Nietzsche - prophet of Autism?

Post Reply New Topic

From another thread:

I can still read some his views, and say "oh, come on, Nietzsche", and know that this is probably what MAKES me a follower of his style and way of thinking.
The thing is, some of it I already thought about for myself. And while at start I refused to learn from anybody, just to see if I agree with them, I find new things that Nietzsche already defined - and I agree with. Just think about it for half a second, and that's right. Of course, I can also read other things he said and dismiss them.

However, today, I do think that as an individual thinker, it's my duty to listen to another individual thinker, and learn from him - because you cannot get anywhere alone. I think I was blessed with both IQ (sorry if arrogant) and autism, so I can think, and think for myself. I think Nietzsche was the same case. I think that many autistic people I know fit in the "Uebermensch" defitinition - also NT people, but more autistics than NT. So, if we want to make the world better, isn't it our duty to read Nietzsche's full work, to see what we can learn and what we can dismiss, and continue it - to a generation of thinking people? May sound arrogant, but for many years I felt as if I'm the only individual thinker, and now I see it's more common here - even if we're not 100% percent individual thinkers. And even if we do have to listen to others, and think about what they say - and that's my whole point.

Anyone else feels so about Nietzsche?
Any chance for a Nietzschean discussion - pro and against his works and sayings?

It's hard to say who is what. I wouldn't so quickly label Nietzsche as an autistic, I also wouldn't just put the separation from the herd as the only central element by which to judge Nietzsche, after all, existentialists in general were big on this idea but I really would think that a number of them were not autistic.

That being said, if we are all individual thinkers, why is it going to be a universal duty to read Nietzsche? Why not Plato? Why not Sartre? Why not the Bible? To go even further, if you say that we should read all "great" thinkers, then who defines a great thinker? Who would have time to read every thinker that could be considered a "great" thinker?

That being said, Nietzsche had a rational view in one sense, but was more cynical to our understanding of reality than most of us could find acceptable.

I think Nietzsche at least represented some kind of autistic thinking, because his individualness and "not caring about others" was unique to his time and environment. You are free to claim otherwise, of course.

Your second passage brings out a good question - Nietzsche was the first one to say everything is BS. And so, he searched for individual meaning, and said that his readers shouldn't think like he did. They should learn how to think for themselves.

Of course we don't have time to read any "great" thinker - but as I read Nietzsche, and read others, I see a clear difference. Nietzsche talks about the whole approach to understanding life, science, psychology, and practically everything. People used this method, but than they delievered only their final message. They forgot about the method itself. And that's why today existantialists are not necessarily Nietzschean, as I see it.

I think the Nietzschean method of thinking is the key to everything. He was cynical, he was sometimes wrong in my opinion - but his message shouldn't be his conclusions about what's right or wrong - which he dismissed - rather his whole way of thinking and judging things.

Now, of course not everyone has time to read Nietzsche as a whole - but we can summarise it, each to his own, see what comes up, and make a book that "simplifies" Nietzsche's works - for example. Moreover, I think it should be used as a teaching tool, his philosophy. When he spoke about education, he explained it as well (I can search for exact quotes if you're not familiar and interested).

Are you kidding? He was preceded by Soren Kierkegaard, Fyodor Dostoevski, and Max Stirner in this very metric, and he almost certainly read Dostoevsky, and he may have read Kierkegaard. He isn't that unique, but rather a member of an emerging group at that period of time.

Additionally, there are a lot of other factors with Nietzsche. He was the atheist son of a Lutheran pastor, and he became an atheist, not due to some independence but rather because of his reading of David Strauss's writing on Jesus, which became popular around that period of time, and I think before this he was thinking of studying theology and to change so dramatically has significant psychological impacts on a person. He also suffered greatly from illness throughout his life and was extremely isolated as a person.


Right.


Sure, but a lot of thinkers have tried to be paradigm shifters. That being said, existentialists draw more from other sources than just Nietzsche.


Ok? So, we should institutionalize Nietzsche? Wouldn't that likely begin to miss the point? If we institutionalize Nietzsche we actually destroy some of the value that Nietzsche provides in questioning the institutions.

Nietzsche's overrated imo.

He didn't read Kierkegaard, he was told to read him before his death, and anyways, there are some differences between them, that are critical, such as the will to power.

As for Stirner - there is a debate on whether he even read him. I don't know. What I do know, is that when I read Stirner, it's embarassing to compare them both. He spoke a lot of BS, generally. Just because they were both "individualist" doesn't mean they said similar things. Stirner sounds like an angry boy who hates school. Nietzsche wonders what's the logic. Stirner said there is no moral, Nietzsche searched for a natural moral, understanding our instincts. Where did Stirner did something like this? I can't find it at least. Stirner was about "myself and myself and myself", Nietzsche was about complete theories.

I don't see that Stirner released books explaining his non-normal beliefs. He just said the same things all over again. He said nothing, as I see it. I don't find the explanations and insight that Nietzsche has, with all do respect. Nietzsche thought for himself, Stirner said "what the hell" for himself. That's not quite the same...

Regarding Dosoevsky, he only found his work after he wrote his 7th book, and liked his work. Yet, I think his psychological analysis was better, and differs. Plus, don't forget that Dostoevsky was part of a movement. Nietzsche wasn't part of anything. He knew that.

I don't find anyone who gave interpretations for values, natural instincts, etc. the way Nietzsche did. If you know another person - you're free to correct me.


Not exactly.
It is said that perhaps he stopped his theology study because he read it. It was in 1864. But he already published and essay attacking common beliefs in 1862...

He was isolated because of his works and beliefs. Yet he kept working on new books and theories, though no one bought them... How can he be compared to other philosphers that you mentioned?


Even simple concepts, such as defining the herd mentality, "what doesn't kill me make me stronger", etc, became more and more common. And it didn't happen after he published his works, it happened long after his death. He even influenced psychology. An existantialist who says that men should find new morals - is somewhat Nietzschean, regardless of other aspects of his philosophy. Even Kierkegaard said belief is more important and researched biblical morals, and Dostoevsky was afraid of secular nihilism as far as I know. Nietzsche was the only one to say we don't need religion, and that we need new morals. Plus, he's the only one that I see that really explained how to find your values, other than saying "find them"


We should institutionalise his way of thinking and criticism. I question him myself. I also think you can add to it, and teach criticism.

Well, he probably didn't, but the individualism is still a matter in this case. I mean, the fact that both men were in the same timeframe certainly dilutes the uniqueness of both in some substantial manner.


Well, both were critical and I think that's where the similarity is. Stirner's rejection of the metaphysical and Nietzsche's rejection of the metaphysical both are considered similar. I mean, you can't say that everything Nietzsche said seems high-brow either, particularly in things like rejecting Socrates because he was ugly. Does Stirner search for these things? No, his major focus is in rejecting all of these things as foundationless, and lacking real basis to accept them. Now, Stirner was about "myself and myself and myself" but he was also about rejecting "ghosts" and sticking to the physical, like children and the old do rather than being idealistic like the young and Stirner was highly "realist" like Nietzsche in that both men were open egoists and immoralists.


Stirner's book is a statement of beliefs, and given that it is one book, of course it is the same subject, but I don't think this is only the same point. There is the rejection of morals as always reflections of some parties interest. There is also the rejection of the ideal world as fictitious. There is the promotion of complete egoism. There is also the promotion of a more pragmatic outlook in Stirner's thought. Stirner is a much debated thinker, as his work is considered important for a lot of individualist anarchism, as some of the statements in The Ego and It's Own are seen as critical of property institutions and thus promoting the idea that they are fictions to be ignored.

Now, I will admit that Stirner isn't looking to explain, but he isn't a moron either. Stirner is probably more of an inverted Hegelian like Kierkegaard was.


Ok, but my point is less that Nietzsche was alone


Wait? So you are evaluating Nietzsche's uniqueness on the matter of being exactly like Nietzsche? I am not sure that this a great way to go about things, as most people are only like themselves. I mean, if a philosopher is considered "great" then they usually aren't being copied by everybody else at the point in time in which they are writing.

That being said, the emergence of morals and instincts through selective processes based upon relative power is important for Darwinian natural selection. Daniel Dennett, a philosopher that is really big on evolution, is also being compared somewhat to Nietzsche because of his use of evolutionary theory to undercut teleological claims.


The Life of Jesus Critically Examined came out before 1864, what came out in 1864 was Life of Jesus for the German People. Maybe I did make too much out of this, but still.


Well, he was isolated for a number of reasons, likely including this, but also likely including other factors such as mental and physical health.


Ok? But simple concepts really aren't the proper measure of greatness to begin with, and notions of man as a herd certainly wouldn't only be Nietzsche's but also ideas of anyone looking into sociology from a less individualistic standpoint.

Kierkegaard also influenced psychology, as I think Rollo May ends up being more influenced by Kierkegaard than by other thinkers.


We can't institutionalize our own current ways of thinking and criticism very effectively. I doubt Nietzsche's will avoid bastardization as well.

Look, the major thrust of my criticism is that I don't think that your appraisal of Nietzsche is realistic. I am not going to say that Nietzsche is a dummy or anything like that, but frankly, we could have probably survived and even discovered a lot of similar ideas to Nietzsche's ideas by this point in time even if Nietzsche didn't exist.

I still think he was more revolutionary, as Kierkegaard spoke about a common religion - but I accept your correction about the general sense of individuality.
However, it's also a matter of place, not only of time. Not that I know what happened in Denmark.


I think many of Nietzsche's sayings were humorous or provocative in intention, but that's for another topic.

Stirner rejected everything - so what's the point about that? Tell us what is correct, not that everything is wrong and "f**k it, it doesn't matter, hurt everyone you want". He didn't even say anything. Nietzsche offered a solution to that nihilism.

And Nietzsche wasn't exactly an immoralist. While Stirner said "values are nonesense", Nietzsche searched for new values. That's a big difference.
He also wasn't egoist. He spoke about the future of the human race. He spoke of cruelty as a problem. He despised antisemitism, and called his sister "my former sister" because she distorted his messages. He advocated forgiveness, and understanding. He said that love is seeing someone who's different than you. He wrote books with prefaces claiming it's intended for people who aren't alive yet. He did it for humanity. He wasn't an egoist at all.


Okay, so he did phase one. Rejecting common beliefs. What did he do with it? Nothing. He didn't even try to examine the meaning of his instincts. Nietzsche did. Nietzsche worked for years, and progressed towards an answer.

Stirner perhaps isn't an idiot, but his writings are worthless to me. Kierkegaard was totally different, he offered something new.


I thought in the same way myself before I discovered him. I'm sure I'm not the only one. I think that today we have more tools to finish what he tried to achieve.

I don't know Daniel Dennett, but I will search for his work, thanks.


Well, it came out before he was born
In 1864 he started studying theology, and stopped after one semester. Some people say it's because of this book, but he wrote that anti-church essay before he even started studying theology. Perhaps the book also influenced him, and showed him another way. Not ruling that out.


He always had some friends, but kept fighting with them, and with his editor, for being an antisemite, for example. Let's say that if he wanted company so much he could keep it...


The herd mentality/behaviour is a term coined by Nietzsche. Of course, today everyone knows it.

Kierkegaard had a look to psychology as well, as he described his feelings. I think that Nietzsche analyzed not only himself, and that's the difference.


Of course we could - he just put them together before other people. I'm not embracing Nietzsche as a mentor, I'm talking about his philosophy. I mean yes, I'm also talking about himself here, but I don't want to teach him, I want to teach his ideas.

Your comment about us being able to survive means nothing - because my claim is that his philosophy is still not yet received, and practiced.
As said, that's my own philosophy in general, I thought about it for years since early teenhood, I just found Nietzsche and read what I didn't think about yet. I think everyone should. I don't think I'm the only one with this approach, of course.

Okay, so I decided to write ahead a few points that may clarify what I mean:

1. Rationale and emotions don't contradict each other. Moreover, they can be controlled. For instance, let's say you're angry at someone, and want to hit him, but then discover it wasn't him. No more anger.

2. The idea to make someone suffer, for "justice", makes no point. Two wrongs don't make a right. Plus, it's not his fault - either genetic or due to environment. So you may be able to show him why it hurts you/someone else, but no point in making him suffer.

3. The state always performs indoctrination - that's the killing of the free mind.

4. Every mistake is something to learn from, no point in regretting.

5. Once you do something, and your explanation is "because I have to" - something's wrong with your life.

Just 5 general examples, not in depth, I admit. Thing is, even when someone tells me "it's obvious", they don't act like it.

You mean the dominant religion. Kierkegaard was stridently opposed to Christianity as commonly practiced, and this actually is an attitude that seems to come out in a few of his writings, but most obviously in "Attack on Christendom"


That's certainly true.


Umm.... the point of that is that everything is wrong and he wanted to convey that. He also has a solution, egoism was his solution. If there are no ideals, then live by what comes from internal desires. Albert Camus described the two men in this way "Nietzsche beat his head against the wall, while Stirner just laughed". To Max Stirner the issue of nihilism isn't an issue, egoism fills the void, and this doesn't seem like a horrifyingly bad solution.


I believe Nietzsche and Stirner BOTH called themselves immoralists. In fact, a number of counter-moral philosophers will call themselves immoralists when they advocate clear moral value systems. An example of this is Marquis de Sade and his notion of an inverted natural law.


Ok, I didn't say he was an anti-semite. I also didn't say that he favored cruelty or vengeance or misunderstanding either, in fact, a lot of those are relatively irrelevant to the issue of egoism. The issue is that I just don't see Nietzsche re-creating a new metaphysic of kindness, but rather I see him as being firmly a realist in terms of assessing reality, and founding all things in the individual. Stirner didn't abolish love either for that matter, but rather reinterpreted the world into an individualist framework.


Nothing? You just dislike his solution. The meaning of instincts isn't the central issue to Stirner, the central issue to Stirner is destroying all essences in order to force a conceptual individualism. What an instinct is doesn't matter to Stirner, as what matters to him is the fundamental self.


Ok? I'd say that most of these people went their own paths.


Ok.


I am somewhat surprised. Out of all of the modern philosophers, he is one of the few who has actually gotten some public attention. He is one of the 4 horsemen of atheism, and a man relatively known for his scientific reductionism. I think the issues that get him as labeled to be Nietzschean are his strong emphasis on the value of evolutionary theory for understanding the world, along with his destruction of things such as the conventional notion of selfhood. He won't likely be a thinker you'd like if you emphasize the more continental elements of Nietzsche. Dennett is more of a pragmatist than many other things, but Pragmatism is a good direction to look into as well. It isn't existentialist at all, but rather is pragmatic. It does not emphasize man's desire for meaning so much as his limited perspective. That being said, I think Nietzsche is sometimes lumped in with this category as well, and I think the major modern Nietzsche scholar Brian Leiter is pretty openly a pragmatist more so than an existentialist.


Whatever, it is probably irrelevant. I was mostly just addressing the fact that losses in faith tend to be emotionally violent and utterly warp personal perspectives.


Ok.


I don't care much about terms. "Herd mentality" really doesn't strike me as particularly impressive as a change in perspective.


Well, he also worked within the Christian religious tradition, so he analyzed more than just himself.


Ok? I can buy that, but I doubt that Nietzsche will escape the fringe with any great ease. Most people don't want to destroy and reconstruct reality, but rather they want to accept everything as it is. They would prefer to be apologists for their current order than they would like to be critics.

I mean, I'll be somewhat honest, I don't hold to Nietzsche strongly and I wouldn't consider myself a Nietzsche scholar at all, but I would likely consider myself broadly Nietzschean in outlook. I actually liked Stirner more for a significant period of time, but I did have a change in perspective towards being more Nietzschean partially on the basis of ongoing issues in mediating subjective realities, accepted objective facts, and so on. I am more just worried about ever deifying anything. It is easy to make a man into an idol, or into a new God to be worshiped, but the point is always to be an innovator and cast down these fools to come up with something better, and this means clearing the ground of any idol. I mean, I see this kind of attitude play a significant role in Thus Spake Zarathusthra.

Well, they don't contradict each other because they aren't even in the same sphere of influence. Frankly, I don't see a reason why no more anger has to occur in this kind of situation either and I can easily imagine a person who finds out that the guilty party isn't really guilty but who still blames them despite knowing better, just not doing it consciously.


I also don't see how one can ever argue that. To dance, for joy, makes no point. There isn't a teleology guiding our actions, and frankly, if I get justice, it isn't my fault, it is only genetic or environmental that I do what I do. As it stands though, just as anger, as happiness, and as depression are human, so is justice, and unless one wants to create some strained way in which emotions actually get to some teleological rationality, "justice" still must be pursued just as deeply as "love" is.


I can find these somewhat acceptable. But then again, emotions don't have points. They exist because they exist, they weren't put inside a fleshly frame just so that they could do specific things.


Why? Any explanation you give for yourself is likely a lie in the first place. You don't see inside yourself, instead all you see are the outputs given to you by a neurological mess that only has the virtue of surviving. The death of teleology is actually so deep that it is the death of the teleology of human beings. We don't create purposes, we create stories that we try to fit along with. "Because I have to" is about as acceptable of an answer as anything else.


Ok, and I am critical. I don't think your principles are grounded in some cosmological truth, but rather in your own flesh and bones, and the thing is that your flesh and bones aren't so special that they are worth listening to. At least not more than my flesh and bones.

I very much suspect neitzsche as being an aspie. I used to thoroughly enjoy his work and used to read about him quite often. Not so much anymore. I am entirely self-taught in philosophy, so i can't write an essay or anything and i'm terribly inarticulate at the moment.

If you read his life-story, you will find that he had many difficulties socially and had little disregard for social boundaries. His first academic essay was a critique of Schoenphaen (sic, sorry) that lacked any proper citations and was disturbingly angry. I know one scholar chided him as being someone who "masturbated too much" and he did not have many friends. He had an affection with animals and was manipulated by his sister. So let's go through an unofficial, non scientific, bogus, ad-hoc checklist for an ASD:

1. Emotion difficulties/melt downs (check)
2. Self-stimulatory behavior (check)
3. Metaphorical language (check)
4. Social difficulties (check)
5. Not caring for social boundaries (check)
6. Making a clear distinction between logic and emotion (rhetoric in his sense) (check)
7. Considering philosophy an "autobiography" (check)
8. Being misinterpreted (check)
8.1. Individualism (check)
9. Not being good at sports (maybe? )
10. Affinity for music (check)
11. People think he is crazy (check)
12. An interest in truth (check - he was a philology graduate)

Do I like Neitzsche? Oh ya! Does it matter much for me? No, I don't pay attention to philosophy like I used to. Is he important? Yes -especially in the development of 20th century philosophy. Is he with flaws? Certainly!

I think that many hip-cats will continue to like his work in the future. Philosophy is great because it is not for everyone, yet everyone is philosophical, if you get my drift. Do people need to study Neitzsche? I dunno! One of the great things about neitzsche is the existential vibe, the philosophy as person stance- right -like, hmmmm should we study neitzsche or pink floyd? The former you might study in a university, the latter in your basement - but you still might be having rocking-existential thoughts. The great thing about swinging so far to the subjective side is how non-significant major "thinkers" can be, such as aristotle, and how significant reality around you can become such as "the philosophy of a bus driver".

I miss my neitzsche interest. He is a wild thinker. His magic lies in his written work, rich in metaphor and rhetoric- -it is always endearing for a new philosophy, or a new way of being - a fascinating way of thinking.

I actually studied him well, I do appreciate his "Attack on Christendom" in general.
I still think Nietzsche did a greater thing, but it's a matter of opinion, I guess.


I'm not sure how is that a solution... His egoism is what's left. No point in anything? Let's do what we feel like. But Nietzsche tried to understand what he feels like, and why, and will it help him.

I do agree with the quote by Camus. To me it seems a horrible solution, I wouldn't want to live in his society... Nietzsche did beat his head against the wall - he was stubborn, he insisted on keeping his journey, that's one of the things I like about him. Even when he didn't find a solution, he kept searching for it.

I don't think he explained quite correctly why all is wrong. And don't think he explained why his solution is right. Therefor, you can take it as an idea and work it up, but his writing don't offer something worth reading, in my opinion (except for the idea of reading as many people as possible, and understanding the time and philosophers of places).


If so, the question is not how they called themselves. Anyhow, I think Stirner would be better described as amoralist. Nietzsche advocated morals that will be motivated by love for this life and this world.


I don't think that being an egoist makes you cruel. But Stirner said that only himself is important - his egoism doesn't go hand in hand with insisting you will deliver the truth to people, and won't even see it. He always talked about importance of friendships, although people are used to think of him in a different light. He said that it's the highest privilege to imagine the joy of others - that's not the usual egoist I know...


I don't think it's a solution, because I think it's worse.
Aren't instincts part of the fundamental self?


Well, that public attention didn't get to Israel

I'm not sure Nietzsche was an existentialist at all. He didn't believe in free will as much as I know, I think that contradicts that point. Plus, I don't think man desires for meaning, at least consciously, at least not in such high rates. So anyway I'm more interested in understanding - so yes, Dennett sounds interesting.


I think he was the first to define it as we do today. Not sure about it.


I accept.
Yet, I think that Nietzsche also tried to analyze every people possible.
Fair play to Kierkegaard, of course, he researched his interest
But one of the things that strikes me the most is that Kierkegaard sounds somewhat passive, unsure and too afraid at times. Do you understand what I mean here?
Nietzsche had the nerve to mock traditions, to try and analyze other people, and thanks to this fact he got so far. Of course, I can still find some conclusions that I think are wrong. But I do like his passion.


I don't think otherwise.


Why clear the grounds of a genius? I see some flaws in his writing - so I offer improvements. We should build on each other.

Last edited by Omerik on 17 Feb 2010, 4:10 am, edited 1 time in total.

How many times have you heard people saying you should think either from your heart or from your brain, and stuff like that?
People tend to think they contradict each other, especially people who don't think.
I can also imagine that situation - the problem is not being conscious to oneself.


To dance, for joy, makes a point - it makes you happy!
I live in order to pursuit happiness. But if I'm angry, that's a bad feeling. It means something, but sometimes we shouldn't dwell on it.
The question is the overall outcome. I see a difference between anger and happiness, because how I want to feel. I don't believe in "justice" by the way.


I'm not sure if I said something contradicting...


I don't believe in doing things that you don't see the point in, and because society makes you, you say that "you have to". I live because I want to live. I think that I do see inside myself personally. If I question something, and I don't believe in it, I don't do it. But I question.
(Let's not get to my personal history to prove it...)


Every flesh and bones are worth listening to.

Last edited by Omerik on 17 Feb 2010, 4:12 am, edited 1 time in total.

I think that I get your drift
I'm not talking about specifically teaching Nietzsche himself, but his approach and some of his ideas. Of course, he's only cited as an example of such thinker - there are others, perhaps more suitable for students. It can even be explained orally.
Luckily, he also wrote some nonesense (I think especially because lack of exposure to certain knowledge), so we can show people that even geniouses are wrong at times

The things is, Nietzsche is supposed to be for everyone. Otherwise, what's the point?
I found it hard to like my life, until I got to complete nihilism - then darkness - than re-evaluated things myself. The question is whether this time of darkness is necessary - can't we teach our kids from the start that each one is entitled to his opinion, that they should question everything, and not tell them that our own ideologies are absolutely right?
Is it really impossible to achieve a world where people are self-conscious, have their wild ideas, and yet listen to others? I don't expect it to happen right away, I just don't see that we're getting closer to it...

The Big Spakeasy topic

One obsessed dude. I prefer Wittgenstein.

But Fred is worth a read. (I was more interested years ago.)