[ 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: 165 KB, 773x1024, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3683470 No.3683470[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What are your thoughts on Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophical writings?

Ignore all of the abuse, out of context quotations and general lack of understanding of his work. I want to hear what people that have actually studied his work think.

>> No.3683478

hes pretty cool yo

>> No.3683484

>>3683478

More in depth?

>> No.3683494

The first stage. To honor (and obey and learn) better than anyone. To gather all that is honorable in oneself, and let it conflict with oneself. To bear all that is heavy. Asceticism of the spirit—bravery, time of community.The second stage. To break the adoring heart (when one is captivated most). The free spirit. Independence. Time of the desert. Criticism of all that is honored (idealization of the non-honored), attempt at inverted valuations.The third stage. Great decision, whether one is capable of a positive attitude, of affirmation. No longer any God, any man above me! The instinct of the creator who knows what he is creating. The great responsibility and the innocence. In order to enjoy a single thing, one has to affirm [gutheißen] everything. Give oneself the right to act.

>> No.3683490

also no one in this board, including me, is willing to continue this tiresome flogging of said moribound equine, freddy is breakdancing in his grave from all these threads

>> No.3683496

He has some good ideas but was inconsistent.

Foucault forwarded his project well but was a piss poor historian.

Read his essay Nietzsche, Genealogy, History

I also suggest you read Heidegger's essay. Nietzsche's Word: God is Dead.

>> No.3683498

Focus on affirmation and creativity, eternal return, and will to power are interesting. His influence on foucault and deleuze as well as the way that his philsophy interacts with spinoza's is also interesting. overall p.cool

>> No.3683508

>>3683496
What are the criticism against him as a historian?

>> No.3683515

>>3683508

Numerous sloppy inaccuracies like positing Narrenschiff to have really carried the mad from port to port instead of being allegorical.

>> No.3683523

Do we really need to have 5 Nietzsche threads at once?

>> No.3683524

>>3683508
It's usually something to do with people misreading things like his comments on the ship of fools (this comes from poor translation or reading snippets and not engaging with the style), or them not liking his use of art interpretation because it's not what they're used to. Both of these usually come out of people trying to force out criticisms and actively forgetting or failing to see his work in the context of a grander project.

>> No.3683532

>>3683515

But he doesn't. And you missed the point of Stultifera Navis. It was about social segregation, not the mobility of the mad body.

>> No.3683540

>>3683496
>He has some good ideas but was inconsistent.

That's actually part of his whole point

/facepalm

>> No.3683541

>>3683524

I think you are failing to see that he used whatever he could to make his point. His use of the narrenschiff is not "style" it is sloppy academics. It is the same as saying that the "Celestial Emporium of Benevolent Knowledge's Taxonomy" really existed...as he did in the Order of Things.

There is a long tradition of poor academics using Borges' forgeries as real works unwittingly. Foucault fell for it.

>> No.3683547

>>3683540

Nope. He is Kantian sometimes and other times he rails against Kant. He didn't understand some of what he wrote on. He was inconsistent and surprisingly not very well read.

This is coming for a man dissertation on Nietzsche.

>> No.3683548

>>3683541
>I think you are failing to see that he used whatever he could to make his point.
I've probably read the same secondary literature you have, and that debate set sail long ago. It's really not a vaguely interesting or original point any more, it's certainly not valid.

>> No.3683566

>>3683548

So let me get this straight...for you a "good" historian can make up historical facts and when confronted with there falsity write it off as "style."

/facepalm

>> No.3683582

>>3683566

can't see the forest for the trees.jpeg.

>> No.3683591

>>3683566
It's really far more complicated than you're giving it credit for. If you really are writing a dissertation and thinking this is relevant, here's some advice: don't regurgitate shit from the late 80s/early 90s without any critical appraisal, the academic marking will also think you're an idiot. It'll just look like you're using Still's reader as your bible. Lecourt's overview of Foucault is much much better.

>> No.3683592

>>3683547
>He is Kantian sometimes and other times he rails against Kant.


It's like you failed to understand the most basic point of nietzsches' perspectivism + continual self-overcoming philosophy

shoot yourself

>This is coming for a man dissertation on Nietzsche.

I don't know what "for a man dissertation" means, but shoot yourself anyway

>> No.3683596

>>3683582

See here, forests are made of trees. Not paintings of trees or books of trees rumored to exist in the writings of sci-fi authors.

This is why Foucault is not taken very seriously outside of gender studies departments.

That said genealogy is a powerful tool when done well.

>> No.3683600
File: 73 KB, 600x481, nietzsche_and_the_moribound equine_600.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3683600

guess i was le wrong...flogging continues, godspeed

>> No.3683602

>>3683541
I don't think it was 'unwitting'. That really was just the standard of "intellectual hygiene" that prevailed in Paris for many years. You basically cobbled together whatever you thought would produce the most impressive overall effect, without worrying too much about whether what you were writing was history, poetry or whatever.
Even in his last years, the nature of Foucault's work is not so different. His rejection of the "repressive hypothesis" in The History of Sexuality is not exactly a downright replacement of historical fact with fiction, but it is getting pretty close to it. There may be an interesting PARTICLE of truth in the idea that the modern age's repression of sexuality was itself a form of sexuality's proliferation but to set that idea up as the, or even as a, crucial key to the understanding of sexuality in the 18th and 19th Centuries is as glaring an error, or as reckless an impudence, as treating the Ship of Fools as if it were a real ship.

>> No.3683603

>>3683591

I am working on genealogy from within an analytic philosophy department. I do not write on people. I perform novel research. I also have never read the 80s and 90s secondary lit.

I have however read Borges and know the allegory of the ship of fools. It does not take research to tell that Foucault's bold claims about these were unfounded.

>> No.3683615

>>3683603
>I perform novel research.
Apparently not bud.

>> No.3683622

>>3683615

I would tell you my project but that would give away who I am. Can't have that now can we.

Fuck off.

>> No.3683636

>>3683622
>I would tell you my project but that would give away who I am.
Is it "My own original work honest and not just copy pasted from the internet pls do not steal"? It's all well and good playing make believe, but keep it off /lit/ please. If it isn't purely make believe, I can't imagine how you managed to get so far in your degree knowing nothing of academic scholarship.

>> No.3683638

>>3683470
Love him. Doesn't present a huge blanket theory, rather just tries to get to the truth in any way he can, inconsistencies be damned.

Really, I think you love him or you hate him. You have to accept what he is proposing at the start to really walk down his path.

>> No.3683646

>>3683636
>I can't imagine how you managed to get so far in your degree knowing nothing of academic scholarship.

This statement is underdetermined.

--Typical Foucauldian generalization--

>> No.3683650

>>3683636

Let me tell you something about grad programs.

They have lists of students with our research projects listed next to our names and email addresses. If I said what I was doing you would find me. I don't want you knowing anything about me.

>> No.3683653

>>3683646
>This statement is underdetermined.
>generalization
Really not the same things at all there brah. But please feel free to continue falling flat on your face.

>> No.3683660

>>3683653
>Really not the same things at all there brah

But they are!

The problem of underdetermination concerns the relationship between theory (scientific theory, or any generalization) and the empirical data. For any given theory, the evidence will never determine the choice between that theory and some rival theory. The problem then is to show how theory choice can ever be rational.

>> No.3683662

>>3683650
>If I said what I was doing you would find me.
I'd have to look in a hell of a lot of basements for that I think. But if it's true, enjoy having an e-mail address next to your name while it lasts, it sounds like you're seriously fucking your grad program up.

>> No.3683675

>>3683660
What a theory you have there, itself removed from the empirical data (the comments themselves). Kinda self-unnullifying self-nullifying attempt.

>> No.3683687

>>3683662

Because I don't worship at the alter of Foucault? Because I think his approach is overly bold? Because I am not as careful on an internet forum as I am in my academic work?

I hope you live the rest of your life in a pseudocoma. Keep in mind, you went negative before I did.

>> No.3683699
File: 224 KB, 499x310, jack mary lacan tells it how it be.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3683699

What I would like to know is how useful Nietzsche's ideas are for psychology.

Can we really forget our "unpleasant" experiences, using forgetting as an active cure against thing like the psychoanalytic return of the repressed?

>> No.3683705

>>3683699

Kauffman's Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist, Antichrist is what you need to read then.

>> No.3683707

>>3683687
>Because I don't worship at the alter of Foucault?
Because you haven't done any research. To put it in perspective, I know these criticisms because I wrote about the implications for madness and medicating mental illness on the legal system, I know they're not hard to find at all. Considering you think this is "original research" and don't seem to understand the need for citation/reading, you're gonna look like a plagiarist, and the only excuse you'll be able to give for it is being too lazy to research at all.

>I hope you live the rest of your life in a pseudocoma.
P rich from you m8

>> No.3683716

His Genealogy is terrible as an actual historical account of morality but wonderful as a fable.

>> No.3683726

>>3683707
>Considering you think this is "original research"

I have only said that I am using an genealogical approach. I simply think that challenging accepted ontic categories through historical research is a good way to show other's that the emperor has not clothes.

That is all I will say. I have no need to read or cite Foucault scholars. My dissertation is not on Foucault!

>> No.3683735

>>3683707
>the only excuse you'll be able to give for it is being too lazy to research at all.

implying I don't do research relevant to my topic.

what the fuck is your problem?

I'd like to see your paper. Did you write is for Soc 201?

>> No.3683740

>>3683726
>My dissertation is not on Foucault!
Thank god for that.
>>3683735
>I'd like to see your paper. Did you write is for Soc 201?
Ice burn

>> No.3683750
File: 67 KB, 996x764, bold cat vs bald eagle.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3683750

>>3683705
Thanks. I have it at hand and I'll skim through it right now.

I'm mostly interested in this because I noticed that most if not all the authors profoundly influenced by Nietzsche criticized psychoanalysis for its reactive perspective, one that ignores man's active, affirmative and creative drives. Also, I fear that cryptovitalistic approaches to psychology might lure me into a neurotic false sense of security. Pic related.

>> No.3683774

>>3683740

You do understand that philosophers do not write on people don't you?

>> No.3683782

>>3683774
Knowing what you're writing about and citing is not at all the same as "writing on people". I get the impression you don't even know what that means.

>> No.3683803

>>3683782

I also tend to reject most of the post-modern crap that comes from those who work on Foucault. History departments, sociology departments, and gender studies are infamous for this.

I get the impression that you think donna haraway is a serious academic who deserves a place next to the likes of hume or kant.

I am sure you finished your honors thesis or MA and think you are such a great academic since you have produced a major (~45 page study)

you are a piece of shit as is your sophist work.

>> No.3683817

>>3683803

You criticize Foucault for his historical studies from a philosophy department, then you shit on History as a whole discipline? How on earth are we supposed to take you seriously?

Category error alert.

>> No.3683821

>>3683803
>I get the impression that you think donna haraway
Is this some kind of humanities dick measuring thing? Like "I bet you like sissy gender studies"?

>you are a piece of shit as is your sophist work.
Do not feel inadequate because of your endowment, I'm sure you will, as an underdog, somehow rise with the cream to the pinnacle of academia like an ivory tower Rocky Balboa. With an ego like yours I'm sure you'll manage to convince yourself you've succeeded even if you fail, I guess that's a consolation.

>> No.3683827

>>3683817

I said they are infamous for this and they are. Post modern sophistry has infected most branches of the humanities. Philosophy excluded (in the English speaking world). History done well is a powerful tool. Relativist crap is just that.

>> No.3683830

>>3683821

not sissy, just sloppy, undetermined, and above all else pretentious

>> No.3683842

>>3683827
>>3683830
Wow, I bet your supervisor loves the meetings with you. Chance to catch some zzs and zone out.

>> No.3683852

>>3683842

I think that I actually hate you. Never met you but hate you. Too bad I used to like /lit/.

>> No.3683859

>>3683592
typical amerifat

>> No.3683865

>>3683852

Hi stan. Good troll. Go to bed.

>> No.3684108

>>3683865

barring the fact that it wasn't me,i don't really see anything stan-like about that post

lel, you the nyu guy who reads freddy as a kantian?