the irony of Nietzsche
Brian Dell
I had resolved, some time ago, to have my tete-a-tetes with
more humans and fewer cathode ray tubes. I had decided, in
other words, to "get a life." Unfortunately, the demand must
far exceed supply, as I return here with little more of the
commodity in question than I had when I set out in quest of
it: while my fellow twenty-something cohorts are out dating,
dancing, and drinking I sit here in the embrance of nothing
warmer than my own brooding.
What would Nietzsche say of my state?
"While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself...
the man of _ressentiment_ is neither upright nor naive, or
honest and straightforward with himself. His soul _squints_:
his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors,
everything covert strikes him as _his_ world , _his_ security,
_his_ refreshment; he knows how to keep silent, how not to
forget, how to wait, how to make himself provisionally small
and humble. A race of such men of _ressentiment_ will
necessarily end up _cleverer_ than any noble race, it will also
hold cleverness in an altogether higher degree of honor:
namely, as a condition of its existence of the first order;
while with noble men cleverness can easily acquire a slight
flavor of luxury and _raffinement_ - here it is not nearly so
essential as the perfect functioning of the regulatory
_unconscious_ instincts ..."
- Geneaology of Morals
Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers? Is it
not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
unsuccessful? I find it remarkable that a man of letters should
so passionately denounce his breed in favor of men of action.
To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do you square your
intellectualism with Nietzsche's praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
--
Brian Dell
http://www.ualberta.ca/~dellb/
moggin
de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell):
:I had resolved, some time ago, to have my tete-a-tetes with
:more humans and fewer cathode ray tubes. I had decided, in
:other words, to "get a life." Unfortunately, the demand must
:far exceed supply, as I return here with little more of the
:commodity in question than I had when I set out in quest of
:it: while my fellow twenty-something cohorts are out dating,
:dancing, and drinking I sit here in the embrance of nothing
:warmer than my own brooding.
So you don't lately cohort with your cohorting cohorts.
:What would Nietzsche say of my state?
:"While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself...
:the man of _ressentiment_ is neither upright nor naive, or
:honest and straightforward with himself. His soul _squints_:
:his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors,
:everything covert strikes him as _his_ world , _his_ security,
:_his_ refreshment; he knows how to keep silent, how not to
:forget, how to wait, how to make himself provisionally small
:and humble. A race of such men of _ressentiment_ will
:necessarily end up _cleverer_ than any noble race, it will also
:hold cleverness in an altogether higher degree of honor:
:namely, as a condition of its existence of the first order;
:while with noble men cleverness can easily acquire a slight
:flavor of luxury and _raffinement_ - here it is not nearly so
:essential as the perfect functioning of the regulatory
:_unconscious_ instincts ..." - Geneaology of Morals
:Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers? Is it
:not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
:Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
:of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
:unsuccessful? I find it remarkable that a man of letters should
:so passionately denounce his breed in favor of men of action.
Um, what makes you sure he _does_ reject it? And recall that
the "man of _ressentiment_" succeeds quite well -- thus the defeat of
the "noble man" (historically speaking). You're right that Nietzsche
is filled with ironies, but I don't think you've identified this one
correctly. I'm also doubtful about translating "the noble man" into
"man of action" and "the man of ressentiment" into "man of letters"
-- ressentiment, at least, is characterized above all by the priest.
(How Nietzsche saw himself is a whole 'nother question, but the term
"poet-philosopher" comes to mind.)
:To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do you square your
:intellectualism with Nietzsche's praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
Simple: it ain't that simple.
-- moggin
Mike Birtel
In article <51cuk6$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>, de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca
(Brian Dell) wrote:
> "While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself...
> the man of _ressentiment_ is neither upright nor naive, or
> honest and straightforward with himself. His soul _squints_:
> his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors,
> everything covert strikes him as _his_ world , _his_ security,
> _his_ refreshment; he knows how to keep silent, how not to
> forget, how to wait, how to make himself provisionally small
> and humble. A race of such men of _ressentiment_ will
> necessarily end up _cleverer_ than any noble race, it will also
> hold cleverness in an altogether higher degree of honor:
> namely, as a condition of its existence of the first order;
> while with noble men cleverness can easily acquire a slight
> flavor of luxury and _raffinement_ - here it is not nearly so
> essential as the perfect functioning of the regulatory
> _unconscious_ instincts ..."
> - Geneaology of Morals
>
> Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers? Is it
> not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
> Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
> of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
> unsuccessful? I find it remarkable that a man of letters should
> so passionately denounce his breed in favor of men of action.
> Brian Dell
> http://www.ualberta.ca/~dellb/
Seems to me that Nietzsche is just the opposite of the man of
ressentment. He is certailny not silent, or patient, or humble, or
self-deceiving. And he hardly feels his world is that of the
"underworld." So I really don't get your point.
Mike
G*rd*n the Demon Rat
Brian Dell:
| > Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers? Is it
| > not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
| > Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
| > of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
| > unsuccessful? I find it remarkable that a man of letters should
| > so passionately denounce his breed in favor of men of action.
Mike...@aol.com (Mike Birtel):
| Seems to me that Nietzsche is just the opposite of the man of
| ressentment. He is certailny not silent, or patient, or humble, or
| self-deceiving. And he hardly feels his world is that of the
| "underworld." So I really don't get your point.
Well, Nietzche is dead, so we make of him what we want. He
certainly seems like an underworld type to me, a school-
teacher scribbling away in the hinterlands, speaking in dark
paradoxes and conundrums against the prevailing progressive
optimism of his day. But the passage is taken from what I
used to think was the dumbest book Nietzsche wrote, _The_
_Genealogy_Of_Morals_. It's been since explained to me that
the book is actually ironic; but I have my doubts. It does
seem particularly paradoxical.
There are people who think Nietzsche was a systematic
philosopher, which is even worse than thinking of him as a
sort of philosophic bimbo; but at least I have never put
him in _that_ prison.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Andy Perry
>"While the noble man lives in trust and openness with himself...
>the man of _ressentiment_ is neither upright nor naive, or
>honest and straightforward with himself. His soul _squints_:
>his spirit loves hiding places, secret paths and back doors,
>everything covert strikes him as _his_ world , _his_ security,
>_his_ refreshment; he knows how to keep silent, how not to
>forget, how to wait, how to make himself provisionally small
>and humble. A race of such men of _ressentiment_ will
>necessarily end up _cleverer_ than any noble race, it will also
>hold cleverness in an altogether higher degree of honor:
>namely, as a condition of its existence of the first order;
>while with noble men cleverness can easily acquire a slight
>flavor of luxury and _raffinement_ - here it is not nearly so
>essential as the perfect functioning of the regulatory
>_unconscious_ instincts ..."
>- Geneaology of Morals
>
>Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers?
Why "yet"?
>Is it
>not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
>Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
>of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
>unsuccessful?
Huh? It was only after consciousness came into existence that life became
interesting, remember? Where's the rejection? Try placing this passage
in context, too. Eventually (thanks to the incredible power of the hatred
of the priests, amongst other causes), EVERYONE'S efforts in the realm of
action are unsuccessful. The masters can't BE masters once they establish
the state, 'cause the institution they've created won't let them beat up
anyone they want any more. So consciousness necessarily becomes
EVERYONE'S refuge. That's why the slaves win.
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
moggin
Brian Dell:
>>[...] Is it
>>not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
>>Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
>>of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
>>unsuccessful?
Andy Perry:
>Huh? It was only after consciousness came into existence that life
>became interesting, remember? [...]
Puts me in mind of that famous Chinese curse: "May you live
in interesting times."
-- moggin
Brian Dell
moggin:
: Um, what makes you sure he _does_ reject [consciousness]?
Well, if I might again appeal to the text (assuming, for the moment,
that you concede the force of such an appeal), the passage
"... with noble men cleverness ... is not nearly so essential as
the perfect functioning of the regulatory _unconscious_ instincts ..."
indicates a higher estimation of the "unconcious" man than the
(presumably more conscious or reflective) "clever" man, _nicht wahr_?
: recall that the "man of _ressentiment_" succeeds quite well -- thus
: the defeat of the "noble man" (historically speaking).
Are men of _ressentiment_ not defined as such by factors that are not
historically particular? May I suggest once a loser, always a loser?
Or is there more to the definition than just being the vanquished?
: I'm also doubtful about translating "the noble man" into
: "man of action" and "the man of ressentiment" into "man of letters"
What about that infamous quote where Nietzsche says there is more of
the superman in a Cesare Borgia than in some egghead (if I recall
correctly)?
But I mean to suggest, in any case, the plausibility of the general
rule that, say, the well-adjusted simply live life, and don't plumb
depths or scales heights in the world of ideas with the drivenness
of a Nietzsche. The hyper-conscious, I suggest, are often more
alienated. Does genius not flirt with madness? Was Nietzsche not
socially maladjusted? If _ressentiment_ is brought about by
frustration, then I suggest that Nietzsche's social and sexual
frustrations make him a prime candidate for the very disease he
declaims against. The theory, I suppose, is that a person pursues
a place on the honor roll when one can't be captain of the football
team.
David Swanson
In article <Mikenew2-140...@dialup140.tcs.tulane.edu>
Mike...@aol.com (Mike Birtel) writes:
> > Yet what is Nietzsche if not the most clever of writers? Is it
> > not a profound irony that a man as supremely _conscious_ as
> > Nietzsche should reject conciousness as the refuge, the retreat,
> > of those whose efforts in the realm of action, of impulse, were
> > unsuccessful? I find it remarkable that a man of letters should
> > so passionately denounce his breed in favor of men of action.
"Paradoxically, however, precisely through its own passion for truth
and the pursuit of truth consciousness has brought itself into crisis.
It has come to realize that it amounts to only one passion among many,
that hegemony has been attained through more or less casual or external
circumstances. Above all it has discovered that the subordinated
passions have been anything but crushed: they avenge themselves for
their humiliating condition in the way that slaves do on their master,
by imposing on the very consciousness that believes it has them under
control a distorted and degenerate logic of their own. (The topic is
fascinatingly explored in "Beyond Good and Evil" and "The Genealogy of
Morals".)" G. Vattimo "The Adventure of Difference" ch.2.
David
"Seeing something simply in its being-thus - irreparable, but not for
that reason necessary; thus, but not for that reason contingent - is
love." Agamben
moggin
moggin:
:: Um, what makes you sure he _does_ reject [consciousness]?
Brian:
:Well, if I might again appeal to the text (assuming, for the moment,
:that you concede the force of such an appeal), the passage "... with
:noble men cleverness ... is not nearly so essential as the perfect
:functioning of the regulatory _unconscious_ instincts ..." indicates
:a higher estimation of the "unconcious" man than the (presumably more
:conscious or reflective) "clever" man, _nicht wahr_?
O.k. on the assumption, but how about a reference? I'd like
to know where you're quoting from. Anyway, the text isn't nearly so
clear to me -- I see more ambiguity, and in fact more irony there. To
say that the noble man is regulated by unconscious instincts is an odd
way to extend a compliment, especially since it's linked with the idea
that he may be less than clever, too. Is Nietzsche proposing that the
unconscious man is noble, or suggesting (rather cleverly) that the
noble man lacks consciousness and tends to be at least somewhat dim?
moggin:
::And recall that the "man of _ressentiment_" succeeds quite well --
::thus the defeat of the "noble man" (historically speaking).
Brian:
:Are men of _ressentiment_ not defined as such by factors that are not
:historically particular? May I suggest once a loser, always a loser?
:Or is there more to the definition than just being the vanquished?
The historical victory of "the man of _ressentiment_" shows
that whatever else you may want to say, he's achieved quite a bit of
success. Whether success is the best measuring stick is something
else again. I take it you would answer yes -- Nietzsche thinks not:
"...you make success, the factual, into your idol, while in reality
the factual is always stupid and has at all times resembled a calf
rather than a god" ("Use and Abuse of History" 8).
moggin:
::I'm also doubtful about translating "the noble man" into "man of
::action" and "the man of ressentiment" into "man of letters" --
::ressentiment, at least, is characterized above all by the priest.
::(How Nietzsche saw himself is a whole 'nother question, but the
::term "poet-philosopher" comes to mind.)
Brian:
:What about that infamous quote where Nietzsche says there is more of
:the superman in a Cesare Borgia than in some egghead (if I recall
:correctly)?
Don't remember it, myself -- what kind of egghead? Nietzsche
is unkind to scholars and scientists; he criticizes philosophers, but
in a different vein; and he praises artists. So mapping "nobility"
onto "action" and _ressentiment_ onto "letters" won't do. And again,
_ressentiment_ is figured first and foremost by the priest -- _not_ a
role that Nietzsche saw himself in.
: But I mean to suggest, in any case, the plausibility of the
:general rule that, say, the well-adjusted simply live life, and don't
:plumb depths or scales heights in the world of ideas with the
:drivenness of a Nietzsche. The hyper-conscious, I suggest, are often
:more alienated.
Alright, it's plausible. Hell, consider it plaused. But what
does it tell you? It doesn't merely follow that the well-adjusted and
hypo-conscious are superior beings, or deserve to receive more esteem.
Besides, Nietzsche knew that nobody "simply lives life" -- he directed
his envy to the beasts of the field, not the _hoi polloi_. (Aren't we
talking Salinger more than Nietzsche, anyhow?)
>Does genius not flirt with madness? Was Nietzsche not socially
>maladjusted? If _ressentiment_ is brought about by frustration, then
>I suggest that Nietzsche's social and sexual frustrations make him a
>prime candidate for the very disease he declaims against.
Nietzsche doesn't declaim against madness (he's in favor, if
anything), and I don't remember he says much about syphilis, either
for or against, although he might. Oh, you meant _ressentiment_?
Well, naturally -- how else do you think he understands it so well?
Didn't you notice a similarity between the spirit that "loves hiding
places, secret paths and back doors" and the philosopher who loves
masks and labyrinths?
>The theory, I suppose, is that a person pursues a place on the honor
>roll when one can't be captain of the football team.
I'm not convinced that's a universal desire (or Nietzsche's).
-- moggin
Brian Dell
Brian Dell:
:: the passage "... with noble men cleverness ... is not nearly so
:: essential as the perfect functioning of the regulatory _unconscious_
:: man than the (presumably more conscious or reflective) "clever" man,
:: _nicht wahr_?
moggin:
: how about a reference?
_On the Genealogy of Morals_, 'Good and Evil,' 'Good and Bad,' 10. Page
113 in my Penguin _Nietzsche Reader_ (Hollingdale's translation).
: Anyway, the text isn't nearly so clear to me -- I see more
: ambiguity, and in fact more irony there.
I'm trying to stuff Nietzsche into a neat little box here, and not only
are you failing to supply the shoe horn you are actively opposing my
reduction. When you say, "no, no, no, the author is too complex for
that interpretation or reduction," are you not guilty of endorsing
the cult of genius, i.e. Modernism?
: The historical victory of "the man of _ressentiment_" shows
: that whatever else you may want to say, he's achieved quite a bit of
: success. Whether success is the best measuring stick is something
: else again. I take it you would answer yes -- Nietzsche thinks not:
: "...you make success, the factual, into your idol, while in reality
: the factual is always stupid and has at all times resembled a calf
: rather than a god" ("Use and Abuse of History" 8).
Let me deliver the point another way: Nietzsche, on my reading, claims
that moral victories are but lies which "priests" tell to themselves
and others in order to reclaim feelings of superiority in the face of
the material victories of the "noble men." The Platonic realm and all
its virtues are thus but figments of the man of _ressentiment_'s
imagination. If this is so, then which philosopher/theologian is
the greatest? The one with Truth, Justice, _Logos_? There are no such
things, no transcendental criterion. Hence the greatest philosopher
is determined by some _immanent_ criterion, like, say, the guy who gets
laid the most. I suppose I'm asking how one would recognize a post-
morality, post-modern hero.
Brian:
:: What about that infamous quote where Nietzsche says there is more
:: of the superman in a Cesare Borgia than in some egghead (if I
:: recall correctly)?
moggin:
: Don't remember it, myself -- what kind of egghead?
I just found the quote I had in mind:
"The word 'superman' as designating a type that has turned out
supremely well, in antithesis to 'modern' men, to 'good' men, to
Christians and other nihilists - a word which in the mouth of a
Zarathustra, the _destroyer_ or morality, becomes a very thoughtful
word - has been understood almost everywhere with perfect innocence
in the sense of those values whose antithesis makes it appearance
in the figure of Zarathustra: that is to say, as an 'idealistic'
type of higher species of man, half 'saint', half 'genius' ...
Other learned cattle caused me on account of it to be suspected
of Darwinism; even the 'hero cult' of that unconscious and
involuntary counterfeiter Carlyle which I rejected so maliciously
has been recognized in it. He into whose ear I whispered he
should look about him for a Cesare Borgia rather than for a
Parsifal did not believe his ears."
- Ecce Homo, "Why I Write Such Excellent Books," 1.
So... ok, how about a "chaste hero" kind of egghead? ;) I did say
"*if* I recall correctly"!
Borgia must nonetheless be far closer to the action than to the
letters.
: It doesn't merely follow that the well-adjusted and hypo-conscious
: are superior beings, or deserve to receive more esteem.
What I'm skeptical of is the idea that there are "priests" who are
pale metaphysicians and then there are "poet-philosophers" who write
in blood. What's the difference between a priest and a philosopher?
There are two types of people in this world: lovers of Mind and lovers
of Body.
Mario Taboada
Simple: Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
suspect...of course, it is hard to be sure whether he was
actually telling other people how to live or just having
fun. One thing I could never figure out was his hatred of
the Germans (apparently he considered himself some sort of
Pole...). An extraordinary character - and the original
_differance_ machine with a _violance_ attachment to suck up
the entrails torn asunder by the _incision_ .
Regards,
--
Mario Taboada
* Department of Mathematics * Old Dominion University * Norfolk, Virginia
e-mail: tab...@math.odu.edu
G*rd*n the Demon Rat
thed...@clark.net (St. David O'Bedlam):
| . . .In your effort
| to cram Nietzsche into your "dweebish nerd" stereotype you lump together
| many qualities that are not neccessarily associated with each other, just
| as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing glasses
| are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't even read.
| ...
I never realized you could go straight from the Net to
killing a million people. I guess it's an advanced form of
the "kill" command in rn.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
St. David O'Bedlam
Someone named Brian said:
>Does genius not flirt with madness? Was Nietzsche not socially
>maladjusted? If _ressentiment_ is brought about by frustration, then
>I suggest that Nietzsche's social and sexual frustrations make him a
>prime candidate for the very disease he declaims against.
What the fuck? Why must you equate genius, madness, social maladjustment,
ressentiment, and social and sexual frustration? It is entirely possible
to be a maladjusted genius who's not crazy, or a well-adjusted genius who
gets a lot of sex, or a stupid maladjusted virgin, or. . .In your effort
to cram Nietzsche into your "dweebish nerd" stereotype you lump together
many qualities that are not neccessarily associated with each other, just
as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing glasses
are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't even read.
Before you try to criticize Nietzsche -- or even Hegel, Kant or the X-men
comic books -- I suggest you find some way to learn how to THINK, instead
of stupidly absorbing and reiterating whatever half-assed cliches the TV
business spoonfeeds you. If you dare, that is.
SHEESH.
TheDavid
--
gimme shelter | This Writing Copyright (C) 1996 By TheDavid, UnLtd.
GIMME SHELTER | See http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
......................................................................
". . .Is only the sound of the low spark of high-heeled boys."
David Swanson
In article <51cuk6$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
> To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do you square your
> intellectualism with Nietzsche's praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
I intellectually reject the "beast of prey" idea. Why was that so
hard? Or by that do you mean dating and dancing and so on? I wouldn't
reject that, but Nietzsche did.
Brian Dell
St. David O'Bedlam:
: It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
David Swanson
In article <51g7i5$h...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> Brian:
>
> :Well, if I might again appeal to the text (assuming, for the moment,
> :that you concede the force of such an appeal), the passage "... with
> :noble men cleverness ... is not nearly so essential as the perfect
> :functioning of the regulatory _unconscious_ instincts ..." indicates
> :a higher estimation of the "unconcious" man than the (presumably more
> :conscious or reflective) "clever" man, _nicht wahr_?
Absolutely not. It indicates a higher estimation of (an attribution of
greater importance to) the unconscious drives determining one's
consciousness than of the surface-ripples of that consciousness.
Kelly Reeves-Thomas
In <51i2d0$d...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian
Dell) writes:
>
> St. David O'Bedlam:
> : It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
>
>Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
>Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
I grew up with artists and I never met a well-adjusted artist. Well,
one, but she really wasn't an artist. Maybe a really bad artist,
but...
But then, given the number of talk shows with topics like "I slept with
my daughter's boyfriend" and "Women who marry their hair stylists" I
doubt if anyone in our society is well-adjusted.
Kelly
veratridine
In article <51ia0d$a...@netnews.upenn.edu>, wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu
(Silke-Maria Weineck) wrote:
>Brian Dell (de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
>: St. David O'Bedlam:
>: : It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
>
>: Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
>: Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
>
>Of course, you could always claim that the below don't count either as
>genius or as well-adjusted, but off the cuff I can think of Plato,
>Goethe, Schiller, Buechner, Picasso, possibly Shakespeare, certainly
>Lessing.
>
>A bit germanic, I know, but since we were talking Nietzsche. Nietzsche
>himself sometimes seem to claim that genius implies novelty and novelty
>implies purely by itself bad adjustement, Untimeliness, etc -- but that's
>merely tautological.
there's a point. consider nietzsche's quote "one must harbor chaos within
oneself to give birth to a dancing star."
i did a thesis-type thing on this--every german artist-genius i ran into
was rather messed up. for anyone who's interested, read kay redfield
jamison's _touched with fire_.
brooke
--
i could listen to you all day what a laugh
cut me i bleed like you ha ha
-underworld
Noel Smith
David Swanson wrote:
> de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
>
> > To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do
> > you square your intellectualism with Nietzsche's
> > praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
David:
> I intellectually reject the "beast of prey" idea.
> Why was that so hard? Or by that do you mean
> dating and dancing and so on? I wouldn't reject
> that, but Nietzsche did.
Nietzscheans have larger problems than his praise of
the beast-of-prey. There are his immoderation and
extremism, which are problematic when applied to any
content. Robert G. L. Waite wrote:
Nietzsche did as much as any single writer to
destroy a moderate alternative to political
extremism. For he would tolerate no half-
measures; he demanded totality--total
destruction and total creation. ... He rejected
Goethe's sense of restraint and limitation; he
ridiculed political moderation; he trumpeted
"the magic power of extremes."
There is his social darwinism:
The weak and ill-constituted shall perish--first
principle of our philanthropy.
Live dangerously! [...] Live in conflict with
your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers
and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers
and owners ...
There is his immoralism:
The pleasant feelings infused in us by men who
are good, well-meaning, and just (as opposed
to the tension and fear inspired by the great,
new man) constitute our personal sense of
security and equality; the herd-animal exalts
herd-nature, and thereby experiences well-being.
The judgment of this well-being disguises
itself with fine words--and thus 'morality'
is born.
Concerning this immoralism, Ivo Frenzel writes:
"[Nietzsche's friend Rohde] was particularly
incensed at Nietzsche's denial [in _Human, All-Too
Human_] that man is responsible for his own behavior
in a basically senseless world: 'No one can ever
make me believe such a doctrine; no one does believe
in it, not even you.'"
There is his irrationalism: "Why not rather will
untruth?"
There is his praise, not only of strength and power,
but of evil:
Become hard and show no mercy, for evil is
man's best force.
The beast of prey and the jungle prove that evil
[_Boesheit_] can be very healthy and develop the
body magnificently...."
Zarathustra:
You say a good cause can even sanctify war?
I say unto you: it is a good war that sanctifies
any cause ...
For a sword wants to drink blood
And glistens with desire.
I sing and I mock all pity ...
The greatest evil is necessary for the Superman's
best ...
But I rejoice over great sin as my great comfort
...
There is his denial of human equality: "The doctrine
of equality! . . . There exists no more poisonous
poison: for it seems to be preached by justice
itself, while it is the end of justice."
Roger Kimball, writing of Julien Benda's 1928 _La
Trahison des Clercs_, said:
[Friedrich Nietzsche's] doctrine of the "will
to power," his contempt for the "slave
morality" of Christianity, his plea for an
ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation
with violence--all epitomize the disastrous
"pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's
"treason."
Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
For most of his working life he was on a disability
pension from university, or being supported and
cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
friends. The man who wrote "The invalid is a
parasite on society. In a certain state it is
indecent to go on living" could not have written
these harsh condemnations of altruism if he had not
himself benefited for decades from the altruism of
others.
- Noel
Marco Anglesio
Silke-Maria Weineck (wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu) wrote:
: Of course, you could always claim that the below don't count either as
: Goethe, Schiller, Buechner, Picasso, possibly Shakespeare, certainly
: Lessing.
Not to quibble, but by no stretch of the imagination could either Goethe
or Picasso be considered well adjusted. They are both geniuses, of course.
On the other hand, if someone went over the minutiae of any life, they
could find enough dirt to condemn anyone. For anything.
marco
---
Marco Anglesio ma...@comport-intl.com m...@cyberus.ca 3m...@qlink.queensu.ca
** systems programmer/analyst, COM:PORT INT'L LLC Ottawa, Ontario, Canada **
Research is what I'm doing when I don't know what I'm doing-Wernher von Braun
Kelly T. Conlon
Brian Dell <de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> St. David O'Bedlam:
> : It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
>Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
Care to define "well adjusted"?
KTC
--
Kelly T Conlon / con...@mcmail.cis.mcmaster.ca / "Any belief in
Creators or Purpose is wishful thinking. And when you point out that
perhaps ALL thinking is wishful, reactions of intense irritation give
evidence that we are not dealing with logic but with faith." WS Burroughs
Bob Gore
On 15 Sep 1996, St. David O'Bedlam wrote:
>
> Someone named Brian said:
>
> >Does genius not flirt with madness? Was Nietzsche not socially
> >maladjusted? If _ressentiment_ is brought about by frustration, then
> >I suggest that Nietzsche's social and sexual frustrations make him a
> >prime candidate for the very disease he declaims against.
>
> What the fuck? Why must you equate genius, madness, social maladjustment,
> ressentiment, and social and sexual frustration? It is entirely possible
> to be a maladjusted genius who's not crazy, or a well-adjusted genius who
> gets a lot of sex, or a stupid maladjusted virgin, or. . .In your effort
> to cram Nietzsche into your "dweebish nerd" stereotype you lump together
> many qualities that are not neccessarily associated with each other, just
> as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing glasses
> are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't even read.
This may not have been as senseless as it seems; in an impoverished
country populated mostly by peasants, people who wore glasses might well
have qualified as "bourgeois." Even if the policy was short-sighted.
Bob
moggin
Mario Taboada <tab...@mtha.usc.edu>:
>Simple: Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
>sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
>encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
>low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
>suspect...
It's been quite a display, these last few months -- there was
_l'affaire Sokal_, where members of talk.origins and sci.skeptic (as
well as our own Russell) gave a lengthy demonstration of generalizing
from a single instance. More recently, Noel offered a perfect example
of the argument-from-authority, stating that Chomsky _must_ be right,
since he's an "internationally-recognized scholar." Now Mario offers
a classic _ad hominem_ -- and all this from the defenders of reason!
-- moggin
moggin
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>:
> Live dangerously! [...] Live in conflict with
> your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers
> and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers
> and owners ...
As I said the _last_ time you offered this misleading quote:
You trot out this quotation a regular basis, so it's past time
to point out that you're being deceitful -- not only are you quoting
Nietzsche out of context, you've distorted the meaning of the sentence
you quoted by chopping off its final clause. No wonder you never give
references!
For anyone who's interested, the quotation comes from _The Gay
Science_ 283. Here's a less hacked-up version: "[...] For believe me:
the secret for harvesting the greatest fruitfulness and the greatest
enjoyment is -- to _live dangerously_! Build your cities on the
slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into uncharted seas! Live at war
with your peers and yourselves! Be robbers and conquerors as long as
you cannot be rulers and possessors, you seekers of knowledge! [...]"
cf. Walter Benjamin: "Quotations in my work are like robbers
by the roadside who make an armed attack and relieve an idler of his
convictions."
>Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
>intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
>was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
>For most of his working life he was on a disability
>pension from university, or being supported and
>cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
>friends.
More inaccuracies. Nietzsche spent eight years as a professor
at the University of Basel. He lost his health after serving as a
medical orderly during the Franco-Prussian war. When his illness grew
worse he took a leave of absence -- eventually he retired with a small
pension that he lived on for the next nine years, until his insanity.
After a brief stay in an asylum in Jena, he was placed in his mother's
house, where he remained until his death.
-- moggin
David Swanson
In article <51ea5u$c...@panix2.panix.com>
g...@panix.com (G*rd*n the Demon Rat) writes:
Dimwits shouldn't comment on Nietzsche.
moggin
St. David O'Bedlam:
:: It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
Brian Dell:
:Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
:Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
What makes being "well-adjusted" a decisive criterion? And a
criterion of _what_, anyhow? If there are no well-adjusted geniuses,
then so much the worse for the idea of being well-adjusted, wouldn't
you say?
-- moggin
Brian K. Yoder
In article <51i2d0$d...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca> de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
> St. David O'Bedlam:
> : It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
>Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
>Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
In the modern period there have of course been an endless supply of nutcases
in the arts, but that's because by the modern standard (which you apparently
share) no sane person would want to become an artist. Well-adjusted people
aren't too prone to splattering paint on a canvas and crow about it being
a great artistic achievement, smash some bottles with a hammer and call it
a symphony, or pile up a bunch of twigs and call it a sculpture. Before all
that nonsense started
There were lots of quite sane artists in the 19th century who had fine and
happy lives. Frederick, Lord Leighton, and Sir Lawrence Alma-Tadema come to
mind.
--Brian
--
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
| Brian K. Yoder | "Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human |
| byo...@netcom.com| freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the |
| US Networx, Inc. | creed of slaves." -- William Pitt |
| LAN Doctor | http://www.primenet.com/~byoder/ |
+------------------+---------------------------------------------------------+
David Swanson
In article <51lbcs$l...@bessel.nando.net>
mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
> >Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
> >intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
> >was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
> >For most of his working life he was on a disability
> >pension from university, or being supported and
> >cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
> >friends.
>
> More inaccuracies. Nietzsche spent eight years as a professor
> at the University of Basel. He lost his health after serving as a
> medical orderly during the Franco-Prussian war. When his illness grew
> worse he took a leave of absence -- eventually he retired with a small
> pension that he lived on for the next nine years, until his insanity.
> After a brief stay in an asylum in Jena, he was placed in his mother's
> house, where he remained until his death.
>
> -- moggin
Moggin is right, but it is worth pointing out the glaring intellectual
weakness in the post he's responding to. There is nothing more
ridiculous than accusing an author of being unlike himself. It's one
thing to want to take some of Nietzsche's ideas farther than he took
them, another to say he was unnietzschean. How many books come out per
year now with the discovery that Derrida isn't really Derridean? I'm
about sick of it. If you can't come up with an idea, at least don't
bite the hand that feeds you.
-Mammel,L.H.
In article <51cuk6$15...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>,
Brian Dell <de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
>
>To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do you square your
>intellectualism with Nietzsche's praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
It's not meant lit'rally!
Lew Mammel, Jr.
David Swanson
In article <323DC0...@mail.eskimo.com>
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>
> Nietzscheans have
What's a Nietzschean? Is it just anybody who considers him a great
writer, a great Deweyan and Emersonian rejector of philosophy, a
Dostoievskian and Stendhalian psychologist, a brilliant stylist and
irresistible persona, but someone who has been improved upon in the
past century by the likes of Heidegger, Derrida, Vattimo, Wittgenstein,
Rorty, etc. (yes, I left out Foucault)?
larger problems than his praise of
> the beast-of-prey.
What's the problem? Junk it.
There are his immoderation and
> extremism, which are problematic when applied to any
> content.
That sounds tautological. Examples would help.
Robert G. L. Waite wrote:
>
> Nietzsche did as much as any single writer to
> destroy a moderate alternative to political
> extremism. For he would tolerate no half-
> measures; he demanded totality--total
> destruction and total creation. ... He rejected
> Goethe's sense of restraint and limitation; he
> ridiculed political moderation; he trumpeted
> "the magic power of extremes."
His politics is not mine. Neither is Heidegger's. So?
>
> There is his social darwinism:
>
> The weak and ill-constituted shall perish--first
> principle of our philanthropy.
>
> Live dangerously! [...] Live in conflict with
> your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers
> and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers
> and owners ...
Moggin has attempted to get readers of this thread to read this sort of
thing less thick-headedly, apparently without success.
>
> There is his immoralism:
>
> The pleasant feelings infused in us by men who
> are good, well-meaning, and just (as opposed
> to the tension and fear inspired by the great,
> new man) constitute our personal sense of
> security and equality; the herd-animal exalts
> herd-nature, and thereby experiences well-being.
> The judgment of this well-being disguises
> itself with fine words--and thus 'morality'
> is born.
You have a reply to this, I take it?
>
> Concerning this immoralism, Ivo Frenzel writes:
> "[Nietzsche's friend Rohde] was particularly
> incensed at Nietzsche's denial [in _Human, All-Too
> Human_] that man is responsible for his own behavior
> in a basically senseless world: 'No one can ever
> make me believe such a doctrine; no one does believe
> in it, not even you.'"
Knew more than he thought he did.
>
> There is his irrationalism: "Why not rather will
> untruth?"
Yes, there is. What's the problem?
>
> There is his praise, not only of strength and power,
> but of evil:
>
> Become hard and show no mercy, for evil is
> man's best force.
What can I say? I disagree with him.
>
> The beast of prey and the jungle prove that evil
> [_Boesheit_] can be very healthy and develop the
> body magnificently...."
Can't it?
>
> Zarathustra:
> You say a good cause can even sanctify war?
> I say unto you: it is a good war that sanctifies
> any cause ...
>
> For a sword wants to drink blood
> And glistens with desire.
You insist no doubt on restricting the first of the above two quotes to
a literal reading, but probably do not imagine there are such things as
cognizant blood-drinking swords.
>
> I sing and I mock all pity ...
I don't. So?
>
> The greatest evil is necessary for the Superman's
> best ...
>
> But I rejoice over great sin as my great comfort
> ...
>
> There is his denial of human equality: "The doctrine
> of equality! . . . There exists no more poisonous
> poison: for it seems to be preached by justice
> itself, while it is the end of justice."
I disagree. SO WHAT?
>
> Roger Kimball, writing of Julien Benda's 1928 _La
> Trahison des Clercs_, said:
>
> [Friedrich Nietzsche's] doctrine of the "will
> to power," his contempt for the "slave
> morality" of Christianity, his plea for an
> ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation
> with violence--all epitomize the disastrous
> "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's
> "treason."
If all this is an attempt to smear Pragmatism, any cursory reading of
Dewey or Rorty should be enough to silence you.
>
> Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
> intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
> was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
No one has been more intellectually strong, has done more for what in
Italy is called "weak thought."
> For most of his working life he was on a disability
> pension from university, or being supported and
> cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
> friends.
Moggin has replied to this.
The man who wrote "The invalid is a
> parasite on society. In a certain state it is
> indecent to go on living" could not have written
> these harsh condemnations of altruism if he had not
> himself benefited for decades from the altruism of
> others.
He never wrote a single condemnation of altruism, and did more for our
society than any other individual I can name.
>
> - Noel
Brian Dell
Mario Taboada:
: Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
: sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
: encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
: low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
: suspect...
Just as Shakespeare acquired more essential history from
Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum,
Nietzsche could plumb an inch of experience to such a depth
that most men would require a mile of experience to effect
the same volume.
The fact that few women were interested in Nietzsche says
more about women than it does about Nietzsche (not that no
woman would've ever been interested... any alt.pomo veterans
recall a certain Laura Wedner...!)
Mario Taboada
de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
But does it make sense to you that someone like FN, with
little or no experience of women, should make such atrocious
pronouncements about feme, and *in print* to boot?
Mario Taboada
de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
> Mario Taboada:
> : Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
> : sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
> : encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
> : low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
> : suspect...
>Just as Shakespeare acquired more essential history from
>Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum,
>Nietzsche could plumb an inch of experience to such a depth
>that most men would require a mile of experience to effect
>the same volume.
>The fact that few women were interested in Nietzsche says
>more about women than it does about Nietzsche (not that no
>woman would've ever been interested... any alt.pomo veterans
>recall a certain Laura Wedner...!)
>--
>Brian Dell
>http://www.ualberta.ca/~dellb/
But does it make sense to you that someone like FN, with
little or no experience of women, should make such atrocious
pronouncements about females, and *in print* to boot? I suspect he
was scared shitless of women and his supposed wisdom regarding them
was some kind of defense...
Jeff Inman
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>Nietzscheans have larger problems than his praise of
>the beast-of-prey. There are his immoderation and
>extremism, which are problematic when applied to any
>content.
Noel, Noel. Always so eager to rush in and show off your ignorance
and inability to ponder. Where is the "scientific" spirit you
advocated so nobly on that other thread? Nowhere.
>Robert G. L. Waite wrote:
[the usual paranoid flailings]
This guy obviously reads Nietzsche no better than you. Nietzsche's
"immoderation" about which you worry about so deeply into the night,
"extremism" even, looks to others like the first sprouting of
moderation and temperence in human history. The "irony" of Nietzsche,
if there is really one single irony, is that he recognizes the
predicament in which any explorer of Truth must find himself. At odds
with himself. What a delicious irony that is.
>There is his social darwinism:
>
> The weak and ill-constituted shall perish -- first
> principle of our philanthropy.
It's not surprising that this threatens you, as you are weak and
ill-constituted. Nietzsche certainly doesn't view the reality he
perceives in this statement without pain. But reacting to shield
yourself from painful truths is not the mark of a seeker of truth, as
you are in the habit of reminding us.
You might include (for ironic contrast) Nietzsche's statements
contra Darwin, to the effect that it is always the highest and
rarest individuals that are destroyed by the mediocre. Now,
where do you think all this leaves the philosopher?
The point, which you seem to be missing deliberately, is that
conflict, violence, and devastation are what the honest observer of
life sees. If this thought would destroy you, and you are unwilling
to risk destruction, the alternative is to lie to yourself. Life must
lie to itself. Its impulses are contrary to the "moderation" you so
ignorantly accuse N of foregoing. "We shall build a grand world in
which none will suffer!" It is life itself that is immoderate.
The famous "that which does not destroy me makes me stronger" (I may
not have quoted it precisely) reflects something a Jungian
psychologist would refer to as part of the process of "individuation".
"There can be no growth without pain," said Jung -- mostly, as I
understand it, because one has to do away with divisions between Self
and Other, which sustain us by allowing us to "project" evil (or even
good). Turns out that developing a mature consciousness requires a
recognition of these defensive mechanisms, and a reclaiming of
material that one would rather reject. Nietzsche was there first, and
harder. He also understood that this process is contrary to Life.
>There is his immoralism:
>
> The pleasant feelings infused in us by men who
> are good, well-meaning, and just (as opposed
> to the tension and fear inspired by the great,
> new man) constitute our personal sense of
> security and equality; the herd-animal exalts
> herd-nature, and thereby experiences well-being.
> The judgment of this well-being disguises
> itself with fine words--and thus 'morality'
> is born.
No secret about this. It may be a "problem" for you, but it is not
one for Nitzsche or for Nietzscheans. Go have a good cry about it.
Better yet, let's hear a "rational" refutation which doesn't presume
that "utility" is an unquestionably necessary value.
>There is his irrationalism: "Why not rather will
>untruth?"
You don't understand this at all, do you? Why do you deprive this
statement of the context which would allow others to understand it?
Obviously, the answer is that you are busy attempting to coerce us
into hating this ogre of a pseudo-Nietzsche that you have created.
THAT is what willing untruth looks like, and it is only natural.
Everyone does it. All the time. Who would have the strength not to,
and if there was such a person, would we not despise him as a threat
to life?
>There is his praise, not only of strength and power,
>but of evil:
>
> Become hard and show no mercy, for evil is
> man's best force.
Because it teaches.
> The beast of prey and the jungle prove that evil
> [_Boesheit_] can be very healthy and develop the
> body magnificently...."
How can you argue with that, O praiser of "evolution"?
>Zarathustra:
> You say a good cause can even sanctify war?
> I say unto you: it is a good war that sanctifies
> any cause ...
What a magnificent idea!
> For a sword wants to drink blood
> And glistens with desire.
You doubt this?
> I sing and I mock all pity ...
Pity, in Nietzsche's universe, is really a kind of cowardice. You
pity others because you are afraid of suffering. Stronger
(i.e. braver) types understand that suffering is part of growth, that
it instructs, and that it mysteriously binds us to life and truth.
Think for a minute what it means if someone wants to take *your*
suffering away. Are they afraid of what you might learn? For
Nietzsche, such effrontery deserves the harshest retribution. They
are trying to take away his life.
>There is his denial of human equality: "The doctrine
>of equality! . . . There exists no more poisonous
>poison: for it seems to be preached by justice
>itself, while it is the end of justice."
I think he's right. If you disagree, then you are a hypocrite
whenever you decry the degenerate state of modern american academia.
But this same process was elaborated by Plato, Aristotle, and
Toqueville, to mention only a few. Why do you not treat us to
diatribes about the hatefulness of these folks?
>Roger Kimball, writing of Julien Benda's 1928 _La
>Trahison des Clercs_, said:
>
> [Friedrich Nietzsche's] doctrine of the "will
> to power," his contempt for the "slave
> morality" of Christianity, his plea for an
> ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation
> with violence--all epitomize the disastrous
> "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's
> "treason."
Explain the "disaster", please. And explain how this is
"intellectual", while you're at it.
>Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
>intellectual honesty bear much examination.
You mean you can't bear to examine it.
> No one
>was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
>For most of his working life he was on a disability
>pension from university, or being supported and
>cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
>friends.
You should be cared for as Nietzsche was cared for by his sister.
>The man who wrote "The invalid is a
>parasite on society. In a certain state it is
>indecent to go on living" could not have written
>these harsh condemnations of altruism if he had not
>himself benefited for decades from the altruism of
>others.
What a pussy you are. Nietzsche never proclaimed himself to be the
superman. You could call his predicament "ironic", but he was
obviously much better than you are at appreciating the dilemmas his
own existence posed for him, as anyone who bothers to read his work
will see. He approaches these things with magnificent humor and
artistry. He makes art out of his life. He grows, struggles,
practices what seems to me to be the most desperate moderation anyone
has yet attempted. You merely turn food into shit.
--
A: "Two negatives make a positive, but two positives don't make a negative."
B: "Yeah, yeah."
Noel Smith
David Swanson wrote:
> mog...@bessel.nando.net (moggin) writes:
I wrote:
> > >Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
> > >intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
> > >was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
> > >For most of his working life he was on a disability
> > >pension from university, or being supported and
> > >cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
> > >friends.
moggin:
> > More inaccuracies. [deletion]
> Moggin is right, but it is worth pointing out the glaring intellectual
> weakness in the post he's responding to. There is nothing more
> ridiculous than accusing an author of being unlike himself. It's one
> thing to want to take some of Nietzsche's ideas farther than he took
> them, another to say he was unnietzschean.
Nietzsche's philosophy condemned the kind of person he was,
a nearly-blind semi-invalid, wracked with headaches,
frequently dependent on the care of others. In fact it
defined virtue as the courage to rub out such people, so
that the strong could apply "the magic power of extremes."
In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
and rejected every liberal principle.
[deletion]
> David
- Noel
Noel Smith
-Mammel,L.H. wrote:
> Brian Dell <de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca> wrote:
> >To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do you square your
> >intellectualism with Nietzsche's praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
> It's not meant lit'rally!
Nietzsche's followers _do_ take him literally, as anyone will notice who
reads alt.postmodern and rec.arts.books. For example, these excerpts from
two articles earlier this year by Jeff Inman (June 6 & June 11, 1996 in
alt.postmodern:
You, like
almost all of us, are a moral creature. "Unfairness" stresses you.
You start gesturing towards your copy of the Declaration of
Independence. You are missing that Nietzsche, the scientist, is
several levels above this. He is studying your human heart in action.
The way your particular tastes constrain you to particular domains of
possibility. (As do mine.) To confront these things in yourself
evokes pain, and requires a type of brutality that is extremely
difficult to maintain. It requires an intellectual conscience.
[...]
Nietzsche says, "equality for equals, inequality for inequals."
[...]
Besides, if you can see that your doctrine represents a firewall
against certain unbearable thoughts, then why can't you consider that
that is all that it is?
[...]
Your cries for "freedom"
perhaps (and I only say "perhaps") derive from little more than fear.
It is a common animal-fear. Fear of being oppressed. The result is a
table of values that you hope will protect you from oppression. Try
and justify them without getting emotional.
[...]
Nietzsche makes what seems to me to be a reasonable case for thinking
that it is the "ethical-rational" world-view which represents the most
significantly enervating inversion.
[...]
No proof was needed. I would've agreed in an instant that Nietzsche
is anti-democratic. What remains is for you to show how his
criticisms of democracy are somehow inaccurate, or irrelevant.
In other words, Inman understands Nietzsche to be saying that morality
derives from weak people's lack of courage to confront the strong and
from their lack of "a type of brutality that is extremely difficult to
maintain [which] requires an intellectual conscience." He believes that
Nietzsche is "lit'rally" opposed to human equality and "lit'rally"
opposed to democracy.
The standard excuse of Nietzsche scholars is that his goals ("new
values") and his irony and subtlety mean that there are benign
interpretrations of such phrases as "the bliss of the knife," "become
hard and show no mercy," "evil is man's best force," and "the weak [...]
shall perish."
As I once wrote, the Nietzsche-problem (as they say on the Continent) is
that we have to deal with his followers, who miss most of the purported
subtlety and irony.
Joe Green said it better (July 8 1996 in rec.arts.books):
And one can make
a strong case that Nietzsche continually called into
question his own assertions -- ironized it all, knew better
than his epigones. But one should also realize that
one's epigones will not know better. Some will -- it is not
hard to see this now -- miss the irony, the subtlety, embrace
the emotional rhetoric. Some will not see, for example, N's
arguments vs. X-tianity as limited, as willed, as strategic
as Nietzsche knew they were. Nietzsche descends to this
sort of rabble rousing for who really knows what reasons.
He might point to a self that he is overcoming, he might be
(in this instance) what is to be overcome. Ecce Homo presents
a choice and the point might be to chose neither C or D.
Yet -- given the fact that ideas have consequences and
given the fact that the banal is what motivates action
and given what the actions were that statements like these
motivated, I think this sort of thing an evil and am not a
friend of this sort of "enlightenment."
Also from Inman's June 6 article:
I wrote:
And that brings us to another major problem: Nietzsche's contempt for
and hostility toward political democracy. Frederick Crews wrote:
Taking its cues from such thoroughgoing enemies of democracy
as Nietzsche and Heidegger, poststructuralism projects a
deep negativity about the possibilities of both knowledge
and social progress--a negativity so unrelenting that it
decomposes the individual human "subject" into a helpless
vector of forces that typically cannot even be located, much
less stemmed. Obviously, you can't be a very effective
spokesman for freedom when your philosophy tells you that it
doesn't exist.
Inman replied:
What is obvious from this fragment is that Crews is a coward. If you
are really interested in thinking about things, you must face some
painful possibilities. What do I care whether someone can be an
"effective spokesman for freedom"?
Ivo Frenzel, in _Friedrich Nietzsche_, quotes one of N's characteristic
passages:
Is pessimism necessarily the sign of decline? Of decadence,
failure, tired and weakened instincts? . . . Is there a pessimism
of strength? Can an intellectual predilection for the difficult,
horrible, evil, problematic of existence, come from an exultant
health and fullness of life? Can one perhaps suffer from over-
fullness? Is there a seductive bravery of keen vision, that
demands horror as an enemy, a worthy enemy to test its
strength on?
These last lines, conceived by a mature Nietzsche, constitute
German ideology, which Spengler was to laud as the Faustian part
of the German soul and which can be traced into fascism and the
philosophical trend initiated by Heidegger.
It doesn't matter whether Nietzsche meant beast-of-prey "lit'rally." As
understood by his followers, N's ideas are proto-fascistic. They take
them very seriously. As early as 1928 Julien Benda called this influence
on modern philosophy and modern humanities scholarship _The Betrayal of
the Intelligentsia_. What Lucretius called the "inexpressible joy" of
learning about "exquisitely interconnected nature" was supplanted by an
agonistic model of intellectual activity as the assertion of "unbearable
thoughts" by the strong.
> Lew Mammel, Jr.
- Noel
Silke-Maria Weineck
Mario Taboada (tab...@mtha.usc.edu) wrote:
: de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
: > Mario Taboada:
: > : Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
: > : sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
: > : encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
: > : low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
: > : suspect...
: >Just as Shakespeare acquired more essential history from
: >Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum,
: >Nietzsche could plumb an inch of experience to such a depth
: >that most men would require a mile of experience to effect
: >the same volume.
: >The fact that few women were interested in Nietzsche says
: >more about women than it does about Nietzsche (not that no
: >woman would've ever been interested... any alt.pomo veterans
: >recall a certain Laura Wedner...!)
: >--
: >Brian Dell
: >http://www.ualberta.ca/~dellb/
: But does it make sense to you that someone like FN, with
: little or no experience of women, should make such atrocious
: pronouncements about feme, and *in print* to boot?
It makes perfect sense; it's usually men who don't score who say
atrocious things about women. But let's not forget that Nietzsche also
said that women just might be the higher species (I think whenever he
heard a good alto).
Silke
: Regards,
Michael Rohaly
Noel might be better off reading a book ABOUT Nietzsche than Nietzsche
himself.
--
Michael
Jeff Inman
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>-Mammel,L.H. wrote:
"beast of prey"
>> It's not meant lit'rally!
>
>Nietzsche's followers _do_ take him literally, as anyone will notice who
>reads alt.postmodern and rec.arts.books. For example, these excerpts from
>two articles earlier this year by Jeff Inman (June 6 & June 11, 1996 in
>alt.postmodern:
[various snippets from my postings]
>In other words, Inman understands Nietzsche to be saying that morality
>derives from weak people's lack of courage to confront the strong
It isn't a matter of courage, it's a matter of power. The morality of
the herd might be understood as a convention which protects the many
weak, from the few strong, though. That, after all, is why herds
exist. That's why we have jails. The concept goes deeper, though,
into the morality that appeals to us. What does it mean, if we try to
persuade ourselves that everyone deserves equal treatment despite the
fact clearly everyone is not actually equal. One answer is that it
means that we are afraid of suffering at the hands of more powerful
ones. How cunning it would be of us if we could persuade ourselves
that the more powerful were actually in some way inherently "worse"
beings. And maybe they are! (Personally, I'm not sure, yet.) Then
they would *deserve* the punishments that we weaker folks inflicted on
them. How nice for us.
>and
>from their lack of "a type of brutality that is extremely difficult to
>maintain [which] requires an intellectual conscience."
Since you don't understand what I meant by this, why not ask me?
Never mind. The fact that you leave out the context tells me that you
are deliberately misunderstanding this. Perhaps to incite your weak
brethren?
>He believes that
>Nietzsche is "lit'rally" opposed to human equality and "lit'rally"
>opposed to democracy.
Only a paranoid would categorize people as being "opposed to
equality", as though "equality" were some product that the good people
of the USA had been churning out since 1776, and which Nietzsche was
attempting to supercede with some brand new product. Nietzsche's
"opposition", as I see it, is to the notion that the concept that
humans are equal is empirical. And, yes, I see it that Nietzsche,
like Tocqueville, understands democracy as an enfeebling and
corrupting philosophy. The evidence seems to support. And these guys
aren't the only ones who see it.
>The standard excuse of Nietzsche scholars is that his goals ("new
>values") and his irony and subtlety mean that there are benign
>interpretrations of such phrases as "the bliss of the knife," "become
>hard and show no mercy," "evil is man's best force," and "the weak [...]
>shall perish."
Not me. However, my understanding is that the "revaluation of all
values" is important not because of some new values it yields, but
because it reveals how it is that valuations are made. You aren't
ready to tackle that yet.
>As I once wrote, the Nietzsche-problem (as they say on the Continent) is
>that we have to deal with his followers, who miss most of the purported
>subtlety and irony.
Must be a big burden for you, dealing with all those people who lack
subtlety.
>Also from Inman's June 6 article:
>I [Noel] wrote
>And that brings us to another major problem: Nietzsche's contempt for
>and hostility toward political democracy.
[deleted stuff]
I keep asking you to defend democracy against these charges. I guess
you don't even want to try. So much for "reason", eh?
>It doesn't matter whether Nietzsche meant beast-of-prey "lit'rally." As
>understood by his followers, N's ideas are proto-fascistic. They take
>them very seriously.
So anyone who values Nietzsche is a fascist? Or, excu-u-se me, a
"proto-fascist"! And thus what Nietzsche actually thought, what he
actually meant by all the quotes that you have trotted out without
context or even an appreciation that context might matter -- these are
all irrelevant? Why then have you even bothered to bring them up?
Are you justifying your inability to understand them with any subtelty
by saying that everyone else is as unimaginative as you are?
>What Lucretius called the "inexpressible joy" of
>learning about "exquisitely interconnected nature" was supplanted by an
>agonistic model of intellectual activity as the assertion of "unbearable
>thoughts" by the strong.
The universe of Lucretius is devoid of life. And his "exquisitely
interconnected universe" came about by blind chance. His most famous
work is dedicated to the eradication of all stupid-ass mythological
hokum, like some engineer-cum-professor out to rid the world of
witches. Yet "will", for him, is explained in terms of that same
principle of accident, since he perceives (as I'm sure you do) that
there must be a conflict between "freedom" and constraint. Like Sagan
with his sterile "billions and billions", he has confused "reason"
with objectivity. In short, he'd fit right into any science
department in the world. You want to know how God supposedly "died",
that's the place to start. And yet the deed is as far from you as the
most distant star. You can't, even now, bear to contemplate this
universe you've inherited. Yet someone has tried to go beyond this
gigantic zero and find new heart in it. Not with stale platitudes
about "exquisite interconnection" but with real interconnection.
Start by looking at yourself, Nietzsche seems to me to be saying. See
how you lean on this and that to hold yourself up. That's at least a
start. And, yes, it counts as honesty.
William Grosso
In <32404B...@mail.eskimo.com> Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>
writes:
>In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
>resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
>principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
>must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
>and rejected every liberal principle.
>
Assume, for a moment, that this is correct. *Why* do
those people do such things ? And why do so many otherwise
intelligent people, in and out of the philosophico-litcrit
axis, think Nietzsche is deep and profound ?
While it is possible that Noel's keen intellect and
dogged persistence have, at long last, unmasked Nietzsche,
smart money bets otherwise.
A general rhetorical principle: In order to be persuasive,
the proofs should be in proportion to the claims.
Cheers,
Andy
moggin
Noel Smith:
[quotes Jeff Inman]
Jeff made a bunch of good points there. I can't help but
notice that you didn't answer a single one of them.
-- moggin
William Holt
On 15 Sep 1996, Mario Taboada wrote:
> Simple: Nietzsche didn't have a life. He was by all accounts
> sorely lacking in life-experiences of the sort most people
> encounter frequently, including love, sex, working for a
> low wage, and so on. All of which makes his dictums quite
> suspect...
I guess I can't make that logical jump. Most philosophers 19th century or
before that we know the names of set aside Socrates, etc. were members of
the elite, either nobility or ecclesiasts, which by definition means that
they didn't live the kind of
lives that most people lived. Should we dismiss all of them too, 'cause
they're not in touch with Joe Sixpack?
of course, it is hard to be sure whether he was
> actually telling other people how to live or just having
> fun.
I like to see Nietsche as being ecstatically descriptive, rather than
prescriptive. He warned of humanity being doomed by being pushed toward
"the ultimate man" by christianity and socialism and its ilk, instead of
giving way to the superman. But as an astute observer of human nature he
saw that the christian and the socialist were just words, albeit dangerous
ones, but action and
progress and the future belonged alone to the noble man. In
other words, he thought that Christianity and socialism were
temporary aberations. Any concerns he expressed about the imminent fall
of mankind were only rhetorical, I suspect.
Philosophy of his time had a broad and
mostly unchallenged
assumption, intellect is superior to action. And like whenever a
cornerstone premise is broad and mostly unchallenged, it's ripe for
attack. Nietsche was just highly effective at doing this.
--Bill
Fiona Webster
Swanson writes:
>What's the problem? Junk it.
>His politics is not mine. Neither is Heidegger's. So?
>You have a reply to this, I take it?
>Yes, there is. What's the problem?
>What can I say? I disagree with him.
>I don't. So?
[...]
>I disagree. SO WHAT?
I have a question. There's already a policy on Usenet of frowning
on "me too" postings. Is there a similar policy about "not me"
postings?
--Fiona
David Swanson
In article <51pgrp$8...@tierra.santafe.edu>
j...@wijiji.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
>
> The point, which you seem to be missing deliberately, is that
> conflict, violence, and devastation are what the honest observer of
> life sees.
Some times. Some places.
If this thought would destroy you, and you are unwilling
> to risk destruction, the alternative is to lie to yourself. Life must
> lie to itself. Its impulses are contrary to the "moderation" you so
> ignorantly accuse N of foregoing. "We shall build a grand world in
> which none will suffer!" It is life itself that is immoderate.
Life itself?
David Swanson
>
>
> >Zarathustra:
> > You say a good cause can even sanctify war?
> > I say unto you: it is a good war that sanctifies
> > any cause ...
>
> What a magnificent idea!
Excuse me?
David Swanson
In article <32404B...@mail.eskimo.com>
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
> Nietzsche's philosophy condemned the kind of person he was,
> a nearly-blind semi-invalid, wracked with headaches,
> frequently dependent on the care of others. In fact it
> defined virtue as the courage to rub out such people, so
> that the strong could apply "the magic power of extremes."
>
citations?
> In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
> In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
> resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
> principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
> must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
> and rejected every liberal principle.
> [deletion]
>
> > David
>
> - Noel
which beliefs?
David Swanson
In article <51q3bl$a...@tierra.santafe.edu>
j...@mogollon.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
> And, yes, I see it that Nietzsche,
> like Tocqueville, understands democracy as an enfeebling and
> corrupting philosophy. The evidence seems to support. And these guys
> aren't the only ones who see it.
But they ALL OF THEM seem wrong. i.e. I don't see it. As this is
actually an INTERESTING question, how about some of that there
evidence?
David Swanson
Was Sartre wrong? Was he foolish to place such emphasis on the
creative force of the isolated individual, rather than on the
collective evolution of language games or modes of being? And can this
too be laid at Nietzsche's feet, and would we be better off had Sartre
condescended to learn from an American like Dewey?
moggin
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>:
>>In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
>>resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
>>principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
>>must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
>>and rejected every liberal principle.
Why would they have to conceal the fact that he wasn't a
liberal?
-- moggin
Jeff Inman
tab...@mtha.usc.edu (Mario Taboada) writes:
> But does it make sense to you that someone like FN, with
>little or no experience of women, should make such atrocious
>pronouncements about females, and *in print* to boot? I suspect he
>was scared shitless of women and his supposed wisdom regarding them
>was some kind of defense...
Probably right, in a simplified way, but ...
The comments about women in BG&E are designed, in my opinion, to reveal
that women -- the feminine, the receptive, supposedly "weaker" sex --
have their own mode of pursuing power, which may look deceptively like
deference. (The situation is a little different today, where women are
allowed more agressive channels for self-actualization.) This is in line
with N's analysis of, say, the revenge of the "rabble" achieved through
the invention of the christian ideals of compassion, sympathy, mercy,
etc. Fits also with his (brilliant) insights into obligation and
revenge, in relationships of charity.
I had a friend who was permanently repulsed from Nietzsche by the line he
found in Zarathustra (I paraphrase): "You are going to visit a woman? --
don't forget your whip!" He took this to mean that N was saying it was
good to beat women. My take on it is that he's saying that you can be
lost forever if you don't recognize that love/courtship/sexual-bonding/
mating/etc may require a certain amount of defensiveness and shrewdness.
In a mature relationship you take some responsibility for not letting
yourself get "taken". This doesn't mean (thankfully) that one must hole
up in a shack with a sign saying "no wimmin allowed!" Just means that
even a "weak" woman can put a serious hurt on you. More subtley, she
might dominate you without your ever noticing.
Noel Smith
Jeff Inman wrote:
> Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
> >Nietzscheans have larger problems than his praise of
> >the beast-of-prey. There are his immoderation and
> >extremism, which are problematic when applied to any
> >content. [deletion]
> >Robert G. L. Waite wrote:
> [the usual paranoid flailings]
> This guy obviously reads Nietzsche no better than you.
Sorry, Jeff, I don't respond to comments about deleted material.
- Noel <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>
epbrown
"Swanson writes:
">What's the problem? Junk it.
">His politics is not mine. Neither is Heidegger's. So?
">You have a reply to this, I take it?
">Yes, there is. What's the problem?
">What can I say? I disagree with him.
">I don't. So?
"[...]
">I disagree. SO WHAT?
"I have a question. There's already a policy on Usenet of frowning
"on "me too" postings. Is there a similar policy about "not me"
"postings?
Swanson's writing style to drag out the debate without contributing anything
to it. Most of his posts break down similar to the example you posted, or are
simple paragraphs of questions asking the previous poster to shore up his
position, which he's left undamaged as is.
epbrown
epb...@enteract.com
Laptop Central
http://www.enteract.com/~epbrown
Jonah Thomas
In <Pine.A32.3.94.960916...@vth1.vth.colostate.edu>
Bob Gore <bg...@vth.colostate.edu> writes:
>On 15 Sep 1996, St. David O'Bedlam wrote:
>> as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing
glasses >> are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't
even read.
> This may not have been as senseless as it seems; in an
impoverished
>country populated mostly by peasants, people who wore glasses might
well
>have qualified as "bourgeois." Even if the policy was short-sighted.
Ouch!
Would you mind giving a little more warning on the truly awful puns? I
didn't see that one coming.
Michael Rohaly
moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
: Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>:
: -- moggin
Because dummies think the source has to be as pure as the thought produced.
--
Michael
Bob Gore
Truly sorry; I didn't mean to blind-side you.
Bob
Brian Dell
Mario Taboada:
:: But does it make sense to you that someone like FN, with
:: little or no experience of women, should make such atrocious
Men intimately acquainted with the trees can't see the forest:
distance gives perspective.
The atrociousness of a pronouncement is often evidence of its honesty;
most women prefer a sweet lie which declares undying love or sings of
their beauty to a bitter truth.
Jeff Inman
: even a "weak" woman can put a serious hurt on you.
and get behind armor that stops the strongest of men.
Woman is powerful because the nature of her power is mysterious.
Andy Perry
Liberal = pure? I thought it was more like middle-of-the-road milquetoast
wannabe leftist. Nietzsche, I think, would agree with such a
characterization.
--
Andy Perry We search before and after,
Brown University We pine for what is not.
English Department Our sincerest laughter
Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
Andy Perry
In article
<Pine.A32.3.94.960920...@vth1.vth.colostate.edu>, Bob
Gore <bg...@vth.colostate.edu> wrote:
Now, see here!
You people are making spectacles of yourselves...
St. David O'Bedlam
Kelly T. Conlon (conl...@mcmail.cis.McMaster.CA) posted:
: Care to define "well adjusted"?
If the vast majority of those who read your posts exclaim "You're a
weird psychotic asshole!" then you're probably NOT "well-adjusted."
Clearer now?
Well-adjustedly,
TheDavid, cleaver in hand
..........................................................................
if i had enough emotion | This Post Copyright (C) 1996 By TheDavid, UnLtd.
IF I HAD ENOUGH EMOTION | http://www.clark.net/pub/thedavid/trythis.html
..........................................................................
Andy Perry
Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
fabio escobar
Noel Smith (nsm...@mail.eskimo.com) wrote:
> David Swanson wrote:
> > de...@gpu2.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
> >
> > > To all Nietzsche enthusiasts out there: how do
> > > you square your intellectualism with Nietzsche's
> > > praise of the "beast-of-prey"?
> David:
> > I intellectually reject the "beast of prey" idea.
> > Why was that so hard? Or by that do you mean
> > dating and dancing and so on? I wouldn't reject
> > that, but Nietzsche did.
> Nietzscheans have larger problems than his praise of
> the beast-of-prey. There are his immoderation and
> extremism, which are problematic when applied to any
> content. Robert G. L. Waite wrote:
> Nietzsche did as much as any single writer to
> destroy a moderate alternative to political
> extremism. For he would tolerate no half-
> measures; he demanded totality--total
> destruction and total creation. ... He rejected
> Goethe's sense of restraint and limitation; he
> ridiculed political moderation; he trumpeted
> "the magic power of extremes."
That which you call extremism may be passion for truth. If a man claims
that there are 100 peas in a jar and refuses to yield on this assertion is
relegated to the role of extremist simply for refusing to compromise. But
what if he's right? And more importantly: What if he has good reasons to
believe his point of view?
> There is his social darwinism:
> The weak and ill-constituted shall perish--first
> principle of our philanthropy.
Darwin claims that weak animals shall perish and he receives praise.
Nietzsche claims the same is true of people and all assume that he means
this is good and should be this way. But where is the evidence of this?
Where can you find a passage that clearly endorses this approach to life?
Ah, Perhaps below:
> Live dangerously! [...] Live in conflict with
> your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers
> and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers
> and owners ...
But have you heard of sarcasm? What if Nietzsche means to in fact reject
this sort of approach but uses the stylistic tool of sarcasm in order to
drive home a subtler, more interesting point? Please consider.
> There is his immoralism:
> The pleasant feelings infused in us by men who
> are good, well-meaning, and just (as opposed
> to the tension and fear inspired by the great,
> new man) constitute our personal sense of
> security and equality; the herd-animal exalts
> herd-nature, and thereby experiences well-being.
> The judgment of this well-being disguises
> itself with fine words--and thus 'morality'
> is born.
This constitutes a complete misunderstanding of his point. He is using
the term morality to describe the sociological phenomemon and how man uses
"morality" and similar terms to promote a sense of moral objectivity that
in the end becomes purely arbitrary.
> Concerning this immoralism, Ivo Frenzel writes:
> "[Nietzsche's friend Rohde] was particularly
> incensed at Nietzsche's denial [in _Human, All-Too
> Human_] that man is responsible for his own behavior
> in a basically senseless world: 'No one can ever
> make me believe such a doctrine; no one does believe
> in it, not even you.'"
An incredibly short critique of an extremely complex point. N is looking
at the entire history and prehistory of man and doing a complete
historical analysis of responsibility and good and evil. His point is
backed by tons of historical data, geneological findings, and etymology.
You are clearly begging the question.
> There is his irrationalism: "Why not rather will
> untruth?"
Again, sarcasm. Consider that "untruth" and "truth" for him in this
context are social and not objectively definable terms.
> There is his praise, not only of strength and power,
> but of evil:
> Become hard and show no mercy, for evil is
> man's best force.
> The beast of prey and the jungle prove that evil
> [_Boesheit_] can be very healthy and develop the
> body magnificently...."
> Zarathustra:
> You say a good cause can even sanctify war?
> I say unto you: it is a good war that sanctifies
> any cause ...
> For a sword wants to drink blood
> And glistens with desire.
> I sing and I mock all pity ...
> The greatest evil is necessary for the Superman's
> best ...
> But I rejoice over great sin as my great comfort
> ...
All out of any context?!! If any author must be understood in the context
of the totality of his works, it's N. Read further and analyze deeper.
> There is his denial of human equality: "The doctrine
> of equality! . . . There exists no more poisonous
> poison: for it seems to be preached by justice
> itself, while it is the end of justice."
how do you think he defined this social notion of equality? Do you think
you and he had the same definitions?
> Roger Kimball, writing of Julien Benda's 1928 _La
> Trahison des Clercs_, said:
> [Friedrich Nietzsche's] doctrine of the "will
> to power," his contempt for the "slave
> morality" of Christianity, his plea for an
> ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation
> with violence--all epitomize the disastrous
> "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's
> "treason."
What an incredibly shallow argument.
> Nor does Nietzsche's famous self-questioning and
> intellectual honesty bear much examination. No one
> was more "weak and ill-constituted" than Nietzsche.
What does physical illness have to do w/ self-examination?
> For most of his working life he was on a disability
> pension from university, or being supported and
> cared for by family (his sister, his mother) and
> friends. The man who wrote "The invalid is a
> parasite on society. In a certain state it is
> indecent to go on living" could not have written
> these harsh condemnations of altruism if he had not
> himself benefited for decades from the altruism of
> others.
> - Noel
Are you sure of what he meant?
Regards,
Fabio Escobar Castelli
Paul Loeber
Was wir tun, wird nie verstanden, sondern immer nur gelobt und getadelt.
THUS SPAKE NIETZSCHE
David Swanson wrote:
>
> In article <32404B...@mail.eskimo.com>
> Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com> writes:
>
> > Nietzsche's philosophy condemned the kind of person he was,
> > a nearly-blind semi-invalid, wracked with headaches,
> > frequently dependent on the care of others. In fact it
> > defined virtue as the courage to rub out such people, so
> > that the strong could apply "the magic power of extremes."
> >
>
> citations?
>
> > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
> > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
> > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
> > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
> > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
> > and rejected every liberal principle.
> > [deletion]
> >
> > > David
> >
> > - Noel
>
> which beliefs?
>
ANatoli/JFrauley
Paul Loeber <paul...@richnet.net> wrote:
-----------------------------
I'm not sure who is saying what here, but it appears that their
interpretation of Nietzsche is off. Nietzsche did not glorify evil
and reject every liberal arts principle. For one thing, he questioned
how one arrives at various 'truths' about what is evil and what is
good.
Jon
Richard Harter
Andrew...@Brown.edu (Andy Perry) wrote:
>In article
><Pine.A32.3.94.960920...@vth1.vth.colostate.edu>, Bob
>Gore <bg...@vth.colostate.edu> wrote:
>>On 20 Sep 1996, Jonah Thomas wrote:
>>
>>> In <Pine.A32.3.94.960916...@vth1.vth.colostate.edu>
>>> Bob Gore <bg...@vth.colostate.edu> writes:
>>> >On 15 Sep 1996, St. David O'Bedlam wrote:
>>> >> as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing
>>> glasses >> are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't
>>> even read.
>>> > This may not have been as senseless as it seems; in an
>>> impoverished
>>> >country populated mostly by peasants, people who wore glasses might
>>> well
>>> >have qualified as "bourgeois." Even if the policy was short-sighted.
>>> Ouch!
>>> Would you mind giving a little more warning on the truly awful puns? I
>>> didn't see that one coming.
>> Truly sorry; I didn't mean to blind-side you.
>Now, see here!
>You people are making spectacles of yourselves...
It would be touching if I could make sense of this thread but I can't,
not here. Andrew can; it must be what he knows.
Richard Harter, c...@tiac.net, The Concord Research Institute
URL = http://www.tiac.net/users/cri, phone = 1-508-369-3911
Soc.women is the Beirut of the internet. There is nothing
left but rubble and fanatics shooting at each other.
Fast Eddie
On 20 Sep 1996, Michael Rohaly wrote:
> moggin (mog...@bessel.nando.net) wrote:
> : Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>:
*****[edited for brevity]******
> : Why would they have to conceal the fact that he wasn't a
> : liberal?
>
> : -- moggin
>
> Because dummies think the source has to be as pure as the thought produced.
> Michael
dummies?
Every liberal principal? What about the gotterdamerung of Jesus. Liberal
in the sense that it was so strident.
Jews. He was certainly not a part of the crowd in Germany on this one.
BTW, just because the prophet is lame does not mean his message is.
Nietzsche thought himself a herald of the 19th century man. He was also
tounge in cheek. Could it be possible that he was taking his ideas to
their sometime absurd logical conclusion? He laughed at Kant for
beleiving that his [Kant's] philosophy was true. He didn't look at his
own in any different light.
He was prophet but not superman. He was herald of the superman.
Ed O'Malley _/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/__/__/__/___/___/___/_____/______/
<oma...@mnsinc.com>_/_/_/_/_/__/__/__/___/___/___/_____/______/
Fast Eddie
Where's the explanatory footnote to this German stuff my obviously
intelligent poser, er I mean poster.
David Swanson
In article <51nli5$n...@pulp.ucs.ualberta.ca>
de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
> Just as Shakespeare acquired more essential history from
> Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum,
> Nietzsche could plumb an inch of experience to such a depth
> that most men would require a mile of experience to effect
> the same volume.
Particularly the experience of reading Emerson, from which he took this
notion which you've taken from him.
David
I hate Plato, but I hate truth more.
moggin
de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca (Brian Dell) writes:
>> Just as Shakespeare acquired more essential history from
>> Plutarch than most men could from the whole British museum,
>> Nietzsche could plumb an inch of experience to such a depth
>> that most men would require a mile of experience to effect
>> the same volume.
David Swanson <dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu>:
>Particularly the experience of reading Emerson, from which he took
>this notion which you've taken from him.
I don't know who got it from whom, back there in Massachusetts,
but the classic statement belongs to Thoreau: "I have travelled a good
deal in Concord."
-- moggin
Martin Bosworth
Brian Dell (de...@gpu1.srv.ualberta.ca) wrote:
: St. David O'Bedlam:
: : It is entirely possible to be ... a well-adjusted genius
: Care to give an example of "a well-adjusted genius" in the arts?
: Besides, I'm not saying the creature is impossible, just improbable.
A certain pointy-eared Vulcan once said (paraphrasing), "Once you discount the
impossible, even the improbable must be considered."
HTH. 8^)
Martin (wrath, the improbable imperative)
Bosworth
Shayne O'Neill
Andy Perry wrote:
>
> Reposting article removed by rogue canceller.
>
> <Pine.A32.3.94.960920...@vth1.vth.colostate.edu>, Bob
> Gore <bg...@vth.colostate.edu> wrote:
>
> >> >> as the Khmer Rouge didn't seem to realize that all people wearing
> >> glasses >> are not "bourgeois eggheads" -- many bespectacled folk can't
> >> even read.
> >>
> >> > This may not have been as senseless as it seems; in an
> >> impoverished
> >> >country populated mostly by peasants, people who wore glasses might
> >> well
> >> >have qualified as "bourgeois." Even if the policy was short-sighted.
> >>
> >> Ouch!
> >>
> >> Would you mind giving a little more warning on the truly awful puns? I
> >> didn't see that one coming.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> > Truly sorry; I didn't mean to blind-side you.
>
> Now, see here!
>
> You people are making spectacles of yourselves...
I really cant SEE the point of this... ;)
moggin
Noel Smith (nsm...@mail.eskimo.com):
[misrepresenting Nietzsche]
>>There is his social darwinism:
>> Live dangerously! [...] Live in conflict with
>> your equals and with yourselves! Be robbers
>> and ravagers as long as you cannot be rulers
>> and owners ...
fabio escobar <hbpo...@huey.csun.edu>:
>But have you heard of sarcasm? What if Nietzsche means to in fact reject
>this sort of approach but uses the stylistic tool of sarcasm in order to
>drive home a subtler, more interesting point? Please consider.
It's not sarcasm, it's epistemology. That would be much more
apparent it Noel hadn't hacked apart the quotation. It's from GS 283:
"[...] For believe me: the secret for harvesting the greatest
fruitfulness and the greatest enjoyment is -- to _live dangerously_!
Build your cities on the slopes of Vesuvius! Send your ships into
uncharted seas! Live at war with your peers and yourselves! Be
robbers and conquerors as long as you cannot be rulers and possessors,
you seekers of knowledge! [...]"
Noel:
>> There is his irrationalism: "Why not rather will untruth?"
fabio:
>Again, sarcasm. Consider that "untruth" and "truth" for him in this
>context are social and not objectively definable terms.
No, he's not being sarcastic -- it's a serious question. The
theme appears repeatedly. (This quotation comes from BGE 1.)
-- moggin
Richard Harter
hbpo...@huey.csun.edu (fabio escobar) wrote:
>That which you call extremism may be passion for truth. If a man claims
>that there are 100 peas in a jar and refuses to yield on this assertion is
>relegated to the role of extremist simply for refusing to compromise. But
>what if he's right? And more importantly: What if he has good reasons to
>believe his point of view?
And if there is no jar?
>> There is his social darwinism:
>> The weak and ill-constituted shall perish--first
>> principle of our philanthropy.
>Darwin claims that weak animals shall perish and he receives praise.
Of course Darwin did not claim this but that is quite another matter.
>Nietzsche claims the same is true of people and all assume that he means
>this is good and should be this way. But where is the evidence of this?
>Where can you find a passage that clearly endorses this approach to life?
Here you have a point - can one find a passage from Nietsche that says
anything clearly?
Poor Nietsche. With friends like this, who needs enemies. With
enemies like this, who needs friends.
the Albatross
Noel Smith wrote:
> Nietzsche's philosophy condemned the kind of person he was,
> a nearly-blind semi-invalid, wracked with headaches,
> frequently dependent on the care of others. In fact it
> defined virtue as the courage to rub out such people, so
> that the strong could apply "the magic power of extremes."
That he found himself weak taught him that it was better to be
strong. He prefered a life of extremes to the mundane and quotidian, the
usual and mediocre; who can blame him?
He did not, IMHO, condemn weakness so much as condemn thinking
that promotes weakness. This was his beef with Christianity and
femininity, and the rest. It is right to understand that when he battled
with Christianity, it was his mothers religion he was battling. When he
battled with femininity, it is right to assume that he was battling with
the crippling influence of his mother and sister.
> In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
> In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
> resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
> principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
> must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
> and rejected every liberal principle.
But this is the paragraph that made delurking irresistable.
Do you actually believe that we are only right in espousing
virtues that are already part of our character? Is the dishonest man
wrong when he speaks for honesty? In this case,- is the man with
weaknesses wrong to say it is better to have strengths? The fact of
Nietzsche's life is that he quite bravely struggled with his physical
weaknesses.
In my opinion, the weaknesses he never saw in himself had nothing
to do with his physical limitations. Rather, I dont believe he ever
overcame a deep resentment towards his mother, his sister and later Lou
Salome. His behaviour toward Salome was deeply idealistic and romantic,
and her rejection of him was a thing that he couldn't say yes to.
You just cannot say that Nietzsche glorified evil without
understanding his purpose in doing so. His desire was to demonstrate that
what was generally considered evil was actually good. Namely human desire
to expand, grow, become strong, and gratify passions. He would respect a
man who had mastered his passions, but not a man who had eliminated them,
based on the premise that passion is evil. In this he was very much in
the Romantic tradition. He believed that it was good to be human. But
there is also in him a check against deSade like extravagance. In getting
beyond good and evil, he didn't eliminate the idea that some things are
wrong. Rather, he believed that what religion espoused as good, was in
fact crippling and bad.
Nietzsche was a very sensitive man, who was painfully aware of
his own failings. He rages against them. Why shouldn't he.
Albatross
Gods and Men, we are all deluded thus...
Steve Miklos
fabio escobar wrote:
> That which you call extremism may be passion for truth. If a man claims
> that there are 100 peas in a jar and refuses to yield on this assertion is
> relegated to the role of extremist simply for refusing to compromise. But
> what if he's right? And more importantly: What if he has good reasons to
> believe his point of view?
>
This only relates to extremism if it is the case that neither that man
nor
anyone else has seen the jar (and prefereably that the jar cannot be
demonstrated to exist). If the jar is readily examined, and he has
examined
it, then he's expressing faith in his ability to count. If the jar is
examined and found to have fewer or more and he denies the truth of
this, he
is being buttheaded. If the jar is examined and found to have 64 peas
and he
says, "Of course, when I said it had 100 peas I was counting in octal,"
then
he is on Usenet.
Regards,
Steve "It's only got 93" Miklos
--
stephen...@citicorp.com, piala...@aol.com Steve Miklos @ home
Not speaking for the Big Bank
http://members.aol.com/pialamodem
Elizabeth V. Kirby
the Albatross wrote:
>
> Noel Smith wrote:
>
> > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
> > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
> > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
> > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
> > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
> > and rejected every liberal principle.
>
> But this is the paragraph that made delurking irresistable.
> Do you actually believe that we are only right in espousing
> virtues that are already part of our character? Is the dishonest man
> wrong when he speaks for honesty? In this case,- is the man with
> weaknesses wrong to say it is better to have strengths? The fact of
> Nietzsche's life is that he quite bravely struggled with his physical
> weaknesses.
There are contradictory elements to many people.
None the less, there are also downsides to many ideals and
if a person isn't able to live the ideal they are promoting they
may (more likely will) espouse something without really
understanding it. Thus the long term effect of their action
can be to convince people that things that are true which in
fact are not.
For example, someone who is very weak may
not understand what strength really is and where it comes
from. For many people, a huge source of the strength they
have comes from their social connections and some of the
strongest support comes via religion.
In other words, I'm much more likely to believe someone
if they tell me how to get to some cool resturant outside
Spokane if they have in fact been there and not just said to
themselves - "Gee, Spokane seems like a really cool place
and all really cool places have good resturants just out of
town, so there must be one there."
Beth
The devil is in the details - and details are made
apparent by action.
Noel Smith
Elizabeth V. Kirby wrote:
> the Albatross wrote:
> > Noel Smith wrote:
> > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
> > > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
> > > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
> > > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
> > > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
> > > and rejected every liberal principle.
The Albatross:
> > But this is the paragraph that made delurking irresistable. [sic]
> > Do you actually believe that we are only right in espousing
> > virtues that are already part of our character?
Not at all. When Jefferson, a slaveholder, wrote "all men are
created equal," he had the courage to propose a principle which
did not flatter his practice. He believed that enunciating this
proposition would lead to the abolition of slavery over time, as
the egalitarian doctrine was assented to by the people; and that
this moderate approach would be more global, and more lasting,
than the available alternatives. The evidence suggests that he
was right.
By contrast, Nietzsche's extreme and absolute social Darwinism
leaves no conceptual grounds for altruism of any sort, even as a
temporary compromise. Allan Megill, in the excellent _Prophets
of Extremity_, remarks on "Nietzsche's tendency to think in
terms of opposed extremes. Time and again in Nietzsche, one
encounters an inclination to postulate opposites and assume that
these exhaust the possibilities. ... Other possibilities,
whether medians between, or totally unrelated to, X and Y, are
consistently ignored."
Nietzsche's philosophy leaves no room for temporizing or
compromise of any sort. He does not in any way acknowledge that
the kind of world whose creation he demands has no room for
people like him, and in fact, calls for the triumphal
elimination of his sort as its first act: "The weak and
ill-constituted shall perish--first principle of our
philanthropy."
As for "espousing virtues that are [not] already part of our
character," how is denying all responsibility for the common
good, and siding with Cain ("Am I my brother's keeper?"), a
virtue? Nietzsche glorified evil and rejected every liberal
principle. The larger part of his working life was possible only
because his society, and his family and friends, exercised
social responsibility of the sort which receives a fine
Nietzschean scorn throughout his writings. Nietzsche's life
invalidates his philosophy. He was a hypocrite.
[remainder deleted]
- Noel
Become hard and show no mercy, for evil
is man's best force. - Friedrich Nietzsche
G*rd*n the Demon Rat
Noel Smith <nsm...@mail.eskimo.com>:
Elizabeth V. Kirby wrote:
the Albatross wrote:
Noel Smith wrote:
| > > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
| > > > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
| > > > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
| > > > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
| > > > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
| > > > and rejected every liberal principle.
| invalidates his philosophy. He was a hypocrite. ....
I don't know about any epigones, but I find Nietzsche's
self-contradiction and hypocrisy rather attractive,
especially in a philosopher. The consistent set their feet
on our necks and try to keep them there; the inconsistent
and the hypocritical at least fidget a bit.
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Silke-Maria Weineck
Noel Smith (nsm...@mail.eskimo.com) wrote:
: Elizabeth V. Kirby wrote:
: > the Albatross wrote:
: > > Noel Smith wrote:
: > > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
: > > > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
: > > > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
: > > > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
: > > > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
: > > > and rejected every liberal principle.
: The Albatross:
: > > But this is the paragraph that made delurking irresistable. [sic]
: > > Do you actually believe that we are only right in espousing
: > > virtues that are already part of our character?
[...]
: By contrast, Nietzsche's extreme and absolute social Darwinism
Darwinism? Nietzsche thought Darwin was simplistic.
: leaves no conceptual grounds for altruism of any sort,
Nonsense. He never says that and never suggests that. In fact, you get a
better grounding for altruism out of Nietzsche than of anything else.
even
as a : temporary compromise. Allan Megill, in the excellent _Prophets
: of Extremity_, remarks on "Nietzsche's tendency to think in
: terms of opposed extremes. Time and again in Nietzsche, one
: encounters an inclination to postulate opposites and assume that
: these exhaust the possibilities. ... Other possibilities,
: whether medians between, or totally unrelated to, X and Y, are
: consistently ignored."
I suppose that's where Nietzsche's praise of mediocrity comes from; I
guess that's why he says that "we other ones must always remain the
exception," and I guess that's why he gives about fifty different
rationales for punishment instead of the two usually encountered
(revenge/deterrence).
: Nietzsche's philosophy leaves no room for temporizing or
: compromise of any sort. He does not in any way acknowledge that
: the kind of world whose creation he demands has no room for
: people like him, and in fact, calls for the triumphal
: elimination of his sort as its first act: "The weak and
: ill-constituted shall perish--first principle of our
: philanthropy."
But you don't even begin to understand what he means by "weak" and
"ill-constituted", or do you?
: As for "espousing virtues that are [not] already part of our
: character," how is denying all responsibility for the common
: good, and siding with Cain ("Am I my brother's keeper?"), a
: virtue? Nietzsche glorified evil and rejected every liberal
: principle.
Nonsense:
"Thus I deny morality [Sittlichkeit, NOT Moral] as I deny alchemy,
that is, I deny their premises: but I do _not_ deny that there have been
alchemists who believed in these premises and acted in accordance with
them. -- I also deny immorality; _not_ that countless people _feel_
themselves to be immoral, but a foundation in _truth_ so to feel. It goes
without saying that I do not deny--unless I am a fool--that many actions
called immoral are to be _avoided and resisted_, or that many actions
called moral are to be done and encouraged--but I think the one should be
encouraged and the other avoided _for other reasons than hitherto_."
(Daybreak, 60).
The larger part of his working life was possible only
: because his society, and his family and friends, exercised
: social responsibility of the sort which receives a fine
: Nietzschean scorn throughout his writings. Nietzsche's life
: invalidates his philosophy. He was a hypocrite.
The nerve of that boy, calling other people hypocrites, it's unbelievable.
Silke
Andy Perry
In article <3251C1...@restec.com>, "Elizabeth V. Kirby"
<be...@restec.com> wrote:
>the Albatross wrote:
>>
>> Noel Smith wrote:
>
>>
>> > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
>> > In order to support his beliefs, Nietzsche's epigones must
>> > resort to the desperate extreme of asserting that the
>> > principle of self-contradiction doesn't matter. They also
>> > must try to conceal the fact that Nietzsche glorified evil
>> > and rejected every liberal principle.
>>
>> But this is the paragraph that made delurking irresistable.
>> Do you actually believe that we are only right in espousing
>> virtues that are already part of our character? Is the dishonest man
>> wrong when he speaks for honesty? In this case,- is the man with
>> weaknesses wrong to say it is better to have strengths? The fact of
>> Nietzsche's life is that he quite bravely struggled with his physical
>> weaknesses.
>
> There are contradictory elements to many people.
>None the less, there are also downsides to many ideals and
>if a person isn't able to live the ideal they are promoting they
>may (more likely will) espouse something without really
>understanding it. Thus the long term effect of their action
>can be to convince people that things that are true which in
>fact are not.
>
> For example, someone who is very weak may
>not understand what strength really is and where it comes
>from. For many people, a huge source of the strength they
>have comes from their social connections and some of the
>strongest support comes via religion.
>
> In other words, I'm much more likely to believe someone
>if they tell me how to get to some cool resturant outside
>Spokane if they have in fact been there and not just said to
>themselves - "Gee, Spokane seems like a really cool place
>and all really cool places have good resturants just out of
>town, so there must be one there."
That's a bad analogy for this situation. The question is, if someone says
that personal liberty is a vital right worth fighting and even dying
for--are you more likely to believe them if they are 1) a suburban
American kid in 1996, who clearly has never experienced any other
condition or 2) a citizen of a totalitarian state who has never
experienced the condition she's describing?
Michael Rohaly
Andy Perry (Andrew...@Brown.edu) wrote:
: That's a bad analogy for this situation. The question is, if someone says
: that personal liberty is a vital right worth fighting and even dying
: for--are you more likely to believe them if they are 1) a suburban
: American kid in 1996, who clearly has never experienced any other
: condition or 2) a citizen of a totalitarian state who has never
: experienced the condition she's describing?
: --
: Andy Perry We search before and after,
: Brown University We pine for what is not.
: English Department Our sincerest laughter
: Andrew...@brown.edu OR With some pain is fraught.
: st00...@brownvm.bitnet -- Shelley, d'apres Horace Rumpole
I'm likely to believe them if I think it's true.
Look, if a murderer says "Killing is bad" are you going to argue with
that because he's a hypocrite?
--
Michael
David Swanson
If we all agree that altruism is desirable, then why do we need to
waste time, some of us giving a moronic Menckenian cum Randian reading
of Nietzsche, and others of us correcting it? Why not just forget
Nietzsche, as he would have wanted us to do, and get on to quarreling
about other things?
David
jvar...@gsi.gsini.net
Elizabeth V. Kirby (be...@restec.com) wrote:
: the Albatross wrote:
: > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
: There are contradictory elements to many people.
: None the less, there are also downsides to many ideals and
: if a person isn't able to live the ideal they are promoting they
: may (more likely will) espouse something without really
: understanding it. Thus the long term effect of their action
: can be to convince people that things that are true which in
: fact are not.
As far as understanding, I view the other side of the coin.
Sometimes in moral cases it's the culpable person who lucidly understands.
In your example of the weaklying who does not understand strength, you
hide a bias focus. Doesn't the weakling understand strength by knowing
its absence? He knows what it's like not to lift, not to force, and
what it's like to be bullied. Doesn't the strong man lack this knowledge?
Don't they both only possess half?
More poinently, take the case of murder. Who knows more about the
sactitiy of life? Surely, the pacifist claims to, but isn't she dogmatic?
If the murderer might realize the concequeses first hand. She might stare
down at the blood in her hands, the transience of life writ large. Do
you think the soldier, or the holy-man knows more about death and it's
relation to life? (given introspective versions of both).
To bring this back to the original point, Does Nietzche need to be
the Ueberman? Sure, we'd rather he were, but does it invalidate his
philosophy?
-jason
____________oOOo__/~~~~\__oOOo_________________________________________
jason varsoke | jvar...@gsi.gsini.net | http://www.gsini.net/~jvarsoke
Jeff Inman
We don't all agree about that. At least not without some
qualifications.
>then why do we need to
>waste time, some of us giving a moronic Menckenian cum Randian reading
>of Nietzsche, and others of us correcting it? Why not just forget
>Nietzsche, as he would have wanted us to do, and get on to quarreling
>about other things?
I also don't think I can agree that Nietzsche was ready to be
forgotten. The irony of knowing that one is going to be misunderstood
-- *must* be misunderstood, even, due to the fact that one's
particular message will threaten and offend (e.g. the notion that life
is opposed to truth will inevitably be resisted, and yet this
resistence may demonstrate the very principle in question), or be
necessarily opaque for some other reason -- an acceptance, and even
embracing, of the irony in this situation is not the same as a
willingness to be forgotten ... just as Christ's submission to
crucifixion is hardly understood as a willingness to have his message
go unheard. (The analogy no doubt seems strange, but isn't.)
And the quarrels that Nietzsche provokes within the hearts of those
who have understood him with some subtlety is so wonderful that one
wants to relieve various knee-jerks of whatever obstacles are
preventing their sharing in this proper struggle. There's glory in
it.
--
"Y'see my mule don't like people laughing. He gets the crazy idea they're
laughing at him. Now, if you apologize, like I'm sure you're going to, I
might convince him that you really didn't mean it."
Aaron Boyden
On 2 Oct 1996, G*rd*n the Demon Rat wrote:
> I don't know about any epigones, but I find Nietzsche's
> self-contradiction and hypocrisy rather attractive,
> especially in a philosopher. The consistent set their feet
> on our necks and try to keep them there; the inconsistent
> and the hypocritical at least fidget a bit.
As something of a Nietzsche scholar, I feel that I can't stay out of this
discussion. I find Nietzsche's self-contradiction and hypocrisy to be
exaggerated. He was not infallible, of course, but a careful reading of
his work reveals, I think, a remarkably insightful worldview which is at
least as consistent as any equally rich rivals (the only totally
consistent philosophers to date have been those with philosophies about as
comprehensive as that of the conscientious in spirit in Zarathustra).
Elevating mere verbal contradictions (which are no means unique to
Nietzsche; as Kaufmann pointed out, Kant would probably come off rather
worse if examined by the same standards of consistency some apply to
Nietzsche) to a central tenet of Nietzschean philosophy is absurd.
On the subject of hypocrisy, as others have already noted Nietzsche was
not opposed to altruism. He was opposed to pity and other cases of
misguided and usually misnamed altruism. The most blatant hypocrisy in
Nietzsche, and I don't wish to downplay this but it hardly invalidates
his entire philosophy, is to be found in the contrast between his
oft-repeated position that greatness is an individual thing, not to be
found in any of the old, socially constructed categories, and some of his
comments on women, which not only (perhaps justly) criticize women of his
time but also criticize any effort they might make to better themselves.
I am inclined to make allowances, given some of the details of his
personal life, but I can understand why someone might be less tolerant.
---
Aaron Boyden
"Any competent philosopher who does not understand something will take care
not to understand anything else whereby it might be explained." -David Lewis
Elizabeth V. Kirby
jvar...@gsi.gsini.net wrote:
>
> Elizabeth V. Kirby (be...@restec.com) wrote:
> : the Albatross wrote:
> : > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
>
> : There are contradictory elements to many people.
> : None the less, there are also downsides to many ideals and
> : if a person isn't able to live the ideal they are promoting they
> : may (more likely will) espouse something without really
> : understanding it. Thus the long term effect of their action
> : can be to convince people that things that are true which in
> : fact are not.
> As far as understanding, I view the other side of the coin.
> Sometimes in moral cases it's the culpable person who lucidly understands.
> In your example of the weaklying who does not understand strength, you
> hide a bias focus. Doesn't the weakling understand strength by knowing
> its absence? He knows what it's like not to lift, not to force, and
I think my point could be summarized as "if you want
to know how to do something, ask someone who has done it". In
particular, do not ask someone who has tried and failed, they
have shown by their actions that they, in fact, don't know
how to do the thing in question.
BTW, on your example of murder - what I've heard
(I haven't had the misfortune of first hand experience, so
you are free to take this as a factiod) is that those who
murder tend to depersonalize their victims - which hardly
suggests that they are much for the sancity of life.
Beth
Silke-Maria Weineck
Aaron Boyden (650...@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu) wrote:
: time but also criticize any effort they might make to better themselves.
: I am inclined to make allowances, given some of the details of his
: personal life, but I can understand why someone might be less tolerant.
I mostly agree, but would like to add as a footnote that Nietzsche also
said that the perfect woman was a more highly evolved creature than the
perfect male, and that his friendships with women were cordial, the women
loyal despite glaring disagreements, including active feminists like his
English translator.
I'm also struck by the fact that Nietzsche who says some of the
nastiest things ever pronounced in a philosophy book has a white vest
when it comes to personal nastiness; in fact, his integrity in this
regard seems extraordinary.
Silke
: ---
David Swanson
In article <533piq$9...@tierra.santafe.edu>
j...@coronado.santafe.edu (Jeff Inman) writes:
> dc...@darwin.clas.virginia.edu (David Swanson) writes:
> >If we all agree that altruism is desirable,
>
> We don't all agree about that. At least not without some
> qualifications.
Such as...?
>
> >then why do we need to
> >waste time, some of us giving a moronic Menckenian cum Randian reading
> >of Nietzsche, and others of us correcting it? Why not just forget
> >Nietzsche, as he would have wanted us to do, and get on to quarreling
> >about other things?
>
> I also don't think I can agree that Nietzsche was ready to be
> forgotten. The irony of knowing that one is going to be misunderstood
> -- *must* be misunderstood, even, due to the fact that one's
> particular message will threaten and offend (e.g. the notion that life
> is opposed to truth will inevitably be resisted, and yet this
> resistence may demonstrate the very principle in question), or be
> necessarily opaque for some other reason -- an acceptance, and even
> embracing, of the irony in this situation is not the same as a
> willingness to be forgotten ... just as Christ's submission to
> crucifixion is hardly understood as a willingness to have his message
> go unheard. (The analogy no doubt seems strange, but isn't.)
>
> And the quarrels that Nietzsche provokes within the hearts of those
> who have understood him with some subtlety is so wonderful that one
> wants to relieve various knee-jerks of whatever obstacles are
> preventing their sharing in this proper struggle. There's glory in
> it.
I can't find anything in this to disagree with, except that I don't see
what it has to do with N's not hoping to eventually be forgotten, after
having eventually been understood.
David
"To behave in a way that's not seriously wrong, a well-off person, like
you and me, must contribute to vitally effective groups, like OXFAM and
UNICEF, most of the money and property she now has, and most of what
comes her way for the foreseeable future." Peter Unger
Silke-Maria Weineck
In which case Nietzsche would be the best person to ask on how to
overcome weakness, since he managed to become one of the
greatest philosophers of all times despite almost crushing
obstacles.
Silke
Elizabeth V.
Kirby (be...@restec.com) wrote: : jvar...@gsi.gsini.net wrote:
: >
: > Elizabeth V. Kirby (be...@restec.com) wrote:
: > : the Albatross wrote:
: > : > > In other words, his existence contradicted his philosophy.
: >
: > : There are contradictory elements to many people.
: > : None the less, there are also downsides to many ideals and
: > : if a person isn't able to live the ideal they are promoting they
: > : may (more likely will) espouse something without really
: > : understanding it. Thus the long term effect of their action
: > : can be to convince people that things that are true which in
: > : fact are not.
: > As far as understanding, I view the other side of the coin.
: > Sometimes in moral cases it's the culpable person who lucidly understands.
: > In your example of the weaklying who does not understand strength, you
G*rd*n
wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck):
| In which case Nietzsche would be the best person to ask on how to
| overcome weakness, since he managed to become one of the
| greatest philosophers of all times despite almost crushing
| obstacles.
But is _becoming_a_philosopher_ overcoming weakness, or
yielding to it? What is one setting out to do, and what is
one accomplishing? For the slavemaster, the answer is easy:
it is to provide a rhetoric which will reinforce slavery,
for instance monotheism. Clearly, some form of defense is
called for by the existence of such projects; but is it
"philosophy"?
--
}"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
Silke-Maria Weineck
G*rd*n (g...@panix.com) wrote:
: wein...@mail2.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck):
The intro to Gay Science is good on that -- the answer, of course, both
-- esp. when it comes to not just developing but experiencing multiple
viewpoints, to use both weakness and strength, illness and health, _as_
perspective. I was talking very concretely: I was talking about crushing
headaches.
Silke
: -- : }"{ Gordon Fitch }"{ g...@panix.com }"{
David Swanson
In article <534l23$r...@netnews.upenn.edu>
wein...@mail1.sas.upenn.edu (Silke-Maria Weineck) writes:
>
> I mostly agree, but would like to add as a footnote that Nietzsche also
> said that the perfect woman was a more highly evolved creature than the
> perfect male, and that his friendships with women were cordial, the women
> loyal despite glaring disagreements, including active feminists like his
> English translator.
> I'm also struck by the fact that Nietzsche who says some of the
> nastiest things ever pronounced in a philosophy book has a white vest
> when it comes to personal nastiness; in fact, his integrity in this
> regard seems extraordinary.
>
> Silke
I agree. But, then, it's easy to push Nietzsche-the-feminist too far.
What d'you think of Derrida's Nietzsche? And it's hard to draw a line
between "personal" and "public." Was his book on D. Strauss a public
act?