I seem to insult people when I tell them what I think of their(apparent) arrogance or their (apparent) disigenuine character. It’s only really insulting if they take offense that I damaged their facade or in other words am honest with them.
I do insult people, but it’s usually people who are arrogant, who hold I am right and you are just wrong opinions, at that point the debate has gone out of the window so you might as well just mess about anyway. Could I stop doing it, yeah probably.
Oh and the OP is a prick btw. And a wanker. 
i like this…the passions/emotion are us…but we need to use our reason to control behavior…emotion is not mature… behavior can be judged mature or immature…guys like to fight and that is what they are doing most of the time…the ones i dont like are the trolls and they are here…
I said that recently in the Paradox thread. Do I get a prize?
You get a cookie.
i love chocolate chip!
It’s all the same shit really, man. We can make distinctions regarding the methods in which we express those emotions, but we rarely pick and choose which emotions we experience. And, of course, the more “mature” responses wouldn’t hold much value if we didn’t have something to measure them against.
Well, if you don’t believe that the truth can be settled by researching our public experience (the Object), that all ideas about the Object are relative to the person and intensified by self-interest, that they are tied to the strenght of an individual (weak is he who owes his beliefs to others) and that every belief system or philosophy has a moral value…, then I can understand why the insults. In fact insults would not be a last resort but a first option.
But yes, if Nietzsche is your only source of philosophy, then your philosophy is amateurish at best. Nietzsche was meant for a certain reader. He has become the preferred author of the masses, which is ironic. And behind every aphorism, even behind everyone of his “insults” there was an actual argument. Now people like to issue the insults just to sound elevated, to feel good about themselves, which is the very definition of Nietzsche’s “Good”.
I don’t remember Nietzsche’s morality being governed by a pleasure principle.
Perhaps not but…
“What is good? All that elevates the feeling of power”
Sure there is no “Good”, with a capital “G”, for that is a myth but it is a perhaps a life-affirming myth, which Nietzsche would not find objectionable. For what is bad? “All that proceeds from weakness”; so again it is life that defines his good and his bad, how a belief, as false at it might be (which sometimes is beyond human knowledge), either promotes strenght or weakness in an organism. That “feeling of power” to me correlates to the later musings by Freud, who some say got many of his ideas from Nietzsche.
Where the feeling of power, the will to power is wanting there is decline. There is not a whole lot of opportunity afforded to the individual to pursue his own power and so morality is created. Where the power is exerted, you’ve the realm of the few and it is they that declare the good. In "itself, an act of injury, violation, explotation or annihilation cannot be wrong, for life operates, essentially and fundamentally, by injuring, violating, exploiting and annihilating and cannot even be conceived of outside of this character."
So what argument is left against “immorality”, against cruelty, or against insulting your opponent on a debate? God? If it makes them feel good, their feeling of power increasing, that is “good”.
Ah OK, I see where you’re coming from now. Thanks for the clarification, you had me curious for a minute.
While I don’t necessarily disagree with you, I think this is worth examining further [given the context of our discussion]–
P1. “Good” is all that elevates the feeling of power.
P2. “Bad” is all that proceeds from weakness.
P3. What proceeds from weakness is often a want of power.
P4. A want of power motivates one to elevate his feeling of power.
P5. Said motivation can produce results which do elevate a feeling of power.
P6. “Good” can proceed from weakness.
P7. Therefore “Bad” may produce “Good”.
Conclusion: “Good” is the overcoming of weakness.
As an example, consider two people in a fight over a perceived insult. Person A feels insulted by person B. Person B makes the insult because he feels threatened by A. The insult proceeds from the insecurity [weakness] of person B. Left unchecked, the insult both proceeds from weakness and elevates a feeling of power in person B. Is the insult “good” or “bad”?
Now, say, they fight and B is physically bested and becomes depressed, whereas person A elevates his feeling of power with his victory. Person A fought from the same type of insecurity that produced the insult from person B. The fight proceeds from weakness, yet elevates the feeling of power in person A. Is his ‘victory’ “good” or “bad”?
I would say that neither of these examples are “good” insofar as nothing was overcome or resolved. The feeling of power is experienced as a result of one circumventing a recognition of his own weakness by drawing attention to the weakness of the other. Making others appear/feel weaker, even in the face of similar weakness, may elevate a feeling of power. But can we call a feeling of relief and excitement that comes from besting others - in the interest of distracting from ourselves - a “feeling of power”? Does “power” lie in the ability to silence opposition/exploitation of our own weakness[es] and our complacency thereof?
An insult may not be necessarily, the product of insecurity. I offer the alternate theory that a self-satisfied person (a feeling of power, therefore “good”), may simply discard another person’s perspective solely on the balance of power, not perse weakness. Meaning that if you allow the belief of another to become your own, then you owe gratitude to him or her, you are indebted, you are no longer your own man, so to speak, but a man that will always come in second to him or her that granted you your belief.
You see it here at ILP repeadedly. It is not just the religious forum that is fraught with inflexibility but here in philosophy as well. There are very few, if any, recorded cases when a person gave another “la razon”, and said “You are right and I was obviously wrong”, regardless of the fact that perhaps, it is not hard to imagine, people of a given intelligence would have had recognized that they had been bested. (Which also brings up something that everyone from Plato to Nietzsche has known and that is that philosophical debate is a contact sport).
We are and always remain, in reality, finite, fallible and dependent. But we wipe away that reality through insults.
So is an insult good or bad? It is “good”.
You might say that it proceeds from weakness, but I believe it proceeds from strenght, because in weakness, we would not be able to utter anything at all. We would lie in silence, dumbfounded, cautious to the extreme, sceptical of our very right to voice an opinion. But what if IT (whatever that may be the subject of the debate) cannot be humanly known, cannot be resolved once and for all? Then, you, like Socrates, would be wiser than your self-confident opponent, bent as he might be, to prove what in fact lies beyond proof. There is no argument that can settle this, you know, and you don’t have the time to persuade the young buck over here and so he is lowered before you, he earns your despise by his lack of caution, his philosophy becomes a moral fault and and such, worthy of an insult.
A physical confrontation is just another good, provided you come on top. In fact he might even be happy, for fighting came from his elevated feeling of power, and his victory has simply increased that feeling. Whatever weakness was there before is not the source of action, is not the cause of his aggression but merely a constrast to it. Weakness would be to march away from the person that insulted you. To avoid this decrease in the feeling of power, person A strikes a right hand. Thus the beginning of government.
The feeling of power is not tied to some Objective Reality. Nietzsche is a perspectivist. Beauty, and also “good” are in the eye of the beholder (be it a man or a man and his culture in relation to other cultures and other men). Self doubt is strenght if followed by a renewal of himself. But it is himself who doubts as well as himself who creates his beliefs. That is power. Power lies in interpretation. It is how we narrate to ourselves an exchange that defines it as good or bad as we either victimze ourselves in the recount or become heroic in it. Everything else, even the objective and actual truth, is irrelevant to the creation or destruction of the feeling of power.
And you’re saying they may simply discard another perspective, but rightfully so? That is what ought to be done in the interest of preserving a feeling of superiority and power?
Adopting beliefs is shaky ground sometimes. There is a difference between taking a belief and applying it to your life and philosophy, and building your philosophy around someone else’s beliefs.
I’ve seen it a few times. Done it a few times myself, actually. Nobody really seems to care, either way. They come to argue, not reconcile. I think Faust is the only one I’ve conceded an argument to that actually took notice. I don’t know who was more surprised. If anything, I’d expect to overstepped once I admitted error. But I’ve been schooled by most of the OGs here at one time or another. A couple of them actually took the time to explain things to me as such that I understood my own inconsistencies. That I appreciate. Anyway, I think it seems more rare than it is. It’s just that the ones worth listening to often say less, but mean more.
See, my position is that it may be from either strength or weakness. My example was just to illustrate the possibility of the latter. That is, an insult, or fight, is not inherently “good” or “bad”. We’ve got to examine motives, context, and individual interpretations to determine something like that. In your example here, I think you bring up a situation in which an insult is not necessarily an insult [as Anon mentioned earlier]. To say “you are arrogant, presumptuous, and your methods questionable” to the kid, he’d likely be insulted. Much the same as if you just said “you’re an idiot”. But why assume insult when it could just as well be a word of caution, put frankly? He is worthy of frankness, sure. An actual insult would be just as meaningless and transparent as in any other scenario, though. Much of what constitutes an “insult” is how it is received.
If someone called me an idiot, I’d probably ask if they also told blind people they couldn’t see.
This seems presumptuous. Weakness manifests in different ways. By becoming physical, you can implicate another type of weakness. One person might lash out at another because he was presented an [insulting] argument for which he has no notable retort. Strength would be utter dismissal of the insult or refusal play the game, then carrying on unaffected. Weakness moves him to resort to a primal action to prove his superiority in another way.
I’m not speaking in a context of an oppressed people, but just two common acquaintances. Oppression and government is another discussion, and revolt has more to do with a quality of life than “feeling of power”.
That’s it! Well said. Nietzsche believed firmly in the idea of creating oneself. That initiative is what I see as furthering a “feeling of power” – which we might as well refer to as ‘freedom’.
This is perhaps where our psychological theories part ways. Power lies in action or capacity to act. Interpretation affords us some measure of that power – but to neglect truth in service of power is indulgent and foolish. Such an act proves little and means even less.
I just like to say fuck you all everyone on this thread, forum, planet.
Fuck you.
I thank you, and fuck you.
Obviously you are pretty uneducated. 
Define uneducated?
Oh and of course: fuck you.
calrid what is going on here?
A sense of humour bypass obviously.
If there has to be a reason, let it be er, because obviously random insults for no reason are unhelpful. There on topic and insulting. You’re welcome.
i still dont get it…i am a depressed dummy…