lancek4 wrote:So onward or back into the text: can any one explain why N would make such statements as Sob likes to flaunt of N, and then N little description of Jesus ?
chaz wyman wrote:
lancek4 wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:Specifically which completely out of context statements is SoB repeating?
The ones about killing people.
No, I mean which passages in N.
N never advocates that
T A-C 2 (complete)
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....
Theredis where he says one should kill Christians. If not, 'PROVE' otherwise.
'PROVE' that he says one should kill Christians as I don't see the word "kill" anywhere in the quote you site.
I think you are using the word "parish" in the most negative way you can imagine here...which may not be the actual case.
Here is webster's definition of the word 'perish':
1
: to become destroyed or ruined : cease to exist <recollection of a past already long since perished — Philip Sherrard> <guard against your mistakes or your attempts (perish the thought) to cheat — C. B. Davis>
2
chiefly British : deteriorate, spoil
transitive verb
1
chiefly British : to cause to die : destroy
2
: weaken, benumb
Using these definitions, he could have been saying the 'weak and failures should become destroyed OR ruined OR deteriorate OR be weakened in some manner as well as your interpretation of 'be put to death.' Why do you insist on the most negative connotation of the word perish?
Don't you think it is irresponsible and cruel to make such serious accusations of an author without even so much as to read the rest of his words in order to clarify meaning?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
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).[/color] 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....
Theredis where he says one should kill Christians. If not, 'PROVE' otherwise.
This needs no proof. "Allowed to die" is what doctors do everyday in hospitals. Helped to do this is what many are drying out for in the euthanasia debate.
This is all voluntary. N Is talking about people who can't deal with suffering and are too stupid to realise that there is no afterlife. Such people should get their wishes.
Had you read more N you would automatically know this. Try and find a single philosopher who has studied N that thinks as you do!
'PROVE' that he says one should kill Christians as I don't see the word "kill" anywhere in the quote you site.
I think you are using the word "parish" in the most negative way you can imagine here...which may not be the actual case.
Here is webster's definition of the word 'perish':
1
: to become destroyed or ruined : cease to exist <recollection of a past already long since perished — Philip Sherrard> <guard against your mistakes or your attempts (perish the thought) to cheat — C. B. Davis>
2
chiefly British : deteriorate, spoil
transitive verb
1
chiefly British : to cause to die : destroy
2
: weaken, benumb
Using these definitions, he could have been saying the 'weak and failures should become destroyed OR ruined OR deteriorate OR be weakened in some manner as well as your interpretation of 'be put to death.' Why do you insist on the most negative connotation of the word perish?
Don't you think it is irresponsible and cruel to make such serious accusations of an author without even so much as to read the rest of his words in order to clarify meaning?
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
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).[/color] 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....
Theredis where he says one should kill Christians. If not, 'PROVE' otherwise.
This needs no proof. "Allowed to die" is what doctors do everyday in hospitals. Helped to do this is what many are drying out for in the euthanasia debate.
This is all voluntary. N Is talking about people who can't deal with suffering and are too stupid to realise that there is no afterlife. Such people should get their wishes.
Had you read more N you would automatically know this. Try and find a single philosopher who has studied N that thinks as you do!
There are quite a number of thinkers who would insist that it makes no sense at all to attribute greatness to any of Nietzsche’s works. For these readers, all of Nietzsche’s writings are flawed by serious shortcomings that justify fundamental complaints, ranging from accusations that they are utterly irrational, or devoid of informative content, to the conviction that they contain nothing but silly proclamations based on unwarranted generalizations – or a mixture of both. According to proponents of this view, the best way to think of Nietzsche’s works is as the disturbing documents of the creative process of someone who was on the verge of madness. To call any of his works great would therefore amount to a categorical mistake. Interestingly enough, this bleak evaluation is not based on any disagreement with what the work’s admirers tell us we will find in it, or even any disagreement with the claim that it gives us the quintessential Nietzsche."
But I am no parrot, I read and think for myself. I found the above quote, after I formed my view. It just so happens that, both they and I agree.
Contextually, contained within that complete section (2), there is no other way in which to view those words, you are a fool, a sheep, to merely parrot others, you are no thinker, no philosopher, just a clone of mistaken, would be, thinkers.
So with your ability of fabricating non existent text, the burden of proof in on you, my boy. And as to 'what he means' you merely supply words of your own. Supply those of Nietzsche or shut up as the would be Christian that you resemble.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
First Definition, first clause. I'm live in American, I speak American, so I use American dictionaries. Where are you from again AS?
I am American too. I got that definition from the link below. As you will see that the "first definition/first clause" says, "to become destroyed or ruined.
Why is it so hard to admit you might be mistaken? I am starting to believe you have a difficult time with abstract thinking.
Wikipedia states:
"In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas[3] are distanced from objects.
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication."
Anyway, if this is the case, it might not be your fault you can't understand. However, I do find it interesting that you would feel the need to blame others for being "parrots" instead of thinking that it is you who could have the problem? As a parrot can only mimic but not understand, which is much different than trying to explain a difficult or abstract concept in various ways. You can read back through this thread for pages and pages and see how we are all trying to explain similar ideas in different ways. You can't do this if you are simply parroting. Because a parrot has no concept of what he is actually saying other than the formation and sound of the aesthetics of the words. In other words, He has no idea of meaning or concept the words imply.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
First Definition, first clause. I'm live in American, I speak American, so I use American dictionaries. Where are you from again AS?
I am American too. I got that definition from the link below. As you will see that the "first definition/first clause" says, "to become destroyed or ruined.
Why is it so hard to admit you might be mistaken? I am starting to believe you have a difficult time with abstract thinking.
Wikipedia states:
"In philosophical terminology, abstraction is the thought process wherein ideas[3] are distanced from objects.
Abstraction uses a strategy of simplification, wherein formerly concrete details are left ambiguous, vague, or undefined; thus effective communication about things in the abstract requires an intuitive or common experience between the communicator and the communication recipient. This is true for all verbal/abstract communication."
Anyway, if this is the case, it might not be your fault you can't understand. However, I do find it interesting that you would feel the need to blame others for being "parrots" instead of thinking that it is you who could have the problem? As a parrot can only mimic but not understand, which is much different than trying to explain a difficult or abstract concept in various ways. You can read back through this thread for pages and pages and see how we are all trying to explain similar ideas in different ways. You can't do this if you are simply parroting. Because a parrot has no concept of what he is actually saying other than the formation and sound of the aesthetics of the words. In other words, He has no idea of meaning or concept the words imply.
All the above that you attribute to me, is actually that of yourself, that you see. The reason is because you are obviously incapable of understanding context.
If you read all of T A-C 2 as a whole, then one can only, logically, come to my conclusion, thus proving that the above words you supply, to explain me, actually explains you. But this is not surprising, as the child's words: "it takes one to know one" has elements of truth, those being that sometimes one can only see in another, that which they see in themselves. The trick is to be capable of knowing when a cigar is just a cigar.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
So with your ability of fabricating non existent text, the burden of proof in on you, my boy. And as to 'what he means' you merely supply words of your own. Supply those of Nietzsche or shut up as the would be Christian that you resemble.[/color]
The vast majority of the intellectual community of Europe would have endorsed his view, as the concept of eugenics was endemic at the time. None would have advocated 'killing', though they were mostly in favour of selective breeding, choosing mates; family planning; and offering sterilisation for those with genetic weaknesses.
Nietzsche was not a special case in any sense and represented a pragmatic and scientific outlook common to most thinkers of his time.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
So with your ability of fabricating non existent text, the burden of proof in on you, my boy. And as to 'what he means' you merely supply words of your own. Supply those of Nietzsche or shut up as the would be Christian that you resemble.[/color]
The vast majority of the intellectual community of Europe would have endorsed his view, as the concept of eugenics was endemic at the time. None would have advocated 'killing', though they were mostly in favour of selective breeding, choosing mates; family planning; and offering sterilisation for those with genetic weaknesses.
Nietzsche was not a special case in any sense and represented a pragmatic and scientific outlook common to most thinkers of his time.
OK, suppose what you say is true, that he was aware of this popular acceptance of eugenics, you can't know for sure, unless he said so himself, but it could be true. I see that during his time, one might buy into such ridiculous belief, but it doesn't matter, because we are not currently in that time. We are the readers of a time of beliefs long since abandoned, as I for one, understand that a belief in such a thing as eugenics, is extremely selfish, and has no right to even be considered, in the face of the truth that absolutely no man 'knows' of the truth of existence, and therefore in unqualified to even consider the disposition of any human life, save his own, or that of another, only as a last resort in ones defense. To believe otherwise is the sure sign that one believes he is a god, is in fact a megalomaniac, that of which, you have said you despise, and won't even consider, in the briefest of moments.
The defense of ones life and beliefs, as long as they do not impact another negatively, against all other entities, I agree with. But it is absolutely not any ones right to decide for another, especially if they do not want it for themselves, as that is surely cowardice, as well as megalomania, and can be seen as reverting back to a time of pre-history, when men were savages, which only serves physical strength and not intellect, so states the understanding of nuclear weapons as to Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD), or else one is truly a fool (touched/insane).
I would go so far as to say, that the wisdom that MAD affords, precludes N's message, and thus, anyone that carries his torch, for any other reason, than merely historical reference, is ignorant of this wisdom.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
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).[/color] 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....
Theredis where he says one should kill Christians. If not, 'PROVE' otherwise.
This needs no proof. "Allowed to die" is what doctors do everyday in hospitals. Helped to do this is what many are drying out for in the euthanasia debate.
This is all voluntary. N Is talking about people who can't deal with suffering and are too stupid to realise that there is no afterlife. Such people should get their wishes.
Had you read more N you would automatically know this. Try and find a single philosopher who has studied N that thinks as you do!
There are quite a number of thinkers who would insist that it makes no sense at all to attribute greatness to any of Nietzsche’s works. For these readers, all of Nietzsche’s writings are flawed by serious shortcomings that justify fundamental complaints, ranging from accusations that they are utterly irrational, or devoid of informative content, to the conviction that they contain nothing but silly proclamations based on unwarranted generalizations – or a mixture of both. According to proponents of this view, the best way to think of Nietzsche’s works is as the disturbing documents of the creative process of someone who was on the verge of madness. To call any of his works great would therefore amount to a categorical mistake. Interestingly enough, this bleak evaluation is not based on any disagreement with what the work’s admirers tell us we will find in it, or even any disagreement with the claim that it gives us the quintessential Nietzsche."
But I am no parrot, I read and think for myself. I found the above quote, after I formed my view. It just so happens that, both they and I agree.
Contextually, contained within that complete section (2), there is no other way in which to view those words, you are a fool, a sheep, to merely parrot others, you are no thinker, no philosopher, just a clone of mistaken, would be, thinkers.
So with your ability of fabricating non existent text, the burden of proof in on you, my boy. And as to 'what he means' you merely supply words of your own. Supply those of Nietzsche or shut up as the would be Christian that you resemble.
I have often o
Found that many intelligentsia and acedamia philosophers interpretation are small, catering to their skill at maintaining a career; little of their number or their productions reflect any free thinking at all- except maybe those sone who translate the works as they have to consider many levels of meaning of terms and contexts. Overall, most introductions to philosophers books written by a 'scholar ' that I've read miss the mark, and I attribute this to the impetus to sell books and the scholars exercising his skill to make a name for himself, and probably a tendency that involves a dynamic of layman and acrdemic that settles in mediocrity. Little free thinking involved; much directed prose evident.
SpheresOfBalance wrote: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).[/color] 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....
Theredis where he says one should kill Christians. If not, 'PROVE' otherwise.
lancek4 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
chaz wyman wrote:This needs no proof. "Allowed to die" is what doctors do everyday in hospitals. Helped to do this is what many are drying out for in the euthanasia debate.
This is all voluntary. N Is talking about people who can't deal with suffering and are too stupid to realise that there is no afterlife. Such people should get their wishes.
Had you read more N you would automatically know this. Try and find a single philosopher who has studied N that thinks as you do!
There are quite a number of thinkers who would insist that it makes no sense at all to attribute greatness to any of Nietzsche’s works. For these readers, all of Nietzsche’s writings are flawed by serious shortcomings that justify fundamental complaints, ranging from accusations that they are utterly irrational, or devoid of informative content, to the conviction that they contain nothing but silly proclamations based on unwarranted generalizations – or a mixture of both. According to proponents of this view, the best way to think of Nietzsche’s works is as the disturbing documents of the creative process of someone who was on the verge of madness. To call any of his works great would therefore amount to a categorical mistake. Interestingly enough, this bleak evaluation is not based on any disagreement with what the work’s admirers tell us we will find in it, or even any disagreement with the claim that it gives us the quintessential Nietzsche."
But I am no parrot, I read and think for myself. I found the above quote, after I formed my view. It just so happens that, both they and I agree.
Contextually, contained within that complete section (2), there is no other way in which to view those words, you are a fool, a sheep, to merely parrot others, you are no thinker, no philosopher, just a clone of mistaken, would be, thinkers.
So with your ability of fabricating non existent text, the burden of proof in on you, my boy. And as to 'what he means' you merely supply words of your own. Supply those of Nietzsche or shut up as the would be Christian that you resemble.
I have often o
Found that many intelligentsia and acedamia philosophers interpretation are small, catering to their skill at maintaining a career; little of their number or their productions reflect any free thinking at all- except maybe those sone who translate the works as they have to consider many levels of meaning of terms and contexts. Overall, most introductions to philosophers books written by a 'scholar ' that I've read miss the mark, and I attribute this to the impetus to sell books and the scholars exercising his skill to make a name for himself, and probably a tendency that involves a dynamic of layman and acrdemic that settles in mediocrity. Little free thinking involved; much directed prose evident. Total bullshit, pure supposition on your part, as if you could possibly know of these particular people's motives.
OK, here's the guys name that wrote the introduction that I quoted above along with a few specifics about him:
Prof. em. Dr. Rolf-Peter Horstmann He was also the 'editor' of the edition I referenced above.
Rolf-Peter Horstmann, geb. 1940, Studium der Philosophie, Geschichte und Griechischen Philologie in Tübingen, Wien, Berlin und Heidelberg; 1968 Promotion zum Dr. phil. an der Universität Heidelberg; 1979 Erteilung der venia legendi für das Fach Philosophie, Universität Bielefeld; 1986 Ernennung zum Professor für Philosophie, LMU München; seit 1995 Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Philosophiegeschichte: Deutscher Idealismus an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Oktober 2007 Eintritt in den Ruhestand. Seitdem Gastprofessuren an verschiedenen Universitäten hauptsächlich in den USA.
Besides, he didn't author those comments, he only reported on those that did.
P.S. I'm sure you've noticed his nationality.
Edit: P.S.
Last edited by SpheresOfBalance on Wed Jun 06, 2012 1:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
For some, Nietzsche shall remain a "misunderstood" and "distorted" philosopher, for others their love affair with Nietzsche shows little signs of abating and yet surely a reexamination of his character and philosophy is long overdue. Notably the parallel between his philosophy and Hitler's grand scheme of things.
SpheresOfBalance wrote:Total bullshit, pure supposition on your part, as if you could possibly know of these particular people's motives.
OK, here's the guys name that wrote the introduction that I quoted above along with a few specifics about him:[/color]
Prof. em. Dr. Rolf-Peter Horstmann He was also the 'editor' of the edition I referenced above.
Thats great. I have a valid position and could argue with him till he had to assert his credentials in the attempt to cover his embarrassment. Or he would would be looking down his nose at me so hard, red faced, steam coming out his ears, hhmmfff-ing and hhmmffing, like the towing-the -line acedemic he probably is. But I have never met him, only encountered what he has to say through you, so, I do not really know his veiw, only his introduction, which could have alot of motives behind his writing it the way he did.
Rolf-Peter Horstmann, geb. 1940, Studium der Philosophie, Geschichte und Griechischen Philologie in Tübingen, Wien, Berlin und Heidelberg; 1968 Promotion zum Dr. phil. an der Universität Heidelberg; 1979 Erteilung der venia legendi für das Fach Philosophie, Universität Bielefeld; 1986 Ernennung zum Professor für Philosophie, LMU München; seit 1995 Inhaber des Lehrstuhls für Philosophiegeschichte: Deutscher Idealismus an der Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin. Oktober 2007 Eintritt in den Ruhestand. Seitdem Gastprofessuren an verschiedenen Universitäten hauptsächlich in den USA.
Besides, he didn't author those comments, he only reported on those that did.
