I think equality is everywhere imposing itself over freedom. You don’t have the right to discuss ideas with people who eventually know more. You don’t have the right nor the possibility to start a learning project, or even a new religion, new philosophy. All you can do is a discussion of the validity of your primary, basic idea, or even the basic needs. So is it also on universities. Just as if there is a “society” and a forum serves only for you to get the approval for your idea from the society. Who wants more than an approval, he is a danger for the society!
Especially the term “experience” is used it this sense. They will deny everything if it is not scientifically provable. Which means, you are there for them, not for yourself! You can not discuss how to get the prettiest and strongest women in the world (like those from the time of renaissance) this is not altruistic enough, it is egotistical and scientifically unapprovable!
And if you can not talk about such things, what is then left to be done? Just to work the whole day and the rest of the 16 hours you need to observe if somebody is starting something out of the frame? Are you inspecting now my words and do you find some letters which look something too old fashioned, somehow times new roman and not the proper arial style?
I don’t know where you’re from nor do I have any idea of your age–I just know you’ll dis me because I’m a female. With that in mind, I disagree with you. If you live in the WW there’s nothing to keep you from discussing your ideas or starting a new learning project, religion, or philosophy–except, perhaps, a lack of interested followers. Or it could be that your basic premises aren’t valid. What better place to test them–a place available to most and a place populated by so many different points of view–than an internet forum?
Not everything believed is “scientifically” provable nor can it be ‘observed’–philosophy/metaphysics can’t be. Even Nietzsche’s philosophy isn’t observable or experientially proven. Philosophy is thought. Recognized philosophy is one person’s thoughts that other people agree with, as they interpret and understand it. Nietzschean philosophy is still being studied, but it’s still not understood and is often misinterpreted.
Knowledge is built on knowledge–but what is knowledge?
An aside: You’d be hard-pressed to find a renaissance period woman who was either beautiful or strong–speaking literally–unless they were very young–and then they were no more physically beautiful than any woman of any age. Were they strong? I very much doubt it.
A woman (because she’d started menses–could be 11 or 12) could be scarred or somehow ‘crippled’ by childhood diseases, poor nutrition, poor sanitation, any number of things. She probably had very poor teeth. She may have had rickets or some kind of belly bloat. (She was supposed to model herself after the Virgin Mary, so contemporary paintings show her holding her dress up over her belly as if she were pregnant. She may have been pregnant, but not by God.)
She was a handmaiden to her lord–her husband. If you find this agreeable, build yourself a time machine. Otherwise, you’re here in the 21st century and should have learned by now what female equality is really all about.
Hey man. Every statement in the first segment it flat out false. If you feel like the world has to offer you some right in order for you to do those things, then it’s yourself holding you back from them and that’s who’s to blame.
The second part doesn’t even make sense. This is for a couple of reasons. For one, experience and scientifically proven aren’t inherently interchangeable. Experience can be informed by or have superimposed over it a whole ton of shit that could totally exclude certain alleged experiences from the realm of science. People say they experience all kinds of things that everyone knows they couldn’t have.
Also, discussing the prettiest and strongest women sort of has to be preceeded by defining them. You saying something about not being able to discuss which women are pretty and strong because people don’t want you to be selfish or something is one of the most confusing things I’ve ever read. Was that a typo? A bad edit? Are you even being serious at all?
Besides the plain old shittiness of your post, (I would grade it a D for a combination of reasons), I’m interested in something.
Instead of you playing the victim as though the weak people of the world are doing something to hurt you, why not give me a positive argument against altruism and or equality? Why not actually construct a set of propositions that might illustrate your understanding so that we might benefit?
Are you sure you’re not just afraid of ending up in a conversation with someone who is smarter than you and could change your mind? Is that why you’re playing an impotent victim? Out of the shame of not being able to admit it’s your own choice to be the world’s bitch or make it yours?
Part of going against the grain with your life, historyboy is accepting the limitations that this will impose on you. I live a very unconventional life. I get a great deal of benefit from it, but I also have to make some sacrifices.
This isn’t a result of the govt, or the other people in society, or some old philosopher’s ideas, or some bad group of people that you just feel the need to hold responsible when you don’t feel good. It’s the way the world works. Wanting the world to work differently than it does will give you nothing but frustration. Understanding how it works in the first place will give you a strategic ability to position yourself for the most good feelings and the least bad ones.
That’s how you live life no matter what you do. And there’s nowhere in the world to assign blame unless you really believe there’s some powerful man who can really change the world…and I don’t think it’s wise to actually believe that.
The right person, in the right place, and at the right time, need only be as a butterfly flapping just the rhythm to bring the storm that changes the face of the Earth.
Science is being promoted over all else so as to saturate the world with its notion and shift power to and from specific people. That would be fine at the right time, maybe after the idea of not destroying your own planet had been so promoted.
And equality is a restriction for laws, not for people or reality, thus empowered to destroy by either under use or over use.
James: unfortunately the absolute corruption by absolupte power forcloses any possibility of a redemptive effort to save the planet. At least it so appears at this juncture.
No. No nation is either ‘obliged’ or ‘obligated’ to do anything beyond (depending) protecting its citizens and its sovereignty from attack by other nations. Some nations will hope for negotiation; some will rely on military superiority. Some nations rely on subterfuge; some on economics. There are lots of definitions of ‘protection.’ If you don’t realize that, I wonder where you’ve been for the last 182 million years.
James, one person can change the world but I’ll just change it back.
Historyboy, there are no obligations in the world other than those which increase what you perceive utility to be. I doubt you’ll find a transaction that wont fit that framework.
I am quite sure that Human Rights are just as despotic as communism, that is why Human Rightists accuse communists for breaking Human Rights in China or in Islamic countries. Just as Islam allows no arts, because it is a “metaphysical concurrence”, so does communism allow no Human Rights. But both fight the same “evil”. The development of Human Rights is recent and has not yet reached it’s full shape. But you already pay from your taxes for different Human Rightist projects. And there is a passage in the declaration of Human Rights where the nations are obligated to spread friendship! As if friendship can be imposed! It is just the typical communist comradeship!
‘Mankind’ is dying out. The entire human species will perish if the dead Christian god has not been overcome and a new morality is established. The ideal Christian man is the bon sauvage, a half-man, a sub-human being which is not capable to understand Christianity.
Mankind is not dying out! You do not allow for the genius of the species! I think Schopenhauer had it better then Nietzche, I believe his vanity of existence has been given free reign by Nietzche. I am not saying Nietzche was mistake, only that he did not balance the power of vanity against the merits of repression. That would come later. I think it was not his personal choice of a psychological dynamic, he merely interpreted the trend. He saw the need to act on historical inevitability more than setting up the restraint for a hundred years longer.
But with the advent of vanity,n and the rise of the discontent of civilization, a hornets' nest was found in pandora's box.
It's no longer an inquisition, it is a spiritual auto-da-fe.
But does this mean there is no hope for mankind? I think, while we are alive, there is hope.
But your intuition goes a long way toward establishing a dire warning, for the unfaithful,and I am not speaking necessarily, in support of organized religion. I am speaking of the absolute faith of man in himself, otherwise, all could be lost.
Schopenhauer only described what he saw, he couldn’t foresee anything because of the lack of the classical studies.
Any classical continental historian can make such conclusions:
“According to Hartmann, war is not by any means the only method of this struggle; industrial squeezing by a more highly developed people would do it, too. But with the earth having in this way become the prize of the most highly developed peoples, with the entire world population becoming more and more cultivated, the condition of the soil, the climate, and other differences would nevertheless create ever new seeds of development whose maturing again would only be possible through a joint struggle for existence. (In this process, human beings would gradually become veritable devils, and finally cripples to boot because of sheer development of the intellect.)” - Burckhardt
Look, it seems that my posts attract preachers. I don’t need them. I don’t read them. I don’t care about the accepted opinions of the majority. A philosopher never does that. I don’t discuss “other” philosophers beside those who I like. end of story
