Moderator: Only_Humean
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Yes, I think Dionisus is very comfortable with Zeus and leaving him in power. The bovi also does not really want what is of Iovi.
lacking in philosophic sense.
Groups often deplore suggestions that their approach, whether habitual or newly prized or...., might be improved. The group has engaged in prejudiced responses itself and may not like when this is mirrored and here has perhaps turned away from what it does not understand or perhaps what seems to be a threat to its sense of its role.
The group appreciates the introduction of collective third person response.
The group thinks this adds something.
The group feels no need for this to change.
The group however learns more from the blend of abstraction and the concrete/particular.
That is where gifts shine or do not.
"Groups are the plain's best defence against philosophy or any challenge.
"There are no philosophies, only philosophers" - N
Meaning there is at this point only me."
Pedro I Rengel wrote: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.
Guide wrote:"Groups are the plain's best defence against philosophy or any challenge.
"There are no philosophies, only philosophers" - N
Meaning there is at this point only me."
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.
Fixed Cross wrote:Pedro I Rengel wrote: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.
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.
Guide wrote: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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users