Quote:
Originally posted by mika
Yes. Maybe what is causing the conflict here between us is more subtle than you realized in the first place
In my opinion no single human being is so intelligent and so objective that he could revise almost everything or anything in this world.
No single human being is so intelligent and objective (in today's world) that he could alone interprete a text of a great philosopher (for example, Kant) - without soon receiving any plausible criticism at all.
Nietzsche's mistake is that he probably considered himself such a wise man -> thus, my references to egotism
In reality, you need a wide variety of sources and interpretations in today's academic world. By reading Nietzsche and Nietzsche only you wouldn't necessarily know much about Nietzsche - unless you are an intellectual ubermench - which I doubt, so the best way is to use as many sources and interpretations as possible
|
it's interesting that you waited until now to mention interpretive texts.
*shrug*
i minored in Philosophy - and did well enough to be planning a master's next fall (years after i graduated). the entire idea of most master thesis is interpretation. if not, i'd just buy a copy of a book, and hand it in lol.
in general, if you think that you can get though a decent university with a very high average, without studying many different thinkers (regardless of subject) you are wrong. not saying that's your opinion though.
i have a very strong knowledge of many different areas of phil. i've gravitated towards existentialism, Nietzsche in particular. i am most interested in cyber philosophy - specifically it's impact on identity.
specialization is pretty common practice ;)