Back to race, what do you make of this sort of thing?
As for where I’m coming from (assuming you’ve read a post or two of mine on this issue), the most important sentence in that document reads: ‘Some scientists argue that common racial classifications are not meaningful, often on the basis of research indicating that more genetic variation exists within such races than between them’ [emphasis mine].
This is the sort of issue I’m dicussing when questions regarding race emerge. Here, the document merely uses this sentence as an introduction to qualify its definitions while overlooking the bigger problem it represents.
If I’m already a child, who endured through the desert as a camel, wandered on the savana as a lion, then I can’t possibly be a lion again, unless my childish head is hit in a catastrophic manner.
This isn’t a world full of menphestophils luring you into hell just for having fun, besides you are still on your way to a faust, whose opening soliloguy might struck you as deconstructively genius. Litrats like Goethe cramp your style anyway, I hope one day you’ll see that the credentiality laden philosopher knows the earth just as much as the metropolitan poet knows the moon. This is basically why the familiarity of literature of all times gave Nietzsche the edge, as philosopher. By the time you turn 40, suddenly find yourself happily surrounded by poetry and drama of all kinds, you will need to get your new found romanticist earnestness meter checked and monitored by Nietzsche, who already accomplished use the poet’s virtue to philosophize without being constrained by the poetic vice, a vice which he recognised via being the philosopher, whose own vice he consequently avoided as being a poet. Therein lies the essence of the apollonian dionysus, an essence that’s been under-embraced, under-consumed by many philosophers since. Modern poets, however, do much better that university professors precisely because they have tried to balance themselves out by seriously involving themselves in mainstream philosophy. Only among them, there are possible candidates of Nietzsche’s “new philosophers” mentioned in Beyond Good And Evil. I see the spark sparkling in Sartre the playwrite, novelist and philosopher. You’ll have credit ackownledged if you know what I’ve just been talking about, for you are in a different line. Your line is so wildly crooked so that it ravishly intercepts the Nietzschean line now and then. What I perceive as the radiant point of the entire Nietzschean philosophy is that it’s not merely Heidegger’s view that it represents the latest metaphysical development, but above all, it takes the best of the best ways of reasoning to form a historically unprecedented methodology that shall prove to be most effecient and most flexible in the whole realm of practical knowledge seeking, especially the most invisible part of the realm which observational sciences can’t handel. Thus, precisely thus, I regard Nietzsche as the most significant creator since Christ, whose evolutionary “thousand year empire” will follow, or has started to follow, that of the latter.
Where Nietzsche is existentialist, is where he has pushed the human intellectual frontier into a brand new land which no one has set a firm foot on. Where he is metaphysical, he has offered a self-justifiable, line, that watches our backs and pushes us into the new land of humanity hunting, soul searching, the only paths that would eventually leads us to one of the first of also the most significant question ever posed in tha face of wisdom-seeking: what is the way towards happiness? The first glimps of the relavent factual anwser is set out for us in Zarathustra: by way of affirmative creativity. Plato was Plato, Goethe was Goethe, Kant was Kant, Napolean was Napolean, Deridda was Derida, you are you, I am I, the inner essence of these facts are explained by, the gate of the kingdom of human existence is opend by, the man, by his genius observations in his prevailing direction. Philosophy, just like romance, is of those secondary human creative existentialities that is encompassed, of course, by the Nietzschedom. Nietzsche goded over Kant just like Jesus goded over Aquinas. The difference is: you don’t get burned on the stick if you don’t praise the new lord, but you get burned alive in the heart throughout life and keep asking why fate is so cruel instead of forcing yourself to accept the idea of some divine test shit. With Nietzsche, your will to power will find its most manly expression. Then again, you don’t have to be consiously Nietzschean to be Nietzschean in the general sense. The ubermensch is possible irrespective of time and space. This is why a philosopher is a philosopher, he sees but do not causes. Marx was never content with being silent, maybe he should have, he was a scientist but whose result was proven to be less scientific than Nietzsche’s. This is why I said nobody deserves being recognised as scientific if Nietzsche was excluded. Nietzsche’s science is a whole league above all else in its encompassion, just like Mozart’s expression is a whole heart deeper than others in its humaness.
In ranting about Nietzsche, I refute all. It’s up to you to see the gliter of my sword. Consider yourself lucky if a spinetube of coldness rushes into the brains. Thus shall you be endowned the coolness of pure reason. Wether my sword is sharp or shinny enough, it a matter perhaps unworthy of your time. There is always the lightening of Zarathustra waiting to shatter.
The race/IQ thing is not valid in my opinion. I have studied and given a lot of IQ tests and now REFUSE to give them because they are clearly geared toward people that have been socialized in a certain way. They aren’t testing what they say they are testing.
Back to you, Uniqor, I wasn’t trying to tell anyone off, I was simply trying to be cheerful like you, however it might have come off differently than intended, and for that I am sorry.
On another note, I just wanted to discuss race here, but nothing is stopping you from discussing whatever you wish…kudos.
demosthenes8907
You want to discuss race, but why do you avoid my request to define what you mean by race?
Awww… I thought this thread was about that wonderful reality show. No, wait I guess that’s The Amazing Race. 
Alas. Eternal sadness.
I am sorry, I did not know that that question was directed towards me. I will answer your question, however I cannot entertain that question right now. I will be back to answer this question tomorrow. 
Thank You.
Uniqor(n),
While I’m impressed by the quality of your prose I’m concerned at some of your reasoning. Nonetheless consider this a sort of pyrrhonian pushing of the reset button as far as your comments are concerned (from, as ever, my perspective). I’ll look over what you’ve said once again and I offer you this promise at least: I’ll try to be inspired by it.
In the era of globalisation, people everywhere are losing their sense of nationhood. Nationalism, the spirit we hold so dear in the past is going down the drain with along with gallantry, brotherhood, and our community.
Individualism, this ideaology has ruined our sense of togetherness. We are individuals, we are to be selfish to everyone. In this sense, we have become like sands on a beach, powerless to the trampling feet of corporations.
What unite the people of today? nothing. what united people of yesterday? nationalism.
Nationalism is proud of your country, examplified by your flag, your people, your language, your culture. Race is a biological difference that seperates people, just like borders, cultures. The difference being race is not a conceptual invention but a biological reality.
If there is no race, then there is no nation, then there is no culture, then there is no parents, there is nothing. A person who is not racially conscious is very stupid.
The race debate is very simple, if one says race does not exist, then how come we look different?
Children of interracial marriages are bastards.
Think of it this way, if you are of race X.
Your grand father and your grand mother are of race X
Your father and your mother are of race X
You are of race X
would you like your child to be race Y?
what has been continued in the offspring of interracial marriage? Nothing! Absolutely nothing. It is wrong for the parents! The father and mother have died and their child is not theirs, in that the child does not resemble the racial characteristics of the father nor the mother. the child is a mutation.
I wish people would stop lying and admit the existence of the race.
If there are two people whom are equal apart from race, which one would you choose. the one who is the same as your race, or from another race?
Racial deformity occurs in interracial offsprings. The deformity is facial deformity whereby the offspring does not resemble neither the parents, as face is our identity, the off spring of the parents look like neither the parents for he is alien racially speaking.
To love is neccesarily to discriminate. If I love my country then I would not love your country, if I love my people then I would not love your people. Discrimination is all to natural.
Added brackets, that’s a good sign.
PoR, our resident William Chamberlain ladies and gentlemen.
“The race debate is very simple, if one says race does not exist, then how come we look different?”
You don’t have to know much, or anything, about evolution to see that humans and animals have been affected by weather and environmental conditions. The desert fox is tan like the sand in the extreme North it’s white like the snow. No one claims that they are a different race of fox. The same goes for humans. The people that live in different climates appear to have been changed by the climates.
It’s all easy to see if you look and think.
That being said, I suppose that it is possible that certain conditions tax the body to the point where breeds of people could have less or more of qualities that are generally positive.
PoR, Preserve Our Race!
PoR, Preserve Our Race!
PoR, Preserve Our Race!