6 ms·

Yeah, it's not been going too well for him since 1900.

stewbrew 8y ago
It probably wasn't much better before.
YorkshireSeason 8y ago
In 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 ago
    That 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 ago
        I 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 ago
        That's not what you say about memory. The Guardian article is to tease you into getting the book.
        YorkshireSeason 8y ago
        I'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 ago
  You'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 ago
    worthy 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 ago
      OK, fair enough.
  - Emma_Goldman 8y ago
    The 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 ago
Nietzsche 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 ago
  In the future, we'll have "Elon Musk's Guide to Better Living", and then there'll be the same debate.
  - trashtester 8y ago
    I 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 ago
      Nicola Tesla actually invented thing. AFAIK, Musk didn't; he's above all a successful businessman but has little to no technical competencies.
      - robfitz 8y ago
        In 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 ago
        There 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.

It probably wasn't much better before.

In 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 ago
  That 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 ago
      I 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 ago
        That's not what you say about memory. The Guardian article is to tease you into getting the book.
        YorkshireSeason 8y ago
        I'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 ago
You'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 ago
  worthy 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 ago
    OK, fair enough.
- Emma_Goldman 8y ago
  The 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 ago

Nietzsche 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 ago
In the future, we'll have "Elon Musk's Guide to Better Living", and then there'll be the same debate.
- trashtester 8y ago
  I 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 ago
    Nicola Tesla actually invented thing. AFAIK, Musk didn't; he's above all a successful businessman but has little to no technical competencies.
    - robfitz 8y ago
      In 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 ago
      There 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.