Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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.

I doubt FN was speaking about Christiniaity as compared to Judaism of its time when thinking about Christianity's radicalism- speically since as you point out it is its spread in the Roman world that matters. As for why give Jesus credit- he is the creative force: Paul and others spread the world, Constantine uses the sword, but they do not create ideas anew, only spread the creation of someone else.

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.

I am not sure that Nietzsche would view internal reformations within the Chrsitian ethos to be real "new creations"- creating new sects of the same old (In his view) world-hating religion does nto sound like any great leap.

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)

I agree with Imran than you can not separate intellectual change form social change, given that society is built on ideas. On the notion of 'compassionate' change- the Marxist aguement in no ways calls for compassionate change: any change that calls for bloody revolution and class war is not compassionate- besides, Marx does not base his claims of change on compassion but on a hisotrical imperative based on historical and eocnomic forces.

I don;t think he would deny the ability for change that would help free the slave mentality, but it could not be based on pity- it has to be life affirming (at a minimum, afffrim the creator's life) to be worhtwhile. Take Jesus's morality- a lot of it is about helping your fellow man and love- and Nietzsche has no problem with its creation, only how the weak subvert it for thier own aims, which is self-subjugation and death-affirmation.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by 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. .

How did his creation involve destroying the old way, for anyone other than him personally? He could have followed his new, way and everyone else the old way, in which case how is it SOCIALLY meaningful to say the old way is destroyed?


RE; MLK - sorry, yes i read that too quickly. My bad.
Was MLK a destroyer - his great creations in non-violent methods were part of a tradition MLK himself attributed to Gandhi and Thoreau - and ultimately back to the Hebrew prophets (the substantive goal of integration was of course not MLK's creation by any means) MLK was, in that sense, closer to the traditionalism of an Akiva then to the radicalism of a Jesus. He just had a tradition very different from that of those he opposed.

[Imran Siddiqui]

without taking a position, thats about HOW science is materially practiced, not an argument against certain ideas

It is an argument against traditionalism. People balking at stem cell research because of 'playing God' fears, etc.

As for experimenting on humans? Perhaps.

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?

For progress' sake. Why not destroy an outdated and bad system in favor something new and better? Because people like their stability? So what? Yes, there may be some dislocations, but in the end people will be better off if they are free from traditional thinking and are allowed to create.

Nietchse is the basis for a nasty, evil approach to political life

It's a nice opinion, but that naive critique can apply to Hobbes, Locke, Marx, Plato, etc, etc.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
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?

Nietzsche does not ask people ignore the needs of others in their acts- he states though one not be held back by possible suffering of tohers, even if just suffereing becuase thier world-view has been brought down. Anything done for "pity sake" is in his eyes a terrible thing. Better to create a new system in which no need or opportunity for pity exist.

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"

Interesitngly enough, while I do not think that Nietzsch is the basis for a "nasty, evil approach to political life" (just look at political life in general-when has it not been nasty and evil?)- he is the one that says that he ushers in the age of great politics-and we all know great politics leads to great suffering.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I doubt FN was speaking about Christiniaity as compared to Judaism of its time when thinking about Christianity's radicalism- speically since as you point out it is its spread in the Roman world that matters. As for why give Jesus credit- he is the creative force: Paul and others spread the world, Constantine uses the sword, but they do not create ideas anew, only spread the creation of someone else.
.

But thats my point - in this case the creation did NOT destroy - jesus without Paul or Constantine would have left the pagan herds as they were. It is the popularizer, and in some cases, the sword, that destroy. The destruction is logically and historically seperate from the creation, and this demonstrates the point. Ultimately the notion of destruction and the despisal of the herd are contradictory - had there been no herd, Jesus would have changed no one beside himself.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
RE; MLK - sorry, yes i read that too quickly. My bad.
Was MLK a destroyer - his great creations in non-violent methods were part of a tradition MLK himself attributed to Gandhi and Thoreau - and ultimately back to the Hebrew prophets (the substantive goal of integration was of course not MLK's creation by any means) MLK was, in that sense, closer to the traditionalism of an Akiva then to the radicalism of a Jesus. He just had a tradition very different from that of those he opposed.

MLK was a nice man, but I don't know how Nietzsche would judge him as a creator or not. Actually, Ghandi would do better, for he basically chnaged the rules of the game in India with his actions, and for all his non-violence, he was more of a forceful leader than MLK.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
But thats my point - in this case the creation did NOT destroy - jesus without Paul or Constantine would have left the pagan herds as they were. It is the popularizer, and in some cases, the sword, that destroy. The destruction is logically and historically seperate from the creation, and this demonstrates the point. Ultimately the notion of destruction and the despisal of the herd are contradictory - had there been no herd, Jesus would have changed no one beside himself.

What is wrong with self-change? nietzsche does not call only for social change- someone who creates a new self-, who overcomes the self-loathing, life -loathing of the slave mentality, and is able to understand and appriciate life affirmation at a level higher than that of the "blod beast" is already a creator. In fact, that abiloty to create a new self is probalby what separates the overman form the blond beast, who in all his life affirmation is still stuck in a single mode, while the overmna can make new modes, even if he is the sole beneficiary.

You can destroy a herd in two ways-kill all the sheep, or make it so all the sheep stop acting like a herd.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap


I agree with Imran than you can not separate intellectual change form social change, given that society is built on ideas. On the notion of 'compassionate' change- the Marxist aguement in no ways calls for compassionate change: any change that calls for bloody revolution and class war is not compassionate- besides, Marx does not base his claims of change on compassion but on a hisotrical imperative based on historical and eocnomic forces.

I don;t think he would deny the ability for change that would help free the slave mentality, but it could not be based on pity- it has to be life affirming (at a minimum, afffrim the creator's life) to be worhtwhile. Take Jesus's morality- a lot of it is about helping your fellow man and love- and Nietzsche has no problem with its creation, only how the weak subvert it for thier own aims, which is self-subjugation and death-affirmation.

1. i think society is built as much on material factors on ideas - i guess im closer to "left Hegelian" in this regard
2. I think theres plenty of ambiguity in Marx as to whether revolution is strictly inevitable, or to be pushed along. ISTR a virtual industry arguing about this. Certainly his followers often speak a language of social justice. And certainly a revolution could be compassionate, if it improved the lot of the worst off - im thinking in terms of a Rawlsian view of Marx.
3. Why cant self-denial for the benefit of others be life affirming? what is self-denial? If I act out of "pity" why isnt that part of my expression of my own self? It seems that ANY substantive political or social act could be made to sound acceptable on FN grounds, as long as the correct words were used to describe the associated emotions.
4. weighting needs and pity - well if there is a social intellectual poliitcal system that eliminates the need for pity (by eliminating suffering) thats great - but seems utopian. IF there is not, than is FN reduced to cost benefit analysis - how many gain from the change, how many lose? But i didnt need FN for that, much shallower english philosophers already gave me that - is FN only giving philisophical cover and wider application to Mill and Bentham? Or is he privileging those who benefit from change over those who lose - its always ok to support change on grounds of reducing suffering, but not to resist change that increased suffering?

Or is it just words and emotions - its ok to be against suffering, as long as you dont have "pity" sounds again less like a universal concept, and more like an attempt to stigmatize certain words and emotions associated with Christianity.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[

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?

For progress' sake. Why not destroy an outdated and bad system in favor something new and better? Because people like their stability? So what? Yes, there may be some dislocations, but in the end people will be better off if they are free from traditional thinking and are allowed to create.

how do we evaluate progress if not by its effect on humans? Why should traditional thinking mean not being allowed to create? as for "something new and better" youre sounding like and any enlightenment liberal, or utilitarian. I thought FN added something new.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap



What is wrong with self-change? nietzsche does not call only for social change- someone who creates a new self-, who overcomes the self-loathing, life -loathing of the slave mentality, and is able to understand and appriciate life affirmation at a level higher than that of the "blod beast" is already a creator. In fact, that abiloty to create a new self is probalby what separates the overman form the blond beast, who in all his life affirmation is still stuck in a single mode, while the overmna can make new modes, even if he is the sole beneficiary.

You can destroy a herd in two ways-kill all the sheep, or make it so all the sheep stop acting like a herd.

No - you can only make it so that one sheep stops acting like a herd - once you make other sheep stop acting like a herd, they ARE acting like a herd.

Which, as i said before make FN a guide for how to think and feel (assuming you find his description of what is selfloathing and lifeloathing compelling, and not mere rhetoric) but NOT a political or social thinker.

[Imran Siddiqui]

How did his creation involve destroying the old way, for anyone other than him personally? He could have followed his new, way and everyone else the old way, in which case how is it SOCIALLY meaningful to say the old way is destroyed?

Once again you are misunderstanding 'creation' and 'destroying'. In the end it is the person who transcends traditional morality and creates something new. It is obvious that he did so. It is socially meaningful because a strong, powerful person escews the normal morality. A role model, if you will, for others to turn back on the morality.

Was MLK a destroyer - his great creations in non-violent methods were part of a tradition MLK himself attributed to Gandhi and Thoreau - and ultimately back to the Hebrew prophets (the substantive goal of integration was of course not MLK's creation by any means) MLK was, in that sense, closer to the traditionalism of an Akiva then to the radicalism of a Jesus. He just had a tradition very different from that of those he opposed.

His 'tradition' was not the tradition of the society he was in. Therefore he threw off the traditional morality. Morality isn't the same all over. Different societies have different traditions. It isn't cheating to see what other societies have done... if it leads to the creative force and progress.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
No - you can only make it so that one sheep stops acting like a herd - once you make other sheep stop acting like a herd, they ARE acting like a herd.

Actually, this is wrong. Under this schema, you are never an individual, given that if everyone is an individual, you are all individuals, you are all acting the same, thus you are a herd! Circular logic. IN a herd, there is a single decision maker- if each sheep becomes an individual decison maker, by definiton this is not a herd- even if for some reason, all the independent decision makers arrive at the same agreed upon action.

Which, as i said before make FN a guide for how to think and feel (assuming you find his description of what is selfloathing and lifeloathing compelling, and not mere rhetoric) but NOT a political or social thinker.

Nietzsche ascribes to all people a will to dominate, as he calls it, the will to power. The problem being, the weak are incapable of dominating the strong, but their urge to dominate remains- they must dominate someone, so they act against the only person left-themselves. So they dig deep against themselves, i thier struggle to get the upperhand over thmesleves- and they decide to strike against thier bodies and natural fucntions (why slave religions single out sex, for one) and basically, what it is to be alive, which is why they then begin to seek otherworldly salvation and pleasure as their reward, as opposed to enjoying their life now. Think of it this way- if suicide bombers did not thinkg they would go to heaven and be rewarded, would they do it? They affirm a ficitonal afterlife to oevrcome thier weakness in this one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

If I act out of "pity" why isnt that part of my expression of my own self?

Because you are purposely holding your own self back because of your 'pity' for others. It is inherant in 'pity' that you don't go full force.

how do we evaluate progress if not by its effect on humans? Why should traditional thinking mean not being allowed to create? as for "something new and better" youre sounding like and any enlightenment liberal, or utilitarian. I thought FN added something new.

He does. A complete throwing aside of tradition and a questioning of what truth really is. A disdain of herd mentality and a believe that all humans should become ubermench. Progress doesn't always have to be better for current humanity. As Lenin said, "to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs".

you can only make it so that one sheep stops acting like a herd - once you make other sheep stop acting like a herd, they ARE acting like a herd.

WHY? Why must the other sheep act like a herd? When the sheep stop acting like a herd, they branch off in different creative directions. There is no requirement that they must believe what another superman believes. They can follow what they want and behave in creative ways.

And of course a Fascist or totalitarian system would not support this. For that tends to keep the herd as the herd.

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Progress doesn't always have to be better for current humanity. As Lenin said, "to make an omelette, you have to break some eggs".

And who exactly can claim the right to make this decision? In reality it turns out that someone decides "to break some eggs" and the others have to deal with it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

And who exactly can claim the right to make this decision? In reality it turns out that someone decides "to break some eggs" and the others have to deal with it.

Perhaps that's true. They can deal then . IMO, who ever has the power to do so has the 'right' to make the decision.