Misinterpreting Nietzsche

[phyllo]

So will misinterpretations of Nietzsche’s work make a comeback too? Will he once again be known as an anti-Semitic misogynist with clumsy philosophical writing skills and a mental illness that negates the value of his works?

I’m sure there will be new interpretations in the future.

I noticed how you loaded the question with the word ‘misrepresentations’.

As if you know the correct interpretation now.

This is exactly the problem…their baiting us incorrectly. From the start, they create an idea of Nietzsche that sits uncomfortably with most students and will diminish the work put into him in upper years. How is someone who is totally new to Nietzsche, use this heinous picture painted of him, and then want to continue upper year study of his works and related schools of thought? Academic philosophy is analytic, compounded, over structured, soulless…its turned into esoteric garbage - no one can or wants to understand it deeply because they are not guided easily or openly into philosophers and different approaches to understanding their writing and questions. Foucault was not too far off by declaring the academic institution as another form of political deception where the subject has less power than they think they do with regards to what they can or cannot want to believe in.

“furious”, “demented background” , “heinous picture”

I know that you are in love but you need to step back and be a bit detached. N is one philosopher among many. N is not the messiah. The philosophy department is a small part of a university.

Academic philosophy is about getting paid to write papers for other academics to read and reading papers that other academics have written. The papers are about what old dead guys wrote. Beside that, there is lecturing to uninterested students and interested students who want to read and write about old dead guys.

(I actually I’m not that cynical about education in general and university in particular.

But the purpose of education is not to fill empty pots with juice. )

[Venture]

@phyllo

Academic philosophy is about getting paid to write papers for other academics to read and reading papers that other academics have written. The papers are about what old dead guys wrote. Beside that, there is lecturing to uninterested students and interested students who want to read and write about old dead guys.

(I actually I’m not that cynical about education in general and university in particular.

But the purpose of education is not to fill empty pots with juice. )

I can’t disagree with that. But I can argue against your “knowing the correct interpretation” claim, but that’s going to be loooooooooooooooot of work for you and I to tackle right now. Is this an epistemic issue? Is there some kind of false stigma around being a professional academic or life in University?

[Along_The_Way]

@Venture

@phyllo

Aether theories have lost popularity but they are not discredited. Since science is open to continuous revision, aether may make a comeback.

So will misinterpretations of Nietzsche’s work make a comeback too? Will he once again be known as an anti-Semitic misogynist with clumsy philosophical writing skills and a mental illness that negates the value of his works?

@phyllo

If anyone is still interested in astronomy after the first year, he/she can take a more detailed course or read up on his own. You learn the hardcore stuff in years 3 and 4. By that time, the dilettantes have been weeded out.

A first year philo course attempts to answer the question … Do you care about these sorts of problems and the way they are approached? If yes, then take another philo course. If no, then look at other subjects which may interest you more.

This is exactly the problem…their baiting us incorrectly. From the start, they create an idea of Nietzsche that sits uncomfortably with most students and will diminish the work put into him in upper years. How is someone who is totally new to Nietzsche, use this heinous picture painted of him, and then want to continue upper year study of his works and related schools of thought? Academic philosophy is analytic, compounded, over structured, soulless…its turned into esoteric garbage - no one can or wants to understand it deeply because they are not guided easily or openly into philosophers and different approaches to understanding their writing and questions. Foucault was not too far off by declaring the academic institution as another form of political deception where the subject has less power than they think they do with regards to what they can or cannot want to believe in.

While I don’t ever want to defend misinterpretations of someone’s work, I do have to say that intellectually honest people should have no problem approaching Nietzsche and learning something from him regardless of how he is presented in some introductory course. If someone is put off by a thinker before ever reading said thinker than they are philosophically useless anyhow.