Is anyone else bothered by Nietzsche's lack of proof? I think that he is right about a lot of things, and I know that Nietzsche himself scorned the whole scientific, objective idea of truth as being the best type of truth, because he believed that we are never motivated by a thing-in-itself (and thus will not find knowledge-in-itself) but always a type of will.. but I often wish that he had more evidence to back up his claims. I'm a sort of philosophy noob, having only read the Greeks, some Kant and Nietzsche, but does philosophy for the most part come straight out of self-reflection like Nietzsche's philosophy? Is there not more logical proof for it? Whenever I read philosophy, it seems like the philosophers are asserting things straight out of their own minds, without going through a more logical way of building up their philosophy from the ground up (i.e. starting with an undoubtable truth and then building logically up from their). There seem to be so many presuppositions that I can't help but feel skeptical. Pls no hate, I'm not trying to disregard Nietzsche: I'm just assuming that my philosophical inexperience is making me blind to something.
Is anyone else bothered by Nietzsche's lack of proof? I think that he is right about a lot of things...
Other urls found in this thread:
you haven't read Kant, why lie?
Nietzsche isn't a "philosopher" he was a classical philologist.
Well I've only read the SEP thing in prep for Nietzsche, so I apologize for lying.
If you want truth go read an almanac or an encyclopedia. You have misunderstood the enterprise of philosophy. Why are you reading these authors? Just to say you've read them? To "understand" western philosophy? You're doing it wrong m8. You come to philosophy with your own problems. You bring your demons to the philosopher and he helps you sort them out. You're approaching this like you're trying to "understand" your psychiatrist. He's trying to help (You) so you can help yourself.
science still bows to the altar of truth of the religion it replaced, philosophy has the courage to question what is truth
inb4 *tip*
You need to start from scratch because your whole conception of philosophy is misguided, and reading someone like Nietzsche who comments so much on history and uses so much irony is sure to confuse you even further. I recommend you read some greeks, and Descartes' discourse on the method and then his meditations afterwards. Were you the guy like last week asking where to start or the other (possibly same) guy asking where to start with Nietzsche because he "fits" your "worldview"? And why are you disrespecting DFW?
>Why are you reading these authors? Just to say you've read them? To "understand" western philosophy?
the second but without quotation marks. I don't tell anyone about this shit, bud.
>Were you the guy like last week asking where to start or the other (possibly same) guy asking where to start with Nietzsche because he "fits" your "worldview"?
No
Yes I am bothered by his lack of proof.
It'll depend on who you are reading. Some don't need an actual format to show their proofs but do it in ordinary language. Hume is a good example.
There are others that just make rhetoric and leave it at that.
I'd recommend reading up on some logic, you might be more interested in that than some older works on ethics.
Don't listen to these people.
>If you want truth go read an almanac or an encyclopedia. You have misunderstood the enterprise of philosophy
You can't even argue with this because there are no reasons to follow. Just an order and conclusion.
Philosophy has no "proofs." If it had a solid clear objective proof, it would be science, not philosophy. Philosophy is endlessly-argued theories and rationalizations by people trying to justify their personal beliefs somehow. Some are more convincing than others, but that also depends on the irrational extant beliefs of the reader.
if u want to find out the truth backed by logic then you have misunderstood nietzsche already
>he still falls for the proofs meme
Sorry you're just not ready for the old Neech
Here's a secret: no-one actually takes Nietzsche's own system (and yes, he was in the process of building one when he went mad) seriously. A wonderful stylist, a wonderful critic, a wonderful bloke to read to stretch your brain and get ideas from, but no-one thinks Nietzsche solved anything.
take the red pill:
I do.
WTF.
>You bring your demons to the philosopher and he helps you sort them out.
this is like a john green pasta or something?.
>He's trying to help (You) so you can help yourself.
why are you saying advices to anybody with this biased meaning of philosophy?.
Things like evidence or even sense are related to the radical mechanical model of the World, i.e. everything is a machine in the strict sense of the word - pistons pumping, sprockets turning, screws holding things together. It's an attempt at expressing ideas within the if-then constraint, which is very hard even for ideas pertaining to strictly mechanical Phenomena.
THAT BEING SAID, lack of evidence is the least of Nietzsche's problems. His writings are just (terrible) Egotistic diary entries, a Bourgeois /pol/ twink that jerked himself off over the brilliance of his self-induced "redpilling".
So I guess I'm the one who has to say it, huh?
>proof
>His writings are just (terrible) Egotistic diary entries, a Bourgeois /pol/ twink that jerked himself off over the brilliance of his self-induced "redpilling".
t. Last Man
Are you legitimately retarded?
this thread is disgraceful.
>philosophy is self-help
>muh proof
Fuck off hack
>philosophy is will-to-truth
Philosophy isn't concerned with answering questions, only asking them.
/thread
I am physically repulsed.
Claims of truth require proof. Nietzsche never makes any, so why would he need proof?