Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

Nihilism, Nietzsche and human psychology

Expand Messages
  • iambiguously
    From Thomas Hibbs Shows About Nothing pages 17 and 18 Nietzsche admits that nihilism means that the highest values devalue themselves , that the aim is
    Message 1 of 4 , Oct 2, 2003
      From Thomas Hibbs "Shows About Nothing" pages 17 and 18


      "Nietzsche admits that nihilism means that 'the highest values
      devalue themselves', that the 'aim is lacking' and that 'why? finds
      no answer'"


      Notice here that Hibbs has Nietzsche "admitting" this, as though
      having to grudgingly acknowledge there are things about human
      moral/social/political interactions in a Godless universe that might
      be construed emotionally and psychologically in a disturbing or
      distasteful manner. This mentality pervades Hibbs commentary, in my
      view. He is very good, for example, at articulating Nietzsche's
      philosophy but finds the consequences of it discommitting---as
      though to suggest that, because Nietzsche [and nihilism] make us
      feel very, very uncomfortable at times this, in and of itself, is a
      reason to distance ourselves and our behaviors around others from
      them. Never mind how reasonable the philosophical arguments
      themselves might actually be.

      Hibbs than notes how Nietzsche noted Christian morality as
      "the great antidiote against....nihilism". Which, of course,
      Nietzsche rejects. Instead, "...Nietzsche forges ahead and invites
      the crises as a means of purification, of restoring an 'order of
      rank according to strenght'. We can see here the reemergance of the
      virile, heroic warrior, whose distinguishing mark is a creative and
      courageous boldness, the antithesis....[of the] feminine, Christian
      virtues of humilitiy and sympathy."


      And, just like Pavlov's dogs, we are supposed to read that and, in
      turn, immediately start connecting the appropriate dots: Nietzsche
      leads to nihilism leads to the "will to power" leads to the Uberman
      leads to Hitler leads to the Holocaus; and then, no doubt, to Osama
      bin Laden, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?

      First of all, while I believe Hibbs' account is a more or less
      accurate portrayal of how Nietzsche viewed the moral consequences of
      the Death of God, the Uberman and the "will to power", it is again,
      just one man's opinion and does not necessarily make connecting
      those dots as Hibbs seems to imply they should, the only way they
      CAN be connected. Secondly, it treats Nietzsche's philosophy so as
      to yank it out of the historical and cultural context in which it
      was given birth and nurtured. It would, in my view, be analogous to
      interpreting Marx and the Communist Manifesto without situating them
      historically in the horor and tubulence and inhumanity and brutal
      exploitation of the working classes that unfolded contiguously with
      the Industrial Revolution.


      Biggie
    • Mary Jo Malo
      Biggie, Actually very good apologetics. When we dismiss a philosophical idea, we tend to make assumptions in a way that seems logical only to the dismissive
      Message 2 of 4 , Oct 2, 2003
        Biggie,

        Actually very good apologetics. When we dismiss a philosophical idea, we tend to make assumptions in a way that seems logical only to the dismissive crowd. Having passed through the necessity for the death of god, I often forget it's rite of passage. But I'm so not there anymore.

        Jo

        iambiguously <iambiguously@...> wrote:
        From Thomas Hibbs "Shows About Nothing" pages 17 and 18


        "Nietzsche admits that nihilism means that 'the highest values
        devalue themselves', that the 'aim is lacking' and that 'why? finds
        no answer'"


        Notice here that Hibbs has Nietzsche "admitting" this, as though
        having to grudgingly acknowledge there are things about human
        moral/social/political interactions in a Godless universe that might
        be construed emotionally and psychologically in a disturbing or
        distasteful manner. This mentality pervades Hibbs commentary, in my
        view. He is very good, for example, at articulating Nietzsche's
        philosophy but finds the consequences of it discommitting---as
        though to suggest that, because Nietzsche [and nihilism] make us
        feel very, very uncomfortable at times this, in and of itself, is a
        reason to distance ourselves and our behaviors around others from
        them. Never mind how reasonable the philosophical arguments
        themselves might actually be.

        Hibbs than notes how Nietzsche noted Christian morality as
        "the great antidiote against....nihilism". Which, of course,
        Nietzsche rejects. Instead, "...Nietzsche forges ahead and invites
        the crises as a means of purification, of restoring an 'order of
        rank according to strenght'. We can see here the reemergance of the
        virile, heroic warrior, whose distinguishing mark is a creative and
        courageous boldness, the antithesis....[of the] feminine, Christian
        virtues of humilitiy and sympathy."


        And, just like Pavlov's dogs, we are supposed to read that and, in
        turn, immediately start connecting the appropriate dots: Nietzsche
        leads to nihilism leads to the "will to power" leads to the Uberman
        leads to Hitler leads to the Holocaus; and then, no doubt, to Osama
        bin Laden, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?

        First of all, while I believe Hibbs' account is a more or less
        accurate portrayal of how Nietzsche viewed the moral consequences of
        the Death of God, the Uberman and the "will to power", it is again,
        just one man's opinion and does not necessarily make connecting
        those dots as Hibbs seems to imply they should, the only way they
        CAN be connected. Secondly, it treats Nietzsche's philosophy so as
        to yank it out of the historical and cultural context in which it
        was given birth and nurtured. It would, in my view, be analogous to
        interpreting Marx and the Communist Manifesto without situating them
        historically in the horor and tubulence and inhumanity and brutal
        exploitation of the working classes that unfolded contiguously with
        the Industrial Revolution.


        Biggie






        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Rita Crow
        Actually the translation of meek is misconstrued by most people. It should read flexible, pliable, able to change, adapt.--this would exemplify the warrior,
        Message 3 of 4 , Oct 2, 2003
          Actually the translation of meek is misconstrued by most people. It should read flexible, pliable, able to change, adapt.--this would exemplify the warrior, not the meek somanliness that rigid religious teachings present. Rita

          iambiguously <iambiguously@...> wrote:From Thomas Hibbs "Shows About Nothing" pages 17 and 18


          "Nietzsche admits that nihilism means that 'the highest values
          devalue themselves', that the 'aim is lacking' and that 'why? finds
          no answer'"


          Notice here that Hibbs has Nietzsche "admitting" this, as though
          having to grudgingly acknowledge there are things about human
          moral/social/political interactions in a Godless universe that might
          be construed emotionally and psychologically in a disturbing or
          distasteful manner. This mentality pervades Hibbs commentary, in my
          view. He is very good, for example, at articulating Nietzsche's
          philosophy but finds the consequences of it discommitting---as
          though to suggest that, because Nietzsche [and nihilism] make us
          feel very, very uncomfortable at times this, in and of itself, is a
          reason to distance ourselves and our behaviors around others from
          them. Never mind how reasonable the philosophical arguments
          themselves might actually be.

          Hibbs than notes how Nietzsche noted Christian morality as
          "the great antidiote against....nihilism". Which, of course,
          Nietzsche rejects. Instead, "...Nietzsche forges ahead and invites
          the crises as a means of purification, of restoring an 'order of
          rank according to strenght'. We can see here the reemergance of the
          virile, heroic warrior, whose distinguishing mark is a creative and
          courageous boldness, the antithesis....[of the] feminine, Christian
          virtues of humilitiy and sympathy."


          And, just like Pavlov's dogs, we are supposed to read that and, in
          turn, immediately start connecting the appropriate dots: Nietzsche
          leads to nihilism leads to the "will to power" leads to the Uberman
          leads to Hitler leads to the Holocaus; and then, no doubt, to Osama
          bin Laden, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?

          First of all, while I believe Hibbs' account is a more or less
          accurate portrayal of how Nietzsche viewed the moral consequences of
          the Death of God, the Uberman and the "will to power", it is again,
          just one man's opinion and does not necessarily make connecting
          those dots as Hibbs seems to imply they should, the only way they
          CAN be connected. Secondly, it treats Nietzsche's philosophy so as
          to yank it out of the historical and cultural context in which it
          was given birth and nurtured. It would, in my view, be analogous to
          interpreting Marx and the Communist Manifesto without situating them
          historically in the horor and tubulence and inhumanity and brutal
          exploitation of the working classes that unfolded contiguously with
          the Industrial Revolution.


          Biggie






          Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

          Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
          (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

          TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
          existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

          Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.



          ---------------------------------
          Do you Yahoo!?
          The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search

          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
        • Mary Jo Malo
          Rita, Thank you so much for this definition. I am the meekest person you will meet. My self confidence is often mistaken for arrogance, but I m not arrogant. I
          Message 4 of 4 , Oct 2, 2003
            Rita,

            Thank you so much for this definition. I am the meekest person you
            will meet. My self confidence is often mistaken for arrogance, but
            I'm not arrogant. I want to inherit the earth! With little exception,
            I love it more than anyone I know. My life has always been adaptation
            and flexibility.

            With geniune meekness,
            Mary Jo

            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Rita Crow <ritaryland@y...> wrote:
            > Actually the translation of meek is misconstrued by most people.
            It should read flexible, pliable, able to change, adapt.--this would
            exemplify the warrior, not the meek somanliness that rigid religious
            teachings present. Rita
            >
            > iambiguously <iambiguously@y...> wrote:From Thomas Hibbs "Shows
            About Nothing" pages 17 and 18
            >
            >
            > "Nietzsche admits that nihilism means that 'the highest values
            > devalue themselves', that the 'aim is lacking' and that 'why? finds
            > no answer'"
            >
            >
            > Notice here that Hibbs has Nietzsche "admitting" this, as though
            > having to grudgingly acknowledge there are things about human
            > moral/social/political interactions in a Godless universe that
            might
            > be construed emotionally and psychologically in a disturbing or
            > distasteful manner. This mentality pervades Hibbs commentary, in my
            > view. He is very good, for example, at articulating Nietzsche's
            > philosophy but finds the consequences of it discommitting---as
            > though to suggest that, because Nietzsche [and nihilism] make us
            > feel very, very uncomfortable at times this, in and of itself, is a
            > reason to distance ourselves and our behaviors around others from
            > them. Never mind how reasonable the philosophical arguments
            > themselves might actually be.
            >
            > Hibbs than notes how Nietzsche noted Christian morality as
            > "the great antidiote against....nihilism". Which, of course,
            > Nietzsche rejects. Instead, "...Nietzsche forges ahead and invites
            > the crises as a means of purification, of restoring an 'order of
            > rank according to strenght'. We can see here the reemergance of the
            > virile, heroic warrior, whose distinguishing mark is a creative and
            > courageous boldness, the antithesis....[of the] feminine, Christian
            > virtues of humilitiy and sympathy."
            >
            >
            > And, just like Pavlov's dogs, we are supposed to read that and, in
            > turn, immediately start connecting the appropriate dots: Nietzsche
            > leads to nihilism leads to the "will to power" leads to the Uberman
            > leads to Hitler leads to the Holocaus; and then, no doubt, to Osama
            > bin Laden, 9/11 and Saddam Hussein?
            >
            > First of all, while I believe Hibbs' account is a more or less
            > accurate portrayal of how Nietzsche viewed the moral consequences
            of
            > the Death of God, the Uberman and the "will to power", it is again,
            > just one man's opinion and does not necessarily make connecting
            > those dots as Hibbs seems to imply they should, the only way they
            > CAN be connected. Secondly, it treats Nietzsche's philosophy so as
            > to yank it out of the historical and cultural context in which it
            > was given birth and nurtured. It would, in my view, be analogous to
            > interpreting Marx and the Communist Manifesto without situating
            them
            > historically in the horor and tubulence and inhumanity and brutal
            > exploitation of the working classes that unfolded contiguously with
            > the Industrial Revolution.
            >
            >
            > Biggie
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
            >
            > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
            >
            > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
            >
            > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
            Service.
            >
            >
            >
            > ---------------------------------
            > Do you Yahoo!?
            > The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
            >
            > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.