[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 180 KB, 972x1215, 1306596244519.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862566 No.1862566 [Reply] [Original]

So, Why didn't Nietzsche take efforts to explain himself?

>> No.1862570

I'm pretty sure it says in Zarathustra something like, it meants to be hard, it's meant to be a challenge, to filter out the weak.

Have you even read it?

>> No.1862575

He did, it wasn't written for you.

>> No.1862580

Because if you translate his philosophy into plain English it doesn't sound like something smart and nobody would have taken it seriously.

Do you think if Kant had written the "categorical imperative" in simple English anyone would have paid him any attention?

>> No.1862589

>>1862570
I did. And I understand him saying it. I am just curious. Why wasn't he interested in larger audience?

That kind of doubles my respect for him.

I recently gifted one of my friends the collection of his works for his birthday. He was frustrated after reading it for a while. Said that it was approachable. i could understand him. Nietzsche doesn't involve in pedagogy at all. He knows that what he says is novel, but he also clearly adheres to the ideology of merit by restricting himself to fewest, tersest explanations.

In fact, I found that he doesn't bother to justify. He just goes ahead with claims (not that they are wrong since I agree with him).

>> No.1862626

Jargon heavy language and unnecessary abstraction are pretty typical of any system based philosophy (whether Nietzsche was a systemic philosopher is vaguely moot: his views were pretty extensive in their scope but were anti-system, (whatyagonnado.jpg)).

If you wanted to be cynical, you might say it's a sort of assertion of the views expressed; hell, if it's done right, unnecessarily obfuscatory syntax and diction can sound profound.

Derrida has pointed out on repeated occasions that language is something a philosopher sort of needs to transcend to achieve any real understanding because in essence, language is rational construct and tool as well as a phenomenon (in the kantian sense). Derrida was a language philosophy but the principle is vaguely similar in the sort of metaphysics Nietzsche deals with. Language doesn't offer Nietzsche the sort of perspectival distance he needs, thus there are always linguistic tensions in his work and liberties taken.

>> No.1862660
File: 19 KB, 400x400, what_the_fuck_am_I_reading.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862660

>>1862580
>Nietzsche, Kant
>English

>> No.1862670

would you like to climb a mountain or take a lift? are certain things only actuated by the former experience?

there is also the effect of generalization making a special case less worthy of attention. nonsystematic philosophy is an experience, a kind of dance, whether choreographed puppetry, or a dance together with the author.

>> No.1862683
File: 136 KB, 400x292, 1307878943968.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1862683

>>1862660
>mfw you didn't get him

>> No.1862684

He explained himself, his ideas are simply petty bourgeois ruminations without distinct practical application..all existential philosophy is an attempt to systematize cynicism and synchronize it with German idealism..it's the scene that loathes itself..Nietzsche the most self-loathing of all and even more in denial for that...formal philosophy is really for the weak, no matter how strong the posing may be..like a rigid bough, it snaps under pressure..Nietzsche simply did not go so far as to pronounce a system of ethics (as the later existentialists would) and this because he was really too much of a coward to do so.