This is not a correct description of how philosophers approach teaching these classes. They are rarely taught (at least in U.S. philosophy dept.) as simply historical studies. While there often will be some engagement with interpretative and other scholarly questions, the engagement with the ideas of the philosopher being studied is at least as important.

I believe your descriptions of your own education. You should just not assume that it is typical of philosophical education in the U.S (or the U.K. I suspect). So when I teach intro to ethics, I will sometimes include a section discussing Nietzsche. I know that many of my colleagues do as well. I also looked up "ethics" on Amazon, and of the first eight textbooks for an intro to ethics class, all of them include either selections from or discussions of Nietzsche.

As for conversations about the nature of morality, well, I can't really do much more than point out that my own experience differs from yours. I find that philosophers of my acquaintance do think Nietzsche's ideas on morality still worth discussing.

In the UK its not historical really either. Its approaching the specific ideas and seeing the ensuing discussion between him and others. It doesn't engage with the central question; but the theories and arguments presented by the studied philosopher.


This is very different to the UK then. I specifically said in the UK, you presumed i meant US. Further though, in more detailed discussions, reading lists, etc., its never been about Nietszche.

I guess we've jsut had very different experiences and focuses, but I've never been presented with big papers/theories and thought which include anything to do with Nietschze

Because we don't study 'philosophers' any more. We study 'problems' and 'issues.' Since philosophy is somewhat cumulative, in that what has gone before is incorporated in what comes later, there's little need to go pre 1960 for most contemporary debates.

See above post.

I suspect that you've misunderstood my meaning. ITT I already mentioned that his views on morality are highly respected in analytic departments.

Kant?
Kant is a moron. And my opinion of people that slobber over Kant is even lower.
Kant died a virgin and in his ENTIRE life never got more than 50 miles from his homtown of Konigsburg.
With regards to life, Kant was all talk/theory and no action.
The most important requirement for being an insightful philosopher is living a FULL life so you have a large knowledge base to draw upon for your musings about life. In this regard Kant is pathetically naive. How anyone could find Kant's braying meaningful is beyond me...
Nietzsche on the other hand got laid a lot and it gave him a lot of valuable insights into human nature and the relationship structure between men and women. Nietzsche's ideas of the overman and going through a "reevaluation of values" so one could become an overman (ubermensch) is genius.

When I think of the greatest philosophers, Nietzsche is in the top 3.
When I think of the worst philosophers, Kant locks up the #1 position...

^---- No one takes this guy seriously though.

Theoretically we both speak English but I still can't understand what you attempt to communicate...

If by "guy" you mean Kant, then I disagree because too many people waste their time studying this braying donkey that some think is wise.
If by guy" you mean me, then my response will be you are continuing your long tradition of ad hominens against myself.
Attack the man but not his arguments. Yes?
That seems par for the course for some posters...

But your written communication skills don't make it clear what your postion is...

Your entire attack against Kant was ad hominem, and a lousy one at that.

I attacked Kant for his lack of experience at life (such as having a full relationship with a woman) and yet Kant having the arrogance to believe his ideas on life are worthwhile. To believe Kant's ideas have merit is like believing a man who has never played poker can sit at a poker table and suddenly start beating pro poker players with ease...

But I will amend my statement.
Kant is NOT a moron.
But Kant's writings are moronic.

Happy now?

No. I don't care if you want to insult Kant or say that he is a moron. What makes your post ad hominem is that you claim that Kant's ideas are wrong or that his arguments fail because of his lifestyle rather than anything about the ideas or arguments themselves. You're just doubling down now.

I agree, Kant's PUA manual didn't help me at all.

lol...your point is well taken. I did double down.
And I suppose it is possible that a person with a sheltered life experience can make meaningful opinions on life.
But the smart money not would bet that way.
And I don't think you would bet that way either.

My contempt for Kant still remains based on his ludicrous writings...
The title of his writings speaks volumes:
"Critique of Pure Reason"
"Critique of Practical Reason"

and his unpublish titles such as:
"Who needs reason when dopey publishers will pay me large sums of cash to write books attacking reason".

The last title is a fictional non-existent book book it sums up Kant to me in a nutshell...

I suspect Nietzsche tried to turn insanity into rationality by his arguments. Most likely he had some inner demons prompting him. They manifested more fully later in his life. Wasn't he institutionalized for syphillis?

I suspect his desires overcame his will and that led him to try to intellectually justify them.

Though its possible he was just seduced and bound like Delilah did to Samson in the OT. Unlike Samson he just never woke up to try and escape the binding. Syphillis struck him before he could be delivered from bondage. But I guess that's what could happen when you're stupid enough to announce "God is dead" to the world.

I really needed that comic relief from my marking. Thanks FN!

Well Nietzsche really didn't have any common sense. People today know if you lay down with dogs you can catch fleas.

And in Nietzsche's day they didn't even have condoms. Everyone knew if you laid down with whores or prostitutes you could come up with a case of syphillis. But he had so little self control he did it anyway...Delilah syndrome strikes again...

Now did the devil lure him into it or was it a judgment from God....maybe both ....

Oh and before anyone takes umbrage at my posts: common sense and intelligence aren't the same thing.

Some people have intelligence with no common sense at all...that's why you hear the phrase "He's book smart but ain't got no common sense" in certain quarters...

Common sense implies you have a certain kind of prudent reasoning. That you are able to pursue activities safely.

Some people are intelligent but the ability to act with prudence/safe action doesn't necessarily accompany it.

I see you've moved on from arguing that Kant was wrong because he had a crappy sex life to criticizing Kant on the basis of his book titles. Progress! Next we might even get some of the text, although I suspect based on your fantasy that it will be as read by noted Kant scholar Ayn Rand...

Do you suspect this on the basis of actually knowing anything about Nietzsche's life, or is it just base prejudice?

On what Nietzsche got wrong.


Nietzsche got wrong how the law should be applied. He espouses that the strong should be a law unto themselves. I, with my namby pamby egalitarian values, disagree. Laws should apply to the strong and the weak equally.

And yet, those passages where N. rhapsodically sings the necessity of the strong to be laws unto themselves are of great value, even to one like me, who disagrees.

You have missed the point.

Oh?
Nietzsche achieve a lot of success in the field of academics at quite a young age.
Nietzsche also became mildly wealthy before he lost his health.
Sounds pretty good for a person you claim had no common sense.

Yeah he should have been like Kant and stayed a virgin...

True...
Everyone who gets syphillis has offended god.
One of our neighbor was cheating on his wife with several women and gave his wife an STD.
Naturally this meant it was the wife that offended god.
So we buried the wife to her waist and pelted her with stones while singing "God is great and beautiful".
I was a little bummed that her ex-husband got the killing throw in.

Anyway the husband got a new wife and that witch she got a STD.
Her husband has the worst luck in women...
Anyway we will be giving her god's justice this Sunday with another rock pelting.
Come and join us if you like...

The strong are laws unto themselves. How do we (strong, weak, or otherwise) respond to that? (To the assertion, and, if we decide the assertion is true, to that reality.)

No, Nietzsche was bad at PUA just like Kant. He pined after some chick who wasn't into him, beta all the way.

Now Kierkegaard was the man.

On the other hand, though, Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable. But there's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach you about the raising of the wrist.

Nietzsche may be the better philosopher after all.

Thanks. I stand corrected.