Ships in Horrible Storms

[Ashvin]

Race meaning culture is more of a stretch than him saying hundreds of millions dead from nihilism. You were on more solid ground attributing the racist quote to the sisters editing, which is a possibility. I know he wrote a lot, so much it contradicts itself everywhere. I'm sure if he said there would be hundreds of millions dead from nihilism it would be well known. That was your original point and I don't need to read anything else from him. I'm glad you enjoy it though.

What you say about language having a reference to psychic concepts seems like stating the obvious, or perhaps you should explain what you mean. You're not treating any of it as opinion, but facts he knew. An interest or understanding of such things is not bettering oneself according to him anyway. Man is nothing without him owning. 

On what do you base the claim that for me, power is only power over other people?   

Redistribution of wealth and property under socialism only requires a simplistic understanding. Note you have not given any explanation for what other type of things can not be owned under socialism he supposedly refers to.

If you think the idea of socialism being the product of a particular race is preposterous, you have a hell of a lot of other trump supporters to convince.

For someone who is so squarely opposed to the political left, you embrace a lot of their praxis. Liz Warren saying she's native American makes sense and the reasoning is reminiscent of Bill Clintons 'it depends what you mean by is' 

I need to excuse myself from this discussion. My rule is to be working by 0900 and I'm a little behind because I got sidetracked here.

I guess I accidentally wrote over my response to this earlier. Basically, I made the following points:

1) The use of an inherently ill-defined word as "race", especially in the 19th century, needs to be determined in context. Throughout the entire corpus of his work, it becomes clear he is using it to mean something more similar to what we mean by "culture", and NOT what we mean by "race". Our modern use of the word is inherently "racist" in some ways, since it implies that the color of a person's skin is a valid cognitive category which gives us accurate insight into their biological structure and also helps us figure out who should be placed where on an various hierarchies, such as the left's hierarchies of oppression. Clearly Nietzsche wasn't using it in this way at all.

2) The evolution of language throughout human history does consist of empirical facts that Nietzsche was aware of, since he was a trained philologist. And about the only people Nietzsche had respect for was ancient cultures who found psychic qualities in what we now call the "physical world". This is what was referred to as "original participation" (Barfield) or "participation mystique" (Levy-Bruhl, Jung). What we now think of as words describing purely "physical" phenomenon were for them describing what we now call "psychological" processes. Of course they didn't make this mind/matter distinction at all.

3) In that sense, what cannot be "owned" under socialism is a person's unique identity and autonomy, which is fundamentally rooted in the evolution of consciousness over our history. Socialism demands a  flattening out of unique identities into a homogenous, collectivized, demythologized grouping of people.

4) The linking of race to political positions and policies is most evidently expressed in the American left today, as we can see in the popularity of Critical Race Theory. We see the most anti-Semitic sentiments in this country from groups like Black Lives Matter (there are many more people who identify with BLM than with neo-Nazi groups). The identity politics of the left has become so prevalent here that you cannot watch a sports broadcast on ESPN or movies/tv on Netflix or Amazon without coming across it a dozen times. And of course the mainstream "news" is identity politics 24/7.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

For a trained philologist in the late 19th C the body of empirical knowledge at their disposal could be fit on a postage stamp. He had thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, (Darwin, Galileo and Copernicus are empiricist) to fall back on, but that is only the field of philosophical postulation. Note you refer to 20th C thinkers.

 He would probably reject Hobbes who said the prehistoric life of man was "nasty, brutish and short" because he would be looking to rationalise extreme pessimism. A good way to do that is find that a good existence can only be found in the past, sonething we cannot access, thereby justifying his being tortured. This is not a well adjusted man who suddenly went mad, but who would have seen a bat instead of a butterfly and so on, on every inkblot in the Rorschach Test.

His cataclysmic prediction of the future which you define as the 20th C never came to pass and he was wrong about it never happening prior. Volcanic eruptions suspected of sending the dinosaur extinct and meteors appearing to my eye to have shaped the gulf of Mexico and Hudson bay, would have achieved the slow geotectonic process of displacing mountains and valleys as per his melancholy prediction.

 If you want to take a less literal interpretation and treat his stream of consciousness like Nostradamus Quatrains, it was not hard to see mechanised killing coming as an ongoing extension of war that had never ceased before. He witnessed the period of most rapid technological advancements in history along with his own country becoming united Germany from independent provinces around 1870 and it's engineering at least equalling, arguably surpassing the British and French. Happier people are more prone to normalcy bias, so optimism about the future wasn't something he suffered. Unhindered by rose tinged glasses, he could see hi tech, more efficient killing coming. WW1 wasn't fought over nihilisticic ideology, and neither was the war in Pacific in WW2. There had been plenty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the past over resources and/or religions starting with homo sapiens eradication of neanderthals. Aboriginal peoples were being rapidly reduced to a tiny remnant in the new worlds and mass killing in Africa such as Leopold of Netherlands atrocity in Congo were happening all in his own time. It should have been Apocalypse Now for Nietzsche.

Nietzsche could not study the origin of language but only theorise. He would naturally exaggerate the limits of words in conveying meaning and ignore all the benefits. He spilled hundreds of thousands of words in the belief it was all like describing colours to the blind or trying to describe a tune to someone without their reading music and without humming or singing.  Fish would understand deep universal truth as they are silent, but if they evolve to the point they can grunt with the intention to express that there is an afterlife, the knowing is lost. All knowing fish come hominid immediately loses its sixth sense.  Texts like the Holy Bible can only take you away from spiritual truth and promote materialism like a clearance sale catalogue. While there is something to what he is saying, hes justifying never being satisfied through nostalgia.

You need to explain who he meant by the "botched race" if we are to consider seriously that he did not regard Chinese as those in china or even the most vague distinction of people's to the east as Asiatic. Whatever our present state of knowledge is on gene flows isn't relevant to that.

Speaking of owning things under socialism, is a different topic to him talking about owning yourself in any social group. That's to do with the matter of  voluntary conformity.

Did someone once say that the left and right can recognise each other's bullshit, but not their own? It follows that if he then came to identify with the right, would tell us that BLM on the left who make no mention of Jews, are infinitely more antisemitic than white supremacists on the right saying there is a Jewish consiracy to take down their race.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

For a trained philologist in the late 19th C the body of empirical knowledge at their disposal could be fit on a postage stamp. He had thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, (Darwin, Galileo and Copernicus are empiricist) to fall back on, but that is only the field of philosophical postulation. Note you refer to 20th C thinkers.

He was the youngest person ever to be Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel (where a lot great thinkers studied, including Carl Jung). He knew ancient Latin and Greek inside and out, and was also fluent in German, French and Italian. How about you? 

His cataclysmic prediction of the future which you define as the 20th C never came to pass and he was wrong about it never happening prior. Volcanic eruptions suspected of sending the dinosaur extinct and meteors appearing to my eye to have shaped the gulf of Mexico and Hudson bay, would have achieved the slow geotectonic process of displacing mountains and valleys as per his melancholy prediction.

LOL... never came to pass?? WWI, WWII, the "Cold" War (which was actually pretty hot)... are we just pretending those didn't happen? And no, nothing like those wars had ever occurred in human history, in terms of the sheer number of deaths and in terms of their grounding in the exact modes of thinking that Nietzsche was criticizing in his writings (nihilism and rationalist authoritarian ideology).

You are really stretching the limits of credulity here to undermine Nietzsche and stick to your a priori assumptions about him.

If you want to take a less literal interpretation and treat his stream of consciousness like Nostradamus Quatrains, it was not hard to see mechanised killing coming as an ongoing extension of war that had never ceased before. He witnessed the period of most rapid technological advancements in history along with his own country becoming united Germany from independent provinces around 1870 and it's engineering at least equalling, arguably surpassing the British and French. Happier people are more prone to normalcy bias, so optimism about the future wasn't something he suffered. Unhindered by rose tinged glasses, he could see hi tech, more efficient killing coming. WW1 wasn't fought over nihilisticic ideology, and neither was the war in Pacific in WW2. There had been plenty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the past over resources and/or religions starting with homo sapiens eradication of neanderthals. Aboriginal peoples were being rapidly reduced to a tiny remnant in the new worlds and mass killing in Africa such as Leopold of Netherlands atrocity in Congo were happening all in his own time. It should have been Apocalypse Now for Nietzsche.

Oh, so, now your argument has changed to "yeah, well, so what if he predicted it? it was EASY for anyone to see it coming". Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking...

In reality, no one saw it coming except for a few visionaries like him. Dostoevsky, who Nietzsche really admired, kind of saw it coming, but he wrote fiction and didn't make any clear predictions. Jung, who was greatly influenced by Nietzsche, also saw WWI coming a few years before it broke out due to a prophetic vision he had on a train. Except he just thought he was going crazy until it actually happened. Nietzsche saw it coming a full THREE decades in advance.

You really need to brush up on your 20th century history. It's perfectly clear that the atrocities of the 20th century were marked by the extremes of nihilism and rationalist ideology, sometimes with both of those mixed together.

Nietzsche could not study the origin of language but only theorise. He would naturally exaggerate the limits of words in conveying meaning and ignore all the benefits. He spilled hundreds of thousands of words in the belief it was all like describing colours to the blind or trying to describe a tune to someone without their reading music and without humming or singing.  Fish would understand deep universal truth as they are silent, but if they evolve to the point they can grunt with the intention to express that there is an afterlife, the knowing is lost. All knowing fish come hominid immediately loses its sixth sense. That's just never satisfied through nostalgia.

Again, what are you talking about here? He clearly studied and taught the evolution of language at Basel. This was really a side tangent we got on because you thought his statement about "ownership" could only be referring to private property. That kind of ownership was certainly a facet of what he was saying, but it wasn't the whole picture he was painting in that passage by a long shot. I already explained to you how socialism deprives individuals of ownership, control, whatever you want to call it, of their unique identity and autonomy. Without that, one cannot even own their ideas, let alone material resources. It is a non-starter.

You need to explain who he meant by the "botched race" if we are to consider seriously that he did not regard Chinese as those in china or even the most vague distinction of people's to the east as Asiatic. Whatever our present state of knowledge is on gene flows isn't relevant to that.

Actually, I just need to show that he never spoke of the Jews as a "botched race" or linked them to socialism. Your argument from the beginning was that he was anti-Semitic and therefore Nazi ideology was a natural offshoot from his philosophy. That has been clearly refuted here and you have not provided any rebuttals of my evidence.

Speaking of owning things under socialism, is a different topic to him talking about owning yourself in any social group. That's to do with the matter of conformity.

Did someone once say that the left and right can recognise each other's bullshit, but not their own? It follows that if he then came to identify with the right, would tell us that BLM on the left who make no mention of Jews, are infinitely more antisemitic than white supremacists on the right saying there is a Jewish consiracy to take down their race.

BLM makes no mention of Jews? Are you aware of the links between BLM and the Nation of Islam, founded by Louis Farrakhan, who is an out and out anti-Semite? If not, read further:

https://newspress.com/blm-l-a-leader-and-anti-semitism/
"In what is a widely underreported event, protesters from the Black Lives Matter group of Los Angeles purposely met in the oldest Jewish neighborhood in the region to destroy Jewish businesses, schools and synagogues. In all, they managed to loot a large number of stores, three Jewish schools and five synagogues. The next day, locals woke up to scrawled graffitied images reading an obscene message attacking Jews, “Free Palestine,” and, perhaps scariest of all, “Kill the Jews!”

On the night of May 30, while the rioters looted and burned without the intervention of the local police, they chanted an obscene message attacking the police and saying “kill the Jews.”

It’s not a far cry from 18th-century Poland, is it?

And lest you think that this was perhaps a small group of people who took advantage of the BLM protests to steal valuables and really had nothing to do with them, let me show you how that is not the case.

The “protest” was organized by BLM-L.A.’s leader, Melina Abdullah, who has on numerous occasions said incredibly anti-Semitic things, as well as endorsing and defending multiple outspoken anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan. "

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

For a trained philologist in the late 19th C the body of empirical knowledge at their disposal could be fit on a postage stamp. He had thinkers like Locke, Hobbes, (Darwin, Galileo and Copernicus are empiricist) to fall back on, but that is only the field of philosophical postulation. Note you refer to 20th C thinkers.

He was the youngest person ever to be Chair of Classical Philology at the University of Basel (where a lot great thinkers studied, including Carl Jung).




He knew ancient Latin and Greek inside and out, and was also fluent in German, French and Italian. How about you? 

His cataclysmic prediction of the future which you define as the 20th C never came to pass and he was wrong about it never happening prior. Volcanic eruptions suspected of sending the dinosaur extinct and meteors appearing to my eye to have shaped the gulf of Mexico and Hudson bay, would have achieved the slow geotectonic process of displacing mountains and valleys as per his melancholy prediction.

LOL... never came to pass?? WWI, WWII, the "Cold" War (which was actually pretty hot)... are we just pretending those didn't happen? And no, nothing like those wars had ever occurred in human history, in terms of the sheer number of deaths and in terms of their grounding in the exact modes of thinking that Nietzsche was criticizing in his writings (nihilism and rationalist authoritarian ideology).

You are really stretching the limits of credulity here to undermine Nietzsche and stick to your a priori assumptions about him.

If you want to take a less literal interpretation and treat his stream of consciousness like Nostradamus Quatrains, it was not hard to see mechanised killing coming as an ongoing extension of war that had never ceased before. He witnessed the period of most rapid technological advancements in history along with his own country becoming united Germany from independent provinces around 1870 and it's engineering at least equalling, arguably surpassing the British and French. Happier people are more prone to normalcy bias, so optimism about the future wasn't something he suffered. Unhindered by rose tinged glasses, he could see hi tech, more efficient killing coming. WW1 wasn't fought over nihilisticic ideology, and neither was the war in Pacific in WW2. There had been plenty of ethnic cleansing and genocide in the past over resources and/or religions starting with homo sapiens eradication of neanderthals. Aboriginal peoples were being rapidly reduced to a tiny remnant in the new worlds and mass killing in Africa such as Leopold of Netherlands atrocity in Congo were happening all in his own time. It should have been Apocalypse Now for Nietzsche.

Oh, so, now your argument has changed to "yeah, well, so what if he predicted it? it was EASY for anyone to see it coming". Talk about Monday morning quarterbacking...

In reality, no one saw it coming except for a few visionaries like him. Dostoevsky, who Nietzsche really admired, kind of saw it coming, but he wrote fiction and didn't make any clear predictions. Jung, who was greatly influenced by Nietzsche, also saw WWI coming a few years before it broke out due to a prophetic vision he had on a train. Except he just thought he was going crazy until it actually happened. Nietzsche saw it coming a full THREE decades in advance.

You really need to brush up on your 20th century history. It's perfectly clear that the atrocities of the 20th century were marked by the extremes of nihilism and rationalist ideology, sometimes with both of those mixed together.

Nietzsche could not study the origin of language but only theorise. He would naturally exaggerate the limits of words in conveying meaning and ignore all the benefits. He spilled hundreds of thousands of words in the belief it was all like describing colours to the blind or trying to describe a tune to someone without their reading music and without humming or singing.  Fish would understand deep universal truth as they are silent, but if they evolve to the point they can grunt with the intention to express that there is an afterlife, the knowing is lost. All knowing fish come hominid immediately loses its sixth sense. That's just never satisfied through nostalgia.

Again, what are you talking about here? He clearly studied and taught the evolution of language at Basel. This was really a side tangent we got on because you thought his statement about "ownership" could only be referring to private property. That kind of ownership was certainly a facet of what he was saying, but it wasn't the whole picture he was painting in that passage by a long shot. I already explained to you how socialism deprives individuals of ownership, control, whatever you want to call it, of their unique identity and autonomy. Without that, one cannot even own their ideas, let alone material resources. It is a non-starter.

You need to explain who he meant by the "botched race" if we are to consider seriously that he did not regard Chinese as those in china or even the most vague distinction of people's to the east as Asiatic. Whatever our present state of knowledge is on gene flows isn't relevant to that.

Actually, I just need to show that he never spoke of the Jews as a "botched race" or linked them to socialism. Your argument from the beginning was that he was anti-Semitic and therefore Nazi ideology was a natural offshoot from his philosophy. That has been clearly refuted here and you have not provided any rebuttals of my evidence.

Speaking of owning things under socialism, is a different topic to him talking about owning yourself in any social group. That's to do with the matter of conformity.

Did someone once say that the left and right can recognise each other's bullshit, but not their own? It follows that if he then came to identify with the right, would tell us that BLM on the left who make no mention of Jews, are infinitely more antisemitic than white supremacists on the right saying there is a Jewish consiracy to take down their race.

BLM makes no mention of Jews? Are you aware of the links between BLM and the Nation of Islam, founded by Louis Farrakhan, who is an out and out anti-Semite? If not, read further:

https://newspress.com/blm-l-a-leader-and-anti-semitism/
"In what is a widely underreported event, protesters from the Black Lives Matter group of Los Angeles purposely met in the oldest Jewish neighborhood in the region to destroy Jewish businesses, schools and synagogues. In all, they managed to loot a large number of stores, three Jewish schools and five synagogues. The next day, locals woke up to scrawled graffitied images reading an obscene message attacking Jews, “Free Palestine,” and, perhaps scariest of all, “Kill the Jews!”

On the night of May 30, while the rioters looted and burned without the intervention of the local police, they chanted an obscene message attacking the police and saying “kill the Jews.”

It’s not a far cry from 18th-century Poland, is it?

And lest you think that this was perhaps a small group of people who took advantage of the BLM protests to steal valuables and really had nothing to do with them, let me show you how that is not the case.

The “protest” was organized by BLM-L.A.’s leader, Melina Abdullah, who has on numerous occasions said incredibly anti-Semitic things, as well as endorsing and defending multiple outspoken anti-Semites like Louis Farrakhan. "

You are not addressing what I am saying.

Again, thinking is not knowing. It's a bunch of postulation. When they get anything right, it is usually just things many average people know without the leisure and level of articulation to express them. That's Jung in the 20th C, his teacher of tradition was Freud who was a behavioral scientist not just theoretician. The empirical knowledge Nietzsche had to work with was next to nil. The languages you listed are great to work with in advancing a western centric theory, so the Holy Bible can only take you further away from God like a clearance sale catalogue. To know origins of language he needed to look south as much as possible and to know the possibilities of spiritual attunement without interference of words or thinking in words, he only needed to look east. His theory was based on not knowing Sanskrit which was the root of the Germanic ones you mentioned.

You are adding "rationalistic" to nihilistic now. All war is rational in the need to take and control resources. What did I say about ww2, even if we allow that Nazism and fascism is nihilistic and that is the cause of THAT war, which I really think is nonsense, it does not explain the war in the Pacific.

Mountains and valleys changing places did not come to pass in the 20th C. It did happen in the past by processes I listed. Nietzsche got it wrong on both counts. A 19th century chair of phi lol ogy can be forgiven that ignorance. If Yellowstone blows soon, he gets a point, as he didn't specifically mention the 20th C. Phil ology is the superior discipline.

Did you not understand what I meant by allowing YOU a non literal interpretation? Nietzsche is all things to all men, including Hitler in doing so. 

Farrakhan and the LA leader does fit a total of "one or two" anti-Semites, those BLM messages messing up sports and 99% of BLM do not identify at all with Islam or give a thought to Jews. The same can not be said for white supremacists ordered to stand by.

When I point out that the genocide down to a tiny remnant of the populations in the new worlds and n Africa at his own time is evidence that Nietzsche was wrong that what he saw for the future had never happened. Homo sap eradicated Neanderthal in the past as well. Thats an example of clearly refuted. Entire continents populations almost eradicated.

You don't know everyone who could see WW1 coming. I don't think it's hard to predict with great advances in technology at the time, that future wars would be killing more people in shorter time.

You do need to explain who he meant by "botched race" that produced socialism, if you want to refute Hitler taking it as a green light. Perhaps he couldn't find any other explanation either.

This is wasting time and boring everyone reading, spamming and stinking up the diner again. I hope RE locks the topic. 

• Tweet

[John of Wallan]

I seem to agree with Ashwin here:
I am an engineer not a philosopher, yet I too am struggling to see anything positive to come out of Nietzsche's work from what little I have read of it. (When I retire I will read more of his work, along with more Charles Dickens... I loved a tale of two cities).

If he predicted cataclysmic times in the 20th century he got it pretty damn right by my reading of history.

I am too busy with reality unfolding around me, like many at the moment, to see anything other than bad behavior being excused because society is unfair. Its always easy to blame others for your predicament. As you rightly point out politicians do it all the time. (Pauline Hanson here in Oz) Create a "THEM" to blame so "WE" can prevail. Religion is just the ultimate political power game, which is what makes theocracies so dangerous.

Call out bad behaviour in Israel and you are an anti semmite. Call out bad behaviour of the Sudanese youth gangs car jacking in Melbourne and you are racist. Call out the bad behaviour of the government bailing out the rich and you are a socialist. Call out rioters and you are a facist.

The left in the US need to call out BLM and other rioters. The right the racists. Both need to call out the bank bailouts that only help the rich.

Being a heterosexual white male who owns property I am automatically sexist, racist, facist and homophobic it would seem. I absolutely have enjoyed some privelidge as a result of my genetics, but i have not sought it out, so I should not be called out for this.

The irony of you calling me a leftie in another post Ashwin amuses me. I have been called everything you can think of at one time or another when ever I call out bad behaviour. The only real point of contention should be what I consider bad behaviour. Many others have considered my behaviour bad.

If you can benefit others by your actions you should. Behaviour defines us not what others label us. Probably too simplistic for some intenectuals, but simple enough for logical me.

JOW

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

You are not addressing what I am saying.

Again, thinking is not knowing. It's a bunch of postulation. When they get anything right, it is usually just things many average people know without the leisure and level of articulation to express them. That's Jung in the 20th C, his teacher of tradition was Freud who was a behavioral scientist not just theoretician. The empirical knowledge Nietzsche had to work with was next to nil. The languages you listed are great to work with in advancing a western centric theory, so the Holy Bible can only take you further away from God like a clearance sale catalogue. To know origins of language he needed to look south as much as possible and to know the possibilities of spiritual attunement without interference of words or thinking in words, he only needed to look east. His theory was based on not knowing Sanskrit which was the root of the Germanic ones you mentioned.

I never said Nietzsche figured out the "origins of language". I said he understood the evolution of language and how the change in the meaning of words reflected a change in consciousness, and how we can see a progression from the mental meaning of words to the physical. There is no better source for this than the Bible, because it was compiled over many centuries and contains a vast amount of written traditions. This is exactly what Owen Barfield does in Saving the Appearances and he was an Anthroposophist (follower of Rudolf Steiner), which is about as Eastern as spiritual worldviews come in the West.

The title character for Nietzsche's masterpiece was Zarathustra, who is the mythical founder of Zoroastrianism. If you are familiar with it, then you know it has no problem with the idea of pointing to spiritual truths through mystical experience. Nietzsche identified himself with this character and therefore saw himself in some ways reconstituting the tenets of that faith in the modern world. Both he and Jung had deep mystical experiences which informed their worldviews and subsequent writings, but unfortunately Nietzsche's also drove him to madness.

You are adding "rationalistic" to nihilistic now. All war is rational in the need to take and control resources. What did I say about ww2, even if we allow that Nazism and fascism is nihilistic and that is the cause of THAT war, which I really think is nonsense, it does not explain the war in the Pacific.

I am using these terms in a philosophical sense. Rationalism is the philosophy (epistemology) which says that all knowledge of reality must come through logic and reason, and therefore we can dispense with mythology, spirituality or anything which tries to incorporate emotions, intuitions, imaginations/dreams, i.e. the mind as a whole, because it only leads us to false conclusions about reality. Nietzsche absolutely despised rationalist modes of thinking. Marxism is an ideology which undeniably embraces that mode of thinking. And the Communists likely killed a lot more people in the 20th century than the Nazis.

As for Nazis and nihilism, I think the fact that Hitler would rather see his nation burn and everyone in it die rather than cede it to foreign powers speaks for itself.

Mountains and valleys changing places did not come to pass in the 20th C. It did happen in the past by processes I listed. Nietzsche got it wrong on both counts. A 19th century chair of phi lol ogy can be forgiven that ignorance. If Yellowstone blows soon, he gets a point, as he didn't specifically mention the 20th C.

Here you go again with the literalist or physicalist interpretation when clearly we are dealing with a highly symbolic and metaphorical thinker. This is like the new atheist who throws out the Bible because he thinks of it in the same literalist way as the fundamentalist Christian, but doesn't realize it.

Farrakhan does fit a total of "one or two" anti-Semites, those BLM messages messing up sports and 99.999% of BLM do not identify at all with Islam or give a thought to Jews. The same can not be said for white supremacists ordered to stand by.

Why you feel the need to downplay the connection between BLM and anti-Semitism? The article I linked makes clear the anti-Semitic sentiments of Melina Abdullah, the leader of BLM in Los Angeles. I have no problem calling leaders of the Proud Boys white supremacists, but why do you have a problem calling prominent BLM leaders anti-Semitic?

And here's another example of anti-Semitism on the left, which had nothing to do with BLM.

https://stanfordreview.org/spoiler-alert-ben-shapiro-is-no-anti-semite/
TL;DR: “Coalition of Concerned Students” calls Ben Shapiro anti-Semitic in apology letter for being anti-semitic.

Two days ago, we reported that the “Coalition of Concerned Students” had covered campus with fliers depicting Ben Shapiro’s face on a bottle of insecticide. To their credit, the Coalition apologized quite promptly, acknowledging that the imagery was offensive and in poor taste, and released new and improved posters. So far, so civil.

And then they had to go and ruin it.

“Therefore, as we call back this flyer and apologize for its antisemitic tropes, we condemn Shapiro’s unwavering Islamophobia and antisemitism through his belief that only way to be a real Jew is to agree with him and through his strong support of Zionism.”

You said earlier you are familiar with projection. When I point out that the genocide down to a tiny remnant of the populations in the new worlds and n Africa at his own time is evidence that Nietzsche was wrong that what he saw for the future had never happened, or that homo sap eradicated Neanderthal, you are clearly refuted.

You are just playing semantic games now. What he was talking about was large-scale conflict between nation-states, which couldn't be any more clear from the passages cited, and nothing like that had happened previously.

You do need to explain who he meant by "botched race", if you want to refute Hitler taking it as a green light.

No, I don't, because that's ridiculous. And once again you can only think in physicalist terms - in your mind, "race" must mean a specific group of people with recently shared ancestry and can't possibly mean anything else. If you value Eastern religion or philosophy, then why do you seem so stuck on this Western materialist mode of thinking?

I already explained my thinking on Hitler. He got the green light from the German people attending his sermons, not some philosopher writing 50 years ago.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

The irony of you calling me a leftie in another post Ashwin amuses me.

Which one was that? I lost track during this back and forth with Phil. You clearly recognize the threat of identity politics on the right AND the left, and recognize it's actually happening on the left, and no "leftie" I have come across can say as much, so I apologize!

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

He got the green light from the German people attending his sermons, not some philosopher writing 50 years ago.

It seems everything is moving towards impossible to prove or disprove. Saying something never happened before though, is clear cut. Even the deluge, while we mention the Bible, is proof that near extinction events have happened.

The Phil ological approach includes conflict within nation states, not just between them, which is all you are claiming. I say the wars would have happened anyway, regardless of ideology. Communist revolutions are a much stronger argument both for the ideological aspect and for number of dead.

I don't mind saying the LA BLM shouldnt be allowing an Islamic leader to take them off course and I hope that is corrected. The Ben Shapiro bugspray and facetious apology are nothing serious. Singing Dr Jo Mengele to the tune of Mr Bojangles at MAGA rallies, not so much.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

The Phil ological approach includes conflict within nation states, not just between them, which is all you are claiming. I say the wars would have happened anyway, regardless of ideology. Communist revolutions are a much stronger argument both for the ideological aspect and for number of dead.

True, it was conflict between and within nation states on a scale never seen before. At least we can we agree on the Communist atrocities. I would say Nietzche was mostly predicting that, given how much he railed against the socialist tendencies of his day. He does point to nihilism as well though.

I don't mind saying the LA BLM shouldnt be allowing an Islamic leader to take them off course and I hope that is corrected. The Ben Shapiro bugspray and facetious apology are nothing serious. Singing Dr Jo Mengele to the tune of Mr Bojangles at MAGA rallies, not so much.

I think they are both serious, but the liberals doing it unconsciously is more troublesome in my view. They are adopting Nazi dehumanizing language to attack their perceived enemies without even realizing it. The Shapiro example isnt the only time that "disgusting insect" sort of language is used on the left to attack the right.

• Tweet

[RE]

The 20th Century was simply 100 years of oil driven power seeking.  It wasn't really different from any other century other than new and more powerful weapons were developed for killing people.  What Nietze "predicted" was just CFS in action.  WWI and WWII could not have been stopped any more than you can stop collapse today.

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

• Tweet

[K-Dog]

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

Lack of care for oneself or others to the point that life suffers.  Being tied up in a straitjacket by definition is a life which suffers.  I would go in the direction of not being able to rationally apprehend the world.  But that would mean everyone we know is bat-shit crazy.

I actually have found an exception.

<a href="http://www.youtube.com/v/7LqaotiGWjQ" target="_blank" class="new_win">http://www.youtube.com/v/7LqaotiGWjQ</a>

Nietzsche himself could not make the beating of a horse stop and went bat-shit.  Going bat shit could not stop the beating of the horse.  A circle of grief such as this demonstrates what crazy is.  But things are not so clear cut always.

The American Election is an example.  Everyone who voted expects change they will not get.  Thus voting was crazy.  Unless you voted for the lesser crazy.

Which one is that?

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

The 20th Century was simply 100 years of oil driven power seeking.  It wasn't really different from any other century other than new and more powerful weapons were developed for killing people.  What Nietze "predicted" was just CFS in action.  WWI and WWII could not have been stopped any more than you can stop collapse today.

Nietzsche certainly didn't think they could be stopped. But wars before the 20th century were not driven by the same type of rationalist ideologies or nihilism, because scientism and rationalism only became mainstays of Western culture in the 19th century or maybe late 18th century. And nihilism, i.e. not perceiving any sort of meaning in life, was never really a problem for anyone before this time either.

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

It could be thought of as being unable to mediate eruptions from the unconscious during our waking consciousness. Normally we all have these eruptions during our dreams, or with fits of passion during our waking consciousness (which is why we have legal categories like manslaughter, killing in the "heat of rage"). Going mad to the point of sensory "delusions" could be like dreaming while you are awake with no control over it.

• Tweet

[RE]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

• Tweet

[Eddie]

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

It could be thought of as being unable to mediate eruptions from the unconscious during our waking consciousness. Normally we all have these eruptions during our dreams, or with fits of passion during our waking consciousness (which is why we have legal categories like manslaughter, killing in the "heat of rage"). Going mad to the point of sensory "delusions" could be like dreaming while you are awake with no control over it.

This is more or less what schizophrenia amounts to, I think.......when the dreams that are a normal part of sleeping life, arising out of a free-associating subconscious mind......bleed over Into waking life, and the victim can no longer tell them apart.....which can also occur when people take psychedelic drugs......which is what makes them dangerous for some people who are more susceptible.

This probably happens more than we acknowledge......it's only when someone's life is affected in ways that make it unmanageable....that it gets diagnosed and treated.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

• Tweet