ADN

So one of my classes this fall is dedicated entirely to studying Nietzsche. I find that despite how hard I try to read and relate to material in lectures and in text...its only when I'm actively discussing with others the ideas that have been presented that I really begin to grasp and understand the concepts.

So I wanted to start this thread to open a dialogue about Nietzsche, if anyone is familiar with any of his work or wants to discuss any of his ideas.

The texts we are focusing on this semester are "Beyond Good and Evil" , "On the Genealogy of Morals", and parts of "The Gay Science"


We already were introduced to the term Ubermensch, which I know a certain someone has at times used as a handle, so I figured this would be a great place to get some interesting discussion going. As I've never read any of his work before, I do not have much to contribute at the moment, but as I read more and attend more classes, I hope this topic will be a lively one :)

We should try to find those works you mentioned in Adobe form, and post them in the forum's library...I'm sure it would help greatly to prevent the discussion from being one sided...

Of course I am a big fan, and I'm glad you started this topic so that we could maybe talk about him a little more....What's the name of the book you guys are using..? If I can't find the texts online, I may be able to find the book you're studying from...

We're reading from a collection of books and essays entitled Basic Writings of Nietzsche

and I'm pretty sure the stuff that we're reading from "The Gay Science" is posted online for us, so I'll relay the links to that when the professor puts them up.

http://www.amazon.com/Writings-Nietzsch ... 328&sr=8-1

That's the book we're using atm.

Nietzsche, huh?

I'll wait for y'all to catch up after y'all get a chance to read this site: http://www.geocities.com/thenietzschechannel/

From what I understand he thinks that religion creates a morality of the slaves which suppresses, and to truly find happiness we need to embrace our own alpha dog, master morality. This isn't much but I think most of his philosophy branches out from this concept. Dude was definitely ahead of his time though, which is why I gotta respect him.

He is essentially a nihilistic existential finalist. his philosophy has nothing to do with religion, he is the second philosopher acreddited as a existentialist; the first being Kierkagaard. These two men and Sartre are the Three heralds of existentialism as the predecessor of the post-modern movement. He does get fed up with people in his circles trying to resolve his philosophical views on religion - and he reacts sometimes somewhat vehemently. He is also very bellicose (abruptly agressive, and looking to start something) and sometimes seems as though he over-reacts. Alot of this is coming from a world that was far more restrictive in thought and convention than our own. This largely leads people to misunderstand his work, and his meaning. His meaning is simple - deceptively so.

There can be no state of infinite time and finite matter - therefore all convential exercise of thought is informative - inconclusive; be it religion, philosophy, or even morality. this is the core root of the post-modernist movement; of which he. This frankly forces a give way to "quantum" states of being, which frankly do not seem to really be addressed by religion, or any other real thought disciplines of the West. He therefore seeks to tear them down; especially morality - which he feels suppresses the vital "Chaos" we need to manifest our brilliance with any source of equilibrium which is the only means by which we
will perpetuate our existence. Largely, he expresses religion as a unnecessary fatalistic self-fulfilling prophecy that some people are enslaved to because they are unused to human brilliance that they can not stand to be in the light of a focused will of a person not chained to a shame they have no reason to feel.

By my favorite quote of his, you can prolly tell how I feel about him and his work; which i have lectured on a bit - even in academic discussions:

"What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."

Basically what I was trying to say ;)

I never considered the possibility that perhaps he was so "angry" at times due to the fact that thought was restricted so much more. Hmm...

As discussed in the beginnings sections of Beyond Good and Evil (BGE) one of the problems Nietzsche finds with the dogmatic Philosophers of the time before him is that they are obsessed with certain, complete truth. This obsession creates a number of problems that he goes in to and that are particularly important if we were to simply break Nietzsche (and things he posists in BGE) down, but it really got me interested in the basic question inherent in all of that, namely: Is there such thing as ultimate truth, in any form, or any object? Is it even possible, conceptually?

these may help in the discussion:

http://ayhja.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=315&t=31283
http://ayhja.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=315&t=31284

Dude, VU has been so off the charts here lately, I haven't even had time to respond to many threads properly...Over a month since we visited this one...

As a note Drew, don't forget about your VU Threads..! Keep us updated and reading man...I just found a goldmine of Nietzsche's books at Barnes and Noble just the other day, because of your topic I realized I didn't own a Nietzsche book, just read online...I don't know what it is, but reading out of a book while I'm sitting on the John taking notes just puts shit into an entirely new perspective than reading on my laptop...

So, definitely, keep dropping shit, sharing stuff with us on topics like these...Just cause they're not getting replies, doesn't mean you're not helping/teaching class...

That's why we call it VU..! ;)