Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Ned]

Originally posted by Evil Knevil
Oh dear. He thinks Orwell is a philosopher.

Why is Rand a philospher and Orwell not?

[BeBMan]

Well, obviously it often works this way. I even think it is correct in a certain way. But it reminds me also on totalitarian rule where usually lots of promises are made for a golden future which would certainly come if only enough sacrifices would be made....of course, only by the others....

oh stupid x-posts

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ned


Why is Rand a philospher and Orwell not?

According to some she isn´t either

[GePap]

Originally posted by BeBro
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.

Everyone has the right to decide some eggs need to be broken. The question is who is capable of it. It need not be a leader..hence Jesus.

And yes, people have to deal with the eggs being broken, just like they have to dealwith having eggs in their shells instead of a delicious Ommelette.

[Agathon]

Does anyone really think Nietzsche is a political philosopher. I mean, he has a healthy disdain for politics.

And there's a passage in the Gay Science where he specifically states that cruelty is a sign of weakness.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

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".

Cost benefit analysis with a low discount rate for future benefits. Again, Bentham could have gotten to this. Except without worrying himself too much about folks mentalities.

[GePap]

Originally posted by Agathon
Does anyone really think Nietzsche is a political philosopher. I mean, he has a healthy disdain for politics.

I never saw him as such.

And there's a passage in the Gay Science where he specifically states that cruelty is a sign of weakness.

you can work this out as well by what he says about punishment. I do have to read the gay Science though.

[Ned]

I think many novelists, particularly science fiction writers, are philosophers - they just illustrate their views in a much more entertaining way.

In a sense, Adam Smith and Montesquieu are philosophers. They both had a lot to do with giving America its political ethos.

[GePap]

Rand identified herself as a philospher- she wanted to be known as a philosopher, as opposed to Orwell.

[lord of the mark]

So - Fn - 1. everybody should think for themselves .Kewl
2. Cost Benefit with a very low discount rate on future beneifts - agruable, but ok
3. Monotheist religion based on slave experience - questionable history and sociology of religion.
4. Anything I (FN) dont like is weakness
5. I (FN) get to call whats consideration for others and whats pity

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by GePap





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.

1. instead of will to power why not will to autonomy, or to self assertion - from Greek Thymos - if not WtP than a more Hegelian democratic solution appears possible, with mastery equally shared and no slaves.
2. Slave morality - connected with monotheistic religion historically wrong about spread of christianity, sociologically questionable about origins of sexual repression and other physical self denial.

[GePap]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. instead of will to power why not will to autonomy, or to self assertion - from Greek Thymos - if not WtP than a more Hegelian democratic solution appears possible, with mastery equally shared and no slaves.

But Nietzsche does not believe in equality of people's, so how can any democracy work? Nietzshce call is will to power becuase there is a whish to dominate, which goes beyond seeking autonomy- its seeking control.

2. Slave morality - connected with monotheistic religion historically wrong about spread of christianity, sociologically questionable about origins of sexual repression and other physical self denial.

Nietzsche does not correlate the slave morality to monotheism- to theism yes, but not soley monotheism- any land were the priests are powerful- that is a land of slaves- I guess ancient Egypt would count. As for the birth of self-denial, any asetic movement for him is part of the slave mentality: why ginore or try to subjugate your life in such a manner?

Agian though, he see's it as necessary to the creation of a deeper man.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by lord of the mark


1. instead of will to power why not will to autonomy, or to self assertion - from Greek Thymos

It's thumos and it means "spirit" or "anger" among other things.

autonomous roughly means "self legislating".

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by GePap
But Nietzsche does not believe in equality of people's, so how can any democracy work? Nietzshce call is will to power becuase there is a whish to dominate, which goes beyond seeking autonomy- its seeking control.

This is exactly my point. Will to power means will to dominate and control. You Nietzsche apologists yell whenever someone makes a comparison with totalitarianism or Nazism, but this is a true and accurate comparison. How is a desire to control not compatable with Nazism? They are in perfect harmony.

Nietzsche is about power, control, and domination. As has been said, his is not an egalitarian philosophy, he does not intend it for all human kind (if he did he'd be a fool, because everything would break down). Therefore he intended it for a few, or perhaps one, to fufill their will to power through dominating the others. This is totalitarianism.

Everyone has the right to decide some eggs need to be broken. The question is who is capable of it.

Exactly. Hitler had a grand, wonderful, Nietzschian omelette he thought up, his concentration camps, war, and sterilizations were the egg breaking. He had higher values, he had a vision of a wonderful third reich that would last a 1000 years and spread glorious Aryan culture, science, learning and prosperity around the globe. He wanted to create a new world, just like Nietzsche wanted, and just like Nietzsche said in order to create one has to destroy.

It really bothers me when people say Hitler is a misrepresentation of Nietzsche, Stalin a misrepresentation of Stalin, and social darwinism a misrepresentation of darwinism. All are inseperable from the flawed philosophies they sprung from. When FN says the powerful need to dominate and control, is it any surprize when someone like Hitler amasses power and does just that?

The problem is that people read these philosophies and it all sounds good on paper, but they are flawed, failed worldviews. Putting them into practice necessarily results in situations like Nazi Germany or Soviet Russia. These are not mistakes, these are the necessary results of these sick philosophies.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by OzzyKP

All are inseperable from the flawed philosophies they sprung from.

I take it then that Capitalism must be the worst crime ever? Because the industrials of the 19th century claimed worker unions would kill 'free market'?