Yes it would seem hard to convincingly scathe the Apollonian in a long structured and systematic treatise :-)

Interesting...
Could you elaborate?

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:

Who would win in a fight, Nietzsche or Russell? — Merkwurdichliebe

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

The Catholic Church is pagan. There was no trinity proposed by Jesus or his disciples and he certainly didn't ask for temples to be built in his name.
Early Christian tradition holds to, like the other two aforementioned, that man himself is the temple of God - and should worship in spirit.

John 4:24 "God is Spirit, and those who worship Him must worship in spirit and truth."

The last supper was not an indoctrination and baptism does not involve being dunked in a pool of water.
These two traditions are pagan, since the days of yore.

And when Nietzsche rants off against Christianity, he does so against the Catholic Church and it's influence in everyday life. Hence my previous comment.

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.

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.

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. — Merkwurdichliebe

Thus He Spake. And Zarathustra was so much more impressive than Der Ring des Nibelungen, especially when lit by black lights in an opium den. I don't think he cared enough about unicorns to despise Russell for creating them as non-Platonic forms.

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 as an anarchist.

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.

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.

The thing about Christanity, Buddhism and Toasism is that they tend to the universal, trying to transcent particular traditions of peoples, Völker... and in that proces loose what anchors them to their particular context.

In greece, you had the oral Homeric tradition wherein the greek culture was perpetuated. Plato was also such a step in the direction of an universalism with his metaphysical 'contextless' Forms. He riled against poetry for a reason.

There's an old folk-tale here, about a child who did not want to wash his hands because they would just get dirty again and his parents decided not to eat, because they would just get hungry again. So the child, realising his folly, started washing his hands.

The idea of the Übermensch is not new.

Sure, I won't argue it sounds like a stretch. But the point of the Übermensch is one unbound from a creed - which is by definition the Anarchist.

I don't see the Caesar as one such. If I'm missing something, feel free to point it out.

Paganism is ritual. It's all about having, rather than being.
The creed of the Catholic Church and Wicca is the same creed; go and make a comparison for yourself.

This is how a Shaman operates: Substance, sacrifice, communication, achievement.
You get some milk, you add some stuff to the milk to ferment it, you taste the fermented milk and then you sell it as yogurt.
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.

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.

Well I think both, the anarchist and the Napoleon/Ceasar, are 'above a creed'. 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.

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.

The soul persists in scientific operations - it's just been replaced by the word 'cognition'. Why? Well, why can I ingest and intake and devour and dine and so on?

When I look at the Caesar, I see the pillar of a community; as such, I don't see how one anchored down to his community, which is mainly commoners, is the Übermensch.
Unless I've misread - Caesar is the rope between the Barbarian and the Übermensch; being still tied down to a creed.

Which going back to Anarchy, means the Anarchist is dysfunctional as Anarchy is a creed.
It's ironic, but evident in Proudhon's writing, like in that of the 'atheist' that he didn't crave Anarchy despite purportedly denying everything. He wants a specific order, but an order nonetheless.

So, you'd be right that in practice the Übermensch is a God-King, rather than an Anarchist.
But it's ironic, because there's no difference - as neither is above the law, even if it's just because they constitute it.

@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 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:

Perhaps. Perhaps the Übermensch is just another word for the Buddha; who is unattached to the world and considered the realisation of man.
That's where he derived Nihilism from, anyway.

Mind you Buddha means awake.
Ironic, with the 'woke' buzzword flying around, don't you think?

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

Maybe you're right, don't have time to respond now, I'll come back to it later...

with the 'woke' buzzword flying around — Shamshir

Never heard of it. Sounds retarded.

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.

Is is possible that the Ubermensch relates to a the man preceding the tower of Babel, perhaps a reference to a pre-Appolonian time. — Merkwurdichliebe

Maybe experientially yes. There is the Freudian explanation that Wagner actually caught N. having sex with his wife, and this was N. defending himself. He was entitled to have sex with Wagner's wife
because he was a philosophical superman. I'm sure there are some to this day who find that entitlement appealing for their own purposes, but me, no I'm not interested in Wagner's wife, sorry.

I'm not interested in Wagner's wife, sorry. — ernestm

I am, she was probably a super hot babe (intellectually speaking, of course :wink: :up: )

Let me ask you, what do you think the name APOLON means?
What is its etymology?

And here's a wacky suggestion, what if the Fruit of Good and Evil was just mutagen?
What if they gulped down vials of DNA and the sort?
Think about it, how different is it from telling your infant child to not put its fingers in the electricity socket, to not eat detergent, to not drink 'dad's special water'?

I feel you are being a little too ad hommed about Nietzsche. Even if he is as despicable as Hitler, you cannot discount his historic contribution to the philosophic tradition.

Think about it, how different is it from telling your infant child to not put its fingers in the electricity socket, to not eat detergent, to not drink 'dad's special water'? — Shamshir

They aren't supposed to do that? Oops. :yikes:

Let me ask you, what do you think the name APOLON means?
What is its etymology? — Shamshir

I don't know. Tell me please.

what if the Fruit of Good and Evil was just mutagen?
What if they gulped down vials of DNA and the sort? — Shamshir

That is hard to swallow. But, I cannot help but think that everything is the result of a mutagen. I love whacky suggestions