Zarathustra returns to the Lost (sheep) when it starts to rebel, the “lost” means he didn’t want it! Did you understand this? And this is not “in a way” but clearly for a non-perverted mind.
As for Lampert, there is no “human”, Nietzsche was looking to create an environment for his own kind. Unfortunately it was interpreted as individualism. The West was already too rotten inside.
This conversation is very amusing.
If Lampert is able to deploy a straussianism on Strauss, doesn’t that mean Lampert considered Strauss to be esoteric than exo.?
If anything, it was Strauss who was against historicism in principle although he had to acknowledge that as a practicality ever since Machiavellianism, and wanted to revert back to Platonic Forms of the ‘good’ to anchor political philosophy. And if anything, it was Nietzsche opening up the ground so contests could occur, values could be determined in agonistic clash, but in the last analysis within the very particular framework of Rome vs. Judea, and to add to that, “sought therefore for a culture that would no longer be particular” was realized by him as possible only within the tolerant attitude and spirit of a very particular pagan Greco-Rome.
Yes, it feels like long ago. It does when you tend to read a lot.
I was saying if I am Cassandra from the Greek myth, then it has to be the DC comics version of that mythical figure in amazon armour, but as I’ve said, its not what I thought of when i got the name.
It must be short for smart alec.
I disagree. That was a squint judgement on your part. I think Nietzsche believed the philosophical process itself was likely to be endangered if the last-men triumphed over the world. Fatalism (letting things take their course, in which the last men would triumph) would prove fatal to the possibility of philosophy.
In your arguing that memetic influence is strictly constricted within genetic parameters through the example of the film picture.
The picture is static while the gene is in flux, and so not a valid analogy. You came across optimistic.
What? The slave rules openly today and makes no effort to hide his will to power under the garb of any moral virtue.
Israel is staring at our face and making territorial and existential claims with no more sufficient moral reason than just because it persisted long enough. Chazakah.
There are open war and economic threats between the US and N.Korea with no cover-up of the expected compliance being of a politico-economic nature, a “fall in line or else” that does not defer to “God sanctioned me”, or “Spreading democracy is virtuous”, but pure power rhetoric.
The Greek bank debt and open corruption never accounted for in any God’s name or social good.
Its not like the populace today are fools, but as some philosophers like sloterdijk have pointed out, “cynical”, fully aware but cant be bothered to act.
A contended nihilism.
So the quality of philosophy or the society it cultivates is irrelevant as long as one is able to enforce it, rule with it. Then philosophical supremacism values power for power’s sake. It is relativistic.
Didn’t you just agree with Lampert that visibility was not the right road?
Yes, that’s how I like to think.
But Strauss’ ultimate conclusion that a just society will be one where the dialogue between revelation and philosophy continues, like they were really on par is sneaky and the unending dialogue like a trick that keeps society engaged within the same loop - approaches may change, positions and values may change, but the determining framework within which this dialogue must occur is pre-set. This is like a soft communism while strauss himself technically being virulently anti-communist.
That was supposed to be Nietzsche’s little humour and not a truth, was it not? In any case, Hitler had many jewish men in his cabinet, did he kill them all? Apparently he was not stupid like you sound.
An esoteric thinker writes exoterically. A non-exoteric thinker cannot. Strauss was an esoteric thinker and Lampert is not. Therefore, Strauss was an exoteric writer and Lampert is not.
[size=95]“Strauss is an exoteric guide to exoteric writings, but I feel freed to expose the rhetoric of Strauss’s writing because the perspective of my book is derived not from Strauss but from Nietzsche.” (Lampert, The Enduring Importance of Leo Strauss, page 2.)
“I should perhaps say […] that in my account of what Strauss has written […] I have done my best to be as explicit as possible on all the points that seemed important enough or obscure enough to mention. My reason for this explicitness is that we’re entering the Nietzschean Age: public decency does not depend on our hushing it up that God is dead or that philosophy corrupts; that corruption, that twilight of the idols through philosophizing with a hammer, marks the daybreak of the Nietzschean Age. And I’m not a teacher with secret things to whisper to my reader. Don’t look for winks or nods in my book.” (Lampert, Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, pp. 14-15.)[/size]
The thing about historicism is that a plurality of different worldviews does not mean that all of them are wrong; one of them might be the true worldview. Socrates questioned whether the worldview prevalent in his hometown was the true worldview, and was sentenced to death or lifelong banishment for this by his fellow Athenians. So much for the tolerant attitude and spirit of “the great age of classical Greece”, which “gave birth to [that] way of thinking”:
[size=95]“Heidegger’s philosophy of history has the same structure as Marx’ and Nietzsche’s: the moment in which the final insight is arriving opens the eschatological project. But Heidegger is much closer to Nietzsche than to Marx. Both thinkers regard as decisive the nihilism which according to them began in Plato (or before)–Christianity being only Platonism for the people–and whose ultimate consequence is the present decay. Hitherto every great age of humanity grew out of Bodenständigkeit (rootedness in the soil). Yet the great age of classical Greece gave birth to a way of thinking which in principle endangered Bodenständigkeit from the beginning and in its ultimate contemporary consequences is about to destroy the last relics of that condition of human greatness. Heidegger’s philosophy belongs to the infinitely dangerous moment when man is in a greater danger than ever before of losing his humanity and therefore–danger and salvation belonging together–philosophy can have the task of contributing toward the recovery or return of Bodenständigkeit or rather of preparing an entirely novel kind of Bodenständigkeit: a Bodenständigkeit beyond the most extreme Bodenlosigkeit, a being at home beyond the most extreme homelessness.” (Strauss, “Philosophy as Rigorous Science and Political Philosophy”.)[/size]
Apparently Strauss wanted to revert back to Platonism as an exoteric teaching to shelter philosophy.
That may explain it, as I don’t read a lot.
The separation of the three kinds of classes is natural, though of course, the conquest of nature could change this. Plato exploited the tendency of Platonism that is especially inherent in one of the three classes of humans, for the sake of winning over that class–the predominantly thymotic–to the side of the highest class–the predominantly logic (rational)–, whereas it normally sides with the lowest class–the predominantly erotic, in the narrower sense.
Noted.
Yes it would, but that’s not what Lampert is saying there.
The example was E.O. Wilson’s of the negative of a photograph. And yes, the negative, the gene, is alterable. As Lampert writes,
[size=95]“Nietzsche does not deny that there is a nature of man, though of course he denies that it is timeless or even that it is now unalterable: the very threat to human nature in one of its forms requires that Nietzsche act.” (Leo Strauss and Nietzsche, page 103.)[/size]
It is not a case of memes out-determining genes, but of memes within genes–neurological patterns within brains–out-determining other genes. As Lampert also writes,
[size=95]“Strauss’s essay has shown that nature has become a problem because of the conquest of human nature in a very precise sense, namely, elimination of one of the two natural human types.” (ibid., page 104.)[/size]
As I wrote a year ago,
[size=95]“It’s necessary to affirm eternal return because the only way to assign binding limits to modernity’s conquest of nature is, paradoxically, to will its eternal return. After all, anything less than its absolute affirmation would be a saying Nay against it, and thereby itself a call to conquer nature: for modernity’s conquest of nature arises ‘naturally’ from the nature of human herd animals. Indeed, modernity’s conquest of nature is essentially the conquest of the nature of nature, which is conquest… A ‘war to end all wars’!”[/size]
Here’s a translation of something I wrote almost six years ago:
[size=95]"Once upon a time, the people with the strongest unconcealed will to power were in power.
Then, people who possessed this unconcealed will to power to a lesser degree saw through a revaluation.
The latter thought up a moral world order that did not correspond to the natural world order (in which the former were in power).
By means of this revaluation, the latter came to power.
Until the latter were unconcealably powerful–and dared to express their will to power unconcealedly.
Now the latter even have poets who unvarnishedly praise their power and will to power.
But the basis of their power is concealed will to power. As soon as this is revealed, it cannot be the basis of new power anymore (for deception was its greatest power)."[/size]
You may find it unfair that the latter are in power, but is that a Nietzschean stance? Must the Übermensch not celebrate all manifestations of power and will to power?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m not talking about different qualities of philosophy. By “philosophers” I mean genuine philosophers, who are all in the same league. A female genuine philosopher would be in the same league as any male genuine philosopher. To be sure, though, I can’t think of an example of one.
When you make things like race or sex the criterium of your supremacism, you get guys like the ILP member Joker, who tells himself he is superior to at least about half the population simply because he has a penis.
No. See above.
That’s Strauss’s exoteric teaching. Esoterically, he taught that philosophy should rule religion.
So what? The slave serves, the slave dies.
Was Marx an egalitarian because he said races are inequal? Yes, because he was measurung races on their income and industry and everybody can do that.
If uncle Hitler said he is German, well, because he was said to be one.
We don’t expect from Hitler and Marx to speak truth and have own thoughts? A slave has no truth.
Yes, and so by deploying a staussianism on Strauss, its his very art of a forgotten-type-of-writing that is being given a public grounding after all. I believe that is what Strauss willed anyway. He says the the conflict between the philosopher and the believer was neglected by Halevi and this was intentional to preserve to a certain way of communicating it that Strauss feels he’s discovered and Lampert believes Strauss’ saying that such omissions should not be given too much emphasis is his own affirmation of that same intentionality and in such expose of exoteric writings, the forgotten-art itself is being publicly grounded, and that is the reason why Lampert can claim Strauss and Nietzsche are not too different.
That is not what Strauss was contending; he was saying even the fact that one of them might be true was still going to be a product of the history in which it was produced, and so no ultimate statement can be made without reverting to dogmatism. The only position that allows an ahistoricism is ultimately skepticism. And dealing with ideas as real-time problems as they emerge which is what Machiavelli was even doing in the first place. So in principle, Strauss was against historicism, but practically he was a Machiavellian.
I said a ‘very particular pagan Greco-Rome’ by which was meant the agonistic culture, competitors preventing the rise of a single tyrant.
What means do you use for inspiration and cultivation?
Lampert is saying Nietzscheanism assassinated Platonism by and while drawing the same inspiration from Platonism; meaning Nietzsche did perceive a threat in ‘apparent’ platonism of leaving things to fate.
You cannot unearth more out of a negative as you can with a gene with its manifold possibility or potential storage.
Speaking in relative degrees, the negative is more static, ordered, restricted, than the gene which is in fluxion, unfolding itself every moment.
Memes out-determining genes means memes out-determining the organicity of the gene-meme interloop.
The memes that are the product of a certain genetics which sustain that genetics in turn, is being meddled, perverted, thwarted. The organicity or the expression of free-association between a gene-meme genetic-symbiosis is under attack.
And I have nothing against the saying that the memes that attempt to out-determine this organic association are of course the product of a certain genetics themselves. The slave type.
Are you saying technology is the product of herd animals? What?
What is the opposite attitude of the conquest of nature? Is one to live in harmony with it like the daoists?
Yes.
But not all technology aims at pacifism.
Life is appropriation.
Did I appear like I was complaining for the latter being in power or is that you inserting intentions in my psyche?! My answer was a factual response to your question.
And fyi, no, every civilization goes through decadent cycles, and ‘unfair’ is the last quality i would ascribe to the triumph of the slave.
You see why I raised the question on the issue of nobility versus narcissism. “Genuine” has no standards.
How are you marking and segregating something or someone as genuine?
Yea, I can see that.
But I can also see, a philosophy that is not grounded in race and sex and its peculiar historicism, emerging as the ‘necessary’ product of an organic interplay of the fatedness one is thrown into, can only be duplicitous and anaemic. A platonism. A phantom divorced of the body.
Stay true to the earth.
Affirmation is a thread sent through the eye of the needle, i.e. to say, going through history beyond history.
Even Jesus was a philosopher.
You can’t be serious…
After Strauss saying there can be no conclusion to the conflict between Athens and Jerusalem, Philosophy and Revelation, and that the “just” philosophy is the one that leaves this open-ended.
In his Natural Rights and History,
“Philosophy has to grant that revelation is possible. But to grant that revelation is possible means to grant that the philosophic life is not necessarily, not evidently, the right life. Philosophy, the life devoted to the quest for evident knowledge available to man as man, would rest on an unevident, arbitrary, or blind decision. This would merely confirm the thesis of faith, that there is no possibility of consistency, of a consistent and thoroughly sincere life, without belief in revelation. The mere fact that philosophy and revelation cannot refute each other would constitute the refutation of philosophy by revelation.” (NRH, p. 75)
“Philosophy is threatened on the one side by a politics that would destroy it (3, 33) and on the other by a set of religious principles that would replace its search for knowledge with the positive content of revelation (115, 174).”
“It seems that Strauss could not, in good conscience, be a believer in any ordinary sense of the term, but that did not prevent him from respecting Judaism’s ways and loving its wisdom. Strauss was persuaded that the ultimate claims of faith could never fully satisfy the criteria of reason. But he was also convinced that reason could not satisfactorily refute faith’s affirmations. His love of truth compelled Strauss to examine vigorously whether the universe was ruled by a just and merciful God. But his love of truth also obliged him to affirm that God, from the point of view of reason, was a magnificent idea that could not be ruled out and so must be examined sympathetically and critically.”
Look at play, the appeal to absolute standards that is characteristic of nihilistic and manichean thinking:
“The genuine refutation of orthodoxy would require the proof that the world and human life are perfectly intelligible without the assumption of a mysterious God; it would require at least the success of the philosophical system: man has to show himself theoretically and practically as the master of the world and the master of his life; the merely given must be replaced by the world created by man theoretically and practically.” (SCR, p. 29)
Its this relativization and levelling of scientific thinking utilizing different standards to the authenticity of revelations which is his exporting a soft communism.
Because where does this lead?
Strauss says,
"Nietzsche replaces eros by the will to power – a striving which has a goal by a striving which has no such goal.
“…the serious opposition of Nietzsche to Socrates” (“Problem of Socrates,” Interpretation 22(3), 324)
Which Lampert forcefully bends to convey Strauss’ eros was the same as Nietzsche’s will-to-power, even though the object that Strauss’ eros strives for is the “love of the truth that is independent of will or decision”."
Strauss only de-Plantonizes plato to re-Platonize plato even more effectively - a kind of communism.
you are stupid.
And have no sense of history. I wonder why you gave yourself the name historyboy.
I wonder what you do for a living to make it this far without a brain??
I can’t really follow what you’re saying here, but I suppose I do agree with your bottom lines.
Fair enough.
Ideas.
I have read quite a lot, though not too many different books. When I read, I tend to read slowly but very thoroughly, so I can subsist on what I’ve read for years.
Yes: the modern idea of “progress”, for example.
Yes, it’s a mere metaphor, a simplification.
Exactly.
Yes and no–that is to say, indirectly. I recently in a private email gave the following “sweeping paraphrase” of Bacon’s New Atlantis, as the Machiavellian answer to the question “how should philosophy become political?”: “by promoting a social system in which scientists and inventors are praised and rewarded for improving the lives of the masses”.
Such scientists and inventors themselves are thymotic types–“the Daedaluses”, Lampert calls them, following Bacon, in Nietzsche and Modern Times.
Well, is that really possible? Seung in his Nietzsche’s Epic of the Soul says that such a “Spinozan” way of live shall always be interrupted time and again by a “Faustian” rebellion against nature. In any case, I think such an attitude, for instance amor fati, must itself be a will to power. Thus the will to the eternal recurrence must itself be a conquest of nature in a way; it’s a sublimation, which is to say at the same time a canceling and a preserving, of the nature of nature. If the world is will to power and nothing besides, then the doctrine of the will to power, the worldview that views the world as will to power, must itself also be a will to power. But it cannot be a will to power if all it does is view things as they are, will that things be the way they are. It must therefore do more: it must will that things eternally recur the way they are. This is why Nietzsche’s philosophy, his manifestation of “the most spiritual will to power” (BGE 9), is the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power, and not just the teaching that the world is the will to power. This is also why Nietzsche’s “proving” the eternal recurrence would be self-defeating. The eternal recurrence is a value, not a fact. To will it, however, does mean con-vincing people of it–oneself not excluded (cf. AC 54).
Yes.
If you say so.
Sorry, I was referring to the phrase “die eigentlichen Philosophen”, from BGE 211. This has also been translated as “actual philosophers”.
Yes. Hence the need for historical recurrence, as opposed to the end of history.
I disagree.
I don’t see how you think samples from Strauss’s–exoteric!–writing can disprove the claim that his esoteric message be different.
As for eros and the will to power, I think the will to power is intention, but intention is not itself intentional; see this post of mine: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2391222#p2391222. Another good source is Cooper’s Eros in Plato, Rousseau, and Nietzsche. Surely the irony is not lost on you that eros normally means a love that is very much dependent on will or decision! This, however, is supposedly a distorted eros, and undistorted eros is indeed supposed to be love of the truth that is independent of will or decision. But note that the latter is inextricably connected to eternity, and compare this to what I’ve just said about Nietzsche’s philosophy: the will that the world be the will to power and nothing besides would be a love of the truth independent of will or decision. Plato’s secret is that the eternal truth is not the Forms but eros itself; this will be a major theme of Lampert’s next book, How Socrates Became Socrates.
I’ve started reading through Leo Strauss and Nietzsche and I’ve got to say that Lampert’s interpretation of Strauss’ essay is sloppy, poorly written and far-fetched. Strauss’ reading is dead on though, by which I simply mean his conclusions about BGE are similar to mine. Anyone up to discuss it?
I don’t think I’m up to it, considering that I wholly disagree with what you say about Lampert’s interpretation. Then again, I didn’t just read through it, I actually read it. I also think it’s a pity you didn’t offer examples of its being sloppy and “poorly written”. And as for the essay itself: how can Strauss’s conclusions about BGE at the end of paragraphs 7 and 8 be similar to yours? After all, according to you the end of BGE 22 is just “a little witticism in defense of a trivial relativism”, as Lampert puts it on page 42.
Plebeians have no understanding of Nietzsche, only their “interpretations” (translations into the invisible).
I doubt Nietzsche or Lampert saw the promotion of comfort as the technology of politicizing philosophy; it was supposed to an interrim till democracy rose rampant, lost fuel and funked out making way for chinese-like automatons, who have become opiate themselves without further need of technology promising them more comfort, or making way for new barbarians who would usher in different ethics.
Of course I would have to acknowledge not all comfort promotion is necessarily decadent.
I haven’t given any impression otherwise to be confused about this.
In the real world, if I need to discriminate the genuine from the not so, or if I need to explain how to discriminate the genuine from the not so, I’ll just recall and quote BGE 211. Brilliant.
In other words, you have no practical criteria. If it looks like a philosopher and talks like a philosopher, then that’s good enough.
Then you admit Philosophical Supremacism must necessarily be rooted in particular history, race, sex and other orientations.
Criteria then?
I saw in one of your old posts, you claim the superiority of a pedophile philosopher to a non-pedophile philosopher.
You are straussianizing Strauss and this must be the softest communism, still. What could be more progressive than this in the ultimate analysis.
You seem to conveniently ignore the fact Strauss gave many lectures on why he remains a jew. Lampertian reading of Strauss into simply exoteric/esoteric secularizes the deeper esoetrism which is there are two Strauss - strauss as a philosopher and strauss as a jew - he himself being between and both athens and jerusalem.
And although he advocates skepticism leaving each to check the other; that skepticism itself, the lack of assertion that philosophy must ultimately dominate, clearly puts him in the liberal or soft-communist tank.
I have not read your suggested link, I’ll defer to this at a later date. An eros independent of will is preposterous and shows why jerusalem reigns today or the conservatives took to Strauss. This eros issue is enough to trace a How Politics became Straussian.
[/quote]
Amor fati or eros for life for its own sake demands the highest affirmation of will and decision. Philo sophia itself being the most spiritual will to power demands a pathos of will.
You remain unclear.
Thanks for the tip.
Plebian is someone who reads thinks literally like you. Nietzsche also said he was Buddha. Maybe we should take that literally.
You are a dumb boy.
And you did not reply what you do for a living? Do you even leave home? Or only read Volgraff all day?
Someone’s frustrated…
Thank you all for your opinions, thank you all !!! Thank you I love it! I love how original opinions you have! That is the most important shit in the universe!
Translation into the visible:
“One must have originality, not strive for it”. As you demonstrate very obviously, you have only your “opinions” but no respect for the originality and wisdom of others. That is why you see yourselves “progressive”, because those who have nothing to offer must move constantly … away.
In all times aristocracy has made laws and the plebeians have only voted (given opinions) on it.
When you start writing words like laws and hold it for granted that those who disrespect them must pay dearly, then you write properly.
So far on this forum only “opinions”. Votes on votes.
You are at the point where spirit has become mob and starts to stink. Together with your Sturmbahnführer.
You’re right. The entire paragraph from that private email reads:
[size=95]“In the course of inquiring into the ‘why’ [of philosophers’ becoming political], which has a general answer, I learned a lot about the ‘how’, which has only particular answers. The Machiavellian ‘how’, for example, was: ‘by promoting a social system in which scientists and inventors are praised and rewarded for improving the lives of the masses’ (Bacon, New Atlantis, sweeping paraphrase).”[/size]
Well, I’m not sure if it was supposed to be that, but certainly, philosophers know that sooner or later, new founders may be required, to redirect the course of the culture in question again.
Indeed. The comfort one promotes may be only a means to one.
As Lampert writes, “[t]he term eigentlich cannot imply that the philosophical laborer is ungenuine or inauthentic, a fake or a fraud, only that he is not a philosopher at all in the strict sense but a scientist of philosophy.” (Nietzsche’s Task, page 198.) And as he writes elsewhere: “His ambitions and his achievement make Bacon a ‘genuine philosopher’ in Nietzsche’s sense, a ‘commander and legislator’ who has determined ‘the Whither and For What of humanity’ (BGE 211).” (Nietzsche and Modern Times, page 18.)
There you have it: his ambitions and his achievement–and perhaps we should add, the causal connection between his ambitions and his achievement; after all, a belief may be both justified and true, and yet there may be no causal connection between its being true and its being justified.
Yes–but indeed, plural: it’s ultimately arbitrary in which particular history or race (yes, ultimately even whether it’s in the human history or race–that is, that of homo sapiens sapiens…); thus Halevi, Maimonides and Spinoza rank among the highest kind of all beings, the genuine philosophers.
No, of a pedophile philosopher to a non-pedophile non-philosopher.
Going through nihilism beyond nihilism, as I meant to suggest in my “Nietzsche Contra Wilders”.
No, that’s just the exoteric Strauss. Consider his interpretation of Halevi. Halevi pretended to be a Jew while he was really a philosopher, and Strauss pretended to be suspended between Judaism and philosophy in order to help some readers rediscover the philosophers’ esotericism. This is why Lampert must explicitly proclaim himself “taken over by Nietzsche [a self-proclaimed philosopher]”.
To be sure, Strauss’s exotericism is Lampert’s greatest criticism of him.
I suspect this unclarity has to do with “what I’[d] just said about Nietzsche’s philosophy”, which you did not address:
[size=95]“[T]he will to the eternal recurrence must itself be a conquest of nature in a way; it’s a sublimation, which is to say at the same time a canceling and a preserving, of the nature of nature. If the world is will to power and nothing besides, then the doctrine of the will to power, the worldview that views the world as will to power, must itself also be a will to power. But it cannot be a will to power if all it does is view things as they are, will that things be the way they are. It must therefore do more: it must will that things eternally recur the way they are. This is why Nietzsche’s philosophy, his manifestation of ‘the most spiritual will to power’ (BGE 9), is the teaching of the eternal recurrence of the world as will to power, and not just the teaching that the world is the will to power. This is also why Nietzsche’s ‘proving’ the eternal recurrence would be self-defeating. The eternal recurrence is a value, not a fact. To will it, however, does mean con-vincing people of it–oneself not excluded (cf. AC 54).”[/size]
Nietzsche’s philosophy is a sublimation of will or decision because it is a canceling as well as a preserving; Plato’s philosophy is a sublimation of will or decision because it’s a preserving as well as a canceling. Platonic eros is supposedly undistorted because it is eros for eternity; Nietzsche’s doctrine of the will to power is a distortion because it is a will to eternity. If Platonic eros were eros for eros, it would supposedly be a distortion; if the most spiritual will to power were just a will to the will to power, it would not be a distortion and therefore no will to power at all. Nietzsche’s philosophy is inverted Platonism: the distortion lies precisely in its imposing the character of Being upon Becoming (WP 617. See also The Will to Might).
You’re welcome.
will to power 890.
I mean the long peace as a prelude to a more cathartic war.
You just cited Spinoza as a genuine philosopher below, whom Nietzsche did not count as one, but you also cite BGE 211 to discriminate using Nietzschean standards; that’s contradicting.
Not only that; any slavish narcissist can determine the “whither and for what of humanity” - the nwo is a whole charter.
Phil. Supremacism (PS.) works on the premise that all are equally human then, if the history of any particular race is as good as any other. You said, “When you make things like race or sex the criterium of your supremacism, you get guys like the ILP member Joker, who tells himself he is superior to at least about half the population simply because he has a penis.”
PS. is an extension of secular humanism, replacing race/sex criteria with human.
You didn’t answer that.
Right; my typo.
So, you stand by that?
To where?
You stated the goal was the rule of genuine philosophers.
And so, when you level pedophile philosophers, PS. is even instituting the same nihilism as a self-recurring process. So again, “what could be more progressive in the ultimate analysis…”
This must come down to one’s own gut feeling then, since any quote I provide will be rendered as exoteric by you.
And this kind of relativism [we only see what we need to see] is one more reason why strauss can be called a soft-commie.
The sublimated Dionysian state which discovers or reveals unity in destruction, can recover the most spiritual will to power as an eros only through the will to will-to-power.
So Lampert can say Strauss and Nietzsche are related only if he were to say Nietzsche’s eros was will-dependent (as oxymoronic as it sounds in platonic terms), not independent, even if Strauss differentiated Nietzsche from Plato as the former being will-independent. I think we might agree on this.
Okay, I see, you were talking about Nietzsche’s promotion. I was talking about Machiavelli’s, Bacon’s, etc.
Okay.
Do you just mean Nietzsche did not explicitly count him as one, or that he explicitly discounted him as one? I’d be surprised if he did the latter, but in any case, as I told xzc earlier on in this thread, “Nietzsche was ultimately no scholar, no philosophical labourer. He was no Strauss or Lampert, and therefore missed a great many things”. He was himself a genuine philosopher, though, so he understood what made one one, even though he did not always see it in others: consider the end of WP 988.
Not with human, with superhuman. The histories of any two particular races are equally good if they lead equally to the sprouting and flourishing of genuine philosophers. I repeat:
“[A]ccording to philosophical supremacism, philosophers are supreme. This is regardless of whether they be black or white, male or female; whites or males may be less unlikely than blacks or females to be philosophers, but a black or female philosopher is always superior to a white or male non-philosopher.”
I did: “his ambitions and his achievement–and perhaps we should add, the causal connection between his ambitions and his achievement”.
Yes.
I don’t see how any of that follows.
Sure, you can call him that if you like to.
We might, if I understood what you were saying.
Is irony not saying the “inverse” of what one means?
lol