Just as followers of Jesus quote endlessly from the gospels to show what he meant.
As I have already said, you, unlike many of the looser followers of Nietzsche, actually seem to understand what he meant, but also seem not to understand how little he understood, (and as I am discovering), how to apply what he meant to oneself.
What rhetoric! Comparing someone who has himself written many books to someone who, if he did actually exist, did not drop a single line himself, as far as we know (unless you believe Jesus was Caesar, in which case he wrote several books). Then again, maybe Nietzsche did not really write anything: maybe he did not even exist… Maybe you do not even exist! Maybe I am all that exists - but wait, hadn’t I overcome this nihilism? Politics or nothing! Nazism or nihilism! Art or death!
No matter the source, your attachment seems the same.
I’ve got to give Sauwelios a hand here. He’s the only one having a point. As I remember, Dunamis, you don’t even endorse philosophy, with your neopragmatic master. Can’t you get it into your head that Nietzsche is a philosopher for creators like I’ve explained to you here? You don’t seem to take any notice of my patient lessons. I’ve defeated all your arguments perhaps in a harsh tone, not in Sauwelios literaty style, but your supposed understanding of Nietzsche has been proven useless. For the simple one reason that you have no way of dealing with imagination. Nietzsche’s most empowering message is that truth must be created, not believed.
The proud warrior camel Sauwelios does not create truth either right now, but at least he understands the situation. If you would now please try to get somewhere with your dispute. There is much to deal with here.
S, what of the consequences? I feel as much at home in the elements and as little in the people as you, but I like to be lightning, thunder. I know you do as well - at least that you used to be pretty effective at it.
We talked of the crucifiction thing allready once, but if I understand you correctly, you would prefer to be stabbed by some senators. I also think that’s a better idea, because you’ll have to do things for that to happen.
I’ll leave you to your dispute, but please, elevate your taste in truths.
On second thought, that excellent post of mine concerning the Superman was in ChimneySweep’s Nietzsche: Image over Substance thread.
Sauwelios, you do understand that the only thing you can prove is that you think that Nietzsche meant this or that, don’t you?
I keep thinking that you’re serious about him actually having meant what you say to himself.
You can ignore this but remember; he who steals an egg also steals a camel.
“[N]o longer the humble expression, “everything is merely subjective,” but “it is also our work! - Let us be proud of it!””
[WP 1059.]
I’m reassured.
Where do you get the idea that I don’t endorse philosophy? If you are referring to Rorty, my summation of his ideas was just that, a summation of his ideas. I believe that Faust picked up on that.
Creators…or followers. Personally I see no need for a “creator” to have permission (or authority given) from any to create. Creators create.
From what I’ve seen, Sauwelios has “defeated” every milk-toast interpretation of Nietzsche that you have presented. His understanding of Nietzsche is acute.
What he understands is that you don’t understand. What he doesn’t understand is that he is not creating, but only following.
shit
I create order - light in the darkness.
Far too much has been made of what Jesus’ last words were. He was a simple carpenter’s son who saw a very simple truth: Military might is never right and the only defense is no counter offence.
When too many people saw that same passivist truth and started listening to what else he had to say, he became a threat to the Jewish leadership and they wanted him dead.
The only last words that might truthfully be ascribed to him was:
Father forgive them for they know not what they do.
Nietzsche taught, indeed, quite the opposite of this:
“Against the deviation of the state tendency into a money-tendency, to be feared from this side, the only remedy is war and once again war, in the emotions of which this at least becomes obvious, that the state is not founded upon the fear of the war-demon, as a protective institution for egoistic individuals, but that, in love to fatherland and prince, it produces an ethical impulse, indicative of a much higher destiny. If I therefore designate as a dangerous and characteristic sign of the present political situation the application of revolutionary thought in the service of a selfish stateless money-aristocracy, if at the same time I conceive of the enormous dissemination of liberal optimism as the result of modern financial affairs fallen into strange hands, and if I imagine all evils of social conditions together with the necessary decay of the arts to have either germinated from that root or grown together with it, one will have to pardon my occasionally chanting a Paean on war. Horribly clangs its silvery bow; and although it comes along like the night, war is nevertheless Apollo, the true divinity for consecrating and purifying the state. […] Be it then pronounced that war is just as much a necessity for the state as the slave is for society, and who can avoid this verdict if he honestly asks himself about the causes of the never-equaled Greek art-perfection?”
[Nietzsche, The Greek State.]
Dunamis; Sauwlios’s arguments have all ended up at the starting points of my attacks. Your arguments were not even arguments.
To illustrate both your understandings of Nietzsche and their supposed harmony on which you two pride each other:
Of course Nietzsche was hysterical when relating to acual women. That is what Sauwelios illustrated with his Cornholio example. I assume you know him, if not:
youtube.com/watch?v=0cXoRPTF … ed&search=
Unlike you , Dunamis, I understood from the beginning the error in Sauwelios’ reasoning - which he eventually saw - that N’s evaluation of woman is simply his evaluation of them as feminine, as opposed to masculine. This is not the importance of his philosophy, obviously. After this was recognized the theory of willing and creating as redemption came into the picture. If your memory is worth anything; this was the topic of the quote I posted in that thread.
But now, you have gotten Sauwelios back into the position from which he can simply defend his camelship under the banner of Nietzsche while you accuse Sauwelios and Nietzsche of being idiots together.
In other words, you’re compimenting the camel.
You don’t have the creative genius or the understanding of Nietzsche to challenge camel to become a lion.
Forgive me if I don’t participate in your derivative zoological fantasy. I am not a Nietzschean. I have no desire to become a “lion”, (to get that self-bestowed merit badge), but only chuckle at people claiming to be “lions”, (or finding themselves to be “geniuses”), yet display no such characteristics at all. If you believe you are a genius, keep telling yourself that. No doubt the thought is nurturing. If you believe that I lack your creative genius, that too will comfort. I’ll let you Nietzscheans fight it out amougst yourselves, like inter-denominational squablers, the Church of Saint Nietzsche vs. The Chapel of Mother Nietzsche. Who has inherited the divine Truth? (Personally I believe Sauwelios has a much firmer grasp of Nietzsche’s conceptions. He has not watered down the doctrine to an “acceptable” level). Meanwhile, my critique Nietzsche is as it has always been, at the level of power. He simply is not as powerful as he thought he was, nor claimed, because he misunderstood power. That his followers (of every stripe) suffer from the same delusion is really of no surprise.
Oh, you ‘chuckle’ don’t you? - that is exactly what the christian fundamentalist on our previos board used to bring out as a response when confronted with something he could not handle intellectually.
Your soul betrays itself; only when faced with someone who calls himself a master do you feel inclined to respond - whith ‘you are not a master!’ in whichever form you think hides your resentful face best for the occasion. In the meantime, you say nothing, and understand nothing.
I’ve yet to see you respond rationally to a single argument. All you do is shriek: NO!
Handle something “intellectually”? I have not noticed anything intellectual being presented by you. Please rephrase your “intellectual” thought which I cannot handle. As to Christian Fundamentalists, I don’t much talk to them pretty much for the same reason that I don’t talk to Nietzschean Fundamentalists.
Actually I just laugh at the unMasterly conduct. That followers of Nietzsche are prone to overstatement and over-self-estimation is not a surprise.
If you would like to actually present an “argument”, I’d like to see what you think an argument looks like.
D: Glad you ask. One of the things you both overlook is that since Nietzsche primarily advocated self overcoming in his philosophy, it cannot be of any consequence what your thoughts of the man himself are to your interpretation of his philosophy. It is a guarantee for shortcircuiting it.
I’ve presented this argument earlier, and it was overlooked by both of you.
Predicatably, because it removes the entire basis for your conflict, which took place on a more emotionally satisfying level.
As for the Lion, I was speaking of Sauwelios, not of myself. You have to stretch his intellect beyond the comfortable for the Lion to come out - for the young philosopher Sauwelios to actually say something himself.
fight between servants end up in name calling. Fights between masters end up in deepening of the subject matter. If you can rationally go into the argument presented above, that will happen.
You call that an intellectual argument?