No, you restated the observer effect in a less precise manner and then tried to connect it to a (still incorrect) version of Heisenberg's principle. Just saying!
Food for thought, cynics. The new Fifty Shades of Grey movie is getting TERRIBLE reviews. Maybe there is hope for the mainstream after all.
I think your statement is a bit paradoxical. Even though the reviews are (thank god) bad, it's still mainstream (for current two weeks, one of the most popular mainstreams). And if that kind of book/movie made it to the "mainstream" term, then god knows what kinds of horrors does the future hold. But luckily, there are always some good and some bad things that are popular at one moment. Kanye West is one bad example and Stephen Hawking is a positive counterpart.
Alright sure, but he did live over 190 years ago when he said all these amazing things. It doesn't frustrate me very much because I understand how much his words sting and burn. I can understand perfectly why you wouldn't want to pick this battle. And Nietzsche wouldn't have been frustrated either, because he believes that you should only delve into philosophy until you are satisfied with what it gives you. Doing anymore is again denying your will. This is a really common philosophical mistake. The error is in believing that 'reliability' is equivalent to 'truth.' Once you can see that, you can see that we are living through lies. Powerful ones, naive ones, silly ones, deadly ones, we don't have a choice. It's about what lies we choose to believe and why we do so. One thing about the 'Will to power' is that everyone wants everything; the biased. the suffering, the power, the vulnerability, the joy, the passion, the heartache, and if we had the choice we would all be gods. The flowery language is their because we are describing something that took pages and pages to logically describe. To sum that up it turns into a sort of poetry. The dry and long winded explanation of Nietzsche would take too long to explain, and no one on this site would probably care to read such a thing, and even if you did, there would be more qualified people who have already done so. I was trying to avoid opening as many can of worms as possible, even using his simplified un-evolved ideas of the same concepts he came up with many years later. As writer's you all know we are selling lies right? We are selling something as beautiful, worthwhile, when there is no such thing. It's only through your subjective conception of, what is worthwhile, that something like that is even born. Well philosophy is nothing but ideas. So you are right, in some ways this is less than a hypothesis. But in other respects, the art of philosophy has usually proven to be brilliant and insightful towards advancing mankind. So to that respect, Freidrich Nietzsche was ahead of his time, and to this day remains to be so. his ideas have already been plenty useful, the fact that they continue to do so, gives credence to just how far ahead he was really looking. Suffering is the closest truth we know, and our week wills refuse to accept it. We turn our heads and become optimist in the face of the disaster that is everyone's life. We really should be embracing the suffering. It is the experience that will make us stronger, and we can take solace in our willing to sacrifice for our goals. The instant-gratification we receive from modern times is amplifying the Apollonian lens. We take refuge in our pleasantries, avoiding as much pain as possible. By doing so we rob ourselves of the potential we have and produce a fraction of what we were capable of. These aren't societies goals or my goals, these are your goals you are hurting. When a culture reflects on itself, unfolds on itself, builds tension with itself, it separates into aesthetics, metaphysics, and ethics. If you analyze any one and try and separate it from the rest it actually lessens it. Only when all three work in conjunction does it actually gain any simile of value. whatever you think to be good or bad, has been viewed by a different society in the exact opposite manner, at some point. This goes back to our willingness to accept anything that reality has to offer, including the hypocritical. In a different time under different circumstance any one of us could have been something we believed to be immoral now for reasons we believe to be ethical then. We are a product of our society. We don't know how to think beyond good or bad, or right or wrong. Trying will only extenuate the impossible feat. Everything we do will have bias and we have to accept that. That is the struggle we have to deal with to overcome our limitations and create. And in that creation we can find 'greatness.' Art is anything and everything. It is the source of value and as such is fundamental to how humans view reality. Decadence is the term I should be using instead of Degredation. It is one of Nietzsche's ultimate contribution, not in the idea itself, but in the contemplation and growth of it. The Wagner song played at the end of 2001 space odyssey was inspired by Thus Spoke Zarathustra, specifically the moment Zarathustra realized what decadence was. The reason I was trying to avoid using it is because it can't be defined or critiqued to a definition. Even if you hear what it is, you won't accept it at face value, not without an explanation, but even that will be unsatisfactory. Only through a willingness of contemplation and understanding can you find it's worth. And the idea has been doing just fine without the critique. It's as though everyone has their own definition of it. But our opinions give away the fact that decadence is happening now. "Apollonian objectification" "disease of the eye, a sexual intensification of artistic voyeurism." Art is falling victim to this, and the fact that you are noticing gives his idea credence. You can't look at recent works and expect to find an answer. No, to find an answer you must look at society as a whole and understand how it is ticking. Only then can you go back to works and point at the very thing which was so hard to define. You can explain it too, but since the foundation is your subjective view, it belongs to you, and if it rings, you can empower others with it. For the hell of it, here is the definition, pretty simple. Decadence - moral or cultural decline as characterized by excessive indulgence in pleasure or luxury.
well think about the time period all those songs were created in, and the shortened time frame between them as we get into recent musical history. no one else has a better reason for why this is happening. Even if you don't totally agree, there is nothing there that intrigues in the slightest? does it really make too little sense? Do you know why? I know this isn't a philosophy forum, so I can't expect much but we are artist all the same. If something could potentially increase your horizons and boundaries, even giving rise to perspectives that you never thought of, why not potentially improve yourself and ability to conceive and construct? I understanding how imposing philosophy can be, which is why it isn't for most people, but I thought modern artist might be able to break the mold, over 200 hundred years in the making. This thread was never about changing any one's mind. But I was hoping to generate intrigue for someone who is interested enough to maybe look into this more.(I never stood a chance of convincing anyone here, which I knew going into this.) I thought I could maybe even help some potential artists on this site pick up some moves. I guarantee no one will regret reading 'The will to Power' because it's too contemporary, too applicable, too sensible to view it as anything but useful. I may be a novice to writing but not to concepts and ideas which I have been working with in excess since I was very young. There is plenty we can learn from each other Well if anyone has any questions about what is posted here, ask away, because this underlying passion and the hope I have for humanity is my drive, and a grand drive is appropriate for us humans. Because we never really want to achieve our goals, we want to have something to do until the end of time.
This is a specious argument. If we had ready access to a huge range of music at any time in history a lot of it would have sounded the same. People like a catchy tune. People take the path of least resistance when writing a catchy tune. I have to be honest, I have very little interest in philosophy. My problem is that most of what I have read is some pretentious tit pontificating over the blindingly obvious; then acting like he has discovered the bloody quark or something, when all he has done is written down what other people couldn't be bothered to waste their time writing down.
Wait a minute, @Megalith. I am very much interested in philosophy and what you have to say. It's just that I don't really feel that Niesczhe is saying much of anything, at least not based on what's been posted here. Maybe I'm just stupid. Then again I apprecciate Descarte and I apprecciate Plato, very much so. But what essentially is Nieszche saying in regards to art? Art needs to help humanity understand itself better? No shit. That's pretty obvious. I'm still not clear how Nieszches views relate to today's decadence, to our obsession with cheap plots, auto tune and CGI.
I think Nietzsche's argument is fundamentally that mass culture (be that media, church, government, the scientific process- whatever) has an homogenising effect and stifles creativity and individuality. He seems to think that Ancient Greece or the Italian Renaissance were culturally superior. Quite how he thinks either were less homogeneous, or less influenced by the structures he disapproves of, than modern culture is beyond me. If I am kind, "rose tinted glasses" springs to mind; if I am honest I would be more likely to say that the entire foundation of his theory, and the comparisons he makes, is patently false. I think it can all be summed up as a sort of cultural snobbery, "I like the opera and other people are stupid because they don't". Of course I may have got this wrong, but I think this is about the size of it. I should add that this all dates back to the C2oth so we are extrapolating his ideas to the present day.
I think that's unfair, if not totally inaccurate. More 'I am able to get some profound moving message from this opera, I love it, and those who don't are either stupid or not working hard enough'. In a way I don't think this is totally wrong I suppose, but Nietzsche isn't exactly known for being humble and unbombastic. I think that when you read him most people will find Nietzsche was ahead of his time - but let's be honest, a lot of his thinking we have either as a culture adapted or rejected. I dare say he isn't terribly relevant anymore. His statement about the Death of God would have then seemed shocking, now it seems to have been taken pretty much as red; at least in Europe. Also, in general I find his philosophy and thinking suffers because of his failings as a person. I know he had sex in his life, but he was a text-book example of an angry and resentful virgin all the same. 'Going to see a woman? Do not forget your whip!' - Beyond Good and Evil. Shut up Nietzsche, just shut up!
That's funny, dude! I was going to saym based on the very little I know of the man, he reminds me of an angsty, bitter teen nerd.
I think in many ways he never stopped being an ansgsty, nerdy teenager - that might be why a lot of teenagers like him. He has that melodramatic near-nihilism that seems to appeal to that age-group. A lot like Lovecraft really. Both were emotionally stunted people, but still talented writers.
I think I prefer Lovecraft. Niezche's concepts seem pretty basic. Most 16 year olds can come up with that stuff on their own, but Mountain of Madness.... Now that was creative
I think it's important to have some perspective. We are talking about a guy who died, insane in 1900. His idea of the 'Ubermench' - someone who builds their own moral system by self-directed value judgement beyond 'Christian' notions of good and evil, slave and leader was pretty revolutionary at the time. It seems obvious to us now, in the 21st century because all of us seem to have taken his point pretty much on board - that we are all masters of our own destiny, that life is their for our own making and we are only responsible for ourselves, but don't think this was obvious to someone in his day because it wasn't. But, as with someone like Marx or Freud, his ideas have sort of seeped into public consciousness, only people don't seem as aware of Nietzsche as they are Marx or Freud. But, maybe Nietzsche should have thrown sea monsters into Thus Spoke Zarathustra.
You still might not be giving this guy quite enough credit. His ideas of the ubermiench and 'The Will to Power' were unavoidably going to become true, they weren't 'adapted.' He knew what we were in our heart of hearts. And that is the thing you are saying makes him sound like and angsty teenager. Because he saw our true selves he could figure an actual plan to improve society, based totally in physiology and psychology. That was his goal in contemplating all of this and forming his ideas on decadence. And they are mere extensions of his core ideas about what we really are and who we are trying to become... And it's not over yet. "What I am now going to relay is the history of the next two centuries. I shall describe what will happen; What must necessarily happen; The triumph of Nihilism. This history can be written already for necessity itself is at work in bringing it about. This future is already proclaimed by one-hundred different omens. As a destiny it announces its advent everywhere. For this music of tomorrow all ears are already pricked." - (Will to Power, Note 2) He seemed resentful because he didn't turn away from such emotions, he used them to improve his stance and opinions. He believed that envy gave insight into our inner passion. And I know everyone thinks this is like telling everyone to go be devils but that's because we can't think beyond terms like good or bad. It's not about dwelling on negative emotions, but about learning and growing from them. Nietzsche could only truly look beyond good and bad in an existential manner and came to conclusions that could potentially help all of society out. his ideas up to that point, (The will to power, Ubemiench) were simply for this purpose. Society didn't learn about Nietzsche. Nietzsche was one of the first to stare at the naked man and try and define it, from that he saw what we would become- and the fact that he didn't get as much attention as he would have liked for his contribution, might have been what drove him insane, but still, even up to the end of his days, I bet I know what he would have told that demon in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Nietzsche would never be so bold as to say that his thought would manifest into an effect as specific as homogenizing. And he doesn't believe that 'mass culture' is responsible. He also didn't believe the Greeks and Romans to be superior but thought they did have things that were lacking in his society in comparison. He studied how they killed those very blessing of their own accord, and even understood why they did so. Your interest in philosophy is acceptable, but your viewpoint on it has much to be yearned for. I probably can't do much about that, but consider the following If my argument is so specious, then why do you use it? Trick question, you honestly couldn't help but use it. And judging from the basic argument you make I don't think you would disagree with this guy if you really knew what he was about. And as for the pontification... well I can understand why it's a turn off, and you are right, philosophy has been an evolution as much as anything else, including science, so it can be off base, and often times it is. But this guy is the culmination of everyone before him. And no one could see with quite as much clarity as him, otherwise they would have walked the road he did. This is is his first note in 'The Will to Power.' "Concerning great things, one should either be silent or speak loftily- That is to say cynically and innocently." I'm no music major but I bet I can take Nietzsche's ideas and apply them to your hypothesis on the matter, and come up with a much more pointed hypothesis which could potentially be researched and tested for it's validity. That is science and at the fundamental building block is your subjective ideas and Nietzsche philosophical ones. Although I'm a little too tired from writing all night. but I guess it was a fairly productive night/morning, so I'm going to get some sleep.... and come back to this subject tomorrow... hopefully an example will shed some light on this.
You and I understand the 'Will to Power' in totally different ways. I personally find it one of the least interesting parts of his philosophy in it's biologic function, if I must be perfectly honest. But is Nietzsche still as useful as he possibly was in his day? I don't think so. Also, was he really that revolutionary? You must see the similarity between Nietzsche's Ubermench and Kant's Categorical Imperative on the base of it. If we were feeling uncharitable we might almost describe Nietzsche as the Generation X love-child of Kant and Schopenhauer.
According to you he doesn't seem to be saying a great deal at all, but he is using an awful lot of words to say it. His arguments are subjective to the point of being invalid, rely on slightly absurd assumptions, and rely upon the central conceit that he personally has transcended such base constraints as morality and as such can act as arbiter over those around him. In short they have the general air of a disaffected 16 year old attempting profundity. What argument? I didn't make an argument. For clarity, the following occurred: - I posted a youtube video indicating that a lot of modern pop songs use the same 4 chords. You posted the specious argument that this is a modern phenomenon, with the implication that music has been wonderfully diverse and equally as plentiful throughout history. You chose to ignore factors such as the advances in technology that allow access to a wider range of music and enables these comparisons (in fact it allows a window to almost everyone with a passing knowledge of a guitar or keyboard). To be abundantly clear, I did not make this argument because it is false. You did. In response, I identified that if you had similar access to the music produced by every Tom, Dick and Harry at any time in history a lot of it would have sounded similar. In other words, yes modern pop music is a little lazy and crap, but then popular music has always been a little lazy and little crap. Pretending that this applies to all modern music and picking out the few great composers from history to justify this point is sophism. I would fundamentally disagree. Rather than the culmination of everyone before him, in his arrogance he actively dismissed the philosophy of many people before him. Again, I have never posited any hypothesis on this matter. I do not know what you are referring to. You seem to be providing a critique of something I never said: If I were to critique someone's skills of logical debate I think the first rule would be to actually respond to something they have said, rather than something you have invented. If you respond to this, please do not try to attribute your arguments to me.
