I need to write a paper about a 19th century philosopher, the reading of at least three primary books is obligatory. I want to do it about Nietzsche since he's not too hard (compared to Hegel or Schopenhauer, say) and I don't want to invest a lot of time in the reading itself. Figured my subject would be Nietzsche's critique of natural sciences and, in contrast, his conception of art as a 'sanctification of the lie'. I read the Genealogy already so I'll definitely use it - for the connection of natural sciences with the ascetic ideal and to save time - and The Birth of Tragedy seems inescapable. Which other books of him should I read considering my subject?
>tfw you study late 19th century german philosophy of science and want to bite OP
Austin Edwards
Thanks. Why not? I just don't want to spend too much time passing this course. I'm doing my bachelor's thesis on irony in Hegel's aesthetics, reading Fichte, Schelling, Tieck, et cetera on the way. I don't always take the easy route. And why, exactly? I picked Nietzsche more out of a general interest in his philosophy, I'm not endorsing his views by writing my paper about him.
Kayden Walker
>thesis on irony in Hegel's aesthetics
Christ, of all things Hegel developed and studied you pick this?
Brandon Moore
Okay sure, I'll defend myself briefly for this.
1) I'm going, more precisely, to research the role of dialectic in his conception of irony; thus creating a gateway towards his general philosophy. Hegel's definition of irony is 'absolute infinite negativity', i.e. the total negation of all of existing reality, without offering a positive alternative. In this way the ironic attitude creates a standstill in the dialectical process, since the pure negativity (without content, you could say) of it, doesn't build up to a synthesis. This in itself is interesting I think and furthermore I will try to create a link between romantic irony and Hegel's thesis of the end of art - although I am aware that Hegel's main argument for this is that the Geist enters a new level of knowledge (religion, thereafter philosophy) which cannot be manifested for the senses anymore. 2) This thesis is more of a build-up for later writings. Through it I can familiarize myself with the German romanticists I mentioned. Furthermore, Kierkegaard's PhD thesis 'Om Begrebet Ironi' is profoundly hegelian in nature and has many links to his later works, especially on his thoughts about the aesthetic stage of life and despair. And, on top of that, I think it is feasible to have a better understanding of Adorno's Negative Dialectic through the understanding of hegelian irony, precisely because of the standstill in the dialectical movement I described above. 3) I had a different original idea for my thesis but me and my promotor agreed that it would be better for a master's thesis. In Adorno's Minima Moralia there is at a certain point the notion of 'thinking as a game' - "Essential to it is an element of exaggeration, of shooting beyond things, of dissociation from the weight of what is factual, by virtue of which it completes the determination of being, at once strictly and freely, instead of merely reproducing it. Every thought resembles therein play, with which Hegel no less than Nietzsche compared with the work of the Spirit [Geistes]. What is unbarbaric in philosophy rests on the tacit consciousness of that element of irresponsibility, of blessedness, which stems from the fleetingness of thought, which continually escapes, what it judges." I wanted to research this and especially the connection of this passage with the popular conception of Hegel as a Big System Thinker, so to speak. The notion of 'thinking as a game' is however closely related with ironical thinking, because they both carry within them that element of negativity and irresponsibility. Thus my study is, in a way, more of a preliminary study therefore.
It is more the study of a detail and I am aware of the fact that it is not that enthralling as Hegel's history of philosophy or his theories on self-consciousness. I do think it is interesting enough on its own though.
Colton Anderson
I am aware there are some grammatical errors in this because I did not read my reply again before posting it.
Ryan Nelson
Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 207
Levi Anderson
That standstill you talk about it is not complete though, it has a clear positive result, in which, either in the form of Revealed religion or the morality of Kant proceeding from the revolution, the self knows itself as the producer and one with his substantial content.
Dominic White
Thanks! Are you referring to a particular passage or book chapter? I am still composing my bibliography and only recently started my reading (just Lectures on Aesthetics by H. and On the Concept of Irony by K. so far) - in the bibliography I want to include some of Hegel's writings on irony in other domains as well to have a more complete grasp of the matter.
Isaac Green
Thanks, I'll look into it as soon as I have the book, since it's been recommended twice now.
This chapter 'Self-Estrangement' is very relevant to you.
Mason Parker
Many thanks, that is really helpful. I bookmarked it to look into tomorrow. OP to bed now - it's 3am over here.
Alexander Watson
>I need to write a paper about a 19th century philosopher >I want to do it about Nietzsche since he's not too hard
That's such an incredibly stupid thing to say or think. Nietzsche wrote in a very complicated style and form, and since you have to write about his books rather than ideas per se this seems pertinent to the problem. Why not write about Mill, or Marx, or Weber, or Constant?
Nietzsche is such a bizarre choice, unless there is some restriction in your choice I must assume you're just showing off or something
Luke Green
Read Ecce Homo if you want to know why he writes such good books, what to eat in order to philosophize, etc.
Aiden Taylor
Imagine how many people choose Nietzsche to write about year after year in this course. Imagine how much harder it will be to write something unique and worthwhile about him given how frequently he is the choice 19th century philosopher of most students. You are setting yourself up for academic mediocrity, and unless you *really* love Nietzsche I would suggest picking someone else.
How about Bergson or Feuerbach?
Asher Bell
Who do you think are some of the most often done 19th century philosophers?
Oliver Price
if nietzsche is too complicated for you you should stay away from weber
Evan Rivera
>bbut user.. >All the cool kids are into nietzsche >I dont want to be a prude >proceeds to tip fedora
Luis Foster
Neech, Mill, Marx, Weber, Durkheim, Hegel, maybe Schop nowadays, Bergson depending on your faculty
Aaron Hall
Cool, thanks. I was just wondering because I figure if I had a paper like OP's I would probably go with Kierkegaard. Do you think he's fairly obscure compared to the others?
Evan Wright
He's definitely not obscure, after all he is considered the main progenitor of existentialist thought and is universally taught in courses on such, but probably not quite as in fashion in most liberal arts schools these days due to his conflation with Christianity. The further along you are in philosophy, if you are in a faculty that values continental thought (not many do anymore), Kierkegaard becomes more attractive, but a lot of intro philosophy courses don't touch on him anymore
Ayden Carter
OP for the last time, full context of the initial question. I'm in Madrid on an exchange program because why not, I'm learning Spanish and I'm able to visit many places. One of the courses I'm taking here is 'Filosofía del siglo XIX' - the professor told me I do not need to take the exam as Spanish students have to, I have to write a paper of about 10 pages, albeit in Spanish. I have to invest a lot of time in my other courses in Spanish since it is now just my fifth language and the learning goes slowly this time. Therefore I want to minimize the effort I put into writing this paper, especially seen that I have to read three or four whole books. Nietzsche really is not hard - although being already familiar with him through a seminar on the Genealogy and reading about him in many other philosophy courses puts me in an easy position to say so. I did not have any problems at all with the seminar (in which we also read Homers Wettkampf) and passed it with 18/20 - we grade on 20 in Belgium. I think I grasp the Genealogy in its entirety and this grasping makes reading more Nietzsche quite easy. Furthermore it is not hard with Nietzsche to abstract certain general themes out of all his books, as his critique of the natural sciences and his conception of art. Now, frankly, I only want to pass the course. The paper will just get in the university folders along with all the other regular exam forms and it does not have any academic consequences for me other than my grade. I am however still genuinely interested in Nietzsche, even though I rate many other philosophers higher. And as I am taking a seminar on Deleuze here, reading Nietzsche all but is a bad idea.
Because of all this I do not really want to write something astonishingly original. In fact, when I had to write an equally long paper last year (free choice) in Belgium, with some academic consequences, I wrote it about the role of language in Bergson. I really enjoyed it and I can genuinely say that he is my favorite philosopher, although I have only read L'essai and Le rire by now. (Which is useful for the Deleuze seminar as well.)
In the Nietzsche seminar I mentioned we also read A Literary Review by Kierkegaard. It is fairly short and although there are some dense passages, it is really recommendable and probably a good place to start with him. If you could read it alongside Nietzsche's genealogy that would be great. There are many parallels between them.
Eli Morales
if you don't care about writing anything original, and are dead set on Nietzsche, then why did you make this thread? Surely you can google his popular works and throw together something based on that?
Jace James
Because I want to finish the paper in two or three weeks and I want to order the German versions. Sure, I could have googled, but I'd rely more on people saying: 'hey, this book is the most relevant for you' - such as the guy above even referring to a particular aphorism in Beyond Good and Evil. I had written the professor of last year's seminar a mail but he has not responded yet and I don't think he will do so in the weekend. But there's some urgency to it and last time I ordered books it took them five days to get here , so I made this thread.
Jack Anderson
I like both and it shows you read neither
Landon Thompson
I go to a smaller school that used to be a Bible College.
The one course on Existentialism offered is pretty much half done on Kierkegaard alone, and then a LOT of courses including those on philosophy of religion and theology are on him (specifically, Hegel and him for PoR and Kierkegaard and earlier monoliths in the Lutheran tradition in the theology courses.)
Gabriel Cook
>I want to do it about Nietzsche since he's not too hard Oh boy oh boy oh boy am I laffin.
Unless you're going to write some middle school level diatribe or even a shitty book review, yeah he's fucking difficult. Schopenhauer is much much easier, and Hegel is much much more straightforward.
Justin Garcia
>Kierkegaard's PhD thesis 'Om Begrebet Ironi' is profoundly hegelian in nature I think you've read something somewhere and confused yourself. It's an attempt to reconstruct a historical Socrates, and it Hegelian in nature in the sense of its historiography. The irony it looks at is Socratic irony, not Hegelian irony.
Maybe there's a way to reconcile the two, but I think it'll be v niche and v messy.
Christopher James
Have you read Deleuze's book on Nietzsche? I strongly recommend it. About Nietzsche's critique of science, we have this for instance (from Deleuze's book): >Consciousness is essentially reactive; this is why we do not know what a body can do, or what activity it is capable of (GS 354). And what is said of consciousness must also be said of memory and habit. Furthermore we must also say it of nutrition, reproduction, conservation and adaptation. These are reactive functions, reactive specialisations, expressions of particular reactive forces (VP II 43, 45, 187, 390 / WP 167, 473, 657, 660). It is inevitable that consciousness sees the organism from its own point of view and understands it in its own way; that is to say, reactively. [...] What is the value of vitalism as long as it claims to discover the specificity of life in the same reactive forces that mechanism interprets in another way? The real problem is the discovery of active forces without which the reactions themselves would not be forces. [...] The only true science is that of activity, but the science of activity is also the science of what is necessarily unconscious. The idea that science must follow in the footsteps of consciousness, in the same directions, is absurd. We can sense the morality in this idea. In fact there can only be science where there is no consciousness, where there can be no consciousness. >Nietzsche, as critic of science, never invokes the rights of quality against quantity; he invokes the rights of difference in quantity against equality, of inequality against equalisation of quantities. >The attempt to deny differences is a part of the more general enterprise of denying life, depreciating existence and promising it a death ("heat" or otherwise) where the universe sinks into the undifferentiated. >science, by inclination, understands phenomena in terms of reactive forces and interprets them from this standpoint. Physics is reactive in the same way as biology; things are always seen from the petty side, from the side of reactions
Caleb Hall
>I want to do it about Nietzsche since he's not too hard
