Philosophy Of Friedrich Nietzsche Puns

I’ve recently began reading the Dune series again and there are many elements that come across as ‘Nietzschean’ to me the more I read it. For example, Nietzsche and Herbert both agree that we should beware of demagogues, institutions, and religious superstitions. Future human development requires humans to invent new moral codes that are not inherited from existing institutions. As Nietzsche said, “man is to the overman what ape is to man ... what is great about man is that he is a bridge and not an end.” Both Herbert and Nietzsche also believe that evolution has not stopped and man will continue to keep evolving in the future. Both also seem to believe in a universe that is forever changing and is in constant flux, like the Ancient Greek philosopher Heraclitus said “war is the father of all things” and the only thing that is permanent is change. Both men are obsessed with what mankind will evolve into in the future and that it will be radically different from the mankind of today. As the God Emperor of Dune says “In all of my universe I have seen no law of nature, unchanging and inexorable. This universe presents only changing relationships which are sometimes seen as laws by short-lived awareness ... if you must label the absolute, use it’s proper name: Temporary.” We can see Nietzsche’s concept of the Übermensch possibly in Dune as well. Paul Atreides would be the prime candidate as the Kwisatz Haderach even though I don’t agree with this because at the end of the second book he essentially “gives up” and turns his back on life, unwilling to accept it, his fate and do what is needed to be done. As Dune Messiah says: “to chose to die before his will-to-power had reached exhaustion, wasn’t that aristocratic (Will to Power is also fundamental to Nietzsche’s philosophy)?” I see Leto II as the perfect example of the Übermensch. He essentially sacrifices his humanity to save mankind, becomes the focal point of the masses and rises above them, teaches all of mankind a lesson that echoes through the annals of history and transcends any notion of good and evil. Both men also sometimes views civilisation as leading to mankind’s stagnation. This is expressed by Nietzsche in his concept of the “Apollonian vs Dionysian” and especially the concept of the “Last Man.” Herbert also seems to believe this. As the God Emperor said, “Most civilisation is based on cowardice. It’s so easy to civilise by teaching cowardice. You water down the standards which would lead to b

I have been trying to read authentic works by philosophers and for some reason decided to start with Nietzsche. I have watched documentaries and videos on youtube about different philosophers but haven't ever read any of the original works.

To start with this reading journey, I picked up Beyond good and evil and it feels a little difficult, to be honest. So I wanted to know if I should have started with something else (as an absolute beginner when it comes to reading philosophy) or if there are any reading tips that I can benefit from. I also considered maybe reading some introductory philosophy books but because I am pursuing this mostly out of interest, and I am not academically studying philosophy, so I don't know if I should start with that.

I watched a video of Nietzsche's theory on YouTube by Pursuit of wonder and was intrigued with his perspective on the world and religions. I am new to philosophy, as I am 16 and I wish to begin reading about it with Nietzsche's. Which book should I begin with?

Excuse me if the question doesn't seem to make much sense. After some study in Eastern philosophy I wanted to see how it compares to the Western side of it. The main difference I see is that almost every major philosopher is not only himself but part of a long lineage that depends somewhat on your knowledge of the chain to form a clear picture. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing but it makes taking the first steps somewhat difficult and especially if you're a perfectionist.

What my question is, if I decided to go against the most popular recommendations and start with more modern philosophers like Nietzsche or Spinoza that interest me would I miss out on useful things that I wouln't have if I begun with the greeks. And would reading the classics after I started out with what interests me the most as of now would have a point.

There is some debate about Friedrich Nietzsches positions with regards to his aristocratic radical individualism and his more collectivist tendencies. Would it be a fair assessment to state that his biological futurism with regards to the Übermenschen living not for their own pleasure and enjoyment of life, but for the improvement of mankind as a species, is rather collectivist? At the same time his to-oneself-liberated aristocratic and Dionysian artistic individualism in Thus Spake Zarathustra, might be construed as rather significant.

Nietzsche stated that is aim in philosophy was not at an individualist philosophy, but rather at an order of rank, Rangordnung in life. This seems a bit confusing and unclear to me, any help is greatly appreciated.

We live in a world that still prizes the central values of Christian ethics: piety, asceticism, humility, and altruism. Even the social sciences that inquire into the origins of human morality assume that this is what virtue consists in (indeed, much of his criticisms of 19th Century naturalistic moralists such as Paul Rée is still of great relevance today). Yet belief in the Christian God, which stood at the centre of this world-view, has since crumbled, leading many to question their received categories of Good and Evil.

In ‘On the Genealogy of Morality’, Nietzsche paints a vivid portrait of a very different kind of ethical life: an older tradition of thought and practice that flourished in Ancient Greece and Rome, and which was characterised by reverence for strength, nobility, independence, and success in battle. By inviting us to view our own moral standpoint from a detached perspective, he encourages us to bring its key assumptions into question. Whether or not one ultimately agrees with Nietzsche that our current moral valuations are standing in the way of humankind's true greatness, this enquiry is one that is well worth engaging in.

My name is Don Berry, and I received my PhD from University College London. I also have an Ma in mathematics from Cambridge and recently wrote an extensive, peer-reviewed analysis of “On the Genealogy of Morality” for Macat. My current research lies at the intersection of ethics and biology. I am interested in Greek virtue ethics and in what science has to say about the good life for human beings, looking to biology and other related disciplines to give this notion a fuller grounding that emerges as a matter of objective fact. All of these ideas have been sharply criticised by Friedrich Nietzsche, my greatest antagonist.

I will be online Friday, 4th December starting at 1030 EST/1530 GMT till 1830 EST/2330 GMT.

You can find the AMA post here

Looking forward to the discussion!

I'd like to talk to you for a bit about the philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche. What I really would like to do is go over his core philosophy and talk about some main ideas that occur repeatedly throughout his work. Nietzsche viewed the true nature of philosophy as being something that every man must grapple with, not something that is unreachably lofty and academic. This is not to say that academic study is ineffectual, but rather, that philosophy must be fundamentally indebted to the practical concerns of life. As a result, Nietzsche was highly critical of several influential philosophers of the past, who he felt had perverted philosophy by detaching it from life.

At the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy is a redefinition of truth itself. Nietzsche expressed extreme dissatisfaction with religion and belief in God. He often raises psychological, evidential, and logical arguments against belief in God and religion. As a result, Nietzsche saw atheism as the reasonable conclusion to be drawn. Now, it is certainly of value and significant that one reaches the conclusion of atheism. However, it is another issue entirely to understand the implications of such a position. Religions bring with them a prepackaged meaning of life and a guidelines for how to live. Atheism is ultimately the negation of such a construct. It is not only the negation of a single religion, but also of all religions. Once this is realized, the natural result is that life is drained of meaning and purpose. The resulting perception of meaninglessness is called nihilism. The angst and despair that comes from nihilism is explored through "The Parable of the Madman" in Nietzsche's book, The Gay Science.

But Nietzsche saw such a result as unacceptable. His solution was what he termed "active nihilism": to unequivocally affirm life. But what exactly does it mean to affirm life? Well, first off, we need to examine a few aspects of what it means to experience life as a human. Nietzsche saw a fundamental flaw in thinking grounded by purely rational thought. To Nietzsche, rationalism is an improper and flawed way of approaching life. Instead, Nietzsche viewed sensory experience as being the sole source of a meaningful existence. Therefore, in order to embrace life, one must embrace their experience. Nietzsche regarded Plato's theory of forms, the idea of an unchanging non-sensory world, and the idea that the human senses are fallible as denying th

I saw it at my library and was wondering if his take on nietzsche’s ideas are accurate especially since it’s from 1908

There are three rather condensed explanations of components of Nietzsche's work that I will use here.

Slave Morality - The heard mentality, the status quo and mundane lives many people live. Übermensch - One who can overcome the following of the herd, and create his own morality and life.
Eternal Recurrence - If we were to relive our lives over and over for eternity, would we enjoy that?

Lester is a member of the herd. He lives a routine, suppressed life. With the introduction of Angela's character, he realizes that he is not living the life he wishes he could live. Driven by a socially condemned desire for his teenage daughter's friend, he creates his own morality and becomes an Übermensch.

By the end of the film, he is always happy. He does what he wants, when and where he wants to do it. When Angela asks how he had been feeling, he remarks that he had been feeling "great" and that nobody had asked him in a while. When he is shot, he gives a chilling monologue that reads:

"I had always heard your entire life flashes in front of your eyes the second before you die. First of all, that one second isn't a second at all, it stretches on forever, like an ocean of time... For me, it was lying on my back at Boy Scout camp, watching falling stars... And yellow leaves, from the maple trees, that lined my street... Or my grandmother's hands, and the way her skin seemed like paper... And the first time I saw my cousin Tony's brand new Firebird... And Janie... And Janie... And... Carolyn. I guess I could be pretty pissed off about what happened to me... but it's hard to stay mad, when there's so much beauty in the world. Sometimes I feel like I'm seeing it all at once, and it's too much, my heart fills up like a balloon that's about to burst... And then I remember to relax, and stop trying to hold on to it, and then it flows through me like rain and I can't feel anything but gratitude for every single moment of my stupid little life... You have no idea what I'm talking about, I'm sure. But don't worry... you will someday."

Here we see him recognizing that he would live his life the way he did again, completing this trifecta of Nietzsche's ideas.

Thoughts?