Which one of the two is most important? Such a question is one of ethics and deep seated morals and the answers can’t be changed in your hearts.
I believe that the philosopher must be most important for the philosophy to be important at all. But that is my philosophy.
I revere Nietzsche as the man who was brave enough to rediscover bravery before the gods, the elements the forces the titanic limits of our lives.
Only because he was so virtuous in life could he have such an aura as takes form in his magnificent creation.
My feelings towards the man and his legacy flipped recently … from trepidation to respect. From this man tried to destroy my God … to … this man successfully destroyed a false god.
Well then you know exactly what the answer to your question should be!
It is not merely bravery that the man possessed, or re-birthed to men. Also honesty, if that is not simply the highest form of bravery.
What I value is what he did. And what he did is what he was. We call it brave, yes. As much honour to the concept of bravery as to Nietzsche!
Why was formerly brave now seems meek. At least psychologically. Nietzsche then redefined bravery itself, or he raised the standard, expanded its scope. What is the universe but an echo to its own call?
[b]
[/b]
An interesting man, this faithful Thomas. I disagree with him on this count - “The die is cast” is not of itself a meaningful statement.
(Context is everything. The author is the first-order context.)
Is this supposed to be a trick ‘exam’ question?
Philosophy is what Philosophers say, ergo, there is no Philosophy without Philosophers.
Additional notes:
All free thinking being, human or otherwise, is a Philosopher.
Philosophy is not an exact science like math or physics. It is our interpretation of the universe.
Theology is not part of Philosophy since it’s sole purpose is to thwart our free thinking.
Philosophy is at the root of society and science.
Without freedom of thought, there are no Philosophers no advance in Philosophy no future.
Raven … you have a prodigious mind … I salute you.
I have been a strong fan of the quote you speak about for many years … yet never saw it in the perspective you stated this morning … how exciting!
This dovetails nicely with a thought that has been swimming around in my mind off and on for some time.
In a nutshell … the 1% get a bad rap … ergo … they are pooh pooed by so many.
The 1% substantially facilitated the journey of the species to where we are today … perhaps not a bad place.
Perhaps we are on the threshold of hominization(a Teilard/Huxley concept/conjecture) … which could only happen by being physically and psychically interconnected to a large degree. Just a thought.
I don’t believe in the “self”. I think we are all valuing. This valuing “values” it"self" by valuing consistently, and thus becoming a substance out of pure love and respect.
Valuing of course being manifested most loftily in humans as courage, love, reverence -
N’s courage is manifest in that he dared to love beyond himself.
Not below himself as the white left “loves” the immigrant who makes him feel powerful, but above himself.
Not a lot of people are able to “love upward”.
No “self” … intriguing thought … and you’re not alone in your thinking.
Your comments imply … for me at least … the human species … collectively … is a “self” … a container of sorts. Am I interpreting your comments correctly?
[b]
[/b]
Profound insight … happens every day … everywhere … in almost every human interaction … no?
FC … more emerging thoughts triggered by your last post.
We use a mirror to see our-self(s) … at times triggering reflections about our-self.
Perhaps in the same vein … the universe/cosmos chose the object … known to us as a human being … to be a “mirror” that IT might see itself and reflect on Itself.
pilgrim-seeker_tom
Thank you for the compliment, very rare I get one.
You observation has an element of logic, and I have no problem accepting the necessity of leaders and leadership.
In times of crisis for example a small number of leaders preferable, but on the long run it is destructive regardless of the original arrangement.
Except, and this is where the ‘must’ comes into play, the 99% has more power at any time.
Simple analogy - even if there is a limitation on every analogy - is the wolf pack.
The seemingly privileged alphas ‘must’ stand up and stand out, or lose the status.
Other members of the group will do whatever they can, or can get away with.
This is really just a thought without serious consideration.
What is our existence and our reality in the universe is just as relative as space-time.
Everything is dependent on the surrounding environment or circumstances.
Something would like to add to the mirror theory.
This is a long held belief of mine that originate from working with computers.
Our understanding of the complexity of anything depends of the complexity of us.
Simply put, when you are coding of any data, the coder must have the capacity beyond data itself.
This is not limited to the actual data but the information it entails.
That of course establishes a fact of limitation, but also suggest a similarity, ergo the mirror.
In the case of a single individual, like me, my understanding is a reflection on me and of me.
One simple step from this, humanities ‘understanding’ that result in it’s collective actions is a reflection of humanity.
Without prejudice or political implications, an example.
President Trump is a reflection of the American population, their understanding and their reality.
… and it addresses FC’s OP statement … perhaps there is no philosophy king without a philosophy ‘pack’ … ditto for the alpha wolf.
[b]
[/b]
the surrounding environment and circumstances are constantly changing … yet there’s a human propensity to maintain the status quo … leading to friction and it’s consequences.
Perhaps the “complexity of us” is simply trying to catch up with the complexity of our universe/cosmos.
[b]
[/b]
I remember several instances of people suggesting Trump is simply saying what so many Americans want to say yet are constrained by political/social correctness.
Perhaps this is the phenomenon supporting the exploding popularity of Jordan Peterson.
Mao Zedong comes to mind … the numbers involved are staggering … hundreds of millions of people empowering one man.
Some suggest Xi Jinping is currently experiencing the same vortex phenomenon … with even larger numbers … empowering him beyond the borders of China … BRI for example.
