Nietzsche

[theBruiser500]

Assuming that truth is a woman-what then? Is there not reason to suspect that all philosphers, in so far as they were dogmatists, have known very little about women? That if their aim was to charm a female, they have been especailly inepet and inapt in making advances to truth with such awful seriousness and clumsy insistence? One thing is certain: she has not let herself be charmed.

[Popinjay]

Huh? Do I have to read some book to understand this post?

[nothumb]

I'm having a hard time recalling this one.

NT

[PhatTBoll]

[ QUOTE ]
Is there not reason to suspect that all philosphers...have known very little about women?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that's pretty reasonable.

[Popinjay]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Is there not reason to suspect that all philosphers...have known very little about women?

[/ QUOTE ]

I'd say that's pretty reasonable.

[/ QUOTE ]

True, Socrates and co. got off by rubbing their dicks in the inner thighs of boys.

[theBruiser500]

Just an excerpt from the beginning of Beyond Good and Evil, I thought it was quite amusing.

[nothumb]

Ok, that's where it's from. I don't have that book on my shelf.

What's funny is that Nietzsche also struggled so much with the love of his life and by all accounts was an utter failure with the ladies as well.

NT

[sam h]

Some people say Nietzsche caught syphilus from a whore while losing his virginity. I'm sure that was charming.

[AngryCola]

[ QUOTE ]
Some people say Nietzsche caught syphilus from a whore while losing his virginity. I'm sure that was charming.

[/ QUOTE ]

It was when it happened to me.

[thatpfunk]

Nietzsche was obsessed with women however had absolutely no skills. He was taken to a whore house by his friends to lose his virginity and ended up leaving at a full sprint. The man was very bright, but not exactly socially stable.

[Scotch78]

Convictions are greater enemies of truth than lies.

Truths are illusions about which we have forgotten that this is what they are.

Can't remember which book(s) they are from, but both are Nietzsche.

Scott

[theBruiser500]

Nietzche people, I've read many quotes from him that I liked a lot, but then I tried reading Thus Spoke Zartathusa or some book like that but couldn't get past the first couple of pages. Any suggestions on something more readable for me?

[Al Mirpuri]

Jean Paul Sartre had a "regular squeeze" in Simone De Beauvoir and countless other women during their decades long open relationship.

[Al Mirpuri]

"That which does not kill you, makes you stronger" is also from Nietzsche.

[Al Mirpuri]

Nietzsche is Nietzsche, inimitable.

If you want to read some other philosopher then tell me what ails you and I will make a recommendation.

[Scotch78]

I found Zarathustra to be an easy, enjoyable read, so I'm not sure what you found difficult about it. What translation were you using? As to other books . . . several of my non-philosophically oriented friends read some book with "Hammer" in the title and really liked it. I got the feeling it was something of a beginner's primer for Nietzsche. My personal recommendation would be Viking Press' Portable Nietzsche, though.

Scott

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
If you want to read some other philosopher then tell me what ails you and I will make a recommendation.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree completely. Good philosophy speaks to the soul as well as the mind, and that is a very individual matter. Give us some idea of what interests and/or troubles you and hopefully Al or I can steer you to something rewarding.

Scott

[theBruiser500]

Thnaks guys, I just picked up Portable Nietzche and Beyong Good and Evil. So I will try this out and report back if I have problems.

[Scotch78]

Sounds good. Feel free to PM if you have any small questions along the way.

Scott

[MrFeelNothin]

would it be........Twilight of the Idols, (alternate title: How to Philosophize With a Hammer.) I read this in a PG class along with The Anti-Christ. I am not philosophically inclined and I had a hard time wrapping my head around what he was saying, but once I got a handle on it, I really enjoyed it. Definitely my favorite philosopher now.

[peachy]

u have to remember...women were very beneath men in the times of most great philosophers, giving the few exceptions of when prostutes become the great muses of a few great men. Therefore, these men didnt try and "charm" them for the most part, they owned them or envied thier beauty, very rarely did they get to "know" these women! come on now! Even people of recent centuries thought the same way, s PSYCHOLGIST like Freud didnt even have it down - with women not functioning on the superior level that men were on.....

Most men that spoke/wrote in a passionate way about women had relations, for the most part, with both sexes, so maybe they were "more" in touch with thier emotions...who knows

[Ice Man]

[ QUOTE ]
Ok, that's where it's from. I don't have that book on my shelf.

What's funny is that Nietzsche also struggled so much with the love of his life and by all accounts was an utter failure with the ladies as well.

NT

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, he was no sup bro.

[Scotch78]

No, that wasn't it, but you helped me remember the full title. It's Hammer of the Gods. (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1871592461/104-4013954-7199931?v=glance)

Scott

[The once and future king]

Are you visiting women? Dont forget your whip.

[InchoateHand]

I dunno, I think Nietzsche really understood his sister well. Without her, perhaps we would all have to live without the Will to Power today.

[InchoateHand]

If Nietzsche is your favorite, I highly suggest passing over contemporary British and American philosophy in favor of postwar French social theorists.

You might particularly enjoy Foucault. Though not immediately as readable as Nietzsche, Foucault's ideas have a direct genealogical (haha, stupid nerd joke) link back to the former, and his post-1970 works adopt and refine the terminology developed by Nietzsche and under-utilized by his successors. Foucault is one of the only "major" 20th century figures to carry on good old Friedrich's work (with the possible exception of Deleuze). The old line is that Nietzsche is the philosopher of the Death of God, and Foucault is the philosopher of the Death of Man. Despite the fact that "foucault" has become a stand-in for everything ridiculous, snobby and rarefied (aka french), his ideas and analyses are nothing if not thought provoking and readily applicable to the contemporary moment.

[cnfuzzd]

[ QUOTE ]
Foucault's ideas have a direct genealogical

[/ QUOTE ]


i have to admit, i laughed, but only because i was supposed to

peace

john nickle

[Scotch78]

[ QUOTE ]
Though not immediately as readable as Nietzsche

[/ QUOTE ]

Consider yourself nominated for understatement of the year. I can never remember whether it was in The History of Sexuality or The Archaeology of Knowledge , but he had a page long sentence somewhere and I've regularly counted sentences with punctuation marks in the double digits. Nietzsche is easily the most enjoyable read amongst philosophers and Foucault's writing brings to mind a post-modern Kant on amphetamines.

Scott

[InchoateHand]

It probably was in The Archaeology of Knowledge. History of Sexuality (I, not II or III) is in my opinion, one of his most accessible works, except when he anticipates the likely arguments of his potential detractors and expounds on them in such detail that fifteen pages later less than careful readers will have forgotten that all the stuff they are nodding their heads to is the stuff he wants to debunk.

Plus, it is one of the few "A-ha" books that made me say "A-ha, what I intuitively thought was correct is wrong."

The earlier stuff, like The Archaeology, or god forbid, The Order of Things is ridiculously dense, and once you labor through and get a decent grasp of it, you realize that he moved away from many of his position in the archaeologies with the development of his geneaological problematic. (Despite the fact that many of his most fervent groupies try to maintain the easy co-existence of these two "approaches,"--I'm thinking here of Paul Rabinow).

[Al Mirpuri]

To say that a philosopher merely reflected the prejudices of his day is to not say much about the philsopher. The idea is to be ahead of the crowd not amongst it.