On the side, where do you lay the cornerstone of the Apollonian time, to consider what is pre and post Apollonian? — Shamshir

It is a mythological period, an allegory for something that cannot be accounted for in the scientific criterion of the present age.

As such, the construction of the tower of babel would represent the initiation of the Apolonian (in it's most basic mode). It is similar to how eating from the tree of good and evil is an allegory for the awaking to an ethical existence.

with the 'woke' buzzword flying around — Shamshir

Never heard of it. Sounds retarded.

The idea of the Übermensch is not new. — Shamshir

What is new? Tell me that, and you win the trophy for most original philosopher on TPF. :monkey:

@Shamshir

Nietzsche is known to make biblical references on occasion. Is is possible that the Ubermensch relates to a the man preceding the tower of Babel, perhaps a reference to a pre-Appolonian time.

The difference is, I think, that anarchism implies some sort of idealism for a world wherein laws and such don't exist or could be abolished... whereas a Ceasar or a Napoleon didn't believe that was a possibility or ideal to be achieved, but rather made use of that reality. — ChatteringMonkey

You are right in that Ceasar or a Napoleon were more appropriate examples of the Ubermensch. But if we apply it logically, as in everyone is a Napolean or Ceasar, it is nothing other than anarchy.

And people who just do not want to make a blind guess about the question because there is no unambiguous evidence upon which to make a meaningful guess...ARE CORRECT. — Frank Apisa

That's a pretty strong belief. I may even venture to call it piety.

I can't believe this thread is still alive. :snicker:

It shouldn't come as a surprise that science is pagan, if you've read any of the creation stories where the 'gods' teach men to read and write and craft. — Shamshir

Science might have some elements of paganism. But where it differs is that Paganism has soul, whereas science has a near infinitude of old crusty pages filled with obsolescence.

The übermensch being a sort of anarchist is a bit of a hard sell I think. Above the law yes, but more as a Napoleon or a Ceasar, than an anarchist I think. — ChatteringMonkey

I think it is very reasonable. In the strict sense of being Dionysian, there is nothing that the Ubermensch is not justified to do.

And even if Nietzsche was speaking of the Ubermensch as some higher order of being for the self fulfilled individual, his logic cannot selectively restrict outright anarchic violence without imploding the whole basis "of being Dionysian". That is the the failure of his philosophy, and the problem postmodernism has been dealing with ever since. Terrible consequences.

Paganism has to do with ritual; something that was thrown away by early Christian, Buddhist and Taoist tradition - as unapparent as it may seem now. — Shamshir

I always defined paganism as immanency, in that divinity exists directly in nature, or the objects of our immediate perception. Whereas the the early Christian, Buddhist and Taoist traditions placed divinity in the individual subject. I could be wrong, it's a terrible tragedy.

And why is his Übermensch, the same as Proudhon's?
"I stand ready to negotiate, but I want no part of laws: I acknowledge none; I protest against every order with which some authority may feel pleased on the basis of some alleged necessity to over-rule my free will. Laws: We know what they are, and what they are worth! They are spider webs for the rich and mighty, steel chains for the poor and weak, fishing nets in the hands of government."
That's why. — Shamshir

I always felt that Nietschze borrowed heavily from other thinkers he was acquainted with.

But I also think he usually added a unique touch. I know he regarded the Ubermensch ethically. But he also regarded it epistemologically, in that it not only appropriates it's own morality, but also constructs it's own conceptual reality. It is a rebellion against all pertinent modes of tradition. A conscious movement toward the Dionysian.

Russell was a pacifist, so presumably he would have to let himself get beat up by Nietzsche if he wants to stay true to his philosophy. — ChatteringMonkey

:lol:

And Nietzsche was filled with disdain. He would have absolutely despised Russell. A tragic beatdown indeed.

I don't know. Nietzsche has more black-light posters in opium dens. Russell has more unicorns. — ernestm

We'll call it a draw.

Then, who can out drink the other?

to convincingly scathe the Apollonian in a long structured and systematic treatise — ChatteringMonkey

That is a great description of what the postmodernist/Deconstructionists seem to be attempting. :smile:

Interesting...
Could you elaborate?

he still didn't seduce Wagner's wife. Good try, but still did not amount to much more than intellectual masturbation. Western philosophers still look to Russell instead. — ernestm

I could seduce Wagner's slutty wife. :grin: .

Now that's a good question:
Who would win in a fight, Nietzsche or Russell?

I don't know about Platonism being the first manifestation of the Apollonian — ChatteringMonkey

I think BoT had a heavy dose of phenomenology overshadowing it. And because of that assumption, I think the world historic is steadily implied therein.

But you are correct. The Apollonian is not something that came into existence. It is fundamental to the Dionysian.

So, let me restate it: in BoT, Plato represented the first world historic creation that was 'only' Apollonian

but wasn't the tragic a fusion of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. The problem with platonism was that it was 'only' Apollonian. — ChatteringMonkey

Good point. The return of the Apollonian to the Dionysian is best represented in the death of the tragic hero. This I believe is at the heart of Nietzsche's philosophy and ethics. It gets lost in the irrationality of his aphoristic style. Yet I think the unintelligibilty of his style was actually the medium in which he intended to illustrate the interplay of the Dionysian-Apollonian.

Talking in terms of conceptions is fraught. That's objection numero uno. It's based upon the following... All conceptions have linguistic form, and as such all are existentially dependent upon language. — creativesoul

If all conceptions are existentially dependent upon language, and the thought/belief of "existence" is exististentially bound to the linguistic form, then talking of existence in terms of conception seems to be relevant. If the thought/belief of existence is not dependent on language, then it becomes the kind of thing that can be said to exist else-wise, and that seems to be problematic.

@creativesoul

There is a lot here that makes a lot of sense. To be honest, I'm trying to get a better grasp on your methodology. I know existential quantification plays a heavy role, but you are very informal in your approach. So bear with me, I have points to address.

@ernestm @ChatteringMonkey

Platoism was one of the prime examples that Nietschze used to illustrate the Apollonian. In fact, in BoT, Platonism is represented as the first relevant manifestation or creation of the Apollonian, in a world historic context. Christianity represents yet another.

that is why I’d recommend Nietzsche’s debut work (his self criticism of this work is also a nice insight). — I like sushi

I believe his debut work to be invaluable in interpreting his overall philosophy. In "ecce homo", he triples down on his commitment to the Dionysian. That says enough for me.

Perhaps you would be so kind as to elucidate further your insights on it? — ernestm

I feel that this essay is his only attempt of presenting the Dionysian/Apollonian scientifically. And I'm no expert, but it seems his later (relevant) works took note of the necessary conclusions at which he arrived in this essay, and I believe he was attempting to reflect them in his peculiar style of philosophizing - like a crazed prophet with his innane ramblings.

Historically speaking, I would say this essay is arguably the first appearance of postmodernist thought in the philosophical tradition since it essentially lays out some the most fundamental tenets of postmodernism. For example, he says: "Every concept arrises from the equation of unequal things."

It definitely plays as a major factor in his reputation as a nihilist (which I find debatable), nevertheless it served a devastating blow to the phenomenological perspective that was prevalent at the time. This not only led directly to the slippery slope of fatuous postmodernist blather, but also opened the door for analytical philosophy to take prominence with its soulless robotic ossification.


I feel Nietzsche was getting at something much deeper, which has never been recognized by his philosophical successors. There is more to the fact that he presented his ideas so as to be wide open to interpretation. But that is my interpretation, and it is only one of many.

none of it really passes Hume's Guillotine. — ernestm

Nothing passes Hume's guillotine, that's what makes it so cool.

Speaking of Hume's guillotine, I feel like Nietzsche invented a guillotine of his own in "On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense". In that work, he irrevocably severs the correspondence between perception and concept.

I’d recommend starting with his first book ‘The Birth of Tragedy’. Beyond G&E will open up to you a lot more if you look at BoT. — I like sushi

One thing that you find if you read enough Nietzsche, is that almost everything he writes, he contradicts somewhere else.

He leaves himself wide open to interpretation. But he was heavily influenced by Schopenhauer, and it is easy to see how many of his ideas were derived therefrom.

I would agree with I like sushi. Imo, every substantial contribution that he made to philosophy can be tied back into the Dionysian/Apollonian, which first appeared in BoT.

NOt sure if this is a joke — Coben

If it's not a joking matter, then I object to it being the topic of a thread. Bathrooms are disgusting to begin with, but to include sex and children in the title seems to me to be plain :vomit: :shade: :vomit: .

Can you ethically justify eating meat? — Kaz1983

You can ethically justify anything. For every ethical thought/belief, there is an equal and opposite one. Is one more true than the other? It depends on our criteria for ethical truth. Is one better than the other? It depends on its consequence (that things end up better than worse).

In Merk's defense, he is attempting to use my framework, and in doing so is being very diplomatic in checking for my agreement. — creativesoul

It requires humility to attempt a foreign framework and to risk being wrong often. But it is one of the best ways to expand one's philosophical acumen. It also requires an interlocutor who is clear on what he knows, and patient, very patient.

By the way, you reflect a strong logic in your terminology... do you actually work out the logic formally on the side, or just intuit it in your writing?

Existence is not the sort of thing that exists. It is not discoverable. It has no elemental constitution. Thus, it makes no sense on my view to talk in terms of "existence as it is in it's entirety". — creativesoul

I like that. Existence is a paradoxical concept and impossibly abstract, very much like thought. Whenever we think about existence, we suspend its actuality by translating it into thought. Thought produces the universal, but existence is found only in particular being. If this were not true, then anything I could imagine could be said to exist including (the thought of existence). So when discussing existence, it is important to understand that we are limited to the particular - the thought/belief about existing things, that may or may not be existentially dependent upon being taken account of.

existentially dependent upon being taken account of. — creativesoul

This is a very important point. Can you give me some examples of both (being existentially dependent and independent of an account)?

The interesting feature of this framework is that we can easily swap "being taken account of" with all sorts of other considerations. We can isolate the elemental constituents and assess whether or not any of them are existentially dependent upon any number of things. — creativesoul

To exhaust all the possible considerations is quite the task. But this seems like a very potent schematic (it takes account of creating, identifying, discovering, inventing, &c.)

Given the history of philosophy proper...

You can say that two times! — creativesoul

It's good to get the terms straight. :grin:

I agree, that's why I think firearms for self defense have become a religion. — ernestm

It is a false religion, because it does not directly address the fear. Fear is not the possibility of threat in the world, it is a psychological condition in the individual. Guns rights or gun control might handle the external threat, but imo, religion is the only thing that truly addresses the existential fear (or psychological fear over the threat of existence) from which all other fears are derived.

All notions of "identification" and/or "identity" are existentially dependent upon metacognition. Metacognition... language. Language... thought/belief.

Identification is required for successful reference.

The notion of "identity/identification" is overplayed... All identification presupposes existence, regardless of subsequent further qualification.

Howzit relevant? — creativesoul

It's good to get the terms straight.

So then, you would agree that existence as it is in its entirety prior to its discovery is absolute. And, that any particular relation of an existing thing to absolute existence is relative.

"its existence in its prior entirety"? What is that saying?

I wouldn't know what "its existence in its entirety" would be saying, even, that "its existence" wouldn't suffice just as well for (in other words what is "its entirety" adding to "its existence"?), but then modifying "entirety" by "prior" is that much more confusing. — Terrapin Station

That is what I'm saying. But, if we must, how do we reconcile this complex arrangement of terms? What is it trying to say, and how can it be said better or differently?

You just need to have a non-Aspie understanding of "create." — Terrapin Station

A post-copulous intellect.

It's not so much of a paradox if we realize that we're creating meaning "in the meaningless." — Terrapin Station

It is analogous to the notion of "something out of nothing"; which also isn't much of a paradox if we realize that nothing is creating something.

I still don’t any serious explanation why people are walking around scare? Where does this fear come from? Why is it not so apparent in other countries? — I like sushi

"Religion, you see, is not in its roots adoration of a god or a goddess. Religion is fear. Religion is the spark that issues forth when the thought of death or danger strikes the individual. It's personal. It grows out of darkness and uncertainty.""
A E Van Vogt, Book of Ptath — ernestm

I would say religion is more like a way of relating to fear. Fear is a psychological relation to a potential theat (whether real or imagined), and it exists in most primal levels of the psyche. The fact of our very existence is the primary cause of our fear.

People take measures against their fear (like turning to government/police/church for protection, or arming themselves). Yet, no matter what they do, they cannot outrun their fear - it seems, with every solution to neutralize a threat, there is always something else to fear ad infintum.

In the present age, religion has become a novelty and a group activity, and as far as common knowledge goes, the personal and psychological aspects are largely ignored.

Religion is a way of being that goes strait to the heart of the existing one's being. And in doing so, it confronts all things necessitated by that very existence, e.g. fear. Fear takes on a different relation in religion. Religion neutralizes the threat of fear by making any and all possibility of threat inconsequential in relation to one's existing...

mass cannibalism with so much infrastructure wrecked? — Bitter Crank

How do we know that raunchy meat in our Slim Jims isn't Soylent green?

However, to bypass START treaty restrictions on making new kinds of nuclear weapons, Bolton already had to state it was not a new kind of weapon, but a modification of the B612-12 nuclear bomb. So he only pissed off the Russians, but didn't actually violate the treaty. — ernestm

That's why politics don't work with war. It's the greatest cowards with the most to lose who have their finger on the trigger. Not the ordinary folk like you and me just trying to put bread on the table.

I know your secret.

I propose that all nations be armed with a doomsday mechanism. Some may accuse me of being idealistically egalitarian, but I assure you that I am only idealistic.

As a fail safe. In case any nation became suicidal, a system of underground bunkers could be drilled out to provide a refuge with a reasonably satisfactory quality of life during the fallout. We would be looking at no more than a century and a half until the radiation levels will have subsided to a nominal level so as to safely harbor the re-emergenc of humanity to the surface.

It is really all basic and necessary, at the most elementary levels of intellect.

Just a little wisdom of the ancients

Do you not know," he continued, "that it is a sign of fear in a man for him to carry arms? And no man who is afraid would ever have a chance to become king any more than a slave would." — Dio Chrysostom: The 4th Discourse

You want to live, so live your life how you want to live it. Then you will see meaning in a lot of things. These things won't have absolute meaning, but you won't care, because they will have meaning to you. — leo

It is the old Taoist paradox: finding meaning in the meaningless. That it is all meaningless, is something that we should be greatly worried about. Here, there is meaning enough for all.