Hi Ron --
Your suggested link is a wealth of information on Nietzsche by a brilliant writer. So far I have only scanned this essay, but I intend to scour it when I have some free time. It's interesting that you refer me to the one classical philosopher who best exemplifies the "mad poet" approach to exposition. If the author's opening quotation from Dionysus, "The poet who can willingly and knowingly lie, can alone tell the truth" is true, it would suggest that all dialectical analysis is false, and the aspiring philosopher is best advised to major in English and write poetry for a living! A while back I chastised someone for considering Philosophy as an "art form". The semioticists in this forum are forever telling us that reality is no more than symbols and words. The logical positivists claim that spirituality and transcendence are inventions of the imagination. It's no coincidence that Nietzsche foreshadowed this drift toward nihilism by simply proclaiming that "god is dead". Your essayist Luchte seems to relish this trend, as it gives him food for thought: "Carnap contends that Nietzsche self-consciously wrote this work of poetry explicitly as something outside of philosophy. He even commends Thus Spoke Zarathustra, framed in his own light, juxtaposing it to the bad poetry and music of Heidegger's "metaphysics" of Nothing. Carnap declares that the 'philosophy' of Heidegger is meaningless, just as is Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Yet, from his criteria, Nietzsche could be at least be absolved, excused, as his work was meant to be so." Since no one has access to absolute truth, does it make any difference whether a philosopher's aim is to wax poetic or to articulate a new perspective of reality? (Perhaps he should do a little of both if he wants to entertain as well as inform.) But as one who loves art and music as much as philosophy, I take exception to the practice of honoring "hallucinogenic philosophy"-- fictional or poetic works designed to entertain, provoke, or sway their audience in the name of Philosophy without a logical philosophical foundation. I don't think we can stand divided on what passes for philosophy; we need to discover meaning and purpose, not disparage them. We need to strengthen our beliefs, not weaken them. I would say it behooves the intelligent reader to exercise some discrimination when "considering the source." Thanks for intervening with this provocative article, Ron. Best regards, Ham Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
