Philosophy Now Forum

The paintings and pictures of the great men of the past centuries reveal a common thread which links them together. Is it a coincidence that many of them hid one of their hands when posing for a portrait? I recently saw a photograph of Neitzsche in this very pose. Considering the great importance of this gesture in Masonic rituals, is it simply impossible that the recurrence of this sign could be the result of a coincidence. Was Nietzsche a member of the Freemasons?

reasonvemotion wrote:The paintings and pictures of the great men of the past centuries reveal a common thread which links them together. Is it a coincidence that many of them hid one of their hands when posing for a portrait? I recently saw a photograph of Neitzsche in this very pose. Considering the great importance of this gesture in Masonic rituals, is it simply impossible that the recurrence of this sign could be the result of a coincidence. Was Nietzsche a member of the Freemasons?

I personally do not think N was a Freemason. , but maybe some research is warranted. Al bundy put his hand in his pants wiastline. Lol.

But coincidence. Hmmm. Have you read Kierkegaard, in 'Philodophical crumbs', specifically where he talks about the possibility of the 'contemporary prophet'? It seems your topic is implicating a similar situation.

The hidden hand title made me think of the possibility of a 'prime mover ', so to speak, and how this can be revealed in knowledge.

Al bundy put his hand in his pants wiastline. Lol.

Who is Al Bundy, not Ted Bundy?

reasonvemotion wrote:The paintings and pictures of the great men of the past centuries reveal a common thread which links them together. Is it a coincidence that many of them hid one of their hands when posing for a portrait? I recently saw a photograph of Neitzsche in this very pose. Considering the great importance of this gesture in Masonic rituals, is it simply impossible that the recurrence of this sign could be the result of a coincidence. Was Nietzsche a member of the Freemasons?

Nice conspiracy theory but the reason for this is artists charged by the hand, as hands were difficult to do thye charged quite a lot. So anyone being painted was given the option of 2, 1 or no hands. Hands in a painting is an indication of how wealthy the person being painted was.

I was referring to a photograph of Neitzsche and have done some quick research and there are many photographs in such of pose ranging from the hierarchy to the "middle class" so to speak.

an unconscious effect of a Napoleon complex...

-Imp