- Laconian wrote:
- Quote :
Yes, why not. You've been working so hard. Anyone redfining Philosophy as self-therapeutic psychiatry deserves some time off!
Thanks. I never claimed to be a Philosopher. In fact I wouldn't consider myself a Philosopher.
I didn't call you as one. Gathering information, musing over things, stumbling, groping in the dark, self-healing is part of a philosophical Activity - which is what you are engaged in; doesn't necessarily make one a philosopher though.
- Quote :
- Who would you consider a Philosopher today? Philosophy sounds "ancient" to me.
Yes, I can't think of any "Philosopher" today [leaving aside our own resident Philsopher here! - I regard him highly and one in the true and ancient sense.]
I get Heidegger, but the last was prob. Hitler to me.
But there are wonderful commentators, goaders, thinkers, scholars today who are the Necessary connecting dots to the Philosophers of the Future...
Perhaps "You" might like David Myatt - his writings on the Numinous Way; look him up.
- Quote :
- Quote :
He was already mad since his childhood.
And I love him. Just not as much as I used to. But I ordered his diary/letters. (I read some of that about 10 years ago.)
[/quote]
N. triumphs over Xt. and has a left a Ruling Phil. because his only weapon was "Health". He philosophized with his Excess.
N. cannot be overcome intellectually because he does not use intellectual gimmicks; only someone with Greater Health than him can overcome him. That is the gauntlet he has thrown; it reveals how he wishes to be "defeated", "overcome", "criticized"... one finds it touching how he's styled his exit, what charm and manners, the care and self-reverence in being taken down, how cleverly he designed his "enemies"... a wicked delight..
And for me, that's where the small hole opens up. N.'s ER to bring the herd and the strong into a common platform to provoke a war is really an appeal to their pride. His creativity ultimately is an Appeal, a banking that each would respond out of different motives. Which is perfect. There is no flaw. Given his circumstances, the climate and course of history he was facing, he feared the herd and its technological values would sweep over like a carpet, diminishing the chances of man as a species itself. He had foreseen that much.
As a woman, I understand he did what he needed to do. Coursing through life is knowing when to pull and push the currents, oaring, using whatever at hand or creating whatever possible as a weapon... the ER was such.
But, if I were a man, I should be enraged!!! that preserving the probability of the human-species should rest on an Appeal to Man's Pride!
The last thread...
I should be enraged because it is not Bleak enough for me!!!
This is where Satyr comes in. If I have understood him, he states, patriarchy has its own flaws, and so the only kind of noble monogamy that would create men of sturdy character would be if the women were discriminating, selective. Its the only other way a monogamy can emerge, a stable institution that can breed stable men, before a technopoly takes over and even women or the need for women are made redundant.
Satyr doesn't Appeal; he hints at the quality of women.
Satyr Shifts the nightmare placing it in the domain of women. How Bleak!!!!!! How Sexy!!!! than N.'s for one who understands the nature of women. I see a shift from Man's Pride to Women's Pride. What a huge Gamble!! although he wouldn't want to call it a gamble.
Satyr doesn't feel the need to appeal to anyone's pride, to Appeal per se. What Han!! He IS his own model, his own Oasis, that 'should' create the Thirst. He is his own model, making no appeals, in a world that is veering towards a gender annihilation. N. had to create a Thirst, a need to awaken men through a concept, an ER device, a real-istic psychological Appeal - "If I loved myself, I would want to recur again and again and so I have to will-to-power, have to dominate". N. has to place man in such a paradigm first before he can get them to move.
Satyr IS the Thirst. He banks on nothing except himself!, his own Be-ing to Intimate what Being Human must mean - that one rely on nothing but oneself, even in the face of worst odds. One doesn't make appeals, no "If a demon came to you at night..."...
Even if the end is going to be doomed, he wants to say "I should be enough of a model" for men to want to be men. Satyr being himself Is the Philosophy, than his philosophy.
He doesn't locate others in an appealing paradigm. He "wants to be" enough. And by that he wants to make men "who want to be enough".
N.'s Future Philosophers would be Ruling-Legislators, Artist-Tyrants working on humanity with Machiavellian Intelligence, growing more sophisticated in proportion to the equally growing cunning and cleverness of the herd.
Satyr's Philosophers would Rule others in their Indifference - "How Lightly Can One Live?"...
From a woman's view, they appear complementary, fantastic.
From a man's view, one should say, Satyr has "Health"; it "overcomes" N. in my eyes, although this would make Satyr say who the f--- is N.! LOL he knows he is Hot!
He expects criticism from me! He can't see how similar he and N. are, how they both employ Health to tackle them. Its what makes them both Satyrs.
If I as a man, were to criticize him, I'd have to open up a breach, between him and 'doomsday'....
I'd have to find a way to "overcome" even this "Banking" on himself, avoiding the immediate resignation to any faith or fate to that side.
I'd have to find a bleaker view... that is how My Health would be asserted... that is How I would "overcome" and choose to "overcome" him... make it a question of sheer Heart. And I would Do it.
But I'm a woman [luckily!!! Ha!], and I don't believe in women being philosophers. So I don't mind if anyone calls me a N.-worshipper, or a Satyr-sheeple. What does it matter...
My criticism in the end can only amount to Where I suffer, than what...
And that's how I choose to distinguish myself.
