Amongst my other intellectual failings is a love of formal philosophy. It’s about the way a good philosopher uses precise definitions and precise language to express a thought (or thoughts).
For sheer pleasure, my all time favorite is Friedrich Nietzsche, that ultimate “bad boy” of philosophy. However, despite the reputation, Nietzsche's ideas are, in the 21st century, not especially scandalous.
Take, for instance, “Beyond Good and Evil.”
The Nietzsche “myth” is that N is proposing some kind of state in which Neitzsche's “superman” (ubermenche) is no longer contained by conventional morality, goes beyond the concepts of good and evil, and becomes some sort of Nazi monster.
That's not what N said. N’s idea was much less insane. And much simpler. And more meaningful.
N points out that “good or evil” is a false dichotomy. The correct opposite of “good” is not “evil.” The opposite of “good” is “bad.” The correct dichotomy is, therefore, “good or bad.”
“Evil” is like bad, but with some sort of magical sauce added in order to make some ideas literally “unspeakable.” Nobody but a serial killer would argue that doing evil is acceptable. Nietzsche argues that the special sauce was added to “bad,” for that exact purpose by moral religious teachings. N was a hard-core atheist.
Why does the correct dichotomy matter? Well, as stated, sane people rarely argue seriously that doing evil is good, or even OK. If one accepts the claim that “that thing is evil,” the conversation ends.
However, if the statement is “that thing is bad,” the next set of questions that (should) automatically pop up are: Good for who, and in what way? Bad for who, and in what way? And – under what specific conditions is it good or bad? What happens when those conditions are modified or changed?
Ask those meaningful questions – if Nietzsche were alive to hear it, he'd say “Now you’re talking!”
Nietzsche is frequently misrepresented. There is very little in his writing that is scandalous, at least in the 21st century. People may or may not agree with him (he was an atheist – some people may disagree with his atheism, but public atheism is no longer surprising). His MAJOR, inexcusable flaw is his belief that “an educated woman is a crime against nature,” but, oddly, you will almost never find that THAT is what he's vilified for – although he should be.
Wanna know more about Freddy? Ask, and I shall tell!
For sheer pleasure, my all time favorite is Friedrich Nietzsche, that ultimate “bad boy” of philosophy. However, despite the reputation, Nietzsche's ideas are, in the 21st century, not especially scandalous.
Take, for instance, “Beyond Good and Evil.”
The Nietzsche “myth” is that N is proposing some kind of state in which Neitzsche's “superman” (ubermenche) is no longer contained by conventional morality, goes beyond the concepts of good and evil, and becomes some sort of Nazi monster.
That's not what N said. N’s idea was much less insane. And much simpler. And more meaningful.
N points out that “good or evil” is a false dichotomy. The correct opposite of “good” is not “evil.” The opposite of “good” is “bad.” The correct dichotomy is, therefore, “good or bad.”
“Evil” is like bad, but with some sort of magical sauce added in order to make some ideas literally “unspeakable.” Nobody but a serial killer would argue that doing evil is acceptable. Nietzsche argues that the special sauce was added to “bad,” for that exact purpose by moral religious teachings. N was a hard-core atheist.
Why does the correct dichotomy matter? Well, as stated, sane people rarely argue seriously that doing evil is good, or even OK. If one accepts the claim that “that thing is evil,” the conversation ends.
However, if the statement is “that thing is bad,” the next set of questions that (should) automatically pop up are: Good for who, and in what way? Bad for who, and in what way? And – under what specific conditions is it good or bad? What happens when those conditions are modified or changed?
Ask those meaningful questions – if Nietzsche were alive to hear it, he'd say “Now you’re talking!”
Nietzsche is frequently misrepresented. There is very little in his writing that is scandalous, at least in the 21st century. People may or may not agree with him (he was an atheist – some people may disagree with his atheism, but public atheism is no longer surprising). His MAJOR, inexcusable flaw is his belief that “an educated woman is a crime against nature,” but, oddly, you will almost never find that THAT is what he's vilified for – although he should be.
Wanna know more about Freddy? Ask, and I shall tell!
