I can’t stand the writing style “Rant ex cathedra” 
Nietzsche has apparently always been ageless. Dang moralists.
Yes, I suppose it is. Doesn’t make the ‘thing’ any less reviling, though.
Oh, so Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, he was a self-important crusader against ideals that weren’t really very well defined or all that giant, and battle the travesty of giving a damn about anything, from most things he said. That’s so fucking much better. Nope, wait, overall, I’d still say there is a large chance I lost smart points from reading Beyond Good and Evil.
Anway, about not arguing against the point you brought up, what exactly is it? That my opinion doens’t matter because I’m younger than you, or because something you’re angry aout in your youth is just youthful and as soon as I grow up and mature a little, I’ll see that fascism is perfectly dandy? I really hope its one of those two, because if its any of the other arguments I think it could be, I’m going to vomit like a bulemic who just ate the Admiral’s Feast at Red Lobster.
I think Nietsche has one basic point - accept yourself, even if ‘yourself’ goes counter to the mainstream values of your time. Which I completely agree with. That being said, I disagree with his belief that “the ubermensches”, those people who have managed to accept themselves and love themselves, have some kind of right to shit on everyone else. Also, not sure if you’re aware of this Silhouette, but Nietzche also had some extremely misogynistic beliefs.
Oh, so Nietzsche wasn’t a nihilist, he was a self-important crusader against ideals that weren’t really very well defined or all that giant, and battle the travesty of giving a damn about anything, from most things he said. That’s so fucking much better. Nope, wait, overall, I’d still say there is a large chance I lost smart points from reading Beyond Good and Evil.
The things Nietzsche fought against were the largest things, the chains of conventional morality that are not just irrational but absurd. The things that keep you hidden in the broom closet. Out of curiosity, can you cite a passage or two of Nietzsche about his alleged apathy towards everything in the world? I think you’ll exhaust yourself, he seems to have been one of the most passionate people in history.
My point in quoting that passage wasn’t to say that your opinion doesn’t matter because I’m older than you, it was just a way of connecting something I’d recently read and started me wondering with the described situation unfolding before my eyes. It’s about how a youth feels he must commit himself completely to a cause, person, etc. without any degree of nuance until he realizes like Dave Stoler in Breaking Away that “Everybody cheats.” Or at least that no one is immaculate, or even wholly good. It’s the beginning of disillusionment in mass movements, or even just groups of people, for me. You may not think that facism is “dandy”, but you might be able to see how a number intellectual giants of the 20th century thought the idea of nationalism and a great leader were worth trying out. I often consider how divergent extremes of the political spectrum, communism and fascism or anarchism and authoritarianism frequently share similar aspirations for humanity.
The thing about “self-importance” as you called Nietzsche: if one is humble and modest even in the presence of great gifts, as Socrates and so many others, where can the importance finally be placed? When no one is egoistic, how can anyone be bold enough to sail out and chart unknown waters for the rest? Or in another metaphor, if you gave a candle to a group in the darkness, wouldn’t you expect that one among them must be the holder of it?
Curtis: On the issue of N’s so-called misogynism, I disagree with your terms. There are instances of what some feminist legal crusader would call “misogynism” in his works, as in “You say you are going to woman? Do not forget your whip!” and so forth, however they are probably always in a light-hearted context. It’s the same youthful approach of the Yes and No that the legalists never seem to transcend. When people accuse someone I’m talking with them about as being a misogynist I usually reply, “No, they weren’t gay.”
Finally, Arac, let me turn it on you: I’ve frequently bared my admirations for numerous artists and philosophers. You always shoot mine down, but who is it, I wonder, who you find so remarkable in the history of the world and of such sterling reputation, beyond Shakespeare, Nietzsche, Yeats, and so many others I’ve named?
That’s funny, because Nietzche probably was gay.
Negative.
No, but seriously, there is compelling evidence he was gay. Now I just have to search for that article I read some time ago…
I’m not getting into another nihilism argument for a long time, having spent an entire year in Philosophy doing just that, but the essential thing is that he rejects too much, and in noting that people should ignore morals and social ideals for his greater self, it may be noted, that he enforces ideals of his own. His basic ideology is only slightly less ridiculous than when I wrote a thesis to prove that no thesis can prove anything, and that was for humerous purposes in emulation of the Theatre of the Absurd, while his philosophy is, evidently, dead serious.
Oh, and self-important usually implies that one is unduly so, and this is indeed the context in which I intended it.
Indeed, no-one is wholly good, however, violations of personal morality ocur in degrees, and there is such a degree to which a person can no longer be admired if they have passed that line. Fascism is perhaps the greatest organized evil in the modern world, in my opinion, and as such, greatly constitutes a crossing of that boundary.
Keith Richards’ numerous problems involving drugs and womanizing aren’t admirable, by any means, but on a much lower scale of violations of my personal belief.
Joe Strummer, Thomas Hardy (to the degree I know about him, anyway), Allen Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Harlan Ellison, Robert A. Heinlein (on and off), Isaac Aasimov, Leo Tolstoy (although he’s had his share of questionable thoughts, so borderline, maybe), and a good number of others.
Influences on Arac:
Allen Ginsberg, Walt Whitman, Ralph Waldo Emerson, Isaac Asimov, Leo Tolstoy.
It seems, Arac, that you’re more interested in the worldly figures of literature: the ones with loads of life experience, and broad worldviews, the genial and political types. You probably feel most at home with American literature and philosophy.
Influences on Silhouette2:
W.B. Yeats, T.S. Eliot, Harold Bloom, Friedrich Nietzsche.
You, Silhouette, seem more interested in the introverts and aesthetes, the ones who care more about the beauty of their living experience than vast social movements, the ones who spend their time musing about passions and ideas. You seem more interested in European literature and philosophy.
I’m not sure if you realize this, but you two represent the two different “camps” of learning throughout history: the analytic thinkers and the imaginative-idea thinkers. There’s always been conflict between the two parties, starting with Aristotle and Plato. Throughout college, I recommend you take classes about your respective “camps.” It’ll save you a lot of frustration and wasted time.
Dickinson > Whitman
"You are a: Sea Dragon
Sea Dragons are calm and serene like the sea. You value friendship and water magic. You are at odds with Fire Dragons and ally with Wind Dragons"
Erm, couldn’t help it. It was the form, not the content of the post, Xwing
The eclecticist camp would argue that the two “camps” are non-exclusive.
[“So I took a speed-reading course and read War and Peace in a day. It’s about Russia” No editors at the day.]
I wasn’t aware Leo Tolstoy was in the American Literature camp, Xwing, I always figured a Russian would be more in the European Literature selection. =P Sorry, just had to point that out.
I do prefer so-called political writers, but only because I admire those who try and make a difference in the world in which they live one way or another, or stand up for what they believe in. I’m also pretty down with the Aesthetes and Romantics, though, for having the balls they did. Lord Byron is probably the best example of this, given that he goes off to fight the Turkish out of Greece, thereby becoming a Greek national hero (despite, I believe, never having set foot in Greece before this occasion) sometime in his version of ripe old age. While I don’t want to emulate them as much, I still admire them for having the stones to do what they did.
Also just for the record:
Heaney>Yeats
Oh snap, it would appear that our opinions differ. How could such a thing have ever happened, given that literature is a medium of hard-and-fast rules about what is and is not correct?
I was hoping for that. I thought about putting the names in bold.
I wasn’t aware Leo Tolstoy was in the American Literature camp, Xwing, I always figured a Russian would be more in the European Literature selection. =P
I was in fact aware of this, and of the massive undertakings that are his novels. But really, novelists tend to be worldlier than poets no matter where they’re from. A novel doesn’t need to be about feelings and ideas, but it does need to be about believable characters.
I don’t think it’s as simple as the “analytic/passionate” and “American/European” distinctions make it out to be. The entire Naturalist movement was founded in France, after all. But even that movement isn’t quite as one-sided as it may seem. For instance, Emile Zola is a very “analytic” author, who definitely was interested in social movements. Taken as a whole, his twenty-novel Rougon-Macquart cycle is supposed to be a sort of anatomical study of French society under Napoleon III. But nevertheless, many of the individual books in that cycle (such as “The Sin Of Father Mouret”) have a small, intimate setting, and contain very strong, passionate emotions. It is entirely possible to ignore Zola’s attempts at scientific analysis and appreciate the emotions described in his books.
I’m not sure, but I think that Arac’s objection isn’t so much to the “aesthetic” style of writing as it is to the “elitist” style, or “self-important” as he calls it. The two aren’t necessarily the same. A lot of Asiatic literature is not analytic at all, but it lacks this kind of overt self-exaltation.
We are that likable
I’d blame it on his bookcase.
His “j’accuse” was more politic an act than most. But when it comes to 19th century novel, I usually side with Balzac.
Neither do I. I think it’s a useful guideline, though: there are reasons why Continental philosophy is called ‘continental’; why American philosophers usually practice analytic philosophy; why America became known as a scientific/technological powerhouse; why T.S. Eliot moved to England; why W.H. Auden moved to the U.S.; why historical American novels are known for their down-to-earth grittiness and their politics; why the Romantic movement transformed England and Germany but only lightly grazed the U.S.; and so on.
The entire Naturalist movement was founded in France, after all. But even that movement isn’t quite as one-sided as it may seem. For instance, Emile Zola is a very “analytic” author, who definitely was interested in social movements. Taken as a whole, his twenty-novel Rougon-Macquart cycle is supposed to be a sort of anatomical study of French society under Napoleon III. But nevertheless, many of the individual books in that cycle (such as “The Sin Of Father Mouret”) have a small, intimate setting, and contain very strong, passionate emotions. It is entirely possible to ignore Zola’s attempts at scientific analysis and appreciate the emotions described in his books.
I’m not saying that analytic thinkers can’t be passionate (although they more often might not be). Just that they don’t study life based on their interior and their passions.
For instance, Mann’s Doctor Faustus is a story told from the perspective of a scholarly humanist about his friend, a composer who trades his humanity and eventually sanity for musical genius. The contrast between how the humanist interprets the composer’s ailments, and how the composer interprets them, is absolutely striking: the humanist attempts to describe the illness in scientific/psychological terms, while the composer gives names to the forces he feels operating on him, even treats them as entities with personalities. Both interpretations “work” in the end: both predict the trajectory of the composer’s life perfectly.
That’s more the opposition that I’m making.
I’m not sure, but I think that Arac’s objection isn’t so much to the “aesthetic” style of writing as it is to the “elitist” style, or “self-important” as he calls it. The two aren’t necessarily the same. A lot of Asiatic is not analytic at all, but it lacks this kind of overt self-exaltation.
The problem is that Walt Whitman’s writing, for instance, is more ‘self-important’ than that of anyone Silhouette’s mentioned except Nietzsche. Whitman wrote the ‘Song of Myself’, which is really just ‘The World from Walt’s Perspective’. He believed that he was the representative of a new era of poetics, and dismissed everything that came before him as outmoded. Whenever there was a national event or some new technology, he would hurry to be the <i>first</i> one to write a poem about it, just to show how he was at the forefront of modernity. The difference between Whitman and Nietzsche is that Whitman talked self-importantly about events and items, and Nietzsche talked self-importantly about impulses and realities.
I really think this is more a difference in thinking approach than in elitist tendencies.
It’s a good dichotomy, and being a partisan in it, I didn’t recognize the parts we were acting out at the time. I think it basically falls into the spectrum of the extrovert and the introvert, which seems to me the center of all the similar dichotomies postulated throughout history.
I also was going to point out that Walt Whitman, after Dante, exerts the single biggest sense of his own personality out of probably anyone in the history of literature.
This is entirely and exactly the case.
Additionally, I would argue against Walt Whitman’s self-importance, at least not in the sense that it troubles me. If we actually look into “Song of Myself”, it may be noted that Whitman stresses more than perhaps any other point the similarity and equality of all things; “Whoever degrades another. . .” In that respect, he is very self-important because he believes the self, evidently, to be one, single collective soul; he cites in the twenty-fourth section of the poem that he believes dung beatles to be an equal to himself, among other things.
He does state that his voice is the voice of all the world, which taken out of context seems extremely egotistical, which, in a way, I suppose it is. However, looking at it in the context of the rest of the poem, it is fairly clear that Whitman writes his poetry with the intend of writing poetry from the world’s perspective, the meanest creature to the most elitist literati. In my opinion, derived from all this, it is not so much that he writes the world from Walt’s perspective as he tries to write Walt’s perspective of the world’s perspective. He also does not so much believe those ideals are outmoded so much as he does not share them. Simply because he chooses to write in free verse and does not wish to be held in the moral constraints of past generation does not make any condemnation upon those who do. He rejects the previous ideas because he has new ones of his own to try. As for viewing himself as the founder of a new era in poetics, I’d agree this is pretty self-important, however, it is also largely true, he just had the audacity to go forth and state that he thought he was doing so when he was. It’s no more self-important than Ely Whitney claiming to have invented the Cotton Jin.
Finally, Whitman did not, I believe, write about events and inventions directly as they occured to show his own modern sensibilities, but because he was attempting in his poetry to express the poetry of the world, as such, trying to express the words of everyone and every creature in poetry, he wrote about every majour experience he could, as someone had experienced it.
In short, Whitman held a different sort of self-importance; a literal one, primarily. A self-importance born of arrogance (the attempt to channel an entire world through one man’s poetry) and overconfidence (thinking his poetry could and would make a difference) rather than the elitism and pretention upon which others’ is based. Additionally, I also view many of Whitman’s more arrogant opinions to be largely factual (he did, for example, usher in a new era of poetry), while other writers, such as Nietzsche, had largely imaginary importances. Nietzsche seemed to be one of those people who believes himself the only thinking, sensible being in all of humanity, who has to educate the lesser thinkers below him. Nietzsche’s elitism borders on paranoia, at times, whereas Whitman’s views barely cross the line into arrogance. That’s my opinion, anyway.
EDIT: Oh, and as for the Myers-briggs test, I am an incredibly tiny percent from being absolutely and totally introverted. I think it’s something ridiculous like 56/60 points towards introvert. So the inro-/extrovert thing does not really function, I don’t believe.
I just so happen to like my writers to give a shit about something other than their prissy, whiny self, essentially. There’s more to it than that, a lot, but that’s the baseline.
Lord Byron is probably the best example of this, given that he goes off to fight the Turkish out of Greece, thereby becoming a Greek national hero (despite, I believe, never having set foot in Greece before this occasion)
Atleast not a club foot.
What does literary sciences entail?