d2jsp
Log InRegister
d2jsp Forums > Off-Topic > General Chat > Political & Religious Debate > Top 5 Biggest Influences > On Your Own Thought
Prev12627282930Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll
Views: 3015Replies: 291Track Topic
Retired Moderator
Posts: 10,292
Joined: Jun 5 2003
Gold: 35.00
Trader: Trusted
#271
Mar 2 2010 03:23pm
Quote (Kamahl16 @ Mar 2 2010 04:19pm)
It does seem that way but really it appears as though he is much more concerned with debating this notion of "universal principles" (mainly morality) by suggesting a more subjective form of morality, ethics, etc. than he is concerned with claiming morality and ethics do not exist, period. I'm currently reading the work of a full-fledged nihilist (who influenced Nietzsche, actually) and his work is much different than Nietzsche's in terms of how they view the constructs of morality and ethics.


In context, I always thought Nietzsche made more sense when viewed as anti-Hegelianism than any other interpretation.

Anyway, once you start talking about relativism on that level, the border with nihilism becomes virtually transparent. Maybe my problem is that I think too linearly, but I cannot understand what the distinction is between "there are no absolute morals" and "there are no universal morals, so let us overcome morality". It seems to me that if there are no universal morals and we can overcome morality then there are no absolute morals and if there are no absolute morals then there are no universal morals so we may overcome the notion of morality.

In response to your edit, yes the phenomenology is difficult to the point of impossibility in English. I've heard it's no easier in German though. The man's philosophy was just denser than any language I've ever seen.

Edit: Poor grammatical structure in the initial version.

This post was edited by darkfire on Mar 2 2010 03:32pm
Member
Posts: 58,280
Joined: Jul 10 2006
Gold: 2,900.49
#272
Mar 2 2010 03:33pm
Quote (darkfire @ Mar 2 2010 09:23pm)
In context, I always thought Nietzsche made more sense when viewed as anti-Hegelianism than any other interpretation.  Once you start talking about relativism on that level, the border with nihilism becomes virtually transparent.  Maybe my problem is that I think too linearly, but I cannot understand what the distinction is between "there are no absolute morals" and "there are no universal morals, so let us overcome morality".  It seems to me that if there are no universal morals and we can overcome morality then there are no absolute morals and if there are no absolute morals then there are no universal morals so we may overcome the notion of reality.

In response to your edit, yes the phenomenology is difficult to the point of impossibility in English.  I've heard it's no easier in German though.  The man's philosophy was just denser than any language I've ever seen.


It seems that Nietzsche's work was expanded, to some extent, by Sartre and other existentialists because they claim that although life is brutish, chaotic, and short it can have some value if the individual is willing to give it value. I see a difference in "there is no universal standard of morality" and "you craft your own morality."

Nietzsche's main thing seemed to that he is first and foremost a reactionary in that he was at odds with virtually all philosophers and second that he is a man of intense inner passion (hence the excessive exclamation points, perhaps.) That is another strength of his in that his writing is very much himself talking directly to you, and it seems as though nothing else is relevant but the two of you and your thought.
Retired Moderator
Posts: 10,292
Joined: Jun 5 2003
Gold: 35.00
Trader: Trusted
#273
Mar 2 2010 03:38pm
Quote (Kamahl16 @ Mar 2 2010 04:33pm)
It seems that Nietzsche's work was expanded, to some extent, by Sartre and other existentialists because they claim that although life is brutish, chaotic, and short it can have some value if the individual is willing to give it value. I see a difference in "there is no universal standard of morality" and "you craft your own morality."

Nietzsche's main thing seemed to that he is first and foremost a reactionary in that he was at odds with virtually all philosophers and second that he is a man of intense inner passion (hence the excessive exclamation points, perhaps.) That is another strength of his in that his writing is very much himself talking directly to you, and it seems as though nothing else is relevant but the two of you and your thought.


Your first paragraph is precisely the point where I diverge from existentialism. If it is possible for my morality to differ from yours, then there is no universal standard of morality. If there is no universal standard of morality, then there is no absolute notion of what is or is not moral. The two statements, to me, appear identically equivalent. Anyway, if you don't see the contradiction more power to you. It would hardly be the first time I saw a problem where there was none.
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
#274
Mar 2 2010 03:40pm
Quote (darkfire @ 2 Mar 2010 21:12)
...
As to the first part, I am aware that English translations of Kant and Hegel are abysmal. My philosophy professor (a German) walked in on the first day and told us to give up on learning the material until we could speak German. Great motivation.
reminds me of what my wife was told by her world literature professor, she was of the opinion that every educated european should be fluent in sanskrit, ancient greek, etc
Most mathematics graduate programs have a requirement that students learn French, German, or Russian. Certainly, I could stop learning as soon as I was at a level where I could read journal articles (that's hardly a challenge though, I mean I speak no French and I can piece together the meaning of Cauchy's Cours d'analyse de l'Ecole Royale Polytechnique without having to look up too many words). I enjoy learning languages when I have some motivation to do so, even if that motivation is weak (I learned early-modern Chinese because I wanted to try reading the works of Lu Xun, which are incidentally more than a little overrated). I like to think that if I had to learn German for math I would take the time to learn how to read literature in it. I've always wanted to get through Faust in the original.
As an aside I am really surprised that homeomorphism is not the same in German. What is it?


somehow i like it to see that there is that language requirement in the curriculum and german is certainly a good option (no objection against french for pure and russian for applied maths though), but your reading of cauchy proves my point
you mentioning lu xun (which i haven't read) somehow triggered me to remember what hegel in his history of philosophy said about confucius, which was not very kind as well
can't remember exactly but there are two very similar sounding -morphisms (one being homeo/homäo if i recall right) which have the reverse/switched definition (close ones but not identical though) in english vs german, which really stunned me when i came the first time across it

Retired Moderator
Posts: 10,292
Joined: Jun 5 2003
Gold: 35.00
Trader: Trusted
#275
Mar 2 2010 04:09pm
Quote (brmv @ Mar 2 2010 04:40pm)
somehow i like it to see that there is that language requirement in the curriculum and german is certainly a good option (no objection against french for pure and russian for applied maths though), but your reading of cauchy proves my point
you mentioning lu xun (which i haven't read) somehow triggered me to remember what hegel in his history of philosophy said about confucius, which was not very kind as well
can't remember exactly but there are two very similar sounding -morphisms (one being homeo/homäo if i recall right) which have the reverse/switched definition (close ones but not identical though) in english vs german, which really stunned me when i came the first time across it


I recall one history professor who was positively distraught to find that I read Thyucidides in translation. The horror! As to the language requirement, it's usually something of a joke, honestly. You are handed a mathematical dictionary and a paper and told to translate the paper into English, which is of course not terribly difficult since half the writing is in symbols to begin with.

As to Lu Xun, don't bother trying. It's really difficult writing (even for native speakers, I've heard) since he wrote in a period of linguistic translation. He pretty much switches between classical forms and modern writing at a whim. I made it through his most famous work (Kong Yiji), which is actually fairly well done (though not a masterpiece by my standards), but gave up on his historical writings. It's just not worth it.

If I had to guess I would say it's homomorphism and homeomorphism? I can see how those two would get swapped and they do have completely different meanings.
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
#276
Mar 2 2010 05:01pm
Quote (darkfire @ 2 Mar 2010 22:09)
I recall one history professor who was positively distraught to find that I read Thyucidides in translation. The horror! As to the language requirement, it's usually something of a joke, honestly. You are handed a mathematical dictionary and a paper and told to translate the paper into English, which is of course not terribly difficult since half the writing is in symbols to begin with.
As to Lu Xun, don't bother trying. It's really difficult writing (even for native speakers, I've heard) ...


yes, one finds those professors everywhere i guess
and translation of maths is usually pretty straight forward, for russian my greatest difficulty was to learn the character set
and for difficult try kant in the original, very very tedious in comparison hegel reads like a crime novel
(btw, did you read lu xun written in the original character set of the time or the modern(ised) version?)

Member
Posts: 175
Joined: Jan 19 2010
Gold: 1.90
Warn: 20%
#277
Mar 2 2010 05:22pm
That quote-insertion brmv did had me thinking that darkfire was married.
Retired Moderator
Posts: 10,292
Joined: Jun 5 2003
Gold: 35.00
Trader: Trusted
#278
Mar 2 2010 05:25pm
Quote (brmv @ Mar 2 2010 06:01pm)
yes, one finds those professors everywhere i guess
and translation of maths is usually pretty straight forward, for russian my greatest difficulty was to learn the character set
and for difficult try kant in the original, very very tedious in comparison hegel reads like a crime novel
(btw, did you read lu xun written in the original character set of the time or the modern(ised) version?)


The version I read was in traditional characters, but there is no difference between the two writing systems so I wish I had found a simplified version.
Member
Posts: 28,331
Joined: Jun 9 2007
Gold: 11,700.00
#279
Mar 2 2010 05:31pm
Quote (darkfire @ 2 Mar 2010 23:25)
The version I read was in traditional characters, but there is no difference between the two writing systems so I wish I had found a simplified version.


no difference? i thought the stylistic difference would be larger than between the 'gothic' and the modern german character versions
(from what i have seen on 'cash' coinage), but for people who use the language frequently it might look different
but :cheers: for the effort
Member
Posts: 15,743
Joined: Nov 17 2006
Gold: 33.00
#280
Mar 2 2010 09:28pm
Quote (darkfire @ Mar 2 2010 04:23pm)
In context, I always thought Nietzsche made more sense when viewed as anti-Hegelianism than any other interpretation.

Anyway, once you start talking about relativism on that level, the border with nihilism becomes virtually transparent.  Maybe my problem is that I think too linearly, but I cannot understand what the distinction is between "there are no absolute morals" and "there are no universal morals, so let us overcome morality".  It seems to me that if there are no universal morals and we can overcome morality then there are no absolute morals and if there are no absolute morals then there are no universal morals so we may overcome the notion of morality.

In response to your edit, yes the phenomenology is difficult to the point of impossibility in English.  I've heard it's no easier in German though.  The man's philosophy was just denser than any language I've ever seen.

Edit: Poor grammatical structure in the initial version.


Eh, I would say Hegel is certainly difficult, but not impossible with a good professor or good footnotes to help you along (it is dry as fuck though, I'll give you that). Heidegger (Being and Time in particular), on the other hand, makes me want to kill myself.
Go Back To Political & Religious Debate Topic List
Prev12627282930Next
Add Reply New Topic New Poll

© 2003-2024 d2jsp  Contact