
A new book about Nietzsche: tethering philosophy to the mess of daily experience - magda_wang
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/10/nietzsches-guide-to-better-living/568375/
======
dang
It was partly the fault of the original baity title, but what a trainwreck the
bulk of this thread turned out to be. If ever there were an occasion to dust
off pg's old phrase, "the middlebrow dismissal", here we have it.

Discussions celebrating one's own and mutual ignorance, with people shooting
whatever cheap shots pop up about a great thinker, writer, and soul, make me
cringe to be part of HN.

There is a morbid interest in seeing how internet discussions, viewed as a
whole, behave like a physiological process—perhaps a digestive organ, turning
waste of one kind into waste of another.

~~~
yesenadam
Aw I didn't think it was so bad. It's not a philosophy site. (I just read
through it, having been promised an entertaining 'trainwreck'.) I've seen much
worse. And he's one of the most flamebaity of philosophers. Makes me curious -
what's the biggest 'trainwreck' you remember?

~~~
dang
It's a fair question, but one mercy of this job is that they sink into
oblivion fast.

------
hnthrowaway789
Many of Nietzsche's ideas are almost entirely antithetical to the cultural
sensibilities of HN so the discussion that you're going to get on here is not
going to be that great.

This piece presents an exceptionally shallow introduction and survey of
Nietzsche's body of thought. If you get into reading Nietzsche with the intent
of learning how to live better you're going to have an impossible time.

If you're interested in reading Nietzsche I'd recommend first reading more
philosophy and history (the things Nietzsche studied) in order to get some
context for the things he says. It's pretty much impossible to understand what
he's talking about unless you have that knowledge since his works are (in
large part) a critical analysis of the nature and evolution of the modes of
human thought and behavior.

~~~
freedomben
> _Many of Nietzsche 's ideas are almost entirely antithetical to the cultural
> sensibilities of HN so the discussion that you're going to get on here is
> not going to be that great._

Would be interested to hear your thoughts on:

1\. What is/are the cultural sensibilities of HN?

2\. Which ideas are antithetical to them?

My guess is that whatever your answer to item 1 above, you'll be downvoted and
hated by those who disagree (I think HN spans a vast array of viewpoints
personally), so maybe it's best not to answer. It is a sincere question tho.

~~~
hnthrowaway789
To give you an idea of what I mean, check out section 232 of Beyond Good and
Evil.

I won't post an excerpt here because it will just get me banned.

~~~
RangerScience
Meh. Everyone is fucked up in some way, usually in a way that's a product of
their times (classic example: Jefferson and slavery).

Always seemed to me that critical thinking is partly about sorting the good
shit from the bad; to put it another way, this is why it's important to not
trust authority just because it's authority. Evaluate each thing on its own
merits (as best as your capabilities the situation allows) and go from there.

~~~
hnthrowaway789
As a general principle I agree though I would go a step further and encourage
more humility when a particular concept evokes a visceral emotional response.
That could be a sign that it the product of the times you yourself are living
in.

I take issue with Nietzsche's skepticism and derision of democracy but I'm
willing to entertain his arguments and perspective. Carl Jung put forth a
theory in his _Psychological Types_ that Nietzsche's particular views on
democracy were a reaction to his particular historical circumstances which
makes sense to me.

------
zaarn
That is quite a nice read and basic TL;DR on atleast some of what Nietzsche
wrote in his books. People should read them more.

~~~
rofo1
Nobody is at a loss having read none of them. I say this as a person that has
read some of them (probably majority of them, too)

~~~
vfinn
I read Thus Spoke Zarathustra when I was pretty depressed. It gave me some
hope and induced changes in me. It helped me to shake up my thoughts and look
at myself in a new angle, if nothing more.

------
wazoox
I just finished reading Irvin Yalom's "When Nietzsche wept", and though it
probably didn't give a fair view of Nietzsche philosophy, it was great anyway
:) Probably make it much nicer than it actually is.

~~~
reptation
Sidenote, but Yalom's book on group therapy is insightful in a variety of
social settings: [https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Group-
Psychotherapy-I...](https://www.amazon.com/Theory-Practice-Group-
Psychotherapy-Irvin/dp/0465092845)

------
jeffreyrogers
I've read two books by the philosopher Alasdair MacIntyre that deal with many
of the issues Nietzsche was interested in and point out some flaws in
Nietzsche's arguments. They are _After Virtue_ and _Ethics in the Conflicts of
Modernity_. MacIntyre thinks that Nietzsche got a lot right, but overlooked
some things and made some assumptions that put him down the wrong path. If
you're going to use Nietzsche as a guide for how to live it's worth reading
some criticism of him as well.

~~~
Emma_Goldman
MacIntyre is very good. But I wouldn't so much say that he points out flaws in
Nietzsche's arguments, as argues that Nietzsche is not the appropriate answer
to the problem of modern thought as he sees it. But very few people agree with
MacIntyre's 'problem': that because we have inherited the remnants of pre-
modern moral and political thought, while rejecting the metaphysical beliefs
with gave them their original coherence, we must either turn back (to
Aristotelianism), or give up on moral philosophy.

There are three obvious problems with this: (1) the historical story is only
partially true; (2) it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs
within a modern and secular framework; (3) this whole argument depends on a
very particular view of what 'moral philosophy' is and can be.

IMO the best introduction to Nietzsche is Christopher Janaway's 'Beyond
Selflessness', though it concentrates on the Genealogy of Morality. It's also
worth reading Walter Kaufmann's 'Nietzsche: Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist' \- the book that originally rehabilitated Nietzsche's image in the
English-speaking world in the 1950s. Before that, Nietzsche was either
ignored, or thought of as proto-fascistic (Nietzsche's sister, who controlled
Nietzsche's papers after he fell into insanity, famously had an important role
in this. Hitler helped her open a Nietzsche archive).

~~~
hacknat
> it is not at all difficult to rework pre-modern beliefs within a modern and
> secular framework;

I don't know that I agree with you here. Are you arguing we can root morality
in objectivity?

~~~
Emma_Goldman
No, I don't believe that. My point is two things. Just as a matter of fact,
most modern (Western) moral and political thought is at least influenced by,
and in many cases a conscious secular reworking of, Judeo-Christian beliefs.
That is true of a lot of the so-called 'greats', and is true of our political
culture more generally. In that sense, we can tranpose pre-modern beliefs into
a modern framework, because we have.

The other point is that I don't think there is some kind of special
philosophical condition of coherence characteristic of pre-modern, or
specifically Aristotelian, philosophy, which has now been irretrievably lost.
MacIntyre only thinks that because he _is_ an Aristoelian.

I personally think the search for an 'objective' basis for morality is
philosophically wrongheaded, and that the belief that morality either is
objective or entirely meaningless is complete nonsense.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
I like the way you're framing this. Are there any works of moral philosophy
that you would recommend?

~~~
Emma_Goldman
Raymond Geuss, _Philosophy and Real Politics_

Hans Sluga, _Politics and the Search for the Common Good_

Both are very sceptical of the attempt to formulate a general theory of how
the world should be in the abstract. They have a different take on political
theory.

Geuss also recently wrote a brilliant series of intellectual portraits of ten
or so figures from the history of moral/political thought, which is
extraordinarily incisive, but also very accessible. It's called _Changing the
Subject: Philosophy from Socrates to Adorno_.

~~~
jeffreyrogers
Thanks, those all look interesting. I will check them out.

------
reggieband
> his real allegiance lay with the Dionysian, as his life and work went on to
> attest

I've argued this before but my personal opinion was Nietzsche was primarily
concerned with challenging orthodoxy. He felt that people submit to moral
authority without really considering why a particular set of principles are
favored or from where that authority comes. As such he often played the
devil's advocate trying his level best to show that the out-of-favor
principles had some real advantages.

He often laments that people will misunderstand him and I think this is what
he meant. He was working at a higher level of abstraction and knew people
would focus on his examples rather than his higher meaning. I don't think he
was aligned with the Dionysian as much as he was trying to defend it well
enough to show that the Apollonian was no more objectively valid.

------
oytis
Do you really want Nietzsche to be your guide in this subject?

~~~
YorkshireSeason
Your question suggests a dismissal of N's work.

Is that dismissal based on an serious engagement with his work? I'd be
interested in seeing an argument why one should not let N be a guide. It would
be nice (and unexpected) if that argument was informed by an actual reading of
N's main works.

~~~
Bigpet
I just read it as a joke about how his own life ended. Not something many
people want to emulate for themselves.

------
zackmorris
I haven't studied Nietzsche, but this post took me to one of his central
themes:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Master–slave_morality)

I realized that due to my life experiences, I see the world through the slave
morality. Basically that there is a lot of subjectivity when it comes to good
and evil, that the world isn't so black and white. For example land developers
might see growth as a completely noble endeavor, whereas environmentalists
might see the sin of destroying mother nature. I'm pretty solidly in that
second group about a great many things.

So just to throw an idea out there - I wonder if today's conservatives follow
the master morality, whereas today's liberals follow the slave morality. Note
that this wasn't always true - for example republicans used to be the party of
Lincoln (liberators of slaves) and southern democrats used to be slave
masters. But I'm asking about today. Is this completely off base or is it an
insight that could be used to find some common ground?

------
rawoke083600
I love these freaky minds !

------
tcbawo
I rediscovered the classic "wear sunscreen" column/commencement speech
recently and I was reminded of this quote:

"Advice is a form of nostalgia. Dispensing it is a way of fishing the past
from the disposal, wiping it off, painting over the ugly parts and recycling
it for more than it's worth."

[http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-
su...](http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/columnists/chi-schmich-sunscreen-
column-column.html)

~~~
Cynddl
> Unfortunately, our website is currently unavailable in most European
> countries. We are engaged on the issue and committed to looking at options
> that support our full range of digital offerings to the EU market. We
> continue to identify technical compliance solutions that will provide all
> readers with our award-winning journalism.

Do you know another source for this column?

~~~
jolers
If you use pocket, you can add it and read it through there.

------
rofo1
After reading both to some extent (but Schopenhauer in great depth), IMHO
Nietzsche is just wanna-be Schopenhauer. He even admits this in an essay
dedicated to Schopenhauer IIRC!

He was a weird person, just like the article portraits him to be. He might
have been unstable mentally, to say the least.

Not sure if he was in a position to tell others how to live.

He kinda reminds me of Weininger; I mentally group them together as "awkward
philosophers with some insane ideas masquerading as deep thoughts" even though
he was technically a philologist.

~~~
pdsouza
"There is a false saying: "How can someone who can’t save himself save
others?" Supposing I have the key to your chains, why should your lock and my
lock be the same?" (Nietzsche)

ref: [https://academyofideas.com/2017/02/nietzsche-psychology-
beco...](https://academyofideas.com/2017/02/nietzsche-psychology-become-who-
you-are/)

~~~
wu-ikkyu
>Supposing I have the key to your chains

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. How do you _know_ you have the
key?

~~~
Sileni
You don't. You try the key on the lock, and if it doesn't work you keep
looking for another key. Nietzsche is saying "I FOUND A KEY! Anyone care to
try it in their lock?"

Eh, that might be a bit more euphemistic than I meant to be, but the point is
there.

------
dschuetz
Another ad article for some book interpreting Nietzsche's ramblings.

~~~
sjnair96
Is your issue primarily with the ads or Nietzsche's "ramblings"?

~~~
dschuetz
Mainly with the "ad", because that article is about the book, not the actual
interpretation that might be insightful (or not) in some way.

Besides, much of Nietzsche's late work was indeed rambling, the guy was
severely depressed, even mad at the end. It doesn't discredit his entire work,
but that fact must be kept in mind dealing with it. His (even crazier) sister
publicized some of his works that never were intended by him to reach public.
But they did, and then Nazis happened. So, the issue is also that it's an
another interpretation of Nietzsche's work.

