How seriously do academic historians take Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals?
How seriously do academic historians take Nietzsche's Genealogy of Morals?
Angel Bell
Leo Torres
It's not really writen as a true history. It's a story that helps you understand worldviews and the sentiments and conditions which create them.
Brody Reyes
is that wonder woman
Benjamin Torres
It's meant to be a history of the conditions that created Christian morality, as well as the conditions that created the morality it replaced.
Jayden Perez
Like, real seriously. They don't even laugh or play their little academic games when they read it, like, there's no giggling or giddiness. They just keep reading with furrowed foreheads and then they go: "This book is...serious".
Thomas Gutierrez
Nathan Morris
No, it's really not dummy. Nietzsche is just presenting a psychological schemata for the purpose of exposition.
Elijah Parker
This. Read the chapter on Genealogy in Ecce Homo.
Owen Perry
That's because "academics" won't even touch a source text until they're well and tenured, they just read textbooks because IT'S 2016!
Jaxon Wood
Academic historians are professional hacks
Brayden Hill
So who should we listen to? Non-Academic historians?
Big Jim in the pub who tells drunken stories of 1066?
Mason Clark
how seriously did Nietzsche take academic historians in Genealogy of Morals?
not at all so who gives a shit
Charles Lewis
>academic historians
by that you mean unemployed archaeologists right
Dominic Sanders
The chapter affirms the work as explaining the psychology that lead to the birth of Christianity.
Jonathan Baker
You should listen to Oswald Spengler type characters
Ryan Bennett
But not as an actual historical event. There is a reason why the term genealogy is used. It's like with MacIntyre. While he (MacIntyre) argues that sometime around the enlightenment we stopped doing ethics the way we used to and adopted our new shitty ways of thinking about it he doesn't ascribe to a particular date, or place, or event. Nietzsche isn't saying anything like in 34CE the Jews invented slave morality because of being subjugated by the Romans.
Adam Flores
>But not as an actual historical event.
by far most nietzsche scholars think that he does mean to describe an actual historical event, you absolute dimwit
Matthew Ward
Taking it as a literally true account of history was your first mistake.
Nicholas Young
BACK UP YOUR CLAIMS PLEASE
THANKS
Jace Gomez
First understand exactly what Nietzsche thinks of history and of the concept of truth. Read his untimely meditations and on truth and lies in the nonmoral sense.
Then reanalyze your question of whether the genealogy he presents is historical 'fact' in itself.
Nietzsche is significantly less obscurantist than people make him out to be, the problem is that only Nietzsche scholars actually read everything he wrote. He writes in aphorisms which makes him appear as a fragmentary writer but in some sense his body of work is the most generally cohesive in philosophy. He constantly updated many of his older works and referenced them freely in newer ones, he even on one occasion referenced an essay of his that was at that time unpublished. He wrote everything with all of his other works on the desk. Nietzsche never closed a book and considered it a finished thing so in interpreting what he was writing in one work, you must use all of his other works, including works published after the publication of the work in question (Ecce Homo is generally most useful book for aiding interpretation of even his earliest work).
To really get Nietzsche, you have to have read at a minimum a detailed history of his life and all of his published works. Letters, notes and WTP are optional. You should also participate in at least one Franco-Prussian war reenactment and contract dysentery.
Kevin Thompson
>big jim
>not the jack of hearts
Brody Rogers
yes
wtf I love Israel now
Kayden Jones
weak effort; ill go with the nietzsche scholars. thank you