Hannah Arendt

44 views
Skip to first unread message

LANC...@holonet.net

unread,
Aug 15, 1993, 8:23:02 PM8/15/93
to
Because Hannah Arendt was one of my teachers, and her ideas have lit up my
life, I was quick to select a message containing her name that appeared in
my incoming index with a subject listed as, "Hannah Arendt's Wrinkeled".

Needless to say, the content of this message was disappointing to me, and
my desire to see a significant discussion of Hannah Arendt on the Internet
remains unsatisfied.

The ravings of Mr. Zeleny, of course, require no response, except to say
that it is sad to see such foulness coming from Harvard. One assertion
put forward in passing as a fact deserves to be corrected, however, lest
anyone be misled.

Mr. Zeleny asserts that Hannah Arendt...
z> chose to sit out the hostilities in the cushy haven of the American
z> academe

Readers interested in the facts are advised to read chapters 4 and 5 of
Elizabeth Young-Bruehl's biography of Arendt. In May of 1940, Hannah
Arendt was involuntarily transported from Paris and interned in a
detention camp for "enemy aliens" in the south of France. How she was
able to leave she describes in a 1962 letter which Young-Bruehl quotes:

"A few weeks after our arrival in the camp...France was defeated and all
communications broke down. In the resulting chaos we succeeded in getting
hold of liberation papers with which we were able to leave the camp.
There existed no French underground at the time (the French resistance
movement sprang up much later, namely when the Germans decided to draft
Frenchmen for forced labor in Germany whereupon many young people went
into hiding and then formed the maquis). None of us could "describe" what
lay in store for those who remained behind. All that we could do was to
tell them what we expected would happen--the camp would be handed over to
the victorious Germans. (About 200 women of a total of 7,000 left.) This
happened, indeed, but since the camp lay in what later became
Vichy-France, it happened years later than we expected. The delay did not
help the inmates. After a few days of chaos, everything became very
regular again and escape was almost impossible. We rightly predicted this
return to normalcy. It was a unique chance, but it meant that one had to
leave with nothing but a toothbrush since there existed no means of
transportation."

Through a combination of good luck and sharp wittedness, Arendt and her
husband managed to emigrate from Vichy France in January 1941, and, with
the assistance of HIAS, the Jewish immigration agency, they came to New
York 3 months later. During the war years, Arendt was supported partly
with a stipend from the Zionist Organization of America, at least in the
time immediately after her arrival. In November of 1941 she became a
columnist for Aufbau, a German-language newspaper. In 1942 she received a
part-time teaching position at Brooklyn College. Having been an adjunct
instructor at Brooklyn College at one time myself, I think I can say that
no one with knowledge of that situation would describe it as "the cushy
haven of the American academe."

Mr. Zeleny speaks of Arendt's "relucance to risk her hide..." My guess is
that Arendt would have smiled at this and said, "Of course I was
reluctant! What sane person would not have been? But I didn't have any
choice. I was at risk along with everybody else. That I got out alive is
partly due to the fact that I saw the danger when many others did not, but
mainly it is due to the fact that I was very, very lucky."

To those readers who may be upset by the outragiousness of Mr. Zeleny, let
me say that I think Arendt herself would not have been upset by it. Of
course, she would have found it ugly and sad that a person associated with
one of the bastions of American intellectual aristocracy would choose to
express himself so. But Arendt would have recognized Mr. Zeleny's manner
as the symptom of impotent resentment, to which the appropriate response
is not retribution in kind, but empowerment. If there were some positive
possibility that Mr. Zeleny were engaged in producing, the chances are he
would not waste his time being abusive to others.

Ironically, Arendt was never particularly comfortable as an academic, even
later in her life when she arguably did occupy a "cushy haven in the
American academe." She never forgot, or quite forgave, the general
passivity of German intellectuals (including most German Jewish
intellectuals) in the face of the rise of Hitler, and it may not be too
much to say that she came to see the Western intellectual tradition, qua
tradition, as somehow complicit in this.

Hannah Arendt was a philosopher of action, in my opinion one of the
greatest there has been. She spent her life trying to overcome an
intellectual tradition that held out the contemplative life, the
transcendence of practice and of politics, as the highest expression of
human being. She herself was committed to the possibility of politics,
the possibility of action, the possibility of new beginning, as that in
which the truth of human being can be found. At the end of her last book,
The Life of the Mind (left incomplete at her death), she wrote:

"When we directed our attention to men of action, hoping to find in them a
notion of freedom purged of the perplexities caused for men's minds by the
reflexivity of mental activities--the inevitable recoil on itself of the
willing ego--we hoped for more than we finally achieved. The abyss of
pure spontaneity, which in the foundation legends is bridged by the hiatus
between liberation and the constitution of freedom, was covered up by the
device, typical of the Occidental tradition (the only tradition where
freedom has always been the raison d'etre of all politics) of
understanding the new as an improved re-statement of the old. In its
original integrity, freedom survived in political theory -- i.e., theory
conceived for the purpose of political action -- only in utopian and
unfounded promises of a final "realm of freedom" that, in its Marxian
version at any raste, would indeed spell "the end of all things," a
sempiternal peace in which all specifically human activities would wither
away.

"No doubt to arrive at such a conclusion is frustrating, but I know of
only one tentative alternative to it in our entire history of political
thought. If, as Hegel believed, the philosopher's task is to catch the
most elusive of all manifestations, the spirit of an age, in the net of
reason's concepts, then Augustine, the Christian philosopher of the fifth
century A.D., was the only philosopher the Romans ever had. He was a
Roman by education rather than birth, and it was his learning that sent
him back to the classical texts of Republican Rome of the first century
B.C., which even then were alive only in the form of erudition. In his
great work on the City of god, he mentions, but does not explicate, what
could have become the ontological underpinning for a truly Roman or
Virgilian philosophy of politics. According to him, as we know, God
created man as a temporal creature, homo temporalis; time and man were
created together, and this temporality was affirmed by the fact that each
man owed his life not just to the multiplication of the species, but to
birth, the entry of a novel creature who as something entirely new appears
in the midst of the time continuum of the world. The purpose of the
creation of man was to make possible a beginning: "That there be a
beginning man was created, before whom nobody was." [City of God, book 12,
ch 20] The very capacity for beginning is rooted in natality, and by no
means in creativity, not in a gift but in the fact that human beings, new
men, again and again appear in the world by virtue of their birth."

Therefore, I think Hannah Arendt would say to us, let us not waste time
execrating Mr. Zeleny. We can best show respect for ourselves, and even
to the fundamental humanity of Mr. Zeleny, by using his expression as an
occasion to ask ourselves, What are we beginning? What is the future that
we are engaged in creating? To what are we giving birth?

Lance Fletcher


---
* Freddie 1.2.5 * The Free Lance Academy--201-626-5775

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 16, 1993, 1:18:29 PM8/16/93
to

>Because Hannah Arendt was one of my teachers, and her ideas have lit up my

^^^^^^^^^


>life, I was quick to select a message containing her name that appeared in

^^^^


>my incoming index with a subject listed as, "Hannah Arendt's Wrinkeled".

How touching. Are you sure you aren't thinking of Debbie Boone?

>Needless to say, the content of this message was disappointing to me, and
>my desire to see a significant discussion of Hannah Arendt on the Internet
>remains unsatisfied.

What can be more significant than pointing out that a philosopher
gives lie to her teachings by the conduct of her life?

My mother, a contemporary of your esteemed instructress, spent the war
years in the trenches. So did millions of her compatriots, none of
whom, coincidentally, ever managed to muster the gall to decry "the
banality of evil", or the complicity of the bystanders.

>Mr. Zeleny speaks of Arendt's "relucance to risk her hide..." My guess is
>that Arendt would have smiled at this and said, "Of course I was
>reluctant! What sane person would not have been? But I didn't have any
>choice. I was at risk along with everybody else. That I got out alive is
>partly due to the fact that I saw the danger when many others did not, but
>mainly it is due to the fact that I was very, very lucky."

I beg to differ. Arendt's survival was due entirely to her choice to
scurry away from the hostilities. This, in itself, is not morally
objectionable, -- unless, like Max Weber, you believe that in failing
to resist evil with force, one shares the responsibility for its
ascendancy. But to shirk away from confronting the Nazis, and then to
excoriate the cowardice of the European bourgeois in doing just the
same, and thereby failing to protect their Jewish neighbors, strikes
me as the height of hypocrisy.

>To those readers who may be upset by the outragiousness of Mr. Zeleny, let
>me say that I think Arendt herself would not have been upset by it. Of
>course, she would have found it ugly and sad that a person associated with
>one of the bastions of American intellectual aristocracy would choose to
>express himself so. But Arendt would have recognized Mr. Zeleny's manner
>as the symptom of impotent resentment, to which the appropriate response
>is not retribution in kind, but empowerment. If there were some positive
>possibility that Mr. Zeleny were engaged in producing, the chances are he
>would not waste his time being abusive to others.

I produce just fine, thank you. Moreover, I assure you that my
resentment is fully backed up with 100% pure black bile, available on
request to all recipients thereof.

>Ironically, Arendt was never particularly comfortable as an academic, even
>later in her life when she arguably did occupy a "cushy haven in the
>American academe." She never forgot, or quite forgave, the general
>passivity of German intellectuals (including most German Jewish
>intellectuals) in the face of the rise of Hitler, and it may not be too
>much to say that she came to see the Western intellectual tradition, qua
>tradition, as somehow complicit in this.

...with an unintentionally ironic exception of her passive self.

That's easy: you are beginning nothing, -- committed to experience,
but never to influence the future, you give birth to nothing but
empty, impotent, hypocritical verbiage. Just like your teacher.

>Lance Fletcher
>
>
>---
> * Freddie 1.2.5 * The Free Lance Academy--201-626-5775

cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."

Oded Maler

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 4:14:34 AM8/17/93
to
Once more I need a translation of M.Z.'s thesis into simple
English comprehensible by third-worlders.

You seem not to be fond of H. Arendt? Is it because some
or more of the following reasons:

1) She managed to escape from most of the Holocaust?
2) She was an academic bullshitter (what's the big deal,
there are millions of them, and it doesn't justify such
a heat).
3) You don't like her "theories", "explanation", "moral
judgement" or whatever concerning responsibilities for
evils, cooperation, passive cooperation, etc.?

--
==============================================================
Oded Maler, VERIMAG, Miniparc ZIRST, 38330 Montbonnot, France
Phone: 76909635 Fax: 76413620 e-mail: Oded....@imag.fr
===============================================================

Ozan S. Yigit

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 10:29:19 AM8/17/93
to
Oded Maler writes:

Once more I need a translation of M.Z.'s thesis into simple
English comprehensible by third-worlders.

you sure it is worth the effort?

oz
---
life is too short. read something else. | electric: o...@sis.yorku.ca
- Jeff Dalton. | ph:[416] 736 2100 x 33976

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 11:14:48 AM8/17/93
to
In article <CBw9K...@imag.fr>
ma...@imag.fr (Oded Maler) writes:

>Once more I need a translation of M.Z.'s thesis into simple
>English comprehensible by third-worlders.
>
>You seem not to be fond of H. Arendt? Is it because some
>or more of the following reasons:
>
>1) She managed to escape from most of the Holocaust?
>2) She was an academic bullshitter (what's the big deal,
>there are millions of them, and it doesn't justify such
>a heat).
>3) You don't like her "theories", "explanation", "moral
>judgement" or whatever concerning responsibilities for
>evils, cooperation, passive cooperation, etc.?

4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
it anyway.

cordially,
mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
"Nous donnons la mort, nous saurons la subir."

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 1:50:24 PM8/17/93
to
In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>it anyway.

*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
of the Nazis. The sewage you are spewing on this issue is truly
nauseating. I suggest you shut your filthy mouth.

--
Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 3:00:46 PM8/17/93
to
In article <1993Aug17.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>
gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
>>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>>it anyway.

>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>of the Nazis.

On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
scathing universal ridicule.

> The sewage you are spewing on this issue is truly
>nauseating. I suggest you shut your filthy mouth.

I also find it touching that you should be so preoccupied with my
output. If you ask me nicely, I shall be happy to forward you a
generous sample of my personal waste matters for your consumption.
Naturally, you will have to pay for the postage.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,

Robert Vienneau

unread,
Aug 17, 1993, 6:07:32 PM8/17/93
to
Mikhail,

I'm curious if I can add to the list Mike Morris is keeping. Do you have
an opinion about Rosa Luxemburg?

Robert Vienneau
--
The opinions expressed are not necessarily those of the University of
North Carolina at Chapel Hill, the Campus Office for Information
Technology, or the Experimental Bulletin Board Service.
internet: laUNChpad.unc.edu or 152.2.22.80

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 18, 1993, 6:56:53 AM8/18/93
to
In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>>of the Nazis.

>On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
>misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
>scathing universal ridicule.

How you regard me is irrelevant. In any case, my will has nothing to
do with the matter, and that you think otherwise merely shows you are
a fool as well as a bigot.

I was talking about the grossly immoral way you in which chose to
spread hate. People like you helped your relatives get killed in the
Holocaust, right next to the "weak-willed" people you despise. They
did this not by stuffing people into the ovens, but just by hating and
deliberately spreading their hate.

Your moral position is utterly contemptible, and you are in no
position to judge the behavior of someone who managed to survive just
the sort of hate you like to magnify.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 18, 1993, 11:13:22 AM8/18/93
to
In article <1993Aug18.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>>*You* of all people have no right to judge her. When moral issues
>>>like those of the Nazi era are discussed, you are always on the side
>>>of the Nazis.

>>On the contrary, my sterile pigeon: I regard you as a weak-willed,
>>misguided, pathetic soul, deserving of no punishment greater than
>>scathing universal ridicule.

>How you regard me is irrelevant. In any case, my will has nothing to
>do with the matter, and that you think otherwise merely shows you are
>a fool as well as a bigot.

You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
predicament.

>I was talking about the grossly immoral way you in which chose to
>spread hate. People like you helped your relatives get killed in the
>Holocaust, right next to the "weak-willed" people you despise. They
>did this not by stuffing people into the ovens, but just by hating and
>deliberately spreading their hate.
>
>Your moral position is utterly contemptible, and you are in no
>position to judge the behavior of someone who managed to survive just
>the sort of hate you like to magnify.

It is altogether exemplary of your supercilious paranoia that you
would confuse hatred and contempt.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,

J Henderson

unread,
Aug 19, 1993, 5:11:09 AM8/19/93
to
Mikhail Zeleny (zel...@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:

[...]

Well, who cares what he wrote. Let us give thanks, however, that the Great
Minds of Wesleyan have not succeeded in restricting his ability to post
what he writes.

--
jeremy henderson jer...@castle.edinburgh.ac.uk
edinburgh university tel +44 (0)31 650 5886 (office)
department of geology and geophysics +44 (0)31 228 1536 (home)
edinburgh eh9 3jw uk fax +44 (0)31 668 3184

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 19, 1993, 10:41:12 AM8/19/93
to
In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
>succeeded in showing it.

I don't have to "show" it, Butthole Face. *You* show it all the time,
you attacked Gayla just a while back right out of the blue.

>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.

If your weren't a pseduointellectual poseur, you *might* have been
able to figure out that Nietzsche's analysis has nothing to do with
it. Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.

KRESSJA

unread,
Aug 18, 1993, 11:26:00 PM8/18/93
to
In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>, zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes...

>succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
>_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
>predicament.

Nietzsche says: "...the essence of _ressentiment_: in order to exist, slave
morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs psychologically
speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all..."

I suggest that you reflect upon this in light of your unprovoked and abrupt]
fulmination against Arendt, especially in light of the fact that it was
YOU who first brought her up.

-JK

____________________________________________________________________________
| | |
| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
|________________|___________________________________________________________|

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 19, 1993, 1:15:47 PM8/19/93
to
In article <1993Aug19....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
>>succeeded in showing it.

>I don't have to "show" it, Butthole Face. *You* show it all the time,
>you attacked Gayla just a while back right out of the blue.

I recall no such attack.

>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.

>If your weren't a pseduointellectual poseur, you *might* have been
>able to figure out that Nietzsche's analysis has nothing to do with
>it. Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
>you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
>itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
>moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
>it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.

Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is
that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice. As
for your threats, they impress me not at all. And you are simply
mistaken in assuming that the content of my writing significantly
differs from the content of my speech.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 19, 1993, 3:07:27 PM8/19/93
to
In article <18AUG199...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu>
kre...@ctrvx1.vanderbilt.edu (KRESSJA) writes:

>In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>> [...] I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of


>>_ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
>>predicament.

>Nietzsche says: "...the essence of _ressentiment_: in order to exist,
>slave morality always first needs a hostile external world; it needs
>psychologically speaking, external stimuli in order to act at all..."

How fitting to our previous topic: Nietzsche's account of how
_ressentiment_ engenders the categories of slave morality, fits
perfectly Arendt's self-exempting judgment of the perpetrators,
victims, and bystanders.

>I suggest that you reflect upon this in light of your unprovoked and
>abrupt fulmination against Arendt, especially in light of the fact
>that it was YOU who first brought her up.

This tack will get us nowhere, fast. But if you insist, I brought up
Arendt only as a journalistic source; it was your attribution of irony
to her that precipitated my "unprovoked and abrupt fulmination".

Consider that the ironic choice is to stay and face punishment, rather
than to flee and condemn it from afar:

In the age of Socrates, among men of fatigued instincts, among
the conservatives of ancient Athens who let themselves go ---
``toward happiness,'' as they said; toward pleasure, as they
acted --- and who all the while still mouthed the ancient
pompous words to which their lives no longer gave them any
right, {\it irony} may have been required for greatness of
soul, that Socratic sarcastic assurance of the old physician
and plebeian, who cut ruthlessly into his own flesh, as he did
into the flesh and heart of the ``noble,'' with a look that
said clearly enough: ``Don't dissemble in front of me! Here
--- we are equal.''

Today, conversely, when only the herd animal receives and
dispenses honors in Europe, when ``equality of rights'' could
all too easily be changed into equality in violating rights
--- I mean, into a common war on all that is rare, strange,
privileged, the higher man, the higher soul, the higher duty,
the higher responsibility, and the abundance of creative power
and masterfulness --- today the concept of greatness entails
being noble, wanting to be by oneself, being able to be
different, standing alone and having to live independently.
And the philosopher will betray something of his own ideal
when he posits: ``He shall be greatest who can be loneliest,
the most concealed, the most deviant, the human being beyond
good and evil, the master of his virtues, he that is overrich
in will. Precisely this shall be called {\it greatness:}
being capable of being as manifold as whole, as ample as
full.'' And to ask it once more: today --- is greatness {\it
possible?}''

But of course that was true at the _fin_ of a different _si`ecle_. So
I gladly leave you to the ancient and pompous words you seem to mouth
so well.

>-JK
>
> ____________________________________________________________________________
>| | |
>| John Kress | "Who of us is Oedipus here? Who the Sphinx? It is a |
>| | rendezvous, it seems, of questions and question marks." |
>| | -Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil |
>|________________|___________________________________________________________|

cordially,

KRESSJA

unread,
Aug 19, 1993, 5:23:00 PM8/19/93
to
In article <1993Aug19.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>, zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes...


>This tack will get us nowhere, fast. But if you insist, I brought up

How very true.

>I gladly leave you to the ancient and pompous words you seem to mouth
>so well.

I might remind you (if I thought you had the slightest understanding of
Nietzsche) that "Thoughts that come on doves feet guide the world."

The great ammount of noise that you make is of no consequence Mr. Zeleny.

Frank Casper

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 8:32:21 AM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug18.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>, zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
|> In article <1993Aug18.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

|>
|> You have repeated this accusation _ad nauseam_, but you have never
|> succeeded in showing it. I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of
|> _ressentiment_ for a comprehensive explanation of your psychological
|> predicament.
|>
|> mikhail zel...@husc.harvard.edu
|> "Le cul des femmes est monotone comme l'esprit des hommes."
|>

The proverbial pot calling the kettle black...

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 8:11:13 AM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug19.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>I recall no such attack.

I can't help it if you are a moron.

>>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.

>Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is


>that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
>as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice.

It's not my fault that you are a moron.

>As for your threats, they impress me not at all.

If you weren't so totally stupid, you would realize it wasn't a threat.

I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
popular.

You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
of understanding the situation.

srfd...@uctvax.uct.ac.za

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 4:30:03 AM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug19....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>, gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
Insult people for their minority group status to their face like
> you do on the net and you might find their _ressentiment_ translates
> itself into a knee to your balls. You might find out things about
> moral philosophy in this way which you have never imagined; I am sure
> it would improve your understanding of Nietzsche.
>
> --
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Odds now 50-1 in Hero Zeleny's Favour.
What takers?

Sara Larson

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 10:35:55 AM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug17.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
>
>4) By choosing to flee, rather than fight, she forfeited
>her right to complain about the cowardly bourgeois who
>chose to look the other way. Twenty years later, she did
>it anyway.


The right to complain is a basic human right (if you
believe in such things as basic human rights). As such,
it can never be forfeited by one's actions.

Just look at the Net.

-Sara

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 11:43:49 AM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug20.1...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug19.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>I recall no such attack.

>I can't help it if you are a moron.

Yes you can, -- just continue your incontinent and inarticulate
blithering in public, until I get to look good in comparison.

>>>>I refer you to Nietzsche's concept of _ressentiment_ for a
>>>>comprehensive explanation of your psychological predicament.

>>Ah, an *insult* is a different matter. Part of your confusion is
>>that you mistake the moral nature of your predicament, regarding it
>>as a "minority group status", rather than a deliberate choice.

>It's not my fault that you are a moron.

Oh yes, it is, -- you can be faulted by setting such impossibly high
standards in your own person, that anyone else is _ipso facto_ doomed
to look like a moron compared to your shining inner self. Luckily for
the undeserving mankind, the radiant, true Gene Ward Smith is destined
to remain forever buried deep inside of a small-minded, vindictive,
shallow little poofter.

>>As for your threats, they impress me not at all.

>If you weren't so totally stupid, you would realize it wasn't a threat.
>
>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>popular.

Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior. The
most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is your
unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.

>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>of understanding the situation.

Funny how all slaves say the same thing!

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 11:30:58 AM8/20/93
to

>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>popular.
>
>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>of understanding the situation.

My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
version of "Rising Sun"?

--
Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 2:06:13 PM8/20/93
to
In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
>undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior.

You moronic, pinworm-eaten piece of shit. I never asked for your
compassion, and I doubt if you have any. As for my behavior, if you
weren't a drooling imbecile you would realize you don't know what my
sexual behavior is, and hence cannot comment on it.

>The most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is
>your unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
>benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
>inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
>relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.

Fuck your ass with broken glass, you poisonous, pus-filled little
cretin. If you are going to babble, at least you could try to use
facts. You sound like Pat Robertson.

>Funny how all slaves say the same thing!

Funny how all the Nazis say the same thing. One minute you are acting
innocent, and the next minute you sound like Goebbels.

Eat shit and die.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 2:21:49 PM8/20/93
to
In article <70...@mimsy.umd.edu>
lar...@cfar.umd.edu (Sara Larson) writes:

I stand corrected: all she lost, was her putative right to
take the high moral ground in complaining about the cowardly
bourgeois. It is no small thing for a moral philosopher to
be found guilty of hypocrisy.

>Just look at the Net.

Quite so, -- Hannah Arendt and Serdar Argic make a lovely couple.

>-Sara

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 2:29:32 PM8/20/93
to
In article <CC2Dr...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

>>I suggest you drive into a black neighborhood of Boston, and lecture
>>people on Nietzsche. Work in a lot of stuff about the slave
>>mentality, and _ressentiment_, and the Superman. Use yourself as an
>>example of the latter, and your audience as an example of the former.
>>Be sure to use lots of explicitly and insultingly racist language, and
>>be sure to give Nietzsche that special Nazi twist which once was so
>>popular.
>>
>>You may then come to understand why Nietzsche's analysis of
>>_ressentiment_ and the slave mentality wasn't really a very good way
>>of understanding the situation.

>My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
>version of "Rising Sun"?

Sounds more like "Fritz the Cat" to this antiquated movigoer.

>--
>Michael Feld | E-mail: <fe...@cc.umanitoba.ca>
>Dept. of Philosophy | FAX: (204) 261-0021
>University of Manitoba | Voice: (204) 474-9136
>Winnipeg, MB, R3T 2M8, Canada

cordially,

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 4:42:09 PM8/20/93
to

>In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>Once again you harp on a patently false analogy, designed to elicit
>>undeserved compassion for your utterly contemptible behavior.

>You moronic, pinworm-eaten piece of shit. I never asked for your
>compassion, and I doubt if you have any. As for my behavior, if you
>weren't a drooling imbecile you would realize you don't know what my
>sexual behavior is, and hence cannot comment on it.

Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
toolkit far longer than I care to remember. In the meantime, you have
made enough revealing comments about your sexual behavior to warrant
my conclusions about its nature, and hence, my comments.

>>The most you can justly compare to an innate quality like race, is
>>your unfortunate inclination to play hide-the-salami with similarly
>>benighted individuals; on the other hand, your acting upon the said
>>inclination is entirely a matter of your personal choice. The moral
>>relevance of this distinction is left as an exercise for the readers.

>Fuck your ass with broken glass, you poisonous, pus-filled little
>cretin. If you are going to babble, at least you could try to use
>facts. You sound like Pat Robertson.

Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I
need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a
brilliant scholar like yourself ought to realize that your impotent
exhortations unambiguously attest to your abject moral failure in this
case. Better luck next time.

>>Funny how all slaves say the same thing!

>Funny how all the Nazis say the same thing. One minute you are acting
>innocent, and the next minute you sound like Goebbels.
>
>Eat shit and die.

Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially,

Allen Ethridge

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 6:54:21 PM8/20/93
to
Mikhail Zeleny (zel...@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:

: [deletions]

: Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too


: numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
: preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
: toolkit far longer than I care to remember. In the meantime, you have

So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
civil rights and persecution?

: [deletions]

: Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I


: need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a

"moral fact"? Isn't that an oxymoron? And what is this "freedom of
will"? And does it relate to neurology or biochemistry?

: [deletions]


--
al...@well.sf.ca.us Words got me the wound
ethr...@bnr.ca and will get me well,
my opinions are my own if you believe it.
-- Jim Morrison

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 20, 1993, 10:03:41 PM8/20/93
to
In article <253kmt$3...@crchh327.bnr.ca>
ethr...@bnr.ca (Allen Ethridge) writes:

>Mikhail Zeleny (zel...@husc8.harvard.edu) wrote:

>>[deletions]

>>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>>numerous to mention. The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual
>>preference to race, has been part and parcel of your public sufferer's
>>toolkit far longer than I care to remember.

>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>civil rights and persecution?

My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
chosen) trait.

>>[deletions]

>>Freedom of will is a moral fact, Mr Smith; it is also the only fact I
>>need to invoke in order to make the above distinction. And surely a

>"moral fact"? Isn't that an oxymoron? And what is this "freedom of
>will"? And does it relate to neurology or biochemistry?

What exactly is your problem with the phrase "moral fact"? As for the
rest of your questions, you can find adequate accounts of the subject
in any philosophy reference book.

>>[deletions]

>--
>al...@well.sf.ca.us Words got me the wound
>ethr...@bnr.ca and will get me well,
>my opinions are my own if you believe it.
> -- Jim Morrison

cordially,

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 9:29:59 AM8/22/93
to
In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>numerous to mention.

Cite one such occasion.

>The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual preference to race, has
>been part and parcel of your public sufferer's toolkit far longer than
>I care to remember.

Explain the fallacy. You might also care to explain why being a
"public sufferer", whatever that may be, is worse than being the sort
of spiteful person who hopes to make others suffer.

>In the meantime, you have made enough revealing comments about your
>sexual behavior to warrant my conclusions about its nature, and hence,
>my comments.

When and what did I say, and in what way does it "warrant" any
comments by you? Please be specific.

>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.

He's dead.

By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche? Just
about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche. The schoolyard bully
who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack. Your attempt to
ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
psychological problem.

It would be interesting to see if you have a human face under the mask
of the bully. Is there something real in you? Maybe if you showed on
occasion that there was something worth respecting in you, you could
get some of the respect which you feel you is lacking.

Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove
you are strong by showing someone else is weak. You will not be able
to prove that you are worthy by showing you are strong, nor by showing
that someone else is less worthy. It can't work in reality, and it
doesn't even fool everyone whom you hope to fool by it--least of
all yourself.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 9:37:53 AM8/22/93
to
In article <1993Aug20.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>>civil rights and persecution?

>My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
>practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
>chosen) trait.

Since homosexuality is an innate trait, by your own "understanding" it
should not form the basis of discrimination. You are not living by
your own professed moral standards. I would worry about that before
wondering if escaping the Nazis like Hanna Arendt, or simply being a
homosexual, is supposedly immoral.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 10:17:50 AM8/22/93
to
In article <CC2Dr...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Michael Feld) writes:

>My, this sounds racist; did you get your inspiration from the film
>version of "Rising Sun"?

Why is it racist to think that Nietzsche's analysis of "slave mentality"
does not apply very well to the resentment felt by inner-city black
people.

Please be specific.

hami...@matai.vuw.ac.nz

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 7:26:43 PM8/22/93
to


>G. Smith
>Eat shit and die.

>M Zeleny


>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.

>G. Smith
>He's dead.


Ah Mr Smith you missed the joke:

Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucalt: All sorts of yukky stuff
about warm shit implied.

when you see him: And die... probably to meet in hell.

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 8:09:18 PM8/22/93
to


"Are you absolutely sure you want to do this?"

Here is what you have just said: that Americans of African extraction
are savages so incapable of rational discussion, that were Zeleny to
enter one of their slums and set about to explain Nietzsche, why,
they'd slice him up with their cutlasses. For the video version of
your scree, just wait until "Rising Sun" makes it to Heidelberg.

Here is what Zeleny is saying: no one choses a racial extraction; one
does or does not chose to indulge one's sexual inclinations; it is
morally worse to harm someone for a non-chosen trait than for a freely
chosen sexual act. So far, he's got it right; what you really want to
say to him, get him to acknowledge, or at least to claim to him and to
your allies, is that Zeleny is wrong in the way he morally categorizes
the sexual behaviour he deprecates. (Hint: would it have been ok for
the Nazis to kill all but only those Jews who freely chose to practice
Judaism?) And you want to proceed in a way that doesn't draw you into a moral
slough.

And yes, of course, Mr. Zeleny knows that Foucault
is dead -- he thinks that Foucault, that noted homosexual, must be in
Hell, and invites you to join Foucault there. He's just being giddy.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 22, 1993, 11:36:03 PM8/22/93
to
In article <1993Aug23...@matai.vuw.ac.nz>
hami...@matai.vuw.ac.nz writes:

As they say, heaven is to be preferred for climate, hell for company.
Would you rather spend eternity with the noted holy man Pat Robertson,
or with the infamous homosexual Michel Foucault? From where I sit,
the answer depends on the setting: symposium or sauna?

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 5:37:09 AM8/23/93
to
In article <CC6r3...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Michael Feld) writes:

>Here is what you have just said: that Americans of African extraction
>are savages so incapable of rational discussion, that were Zeleny to
>enter one of their slums and set about to explain Nietzsche, why,
>they'd slice him up with their cutlasses. For the video version of
>your scree, just wait until "Rising Sun" makes it to Heidelberg.

Don't lecture me about this. If you are so convinced that I am wrong,
I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
Then report back.

Incidentally, I didn't say anyone would get sliced up with cutlasses.
It is interesting to see you reading this into what I said, and pretty
much shows that there is something a little disingenuous about what
you have been saying.

>Here is what Zeleny is saying: no one choses a racial extraction; one
>does or does not chose to indulge one's sexual inclinations; it is
>morally worse to harm someone for a non-chosen trait than for a freely
>chosen sexual act.

It isn't what he is saying. He is morally blaming me for what I am,
not for any act of mine. Please explain why that is morally
acceptable, or distinguishable in any way from racism

>So far, he's got it right; what you really want to say to him, get him
>to acknowledge, or at least to claim to him and to your allies, is
>that Zeleny is wrong in the way he morally categorizes the sexual
>behaviour he deprecates.

I might want that eventually. I would like to start with the question
of why he thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because* they
are homosexual.

>(Hint: would it have been ok for the Nazis to kill all but only those
>Jews who freely chose to practice Judaism?) And you want to proceed in
>a way that doesn't draw you into a moral slough.

The Nazis were convinced the Jews were a race, so they did not think
in these terms. Zeleny is proceeding in the same way, and it doesn't
work according to his own professed ethical theory, let alone mine or
anyone else's.

>And yes, of course, Mr. Zeleny knows that Foucault
>is dead -- he thinks that Foucault, that noted homosexual, must be in
>Hell, and invites you to join Foucault there. He's just being giddy.

I'm not completely stupid, though you seem to be convinced of this.

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 7:06:08 AM8/23/93
to
In article <1993Aug22....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>

gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug20.1...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>Mr Smith, you have whined for special protection on occasions too
>>numerous to mention.

>Cite one such occasion.

Lacking access to comprehensive archives, I can only cite with
certainty several occasions of your numerous exchanges with Mike
Morris on the above subject. In particular, you may recall the
one that took place in March of 1992, just before you branded me
"an intelligent homophobe". The topic had to do with the
putative causes of the higher rates in teenager suicide among
homosexuals.

>>The tired and fallacious comparison of sexual preference to race, has
>>been part and parcel of your public sufferer's toolkit far longer than
>>I care to remember.

>Explain the fallacy. You might also care to explain why being a
>"public sufferer", whatever that may be, is worse than being the sort
>of spiteful person who hopes to make others suffer.

Even assuming that the inclination to a particular kind of sexual
behavior may very well be innate, and supposing further that we
are endowed with the capacity to freely choose whether or not to
act on that (or any other) inclination, it follows that any
actual sexual preference, regarded as a manifest inclination, is
entirely determined by the agent, be it in harmonious accord
with, or in direct contravention of, his innate inclination to
prefer a certain form of erotic gratification. (You may recall
that we have been over this ground on an earlier occasion.) On
the subject of public suffering, see below.

>>In the meantime, you have made enough revealing comments about your
>>sexual behavior to warrant my conclusions about its nature, and hence,
>>my comments.

>When and what did I say, and in what way does it "warrant" any
>comments by you? Please be specific.

As I recall, we have covered this ground back in April of 1992.
You mentioned, while responding to my assertion that homosexual
behavior was freely chosen, that you have tried changing your
sexual preference, without any success. Similarly, I can derive
the same conclusions from your oft-repeated, yet utterly mistaken,
assertion that I am morally blaming you for what you are. In any
event, I grant you that it is entirely possible that I was mistaken
in my conclusions. As before, I am willing to stand corrected, or
to exclude personal considerations from this discussion, provided
that you abstain from introducing them yourself.

>>Give my warmest regards to Michel Foucault when you see him.

>He's dead.

Not in ways that would matter to my point. Recall your erstwhile
assertion that "Homosexual behavior is *prima faciae* good for
homosexual people." Michel Foucault, with his quest for "limit
experiences", would appear to constitute a counterexample to your
claim.

>By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,
>such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche? Just
>about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
>conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche. The schoolyard bully
>who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
>but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack. Your attempt to
>ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
>the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
>psychological problem.

How lucky for both of us then, that we are sufficiently endowed
with intelligence and critical faculties, so as not to be taken
by the superficial attractions of armchair psychoanalysis. Were
we any less fortunate, we might have derived an uncharitable and
fallacious impression of your own character, from the evidence
afforded by your unprovoked aggression against Mike Morris and
myself in the past two weeks.

As regards Nietzsche's position, I see it as a laudable attempt
to reverse the execrable tendency of Western moral and political
philosophy to derive its sense of legitimacy from a claim of
unfair victimization. Hence his professed admiration for the
condottieri. In any event, you would do well to remember that
his final collapse was precipitated by an attempt to save a
dray-horse from a beating by its master.

>It would be interesting to see if you have a human face under the mask
>of the bully. Is there something real in you? Maybe if you showed on
>occasion that there was something worth respecting in you, you could
>get some of the respect which you feel you is lacking.

My position is not designed to elicit respect. I feel that it is
my human right and moral responsibility to speak up in defense of
my views. Moreover, I feel obligated to contradict claims that I
find fallacious and offensive to reason. Although I see no need
to shirk from returning an insult or contradicting an absurdity,
I make no pretension to absolute truth, and would readily retract
any statement, should it ever be refuted by an opponent. I do
not particularly enjoy inflicting suffering; however I consider
it necessary to do so as a homoeopathic measure aimed against the
prevalent trend to base otherwise groundless claims of moral and
political entitlement on the degree of suffering experienced by
the claimant.

Does this make me a bully? Well, being painfully self-employed,
I do not qualify as a hired ruffian; on the other hand, I must
plead guilty to being a blustering browbeating fellow; my sole
excuse for being habitually cruel to others weaker than myself,
is that I fancy that such treatment would have the effect of
making them stronger. As for being a pimp, or a protector of a
prostitute, -- why not? If it was good enough for Socrates, it
certainly is good enough for me.

>Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove
>you are strong by showing someone else is weak. You will not be able
>to prove that you are worthy by showing you are strong, nor by showing
>that someone else is less worthy. It can't work in reality, and it
>doesn't even fool everyone whom you hope to fool by it--least of
>all yourself.

See above.

In article <1993Aug22....@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de>


gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:

>In article <1993Aug20.2...@husc14.harvard.edu>
>zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

>>>So, like, what's so fallacious about it, at least in the context of
>>>civil rights and persecution?

>>My understanding is that certain forms of discrimination cannot be
>>practiced on the basis of an innate (as opposed to acquired or freely
>>chosen) trait.

>Since homosexuality is an innate trait, by your own "understanding" it
>should not form the basis of discrimination. You are not living by
>your own professed moral standards. I would worry about that before
>wondering if escaping the Nazis like Hanna Arendt, or simply being a
>homosexual, is supposedly immoral.

If homosexuality is an innate trait, it may not be taken as the
basis of certain forms of discrimination. But this says nothing
whatsoever about homosexual behavior, which nevertheless should
be protected in most instances on the basis of a different
principle -- the right to privacy.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent
mikhail | in philosophy or politics or poetry or art
zel...@husc.harvard.edu | are clearly of an atrabilious temperament?

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 12:45:43 PM8/23/93
to

In article <1993Aug23.0...@sun0.urz.uni-heidelberg.de> gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de (Gene W. Smith) writes:
[juggled passages]

>I'm not completely stupid, though you seem to be convinced of this.

>Don't lecture me about this.

Fair enough; it bothered me that Mr. Zeleny was scoring such easy
points against you, so I fell into the trap of "let me show you how
that part works"; but, as you say, you're a big boy now, and I'll
leave you free to fight with the other lads on their own terms.

>If you are so convinced that I am wrong,
>I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
>people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
>people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
>that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
>Then report back.
>

See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners and
denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
stronger than that?

> [Lots omitted]

>I would like to start with the question

>of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because* they
>are homosexual.

Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.) Make Mr.
Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him so
easy a ride.

Best,
Michael

adolphson

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 3:14:17 PM8/23/93
to
In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
> stronger than that?

Are you really this dense? Zeleny stands on his soapbox
and, with his curious understanding of Kant, Nietzsche,
psychology, and human biology, denounces homosexuals for
being homosexual. After all, a homosexual orientation --
just the orientation, not the sexual activity -- is
*entirely* a matter of choice, as Zeleny wrote again
earlier today. Right? (Note to Zeleny: can you let us
know when it was that you chose to be heterosexual? Just
the date is fine; you don't have to give me the time, too.)

Gene Ward Smith:


> >I would like to start with the question
> >of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because*
> >they are homosexual.

> Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
> don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
> and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.)

Do you even know what the word 'denigrate' means?

> Make Mr.
> Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him
> so easy a ride.

Oh, now I see what your problem is. You're new around here.

--
Arne Adolphson "I've cast my pearls before swine, you know,
adol...@mizar.usc.edu but not _all_ of them."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Libby Holman

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 4:09:21 PM8/23/93
to
In article <25b4u9$2...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>
>> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>> stronger than that?
>
>Are you really this dense? Zeleny ...[lots omitted]

No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the
Zelenys; my purpose is pedagogic, not substantive; I'm a fucking old
bore of a prof, with no special interest in defending Mr. Zeleny
(lord, the mere notion!) or his sexual views, but with a great desire
to see such issues taken out of the rhetorical flames and placed into the frying
pan of logic.

So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
with "jew him down", eh?

As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
them?

Philip Nikolayev

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 12:36:42 PM8/23/93
to
In article <1993Aug23.0...@husc14.harvard.edu>,
zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:

> Even assuming that the inclination to a particular kind of sexual
> behavior may very well be innate, and supposing further that we are
> endowed with the capacity to freely choose whether or not to act on
> that (or any other) inclination, it follows that any actual sexual
> preference, regarded as a manifest inclination, is entirely
> determined by the agent, be it in harmonious accord with, or in
> direct contravention of, his innate inclination to prefer a certain
> form of erotic gratification.

This is true, of course, as it stands; but it only ties in well with
your condemnation of homosexual behaviour if that behaviour can be
proven wrong on an independent ground. As far as I know, your
objection to homosexual behaviour is of a teleological nature. Thou
shalt not abuse thy genetic setup, reproduction being a moral need.

This, too, may be fair enough, but, I think, only to the extent that
homo- or heterosexual attractions also are precisely a matter of
choice. (I do, indeed, believe them to be a matter of choice in some
possibly very large measure, although it seems to me that it's the
kind of choice that most people don't consciously make.) However, *if*
a man's homosexual preference is genetically programmed (or,
hypothetically, *if* it is programmed to the complete exclusion of a
homosexual man's ability to function successfully in any heterosexual
act unless he resorts to homosexual fantasies, for example), it is not
at all clear to me that his homosexual behaviour constitutes some sort
of 'abuse' of his genetic makeup. Is it clear to you, Mikhail?

Besides, is reproduction really an *absolute* moral need? Artificial
insemination aside, isn't everyone's ability to reproduce limited
among other things by the number of willing partners of the opposite
sex?

Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
exactly not?

Philip Nikolayev
nik...@husc.harvard.edu

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 5:44:10 PM8/23/93
to
In article <25b4u9$2...@mizar.usc.edu>
adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

>>See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>>challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>>and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>>slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>>stronger than that?

>Are you really this dense? Zeleny stands on his soapbox
>and, with his curious understanding of Kant, Nietzsche,
>psychology, and human biology, denounces homosexuals for
>being homosexual. After all, a homosexual orientation --
>just the orientation, not the sexual activity -- is
>*entirely* a matter of choice, as Zeleny wrote again
>earlier today.

I wrote no such thing.

> Right? (Note to Zeleny: can you let us
>know when it was that you chose to be heterosexual? Just
>the date is fine; you don't have to give me the time, too.)

Shortly before puberty, but it is an ongoing process.

>Gene Ward Smith:

>>>I would like to start with the question
>>>of why he [Zeleny] thinks it is acceptable to denigrate people *because*
>>>they are homosexual.

>>Now we're cooking, campers! (Mind, I'd lose that "denigrate", if you
>>don't mind -- unless YOU'd feel comfortable going into an inner city
>>and explaining why you use "blacken" as a pejorative.)

>Do you even know what the word 'denigrate' means?

It certainly sounds like he does:


den.i.grate \'den-i-.gra-t\ \.den-i-'gra--sh*n\ \'den-i-.gra-t-*r\
\-gr*-.to-r-e-, -.to.r-\ vt [L denigratus, pp. of denigrare, fr. de- +
nigrare to b]lacken, fr. nigr-, niger black : to cast aspersions on :
DEFAME - den.i.gra.tion n

>>Make Mr.
>>Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral. Stop giving him
>>so easy a ride.

>Oh, now I see what your problem is. You're new around here.

But you, on the other hand, have been through this before. So what's
your excuse for ignorance?

>--
>Arne Adolphson "I've cast my pearls before swine, you know,
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu but not _all_ of them."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Libby Holman

cordially,

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 5:59:11 PM8/23/93
to
In article <NIKOLAY.93...@husc11.harvard.edu>
nik...@husc11.harvard.edu (Philip Nikolayev) writes:

Hint: ask an analogous question about kleptomania. Note that you are
confusing the explanans with the explanandum: the moral purpose of
eroticism is due to the genetic makeup of uts participants, but not
identical with it. Ultimately, all purposes belong to moral agents,
and hence the only relevant sort of abuse, is the abuse of an agent.

>Besides, is reproduction really an *absolute* moral need? Artificial
>insemination aside, isn't everyone's ability to reproduce limited
>among other things by the number of willing partners of the opposite
>sex?

The possibility of reproduction is relative to circumstances. Thus it
is not a moral need that such a possibility be present whilst you are
cramming for a final in a Widener library stall. Or perhaps I should
note that it would depend on the object of your cramming.

>Here's a thought experiment: imagine a group of male homosexuals
>banished by some primitive tribe to a lonely God-forsaken island for
>life. Tropical nature supples all everyday necessities - but no human
>females. All the men believe that they are attracted to members of
>their own sex by their very nature. Would it still be immoral for any
>one of them to have sex with a consenting partner, and if not, why
>exactly not?

Consensuality is a red herring here, and so is the lack of females.
The former is irrelevant because it is impossible to dispense with the
moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others by dint of any
form of agreement; the latter is irrelevant because moral principles
are not abrogated by opportunity, or lack thereof.

>Philip Nikolayev
>nik...@husc.harvard.edu

Charles Bishop

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 8:06:06 PM8/23/93
to
In article <CC8An...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>In article <25b4u9$2...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:
>>In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>>
>>> See? This is how we began; you are being racist. Isn't your
>>> challenge roughly the one Malcolm tried to meet? To stand on ghetto corners
>>> and denounce what he saw as avoidable (and, hence, voluntary) Black
>>> slavery? 'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is
>>> stronger than that?
>>
>>Are you really this dense? Zeleny ...[lots omitted]
>
>No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
>sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the
>Zelenys; my purpose is pedagogic, not substantive; I'm a fucking old
>bore of a prof, with no special interest in defending Mr. Zeleny
>(lord, the mere notion!) or his sexual views, but with a great desire
>to see such issues taken out of the rhetorical flames and placed into the frying
>pan of logic.
>
>So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
>"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
>with "jew him down", eh?

But is it equivalent to 'jew him down'? I thought that black, as a color
was negative in and of itself, without reference to race.

cbi...@netcom.com
>


stuff about previous posts deleted.

Rob Jellinghaus

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 9:02:34 PM8/23/93
to

In other words, it would still be immoral. Could you explain once
again what "moral objections against the abuse of oneself or others"
you have to homosexual behavior, and on what moral principles those
objections are grounded? I do hope you choose to answer the question,
rather than state that you have covered the topic repeatedly before.
(Certainly I've seen no clear summary of your argument in talk.
philosophy.misc or elsewhere.)

--
Rob Jellinghaus ro...@netcom.com uunet!netcom!robj

adolphson

unread,
Aug 23, 1993, 10:07:21 PM8/23/93
to
In article <CC8An...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
> "blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
> with "jew him down", eh?

No. Please demonstrate that the ancient Romans
had black Africans in mind when they coined and
used the verb 'denigrare'. Please demonstrate
that speakers of the English language have
black Africans and their descendants in mind
when they use the verb 'denigrate'.

> As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
> have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
> before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
> Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
> them?

The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
to lay it all out for you?

--
Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford

Mikhail Zeleny

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 4:12:38 AM8/24/93
to
In article <25bt4p$d...@mizar.usc.edu>
adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>In article <CC8An...@ccu.umanitoba.ca>
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

>>So, yep, I went and looked it up, and sure enough, "denigrate" means
>>"blacken", and, hence, by derivation, "to defame". Sort of up there
>>with "jew him down", eh?

>No. Please demonstrate that the ancient Romans
>had black Africans in mind when they coined and
>used the verb 'denigrare'. Please demonstrate
>that speakers of the English language have
>black Africans and their descendants in mind
>when they use the verb 'denigrate'.

Please demonstrate that the contemporary Americans have the tribe
of Abraham in mind when they mindlessly use the phrase 'to jew
down'. (Hint: see the _LA Times_ reports from Sacramento for the
month of June.) Also please explain why the presumable stupidity
of certain speakers of the English language may be used as a
meaningful clue for interpreting their oblivious use thereof.

>>As to the substance: I've missed Mr. Z's defence of his homophobia,
>>have I? Being as I've not had the delight of playing this sport
>>before last Xmas-time? My apologies. Please forgive and be generous.
>>Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
>>them?

>The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
>irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
>fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
>Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
>to lay it all out for you?

It is hardly surprising that you would have a difficulty in
distinguishing things that one does from things that are done to
him. Why don't you attempt to confine your petty rants to topics
that do not go so far beyond the meager range of your discernment?

>--
>Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford

cordially, | Why is it that all those who have become eminent

John Donald Collier

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 5:22:56 AM8/24/93
to
fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:

> Make Mr.
> Zeleny defend his view that male homosexuality is immoral.

He has tried. At great length. Redundantly and repetitively. And he
has failed miserably to come up with a sound argument.

His far-fetched reasoning has included howlers about the function of
sex, the autonomy of the individual, and the significance of death.
It's good for a laugh, if you don't find it too offensive, but it soon
wears a bit thin, much like any other religious dogma, if you are not
a true believer. Arguing with him in public is more or less pointless,
because he shifts topics faster than issues can be addressed fully.
This simple rhetorical trick works, unfortunately, fairly well on the
internet, where people get only snapshots of the debate. Creationists
use much the same trick, perhaps with greater sophistication, but then,
they have to operate in public fora, in a sustained way, for a couple
of hours at a time, with a live audience.

--
John Collier Email: jcol...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au
HPS -- U. of Melbourne Fax: +61 3 344 7959
Parkville, Victoria, AUSTRALIA 3052

Andrew Dinn

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 6:38:29 AM8/24/93
to
In article <1993Aug23.1...@husc14.harvard.edu> zel...@husc8.harvard.edu (Mikhail Zeleny) writes:
various question-begging arguments proposing the immorality of
homosexuality which have *nothing to do with books*.

Please foax, would you all remove rec.arts.books from your
follow-ups. I would like to continue the Zeleny-free grace period we
have enjoyed since he last retired in a huff.


Andrew Dinn
------------------------------------------------------------
La culte de Zeleny est monotone, comme les eclats de l'homme

John Donald Collier

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 9:15:09 AM8/24/93
to
cbi...@netcom.com (Charles Bishop) writes:

>But is it equivalent to 'jew him down'? I thought that black, as a color
>was negative in and of itself, without reference to race.

To get technical, neither does 'jew him down' implicate race. Jews
don't constitute a race. They form an ethnic group. This is a small
point, but a significant one in this context, since being a member
of an ethnic group can be a matter of choice.

As can, I should point out, being a member of a particular
religious group.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 9:56:56 AM8/24/93
to
In article <CC8An...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Michael Feld) writes:

>No, no, you quite misunderstand my purpose; I'm exactly guilty of the
>sin of lecturing the Smiths of this world on how to respond to the

>Zelenys...

This is stupid. If you want to respond to Zeleny then do so, but
don't give me any silly lectures on the topic.

>Tell me, what were Z's arguments, and how did his antagonists meet
>them?

They were warmed-over medieval philosophy. He tried to make an
argument from natural law work without bringing God into the
picture. Since our understanding of the world has advanced quite
a bit from the days of Thomas Aquinas, this was difficult.

Since he was using the language of possibility and necessity, I
introduced the possible worlds semantics. The end result was that a
sexual act by a person of one genotype was OK if in some possible
world, a person of the opposite genotype was involved in a way which
in a possibly possible world, that possible person together with the
first person were engaging in procreative sex.

Zeleny introduced peculiar complications by equating genotype with
gender, so that people of opposite phenotype but the same genotype
were actually engaged in immoral, homosexual sex; whereas persons of
the same phenotype, but opposite genotype, were doing morally
blameless heterosexual sex, even if everyone *thought* they were
homosexuals.

Take it from there.

Gene W. Smith

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 10:18:57 AM8/24/93
to
In article <CC818...@ccu.umanitoba.ca> fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca
(Michael Feld) writes:

>>I suggest you try the experiment. Go into the ghetto and insult
>>people by suggesting that they are inferior, "slave mentality"
>>people, and that their respentment of their treatment merely shows
>>that they are aware that they really are inferior to the white people.
>>Then report back.

>See? This is how we began; you are being racist.

Looks to me like *you* are the one being racist, Bub. You and
Zeleny together have a Bad Cop, Bad Cop routine going. If the
people in the ghetto don't respond with anger, they are weak.
If they do, they are demonstrating their slave mentality. If they
become violent, they are barbarians. The way you two clowns have
it worked out, they can't win.

It is just this heads I win, tails you lose box Zeleny wants
homosexuals to be in.

>'Course, I'm no Malcolm, but I take it that your point is stronger
>than that?

You can say that again. You sound like you are full of the typical
smug arrogance of the haves. I am sure Zeleny will be happy to
explain why that makes you morally superior. Meanwhile, the people in
the ghetto are just as human and just as worthy as you guys, and if
you want to say that the anger they may feel just shows how inferior
they are, then the hell with you.

If Nietzsche could have gotten his smarmy ass kicked by a real-life
slave after giving a smug, superior lecture about slave mentality, it
would have done him and his philosophy a world of good; and that was
*my* point.

Doug Quarnstrom

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 12:42:32 PM8/24/93
to
Gene W. Smith (gsm...@lauren.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de) wrote:

: By the way, do you think that Nieztsche's worship of the Strong Man,


: such as Caesere Borgia, was evidence of strength in Nietzsche?

Did N. really worship Borgia?

Here is a section quoted from Kaufman's 'Nietzsche, Philosopher, Psychologist,
Antichrist:


-------------------------------------------------------------------

Some of Nietzsche's ideas that have generally been minconstrued
are comprehensible if only this contrast of sublimation and
emasculation is taken into account. It is, for example, a common
misconception that Nietzsche admired Cesare Borgia and glorified him.
Nietzsche found it ridiculous to consider a Cesare Borgia unhealthy
in contrast to an emasculated man who is alleged to be healthy (J197).
When Nietzsche was criticized on that account, he clarified his point
in another book, three years later (G ix 37). He now explained that he
did not favor "the abolition of all decent feelings" but that he was
not sure "whether we have really become more moral." Perhaps we
have just become emasculated, and our failure to do evil is to be
ascribed merely to our inability to do evil. Perhaps we are
just weak. To be moral is to overcome one's impulses; if one
does not have any impulses, one is not therefore moral. In other
words, Cesare Borgia is not a hero, but --Nietzsche insists-- we are
no heros either if our own impulses are merely too weak to tempt us.
A few months later, in his last work, Nietzsche insisted once more
that his point was merely that there was more hope for the man of
strong impulses than for the man with no impulses: one should look
"even for a Cesare Borgia rather than a Parsifal." (EH iii 1).
Translators and interpreters have not always minded the eher noch:
"EVEN for a Borgia rather than a Parsival." This eher noch leaves
no doubt that Nietzsche considered Cesare Borgia far from admirable
but preferred even him to the Parsifal ideal....

G= The Twilight of the Idols
J= Beyond Good and Evil
EH = Ecce Homo.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

end of quote.

It is not clear to me that N. did worship Borgia. He did worship
strenght, but my reading leads me to agree with Kaufmans analysis
that the strength N. admires is the strength of sublimation, of
overcoming ones passions and integrating them into the process of
creating beauty. The best strength is self-mastery.

: Just


: about anybody who has thought about it has drawn the opposite
: conclusion, which is so obvious it is a cliche.

I do not think that everyone who has considered it even agrees
with your premises, much less your conclusions.

: The schoolyard bully


: who picks on other children is not showing his superiority thereby,
: but is giving evidence of a nagging sense of lack.

I do not at all get the impression that N. was a bully.

: Your attempt to


: ape this bully electronically seems to be the same sort of thing, and
: the obvious conclusion is that it stems from the same sort of
: psychological problem.

Your understanding of Nietzsche and his philosophy seems to be
differetn from my own (admittedly limited) knowledge.

: Meanwhile, it is well to remember that you will not be able to prove


: you are strong by showing someone else is weak.

I do not have the quote available, but Nietzsche considered it a
duty to be decent towards those weaker than onesself. It may
be arrogant to think of people as weaker than onesself, but
if a duty to be decent to them is the result, is it really a problem?


doug

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 12:13:04 PM8/24/93
to
In article <25bt4p$d...@mizar.usc.edu> adol...@mizar.usc.edu (adolphson) writes:

>The substance of Zeleny's arguments is entirely
>irrelevant to me. I really don't give a flying
>fuck about his moral philosophy or the works Hilary
>Putnam has had him read. Why don't you ask him
>to lay it all out for you?
>
>--
>Arne Adolphson "No adult woman should ever look as if
>adol...@mizar.usc.edu she dressed in a dark closet."
>ar...@ursa-major.spdcc.com -- Joan Crawford


See, its like this: if Mr. Zeleny gets it all wrong about
homosexuality, then, shucks, he is naught but a bully, and all his
chat about free choice is irrelevant; and if he has it right, then we
are back to netiquette. But if your game is merely abuse, my
apologies, I came here for an argument, stupid git that I am.

As to your understanding of meaning and derivation, I look forward to
your defence of "jew him down", "effeminate", and "gringo".

Michael Feld

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 12:24:43 PM8/24/93
to

>You can say that again. You sound like you are full of the typical
>smug arrogance of the haves. I am sure Zeleny will be happy to
>explain why that makes you morally superior. Meanwhile, the people in
>the ghetto are just as human and just as worthy as you guys, and if
>you want to say that the anger they may feel just shows how inferior
>they are, then the hell with you.

>--
> Gene Ward Smith/Brahms Gang/IWR/Ruprecht-Karls University
> gsm...@kalliope.iwr.uni-heidelberg.de

Um -- you sure you don't want to hold off this flame until you
discover my race or colour or sexual preference or views on
homosexuality?

No, I suppose not. Okay, you win, and I'll take my doll and dishes
home with me.

Joy to the merrry-go-round-ers.

Robert C.Haushalter

unread,
Aug 24, 1993, 1:44:00 PM8/24/93
to
In article <25cmlg...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU> jcol...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.EDU.AU (John Donald Collier) writes:
>fe...@ccu.umanitoba.ca (Michael Feld) writes:
>
[deletia]

Not being a philospher, I am amazed and impressed at how rapidly and
smoothly you folks made the transition from Nietzche to Zeleny's
butthole.

I Kant believe it. <