Nietzsche, democracy, etc...

[FilmSnob]

Lessee here...

I'm thinking nobody, but hoping somebody, will want to debate FOR Nazi policy being in line with Nietzsche's philosophy.

If not, I would like to debate FOR modern European and American democracies as being extentions of Monarchical rule instead of an original thing or based on some pre-christian ideology.

First debate would be longish, second shortish.

[No-one]

I am interested in and have some knowledge of National Socialism.

But most of my Nietzsche is second hand.

[FilmSnob]

I am interested in and have some knowledge of National Socialism.

But most of my Nietzsche is second hand.

Hmm... well, we could still do it but you would be at a severe disatvantage.

[No-one]

I agree.

If no one else takes up the debate, I think I may instead write a thread summarizing (as best and succinctly as I can) the Domestic/Foreign Policy of the National Socialists and then others more interested in Nietzsche's philosophy could evaluate their similarities.

Unless, I get too distracted with something else.

[FilmSnob]

I agree.

If no one else takes up the debate, I think I may instead write a thread summarizing (as best and succinctly as I can) the Domestic/Foreign Policy of the National Socialists and then others more interested in Nietzsche's philosophy could evaluate their similarities.

Unless, I get too distracted with something else.

I look forward to it.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

It would be wrong for me to do this, your admittedly by your own accord still in your early stages of developing into a Nietzschean, whereas Ive been building up a largely untapped arsenal against Nietzsche rivaled only to Arjunas hunt for weapons of mass destruction in the years before the war. As well I am a Machiavellian and student of history, who spent the day studying the etymology of Te from Shang dynasty era divinatory bone runics and bronze fragments so I could better discern the Confucian vs Daoist evolution of the concept of Te during the Chou Dynasty, how it effected them in stating what te was neurologically in terms of generative cognition so I could make a assessment of what it is and not, then furthermore how it effected their conception of esprite de corps and regulation of society via rewards and punidhments. I am currently cross referencing this data against works from the west such as Frontinus' Strategemata so I can do a cross cultural analysis of both its cognitive points as well as statecraft contrasts.

Such a person doing this would have no difficulty of outright rapping another in such a debate. Its just not kosher to do this. Wait a fee years, then come hit me up.

[FilmSnob]

Wait a fee years, then come hit me up.

Will do.

[FilmSnob]

Fuck it CN, I'm ready now.

If you can forget your virtuous christian scrupules, perhaps we can give eachother a month or so to prepare. My idea would be to have 3 to 5 good back and forths, not necessarily even addressing each other's points, and then having all the weight of the judgement be based on the conclusions, where we would only be allowed to use information from our or our opponent's previous debate posts.

"I can go now, blah blah."

I am very impressed. I want some time to prepare (you were down to wait some years anyway).

The only part that kinda stumps me is who the judges would be. Maybe we could pick like 2 people each.

Judgement would be based on nothing more and nothing less than who is more right, ignoring all other considerations.

What say you?!

[Contra-Nietzsche]

I say you need to deepen your philosophy, at least enough to comprehend mine before you pair those ideas up against me. You get the whole forum to debate me, Im hardly hiding, but your taking even superficial Nietzsche too superficially. True.... I can argue any which way competently..... by why? Ill get nothing out of it.... and dont necessarily stand opposed to the bulk of these immature assumptions. When I keep stressing my background in Philosophy is in strategy and statecraft and that I am a Machiavellianshould give you a hint Im looking at this debate comically. Much as a computer manufacturer would look at a abacus. Yes.... they cant quite argue against the logic of it..... but they certainly can trample it conceptually from a bizarre many angles one who summa of calculation resides in the abaci. You are impressive with the abaci..... and shuffle its beads ferociously. Impressive within its sphere, but not quite theroute one needs foradvancement beyond it.

[FilmSnob]

I get it, you're scared .

Nah, I'm kidding.

Anyway, I think you place too much value on the superficiality of an argument. I am at this point 100% certain that you couldn't beat me in this particular debate. It's true that none of us would gain anything, but I would be doing a favour to the world, or at least this forum, by finally showing that the assertion that Hitler was anything close to an adherent of Nietzschean philosophy is about as tenable as a fat-ass sitting on a broomstick.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

You still dont know about General Fuller, do you?

[FilmSnob]

Lol, I didn't, but it's awesome.

Like our own little Patton.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

He was a English Martial Philosopher.... a good represenative of why I hold very dear two my two tabboos.... for military men not to teach theology, as well as not teach people without a military background.... such as Hitler, certain aspects of military strategy. You have to teach some for philosophical reasons..... but.....

He became a fascist.

I suggest you look into Alfred Baeumler and Heiddegar, and the short string of philosophers between them. There is a history of Holderlin and Bachofen you should be aware of that explains away alot of modern pretentions.

The list is amazingly long of people to read..... but Im using my nook, the names are in impossible german, and I can barely spell English.

Yes.... a couple of commentaries on Nietzsche can make you feel you've grasped something, seemingly anwsers your difficulties. This doesnt make you a mature philosopher though. Makes you a noob. You have potential. Take some time to see how Nietzsches ideas were accepted and rejected by the German Philogists and the state. Which fascist praised him, and which ones rejected him, why.... and if there was a counter response to this by top Nietzscheans in Germany.

I havent read everything about him, or the era.... but its enough to throw seasoned professors who taught him for years into turmoil, confusion, and disgruntled mumbling isolation whenever he or heiddegar pops up. This is the power of research and primary sources. Take your time, develope yourself..... put Nietzsche aside and read up on other thinkers.... then come back.

And if your going to talk about political cycles.... dear god, be aware when someone says their personal philosophy evolved from writing The Tyranny Cycles to something called The Aperion Cycle.... he might have a tiny tiny bit of awareness on the topic of the morphology of states that you wont get from reading Nietzsche..... especially when his name is Contra-Nietzsche of all things. Such a person likely has a unexpected, well developed philosophy that apparently underwent at least one fundamental change.

[FilmSnob]

He peeks!

No but seriously, I'm going to waste little time on decrepit philosophers. I probably care elss about being your mature philosopher than you do about being a respected academic one. I mean, I know you are on your "Morpheous" (from The Matrix mythology, not the Greek) trip, looking for a crew and that, but perhaps you didn't catch that animatrix short about the alternate rebel groups, like the one that domesticates a machine.

And so, you have talked the talk well, but I don't need any of those strategists or philosophers to deal with something as basic as Hitler. And Nietzsche, well, I have studied him enough to feel comfortable claling myself a Nietzschean.

I don't need any other philosophers, I understand fascism and nazism from a personal subjective perspective that has been wiped out long ago in the anglo-american world.

You aren't the only one who

likely has a unexpected, well developed philosophy that apparently underwent at least one fundamental change.

[Contra-Nietzsche]

Then in that case your not worth debating. Go argue with stoic guardian or walker about Nietzsche vs. Shaolin Monks or some inconsequential crap.

[Stoic Guardian]

No I don't need any other philosophers,

Wasn't it OnlyHumean who said those who only Read Nietzche, are only reading Nietzche.

[Stoic Guardian]

I don't know Jack about Nietzche.

Well i've heard a little but not enough to qualify a decent discussion i'd think.

[FilmSnob]

Then in that case your not worth debating. Go argue with stoic guardian or walker about Nietzsche vs. Shaolin Monks or some inconsequential crap.

I get it, you're scared .

Nah, I'm kidding.

Anyway, I think you place too much value on the superficiality of an argument. I am at this point 100% certain that you couldn't beat me in this particular debate. It's true that none of us would gain anything, but I would be doing a favour to the world, or at least this forum, by finally showing that the assertion that Hitler was anything close to an adherent of Nietzschean philosophy is about as tenable as a fat-ass sitting on a broomstick.