The Altera Centauri collection has been brought up to date by Darsnan. It comprises every decent scenario he's been able to find anywhere on the web, going back over 20 years.
25 themes/skins/styles are now available to members. Check the select drop-down at the bottom-left of each page.
Call To Power 2 Cradle 3+ mod in progress: https://apolyton.net/forum/other-games/call-to-power-2/ctp2-creation/9437883-making-cradle-3-fully-compatible-with-the-apolyton-edition
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.
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.
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.
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.
If you don't like reality, change it! me
"Oh no! I am bested!" Drake
"it is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong" Voltaire
"Patriotism is a pernecious, psychopathic form of idiocy" George Bernard Shaw
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.
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.
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.
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
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)
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
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.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
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.
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?
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
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.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
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.
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)
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
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.
“I give you a new commandment, that you love one another. Just as I have loved you, you also should love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another.”
- John 13:34-35 (NRSV)
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.
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"
"A person cannot approach the divine by reaching beyond the human. To become human, is what this individual person, has been created for.” Martin Buber
.
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.
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.
Tweet
Comment