Even if you despise what Nietzsche stood for

Discussion in 'IntroSpectrum' started by Shit with corn in it IRM'S BITCH, Apr 4, 2007.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. you have to admire him for having the nerve to say such things as:

    "There are no moral phenomena, only moral interpretations of phenomena"

    and

    "God is Dead"

    He thought John Stuart Mill was a block head for his liberal humanitarianism

    He thought Immanuelle Kant didnt have a clue what he was talking about when it came to morality, actually he despised philosophers for putting morality at the centre of philosophy.

    He thought Plato was arrogant for taking something beautiful, say a rose and from this infering a grand metaphysical system such as the forms.

    He challenges your assumptions, thats why I like Nietzsche.
    test
  2. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Why don't people ever quote the second half of his "God is dead" statement?
    Have you actually read his books?

    Here are some other quotes by Nietzsche:

    "In truth, there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross."

    "For men are not equal: thus speaks justice."

    "I am a law only for my kind, I am no law for all."



    The funny thing is, atheists often quote fragments of Nietzsche's work to support their disbelief, leaving out the other half which disproves them. Why do they treat him as though he is an authority of any type over another. His thoughts were thoughts, no different than yours or mine or anyone else's. According to him none of us share the same reality, we just collide into one another from time to time and pretend to. What the atheist tends to forget is that he had a mental disorder, just like his father and he died because of it, spending the last several years of his life under the care of his mother and sister. His mind broke because he wasn't able to bear what he discovered. He came to the conclusion that everybody lives in their own realities within a reality within a reality within a reality (eternally) and that nothing is everything and everything is nothing. The paradox of the truth destroyed him and people who do not seek the truth, who do not want the truth will quote him to perpetuate more of the same sort of mentalities and "group think" problems that he despised.

    *Shakes Head*
    test
  3. McGirth

    McGirth New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2001
    Messages:
    4,883
    ^ agreed on the first part. then again they loot every philosopher/thinkers work to make them look like they support their beleifs.

    for nietzsche its very easy to make nietzsche the mouthpeice of whatever you want him to say because he wrote in aphorism. But then again, thats sort of his appeal isn't it? That is basically the mechanism through which he dissimnates his philosophy. people read one sentence tha their beleifs already accord with, then hopefully they go on to read more in the beleif that neitzsche beleives what they do - THEN, when they read, if they aren't complete morons: their beleifs are challenged. its a sort of a trap really.

    the last part not so sure about about everyone being in their own reality. If anything i would say he thought reality (as we perceive it/AS IT IS- they are the same) is a function of willing. Not in the sense of willing that you are accustomed to, but in the sense of a prime seed of thought that spreads throughout everything and shapes everyones perception/reality. The thought is attached to a specific persons will, it masters all others wills/minds/bodies/the world.
    test
  4. Sodium

    Sodium I Get Computers Putin'

    Joined:
    May 6, 2003
    Messages:
    1,935
    What the fuck was so groundbreaking about nietzche? His line of thinking has been around forever it just took a person as fruity as nietzche to write some books about it. Nietzche book: "look at me! i'm so great!" and the other 4% of the material actually was saying something. but not saying much. Nietzche's notion of the person being the decider of what reality should be is an incomplete idea. In the sense that he isnt totally wrong when he says this (the individual must do this to an extent) but he took it to the level that whatever one deemed --so long as he was powerful enough to will it into being -- was good or just.

    But that just isnt true and look to all the examples in the history of the world of people who did this and failed: uh lord hidetora in ran who lost his mind after tryng to create a utopia and failing and peter mcneely when he challenged mike tyson for the heayweight title and got smoothed. Reality punished them for trying to bend it to their own will. Just as reality punished nietzche for his own inflated grandiosity.

    Thus there are rules that must be followed and it isnt all creative licsence. but nacho's works were not totally bankrupt of good ideas. He had some profound shit too. But just limited in my opinion. ultimately though i feel his greatest fuck up was in his trying to be a conquerer of reality instead of trying to be harmonious with reality.
    test
  5. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    McGirth - (In regard to the second half) If I live in my own reality and you live in your own reality (through perception) and both of our realities exist within the material earth (which is a reality within a reality, which is the solar system) and the solar system is a material reality within a material reality (the Galaxy) within a reality (the Universe), which is just one of numerous parallel realities (Universes) within something much larger . . . if that be the case, then our perceived realities are a matter of will, as you say.

    I understand this as well as you do. Freddy did as well. When we debate our views, we are not trying to prove them, we are trying to convince others to accept them and we are providing reasons why our perception reality is the better one. If I convince you of the reality which I perceive and you begin to perceive and accept it, then it becomes your perceived reality and your old one is cast aside. That is the power struggle. The "King Messiah" is nothing more than a man who is able to understand the workings of both the Physical and Metaphysical Universe(s) and teach them in a manner in which all people will be able to perceive them.

    I can utterly destroy any American Atheist's argument without breaking a sweat.
    The process is this simple:

    1. Are all people equal? (Yes or No)
    2. If all people are equal and mankind is nothing more than mind, then how are they equal? Are some minds not greater than others? By being superior are you not above the inferior if there is in fact nothing more to being human that having a a human brain? (If people are not equal then they must accept slavery and servitude, which no American possibly could)

    It is that simple. Human beings cannot be equal if human beings are only mind. If human beings are only mind then there is no equality because the greater the mind, the greater the man or woman. The only way that human beings are equal is if there is a spiritual (Metaphysical) existence. If there is a Metaphysical existence then there is a force which combines the Metaphysical and the Physical into one. That force is God. Checkmate.
    test
  6. do u have any idea what the transvaluation of values actually means, matrix man?
    test
  7. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    Of course I know what it means.
    That is exactly what I'm talking about.
    Do you know what it means?
    test
  8. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,569
    some peopel are physically stronger than others..quite often this fact alone decides inferiority or superiority.so if we were o nly physical beings, there would be no equality either...it works for both mind and body...yeshua taught us that those who are last will be first and the first wil be last, in the afterlife..hence we learn we will always get what we deserve...if we were superior in certain areas on earth by genetical features, but use them for good....we'll eventually be saved.
    test
  9. Yahunyahti

    Yahunyahti New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2007
    Messages:
    6,016
    The first being last and last being first has been completely misunderstood.
    There was a parable that went along with that statement which Christians don't teach.

    “The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out early in the morning to hire men to work in his vineyard. He agreed to pay them a denarius for the day and sent them into his vineyard. About the third hour he went out and saw others standing in the market-place doing nothing. He told them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard, and I will pay you whatever is right.’ So they went. He went out again about the sixth hour and the ninth hour and did the same thing. At about the eleventh hour he went out and found still others standing around. He asked them. ‘Why have you been standing here all day long doing nothing?’ ‘No one has hired us,’ they answered. He said to them, ‘You also go and work in my vineyard.’ When evening came, th owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, ‘Call the workers and pay them their wages, beginning with the last ones hired and going on to the first.’ The workers who were hired about the eleventh hour came and each received a denarius. When those came who were hired first, they expected to receive more. But each one of them also received a denarius. When they received it, they began to grumble against the landowner. ‘These men who were hired last worked only one hour,’ they said, ‘and you have made them equal to us who have borne the burden of the work and the heat of the day.’ But he answered one of them, ‘Friend, I am not being unfair to you. Didn’t you agree to work for a denarius? Take your pay and go. I want to give the man who was hired last the same as I gave you. Don’t I have the right to do what I want with my own money? Or are you envious because I am generous?’ So the last will be as the first, and the first will be as the last.”


    Those who are first to receive the message may be the last to embrace it.
    Those who are last to embrace it will be treated no differently than the first.
    They will be equal. They will the same. That is the meaning.
    It has nothing to do with after-life.
    test
  10. UnbrokeN

    UnbrokeN Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2001
    Messages:
    22,569
    thanks for clearing that up...because it never made that much sense to me. ty
    test
  11. Nietzsche was the natural evolution of previous attempts at Post-humanism. But, he was highly localized and biased by the anti-religious intellectual elite of Europe, much like Marx.

    But at least he was more accurate in his predictions than Marx.

    Philosophy, for the longest and has since evolved to ethics, was highly centralized around morality... that is, humanity's anthropomorphic assumptions of how his behavior modifies the world around him. Coming from my position, (which is borderline true neo-conservative) I consider this a peasant's way of looking at things that has been enforced by thousands of years of religious authority. But while a more liberal agent will whine and bash the religion, I observe this religious authority as equally unknowning as the peasantry they amassed to their respective ideals due to Bekenstein Boundaries and information disassociation. I believe Nietzsche did as well (not for the same reasons) with his assault on philosophical morality with his dialectic description of a "superman."

    This "superman" was a human being that was not bound to the moral requirements founded in philosophy, and further more, not bound to the moral requirements of society in general. (Sounds familiar, eh? Look at your average North American citizen) This being could, theoretically, rise above such social aesthetic contraptions and observe reality in a very non-human way. This served as the jump-off point for the brutality practiced witihin Germany Nationalism and Russian Communism later on (Both waiving the banner of "The needs of the masses are more important than needs of the few." which eventually boiled down to "I'm more righteous than you are.") but it was exactly the same "superman" originally described.

    While it isn't true Posthumanism persay, it was for it's time. I would classify this as a Proto Posthumanist attempt. A primitive approach that takes the classic steps of philosophy to disect a problem. First, we will isolate the event, and describe and quantify it ad nauseum. Then, we will add an additional event and predict behavoir.

    Except Nietzsche didnt' take into consideration that because of millions of people and the dynamic •••••••••• they form, neither morality or willpower is enough to bend reality to your will. And when Westerners learned that lesson, they rushed to mass suicides, depression, and postmodernism like the emo fucks they are.
    test
  12. SAMARA

    SAMARA truth is a sword

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2002
    Messages:
    1,151
    "modern slaves"
    test
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

Users Viewing Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 0)