A2 Philosophy

[Tinkerbell33]

Hi,
Has anyone done Philosophy a-level here?, At the mo im studying Philosophy of mind and Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil .

Anyone know any philosophers who attack Nietzsche?

 

[WingsOfTheNeophyte]

We dont have philosophy in As or A2, so I have to read it myself, would have been so much more helpful if we had it in school

Christians attack Nietzsche...... thats all I know

 

[Verv]

The problem with talking about 'philosophers who attack each other' is the fact that most philosophers existed very independently of each other, and traditionally, there are conservative and liberal periods of time... Most of the conservative periods have since passed, and now living in a liberal period of philosophy it is hard to say that there is anyone who really 'attacked Neitzsche.'

However, if you want, look up Doctor Frank (a punk rock musician, a novelist, a blogger, and someone who attacked the heck out of random left wing existentialists, particularly Foucault).

The modern definitions of philosopher are odd. Many of the people considered to be philosophers by today's standards (Sartre, Foucault, Camus, Nietzsche) were more novelists than anything else.

 

[The Nihilist]

The problem with talking about 'philosophers who attack each other' is the fact that most philosophers existed very independently of each other, and traditionally, there are conservative and liberal periods of time... Most of the conservative periods have since passed, and now living in a liberal period of philosophy it is hard to say that there is anyone who really 'attacked Neitzsche.'

However, if you want, look up Doctor Frank (a punk rock musician, a novelist, a blogger, and someone who attacked the heck out of random left wing existentialists, particularly Foucault).

The modern definitions of philosopher are odd. Many of the people considered to be philosophers by today's standards (Sartre, Foucault, Camus, Nietzsche) were more novelists than anything else.

I have studied philosophy for five years, and I have a B.A. in philosophy, so I think it's safe to say that I know something about it. I have no idea what you mean by conservative and liberal periods in philosophy. In what sense do you mean conservative and liberal? Please, for the love of God, tell me that you're not trying to delineate philosophers according to the contemporary political concepts of conservative and liberal.
I have studied Nietzsche, but I know of none of his detractors. Becksy, do not look up Doctor Frank. No one with "blogger" in his or her credentials is ever taken seriously by the people who know who should be taken seriously.
No, the modern concept of a philosopher is not strange. I know little of Camus, but everyone else you've cited has written highly-regarded academic works. Sartre illustrates his philosophical positions in his novels, but they are still written with philosophy in mind. Half the pleasure in reading Nietzsche is his prose, but I really have no idea what he wrote that you would think is a novel. And only someone who has never read Foucault could possibly think that someone would do it for fun.

 

[Verv]

I have studied philosophy for five years, and I have a B.A. in philosophy, so I think it's safe to say that I know something about it. I have no idea what you mean by conservative and liberal periods in philosophy. In what sense do you mean conservative and liberal? Please, for the love of God, tell me that you're not trying to delineate philosophers according to the contemporary political concepts of conservative and liberal.
I have studied Nietzsche, but I know of none of his detractors. Becksy, do not look up Doctor Frank. No one with "blogger" in his or her credentials is ever taken seriously by the people who know who should be taken seriously.
No, the modern concept of a philosopher is not strange. I know little of Camus, but everyone else you've cited has written highly-regarded academic works. Sartre illustrates his philosophical positions in his novels, but they are still written with philosophy in mind. Half the pleasure in reading Nietzsche is his prose, but I really have no idea what he wrote that you would think is a novel. And only someone who has never read Foucault could possibly think that someone would do it for fun.

I have read Sartre -- please, do not pretend that he is well written. It's an insult... It was at that point that you lost your credibility.

Unfortunately, my interest in philosophy is a passing hobbie. I could not afford college so I joined the Army.

But anyhow -- I am delineating them in terms that I think make sense, being that I think of Nietzsche as an overly cited crutch for teenage left wingers trying to defame my religion. I speak not of conservative and liberal in a political sense, but in a social sense.

And Dr. Frank is a very valid source. There are few things as profound as punk rock music in the world.

I think philosophy is hurting because everything worthwhile of being said has already been said. As it was written in 500 BC by Solomon, "nothing is new under the sun."

 

[Martin^^]

No one with "blogger" in his or her credentials is ever taken seriously by the people who know who should be taken seriously.

So none of them will be voting Conservative then...

 

[The Nihilist]

I have read Sartre -- please, do not pretend that he is well written. It's an insult... It was at that point that you lost your credibility.
Unfortunately, my interest in philosophy is a passing hobbie. I could not afford college so I joined the Army.
But anyhow -- I am delineating them in terms that I think make sense, being that I think of Nietzsche as an overly cited crutch for teenage left wingers trying to defame my religion. I speak not of conservative and liberal in a political sense, but in a social sense.
And Dr. Frank is a very valid source. There are few things as profound as punk rock music in the world.
I think philosophy is hurting because everything worthwhile of being said has already been said. As it was written in 500 BC by Solomon, "nothing is new under the sun."

Did you mean you don't think Nietzsche is a good writer? Because I made no remark about Sartre's writing.
Your opinion on philosophy in general is uninformed, as is your opinion on Nietzsche. It's clear that you know little about either, and I think you've probably never read any Nietzsche.
In a social sense? I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure you're delineating philosophers way out of context, and I'm also pretty sure that most of them would find it grotesque.

 

[Verv]

Did you mean you don't think Nietzsche is a good writer? Because I made no remark about Sartre's writing.
Your opinion on philosophy in general is uninformed, as is your opinion on Nietzsche. It's clear that you know little about either, and I think you've probably never read any Nietzsche.
In a social sense? I don't know what that means, but I'm pretty sure you're delineating philosophers way out of context, and I'm also pretty sure that most of them would find it grotesque.

Who is them?

I haven't read Nietzsche.

I guess it is good you weren't referring to the novelist Sartre.

Your attitude is kind of elitist. I think that most philosophers, especially modern philosophers, hold few credentials greater than any of us. The education that we receive today and the amount of information that we cn access is infinitely superior.

 

[The Nihilist]

Who is them?

I haven't read Nietzsche.

I guess it is good you weren't referring to the novelist Sartre.

Your attitude is kind of elitist. I think that most philosophers, especially modern philosophers, hold few credentials greater than any of us. The education that we receive today and the amount of information that we cn access is infinitely superior.

Yeah, I am an elitist, but you're far too democratic. To get into professional philosophy today, one must hold a bachelor's degree, preferably in philosophy. Some get a master's degree, but most go directly to the doctoral program. The doctoral program alone takes around seven years, and students frequently must be proficient in two languages besides English. I don't know if you know this, but grad students are probably the poorest, most overworked, most abused segment of the U.S. population. So, supposing someone manages to get through that, by which time they're 29 or 30, they still have to find a job. There are half as many positions as there are philosophers, and only half of all positions are tenure-track. That means that only one-quarter of trained philosophers can be successful. Any single position usually has 300-500 applicants. These tenure-track positions are research positions, which means that this comparatively small group is the only group that counts as professional philosophers; they are the only people I've mentioned so far actually engaged in philosophy. Their work is peer-reviewed, and if it's not good, they don't get tenure. If they do get tenure, they've gotta do something pretty remarkable to get any notoriety at all. So basically, it's easier to be a doctor than a philosopher, except philosophers get neither the money nor the prestige.
Education today is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-poor, except for the very best of private schools. We learn enough to get by, but most people have no idea who Benjamin Disraeli is.
You are right that more information is available, but this information doesn't compare to a good education. What we can get online lacks depth, and yields only a casual understanding. This is probably why you have such disdain for Nietzsche.

 

[Ego]

I did philosophy at A-Level, really loved it and I enjoyed reading Nietz, he has a certain kind of passion to his writing which I find rare in most other works of philosophy, and because of this passion he has I do enjoy reading him, but I find myself disagreeing with what he says most of the time.

Anyway back to the original post...

What specifically are you looking to critique of Nietz? I might be able to point you in the direction of some writers whose views are at odds with Nietz.

Cheers!

 

[The Nihilist]

I did philosophy at A-Level, really loved it and I enjoyed reading Nietz, he has a certain kind of passion to his writing which I find rare in most other works of philosophy, and because of this passion he has I do enjoy reading him, but I find myself disagreeing with what he says most of the time.
Anyway back to the original post...
What specifically are you looking to critique of Nietz? I might be able to point you in the direction of some writers whose views are at odds with Nietz.
Cheers!

Most people's views are at odds with Nietzsche, but I know few who can actually critique him.

 

[Ego]

Most people's views are at odds with Nietzsche, but I know few who can actually critique him.

Indeed though when I first read him I kinda agreed with a number of points he had. Since then I've moved on and found better philosophies. (Though as philosophers go he's still pretty cool, if only because as he went insane he hugged a horse that he saw being whipped by its owner, apparently!)

However I must also admit that there are not that many philosophers that I know of that directly critique Nietz. However I am familiar (at least reasonably) with a number of philosophies that might present alternatives to Nietz which the OP might use in part to critique Nietz.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Hi,
Has anyone done Philosophy a-level here?, At the mo im studying Philosophy of mind and Nietzsche Beyond Good and Evil .

Anyone know any philosophers who attack Nietzsche?

I know a book that is fairly interesting on the topic, it wasn't by a Christian either. I'll go find it in my school's library and give you the name.

 

[The Nihilist]

Indeed though when I first read him I kinda agreed with a number of points he had. Since then I've moved on and found better philosophies. (Though as philosophers go he's still pretty cool, if only because as he went insane he hugged a horse that he saw being whipped by its owner, apparently!)

However I must also admit that there are not that many philosophers that I know of that directly critique Nietz. However I am familiar (at least reasonably) with a number of philosophies that might present alternatives to Nietz which the OP might use in part to critique Nietz.

Actually, Nietzsche does fairly good job of undermining all those philosophies that one might turn against him.

 

[JMC309]

I haven't read any Nietzsche, but I have heard he talks about some kind of cultural shift away from God, rather than actually setting out to prove to people that religion is wrong. The existentialist writers (e.g. Nietzsche and Sartre) set out to explore the implications of an atheist world view. They took atheism for granted, and attacked religious values on the assumption that they had no basis. Any challenge to atheism would therefore be a valid critique. Please correct me if I'm wrong!
JMC309

 

[FishFace]

I'm doing Philosophy A2, but we take Political Philosophy and J.S. Mill as our exam modules, and Mill v Marx on law for the synoptic.

 

[mattchuman123]

Nietzsche (is that right? i'm bad at spelling) may have had some controversial views, but he was not an enemy to Christians. He famously quoted "Gott est tott" (God is dead), but many people take this the wrong way. He was not saying someone slew him with a sword or something, simply that God has lost his place in the modern world.

This group and you all Christians may be the testament (pardon the pun) against it. He was not happy or rejoicing when he made this quote, he was just simply stating it.

Many Christians do not like him though because he was a fan of "gray matter". He found no absolutes in good and evil, nor in what he termed "master and slave", he believed that each relationship is personal and that morality is relative. I agree with this, but many Christians believe that God set down the absolute morality rules.

Finally he is disregarded by a large part of the philosophical constituency because he believed that the modern philosophers were heavily influenced by what was and is universally accepted (i.e. Christianity)

I hope that cleared a few things up, if not oh well

M.C. Kennelly

 

[plmarquette]

nietche was the ground for Lenin and Marx , and the communist manifesto .... there are men and supermen ... or leaders who deserve to be elevated above all men & benefit from their wisdom & those who are created to serve them , in any and all capaciites ...

nietzhe said christianity is the opiate for the masses ... hope for their hopeless state , a fantasy that soothes the reality that they are meaningless little workers , like ants in the hive destined to work , live , and die for the greater good ...

 

[nadroj1985]

I've got a bachelor's in philosophy, and did a good bit of Nietzsche. I loooooooooooove Beyond Good and Evil

Anyway, if you want critiques of Nietzsche from the "big" philosophers (and not secondary commentary), the best place to go is probably more pre- than post-Nietzsche. Read up on Kant and Fichte, and their moral philosophy, to get an idea of an anti-Nietzschean outlook. Read some Schopenhauer, to see the pessimism that Nietzsche wanted to overcome. Things like that would serve you far better than this or that person claiming to "refute" Nietzsche. Really, most of the post-Nietzschean philosophers were more concerned with reacting to and coming to terms with Nietzsche's philosophy than with trying to attack it.

Also:

I think that most philosophers, especially modern philosophers, hold few credentials greater than any of us. The education that we receive today and the amount of information that we cn access is infinitely superior.

Granted, I'm biased, having gotten higher education in philosophy, but I have to say that this is highly mistaken. Education is far more than mere information access or knowing a lot of facts. Ideally, someone who has had higher education in philosophy has not spent her time learning a large number of facts, but how to think well. Something which is quite hard to learn, and even harder to learn on one's own.

 

[peter22]

Actually I remember writing an essay comparing the ideas of Kant and Nietzsche. They're fairly different. [understatement]