I’m reassured.
Where do you get the idea that I don’t endorse philosophy? If you are referring to Rorty, my summation of his ideas was just that, a summation of his ideas. I believe that Faust picked up on that.
Creators…or followers. Personally I see no need for a “creator” to have permission (or authority given) from any to create. Creators create.
From what I’ve seen, Sauwelios has “defeated” every milk-toast interpretation of Nietzsche that you have presented. His understanding of Nietzsche is acute.
What he understands is that you don’t understand. What he doesn’t understand is that he is not creating, but only following.
shit
I create order - light in the darkness.
Far too much has been made of what Jesus’ last words were. He was a simple carpenter’s son who saw a very simple truth: Military might is never right and the only defense is no counter offence.
When too many people saw that same passivist truth and started listening to what else he had to say, he became a threat to the Jewish leadership and they wanted him dead.
The only last words that might truthfully be ascribed to him was:
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
Nietzsche taught, indeed, quite the opposite of this:
“Against the deviation of the state tendency into a money-tendency, to be feared from this side, the only remedy is war and once again war, in the emotions of which this at least becomes obvious, that the state is not founded upon the fear of the war-demon, as a protective institution for egoistic individuals, but that, in love to fatherland and prince, it produces an ethical impulse, indicative of a much higher destiny. If I therefore designate as a dangerous and characteristic sign of the present political situation the application of revolutionary thought in the service of a selfish stateless money-aristocracy, if at the same time I conceive of the enormous dissemination of liberal optimism as the result of modern financial affairs fallen into strange hands, and if I imagine all evils of social conditions together with the necessary decay of the arts to have either germinated from that root or grown together with it, one will have to pardon my occasionally chanting a Paean on war. Horribly clangs its silvery bow; and although it comes along like the night, war is nevertheless Apollo, the true divinity for consecrating and purifying the state. […] Be it then pronounced that war is just as much a necessity for the state as the slave is for society, and who can avoid this verdict if he honestly asks himself about the causes of the never-equaled Greek art-perfection?”
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
Dunamis; Sauwlios’s arguments have all ended up at the starting points of my attacks. Your arguments were not even arguments.
To illustrate both your understandings of Nietzsche and their supposed harmony on which you two pride each other:
Of course Nietzsche was hysterical when relating to acual women. That is what Sauwelios illustrated with his Cornholio example. I assume you know him, if not:
youtube.com/watch?v=0cXoRPTF … ed&search=
Unlike you , Dunamis, I understood from the beginning the error in Sauwelios’ reasoning - which he eventually saw - that N’s evaluation of woman is simply his evaluation of them as feminine, as opposed to masculine. This is not the importance of his philosophy, obviously. After this was recognized the theory of willing and creating as redemption came into the picture. If your memory is worth anything; this was the topic of the quote I posted in that thread.
But now, you have gotten Sauwelios back into the position from which he can simply defend his camelship under the banner of Nietzsche while you accuse Sauwelios and Nietzsche of being idiots together.
In other words, you’re compimenting the camel.
You don’t have the creative genius or the understanding of Nietzsche to challenge camel to become a lion.
Forgive me if I don’t participate in your derivative zoological fantasy. I am not a Nietzschean. I have no desire to become a “lion”, (to get that self-bestowed merit badge), but only chuckle at people claiming to be “lions”, (or finding themselves to be “geniuses”), yet display no such characteristics at all. If you believe you are a genius, keep telling yourself that. No doubt the thought is nurturing. If you believe that I lack your creative genius, that too will comfort. I’ll let you Nietzscheans fight it out amougst yourselves, like inter-denominational squablers, the Church of Saint Nietzsche vs. The Chapel of Mother Nietzsche. Who has inherited the divine Truth? (Personally I believe Sauwelios has a much firmer grasp of Nietzsche’s conceptions. He has not watered down the doctrine to an “acceptable” level). Meanwhile, my critique Nietzsche is as it has always been, at the level of power. He simply is not as powerful as he thought he was, nor claimed, because he misunderstood power. That his followers (of every stripe) suffer from the same delusion is really of no surprise.
Oh, you ‘chuckle’ don’t you? - that is exactly what the christian fundamentalist on our previos board used to bring out as a response when confronted with something he could not handle intellectually.
Your soul betrays itself; only when faced with someone who calls himself a master do you feel inclined to respond - whith ‘you are not a master!’ in whichever form you think hides your resentful face best for the occasion. In the meantime, you say nothing, and understand nothing.
I’ve yet to see you respond rationally to a single argument. All you do is shriek: NO!
Handle something “intellectually”? I have not noticed anything intellectual being presented by you. Please rephrase your “intellectual” thought which I cannot handle. As to Christian Fundamentalists, I don’t much talk to them pretty much for the same reason that I don’t talk to Nietzschean Fundamentalists.
Actually I just laugh at the unMasterly conduct. That followers of Nietzsche are prone to overstatement and over-self-estimation is not a surprise.
If you would like to actually present an “argument”, I’d like to see what you think an argument looks like.
D: Glad you ask. One of the things you both overlook is that since Nietzsche primarily advocated self overcoming in his philosophy, it cannot be of any consequence what your thoughts of the man himself are to your interpretation of his philosophy. It is a guarantee for shortcircuiting it.
I’ve presented this argument earlier, and it was overlooked by both of you.
Predicatably, because it removes the entire basis for your conflict, which took place on a more emotionally satisfying level.
As for the Lion, I was speaking of Sauwelios, not of myself. You have to stretch his intellect beyond the comfortable for the Lion to come out - for the young philosopher Sauwelios to actually say something himself.
fight between servants end up in name calling. Fights between masters end up in deepening of the subject matter. If you can rationally go into the argument presented above, that will happen.
You call that an intellectual argument?
Yes, it’s an argument that asks you to exert yourself.
If not for me, why not do it for the thread?
According to you, such an argument is so intellectual, I can’t handle it.
Let’s see.
Jakob says, “Philosopher “x” preaches “y”, therefore what you think of anything that philosopher “x” says in exemplifying “y” has nothing to do with “y”, in fact “y”, by the mere fact of his preaching it, and your undeterred embrace of it, stands as its own value and can never be critiqued. “y” for the sake of “y”. Nevermind that philosopher “x” says that “y” is not a transcendent property, nor a sharable truth, but rather is something that is manifested, and that all the y’s (y’, y”, y’“, y’‘’', y”"') of his expressed exemplification of “y” are evidence of “y”, and never mind that each and everyone’s “y” status is marked by their exemplifications of “y”, and are subject to a critique of y-ness, and never mind that my own “y-ness” impells me to undermine philosopher "x"s very own conception of “y”, exposed at the level of its exemplification; and never mind that all those who philosopher “x” claims are deprived of “y-ness” are strikingly similar to philospher "x"s very own ememplifications of “y”, “y” by the very virtue of it being “y” is both commendable and unquestionable for followers of “x”.
Wow that is quite an argument.
Now as an onlooker of philosopher “x”, and not a devotee, I find it absurd.
For starters Nietzsche has had a big hand in WOII and the ideal of nazi germany. That is allready pretty powerful. On top of that, he has got people who’se family is exterminated by said nazi’s to incorporate the will of nazism into their thinking. That is more powerful than any philosopher since Plato. And there is no end in sight - even his despisers happily spend time discussing him. Discussion of his ideas will increase with time, as the nature of reality unveils itself as far more terrifying than the most fanatical modern pessimist had imagined.
As for me ‘watering down’ Nietzsche to make him acceptable - I simply accept the most horrifying facts of life, because I affirm all of life.
I assure you there is no watering down going on. I’ve suffered and redeemed more than my fair share of reality.
None of this was “done” by Nietzsche.
This is something. Here is my own take on it:
Philosopher x preaches y because philosopher x is x and he wants to become y. If we interpret him as y, we allow him to work towards y. If we interpret him as x, we can only see that x is really x and wants to be y but fails, because we still see him as x.
You say that your own y-ness leads you to undermine x’s conception of y. But I see Dunamis-x trying to undermine Sauwelios-x’s conception of Nietzsche-x. You both have said nothing about y.
I have no desire, nor interest in “allowing” him to do anything. I owe him nothing. In fact his conception of “y” is remarkably un-y-like, as he has exemplified it.
He failed. There is no reason why I should listen to what he says about “y” because he made “y” up to make himself feel better, a delusion as is exemplified by his exemplification.
I think that Sauwelios has got a pretty good read on Nietzsche, how he meant his exemplifications to be understood as just what it meant to be “y”; he has done well not to turn him into a Hallmark Card for generation “x”. As such, he has both embraced Nietzsche as Nietzsche understood his truth to be, but also has suffered from the same weakness. You, and other self-proclaimed “creative geniuses” (not my phrase) have made Nietzsche a slogan machine for one’s self-infatuations, and deprived yourself and others of the critique that Nietzsche was offerring.
It is known as a poisoned well (a dog fell in it). You can either climb down and with great difficulty drink from it, grow intoxicated, spasm and die (under the delusion of your own greatness); or you can drop pennies into it from above, looking into its murk, see your distorting reflection and think your wishes will be granted. I say, walk on. There are other more interesting things in the world.
In all of this, I still have not seen an “argument” from you. Only a plea.
There was a moment in my life when, after endlessly mulling over similar greviiences, I seriously contemplated using sabotage to initiate a lone revolutionary war against the government. I plotted for months on exactly how I would dramatically bring national attention to social wrongs that urgently needed righting. Unlike Timmothy Macvey and the Uni-Bomber, I devised a strategy that could dynamite a hundred remote power pylons similateneously and cut the grids and bring entire cities to a standstill without killing people - and by its sheer audacity attract hundreds of not thousands of similar closet revolutionaries, who would come pouring out of the woodwork, armed to the teeth with their hoarded kalishnikovs, and we would bring down the temple of Baal and establish a new social order. I swear, at that time, just one more act of oppression by the government, similar to Waco or Ruby Ridge would have pushed me over the edge.
Thank God that teenage moment passed and kept my name and that of my family from the infamous legions of would-be-do-gooders who thought they knew better on how to govern the masses and gain power by using the immediacy and drama of war to over-throw the status quo.
Nietzsche simply perpetuates the immature, independent, ill-bred, stage of rebellious self-determinsim that is idolized by teenagers.
Jesus took a long-term forgiving step into inter-dependenct human relationships and is admired by responsible parents who have come to realize that compassionate social behavior depends entirely on breeding.