GENIUS FORUMS

When Bart Simpson telephones Moe Sizlack (sp?), depressed tavernkeeper in the ambiguous American town of Springfield, we see a dichotomy between two stereotypical characters, where the rebellious Simpson boy tries to exert power over Moe through a kind of malicious trick. A typical conversation begins with an existential query: "is Seymour Butts there?" It is important to understand the context of this query, since this context changes upon Moe's repetition, in which he will rearrange the order of words to create what, on the surface, will appear to be a light-hearted pun.

However, when Moe announces to the drunks in the bar that he wants to see more of human posteriors, we see indications of both homosexuality and misogyny in the minds of the Simpson's writing staff. Such themes recur throughout the entire series, showing that it was central to their entire worldviews.

Etc. etc.

Nobody does this to the Simpsons, so when people do it to Nietzsche, it's tedious. Nietzsche himself warned of the Spirit of Gravity, that sense that because someone says something, it needs to be taken seriously (and if it's not serious, it's not worth reading it all). If everyone watched the Simpsons as scholars read Nietzsche, we'd be convinced that the show was an accurate depiction of small-city America, that it recommends children all become Homer Simpsons, etc... and if it turns out that any of these assumptions are false, and the show isn't perfectly serious, the show's not worth watching.

Well, it's no secret the makers of Southpark are obsessed with stuffing anuses...

Nietzsche was a creative force of nature. Many anal-ysts pick up some pieces left behind like breadcrumbs and then try to decipher or clarify some phase or line in his thinking. Like a zombie picking a piece of brain-tissue of a living being apart, trying to remember what purpose it had.

To understand Nietzsche one has to first understand the source, his drive, his passion, his instinct - damaged as it may be. All words he writes only hide what he tries to speak of but even the most obscure sentence still cannot hide the ever present theme; the main intuition he worked from.

Nietzsche in a guest appearance on South Park - now that would be interesting, in an undoubtedly crass sort of way (btw, Diebert, Simpsons and South Park are different shows). Not sure how the guys of South Park would handle it - other than badly, of course.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:When Bart Simpson telephones Moe Sizlack (sp?), depressed tavernkeeper in the ambiguous American town of Springfield, we see a dichotomy between two stereotypical characters, where the rebellious Simpson boy tries to exert power over Moe through a kind of malicious trick. A typical conversation begins with an existential query: "is Seymour Butts there?" It is important to understand the context of this query, since this context changes upon Moe's repetition, in which he will rearrange the order of words to create what, on the surface, will appear to be a light-hearted pun.

However, when Moe announces to the drunks in the bar that he wants to see more of human posteriors, we see indications of both homosexuality and misogyny in the minds of the Simpson's writing staff. Such themes recur throughout the entire series, showing that it was central to their entire worldviews.

Etc. etc.

Nobody does this to the Simpsons, so when people do it to Nietzsche, it's tedious. Nietzsche himself warned of the Spirit of Gravity, that sense that because someone says something, it needs to be taken seriously (and if it's not serious, it's not worth reading it all). If everyone watched the Simpsons as scholars read Nietzsche, we'd be convinced that the show was an accurate depiction of small-city America, that it recommends children all become Homer Simpsons, etc... and if it turns out that any of these assumptions are false, and the show isn't perfectly serious, the show's not worth watching.

The only reason why a philosopher would not want to be taken seriously all the time is that he was trying to hide something. Why else would you "joke," in philosophy other than depict a realization of more truths and irony?

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Nietzsche was a creative force of nature.

Ahhhhhh. I can't believe you actually said such a lame and cliché phrase! What the hell is it supposed to mean anyway? Aren't all philosophers a "creative force of nature"?

Many anal-ysts pick up some pieces left behind like breadcrumbs and then try to decipher or clarify some phase or line in his thinking. Like a zombie picking a piece of brain-tissue of a living being apart, trying to remember what purpose it had.

Nietzsche wrote aphorisms. And it's well worth it to read those aphorisms on their own to realize how he was desperately trying to escape his finite life.

To understand Nietzsche one has to first understand the source, his drive, his passion, his instinct - damaged as it may be. All words he writes only hide what he tries to speak of but even the most obscure sentence still cannot hide the ever present theme; the main intuition he worked from.

What is this source, drive, passion and instinct? Nothing but a crude embrace of one's animal self. COOL, there's nothing exceptional about being alive and impulsive, sorry. You have to be alive and impulsive towards SOMETHING, not towards dominating others and increasing your social rank, yawn.

All words he writes only hide what he tries to speak of but even the most obscure sentence still cannot hide the ever present theme; the main intuition he worked from

Ahhh what??? Atleast you were right that he was trying to hide something. But you're definitely wacked out on the "main intuition he worked from." What the hell is this exactly? Dionysus? Hahahha, oooo that's like soo cool and out of this world! Lame..... The funny thing is is that he lived an essentially Apollonian lifestyle, there was maybe 10% of Dionysus in it.

Nietzsche was good when he discovered the disturbing truths, such as the vain ego, determinism, infantile sexuality, isolation of man, etc etc.. But, he side tracked from this and slipped into something that totally ignored all these things.

Faust13 wrote:

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Nietzsche was a creative force of nature.

Ahhhhhh. I can't believe you actually said such a lame and cliché phrase! What the hell is it supposed to mean anyway? Aren't all philosophers a "creative force of nature"?

It's just the way Nietzsche himself keeps describing his mouthpiece Zarathustra and his overman ideal; the will to power and philosophy as manifestation thereof. I guess it has been repeated enough to become cliché. Sorry about that.

Yes, all great philosophers would be like a force of nature and there's the danger that analyzing their word and phrases too closely only kills the little life left in their last breath. They are madness! Another Nietzsche saying and cliché probably after all the repeating after him.

Faust13 wrote: Nietzsche wrote aphorisms. And it's well worth it to read those aphorisms on their own to realize how he was desperately trying to escape his finite life.

Why desperately? Very open and deliberately I'd say. To infinity and beyond! What do you think Ãœbermensch really means, just a new animal species in some future?

Faust13 wrote: What is this source, drive, passion and instinct? Nothing but a crude embrace of one's animal self. COOL, there's nothing exceptional about being alive and impulsive, sorry. You have to be alive and impulsive towards SOMETHING, not towards dominating others and increasing your social rank, yawn.

Lets then start with dominating yourself as to become less than 100% dominated by animal instinct.

Faust13 wrote:

All words he writes only hide what he tries to speak of but even the most obscure sentence still cannot hide the ever present theme; the main intuition he worked from

What the hell is this exactly? Dionysus? Hahahha, oooo that's like soo cool and out of this world! Lame.....

No, it's not something than can be sliced and diced in a few words, or even books. That's why it's a theme, a background radiation that requires more than just some study. This quote is my favorite and contains some clue how to deal with 'creative' philosophy like Nietzsche's.

Nietzsche wrote:That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard-of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition.

- From "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense"

(btw, Diebert, Simpsons and South Park are different shows)

[laaaughs!] Hey, Dan, love you though I do, I think you missed (which I find most unusual!) Diebert's point because you are obsessed with stuffing anuses!(?)

The only problem I have with many people who obsess over Nietzsche is the constant quoting. I find the people who constantly throw out quotes have a much shallower understanding of anything and people who obsess over Nietzsche throw out so many quotes I have difficulty taking them seriously. Admittedly, my knowledge of Nietzsche is not great but enough to be annoyed at everything I say being answered with a quote.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:It's just the way Nietzsche himself keeps describing his mouthpiece Zarathustra and his overman ideal; the will to power and philosophy as manifestation thereof. I guess it has been repeated enough to become cliché. Sorry about that.

For Nietzsche it is only a will to power, not of a will to truth anymore. He discarded truth in the end.

Yes, all great philosophers would be like a force of nature and there's the danger that analyzing their word and phrases too closely only kills the little life left in their last breath. They are madness! Another Nietzsche saying and cliché probably after all the repeating after him.

There's no such thing as analyzing their words "too closely." A good philosopher must be critical towards philosophy.

Why desperately? Very open and deliberately I'd say. To infinity and beyond! What do you think Ãœbermensch really means, just a new animal species in some future?

It wasn't really open at all. Things like, "there are many truths, consequently there is no truth." Seems to be a sort of mask for Absolute Reality. To infinity and beyond? I don't know what you mean here, other than a moony Romanticism if you're referring to Nietzsche. The only "infinity" I can think of to dwell in a finite being, would be a sort of Perfection of Apollonian form.

Lets then start with dominating yourself as to become less than 100% dominated by animal instinct.

what?

No, it's not something than can be sliced and diced in a few words, or even books. That's why it's a theme, a background radiation that requires more than just some study. This quote is my favorite and contains some clue how to deal with 'creative' philosophy like Nietzsche's.

If you can't explain it yourself then you haven't "understood" him either. If as you say he worked from a "main intuition" you should be able to say what that is.

Nietzsche wrote:That immense framework and planking of concepts to which the needy man clings his whole life long in order to preserve himself is nothing but a scaffolding and toy for the most audacious feats of the liberated intellect. And when it smashes this framework to pieces, throws it into confusion, and puts it back together in an ironic fashion, pairing the most alien things and separating the closest, it is demonstrating that it has no need of these makeshifts of indigence and that it will now be guided by intuitions rather than by concepts. There is no regular path which leads from these intuitions into the land of ghostly schemata, the land of abstractions. There exists no word for these intuitions; when man sees them he grows dumb, or else he speaks only in forbidden metaphors and in unheard-of combinations of concepts. He does this so that by shattering and mocking the old conceptual barriers he may at least correspond creatively to the impression of the powerful present intuition.

Causation is not a framework and planking of concepts made to preserve one's self. This quote itself can easily dismiss Absolute Reality. I'm probably correct when I assume that Nietzsche would have hated any concept of an Absolute Reality, and would attack it just like anything else he does in order to escape his finite life. This quote here pretty much validates that hypothesis:


Beyond Good and Evil,

The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment (!!!!!!!)... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding...

No wonder Hitler said, "It is not truth that matters, but victory."

For Nietzsche it is only a will to power, not of a will to truth anymore. He discarded truth in the end.

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Don't confuse Nietzsche's "is" with his "ought". "Everything is will to power", is not the same as "everything should be will to power".

There's no such thing as analyzing their words "too closely." A good philosopher must be critical towards philosophy.

There's such a thing as killing a joke by over-analyzing it.

Things like, "there are many truths, consequently there is no truth."

Thus proclaims the herd. (For the love of God, that was in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a work of fiction. This is like taking the words of a Sherlock Holmes villain and claiming that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had homicidal urges.)

No wonder Hitler said, "It is not truth that matters, but victory."

Keep A.H. out of this. After Nietzsche's sister, A.H. did more damage to Nietzsche than anyone else who has ever lived. (By the way, I thought it was Winston Churchill who said that.)

ChochemV2 wrote:The only problem I have with many people who obsess over Nietzsche is the constant quoting. I find the people who constantly throw out quotes have a much shallower understanding of anything and people who obsess over Nietzsche throw out so many quotes I have difficulty taking them seriously. Admittedly, my knowledge of Nietzsche is not great but enough to be annoyed at everything I say being answered with a quote.

Nietzsche wrote:Aphorisms should be peaks: and those to whom they are spoken should be big and tall of stature.

It's true though: birthing ones own aphorism remains always superior to draining blood from a statue.

Faust13 wrote: For Nietzsche it is only a will to power, not of a will to truth anymore.

Correct, that's why I didn't mention a will to truth. You are bringing up this term.

He discarded truth in the end.

A bold statement, based on....? Oh you mean:

Things like, "there are many truths, consequently there is no truth." Seems to be a sort of mask for Absolute Reality.

As far as I know that comes from a popular citation book or something. It has no context if it's the one about Sphinx eyes, plucked from Nietzsche's notebooks. The word "truths" is written between quotmarkes too. How's that for reading closely?

To infinity and beyond? I don't know what you mean here, other than a moony Romanticism if you're referring to Nietzsche. The only "infinity" I can think of to dwell in a finite being, would be a sort of Perfection of Apollonian form.

I referred to a popular cartoon yet again (B. Lightyear)! My bad. Like a reader of Nietzsche should know his classics in this thread some knowledge of cartoons is assumed I'm afraid :)

"Lets then start with dominating yourself as to become less than 100% dominated by animal instinct."

what?

Moo!

I'm probably correct when I assume that Nietzsche would have hated any concept of an Absolute Reality, and would attack it just like anything else he does in order to escape his finite life. This quote here pretty much validates that hypothesis:

Beyond Good and Evil,

The falseness of a judgment is to us not necessarily an objection to a judgment (!!!!!!!)... The question is to what extent it is life-advancing, life-preserving, species-preserving, perhaps even species-breeding...

Yes, the issue of the useful lie. If truth is defined as function, as Nietzsche seems to do backhanded, the lie becomes the dysfunctional, the unfitting. And "truth seeking" can certainly becomes dysfunctional to a degree. Definition of terms seems important here.

I'm not one that would say that ignorance is 'evil' or suffering should be banned from life, so I've nothing further here to disagree with. Concepts of absolute reality are lies too of course, ultimately...

Faust13 wrote:Things like, "there are many truths, consequently there is no truth." Seems to be a sort of mask for Absolute Reality.

Decided to address this a bit more since you have used the same quote elsewhere too. It seems important to you. I had written about this issue with Nietzsche before in the grey past but decided to just give another Nietzsche quote (!!) since it's really the best way to say it in my opinion. Rephrasing would be cheap.

First the quote from Nietzsche's notebook:

Nietzsche wrote: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.

-Notebook, April-June 1885 34 [230]

Now to see his point more clearly you could contrast it with a larger piece elsewhere which really makes the same point about perspectives and a fundamental relativism. Notice how Nietzsche defines pure truth.

Nietzsche wrote:The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one

Again from "On Truth and Lie in an Extra-Moral Sense". I could recommend reading the whole bloody thing.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Correct, that's why I didn't mention a will to truth. You are bringing up this term.

Correct eh? Oh and he did use "will to truth" a few times.

As far as I know that comes from a popular citation book or something. It has no context if it's the one about Sphinx eyes, plucked from Nietzsche's notebooks. The word "truths" is written between quotmarkes too. How's that for reading closely?

No citation book. And what do those quote marks supposed to mean??? It could mean, like, when we say "truth" we mean, cold hard truth. So Nietzsche could very well be saying, there is no "truth" ie, traditional cold hard reality.

Yes, the issue of the useful lie. If truth is defined as function, as Nietzsche seems to do backhanded, the lie becomes the dysfunctional, the unfitting. And "truth seeking" can certainly becomes dysfunctional to a degree. Definition of terms seems important here.

I'm not one that would say that ignorance is 'evil' or suffering should be banned from life, so I've nothing further here to disagree with. Concepts of absolute reality are lies too of course, ultimately...

Woah! Wait a minute here, I think I found the smoking gun. Truth isn't defined as function, so if you think Nietzsche meant that then he's wrong. Truth is just truth, that's it. Truth seeking does not become dysfunctional. I see you've lost the real philosophical path. Ignorance IS evil. Concepts of absolute reality are lies? What??? What happened here, postmodernism? *vomit vomit* The fact is that there IS an Absolute Reality.

Diebert van Rhijn wrote:Now to see his point more clearly you could contrast it with a larger piece elsewhere which really makes the same point about perspectives and a fundamental relativism. Notice how Nietzsche defines pure truth.

Orrrrr, you could also SAY his point clearly and simply, if you really know what it is. If you can't do this, then there's no point. What's this fundamental relativism?

Nietzsche wrote:The different languages, set side by side, show that what matters with words is never the truth, never an adequate expression; else there would not be so many languages. The "thing in itself" (for that is what pure truth, without consequences, would be) is quite incomprehensible to the creators of language and not at all worth aiming for. One designates only the relations of things to man, and to express them one calls on the boldest metaphors. A nerve stimulus, first transposed into an image—first metaphor. The image, in turn, imitated by a sound—second metaphor. And each time there is a complete overleaping of one sphere, right into the middle of an entirely new and different one

This passage is rubbish. I see no value in it, what am I supposed to get from this? What's the meaning behind this? The fact is, is that truth is truth, not metaphors, not language, bla bla bla, truth is truth, and this Nietzsche escaped from.

Trevor Salyzyn wrote:I wouldn't be so sure of that. Don't confuse Nietzsche's "is" with his "ought". "Everything is will to power", is not the same as "everything should be will to power".

Well not everything is a will to power so Nietzsche is again wrong, there is a will to truth, power may be a bonus, but power is temporary and delusional, truth is not.

There's such a thing as killing a joke by over-analyzing it.

A philosophical "joke" is meant for meaning, so there's no such thing as over-analyzing a "joke" to get the meaning.

Thus proclaims the herd. (For the love of God, that was in Thus Spoke Zarathustra, a work of fiction. This is like taking the words of a Sherlock Holmes villain and claiming that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had homicidal urges.)

Pftt ok. If it was fiction then why should I care if it had value in it? What does "fiction" even mean in terms of a philosophical work? Quite an odd combination.

By the way, I thought it was Winston Churchill who said that.)

Nope.

Parham,

You've left the Nietzsche and Absolute Reality thread dangling for a while. Surely you're now not too busy to discuss it with me?

If you don't make some attempt at a coherent, reasoned reply to that thread in the next 24 hours, then I will conclude that you don't have any faith in your views on Nietzsche and his writings. I think everyone else here will be free to do the same.

-

Kelly Jones wrote:Parham,

You've left the Nietzsche and Absolute Reality thread dangling for a while. Surely you're now not too busy to discuss it with me?

If you don't make some attempt at a coherent, reasoned reply to that thread in the next 24 hours, then I will conclude that you don't have any faith in your views on Nietzsche and his writings. I think everyone else here will be free to do the same.

-

What the hell? Don't say stupid stuff like this. Especially, "I think everyone else here will be free to do the same."

Everyone else here will be free to think for themselves, and not to take your bad advice.

I was experimenting with different types of bait. The fish liked it, so no worries.

Let's keep the cage thread as such for a while. If one of us makes no response after, say, a fortnight, or gives it up, then the bait's "absolute".

-

Kelly Jones wrote:I was experimenting with different types of bait. The fish liked it, so no worries.

Let's keep the cage thread as such for a while. If one of us makes no response after, say, a fortnight, or gives it up, then the bait's "absolute".

-

I was very busy for a while, so I could have only done small sparing posts.