Nihilism

Russell's criticism of Nietzsche in the History of Western Philosophy is uncharacteristically harsh and petty, I'm not quite sure why, but it might be the time it was written when the war was fresh in his mind and German philosophers were not the thing.

I quote Russell (on the positives) very often. IMO, Russell severe critique of almost all the non-analytic philosophers is due to his (and those of the likes) extreme mental proclivity for logic and maths.

You may be right to attribute Russell's uncharitable views of Nietzsche to his "mental proclivity for logic and maths." I wonder if he would make his criticism now with the same force since analytic philosophy has lost some of its lustre.

When you look at the two large volumes of Russell and Whitehead today, it is practically unreadable even by mathematicians and logicians. It's hierarchical point of view is not popular. It seems far too elaborate a scheme. It was Russell's last effort as a pure mathematician— it seems to have exhausted him. It sits on the shelf as a monument to the wrong way of doing things, another dead end in the maze.

According to Russell, Nietzsche was the first philosopher in the West to write in such a way, where one may ask: "Is he a philosopher at all?" Sometimes, I feel Nietzsche is a poet.

According to Russell, Nietzsche was the first philosopher in the West to write in such a way, where one may ask: "Is he a philosopher at all?" Sometimes, I feel Nietzsche is a poet.

Russell felt, I think, that the more philosophers were like him, the more they were worthy philosophers. That's not unnatural, of course, but he seems to have taken this kind of self-esteem to an extreme by maintaining by implication that at least in some cases, philosophers who were not like him were not philosophers at all, properly speaking. This was the case even with those he knew well. For example, he misunderstood the "early Wittgenstein" when imputing to the Tractatus his own views, and could not understand the "later Wittgenstein" at all.

I tend to sympathize with his views on Nietzsche, who seems to have been an excitable fellow inclined to hyperbole, and bombast mixed with vagary. He was a Romantic, after all. I don't think that means he's not a philosopher, though.

Is Nietzsche a romantic? Are you sure? Personally, we should not be too harsh to Nietzsche. His writing is beautiful. But I feel that Nietzsche had too many ideas that are problematic. But do not be too harsh to him. Albert Einstein never mentioned Nietzsche. Sometimes, I asked: "Why?"

Is Nietzsche a romantic? Are you sure? Personally, we should not be too harsh to Nietzsche. His writing is beautiful. But I feel that Nietzsche had too many ideas that are problematic. But do not be too harsh to him. Albert Einstein never mentioned Nietzsche. Sometimes, I asked: "Why?"

I think every philosopher (scientist, etc) has ideas that are positive and negative in general and also depending on one's own personal inclinations and philosophy. Example, Newton theories based on mechanics and God were that of a genius, but were 'problematic' to relativity and QM. Frankly we should not view that as problematic but rather Newton did his best he could within his circumstances and the knowledge base available during his time.


Similarly Kant, Nietzsche, Russell and others were great philosophers who had contributed a lot of positive knowledge to our existing knowledge database. Somehow, not all their theories are acceptable within our current state of knowledge. Thus what we need to do is to use discretion to pick up the positive knowledge and ignore the irrelevant ones. If one is philosophizing effectively, imo, Nietzsche stepped on Kant's giant shoulder and has a lot more to offer than Russell.
As a very rough guide in terms of google search for philosophical relevance, 'Nietzsche' produce 34 million hits, 'Friedrich Nietzsche' 12.5 million and 'Bertrand Russell' 10.5 million. If Nietzsche is really 'useless', one should expect less than 1 million.

You like Nietzsche and maybe you fall in love with the beauty of his words. If you like Nietzsche, maybe you will like Byron. Before, I saw a picture of Byron and he looked so charismatic and his words are beautiful, like a person dreaming under the evening sky.

For me, Nietzsche is a truly encapsulating phenomena. He both inspires and provokes like no other. He's an artist and a pioneer... He's is just different.

Nihilism is the negation of all things.

This is the broadest and most generally true definition of the concept. A nihilist literally and actually negates all "things". Therefore, Nihilism is characterized as a solipsism, cynicism, and obsessive-compulsive skepticism. The nihilist doubts reality, the senses, and all truths. There is no truth to the nihilist. There are no senses. There is no reality.

The conclusion to nihilism is existentialism, as professed by Rene Descartes. Even if nothing exists, this still counts for an idea. And nihilism cannot escape the idea of an idea. To doubt, there must become a doubter. Therefore, to think and doubt, is also to exist as a thinking, doubting, thing.

Again, let me clarify, existentialism is the conclusion to nihilism. Objective existence does not require "thingness" to exist. Existence does not require thought, consciousness, awareness, senses, or knowledge. A rock exists, objectively, without thought. It does not require thought. And not even solipsism can doubt reality in such a way as to deny existence. Solipsism merely relegates existence to subjectivity, and refutes objectivity.

Existence exists, whether you think, doubt, know, realize, or not. Your participation is not required. The nihilist cannot reject existence, but must "live with it" so to speak.