New Band Name anyone?

Was thinking about this topic while listening to Sat Radio the other day. My observation: More clever the name seems at the beginning, the more annoying it becomes later on. Go for clean and simple.

Wow -
Well, I can't really let a good coversation about Nietzsche get away! :twisted:

This could get kinda complicated in just this small slice of his many facets.... hope I don't lose anyone in my
poor writing abilities....

First - Not even close to being a Nazi.... IMO, not political either way.
I see the Nazi's being closer to Social Darwinism than to Nietz.'s philosophy's.

And Nietz. was accoused of being Social Darwinistic.... Not true.

Nietzsche's 'Ubermensch' was not Darwinistic in that Darwinism is about the 'Natural Order' of things.... Natural Selection.

The 'Ubermensch Concept' is about the 'Will' to become that.... That it was not up to nature, more; Man had to have a WILL
to better himself AND the race [of all mankind] in general.

To say that the Ubermensch is beyond morality doesn't exactly do the concept justice....
That almost seems to have negative connotations....
Singularly ~ Jesus Christ could be considered 'Ubermensch' - He was perfect and therefore 'beyond morals'.
(Yes, I know Nietzsche was the one who said God is Dead.... bear with me :wink: )

The concept of the Ubermensch is about the evolution of mankind.... Quite literally.
To leave behind what we are now and evolve to the next step.... To look back and see what we are now
as we now see the ape.

The Ubermensch Concept was introduced by Nietzsche in his book: Thus Spake Zarathrustra.

It is that concept that is the key to understanding the movie/book 2001: A Space Odyssey.
If you've ever thought - WOW, what a great movie! Too bad I don't know what it's about....?
Now you do.

It starts with apes (pre-mankind).... And in the end, we see mankind evolve Beyond Man, or 'Over Man' (Uber Mensch).
If that's not good enough - Can any of you tell me what the name of the song is that is the 'theme' song of 2001????
I'll tell you -
Also Sprach Zarathrustra by Strauss. (See that, I tied music into this :) )

Also, (back to the Hitler thing).... Hitler and Darwinism want to weed out the weak, sick, 'the unperfect' and create
a strong and perfect gene pool....
Where as Nietzsche saw any 'anomaly' as being beneficial to evolution;
Which also infuses an ingredient not unlike compassion into Nietzsche's philosphies (at least compared to Darwinism).

And if you haven't yet read 'The Birth of Tragedy' ~ I highly recomend it.... Probably my fav Nietzsche book.

Ken

Was thinking about this topic while listening to Sat Radio the other day. My observation: More clever the name seems at the beginning, the more annoying it becomes later on. Go for clean and simple.

I see that point.
As much as I like 'The Fringe of Nietzsche' .... It might better be used as the name of an Album 8)

I was way up by Lake Superior yesterday and drove thru a couple tiny towns that ended in '-dale'.
This got me thinking of how many things I could add the 'suffix' dale to ....
It works pretty well:
Fringedale
Nichedale

I don'know.... just something to occupy a mind on an otherwise boring drive :wink:

Ken

Um, didn't Zarathustra follow Beyond G and E, and the Genealogy? I'm really not sure, since I didn't study Nietzsche, so I've no idea of the dates on these.

Also, in defence of Nietzsche as not-a-Nazi - he died (I believe) before Naziism became at all 'conceived" so it would be kinda hard for him to be one. :wink: He was friends with Wagner, but, hey........

Now, another German I do have a lot of time for Edmund Husserl. Bloody brilliant guy. I wouldn't mind naming a band "Husserl". 8) <Scrybe runs off to check myspace and lodge trademark/copyright>

I can also highly recommend Merleau-Ponty to anyone with an interest in philosophy and/or psychology. His work really straddles the two (as does Husserl's) and his influenced both. Phenomenology was my favourite branch of philosophy. 8)

Who is Nietzsche?
Nietzsche is some dude from the 19th century who made it big in the phillosophy business.

That is COOL!

Makes me wanna run out and become a teacher just so I can say that every year to the new class!

I also thought 'Alternative to Niche' was pretty good 8)

By the way;
What philosophical process are you employing in that post Roy????
Something on the fringe of Sophistry perhaps? :P

Ken

Um, didn't Zarathustra follow Beyond G and E, and the Genealogy? I'm really not sure, since I didn't study Nietzsche, so I've no idea of the dates on these.

Also, in defence of Nietzsche as not-a-Nazi - he died (I believe) before Naziism became at all 'conceived" so it would be kinda hard for him to be one. :wink: He was friends with Wagner, but, hey........

Well, quite right about him being 'pre-Nazi' , he died in 1900.
I guess I could have worded that better.... good catch though, for anyone who might have thought he was around
philosophizing in the 40's ~ Sorry for mis-leading :wink:

I'll have to look up the date's on the the books.... I thought the Ubermensch concept came from Zarathrustra.

Ken

perhaps the term itself, but the ideas behind it are very present in the other two texts, although his penchant for aphoristic philosophy does make it difficult to accuratly define concepts that are so presented. I may well be splitting the hairs of his moustache with that correction. :wink:

Don't forget Nietzsche was very much pro eugenetica, which is a small step to social darwinism and the actions of Nazi-Germany. Many scientists and philosophers in the 1880-1945 period were not in itself too much opposed to a lot of German laws based on social darwinistic principles. For example, Bell (the inventor of the telephone) recommended that deaf people should be forbidden to marry after he discovered that many forms of deafness are heridetary.

The moral dilemma that it's all about is more tricky then people make it out to be. Suppose two would-be parents both have the same recessive gene that, when combined, leads to a guaranteed severe nerve disorder. There was a case last year in the Netherlands with a baby that was born with such a disorder. There was technical no way the child would make another week and nothing that could be done about the constant ubelievably massive pain. Now imagine we know this would happen in advance. Should the freedom and rights of the parents allow them to let a child be born into a hellish mini-existence? It's a nasty dilemma and both options have serious concequences, both ethical and legal.

Ofcourse, this is something very different from picking a religious group and exterminating them but it goes to show that if you keep on slowly pushing the line between right and wrong you'll eventually end up with something you'd never had supported in the beginnning.

Very true......and a lot of 19th and early 20th C liberals were pro-eugenics, too.

Most political and ethical philosophies can be pushed (on their own framework) to apparently advocate things its proponents often wouldn't support on instinct/gut.

perhaps the term itself, but the ideas behind it are very present in the other two texts, although his penchant for aphoristic philosophy does make it difficult to accuratly define concepts that are so presented. I may well be splitting the hairs of his moustache with that correction. :wink:

Well, I'll agree with that (Aphoristic).

Zarathrustra [to me] seems to be pretty benign....
Where as in his next book, he seems to take the 'Will to Power' to a new cruel and sadistic height.

And then the book after that seems to be an almost.... synthesis of the previous two books.

Well, my interpretation was that Einstein never said that we couldn't go faster than the speed of light either.... :wink:

Ken

Ofcourse, this is something very different from picking a religious group and exterminating them but it goes to show that if you keep on slowly pushing the line between right and wrong you'll eventually end up with something you'd never had supported in the beginnning.

thus my adversion to extremism.. even if on the surface it seems like an ideal idea. I learn so much from you smart people on GN

Jim

Beyond G and E? Was Nietsche a music teacher?

Beyond G and E? Was Nietsche a music teacher?

:lol:

I'm sure we could twist & pervert his works to show that he was :twisted:

Ken

By the way;
What philosophical process are you employing in that post Roy????
Something on the fringe of Sophistry perhaps? :P

Ken

Um, advanced Royonpercocetism. Which, btw, is an incredible way to unleash my only validated creative skill. Cooking. That's a topic for another day.

I had to look up Sophistry. Looks like cynisism, sarcasm, insolence and general disrespect of others all rolled into one. I like it. :twisted: :twisted:

As far as the rest of the conversation's current subject matter, this is where I bow out and let the big kids talk. Once past Kafka, I'm toast for any writing, let alone German specific.

Don't forget Nietzsche was very much pro eugenetica, which is a small step to social darwinism and the actions of Nazi-Germany. Many scientists and philosophers in the 1880-1945 period were not in itself too much opposed to a lot of German laws based on social darwinistic principles. For example, Bell (the inventor of the telephone) recommended that deaf people should be forbidden to marry after he discovered that many forms of deafness are heridetary.

The moral dilemma that it's all about is more tricky then people make it out to be. Suppose two would-be parents both have the same recessive gene that, when combined, leads to a guaranteed severe nerve disorder. There was a case last year in the Netherlands with a baby that was born with such a disorder. There was technical no way the child would make another week and nothing that could be done about the constant ubelievably massive pain. Now imagine we know this would happen in advance. Should the freedom and rights of the parents allow them to let a child be born into a hellish mini-existence? It's a nasty dilemma and both options have serious concequences, both ethical and legal.

Ofcourse, this is something very different from picking a religious group and exterminating them but it goes to show that if you keep on slowly pushing the line between right and wrong you'll eventually end up with something you'd never had supported in the beginnning.

I'm not so sure that Nietzsche was pro-eugenics.
Darwinism itself goes with 'Natural Selection', or - in nature, the strong survive.... Survival of the fittest.

Social Darwinism leans toward 'Artificial Selection', or Eugenics.... Letting die (or exterminating) the 'inferiors' so that
mankind is left with only 'Superiors' in existence.

As I previously stated, Nietzsche felt that 'anomalys' were a good thing - supporting his oft used Aphorism: That which does not kill me, makes me stronger.

Here's something I found online -

Friedrich Nietzsche's philosophy addressed the question of artificial selection, but it was built against Darwinian theories of natural selection. His point of view on sickness and health, in particular, opposed him to the concept of biological "adaptation", forged by Spencer's "fitness". He criticized both Haeckel, Spencer, and Darwin, sometimes under the same banner. Nietzsche thought that, in specific cases, sickness was necessary and even helpful.Thus, he wrote:

Wherever progress is to ensue, deviating natures are of greatest importance. Every progress of the whole must be preceded by a partial weakening. The strongest natures retain the type, the weaker ones help to advance it.
Something similar also happens in the individual. There is rarely a degeneration, a truncation, or even a vice or any physical or moral loss without an advantage somewhere else. In a warlike and restless clan, for example, the sicklier man may have occasion to be alone, and may therefore become quieter and wiser; the one-eyed man will have one eye the stronger; the blind man will see deeper inwardly, and certainly hear better. To this extent, the famous theory of the survival of the fittest does not seem to me to be the only viewpoint from which to explain the progress of strengthening of a man or of a race.

And, you have a good case in point with the heartbreaking story of the baby in the Netherlands....
You are correct in that it is a Moral/Ethical/Legal dilemma that is incredibly complicated....

On one hand, should a tragedy like that be allowed to happen?

On the other hand - What of people like:
Stephen Hawking
Helen Keller
Beethoven

And are we all the richer for having them live?