Sasun Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 Friedrich Nietzsche Love The spiritualization of sensuality is called love: it is a great triumph over Christianity. Obviously he was an idiot to say this... but this is off topic so i won't say anything else Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 8, 2004 Report Share Posted February 8, 2004 hey sasunchick jan...please do say it...id like to know..even if its against what i "believe" id rather know...hey maybe what u know can be a better explanation...maybe its a better idea lol Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 hey sasunchick jan...please do say it...id like to know..even if its against what i "believe" id rather know...hey maybe what u know can be a better explanation...maybe its a better idea lol Angel jan, love is a very fundamental and transcendental concept. It is never a something of something else. Nitzshe was such a confused ignorant fool to say that. Actually, when I was younger I admired Nitzshe, he is indeed smart and perhaps a genius - however he is very much confused. In other words, he has developed a very solid and attractive philosophy the basis of which is falsehood. Therefore, it crumbles. I don't know if this makes any appeal... as far as "love" is concerned it is the foundation of humanity. I believe we have talked about this in another thread (can't remember which one). Love is very powerful in its pure form. What is ordinarily known as "love" is in fact lust and emotional attachment. True love is never binding but liberating. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Actually, when I was younger I admired Nitzshe, he is indeed smart and perhaps a genius - however he is very much confused. In other words, he has developed a very solid and attractive philosophy the basis of which is falsehood. Therefore, it crumbles. Would you care to explain what this 'falsehood' is? I know it's but I'd like to know your opinion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Would you care to explain what this 'falsehood' is? I know it's but I'd like to know your opinion. Sure, the falsehood is human Ego and its much undeserved glorification. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 (edited) That is a personal matter yes, but I believe Nietzsche has a point in saying that everything we do is a selfish act, whether we mean it or not. E.g. when we help someone we do it to feel good about ourselves. But I'm sure you've read all this a long time ago Edited February 9, 2004 by gurgen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 That is a personal matter yes, but I believe Nietzsche has a point in saying that everything we do is a selfish act, whether we mean it or not. E.g. when we help someone we do it to feel good about ourselves. But I'm sure you've read all this a long time ago I used to travel with a few books always with me, one of them was by Nitzshe. We act to find some kind of satisfaction. In my understanding, there are 2 types of satisfaction, selfish satisfaction and self-less satisfaction. The first one is for the lower self, the Ego, and the second one is for the universal, higher Self, the Soul. The way I understand, Nietzshe doesn't differentiate between the these two. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 We act to find some kind of satisfaction. In my understanding, there are 2 types of satisfaction, selfish satisfaction and self-less satisfaction. The first one is for the lower self, the Ego, and the second one is for the universal, higher Self, the Soul. The way I understand, Nietzshe doesn't differentiate between the these two. No, indeed Nietzsche believes that everything is selfish. But I see your point I think and you put it beautifully. Am I right in assuming that by 'the universal, higher Self, the Soul' you mean that when we do something good for someone else, we soothe our own soul and make oursleves better persons, even if the underlying and suppressed motives are selfish? Though you make a strong point, it is based on a little bit belief. Nietzsche could never take your viewpoint because he does not really believe is a soul or a higher self nor does he believe in God. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 9, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Am I right in assuming that by 'the universal, higher Self, the Soul' you mean that when we do something good for someone else, we soothe our own soul and make oursleves better persons, even if the underlying and suppressed motives are selfish? I think it all depends on our motives. If we are helping only because we think that's the right thing to do and not with any other motives then I think it is not selfish. I guess you could call it soothing the soul but the soul is never selfish. It will urge you do things out of compassion and love. It is a spontaneous feeling of good, there are no calculations or desire. But it could be that we know helping others is the right thing to do but also it will bring us name or fame, or perhaps we expect to be helped in exchange, in that case we are being selfish. In other words there is some expectation for yourself. I guess this could happen also on the subconcious level. At any event, one doesn't get a full satisfaction out of a selfish act. There is always something lacking to feel satisfied. Though you make a strong point, it is based on a little bit belief. Nietzsche could never take your viewpoint because he does not really believe is a soul or a higher self nor does he believe in God. You are right, it is based on faith. But what is faith really? It is the soul's knowledge which Nietzshe was lacking I think. All that he has said came from his limited and imperfect mind. He proclaimed that God is dead - a typical gigantic arrogant remark by him. This is also a sort of faith created by the misguinding ego. Well, that's how I personally feel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted February 9, 2004 Report Share Posted February 9, 2004 Sasun - that is a laugh...LOL...claiming that Nietzshe's mind was somehow limited...in comparison to yours perhaps - LOL...well I may not agree with all he proposes...(not sure I even understand all of it...nor have I read nearly all...)...but I think he has many valid points (reagding Christianity specifically)..ah well - back to this...no I think there are 63 pieces to self...! I mean WTF...inuit have many words for the white stuff we just call snow...but does that make it any different? Lets see - satisfaction in groups of 10 or more...satisfaction while fully clothed, satisfaction when partially in water, satisfaction when standing on one leg...damn...can't remember all of them..anyway... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Sasun, have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra? It's brilliant. Hey, maybe we need a Nietzche (I know my spelling!! ) thread. I'm glad people are interested in Philosophy. So check out the Spinoza thread too, damnit. It's not that hard! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ckBejug Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) Sasun, have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra? It's brilliant. Hey, maybe we need a Nietzche (I know my spelling!! ) thread. I'm glad people are interested in Philosophy. So check out the Spinoza thread too, damnit. It's not that hard! Thus Spoke Zarathustra.... I agree it's GREAT!! (When Zarathustra was thirty years old, he left his home and the lake of his home, and went into the mountains. There he enjoyed his spirit and his solitude, and for ten years did not weary of it.) I only wish I knew Russian so I could read the original version, no translations... I also like Ecce Homo. There needs to be more hours in a day because I feel there is not enough time to read and digest all these incredible incredible works. That's quite a disappointment.... Also, I believe in love. Definitely... (just to come back to the topic at hand ) Edited February 10, 2004 by Justlooking Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 I think it all depends on our motives. If we are helping only because we think that's the right thing to do and not with any other motives then I think it is not selfish. I guess you could call it soothing the soul but the soul is never selfish. It will urge you do things out of compassion and love. It is a spontaneous feeling of good, there are no calculations or desire. But it could be that we know helping others is the right thing to do but also it will bring us name or fame, or perhaps we expect to be helped in exchange, in that case we are being selfish. In other words there is some expectation for yourself. I guess this could happen also on the subconcious level. At any event, one doesn't get a full satisfaction out of a selfish act. There is always something lacking to feel satisfied. You are right, it is based on faith. But what is faith really? It is the soul's knowledge which Nietzshe was lacking I think. All that he has said came from his limited and imperfect mind. He proclaimed that God is dead - a typical gigantic arrogant remark by him. This is also a sort of faith created by the misguinding ego. Well, that's how I personally feel Den_Wolf you should remember the argument for this from James Rachels book.. Elements of moral philosophy,, lol.. There was an argument made ( its ben a while so i dont know names and details) but there was an argument made in this book by a philosopher that every action of a human is fundamentally based on his own self achievement at the end. And the arguemtn ran into a dead wall.. LOL.. It sugested that everything you do, you are thinking of yourself, thus making it impossible to be "unselfish".. He tried to prrove this by many examples as you can imagine, but where his arguement failed was when it assumed what people actually felt and what there hearts were really thinking.. So not every action has a selfish root to it.. Sry if this is off topic, but in some ways it can relate to love because we can see that no, not everything we do is for our self gratification, loving has to be unselfish, or else it wont work.. and Den jan, if this argument is not from james rachels.. lol.. then sry i am confusing it with the other books, but im pretty sure it is.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 (edited) Gevo, that would be Thomas Hobbes, I believe. I'm not sure if it's in Rachels' book, I didn't look through it, although in the table of contents, there is a chapter about it. Re: Psychological Egoism. Edited February 10, 2004 by den_wolf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gevo27 Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Gevo, that would be Thomas Hobbes, I believe. I'm not sure if it's in Rachels' book, I didn't look through it, although in the table of contents, there is a chapter about it. Re: Psychologica Egoism. I will fidn that dang book. lol.. i stored it somewhere, i didnt sell it back cause i thaught it be better use for me if i kept it then the lawsy 10 ucks i would get for it!.. But Thomas Hobbs,, hmm.. sure i dont know for sure the names... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 One of these days, I will start an all-encompassing philosophy thread, so that all philosophy discussions can go in there. Let's see what would happen if I do that. Hopefully there will be enough interest on the part of members to post there. It seems like members of this forum have an immense fascination for being offtopic, and when the time comes for them to talk about the same thing in a relevant topic, they shy away. But yes, that book is a great one. Very interesting. Another good book is Jeffrey Olen's Applying Ethics. And maybe I should also start a thread for philosophical book listings. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
angel4hope Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 den wolf ill be the first one there posting under the thread i love philosophy, but i hope i didnt contribute much to the off topic"-ness" of the other thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 den wolf ill be the first one there posting under the thread i love philosophy, but i hope i didnt contribute much to the off topic"-ness" of the other thread Oh, not at all. I am not one to judge. I am merely an observer. So do not mind my views. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Sasun, have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra? It's brilliant. Hey, maybe we need a Nietzche (I know my spelling!! ) thread. I'm glad people are interested in Philosophy. So check out the Spinoza thread too, damnit. It's not that hard! Yes den_wolf, I read that book. At the time I was extremely fascinated. However, now I have a problem with his philosophy. Btw, he keeps repeating the same thing from different angles in all his works (that I have read). His idea of the Superman is a false concept. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gurgen Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 I only wish I knew Russian so I could read the original version, no translations... You might want to note that Nietzsche was German. http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/history/virtual/portrait/nietzsche.jpg His book is indeed great, though some parts are quite impossible to read. But I believe we were talking about love. Maybe you should split this thread Sasun. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasun Posted February 10, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 Good idea Gurgen, I was thinking to put this stuff where wolfie opens his philosophy thread, but maybe we should keep individual philosophers in separate threads. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 You might want to note that Nietzsche was German. Maybe Zarathustra spoke russian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
den_wolf Posted February 10, 2004 Report Share Posted February 10, 2004 The book was originally written in German. Reading it in German would be the ideal thing to do. As a sidenote: a lot of people actually correct me on the "spake" in the title, it's actually the archaic version of "spoke." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted February 11, 2004 Report Share Posted February 11, 2004 (edited) Nietzsche never understood God/Christianity. As Sasun pointed out, most of his arguments are based upon misconceptions. Regarding "Also sprach Zarathustra", I read it almost ten years ago so my memory is not quite fresh but this whole idea of Übermensch supposedly "freeing himself" from all constraints "imposed" onto him by society (religion, culture, ethics...) is not only pointless and absurd but unachievable. As all absurd ideas however, it is extremely destructive. This philosophy is to be related with anarchism, "modernity" (defined as the rejection of all possible form of tradition), perpetual revolution... In fact, these "modern" conceptions (which principally find their roots in antichristian judaism) are the direct expression of the religion of man-god (or man divinised) as opposed to the religion of God-man. Isn't it Zarathustra himself who proclaims that "God is dead"? It seems Nietzsche did not reflect enough on the myth of Promotheus. http://www.artmagick.com/images/paintings/delville/delville36_t.jpg as he forgot about the second part. http://www.artmagick.com/images/paintings/moreau/moreau23_t.jpg He would also have benefited from meditating on the following: http://www.geog.ucla.edu/Department/Humboldt/images/cosgrove_25.jpg Bruegel, Pieter. Landscape with the Fall of Icarus c. 1558 http://twist.lib.uiowa.edu/introling/images/babel.jpg Bruegel, Pieter. The Tower of Babel 1563 Edited February 11, 2004 by axel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.