dunamis! cyberman! consider making that your title (which is quite fasionable in ilp these days)? anyway, i’m glad we meet again on nietzsche, another chance to show you my understanding on him
well, can’t really blame you for saying that - not only nietzsche, 70% of all my stuff could be considered (usually are actually) by others as bizare. but i don’t fail my exames you know… quite the contrary in fact
that effectively tells me that you misunderstood my past positions (thisis not a gay talk okey everybody)
let me get extremely now bizare now: nietzsche respected nobody. heraclitus is as mystical as hell, especially under nietzsche’s ego pen - he’s portrated as somekind of a zarathustra junior. dionysus, nietzsche regarded as philosophers’ common ancester. as far as science is concerned, nietzsche was frankly - rather weak - he mushed maths and science in pforta. i doubted that he was aware of the proper scientific method. then again, this doesn’t contradict my previous claims about his as scientific. nietzsche’ science mostly points towards darwin. darwin is as influencial to him as schopenhaur. nietzsche also took notice that both kant and goethe are to some extent - scientific. that’s the idea of being scientific to nietzsche in those days really… no matter how weak it might sound, it made a vital/huge/ultra, significant difference in his mature philosophy. the will to power is to be properly taken under this background, in relation to this difference, so as to distinguish it from other meta-physical ideas. my appraoch is not the common approch from the materialsist and the idealists, that kind of approch made kant. nietzsche is not kant. nietzsche is the result of schopen, lange, darwin and wagner - who are all quite detached from the traditional ones. so i regard my this approch as efficient - no shit - i read him no problemo
“70% of all my stuff could be considered (usually are actually) by others as bizare. but i don’t fail my exames you know… quite the contrary in fact”
I hope you have discovered by now that in order to not fail exams you just have to sound like you know what you are talking about, not actually know what you are talking about. Under such criteria, I wouldn’t fail you either. All it takes is a little interlocution to discover though that the former, not the latter is the case
You seem quite obsessed with this “Legend” designation of mine (twice mentioned). Unlike you who actually took time to designate yourself beyond your screenname, this “legend” stuff just happens after a certain number of posts. I had nothing to do with it. Sorry to disappoint
I’m glad though that you embrace/confess the absolutely chaotic nature of your interpretation of Nietzsche. Now that is Dionysian! - (euphemism for incoherent)
now thats a sign that you do possess the potential to grasp me and my miester. i wished i’d quote you a million aphros from him saying how he is floating in the knowledge sea; what a wanderer he is; why the free thinking is free because its loose without constrain, swaying around, expanding over to every coner of knoledgw’s realm like a formless gas… totally lost yet totally free, free for the better; swaying and floating out scatter, for hitting on the land of truth on some final day
twice? i mentioned nietzsche two trillion times and i wouldn’t use the word obsessed to describe it. ilp legend is a title for up to a number of posts, same as philosopher and thinker. other tailor made ones are through pms to ben… so, don’t compare a free spirit’s non-existent ego with that of a legend’s. btw, you do appear to have a female’s delication on thoughts!
this subconscious position that you put you self in as a philosophical janitor here, is detrimental to your inability so far to understand my understanding on nietzsche
i don’t suppose that you could understand some aphros when you try to frame them into self-assumed, unchaotic contexts. this is why some people read nietzsche came out confused and reckon his a blatter and a rant. i have this advise for them as i speak from experience: the first nietzsche to read must be his concepts on freethinking. but this is nietzsche’s aganising difficulty throught his life: he emphasised on this freethinking thing over and over again, exagerated and romanticed almost into poetry - he did that out of the desperation that he knew people don’t understand him because they don’t understand his freeness. this is fate any revolutionary must confront - it takes time for all the rest to catch up their pace - it takes free or at leat half-constrained minds to do nietzsche.
i did the begining part - the freethinkingness - i’m doing the rest well on my way. by the time i throw out uniqor contra nietzschefuckers, dunamis, it’s then to really rock with all you’ve got. wait and see
Feel free to tell me & everyone your view of the most important or real virtue(s).
I disagree with the concept of a hierarchy of virtues. You must have all of them because just having one virtue, even an abundance of one is insufficient.
is detrimental to your inability so far to understand my understanding on Nietzsche
Forgive me, I would rather understand Nietzsche, than understand your “understanding†of Nietzsche, call me short sighted. Your thoughts are just incoherent and contradictory to what he says for himself. I’ll take Imp’s understanding any day of the week - original yet rigorous.
this is why some people read nietzsche came out confused and reckon his a blatter and a rant.
Really Nietzsche isn’t incoherent, in fact he is quite clear. Your interpretation is the problem. It conflicts with both Nietzsche and yourself.
i have this advise for them as i speak from experience:
If following your advice produces such an absolute incoherent interpretation, I’ll pass on whatever process lead to your self-confessed bizarre and obviously anti-Nietzschean (be-nice-to-people) understanding. Do you have a reading process for Plato that allows you to conclude that he didn’t teach a theory of Forms?
the reason you lable me contradiction and incoherence is because you took my explainational language at facevalue. thisis particularly frustrating because the very thing that im trying to bring into your head is rather out of favor with language - many things in my head is very beyond and never been expressed by any philosopher hiterto - i thnak nietzsche for that. but the problem is: although nietzsche managed to do quite well with his german - still to many his philosophy is misjudged - i see that all too clear but i can’t explain at the moment the full case, because as i said: i can’t do better than nietzsche, certainly not with my english. this is a fact that you must suck: we all see something that others don’t
i think the closest time that i endeavored to express some of my deepest and most fundamental philosophical ideas was a couple of months ago here in ilp. i wrote something containing my concept of infinity, continuality and mutuality, which i thought would describe every thing so far ever happened to men, things both phisical and mental. i admite it was a rant as expected, but that’s something that i have yet to be persuaded as utter crap. actually, the more i read, the more i become confident in that. nietzsche is the closest philosopher i’ve read to that
i used to planing on in the future, type out some books as everybody else, but now i don’t see the point: issues are endless - nobody is in a position to end them with a couple of books. but, taking yourself out of the direct arguement, critically come up with something that embodies both the longs of the arguements, and the shorts, only then, you stand a chance to stand out - that’s kant’s inspiration to me: “know and follow their rules so that you can achiev your eventual purpose”. that’s what im doing: reading around while developing critically that of mine, so in reading others as the base the own is gradually grew, and when it’s ripe enough, take it out to compare and show off the holy difference!
I had to jump in when I saw, coincidentally, Imp was having the same consternation that I was having, especially considering his thought out position on Nietzsche. Might I suggest that your ideas of Nietzsche would gain a more favorable and dialogue-promoting response (at least from me, as if that matters) if you didn’t present them as the indisputable and uncovered truth that defies the long history of his mis-interpretation, but rather as a philosophical foray into Nietzsche, and invitation to explore him in a new way. The spirit of invention you describe in your last post is brilliant and wonderful, the kind of thing that I love to hear. I offer you support in all that you do. Have you ever looked into Deleuze, who captures some of the Nietzschean Spirit in the manner you seem to have embraced him?
Ok so in which way is Heidegger looking at Plato? His analysis of the cave allegory occupies a large portion of his book The Essence of Truth; the rest concerns the Theaetetus.
Plato
Perception is the shadow of truth.
The emphasis in the meaning of ‘truth’ shifts in Plato from aletheia (unhiddenness) to ‘correctness’ (orthotes), as in the correctness of a proposition.
The true nature of reality resides in the forms, to which perception corresponds.
For Heidegger Plato is something of a transition from unhiddenness to correctness. He thinks that this change occurs in the cave allegory itself. He thinks that this involved a severing of the connection of truth to the world - it becomes something which exists only in relation to the intellect. Truth is reduced to apprehension. So you get this kind of thing in the secondary literature;
It is the practical weight of the process of leaving the cave that facilitates the emergence or ‘re-framing’ of beings in a new unhiddenness. Aletheia is a constant overcoming of hiddenness. Crudely then, there is an emphasis on praxis; see especially the word agathon; which is commonly translated as ‘the good’. Heidegger renders it as ‘the useful’ in order to divest it of the moral quality it was later invested with.
So then;
I suppose that Heidegger’s reading is more an attempt to get into the head of Plato than are the more preponderent ‘analytic’ readings. It is not so much of what we can interpret into Plato, using our modern concepts, but rather what we cannot. The realm of the psychological, as we understand it for instance, is out of bounds. A lot of the straining over the status of the ideas, the forms, has I fear therefore been in vain.
And yet the question still looks like this for Heidegger;
But there is a certain etymological nuance in his reading of ‘idea’.
(It is, I would venture, to bring the truth back into the phenomenon.)
I can’t really do justice to Heidegger’s ideas in so brief a post. Perhaps if you are interested you might acquire a copy of the book for yourself?
liquidangel hi. i think a tool serves a purpose, the common purpose that is happiness. followers of faith are devotees of happiness - just like everybody else. while others busting their asses trying to get money and boobs, faith possessers sit in some church and fall semi asleep - but they seem to be equally fulfilled and satisfied without those bloody cock fighting and ass kicking… that’s the strenght of faith - peaceful and quite generation of happiness - a lack of actual action hence requires much personal devotion and intensified concentration into the worshiped subject. so faith is strengthened by itself in this clever way, one only gets more and more faithful because the ever so strong lure of happiness. faith is not for the energetic or the scatter brains - their faith will be short lived because their nature won’t allow them to progress their faith to fill up their increasing demand for fulfillment - the so called divine inspiration in Christianity. so faith is a tool among the most subtle, a tool that’s not so straight away to handel at the start, but addictive once got the gist of it.
i think this the the longest reply i ever wrote to you, cause i don’t wana hear you say again that: uniqor, i don’t get you
a substitution is used not out of foolishness - a fool canot substitude, as he can’t even work out some most basic algebra. the only fool is one who doesn’t know what should he do to make himself happy and fulfilled. i see a prying christian with tears on his cheeks, i konw that he’s no fool, but i also know that surely he’s ignorant. but haven’t you heard, that ignorant is a bliss.
