C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Nietzsche went crazy and Sartre became a theist before he died.
There’s a lesson to be learned there … somewhere.
There’s a lesson to be learned there … somewhere.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
Where’d you get that information?Nietzsche went crazy and Sartre became a theist before he died.
There’s a lesson to be learned there … somewhere.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Sartre seems to have converted to Judaism near the end of his life under the influence of his friend Benny Levy. That Nietzsche suffered a mental breakdown is not widely disputed.Where’d you get that information?
An interesting account of his final days and how his “reputation” developed at the hands of his sister can be found at the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy
In the latter part of the 1880s, Nietzsche’s health worsened, and in the midst of an amazing flourish of intellectual activity which produced On the Genealogy of Morality, Twilight of the Idols, The Anti-Christ, and several other works (including preparation for what was intended to be his magnum opus, a work that editors later titled Will to Power) Nietzsche suffered a complete mental and physical breakdown. The famed moment at which Nietzsche is said to have succumbed irrevocably to his ailments occurred January 3, 1889 in Turin (Torino) Italy, reportedly outside Nietzsche’s apartment in the Piazza Carlos Alberto while embracing a horse being flogged by its owner.
After spending time in psychiatric clinics in Basel and Jena, Nietzsche was first placed in the care of his mother, and then later his sister (who had spent the latter half of the 1880’s attempting to establish a “racially pure” German colony in Paraguay with her husband, the anti-Semitic political opportunist Bernhard Foerster). By the early 1890s, Elisabeth had seized control of Nietzsche’s literary remains, which included a vast amount of unpublished writings. She quickly began shaping his image and the reception of his work, which by this time had already gained momentum among academics such as Georg Brandes. Soon the Nietzsche legend would grow in spectacular fashion among popular readers. From Villa Silberblick, the Nietzsche home in Weimar, Elisabeth and her associates managed Friedrich’s estate, editing his works in accordance with her taste for a populist decorum and occasionally with an ominous political intent that (later researchers agree) corrupted the original thought[CE3] . Unfortunately, Friedrich experienced little of his fame, having never recovered from the breakdown of late 1888 and early 1889. His final years were spent at Villa Silberblick in grim mental and physical deterioration, ending mercifully August 25, 1900. He was buried in Röcken, near Leipzig. Elisabeth spent one last year in Paraguay in 1892-93 before returning to Germany, where she continued to exert influence over the perception of Nietzsche’s work and reputation, particularly among general readers, until her death in 1935. Villa Silberblick stands today as a monument, of sorts, to Friedrich and Elisabeth, while the bulk of Nietzsche’s literary remains is held in the Goethe-Schiller Archiv, also in Weimar.
C
Charlemagne_III
Guest
Sartre’s conversion, much to the dismay and denial of his atheist friends, was documented by his friend and last interviewer, Benny Levy. Sartre confirmed the truth of Levy’s account.Where’d you get that information?
Nietzsche ended a madman. This is not disputed. That he appealed to that other madman and Superman named Hitler is also not disputed. There is a famous photo of Hitler staring at a bust of Nietzsche at the Nietzsche Archives. Hitler’s own madness is also well documented.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
I guess then I’ll throw in my (name removed by moderator)ut on Sartre.
It seems he was at the least “Jewish interested” but whether he accepted Jewish beliefs or not is debated.
jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=509
It seems he was at the least “Jewish interested” but whether he accepted Jewish beliefs or not is debated.
jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=509
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
The fact that the same site ranks Barbie (score of 8) with the same “Jewishness” score as Sartre (only 1 point higher than Bugs Bunny and the Berenstain Bears) does not say much about the authenticity or reliability of their determination criteria, so, perhaps, we should continue seeking (name removed by moderator)ut of a more valid nature.I guess then I’ll throw in my (name removed by moderator)ut on Sartre.
It seems he was at the least “Jewish interested” but whether he accepted Jewish beliefs or not is debated.
jewornotjew.com/profile.jsp?ID=509
N
newenglandsun
Guest
Well they do break it up into historical and fictional figures. So they can’t be said to be lying.The fact that the same site ranks Barbie (score of 8) with the same “Jewishness” score as Sartre (only 1 point higher than Bugs Bunny and the Berenstain Bears) does not say much about the authenticity or reliability of their determination criteria, so, perhaps, we should continue seeking (name removed by moderator)ut of a more valid nature.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
Never said they were lying.Well they do break it up into historical and fictional figures. So they can’t be said to be lying.
I just don’t think the measures they use are valid ones for determining whether Sartre did convert, historically speaking, to Judaism. “Off the cuff” measures that are not even seriously offered should not be read with any more than that level of validity.
P
Peter_Plato
Guest
You do understand that Barbie, Sartre and Bugs Bunny are all more Jewish than Jesus (6) according to that web site. So whether the figures are historical or not seems to make no difference.Well they do break it up into historical and fictional figures. So they can’t be said to be lying.
Do you suppose Sartre, historically speaking, really was more of a Jew than Jesus?
Given that no real criteria are offered except very informal, very subjective I, O and K scores does not lend support to your “historical figures” defense.
N
newenglandsun
Guest
Considering that the site is run by Jews, I’m really not that surprised that they hold the view that Sartre is more Jewish than Jesus.You do understand that Barbie, Sartre and Bugs Bunny are all more Jewish than Jesus (6) according to that web site. So whether the figures are historical or not seems to make no difference.
Do you suppose Sartre, historically speaking, really was more of a Jew than Jesus?
Given that no real criteria are offered except very informal, very subjective I, O and K scores does not lend support to your “historical figures” defense.
I’m not too certain though that their ranking system is what determines Jewishness of a figure though.
L
LightandHeat
Guest
The OP’s post hits on what is known as Christian Existentialism. I would say to the OP that you should take a look at the works of Soren Kierkegaard, who is often referred to as the “father of Existentialism”, preceding the more popular Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzche. Kierkegaard’s most important works include Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, and The Sickness Unto Death, among others.
IMO, the relative popularity of both Nietzsche and Sartre has less do with any inherent genius or originality of the two, but rather due to the literary quality of their work. It cannot be denied that both were incredible writers whose concepts and techniques managed to be both easily accessible and emotionally connective. However, neither philosopher manages to really succeed in presenting a coherent outlook on the universe; Sartre’s existentialism is undermined by his own material atheism and militant political Marxism whereas Nietzsche’s work should really be considered social commentary or fiction properly, as it mostly concerns works that consist mainly of sociology, non sequitur acerbic aphorisms and stinging religious satire. Both serve as fine stepping stones into the world of philosophy, but not as the end all, be all they are assumed to be in college dorms throughout the US.
Just my two cents
IMO, the relative popularity of both Nietzsche and Sartre has less do with any inherent genius or originality of the two, but rather due to the literary quality of their work. It cannot be denied that both were incredible writers whose concepts and techniques managed to be both easily accessible and emotionally connective. However, neither philosopher manages to really succeed in presenting a coherent outlook on the universe; Sartre’s existentialism is undermined by his own material atheism and militant political Marxism whereas Nietzsche’s work should really be considered social commentary or fiction properly, as it mostly concerns works that consist mainly of sociology, non sequitur acerbic aphorisms and stinging religious satire. Both serve as fine stepping stones into the world of philosophy, but not as the end all, be all they are assumed to be in college dorms throughout the US.
Just my two cents
N
newenglandsun
Guest
You can’t understand Sartre without Heidegger. And you can’t understand Heidegger without Kierkegaard. And you can’t understand Kierkegaard without Romans by St. Paul and Ecclesiastes by King Solomon.The OP’s post hits on what is known as Christian Existentialism. I would say to the OP that you should take a look at the works of Soren Kierkegaard, who is often referred to as the “father of Existentialism”, preceding the more popular Heidegger, Sartre, and Nietzche. Kierkegaard’s most important works include Either/Or, Fear and Trembling, and The Sickness Unto Death, among others.
IMO, the relative popularity of both Nietzsche and Sartre has less do with any inherent genius or originality of the two, but rather due to the literary quality of their work. It cannot be denied that both were incredible writers whose concepts and techniques managed to be both easily accessible and emotionally connective. However, neither philosopher manages to really succeed in presenting a coherent outlook on the universe; Sartre’s existentialism is undermined by his own material atheism and militant political Marxism whereas Nietzsche’s work should really be considered social commentary or fiction properly, as it mostly concerns works that consist mainly of sociology, non sequitur acerbic aphorisms and stinging religious satire. Both serve as fine stepping stones into the world of philosophy, but not as the end all, be all they are assumed to be in college dorms throughout the US.
Just my two cents
F
fhansen
Guest
Yes, love is not so much a choice for God as it is who He is.I think of it as a situation in which G-d cannot be or do what is contrary to His nature, which includes being omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, extra-temporal, and extra-spatial. Not loving is contrary to G-d’s nature, and thus He is incapable of not loving. The same in the scenario that asks the question whether G-d can invent (or imagine) a weight He cannot lift: He cannot do so because He is omnipotent. And likewise in the case of the Euthyphro dilemma, G-d cannot be or do anything not moral and so His behavior is moral. IOW G-d is the very essence of morality, love, knowledge, justice, power, and His actions reflect that which He is.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.