Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:L: So I ask: what specifically are you asking?

AS: I was asking you to give me an example of what you meant by this:


"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

Well, this was more commenting on Auk comment , which was not specifically relating to the Anti; so I was attempting to not diverge from the thread topic

artisticsolution wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I thought you were the N expert - What do you think he means by the phrase?

Where did I say I was an N expert. This is the first book I have read of N's and I am still reading. If I understood what Lance is trying to say I wouldn't ask for an example of what he (lance) means. I don't understand the problem.

...so, getting on topic, I was addressing your query by referring to the very beginning of the AC, and, beginning with the very basis of N's position, where I draw the conclusion from his invitation, open discussion with an accusation; So then Chaz synopsis question applies; what do you think?

lancek4 wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:L: So I ask: what specifically are you asking?

AS: I was asking you to give me an example of what you meant by this:


"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

Well, this was more commenting on Auk comment , which was not specifically relating to the Anti; so I was attempting to not diverge from the thread topic

Oh...because I found the comment to be quite fascinating and alot of different images went through my head. I simply wanted a concrete example so I could see it in action.

At first I thought about people who are closed off to anything new. The type that if you merely mention there may not be a God, they would become so enraged that they would quite possibly think you were the devil...or at least be speaking for him. But then when I got to the end of the statement and you said, Those who are blind to the limitation and DO see the free world of equality. I didn't understand. See, to me it seems that if there is no equality...at least in our humanity...then we would be in danger of following one single ruler. Now that is all fine and good as long as he does your will...but the moment he stops...and does another's will. Then I think the shit would hit the fan for most people. I think people want a world of equality at least in the sense they are equal to be free...but I don't think they consider the price tag freedom brings.

lancek4 wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:

chaz wyman wrote: I thought you were the N expert - What do you think he means by the phrase?

Where did I say I was an N expert. This is the first book I have read of N's and I am still reading. If I understood what Lance is trying to say I wouldn't ask for an example of what he (lance) means. I don't understand the problem.

...so, getting on topic, I was addressing your query by referring to the very beginning of the AC, and, beginning with the very basis of N's position, where I draw the conclusion from his invitation, open discussion with an accusation; So then Chaz synopsis question applies; what do you think?

I thought I had said what I think...sorry if I didn't make that clear. I think that N wanted to be understood. I think he said what he said in the beginning sort of as a warning to people who would question him in a negative way to "Keep out", or maybe he wanted to intrigue them into reading the book...sort of like a challenge...in a reverse psychology type way.

I can't shake the feeling he felt harmed, although I realize that is maybe no a popular thing to say, and I am open to learn more about him. But I learn by asking questions.

I see no harm in what N writes against Christianity. He is right for the most part, and there is certainly nothing wrong with it or 'evil' about it as some might believe. I think these are the people he wanted to either stay away or challenge. I understand the need to do this...but I don't agree with his war type attitude against "something." I know it's popular but I don't think it is effective in the long run. It's divisive and pits "Them against me" type of attitude ...and isn't that what Christianity does?

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Arising,

I have to forewarn you that I am not fully sure of my comprehension thus far. You see, I usually read a book first for entertainment...meaning I read it quickly. Then if I like it I go back and devour it word by word so I can really go deeper into the meaning of the author. So my thoughts now are based on a superficial understanding...I hope that makes sense. I am just not capable of reading any other way. That being said, alot of what he is saying is Kierkegaard on steroids...at least to me. While K sugarcoated things in a more aesthetically pleasing way (at least for me...in it's imagery) Nietzsche says in a more strawdoggie type of way. It makes my mind hear a young man's shallow negative angst. Shallow in the sense he only sticks to one side of the equation (the negative cool guy side) and has not considered the other side of the equation (the positive grandpa side ...remember when you called grandfathers sentimental sops....or something like that...lol...I can't remember the term you used..only the sentiment).

".... I began to look more closely and to realize how deep her illness went....when she started to see "evil" in who ever was on her shit list...and there was always some drama that eventually...everyone was on her shit list...she made up elaborate "lies" (as Nietzsche would call them) I call them exaggerations....due to her disease. Anyway...they weren't just gossipy things...they were downright insane..."

Nietzsche reminds me of my mom. And I question the ability for some to even be able to see all aspects of life...as it appears to me most come from a negative viewpoint...and that's fine...it sells...there is a sense of coolness that is hip in wallowing in the negative. But I just feel in order to test your conclusions...you must scrutinize them under other avenues...like positiveness, lest you close your mind to all options. I think that is why I liked K...he went deeper than just the superficial popularity of despair.

Late to work...will add or edit later.

ArtSolution: I appreciate your honesty. and seemingly earnest intent on this forum. Here is my preliminary take:

I like how you relate Kierkegaard and Nietche; I think the N on steroids is a good impression, but such a description I think, misses something.

The problem I feel that occurs with most readers of K and N is that the reader always tends to want to distance himself from the author. It is a natural thing to do. It is how we are taught to engage with writing.
But, I submit that this is not what K and N are doing nor are after.

If we can associate K and N, then I will take a more K move: the absurd. For the distanced reader, the absurd is insanity, and the the reader attempts to incorporate his understanding of what insanity may be, since the reader usually understands himself as sane -- an understanding which is informed by a type of attachment to others. The insanity (like your mom) you have related to your understanding of N (and K?) is a category that you come by through your natural intent to be included with others (sane), but thus allows you detachment from the author. Which is the point N is addressing in the preface.

So i ask of the beginning of Antichrist: what is he saying? Not what could he mean; what is he saying? He is saying that his writings are not for most people; in fact, he says that most people will not understand what he is saying.

Right here I am presented with an absurd notion; how can it be that N was not writing for most people and yet he is a well known author/philosopher (which implies that Most/many people have read and still read him and many if not most feel they understand him -- especially the people who he decries: the philosophers)?

Immediately I am left out of his writing; an odd sort of situation since already coming into his writing I am situated at a distance. But somehow he has drawn me in: Now I am offended at his exclusion of me.

So what happens in his simple initial (which is really the end, the last statement he made) statement? The philosophers will not allow their exclusion from his thoughts. So they (we) automatically figure that N could not be meaning what is saying, that he must be meaning something more.

Here is where the problem arises: what we make of meaning is our own meaning. And in or because of this, Nietche is situating himself against this typical element of ourselves that wants to distance meaning unto another. He is involved in a polemic, but the polemic he creates is not made by him, but is made by those who are 'sleeping': us: the sick brute man.

So how do you react to this? By rationalizing away the insult, and minimalizing the harm by placing him is a category that allows you not to be insulted, that allows you to be equal to him in the manner by which everyone is considered in a potential for equality, a potential that he is relating to the Christian quality of pity. But in so doing this you are being that polemic he describes in section 3 and 4 (to begin).

Does this make sense?

artisticsolution wrote:
I thought I had said what I think...sorry if I didn't make that clear. I think that N wanted to be understood. I think he said what he said in the beginning sort of as a warning to people who would question him in a negative way to "Keep out", or maybe he wanted to intrigue them into reading the book...sort of like a challenge...in a reverse psychology type way.

this may be the meaning you have of N, but it is not the meaning that N is conveying: thus N's proposition.

I can't shake the feeling he felt harmed, although I realize that is maybe no a popular thing to say, and I am open to learn more about him. But I learn by asking questions.
Pity. You are making N's argument for him.

I see no harm in what N writes against Christianity. He is right for the most part, and there is certainly nothing wrong with it or 'evil' about it as some might believe. I think these are the people he wanted to either stay away or challenge. I understand the need to do this...but I don't agree with his war type attitude against "something." I know it's popular but I don't think it is effective in the long run. It's divisive and pits "Them against me" type of attitude ...and isn't that what Christianity does?

The "them against us" is exactly what he decries of the 'herdsman'. It is this them vs us categorizes the people he is speaking against. What you notice of what he is saying is the irony removed from its ironic motion. He is merely stating the obviousness of the situation; he has no stake in this game; his cards are already played.

lancek4 wrote:
ArtSolution: I appreciate your honesty. and seemingly earnest intent on this forum. Here is my preliminary take:

I like how you relate Kierkegaard and Nietche; I think the N on steroids is a good impression, but such a description I think, misses something.

The problem I feel that occurs with most readers of K and N is that the reader always tends to want to distance himself from the author. It is a natural thing to do. It is how we are taught to engage with writing.
But, I submit that this is not what K and N are doing nor are after.

If we can associate K and N, then I will take a more K move: the absurd. For the distanced reader, the absurd is insanity, and the the reader attempts to incorporate his understanding of what insanity may be, since the reader usually understands himself as sane -- an understanding which is informed by a type of attachment to others. The insanity (like your mom) you have related to your understanding of N (and K?) is a category that you come by through your natural intent to be included with others (sane), but thus allows you detachment from the author. Which is the point N is addressing in the preface.

So i ask of the beginning of Antichrist: what is he saying? Not what could he mean; what is he saying? He is saying that his writings are not for most people; in fact, he says that most people will not understand what he is saying.

Right here I am presented with an absurd notion; how can it be that N was not writing for most people and yet he is a well known author/philosopher (which implies that Most/many people have read and still read him and many if not most feel they understand him -- especially the people who he decries: the philosophers)?

Immediately I am left out of his writing; an odd sort of situation since already coming into his writing I am situated at a distance. But somehow he has drawn me in: Now I am offended at his exclusion of me.

So what happens in his simple initial (which is really the end, the last statement he made) statement? The philosophers will not allow their exclusion from his thoughts. So they (we) automatically figure that N could not be meaning what is saying, that he must be meaning something more.

Here is where the problem arises: what we make of meaning is our own meaning. And in or because of this, Nietche is situating himself against this typical element of ourselves that wants to distance meaning unto another. He is involved in a polemic, but the polemic he creates is not made by him, but is made by those who are 'sleeping': us: the sick brute man.

So how do you react to this? By rationalizing away the insult, and minimalizing the harm by placing him is a category that allows you not to be insulted, that allows you to be equal to him in the manner by which everyone is considered in a potential for equality, a potential that he is relating to the Christian quality of pity. But in so doing this you are being that polemic he describes in section 3 and 4 (to begin).

Does this make sense?

Hi Lance,

I really like what you have to say here, and yes it does make sense. But I have to tell you that I do not feel insult by N, I feel insult by my mother but I have grown up to be conditioned to insults and realize that you can't ever know for sure if someone is insulting you or just speaking their mind. I think if it is the case that we can't know the cause of of said insults or whether or not they were born out of insanity, or hate or love or whatever, then the fault lies with us whether or not we wish to feel insulted and/or have animosity toward our perceived insulter. Alot of people call me cold or whatever, but actually it makes it easier for me to love people. Now mind you I say love...not fool myself. I find it fascinating how when people love or hate they lie. For example, when most people are in love they can see no wrong in their lover. Or when people hate they can see no good in the person they hate. I am not like that....I never have been. So when I talk about my mom's insanity it is strictly the truth. It has been verified by the medical community. It is not an anger statement, it is not a value judgment, it is like saying someone has a cold. Just saying...see?

I just wanted you to know a little about me so you can see when I say things I am usually just describing a situation I see.

Now back to N. It seems odd to me that an author would take the time to write a book that he does not want most to bother with. But I will take it on face value that he was one such author. It just seems a little dishonest. And I don't say that as an insult, just that it was my first impression. Did N not have an ego? If so then I could understand him writing for the sheer art. And it would be very unique to find such an individual.

Do you think I should start from the beginning again with that thought in my and see how N reads in that light? Then maybe I could come to a place where I could just read the words without thinking "personality?"

N is writing to those that could hear what he is saying. Evidently, he could find no one in his time who understood him, but he knew someone would at some point. It was a hail Mary without the doubt of if someone would catch it.

Your comment above is based in a detachment from the author, and it is an example of his proposition: the sick brute. You verify his proposition by your comment. When you see this N will no longer be an enigma.

Perhaps you could point out a specific point of his to discuss.

Hi Lance,

Okay, I think that is best too. Let's start at the beginning when he says,

"What is good? -- All that heightens the feeling of power, the will to power, power itself in man. What is bad? -- All that proceeds from weakness. What is happiness? -- The feeling that power increases -- that a resistance is overcome."

I would ask then, what is power? What is weakness? It seems to me that is like beauty...it is in the eye of the beholder. Does Nietzsche want the reader to simply accept his definition of weak and powerful sort of in a patriarch type of way?

artisticsolution wrote:
"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

At first I thought about people who are closed off to anything new. The type that if you merely mention there may not be a God, they would become so enraged that they would quite possibly think you were the devil...or at least be speaking for him. But then when I got to the end of the statement and you said, Those who are blind to the limitation and DO see the free world of equality. I didn't understand. See, to me it seems that if there is no equality...at least in our humanity...then we would be in danger of following one single ruler. Now that is all fine and good as long as he does your will...but the moment he stops...and does another's will. Then I think the shit would hit the fan for most people. I think people want a world of equality at least in the sense they are equal to be free...but I don't think they consider the price tag freedom brings.

How does the confines of ethics (whatever that is) relate to "extent of reality". What exactly are 'true creators'?

Do you not think that we are staring in the face of obscurantism at its finest? And that anyone one can pretty much take away from this statement exactly what they like?

chaz wyman wrote: How does the confines of ethics (whatever that is) relate to "extent of reality". What exactly are 'true creators'?

Do you not think that we are staring in the face of obscurantism at its finest? And that anyone one can pretty much take away from this statement exactly what they like?

Thanks Chaz...you do have a way of wording things so I can understand difficult concepts and I thank you for that. So I looked up Obscurantism in wikipedia and I found this quote of Nietzsche's:

“The essential element in the black art of obscurantism is not that it wants to darken individual understanding, but that it wants to blacken our picture of the world, and darken our idea of existence.”

I thought that was a pretty cool thing to say, not that I agree with it quite yet. I still need more info. First I would say that True creators are individuals who create the first of any "thing"....i.e. a philosophy or a work of art or a mathematical formula, etc. But then if we used that definition then we would have to include the creator (s) of religion and the Bible...of good and evil (whatever that is defined as) as well. Basically, anyone who has a thought not yet thought.

As far as the extent of reality, that is a difficult concept for me as I am not sure sometimes if something happened in real life or a dream...and I get them confused. Not to the point of it being a problem in real life...but sometimes I think I have told someone something and it turns out I told them in a dream. It is only annoying when I make appointments and such. So, I am aware of a reality that is different than a dream but I question if I am even understanding this in the way that Lance or you mean to imply. That is why I get confused. I want to understand what it means to you...what it meant to Nietzsche too.

To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and disagree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

To attempt to add to Chaz above;
How is any relation possible if every meaning is valid; if obscurantism has creedence? And where it might so, what might it imply or confer to its reality?

lancek4 wrote:To be honest, I am not entirely sure where Chaz and I agree and did agree; I am sure we will find out.
Reality is the confinement of ethics; ethics is the extent of reality.
Here is an excersize: release your self from considering what Is right and wrong.

Can you?

You mean right and right as in morally or ethically or right and wrong concerning Nietzsche's words? I would say I already am...I make no value judgments.

Now what?

artisticsolution wrote:
"I believe N was indicating the confines of ethics, that true creators realize the extents of reality, and the recurrence occurs against those who are blind to the limitation and do see the free world of equality."

and, here we go into how N is speaking:
because Chaz's statement here is similarly enigmatic (I cannot tell if Chaz is being what he is proposing, if he is being rhetorical, or if he is truly asking) , I will take a second meaning from it and, instead of adding, I will rebut, but towards the same goal:

1.How does the confines of ethics (whatever that is) relate to "extent of reality".
2.What exactly are 'true creators'?

I apologize; I think Chaz is being the better teacher here. .

3.Do you not think that we are staring in the face of obscurantism at its finest?

In that I merely define reality as ethics, and thereby 'create' an arena, I am designating a thing which is ambiguous at best. Thus, when most people undertake such an experiment of escaping ethics, they do not find an 'extent' nor do they find a 'limitation'.