The Problem With Women Today

[sue hindmarsh]

Shahrazad wrote:

Sue: They (women) must be loved for what they are - children – and not as some creature to fulfil our desires.

Sorry, but I have to ask. Do you have desires that involve women?

Yes, I do. I desire mindlessness more often than I know is healthy for me. Financial planning, worrying, health concerns, holidays, sadness, fun...and other such comforts, tie me to her.

Oscar Wilde said, "Between men and women there is no friendship possible. There is passion, enmity, worship, love, but no friendship."

And he’s correct, she is no friend to me, but I still love her all the same. And that’s my problem. Whilst I retain my love for her, a permanent break will be impossible.

[sue hindmarsh]

jupta wrote:

It is interesting to see how the issue of men and women is not resolved even in a philosophy forum.

The issue of men and women is easily resolved when considered philosophically. But that rarely takes place, even here, for most people are entirely without faith. So by keeping the battle lines drawn, they are able to retain the status quo. As you said, by not changing, "the majority of men will always be on women like a fat girl on twinkies" - no matter how bad they are for their health.

[Alex Jacob]

Carl, it is always wiser---as they say---to 'keep the focus on yourself'. What that could mean is that you might get more mileage out of making a careful analysis of what you say, how you say it, and to whom than to jump down on me. I have never gotten the impression, if you will permit me to say so, that you are at all interested in the 'feelings' of others. You can be startlingly vicious when you want to. Keep the focus on yourself, swampdog. And let me carve out through the hard rock the pilgrim's path to redemption for the unhappy losers on this defeated forum!

Irony, satire, black humor, always involve exaggerations. As I see things, any time one begins to tell the truth (even if it is done in an obviously outrageous form) one is going to piss people off and possible 'hurt their feelings'. If I am located correctly, the entire thrust of the GF, and one imprescindible characteristic, is to 'tell the truth about things'. Now, recently I made some comments about David. Am I to assume that what I said vicariously hurt your feelings? Because you jumped in there with some stupid comments as if to defend the loser (who always takes open shots at me, BTW, which bothers me not a whit, and who is yet improving because of my ministrations). That you feel some sort of pity? That I should be reproached for my 'mean-heartedness'? That you (you!) are going to set things right, play refer-fucking-ree?

You are all here having (yet another) inane conversation about 'the problem with women today'. Some of the most distorted and tendentious minds that have ever conglomerated in cyber-space! Along comes Alex (whose shtick fits marvellously here) and throws in some really outrageous statements about Panamanians (I lived in Panama for a significant amount of time). And so what the fuck!?

Human beings and human culture, said Aldous Huxley, when you really examine them without filters, is deeply disturbing, such that you will want either to exterminate humankind or put an end to yourself. They (we) are that bad, and this ridiculous badness comes in all flavors, in all races, in all cultures, and in each sex. Latinos, for various reasons, take the worst characteristics and bring them to new levels, they improve on the rat-like tendencies of human beings. They are wicked, but in permissive atmosphere no one can say anything about it. This investiture in the human rattiness takes on airs...it struts about...it decries criticism...it snivels! And one of their favorite activities is whining about their lot, and they do this with gusto and consummate skill. Additionally, (like Shah) they bitch and moan about 'imperialism' and the 'imperialist' and look for a figure to blame outside of their own attitudes, activities and choices for the misery of their present, but everything they have, which they never would have been able to attain on their own (they are quite capable of fucking up any enterprise they get into if there is not an outside force (foreigner) to guide them along) came from the work of that terrible imperialist. Their present success stems directly from taking over and managing an accomplishment they did not initiate. But they still bitch and moan though an extraordinary thing was laid in their laps. This one point (looking for someone else to blame) is a major stumbling block for Latino culture, straight across the board.

It is an erroneous vision of things that, on one side you have slobbering, irresponsible 'gay' men, and on the other intelligent, sensitive women who really deserve so much more. If the truth is to be told, you have to describe them (Panamanians, men and women) as startlingly mediocre, a culture that were it not for a collosal historical accident would still be living in bogs on a diet of yucca and platano. Almost everything they have has come from foerign influence, and the structure of what success they have from outside of their own sphere.

One is tempted to draw the QRS comparion between the masculine culture that initiates all that we know as progress, with the female culture that can only whine about it, and of course say 'no!' (The alternative being to cooperate with the present, to work within the constraints offered by history). (BTW, the rulership of Panama is completely cooperative in this sense and that is why, I think, Panama prospers as it does). Neverthless there are still whole complaining factions...

As a bonus, because you apparently took the time to read this and I really appreciate it, I am offering you in addition to the all-expense-paid pussy-hounds Wet 'n' Sticky Vacation the added gift of a $50.00 a day allowance.

[Carl G]

How you love to hear yourself talk.

[rebecca702]

If I am located correctly, the entire thrust of the GF, and one imprescindible characteristic, is to 'tell the truth about things'.

Alex, I could not find "imprescindible" in the dictionary. I tried spelling it other ways. What word did you mean? Un-rescindable?

[BMcGilly07]

If I am located correctly, the entire thrust of the GF, and one imprescindible characteristic, is to 'tell the truth about things'.

Alex, I could not find "imprescindible" in the dictionary. I tried spelling it other ways. What word did you mean? Un-rescindable?

That's just Alex trying to embiggen your vocabulary.

[Nick]

If I am located correctly, the entire thrust of the GF, and one imprescindible characteristic, is to 'tell the truth about things'.

Alex, I could not find "imprescindible" in the dictionary. I tried spelling it other ways. What word did you mean? Un-rescindable?

It means "essential" in spanish.

[rebecca702]

It means "essential" in spanish.

Ah. I am just not hip with the South Americans.

[Nick]

What matters most is that the woman has accepted Man as something of value.

Women value men like men value shovels or some other kind of tool. She uses him to get kids, a house, status, etc, it's not very complicated. Man's value of Woman is much more complex. He subconsciously forms an ideal of her and surrenders himself to it, worshiping it to gain it's acceptance through women who embody it. Without it he is left out in the cold desert of his own thoughts where he often perishes.

The underlying differences here are immense, but I'm sure you don't see that.

Any role as she plays in choosing at this point doesn't amount to anything more than that of an object at an auction where the man is placed in a position to place the bids. In this scenario, the man's ability to choose carries much more weight than a woman's.

No it doesn't, because she can always reject the bid. This is especially powerful when there is no shortage of bidders.

It's not plain to see that the object holds more leverage than the bidder. In fact, a bidder who has unlimited funds can take whatever object he wants, while the object can't make a bidder become interested.

The "object" or woman in this case does a damn good job of getting the bidder interested if you ask me. Men are throwing their lives away left and right for her sack of blood, bones, and shit.

For that study, "big" was anyone who was 5 pounds overweight. Try doing that poll with women who are 100+ pounds overweight, and see how much sex they are getting. Hint: they aren't getting any.

So a couple of heffers get left in the dust, big deal.

You are a QRS wannabe, Nick. But your shtick is not as good as theirs. Keep working on it.

Shah, most of what you contribute to this forum doesn't amount to anything more than gossip and opinion. I don't think you give two shits about the purpose of it, I'm not even sure why you spend your time here, except of course to follow Dan around and bits of "forum drama". But if you think you know enough to call me a "QRS" wannabe, perhaps you could give me a detailed definition and explanation of what the "QRS" actually is.

[Nick]

Ah. I am just not hip with the South Americans.

I used babel fish on it because when I googled it, the definition came up in what looked like spanish.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

jupta wrote:

It is interesting to see how the issue of men and women is not resolved even in a philosophy forum.

The issue of men and women is easily resolved when considered philosophically. But that rarely takes place, even here, for most people are entirely without faith. So by keeping the battle lines drawn, they are able to retain the status quo. As you said, by not changing, "the majority of men will always be on women like a fat girl on twinkies" - no matter how bad they are for their health.

I doodled, as I usually do, on a small study card. One box represented person A. The other box represented person B. Assuming monogamy and fidelity, person A focuses exclusively on person B, represented by an arrow. Person B focuses exclusively on person A, represented by an arrow in the other direction.

"Hmmm," I thought.

Since it can't take anyone more than an hour face-to-face to figure out everything about someone else, the motivation cannot be mutual understanding. Personally, I like keeping people around so I can show off. There might be some other reasons, but I would go crazy if I couldn't look clever. That's the big one. Which means that, as far as I consider socialization a need, it is vanity.

If other people are approximately similar to me, a conclusion isn't that hard to reach. (And yes, I absolutely must finish with a bit of rhetorical finesse. I can't simply say the conclusion, because it's so much less clever to be blunt.)

[Shahrazad]

Rebecca,

Alex, I could not find "imprescindible" in the dictionary. I tried spelling it other ways. What word did you mean? Un-rescindable?

In Spanish, it means "something we cannot do without". "Prescindir" is to do without, to not need.

[Trevor Salyzyn]

That's just Alex trying to embiggen your vocabulary.

What a novel vocabularion. I must remember to use it sometime.

[Shahrazad]

Nick,

Women value men like men value shovels or some other kind of tool. She uses him to get kids, a house, status, etc, it's not very complicated. Man's value of Woman is much more complex. He subconsciously forms an ideal of her and surrenders himself to it, worshiping it to gain it's acceptance through women who embody it. Without it he is left out in the cold desert of his own thoughts where he often perishes.

I have kids, a house, money, status, and your "etc.", and I still feel attached to my ideal of a man. I live alone, in case it is not clear to you. The things I would want from a man, if I were to ever go for one again, would be more like love and respect, not status and wealth.

Woman's value of man seems just as complex to me. At the very least, you have done a terrible job proving your point.

The underlying differences here are immense, but I'm sure you don't see that.

And I'm sure you do, but don't understand them well enough to explain them. It is subconscious knowledge at best.

No it doesn't, because she can always reject the bid.

If the bid is ever placed in her name. She may be a great catch, but not the type that looks outrageous, and other women get bid on instead of her.

This is especially powerful when there is no shortage of bidders.

As long as there are more gay men than gay women, and more educated men than educated women, there will always be a shortage of bidders. If you can show me evidence of a place where such shortage does not exist, and that place is not extremely cold like Alaska, I'd consider moving there.

The "object" or woman in this case does a damn good job of getting the bidder interested if you ask me. Men are throwing their lives away left and right for her sack of blood, bones, and shit.

IMO, many more women are throwing their lives away for men than men throwing their lives away for women. Women are hopeless romantics, and follow their hearts, especially the young ones.

Shahrazad: For that study, "big" was anyone who was 5 pounds overweight. Try doing that poll with women who are 100+ pounds overweight, and see how much sex they are getting. Hint: they aren't getting any.

Nick: So a couple of heffers get left in the dust, big deal.

Not just the fat ones get left there. There's also the shy ones, the smart but spacey ones, those with physical defects, the ugly ones, the old ones, the masculine ones, and on and on and on. Perhaps only the ones that look like models have rows of men chasing them. And even they will only have those rows while they are quite young.

I've got news for you: less than 3% of women look like models.

Shah, most of what you contribute to this forum doesn't amount to anything more than gossip and opinion.

Who have I gossiped about?

I don't think you give two shits about the purpose of it, I'm not even sure why you spend your time here,

First, what I really don't give two shits about is what other bloggers think I am doing here. Second, if you don't know why I'm here, it's kind of stupid for you to assume I don't care about GF's purpose. Third, if you really think you have truth on your side, you should do a lot better than ad hominem as an argument.

except of course to follow Dan around and bits of "forum drama".

Oh, that's a real good one. There are other places where I could go if I wanted to "follow Dan around". Australia, for instance. He doesn't blog here much any more.

But if you think you know enough to call me a "QRS" wannabe, perhaps you could give me a detailed definition and explanation of what the "QRS" actually is.

Now why in the world would I want to engage in such a time-consuming activity for you? What could I possibly get out of it? Impressing you by showing that I know what "QRS actually is"?

[Dan Rowden]

What men value is Woman, in every sense that term entails. They seek a biological woman to embody this. Men sometimes choose a specific woman, but not always. They think they've done the choosing, but they don't recognise the subtle signals that a woman gives out when in reality she's chosen him.

However, a man never chooses his success with a specific woman. If she doesn't choose him, he's screwed no matter what he does.

It's hard to say what the rate is at which one sex does the actual choosing. It's hard to say in how many instances a man thinks he's chosen a woman when he's simply oblivious to the fact that she has lured him with sub-conscious behaviour.

In that last bit I'm not sure if you meant the behavior acts on the man's subconscious, or comes from the woman's subconscious, or both.

Both.

I would assume you mean both. Because I think women are very often oblivious to those "subtle signals" then are putting out.

Agreed.

Seems some men are giving women far too much credit, assuming that they are plotting and scheming, when in reality the woman might not actually know she's doing anything (the idea Woman is doing it). She's just filling in the role and trying to BE that idea as best she can, because that's her wellspring of self-esteem.

Agreed again. Damn, I'm agreeable today.

So Dan, the "raw Will to Power" (you mentioned earlier in the thread) women are attracted to is the conscious drive for survival that men have?

I actually missed Sher's previous question about that: what I mean by "raw will to power" is simply a man's drive, energy and purposefulness etc, which indicates his capacity to succeed and so forth. But I should have really qualified those remarks slightly by adding that some women, those with an overarching mothering instinct, the types who have a tribe of kids and are yet 8 months pregnant, can be attracted to "loser" types because of that instinct. By and large though, women are attracted to men who appear to have the capacity to be successful in some sphere of life.

Do you mean that the way Nietzsche does?

I'm using "will to power" in a similar, yet slightly different way to Nietzsche in this context. His notion was broader and applied to the act of doing anything whatsoever (a tree spreading its roots is its will to power).

I'm wondering in this context if it has to do with simple fear at the root: woman is afraid of death, of aloneness, of reality, and has no faith in her own ability to succeed, so she must place all her expectations on someone else. He will save her from the boogeyman.

Fear is certainty part of it, but men suffer that malady as well which is why we have religious beliefs. When it comes to "Woman", it's simply the case that for the ideational and conceptual elements of that to be realised, both sexes need the other for that to happen, so there's a co-dependency going on there. Man is looking for the embodiment of Woman, and woman is looking to be that embodiment as best she can. That's the real source of a woman's most potent fear: that she will fail to embody Woman. Man, for his part, does all he damn well can to ensure that she doesn't fail.

[Dan Rowden]

Nick,

What matters most is that the man has accepted Woman as something of value. Any role as he plays in choosing at this point doesn't amount to anything more than that of a bidder at an auction where the woman is empowered and placed in a position to choose the highest of the bidders.

I can easily turn this around and say the opposite, just to show that your perspective is arbitrary:

What matters most is that the woman has accepted Man as something of value. Any role as she plays in choosing at this point doesn't amount to anything more than that of an object at an auction where the man is placed in a position to place the bids. In this scenario, the man's ability to choose carries much more weight than a woman's.

But that reversed version doesn't speak to anything that is real in the world, as far as I can tell. It's important to understand that men and women only really value each other as vehicles towards another destination - all roads lead to Woman. Neither men nor women will much value the other if they are wayward travelers, hacking through the unpaved scrub, headed for God knows where. If it wasn't for Woman, the sexes would probably only value each other to the extent that they require the other for reproduction, and perhaps a few other incidental things like cannon fodder in wars and suchlike.

[rebecca702]

So Dan, the "raw Will to Power" (you mentioned earlier in the thread) women are attracted to is the conscious drive for survival that men have?

I actually missed Sher's previous question about that: what I mean by "raw will to power" is simply a man's drive, energy and purposefulness etc, which indicates his capacity to succeed and so forth. But I should have really qualified those remarks slightly by adding that some women, those with an overarching mothering instinct, the types who have a tribe of kids and are yet 8 months pregnant, can be attracted to "loser" types because of that instinct. By and large though, women are attracted to men who appear to have the capacity to be successful in some sphere of life.

I don't get that. Why would they be attracted to "loser" types? Because of the lack of Will to Power in those men?

I was wondering what you thought of Sue's interpretation of the "Will to Power"...

Raw Will to Power attracts women. Thoughtfulness often indicates the opposite - it indicates that reality has gotten the best of you in some way and you are therefore frail or given to failure.

Dan spoke of the Will to Power, which describes man's relationship to woman. That's his need to be "The Man". Without the little woman, his life would be without purpose. He'd be a fish out of water. It is only She that allows him to play at being 'man'.

The way I thought you were using it, "Will to Power" leaves Woman in the dust. Sure, it attracts her, because it's something she doesn't have. It's something to fill the void. But I don't think it only exists in the context of relationship. I think Sue is equating Will to Power with masculinity-in-relation-to-femininity.

I'm wondering in this context if it has to do with simple fear at the root: woman is afraid of death, of aloneness, of reality, and has no faith in her own ability to succeed, so she must place all her expectations on someone else. He will save her from the boogeyman.

Fear is certainty part of it, but men suffer that malady as well which is why we have religious beliefs. When it comes to "Woman", it's simply the case that for the ideational and conceptual elements of that to be realised, both sexes need the other for that to happen, so there's a co-dependency going on there. Man is looking for the embodiment of Woman, and woman is looking to be that embodiment as best she can. That's the real source of a woman's most potent fear: that she will fail to embody Woman. Man, for his part, does all he damn well can to ensure that she doesn't fail.

Ouch. Yes, I think I see that. There's fear from both directions and it pushes them into the Woman game. If men would leave women in the dust more often, they might actually try to think for themselves... heh. There I go with that utopian thinking again.

[rebecca702]

I doodled, as I usually do, on a small study card. One box represented person A. The other box represented person B. Assuming monogamy and fidelity, person A focuses exclusively on person B, represented by an arrow. Person B focuses exclusively on person A, represented by an arrow in the other direction.

"Hmmm," I thought.

Since it can't take anyone more than an hour face-to-face to figure out everything about someone else, the motivation cannot be mutual understanding. Personally, I like keeping people around so I can show off. There might be some other reasons, but I would go crazy if I couldn't look clever. That's the big one. Which means that, as far as I consider socialization a need, it is vanity.

If other people are approximately similar to me, a conclusion isn't that hard to reach. (And yes, I absolutely must finish with a bit of rhetorical finesse. I can't simply say the conclusion, because it's so much less clever to be blunt.)

Hi Trevor,

I'm not clever enough to grasp your cleverness, possibly because I don't value cleverness to the degree that you do... but humor me and tell me your point:

We are all just jacking off?

Is that what you mean?

We are all sitting around pursuing the best means to engage in mutual ego-strokage, yes?

Perhaps I'm incredibly dim-witted. But if people are approximately similar to you, then what's the point right? Why should all this tomfoolery please us so much? Because we love to be fooled and play the fool? Why don't we all just kill ourselves?!?

[Ataraxia]

The way I thought you were using it, "Will to Power" leaves Woman in the dust. Sure, it attracts her, because it's something she doesn't have. It's something to fill the void. But I don't think it only exists in the context of relationship. I think Sue is equating Will to Power with masculinity-in-relation-to-femininity.

Women have will to power as well; as Dan pointed out, even a tree has a will to power. It is just most women focus toward different values, for example they rarely have a will-to-truth.

You may find this essay interesting. It has some good and not so good analysis of Nietzche's concept.

http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol8/nietzsche.html

[Dan Rowden]

So Dan, the "raw Will to Power" (you mentioned earlier in the thread) women are attracted to is the conscious drive for survival that men have?

I actually missed Sher's previous question about that: what I mean by "raw will to power" is simply a man's drive, energy and purposefulness etc, which indicates his capacity to succeed and so forth. But I should have really qualified those remarks slightly by adding that some women, those with an overarching mothering instinct, the types who have a tribe of kids and are yet 8 months pregnant, can be attracted to "loser" types because of that instinct. By and large though, women are attracted to men who appear to have the capacity to be successful in some sphere of life.

I don't get that. Why would they be attracted to "loser" types? Because of the lack of Will to Power in those men?

It's because they incite the "mother" instinct in her, and because that is her primary expression of Woman and the source of her self-valuation, that incitement is very attractive to that type of female. For such women, a loser type effectively validates her womanhoodishness (hey, if Alex can do it, so can I).

I was wondering what you thought of Sue's interpretation of the "Will to Power"...

The way I thought you were using it, "Will to Power" leaves Woman in the dust. Sure, it attracts her, because it's something she doesn't have. It's something to fill the void. But I don't think it only exists in the context of relationship. I think Sue is equating Will to Power with masculinity-in-relation-to-femininity.

Basically, a man's will to power will either be focused upon and directed towards Woman, or not (possibly truth and wisdom). In the former case that will be automatically attractive to a woman for fairly obvious reasons. In the latter, unattractive for equally obvious reasons. What can a woman do with a man of truth? A will to power that leaves Woman in the dust is a very rare thing. I was speaking about will to power in the context of Woman and the values and goals pertaining to that. Most of what we refer to as "civilization" is an expression of will to power within the sphere of Woman. It's not quite the patriarchal, phallic edifice that feminists would have you think it is; indeed, it's not remotely like that.

Does that clarify things?

I'm wondering in this context if it has to do with simple fear at the root: woman is afraid of death, of aloneness, of reality, and has no faith in her own ability to succeed, so she must place all her expectations on someone else. He will save her from the boogeyman.

Fear is certainty part of it, but men suffer that malady as well which is why we have religious beliefs. When it comes to "Woman", it's simply the case that for the ideational and conceptual elements of that to be realised, both sexes need the other for that to happen, so there's a co-dependency going on there. Man is looking for the embodiment of Woman, and woman is looking to be that embodiment as best she can. That's the real source of a woman's most potent fear: that she will fail to embody Woman. Man, for his part, does all he damn well can to ensure that she doesn't fail.

Ouch. Yes, I think I see that. There's fear from both directions and it pushes them into the Woman game. If men would leave women in the dust more often, they might actually try to think for themselves... heh. There I go with that utopian thinking again.

Well, the difficulty with that is, as someone once said, it's hard to fight a battle with an enemy that has an outpost in your head. Men will have to overcome their false ideations - and their need for such - before they can leave "woman" behind. Much of a man's self-worth and notion of identity is wrapped up in those ideations. This is why so many men cannot stand to hear truths spoken about Woman or the feminine - it's the same as saying their own minds are full of shit; it's saying that they are full of shit. People tend not to like hearing that.

[Ataraxia]

It's not quite the patriarchal, phallic edifice that feminists would have you think it is; indeed, it's not remotely like that.

.

This semester I made the mistake of enrolling in a class called 'Text and Culture'; as you may have guessed, it is basically post-structuralism/post-modernism 101.

It is extraordinary the absolute nonsense that is being peddled in some of these subjects. Young minds haven't got a chance, in my view. Just as quick example, please be advised that considering "time" in a linear fashion (ie. as a clock tells it) is a bourgeois and anti-feminist subplot foisted on an unwilling public to oppress working class females and prolong patriarchal dominance.

[rebecca702]

I don't get that. Why would they be attracted to "loser" types? Because of the lack of Will to Power in those men?

It's because they incite the "mother" instinct in her, and because that is her primary expression of Woman and the source of her self-valuation, that incitement is very attractive to that type of female. For such women, a loser type effectively validates her womanhoodishness (hey, if Alex can do it, so can I).

Okay, that makes sense. The sort of Mother-Savior complex. Whatever blows yer skirt up, as they say. I don't know if my vocabularicalsensicalness can stand all this uberembiggening!

Basically, a man's will to power will either be focused upon and directed towards Woman, or not (possibly truth and wisdom). In the former case that will be automatically attractive to a woman for fairly obvious reasons. In the latter, unattractive for equally obvious reasons. What can a woman do with a man of truth? A will to power that leaves Woman in the dust is a very rare thing. I was speaking about will to power in the context of Woman and the values and goals pertaining to that. Most of what we refer to as "civilization" is an expression of will to power within the sphere of Woman. It's not quite the patriarchal, phallic edifice that feminists would have you think it is; indeed, it's not remotely like that.

Does that clarify things?

Sort of. I have heard you guys say in various places that women are turned off by the true exhibition of masculinity, or a "man of truth." I can see this in some ways. If a man doesn't play the energetic Woman game, the woman will sense that there is something different about this man - he isn't treating her like a woman. He isn't playing at all. Which can be attractive! I think if women see a "man of truth", and they don't have any faith in their own ability to find truth or wisdom, their parasitical nature will take over and they will try to capture him. Of course, I'm talking about an ambitious woman who wants more than the average ego-games.

You guys act like if a man ignores Woman, women will find him repulsive. That is frankly not the case.

[rebecca702]

You may find this essay interesting. It has some good and not so good analysis of Nietzche's concept.

http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol8/nietzsche.html

Thanks Ataraxia, I will check that out. Your recommendation to check out the "ubermensch" concept was what got me reading Nietzsche to begin with. I am reading Human, All Too Human at the moment.

[Shahrazad]

Dan,

For such women, a loser type effectively validates her womanhoodishness (hey, if Alex can do it, so can I).

Are you saying you don't mind stooping to Alex's level?

[Ataraxia]

You may find this essay interesting. It has some good and not so good analysis of Nietzche's concept.

http://www.ul.ie/~philos/vol8/nietzsche.html

Thanks Ataraxia, I will check that out. Your recommendation to check out the "ubermensch" concept was what got me reading Nietzsche to begin with. I am reading Human, All Too Human at the moment.

Fantastic.

Beyond G + E and Antichrist don't get spoken about much around here but they are also really worth the effort when you get a chance. :)