Maybe so, but since I haven’t read any of Nietzsche’s works, any teaching he has done would have been indirect.

And it seems that the indirect teachers of his philosophy did not do a very good job, because I was quite surprised to read this quote, from Stephen Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now:

“Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.
…
Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!”

There are several other quotes, each in their way just as outrageous.

Pinker is not a fan of Nietzsche, and no doubt he has cherry-picked them (or whatever the inverse of cherry-picking is), but nonetheless there is clearly much in the philosophy of Nietzsche that would be rejected by most 21st Century people with a liberal and rational mind-set.

My question is why then, when we consult TATE, do we find no hint that he is regarded as “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Reception_and_legacy

> “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

humanism’s not all in pithy aphorisms, for starters, not much fire that way, not inclined to much fire at all.

transition said:

> “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

humanism’s not all in pithy aphorisms, for starters, not much fire that way, not inclined to much fire at all.

??

Did anyone suggest that humanism was all in pithy aphorisms?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

> “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

humanism’s not all in pithy aphorisms, for starters, not much fire that way, not inclined to much fire at all.

??

Did anyone suggest that humanism was all in pithy aphorisms?

yeah nah I didn’t say humanism was, given to delivery like that, appeal.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Maybe so, but since I haven’t read any of Nietzsche’s works, any teaching he has done would have been indirect.

And it seems that the indirect teachers of his philosophy did not do a very good job, because I was quite surprised to read this quote, from Stephen Pinker’s book Enlightenment Now:

“Man shall be trained for war, and woman for the recreation of the warrior: all else is folly.
…
Thou goest to women? Do not forget thy whip!”

There are several other quotes, each in their way just as outrageous.

Pinker is not a fan of Nietzsche, and no doubt he has cherry-picked them (or whatever the inverse of cherry-picking is), but nonetheless there is clearly much in the philosophy of Nietzsche that would be rejected by most 21st Century people with a liberal and rational mind-set.

My question is why then, when we consult TATE, do we find no hint that he is regarded as “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche#Reception_and_legacy

Sorry. I know extremely little about Nietzsche, Pinker or TATE. I do know a bit about humanism.

mollwollfumble said:

Sorry. I know extremely little about Nietzsche, Pinker or TATE. I do know a bit about humanism.

TATE = The Answer To Everything = Wikipedia.

transition said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

> “representing the opposite of humanism” (Pinker’s words) by at least some respected academics?

humanism’s not all in pithy aphorisms, for starters, not much fire that way, not inclined to much fire at all.

??

Did anyone suggest that humanism was all in pithy aphorisms?

yeah nah I didn’t say humanism was, given to delivery like that, appeal.

You’ve lost me.

pinker’s a popularizer of, generalize it human nature studies, if you will, so his appeal is to newspaper readers, not genius.

inclusive humanism you could say

Nietzsche was a silly billy.

Bubblecar said:

Nietzsche was a silly billy.

That’s not what TATE says.

transition said:

pinker’s a popularizer of, generalize it human nature studies, if you will, so his appeal is to newspaper readers, not genius.

inclusive humanism you could say

Do geniuses not read newspapers then?

The Rev Dodgson said:

transition said:

pinker’s a popularizer of, generalize it human nature studies, if you will, so his appeal is to newspaper readers, not genius.

inclusive humanism you could say

Do geniuses not read newspapers then?

I picked a few things from/of Nietzsche, starters for ignorants like myself, to point toward why they may be so different.

I don’t feel humanism so elevates ideas, the work of minds, constructions and projections that way.

Its not a tumor, a thought virus, or project

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are several other quotes, each in their way just as outrageous.

Historical context… shrug.. You’d read worst in the 50 shades of shit novels..

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are several other quotes, each in their way just as outrageous.

Historical context… shrug.. You’d read worst in the 50 shades of shit novels..

I didn’t realise that 50 Shades was regarded as a great philosophical work.

The Rev Dodgson said:

Dropbear said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

There are several other quotes, each in their way just as outrageous.

Historical context… shrug.. You’d read worst in the 50 shades of shit novels..

I didn’t realise that 50 Shades was regarded as a great philosophical work.

surely you jest..

Nietzsche appears in quite a new science fiction stories as a person who inspires genetic engineering

Nietzsche made some profound observations that developed some areas of modern philosophy, but he was also quite often a thoroughly confused dumb arse.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_Nietzsche%27s_views_on_women