Total Posts:44|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Nietzsche called Socrates ugly, lol.

Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2014 8:16:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I'm currently reading 'Twilight of the Idols' by Nietzsche and there is a section titled, "The Problem of Socrates". I'd like to quote a specific part of that section, in which I feel like Nietzsche is incredibly critical of Socrates on a very personal level. Keep in mind, this was written about a year before Nietzsche was locked up in the mental ward.

...

The following is directly from the text, I have not changed the format or presentation in the slightest:

...

Socrates belonged, in his origins, to the lowest orders: Socrates was rabble. One knows, one sees for oneself, how ugly he was. But ugliness, an objection in itself, is among Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is frequently enough the sign of a thwarted development, a development retarded by interbreeding. Otherwise it appears as a development in decline. Anthropologists among criminologists tell us the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. (a monster in face, a monster in soul)
But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? - At least that famous physiognomist's opinion which Socrates' friends found so objectionable would not contradict this idea. A foreigner passing through Athens who knew how to read faces told Socrates to his face he was a monstrum - that he contained within him every kind of foul vice and lust. And Socrates answered merely: 'You know me, sir!'

...

Very interesting piece of text, I found it amusing so I shared :)

On a side note, the book has been a fun and entertaining read so far. I'd highly recommend it if you've yet to read this particular work. It's a pretty interesting transitional piece from Nietzsche's sound mind to one of certain madness.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:13:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 8:16:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I'm currently reading 'Twilight of the Idols' by Nietzsche and there is a section titled, "The Problem of Socrates". I'd like to quote a specific part of that section, in which I feel like Nietzsche is incredibly critical of Socrates on a very personal level. Keep in mind, this was written about a year before Nietzsche was locked up in the mental ward.

...

The following is directly from the text, I have not changed the format or presentation in the slightest:

...

Socrates belonged, in his origins, to the lowest orders: Socrates was rabble. One knows, one sees for oneself, how ugly he was. But ugliness, an objection in itself, is among Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is frequently enough the sign of a thwarted development, a development retarded by interbreeding. Otherwise it appears as a development in decline. Anthropologists among criminologists tell us the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. (a monster in face, a monster in soul)
But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? - At least that famous physiognomist's opinion which Socrates' friends found so objectionable would not contradict this idea. A foreigner passing through Athens who knew how to read faces told Socrates to his face he was a monstrum - that he contained within him every kind of foul vice and lust. And Socrates answered merely: 'You know me, sir!'

...

Very interesting piece of text, I found it amusing so I shared :)

On a side note, the book has been a fun and entertaining read so far. I'd highly recommend it if you've yet to read this particular work. It's a pretty interesting transitional piece from Nietzsche's sound mind to one of certain madness.

Nietzsche is known for his metaphors figurative language...

and, perhaps if this were less blatant, I'd argue that this could be his doing that.

In a lot of ways Socrates/Plato was the birth of a lot of which Nietzsche most fervently argues against.... His harping on Socrates supposed Worldly Ugliness would fit...

However, with his mention of physiogony and such that interpretation seems a bit too generous...
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 12:15:48 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
eh, the physiogonist seemingly the guy who called socrates ugly.. lol

so, He wasn't bringing up such things out of the blue...

I'd say it's probable that he was just giving socrates a hard time :o)

See Charleslb, but with more class.
Blade-of-Truth
Posts: 5,020
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 1:47:03 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 12:15:48 PM, mortsdor wrote:
eh, the physiogonist seemingly the guy who called socrates ugly.. lol

so, He wasn't bringing up such things out of the blue...

I'd say it's probable that he was just giving socrates a hard time :o)

See Charleslb, but with more class.

Yeah he was definitely giving Socrates a hard time. I just found it highly amusing because I never really saw this personal attack coming. That doesn't happen very often with philosophers of Nietzsche's caliber.

Later in the text he goes into more detail on his issues with Socrates, he blames him for the rise of Dialectics and accuses him of being a coward, for dialectics are the last resort of argumentation (according to Nietzsche). He also calls the Socratic equation of: reason=virtue=happiness an idiosyncrasy.

All very amusing.
Debate.org Deputy Vote Moderator
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
DDO Voting Guide: http://www.debate.org...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Need a judge on your debate? Nominate me! http://www.debate.org...
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 2:28:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
I'll pretend i didn't hear that... :P

technically Aristotle is way awesomer,
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
mmn, that beard...
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 7:45:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P

He had some great ideas, but it also seems that he did genuinely believe that you can judge someone's ideas by judging them - even their looks - which is a pretty false way to go about arguing things.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/11/2014 8:48:50 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 7:45:40 PM, Wocambs wrote:
but it also seems that he did genuinely believe that you can judge someone's ideas by judging them - even their looks - which is a pretty false way to go about arguing things.

nah, I think he was just giving socrates a hard time.

He happens to agree (though perhaps for other reasons) with the physiogonist's low opinion of Socrates... and is pointing out that Socrates himself accepts the man's assertions. :o)
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:00:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P

Nietzsche sux >.>
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,073
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:33:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/11/2014 2:28:17 PM, NiamC wrote:
At 11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
I'll pretend i didn't hear that... :P

technically Aristotle is way awesomer,
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
mmn, that beard...

Aristotle is da bomb
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
NiamC
Posts: 905
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:34:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:33:17 AM, zmikecuber wrote:
At 11/11/2014 2:28:17 PM, NiamC wrote:
At 11/11/2014 2:22:51 PM, mortsdor wrote:
wrong guy said stuff about nietzsche

Nietzsche destroys Socrates & Plato all over the place :P

http://31.media.tumblr.com...
I'll pretend i didn't hear that... :P

technically Aristotle is way awesomer,
http://upload.wikimedia.org...
mmn, that beard...

Aristotle is da bomb
Holy Cr4p! That was your 2500th post!!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Niam est amor, vita Niam
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 10:56:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/9/2014 8:16:14 PM, Blade-of-Truth wrote:
I'm currently reading 'Twilight of the Idols' by Nietzsche and there is a section titled, "The Problem of Socrates". I'd like to quote a specific part of that section, in which I feel like Nietzsche is incredibly critical of Socrates on a very personal level. Keep in mind, this was written about a year before Nietzsche was locked up in the mental ward.

...

The following is directly from the text, I have not changed the format or presentation in the slightest:

...

Socrates belonged, in his origins, to the lowest orders: Socrates was rabble. One knows, one sees for oneself, how ugly he was. But ugliness, an objection in itself, is among Greeks almost a refutation. Was Socrates a Greek at all? Ugliness is frequently enough the sign of a thwarted development, a development retarded by interbreeding. Otherwise it appears as a development in decline. Anthropologists among criminologists tell us the typical criminal is ugly: monstrum in fronte, monstrum in animo. (a monster in face, a monster in soul)
But the criminal is a decadent. Was Socrates a typical criminal? - At least that famous physiognomist's opinion which Socrates' friends found so objectionable would not contradict this idea. A foreigner passing through Athens who knew how to read faces told Socrates to his face he was a monstrum - that he contained within him every kind of foul vice and lust. And Socrates answered merely: 'You know me, sir!'

...

Very interesting piece of text, I found it amusing so I shared :)

On a side note, the book has been a fun and entertaining read so far. I'd highly recommend it if you've yet to read this particular work. It's a pretty interesting transitional piece from Nietzsche's sound mind to one of certain madness.

It would be lame to interpret everything Nietzsche wrote literally. He didn't write logical texts, arguing point to point under the heading of an overarching thesis. He was a writer first and foremost. Calling Socrates ugly was primarily a way of rhetorically attacking Platonism. Specifically the idea that beneath (or above) the sensed world lies another one (more "pure", more "beautiful"). In equating Socrates' physical appearance and moral integrity, Nietzsche is refusing to accept the separation of the "inside" from the out. His writing is filled with reversals (the inside is now outside or the moral is now ugly) but these reversals are utilized in order to dissolve the dichotomies which he traverses in the first place.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:08:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 10:56:11 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Calling Socrates ugly was primarily a way of rhetorically attacking Platonism. Specifically the idea that beneath (or above) the sensed world lies another one (more "pure", more "beautiful").

this is why I suggested his harping on Socrates Worldly Ugliness would fit with his critique of Socrates/Plato generally.
socialpinko
Posts: 10,458
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 11:35:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:08:00 AM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 10:56:11 AM, socialpinko wrote:
Calling Socrates ugly was primarily a way of rhetorically attacking Platonism. Specifically the idea that beneath (or above) the sensed world lies another one (more "pure", more "beautiful").

this is why I suggested his harping on Socrates Worldly Ugliness would fit with his critique of Socrates/Plato generally.

Yeah, I agree.
: At 9/29/2014 10:55:59 AM, imabench wrote:
: : At 9/29/2014 9:43:46 AM, kbub wrote:
: :
: : DDO should discredit support of sexual violence at any time and in every way.
:
: I disagree.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:07:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:39:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Continental philosophy is a joke, and completely useless.

Bishop Berkeley is a joke ;)

Also, and apart from who I gather to be the guy who best represents your opinion,
Idealism (and other forms of unadulterated Rationalism) is the biggest joke of all.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:32:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 11:39:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
completely useless.

The Zhuangzi Addresses This

Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "I have a big tree named ailanthus. Its trunk is too gnarled and bumpy to apply a measuring line to, its branches too bent and twisty to match up to a compass or square. You could stand it by the road and no carpenter would look at it twice. Your words, too, are big and useless, and so everyone alike spurns them!"

Chuang Tzu said, "Maybe you've never seen a wildcat or a weasel. It crouches down and hides, watching for something to come along. It leaps and races east and west, not hesitating to go high or low-until it falls into the trap and dies in the net. Then again there's the yak, big as a cloud covering the sky. It certainly knows how to be big, though it doesn't know how to catch rats. Now you have this big tree and you're distressed because it's useless. Why don't you plant it in Not-Even-Anything Village, or the field of Broad-and-Boundless, relax and do nothing by its side, or lie down for a free and easy sleep under it? Axes will never shorten its life, nothing can ever harm it. If there's no use for it, how can it come to grief or pain?"

If the philosophy prevents you from chasing phantoms and falling in traps that make the world unpleasant... It may be of no use in making such short-sighted plots... but that doesn't mean it's not of merit.

Instead, it can provide a backdrop for an natural, enjoyable-as-possible, life... Free of unecessary struggle.
He suggests something Similar with his example of Gourds.

Hui Tzu said to Chuang Tzu, "The king of Wei gave me some seeds of a huge gourd. I planted them, and when they grew up, the fruit was big enough to hold five piculs. I tried using it for a water container, but it was so heavy I couldn't lift it. I split it in half to make dippers, but they were so large and unwieldy that I couldn't dip them into anything. It's not that the gourds weren't fantastically big-but I decided they were no use and so I smashed them to pieces."

Chuang Tzu said, "You certainly are dense when it comes to using big things! In Sung there was a man who was skilled at making a salve to prevent chapped hands, and generation after generation his family made a living by bleaching silk in water, A traveler heard about the salve and offered to buy the prescription for a hundred measures of gold. The man called everyone to a family council. 'For generations we've been bleaching silk and we've never made more than a few measures of gold,' he said. 'Now if we sell our secret, we can make a hundred measures in one morning. Let's let him have it!"

The traveler got the salve and introduced it to the king of Wu, who was having trouble with the state of Yueh. The kind put the man in charge of his troops, and that Winter they fought a naval battle with the men of Yueh and gave them a bad beating.* A portion of the conquered territory was awarded to the man as a fief. The salve had the power to prevent chapped hands in either case; but one man used it to get a fief, while the other one never got beyond silk bleaching-because they used it in different ways. Now you had a gourd big enough to hold five piculs. Why didn't you think of making it into a great tub so you could go floating around the rivers and lakes, instead of worrying because it was too big and unwieldy to dip into things! Obviously you still have a lot of underbrush in your head!"
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:43:25 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 12:07:14 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:39:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Continental philosophy is a joke, and completely useless.

Bishop Berkeley is a joke ;)

Also, and apart from who I gather to be the guy who best represents your opinion,
Idealism (and other forms of unadulterated Rationalism) is the biggest joke of all.

Continental philosophy is to analytic philosophy as astrology is to astronomy.

umad?
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 12:47:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 12:07:14 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 11:39:21 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Continental philosophy is a joke, and completely useless.

Bishop Berkeley is a joke ;)

Also, and apart from who I gather to be the guy who best represents your opinion,
Idealism (and other forms of unadulterated Rationalism) is the biggest joke of all.

Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that anything conceivable is fundamentally conceptual. It's obviously correct.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 12:47:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that anything conceivable is fundamentally conceptual. It's obviously correct.

Concepts are of things (one might say Proposals of things), identifications of apparent or possible states of affairs.

concepts do not have concepts as their subject..
at least not before you realize that you're having concepts.

you say: Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that anything conceivable is fundamentally conceptual.

you should say
Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that any "thing" conceivable is fundamentally conceptual.

and that is Not obviously true. There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:04:08 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.

Also, and apart from that, there's not reason to say that our conceptual identification of the state of things necessarily describes existence, or the actual state of things.

However, there are good pragmatic reasons to Assume that our conceptual understanding of states of affairs describes Existence, so long as that seems to work at making us happy :o)
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:06:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 12:47:32 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that anything conceivable is fundamentally conceptual. It's obviously correct.

Concepts are of things (one might say Proposals of things), identifications of apparent or possible states of affairs.

concepts do not have concepts as their subject..
at least not before you realize that you're having concepts.

you say: Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that anything conceivable is fundamentally conceptual.

you should say
Idealism is simply a recognition of the fact that any "thing" conceivable is fundamentally conceptual.

and that is Not obviously true. There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.

If the subject of a concept weren't conceptual, you wouldn't be able to conceive of "it". The distinction between definition and definiendum is meaningless if the definiendum lacks a cognitive basis.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:08:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:04:08 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.

Also, and apart from that, there's not reason to say that our conceptual identification of the state of things necessarily describes existence, or the actual state of things.

But we can be sure that the actual state of things conforms to mental structure, otherwise it would be utterly meaningless.


However, there are good pragmatic reasons to Assume that our conceptual understanding of states of affairs describes Existence, so long as that seems to work at making us happy :o)
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:08:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
and that is Not obviously true. There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.

The Idea(concept) regards(proposes) a thing which is identified as either existing or possibly existing.

The things that are the Subject(proposal) of an idea are not themselves ideas, unless your considering your own thought processes.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:14:32 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:08:38 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 1:00:21 PM, mortsdor wrote:
and that is Not obviously true. There's no reason to suppose that those "things" which are the subjects of our conceptual identification are themselves ideas of what seems to be the case, or what could be the case.

The Idea(concept) regards(proposes) a thing which is identified as either existing or possibly existing.

The things that are the Subject(proposal) of an idea are not themselves ideas, unless your considering your own thought processes.

When I say that everything is conceptual, I don't mean that everything is a concept of an idea. Concept and subject are both conceptual.
mortsdor
Posts: 1,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:18:14 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:06:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the subject of a concept weren't conceptual, you wouldn't be able to conceive of "it". The distinction between definition and definiendum is meaningless if the definiendum lacks a cognitive basis.

You are inundated with sensorial experience...

Concepts naturally spring into existence regarding Why you were inundated with that experience...
Concepts regarding the state of existence that caused that sensory experience.

There's no reason that proposed state of existence would have to, itself, Regardless of whether its Actually Existent, be Conceptual, or itself be further proposals, which are further proposals..

Concepts are natural proposals of the manner in which Existence exists.

No reason to suggest that the proposed existence must somehow be constructed of thought-stuff...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,242
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/12/2014 1:26:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 11/12/2014 1:18:14 PM, mortsdor wrote:
At 11/12/2014 1:06:19 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
If the subject of a concept weren't conceptual, you wouldn't be able to conceive of "it". The distinction between definition and definiendum is meaningless if the definiendum lacks a cognitive basis.

You are inundated with sensorial experience...

Concepts naturally spring into existence regarding Why you were inundated with that experience...
Concepts regarding the state of existence that caused that sensory experience.

There's no reason that proposed state of existence would have to, itself, Regardless of whether its Actually Existent, be Conceptual, or itself be further proposals, which are further proposals..

To the extent that "actual existence" is meaningful, it is by definition identical to itself, and "itself" is conceptual (otherwise the merest act of referring to it would be contradictory).


Concepts are natural proposals of the manner in which Existence exists.

No reason to suggest that the proposed existence must somehow be constructed of thought-stuff...

We literally cannot conceive of an alternative, or of a context in which there is an alternative, so there is every reason.