Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Twilight of Nietzsche

spiked-online.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 58 posts

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#41

Post by [deleted] »

drewcape wrote: post #37
HKH2 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your question presupposes that you should orient yourself towards something in particular.

Yes, indeed. * Do you believe that you (personally) have some kind of freedom? * If so, you would have to decide how to use that freedom. Otherwise, it's not really freedom, is it? * Finally, in order to make any decision you have to put yourself in some coordinates, orient yourself. Otherwise, it's not a decision, but a random choice. Remember that avoiding coming up with any decision is also a decision.

[deleted]

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#42

Post by Borrible »

The interesting thing about Nietzsche's eternal return of the same is that he must have known that there is no choice if loving, hating and thinking itself is part of the return. The moment you decide will have have been over and over again and will be over and over again and your decision will always be the same. But without a choice, there is no heroic stoicism. It's philosophical predestination doctrine without God.

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#43

Post by yamtaddle »

fedeb95 wrote: post #30
dang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's not what I did. Read better. I state that it's garbage because the very first thing you learn when analysing literature is separating men from their ideas. This article doesn't do that and proceeds to find meaningless conclusions.

Some currently-fashionable methods of literary analysis deliberately ignore author biography, but I don't think most people who favor those would claim there's never any reason for or value in examining the biographies of authors. I don't think they'd suggest people, say, entirely ignore the biography of an author forever and in all cases. Besides, it's common for one person to apply multiple approaches for a really deep analysis of a work, whether independently or together.

Plus, this is a review of a biography, so it's not the reviewer's fault the book is concerned with biography.

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#44

Post by ramesh31 »

cr4nberry wrote: post #22
ramesh31 wrote: post #17

Why Nietzche's ideas can be so dangerous without the aid of proper context and perspective. They are very seductive to a certain type of young man. But the reality of human fallibility leads to terminal ressentiment in the end for anyone fixed in that philosophy. It is a total dead end.

> But the reality of human fallibility leads to terminal ressentiment in the end for anyone fixed in that philosophy. It is a total dead end. Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well

>Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well

I'm certainly not disregarding him. His work was (and is) important. But the reason it lives on is to serve as a cautionary tale. It saves you from taking a turn down that road which can be so appealing to precocious young minds who aren't aware of its' logical conclusions.

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#45

Post by imbnwa »

dang wrote: post #20
imbnwa wrote: post #14

>To regard Nietzsche as a self-help author, writing primarily for himself, helps to put his least convincing idea – eternal recurrence – into perspective. This is the idea that we will live our lives again and again, ad infinitum. For an anti-metaphysician who suggested that we can strive to be higher, better beings, this fatalistic notion of eternal recurrence seems jarring. He devised it in 1881, at a time of perso…

> This is actually a terrible take and you should not listen to this person at all. Please keep this sort of internet name-calling and swipes of HN. We're trying for a different quality of discussion here. Both of those things are in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I only skimmed the rest of your comment but it looks like it would be fine without that bit.

Apologies, I had too strong an emotional reaction

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#46

Post by dang »

imbnwa wrote: post #45
dang wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is actually a terrible take and you should not listen to this person at all. Please keep this sort of internet name-calling and swipes of HN. We're trying for a different quality of discussion here. Both of those things are in the site guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html I only skimmed the rest of your comment but it looks like it would be fine without that bit.

Apologies, I had too strong an emotional reaction

It happens!

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#47

Post by dang »

fedeb95 wrote: post #30
dang wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

" Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something. " https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's not what I did. Read better. I state that it's garbage because the very first thing you learn when analysing literature is separating men from their ideas. This article doesn't do that and proceeds to find meaningless conclusions.

Erroring out at the first detail that contradicts a generic principle is a classic type of shallow dismissal.

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#48

Post by mikrl »

fedeb95 wrote: post #31
mikrl wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

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

> 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”

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#49

Post by cr4nberry »

ramesh31 wrote: post #44
cr4nberry wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> But the reality of human fallibility leads to terminal ressentiment in the end for anyone fixed in that philosophy. It is a total dead end. Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well

>Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well I'm certainly not disregarding him. His work was (and is) important. But the reason it lives on is to serve as a cautionary tale. It saves you from taking a turn down that road which can be so appealing to precocious young minds who aren't aware of its' logical conclusions.

> its' logical conclusions

such as?

Re: The Twilight of Nietzsche

#50

Post by ramesh31 »

cr4nberry wrote: post #49
ramesh31 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Could you elaborate a little bit? If you're going to disregard his thought with a broad stroke, you might as well I'm certainly not disregarding him. His work was (and is) important. But the reason it lives on is to serve as a cautionary tale. It saves you from taking a turn down that road which can be so appealing to precocious young minds who aren't aware of its' logical conclusions.

> its' logical conclusions such as?

See the article. Nietzsche was driven to madness and died alone in an insane asylum.
Post reply on HN