>>7665643 Going to bed. I'll refer you to aphorism... 1, I think, of Beyond Good and Evil - it's a curt, albeit fairly profound, answer to your question, and my only elaboration will be: unless you want to read Plato with Heidegger, what Plotonists seek is unveiling rotten, blossoming corpses in the spurious name of Truth; what I seek is to beautifully veil them in the most luxorious of fabrics, and if any horrid part of the cadaver should see light well, let its stench be its own nuptial shroud.
>>7665660 Uh, okay. So, what do you do about the fact that in Beyond Good and Evil, the *only* two passages about Dionysus, when taken together, end up suggesting Nietzsche's a Platonist? (7 and 295)
What do you make of the fact that Nietzsche, in the preface, doesn't criticize Plato for being wrong or promulgating falsehoods, but rather that those falsehoods are *dangerous*? Further, what do you substantially make of Nietzsche's comment about Plato being the most beautiful growth in antiquity?
>>7665809 I'll say that I'm an idiot and what I meant to quote was the first paragraph of Human, Too Human and befuddled myself. Now you seem to be someone who has the texts on hand, so you can see that my post makes more sense with that in mind.
Otherwise, I won't go into defending Nietzsche's position as my own. I pointed you to the aphorism as I felt it said what I feel is the problem with Platonism - which I have explained further when I (fairly incoherently, I'll give you that) rambled about Truth and veils. I didn't mean to mark myself out someone who blindly believes Nietzsche, but merely to borrow his words.
If you feel like expostulating the merits of Platonism, go ahead! I'll read with interest, as, regardless of what I believe, another narrative can only bring me to new lands.
>>7665660 All it takes is one post to know that I hate someone.
>Going to bed I'm not going to reply, but I'm scared you might think it's because I'm weak or a coward, so I'll justify myself before that even happens!
>it's a curt, albeit fairly profound, answer to your question I'm qualifying myself again because I have deep seated feelings of inadequacy, and then I'll call my own response profound because the only praise I get comes from myself
>unless you want to read Plato with Heidegger, what Plotonists seek is unveiling rotten, blossoming corpses in the spurious name of Truth; what I seek is to beautifully veil them in the most luxorious of fabrics, and if any horrid part of the cadaver should see light well, let its stench be its own nuptial shroud. I write in shitty, meandering metaphor because I don't have much to say, and can always fall back on "I'm just too profound for you" if someone critiques me.
You're either a woman, or a 15-23 male who identifies as an intellectual without having any reason to.
I tried to qualify Nietzsche's aphorism as curt and profound because I feel his limit as a writer lies in a careless reader, who might be so eager about the act of reading it to not inquire into its deeper significance and so dismiss it as just obscure bullshit with no depth, like I'd have done it with his paragraphs on inspiration and artists (which I'm fairly sure are in Beyond Good and Evil but fuck me at this point) if I hadn't read Kant and Schopenhauer first. Not knowing the person I was talking to, I felt I kindof had to tell them to look into it.
The metaphor is almost straight-up lifted from both Nietzsche, in the Birth of Tragedy where he talks about Aesthetic Socratism, and Heidegger, in his essay regarding the allegory of the cave and the etimology of the word aletheia, truth, or as he reworked it, unveiling. I just dressed it up in my shitty, hyperbolic ESL prose. It literally means, "they want the truth, I find lies healthier and prettier - but if this supposed truth comes out, it'll mask itself" - which may or may not be an indictment of Platonism since I probably have a fairly poor idea of what Platonism is.
>>7665855 I guess it's not subsequently clear to me how the first aphorism of Human, All Too Human relates, in that case? (the difference between popular metaphysical explanations versus those of historical philosophy?) Is the position you're defending (if you're defending one) more akin to the "beauty lest we die of truth" stance? (In which, I think Nietzsche thinks Plato's doing that; in the preface of BG&E, "pure spirit" and the "good" are *inventions* of Plato.)
>>7665918 Please,take it into account that I've been reading an edition in another language and, reading the wikisource one in English, I see myself many variations in tone and expression, but
>Metaphysical philosophy has helped itself over those difficulties hitherto by denying the origin of one thing in another, and assuming a miraculous origin for more highly valued things, immediately out of the kernel and essence of the " thing in itself."
Was what I had in mind, as far as this discussion was concerned, but I'm really puzzled now as my edition seemed to rave on for quite a bit longer. I'll try and find my copy to give you a proper explanation, provided I can locate it.
But yes,my position is somewhat similar to your "beauty lest...", except I'd say something like "Forr the truth, provided we have other lies to choose", which isn't really resolving anything but lets me just come out and say, I don't feel truth's fun and, being fun one of the most important factors of my life, I'll look for it elsewhere. I do recommend Hakim Bey's essays, they're quite interesting "about" this topic.
Anyway thanks for this dialogue, it's really helping me clear up my mind and focus on the weakpoints in philosophy I should examine and research harder.
>>7665912 >You happy? Look I've been on a roast fest tonight and I feel a bit bad, so here's a pep talk.
The anonymity of the internet turns it into a heaping pile of negative shit- my previous post definitely included- and is a pretty rough ride for the ego. There is a reason for this: most posts are shit- your previous post definitely included- and so they benefit from a good roasting.
Don't take it to heart. Don't qualify yourself in your writing, and don't post back to someone like me, unless its to reverse-psychoanalyze the fact that I'm a faggot taking time out of his life to be an anonymous asshole. Take a good objective look at what you were told, sift out the beneficial criticism, and then toss the rest into the wind.
If you want to be a best seller keep writing cliche profound shit and you might just accomplish your goal. If you want to be a genuinely good writer, then strap yourself in and get ready for tons of criticism. Genius is rarely understood in a lifetime, and never understood immediately. The punishment for being great in this field is never being able to experience your greatness.
Heh, you know what? You're probably right about that. Not my usual policy to answer people who shit on me, so here's to you for both getting a rise out of me and delivering this nice pep talk. It's kind of appreciated, as once in a while it's good to get kicked into (not really)crippling self-doubt by someone outside the usual circlejerking group of friends.
So thanks, anon, to help people keep it real.
Still a bit of a douche tho.
Thread replies: 19 Thread images: 2
Thread DB ID: 487472
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at email@example.com with the post's information.