GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Thu Dec 17, 2015 9:12 pm

Caesar was born and raised in a time when the city of Rome found itself in turbulence and the threat of decline. A number of markedly barbaric events and leaderships made a mark on young Gaius and there can be little doubt that he knew very early on what his will was made of.

The early Caesars life is a fascinating Odyssey of extraordinary adventures, a life that honed his ruthlessness and his wit, that shaped his capacities for the task he was later on to assume. Fittingly in contrast to the aches of the young mans heart, this task, in which no frivolity had a place, was only given to him at the age when the masculine intellect is fully matured. It was given to him after he had shed his hearts burden at a statue of Alexander, that man of which it is not even sensible to speak rationally, as he was truly 'descendent of Gods'; possessed by Dionysos and fulfilling a Homeric fate. Caesar came to fulfill a fate that would be the beginning of what we, as Europeans, westerners, call “Politics”. Our politics are not to do with the Polis, they are not an assembly of aristocrats, ruling over farmers, craftsmen and slaves, they are tyranny from above on a mammoth scale, aided by a system of institutions so complex that it is virtually impossible to make sense of what goes on in the whole at any given time. It was not Caesar who invented the institutions, and it were the institutions that killed Caesar, and it was his line that subjected these institutions in turn; what Caesar caused into being was the scale on which politics was henceforth to be conducted and therewith he attributed the institutions their proper role, as a filter, as it were, between the tyrannical will of the few (not at all necessarily the best), and the populace; as it were a cerebral membrane between the body and the minds eye.

But the crater, at first sight and on the whole, betrays little of the fiery apparition of the meteor that alights the skies for hat brief moment. Only if we inspect the surface of that scar do we discern some of splendours that betray the nature of the force that made the wound; fragmented gems, from which we may derive a little knowledge and a little wonder, sufficient to set us on a path to discovery, a path that very well may never lead to anything besides ourselves, but that even in this capacity may come to signify something of a comets tail, bring about a dance of stars in our souls in which we may at least feel justified in thinking about Rome, and Gaius Iulius Caesar, the father of our time.

May this serve as an introduction to a thread of Worth. I invite the great Sauwelios now, and all others who may think they have something to offer that is worthy of at least the thought of greatness. This time must see the thought of greatness again, for the ground is fertile now and the herds are scattering.


All Weathers Are Wild, You Know What This Means?
Axe Ages, Sword Ages, When Shields Split
Wind Ages, Wolf Ages, Before The World Stumbles.

- Voluspa
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:04 pm

Caesear didn't invent shit. It was Cicero who developed the concept of a divine political Superman via Scipio. It was Sulla who established a long term dictatorship, which Caesar aped most ineffectually..... Sulla was never declared a God, let the republic carry on, never had a Ciceronian Temple built of him, and thus was never stabbed to death by the Senate.

The big difference between Caesar and Sulla.... Sulla was a aristocrat, Caesar backed Gaius Marius.... the man of the people, who fought for them. Caesar's rule was a dictatorship of ignorant farmers. He was of the popular faction. Only reason he was even in the Senate was because his lineage, he only became noticed as a political figure because he was the homosexual mistress to the King of Bithynia, and was mocked on the streets as "The Queen of Bithynia" for this.

Pompey is much more deserving if this praise you give.

And no, Sauwelios most definitely isn't capable if possessing a superior inside, I assure you, I'he read far more primary texts from the Romans on Caesar that Sauwelios.

Lastly..... the politics you speak of doesn't exist as a conception in Roman statecraft. Romans, following Cicero, calked it a Res Publica. It was consciously identified as the Greek Politeia.

The divisions we're usually on a private/public division, not a Nietzschean Nobel/Peasant basis. When Aristotle was contemplating liturgical service (Carleas has the wealth to provide http://www.ilovephilosophy.com, that us his liturgical expectation, I know about history, so I provide it here, free of charge, my responsibility I undertake) it fit the private-public dichotomy.

You look at texts like Aeneas The Tactician, it wasn't a binary division, but of at least three different factions..... the cities of peoples, the cities of oligarchs, and of tyrants. Caesar mist deginately read the text.

Furthermore, Caesar massacred the tribes that lived in the Netherlands who came voluntarily to submit to him. He didn't give a fuck, just killed them.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... -dead.html

Caesar didn't give a fuck. Simple. He didn't change the social structure, wasn't the first to embrace Cicero's ideas. He got lucky, Pompey fell for his ruse, he won. Caesar cutting hold it together, was killed. His successors held positions on the nature of Res Publica you wouldn't agree with in your post.

The term was in partice prior to Caesar, and long after him. In fact, the underlining philosophy, directly influenced by Cicero, in the sixth century, became the basis for announcing the need to constitutionally incorporate the position of Roman Emperor into a constitutionally codified, electable position.

http://www.amazon.com/Three-Political-V ... 1846312094

Its the middle text, made by a Pagan named Thomas talking to the young Patriarch Menas (prior to becommimg patriarch hopefully).

Its a Neo-Platonist text, attacked to Cicero's recovered codex, it was very popular among philologists when Nietzsche was practicing, he certainly read it, he obviously was influenced by it. Its not online, that's the only translation.

I can slap you guts silly with a quote battle, but you'll give in long before I run out of texts. Recommend finding a actual historian or philosopher to follow (not me), Sauwelios doesn't cut it.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Zoot Allures » Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:18 pm

I was gonna try to stop you jakob but I didn't get to you in time. You just been Fergusoned (you should've seen it coming). Now you're in a difficult spot. You either a) read ALL the links and information Turd provided to check the accuracy, find out it is correct and submit, or find out it is incorrect and finish him, b) hope that nobody cares which one of you is right and drop out of the thread, or c) engage Turd with information and links that supersede and take precedence over his even if his are right.
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Thu Dec 17, 2015 10:42 pm

No one has ever finished me in a history debate save once, and it was over my adoption of a 19th century theory involving Roman Harnesses. I didn't know it had been defeated, so was still using the old values.

I've always won every argument ever since though, and have lots of enemies at the professor of history level for it.

And none of the Nietzscheans on this site ever found me in the wrong on historical facts either. Closest thing I can think of to confirm your position in regards to this Zoot is how pissed off you got with the Solipism debate, and wanted me to somehow compact everything I thought into a easy, small packet to defeat (impossible). You kept bugging me, I offered you to look over three Nietzsche quotes not from his main works to defend.... but you we're too high "Why you only talk to me when your highhhhhhhh?", but wanted you go spend three months to study up on. You started immediately responding, which I knew would be a absolutely worthless response (knee jerk, without research, high as fuck).

I gave you three months, its been more than that. Did you ever research the actual topic? Can you give me a anwser crafted to convince me? I dont mean convince someone even worst off than you like Fred the Fuckhead, I mean convince me..... I found the three auotes by Nierzsche, when taken together as patadoxial and self defeating, doubt a serious phikosopher would dare try to merit his position in them due to the repercussions.

Thats about it on this site I can think of. Not alot of history minded people here, who who read widely in clasdical or world philosophy, so never have much of a chance to be showed up. My methods of relying on history or philosophy arent original, not even that special, I suppose a good dozen living pholosophers out there can surpass me still, not to mention the ones who've died. Im hardly anything special, just look overwhelming to undereducated potsmokers, or guys who get their history from Sauwelios or Cezar/Historyboy.

Im even nuce enough to allow you guys to walk around fucked up 90% of the time saying monkey babble, most Nietzschean threads on this site I dint even touch cayse I know they will give me a anorism from all the weak logic and bad, sometimes outright made up historical facts being swapped. Too low brow for me.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Zoot Allures » Fri Dec 18, 2015 12:12 am

you sure do make a fella not want to be a nietzschean no more, you know that mister?

*spits tobacco juice*

we don't much like your kind around here, mister, and I'm gonna have to ask you to leave.

*spits again, then wipes mouth with overall sleeve*
Zoot Allures
Philosopher
 
Posts: 2607
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:50 pm

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Dec 18, 2015 2:32 am

Turd Ferguson wrote:Caesear didn't invent shit. It was Cicero who developed the concept of a divine political Superman via Scipio.


Jakob, this reminds me of something I still wanted to say. Caesar was a prince, whereas I have reason to believe Cicero was a genuine philosopher. Now if our beloved HBO series Rome is anything to go by, Caesar was a "lion" whereas Cicero was a "fox". It seems Cicero was eventually killed because of his shifty political loyalties. It also seems he did not ally with Caesar because he feared the latter would become a tyrant--which is indeed what I've heard some Straussians call Caesar. He praised Cato to an extent, but criticised him for behaving as if he lived in the republic of Plato and not in "the dregs of Romulus". I think there may well be a lesson in all this.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Fri Dec 18, 2015 3:20 am

Lesson is not applying Machiavellian principles of behavior to a era that didn't expound or live by those later ideas.

If you take a Ciceronian position, an educated one, I can still refute it (Romans did even back then), but will have much less of a reason to do so. Just, Nietzsche wasn't very well balanced in his thinking, and makes for a bad unifying theory if your trying to base your religion on his historicalism. You can take parts, like Cicero..... but it is allergic to his views on Stoicism, I already sense HistoryBoy twitching..... this furthermore erupts in a Will to Power paradox..... Cicero's position was dependent not just on Platonic Skepticism, but Stoic formulas, and Nietzsche's Will to Power concept was defeated by the Stoics early on when the Stoics and Platonist would debate the Categories.

In other words, it will be exceptionally difficult to create a none contradicting synthesis, balancing Nietzsche with Roman history, especially the era of the Triumvirate and Principate. You more or less gotta pick and choose, acknowledge Nietzsche fumbled the ball too often to make it consistent, and that you none the less just really, really like this or that.

But if you try to reconstruct history to fit Machiavelli (and I am a Machiavellian) and Nietzsche, and who knows who else, people like me will be moved out of duty to smash it.

You would have much better luck honestly, looking at Persian founders of dynasties. They fit the mold of what your aiming for here better. Especially Post-Cyrus dynasties, they were always building on a return to his grandure and might. Every crazy ass thing they did, was excused because they emulated him.

And the Stoics did preserve, via Epitetus through Arrian, different accounts of Alexander the Great's psychology. We didn't lose what the ancients viewpoints we're regarding his mental attitude, was quite preserve in the Anabasis.

I will let this one slip from this point on on the basis of over enthusiasm, and won't hold it against you Jakob. Just double check prior to posting Sri Sauwelios' positions historically or Ill have to move in for a brutal breakdown..... I can do a lot worst than what I did here. I tend not to knock religious points of views that are well research, and not inherently destructive, even if they carry a obnoxious bias.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:15 am

Beyond good and evil, fellows. Keep in mind. If there is a contest, who of the Romans was the real good guy, or the fairest, Caesar would finish last. Damn sure he was a tyrant! The three of you may want to reread my post. The criticisms you give me CN do not address it. I said that Caesar did not invent the institutions. That he is the father of our time just happens to be how it went. It is neither evil or beyond, not "good"! A video about the latter is forthcoming, uploading now, with a sequel in the pipeline. It will be shocking and, given its subject, more attractive to vermin.

Be proud that you do not deserve to be ignored by me. I who seek adversaries that can wound me. I who would thirstily rip the head off anyone who would pretend to spare me by running away.

But the greater point you have missed, os that All significant Romans were great.  How could Pompei not be great, being such a formidable adversary to Caesar? How could Cicero and Cato not be great, having made their mark in that city and that time? The Nietzschean point par excellence here is that the individual is not worthy of many words, the higher man stands on the shouders and amidst of many other high men. What would I do alone? In my case, wander the woods with Odin and Loki and be happy. But I speak here of politics and in politics even allies are adversaries. Worthy adversaries, nor wormy ones. I am grateful that there are no wormy responses in this thread. And here is where Caesar shows his glory: no worm dares to touch him! His body probably lies intact in his grave, har har.

"No writer hitherto has been able to write thetorically."
-N, notebook

Greatness needs great adversaries. That is why nothing makes me more angry than weak posters in my threads. And why a substantial post will always make me happy, regardless of whether it crushes my position or supports it.

But my post does not take a position so much as address a standard. A standard of which none of us can speak from within. Have you been to Rome? Stood by night beholding the temple of Jupiter? Walked that lonesome train along the Tiber, with the occasional fire? Then you surely knownin your heart what I mean. If you do not you have no heart, none to speak of.

Sauwelios greatness is not as a historian. But rather as that Blakean devil radiating forth from the jagged rocks. But then he disciplined himself and for nearly ten years and his disciplining offended me as it seemed dry. But Rome wasn't built in a day.

Hail Hail!
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Sauwelios » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:19 am

I don't tend to consider Caesar a tyrant, at least not in a negative sense of the word. I mean, a tyrant without a bodyguard?

"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:44 pm

This is why I called on you.

I did not mean it in the negative sense either, by the way - but you have already outdone CN with this small remark. Not that it was difficult to outdo him here, but brilliant nonetheless. Hail Caesar!

That I do not consider your greatness to pertain to you as a historian does not mean I do not consider you a good or even great historian - A philosopher is however infinitely more than a historian. He deals out value judgments that he can justify, for one thing. Blake is still central to me here, as there is still no man that gave more powerful lofty judgments of the world.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Fri Dec 18, 2015 4:58 pm

Obviously my second post in this thread was unworthy of the first. A direct response to gossippy blabbering could not have been otherwise but also I was a bit mentally depleted from intensive recording sessions and I had a beer.

So I certainly did not have it in me to find out if I understand which lesson you intend here.

Sauwelios wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:Caesear didn't invent shit. It was Cicero who developed the concept of a divine political Superman via Scipio.


Jakob, this reminds me of something I still wanted to say. Caesar was a prince, whereas I have reason to believe Cicero was a genuine philosopher. Now if our beloved HBO series Rome is anything to go by, Caesar was a "lion" whereas Cicero was a "fox". It seems Cicero was eventually killed because of his shifty political loyalties. It also seems he did not ally with Caesar because he feared the latter would become a tyrant--which is indeed what I've heard some Straussians call Caesar. He praised Cato to an extent, but criticised him for behaving as if he lived in the republic of Plato and not in "the dregs of Romulus". I think there may well be a lesson in all this.

Now I slept and do have it in me. If found out, I do not understand. See me now as a man on a horse in gallop that needs to be spoken to loudly and in simple terms.

Or send me a letter to read when I strike camp.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Sat Dec 19, 2015 9:42 am

Sauwelios, is he asking me or you something in these last posts?
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Sat Dec 19, 2015 12:50 pm

Alright, assuming the list was aimed at me....

First off, Caesar didn't hold to William Blake's unity of dualisms. Nor did Cato. In fact, both Cato and Augustus under Caesar imported Stoic philosophers form Asia Minor into their household. They would of held, like Plato, the assimilation of Evil is caused by ignorance and not noticed by those accepting it. Its only later under Apuleius that it's considered otherwise, and still along way from the position of William Blake marrying heaven and hell.

Caesar's whole statecraft was built not in the aggrandizement of himself, but his family genus. He adopted Octavian, his nephew as his political heir instead of Mark Anthony for this very reason.... Mark Anthony was the one closer to your idealism your mistakenly projecting into the past. Caesar asserted the conservative forms of Republican social interaction, while smashing the constitution.

And he had far more bodyguards than Butler ever did, he used them in his illegal crossing if the Rubicon when he cried out "The dye is cast".... his excuse was he needed them as bodyguards for reporting to the Senate. He placed several legions loyal to him in strategic cities around Rome.

He wasn't a Blakian, nor a worshipper if the passions, nor was Pompeii. Caesar's father in law was, his Villa is still being excavated, many philosophical works on the premise are hendonist in character, but it's rather obvious the main trend of Caesar and later Augustus was Stoic and Platonist.

The unity of concepts your trying to juggle here wouldn't develop till long after in Asia Minor under sects like Carpocrates.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpocrates

I don't know why you keep talking in a badly executed poetic style, reminiscent of a bad English romantic poet. The only people in the Netherlands who need to ride horses are cowherders, and the other group, who really don't need to rude at all, are bored to death blue blood wannabe upper middle class fools, who bought their I'll fitted, wrong sized English Saddle in Hermes, and rude around cause it makes them feel like the idealized portrait of a aristocrat. Its a pathetic, false image of idealized leisure, complete waste of time.

Secondly, Caesar's camps.... it was all monkeybutt. I was in the military, and am a bit of a expert on poliocretics in the ancient world. You cannot achieve a blakian unity of passions and reason when you got monkeybutt:

Image

If I showed a image of a adult, Id get banned. Caesar wasn't able to willy nilly just break up his camp on some stupid, poorly thought out schizophrenic impulse.... his men has a limited range..... they could forcemarch for up to 100 miles a day a few days in a row, but we're useless afterwards, and couldn't carry their equipment while doing so.... it had to be on terrain he already controlled. If not, he was trapped at a level of March not too different from Scipio Africanus, 20 miles a day with vanguard and rear, carrying full pack, and each soldier carrying parts of a fortification for their camp that they would set up each night (yep, each night). Every eight men had a donkey carrying provisions, and a supply train carrying stores.

Caesar couldn't just jump on a horse on a spur of the moment ideal, and tell everyone to ride after him on some baffoonery. They would all look at him in disbelief. At the end of that march, they would be hungry and thirsty, unprotected with supplies left behind at the old camp, all for no fucking reason.

Next morning, many would gave monkey butt. They be dehydrated and pissed. Want to know what the hell was going on. He would have a serious rebellion on hand soon.

Its part of the reason why everyone was so eager to kill Nero. Romans had a Rape of Lucretia/Rape of Dido mentality at the root of their discipline. Even in their highest debauchery, orgy crazed days, they legally held to these conventions. Mark Anthony and Caesar both had to carefully balance their marriages legally under the auspices of senatorial priesthoods, neither were considered Patricians, eligible for the Senate, unless they married under conservative rites, not just marry Patrician women.

Caesar enforced rules of modesty sharply, even acting on stage could get you booted out of the Roman Knighthood. Augustus carried it a lot farther.

Lastly, your not my enemy, so neither go for the kill nor avoid you. Honestly, till a few days ago, I never noticed a single post of yours. Never popped up on my radar till I saw your history title for this thread.

Caesar wouldn't ride anywhere with you. He might enslave you, or kill you, but he wouldn't befriend you. Nietzsche was a trained Philologists, why is it every Nietzschean on this forum consistently a failure when it comes to history? If you guts just properly researched your stuff, I would have a lot less to say negative.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Sauwelios » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:33 am

Jakob wrote:Obviously my second post in this thread was unworthy of the first. A direct response to gossippy blabbering could not have been otherwise but also I was a bit mentally depleted from intensive recording sessions and I had a beer.

So I certainly did not have it in me to find out if I understand which lesson you intend here.

Sauwelios wrote:
Turd Ferguson wrote:Caesear didn't invent shit. It was Cicero who developed the concept of a divine political Superman via Scipio.


Jakob, this reminds me of something I still wanted to say. Caesar was a prince, whereas I have reason to believe Cicero was a genuine philosopher. Now if our beloved HBO series Rome is anything to go by, Caesar was a "lion" whereas Cicero was a "fox". It seems Cicero was eventually killed because of his shifty political loyalties. It also seems he did not ally with Caesar because he feared the latter would become a tyrant--which is indeed what I've heard some Straussians call Caesar. He praised Cato to an extent, but criticised him for behaving as if he lived in the republic of Plato and not in "the dregs of Romulus". I think there may well be a lesson in all this.

Now I slept and do have it in me. If found out, I do not understand. See me now as a man on a horse in gallop that needs to be spoken to loudly and in simple terms.

Or send me a letter to read when I strike camp.


My post in the other thread may throw light on what I meant (though you should note that it was kind of inchoate when I wrote the above). There I wrote:

Nietzsche writes:

    "Order of rank as order of power: war and danger the presupposition for a rank to retain the conditions of its existence. [[Cf. Twilight "Skirmishes" 31, on Caesar.]] The grandiose prototype: man in nature—the weakest, shrewdest creature making itself master, subjugating the stupider forces." (Will to Power 856.)

Exactly nine years ago to this day, I wrote the following about this in Moody Lawless' Yahoo Group, which was then called "Aryanosophy":

    "Is this 'grandiose prototype' not also the prototype of the Jew?

    Did not the Jew, the weakest, shrewdest man, make himself master - subjugate the stupider, (physically) stronger, more noble natures?"

In the discussion that ensued between Moody, Lyssa and myself, in which I compared the warrior and the priest to the lion and the fox, respectively, Moody said:

    "I don't find the 'fox' to be 'calm' - he is rather a wretched creature, whose disposition is no doubt formed by his need to use wily cunning in order to survive.
    There is nothing calm about the fox which always looks slyly behind itself as it skitters along.

    The lion on the other hand is a noble beast, who eminates supreme calm. His attack is ferocious and passionate, but it is also decisive and concise.
    Once done, he settles back into the kingly and dispassionate disposition to which he gives his name."

Does not his description of the fox remind us of Erik's recent description of Jakob? And indeed, there's something to be said for it. All of this can be found here, by the way: https://uk.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/Moody_Lawless/conversations/topics/704

Only when one has arrived at the top of the "food chain" can one take one's calm. I hope Jakob soon finds the place where he belongs, so that he may finally fully manifest the lion in him. But is it not only in Plato's ideal state--his Socrates' "city in speech"--that philosophers are overtly kings? Or has all that finally changed by now?

    "With Nietzsche's new moral postulate, 'Be what you are, be eternally what you are,' with this unbounded Yes to everything that was and is, philosophy itself comes into the open. The ugly caterpillar metamorphoses; the butterfly spreads its glorious wings. With 'pride, daring, courage, self-confidence,' with a 'will to responsibility' (GM 3.10), the philosophic spirit points to itself, points to its own nobility as a primary ground for gratitude for the goodness of the world." (Lampert, op.cit., pp. 108-09.)


Caesar, at least after his "Catilinarian pre-existence" (Nietzsche, Twilight, "Skirmishes"), lived "out in the open" to a great extent. To be sure, Cicero, who did not, lived to an older age than he (eight years older, to be precise). But in any case, the political task of the philosopher is now what the Enlightenment has made possible for him, to live out in the open, as if he lived in Plato's ideal State. And I don't think we should look to Cato as a model, but rather to Caesar--who was after all killed because of how regal he was.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Sun Dec 20, 2015 3:48 am

Yes, ethically that is absolutely right. As far as Fixed Cross is concerned, in short; before he can be a Lion he has to define his prey! The hunt for the hunt. This is his protopolitical philosophy.

CN, this is no place for (white) Christians. Get thee hence, fool.
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Historyboy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 2:59 am

Just today I was trying to find out if Caesar had any idea of the anacyclosis. But I believe he didn't, the Alexandrian library burnt under his regime I think.
Life is will to power. - Nietzsche; Culture is and gives power and strength - Vollgraff; The only attribute of the mind is that he is powerful. - Aristotle; Mind is dragging us into the future and the heart into the present. - Aristotle; Those who can foresee deeds are born to rule and those who need to do them are born as slaves. - Aristotle; So, what is an aristocrat? He needs to be powerful, that means to be excellent in foreseeing things! - Me; The highest honor belongs to that one who is able to predict the moves of the enemy commander. - Machiavelli; If you want that what you have inherited to possess, you need to deserve it. - Goethe; Culture, which means exactly learning to calculate, learning to think causally, learning to prevent, learning to believe in necessity. - Nietzsche. [Autumn 1887, 10 [21]]; Morals in the narrow sense is the belief that the deeds of the ancestors will be transferred to the descendants. - Nietzsche
Historyboy
Thinker
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:16 am

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby The Golden Turd » Mon Dec 21, 2015 1:42 pm

It was the warehouse of the Alexandrian library, not the main library Museum.

The library of Alexandria was divided into the old library, a Mausoleum to Ramesses II, where early philosophers we're recruited but considered Slaves (if you tried to leave without permission, they would drag your ass back). It wasn't a library as we would consider it, but long halls with scrolls along it, and a great dome of the cosmos above in the central reading room, built in honor of Aristotle.

What burnt during Caesar's poorly planned siege was the copyist library, where second sets of each work was produced, scrolls from ships taken and copied. If you we're to visit the library of Alexandria, this is the one you would visit. If you wanted copies if books made, it's slaves could reproduce a work, with undoubtedly fine calligraphy, for export.

I already pointed out Caesar was a pragmatist (the pragmatist, not a idealist, the opposite of Nietzsche's ideals). He was a very well read military commander, I pointed out already in this thread, Cezar, that he had access the Aeneas Tactitus.... and while Caesar was clumsy on the offensive (he really wasn't a genius in offense), he was pretty good in the defense. His greatest victories were fought on the defensive, be it in the walls or in the surprise sally out. He took a very conservative approach to holding to the dictates of siege warfare, and we see later masterminds of Roman psychology and warfare, such as Frontinus, carry on this history on a level of expertise not too distant.

In regards if he respected different forms if government, while he degraded his own republic, he did allow for the soveignty of Crete to flourish, Egypt remained a indigenous monarchy, and Greece ABS Asia Minor territories maintained a certain amount of civil democracy on the municipal level, though it would be a pain in the ass to go through each territory.

Thus willingness to allow hybrid dynasties and states exist within Rome continued through to Nero. The Flavians we're less tolerant, obviously, with them losing complete control of Jerusalem. The Severan Dynasty likewise was fairly advanced, perhaps the most advance, in juggling widespread differing form of government.

Rome entered into a period of sharp intellectual decline after Thrax assassinated Alexander (first Christian Emperor), and went off on trying to build a Pagan Empire, opposed to effimacy and ruled by military might. The Roman Senate freaked out hard, started appointing anyone and everyone willing to resist Thrax and his illegal tyranny in the field as the legitimate emperor.

It was during this period of the Pagan resurgency, that the empire entered into a sharp decline. Trade dropped, cities began to fortify. Enemies began pressing in hard on Rome, all because some Nietzschean like idealist Named Thrax laid the empire to waste. Emperors we're repeatedly assassinated, few lasting more than a few months or years.

It was during thus lawless period Christianity took deep root, due to the scapegoating and moral decay of the pagans. Severus Alexander only learned of Christianity when he went to the Persian Border, he was still most tolerant and peaceful towards Paganism, merely wanted Christianity among Pagan sects, much like the Sun Worshippers or people who wanted Dear Syria or Isis worshipped..... but from Thrax on, it was a persecution of Christianity, and if you know anything about Christians, we do quite well in the face of persecution. The pagans committed suicide, inmass on a intellectual level.

The only people around claiming to be pagans were sun worshippers, like Macrobius, or people involved in Alchemy, or Neo-Platonist, who already absorbed a very heavy dose of judiasm and Christianity in their Genesis.

Its not Chrustianity's fault the Pagans died off, quite the opposite, Pagans only died off because no one took it seriously anymore, they had to resort to scapegoating it to keep it relevant. When you have to point to denying another idea to prove your own, it's proof of weakness and validity of your own idea.

When the library if Alexandria fell after the pagan attacks on the Christians, the most important texts we're removed to Constantinople, it wasn't a free for all like in the movie Agora, the Christian Neo-Platonist we're on good terms with the Pagan Neo-Platonist, even under Julian the Apostate. They read each others works. The library then was a branch library of the main, the main library having decayed over time.

Romans, the idle rich, stopped maintaining their libraries after Caesar..... there isn't much evidence to suggest they rebuilt the copyist efforts of the Ptolemies. One of Caesar's lieutenants built a Greek and Latin library in Rome, in honor to Caesar after his death, but there isn't much evidence Caesar himself was a intellectual beyond military concerns.

Augustus expanded the Roman treasury, also established a library in the Senate and treasury, making for three libraries in Rome open to "the public". He also heavily funded access to these libraries to scholars, imported philosophers to Rome, and had poetry competitions, and open readings of scholars he funded.

One thing this regiem was not known for, at least till Caligula went mad, was it's libertine excesses. To find this, you would have to go to private libraries in villas, in epicuruan gardens. The ideas Nietzscheans rail hardest against in Christianity, were solidified in this regiem. Monagamy, monotheism, philosophy (Nietzscheans absolutely hate philosophy, it's evident in your ignorant posts), a appreciation for history.

Basic ideas central to modern states, such as state funded museums and libraries, centers for research point to Thomas Jefferson and the Montecello. Jefferson got his idea from Augustus, including the fossil collection.

Its only because the Romans didn't take public libraries seriously that they declined.... we can in part blame Caesar for .desroyung the copyist library, but schools of philosophy existed all over the empire, slaves copied works everywhere. Mausaleum libraries were occasionally built in great cities.... but the Romans noted, prior to Christianity rising, many great works we're disappearing.

Why? Slavery.....

Romans enslaved the Greeks, brought Greek slaves over to do intellectual work. Many Romans competed to be more Hellenistic, but didn't want to look effiminent either.It wasn't until Diocletian and Marcus Aurelius that you see Romans openly embracing philosophy again in the ruling class.... libraries were allowed to decay.... not a thing to use, but to possess. Books we're read out loud by slaves, and philosophers and scholars we're slaves, or poor wandering mendicants occasionally funded by a local rich man to come study in their inherited library, and gain renown for their patronage.

The ancient world decayed because of slavery. Not Christianity, Christianity built the first universities at Antioch and Constantinople (the most important texts we're transferred to Constantinople from Alexandria). The Persian also had a library in this era. Rome had a few, Asia Minor was full of them, one existed in Carthage.

The ideas only died because nobody read them, the ancients didn't connect the idea libraries were essential to preserving ideas. It was Boethius and Cassiodorus who started the salvage operation when it occurred to them that the divisions between the Latin speaking west and Greek east (hit hard by Persia, and the Giths/Huns on two fronts) wouldn't be able to retain the information, that the great schools of knowledge we're dying off..... so they rebooted the idea of copying texts, producing definitive texts, rebuilding libraries (usually in monasteries). Charlemagne took up the crusade.

The reason the ancient world grew stupid was slavery..... we enslaved intellectuals in that era, and thus degraded the worth of knowledge. Books we're a symbol of refinement, not worth actually reading. Both Christians and especially the pagans who started this trend, were at fault. But it was the Christians who realized what was happening, and came up with a plan for it not to get worst.

The real burning of Alexandria took place under the Muslim caliphate. The Christians begged to stop it. A library survived at St. Catherine's in the Sinai, protected by a treaty Muhammad himself made with the monastery, so it has survived. We shipped a lot of books internationally too, but countries like India didn't preserve western works unless it was related to astrology, or had a sect such as Christianity there or Buddhism to maintain increasingly dwindling fragments, the climate in hot and humid, not good for libraries. A lot if found occasionally in Egypt. Muslims began a copyist period after Christians did too, and had a few philosophers who carried on the traditions.

And Jakob.... it's you who don't belong in any discussion about Caesar. You proven yourself to know absolutely nothing about the ancient world or Caesar, and your ideas are infantile and incompatible with the man your discussing. Nietzscheans are a fish out of water when discussing history for some damn reason, despite Nietzsche's roots as a Philologist. It makes little sense.

If you want to come up with a plan if doing evil things, by taking drugs, sacrificing squirrels, getting AIDS and other STDs, and spreading them with wild, Dionysian abandon, then you can do so without pointing to the authority of Caesar, who in reality would have absolutely nothing to do with the backwardness of your ilk. Nietzscheans are only interested in magical penus play and finger painting, not real history, and certainly not real philosophy. If Nietzsche was alive, and saw the crap put out by his supposed adherents on this forum, he would freak out, likely die of embarrassment. You took his bad ideas, and made them worst. Your supposed to do better, not worst, than him Jakob.
Support "The Angels of East Africa" on smile.Amazon.com it is free to do, they donate 0.05% of your purchase cost to them, or give donations directly via:

http://www.machinegunpreacher.org

Image

Recently hidden post:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=192227&p=2649513#p2649513
User avatar
The Golden Turd
Fucking Unflushable
 
Posts: 9450
Joined: Wed Nov 23, 2011 6:37 am
Location: Apparently Well Up Manical Mongoose's Ass

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Jakob » Mon Dec 21, 2015 7:43 pm

It is slightly irritating that Caesar is being judged here by a Christian soldier from the most incompetent army in the worlds history. I wish there was more to say.

Sauwelios, is there any chance you can link me directly to the commanders music?
Image
For behold, all acts of love and pleasure are my rituals
User avatar
Jakob
ILP Legend
 
Posts: 5917
Joined: Sun Sep 03, 2006 9:23 pm
Location: look at my suit

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Sauwelios » Mon Dec 21, 2015 9:02 pm

Jakob wrote:Sauwelios, is there any chance you can link me directly to the commanders music?


Unfortunately, no. As music is not a webpage, I can only link you to a webpage where you can stream or download the music. This I've already done for one of his albums; from there, you can surf to all eleven of the albums featured on that site. To be sure, though, I've been able to find a handful more songs by doing a Google search for his "stage name" within quotation marks and the word "mp3" without quotation marks. I may be able to find even more if I search longer.
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Historyboy » Mon Dec 21, 2015 11:44 pm

Do you, Turd, ever check anything you say, or is your destiny forever to be a believer? Perhaps is your aspiration to be a priest or preacher, I don't know.

If Rome became at one point a massive uprising of slaves, then it is only a sign that democracy is on the way and it's ideals.

You are the one who will never take any cultural history into consideration, because it is by far not idealistic. You chose very picky from history only those parts which flatter your idealism.

Understand, if in you there is anything healthy wanting future, that cultures raise and die, just like any individual living being. And if you see just the dying in a culture, then you will point out only one single reason for the existence or death of billions.
Life is will to power. - Nietzsche; Culture is and gives power and strength - Vollgraff; The only attribute of the mind is that he is powerful. - Aristotle; Mind is dragging us into the future and the heart into the present. - Aristotle; Those who can foresee deeds are born to rule and those who need to do them are born as slaves. - Aristotle; So, what is an aristocrat? He needs to be powerful, that means to be excellent in foreseeing things! - Me; The highest honor belongs to that one who is able to predict the moves of the enemy commander. - Machiavelli; If you want that what you have inherited to possess, you need to deserve it. - Goethe; Culture, which means exactly learning to calculate, learning to think causally, learning to prevent, learning to believe in necessity. - Nietzsche. [Autumn 1887, 10 [21]]; Morals in the narrow sense is the belief that the deeds of the ancestors will be transferred to the descendants. - Nietzsche
Historyboy
Thinker
 
Posts: 790
Joined: Tue Jun 12, 2012 11:16 am

Re: GAIUS IULIUS CAESAR

Postby Fixed Cross » Tue Mar 06, 2018 1:00 pm

Nero Claudius Drusus Germanicus (January 14, 38 BC[2] – summer of 9 BC[3]), born Decimus Claudius Drusus,[1] also called Drusus Claudius Nero,[4] Drusus, Drusus I, Nero Drusus, or Drusus the Elder was a Roman politician and military commander. He was a patrician Claudian on his legal father's side but his maternal grandmother was from a plebeian family. He was the son of Livia Drusilla and the legal stepson of her second husband, the Emperor Augustus. He was also brother of the Emperor Tiberius, father to both the Emperor Claudius and general Germanicus, paternal grandfather of the Emperor Caligula, and maternal great-grandfather of the Emperor Nero.

He launched the first major Roman campaigns across the Rhine and began the conquest of Germania, becoming the first Roman general to reach the Weser and Elbe rivers. In 12 BC, Drusus led a successful campaign into Germania, subjugating the Sicambri. Later that year he led a naval expedition against Germanic tribes along the North Sea coast, conquering the Batavi and the Frisii, and defeating the Chauci near the mouth of the Weser. In 11 BC, he conquered the Usipetes and the Marsi, extending Roman control to the Upper Weser. In 10 BC, he launched a campaign against the Chatti and the resurgent Sicambri, subjugating both. The following year, while serving as consul, he conquered the Mattiaci and defeated the Marcomanni and the Cherusci, the latter near the Elbe. However, Drusus died later that year, depriving Rome of one of its best generals.


Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life
Image
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7777
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships


Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users