just finished Zarathustra…
I now wait to digest and understand it…
Kropotkin
Well if you’re hearing impaired, dont like lyrics, and a stevie wonder fan (you had mentioned liking it before), then this is indisputably the best instrumental wonder ever wrote. That’s not even a subjective judgement… like he hasn’t done anything comparable to this on other albums. So it’s basically wonder-fusion, and very precious because it’s so unique.
Btw has anyone here ever seen stevie wonder’s girlfriend?
(omg don’t say it. that’s just wrong)
"just finished Zarathustra…
I now wait to digest and understand it…"
When I read the zarathustras the first thing I thought was: i wish john Grisham would have written this instead of N. The premise, plot and storyline is magnificent, but it’s all too beautifully written for a post-modern nihilist like me.
But the thing is I wuz reading several of his others all at once, as well. Damn now you’re taking me back dude. Met this Appalachian state student dude at the magik beans coffee shop. He looked like ray manzerick from the doors so much it was stupid. But he had the ‘portable nietzsche’ paperback from the library. At that moment my only experience with philosophy was through Durant’s story of philosophy. Incidentally I hadn’t yet read the Nietzsche chapter at the time, so only knew of him. so when I wuz flipping through it and reading the aphorisms, I wuz struck into a momentary dumbfounded stupor at the sight of what I always knew needed to be said, but never suspected to see in a philosophy book and put so eloquently.
Then I plunged into it more or less. Bought three from the book store that week. Now to the point. The zarathustras were so stylistically different I kept putting them off for months… then years… only browsing once in a while through it if I came across it. It wuz in the back of the portable N if I believe… but the dude checked it back into the library.
Damn that’s memories man. Sitting on the steps of the coffee shop shell shocked by the antichrist quotes and so delighted that someone had said it, we could hardly contain ourselves.
Dude I actually had a relationship end with a wonderful girl from Arkansas who was also a student there, because of my obsession with N and my insistence on discussing the ideas. But the brutality of N’s ideas offended her, and a slow distance began to develop between us as I delved deeper and deeper into those books.
Carried them with me everywhere. Backpack… voluntary homelessness (couch surfing, camping). So I wuz always reading them because i did a lot of hanging out on king street. Lively place bustling with trustafarians selling art. Blue grass trios playing on the sidewalk. Like a mini Greenwich village. This was 93 or 94.
Anyway I keep putting Z back because I’m discovering all these other philosophers and I’m being blown away in all directions. I think that whole Boone period (the first one) was a study of the existentialists, now that I think about it. I didn’t pay any attention to the British, Scottish, or American greats for a good four or five years straight. I didn’t start venturing into the more analytical philosophy until I had a good grasp of hume… and that was much later. I wuz on sartre and kierkegaard and N and Heidegger and Camus for a minute, yo.
Zarathustra is essentially this though. It is an impossibly high set of ideals that is reasoned into existence by imagining a human being that has followed the hardest and coldest line of logic to arrive at truths which cannot be denied… and as such has to live with incredible discipline if he is to live honestly. Remember so many truths were lies, for Z. His struggle was to stay faithful to the hardest truths despite how mad he might become as a result. Or, worse, rejected. Think of the wanderer who finds more dirt and deceit in the cities than the wild, and turns around at the gates. That’s the kinda guy Z wuz. Folks in town ain’t tryna hang out with him because he asks the hard questions.
Here’s why I say ‘impossible’. You can’t really BE a Z. That’s retarded. But if and once you know what Z knows, you have to do the impossible and you require a hammer for that. If you wuss out, you need to be reading Bertrand Russell or John Dewey instead.
That’s why we are forever in rapture of the Z. He’s a fantastically impossible sage that belongs in a john Grisham book.
Oh this should be hilarious, since you just trolled me…
Ask me the 5 hardest questions N ever asked.
C’mon. Let’s do this right here.
You made several claims, now back them up.
Oh that’s right? You’re a post modernist, words are just words only talking About words, there’s no truth including your own claims, all that matters is might makes right… shit! Another claim!
Humor me though with your completely shitheaded mind…
What is the hardest question N ever asked?
Your claim is that he’s the only philosopher who asks the hard questions…
Humor me even if you don’t want to humor yourself with your bullshit…
Just for shits and giggles! Why not?
Bro I’m on a phone. I can’t talk about N with only my thumbs. I need a full, open and glorious keyboard for that.
I do ALL my posting on a phone!!!
Just post the questions dude!!
Not to hard to do!!!
What questions?
shrugs
I thought so. You said N was the only philosopher who asked the hard questions. If you’re not going to do this with me, then stop trolling me.
Ohhhh you mean the hard questions. Is there a gawd, are we all equal, whoduhfuck and howdafuck is morality. if their ain’t no gawd… we ain’t equal… and morality is relative, wtf are we supposed to do.
Alright, thank you!!! Let’s fucking do this!! I have to meet someone right now. I am going to enjoy getting to this ASAP!
Ummmm I’m fixin to crash dude. Imma have to take a reign check.
Actually promethean, I have a little more time…
Short answer to all of your questions…
Nobody wants their consent violated. Even if they grow up and condition themselves to see a meaning to it, if they have the choice, they’d see it as meaningless, because they all pick lack of consent violation.
The goal of life is to eradicate consent violation.
Ec you need to get your shit together with this consent violation crap. You’re like a metaphysical hypochondriac.
I can take a sagittarius/dragon in debate but it’d take some work and I am BURNT OUT on debating, bro.
Even though you called it “consent violation crap”
The context of your post is that the only thing that’s good is consent violation. I think you’re just trying to talk tough. I think you’re full of shit.
Promethean!
In anticipation to your reply to this!
Internally (not externally) you should treat the most minor consent violations as major consent violations, extreme consent violations! Why? Because in a reality where even a minor consent violation CAN and DOES occur, it’s only a matter of time before an extreme one occurs.
It’s very telling to me that your debate is so worthless that you are exhausted to debate it. As if I’m explaining stuff in some complex way!!! And it’s tedious to debate me. My shit is as simple as simple gets.
alright pretend just for a second you’re still 23 and don’t know aything about plato or metaphysics or any of that stuff. this is before you got into philosophy. but you DID know something about darwin and the theory of evolution and biology and stuff, where there’s actual proof for the various theories in those fields (as opposed to platonic metaphysics).
at 23, you still recognize various kinds of consent violation going on in the world, but you don’t ‘note’ them the same way you do now. you don’t think about them in the same way. at 23, you would think simply about an example of consent violation and recognize three distinct things about it; it is either a resolvable problem ‘if only we did x and y instead of z’, or, it is an unavoidable problem brought into being by natural forces that could not be altered, or, it is a minor form of consent violation that is actually useful both to the individual organism, the group it’s in, and the environemnt the group is in. now your thinking about it in darwinistic terms. we’re still at 23 here. don’t ler me lose you.
you recognize that part of the driving force in evolution which leads to improvements are these very minor instances of consent violation. you start to think of organized human behavior as a kind of ‘conflict resolution strategy’ that is forever involved in these little, minor moments in life when something that happens elsewhere, or to us, is disagreeable, and we immediately begin plotting on how to resolve it. its that very plotting, that novel problem solving, that drives the evolution of man’s reality and allows him to improve upon himself. in this sense ‘conflict’ - remember the little ones i mean - is the teleological engine of the evolution of intelligent organisms and environments… really they’re one ecological system that is determinstically reciprocal.
alright so now, before you were philosophical, you thought of the darwinian struggle as a dynamic necessary, mechanically, in evolution. you know about the mutations and the good ones and the bad ones and the vestigial ones that dont matter, etc. you know how the shit works and while some of it brutal - the big consent violations we are still working on - none of this thinking about consent violation puts it on a theologically significant level, portraying it as some fundamental truth about existence that makes even the most trivial of human exchanges a demonstration of evil, zero sum games of domination.
at 23 you understand what was going on. and then…
… then a series of events - certainly not spiritual or mystical or any of that hyperdimensional galaxy travelling shit you fuckin tool - started to work on you emotionally in tandem with a quickly growing intelligent mind now under the influence of continental philosophy gasp in its thinking. now you take a deeply entrenched anxiety over what you would had considered at 23 to be an instance of minor consent violation, as something dreadfully serious. and that’s what philosophy, in tandem with some really disappointing life experiences, did to your understanding of what ‘conflict’ and ‘struggle’ is. you had an idea perfectly inline with the only sensible theory of biological and therefore material struggle, that exists. historical materialism… but you didn’t know that’s what evolution was… a subset of that. ‘consent violation’ was something to be dealt with by working out ways to solve problems to make more people happy for longer periods of time.
now ‘consent violation’ is the central tenet of a philosophy that would pass as something almost of the same caliber as david icke in its level of ridiculousness. seriously you’re like a sexually frsutrated L ron hubbard dude… the shit you talk about sometimes.
no but what i’m saying is that yes, there is a great degree of consents being violated all over the place all the time. the task is to determine the cause of that and do what we can to lower that number. you used to know this. but now, after you’ve gon totally nutts - and this is mostly philosophy’s fault although you prolly had the right kind of mind for it to flourish in, i.e., intelligence, inquisitiveness, loneliness, horniness, introvertedness, depressing music collection (air supply), monotonous job, half empty pockets, old pickles underneath the car seat, weird power struggle with mom or dad at some point, all that stuff’ll turn a man victim to philosophy and make’em start thinking about shit in grossly confusing ways that more often than not amounts to nonsense.
Lol I said ‘how much more stupider’.
That’s even worser than saying the most worst.
The problem existentially between you and I is that you’re a coward. Do you realize how fucking hard it is to see consent violation as having ZERO meaning, and you (that it always has meaning)?
You never went to the abyss. You’re terrified of it.
You sound like a Christian apologist to me. Making excuses for consent violation, actually, not just making excuses, but glamorizing it’s necessary meaning.
Don’t bullshit me man. You’ve never been to the abyss. You’re still treading water with as much power as you can conceivably muster! You may as well be an Islamic or Judaic or Christian or Buddhist … bullshit that makes meaning of consent violation.
There is no meaning to it. Your entire post was made of fear of the abyss, that your life doesn’t matter, no life matters as long as consent violations occurs.
You’re terrified of this, and so you call me some names.
Well… I can call you names too.
“The problem existentially between you and I is that you’re a coward.”
There are several assumptions there. Both implicit and metalinguistic. I’ve compiled a list:
- That there is a problem.
- That the problem is existential.
- That the problem is existentially between us.
- That cowardice can be part of an existential problem between people.
- That our existential problem is that I am a coward.
Now any of those statements even stated alone would require pages of writing to be clarified. And yet in your statement they are used in support of each other as if a confusion shouldnt be obvious regarding what exactly that might mean.