Chomsky vs Ayn Rand ?

Discussion in 'General Philosophy' started by Dinosaur, Aug 14, 2009.

  1. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    There’s a little more to it than that, gendanken. Also, the McClintock effect focuses on narrow definitions, as well. I highly doubt that wynn can alter the way my ovaries function.

    There’s no definition of a perfect existence. So what? Jesus Christ, it’s a feast! Who could eat the same yesterday, and today, and forever? Who would even want seconds? No, change is good, progress is good, and variety is good.

    Besides, doesn't passivity give way to activity?

    Who whips out their brushes only to stare at a canvas, anyway...or is it a mirror with an apparent left-right reversal?

    ”Passion always inundates the spirit, perhaps because it is stronger than in the first speaker. But he is at the height of his powers when he resists the flood of his emotions and virtually derides it; only then does his spirit emerge fully from its hiding place — a logical, mocking, playful, and yet awesome spirit.”

    Paralysis…ha, maybe a little prickling sensation, but I doubt it. We shall see.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Always the hysterical female, eh?
    Fortunately, my dick is twice the size of yours.



    Says who? And why should he or she be unquestioningly obeyed?



    Earlier, you referred to Daisy's words from "The Great Gatsby" as she commented on her young daughter - "I hope she'll be a fool—that's the best thing a girl can be in this world, a beautiful little fool."
    I've first seen the film with Robert Refrod when I was some 12 years old - and those words stuck in my mind. Gendanken mentioned that Nietzsche envied ordinary people. - That desire to dumb oneself down.

    Like someone said once - Most people are too dumb to despair.
    Many despaired people wish they could dumb down - that's their only hope for a salvation from their misery.


    As long as they are of the kind you desire, of course.
    For example, "progress of cancer" in your body certainly isn't good. Or do you welcome it? It is, after all, change, progress and variety, all in one.


    Romanticism becomes boring at some point.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    The most revered of all species…the big swinging dick. Congrats! :worship:
    Is that your inner peace?

    Ignorance is bliss; simple nostalgia.

    Awareness of misery? Hmm…is that something denied to all children?

    The unknown is scary and compels our curiosity. Gaining knowledge is a self-soothing activity.

    No one likes to discover that a tumor is growing inside of them, but for curing it, the knowledge is useful.

    Awww, don't underestimate the importance of romanticism.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. iceaura Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    24,303
    Since I knew what I was talking about, I could say it plain.

    Try it yourself - just takes a bit of courage. No need to squid up the lead with the verbiage between "given - - -" and " - - bullshit" - just namecall in the first place, and see for yourself what you are actually saying.

    Or keep hiding behind innuendo like - what was that bit of cant there? oh yeah: "Death Tax". There's a "concept" worthy of the unlamented Rand: sounds good, rallies the dumbass, means nothing.

    Do I need to spell it out? There is no such thing. Inheritance is a government benefit, like food stamps. A tax on inheritance is a government modification of a government program.
     
  8. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    Can someone explain what is wrong with inheritance taxes? If we are all suppose to make something of our selves by our selves with no help from others, self made, then why allow people to be born rich? Why allow for pure unadulterated nepotism?
     
  9. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Why allow people to be born healthy?

    If some babies are born with all kinds of diseases and deformities and other problems (such as withdrawal symptoms in newborns whose mothers are alcoholics or drug users) - then, to really even things out, shouldn't every newborn be inflicted with those?
     
  10. wynn ˙ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    15,058
    Your hysteria never goes away, does it ...



    Pffft. If only!


    There's a ton of things that you don't know, but you don't find this ignorance scary, nor does it compel your curiosity.
    What's the half-life time of, say, plutonium? What's the mating cycle in deep-sea squids? That's right, you don't care.


    Oh yes, bandaids to treat fractures - totally pertinent.
     
  11. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    I don't see the comparison: most people are "born healthy", most people are not "born rich". Poverty or Richness is not a physical quality of a person, a quality that can't be corrected or is not easily corrected. Having everyone born with deformities would reduce the amount of pleasure in the world and increase suffering. So no your question does not counter utilitarianism or demonstrate any flaw in it. There is no focus on "fairness" the goal is simply to optimize happiness and minimize suffering of everyone, pragmatically.
     
  12. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    I wonder if this is true.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Very interesting!

    Thanks!
     
  13. The Marquis Only want the best for Nigel Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,562
    Well, it is the beginning of the week, I'm tired (already), and unfortunately I barely remember what I did last weekend, but only think of what I could have done. Not only that, but I have been taught a lesson I'm not like to forget soon. Well.. not so much "taught" as been given a reminder. I'm thinking of this and mentioning it now sans detail because it is, in light of what we're currently discussing, rather pertinent.
    It's no accident that the "classic" authors of bygone ages were more often than not those who had the opportunity, and perhaps the means, to take the time to write without more menial considerations coming into play. Notwithstanding the many distractions today's world offers. They had time to sit around and talk things through in a manner we do not... but, I digress.

    I did promise to get back to you.

    A quick point here, having read through the last couple of pages again: With regard to your answer to Gendanken regarding "transcendence", you can either interpret the word in a metaphysical (?) or religious sense. I think you've seen it more with the latter interpretation in mind where Gendanken did the former, and your answer reflects that. I didn't see the "Will to Nothingness" in there at all. But I'll leave you two to sort that out.

    So, to your question.
    It's a little difficult for me to answer, you know, because Nietzsche said what he had to say. I don't really see too much room for interpretation within that passage. I liked your whole post, to be honest. One of those ones that makes you think, even if only how to reply in light of what one thinks about when one is alone. Fairly rare, around here. I thought you were male, at first.
    Gendanken does this to me all the time... to the point where it has become almost routine for me to go away and cogitate for days on end when she posts anything at all, once one gets past the impression of just having been slapped in the face with a freshly caught mullet. I'm still thinking of chocolate rivers. And purple suit jackets, and orange-brown top hats, and... this article I read the other day about an autistic kid in Australia who wears three-piece suits to school, about how he was bullied for it and how the kids all came to school one day wearing suits in support.
    Ah, me.

    Acceptance of the norm has always been the key to survival (and here, I'm not using the term 'survival" purely in the sense of the physical, but I am using it with reference only to the individual).
    The term "acceptance" implies knowing there are options. Nietzsche's "Ubermensche" could not consider acceptance. He might transcend, or he might despair, but he could never accept. Thus "not knowing how to live today" would lead to one or the other - usually, in society as it is now, to despair. To my mind, this might also include those who despair without ever really knowing why, but perhaps that isn't pertinent here... but I will add that we all know that diagnosed mental illness is on the rise. I could go off on a tangent here, refer to a thread I remember, but I will not... because if I do, this post might become a novelette. I'm drinking far too much to even attempt it*. It is, however, a little rewarding sometimes to see a connection between philosophy and the real... even when it's only me who knows where I was going with it.

    Nietzsche was writing from the perspective of the Ubermensche. Perhaps he saw himself as such, perhaps he considered himself with the same sort of self-loathing many do when confronted with the disparity between what they know, and what they perceive themselves to be. He lauded those who transcended the norm, he empathised (yes, I'm using the word deliberately with reference to Nietzsche) with those who descended into despair; but he loathed those who did neither - particularly if they knew not how or why they should. I consider, sometimes, whether or not he loathed himself for loathing them.
    I've often in past correspondence alluded to acceptance as being death.

    I'm not even sure if that qualifies as an answer, Trooper, because... you know? We're here, in this place. And, of course, I'm drunk. And it's Monday. Come Tuesday, I might even begin on page four.




    * shut up. I know.
     
  14. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,606
    Electric Fetus:I do not like gift taxes either.
    The wealth used for gifts & inheritances is typically left over after all sorts of taxes have been paid.

    You are focused on the recipient of inherited money. Consider the owner of the wealth. The money available is left over after paying taxes. If he/she wants to spend money on a vacation, you would not & should not tax the money spent. If he/she took a relative on the vacation you would not tax the money spent for the relative. Is the money spent for a relative so different from money bequeathed or given as a gift?

    I approve of gift taxes on money used to circumvent other taxes. An employer should not be allowed to pay a very small salary & then give large gifts to an employee in order to avoid FICA & income taxes.

    BTW: Somebody (probably Ayn Rand) proposed an intersting tax concept.

    Gasoline & automoble-related taxes used only to pay for builing/maintaining highways & bridges.

    A tax on all contractual agreements to pay for the civil & criminal justice system. Examples: Sales contracts between car manufacturerers & those who sell motors, tires, et cetera; Rental & lease agreements.
    Note that such contracts are potential & actual causes of litigation requiring use of the civil justice system.​
     
  15. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    No, and no you don’t.

    You’re interesting but my mind is elsewhere. I’ll get back to you.
     
  16. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    How is the ideal of being self made suppose to stand up if some people are given fortune and wealth for doing nothing else then been related to someone fortunate and wealthy?

    Such taxes would have to be adjusted to fully pay for their select institutions and would put motive on undertaxing said institution and leave only the people interested in said institutions to pay for it. For example image taxation specific to public education, only people with kids would pay and only if they have kids in a public school, said people are likely not capable of paying for much public schooling, underfunding the schools and producing sub-par education, social mobility would fall, fewer qualified workers would be produced. The social consequences of under-educated people drags down the whole economy and thus all of us. Many of things like road maintenance, energy prices, justice system, etc, don't simply affect their direct clients (drivers, burners, criminal and plaintiffs) but affect us all, therefore we should ALL pay into it. But this is not a one or other situation: we can both pool tax money as well as have special taxes for specific services. Experimentation should be done to find the right balance for each institution and service and adjusts dynamically, if a service becomes underfunded from direct taxation for it, then other taxes will need to be raised and pool into it. Another example: Space Exploration: who should pay taxes to finance that? We are going to need off world colonies eventually and it going to take decades to centuries to develop the technology; who going to pay for that?
     
    Last edited: Dec 5, 2013
  17. Dinosaur Rational Skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,606
    Electric Fetus: Your example of taxes to support public schools does not impress me. The public schools have been doing a lousy job in many regions, expecially in major cities.

    A lot of young folks would be better served by becoming apprentices, a practice which has hardly existed for circa 100 years, mainly due to laws reauiring attendance at public schools for those who do not go to private schools.

    Any institution run by local, state, or national government tends very strongly to use one method fits all policies. In education, this is a bad concept.
     
  18. ElectricFetus Sanity going, going, gone Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    18,142
    Probably because they have been underfunded, specifically be taxes that counties, cities and towns can shrink. If the schools were funded directly by the state or even federal goverment, US schools might be in better shape.

    That extremely retarded idea. Most jobs are likely to be completely different (if not non-existent) in the next decades. People need to be taught to be innovative and multi-skilled in order to adapt to technological progress as best as humanly possible. People also need to be taught civics and how goverment works to become [potentially] competent citizens.

    Well then why not require a multi-modelled system with options who performance can be check against each other. If the military can constantly upgrade and improve their weapons systems and statagies, it is clearly possible for a centralized system to diversify and improve its self.
     
  19. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Metaphysics of transcendence – is the idea of a ‘true’ or ‘real’ world, which transcends this world.

    Will to Power is not a metaphysical principle about reality but a way of looking at the world, e.i., Nietzsche’s perspectivism.

    Schopenhauer was an atheist, who thought that we used aesthetics, (art) as an escape but that permanent salvation was to be found beyond earthly things. Similar to Buddhism, Schopenhauer saw this world as an illusion and went as far as to advocate the denial of life.

    However, Nietzsche felt that even though there may not be a purpose or meaning, a strong person can acknowledge this without denying life itself and still manage to say "Oh, hell ya" to life.

    Exactly, and how can you say 'YES' to something that you cannot accept?

    Be happy; that's all we hear about these days but evolution does not care about our happiness. If you want humans to be happy you must provide them with a reason. An atheist should be able to tell them the truth, and then tell them how to overcome it, but who are you, Nietzsche, to lead us down your arrogant path, and to what, happiness? Are you yourself happy?

    Is living in the "here and now" even possible? Should we remain beasts in the jungle or don ourselves with breastplates of certainty. Guard our good with a flaming sword which turns every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. We know of good and evil, the past and the future, but it’s our arrogance of knowing, believing in certainty that puts us in danger, all in the name of good we become architects of paradise.

    God is dead, behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever.

    Should we eat their food and drink their wine, whole wholeheartedly?

    How to live?
    Every generation desires certainty. They obtain a little here and there, and they discard a little here and there. "They are like little children living in a field that is not theirs. When the owners of the field come, they will say, 'Give us back our field.' They take off their clothes in front of them in order to give it back to them, and they return their field to them."

    'We do not inherit the earth from our ancestors; we borrow it from our children."

    Borrowed Gown


    Lefty once said that he thought compassion was a construct of religion and Hollywood. That compassion was face to face, a beggar on the street or "someone down the barrel."

    So grows the moral order.

    The quotes are from one of my favorite authors, Allen Wheelis...sexy, I tell ya.

    I made a mock of them, cranks and the pious. Just because you feel or wish it to be true doesn't make it so. I was too logical, too cynical, a dream crusher, or so I've been told. I feel that a belief in an afterlife devalues 'life' itself. I struggled to separate emotions from reason but realized in the end that it is our emotions that tell us what to value.

    Who Am I? I’m not entirely sure, yet. Am I two ends of the same stick, a story, or a product of events? Am I my memories, my notes, my work, my loves, or my struggles? Am I all these things? If so, can they be altered, destroyed, or taken? Am I free or bound by the many?

    Who am I?

    'Art' perhaps, form and content, the first being easily described, the latter easily influenced, but both subject to interpretation, fluctuating, changing, re-crafting myself along the way, creating my unique purpose, while remaining aware of others, and of the future.

    Yes, I am art!

    Well, that’s my story, and I’m sticking to it, but then again, we're here, in this place. And, of course, I'm sober. And it's Friday. Come Monday, I might even begin on page four.

    * shut up. I know.

    See ya around, Marquis.
     
  20. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    I’ve read and pondered exactly what to say in this thread and I must admit that it is a bit of a quandary. After all, it’s apparent that ElectricFetus has never really read Rand and therefore is really saying nothing at all but rather emoting his disgust at what he thinks she probably said. Things he heard she meant. So, why even bother posting towards him? No meaningful discussion of any sort can come out of it, it seems. All previous attempts in this thread have elicited nothing of the sort anyway.

    Everyone else in the thread, while not being Randites, is already seemingly in possession of, at least, the basics of her very simple message. So, no there exists no need to debate with them about the finer points of Randian philosophy. All that can come from it, likely, are simply heads nodding and repeated declarations of “yup.” (Although, I’m sure, a “yup” obscured by a more sophisticated and abstract delivery method.)

    There’s always a possibility of addressing the invisible multitude of lurkers. Guests who might easily swayed to one side or the other. Seekers of knowledge of this or that abstract of Randian lore. Worshippers. Detractors. Neutral parties.

    Or, how about actually addressing the original post? There’s a novel idea. Too bad that I know little about Chomsky except Universal Grammar and monotonous droning. However, I’m surprised, really, that anyone would even be surprised that their viewpoints are, where they converge, diametrically opposed. Of course Chomsky would loathe her writing. How could he not?

    Anyway.

    I suppose I’ll do it like this.

    One post to bash my head against Fetus’s wall.

    Then another post with the actual possibility of meaningful returns.

    So, on to the artist formerly known as WellCookedFetus.


    ElectricFetus,

    A few points I’d like to make regarding your series of posts. First and foremost is that you have not shown in a single sentence of your diatribes to have read and/or understood a single thing that Rand wrote. That’s really more insulting that you might think as she was really so simple-minded. Easy to read. Easy to digest. Easy to pick out the bullshit from the gems.

    You haven’t quoted her a single time. Not once. Are you going to refer to this:

    ” For example Rand speaks of her philosophy as that it is virtuous not to sacrifice to other, but (of course) not to have them sacrifice themselves for you.”

    That’s not a quote. Do you need a definition of “to quote?”

    Or this:

    "For example Rand directly said "[man] neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself" I have made reference repeatedly now, I have deconstructed it and refuted its flaws. Do you deny she said this? If I misinterpreted it how so?"

    A reiteration of the previous “quote.” Completely ripped out of context and stuck, dangling like an entrail, on the wall.

    Ever read had Mark Twain wrote about the oesophagus?

    Or this:

    "Ayn Rand rejects altruism, the view that self-sacrifice is the moral ideal. She argues that the ultimate moral value, for each human individual, is his or her own well-being. Since selfishness (as she understands it) is serious, rational, principled concern with one's own well-being, it turns out to be a prerequisite for the attainment of the ultimate moral value. For this reason, Rand believes that selfishness is a virtue."

    You realize that this is not Rand speaking? Yes?

    Moreover, you demonstrate in your reactions to this paragraph that you don’t understand the terms involved. What do you think is meant by the words: altruism, self-sacrifice, selfishness?

    Your words:

    Indicate that your understanding is deficient.

    Do you honestly believe that Rand’s philosophy doesn’t allow for one to put themselves in harm’s way for another human being? That it expressly forbids it?

    How superficial you are!

    What value does a human being hold, do you think?

    You see. This:

    Is a non sequitur.

    Can’t you conceive of a value that maintaining a companion might have? Do you think that Rand could not as well?
    Idiotic.

    As to an eventual fight to the death for the last drops of water, do you think that this would be unique to a Randian encounter? Please.


    One more thought on your misconception of Rand as a purveyor of solitary action:

    Provide me a quote in which Rearden demonstrates that he is not utterly aware of the importance of having an efficient group of people surrounding oneself. Provide me a quote in which Rearden demonstrates contempt for is employees and dismisses their actions on behalf of his end product. Provide me a quote in which Rand puts forth the proposition that one leech off the efforts of others.
    I dare you.



    Anyway.
    This is a perfect segue to my next point: The contempt that you unwittingly have displayed towards “the poor.”

    “Protect the helpless ones, who all look up to you, and to defend them. To the end.” –Manowar, Defender.

    It’s a liberal curse, unfortunately. Helping those who can’t help themselves. You belittle them in your aggrandizement of yourself. You’re the savior, they’re the saved. They’ll all look up to you. Right?

    The Marquis spoke of a switch operator earlier in this thread.
    This is a very important point when it comes to a typical liberal’s misinterpretation of Rand.
    To that liberal, this switch operator is one of “the poor” who is being oppressed and is in need of saving. He can’t possibly be a follower of Rand’s philosophy as he is not what they would think of as a “Hank Rearden.”

    Please explain to me, Mr. Fetus, why this switch operator can’t be a ‘real life Rearden?’ All that you had to say about him in the previous postings was that there are no switch operators anymore.
    Irrelevant.

    What about a McDonald’s employee? A Walmart associate? A dishwasher?
    Tell me why any of these oh-so-poor-and-downtrodden couldn’t be a ‘real-life Rearden?’

    There’s a comic strip that someone posted here many moons ago meant to mock Rand. Gaily speaking of the failure of Galtville due to the lack of dishwashers, ditch-diggers, and so on.

    How contemptuous that comic was of “the poor.” None of them are worthy to be in Galtville, are they, Mr. Fetus?

    Poor diseased animals.

    Charity cases. Nothing more.

    Why is “Virtue of Selfishness” a ‘far superior source?’ Have you read it? Have you compared it to Atlas Shrugs?

    Why use fiction? It provides working models that wrinkle out ambiguities of language prevalent in a clinical setting.

    Ever tried to explain to someone how to hammer a nail? Don’t you think that it might be easier to show them, instead?


    Some odds and ends:
    Why do you use the word ‘rigidity?’
    Is there a zero tolerance aspect to being a Randite?
    Any more so than any other formal school of thought?
    Isn’t it possible to read philosophy and gather your own method of living rather than simply following by rote?

    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it.”

    Do you have to swallow everything whole? Or reject it so?

    So, you advocate fat-catism?

    Also, interesting that you bring up Lincoln. You know that in many ways he was a thoroughly deplorable man? Yet, he freed the slaves.

    The ends justify the means, yes?

    You do know that Lincoln didn’t really like negroes? In fact, he wanted to send them all “back to Africa” after the war. But, he didn’t get his way. Lincoln is a perfect example of the contempt that liberal can hold towards those in need of salvation.

    From Herr Lincoln:
    “I will say then that I am not, nor ever have been, in favor of bringing about in any way the social and political equality of the white and black races, [applause]—that I am not nor ever have been in favor of making voters or jurors of negroes, nor of qualifying them to hold office, nor to intermarry with white people; and I will say in addition to this that there is a physical difference between the white and black races which I believe will forever forbid the two races living together on terms of social and political equality. And inasmuch as they cannot so live, while they do remain together there must be the position of superior and inferior, and I as much as any other man am in favor of having the superior position assigned to the white race.”

    And:

    “I will also add to the remarks I have made (for I am not going to enter at large upon this subject), that I have never had the least apprehension that I or my friends would marry negroes if there was no law to keep them from it, [laughter] but as Judge Douglas and his friends seem to be in great apprehension that they might, if there were no law to keep them from it, [roars of laughter] I give him the most solemn pledge that I will to the very last stand by the law of this State, which forbids the marrying of white people with negroes. [Continued laughter and applause.]”
    From: The Lincoln Douglas Debates.

    Hardly the best example for you to bring up. Hardly a hero.

    Which brings us to this little gem by you:

    Oh. Logic. See how it twists and turns.
    You do know that pure logic can lead to really idiotic conclusions very easily?
    Did Lincoln whip, beat and/or rape those inferior to him?
    Do you?

    (It’s interesting to note here that he was pushed into freeing the slaves by knee-jerk reactionism. Much like what you’re presenting here. That’s an aside, however.)

    This one’s good:
    Little tidbit.

    Did you know that Henry Ford created the concept of the weekend?

    Why? So that his workers would have time off to go on little drives in the cars which they could now afford to buy due to their decent wages.

    Was he selfish in creating the 40 hour work week?

    1. Not everyone is smart enough to realize that strangling yourself is not exactly erotic.

    2. There is a necessary fluctuation of wages. Up and down. Do you know how many businesses go bankrupt because they provide too well for their employees?
    One of the big problems with the present labor movement is that the relationship between worker and employer is so often adversarial. They each tend to fall into this stance of trying to squeeze the most that they can get from the other. Surely not the best system that could be envisioned.
    I’m curious. What relationship do you think Rearden had with his employees? Dagney? James? Tell me what you think. Provide quotes to back up your ideas.

    3. Actually, one of the latest tricks of the greedy is to keep more workers employed part-time so as to avoid the need to give benefits and etc.

    Ever heard of technicians?

    What does that have to do with anything?

    Oh. Wait. It has to do with your misunderstandings and feelings about what Rand must have said and meant.

    That’s right.
     
  21. invert_nexus Ze do caixao Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,686
    Marquis,

    I find it hilarious that her complaint about Nietzsche was that he was too passionate where she was purely rational.
    Yup.


    Trooper,

    1:
    And 2:
    And 3:
    Is class in session or what?
    This reads like study notes for Zarathustra.
    (That, I think, is what Wynn was referring to, by the way. You’re asking ambiguous questions about Nietzsche’s writings and then grading their responses. You gave Wynn an F and offended her.)

    Anyway. Even though this is a Rand thread (and Chompsky, let’s not forget that boring old troll), let’s diverge a bit.

    1: Seems obvious that Nietzsche is simply saying don’t be like those easily satisfied couch potatoes of the day. Look for something more. Keep moving. Don’t be pacified. Don’t be content.

    Of course, Nietsche, as always, can be found to contradict himself:

    “For one thing is needful: that a human being attain his satisfaction with himself—whether it be by this or by that poetry and art; only then is a human being at all tolerable to behold. Whoever is dissatisfied with himself is always ready to revenge himself therefor; we others will be his victims, if only by always having to stand his ugly sight.”

    Although, one can certainly latch onto the active verb “attain” in order to achieve harmony.

    2: Nietzsche was an utterly lonely man who understood women not at all. Practically everything he has to say on women can be immediately discounted. However, caution would suggest at least tasting first.

    3: Reminds me of the plight of the goth. Defining oneself through what one is not. Also the ironically slavish devotion to God demonstrated by Satan worshippers.
    Nietsche’s main lesson, above all other things, was to think for yourself. To evaluate. Revaluate. Don’t just run off into the woods because you want to get away from the herd. Because you’ll bring the herd with you. Everywhere you go, there you are.


    Gendanken,

    She does look a little gassy, doesn’t she?

    Yup.

    Perhaps he did make mention at some point of envying sheep. He said many things. Many contradictory things. But, to even hint that the brunt of his philosophy was to transcend rational thought? I cannot disagree more strongly.

    Do you have the quote and context in which he envied sheep?

    I can only imagine him indulging a moment of self-pity.


    Wynn,

    Yup.

    Or rather, it’s difficult to avoid. Not necessarily impossible.

    I suppose it depends upon the motivation behind the philanthropy.

    I suspect that Bill Gates would be unlikely to suffer too severely from this syndrome. Rational philanthropy as opposed to emotive.
     
  22. Sylvester Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    465
    Observations by Sylvester

    I think much of this has to do with the way the mind works.

    Chomsky, Rand, Nietzsche...I can go on and on. This is not meant to disparage or take away, I am sure they wrote good things, but the question i ask it it the singular word that gets filed in the brain?

    I will throw out some more:

    Ernest (Hemingway), Marx, Plato, Madonna, Miley.

    Now check this out:

    Pete, Joe, Bob, Harold
     
    Last edited: Dec 7, 2013
  23. Trooper Secular Sanity Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,784
    Well, I did say thank you for the lead on the squid, didn't I? Geez, it’s not like I was suggesting that he or she take their large penis and go fuck their self or anything.

    "Thus man has ultimately become superior to woman."~ Charles Darwin

    Do you think we are starting to make excuses for Darwin, too?

    Darwin's Women

    So, like every other man, Nietzsche new nothing about women, and his sister’s claim that his apparent misogyny was a merely a joke, or a rhetorical strategy was in fact, completely false? That there’s a big difference between Nietzsche’s woman and woman’s Nietzsche?

    Salomé and Nietzsche both suggested that women liked their position. They wrote that it is very obvious that for the origin of religion, the weaker sex is more important than the stronger.

    "Indeed, it is safe to say that religion would have long ceased to be a factor in the lives of the people, if it were not for the support it receives from women. The most ardent church workers, the most tireless missionaries the world over, are women, always sacrificing on the altar of the gods that have chained her spirit and enslaved her body." ~Emma Goldman


    "Art is woman without which it is impossible to live. In this supreme jeopardy of the will, art, the sorceress expert in healing, approaches us, only she can turn our fits of nausea into imaginations with which it is possible to live. She is the will to power, the original mother, eternally pregnant."

    This is why religion is successful. It has always sought the aid of Art. Emotions trump reason. They always have, and they always will, but the pious do not have exclusive rights to the human emotional experience.

    Aww, and it's not good for the Man to be alone, is it?

    "She had looked, not into my heart, but into the mirror of my eyes and had seen there an embellished image of herself. A single candle of affection, reflected back and forth between us, became a blaze of illumination and, finally, the meaning of life itself." ~Wheelis

    Maybe that's why Nietzsche used woman, art, and religion interchangeably. That’s good, damn good, isn't it? Allen Wheelis...sexy, I tell ya.

    Ah, where was I? Oh, ya, but behind the mask, the veil, we’re just evolutionary puppets on a string, but what the hell, we can dance, right?

    "In various works, Nietzsche preached philosophy of joy, of will, of the prerogative of the “superman” to seize the day. It is his right to create new and bold values, to wrest the scepter from the infirm, palsied, and withered hands of those who have ruled the world with timidity, with fear and hatred of life and of its vivid joys. "

    Love and life are deep.

    Play it, Sam.

    I gazed into the abyss, the abyss swallowed me whole. And then I knew ’twas I, who would not taste death.

    Well, that’s what he should have said.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    .
     

Share This Page