The Antichrist

[artisticsolution]

Then later, artisticsolution comes along and again only really addresses the "Power" and "weakness" issue, totally ignoring the[/color]

The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

issue, lets call it the "weak should be killed" issue, because she knows that in fact it doesn't fit her flip flopping tact, she can't do anything with it, she can't account for it, and to her assertion you say this:

Suppose that by "weak" N meant Hitler. Suppose he saw Hilter as a weak and the ones Hitler killed as powerful?

I suppose you could call this 'flip flopping'...but all it is saying to me is that N is trying to get us to do the reverse of what society is conditioned to think...but let me give you a more concrete example from today...perhaps that will help to explain what I mean.

Okay...most of my girlfriend's love 'strong men'. Or more precisely...societies 'image' of what a strong man is...one who protects them...is macho...and so on. I also like strong men....however my idea of strong is not a macho man. Societies image of the "strong" man is my image of a weak man. I believe he is weak because he has conformed to what is expected of him. And with that comes alot of things I am not into...like 'glory'. A man seeking glory will be swayed by the damsel in distress usually. There is not a sense of loyalty or honor to love...but more of a sense of loyal and honor to society as a whole. Patriotism springs to mind.

I don't want a man who loves his country before me. I want to be his one and only...I want a man who is strong enough to stand up to society when they are wrong. I want a man who will cherish me as a "hero" would cherish his country.

Now society would say, that was a 'weak' man...one who is pussy whipped. But the man I loved...would laugh in the face of their ridicule. He would stand strong against it...unlike the macho man who would use it as a shield to stand behind or a spring board to lift him up. My man who would stand alone...against the world....and need no one to lift him up...for he is strong enough to lift himself.

Now I ask you...who is weak? The man who has all of society by his side...or the man who stand alone in his beliefs? To me the weak one is the one who needs society....the one who needs friends. To me...all my girlfriends are missing the point...they run to the popular macho man...they glorify someone who cares less about them than his image in society. And in the end...when he is not getting his glory from them anymore...he seeks another woman who will lift him up...as he is weak on his own.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Then later, artisticsolution comes along and again only really addresses the "Power" and "weakness" issue, totally ignoring the[/color]

The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

issue, lets call it the "weak should be killed" issue, because she knows that in fact it doesn't fit her flip flopping tact, she can't do anything with it, she can't account for it, and to her assertion you say this:

Suppose that by "weak" N meant Hitler. Suppose he saw Hilter as a weak and the ones Hitler killed as powerful?

I suppose you could call this 'flip flopping'...but all it is saying to me is that N is trying to get us to do the reverse of what society is conditioned to think...but let me give you a more concrete example from today...perhaps that will help to explain what I mean.

Okay...most of my girlfriend's love 'strong men'. Or more precisely...societies 'image' of what a strong man is...one who protects them...is macho...and so on. I also like strong men....however my idea of strong is not a macho man. Societies image of the "strong" man is my image of a weak man. I believe he is weak because he has conformed to what is expected of him. And with that comes alot of things I am not into...like 'glory'. A man seeking glory will be swayed by the damsel in distress usually. There is not a sense of loyalty or honor to love...but more of a sense of loyal and honor to society as a whole. Patriotism springs to mind.

I don't want a man who loves his country before me. I want to be his one and only...I want a man who is strong enough to stand up to society when they are wrong. I want a man who will cherish me as a "hero" would cherish his country.

Now society would say, that was a 'weak' man...one who is pussy whipped. But the man I loved...would laugh in the face of their ridicule. He would stand strong against it...unlike the macho man who would use it as a shield to stand behind or a spring board to lift him up. My man who would stand alone...against the world....and need no one to lift him up...for he is strong enough to lift himself.

Now I ask you...who is weak? The man who has all of society by his side...or the man who stand alone in his beliefs? To me the weak one is the one who needs society....the one who needs friends. To me...all my girlfriends are missing the point...they run to the popular macho man...they glorify someone who cares less about them than his image in society. And in the end...when he is not getting his glory from them anymore...he seeks another woman who will lift him up...as he is weak on his own.

Listen, I understand your flip flop idea in that he says the opposite to get you to think of the opposite, which is what you are saying that he is actually saying, but your view is purely conjecture, unless he clearly eludes to this being the fact, somewhere in his writings. Even still I see a problem with someone that finds it necessary to write in this way. No need to be cryptic, to what ends? Just say it like it is, it's more direct, and there is no confusion.

But that is not the brunt of my point. Which you have actually inadvertently supported. My contention is that no one deserves to die, even those that would kill, as surely they are insane. My example of being a tough guy, is strictly that of defense, as I've stated. This is understood to mean that I had no other recourse, other than be a victim.

[Lynn]

To me...all my girlfriends are missing the point...they run to the popular macho man

Sometimes I feel so far removed from society when I remember that views such as your girlfriends are the norm .
I've taken to watching movies and listing them on fb - mainly Hitchcock and Hammer - but even I have been reticent about posting to my friends about how much I enjoyed the story of Che Guevara in Cuba http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892255/.

And, just at that, SpheresOfBalance's post appears. No one deserves to die but yes, there are times when you must fight to defend yourself, in whatever way, including for freedom - no Braveheart pun intended .

[artisticsolution]

But that is not the brunt of my point. Which you have actually inadvertently supported. My contention is that no one deserves to die, even those that would kill, as surely they are insane. My example of being a tough guy, is strictly that of defense, as I've stated. This is understood to mean that I had no other recourse, other than be a victim.

But I did say you were doing the same thing as N....here:



"But you do the same thing here:

"To me life is super precious, and anyone that would attempt to take it for their selfish reasons, beware if I see your attempt, because I'll kick you so hard in your solar-plexus that your heart will instantly stop."

As to why he couldn't just be direct...I think you have to remember the time it was written....we are sort of used to the 'existential' thought process now...but back then it was a new idea...an idea that went against the belief of most of society. As it is now I get my ass chewed out by most people when I ask these same questions....some people can't handle it today....can you imagine back then? Hence the reason N's Christian sister "doctored" up his words. It was a new idea and she couldn't "go" there. She even had one of N's colleagues tutor her in her brother's philosophy...they guy eventually gave up and said she was too dense to understand!

Anyway, let me ask you this...you say we are not understanding you...just why is that...is it because you also find it difficult to "be direct?"

Look...this isn't a fight. It's just a discussion. No one has all the answers as to what N meant and he's not around to clarify.

Anyway, here is the book I mentioned before by Kierkegaard. It is titled, "Fear and trembling". I think it is a better place to begin as it is less confrontational than N.

http://www.wattpad.com/72544-fear-and-t ... ?p=45#!p=1

[artisticsolution]

To me...all my girlfriends are missing the point...they run to the popular macho man

Sometimes I feel so far removed from society when I remember that views such as your girlfriends are the norm .
I've taken to watching movies and listing them on fb - mainly Hitchcock and Hammer - but even I have been reticent about posting to my friends about how much I enjoyed the story of Che Guevara in Cuba http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0892255/.

And, just at that, SpheresOfBalance's post appears. No one deserves to die but yes, there are times when you must fight to defend yourself, in whatever way, including for freedom - no Braveheart pun intended .

Thanks Lynn...I will put that one on my list of movies to watch.

[SpheresOfBalance]

But that is not the brunt of my point. Which you have actually inadvertently supported. My contention is that no one deserves to die, even those that would kill, as surely they are insane. My example of being a tough guy, is strictly that of defense, as I've stated. This is understood to mean that I had no other recourse, other than be a victim.

But I did say you were doing the same thing as N....here:

Never said you did. My main point was prior to "My example..." From there on was just FYI in case you saw me as hypocritical.



"But you do the same thing here:

"To me life is super precious, and anyone that would attempt to take it for their selfish reasons, beware if I see your attempt, because I'll kick you so hard in your solar-plexus that your heart will instantly stop."

Of course I would, If I walked by and some big dude was trying to kill your little petite self, I would defend your life with my life and kick him so hard it may probably kill him. Oh I'd give him the choice first, but when push came to shove and he was still intent on killing you, he'd pay the price, in your or my stead!

As to why he couldn't just be direct...I think you have to remember the time it was written....we are sort of used to the 'existential' thought process now...but back then it was a new idea...an idea that went against the belief of most of society. As it is now I get my ass chewed out by most people when I ask these same questions....some people can't handle it today....can you imagine back then? Hence the reason N's Christian sister "doctored" up his words. It was a new idea and she couldn't "go" there. She even had one of N's colleagues tutor her in her brother's philosophy...they guy eventually gave up and said she was too dense to understand!

So are you saying that like, I believe it was, Descartes that wrote in Latin so as to hide his thoughts from prying eyes, N decided to be cryptic so people wouldn't burn him as a witch?

Anyway, let me ask you this...you say we are not understanding you...just why is that...is it because you also find it difficult to "be direct?"
I'm not a writer! Writers have editors!! If I wrote professionally, I'd make it my responsibility to proof read the post editing script, before it went to press. And for that matter have someone in my family that hadn't been exposed to it during it's formulation, read it and give me a detailed report.


Look...this isn't a fight. It's just a discussion. No one has all the answers as to what N meant and he's not around to clarify.

I'm not threatened

Anyway, here is the book I mentioned before by Kierkegaard. It is titled, "Fear and trembling". I think it is a better place to begin as it is less confrontational than N.

I'm not worried about confrontation, I'm worried about translation.

http://www.wattpad.com/72544-fear-and-t ... ?p=45#!p=1

[artisticsolution]

But that is not the brunt of my point. Which you have actually inadvertently supported. My contention is that no one deserves to die, even those that would kill, as surely they are insane. My example of being a tough guy, is strictly that of defense, as I've stated. This is understood to mean that I had no other recourse, other than be a victim.

SOB:Never said you did. My main point was prior to "My example..." From there on was just FYI in case you saw me as hypocritical.

AS: No...I don't see you as hypocritical...I see us ALL as hypocritical...lol. At one point or another that is...

Anyway, about the "not having any choice but to be a victim" if we lend ourselves to believing N, is not the point I think he is making. Be a victim...don't be a victim...it doesn't make a difference. I am not sure if N is advocating either. What he is saying is to think a little about what we as a society are taught and how we can allow our 'intellect' to take those teachings into absurd conclusions.

I don't think he is advocating killing all Christians...he is merely advocating killing the absurd thoughts that bring us to christian moralities like "To be good I must kill."

I think his whole premise is a Christian one...at least in the unadulterated version of what true Christianity i.e only held by one person...jesus. All Christianity after Jesus took the idea "Christianity".... and turned it into something unrecognizable. Society made it absurd.

Also...he is asking us to question whether or not it is the natural state of existence to do so! Let's suppose there was no Christianity....lets suppose we got rid of it somehow. Do you think the basic ideas are a
priori so to speak? Could it be that we would go down the same road only we would call it something else? Just how deeply fucked are we? I think this is what N is asking in a way.

SOB:Of course I would, If I walked by and some big dude was trying to kill your little petite self, I would defend your life with my life and kick him so hard it may probably kill him. Oh I'd give him the choice first, but when push came to shove and he was still intent on killing you, he'd pay the price, in your or my stead!

AS: I have have this discussion with my mother all my life. She could never understand me. It's like this, yes...by all means save me....I would do the same and save you. However, we are not right to do so. We are not good to do so. I am fine with thinking of myself in those terms. I do things that are not good/right/moral. I do those things against society...and I do them against my own beliefs. So...on most days...I would thank you for saving my life and I would take a life myself to save another. It's just that I would not think it "moral" to do so. So I am fucked. I make the decision to fight...and I am like the herd...I make the decision to not fight...and I am dead...i.e. nothing. So...what does it matter?

SOB:So are you saying that like, I believe it was, Descartes that wrote in Latin so as to hide his thoughts from prying eyes, N decided to be cryptic so people wouldn't burn him as a witch?

AS: Ah...now you are off on another topic...psychology. I am not so sure N was doing anything to that degree. Meaning I don't think he would be "burned as a witch"...no I think it was social reasons of wanting at least one person to understand him...and if he could help them along by challenging their intellect...I think he was more than willing to confront them head on. It is my belief that his intellect kept him isolated in the midst of society. He could not make himself understood to most people...so he used manipulative tactics in order to do so...as he felt alone.

But this is only my belief...it has nothing to do with what I think of his philosophy or philosophy in general.

SOB:I'm not a writer! Writers have editors!! If I wrote professionally, I'd make it my responsibility to proof read the post editing script, before it went to press. And for that matter have someone in my family that hadn't been exposed to it during it's formulation, read it and give me a detailed report.


You are a writer...I read you every day. We exchange ideas. That is all N was doing. I don't see the problem. It's only words.

[lancek4]

Hi Lance,

I believe that is what I said...but in my own way...lol. But here's the thing....so what? What I mean to say....if N is saying that our moves are "Insufficient" and the "knowledge by which we are coming upon 'power' is faulty" then all we can do is ask questions that may never be answered.

I am trying to take that thought and go further...I am merely posing the question, "In light of the whole concept of how N wanted us to read him...how is it that we still can think we are "good/right". To me it just seems the logical conclusion, if one is to read N (or K for that matter) is to not simply question why others behave the way they do (in a victim like mentality)...but also to internalize it and ask....how am I like them? Is it the reflection of myself I see that I hate? What makes me take up arms and go to war against people I cannot know. Am I just another "Christian soldier" using the "power" I got indoctrinated with from birth? How can I know I am right?

It is the same questions I thought when I read k...who was the first existentialist. It made me wonder if N had read k....I read somewhere that N had not read k....but I find it interesting that he could basically ask the same type questions...albeit through different eyes. Where k seemed humble in his writing N seems angry and disappointed. K writes about existence through nonjudgmental eyes which ...whereas N writes about existence through eyes that have seen much horror. In my view of things K was more honest because he was not being polemic. However, I will say that the more I learn about N...the more I feel he had to write in such a manner to piss people off enough to want to understand him enough to prove him wrong. It is a manipulative tactic...and K used manipulation too....only K's manipulation brought people to his writing while still appealing to their "christian soldier" mentality while N does it by being abusive to their "christian Soldier" mentality. Either way...it draws the reader in...and makes them take a good hard look at themselves and their existence.

I just think it is a mistake to read either of them in a "Christian" realm...as in "N and K are not talking about me because I am not Christian." Both writers talk about our humanity as a whole and how it is impossible to separate ourselves from our shared existence even thought we think we can.

I agree so what. And I think that is the issue of our time. At one time I think they (k and n; people in general) Could really be invested in such a discourse. But now the answer is really: so what. Who cares ? And I see this as an historical movement that K takes up in Philosophical crumbs, I believe, when he writes about the 'contemporary' -- N never takes that possibility up; he was too vehement in his position, as if it could actually come about (an unwilled will by willing).

[lancek4]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

[SpheresOfBalance]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

No, the winner is the one that doesn't die!

[artisticsolution]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

Is there are winner after we are dead? Perhaps we just die and that's that? 'So what' is right...as to me it is the same idea as before we were born...we did not have awareness then and it's pretty certain we will not have awareness after we die.

But I don't think that necessarily has to take us to the place "He who has the most toys wins." It could take us in all sorts of directions....materialism is just one thought...there are others. But then I have never had a problem thinking "so what" and behaving as if I am a free agent with passion. I can separate the two. But then I can't not speak about that as I have no idea how I do it....but I can direct you to someone who has given much thought about 'it' and wrote a book (Deliberation And Reason) on this very thing ( at least that is what I think it is about...lol...I must admit it went over my head) Anyway...the Author is none other than our very own Richard Baron...who has not graced the forum with his presence in a very long time. (I miss him)

Here is the link to his site where you can find information about the book...perhaps this will give you the answers you seek:

http://www.rbphilo.com/deliberation.html

[lancek4]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

Is there are winner after we are dead? Perhaps we just die and that's that? 'So what' is right...as to me it is the same idea as before we were born...we did not have awareness then and it's pretty certain we will not have awareness after we die.

But I don't think that necessarily has to take us to the place "He who has the most toys wins." It could take us in all sorts of directions....materialism is just one thought...there are others. But then I have never had a problem thinking "so what" and behaving as if I am a free agent with passion. I can separate the two. But then I can't not speak about that as I have no idea how I do it....but I can direct you to someone who has given much thought about 'it' and wrote a book (Deliberation And Reason) on this very thing ( at least that is what I think it is about...lol...I must admit it went over my head) Anyway...the Author is none other than our very own Richard Baron...who has not graced the forum with his presence in a very long time. (I miss him)

Here is the link to his site where you can find information about the book...perhaps this will give you the answers you seek:

http://www.rbphilo.com/deliberation.html

Thanks AS. It interests me enough for $9.00. (lol)

Back to N; I was referring to N first piece called "the birth of tragedy ". I wonder what Thot may have entered our life in the 'beginning', that is so basic and simple that it often enough, but not very often, motivates every activity we might undertake, informing who we are in the process such that we inevitably end up at the 'end' having expressed that Thot our whole lives and continue to do so. And what of those who had or have no idea of this - every move in the effort to deny it.

[lancek4]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

No, the winner is the one that doesn't die!

So we all lose ?

[lancek4]

But I would not say N was wrong, so much as he for filled in true greek form the tragedy that we all endeavor to avoid and deny in the end. But who cares? He who dies with the most toys wins. Right?

Is there are winner after we are dead? Perhaps we just die and that's that? 'So what' is right...as to me it is the same idea as before we were born...we did not have awareness then and it's pretty certain we will not have awareness after we die.

But I don't think that necessarily has to take us to the place "He who has the most toys wins." It could take us in all sorts of directions....materialism is just one thought...there are others. But then I have never had a problem thinking "so what" and behaving as if I am a free agent with passion. I can separate the two.

It is interesting that you would distinguish yourself in this last sentence. For it assumes what is typically assumed: that the proposition that brought us to 'so what' is one of depression -- which leads one to reject it in practice (as a healthy response) as Sarte 'revolt'. But I submit that it is the so what that is inseperable and inherent in the proposition itself, and thus we have a more significant meaning of what 'revolt' might really be.





But then I can't not speak about that as I have no idea how I do it....but I can direct you to someone who has given much thought about 'it' and wrote a book (Deliberation And Reason) on this very thing ( at least that is what I think it is about...lol...I must admit it went over my head) Anyway...the Author is none other than our very own Richard Baron...who has not graced the forum with his presence in a very long time. (I miss him)

Here is the link to his site where you can find information about the book...perhaps this will give you the answers you seek:

http://www.rbphilo.com/deliberation.html

[chaz wyman]

Okay...so now that we are able to see that just entertaining a thought is not evil nor is it good...we can then break free in our ability to ask certain questions that we would not be able to ask otherwise. We can go where no man fear to think. We can think beyond our own morality to question what we have been taught and hold it up to other thoughts and scrutinize them all...and we also have the power to "return" to ourselves when we are done! What a freedom to allow ourselves!

Now that we can do that...then we can enter a place that is especially difficult for most of us...and that is the place where we can question honestly our own belief that we are "good". I will grant you this is especially difficult for most...because we want so badly to be good. We want to make a difference....and whatever the difference...we believe the thought good because we had it. Hitler believed his ideal purpose was good...just as you believe yours is good. Now again....you are looking at yourself ...analyze your actions from the point of view of a nihilist....your beliefs are neither good nor bad. It helps me to go over board here and believe all my beliefs are evil...that is how firmly entrenched in the belief that I am good....lol...it is the only way I can get over the hump and into neutrality. It is then that I can neutralize that thought in order to let go of my preconceived ideas about myself..and since it is only imagining...I can return to my firmly held beliefs later.

Okay...now we are ready to venture into N.....or at least my reading of him. Did you ever see devil's advocate with Keanu Reeves and Al Pacino? It is about fighting evil...and how perhaps we are powerless in that respect. In the end, keanu triumphs over evil....but does he really? For just as soon as he makes one decision...that society see's as "good" he is thrust into a repercussion of that decision which yet again brings him to "evil"..This gave hint to the thought that being a "Christian soldier" is futile....in other words...."christain soldier" is an oxymoron. As there is no way to be "good" and commit an "evil" act. ...and since we cannot know for sure who is "evil" and who is "good" we are bound toward doing evil by merely living with the thought...."I must kill evil."

To me that is what N meant when he said:

"Battle not with monsters lest ye become a monster; and if you gaze into the abyss the abyss gazes into you."

Now that we are through with these thoughts...we can happily return to being who we are...or can we?

This is my issue, deal with this:

The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

You've been ignoring it so far.

And you've been ignoring my response which tells you that N is not exhorting us to kill anyone. N's polemicism can be mistaken for direct action. What he does advocate is for us all to abandon the moral absolutism of the past to re-define out moral positions in the light of humanism, not christianity. To assert a new vision not based on servility to a mystical and non-existent being but in our own terms; we should help them do this.