I picked up some Nietzsche and am disappointed. I don't write this to annoy any Nietszsche fans, but only to air my own frustrations. But his writing is like "I I I I I me me me me me I did this I thought this and us philosophers are like a golden tree from which the precise fruit of truth must not be hidden by the leaves of lies". He doesn't say anything interesting and his mixing of poetry and philosophy is just annoying. Also, his ideas, even when read very liberally and considering multiple interpretations, are full of holes and based on stories and random hypotheticals and thought experiments that probably made sense in his head.No offense to him or his fans, he is not around to defend himself against my shallow and limp accusations nor would he care to if he were, I'm sure.
I used to think this board was dead. I still think it’s dead, but I used to too.
>>24956156I assume you disagree with this thread's premise, would you like to discuss why?
>>24956143It sounds like you're reading Ecce Homo? If so, it's a decent start only for the section where he tells you the roles of his books in his thought, and their intention, but it's less decent an intro on account of his style. A few things to observe on that. He uses a lot of exaggeration for humor, which tends to get missed or intentionally ignored. He exaggerates also for the rhetorical purpose of drawing attention to things. And he doesn't think philosophy as theoria is real. Philosophy isn't just reducible to poetry for him, but a great deal of it is, in his view, absolutely poetic, and what that means can more easily be spelled out by seeing what he says about other authors (especially the Pre-Socratics), value creation, and the subject of both truth and the will to truth.
>>24956159I'm reading On the Genealogy of Morals and Ecce Homo, so yeah I think you're right.Not thinking that philosophy as theoria is real is fine by me but his artistry is still annoying and gets in the way. For someone who claims to care about being precise he spends a long time on vague metaphors and thought experiments that could be interpreted in hundreds of ways. Thank you for your response and the information.
>>24956163I don't know offhand what you have in mind about precision (I'm guessing something from the Genealogy?), but if you adjust your expectations with it in mind that he's open to making shit up for the sake of dealing with modern problems, he's easier (and kinda more fun) to take in. To modify myself somewhat, I think his suspicion is that theoria isn't really at bottom different from poesis. Hence, "proper philosophy" is both an invention (instead of a discovery) and an act of will of this or that philosopher to exert themselves on others.
>>24956170To be honest I think that's his artsy-fartsy self's cope. Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands. The precision thing was actually something Kaufmann the translator said about him.
>>24956173>To be honest I think that's his artsy-fartsy self's cope. Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands.I mean, it's your right to be uncharitable, but he was a trained philologist who was wolfing down books on physics by Friedrich Lange and Robert Boscovich. It's not something he came to flippantly.
>>24956193>Robert BoscovichSorry, *Roger Boscovich
>>24956143bapfags on suicide watch funny sight
>>24956143filtered
>>24956193I can completely appreciate that he has a wealth of study and knowledge and has done more thought and research on an infinity of subjects than me, but at the same time think that he writes drivel.>>24956199bap?>>24956208Rather than me being filtered being a reflection of who I am, it's more that his writing filtering me means that his writing didn't live up to a standard - that's an alternative way to think about it, at least.
>>24956143>He doesn't say anything interesting and his mixing of poetry and philosophy is just annoying. Also, his ideas, even when read very liberally and considering multiple interpretations, are full of holes and based on stories and random hypotheticals and thought experiments that probably made sense in his head.you're unironically an atheist or some other flavour of autist. if you don't understand christianity or 19th century continental thought/ society then no shit you're not going to get how revolutionary his system was. this was written in the same era as dickens and oliver twist
>>24956173>Of course no one is asking for literal axiomatic logic in 100% of your writing but he's just inventing excuses to let being hand-wavey be okay as long as you're holding flowers in your hands.yeah, an autist. back to russell and frege with you, though i doubt you've read frege desu
>>24956229I love dickens, but regardless of how revolutionary his system WAS, I'm criticizing it based on my knowledge and mindset as a 21st century person.>>24956231So saying that I don't need 100% logic but I don't like people being hand-wavey = autistic? Okay, I'm proudly autistic then.
>>24956234*Nietzsche's system was
>>24956211>it's more that his writing filtering me means that his writing didn't live up to a standard>OH MY GOD NIETZSCHE DIDN'T PROVIDE ANY PEER REVIEWED SOURCES OR EVIDENCE FOR HIS BELIEFS!!! i have genuinely no idea which philosophers you have read. hume? a smattering of aristotle? certainly not schopenhauer. i don't know why you randomly decided to read nietzsche and then say "WOW THIS IRRATIONALIST ISN'T VERY RATIONAL, WHAT WOULD THOMAS LOCKE SAY!!!">>24956234>regardless of how revolutionary his system WAS, I'm criticizing it based on my knowledge and mindset as a 21st century person.that's arbitrary and fucking stupid because 99% of what he was saying was a response to the prevailing thought of his day. obviously if you are completely ignorant of philosophy and the ideas he takes contrarian positions against then you will get less than nothing out of him, but the problem is clearly on your end. imagine reading a cultural critic with no understanding of the culture he was critiquing, /lit/ strikes again>So saying that I don't need 100% logic but I don't like people being hand-wavey = autistic? Okay, I'm proudly autistic then.nietzsche expresses positions that are contrary to common beliefs of the time and also build on positions he established in earlier books (which you haven't read). why are you reading ecce homo before BGE? before twilight of the idols? what is this nonsense
