I don't see how a criticism of Nietzsche can be contained to a single book which serves as more of an allegory of the New Testament rather than an summation of a dead philosophers important (and ultimately influential) thought.Theomanic wrote:Have you read Thus Spake Zarathustra? Because that's what we're discussing. You previously stated Nietzsche was talking about "how self control elicits a sense of power". I asked for examples of that within this text. I don't see how any of what you just said relates to this text specifically.Grim wrote:Picture this: a camel goes into the desert of current thought, transforms into a lion and rules his own domain of authentic, creative truth. This was Nietzsche's metaphor developed in "The Genealogy of Morals." Of course it follow the metaphoric theme that the lion then dominates and has territoriality issues with other animals in his oasis (my imagery), this to Nietzsche is to be expected. In this sense Nietzsche is the type that would argue the interests of one great person take over the interest of a multitude of morally, creatively, intellectually lesser people. On the life raft with 10 survivors should the one doctor aboard not be assured a share of the dwindling supplies, if only due to the potential that he will in the future be able to save a life that otherwise would have been lost.Theomanic wrote:Could you give some examples of self-control bringing power? I can think of some but they're pretty thin so I don't suppose I am thinking of the right parts.
Yes, I do agree that what people do not fully understand they tend to contempt. What do you mean by contempt? You seem to be lacking context as well, this book is an allegory. Nothing intelligible can be completely opaque, the tendency seems rather to dismiss what may not be properly represented...for no other reason than that the representation is poor!! Your distaste of the eloquent Germanic style normally attributed to Nietzsche shows that you are both familiar with the common remarks made, yet unwilling to take a step outside of your personal preferences and attribute the comments of others (presumably better versed) to what is directly engaging your senses. I say this to the point that reading Nietzsche realistically constitutes a sensual experience in your opinion or not.Theomanic wrote:You are making the fallacious deduction that because I do not understand I have contempt. Specifically I said writing something that cannot be understood without one having read every other work that author wrote seems vain. That has nothing to do with contempt. Beyond which, I am not inclined to agree with you that this text is completely opaque unless every other work of his has been read.Grim wrote:So in place of full understanding we substitute a base form of contempt? When in doubt show respect, giving the benefit of the doubt and perhaps a morsel of humility in criticism prevents misstatements and personally inflected fallacies.
My advice is to save a good portion of your disgust for fellow board members.
All of this aside, I can't determine if you are being a troll or just rude. I started this thread to try and determine if there are things I'd missed in this work. Belittling me for not giving the benefit of the doubt or what have you isn't really sensible in that context. I have asked you repeatedly for examples in this text and instead you spout vagaries. If your intent is to actually help understanding, you are not doing a good job. Please answer the questions given, or refer to things within the text. If you intent is to look clever or start an argument, please go elsewhere.
Luckily my disgust is not finite and so can be given to all who deserve it.
Making critical remarks from a position of ignorance seems to belittle any value you would hope to gain from another who may be willing to help.