Dancing, yes - waltzing, not necessarily. Nietzsche greatly valued dancing, but not bound to a social context.
Exactly. Now the question is: is the Nietzschean drawn to this systematic, “holistic” approach to Nietzsches body of work because of a greater power? I put a questionmark to the idea that this is necessarily the case, but I dont deny that it can be. What I criticize is the attitude that suggests that to approach Nietzsches work as a homogenous system automatically guarantees a superior understanding of the work, or a superior will to power.
In as far as I am influenced by him, Nietzsche is the soil, not the seed.
Even though one cannot overestimate the joys of what you describe, I think that you underestimate the depth and heights of Nietzsches joy, the joy of the solitary creator in general.
Yes, but it was you who brought in de Montaigne in the first place. That doesn’t make sense to me unless his quote is logically connected to Nietzsche. You failed to do adequately that, even though it was a praiseworthy attempt.
As I read it, the Lion of the OP doesn’t have issue with the child, he destroys him as a result of out of a lack of lightness, in very general terms, of health.
Good God, no! Well, sometimes, unfortunately, and that was probably a a bad sentence… but any vision is a reflection of (personal) experiences. Experience is the personal in “personal”, the vision is personal thought.
The Lions striving is very Yang. It destroys in the end the fertile Earth. Strive (also) softly. Yin.
Good one! The burden the camel carries is what ultimately must become the child.
jonquil absolutely a d o r e s the idea of taking life and philosophy v e r y seriously, to the exponential nth degree so that a life spent without worrying out heavily and gravely the distinctions between the lion, camel and child in Nietzsche’s extremely weighty, extremely significant allegory would hardly be worth living. Most def, Nietzsche stands on a par with my favorite author for heavy, important symbology and absolute truth without irony or ambiguity: Nathaniel Hawthorne.
Krossies comment gave me the first laugh of the day… and I love that video.
I don’t think Sauwelios is coming back here, I pissed him off by calling him Talmudic because he didn’t fall for my interpretation and let his analytical method loose on me.
I like to think that my Buddhist-like approach to life keeps my inner (Nietzschean) child alive and puts aside the angst of the lion. It’s something about believing that nothing really matters that sets one free. The lion still believes things matter - his virtues matter.
This isn’t to say that I’m a Buddhist nor that absolutely nothing matters to me - I think anyone who claims that really nothing matters to them is lying - but it is, as they say, the ‘spirit’ of the philosophy that guides me.