He was a professor of philology. — Jackson

Yep. A job he could not keep, spending the rest of his life wandering, towards madness.

Romantic, hey? Don't you really what to be like him?

Romantic, hey? Don't you really what to be like him? — Banno

I really don't know what you're talking about. Is this a philosophy forum?!

Smile. The mistake in the OP is to take Nietzsche seriously.

The mistake in the OP is to take Nietzsche seriously. — Banno

No idea what you're doing at all. Probably should stop reading your comments.

Indeed, it might be better for you if you do. I recommend your not reading anything from now on. It will only upset you.

Perhaps philosophy needs a few romantic bohemians to create inspired writing. In some ways, he may be one of the role models, certainly more so than Kant. What may have been important is his writing style. That was what drew me to his writings and I read his writings long before many of the importance philosophers. But it does seem that he is the consolation for adolescent angst, almost like emo music, and for times of distress later. He is probably read by many who don't read many other philosophers.

Perhaps philosophy needs a few romantic bohemians to create inspired writing. In some ways, he may be one of the role models, certainly more so than Kant. What may have been important is his writing style. That was what drew me to his writings and I read his writings long before many of the importance philosophers. But it does seem that he is the consolation for adolescent angst, almost like emo music, and for times of distress later. He is probably read by many who don't read many other philosophers. — Jack Cummins

I don't agree at all.

Many think Kant is profound, whereas he is just a bad writer.
Many think Nietzsche is poetic, whereas he is just a good writer.

I don't listen to rock often but when I do it's Cream and the Stones over others. — Tom Storm

I've been trying to get my fingers to play Bell Bottom Blues. It's a simple riff, but I can't make it sound right.



Now Clapton is too cool to be the Übermensch. He has to settle for being God.

(That'll be lost on anyone younger than fifty five).

Quite so.

People vary so much in which philosophers appeal to them, but it is also worth thinking about the cultural contexts in which they were writing. In particular, Nietzsche's writing is particularly critical of Christianity whereas Kant was firmly rooted in the Christian church tradition. So, how one views Christianity is likely to be important as much as the styles of the two writers. Actually, the two writers make an interesting contrast in their entire approach to philosophy, but they were probably equally serious in their pursuit of philosophy and very intense individuals.

People vary so much in which philosophers appeal to them, but it is also worth thinking about the cultural contexts in which they were writing. In particular, Nietzsche's writing is particularly critical of Christianity whereas Kant was firmly rooted in the Christian church tradition. So, how one views Christianity is likely to be important as much as the styles of the two writers. Actually, the two writers make an interesting contrast in their entire approach to philosophy, but they were probably equally serious in their pursuit of philosophy and very intense individuals. — Jack Cummins

Kant was a conservative.

Now Clapton is too cool to be the Übermensch. He has to settle for being God. — Banno

What a joke: if "Clapton is God", then what does that make Hendrix? Santana? SRV? :smirk:

:up:

In my book, Nietzsche is an anti-Romantic Romantic who "questions the value of truth" in order to "revaluate all values" in contrast to Kant, a Romantic anti-Romantic, who "limits knowledge" in order to "make room for faith". (But maybe thiis comparison is too neat.)

Well, Clapton was dumbfounded by Hendrix; so that makes Clapton a lesser god. Santana is a better showman than the others, but not a better guitarist. Who is SRV? ( :wink: )

Stevie Ray Vaughan.

IMO, Hendrix was the best showman and guitarist of his generation. Clapton has always bored me to tears (very overrated), not nearly as soulful a player as Santana et al.

Stevie Ray Vaughan — 180 Proof

Who?

Here's an analysis of why Clapers is worth a listen. His contribution is significant.

Truth be told, Nietzschesn übermenschen are actually a reversion to the animal state from which humanity had just about managed to look past in the last 3k years or so. In other words übermesnchen do transcend humans, but not in the way you think. It's actually regression rather than progression. Didn't the Nazis, the supposed heirs of Nietzschean ideoloogy, behave rather like brutes/troglodytes?

Beyond good and evil is to ignore life, the ability to feel pain, and, most dishearteningly of all, consciousness. God, a mathematician, has laid down the mathematical laws of nature that don't differentiate animate from inanimate, can feel pain from cannot, conscious from not conscious, good from evil. God is, in that sense, supra-morality! God isn't dead (yet)!

What your link doesn't mention is that most of these 'contributions' are in fact barely concealed ripoffs of Albert King. Which is ironic given his (later?) racism. As a guitar teacher I am growingly aware that younger generations can sometimes be into Cream (which IMO was a great band), but none are really into solo Clapton. It's boring dad rock to them.

I'll pass on the "analysis" since I've been familiar with Clapton since the late '70s, mostly his years with The Yardbirds, Cream, Blind Faith, and solo work to the end of the 70s. With very few exceptions since then Clapton's playing has been, while always distinct, unmemorable (even compared to a number of lesser virtuosos and rhythm players). And you don't know SRV? Assuming you're not just "taking the piss", back at you – here's a sample:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stevie_Ray_Vaughan
I'm biased, however, having attended more than half dozen SRV concerts (about the same number of Santana shows) during the '80s.

:up:

Clapton has a distinctive poise, a use of space that is almost on a par with that of David Gilmour, and yet appears in much harder heavier riffs. Listen to the riff on While my Guitar gently weeps. It is from 1968; there's a reason it now sounds cliched.

Sure he uses Albert King techniques, as well as B.B, Hendrix, and whoever else you might mention. Who doesn't.

But if you don't like it, you don't like it.

Of course I am taking the piss about Vaughn. His are hard, heavy, long scale-filled riffs that I find uninteresting, and little different to dozens of others of his generation-and-a-half. I prefer, for example, Johny Winter.

None of these guys - to drag the thread back on topic - have the aristocratic arrogance of Freddy Mercury, which is central to why I chose him as an exemplary Übermensch.

:sweat: Okay.

Of all that is written, I love only what a person hath written with his blood. Write with blood, and thou wilt find that blood is spirit. It is no easy task to understand unfamiliar blood; I hate the reading idlers. He who knoweth the reader, doeth nothing more for the reader. Another century of readers—and spirit itself will stink. — Thus Spake Zarathustra, Chapter 7, “Reading and Writing”

Isn't it odd that American rock is so...derivative; pale imitations of their British overlords. — Banno

Each band borrowed from the others. Paul McCartney was blown away after hearing Pet Sounds , while Brian Wilson was trying to capture Specter’s Wall of Sound. In 1964, John Lennon was devastated when Dylan told him he loved their music but they didn’t say anything. The Stones and Led Zeppelin borrowed heavily from Motown , American Country music and Chicago Blues, your beloved Clapton was influenced by The Band (mostly Canadian) and Delaney and Bonnie.

“ Eric Clapton already had one eye on the door with Cream when he heard the Band for the first time. In that moment, he knew that the legendary trio was finished.

“It sounded like they’d jumped on to what I thought we ought to be doing. That was what I wanted us to sound like and here was somebody else doing it,” Clapton tells Uncut. “It shook me to the core.”

David Bowie’a Rock sound was shaped around the Velvet Undergound’s riffs.

Yanks treat of the Beach Boys as their equivalent of the Beatles... the Beach Boys! Christ, it's pathetic. — Banno

No, we don’t. At least I don’t( except for Good Vibrations and God Only Knows, which are brilliant compositions and the equal of anything the Beatles did). Around the time of the Beatles most creative phase (1965-69), the U.S. was producing all sorts of idiosyncratic forms of rock My favorites include the psychedelic sounds of Buffalo Springfield , Janis Joplins first two bands, the Love, Moby Grape ,the Jefferson Airplane , the Grateful Dead and the Byrds. Also ther Velvets, Al Kooper and Mike Bloomfield ( blues rock) , the Allman Bros and their mix of country, jazz , psychedelia and blues, Parliament-Funkadelic’s psychedelic funk , Frank Zappa’s weirdness, Creedence’s bayou rock, Simon and Garfunkel’s folk rock.
The best of these bands songs was in its own way the equal of the Beatles , but direct comparisons are difficult given how unique each band’s music was.
It’s not that the best American bands couldnt match British rock , rather they weren’t interested in doing that kind of sound because their focus was on creating their own personal expression, with the exception of mediocre direct imitators of british rock like the Raspberries.

My understanding of what Nietzsche meant by beyond good and evil was not about ignoring life and pain. It was more about the conventional superficialities and appearance of 'kindness' represented in the development of Christianity.

As far your argument about Nietzsche's ideas leading to a reversion to an 'animal state', it is complex because this may be a gross misinterpretation of his ideas. He was opposed to emotions in some ways but it is debatable how he understood the instincts and intellect, in understanding the role of the ego needs.

What the quote you give, especially the idea, 'Write with blood' does suggest the Nietzschian path to be more about the call of being a writer than anything else. In this sense, his stance seems to be more of an emphasis on serious pursuit of writing as a way towards truth, and this is probably what makes him important as a philosopher.

Beyond good and evil is to ignore life, the ability to feel pain, and, most dishearteningly of all, consciousness — Agent Smith

Smith, maybe you should actually read his books Beyond Good and Evil AND On The Genealogy of Morals. To translate Freddy's famous phrase, it means "beyond religious (priestly) morality"; that is, a return to naturalistic, this-worldly, values of Good & Bad (re: virtues) rather than, as he sees it, other-worldly, anti-naturalistic values of "Good & Evil" (re: sins).

:up: The old fella is takin' the piss, methinks.

I would go along with the idea of Nietszche as an 'antiromantic romantic'. If anything, his work could be applied to develop a critique of what it means to be a romantic, because he turns the idea of romanticism upside down to create a new romanticism, before the deconstruction of the postmodernists. In some ways, he could be seen as a forerunner to the countercultural developments in the arts.

My understanding of what Nietzsche meant by beyond good and evil was not about ignoring life and pain. It was more about the conventional superficialities and appearance of 'kindness' represented in the development of Christianity. — Jack Cummins

It's my suspicion that Nietzsche committed the nirvana fallacy. He set the bar so high that not one human could shake off the label of superficiality. I don't blame him though; morality, if that is what we're discussing, has always been divine territory i.e. it's always been beyond the reach of mere mortals.

Regarding letting the beast that's been caged inside us out and allowing it to roam freely in society, I'd say that there may not clear-cut evidence that such was Nietzsche's intent, but the Nazis surely saw something in ol' Freddy's works that could be interpreted thus. Why else Nazism which, though so lofty in its claims, turned out to be nothing more than a cover for a gang of thugs to do what thugs do - loot and kill?

:joke:

:up: Muchas gracias!

Morrison was a wannabe Jagger. — Banno

Jagger wanted to be Satan. Morrison wanted to be Jesus.