|
What Are You Reading? Part Deux. (pg. 55)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| woscar |
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
why? because he justifies torture by saying that our morals are not yet developed enough to allow us to easily hurt someone without feelings of guilt and remorse and so we should do it at distance through drugs?
dunno about you, but that's flippin' retarded if you ask me.
He's no Nietzsche, my friend. Read him instead. |
Of course he's no Nietzsche. My advice is that you should read Harris instead of what the critics have been saying about him. That's retarded, if you ask me. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
why? because he justifies torture by saying that our morals are not yet developed enough to allow us to easily hurt someone without feelings of guilt and remorse and so we should do it at distance through drugs? |
Have you ever read the book!? Where in the book does he say anything remotely similar to this?
I'm no fan of Sam Harris, and I didn't even like the book very much, but if you're going to criticise a work an author has penned, read it.
| quote: | Originally posted by pozz
He's no Nietzsche, my friend. Read him instead. |
Philosophical qualities aside, Harris' style is a lot clearer and well-founded. I'm glad he's no Nietzsche, otherwise this book would be begging for more misunderstandings than the one you've just provided! |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
Philosophical qualities aside, Harris' style is a lot clearer and well-founded. I'm glad he's no Nietzsche, otherwise this book would be begging for more misunderstandings than the one you've just provided! |
told you you misquoted Nietzsche you bum!
the whole point of Nietzsche's philisophical efforts was to be ambiguous- It would be pretty stupid to say 'nothing's true' in the traditional sense, then make traditionally true points now, wouldn't it :p
gotta read between the lines, and actively read the works, if you do it aint all that bad, and if its ambiguous its entirely in line with his claims: That LIFE is ambiguous! |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
told you you misquoted Nietzsche you bum! |
But, but... I didn't even quote him :D
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
the whole point of Nietzsche's philisophical efforts was to be ambiguous- It would be pretty stupid to say 'nothing's true' in the traditional sense, then make traditionally true points now, wouldn't it :p |
Hmm... not really. Even if this was the only point he wanted to make, all he had to do was make a distinction between "positive" truths and "negative" truths and claim "nothing is positively true", and then give room for this one negative truth to be... well, true :p
Not that this was all he was getting at anyway, so the above paragraph couldn't possibly do justice to the complexity of his work. Either way, it'd be better for human history if he didn't go all prophety and then write stuff like this:
| quote: | | I know my fate. One day my name will be associated with the memory of something tremendous — a crisis without equal on earth, the most profound collision of conscience, a decision that was conjured up against everything that had been believed, demanded, hallowed so far. I am no man, I am dynamite. |
Yeah, his writings could be so easily distorted German soldiers were given copies of his books... and we all know how that ended :p
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
gotta read between the lines, and actively read the works, if you do it aint all that bad, and if its ambiguous its entirely in line with his claims: That LIFE is ambiguous! |
Well, I'm a fan of Feyerabend, and he's not exactly an example of consistency. However, he did take the time to make his views (kind of) clear(ish). |
|
|
| infiniteJEST |
| Perhaps TA could coin the terminology for whatever brings people to throw in Nietzsche into any philosophical, literary, and/or general internet -witery. |
|
|
| Lira |
| quote: | Originally posted by infiniteJEST
Perhaps TA could coin the terminology for whatever brings people to throw in Nietzsche into any philosophical, literary, and/or general internet -witery. |
It's his über-leetzsche spirit. |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lira
But, but... I didn't even quote him :D
Hmm... not really. Even if this was the only point he wanted to make, all he had to do was make a distinction between "positive" truths and "negative" truths and claim "nothing is positively true", and then give room for this one negative truth to be... well, true :p
Not that this was all he was getting at anyway, so the above paragraph couldn't possibly do justice to the complexity of his work. Either way, it'd be better for human history if he didn't go all prophety and then write stuff like this:
Yeah, his writings could be so easily distorted German soldiers were given copies of his books... and we all know how that ended :p
Well, I'm a fan of Feyerabend, and he's not exactly an example of consistency. However, he did take the time to make his views (kind of) clear(ish). |
yeah but its not as simple as that, and suggesting it is IS the misreading, which is what I was saying :p He doesn't just say positive vs negative truths etc, he goes into why, how, what to do now etc etc, then goes on to explore a million other topics... He's exploring life, not truth, I was using it as one example, but its a lot more complicated than saying SIMPLE things, since, as I said: Life isn't simple, and doesn't at all lend itself TO simplification.
I know you realised this, but blaming Nietzsche for people being too dumb to read him 'properly' is a bit silly :p
also, the nazis didn't use Nietzsche's work- he was expressly anti-nationalistic throughout his works: What they used is a VERSION of the will to power which his sister compiled from random sections of his diaries which he didn't want published, into a fascistic text... They never read any 'real' nietzsche as far as I'm concerned, reading only his sister's fascist tendencies.
I also don't see a problem with that quote-- the problem with quoting nietzsche is that he was supremely contextual in his work- its really irresponsible to take things out of their contexts in their books, as they were constructed to purposefully clash (in one paragraph free will is dumb, the next one determinism is dumb, intending to point out that neither is completely accurate etc)... Taking quotes out of the context of their situation in his texts always gets people in trouble because (like the hamlet quote I gave above), you're making it appear like he's saying things he's not... He used irony and paradox heavily, rarely making explicit points, since it would have simply been counter-productive to do so!
but once again, Thats not nietzsche's fault, its the reader's :p |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
(1) Philosophy is so much useless wank.
(2) Nietzsche wrote philosophy.
(3) Nietzsche wrote useless wank.
Airtight argument.  |
|
|
| Lews |
| I think everyone should sign up for the Goodreads thing :o |
|
|
| EgosXII |
| quote: | Originally posted by Tasty Onions
(1) Philosophy is so much useless wank.
(2) Nietzsche wrote philosophy.
(3) Nietzsche wrote useless wank.
Airtight argument. |
(1) that is a philosophical argument
(2) you said philosophy is useless wank
(3) you're a retard
great work |
|
|
| Lews |
| quote: | Originally posted by EgosXII
(1) that is a philosophical argument
(2) you said philosophy is useless wank
(3) you're a retard
great work |
He was being sarcastic :p
He's a philosophy major :p |
|
|
| Tasty Onions |
| quote: | Originally posted by Lews
He was being sarcastic :p
He's a philosophy major :p |
Was.
I've put that silliness behind me.
 |
|
|
|
|
