The Antichrist

[bus2bondi]

hi As, i liked both your examples. i understand what your saying. it's great that you and your conservative friend get along quite well despite your different ideologies. i think someone in this thread mentioned polemics. one of the things i will be trying to do with a book i'm going to write is to sort of 'honor' polemics but yet get past them at the same time. in essence trying to find a way that will make everyone happy in a new way. (but not the corrupt bastions:). (just us regular people). i don't have a particular political ideology myself, only particular viewpoints about specific things, and some issues, i honestly don't know where i stand. N talks about 'the new', i have no idea what this will be but it seems inevitable that things will continue forward.

anyhow, thank you for the examples, i have the flu so i'm going to check out a few more posts and then go fall over:).

[chaz wyman]

hi As, i liked both your examples. i understand what your saying. it's great that you and your conservative friend get along quite well despite your different ideologies. i think someone in this thread mentioned polemics. one of the things i will be trying to do with a book i'm going to write is to sort of 'honor' polemics but yet get past them at the same time. in essence trying to find a way that will make everyone happy in a new way. (but not the corrupt bastions:). (just us regular people). i don't have a particular political ideology myself, only particular viewpoints about specific things, and some issues, i honestly don't know where i stand. N talks about 'the new', i have no idea what this will be but it seems inevitable that things will continue forward.

anyhow, thank you for the examples, i have the flu so i'm going to check out a few more posts and then go fall over:).

There are no conservatives here.

As for N's construction of the "new" - what was new 112 years ago maybe not now look so pristine.

[lancek4]

So, I suppose that Chaz is saying that Sartre explained that the abyss of freedom is countered in the critical thinking subject by 'revolt' and a reassertion of a 'different' kind of freedom than that it found to be neauseating. ?

[Bovary]

Lancek4,
Apart from posting countless comments of no consequence, do you do anything else with your life?
Loneliness can be unbearable for some, I imagine.

[chaz wyman]

So, I suppose that Chaz is saying that Sartre explained that the abyss of freedom is countered in the critical thinking subject by 'revolt' and a reassertion of a 'different' kind of freedom than that it found to be neauseating. ?

What do you think is the point with the Eternal Recurrence?

Given his other writings it seems to me that he is not expecting us to take it literally, but using the concept as an exercise in examining one life so as to live it most authentically - in the sense that it would be worth living again, especially in the way you govern your self to deal with pleasure and suffering.

[SpheresOfBalance]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

[chaz wyman]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

I think you might have missed N's self critical approach. There is no system in N's work and no ideas that are not somewhere else in his work critiqued by his own pen.
You ought also to be aware that his "Will to Power" thesis was largely an invention of his sister's doctoring his work after his death.

[SpheresOfBalance]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

I think you might have missed N's self critical approach. There is no system in N's work and no ideas that are not somewhere else in his work critiqued by his own pen.
You ought also to be aware that his "Will to Power" thesis was largely an invention of his sister's doctoring his work after his death.

So you're saying that I have to read it all, to understand any of it?

[lancek4]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

I think you might have missed N's self critical approach. There is no system in N's work and no ideas that are not somewhere else in his work critiqued by his own pen.
You ought also to be aware that his "Will to Power" thesis was largely an invention of his sister's doctoring his work after his death.

I did not know this last of his sister' coin 'will to power'; it seems then my appraisal gains even more credence.

[lancek4]

So, I suppose that Chaz is saying that Sartre explained that the abyss of freedom is countered in the critical thinking subject by 'revolt' and a reassertion of a 'different' kind of freedom than that it found to be neauseating. ?

What do you think is the point with the Eternal Recurrence?

Given his other writings it seems to me that he is not expecting us to take it literally, but using the concept as an exercise in examining one life so as to live it most authentically - in the sense that it would be worth living again, especially in the way you govern your self to deal with pleasure and suffering.

Indeed,thank you; you are instrumental in my working out my own difficulties.

[chaz wyman]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

I think you might have missed N's self critical approach. There is no system in N's work and no ideas that are not somewhere else in his work critiqued by his own pen.
You ought also to be aware that his "Will to Power" thesis was largely an invention of his sister's doctoring his work after his death.

So you're saying that I have to read it all, to understand any of it?

You might save some time an consult Copelston who has a couple of good chapters on N.
Then you can take N as a thought provoker - but not to seek for a systematic Opus - or any answers.
N is a Philosopher because he provokes questions rather then asks them. His style is polemic but it is abrasive as he is on the attack to unpick the assumptions of his age.
If he is systematic, it is in his incredulity and skepticism.(with a small s).

[SpheresOfBalance]

He pissed me off and I put it down right here:

"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...."

After all, what is power and what is weakness?
And he's confused as to what part of Christianity is flawed, as that which is flawed is that it's wielder's use it as a means to control and to gain wealth and thus power. I see that he contradicts himself.

In the introduction they posed the possibility that by the time he wrote this book he had already succumbed to insanity. I then sensed that at least some of those that posed this possibility, decided that he was still clear of mind. But without reading any of his earlier work, I've decided that due to the above quoted excerpt, he was definitely insane.

I think you might have missed N's self critical approach. There is no system in N's work and no ideas that are not somewhere else in his work critiqued by his own pen.
You ought also to be aware that his "Will to Power" thesis was largely an invention of his sister's doctoring his work after his death.

So you're saying that I have to read it all, to understand any of it?

You might save some time an consult Copelston who has a couple of good chapters on N.
Then you can take N as a thought provoker - but not to seek for a systematic Opus - or any answers.
N is a Philosopher because he provokes questions rather then asks them. His style is polemic but it is abrasive as he is on the attack to unpick the assumptions of his age.
If he is systematic, it is in his incredulity and skepticism.(with a small s).

I take it that you meant, Frederick Copleston, but I could find no resource on the topic of N.

[chaz wyman]

I take it that you meant, Frederick Copleston, but I could find no resource on the topic of N.

Yes - i'm talking about his monumental history of philosophy.

There is also Stanford Uni website which I'm sure you know about.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

OR...

http://www.nietzsche.com/nietzschelink.html

[SpheresOfBalance]

I take it that you meant, Frederick Copleston, but I could find no resource on the topic of N.

Yes - i'm talking about his monumental history of philosophy.

There is also Stanford Uni website which I'm sure you know about.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

OR...

http://www.nietzsche.com/nietzschelink.html

Thanks, I'll check them out!

[chaz wyman]

I take it that you meant, Frederick Copleston, but I could find no resource on the topic of N.

Yes - i'm talking about his monumental history of philosophy.

There is also Stanford Uni website which I'm sure you know about.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

OR...

http://www.nietzsche.com/nietzschelink.html

Thanks, I'll check them out!

You might also try http://www.anus.com/zine/db/friedrich_nietzsche/
where you can access the texts directly.