double post
I think this is tragically silly. Not because I want you to respect Nietzsche but because you seem to have no idea what it means to be an individual.
Are you really serious with this type of analysis? I can’t really convince myself that you are. Anyway, have a nice week.
So there’s the suggestion that we divide compassion into two different attitudes: empathy and sympathy.
Empathy (feeling-in) is being able to appreciate the situation and suffering of the object, whereas sympathy (feeling-with) is actually identifying with the suffering and partaking in it. Sympathy thus naturally includes a risk to the self-valuing, as it enables a form of self-transgression. Empathy is rather a form of valuing the suffering person in such a way that one would value seeing that suffering alleviated. If this is accepted, I would offer this definition: empathy is appreciation of the goal of another’s well being, sympathy is embrace of another’s present state of suffering.
If that is acceptable, then we can identify the ‘pathos’ in both terms as pertaining to different states.
Empathy is of the elemental pathos of will to power, joy -
Sympathy is of the second state birthed by the will to power, being overpowered, suffering.
One fatal mistake: to discuss with anarchists, communists, democrats… disintegration is speaking out of them. Out of each individual speaks his biology. One does not speak with dead bodies. As we know, Nietzsche has felt a tremendous distance between himself and all others and I bet he wouldn’t name more than few people from the entire history who he would talk to. I see no living people who are able to think Nietzsche. And i feel the distance. Not only in relation to his writings, but also in real life. Sometimes I think who is talking there, a man or a worm?
Please, get to a point or shut up.
Interesting comparison but I have no idea how they combine. What’s the connection and how did Jerome Cardan’s so-called autobiography end up in Ecce Homo? This would be interesting to know!
Thats how western people live, like slaves. Shut up or you are fired!
He was a man of the late Middle Ages, and the precursor of the Renaissance man, his involvement paralleled the magic of Nietzche’s poetry. Alchemy did not elude the mysticism of annihilation.
Many of the so called “Nietzscheans” misuse Nietzsche for thoughts which have nothing to do with Nietzsche. One example for this “high” copycats is that racist Cezar - as you surely know, Contra-Nietzsche.
Many of the so called “Nietzscheans” try to copy that, and since they are not able to copy Nietzsche entirely, they copy merely the psychosis.
Tyler Durden, I asked you whether you can give evidence. Would you mind answering my question?
Thanks for almost nothing. If I didn’t know who he was I wouldn’t have asked the question which still remains open since there “seems” to be no connection with Nietzsche that I can ascertain.
Truthfulness is the highest measure for health, nobility, strength, race, species, gender etc. It is superhumanly, perhaps the only superhumanly thing, it gives depth, and depth and evilness is what one needs to work on in order to reach evolution.
Evilness which means the will to rule.
Why else do societies exist if not for this purpose?
Tyler is an ignoble child; he refused to answer my comments to him so don’t be surprised if he just ignores you, too, arminius.
As I remember writing here already, plenty of these immature self-suffering minds only want to find a system of thoughts with which to sanction suicide… Nietzsche comes in handy in that respect, if you give him a superficial reading. Since that is the only kind of reading these clowns are capable of, hey that works out just fine.
Jerome Cardan was: Gerolamo Cardano (Girolamo or Geronimo; lat.: Hieronymus Cardanus). He was a doctor, a philosopher, a mathematician, and a technician. I don’t think that he wrote as a philosophical immunulogist. He wrote in the 16th century, Nietzsche wrote in the 19th century. Writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 16th century has a duifferent meaning than writing as a philosophical immunologist in the 19th century. I don’t know very much about Gardano, but I don’t think that he wrote as a philosophical immunologist.
I distinguish between compassion and something else, which we might call “shared-joylessness”. I first made this distinction in the OP of my “Dionysa” thread, http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2449679#p2449679
The peacock example was not a linear analogy. It’s not just sacrificing oneself that I count among the bad effects of compassion, but also the alleviation of the other’s suffering. In a private conversation, you invoked the proverb “give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime”. I think less is more here. To catch fish for a man every day is less than to teach him to catch them himself; to point out the possibility of catching fish and leaving it up to him to learn how is more than to teach him how. Yet this is other things being equal. A man may have much better things to do than catch his own fish. In any case, it’s not his suffering that should move us, but his joylessness–an example of the joy referred to being the “blessedness” of “press[ing] your hand upon millenniums as upon wax” (Thus Spake Zarathustra, “Old and New Tables”, 29, Common trans.)!
That appears compatible with my propositions here.
In other words, we should be moved in the primary terms of WtP - potential to joy, overcoming, and not in its secondary terms, suffering, failure to overcome, lack of potential.
Church!
May the church distinguish, between joy and suffering?