View Single Post
Old 02-07-2009, 08:06 AM   #18
jonathan7
Exiled Jedi...
 
jonathan7's Avatar
 
Status: Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 3,676
Contest winner - Modding LFN Staff Member Veteran Modder Helpful! 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious View Post
Alright... I think I understand what it means now.

As for 'deepy philosphical' and 'potentially illogical', what I mean is that it seems to me, IMHO, that if I were to think about some philosphical concepts as deeply as possible, I'd misinterpret what the philosphers that came up with the ideas meant, taking the ideas so far that I don't interpret it the way they were intended to be interpretted.
Arc, let me know which philosophy books you have read, and where you feel you might have done this and we can help Though this deals with another Nietzsche concept, which I tend to call "the death of the author".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Arcesious View Post
And that's what I thought the 'overman' philosophy was suggesting a person like me do, until Webrider said this and cleared up my misconceptions about it:
Well, it depends upon one's view of the Overman, the whole point is that it is a very hard state to reach, and that only a few can reach that place. Kierkegaard had a similar (but theistic) kind of idea with his 'Knight of Faith'.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
[s]Here's my ace solution: read the philosophies, don't start thinking them off of Wikipedia entries. Read Thus Spake Zarathustra before you start wondering whether Nietzsche was making sense or not.
QFT - Here you go Arc; http://infomotions.com/etexts/philos...e-thus-223.htm

Quote:
Originally Posted by Sabretooth View Post
Contrary to popular belief, philosophical books aren't written in secret codes and cryptic languages, they're in plain old readable language and completely comprehensible all throughout. Read them, and discuss what the philosophy, the ideals mean with other people (preferably smart people who read philosophy) and that way, I don't think you'd ever misinterpret their words.

Bottomline: Read, gorramit.
QFT

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui_gon_glenn View Post
Well, I one for place him as a proto-Existentialist. The concepts of self and "other"ness come up often in his work, and the Overman ideal is itself an acceptance of the existential portrait of human life - we are fallable, we have no purpose, there is nothing but the now.

Of course, you cannot place any label on Sartre, smug son of gun that he was. But I would classify much of Nietzsche's work as pointing towards Existentialism, in particular the Overman as described in Thus Spake Zarathrusta. Along with Kierkegaard (who sure doesn't seem like an existentialist - silly god fearer) and Hegel, the fathers of Existentialism.
I do think Nietzsche was a precursor to the existentialist movement, as was Kierkegaard - but I think both would of rejected claims to them being existentialists IMHO. Not that I don't think they had a massive impact on the existential movement, or that some of their ideas match up. Kierkegaard is an interesting one, I've only read a couple of his works, so can't comment too much - yet

Quote:
Originally Posted by qui_gon_glenn View Post
And, I agree fully with Sabretooth - you should read the philosophies before rendering opinion or judgment. I do not agree that Nietzsche is easy reading though
Seconded

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jae Onasi View Post
So? Do the rest of us look like we're perfect? No. Well, maybe Boba Rhett, but he's a special case.

None of us are going to understand everything completely the first time. Give yourself the freedom to make mistakes.
QFT



"Love is the only reality and it is not a mere sentiment. It is the ultimate truth that lies at the heart of creation." - Rabindranath Tagore

"Many a doctrine is like a window pane. We see truth through it but it divides us from truth." - Kahlil Gibran
jonathan7 is offline   you may: quote & reply,