The extreme excessive life style of the last three French kings had led to the fact that the French people had nothing to eat. The terror system of the French revolution gave the first example of modern terrorism and modern state terrorism. Some people interpreted the French revolution as hell, as an ungodly situation of evil, of the devil himself.
Remind me of what your point was again?
You are lowering the standard of communication in order to avoid feeling embarrassed for your petty and very rude behavior.
This is supported by your suggestion that there is no universal standatd of philosophical conduct. Instead, you think that everything is relative, like a true egalitarian that you are. There are only personal standards of conduct (e.g. Anderson’s standard of conduct.) And when you fail even according to your own standard, then you can simply lower it, so you can never feel embarrassed about anything. In this way, you can never be held responsible for anything. You are innocent no matter what you do.
Thus, it does not matter what you think, for in the absence of strict standards, you cannot think. You can only pretend that you think.
In the absence of clear standards, there is no distinction between uncertainty and certainty, fantasy and reality, ignorance and knowledge. Everything becomes the same.
You even admit that you think that there is no difference between merely imagining what the other is saying and making a genuine attempt to understand what the other is saying.
Your victim mentality does not allow you to see reality as it is. Whoever is angry with you must be so because he is a 15 year old drop out.
Keep making shit up. Why not, if you can get away with it? There is no club that can discipline you – and only a club can discipline you. Words have no effect on you. You are “strong” enough not to let words affect you.
Nietzsche never said that master morality means “doing as you please”. You did.
You really do think that the world should make itself apparent to you, without requiring any effort on your part, don’t you?
The reason this discussion is going nowhere is not because I am not communicating with sufficient clarity, but because you are being evasive. You have no interest in confronting what I am saying.
He who speaks with little clarity can be confronted with a demand for clarification. You can ask “what do you mean?”
That’s not what you are doing.
What you are doing is lowering your own standards while demanding that the other increases their own.
You thereby turn yourself into the subject of the topic. No discussion can be had with someone who is not willing to pay attention.
We all know you are a sad loser who suffers from deep feelings of inferiority. No wonder then that you grab every opportunity to feel good about yourself.
You changed the topic from “what is master morality” to “what is the definition of the word elite”.
You needed to feel superior in some regard, so you picked one of the lowest games, the game of vocabulary definitions.
I am wrong because I am using the word elite in the wrong manner.
And even there, you suck. You sad fuck.
Nietzsche signals Marx, that to really matter, philosophy has to change the world, not merely to interpret it. He is widely imitated, his aphorisms are interpreted every which way, but the lasting impression of meanings behind them are mere shadows, of the last bastions of an ever recurring theme via Platonic ideas-as visions.
Whoever descends to the modern vernacular of the profane, while harboring some connection with the past’s Sacred foretaste, deserves to be tarred and feathered.
I would rather go mad then to envisage giving up on the extreme subtleties of a perennial philosophy.
The conflict is irresolute, and the blind deniers simply parrot some up to date critique, while blaspheming the original intent of the will’s tremendous power. The power is in the stress of realizing that it is irresolute, hence the reduction of the phenomenological into that of the existential, eclipsing the logicality, but not the sense of it’s eclipse. It is a nihilistic despair, but it’s nihilization extends vertically, as well as horizontally, but n a maddening rush, of inclusion, of thr Other, and from it grows the forms of it’s exclusion, a transformative bridge connecting all ages, places and existences. The ideal is born out of the idea, of willfully connecting the despair of the particular to the harmonic wholeness of the universal.
To me, Nietzche’s gift is all encompassing the sadness of Schopenhauer with the joy of a mysteriously magical overcoming of time and space, of the beast with the beauty of higher level connection: compassion.
This level’s aim is forgiveness and juxtaposition of opposites into the highest score snooker dialogue.
Magnus, you’re losing the debate with Gib. Just throwing that out there. You can’t just call him a fag and say he has no discipline and then tell him he’s wrong for reading what you wrote and thinking that’s what you meant to say. You’re just losing the debate man. It’s pretty bad.
This ‘debate’, if you could call it that, is incredibly disgusting. You are both acting like aggressive children with a demented interpretation of each other; with intolerable subtleties of profanity and polemic arrogance, achieving nothing.
I never intended this thread to be argumentative. The contributions from jerkey, Arminius and Turd are perfect exemplifications of what I originally sought after.
Let’s retain ourselves in a civil manner, please, for the better of us all.
Yeah, you wanna join? 
Hey, I got no qualms with that. I can very easily carry on a civilized discussion, but I can’t promise it won’t happen along side a bit of trolling with Mr. Anderson.
Try it! Ask me a question. Let’s have a discussion.
Here’s what I originally wrote, soon after you’d posted your OP:
This suggests you consider those two books examples of his early writings. But BGE was written in 1885-86 and published in '86. Its sequel (Nietzsche actually called it its sequel) is On the Genealogy of Morals, which is from 1887. These books are usually considered part of another “period” than his writings from 1888. And yet there’s only a year between these last two “periods”.
::
Thus far what I originally wrote.
When did he go slightly mad? Isn’t the Zarathustra slightly mad to say the least? But I think I see what you mean. Something changed in the course of 1887: Nietzsche was increasingly worried by his (seeming) lack of impact. So let’s say that’s when he went slightly mad (and that he stayed slightly mad until he went completely mad in early 1889). Why are his writings from that period significant? Because they constitute Nietzsche’s coming out as Zarathustra (cf. GM II 25)–i.e., as much more than a scholar (cf. BGE “We Scholars”). They constitute Nietzsche’s coming out as a “philosopher proper” (BGE 211), a world-historical event like Plato.
In reading these reply’s, one sees how Nietzsche has become a
kinda Rorschach test…
I too read Nietzsche as a young man. it is clearly a young man’s wet dream
because it allows the reader, a young man with ego, to dream he is the
ubermensch and all that stuff about herd mentality doesn’t apply to him because
he is above all that…but this based on a misreading of N…
the ubermensch is not about being the superman, but about one
who overcomes himself…Uber can mean above and below…’
It was never about overcoming other people and becoming
a “superman”, nope, it was about the man who can overcome himself,
become something else… Recall it was N. who said, “we must become who we are”
and one does this by overcoming… but what is overcome? Man’s basic nature…
N. real agenda was to find a morality that is not defined by god…
to find a morality that man created, thus his emphasis on the creators
of values…But to become the creator of values, you have to overcome
that which society has trained you, herd mentality and the like…
This is the reason why N. didn’t really talk about politics…
the battle for N. was within the individual and the courage to
create new values by overcoming oneself…
I have noticed everywhere I go in my personal philosophy,
N. has already been there… it is rather disconcerting that
every road I take, N. has already been there… I intend to return
to N. when I am ready to reread him in my research into modern
philosophy, maybe in a couple of years…but first medieval
philosophy calls me…
Kropotkin
For the sake of saying this is my personal interpretation of when Nietzsche went slightly mad (although he had always been extremely neurotic, perhaps since his Father’s/Brother’s deaths) would have to be after the second edition of The Gay Science was published while he was working on The Wagner Case. After Twilight, Nietzsche takes a serious turn for the worse.
A more interesting question for this forum, has anybody read anything beyond Nietzsche?
A show of hands please.
Nietzsche is like the band “phish”. He’s not bad really, and he’s got some talent. But his fans are unbearable.
This is one of my favorite analogies of Nietzsche so far! 
K: I’ve read Kant, Hegel, Kierkegaard, Schopenhauer, Plato, Aristotle,
Seneca, Aquinas and Augustine for starters, does that qualify?
Kropotkin
Believing in science and its “gods” or believing in philosophy and its “gods” is very similar to believing in religion and its “gods” and believing in theology and its “gods”. The gods do not disappear - because humans want to be gods. (Note: These last two sentences are not referring to the question whether gods exist or not, because there is no answer in the sense of knowing it, there is only an answer in the sense of believing it.)
You first! (Well, after pseudo-Kropotkin, I suppose.) Have you read anything, including Nietzsche?
There are three hidden assumptions in that question.
- what you discuss is no more than what you read
- there are philosophers other than Nietzsche who are worth reading
- we are discussing philosophers, not reality
Joker is an attention whore who will use any means whatsoever to draw attention towards himself.
You are the one who is arrogant here.