nietzsche, part deux.
By rmg (Fri May 12, 2006 at 06:56:52 AM EST) (all tags)
there's been some controversy over a certain german philosopher. in localroger's recent diary, the lines of the debate were drawn: some think he's good, while others think he's wack.

unfortunately, instead of arguing about nietzsche, we ended up arguing about someone different altogether. well, here's the chance to, you know, actually talk about nietzsche. i'll go quickly through the issues, quoting from rog's previous commentary.

here is probably the most important bit (with commentary):

This is the problem with Nietzsche:  He thought that a person could
by a suitable effort of will attain a state of perfection regardless of
his surroundings, and that enough people bothered to do this that
a perfect society of these perfect people would be the inevitably
perfect result.

very briefly, this first paragraph is so far from true it's surreal to see it in print. nietzsche shows little interest in the first place in perfecting society and certainly did not think "perfection" (which is very far from the language he used, both in meaning and connotation) was something many would or even could attain, regardless of environment.

The first problem with this stupid idea is that if you perfect yourself,
you will inevitably come in conflict with society.  If you arrange things
so as not to be in conflict with your imperfect society, you will be
hiding things and lying all over the place to conceal your superiority,
all activities that distract you from that perfected state.

we need to drop the "perfection" language. we're talking about nietzsche, not rousseau or whoever rog had in mind. presumably, he's referring to this overman concept. part of the overman idea is "overcoming man" by revaluation of societal values. the "ubermensch" is supposed to create his own values and is supposed to be unfettered by the silly conflicts you mention.

note to rog: i never, even implicitly, claimed to be pursuing nietzsche's idea of the "ubermensch." it would be a lunatic thing to say and i never said it nor implied it. you've made an elementary error here (and thought you were clever doing it too: note how you call nietzsche "stupid").

I mentioned Sade because he is the father of the "fuck it, evil is
more fun anyway" school of dealing with this paradox.  Nietzsche's
contention that enough perfected people will form a perfect society
(brought to glorious fictionality by Ayn Rand) simply does not

he doesn't contend this. the ayn rand and sade references show an extremely half-baked approach. you need to get this nietzsche stuff figured out so you don't have to look so ridiculous again.

Humans have societies because in the wild, without high technology,
the survivability of a lone human without a tribe is approximately zero.
Contemplating the perfection of yourself outside of society is
another Maslow fourth-level [O(logN)] operation.  Unless you have resolved
the other needs in the heirarchy such an assertion simply comes
across as stupid.

this naturalistic understanding of the basic questions of humanity is somewhat shocking to my mind, but more importantly has absolutely no place in a discussion of nietzsche. the perspective suggested here (and elsewhere in correspondence from rog that i'm not going to post -- it's private and not directly relevant to the discussion) is as strong an obstruction to understanding nietzsche as a fundamentalist christian background.

ultimately, the superman mythos so popular amongst duty free store authors is of at best secondary importance. the most important commentary of nietzsche's, in my opinion, falls into the following areas (in order): critique of enlightenment ideals and values (especially science), the concept of ressentiment, critique of christianity, commentary on specific pieces of literature (especially faust), "european nihilism" and various aspects of what rog calls "leisure society", and the human condition (he has a million little bits on this and i don't want to try to list them).

i said i wasn't going to be a pain in the ass, but i can't resist:

Unlike Nietzsche, I notice that in a society full of people not following
the "good" life, it may actually be self-destructive to fully follow it
yourself.  This is a generalization of the tragedy of the commons.

dude.

nietzsche, part deux. | 72 comments (72 topical, 0 hidden)
Localwho? by blixco (2.00 / 0) #1 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:03:37 AM EST
Hey!  We're not kuro5hin!  They don't like us! No-one from over there is here, unless they've defected due to the manic and totally crazy nature of kuro5hin.

Cross site pollination: the troll of the 21st century?  Maybe!  Let's try debating a Little Green Footballs thread at DailyKos!
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

actually, blixco, by rmg (4.00 / 1) #2 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:14:46 AM EST
this didn't start on kuro5hin. it's going on here because i only do online nietzsche with an audience, the argument started in private correspondence, and i refuse to register a kuro5hin account.

if you need a brief refresher on localroger, i believe he's the guy who wrote that story about the futuristic computer janitors whose employers plugged some kind of cybernetic thing into their brain stem so they'd work faster or something.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
It by blixco (4.00 / 2) #3 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:17:44 AM EST
all seemed a bit k5-ish to me, but that's me.  I get all annoyed at the mere mention of that waste of storage.

(Ir)regardless, carryon!  Now that I've bothered to read the linked diary and subsequent discussion, I am intrigued and delighted.
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

[ Parent ]
i'm glad to hear it, by rmg (4.00 / 1) #4 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:21:14 AM EST
because i'm all about intrigue and delight.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
s/refuse/can't by ammoniacal (4.00 / 1) #27 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:13:22 AM EST
Ha! Get it? LOLLZERS!!!!

"To this day that was the most bullshit caesar salad I have every experienced..." - triggerfinger

[ Parent ]
i've found a new ucblockhead. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #29 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:26:40 AM EST
harder to set off, by garlic (2.00 / 0) #32 Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:31:17 AM EST
but just as annoying when set off.

[ Parent ]
oh, i just meant he stalks my comments. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #34 Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:39:37 AM EST
ucblockhead once posted about thirty comments consisting only of the word "cunt" on the theory that it would annoy me. we're seeing essentially the same thing here.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
So Who Wins in a Fight: Nietzsche or Hume? by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #5 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:33:04 AM EST
Assuming a "fair" fight. No ambushes, weapons, or anything.

About Hume... by ni (4.00 / 1) #21 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:37:02 AM EST
There's a semi-well known anecdote about Hume in philosophy circles which involves him falling from his horse and being too obese to get back on his feet. An woman, active at the local church, passes him on the side of the road, and only helps him up on the condition that he pray to God for assistance.
The truth of this is questionable, but Hume being morbidly obese seems less so.

Further, toward the end Nietzsche's insanity can only be seen as an advantage. The crazy guy always wins.

my experience is that people will do amazingly stupid things in conjunction with their crotches -- persimmon

[ Parent ]
Hume wins by Big Sexxxy Joe (4.00 / 1) #52 Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:40:07 AM EST
Nietzsche was rather effete.  He was like a K5 troll.  Hume would beat him down squarely.

I'm like Jesus, only better.
[ Parent ]
perfect society? by nathan (2.00 / 0) #6 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:50:01 AM EST
Nietzsche was writing for individuals, not societies. I suspect that he thought a 'perfect society' not to be a well-defined idea. I can't find any policy recommendations or administrative prescriptions in Nietzsche.

The first problem with this stupid idea is that if you perfect yourself, you will inevitably come in conflict with society.

"Der Wille zur Macht."

Nietzsche's contention that enough perfected people will form a perfect society (brought to glorious fictionality by Ayn Rand) simply does not persuade.

Persuade is a transitive verb. Anyway, mentioning Rand and Nietzsche in the same breath is something only a shmuck could do. Rand was a popular novelist with, literally, a cult following, and her lasting legacy is nothing. Nietzsche founded 20th-century continental philosohpy, from Heidegger to Baudrillard to Foucault to Simone de Beauvoir; he was thus one of the most influential thinkers of late modernity and post-modernity.

yeah, it's hard to cut through the crap. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #10 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:06:49 AM EST
there's really too big obstacles here: one is the popular idiocy surrounding nietzsche in the unscholarly publishing world. the other is the fixation on society and the scientific flavor thereof.

(behind both of these is the conviction that reading unscholarly crap and using sociology as the basis of morality are somehow high minded and intellectual, so that it makes sense to call someone stupid -- someone like nietzsche -- for having differing perspectives.)

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
Rand and Nietzsche by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #11 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:13:15 AM EST
I think Nietzsche's own work provides us with a good idea of what Nietzsche would have thought of Rand.

"When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is generally something wrong with her sexual nature. Barrenness itself conduces to a certain virility of taste; man, indeed, if I may say so, is 'the barren animal.'"

Oh, you may say so Fred.

"Comparing man and woman generally, one may say that woman would not have the genius for adornment, if she had not the instinct for the secondary role."

Okay Fred, that's enough.

I think we can put paid to the idea that Nietzsche would have anything in common with Rand.

[ Parent ]
overman by veldmon (2.00 / 0) #7 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:52:02 AM EST
I think it's important to note that Nietzsche's concept of the overman focused solely on the need for moral techniques to enhance self-preservation. He never linked that to a mental or physical superiority, as in an some mythical Einstein-Schwarzenegger figure that the hoi polloi could worship.

i'd noticed you're still around. by rmg (4.00 / 1) #9 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:57:28 AM EST
"self-preservation" isn't quite it, but presumably you knew that.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
Is Neachy Is So Misunderstood... by CheeseburgerBrown (4.00 / 2) #8 Fri May 12, 2006 at 07:56:56 AM EST
...I think you should put your money where your mouth is and produce an article designed to bring clarity to the masses, rather than simply critiquing misapprehensions without making a serious effort at correction that doesn't rest on a cornerstone of pompous dismissiveness.

I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.
where would i publish it? by rmg (2.00 / 0) #12 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:13:17 AM EST
you know damned well that anything i write here would be rejected and anything on kuro5hin about nietzsche will similarly be rejected. most everything is rejected at kuro5hin and there's no way in hell i would try writing for that place.

the advantage of negativity here is that it indicates what is wrong that needs to be fixed or at least set aside before reading for oneself.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
Maybe just by blixco (4.00 / 1) #13 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:16:48 AM EST
a diary here.  We have a strange disdain for the queue.

Once discussion brings up further points, etc., then  edit and submit the article to an academic or professional journal.
---------------------------------
Taken out of context I must seem so strange - Ani DiFranco

[ Parent ]
maybe a nietzsche series would be fun. by rmg (4.00 / 1) #15 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:19:31 AM EST
on the other hand, i have other projects i'd like to get to.

the academic journal thing was amusing. i l'ed ol.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
+4, includes "academic" [n/t] by martingale (2.00 / 0) #41 Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:57:58 PM EST

--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
Excuses, Excuses. by CheeseburgerBrown (4.00 / 1) #19 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:31:46 AM EST
I know by ni (2.00 / 0) #22 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:43:31 AM EST
you're just pointing out that rmg is being (as usual) a bit of a dick, but:

Nietzsche is unusually readable, particularly compared to any of the philosophers he inspired. His work is also generally short. Anyone reading this who becomes curious about Nietzsche (I agree that the "popular conception" is wildly incorrect, and additionally is much more boring than what Nietzsche actually has to say) should just read his books. some philosophers are best read in summary, but there's really no excuse for not reading the original (after translation, for most of us) in Nietzsche's case.

my experience is that people will do amazingly stupid things in conjunction with their crotches -- persimmon

[ Parent ]
I Read "Thus Spoke Zarathustra" by CheeseburgerBrown (2.00 / 0) #25 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:07:29 AM EST
I didn't really get the part about the monkeys, or all of that acid-trip freak-out shit at the end when Dave Bowman flew into the monolith.

Space foetus? What the fuck?

I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.
[ Parent ]
Oh, I see what you're missing. by ni (2.00 / 0) #30 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:34:57 AM EST
Simon represents Jesus. Reread with that in mind and it'll clear up.

my experience is that people will do amazingly stupid things in conjunction with their crotches -- persimmon
[ Parent ]
what's with all the by martingale (2.00 / 0) #43 Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:08:38 PM EST
hispanic gangbangers? Sounds to me like that Nietsche guy was a bit of a racist.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
Ah, but by ni (2.00 / 0) #46 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:31:13 PM EST
you ignore the third sighting of the ghost by Hamlet. In his mother's quarters. In light of it, I just can't understand how you can maintain he wasn't mad throughout. It's just not tennable.

my experience is that people will do amazingly stupid things in conjunction with their crotches -- persimmon
[ Parent ]
Though, In All Fairness by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #31 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:53:19 AM EST
I've read several books by Neit-chee-chee, and I still think he's a none-too-bright proto-fascist bastard. Reading the originals (in translation, I admit) would not necessarily answer the charges that Freddy was full of crap.

[ Parent ]
Have you read his analysis of the Presocratics? by lm (2.00 / 0) #40 Fri May 12, 2006 at 04:49:02 PM EST
It's brilliant. It's also what he built his career on before almost single handedly founding post-modernism.

I wouldn't really call him proto-fascist unless you consider post-modernism in general to be a precursor to fascism.

I think a better evaluation is that his critique of many of the forces that had counter-balanced fascist tendencies disrupted the social balance and enabled fascism.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
I Have Not by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #48 Sat May 13, 2006 at 05:49:33 AM EST
I'll give it a look see on your recommendation. What book are we talking about?

As for fascism, I don't believe postmodernism is fascist. I feel that the diverse thinkers/authors/artists lumped into the "postmodern" category come from too many different points on the political spectrum to label the whole chronological period one thing of another. Among the philosophers I've read, most of them tend to be weak post-Marxist leftists, a clutch of free market democracy types, there are a handful of complete nihilists, a lot of anarchist types, at least two theocrats, and so on. As a general rule, I'm distrustful of blanket statements about postmodernism. I don't see that much in common between most of the major proponents. I think it is a useful chronological label, but, like the term "post-punk," it isn't very helpful in a semantic sense.

I'm also not trying to blame the rise of fascism on Nietzsche. That is giving him too great an importance. I also think he would have never been a Nazi. A powerful strain of retrograde Romanticism would have prevented him from ever being comfortable with totalitarianism. He was also no anti-Semite. I think he would have contemptuously viewed the Nazi movement as just another mass movement of masters and slaves.

Instead, Nietzsche strikes me as proto-fascist the same way many modernist architects do. It wasn't that they were explicitly pro-fascist. Instead, they held certain prejudices about the masses and the special few that should design and build for them that, when implemented on a large scale, start looking a lot like something we'd call fascism.

Somebody earlier said that they found no "policy" in Nietzsche, and that's my complaint. I don't believe he ever pondered what his ideas meant on a broad scale. His contempt for the masses, his views on gender, his constant reliance of the imagery of war and conflict – writ large it looks a little fascistic.

[ Parent ]
get the hell out of my diary. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #49 Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:33:17 AM EST
this is not a haven for your kind of half-educated nonsense. contempt for the masses has always been very commonplace in the arts and academia.

"I don't believe [Nietzsche] ever pondered what his ideas meant on a broad scale."

[ Parent ]
Memories by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #51 Sat May 13, 2006 at 11:01:15 AM EST
Remember when you were a noted troll and you came up with clever insults and the like.

What happened to you?

[ Parent ]
you'll get better when you show me you deserve it. by rmg (4.00 / 1) #63 Sun May 14, 2006 at 09:34:42 AM EST
until then, stay the hell out of my diary.

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
Don't get your panties in a bunch. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #66 Sun May 14, 2006 at 01:00:33 PM EST
Just zero my comments and get it over with you humorless crybaby.

I'll happily have my comments zapped if it means you'll quit crying like a little girl with a skinned knee.

[ Parent ]
I'm that somebody by nathan (2.00 / 0) #53 Sat May 13, 2006 at 02:18:21 PM EST
And you completely miss my point: Nietzsche didn't care about 'policy' because he wasn't interested in harnessing the power of the state. How could the state possibly relate to someone's authenticity?

[ Parent ]
I Didn't Miss the Point by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #54 Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:10:30 PM EST
I just didn't think your point is important to what lm and I were discussing.

I'm suggesting what Nietzsche's refusal to think about his concepts on a policy level did not prevent people from trying to implement some of his concepts on a policy level.

Furthermore, I'm suggesting that his refusal to tackle such questions allowed fascists to misidentify Fred as one of their own.

Finally, I'm saying that I don't feel this misidentification could have occurred had there not been some fascist-friendly concepts within his work.

I don't want to speak for both of us, but I think we're talking about two different things here.

I'm less interested in the whether or not Nietzsche's been horribly misrepresented. I agree he was misunderstood, first by the fascists and now by the people who claim he's just a Nazi with a flashy prose-style.

I'm more interested in the fact that fascist (who, if you think about it, should have found Nietzsche's concepts quite repulsive) so easily and happily plundered his work for concepts and metaphors.

Some of this, certainly, can be blamed on his Nazi sister, who edited Will to Power and jackbooted up his works. But Will to Power wasn't the only place fascists found what they believed to be useful concepts.

I think it is fair to ask how this happened and to point out those places where, perhaps despite Fred's own intentions, he comes of sounding like a fascist.

It is a difference in opinion with regards to what is important to discuss.

[ Parent ]
ugh by nathan (2.00 / 0) #55 Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:22:27 PM EST
Look, if you're talking about him in liberal-democratic skeptical policy terms, you're not giving his philosophy the fundamental privilege of being taken seriously that's necessary to discuss it.

[ Parent ]
Ugh, Indeed. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #56 Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:55:05 PM EST
Now you're missing the point. Your pre-linguistic title was the most sensible part of your post.

"Fundamental privilege?" Outside of the community of the religious faithful, claims to truth don't get a fundamental privilege to be taken seriously. That's one of the differences between worship and critical thought.

If Nietzsche's philosophy cannot be interrogated in light of our real historical experiences with efforts totalitarian governments to deploy misappropriated concepts on the policy level, than it is little better than a word game for the mental masturbation of pedants and is unworthy of being taken seriously.

[ Parent ]
look by nathan (2.00 / 0) #57 Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:09:40 PM EST
If we were talking about the New Testament, and your analysis of Romans 9 was that St Paul didn't have a well-defined position on unicameral legislatures, I think I'd be justified in saying that your analysis was eccentric and cranky. Well...

One major point of Nietzschean philosophy is to demonstrate the inadequacy and disgusting, dehumanizing qualities of the liberal state in the abstract. Nietzsche was looking for a transvaluation of all values; of course he didn't suggest policies to assist the Last Men to better manage their subhuman anthill of a society.

It wasn't that they were explicitly pro-fascist. Instead, they held certain prejudices about the masses and the special few that should design and build for them that, when implemented on a large scale, start looking a lot like something we'd call fascism.

I'm sorry, if you criticize Nietzsche in those terms then you've totally prejudged the case. By the way, Nietzsche despised intellectuals more than peasants.

I don't believe he ever pondered what his ideas meant on a broad scale. His contempt for the masses, his views on gender, his constant reliance of the imagery of war and conflict – writ large it looks a little fascistic.

I could go on rightwingmaniacs.christofascists.org and write page after page of similar stuff about how liberals have a culture of death. It would get moderated +57, genius, and I would become a speechwriter for someone named Pat. It would be grossly intellectually irresponsible, like rmg said.

You're a smart guy and you write well. Therefore this kind of lame, conventional-wisdom analysis is beneath your dignity. Please do better.

[ Parent ]
What is post-modernism to you? by lm (2.00 / 0) #61 Sun May 14, 2006 at 04:04:26 AM EST
To my way of thinking, post-modernism is hyperbolic and individualistic humanism, the belief that all meaning (if it exists at all) is entirely an invention of individual persons. In such a state of affairs, there can be no argument against fascism as fascism becomes just another point of view that is no better and no worse than other point of view. There are quite a few different flavors of this outlook, but the one thing that they do all share is a mechanism for making a full frontal assault of most modernist, medieval and ancient philosophies. Arguably, this assault was in full flower during the rise of fascism and greatly weakened various elements that opposed fascism.

On the other topic, Nietzsche's volume on the Presocratic philosophers is Philosophy in the Tragic Age of the Greeks. The text of the translation I have is a brief 120 pages or so. If you send me your address, I'll mail it to you if you would like. One thing that is interesting is the way that Parmenides prefigured post-modernism in many ways.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
just to add one thing by nathan (2.00 / 0) #62 Sun May 14, 2006 at 05:08:53 AM EST
Your post makes this clear, but I wanted to say it in so many words: "post-modernism is more an attitude or stance than a coherent philosophical position."

[ Parent ]
I greatly disagree with that statement by lm (2.00 / 0) #64 Sun May 14, 2006 at 11:44:16 AM EST
Your assertion begs the question not only of what philosophy is, but of the very nature of reality (or at least of coherency).

I  would agree with a revised statement that, assuming that the rules of thought (identity, negation, non-contradiction) are true, then post-modernism is incoherent.

Not that this doesn't stop many who study philosophy from accusing the post-modernists of incoherency. Nor does it mean that any post-modernists are actually coherent. It only means that most people who attack post-modernism in this fashion beg the very question in dispute in their critique.

That said, I'll leave it to the post-modernists to either explain the  coherency of their system or to explain why coherency is an impossibility.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
ok, granted by nathan (2.00 / 0) #65 Sun May 14, 2006 at 12:57:02 PM EST
I would agree with a revised statement that, assuming that the rules of thought (identity, negation, non-contradiction) are true, then post-modernism is incoherent.

Wouldn't want to prejudge the case by assuming those, as, I suppose, that would lead us right back to modernism.

[ Parent ]
you miss the boat again by martingale (2.00 / 0) #67 Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:12:52 PM EST
Let's take your premise as given
To my way of thinking, post-modernism is hyperbolic and individualistic humanism, the belief that all meaning (if it exists at all) is entirely an invention of individual persons.
then your conclusion below is incorrect.
In such a state of affairs, there can be no argument against fascism as fascism becomes just another point of view that is no better and no worse than other point of view.

What you fail to see is that points of view can still compete in the framework provided by your premise, and I contend do so on a much more fundamental level than classical conceptions.

Suppose I'm a librarian, and I give you a choice of three books on different topics, but you only have time to pick one to read. Do you walk out claiming that there can be no choice, for all books are different and neither can be better or worse than another? Or do you weigh one against another on the spot and make a choice which you expect to suit you best?

By analogy, you can take fascism, socialism, existentialism etc as different options. There is no preferred ordering of these philosophies, so what? You can still make a choice of one over the others, and justify it in human terms. Such a humanist justification is more fundamental since it must weigh directly measurable effects, rather than argue vacuously about absolutes which cannot be directly measured or even agreed upon.

So by all means reject fascism on concrete grounds, maybe reject even all modern philosophies on concrete grounds if you like, but don't imagine for a second that because you feel that you can't make a decision about which you prefer, it follows that such decisions aren't possible in principle. The absence of a natural universal ordering does not imply that all options are equivalent in any one concrete situation.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$

[ Parent ]
you fail it by lm (2.00 / 0) #68 Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:23:59 PM EST
I never said that there could be no reason for any given individual to reject fascism.

Have a nice day.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
clearly english is difficult today by martingale (2.00 / 0) #69 Sun May 14, 2006 at 06:49:59 PM EST
In such a state of affairs, there can be no argument against fascism as fascism becomes just another point of view that is no better and no worse than other point of view.
Gods don't make arguments, people do. Thanks for playing.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
funny how that works by lm (2.00 / 0) #70 Mon May 15, 2006 at 05:14:25 AM EST
Thanks for question begging.

It isn't clear to me that God must exist for objective truth to obtain.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
I thought you'd like that bit by martingale (2.00 / 0) #71 Mon May 15, 2006 at 03:10:36 PM EST
You'll note that the two phrases separated by the comma are logically independent, if not grammatically. That was on purpose :)
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
what? by garlic (2.00 / 0) #33 Fri May 12, 2006 at 11:34:48 AM EST
that's rmg's thing! And the same thing that many people apply to him.

[ Parent ]
Schticks Age. by CheeseburgerBrown (2.00 / 0) #35 Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:10:52 PM EST
I was assuming that his thing was subject to modification from within given reasonable suggestions from without.

I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.
[ Parent ]
well, i can tell you this: by rmg (2.00 / 0) #36 Fri May 12, 2006 at 02:53:23 PM EST
my shtick will sure as hell never include writing nietzsche guides for slashnerds.

by the way, your usage seems to suggest you should review the definition of "shtick."

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
probably Mr. Brown's own aging /shtick/ weighs by nathan (4.00 / 1) #37 Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:01:19 PM EST
Heavily on his mind, leading him to say more than he intends. Eh, Mr. Brown? You Canadian fuck!

[ Parent ]
indeed! by rmg (2.00 / 0) #38 Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:10:31 PM EST
maybe that's it.

being caustic is fun. wanna round up a couple decent proxies and troll some wikipedia articles? it's crazy. the place is huge and they have every topic!

i haven't tried it, so i'm not in the position to knock it!

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.

[ Parent ]
as a right-wing intellectual by nathan (2.00 / 0) #58 Sat May 13, 2006 at 06:12:33 PM EST
I'm spending my time reading Emil Cioran and Joseph de Maistre. Bet the latter has potential. If not, skip right to Genet.

[ Parent ]
I'd Rather Be Useful Than Smug. by CheeseburgerBrown (2.00 / 0) #39 Fri May 12, 2006 at 03:26:19 PM EST
obpedcor by martingale (3.00 / 1) #42 Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:05:26 PM EST
"Chacun à son goût", if you want to classify people according to taste (nice possibility for double meanings there, both in the original and the translation...), or just "Chacun a son goût" if you intend to state an obvious fact.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
where were you when Rog misused 'en masse'? = by nathan (2.00 / 0) #44 Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:08:48 PM EST

[ Parent ]
my k5 alter ego by martingale (2.00 / 0) #45 Fri May 12, 2006 at 05:16:13 PM EST
is in hibernation. It hasn't seen action in quite some time I'm afraid.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
it wasn't on k5 by gzt (4.00 / 1) #50 Sat May 13, 2006 at 10:47:52 AM EST
it was in another diary yesterday.

[ Parent ]
my bad by martingale (2.00 / 0) #59 Sat May 13, 2006 at 08:53:52 PM EST
Pedantry Error Detector! Engage Self-Destruct! by CheeseburgerBrown (4.00 / 1) #47 Sat May 13, 2006 at 03:33:12 AM EST
interesting by martingale (4.00 / 1) #60 Sat May 13, 2006 at 09:00:07 PM EST
After reading that thread, I now know that Jess is an SF painter, not the woman woman named Marilyn I imagined him to be. I learn something new every day.
--
$E(X_t|F_s) = X_s,\quad t > s$
[ Parent ]
I'm not sure what paradox is being spoken of by lm (4.00 / 1) #14 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:17:59 AM EST
But with regard to the assertion that "fuck it, evil is more fun anyway" school of dealing with this paradox'', surely Sade was preceded by Thrasymachus and Glaucon.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
Sade by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #16 Fri May 12, 2006 at 08:52:34 AM EST
I don't know that "evil is more fun" accurately describes him. I've always heard it was more of an extreme form of the idea that the strong rule the weak by virtue of the fact that they can. Might makes right irrelevant.

[ Parent ]
To be honest, I'm ignorant of modern developments by lm (2.00 / 0) #17 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:03:40 AM EST
Or rather I should say of modern developments.

But Glaucon's story of The Ring of Gyges concludes that if you take two people and give them the same superpower and one exploits it for his own benefit and the other abstains, most people will consider the first to be smart and the second to be a moron. His point is that it is only fear of being caught and punished that forms the morality and that most people, given the chance, would be utterly `depraved.'

And, well, that sounds to me an awful like the charicaterization of Sade that was presented.

I don't recall having ever read anything in Nietzsche that comes close to that. Part of that is because Glaucon and Thrasymachus still deliver their arguments in terms of good and evil and Nietzsche attacks the very use of those words as part of the problem with understanding the problem.

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
I'll Give It a Shot by Christopher Robin was Murdered (4.00 / 1) #18 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:29:03 AM EST
The thing with Sade is that his "philosophy" was constructed inside a literary frame work. It is not always clear what's a joke, what was done for literary effect, and what was just him amusing himself.

What you describe in The Burnin' Ring of Gyges does sound somewhat like Sade. Though it is never really clear where Sade stands on the good and bad versus good and evil issue.

First, Sade seems to think the strong ruling over the weak is the natural order and therefore amoral. It is what it is. Sentiment and moral labels like "evil" are grafted on top of this amoral reality to justify the tyranny of priests and the like.

Second, though Sade uses the word "evil", it is often in a literary context. Often some "evil" character is doing whatever they want, and the "evil" label is applied to them by characters not yet hipped to Sade's point of view. You get a lot of characters saying stuff like "Okay, then I'm evil, whatever." You get the sense that his characters have left behind these labels, but that Sade hadn't developed a new vocabulary to deal with their new morality.

You also get the sense that he purposefully wanted to shock people, so he wanted to include possibly inaccurate, but provocative words like "evil" and "depraved."

Though it has been several years since I've read up on the issues involved.

I should also point out that elements in Sade's own stories often contradict the very philosophy he claims to be putting across. Consequently, we're not talking about a cohesive body of argument all headed in the same direction. If you're one who likes to divide their fiction writers from their philosophers, then it is probably most productive to think of Sade as the former and not the latter.

[ Parent ]
Hmm, you make that sound interesting by lm (2.00 / 0) #20 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:35:58 AM EST
The only time I dislike when fiction is mixed with philosophy is when it's bad fiction (CS Lewis' Pilgrim's Regress), bad philosophy (Ayn Rand) or both (Ron Hubbard).

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
I Don't Recommend Him. by Christopher Robin was Murdered (2.00 / 0) #23 Fri May 12, 2006 at 09:53:24 AM EST
I think he's a pretty bad writer. And I don't know that somebody with your background in philosophy will find much in his thinking that is novel.

The most interesting things in his work are the places where his philosophy and his literary aspirations seem to work against one another, and I'm not sure those conflicts are intentional.

[ Parent ]
wait a second. by rmg (2.00 / 0) #24 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:04:36 AM EST
are you saying ayn rand's fiction is not bad?

[t]rolling retards conversation, period.
[ Parent ]
Makes A Good Doorstop. by CheeseburgerBrown (2.00 / 0) #26 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:09:50 AM EST

I am from a small, unknown country in the north called Ca-na-da. We are a simple, grease-loving people who enjoy le weekend de ski.
[ Parent ]
At least not as bad as Ron Hubbard's [nt] by lm (2.00 / 0) #28 Fri May 12, 2006 at 10:22:00 AM EST

Kindness is an act of rebellion.
[ Parent ]
Like a lot of people by nebbish (2.00 / 0) #72 Tue May 16, 2006 at 02:15:15 AM EST
Taking part in this discussion, I have never read Nietsche. Unlike them however, I take this as a good reason to not have an opinion and stay out of it.

--------