The Antichrist

[chaz wyman]

I think the problem is some people can't bare to entertain the idea that merely reading a book will not make them become that person or share that person's beliefs. I never understood the thought. "I can't read that person because they are from a place I don't agree with." First of all, how can you know you don't agree if you don't know what they have said? Secondly, are you so weak willed that even if you do disagree ...you think somehow reading it will cause you to go over to that "side."

I am not trying to put you down or anything...this mentality just always blows me away. But it is what N was talking about...people can't even bare the thought of thinking something different than they were taught...or more importantly...questioning whether or not their beliefs are 'in the right.' I believe it is because we want to see ourselves as good...we want it so badly we could never ever think that someone could actually be better...i.e. more moral...than us.

But ya can't know that unless you read and think about what the author is saying in an honest and humble way.

Anyway, a while back Chaz mentioned that he would not read K because of his preconceived idea that K was a christian or promoting christian ideals....or something to that affect. In lieu of how SOB is reacting, I wonder if Chaz will change his mind and read K. I wonder if Chaz sees himself behaving like SOB.

There's a challenge.

Personally, I think I would enjoy discussing Kierkegaard with Chaz.

My opinion of K is not to be dismissed so easily as "preconceived" I know a fair bit about him. He is interesting in that he figures in that time when existentialist ideas were being brewed up and for that he is interesting. But there is a tendency which he shares with many of his contemporaries to be in a state of existential angst whilst they wrestle with the contradictions of religion and science but fall on the side of retaining god whilst attempting to rationalise science. In this they have to reject conventional religion and damn the history of humanity as misconceiving God and then figure out why god did not seem to mind that no one has every understood him before. What you are left with is yet another historically contingent view of the "almighty", which, it is clear, there is no compunction to believe, as it is as incredible as any other.
Although he was unlucky to die so young, he was lucky to have died before Darwin published, for his own sake.
Whilst I understand how a loss of faith can be devastating, and I can sympathise with his anxiety I'd rather follow other more forward looking philosophers of the 19thC who took the braver step to make their move to humanism, atheism or other god non dependant modes of thinking. So many Philosophers so little time!!
So, no it is not from ignorance that I speak, and that 'challenge' does not put me in the camp of SoB.
But if you think about it - I would only qualify to be put in the camp of SoB if I mad huge pronouncements about SK that I could not back up with background reading.

Spoken as a true constituent of the religion of atheism. .

No such thing, you cheeky bugger. My problem with K and those like him is that his eventual goal is redemption, forgiveness, salvation and so on. As those are not my aims, ultimately it does not matter how clever K is or what he says.

It is very interesting our existential conversation here. It is very revealing in the continuing problem, the issue at hand , and the polemics that arise from it. Chaz I do thank you for you informed position.
Ta
I feel the points of K and N go further, and this extent shows the validity of their position (singular).
N does not have a singular position, neither does K, and neither share one.
The end result is really that no one is really communicating, that we are caught within the functioning of our own consciousness that is really making an interpretation of what has akready happened .05 seconds ago, that this reality defies rational thought, that rational thought as a mode of personal agency us really a delusion, that this delusion is of the inescapable transcending motion that occurs in every positing of Truth. And that this ironically reveals a universe of two effective 'powers'. It are these 'powers ' by which N and K find their voices. And do it becomes absolutely True that there is an effective unposited personal God that reveals itself in the negative expression.
O
SOB, you have said many times to Chaz that he won't or can't answer your simple question (which is often Chaz mode of operation, once he has stated what should be obvious). So I ask you Sob to state your question and I will attempt to answer it.
Good Luck with that.

[chaz wyman]

You know AS, a while back some threads, I proposed that Chaz and Sob, who were in a heated polemical match at the time, we're really saying the same thing.

Would you care to articulate what the "same" thing was???

It is funny that you noticed this now (a post or two up) also. But you say 'behaving'. So great.

[chaz wyman]

You know AS, a while back some threads, I proposed that Chaz and Sob, who were in a heated polemical match at the time, we're really saying the same thing. It is funny that you noticed this now (a post or two up) also. But you say 'behaving'. So great.

What I find odd is that they can't see it.

That is because it is not there. Maybe you would like to state what it is that we are saying that is the "same"?
I won't hold my breath.

Is it that horrible of a thought that they can't come to terms with it?

That is the second time you have said "it". But you have not said what "it" is.

Also, remember when you mentioned n worried that our thoughts would lead us to nihilism...or something to that effect. Well, what I see here in SOB and Chaz is passion so great they cannot admit certain truths they think are "bad."

Name one!

But here you and I (sorry if I am grouping you in with my thoughts..you might not think this but we will find out) can stand back from a less emotionally charged place (perhaps a nihilistic place) and see the similarities between chaz and sob in this respect.

What similarities?

Is this what you meant about your statement regarding nihilism and N? Perhaps it is only from a nihilistic point of view that we can see things more clearly...that is when we have purged ourselves of "good vs. bad" that society has instilled in us.

But then I go on to think...why then...is nihilism bad? If I can look at myself and say, "I am not right...and perhaps my opponent is"... without prejudice, then isn't that a more "honest" place to come from? If nihilism takes us to that place, what is wrong with that? How can nihilism...which is the ultra 'neutral" be bad in all cases? If the world came from a neutral place, what would there be to fight about?

Also...one last thing....why does it seem that...when we hear things we don't understand...we usually go to the negative side of such things...i.e. "I don't understand N, therefore he must be evil" Or "I don't agree with such and such....therefore he must be wrong/evil/stupid."

I hope you can understand what I am asking.

I think you are making a fantasy world of your own imagining into which you are classified me and SoB as the same - quite bizarre.

[artisticsolution]

Chaz: That is because it is not there. Maybe you would like to state what it is that we are saying that is the "same"?
I won't hold my breath.


AS: That you won't read K and SOB won't read N. You can't know what they think if you take a few quotes out of context.


"Is it that horrible of a thought that they can't come to terms with it?"

Chaz: That is the second time you have said "it". But you have not said what "it" is.

AS: "It" is any preconceived notion that causes a person to come to judgment about an author before reading that author.

"Also, remember when you mentioned n worried that our thoughts would lead us to nihilism...or something to that effect. Well, what I see here in SOB and Chaz is passion so great they cannot admit certain truths they think are "bad."

Chaz:Name one!

AS:That your are believing something about a person you have not read and SOB is doing the same thing. Odd you can't see it in yourself.

But here you and I (sorry if I am grouping you in with my thoughts..you might not think this but we will find out) can stand back from a less emotionally charged place (perhaps a nihilistic place) and see the similarities between chaz and sob in this respect.

Chaz:What similarities?

That your are believing something about a person you have not read and SOB is doing the same thing. Odd you can't see it in yourself.




Chaz:I think you are making a fantasy world of your own imagining into which you are classified me and SoB as the same - quite bizarre.

AS: Not the same in "everything" just in that one thing. That is all I am saying. Sorry if it offends you.

[chaz wyman]

Chaz: That is because it is not there. Maybe you would like to state what it is that we are saying that is the "same"?
I won't hold my breath.


AS: That you won't read K and SOB won't read N. You can't know what they think if you take a few quotes out of context.

The difference is twofold. First - I'm not wrong about K, SoB is wrong about N.
Second- I know more about K than SoB knows about N, and maybe as much as you.
Basically I'm not making any specific pronouncements taken out of context about K that I cannot substantiate.
And it's you that invited me to talk about K, whereas SoB has taken it upon himself to make wild generalisations about N.






AS: "It" is any preconceived notion that causes a person to come to judgment about an author before reading that author.

"Also, remember when you mentioned n worried that our thoughts would lead us to nihilism...or something to that effect. Well, what I see here in SOB and Chaz is passion so great they cannot admit certain truths they think are "bad."

This is not making any sense.

[SpheresOfBalance]

sob:I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men, that he was an 'overman.'

AS: No I do not think I am smarter...I have said as much all over this forum. Yes I would read Satan's manifesto and I could do it without the fear that I would become evil or a follower. I would read it in order to know what it said so I could make up my own mind. I live without a fear that I am easily swayed you see....so I could read just about anything and still be the moral person I think I am. In other words...I do not believe in 'spooks.'

SOB:If you read him and believe you understand him, then you are some how equal to him, this is a common misconception, of the deluded. Your allusion is an illusion!

AS: Sort of....If I read someone and understand them...I just think they have written to me on my level...that is...in verbiage I can understand. That does not mean they are better or worse than me...it only means they spoke in a language I understand. There are plenty of writers that you could understand and I might not. However, we both would have to read them and go point by point in order to come to that conclusion. You won't read him so you have no idea if chaz, lance or I are right.

SOB:I have read him and of him and believe he's inconsequential in terms of my edification. In other words I already see his points, that you claim, so I guess they're actually yours, such that for me, they go without saying, Of course I don't see him as meaning the opposite of what he says. Mainly because he believes he's better than every one else, as evidenced by the excerpt of his preface that I sited above. He was at least an egomaniac, and quite possibly a megalomaniac. It is obvious to me that he was always quite mad, his writings together with his life's course, indicate as such.

AS: You got that all from a few pages did you? I am not saying you are wrong....but as you will see in the first part of this thread I said basically the same of him...however...there is one thing we disagree on....while you think since he is "a megalomaniac" he can't 'be right' ...I say even though he may be polemic, he can be correct as I don't think a person's personality dictates whether or not they make a good argument.

SOB:So you go ahead and read him, I see it as a defective gene attributed to your brown skinned Mexican heritage, and not the psychological results of socioeconomic pressures attributed to the white mans belief of his superiority, in all walks of his construct. <- THERE'S A POINT HERE, DON'T LET IT GO OVER YOUR HEAD, READ AND THINK CAREFULLY! Or don't, it's up to you, just remember what I said during the intermission!

AS: You can be quite the dumb blond when you want to be...lol. Maybe theres a gene responsible. See this is what I mean....in the black crime thread...you did not read me correctly. You read me the way society taught you to read someone. No where did I say that "defective" genes where attributed to "non white" humans. It could very well be that some aggressive "whites" have the "aggression" gene...or brain anomaly that I theorized about. You wanted to go on and on about "dog psychiatry" and talked about pit bulls being gentle when raised in a certain environment. But that is just not true...because if we had 100 pit bulls...and 100 collies....there would be more probability that we could trust the collies to have a gentler nature. And that is just speaking about domesticated dogs....what about wolves? They are dogs....let's suppose we raised 2 pups the same...one a wolf and one a collie...I don't believe the wolf would be less aggressive. Now let's suppose we bred the 2....each puppies would have a bit of both genes...but one may look like a collie and have a more dominant "Wild" gene. One could look like a pit bull and have a more gentle nature of that of a collie. You can't tell by looks honey. Now...that being said...do we know all there is to know about genes? No. Do we know all there is to know about the brain? No. So you can not say for certain environment is all to blame for a person's behavior. You just say that because that is what society has taught you to say....and THAT in a nutshell is what N is asking you to question.

You're incorrect about so many things, especially psychology's role in your life, i.e., that exposure to any particular thing or situation can give rise to both positive and/or negative effects, and thus the implications surrounding our choices, that dogs are no longer wolves, but variations influenced by specific conditioning yielding specific traits and as such a dogs temperament is all about our treatment of them. And that humans like dogs are conditioned through a unique set of experiences that result in the myriad differences between us, that ones level of aggression or hate is primarily a result of this conditioning through experience unless there is a physical/chemical abnormality, and that these differences, the conditioning, between us, including that of our dogs is primarily affected by human selfishness, that our reason is long past the need to simply survive and is thus perverted, with no where to go as evidenced by our, ultimately, self destructive resolve.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Chaz: That is because it is not there. Maybe you would like to state what it is that we are saying that is the "same"?
I won't hold my breath.


AS: That you won't read K and SOB won't read N. You can't know what they think if you take a few quotes out of context.

The difference is twofold. First - I'm not wrong about K, SoB is wrong about N.
No, I'm not, obviously you have a reading comprehension problem, I direct you to read above where I quoted from the introduction of BGE 2002 Cambridge University edition. Oh yeah I forgot some commoner in the PNF outshines several PhD's in Cambridge Universities Philosophy dept. Not to mention the other thinkers they refer to, of similar qualifications. Oh yeah, I'm sorry, I forgot for a second, that you suffer from megalomania, that's right Chaz, you the man, you know it all, you're a god after all, that's why you don't believe in any other god, because like N you think you're it, The ultimate overman!

Second- I know more about K than SoB knows about N, and maybe as much as you.
Basically I'm not making any specific pronouncements taken out of context about K that I cannot substantiate.





AS: "It" is any preconceived notion that causes a person to come to judgment about an author before reading that author.

"Also, remember when you mentioned n worried that our thoughts would lead us to nihilism...or something to that effect. Well, what I see here in SOB and Chaz is passion so great they cannot admit certain truths they think are "bad."

This is not making any sense.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB, you have said many times to Chaz that he won't or can't answer your simple question (which is often Chaz mode of operation, once he has stated what should be obvious). So I ask you Sob to state your question and I will attempt to answer it.

Not that I know you well, but I least know you well enough to know that you'd love to answer my question.

Basically the disparity between us is authority. I have used words from N's mouth himself (authority), well at least their translation, that one hopes is accurate, as to N's intent, to form my argument and Chaz, as usual, quotes himself, (no authority whatsoever), such that I ask him to show me word's of N 's that support his view and he can't do it and passes the buck as usual.

[lancek4]

You know AS, a while back some threads, I proposed that Chaz and Sob, who were in a heated polemical match at the time, we're really saying the same thing.

Would you care to articulate what the "same" thing was???

It is funny that you noticed this now (a post or two up) also. But you say 'behaving'. So great.

The assertion of the true object. But I have since grown beyond that. I was being a devils advocate. But I just Thot AS 'behavior' reminiscent of what I had said. That it was funny like that.

[lancek4]

SOB, you have said many times to Chaz that he won't or can't answer your simple question (which is often Chaz mode of operation, once he has stated what should be obvious). So I ask you Sob to state your question and I will attempt to answer it.

Not that I know you well, but I least know you well enough to know that you'd love to answer my question.

Basically the disparity between us is authority. I have used words from N's mouth himself (authority), well at least their translation, that one hopes is accurate, as to N's intent, to form my argument and Chaz, as usual, quotes himself, (no authority whatsoever), such that I ask him to show me word's of N 's that support his view and he can't do it and passes the buck as usual.

Perhaps if you offer me, I might bring some quotes. Let us start with one and I will see if I cannot win your appreciation of our view. (I use 'our' however tentatively ).

[artisticsolution]

SOB:No, I'm not, obviously you have a reading comprehension problem, I direct you to read above where I quoted from the introduction of BGE 2002 Cambridge University edition. Oh yeah I forgot some commoner in the PNF outshines several PhD's in Cambridge Universities Philosophy dept. Not to mention the other thinkers they refer to, of similar qualifications. :

That's not really surprising, I think alot of people in all walks of life don't understand the aesthetic...and that is who K and N were. They were aesthetically driven brains who allowed themselves to ask taboo questions of their/our existence. It is not surprising to me that some do not get it....I doubt they would if they live within the boundaries of societies limits and axioms.

[lancek4]

On second thought, sob, I will stick with my previous assertion.
N proposes a polemic that he feels should be able to be overcome. He thinks that what he is saying is so obvious that eventually the polemic will dessist; that it should make so much sense that eventually the over-super-man will come about. Hence his 'enthusiasm': because he felt it must.

But it is apparent that it did not, has not, and most probably will not.
This is the probelm of N.

the evidence of N's fault lay in the polemic that is most apparent with SOB and Chaz, but also with me as I am part of this discussion, as well as AS.

SOB reads N at face value. And is probably the main example of what N is overtly speaking against: pity. SOB asserts a type of humanistic moral of kindness, of 'concern for things one would not otherwise be concerned about'. His defence stems from a 'goodness' that involves all of humanity, as if humanity in all its forms arise against education or intelligence where those who are 'bad' are more or less ignorant and so are deserving of pity. Humanity is one great tender life that deserves pity by those who have the intelligence to know what is good for all of humanity. N's buzz words are offensive. 'Power' and 'weak' arouse suspicion in that these words derive from SOB's moral ideology of power.

Chaz has a similar take on intelligence but sees N as referring to the positing of transcedence as the problem. Good and evil arise as conditions of our situation and not out of any inherent absolute morality or purpose for the universe or humanity. He sees N's use of 'power' and 'weak' as refering to an individual's reliance upon such transcedant principles as they tend for ideological assertions of power and control. Though there is ideological power plays, the intelligent over-super-man sees that the equality of humanity arises from each individual's recognition of thier own Being, of limitation but more of the power that arises in knowing oneself as the total expression of agency, unhindered by absolute transcendent ideological representations.

Between these two lay N proposition. Chaz would seem to be more in correspondnece with N, while SOB with the 'christian'. And this is a logical correspondance.

Yet they will not communicate. this is to say, that even if Chaz does have a comprhension of N, he is utterly unable to get SOB to understand it, for SOB does understand it, in that he understands what he understand, what he is able to understand, just as likewise Chaz understands how he is able. The over-man premise fails.

This is my understaning of N:

I see Chaz and SOB discussion as concerning the truth of the Object, and the truth of the object is always located in a moral scheme of knowledge. N would have us relieve ourselves of such idolitry, of discussion of truth. For the real power comes - and I refer to the 3rd section of AC (I believe) -- in the unwilled. the exception that arouses fear and reprisal because his actions are not based in an 'evolution' or a 'progress'. He actions are fundamentally non-moral: they are entirely assertive of power: the Will of Power. But this is not power in the typical Christian moralistic 'we should have pity on all the ill-informed souls', but power that enacts due to its basis in existance, it is power that is unjustified activity as existance, and thus is totally justified at all times -- that is except by those who see such power as offensive to them, as it arouses resentment, and thus a further moralistic assertion of righteousness and ideological power.

Now, here is the clincher: niether will you understand what I am saying, or rather, if indeed you do, there is not getting beyond (as K) The Universal: and so the over-man is lost.

thus I see K as the more 'considerate' of philosophers, but both were proposing the same situation; the situation that can only be relieved by an 'unwilling', or a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'.

[lancek4]

I feel the points of K and N go further, and this extent shows the validity of their position (singular).
N does not have a singular position, neither does K, and neither share one.

I beg to differ; and I bet we could go tit for tat in respective ideas of K and N and where you would show disparate positions, of different points, I would show they argue from one basic position, or one basic proposition.

Perhaps we could begin another Kierkegaard thread.

the thing with N (and K) is their position cannot be taught and niether can it be willed. But they thought they could bring this 'unwilled, untaught' situation into being, as K, 'bring the phenomenon into existance throught the concept', but they could not.

(perhaps we really should begin a K thread.)

thus K's depression; thus N's insanity. as the reality of their untannable position came to bare more and more upon them.

[artisticsolution]

Great posts Lance...seriously great. I think you are right that some people will never understand as they are unable...but that should not put us off...the ones who do get K and N will help the others...simply because I think when understanding becomes popular, which I believe it will , (as " a trendy hip new way of thinking in the future) the ones who don't understand it fully will still keep in line with what society tells them to do... as that is what a follower does ...they follow...they followed Hitler...they followed during the dark ages...they followed when we won equal rights as well...they will follow where society leads them. That is the brilliance of K and N's insight...I think they both new that the 'new" thoughts they were thinking would not always be "new". True...they are a little more complicated than suffrage or getting rid of slavery...but people will catch on...it's just that some other things are a little more pressing. Give it time

Also, I am a little worried to group k and N together so haphazardly...because those who can't understand will think K is also polemic...and he is not...like you say he is considerate.

Yes, they had trouble explaining what they saw....and doubly so as they both used "Christianity" as a means to say it...to bad because with k...he basically puts Christians down for being led by the nose into sin while thinking it is good they do by God and that is something they can't wrap their head around...i.e "being sinners"...and with N....being told they are fools....not many people can deal with being told that...so much so that N makes the atheist glow with pride...thinking he is not who N is talking about...but N is certainly talking to the atheist as well as the theist.

Basically, I believe that N's dream of the Over Man could come true someday...the reason I believe that is there are still humble people around who are willing to think deeply for a variety of reasons...whether it is from boredom of the love of someone close to them. K's compassion is especially good to bring them around as everyone loves comfort and one can use his parables in various situations.

Anyway, if you want to make another K thread I am there...maybe you and I can go further in our discussion now that I have also read the antichrist.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB, you have said many times to Chaz that he won't or can't answer your simple question (which is often Chaz mode of operation, once he has stated what should be obvious). So I ask you Sob to state your question and I will attempt to answer it.

Not that I know you well, but I least know you well enough to know that you'd love to answer my question.

Basically the disparity between us is authority. I have used words from N's mouth himself (authority), well at least their translation, that one hopes is accurate, as to N's intent, to form my argument and Chaz, as usual, quotes himself, (no authority whatsoever), such that I ask him to show me word's of N 's that support his view and he can't do it and passes the buck as usual.

Perhaps if you offer me, I might bring some quotes. Let us start with one and I will see if I cannot win your appreciation of our view. (I use 'our' however tentatively ).

Here is a quote from:
The Anti-Christ, Ecce Homo, Twilight of the Idols
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
© Cambridge University Press 2005

TA-C 2 excerpt:
"The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this."
I say that within this, N advocates killing as solution. Chaz says that he doesn't, yet fails to provide anything of 'N's words' that would cause me to 'believe' otherwise.

Here is TA-C 2 Complete, for reference:
"What is good? - Whatever enhances people's feeling of power, will to power, power itself.
What is bad? - Everything stemming from weakness.
What is happiness? - The feeling that power is growing, that some resistance has been overcome.
Not contentedness, but more power; not peace, but war;
not virtue, but prowess (virtue in the style of the Renaissance, virtû, moraline-free virtue).
The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.
What is more harmful than any vice? - Active pity for all failures and weakness - Christianity...."