I came to realize today I’ve been incredibly abstract and polite to people here in general, my style in philosophy is pioneering and confrontational, but I usually just hit the ideas a person hold, or actions… its rare for me to come out and actually just say, outright, my opinion of someone… Satyr and Cezar I think are about it, and even then, reserved.
Sauwelios was stupid enough to request this information on a particular subject… but it caused me to realize, despite kinda knowing me for years, he didn’t really know how I personally felt about him. He was shocked that other people don’t think he is as great as he thinks he is. That is what inspired this thread, a central place, for everyone’s coming out party… discovering just what other people… think of them.
So there are a few necessary rules for this thread:
You can only request someone else, be it specific or open to anyone, to tell you how they feel about you. If Dan says to Phyllo “Phyllo, tell me your opinion of me” only Phyllo can commit back, not Smears.
Secondly, you can make it specific, such as “what do you think of my moral character” or “does this dress make my butt look fat”, it doesnt give you the right to tell them as it is about unrelated stuff, like how stupid their political party is, which is unrelated to dress size. The more specific, the more narrow, the more general, the more wiggle room.
And last rule, you cant get offended when you discover people think lowly of you, or think your delusional and full of shit. You were dumb enough to ask them. Its not a banning offense to give your personal opinion of another when asked for it by them.
For some reason, people have this impulse to ask others this question, lets do it here.
So have at it, make some requests. Your not required to answer.
For the record, Sauwelios appears mostly angry at you for neglecting the Nietzsche forum, allowing it to get spammed over causing the owner to delete it, whereby a lot of his posts were lost. As you may be aware, the great majority of aristocratic radicalist posting disappears from the internet quiet swiftly and without warning. The work of years, of many dedicated writers, is treated with utter contempt. I think Sauwelios blamed you for partaking in that contempt while holding a position of responsibility. I know him well, and this is the only concrete thing he ever said about you. He certainly doesn’t appear to think you are or should be his friend.
Generally speaking I have high regard for you and am interested in your views [you may now stroke your penis]. Seriously though, I like your ‘cutting’ personality which strips things down to their raw entity – if you will.
What you really provide here, to the discerning reader at least, is an involuntary expression of just how egotistic you are. I never requested your informing me of your opinion of me, and I was not “shocked” by anything, in the least.
Contra-Nietzsche, the great confrontational pioneer… politeness itself… will now be reported for insults and obvious trolling.
Okay, so say they ban me, again. I appear to be the only one who cooperates with the bans… your still you Sauwelios, so you still lose, and I still am respected by many… and will just turn to book writing… which is something I doubt you want happening if you knew what all I was up to.
And I wasn’t the moderator of the Nietzsche Forum, and furthermore, the site was archived, I recently found a link, and dropped it off in the Nietzsche thread they all talk here in that I voluntarily avoid, so they can do their thing in peace… if you call that peace.
Reason why I avoided the moderation on Nietzscheforum was because I was a Christian, whereas everyone else was a Nietzschean… that was my study time to learn about it, not rule over and manipulate them. But who to volunteer for that position besides myself? No fair method, every single Nietzschean there would of back stabbed and dominated one another. So I simply took the idea of Will to Power to heart, and suggested we just let Will to Power moderate… and you know what… Spam Bots have a superior will to power apparently than anyone. Fuck… but they also offered some great deals.
Now, had the forum been, say… a Han Fei Tzu, or Thomas Jefferson, or Epictetus Forum… I could of better of identified to the administrator a superior moderator, or rules to moderate by. In the case of the Nietzscheans, they got exactly what they wanted. I was never the moderator. Administrator could of picked someone else, Sauwelios could of volunteered in earnest. He also had his own failed site, completely the result of his own doing. Can a Christian really do that much, be responsible for so much, simply by refusing to lead the Nietzscheans?
I find both Cezar and Sauwelios are uninventive and lack originality, but Cezar at least has passion and drive, and will get dirty in the attempt of trying to emulate, Nietzsche, word by word. Sauwelios just… he isnt a philosopher, or a follower. He is a bland Historian of Philosophy, and lives vicariously through explaining commentaries. He is incapable of attracting and holding a audience. He lacks a fundamental spirit that is necessary in philosophy… a romance of the endeavor, and a excitement of the unknown.
This being said… I never had a issue with you Fixed Cross. You have a bit of a philosopher in you. One of the few Nietzscheans I’ve known to overcome some of the prejudices in the philosophy… you still have some, but you question, analyse, and reject aspects… and try to think up new ideas. I suppose its all one can ask for of any system or philosophers, for the most sincere followers to occasionally question it, and renew it. It quickly becomes obscene otherwise.
I never have issues with you personally either, I just get irritated by your feuding against Sauwelios, who may not be as excitable as Cezar (and thus appear less passionate) but is far more accurate in his perception of himself. He does not claim to be what you or Cezar claim to be, he does not claim to try to be Nietzsche but whenever he writes he attempts to further understanding. So do I, I come from the same tradition as he, we partook in the same schooling, and the same type of “romantic” origins to our philosophy. I consider him a brother even though we were also quite bitter enemies in some instances.
The Archive; that link looked promising but it appear to be empty.
It is easy to underestimate Lampertian angle, I have not bothered to look into it beyond what S wrote for years. I only began to take notice with introduction onto the forums of the idea of discerning Homeric, Platonic, Machiavellian and Nietzschean era’s to identify man’s position with respect to nature. It then turned out to be a very fertile perspective, S takes the trouble of making his discovered perspective accessible to others. You seem more concerned with that kind of work in person, going by the stories you tell.
Sauwelios’ work is unglamorous in that he does not demand the spotlight, but it is well crafted and always on point. He certainly has no fear of the unknown, as I know him - just a perhaps too intimate knowledge of what the principle entails. I can’t tell though - he’s a positivist and positivists are by definition inscrutable - so are you. Even Cezar is. By contrast, virtually all egalitarians here are perfectly transparent, even to the point of not really existing, having no substance.
“No fear of the unknown” - this is a bit strong. I mean that I know him to have engaged the unknown as bravely, recklessly at times, as I have seen anyone do that.
I finally get it now: “Contra-” as in “Contra-Reformation”! You’re a Catholic, after all…
[size=95]“Holiness–perhaps the last thing the people and women still get to see of higher values, the horizon of the ideal for all who are by nature myopic. But among philosophers this is, like every horizon, a mere case of lack of understanding, a sort of shutting the gate at the point where their world only begins–their danger, their ideal, their desirability… To say it more politely: la philosophie ne suffit pas au grand nombre. Il lui faut la sainteté. [“Philosophy is not suited for the masses. What they need is holiness.”]” (Nietzsche, The Case of Wagner, section 3.)
“Ultimately one could, with some fairness, ask oneself whether it wasn’t really an aesthetic taste that has kept mankind blind for so long: it [mankind] demanded a picturesque effect from the truth, it likewise demanded from the knower that he have a strong effect on the senses. It was our modesty that for the longest time ran counter to its taste… Oh how they guessed that right, these turkey-cocks of God----” (Nietzsche, The Antichrist, section 13.)[/size]
Or, as I myself wrote over four years ago:
[size=95]“On first sight, Romantic art seems more passionate than Dionysian art, because the Romantic lacks the passion to tyrannize over his work–to yoke the bull, so to say. The bull that is the Dionysian artist yokes the bull that is his work of art. The Romantic artist lacks the might of the bull, and therefore cannot yoke his work of art. For this reason, his work is wilder.” (http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?style=1&p=2133162#p2133162)[/size]
That was in a post on Nietzsche’s conception of “spirit”. And note the mention of women in the first Nietzsche quote above! The latest development in my aristocratic radicalisation is my rejection of what Nietzsche called “the ‘woman’ in our music”:
[size=95]“The greatness of an artist cannot be measured by the ‘beautiful feelings’ he arouses: leave that idea to females. But according to the degree to which he approaches the grand style, to which he is capable of the grand style. This style has this in common with great passion, that it disdains to please; that it forgets to persuade; that it commands; that it wills… To become master of the chaos one is; to compel one’s chaos to become form: to become logical, simple, unambiguous, mathematics, law–: that is the grand ambition here. It repels; such men of force are no longer loved–a desert spreads around them, a silence, a fear as in the presence of some great sacrilege… All the arts know such aspirants to the grand style: why are they lacking in music? No musician has yet built as that architect did who created the Palazzo Pitti… Here lies a problem. Does music perhaps belong to that culture in which the domain of men of force of all kinds has ceased? Does the concept grand style ultimately stand in contradiction to the soul of music,–to the ‘woman’ in our music?..
I here touch upon a cardinal question: where does our entire music belong? The ages of classical taste knew nothing to compare with it: it began to blossom when the Renaissance world had attained its evening, when ‘freedom’ had departed from morals and even from wishes:–is it part of its character to be counter-Renaissance? Is it the sister of the Baroque style, since it is in any case its contemporary? Is music, modern music [i.e., so-called “classical” music], not already decadence?..” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 842, Kaufmann’s translation, with my amendments.)[/size]
I identify this “woman” as tonal harmony. And I now conceive of the Renaissance, not as a sudden explosion of cultural and economic growth, but as in the first place a serious reflection, a tremendous stock-taking after the overboldness of the Dark Ages, which had led to the decimation of Occitania, including the Cathars and the Troubadours, and to unpreparedness for devastating epidemics of the Plague. After the high-spirited secular music of the Middle Ages, early Renaissance music sounds very serene, subdued even. In principle, I only listen to music from before roughly 1600 now. Modern music, including so-called “classical” music, is bad for the soul.–
It is easy to underestimate Lampertian angle, I have not bothered to look into it beyond what S wrote for years.
Eggfucking exactly. How many years can the boy go on and on about the exact same commentary, and literally nothing else. At least Cezar targets primary and secondary sources… he has no idea how to use them, but I prefer an actual Nietzsche Quote slapped before me than a explanation from Sauwelios of a Commentary that explains yet another persons ideas…
And yeah, I tend to quiff when I hear you can separate a mans ideas with his personal beliefs… my philosophical background was to take a topological approach to explaining the personality and ideas of theorists. I’m still small fish this year, but expect Foucault to be brutally dethroned for his Ship of Fools by years end to next with some earth shattering analysis… my writing partner just finished teaching her summer course, and is collecting the lesion studies and fMRI.
And if I was anti reformation, why do I advocate the Waldesians, or back the legitimacy of the Lutheran Church, or have strong ties to the eastern orthodox churches, or advocate for the Ethiopians, and the Monophysites? Or stand so friendly towards Jews and Mandaeans?
Why am I lacked and let alone to atheists within the catholic church, and note passively the bulk of divides, historic and modern?
The protestant revolt had some legitimate underlining causes, a few of which still haven’t been addressed, but thats what happens when you mix religion and politics… I note that in Europe, in former bible belts where it was pretty much government mandated, the protestant churches are rapidly declining, and the catholics at a slower rate… in places were even increasing. The angelican church just choosed suicide in being recognized by the older churches here soon by electing illegal female bishops to try to boost its ranks in being politically correct. Stuff is shriveling naturally. There really isnt a group around capable of picking up the pieces once these groups hit rock bottom except the catholic church. So, in the end, I take the protestant reformation for what it is… largely a failure in its homeland.
This being said, I can adore a Anti-Catholic gem, take Thomas Traherne’s “Centuries of Meditations”
1
An empty book is like an infant’s soul, in which anything may be written. It is capable of all things, but containeth nothing. I have a mind to fill this with profitable wonders. And since Love made you put it into my hands I will fill it with those Truths you love without knowing them: with those things which, if it be possible, shall shew my Love; to you in communicating most enriching Truths: to Truth in exalting her beauties in such a Soul.
2
Do not wonder that I promise to fill it with those Truths you love but know not; for though it be a maxim in the schools that there is no Love of a thing unknown, yet I have found that things unknown have a secret influence on the soul, and like the centre of the earth unseen violently attract it. We love we know not what, and therefore everything allures us. As iron at a distance is drawn by the loadstone, there being some invisible communications between them, so is there in us a world of Love to somewhat, though we know not what in the world that should be. There are invisible ways of conveyance by which some great thing doth touch our souls, and by which we tend to it. Do you not feel yourself drawn by the expectation and desire of some Great Thing?
3
I will open my month in Parables, I will utter things that have been kept secret from the foundation of the world. Things strange yet common, incredible, yet known; most high, yet plain; infinitely profitable, but not esteemed. Is it not a great thing that you should be Heir of the World? Is it not a great enriching verity? In which the fellowship of the Mystery which from the beginning of the World hath been hid in God lies concealed! The thing hath been from the Creation of the World, but hath not so been explained as that the interior Beauty should be understood. It is my design therefore in such a plain manner to unfold it that my friendship may appear in making you possessor of the whole world.
It’s why I vack guys like Thomas Merton or Seraphim Rose, they studied greatly other beliefs and philosophies…
However, at least Sauwelios was waken from his long slumber in this thread long enough, after several Cezar like Nietzsche quotes, to try to articulate an idea of his own. This is beautiful progress. Keep it up, think up more ideas ON YOUR OWN, and you might become a philosopher someday.
And I know he can come up with his own ideas… he tackled the lowest psychological group there is out there, bottom of the barrel, the golden dawn… he seemed amazed and shocked it resembled some divisions in Nietzsche’s thought. Even though they are a drug addicted bunch of hippies, he should by now grasp enough to start auto generating his own ideas… I wouldnt care if they are bad ideas, just so long as they are his. Even if you cant come up with original concepts, the Netherlands produced a few good “protestant” theorists like Herman Dooyeweerd you could more deeply mine, and inevitably warp and twist.
You dont have to have such a very, very narrow intellectual range… especially given your not even that good in that range to begin with. Branch out, become a thinker. Get some variability in your thought, chaos in your soul. Your the most boring person Ive ever met, a direct descendant of Rip Van Wrinkle.
Either you’re too stupid to understand that that was not “exactly” what Fixed Cross was saying, or–and I consider this more likely–you’re trolling. Well, as you can see, I’m biting. You disgust me like only an utter degenerate can.
Even if one counts Lampert’s interpretation of the history of philosophy a single commentary, it’s nonsense that I’ve been going on about literally nothing else. Seung, Strauss, Cooper, Cox, Benardete, and Mahdi are some commentators whose books I can see from where I sit, and who I’ve certainly mentioned on fora in the last few years. But of course I’ve always had my own ideas and made my own judgments, and you’re just like the hyenas at KTS who think themselves “free-spirits” because they do not quote… I highly recommend that you go there, by the way!
What an insidious little snake you are. Even in quoting Nietzsche I’m not original, but only imitating Cezar? What inane nonsense.
Of course, no explanation as to why they are the lowest… I’m sure it’s just that, because I can “tackle” it, whatever that means, it has to be lowest. What a repulsive slime you are.
Seemed to whom? Only to you, I’m sure.
That’s not a given. What’s a given is that you’re a filthy little troll who can only try to degrade me. You would love it if my ideas, and the ideas I reflect on, explicate, and represent were bad ideas. You’re a Contra-Nietzsche because you’re very afraid of Nietzsche’s ideas and, because you cannot even touch them, can only try to degrade the man and everyone associated with him.
I don’t follow your pop culture reference, and I’m glad. It’s funny, though, that you only repeat what you already said: that I’m boring, that I lack misleading decors and romantic Bengal fire, the quasi-atmosphere of whatever appeals to the populace. You’re incapable of addressing my point, that the aforesaid is not a shortcoming on my part, that the weak require those things precisely because they are weak… And yes, I’ve had to overcome much of that weakness within myself, and there’s still a lot I’ll have to overcome. I’m the evil conscience of my time.
I already did your psychological typography a few years back Smears. You smoked too much to remember.
Sauwelios… angry Sauwelios. ¿Where, oh where, does anger and resentment sit in your universe of Slave and Master Consciousness? What would Cezar say… what would he quote of Nietzsche, to enlighten you, to show you the substance of your nature?
Your right, I nor anyone for that matter have anything to offer you. You have nothing to offer even yourself, a Nihilist hiding behind the self proclamation of the Sacerdotal. A parasite without host, seeking to establish a Varna of his own selection and misdirection. An Aristocrat without lineage, working at best part time… preying on the weak to make yourself feel deluded in strength.
But… none of us have nothing to offer you, as you have nothing to offer in return… completely empty of substance, experience, endeavor… what evil do you speak of, pathetic men have evil, as they at least experience and strive. You keep to the center of all roads, perceive from a distance, and never engage. A voyeur, yielding only to the safe and common place. Your are the ultimate and uneventful bore… a beast machine, without a spiritual nature. An act of evil is above you, of good, incomprehensibly far beyond your understanding. An epitome of the worthless life, one of acceptance, sloth, and decay. To live such a life, is to live no life. A chimera of mocking mud, simulacrum of muddled forms. Is that your art?
