Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bullshit as well .

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bullshit as well .

Then why do you like Hobbes?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Because he's interesting. Remember I also listed Engles and I'm no where near being a socialist (though Berzerker would disagree ).

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Because he's interesting. Remember I also listed Engles and I'm no where near being a socialist (though Berzerker would disagree ).

Then you could explain why the state of nature is bullshit. But that would get you involved...

And BTW: I'd like you to answer this question, eventually: who are the richer: the Chinese or the Swiss?

[Imran Siddiqui]

But that would get you involved...

Exactly... in a word, I think it is about power.

I'd like you to answer this question, eventually: who are the richer: the Chinese or the Swiss?

EVENTUALLY?! I already answered it, it is my problem that you didn't bother seeing?

Of course the question there was: "What country is richer: China or Norway?"

Again: China, of course!

[Berzerker]

FakeBoris - Sheesh! Why bother quoting me when your "response" has nothing to do with my post?

Put a man on a desert island. Is he still a man? Yes. Does he have any property? No.

Sure he does, his body, his effort, and the island all belong to him.

Property is a contract, a concept invented by society. There is no such thing as property for animals, and there couldn't be to a man living alone.

"Society" didn't invent the concept of property, the first person who understood that "the fruits of my labor belong to me" invented the concept and that understanding would be taken for granted with only 1 person in the world. It's only when there are other people that this understanding might need to be conveyed to others (as if they are clueless).

Property defines the inanimate object's relationship towards a certain number of animate subjects- the humans.

Or just one person.

Technology has greatly increased production; but property of technology has also decreased the extent of its redistribution. Technology, by creating inanimate means of production- those that are not natural to the body, has made it possible to those who hold it to enslave the others who don't.

It sounds like you're complaining about patent laws now (did I mention patent laws?). They run out you know...

To this end, they enacted the idea of 'property' into the law (in fact property is probably the first law to appear), with the goal to confirm the power they had gained, with the help of a contract.

Who is "they"? I seriously doubt ancient dictators incorporated property into the law, they were the law. It was people who weren't dictators who pressured (or removed) autocrats into respecting property via the law. So you have that backwards too...

How could they have done this? Two possible ways.
1. With the appearance of the scarcity of ressources, which in turn instilled the fear to starve in our minds. Because at this point, the work required for being fed also started to imply competition with other humans about control of resources. This control could only be achieved by the physically stronger.
2. The appearance of technology and society gave humans new sentiments: pride and shame. Pride of being stronger, and shame of being weaker. With technology, currency, storage, etc, it was then possible for someone to accumulate more material than required for his survival. This is what we call pride, because this wealth could define his role in the society. (And his property of means of production also meant he could even more increase this wealth).

Holy Sh!t! No wonder these posts get so long, you just ramble on about stuff we weren't even debating then accuse me of missing your point.

So basically, property is a contract by which the weak agree by compromise to recognize someone else's 'possession' as permanent and inalienable. In return, their fear to starve is compensated by the promise that they would get a share of the production.

They do get a share of the production, but not for sitting on their butts. They get a share when they work for their share. But this isn't how property was invented... What you're really saying is that the "haves" agreed to give the "have nots" property in exchange for the latter not stealing from the former.
Can you produce this contract? Nope.

Property is not necessary to one's survival. Only possession is.

There's a difference?

Therefore, property has been acquired by force, by those who were either physically stronger or technologically astute, who in turn had been driven by either pride or the scarcity of resources. When property came to be part of the law, it was a legitimation of past plunders; and the subsequent wealth enjoyed by the landlords was used to raise armies to enforce even more strongly this property. Property is a refined form of plunder made possible by everyone's fundamental fears, which encourages us to abide by the owners of the means of production, since it is the most simple and less dangerous thing to do in order to live.

So the guy who sits on his butt is entitled to the labor of those who do work because the people who work plundered the guy who sits on his butt? Gee, not even slaveowners tried using that nonsense to justify slavery.

Look at the world today. There are many, many more goods produced than what will ever be required. Yet, people who are working can not even get food, shelter, drinking water and basic medications, because property is not fairly distributed.

Depends on where you live, if you live in some 3rd world backwater where dictators and their cronies don't respect property rights, then yes, many people won't have property because of the state, not because of capitalism and freedom.

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold. This is a direct consequence of plundering in its most "legitimate" form- ownership of the means of production.

If I invent fusion power, should you get an equal amount of the profit from my effort? If I don't give you an equal amount, have I "plundered" you? If I'm forced by the state to give you an equal amount, is that plunder or justice?

How could you possibly consider renting one's workforce at a price lower than what he would get in his state of 'nature' to be something else than plundering?

If I am a machinist without tools, a shop, etc., what is my value in my state of nature? Nada? If someone with money builds a shop and buys lathes, etc., and offers me $20/hour to machine parts, what is my value now? That's right, $20/hour minus what you socialists plunder. How can you claim I'm worth more without the investment made by others?

Once 'nature' has been denied, either by pride or scarcity, there is no going back, mainly because the power gained by the oligarchs is 'inalienable'. The only thing we can do is remember them that property is a PRIVILEGE that we granted them by contract, and that the counterpart to it is Social-Democracy. Failure to accept this can result in a war, made legitimate by 'breach of contract'.

Where is this contract? I want to see the signatures of all these people you claim agreed to hand you their money.

PS: I find it ironic that you believe a starving worker is free in his choice to work for Nike. Following your logic, wouldn't a citizen be free in his choice of a State that will not 'plunder' him, independantly of constraints such as moving costs (if starvation is not a constraint for you, then the cost of moving or the brutal enforcement of the law must not be neither)?

If there is such a state, there isn't. But you don't have to work for Nike, you can start your own shoe company, work in some other field, or try living off the charity of others. If we took all the money Nike makes, what percentage is taken by those evil overlords managing the company? Very small? Where does the rest of the money go? Advertising? Facilities? Labor? Shareholders (you know, the people who "lend" Nike money so they can expand)? Now, do you believe the guy who sews shoes together deserves as much as the guy who decides how Nike is managed? Does the waterboy deserve as much as the star athlete who attracts the fans?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Ah... but I think the 'state of nature' is bullshit as well .

It definitely is in Rousseau's case.

Hobbes' state of nature is one in which each person acts according to rational self interest. In fact it is identical with Ayn Rand's description of the ideal state of affairs.

It can be treated as a thought experiment, and it's a good one. Everyone should read The Logic of Leviathan by David Gauthier - a really good explanation of how it works.

It's not the case that Hobbes' argument relies on some spurious empirical claim about human nature, it follows deductively from an uncontroversial definition of rational self interest.

Of course there is a fair degree of natural altruism which he doesn't take account of, but I think he would be more and more correct in proportion to the number of people in the community (tribal and small communities find it easier to get reciprocatory behaviour out of their members).

I don't think the Left should be so down on Hobbes. He poses a challenge to market fundamentalism and perhaps to currently fashionable mixed-market doctrines. He also poses a challenge to the Left since we need some response to the claim that moral economies will never work.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

BTW could you guys include some - in your eyes - "must-read" books of your favourite philo heroes?

"Beyond Good and Evil" By Nietszche is something which I recommend.

Since Marx is German, I assume you've read him. Engles' "Scientific Socialism" is something which has been overlooked, but is a very nice pamplet-type work.

"Leviathan" by Hobbes and "Two Treatises on Government" by Locke are two basics of modern English philosophy.

"Reflections on the Revolution in France" by Edmund Burke is a GREAT work describing what 'modern conservatism' is (ie, slow gradual progress, realizing that tradition is the accumlated knowledge of history... ie, the anti-Nietzsche in that respect ).

You know Imran. You're a bright and honest guy. I think you need something better.

Read the Republic, Statesman and the Laws and Aristotle's Politics as well as Thucydides. These modern loons you've been reading are dull shallow cretins compared to the old masters.

[BeBro]

I´ve read Thucydides. I´m studying history and political science, Thucydides is a must in ancient history

Of course we read also purely philosophical texts often, but I rather want to read complete books than only some pages here or there which just are important for some courses.

Thx for the recommendations so far

[Kuciwalker]

Productivity has increased thousand-fold, but inequalities have by a two thousand-fold.

And this is why your logic is utterly moronic and overall, whiny.

"They have more stuff than I do! Waaaah!"

So what? Without technological progress and our economic system, you would have a lot less than you do now! You are complaining because things are "unfair" even though if they had been "fair" everyone would be worse off.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Read the Republic, Statesman and the Laws and Aristotle's Politics as well as Thucydides. These modern loons you've been reading are dull shallow cretins compared to the old masters.

I've read Plato and Aristotle (a bit of both) for my 'Greek Philosophy' Class back in undergrad (and I still have the complete works of Plato somewhere at home ). I haven't looked at Thucydides, but so far I've found the modern ones a bit more interesting... but that's just me .

Hobbes' state of nature is one in which each person acts according to rational self interest.

But of course. My statement was made in response that a state of nature really did/does exist. I think that there is always some sort of power structure as far as we know of human history.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
You are complaining because things are "unfair" even though if they had been "fair" everyone would be worse off.

Why so?

[GePap]

Originally posted by OzzyKP
I'm not so sure about this. I don't know what he thought about the state, but I'm thinking instead about Hitler as the ideal representation of Nietzsche's ubermench. He praised the will to power, absolute power, which Hitler certainly had. From what I remember of Nietzsche, it isn't just about power itself, but the recognition of that power. He urged praise for power and strength. Instead of looking down on an arrogant, powerful, strong person,we should reserve our highest praise and honor for him. Hitler had that ultimate power Nietzsche so desired, so he should have the ultimate praise and honor in that society. Anything other than slavishly following the Fuhrer jeopardizes the Fuhrer's will to power.

Yes, Nietzsche values the will to power- but one based on a will to create: nietzsche immoratalizes the Creator, someone willing to destroy the world that is in order to make a new one- only in that respect MIGHT a man like HItler be great; not likel though, when you consider that Nietzsch calls Jesus great-for Jesus also destroyed a way of life, a worldview in order to create his own. What Nietzsche acknowledges is that great creation is always accompinied by great destruction, and what he hates are people who oppose great creation soley out of pity for thoise that will invariably suffer from the accompanying great destruction.

To anticipate your point, you no doubt are arguing that Nietzsche's advice was general and directed to no one specifically. Thus all people should strive for power, and to excel, and that when one does this there can be no strict Nazi like state. Perhaps, but this would make Nietzsche a hypocrite. He certainly did not believe in equality between people, in any sense. The notion of equality is in direct contrast with the pure will to power. Your power jeopardizes my power, thus the best way for me to be powerful is to diminish your power. Nietzsche was not an egalitarian philosopher, you delude yourself to believe so.

One does not have to be an egalitarian thinkier to hate the Naizs- look at you annalysis: if you are powerful you harm my power, thus I shall destroy you- well, one: If you are powerful, then you need not fear other powerful ones unless they seek to attack you- power is NOT a zero-sum game were there can be only one powerful person. Nietzsche admirers the "great men", but he hates followers. Even if he acknowledged Hitler as a great man, his followers would be as bad as any follower of the slave mentality-plus, the system Hitler is trying to make codifies the slave metality:blind following. Nazi;s teahces too many "You shalt not's", the sort of ideas Neitzsche whishes to overcome. Again, look at Jesus- for Nietzsche, jesus is a maverick person, who by himsaelf creates a brand new morality that overthrows those that exists (and causes great suffering as well i the overthrow), but then his followers become these (in his eyes) pathetic, life denying individuals-in essence, Jesus the great man invents a great thing, and the weak of the world cling to it and debase it with their fear and hate.

Again, I'm not saying Nietzsche is calling for anti-semitism, or german nationalism, I'm sure he wouldn't care one way or the other. My beef with him is the very fact that he wouldn't care. Power is all that matters, how that power is attained is inconsequential. If absolute power can be attained through scapegoating and slaugtering an ethnic minority and then building a war machine to destroy your neighbors, then so be it, I'm sure Nietzsche wouldn't have a problem with it.

Actually, Nietzsche did care about one or the other: to him, German nationalism (and he writes this) was a pathetic things- it was pathetic becuase it was driven from fear and weakness: ditto for Anti-semitism. To him, anti-semites were pathetic fearfull individuals lashing out as slaves do at people who offended their whish for suffering by not having succombed. Remember that for Nietzsche, HATE, which is so central to Nazism, is a creation not of the strong, who through their strenght need not fear and thus not hate- but from the weak, who hate their oppressors. For Nietzsche anti-semites exemplified these weak men whjo hated a fictional oppressor, the Jew.

Plus if you through in the Nazi actions of ethnic clensing to produce a superior race of humans through extermination of lesser races, selection of higher people and so on, I think they match up quite nicely. Not to say Nietzsche is necessarily in favor of German superiority. Any nation who tried something like Nazism would probably be ok in Nietzsche's book.

Nietzsch doesn;t give a hoot about "peoples"- any attempt to 'breed' a new man would be an abomination- after all, in order to breed, you need a wiling HERD of men- and any men willing or working to be bred simply can't be creators or great men in any sense of the word.

To summarize, its not that Nietzsche calls for murder, oppression, and genocide, but rather that he is entirely indifferent about it is a big reason that drives me to despise Nietzsche and all he stood for.

You are correct than in no way nietzsche calls for a reduction in suffering. For him suffreing was part of life- what he hated most was the idea of stiflling creation simply for pity's sake. For him pity is evil: what does it mean to pity? Why not stop pitying and do what is best for them, instead of some miserable alms?

As for allowing repressiona nd opression and nationalism- nietzsche was a suppoirter of the idea of one single Europe united by common ideas, not byu a single suppressing state, which in order to maintian itself must crush creative embers: Nazism is not just about racism and hate- it is a from of facism, a modern political theory centered around nation-states: and Nietzsche hated nation states. You can not possible accept the tennets of nationalism if you do not believe the Nation is worht saving, and given the vitrol he has for the German nation, of which he was part, I failt to see how any group that attempted to "glorify" and deify what he found most comtemptible about Germans would ever gain his support.

As for the overman- people often confuse him with the blond beasts-thinking for Nietzsche they are one and the same. They are not. For him, a great beast would be someone like the Greek heros. Were Greek heros evil men?They could be malicious, proudful, murderous- they killed whom they liked, enslaved their enemies- yet we still call them heros. To Nietzsche, while these men were to be amdired more than the slaves becuase of thieir acceptance of the reality of Life (which destroys and creates endlessly- you can not live and thrive and grow without killing and ending something), for him they lacked depth of character- he calls them blond beats exactly becuase they are still animal like. He hates the slaves for giving up in life and warping thier inner selves into Hate- an emotion driven by utter inability. You hate what you have no power over, what you think you can not control, what you fear: those trully strong do not fear, which explains why he has a dim view of punishment. For hyim, punsihment is an acknowledgement of your weakness and fear: As Nietzshce states, the strongest man would have no need to punish, secure in the knowledge the criminal can do nothing to him at all. BUt even as he hates the slave, that internalizing, that deepening of feeling tat allows the slave to channel his will to power to enslave himself also makes man capable of greater things- now he has control over himself- he is deep enough to go forward. Think of his annalogy of the camel, lion and child in Zarathustra: The Transformation goes from a camel,a beast of burden who takes more and more things upon itself, more and more suffering- until it si ready to end this, to overcme this. Now it becomes the lion, who takes on the great golden dragon, which signifies all the rules and commandments of the current system- and as a lion it overcomes the dragon. But finally, the lion transform into a child, a creator of new things, filled with wonder. One of the reasons one of his books is called the "Gay science" was becuase he wanted science to be life affriming, "jolly" as it were, not the musty domain of "serious" old men in dank rooms.

Nazism, and facism in general would be labelled by Nietzsche as late levl developments of the slave mentality- slaves so deep in thier hate and fear they would deputize others to exterminate their enemies, but with no thought to creating anything new- much of nazism is based on glorifying a past, a past that for Nietzsche was everything BUT glorious.

Yes, he is no an egalitarian, and he does not value pity of compassion- but that alone in no way means he would support Nazism, which is far more than simply a will to power trying to affirm life.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Why so?

You really think that without modern technology we would be better off?

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by skywalker
You really think that without modern technology we would be better off?

No, but I wonder why you link modern technology with unfairness.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
I haven't looked at Thucydides, but so far I've found the modern ones a bit more interesting... but that's just me .

I know him more as historian, I was a bit surprised that Agathon mentioned him here. His "History of the Peloponnesian War" has OTOH in parts philosophical dimensions eg. the "Melian dialogue" about the exercise of power and the position of a weaker side.

[Brundlefly]

The names of Nietzsche and Marx have been used to legitimate two barbarous totalitarian regimes, yet it would be rash, I think, to label Nietzsche's and Marx's thought as inherently and entirely barbarous and totalitarian solely on the basis of that fact.

But still --it remains the case that Nietzsche and Marx left their thought open and vulnerable to this sort of misuse, and this points to some deep, perhaps fatal gaps and inadequacies within it. They are, to an extent, culpable for the ends to which their philosophies have been put, but in a mitigated way; they are in no way culpable in the sense that, say, Pol Pot or Reinhard Heydrich were.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Spiffor
No, but I wonder why you link modern technology with unfairness.

I didn't. He did

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by bfg9000
The names of Nietzsche and Marx have been used to legitimate two barbarous totalitarian regimes, yet it would be rash, I think, to label Nietzsche's and Marx's thought as inherently and entirely barbarous and totalitarian solely on the basis of that fact.

But still --it remains the case that Nietzsche and Marx left their thought open and vulnerable to this sort of misuse, and this points to some deep, perhaps fatal gaps and inadequacies within it. They are, to an extent, culpable for the ends to which their philosophies have been put, but in a mitigated way; they are in no way culpable in the sense that, say, Pol Pot or Reinhard Heydrich were.

No. Just because a philosophy is open to misinterpretation does not mean there are flaws inherent in that philosophy - just in people. Darwin's theory of evolution was misinterpreted to justify "Social Darwinism", but that says nothing about the validity of his arguments. Knowledge of nuclear fission can be used to create an atomic bomb and kill millions of people, but it doesn't mean existing nuclear physics is incorrect.

[GePap]

I agree with Skylwalker. You can use Plato's republic to argue for totalitarianism as well,, and that does not make his tought false.

Marx saw revolution as the inevitable outcome of Capitalism. his advocacy of revolution varies greatly, and in general, he did not advocate, as others did, starting revolutions politically. Besides, we have not seen the apex or final stages of capitalism yet, so while Lenin and mao have been disproven, marx may still get the chance, as far as his historical scheme is concerned.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Read the Republic, Statesman and the Laws and Aristotle's Politics as well as Thucydides. These modern loons you've been reading are dull shallow cretins compared to the old masters.

I've read Plato and Aristotle (a bit of both) for my 'Greek Philosophy' Class back in undergrad (and I still have the complete works of Plato somewhere at home ). I haven't looked at Thucydides, but so far I've found the modern ones a bit more interesting... but that's just me .

The Hackett "Collected Works" - a friend of mine translated some of that.

Quote:

Hobbes' state of nature is one in which each person acts according to rational self interest.

But of course. My statement was made in response that a state of nature really did/does exist. I think that there is always some sort of power structure as far as we know of human history.

Yeah, I agree. I am kind of fond of Rousseau's notion of men and women just bumping into each other randomly and having sex.

[lord of the mark]

1. Re FN

What does the creation and destruction consist of? If I recall, the argument is made based on beyond good and evil and on the Kaufman view of Also sprach that it the creation and destruction of value systems, thought systems,etc. FN's basically saying - scientists, go and explore evolution and stuff, and dont worry that some weak folks will have nervous breakdowns when their traditional religions are proven false.

Well, no totalitarianism there, but nothing all that politically and socially relevant in 2004, either.

But given that FN often speaks in metaphors, can creation and destruction, the processes of life (surely these are metaphors, hes not talking about animals eating meat, how plants live, hes talking about human life) not really be applied to political life as well - and can not the will to power, etc be applied to a totalitarian overthrowing liberal systems? He might not admire the followers, but then by the same token he might not like the followers of Darwin, to the extent they were only followers. I mean you can focus on two elements in FN - his despisal of certain allegedly slavish emotional states like fear and hatred, or his emphasis on destructive change pursued without compassion. The former emphasis makes FN into more of a personal guide to noble (by his lights) emotional states, but ends there. An emphasis on the latter, with the former used to prove that FN is not fascist, and his barely political, is the standard defense of FN, IIUC. While this is certainly a reasonable interpretation, im not convinced that emphasizing the compassionless destructive change is all that wrong an interpretation.

[lord of the mark]

re: fukiyamas borrowing.


I was not at all under the impression that FF was an original thinker - more that he was applying Hegel and certain post-Hegelians to current history.

If he was borrowing even in doing that, might i ask from whom? If im interested in an interpretation of Hegel as a liberal democratic thinker, and an application of such interpretation to the world events of the 1980's and beyond, who might i read instead? (Preferably in English)

[Imran Siddiqui]

nothing all that politically and socially relevant in 2004

Are you serious? It's a lesson that may be eye opening for some people! Don't worry about tradition, just create new, better systems.

his emphasis on destructive change pursued without compassion

Well it depends on whether you believe 'destructive' change is bad. After all Jesus was an example of his will to power. That definetly was a destructive change. One can argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. authored a destructive change.

The problem is that I think you cannot divorce his hatred of the herd from the destructive change. You can't treat them as seperate, they are parts of the same coin.

[Oncle Boris]

All right guys.

I will agree that Rousseau's sate of nature is not the best, and that many have done better (though I have not read them yet; I'm saying this because I was told so by my teachers).(Note: Hobbes is not included in that).

The only thing you should all keep in mind is that Rousseau was inspired by Descartes' rationalism, and that in Rousseau's mind whether or not this state of nature even existed is irrelevant- it was only an abstraction.

Berzerker, when you ask me to provide these "contracts", you are showing your profound misunderstanding of the abstract level of Rousseau's works. And also, your comments showed you missed the entire difference between possesion and property. One can possess his body, but does not own it.

In short:
Rousseau, idealist tradition, abstract state of nature.
Hobbes, materialist tradition, historical state of nature.

Between all of this, one thing remains: Rousseau's thoughts on the nature of property and the real meaning of benefitting from your own work are brilliant. I'm not writing another 1500 words essay here, but put simply: you can benefit from all of your work, but only YOURS; in no way can you justify not giving someone at least what he would get in a state of nature.

The only thing left for you: read Rousseau and think about it. And yes, I've put Bastiat on my short-term to read list.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

nothing all that politically and socially relevant in 2004

Are you serious? It's a lesson that may be eye opening for some people! Don't worry about tradition, just create new, better systems.

Depends on what kind of systems. If its essentially scientific, intellectual systems, its a lesson thats second nature to any intellectuals looking for wealth, power, fame, etc. If there are many intellectuals who are not so aggressive, i suspect that has more to do with there own personal career management, and nothing to do with compassion. If there are any intellectuals holding back great new systems out of compassion id be curious to hear about. (actually i doubt there were any such in FN's time, either) So fine, but not particulary earthshaking.

If, OTOH, hes saying to create new better social and political systems, but hes uninterested in evaluating them based on compassion for the people who will actually live under such systems, then his viewpoint may be earthshaking, but its much more open to the "naive" criticisms that have traditionally been leveled against it. Go create a social and political systems thats good for YOU, and enough with despicable pity. Starts to sound like Ayn Rand, no?

[Imran Siddiqui]

If there are many intellectuals who are not so aggressive, i suspect that has more to do with there own personal career management, and nothing to do with compassion. If there are any intellectuals holding back great new systems out of compassion id be curious to hear about.

Take a look around! We don't do a bunch of stuff because of tradition! Look at what the US has done with stem-cell research. Plenty of scientists are morally opposed. We've kept the old system and prevented its destruction and thus prevented new creation.

its much more open to the "naive" criticisms that have traditionally been leveled against it

Why? Why does compassion for those who are sucking from the teat of the decaying, cruddy system mean anything? Those people should ALSO create and move away from the herd mentality.

The 'naive' criticisms have to do with FN supposedly supporting systems that are ingrained with a herd mentality outlook (ie, Fascism).

Starts to sound like Ayn Rand, no?

A bit yes... but what is wrong with that? Of course FN would have despised her 'followers' and cult worshippers.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

nothing all that politically and socially relevant in 2004

Are you serious? It's a lesson that may be eye opening for some people! Don't worry about tradition, just create new, better systems.

Quote:

his emphasis on destructive change pursued without compassion

Well it depends on whether you believe 'destructive' change is bad. After all Jesus was an example of his will to power. That definetly was a destructive change. One can argue that Martin Luther King, Jr. authored a destructive change.

The problem is that I think you cannot divorce his hatred of the herd from the destructive change. You can't treat them as seperate, they are parts of the same coin.

1. well im not all that certain that the establishment of christianity in place of the pagan world was all that great a thing. And why give credit to Jesus for destroying the pagan world - wasnt it St Paul who made of christianity a potentially world changing religion, and Constantine who finally brought down the pagan edifice? If coming up with a replacement for Temple era Judaism is destructive change, why not give credit say to Hillel, Akiva, or Judah ha -Nasi, who created post-Temple Judaism. A comparison of what they managed to conserve amidst destruction, compared to Jesus and Paul would be illuminating. In fact I think what we would find would be that both Temple Judaism - indeed i think what we would find was that Temple Judaism was brought down by real material events, NOT by a Nietschean intellectual, and that both Akiva and Judah hanasi on the one hand, and Jesus and Paul on the other were responding to that change, even if A and JhN were more 'conservative' in how they did so. Christianity is only a radical change agent wrt to paganism, not Temple Judaism, but wrt paganism that was hardly intended, at least by Jesus.

2. Luther - Again, a case can be made that the reformation was inevitable, given the circumstances of the church at the time, european politics and society etc. Might have been Zwingli, or Calvin, instead of the old German antisemite.

3. Herd "hatred" (i presume FN used a different word) and destructive change - I dont see why you cant seperate them - you can argue for change BASED on compassion for the weak, against the injustice of a traditional system - the classic "left" argument for social change, from the prophets to Marx and beyong. The FN argument is actually quite novel, and strikes one as perverse - again I think (and here I am influenced by what I remember of Kaufman) that FN is NOT so much interested in social and political change as he is in intellectual change, and he is arguing against those who would preserve christianity as an "opiate" for the weak - an important argument in his time perhaps, but of less importance today (most monotheists today not basing their arguments on the opiate value of their faiths)

[Imran Siddiqui]

And why give credit to Jesus for destroying the pagan world - wasnt it St Paul who made of christianity a potentially world changing religion, and Constantine who finally brought down the pagan edifice?

Because Jesus CAME UP with the new morality. He was the creator and that entailed destroying the old ways. He was the big ubermench. Constantine didn't create much at all and merely kept the status quo, just added to it. St. Paul falls in between.

You still get confused over 'destruction'. It doesn't mean physical destruction; it means shaking off the traditional morality. Jesus did that... even wrt to the Jews.

Luther - Again, a case can be made that the reformation was inevitable, given the circumstances of the church at the time, european politics and society etc. Might have been Zwingli, or Calvin, instead of the old German antisemite.

Luther KING? Anyway, if you want to talk Luther, that may work, because he did create, even if you assume someone else would have done it (I doubt a Calvin comes about if Luther doesn't, after all, in his early years Calvin is just a parrot of Luther), and he did engage in destruction of Catholicism.

FN is NOT so much interested in social and political change as he is in intellectual change, and he is arguing against those who would preserve christianity as an "opiate" for the weak - an important argument in his time perhaps, but of less importance today

Perhaps the religion argument is a little less today, but it is also a scathing critique of traditional morality as a whole, which does still exist. Social and political change are really not seperable from 'intellectual change'. They are intellectual persuits, in the end. His argument is to create and not be shackled by the morality that exists today (for everyone!). This is a powerful message for today.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

If there are many intellectuals who are not so aggressive, i suspect that has more to do with there own personal career management, and nothing to do with compassion. If there are any intellectuals holding back great new systems out of compassion id be curious to hear about.

Take a look around! We don't do a bunch of stuff because of tradition! Look at what the US has done with stem-cell research. Plenty of scientists are morally opposed. We've kept the old system and prevented its destruction and thus prevented new creation.

Quote:

its much more open to the "naive" criticisms that have traditionally been leveled against it

Why? Why does compassion for those who are sucking from the teat of the decaying, cruddy system mean anything? Those people should ALSO create and move away from the herd mentality.

The 'naive' criticisms have to do with FN supposedly supporting systems that are ingrained with a herd mentality outlook (ie, Fascism).

Quote:

Starts to sound like Ayn Rand, no?

A bit yes... but what is wrong with that? Of course FN would have despised her 'followers' and cult worshippers.

Stem cell research - without taking a position, thats about HOW science is materially practiced, not an argument against certain ideas. Would FN suggest scientists go back to experimenting on humans without informed consent?

Re sucking the teat of the cruddy system - excellent example of FN inspired rhetoric - more fairly, people who are living ok with the current system, and dont want which will make their lives worse. If they are humans the same as me, why shouldnt their needs in EITHER change or stability count as much as my own? Why privilege my own needs?


And yes, im trying to broaden the naive critism from "Nietshce was the basis for Nazism" to "Nietchse is the basis for a nasty, evil approach to political life"