Men's Clothing Forums banner
41 - 60 of 104 Posts
Discussion starter · #42 ·
I will certainly read the book. However, I fear that this could very well lead to a discussion of "correct" versus "incorrect" interpretations of a philosopher's ideology. In the past, I have found such discussions to be largely non-productive, as it is quite simple to argue opposing points of view that are "substantiated" by the philosopher's text.
Very true, Sir. It was also largely unproductive for you to denigrate the name of one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century with a regurgitation of a tabloid folk tale which anyone with an education knows is a lie. But then, that didn't stop you, did it.

If you would prefer to not read the philosopher's work for yourself and have the opportunity to make up your own mind on the subject, then you are of course free to continue to believe what your favourite scare-mongers will tell you.
 
Discussion starter · #45 ·
Though I respect Nietzsche's body of work...

All that being said, I enjoy Nietzsche and Schopenhauer for their passion and eloquence; I just can't place them in the same circle as the real philosophers.

He's still leaps and bounds better than the post-modernists. :icon_smile:
Sir, I am very interested in your views on this subject. And thank you for expounding upon them with such kind eloquence of your own.

Could there be a case to say that there are two categories of philosopher in the modern world?

What do you think of Hume? :icon_smile:
 
Very true, Sir. It was also largely unproductive for you to denigrate the name of one of the greatest minds of the 20th Century with a regurgitation of a tabloid folk tale which anyone with an education knows is a lie. But then, that didn't stop you, did it.
Jeepers, do you ever give it a rest? After I reviewed the musical Thrill Me: The Leopold and Loeb Story, I got quite interested in the murderers' story and read every authoritative work on the subject. They all state that it was the readings of Nietzsche which inspired the two to murder in cold blood for sheer sport, because they were "Supermen," as defined by the philosopher.

If you would prefer to not read the philosopher's work for yourself and have the opportunity to make up your own mind on the subject, then you are of course free to continue to believe what your favourite scare-mongers will tell you.
Now you're shoveling words in my mouth. I never said I wouldn't read the book. What I did say was:

"I will certainly read the book. However, I fear that this could very well lead to a discussion of "correct" versus "incorrect" interpretations of a philosopher's ideology. In the past, I have found such discussions to be largely non-productive, as it is quite simple to argue opposing points of view that are "substantiated" by the philosopher's text."

Did you really think I would let you get away with such cheap tactics?

JM
 
Discussion starter · #49 ·
They all state that it was the readings of Nietzsche which inspired the two to murder in cold blood for sheer sport, because they were "Supermen," as defined by the philosopher.
The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.

Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?

I ask in rhetoric, because of course if you did, you would not be taken in by such absurd claims, that murder in cold blood could possibly be inspired by such a philosophy.

Yet you continue to defend a position which you clearly do not understand.
 
The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.

Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?

I ask in rhetoric, because of course if you did, you would not be taken in by such absurd claims, that murder in cold blood could possibly be inspired by such a philosophy.

Yet you continue to defend a position which you clearly do not understand.
As I've posted twice now, I have relied on several highly credible works on Leopold and Leob. That is good enough for me.

Your mileage, of course, may vary. I am done with you in this thread.

JM
 
The problem here is that you are speaking outside of your sphere of knowledge.

Firstly, do you even know anything about the Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensh?

I ask in rhetoric, because of course if you did, you would not be taken in by such absurd claims, that murder in cold blood could possibly be inspired by such a philosophy.

Yet you continue to defend a position which you clearly do not understand.
All is clear now. Pipps is the ubermensch.
 
Sir, I am very interested in your views on this subject. And thank you for expounding upon them with such kind eloquence of your own.

Could there be a case to say that there are two categories of philosopher in the modern world?

What do you think of Hume? :icon_smile:
There has always been a subjective distinction between philosophers. I have always found thinkers such as Nietzsche, Camus, Rand, etc., to be of a different sort from the bulk of philosophers. These were men and women that took a specifically humanistic approach to their views. You won't find them discussing epistemological foundations or ontological proofs often; rather, they will deal with man in the face of his condition/situation. I think it is because of this that they find a wider readership; they are accessible to those of us that ask How? and Why?

What do I think of Hume? Any man that can "awaken Kant from his Dogmatic slumber" deserves the attention and respect of a man who considers himself a thinker. It was Hume that called into question causality and metaphysics as a whole. Regardless of his success in this endeavor he argued it convincingly and almost single-handedly changed the direction of the boat of philosophy.

The way I view it: Plato, Aristotle, Descartes, Hume, Kant, Hegel/Marx, Sartre, Rorty. Familiarize yourself with the tenets of these men's thought and you will provide for yourself a solid foundation from which to approach knowledge and the life we live.

Just remember, in two thousand years, philosophy has come to no better answer to the question of "Why?" then "Why not?" :icon_smile_big:

"Be a philosopher; but, amidst all your philosophy, be still a man."
-Hume
An Enquiry into Human Understanding, Section I
 
Poor Martha Nussbaumer

If I could attend a talk by any contemporary philosopher, it would be Martha Nussbaum, because I would like to see the fireworks go off during the Q&A, when relativists start questioning her deep establishment in universality. :devil:
In an interview conducted by the Swiss magazine Information Philosophie, Martha Nussbaumer complained about education in the United States. It seems Prof. Nussbaumer could not find a school at which her daughters could learn Latin. The Swiss interviewer Peter Moser did not question this.

Since I come from Chicago, I wrote Prof. Nussbaumer to ask if she meant the region around Harvard, where she was previously employed. Her salary at the University of "Chicago" would enable her to pay fees for both daughters at the Latin School (nomen est omen), not to mention other possibilities in Chicago as far as private schools are concerned. I also asked the Swiss interviewer and magazine editor Peter Moser if he believed that a Harvard or University of Chicago faculty member is not able to find a school for her children to learn Latin.
 
In an interview conducted by the Swiss magazine Information Philosophie, Martha Nussbaumer complained about education in the United States. It seems Prof. Nussbaumer could not find a school at which her daughters could learn Latin. The Swiss interviewer Peter Moser did not question this.

Since I come from Chicago, I wrote Prof. Nussbaumer to ask if she meant the region around Harvard, where she was previously employed. Her salary at the University of "Chicago" would enable her to pay fees for both daughters at the Latin School (nomen est omen), not to mention other possibilities in Chicago as far as private schools are concerned. I also asked the Swiss interviewer and magazine editor Peter Moser if he believed that a Harvard or University of Chicago faculty member is not able to find a school for her children to learn Latin.
She surely couldn't mean around Harvard. Harvard was built so that graduates of the first public school in America, Boston Latin School, would have a place to continue their education. While an exam school, BLS is free for Boston residents. Students entering in the 7th grade (called sixies) are required to take five years of Latin along with a modern language. For the final year they can continue with Latin or take Greek.

Boston Latin's mascot is Lupa, the she-wolf with Romulus and Remus suckling at her teats. How much more Latin can you get?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boston_Latin_School
 
If I could attend a talk by any contemporary philosopher, it would be Martha Nussbaum, because I would like to see the fireworks go off during the Q&A, when relativists start questioning her deep establishment in universality. :devil:
I met Jean Buadrillard. I thought it was pretty funny that he autographed my friend's book, .
 
My favorite philosophers are Laozi and Sun Tzu. Both of these men wrote during a time of constant and bloody warfare. One wrote about the way man was supposed to coexist with his natural environment in an effort to live in an idealized version of the present. The other wrote more simply about how to crush your opponents before you even took the field against them.

About the argument that happened about whether the writing of Nietzsche influenced Loeb and Leopold: Philosphers attempt to answer questions of the known and the unknown based on their historical sphere of influence. What has happened in the past, as well as what is happening in their own present influences the course of philosophy. It is entirely possible that Leopold and Loeb were influenced by THEIR interpretation of Nietzsche. It has nothing to do with whether the posters in this forum truly understand the inner mind of a now dead philosopher, it only matters what the interpretation of the people in question was. As has been evidenced by pretty much every Christian nation that has taken power, the misreading of any philosophy can lead to disastrous and dangerous consequences. I'm sure that Paul would have told you, "Anyone who actually heard Jesus' words would know that he'd be against the violent slaughter of even those that were different from him." Tell that to the kings who partook in the Crusades. Just because you read Nietzsche, and you know that there is no way his words could be twisted to create an environment in which it is ok to murder in cold blood doesn't mean everyone else reads it in the same manner. That's why there is so much discourse and argument over what certain philosophers have written, and what they meant by that. If they clearly laid everything out, so everyone understood it in exactly the same way, it wouldn't really be philosophy would it? Nor would we be human.
 
Etymology of "Christian name"

Fred- or Fried- ?

Fried- is connected to other words and might be translated in English as "peace-", "pac-".
 
41 - 60 of 104 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top