5 ms·

>ultimately, confusing the author personal life with his ideas, or reaching conclusions between the two, this is mainly garbage Hard disagree. You cannot truly

by mikrl 4y ago

>ultimately, confusing the author personal life with his ideas, or reaching conclusions between the two, this is mainly garbage Hard disagree. You cannot truly understand a person’s thought without understanding the person’s life. Even a hardcore logician like Russell, you know he was an academic during such and such a period of history which influenced his worldview and that which he found important. Maybe I’m just outing myself as a PoMo, but thought is life and living begets thought. Philosophers are interpreters of the grand drama in which they have a part.

Cupertino95014 4y ago
Hard disagree, PoMo. The work stands alone. "No man is a hero to his valet" is the truism that springs to mind. Reducing everything to the times & the man is just a way to bring it all down to our own pedestrian level so we can feel equal. The goal of every great artist is to transcend their humanity. We know nothing about Homer, or even if there was such a person, but The Iliad and The Odyssey have been read for 3,000 years.
- dbtc 4y ago
  It's like arguing whether a mountain ought to be experienced from a distance, so you can see it, or from the top, so you can see from it. Both!
  - Cupertino95014 4y ago
    OK w/me
nyolfen 4y ago
“It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.” -- F. Nietzsche
- fedeb95 4y ago
  that's very different from saying that biography can improve or disprove something! As a matter of facts, Nietzsche writes here about moral purpose of philosophy. "Autobiography" here is a trick; confirming that you must separate author life from texts. In German, Nietzsche uses the word "mémoires", which are an author own recollections of experiences. The "Auto" part in the translations, coming from the Greek autòs, meaning self, is the key part here. A description of Nietzsche's sickness made by someone else is hardly an autobiography.
macrolocal 4y ago
Case in point: Russell’s views on Nietzsche.
fedeb95 4y ago
There can be value in understanding where a thought came from: the problem is reducing all of the thought to its provenance. Nietzsche was sick, hence you must restate the validity of his arguments. This argument is garbage. Try to prove it, you will fail. You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography. Otherwise, your thoughts too will be just what you had for breakfast
- mikrl 4y ago
  > You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography What you’re implying is that considering the circumstances of life is ad hominem, which I do not agree with. I’d argue that you cannot truly understand the philosophy without the context, it’s baked in. So you need to know the context to truly disagree with the correct thing, but yes the disagreement should be specifically with the idea, not with the person. Eg not “Nietzsche had a privileged life therefore he was wrong” more like “Nietzsche’s approach to and thoughts on the will to power only really apply when considering the monomania spurred by his father’s early demise and his deep interest in philology. A 21st century approach to nietzschean thought would doubtlessly look very different since material, literary and spiritual conditions have changed somewhat”
  - fedeb95 4y ago
    This I agree with. Context is a thing, saying as the article did things along the line of "Nietzsche was sick so this explains x" is another

by mikrl 4y ago

Cupertino95014 4y ago

Hard disagree, PoMo. The work stands alone. "No man is a hero to his valet" is the truism that springs to mind. Reducing everything to the times & the man is just a way to bring it all down to our own pedestrian level so we can feel equal. The goal of every great artist is to transcend their humanity. We know nothing about Homer, or even if there was such a person, but The Iliad and The Odyssey have been read for 3,000 years.

dbtc 4y ago
It's like arguing whether a mountain ought to be experienced from a distance, so you can see it, or from the top, so you can see from it. Both!
- Cupertino95014 4y ago
  OK w/me

nyolfen 4y ago

“It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.” -- F. Nietzsche

fedeb95 4y ago
that's very different from saying that biography can improve or disprove something! As a matter of facts, Nietzsche writes here about moral purpose of philosophy. "Autobiography" here is a trick; confirming that you must separate author life from texts. In German, Nietzsche uses the word "mémoires", which are an author own recollections of experiences. The "Auto" part in the translations, coming from the Greek autòs, meaning self, is the key part here. A description of Nietzsche's sickness made by someone else is hardly an autobiography.

macrolocal 4y ago

Case in point: Russell’s views on Nietzsche.

fedeb95 4y ago

There can be value in understanding where a thought came from: the problem is reducing all of the thought to its provenance. Nietzsche was sick, hence you must restate the validity of his arguments. This argument is garbage. Try to prove it, you will fail. You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography. Otherwise, your thoughts too will be just what you had for breakfast

mikrl 4y ago
> You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography What you’re implying is that considering the circumstances of life is ad hominem, which I do not agree with. I’d argue that you cannot truly understand the philosophy without the context, it’s baked in. So you need to know the context to truly disagree with the correct thing, but yes the disagreement should be specifically with the idea, not with the person. Eg not “Nietzsche had a privileged life therefore he was wrong” more like “Nietzsche’s approach to and thoughts on the will to power only really apply when considering the monomania spurred by his father’s early demise and his deep interest in philology. A 21st century approach to nietzschean thought would doubtlessly look very different since material, literary and spiritual conditions have changed somewhat”
- fedeb95 4y ago
  This I agree with. Context is a thing, saying as the article did things along the line of "Nietzsche was sick so this explains x" is another