Thoughts on Kevin's announcement [MOT]
rene.micout at numericable.com
Wed May 12 16:51:14 CDT 2010
If Hitler had read Nietzsche I do not think it is claimed. It is very violent with anti-Semitic, also the violence. I think he read the wrong book concocted by his sister in which sentences are truncated and modified to suggest to Hitler that his brother shared his ideas.
read about it: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Will_to_Power_ (manuscript), I know the French version
I do not know if the English version is the same (five times shorter).
I understand (I hope I am not wrong) that you worked on Sanskrit.
Nietzsche in particular raised the figure of Dionysus, the Greek equivalent of Shiva (Cernunos in Celtic)
A few days ago on French television, Michel Onfray, a French philosopher strongly anchored to the left (politics) said: "The discovery of Nietzsche has changed my life." I doubt a man of the left claims (especially in France) of a philosopher professing the ideals of the far right.
But it is late Mister ("Mais il est tard, Monsieur)" (in the words of Jacques Brel), almost midnight and it is time to go to bed.
It is not easy and it takes time but this writer is very important if there is only one book to read about Nietzsche Nietzsche I advise Patrick Wotling (I do not know if has been translated into English), but that of Deleuze has been (but it is very difficult).
Good Night Richmond !
Le 12 mai 2010 à 23:19, Richmond Mathewson a écrit :
> On 12/05/2010 23:53, René Micout wrote:
>> This argument is used by the enemies of Nietzsche's thought. All these stupid things taken from "La volonté de puissance" book that Nietzsche ever wrote, but was built by his sister who was anti-Semitic (and fan of Hitler) (with whom she strongly disagreed) after the death of his brother. It is true that this philosopher is dangerous because it is misunderstood (Chamberlain) that can lead to aberrations. Nietzsche condemned anti-Semitism very strongly in his writings. Recent studies of the philosopher (in particular by Gilles Deleuze and Patrick Wotling) shows the depth of his concepts of the 19th century sheds light on issues pertinent to the 21st century ...
>> As for Wittgenstein, I recommend "L'abécédaire de Gilles Deleuze" which defines his thought as "the degree zero of the philosophy" ...
>> Désaccord total... but ;-)
>> Bonne nuit
> Well it is a good thing that Thee and Me, at least, are grown ups, so we can disagree violently yet still carry on a civilised
> This is, of course, quite unlike somebody else . . . :)
> I think that the reason many people discard Wittgenstein is that they think because he did not write in some sort of
> metaphysical jargon, but plain, simple words and sentences, he wrote crap. In fact, if one takes one's time to work
> one's way through his work there is a lot of good there.
> I, also, wouldn't doubt that there is a lot of good in some of Nietzsche's work; it has been, however, overshadowed by
> historical developments; whether as a result of misinterpretation (and that has to be a subjective judgement) of what
> he wrote, distortion by his sister, distortion by Chamberlain, or what he actually did write.
> What constitutes one man's misinterpretation may be another man's verité; ne c'est pas? And as Nietzsche is dead
> we are quite unable to find out what the man actually intended to say.
> It is also extremely difficult to read any writer whose work has had an historical effect without one's interpretation
> being coloured by a knowledge of that historical effect; reading in vacuo is not an option..
> While Wittgenstein has had an effect on late 20 century thought, he has not precipitated (even if unwittingly) what
> happened in central Europe between 1933 and 1945, and whose echoes are still being felt.
> use-revolution mailing list
> use-revolution at lists.runrev.com
> Please visit this url to subscribe, unsubscribe and manage your subscription preferences:
More information about the use-livecode