Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 3:47 am**

But I have often wondered about 'mind/matter' issue. Can the mind know in such a way to avoid or otherwise over come sickness ?

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 6:05 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:This was more a comment on health and sickness, since they both offer a solution by this discourse. Sob has offered himself as a concrete example of sickness, I wad attempting to bring it back into the topic of this thread.
What a "I can't answer that question, because it's over my head so I'll change the subject and assert something that absolutely holds no water, as a cheap shot, to place my opponent in a defensive stance," response.

Answer the question if you can, because your understanding, that you've asserted, rests on it. Here to refresh your memory:

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:Can we discuss ? N offers an 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wise be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he associates with sickness.
OK specify the wise's you speak of, delineate their differences, define them. Because I see your mention of them as a void of assumption.
Do I have to lead you by the hand? You have referred to two modes of concern. Define not just the other mode of concern but the initial. You say that "one would not otherwise," explain the conditionals for both modes of concern. Here let me help you, one is that of the over man and the other is that of...

And then of course define them both as to their conditionals.

This is definitely on topic, you just fear to tread!

Ah; I just saw it : what one would not OTHERWISE.... I am just using the synopsis phrase Chaz used earlier that I liked. Otherwise; Not other Wise. Lol. Sorry.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 7:18 pm**

lancek4 wrote:This was more a comment on health and sickness, since they both offer a solution by this discourse. Sob has offered himself as a concrete example of sickness, I wad attempting to bring it back into the topic of this thread.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:What a "I can't answer that question, because it's over my head so I'll change the subject and assert something that absolutely holds no water, as a cheap shot, to place my opponent in a defensive stance," response.

Answer the question if you can, because your understanding, that you've asserted, rests on it. Here to refresh your memory:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:Can we discuss ? N offers an 'unwilled' over or super man who is no longer caught in the ethical constraint associated with concern for what one would not other wise be concerned with, based in pity, a constraint that he associates with sickness.
OK specify the wise's you speak of, delineate their differences, define them. Because I see your mention of them as a void of assumption.
Do I have to lead you by the hand? You have referred to two modes of concern. Define not just the other mode of concern but the initial. You say that "one would not otherwise," explain the conditionals for both modes of concern. Here let me help you, one is that of the over man and the other is that of...

And then of course define them both as to their conditionals.

This is definitely on topic, you just fear to tread!

lancek4 wrote:Ah; I just saw it : what one would not OTHERWISE.... I am just using the synopsis phrase Chaz used earlier that I liked. Otherwise; Not other Wise. Lol. Sorry.

Sorry that I'm coming on strong, but first you said I'm sick, then that I'm having difficulties understanding, as if to demean, to throw aside consideration because of unworthiness, thus I tend to do likewise. I tend to treat in kind!

I understood what you meant from the beginning, what I'm saying is that it's false, to say that it's either one of two way's, as to pity, the one being the Christian way and the other the Overman way. This is not logical, as if pity is necessarily bound to Christianity. And I see that pity is relative, as I can see that, I, as one of the few Ultimate Ad Infinitum Men (U-AIM), took pity on N and allowed him to live, thus allowing him to write as he did, as my fellow U-AIM said that as a sickly child he should be put down, that they pitied his sickly life, but I argued that while I too pitied him, I saw that he could handle the struggle, and that it would make him stronger, yet not quite an overman.

I had convinced them that my pity was the superior form, so now you can read him.

Posted: **Wed May 09, 2012 9:34 pm**

Well , that is an interesting position. And I meant only sick to the cancer you have spoken about. Perhaps you can tell me your ideas about the mind/ matter thing; how or in what way might mind relate to body, in this case ? Is there a correlation. ?

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 7:00 am**

Legend:
SpheresOfBalance My thoughts on implication.
Nietzsche excerpts from The Anti-Christ.
Wikipedia excerpts from article on: Friedrich Nietzsche.

It's just kind of peculiar that he's 'sickly' pretty much all his life, his brother dies at 2 years old, and his father died of some sort of 'brain disease.' So he voluntarily, joins a Prussian artillery unit and is declared 'unfit' after a riding accident. Two years later he joins the Prussian forces again as a medical orderly, witnessing the traumatic effects of battle, during which time he contracts 'diphtheria,' 'dysentery' and possibly 'syphilis,' which may later be the cause of his 'dementia.'

Here are some Quotes from Wikipedia:
"Since his childhood, various disruptive illnesses had plagued him, including moments of shortsightedness that left him nearly blind, migraine headaches, and violent indigestion. The 1868 riding accident and diseases in 1870 may have aggravated these persistent conditions, which continued to affect him through his years at Basel, forcing him to take longer and longer holidays until regular work became impractical."

"Amidst renewed bouts of illness, living in near isolation after a falling-out with his mother and sister regarding Salomé, Nietzsche fled to Rapallo."

"Because his illness drove him to find climates more conducive to his health, Nietzsche traveled frequently..."

"By 1882, Nietzsche was taking huge doses of opium, but was still having trouble sleeping.[56] In 1883, while staying in Nice, he was writing out his own prescriptions for the sedative chloral hydrate..."

"He continued to have frequent and painful attacks of illness, which made prolonged work impossible."

"...Nietzsche replied that he would come to Copenhagen and read Kierkegaard with him. However, before fulfilling this undertaking, he slipped too far into sickness."

"On January 3, 1889, Nietzsche suffered a mental collapse."

What I find peculiar is that after all this sickness in his life he writes:
"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...."

If you catch my drift. I mean, he was definitely 'weak' his entire life, did he have a death wish, did he secretly wish someone would have put him out of his misery? Did he find that mans God had failed him? In his sicklyness he writes "What is good? - Whatever enhances people's feeling of power, will to power, power itself." Did he feel 'powerless' with his sicklyness? He says: "What is bad? - Everything stemming from weakness." Did he think of himself as bad or good? Did he feel that he had 'power' of the mind, as a trade off for the 'weakness' of his body? Justification, for a weak body that had failed him time and time again. How did Christianity fit in with his weak body and, self proclaimed, sharp mind. "... who cares about the rest of them? The rest are just humanity. You need to be far above humanity in strength, in elevation of soul, - in contempt…"

In 1888 he wrote The Anti-Christ, here is another exerpt: "What is happiness? - The feeling that power is growing, that some resistance has been overcome."
Now here's a quote from Wikipedia:
"His health seemed to improve, and he spent the summer in high spirits. In the fall of 1888 his writings and letters began to reveal a higher estimation of his own status and "fate."" I believe it no coincidence that he writes of "happiness," "the feeling that power is growing," at the same time that his health seems to improve.

Did he pity himself? Or was he struggling with not pitting himself? Kind of strange that a 'weak' man speaks of helping the 'weak' to perish, don't you think?

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 2:23 pm**

Indeed; It would seem he was the picture of irony. That he would be so weak yet assert power as the healthy; that he would die , apparently from the very situation he detests. ; that he would become posthumously famous. All this goes to emphasize as well va vilify his position. That one ought not attempt a 'psychology ' of him because at once: the questions only serve to validate the invalidity of his proposition (ironically), as well invalidate the validity of his proposition for those who would put his existence in a box (which ironically only serve to evidence the limitation of the reader).

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 2:34 pm**

The ends of N writings always point back upon the reader such that, as I attempted to indicate to AS, in as much one wishes to know the true object one wil keep himself at a distance; the reader will read N from a 'safe distance'. Such a stance upon reading will slways yield opinion based questions about his meaning that, in the individual questions' answering, work to avoid the more substantial meaning N is trying to get accross. In this way one never understands him , but only justifies his judgement, his righteousness against what thus appear as flaws in his position : the righteous motion which thus verifies N meaning as a relief or negative image.

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 4:29 pm**

lancek4 wrote:Indeed; It would seem he was the picture of irony. That he would be so weak yet assert power as the healthy; that he would die , apparently from the very situation he detests. ; that he would become posthumously famous. All this goes to emphasize as well va vilify his position.

From here on, I see that there is good chance that your hero worship doth detest far too much. I worship no man or woman, we are all equal, thus I always see everyone objectively. His psychology, as to it's affect, is easy to understand, that his writings were a mere reflection of his self image. That he projects that outward, on the whole of the people, shows his selfish shortsightedness (madness). That he saw himself an overman in the face of such truth, is at least "pitiful." Self loathing is a twisted thing, that he probably assimilated from the one that awakened his philosophical interest, Arthur Schopenhauer, who himself, denied his animal nature, probably because his persona was unable to attract a suitable mate, or more appropriately their connection was just as water, seeking it's own level. No, as far as his box, a readers limitations or otherwise, these, as truths, only reside in the understanding of his psyche, as the noumena that it shall forever be, otherwise, we merely speculate elevation in association, as an equilibrium, like that of water, as if we could possibly know it.

Of course this is not to say that in 'attempting' to understand N, one cannot find something of value, quite the contrary, he 'seems' multidimensional, to say the least.

That one ought not attempt a 'psychology ' of him because at once: the questions only serve to validate the invalidity of his proposition (ironically), as well invalidate the validity of his proposition for those who would put his existence in a box (which ironically only serve to evidence the limitation of the reader).

Posted: **Thu May 10, 2012 8:44 pm**

lancek4 wrote:The ends of N writings always point back upon the reader such that, as I attempted to indicate to AS, in as much one wishes to know the true object one wil keep himself at a distance; the reader will read N from a 'safe distance'. Such a stance upon reading will slways yield opinion based questions about his meaning that, in the individual questions' answering, work to avoid the more substantial meaning N is trying to get accross.
Incorrect, as in your assertion, that I have highlighted above, you attest to being capable of knowing him, so as to speak for him, as if you possibly could, as if that of which you speak applies to everyone but you, or those that believe as you do.

The truth is that, anyone with any particular view, and those that similarly believe, could in fact understand N, as to any particular thing, that he meant to convey. However this knowing, of which I speak, can only be confirmed by N himself, and N alone. It is not for you or I to say with certainty!

In this way one never understands him , but only justifies his judgement, his righteousness against what thus appear as flaws in his position : the righteous motion which thus verifies N meaning as a relief or negative image.

Posted: **Sun May 13, 2012 12:55 pm**

I would think that the correct view of any situation would be the one that could account for every contingency of the situation, in N case, the one that could account for every one of his clauses and sentences under a single rubric of explanation.

Perhaps we can take up at section 33-34, of AC where he describes Christ.

Posted: **Sun May 13, 2012 7:18 pm**

Here is a link to a documentary on Zizek.
http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

I think that's right. In just the first few minutes he presents a good version of what N is saying, as Chaz phrase: what one would not otherwise be concerned with. (try to set aside the accent).

Posted: **Sun May 13, 2012 10:42 pm**

lancek4 wrote:Here is a link to a documentary on Zizek.
http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

I think that's right. In just the first few minutes he presents a good version of what N is saying, as Chaz phrase: what one would not otherwise be concerned with. (try to set aside the accent).

Again, I try not to place my eggs in someone else's basket. I always want to, as much as possible, negate the influence of the middle man. i am here to understand N for myself not Zizek's understanding of N. But I do appreciate you providing me with that resource, just in case, thanks.

Posted: **Sun May 13, 2012 10:58 pm**

lancek4 wrote:I would think that the correct view of any situation would be the one that could account for every contingency of the situation, in N case, the one that could account for every one of his clauses and sentences under a single rubric of explanation.
I would agree with you, save the fact that still ones account of the totality of another's words is merely born of their own minds and this is assuming that they actually did all the interpretation themselves and did not rely on the parroting of another's understanding, as within that is born, bias. Just because one believes they can account for all of something doesn't necessarily mean that in truth they do, only that they believe as much. And as I said, the only way one can be absolutely certain, as to the truth of their understanding, is with the confirmation of the originator himself indicating as much.

Perhaps we can take up at section 33-34, of AC where he describes Christ.
OK, I shall analyze it, but first I ask, as to your motive, in selecting that particular section, in all honesty, if you please?

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2012 12:32 am**

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:Here is a link to a documentary on Zizek.
http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

I think that's right. In just the first few minutes he presents a good version of what N is saying, as Chaz phrase: what one would not otherwise be concerned with. (try to set aside the accent).
Again, I try not to place my eggs in someone else's basket. I always want to, as much as possible, negate the influence of the middle man. i am here to understand N for myself not Zizek's understanding of N. But I do appreciate you providing me with that resource, just in case, thanks.

That is rediculous. I am simply referring you to someone who speaks differently than I about. The issue. I have said this many times but you refuse to hear it; I did not learn my understanding from anyone. I do not worship anyone. I have stumbled upon people who have come by the same understanding as I have. But who speak of it in different ways, so if I may not be understandable then I can say 'hey, maybe the way this other person says it is more clear' to you or someone else I feel has not understood what I am trying to say.

For all your proported humility, you sure presume you have all the answers. It seems you have decided prior to investigating.

Posted: **Mon May 14, 2012 1:24 am**

lancek4 wrote:
SpheresOfBalance wrote:
lancek4 wrote:Here is a link to a documentary on Zizek.
http://youtu.be/HiFV-xtZOE

I think that's right. In just the first few minutes he presents a good version of what N is saying, as Chaz phrase: what one would not otherwise be concerned with. (try to set aside the accent).
Again, I try not to place my eggs in someone else's basket. I always want to, as much as possible, negate the influence of the middle man. i am here to understand N for myself not Zizek's understanding of N. But I do appreciate you providing me with that resource, just in case, thanks.
That is rediculous. I am simply referring you to someone who speaks differently than I about. The issue. I have said this many times but you refuse to hear it; I did not learn my understanding from anyone. I do not worship anyone. I have stumbled upon people who have come by the same understanding as I have. But who speak of it in different ways, so if I may not be understandable then I can say 'hey, maybe the way this other person says it is more clear' to you or someone else I feel has not understood what I am trying to say.
This frustration you display, is from not understanding me, I'm sorry that is the case. Did you even read the other reply of mine above, as that is the one that allows us to proceed. Unless for some reason you sensed that and decided to reply to the safe bet, the one that does not allow us to proceed. My response was that of the way I see things that apparently you fail to see. It is a way to ensure that my first reading of N is unbiased. But if you care to put on display, due to a misconception, so be it, It's obvious I have done this many times.

For all your proported humility, you sure presume you have all the answers. It seems you have decided prior to investigating.
Whoa Nelly, look who's calling the kettle black. It was you sir, that said that AS and I are too clouded to understand N, while you can. It is you that is arrogant, not I. You think you are smarter than others with comments like "my students." i submit that it is in fact fools and not the wise that walk around with their chest thrown out crowing how they are smarter than the rest. You've never seen me doing that shit. That is how I'm humble, I do not think I am better than anyone else. What I mentioned above is how I see it, as to the smartest way to proceed. I do not want my understanding to be clouded by someone elses.

Philosophy Now Forum

The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist

Re: The Antichrist