![]() ![]() ![]() But for a philosopher I find his writing disorganized and his arguments lacking. I think he is witty and original (for his time, now many of his ideas are cliche). What do you think of the book? On what points in this book do you most agree with Nietzsche? On what points do you disagree and why? Scott wrote:Please use this topic to discuss the February book of the month, Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche. You'll also find organized arguments against Plato, Kant, and democracy in his late Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ. For instance, you will find no better introduction to epistemology than in his early Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks (it's the one my professor started with), where we find a very organized analysis of the pre-Socratics culminating in his conclusion: the juxtaposing of Heraclitus and Parmenides, and the argument for why he thinks Heraclitus trumps Parmenides. However, he also made organized arguments when he judged them appropriate. So it's not really a criticism to say his arguments are lacking because he was constantly questioning the validity of organized argument. This is generally accurate but it also reflects his contempt for how decadent philsophy had become through its inststence on Organization and Argumention (in a sense, this makes him a pre-cursor to Wittgenstein and the pragamatists). Furthermore, I think this is an important critique of philosophy in general as much of our philosophical arguments are based upon an imperfect language and highlights the importance of not being mislead by our language. However, Nietzsche suggests that it was the thinking that gave rise to the 'I' and that the only way to grammatically express a thought was to state 'I think'.įrom this Nietzsche illustrates that Cartesian notions of human agency are derived from the grammatical structure of our language and are not necessarily representative of reality.įrom this I learnt that language does not necessarily represent reality accurately and how the structure of our language can shape our perceptions of reality. I think that Descartes' was suggesting that the 'I' was the agent that gave rise to the thinking. The best example of this was his critique of Descartes' 'I think, therefore I am'. However, I think one of the key points of the book was Nietzshe's critique of hitherto Western philosophy and its reliance upon the grammatical structure of language. I read this book for A level philosophy and I found large chunks of the writings esoteric or vague. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |