7 Changed a couple of words to make two sentences slightly more clear
source | link

In these sections, Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic. This seems problematic since without basic logic, one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. Is his rejection merely in termsreally of logic's ability to lead us to truth? Is his goal just to raise healthy skepticism?

P.S. If Nietzsche means thisrejects truth and logic literally, how could we even make sense of such a world (where contradictions are possible)?

In these sections, Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic. This seems problematic since without basic logic, one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. Is his rejection merely in terms of logic's ability to lead us to truth? Is his goal just to raise healthy skepticism?

P.S. If Nietzsche means this literally, how could we even make sense of such a world (where contradictions are possible)?

In these sections, Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic. This seems problematic since without basic logic, one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. Is his rejection really of logic's ability to lead us to truth? Is his goal just to raise healthy skepticism?

P.S. If Nietzsche rejects truth and logic literally, how could we even make sense of such a world (where contradictions are possible)?

    Post Reopened by virmaior
6 deleted 1411 characters in body
source | link

This is a lengthy question because truth and logic are intertwined, and I wanted to thoroughly explore Nietzsche's views on them. This required a few different quotes. Most of it is an interpretation of mine. The actual question is at the end.

So, I realize that Nietzsche may have intentionally obfuscated his own beliefs, but I find it surprising that there seemsI'm trying to be so much disagreement regarding his position on truth and logic. Under every accepted answer, I find a dissenting opinion. I can understand how we can dissent in our opinions of his philosophy, but isn't there a universally accepted interpretationmake sense of those opinions?

I have just started   Beyond Good and Evil, so I'm curious about and Nietzsche's ideas duringviews at that period in his lifetime. 

The following is my best attempt at a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche's statements within the first chapter.claims he makes about truth and logic seem problematic to me:

 

My Question:

In these sections, Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic, but there must be more to it than that. Without logic of theThis seems problematic since without basic, obvious sort (not complex mathematics or logic which depends on controversial axioms), one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. I would venture to guess that he just did not value logic as any more than a pragmatic tool for working within one's own perspective reality, perhaps not denying its universality, but rejecting the valueIs his rejection merely in terms of its potentiallogic's ability to yield truths.

It seems as if Nietzsche often makes dramatic statements without paying heedlead us to their rigor,truth? Is his goal just to raise some healthy skepticism in the reader and to paint a new picture of what matters in life.


My Question:?

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should find something better to value?

P.S. If the consensus is that Nietzsche's writings are completely literal, and that he believed absolutely that there are no absolutes, no truths of even the most trivial nature and no logic that could lead to it (i.e. x != (!x) is not a universal law)Nietzsche means this literally, please either explain or link to an explanation of how one could reasonable contemplatewe even make sense of such a world. (where contradictions are possible)?

This is a lengthy question because truth and logic are intertwined, and I wanted to thoroughly explore Nietzsche's views on them. This required a few different quotes. Most of it is an interpretation of mine. The actual question is at the end.

So, I realize that Nietzsche may have intentionally obfuscated his own beliefs, but I find it surprising that there seems to be so much disagreement regarding his position on truth and logic. Under every accepted answer, I find a dissenting opinion. I can understand how we can dissent in our opinions of his philosophy, but isn't there a universally accepted interpretation of those opinions?

I have just started Beyond Good and Evil, so I'm curious about Nietzsche's ideas during that period in his life. The following is my best attempt at a consistent interpretation of Nietzsche's statements within the first chapter.

Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic, but there must be more to it than that. Without logic of the basic, obvious sort (not complex mathematics or logic which depends on controversial axioms), one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. I would venture to guess that he just did not value logic as any more than a pragmatic tool for working within one's own perspective reality, perhaps not denying its universality, but rejecting the value of its potential to yield truths.

It seems as if Nietzsche often makes dramatic statements without paying heed to their rigor, just to raise some healthy skepticism in the reader and to paint a new picture of what matters in life.


My Question:

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should find something better to value?

P.S. If the consensus is that Nietzsche's writings are completely literal, and that he believed absolutely that there are no absolutes, no truths of even the most trivial nature and no logic that could lead to it (i.e. x != (!x) is not a universal law), please either explain or link to an explanation of how one could reasonable contemplate such a world.

I'm trying to make sense of   Beyond Good and Evil and Nietzsche's views at that time. 

The claims he makes about truth and logic seem problematic to me:

 

My Question:

In these sections, Nietzsche seems to denounce both truth and logic. This seems problematic since without basic logic, one cannot interact with the world in any meaningful way. Is his rejection merely in terms of logic's ability to lead us to truth? Is his goal just to raise healthy skepticism?

Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should find something better to value?

P.S. If Nietzsche means this literally, how could we even make sense of such a world (where contradictions are possible)?

5 added 10 characters in body
source | link

 

My Question:

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? DidIt seems as if Nietzsche often makemakes dramatic statements without paying heed to their rigor, just to raise some healthy skepticism in the reader and to paint a new picture of what matters in life.


My Question:

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should just find something better to value?


 

My Question:

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? Did Nietzsche often make dramatic statements without paying heed to their rigor, just to raise some healthy skepticism in the reader and to paint a new picture of what matters in life? Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should just find something better to value?

It seems as if Nietzsche often makes dramatic statements without paying heed to their rigor, just to raise some healthy skepticism in the reader and to paint a new picture of what matters in life.


My Question:

How accurate is my interpretation? Where do I go astray? Did he actually have a firm (one might say "absolute") opinion on the un-absolutism of reality/logic, or did he just decide that we could never see around our perspective lens, so we should find something better to value?

4 changed the bold attribute of a paragraph and some further formatting to avoid bold
source | link
3 added 98 characters in body
source | link
2 Changed format from a huge pile of questions about different quotes, to an interpretation of each quote and a condensed question section at the end which amounts to "How well am I interpreting Nietzsche?"
source | link
    Post Closed as "too broad" by virmaior
1
source | link