Giftedness Exists

The will takes over the role of eros. Socrates is “monological” insofar as he always presses one point (and at bottom is never influenced by his interlocutors who are always manifestly inferior to him, in all but one case). The contrast is between the Rausch or symbol-rich unconscious when read through Jung of the Zarathustra, and the sheer philosophizing (reasoning) of Beyond Good and Evil. Where the issue is a Platonic-style discourse concerning the relative power of religion and philosophy split by a series of aphorisms, rather than the ancient subject of (local: i.e., in each city do what is done there) politics and (universal, i.e, concerned with wisdom) philosophy. This is because in our own time politics is universalized (“in each city” has no sense, one hears news of the furthest regions constantly), rather than local. Which means the ancient form of analysis no longer holds: cf. Schmitt’s Concept of the Political.

Precisely where Nietzsche is multifarious, rich; N doesn’t bother with pressing points to inferior people, he opens curtains to superior ones.
He writes above himself, Socrates seeks for those on whom he can look down, to make their folly suggest his wisdom.
It is not a surprise that the political Plato scrapped every piece of Greek culture that shows Socrates for what he is. Ill do you the respect of not making what I mean here explicit.

Interesting take.
I do not agree that any of it is Platonic, but its easy to concede that what you mean by Platonic is probably the western tradition of going lengths to explain things via logical arguments of varying qualities and integrities.

Your distinction is of strong political significance in a time when localism and tribalism are being re-established by the failure of universalist rationalism and the indifference of the rationalists to these failures; in short, by the unmasking of rationality as the fundamental ideological soil, and the identifying of the “tribal totem”, the inscrutable object of very particular collective passions, as the true ground of argument.

What I have read of Heidegger suggests the very opposite. That he hightens words beyond their truth, to a poetic fancy that convinces itself it is from a place more real and even anterior to truth. The result is worse than corny because cornyness has no illusions about what it is.

It is self-dellusion aggrandized to the point where it can no longer trace itself back to the fact that it is dellusion, dellusion always being a cover for weakness. Weakness can be made strong, dellusion cannot. This is why he, as well as all dellusionists of the modern age, takes aim at Nietzsche, evidently the strongest thinker possible, fails to even say anything about him and then claims he went beyond him, that Nietzsche was at bottom somehow a fool, an enlightened fool. Like Derrida saying he liked Nietzsche only when he was an angry teenager, that that is the only reason anyone would. It’s more than pathetic: it is crushing proof of Nietzsche’s assertion that nothing fertile can come from the last man.

Why is Baudrillard saved from this list? Because the very few times he touches Nietzsche, always very obliquely, it is always in frank and stunned admiration. He accepted he would never surpass him and simply did what he could to honor philosophy, almost in his name.

To make sure the torch was passed.

“What I have read of Heidegger suggests the very opposite. That he hightens words beyond their truth, to a poetic fancy that convinces itself it is from a place more real and even anterior to truth.”

Rather, the poetic fancy is taken as the ground to the whole project of philosophy. Grammar is hung from a tree and skinned, dissected for its organs which are relished as a curiosity.
In as far as it is alive during this, it is also the one with the knife. It is a very gruelling process, which only a German would undertake - and not a decent one.
I Agree Degger is not a pale shadow of N qua decency, but thats not what it took to further the task. It took a deluded nazi. Hahaha…
Dafuq.
I can see why you hate him.
But I can’t. He’s too efficient at what had to be done. Maybe the fucker was the only useful nazi, the reason why nazism had to exist. So that Heidegger could walk around his little hut undisturbed by utilitarian thoughts or any common sense whatsoever.

Tell me, what was it that had to be done?

I see no meat.

Only farts.

“Rather, the poetic fancy is taken as the ground to the whole project of philosophy.”

Right, exactly, he’s an idiot.

This is just the way of saying by a man whose pride won’t let him see the truth the following:

“…that convinces itself it is from a place more real and even anterior to truth.”

Mistakes in philosophy are not a matter for embarassment. They are a privilege.

You can afford yourself this privilege because you, with the possible only company of Baudrillard and me, understand the dignity of Nietzsche.

What you cannot afford yourself is dellusion. Not in war.

And is any human ever not in war?

Are even the dead not in war?

Why do you think after a while great Greeks had themselves burnt instead of stored in mausoleums or mounds? Or even towers to be eaten by vultures where bones would remain?

I agree about the Japanese and the absolute. Which is why they belong in the past. The absoluteness of honor was so intennable that they needed Buda. But the real result was… was… well I would like to die and be reborn there.

War is a child’s idea of a good time, because it is real. Nothing else is.

Fertility, sex, these show us that war is not all about hurting and causing pain. War is the footing on which life exists. Life! In all its unimaginable vastness.

Despite it all, this was Nietzsche’s greatest discovery. He grounded Shopenhauer’s will to life in war.

Shopenhauer was just depressed. Shit, could happen to anybody.

The group thinks this word of the group is somewhat overly polemical, or tendentiously aimed at finding anything to disagree with that it can. There is another issue, which is that Dionysus is the god who philosophizes. The whole book is a conversation with Plato, for, in Plato, one must recall, Diotima is given to the view that the Good is what one is deprived of, that it is final, that eros draws towards it. That only the human philosophizes due to the privative state of knowing that is all-too-human.

Tribalism is nothing at all like the ancient situation, where the oracle advised to do as the local custom advised. Tribalism is a knowing and vigorous disagreement with another view. Tribalism is an actively ‘false’ view, as it were. It is a conviction, as it were, that is inconsistent and illogical and known to be so by its most serious protagonists. Since one both says, the judge must hold his view, he can not admit other views are “just as good” or “equally possible”, but at the same time, one knows all views are “subjective”, and others do genuinely judge them true/’false’.

Tribalism (pluralism) implies a deliberate non-universality. Each view, in pre-Roman age, which was local, was universal in the sense that it understood the “outside” as utterly evil. Even the sense of wisdom, likely, was merely this same impulse, but it was a call to see the false consciousness in the current local good, which needed to have the edge of its good sharpened on the sharpening stone of (all-too-Greek, European, Western, then Planetary) philosophy.

Typical group-think; I was prompted to spit on in distaste, but instead made a great effort to recognize anything of value in your pen-curls.

Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you.

A good mind would have observed that the tribal totem is precisely the object of eros that confounded the autistic Plato, where your precious “proven truths” about the tribe are all failing to indicate anything but lost fascist dreams.

Do we war so we can rest? Or do we rest so we can war?

If we run away from war, are we not in war?

If we refuse violence and dedicate ourselves to aesthetics and morals, are we not in war?

If we lie or tell the truth, if we wonder about truth and about lie, rejecting one or the other, are we not at war?

If we detest others and wish them not to exist, are we not at war? If they cease to exist and we dedicate ourselves to happy and optimistic endeavors, do obstacles and threats cease? Are we not at war?

This being the case, the knowing, does it not make more sense that a woman would continue to value truth more, not less, and continue to seek it out, as she would the holy grail?

But then again, perhaps it all comes down to the individual. But without truth, without that kind of knowledge/knowing, how can there be any freedom, any human evolution?

Lol I don’t know. It seems to me one would not seek what one already has.

The group has duly read this adolescent answer.

The rest was a bit over your head, eh?
:slight_smile:

Sorry to overestimate you, did not mean to hurt you.
I could never fathom the sheer fragility of your type.