Been studying the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche for the past five years and am about to publish substantial...

My gut instinct response is to say that I wouldn't think about his position along canonical terms (e.g., "libertarian free will, hard determinism, etc."), which isn't to say they're invaluable but that Nietzsche inevitably is going to elude these kind of signpostings. Another consideration is that by the time we get to BGE he is already exploding the notion of "will" to make way for his chief metaphysical position, the will to power. So, all I can say is that you'll want to check out some books or articles to really get a grasp of that if you really want to distinguish what he means by "will" in the first place. But to answer you more directly, he'd say that all actions have volition as a product of will to power. Value is meaningless apart from will to power. I have to avoid your comment about my personal views on it, because while I appreciate the interest, I don't see it as fruitful for a discussion of Nietzsche's thought, etc. If N makes you feel depressed, you should check out the Three Metamorphoses in TSZ.

lol

depends, is the murderer venting his will? but also one consideration here is Nietzsche's socio-political account which is tedious, to say the last. He concedes to an inevitable distance between the philosopher and society, but he doesn't think you should just go out and be a shitty person. Remember, Zarathustra goes under before he rejoices alone on the mountain.

thanks

I guess two more points for my approach. I think it's necessary to learn the scholarly position behind N. On the other end of the critical perspective, though, is that Nietzsche demands to be read seriously. I think the hardest part of reading N is to use his concepts to think through your own life. If you want a good example, go read "Before Sunrise" in TSZ and just think through it for an hour or so. It's not like Kant or someone where you spend most of your time sorting out the concepts. Sure, there's some philosophical laboring to be done there (which is where the interpretive tradition comes in handy) but ultimately seeing how the ideas could actually change your life is the hard part. As for actually producing scholarly work between those two tendencies (academic and personal reading), you just gotta balance it out. Honestly, I never feel quite satisfied when writing about Nietzsche because traditional philosophical discourse (at least the kind that journals are looking to publish) is averted to a correct reading of Nietzsche. I think this is what Foucault was going on about when he praised Klossowski and Bataille for finding new means of philosophical discourse.

Can I consider killing people as acceptable in my own set of ethics if it's done for my own greater goal?

Absolutely. You better be a damn good artist though. Think of someone like Napoleon. He massacred hundreds of thousands of people. But he changed the way in which the earth is divided.

>Been studying the philosophy of Friedrich Wilhelm Nietzsche for the past five years

How does it feel to be the grovelling Shadow of Zarathustra?

Just prep work for reaching past the lion's mane.
:,)

here's one that's been bugging me for awhile:
Did Nietzsche consider ressentiment in wholly negative terms? I know he saw it as reactive sentiment, which gives it a kind of disadvantage to the more primary/active sentiments of master morality, but surely he also saw how powerful it could be. At least when he says that judea conquered rome...

The "levelling of european man" that nietzsche talks about released a lot of energy,
idk what I'm really asking. Just if ressentiment can be considered as a good or powerful force sometimes

What is Nietzsche's view on women? Did he see them as discardable and replaceable figures merely here for man's various needs (especially physiological ones)?

Are Klossowski and Bataille's books on nietzsche worth reading?

Ressentiment as a final psychological state is wholly negative and devastating for the individual in terms of maximizing their capacities/venting their will/actualizing their full potential/etc.. Hence why a reactionary attitude to one's masters/past/etc. can be labeled decadent, destructive, life-denying, and so on. But Nietzsche sees a wrestling with one's masters/past as essential for moving through the stages of recurrence, which ends in the creative potential to make one's own values. A good place to start with this is Three Metamorphoses in TSZ and Kathleen Higgins's "Ruminations and Rejoinders" essay. Though N is not directly labelling the attitude 'ressentiment' in TSZ, he is directly describing the attitude or tendency that could lead an individual to adopt the attitude of the last man where every action is done out of ressentiment. As for the greater historical account, yeah N sees the Jews as a stepping stone leading to more valuable attitudes. But we're past that now and thus can no longer remain the solely destructive race if we truly want to overcome ourselves.

So, ressentiment is good only insofar as it is a stepping stone to a greater movement or attitude that will essentially be a creative attitude.

absolutely. I'm reading klossowski's right now. I was pretty tired of critical theory but this is different than a lot of critical theory and way better.
He talks about nietzsche in the context of science, nietzsche's "semiotic of impulses" in the context of nietzsche's ailing body... it's really really interesting

yeah i sort of meant since reflexive anger/tearing down of idols can be good *as a stage*, not in-and-of-itself.. I've read the three metamorphoses. I guess it seems to me that nietzsche has some admiration for the ressentiment of christianity/judea, since it actually managed to conquer the world. But ressentiment can't be the only thing values are based on

are you a flea-picking analytic or blathering continental?
why do you feel Nietzsche deserves another tome of academic bullshit?

I believe in BGE, and in The Will to Power N specifically states that it would be both merficul and upright to eradicate lesser forms of life, to allow them to die off, some type of culling or allowing to extinguish is advocated. Do you believe this is necessary, if not how do you reconcile with N’s words?

No clue about Klossowski's. Bataille's is really just a book advancing his own views, not really in the scholarly tradition.

I don't think Nietzsche knew his own views on women. I think Higgins and Solomon have something on this in their apologetic book "What nietzsche Really said...no seriously he was a totally nice guy completely removed from destructive impulses trust us okay?" but everything I've read is kinda susbtanceless. My general impression is that he only ever talked about woman when it was the butt of a joke or something, rather superfluous, nothing you want to spend too much time on.

kek

nietzsche despised the "scholarly tradition"

while bataille's book on nietzsche may be extremely idiosyncratic, it is entirely worth reading, bataille is great. I consider bataille more important than marx, also he was pretty chad, look up the secret society he founded, etc.

read it, don't listen to this dude

>constantly writes about the ubermensch
>is a soyboy himself

Why do you take this hack seriously, OP?

Attached: 1482510748902.jpg (479x317, 23K)

How is the prose? I plan on hitting K soon, especially for his take on recurrence.

Neither? Lol I wouldn't call 50 pages a tome. And Nietzsche deserves a lifetime of study.

Again, I'm not really for talking about this as concerns my own philosophical views. But yeah i think by the time he was drafting his future books on WTP and ER he was set on a rather harsh view of will to power connecting back to the lines from BT "that life is at the bottom of things...indestructibly powerful" (maybe that's where the fuckers started pulling Darwinian interpretations from). And it's not a secret that he believed in a hierarchy. But by the time the overman arrives that will all be beside the point, we wont be able to see things in terms of moral or immoral eradication (if I'm reading your question right).

the prose is good. i've been very, very ill, so have a hard time reading anything very long (trying to find good Nietzsche audiobooks). but the klossowski, I'll read a paragraph or two or three here and there and it's always really potent. There's not a misplaced word. It's all intense

Yeah but in the same breadth he demanded that he be read carefully. Why wouldn't I consider the readings of people who have had a lot longer to think about this stuff than I have? Maybe you assume I mean the scholarly tradition in the widest sense, in which case I don't, I mean solely within Nietzsche studies (which is wide enough as it is). Personally, I didn't find the Bataille useful for what I was writing, but I'd revisit it if I were studying Bataille himself (which I plan to do soon enough).

Brian Leiter is how much a cunt on scale of 1-10?
Do you apply anachronisms like "naturalism" to N's work?

vitalism isn’t naturalism and he specifically believed atomism and induction were nonsense

A solid 5. His blog has been useful for practical stuff, but I can't imagine reading N solely through the lens of law or politics or whatever. Gooding-Williams is as close as i can get to that line of thought. Immensely distrustful of someone in his position having anything worthwhile to say about N.

thanks for the outputs this is a good thread. Speaking of Bataille,where should i start? I put the Interior Experience in my reading list but that seems End-game sort of stuff

if he liked the greeks so much why didnt he marry them?

Attached: JXhJG1L.jpg (506x543, 126K)

This guy could probably tell you better and (assuming that's one person).

Some tripfag that used to post on Veeky Forums used to recommend this: journals.uvic.ca/index.php/ctheory/article/viewFile/14274/5050

the accursed share is probably where to start for bataille's theory stuff, but also read "story of the eye" it's a hot erotic novella but it's also really intense and full of strange symbolism

What are some of the most damning flaws in Nietzsche's work? Anything about M/S morality, Overman, and W2P in that sense?

Any book rec's on that too?

>flaws
scumbag analytic detected

ask the same question in an economics or physics thread, they won’t help you. lol

Nietzsche is your best bet if you fell for Luther's rejection of scholasticism. But if scholastics/Aristotle were on the dot, Nietzsche would be obsolete. Besides that, what you can't handle if he was wrong in one aspect? Cool it, buddy.

I'm not well versed on philosophy but i'd like to read Nietzsche, what order would you recommend?

"The errors of great men are superior to the truths of the small"
–Friedrich Nietzsche

Why have none spoken of the truths of great men? What of the errors of the small? All is lost if we are inept to continue our search for truth, for we are lost in the errors of great men. So, what might truth and error be if we cannot merely size up men correctly?

Point being, nitpicking for "flaws" is shitty philology, and shittier philosophy

I didn't know
>damning flaws
and
>nitpicking
were equivalent.

I made it quite clear by asking what are the biggest critiques of Nietzsche's work or rather what are flaws in his work that seem to be the chink in the armor or place his work in a critical condition. If OP names some and donates a level of severity to the flaw, then my question is answered. If he says no, then so be it; the question was answered.

I wouldn't call them flaws so much as I would blatant inconsistencies between his earlier and later works (and, of course, the great ambiguity posed in WTP where it seemed like he was heading in a completely new direction concerning a lot of his key concepts). One thing that Nietzsche does not make explicit is that he matured in his thought over the years (except for in the preface to BT, and a few scattered notes). So, you can find passages in BT, say, about the 'oneness of existence' or whatever that directly conflict with his later views on will to power. But these flaws are ameliorated when you take it in good faith that he matured in his thought and constantly revisited, revised, and expanded his central concepts and the means by which he developed them. I stand by the view that N's thought DOES NOT end in contradiction, nor are his minor inconsistencies that consequential for the strength of his overall system of thought.

GM, BGE, GS, TSZ, TI, EH, WTP, TL, BT, HAH, D, UM, CW, A.

I did not read them in this order, but this is how I wish I would have. I can clarify any of the abbreviations if needed. Some purists might say just dive into GS, which is what I did, but I find GM more accessible from the student perspective.

Step one: read Schopenhauer. Many flawed interpretations stem directly from this elision.

One more thing: Dawn (or Daybreak) is a bit difficult to place imo. Maybe check out Keith Ansell Pearson for where that should be placed. He's been doing some work on it recently. Some people say it should be read in sequence with GS, other discount it as superfluous. We definitely know N took it seriously (he refers to it throughout GM).

If you just want to dabble in his thought, I'd say TL, GS 108-125, the preface to BGE and 1-25, BT 1-10, and Sections 1 and 3 of TSZ are key points of interest (though, above all, I believe in a wholistic approach to his works, even if it is demanding).

I've always had trouble with this passage in particular. Can you explain it? It from TSZ
>But to reveal my entire heart to you my friends; if there were gods, how could I stand not to be a God! Therefore there are no Gods.

Maybe for his earlier work, but by the time we get to GS he has made his departure (and maybe even by the time we get to HAH, though that's a point of contention).

Kant's epistemology also helps for TL.

Even if there are Gods my love of man forces me to imagine they are not.

Can you give me the particular section title? I'll have to get back to you because I do not have my copy on me.

No such thing as a clean break. Nietzsche disputed Schopenhauer from day one, so the interaction remains essential throughout the oeuvre

Yes, I believe I've heard that before in regards to the "inconsistencies." I've assumed—in good nature— as you have, that he matured in thought. We would be fools to assume a man was stagnant in thought. So my next question would be: Given we know Nietzsche more than likely matured in his thinking, what would you consider damning flaws in the work that he finished with before his death? Disregard what he previously thought. What are damning flaws in his "matured views"? I wonder if it would be just rejecting Aristotelian ethics in the first place. Nietzsche saw the Enlightenment as a failure—rightfully so— and came up with his own philosophy. But what if Aristotle was right all along? Your thoughts on that? btw, I saw that a different user asked a similar question—referring to my latter set of Q's, regarding Aristotle—, but I guess my wonders are a little nuanced.

That's a good point, I can think of BT where he borrows Schopenhauer's image of the man on the rowboat, but then deviates, etc. I plan on fleshing out specifically how Schopenhauer's conception of the will influences Nietzsche's early work in my future research (which I read as directly influencing a robust interpretation of ER), then I'll be able to discuss this point more fluently.

Sure, it's from On the Blessed Isles.
That sounds somewhat simplicistic and doesn't really reflect the tone that he uses in the passage.

Another question, did you read Colli's work on Nietzsche? I'm reading the Birth of philosophy right now and how he describes the apollonian in contrast to N's idea of the apollonian is very interesting.

Did I not understand the movie your pic related is from bc I never read Nietzsche? Was there anything to understand in the first place? I really enjoyed the movie, it's very atmospheric and calm. Visually really nice. If I remember correctly it starts with a reference to Nietzsche's death. But I didn't quite understand the overall point the filmmaker was trying to make I guess. Can you give me a quick analysis of the movie and explain how the Nietzsche anegdote was connected to the story? Thanks

I'll have to think about the Aristotle stuff a bit, but my gut instinct is twofold. On one hand, Nietzsche is always going to dismiss ethics insofar as it has played out in the tradition (not to mention that he is probably just going to dismiss shit offhandedly anyways lol). On the other hand, I've always found my mind drawing parallels to Aristotle while reading N (whether out of bad habit or honest intuition), so I've always toyed with the idea of trying to flesh out the connection there. Maybe N owes more to Aristotle than he superficially wants to concede. In terms of the really damning stuff, I think one could honestly just read where he was heading with will to power and eternal recurrence and straight up deny the reality of it. That's not that complex of a critique, but I really don't know how one goes from a neat thought experiment designed to challenge your conception of your values (with some quasi-metaphysical/aesthetic underpinnings) to a full blown commitment to the reality of recurrence (which seems to be where he was headed, or at least openly speculating). Moreover, i just think he didn't say enough about will to power for us to confidently talk about it like we would other bonafide metaphysical positions like Platonism or whatever. A great loss, for sure. There's an interesting title, "Why We Are Not Nietzscheans Anymore," or something like that, that might be of interest to you.

I have not read Colli! One of my big gaps actually, along with Steiner. What is his conception of the Apollonian? Also, what angle is he attacking it from? I now Silk and Stern gave N hell for basically doing bad anthropology in formulating his Apollonian (but those guys are pricks anyways).

>it's very atmospheric and calm.

Really? The constant storm, the horse which was their entire livelihood choosing to deny its will to live, the ending where they had to force themselves to eat their potatoes, having pretty much given up on life - it did not strike me as a calm film. I felt grey for days after having watched it. It left me in a state that only Pessoa has put me in before.

As far as I know, Nietzsche's philosophy did not inspire this film. If you really wanted to, you could maybe make a point about eternal recurrence in relation to it, but I think it'd be a detraction from both the concept and the film.

And as far as I remember, it didn't reference Nietzsche's death, it referenced his mental breakdown in 1889, which, the story goes, involved him seeing a horse being whipped. Eerily similar to Raskolnikov's dream.

I've read Krasznahorkai for a few years now, and I've never had the heart to seriously read Nietzsche into him (some of it is just obvious though). If anything, the death of god would probably help with this. The Nietzsche tie-in is simply that Nietzsche was in turin when he went mad. On the day he fell ill, he saw a horse being beaten by his master. Nietzsche went up to the horse, wrapped his arms around it, and wept. Then he fell mad. From what I gather, the movie asks "What happened to the horse?" lol. Sorry Im not much help with this but honestly that movie was exhausting as fuck, though beautiful.

Nietzsche, along with Kafka, is Krasznahorkai's self-admitted master, one of his chief obsessions.

Thanks man! Aye, what your book called? Is your publisher gonna put it on Amazon?

Nietzsche is absolute pseud. You would do much better to read Kierkegaard or Kant. You would learn more about the nature of objectivity than from the insane ramblings of a crazy person.

>insane ramblings of a crazy person
>read Kierkegaard
Lmfao

>thinks religion is insane
Of course you read Nietzsche, I'm sure you believe Herbert Spencer's writings are on solid foundations as well.

It's not a book, but a longer piece that will be published in the Journal of Nietzsche Studies and then later added to a collection of critical works. don't want to say the title because user.

Never read him, what did he say?

true, I'll keep an eye out. Could you give a time frame or would that still damage anonymity?

You read Nietzsche but didn't read Herbert Spencer? What are you, retarded?

Autumn 2018 issue. if you or a nearby uni has access to ProjectMUSE or JSTOR you should be able to get it.

I know of Nietzsche's criticism in passing (WTP comes to mind), but I did not delve into Spencer anymore than I did Darwin afterwards (like I said, had to cut my losses in the name of the project). Maybe you can tell me and I'll see if it's worthwhile to revisit.

user you're giving away too much info

Really hope this dovetails into someone emailing Alexander Nehamas and asking him if he frequents this site.

Have you read heideggers huge book on Nietzsche?I heard it's one of the most important interpretations.

It's more Heidegger than Nietzsche. Read Jaspers instead.

I can figure out the abbreviations based on the wiki article I think. Thank you.

One last question, is there a preference on translations?

Yes! Actually the bastard beat me to my original project. Really just wanted to do a wholistic reading of ER only to find out that he did this in what later became the second volume of that work. It's a tremendous work, but also one can read it as Heidegger trace out his own philosophical inheritance where N somehow prefigures his own work on Dasein and what not (there's an article that elucidates this criticism better, I'm sure a quick google search will yield it). Haven't read the whole thing because it is in like four or five volumes, but the second volume was invaluable for my research. I guess it also merits mentioning that Heidegger doesn't really reflect the state of contemporary N studies (which should be obvious enough). A lot of work has been done since then.

Kaufmann is the standard (though I think that's out of apathy at this point, and because the whole Stanford project fell through). Hollingdale works just fine, though, and I read Ludovici's TI and found Kaufmann's criticisms to be exaggerated.

do you frequently use words like
>reflects
>insists
>refuses
>violently asserts
in your upcoming work?

Ok, thanks for the help.

or
>intervene
>rehearse
>on Nietzsche's view
>worry
>concern
>problematize

not particularly, though the phrase "violently asserts" might just become my exclusive new phrase in future works.

fuck you got me with "on nietzsche's view," though ive found myself playing a fucked up academic's game of "how many synonyms can fill in the blank" so this inevitably becomes "on nietzsche's account," "on nietzsche's claims," and so on.

This is usually indicative of the analytic tendency to abstractly summarise. If you're making this kind of statement it signals your reading isn't close enough to the text. I prefer "for Nietzsche"

I agree with the deeper critique, but honestly I see it more as learned behavior/academic signposting. Notice how easy it was for you to enumerate that list. Though the mode of discourse may be suffocating (as I elaborated on a bit here ), it is still THE primary mode of discourse if you want to get published.

Yeah. To be fair, the use of lingo is far worse in analytic philosophy. Contintental reads way better, even if it frequently goes off the deep end. As Nietzsche says, style reflects the content of thought, there's nothing superficial about it.

no one in your life will ever take you seriously if you keep using the word soy

Oh look, an actual discussion on Veeky Forums, I thought they were a myth

>reflects

>is Nietzsche
It's not actual discussion.

Try a religion thread or a Kant thread, there you'll find actual discussion.

Funny, I see Pareto posted and almost no one seems willing to discuss him. Absolutely sad, if this is the only kind of literary discussion that goes on around here.

Imagine having to explain the world through the lens of the first half of the first critique

What do you think about Peterson takes on him?

Why do you consider Bataille more important than Marx?

Krasznahorkai/Tarr are very much influenced by Schopenhauer/Nietzsche throughout all of their work. I wrote an essay on this around five years ago. Especially Werckmeister Harmonies/Turin Horse. Good book on Tarr's work is The Time After by Ranciere