The Philosophers

Excellent stuff. Truly.
I think it would be a loss for humanity if you stopped publishing in English. You are perhaps the only full blooded Nietzschean philosopher out there.

At this point I can mainly just agree and laugh a bit about the cruel realism of your thinking about the chandala-muck… the brain of a leech,- that is exactly the abject frenetic dullness, the hyperactive impotence that we are treated to by the sub-wormish life that slithers around here.

Your points on culture and fate essentially, are not infrequently too definitive to respond to.

Yes. By devaluing their own minds and truth, humans forfeit their own existence. So be it.

This is why I never accepted the general denominator “human”. Ive always known this category to include many unviable beings.

Thus, this caste division is not entirely a joke. We may have to help nature out a little bit in the coming centuries where she will definitively separate the leeches from the beings.

Human nature is just starting to show its inner rift, and it is an absolute rift.
There will be two entirely separate human species at the end of 500 years.

We may suppose that if the chandala had human qualities she might, instead of verbally being supremely ugly as some kind of intellectual and moral statement, also simply cry.
But worn down formerly human waste like that has no capacity for such refined emotions as sorrow or love. It can only be angry, excited or horny. Usually it is all three at once. If you look at its behaviour, you’ll see that it emerges consistently from a muddly of these three states, which has become its being.

This is all excellent grounding material for a doctrine of human standards.
We can’t go on pretending that there is a homogenic species. It is required that we set standard and simply disband those that do not live up to it.

This is something we would do for the future generations - allow the thought, for later men who might not be quite as bold as we are, but will require our boldest thought to make a path into the future.

Working unsuccessfully on a reply yesterday, I was trying to find translation for these two terms. Its hard. Because Wollust translates into Lust, whereas Herrschlust translates into Lust to rule - so it is as if Herrschlust is a function of general lust, which isn’t the case.
The original German statement is true though, so we need truthful translation.

“For men of the future who at the present time take up the compulsion and the knot which forces the will of millennia into new paths. To teach man the future of humanity as his will, as dependent on a man’s will, and to prepare for great exploits and comprehensive attempts at discipline and cultivation, so as to put an end to that horrifying domination of nonsense and contingency which up to now has been called “history” - the nonsense of the “greatest number” is only its latest form: - for that a new type of philosophers and commanders will at some point be necessary, at the sight of which all hidden, fearsome, and benevolent spirits on earth may well look pale and dwarfish. The image of such a leader is what hovers before our eyes: - may I say that out loud, you free spirits? The conditions which we must partly create and partly exploit for the origin of these leaders, the presumed ways and trials thanks to which a soul might grow to such height and power to feel the compulsion for these tasks, a revaluation of value under whose new pressure and hammer a conscience would be hardened, a heart transformed to bronze, so that it might endure the weight of such responsibility and, on the other hand, the necessity for such leaders, the terrifying danger that they might not appear or could fail and turn degenerate - those are our real worries, the things that make us gloomy.” [BGE 203]

This gloom is only lifted by virtue of our will to be as hard as we know we need to be. It matters not what we can see for chances of success - it is not up to us to complete the mission, it is our task to breach the world, to bring to ruin the ideal of a unified Last Man.

The way to breach the world is to be too powerful, too clean, too happy for it. The task is to cultivate a happiness, the witnessing of which can literally not be endured by the waning type.

Massive waves of suicide among other desperate violence may erupt as the Earth purges itself by philosophic standards.

This is probably correct. We converged into Homo sapiens, but there is no reason to think that at some point it will not diverge again. This is predicted in such visionary works as 1984 and The Time Machine.

Ive read (not been able to verify, obviously) the Neanderthal was far more capable of reason than Homo sapiens, which caused him to think longer, which caused him to lose in the fight.

Meaning that we need to become vigilant against the type that is abandoning its reasoning faculties - they can become a bigger problem as they lose more cognitive capacities. The fight against stupidity is the hardest there is, as stupidity won’t flinch driving the whole world including itself into the ground, since it simply isn’t able to recognize any reality.

Its been clear that we are a threat to many people here. We need to expand whatever it is that threatens.

And we are - what threatens is that we as philosophers represent, for the first time since 400 BC, reality.

It is like turning over a rock. Our haters are the scurrying vermin and lowly bugs.

One of the humble challenges has been to discern the lowly bugs from the actual vermin. But ill quit that, its unnecessary. The sunlight is killing the vermin.

Perhaps the dumbest thing any philosopher ever did was to figure he needs to be polite to placate his audience.
A polite philosopher is like a caged animal. To a philosopher, most people must always appear insufferably weak, and he cant compromise to that weakness.
Thence how there have been no Christian philosophers.

Our path of increasing power will more and more require of us that we judge and condemn to oblivion those that refuse to engage reality. This is how Athens was born back in the day, by expelling the dumb, which is to say the weak, the scared.

Philosophy has been mistaken for something merely theoretical for too long.

My job description.

Keep it up then.
My latest video on the Tree of Life is on this subject.
The outcome is favourable for Germany, the most sober and realistic country of the west. Meaning: the most ruthless, firstly vs itself.

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

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=193267

These arent my choices, mind you. But having lived in the German speaking world, and having extensively experienced the rest of Western Europe, I am not mournful. Nothing will be lost that hasn’t already been squandered to the American exultation of the downtrodden, cultural Marxism.

I think that it was also Hitlers, Mussolini’s, Stalin’s, ad continuum.
\

Whose reality?

No, theirs was the exact opposite.
It is surprising that you would think of nazis and Stalinists as enemies of stupidity, fear and weakness. They are the archetypical herd-species, idiots, too scared to look at their own shadow.

Their own.


Fixed
wrote:

I can think of three to begin with.

Kierkegaard… I guess Kant… St Augustine of course.
Who did you have in mind?

Descartes and Hegel?

Kierkegaard is the obvious one, more interestingly are the modern philosophers and namely a Jewish one Hilary Putnam.

"Putnam, demonstrated that even for a philosopher, life’s spiritual and existential dimensions must be given their place. It was through Judaism, that he found a way to make sense of the soul searching and questioning many Westerners have and of the inner tensions most feel.

Putnam’s return to Judaism, especially given the bounds of his academic discipline, is a testament of his intellectual probity, and given the demands of the every-day, of a reflective human being".

Lol.

Lol.

Deal with it.

HA…you are getting sillier and sillier.

Hegel… yea I suppose he claimed that he thought of himself as a kristjun. I don’t find it back in his writings at all. Decartes, yeah he said it was important to uphold religion, but he didn’t actually state that he believes.

As for the third, which you find most important: you seem to propose that Judaism is a form of Christianity. In fact Judaism rejects every single tenet of Christianity.