On 3/15/2003 11:04:22 PM, Nathaniel Bonadore
wrote:
I was pretty mad
>when I read the portion that
>summarized Nietzsche's
>"passional" argument against
>God's existence. I have read
>several of Nietzsche's works
>when my father introduced me
>to them; I find such a gross
>simplification misleading,
>especially in light of how
>easy Nietzsche is to read!

Nietzsche is easy to read but obviously difficult to
intepret! Palmer quotes Nietzsche verbatim. One
problem with doing philosophy with irony and
pithy aphorisms is that you might be
misinterpreted.

>The other questionable
>practice I see in the book is
>how he takes entire theories
>and sets them as "false".

I like that Palmer says in his introduction that he
won't insult your intelligence or be duplicitous by
claiming to be neutral and not telling you what he
thinks. However, I also think he gives a careful
and fair exposition of ideas he ultimately ends up
disagreeing with.

>I
>don't believe in "true" or
>"false" in philosophy, just as
>I don't believe that "right"
>and "wrong" have any part in
>philosophical practice.
>Obviously, it follows that if
>one line of philosophical
>reasoning was more "right"
>than all the others, we'd all
>believe solely in it.

In other words, you're asserting that it's TRUE that
there is no "true" (or "false") in philosophy. Also, I
think you made a truth claim above about whether
Palmer has correctly interpreted or fairly
presented Nietzsche's ideas on God. Or is this just
your subjective interpretation? And if it's merely
YOUR interpretation, why would others be
interested in it? After all they don't need YOUR
help to form THEIR own subjective interpretations
of reality. An obscure philosopher once said
"Denying the reality of propositional truth can only
end in nonsense or mysticism, but I repeat
myself."

Throughout history, philosophy has been about
the quest for knowledge of the truth. If nothing can
be discovered or known, it seems to me that it's an
excercise in futility.

Nietzsche once said "There are no facts; only
intepretations" yet Nietzsche himself believed that
it was "true" that God did not exist, that morality
evolved a certain way, that life was an expression
of "the Will to Power", and so on. He didn't think
that Christianity was an equally valid answer to
life's questions, on equal footing with his own
philosophy. He didn't preface "The Anti-Christ"
with "This is only my opinion, but..."

>I do, however, like the
>summaries our professor posts
>regarding the material. I also
>greatly appreciate the way our
>tests are phrased. Questions
>asking "What argument did the
>author propose. . ." really
>helps me keep a perspective
>that these are merely one
>person's interpretations of
>these philosophers' ideas.

Thanks. As I've said before, it's not necessary to
agree with anything you read in this class,
including this post. You just need to understand it.

Prof. Borrowdale
borrowdalej@lanecc.edu