Subject:

Comments:
: Dear Dariush, : Please allow me to address your arguments point by point. : : 1)I have started to doubt Nietzsche, and have found many errors and faults in his writings, or to quote Nietzsche himself in BGE 6 "It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy has hitherto been:...intentions in every philosphy have every time consistuted the real germ of life out of which the entire plant has grown." : -- Yes, Nietzsche's philosophy is also a "personal confession", but this fact is not an objection to a philosophy. One must recognise in order to understand N that he was one of the very first philosophers to deny that the good and the true should necessarily be the same thing. Please consult BGE 4 or A 58 for further reading on this. : : 2)Does Nietzsche not himself claim in the same book (BGE 16) that there are no 'immediate certainties' such as Schopenhauer's "I will", Kant's "thing in itself" and Descartes "I think" but at the same time want us to believe HIS 'truth': the will to power, the Overman, the eternal reoccurrence? : -- N's critique of foundationalism (the belief in 'immediate certainties')is essentially a critique of pure reason, rather similar to that of Kant's. What one must realise is that the doctrine's of his philosophy are not based on pure reason, but instead require a faith in order to be affirmed. This point is well emphasised in Twilight, where N defines what the term 'Dionysian' means to him. The closing stages of GS, if my memory serves me correctly, also states that his philosophy is also based on a faith. Again, we return to his refusal to equate 'le bon' with 'la verite'. : : 3) His accusation towards philosophers in genereal - ridicule the stoics for their 'live according to nature', yet de facto steal their 'eternal reocorrence' notion and base your own 'will to power' and Overman concept on Dawin's (which is at bottom stoicism mixed with empirism a posteiori) theories! : -- The fact that N approves of some of the ideas of the Stoics whilst mocking others does not amount to a contracidtion. Rather, it reflects his sophisticated worlview which refuses to see things in terms of opposites, such as good and evil, or right and wrong. : : 4)His metaphysical critique - substitute the general Platonic-Christian notion of a 'better more perfect world' with his own - 'better and more perfect man', i.e. his Overman concept, which is metaphysical in the sense that it can neither be proved nor disapproved and that it is 'beyond'. What does he base this Overman on? Certainly not anything except a metaphysicians 'inspiration' or is it perhaps ocular evidence? And he has the nerve to call this the end of metaphysics, HAH! How much personal timidity this masquerade of a sick recluse betrays. : -- Nietzsche's lamarkian belief in the heridiariness of aquired charateristics is essential to understand his belief in the improvement of man. This belief may be scientifically false, but no philosopher is correct on every point. His ideal of the ubermench is still inspirational, and can be admired on its intention and its awesomeness alone. : : 5) Again he ridicules Kant in BGE 11 but uses Kant's critique of sensualism on the very next page (BGE 14)! What does this tell you of a man that claim to have 'cleansed my mind of 2000 years of garbage' ? : Agreeing with someone on some points and disagreeing on others has already been adressed. : : 6) Dionysian/Appolonian - Why does he himself who teaches us that a philosophy is 'doomed as soon as it starts to believe in itself' insist with growing fanatism for every year the Dionysian attributes only? Was he so blind or so unaware of himself? Why didn't he rather argue for a balance of the two, a Daoist Ying/Yang, an Aristotelean 'golden mean', a 7 year olds plus(+) and minus(-)? : -- this is not clear : : : : Now that he have so easily seen through him, seen him as he really is; innocent, childish and dishonest, that he contradicts himself and his own claims we should examine the reasons why he was such an obvious imbecill? : : Personally I am inclined towards the syphilis theory as an explanation to his insanity and stupid ramblings, although I know most of you would not agree with me. I have a new theory though, that he himself did not get infected through ual but that he inherited it from his mother through the placenta (remember his father had similar symptoms). As is the case with syphilis, it is somewhere after about 30 years that the victim reaches the tertiary state, at which neurosyphilis can cause insanity, memory loss, delusions, disorientation and so forth. : : Reason 1) Syphilis can cause all of the mentioned illnesses that Nietzsche suffered from childhood, including the frequently mentioned eye problems. : : : : Reason 2) On July 24, 1876, at 32 years of age, (remember the mentioned time for tertiary syphilis onset was 30 years) he arrived in the city of Bayreuth to attend a festival. He experienced "a profound estrangement from all that surrounded me...It was as if I had been dreaming...'Where was I?' I recognized nothing. I hardly recognized Wagner ." (His mentor and close friend.) (Ecce Homo, pp. 90-91) Nietzsche goes on to describe how he left, went to a forest retreat, sent a curt telegram to Wagner which ended their relationship, and withdrew from the world. Isolated from other humans, he spent months splitting his mind apart and clearing it of "ten years of a trash of dusty scholarship." : : : : Dariush : -- one can speculate endlessly on the causes of his breakdown. to me its not so important. : Leon

Optional Link URL:
Link Title:
Optional Image URL: