Ken Klukowski, co-author of "The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency", attempts to defend himself. Solid evidence we cannot believe any of the January 6th committee findings.

But it is what conservatives accuse him of, and what they favour themselves, but presumably call by another name. — unenlightened

Yes, that is how I see it as well.

quote="unenlightened;736247"]As if by magic, conservative and progressive align with wealth and poverty, because the poor want to get rich and the rich want to stay rich.[/quote]

I think it is more a matter of the wealth and poverty of power and influence, something money can't always buy. We were told in school that the US is a classless society, but one thing conservatives wish to conserve is class structure and its privileges.

They’ve lied. — NOS4A2

Right, whatever supports Trump is the truth, whatever exposes him and what he has done is a lie.

Even people like William Barr seem no longer able to maintain this illusion.

Humpty Trumpty had a great fall. And all the would be king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Trumpty together again.

You cite show trial. — NOS4A2

The investigation uncovered FACTS, which are not to be mistaken for "alternative facts", that is, alternatives to the facts.

The unchanging truth is not their doctrine? — unenlightened

It is.

Someone should let them know that indoctrination with the unchanging truth is what education is supposed to be; its the transmission of culture, and so the conservation of conservatism. — unenlightened

Indoctrination with unchanging truth is not what education is supposed to be according to Dewey. The situation is analogous to the conflict between Socrates and Athens, or more generally, philosophy and the city. Should we simply accept the gods of contemporary conservatism or call them into question as part of the tradition of free inquiry and deliberation? Put differently, what is it we wish to conserve?

The transmission of culture, which Dewey is in favor of, does not mean the unquestioned acceptance of some particular set of values that are only a part of our pluralistic culture.

What is the alternative?

You cite an article from August 20, 2021, ten months before the June 8, 2022 hearings began. The committee hearings did provide evidence that it was a coordinated attack.

They do not see it that way. What Dewey calls arrest and fixations, being cut off from the ongoing process, they call the unchanging truth.

I don't accept "the Bible says" or "Jesus says" as a valid argument. — Art48

Either do I, but I assume Chris does accept what it says, and if not, that may well be a matter of choice, just as is your choice not to accept it.

That’s an obfuscation of my position. — NOS4A2

You are well practiced in obfuscation.

If you want to know my position you can ask for it. — NOS4A2

Why? You have already made it clear.

When reading Trump’s speech he uses the word “fight” numerous times, and in no instance is the word used literally like you pretend he did. — NOS4A2

The thing about Trumpspeak is that he always attempts to leave room for plausible deniability. But his actions belie this attempt to render it innocuous. Why did he not attempt to immediately put a stop to this "one tiny riot"? In the speech he gave the next day why didn't he condemn their actions? Why did he edit the draft of the speech to eliminate criticism of their actions?Some committee findings.

Trump assumed “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. — NOS4A2

Right, that is what someone would assume when they are armed to the teeth.

The ones who gave anyone the idea that something besides a rally was going to occur was the press — NOS4A2

He was warned

I don't accept the idea you can chose what to believe. — Art48

Faith and belief are not the same, but related. Faith is also related to trust and acceptance. Since we are talking about Christian faith:

And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith ... (Galatians 2:16 ...)

One who does not believe will not have faith, but one can believe and still not have faith. Many claim to believe in Jesus in one way or another, but not live by faith.

Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and do not doubt ... (Matthew 21:21)

If faith is not a matter of choice then what does this mean? Some might see in this the doctrine of predestination, but if it is not a matter of choice then why does he tell them this?

Edit:

... many Christians say faith is a gift of God. — Art48

That it is a gift need not mean it is something given to you without you having a choice in the matter. A gift can either be accepted or rejected.

I'm asking people who believe what Chris says is OK but what Alex says is insulting to explain their reasoning. — Art48

Speaking personally, it is true that I do not accept Christianity because I lack faith. A simple statement of fact. It may be true that I lack intelligence but would find it insulting if someone told me that. Faith is a matter of choice. Intelligence is not.

Your senses perceive (actual) physical values, but your mind conceives (probable) metaphysical meanings. — Gnomon

It seems to me that you are confusing perception with a theory of perception. You begin with a questionable assumption that perception is passive reception, and thus a dualism of perception and conception. In addition, you are importing a questionable claim of metaphysical meaning that may or may not play a role in how one conceives of something seen.

The problem is, we do not know what Jesus said. We only know of the varied and conflicting things said by those who regard themselves as Christians. If we compare Paul and John we hear very different things, that is, providing our ears are open.

Chris's claim is true, if you accept how faith is described in the NT, but false if you accept a different standard of faith. A Jew or Muslim, for example, does not lack faith but do not accept certain Christian beliefs. Telling them they lack faith would be rude, but telling someone who lacks religious faith that they lack faith is not rude unless it is meant to imply a personal shortcoming.

Alex's claim betrays his/her own ignorance. There are plenty of highly intelligent people who are believers, and so factually wrong. It is rude to tell someone they lack intelligence.

A statement may be a truthful expression of what someone thinks, but that does not mean that they think is not thereby wrong. To think something and to express it are two different things. To think it might not be rude but to express it might be.

Again, I do not know what the motivations were, and nowhere did I claim it was or was not intended to be used. — NOS4A2

So to clarify your position, you do not know why the rioters were there or what they were doing or what would have happened if security measures failed.

Since you do not know you cannot say that there was no real threat to members of Congress or to the process of certifying the election results.

Since you do not know their motivations you do not rule out the possibility that they were there for a tour, a picnic lunch, and a photo op to take selfies with Pence and members of Congress.

Since you do not know the only rational option is to minimize the whole thing as nothing more than "one tiny riot" that, unforeseen, broke out amongst a group of peace-loving patriots armed to the teeth. That Trump telling them to "fight like hell" was part of his "extremely calming speech". Besides , he said: “I wasn’t involved in that" (Interview with Laura Ingraham).

They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake. — Xtrix

True, but there is more to it. The rumor was that Pence was going to bring a picnic lunch for everybody. Understandably they went in search of it and had to break a few doors and windows and heads to find it. No free lunch? Hang him!

Dewey is the main target of conservatives who oppose "progressivism". The irony is that some of these same conservatives are great admirers of Lincoln.

Dewey emphasizes the importance of public education for democracy. Conservatives call this indoctrination. The centra point of the difference at issue can be seen in Dewey's claim that:

All ends and values that are cut off from the ongoing process become arrests, fixations. They
strive to fixate what has been gained instead of using it to open the road and point the way to new and
better experiences.

I know what threat means — NOS4A2

Evidently you do not:

An “actual threat” that didn’t turn into an actual hanging wasn’t much of an actual threat, I guess. — NOS4A2

I just do not pretend to know someone’s motivations. — NOS4A2

A threat and the motivation behind it are two different things.

Do you really believe there was a lynch mob there conspiring to hang the Vice President? — NOS4A2

You say you do not pretend to know someone's motivations, but do pretend to know the mob's motivation when you claim that a noose and scaffolding was not intended to be used.

The scaffolding did not appear by magic. You might argue that it was symbolic, but the thing about an angry mob is that otherwise rational people will do things they would not do under other circumstances. I see no reason not to think that there was a lynch mob there. It may have been small to start, but if the mob had gotten hold of Pence it seems likely they would have hanged him.

That you feared for Pence’s life only proves your propensity for imagination. — NOS4A2

I did not fear for Pence's life. I, along with most of us, learned of it after the fact. It was those who acted to prevent the mob from inflicting further damage to life and property who feared what the mob was doing and would do if left unchecked.

You seem incapable of understanding the meaning of the term 'threat'. Are you claiming that Pence was not in harm's way? That he was not in danger? That his security acted unreasonably in trying to protect him? That because nothing happened to him there was no need to protect him? Do you think they were there for selfies with Pence?

I think that what both Lampert and Rosen are getting at is that the expectation of the Übermensch sounds messianic.

In line with this I would argue that a) this can be regarded as another of Nietzsche's inversions of Christianity, and b) it is consistent with the eternal return in so far as a messianic figure is a recurring theme.

... to will the eternal recurrence of the same ... — Tate

What does it mean to will something that will happen whether one wills it or not? Is it more than passive acceptance?

An “actual threat” that didn’t turn into an actual hanging wasn’t much of an actual threat, I guess. — NOS4A2

Instead of guessing try thinking. There is a difference between a threat and the fulfillment of a threat. Threats can be averted. Do you really not understand the difference?

The fact that there was not an actual hanging does not mean there was not an actual threat. The fact that the mob was not able to get to Pence does not mean that there was not an "actual threat".

So, wisdom means being wise, which means having realized one’s full potential? — Hello Human

There are other capacities involved in realizing full human potential. Not everyone's potential reaches the full human potential.

The primary question is: What is the good life? If we cannot answer that we cannot address the question of what makes it good. The problem is, the question of what makes it good assumes an answer to the more fundamental question of what that life is.

Rather than attempting to feed us pablum in the guise of "science", you would do well to acknowledge that the question is aporetic. It is clear, however, that you think the question has been adequately answered, and you are here to provide us with that answer, via Hartman. And as a bonus, free of charge, you include your "college course" on ethics. You do note the importance of questions, but only in order to provide your "scientific" answers.

I don’t get it. — NOS4A2

Yes, we keep telling you that!

I give your credit though, not everyone can make a molehill out of a mountain.

It’s very tedious. — NOS4A2

And yet on and on you go. Like your dear leader, you like to hear yourself talk. And like him, you continue to demonstrate your cluelessness. It is not about "a single riot at the capital".

The feds and the 4th estate spent years pushing a Democrat hoax — NOS4A2

Thank you for this example of what is at issue. The feds and the 4th estate, the government and the press, complicit in a hoax against our supreme dear leader Trump, and their persecution of his henchmen. Unfortunately you are not alone in your support of autocracy.

For all your talk of freedom your are blind to just how imperiled it is by MAGA.

But all this talk is tedious and changes nothing.

How quickly we forget. — NOS4A2

How quickly you forget. There was no insurrection when Trump was elected. There was no attack on the nation's Capital. Clinton did not attempt to undermine the electoral process.

Once again, to pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous, and, I should add, dangerous.

Contesting or disputing an election is nothing. — NOS4A2

This goes far beyond contesting or disputing an election. To pretend that all this is politics as normal is disingenuous. This is the first time in US history there was not a peaceful transfer of power.

So "wisdom" is the state of being a wise person, which is having achieved human excellence ? — Hello Human

The term "state" can be misleading. It is not a condition. It is the realization or actualization of a capacity.

What's he done with the contents? — Michael

Best case: he flushed them down the toilet.

Sheds light on his claim that "people are flushing their toilets 10 times, 15 times".

...using the full power of the US government against his political opponents — NOS4A2

Reducing what is happening to a contest of political opponents is indicative of the depth of the problem. There is nothing ordinary about what is going on. By trying to undermine the legitimacy of the electoral process the MAGA republicans are not simply the opponents of the Democratic party and anti-Trump republicans , they are an opponent of the US government itself.

It is not “Fuck Joe Biden” that you find comforting, it is "Fuck US Democracy".

What does one expect or hope for from such arguments?

Can the existence or non-existence of God be determined by argument?

Or is it a matter of finding reasons for or against believing?

Or is it a matter of the possibility of God?

What hangs on the existence or non-existence of God?

I cannot and should not help anyone to understand what has been deliberately obscured. — unenlightened

I have from time to time thought about this.

Z comes down from the mountain. There is a political aspect to Nietzsche's work.* TSZ is, as the subtitle indicates, "a book for all and none". Herein lies the tension.

When I came to mankind for the first time, I committed the hermit’s folly, the great folly: I situated myself in the market place.
And when I spoke to all, I spoke to none. But by evening my companions were tightrope walkers, and corpses, and I myself almost a corpse.
But with the new morning a new truth came to me; then I learned to say: “What do the market place and the rabble and the rabble noise and long rabble ears matter to me!”
You higher men, learn this from me: in the market place no one believes in higher men. And if you want to speak there, well then! But the rabble blinks “we are all equal. (232)

When speaking in the marketplace he spoke to all and none. But elsewhere he speaks to others:

You creators, you higher men! One is pregnant only with one’s own child.
...
Unlearn this “for,” you creators; your virtue itself wants that you do nothing “for” and “in order” and “because.” You should plug your ears against these false little words. (236)

Creators create for the sake of creating, not for the sake of the people, but people benefit from what is created.

But whoever would be a firstling should see to it that he does not also become a lastling! (237)

Does he speak to us? And if so, where? One place is the the section "On Scholars".

For this is the truth: I have moved out of the house of the scholars, and I slammed the door on my way out. Too long my soul sat hungry at their table; unlike them, I am not trained to approach knowledge as if cracking nuts.(98)

We are not creators. We scholars are nut crackers, trying to crack TSZ.

They are skilled, they have clever fingers; why would my simplicity want to be near their multiplicity? Their fingers know how to do all manner of threading and knotting and weaving, and thus they knit the stockings of the spirit!

As interpreters of TSZ we pull at the threads and weave together what is found in the text. But as with the rabble:

For human beings are not equal: thus speaks justice. And what I want, they would not be permitted to want! (99)

Z faults scholars for being equalizers. They do not create. All is grist for their mill. But it need not be that way for us. We can recognize and try to make clear to ourselves and to others what is great. We can attend to books without making the mistake of assuming that wisdom and knowledge of life can be found in books.

And if we are able to crack some nuts and tie some things together ought we to keep that secret?



*

REAL PHILOSOPHERS, HOWEVER, ARE COMMANDERS AND LAW-GIVERS; they say: "Thus SHALL it be!" They determine first the Whither and the Why of mankind, and thereby set aside the previous labour of all philosophical workers, and all subjugators of the past--they grasp at the future with a creative hand, and whatever is and was, becomes for them thereby a means, an instrument, and a hammer. Their "knowing" is CREATING, their creating is a law-giving, their will to truth is--WILL TO POWER. --Are there at present such philosophers? Have there ever been such philosophers? MUST there not be such philosophers some day? . . . (BGE, 211)

There are some here, in a thread on reading Nietzsche, who are evidently doing their part in aiding his triumph.

"jp is Jordan Peterson? Someone obviously cannot read the room! Having officialy (sic) vacated is probably best for all.

Be clearly, lucidly written; no conflicting interpretations, no confusion as to what is intended — Art48

It could only be as clear and lucid as those to whom it is addressed.

A funny and revealing story from Genesis:

God clearly tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge. We are not told what Adam tells Eve, but we do know what she tells the serpent. From God to Adam to Eve there are significant changes in what was said to have been said. In addition to Eve's changes, the serpent ads another layer of interpretation.

The most popular way the Overman is interpreted by contemporary Nietzsche fans ... — Tate

Who are these "Nietzsche fans"? I do not think that Nietzsche scholarship has become a popularity contest. Or is it that rigorous scholarship is not the most popular way?

You started this thread asking:

Anybody have time for a reading of TSZ? — Tate

Perhaps this just shows how out of touch I am with the "most popular way" of "contemporary Nietzsche fans" but I think a reading of TSZ should be based on the text, not speculation on about beings "exceedingly intelligent and technologically sophisticated", unless a reading of TSZ supports this idea.

Do you think an interpretation should be grounded in and supported by the text or do you think that this is not what an interpretation is about?

Who is the clown? — unenlightened

Z says:

Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and overman – a rope over an abyss. (7)

This reminds us of Aquinas' claim that man is higher than the animals and lower than the angels.

Nietzsche accepts the idea of higher and lower beings but rejects the idea of a fixed order of beings ascending to the transcendent.

Later he says:

There are manifold ways and means of overcoming: you see to it! But only a jester thinks: “human being can also be leaped over.” (159)

This, I think, refers back to Paul's promise of death and rebirth:

... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body ... (1 Corinthians 15:44)

More generally, Paul's hatred of the body. As if we can by a leap of faith become spiritual bodies -sōma pneumatikos.

Do you think it might be useful as a discussion structure? — Amity

He raises several important issues which are worth discussing.

So, is it time to say "Enough is Enough!"? — Amity

I will stick around but don't want to take the lead.

Perhaps just pick out important parts? — Amity

A sensible approach.