The last man jumps on the Earth. First I wanted to write “upon” instead of “on”, but then I decided to write “on”. Is that okay, Obe?
Actually not. But who knows? What do you think, Obe?
I think…ahhhm…Yes? Nietzsche really admired Christ, the Man, and Jesus did say,
“those who love their life, will loose it, and those who hate their life will find eternal life”
“the last will be first, and the first, last”
this may reflect on whether Nietzsche had any idea of a connection between himself and Christ, but the fact is, it is more probable than not, maybe even more than 80%, that there was, either conscious, or otherwise.
That’s really interesting isn’t it. That Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus or what Jesus symbolized, but against what he traced to be a perversion of Jesus’s memory – the history of Christianity – starting with St. Paul. I’m thinking of starting a thread in religion about it.
As far as we know (but also not for sure), Nietzsche admired Paulus.
We really do not know for sure whether Nietzsche wasn’t against Jesus. Nietzsche in his “early times as philosopher” was not against Jesus, Nietzsche in his “middle times as philosopher” was not very much against Jesus, and Nietzsche in his “late times as philosopher” was against Jesus, although not always. It is really difficult to find the truth about Nietzsche’s relationship with Jesus and Christianity because the whole Nietzsche has to be considered.
That is precisely the problem with him that nobody knows exacty what he is proposing.
Some people may criticise me for this, but whatever more or less i undersood of him, he seems to be a confused person.
This is not to say that he is a dumb person. He was intelligent and investigative but not much sure about his own ideas.
Like some other intellectualls, he was suffering with TMI syndrome; Too much information without conclusion.
Any philosopher, who uses such poetic prose in his narration, instead of crystal clear language, that anyone can interpret as he likes, is the indicaton that philosopher is not sure about his perception. As far as the philosophy is concerned, the use of artistic languange is nothing but a escape route to hide one’s confusion.
They try to do a Shakespeare, as you like it.
FC once told me that i misread him and advised me to read The Birth of Tragedy. I downlowded and start reading it but many chapters passed i was still unable to understsand what his referred subject it, much less his opinion, thus stopped.
Philosophers are supposed to reduce confusion, not add to it.
It is as simple as that. Any philosopher, who adds to the confusion, is cheating the very object of philosophy, in the first place, no matter how intelligent he may be.
with love,
sanjay
I guess what I meant was why is stopping change good and change problematic. I may have misinterpreted but in the post I responded to, it seemed like the two were valued this way. Perhaps you see too much change, so less change is likely the right direction and I have some sympathy with this. A way to clarify would be to point out that nature changes. Also it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes, many of them both destructive and benefitless.
Arminius: To quote my sources, , Encyclopedia.com paraphrases the following with about a dozen references,
' While he despised Christianity, Nietzsche admired Jesus himself, or at least the historical Jesus whom Nietzsche thought the Church had distorted.'
Here is a case where the perception of Jesus re-differentiated , revised the myths and church protocol into the personality, this is why it is very difficult to have an inverted understanding, all along the way the qualitative changes of the myths surrounding Him, could not be taken into account. This pre-scripting worked while the new age of information as still a dormant privilege of those, who may have wanted to keep such information under wraps.
That is the question of ego, which comes into play, in the literal self destruction, all subsequent signs of unkindness, are effaced and subordinated, including those having to do belief, values, etc.
On basis of that state of self consciousness, did i see it as my duty to point this out.
That is a bold thesis. 
My guess is that you have not studied Friedrich Nietzsche much, otherwise you would have not said this.
“The Birth of Tragedy” shows Nietzsche’s “early times as an adult philosopher”, and his “early times as an adult philosopher” are one of the well “closed” periods of Nietzsche`s philosphical life, and because of that Nietzsche in his “early times as an adult philosopher” is not difficult to understand. The problem is the whole Nietzsche, his four or even five philosophical periods, not each of them because each of them are a well closed and well known single period, and, if combinded, probably also not two of them. The problem of understanding Nietzsche’s philosophical life is his problematic life itself, especially after he broke with Wagner (and “The Birth of Tragedy” belongs to the period before Nietzsche broke with Wagner).
Stopping change is good when the change itself has become a problem, when every attempt of stopping it leads to more change … and more and more change …, when the disaster has already become apparent. I am not against change, but too much change is a problem. Unfortunately it would take change to stop humans from making all these changes, yes, and we have many examples for that - that was the reason why I said stopping change leads to more change (because stopping change requires change) and even more than more change (because stopping change leads to reactions, thus more change). It’s almost a vicious circle.
That which cannot be changed, “attracts” (“traps”) that which does change.
The “immovable object” IS the “irresistible force”. 
And sometimes the other way around, depending which has more accumulated power.
In the film is said: “Workers always lose. … Economy always wins.” And that is right, if workers are paid (and they are usually). Economy is the household, means the cost effectiveness, earning power, profitableness, … and so on. So there is no way out of the trap. Humans themselves have been building this trap - with the risk that they will be completely replaced by machines in the future.
Well done, Obe. But Nietzsche in his middle and late time of an adult philosopher admired the original Christianity mainly just because of its historical success. And who was the one who historically brought the Christianity to the success? It was Paulus. So your quoted source is not wrong, but the term “Nietzsche admired Jesus” is a bit exaggerated.
And then, I think, the issue becomes, what is actually driving the too much change and the bad changes and then evaluate any proposals to see whether they actually get at root causes.
The issue reminds me of therapy, spiritual growth, unfucking one’s mind and other internal focused problem solving attempts. It seems to me that much needs to be stopped rather than added. All one does is add a layer of reform but have not really addressed the root issues. So you have a more split self, perhaps with yet another subpersonality, never having dealt with the issue of whether one can be an integrated being.
Conservatives, often correctly, judge the reforms and legislations of liberals for just adding more layers. For me, as neither liberal nor conservative, this seems true to me of conservatives also. The coming threat from machines is something liberals and conservatives are both rushing toward with glee and open arms.
Are those “liberals” and “conservatives” similar to those who are called “the left” and “the right” in Europe? I think so. But in Europe “the left” is interpreted as “the egalitarians” (communists etc.) and “the right” as “the liberalists” (capitalists etc.). If you ask a politician from Europe whether he or (even!) she is “conservative” the color of this person’s face will change immediately like this: 
. And then this persons will say: 'I am not ‘conservative’, I am ‘(social)democratic’." Apparently there are merely “democrats”, namely “social democrats” in Europe, although its reality is much different - of course!
May be. Most people are not comfortable with that idea. They see heavy words and highly complex(read confusing) language as an essential part of philosophy.
I have seen many intellectals writing on and on, repeating a same thing, but presenting it many different ways linguistically using their skill. That does not fit in the frame of philosophy, at least to me. That is art, not philosophy.
Yes, i have not studied him much but i tried though it did not come handy.
Arminius, you seems to be confirming my opinion about him.
A philosopher cannot be true philosopher, unless he cannot think in second person. That is the first condition and the only difference between litrature and philosophy. Being in highly emotional state all the time can reap handsome dividends in litrature, but it could be a curse in philosophy.
He was very sensitive but too much obsessed with himself. His fertile thinking and sensitivity used to manifest too much emotions in his mind and he wrote down all that, just like a poet. There are some good observations in that but he failed to present his ideas in a coherent way, as an ontology, like other philosophers did.
There is certainly some emotional appeal in his narration because he used very dramatic language. But, at the end, it becomes all confusing thus useless. One has to guess all the time what he is trying to say. and, i do not think that is a good quality for a philosopher.
with love,
sanjay
The terms are used differently, but frankly in both places I think my statement that you quoted works. You have to get into marginal parts of the left and right in either country to find people questioning ‘progress’ and capitalism and the ongoing modularization and digitalization of everything which will include more and more robotization. The liberals in the US are more egalitarian than the conservatives, but they are staunch capitalists. A president dismissed as a socialist - say, Jimmy Carter - was hardly that being a solid member of the Trilateral commission and pro-business down to his little peanut booties. Most social democrats in Europe are also capitalists and this is only becoming more so. Some of the by name left and green parties do want to challenge capitalism, but they can take on this role safe in knowing that nothing like that is going to happen and most of them are to some degree capitalists. And often those on the far left who have yearnings for state run businesses are also protechnology. (I do live in Europe though my terms in English are based on growing up in the US so I will use them in their US forms.)
The technocrats have always been accepted and used by the power party, whether religious, communist or capitalist. I am not fond of the various fundamentalist religious groups out there, but I find it funny and sad that people think they have the tiniest chance of being the dominant paradigm. The technocrats won that battle a while ago, and are making more changes than any other group. This has made huge inroads into our sense of selves - pharmacological and more and more genetic approaches to fixing problems - sense of nature, sense of solutions, ontology, politics and how we relate to each other. I don’t know how old you are, but children seem incapable in the West of developing their own games, hanging out without devices,ö having fun without spending money and so on compared to when I was a kid. Somehow play is being replaced by entertainment which is insane. As the machines become more capable of doing human tasks, humans are being reduced to passive automatons.
Part of what you are criticizing is due to his being a decomposer, and in nature the decomposers - vultures, fungi and so on - are a critical part of a healthy ecosystem. So with the ecosystem of ideas. But even given this I think you are giving him short shrift.
That was an excellent find and goes well with these;
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mII9NZ8MMVM[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZViuts8RQRY[/youtube]
They are all related. They are related to the formation and installation of the new Global Order, the “New World Order”, first through dark trickery then by open direct force (the arming of DHS).
But in the end, realize that unlike the film Elysium displays, those high above it all, seriously do not have any need at all for any human’s on Earth and they know it.
The epic films 2001 and its sequel 2010, the discovery of what came to be called “God” is displayed in typical sci-fi fashion. The black monolith, “Black Stone” (referred to in many other sci-fi films as “The Cube” and source of ultimate power) is discovered long ago, eventually reigning over the Earth (the new order), and then replicated millions of times to explode into “a second Sun” in the skies of Earth. They don’t tell you what happens after that other than to imply, “a new sunny day for Man”.
The monolith is a quantized formula for “absolute control/conquering” capable of both creating and destroying life. But guess what, machines do it even better, much, much better. And that is where SAM comes in. RM:AO:SAM is about the infinities and that is where it butts heads with quantum theory. SAM is a living social order and utilizes that cube, but in a “human life supporting” way, forbidding quantization of Man into a machine. But all of that comes AFTER. If there are no more humans left, SAM is merely the default for the machines utilizing an “angel network” to ensure that they are undefeatable forever more … primarily by killing anything that isn’t them, just as the globalists are doing right now.