thus spoke Zarathustra
- Thread starter myself
- Start date
Heidegger in "What is called thinking?" is a favorite of mine.
But wouldn't recommend anything else he wrote.
Being and Time is just awfully dreadful, and is the cause and inspiration of Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which is also just awful.
Philosophy at very least needs to inspire to something that is more then just mysticism.
Nietzsche is king.
But wouldn't recommend anything else he wrote.
Being and Time is just awfully dreadful, and is the cause and inspiration of Sartre's Being and Nothingness, which is also just awful.
Philosophy at very least needs to inspire to something that is more then just mysticism.
Nietzsche is king.
You may like this: http://manybooks.net/titles/platoetext99phdrs10.html
Phaedrus is an easy and quick read and to me at least, it is o so interesting...
Phaedrus is an easy and quick read and to me at least, it is o so interesting...
I politely disagree. Being and Time is a complex work and it is difficult to thoroughly appreciate for most, but I would hardly go as far to call it 'mysticism.'
It is one of the most influential works of our time, that is a given.
And thus misleading to say that it is difficult to appreciate for most.
It is in fact one of the most celebrated works of the 20th century in philosophy. What everyone agrees with is that it is dread full to read, I have read it, and that is my impression. The useful material, as in useful outside of Heidegger studies are virtually non-existent, and at the very least does not *require* such a brick of a book. Making something *more* complex then necessary, and avoid addressing reality or its effect out of principle is well, redundant. I like Heidegger, but credit where credit is due. And that is not in Being and Time. I wouldn't recommend that book unless one all ready liked Heidegger. He relates everything to the kitchen sink into his DaSein.
Or well, I like the later Heidegger better then the early.
Heideggers' importance is just as much how/what he influenced.
Something I think both Wittgenstein and Heidegger are guilty of.
There are sections of it which are absolutely brilliant and other sections which are very dull. The same goes for Heidegger's Being and Time, though I've liked Being and Time and Being and Nothingness for the most part (not that I have the attention span to read the entirety of either of them).
Nietzsche's master morality and Heidegger's authentic Dasein are very similar.
Nietzsche's master morality and Heidegger's authentic Dasein are very similar.
Last edited:
i wonder
Zarathustra has been deeply inspiring lately, as if it were written exactly for me.
I wonder if infj's in particular are more profoundly touched by Nietzsche...
It would make sense to me if it were so.
The whole solitude thing and self-overcoming is what screams at me.
I read a few pages the other day that was so moving it brought me to tears.
Introduced the book to one of my buddies, and he was stunned by it. Said that the book should be burned...that it was literally of the devil.
Zarathustra has been deeply inspiring lately, as if it were written exactly for me.
I wonder if infj's in particular are more profoundly touched by Nietzsche...
It would make sense to me if it were so.
The whole solitude thing and self-overcoming is what screams at me.
I read a few pages the other day that was so moving it brought me to tears.
Introduced the book to one of my buddies, and he was stunned by it. Said that the book should be burned...that it was literally of the devil.
You can trace the ideas of both Heidegger and Wittgenstein to Nietzsche.
Nietzsche just said it better, generally.
But the two latter are helpful to understand.
Nietzsche talks about the natural laws. The reason to understand them, and the influence of culture and nature. Or second nature? Can't remember...
Anyhow, so does Jung with the collective consciousness...
There is a tendency for great thinkers to inspire other great thinkers!
You can trace the ideas of both Heidegger and Wittgenstein to Nietzsche.
Nietzsche just said it better, generally.
But the two latter are helpful to understand.
Nietzsche talks about the natural laws. The reason to understand them, and the influence of culture and nature. Or second nature? Can't remember...
Anyhow, so does Jung with the collective consciousness...
There is a tendency for great thinkers to inspire other great thinkers!
I think Nietzsche got a lot from Kierkegaard. He is the father of that line of thought.
Yes they do inspire each other. Sartre was very inspired.
1st, Nietzsche wrote his works to be read by X person on X occasion in order for you to relate it to your life personally, so yes he did write it exactly for you (as well as everyone).
Also, I think that Nietzsche does touch INFJs more because he was an INFJ. He seems to be one of the few people who actually had things figured out (meaning I'm biased and agree with his way of thinking).
Yeah, a lot of people don't like Nietzsche, but he is widely misunderstood, especially his master and slave morality.
I have to say that I've not read a whole lot of Nietszche and originally I didn't care for his philosophy, but I've recently begun to reconsider him, especially after reading the novels of Matthew Woodring Stover (who cites him as one of his many inspirations).
I rather like Nietzsche's analysis of laws and customs and cultures, and his ideas about eternal recurrence and perspectivism. Of course, from what I've read of him, I get the feeling that he started off well in challenging the authoritative views of his era, only to end up acting as an authority in regard to his own philosophy (much like Galileo and how conservative he became in his prolonged struggle with the Church).
I rather like Nietzsche's analysis of laws and customs and cultures, and his ideas about eternal recurrence and perspectivism. Of course, from what I've read of him, I get the feeling that he started off well in challenging the authoritative views of his era, only to end up acting as an authority in regard to his own philosophy (much like Galileo and how conservative he became in his prolonged struggle with the Church).
It is very widely accepted that Nietzsche was an INTJ.
Nietzsche is almost an INTJ cliche.
Where have you heard that he was an INFJ, and what do *you* base it on?
Absolutely, totally, completely. And if you really want to disturb your friend while crying to yourself at the same time, show him this. Mencken's translation isn't the best, but it's free and legal...
As for whether Nietzsche himself was INFJ, he certainly gets described in similar terms. That is, when people aren't thinking about MBTI but are thinking about Nietzsche, they tend to note aspects that make Nietzsche sound classically INFJ. Foremost, of course, are his sweeping, prophetically confident (and accurate) intuitions regarding ethics and human behavior. But even his final collapse before the beaten horse and his transformation into "The Crucified"—not to mention his idealization of Jesus, in The Anti-Christ, as a man living entirely in a world of symbols—have an INFJ appeal, if not flavor!
Lived alone and hated most people. Introverted. Definitely speaks with the certainty that only Intuition can provide. Very analytical in his thinking. Probably a 100 on Judging. Yup, INTJ he is.
And Sartre rhymes with fart. Both are awesome.
