One of Avatar's post signatures says, "But worst of all are tiny thoughts: truly, it is better to do evil rather to think small. (Nietzsche)" Hey Avatar, i was just wondering, has it ever occurred to you that this is effectively justifying what all Hitler did? Do you agree with that?
Not "doing nothing," but "not thinking big enough." There's a difference, to me at least. Because some people who don't do much think very big, such as many Buddhist monks who meditate all the time, and that sort of thing. And i guess it's a matter of debate, but to me what he said is effectively justifying it -- saying that doing what all Hitler did is better than thinking small.
'Because some people who don't do much think very big, such as Buddhist monks" I disagree. Budhist monks do think big. Life and philosophy are big thoughts. Always. "And i guess it's a matter of debate, but to me what he said is effectively justifying it -- saying that doing what all Hitler did is better than thinking small." Killing a hundred people is better than killing 2 people. Did I just justify killing the two people? No, I just said it's better than killing a hundred people. You need to follow the language here. Neitzsche said these things to be though about by people, not necessarily to be taken literally. Perhaps it was taken from Thus Spoke Zarathustra? If so, I would not take it nearly as literally as you are. Which work is it from? Still, I agree with Neitzsche to a large extent. It is better to have tried and had a negative affect than to never have tried at all. Perhaps what he means is that it is more honourable to try big things that you believe will work and fail than to never have thought about trying. In which case I fully agree with him.
Of course, "thinking small" means different things to different people, and it isn't clear what Nietzsche means by it in this quote. But many farmers and simple-minded people are very good and kind folk but don't think in grand terms at all -- they think small and don't bother with grand schemes or philosophies yet lead a simple, content life.
I said: "Because some people who don't do much think very big, such as Buddhist monks" And Tyler said, "I disagree. Budhist monks do think big. Life and philosophy are big thoughts. Always. You misread what i said. I said, "Some people don't do much yet they think very big, such as Buddhist monks." "Killing a hundred people is better than killing 2 people. Did I just justify killing the two people? No, I just said it's better than killing a hundred people. You need to follow the language here." Did you mean to say, "Killing 2 people is better than killing a hundred people. Did I just justify killing the 2 people?" ?? If so, you need to follow your own language better. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! And from what i've observed, most people believe that killing is "evil," though many feel that in various sorts of circumstances it's a "necessary evil." And though killing 2 people might be considered better than killing a hundred in general, both are still "evil" in those terms. "Perhaps what he means is that it is more honourable to try big things that you believe will work and fail than to never have thought about trying." Yes, perhaps. He didn't say "It is better to strive big with honest intentions and unintentionally commit evil than to never strive big" though... From what i read of it, he's saying, "It is better to strive big even if you have evil intentions than it is to never strive big."
"You misread what i said. I said, "Some people don't do much yet they think very big, such as Buddhist monks." Did you mean to say, "Killing 2 people is better than killing a hundred people. Did I just justify killing the 2 people?" ?? If so, you need to follow your own language better" Touche! "And though killing 2 people might be considered better than killing a hundred in general, both are still "evil" in those terms." Both are still bad. But one IS better than the other. Therefore, the statement stands. "From what i read of it, he's saying, "It is better to strive big even if you have evil intentions than it is to never strive big."" Yes....but what is evil? I think this will end up moved to the Philosophy section! Have you read Neitzsche's opinions on evil?
Tyler said, "Yes....but what is evil? I think this will end up moved to the Philosophy section! Have you read Neitzsche's opinions on evil?" It's been years. Would you care to sum it up for me? I agree with some of his opinions but don't agree with a lot of it.
"It's been years. Would you care to sum it up for me? I agree with some of his opinions but don't agree with a lot of it." Nietzsche's views on evil seem a bit shady to me. I never really fully understood what he wanted to say. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is far too metaphorical to understand exactly as he wished it to be (which is what I'm betting that quote is from) and Beyond Good and Evil tends to deal with just that - things beyond good versus evil. I think Freddy felt too many philosophers had wasted time concerning themselves with what evil is as huamsn will do what humans will do, regardless of what can be labelled as 'evil' or 'good' and that humans will alwyas have different views of good and evil. Plus, Freddy seemed more interested in logic than emotional ethics. And good/evil is largely emotional ethics. I think what that quote shows is Nietzsche's hate for mediocrity. There's a quote in Thus Spoke that goes something along the lines of; 'we must work towards the anhilation of the acceptance of mediocrity'. By that, I believe, he did not necessarily mean that we must eliminate mediocrity. But that it should not be rewarded, or even accepted as the majority's choice. Mediocrity sucks, is all he's basically saying in my eyes. And I tend to agree.
Shouldn't this thread be in the Philosophy section in the firstplace? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Along the lines, what do you think about the idea that everything that exists is just a vibration of energy (say, as in separation of matter and anti-matter) -- in complete harmony, nothing would exist. That kind of justifies destruction, since destruction only tries to put the universe back into harmony... I read this somewhere.. and find it hard to disprove to myself. Will somebody please do it? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
I cant say I know how to disprove it, not knowledgable enough on the subject. However, it is not necessary to disprove it. Simply because a theory fits does not mean it is any way probabile or proven. Here's another theory. There is a giant eagle who created all 48 dimensions in existence and every being on earth is an atom. and every atom in us is a subatomic particle. And every planet is a cell. And they all form a giant cosmic eagle who is not governed by the known laws of physics. He started the Universe by flapping his wings and that cause a big 'bang' if you will. Theories can fit and still in no way be proven.
ndrs: Tyler gave it a good debunking - I'll just handle the physical aspect. Anti-matter is just the opposite of certain forms of matter - not the opposite of matter. A anti-electron (positron) is just a positively charged electron. That's all. If things had gone differently in the early universe, what we call antimatter would be regarded as normal matter. If there had been equal numbers of anti-particles and particles, they would have all annihalated themselves - so yes, things would be very different. But the statement is a oversimplification, and is mushing science and philosophy together in a bad way. Simply because utter balance was bad once does not mean it would be bad now. Nonsense. That would require the universe to tend to construction, and it does not. Second law of thermodynamics states that things tend to become more disordered.* So destruction would be following the second law, and increasing balance, no? The argument fails there as well. *Entropy ain't what it used to be. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
The problem with Neitzsche is that he was more interested in being interesting than in being right. Which, come to think about it, was the point of the quote, right? I must admit he did come up with some keen aphorisims. My favorite, and very much to the point: "He who hunts dragons must beware, lest he become a dragon himself." I wish the drug warriors would take that one to heart.
That's one of the reasons I like Nietzsche. He reminds me of a much, much, much smarter form of myself. I use anallogies to explain just about everything, like Freddy liked to. Or maybe, he doesn't resemble me at all and he just resembles what I'd like to be!
I agree. Reminds me of this one: "As soon as men decide that all means are permitted to fight an evil, then their good becomes indistinguishable from the evil that they set out to destroy." -- Christopher Dawson
someone is talking about my favourite filosopher I didn't and I haven't said that I agree with Hitlers deeds. By this quote I meant that --->I don't like those people who have lived all their lives right and humble. Nerer thought of anything big. Tiny thoughts-> they are miserable. I better think of plans how to conquer universe than to think about how to better do my daily chores or smth like that. It's not the way of life, it is the depth of life (to rephrase a little). as said in my other sig quote -> I better prefer clever enemies than stupid friends. To think small is to not use your brain. is not to actually try to get your full potential. You say that 20milj people will die by my new invention? I'm sure that it will save the lifes of 2 biljon. Nothing is bad, it's only the thing about the morals. Ok Hitler was a bastard, but because of him we are now aware of what can extreme nationalism lead to. And it was better then when we had no nuclear weapons, than now. Nietzsche mentioned evil, because it is used as a worst extreme by many, many. He thought tht the worst of imaginable is being humble and stupid i.e. to think small. We are a great race. we may destroy ourselves, but atleast we would have tried. Would you prefer to live as a monkey Lykan? Nietzsche was a great man and it is not his fault that Hitler maybe inspired from his ideas. it all depends from the people who read him. some disregard him only because tht NAZI's liked him. They do not even bother to read him before. I did, and I liked him. I have one of his quatation books by my pc, to read now and then.
I disagree with that one though, and it's been bugging me for quite some time. The whole 'The ends does not justify the means' thing. If a neo-Nazi nation attacked America and the Yanks had to strip their citizens of some rights and kill many millions of neo-Nazi's to win, would it be wrong? Personally, I don't care one fucking bit if it's morally wrong. I woudl rather be morally wrong and alive than morally right and under Nazi enslavement.
< pedantry > Monsters, not dragons. < /pedantry > I always liked that one, in its whole: "He who fights monsters should look into it that he himself does not become a monster. When you gaze long into the Abyss, the Abyss also gazes into you." He is very right! I frankly have a hard time understanding such things as: "The body is a big sagacity, a plurality with one sense, a war and a peace, a flock and a shepherd. An instrument of thy body is also thy little sagacity, my brother, which thou callest "spirit"- a little instrument and plaything of thy big sagacity." WHAT THE BLOODY HELL IS HE TRYING TO SAY? *Grins* It's been years since I last read Zarathrusra, so perhaps I should try again. Avatar: Bah! Hitler liked Wagner, too. Does this mean Wagner sucks?* Of course not. So why should it be so with Neitzsche? As for his quotes, I find those easier to understand than his whole philosophy. *Not that he dosen't - although he's decent at times. Edit to reply to Tyler: That's not what he's saying, IMO. I think he is merely warning us of the dangers of becoming like one's enemies. Yes, the ends do justify the means, but we must be wary. It is possible to make sacrifices of morality and still be unlike our enemies - if we are wary. If we guard ourselves. For instance, our FBI is fighting certain domestic terrorist groups, groups of people like Timothy McVeigh, the Oklahoma City bomber. These people use a book called "The Turner Diaries" as inspiration. Our FBI fights these people, but I can buy "The Turner Diaries" from Amazon.com for $12. It's a matter of guarding one's honor, of choosing battles. It's a matter of being wary, not a wholescale condemnation of acting like one's enemies. Lykan: No, they aren't. There is a huge moral difference between, for instance, murder and execution, even though the means are the same.
ok havn't read all of this thread yet but i was decusing it with Xev and she said i should post this this was about avatars quote (in his sig) what do people think? Edit to add: what i left off my quote
