Why Objectivists Should Embrace Nietzsche

[Jake_Ellison]

Lets wrap up this tread.

In everything one thing is impossible: rationality.

Friedrich Nietzsche

Oh come on, if this is such a thread wrapper upper, surely you can share with us the context in which that was said.

We just established that Freddy was a complicated man, and thesis are being formulated on proving that Rand and Nietzsche are opposed. Surely it is possible that by rationality he means something slightly different in german than objectivists do in english.

Or, we can take this into another direction:

"Machines have destroyed man's humanity, taken him away from the soil, robbed him of his

natural arts, killed his soul and turned him into an insensitive robot. There's an example of it—a woman

who runs a railroad, instead of practicing the beautiful craft of the handloom and bearing children."

--Guess Who

[Tenure]

Kendall more eloquently put what I was trying to say. I don't mean, "Oh this extract is out of context because if you look at the entire Essay, you'll see..."

I meant that Nietzsche may seem to be arguing for something reasonable, but in fact, you are not understanding his use of a phrase or word in the context that he means it to be understood. I used the example of Kant very specifically there, because in understanding Kant, you've got to understand what he says in context to his entire philosophy - and that context in which means it is such that he means to discredit the concept. For example, Nietzsche talks loads about how great the individual is - but he doesn't mean the individual as a volitional, self-directed consciousness like we do, he means a force of incredible urges all 'willing' towards some goal of unity or mystical some such.

Like I said, check out Ridpath's lecture if you want to hear him talking about this issue of confusing specific sections with the wider context. I've really not studied Nietzsche that in-depth beyond the books I've read going, "Oh.... er... yeah? Um... uh huh... yeah..er...wah? Ok..." But from all the evidence Ridpath represented, and thinking back to my own readings of Nietzsche, he seems to have got it right. So check it out, yo.

[KendallJ]

I've really not studied Nietzsche that in-depth beyond the books I've read going, "Oh.... er... yeah? Um... uh huh... yeah..er...wah? Ok..."

I can't get that picture out of my head.

Kind of like this?

[Tenure]

More like this:

Edited November 22, 2008 by Tenure

[ReasonAlone]

Before Ayn Rand, I was a believer in Friedrich Nietzsche. The fundamental difference between the two philosophers is the Apollonian/Dionysian viewpoints.

Ayn Rand was a supporter of the Apollonian viewpoint, which is reason. Nietzsche was a supporter of the Dionysian viewpoint, which is a viewpoint of sensation and instinct. Nietzsche not only believed this, he used "Dionysus" as a pseudonym.