Purist: One who is unwilling to deviate from or think outside of whatever he/she is a purist about.
That’s what I meant.
Still disagree? Dont say please, it is disgraceful of the challenger.
No, self-valuing, as I have come to understand it, is different and distinct from valuing of another, um, thing.
In this specific case I have used the term “real” to mark a harmful being who is more of a criminal (criminals are decadents too) and has no perspective of growth or dependency like women or children. Real in the sense of “finished”.
The priest is maybe 50/50. “Strong but sick”. Decadents are weak. And in the case of the Jews priests have not ruined the society. If they were fully harmful they would not allow a king to raise up.
In GMIII priests are defending the healthy people from the hate of the sick…
It’s not about what it’s “about”, but about how it works. You don’t understand how it works, as is witnessed by your comments in that Nietzsche contra Darwin thread I linked to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread).
Not necessarily in the hands of the weak, but in the hands of those who have “no other means”; “who have no other weapons [or: arms] anymore”; who have “to enforce [their] right” (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, ‘The Problem of Socrates’, section 6). And yes, as Weary Locomotive said, we Nietzscheans are the Jews of today.
Maybe a slave may to"deviate" without a reason. You look like a Chinese who holds compassion higher than truth. So let’s make it short, if you have something to tell me in 4 eyes then leave this place. I am no more your teacher.
Then what is it? How is it succinctly defined?
Stop speculating and adapting to yourself everything I say! I see in your Darwin thread only jokes!
Give exact examples from the past, give individuals or types of people who represent evolution! Extract their actual “work” if you want to call it so. But don’t be so obscure like a beggar. Evolution does not happen only in one being! It is a principle that is able to produce too many new arts. And you must show it in all of them and also show why does it happen in a very short time! Darwin was in the triangle MAlthus-Darwin-Marx. They are all 3 animalists. But animals are spiritually dead and so they can say nothing about evolution.
Women are typical dialecticians.
To play on this thread, you over-value yourself.
I am glad that you don’t wish to pursue your challenge.
Your weakness is not lack of compromise, as you may think that I think, but rather lack of subtlety.
Now please stop posting on my thread (post-nietzschean value system), as we don’t seem to have a relationship any longer.
As I have come to understand it (and I will keep saying that untill FC clarifies if I am on the right track or not), self valuing is a little more abstract than valuing of something other. My self-valuing is my, um, existence, prior to valuing. What makes me something that can be valued. This part I feel less confident about than the valuing of other things part.
And rightly so.
Your reasonability alone makes you rank higher than “Cezar”.
What challenge? Where? How? What compromise? You see, you pussy like the excitement to talk to me, that is all.
I see nothing but a silent shitting in your panties from both of you.
On the other hand Nietzsche’s creators are creating an empire in the midst of anarchy!
And you are those poor shitty anarchists!
I guess you laugh at your self.
No, I laugh because the only right answer, as everyone who understands evolution knows, is: “All individuals, all types of people, by the very fact that they were born”!
Meh, Cezar has reverted to his non-useful self.
Here’s hoping you go back to Nietzsche, for he makes you interesting!
I dub this thread dead until such time as FC decides to clarify his theory some.
That was desperately, unlimitedly, untimely stupid, congratulations!
And there is no road, no danger of the return to the monkey I suppose.
An answer with such a security!
Indeed, there’s no such thing as “devolution”.
But wasn’t N saying that a cult of Dionysus in the Orient was leading that population to the stage of the tiger?
And alcoholism brings the man back to previous stages of the culture… is there an end to alcohol? What could stop it today? Isn’t Christianity promoting the most liberal life? Will not even Buddhism be felt as “terrorism” by Christianity? Who comes after Iran? China?
And why is black hair a sign of decadence?
And dark skin a sign that “animalism is trying to break through again”?
“and the fact that men give themselves up to blind anger is an indication that their animal nature is still near the surface, and is longing for an opportunity to make its presence felt once more.”
Can you say for sure that the black man is a descendant from the ape or from the brown man?
Why did white Aryans become black? Isn’t that a devolution?