The "Ich" and the "Du"

[Guide]

(Meno, and his thoughtless ilk, need not read this, please.)

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons, therefore the "Ich" is prior to the "Du". When the infinite power of society obliterates nature, the "Ich" rules over the "Du" (concern for the advantage of the genetic other, the "Du" that shares one's genes, is defeated forever). According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature was subordinated), can the issue first be faced.

[Mr Reasonable]

Why are kinship relations better than rules that apply to everyone equally?

How is society, or anything else separate from nature?

Why are you afraid to talk to meno?

[Guide]

“Why are kinship relations better than rules that apply to everyone equally?”

Well, people seem to like their friends better than those they don’t know.

“Wem der große Wurf gelungen
Eines Freundes Freund zu sein;
Wer ein holdes Weib errungen
Mische seinen Jubel ein!”

“How is society, or anything else separate from nature?”

In the tradition we are all part of, phusis was said in contradistinction to techne and nomos (chiefly laws and money). “Nature” in the sense of “natural science” is a form of techne or the artifacts, things makeable = repeatable experiments.

Why are you afraid to talk to meno?

Such thoughtless and arrogant ones as “Meno” are a waste of time and deserve contempt.

[Mr Reasonable]

Because it seems that way? I'm not trying to disagree on any principle here or anything, but that is in fact a pretty weak argument.

About the 2nd part...is English your first language?

[Karpel Tunnel]

(Meno, and his thoughtless ilk, need not read this, please.)

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons,

Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?

According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature was subordinated), can the issue first be faced.

But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.

[Guide]

“Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?”

In former times there were different laws for the different classes of society. But, now, it is said that the law about, viz. sleeping in an alley, will be applied to rich and poor, high and low, alike.

The issue of intelligence and skill is like that of money and power, those are issues that concern outcomes, rather than the starting position.

“But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.”

Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution. Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals? And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”). To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation.

[Guide]

“Because it seems that way? I'm not trying to disagree on any principle here or anything, but that is in fact a pretty weak argument.”

It’s a straightforward description. You’re being too clever, and so miss the subject matter.

[Mr Reasonable]

So in your world, things are always as they seem?

[Karpel Tunnel]

Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution.

Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate`?

Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?

This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).

Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.

Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation

Could you extend and paraphrase this`?

[Guide]

“Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate`?”

Let’s leave aside this “imagined communities” stuff. I think that is a childish nonsense thesis based on ignorance of the situation. The issue is that a break with the instincts is achieved. Laws come in producing homogeneity of feeling for the “Ich”, each one comes to be their own, the “Du” is set aside as something secondary. A third stage opens up, it is called by Kant freedom. We make a decision to the third stage. The issue of the Volk, as against Universal Human Beings, is a question for freedom. This has to do with the question of different “prejudices” as Nietzsche called them, which suit different so-called cultures. The same prejudices don’t suit all the people on the earth in the same way, so the Nation, the Volkisch, is a reasonable answer, not merely a chauvinistic preference of a jingoistic “nationalist”.

Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?
This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

That would only be so if the laws were made arbitrarily. The laws are parallel to the “radical control” of nature. But, here, we are speaking of a third stage, an impersonal “radical control”, but not by nature or law.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).
Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

That’s not a question of Principle. It’s not sufficient to discredit the Catholic Church that the Borgia Popes were corrupt. Or, the Jacobians that the revolution devoured its children during the Terror.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.
Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

Every society strictly enforces behavioral prohibitions in a way that feels like “radical control” to whoever does not agree. One can say only that in some societies one can be legally charged or even killed for disagreeing. But, this is true in the Liberal Societies too, think of those who favour ISIS, or a few generations ago, the Soviet Union. The question of what is a reasonable prohibition, and what is oppression, is relative to the regime and the character of the citizens.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation
Could you extend and paraphrase this`?

This links up to Kantian freedom, which has to be reinterpreted because of the existence of the cultures. One can review the statement of the American Anthropology Association opposing Universal Human Rights. Ergo, opposing the belief in summa ratio, perfect and universal reason.

[Guide]

“So in your world, things are always as they seem?”

Black pigs that are too clever never reach philosophy.

[Karpel Tunnel]

“So in your world, things are always as they seem?”

Black pigs that are too clever never reach philosophy.

Your lack of clarity puts you on the boundary to being a waste of time. (I know, I know. You assume that any failure on your part to communicate clearly is the fault of those you 'guide') But here, in response to Mr. R. your just another Goebbelist thug, bye.

[Guide]

Go back and answer the post after cooling down.

[Guide]

Guide wrote:
“So in your world, things are always as they seem?”


Black pigs that are too clever never reach philosophy.
Your lack of clarity puts you on the boundary to being a waste of time. (I know, I know. You assume that any failure on your part to communicate clearly is the fault of those you 'guide') But here, in response to Mr. R. your just another Goebbelist thug, bye.

Go back and answer the post after cooling down. We all must not be so emotional in philosophy.

[barbarianhorde]

(Meno, and his thoughtless ilk, need not read this, please.)

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons, therefore the "Ich" is prior to the "Du". When the infinite power of society obliterates nature, the "Ich" rules over the "Du" (concern for the advantage of the genetic other, the "Du" that shares one's genes, is defeated forever). According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature was subordinated), can the issue first be faced.

Yes, Goebbels was as we all know a very wise and admirable man. Citing this colossal failure isnt really the best way to forward an idea which might be very sensible. In fact it does more to a priori discredit it than to invite thought.

PS Is it for some particular reason that you use the German words for I and you? It is slightly annoying and pedantic.

But getting over all this, indeed the Age of the I will come to an end because the I isnt adequate to itself. That much is obvious. How we will arrive at an age of Bonds is not yet explicit.

[Guide]

"Yes, Goebbels was as we all know a very wise and admirable man. Citing this colossal failure isnt really the best way to forward an idea which might be very sensible. In fact it does more to a priori discredit it than to invite thought."

For who, children?

"PS Is it for some particular reason that you use the German words for I and you? It is slightly annoying and pedantic."

We should be pedantic. Yes, there is a reason.

"But getting over all this, indeed the Age of the I will come to an end because the I isnt adequate to itself. That much is obvious. How we will arrive at an age of Bonds is not yet explicit."

Thanks for this worm-eaten piffle which brings us further from the confrontation of the difficulty.

[Mr Reasonable]

Guide, do you have a girlfriend?

[Arcturus Descending]

Guide

Such thoughtless and arrogant ones as “Meno” are a waste of time and deserve contempt.

Ludwig Feuerbach below...

Whatever kind of object … we are at any time conscious of, we are always at the same time conscious of our own nature[.]”


“[T]he object to which a subject essentially, necessarily relates, is nothing else than this subject's own … objective nature.”

“In the object which he contemplates … man becomes acquainted with himself.


Perhaps if you would give up your "own" you will cease to see Meno in this way.

[Guide]

"Guide


Such thoughtless and arrogant ones as “Meno” are a waste of time and deserve contempt.


Ludwig Feuerbach below...

Whatever kind of object … we are at any time conscious of, we are always at the same time conscious of our own nature[.]”


“[T]he object to which a subject essentially, necessarily relates, is nothing else than this subject's own … objective nature.”

“In the object which he contemplates … man becomes acquainted with himself.

Perhaps if you would give up your "own" you will cease to see Meno in this way."

Unfortunately the larger part of human beings lack, not merely acumen in thought, but the possibility to acquire it. Meno is one such one. It is often one's misfortune to waste one's time through not discerning to which group the interlocutor belongs. That being said, the group admires this group comment, which is not entirely without sense.

PS

Even Marx and Engels said of Feurerbach, of his work, the teaching is unbearably crude. The Zweck or Weg must have a way in, ergo, Nietzsche said, we all must must dance on our head, and yet, this dancing, happens in the stream of Rausch, of embodied music. Feurerbach has left out the sound of the river which is the thinker's pledge for the advent of thought.

I will note, also, that mindless Chomsky addicts such as "Mr. Reasonable" and "Karpal Tunnel" are intransigent bores. Ergo, the group continues to despise them and their comments.

[Mr Reasonable]

Why am I a Chomsky addict?

[Meno_]

The. person named 'guide' is himself unbelievably crude in his remarks, improperly citing sources, slandering with ad-hominems, and using the tactics of pseudo baiting by illogical appeals , as he himself brought out with such as goebbels.

What is remarkable here, is the appearing lack of psychological insight, around the primitive defenses.

Arguments surrounding the development of ire toward individual personality assessments do not belong in the general discussions within rational philosophical discourse, nor do asserting arguments using other philosophical topical considerations , by suppressing dynamic and substantial relevance.

In an open forum, this amounts to a mild form of charachacter assassination, and I retort, that publishing such, be censured.

I personally neither know guide, nor understand his recurring attacks, but I feel and really suspect him being a bored sockpoppet of sort, wanting to stir up controversy at his own indication so, as to cover his inadequate understanding of basic philosophy.

Some of us are earnest to follow some streams of thought to try to advance our own understanding, and those of our fellow members , not claiming unrealistic scholastic levels of achievement, with or without any thought, to evidencing any presumed or actual depth of preparation.

Therefore, guide , the self imposed guru of some elitist group think, please desist from this point on to use ad hominem as a way to compensate obvious lacks of expected literary styles, and for the use of vacuous philosophical arguments for which you are so obviously unprepared.

You are guilty of the very charges that you are posting against me, that much , if nothing else , has become quite obvious.

For a while I thought that you were using a mild form of irony, used for comic effect, but since the personal attacks have become as frequent and bold, as to suggest a false realization. that I may not defend myself, I am questioning this early interpretation and am becoming further convinced that your escalation deserves a more poignant defense.

I still harbor some modicum of reserve, that I will not drop you , and place you on my ignore list, however further proof to the contrary, will sustain that option.

[Karpel Tunnel]

Why am I a Chomsky addict?

It's shorthand for 'too far to the left' and that you believe in universal grammar.

[Guide]

"Why am I a Chomsky addict?"

This seems properly only to say what "Karpal Tunnel" is. The mad passion of the caravanserai to alloy the others has broken out, and painted you in this colour. Such is the mire of group existence.

[Guide]

"slandering with ad-hominems"

You would make a bad lawyer. Discrediting weak witnesses is a major part of the law in all nations on the earth, for good reason.

[Guide]

"Mr Reasonable wrote:
Why am I a Chomsky addict?
It's shorthand for 'too far to the left' and that you believe in universal grammar."

Aristotle already held with the theory of Universal Grammar, though, true, he only spoke Greek dialects. Chomskyites are people whose rotten noggins pretend to swim in salty oceans for show, but soon float to the surface, and claim the salt that stains their being is "posturing".