Thank you. I think there is a bit of an advantage to tackling him when you are older, if you are open to the effort. You aren't as easily swayed; there is a reason Rand is popular with the young and less so with the old.
I need the translations myself - public school education (last one in my family to study Latin in high school was my father). I don't think it is too big an impediment. I haven't found one yet that was so key to his point that I couldn't at least infer the rest. Of course I could be wrong and I've missed some subtlety.
Hi Curmudgeonly. What do you see as Nietzsche’s intellectual and cultural influence in our world today? I have seen Nietzsche linked to the “expressive individualism” that seems to dominate the left, as well as (via Strauss maybe) the illiberal elitism of the new right or whatever you want to call it. Is it Nietzsche all the way down?
I've also seen Nietzsche called a nihilist, and it doesn't surprise me a great deal that people find in him what they want to find. In my footnote I mention that I read him as understandable in individualist terms, but that is probably outside of the scholarly consensus. I think I can make a good argument in my favor, but there are equally good arguments to the contrary. The Left's appreciation of him seems more newfound; then again, the general depth of Leftist thought isn't something to give a great deal of respect.
Honestly, I don't think Nietzsche has been influential enough, and there is too great a tendency to pick a little bit from him to buttress some thought to which you've already committed.
Nietzsche’s disdain for traditional morality scares me a little. I see a common sense of morality as a prerequisite for a healthy society. Can you elaborate on what you see as the “possible path” that Nietzsche suggests, and why it should not make me nervous?
Pagan Rome had a traditional morality that had organically evolved. It shouldn't be impossible to conceive of such. Again, as I footnoted, I have problems with Nietzsche's reliance on coercion as the basis of morality (in either direction). I do think we need to think beyond that, and I intend to explore that thought in more depth. Not that I believe I can get to an answer, but at least explore the space a little.
It makes me nervous too, as so much could go so wrong - and that is almost a hallmark of humanity (getting it wrong). Transitioning from one moral system to another is perhaps the most non-trivial task that a society could undertake. [I would suspect it could only happen via social fragmentation, that you couldn't all at once get everyone to buy in.]
Let me also add - Rome's traditional morality decayed (and Julius Caesar played a somewhat significant part in that, using the Pontifex Maximus as a political stepping stone rather than its traditional apolitical role). That is why Christianity ascended and displaced it. However that didn't save Rome from the barbarians. So yeah, the dangers are very, very real.
Well, equality used to have a much more circumspect definition, but there has been a progressive push to expand its meaning for several generations. It was what inspired Vonnegut to write what he did (and that is about two generations behind us now).
I read a lot of Nietzsche during my college years, and this article definitely makes me want to reread his works.
Thank you. I think there is a bit of an advantage to tackling him when you are older, if you are open to the effort. You aren't as easily swayed; there is a reason Rand is popular with the young and less so with the old.
One difficulty I always had with his writings was the required classical Greek and Roman knowledge, I fear this will still be an issue.
I need the translations myself - public school education (last one in my family to study Latin in high school was my father). I don't think it is too big an impediment. I haven't found one yet that was so key to his point that I couldn't at least infer the rest. Of course I could be wrong and I've missed some subtlety.
Hi Curmudgeonly. What do you see as Nietzsche’s intellectual and cultural influence in our world today? I have seen Nietzsche linked to the “expressive individualism” that seems to dominate the left, as well as (via Strauss maybe) the illiberal elitism of the new right or whatever you want to call it. Is it Nietzsche all the way down?
I've also seen Nietzsche called a nihilist, and it doesn't surprise me a great deal that people find in him what they want to find. In my footnote I mention that I read him as understandable in individualist terms, but that is probably outside of the scholarly consensus. I think I can make a good argument in my favor, but there are equally good arguments to the contrary. The Left's appreciation of him seems more newfound; then again, the general depth of Leftist thought isn't something to give a great deal of respect.
Honestly, I don't think Nietzsche has been influential enough, and there is too great a tendency to pick a little bit from him to buttress some thought to which you've already committed.
Nietzsche’s disdain for traditional morality scares me a little. I see a common sense of morality as a prerequisite for a healthy society. Can you elaborate on what you see as the “possible path” that Nietzsche suggests, and why it should not make me nervous?
Pagan Rome had a traditional morality that had organically evolved. It shouldn't be impossible to conceive of such. Again, as I footnoted, I have problems with Nietzsche's reliance on coercion as the basis of morality (in either direction). I do think we need to think beyond that, and I intend to explore that thought in more depth. Not that I believe I can get to an answer, but at least explore the space a little.
It makes me nervous too, as so much could go so wrong - and that is almost a hallmark of humanity (getting it wrong). Transitioning from one moral system to another is perhaps the most non-trivial task that a society could undertake. [I would suspect it could only happen via social fragmentation, that you couldn't all at once get everyone to buy in.]
Let me also add - Rome's traditional morality decayed (and Julius Caesar played a somewhat significant part in that, using the Pontifex Maximus as a political stepping stone rather than its traditional apolitical role). That is why Christianity ascended and displaced it. However that didn't save Rome from the barbarians. So yeah, the dangers are very, very real.
Well, equality used to have a much more circumspect definition, but there has been a progressive push to expand its meaning for several generations. It was what inspired Vonnegut to write what he did (and that is about two generations behind us now).