Why is Nietzsche so lauded?

[aquinothomas]

Because Nietzsche was intelligent, eloquent, insightful, and devilishly funny. Not to say he was perfect by any means, or that his philosophy and ethics are gospel truth, but Also Sprach Zarathustra remains one of the greatest books ever written. To dismiss Nietzsche as a mere enfant terrible who ran around just trying to get a rise out of people with ‘God is dead!’ is seriously underrating him.

I’ve studied a bit of Nietzsche’s thought, and while I’ve disagreed with almost everything I’ve read of his works, I’m willing to entertain the notion that he may have had something insightful approaching wisdom. Sometimes, it’s those we disagree with the most vehemently that help us to understand the truth more completely. I’ve found this to be true of Heidegger, who was in fact a Nazi (although I would reject anything explicitly fascist / nazi in his thought).

But, I would sincerely also like to know what you or others consider insightful about his philosophy. I have a co-worker who came out of Harvard Divinity School as a Nietzschean and we’ve had a few brief discussions on his thought. What, specifically, in his thought do you consider to be wise or helpful? Why is Also Sprach Zarathustra one of the greatest works of philosophy ever written? While I might not agree with his conclusions, I would like to understand him better, because I think there are many thoughtful people who follow his line of thinking (and I’m not talking about Nazis or racists - we can completely bracket how Nietzsche’s thought was used in fascist regimes if you like).

 

[Mirdath]

What, specifically, in his thought do you consider to be wise or helpful? Why is Also Sprach Zarathustra one of the greatest works of philosophy ever written?

Specifically? I’m a humanist. As such, Nietzsche, and Zarathustra especially, offers much to think about. It’s a deeply humanist work, centered around the idea that we can and must become our own legends, heroes, and role models – something greater than we are; and this through our own efforts and our own striving, without leaning on the kind of crutches typified by the dead God – and perhaps more importantly, without forgetting our own humanity. Zarathustra’s monologue after the death of the tightrope walker is one of my favorite passages, not least because of the groaningly bad pun (in both German and English!) it’s based on.

If you haven’t read it, an excellent companion piece is Goethe’s Faust, which explores many of the same themes – but might ultimately be more palatable to a religious person who can’t or won’t get past ‘God is dead!’

and I’m not talking about Nazis or racists - we can completely bracket how Nietzsche’s thought was used in fascist regimes if you like.

Please, let’s. If one pays attention to what Nietzsche actually said, it’s obvious that fascism (or even nationalism in general) was one of his pet peeves.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

I just got done reading a book one of my college nephews gave me. It’s a book containing the biographies of Immanuel Kant, Friedrich Nietzsche, Socrates, and about a dozen other famous philosophers in history, as well as an extensive overview of their respective philosophies. (It’s actually his textbook for his class, but I’ll read almost anything once…almost, and only once for most, and quite a few I never intend to even finish…) Anyway, to the point; after reading about Nietzsche and his philosophy I can only conclude that he was an idiot. Why do so many people think he was so great? I mean, look at the man. “By his fruits you shall know him.” And man, what a fruit he was. They say he only lost his mind towards the end of his life, but it seems to me he was losing his mind all along.

I’m serious, why is Nietzsche considered to be so great? Am I missing something?

That’s up for dispute, some say his break with sanity began to mannifest itself in Ecce Homo, but we don’t know.

Nietzsche challanged many dearely held assumptions, he attacked scienticism and Socratic optimism and rationalism, he assaulted the conventinal morals of the time and promoted an aesthetic moral, he attacked Christianity for dampaning of the human spirit and promote an embracement of the necessary nihilism following the “death of God” and overcoming it with attainment of the superman mentalist, he was an important sociologist and psychologist who brought highly origional analysis to the fields.

A lot of his thought was directed to atheists as well.

"Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market-place, and cried incessantly: “I am looking for God! I am looking for God!”
As many of those who did not believe in God were standing together there, he excited considerable laughter. Have you lost him, then? said one. Did he lose his way like a child? said another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? or emigrated? Thus they shouted and laughed. The madman sprang into their midst and pierced them with his glances.

“Where has God gone?” he cried. “I shall tell you. We have killed him - you and I. We are his murderers. But how have we done this? How were we able to drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What did we do when we unchained the earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving now? Away from all suns? Are we not perpetually falling? Backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there any up or down left? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is it not more and more night coming on all the time? Must not lanterns be lit in the morning? Do we not hear anything yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we not smell anything yet of God’s decomposition? Gods too decompose. God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we, murderers of all murderers, console ourselves? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed; and whosoever shall be born after us - for the sake of this deed he shall be part of a higher history than all history hitherto.”

Here the madman fell silent and again regarded his listeners; and they too were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke and went out. “I have come too early,” he said then; “my time has not come yet. The tremendous event is still on its way, still travelling - it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time, the light of the stars requires time, deeds require time even after they are done, before they can be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the distant stars - and yet they have done it themselves.”

It has been further related that on that same day the madman entered divers churches and there sang a requiem. Led out and quietened, he is said to have retorted each time: “what are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchres of God?”

You see, here he chastizes atheist for not understanding the implication ofGod’s death.

Ratzinger cites him a lot, and he studied him, he’s important for Christians to study, he was a major force of postmodernism and perspectivism, and existentalism, all very impotant movements.

He hated Christianity, but was still a “perverted Genius” to quote Peter Kreeft.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Specifically? I’m a humanist. As such, Nietzsche, and Zarathustra especially, offers much to think about. It’s a deeply humanist work, centered around the idea that we can and must become our own legends, heroes, and role models – something greater than we are; and this through our own efforts and our own striving, without leaning on the kind of crutches typified by the dead God – and perhaps more importantly, without forgetting our own humanity. Zarathustra’s monologue after the death of the tightrope walker is one of my favorite passages, not least because of the groaningly bad pun (in both German and English!) it’s based on.

If you haven’t read it, an excellent companion piece is Goethe’s Faust, which explores many of the same themes – but might ultimately be more palatable to a religious person who can’t or won’t get past ‘God is dead!’

Please, let’s. If one pays attention to what Nietzsche actually said, it’s obvious that fascism (or even nationalism in general) was one of his pet peeves.

Goeth is important to note, Nietzsche was origional in many was, but many of his ideas, expecially many of those used for Nazism and Serbian anarchism(Arch Duke Ferdinand’s assasin was a Nietzschian) we already implicit in the culture, Nietzsche did not invent the “overman” it was already an idea in the culture, though he certianly popularized it.

Nietzsche has many flaws, but he was not an anti-semite(so far as we know, I’m not saying he coulden’t have been a victim of the prejudice of the times, but it wasen’t something he advocated.

He was a brilliant man, he set the German philogist world on fire, he was one of the only grad students of the time to be published.

As to Nationalism, it’s not true to say he was never a nationalist, I beleive in “An Attempt at Self Criticism” he admitted that in his early years he was brielfy swept up in the nationalism of the time, but he later rejected it.

 

[bogeydogg]

Probably because of the professors people listened to in their classes! A priest friend of mine blames Kant, Nietzsche, and others like them for the state of the Church today. I guess he figures their thinking was widely adopted, even at seminaries. At my Catholic college we were required to have a philosophy minor and had an excellent foundation. Needless to say, we did not read these people. It was back in the days when Catholic colleges were really Catholic!

Nietzsche is the “God is dead” guy, if I’m not mistaken!

Kant was a Christian. His Critique of Pure Reason was a response to David Hume. Kant believed, and I think errantly, that Hume’s assertion of infinite regress had undone not only Aquinas and natural religion but all science as well because he feared that Hume’s work would undo causality all together. Consequently he declared that all things having to do with religion were fideistic in nature and were thus not science. While Kant did not disbelieve Christianity he feared that Hume had done it such damage as it must be utterly separated from science in order that science may be saved also.

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Hitler did indeed use the concept of the overman – in an entirely different way from Nietzsche. Hitler’s overman is great by an accident of birth; Nietzsche’s, by constant striving and transcendence…

How do you think Nietzsche would have felt about Hitler, and the 20th century european dictators?

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Kant was a Christian. His Critique of Pure Reason was a response to David Hume. Kant believed, and I think errantly, that Hume’s assertion of infinite regress had undone not only Aquinas and natural religion but all science as well because he feared that Hume’s work would undo causality all together. Consequently he declared that all things having to do with religion were fideistic in nature and were thus not science. While Kant did not disbelieve Christianity he feared that Hume had done it such damage as it must be utterly separated from science in order that science may be saved also.

yeah, he felt he had to destroy reasone to save faith.

that Priest must remember that Kant was unbeleaviable important to philosophy and science

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Anyone linking Nietzche with nazism has obviously not read his books at all. .

Except the Nazi’s, they both read his work, and felt they were supported by him

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Not so much Chesterton, but I am indeed quite familiar with the Angelic Doctor. Admirable man, although I must disagree with you on ‘no higher intellect’ – he’s certainly up there, but hardly a perfect mind.

Chesterton

Brilliant, funny, and creative

an unusual mix

 

[aquinothomas]

Specifically? I’m a humanist. As such, Nietzsche, and Zarathustra especially, offers much to think about. It’s a deeply humanist work, centered around the idea that we can and must become our own legends, heroes, and role models – something greater than we are; and this through our own efforts and our own striving, without leaning on the kind of crutches typified by the dead God – and perhaps more importantly, without forgetting our own humanity. Zarathustra’s monologue after the death of the tightrope walker is one of my favorite passages, not least because of the groaningly bad pun (in both German and English!) it’s based on.

Thank you, this is helpful. I’ve also read that Nietzsche was very perceptive about psychology as well. I’m not an atheist, but he probably characterizes what could be considered an atheistic optimist. I would probably have a hard time agreeing with his conclusions, but I’ll give Zarathustra a read. Nietsche seems to fit in with the cornucopia of other German philosophers that became the basis for modern thought, and for that reason if no other, it’s helpful to understand their thought.

 

[RobNY]

Specifically? I’m a humanist. As such, Nietzsche, and Zarathustra especially, offers much to think about. It’s a deeply humanist work, centered around the idea that we can and must become our own legends, heroes, and role models – something greater than we are; and this through our own efforts and our own striving, without leaning on the kind of crutches typified by the dead God – and perhaps more importantly, without forgetting our own humanity. Zarathustra’s monologue after the death of the tightrope walker is one of my favorite passages, not least because of the groaningly bad pun (in both German and English!) it’s based on.

If you haven’t read it, an excellent companion piece is Goethe’s Faust, which explores many of the same themes – but might ultimately be more palatable to a religious person who can’t or won’t get past ‘God is dead!’

Please, let’s. If one pays attention to what Nietzsche actually said, it’s obvious that fascism (or even nationalism in general) was one of his pet peeves.

I read Neitzsche’s Anti-Christ last year, which was pretty good. I’ll be reading Beyond Good and Evil this semester; I’m looking foward to it. He’s certainly a giant of thought, I can’t gainsay that. But I don’t think I get enough of his philosophy yet to really get a grasp of it-- hopefully that point will come soon. Every so often when reading Neitzsche you just think, “Come on now Freidrich! Tell me what you’re really thinking!” "

I think Rene Girard treated the whole question of how responsible Neitzsche was for moral evil, and he, like always, had an interesting point of view on it. I’d like to get to bed, but I’d be happy to dredge it up for you. Rene Girard is a good example of how a Catholic can read non-Catholics like Neitzsche and come away with positive things.

-Rob

 

[Mirdath]

Nietzsche has many flaws, but he was not an anti-semite(so far as we know, I’m not saying he coulden’t have been a victim of the prejudice of the times, but it wasen’t something he advocated.

I’ve seen him described as an anti-anti-Semite, particularly with regard to writings like this (to his sister):

You have committed one of the greatest stupidities — for yourself and for me! Your association with an anti-Semitic chief expresses a foreignness to my whole way of life which fills me again and again with ire or melancholy. … It is a matter of honor with me to be absolutely clean and unequivocal in relation to anti-Semitism, namely, opposed to it, as I am in my writings. I have recently been persecuted with letters and Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheets. My disgust with this party (which would like the benefit of my name only too well!) is as pronounced as possible, but the relation to Förster, as well as the aftereffects of my former publisher, the anti-Semitic Schmeitzner, always brings the adherents of this disagreeable party back to the idea that I must belong to them after all. … It arouses mistrust against my character, as if publicly I condemned something which I have favored secretly — and that I am unable to do anything against it, that the name of Zarathustra is used in every Anti-Semitic Correspondence Sheet, has almost made me sick several times.

In some other places he does seem to think a little ‘conventionally for the day’, if you will, but the charge of active anti-Semitism is easily dismissed as ridiculous.

How do you think Nietzsche would have felt about Hitler, and the 20th century european dictators?

Horrible. He despised nationalism and jingoism.

RobNY:

I think Rene Girard treated the whole question of how responsible Neitzsche was for moral evil, and he, like always, had an interesting point of view on it. I’d like to get to bed, but I’d be happy to dredge it up for you. Rene Girard is a good example of how a Catholic can read non-Catholics like Neitzsche and come away with positive things.

Go to bed! I can wait until after you get back from Mass tomorrow

 

[IvanKaramozov]

Horrible. He despised nationalism and jingoism.

He also despised Christianity, but had a grudging respect for Jesus and Dostoevsky, I’m asking about the men, not the movements.

 

[Auntie_A]

Probably because of the professors people listened to in their classes! A priest friend of mine blames Kant, Nietzsche, and others like them for the state of the Church today. I guess he figures their thinking was widely adopted, even at seminaries. At my Catholic college we were required to have a philosophy minor and had an excellent foundation. Needless to say, we did not read these people. It was back in the days when Catholic colleges were really Catholic!

Nietzsche is the “God is dead” guy, if I’m not mistaken!

This is interesting to me since I had several brothers in the seminary in the '60’s and my mother, a teacher, complained that their booklists were loaded with existentialists and atheists and that this was not a good place to start with forming young minds. She believed that this was college level material and that the high school student ( which is what the average seminarian was back then: they joined at age 14!) should start with classical philosophy BEFORE jumping into Nietsche, Sartre and the like.

Perhaps there is some truth to what your priest friend says in the light of what my mother noticed. I see this problem in society in general now: where teens are given the exceptions before they are shown the rule, the crooked before the straight, the icing before the cake. It really does make a difference in developmental growth to start with the foundations. Indeed, this could be part of the problem for the Church: leaders who may have been deprived of a normal developmental/maturation process in their studies. It would make me pretty confused to start with Nietsche…how can you even argue whether he was worthy or not if you did not have a basic understanding of philosophy and religion first.

In thinking about my brothers’ teachers discussing these philosophers I am bewildered. And I am reminded of my Humanities professor in college who was obsessed with Walt Whitman’s bisexuality…by the end of the semester we felt that we knew our professor rather intimately…and yet did we have any idea about Walt Whitman? There was obviously some underlying agenda in my professor and so was there an agenda in the seminary staff (stupidity? arrogance? selfishness? envy of innocence?) that dictated this kind of curriculum be taught in a seminary high school class.

I am not claiming they should have ignored these philosophers completely; they just should have put them into better perspective for young teenagers whose frontal lobes were still forming. By the way, none of my brothers became priests and none of them are practicing Catholics…go figure.

 

[Mirdath]

He also despised Christianity, but had a grudging respect for Jesus and Dostoevsky, I’m asking about the men, not the movements.

When you’re talking about these guys, it’s hard to separate the men from the movements, given just how much of each movement reflected the ideals of the person behind it.

Considering Hitler corrupted and misused Nietzsche’s own words, I think it’s safe to say Friedrich would have wanted to tie Adolf’s corpse to a chariot and drag it around Berlin until it disintegrated (Nepenthe just threw in a quote from Heavy Metal: Hanging’s too good for him. Burning’s too good for him. He should be torn into little bitty pieces and buried aliiiiiiive).

I doubt he would have found much to like in Francisco Franco, given the latter’s repression of art and speech and his complete intolerance of any ways of thought other than his own.

I don’t know much about Mussolini himself, except that he accomplished the impossible by making the trains in Italy run on time.

Stalin – again, extreme censorship, pogroms against the bugaboo-du-jour, and a reliance on an economic philosophy Nietzsche probably would have correctly found unworkable on a large scale due to human nature. I doubt they’d have been drinking buddies.

 

[dacoobob]

I don’t know much about Mussolini himself, except that he accomplished the impossible by making the trains in Italy run on time.

Everyone “knows” this about Mussolini’s Italy… but it’s a myth.

 

[RobNY]

Mirdath,

I took a look and I think what I was looking for was Rene Girard’s article, “Dionysius versus the Crucified.” It was published in 1984 originally, and the copy I have is in the Rene Girard Reader. I’m looking for a concise part to excerpt from it, but quite honestly, I’m a bit perplexed how to do so without taking it out of context. (With the added problem that his work already requires some context, including his theories of mimesis and scapegoating).

-Rob

 

[eddydenton]

Probably because of the professors people listened to in their classes! A priest friend of mine blames Kant, Nietzsche, and others like them for the state of the Church today. I guess he figures their thinking was widely adopted, even at seminaries. At my Catholic college we were required to have a philosophy minor and had an excellent foundation. Needless to say, we did not read these people. It was back in the days when Catholic colleges were really Catholic!

Nietzsche is the “God is dead” guy, if I’m not mistaken!

This is such an ignorant view. Why are you afraid to read the views of other philosopher other than ones who teach what you already believe? How do you grow to understand life and other possibilities if you only seek to confirm what you already believe? Nietzsche offers a view that is contrary to that of Christianity, and does so with elegant and well thought out arguments. For you to say “needless to say, we did not read these people” is showing the exact ignorance that Nietzsche criticized. Philosophy should be about exploring other possibilities so you can form intelligent and educated arguments, not simply avoiding those philosopher who don’t tell you what you want to hear.

 

[yellowbicycle]

One of my friends is a philosophy prof and he says Nietzche was always his favorite in school because spouting off what he said got him laid alot.
I’m quite sure that’s got something to do with why he’s a fan…

 

[Nepenthe]

Heh. Worked for Kafka and Camus too! (And I’m a gigantic Kafka and Camus fan, I should add.) Besides the fact that Kafka was one sexay melonfarmer. And Camus…well, how many people can you even list that had so much sheer style, eh? They were just rockstars, even if they didn’t mean to be (Camus sure did, hehe).