[MD] subject / object logic

[Ham Priday]

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