The Antichrist

[chaz wyman]

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!

Then no one wins.
We are all losers.

N asserts that an authentic life is to try to live a life that one would willingly live again. This encourages us to do our best to find our greatest potential and to deal with success and suffering in the most noble way possible; endlessly repeatable.
Having toys is irrelevant.

[chaz wyman]

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 ?

N asserts that an authentic life is to try to live a life that one would willingly live again. This encourages us to do our best to find our greatest potential and to deal with success and suffering in the most noble way possible; endlessly repeatable.
Having toys is irrelevant - so is losing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Maybe you missed it, because it's up much higher in the thread, but I had asked you to do me a favor, (of course you don't have to, as you have already been kind enough to provide me with those three links, again thank you), and critique/dissect N's quote above, piece by piece, figure me a student in class that just raised his hand and explain how each part fits your interpretation, I'm assuming it was in fact your interpretation, such that you should be able to reiterate it here, I'll be waiting, if you care to? Call me dense if you will, but I require it broken down, because I just can't see anything but killing in that quote above. please explain why he said each word of the quote above, OK, not each word, but I'm sure you get the idea. Again Thanks!

[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!

So we all lose ?

Well honestly, which would you rather do?

[artisticsolution]

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

It assumes nothing of the sort as "so what" is a neutral idea. I have heard people say that taking an attitude "so what" is akin to having depression...but I reject this idea. "So what" is neutral. It is the passion we feel that makes us desire something other than "so what" so we wrongly attach a value to "so what" because society taught us that something is wrong with "so what". But "so what's" essence is not good nor is it bad....it just is. If you can be depressed while thinking "so what" then you can also be happy when thinking "so what".

Depression and happiness are both brought about by passion (which is the opposite of "so what") Passion can be good or bad...i.e. I love her with a passion or I hate her with a passion. Depression is sort of like a hate for a certain mental state...it is a value judgment. We can only feel depression by allowing ourselves to fall into the trap set for us by society when they tell us that "we "should" have something in life that others seems to have. And if we don't...we are most certainly going to be depressed because we are not like them." Well I reject this idea.

If you are talking about psychological "health" then I say rejecting a premise in order to have a "healthy response" does not necessarily mean that one is not healthy....it simple means that one is not healthy according to societies definition of "unhealthy" and who in the fuck do they think they are to make such a sweeping general catch all notion of health when they seem pretty fucked up and absurd when they say things like "In order to be good I must kill."

What N is asking you to do is to start questioning every thing they have taught you. So when you say something is a "Healthy response" the only way you can make that judgment is by using the definition provided to you by society...and by using that definition...you are unable to think for yourself about what it means to be "healthy".

[artisticsolution]

Well honestly, which would you rather do?

Do we have a choice?

[lancek4]

But toys let me flounder around on philosophical forums!? Dang it. I lost. But wait- The New IPad !!!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Well honestly, which would you rather do?

Do we have a choice?

The question was obviously not about choice, but rather as to preference, of what one would consider a win!

[SpheresOfBalance]

But toys let me flounder around on philosophical forums!? Dang it. I lost. But wait- The New IPad !!!!!

They're just a distraction, in order to side step the ultimate issue.

[chaz wyman]

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.

Maybe you missed it, because it's up much higher in the thread, but I had asked you to do me a favor, (of course you don't have to, as you have already been kind enough to provide me with those three links, again thank you), and critique/dissect N's quote above, piece by piece, figure me a student in class that just raised his hand and explain how each part fits your interpretation, I'm assuming it was in fact your interpretation, such that you should be able to reiterate it here, I'll be waiting, if you care to? Call me dense if you will, but I require it broken down, because I just can't see anything but killing in that quote above. please explain why he said each word of the quote above, OK, not each word, but I'm sure you get the idea. Again Thanks!

But actually that is what I have done. I suppose the reason you missed it is because you don't get to make sense of N by unpacking a single quote - you have to expand it to his wider context.
N is notoriously susceptible to mis-construal, especially when you just select one of two of his quotes or aphorisms. About this he was somewhat carefree saying that those who would know him in detail were his audience - not those that do not take the trouble to find out more about what he has to say.
So rather than break it down, you need to build up from it.
Do you see?

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

Maybe you missed it, because it's up much higher in the thread, but I had asked you to do me a favor, (of course you don't have to, as you have already been kind enough to provide me with those three links, again thank you), and critique/dissect N's quote above, piece by piece, figure me a student in class that just raised his hand and explain how each part fits your interpretation, I'm assuming it was in fact your interpretation, such that you should be able to reiterate it here, I'll be waiting, if you care to? Call me dense if you will, but I require it broken down, because I just can't see anything but killing in that quote above. please explain why he said each word of the quote above, OK, not each word, but I'm sure you get the idea. Again Thanks!

But actually that is what I have done. I suppose the reason you missed it is because you don't get to make sense of N by unpacking a single quote - you have to expand it to his wider context.
N is notoriously susceptible to mis-construal, especially when you just select one of two of his quotes or aphorisms. About this he was somewhat carefree saying that those who would know him in detail were his audience - not those that do not take the trouble to find out more about what he has to say.
So rather than break it down, you need to build up from it.
Do you see?

OK, I see. Can you point me to those specific parts in his writings that built it up for "you" to "understand" that the "specific quote I outlined" does not mean to kill any people as a solution? I want to make sure, without someone merely telling me that it's so, such that I assimilate like a parrot, that he indeed does not mean, what it appears he means, with those specific words, at their face value. I've always been one to demand definitive proof before I buy into "any" belief system, I don't take anything on faith. That's too much like religion, and I despise religion. I figure that if you in fact know it, then it should be relatively easy to point to those things that have built it up for you. If it'd be too much work for you, I'll understand! After all I'm not really your student, am I? Thanks again!

[chaz wyman]

OK, I see. Can you point me to those specific parts in his writings that built it up for "you" to "understand" that the "specific quote I outlined" does not mean to kill any people as a solution? I want to make sure, without someone merely telling me that it's so, such that I assimilate like a parrot, that he indeed does not mean, what it appears he means, with those specific words, at their face value. I've always been one to demand definitive proof before I buy into "any" belief system, I don't take anything on faith. That's too much like religion, and I despise religion. I figure that if you in fact know it, then it should be relatively easy to point to those things that have built it up for you. If it'd be too much work for you, I'll understand! After all I'm not really your student, am I? Thanks again!

Sorry but I had a longer answer which evaporated into the Intersphere.

To summarise ... You are asking me for a negative. There is no place in N's work where he exhorts anyone to kill people.
So I can't help you really.
But rest assured my interpretation is not unusual or off-beat. Anyone will tell you this.

[artisticsolution]

Okay...let's look at this another way. Let's suppose that is all N's book is about...i.e. encouraging the killing of the weak. Does that seem like a brilliant philosophical idea to you? Doesn't seem a little off....like you would be saying to yourself..wtf...I wonder what this guy is really saying...because it doesn't seem kosher. It's the curiosity of wondering why he is saying something so harsh and then the realization that that is exactly what our society says all the time...only it is accepted because it is popular herd mentality.

Read the rest of the book.

[SpheresOfBalance]

OK, I see. Can you point me to those specific parts in his writings that built it up for "you" to "understand" that the "specific quote I outlined" does not mean to kill any people as a solution? I want to make sure, without someone merely telling me that it's so, such that I assimilate like a parrot, that he indeed does not mean, what it appears he means, with those specific words, at their face value. I've always been one to demand definitive proof before I buy into "any" belief system, I don't take anything on faith. That's too much like religion, and I despise religion. I figure that if you in fact know it, then it should be relatively easy to point to those things that have built it up for you. If it'd be too much work for you, I'll understand! After all I'm not really your student, am I? Thanks again!

Sorry but I had a longer answer which evaporated into the Intersphere.

To summarise ... You are asking me for a negative. There is no place in N's work where he exhorts anyone to kill people.
See the quote below, it comes directly from N's "The Anti-Christ, Ecce Home, Twilight of the Idols" © Cambridge University Press 2005 It's from "Anti-Christ 2" which is quoted in it's entirety above in my initial post in this thread. Clearly, he says one must help to kill the weak.

So I can't help you really.
But rest assured my interpretation is not unusual or off-beat. Anyone will tell you this.
I'm not saying that it is, I'm just seeking clarity and was hoping you could help. So you're saying that you can't pinpoint, why it is, that you understand, that his words, that are as clear as day, mean quite the opposite? You cannot refer me to anything that is indicative of this so called fact, other than, you and every one else says so? Is that true?

OK, my apologies, I figured you could remember a few posts ago and would either remember the gist of his words or simply scroll up, but here you go, the quote again:

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

You see he clearly says that the weak and failed should perish and we should help them do this. I'm simply asking where in his other texts are these build up's you speak of, so that one can see that in fact he does not mean what he says literally, and that he means quite the opposite, other than a bunch of people saying so. Where's the indication to give rise to this belief you speak of?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Okay...let's look at this another way. Let's suppose that is all N's book is about...i.e. encouraging the killing of the weak. Does that seem like a brilliant philosophical idea to you? Doesn't seem a little off....like you would be saying to yourself..wtf...I wonder what this guy is really saying...because it doesn't seem kosher. It's the curiosity of wondering why he is saying something so harsh and then the realization that that is exactly what our society says all the time...only it is accepted because it is popular herd mentality.

Read the rest of the book.

I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.