| ABOUT US | ARCHIVES | LINKS | RSS FEED | MONDAYS | |

3quarksdaily

An Eclectic Digest of Science, Art and Literature

« Audio of the Hyman P. Minsky Conference on the State of the U.S. and World Economies | Main | Chris Marker on Hitchcock's Vertigo »

June 28, 2008

What does Nietzsche mean to philosophers today?

175pxnietzsche1882 Peter Bergmann, Teodor Münz, Frantisek Novosád, Paul Patton, Richard Rorty, Jan Sokol, and Leslie Paul Thiele discuss (trans. in eurozine):

Kritika&Kontext: What do you take to be the morally and politically most offensive passages in Nietzsche's writings? How do you interpret them? Do you think they are representative of his general attitude toward morality and politics?

Richard Rorty: I am most offended by the passages in which Nietzsche expresses contempt for weakness, and especially by the passages which argue that there is something wrong with Christianity because it originated among slaves. So it did, but those slaves had a good idea: namely, that the ideal human community would be one in which love is the only law. So it would. One can separate this Christian ideal from the ressentiment characteristic of the ascetic priests, but Nietzsche never made that distinction.

Paul Patton: Some of his remarks about women are among the most offensive of Nietzsche's writings. I take these to be indications of the extent to which he was a man of his time who could not see beyond the existing cultural forms of the sexual division of humankind. Like the vast majority of nineteenth century European men, Nietzsche could not divorce female affect, intelligence and corporeal capacities from a supposed "essential' relation to child-bearing. His views on women are representative of his attitude toward morality and politics in the sense that they are in tension with possibilities otherwise opened up by his historical conception of human nature. For example, at times he recognizes that supposedly natural qualities of women or men are really products of particular social arrangements. We can conclude from this, even if he could not, that these qualities are not natural but open to change. In this domain as in other of his social and political views, he was not able to foresee some of the ways in which the very dynamics of human cultural evolution that he identified could lead us into a very different future.

Posted by Robin Varghese at 05:50 PM | Permalink

Comments

Whatever he means to philosophers today, rest assured that he means a lot more than he used to. Like all great prophets, he was derided and rejected by the established authorities for many years.

(For modern echoes of this, see the inexplicably popular "Little Miss Sunshine", where a teenaged character is made to look openly ridiculous for taking Nietzsche seriously.)

Only recently has mainstream philosophy begun to seriously consider the challenge his thought poses. He does not conclusively desmonstrate that our moral/political/spiritual ideas are wrong, but rather forces us into a confrontation with some serious difficulties and internal contraditions within these ideas.

Posted by: Nick Smyth | Jun 28, 2008 9:12:12 PM

Right you are, Nick.
His philosophy, including re-valuation, has come to pass, and perhaps in a bigger way than he could've imagined.

Posted by: beajerry | Jun 29, 2008 2:48:51 AM

Nick-
Good, right on analysis.

Posted by: Dave Ranning | Jun 30, 2008 7:37:18 PM

Post a comment






Subscribe to this blog's feed  

PayAnywhere with iphone credit card swiper

Android Tablet

Bluetooth Headset

2013 New Style Dresses

Compare Car Rental Prices

DHgate.com Wholesale

3QD on Facebook

3QD on Kindle

3QD by Daily Email

Receive all blogposts at the same time every day.

Enter your Email:


Preview 3QD Email

3QD on Twitter

Miscellany

Lijit Search

AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Add to Google

Recent Comments

Brad Wilson on Political Ideology and the Avoidance of Dissonance-Arousing Situations

prasad on Quest for 'Genius Babies'?

Elatia Harris on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Brad Wilson on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

Ben Schwartz on Here He Goes Again: Sam Harris’s Falsehoods

X on Physics’s Pangolin

jo smith on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Jesse M. on NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT

David Clausen on Psychiatry’s mistaken manual

Abbas Raza on Poetry in Translation

musafir on My Father: A Veteran's Story

roger gathmann on NAPOLEON CHAGNON: BLOOD IS THEIR ARGUMENT

Norman Costa on Physics’s Pangolin

Norman Costa on Physics’s Pangolin

prasad on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Frans on The Epistemology of Hatred: A Case Study of Irish Bogs

jh on Moving books

Sundar on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Brad Wilson on Physics’s Pangolin

Brad Wilson on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

dr h s saini on the pao of love (part one)

joyce marie costa ingraham on My Father: A Veteran's Story

X on Physics’s Pangolin

Gaddeswarup on What is ‘smart’ and how does it fit our consciousness?

Raza Husain on Physics’s Pangolin

Acclaim For 3QD


"I couldn't tear myself away from 3 Quarks Daily, to the point of neglecting my work. Congratulations on this superb site."—Steven Pinker, Johnstone Professor of Psychology, Harvard University.

"I have placed 3 Quarks Daily at the head of my list of web bookmarks."—Richard Dawkins, Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University.

"Just wanted you to know I’m one of many who reads and enjoys 3 Quarks....almost daily."—David Byrne, musician, former lead-singer of the Talking Heads, artist, intellectual.

Read more here.

The 3QD Prizes

Subscribe to this blog's feed