Nietzsche - the most important philosopher - discuss

[leo-rcc]

You may now sneer at my silly pedantry.

No, you are indeed correct.

[buschmaster]

...

[Animavore]

The infuriating thing about an individual way of living. People are always angry at anyone who chooses very individual standards for his life; because of the extraordinary treatment which that man grants to himself, they feel degraded, like ordinary beings.





and that's why i love him

[hiyymer]

Call him the greatest philosopher of all time. Seriously how great is that? Cardboard is more important.

[Hermit]

Call him the greatest philosopher of all time. Seriously how great is that? Cardboard is more important.

Well, yes, true, but to be regarded as the greatest among philosophers is not too shabby.

I think Nietzsche is not particularly great at all. His appeal stems chiefly from his aphorisms. Pithy and short pronouncements appeal to people who are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought. That would be the majority of humankind, including the majority of humankind that professes to be interested in philosophy.

[hiyymer]

Call him the greatest philosopher of all time. Seriously how great is that? Cardboard is more important.

Well, yes, true, but to be regarded as the greatest among philosophers is not too shabby.

I think Nietzsche is not particularly great at all. His appeal stems chiefly from his aphorisms. Pithy and short pronouncements appeal to people who are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought. That would be the majority of humankind, including the majority of humankind that professes to be interested in philosophy.

Boy there sure are a lot of them. I got bored after the second page. Seen better.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... che_3.html

[Robert_S]

Sometimes I find him inspiring. Today I find him tiresome.

[Hermit]

Call him the greatest philosopher of all time. Seriously how great is that? Cardboard is more important.

Well, yes, true, but to be regarded as the greatest among philosophers is not too shabby.

I think Nietzsche is not particularly great at all. His appeal stems chiefly from his aphorisms. Pithy and short pronouncements appeal to people who are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought. That would be the majority of humankind, including the majority of humankind that professes to be interested in philosophy.

Boy there sure are a lot of them. I got bored after the second page. Seen better.

http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/autho ... che_3.html

Thanks for the link. This one from the page you provided the link to of Fred's one-liners is rather ironic in relation to what I was saying: mankind would rather see gestures than listen to reasons.

[Animavore]

Call him the greatest philosopher of all time. Seriously how great is that? Cardboard is more important.

Well, yes, true, but to be regarded as the greatest among philosophers is not too shabby.

I think Nietzsche is not particularly great at all. His appeal stems chiefly from his aphorisms. Pithy and short pronouncements appeal to people who are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought. That would be the majority of humankind, including the majority of humankind that professes to be interested in philosophy.

for fucking real!?

[Hermit]

Ayup. Just like Dancing with the Stars gets ten times better ratings than Four Corners in Australia. I can't think of a reason why things would be radically different in your neck of the woods.

[Animavore]

:scratch: I don't have a clue what you're talking about and i'm still trying to figure out if the earlier comment is a blatant, personal attack!

[Hermit]

:scratch: I don't have a clue what you're talking about and i'm still trying to figure out if the earlier comment is a blatant, personal attack!

What is so difficult to understand with the claim that "Nietzsche's appeal stems chiefly from his aphorisms. Pithy and short pronouncements appeal to people who are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought. That would be the majority of humankind, including the majority of humankind that professes to be interested in philosophy."?

As for your perception of my comment as a blatant personal attack, none was intended, and I would like you to explain to me what makes you think it of it as one. To me the majority of humankind is too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought, and I supported that opinion with the fact that in Australia, for instance, Dancing with the Stars gets ten times better ratings than Four Corners. Similarly, The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper in Sydney pitched at people who are mainly interested in sports results, sex scandals and like piffle, outsells The Sydney Morning Herald by a similar magnitude. Surely, you can think of similar examples, like say, by how much Justin Bieber CDs outsold recordings of JS Bach this year.

I was not implying that all people who regard Nietzsche are too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought, and even less so that stupidity is genetic. In my experience, it just happens to be the case that the social strata that simply don't have the time to study things at length and systematically, because most of their waking hours are taken up with making ends meet, are more likely to think of Nietzsche as the bees knees of philosophical thinking, than those who have the luxury of a materially adequate existence to focus their attention on things beyond how the money to buy replacements for the shoes that John and Jane have outgrown three weeks ago can be procured.

Aphorisms, for which Nietzsche had considerable skills, can be very catchy, and don't usually require a systematic world view to be appreciated. That's why KR Popper's "We must make our mistakes as quickly as we can" is hardly known or understood at all. Without knowing what he says about epistemology, it just sounds like a silly, probably mistaken, platitude. That is why D Hume's "It is not reason which is the guide of life, but custom." is not comprehensible without knowing what he said about inductivism, and usually disagreed with by the few people who actually heard it.

[charlou]

As for your perception of my comment as a blatant personal attack, none was intended, and I would like you to explain to me what makes you think it of it as one. To me the majority of humankind is too stupid or lazy to engage in sustained trains of thought, and I supported that opinion with the fact that in Australia, for instance, Dancing with the Stars gets ten times better ratings than Four Corners. Similarly, The Daily Telegraph, a newspaper in Sydney pitched at people who are mainly interested in sports results, sex scandals and like piffle, outsells The Sydney Morning Herald by a similar magnitude. Surely, you can think of similar examples, like say, by how much Justin Bieber CDs outsold recordings of JS Bach this year.

The use of "stupid and lazy" to describe why you think people can't or won't engage in sustained trains of thought ... That you describe inability to act, for whatever reason, as lack of engagement in sustained trains of thought ... That you seem to think that your idea of what is valuable in what and how people think about the various examples you gave is superior ... I dunno .. it can be taken personally, I think ... The way it's expressed can certainly come across as arrogant and elitist.

[Trolldor]

There's a reason the IQ scale reads 'above average intelligence'.
There's a reason being above average intelligence makes you less inclined to be religious, more inclined to do well financially, have stabler relationships, perform better academically, have greater empathy, have a liberal mindset and overall be better at life. For the most part, the degree of your success correlates directly with how far 'above average intelligence' you are.

[charlou]

There's a reason being above average intelligence makes you less inclined to be religious, more inclined to do well financially, have stabler relationships, perform better academically, have greater empathy, have a liberal mindset and overall be better at life. For the most part, the degree of your success correlates directly with how far 'above average intelligence' you are.

Ummmm ... If you're serious cite evidence or kindly stfu.