Philosophy Now Forum

artisticsolution wrote:SOB:No, I'm not, obviously you have a reading comprehension problem, I direct you to read above where I quoted from the introduction of BGE 2002 Cambridge University edition. Oh yeah I forgot some commoner in the PNF outshines several PhD's in Cambridge Universities Philosophy dept. Not to mention the other thinkers they refer to, of similar qualifications. :

That's not really surprising, I think alot of people in all walks of life don't understand the aesthetic...and that is who K and N were. They were aesthetically driven brains who allowed themselves to ask taboo questions of their/our existence. It is not surprising to me that some do not get it....I doubt they would if they live within the boundaries of societies limits and axioms.

lancek4 wrote:On second thought, sob, I will stick with my previous assertion.
N proposes a polemic that he feels should be able to be overcome. He thinks that what he is saying is so obvious that eventually the polemic will dessist; that it should make so much sense that eventually the over-super-man will come about. Hence his 'enthusiasm': because he felt it must.

But it is apparent that it did not, has not, and most probably will not.
This is the probelm of N.

the evidence of N's fault lay in the polemic that is most apparent with SOB and Chaz, but also with me as I am part of this discussion, as well as AS.

SOB reads N at face value. And is probably the main example of what N is overtly speaking against: pity. SOB asserts a type of humanistic moral of kindness, of 'concern for things one would not otherwise be concerned about'. His defence stems from a 'goodness' that involves all of humanity, as if humanity in all its forms arise against education or intelligence where those who are 'bad' are more or less ignorant and so are deserving of pity. Humanity is one great tender life that deserves pity by those who have the intelligence to know what is good for all of humanity. N's buzz words are offensive. 'Power' and 'weak' arouse suspicion in that these words derive from SOB's moral ideology of power.

Chaz has a similar take on intelligence but sees N as referring to the positing of transcedence as the problem. Good and evil arise as conditions of our situation and not out of any inherent absolute morality or purpose for the universe or humanity. He sees N's use of 'power' and 'weak' as refering to an individual's reliance upon such transcedant principles as they tend for ideological assertions of power and control. Though there is ideological power plays, the intelligent over-super-man sees that the equality of humanity arises from each individual's recognition of thier own Being, of limitation but more of the power that arises in knowing oneself as the total expression of agency, unhindered by absolute transcendent ideological representations.

Between these two lay N proposition. Chaz would seem to be more in correspondnece with N, while SOB with the 'christian'. And this is a logical correspondance.

Yet they will not communicate. this is to say, that even if Chaz does have a comprhension of N, he is utterly unable to get SOB to understand it, for SOB does understand it, in that he understands what he understand, what he is able to understand, just as likewise Chaz understands how he is able. The over-man premise fails.

This is my understaning of N:

I see Chaz and SOB discussion as concerning the truth of the Object, and the truth of the object is always located in a moral scheme of knowledge. N would have us relieve ourselves of such idolitry, of discussion of truth. For the real power comes - and I refer to the 3rd section of AC (I believe) -- in the unwilled. the exception that arouses fear and reprisal because his actions are not based in an 'evolution' or a 'progress'. He actions are fundamentally non-moral: they are entirely assertive of power: the Will of Power. But this is not power in the typical Christian moralistic 'we should have pity on all the ill-informed souls', but power that enacts due to its basis in existance, it is power that is unjustified activity as existance, and thus is totally justified at all times -- that is except by those who see such power as offensive to them, as it arouses resentment, and thus a further moralistic assertion of righteousness and ideological power.

Now, here is the clincher: niether will you understand what I am saying, or rather, if indeed you do, there is not getting beyond (as K) The Universal: and so the over-man is lost.

thus I see K as the more 'considerate' of philosophers, but both were proposing the same situation; the situation that can only be relieved by an 'unwilling', or a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'.

artisticsolution wrote:Great posts Lance...seriously great. I think you are right that some people will never understand as they are unable...

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men, that he was an 'overman.' If you read him and believe you understand him, then you are some how equal to him, this is a common misconception, of the deluded. Your allusion is an illusion! I have read him and of him and believe he's inconsequential in terms of my edification. In other words I already see his points, that you claim, so I guess they're actually yours, such that for me, they go without saying, Of course I don't see him as meaning the opposite of what he says. Mainly because he believes he's better than every one else, as evidenced by the excerpt of his preface that I sited above. He was at least an egomaniac, and quite possibly a megalomaniac. It is obvious to me that he was always quite mad, his writings together with his life's course, indicate as such.

So you go ahead and read him, I see it as a defective gene attributed to your brown skinned Mexican heritage, and not the psychological results of socioeconomic pressures attributed to the white mans belief of his superiority, in all walks of his construct. <- THERE'S A POINT HERE, DON'T LET IT GO OVER YOUR HEAD, READ AND THINK CAREFULLY! Or don't, it's up to you, just remember what I said during the intermission!

SpheresOfBalance wrote:You're incorrect about so many things, especially psychology's role in your life, i.e., that exposure to any particular thing or situation can give rise to both positive and/or negative effects, and thus the implications surrounding our choices, that dogs are no longer wolves, but variations influenced by specific conditioning yielding specific traits and as such a dogs temperament is all about our treatment of them. And that humans like dogs are conditioned through a unique set of experiences that result in the myriad differences between us, that ones level of aggression or hate is primarily a result of this conditioning through experience unless there is a physical/chemical abnormality, and that these differences, the conditioning, between us, including that of our dogs is primarily affected by human selfishness, that our reason is long past the need to simply survive and is thus perverted, with no where to go as evidenced by our, ultimately, self destructive resolve.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:Well here's evidence that some agree with me:

Beyond Good and Evil
FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE
© Cambridge University Press 2002

Excerpt from the Introduction page viii

"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."

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Great posts Lance...seriously great. I think you are right that some people will never understand as they are unable...

And this is exactly why I said this:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men,

Which apparently went over your head. Pay particular attention to the last quote, the part in blue, and tell me what it means, if you can.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:Great posts Lance...seriously great. I think you are right that some people will never understand as they are unable...

And this is exactly why I said this:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:I see that you want to be special, more smarter than you really are and that you'll do anything, even read Satan's manifesto, if someone said it was beyond mortal men,

Which apparently went over your head. Pay particular attention to the last quote, the part in blue, and tell me what it means, if you can.

I understand what you are saying...you think because I think some people are unable to understand, that I think I am better. That is not what I am saying...I am saying that Just because I understand K and N better than some doesn't mean I understand EVERYTHING. It's sort of like when you connect with someone....we all have differences. You may understand some other philosopher better than I. So what? Why must you make accusations of "evil" or tell me I think I am better than you just because I am excited over a philosopher because he said so eloquently what I have thought about all my life? I am asking you if you are justified in your belief that N is evil or that I think I am more special than you? Why is it so hard for you to allow me to have something that you may not have?

The reason I know about this is because all of my life I have been an artist...and I have seen things...known things that I can't communicate to others...because they have a language I could not understand. So when someone comes along and I discover they get me...that I speak their language and they speak mine...it was like coming home. It is an awful feeling being isolated...and yet that is how aesthetic thinkers are quite often. We are isolated because not many people can remove the noise in order to see the big picture. I mean this both metaphorically and literally. As very few people give artists credit for knowing anything...they appease us at best and then marvel at the "gift" we have...as if it was not a thing to be learned but something that fell upon us accidentally. Well, I am here to tell you it can be learned...just as any other subject...and when you learn it...a whole new world appears...where the unlearned eye will draw the fine detail first...the trained eye ignores the "noise" i.e fine detail...in order to see the big shapes first. You are spinning your wheels to draw the veins in the leaves without first painting in the sky and clouds and branches. There is an order to all things...and logic can take you there...it is no different with aesthetics. And this is what K and N do so brilliantly. They give aesthetics a voice.

Arising_uk wrote:AS,
Why bother discussing Nietzsche with someone who has an opinion about something they've not actually read? Especially when they re-parrot nonsense about Hitler being the only one who understood him.

Arising_uk wrote:AS,
Why bother discussing Nietzsche with someone who has an opinion about something they've not actually read? Especially when they re-parrot nonsense about Hitler being the only one who understood him.

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You believe that I'll be missing something if I don't read him and I believe that you've lost something because you have.

lancek4 wrote:I feel the points of K and N go further, and this extent shows the validity of their position (singular).
N does not have a singular position, neither does K, and neither share one.

I beg to differ; and I bet we could go tit for tat in respective ideas of K and N and where you would show disparate positions, of different points, I would show they argue from one basic position, or one basic proposition.

Perhaps we could begin another Kierkegaard thread.

the thing with N (and K) is their position cannot be taught and niether can it be willed. But they thought they could bring this 'unwilled, untaught' situation into being, as K, 'bring the phenomenon into existance throught the concept', but they could not.

(perhaps we really should begin a K thread.)

thus K's depression; thus N's insanity. as the reality of their untannable position came to bare more and more upon them.

lancek4 wrote:On second thought, sob, I will stick with my previous assertion.
N proposes a polemic that he feels should be able to be overcome. He thinks that what he is saying is so obvious that eventually the polemic will dessist; that it should make so much sense that eventually the over-super-man will come about. Hence his 'enthusiasm': because he felt it must.

But it is apparent that it did not, has not, and most probably will not.
This is the probelm of N.

the evidence of N's fault lay in the polemic that is most apparent with SOB and Chaz, but also with me as I am part of this discussion, as well as AS.

SOB reads N at face value. And is probably the main example of what N is overtly speaking against: pity. SOB asserts a type of humanistic moral of kindness, of 'concern for things one would not otherwise be concerned about'. His defence stems from a 'goodness' that involves all of humanity, as if humanity in all its forms arise against education or intelligence where those who are 'bad' are more or less ignorant and so are deserving of pity. Humanity is one great tender life that deserves pity by those who have the intelligence to know what is good for all of humanity. N's buzz words are offensive. 'Power' and 'weak' arouse suspicion in that these words derive from SOB's moral ideology of power.

Chaz has a similar take on intelligence but sees N as referring to the positing of transcedence as the problem. Good and evil arise as conditions of our situation and not out of any inherent absolute morality or purpose for the universe or humanity. He sees N's use of 'power' and 'weak' as refering to an individual's reliance upon such transcedant principles as they tend for ideological assertions of power and control. Though there is ideological power plays, the intelligent over-super-man sees that the equality of humanity arises from each individual's recognition of thier own Being, of limitation but more of the power that arises in knowing oneself as the total expression of agency, unhindered by absolute transcendent ideological representations.

Between these two lay N proposition. Chaz would seem to be more in correspondnece with N, while SOB with the 'christian'. And this is a logical correspondance.

Yet they will not communicate. this is to say, that even if Chaz does have a comprhension of N, he is utterly unable to get SOB to understand it, for SOB does understand it, in that he understands what he understand, what he is able to understand, just as likewise Chaz understands how he is able. The over-man premise fails.



SoB understands it perfectly - he just chooses to reject it - probably because it comes from me, and for no other reason.
Had I taken another position he would have disagreed with that. For him I am a 'megalo', whatever that is.
He's not stupid - he's just mental.


This is my understaning of N:

I see Chaz and SOB discussion as concerning the truth of the Object, and the truth of the object is always located in a moral scheme of knowledge.

What the hell are you on these days? What object? There is no object. It is not located in the 'moral scheme of knowledge' - whatever that is.

Perhaps if you really want an understanding of N, your first sentence should not include me and SoB.


N would have us relieve ourselves of such idolitry, of discussion of truth. For the real power comes - and I refer to the 3rd section of AC (I believe) -- in the unwilled. the exception that arouses fear and reprisal because his actions are not based in an 'evolution' or a 'progress'. He actions are fundamentally non-moral: they are entirely assertive of power: the Will of Power. But this is not power in the typical Christian moralistic 'we should have pity on all the ill-informed souls', but power that enacts due to its basis in existance, it is power that is unjustified activity as existance, and thus is totally justified at all times -- that is except by those who see such power as offensive to them, as it arouses resentment, and thus a further moralistic assertion of righteousness and ideological power.

Now, here is the clincher: niether will you understand what I am saying, or rather, if indeed you do, there is not getting beyond (as K) The Universal: and so the over-man is lost.

thus I see K as the more 'considerate' of philosophers, but both were proposing the same situation; the situation that can only be relieved by an 'unwilling', or a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'.

Arising_uk wrote:AS,
Why bother discussing Nietzsche with someone who has an opinion about something they've not actually read? Especially when they re-parrot nonsense about Hitler being the only one who understood him.

artisticsolution wrote:

SpheresOfBalance wrote: You believe that I'll be missing something if I don't read him and I believe that you've lost something because you have.

Yes, and it's this conclusion that brings you to the point of being a warrior against any person who may hold a different point of view than you. Your mind goes directly the the thought....if they don't think like me, they must be 'evil'. N is asking us to question why we do this.

chaz wyman wrote:

lancek4 wrote:On second thought, sob, I will stick with my previous assertion.
N proposes a polemic that he feels should be able to be overcome. He thinks that what he is saying is so obvious that eventually the polemic will dessist; that it should make so much sense that eventually the over-super-man will come about. Hence his 'enthusiasm': because he felt it must.

But it is apparent that it did not, has not, and most probably will not.
This is the probelm of N.

the evidence of N's fault lay in the polemic that is most apparent with SOB and Chaz, but also with me as I am part of this discussion, as well as AS.

SOB reads N at face value. And is probably the main example of what N is overtly speaking against: pity. SOB asserts a type of humanistic moral of kindness, of 'concern for things one would not otherwise be concerned about'. His defence stems from a 'goodness' that involves all of humanity, as if humanity in all its forms arise against education or intelligence where those who are 'bad' are more or less ignorant and so are deserving of pity. Humanity is one great tender life that deserves pity by those who have the intelligence to know what is good for all of humanity. N's buzz words are offensive. 'Power' and 'weak' arouse suspicion in that these words derive from SOB's moral ideology of power.

Chaz has a similar take on intelligence but sees N as referring to the positing of transcedence as the problem. Good and evil arise as conditions of our situation and not out of any inherent absolute morality or purpose for the universe or humanity. He sees N's use of 'power' and 'weak' as refering to an individual's reliance upon such transcedant principles as they tend for ideological assertions of power and control. Though there is ideological power plays, the intelligent over-super-man sees that the equality of humanity arises from each individual's recognition of thier own Being, of limitation but more of the power that arises in knowing oneself as the total expression of agency, unhindered by absolute transcendent ideological representations.

Between these two lay N proposition. Chaz would seem to be more in correspondnece with N, while SOB with the 'christian'. And this is a logical correspondance.

Yet they will not communicate. this is to say, that even if Chaz does have a comprhension of N, he is utterly unable to get SOB to understand it, for SOB does understand it, in that he understands what he understand, what he is able to understand, just as likewise Chaz understands how he is able. The over-man premise fails.



SoB understands it perfectly - he just chooses to reject it - probably because it comes from me, and for no other reason.
Had I taken another position he would have disagreed with that. For him I am a 'megalo', whatever that is.
He's not stupid - he's just mental.

Thanks, you almost got me, mainly because of the mental part, but others as well, but while I got your attention, and you are my contemporary, age wise, although I seem to be your senior by two years , I have a question that I know you can answer.

But first forget the belief that I shall not listen because it's you, and instead understand that I shall certainly listen because it's you, and I ask this question most seriously, do not look for anything but face value.

If one believes they have cancer, and fears going to the doctor, because they don't trust them, because it's substandard, because it's almost free and they want to employ the Gerson Therapy, I recently purchased Charlotte Gerson's book, "Healing the Gerson Way" is it advisable to exercise or conserve ones strength? I'm beginning to believe (denial) that your answer, I'm in dire need of, so in all seriousness, what do you suggest? For fear, as I mentioned above, I've thus far neglected to get a colonoscopy, which is the area in question, and now I have what seems to be a growth on a testis, and ejaculate volume has substantially decreased, so I'm afraid the entire area may be compromised.

This is my understaning of N:

I see Chaz and SOB discussion as concerning the truth of the Object, and the truth of the object is always located in a moral scheme of knowledge.

What the hell are you on these days? What object? There is no object. It is not located in the 'moral scheme of knowledge' - whatever that is.

Perhaps if you really want an understanding of N, your first sentence should not include me and SoB.


N would have us relieve ourselves of such idolitry, of discussion of truth. For the real power comes - and I refer to the 3rd section of AC (I believe) -- in the unwilled. the exception that arouses fear and reprisal because his actions are not based in an 'evolution' or a 'progress'. He actions are fundamentally non-moral: they are entirely assertive of power: the Will of Power. But this is not power in the typical Christian moralistic 'we should have pity on all the ill-informed souls', but power that enacts due to its basis in existance, it is power that is unjustified activity as existance, and thus is totally justified at all times -- that is except by those who see such power as offensive to them, as it arouses resentment, and thus a further moralistic assertion of righteousness and ideological power.

Now, here is the clincher: niether will you understand what I am saying, or rather, if indeed you do, there is not getting beyond (as K) The Universal: and so the over-man is lost.

thus I see K as the more 'considerate' of philosophers, but both were proposing the same situation; the situation that can only be relieved by an 'unwilling', or a 'teleological suspension of the ethical'.