• 180 Proof
    15.6k
    You seem more pedantic than thoughtful. "Beware lest a statue slay you." :smirk:
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    "Beware lest a statue slay you."180 Proof

    Now that is a good one. :fire:
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    Hehe, well, to be fair, Nietzsche says reading is a vicious activity for someone in their prime... and I was trying to give the impression of heavy handedness with quotes of Nietzsche detailing the overcoming of something in it's opposite such as:

    People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist...

    ...Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth.

    I have many other such cases from BoT to Ecce Homo.

    And that I have multiple quotes from across every one of his books detailing this very notion, I'd say, that while Monkey has a solid grasp of some of Nietzsche's fundamentals. They're still lacking quite a bit simce they've never even recognized this notion in Nietzsche's writings... and it actually plays into Nietzsche's fundamental objection of Christianity.

    Nietzsche would perhaps take a moment to slap the shit out of me for expending so much of my vitality in delving deep into his madness. I do have a certain mastery with his works that I want to make useful towards others here.

    It's taken roughly a decade of my life to become overfull with Nietzsche. He was my first true love affair in philosophy because I too am a Dionysian nature. I fell in with Nietzsche because I too am something of an overcoming of myself in my opposite.
  • ChatteringMonkey
    1.3k
    He thinks tensions, conflicting forces in ones 'soul' will keep us going forward yes. The word opposites threw me off, because he doesn't believe in opposites, that's one of the ways language can fool us...

    I probably agree with you here about what he's getting at, I just wouldn't describe it as 'overcoming oneselves in ones opposite'.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    He does indeed believe in opposites. ‍
  • Joshs
    5.9k
    ↪ChatteringMonkey He does indeed believe in oppositesDifferentiatingEgg

    The fundamental belief of metaphysicians is the belief in oppositions of values. It has not occurred to even the most cautious of them to start doubting right here at the threshold, where it is actually needed the most – even though they had vowed to themselves “de omnibus dubitandum.”? But we can doubt, first, whether opposites even exist and, second, whether the popular valuations and value oppositions that have earned the metaphysicians' seal of approval might not only be foreground appraisals. (Beyond Good and Evil)

    If anything signifies our humanisation, a true and actual progress, then the fact that we no longer need any excessive oppositions, any oppositions at all . . .

    In sum: morality is precisely as 'immoral' as every other thing on earth; morality itself is a form of immorality. The great liberation this insight brings, the opposition is removed from things, the homogeneity of all that happens is rescued - - ( The Last Notebooks)
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    I see you're lookong for an education... accepted I was trying to save it for the June 6th thing... but alas those who don't read need to be read to apparently.

    Oh, on, second thought, I realize what error your having... because you understand that Nietzsche doesn't believe things exist solely in black and white dualism, that you think opposite ends of the spectrum don't exists. Hehe cute, though it's pretty poor logic to assume spectrums don't have opposite ends. And you have to also understand Nietzsche's use of the term "opposite" when he uses it means "the other end of the spectrum." Not a black and white 180...

    So the second aphorism of Beyond Good and Evil literally starts off with a quote presented
    by Nietzsche that mocks metaphysicsians (he literally gives it in quotes):


    "How could something arise out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? Or the will to truth out of the will to deception? Or selfless action out of self-seeking? Or the pure sunny look of the wise man out of greed? Origins like these are impossible. Anyone who dreams about them is a fool, in fact, something worse. Things of the highest value must have another origin peculiar to them. They cannot be derived from this ephemeral, seductive, deceptive, trivial world, from this confusion of madness and desire! Their basis must lie, by contrast, in the womb of being, in the immortal, in hidden gods, in 'the thing in itself'- their basis must lie there , and nowhere else!"

    The next sentence informs upon the quote given by a typical metaphysician:

    This way of shaping an opinion creates the typical prejudice which enables us to recognize once more the metaphysicians of all ages. This way of establishing value stands behind all their logical procedures.

    Nietzsche writes that doubting whether something grows out of its opposite is a typical prejudice of metaphysicians... next Nietzsche talks about how they believe values exists in antithesis to each other rather than GROW out of their OPPOSITE...

    From this "belief" of theirs they wrestle with their "knowledge," with something which is finally, in all solemnity, christened "the truth." The fundamental belief of the metaphysicians is the belief in the opposition of values.

    For example Good and Evil are antithesis with no bridging, where as Good and Bad, bad is the pale foil reflection of the good...from the opposite end of the spectrum (GoM10) like the Philosopher and his Shadow...

    ...skipping the middle unless you want me to go over it...

    Now we can see Nietzsche putting at the fundamental base in which the true, genuine, unselfish grew out of is appearance, deception, self-interests, desire:

    For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps!- But who is willing to bother with such a dangerous Perhaps? For that we must really await the arrival of a new style of philosopher, the kind who has some different taste and inclination, the reverse of philosophers so far, in every sense, philosophers of the dangerous Perhaps. And speaking in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers arriving on the scene.

    We can see Nietzsche suggesting there's a bridge of some kind connecting those "Good" values with the "Bad." Nothing bridges the antithesis of values...

    If you want more aphorisms of Nietzsche detailing that which grows out of its opposite, lemme know, I'll drop em for you.
  • Joshs
    5.9k


    ↪Joshs I see you're lookong for an education... accepted I was trying to save it for the June 6th thing... but alas those who don't read need to be read to apparently.

    Oh, on, second thought, I realize what error your having... because you understand that Nietzsche doesn't believe things exist solely in black and white dualism, that you think opposite ends of the spectrum don't exists. Hehe cute, though it's pretty poor logic to assume spectrums don't have opposite ends. And you have to also understand Nietzsche's use of the term "opposite" when he uses it means "the other end of the spectrum." Not a black and white 180...
    DifferentiatingEgg

    I want to distinguish two uses of the word ‘opposite’. The first use includes both binary ‘black vs white’ oppositions and differences of degree within a spectrum. What both of these have in common is that they derive the opposition between two things from their mutual belonging to a shared superordinate category, like color. The second use of ‘opposite’ is the one that Nietzsche develops alongside his notion of the Eternal Return. This concept of opposition refers to qualitative differences among things which belong to no shared binary category or spectrum. He embraces this use and rejects the first use of opposition.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    Well, I see you educated me instead. :blush:

    I thought you were trying to grill me on Nietzsche not believing in opposites... probably because Im used to reddit.

    But I wanted to add aphorism 2 hints at why Zarathustra says that "man is a rope to the superman."

    Man binds the concept of animal and superman together.

    And you can definitely see Nietzsche believes in a spectrum, as he says all things exists in gradations...

    We can see again, not as an antithesis, but as a refinement: something grown out of...

    Not as its opposite, but—as its refinement! It is to be hoped, indeed, that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation

    This is why Zarathustra says Man is rough stone in need of a sculptor's chisel:

    Zarathustra became master even of his loathing of man: man is to him a thing unshaped, raw material, an ugly stone that needs the sculptor's chisel.

    From ugly raw unshaped material we are hewn, and refined.

    And the only time Nietzsche directly says the superman becomes reality is when Zarathustra suffers with his adversaries... with them from their very selves... this bit is in Ecce Homo.

    "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet!"

    I find it very interesting that he specifies ihnen an ihnen vs just ihnen leidet...

    Suppose it might mean suffer the fools and look the other direction? Basically amor fati and the glad tidings of Jesus Christ...

    Who grew out of his opposite in Judaism... atleast according to the gospels which Nietzsche's got mad respect for Jesus from, as he details in AC 39 and 33...

    And Foucault discusses this very notion that it took 200 years after Port Royal for Nietzsche and Dostoevsky to redeem the image of Jesus as the all graceful on page 78 of Madness and Civilization.

    Interesting how Nietzsche, Jung, and Camus all worked on giving certain parts of Judaeo-Christian psychology back to the people in a more secular format. Though there's somethin in Camus' approach, he uses psychology of the Christianity from the disciples, rather than the psychology of the "one true Christian" the psychology of the glad tidings that died on the cross...

    In fact... man is the bridge between the laws of God which Moses carried down from the mountain and Jesus, the overcoming of that destructive wrath ...that grew out of Gods angry judgement...
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k
    Who grew out of his opposite in Judaism... atleast according to the gospels which Nietzsche's got mad respect for Jesus from, as he details in AC 39 and 33...DifferentiatingEgg

    Very pernicious idea btw that has virulently anti-semitic repercussions. And wrong, of course. But when you're only reading some passages in the gospels and completely disregarding others, which I suspect Nietzsche is doing, I can see how you could get this idea.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    Nah, Nietzsche admired the Jews. But he also taught them that their slave morality perpetuates its own crisis. Hence Zionism taking quite a shine to Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology, unfortunately Zionism happened to fall into nationalism in the late 1940s, which isn't exactly compatible with Nietzsche's ideas.

    But when you're only reading some passages in the gospels and completely disregarding others, which I suspect Nietzsche is doing,BitconnectCarlos

    Correct, lead by example and all. The Christianity of the disciples is for the most part, the Judaism that Jesus rejected in the Gospels... so to not align in the same path as Jesus will be left under the God's angry judgement (John 3:17 roughly iirc)
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k


    Jesus is the very personification of slave morality, imho: "the greatest among you will be your servant." The man takes servitude to a whole other level.

    IDK about the "psychology of the gospels".... I look at the text. He washes the feet of his followers... as a flex.

    Anyway, juxtaposing radical, kind, loving Jesus versus cruel legalistic Judaism is a really nasty (and false) portrayal. Not commenting on Nietzsche personally here; just the idea.
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    Anyway, juxtaposing radical, kind, loving Jesus versus cruel legalistic Judaism is a really nasty (and false) portrayal. Not commenting on Nietzsche personally here; just the idea.BitconnectCarlos

    Well, John 1:

    16 And of his fulness we all have received, and grace for grace. 17 For the law was given by Moses; grace and truth came by Jesus Christ.

    IE the law of God brought Moses is the false way for humans...
  • BitconnectCarlos
    2.4k


    If Moses is false then why did Jesus say:

    “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

    And gJohn would have been written many decades after J's death by one his disciples who Nietzsche would have presumably labeled a false Christian. Didn't N say that J's disciples ruined Christianity?
  • DifferentiatingEgg
    185
    Notice how even the swine go to heaven...
    Notice how the only equation that's ever the same is in the observational account of the Gospels from multiple sources where as the other disciples put their own spin into what Christianity is? Gospels>therest
12Next
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.