Lectures on the Works of Freidrich Nietzsche

Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,841
Likes
776
Points
113
Location
Dublin
#13
Well, he isn't talking about bulging muscles. He's talking about the man who can look the absolute nihilism of Liberal Capitalism in the face without shriveling up in horror, even become a nihilist himself, and yet transcend that nihilism in himself and all around him. These will be the Ubermenschen, the Supermen. Not some silly individual on his own playing at philosophizing and self assertion (that's a paltry Liberal), or even individually sacrificing himself for some great cause, but a new order of beings - the Dionysian Collective. Marx also saw this new order of beings, but as the Collective of the Revolutionary Proletariat. Heidegger says that beings are not enough - what's needed is a new beginning of Being itself. I'd say that all of them are correct and we need to achieve all of what they foresaw if we are to live as genuine human beings.
Utter claptrap. The central plank of Nietzsche's philosophy was his perspectivism.

The normative aspect of his philosophy was all about individual striving; becoming fully who you are.

And he utterly despised collectivism. Was he a liberal? No.
If he could be pinned down politically, I'd say he was in favour of a sort of decentralised neo-feudalism. He was unapologetically elitist, although not in a conventional sense.

He was no fan of any sort of collectivism. He even went as far as renouncing his Prussian citizenship FFS!

11. The New Idol

"Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie!"
 
Last edited:
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#14
Carl Jung deserves a thread of his own. But as a student of Nietzsche (although he never met the man), he deserves a mention; certainly more than the charlatan Freud.
What is your problem with Freud? "Moses and Monotheism" and "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" are brilliant.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,841
Likes
776
Points
113
Location
Dublin
#15
Some may object that Nietzsche glorified slave owning societies and had nothing but contempt for pity. But if you really look at what he was getting at, there is a valid point. He was contemptuous of the Socialists of his day, as he felt that they wanted to bring all of society down to the level of the most wretched. Ironically, it was not the Socialists who ended up doing that, but the Capitalists. High art was more or less scrapped over the last hundred years in Europe, and everything reduced to the lowest common denominator - not out of pity for the uneducated to be sure - but because it's simply more profitable. I don't think that Nietzsche wanted the poor to starve, but he didn't want to turn them into social welfare junkies either - which has now happened to tens of millions of people in Europe.
He probably would've seen helping the poor as an aristocratic duty. But pity wouldn't be the motivating factor.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,841
Likes
776
Points
113
Location
Dublin
#16
What is your problem with Freud? "Moses and Monotheism" and "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" are brilliant.
He was overly focused on sex and concocted some of the most bizarre, unfalsifiable theories. He was taken seriously for way too long.

Jung made unfalsifiable claims to, but there was a far far greater depth and profundity to his output than that of Freuds.

In memories dreams and reflections, Jung had this to say about Freud:

"There was nothing to be done about this one-sidedness of Freud's. Perhaps some inner experience of his own migth have opened his eyes; but then his intellect would have reduced any such experience to "mere sexuality" or "psychosexuality." He remained the victim of the one aspect he couldn't recognise."
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#17
He was overly focused on sex and concocted some of the most bizarre, unfalsifiable theories. He was taken seriously for way too long.

Jung made unfalsifiable claims to, but there was a far far greater depth and profundity to his output than that of Freuds.

In memories dreams and reflections, Jung had this to say about Freud:

"There was nothing to be done about this one-sidedness of Freud's. Perhaps some inner experience of his own migth have opened his eyes; but then his intellect would have reduced any such experience to "mere sexuality" or "psychosexuality." He remained the victim of the one aspect he couldn't recognise."
I thought you would hate Jung due to your militant atheism?
 
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
7,505
Likes
8,832
Points
313
#21
I'm not a militant atheist. I haven't been for a very long time, although some of the residue may remain.

I'd describe myself as a Panpsychist Monist.
If I had to deal with Irish Catholic Priests growing up I wonder just how real the threat of me turning into a militant atheist would have been. I think it is the namby pamby Priests who are the central cause of atheism in Southern Ireland.
 
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
1,841
Likes
776
Points
113
Location
Dublin
#22
If I had to deal with Irish Catholic Priests growing up I wonder just how real the threat of me turning into a militant atheist would have been. I think it is the namby pamby Priests who are the central cause of atheism in Southern Ireland.
For me, the metaphysical claims of Catholicism/Christianity don't make any sense. That is the primary reason why I reject it.

When it comes to metaphysical claims, I'd have a much closer affinity with Buddhism, even though I've no desire to identify as one.
Anyone in the Christian tradition who came close to my view of things was deemed a heretic.

Giordano Bruno is one such example. Didn't work out well for him though.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Donator
Premium Account
Member
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
26,158
Likes
23,722
Points
313
#24
I agree that Freud is reductionist. However sex and death are two of the most important realities that humans have to deal with.

A chara, could I ask you to keep this thread to Nietzsche. I only mentioned Freud because of that three part BBC series that includes Marx, Nietzsche and Freud. Go raibh míle maith agat.
 
Top Bottom