Modern academics/historians instinctively feel their inferiority, dullness, vast uncharismatic boringness, inability to answer the questions the age, and constantly resort to containing Nietzsche and Nietzschean ideas. Pathetic.

Maybe so, but please don't fulminate on HN.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

edit: and please don't snark or post shallow dimissals, as you did in https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33632057

Right on. I really enjoy Stoic philosophy, Nietzsche, and Buddhism. I actually consider this my "serious" reading, not like fun reading of sci-fy, etc.

I like to read things that allow me to reevaluate my behaviors and beliefs.

I think diving into his personal life can be very useful with Nietzsche. I can't say the same with every philosopher though. Wonderful Wittgenstein quote, btw.

Nietzsche's almost constant sickness helps explain concepts like the eternal return and will-to-power. Always keep an eye out for "health", "cure", and "convalescence" in his writing (great example: the preface to The Gay Science).

Nietzsche's romantic failures also color his works. I skip large chunks because I can't stomach his sexism.

It doesn't explain the concepts, it explains how the concepts may (big may!) have been originated. It's way, way better to read about what texts Nietzsche read and which didn't.

Is that from w first era that he changed his mind? The language divide is not that exact and stair in fact cannot be throw away. As there could be a stair?

>ultimately, confusing the author personal life with his ideas, or reaching conclusions between the two, this is mainly garbage

Hard disagree. You cannot truly understand a person’s thought without understanding the person’s life.

Even a hardcore logician like Russell, you know he was an academic during such and such a period of history which influenced his worldview and that which he found important.

Maybe I’m just outing myself as a PoMo, but thought is life and living begets thought. Philosophers are interpreters of the grand drama in which they have a part.

“It has gradually become clear to me what every great philosophy up till now has consisted of – namely, the confession of its originator, and a species of involuntary and unconscious autobiography; and moreover that the moral (or immoral) purpose in every philosophy has constituted the true vital germ out of which the entire plant has always grown.”

-- F. Nietzsche

that's very different from saying that biography can improve or disprove something! As a matter of facts, Nietzsche writes here about moral purpose of philosophy. "Autobiography" here is a trick; confirming that you must separate author life from texts. In German, Nietzsche uses the word "mémoires", which are an author own recollections of experiences. The "Auto" part in the translations, coming from the Greek autòs, meaning self, is the key part here. A description of Nietzsche's sickness made by someone else is hardly an autobiography.

Hard disagree, PoMo. The work stands alone. "No man is a hero to his valet" is the truism that springs to mind. Reducing everything to the times & the man is just a way to bring it all down to our own pedestrian level so we can feel equal. The goal of every great artist is to transcend their humanity.

We know nothing about Homer, or even if there was such a person, but The Iliad and The Odyssey have been read for 3,000 years.

It's like arguing whether a mountain ought to be experienced from a distance, so you can see it, or from the top, so you can see from it.

Both!

OK w/me

Case in point: Russell’s views on Nietzsche.

There can be value in understanding where a thought came from: the problem is reducing all of the thought to its provenance. Nietzsche was sick, hence you must restate the validity of his arguments. This argument is garbage. Try to prove it, you will fail. You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography. Otherwise, your thoughts too will be just what you had for breakfast

> You can disagree with Nietzsche: do so in the realm of philosophy, not in that of biography

What you’re implying is that considering the circumstances of life is ad hominem, which I do not agree with.

I’d argue that you cannot truly understand the philosophy without the context, it’s baked in. So you need to know the context to truly disagree with the correct thing, but yes the disagreement should be specifically with the idea, not with the person.

Eg not “Nietzsche had a privileged life therefore he was wrong” more like “Nietzsche’s approach to and thoughts on the will to power only really apply when considering the monomania spurred by his father’s early demise and his deep interest in philology. A 21st century approach to nietzschean thought would doubtlessly look very different since material, literary and spiritual conditions have changed somewhat”

This I agree with. Context is a thing, saying as the article did things along the line of "Nietzsche was sick so this explains x" is another

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

That's not what I did. Read better. I state that it's garbage because the very first thing you learn when analysing literature is separating men from their ideas. This article doesn't do that and proceeds to find meaningless conclusions.

Some currently-fashionable methods of literary analysis deliberately ignore author biography, but I don't think most people who favor those would claim there's never any reason for or value in examining the biographies of authors. I don't think they'd suggest people, say, entirely ignore the biography of an author forever and in all cases. Besides, it's common for one person to apply multiple approaches for a really deep analysis of a work, whether independently or together.

Plus, this is a review of a biography, so it's not the reviewer's fault the book is concerned with biography.

Erroring out at the first detail that contradicts a generic principle is a classic type of shallow dismissal.