• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.
  • To post you need to register an account and await approval. Click Here to sign up!

Lectures on the Works of Freidrich Nietzsche

Toby Carlton-Hogge

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Jun 10, 2017
Messages
747
Likes
173
Points
43
Location
Bunker 19
#3
Sorry Timmy, taking a crap, I’m sure they are riveting, but hey...had to spool out a bunch of links.

will take a look tomorrow, after the load settles .
 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#4
You haven't a clue about Nietzsche or the man's philosophy.

You're a showboating spoofer.
 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#5
I'll have to start my own thread on Nietzsche some day.

This won't do.

Nietzsche championed the individual and the vast multiplicity of personalities in man.

He was a perspectivist, not a Platonist, one size-fits-all collectivist b***sh1tter.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,585
Likes
19,126
Points
313
#6
This is an extremely well made three part BBC series. It's a new series and I don't think this will stay up long on You Tube, so watch it as soon as you can.

Although Marx, Nietzsche and Freud are quite different in their thinking, they are usually studied together, as they each, in their own way, exploded the cosy idiocy of bourgeois Europe and North America. The word "idiot" comes from a Greek word for a man who is private and individual and not part of the human collective of his city and nation. And indeed, individualism is the idea of an idiot. This idiocy finds its zenith in the brain disease of Anglo-Saxon capitalism - and in keeping with idiocy, the chief idiot of Anglo-Saxon idiocy is not at all an Anglo-Saxon, but the Jew.

Genius of the Modern World Historian Bettany Hughes retraces the lives of three great thinkers whose ideas shaped the modern world - Karl Marx, Frederick Nietzsche and Sigmund Freud.



 
Last edited:

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#7
There is no nobility in the forced, collectivist sludge of Marxism; the metastasised leftovers of the French revolution that Napoloen failed to cauterise.

Nietzsche was all about the idea of morality being the perspective of a particular people, in a particular time, in a particular place.

He was about perspectivism and individuation.

Thank Zeus most truely insightful people actually get it.

 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#9
Carl Jung deserves a thread of his own. But as a student of Nietzsche (although he never met the man), he deserves a mention; certainly more than the charlatan Freud.

 

Plasticpaddy

Respected Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 23, 2016
Messages
1,625
Likes
867
Points
113
#10
I feel that a puny,fragile human being cannot be a superman,and to think otherwise is just fantasy.
 
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,585
Likes
19,126
Points
313
#11
I feel that a puny,fragile human being cannot be a superman,and to think otherwise is just fantasy.

Well, he's talking about the man who can look the absolute nihilism of Liberal Capitalism in the face without shriveling up in horror, even become a nihilist himself, and yet transcend that nihilism in himself and all around him. These will be the Ubermenschen, the Supermen. Not some silly individual on his own playing at philosophizing and self assertion (that's a paltry Liberal), or even individually sacrificing himself for some great cause, but a new order of beings - the Dionysian Collective. Nietzsche writes - "There must be many Ubermenschen." Marx also saw this new order of beings, but as the Collective of the Revolutionary Proletariat. Heidegger says that beings are not enough - what's needed is a new beginning of Being itself. I'd say that all of them are correct and we need to achieve all of what they foresaw if we are to live as genuine human beings.
 
Last edited:
OP
OP
Tadhg Gaelach

Tadhg Gaelach

Legend
Political Irish
Donator
Joined
Jan 14, 2016
Messages
23,585
Likes
19,126
Points
313
#12
Some may object that Nietzsche glorified slave owning societies and had nothing but contempt for pity. But if you really look at what he was getting at, there is a valid point. He was contemptuous of the Socialists of his day, as he felt that they wanted to bring all of society down to the level of the most wretched. Ironically, it was not the Socialists who ended up doing that, but the Capitalists. High art was more or less scrapped over the last hundred years in Europe, and everything reduced to the lowest common denominator - not out of pity for the uneducated to be sure - but because it's simply more profitable. I don't think that Nietzsche wanted the poor to starve, but he didn't want to turn them into social welfare junkies either - which has now happened to tens of millions of people in Europe. Again not so much through the work of the Socialists as the Capitalists - who want to sideline huge sections of the community and keep them safely docile. Nietzsche didn't live to see that happen, but he did seem to have a presentiment that it would happen. And let's accept the fact that even the greats of philosophy go through periods of just saying and thinking weird things that are just wrong. Sadly, certain people will zoom in on the silly stuff - particularly if it suits their own foibles. As Marx said, the point of philosophy is to change the world, and change can only come through action. Perhaps the most famous action of Nietzsche's whole life, and his last as a sane man, was when he saw a sick horse lying on the street being flogged by its owner. He threw himself across the animal to protect it from the whip, with floods of tears flowing down his face. If we would all do as much, what a better world this would be.
 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#13
Well, he isn't talking about bulging muscles. He's talking about the man who can look the absolute nihilism of Liberal Capitalism in the face without shriveling up in horror, even become a nihilist himself, and yet transcend that nihilism in himself and all around him. These will be the Ubermenschen, the Supermen. Not some silly individual on his own playing at philosophizing and self assertion (that's a paltry Liberal), or even individually sacrificing himself for some great cause, but a new order of beings - the Dionysian Collective. Marx also saw this new order of beings, but as the Collective of the Revolutionary Proletariat. Heidegger says that beings are not enough - what's needed is a new beginning of Being itself. I'd say that all of them are correct and we need to achieve all of what they foresaw if we are to live as genuine human beings.
Utter claptrap. The central plank of Nietzsche's philosophy was his perspectivism.

The normative aspect of his philosophy was all about individual striving; becoming fully who you are.

And he utterly despised collectivism. Was he a liberal? No.
If he could be pinned down politically, I'd say he was in favour of a sort of decentralised neo-feudalism. He was unapologetically elitist, although not in a conventional sense.

He was no fan of any sort of collectivism. He even went as far as renouncing his Prussian citizenship FFS!

11. The New Idol

"Somewhere there are still peoples and herds, but not with us, my brethren: here there are states.
A state? What is that? Well! open now your ears unto me, for now will I say unto you my word concerning the death of peoples.
A state, is called the coldest of all cold monsters. Coldly lieth it also; and this lie creepeth from its mouth: "I, the state, am the people."
It is a lie!"
 
Last edited:

SwordOfStCatherine

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
6,054
Likes
7,156
Points
313
#14
Carl Jung deserves a thread of his own. But as a student of Nietzsche (although he never met the man), he deserves a mention; certainly more than the charlatan Freud.
What is your problem with Freud? "Moses and Monotheism" and "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" are brilliant.
 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#15
Some may object that Nietzsche glorified slave owning societies and had nothing but contempt for pity. But if you really look at what he was getting at, there is a valid point. He was contemptuous of the Socialists of his day, as he felt that they wanted to bring all of society down to the level of the most wretched. Ironically, it was not the Socialists who ended up doing that, but the Capitalists. High art was more or less scrapped over the last hundred years in Europe, and everything reduced to the lowest common denominator - not out of pity for the uneducated to be sure - but because it's simply more profitable. I don't think that Nietzsche wanted the poor to starve, but he didn't want to turn them into social welfare junkies either - which has now happened to tens of millions of people in Europe.
He probably would've seen helping the poor as an aristocratic duty. But pity wouldn't be the motivating factor.
 

Heraclitus

Member
Political Irish
Joined
Mar 31, 2017
Messages
964
Likes
332
Points
63
Location
Dublin
#16
What is your problem with Freud? "Moses and Monotheism" and "Beyond the Pleasure Principle" are brilliant.
He was overly focused on sex and concocted some of the most bizarre, unfalsifiable theories. He was taken seriously for way too long.

Jung made unfalsifiable claims to, but there was a far far greater depth and profundity to his output than that of Freuds.

In memories dreams and reflections, Jung had this to say about Freud:

"There was nothing to be done about this one-sidedness of Freud's. Perhaps some inner experience of his own migth have opened his eyes; but then his intellect would have reduced any such experience to "mere sexuality" or "psychosexuality." He remained the victim of the one aspect he couldn't recognise."
 

SwordOfStCatherine

Legend
Political Irish
Joined
Oct 30, 2015
Messages
6,054
Likes
7,156
Points
313
#17
He was overly focused on sex and concocted some of the most bizarre, unfalsifiable theories. He was taken seriously for way too long.

Jung made unfalsifiable claims to, but there was a far far greater depth and profundity to his output than that of Freuds.

In memories dreams and reflections, Jung had this to say about Freud:

"There was nothing to be done about this one-sidedness of Freud's. Perhaps some inner experience of his own migth have opened his eyes; but then his intellect would have reduced any such experience to "mere sexuality" or "psychosexuality." He remained the victim of the one aspect he couldn't recognise."
I thought you would hate Jung due to your militant atheism?