The Antichrist

[lancek4]

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.

If I were a computper programmer, I write my own codes for problems that are pretty common. But I write them in my own way and they have thier own problems. Many many programmers are writing various codes to solve the same probelm that keeps recurring and none are any better than the other for they deal with the probelm.
But then one day some programmer comes along and solves the probelm so elequently and concisely that all the other programmers codes pale and become obsolete.
Only those programmers who really want a solution to the probelm will see this latter guy as a genius, because they already knew the solution and so could recognize it. Those who are cought up in asserting thier own code so they can get something out of thier effort will not see the genius of this guy, and they will still promote thier code to try to sell thier code and make a name for themselves.

this is the problem with the generalizing of philsophy into method.

I have a brown dry lawn because of the climate of where I live, and I water and water it. i put miracle grow on it and it becomes green for a second and I feel good because I am tending to my lawn and doing what seems sensible.

But the guy down the street has a green lawn all the time, and this is because he fertilized it at the right time.

He recognized the probelm; i do not. I do not worship him; I only get over my self enough that I can recognize the real probelm and that he has found a real solution, where as I have merely been asserting what i thought I know.

the issue is not about feeling good because I am making an 'honest effort'. The issue is about having a green lawn all the time. If I can be honest with myself, have a true humility, then i can see what I have not been recognizing.

typical Philosophy wants to say: her bro smoke a joint, its all good, its all relative; we dont need to go to all that trouble. Im feeling good, your feeling good. Its all good dude. Hey and if Im making money, it Must mean that I am doing ok.

[artisticsolution]

reasonvemotion wrote:
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.



The idea that anyone could be forced to commit the horror the likes of Hitler, simply by reading N, is mistaken. How many millions have read N and not committed such acts? I liken Reason's stance with that of the mothers who blamed recording artist for their teens suicides.

In a world full of interaction and innovation, free speech is paramount. The suggestion that a book can cause a person to commit acts of violence is unfounded. It could never be proven...even if the criminal said that is were he got the idea...surely common sense would tell us there was something more to it than that.

I would think someone would be more inclined to 'blame' the parental influence or other mental health issues rather than the off chance one reading of a book could cause them to go 'off the deep end.'

Anyway, what I took from reading N was that it was the following of a leader (in this case Christianity) that is the problem and not the individual unique thought.

[SpheresOfBalance]

reasonvemotion wrote:
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.



The idea that anyone could be forced to commit the horror the likes of Hitler, simply by reading N, is mistaken. How many millions have read N and not committed such acts? I liken Reason's stance with that of the mothers who blamed recording artist for their teens suicides.

In a world full of interaction and innovation, free speech is paramount. The suggestion that a book can cause a person to commit acts of violence is unfounded. It could never be proven...even if the criminal said that is were he got the idea...surely common sense would tell us there was something more to it than that.

I would think someone would be more inclined to 'blame' the parental influence or other mental health issues rather than the off chance one reading of a book could cause them to go 'off the deep end.'

Anyway, what I took from reading N was that it was the following of a leader (in this case Christianity) that is the problem and not the individual unique thought.

You are mistaken, which is why you think you like N. Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Reasonvemotion did not blame N for Hitlers atrocities, she simply suggested that N should be reevaluated due to the parallels of N's words and Hitlers actions. You read into her words much like I'm sure you did N's.

I saw a couple of posts of yours, where you slighted yourself as far as your language goes, and suggested someone reiterate your words, much like an editor, so you could sound smarter. I suggest that you have had problems with self esteem, and when you read those first words contained in N's preface, of his "The Anti-Christ," where he try's to sell himself to those of your type, by attempting to convince them, that if they understand him, then they are somehow special, above all the other mere humans, that don't matter, according to him, such that you can hold them in contempt, you saw an opportunity to show everyone how smart you are by merely saying that you've read and fully understand, such a highly intelligent (insane) person. I bet that if you and Chaz, Arising and Lance took open book quiz's, in the end you would find that those three would answer similarly and be more or less correct as to the common understanding of N while your answers would be vastly different. Not because you're stupid, because you're not, but because those three (not sure about Chaz) have been to school and read N there. N is a complicated read, as I for one had no idea of many of his references to Christianity, that I had to look up online, as I refuse to read something without understanding it COMPLETELY. In the end, for me, it's just too much work, I see that it would take more time, for me to fully understand, than I care to allot for such a venture.

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

If I were a computper programmer, I write my own codes for problems that are pretty common. But I write them in my own way and they have thier own problems. Many many programmers are writing various codes to solve the same probelm that keeps recurring and none are any better than the other for they deal with the probelm.
But then one day some programmer comes along and solves the probelm so elequently and concisely that all the other programmers codes pale and become obsolete.
Only those programmers who really want a solution to the probelm will see this latter guy as a genius, because they already knew the solution and so could recognize it. Those who are cought up in asserting thier own code so they can get something out of thier effort will not see the genius of this guy, and they will still promote thier code to try to sell thier code and make a name for themselves.

this is the problem with the generalizing of philsophy into method.

I have a brown dry lawn because of the climate of where I live, and I water and water it. i put miracle grow on it and it becomes green for a second and I feel good because I am tending to my lawn and doing what seems sensible.

But the guy down the street has a green lawn all the time, and this is because he fertilized it at the right time.

He recognized the probelm; i do not. I do not worship him; I only get over my self enough that I can recognize the real probelm and that he has found a real solution, where as I have merely been asserting what i thought I know.

the issue is not about feeling good because I am making an 'honest effort'. The issue is about having a green lawn all the time. If I can be honest with myself, have a true humility, then i can see what I have not been recognizing.

typical Philosophy wants to say: her bro smoke a joint, its all good, its all relative; we dont need to go to all that trouble. Im feeling good, your feeling good. Its all good dude. Hey and if Im making money, it Must mean that I am doing ok.

All wrong, actually a better analogy would be that a coder writes code that is all wrong, but he talks people into believing it's better by convincing them that if they see it's brilliance that they will be brilliant too, just like him. Though what the believers don't realize is that he's quite mad, which becomes apparent when an even crazier fellow countryman puts his evil code into action. The believers then see their error, but were afraid to give up their new found belief, that they are specially gifted, because then they would be seen as fools, that were so gullible as to buy into his swampland code, so they continued to carry his torch and tried to convince everyone that it was good, that they just couldn't see it, as it was above them, hoping to convert them, the same way they had been, by convincing them that to believe, made them like them, more intelligent. What a great way to brainwash the weak minded, and create a people that could give a fuck about their weak fellow men, so that they could always dominate, if no where else, at least in their own minds, unless like that other megalomaniac they decided to put his idea into action. What a great way to become exceedingly selfish.

[artisticsolution]

SOB:You are mistaken, which is why you think you like N.

AS: Where did I say I liked N?

SOB: Your reading comprehension is sorely lacking. Reasonvemotion did not blame N for Hitlers atrocities, she simply suggested that N should be reevaluated due to the parallels of N's words and Hitlers actions. You read into her words much like I'm sure you did N's.

AS: There is nothing wrong with my reading comprehension. I went where my own thoughts took me in regards to Reasonvemotion. It is an aside to her comments. It's called having a separate thought apart from anothers....perhaps you've heard tale of this phenomenon?

SOB:I saw a couple of posts of yours, where you slighted yourself as far as your language goes, and suggested someone reiterate your words, much like an editor, so you could sound smarter. I suggest that you have had problems with self esteem,

AS: That is who I am...that is what I do...I use self deprecation as humor or just in explaining myself. I use it because I am secure with who I am and see no harm in taking an honest look at my strength's and weaknesses. I believe those who can do this have more self esteem than those who have to lie to themselves...i.e tell themselves they are good at something when they are not.

SOB: and when you read those first words contained in N's preface, of his "The Anti-Christ," where he try's to sell himself to those of your type, by attempting to convince them, that if they understand him, then they are somehow special, above all the other mere humans, that don't matter, according to him, such that you can hold them in contempt, you saw an opportunity to show everyone how smart you are by merely saying that you've read and fully understand, such a highly intelligent (insane) person.

AS: Okay, that is your negativity coming out. You have no idea if you are correct about N as you did not read the book. Don't you ever question your firmly held beliefs? Why are they mostly negatively based instead of neutral or positive? Surely, the probability is that the world is divided 50/50 good/bad? Why is that truth not reflected in you assessment of N?

But let's look at your belief in Freud and psychology for a moment. If truth be told it is you who are being convinced to believe Freud's words as they have no basis in fact. They are made up by his mind...just as you say...a cigar is sometimes just a cigar. The fact that someone implied it could be anything else but a cigar is insane as no one can read another's thoughts. It's impossible. So the idea that a cigar could be anything but a cigar is made up by the imagination of one man...a man who did not take the bullet for his own thoughts but rather placed them onto others who were mentally ill. Pretty low if you ask me.

Unlike you who follows Freud''s doctrine, I do not follow N. I read N's book...I can see the significance in it's aesthetic value and judgment, in that like Freud, it was a new concept for the times.

So, I believe Freud to be mistaken about his findings but that since he exposed his thoughts with authority, unlike N, he succeeded in brainwashing a whole generation, unlike N...not only that...but very irresponsible with attributing such frightening imagery to those with shaky mental health. It was not a moral thing to do when it is obvious that people follow the herd...and I think you know this in your heart...you don't even need to read N...although he said it more eloquently than I could. However, N is just stating the obvious...unlike F, who is telling us his opinion is fact.

SOB:I bet that if you and Chaz, Arising and Lance took open book quiz's, in the end you would find that those three would answer similarly and be more or less correct as to the common understanding of N while your answers would be vastly different.

AS:What book wouldn't this be the case for? Of course our answers will be different...we are different people.

SOB: In the end, for me, it's just too much work, I see that it would take more time, for me to fully understand, than I care to allot for such a venture.

AS: Yes, I can respect this. Sometimes I do the same thing...especially when I could care less about the subject the author is presenting. Soooo maybe existentialism is not your 'thing'?

But I do wish you would reconsider with K...just read the preface and 'attunement' of 'fear and trembling' and tell me what you think...I am curious. It's all only 7 1/2 pages...it draws you right in beautifully.

[lancek4]

To sob: If I were inclined to 'believe' what someone was telling me perhaps then you are correct.

I am only saying that to learn something one has to first know of it. Else a jet airplane is really a giant bird. There has to be something already present to knowledge for something to make sense. Ask any anthropologist.

Where one is defiantly ignorant, we have the dangerous world in which my self righteous knowledge will save. And the world goes 'poop' all the while the ignorant proclaim how they were right. And we should have listened to them.

Like Hitler, despite his grand righteousness he brought only destruction, as with most with intentions based in ignorance. The ignorant take what justifies what they want and know ; they have little need of truth beyond their own.
U
When one tries to teach an 3 year old calculus, the child will turn away and tend to its interests.

[artisticsolution]

Like Hitler, despite his grand righteousness he brought only destruction, as with most with intentions based in ignorance. The ignorant take what justifies what they want and know ; they have little need of truth beyond their own.
U
When one tries to teach an 3 year old calculus, the child will turn away and tend to its interests.

Hi Lance,

Your words remind me of an article I read the other day.

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservati ... 03506.html

[lancek4]

Like Hitler, despite his grand righteousness he brought only destruction, as with most with intentions based in ignorance. The ignorant take what justifies what they want and know ; they have little need of truth beyond their own.
U
When one tries to teach an 3 year old calculus, the child will turn away and tend to its interests.

Hi Lance,

Your words remind me of an article I read the other day.

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservati ... 03506.html

This is very interesting AS. Thank you.

[lancek4]

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.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perish

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

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.

I disagree. Please explain to me how you reconcile the 'perish' topic with s34 or so where N speaks of Jesus and the gospels; then I we might be able to have a discussion of AC as a whole.

[SpheresOfBalance]

...and when you read those first words contained in N's preface, of his "The Anti-Christ," where he try's to sell himself to those of your type, by attempting to convince them, that if they understand him, then they are somehow special, above all the other mere humans, that don't matter, according to him, such that you can hold them in contempt, you saw an opportunity to show everyone how smart you are by merely saying that you've read and fully understand, such a highly intelligent (insane) person.

Okay, that is your negativity coming out. You have no idea if you are correct about N as you did not read the book. Don't you ever question your firmly held beliefs? Why are they mostly negatively based instead of neutral or positive? Surely, the probability is that the world is divided 50/50 good/bad? Why is that truth not reflected in you assessment of N?

Absolutely NOT, as to the following things, for instance:

"What is good? - Whatever enhances people's feeling of power, will to power, power itself."
I shall never question 'what is good,' as for me it is, and shall always be, the actuality of life itself, in its balanced, unselfish, respectful living. This belief was born of no one other than I, and I alone!

"What is bad? - Everything stemming from weakness."
I shall never question 'what is bad' as for me it is, and shall always be, anything that hinders or otherwise opposes ‘what is good’ as presented above.

"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)."
I shall never question 'what is happiness' as for me it is, and shall always be, for instance, that which I feel, as I watch a little boy and girl, trying to catch a beautiful butterfly, amongst the beautiful flowers, of a vast beautiful meadow, of the multitudes of beautiful colors, all of which is to be found, on this beautiful blue sphere, floating amongst all the other beautiful celestial bodies, that are contained in this beautiful universe of endless possibility (the wonder of life). And yes at that point I am content, as it is contrasted by much work, which is a part of the necessary dichotomy, so that I may sit back and relax, so as to enjoy the fruits of my labor, this miracle, this wonder of life.

And as for this: “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....,” they are clearly the ravings of a MAD man as he knew not the wisdom that is to be found in the consideration of MAD as it pertains to mans philosophy and thus psychology.

And if you say that he actually means the opposite, as can be seen with an understanding of existentialism, that he slowly, 'intentionally' uncovers, as the book progresses, then that would mean that he has absolutely no problem with Christians at all, which I don't see as the case. But still, I say to you, that it's clearly not apparent in the first part of his book, and that he 'literally' pleads evil wrong doing, and thus he initially, literally, as with the most common understanding of words, gives license to the harming of people, through war and anything else one can imagine, such that if nothing else could be said about him, he sucks as a writer, because I would never for one second, allow someone to believe I was an evil warmonger, so as to later show otherwise, that I'm sure he doesn't. I would use contrasting dialog 'all along' showing where I stood, as compared to the rulers of the Christian actuality, as I saw it, so that others may see it.

If you believe you actually understand N’s The Anti-Christ, and believe it to be truly good for the human race, sum it up, as to the crux of the matter as he sees it. What is the singular message that he tries to convey as you see it? What is it that makes this book such a good read? Why is it an essential philosophy book?

[SpheresOfBalance]

Like Hitler, despite his grand righteousness he brought only destruction, as with most with intentions based in ignorance. The ignorant take what justifies what they want and know ; they have little need of truth beyond their own.
U
When one tries to teach an 3 year old calculus, the child will turn away and tend to its interests.

Hi Lance,

Your words remind me of an article I read the other day.

http://news.yahoo.com/low-iq-conservati ... 03506.html

While I haven't known the specific statistics involved, I've known of this for quite some time. It's been clear to me for many years, that prejudice is born of the ignorant, or worst yet, the stupid, but the underlying human psychological elements are fear, and of course selfishness.

[lancek4]

How strange... 'view the most recent post ' has brought me to the thread of last weeks condition... Hhmm

[SpheresOfBalance]

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.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perish

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."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstraction

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.

I disagree. Please explain to me how you reconcile the 'perish' topic with s34 or so where N speaks of Jesus and the gospels; then I we might be able to have a discussion of AC as a whole.

Actually it's not AC, the title is clearly T A-C, but that's beside the point. I said "T A-C 2 as a whole." not T A-C as a whole, and I was speaking to AS. As I said, I have little knowledge of Christianity in its totality, so I find that many specifics, to which N refers, as I read those sections, requires a lot of research on Christianity, that I really don't want to get into. It's got to do with the way I proceed. But I'll reread that specific section to see if I can find the object of your allusion.

[chaz wyman]

First Definition, first clause. I'm live in American, I speak American,



There is no such language. You speak English - or a modified form of it.

so I use American dictionaries. Where are you from again AS?[/color]

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.
]

[SpheresOfBalance]

in PURPLE

in RED

in BLUE
First Definition, first clause. I'm live in American, I speak American,
There is no such language. You speak English - or a modified form of it.
'God,' you seem to be daft, or do you actually somehow enjoy merely reiterating someones 'meaning,' so that it strictly matches your terms; always seeking, what you believe to be, the smallest of victories, for your ego's sake, thus showing the signs of your megalomania?