Nietzsche was a pathetic human being...

What does this mean?

What? Is this how you read? That would explain much. I never suggested such a thing.

 

He's a philosopher...it's a forum for discussing philosophy....???

 

Apologies.

 

I think if you want to understand power the way Nietzsche meant it, you may have to read Demian. One memorable thought from that book is fear no one, as in do not let others have power over you.

Sorry, I misread you.

 

Nietzsche is easily one of the most misunderstood philosophers. He's extremely complicated and thrives on the paradox.

 

OMG, man. HESSE wrote Demian, NOT Nietzsche. How do you figure one should read another author (Hesse) to understand a different person's philosophy (Nietzsche)? Now I don't believe that you actually read anything you said you did. No wonder you're confused about Nietzsche.

 

Perhaps he's just confused.

 

Of course Poe pretended to "truth", what do you think poetry and fiction are but perhaps the MOST profound expressions of truth?

And Nietzsche is simply offensive to you because our ethos suggest that it is "wrong" to be arrogant and think you are better than someone else- but that doesn't mean those things aren't true. That is the probable source of your anger towards Nietzsche- he says he's a superman, and you don't want to admit that he MIGHT be right.

Have a nice day!

 

Wait, is this really a question? Here, let me help you out: virtually no other author influenced the 20th century more than Nietzsche. His ideals, while commonly twisted, included several crucial concepts - ideas such as "humanity much determine its own morals". He basically created existentialism, his work was highly influential to the fathers of modern psychology, and many of his ideas can be found in modern times:

The goal of life should be to find yourself. True maturity means discovering or creating an identity for yourself.

The highest virtue is to be true to yourself (consider these song titles from a generation ago: "I Gotta Be Me," "I Did It My Way").

When you fall ill, your body is trying to tell you something; listen to the wisdom of your body.

People who hate their bodies or are in tension with them need to learn how to accept and integrate their physical selves with their minds instead of seeing them as in tension with each other. The mind and body make up a single whole.

Athletes, musicians, etc. especially need to become so attuned to their bodies that their skills proceed spontaneously from the knowledge stored in their muscles and are not frustrated by an excess of conscious rational thought. (The influence of Zen Buddhism on this sort of thinking is also very strong.)

Sexuality is not the opposite of virtue, but a natural gift that needs to be developed and integrated into a healthy, rounded life.

Many people suffer from impaired self-esteem; they need to work on being proud of themselves.

Knowledge and strength are greater virtues than humility and submission.

Overcoming feelings of guilt is an important step to mental health.

You can't love someone else if you don't love yourself.

Life is short; experience it as intensely as you can or it is wasted.

People's values are shaped by the cultures they live in; as society changes we need changed values.

Challenge yourself; don't live passively.

Granted, not all of that is from Nietzsche originally, but much of it started gaining traction with his work. He rightfully belongs up with Kant and Aristotle as one of the most influential and deep philosophers of all time.

 

I would argue NONE of that is from Nietzsche "originally"... I can grant that he was pretty much the birth of DECONSTRUCTION, but not Existentialism.

The man had a complete mental and physical breakdown at 44--OBVIOUSLY he couldn't have been the progenitor of MOST of those items of "New Age-y - self-help" ideals you mention. Nietzsche was a hot mess with regard to his mental and physical well being.

 

By the way, Stagnant,

You may want to give credit to your original source when you cut and paste:
http://www.gordonstate.edu/PT_Faculty/j_richards/Presentations/Hist1122Nietzsche.pdf

 

Poetry and Literature are expressions of one's understanding of Truth, not a "defining of" Truth as philosophical treatises are. Some Literature does lean toward a philosophical expression (see Hesse, as noted, and Camus, among others), but it is still not a "claim" as philosophical essayists make claims.

I think the evidence of his life suggests he failed, and in that demonstrates he is wrong.

and you too!

 

There is as much truth, probably quite a bit more, in Shakespeare's work than any philosopher you can name.

Aristotle himself says that poetry is more valuable than history, because history speaks of particulars and poetry universals. (paraphrase of a quote from his "Poetics")

 

I know who wrote Demian, doofy. I recommend you read Hesse because you clearly struggle with Nietzsche's writing. Hesse makes the ideas easier to grasp.

 

I can agree with that. Still--presenting Truth in art is very different than presenting supposed Truth as a formal thesis. And, I agree that art is far more "truth-filled" than any particular thesis.

Nietzsche wrote some poetry. Do you know of any "good" poetry that he wrote? Here's a link to some, but personally, I find it over-wrought and rather scant on tangible imagery.

 

Not that I want to butt into your little discussion here, but apparently there's "widespread scholarly agreement" that Jesus - while 'solar allegories' may have played a role in the picture Christianity has of him - was a real person: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_Jesus

So while I agree with the statement that Nietzche inspired Hesse, you should better say that this is as obviously true as the statement that about 2000 years ago there lived a Jewish preacher who inspired what is now the world’s largest religion.

 

How many of those agreeing also happen to Christian to some extent? There's a lack of objectivity in evaluating Judeo-Christian claims in our culture, especially when we get to something as basic as the existence or non-existence of people like Jesus and Moses. Would they assume that John Frum, Mithras and Hercules were real as well? Spartan kings were known to claim Herculean ancestry.

 

I fear in this case the lack of objectivity is mostly on your side.

 

Why? There is no evidence for the existence of Jesus. Nothing outside of posthumous religious claims, that is. Did Jesus's older parallels Hercules or Mithras really exist? There's just as much evidence for them as for Jesus. Jesus also has an historical cousin in the person of Eleazar ben Simon..

 

Yeah, but what does Plato say.

 

Why? Because in your atheist zeal you go with a freak minority opinion while pretty much all historians agree that Jesus did exist. Ironically you’d probably never doubt the existence of any other historical figure we’ve only got secondary sources for, and there are loads.

Relax: as my old Professor once said when the more evangelical students in our NT- seminar got slightly upset by being presented with your aforementioned solar allegories etc. etc.: “Faith is one thing, science is another”. You can easily agree with the common scientific consensus that Jesus did exist without having to agree to any theological statements made about this historical figure. Your status as a convinced atheist would be in no danger if you showed a little sense here. As it is you come across as about just as objective as the most fanatical evangelical fundamentalist. Suit yourself.

 

I guess one would have to ask, if the savior of all mankind was here, why is it so darned hard to prove he ever existed?
Why is it so darned hard to prove he is God, the son of God, or something else?
What kind of savior is so darned hard follow that there are literally thousands of sects with differing doctrines as to what his purpose is/was and how one goes about achieving his stated purpose or goal?

 

Most socialists get rubbed out of history. It's the way capitalist hegemony works. What is truth?' asked jesting Pilate, and did not stay for an answer - and the capitalists don't even allow the question.

 

Heh. It happens when the majority believes in a fable that those who question it are a "freak minority," so labelled by brow-beating believers who will brook no questioning of their sacred beliefs, but the fact remains that Jesus is a solar hero with no historical records to his credit. I always hear it repeated that "historians agree that Jesus existed," yet I never see the basis for this. At best, they assume there was a real Jesus because in their view it's simply most likely that there was. And why is that? I have to wonder. Probably because of how popular the Jesus myth is, at least in part, and in part because they may well have a vested interest in believing in him themselves. Not every historian is going to approach such fundamental ideas of Christianity critically due to their own personal bias.

Your old professor quotation doesn't help, either. No, I won't accept a view simply because it's popular and propped up by appeals to authority and an echo chamber effect. I will not accept that a demigod figure akin to Hercules with some very similar attributes, including a purported life (and death) story that mimics the sun's zodiacal journey, yet for whom no contemporary secular historical records exist, ever actually walked the earth. There is simply no reason to accept the claim, again apart from religious bias and a certain naivete about how these myths start and grow. There is nothing crazy about rejecting the existence of any such figure. In fact, that is the default position we all should take in light of the evidence, and many historians probably aren't even aware of Jesus's solar parallels. It's not a popular topic for some odd reason..

 

It's a very good point that, even if someone known as Iesos (which would nowadays be Jesus, a name which has never as far as I know been particularly rare throughout the world) Xristos (a title, not a given name, meaning 'saviour') existed, it would be a great leap from that fact to the idea that he was the son of god. I personally am open to the possibility that Jesus, as the inspiration for the Christian religion, was a real historical figure.

However, looking into the consensus opinion of historians has been... unsatisfying to say the least. They seem to focus on Tacitus, and on one book in particular, and even then mainly one one passage specifically, in which he is named as the Christ (a title, remember, not his name) rather than his actual name. Other facets of his life are accepted by greater or lesser proportions of the scholarly body but his crucifixion is by far the most commonly accepted fact of his supposed history, and it seems to rely on this relatively flimsy paragraph from an admittedly widely respected work.

I mean, it seems almost a given that the religion called 'Christian' after 'Christ' or 'saviour' as it is in English, would be created or inspired by one who is considered that saviour, and therefore that Christ was very likely a real person - but was his name Jesus? And what was his ACTUAL surname (or equivalent)? Even these simple, and relatively unimportant details seem impossible to verify for sure.

Like I said, I am definitely open to the possibility that he was a real, ordinary human being from history - so if you know of other sources or facts that I might have overlooked I'd be glad to hear them.