/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3787088]

>This, incidentally, is almost the whole weakness of Nietzsche, whom some are representing as a bold and strong thinker. No one will deny that he was a poetical and suggestive thinker; but he was quite the reverse of strong. He was not at all bold. He never put his own meaning before himself in bald abstract words: as did Aristotle and Calvin, and even Karl Marx, the hard, fearless men of thought. Nietzsche always escaped a question by a physical metaphor, like a cheery minor poet. He said, "beyond good and evil," because he had not the courage to say, "more good than good and evil," or, "more evil than good and evil." Had he faced his thought without metaphors, he would have seen that it was nonsense. So, when he describes his hero, he does not dare to say, "the purer man," or "the happier man," or "the sadder man," for all these are ideas; and ideas are alarming. He says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers. Nietzsche is truly a very timid thinker. He does not really know in the least what sort of man he wants evolution to produce. And if he does not know, certainly the ordinary evolutionists, who talk about things being "higher," do not know either.

pfffffffffffhahahahahaha, get FUCKED freddy

[Anonymous No.3787093]

>>3787088

this isn't really an effective argument because Nietzsche wasn't talking about the literal evolution of man through the process we understand. he was merely pointing out that over time man will advance until he looks back at how we currently are and laughs at how simple his species was.

[Anonymous No.3787094]

What the hell did I just read.

[Anonymous No.3787096]

>>3787093
>and laughs at how simple his species was.

so you're saying that he will be "the more complex man"?

[Anonymous No.3787098]

Karl Marx refused to work, went to school for philosophy, and fed his family by leeching off the bourgeoise achievements of his friend Engels. He didn't exactly put his theories to practice.

[Anonymous No.3787101]

>>3787094
someone calling Nietzsche out for being the beta he was.

the only thing he had strength for was deny every doctrine ever held before, which doesn't take much strength at all.

[Anonymous No.3787109]

>>3787101

That's what it seemed like what the writer was arguing until the evolutionist line. Seems he's saying, evolution is wrong because I don't like Nietzsche. Which is an odd argument to make.

[Anonymous No.3787111]

>>3787109
the writer is Chesterton and he was writing when Evolution was still sort of "up and coming". When he says Evolution here I think he is more referring to what we now call Social Darwinism, the idea that Evolution is making men "better".

[Anonymous No.3787117]

>>3787111

That doesn't make his argument make any sense. Nietzsche wasn't exactly a social darwinist. He wrote against Spencer and the like.

[Anonymous No.3787123]

chesterton is annoying, has he only managed to avoid refutation by staying beneath notice as a dedicated 'apologetic' hack

[Anonymous No.3787150]

>>3787088
doesn't get (or purposely misunderstands) Nietzsche and evolution. The vagueness in both cases is important to the idea. The idea that evolution has a goal is silly, and the idea that purer or happier are what the goal should be is also pretty silly. "better fit" or "superior" are also comparative terms, implying better or more fit than some other real or hypothetical candidate. Even "better actualized" implies a possible rival.
The idea that Nietzsche hides behind metaphor when what he's trying to get at is an unencompassable idea is to misuse the blind man-elephant idea. Nietzsche acknowledges that he is trying to describe an elephant when he has no trustworthy even partial evidence, and "evolution"even care to speculate as to what creature might be most fit for some set of future conditions.

[Anonymous No.3787178]

>>3787088
I love a lot of what Chesterton wrote. He was marvelously, intuitively insightful about writers whom he sympathized and had a fundamental affinity with, like Aquinas. And he produced exciting, intellectually thrilling fiction when he - rather ironically - did pretty much what he is accusing Nietzsche of doing here and wrote without giving himself clear account of just what he was writing ("The Man Who Was Thursday" is a masterpiece, but it plays with Christian imagery while offering a conclusion which is plainly more pagan Gnostic than Christian).

His attacks on Nietzsche constitute one of the several points in his massive oeuvre where Chesterton descends into cheap journalistic silliness, though. Chesterton was notorious for writing in an authoritative tone about authors he had never actually read. In some cases, as with Aquinas, he miraculously pulled it off. With Nietzsche he falls down heavily.

What he calls "Nietzsche" is probably some jumbled "Readers Digest" nonsense he gleaned from Wells or Shaw, or from far inferior English popularizers of Nietzsche.

From this passage it's clear, for example, that he knew no more about Nietzsche's book "Jenseits von Gut und Boese" than just the title, the whole point of which he fails to understand. Nietzsche would have been going directly against all that he himself was teaching if he had had the "courage" to say "more good than good and evil or more evil than good and evil". The whole POINT of Nietzsche's philosophy was that the dichotomy "good/evil" ("gut/boese") was a derived and a false one, a reaction of "ressentiment" against the true dichotomy "good/bad" ("gut/schlecht").

Chesterton cares absolutely nothing for this actual substance of Nietzsche's philosophy because he is just taking cheap journalistic potshots at what vaguely passed for "Nietzsche" in London circa 1920.

A lovely man, as I say, and sometimes a genius - but to be taken with a pinch of salt.

[Anonymous No.3787186]

By the way, it is actually an astonishing thing to observe how completely all serious scholarly standards were thrown out the window by very many writers writing about Nietzsche in the English-speaking world around 1910, 1920. He'd really gotten people's backs up, God bless him, and people would publish just about ANY invented shit about what he wrote even in publications that were supposed to be serious and scholarly.

I remember very clearly coming across a British "Encyclopedia of Religion and Philosophy' from around that time - actually stocked still in the Senate House library of London University! - which included an entry on a doctrine ascribed to Nietzsche called "die Unwertung aller Werte", which is some kind of half-German for "the devaluation of all values". Actually, the German would be "ENTWertung", but the point is neither UN- nor ENTwertung is to be found in Nietzsche at all. Nietzsche talks about an UMWertung, a "REvaluation of all values".
This encyclopedia article from around 1910 lays into him for a hundred lines for being a "nihilist" without the author even bothering to check the German text.

That, unfortunately, is the "scholarly" atmosphere that Chesterton's remarks emerge from.

[Anonymous No.3787226]

"The Romans took him out of the earth (homo), but the Greeks raised him up (anthropos)."
OP can't into Greek complex?

[Anonymous No.3787246]

I don't think any of these vague semantic discrepancies are proof of Nietzche being a weak-minded person.

[Anonymous No.3787255]

>>3787109
>>3787093
>>3787117
Actually, Chesterton was refuting the (false) notion that evolution leads to 'higher' (more intelligent, more ethical, more moral)men. While evolution simply says that over time beings become more adapted to their environment there is the mistaken idea that this is some sort of 'progress towards an end which is 'higher' than where we are now'.

[Anonymous No.3787259]

>>3787150
But Chesterton was pointing out that this vagueness means that Nietzsche is less a philosopher than a futurist; 'someday we will be superior in ways that cannot be predicted' is a supposition, not a logical argument.

[Anonymous No.3787261]

>>3787178
How is good/evil anymore false than good/bad? Both are arbitrary human value judgements.

I guess the point he's making is that the aesthetic is more important than the ethical? Maybe for him, but that doesn't make the ethical anymore "false".

[Anonymous No.3787264]

>>3787178
I would counter that Beyond Good and Evil is a weak work, as Chesterton pointed out.

[Anonymous No.3787267]

>>3787246
Jesus, you people do blunder on in your stupid vanity quite regardless, don't you?
Read my lips:
It is ridiculous and (much as I hate to ascribe such a characteristic to Chesterton) disingenuous to imply that there exist "semantic discrepancies" in the work of a writer WHOM ONE IS NOT ABLE TO READ IN THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGE.
'Uebermensch" does not suggest "acrobats" or "Alpine climbers" to the ear of any native German speaker, nor is "ueber" really a "physical metaphor" in that language the way "overman" or "upper man" sound like they are in English.
There are good reasons why the "overman" of the first, turn-of-the-century translations of Nietzsche has long since been dropped.
The OP doubtless means well, but reprinting a hopelessly out-of-date "critique" of Nietzsche by someone who had never read his work anyway is pretty stupid.

And now you can get back to your ignorant jabbering, you silly morons...

[Anonymous No.3787268]

>>3787267
More evidence that the only 'philosophers' more attached to insults and personal attacks than followers of Nietzsche are followers of Rand

[Anonymous No.3787270]

>>3787267
If you feel like calling these anons morons why not point out the stupidity of their posts rather than point out the dated source material in the OP (which was revealed several times already, your post being redundant).

[Anonymous No.3787279]

>>3787186
Praise for this post. You are making /lit/ worthwhile.

[Anonymous No.3787283]

>>3787150
This guy in particular is a fucking riot.

A prime example of complete and utter intellectual irresponsibility and disregard of the text for the sake of a good opportunity to say something that sounds subtle and profound.

"The vagueness is important to the idea"

WHAT FUCKING VAGUENESS?

There IS no linguistic vagueness in the concepts Chesterton cites from Nietzsche, and the only reason Chesterton could get away with implying that there was was because he was a parochial monoglot Englishman writing for an audience of other monoglot parochial Englishmen.

This "the vagueness is important to the idea" guy's post is a wonderful example of how post-modernist obfuscation tends to seize on ANYTHING - even, and particularly, simple IGNORANCE - to feed its vanity and love of its own "subtlety" and "cleverness".

"Oh, isn't it "sexy" that Nietzsche was VAGUE but that the vagueness was the whole POINT? Ah, but you have to have read Derrida and Zizek like ME to be able to appreciate that...."

You stupid fuck, SHOW that Nietzsche was "vague" before you start waxing all lyrical about his "vagueness". But LEARN GERMAN to do it, or you'll end up sounding like as much of a fool as the arrogant, parochial Chesterton does.

[Anonymous No.3787284]

>>3787186
this

[Anonymous No.3787286]

>>3787270
Yes. By me. You fucking idiot.

[Anonymous No.3787289]

>>3787286
No, by these posts:
>>3787111
>>3787178
>>3787186

If they were by you then you had no reason to repeat yourself. Like I said, attack the points of these so-called morons rather than repeating what has already been said.

[Anonymous No.3787290]

>>3787283
>If you don't read German you aren't allowed to comment on Nietzsche.
Do you read Latin? If not, no comments on Aquinas.

[Anonymous No.3787291]

>>3787286
anon is trying to point out that personal attacks, rather than attacks on points of fact, etc., make you look like an ignorant douche, so you should quit

[Anonymous No.3787293]

>>3787255

"Mankind does not represent a development toward something
better or stronger or higher in the way it is believed today. “Progress”
is merely a modern idea, that is, a false idea. The European of today
stands far below the European of the Renaissance; further development is not by any necessity at all an exaltation, an elevation, a
strengthening. In another sense there is a continuous success story of individual
cases in the most various places and from the most various cultures in
which a higher type does indeed appear: something which in relation to
all of mankind is a kind of superman. Such lucky incidents of great
success have always been possible and will perhaps always be
possible. And even entire races, tribes, peoples can under certain
circumstances bring off such a lucky hit."

Nietzsche - Antichrist

[Anonymous No.3787295]

>>3787283

I think you should read what i said again. The point is that Nietzsche HAD to be vague because he himself does not know waht characteristics the Superman will have, anymore than a person speculationg on what an organism, human or otherwise, is going to need to survive in the future. That's why evolutionary "fitness" is vague. And in Also Sprach Zarathustra, Nietzsche explains this himself. It has nothing to do with post-modernism, which I'm only peripherally aware of,And I do read german, though not that well, and i can't speak it uncomically. But I do know that it's impossible to be specific, in any language about something you can't possibly know. And Nietzsche says he doesn't know what the characteristics of the superman would be, if it could be acheived.

Make sense now?

[Anonymous No.3787296]

>>3787289
Two out of three of those were by me.
And if you think that I "had no reason to repeat myself" then you are just not following the thread.
Several posts were made after these posts in which posters were going on about "semantic discrepancies" in Nietzsche as if they had not acknowledged that Chesterton's charge of semantic discrepancy was based solely on lousy, false translations.

[Anonymous No.3787298]

>>3787123
He's annoying because he's right. Has there been any person who refuted Chesterton?

[Anonymous No.3787299]

>>3787293
What are these success stories he refers to?

[Anonymous No.3787301]

>>3787299
One he talks about in ecce homo is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cesare_Borgia

[Anonymous No.3787305]

>>3787293
Uh-huh - as Chesterton *also* pointed out, this is a false notion.
Hold it! I just realized - you don't get what Chesterton was saying because you haven't read Orthodoxy.
The quote of OP's is from a book, not an isolated statement, and is about the errors made by attempting to sound profound.
After all the grief you have spouted about not talking about Nietzsche if you don't read Latin' you *HAVE* read Orthodoxy, right?
Right?

[Anonymous No.3787310]

people are getting pretty mad about this.

Chesterton is making a fairly simple point in my eyes, it's a very important point to make.

What he's saying is that Nietzsche isn't a very "bold" thinker. A bold thinker would come out and say that, for example, intelligence is always better than the stupidity, or that chastity is always better than debauchery, which puts that thinker in a very clear position. If he says that his ideal of the man of the future is the "intelligent man", we have some clear picture of what he means. If he says that his ideal man of the future is the "chaste man", again, we have a clear picture. But Nietzsche avoids saying attributing any qualities to his ideal man of the future, he hides behind vague language. Now that one guy in the thread said that this is because Chesterton is an Englishman that doesn't understand German so of course he thinks it's vague. But no, Nietzsche is clearly, unequivocally being vague about defining what his Overman will be.

If I say: be a more intelligent man, you can do something about that.
If I say: be a more chaste man, you can do something about it.
Have any of you ever wondered about how you go about becoming the Overman? Yes there's a lot of rigmarole about smashing old tablets - but what does that mean? Merely that the Overman is different from us because he has new tablets, it doesn't give us any idea about what these new tablets are.

[Anonymous No.3787312]

>>3787295
Well, possibly what you say makes some sense on its own terms, but my reasons for accusing you of intellectual dishonesty were these, and I think they remain valid:

(i) Someone posts a passage written about 100 years ago accusing Nietzsche of linguistic vagueness and ambiguity

(ii) It is repeatedly pointed out that the author of that passage had absolutely no valid grounds for accusing Nietzsche of such linguistic vagueness, since he never read a single line of the language Nietzsche had actually written (indeed, I think it is highly doubtful whether he even read him in translation).

(iii) Despite all that, you insist on seizing on this as a good occasion for expounding your own ideas on "constitutive and necessary vagueness in Nietzsche".

As I say, I'm not going to take issue with your theory that "Nietzsche had to be vague" I suspect it's probably wrong, but that is a discussion for another thread. All I am saying is that it is dishonest, vain and stupid to use a PROVENLY INVALID point about Nietzsche's "vagueness" as a jumping-off point to expound theories about his "vagueness" that you hold - presumably for utterly unrelated reasons - to be valid.

[Anonymous No.3787313]

>>3787123
-Several popular novels
-popular detective stories widely quoted in the day
-plays in London
-Public debates with Shaw which he famously won
-popular magazine
-frequent essayist in some of the largest newspapers in England
>he only managed to avoid refutation by staying beneath notice as a dedicated 'apologetic' hack
Sure, pal

[Anonymous No.3787315]

>>3787310
here is another quote by Chesterton to expand my point

>And now it comes to my mind that Mr. H. G. Wells actually has written a very delightful romance about men growing as tall as trees; and that here, again, he seems to me to have been a victim of this vague relativism. "The Food of the Gods" is, like Mr. Bernard Shaw's play, in essence a study of the Superman idea. And it lies, I think, even through the veil of a half-pantomimic allegory, open to the same intellectual attack. We cannot be expected to have any regard for a great creature if he does not in any manner conform to our standards. For unless he passes our standard of greatness we cannot even call him great. Nietszche summed up all that is interesting in the Superman idea when he said, "Man is a thing which has to be surpassed." But the very word "surpass" implies the existence of a standard common to us and the thing surpassing us. If the Superman is more manly than men are, of course they will ultimately deify him, even if they happen to kill him first. But if he is simply more supermanly, they may be quite indifferent to him as they would be to another seemingly aimless monstrosity. He must submit to our test even in order to overawe us. Mere force or size even is a standard; but that alone will never make men think a man their superior. Giants, as in the wise old fairy-tales, are vermin. Supermen, if not good men, are vermin.

[Anonymous No.3787323]

>>3787312
>(i) Someone posts a passage written about 100 years ago accusing Nietzsche of linguistic vagueness and ambiguity

He's not accusing him of linguistic vagueness, he's accusing him of conceptual vagueness. Nietzsche's ideas are vague, not his language. "The Overman" is a vague idea, even if he read about it in the original German.

[Anonymous No.3787327]

>>3787305

That was my first post in this thread.....

And no books is going to make me believe that history is not filled with many men who makes the rest of humanity look like low tier noobs...

[Anonymous No.3787338]

>>3787301
So political success? If he's refuting the idea that evolution means we're getting smarter overall then yes he's right, evolution works incredibly slowly first of all, and then it's simple adaption, not necessarily smarter or dumber (for example inventing calculators might have made us dumber at math but perhaps having more time to do other things).

But I don't get how he can claim the Europeans of the renaissance are above the Europeans of the enlightenment. There are endless ways in which the latter were above them. They lived longer, the societies were stronger, the countries were stronger economically and even militarily. The list can go on. Why does Nietzsche have such a hard-on for socities that would suck for the average person living in them? As he said himself, they didn't have more success stories, they have always existed regardless. So why wouldn't the societies which are better in so many other ways be above them?

[Anonymous No.3787340]

>>3787315

"The word
“Superman” as the designation for a type of the highest successfulness
as opposed to “modern” men, to “good” men, to Christians and other
nihilists — a word that in the mouth of a Zarathustra, the annihilation
of morality, becomes a very thought-provoking word — has been
understood almost everywhere with complete innocence in the sense
of those values whose antithesis the figure of Zarathustra was meant
to represent: that is to say, as the “idealistic” type of a higher kind of
man, half-“saint,” half-“genius”...Other learned dolts have suspected
me of Darwinism on that account; even the “hero-worship” of that
great unwilling and unknowing swindler Carlyle, which I maliciously
dismissed, was recognized in it. Whosoever’s ears I whispered into
that he had better look around for a Cesare Borgia rather than a Parsifal would not believe his ears."

Nietzsche - ecce homo

[Anonymous No.3787345]

>>3787327
Men are a product of their material circumstances. It's purely romantic and not realistic to say certain men escaped that and exercised superhuman feats of free will. It's just so gradual, no one is much higher than everyone else when you put humanity on a scale.

[Anonymous No.3787349]

>>3787323
I think it's time to give up on this thread.

Clearly, posters like you have now got to the point where you can't even be bothered to look back at the original post and see that Chesterton's points are ALL OF THEM about language and NONE OF THEM about concepts.

It seems also to be the case that everyone on /lit/ who has actually read a line of Nietzsche is avoiding this thread as an obvious noob thread where everyone is going to blether on endlessly about an author they have never read.

You are all so ignorant that the OP has succeeded in knocking back discussion of Nietzsche to circa 1915 just by posting a bit of Chesterton.

You are NOT talking about Nietzsche, you idiots.

You are talking about George Bernard Shaw and H;G. Wells, just like Chesterton was.

And now enough...

[Anonymous No.3787352]

>>3787349
>I think it's time to give up on this thread.
Except there are fine discussion going on around you two which you haven't given any reason for the rest of us to dismiss. Like I said, attack these people properly or don't call them morons.

[Anonymous No.3787353]

>>3787088

Yup, pretty spot on. Though he deserves to be cut some slack. Struggling with syphilis, closet homosexuality, and dementia is not an easy task.

[Anonymous No.3787356]

>>3787353
>closet homosexuality
huh?

[Anonymous No.3787359]

>>3787312
>>3787312
well, you try it: be really specific about the Superman, or biological fitness without making tons of qualifying assumptions.

and i'm not sure why what i did was intellectually dishonest. I disagreed with chesteron, basically beacuse he was oversimplifying and deriding Nietzsche for doing something that he pretty much had to do because of the nature of his topic. One of the things that makes that passage about the tightrope walker so amusing is that the crowd assumes they know waht he's talking about; one of the problems of necessary vagueness. and it's made even funnier when you realize that the costume of the comic book Superman is based on that of a trapeze artist.

[Anonymous No.3787364]

>>3787356

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/06/books/is-there-a-gay-basis-to-nietzsche-s-ideas.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

[Anonymous No.3787369]

>>3787352
I see. I suppose your idea of "attacking them properly" would be to accept that it makes some sense to do what they are doing and base a discussion of Nietzsche on some snippets of writing by a Roman Catholic English author who had never read a line of Nietzsche in his life?

No. I won't do that. Any more than i would agree to engage in a discussion about Hegel based purely on the few remarks that Nietzsche made about Hegel without having read a single one of his texts.

But it's OK. It's the Internet. Truth, knowledge, reason, actual DISCUSSION don't matter here.

But have fun pretending they do, you vain, silly little idiots.

[Anonymous No.3787371]

Ultimately Nietzsche's idea of the Overman sprouts from his dissatisfaction and nausea with regard to the common man. His misanthropic tendencies. This is why he doesn't define the Overman as "men that are stronger", "men that are more intelligent", "men that are more virtuous", because these men would still be mere men, and with the "Overman" Nietzsche wants to do away with "man" altogether.
Nietzsche's nausea with regards to the common man is really where he fights against Christianity, because Christianity exults in the common man. This is why Nietzsche says that he has deadly hatred for Christianity because it has "sided with all that is weak and sick" against that which is strong and powerful. It has put the "values of the higher man under ban". But in truth Christianity doesn't make people weaker at all, it makes them stronger. Nietzsche might even admit this fact, but he would likely say that it only makes the weak stronger and that Christianity is rather a poison that makes weaker for the higher type of man. The idea of Christianity though is that there is no higher man, whether you're a proud warrior in the prime of his life or a sick scholar in his decaying years, you are still subject to all of the human all-too-human weaknesses and sicknesses of man. Kings have been subject to weakness and indulgence just as much as slaves, and even the most virtuous men on Earth falter at times.

[Anonymous No.3787372]

>>3787356
>Through the influence of Wagner and Nietzsche Europe met its downfall when it neglected its element of weakness and doomed life to better affirm a ruthless conception of self-affirming life"
-Thomas Mann

[Anonymous No.3787374]

>>3787327
i.e., you haven't read it and aren't going to

[Anonymous No.3787375]

>>3787369
>to do what they are doing and base a discussion of Nietzsche on some snippets of writing by a Roman Catholic English author who had never read a line of Nietzsche in his life?
You must be blind, there are discussions going on that have nothing to do with the OP quote.

[Anonymous No.3787378]

>>3787349
As i mentioned above, you aren't familiar with Orthodoxy, the book the quote came from, or you would understand Chesterton's actual point.
And shockingly enough, a Chesterton quote led to a discussion of Chesterton and his views on a certain German philosopher. Imagine that

[Anonymous No.3787382]

>>3787364

Sweet!

The distinguished art historian Jacob Burckhardt was driven to say the Nietzsche could not even break wind ''like any natural young man.''

[Anonymous No.3787385]

>>3787369
>writing by a Roman Catholic English author who had never read a line of Nietzsche in his life
Oooooh.
A ROMAN CATHOLIC!!!
Of course, he *had* read Nietzsche - he even quotes him a few times.
You wouldn't know that, of course, never having read the book you are attacking.

[Anonymous No.3787388]

>>3787345
> It's purely romantic and not realistic to say certain men escaped that and exercised superhuman feats of free will.

The irony is that the men that have come closest to this kind of thing are the Christian saints and martyrs . . .
If you look at the sheer defiance and commitment to ideals at all cost that St. Catherine had, it's almost unreal.
And the passionate intensity and single-minded devotion of St. Joan of Arc. These two were both women, no person or society demanded this kind of boldness from them.

[Anonymous No.3787395]

>>3787375
Yeah, I noticed.

"But Nietzsche DID specify that the Overman had to be be gay because he hated women and he wrote the Gay Science, them is TRUE FAX dood"

"Ah no you got that wrong, I read that The Gay Science is actually a wrong translation the book is akshly called Behold the Homo and it's got a picture on the front of him standing on a mountain so oviously Chestington was RIGHT about that Alpine acrobat thing he oviously WAS a mountain climber"

"yeah good point bro, which also proves that he was a critic of Islam as well as Christianity cos I think the point he was making there was you gotta GO TO THE MOUNTAIN not make it come to you like Mohammed...."

Scintillating stuff......Don't let me distract you.

[Anonymous No.3787400]

>>3787388
After reading 'God is Dead' I had assumed for some time Nietzsche was being sarcastic, mocking atheists and their rejection of the moral strength that led to the great saints of Europe

[Anonymous No.3787406]

>>3787395
I don't see any of that in here, try again. Don't you have a response to be giving to the guy that accused you of not reading the book the OP is from?

[Anonymous No.3787410]

>>3787345

"Examine the life of the best and most productive men and nations, and ask yourselves whether a tree which is to grow proudly skywards can dispense with bad weather and storms. Whether misfortune and opposition, or every kind of hatred, jealousy, stubbornness, distrust, severity, greed, and violence do not belong to the favourable conditions without which a great growth even of virtue is hardly possible? The poison by which the weaker nature is destroyed is strengthening to the strong individual and he does not call it poison. "
Nietzsche - gay science

Nobody said that men are not product of their material circumstances, and nobody talked about free will.

[Anonymous No.3787411]

>>3787369
>'if you don't speak German, you can't talk about Nietzsche!'
>'I never read the book OP's quote is from, don't know the context it was taken from, but I know Chesterton was WRONG!!!'
>'An author who wrote 12 essays about Nietzsche's works never read Nietzsche! How do I know? He disagrees with ME about Nietzsche!'
>'None of you silly, vain, ignorant, jabbering, moronic idiots are willing to engage me in honest discussion'
Listen, I know *you* think trolling is fun, but some of us are having an actual discussion

[Anonymous No.3787415]

>>3787406
He isn't here to discuss anything! He is here to tell everyone else how smart he is.
You know, like an overman

[Anonymous No.3787421]

>>3787385
Look at this fool now.

Chesterton quotes Nietzsche - it therefore follows logically that he had actually read him.

As I mentioned in my first post, I am in many respects a great admirer of Chesterton. Without getting into a pissing contest, I think it is a safe bet that I have read a considerably greater proportion of his work than you have (including Orthodoxy, familiarity with which, in its entirety, is, as far as I can see, of no relevance at all to the proper understanding of the Nietzsche passage quoted; i.e. you're just bullshitting there).

But precisely because I DO know his work, I also know that he was picked up and criticized repeatedly, right from his very first books on, for making inaccurate and totally unscholarly statements in writings that purported to be reliable and scholarly.

Just read the contemporary reviews of his early book on Robert Browning.

I'm afraid, sir, that you are as much of a fraud regarding Chesterton as you are regarding Nietzsche.

But as I say, that doesn't matter here. Carry on fascinating your little gang of junior-highschoolers.

[Anonymous No.3787441]

>>3787411
You're not having a discussion.

You're slapping down random ignorant crap and insulting both authors.

As to your "points"

1 Yes, if you don't read German, you CAN'T legitimately talk about Nietzsche's "metaphors" and the images his terms "suggest" - Alpine climber, acrobat etc - as Chesterton does.
2 Context doesn't matter much here. The reason I know is because I'm pretty certainly the only person posting in this thread who HAS read Orthodoxy.
3 Your figure of "12 essays" is, without any doubt, completely randomly invented, as is most of what you say. (and you have the gall to talk about trolling)!
4 Well, yes, THIS one is true...

[Anonymous No.3787445]

who is closer to the Overman, you or I?

[Anonymous No.3787448]

>>3787421
>I don't want to get into a pissing contest - but I am going to do so anyway!
> think it is a safe bet that I have read a considerably greater proportion of his work than you have
I am the local chapter president of the American Chesterton Society and have directed one of his plays for EWTN.
Want to try again? I mean, sure, your brilliance is so blinding it will be hard for me to look at your posts, but I'll struggle through, somehow.
Another person I know said it this way
"Being familiar with both Nietzsche and Chesterton is to realize that many of Chesterton's essays were a response to Nietzsche. While Chesterton only directly named Nietzsche in Orthodoxy, to anyone familiar with both it is obvious through the direct and indirect quote, the allusion, the continuation of a thought, etc. Indeed, for those of us familiar with both Nietzsche sticks out in Chesterton like a sore thumb".
Looks like you need to try again on that, too, huh?
So far all you have said is
"None of you know Nietzsche! Chesterton never read him! Chesterton was a bad, bad man!!"
OK, ok, you;re well-read, brilliant, and special.
Now that that is out of the way, can you tell me why you think that Chesterton *agreeing with* Nietzsche on the errors of 'evolution is progress' is false and how Chesterton's critique of Nietzsche for not being able to accurately describe what his philosophical goal was is false?

[Anonymous No.3787450]

>>3787448
>>I am the local chapter president of the American Chesterton Society and have directed one of his plays for EWTN.

But I have a bigger penis.

[Anonymous No.3787451]

>>3787410
He doesn't define productive. If anything empires die when they start allowing too much freedom to individuals and attack moral institutions like the nuclear family. Poor and primitive tribes of "barbarians" easily overthrew the mighty Roman Empire; poor and primitive Arab tribes easily overthrew the rich Byzantine Empire and the rich Persian Empire; and the poorest and most primitive of all, the Mongols, quickly created the largest empire ever seen on Earth. Look closely and you'll notice that the winners had only one huge advantage: they had much more cohesive societies. The rich and advanced empires that collapsed were weakened by a "decadent" society. The British Empire is not an excpetion to this rule: it collapsed rapidly after World War II, despite having won it, despite having the highest number of Nobel Prize winners, despite having the immense wealth of London's financial district: the Indians, the Arabs and the Africans easily won independence from the British Empire.

[Anonymous No.3787460]

>>3787451

You should read nietzsche. He answer a lot of your points.

Your extrapolating a lot from very little.

[Anonymous No.3787463]

>>3787460
Why would I bother to read a primary text when I could read a secondary which covers all the main interpretations from experienced philosophers?

[Anonymous No.3787469]

>>3787340
I'm not going to claim that I've read Nietzsche, but most of what I've heard about him seems to suggest that he goes to great length to describe a very simple and uncomplicated kind of man, using strong words and imagery simply to counter the strong ideas held by other instances of society.

[Anonymous No.3787478]

>>3787448
Sorry, but anything that begins with "I am the local chapter president...." etc DOES sound like the start of a pissing contest.
So does quoting "people you know" as if they were the final, unanswerable judges and arbiters of these matters.
I am not going to do any of that.
I am simply someone who has a good basic knowledge of British and European cultural history and knows for a fact that the "Nietzschian" ideas floating around in London circa 1910 mostly didn't have very much to do with Nietzsche.
I also know that the "Chesterton scene" has always been full of cranks and third-rate would-be intellectuals.
Chesterton was sometimes a brilliant man. I mentioned in my first post his book on Thomas Aquinas and his "Man Who Was Thursday" as very important, profound works.
But he also at times played up to the role of a vulgar, shallow populist, an "Unthinking Man's Thinking Man" in the style of Stephen Fry today.
In that role, he wrote large amounts of ignorant, shallow crap - which pleased ignorant shallow people.

[Anonymous No.3787484]

>Had he faced his thought without metaphors

Well, since Ricouer and Lakoff have made quite persuasive arguments that metaphor is more than simply a figure of speech but constitutive of language and thought itself, this argument strikes me as a little weak.

Chesterton still had his heart in the right place a lot of the time though.

[Anonymous No.3787490]

>>3787469

He barely talks about "superman". What I quoted in this thread is most of it. Maybe 1% of his work if not less is about the "superman"

It's all the "interpreters" of nietzsche who makes a big deal out of it... And invent all kinds of silly things about it.

Your right, it's really simple. (if you actually read nietzsche and not his interpreters lol)

[Anonymous No.3787508]

>>3787088
dat horrible misreading

[Anonymous No.3787510]

>>3787484
See. Another clear example of the super-sophisticated initiate into Parisian mysteries having no compunction about seizing on a piece of IGNORANCE to make themselves sound clever.

It's very nice that you are letting us know that you have read Paul Ricouer - but why the fuck do you NEED to do so here (I mean, aside from your desire to let everyone know how well-read you are?)

Chesterton's argument is NOT weak SINCE Ricouer and Lakoff have made persuasive arguments that metaphor is constitutive of all language.

It's weak because Chesterton is talking about the "metaphorical" implications of a language HE COULDNT READ AND DIDNT EVEN TRY TO.

Why the fuck do you dignify simple ignorance by treating it as something that needs to be tackled at the level of some complex semantico-metaphysical deconstruction?

[Anonymous No.3787513]

>>3787484
>since Ricouer and Lakoff have made quite persuasive arguments that metaphor is more than simply a figure of speech but constitutive of language and thought itself, this argument strikes me as a little weak.
Not when you take into account that philosophy is about clarification of thoughts, so you wouldn't rely on metaphors alone to communicate your thoughts if you were a good philosophy. You would reinforce it with less vague language as well.

[Anonymous No.3787515]

>>3787510
>It's weak because Chesterton is talking about the "metaphorical" implications of a language HE COULDNT READ AND DIDNT EVEN TRY TO.

That's wrong.
"Übermensch" is just as vague as "Overman", get over it. I don't think Nietzsche's German readers have a greater understanding about what he meant by the Overman than his English readers.

[Anonymous No.3787517]

>>3787513
And hoppla!

You've thrown the new super-sophisticated Ricouerian Parisian ball to some semi-illiterate 14-year-old and, yes, he's running with it.

Interesting, how half-educated vanity and utter ignorance always scratch each other's backs

[Anonymous No.3787524]

>>3787338
>So political success?

Of course not, don't be retarded. People who managed to overcome their environment.

Socrates/Plato, Napoleon, Goethe, etc....it's not about politics.

[Anonymous No.3787526]

>>3787490
>Your right, it's really simple. (if you actually read nietzsche and not his interpreters lol)
What's wrong with reading the interpretations of those who have studied more philosophy than either of us? I'm sure they'd know better than you.

[Anonymous No.3787537]

>>3787524
>Socrates/Plato, Napoleon, Goethe, etc....it's not about politics.

None of these people "overcame their environment". They took advantage of it.

[Anonymous No.3787545]

>>3787517
Are you saying I shouldn't have replied to Ricouerian-guy simply because I haven't read Ricouer myself? It would be useful to both of us, he could show me more of Ricouer and he would have practise in reciting the argument correctly.

[Anonymous No.3787547]

>>3787515
Oh what is the fucking point?

PLEASE, try to overcome your laziness and your vanity and your petty little desire to show you've got the bigger intellectual dick and READ THE POST AT THE TOP OF THE THREAD.

Chesterton's claim is NOT the general one that you make, that Nietzsche is "vague" about the Uebermensch. He says VERY SPECIFICALLY that Nietzsche "says" "overman" or "upper man", and that these are "metaphors from "acrobats or alpine climbers".

Now BOTH those statements are just WRONG. Nietzsche NEVER used the words "overman" or "upper man" for the simple reason that he didnt write in English. Nor is it true that the affix "ueber" has specifically Alpine or acrobatic associations for the German ear.

[Anonymous No.3787550]

>>3787547
>Nor is it true that the affix "ueber" has specifically Alpine or acrobatic associations for the German ear.
And "overman" or "upper man" do?

[Anonymous No.3787552]

>>3787545
No, I'm not saying that.

But I am saying now that if you THINK I said that then you have no business talking about philosophy.

[Anonymous No.3787567]

>>3787552
You used the metaphor of running after a ball and called me utterly ignorant. Sorry for assuming that meant I need to shutup completely.

[Anonymous No.3787588]

>>3787547
holy shit you are retarded.

Chesterton is not actually saying that Nietzsche wants to usher in a new era of fantastic acrobats, you twat. He's saying that the prefix "Over", or "Über", are metaphors for physical things (LIKE or SUCH AS acrobats or mountain climbers) which are used in PLACE OF metaphors for conceptual things like intelligence, or strength, or virtue, or chastity, or happiness, so that Nietzsche can AVOID having to actually assign any properties to the "Overman", so as to keep the term "Overman" as free from criticism, because it is essentially vague.

I can easily demonstrate the term Overman is vague.

Here, which of us is closer to the Overman? How would we even measure which of us is closer to the Overman? Two thousand years from now how will we be able to measure whether or not the people of the future are closer to or further away from the ideal of Overman as we are?

Now, if Nietzsche had actually TAKEN A STANCE or FORMED A POSITION on what his ideal man was, then we'd be able to measure which of us was closer, wouldn't we? If Nietzsche's ideal man is happy, we could measure our relative happiness. If Nietzsche's ideal man is a successful politician, then we'd be able to measure our relative success in politics. But the thing is, and this is what Chesterton is saying, Nietzsche was TOO WEAK, or too unwilling, to take a stance and say what his ideal man was. Instead he just called it, the "Overman", which only means, "something better than man"

[Anonymous No.3787598]

And what would Wittgenstein say about this situation?

[Anonymous No.3787602]

>>3787598
Earlier period or later?

[Anonymous No.3787604]

>>3787588
and Über does have relation to mountain climbing.

like this: "Über der Berg", "over the mountain", which is related to Nietzsche's idea of the Overman which is a man that "overcomes things", that overcomes the mountains of old moral ideals and "thou shalt's", if you like

[Anonymous No.3787607]

>>3787598
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Anonymous No.3787613]

>>3787607
How do we decide what we can talk about or not?

His logical starting points in the Tractatus were arbitrary, I don't agree with them.

[Anonymous No.3787640]

>>3787613
That was young Witty. Old Witty, the Philosophical Investigations Witty, is the smart one.

[Anonymous No.3787641]

>>3787510

Statement 1: Your "piece of ignorance" refers to a)Ricouer and Lakoff and Johnson's work
b)my tactic of arguing against the content of Chesterton's argument rather than his putative ignorance of Nietzsche's work

In the case of a), your ad hominem is silly and phatic and desirous only of a response which I have good-naturedly handed to you on a platinum platter.

In the case of b) Why is your counter-argument better than mine again?

In either case of a) or b), your writing is very unclear.

Statement 2) See "In the case of a)" above

Statement 3) My argument is better than yours nya nya.

Statement 4) Deconstruction has little to do with my argument whatsoever. What are you on about?

My dear anon, you seem to be confusing needs with desires.

[Anonymous No.3787647]

>>3787640
Old Wittgenstein and Chesterton have a fair bit in common.

[Anonymous No.3787667]

>>3787604
As I say, not much point in arguing with you.

I think it's obvious to everyone that nobody but you said anything about "ushering in a new era of fantastic acrobats". Chesterton didn't say it. I didn't say it. That was something you just made up because you thought setting it up and then dismissing it would "score you a point".

The point of Chesterton's that I was taking issue with was this one

He says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers.

which IS inarguably what Chesterton was saying because it is copied directly from his text.

I said that this was wrong on two counts.

First: (obviously) that Nietzsche never actually wrote "overman"

Second: that what he DID write - Uebermensch - is NOT, for a German speaker, a "physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers".

Now the second point is a point that can only sensibly be discussed among people who know German pretty well. That is, not with you, as you clearly demonstrate in your second post that you don't know the language at all.

In the first place your phrase "Ueber der Berg" gets the case of the noun "Berg" wrong - something one learns in first-year German.

But even if you had written "ueber den Berg" or "ueber dem Berg", that would still only have indicated that you have no idea how the word "ueber" is actually used in German.

The fact is that you can stick "ueber" in front of just about any noun you care to stick it in front of : "ueber den Kuhlschrank", "ueber dem Schmetterling". That doesn't mean that "ueber" has a special "relation" to refrigeration technology or butterfly collecting. So writing down a phrase like "ueber der Berg" doesn't prove that "ueber" has a relation to mountain climbing.

You just grabbed pathetically at a phrase in a language you don't understand a word of - and couldn't even get THAT right.

You're a fool. Shut up and fuck off back to the 7 11 or wherever the fuk you spend your useless ignorant days

[Anonymous No.3787674]

>>3787478
You mean like the post anon was replying too, that began
'I don't want to start a pissing contest, but I know more than you do'
You think maybe anon was making a point about the arrogance and pretension of the person he was replying to?

[Anonymous No.3787676]

>>3787450
did you read the post he was replying to?
I think this was kinda' funny

[Anonymous No.3787679]

>>3787667
>Second: that what he DID write - Uebermensch - is NOT, for a German speaker, a "physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers".

Chesterton didn't say that, you're misinterpreting him,

[Anonymous No.3787681]

>>3787510
Are you still on the 'no one can contradict me because I read German' kick?

[Anonymous No.3787682]

>>3787667
>Uebermensch - is NOT, for a German speaker, a "physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers".
Neither is overman in english.

[Anonymous No.3787686]

>>3787681
That isn't the reason why I believe no one (in THIS thread) can contradict me.
The reason I believe that is because I see people posting things like

"Second: that what he DID write - Uebermensch - is NOT, for a German speaker, a "physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers".

Chesterton didn't say that, you're misinterpreting him,"

when all they have to do is look at the post that started this thread and READ where Chesterton says

"He (Nietzsche) says "the upper man," or "over man," a physical metaphor from acrobats or alpine climbers"

and people posting things that seem to imply that someone's saying "I happen to know more than you about this" is some sort of a "low blow" even if they demonstrate over and over again that they DO.

[Anonymous No.3787688]

>>3787667
Chesterton's arguments amounts to this:

you can want men to be happier, you can want men to be more intelligent, or more morally pure, but you can't want men to be more "Über". What does being Über even entail?
Nietszsche uses the term Über because he is too timid to give his ideal a definition that is capable of refutation. If his ideal really was that he wanted to make men happier, then people could disagree with his ideas of happiness or his proposed methods of bringing about a happier man, but because he wants to make men more "Über" nobody can disagree with him, because nobody knows what being an Überman is.

[Anonymous No.3787701]

>>3787588
And as others have pointed out, if this guy had *actually* read Orthodoxy (the book the quote is from) this would be obvious because Chesterton spells it

[Anonymous No.3787706]

>>3787667
I note that you, again, fail to reply to the actual point you have been missing;
I think that, after so many have pointed your error out to you, you are either stupid, trolling, or too arrogant to admit fault.
I'm betting it is too arrogant.

[Anonymous No.3787714]

>>3787686
Oooooooh! I get it!
You're a dumbass
Chesterton's point is that to refer to the Man Nietzsche refers to as
uber' or 'over' is to revert to
[wait for it]
physical metaphor rather than moral, ethical, etc. definition.
Chesterton is arguing that Nietzsche's use of a vague physical term was to appropriate a term that can refer to acrobats or skiers, *but cannot be used to actually describe human growth or change*.
Your repeated focus on
>'That isn't what uber means in German, you idiotic, moronic, vain fools'
just demonstrates that YOU don't understand Chesterton's point.

[Anonymous No.3787721]

>>3787667
Read Gorgias and then come back to us.

[sage No.3787725]

Nietzsche threads are always troll threads; Nietzsche is a shitty philosopher. Deal with it. Sage

[Anonymous No.3787733]

I'm no expert on Nietzsche, but going on what you've said, and from what I know, wouldn't it follow that either Nietzsche's vagueness was deliberate, since the whole concept revolves around shaping yourself, or that it was a natural result of not actually being the superman himself? It would be difficult to write with complete accuracy about what the superman would be if you weren't actually one yourself.

[Anonymous No.3787742]

>>3787725

Agreed.

/thread

[Anonymous No.3787768]

>>3787261
You need to read his works. Good and bad were more about manifestations of power (which is arguably all of what Nietzsche's metaphysics are about). Good and evil came about later. The guy you're responding to pretty much nailed it. To understand Nietzsche's thesis about how good/evil came to be out of good/bad, you should read Genealogy of Morals. It's good, and it's all about the JEWS (that was a /pol/ joke har har).

[Anonymous No.3787777]

>>3787725
nice superfluous use of a semicolon nerd
>Nietzsche threads are always troll threads; he is a shitty philosopher.
>Nietzsche threads are always troll threads, and Nietzsche is a shitty philosopher.

[Anonymous No.3787786]

>>3787777
Nice failure to use a comma, genius

[Anonymous No.3787800]

>>3787768
>You need to read his works. Good and bad were more about manifestations of power (which is arguably all of what Nietzsche's metaphysics are about). Good and evil came about later.
But we now know in hindsight that his metaphysics were bankrupt so my point still stands that good/bad is no less arbitrary than good/evil.

[Anonymous No.3787833]

>>3787768
Finally, someone - apart from myself - who has actually READ some Nietzsche intervening in this silly thread.

Yes, this is the central point, which I made in my very first post and which has since got drowned under a flood of ignorant nonsense that confuses Shaw with Nietzsche, or Wells with Nietzsche, to name just the least egregious confusions.

Anyone who has read even the basic works of Nietzsche can recognize with just a glance at the passage the OP quotes that Chesterton HASN'T read him.

Because it just wouldn't be possible, on Nietzsche's own terms as he himself defines them, to do what Chesterton demands that he do: namely, be 'bold" and say "more good than good and evil" or "more evil than good and evil" instead of "BEYOND good and evil".

Nietzsche would have laughed at and rejected absolutely the demand that he state "boldly" whether his system of morality was "more good than good and evil" or "more evil than good and evil" because he saw the very CATEGORIES "good and evil", as opposed to "good and bad" to be part of the worldview he was rejecting.

In other words, Chesterton's "critique" of Nietzsche here would be - or at least SHOULD be - given a "fail" grade if it were submitted as a term paper by an undergraduate or even by a high school student - for the simple reason that it clearly shows that the author just hasn't bothered to master the basic ideas of the writer he's critiquing.

And here you are debating and discussing this obvious nonsense...

[Anonymous No.3787834]

>>3787800
well if you've already written him off, then i suppose there's no discussion to be had. we'd just be speaking past each other.

and foucault and the other post modernists might not agree with you in that his metaphysics are broke.

nietzsche is an interesting character. his "philosophy" is not necessarily meant to be coherent. which is kind of the genius of it.

[Anonymous No.3787853]

>>3787834
Would you people please just SHUT THE FUCK UP with your ignorant half-assed "apologies" and "defences" of Nietzsche?

"Well, yes, as Chesterton shows, he's incoherent, BUT...."

"Well, yes, as Chesterton shows, he's vague, BUT..."

Chesterton shows NOTHING, you idiots! His claims are groundless and based on NO reading of the man's works.

Stop trying to "defend" the scarecrow of a philosopher you haven't read from the "critique" of someone else who hasn't read him.

[Anonymous No.3787864]

>>3787800
Or, conversely, that deontological and teleological ethics demonstrate that he was simply wrong

[Anonymous No.3787870]

>>3787833
Still here? I wouldn't have guessed it from the way you fail to reply to direct questions.

[Anonymous No.3787871]

>>3787834
I haven't written him off. Just the fact that, like Schopenhauer, his conception of metaphysics is dated.

>and foucault and the other post modernists might not agree with you in that his metaphysics are broke.
Well I haven't looked into Foucault as much but as far as I'm aware his main contributions about sexuality and punishment don't depend on taking Nietzsche's metaphysics literally, so I'm not so sure about that.

>nietzsche is an interesting character. his "philosophy" is not necessarily meant to be coherent. which is kind of the genius of it
Much like the mysticists?

[Anonymous No.3787877]

>>3787871

Nietzsche's influence on Foucault was more the genealogical method, rather than any kind of thematic resonance.

[Anonymous No.3787882]

>>3787870
What is your "direct question", you fucking clown?

"Have you read Orthodoxy"?

To which I will say "yes".

To which you will reply, "No u havent I know u havent u havent u havent u havent'

As I say, fuck offf back to the 7 11

[Anonymous No.3787886]

>>3787882
You ignored several of his posts dude; stop being a dick on here. people who actually know their shit tend to be helpful and nice, like Deep&Edgy. I'm guessing you don't qualify.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787890]

>>3787853
Not really that sorry I missed this thread, but...
Are you claiming Chesterton never read Nietzsche? I think you claimed to be well-read in Chesterton, so this must be in error.
Chesterton included Nietzsche in his collection Heretics which demonstrates he had a firm grasp of Nietszsche's writings and he does address him more than once in Orthodoxy, including the quote in OP's post, that further demonstrated a knowledge of Nietzsche's writings.
Chesterton also referenced Nietzsche in his book on St. Thomas Aquinas, showing where Nietzsche learned from and attempted to respond to Aquinas, and in his biography of Shaw.
Chesterton had certainly read Nietzsche's major works and was conversant enough with them to critique them. He even praised a fair amount of Nietzsche's works!

[Anonymous No.3787892]

>>3787882
My goodness - how old *are* you, 12?

[Anonymous No.3787898]

>>3787886
Crap.

If you want "helpful", I've explained the issues clearly and at length in several posts.

If you mean by "nice" telling someone who is making no sense that they are making sense, forget it. That helps no one.

I will answer any question put to me. But if the question is just "Have you read this book?" which, when I say "yes, I have" is just followed by "I don't believe you", what is the point?

[Anonymous No.3787902]

>>3787890
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[Anonymous No.3787905]

>>3787882
what about
>>3787688
>>3787706
>>3787588
They often try to point out that what you are ranting about isn't Chesterton's point. Chesterton's (rather obvious) point has been repeated for you several times and you seemingly wait for someone to mention something else wo you can jump in with another variation of
"you stupid, moronic, ignorant, vain, fuckers don't realize that Nietzsche didn't refer to alpine skier'
Yeah; we know. No one but you thought that. That isn't our point *OR* Chesterton's point.Chesterton's point was that Nietzsche used vague language when he could have used clear language and that this does not match how some people present Nietzsche as a bold and strong thinker.
Hell, in this passage Chesterton doesn't even say he's WRONG, he just says he wasn't bold.

[Anonymous No.3787908]

>>3787902
>I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
When all else fails just fall back to letting idiots put their words in your mouth and spewing them ad nauseum.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787909]

>>3787902
*sigh*
And this is meant to convey...?

[Anonymous No.3787913]

>>3787902
Too much Dawkins for you, lad.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787919]

>>3787913
Nietzsche and Dawkins in one thread?
I'm out

[Anonymous No.3787922]

>>3787909
I was simply curious if you agreed.

[Anonymous No.3787923]

>>3787890
Dear Married Oldfag

Why don't you just concentrate on being old and married and not bother posting on philosophy boards, because you are just making yourself look like an idiot.

Are you really so ignorant and stupid as to believe that the mere fact of someone's using someone's NAME repeatedly in his writings "demonstrates that he had a firm grasp" of that person's ideas?

Many writers mention other writers repeatedly in their work without actually having read a word of them, and "critique" them without really knowing anything about them.

Not least Nietzsche himself, who did this with Hegel (whom he hadn't read at all) and Kant (one of whose works, the 3rd Critique, he had maybe read bits of).

Your claim that I am "in error" in saying that Chesterton had no firm grasp of Nietzsche's ideas is based on just one piece of 'evidence": Chesterton SAID he did.

If you really wish to discuss this, go to the post a few posts back where I demonstrate point by point that Chesterton's demand that Nietzsche say whether what he preaches is "more evil than good and evil" or "more good than good and evil" MUST be based on an ignorance of Nietzsche's critique of the good-evil dichotomy in the Genealogy of Morals.

If you can show that what I say is WRONG, then you can indeed say I am "in error" about Chetserton.

If you CAN'T, then we have to assume that I am RIGHT in saying that Chesterton just HADN'T READ NIETZSCHE.

But you won't do that will you?? You'll just go back to the wife and wallow together in your shared ignorance.

[Anonymous No.3787928]

>>3787923
wow, that "Internet Asshole" merit badge is practically yours, now!

[Anonymous No.3787929]

>>3787913
What does that reasonable point have to do with Dawkins? I haven't read him yet.

[Anonymous No.3787930]

In the first place there's nothing metaphoric about either "beyond good and evil" or "the ubermensch," since Chesterton is obviously too uneducated to realize the basis of these things are only metaphors in themselves. If he'd read Nietzsche he'd realize that saying "more good than good and evil" is as "metaphoric" as fucking "beyond good and evil," the dumb english twat.

[Anonymous No.3787932]

>>3787928
I think that was one of his more reasonable posts actually.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787951]

>>3787923
>Are you really so ignorant and stupid as to believe that the mere fact of someone's using someone's NAME repeatedly in his writings "demonstrates that he had a firm grasp" of that person's ideas?
You claim, above, to be very familiar with Chesterton's work and yet repeatedly claim that Chesterton only name-checked Nietzsche.
However, in his biography of Shaw Chesterton engaging in a rather involved discussion of Nietzsche's anti-commercialism, rejection of the submersion of the individual in the mass of humanity in the modern world, etc. showing that he was familiar with Nietzsche's actual works.
And if you were familiar with Orthodoxy you would know that the passage immediately before this one is
>We cannot, then, get the ideal itself from nature, and as we follow here the first and natural speculation, we will leave out (for the present) the idea of getting it from God. We must have our own vision. But the attempts of most moderns to express it are highly vague.

Some fall back simply on the clock: they talk as if mere passage through time brought some superiority; so that even a man of the first mental calibre carelessly uses the phrase that human morality is never up to date. How can anything be up to date?-- a date has no character. How can one say that Christmas celebrations are not suitable to the twenty-fifth of a month? What the writer meant, of course, was that the majority is behind his favourite minority--or in front of it. Other vague modern people take refuge in material metaphors; in fact, this is the chief mark of vague modern people.
[cont]

[Anonymous No.3787957]

>>3787923
i guess there's no good place to ask this, since it's going to be off topic everywhere, but is being an asshole really important to you, and others like you? Is it unconscious? or is it some sort of hobby?

you do know how to be courteous right? And that being rude makes pretty much everybody discount what you say by about sixty percent at a minimum.
I just sort of wonder why you make the effort. And don't just say that it's because youre a butthurt faggot or whatever. that doesnt really tell me anything.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787964]

>>3787951
[more]
>Not daring to define their doctrine of what is good, they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and, what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being "high." It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. "Tommy was a good boy" is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. "Tommy lived the higher life" is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule.
As you can see, the meaning that Chesterton is expressing in OP's passage, in context, should never send you sputtering on about alpine climbers. And if you had read the portions before *that* where he specifically discusses good, bad, evil, etc. you would see that the Chesterton portions you are so busily insulting others about are not what you claim they are.
You see, Chesterton is pointing out that Nietzsche sometimes gives you no place to go, sometimes contradicts himself, sometimes does both, because he failed to state certain positions in anything but vague, ambiguous terms.
This is hardly unique to Chesterton and certainly not new!

>If you really wish to discuss this, go to the post a few posts back where I demonstrate point by point that Chesterton's demand that Nietzsche say whether what he preaches is "more evil than good and evil" or "more good than good and evil" MUST be based on an ignorance of Nietzsche's critique of the good-evil dichotomy in the Genealogy of Morals.
Simple - in Orthodoxy Chesterton explains why he disagrees with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, not too long before he goes into the passages he quotes here. through a discussion of ethics.
The passage immediately *after* OP's quote goes on to say
[cont]

[Anonymous No.3787968]

>>3787951
>>3787964
I contend we are both atheists, I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787970]

>>3787964
>Then again, some people fall back on sheer submission and sitting still. Nature is going to do something some day; nobody knows what, and nobody knows when. We have no reason for acting, and no reason for not acting. If anything happens it is right: if anything is prevented it was wrong. Again, some people try to anticipate nature by doing something, by doing anything. Because we may possibly grow wings they cut off their legs. Yet nature may be trying to make them centipedes for all they know.
As part of his argument that continues for the rest of the book.
Again, Chesterton speaks not of Nietzsche's name alone, but discusses his *ideas*, sometimes supporting them, sometimes opposing them, both directly and indirectly.
Now, did I 8watch* him read Nietzsche? No, I did not. But considering that some of his contemporaries that were well-read in Nietzsche and knew him directly spoke of his knowledge of the man's writings, I think we can, yes, deduce that he read at least Nietzsche's major works.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3787976]

>>3787968
You *do* know that this quote is not logically sound, right?

[Anonymous No.3787982]

>>3787976
How so?

[Anonymous No.3787991]

>>3787951
You really don't seem to be able to grasp the distinction between writing down a lot of words about someone and actually KNOWING about someone, do you, Married Oldfag?

If you want to PROVE something here, you need to provide us with more than just the information that Chesterton "engaged in a rather involved discussion" about Nietzsche in one or more of his books.

I know he did.

The question is whether this "rather involved discussion" consisted of things that indicated that he had actually read and thought about Nietzsche, or whether it was just bluff.

Only concrete analysis can decide THAT question, not the statement: "Well, he mentioned him a lot, so he MUST have understood him".

As I say, a few posts back I showed CONCRETELY by the example of a SPECIFIC passage that Chesterton did not understand what Nietzsche meant by "beyond good and evil". If he had, he COULDN'T have demanded of Nietzsche that he state "is the morality of the Uebermensch more good than good and evil etc etc"

Try dealing with something CONCRETE like that and showing that I am wrong and that Chesterton's demand DOES show knowledge of Nietzsche.

Because you just saying "But he talked about him here.....and here....and here..." is getting you nowhere

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3788014]

>>3787982
>I contend we are both atheists
Simply silly. An atheist is 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
If I am religious, then I am not 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
This is like stating 'I contend we are both speakers of French'.
>I just believe in one fewer god than you do.
If I am a Hindu do you only believe in, oh, 231 gods, then? If I am Shinto do you have a god of everything but, oh, your bathroom scale?
OOOOOOH! you are only speaking about Judeo-Christian religions! Why didn't you say so?
Does this mean this statement has no application to any polytheistic religion?
>When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
But I dismiss all false gods because they do not adhere to my understanding of teleological and deontological ethics, my discoveries in logic and epistemology, and ontology.
It would take some involved conversation for you to get me to abandon my position, while I have NO IDEA why you are an atheist.

[married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3788043]

>>3787991
Ah, you;re one of Those.
I am really sorry that people disagree with you. That doesn't mean that they are ignorant, stupid, mean, or evil.
It means that they disagree with you. That's all.
I am also sorry that Chesterton's prose is too dense or complicated for you to grasp. Even with the additional quotes I have given you you are still focused upon Chesterton rejecting Nietzsche's ideas. You are pointing to a sentence rather than seeing the book.
Naturally, I should have assumed this from your hostile, combative tone and inability to admit obvious errors.
I apologize to everyone here for dragging out a thread that should have been saged to the last page once anon began his ranting.

[Anonymous No.3788062]

>>3788043
Well, I think this last splurge of yours should give everyone a good idea of how capable you are of actual argumentational engagement, Oldfag.

I've said to you twice or three times now 'Here's a concrete case where Chesterton SHOWS he hasn't grasped Nietzsche's good/bad vs good/evil distinction, as developed in the Genealogy of Morals. Can you address that?"

This is how you address it:
“Simple - in Orthodoxy Chesterton explains why he disagrees with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, not too long before he goes into the passages he quotes here. through a discussion of ethics.
The passage immediately *after* OP's quote goes on to say Then again, some people fall back on sheer submission and sitting still. Nature is going to do something some day; nobody knows what, and nobody knows when. We have no reason for acting, and no reason for not acting. If anything happens it is right: if anything is prevented it was wrong. Again, some people try to anticipate nature by doing something, by doing anything. Because we may possibly grow wings they cut off their legs. Yet nature may be trying to make them centipedes for all they know.
As part of his argument that continues for the rest of the book.
As none of you have read the Genealogy of Morals yourselves I suppose I have to point out here that none of what you quote from Chesterton has any recognizable relation to anything that Nietzsche says in that book.
In other words, you are an utter bullshitter. Please shut up now.

[Anonymous No.3788088]

>>3788062
Tell us again how 'alpine skiers' proves Chesterton never read Nietzsche.
Or do you finally get Chesterton's actual point now that someone posted more quotes from that book you claim you read?
Just claiming you read it doesn't mean anything, after all! Your inability to understand Chesterton's point is CONCRETE EVIDENCE you never read Orthodoxy!

[Anonymous No.3788111]

>>3788088
This is fun.

You ignorant stupid idiots just love digging yourself in deeper, don't you?

Let me re-state this because the paragraph-spacing may have made it unclear.

I argued that the Chesterton passage clearly demonstrated that Chesterton had not read The Genealogy of Morals.

I asked one of you to CONCRETELY address this CONCRETE question..

He said he would.

This was how he addressed it

“Simple - in Orthodoxy Chesterton explains why he disagrees with Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals, not too long before he goes into the passages he quotes here. through a discussion of ethics.
The passage immediately *after* OP's quote goes on to say Then again, some people fall back on sheer submission and sitting still. Nature is going to do something some day; nobody knows what, and nobody knows when. We have no reason for acting, and no reason for not acting. If anything happens it is right: if anything is prevented it was wrong. Again, some people try to anticipate nature by doing something, by doing anything. Because we may possibly grow wings they cut off their legs. Yet nature may be trying to make them centipedes for all they know.
As part of his argument that continues for the rest of the book."

What element of what Nietzsche writes in The Genealogy of Morals does this address?

No element.

What does it show about Chesterton's reading of Nietzsche?

Zilch. Zero. Nada.

How utterly full of bullshit you people are.

[Anonymous No.3788115]

>>3788111
You ignored the direct question from >>3788088.

[Married oldfag !VqaXcWQC4Q No.3788135]

>>3788111
Are you really that dense? Really?
Chesterton's point is that Nietzsche uses vague, dimensional terms instead of definite moral ones: 'above' not 'better', 'beyond' instead of 'purer'.
The 'more good than good or evil' line is a rhetorical device to demonstrate this failure, not evidence he never read the book. Indeed, he discusses the specifics of said books other places.
Since the point of this section of Orthodoxy was that this vagueness meant things just sort of 'happen', so then a follower of Nietzsche has nothing to do.

[Anonymous No.3788141]

>>3788014
>Simply silly. An atheist is 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
>If I am religious, then I am not 'a person who denies or disbelieves the existence of a supreme being or beings.'
Meaning in language is usage-based, not prescriptive.

[Anonymous No.3788166]

>>3788115

OK, well, let's go through this. It will give everyone an idea of what you mean by "reasoned discussion".

What "direct question" did I 'ignore"?

>"Tell us again how 'alpine skiers' proves Chesterton never read Nietzsche"?

Well, in the first place that is not a question, and in the second place neither I nor Chesterton talked about 'skiers". I DO contend that Chesterton's claim that 'Uebermensch' is a "physical metaphor from alpine climbers" is wrong, and shows that he had not read him IN GERMAN, which is the only way he would have had the right to talk about his "metaphors".

Or do you mean I ignored the question
>Or do you finally get Chesterton's actual point now that someone posted more quotes from that book you claim you read?

Again, this is at best a RHETORICAL question, since to even try to answer it is to accept that I didn't "get the point" before - which is false.
But besides, as I've just shown, the "posting of more quotes" was ALSO just rhetoric, because none of the dozens of quotes posted ADDRESS THE POINT AT ALL.

Or do you mean
>Just claiming you read it doesn't mean anything, after all! Your inability to understand Chesterton's point is CONCRETE EVIDENCE you never read Orthodoxy!

Again, I see no question here, just accusations. But I suppose if there IS a question buried there somewhere it is the pointless, unanswerable one I TOLD you you were going to come up with a dozen posts back

"Have you read Orthodoxy?"
"Yes"
"No you haven't"

Idiot, you are an idiot. Kill yourself.

[Anonymous No.3788172]

>>3788141
Descriptivism is no defense against fuzzy thinking

[Anonymous No.3788181]

>>3788172
How is it fuzzy thinking?

[Anonymous No.3788186]

>>3788166
>I will never admit error
FTFY

[Anonymous No.3788230]

>>3788135
Sorry, but "dense" is someone, like yourself, who keeps going on about someone's "point" when there is NO point there.

Chesterton's demanding that Nietzsche use "definite moral terms" to define his ideals instead of "dimensional" ones is not a point. It is just a lazy, ignorant misunderstanding.

"Better" is a term that is ambiguously a superlative both of the "good" in the "ggod/evil" dichotomy and the "good" in the "good/bad" dichotomy. That is why Nietzsche WOULD and COULD never use it, without betraying his own most fundamental ideas.

Honestly, your ignorance is offensive. It's like watching some stupid Christian Democrat banging endlessly on at Karl Marx asking him "But are you saying that capitalism is against God's will or not?"

How fucking stupid do you have to be to expect a Marxist to even ANSWER that?

Same thing with Chesterton and Nietzsche. HE WAS ATTACKING A STRAW MAN.

[Anonymous No.3788245]

>>3788014
>I dismiss all false gods because they do not adhere to my understanding of teleological and deontological ethics, my discoveries in logic and epistemology, and ontology.
so like, you do not believe in the gods you do not believe in because they do not propose ethical values that you like, and also because you believe in the prime mover?

[sage No.3788251]

>>3787777
>Not randomly using semicolons

[Anonymous No.3788269]

>>3788166
>Again, this is at best a RHETORICAL question, since to even try to answer it is to accept that I didn't "get the point" before - which is false.
But you clearly still *don't* get the point.
Here, let's show you
>I DO contend that Chesterton's claim that 'Uebermensch' is a "physical metaphor from alpine climbers" is wrong,
This isn't an attempt to claim that 'uber' means 'acrobat', it is a continuation of the argument that Nietzsche used vague physical analogies instead of clear moral or ethical terms. This other quote from the same book
"...they use physical figures of speech without stint or shame, and, what is worst of all, seem to think these cheap analogies are exquisitely spiritual and superior to the old morality. Thus they think it intellectual to talk about things being "high." It is at least the reverse of intellectual; it is a mere phrase from a steeple or a weathercock. "Tommy was a good boy" is a pure philosophical statement, worthy of Plato or Aquinas. "Tommy lived the higher life" is a gross metaphor from a ten-foot rule."
His point is 'over' only describes people like acrobats and has no moral or ethical dimension.
In other words - you still just DON'T GET Chesterton's point!
You are, in fact, the *very person* he warns about in the following chapter.

[Anonymous No.3788273]

>>3788166
'Did Chesterton read Nietzsche'
'Yes, he did'
'No, he didn't'
you first

[Anonymous No.3788276]

>I dismiss all false gods because they do not adhere to my understanding of teleological and deontological ethics, my discoveries in logic and epistemology, and ontology.
Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent.

[Anonymous No.3788283]

>>3788230
Thus showing that his fundamental ideals are vague, urge no action, and cannot be measured in impact.
In other words, nietzsche's philosophy is meaningless because it is vague.
Sounds like a point to me

[sage No.3788303]

>>3788230
Nietzsche`s vague utterances are meaningless if they don`t fit any modern or past conceptual understanding. You might as well posit and debate the nonsensical question ' Is Beauty-in-itself true?" if you accept Nietzsche`s doctrines.