Philosophy Now Forum

reasonvemotion wrote:Great! Now we have all had our say and got it off our chests, so to speak.

Nous a laissés commencer encore

PS To CW, please accept my apologies for any rudeness I have shown towards you.

Mike Strand wrote:Any comments on my May 22 post? It may have been awkward, my putting it in the middle of the verbal swordplay. I haven't read N's work, but wanted to express my general thoughts on the notion of "antichrist".

Mike Strand wrote:Thanks, Spheres, for your comment, and thanks to artisticsolution for this topic.

After reading a couple of reviews of Nietzsche's (N's) "The Anti-Christ", it appears to me that the English title is a misleading translation of the intended German meaning, "The Anti-Christian", as others have mentioned.

In the book, N criticizes Christianity as a nihilistic, life-denying religion of the weak. He claims the life of Jesus had little to do with the way Christianity as an organized religion became: A religion that appeals to "losers", a source of comfort for oppressed peoples who resent their superiors or over-lords. It has demonized worldly success, the scientific method, and human beings as biological entities with a desire to survive and have power and enjoy life. Christianity, according to N, has replaced the goodness and enjoyment of natural biological life with a decadent down-grading of the importance of the natural world and a sick focus on a fictitious after-life.

In the book, N also makes an interesting comparison between Christianity and Buddhism, the latter in his view being the superior belief system, for one thing in that it seeks to eliminate suffering by dealing in a special way with reality and apparently holding that sin doesn't exist.

I think N was nervous about the possible impact of the book, and thus warned, in effect, that only people with sufficiently open minds should read it.

N's book is thus a good stimulus for discussion of the pros and cons of Christianity in its many forms, other religions, atheism, and the scientific method.

Mike Strand wrote: Here we are -- the question of why or how is fun to contemplate, but eventually we have to attend to the cooking, cleaning, and gathering of material resources for our survival and comfort, as well as trying to cooperate with others.

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob,

SOB:But this is no reason to then say that someone is less than you simply because they do things differently. You speak of my abilities as if they are measured by your yardstick.

AS:I never said that someone is "less than me" I was merely pointing out that they "do things differently" and sometimes I don't understand why.

SOB: not true at all:
artisticsolution wrote:
Just look a sob coming unglued
is how you characterized me, take a look back to page 9 April 23 2012 @ 10:38AM as to my initial about N's TA-C, I never became unglued, just simply stated my case, what idiots here, write, causes me to become unglued, as you say, well at least due to those of nastiness.

AS: So if I say you "came unglued", to you that means that I am nastily saying I am better than you? You think I am saying you are "less than" me? Is that right? Well, I have to say that I think that is your own insecurity as I would be just as likely to say, "I came unglued" as saying someone else came "unglued". Thus...if I used it on myself....how can I possibly think another is less than.

Sometimes you read too much into people's statements...and I believe that is because of your psychological background and sort of a sports mentality thing you have going for that 'team' if you will. I believe I know this about you because I was raised to believe this way too and I can clearly spot the "signs." The thing is...it didn't serve me well...it made me sensitive to most things people said about me. When I began to doubt the validity of psycho babble is when a whole world opened up to me...one that I could stand back and look at objectively. It was then I could train my mind to think everyone was good first...instead of how psychology trained me to see the 'bad' or 'abnormal' psychological behavior first . I had to learn to see people as innocent until proven guilty. In my mind it is a better way...because most people ARE innocent of the crimes we attribute to them in our minds. And by calling people 'evil' before we know that is the fact, we are being evil. And thus we 'see' evil clearly...because we are the persona of 'evil' by knowing it. Does that make sense? N said, "and when you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." More fitting words for this human malady I don't think exists. But I think you already know this...also...I think this entire post is unnecessary...because you already know what I am going to say...at least in your heart you will know it's true...it's a no brainer...but here it goes anyway....

SOB: As you can see you continually demean me as being lower than you, and the absolute truth is that you cannot speak for me as if you know me, you only know what you think you see as a function of your assumption, do you even understand what inference is?

AS: Don't worry....I don't speak for you...and I don't know you other than what you write. It is silly for you to even get offended like this...but you know this deep inside. Some things are natural...they fall under the category of 'human behavior.' So I seem to lump you into a group sometimes...Because you are human. There are basic things we all know/do that are apriori. The things I know about you...are not to do with your individuality... but rather the things I know are only things I (or any of us) can know about any human. So when I speak...take it in that light...please. Don't come so unglued.

SOB: Not at all, I was critiquing his exact words, verbatim as to their exact meaning. As to my dealings with N, it is between him and I, that's none of your business, never, did I directly characterize your relationship with him, as being less than reasonable.

AS:No...you were not "critiquing" his words...as you have no idea what he said based on half a thought. Obviously he did not intend for the reader to read a few pages and come to a conclusion...why the hell would he have written a whole book if that was the case? Come on SOB...you know this....it is human nature. Who on the planet would write that much if I they wanted to get across was that one sentence ...why would anyone bother to write another word? Obviously N had something else to say on the subject. Admit it.

SOB:I was not judging as to the why, between your and my take of his meaning, which is what you are doing to me, as in for instance, I could say that you are a whack job that automatically believes in your superiority in believing in him, simply because he implies as much, but I have not, this then is what you do to me, as if you could possibly speak for him.

AS: Come on SOB....between the 2 of us...who would know N better...the one who read a couple of sentences and then put the book down...or the one who read it to completion? See...I know what this is....my mom did it all the time too...she thought because of her background of therapy she was fully equipped to understand people just by merely glancing at them....it was a 'gift' she had that she felt was hard earned. But her life was a mess...because she followed the wrong people...thought bad ones were good and good ones were bad because she prided herself on instantaneous judgments. It is impossible to know another by just one sentence or one thought they have. You can't...no one can.

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

SOB: You are the one saying that you understand him and I don't, as N is the only one that can actually attest to such things. You do this so as to position yourself above me, in his shadow, as you see it's delineation.

AS: I do nothing of the sort SOB. That is your insecurity. Obviously I know N better that you...I read the whole book and you didnt! Duh. That is just a statement of fact. There are others who read all N's books...they know him better than you or I....obliviously! It does not send me into a tizzy simply because someone knows more about something than I do...of course they would if they studied something more than I did! You probably could kick my ass with whatever it is that you do well...I forget...was it kung fu or something? Whatever it is...I can honestly say you know it better...and it doesn't even make me feel less than! I am actually happy for you! Go figure! But why is it you are not happy for me that I read all of N...why is it you feel the need to know N better than me off the few sentences of his that you actually read? Can you explain that to me or are you going to deny it and try to deflect your feelings of inadequacy by telling me I think you are "less than."

AS: Just as you don't like to have your words misconstrued...neither did N. Same same.

SOB: Again you speak for him, as if that's actually possible.

AS: No....I speak of the human condition. Tell me...who on earth like to have their words misconstrued? This is a no brainer SOB. Don't you see? I can say that about N because I am pretty sure he wasn't writing the AC while thinking..."gee I hope someone will just take this first controversial statement I am making and not read the rest of the book...it would be GREAT if they walked away thinking I am evil! I love to be misunderstood."

Now I ask you...can you imagine anybody saying that? And if they did...why would they go on to explain what they meant? Why bother? Don't you see...you can't be right because it just doesn't make sense...you are not being logical. You want to be a warrior for all that is good at any cost....even if it means you have to create evil where it doesn't exist. Scary thought...huh?

AS: I believe N deliberately sets out with a very harsh and controversial statement, so that he can then go on to explain what he means throughout the rest of the book.

SOB:Now you got it, you 'believe.' I would say no, I do not 'believe', I understand what he is saying; I would not say 'I believe I know' as I might with some authors, but as I have said earlier there is not a clause or sentence in any of (at least AC) that is inconsistent with my understanding of him, there is not one statement of his that leaves me asking myself 'what could he mean by that'. Thus I understand; if it were a belief of knowing then there would be some of his clauses that I am unsure about or that I have not been able to 'make consistent' with my tentative reading.

AS: Yes...I believe. How can I say I "know" for sure. Who could? It would not be honest for anyone to say that! It is not honest for you to say you 'know' N is evil by a few sentences you have read. You can't possibly know that...and by you saying it as 'truth' you have caused injury to someone who may in fact be innocent.
I know for sure because the logic of the meaning through his whole book is consistent withe the meaning I understand.


AS: I just have never understood this line of thinking.

SOB: but the real question is, will you ever?

AS: I don't know. Perhaps if someone explained it to me? Will you try?


SOB: I like you! I try not to judge one, as to capability, but rather as to niceties, everyone is equally capable, given the correct stimulus.

AS: I like you too....but as for niceties...I think they are nice...but I don't believe in them as truth. I reserve my judgment until I see how the person treats others. I don't think reasonvemotion was very nice to Chaz or me who have done nothing to him. Even though she/he was nice to you it would still give me reason to pause and consider her side taking...even if it were me she was nice to....I would hold back from her as I would not like the cliquishness. But that's just me. Not that I don't like her/him...it's just that I am wary of a person like that...who has to be divisive in their ways. Actually, if I had to pick who is more a friend to you...I would pick Chaz at this moment...believe it or not. But I admit...I don't know that for sure.

Mike Strand wrote:I appreciate the compliment, lancek4!

Not sure about your reference to its (the book's, or my comments'?) application to existence. Are you referring to the meaning of existence? The why or how of existence is a deep mystery, in my view. Why am I who I am, and not a dog, or a citizen of Bengladesh?

To me, the realization that I'm a close relative of gorillas and chimpanzees, who try to get along together in groups, who seek food and shelter and comfort, like I do, is revealing. Is it rational or practical to feel sinful and unworthy and to rely on a sky god I've never seen to save me?

Here we are -- the question of why or how is fun to contemplate, but eventually we have to attend to the cooking, cleaning, and gathering of material resources for our survival and comfort, as well as trying to cooperate with others.

That is true. In fact, my words were mostly in relatiation.


Or retaliation !!

These ponderings have to do with 'the interesting', but hardly approach a good ontological investigation.

N considers the nature of existence. He poses a dialectic that show existence in its whole possibility. Such (as n) answer: what is existence? What is truth? What is being? These questions are wrapped in the same solute answer which when proposed directly appears as contradiction and paradox. Thus N dialectic. Where such contradictions are suspended as an absolute 'false', we have then 'the interesting', which is based in an insoluable 'unposited' transcendent reality.

I philosophy which proposes to answer questions against known activity, such as cooking, always recourse to a granted method, which when applied to one and his or her activity as if they are one effect, Being, offers only a truth suspended in time that grants agency, but no real truth, only a truth that has been already given.

SpheresOfBalance wrote:

artisticsolution wrote:I believe N deliberately sets out with a very harsh and controversial statement, so that he can then go on to explain what he means throughout the rest of the book.

Now you got it, you 'believe.'

lancek4 wrote: I would say no, I do not 'believe', I understand what he is saying; I would not say 'I believe I know' as I might with some authors, but as I have said earlier there is not a clause or sentence in any of (at least AC) that is inconsistent with my understanding of him, there is not one statement of his that leaves me asking myself 'what could he mean by that'. Thus I understand; if it were a belief of knowing then there would be some of his clauses that I am unsure about or that I have not been able to 'make consistent' with my tentative reading.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE wrote:The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.

artisticsolution wrote:Hi Sob,

SOB:But this is no reason to then say that someone is less than you simply because they do things differently. You speak of my abilities as if they are measured by your yardstick.

AS:I never said that someone is "less than me" I was merely pointing out that they "do things differently" and sometimes I don't understand why.

SOB: not true at all:
artisticsolution wrote:
Just look a sob coming unglued
is how you characterized me, take a look back to page 9 April 23 2012 @ 10:38AM as to my initial about N's TA-C, I never became unglued, just simply stated my case, what idiots here, write, causes me to become unglued, as you say, well at least due to those of nastiness.

AS: So if I say you "came unglued", to you that means that I am nastily saying I am better than you? You think I am saying you are "less than" me? Is that right? Well, I have to say that I think that is your own insecurity as I would be just as likely to say, "I came unglued" as saying someone else came "unglued". Thus...if I used it on myself....how can I possibly think another is less than.

Sometimes you read too much into people's statements...and I believe that is because of your psychological background and sort of a sports mentality thing you have going for that 'team' if you will. I believe I know this about you because I was raised to believe this way too and I can clearly spot the "signs." The thing is...it didn't serve me well...it made me sensitive to most things people said about me. When I began to doubt the validity of psycho babble is when a whole world opened up to me...one that I could stand back and look at objectively. It was then I could train my mind to think everyone was good first...instead of how psychology trained me to see the 'bad' or 'abnormal' psychological behavior first . I had to learn to see people as innocent until proven guilty. In my mind it is a better way...because most people ARE innocent of the crimes we attribute to them in our minds. And by calling people 'evil' before we know that is the fact, we are being evil. And thus we 'see' evil clearly...because we are the persona of 'evil' by knowing it. Does that make sense? N said, "and when you gaze long enough into the abyss, the abyss also gazes into you." More fitting words for this human malady I don't think exists. But I think you already know this...also...I think this entire post is unnecessary...because you already know what I am going to say...at least in your heart you will know it's true...it's a no brainer...but here it goes anyway....

SOB: As you can see you continually demean me as being lower than you, and the absolute truth is that you cannot speak for me as if you know me, you only know what you think you see as a function of your assumption, do you even understand what inference is?

AS: Don't worry....I don't speak for you...and I don't know you other than what you write. It is silly for you to even get offended like this...but you know this deep inside. Some things are natural...they fall under the category of 'human behavior.' So I seem to lump you into a group sometimes...Because you are human. There are basic things we all know/do that are apriori. The things I know about you...are not to do with your individuality... but rather the things I know are only things I (or any of us) can know about any human. So when I speak...take it in that light...please. Don't come so unglued.

SOB: Not at all, I was critiquing his exact words, verbatim as to their exact meaning. As to my dealings with N, it is between him and I, that's none of your business, never, did I directly characterize your relationship with him, as being less than reasonable.

AS:No...you were not "critiquing" his words...as you have no idea what he said based on half a thought. Obviously he did not intend for the reader to read a few pages and come to a conclusion...why the hell would he have written a whole book if that was the case? Come on SOB...you know this....it is human nature. Who on the planet would write that much if I they wanted to get across was that one sentence ...why would anyone bother to write another word? Obviously N had something else to say on the subject. Admit it.

SOB:I was not judging as to the why, between your and my take of his meaning, which is what you are doing to me, as in for instance, I could say that you are a whack job that automatically believes in your superiority in believing in him, simply because he implies as much, but I have not, this then is what you do to me, as if you could possibly speak for him.

AS: Come on SOB....between the 2 of us...who would know N better...the one who read a couple of sentences and then put the book down...or the one who read it to completion? See...I know what this is....my mom did it all the time too...she thought because of her background of therapy she was fully equipped to understand people just by merely glancing at them....it was a 'gift' she had that she felt was hard earned. But her life was a mess...because she followed the wrong people...thought bad ones were good and good ones were bad because she prided herself on instantaneous judgments. It is impossible to know another by just one sentence or one thought they have. You can't...no one can.

Just like you lovin on reasonvemotion and not chaz...simply because she/he came to your defense and chaz doesn't. In actuality...you can't know which person is the better person no one can...it is impossible. True...she has taken a liking to you for whatever the reason...and I know that can be flattering...however....just because it is flattering doesn't mean that you shouldn't pay attention to how she treats others. For when she stops digging on you...that is surely how she will treat you. Be forewarned. Don't be fooled by flattery. Just saying.

SOB: You are the one saying that you understand him and I don't, as N is the only one that can actually attest to such things. You do this so as to position yourself above me, in his shadow, as you see it's delineation.

AS: I do nothing of the sort SOB. That is your insecurity. Obviously I know N better that you...I read the whole book and you didnt! Duh. That is just a statement of fact. There are others who read all N's books...they know him better than you or I....obliviously! It does not send me into a tizzy simply because someone knows more about something than I do...of course they would if they studied something more than I did! You probably could kick my ass with whatever it is that you do well...I forget...was it kung fu or something? Whatever it is...I can honestly say you know it better...and it doesn't even make me feel less than! I am actually happy for you! Go figure! But why is it you are not happy for me that I read all of N...why is it you feel the need to know N better than me off the few sentences of his that you actually read? Can you explain that to me or are you going to deny it and try to deflect your feelings of inadequacy by telling me I think you are "less than."

AS: Just as you don't like to have your words misconstrued...neither did N. Same same.

SOB: Again you speak for him, as if that's actually possible.

AS: No....I speak of the human condition. Tell me...who on earth like to have their words misconstrued? This is a no brainer SOB. Don't you see? I can say that about N because I am pretty sure he wasn't writing the AC while thinking..."gee I hope someone will just take this first controversial statement I am making and not read the rest of the book...it would be GREAT if they walked away thinking I am evil! I love to be misunderstood."

Now I ask you...can you imagine anybody saying that? And if they did...why would they go on to explain what they meant? Why bother? Don't you see...you can't be right because it just doesn't make sense...you are not being logical. You want to be a warrior for all that is good at any cost....even if it means you have to create evil where it doesn't exist. Scary thought...huh?

AS: I believe N deliberately sets out with a very harsh and controversial statement, so that he can then go on to explain what he means throughout the rest of the book.

SOB:Now you got it, you 'believe.'

AS: Yes...I believe. How can I say I "know" for sure. Who could? It would not be honest for anyone to say that! It is not honest for you to say you 'know' N is evil by a few sentences you have read. You can't possibly know that...and by you saying it as 'truth' you have caused injury to someone who may in fact be innocent.

AS: I just have never understood this line of thinking.

SOB: but the real question is, will you ever?

AS: I don't know. Perhaps if someone explained it to me? Will you try?


SOB: I like you! I try not to judge one, as to capability, but rather as to niceties, everyone is equally capable, given the correct stimulus.

AS: I like you too....but as for niceties...I think they are nice...but I don't believe in them as truth. I reserve my judgment until I see how the person treats others. I don't think reasonvemotion was very nice to Chaz or me who have done nothing to him. Even though she/he was nice to you it would still give me reason to pause and consider her side taking...even if it were me she was nice to....I would hold back from her as I would not like the cliquishness. But that's just me. Not that I don't like her/him...it's just that I am wary of a person like that...who has to be divisive in their ways. Actually, if I had to pick who is more a friend to you...I would pick Chaz at this moment...believe it or not. But I admit...I don't know that for sure.

FRIEDRICH NIETZSCHE wrote:The weak and the failures should perish: first principle of our love of humanity. And they should be helped to do this.