Diaries
Everything
Who's Online?
FAQ / Help

Print Story Nietzsche
Diary
By localrogers pod person (Thu May 11, 2006 at 01:40:08 PM EST) (all tags)
Localroger got mail from an old online acquaintance recently. An odd discussion ensued.

Localroger's correspondent, who can reveal himself or stay anonymous according to his choice, said this:
anyway, i guess if you'd actually read nietzsche, you'd know where i'm coming from.
Localroger has always been dubious of Nietzsche, so he said this:
Nietzsche was an idiot.
...which, in retrospect, is probably a little harsh, since the judgement is really based more on Nietzsche's fanboys, many of whom seem to draw the conclusion from his writings that they are exempt from little things like morality or the social compact. So anyway, the conversation continued...
the most obvious conclusion i can draw regarding your take on nietzsche is that you've just never read him, but perhaps have heard a lot about him. there are other possibilities, though. perhaps you were raised atheist or became atheist and went in the science and enlightenment direction rather than the existential one. this would explain almost everything about you, actually -- and yes, i realize i've just described a huge class of people and that i've made a certain claim about them. in any case, for whatever reason, you're not equipped to discuss nietzsche intelligently and that's okay because i don't do written nietzsche in a private setting and i'm not going to register a kuro5hin account just for that purpose.
Which, aside from demonstrating a towering arrogance, is of course terribly convenient if my correspondent is really just afraid of being called on bullshit the moment I realize he's just using his self-conception as an Overman to excuse various acts of antisocial behavior on his part. I replied:
Um, whatever, sure. You're the one who brought him up. If you don't want to defend your arguments, I guess I'll draw my own conclusions. I would think the objections I stated were pretty basic and shouldn't take that much effort to address, if only in the "you should read Thus Spake Zarathustria or STFU" sense.
So anyway, here in this public forum I'm all ears if my correspondent or anyone else conversant with Nietzsche would care to explain what these terribly subtle thoughts that I am currently unequipped to appreciate can be found and absorbed, so that I may properly increase my education.
< Caesar Salad Dressing | BBC White season: 'Rivers of Blood' >
Login
Make a new account
Username:
Password:
Share this entry
Share on Facebook
Post to Twitter
Poll
Nietzsche
- Great 40%
- Whack 0%
- Kneel before me, uneducated scum! 0%
- Godwin arrives in 3..2..1.. 60%

Votes: 5
Results | Other Polls
Related Links
- Kuro5hin
- localrogers pod person's Diary
Comment Controls
View: Display: Sort:
Nietzsche | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback
localroger doesn't get nietzsche? who'd say that? by rmg (2.00 / 0) #1 Thu May 11, 2006 at 02:34:01 PM EST
my guess is that your correspondent feels that nietzsche is such good material it would be a waste to have no spectators.

i would say that you, being an sci-fi reading and writing, pseudo-scientific nonsense spouting, humanistic moralizing arch-slashnerd, probably haven't much appreciation of the nietzsch. there's really not much difference between your type and an eighth grade young-earth creationist reading nietzsche.

ultimately, the problem is that the type i describe above (hereafter the "net.atheist") see their "naturalist" worldview (the worldview from which language like "fertile" arises in connection with fifteen year old girls, i might add) as a more intellectual alternative to christianity. while it may be true that the common incarnations of american christianity are anti-intellectual, i would contend that the net.atheists are even moreso. more to the point, though, in nietzsche's view they are no better than the de rigeur christian we see so much of -- in fact, they're actually worse.

this, i think, makes apprehension of nietzsche virtually impossible for the net.atheist. to "get" nietzsche, such a person would need to see the basic sameness of enlightenment values and christian ones (again, in this sense of the christian de rigeur). the net.atheist's emotional investment in silly scientific nonsense makes this impossible to even consider. as an example of "silly scientific nonsense" consider the article on kuro5hin last year about the "pseudoscience of intelligent design." ask yourself, why the hell would people who aren't even specialists in biology spend so much effort writing over a thousand comments (most of them more or less the same as most of the rest) about a topic that, ostensibly, has no practical impact on their lives?

i would suggest that someone, upon seeing your moralizing, your sociology thumping, your constant talk about this or that pop science writer would be quickly led to the conclusion that teaching you nietzsche over an internet connection would be an enormously difficult task, likely to fail, and infintely unlikely to be worth the effort -- though we might hope for less plot-driven fiction in the event of even the slightest success there.

now, for rmg's nietzsche quick start: read faust part one. then read sartre's nausea. then read beyond good and evil. halfway through the third, go back to the second and read it again. i don't claim this is the best road. surely there are other opinions on the matter.

by the way, no serious nietzsche reader considers himself an "overman."




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.


Dear rmg, by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #2 Thu May 11, 2006 at 02:45:10 PM EST
Nice job of pulling a stereotype out of your posterior there. Please to be explaining how this and this and even this are consistent with your conclusion that I am what Robert Anton Wilson would call a "fundamentalist Materialist" and therefore incapable of giving metaphysical and spiritual ideas serious consideration.

(BTW, don't I recall someone recently dismissing Colin Wilson's writings out of hand en masse because the man writes about the paranormal?)



you've been doing this long enough by rmg (2.00 / 0) #3 Thu May 11, 2006 at 03:21:35 PM EST
to know how to respond to a comment properly. please do it right next time.

in response to your little challenge, i offer the following paragraphs of yours:

<div>The Human Experience

It is in physics that one finds the purest expression of the Scientific Method, but physics is not the only line of thought that styles itself a science. Geologists do not have the physicists' luxury in staging experiments and testing for repeatability; they must wait for the Earth to Do Something and then see if the Something they observe is consistent with their theories. Medical researchers are in an even worse fix, since nothing quite ever happens the same way twice in complicated biological systems; they work around this by designing double-blind protocols with statistical tests, to eliminate as much of this inconsistency as possible.

Then there are fields like sociology and psychology, which physicists tend to sneeringly deride. Sometimes these "soft" scientists sneer back that physicists don't have to deal with phenomena that lie to them. It's a real problem, with which people like James Randi have shown scientists do not deal well.

My question is, suppose the Universe is lying to physicists? Would we be able to tell?</div>

your second and third links probably have some scientific, clinical explanation, but i'm not so interested in that at the moment. in any event, i don't think it does much to deflect anything i've said. astrology is exactly the kind of thing you would expect a science devotee to allow to stand in for spirituality.

about colin wilson, i think any serious person would dismiss a parapsychology enthusiast out of hand. this has no bearing on the current discussion, except insofar as the current discussion represents a threat to my own seriousness.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

dude, I got something very strange by nathan (4.00 / 1) #4 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:00:47 PM EST
I managed to score a copy of Wilson's book on the occult. My goodness. It's a shame that Chesterton didn't really say that a man who ceases to believe in God will then believe in anything, because that book is evidence in black and white.

No wonder, though, that our Rog likes Wilson so much. Lots of detailed anecdotes - that makes it Scientific. Legends about alchemists accepted more credulously than an illiterate peasant accepts the lives of the saints.

And the most preciously loco touch of all? How Wilson suddenly interrupts himself in the middle of a chapter to start relating his occult beliefs to the reader. It's a classic moment: you're talking to a guy with slightly deranged eyes, a spooky twinkle in his grin, but he sounds pretty normal, until suddenly he starts telling you how the girl across the street is trying to seduce him by telepathy, and in order to save her soul, he's going to have to hang her dog from a telephone pole. His eyes bore into you like diamond-tipped drills into a naked brain, and then suddenly you come back to yourself, shake your head to clear it, turn your back, and walk away. But his eyes come back to you in unguarded moments, poisoning your rest and never quite leaving you in peace.

Where was I? Oh, yes, Wilson is a crank of the David Icke stripe, and citing anything he wrote as if it were a work of scholarship is far worse practice than citing Pat Buchanan on immigration law or Fred Hoyle on the origin of life.

[ Parent ]

oh man. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #6 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:15:53 PM EST
i didn't have the luxury of an actual book by the fellow, but looking into him, my crank alarm definitely started sounding.

but now that you mention it, do you really find icke's notion that many of our leaders are in fact giant lizards so utterly implausible? i think all of us here can probably agree that rumsfeld, for example, if he is not a lizard in fact, is at least as much a "cruel and stupid lizard" as hitchens claims reagan was.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

So that's where the reply link is. by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #5 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:14:58 PM EST
Oddly, my HTTP proxy was blocking it.  Ha.

Oh, I learned very early on that K5 is infested by science fanboys who will vote down anything that is too skeptical of scientific materialism.  I've had two stories go down in the queue because of that.

Anyway, I don't even remember what I linked there, and you say nothing about the actual words that I wrote except a bland "doesn't do much" without saying why.  An entire article trying to explain to a bunch of science fanboys that reality might not be hard doesn't deflect your portrayal of me as a science fanboy?  What would, showing up in an Indian headdress with a Tarot deck?  BTW I did the Tarot deck thing and started a shitstorm in the comments to that article.  And before you make a fool of yourself again drawing ridiculous conclusions about my beliefs, you might want to actually read that comment thread before saying anything else.  Bearing in mind that I was writing for the James Randi fanboy audience.

And of course we all know that if a person is shitheaded in one way that nothing they ever do is any good, so Colin Wilson's observations of criminal behavior are worthless because of his interest in the paranormal, just like the theory of General Relativity is worthless because Einstein couldn't get with the program on quantum mechanics.  That is what you're saying, at least.

[ Parent ]

so you claim that k5's systemic bias by rmg (2.00 / 0) #8 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:27:09 PM EST
forced you into inserting absurd pseudo-scientific nonsense into what was really an attempt at something more sublime. it's your lucky day rog, 'cause i'm exactly the kind of idiot that will buy that line of reasoning. i've always thought the supermajority requirement of the voting system completely destroyed the quality of articles there, but no one ever listened to me.

the way you stick to this approach in private correspondence is somewhat disconcerting, but perhaps you figured that i, being a former kuro5hin reader, would respond favorably to it -- in that sense, i guess yesterday was not your lucky day.

if everything you say here is true, then maybe it's time to talk about this nietzsche fellow.

by the way, if einstein had gotten on the lizard bandwagon with mr. icke, i'd feel fine about calling him a kook. in fact, his views on quantum mechanics already made him a bit of a crank. in any event, i wouldn't be so quick to draw parallels between wilson and einstein -- nor between the worlds of popular publishing and peer review.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

*YAWN* by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #10 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:55:11 PM EST
inserting absurd pseudo-scientific nonsense into what was really an attempt at something more sublime

If you keep acting like Robotslave, this is going to be a very short thread about Nietzsche.  You know exactly what I was getting at, stop twisting it into something else.

by the way, if einstein had gotten on the lizard bandwagon with mr. icke, i'd feel fine about calling him a kook.

The fact that he rejected the only physics paradigm that has had predictive success in the last 70 years out of hand because it was incompatible with his metaphysical conception of God is, by contrast, is completely compatible with his dedication to science?

Look, if you judge Wilson by his occult writings, it's the same as judging Einstein over his later writings, which I'd cite except my copies are buried under a bunch of spring cleaning crap.  Trust me, they are extremely kooky.

The book which formed my perhaps overly favorable impression of Wilson was A Criminal History of Mankind, which is his omnibus overview of criminality.  His kookiness does seep in a bit but the thing is, while the man was writing about paranormality he was also doing distinctly un-kooky true crime accounts and amassing a vast library on the subject.  To say that his ideas on crime are worthless because of his ideas on the paranormal is EXACTLY like saying Einstein's ideas on relativity are worthless because of his unscientific obsession with disproving the Uncertainty Principle.  It is not kindasorta the same except that [hemhaw], it is EXACTLY the same to about four decimal places.

[ Parent ]

no, rog, it's not. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:52:38 AM EST
einstein had widely recognized and lauded scientific achievements behind him. the real kind of achievements -- you know, the ones reviewed by peers and at least minimally tested (and testable). and frankly, his views on quantum mechanics are widely regarded as eccentric and unfortunate.

by contrast, you're trying to build the reputation of a guy who wrote about tele-frickin'-kinesis (a damn sight farther out there than "gee, i bet there's a deterministic theory behind all this quantum mechanics stuff") on the strength of his insight in a book called a criminal history of mankind. you can see the kookiness seeping in right away, though i completely see how a book like that could form the basis of condemnation of just about everything, at least, as long as it has something to do with mankind.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

ended the previous post too soon. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #9 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:50:02 PM EST
in addition to what i've said about wilson in the other comment, i should remind you that i've made at least a couple so far unchallenged arguments concerning the relevance of wilson's criminology or whatever you might care to call it to the matters we've discussed previously. frankly, i think you'd have a hell of a time overcoming them and it probably wouldn't be worth the trouble anyway.

second, tarot cards don't count as spirituality. neither, for the record, do wicca, magnets, crystals, or humpback whales.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

Unchallenged by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #11 Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:03:46 PM EST
Actually, all I'm aware of is your comment on the one small part of Wilson's theory I mentioned in email, which I chose because it's easy to explain and fairly uncontroversial, being a generally accepted part of the methodology used by police agencies to draw personality profiles, and what you said was that this theory that is used by police agencies all over the world to predict criminal behavior had "no predictive value."  I didn't see the point of going any further, as you've made yourself look like a very substantial fool to anybody who reads anything at all -- and I'm not talking just about Wilson -- about criminology.

I did raise another point in my last email, which you may not have read yet, which also has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

[ Parent ]

listen, genius: by rmg (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:11:01 AM EST
my argument was that in the context of specific types of criminality (your favorite example being serial killers) otherwise vague nonsense becomes meaningful because of the narrowness of the subject -- serial killing is damn unusual and two serial killers already have a lot in common. you seem to suggest that one can usefully compare the psychology, motives, and a whole host of other things of a thief and a serial killer using this book of yours -- but more than that, you argue that useful and direct comparisons can be made between any two people whose behavior has the following two characteristics: a) it requires a "leisure society" and b) is motivated by ego gratification.

do you see the difference? maybe you don't. wilson, regardless of his other credentials, studies something narrow and is able to (perhaps) establish interesting parallels between already similar things using, for example, sociological methods. what you're trying to do is enormously broader and therefore enormously less substantiated. and what's your argument for it? "well, the fbi does it!"

this isn't the first time i've explained this line of reasoning, but it is very elementary. this is why i was reluctant to get into nietzsche, an enormously less elementary subject, in much depth.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

Actually my entire point by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:47:49 AM EST
...was that there "specific types" of criminality don't matter.  Criminality is criminality.  You either operate in a way that is compatible with the written and unwritten rules that are generally agreed upon by people around you, or you don't.  The "criminal shortcut" is the deliberate decision to ignore those rules, to act in a way that would create general chaos if everyone were to follow your example.  The influences that push you into criminality tend to work the same whether it's a "big" criminality like murder or a "small" one like stealing a bicycle.  The forces that push you into it, the personality factors that make you a likely candidate for such a shortcut, the range of methods you will use, the amount of planning you will do, and the excuses you make to justify your act all tend to form the same patterns.

The observation about the relationship between types of murder and general social ascent on the Maslow scale is not specific to serial killers; in fact, it reflects the emergence of new types of crime that were virtually unheard of in a world with different priorities, which are not narrowly expressed but which exhibit broad general similarities.  This wave of "crime anomique" which began rolling in the 1950's and has become something of an epidemic today ranges all the way from the thrill-seeking shoplifter who doesn't need what she steals to the murderer who sends his victims' body parts to the police via UPS.  Absent a few very rare examples this kind of thing was unheard of before WWII and it was totally unexpected by everybody when it started showing up.

But of course, had you been around then nobody would have been so mystified since you know everything and could have clued them in on the obviousness of it all, I'm sure.

[ Parent ]

there's a book you should read about this. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:30:02 AM EST
discipline and punish by foucault. without nietzsche, it'll be a damn tricky read, but it would certainly give you a new and much needed perspective on criminality. i would suggest that it's not the maslow hierarchy that creates these sorts of criminals, but rather the notion of criminality itself. in the past two hundred years, western states have been building a notion of criminality that i would contend did not entirely crystalize until after world war two.

in fact, i think you'll find a lot more interesting ammunition in your quest characterize trolls as criminals in foucault than you will in the quacks you've been reading.

by the way -- yes, i knew what your point was and it's not just because i know everything. (it's because i know one particular thing: how to read.) anyway, my last effort at dealing with your line or argument appeared in my previous post. i hope you will consider reading foucault -- surely, he'll convince you of something new and even more sinister.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

I'll look him up by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #34 Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:37:53 PM EST
That does sound like an interesting premise.

[ Parent ]

p.s. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:33:43 AM EST
i've gone ahead and posted another diary in which nietzsche might be sensibly discussed, although it's already somewhat used -- and little better for the wear, i must say.




[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]

Ended too soon: Must be contagious by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #13 Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:43:06 PM EST
I brought up the Tarot thing in that thread because it was something concrete enough to try and discuss with a bunch of James Randi fans, and you can see how that worked out.  If I ever had for the sake of argument had explored more subtle spiritual ideas, do you think I would ever mention them over there?  For that matter do you think I would ever mention them to you considering how you consistently act toward me?

But this does seem to be "make snap decisions based on reading three paragraphs day," so what the hell.

[ Parent ]

you don't mean /en masse/, you mean /in toto/ by nathan (2.00 / 0) #7 Thu May 11, 2006 at 04:18:29 PM EST
You're welcome.

[ Parent ]

No by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #12 Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:27:28 PM EST
I meant en masse, he rejected Wilson's writings "in one group or body; all together."  Although "In Toto" can mean the same thing, in law it more commonly means something more like "the totality" which might be the totality of a single element of a group, not the entire group.

[ Parent ]

you're fired by nathan (2.00 / 0) #14 Thu May 11, 2006 at 05:50:03 PM EST
En masse refers to a body of people: "the Venetians rejected the constitution en masse." Your dictionary might not tell you that explicitly, but the phrase properly locates the 'masse' in a group of actors, not objects receiving action. But in a way, you're right; pretentious half-educated twits to often use it to mean 'in toto.'

To reject a case in toto means rejecting every part of the case; this is standard legal usage, although to be sure some moron has probably misused it somewhere. You could just gracefully accept that I speak more languages than you, and if you'd said thanks I'd have given you a 4, but no, you insist on trolling yourself. Bra-vo.

[ Parent ]

You can't fire me, I just fired you by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #17 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:27:57 PM EST
It's a French phrase, dipwad.  I studied French lo these many years ago in high school, and it most certainly is not limited to a group of people.  As the dictionary said, it just means "group" and it can be a group of anything, from people to chickens to eggs to soybeans.  As someone might understand if they thought for two seconds about the root of the English word mass.

[ Parent ]

oh, I didn't know it was French! by nathan (2.00 / 0) #27 Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:24:46 AM EST
Thanks, JAck!

[ Parent ]

I'm not sure where to begin. by gzt (2.00 / 0) #15 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:20:15 PM EST
Are you really just saying, "Nietzsche: good or wack?" That doesn't give me much to go off of. Do you have any more substantial critiques than "his fan-boys are repugnant antinomians"? Not that it matters too much, I don't have any of the primary sources on hand so I wouldn't be able to comment too deeply.

If it makes you feel any better, you're more like the "last man" than rmg[1].

[1] If you'd read Nietzsche, though, you'd know that's not a compliment.



I'm thinking we have been trolled by lm (2.00 / 0) #16 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:27:30 PM EST
It appears that this discussion isn't really about Nietzsche.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Well, I thought it might be until rmg showed up nt by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #18 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:29:29 PM EST


[ Parent ]

There is that by lm (2.00 / 0) #19 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:33:56 PM EST
... but in rmg's defense, the lack of Nietzsche content started well before his post.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Well duh by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #21 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:39:53 PM EST
The only thing here before rmg showed up was a request to talk about it.  Just what is it about understanding Nietzche that makes a person so pigheaded arrogant that they tell someone who is trying to be nice (despite a long history of abuse by said Nietzsche-inspired person) that they are too stupid to possibly understand what Nietzsche was getting at, and BTW they won't waste their time discussing it in private because presumably people who grok Nietzsche can't have an intellectual discussion without a lot of fanboys waving and stirring shit from the stands?

[ Parent ]

Is there a non-rhetorical question in there? by lm (2.00 / 0) #22 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:44:53 PM EST
Because I don't see one.
There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

Not in that comment, no. by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #24 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:56:49 PM EST
I suppose that is one way on your part of saying that whatever rmg was pretending to get at with his whole "you are too teh stoopid to understand Nietzsche's fantastically subtle thought processes" was just more trollery shit.  Which would be about as surprising as learning that a big orange ball will rise in the sky in the east tomorrow morning.

[ Parent ]

not at all by lm (2.00 / 0) #25 Thu May 11, 2006 at 07:06:44 PM EST
I'm just observing that the point of your diary seems to be to invite discussion about someone who is not Nietzsche far more than it is an invitation to discuss Nietzsche.

But if I'm not making much sense, it's because I'm paying far more attention to Love and Rockets 7th Dream of a Teenage Heaven than I am to the Internet.

But if you're interested in Nietzsche pick up the Cambridge edition of On the Genealogy of Morals or, if you like poetry, the Kaufmann edition of The Gay Science. Both are pretty approachable. I don't think them as important as his work on the  pre-Socratics, but they're a good introduction to his way of thinking.

There is no more degenerate kind of state than that in which the richest are supposed to be the best.
Cicero, The Republic
[ Parent ]

dude. by nathan (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri May 12, 2006 at 01:38:51 AM EST
the most obvious conclusion i can draw regarding your take on nietzsche is that you've just never read him, but perhaps have heard a lot about him.

I don't understand how this is supposed to be insulting. Since you admit that you haven't read a lot of Nietzsche, and yet hold strong opinions about him, I'd say it's an obvious inference. Now, as for rmg's speculations about the origins of your feelings about Nietzsche, I'd say that they're not kind but not unwarranted, you know? Even if he didn't tell you about them, he'd certainly have to be making them privately.

[ Parent ]

Follow me closely by localrogers pod person (2.00 / 0) #20 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:34:04 PM EST
I didn't bring N-man into the conversation.  Teh Othar Person did.  At which point I blearily recall that nearly everyone I've ever heard fondly stroke N-man's throbbing memory has been shall we say a whack job hit-man wannabe.  So I make a comment based on this admittedly limited experience.  And my correspondent proceeds to demonstrate the superiority of his spiritual understanding by insulting me, drawing a whole bunch of stupid conclusions (without he admits even reading very much of the large amount of crap I've put online) and begging off with the old "I'd explain it but you're too teh stooopid to possibly understand my higher order thought processes" schtick.  Please to be explaining how else any sensible person would interpret this, kthx.

[ Parent ]

it would have been easier... by gzt (2.00 / 0) #23 Thu May 11, 2006 at 06:55:12 PM EST
...for us all if you had just directly said, "rmg is stupid," without dragging Nietzsche through the mud.

If it makes you feel better about Nietzsche: I like Nietzsche, I think he's important and his criticisms of modernity, religion [esp: Christianity], the Enlightenment, the bourgeoisie, and nihilists are relevant to my everyday existence. I literally do think of his work pretty much every day [perhaps not in depth, but he pops up]. I'm no thug. Hell, I'm no Nietzschean, either. I'm definitely not an atheist. Don't knock it till you try it.

[ Parent ]

It sounds like by Weapon of Pack Destruction (2.00 / 0) #26 Thu May 11, 2006 at 09:46:53 PM EST
you've gleaned your impressions of Nietzsche from A Fish Called Wanda and Andromeda.

Who give a fuck about fanboys?  Read, say, Beyond Good and Evil.  But only after you're tortured your synapses reading Kant's Prolegomena first.  His writing is very accessible, so draw your own conclusions.

[ Parent ]

Nietzsche | 34 comments (34 topical, 0 hidden) | Trackback

Powered by Scoop Blue Room Hosting logo  
 
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments and Stories are owned by the Poster and Licensed to "Hulver's site". See our Copyright page for more information.
faq | help | accounts