Today class was canceled (Hope you feel better soon, Rein!).
I wasn't sure what to write about since we only had class one day this week.
I did some reading on Wikipedia to give more more background on Nietzsche.
I found a page on Master-Slave Morality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master-slave_morality
The way I think about it, that is the crux of what he is discussing in the first section.
The conflict between these two "moral systems" explains much of society for Nietzsche.
Personally, I don't understand how he went on living believing what he thought and believing what he believed.
Friday, March 28, 2008
Monday, March 24, 2008
Nietzsche (NOT!)
Class was canceled today, but I'm still trying to get back into my routine of posting at least twice a week.
Whenever I hear about Nietzsche, I think of the Monty Python sketch with the Philosopher's Drinking Song, here reproduced for your reading pleasure:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
LOL! Gives me a chuckle every time!
Oh, and Rein, if you're reading this, don't think I wasted my time off since class was canceled today!
There wasn't a moment I didn't spend (hardly!) working!
I hope you feel better and that every thing works out (and starts smelling better! Yikes!).
Hope the little song helped cheer you up a bit!
Whenever I hear about Nietzsche, I think of the Monty Python sketch with the Philosopher's Drinking Song, here reproduced for your reading pleasure:
Immanuel Kant was a real piss-ant who was very rarely stable.
Heideggar, Heideggar was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table.
David Hume could out-consume Wilhelm Freidrich Hegel.
And Whittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as sloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nieizsche couldn't teach 'ya 'bout the raising of the wrist.
Socrates, himself, was permanently pissed.
John Stewart Mill, of his own free will, after half a pint of shanty was particularly ill.
Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day!
Aristotle, Aristotle was a bugger for the bottle,
And Hobbes was fond of his Dram.
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart:
"I drink, therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker, but a bugger when he's pissed.
LOL! Gives me a chuckle every time!
Oh, and Rein, if you're reading this, don't think I wasted my time off since class was canceled today!
There wasn't a moment I didn't spend (hardly!) working!
I hope you feel better and that every thing works out (and starts smelling better! Yikes!).
Hope the little song helped cheer you up a bit!
Thursday, March 20, 2008
Nietzsche
For Friday's class, we read Nietzsche's Preface and the First Essay of On the Genealogy of Morals.
I don't know. I've read (parts of) some of his other work, and I don't think it was as interesting as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Every time I read Nietzsche, I feel depressed. I suppose it's the nihilism more than anything else. Being slapped in the face with the supposed sheer meaninglessness of it all isn't particularly enlightening to me.
Now, what I do like about Nietzsche is his willingness to be candid and question everything.
Personally, I don't think getting an objective viewpoint requires nihilism at all.
The way he goes about it is silly to me. On pages 46-48 he gives a dialogue that, while stylistically interesting (though that may be just as much the work of the translator), is inconsistent overall. As he reduces "selfless" morality into just another kind of "control-seeking," he never turns his analysis back to himself or his own endeavors. What is their value if there is no true standard, no method of judgment that has any basis outside of human selfishness?
I guess this is why I'm not a nihilist. I really don't think it makes someone any more objective. All this hopeless and destruction of values would just make me want to stop living.
I don't know. I've read (parts of) some of his other work, and I don't think it was as interesting as Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
Every time I read Nietzsche, I feel depressed. I suppose it's the nihilism more than anything else. Being slapped in the face with the supposed sheer meaninglessness of it all isn't particularly enlightening to me.
Now, what I do like about Nietzsche is his willingness to be candid and question everything.
Personally, I don't think getting an objective viewpoint requires nihilism at all.
The way he goes about it is silly to me. On pages 46-48 he gives a dialogue that, while stylistically interesting (though that may be just as much the work of the translator), is inconsistent overall. As he reduces "selfless" morality into just another kind of "control-seeking," he never turns his analysis back to himself or his own endeavors. What is their value if there is no true standard, no method of judgment that has any basis outside of human selfishness?
I guess this is why I'm not a nihilist. I really don't think it makes someone any more objective. All this hopeless and destruction of values would just make me want to stop living.
Monday, March 17, 2008
More Darwin
Today in class we talked more about the Darwin and Paley readings. Rein asked us more about why we thought evolution remains controversial to this day. I said it had a lot to do with the fact that, at least in some peoples' minds, "reducing" people to animals subjected to the forces of nature just like any other can wreak havoc with systems of morality and ethics, especially religiously based ones. This not to say one cannot have both evolution and traditional morality. Quite the contrary, all it takes is reanalysis and reinterpretation. One may even say one's beliefs would be stronger for it.
Thursday, March 6, 2008
Long Time, No Post
Yeah, I haven't posted in about 3 weeks. Time has just not permitted. Today, we started talking about the reading on Darwin. I got up early this morning to read everything, and then most people in class hadn't even read it. So, discussion was kind of pointless even though Rein tried to sir up thought on why evolution is so controversial. Personally, I never saw much controversial about it. There's no part of it that denies the existence of God, and there are many interpretations of religious texts that are fully compatible with evolution.
Tonight we also saw a movie about lions and hyenas as an example of Darwinian competition. Overall, I think it did a good job, but I still thought several parts were a bit gruesome (though definitely less gruesome than it could have been).
Tonight we also saw a movie about lions and hyenas as an example of Darwinian competition. Overall, I think it did a good job, but I still thought several parts were a bit gruesome (though definitely less gruesome than it could have been).
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)