Critique of Hume's is ought problem.

Satyr wrote:

This wave is what you might call "overflowing"....its energies forcing the surfer towards entropy, without his intent.
He (re)acts to this.

Satyr, you've mentioned in another thread that many use the word "overflow" to describe the process of 'will to power'. The word makes me think in terems of streams of liquids, or energy.

The moment when two streams meet each other, it's a begining of an interaction, and the stronger stream 'overflows' the weaker one.

The weaker one is an obstacle, a negative charge on the way that the stronger stream has to overflow, overcome.

Is that how you see it, or can you describe what comes to your mind, what kind of images you see when you think "overflow"?

Lyssa wrote:

I don't just want to know that the slave and the master are different here and here, and because of this x and y trait, but that edge or degree where the slave could "not help" but be the slave he is and the master could "not help" be the master he is...
Degrees remind us the master too has an obedience he acknowledges, and the slave too has a compulsory dignity that cannot be taken without harming the master.

Boom.

The Ubermensch contains degrees. He is a synthesis of opposites, those being master and slave qualities. (Nietzsche refers to him as a "Caesar with the soul of Christ"). Going beyond good and evil doesn’t simply mean going backwards to a master morality, which is what a superficial reading often suggests.

The Ubermensch is someone who creates beyond itself, and a vision beyond itself is just what the master morality lacks. It was ressentiment, (the sublimated drives, the instincts of cruelty turned inward), that gave rise to the creativity needed for a revaluation of values---because that is essentially what the slave morality did. Inverted values.

The psychological complexity, characteristic of slave morality, will be part of the Ubermensch. But the sinister vengefulness and otherworldliness will not.

The master morality will contribute to the Ubermensch its truthfulness, it’s reverence for itself---and the attributes that go with that, (courage, nobility, etc). But egoism is worth only as much as the person who has it. (Great Star, what would your happiness be if you had not those for whom you shine?)

Do you agree?

EDIT: I wonder if anyone has ever thought up the idea of an Unter-mensch (Underman). It would be some poor bloke with the worst of both slave and master qualities---the sinister and putrid vengeful pettiness of a slave, and the lack of a vision beyond itself of the master. If Dear Fritz hasn't thought it up... oh no wait, that's probably the "Last Man". Damn. Well then my criticism is that the "Last Man" is poorly named. He should be the Untermensch. Behold, I give you someone who is not the meaning of the earth!

Quote :

I am saying such a morality that is able to give/tolerate free expression of every kind of WTP is how new gulfs will open, new standards will emerge, new tables for the very revaluation of all values will emerge - only in such a society... where every good is able to contest with every other good. This is possible only when the boxers are put in the same ring, the same constraints of nature - this ring is WTP.
Democracy would even be "cultivated"...  given "free expression"...

That sounds very cosmopolitan.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of multiculturalism as an ideal in a society?

Thirsty wrote:

Satyr, you've mentioned in another thread that many use the word "overflow" to describe the process of 'will to power'. The word makes me think in terems of streams of liquids, or energy.

The moment when two streams meet each other, it's a begining of an interaction, and the stronger stream 'overflows' the weaker one.

The weaker one is an obstacle, a negative charge on the way that the stronger stream has to overflow, overcome.

Is that how you see it, or can you describe what comes to your mind, what kind of images you see when you think "overflow"?

A process, defined by its unifying pattern, interact with other flows.
This point of friction is the point of (inter)action between two flows with different rates, and directions.

Overflow, I understand only in relation to life, which is an ordering. A flow, or aggregate flows (energies) participating in towards absolute order.
the friction of interactivity depletes this aggregate of energies, which we call life.
Ergo need, suffering, is the experience of ordering, of living.

When, and if, the organism is successful enough to accumulate energies in excess of what it requires to deal with the depletion it overflows with energies.
It is in a state of virility, health, power.

The absolute would be infinite excess of energies = God.

And yes, when two energy aggregates interact, the weaker one is assimilated into the stronger one, and the impact of the loss of energy, is compensated with the addition to the synergy.

Even two waves flowing in the same direction are not completely aligned. the difference in rates of flow creates friction between them, turbulence, even if they flow towards the same goal using the same direction ...they are allied.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

I don't just want to know that the slave and the master are different here and here, and because of this x and y trait, but that edge or degree where the slave could "not help" but be the slave he is and the master could "not help" be the master he is...
Degrees remind us the master too has an obedience he acknowledges, and the slave too has a compulsory dignity that cannot be taken without harming the master.

Boom.

The Ubermensch contains degrees. He is a synthesis of opposites, those being master and slave qualities. (Nietzsche refers to him as a "Caesar with the soul of Christ"). Going beyond good and evil doesn’t simply mean going backwards to a master morality, which is what a superficial reading often suggests.

Correct yourself; the Overman is no "synthesis" of master and slave qualities; N. is no Hegel.

"In contrast to the· animals, man has cultivated an abundance of contrary drives and impulses within himself: thanks to this synthesis, he is master of the earth.- Moralities are the expression of locally limited orders of rank in his multifarious world of drives, so man should not perish through their contradictions.
Thus a drive as master, its opposite weakened, refined, as the impulse that provides the stimulus for the activity of the chief drive.
The highest man would have the greatest multiplicity of drives, in the relatively greatest strength that can be endured.
Indeed, where the plant "man" shows himself strongest one finds instincts that conflict powerfully (e.g., in Shakespeare), but are controlled." [WTP, 966]

The Caesar-Christ quote as I have already pointed out to Perpetual in this thread:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Education in those rulers' virtues that master even one's benevolence and pity: the great cultivator's virtues ("forgiving one's enemies") is child's play by comparison), the affect of the creator must be elevated - no longer to work on marble! - The exceptional situation and powerful position of those beings (compared with any prince hitherto): the Roman Caesar with Christ's soul." [WTP, 983]


I said there, "is Not non-violent Caesarism that N. was getting at, - laughable! Cf. WTP, 983. N. was remarking compared to the need for blond beasts like Caesar to overcome and conquer their own sense of pity, "forgiving one's enemies" like Christ did is "child's play". Christ's forgiving of enemies would be like tinkering with toys to a Caesar-like being faced with the enormous task of conquering his own pity and being Hard to work on mankind like a sculptor, an artist."

This is Not any "synthesis" of Master and Slave; N.'s "synthetic man" is Not the coming together of a caesar and christ, of master AND slave qualities; but of a surpassing, of a self-control over Diverse contradictory drives, the slavish being one. The wisest/strongest overman is a Hybrid, but not in the sense of collective sum, but the capacity of being able to produce pathos-of-distance into oneself. Opening gulfs of rank differences and lengthening a line, a verticality, is only possible when you have appropriated and accomodated into yourself many diverse contraries and then use them to make a ladder.

"Man is something to be surpassed."; is it not?

Mo wrote:

The Ubermensch is someone who creates beyond itself, and a vision beyond itself is just what the master morality lacks. It was ressentiment, (the sublimated drives, the instincts of cruelty turned inward), that gave rise to the creativity needed for a revaluation of values---because that is essentially what the slave morality did. Inverted values.

This is certainly not N.'s view. How far can you go with this kind of smuggling though?

Master-morality as he defines in the GM were self-chosen tokens of affirmation.

I think the contrast in the moralities between the Masters and the Overman was stated in TSZ in the metaphors of the lion and the child resp.

Mo wrote:

The psychological complexity, characteristic of slave morality, will be part of the Ubermensch. But the sinister vengefulness and otherworldliness will not.

The master morality will contribute to the Ubermensch its truthfulness, it’s reverence for itself---and the attributes that go with that, (courage, nobility, etc). But egoism is worth only as much as the person who has it.

Man is the sum of the entire organic past - not just the slave, but he is also animal, he is also plant - something that Xt. severed the link and N. tried to re-accomodate.
Remember, in AC, he says, the overman is not a question of what should surpass mankind as some kind of a "what else" but "what kind of man" should be bred, etc.  His intention was never for the "continuity" to disappear, as something else "replacing" man in the progress.

Mo wrote:

(Great Star, what would your happiness be if you had not those for whom you shine?)

Do you agree?

Yes - in the sense already stated two posts before, every mastery "has to involve" an acknowledgement of its slavery and every slavery "has to involve" an acknowledgement of its inviobility since the annihilation of a resistance [a slave] is a loss for the master. Exceptions thrive on rules. The smart person does not annihilate the rules.

No - in the sense, the identity of a Master is Not dependent on a slave to derive its value and purpose from, when N. clearly says in the WTP/BGE that I've already quoted - the purpose of the overman is not to serve and shine "for" the slaves or even the rulers,, he only has his instruments in both.

The emphasis in your stated quote is what would "your happiness" be...
Not your identity or self-worth or your purpose for existence. The conflation is your error.
Happiness is in the conscious dominance of the giver, but it need not be his purpose.
See Bataille.
The pride and honour of pagan societies were assessed in terms of sacrificial excess - how much wealth one was able to give away, this let one derive joy, but this does not mean, these Masters of excess, existed "for the purpose" of "giving wealth to" others.

Mo wrote:

EDIT: I wonder if anyone has ever thought up the idea of an Unter-mensch (Underman). It would be some poor bloke with the worst of both slave and master qualities---the sinister and putrid vengeful pettiness of a slave, and the lack of a vision beyond itself of the master. If Dear Fritz hasn't thought it up... oh no wait, that's probably the "Last Man". Damn. Well then my criticism is that the "Last Man" is poorly named. He should be the Untermensch. Behold, I give you someone who is not the meaning of the earth!

True; I'd just add, the last men are not "the" meaning of the earth, but they still were meant to be affirmed as "a" meaning of the earth.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

I am saying such a morality that is able to give/tolerate free expression of every kind of WTP is how new gulfs will open, new standards will emerge, new tables for the very revaluation of all values will emerge - only in such a society... where every good is able to contest with every other good. This is possible only when the boxers are put in the same ring, the same constraints of nature - this ring is WTP.
Democracy would even be "cultivated"...  given "free expression"...

That sounds very cosmopolitan.

Just out of curiosity, what do you think of multiculturalism as an ideal in a society?

I am for a multi-culturalism, not a multiculturalism.

Cosmopolitanism in the antique greek sense meant the Affirmative gathering of the whole cosmos around an ordering pole.

"…Perhaps the Polis is that realm and locale around which everything question-worthy and uncanny turns in an exceptional sense. The Polis is Polon, that is, the pole, the swirl [Wirbel] in which and around which everything turns. These two words name THAT essential moment that the verb Pelein says in the second line of the choral ode [Sophocles’ Antigone]: that which is constant, and change. The essentially “polar” character of the Polis concerns beings as a whole. The polar concerns beings in that around which such beings, as manifest, themselves turn. The human being is then related in an exceptional sense to this pole, insofar as human beings, in understanding being, stand in the midst of beings and here necessarily have a “status” [“Status”] in each case, a stance in their instances and circumstances. The word “status” means the “state”. Therefore Polis does indeed mean as much as “state”.

…the Greek Polis is supposed to be the “city state”. …It is neither merely state, nor merely city, rather in the first instance it is properly “the stead” [“die Statt”]: the site [die Statte] of the abode of human history that belongs to humans in the midst of beings.
This, however, precisely does not mean that the political has priority, or that what is essential lies in the Polis understood politically and that such a Polis is what is essential. Rather, it says that what is essential in the historial being of human beings resides in the pole-like relatedness of everything to this site of abode, that is, this site of being homely in the midst of beings as a whole. From this site and stead there springs forth whatever is granted stead [gestattet] and whatever is not, what is order and what is disorder, what is fitting and what is unfitting. For whatever is fitting determines destiny , and such destiny determines history. … from out of the relationship to the gods, out of the kind of festivals and the possibility of celebration, out of the relationship between master and slave, out of a relation to sacrifice and battle, out of a relationship to honor and glory, out of the relationship between these relationships and from out of the grounds of their unity, there prevails what is called the Polis." [Heidegger, Ister]


This is actually the symbolism behind the pagan/I.E. festivity of the "Maypole" every spring when the new sun took birth and started its journey again, and Order of the whole cosmos was "re-newed" - which meant, there was fertility - lands prospered, cattle prospered, a society blossomed like spring into a sacred Order.
Girls dance around in circle twining ribbons around the pole that was thought to connect the earth with the law-giving heavens, binding the two realms, the mortal and the immortal together, weaving the fates together:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]


Heidegger gives the example of how a single river flowing "gathers" together a whole ecology of people, homes, occupations, and "status" emerges around this "pole".

Plato's Republic is only a continuation of the pre-Socratic idea of Comospolitanism - the Ordered arrangement of the world in an Affirmative gathering of "all" the world - a multi-culturalism.
N. carries on this old cosmopolitanism;

"My system must be distinguished both from the individualists and from the collectivist system of ethics, for even the former does not recognise caste-division, and wishes to give every individual the same rights. I concern myself, not with the degree of freedom to be granted to this or that man, or to the whole community; but with the degree of power that this man shall exert over that, or over the whole community; and I consider how far sacrifice of freedom, even an enslavement, supplies a foundation for the rearing of a higher type.
...My teaching says: live so that you must wish to live again, for that will be your lot in any case! If a man finds his highest expression in striving, let him strive; if in reposing, let him repose; if in arranging, following and obeying, let him obey. Only he must become quite certain wherein he finds his highest expression, and must shun no means to his end! Eternity is at stake!"


For more, you should pick up on the essays of Alain de Benoist who differentiates the modern multiculturalism of merely juxtaposed atomic individuals, and the pagan pluralism of a multi-culturalism.

Lyssa wrote:

Correct yourself; the Overman is no "synthesis" of master and slave qualities; N. is no Hegel.

Am I saying he is Hegel, if I use a basic english word? You can use "combination" as a synonym, if you want.

The concept of the Overman combines qualities from both master and slave. To support that point, I am using the quotes that you yourself posted. Those qualities are just what I said they are, in my last post. None of that conflicts with the idea that the Overman is not a master of himself, or that he surpasses the weaknesses of both master and slave---which is all you seemed to be saying. That's no objection, to anything I've said. Nor have I said that the Overman combines all qualities of master and slave. I said exactly what qualities I had in mind, in my last post. I can of course be wrong about that---but certainly not by the light of the quotes you posted. They're an example of exactly what I said.

Quote :

This is Not any "synthesis" of Master and Slave; N.'s "synthetic man" is Not the coming together of a caesar and christ, of master AND slave qualities; but of a surpassing, of a self-control over Diverse contradictory drives, the slavish being one. The wisest/strongest overman is a Hybrid, but not in the sense of collective sum, but the capacity of being able to produce pathos-of-distance into oneself. Opening gulfs of rank differences and lengthening a line, a verticality, is only possible when you have appropriated and accomodated into yourself many diverse contraries and then use them to make a ladder.

Yes. And none of that conflicts with what I've said, except for the bare declaration that it does. I wish you would address the particular qualities that I suspect the Overman assembles, from my last post.

Quote :

Quote :

The Ubermensch is someone who creates beyond itself, and a vision beyond itself is just what the master morality lacks. It was ressentiment, (the sublimated drives, the instincts of cruelty turned inward), that gave rise to the creativity needed for a revaluation of values---because that is essentially what the slave morality did. Inverted values.

This is certainly not N.'s view.

Which point are you denying? That the master morality lacks a vision beyond itself? Or that a kind of psychological complexity emerged from ressentiment, that allowed for an inversion of values? Or is it that the Ubermensch is someone who creates beyond itself? Only this latter one is the one that I'm not sure if I could support, just because of the barrenness of quotes about what the Ubermensch actually is.

Quote :

True; I'd just add, the last men are not "the" meaning of the earth, but they still were meant to be affirmed as "a" meaning of the earth.

The Last Man is not "a" meaning of the earth. Can you find a single quote, from anywhere, to justify that?

I will have to think more about the rest of your comments/references.

The Overman is not going to be born in a manger, to no parents at all. He doesn't just pop into existence. You are supposed to be a bridge to the overman. Which implies that he will be a person that assembles qualities and abilities from his past, and then orders them, master them, etc...

What qualities those are... I'm not sure how much Nietzsche knew himself...

That's my two cents. Take it for what it's worth.

After my 5 minute wikipedia/yahoo-answers research I have found that the overman is the individual who tries to bridge the divide between body and mind.

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

Correct yourself; the Overman is no "synthesis" of master and slave qualities; N. is no Hegel.

Am I saying he is Hegel, if I use a basic english word? You can use "combination" as a synonym, if you want.

Doesn't matter which word you use, even "combination" is you implicating some Hegelianism in N. which he was not.

The Overman is no combination of master and slave qualities; he is their overcoming.

The child is not the "combination" of the lion and the camel.

Mo wrote:

The concept of the Overman combines qualities from both master and slave.

No, there is no blending.

There is a Ranking of master and slave qualities - opening gulfs.

Mo wrote:

To support that point, I am using the quotes that you yourself posted. Those qualities are just what I said they are, in my last post. None of that conflicts with the idea that the Overman is not a master of himself, or that he surpasses the weaknesses of both master and slave---which is all you seemed to be saying. That's no objection, to anything I've said.

You use the word surpass only after I say.

Quote :

I wish you would address the particular qualities that I suspect the Overman assembles, from my last post.

What do you think of WTP, 317, esp. point 5.?

Without addressing that para., we'll be going in circles. Do you object that Virtue in the master's sense should be something other than the capacity for inventiveness? The ability to use whatever is at one's disposal?

"The ability to have the pros and cons *in one's power* and to switch them on and off, so as to get to know how to utilise, for the advancement of knowledge, the difference in the Perspective ..." [GM, III,12]

"Learning to *see* - accustoming the eye to rest, to patience, to letting things come to it; learning to defer judgement, to encircle and encompass the individual case on all sides". [Twilight, 'Lack', 6]

Mo wrote:

Quote :

Quote :

The Ubermensch is someone who creates beyond itself, and a vision beyond itself is just what the master morality lacks. It was ressentiment, (the sublimated drives, the instincts of cruelty turned inward), that gave rise to the creativity needed for a revaluation of values---because that is essentially what the slave morality did. Inverted values.

This is certainly not N.'s view.

Which point are you denying?

My reply was already in the bit you conveniently truncated. To repeat,
The origin of master-morality was never rooted in the overcoming of any ressentiment.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

True; I'd just add, the last men are not "the" meaning of the earth, but they still were meant to be affirmed as "a" meaning of the earth.

The Last Man is not "a" meaning of the earth. Can you find a single quote, from anywhere, to justify that?

I already quoted in two posts before on how "democracy" would even be "cultivated" as instruments for one's own project.
The rule, the herd, is affirmed, not denied.

Lyssa wrote:

The Overman is no combination of master and slave qualities; he is their overcoming.

What the fuck do you think the Overman overcomes? Can you overcome something that you were never to begin with?

Do you think the overman descends from the sky? Do you think that if you are of this world, that you won't have this world's past represented in who you are? Does it work like that... for genes?

If the overman has no connection to the forbearers of the overman, then why the fuck does Nietzsche call them a bridge?

Quote :

The child is not the "combination" of the lion and the camel.

The child is a progression from Lion and Camel. How do you think the child had the freedom to create values, without first going through those progressions of a lion (and the lion from camel)? When you are born, do you pop into existence, without a past, ...and leave all your past's old marker's behind? Does it work that way with genes, also?

Mo wrote:

Lyssa wrote:

The Overman is no combination of master and slave qualities; he is their overcoming.

What the fuck do you think the Overman overcomes? Can you overcome something that you were never to begin with?

Your pretentiousness suits you; stay like that.

To combine is to unify.
To overcome is to create distance.

If you are now going to act like this is what you said all along, be my guest. My ego is not that frail.

Mo wrote:

If the overman has no connection to the forbearers of the overman, then why the fuck does Nietzsche call them a bridge?

And where did I say the Overman had no connection to the whole organic past?

The 'synthetic' man is a domination of this, not its combination.

He doesn't just assemble diverse drives.
He Ranks them.

The Re-valuation of All values.

Mo wrote:

Quote :

The child is not the "combination" of the lion and the camel.

The child is a progression from Lion and Camel. How do you think the child had the freedom to create values, without first going through those progressions of a lion (and the lion from camel)?

The metamorphoses is an overcoming of the spirit with itself. Its not a combination, a confrontation!!!

This conversation is ridiculous.

How do you rank drives that haven't been assembled and combined within you? I said from the start that what you were saying was no objection to what I was saying. And maybe you realize that, or not. But now you're accusing me of something... pretentiousness, for some reason, or maybe none...

Quote :

To combine is to unify.
To overcome is to create distance.

What do you make of the famous Nietzsche line, "Become who you are", in TSZ? Do you "become who you are" by distancing yourself from what you are? Creating distance. Just curious...

The child (which represents, among others things, the ability to create values) does not discard what the lion represents (which is the freedom to create values, minus the ability), which does not discard what the Camel represents. When you speak of "distance", that is what comes to my mind.

Mo wrote:

This conversation is ridiculous.

How do you rank drives that haven't been assembled and combined within you?

You only speak of ranking after I pointed it out.

To say the Overman is a combination of Christ and Caesar as you first said, is a travesty of N.'s intention; Christ is overcome in affirmation, not present as a dominant identity of the Overman.

If you agree, fine; if not, I dont wish to waste time on this more.
I end this here.

Mo wrote:

What do you make of the famous Nietzsche line, "Become who you are", in TSZ? Do you "become who you are" by distancing yourself from what you are? Creating distance. Just curious...

In JW, N. says somewhere, "one possesses Many kinds of health."

Becoming who you are is certainly a *pathos* of distance, of acquiring health again and again, revaluating values again and again... a constant overcoming of prv. standards.

Mo wrote:

The child (which represents, among others things, the ability to create values) does not discard what the lion represents (which is the freedom to create values, minus the ability), which does not discard what the Camel represents. When you speak of "distance", that is what comes to my mind.

Not every person gives birth to that child. Not every person's lion is able to vanquish the dragon. Not every person's camel is sick of carrying loads, some enjoy their slavery.

This is not a single one-time event. It is a constant overcoming throughout a person's life. Overcoming is what defines the child.

Quote :

Lyssa wrote:
   The Overman is no combination of master and slave qualities; he is their overcoming.


What the fuck do you think the Overman overcomes? Can you overcome something that you were never to begin with?

Do you think the overman descends from the sky? Do you think that if you are of this world, that you won't have this world's past represented in who you are? Does it work like that... for genes?

If the overman has no connection to the forbearers of the overman, then why the fuck does Nietzsche call them a bridge?

I don't think you could say you overcome by combining, but by playing with distance (thus the creation of new distances)... by separating (i.e. not combining)

Nietzsche wrote:

That which separates two men most profoundly is a different sense and grade of purity. What does it matter about all their honesty and reciprocal usefulness, what does if matter about all their mutual good-will: the fact still remains—they "cannot smell each other!" The highest instinct for purity places him who is affected with it in the most extraordinary and dangerous isolation, as a saint: for it is just holiness—the highest spiritualization of the instinct in question. Any kind of cognizance of an indescribable excess in the joy of the bath, any kind of ardor or thirst which perpetually impels the soul out of night into the morning, and out of gloom, out of "affliction" into clearness, brightness, depth, and refinement:—just as much as such a tendency distinguishes—it is a noble tendency—it also separates.— The pity of the saint is pity for the filth of the human, all-to-human. And there are grades and heights where pity itself is regarded by him as impurity, as filth

Quote :

I don't think you could say you overcome by combining, but by playing with distance (thus the creation of new distances)... by separating (i.e. not combining)

I don't think that what Nietzsche means by "overcoming" is possible, at all, without first combining certain abilities within a person. (And I said, like 5 posts ago, that this was no objection. I think it's a semantic thing, maybe).

- - - -

Suppose you had to speculate about what an Ubermensch actually was. Maybe it is someone that shapes his will, creates values, or whatever else. Good luck supporting much from the text. Now suppose that the Ubermensch isn't someone who falls from the sky, or just pops into existence---but that it's actually true that some are bridge to the overman. So, what abilities would an Ubermensch actually need to be able to be who he is?

Here's a hypothesis. It's my own pure speculation. Take the valuable abilities that Nietzsche praises about the master-type (which I mentioned earlier), as well as the valuable abilities that Nietzsche praises about the slave-type (which I mentioned earlier), and combine them together.

Whatever else you are left with, you are left with a person with the psychological complexity to revalue values, as well as reverence for himself and the world. That's an interesting combination.

How can someone read Beyond Good & Evil 20 times and come out with such colored, nonsensical interpertations?

Save some time and read an actual Nietzsche scholar.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There Will Be Blood wrote:

How can someone read Beyond Good & Evil 20 times and come out with such colored, nonsensical interpertations?

Save some time and read an actual Nietzsche scholar.

What is it that I said that you actually disagree with?


...


Anyways, for the record, I've never claimed to be an authority on Nietzsche. That I've read a book a lot, wasn't meant to imply that I am smart, especially not in the context I actually said it. But you know what's really fucking stupid? ...implying that reading a Nietzsche scholar will get you an uncontroversial interpretation of much of anything.

Well I got books from three scholars. That should cover just about the most there is to know.



This book first though.



[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

There Will Be Blood wrote:

Well I got books from three scholars. That should cover just about the most there is to know.

...You can't be serious.

In regards to yourself it might be a better path if you wish to actually understand. You seem to be unable to personalize pretty much everything here, this creates an overbearing lense, books might resolve it to some degree. That IS if its your actual intent, which I've explained before is most likely not the case, and I have some ideas as to why.


Take that! Emotionally Stunted Retard Person!!!