Philosophy Now Forum

lancek4 wrote:Jets try this, SOB; pulled fomr page 7 or 8 or this thread.
(I posted this):

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

The same is going on here with you SOB.
N offends you in his 'bare' existance. He makes no excuses for his crass discursive demeanor; he expects that only a few people willl have the intellectual integrity to know what he is saying, to face the harsh reality.

In the AC, he talks about the Jews and Christ. His point is that Christ as he was, actually and effectively -- against the Jewish (of the time) version of him, which became the Christian version -- as the exstant individual, not the hierarchical power structure that was constructed around an idea of him, not what the Jews or Christians made of him -- was really: The Anti Christ.

Becuase the Jew could not make sense of him they resented him. Out of resentment, out of the inability to reconsile thier eixtsnace with existance itself, they were resentful, and so they 'elevated' him to 'Christ'. In true conformity to the only reality they could know, a reallity displaced by the basic offence of bare existance, they placed him in a discursive hierarchy of morals, a geneology of morals, to coid a term, and constructed this scheme of power by which we (typically) know reality today. And so we react to this power, we will our ideas within this scheme of morals and achive nothing but the shceme itself.

Thus one must withdraw from the transcending projection, the discursive ideology, the disctates of moralistic idol worship. One must 'transcend' the tendancy to proclaim a potential for transcendence.

It is easy to read N and say: WILL TO POWER, and have a good/evil notion of what that means. to some , it is great, like "yeah, POw-ER!", like Hitler; to others, they can say "Oh no, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
But N is not pseaking about such a Power.
In fact he speaks negatively; not 'badly of', but is making the argument through the negative inference.
He is clearly decrying such manifestations of power as 'of the herdsmen', of the 'sick-brute man'.

And, it is interesting that Chaz pointed out, thaty it was his sister post-humously who coined the term 'will to power'. (Am I correct in this last Chaz?)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

You might as well blame Darwin for the holocaust with more justification.

You guys demean me in your assumption, I did not say I blamed him for Hitlers actions, I'm no fool, I understand that each man decides for himself what he will do. My point was that Hitler was the only one to truly understand him, as seen through his actions, that mimicked N's words. In other words, they are birds of a feather.

Total rubbish. Hitler could not think his way out of a paper bag.
Hitler and his plans were everything that the Ubermensch was not. N specifically talked against following; Naziism was all about that.


Of course I'm not saying this with certainty, as actual, I'm just saying that I can see an argument for this point of view based upon what I've read of N so far.

No of course you are talking from ignorance. By your own admission you have little or no understanding of N's work.

Don't forget that I've clearly asked for evidence that he means things as you say he does, I, like you, don't necessarily want to believe it's true. But in the end, If I see no proof, in his own words and his words alone, that what you all say is true, then I'll think of him as evil and insane. I shall not care what the majority says, I absolutely refuse to be a parrot, just to fit in! Truth is all that matters to me! And like I told Lance earlier, I believe that what Socrates meant when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing,' is to question everything, especially so far as to question your questioning?

lancek4 wrote:Jets try this, SOB; pulled fomr page 7 or 8 or this thread.
(I posted this):

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

The same is going on here with you SOB.
N offends you in his 'bare' existance. He makes no excuses for his crass discursive demeanor; he expects that only a few people willl have the intellectual integrity to know what he is saying, to face the harsh reality.

In the AC, he talks about the Jews and Christ. His point is that Christ as he was, actually and effectively -- against the Jewish (of the time) version of him, which became the Christian version -- as the exstant individual, not the hierarchical power structure that was constructed around an idea of him, not what the Jews or Christians made of him -- was really: The Anti Christ.

Becuase the Jew could not make sense of him they resented him. Out of resentment, out of the inability to reconsile thier eixtsnace with existance itself, they were resentful, and so they 'elevated' him to 'Christ'. In true conformity to the only reality they could know, a reallity displaced by the basic offence of bare existance, they placed him in a discursive hierarchy of morals, a geneology of morals, to coid a term, and constructed this scheme of power by which we (typically) know reality today. And so we react to this power, we will our ideas within this scheme of morals and achive nothing but the shceme itself.

Thus one must withdraw from the transcending projection, the discursive ideology, the disctates of moralistic idol worship. One must 'transcend' the tendancy to proclaim a potential for transcendence.

It is easy to read N and say: WILL TO POWER, and have a good/evil notion of what that means. to some , it is great, like "yeah, POw-ER!", like Hitler; to others, they can say "Oh no, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
But N is not pseaking about such a Power.
In fact he speaks negatively; not 'badly of', but is making the argument through the negative inference.
He is clearly decrying such manifestations of power as 'of the herdsmen', of the 'sick-brute man'.

And, it is interesting that Chaz pointed out, thaty it was his sister post-humously who coined the term 'will to power'. (Am I correct in this last Chaz?)

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Jets try this, SOB; pulled fomr page 7 or 8 or this thread.
(I posted this):

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

The same is going on here with you SOB.
N offends you in his 'bare' existance. He makes no excuses for his crass discursive demeanor; he expects that only a few people willl have the intellectual integrity to know what he is saying, to face the harsh reality.

In the AC, he talks about the Jews and Christ. His point is that Christ as he was, actually and effectively -- against the Jewish (of the time) version of him, which became the Christian version -- as the exstant individual, not the hierarchical power structure that was constructed around an idea of him, not what the Jews or Christians made of him -- was really: The Anti Christ.

Becuase the Jew could not make sense of him they resented him. Out of resentment, out of the inability to reconsile thier eixtsnace with existance itself, they were resentful, and so they 'elevated' him to 'Christ'. In true conformity to the only reality they could know, a reallity displaced by the basic offence of bare existance, they placed him in a discursive hierarchy of morals, a geneology of morals, to coid a term, and constructed this scheme of power by which we (typically) know reality today. And so we react to this power, we will our ideas within this scheme of morals and achive nothing but the shceme itself.

Thus one must withdraw from the transcending projection, the discursive ideology, the disctates of moralistic idol worship. One must 'transcend' the tendancy to proclaim a potential for transcendence.

It is easy to read N and say: WILL TO POWER, and have a good/evil notion of what that means. to some , it is great, like "yeah, POw-ER!", like Hitler; to others, they can say "Oh no, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
But N is not pseaking about such a Power.
In fact he speaks negatively; not 'badly of', but is making the argument through the negative inference.
He is clearly decrying such manifestations of power as 'of the herdsmen', of the 'sick-brute man'.

And, it is interesting that Chaz pointed out, thaty it was his sister post-humously who coined the term 'will to power'. (Am I correct in this last Chaz?)

You're not understanding me, I'm not saying what he meant, I'm saying what he seems to mean, with my limited exposure, and I understand how you all see him, in your words that I have read thus far. I am asking for proof, within his words, of this thing you think you know of him, as thus far in my reading of him, I cannot see it, and really don't want to continue reading him, until I can know, that he is really speaking of taking care of each other, because anything else is a lie.

lancek4 wrote:N is not speaking about taking care of each other, not neither is he of taking care; he is saying nothing along these lines. I liked what Chaz said earlier; something like : careing about things we would not (sensibly) otherwise care about.
Perhaps if sob reads Thus Spake Zarathustra.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I have a thought for you, if you can't show me the indicator of this thought process, in his words, as to his actual intention's, which you say are contrary to the words he used, then I submit the facts that both N and Hitler were Germans, that some German words can't be translated, such that they would definitely understand one another, and that you chaz and I, all speak other languages, such that it's us that has the wrong understanding of N, and that in fact Hitler understood him all too well, and put his words into action on the Jews, whom he thought beneath him, after all the swastika symbolizes a broken cross, etc (look to Hitlers actions to follow N's exact words), I say the reason you fail to see his evil nature, like that of Hitler, is because you don't want to admit that a man of philosophy, one of your loves, could house such an evil bastard. So you're all in denial. If what I say is utter bullshit, show me where it is, that he says so, and not you guessing as to his meaning. Keep in mind that in fact he was a German soldier for a time, if he was so set against it, why not desert? Maybe he loved killing those Christians, Jews, whatever, for his master race.

First of all...N is not "one of my loves"...I am saving myself for Kierkegaard! Secondly, saying that N is responsible for what Hitler did is like saying a record played backwards is responsible for telling someone to murder someone else. If Hitler was convinced to kill because of what N said then Hitler was an idiot...because even I read the book and did not come to that conclusion....but let me ask you this...did you read the book ? How can you say anything if you haven't read it? Seriously!

chaz wyman wrote:In Blue:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:You might as well blame Darwin for the holocaust with more justification.

You guys demean me in your assumption, I did not say I blamed him for Hitlers actions, I'm no fool, I understand that each man decides for himself what he will do. My point was that Hitler was the only one to truly understand him, as seen through his actions, that mimicked N's words. In other words, they are birds of a feather.

Total rubbish. Hitler could not think his way out of a paper bag.
Hitler and his plans were everything that the Ubermensch was not. N specifically talked against following; Naziism was all about that.


Of course I'm not saying this with certainty, as actual, I'm just saying that I can see an argument for this point of view based upon what I've read of N so far.

No of course you are talking from ignorance. By your own admission you have little or no understanding of N's work.

Don't forget that I've clearly asked for evidence that he means things as you say he does, I, like you, don't necessarily want to believe it's true. But in the end, If I see no proof, in his own words and his words alone, that what you all say is true, then I'll think of him as evil and insane. I shall not care what the majority says, I absolutely refuse to be a parrot, just to fit in! Truth is all that matters to me! And like I told Lance earlier, I believe that what Socrates meant when he said: 'I only know that I know nothing,' is to question everything, especially so far as to question your questioning?

You are just making a fool of yourself.
What you asked for was negative evidence.

chaz wyman wrote:But rest assured my interpretation is not unusual or off-beat. Anyone will tell you this.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:Jets try this, SOB; pulled fomr page 7 or 8 or this thread.
(I posted this):

The point N is making is that Jesus was not understood for what he was relating, which was bare existance, as an unwilling venture. The Jews did not like this for his being caused them a certain discomfort in thier being, a 'resentment' of their being. This resentment (which means a reccurrence in consciousness) could not explain Jesus, that is could not explain, know or otherwise reconsile his existence with thiers; to bring in Kierkegaard here: he offended them. Yet because of Jesus being as he was, they could not help but have to find a place for him in thier reality, thier scheme of Truth; and so they 'elevated' him and thus separated him from themselves, posited the trascendant object of which he was a representative.

The same is going on here with you SOB.
N offends you in his 'bare' existance. He makes no excuses for his crass discursive demeanor; he expects that only a few people willl have the intellectual integrity to know what he is saying, to face the harsh reality.

In the AC, he talks about the Jews and Christ. His point is that Christ as he was, actually and effectively -- against the Jewish (of the time) version of him, which became the Christian version -- as the exstant individual, not the hierarchical power structure that was constructed around an idea of him, not what the Jews or Christians made of him -- was really: The Anti Christ.

Becuase the Jew could not make sense of him they resented him. Out of resentment, out of the inability to reconsile thier eixtsnace with existance itself, they were resentful, and so they 'elevated' him to 'Christ'. In true conformity to the only reality they could know, a reallity displaced by the basic offence of bare existance, they placed him in a discursive hierarchy of morals, a geneology of morals, to coid a term, and constructed this scheme of power by which we (typically) know reality today. And so we react to this power, we will our ideas within this scheme of morals and achive nothing but the shceme itself.

Thus one must withdraw from the transcending projection, the discursive ideology, the disctates of moralistic idol worship. One must 'transcend' the tendancy to proclaim a potential for transcendence.

It is easy to read N and say: WILL TO POWER, and have a good/evil notion of what that means. to some , it is great, like "yeah, POw-ER!", like Hitler; to others, they can say "Oh no, power corrupts, absolute power corrupts absolutley!"
But N is not pseaking about such a Power.
In fact he speaks negatively; not 'badly of', but is making the argument through the negative inference.
He is clearly decrying such manifestations of power as 'of the herdsmen', of the 'sick-brute man'.

And, it is interesting that Chaz pointed out, thaty it was his sister post-humously who coined the term 'will to power'. (Am I correct in this last Chaz?)

Indeed you are.

SoB seems to be displaying attention seeking behaviour.
He has not really read any of this stuff except a few dis-contexted quotes.

lancek4 wrote:N is not speaking about taking care of each other, not neither is he of taking care; he is saying nothing along these lines. I liked what Chaz said earlier; something like : careing about things we would not (sensibly) otherwise care about.
Perhaps if sob reads Thus Spake Zarathustra.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:N is not speaking about taking care of each other, not neither is he of taking care; he is saying nothing along these lines. I liked what Chaz said earlier; something like : careing about things we would not (sensibly) otherwise care about.
Perhaps if sob reads Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Perhaps he should read something anything about Nietzsche!!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:...her 'directs' your attention?

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[his stuff except a few dis-contexted quotes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:[his stuff except a few dis-contexted quotes.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:N is not speaking about taking care of each other, not neither is he of taking care; he is saying nothing along these lines. I liked what Chaz said earlier; something like : careing about things we would not (sensibly) otherwise care about.
Perhaps if sob reads Thus Spake Zarathustra.

Perhaps he should read something anything about Nietzsche!!

If you were standing in front of me, I may stuff that sarcasm up your arse! You megalo, you! No I take that back, if you were in fact standing in front of me, you would never have said as much. It's interesting how Darwin & Spencer's assertion of natural selection precludes such outbursts, in the face of it's truth, as glaring formidable eyes assure.

lancek4 wrote:N is not speaking about taking care of each other, not neither is he of taking care; he is saying nothing along these lines. I liked what Chaz said earlier; something like : careing about things we would not (sensibly) otherwise care about.
Perhaps if sob reads Thus Spake Zarathustra.

chaz wyman wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

chaz wyman wrote:Perhaps he should read something anything about Nietzsche!!

If you were standing in front of me, I may stuff that sarcasm up your arse! You megalo, you! No I take that back, if you were in fact standing in front of me, you would never have said as much. It's interesting how Darwin & Spencer's assertion of natural selection precludes such outbursts, in the face of it's truth, as glaring formidable eyes assure.

Ignorant and stupid.
Well done.