State of the World Address.

Compared to Shakespeare, Nietzsche’s treatment of women is mild. And yet everyone, women included, adore Shakespeare, while castigating Nietzsche for his so called “misogyny.”

Shakespeare was more generous in his ascribing of power. To call a power terrible is very much not to belittle it.

In Nietzsche’s case, the day I read a woman, or man for that matter, write at his level, I’ll take their opinion on his misowhatever. But it also seems a stretch to say that the man who equated all of philosophy with a woman hates women.

How so?

Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.

shakespeare.mit.edu/Poetry/LoversComplaint.html

Hahahaha. Beautiful. I was reading it aloud here to Fixed Cross, but we had to cut it short.

Anyway, this is a comedy. Shakespeare knows women best in his tragedies, 'cause true power is tragic and women have true power. Men are more the attempt to curb the irrepressible will of women.

Perhaps I should point out that I never denied that those Hitler quotes were by Hitler (unlike what you suggested was a Nietzsche quote, which turned out to be only a quote about Nietzsche). I suspected that they might be inaccurate (and I still think they might: I haven’t read up on Hitler in the meantime and don’t intend to do so), but I wasn’t at all surprised they were by Hitler, having read through Mein Kampf and his Table Talk in the past. (I suspected your quotes might be inaccurate because your quoting style reminded me of Abir Taha, whose Nietzsche, Prophet of Nazism is by far the worst piece of “scholarship” I’ve read in the last ten years (to name a number; it’s probably more than ten).)

Now all you need to do is compare your Hitler quotes to actual Nietzsche quotes to demonstrate that “the ideal society of Hitler wasn’t really that different from that of Nietzsche”!

Are you laughing because you think the poem confirms your assessment of Shakespeare, that “Everything in Shakespeare ultimately hinges upon the whims of women.”?

Shame

The poem is a comedy? Men don’t have “true” power? Men don’t have an irrepressible will? His whole existence is just a doomed uphill battle?

Shame

[

quote]
Anyway, this is a comedy. Shakespeare knows
women best in his tragedies, 'cause true power is
tragic
and women have true power. Men are more the attempt to curb the irrepressible will of women.[/

quote]

The poem is a comedy? Men don’t have “true”

power? Men don’t have an irrepressible will? His whole existence is just a doomed uphill battle?[/
quote]

Romeo and Juliet is an enigma then. Who is whimsical here, who has the will, who has the power?

There is a relation between power and will, that’s hard

To subscribe to.

A mechanistic view may be that of a teeter-totter. Wherever the fulcrum is, which hypothetically adjusted for a balance between two unequal weights.
If in fact the motion should be continued, they have to be separated and move away from the center in different, opposite directions. So the vastly heavier, has to move away only a little bit.

The light one has to move way, way out, sort of like
out on a limb.

It can not even be seen, that’s how far. It can only be felt, where the equilibrium can not be merely a whimsical charade. There, the power becomes indistinguishable from whose will, the perpetuamobile continues and why?; because for that answer, It has to reach way down into logic, and it’s certainty, but without the light of seeing, how would the light of reason eminate?

So even though the are separate, they are essentially not only similar, but identical. They have to be perceived as identical, in absolute union. Here, whimsy has no place.

No need to get all dramatic. I laughed because I found the poem funny!

Anyway, no need to be so defensive about manliness. This: I learned from women.

What did you find funny about it?

The last two lines of every verse are just exquisite.

Perpetualburn wrote:

During Shakespeare’s time, the mocking and lack of respect for women was much more prevalent and the qualities that women were supposed to have during his time were those of a ‘delicate flower’.

Misogyny is nowhere near as prevalent in our time than it was in Shakespeare’s or Nietzsche’s, each had it’s own degree of.

I do not adore Shakespeare or his work. Too flowery, sing song, the poem below has truth in it.

An Almost Made Up Poem - Poem by Charles Bukowski

I see you drinking at a fountain with tiny
blue hands, no, your hands are not tiny
they are small, and the fountain is in France
where you wrote me that last letter and
I answered and never heard from you again.
you used to write insane poems about
ANGELS AND GOD, all in upper case, and you
knew famous artists and most of them
were your lovers, and I wrote back, it’ all right,
go ahead, enter their lives, I’ not jealous
because we’ never met. we got close once in
New Orleans, one half block, but never met, never
touched. so you went with the famous and wrote
about the famous, and, of course, what you found out
is that the famous are worried about
their fame –– not the beautiful young girl in bed
with them, who gives them that, and then awakens
in the morning to write upper case poems about
ANGELS AND GOD. we know God is dead, they’ told
us, but listening to you I wasn’ sure. maybe
it was the upper case. you were one of the
best female poets and I told the publishers,
editors, “ her, print her, she’ mad but she’
magic. there’ no lie in her fire.” I loved you
like a man loves a woman he never touches, only
writes to, keeps little photographs of. I would have
loved you more if I had sat in a small room rolling a
cigarette and listened to you piss in the bathroom,
but that didn’ happen. your letters got sadder.
your lovers betrayed you. kid, I wrote back, all
lovers betray. it didn’ help. you said
you had a crying bench and it was by a bridge and
the bridge was over a river and you sat on the crying
bench every night and wept for the lovers who had
hurt and forgotten you. I wrote back but never
heard again. a friend wrote me of your suicide
3 or 4 months after it happened. if I had met you
I would probably have been unfair to you or you
to me. it was best like this.

You are a hardcore romanticist PB.

Not his women with their steel bosoms.

Women will always find some “misogyny” in man’s image of her, no matter how positive or negative it is. If it’s too positive, then it’s not “real” enough, it’s not how she really is… But if it’s too real…well, then all hell breaks loose…A woman can never get her makeup just right. She watches him like a sentinel to see how well he straddles the fence when the subject of appearances comes up.

Btw, if Shakespeare and Nietzsche are misogynists, then things don’t bode well for the rest of the male population, who will never be so gentle with women.

Ejaculatory prose does not a poem make.

[/quote]

[/quote]
The irony is that Shakespeare is lost on snobs, and apparently Charkles Bukowski too. The guy who prides himself on his down to earth style I guess can’t appreciate heartfelt sincerity when he hears it.

Shakespeare, read well, is a first rate Dionysiac. What he weaves into his sentences is pure eros, sap of life.
Ive always had something with Macbeth as a boy, seemed to describe the soul of what I always saw around me.

PB wrote

:laughing:

A tragedy or not a tragedy.

No you read Shakespeare only as in which character is your souls worst sin.

See it in context of depth psychology which popular success like this always is born of; the psyche of the middle ages in England was a bit more hardy than to seek what we seek in poetry, it wanted the absolute worst, and laugh about it. Their sins exposed, confessed.

Most modern actors shroud this barbarism, which it essentially is, and is meant is, in a flowery delivery.

I had to put this in your thread, Sauwelios. Something that happened today.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJCKQllyMIQ[/youtube]

Inspiring!

Nietzschean’s have nutters in white robes too, oh my! #-o