The Antichrist

[lancek4]

Hi Lance,

Okay, I think that is best too. Let's start at the beginning when he says,

"What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? -- All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome."

I would ask then, what is power? What is weakness? It seems to me that is like beauty...it is in the eye of the beholder. Does Nietzsche want the reader to simply accept his definition of weak and powerful sort of in a patriarch type of way?

Because N i speaking to he of the future that N does not know who, he already has identified who is reading him: he who hears him. Thus in (2) he comes right out, as if to break whatever doubt the reader may have had; N makes the definitive statement: the Good is contributes of will, not diminishes it. The reader knows this.

But N himself has said, elsewhere, that it is the words that concern us, not the 'truth'; for the truth is manifest. The 'words' are Christian terms; we need only re-situate the terms that already exist in order that we might create.

So we must look to (3) to see what words he is using mean for the ethical (Christian): what does he mean by 'will'?

He says: "The problem that I have set here is not what shall replace mankind...but what ...must be bred...be willed...etc..."

But then he goes on:
"This more valuable type has...always [happened] by happy accident, as an exception, never as deliberately willed."

why would he be talking about a 'will to power' that is 'never deliberately willed'? what kind of nonsense is that?

[lancek4]

Damn

[lancek4]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and did agree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

You mean right and right as in morally or ethically or right and wrong concerning Nietzsche's words? I would say I already am...I make no value judgments.

Now what?

You have just made a value judgment; how have you not?

Your question "you mean..." is based in a presumption of what may be true, and so your position (the question) is based in your situating of true and false, right and wrong, and thus ultimately, good and bad.

In that you may say that you already are 'released', again, you have a basic presumption of not only what I might mean, but that this dialogue that works 'inside your mind' is informing you of what could be the right position: in that this is the Correct position: it is the right position for you to be in. it cannot be another position because then you would see yourself as wrong, and you would be inherently at odds with yourself and never be able to engage in life because you would be non-functional, never to be able to create a world that makes any sense for you.

the position of "I make no value judgements" is based in a value that you hold as true. It is an ethical position of Good, that represents (at least in part) your world. When you make such a statement as if to mean that 'really' you are suspending ethics somehow, you are holding yourself above existence, or at least apart from it, as if you can willfully separate yourself from the rest of the world and existence.

If you consider the possibility of your world, it is not too difficult to see why N calls people who make the motion as you have here 'sick'; because essentially, you are positing an ability to separate yourself from yourself.

Nietchze holds firm to existence, that there is nothing else but existence.

thus I have said: you are making N argument for him, and you are exemplifying what he calls the sick-brute man.

[artisticsolution]

You have just made a value judgment; how have you not?

Your question "you mean..." is based in a presumption of what may be true, and so your position (the question) is based in your situating of true and false, right and wrong, and thus ultimately, good and bad.

In that you may say that you already are 'released', again, you have a basic presumption of not only what I might mean, but that this dialogue that works 'inside your mind' is informing you of what could be the right position: in that this is the Correct position: it is the right position for you to be in. it cannot be another position because then you would see yourself as wrong, and you would be inherently at odds with yourself and never be able to engage in life because you would be non-functional, never to be able to create a world that makes any sense for you.

the position of "I make no value judgements" is based in a value that you hold as true. It is an ethical position of Good, that represents (at least in part) your world. When you make such a statement as if to mean that 'really' you are suspending ethics somehow, you are holding yourself above existence, or at least apart from it, as if you can willfully separate yourself from the rest of the world and existence.

If you consider the possibility of your world, it is not too difficult to see why N calls people who make the motion as you have here 'sick'; because essentially, you are positing an ability to separate yourself from yourself.

Nietchze holds firm to existence, that there is nothing else but existence.

thus I have said: you are making N argument for him, and you are exemplifying what he calls the sick-brute man.

Okay, I am starting to see what you mean. But here is what I don't understand. If N makes a distinction between the "sick-brute man" and the rare individual that he is writing for, he isn't making a value judgment?

If he isn't making a value judgment then there is nothing right or wrong in people being sick? It just is?

[lancek4]

You have just made a value judgment; how have you not?

Your question "you mean..." is based in a presumption of what may be true, and so your position (the question) is based in your situating of true and false, right and wrong, and thus ultimately, good and bad.

In that you may say that you already are 'released', again, you have a basic presumption of not only what I might mean, but that this dialogue that works 'inside your mind' is informing you of what could be the right position: in that this is the Correct position: it is the right position for you to be in. it cannot be another position because then you would see yourself as wrong, and you would be inherently at odds with yourself and never be able to engage in life because you would be non-functional, never to be able to create a world that makes any sense for you.

the position of "I make no value judgements" is based in a value that you hold as true. It is an ethical position of Good, that represents (at least in part) your world. When you make such a statement as if to mean that 'really' you are suspending ethics somehow, you are holding yourself above existence, or at least apart from it, as if you can willfully separate yourself from the rest of the world and existence.

If you consider the possibility of your world, it is not too difficult to see why N calls people who make the motion as you have here 'sick'; because essentially, you are positing an ability to separate yourself from yourself.

Nietchze holds firm to existence, that there is nothing else but existence.

thus I have said: you are making N argument for him, and you are exemplifying what he calls the sick-brute man.

Okay, I am starting to see what you mean. But here is what I don't understand. If N makes a distinction between the "sick-brute man" and the rare individual that he is writing for, he isn't making a value judgment?

If he isn't making a value judgment then there is nothing right or wrong in people being sick? It just is?

I'm sure he is making a value judgement, but he fully accepts his limitation. We pity those who are defined by limitation because they are so by resistance, or rather a better word: denial.he is not defined as definition is limitation: you are defining him.

[chaz wyman]

How does the confines of ethics (whatever that is) relate to "extent of reality". What exactly are 'true creators'?

Do you not think that we are staring in the face of obscurantism at its finest? And that anyone one can pretty much take away from this statement exactly what they like?

Thanks Chaz...you do have a way of wording things so I can understand difficult concepts and I thank you for that. So I looked up Obscurantism in wikipedia and I found this quote of Nietzsche's:

“The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.”

I thought that was a pretty cool thing to say, not that I agree with it quite yet. I still need more info. First I would say that True creators are individuals who create the first of any "thing"....i.e. a philosophy or a work of art or a mathematical formula, etc. But then if we used that definition then we would have to include the creator (s) of religion and the Bible...of good and evil (whatever that is defined as) as well. Basically, anyone who has a thought not yet thought.

Nice quote. I like the phrase "black art". There is a deep irony as this comes from Nietzsche who is, for me, the master of this black art. In some ways this is the pot calling the kettle black (pun intended). For N, his works seem to demonstrate an increasing obscurity through his life - as he struggles with his own grip on reality and also brings is 'flock' along with him into more difficult semantic journeys. For N his obscurity is via preaching to the converted. I think there may be also a translational problem - I'm no expert on German, but maybe his works would benefit from a thorough modernisation. Meaning is lost, but that is unavoidable; meaning is lost in a face to face conversation between two people with the same language.

Obscurantism is not necessarily an attempt to confuse. As I have discussed elsewhere is is also an attempt to bamboozle and impress - some people who have nothing much to say collect the veneer and cache of enigma by not speaking clearly. Oft they have nothing of importance to say.


As far as the extent of reality, that is a difficult concept for me as I am not sure sometimes if something happened in real life or a dream...and I get them confused. Not to the point of it being a problem in real life...but sometimes I think I have told someone something and it turns out I told them in a dream. It is only annoying when I make appointments and such. So, I am aware of a reality that is different than a dream but I question if I am even understanding this in the way that Lance or you mean to imply. That is why I get confused. I want to understand what it means to you...what it meant to Nietzsche too.

[chaz wyman]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and disagree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

I might be able to help right away on the issue of our dis/agreement.
Please elucidate the above phrase I have highlighted in RED.
To me it is obscurantist nonsense. What do you REALLY mean by it?

[chaz wyman]

"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

and, here we go into how N is speaking:
because Chaz's statement here is similarly enigmatic (I cannot tell if Chaz is being what he is proposing, if he is being rhetorical, or if he is truly asking) , I will take a second meaning from it and, instead of adding, I will rebut, but towards the same goal:

1.How does the confines of ethics (whatever that is) relate to "extent of reality".
2.What exactly are 'true creators'?

I apologize; I think Chaz is being the better teacher here. .

3.Do you not think that we are staring in the face of obscurantism at its finest?

In that I merely define reality as ethics, and thereby 'create' an arena, I am designating a thing which is ambiguous at best. Thus, when most people undertake such an experiment of escaping ethics, they do not find an 'extent' nor do they find a 'limitation'.

If being a 'better teacher' is asking mundane and obvious questions that the imply the truth by others actually avoiding them and declining to answer them - then I plead guilty.
Teaching is one thing; learning another - maybe we would learn something by answering those questions.

[lancek4]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and disagree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

I might be able to help right away on the issue of our dis/agreement.
Please elucidate the above phrase I have highlighted in RED.
To me it is obscurantist nonsense. What do you REALLY mean by it?

The ethical is the universal. The excersize of attempting to get beyond ethics reveals the view that one is able to; N see this as a fundamental problem of the herdsman.

[chaz wyman]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and disagree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

I might be able to help right away on the issue of our dis/agreement.
Please elucidate the above phrase I have highlighted in RED.
To me it is obscurantist nonsense. What do you REALLY mean by it?

The ethical is the universal.

How - in what way?

The excersize of attempting to get beyond ethics reveals the view that one is able to; N see this as a fundamental problem of the herdsman.

Do you mean the exercise of trying to get beyond ethics shows that you are able to get beyond ethics?????

In what way can you get beyond the universal?
If ethics is the extent of reality, then you are also saying that it is possible to get beyond reality. And you think this is a good thing?

Your last sentence shows a solution but characterises it as a problem. To say you are being obscure is kind. If I were less charitable I'd say you were confused.

[lancek4]

="lancek4"]

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and disagree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

I might be able to help right away on the issue of our dis/agreement.
Please elucidate the above phrase I have highlighted in RED.
To me it is obscurantist nonsense. What do you REALLY mean by it?

The ethical is the universal.

How - in what way?

The excersize of attempting to get beyond ethics reveals the view that one is able to; N see this as a fundamental problem of the herdsman.

Do you mean the exercise of trying to get beyond ethics shows that you are able to get beyond ethics?????

In what way can you get beyond the universal?
If ethics is the extent of reality, then you are also saying that it is possible to get beyond reality. And you think this is a good thing?

Your last sentence shows a solution but characterises it as a problem. To say you are being obscure is kind. If I were less charitable I'd say you were confused.


[/quote][/quote]

I am explaining N position, and the basis upon which he points to the problem and the solution.

[chaz wyman]

I am explaining N position, and the basis upon which he points to the problem and the solution.

It seem to me you are not explaining anything.

[lancek4]

I am explaining N position, and the basis upon which he points to the problem and the solution.

It seem to me you are not explaining anything.

Explaining by example in an attempt to bring the reader into a less objective position with regards the author ( n); that is, less detachment reader to author.

[chaz wyman]

I am explaining N position, and the basis upon which he points to the problem and the solution.

It seem to me you are not explaining anything.

Explaining by example in an attempt to bring the reader into a less objective position with regards the author ( n); that is, less detachment reader to author.

You still have not said what you mean by those statements.
Stop wriggling

[lancek4]

How would you define Christianity?
Is it a thing? does it have boundaries? what are these boundaries? How do we know what it is? Our definition of Christianity seems to point to an actual thing, but, as with any object, its existance relies upon an assumption.

This assumption is an ethical assumption.
If I say chair, it is identified as a thing in relation to all other things that can be known, as if in a negative space to these other things. but as we identify a chair we make it positive space against all that which is not the chair, which then is negative space.

The point is, is that there is nothing that exists separate from all these 'things'.

If I posit an infinity, I have likewise posited a boundary in the same way as I have idenitifed Christianity, or even chair.

there is not 'the universe' and then something other than the universe: there is only the universe.

thus there is an inconsistency in this juxtaposing of things.

How can this be so? What is wrong with these propositions?