Nietzsche had no “we” in the sense of how it is written here.
First class and rank and then “we”.
But you don’t have that, don’t you?
No, that’s only slave-morally good insofar as it’s done from weakness. I was thinking of this:
[size=95]“When the oppressed, the downtrodden, the violated tell themselves, out of the vengeful cunning of impotence: ‘let us be different from the evil ones, namely good! And good is anyone who does not violate, who injures no one, who does not attack, who does not requite, who leaves vengeance to God, who like us keeps himself in hiding, who avoids all evil and demands little at all from life, like us the patient, the meek, the just’—then this, heard coldly and without bias, really means nothing more than: ‘we weak ones simply are weak; it is good when we do nothing for which we are not strong enough’[.]” (GM 1.13)[/size]
And this:
[size=95]“And from no one do I want beauty so much as from thee, thou powerful one: let thy goodness be thy last self-conquest.
All evil do I accredit to thee: therefore do I desire of thee the good.
Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings, who think themselves good because they have crippled paws!” (TSZ “The Sublime Ones”.)[/size]
I see what you’re saying, but slave morality’s impotent anger is not directed towards the social body itself. Resentment is not directed towards the herd. It’s directed towards the sheep that wander from the herd, towards wolves who prey on it and towards new shepherds who want to shape their beautiful stone with their divine hammer*–the metaphor is really breaking down at this point, but I trust you get all my references.
I have in mind what Nietzsche says about angel-like Aquinas in GM. His resentment is directed towards the unbeliever–whose mere existence opens up a possibility of life contrary to the herd’s, and consequently is experienced as a threat to the herd by their Good and the Just–not towards the Christian community.
In modern times the last man, the still all too herd man, is the ‘man of the future’ of the socialist dolts and boltheads. The dragon that the lion must slay is formal [herd] conscience from BGE 199. It’s a voice within that associates one’s own good with the welfare of the herd. It’s anti-heroic. Think Hector deciding to die in battle against Achilles with honor and have all of Troy sacked as a consequence instead of giving up and being killed like a woman and have Troy spared. His is a heroic decision precisely because his interests do not lie with the community. He does not fight nor die on behalf of it.
[size=95]“…the herd man in Europe today gives himself the appearance of being the only permissible kind of man and glorifies his attributes, which make him tame, easy to get along with, and useful to the herd, as if they were truly human virtues: namely, public spirit, benevolence, consideration, industriousness, moderation, modesty, indulgence, and pity.”[/size]
Fixed Cross is a solipsist hallucinating to be a strong man – this I have comprehended. He’s preoccupied with tastes/types/differences precisely because he wants to equalize them. All the differences he makes aren’t really differences.
From another thread:
Observe the way in which he avoids creating a unified standard and simply goes for two separate standards. So Mozart is judged by “Mozart standard” and Gaga is judged by “Gaga standard” and these two standards are completely separate i.e. they cannot be unified. This allows him to equalize the two artists, to make them look as if they are equally valid. And even if you do come up with a unified standard I am pretty sure he will rationalize it away by claiming that it is merely a standard among many competing standards and that it is impossible to know which standard is the best standard. This is the kind of solipsistic thinking that is espoused by the weaklings who are overly-sensitive to criticism and whose only goal is to forbid other people from stating their opinions (thus minimizing their anxiety.) Can you now understand why he’s placing so much importance on “self-valuation”? He’s the kind of man who has to fight the influx of negative thoughts related to his value with nothing but lies in the form of theory – he’s incapable of any other defense. To “self-value” really only means to lie to yourself regarding your own value (strong men do not “value” themselves, they are simply HONEST with themselves.)
I wanted to be sure so I went to KTS and read the exchange between him and Satyr. No doubt, Fixed is a solipsist and has nothing to do with Nietzsche whatsoever.
I am of course very well aware of this thought. But there is no correspondence between “God” here and “every man”. The thoughts of Magnus and Nietzsche are entirely unrelated - N is subtle, penetrating, logically irrefutable. Magnus simply asserts a blunt falsity and calls all arguments that can challenge it banal and nauseating.
Why does everything grow equally?
Magnus view of growth requires that all wills and thus is growth. If this is so and given the amount of entities we can be aware of, it is by all accounts impossible for a single being to grow faster than all else combined. Unless in a feverish fantasy I am unwilling to entertain or consider “philosophical”.
Another boy has become obsessed and is now stalking and trolling me.
It has become very easy to expose slaves, this hammer-thuoght of Value shreds their facade so very swiftly.
Right. He values all in terms of his selfvaluing, his Honor. Something which the slave sees as evil. The slave demands that the man values himself in terms of the whole, of which the slave also partakes. The hero does not recognize any wholes besides his will which stands equal to his honor, in terms of which he values.
The whole is given to the hero. He seeks to expend it, to make his mark. To imprint being on becoming.
Their relation to the Whole, God. They seek to become so pious that they encompass this God in piety, or “strength” as they would call it.
Separation is a precondition to greatness.
Magnus has not yet discovered the self-preserving instinct which is missing among decadents.
He is completely lacking the Warrior Ethos.
A warrior wants war, not peace. War requires separation, and rejects the existence of any whole.
If the warrior is mighty, his will requires mighty forces outside of itself, forces that can do justice to his might.
He will aim to destroy those forces, not to make them part of some City of Christ.
It is very simple. Either one is whole and knows the necessity of separation, or one is ‘a hole’ that needs to be filled.
No, he will not seek to destroy, because that destroys the justification. He will seek to make them less harmful, like Sparta which did not seek to destroy Athens after taking it.
Also Lady KAKA is a drug of the decadents. Decadent music is worse than silence.
Ehm…
Not every part of existence is an Athens
Whats this obsession with lady gaga you boys have? I heard two of her songs once. I dont care to hear from her more. Could you stop talking about her to me?
Ok nigga, ok, I just saw you saying her name.
Magnus warned again for incivility immediately following previous warning.
This thread is skirting close to unacceptable, please everyone make the effort to keep the tone high.
On a pedantic point, a benign tumour is one that doesn’t metastasise; a benign brain or lung tumour can kill the organism just by growing too large. Any morality worthy of its name is a malignant tumour to the host society - it invades, spreads, blossoms in its host. But when it wins, it replaces the organism.
It isn’t a “cancer” unless it is unable to support a life. If it is merely rearranging one life form into another, it isn’t “cancer”. A body of cancer is not a life form, simply because it cannot sustain a life. Growing cancer thrives only on the life of something else, not its own independent sustaining process.
=
Sauwelios - I see that Magnus lied. He has been registered on KTS before he told me he had no idea who Satyr is. He had also already access to the Atyton.
He was exactly who I said he was, and it is now clear to me beyond doubt that his incoherent blubbering about VO is not his own original stupidity, but simply lipservice to Satyrs conception of the world as Lack.
Magnus on Ignore.
The only real question is why we are talking about this Magnus clown and not about the post I wrote to Sauwelios.
I did attempt to continue that discussion twice.
Sauwelios,
That was profound.
Repost: