Debating topics

[Chaerophon]

To begin: I am an admirer of Nietzsche; however, it would be a stretch to call me "Nietzschean". Just wanted to clear that up. Anyways, although I quite enjoyed your post, I think that you've missed a few things and perhaps been a bit quick to judge...

Nietzche, per this analysis, appears to overlook and ignore how interpretation and argument advanced the philosophical and doctrinal legacy of the Jews, whose continued argument added depth and richness to their religious and cultural heritage. Self criticism, and peer criticism.

Nietzsche had a lot more respect for the Jews than he did for doctrinal Christians. That being said, he saw weakness in their reasoning in that in their striving, they assumed that there was, in fact, an origin, a purpose, a constraining hierarchy of values that was worth arguing for.

Fred appears through this lens to be someone who thought there is ONE RIGHT ANSWER.

And that answer is? As you point out later; that there is no answer, no origin, no purpose and that the act of creation, of self-determination, the recognition of the constraining falsehood of the 'herd' moralities and the subsequent recognition and fulfillment of one's own will to power should be the goal of humanity. Improvement of the spirit. Generational ennobling of the will. Humans should become willful creators, not followers. The greatest weakness in Nietzsche is that he was quite successful in tearing much down while offering little in return. Even "Thus Spake Zarathustra", his supposed 'positive' creation, was an act in negation. There were times when even he could admit that. Then again, perhaps I lack the courage to overcome. Maybe "overcoming" is overrated. Either way, I find his work fascinating, and, in particular, I find his characterization of history, not as a series of phenomenological trends and inevitable developments, but as a genealogy centered in haphazard events and the 'struggles of the will' to be particularly interesting.

Shoulda raised the wrist a bit more often, eh Fred?

With that, I would agree.

and a rising demand for a language as empty of ambiguous metaphor as possible.

Tolkein wept. He saw metaphor and richness as a strength of language. Glass half full. Of Real Ale!

You've misquoted the author here. He points to Hobbes and other such Enlightenment thinkers as searching for a "scientific" truth. Nietzsche despised such trash, instead arguing that "To escape the illusions of the past, to release the arrow in flight, these activities are linked to the creative ability to construct in one's life and language new metaphors." As the author points out:

Nietzsche is announcing the end of the ancient war between poetry and philosophy by indicating that all we have in language is metaphor. We were mistaken in believing that the language of Euclid was anything other than one more fiction. It is not. Therefore, it has no special preeminence as the language most appropriate to a description of reality.

Nietzsche sought to free the will and the spirit by debunking this notion of Enlightenment rationality's inherent superiority.

Another terminal student looking for an answer that ends the question. Now I begin to see the roots of the modern theory of prolonged adolescence as an inalienable right.

Are you talking about Hobbes or the author here? If Hobbes, why? Contextualize, contextualize, contextualize! Hobbes led to Locke led to Bentham led to Mill, led to a million others. What you see as flawed in Hobbes is just as flawed in many other 'classical' liberal theorists - they saw one rational answer, one superior 'purpose' in government. Seems to me that you're arguing against such Enlightenment discourses... perhaps you don't disagree with Nietzsche as much as you had thought (?).

Brilliant. The 1996 Corvette is imperfect, let's build a 2004 Corvette. That will fix our driving problem, the ambiguity of travel, that metaphor for lif'e journey on super unleaded gas.

An absurd example. Metaphor in the Nietzschean sense:

"What exactly does Nietzsche mean by the term metaphor? Here, Nietzsche considers all conceptualizing to be metaphoric -- it is an approximation, inexact, a convenient lie. In fact, Nietzsche writes that “we believe that we know something about the things themselves when we talk of trees, colors, snow, and flowers; and yet we possess nothing but metaphors for things -- metaphors which correspond in no way to the original entities.”[3]

The concept (i.e. a concept of a tree) is thus found to be an abstraction three powers away from the original sense data, or nerve stimulus. This fundamental metaphorical position can be described via the three metamorphoses of the original stimulus:[4] first, the nerve stimulus is transformed into image (thus leaving dreams as originary writing?). Second, the images become sounds, or words. Language, which is so pervasive in our human existence, is thus the second level of metaphor. Finally, there is the transformation from the sonic realm back to the conscious, as the sound/word becomes the concept. Thus, there is no proper concept, or direct correspondence, but only figurative, metaphoric conceptualizing."

--From John Hartman. Nietzsche’s Use of Metaphor. http://www.geocities.com/Athens/1575/nmetafor.html

Some have said that Nietzsche's attempts to transcend traditional metaphysics led to the creation of his own metaphysics (e.g. Heidigger). I think that that's often a fair criticism. However, the methods of Nietzsche's analysis, like that of Marx, has helped shape modernity and, in fact, there is much in both that is of great use. Both gave birth to critical discourses that help to objectively analyze structures of power and the ways of the world. Both were "creators" in the sense that both gave birth to new metaphorical perspectives on power and human relationships.

"God is dead." -- Nietzsche -- "Nietzsche is dead." --God--

Linky-loo...