The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer
by admin on Jul.23, 2010, under Books
- ISBN13: 9780140445145
- Condition: New
- Notes: BUY WITH CONFIDENCE, Over one million books sold! 98% Positive feedback. Compare our books, prices and service to the competition. 100% Satisfaction Guaranteed
Product Description
“Twilight of the Idols”, an attack on all the prevalent ideas of his time, offers a lightning tour of his whole philosophy. It also prepares the way for “The Anti-Christ”, a final assault on institutional Christianity. Both works show Nietzsche lashing out at self-deception, astounded at how often morality is based on vengefulness and resentment. Both reveal a profound understanding of human mean-spiritedness which still cannot destroy the underlying optimism of Nietzsche, the supreme affirmer among the great philosophers…. More >>
The Twilight of the Idols and The Anti-Christ: or How to Philosophize with a Hammer
5 Comments for this entry
Leave a Reply
-
Twilight Fans!
Welcome to Twilight Saga Mania. You will find information relating to the ever popular vampire and werewolf love story written by Stephanie Meyers here. Browse around and see all the Twilight Saga offerings we have from jewelry to books. If you're looking to live the Twilight expierence try playing a Free Online Vampire and Werewolf Game!You can also subscribe by email by filling the field below:
July 23rd, 2010 on 2:21 pm
The main trouble I have with Nietzsche is that he is so blasted illogical! Most of his errors are what logician call “informal fallacies,” or error with the type of inferences he makes with his data.
To his credit, Nietzsche is a very bouncy, scintillating an energetic writer. I think that many people can learn from his literary style. I certainly have. But a well-perfumed lie is like a well-perfumed skunk: eventually both will stink, since you cannot change their nature no matter how pretty you make them up to be!
Here are some samples of hi errors:
P. 56. “Let us consider finally what naivety it is to say ‘man ought to be thus and thus.’” In other words, we ought not say ought. See the internal incoherency?
Ibid. “We others, we immoralists, have on the contrary open wide our hearts to every kind of understanding, comprehension, approval.” Has he opened his heart wide to accept religion or God? This, by the way, is called “dicto simplicter,” or a sweeping generalization; and it is also an “iron man” argument, where you overstate your own position.
P. 64. “The error of free will. –We no longer have any sympathy today with the concept of ‘free will.” One you remove freedom, you remove meaning. If Hitler, Dahmer, or whom ever wasn’t free to choose not to become incarnate devils, then we cannot hold them accountable. We do not blame blind people for being born blind because they simply have no control over that condition. But we do have an ability to control our own souls, to make gods and angels of ourselves, or to make demons and devils of ourselves. If we have no freedom, then we have no penal system, simply the criminal could not control his or herself. And that would be hell on earth.
Ibid. “Men were thought of as ‘free’ so that they could become guilt.” This is probably a Freudian Slip on Nietzsche’s part. Religion has a cutting edge to it–always repent and do not make excuses for your meanness. We get so concerned about the evil in the world around us; we forget the evil deep within us.
P. 66. “One knows my demand of philosophers that they place themselves beyond good and evil–that they have the illusion of moral judgments beneath them.” It is good to be beyond good. It is moral to be beyond morality. In other words, Nietzsche assumes what he tries to disprove.
The only reason why I think Nietzsche’s philosophy caught on is that first, he was a bouncy and vibrant voice. I enjoy reading his works because they are rather witty and quick and slicing. Secondly, his philosophy is very flattering one. God is dead; you become the Superman and replace God (Thus Spoke Zarathustra, ch. 24). This unctuous punch has made many people punch drunk with lust. A very appealing idea that you can become a new god by yourself, which is the oldest lie in the Book!
The Anti-Christ:
Being a Christian does not dampen or deny my ideas, being biased against the conclusion, any more than an atheist is tainted, being biased in favor of the conclusion. Bias cuts both ways.
It is true, and no one doubts this, many abuses have been in the name of religion. But is it fair to judge a thing by its abuse? Shall we judge all Austrians by the abuses of Hitler? Do we throw out Mozart with the bathwater? No. Nietzsche makes yet another “dicto simplicter” in accusing Christians of being unworthy.
As I read his treatment of Christianity, I kept asking myself, “What religion is he talking about?” It seems that Nietzsche is describing Christianity in the worst possible of terms, as if he intentionally wants to misunderstand what the religions is about. It is like the genies or fairy that play syntax-games with the wishes they grant human beings–”Make me a sandwich!” *Poof!*
In conclusion, I find Nietzsche an engaging, fun and passionate writer. We have so man wet noodles out there; it is great to read some one with a backbone. However, Nietzsche falls apart miserably with his non-existent logic. And that is a deathblow.
The Book:
This is a great “two-fer,” since both books are rather slender and trim books. Penguin Classics always does a superb job with these books-the introductory essays are helpful and the notes are useful. They type is excellent and there are no typos. I found the glossary of names in the back an added plus, since I am not up to speed on may of the German philosophers and Nietzsche’s time period. The binding is strong, and the cover art is very eye catching-the man with his hefty mustache in profile.
Rating: 1 / 5
July 23rd, 2010 on 3:18 pm
So much for the most “lucid” of German prose writers, doesn’t anyone think it peculiar his style resembles that of a conspiracy theorist warning us of the perils of the illumati and the freemasons. It is dogmatic to the point of shrill, and surprisingly lacking in real self-confidence. (perhaps he using his rhetoric as a way to convince himself of things not even he can believe.) It is full of vulgar unnatural and irational opinions meant mainly to shock lacking true conviction in the end. There is a constant confusion of thought and feeling, a endless muddying of the waters of interesting thought by a kind of upside down stoicism that could only be the product of a thorougly dacadent romanticism. There is also a kind of disturbing right wing athuritarianism,that is obviously the product of (M. Andre Gide’s words )Nietschze’s insane jealousy of Christ. He distorts history into a recreation of his own amusing and rather twisted pysche. His rants against christianity, while amusing, are often a attack on liberal christianity, which Nietschze being the ultra right winger he is patently despises. They confirm always a midn that worships strength as a confession of weakness.
Rating: 2 / 5
July 23rd, 2010 on 3:28 pm
I like the Hollingdale translation of these two of the final works of Nietzsche for saying things the way a person who ordinarily speaks English might typically say something. A previous translation, in The Portable Nietzsche, presented the ideas here as philosophical thought: “to have spirit: one must arrogate it, one must have the arrogance to have spirit.” (TPN, p. 505) As a predominantly German-American nobody, who knows how far from the ethos of our comic society such an attitude would be, I prefer the more apologetic tone used by Hollingdale at the beginning of his section on What the Germans Lack. “Among Germans today it is not enough to possess spirit: one must also possess the presumption to possess it.” (Twilight of the Idols, p. 71) My joy is not in any possession here, but simply in the opportunity which Nietzsche created to raise certain issues. “I also add that here people can still obey without being humiliated by obeying. . . . And no one despises his adversary . . .” Perhaps Nietzsche was thinking of philosophers like Kant when he wrote that. A page later, Nietzsche is back to an old complaint: “But this nation has deliberately made itself stupid, . . . how much beer there is in the German intellect!” As a critic of something like a culture, based on power and a common touch for everything concerning greatness, there is much that one can find to sympathize with Nietzsche’s views today. Such a view of this work might be in keeping with his line, “That the Germans have so much as endured their philosophers, above all that most deformed conceptual cripple there has ever been, the great Kant, offers a good idea of German amenableness.” (p. 77) I suppose this is really about unconditional surrender to whatever is considered culturally superior, but only a fool would admit it. This comes coupled with an attack on the common form of religion.
Rating: 5 / 5
July 23rd, 2010 on 4:16 pm
I don’t want to summarize the content of the book (you can get it from other reviews). I only want to point out the best and worst things of it and just let you to decide whether you want to read it.
WORST: TWILIGHT reveals the weakness of Nietzsche as a philosopher better than the other of his works: his greatest fault is that, if you want to “learn something” by reading his books, you will be utterly disappointed. He do not develop the arguments, and most of the time you will find him going round and round. Indeed, many of the points in this book he had already mentioned in his earlier works, such as BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL (which is a book that I don’t recommend). After reading the first 70 pages you’ll feel that he seems to have nothing more to say, but he keeps on repeating his points like a madman (really, he’s mad), and that’s why his arguments are sometimes illogical: the repetitions made him contradict himself. Moreover, THE ANTI-CHRIST is a mere superficial repetition of TWILIGHT.
BEST: If you’re a Nietzsche beginner, this book (and THUS SPAKE ZARATHUSRA) would be a good sample of Nietzsche’s thoughts and writing style. If you don’t like this book, don’t even bother to read BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL and ECCE HOMO, which are 10 times “drier” than TWILIGHT. But if you like it and if you’ve finished it, you will acquire a good grasp of Nietzschian philosophy (which, in my opinion, is not that fascinating), and all his other books will become optional reading, for they will be mere repetitions of TWILIGHT. Last but not least, Hollingdale’s translation is one of the best.
MY OPINION: As an aside, if you are really interested in a logical analysis of Christian philosophy/psychology, go for Kierkegaard’s THE SICKNESS UNTO DEATH rather than Nietzsche.
Rating: 3 / 5
July 23rd, 2010 on 6:13 pm
How would Nietzsche criticize Ramana Maharshi’s philosophical
and ethical system of thought?
Rating: 4 / 5