- hnthrowaway789 8y agoMany of Nietzsche's ideas are almost entirely antithetical to the cultural sensibilities of HN so the discussion that you're going to get on here is not going to be that great. This piece presents an exceptionally shallow introduction and survey of Nietzsche's body of thought. If you get into reading Nietzsche with the intent of learning how to live better you're going to have an impossible time. If you're interested in reading Nietzsche I'd recommend first reading more philosophy and history (the things Nietzsche studied) in order to get some context for the things he says. It's pretty much impossible to understand what he's talking about unless you have that knowledge since his works are (in large part) a critical analysis of the nature and evolution of the modes of human thought and behavior.
- freedomben 8y ago> Many of Nietzsche's ideas are almost entirely antithetical to the cultural sensibilities of HN so the discussion that you're going to get on here is not going to be that great. Would be interested to hear your thoughts on: 1. What is/are the cultural sensibilities of HN? 2. Which ideas are antithetical to them? My guess is that whatever your answer to item 1 above, you'll be downvoted and hated by those who disagree (I think HN spans a vast array of viewpoints personally), so maybe it's best not to answer. It is a sincere question tho.
- hnthrowaway789 8y agoTo give you an idea of what I mean, check out section 232 of Beyond Good and Evil. I won't post an excerpt here because it will just get me banned.
- freedomben 8y agoOh haha, yes the misogyny. Fair point indeed.
- RangerScience 8y agoMeh. Everyone is fucked up in some way, usually in a way that's a product of their times (classic example: Jefferson and slavery). Always seemed to me that critical thinking is partly about sorting the good shit from the bad; to put it another way, this is why it's important to not trust authority just because it's authority. Evaluate each thing on its own merits (as best as your capabilities the situation allows) and go from there.
- AmicusDei 8y agoThe modern preoccupation with Nietzsche is creepy.
- dang 8y agoIt was partly the fault of the original baity title, but what a trainwreck the bulk of this thread turned out to be. If ever there were an occasion to dust off pg's old phrase, "the middlebrow dismissal", here we have it. Discussions celebrating one's own and mutual ignorance, with people shooting whatever cheap shots pop up about a great thinker, writer, and soul, make me cringe to be part of HN. There is a morbid interest in seeing how internet discussions, viewed as a whole, behave like a physiological process—perhaps a digestive organ, turning waste of one kind into waste of another.
- drharby 8y agoIsnt forum behavior fascinating!? grabs popcorn
- yesenadam 8y agoAw I didn't think it was so bad. It's not a philosophy site. (I just read through it, having been promised an entertaining 'trainwreck'.) I've seen much worse. And he's one of the most flamebaity of philosophers. Makes me curious - what's the biggest 'trainwreck' you remember?
- dang 8y agoIt's a fair question, but one mercy of this job is that they sink into oblivion fast.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- reggieband 8y ago> his real allegiance lay with the Dionysian, as his life and work went on to attest I've argued this before but my personal opinion was Nietzsche was primarily concerned with challenging orthodoxy. He felt that people submit to moral authority without really considering why a particular set of principles are favored or from where that authority comes. As such he often played the devil's advocate trying his level best to show that the out-of-favor principles had some real advantages. He often laments that people will misunderstand him and I think this is what he meant. He was working at a higher level of abstraction and knew people would focus on his examples rather than his higher meaning. I don't think he was aligned with the Dionysian as much as he was trying to defend it well enough to show that the Apollonian was no more objectively valid.
- zackmorris 8y agoI haven't studied Nietzsche, but this post took me to one of his central themes: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality I realized that due to my life experiences, I see the world through the slave morality. Basically that there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to good and evil, that the world isn't so black and white. For example land developers might see growth as a completely noble endeavor, whereas environmentalists might see the sin of destroying mother nature. I'm pretty solidly in that second group about a great many things. So just to throw an idea out there - I wonder if today's conservatives follow the master morality, whereas today's liberals follow the slave morality. Note that this wasn't always true - for example republicans used to be the party of Lincoln (liberators of slaves) and southern democrats used to be slave masters. But I'm asking about today. Is this completely off base or is it an insight that could be used to find some common ground?