My introduction

[Tannhauser]

Hello, forum.

I think Nietzsche is overrated and I like coffee.

And yeah, as an INTP I'm interested in every goddamn subject there is, etc, etc...

 

[Black Rose]

you should have spaceman spiff as your avatar.

 

[Tannhauser]

you should have spaceman spiff as your avatar.

For the lack of a better idea, that will do

 

[hush]

Welcome to the forum, I hope you enjoy your stay.

Who do you think is underrated, and why?

 

[computerhxr]

Welcome aboard!

 

[TheAdditional1]

Hello Tannhauser.

Hello AnimeKitty, Hush, Computerhxr.



I haven't read Nietzsche. I'm not sure how I feel about reading other people's works on their own thoughts (i.e. studying philosophy) because it seems both too clinical, dead-ended and unoriginal, killing my own intuitive discovery/exploration. Too much sense of established direction, and I feel kind of repulsed (literal objective term, not the negative connotation - just pushed away) at the thought of saying "this is what this person said, so that's what I think." Very close to religion.

But of course this is much like a child bashing the strange new food he hasn't tried - this is just my initial feeling. Does anyone else have those thoughts in reading others' philosophical works?

 

[Tannhauser]

Thank you to all for the warm welcome, sirs/madams. As to whom I find underrated (@hush), that is an impossible question to answer, I feel. Maybe some random INTP in this forum somewhere?

@TheAdditional1: I can definitely relate to that feeling. Although, as some MBTI-specialists have noted, an INTP is generally prone to getting caught in circular "subjective-logic" loops when they consider some problem without getting any external influence. To me it feels refreshing to consider many different points of view. However, an attribute I have learned to appreciate in thinkers, is indeed a logical and coherent exposition of their claims. That is, btw, one of the reasons I think Nietzsche is overrated: with his aphoristic-style writing he sort of excused himself from the obligation to coherently explore a subject, and instead decided to collect a bunch of thoughts in the form of random observations and remarks.

 

[TheAdditional1]

That is, btw, one of the reasons I think Nietzsche is overrated: with his aphoristic-style writing he sort of excused himself from the obligation to coherently explore a subject, and instead decided to collect a bunch of thoughts in the form of random observations and remarks.

There it is - that explains the thing I don't like about those guys. Once they get in deep enough, they'll become aware that their wonderings can and will be taken at face valued fact and forget to leave their trail of breadcrumbs. Thanks for clarifying that.

That helps to define my own "subjective-logic" approach - if people speak naturally and prospectively, or else leave more clinical statements open-ended and open for further consideration, then I'll enjoy it thoroughly.

Even something like saying "there is a tendency to..." rather than saying "this is..." makes the difference.


I'm curious about Nietzsche now, but at least I have a better understanding of just how many grains of salt to bring if I check him out.


+1

 

[Tannhauser]

Even something like saying "there is a tendency to..." rather than saying "this is..." makes the difference.

Very true. In fact, as I am in the process of writing a dissertation now, I have made a rule for myself to never write anything unless something fully concrete can be said about it. It certainly takes discipline, and great care must be taken. Clear writing very quickly exposes one's stupidity.