Parham,
If I find cheap internet cafes now and then, I'll continue this discussion over the next few weeks.
K: I'm saying that not everyone who calls themself a philosopher, or says they are interested in philosophy, is talking about the real deal.
P: Ok?? I already know this. The problem is that Nietzsche might think that all absolute truths are egotistically based.
He doesn't. He says that dogmatic truths, like "It is absolutely true that the ego should be empowered", are egotistically based.
K: Did you realise that Nietzsche writes satirically most of the time?
P: How do you know he's being satiricial or actually believing in what he's saying?
K: By studying his writings.
P: Pft ok. You can never be sure of the satirical tone of mere WORDS ON A SCREEN. He could either be serious or satiricial, so it doesn't help us.
Of course, he may not even exist.
Given the uncertainty of Nietzsche's intentions, one simply weighs up all the evidence provided. The quality of one's own consciousness pays a huge role in this process.
K: That's what you say. Yet you haven't come anywhere near Nietzsche's level of truthfulness.
P: I was being 100% honest about how I and others, have impulses to ignore the truth and be egotistical, every one does it, even Kevin and David.
Mediocrity says "I am a liar" at the same time as saying "everyone is a liar so it doesn't matter".
P: Nietzsche on the other hand, was much more shady with his honesty, especially his 'perspectivism' nonsense.
See below.
K: The ultimate truth cannot be any particular truth, or it wouldn't be the ultimate truth. The Absolute cannot be a relative thing. The Infinite cannot be a finite thing. Everything cannot be a thing. Ultimate Reality cannot be a particular reality. God is everything that can possibly exist, not any particular thing.
P: Sorry, this isn't the same as thing, "consequently there is no truth." It's way off. Instead he should have said, "there is no particular kind of truth, only ultimate truth." Not "there is no truth."
Do you think things inherently exist?
K: It isn't something you can hold onto. The truth that makes a particular true statement true, isn't existing somewhere in the universe. It is evident everywhere, in everything, in every statement true or false. It isn't a thing. So truth does not exist, since only relative things exist.
P: because truth is everything and everywhere, you cannot say "truth does not exist." Wtf is this shit? "since only relative things exist"????
That's how I define existence: when something else is necessary.
P: What I mean by "something you can hold on to" I mean like Weininger's thing about "the genius contains the universe in him"
The "container" is simply Truth-conscious thoughts. It exists relatively to a "container" without them.
Notice that this means the "container" is created for the convenience of contrast, and doesn't actually "hold" anything. It's more like a wall between two oceans.
P: But what I meant by subjective would be I guess, how one feels? Then again, our subjective feelings are very common with others. My "loneliest of loneliness" is surely felt by others. Come to think of it, I can't think of anything that is "subjective" perhaps our individual abilities determined by our genetics and environment? Then again, our genetics comes from others, and so on.
K: I would conclude that your claims that Nietzsche must have meant egotism, when he wrote on subjectivity, were pure speculation, then.
P: Wtf? NO it wasn't speculation. What I just said about subjectivity relates nothing to Nietzsche's use of it for egotistical purposes. I don't believe in any subjectivity now that I investigated it, since everything we experience is experienced everywhere else. So Nietzsche is wrong when he endorses subjectivity.
Alright, let's go back to your earlier claim that "subjectivity" for Nietzsche meant "egotism":
P: Nietzsche had some good insights. But later in his life he simply disregarded the search for Truth and only cared about power and what was useful and what gave power to him. Sayings such as "There are many kinds of eyes. Even the sphinx has eyes - and consequently there are many kinds of "truths," and consequently there is no truth." and so on show his desire to make everything subjective.
I take it this is what you mean by "perspectivism nonsense".
Let's use the concept of the totality of all the possible truths in the entire Universe, meaning, every truth that a being of some kind constructs - all the perspectives. This concept represents all consciousnesses: and it is exactly the same as the Totality of all possible things.
Now, what is this Totality ? Is it something ?
K: Namely, that the way is no way at all. The path is really the Infinite. So these statements are actually correct. They are Zen koans.
P: If the path is really the Infinite, then there is a way? Not sure what you're getting at here.
K: A path in a broad sense: of intellectually understanding the Infinite, then letting that understanding come to fruition in one's entire being.
P: Then there IS a path, I thought so. I would also consider being truthful, courageous, etc.. to also be the path.
I agree that one has to create carvings-up and tools out of the Infinite, in order to abandon them later. There's no other way to lay them down.
K: I regard Truth-consciousness as the only conscious and sane way to live. I don't say it's good or bad, unless I call consciousness and sanity good. Buddhahood is not for everybody. All men are not equal. It is impossible for children and the feminine-minded, the psychologically unstable, those with serious chemical imbalances such as drug-addicts, people whose karma precludes philosophical investigation (e.g. marriage, family, children, mortgage, social climbing), and people who have not found a special way of thinking before they are about 25 years old.
P: You can't relativise your values by saying "I don't say it's good or bad, unless I call it that." I consider consciousness a universal moral standard.
Good and bad are relative to a purpose, rather than intrinsic in the Universe.
Also, consciousness may or may not arise. It also is not intrinsic in the Universe.
P: By your "buddahood is not for everybody," is not the same concept as Nietzsche's "levelling." Nietzsche's levelling is more egotistical.
Nietzsche is not advocating levelling, he's criticising it as stupid.
P: Not only that, but a family man can be perfectly capable of attaining buddahood, you're terribly wrong in condemning the family and children. Without it, the human race wouldn't exist.
The problem is that family life appeals deeply to the ego, since the ego's main function is social cohesiveness, including the emotional bonding that drives procreation. It takes an extremely strong, deeply masculine mind to resist this slide.
In future, with genetically controlled births, it's very possible for asexual humans to reproduce asexual humans without procreation, emotion and love. In addition, the major drawback of raising a child, namely, emotionally bonding with them so that they are attracted to and trust the parent, can be overcome by developing intelligent, masculine, humanoid nurses.
P: And what's wrong with social climbing? One can still be a buddha and still do all these things, although they have to be morally consistent.
I can't think of any reason why a Buddha would bother.
Whereas the reasons why he wouldn't are many:
- he has to grovel to seek promotions, which no true individual would do;
- he has to sell his talents and skills as the most prized object, rather than wisdom;
- he has to value being highly placed socially, which is one of the ego's greatest dreams;
- being highly placed in the eyes of most people encourages them to grovel and submit unthinkingly, which stifles their individuality and reliance on their own reasoning;
- he has to please others with his behaviour and speech, in order to get their approval, which means, to lie;
P: You have serious issues when you condemn the family and child raising, Wtf is wrong with you? There is good and bad child raising, and good child raising doesn't interfere with buddahood. In fact, if I have a child, I would be sure not to be "attached" to them, in the usual sense of the word. I would treat them as adults, much like how Sue and David or whoever it is do.
You get quite nasty when your virtues are challenged, and you swear so often....
I don't think good child-rearing is possible until after one has a deep acquaintance with Buddhahood. Before then, there are all kinds of impure motives, such as pride in one's offspring, desire to fit in with society, trying to trap a partner into a long-term relationship, psychological neediness, boredom, wanting to please one's parents or friends, fear of loneliness, trying to assuage guilt about having raised previous children poorly, trauma (obsessive longing over loved one and hoping to see its reincarnation).
David and Sue's parenting story is full of warnings, rather than encouragements. I'll repeat some public facts, that should be repeated more often as they ring of truthfulness to me:
- David said he was still spellbound by women when he got involved with Sue.
- Sue said she was a total idiot for having gotten herself pregnant a second time.
- David said he spiritually compromises himself by bonding with his son.
- David said he was grateful that Sue cares for their son and allows him leave a solitary life.
In effect, both of them were driven by ego in becoming parents, and this has had long-term consequences.
I wouldn't recommend it unless you were truly going insane from a lust for parenting.
P: Not only that, but this lofty contempt can and does many times stray other people away from the path to truth! It's not really a good way to help others learn the truth because the arrogance and contempt will make them distrustful and eventually they won't listen to you. So you have to be careful here, for you're propogating the same ignorance and narcissism.
K: Anyone who isn't enlightened is arrogant. So rather than wasting effort on trying to minimise any outward signs of that arrogance, using fake politeness, smarmy approvals, hypocritical submissiveness, and that awful kind of humility from which arrogance shines most brilliantly, I simply advocate expressing exactly what one has reasoned. So it is good to keep pumping forth the highest values, such as determination, courage, uncompromising truthfulness, and a ruthless desire for enlightenment. These motivations are far better than: trying to fit in, not hurting anyone's feelings, minimising suffering, and so on, which are like wet blankets on one's intellectual wildfire.
P: You missed my point. First you mentioned how Nietzsche was rightfully arrogant because he was enllightened, now you say you can't be enlightened and arrogant.
Actually, I asked you to explain your statement about the "egotistical, negative consequences of the lofty self towards humanity" (i.e. why you thought the Great Contempt was driven by instead of away from the ego).
The Great Contempt is for the ego, it is a logical, unemotional attitude to false thoughts.
It is quite a different thing to egotistically-driven contempt for virtually everyone else, that is expressed by those who don't yet understand what the ego is.
P: You don't get when I said that just because you're enlightened, you shouldn't be arrogant about it, because its egotistical side-effects can and does distract others from attaining wisdom. Just because they see you walking down the street arrogant, they're not going to suddenly believe that you have wisdom,
I think you're confusing egotistical arrogance with a cold, clinical, wholly rational rejection of false thoughts.
A very important part in the "path" of becoming enlightened is being judgmental and abandoning life. Which just so happens to be a chapter in David Quinn's book.
Life meaning, the ego, social climbing, social integration, the desire to belong, the desire to bond.
P: if that's the case, then anyone who is arrogant should be assumed to have wisdom, which is not the case. I never said anything about ensdorsing fake politeness or not being truthful and uncompromising, this isn't the same as having a "lofty contempt" of humanity. Basically, if you don't trust the rest of humanity, then they aren't going to trust you.
That's right: that's a very important consideration.
If you wish to be a sage, get ready to be rejected wholesale by everyone you meet, even those who profess to value reason and truth.
P: However, although most of humanity you can't trust, there are *some* *honest* and truthful people who you shouldn't have contempt and arrogance for, because they might genuinely want wisdom, and are still looking for it.
Since I've already clarified the difference between the coldness of non-attachment and the purely egotistical coldness of arrogance, I'll just focus on the "trust" claim.
I don't think trust in people is necessary or wise at all.
Genuine students of truth don't need to be trusting or trusted. They only need to rely on reasoning, and
trust that.
Otherwise, they become dependent, and their conscience gets screwed by loyalty urges.
K: If one lives as the true self, free of delusion, then there is no belief that would generate attraction to delusion. One is simply consciousness. Flowieness means a will to unconsciousness, meaning, a desire to avoid identifying the true nature of the self. Domination and submission are the dynamics of the ego, the belief in life and death, in weakness and power, and in gain and loss. Since things don't inherently exist, none of these beliefs are rational.
P: Flowiness does not always mean unconsciousness actually. It is actually totally identifying the true nature, that of being connected to everything.
You clearly don't understand your true nature, because there aren't ultimately any things to connect together.
P: Hmm if weakness and power don't inherently exist, then neither do weak and strong wills???? But Nietzsche thinks they do.
No, he just uses this terms relatively.
P: What I’m saying is that you don’t need to be physically aggressive and violent to have philosophical virtues of truthfulness and be uncompromising. I’m talking about the straight physical aggression that masculine people have such as me. I remember when David was commenting how “submission†should never be done either men or women, but what he fails to see is that the opposite of this, “domination†violates other people’s space in the process, so it has disadvantages.
That's right. True masculinity is intellectual "aggression" against delusion, and "submission" of false thoughts to true ones.
K: No, this is an example of satire. Or more accurately, he's just pointing things out exactly as they are in this day and age (still).
P: There's a difference between merely stating it and advocating it.
You're the one who's been saying that Nietzsche has been advocating what he is actually criticising!
The falseness of a judgement is not necessarily an objection to a judgment. It is here that our new language perhaps sounds strangest. The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding.
P: If he’s saying that we shouldn’t object to a false judgment just because it’s false, then he’s advocating it for the benefits. It’s not hard to see. A truthful person would definitely object to a false judgment because it’s false.
Again, this is just what I've been arguing Nietzsche
hasn't been doing, in this entire conversation.
How many times do I have to say it?
Nietzsche is
describing popular delusions, to reveal how ridiculous and wholly unsavoury they are.
K: Cause and effect is a conventional fiction, because things don't really exist. It's only when we need to designate anything, that cause and effect is made up to help out.
P: Uhh what??? Things do exist, they just don't exist inherently. This isn't the same as saying "things don't really exist." We don't use causation as a "fiction" it's part of reality is it not? It's real and existing, it's not a fiction.
That things don't inherently exist is exactly the same as saying they're not really there, or that they don't really exist. Or, a thing's ultimate nature is emptiness. Or, things are illusory. Or, there is no Truth.
Causation is not a part of Reality, but a philosophical law that we use to explain things in a logical and absolute way.
Notice that if it did exist, that it would be caused by something.....which logically would have to be non-causation. So, you see the dilemma.
K: No, he's saying that, since cause and effect doesn't really exist (being a convention used to designate things), therefore will is ultimately not constrained by causation. I.e. it is not a thing that can be free or unfree. Or rather, "free will" is like space, because it isn't ultimately separate from anything. He's talking about the ultimate, true, nature of thinking and deciding, rather than saying that decisions and thoughts are not caused.
P: Causation does exist, I don't know what you mean by it doesn't.
It doesn't exist relatively, which is how I use the term "existence", because to be relative depends on causation.
It doesn't exist inherently, because it is a philosophical law with a conceptual form. Only formlessness can exist inherently (without dependency or relativity).
P: Will is constrained by causation, everything we will is caused by what we willed before.
The true nature of will is like anything else. The true, ultimate nature of anything cannot be dependent on causation.
P: How can freewill be "space" yet be connected and limited to everything else?
You're the one who claims that things inherently exist in order to be connected.
K: No one is a Buddha from birth. The will to power is dominant until the will to truth dominates. Willing and creating against the ego is an extreme act of violence against the ego.
P: Yes but nonetheless, there are egotistic aspects of being enlightened that don't go away, turning into violence and aggression against others. You will just have to accept the beast of passion, but you also have to realize that Nietzsche first went from will to truth, then to will to power, not the other way around.
K: I'm not sure why you think that the act of expressing a wise truth to an unenlightened person is egotistical. Or that it is a violence committed "against others". Since the aim of expressing the wise truth is to help undermine delusions about Reality, it is deeply compassionate. It is not a sign of fault in the sage if a listener is offended, nasty, belligerent, petulant, and in emotional pain --- as those reactions are symptoms of delusion, the sickness that needs healing.
P: You missed my point. I'm talking about aggression generally in masculine men, the physical drive itself, which IS a type of violence. You can be totally brutally honest, and not be physically aggressive.
This is not present in an enlightened person, so it would indeed "go away".
P: This is the problem of the master/servant dialectic, you are “independent†through an aggressive willing to be independent, but this infringes on the independence of others, Hegel got this right, look it up.
This sounds like egotism to me. The belief one inherently exists, such that one can infringe or be infringed upon.
K: Celia Green is nowhere near this. I do not respect her.
P: Pfft rubbish trash talk, coming from someone who's become too comfortable and spoiled with her welfare cheques. Don't talk high and mighty down to Celia Green when you yourself rely on the burden of others to feed your lazy indolent ass. That's why spiritual and honest people like Celia and Nietzsche want to take the more self-sufficient route, whereas hypocrites like you are just leeches in citadels.
K: Perhaps your nasty comments are signs of jealousy.
In truth, I don't think you can imagine the type of work I do. It just doesn't appear in your world-view. I suppose that's how you want it. Nevertheless, there are quite a few members of the Genius Forum who probably know what my efforts are oriented towards. People like Bryan, Nick, Greg, David, Kevin, and so forth.
I can always improve, but I'll do so at my own pace, and with a deep awareness of the subtle delusions which others may wish I shared in.
P: Wtf? Jealous of what, being a leech to honest working people? I know what type of work you do, and it’s really not worth it to be leeching off of other people.
You sound like a dogmatic activist screaming about personal injustices.
P: Who the fuck cares what type of work you’re doing, when only 10-20 people at max can share it
In my line of work, only one or two or three people is enough.
It isn't the sort of thing that grows in value the more people there are who understand it.
And actually, human history is full of periods where many, many people claimed to have a wise understanding, and those were the worst times, the times of greatest folly. Such as these days.
Humans are typically gullible, because the herd instinct (the ego) drives them to want to fit in and copy.
P: and hundreds of other people pay for your welfare cheque, it’s just a cheap excuse.
For what?
P: I know what type of work you do; breaking up the family and ending the progress of civilization, the global elite are already doing this.
Jesus, the original Buddha, and Hakuin were colleagues of mine. Do you think they are also worthless dole bludges for eating at their friends' expense?
Interestingly, you earlier mentioned Nietzsche as a hard-working, decent man, but he lived on his pension from Basel, and also received aid from friends --- which faltered as he distanced himself from them and from a commercially-viable publishing style.
I wonder how much your invective is coming from a desire to fit into "normal, mediocre" society. You seem uncommonly anxious about your reputation.
Is there something like family pressure, which is driving your need to value "financial success"? You're from an Islamic background, aren't you?
P: Hmm, now you’re finding your recognition through the recognition of other people? Ironic. You’ve already reached the point of finding most truths; the rest of your work is probably useless and not worth the toil of other people. People have jobs, and they can still do what you’re doing. There’s just no rationale for the Welfare State supporting leeches like you who just refuse to work like you’re Royalty.
If I had to work 3-4 days a week, full-time, I wouldn't be able to spend all my time with a clear, energetic focus on Truth. You see, an intellectual understanding is just the first step, and a small one at that.
The largest part of the spiritual life is orienting slowly and steadily to Truth. It is a difficult task that requires all one's will. There cannot be left any part of the mind that remains closed to Truth. This takes years and years.
And part of this process requires interacting with others, who are one's larger self. Because of the wily cunningness of the ego, and the huge resistence it puts up to Truth, it takes quite a strong, powerful intellect to cut through all the mess.
If I were working like most other people do, I wouldn't have enough energy and concentration left for my real work, which is my priority. It would have a debilitating effect on my consciousness, so I don't do it.
P: We don't owe reverence to immense forces eh???? Causation? That seems pretty immense beyond me. Determinism, fate? That's pretty immense forces beyond me.
K: Causation is neither immense nor small, because it applies to everything. It isn't beyond anything because it applies to everything.
P: What Santayana meant by "immense forces outside of ourselves" he meant how we are really products of causation and connected to everything.
K: But causation is not beyond or outside of ourselves. We aren't actually connected to anything, because there is no boundary marking a place where causation isn't in effect.
I'm not sure about the Santayana quote. What I'd like him to say, is that causation means we don't inherently exist. Instead, it looks like amor fati, a wicked and petulant little puppet, saying, I can think for myself, but these bloody strings do something else altogether.
P: What? you can be fated to think for yourself. Also, Nietzsche loved amor fati.
K: I don't believe in fate, the passive idea that one's experiences are forced on one by chance. Though I do believe in creating meaning by will.
P: Determinism isn’t chance, it’s cause and effect and all the variables of the proceeding situation, there’s no chance, “fate†actually by its raw definition isn’t chance, it’s destiny, chance isn’t destiny.
Chance and determinism are two different perspectives of cause and effect.
P: Believe in creating meaning by will? This doesn’t disprove determinism and the unfree will. Basically, good philosophers were fated to become philosophers, it was in them, we didn’t “choose†to be, it was based on our desires and our character, that’s why you can’t turn people into philosophers.
I chose to be a philosopher, and my choice was also caused.
K: Think about what a universal law is. It is boundless.
P: Well what makes me go insane is thinking about how causation wasn't caused by anything, it's such a paradox. Unless a non-causal universe can exist, but this needs more evidence and seems highly unlikely.
K: It isn't a paradox. Causation cannot logically be caused, because that requires causation. Similarly, for there to be non-causation, requires causation, which is a causal relationship. Given the above reasoning, it's an impossible one.
P: Although I accept that causation was always here, what doesn’t make sense is that apparently nothing caused matter to exist.
No, the true cause of all things cannot be imagined at all, or it would be a thing.
Absolute nothingness cannot logically exist, because existence is relative, and nothingness would not be nothingness if there were something else necessary for its existence.
P: If there’s no reason why anything should exist,
There are just "causes", not reasons.
P: then how could causation determine that something should exist instead of equally being able to choose that nothing should exist?
This should be clear now.
K: realising one is the Infinite means there is no self, ultimately.
P: But there is a finite self, right? What’s your definition of self?
Self can refer to the Infinite, or to something finite.
A finite self is a thing that stops short of everything else. The self called "Kelly Jones", for instance, is a thing with various attributes that stops short of every other self and everything else that isn't a self.
P: Now what has recently intrigued me is weighing the advantages/disadvantages between male aggression and "domination," and female calmness and "submission." Basically, male aggression has problems with violence against others. If one wants to be "independant" etc... one is doing an act of aggression which IS an act of violence although it's subtle, I can see it and feel it, and I can see it from other people's reactions, it IS violence. On the other hand its advantages are that one is less affected by other people, which is good for philosophy. But most people fail to see WHY you would even need aggression to be less affected by other people, and this is because of aggression of other people itself! It's ironic because one wants to be philosophically independant by being aggressive, but this aggression will and does dominate and block other people's independance! So it becomes a viscious cycle, of where if you don't become aggressive and violent, people will take advantage of it. Now, female calmness, which many people wrongfully state as "passivity" has advantages. First, it's less violent and more respectful of other people's space and minds, second, it's much easier and smarter alot of times. Males just waste too much precious energy and life being aggressive and dominant, and it arises to escape the aggression of others. Second, female calmness and submission embraces the lack of inherent boundaries. If there are no boundaries as Kelly says, doesn't submission make more sense and be much more sensible? Basically if everyone was "submissive" as many people wrongfully label it, the "lack of boundaries" would be instantly recognizable. "Flowieness" would finally make so much sense and be much more sensible for our minds and bodies. Even Dan Rowden's webpage for the Definition of Masculinity includes aggression! We fail to see that much of the reason WHY males need aggression is to be resistant to the aggression and callousness of others, and so on and so on. Not only that, but it's much more easier to be manipulated and fooled by being aggressive, since it has so many unconscious egotistical motives.
K: You've only described two dynamics of egotism here. What is missing is relation to the truthful mind. For the truthful mind, masculinity is things like: a deeply sensitive and humble grade of commitment to the spiritual life, a highly creative and far-seeing discipline, and a kind of freedom that shocks by its irreverency and lack of "dignity". Femininity is things like: a central psychological stillness, a powerful and unwavering concentration, a deep sense of humour that is highly logical and cold, a and a wholly unhuman level of patience. These are obviously not traits that are seen in males and females typically, except in the smallest seed.
P: Uhh no, it’s not, and I should know. I know what you’re talking about, but it’s childish and irresponsible in many ways and it’s in no way gender-specific. The act itself is just attention-whoring, if people just ignore you when you do this, you’ll get the hint.
No, I don't think you do understand in the slightest what I'm getting at. Note the context: I was talking about masculinity and femininity in the enlightened mind. You'd have to understand Reality first, and the reasoning concerning non-attachment.
K: Femininity is things like: a central psychological stillness, a powerful and unwavering concentration, a deep sense of humour that is highly logical and cold, and a wholly unhuman level of patience.
P: Uhh what? Those qualities seem masculine to me, psychological stillness is good for buddahood, powerful and unwavering concentration? Sounds masculine. Highly logical and cold? Again masculine.
I'm getting rather fed up by your carelessness. You often don't bother reading what I write.
See above regarding context.
P: What you missed about my post, is that I’m distinctly talking about the physical testosterone aggression of masculine men, and its disadvantages with it compared to a woman’s gentleness and calm. First, you don’t need violent testosterone aggression to be a philosopher, and it’s a lot of energy, and it IS violence to other people, I should know. Basically, I can see where the feminine quality of gentleness and lack of physical violence is more moral because it isn’t violent and it helps others, whereas testosterone aggression does create mini-psychophysical wars. Basically, the perfect model would be a combination of masculine philosophical perseverance and morality, and feminine calmness.
For the sake of other readers who might be paying some attention, your definitions of the terms "masculine" and "feminine" lack the relationship to the Truthful mind.
If you had that first, you'd be able to see that violent aggression and selfishness disguised as altruism have nothing to do with it.
The patience that is so often heard praised of mothers, carers and nurses, is actually a leech-like neediness of being needed. The patient being cared for is actually a little cosmetic mirror hanging around her neck, providing her with frequent affirmations of her bounteousness and generosity.
K: If you don't wish to discuss this topic any more, then it should be made open to others. However, the original aim of making it a cage thread still exists quite obviously: to prevent any distraction from focussing on the topic as deeply as possible.
P: Wtf? I have to give up my participation so others can participate? This is not logical. We might as well cage-lock every other thread so people won’t be “distracted.†This is one of the reasons why I wanted it on GF, and I’m sure people will be kind enough not to distract irrelevance, as this does not happen traditionally with the good-minded folk of GF, right people?
I'm not saying you should be locked out, Parham. I'm saying that I think, by no fault of your own, you're struggling to focus on the core of this topic, and it should be made as easy as possible for you to do so.
K: I don't think you've gone deep enough yet.
P: I don’t think you’ve gone deep enough yet with some of the nasty things Nietzsche had to say. I don’t know how you’re going to rationalize this but it’s going to be comical.
http://www.friesian.com/nietzsch.htm
No act of violence, rape, exploitation, destruction, is intrinsically "unjust," since life itself is violent, rapacious, exploitative, and destructive and cannot be conceived otherwise.
I was just thinking this earlier today, actually. Or it could have been yesterday.
I see no problem with it, whoever wrote it.
Even more disturbingly, we have to admit that from the biological [i.e. Darwinian] point of view legal conditions are necessarily exceptional conditions, since they limit the radical life-will bent on power and must finally subserve, as means, life's collective purpose, which is to create greater power constellations. To accept any legal system as sovereign and universal -- to accept it, not merely as an instrument in the struggle of power complexes, but as a weapon against struggle (in the sense of Dühring's communist cliché that every will must regard every other will as its equal) -- is an anti-vital principle which can only bring about man's utter demoralization and, indirectly, a reign of nothingness. [p.208, beyond good and evil]
Weininger had pretty much the same idea when his friend Arthur Gerber tried to take away his pistol, to prevent Weininger from killing himself. Namely, that dogmatism prevents intellectual truthfulness and the type of freedom of character necessary to be a thinking individual.
These carriers of the leveling and retributive instincts, these descendants of every European and extra-European slave-dom, and especially of the pre-Aryan populations, represent human retrogression most flagrantly. Such "instruments of culture" are a disgrace to man and might make one suspicious of culture altogether. One might be justified in fearing the wild beast lurking within all noble races and in being on one's guard against it, but who would not a thousand times prefer fear when it is accompanied with admiration to security accompanied by the loathsome sight of perversion, dwarfishness, degeneracy? And is not the latter our predicament today? [p.176, beyond good and evil]
What's so nasty about pointing out that revenge, and keeping everybody down to one's own animalistic level, seems to be strongly evident in his ancestors and their ancestors, and probably in all races.
Notice he says "fear when accompanied by admiration", not just slavish, terrified submissiveness.
Read the website for yourself, I’m sure you can ‘correct’ it. Oh and make sure to read the notes at the bottom, where people try to ‘correct’ him but utterly fail.
I can't be bothered.
You're still trying to whack at a fake version of Nietzsche, thus missing him entirely.
-
