In my opinion, reading Nietzsche was a bit of a task for me. To be honest, I don’t really find much enjoyment in reading philosophical texts. Perhaps it’s just difficult for me to understand what the philosophers are trying to get across to the reader, or maybe it’s because I simply cannot really understand what they’re trying to convey at all… I basically don’t really take that much of a likings to philosophy.. and Nietzsche’s essay didn’t really change my opinion on this either. I found that it was particularly hard to fully understand and agree with some of his points; granted, I did find them interesting however, but I still had much difficulty with this read. I found that he takes a different, more diverse and I guess to some, a shocking approach in conveying his opinions in the text. With that being said, I still found some of his ideas to be quite enticing and nonetheless, intriguing by the end of his essay.

For starters, I thought that Nietzsche’s reference to Ancient Greece should be noted. By doing this, Nietzsche somewhat resembled Rousseau to me, to a certain degree that is. I find that philosophers tend to make certain referential statements to further emphasize their points, or validate them, and I found Nietzsche’s essay to e more interesting because of this.  However, unlike Rousseau, I did find that Nietzsche wasn’t exactly as easy to understand as Rousseau. I would have to say that reading Rousseau was perhaps one of the most enjoyable philosophical reads for me to date. I found that Nietzsche rambled quite frequently, which made it challenging for me to follow all the way through.

In my opinion, I think that Nietzsche’s main argument in his essay, is that of good and evil. He states that humans create good and evil; with regards to this topic, I think that it is quite interesting how good and evil are two vices that were thought to have been present since the existence of humanity, rather than actually being a mere creation from our perception. Furthermore, I found that Nietzsche’s views on punishment to be very intriguing. In spite of his alternative ways of thinking and looking at particular subjects, his arguments were still pretty entertaining to me. From today’s lecture, I definitely found a new perspective on Nietzsche, since he basically said that he thinks that punishment is something that is fun…. Something that should be enjoyed! Though I do not believe this to be necessarily true, I will somewhat (I guess) respect his view on this.

Basically, after reading Nietzsche’s essay and attempting to analyze it in more depth, and upon attending the lecture, I am still left somewhat confused with his points. Cant wait till I hear other people’s opinions! See you guys tomorrow!!

To start off this week I read the wrong book… So I’ll be catching up as quickly as possible. You could probably imagine my surprise. For a while I thought Nietzsche was Freud… you can feel the confusion for the first part of the lecture. So Freud is another blog for another week.
But alas, there is still a blog owed. I have to say, the lecture really made me want to read Nietzsche. He sounds like a high strung and funny individual, although I guess not intentionally. Anyways, the part of the lecture that I found interesting was the fact that Nietzsche was banned from academic study, which it turned out his sister edited in favour of her cause. Sounded like she really milked that cow, reaping the sows of his work, turning him into an icon/prophet she would interpret, and changing his work for her own self. Not that I know anything about that. However the situation really reminded me of Rousseau, where people used lines from his book at the time to say he would have been an advocate for the French Revolution. And pro-lifers would use Dr. Seuss to rally against abortion, although Seuss himself doesn’t want to be a part of the argument (if memory serves me well). So I would have to say that I guess Nietzsche isn’t the only one who puts words into others mouth. Another part of the lecture that was interesting was the abstaining part. How philosophers are never married and that stuff to enrich their minds and separate mind and body. Cool fact.

I found that understanding Nietzsche is as hard as spelling or pronouncing his name.  Professor Jill, thank you so much for that lecture because I understand him… or at least kind of.  Do I agree with Nietzsche though?  WELL given my religious beliefs are Christians and the fact that Nietzsche does criticize religion and takes a rather anti-god stance I say my personal feelings are quite negative for him.

What I do admire Nietzsche for is his diversity.  Unlike most essayists who are very linear in their approach and suggest that there is only one truth, Nietzsche’s idea of multiple truths is something I quite admire.  It sure is confusing, but I like how he at least is able to embrace the fact there are multiple truths and multiple ways of doing things and that morality changes in time.  Unlike Plato’s rather stagnant one truth, Nietzsche’s multiple truths that change seems much more flexible.

Slave and noble morality, this I have to say is something I do agree upon with Nietzsche.  His examples are extraordinarily convincing and the willingness of Nietzsche to look beyond what makes good, bad and evil.  His combination of history, literary analysis and philosophy blend together to create a very interesting and very convincing argument.  Revolting (as in slaves revolting) humans will call their masters, evil, an intensification of bad and invert the Nobles morality.  We see this in the Israelites, when they leave Egypt and we see it in the rise of Nazi Germany (jewish bankers were in power, flipped over by working class).

What I don’t like about Nietzsche… is his rather inherent dislike for a stagnant good.  As much as I find his argument convincing, I can’t keep thinking how appealing it is for the idea of a common good, a form of good acceptable to all humans… The problem being is that Nietzsche would call me silly and scared of knowing myself… Which might be the case because as a human, I’m quite aware that I can do great evil or great good… though Nietzsche would say this is depending on the morality of the current times.

Sincerely,

Vincent

After having some issues understanding some of Nietzsche’s ideas that he introduces in the book, I finished reading it and definitely found his ideas intriguing. I understand that the words “good” and “bad” can have very different meanings to different people, and I’m sure there’s more to the argument that maybe I just didn’t fully understand, but I felt like that was a pretty simple concept in itself…

I was also interested by Nietzsche’s idea that maybe it would be incorrect for a lamb to blame a bird of prey for attempting to eat them, because that is basically all a bird of prey does. By looking at simple grammar, it is made clear that birds of prey are called as such for a reason. Just like how lightning cannot exist without the flash, a bird of prey cannot exist without preying.

I found plenty of points in this book interesting, but there are also definitely parts where I need some clarification. For example, I don’t have a great grasp on the transition from master morality to slave morality, and a few other ideas brought up. I definitely enjoy these types of readings more than I like reading the fiction novels, because in the fiction novels I feel like they are very straight-forward, and don’t really need much clarification or discussion. But with books like these, talking about the ideas presented in the book with people after you read is crucial to fully understanding what Nietzsche meant to get across. Looking forward to hearing other people’s thoughts and also getting my own questions cleared up!

I started out this text really expecting to like Nietzsche. As much as I love fiction, I find these philosophy texts present, for the most part, bolder and more intriguing questions. However, while Nietzsche was certainly bold and intriguing, I found this text quite frustrating and difficult to get through. Though I could read his writing with less difficulty than Hobbes, I felt as though some of his arguments went straight over my head, despite the conversational tone he writes with. Usually I would say a conversational tone is more effective, as it makes the reader feel more included in the argument and resulting conclusion. But in this case I don’t think it did much for him. I’m greatly looking forward to the lecture to find some clarity for the ideas I may have misunderstood.

Going with the theme of interruption from Frankenstein, he even seems to interrupt himself every now and again. On page 96, after talking about the cost of ideas and our need for a man to redeem us, he says “But what am I saying? Enough! Enough!”. He then proceeds to leap into his third essay. It’s as though his argument is accidental, and simply come up with on the spot. This makes it feel slightly less organized, despite the distinction between the three different essays and the parts within each essay.

Nietzsche had an interesting opinion of language, a subject I’ve been hearing a lot about lately, in my psychology class and from Rousseau. He blames the way we phrase things (the need for a subject) for the way we perceive good and evil. His examples of the lamb and the bird of prey made clear an opinion which I haven’t encountered before, but seems to come across as common sense. That we associate action and will where we should not, as a bird cannot avoid acting and behaving like a bird, despite that we seem to say it has a choice.

Before reading this, I was largely unfamiliar with the concepts of nihilism and asceticism. I’d never heard of asceticism, and only briefly of nihilism because of a friend named Nile who claims, ironically, to be a nihilist. At first I had a little trouble grasping the meaning of asceticism, but some definition searching helped me out. (Side note: that’s one thing I enjoy about these philosophy texts. Learning about concepts I’ve been mostly unknowledgeable about beforehand). Nietzsche’s understanding of “ascetic ideals” are set out right at the beginning of the third essay, and I must admit I couldn’t help but laugh when he decided to “start again” in the second section. At least we know that defining his terms is quite important to him. I should really take that into mind when I write my next essay, and remember to clarify certain words.

To explain the title, I call it Nietzsche’s Physics, because like preliminary and continued studies of physics, ideas develop and expand continuously, growing from a twig to a tree – much like the philosophy found in “On the Genealogy of Morals.”

With that point in mind, it becomes the biggest  benefit and handicap of the text. The development of Nietzsche’s arguments contradict what is previously said or implied; for instance, with his first explanation of the origin of slave morality, he uses Jews as an example for its roots, and infers that it was their poorness and weakness that led them to hate the rich and strong, thus creating an opposite disparity to master morality. On my first read, and I’m sure many of your first reads, it seems as if he is using this explanation as a negative light, however as the text progresses you can see that he finds their concepts far more “interesting” than that of master morality. I felt waves of misconception over misconceptions hurl me over whilst reading this text – it seems nothing stated initially is how it is eventually. But at the same time, the development of ideas (from twig to tree) allows the reader (or at least me) to follow Nietzsche’s train of thought in an almost chronological sense.

There are so many issues of contention I have with the text (all three essays) that it would be impossible to fit it into your average blog, like the disregard for a middle point between slave and master morality, the idea of society making us predictable  beings (when instinct/state of nature/Rousseau stuff shows that without society, a pattern is ever so obvious), the fact that his explanation of (modern) bad conscience doesn’t take into account accidental circumstances…. the list goes on.

I find it contradictory that Nietzsche slams English psychologists for not having historical spirit when many of Nietzsche’s own concepts are simply his definitions and conclusions founded by pit stops on his train of thought (see what I did there). And in searching for answers to a few of his claims (like the lack of any ‘middle’ between slave and master morality) I am left stumped… If slave morality is essentially felt toward the masters, and the whole world has now converged to slave morality, who are these masters? Oh hang on, apparently there is somewhat of an answer (moreso of a rephrasing)… but I have to read Beyond Good and Evil to find out that there is (afterall) another level of complexity in our modern world…

These essays seem immensely similar to Rousseau’s writing and his ideas. I was surprised how many times Nietzsche’s words reminded me of Rousseau and even his ideas seem slightly Rousseau-esque while his writing style brings to mind that of Plato’s. Nietzsche starts of the collection of essays with the idea of the etymology (in his own way) of the words good and bad and he points out that the word good seems to stem from the rich and noble and that the word bad appeared to stem from the poor and unfortunate – in this way it reminded me of Rousseau’s idea that property become peoples the instant one man decided that a section of land was his. Nietzsche also has an interesting idea about resentment and anger in humans which is a little bit confusing but seems to somehow lead to creativity (in the section about the slave revolt) and this all somehow led to the idea that ‘slave morality’ needs a hostile environment in order to exist which is interesting because people sometimes think that if something bad had not happened to them then it would have been better but they seem to forget that without such experiences (and in this case hostile environments) creativity and action does not just instantaneously happen it needs inspiration and according to Nietzsche that inspiration comes from a hostile environment.

It is also interesting to note that Nietzsche uses many references to Ancient Greece – like Rousseau did – and it seems as if most philosophers and authors use Greek texts, myths and philosophers as a starting and reference point in their own essays, novels and the like. It somehow seems as if most people consider Ancient Greek texts as a reference point for all of their ideas and thinking. Nietzsche even talks about how Hesiod found it difficult to put Homer’s Greece into understandable sections so he had to subdivide Ancient Greece – this subdivision appears to have become how the Greeks explained the absence of the gods since one division ended with the Trojan War and that was the last known point in myth where the gods roamed the earth. It is also interesting that Nietzsche calls mans “the maggot” – which is a creature which eats  flesh (dead or alive) and consumes other creatures from the inside out, a parasite of sorts. Nietzsche’s text, while difficult to read, has some interesting points and ideas.

I was never a fan of reading philosophical texts, and On the Genealogy of Morals was no exception. It’s not that I find philosophy boring, but I prefer reading novels like Frankenstein over Plato’s Republic or Rousseau’s Discourse on Inequality. On the Genealogy of Morals wasn’t extraordinarily bad compared to previous philosophical texts I’ve read as part of the Arts One curriculum, but I still had to force myself to read the entire 335 pages of the text.

Nietzsche isn’t as easy to understand as Rousseau, who makes a rather straightforward argument. Nietzsche likes to ramble, and I suspect he knows he can be rather hard to follow. He asks a number of times, “Am I understood?” Having said that, I was able to get the main idea he was trying to make in every essay. The core argument he is trying to give is, I think, that humans create good and evil, as well as determine the divine. He devotes a part of his text talking about how ancestors become deified as a group becomes more powerful, and then this group will believe that they owe their ancestors their power through their ancestor’s protection and governance from above. It’s interesting to see how “good” and “evil”, which we normally believe to have been present as long as humans existed, are actually creations of our perceptions. Perhaps there is no good and evil, as we once believed. Nietzsche credits the origin of good to be what the nobility in past times termed “good” and evil to what the plebeians considered “bad”, which may, in fact, be the “good” in the eyes of the nobility. That’s what stands out in my memory, despite having read the entire text.

One of the first impressions I had of this philosophical text when I first flipped through it was: This is going to be a philosophical text where the author is going to go on and on about how great he is. I noticed how towards the end the essays were titled Why I write such good books, Why I am so clever, and Why I am a destiny. This is rather a vain thing to write! Most philosophers feel that way, but all the philosophers that I’ve heard about- Plato, Rousseau, Hobbes, Aristotle- wouldn’t actually use that as the title of an essay. Nietzsche shows contempt towards the reader in general. Sometimes I wonder if his asking, “Am I understood?” is actually a case of him demanding the reader if he is keeping up with the arguments Nietzsche is presenting, or if Nietzsche acknowledges how difficult it is to follow his writings.

I also have to make one contradiction to Nietzsche. He writes on page 263, “I have been told that it is impossible to put down one of my books- that I even disturb nightly rest.” Truth is, I found it very easy to put down one of his books (aka. On the Genealogy of Morals), and I even slept well after reading it for a few hours every evening.

How do I begin to talk about this book? Well, so far, it’s the only book in ArtsOne that has made me physically angry. Just reading this text made my blood boil. I remember one time that I asked Siri on my cousin’s iPhone what the meaning of life was, and her response was, “Nothing Nietzsche couldn’t teach you.” Boy… if this text has anything to do with the meaning of life, then I feel like we’re all screwed.

To start off, I completely condemn and cannot begin to appreciate the total and utter ludicracy regarding his opinion on Jewish people. Truthfully, any individual who presents such blatantly biased, horrific views of others offers nothing to me. Stating that the Jewish people created a complete reversal of morals is utterly ridiculous. How on Earth can anyone associate the noble, wealthy, selfish aristocrats with any good qualities? If that is true morality, then life is a sham.

I swear, I almost ripped a page out of the book when he started saying that Christianity was formed from hatred… Normally, I don’t care what people have to say about my religion,  to each their own, right? But this made me furious. Just… just what? It’s the same as the Jewish thing, and like when people criticize the Muslim religion without comprehending it. I seriously couldn’t wrap my head around this… How on Earth can not possessing “noble” warlike traits be grounds for hatred? Just because an individual doesn’t necessarily demonstrate these traits doesn’t mean that he is jealous of them or needs reason to ruin others…. LKJSDHFLKJFKLJHADKJFHAIFOTJALHRFKJASDHFLKJJAS;LFVKJSA;LKTHOIAJREAAHJFLKJADF

Honestly, this book just pissed me off. Not just about religion, but the majority of assumptions he makes about humanity. The only thing I agreed with was his interpretation of science as being its own sort of religion. In trying so hard to be completely based on pure, unadulterated facts, it actually serves as an astetic ideal. In truth, everything that we believe in is nothing more than an interpretation. Nothing can ever be proved as the utter truth.

I’m just done with this book, sorry if this was a little angry and agressive, but it honestly just frusterated me. Honestly, the world would be better off without Nietzsche… No seriously, he was one of Hitler’s inspirations.