Are you ever going to step out from under that shadow, priestling?
Can you?
I would ask you to stay out of my pants…you’re too engrossed in another groin at the moment.
And I asked a simple question.
You’ve lost yourself on these hills.
Now you go there, day after day, seeking that cave where Zarahtustra spent so much of his life in, hoping, against hope, that his bones will still remain…or, perhaps, a small token: a string, a necklace, a ring…left behind, as if only for you to find.
You hike up and down and up…and down, trying to retrace his steps, looking at the views, trying to see them as he did…carving, like any lover would, your initials on trees he may have leaned against, drinking from streams his lips, may have touched.
Even the bird songs are enviable for, in your mind, they saw his figure pass, once upon a time, hunched over in deep thought, and they sang to him.
You don’t just want to see the world, you want to see it as him - through his eyes, hear it using his ears…feel it with his skin…
You dream him gazing, in loneliness, from atop mountaintops, and you wish you could stand before him…your eyes meeting…to let him know that you are like him…or you want to be his…to be for him what nobody else could be.
Sometimes you come across passages and you feel, as if, he is speaking directly to you, or that he saying things about you…and a chill runs down your spine, as if he had caressed you. But at other times you come across a passage and you turn away, distressed, because you feel he is talking over you…to someone else, someone who can never ever know him, love him, want him, as you do.
The little insults he litters his aphorisms with, are like tiny thorns in your fingers.
How that much more attracted a female is to the man that pays her no heed. It’s his air of superiority that pulls her, like a force she cannot resist…and she swoons before him, even when she’s livid with anger at his vulgarity and indifference.
She wishes she were his…to bear his “offspring”, to be his vehicle and his muse, but she doesn’t wish to give herself freely.
[size=95]Nietzsche, in whose light and shadow all of us today, with our ‘for him’ or ‘against him’ are thinking and writing […]
[Heidegger, The Question of Being.][/size]
Like the great thinker Heidegger, I am proud to honour my superiors. And you, little man?
Actually, you asked three (3) questions:
Things he writes about in the context in question, obviously.
Obviously, as otherwise I would be writing about that reality itself and not about what he wrote about it. Do you only ask obvious questions?
No, I’m obviously trying to map those mountains.
It’s stupefying how many different people express the same, lame thoughts in so many different ways on this site; and how few people here can appreciate scholarship. I’m not interested in your fairy tales. This correspondence is closed.
Okay - let’s all just settle down a bit.
Anyone and everyone - feel free to comment on Sauwelios’ essay. Don’t feel free to attack him personally.
I’m not going to lock this thread. Saully has obviously put a lot of work into it.
But I will hand out warnings like candy if this stuff doesn’t stop, and now - and maybe some time off for bad behavior.
Yes, that’s a threat, and yes, I’m good for it.
Pray tell what this means. I put a lot of work into my threads and you don’t seem to have a problem locking them up. Could be blatant favoritism; I don’t know.
All I see in this OP is a Nietzschean priest quoting his dead master in endless blocks of text. Perhaps citing external authorities is the, “putting a lot of work into it” that you speak of? I honestly didn’t know copy+pasting was a genuine philosophical endeavor. I am at a loss here. I almost wonder how much Saully has copy+pasted right out of Nietzsche’s since deceased brain.
Cappy - you get the first warning! Congratulations!
Off-topic posts will be deleted after this.
All that unpleasant teasing is pish, compared to the sustained months of stupidity that BILL OSBORNE had to endure at the hands of Sauwelios and myself, in a past life. Indeed, where would I be today, without that unfashionable message board scholar? No doubt, self-satisfied and smugly conscious of my own great accomplishment - surmounting F.Nietzsche and everybody else - without having understood the first thing. First the fun, the time for reflection always comes much later, if, that is, we are ever given the luxury to recognize debts and karmic connections!
(I make a definite exception in the case of Super-Man’s provocateur commentaries - they have been after my own heart, clear and open in recognizing philosophy for what it is, a form of love. “Yes!” to almost everything you have described - you painted love, the madness of love for the Master very well.)
Presumably the distracters are interested on some level in the philosopher clearly named in the work’s topic. How many have read his early essay “The Greek State”, prior to it being brought to light here by solar Sauwelios? How many were aware of its existence?
For example, when I first read “The Greek State”, it seemed to me too obtuse, overpresumptuous, and I could not make anything useful of it. Today thanks to Sauwelios I have read it with new eyes. If you make good to comprehend what Sauwelios is presenting, you will perhaps be able to see many things in another light, as I have: That this “military genius” is clearly an early form of the Uebermensch idea familiar from the later books of the philosopher. The Uebermensch! - a “hot topic” that is surely of interest to many. It is uncanny how the same “military genius”, in the older sense of “man-as-ordering/organizing-force”, can be found under different names in Vedic scripture, where it is also considered as one of the tiers in a universal “order of rank”. The parallel in Jewish mysticism ought also make certain people “smile knowingly”, insofar as precisely what is most “mystic” in Jewish mysticism is usually also the least Jewish. To the conqueror belong the spoils. Finally, is it not interesting in itself, that the rough sketch created by Sauwelios (where he has tentatively given a “Nietzschean” typology of mankind as he understands it) corresponds exactly with the high-level reality you and i experience today, unconsciously for the most part, but sometimes available for brief interaction to those who are by their professional calling (or otherwise) involved with its pyramidizing machinations?
The study presented in the thread has your humble servant stewing in panhistorical thoughts. To what extent is it true that the entire deference to “the Greek” in Nietzsche (especially early Nietzsche) has perhaps never been understood properly: after all, Nietzschean Dionysius and Nietzschean Apollo and their historical Greek prototypes are distinct and seem to “seek” that self-distinction even where they are similar. It is no different with the Nietzschean Greek State, we are dealing with an inspired and creative attempt made by a philosopher to describe timeless old things with names fair and new - at least for a philologist, for whom even a thousand years is sometimes a mere trifle. The fundamental question then arises: toward WHAT did the philosopher turn his gaze, WHAT did he and others like him intuit in the rubble of ancient civilization, and what looked back into his soul from the forgotten past, giving wing and spirit to his philosophy of the future?
-WL
[N]ow Apollo approaches him and touches him with his laurel. The sleeper’s enchantment through Dionysian music now begins to emit sparks of imagery, poems which, at their point of highest evolution, will bear the name of tragedies and dramatic dithyrambs [N]
But what does this have to do with the state?
Irreverently using some of the spoils from the temple - our society as perceived by us, ‘the common man’, is inherently (by industry) a Geburic mechanism. Chesedic expansion are present only under the banner of war. According to Nietzsches most sober thoughts, this is how it its, simply put. But in his more manic ones he envisioned ‘rare plants’ forming a political upper class, which is the justification of this Geburic sword under which, presumably, most of us willingly obey. As WL noticed, the powerstructures we live by take on the forms of a hierarchy of illusion, precisely as in Nietzsches ‘The Will to Power’ and also in Jim Morrisons ‘the Lords’. Respectively anticipating and sensing the emergence of a supreme class of puppeteers.
The irony is that this upper class is perceived by most as the most despicable, tasteless form of human being. If the present has indeed been shaped in the form of Nietzsche’s future.
One post such as WL’s above makes good all the posts made by dunces, if you’ll pardon the expression.
It’s funny that Super-Man’s fairy tale does not apply to me, but does, if one thinks away the hyperbole, to the person this thread was originally dedicated to—and I like that!
I commend Sauwelios on his scholastic endeavors.
I had read this piece, but many years ago, and he reminded me of it.
Let us hope that all that academic rigor can one day be translated into something practical and all the sexual energy can be directed towards something more personally productive.
Most would point to this to prove how “pointless” philosophy has become…and I would point to it as evidence that not all can be thinkers, and that thinking about what soemone thought leads nowhere if one stays there indefinitely.
If somebody’s work manages to mesmerize you for decades, then maybe you just can’t understand it, because knowing and understanding are not the same thing.
And maybe the ambiguity of the text, more than confuse the less sophisticated and drive away the less human, offers itself up for imagination.
I, myself, have witnessed a line drawn across a canvas being debated over and “appreciated” merely based on the infamy of the one that produced it.
Far more fascinating is how the administration, having failed to consider how the application of thinking is part of the thinking or the thinker, in question…then chose to take the side of the part he understood the most.
And even more so how the administration managed to turn a blind-eye to this:
Now other than the emotional subjective judgment of a “man” that can’t manage to offer a single perspective outside the text provided, one wonders what an administrator would think the “appropriate” response to this would be.
Should one swallow the insults of a mind so obviously obsessed and in love, or should one reciprocate, and if we reciprocate, in kind, will this same administrator not admonish us, reminding us about the rules of engagement, about civility, about forum standards and how being nice is more effective?
From my part I promise to be nice to Sauwelios, and all the brilliant scholars on this forum, only pointing out his obviuos: in this case the obvious homoerotic connection - I’m assuming Sauwelios is what passes for male in our age -, his desire to remain a “map-maker” and always dedicated to:
The underlined being a very important indication of psychology that… might surprise some, because Sauwelios manages to avoid those passages, which expose him as a miasma that stands for the very type that goes against the very ones his own idol spoke, over their heads, to.
I haven’t ignored those comments. If I called everyone on every comment like that I’d have to quit my job.
Okay, I don’t have a job at the moment, but if i did, I would.
The requirements of decorum are not particularly onerous here at ILP.
For the record, I rarely agree with Saully.
It doesn’t matter.
Saully may have a mancrush on Nietzsche or he may not.
Can’t anyone here think of anything more interesting to talk about?
That was a rhetorical question.
Then you’ve secretly agreed with them, and this constitutes reason enough to allow them a free-pass.
Then I would ask you to continue doing as you have and selectively administrate…offering a soft-glove, to some, and then coming down hard on others who dare reciprocate.
I know…but still, some have faced the wrath of ILP censorship…selectively so.
How about this question, and with all due respect:
Can an average mind be judge and jury of above average minds?
Nevermind…it was a “rhetorical” question.
And I suppose you reckon yourself to those “ones”… But you have not said one thing I hadn’t heard a hundred times before. From what I’ve read on you, I don’t consider you an actual philosopher (BGE 211), a Caesar of knowledge, by a long shot.
What I still don’t understand is why all these ‘actual philosophers’, these ‘Caesars of knowledge’, feel compelled to publicly express their disapproval to me time and again. Or maybe I do understand:
[size=95]We have had the whole pathetic stupidity of mankind against us—their every notion of what the truth ought to be, of what the service of the truth ought to be—their every “thou shalt” was launched against us… Our objectives, our methods, our quiet, cautious, distrustful manner—all appeared to them as absolutely discreditable and contemptible.—Looking back, one may almost ask one’s self with reason if it was not actually an aesthetic sense that kept men blind so long: what they demanded of the truth was picturesque effectiveness, and of the learned a strong appeal to their senses. It was our modesty that stood out longest against their taste… How well they guessed that, these turkey-cocks of God!
[AC 13, trans. Mencken.][/size]
This has nothing to do with me.
Perhaps it’s because it’s become so obvious, even Faust could see it.
What is an “actual philosopher” as opposed to an academician…and what have you heard of me?
What is the subject of an “actual philosopher”?
Is this you understanding, or you trying to know, through an other’s understanding?:
Did anyone mention God or any “ought”…or are you trying to exclude yourself from these bible-thumpers only because your scripture is “better”?
It’s okay to love…and to love so deeply, that you spend a lifetime worshiping the object of your love, finding more and more depth in his words, trying to rend every ounce of his essence to drink it down, hoping that you are interpreting correctly.
What Christian would not share your erotic connection to the source?
BUT, have you done violence against HIM?
Have you murdered your God, so as to cease being a mere shadow of Him?
No, you only want to drink of his lips, feel his words caressing you, impregnate yourself with his nature.
On the OP itself:
What a polemic against Christianity, and its secular offshoot of communism, it is…yet, all is active, and all all labor towards, therefore it is the objective that colors the activity as “noble” and not labor itself.
Talent and genius have often been used in confusion.
I would offer Weininger as an added “source” on the matter in his Sex and Character.
Do you have thoughts of your own, that you can defer quoting another to express them?
Or must you perceive reality through the lens of another’s interpretation?
Yes it has, as you have implied that, contrary to “average minds” like me, you can “be judge and jury of above average minds” like Nietzsche, and must therefore be an “above average mind” yourself. But it’s typical that you won’t take responsibility for your statements…
Good one! But then why do you have to point it out?
Read better: the reference is right there! And what I’ve ‘heard’ (read) of you (typo there: I typed “on” instead of “of”) is what you’ve written on ILP. Admittedly not all of it, as it’s not worth it, but enough to know you’re just another of those ‘dunces’ (a reference to “a confederacy of dunces”, of course).
Yes, you guys suggest that I ‘ought’ to do like you and go ‘beyond Nietzsche’, become ‘free spirits’ like yourselves.
That definitely makes a difference, of course. But I have no scripture. The truth is more important than Nietzsche even (e.g., in evolutionary biology).
You mean like you do, through the lens of Satyr?..