Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5765
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
What do you think of the book? On what points in this book do you most agree with Nietzsche? On what points do you disagree and why?
Overall, I enjoy Nietzsche's writing. I think he is witty and original (for his time, now many of his ideas are cliche). But for a philosopher I find his writing disorganized and his arguments lacking. Here is a funny sentence about this and here is a witty original sentence expressing an idea about that. It's fun to read, but it isn't a philosophical argument. In my opinion, it shares more in common with modern day stand up comedy (which I love) than with modern day philosophy.
What do you think?
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Thatsage
- Posts: 228
- Joined: January 5th, 2013, 8:17 am
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
BGE was pretty much the second "proper philosophical" book I've read, and it's rather dear to me. I loved the style, passion, and the "obscurity" and "secrecy" he lays down throughout the book (and it's a good thing only because he is such a good writer). It's just fascinating, and I think I have learned much from this work.
There's a fair bit I didn't quite understand, but I didn't find it to be lacking or disorganized, maybe because I haven't yet read much other philosophical books. I think much credit is also to be given to the translation, which I think is probably very good.
- Julio_sanchez
- Posts: 9
- Joined: January 8th, 2012, 10:03 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
- Damorobo
- Posts: 20
- Joined: February 10th, 2013, 2:13 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
The best example of this was his critique of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'. I think that Descartes' was suggesting that the 'I' was the agent that gave rise to the thinking. However, Nietzsche suggests that it was the thinking that gave rise to the 'I' and that the only way to grammatically express a thought was to state 'I think'.
From this Nietzsche illustrates that Cartesian notions of human agency are derived from the grammatical structure of our language and are not necessarily representative of reality.
From this I learnt that language does not necessarily represent reality accurately and how the structure of our language can shape our perceptions of reality. Furthermore, I think this is an important critique of philosophy in general as much of our philosophical arguments are based upon an imperfect language and highlights the importance of not being mislead by our language.
-
- Posts: 277
- Joined: May 25th, 2012, 9:33 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
- DeeElf
- Posts: 157
- Joined: August 21st, 2012, 2:23 am
- Favorite Philosopher: William James
- Location: Pacific Northwest
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
This is generally accurate but it also reflects his contempt for how decadent philsophy had become through its inststence on Organization and Argumention (in a sense, this makes him a pre-cursor to Wittgenstein and the pragamatists). So it's not really a criticism to say his arguments are lacking because he was constantly questioning the validity of organized argument.Scott wrote:
Overall, I enjoy Nietzsche's writing. I think he is witty and original (for his time, now many of his ideas are cliche). But for a philosopher I find his writing disorganized and his arguments lacking.
However, he also made organized arguments when he judged them appropriate. For instance, you will find no better introduction to epistemology than in his early Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (it's the one my professor started with), where we find a very organized analysis of the pre-Socratics culminating in his conclusion: the juxtaposing of Heraclitus and Parmenides, and the argument for why he thinks Heraclitus trumps Parmenides.
You'll also find organized arguments against Plato, Kant, and democracy in his late Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ.
"Argument is propaganda for one observer, the essence of human discourse for another." -Feyerabend, Against Method, p. 236 (2010)
- Comrade Collie
- Posts: 5
- Joined: December 12th, 2012, 5:18 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
- Cinman
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 2:40 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
-
- Posts: 1076
- Joined: October 18th, 2012, 5:30 am
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
-
- Posts: 30
- Joined: March 6th, 2013, 2:20 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Geoffrey Boycott
- Location: Wales
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
I notice that Beyond Good and Evil is February's book of the month (in which case, I just missed it). Nevertheless, your post inspired in me the following observation/question.Scott wrote:Please use this topic to discuss the February book of the month, Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche.
What do you think of the book? On what points in this book do you most agree with Nietzsche? On what points do you disagree and why?
Overall, I enjoy Nietzsche's writing. I think he is witty and original (for his time, now many of his ideas are cliche). But for a philosopher I find his writing disorganized and his arguments lacking. Here is a funny sentence about this and here is a witty original sentence expressing an idea about that. It's fun to read, but it isn't a philosophical argument. In my opinion, it shares more in common with modern day stand up comedy (which I love) than with modern day philosophy.
What do you think?
When you say of Beyond Good Evil that 'it isn't philosophical argument', it seems to me that you have concluded that 'philosophy' resides in argument and cannot be of any other form. Would this be a fair description of your thinking?
If it is a fair description, then your true interest here, Scott, is 'philosophical argument' and not, in fact, philosophy. Again, would you consider that a fair description of your thinking?
(I've just joined the site and this is the first thread I've looked at. If my observations/questions belong elsewhere, so be it; I'll soon learn.)
-
- Posts: 11
- Joined: March 16th, 2013, 11:07 am
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
Beyond Good and Evil is not simply a rant against current philosophy. It's a critical text on what philosophers do when they philosophize. Nietzsche is focused on uncovering the prejudices, assumptions, and values that motivate the argumentation and understandings philosophers use. This is why Nietzsche isn't so much worried about presenting arguments against philosophers as he is about simply pointing out where philosophers are making leaps, hiding certain motives, universalizing, and excluding or marginalizing certain thoughts.
The most important and influential insight that Nietzsche unveils in this text is that the crux of Western philosophy, from Plato to Hegel, is predicated on the unconscious (and, for Nietzsche, false) belief in the power of language to "reveal" or give the truth. Language cannot give the truth of anything. Language is simply a convenient system we use to produce understanding through images. However, Western philosophers have been seduced into believing that language can do much more than this, and all their philosophies (which, for Nietzsche, are misunderstandings) basically come down to this false belief.
The philosophy of the future, for Nietzsche, depends upon our ability to rid ourselves of this prejudice of language.
- Cinman
- New Trial Member
- Posts: 5
- Joined: February 23rd, 2013, 2:40 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
“The best example of this was his critique of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'. I think that Descartes' was suggesting that the 'I' was the agent that gave rise to the thinking. However, Nietzsche suggests that it was the thinking that gave rise to the 'I' and that the only way to grammatically express a thought was to state 'I think'.”
Julio_sanchez wrote;
“It felt more like someone ranting and just saying whatever came to their mind at the time then real writing. “
wayne wrote;
With what little I have read, more like heard, about Nietzsche and what has been said about Nietzsche in the discussion of Beyond Good and Evil, I would say that Nietzsche was a Space-Cadet. Wayne Wrote;
I Think is not why I am, I Am because I think that I am more than a mere animal, that I am God Like, All Knowing, resulting in my being a Know-It-All; Everything coming to mind being the absolute truth, fact, Reality; I to include my world of Reality being born of my own Imagination; which I prefer over the Material, Physical World of Reality as experienced by the senses of the Flesh Body, My living in a Spiritual, the Immaterial Reality of My own Mind, Thought..
Know one thing;, living in your thoughts, Imagination, will cause the Mind to whirl, with the possibility of One becoming a Space-Cadet.
No doubt, being all knowing, who ever I am, I am an original product of my own mind, thoughts, Imagination: I am my own Creation, created in the Image of a God; I being All Knowing, a Know-It-All, I having a serious Ego Problem; I not existing as Material, Physical, Reality, I simply existing as my own Consciousness, as a Spiritual Being.
All this confusion as to who and what I am being caused by my eating of the Fruit, my consumption, of Knowledge that has a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge, the Knowledge of Good and Evil born of mine own Imagination.
The Knowledge of Good and Evil being born of a Single Source, being Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge not born of the Experience of the Flesh but instead Knowledge having a Dual Quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, the Knowledge of Good and Evil being born of the Mind, Man’s Illusionary World of Reality.
A philosopher, living in his imagination, is an inventor, a creator, of Ideas, thought; thoughts that are incomplete, being based upon a pittance of Reality that comes to mind in a Flash of Insight; thought coming to mind as nothing more than a half Truth.
The problem with an organize argument is that you can have an organized argument that is completely the wrong argument.
Your argument can not be proven wrong if your argument is never organized so as to come to a Logical conclusion; in fact more likely than not a philosophical Argument has no logical conclusion, philosophical thoughts not being based upon Empirical Fact, being illusionary.
Thoughts made manifest Reality by the All-Knowing, a Know-It-All, being little more that a half-truth; Knowledge having a dual quality, Absolutely Bad Knowledge born of thought leaves the existence or non-existence of the Knowledge of Good and Evil Uncertain; Absolutely Bad Knowledge being mistaken to be Absolutely Good Knowledge, having a dual quality, exists as the Knowledge of Good and Evil. There is a beyond Good and Evil; Get ride of Absolutely Bad Knowledge, Knowledge born of a Single Source. Knowledge having a dual quality, get ride of Half-Truths born of incomplete thought, the Imagination, born of the mind, the Imagination.
-
- Posts: 154
- Joined: February 13th, 2013, 9:19 pm
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
-
- Posts: 1780
- Joined: January 27th, 2012, 9:32 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Hermese Trismegistus
Re: Discuss Beyond Good and Evil
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023