Nietzsche excerpts: The proto-nazi case

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

First of all I want to point out that nobody should base their viewpoint of Nietzsche based on the few quotes here, he is a complex character and its highly likely that he contradicts this elsewhere. Also he can be very easily taken out of context.

Ok I have been debating elsewhere with a nazi and a fascist about whether or not Nietzsche can be described as a proto-fascist or even a nazi.

Basically all was going well but I find these quotes which when isolated are very difficult to get around. How can you counterattack when faced with quotes such as these, I know if get into it I should be able to do so but nevertheless I thought these quotes would make for interesting reading.


From Beyond Good and Evil


242

Whether that which now distinguishes the European be called `civilization' or `humanization' or 'progress'; whether one calls it simply, without implying any praise or blame, the democratic movement in Europe: behind all the moral and political foregrounds indicated by such formulas a great physiological process is taking place and gathering greater and ever greater impetus - the process of the assimilation of all Europeans, their growing detachment from the conditions under which races dependent on climate and class originate, their increasing independence of any definite milieu which, through making the same demands for centuries, would like to inscribe itself on soul and body - that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation. This process of the becoming European, the tempo of which can be retarded by great relapses but which will perhaps precisely through them gain in vehemence and depth - the still-raging storm and stress of `national feeling' belongs here, likewise the anarchism now emerging - this process will probably lead to results which its naive propagators and panegyrists, the apostles of `modern ideas', would be least inclined to anticipate. The same novel conditions which will on average create a levelling and mediocritizing of man - a useful, industrious, highly serviceable and able herd-animal man - are adapted in the highest degree to giving rise to exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality. For while that power of adaptation which continually tries out changing conditions and begins a new labour with every new generation, almost with every new decade, cannot make possible the powerfulness of the type; while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread; while, therefore, the democratization of Europe will lead to the production of a type prepared for slavery in the subtlest sense: in individual and exceptional cases the strong man will be found to turn out stronger and richer than has perhaps ever happened before - thanks to the unprejudiced nature of his schooling, thanks to the tremendous multiplicity of practice, art and mask. What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants - in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

243

I hear with pleasure that our sun is moving rapidly in the direction of the constellation of Hercules: and I hope that men on the earth will in this matter emulate the sun. And we at their head, we good Europeans!


The Will to Power


898 (Spring-Fall 1887)

The strong of the future.-- That which partly necessity, partly chance has achieved here and there, the conditions for the production of a stronger type, we are now able to comprehend and consciously will: we are able to create the conditions under which such an elevation is possible.

Until now, "education" has had in view the needs of society: not the possible needs of the future, but the needs of the society of the day. One desired to produce "tools" for it. Assuming the wealth of force were greater, one could imagine forces being subtracted, not to serve the needs of society but some future need.

Such a task would have to be posed the more it was grasped to what extent the contemporary form of society was being so powerfully transformed that at some future time it would be unable to exist for its own sake alone, but only as a tool in the hands of a stronger race.

The increasing dwarfing of man is precisely the driving force that brings to mind the breeding of a stronger race--a race that would be excessive precisely where the dwarfed species was weak and growing weaker (in will, responsibility, self-assurance, ability to posit goals for oneself).

The means would be those history teaches: isolation through interests in preservation that are the reverse of those which are average today; habituation to reverse evaluations; distance as a pathos; a free conscience in those things that today are most undervalued and prohibited.

The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it. The necessity to create a gulf, distance, order of rank, is given eo ipso--not the necessity to retard the process.

As soon as it is established, this homogenizing species requires a justification: it lies in serving a higher sovereign species that stands upon the former and can raise itself to its task only by doing this. Not merely a master race whose sole task is to rule, but a race with its own sphere of life, with an excess of strength for beauty, bravery, culture, manners to the highest peak of the spirit; an affirming race that may grant itself every great luxury--strong enough to have no need of the tyranny of the virtue-imperative, rich enough to have no need of thrift and pedantry, beyond good and evil; a hothouse for strange and choice plants.


From the Genology of Morals


...In what is an even more decisive and deeper sense, Judea once again was victorious over the classical ideal at the time of the French Revolution. The last political nobility which we had in Europe, in seventeenth and eighteenth century France, broke apart under the instinct of popular resentment—never on earth has there ever been heard a greater rejoicing, a noisier enthusiasm! It's true that in the midst of all this the most dreadful and most unexpected events took place: the old ideal itself stepped physically and with unheard of splendour before the eyes and the conscience of humanity—and once again stronger, simpler, and more urgently than ever rang out, in opposition to the old lie, to the slogan of resentment about the privileged rights of the majority, in opposition to that will for a low condition, abasement, equality, for the decline and extinguishing of mankind—in opposition to all that there rang out a fearsome and delightful counter-slogan about the privileged rights of the few! As a last signpost to a different road Napoleon appeared, the most singular and late-born man there ever was, and in him the problem of the inherently noble ideal was made flesh. We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .

17.

Did that end it? Was that greatest of all opposition of ideals thus set ad acta for all time? Or was it merely postponed, postponed indefinitely? . . . Some day, after a much longer preparation, will an even more fearful blaze from the old fire not have to take place? More than that: isn't this exactly something we should hope for with all our strength—even will it or demand it? . . .

[redstar2000]

...that is to say, the slow emergence of an essentially supra-national and nomadic type of man which, physiologically speaking, possesses as its typical distinction a maximum of the art and power of adaptation.

Supra-national, yes. Nomadic, definitely. adaptive?

No, that's wrong...and Nietzsche should have known that. Consider the image that must have been common even in his time:

In the midst of the jungle, with savages for attendants, the English "great white hunters" dress for dinner as they would in London, begin with a standing toast to the Queen, eat from china plates and drink from crystal glasses. Afterwards, the gentlemen excuse themselves from the ladies and retire to a nearby clearing for port and cigars.

The supra-national does not "adapt", he takes his culture and technology with him wherever he goes and refashions the most unpromising circumstances after his own preferences.

It's the world that must "adapt" as best it can.


...while the total impression produced by such future Europeans will probably be that of multifarious, garrulous, weak-willed and highly employable workers who need a master, a commander, as they need their daily bread...

It didn't work out that way; modern Europeans are probably the most restless and rebellious of the world's people...remarkably difficult to "master" for any length of time.

They have a high opinion of themselves...and such people make poor slaves.


exceptional men of the most dangerous and enticing quality

Sounds like it was written by a 20th century journalist about Hitler, all right.

But who else? There've been a whole host of posturing Hitler-wannabes...for whom most Europeans have nothing but contempt for.

A "master guy" does not make a "master race". :lol:


What I mean to say is that the democratization of Europe is at the same time an involuntary arrangement for the breeding of tyrants - in every sense of that word, including the most spiritual.

Didn't happen...unless you want to dignify the mediocre CEOs of European corporations and their political lackeys with the "honor".


We might well think about what sort of a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of the inhuman and the superhuman . . .

Metaphysical babble. His invasion of Russia, totally unnecessary from a political point of view, cost the lives of 400,000 French soldiers and sealed the fate of his regime.

A blunder that was "all too human".

:redstar2000:

The Redstar2000 Papers (http://www.redstar2000papers.fightcapitalism.net)
A site about communist ideas

[themessiah]

nietzche was an idiot

all of his most famous ideas are rip offs of ancient philosophers

plato in particular

for instance, the OVERMAN, or superman, is nothing more than a rewrite of THE PHILSOPHER KINGS

the screwed up digression into eugenics also comes from Plato and his discussion of the GUARDIAN CLASS

his woman hating stance is typical with the ancient greeks. as is his religion hating stance. Plato did not support the Gods of his time. Like Zeus, and instead supported a one god theory.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

You know what, that is quite honestly and this comes from the deepest recesses of my mind, memory and all forms of recollection I can ever imagine, that I have never seen such a worthless collection of letters in my entire life.

[Trissy]

nietzche was an idiot

all of his most famous ideas are rip offs of ancient philosophers

plato in particular

for instance, the OVERMAN, or superman, is nothing more than a rewrite of THE PHILSOPHER KINGS

the screwed up digression into eugenics also comes from Plato and his discussion of the GUARDIAN CLASS

his woman hating stance is typical with the ancient greeks. as is his religion hating stance. Plato did not support the Gods of his time. Like Zeus, and instead supported a one god theory.

<_< Care to discuss Hazard?

If I were you I&#39;d say no because I could debate this as strongly as I debated Existentialism. Oh and by the way I&#39;m reading POP and it is how I expected to be. Sensation of sense data? Quite Humean don&#39;t you think?

[themessiah]

discussion time has ended trissy

if you have a beef with my conclusions, take it up. otherwise they are all valid.

stop calling me hazard. I am the messiah.

sensation of sense data is far more basic than hume. we&#39;re talking descartes. its what russell did with it.

[Trissy]

discussion time has ended trissy

Oh that upsets me so much :(


if you have a beef with my conclusions, take it up. otherwise they are all valid.
Oh I do have a beef with them and I will take them up. I don&#39;t think they are valid in the slightest.


stop calling me hazard. I am the messiah
How about a compromise? I think &#39;the messiah formerly known as Hazard&#39; has a certain ring to it. All you need now is a symbol...


sensation of sense data is far more basic than hume. we&#39;re talking descartes. its what russell did with it
Yes well the whole &#39;Empiricist Vs Rationalist&#39; debate is one of the key debates in the history of philosophy. The same applies to the &#39;Materialist Vs Idealist Vs Dualist&#39; debate. Russell is not that shocking and I still fail to see how he destroyed your life but nevermind...

Back to your original post...


nietzche was an idiot

Do I really need to respond this insolent comment? You provide no argument for that statement and if we look at Nietzsche&#39;s work, his place in philosophy and his influences on the world I think you&#39;ll find he was far from an idiot. He is more influential then Russell shall ever be.


all of his most famous ideas are rip offs of ancient philosophers

for instance, the OVERMAN, or superman, is nothing more than a rewrite of THE PHILSOPHER KINGS

the screwed up digression into eugenics also comes from Plato and his discussion of the GUARDIAN CLASS
The Guardians are completely different to the Superman. You show extremely poor understanding of what Nietzsche meant by the Superman. I shall break the differences down for you:

* The Guardians are part of how an ideal State would be set up and as such they are in control of society and their fellow Guardians. The Superman doesn&#39;t care about the State and is soley preoccupied with his own actions, his own will to power and his own values. The Superman shall seek to do as he pleases and so as long as others do not hold him back he doesn&#39;t care about them.

*The Guardians judge something by the Form of the Good. Everything they decide has to come through their knowledge of the realm of Forms. They look beyond themselves for their values in this sense. The Superman however is the creator of his own values and so does not look beyond himself to other people or other worlds.

*The Guardians were chosen partly on birth status and partly on merit (as people could move between the three classes depending on how they performed). As such Plato believed that his vission of society was implementable, and once it was imposed it could be maintained through the myth that society had always been that way. The Superman on the other hand is not genetic and has little to do with someone&#39;s genes. It is closer to a state of mind and the Superman might no ever be possible. It is a goal that should be striven for more then anything.

*There were both male and female Guardians. In that sense Plato is not sexist. Nietzche on the other hand had a very dim view of women.

*We can also go on to draw many other key differences between the thoughts of Plato and Nietzsche. Plato hated art due to his theory of Forms and artists are banished from the Republic which allows only some types of &#39;State Art&#39;. Nietzsche on the other hand saw the ideal state as being whatever state brought about the greatest men and the greatest artists.


his woman hating stance is typical with the ancient greeks
If we examine his life we&#39;ll easily see why he came to hate women so much and it has nothing to do with the fact that Nietzsche was copying the Greeks. If your insight is correct then Nietzsche would also admire homosexuality, which he doesn&#39;t comment on in any of his works to my knowledge.


as is his religion hating stance. Plato did not support the Gods of his time
So? Plato replaced the Greek God&#39;s with his theory of Forms. He believed in the demiurge who shaped all matter to resemble these Forms. He did believe in a God of some sort even if it is not the traditional Gods of his Era. Nietzsche on the other hand erected no new idols. The Superman and noble ethics are all human ideas, and as such are not divine or transcendental like religious deities, heavens or realms of Forms. Nietzsche disliked systematizers, and what so I feel he disliked Plato with his vision of perfect states, realms and moralities.


I mistrust all stystematizers and avoid them. The will to a system is a lack of integrity

[themessiah]

trissy, discussion time is over

nevertheless

I said the philosopher kings are akin to the overman

somehow you mistook the descent into eugenics as having relation to the comparitive with the guradians. it did not.

trissy, there is no need for you to write endlessly on things I did not say and was rather firm on in the first place

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

How can you compare Plato&#39;s philosopher kings with Nietzsche&#39;s overman, I&#39;ve heard it before but the idea baffles me.

[Trissy]

trissy, discussion time is over

The messiah formerly known as Hazard, merely saying that the time for discussion is over doesn&#39;t make it so. I can only guess you say that discussion time is over because you appear to know little about what we&#39;re discussing. The fact that you failed to back up any of your original comments is evidence of this.


I said the philosopher kings are akin to the overman
Care to explain this to us in a little more detail?


somehow you mistook the descent into eugenics as having relation to the comparitive with the guradians. it did not

perhaps because you wrote this>>>

the screwed up digression into eugenics also comes from Plato and his discussion of the GUARDIAN CLASS


trissy, there is no need for you to write endlessly on things I did not say and was rather firm on in the first place
If I write &#39;endlessly&#39; on things you did not say then it is because you did not put your views clearly enough. I think my comments were a justifiable to the comments you have posted.

[themessiah]

nietzche was not as smart as most of you think

I am simply providing evidence that a great deal of his work hinges upon the necessary groundwork as put forward by Plato. for a post modern (post? like PRE) he relies VERY HEAVILY on ancient ideas. worthless.

as far the overman, the best idea is the way it was taught to me. once you understand it as being identical to plato&#39;s philosopher kings.

we look at monkey&#39;s, right? and we&#39;re supposed to be from them. like we evolved from them. and we are embarrased to have once been them. so, the transition from monkey to man is known by the emotion it conveys. we are embarrased. and just as we are embarrased to have evolved from monkey&#39;s, the overman is embarrased to have evolved from man. or something like that. I think my prof was just trying to make a joke. I was the only one laughing anyway.

[themessiah]

and oh yeah, trissy, this discussion is over

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Originally posted by [email protected] 22 2004, 06:09 PM







nietzche was not as smart as most of you think

You are not as smart as you think.


I am simply providing evidence that a great deal of his work hinges upon the necessary groundwork as put forward by Plato. for a post modern (post? like PRE) he relies VERY HEAVILY on ancient ideas. worthless

All bullshit based on nothing but opinion. Prove it, show me some scholarly work supporting this viewpoint.

Nietzsche is a modernist who had postmodern ideas, I advise you to take a look at The Postmodern Turn for a description on what postmodernism is.


as far the overman, the best idea is the way it was taught to me. once you understand it as being identical to plato&#39;s philosopher kings.

Who taugh you. Explain how they are similar.



we look at monkey&#39;s, right? and we&#39;re supposed to be from them. like we evolved from them. and we are embarrased to have once been them. so, the transition from monkey to man is known by the emotion it conveys. we are embarrased. and just as we are embarrased to have evolved from monkey&#39;s, the overman is embarrased to have evolved from man. or something like that. I think my prof was just trying to make a joke. I was the only one laughing anyway.

Nietzsche is always keen to point out that the overman is not neccesarily a biological evolutionary principle, it is based more on morality than anything else.

[elijahcraig]

Nietzsche is a modernist who had postmodern ideas, I advise you to take a look at The Postmodern Turn for a description on what postmodernism is.

Well...I don&#39;t know if I agree completely.


Nietzsche is always keen to point out that the overman is not neccesarily a biological evolutionary principle, it is based more on morality than anything else.

I don&#39;t know how people (I&#39;m looking at you, &#39;themessiah&#39;) can so horribly misinterpret this concept.



Themessiah is a guy who is talking out of his ass on a subject he doesn&#39;t have the intellect to comprehend.

Unlike me, Nietzschean superman.

[fernando]

I still have to read his work...I am very interested in it...I like the concept ubermensch...well to the extend that we can outgrow our nature...which is basicly a mental process and has nothing to do with race and nationality. The whole "taking your own power" appeals to me, I mean to actually be able to show to the people that they dont have to keep their heads down and obey, butcan take matters in their own hands and become their own gods.

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Thats a good view of Nietzsche&#39;s work you have there, have a look into some of his work, you will enjoy it.


On the postmodern thing, I dont we can call anybody post modern as such until we reach late fifties, sixites. I no doubt believe Nietzsche is more or less one of the founders of many post modern ideas however just to clear that up.

[Trissy]

nietzche was not as smart as most of you think

When did I say I thought he was smart? As a thinker I like his work. Don&#39;t be so presumptious. I do think Nietzsche was a genius but I have good reason to. You say he merely reinvents previous ideas and yet you provide no evidence for this claim.


I am simply providing evidence that a great deal of his work hinges upon the necessary groundwork as put forward by Plato. for a post modern (post? like PRE) he relies VERY HEAVILY on ancient ideas. worthless
What evidence? So far all you have done is throw around accusations. You haven&#39;t provided even a scrap of evidence to back up your claims.


as far the overman, the best idea is the way it was taught to me. once you understand it as being identical to plato&#39;s philosopher kings
HOW was it taught to you? Geese&#33; It&#39;s easier drawing blood from a stone&#33;


we look at monkey&#39;s, right? and we&#39;re supposed to be from them. like we evolved from them. and we are embarrased to have once been them. so, the transition from monkey to man is known by the emotion it conveys. we are embarrased. and just as we are embarrased to have evolved from monkey&#39;s, the overman is embarrased to have evolved from man. or something like that. I think my prof was just trying to make a joke. I was the only one laughing anyway
What??? He wasn&#39;t making a joke and that is why nobody laughed. Your prof was just commenting on a passages from Thus Spoke Zarathustra. I could quote it yoo if you liked because it is very easy to identify in the text. All that means is that if we ever achieve the Superman, we shall look back on our previous state and feel ashamed by our former simplicity.

This has nothing to do with linking the Superman with Plato&#39;s philosopher kings. We should also point out that the evolution from monkey to man is genetic but the evolution from man to Superman is not. It is about a change of attitude or mentality and so a change in lifestyle.


and oh yeah, trissy, this discussion is over
Maybe it is Hazard. Maybe I should remind Malte and the CC that you were previously restricted to OI. Maybe I should ask him if he approves of people creating new accounts in order to bypass their restriction? What do you say to that? :lol:

[Trissy]

Removed as this was an accidental double post...

see above

[themessiah]

for a discussion that is over some people, trissy, can&#39;t seem to shut up. like you.

you speak of evidence. yet you provide none. my evidence is that the man was not of sound mind. whether you want to pick on him, endlessly, because of this and attribute whatever vain and insulting opinions to his work that you want to is your decision. he clearly was only doing the exact same thing that Plato did. if you want to build him up into something he is not, go ahead. I won&#39;t even argue.

there is no point

[Trissy]

for a discussion that is over some people, trissy, can&#39;t seem to shut up. like you
I don&#39;t shut up Hazard because you commit so many crimes against philosophy that I find it impossible to ignore your abuse of people&#39;s work. Also when you returned as &#39;the messiah&#39; you stated that you have an undefeated record in debates, and I shall not let you slink away from this debate thinking you have won. The fact that you think you win is sheer folly, but coming from a fool such as yourself what more can we expect? Wearing people down with your constant misinterpretations and then leaving proves nothing...


you speak of evidence. yet you provide none
Have you looked around at all the various threads about Nietzsche on this forum? I frequently provide evidence, unlike you. We could carry out a poll if you wish but I think you&#39;ll find people will side with me on this one. Have you read any of Nietzsche&#39;s work because it strikes me that you can&#39;t have read much if you struggle to find anything reasonable to say...


my evidence is that the man was not of sound mind
Nietzsche was insane from 1889 until 1900. He was sane from 1844 until 1889. In this time he spoke more sense then you will ever do, and was far more usefully original too. All that prattle you wrote before &#39;Hazard&#39; left was dire...


whether you want to pick on him, endlessly, because of this and attribute whatever vain and insulting opinions to his work that you want to is your decision
I attribute what I deem to be fair interpretations to his work. Most academic philosophers would agree with the vast majority of my interpretations. Could you say the same thing? You&#39;re a bitter and twisted individual. Your Ego needs bringing down to size.


he clearly was only doing the exact same thing that Plato did
Evidence? WHERE IS YOUR GOD DAMN EVIDENCE?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?&#33;?


if you want to build him up into something he is not, go ahead. I won&#39;t even argue.

there is no point
One last comment Hazard....GO AWAY&#33;

Go away and leave Che lives. Go away and leave this forum because I am fed up of &#39;debating&#39; you. You are incapable of backing up any of your claims. You provide no evidence, cry and then run off.

Go away before I go to the CC and have you restricted to OI once more. This is the last warning I will give you. Debate and provide evidence....or say goodbye to everything but topics in OI. No poetry. No philosophy. Just OI.

[themessiah]

trissy, thakn you for showing that the discussion is as over as I thought it was. vain threats, horrible accusations and monotonous stupidity.

in other words, because you are wrong, you threaten to organize a LYNCH MOB to chase me away? what is wrong with this mentality?
you speak of crimes against philosophy while you commit crimes against your fellow person in a criminal sense. slander and libel accusations. my "crimes" are debatable. yours are not. and worse is how you justify the response. "I am wrong and I am stupid. So I will call you something you are not and find as many people as I can to ostracize and lynch you." Well reasoned.

Go. Call your blood hunt. It would not be the first time I have argued a better position only to be countered with threats and violence.

anyway Trissy...

you yourself admit Nietzche was insane. MY POINT ADMITTED.

NIetzche doing the same thing that Plato did is evident throughout this topic. my June fifteen post IS THE EVIDENCE. where is yours? let me put it this way. if I staple a bag to your forehead and with a label that says EXHIBIT A, you would have to be pretty stupid to SCREAM OUT there is no evidence. IT IS STAPLED TO YOUR FOREHEAD. there is your evidence. what you want? testimony from Nietzche, the lunatic, that he conciously or inadverntantley ripped palto off? HE&#39;S FUCKING DEAD&#33; HE&#39;S DEAD&#33; HE&#39;S SO FUCKING DEAD IT ISN&#39;T FUNNY&#33; what the fuck?

no poetry? no philosophy? only a twit like you would cry about losing the "priveledge" of that.

[elijahcraig]

^^Just fuck off, guy, everyone here knows you are a moron.

[themessiah]

trissy, why don&#39;t you take a look at my topic THE MENATLITY. I could use someone as bull headed as you to try and debate with me. just pretend you&#39;re looking an excuse to bad someone who is ACTUALLY drafting something that CAN and WILL effect change in this sham of a society as opposed to furthur make it as exploitive as it is.

trissy, what the fuck kind of a name is that? "trissy".

[kroony]

Ahh, the messiah is indeed just. He sees the most sublime subtlety, where we mere mortals can only take words at face value. The anti-Christ Trissy warns him that he will be restricted, but he sees the hidden threat of lynching murder, like a wolf in sheep&#39;s clothing&#33;

Where he names someone an idiot, fools do not see that this is impeccable evidence&#33; The fools attempt to follow their impure senses... they do not have the faculties of the divine&#33;

Where we mere mortals see an accusation of no evidence -- the great messiah sees, in the black heart of the unbeliever, the true motive, that he wishes to reveal his consummate stupidity&#33; Unhappy fool&#33;

Where others may say it is unfair to hold the illness of dotage against the earlier works of the man, Messiah SEES&#33; He sees that Nietzsche was a worthless man, and he needs no proof.

And most of all. The messiah sees that he alone knows the TRUE rules of punctuation, of which ours are an imperfect copy&#33;

All praise the Messiah. Requiem ad nauseum&#33;

[Urban Rubble]

Good Lord Hazard, you are one of the stupidest fucks this website has ever had to have in it&#39;s system.

I cannot believe you actually said you&#39;re undefeated in debates. Do I really need to bring up the whole U.S/Canada Mad Cow global annihilation theory thread that you started ?

[DaCuBaN]

I&#39;m just avoiding &#39;Hazard&#39; from now on... I simply get purturbed by his illogic.

He&#39;s far too confused about the nature of goats and sheep :rolleyes:

[Trissy]

trissy, thakn you for showing that the discussion is as over as I thought it was. vain threats, horrible accusations and monotonous stupidity.

:lol:
This discussion will soon be over Hazard. My &#39;threats&#39; are far from vain...

Bye&#33;


in other words, because you are wrong, you threaten to organize a LYNCH MOB to chase me away?
No, I think it&#39;s the fact that all you ever do is make statements with little content. You then don&#39;t back them up with evidence if someone challenges you, and then finally you assert a new statement with little content before running off to claim &#39;victory&#39;...

You: Jesus was a rabbit.
Other: Well the Bible talks about him as if he was a man. The accounts of the apostles make no claim that he was a rabbit.
You: You don&#39;t understand what I am saying. He was a rabbit. We cannot trust the accounts of the apostles because they were evil pot smokers. Discussion over...I AM INVINCIBLE&#33;

That is why I wish you to change your ways or leave. This is a discussion board. People present their ideas, put forward their reasoning and then discuss. You on the other hand just make statement, say you&#39;re right and then make poor evaluations of other people&#39;s ideas. You also attack other people when it&#39;s clear that your argument is flawed. You so far have attacked Sartre, Existentialism, Nietzsche and then my grammar. You provide nothing positive to these debates and so hence I wish to see you disappear...


you speak of crimes against philosophy while you commit crimes against your fellow person in a criminal sense. slander and libel accusations. my "crimes" are debatable. yours are not. and worse is how you justify the response. "I am wrong and I am stupid. So I will call you something you are not and find as many people as I can to ostracize and lynch you." Well reasoned.
But I am far from stupid dear Hazard. I think the level of debate I provide is reasonable evidence that I have a mind capable of maintaining a suitable level of debate. Can you claim the same I wonder?

Why are you always the victim Hazard? Why must it always be that life is dealing you an unfair hand? Have you ever stopped to think that maybe the reason people are annoyed by you is because you are a jerk? Maybe you&#39;re not the victim, maybe you&#39;re the criminal. Shock horror&#33; Could it be??? Nooooo......

Oh and plus I cannot be accused of slander because my accusation are written and not communicated verbally. Oh...and I have evidence to back them up as well. They&#39;d only be libellous if they were false.


Go. Call your blood hunt. It would not be the first time I have argued a better position only to be countered with threats and violence.

No...I think you&#39;ll find that last time you were restricted to OI for being a jerk and posting trash all over the board. This time I&#39;m going to simply remind people that you&#39;re still a jerk and still posting trash. The idea that your position is the best position is dubious, yet you treat this as an a priori truth.


you yourself admit Nietzsche was insane. MY POINT ADMITTED.

Fool&#33; Nietzsche wrote all his works before he went insane in 1889. The fact that he went insane says nothing about his works. You say he went insane as if it somehow makes him a bad philosopher. It doesn&#39;t...


Nietzsche doing the same thing that Plato did is evident throughout this topic. my June fifteen post IS THE EVIDENCE
Ha ha ha :lol:

The fact you say something does not make it evidence. It is a statement&#33; I went on to show examples of how The superman and The Guardians are different. You have still yet to show how Plato&#39;s work is similar to that of Nietzsche&#39;s. Perhaps you could put forward a passage by Nietzsche which shows how one is similar to the other...YOU made the claim...hence YOU need to back it up


no poetry? no philosophy? only a twit like you would cry about losing the "priveledge" of that
If you didn&#39;t miss posting you poetry (perhaps you&#39;re only true love because it can&#39;t tell you that you&#39;re a jerk) and you philosophical errors then why did you register again and start posting in these forums???


trissy, why don&#39;t you take a look at my topic THE MENATLITY
Why don&#39;t I not...

Topics started by you (e.g. TIC, TAC and the rants you had against psychology and Existentialism) tend be long and tedious with no really merit.


just pretend you&#39;re looking an excuse to bad someone who is ACTUALLY drafting something that CAN and WILL effect change in this sham of a society as opposed to furthur make it as exploitive as it is.
If you change society I&#39;ll be amazed. If you go crazy (assuming that you&#39;re not) then I won&#39;t.


trissy, what the fuck kind of a name is that? "trissy".
Hazard, what did you change your name to &#39;the messiah&#39; (ignoring that you wanted to be unrestricted for now)? I think Hazard was quite apt...Hazards are to be avoided after all&#33;

Oh...and nice post Arie :) It sounded very Nietzschean&#33; Thus Spoke Kroony...

[Pedro Alonso Lopez]

Just stop replying to anything he says Trissy, you are never going to get anywhere.

[themessiah]

tell you what trissy, when you&#39;re old enough to use a razor get back to me

everybody else

especially kroony

you actually are attempting a lynching. nice work. over nietzche. even more nice. and the nicest part of all of it is the fact that you still have a gentleman by the name of hazard running through your heads.

to think that this fellow had such an impact on this board, AND YOU THINK ITS ME&#33; maybe if I switched my avatar that might help. but if I used a south park one, that would make me malte, I guess...