• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Any students of existentialism here?

Status
Not open for further replies.

Socreges

Banned
To be specific, Kierkegaard, Nietzsche, and Dostoesky.

I need to write a paper comparing K and N to D (not K -> N, N -> K). With regards to D, his works: Notes from the Underground and The Grand Inquisitor.

I'm interested in anything you have to say comparing them. I suspect I'm pleading to a very small minority here, if anyone, but it can't hurt.

Or if you can direct me to a competent website for this assignment, that would be awesome.

Thanks
 
I'm a second year philosophy major (actually 53 credit hours after this semester, most gen. ed.); thus I have only taken a survey class so far. The real course work begins next summer. I might be able to help so here goes.


Kierkergaard said that there are three stages in the development of a religous person which culminates in that person making a "leap of faith" to believe in God. Since there is no evidence of God a person who believes in God must have made that leap of faith.

Nietzsche hated God, religion, and religious people. He said that God was dead and that the religious person was a practicioner of the slave morality. He valued the master morality, his creation, that said people must be strong enough to cast off the slave morality of religion and make his own set of ethics and values.

Dostoyvsky wrote about many of these themes especially in Crime and Punishment, the only one I have read. In it, Raskalnikov murders an old woman to see if he could indeed make his own morality, turns out he couldnt and had many afflictions, mentally and physically, that eventually led him to turn himself in.

I havent read The Brothers Karamosov which has the Grand Inquisitor in it, but my English professor has been raving about it for years, ever since Ive known him actually.

I know that this probably doesnt help but it might have given you so ideas, maybe. I lack the sophistication to speak of these at length. In two years I could probably write a small paper on it but for now, sorry.
 

Socreges

Banned
Nietzsche was obviously a very intelligent person, regardless of flaws.

And given that some of you seem to know so much about him, how about helping me out!

Property of Microsoft said:
I know that this probably doesnt help but it might have given you so ideas, maybe. I lack the sophistication to speak of these at length. In two years I could probably write a small paper on it but for now, sorry.
Honestly, it was pretty superficial given that you've done a survey course, but having someone else express the basic comparison is always nice for a platform. Thanks.

And The Grand Inquisitor is a pretty amazing piece, I think. Read it for your own enjoyment, if nothing else. It's not even all that long.
 

NLB2

Banned
Oh oh oh! By "God is dead" N meant that modern society has created a world in which belief in God, at least the Christian concept of God, is, though not impossible, rather absurd. So that to believe in Christian God requires a person to believe contradictory ideas. For example, the Bible says the world is several thousand years old. But geaolgy at the time was showing that the earth is in fact in the millions of years. To be rational, one must recognize the discoveries of geology, but to be Christian one also had to ignore them. That's what he meant by "God is dead" and that's also why he accused man of murdering god. (See The Madman from The Gay Science. Not sure which aphorism number it is, but if you do a search for it on Google, you'll surely come up with it.)
 

firex

Member
I could help if it was Sartre and Camus, but I don't know anything of the guys you listed, except that the Xenoshit series is a horrible literal interpretation of some of Nietzsche's writing.
 
NLB2 said:
Oh oh oh! By "God is dead" N meant that modern society has created a world in which belief in God, at least the Christian concept of God, is, though not impossible, rather absurd. So that to believe in Christian God requires a person to believe contradictory ideas. For example, the Bible says the world is several thousand years old. But geaolgy at the time was showing that the earth is in fact in the millions of years. To be rational, one must recognize the discoveries of geology, but to be Christian one also had to ignore them. That's what he meant by "God is dead" and that's also why he accused man of murdering god. (See The Madman from The Gay Science. Not sure which aphorism number it is, but if you do a search for it on Google, you'll surely come up with it.)

Right. But he also blames God and religion for basically perpetuating a weak person that blindly follows.
 

Socreges

Banned
NLB2, Property of Microsoft just sent me a pm saying that you don't know Nietzsche very well! Prove him wrong!

Property of Microsoft, NLB2 said likewise! And that your mother is a whore!


But seriously: Do you guys know much about the Will to Power? His theory of man as the bridge to Ubermensche?
 
Socreges said:
NLB2, Property of Microsoft just sent me a pm saying that you don't know Nietzsche very well! Prove him wrong!

Property of Microsoft, NLB2 said likewise! And that your mother is a whore!


But seriously: Do you guys know much about the Will to Power? His theory of man as the bridge to Ubermensche?

Um..I was agreeing with him. For that I wont spill the beans on the ubermensche.
 

Socreges

Banned
Property of Microsoft said:
Um..I was agreeing with him. For that I wont spill the beans on the ubermensche.
No, no, no. I was joking, as if to instigate you two into continuing the discussion.
 
I kid, I kid.

The Will to Power is when a person casts off all the forms of slave mentality from society, religion, etc. and begins to form his own morals and ethics according to his own individuality. The ubermensch is the person who successfully does all this.

Hilter misunderstood Nietzsche and used this idea for his blonde hair, blue eyes standard of what a perfect person would be. Of which he was neither, go figure. This is a major misconception of Nietzsche's philosophy and one of the reason why he is hated, well that and his views on women and such.
 

NLB2

Banned
Yeah, Der Wille zur Macht. Will to power and the overman are very closely related. You could say that, when all is boiled down, the overman is the person who replaces his morality with the will to power. Nietzsche believed in the will to power as the force that shapes the entire universe, a Schopenhaurien will. The overman is the person who lets go of morality and is able to have his actions guided purely by this will to power. Another thing you might want to look into is eternal return of the same.

BTW, why doesn't your teacher have you read real philosophers like Kant or Wittgenstein?
 

NLB2

Banned
Property of Microsoft said:
I kid, I kid.

The Will to Power is when a person casts off all the forms of slave mentality from society, religion, etc. and begins to form his own morals and ethics according to his own individuality. The ubermensch is the person who successfully does all this.
Yeah, even though I explain the will to power differently, it would most likely be realized by the ubermensch by him creating a new morality, one that is inherently beneficial to him.
 
NLB2 said:
BTW, why doesn't your teacher have you read real philosophers like Kant or Wittgenstein?


Do you wanna scare the guy off philosophy forever?! I love those guys but people were running from the room when we discussed them in class.

Also, are you implying that Nietzsche wasnt a real philosopher?
 
NLB2 said:
Yeah, even though I explain the will to power differently, it would most likely be realized by the ubermensch by him creating a new morality, one that is inherently beneficial to him.

You have a deeper grasp of the subject, so you can add a layer of sophistication to my 1100 level crap. :)
 

Boomer

Member
I thought it was ubermenschen? Anyway, I just think it's silly that his whole argument relies on his belief that "God is dead".
 

NLB2

Banned
To me philosophy implies two things: metaphysics and logic. I absolutely love Nietzsche, but I love him as the first great psychologist. His metaphysics lack any argument. For example, eternal return. If there is a finite number of possible worlds, and if the universe is temporally infinite, everything must repeat itself endlessly. Ok, that makes sense, but Nietzche gives no argument for either of the propositions. That is, he doesn't give a reason why there is only a finite number of possibilities, and, though he gives an argument for eternity, it consists of him assuming God doesn't exist, and, as such, that the universe must be eternal because it was not created. I see no reason why it should really be taken as philosophy.
 

NLB2

Banned
Boomer said:
I thought it was ubermenschen? Anyway, I just think it's silly that his whole argument relies on his belief that "God is dead".
It doesn't, it relies on the belief that god doesn't and has ontologically existed, that is, actually existed. God is dead refers to the fact that people thought god existed, but now to think god (christian god) exists is just silly.
 

Socreges

Banned
Thanks a lot, guys. I really appreciate this. I'm going to try and get started soon. Maybe I'll have more questions later tonight.

BTW, why doesn't your teacher have you read real philosophers like Kant or Wittgenstein?
K, N, and D are supposed to be the introduction to existentialism. Heidegger and Sartre wrap up the course.

Kant is pre-existentialism. He's a metaphysicist, though I can't (properly) distinguish between the two fields yet. We covered him briefly in my political philosophy course. He seemed very interesting.

Never heard of Wittgenstein. And that scares me. He must be really specific?
 
Boomer said:
I thought it was ubermenschen? Anyway, I just think it's silly that his whole argument relies on his belief that "God is dead".

I see what you mean. For hating religion so much he sure goes out of his way to prove that its shit. He kinda validates it by attacking it so vehemently.


Wittgenstein talks extensively about language and logic.
 

Boomer

Member
NLB2 said:
It doesn't, it relies on the belief that god doesn't and has ontologically existed, that is, actually existed. God is dead refers to the fact that people thought god existed, but now to think god (christian god) exists is just silly.

No, that's incorrect. What he means is that the idea of God has lost its full creativity. He believes that we killed God by our progress, optimism, and faith in this world. In the modern world, authentic faith in God isn't possible because our true faith lies in technology and science. But because God is so deeply ingrained in our world, his death is not yet felt by the masses because they still believe that they believe in Him (if that makes sense). These are the "uttermenschen", whom the ubermenschen benefit from.
 

White Man

Member
BTW, why doesn't your teacher have you read real philosophers like Kant or Wittgenstein?

That's my kinda stuff. Sorry, I don't really work with morals and ethics. I enjoy Dosty from a literary perspective (Notes from the Underground is really good and relatively short -- check it out. Kierkgaard is most familiar to me for having the coolest first name ever.

Nietzsche I am familiar with, but I've never taken a formal class on him, so my understanding is likely flawed. Also it's been like 6 years since I read anything by him.
 

Socreges

Banned
I would name my future son Soren if it was socially acceptable. If only I was a celebrity, I could get away with it.
 

NLB2

Banned
Socreges said:
Thanks a lot, guys. I really appreciate this. I'm going to try and get started soon. Maybe I'll have more questions later tonight.


These guys are supposed to be the introduction to existentialism. Heidegger and Sartre wrap up the course.

Kant is pre-existentialism. He's a metaphysicist, though I can't (properly) distinguish between the two fields yet. We covered him briefly in my political philosophy course. He seemed very interesting.

Never heard of Wittgenstein. And that scares me. He must be really specific?
Yeah, the little insult on N was really an insult on all of existentialism. Metaphysics is basically the study of the noumenal universe and the study of the laws governing the phenomenal universe. Its most important aspect is epistomology, which is an attempt to understand how people are able to know.

You've probably never heard of Wittgenstein because of the existentialists. While the existentialists were writing self help books that anybody with a high school diploma could understand and gaining massive popularity through this, Wittgenstein was busy writing the masterpiece that is the Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus. It was his attempt to solve all the problems of metaphysics by showing that the problems result from the limitations inherent in language.

http://www.kfs.org/~jonathan/witt/ten.html
 

White Man

Member
Wittgenstein will make you insane. Reading The Tractatus or Philosophical Investigations is akin to reading pages from the Necronomicon.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
Mind you, I've only read selected passages from Kierkegaard nearly 7 years ago, and have only read The Grand Inquisitor once, around that same time, so take this with a "grain of fuzzy memory" ;) ...


I think you could make some nice comparisons and contrasts between the value that Kierkegaard places on religion and the views expressed by the Grand Inquisitor. For the former, religion was no so much objectively true, and thus believed, but rather subjectively true-- for Kierkegaard, subjective truth was the most meaningful truth in life; to believe something passionately and with vigor was seen as the essence of life. Thus, in Kierkegaard's view, religion was valuable not so much for its intrinsic worth or factual truth, but rather because of the state of being it provokes in a man. His preference for subjective truth stems from the belief that it is only through intensely realized and devoted subjectivism (be the object of one's subjective beliefs religious or otherwise) that we can quell the anxiety that arises from realizing that we are ultimately free to do as we wish (i.e., that man is self-reliant).


This is similar to the Grand Inquisitor's rationale for rejecting the utility of free will-- that man is incapable of dealing with his free will, unable to rein it in and channel it into something useful, or to arrive at truth, for it is a fickle thing; our ephemeral beliefs about "truth" are quite readily supplanted by the myriad other thoughts and fancies which can strike us at any moment and forcefully usurp our surety. He paints a picture of man as tormented by his capacity for free will, rather than grateful (or the better) for it. The institution of religion-- of a prescriptive, unwavering sort-- is what will lead to the unity of men and an end to the clamor resultant from the exercise of our "free will". Thus, religion is valued here, too, not for its inherent "truth" or "end" (i.e., a love of God or factual accuracy), but rather, as in Kierkegaard's case, because of the state of being it provokes in man (in the GI's case, religion makes men servile, docile, and unified; the particular state of being that faith engenders under Kierkegaard and the GI are quite different, but in both, religion is seen as a means to an end, not the end itself). The Grand Inquisitor's very aspect and effect on the townsfolk illustrates man's inherent need for inflexible authoritarianism. In short, people need to be guided by a strong, steady hand-- much like sheep-- rather than being merely trusted to arrive at the truth (a love of God) through the exercise of their own faculties; he feels that all of human existence speaks to these self-evident realities, and that, above all else, man desires unity and peace. Institutionalized religion will provide that unity, that regularity, and that guiding hand to man where free will and intellectual justification have failed.


Now this is where you can contrast the two a bit as well, as Kierkegaard was not a fan of social institutions-- he felt that only one's subjective, personal perceptions of "truth" were meaningful. In that sense, Kierkagaard was sort of the anti-argumentum ad populum. :p He believed that one's convictions must stand on their own, without appealing to the ideas of others as evidence for the veracity of one's beliefs. All such attempts to rationalize one's beliefs on the basis of the beliefs of others are inherently misguided, he posited; this would seem to stand opposed to the clannish, hive-like mentality espoused by the Grand Inquisitor (or at least that which would be expected to obtain under his regime), though this would require some more thought (and time) to flesh out fully-- time that I don't have. :p


Bah, and I didn't even discuss Neitzsche. :) Though as I reloaded the page a few times, I saw that people were discussing bits and pieces of his philosophy (NLB2 made some nice posts), so maybe that'll give you a jumping-off point on how to relate it to the other works. By the way, Neitzsche's disavowal and disdain of God and religion cuts much deeper than most are supposing: he viewed the notion of "God" as a man-made construction that helps to assuage men's consciences when they're feeling guilty about either the desire to live by the dictates of their own wills (however selfish they may be), or when they fear being overpowered or outdone by a more naturally gifted man; in that sense, religion is a social construct which keeps the ubermensch from attaining his just rewards-- a life unburdened by social convention and ruled by his will to power. Thus, the "slave morality" was seen as a complete inversion of the natural order of things that was foisted upon humanity by jealous men (jealous of the power of the overman) in order to help the less able masses compensate for their own shortcomings and to keep the overman "in check"; the ubermensch, being reared under such a system, invariably internalizes its proscriptions and lives a docile, common life, never realizing his world-changing potential. Neitzsche abhorred this.


Anyway, I've neglected enough of my own work for this evening; hope this helped some, though I doubt it-- I need more than a few minutes to draw meaningful parallels between works I only read briefly many, many years ago. :p :)


EDIT: Oh yeah, I've never read Notes From the Underground, but there is a lot of existentialist undercurrent in Crime and Punishment, along with theological musings and imagery as well (see: purification by water, which is a recurring theme in the work). I did a paper on just that in junior year of HS-- too bad I threw it out years ago. :p
 
Its the book of the dead (the necronomicon) that some arab wrote while in communication with demons. He wrote it in blood and on pages of human flesh. Guy went insane and the book brings misfortune and misery to those who use it. You can get it at Barnes and Noble for 6.99 sans blood and flesh.


Goddamn Loki good post. I wish I had your memory. I cant remember most of my class and that was 3 semesters ago.
 

NLB2

Banned
hmm, wonder how much the blood and skin one sells for.
Loki: I give you a
greg-thumbs-up.jpg
 

White Man

Member
Notes from the Underground is basically the theme of C&P boiled down to 1/5th the size. It's a bit rougher, and the story is different, but they're thematically very similar. I think more papers get assigned about Notes because it's easier to work with, really.

EDIT: Just looked and saw it was longer than I realized. I read it on a computer print out, heh.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
White Man said:
Notes from the Underground is basically the theme of C&P boiled down to 1/10th the size. It's a bit rougher, and the story is different, but they're thematically very similar. I think more papers get assigned about Notes because it's easier to work with, really.

Sounds interesting; I really enjoyed C&P back in the day. If I ever get the chance to read a book for pleasure again (which seems an increasingly distant prospect), I'll check it out. :)
 

White Man

Member
I just reread the opening paragraph. I love this opening. One of the best ever.

Dostoevsky said:
I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I
believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my
disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor
for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors.
Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine,
anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am
superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you
probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I
can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my
spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not
consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only
injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is
from spite. My liver is bad, well--let it get worse!
 

Loki

Count of Concision
I am a sick man. ... I am a spiteful man. I am an unattractive man. I
believe my liver is diseased. However, I know nothing at all about my
disease, and do not know for certain what ails me. I don't consult a doctor
for it, and never have, though I have a respect for medicine and doctors.
Besides, I am extremely superstitious, sufficiently so to respect medicine,
anyway (I am well-educated enough not to be superstitious, but I am
superstitious). No, I refuse to consult a doctor from spite. That you
probably will not understand. Well, I understand it, though. Of course, I
can't explain who it is precisely that I am mortifying in this case by my
spite: I am perfectly well aware that I cannot "pay out" the doctors by not
consulting them; I know better than anyone that by all this I am only
injuring myself and no one else. But still, if I don't consult a doctor it is
from spite. My liver is bad, well--let it get worse!

Man, talk about "issues". ;) :p
 

AfroLuffy

Member
I've been reading nietzsche at a very slow rate for the past month...and it has been a considerable time since my last visit with dostovesky, so by no means do I claim to know what i'm talking about. That being the case, i'm very bored and will contribute what i can.

About Notes from the Underground, the narrator seems to cry out against the move towards rationalism and enlightenment--this notion that people/society can improve and better themselves by following rational principles and reason--by saying that when given a strictly logical path to follow, people will not necessarily follow it, but oftentimes do the opposite. People can not be expected to act perfectly logical, robotical, or what have you; they need their fun, their wretched debasements, and their bad habits. And, too, in the narrator's own life as he retells it: he knew better but chose to obey his ego over his rational faculty. Being selfish is being human. No amount of logic can completely change human nature; and if it could, would u still be human?


Onto Crime and Punshiment, I never really noticed the parrellels between raskolnikov's journey and the idea of the ubermensch, but in hindsight I think that is likely the best connection of nietzschean ideas to dostovesky. After murdering an old woman for his own gain, Raskolnikov is constantly tortured by the remnants of his old moral codes. There's this great suffering of the spirit, accompanied by tremendous shame and guilt. The old woman he murdered was to be a simple stepping stone on his way to the top, where a simple murder of a useless old woman would be miniscule, nothing, compared to his own accomplishments.

It goes back to an idea which he theorizes in a paper. He states their are two types of men: ordinary and extroidinary. It is the second type that shapes the world, he says. The ordinary then-- the common men or to borrow from nietzsche: the all-too-many--are subject to their masters and obedient to their laws(moralities?) He asks that if it takes stepping over a few worthless rabble or taking an insignificant life to produce a great man, then is it justified? He points to men like Caesar and Napolean; where would they be without ambition? To be an extroidinary man you must have no quabbles about stepping over the weak, if it comes to that. Raskolnikov as his situation and fears worsen, begins to rationalize this idea; eventually, he murders an old woman for a few meesly rubbles. He is guilt ridden, longing to turn himself in, but more acutely felt by his ego is the fact that he couldn't fully cast off his moral principles and he is still an ordinary man.

Nietzsche's notion of the ubermensch was not so similar, certainly not as ego-driven or self-centered as raskolnikovs' theory, so it may be hard to draw a comparision. That said, i think nietzsche was actually quoted as saying that he hated all of dostovesky's moral sufferings but was grateful to use it as an example of his belief that man could not so easily overcome 2,000 years of christian morality.

That's all i've got.
 

Zaptruder

Banned
AfroLuffy said:
People can not be expected to act perfectly logical, robotical, or what have you; they need their fun, their wretched debasements, and their bad habits. And, too, in the narrator's own life as he retells it: he knew better but chose to obey his ego over his rational faculty. Being selfish is being human. No amount of logic can completely change human nature; and if it could, would u still be human?

This may be true on a surface level. But the detail is how much selfishness and how much of the poor human nature can be mitigated out of the human population by good rules.

After all, it's unequivocal that a population with the same standard deviation but a high average for less selfishness is better than a population with a low average. Same goes with many facets of human behaviour; you might not be able to socially engineer it completely out of the system, but you can do a lot to reduce the negative behaviours.


Also, there may be exceptional and unexceptional people; people that change the gear and people that turn the wheels of life. But the distinction between those people are only real and evident with history.
 

AfroLuffy

Member
you might not be able to socially engineer it completely out of the system

I agree with you, but the narrator, i think, is poking fun at the fact that during his time this belief in rationality had reached such a peak or hysteria that it felt very much like an attempt to engineer it completely out of the system. I remember he criticizes the crystal palace in england, the structure being this great symbol of progress, for the same reasons.
 

Loki

Count of Concision
AfroLuffy said:
I've been reading nietzsche at a very slow rate for the past month...and it has been a considerable time since my last visit with dostovesky, so by no means do I claim to know what i'm talking about. That being the case, i'm very bored and will contribute what i can.

About Notes from the Underground, the narrator seems to cry out against the move towards rationalism and enlightenment--this notion that people/society can improve and better themselves by following rational principles and reason--by saying that when given a strictly logical path to follow, people will not necessarily follow it, but oftentimes do the opposite. People can not be expected to act perfectly logical, robotical, or what have you; they need their fun, their wretched debasements, and their bad habits. And, too, in the narrator's own life as he retells it: he knew better but chose to obey his ego over his rational faculty. Being selfish is being human. No amount of logic can completely change human nature; and if it could, would u still be human?


Onto Crime and Punshiment, I never really noticed the parrellels between raskolnikov's journey and the idea of the ubermensch, but in hindsight I think that is likely the best connection of nietzschean ideas to dostovesky. After murdering an old woman for his own gain, Raskolnikov is constantly tortured by the remnants of his old moral codes. There's this great suffering of the spirit, accompanied by tremendous shame and guilt. The old woman he murdered was to be a simple stepping stone on his way to the top, where a simple murder of a useless old woman would be miniscule, nothing, compared to his own accomplishments.

It goes back to an idea which he theorizes in a paper. He states their are two types of men: ordinary and extroidinary. It is the second type that shapes the world, he says. The ordinary then-- the common men or to borrow from nietzsche: the all-too-many--are subject to their masters and obedient to their laws(moralities?) He asks that if it takes stepping over a few worthless rabble or taking an insignificant life to produce a great man, then is it justified? He points to men like Caesar and Napolean; where would they be without ambition? To be an extroidinary man you must have no quabbles about stepping over the weak, if it comes to that. Raskolnikov as his situation and fears worsen, begins to rationalize this idea; eventually, he murders an old woman for a few meesly rubbles. He is guilt ridden, longing to turn himself in, but more acutely felt by his ego is the fact that he couldn't fully cast off his moral principles and he is still an ordinary man.

Nietzsche's notion of the ubermensch was not so similar, certainly not as ego-driven or self-centered as raskolnikovs' theory, so it may be hard to draw a comparision. That said, i think nietzsche was actually quoted as saying that he hated all of dostovesky's moral sufferings but was grateful to use it as an example of his belief that man could not so easily overcome 2,000 years of christian morality.

That's all i've got.

Great post; I wish that C&P was fresher in my mind in order to really examine the issues you raise-- I read it when I was 16 (I'm 26 :p). As you note, though, the idea of the overman is the strongest connection between Neitzsche's philosophy and C&P; specifically, Raskolnikov's attempt to create a fully self-determined morality unbound by the laws of more "common men" is precisely the sort of idea that Neitzsche espoused; his ultimate inability to come to grips with the ramifications of such a mentality proved to be his psychological undoing. All I know is that I can recall how palpable Raskolnikov's ego and self-importance were, and how they leapt off the page at you in the opening chapters. Man, I wish I hadn't thrown away that paper. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom