Isn’t it a fact that people don’t agree anymore about anything because there is no imperative from above, like god and now everyone has his own opinion but he doesn’t care enough about the opinions of the others to join him in a strong relationship? And who could replace the god and his imperative, although if we don’t manage to do it, we are all dead through disagreement? We remember how the weak minded slaves of Moses could be forced to agree through an almighty god, and if we don’t invent a new god, although lesser almighty than that of the slaves, are we then not all dead and aren’t many people died alone through that?
Is the dying alone not “the most fearful guest knocking at our door” - nihilism - as Nietzsche puts it?
Do we want an imperative to force us toward a huge mutual understanding and agreement, like a war which has so far created many religion and religious imperatives? Or do we want to die gradually and slowly out?
Women either believe in god, or they don’t believe in men.
Many people are simple-minded, yes. They only behave and respect others when there’s hierarchic authority around.
Well to be fair, the real problem seems to be that these simple-minded folk are TRYING to circumvent hierarchic authority with egalitarian community.
The problem there is how egalitarian community is inherently coercive. It enslaves thoughtfulness to emotion, supply to demand. You have the hipster movement of “conform through anti-conformity” where everyone’s expected to stand up for the spirit of individuality, but nobody’s really entitled to be an individual. Those who are different from the norm are expected to suffer in order to accommodate normal people.
Furthermore, the definition of “normal” has been twisted inside out. It’s either you believe in feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism, or you’re weird.
Yea, but people don’t care about death. They thrive on cultural deconstruction and seeing weak people squirm in desperation.
That creates a self-fulfilling prophecy of the professionalization of reform, and it validates the necessity of social programs and public goods where people can simply institutionalize and objectify others rather than respecting their individuality.
Yes, but religious critics have the company of each other. They’re banking on the religious fear of dying alone. That way, the religious join the non-religious’ ranks.
Well again, that’s the role of social programs and public goods. They’re becoming the new imperative through which feminism, multiculturalism, and environmentalism are understood and agreed upon.
Two points:
One, yes, that’s what feminism is about. It even thrives on men feeling lonely as an excuse to adhere to power.
Two, I don’t see many happy women these days. They fake it a lot in terms of working in retail, human resources, secretarial work, health care, social work, and education…
…but it’s not real. It’s secure, but it’s not happiness. It’s just that women working in those careers don’t care. They take the excuse of liberation through empowerment, and expect men to default to their authority. If men refuse to default, women working in those careers simply forget they ever existed.
It’s rather ironic because patriarchy itself used to be justified behind the idea that (alpha) males are powerful so females depend on them.
Instead, females have been empowered through (beta) male technological inventions, yet they despise (beta) male categorical judgment. Feminists often argue that masculinity looks at ideas too categorically in terms of black and white rather than engaging in dialectic thought.
In turn, they use these (beta) male technological inventions to engage in exhibitionist consumerism and attract (alpha) males. At the same time, they expect rights to abortion, contraception distribution among minors, and alternative family structures while taxing and spending as a form of political cuckolding.
The cause isn’t the lack of an “imperative” for cooperation (ie “God”), but rather intentional confusion designed to bring death
You are correct in that until the Noise, the confusion, is dispelled, dying alone is the destination.
A “god” need not be invented, merely discovered and revealed sufficiently to dispel the confusion and noise (Signal to noise ratio).
The situation is that no one is listening due to that noise level. No one knows to whom to listen.
Those who would force, are also those who create the noise.
It is true that individual homosapians cannot survive as individuals amongst artificial societies of homosapians.
“Go along to get along” (artificial religion) is only a temporary treatment for entropy.
8.) The very vast majority of homosapians must remain “simple-minded” merely due to the time they have to dedicate themselves to living.
A divine god or a human dictator could command unifying imperatives, but why would we need them? A common enemy that is strong enough to significantly threaten the lifestyle and even survival of a people in a very real and unavoidable everyday way has always been a great reason for people to want to co-operate. But without any common immediate threats, there are no common agreements on how to deal with it that HAVE to emerge else everyone is wiped out, so no common morality emerges, resulting in no common God or gods to personify such values and morals.
Problems are now lesser and more trivial, and most importantly not uniformly shared. That’s why nobody agrees anymore.
This isn’t to say either way is the default. Either people want to co-operate when they have to, in order to not have to anymore, or they don’t co-operate because they don’t have to, but then they want to. I think it’ll be interesting to see what happens to a people who don’t have to co-operate for a particularly long time. Perhaps they will die out from decadence and general trivial boredom. Though perhaps something else.
@Daktoria, I find your post only descriptive and not active. There are maybe few prejudices like that patriarchy is justified only in relation to women, as if women could ever have such a great influence that men need to unify against them! You practically accept or maybe even promote the idea that women can be organized in a equally powerful organization, the matriarchy. But I don’t believe in this story. I think men have always naturally been more powerful so that women can have their matriarchy only at the costs of decadence, i.e. when men fall totally to hedonism, which is the feminine specialty.
Only if men are totally missing in an isolated surrounding, then the masculine offspring can be brought up, not only to respect women, but also to think they are a sort of women and their body is a sort of trap. But that is possible only through upbringing. Democracy was risen on the revolutions which have a direct cause in the incrimination of polygamy. And who has brought us up to abolish and incriminate polygamy? It was the Christian religion.
“Christianity is a religion for women” - Nietzsche
Democracy is consequently the daughter of Christianity. (Nietzsche, Jacob Burckhardt)
That women represent the current imperative of live as I want or die or those who survive will speak is just inertia.
But we who see no future even in submitting to that blackmail are looking for alternative solutions.
There must be possible something higher than the human. We believe in development, not in status quo. We see no traces of women in the development from ape to human, so, either we will die from nihilism, like the Greeks, Romans and Indians, or we must have a change!
@JSS, not everybody is a conformist. Your reply looks also passive and not active, like that before.
The active individual is the one who carries an imperative in himself. Wars were usually there only to unify many individual imperatives.It was easier through war.
But if there is no call to arms of the establishment, then one must call for arms as an individual. What is it different to call for arms as a king in the face of a physical danger and an obvious death than as a philosopher in the face of a silent, decadent, nihilistic death?
Isn’t it necessary only to be anti-nihilistic, antichristian, antidemocratic i.e. moralistic to carry this war out? And who thinks morals make simple-minded, he knows nothing about the highest culture ever. How could the universe of the Greek gods be simple?
I agree with what you said about decadence and hedonism, but to be fair, femininity succumbed to hedonism first from masculine temptation. Edward Bernays lead the charge of consumerism during first wave feminism over smoking: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torches_of_Freedom
Also, men aren’t great at organizing. They’re analytic thinkers who prioritize agency before communion. Women are synthetic thinkers who prioritize communion before agency. You even see this in nature where males compete among themselves whereas females cooperate.
I’m confused with what you’re saying about Christianity as well because the family unit is a mainstay of monogamy where men are expected to raise their children instead of simply spreading their seed and leaving women behind to take care of their young. Modern society’s problem is how fathers don’t parent their kids. Instead, divorce is rampant, and there are countless dysfunctional households. Likewise, extended families are disconnected.
If anything, democracy has encouraged the deconstruction of the family unit. It takes a “wider society” approach to social fabric where individual responsibility is shunned. Instead, people are expected to go with the flow of the majority.
And why do you underestimate the possibility to co-operate in order to dominate? Why do you underestimate the honest will to power?
An individual who carries the imperative in himself, will he not seek a place under the sun where this imperative can survive and where agreements are already a necessity?
A handful of such individuals can change the world, at least in a long run. But your reply seems to be passive.
The way of explaining all this would be too long. Christianity has annihilated so many things in itself that it is hard to see how many sorts of people are just sub-classes of Christianity.
I can only list them up: scholars, democrats, Buddhists, socialists, tyrants/communists/dictators, environmentalists (and the English philosophy), … and all kind of variations to this main groups. Most women are Christian because they don’t submit to their will but to a specific passion (e.g. love).
It is too complex. Each of them wants a liberation. For example, the communists want the create as much independent people as possible. Now this looks too unrealistic to you, but decadents are liars (they deify lies, just as aristocracy maybe deifies truth) and they use every possible help, including the non-liberal state, to create “liberty” i.e. independence.
But if we look very very deep into the history, we can understand the whole complexity of Christianity. Maybe not a work for women.
That remains to be seen. At the moment we’re still splurging on comforts and luxuries in order to entirely evacuate any necessity from our lives. Boredom and triviality are the results, achievement and creativity have become optional past-times. Freedom of material choice is what we buy with money that we have “earned” from obediently contributing to the economy. Honest will to power is confined to the controlled work environment by law, which you have to be really rich to reliably bypass and even then not fully.
One has to be brave and respect dishonesty in order to think of this situation as an acceptable starting point, from which to freely hypothesise about possible long-term consequences without the automatic rage and resentment that comes with older, more honorable value sets. But even if I could do this, which I think I can, I still can’t see past it - I think it’s just too early to tell and I’m not going to assume just yet.
There is no necessity to co-operate in order to freely dominate, nor to the ends of honest expression of will to power.
Co-operation in order to dominate requires a hierarchy, which requires only one head honcho and many “beta” (or lower) roles. Nobody wants to be a beta, least of all here, which is why nobody is following anyone else - we’re all coming up with our own slants that are incompatible with others’. One either has to be born into a beta (or lower) role or forced into it, on one hand by the alpha and on the other hand by circumstance. There is none of this force because there is no necessity, which is the condition needed in order for co-operative dominance to emerge.
There is will to power either way, with or without necessity. Honest will to power isn’t really legal. Hierarchies only really exist at work, fuelled by the necessity to earn and thus maintain one’s material conditions to live. In order to do this in this society, everyone is serving everyone else - even the police, military, business owners and government. Thus there is a slave in all of us. But then even aristocrats had to serve their people - except in the cases of rising powers, where “serving” was merely an accident from exerting one’s own will to power to win battles for oneself and one’s friends. This is the only case I can think of where will to power is truly honestly expressed.
So if honest will to power is what you’re after, you’re going to have to be prepared to break the law, use force, and resort to anything else that your most vicious and long repressed instincts drive you to do. I’m not even sure our physiologies are designed for this anymore, even if it were easy to just “override” generations of social conditioning to be obedient. Large crowded populations similarly inhibit the possibility to achieve such things - drowning out individual rebel groups is easier and easier every day, unless you really do believe that a handful of individuals can change the world even today. If so, who is in your group? What is your plan?
At the moment I’m in neutral. If I see an opening, I’ll let you know.
I hope you understand that a honest will to power, although it “doesn’t want” to be a beta-male does must accept his beta-position if he loses, for example, his freedom in a game with dices, like the old Germans have done with each others.
You underestimate the old order, the moral order, the possible future of the masters of the Earth which dominate solely through revaluation. I’m not inviting you to retreat from now, that is just an option, but passivity is suicide…
Will to power will accept being a beta male or any “rank” because everything is will to power. I took the qualifier “honest” as “fully expressed”, which can only occur when in a position of highest dominance and therefore freedom. Any expression of will to power lower than this contains a varying degree of resentment ranging from small amounts at the higher ranks to large amounts at the bottom. Too much resentment gives birth to the slave morality that makes a virtue out of accepting and coping with your undesirable situation, and villifying that which keeps one down. This happens when a group becomes too extensively stratified, intensifying the extremes and naturally polarising the hierarchy into two distinct moralities, with middle ranked individuals branching off in either direction or else becoming alienated.
With a sample size as large as societies today, even these polarised moralities become too large, many times over even, resulting in a chaotic splintering into all kinds of similar sized groups, each defining one another against the others.
I suspect Nietzsche identified only 2 distinct moralities throughout history because he was a philologist, and more fascinated with the ancients and unaccepting of the present as decadent in contrast. If he could have conceived of the crowding and sheer numbers of people that would come to inhabit the world 150 years later, perhaps he might not have made such a rule out of only 2 distinct moralities. That’s not to say there’s nothing left of this model, but it certainly isn’t as clear cut as it once was.
It makes me contemplate the possibility that humans might have to evolve away from the point when “honest” will to power was visible and demonstrated. The old societies just don’t really have any place in the world anymore… Aristocracy just can’t work anymore. But this is a different, though related point to our decadent world replacing necessity with trivial choice, which negates the necessity to form tightly knit cliques where a distinct hierarchy must emerge. This is not least to the ability to leave one’s social group in search of a preferred one, which is practically mandatory or at least expected today.
I think you and FC need to redefine ressentiment as the cowardly hate. For now you see every hate as ressentiment which is fully wrong.
Only two moralities? Only two types of moralities… The one with ressentiment, the other without (for example Buddhism). There is only one morality with ressentiment, therefore I suggest you to redefine your settings.
What you can only contemplate different from the master morality is the Buddhism or the slave morality. Women usually contemplate the Ideal Cow (Buddhism).
But Buddhism is negative, life-denying and has no place in the life.
So, you are contemplating the Last Man (“one sort of a Chinese” - Nietzsche)
At least we know now that you are of no use for Nietzsche’s Übermenschism! Is that correct? - (we must reconcile with our victim)
