I love this guy Descartes, he explains more than most other people did.
What is passion? - It’s an excitement which serves for the prolongation and strengthening of thoughts.
A new thought/impression is placed in the softer parts of the brain, which means the stronger thoughts are in the harder parts of the brain.
Education avoids the strengthening of the thoughts which means it must lead to the weakening of the soul and to the softening of the brain.
All this explains why Nietzsche in his TSZ (On the land of culture/education) said those people have not enough soul (thought) in their chest to scare (fear is a passion) a bird.
Nietzsche’s thoughts are never a “thing in itself” but a reasoning with a logic too deep for most of the existing humans.
Sure, I’ll go with you if you like. But I am pretty sure we would end up destroying those little bits of ourselves that got attached to the idea. Think about it, Descartes=mechanistic thinking, with God as the Ultimate mechanic. Nietzsche=post-mechanistic thinking, with no ultimate mechanic.
For example, would Nietzsche agree that thought preceeds passions, such as passions are a function of thoughts? Or would he have said the opposite? Or maybe he would have just gone for the kill on both concepts.
Descartes puts wonder as the first passion in general and wonder appears when we experience something new and unknown. It is the only thought-creating passion.
Nietzsche is not “above” anything. He has just made it more deep, even stronger and more necessary.
People can’t follow Nietzsche because he is too strong for them. That is why they “misunderstand” him. Actually they don’t get a …
Nietzsche is not above anything. He is, indeed, probably about six feet under ground.
He was, however, well above those three archaic ways of thinking. If anything, he was a synthesis of the three. When he was a “phoenix,” he burnt out by these. Eventually, he took their ashes up the mountain and came back with a map.
Your thoughts about wonder are very beautiful.
However, there are other passions which give way to thought-creating, such as anxiety and the will to win.
As I said, aristocratism already affirms everything. The will rules over passions and uses them and the feelings (Descartes describes that almost mechanically). There is nothing in aristocratism that is left out from a living being.
Aristocratism affirmed everything that could be placed in a logical system or structure.
Feminism was itself a reaction to that blindness, and animalism an attempt at overcoming the supposed contradiction. This is why I think that Nietzsche realated more to animalism, because of its honesty. But, as I said, he was above animalism too.
It is the only logical way to resolve a dispute between two men where pride has been insulted who cannot reach an agreement and value honor.
In any case, saying and believing that one is ruled only by the aristocratic way doesn’t mean the femenine doesn’t exist too. If anything, you end up covering feelings with logic, like in the duel example, by giving them names and creating “ethics”. That is way they are “contradictory.”
Ethics are necessary among equals. Only toward those who we can eat we need no ethics.
Anyway, it is disgusting to discuss with somebody who is unable to show any agreement. It’s a weak soul ready to be eaten talking to a strong soul who can’t reach him.
Well, I personally thought there was much agreement in what I said, I tend to put the focus on the disagreements though.
For example, I agree with what you are saying here about ethics, and you said it in your usual poetic way (I mean that as an honest compliment). That they are rationalizations of feelings doesn’t mean that ethics aren’t, well, what’s the word here… I guess desirable for the strong. (As a side note, I find your code of ethics a little too defensive… you leave little space for allies! But you have shown that you have one.)
I said once to you that I think you are seeking to go back, to pick up where the “good greeks” left off. We disagree constantly, even though we attach our prides to similar ideas, because I don’t want to go back. Or at least not yet, because I am not done surveying. There is much that has sprung from the errors that have sprung since, and I will not move until I have gathered enough. Anyway, enough about me (and my attempts to conform to your ethics).
I have no problem with our clashes, but it is important to me that you don’t think I’m playing checkers here with you, or even chess.
Anyway, aristocratism is blind to the feminine in the human… and blatantly opposed to the animal. Maybe it is superior to the other two, but, as Nietzsche said: "If one would like to see our European morality for once as it looks from a distance, and if, one would like to measure it against other moralities, past and future, then one has to proceed like a wanderer who wants to know how high the towers in a town are: he leaves the town. “Thoughts about moral prejudices,‘’ if they are not meant be prejudices about prejudices, presuppose a position outside morality, some point beyond good and evil to which one has to rise, climb, or fly—and in the present case at least a point beyond our good and evil, a freedom from everything “European,” by which I mean the sum of the imperious value judgments that have become part of our flesh and blood. That one wants to go precisely out there, up there, may be a minor madness, a peculiar and unreasonable “you must”—for we seekers for knowledge also have our idiosyncrasies of “unfree will”—the question is whether one really can get up there.”
Aristocratism is not above, or at least not as high as Nietzsche calls for in this passage.
I would like to point out threats of cannanibalism is NOT listed on the forum rules… So Pezer… Enjoy the mess you got yourself into… Cezar is hungry… And it appears to be perfectly allowed.
Of course, pezermermaid is pretending that there are no morals behind which feminism hides and also that the same feminists avoid all equality out of the feminine tyrannic will. The double anti-standards of the feminists lead into self-destruction anyway and there is no explicit need to eat them.
The man is once again put in front of the female corpse to give it a life.
cezarsalad fails to accept that no aristocrat is purely aristocrat, no feminine (which is not the same as the feminist social movement which sprung up way after Rousseau) purely feminine and no animalist purely animalist. Feminines use morals, which are a style of ethics that employs less logic and more feelings.
That’s not good in the after life your heart will be weighed against a feather, and if it is weighed down by bad deeds your heart will be devoured by the demon Ammut consigning you to oblivion, if you pass the test though you get to go to a fabulous heavenly place courtesy of Osiris. Best to have a material free soul. May Ma’at be merciful.