As one who felt himself in a position to make judgments about the ailments of culture, Nietzsche must have struggled with ambivalence toward a world that was capable of producing him and his philosophy as well as the philosophies of Christianity, anarchism, and Socrates.
What Nietzsche seeks to do as a thinker, I believe, is to prepare us for change. He shows that humanity has a history, that it has been (de-)formed in a particular way, and that the end of the Christian-moral interpretation of the world offers the possibility of another beginning.
Nietzsche, like Aristotle, accepts the fact that humans are social animals, and consequently he must recognize that the development of a culture and its individual members are tied to one another. Spiritual change and transformation is both an individual and a collective pursuit, therefore it has not only psychological but political implications.
ما أَكثَرَ الناسَ لا بَل ما أَقَلَّهُمُ
اللَهُ يَعلَمُ أَنّي لَم أَقُل فَنَدا
إِنّي لَأَفتَحُ عَيني حينَ أَفتَحُها
عَلى كَثيرٍ وَلَكِن لا أَرى أَحَدا
اللَهُ يَعلَمُ أَنّي لَم أَقُل فَنَدا
إِنّي لَأَفتَحُ عَيني حينَ أَفتَحُها
عَلى كَثيرٍ وَلَكِن لا أَرى أَحَدا
ما أَضيعَ الغِمدَ بِغَيرِ نَصلِهِ
وَالعُرفَ ما لَم يَكُ عِندَ أَهلِهِ
وَالعُرفَ ما لَم يَكُ عِندَ أَهلِهِ
0/0
Fadi Makhoul – عبير نعمة - وحياتك
حبالها الصوتية عبارة عن كمان...
The attempt to make heaven on earth invariably produces hell
- Karl Popper
- Karl Popper
In the course of composing his memoirs, [Winston Churchill] reflected on the unaccountable run of bad luck he had encountered in all that touched and concerned the Turkish East . . . He told his readers how a monkey bit the King of Greece and caused the renewed Turkish war that brought down the British government—and himself with it.
- A Peace To End All Peace
- A Peace To End All Peace
0/0
In the course of composing his memoirs, [Winston Churchill] reflected on the unaccountable run of bad luck he had encountered in all that touched and concerned the Turkish East . . . He told his readers how a monkey bit the King of Greece and caused the renewed…
When you read how individual men's prejudices, superstitions, desires, and their runs against blind luck lead them to shape the world you know it today... This makes you laugh, and wonder, “with how little wisdom the world is governed”.
Forwarded from 0/0 (Haidar A. Fahad)
0/0
Whoever allows himself to speak in public is obliged also to contradict himself in public, as soon as he changes his opinions. - Ernst Schmeitzner, Nietzsche's publisher
كلُّ مَن يوجِّه حديثَه للعامة يكونُ بالضرورة متناقضًا كُلّما غَيّرَ آراءَه.
0/0
Photo
Against Wisdom
I would argue that the Socratic dialogues were interpreted upside down: we read them as an argument between a very wise man (Socrates) and various other characters who are generally "idiots." Yet in most of these dialogues, Socrates insists on admitting that he is a simple man who wants to learn “wisdom” from his interlocutor. So why don't we take his words at their face value?
In these dialogues, the wise man is not Socrates, but the man arguing with him. And in every one of these dialogues we see wisdom (Socrates' opponent) losing its ground under Socrates' scrupulous examination and failing to qualify as true knowledge. Then we, along with Socrates, come to the eerie conclusion that most of what we call wisdom is merely a conviction and an unexamined opinion.
This is what makes Socrates special: when the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest man alive, he was so baffled by this (because he knew how ignorant and unwise he was) that he went seeking every man regarded as wise or knowledgeable. He probably truly sought their wisdom in matters like Love, Justice, and Politics, but their wisdom crumbled and collapsed under his “Socratic Method” so much so that he was forced to admit that he was the wisest man alive (but only because he knew how ignorant he was).
In other words: what we generally regard as wisdom, is merely conviction and opinion (and bad opinion for that matter). It is ignorance disguised in the clothes of rhetoric and catchphrases, just like the wolf pretending to be the grandmother of Little Red Riding Hood.
I would argue that the Socratic dialogues were interpreted upside down: we read them as an argument between a very wise man (Socrates) and various other characters who are generally "idiots." Yet in most of these dialogues, Socrates insists on admitting that he is a simple man who wants to learn “wisdom” from his interlocutor. So why don't we take his words at their face value?
In these dialogues, the wise man is not Socrates, but the man arguing with him. And in every one of these dialogues we see wisdom (Socrates' opponent) losing its ground under Socrates' scrupulous examination and failing to qualify as true knowledge. Then we, along with Socrates, come to the eerie conclusion that most of what we call wisdom is merely a conviction and an unexamined opinion.
This is what makes Socrates special: when the Oracle of Delphi said that he was the wisest man alive, he was so baffled by this (because he knew how ignorant and unwise he was) that he went seeking every man regarded as wise or knowledgeable. He probably truly sought their wisdom in matters like Love, Justice, and Politics, but their wisdom crumbled and collapsed under his “Socratic Method” so much so that he was forced to admit that he was the wisest man alive (but only because he knew how ignorant he was).
In other words: what we generally regard as wisdom, is merely conviction and opinion (and bad opinion for that matter). It is ignorance disguised in the clothes of rhetoric and catchphrases, just like the wolf pretending to be the grandmother of Little Red Riding Hood.