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

Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

rickroderick.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–29 of 29 posts

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#21

Post by pmoriarty »

leipert wrote: post #20

I don’t know if someone appreciates these anecdotes, I went to the same school [0] as Nietzsche. In the school records there are two stories of him receiving punishment. The first is pretty relatable for an adolescent in Germany, he was found drunk in a ditch after having a few beer. The second: He ate a sausage behind a pillar in the cloister. (At the time you were just allowed to eat in the dining hall during the a…

"in my imagination he has the Nietzsche beard as well."

The Nietzsche beard?

I don't know what image of Nietzsche you have, but he's well known for having a certain style of mustache, not a beard.

"Nietzsche clearly was a great mind. Which was later eaten away by neurosyphilis"

It's not clear that he had syphilis, and there are some arguments that he did not, like these:

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/Madness-of-Nie...

http://www.hunter.cuny.edu/jns/reviews/richard-schain.-the-l...

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#22

Post by pmoriarty »

Nietzsche is one of the most widely misinterpreted philosophers.

Whenever someone opines on what Nietzsche "really meant", it's good to take that with a grain of salt, and read what Nietzsche actually wrote for yourself.

In this case, see Nietzsche's essay "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense"

https://www.kth.se/social/files/5804ca7ff276547f5c83a592/On%...

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#23

Post by leipert »

pmoriarty wrote: post #21
leipert wrote: post #20

I don’t know if someone appreciates these anecdotes, I went to the same school [0] as Nietzsche. In the school records there are two stories of him receiving punishment. The first is pretty relatable for an adolescent in Germany, he was found drunk in a ditch after having a few beer. The second: He ate a sausage behind a pillar in the cloister. (At the time you were just allowed to eat in the dining hall during the a…

"in my imagination he has the Nietzsche beard as well." The Nietzsche beard? I don't know what image of Nietzsche you have, but he's well known for having a certain style of mustache, not a beard. "Nietzsche clearly was a great mind. Which was later eaten away by neurosyphilis" It's not clear that he had syphilis, and there are some arguments that he did not, like these: https://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/3313279/…

Isn’t a Mustache a type of beard? Maybe that is different in English, but in German a mustache is also called "above lip beard" (Oberlippenbart)

Thanks for the sources on the Syphilis, I like this Part from the second article:

> The important question for Nietzsche scholars is whether this diagnostic controversy has any interpretative bearing. We know, for example, that Nietzsche suffered from insomnia but it's not clear how that information impacts how one interprets Nietzsche. Of course dementia of any kind is a far more serious condition and seems to bring with it textual implications. But what exactly are those implications?

This is kind of similar to the discussion whether Art and Artist are connected or not.

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#24

Post by Thorentis »

Barrin92 wrote: post #10
Thorentis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…

this is ironic because that's a very stereotypical and lazy take on modern philosophy straight out of a Jordan Peterson book. If we came closer to the truth every time someone on the internet mirepresents modern or postmodern philosophy as "we can't know anything bro" we'd have ascended to some higher plane of existence by now.

I didn't mean to generalise all modern philosophy, but I think it's fair to say that unlike philosophy in the past (e.g. The philosophy of antiquity) I think it's fair to say that this is one of the defining characteristics of modern philosophy.

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#26

Post by throwaway98797 »

Thorentis wrote: post #7
chordalkeyboard wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. Gettier problems are an example of the difficulties in knowing conclusively that you are right. More generally, humans are prone to cognitive error. I'm not sure its possible to have 100% justified certainty about many real world issues. This goes back to Descartes (perhaps further, my education is incomplete). > It seems to be that it is often used…

Yeah, I'm not arguing that it is easy to know the truth, but the issue I take with many modern philosophies is that they argue it is impossible to know the truth. Which to me is a self-defeating argument. I have had plenty of interesting discussions with people at dinner-parties/gatherings that start out on the surface as being a disagreement over morality or a different political leaning, but then once you get right…

Is there a difference between

1. Knowing that truth exists but we won’t ever know we found it or be 100% sure that we did

2. Knowing that there is no truth

In both cases we are stuck not knowing what we know. Furthermore, #2 may only apply to only subsets of truths. Ie., this book is real. This iPhone is “true”. Yet not knowing what’s outside of the universe or knowing it can’t be known does not seem to influence the day to day.

My perspective, is truth as a goal in itself is not useful. An interesting way to talk to people is see the consequences of their beliefs on them, not on the theoretically world where everyone does or doesn’t believe as they believe.

I’ve met too many good Christians who acted poorly. I’ve met many asshole non-believers. In the end their faith or lack their of doesn’t appear correlated with how they treat their mother, their father, or others. In the short time we have on this planet I emphasize how I’m actually being treated.

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#27

Post by throwaway98797 »

feralimal wrote: post #14
Thorentis wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Knowing that you could be wrong, is very different to thinking it is impossible to know what is right. The latter in my opinion is the great poison of modern philosophy. It seems to be that it is often used as a way to excuse lazy reasoning and irrational behaviour. Better to pretend that truth can't be known, than earnestly seek it out, etc. The irony of course, is that people who don't think truth can be known, oft…

"people who don't think truth can be known, often act with a great deal of certainty about things they believe to be right." Great comment. It is very rare, in my opinion to find anyone who isn't acting on beliefs as if they were knowledge. 99.999% of people are unable to understand that what they think is 'knowledge' is actually a set of unverified assumptions. These assumptions are presented as true at school, in w…

When you act you collapse the space to one truth.

Ie even if you probabilistic view on a stock. You ultimately comment by buying and collapsing the probability into a single truth.

I think most, no, all people act with certainty when they act.

Re: Nietzsche on Truth and Lie (1991)

#29

Post by aries1980 »

AmericanChopper wrote: post #6

I certainly read Nietzsche differently to this author (and probably Kierkegaard too by the sound of it). I think a point both of them made was that truth can only exist within the context of an agreed upon set of axioms. If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being…

> If you accept that you can’t prove your axioms, then your not accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally valid, you’re only accepting that all beliefs about truth are equally capable of being proven (as in, equally not capable at all).

Afaik this is related to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, so all you can say that within the axiom set you can't prove that there is no contradiction. (Note that this doesn't mean there is a contradiction, but you can't prove there is or there isn't any.)

Post reply on HN