Reader feedback: Nietzsche's influence

[James Kidd]

In the September issue, Donald DeMarco shows how one man--Friedrich Nietzsche--so influenced modern philosophy that the echoes of his thought can still be heard reverberating today.

Where have you witnessed Nietzschean influence in today's society? Where have you found Nietzsche's ideas and themes in government, the media, family life, etc.?

[CarlosG]

I didn't read the article but ill give it a shot (hopefully im not too off-base here).

I believe that while Nietzsche is said to be father of post-modernism, it is more of an influence of Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard that I see in our relativistic society. What Nietzsche says simply follows from their philosophy.

[dosdog]

Originally Posted by CarlosG

I didn't read the article but ill give it a shot (hopefully im not too off-base here).

I believe that while Nietzsche is said to be father of post-modernism, it is more of an influence of Kant, Hegel, and Kierkegaard that I see in our relativistic society. What Nietzsche says simply follows from their philosophy.

From 1880 until his collapse in January 1889, Nietzsche led a wandering, gypsy-like existence as a "stateless" person .On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life .Kant's critique of metaphysics in general, and attracted Nietzsche's interest in its view that metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.Nietzsche became especially influential in French philosophical circles during the 1960's-1980's, when his "God is dead" declaration, his perspectivism, and his emphasis upon power as the real motivator and explanation for people's actions revealed new ways to challenge established authority and launch effective social critique.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

[CarlosG]

Originally Posted by dosdog

From 1880 until his collapse in January 1889, Nietzsche led a wandering, gypsy-like existence as a "stateless" person .On the morning of January 3, 1889, while in Turin, Nietzsche experienced a mental breakdown which left him an invalid for the rest of his life .Kant's critique of metaphysics in general, and attracted Nietzsche's interest in its view that metaphysical speculation is an expression of poetic illusion.Nietzsche became especially influential in French philosophical circles during the 1960's-1980's, when his "God is dead" declaration, his perspectivism, and his emphasis upon power as the real motivator and explanation for people's actions revealed new ways to challenge established authority and launch effective social critique.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Hi dosdog, im not arguing that he wasnt influential at all, but that he was simply a conclusion of something that Kant and Hegel started, namely the ultimate subjectivity and unknowability of truth. I run across these notions far more in everyday conversations that someone who believes his will alone is enough justify his actions (yes this is a severe simplification of Neitzsches philosophy but its certainly not totally off-base).

[dosdog]

Originally Posted by CarlosG

Hi dosdog, im not arguing that he wasnt influential at all, but that he was simply a conclusion of something that Kant and Hegel started, namely the ultimate subjectivity and unknowability of truth. I run across these notions far more in everyday conversations that someone who believes his will alone is enough justify his actions (yes this is a severe simplification of Neitzsches philosophy but its certainly not totally off-base).

A lot of that may come from College Psych courses.http://www.nypl.org/research/chss/gr...des/nietzsche/
Forgotten Fatherland: The Search for Elisabeth Nietzsche -Amazon.com Sales Rank: #574,266 in Books
From Library Journal
In 1886, Nietzsche's sister, Elisabeth, together with her husband, Bernhard Foerster, and 14 German families, founded a colony in Paraguay that they christened "Nueva Germania." Their purpose was to escape a fatherland they believed to be in serious decline and to live in a place where their beliefs--anti-Semitism, vegetarianism, nationalism, and Lutheranism--could flourish.
From Publishers Weekly
Elisabeth, who returned to Germany in 1893, grafted her anti-Semitic, nationalist ideas onto her brother Friedrich's philosophy, building a mythic cult around him. Elisabeth later became a mentor to Hitler

[Chancellare]

Most students of philosophy would argue that Nietzsche's influence was on the post modernism and existantialism that dominated European thinking in the waning years of the 19th century and in the emergence of Nazism during the early 20th century. Many, though, argued that it was the Nazis who hijacked his works to justify their propaganda motives for creating the Ubermensch (superman) concept.

Another controversial concept was his theory on godless morality. This was popularized in 1966 when Time magazine published its April issue entitled "Is God Dead?", featuring Nietzsche's work entitled "The gay Science" wherein he explained that man can only be free to explore his potentials if he relinquish his belief in God. Thus it paved the way to expanding secular thinking and relativism in Europe further on.

But due to the paradoxical style of his writings, it is difficult to ascribe in definite terms his influence without the possibility of wrong interpretation. Hence many writers and movements could have hijacked his thoughts to suit their ends. A sampling:
According to Nietzche, the death of God is a way of saying that humans are no longer able to believe in any such cosmic order since they themselves no longer recognize it. The death of God will lead, Nietzsche says, not only to the rejection of a belief of cosmic or physical order but also to a rejection of absolute values themselves — to the rejection of belief in an objective and universal moral law, binding upon all individuals. In this manner, the loss of an absolute basis for morality leads to nihilism. This nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which most Christians refuse to look.

Nietzsche believed that the majority of people did not recognize (or refused to acknowledge) this death out of the deepest-seated fear or angst. Therefore, when the death did begin to become widely acknowledged, people would despair and nihilism would become rampant, as well as the relativistic belief that human will is a law unto itself—anything goes and all is permitted. This is partly why Nietzsche saw Christianity as nihilistic. To Nietzsche, nihilism is the consequence of any idealistic philosophical system, because all idealisms suffer from the same weakness as Christian morality—that there is no "foundation" to build on. He therefore describes himself as "a 'subterranean man' at work, one who tunnels and mines and undermines."[2]

As to how he concluded that Christianity is "nihilistic" via his syllogism, escapes me. Unless he said it as a paradox...

[ABostonCatholic]

The (mis)interpretations of Nietzsche are just as important as what he actually said.

Most people who read Nietzsche are familiar with Thus Spake Zarathustra, and his piece from The Gay Science called "The Madman" where he proclaims that God is dead. Both of these works, and most, if not all, of his corpus is antichristian (dont forget that he even wrote a book called "The Antichrist")

In "On the Genealogy of Morals" he describes the birth of Christianity as coming from resentment. The basis of all religion is the resentment of one another, whereas Christianity more specifically is the resentment of this world in favor of another.

Nietzsche thought that we could remake the world in our image, we could define what we believe to be good and evil-as a society. I see Nietzsches influence in our society remaining due to Sartre, who took Nietzsche a step farther, and said that , since there is no absolute good or evil, we as individuals define it for ourselves, and therefore no one can commit any wrong. I can, however, judge someone elses actions as evil because I consider it evil, but it is meaningless unless they agree that it is evil, which they are under no moral obligation to do so. If there is anything that is actually good in and of itself, it is choice. It doesnt matter what that choice is, however. (Sound familiar?)

[gam197]

"The gay Science" wherein he explained that man can only be free to explore his potentials if he relinquish his belief in God

I am trying to understand this. Nietzsche says we can only achieve our potential without God. He wants God dead? God thwarts us. Did he say "God is the opium of the poor." So God is a crutch. If you take God away people will rely on themselves. Take away Christians resentment and they will live in "the now"

his nihilism is what Nietzsche worked to find a solution for by re-evaluating the foundations of human values. This meant, to Nietzsche, looking for foundations that went deeper than the Christian values beyond which most Christians refuse to look.

This leads to despair and despair leads to nihilism. We no longer have a foundation. Nietzche believed there was more and was looking for some deeper foundation than Christianity but he had no real answer to nihilism?

Then Sartre adds "man defines good and evil". Man becomes God.

We go from post modernism and existantialism to modernism? to secular thinking and relativism

[Dee Dee King]

Then Sartre adds "man defines good and evil". Man becomes God

stupid. this is what happens when you loose touch of common sense--you end up trapping yourself in an absurdity, a contradiction.

knowledge comes to us from our senses. morality and everything else comes to us from the outside. morality is just conforming ourselves to the reality of goodness. so how can we say "man defines good and evil".

relativism is believing that all we know are ideas. common sense tells us that ideas are by which we know things. fundamentally, being is primary and truth exists outside of us recognizing it or not.

i can't understand how anyone took these insane philosophers seriously.

[Judas O]

Originally Posted by Dee Dee King

i can't understand how anyone took these insane philosophers seriously.

That's because you can't understand the texts that they wrote, if you've even bothered to attempt any of them. People who can don't have such a hard time with it. Nietzsche's sister was one of the people who couldn't, and unfortunately it was the end product of her systematic alteration of his work that a lot of people are most familiar with.

When you've read both Kant and Schopenhauer, understood what an ontology of becoming is, and gained some grasp of what it means to affirm life through the eternal return, then you'll be qualified to critique Nietzsche's ethics. If you aren't willing to go to that much trouble, then just stay out of it.

[gam197]

I agree I oversimplified and don't understand philosophy.I have only read what is on the internet on these philosphers. I am grateful that many people have read these works and are trying to help others get a grasp of it.

I think it is important to me to know what they and others like Voltairre and Rousseau wrote because they greatly influenced our religious culture and still do today.

Most of us barely know who Karl Marx (or Freud ) were and what their philosophies were but we understand that Communism didn't work so we are contend with that shortage of knowledge. We still have to have some knowlegde of it to understand and attack socialism.

knowledge comes to us from our senses. morality and everything else comes to us from the outside. morality is just conforming ourselves to the reality of goodness. so how can we say "man defines good and evil".

relativism is believing that all we know are ideas. common sense tells us that ideas are by which we know things. fundamentally, being is primary and truth exists outside of us recognizing it or not.

Now I will try to understand what you are saying. Know comes to us from our sense. OK

Going away abit here...From Fr. John Laux'sbook "Catholic Morality"...We cannot avoid temptations. Temptations are the incitement to choose some personal satistaction in place of the will of God. They are not sins.They are useful that is why God allows them. Temptations fortify our will. We become aware of our helplesness and learn to cast ourselves with humility and childlike trust into God's arms.When there is conflict a great saint said there is courage,vigiliance,fidelity,,wisdom,prud ence, firmness ardor and endurance.

"The occasion of a temptation is either some external object that falls under under our senses or some stimulus, feeling or emotion within us."But these the corresponding passions or desires are aroused. Since the desires cannot be satisfied without violating our moral duties, a conflict arises in our soul between passion and duty.

"It is precisely this conflict that we call temptation. Our own evil passions are therefore the real source of every temptation
knowledge comes to us from our senses. morality and everything else comes to us from the outside.

"Morality is just conforming ourselves to the reality of goodness.

Can we say man had no absolutes so he makes his own or he decides there are no absolutes?

One real important issue is we lack common sense.. Please don't come back with double stupid. I

[cpayne]

Originally Posted by Judas O

That's because you can't understand the texts that they wrote, if you've even bothered to attempt any of them. People who can don't have such a hard time with it. Nietzsche's sister was one of the people who couldn't, and unfortunately it was the end product of her systematic alteration of his work that a lot of people are most familiar with.

When you've read both Kant and Schopenhauer, understood what an ontology of becoming is, and gained some grasp of what it means to affirm life through the eternal return, then you'll be qualified to critique Nietzsche's ethics. If you aren't willing to go to that much trouble, then just stay out of it.

First, an observation, then a response to James Kidd's original query.

Here's the (ad hominem) observation. Of all the supercilious, priggish comments I've read, this one was monumental. Breathtaking, almost. A Chestertonian response might be something like: Even people who aren't trained in discussing the ontology of becoming can recognize philosophical humbug when they see it. (Like that of Nietzsche, I mean, to spell it out.)

Anyways--here's the response to Kidd's original query on Nietzsche's contemporary influence: Even if indirectly, he is extraordinarily influential. IMHO, his most lasting influence lies in the realm of his analysis of human nature. Like Schopenhauer, he rejects rationality as the keynote of humanity, preferring "instinct" (which he says is always good and right) or "passion" or "will." Just ask around--I teach at a junior college, so I get to ask a lot of young people this question: "What is more likely to be 'the real you,' your rational nature or your passions and desires?" Over 90% go with the passions and desires. We see this played out in debates over gay marriage, for example: One side argues that gay marriage is "right" for them because they recognize the passionate desire for it within themselves. "This is how God made me." The other side, Thomist in fact if not always in name, argues that the rational nature, our real nature, will always stubbornly oppose anything contra naturem: "No, God made you rational so you could obey His commands rather than give in to your passionate desires." This is one reason Nietzsche thought of Christianity as "anti-nature" and "life-denying"--he had a different view of the "nature" Christianity affirms. Christianity argues that our passions and desires are not our true nature, and hence it is not "life-denying" to fight against them.

When I pointed out to a professor I once had, who was enamored of Nietzsche, several quotes from Aquinas and the Bible showing that Christianity was not "anti-nature," he said, "Well, maybe technically you are right, but Nietzsche had a great intuition into the deep psychology of Christianity." I guess if you ignore what actual Christians actually wrote about what they believed, you can get by on your "intuitions" of what you think Christianity says.

[cpayne]

Okay, the opening paragraph of my previous post was probably uncharitable. My apologies.

[Judas O]

Originally Posted by cpayne

Even people who aren't trained in discussing the ontology of becoming can recognize philosophical humbug when they see it. (Like that of Nietzsche, I mean, to spell it out.)

But how could you be qualified to call it philosophical humbuggery if you don't understand the basis of it? Comments stemming from some preconceived notion of what the revealed truth is or the nature of "being as primary" aren't valid criticisms. You have to know what you're dismissing.

You can't really understand Nietzsche without reading Schopenhauer, and Schopenhauer called himself a Kantian. That's why I singled out Kant and Schopenhauer. They both had a great influence on Nietzsche and are referenced by him many times. I don't see how you could condescend to judge Nietzsche without knowing what he was responding to and what the reasons for his response were. It reminds me of creationists who say "I am not the son of a monkey" and etc.

I'm not a Nietzschean or anything, but it should be obvious that there is 6x arrogance in dismissing an idea you haven't properly learned than there is in telling someone to learn it properly before they dismiss it.

[cpayne]

Actually, you are probably correct in saying Schopenhauer is a necessary preliminary to Nietzsche. What I was objecting to, primarily, was the tone of your previous post. However, reading back over my own post, I realize my own tone was not warranted, either. As I said earlier (sincerely), my apologies.