"Do you want to go the way of your affliction, which is the way to yourself? Then show me your right and your strength to do so. Are you a new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?...
Can you give yourself your own evil and your own good and hang your own will over yourself as a law? Can you be your own judge and avenger of your law? Terrible it is to be alone with the judge and avenger of one's own law. Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy breath of solitude."
Is this your leader, your muse, your exemplar, your god? That physically weak and ailing, lonely, man who wrote like such a lion, but lived like such a mouse? He emplored us to philosophize with a hammer - rightly so - but when I strike my hammer ever so softly against his biographies, I hear mostly (only?)the familiar ring of resintiment (read - "ree-zen-te-mon")'.
> "Do you want to go the way of your affliction, which is the way to > yourself? Then show me your right and your strength to do so. Are you a > new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? > Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?...
> Can you give yourself your own evil and your own good and hang your own > will over yourself as a law? Can you be your own judge and avenger of > your law? Terrible it is to be alone with the judge and avenger of > one's own law. Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy > breath of solitude."
Well, he admitted that both the master and the slave moralities have occured "directly alonside each other - even in the same human being, within a single soul." What soul would he have better access to than his own? I think his voice cries to us from the edge of the blackness and asks us to save ourselves, even if he too was almost consumed. When you strike those books with your hammer, is that the ring of <i>ressentiment</i> you hear, or the echo of laughter reverberating through a century of misrepresentation?
On Nov 11, 1:26 am, "Little Nietzsche" <davehe...@aol.com> wrote:
> Is this your leader, your muse, your exemplar, your god? That > physically weak and ailing, lonely, man who wrote like such a lion, but > lived like such a mouse? He emplored us to philosophize with a hammer - > rightly so - but when I strike my hammer ever so softly against his > biographies, I hear mostly (only?)the familiar ring of resintiment > (read - "ree-zen-te-mon")'.
> > "Do you want to go the way of your affliction, which is the way to > > yourself? Then show me your right and your strength to do so. Are you a > > new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? > > Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?...
> > Can you give yourself your own evil and your own good and hang your own > > will over yourself as a law? Can you be your own judge and avenger of > > your law? Terrible it is to be alone with the judge and avenger of > > one's own law. Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy > > breath of solitude."
> > -F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
Don't get me wrong, I love the Nietzsche, however:
You are right to say there are both kinds in us (thougb they are most decidedly not souls). The kinds are the only thing Nietzsche's ontology will allow, forces, or wills to power as he calls them. everything is will to power. The hunman being is merely a conglomeration of wills to power, as all things must be. The issue is, what will is in control (of the constant competition and conflict that must arise from competing wills to power), and to what end? Nietzsxhe is clear that thier are two kinds of force (will to power): active and reactive. slaves and priests are reactive, ubermensche are active, and transvaluers of value. They assert value, they do not go along w/ or offfer the opposite of in reaction (slaves). This assertion, active as opposed to reactive, is the new value nietasche himself seems to offer after smashing all hitherto previos idols. Yet, to say is not to do. to think is not to have become, to imagine is not to actualize or embody. I say nietzsche may be the epiitome of that which he hates - the reactive, the slave. I love to read nierzsche,but if I take him seriousl, I can't help but here in him exactly what he wantewd us to look for in all others resentiment. Nietzsche hates the priests because they are the hieght of reactivity. But, importantly, they are the ones that, for the first time make mankind interesting. Why? They harness thier resentiment and turn it inward on itself, multiplying its power to a degree hitherto unknown. The unleash it outward as a great force, but still a reactive force (that's why he hates them), The ubermensche - his telos and the examplar of his new values - is supposed to be the new creature that for the first time can attain this harnessing of the competing wills within themselves to refocuse and amplify them,but in an entirely active way.
Is that Niertzsche, no. for the nwhy would he write?
I suggest a phil club talk on this. I can present a paper for your rebuttal, or likewise.
"Does Nietzsche's Ontology of Force Undermine his Values?"
-----Original Message----- From: sj...@humboldt.edu To: hsuphilclub@googlegroups.com Sent: Tue, 14 Nov 2006 7:57 PM Subject: [Phil Club] Re: "He who cannot obey himself is commanded."
Well, he admitted that both the master and the slave moralities have occured "directly alonside each other - even in the same human being, within a single soul." What soul would he have better access to than his own? I think his voice cries to us from the edge of the blackness and asks us to save ourselves, even if he too was almost consumed. When you strike those books with your hammer, is that the ring of <i>ressentiment</i> you hear, or the echo of laughter reverberating through a century of misrepresentation?
On Nov 11, 1:26 am, "Little Nietzsche" <davehe...@aol.com> wrote: > Is this your leader, your muse, your exemplar, your god? That > physically weak and ailing, lonely, man who wrote like such a lion, but > lived like such a mouse? He emplored us to philosophize with a hammer - > rightly so - but when I strike my hammer ever so softly against his > biographies, I hear mostly (only?)the familiar ring of resintiment > (read - "ree-zen-te-mon")'.
> > "Do you want to go the way of your affliction, which is the way to > > yourself? Then show me your right and your strength to do so. Are you a > > new strength and a new right? A first movement? A self-propelled wheel? > > Can you compel the very stars to revolve around you?...
> > Can you give yourself your own evil and your own good and hang your own > > will over yourself as a law? Can you be your own judge and avenger of > > your law? Terrible it is to be alone with the judge and avenger of > > one's own law. Thus is a star thrown out into the void and into the icy > > breath of solitude."
> > -F. Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text -
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Yea, I'd like to organize a panel, or an in-depth discussion on this stuff. I think that what we were talking about today would be a really good idea (one or more professors in dialogue, cause I know that Shaeffer also has an interest in Nietzsche, as well as Fletcher). This might also be a really good way to educate the general campus about Nietzsche. We could post flyers around advertising an opportunity for people learn about him - because, like I said, there is a huge misunderstanding that precludes his actual work. My parents still think he's associated with the Nazis, and the only thing others know about him is "God is Dead"... without any sort of proper understanding.
By the way, I know that the master and the slave moralities are not souls... they're more like personality types... but that quote was taken directly from "Beyond Good and Evil" in the chapter entitled "Master Morality, Slave Morality, and Traditional Morality." However, like I said earlier, I've only begun to scratch the surface of this guy... I don't really think I could hold my own in a serious discussion yet, but I do know that he appeals on a whole different level that I never expected was possible in philosophy... I found this about Plato too... but that's a different story.
Note: these rules may be used by the vacuous and mendacious alike.
· Rule #1: Don't read anything Nietzsche wrote, but feel free to offer an interpretation on what you think he might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #2: If you must read something Nietzsche said, never read it in order, in series, and certainly never, never in context. Your illusion of understanding what he said will only get in the way of 'creating' your interpretation of what you think he might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #3: When actually reading Nietzsche (if you really, really must--but you've been forewarned! What you think he said is clearly much more important than what he actually said) never, never, never! imagine he is describing the ways things are or were; always interpret his thoughts as being the way he thinks things should be! (Unless, of course, he's actually describing the way he thinks things could be. However, this is a very difficult area of discernment, sometimes taking even longer than ten minutes to acquire, so that it's best to leave these passages alone and let the 'professional' 'scholars' handle them.)
· Rule #4: Always consider Nietzsche to be vicious and stupid--don't let anecdotal snippets of his life and actions mislead you into the truth!
· Rule #5: In conjunction with Rule #4 above: Never, never read any books about Nietzsche by authors (read: 'scholars') who have not adhered to these rules!!! They will only confuse reality with what you think Nietzsche might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #6: Always remember that what you think Nietzsche said is more important than what he really said. History is on your side! But beware! Although the majority of editions in German are poorly edited; although the majority of (mis)translations into other languages are of the most abominable and atrocious 'scholarship'; although the majority of books written about Nietzsche, or containing chapters devoted to Nietzsche, are mere fabrications adhering to these rules--there are sadly some bad apples of sterling scholarship and meticulous, considered, and understanding translation, exegesis, and thought. These must be avoided at all costs! (Avoid everything with the name Kaufmann attached to it, and if you dare read anything with the name Hollingdale--beware: only tiny fragments will be useful to you in any way! On second thought... skip Hollingdale as well; you'd have to violate the above rules in order to figure out where he was right and wrong.)
· Rule #7: If you must include actual quotations, we recommend the following procedure: Rip all the pages out of his books, keeping every third one and throwing the rest away (unless it's Tuesday and there's a full moon, in which case, by all means, throw out five, keep one!), tape them to a wall, and use a dart to pick an appropriate page. Then flip a coin to determine which side of the page to use for the needed quotation. Also bear in mind it is perfectly permissible within the boundaries of 'good scholarship', if necessary, to leave words, phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs out of the quotation (without, of course, any notation implying the gap--unless it's useful to you) in order to blur the context beyond use and recognition. Do be sure to footnote the reference, however (at least within a page or two--of some edition. Actually, the German editions work best.)
Concluding note: If you use these methods we can guarantee that you'll be in the mainstream of Nietzschean scholarship the world over! Remember: Nietzsche is scum; everybody says so (but, after all, you already knew that!), and the majority of people that read what you've written about him will never actually read Nietzsche--so what's really important is what you say he said, not what he really said. Be creative! Be sloppy! Be mendacious! Be vapid and insipid! Who cares? Who'll know?--not even you!
-----Original Message----- From: sj...@humboldt.edu To: hsuphilclub@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 9:23 PM Subject: [Phil Club] Re: "He who cannot obey himself is commanded."
Yea, I'd like to organize a panel, or an in-depth discussion on this stuff. I think that what we were talking about today would be a really good idea (one or more professors in dialogue, cause I know that Shaeffer also has an interest in Nietzsche, as well as Fletcher). This might also be a really good way to educate the general campus about Nietzsche. We could post flyers around advertising an opportunity for people learn about him - because, like I said, there is a huge misunderstanding that precludes his actual work. My parents still think he's associated with the Nazis, and the only thing others know about him is "God is Dead"... without any sort of proper understanding.
By the way, I know that the master and the slave moralities are not souls... they're more like personality types... but that quote was taken directly from "Beyond Good and Evil" in the chapter entitled "Master Morality, Slave Morality, and Traditional Morality." However, like I said earlier, I've only begun to scratch the surface of this guy... I don't really think I could hold my own in a serious discussion yet, but I do know that he appeals on a whole different level that I never expected was possible in philosophy... I found this about Plato too... but that's a different story.
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
Sorry, sent that in a hurry as I was rushing out - not meant to impy Steve is wrong. Steve and I were discussing Neitzsche, and this humorous list, and he asked that i forward it. Notice how these rules, though a joke, in part, seem to apply in varying degrees to all, myself included, even recognized nietzsche scholars. So have fun with the humor of it, but all readers of nietzsche should ask how much of themselves they see in it. And, why does nietzsche's work make us fall into these traps all too often?
-----Original Message----- From: davehe...@aol.com To: hsuphilclub@googlegroups.com Sent: Fri, 17 Nov 2006 3:21 PM Subject: [Phil Club] Re: "He who cannot obey himself is commanded."
Rules for the (Mis)Interpretation of Nietzsche
Note: these rules may be used by the vacuous and mendacious alike.
· Rule #1: Don't read anything Nietzsche wrote, but feel free to offer an interpretation on what you think he might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #2: If you must read something Nietzsche said, never read it in order, in series, and certainly never, never in context. Your illusion of understanding what he said will only get in the way of 'creating' your interpretation of what you think he might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #3: When actually reading Nietzsche (if you really, really must--but you've been forewarned! What you think he said is clearly much more important than what he actually said) never, never, never! imagine he is describing the ways things are or were; always interpret his thoughts as being the way he thinks things should be! (Unless, of course, he's actually describing the way he thinks things could be. However, this is a very difficult area of discernment, sometimes taking even longer than ten minutes to acquire, so that it's best to leave these passages alone and let the 'professional' 'scholars' handle them.)
· Rule #4: Always consider Nietzsche to be vicious and stupid--don't let anecdotal snippets of his life and actions mislead you into the truth!
· Rule #5: In conjunction with Rule #4 above: Never, never read any books about Nietzsche by authors (read: 'scholars') who have not adhered to these rules!!! They will only confuse reality with what you think Nietzsche might have/should have said in order to support your argument.
· Rule #6: Always remember that what you think Nietzsche said is more important than what he really said. History is on your side! But beware! Although the majority of editions in German are poorly edited; although the majority of (mis)translations into other languages are of the most abominable and atrocious 'scholarship'; although the majority of books written about Nietzsche, or containing chapters devoted to Nietzsche, are mere fabrications adhering to these rules--there are sadly some bad apples of sterling scholarship and meticulous, considered, and understanding translation, exegesis, and thought. These must be avoided at all costs! (Avoid everything with the name Kaufmann attached to it, and if you dare read anything with the name Hollingdale--beware: only tiny fragments will be useful to you in any way! On second thought... skip Hollingdale as well; you'd have to violate the above rules in order to figure out where he was right and wrong.)
· Rule #7: If you must include actual quotations, we recommend the following procedure: Rip all the pages out of his books, keeping every third one and throwing the rest away (unless it's Tuesday and there's a full moon, in which case, by all means, throw out five, keep one!), tape them to a wall, and use a dart to pick an appropriate page. Then flip a coin to determine which side of the page to use for the needed quotation. Also bear in mind it is perfectly permissible within the boundaries of 'good scholarship', if necessary, to leave words, phrases, sentences, and even paragraphs out of the quotation (without, of course, any notation implying the gap--unless it's useful to you) in order to blur the context beyond use and recognition. Do be sure to footnote the reference, however (at least within a page or two--of some edition. Actually, the German editions work best.)
Concluding note: If you use these methods we can guarantee that you'll be in the mainstream of Nietzschean scholarship the world over! Remember: Nietzsche is scum; everybody says so (but, after all, you already knew that!), and the majority of people that read what you've written about him will never actually read Nietzsche--so what's really important is what you say he said, not what he really said. Be creative! Be sloppy! Be mendacious! Be vapid and insipid! Who cares? Who'll know?--not even you!
-----Original Message----- From: sj...@humboldt.edu To: hsuphilclub@googlegroups.com Sent: Thu, 16 Nov 2006 9:23 PM Subject: [Phil Club] Re: "He who cannot obey himself is commanded."
Yea, I'd like to organize a panel, or an in-depth discussion on this stuff. I think that what we were talking about today would be a really good idea (one or more professors in dialogue, cause I know that Shaeffer also has an interest in Nietzsche, as well as Fletcher). This might also be a really good way to educate the general campus about Nietzsche. We could post flyers around advertising an opportunity for people learn about him - because, like I said, there is a huge misunderstanding that precludes his actual work. My parents still think he's associated with the Nazis, and the only thing others know about him is "God is Dead"... without any sort of proper understanding.
By the way, I know that the master and the slave moralities are not souls... they're more like personality types... but that quote was taken directly from "Beyond Good and Evil" in the chapter entitled "Master Morality, Slave Morality, and Traditional Morality." However, like I said earlier, I've only begun to scratch the surface of this guy... I don't really think I could hold my own in a serious discussion yet, but I do know that he appeals on a whole different level that I never expected was possible in philosophy... I found this about Plato too... but that's a different story.
Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
________________________________________________________________________ Check out the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high-quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more.
|
