The Antichrist

[SpheresOfBalance]

I'm glad that we have developed a good discussion here but some of the posts are so insanely long, it prohibits me from catching up, being that I dispise reading at length through a computer screen.

Nevertheless, from what I have gleaned -

N reduces existence to an 'unwilled' basis that stems from and reaches 'beyond good and evil ' , beyond morality.
Unwilled is that of stars, planets and asteroids, Man has a computer called a brain and thus it is IMPOSSIBLE for anything he considers to be unwilled, in the considering their is will.

Thus truth, being founded only upon an ethical scheme,
Good and Evil and an ethical scheme are one in the same thing.

his readers should have the fortitude to have made this 'unwilled' move to reàlly understand him.
Incorrect, because it's impossible for any human to do this, everyone brings preconceived ideas to the table, or their will, if you will. he he he!

Thus N is speaking from an unjustified or totally justified position that can only be truely known by one who is not looking for or from the morally informed position that argues the transcending object of truth.
Incorrect, he himself said: "A new conscience for truths that have kept silent until now." as to what his "Anti-Christ" brings to the table.

Such a reader has no 'idols', no illusion of objective truth to be gained, for this possibility has been removed in the unwilled move itself.
I have absolutely no idols either yet I find T A-C 2 to be evil, bad, incorrect, ethically wrong, etc. No such thing as an unwilled move, the move itself would be willed, as would every consideration from that willed perspective. Every perspective is willed. "if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice"

The reason N position is no longer ( if it ever was ) solute is because the object has achieved dominion. The relative equalizing movement of capitalism has eliminated the need for the subject, thus the true object is realized in the common goal of human equality.

This is the same dialectic that K uses to discuss Abraham in 'fear and trembling'. The point is that there Is a teleological suspension, but the move of the transcending true object denies this suspension. So K asks of faith, and asserts that no one had the faith of Abraham; indeed they all have the faith of Issac.

[Arising_uk]

No this is not what I'm saying. In Truth I have seen this thing that you refer to in his writing, which is the matter of perspective. ...

I thought SOB said he hadn't read it?

Because of this fact and that I have never really been a Christian, this book of his does not really apply to me at all. ...

Again, how would he know if he's not read it?

The truth is that many of the philosophers that we covered at university, as we studied them I'd say to myself, so what, because usually, that which they were saying, I believed to be elementary, ...

Bloody hell! Most who read these books start with the experience 'What!?' and then have to reread them a lot just to understand the perspective. Personally I doubt SOB's actually read them but just the relevant passages that the lecturers notes referred too and various critques. Hence SOB's polemics about academic philosophy just being the re-parroting of others thoughts.

... I believe, It could be that I'm a product of N's writings that have been assimilated by the populace, such that indirectly I have learned of what he had to say, which is why today I fail to see the hoopla. Knowledge can be sensed in the body of the people, if one listens intently, without even realizing it.

Then its not knowledge but I do find the above ironic as when I told SOB he was a nihilist he got all snippy.

Although the above does make a point about why one should study the actual works of the philosophers as it allows one to discover where and how much of what one thinks came from and if one reads the actual authors it allows one to actually decide what should be assimilated into ones knowledge or not, rather than just getting it second-hand with no thought.

Another reason I fail to see the significance of The Anti-Christ today is probably the same one that Reasonvemotion is referring to, and that is that the Christian Church had power over pretty much everyone up until the late 1800's, does that time frame sound familiar? Anyway, the church no longer has the power that it once had, so I'm not really worried about it. But I still say that the greatest part of T A-C 2 is evil as to the message that the words directly convey. And I don't care of whom he was referring, there is no reason in killing, at least not that of a high intellectual value.

Given that Nietzsche does not mention killing anyone I think this more a product of SOB's thoughts than Nietzsche's.

Got to laugh that the Church has no power now-a-days given that in America you can't get elected if you declare oneself and Atheist and lose the backing of the Church/s, that their motto is "In God we trust" and that much of the rest of the world is still deeply in thrall to the Church/s. Although I accept that in many areas it cannot overtly enforce its rules any more, so 'God' bless secularism, you know it makes sense.

[artisticsolution]

Hi Arising,

A:Although the above does make a point about why one should study the actual works of the philosophers as it allows one to discover where and how much of what one thinks came from and if one reads the actual authors it allows one to actually decide what should be assimilated into ones knowledge or not, rather than just getting it second-hand.

AS: Right. But then I wonder where the philosophers got their ideas from? Mom? Dad? As I doubt they were the first ones to think of such things....just that they were talented enough to write them down in such a beautiful way. It is amazing how much aesthetics makes us sit up and take notice.

A:Got to laugh that the Church has no power now-a-days given that in America you can't get elected if you declare oneself and Atheist and lose the backing of the Church/s, that their motto is "In God we trust" and that much of the rest of the world is still deeply in thrall to the Church/s. Although I accept that in many areas it cannot overtly enforce its rules any more, so 'God' bless secularism, you know it makes sense.

AS: Right. I am so glad you mentioned this about America...as this is where I am coming from in my understanding of N. However, I must say that it is a mistake for those (like SOB and others) who do not come from a Christian background to say "N is not talking about me." Of course he is...because the axioms of "good vs. Evil" were in place even before Christianity. Even SOB's preference for psychology has a "christian" type mentality like the mentality that N despises. After all, what does psychology teach? It teaches that we can make our mental health better somehow by being warriors against 'evil' thoughts...if you will. I am eluding to the word "Abnormal" here...as in 'abnormal' psychology.

What does that mean exactly? Abnormal by what reference. This is exactly what N is questioning. He is asking why do our axioms start at an arbitrarily set up scale of good and evil. He is saying...why not go beyond that? I ask, where does our sense of good and evil come from as it appears wherever it came from was just a spring board into any other moral based group..whether it be Christianity, atheism, psychology, etc. Pick your poison. They all have the capability of becoming absurd....that is when man attaches his herd mentality to a set of axioms based on a similar divisive axiom of good vs. evil.

According to Wikipedia, "The word psychology literally means, "the study of the soul"." How is that not Christian thinking? The acorn does not fall far from the tree. What N makes us acutely aware of is exactly what Lance says...and that is our inability to will anything. In fact, K's "purity of heart is to will one thing" makes this point extremely well. K goes into the things we do in order to condescendingly think we are more 'pure' than the rest of humanity. He points out how we have to lie to ourselves in order to complete our delusion that we are "pure." When in fact, in order to actually be pure...we would certainly have to will it...as it is not in our nature.

It is the lie here that matters. The lie that tells us we are good/pure of heart. The lie that makes us rise against someone who would make us question that belief about ourselves. And isn't it ironic, that in psychology, there is a distinct effort that take place to place us on a pedestal in order to help our self esteem? To me it's so much like stroking one's ego when that may be the last thing one needs...and perhaps it would help one, if not all of society, to look at ourselves more honestly...instead of with deceit that we are 'all that and a bag of chips'? As it is this mentality that cause hate for another. It is the mentality that we were harmed by 'wrongdoers' and that we are 'better' than them. When as far as psychology goes...each of us would be coddled in the same manner if we were going through psychoanalysis.

P.S. I just noticed that it appears I am 'preachin' to the choir' here....sorry Arising. But I can't help it if your post made me think all these thoughts...lol. Half of what I am saying here is directed at SOB although I feel as if it is a conversation we are all having together...if we were all at a pub having a beer and discussing...this post would make more sense...as we would just all be having an interesting discussion...meaning when I would be addressing more than one friend's statement....my argument would include all listeners to join. So please don't think I went off on a tangent...which I did...but you know what I mean I hope...lol.

[SpheresOfBalance]

I don't know that she, Kim (Arising_uk) has, as she has been ignored by me, but it would seem as possible, due to the circumstantial evidence of her following me, and her Insatiable need to beat people in her own mind, to prove she is something.

Keep in mind that she has been proven to be a LIAR, afraid to stand up and be counted for what she is. She is a back stabber one that would kick someone while they are on the ground. She has no sense of whats right. Her win, as she sees it, is all she cares about.

I, on the other hand have been nothing but honest and truthful to the point of even laying my most private truths out their for all to see, I am self deprecating, and willing to apologize if I feel I was short sighted as to someones intent.

Many of her assertions are based upon her assumptions which she is quick to jump to, such that many of them are unfounded, born of her need to prove herself worthy as a female, that which she has in the past been afraid to own up too.

So don't take too much stock in her words as she is bitter because I outed that part of her that she is obviously ashamed of, merely the trivial fact that she is a she, or there would have been no need for her to LIE so adamantly about it.

From this day forward anytime she follows me I shall post this to remind people of her nature. Her assertions almost always have been misinformed as she fails to understand, another's points and merely supplies her own in their stead, such as to effectively, merely argue with herself.

[artisticsolution]

SOB:Don't reread N because of me,

AS: Don't worry. I'm not rereading because of you. I am rereading because arising said that he was going to reread...and it has been my experience that arising brings a whole new set of philosophical 'problems' with him in his understanding of a topic. I only want to be prepared! LOL

[SpheresOfBalance]

Hi Arising,

A:Although the above does make a point about why one should study the actual works of the philosophers as it allows one to discover where and how much of what one thinks came from and if one reads the actual authors it allows one to actually decide what should be assimilated into ones knowledge or not, rather than just getting it second-hand.

AS: Right. But then I wonder where the philosophers got their ideas from? Mom? Dad? As I doubt they were the first ones to think of such things....just that they were talented enough to write them down in such a beautiful way. It is amazing how much aesthetics makes us sit up and take notice.

A:Got to laugh that the Church has no power now-a-days given that in America you can't get elected if you declare oneself and Atheist and lose the backing of the Church/s, that their motto is "In God we trust" and that much of the rest of the world is still deeply in thrall to the Church/s. Although I accept that in many areas it cannot overtly enforce its rules any more, so 'God' bless secularism, you know it makes sense.

AS: Right. I am so glad you mentioned this about America...as this is where I am coming from in my understanding of N. However, I must say that it is a mistake for those (like SOB and others) who do not come from a Christian background to say "N is not talking about me." Of course he is...because the axioms of "good vs. Evil" were in place even before Christianity. Even SOB's preference for psychology has a "christian" type mentality like the mentality that N despises. After all, what does psychology teach? It teaches that we can make our mental health better somehow by being warriors against 'evil' thoughts...if you will. I am eluding to the word "Abnormal" here...as in 'abnormal' psychology.

Incorrect, The bit about the church and it's power comes directly from a documentary put together by those much more knowledgeable that you mere amateurs here at PNF, it is you that is wrong, the reason for your misconception is that you were born after the era in question, in this current freedom of religion era, if otherwise, some of you would have been tortured by an inquisition, for being a heretic, for saying some of the things that you have, especially you atheists. Again for the uneducated, the Church no longer has the power it once had! And N's T A-C has no bearing on me as I have never been a christian and I already understand the few good concepts that he brings to light.

What does that mean exactly? Abnormal by what reference. This is exactly what N is questioning. He is asking why do our axioms start at an arbitrarily set up scale of good and evil. He is saying...why not go beyond that? I ask, where does our sense of good and evil come from as it appears wherever it came from was just a spring board into any other moral based group..whether it be Christianity, atheism, psychology, etc. Pick your poison. They all have the capability of becoming absurd....that is when man attaches his herd mentality to a set of axioms based on a similar divisive axiom of good vs. evil.

According to Wikipedia, "The word psychology literally means, "the study of the soul"." How is that not Christian thinking? The acorn does not fall far from the tree. What N makes us acutely aware of is exactly what Lance says...and that is our inability to will anything. In fact, K's "purity of heart is to will one thing" makes this point extremely well. K goes into the things we do in order to condescendingly think we are more 'pure' than the rest of humanity. He points out how we have to lie to ourselves in order to complete our delusion that we are "pure." When in fact, in order to actually be pure...we would certainly have to will it...as it is not in our nature.

It is the lie here that matters. The lie that tells us we are good/pure of heart. The lie that makes us rise against someone who would make us question that belief about ourselves. And isn't it ironic, that in psychology, there is a distinct effort that take place to place us on a pedestal in order to help our self esteem? To me it's so much like stroking one's ego when that may be the last thing one needs...and perhaps it would help one, if not all of society, to look at ourselves more honestly...instead of with deceit that we are 'all that and a bag of chips'? As it is this mentality that cause hate for another. It is the mentality that we were harmed by 'wrongdoers' and that we are 'better' than them. When as far as psychology goes...each of us would be coddled in the same manner if we were going through psychoanalysis.

P.S. I just noticed that it appears I am 'preachin' to the choir' here....sorry Arising. But I can't help it if your post made me think all these thoughts...lol. Half of what I am saying here is directed at SOB although I feel as if it is a conversation we are all having together...if we were all at a pub having a beer and discussing...this post would make more sense...as we would just all be having an interesting discussion...meaning when I would be addressing more than one friend's statement....my argument would include all listeners to join. So please don't think I went off on a tangent...which I did...but you know what I mean I hope...lol.

[artisticsolution]

From this day forward anytime she follows me I shall post this to remind people of her nature. Her assertions almost always have been misinformed as she fails to understand, another's points and merely supplies her own in their stead, such as to effectively, merely argue with herself.

Not that I am defending him...but you are totally wrong. I believe it is your background in psychology that makes you feel 'harmed'. And you feel the need to blame your hurt feelings on someone other than yourself.

I have known arising for a while...and yes, some times he mentions things that piss me off a little too...but then, when I look at them through different eyes...I find that most times, what he says is accurate...although not flattering. Can't fault a person for that. Other times he just get's frustrated in the same manner we all do...can't fault him for that as none of us here walk on water.

Also, it has been my experience that he is very approachable. If you ask him what he meant by such and such and that you don't understand what he meant to imply....he is gracious enough to tell you exactly what he meant.. and it has been my experience that the harm I felt over a certain thing he had said was an error in my judgment...meaning...I was the one who took it the wrong way.

Give him the benefit of the doubt. Ask him point blank in a respectful way what he means and he will give you a respectful an honest reply....it is then that you can tell him to fuck off...LOL...kidding. No...I think you will be surprised at how he relies. I think you will be able to see his statements as mere observations rather than attacks.

[artisticsolution]

Incorrect, The bit about the church and it's power comes directly from a documentary put together by those much more knowledgeable that you mere amateurs here at PNF, it is you that is wrong, the reason for your misconception is that you were born after the era in question, in this current freedom of religion era, if otherwise, some of you would have been tortured by an inquisition, for being a heretic, for saying some of the things that you have, especially you atheists. Again for the uneducated, the Church no longer has the power it once had! And N's T A-C has no bearing on me as I have never been a christian and I already understand the few good concepts that he brings to light.

See...this is your patriarchal mentality that would never dare ask questions of those you think "Have more knowledge of you." This is a logical fallacy:

"Appeal to Authority

Description: Reverse of the Ad Hominem argument. An argument which stakes its validity on the word of an supposed "authority". Appeals to authority endorses an idea based on who believes it. While it is more likely that a competent physician is more able to diagnose and treat illnesses than your Auntie Mae, there is still reason to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the table. The fact that a person is in a position of authority (scholarly, politically or otherwise) does not automatically make their beliefs, and thus our premises, justifiable. Even experts disagree, base their work on inaccurate methods, or manipulate their findings in order to reach a certain conclusion.

Example: "My teacher says that Oregon was the 2nd state in the Union, and she wouldn't lie." "

(disclaimer: this came from a site that Arising posted once...I hope that doesn't tarnish its validity for you. Anyway...here is the link: http://www.freewebs.com/thinkingstraigh ... %20Extreme )

[SpheresOfBalance]

SOB:Don't reread N because of me,

AS: Don't worry. I'm not rereading because of you. I am rereading because arising said that he was going to reread...and it has been my experience that arising brings a whole new set of philosophical 'problems' with him in his understanding of a topic. I only want to be prepared! LOL

Arising is a she, but you should already know this as you two joined here within a couples days back in 2007 after it opened a new. Oh the comradery, that long lived familiarity affords.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Incorrect, The bit about the church and it's power comes directly from a documentary put together by those much more knowledgeable that you mere amateurs here at PNF, it is you that is wrong, the reason for your misconception is that you were born after the era in question, in this current freedom of religion era, if otherwise, some of you would have been tortured by an inquisition, for being a heretic, for saying some of the things that you have, especially you atheists. Again for the uneducated, the Church no longer has the power it once had! And N's T A-C has no bearing on me as I have never been a christian and I already understand the few good concepts that he brings to light.

See...this is your patriarchal mentality that would never dare ask questions of those you think "Have more knowledge of you." This is a logical fallacy:

"Appeal to Authority

Description: Reverse of the Ad Hominem argument. An argument which stakes its validity on the word of an supposed "authority". Appeals to authority endorses an idea based on who believes it. While it is more likely that a competent physician is more able to diagnose and treat illnesses than your Auntie Mae, there is still reason to bring a healthy dose of skepticism to the table. The fact that a person is in a position of authority (scholarly, politically or otherwise) does not automatically make their beliefs, and thus our premises, justifiable. Even experts disagree, base their work on inaccurate methods, or manipulate their findings in order to reach a certain conclusion.

Example: "My teacher says that Oregon was the 2nd state in the Union, and she wouldn't lie." "

(disclaimer: this came from a site that Arising posted once...I hope that doesn't tarnish its validity for you. Anyway...here is the link: http://www.freewebs.com/thinkingstraigh ... %20Extreme )

Your rebuttal is an illusion born of your head alone as you were incapable of understanding that I AGREE WITH THEM BY VIRTUE OF MY LOGIC, AND WHAT I KNOW OF HISTORY!!!!!!!

[SpheresOfBalance]

It should be apparent by now that I take absolutely no ones word for anything, unless I can corroborate via multiple unconnected sources. With a bit of my logic thrown in as the filter.

[artisticsolution]

SOB:Don't reread N because of me,

AS: Don't worry. I'm not rereading because of you. I am rereading because arising said that he was going to reread...and it has been my experience that arising brings a whole new set of philosophical 'problems' with him in his understanding of a topic. I only want to be prepared! LOL

Arising is a she, but you should already know this as you two joined here within a couples days back in 2007 after it opened a new. Oh the comradery, that long lived familiarity affords.

Arising is a he. And we go back much longer than the appearance of the day we joined....you see...there was a PN forum before this one that alot of us belonged to...most of us 'ol timers' have similar sign up dates...because Rick switched to a new forum....and we had to resign up again.

[artisticsolution]

Your rebuttal is an illusion born of your head alone as you were incapable of understanding that I AGREE WITH THEM BY VIRTUE OF MY LOGIC, AND WHAT I KNOW OF HISTORY!!!!!!!

But dear sob...in all due respect....we all agree to our chosen belief by virtue of 'logic' and 'what we know of history." What makes yours the absolute 'truth'?

[SpheresOfBalance]

From this day forward anytime she follows me I shall post this to remind people of her nature. Her assertions almost always have been misinformed as she fails to understand, another's points and merely supplies her own in their stead, such as to effectively, merely argue with herself.

Not that I am defending him...but you are totally wrong. I believe it is your background in psychology that makes you feel 'harmed'. And you feel the need to blame your hurt feelings on someone other than yourself.

I have known arising for a while...and yes, some times he mentions things that piss me off a little too...but then, when I look at them through different eyes...I find that most times, what he says is accurate...although not flattering. Can't fault a person for that. Other times he just get's frustrated in the same manner we all do...can't fault him for that as none of us here walk on water.

Also, it has been my experience that he is very approachable. If you ask him what he meant by such and such and that you don't understand what he meant to imply....he is gracious enough to tell you exactly what he meant.. and it has been my experience that the harm I felt over a certain thing he had said was an error in my judgment...meaning...I was the one who took it the wrong way.

Give him the benefit of the doubt. Ask him point blank in a respectful way what he means and he will give you a respectful an honest reply....it is then that you can tell him to fuck off...LOL...kidding. No...I think you will be surprised at how he relies. I think you will be able to see his statements as mere observations rather than attacks.

You don't even know that Arising is a SHE for Christs sake, at least that's what you say

And you are wrong, My understanding of HER has been in the making within our long lived dealings, as SHE has shown HERSELF, it's not born of any preconceived ideas. Crap I sensed SHE was a SHE early on, I just didn't have the PROOF until recently. And she had denied it all along, until I provided her name at which time SHE finally conceded amidst all her lies!

[SpheresOfBalance]

Your rebuttal is an illusion born of your head alone as you were incapable of understanding that I AGREE WITH THEM BY VIRTUE OF MY LOGIC, AND WHAT I KNOW OF HISTORY!!!!!!!

But dear sob...in all due respect....we all agree to our chosen belief by virtue of 'logic' and 'what we know of history." What makes yours the absolute 'truth'?

You need to go to school and learn some history!