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.
Moderator: Only_Humean
“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.”
“tribalism are being re-established by the failure of universalist rationalism”
Guide wrote:“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.”
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 are being re-established by the failure of universalist rationalism”
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.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Truth is less important to a woman. She already knows it.
"Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you."
Guide wrote:"Very weak. I can only smile thinking of the surprises awaiting you."
The group has duly read this adolescent answer.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Lol I don't know. It seems to me one would not seek what one already has.
Pedro I Rengel wrote:Lol I agree on that that is the difference. But um... philosophy is love of wisdom. There are no different variants of love of wisdom. It is itself a variance.
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Majestic-12 [Bot]