Nice deflection…
No, what I mean is that your inability to express anything without justification from one of Nietzsche’s quotes indicates a manner of slave mentality that Nietzsche would have despised.
So, you are idolizing the man who would despise you for idolizing him. You treat his words as gospel and your efforts online are akin to evangelism.
This would be without interest were you an ordinary theist, yet your choice of Nietzche in this case is unusual.
That’s not a denial.
Neither is a deflection…
Shall I be the first to say “I know you are but what am I?”
Do I win then?
Everybody becomes mentally dominated at one point or another. I mean, think of a father-son relationship as a perfect example. How many years does it take before a son can escape his father’s whim and will??? Does it ever end, except unto death? Now, Saully shows a much worse condition. Rather than replace his father, his AUTHORITY, with a living man, as Apaosha clearly does, what Saully does is replace his authority with a dead man. This is dysfunction to the core. But, alas, he is not alone. In fact, how much of modern philosophy is built upon this exact same logical fallacy (of appealing to dead authorities)??? Too much.
Basically, this must become seen as a mental illness of some kind, an obvious dysfunction of thinking. It is like Christians to God. They need the fix of authority. They need a daddy figure, one who won’t EVER let them down. They want perfect daddies. And, for Saully, his daddy Nietzsche clearly fulfills this biological role. Not only are both authorities ABSENT, but, impotent as well. How long will this broken seed continue to weed out its own survival? There is a difference between weeds and other plants. One is befitting for a Garden, the other, is not. Which one are you? Easy to tell. Just look at whose authority you presume. Then, the answers fall into place directly thereafter.
Saully, you should be ashamed of yourself. Apaosha, you must overcome your master, someday.
For months now there has been a will in you to diminish my image in your eyes.
First it was lurking on KTF, not posting, making comments on my posts from a safe vantage point on ILO; then you deleted all your posts there as if trying to hide something and you turn up here, again, wearing a new mask, hoping against hope that all your past foolishness could be forgotten.
When I point this out, you still stubbornly try to hide, protesting your innocence.
And now here you are, biting at my heels, claiming that I follow a living master instead of a dead one.
What is this obsession you have?
As I pointed out in your authority thread, one can learn to recite the knowledge of others and one can also analyse reality and formulate one’s own positions.
How many years has Sauwelios been trapped in the former? How many years of analysing the text of another’s words, agonising over their intended meaning like a Christian interpreting the Bible, quoting this text in his posts as justification for positions he occupies himself but cannot defend?
Is it laziness, or simply fulfilling an emotional need?
He wants a proxy; someone who thinks for him and supplies these thoughts as the infallible. A form of Revelation.
Do Nietzsche’s perspectives suggest to him that he is special, perhaps one of those elevated “above average minds” that he mentioned above? Theists often adopt such comforting perspectives…
Perhaps his own capacity for reason has disapponted him in the past and he searches for the Ideal, the “best” perspective, in the Other.
One can lie in the shadow of their idol until they learn to stand for themselves and step out, or one can lie there forever. One can walk the path another has laid down, or one can step off and make one’s own path.
The difference, I think you’ll agree, is one’s capacity for “Originality”.
What has been called into question in this thread is a long-standing behaviour on Sauwelios’ part. Can he analyse reality and formulate his own positions -without- the need for legitimization from his chosen authority?
If he cannot, then his mind is infertile and he will only ever be an academic; expert in another’s words, a scholar.
If he can, but will not, then he is a coward who lacks the capacity to formulate and defend his own perspectives of the apparent.
In either case he is limited and sorely in need of the observations provided by the several people in this thread… should he choose to acknowledge them… or continue to deflect.
I respect Satyr. He is honest.
What I do not do is quote another’s posts verbatim and use them as justification for positions I occupy but am unable to defend. Nor do I constantly reference or analyse another’s words, nor start threads with this sole purpose in mind.
This is Sauwelios’ method; ironic, given the object of it’s focus.
Consider this, priestling:
“I am a railing beside the stream, he who can grasp me - let him grasp me. I am not, however, your crutch. -TSZ”
If my words cannot reach you, perhaps those of your Idol will…
Incorrect, I haven’t known you that long. And besides, you don’t seem too particularly interesting to me. You have one good argument about uncaused causes. Great, wonderful. Anything else? Does your ‘thinking’ begin and end with this point??
No idea what you are talking about. 
I am not following you. You followed me, into my threads, remember? It was only like 3 or 4 days ago. We could go find out if you like. YOU followed ME into MY THREADS, understand??? In fact, Faust just told you yesterday that he saved YOU from MY retort, not the other way around. Figure it out. My presence in any of your threads, or anything, really is retaliation for degenerating MY threads. To be quit frank with you, you don’t really produce anything worth reading. Well, you have shown some production, but, not enough for me to respect. I read many people and threads on this forum. Do you want to become interesting??? I recommend more production. However, this invites a great risk to where anybody & everybody will attack you, even people you formerly put your trust into. Be prepared to defend yourself against all and any. This is how one produces thinking in the first place.
Yes, the two are not mutually exclusive. I already knew that.
Some minds just cannot cut it when it comes to thinking and philosophizing, and reasoning. I would tell you it is genetics, but then your lapdog IW would come in here attacking me with psycho genetic fallacies, again, even though he clearly doesn’t understand what the fallacy is, and where it can become applied.
So do Christians. They use The Bible and a myriad of prophets, of which Christ is most notable. Now, Nietzscheans use Nietzsche for this same Revelation.
OR, he cannot produce ideals of his own volition. He maybe physically incapable of it. Consider that possibility. Different people have different (physical and mental) limitations.
Indeed, indeed.
No, as you may see, Saully has already invested WAY TOO MUCH into Nietzsche to back-out now. He probably will bow & bend before Nietzsche until his grave. Women actually do this too, and men. It is about a time investment. Imagine spending 10 or 20 years with a lover, or a family member. That relationship carries momentum, a weight that is not so easily dropped on the ground. A lot of emotional baggage there. Besides, Saully would just replace his obsession to another, perhaps a living person. But, perhaps nobody really wants him around in the first place. Dead people make easier targets. They cannot resist this obsession. Plus, when thinkers begin to worship the dead, then not only cannot the dead defend themselves, BUT, these priests also can think and believe whatever they want as true, with no reality checks. Only the living can give each other reality checks, not the dead. This is why making dead thinkers our authorities is perhaps the gravest logical fallacy of all. There is no truth in death, because one cannot reference your own claims, in order to verify them.
It should be obvious, at this point.
Fair enough. However, I only implore mastership. Just as Saully can fail to ever become his own master, so too can countless, or millions, or billions of people never attain autonomy in their own lives. In fact, on a micro level, almost nobody does. This is also why, not coincidentally, just a handful of men control the world’s stockpile of resources. So too can this fact become applied to philosophical thinking and knowledge, which I say, is the greatest wealth of all, and the greatest wealth possible.
This statement was directed towards Faust…and it wasn’t really a statement but a question.
It was, actually, a compliment…but you are defensive now and so I forgive you.
Can you offer a response?
Because it pleases me.
Do I need to justify my actions to you?
But of course, of course…it is understandable.
Perhaps an “actual philosopher” spends years studying text, or expanding upon the insights of an other…forgive this “dunce” for having a different opinion and you continue on that path which not only defines you but exposes you as the very example of the mind your own idol denounced.
Every man requires a good women behind him…and you’ve certainly been a good mistress.
Perhaps exploring some other thinkers, could be an alternative, or actually looking at the world for a change, even if through the prism of your dead lover’s eyes.
He was a good one, wasn’t he? a literary mind in an age of words…and how impoverished we feel, we children of images, before his words, and before the words of his contemporaries?
Be, at least, your time’s refraction.
It’s difficult to tell, in your case…and I would take your actions as more honest than your words.
What is the difference between talent and genius?
Your teacher-lover was certainly a genius, and you are certainly not…why else would you be so addicted to him?
Nietzscheanismology… deranged fools.
Implementation of theory of Nietzsche is too difficult - for the stomach, not for the mind.
The military genius is, completely obviously, the mind of this - modern world.
Nietzsche has depicted it more romantically than most of us perceive it - most of us, who do perceive it. The once fewer and wise, now not so few and foolish in our own eyes - we recognize from Book 4 the tyranny of the new method, the complete subjugation to capitalism by the soft hand of a technocratic regime - the masters of the Earth.
Isn’t it obvious? The We are the pliant democratic mass, the wax of milennia. The artist Tyrant is speaking to us.
Do we obey him, or revolt? Or just… ignore what we are?
A rhetorical question.
A response to what? Your ‘question’ to Faust? It makes sense, but I’m not an average mind. I just consider Nietzsche to be higher above average than I. So yeah, maybe I can never understand him completely. We’ll see.
You would be wise to heed your master’s words:
In brief, my friend, one cannot go one’s own way independently enough. Truth seldom dwells where people have built temples for it and have ordained priests. We ourselves have to suffer for the good or foolish things we do, not those who give us the good or the foolish advice. Let us at least be allowed the pleasure of committing follies on our own initiative.
Have you ever had even a single thought on your own initiative? Or rather are you too busy building temples and ordaining priests?
It has happened too often to ignore.
Jesus was turned into an icon of the exact opposite of what he stood for…and some idolize the idol-breaker.
Sauwelios must turn a deaf ear every time he comes upon an aphorism, by his master, that exposes him as the very thing his master despised…and paints him as one of those he was talking over the heads of.
Did he not speak in ambiguous metaphorical ways, like a Delphic oracle, was this not his weeding out process?
Truth is his text isn’t as thick with meaning as some would suppose, but governed by an erotic paroxysm the hungry worshiper struggles to squeeze every ounce of nourishment from a source he wished will never fail him.
Even a comma becomes a subject of contention and they gather in clans fighting over who understood the word “the” in a paragraph the best.
This Sauwelios would also imply that his master was a follower of Spinoza, despite what he said about him, and despite his affiliation with the Heraclitian world-view, as opposed to the Parmenidiean one that dominates in our time, and fails to see how undeveloped his master’s metaphysics are, in comparison to Heidegger or Kant or Hume or his master’s master Schopenhauer…who, at the very least, deserves just as much, if not more, exploration.
He forgets, most of all Heraclitus himself, and the Greeks in general, and falls at the feet of one with obvious talents in writing and psychological insights…seduced by the flowery words and the sensation of empowerment they offer him, which he does not fully comprehend, no more than a female does her attraction to a powerful male.
But obsession has no reason…and Sauwelios, infected with a sexual desire but also with modern knowledge, struggles to harmonize the two.
Okay. This has been off-topic - about Sauwelios and not about anything else - for long enough.
You guys keep playing chicken, if that’s what you want. Until you get run off the road.
This is absolutely wonderful.
STARKLY MANFUL, HONEST reading (and intellectual understanding) of the REAL Nietzsche in our Disney Land Kali Yuga of “liberal-humanist”-porno-plutocratic dream-land we inhabit as modernity? Incredible, amazed…
Modern individuals without self-deception? Rare breed.
I am interested in an authentically faithful translation of “THE GREEK STATE” and “HOMER’S CONTEST” far, far away from the milieu of his contemporary mutilators, W. K. the Bacchic celebrant of our “NUMEN” of “dumb-ocracy” encircling the species today…
Whose translation is this, honorable fellow? W. K. is unilaterally contemptible and a falsifier of Nietzsche, in every sense, following his own agenda…
THE SIGNIFICANCE HERE: The cognitive dissonance of modern Westerners is punctured, in virility and without apology. Thunderbolt of icy truth in a cosmos of deception and phantasm. THUS: NO RESPONSE to WHO Nietzsche was, as is made crystalline clear here, or his metapolitics – word-games at best in reply: the conspiracy of silence and playing dumb. Death by popular heartlessness.
The degenerate post-modernist Philistine (post-modernism is merely modernism intensified) is obedient unto the modern clerisy, our Franco-Soviet neo-Marxist ideological warriors so determined to eliminate all “phallologocentrism” and thrust the West into sheer antinomianism, – in cognizing the data present, the average contemporary individual thus must, as a psychological reflex to preserve our undergirding world-view, – he must marginalize and/or denigrate the revealer of boldness in pure violence of annihilation, as wolfish, subhuman “EX-LEX” to be butchered because inconvenient to mass cognitive dissonance…
Has the revelationist been “ban-hammered”, BTW?
The REAL Nietzsche illuminates the UNREALITY of ourselves in expositing the REALITY of life, unmasking modern social "theology’, daring to discourse upon the absolutely murderous, blood-soaked, vampiric dynamism (the cited “Dionysian tyrannical militaristic root”) at the core of earthly existence, the tragic, PESSIMISTIC-SCHOPENHAUERIAN character of terrain affairs, – and shows so many of our ideologic NUMENA, our sacred intellective godlets, to be shallow rationalizations of neo-totemic detritus – polycontextually, the UNREALITY of soul we cannot face sincerely. Thus the necessary “civilizing process/democratization” of N. so powerfully led by W.K., etc. – as our sickly-sweet, self-deceptive minds experience Nietzschean truth, as unthinkable: nothing hypothetically neutrally acceptable as realistic account of things as they are, simultaneously yet more than debatable meta-ethically, but the REALITY in Nietzsche – indigestible cognitively, automatically; felt as pure shock, only pure Lovecraftian counter-gnosis of horror we hide from in consensual cognitive dissonance…
I doubt the revealer is still around now. I am of roughly similar “Arctic” Hyperborean nature in the elucidation of truth. No softening. I hope I can survive…
P.S. I should add I strongly oppose, meta-ethically, the “moral theory” or, rather, anti-moralism of Nietzsche: NEVERTHELESS, what he says about things, all his words partake of the Truth, the inter-individual differences generating classes as unavoidable, how society cannot be otherwise than pyramidal, the ugly primitive warfare-born, strife-based subsoil of all human culture and politics: esoteric darknesses social-democratic pseudo-messianism fails to engage, MISERABLY…depth-realities inhering in the man-beast and his coccygeal genealogy, little dealt with HONESTLY or HONORABLY lately… Nietzsche, IN TERMS OF MORAL PHILOSOPHY, follows Callicles and Stirner: I oppose his skeptical extremist moral nihilism INTENSELY… I would fight the moral nihilist Calliclean, heartless, empathy-bereft “philosophical ethics” of Nietzsche to the death; but he is a man who reveals important, complex actuality at the same time…
Nietzsche is not against dynamic customs.
How this child-like customs work is explained by Vollgraff:
Written customs belong only to the degenerated people. At the time where they are written down, the people have started to degenerate. The same is with WRITTEN LAWS! Thus the unconsciousness of the ethical child.
I read the first 5 paragraphs or so.
Talking about the piteous nature of a human life.
I would have used far less words to describe it as something like that.
Humans are like life-addicts. They’ll do anything and everything to get their fix, but when it comes time to save someone else’s life other than their own, they are far less motivated, especially if it is not human, or not visible, such as people in a foreign impoverished country.
When witnessing the most vile aspects of life, I try to remember that revenge is a form of burden. There are many burdens in life. Pure burdens. But the body is weak. It only needs a small amount of burdens. Both killing and saving/helping people is burden, regardless of what the moralists would claim. Some people love work, they love burden. They try to mother their enemies and take the whole earth upon their shoulder. They are the most savored christians. I would prefer the opposite.
p10 & 11 i don’t agree with.
although the immune system exists in resistance towards pathogens, and although it can somewhat be strengthened through cycles of sickness, that alone does not make sickness necessary in health. Likewise, just because the state and politics are violent, at least in Greek times, does not mean that violence produces art, meaning, civility, etc. A sufficient object requires nothing. Some of the finer nations, even with all their needs, are allot like the sufficient object. It does not need cycles of war, it produces alternatives. Besides this, the wars of the greeks were largely not democratic. The civilians did not, entirely of themselves, desire wars. There could have been a propaganda, or a mandatory militaristic law, but it was not a democratic war. Therefor it was not the civilian’s qualities at play on their own, which made the violence appear necessary for civilization, culture, art, society, etc. Almost any kind of conflict can be found in sports, games, business, etc. And it need not all suddenly become lethal before it has use. Necessity may be blinded to the never ending worlds of alternatives.