Actually, Nietzsche says “perish!” rather than “kill yourself!” (Antichrist 2); and not to decadents, but to “the weak and failures” (ibid.). He says almost every man is decadent for about half his life, not to mention women.
I can say it in one sentence what evolution is about and show it on primitive organisms in one picture, and you?
What can you reach with your dialectical speculations? Isn’t dialectics the last weapon in the hands of the weak? Isn’t a decadent typically weak?
“Real” decadents… Where is the distinction between real and merely apparent decadents to be found in Nietzsche?
“Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant—woman needs strength in order to cleave to it; she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak—she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the ‘powerful,’ the ‘strong,’ the men—.” (WP 864.)
That the priests are the type of decadence, i.e., the type that is decadent as a whole or in general, does not mean that they are more “real” decadents than others, e.g., women; after all, women are not a type, but a gender. And as for wanting to rule directly: when do priests ever rule directly, and not by proxy (“god”)?
In this specific case I have used the term “real” to mark a harmful being who is more of a criminal (criminals are decadents too) and has no perspective of growth or dependency like women or children. Real in the sense of “finished”.
The priest is maybe 50/50. “Strong but sick”. Decadents are weak. And in the case of the Jews priests have not ruined the society. If they were fully harmful they would not allow a king to raise up.
In GMIII priests are defending the healthy people from the hate of the sick…
It’s not about what it’s “about”, but about how it works. You don’t understand how it works, as is witnessed by your comments in that Nietzsche contra Darwin thread I linked to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread).
Not necessarily in the hands of the weak, but in the hands of those who have “no other means”; “who have no other weapons [or: arms] anymore”; who have “to enforce [their] right” (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, ‘The Problem of Socrates’, section 6). And yes, as Weary Locomotive said, we Nietzscheans are the Jews of today.
Maybe a slave may to"deviate" without a reason. You look like a Chinese who holds compassion higher than truth. So let’s make it short, if you have something to tell me in 4 eyes then leave this place. I am no more your teacher.
Stop speculating and adapting to yourself everything I say! I see in your Darwin thread only jokes!
Give exact examples from the past, give individuals or types of people who represent evolution! Extract their actual “work” if you want to call it so. But don’t be so obscure like a beggar. Evolution does not happen only in one being! It is a principle that is able to produce too many new arts. And you must show it in all of them and also show why does it happen in a very short time! Darwin was in the triangle MAlthus-Darwin-Marx. They are all 3 animalists. But animals are spiritually dead and so they can say nothing about evolution.
As I have come to understand it (and I will keep saying that untill FC clarifies if I am on the right track or not), self valuing is a little more abstract than valuing of something other. My self-valuing is my, um, existence, prior to valuing. What makes me something that can be valued. This part I feel less confident about than the valuing of other things part.
