dgfgds
Ah, so your ‘book’ is indeed nonsense.
EDIT: And apparently inspired by ressentiment at being humbled by Nietzsche. Your ‘contribution’ to the ‘Why Nietzsche Was Wrong’ thread, then, was pure pollution!
Moderators! Kindly lock this anarchist up inside the Rant House!
Nietzsche was a psychologically crippled human being whose only contribution to philosophy was the diagnosis of a problem not its cure.
Don’t even bother talking to me again. I searched your posts and it seems you don’t know how to talk about anything except Nietzsche. If I am humbled by him you must have acquired some homo-erotic fascination with him… but by no means am I humbled by him. I therefor leave it to be decided why you have turned him into an idol. I have been writing for years, well before I started reading Nietzsche, so I don’t need a lecture about my use of his form of writing- aphorisms.
- If the first utterance of psychology ordains the desire to see, does not the first utterance of Epicurean morality forgive the lust of the eyes?
AP, I wonder what your reasons are for writing in such a way.
My understanding of the aphorism is that it serves to more clearly and more concisely sum up a point in a minimalistic fashion, for the purposes of making the point more direct and understandable: a short and snappy summary that is easier to digest and that draws attention to detail.
If there’s any sense in this interpretation of the aphorism, then I am slightly baffled by the abundance of obscure terminology and latin. I remember in another thread you implied your obscurity is intentional, or at least understandable if one has similar influences to you. So why combine the two approaches that have opposing effects on your writing’s clarity?
I can comprehend an intention to divert expectations or confuse with strange combinations of literary devices. I know, for example, authors who have deliberately set out to be hard to read to be consistent with their overall point. But, assuming your intentions are of this sort, do you think this conflict of attempts towards differing obscurities compliments or contributes to your overall aims in the words you write?
The use of foreign languages normally serves the best writers with a way of thinking that they find is not adequately communicated in their main language of choice, on the relatively rare occasion that they deem this necessary. How would you say the abundance of latin here better communicates your point? Or the lack of english if in fact your main language is latin?
It is my understanding that the perfect aesthetic is a rhapsody in cabbalistic prose. And the aphorisms main function is to allow material to be dislocated from context, not particularly to condense it.
But that is my style- kabbalism.
And kabbalism has mostly been taken as nonsense. Nietzsche discovered the real purpose behind aphorisms- to recondition the physiological response of the reader to new ideals, new possibilities of affect.
I will talk about my kabbalism, as it seems to me its art has been lost and unlike the aphorism never really revived, except for a short time in the hands of one of my favorite philosophers- Johann Hamman. It is a stylum atrox par excellence: just like Nietzsche’s use of the aphorism- its purpose is to not explain but to recondition physiological response so that what was once unexplainable can in the least be interpreted. My kabbalism has an outward form: but also an inner content- a kernel beyond this shell, the comestible oracular cipher of quotations, foreign languages, allusions, mythologies, which is meant to be thoroughly digested. But how can an apothegm or aphorism at the same time be a rhapsody?
- Come, do you not know by now, philosophers! that there is no physical connection between means and intent, freedom and will, only a spiritual and ideal one, that is, blind faith, as the neo- Latinist, and greatest earthly chronicler of his country has proclaimed! – deus antiqui promisit Nestoris annos, ut renet tecum Natus et ipse senex. [Anton Zingerle in Carmen, Aduentu Diu Caesaris Federici P. 6] The merry attempt with balanos to gird the body and the soul together, as the learned commentator testifes, quoting Ovidius; not just with acorns, but also with chestnuts, even under the eylim or trees of ancient Palestine, was not an invention of the native autocthon, but only another example of heavenly providence. They had been born in deserts, and in cold mountains, yet had they no suspicion of the reign of famine, nor had they need to resolve through the cenobitic and inadvertent tutelage of their subjects upon a Carthusian diet. You philosophers, who will not simply permit your Bath-Quol to be answered in yes, yes! and no, no! the imagined or contrived paradise of Aristaenetian tolerance which you, malorum machinatrix facinorum, no more brazen then Martial’s sulphuratae lippus institor mercis, have promised to your neophytes and odalisque, even as you have starved the horses behind the Anthus, is but a dream for Eutychus. Though your writer has no nymph of his own, non auri male sanus amor, non dulcis amicus causidicum faciant [Laurens Nyendael in Poemata] and he knows of no Elysium or Arcades, wherein you poets and philosophers bless God at your pleasure, yet his infausta libido blesses the arduous youth in ratio damnat in Anticyram,[Poemata varia: nempe, sylvae; elegiae; epigrammata; epicedia; ecclesiastes … By Jacobus Lectius. P. 121] and even the old dandy, – not by account of his own pietism, but in a litany of childless mothers: “Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear; break forth into singing, and cry aloud, thou that didst not travail with child: for more are the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife, saith the LORD.”
Part of the cabalistic process is interpretation and translation, infausta libido- unluckly desire… ratio damnat in Anticyram, reason is damned as unreason in the land of the insane.
For those who still think this passage makes sense, but is simply too high-level for them to understand, I will now mercilessly unmask it (and the clown who posted it).
How was this passage written? First, the anarchist stole from Nietzsche:
[size=95]Almost every genius knows, as one stage of his development, the “Catilinarian existence”—a feeling of hatred, revenge, and rebellion against everything which already is, which no longer becomes… Catiline—the form of pre-existence of every Caesar.—
[From Twilight of the Idols, ‘Skirmishes of an Untimely Man’, section 45.][/size]
Then he changed some words:
“genius” → “lover”
“Catilinarian” → “Zopyrian”
“Catiline” —> “Zopyrus”
“Caesar” → “Orpheus and […] Thamyris”
Then he added a whole bunch of nonsense:
“one in we should put out our eyes and burn our lyres for the sake of beauty, of the beautiful. This is no secret: or albae rara senectae, the rarer honey of old age, or as subtle cheeks kept behind pergit caerulei vitreas ad Thybridis aedes, non galea conclusa genas, with latebricolarum hominum corruptor, or the promises of love,”
Note that latebricolarum hominum corruptor by no means means anything like “the promises of love”;
“Panthoides Euphorbus eram,”
This means “I was Panthoides Euphorbus”…
“cui pectore quondam haesit in adverso gravis hasta minoris Atridae; cognovi clipeum, laevae gestamina nostrae, nuper Abanteis templo Iunonis in Argi, that tameth us with the confidence of a woman’s illsome bribes, corruptoris improbitas ipsos audet temptare parentes: tanta in muneribus fiducia: nullus ephebum deformem saeua castrauit in arce tyrannus, nec praetextatum rapuit Nero loripedem nec strumosum atque utero pariter gibboque tumentem; to avert the naive fervency of men against themselves, and thereby to their own use, neither does it satisfy us to sup on either roots or bark, whereafter the benign Ceres twas’ unknown to us,”
The apostrophe should come before “twas”, not after it…
“lest we beholdeth”
“Beholdeth” is third person singular; “we” is first person plural…
His name already said it, of course: “Parodites”. But I suspect that his anarchism was inspired by ressentiment, for I suspect that this is how Nietzsche’s writings look to him. Compare for example the Genealogy of Morals, first treatise, section 15, where Nietzsche also uses some Latin phrases without translating them, and even cites this entire passage:
[size=95]At enim supersunt alia spectacula, ille ultimus et perpetuus judicii dies, ille nationibus insperatus, ille derisus, cum tanta saeculi vetustas et tot ejus nativitates uno igne haurientur. Quae tunc spectaculi latitudo! Quid admirer! Quid rideam! Ubi gaudeam! Ubi exultem, spectans tot et tantos reges, qui in coelum recepti nuntiabantur, cum ipso Jove et ipsis suis testibus in imis tenebris congemescentes! Item praesides (the provincial governors) persecutores dominici nominis saevioribus quam ipsi flammis saevierunt insultantibus contra Christianos liquescentes! Quos praeterea sapientes illos philosophos coram discipulis suis una conflagrantibus erubescentes, quibus nihil ad deum pertinere suadebant, quibus animas aut nullas aut non in pristine corpora redituras affirmabant! Etiam poëtàs non ad Rhadamanti nec ad Minois, sed ad inopinati Christi tribunal palpitantes! Tunc magis tragoedi audiendi, magis scilicet vocales (better voices since they will be screaming in greater terror) in sua propria calamitate; tunc histriones cognoscendi, solutiores multo per ignem; tunc spectandus auriga in flammea rota totus rubens, tunc xystici contemplandi non in gymnasiis, sed in igne jaculati, nisi quod ne tunc quidem illos velim vivos, ut qui malim ad eos potius conspectum insatiabilem conferre, qui in dominum desaevierung. ‘Hic est ille, dicam, fabri aut quaestuariae filis (in everything that follows and especially in the well-known description of the mother of Jesus from the Talamud Tertullian from this point on is referring to the Jews), sabbati destructor, Samarites et daemonium habens. Hic est, quem a Juda redemistis, hic est ille arundine et colaphis diverberatus, sputamentis dedecoratus, felle et aceto potatus. Hic est, quem clam discentes subripuerunt, ut resurrexisse dicatur vel hortulanus detraxit, ne lactucae suae frequentia commeantium laederentur.’ Ut talia spectes, ut talibus exultes, quis tibi praetor aut consul aut quaestor aut sacerdos de sua liberalitate praestabit? Et tamen haec jam habemus quodammodo per fidem spiritu imaginante repraesentata. Ceterum qualia illa sunt, quae nec oculus vidit nec auris audivit nec in cor hominis ascenderunt" (1. Cor. 2, 9.) Credo circo et utraque cavea (first and fourth tier of seats or, according to others, the comic and tragic stages).—Per fidem: that’s how it’s written.[/size]
I, too, found it frustrating that my KSA (German) edition did not feature a translation. But Nietzsche’s trade was classical philology, and this passage is ample evidence that his books, with the exception of Zarathustra, were written for scholars (see the ‘Why Nietzsche Was Wrong’ thread). Anyway, for those who don’t know Latin, The Nietzsche Channel features a translation, and Google might also help you out.
This whole episode is also ample evidence that I was right in banning this fool from my own Nietzsche forum site. I think he’s also been banned many times from ILP, but for some reason (ressentiment?) he keeps coming back to it. In conclusion, a quote for him (he is a Communist):
[size=95]Whom do I hate most among the rabble of today? The socialist rabble, the chandala apostles, who undermine the instinct, the pleasure, the worker’s sense of satisfaction with his small existence—who make him envious, who teach him revenge… […] What is bad? But I have said this already: all that is born of weakness, of envy, of revenge.—The anarchist and the Christian have the same origin…
[Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 57.][/size]
I mimicked the rhetoric of Nietzsche in one line and made a single grammar mistake. And go read Johann Georg Hamann and works on cabbalism if you need an explanation to my use of the Latin. I hardly think that counts as an ‘unmasking.’ Nietzsche himself mimics rhetorical form all throughout his work. I don’t see what your surprise is.
Art is the opiate of life. - Schop.
Art is the stimulans of life. - Nietzsche.
And you call me a communist? What in the world are you on about Sauwelios?
- "Almost every lover knows, at one stage of his development, the “Zopyrian existence,” one in we should put out our eyes and burn our lyres for the sake of beauty, of the beautiful.
Almost every genius knows, as one stage of his development, the “Catilinarian existence”—a feeling of hatred, revenge, and rebellion against everything which already is, which no longer becomes… - Nietzsche.
You are going to have a hell of a time construing that as plagiarism. The only thing I borrowed was rhetorical form- I made something that was Nietzsche’s- mine. It is the mark of a great poet. Not the idea. But the form of the thought. Nietzsche himself does this all the time, all the great poets- Virgil, Lucretius, Horace, all of them did this. They borrowed each others expressions and improvised them. There were even some expressions that were so widely used they became known as stock expressions. So go learn some philology you sniveling little nay-sayer.
How about another source to my rhetoric? This is by Robert Burton:
"And if thou vouchsafe to read this treatise, it shall seem no otherwise to thee, than the way to an ordinary traveller, sometimes fair, sometimes foul; here champaign, there enclosed; barren, in one place, better soil in another: by woods, groves, hills, dales, plains, &c. I shall lead thee per ardua montium, et lubrica valllum, et roscida cespitum, et glebosa camporum, through variety of objects, that which thou shalt like and surely dislike. For the matter itself or method, if it be faulty, consider I pray you that of Columella, Nihil perfectum, aut a singulari consummatum industria, no man can observe all, much is defective no doubt, may be justly taxed, altered, and avoided in Galen, Aristotle, those great masters. Boni venatoris (one holds) plures feras capere, non omnes; he is a good huntsman can catch some, not all: I have done my endeavour. Besides, I dwell not in this study, Non hic sulcos ducimus, non hoc pulvere desudamus, I am but a smatterer, I confess, a stranger, here and there I pull a flower; I do easily grant, if a rigid censurer should criticise on this which I have writ, he should not find three sole faults, as Scaliger in Terence, but three hundred. So many as he hath done in Cardan’s subtleties, as many notable errors as Gul Laurembergius, a late professor of Rostock, discovers in that anatomy of Laurentius, or Barocius the Venetian in Sacro boscus. And although this be a sixth edition, in which I should have been more accurate, corrected all those former escapes, yet it was magni laboris opus, so difficult and tedious, that as carpenters do find out of experience, 'tis much better build a new sometimes, than repair an old house; I could as soon write as much more, as alter that which is written. If aught therefore be amiss (as I grant there is), I require a friendly admonition, no bitter invective, Sint musis socii Charites, Furia omnis abesto, otherwise, as in ordinary controversies, funem contentionis nectamus, sed cui bono?"
- “Yet, antiqui promisit Nestoris annos ut renet tecum natus et ipse senex: promised the years of Nestor, thou hadst yet any wisdom gained in thy books.Wherefor thou Wisdom! So thou hadst written thine self in thy vessel of our books, non parva comas evinxit oliva: concisum argentum in titulos, inscriptaque vasa praemia victorum statuunt; oraque pinxit mir virum, jussitque suis prostare senestris institor, et grandes mirantur compita suras; that thee mayst place thine wears before all of this thine public, in the seat of philosophy, or have thy whole pantomimi chorum serve to its guests an excellency of books, awaiting to be given the dregs of cariosae fragmine cupae themselves, until the philosopher lives, ut memorant, non invidiosa nefandis nec cupienda bonis regna Thoantis erant. hic pro supposita virgo Pelopeia cerva sacra deae coluit qualiacumque suae, wherein neither the evil envy nor the good desireth, that nectebant flavis gestamen aristis agricolae, solitoque rubens in palmite bacchis; paxque sua laetam fulgens ornabat oliva, thou shouldest be content with feeding all daye on thy piteous olive, forthwith to be secured thy peace and thine property. [Johannidos, Flavius Cresconius Corippus. P. 60.] Lest I hath all the labors of an oxen unto me, or goeth to saye, nulla est sapientia major, spernere quam fulvum toto de corde metallum atque suas aliis meritas concedere laudes, and not without contorta suo non prodidit ullum indicio, elinguem reddidit Iphicrates: I must bear my censure, play the part of the beast without a tongue, wherefore cui non certaverit ulla aut tantum fluere aut totidem durare per annos, no grape canst vie for gust of wine juice. Mine reader might safely inquireth, bucera secla effodient pedibus glebas: for I am so just as hath I read, so wise as I hath read. Pani coniferie pinus, sua vitis Iacco, clavigero placeat populus alta deo, a Iove principium Musae, Iovis arbore gaudent: though e’en the muses hath their beginning in Jove, for any adequate fleshment, I fancy this, thou canst fancy whatever it is that thou want, I am no worse off to hath given this admission, for I presume not unto the works of a magician- who must needs conceal any trickery, lest his act be the less convincing: let that thine excavation carryeth out of this book strange herbs, or hints of garlic; I am happy to forfeit gold, I hath no audience, that wherewith I wouldest try the juvenile sun in the Chaldean house, or to read in some secrets of nature what thee thy self cannot read. Servus est e Caria, quemad modum Execestides, avos sibi procreet apud nos, et invenientur ipsi gentiles, hatch thy proper pedigree, no longer to be a Carian servant, or might ask why I, tales et barbara Thracia montes olim habuisse dolet, sed Dacia gaudet habere. quod labor hic hominum magno molimine praestat; Gryphum rostra brevi peragunt facilique labore. Horum igitur gazas, non nidos, credit avara gens Arimasporum, nec opinio fallit inanis, would play the part of the bird that eateth it’s own eggs, and write as I hitherto openly confess: I hath given thee to an inflamed insperatum auxillium, a picture without hope. And as to why I wouldest demure mine own favorite authors, I taketh after the wealth of the nest: likely this is me, that is more then canst be said about some authors. I will imagine that I have no audience, nor have I my own Illisus to meet my own beautiful Phaedrus; and it was not so uncommon for me to divagate, or to question what the world was in himself, if he is (letteth Pallenginus Stellatus give us the term) mundus stultorum cavea, or is after all a hollow cave: a dream, or is even a sort of theater, wherefor to behold this our unworthy forbears and captains, I hath so been placed thereunto, if I mayst elicit a phrase from Samuel Rogers, by the “Instructors of my youth! Who first unveil’d the hallow’d form of Truth,” whereafter I thenceforth discover that wisdom is so full of pity that we pay for it with much pain.”
For me, the question still remains: What are you writing this for? What is your motivation?
Is it to educate others, to share your experience, to offer them the possibility of insights? Is it performance art, to be admired in and of itself purely for aesthetics? Is it merely an exercise in obscurantism, mental masturbation for a terribly bored underachiever? None of the above? All three? It’s unclear.
In any case, when actually debating points you often seem knowledgeable and sharp; this light is very effectively hidden under a bushel of Classical flaunting. Changing languages, when there’s no additional value to be imparted by the change, only serves to obscure your point and give a negative impression. Or perhaps I mean, Changing yazik, [i]quand il n’y a pas de toegevoegde waarde.
Altissima quaeque flumina minimo sono labi.[/i]
The tool of language used to appear far more thoughtful than one really is, or can ever be, is no more a sign of weakness and the absurd, than the idea that Nietzsche wrote only for academics.
Having been mentored by Schopenhauer and knowing Schopenhauer’s opinion of academics, this seems highly unlikely and more a statement trying to present one’s self as the idol’s true audience.
Of course it can also be used to hide meanings behind convoluted metaphors and often obscure, for our times, references, so as to exclude the masses from fully comprehending, and in this way ensuring that they will dismiss the text as nonsense, simplify it so as to make it easily challenged or, in a more provocative manner, involve them in decades of study where they turn into the very followers they pretend they are not.
In all cases it weeds out unwanted attention, either turning it away, as it cannot understand or tolerate what is being said, or by exposing it as the opposite of what it intends, bogging it down in endless debate over motive and meanings.
The last is the most intricate process.
In the name of a free-spirit the chained are lead around, with a Pan’s flute, and the children turn themselves into shadows in order to step in their idol’s path and be taken out of a walled city into an idealized wilderness, and in their haste to claim themselves as the inheritors or the focus, they expose themselves as anything but that.
Both the many casual dismissals and the fewer obsessive pursuits can be held up as evidence of a declining western spirit.
Perhaps we should admire such methods, but they are not unique to Nietzsche as both the Bible and Delphic decrees employed similar semantic mechanization.
The hardest thing is to determine which ones are simply word-association phrases, using particular words to pretend something is being said, when nothing is, and which are actually trying to say something while also trying to exclude most, including academicians, from spoiling the meanings with their trite interpretations and gross misunderstandings.
As I am always suspicious of grand gestures and hyperbole, both the devout christian or any other idolater following even the master of idol killers, fill me with sadness…and if I allow my self to care, a little bit of pity.
I simply write poetry and philosophy at the same time. Is that forbidden?
Of course not. Posting on a philosophy board, it will be read and criticised as philosophy. Posting on a poetry board, it will be read and criticised as poetry.
For my tastes it lacks clarity as philosophy, and form as poetry. De gustibus etc. 
First, I said “scholars”, not “academics”. Second, I excepted his Zarathustra. I would retract this exception now, though. As Laurence Lampert shows in his Nietzsche’s Teaching, even the Zarathustra can only be wholly appreciated by scholars.