The Antichrist

[lancek4]

So back to the topic, I am just reiterating and summarizing what N has written. It is plain. What it means is not the same as what could he mean. I am not adding to what he says: it is plain. If one has to ask what does he mean, then they are not what N considers 'his readers'. Which should then cause one to rethink how they are coming upon N: because he is not being deceptive or vague. He is being plain.

What us plain is the consistency of his works, or of the book in this case. What is plain is that which explains how his varied topics, and apparent contradictions, have a total non contradictory, consistent meaning. As K: to will one thing....

[Arising_uk]

Arsenic and Old Lace is a 1944 comedic film directed by Frank Capra based on Joseph Kesselring's play of the same name. ...

One of my all time favourite films. Cary Grant was a brilliant comedy actor.

[Arising_uk]

Again it's you comprehension problem to which I'm referring!

Then point out where and what you think I'm not comprehending? As so far I think I comprehend you better than you do yourself but am willing to be corrected.

That you avoid the point again is pretty much par for the course, so I'll reiterate it.

When you use the quote function and quote someone and then write a reply beneath, they can reasonably assume that the reply is about the quote. If its not and its about some other matter then just use their name to address them and make your general point without confusing them with quotes, as they are not mind-readers. Clear?

[Arising_uk]

So am I the only one that has understood from the beginning that we merely don't understand one another most of the time. ...

Thats the point of asking each other questions but you appear to find them distressing.

I said so, remember, that you and I just don't get along? You failed to understand and went off on some tangent about this being a philosophy forum or such. ...

And I'll do it again, as I'm not here to make friends or 'get along', its a philosophy forum and as such I'm here to discuss mine and others thoughts, if you wish this then try adultfriendsfinder or some other social network more suited to such things.

I believe that it's pretty obvious that neither of us understands the other a lot of the time.

Then ask and answer some questions rather than going-off on psycho-babble rants about me. Its called philosophizing.

[SpheresOfBalance]

quote="SpheresOfBalancequote="lancek4"]

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.

As I have said else where a few times: sob, you and I are like two sides of a coin. The above postings. ( yours and mine) are evidence of this - and are perfect examples of N proposition (ironically). The evidence is consistent with the fact that you do not see this.
Anyone can deny anything by simply issuing a blanket statement, saying that it's not true, so what? It's meaningless! Everything I said above in red is true! If truly not, you'd be capable of addressing each individual statement above any telling me why it's not true, the reason you don't is because you can't.
When you pick up his book that's will, as you train your eyes that's will, as you move your eyes from left to right, top to bottom that's will, when you see any connection at all contained withing the combination of words, that's willed, as you had to first learn each and every word, which was a product of will, with human beings 'everything they do is willed. You cannot detach yourself from will. You simply willed that he is good and that you'd believe, because he is a philosopher, he is considered a part of the curriculum. And I did too, initially, until I saw section 2, I like you had willed that I would read him and that I would certainly learn from him, that I would like him, as he was a great thinker of philosophy, until he said that the 'weak should perish and that we should help them do so.' In other words until he said to kill the weak, the weak being christians, There are absolutely no circumstance where I'd will killing, intellectually speaking, which is what this book is supposed to stimulate, the intellect! Emotionally distraught I may will such things, but intellectually, never. Section 2 is short and nothing contained within it alludes to his meaning as anything other than the exact meaning of the words. If you can find a passage in the book that alludes to any other particular meaning, point it out. I am "WILLING" to reconsider.

"Volition or will is the cognitive process by which an individual decides on and commits to a particular course of action." --Wikipedia--

will 2 /wɪl/ [wil] noun, verb, willed, will·ing.
noun
1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will. --© Random House, Inc. 2012.--

You are object oriented, positioned in a world of true objects. Every statement you make reveals this. And the fact that you deny this, the fact that you see the infinite universe reflected or manifest in our potential for knowing, defacto relegated you to the universal in the kierkegaardian sense.

What you say is mumbo jumbo, you believe in fairy tales, your words are those of the superstitious, you see pink elephants in the sky. All of Science sees the true object as that's all there is, in that all there is are objects, and when you die and no longer exist as at true object that you in fact are, the truth will become apparent, albeit a bit too late!

You fail to understand the issue because you have no problem with the true object. It is your faith; the faith of Issac.
No yours is the faith if Issac, as you believe in invisible things, I, like the men of science believe in the true object, what is real. Einstein, Sagan, Da Vinci, Galileo and Hawking, to name a few, believe in the true object, I'm in good company!

I'll prove it, if objects are not true, in and of them selves, and are merely subjective as to ones mind. Make my car fly! Come on, in your ridiculously small mind, of invisible subjectivity, make my car fly, you can't because the object is true, in and of itself! No matter what any pea brain can subjectively say about that car, it still functions EXACTLY as the true object, that in fact it is, no faith is required. PERIOD!!!!!

I have attempted to prove or explain it to you elsewhere, but at some point along the line you resort to your faith and assert the Truth. Our discussion ends. And thereby in our (mine and yours) dialectic reveal the substance of N proposition, which is the existential issue, that you cannot, that is, are incapable of seeing because your orientation upon reality is toward the true object. I say nothing of 'objective' or 'subjective' because these terms have been 'commandeered' into the discourse of the true object.

I am not saying there is no actual thing that we call a car, I am saying that you cannot prove to me the car without relying upon an assumption of a common humanity, a faith.
This that you say is incorrect, I've already proven it to you, you just cling to this mumbo jumbo of yours. I shall do it again. I meet you at your home, I take you by the hand, I lead you to the car, I point to it and I say "car," of course you then proceed to ask questions, that I answer, after much instruction, you learn to operate, and maintain the car, you then know of a portion of the thing in and of itself, unless you want to dismantle and rebuild it as I teach you of the manufacturing process, etc, to encompass all of what it is that is contained in "car," there is no faith, only knowledge that you and I have been to school, to learn of the meaning of words to represent things, so as to speak of them, starting with, "See Spot Run," on to the smelting of iron ore, hydraulics, etc. There is no faith, well maybe a little, that you are not brain dead such that, that piece of paper your school gave you, as to your education, was actually earned. And if you see this as my concession, I say to you that the point is so utterly meaningless, to be of absolutely no real consequence.

If you took 1000 high school students and sat them down at a drafting table that included a piece of vellum, a drafting machine, a rule, a protractor, a compass and a sharpened pencil point and asked them to draw a precise circle, I bet you that 100% of them would choose the compass and draw a circle. This is not faith, it's education (knowledge) or I should say that the amount of faith is so negligible, as to be inconsequential, in terms of a favorable test result. Sure there is a minuscule bit of faith involved but it's not some ground breaking theory that is stronger/undermines knowledge and truth, otherwise we would not have made it to the moon, nor done all the other things that we have done. It's trivial! So yes, unlike you, I see the end result of knowing the Object in and of itself, as more important than this trivial amount of faith required, in the learning of the object in and of itself. This faith that you speak of, is just that the teacher doesn't lie, about the object in and of itself. And in the end this is only, so to speak of the object, which does not have anything to do with the object itself. This, and by your own admission above, I might add, shows that the truth of the object is absolute, and that a humans understanding of it is the only thing that can be seen as relative, due to a faith in the teacher.


You are conflating issues that have no barring here. Because you don't understand the issue. Faith makes truth. You do not understand the issue of existence. Nor do you seem to want to. You would rather see a hostile world and defend yourself. There is little risk in the true object, only pessimism and faith (and hope).
Incorrect, I see that faith makes belief and not truth, by definition truth is any particular belief that is in fact actual, from the universal level, devoid of human misinterpretation. You have truth and belief confused. You seem to believe that merely because someone believes that something is true that it is in fact true, WRONG!

You do not understand the issue. Thus you and I in discussion about truth always reveal N propisition.
No it is you that does not understand the issue, and believes in men that say that power is good and that we should help kill the weak, and by your own argument I might add, you of your 'faith' in N, betting on the lame horse, of no consideration other than the self, that which he spoke so mightily of in his books, his overman status, one of Armageddon spawn, one all by himself, standing alone on his mountain top looking 'down' on those that do not count, those mere humans, in the insanity of loneliness and despair, born of his life long sicklyness, I see it as probably hereditary, as his father died of a brain disease, his inability to find an accepting mate, as is a normal, sane mans nature. You see his words of being above, as placing you above, if you merely have 'faith' in them, believe in them as if they are actually anything other than that which he targets. His is that of the same as he reports, merely a slightly different color. A new religion, of those that want so desperately to believe they are overmen, that they are smarter than all the rest, that only they matter.

Part of the problem is that you propose to yourself that I exist is a particular way or manner and so you discount what I say in your being offended and say that I am not real or live in some fantasyland. You cannot imagine the considtency of my statements correlating to the same existence as yourself. Instead of attributing me existence as valid you defensively designate me insane or delusional. And this is consistent with one who has faith in the true object: it is a faith in transcendence which grants a mythological privilege for ones self ; that which dehumanizes what is offensive. I explain you as a total human, totally existing somehow the same as all else.
All this is bullshit that is actually contained in your own mind that you have decided to project onto me. I know that both of us only knows of the other, that which we believe the other has conveyed, and respond in kind, and that it is impossible for you or anyone else here on this board to actually know me, or for me to actually know them, as no one actually fully knows themselves, as it is a lifelong endeavour as there is always some new understanding just around the corner, that helps to define us. What we speak of as to the other is only contained in what we 'believe' we understand of the other and is largely that of illusion and ego.

[lancek4]

As soon as you point and say 'car' you are relying upon a human assumption.

I understand and agree with you as to objects. You miss the issue though.

[SpheresOfBalance]

As soon as you point and say 'car' you are relying upon a human assumption.

I understand and agree with you as to objects. You miss the issue though.

I don't miss the issue, It's meaningless, of no real consequence.

And that of assumption is why they give tests, after all you can't have a shuttle pilot assuming that he knows how to dock with the international space station, or better yet how about a guy that assumes that he knows how to disarm a live nuclear warhead. These guys had better know the absolute truth of their respective objects in and of themselves, or someones super toast.

[chaz wyman]

As soon as you point and say 'car' you are relying upon a human assumption.

I understand and agree with you as to objects. You miss the issue though.

I don't miss the issue, It's meaningless, of no real consequence.

And that of assumption is why they give tests, after all you can't have a shuttle pilot assuming that he knows how to dock with the international space station, or better yet how about a guy that assumes that he knows how to disarm a live nuclear warhead. These guys had better know the absolute truth of their respective objects in and of themselves, or someones super toast.

The word 'absolute' has no function in your last sentence: a concept that has no function is redundant.
To demonstrate:
"These guys had better know the truth of their respective objects in and of themselves, or someones super toast."

[SpheresOfBalance]

Man, Lance...I know what you mean about being out of the loop! I was gone for not even a day and this thread is a mile long! I don't think I will be able to catch up...lol.

Hi Mike,

Arsenic and old lace? Never saw it...but do you think N is capable of murder or condoning murder? I mean, yeah...the guy probably didn't win any popularity contests, but murder? I don't think he would have condoned murder.

"In 1867 Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. However, a riding accident in March 1868 left him unfit for service."--wikipedia--

AND

"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...." --N's (T A-C 2)--

Sounds like he condoned murder to me. Of course for what he believed was a good reason, but isn't that how it is with all murderers, don't they all believe that they're doing it for a good reason?

Although...I doubt if he would have shed any tears if the people he despised died. But that is not the same as murder.....or condoning murder.

[artisticsolution]

"In 1867 Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. However, a riding accident in March 1868 left him unfit for service."--wikipedia--
Sounds like he condoned murder to me. Of course for what he believed was a good reason, but isn't that how it is with all murderers, don't they all believe that they're doing it for a good reason? [/color]

By Jove...I think he's got it! That's what K said! (said like the punch line "that's what she said!") You are right, most of us want to believe so badly that we are good that even when we murder we are doing for 'good' reasons. But how can we really know what is 'good' in the realm of our entire existence? Couldn't it be that the outcome of any individual action would be the same, worse, or better if one took no action at all?

Young men have just as many 'crazy romantic notions' as young women. The hero in them is likely to come out just as the 'damsel in distress' syndrome is for many young women. Like you, I don't think any of us can know ourselves fully, especially in the present. Hindsight is a curious thing...how we did things in the past that we would never think of doing now....Perhaps that is what made N think the way he did....as he followed society and perhaps realized what he did later?

I don't know what happened...but I do know that there used to be a great contributor to the forum once who went by the id 'Nonsum'. He was just as his name implied....very liberal and very cool...laid back....just liked to watch his garden grow and read and live with his special lady. I remember him mentioning when he was younger that he joined the service but soon got disenchanted with it and realized he had made a huge mistake...so he decided to just quit. He told a funny tale about being in the brig...alone...and sitting on the ground leaning against the wall of his cell....bored....throwing his wedding ring against the wall and catching it as it 'bounced' back...lol. I asked him once why he joined in the first place if he was a peaceful man...he said something like he was a strong young and didn't understand who he was yet or...that he was a dumb fool...or something to that effect. I can't remember his exact words. Anyway, it could have been the same with N. Who knows how he came to think like he did.

I have thought about what constitutes 'murder' many times....mine was regarding the 10 commandments and "thou shall not kill" and how society says it's ok to kill if we are at war...or for self defense.K's was about how could Abraham murder Issac and not think it was wrong....as he gives a few very cool example of Abraham's thought process during the ride to mariah. But I don't think it's OK even under any circumstances, even if God told you to...or if it is self defense or whatever. I think killing is wrong.

But here's the thing...I would kill if it meant my life...and when I was younger I almost joined the service! Do I think murdering under those circumstance is different than cold blooded murder? Absolutely! But still wrong nonetheless. I think it is wrong but I would kill to defend my life...isn't that honest to a fault? To tell you right here and now that I would do something that I felt was wrong....at least if my life was threatened. See, I can admit that I would do wrong. And it's ok. The sky didn't fall in...and I can work out thoughts in my head...thoughts that might have been "taboo" to me at a different stage of my life! That is why I don't understand what the biggie is by reading the antichrist. So it's 'off limits/taboo' to you... when you think like that how can you possibly know if you are wrong about him and yourself? As whether or not someone admits wrong doing or not...doesn't mean they will always do what's 'right/good'. We have no way of knowing whether any action is good or bad in the total scheme of our existence.



SOB:Sounds like he condoned murder to me. Of course for what he believed was a good reason, but isn't that how it is with all murderers, don't they all believe that they're doing it for a good reason?

AS: Then if it sounds like he condoned murder...under the circumstances that you say...then who among us are not murderers? Most of us live and breathe under societies rules...at least a certain points in our life...most of us abide by the laws of our countries ...who go to war....who murder in our name. Most of us would kill to defend our lives or the lives of those we love.

Here is what I don't understand....if you don't like N...so much so that you refuse to read him...and would actually take up arms to stop him....then why don't you despise yourself too...as you have done the same as N...only you have just picked a different crowd to defend. While you defend the 'weak'....N defends the 'powerful'.

[SpheresOfBalance]

"In 1867 Nietzsche signed up for one year of voluntary service with the Prussian artillery division in Naumburg. However, a riding accident in March 1868 left him unfit for service."--wikipedia--
Sounds like he condoned murder to me. Of course for what he believed was a good reason, but isn't that how it is with all murderers, don't they all believe that they're doing it for a good reason? [/color]

By Jove...I think he's got it!
I didn't just get this, I've always had this, at least long before I ever joined this forum.

That's what K said! (said like the punch line "that's what she said!") You are right, most of us want to believe so badly that we are good that even when we murder we are doing for 'good' reasons. But how can we really know what is 'good' in the realm of our entire existence? Couldn't it be that the outcome of any individual action would be the same, worse, or better if one took no action at all?

Young men have just as many 'crazy romantic notions' as young women. The hero in them is likely to come out just as the 'damsel in distress' syndrome is for many young women. Like you, I don't think any of us can know ourselves fully, especially in the present. Hindsight is a curious thing...how we did things in the past that we would never think of doing now....Perhaps that is what made N think the way he did....as he followed society and perhaps realized what he did later?

I don't know what happened...but I do know that there used to be a great contributor to the forum once who went by the id 'Nonsum'. He was just as his name implied....very liberal and very cool...laid back....just liked to watch his garden grow and read and live with his special lady. I remember him mentioning when he was younger that he joined the service but soon got disenchanted with it and realized he had made a huge mistake...so he decided to just quit. He told a funny tale about being in the brig...alone...and sitting on the ground leaning against the wall of his cell....bored....throwing his wedding ring against the wall and catching it as it 'bounced' back...lol. I asked him once why he joined in the first place if he was a peaceful man...he said something like he was a strong young and didn't understand who he was yet or...that he was a dumb fool...or something to that effect. I can't remember his exact words. Anyway, it could have been the same with N. Who knows how he came to think like he did.

I have thought about what constitutes 'murder' many times....mine was regarding the 10 commandments and "thou shall not kill" and how society says it's ok to kill if we are at war...or for self defense.K's was about how could Abraham murder Issac and not think it was wrong....as he gives a few very cool example of Abraham's thought process during the ride to mariah. But I don't think it's OK even under any circumstances, even if God told you to...or if it is self defense or whatever. I think killing is wrong.

But here's the thing...I would kill if it meant my life...and when I was younger I almost joined the service! Do I think murdering under those circumstance is different than cold blooded murder? Absolutely! But still wrong nonetheless. I think it is wrong but I would kill to defend my life...isn't that honest to a fault? To tell you right here and now that I would do something that I felt was wrong....at least if my life was threatened. See, I can admit that I would do wrong. And it's ok. The sky didn't fall in...and I can work out thoughts in my head...thoughts that might have been "taboo" to me at a different stage of my life! That is why I don't understand what the biggie is by reading the antichrist. So it's 'off limits/taboo' to you... when you think like that how can you possibly know if you are wrong about him and yourself? As whether or not someone admits wrong doing or not...doesn't mean they will always do what's 'right/good'. We have no way of knowing whether any action is good or bad in the total scheme of our existence.



SOB:Sounds like he condoned murder to me. Of course for what he believed was a good reason, but isn't that how it is with all murderers, don't they all believe that they're doing it for a good reason?

AS: Then if it sounds like he condoned murder...under the circumstances that you say...then who among us are not murderers? Most of us live and breathe under societies rules...at least a certain points in our life...most of us abide by the laws of our countries ...who go to war....who murder in our name. Most of us would kill to defend our lives or the lives of those we love.

Here is what I don't understand....if you don't like N...so much so that you refuse to read him...and would actually take up arms to stop him....
I never said I'd take up arms to stop him, Hitler yes, because he actually was responsible for many deaths, but N never killed anyone that I'm aware of, if he did though, that would be another story huh?. I don't know if you noticed but I've made the distinction between killing as intellectual contemplation and killing as emotional contemplation. I see that as to study, as with reading N, it is purely intellectual, however if I were to decide to kill to save another, in their or my defense, it obviously would be emotionally driven. I see that it is pure evil to speak of killing intellectually.

then why don't you despise yourself too...
I've never killed anyone.

as you have done the same as N...
I have never spoken of offensively killing as N has.
only you have just picked a different crowd to defend. While you defend the 'weak'....N defends the 'powerful'.
I wouldn't defend merely because someone was weak or powerful, I would defend anyone that was the innocent underdog.

[Arising_uk]

... I have never spoken of offensively killing as N has. ...

Show us where?

[lancek4]

I repost:

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 - I offer this in response:

N reduces existence to an 'unwilled' basis that stems from and reaches 'beyond good and evil ' , beyond morality. Thus truth, being founded only upon an ethical scheme, his readers should have the fortitude to have made this 'unwilled' move to reàlly understand him. 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. 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.

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.

[lancek4]

And this:

So back to the topic, I am just reiterating and summarizing what N has written. It is plain. What it means is not the same as what could he mean. I am not adding to what he says: it is plain. If one has to ask what does he mean, then they are not what N considers 'his readers'. Which should then cause one to rethink how they are coming upon N: because he is not being deceptive or vague. He is being plain.

What us plain is the consistency of his works, or of the book in this case. What is plain is that which explains how his varied topics, and apparent contradictions, have a total non contradictory, consistent meaning. As K: to will one thing....

[lancek4]

The object can exist. The issue is whether one is fixed upon the object's truth in order to gain his truth.

Where one's 'gaze' is confined to the true object, his argument will always be based in an offence, an 'embarrassment' of the individual's inability to reconsile his existence with the object. He thus asserts himself As Truth, as the total route to the true object. He can thus justify himself through his 'faith' in the true object. Discussion of the true object can thus supply the individual with a justified position in the world despite his inability to come to terms with this limitation. In other words he asserts his stable position in an existence that is always changing.

The issue of existence is thereby effectively solved a priori for the individual in the assumption of a common humanity that exists within a knowledge that holds potential to gain an 'absolute ' truth.

When one's gaze is not fixed upon the true object then the irony of his existence is not lost, and he can thereby uphold a possibility of himself that one may call a 'sponteneous involvement with the universe. But this situation is akways suspended in a present condition that defies an absolutely true object.