When you learn to tell the difference between a rule and a general statement, you will have learned something.
Anyways, I wish you the best of luck in your zeal in following your desire to follow.
Like a good little satanist, N. focused always on the removal of suppression from nature’s own potentiality.
As the nihilists say: “Stop, stop, stop! This is all meaningless! It deserves to die.” Neitzche would have said the opposite, not wanting only one single thing, and thus, always misunderstood by those whom expect N. to have had some single idea, single concept, single morality, single rule.
His writings, in many ways, were his own little forms of black-sabbaths.
Turning away from that which was meant to control all aspects of the sheeple, and protesting against that which pretends to be beyond reality itself.
Its good that you bring up the satanists, for this site has had more than its fair share of them. There is no group of followers I have ever noticed speak, in a more homogeneous and mindless way, than do “satanists”. Nietzsheans, satanists, a bunch of people who by and large are mindlessly “unique”, as they stare into the mirror telling themselves how unique they are, over and over and over again.
hmm… Well you are correct about the weed. Yeah, like I said… if you switch the names it makes sense.
There is a difference between being different from the masses and unique.
Just for edification though, I think Dr. Satanical was a parody.
Do you make the rules, Dunamis? Or do you merely follow them?
You seem to be so naive as to think that a master must be completely independent. My paradox is that the need for freedom is a slavish need. My motto:
Note that the original title is Vom Krieg und Kriegsvolke, “Of War and Warfolk”. And, though here the word Folk means “people”, not “a people”, Zarathustra, who is an Antistatist, is for peoples:
“Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people arise: - and out of it the Superman.”
[Of the Bestowing Virtue, 2.]
So the good state would be the state which really serves the interests of the people - or rather, of that which shall grow out of the people: the Superman!
Zarathustra is the supreme Libertarian: he advocates absolute personal freedom and absolute insecurity (what does he care about economics?). Nietzsche himself, however, is the supreme Statist: he advocates the absolute security and absolute commitment of the people to the State:
“To be a public utility, a wheel, a function, for that one must be destined by nature: it is not society, it is the only kind of happiness of which the great majority are capable that makes intelligent machines of them. For the mediocre, to be mediocre is their happiness; mastery of one thing, specialization—a natural instinct.”
[The Antichristian, section 57.]
The body of the State consists of the warrior caste: Nietzsche’s state is a military state:
“The second: they are the guardians of the law, those who see to order and security, the noble warriors, and above all the king as the highest formula of warrior, judge, and upholder of the law. The second are the executive arm of the most spiritual, that which is closest to them and belongs to them, that which does everything gross [grob, “coarse”] in the work of ruling for them—their retinue, their right hand, their best pupils.”
[ibid.]
“The highest men live beyond the rulers, freed from all bonds; and in the rulers they have their instruments.”
[The Will to Power, section 998.]
So we see: the highest men have the absolute freedom Zarathustra advocates. And indeed: he directs his speeches to the exceptions:
This does, of course, concern the democratic state - where the herd and its herdsmen are on top. Zarathustra continues:
“Herdsmen, I say, but they call themselves the good and just.”
[ibid.]
Those herdsmen are, for Nietzsche and Zarathustra, the lowest men, the chandalas. Above them is the herd - mediocrity -, above this is the State, the warrior caste, and above this are the highest men, the individual Supermen, out of whom a Supermankind is to grow.
Where have I said this? All I said is that a Master does not go around proclaiming how he/she will follow person “x” whereever they take them. This is not a question of “complete independence”, but perhaps a modicum of dignity. Answer this, can you imagine Nietzsche ever writing anything of himself as absurd as what you wrote?
How quaint that your motto is followed by the words of another.
“Wherever they take them” is a new addition of yours. You called me a follower of Nietzsche’s, I affirmed that. So where is the proclaiming? It is you who proclaimed it, not I.
Like what?
Yes, I am very quaint. No quainter than Nietzsche, though:
This is the quote:
Because you are a master of Nieztsche quotes, perhaps cue me into the quote by Nietzsche where he would announce:
“I shall be proud to be a follower of [insert philosopher’s name].”
As to your motto, I dare say that Nietzsche spent a whole lotta time writing what is quotable, and very little time quoting others as indicative of his views [or do you not even see that]?
The esoteric metaphysics you involve yourself in, Sauwelios, has the tendency to obscure the line between what you used to believe and what you now believe after having read and developed your mind. Eventually, as in your case, skepticism turns on itself.
This is what happened to Crowley and his purple-robe wearing ass.
The question could be asked; how different was the world when Sauwelios didn’t know these things? Probably not much different. How important then are the metaphors and myths and religions and mysticisms, etc.,?
It might be fun, like an art, but its not science or systematic philosophy because of its anatomy. Certain types of writing are excluded from logic which disqualifies it in a certain sense, but this isn’t to say that it can’t mean anything.
I say again that this universe is a thousand times colder and darker than anything a philosopher could write about it. Even man’s greatest myths and legends die, Saully. There will exist a day on this planet when Nietzsche isn’t even remembered.
He can’t respond right now. He is busy scouring the “holy” Scriptures, so as to find the right “verse”. I’ve known many religious types like this.
He did call himself a “Schopenhauerian” at one point.
Yes - so?
Hail to your Master.
Who is pigeon-holing whom right now?
You are stupid if you level your enemies like this. But of course you don’t really do that, you only pretend to in regard to your audience.
This correspondence is closed.
Hmmm. That last I check you were imagining that I was a Christian woman who talked like an old fashioned actress [such are your detective skills], while I simply opine that you run around quoting Nietzsche chapter and verse, exactly as Christians do, [a group you supposedly distain].
You compliment yourself by calling yourself my enemy. I do not regard you as such at all.
Correspondence is always closed when one is revealed as a hypocrite of power. You criticize Christians, yet quote inalienable texts just like them; you shout loud about Will to Power, but cannot seem to deal with another’s Will to Power. You preach overcoming, but how can you overcome yourself if you can’t overcome Nietzsche?
What Dunamis is trying to obscure is the fact that I am quoting Nietzsche in order to make crystal-clear what he meant. I have done so in this thread concerning the Superman and the relation between Folk and State.
Just as followers of Jesus quote endlessly from the gospels to show what he meant.
As I have already said, you, unlike many of the looser followers of Nietzsche, actually seem to understand what he meant, but also seem not to understand how little he understood, (and as I am discovering), how to apply what he meant to oneself.
What rhetoric! Comparing someone who has himself written many books to someone who, if he did actually exist, did not drop a single line himself, as far as we know (unless you believe Jesus was Caesar, in which case he wrote several books). Then again, maybe Nietzsche did not really write anything: maybe he did not even exist… Maybe you do not even exist! Maybe I am all that exists - but wait, hadn’t I overcome this nihilism? Politics or nothing! Nazism or nihilism! Art or death!
No matter the source, your attachment seems the same.
I’ve got to give Sauwelios a hand here. He’s the only one having a point. As I remember, Dunamis, you don’t even endorse philosophy, with your neopragmatic master. Can’t you get it into your head that Nietzsche is a philosopher for creators like I’ve explained to you here? You don’t seem to take any notice of my patient lessons. I’ve defeated all your arguments perhaps in a harsh tone, not in Sauwelios literaty style, but your supposed understanding of Nietzsche has been proven useless. For the simple one reason that you have no way of dealing with imagination. Nietzsche’s most empowering message is that truth must be created, not believed.
The proud warrior camel Sauwelios does not create truth either right now, but at least he understands the situation. If you would now please try to get somewhere with your dispute. There is much to deal with here.
S, what of the consequences? I feel as much at home in the elements and as little in the people as you, but I like to be lightning, thunder. I know you do as well - at least that you used to be pretty effective at it.
We talked of the crucifiction thing allready once, but if I understand you correctly, you would prefer to be stabbed by some senators. I also think that’s a better idea, because you’ll have to do things for that to happen.
I’ll leave you to your dispute, but please, elevate your taste in truths.