• Welcome to BookAndReader!

    We LOVE books and hope you'll join us in sharing your favorites and experiences along with your love of reading with our community. Registering for our site is free and easy, just CLICK HERE!

    Already a member and forgot your password? Click here.

nietzsche

B

bobbyburns

New Member
this guy is awesome.

"the superman is one: whose self-mastery yields an abundance of power to create; who exercises the master privilege of the free spirit--living experimentally; who bids farewell to the reverences of youth and who stands apart from the views and values of the herd; who reverences enemies as allies; who knows how to forget and recuperate from the blows of life; who shakes off with a single shrug the vermin that eat deeply into others; whose overflowing plenitude and gratitude cleanse both body and spirit of all guilt and all ressentiment; who perceives that 'body' and 'spirit' are two names for a single mystery; who calls humankind to return in love to its true home, the earth; whose every muscle quivers with a proud consciousness of truly free will and a sovereign individuality that 'no longer flows into a god'; who realizes that creative individuality is indeed the earth's goal and humanity's hope; who, without metaphysical consolations, affirms life not only in its joys but in all its horror and who, thereby, conquers nihilism ... this 'anti-nihilist; this victor over god and nothingness--he must come one day.'

the superman is shaped in the school of self-overcoming whose curriculum requires both courage and discipline, and above all, the ability to distinguish between an asceticism that denies life and one that stands in its service. the school of self-overcoming gives birth to creative will."

[where have you been all my life?]
 
I had to read him in college and he drove me mad. He would make a statement and I would think, OK, I agree with that. Then, he'd make another one, and I'd think, a bit of a stretch, but I can see that. Then, drawing on the 1st 2 statements, he'd conclude something totally untrue and often insane.
 
bobbyburns, I suppose you believe you're one of the happy few who are ubermensch? :)
 
Bobbyburns, I'm curius as to what period of Neitzshe you're reading from. He's talking about "creative will" and "true free will" in the passage you've quoted. Neitzsche didn't believe in free will for most of his life. By the late 1870's he was all about determinism - that what we do is determined by pre-existing circumstances.

Also, one question: Why must this "superman" he describes come one day?
 
idun, I just like the idea nietzsche had. it makes sense to me where I'm at right now. ;) but it's not something I strive to be. twenty years of ambition almost ruined my life.

ashlea, sorry if I put you on the spot. I was just curious. I'll check that out later tonight when I have a little more time.
 
Would like to hear more opinion about him. I knew little about him. But always holding the curiosity of his word, that "god is dead"(is this his original version? not sure.) did he mean that God is dead, so everyone could be a god him/herself. Or did he mean that no one is a god him/herself. :confused: :confused:

(forgive my ingnorace. but really want to know what is your opinion?)
 
hey rosie.

I really don't know. I've only read bits and pieces. something he said caught my attention and that was the end of it.

if you ever want to talk determinism, let me know.
 
What struck me in the text bobbyburns quoted is that Nietsche praises "anti-nihilists". For me, Nietsche was a nihilist himself. He wrote that these "superman", as a higher race, should not be, and are not, limited by any moral rules. Therefore, it's up to them which norms will they create for themselves as the appropriate ones, after they negate any already existing systems of values. To my mind, it's a very dangerous kind of thinking. It undoubtedly leads to a situation, when a man does whatever he wants, for his own good, and noone else's. A man is not able to decide by himself what is good, and what is evil. Values are something unchangable, eternal, and don't depend on people's points of view.
Besides, Nietsche divides people into the "better" and the "worse" ones, on rather vague basis of being "strong" or "weak". It contains an opinion, that the weak are not entitled to any laws, no matter what happens to them, because they are not "real" men. They are more like thoughtless animals. They are despised, and may be used by the "better" ones for their higher purposes. This may lead to hurting others without feeling any guilt for it, because the weak don't deserve any better, they don't deserve mercy. In fact, Nietsche criticised mercy in general.
 
watercrystal said:
But always holding the curiosity of his word, that "god is dead"(is this his original version? not sure.) did he mean that God is dead, so everyone could be a god him/herself. Or did he mean that no one is a god him/herself. :confused: :confused:
Click to expand...
I think that God's death was stated before famous Nietsche opinion. To my mind, he gave divine competences to "superman". (See justification in my previous post).
 
very interesting, idun. politicians and religious leaders tell us all the time that without moral aurhority humans will become violent toward each other. that's their theory. but just take a look around and ask yourself whether the worship of those moral rules isn't a cause of violence. does it take boundaries to keep us from destroying each other? or do boundaries only produce more conflict and, therefore, more violence? can a flag or a book really teach us anything about ourselves? does it take experience to know that killing someone is wrong? maybe there's a way to go beyond right and wrong, but as long as we obey, as long as we create boundaries, there will always be conflict and violence.
 
bobbyburns said:
politicians and religious leaders tell us all the time that without moral aurhority humans will become violent toward each other. that's their theory. but just take a look around and ask yourself whether the worship of those moral rules isn't a cause of violence.
Click to expand...
The worship of moral rules is definitely not a cause of violence. Rather misunderstooding them, disobeying, or negating them and people who obey.
.does it take boundaries to keep us from destroying each other? or do boundaries only produce more conflict and, therefore, more violence? can a flag or a book really teach us anything about ourselves?
Click to expand...
Boundaries will never disappear, as long as people are born different, there will be basis to divide them into groups. But people should believe, that above all divisions there is something common, which may unite them. Universal moral values could be such thing.
does it take experience to know that killing someone is wrong?
Click to expand...
If it took, there would be probably a massacre every day. ;) A man can't check everything by himself, that's why it's necessary to have someone, a moral leader, as you called him, to indicate you that killing is wrong, and that it was checked before.
as long as we obey, as long as we create boundaries, there will always be conflict and violence.
Click to expand...
That depends to what we obey.
Nietsche created a new boundary. That's why I dislike his philosophy.
 
what I'm asking you is whether it is possible to end violence in yourself while still living in this monstrously brutal world. I don't want to have any conflict in me, any hate, jealousy, fear or anxiety. I want to live completely at peace. what can I do? if I look at violence and say, "I must reject this", my mind will still be in conflict with itself. so is it possible to look at it without condemning or accepting it? no one, not even a moral leader, can observe it for me, I must understand it myself. so I begin by observing that I feel violence, which is something most people can't see. that violence seems to come from somewhere else, but it is my anger, my hatred, my jealousy. so perhaps violence is not something serprate from me, it is in fact part of me. when I realize this I, the observer, become the observed and all conflict dissolves because there is no "I", no entity that is in conflict with itself. all boundaries collapse.
 
bobbyburns said:
when I realize this I, the observer, become the observed and all conflict dissolves because there is no "I", no entity that is in conflict with itself. all boundaries collapse.
Click to expand...

:confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes: :confused: :rolleyes:

The first minute, I thought I understood whatyou have said, then next minute, I began to doubt whether I understood you correctly,

Bests,
watercrystal
 
that's ok, I'm not teaching you a new philosphy. philosophy is something you remember. you remember ideas and other fragments of knowledge, right? just try observing yourself in the present moment. once you understand yourself, you won't have to obey or rely on anyone ever again.
 
bobbyburns said:
once you understand yourself, you won't have to obey or rely on anyone ever again.
Click to expand...

Yes, 120% agree on this. Yet, that is my questing, pursuing at present. and what is worse, I don't think I understand myself!!!! Though I am trying always. :eek: *sigh-------------*

Yes, I have great interests in the topic in this post! :)

Bests,
watercrystal
 
good, then let's start where you're at. if you feel there is something wrong with not understanding yourself, start there. I'm trying to understand myself as well, so we can explore this together as friends. so far we've relied on thought to solve our problems, but has it satisfied us? is the world better off because of technological and political progress? aren't we still living in fear everyday? we want to know what it will take to solve our problems, to satisfy us, but we still don't yet understand how to begin. these problems seem far away, so we form images in ours minds that separate us from them, and this causes friction. at times we feel overwhelmed by all the problems in our lives so we learn to adapt to them, which is idiotic. we want to know, is it possible that there is only one problem? if so, is it possible for us to meet it, not intellectually but actually, without any distortion or conflict in our minds? so far we have nothing but images.

when you look down from the top of a mountain there is you who are looking at the city below; there are tiny insect humans driving cars around buildings that look like toy models, and there is you, the observer, the thinker, you, the center. what goes on down there is irrelevant when you're up here. you are creating psychological space between yourself and all the complex problems down below. but there is also you observing yourself, the you that is connected to everything around it. it sees you struggle with the thousands of problems you've created, which are in fact one problem: the self. the self is the you you know and the me I know. it's like having crawled into a narrow hole when there was an expansive field above us. we become lonely, yet we sometimes feel secure because in our tiny subterranean abodes we have books and paintings and radios and other temporary means of escape. to see this and understand this requires a great deal of capacity and awareness, but it also means turning your back on everything you have built up. your country, your name, your religion, your ideas, everything.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top