But there is a greater number of answers than there is any number of things to the question why not to rape women.
One of them is: Quod licet Iovi non licet bovi.
Among humans, rape is almost always a symptom of inadequacy. The monotheism of the black stone is institutionalized inadequacy.
Philosophy is nothing less or more than the most necessary and most comprehensive human war.
Sure. I liked however his third person plural responses, sometimes blending group reactions, sometimes role playing the group reacting. Not arguing it is better than coming as oneself, as the individual philosopher. But I think that kind of play offers something. Like encountering a Deleuzian pack instead of one person. The process this leads to, not the conclusions in a specific post. I also like that sometimes it is clearly his own personal cranky reaction and sometimes seems to be trying to channel soumething more collective. But implict condescension in his use of this tactic and his reluctance to actually deal with life in anything but at a very abstract level make it repulsive over time.
That’s obviously what is terrifying about Diunisus.
To those who have been chained, the unpredictability of freedom makes them think of an unpredictable master. Which is horrifying. When master is predictable, one can at least establish an economy of suffering.
From this quarter, or neighborhood, as it were, of the group a wrestler comes forward, demanding to know what point is supposed to be streng verbotten, strictly disallowed, by reason of “abstraction”? A general outcry “abstraction”, is so abstract as to be unanswerable, or, at least, to fall under suspicion of disingenuous conduct of polemic kind.
However, the group does not, perhaps, adequately consider Nietzsche’s radical undermining of the “I”, even though, and moreso because, he often spoke of the ipsissimosity, the-most-being-like, expression of the characteristic of “himself”, of his dear early work: “Morgenröte,” however, the only book he himself published, was “Beyond Good and Evil,” a book which resembled the style of Plato, and also denounced Plato more than his other works.
I guess this is true. But to me this only speaks for Dionysos. I have always been horrified by the idea of predictables from above.
What should come from above is rain and lightening, and no weather man will ever be able to accurately predict these.
Ok - the Sun, moon and other celestials are predictable in their movements above. But they don’t come down to us like some intrusive bookkeeper-god.
Also Zeus is even less predictable than Dionysos. No god could ever predict what he would do next, except that probably it would result in another demigod birth. That is his autarky with respect to his father, Kronos.
BGE is monological, intensely concentrated, aphoristic.
Plato speaks in drawn out, purely contextual dialogues.
N questioned the “I” as a fixed entity, not as agent.
In other words: we don’t exist, except in our agency.
In yet other words: this world is will power.