but they only have this power because that leverage point exists. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Delicious. :heart: What if we had a better understanding of such leverage points? I am coming from LuckyR's quote from Steve Jobs about the "form". There is a very long history behind the development of computers but it was not until recently that our lives are all about computers. It seems like magic how computers have taken over the whole world and might it be helpful if we had a better understanding of leverage points and form better?

How can we govern ourselves wisely when our understanding of reality is so poor?

Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good? — Athena

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks.

I would say the latter. The "world-historical individual" only ever wields their great power through the emergent whole. — Count Timothy von Icarus

So no pharaoh built a pyramid but the masses built it? I have always had a problem with how we tell history. It presents a totally unrealistic understanding of history.

leverage point — Count Timothy von Icarus

There is that word again "leverage". how does it come that people are using that word? I am questioning a consciousness shift. Of what I think is happening is happening, that would be very exciting. What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

I think great leaders ride on a wave that is created by the circumstances of the moment. I think we should be paying more attention to the masses and what is driving them. Why are so many clinging to a tribe, instead of their own comprehension of the good? — Athena

Agree. Humans are tribal creatures and understand themselves in relationship with other humans. We borrow from each other, we imitate each other, we value what others value, we value how we are seen by our tribe. Seems pretty natural to me that human value systems reflect the shared values of a community (intersubjective agreement) rather than individual values. When you think of strong communities around the world, they tend to share presuppositions, origin stories, and values. Leaders are often those who know how to tell a compelling story using those presuppositions and values in an exciting way.

We are totally confused and screaming for a great leader who can put an end to this chaos. — Athena

Or bring a different kind of chaos which looks like order.

I suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together.

What if we saw history as something that includes everyone? Would our moral perspective change?

Probably not as much as we'd hope. Theories to the effect that history is "caused by everyone," with no one person being particularly important, have been around for a long time. The second epilogue of War and Peace is all about this sort of idea. And more recently there have been histories with a focus on marginalized groups, etc.

Perhaps they just need to get out to more people, but I'm not convinced they're bound to have much of a moral impact. To my mind, the problem is this: if we're all equally important to history, then we're all equally irrelevant as well and equally not responsible for what transpires. We each end up with a 1/8 billionth share responsibility in world history.

Plus, it seems hard to justify such explanations in some cases, where it does seem like individuals have a large amount control over historical moments. The most obvious case is that of the leaders of centralized autocracies. It certainly seems that, had Hitler indefinitely suspended plans to invade Poland, World War II as we know it would not have begun in Europe.

However, this ability of some individuals to have an outsized role in the course of historical events is instructive for "every day people," as well. Gavrilo Princip happened to be positioned to change history when he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation likewise set off a cascade of world shaping events in the form of the Arab Spring.

Might World War I and the Arab Spring have happened otherwise? Prehaps, but there are plenty of examples of "explosions waiting to happen," that defuse themselves without ever resulting in a crisis (e.g., the Cold War). One way to think of contingency in history is to think in terms of the stability of some historical trajectory instead of thinking in terms of causation. Some trajectories seem more resilient to change than others. History is too messy for straightforward casal analysis of the sort we use for bowling balls. Analogies to complex feedback systems with tipping points seem to work better.

But I think this also speaks to the moral value of every person. I find a lot to like in the "big picture" historical thinking of Hegel and his followers, but it also seems to miss to influence of the particular individual.

Perhaps though the question is askew? To many it will make perfect sense to 'cling' to a tribe as that is their notion of a good, and a more powerful one that an abstract 'comprehension'.

In this sense I feel the contrast in the original question is misplaced. If we consider the Scandinavian body politic, for instance, where social democracy remains strong, mutuality is a powerful element in what binds people together. Max Weber is in this respect an interesting figure. He was in one sense a Kantian promulgating the notion of the enlightenment autonomous individual; but his foundational work in establishing sociology as a discipline, and his political beliefs in the benefits of (some kinds of) partisanship place the individual clearly at the nexus of social networks. — mcdoodle

What is happening in the US right now causes me to fear mob psychology and a lack of independent reasoning.

My original question begins with not knowing enough about the Enlightenment and why it would stress the individual separate from relationships with others. Our entrance into the Industrial Age was brutal. Applying Darwinism to humans and justifying the exploitation of the lower class is becoming unacceptable to a growing number of people. I think science is moving us in the direction of better social justice but I have concerns about how this works out economically.

I wish I could experience Scandinavia. I have good stories of how well it is meeting human needs, but I do not enough about how that works. I came across some information that schools are transmitting a culture of neighbors taking care of neighbors. This might be contrasted to the competitive education in the US, leaving some neighbors to throw the other under the train if that is what it takes to get ahead. Culture is always on my mind. How we feel about things and each other is very important to our spirit and our decisions.

I'm not quite sure how Nietzsche is lumped into the prior when he himself discusses the latter. — Vaskane

His Superman is not exactly my idea of a good neighbor. I do not agree with Nietzche about other animals not having morality. I do not think other animals contemplate right from wrong, but all social animals must consider others because social animals depend on each other for survival.

Interestingly the Puritans had an interesting notion of God choosing people and those who are chosen seem very much to me like Nietzche's Superman.

But Calvin also taught that God, in his infinite mercy, would spare a small number of "elect" individuals from the fate of eternal hellfire that all mankind, owing to their corrupt natures, justly deserved. That elect group of "saints" would be blessed, at some point in their lives, by a profound sense of inner assurance that they possessed God's "saving grace." This dawning of hope was the experience of conversion, which might come upon individuals suddenly or gradually, in their earliest youth or even in the moments before death. It is important to emphasize to students that, in the Calvinist scheme, God decided who would be saved or damned before the beginning of history--and that this decision would not be affected by how human beings behaved during their lives. The God of Calvin (and the Puritans) did not give "extra credit"--nor, indeed, any credit--for the good works that men and women performed during their lives. — Christine Leigh Heyrman

That does not go well with some people's understanding of social justice.

I am very glad Socrates insisted he did not know because I sure do not know and hope to learn from the discussion. I am seeing different notions of superiority and I question if they are justified.

However, this ability of some individuals to have an outsized role in the course of historical events is instructive for "every day people," as well. Gavrilo Princip happened to be positioned to change history when he shot Archduke Franz Ferdinand. Mohamed Bouazizi's self immolation likewise set off a cascade of world shaping events in the form of the Arab Spring. — Count Timothy von Icarus

The old flap of a butterfly's wing creating a hurricane. The human world is a chaotic system of unrivalled complexity, and there are unknowable moments when one life can have a large effect, and sometimes all too knowable periods when one life is caught in an inescapable flow. Who knows, but I might meet a future Gavrilo on the street today, and just a friendly smile divert him from the path of destruction? For certain every mover and shaker needed to suckle and have their diaper changed before they rocked the world.

That is a lot of reading. It is very interesting but I am a mother and have a radically different point of view. I think Genghis Khan was a fascinating person too but I would not want to be one of his wives. When I read all of Nietzche's blustering, my opinion of males crashes and I have to work at remembering men can be good for some things and they are not all complete jerks. :lol: One of my favorite professors told me I am castrating bitch, and forgive me, but I do have my reasoning for this. Boudicca was also a bitch to the Romans as she fought for her people.

I am doing my best to own up to how feelings are affecting my reasoning. Neitzche brings out the warrior in me.

In the talk of "The Greatest Utility of Polytheism", I immediately thought of the polytheist Greeks and their ideals. Spartans and Athenians had very different ideals but held one in common- loyalty to their city-state and fellow citizens. To whom is Neitzsche loyal?

On the wall above my computer desk is a list of virtues. I wonder how many of them Nietzsche would value? There was a time when we thought of virtues as strengths, and I have often been accused of being condescending because when I am acting on a virtue I don't question myself. I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Neitzche because I am being virtuous and that is all that matters, not how others feel and what they need does not matter. That may not be a good character trait. Something may be missing?

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first. :lol: When I enter a courtroom or the Social Security Office and the security guard asks me if I have a weapon, I say "only my tongue". But I take no pride in being mouthy. I rather be known for having good reasoning, so if you can argue against my different point of view, that would be pleasing. Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

[12] Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life — Nietzsche, The Antichrist

Huh? The world was full of people who thought they were spiritual beings along with all of life being animated by spirit. The Egyptians had a trinity of the soul. When a person died that was part of the soul. The next part was judged and may or may not go into the afterlife and the final part of the soul always returned to the source. This is more in line with Hinduism, from one come the many.

Believing we are separate from the source might be problematic? The bible explanation of this is unbelievable. I like the story of Pandora and the Box better than the story of Adam and Eve, which is a plagiarized Sumerian story of many gods. Zeus was afraid that with the technology of fire, man would discover all the other technologies and turn their backs on the gods. Zeus was right.:grin:

I don't understand the "controversy." Some individuals may be considered "great." Clearly, it doesn't follow from this that "we" are "great." Neither does the fact that "we" are great mean that each of us are "great."

Neitzche brings out the warrior in me. — Athena

A few quick comments. I see in Nietzsche the ancient and transcultural theme of the politics of the soul. In Zarathustra he says:

But the worst enemy you can meet will always be yourself ...

(I. 17: The Way of the Creator)

In section 10: "War and Warriors", Zarathustra says:

BY OUR best enemies we do not want to be spared, nor by those either whom we love from the very heart. So let me tell you the truth!

My brethren in war! I love you from the very heart. I am, and was ever, your counterpart. And I am also your best enemy.

Your enemy shall ye seek; your war shall ye wage, and for the sake of your thoughts!

Maybe I just read Nietzsche all wrong but as a woman who was left alone in a harsh environment with children to keep alive, I question some male values that underestimate the value of putting others first. — Athena

With regard to questioning the values that others might impose on you, I think you read Nietzsche correctly.

With regard to others: I assume that it is not all others but those who are yours, of you, those who are your children.

As you say:

I can be as self-centered and oblivious of the needs of others as Nietzsche... — Athena

but it would be wrong the conclude that Nietzsche was oblivious to the needs of others.

Zarathustra answered: "I love mankind."

(Prologue, 2)

How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society? — Athena

I tend to agree that Nietzsche's often blustering, histrionic style is tedious and nothing I’ve read of his work is of use to me personally. Feel free to ignore him.

Who knows, but I might meet a future Gavrilo on the street today, and just a friendly smile divert him from the path of destruction? For certain every mover and shaker needed to suckle and have their diaper changed before they rocked the world.

No doubt, although they might hate to be reminded of it. Anyone who forgets this ends up emotionally stunted.

A way forward in moderating the Hegelian focus on the general and over-preferencing the organic whole above the individual might be Von Balthazar's concept of "Theodrama." That is, I can see an argument for drama as the proper analogy for the historical. The plot only hangs together as a whole, and yet each role is crucial.

Sometimes we are the chorus, sometimes we take center stage. Yet every role is important; what is Greek drama without the chorus? Something far less surely. What is a play without its audience, and don't the actors watch from back stage as well?

Actors rise to roles of prominence and are then retired. She who plays Napoleon today might be in the chorus next week, or perhaps a side part, Diocletian tending his cabbages.

An actor must draw the energy for playing their role from something essential to their deepest, inner self. Thus, they need to be in contact with that self through contemplation. Self-actualization, authenticity, these do not preclude stepping into world historical roles (one need only think of Dogen, Rumi, Saint Ambrose, etc.). Rather, it means owning the roles we step into (not unlike Hegel's conception of positive freedom through accepting duty).

Elsewise, we end up wearing our roles and masks like shackles. They aren't things we slip into in order to partake in the grand drama of history — something empowering — but rather a prison of sorts. Hegel, and thus philosophy of history more generally, has suffered from being too focused on the inevitability of certain trends to focus on the need for the individual to own their role, to ride the course of history (maybe even to tame it). Your Jungs, Mertons, and Nietzsches, though very different, share a flaw in not looking to the general course of the gyre of human events, missing the tree's role in the forest.

Why would we value the opinion of a man who appears to have a severe emotional/social problem? How does Neitzche benefit the whole of society?

It might be even more apt to ask how a collection of Nietzsche's ideal souls avoids stepping on each other's freedom? There is much to like in Nietzsche's lyricism, but the lack of any deep conception of social freedom, i.e., how individuals are essential to empowering each other's freedom, always struck me.

You see this in those Nietzsche inspired as well. There are no children in Ayn Rand novels. The question of: "how does one become educated and developed enough to partake in this overcoming, to even understand it," seems to be missing.

Partly, I think this goes back to a misunderstanding of Plato that crops up in the "masters of suspicion," e.g. Hume and Nietzsche. Nietzsche certainly allows that freedom is important. He also certainty rejects Plato's view of why reason is key to freedom (i.e. that only it can unify the disordered "parts of the soul" and master circumstance). However, one can't really be sure if Nietzsche actually understood Plato's argument. Certainly he seems to miss its more sophisticated formulations by the Patristics, whose focus on self-mastery/unity is caricatured into "slave morality." He tilts at a lot of strawmen.


I tend to agree with Kaufman that Nietzsche is best as a diagnostician. He finds problems better than solutions. Even if he doesn't seem to understand Hegel and Kant very well (particularly the latter), this doesn't really matter. He's an antidote to an overly cerebral focus on the general. Are there perhaps better formulations of this solution? Personalism seems to have a lot to offer here.

I do think Plato and Hegel actually understood this need; it comes out in their more mystical work, but it's easy to miss it. Especially in Hegel, he's a terrible writer. Nietzsche is actually fun to read, even if you have to sometimes wince at him. Being bold has its costs. Even people who get Nietzsche very wrong get something of what he is saying. People who even manage to get folks like Hegel or Whitehead right still end up with a muddle.

suspect the end of the metanarrative has led us to an atomized culture of chaotic pluralism and divergent values, eroding the idea of a single unified culture (which was probably always a type of myth) which could be led under a unified vision. You can see how 'Make America Great Again' is an appeal to get back to shared presuppositions of a 'golden era' which many seem to fondly recall or imagine to have existed. Great leaders often search for and develop the great story which will bring everyone together. — Tom Storm

I think the "Great Story" was the strong emotions during a time of war and the end of that war. My mother sang for USO shows and my father served in Germany and their patriotism was very much a part of their lives. My mother was so hurt when people started protesting against the Vietnam war. She asked how these people could turn against our own nation. Whereas, I had a boyfriend who was determined to be a police officer so he could avoid the draft and later when we learned we had been lied to, well, who would not want to return to a time when we thought we were the best nation that ever was. Different generations, different emotional experiences and I can certainly see how powerful it is to talk of being Great again. That is all about emotions, not facts and reasoning.

However, I do think the US had/has some greatness that made it a deserving world leader. That would be a very complicated discussion with ups and downs and changing points of view. I rather put a discussion about that in a thread about "democracy" where everyone understood the subject is "democracy" NOT the US and not a political discussion. Democracy was a new social order and that is a different subject.

When we entered the world wars we believed our defense depended on patriotic citizens and education was the strongest institution for preparing us for war. That national defense education was totally different from education for technology and depending on technology for national defense. I want to talk about Jefferson and education and defending our democracy but that is loosely related to this thread's topic and I am out of time.

I don't see what your reply has to do with my point, re advice on how the particular person should live versus how society gets on as a whole.

You seem to be spoiling for an argument. Might I ask how many other philosophers you've studied? The difference between philosophers who focus largely on the collective versus Nietzsche's much more individualist ethos is not really a point of controversy.

Second, if you want to meaningfully engage with people, it would be helpful to know what it is exactly that you're contesting, rather then dropping long block quotes.

For example, what does BG&E 45 and 188 say to you about how public education, positive freedom from poverty, etc. are provided such that individuals can engage in self-development? How does the malnourished urban worker who cannot read and has been working 12 hour shifts in a factory since they were a child attend to "virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, [and] spirituality?" How should we expect such a person to engage in the revaluation of all values or even to have the time and wherewithal to be reading anything on such an endeavour? Essentially, how do they become the pumped up ego of BG&E #9?

This, I would argue, is an important thing to grapple with because there are obvious ways in which our freedom is affected by the freedom of those we share society with. For example, the patrician practicing "patrician morality," is actually only so free to revalue all their values. In a top down society based heavily on slave labor, the master is not free to lift their boot lest they be overthrown and cast down to the ranks of the slaves (or the dead). A "self-determining" morality ends up being heavily determined by that which lies outside itself unless it is adopted widely, we all face constrains, some much more than others.

We get some consideration of this, but it's mostly critique, not solution (BG&E 200, Gay Science 338). Funny enough, for all the invective against Kant, these are largely arguments against treating the poor as means, as utility machines to be satiried. From a policy standpoint, "just learn to overcome," seems incredibly naive. People won't do it. Not in the aggregate. And even more, no matter how self-determining you think you are, you too will be constrained by this unequal development. The people in the rich walled neighborhoods of Latin America must still hide behind their walls, flinching from the favelas, etc.

I will just note that all the cases of overcoming you mention are about (extremely rare) individuals overcoming barriers to self-actualization. This doesn't address the problem of how living in a society built around servant - master relations and resentment compromises both the servants and the masters' freedom (i.e. Saint Augustine on "commonwealth's" in the City of God, Hegel on the lord-bondsman dialectical in the Phenomenology). The social whole can never turn towards a holistic revaluation because certain values are essential in anchoring the master's status as master. The individual master is not free to dispense with them without becoming a servant, and thus becoming subject to all the constraints on their freedom that servants face.

You see this in the clash between the liberal ideals of a good portion of the US upper classes, their faith in rational technocracy and desire to see the empowerment of all individuals, versus their existential fear of falling off the top rungs of the ladder into the masses below. They are unable to actually embrace the policies they idealize because to disarm first is to risk simply becoming a servant. In this way, they are not truly free to reshape the values that define their lives. Hence why wealthy liberal enclaves will still have vociferous Not In My Back Yard NIMBYism, refuse to build high density housing, refuse to integrate school districts across arbitrary borders, etc.

This is the problem of social freedom, to borrow Axel Honneth's typology:

Negative Freedom is defined by a subject’s freedom relative to the external world. It is freedom from external barriers that restrict one’s ability to act, e.g., the government or thieves seizing your tools so that you cannot work.

Reflexive Freedom is defined by subject’s freedom relative to themselves. “Individuals are free if their actions are solely guided by their own intentions.” Thus, “man is a free being [when he] is in a position not to let himself be determined by natural drives [or circumstance].” i.e., when his actions are not subject to contingency. Other philosophers have also noted that authenticity, and thus the free space and guidance needed for us to discover our authentic selves, is another component of reflexive freedom.

Social Freedom is required because reflexive freedom only looks inward; it does not tie individual choices to any objective moral code. This being the case, an individual possessing such freedom may still choose to deprive others of their freedom.

Since individuals will invariably have conflicting goals, there is no guarantee that anyone will be able to achieve such a self-directed way of life. Negative freedom is also contradictory because “the rational [reflexive] can come on the scene only as a restriction on [negative] freedom.” E.g., being free to become a doctor means being free to choose restrictions on one’s actions because that role entails certain duties.

Ignoring a lack of social freedom doesn't make it go away. The aristocrat isn't truly the standard of by which good and bad is judged so long as they are forever constricted in their options by such social pressures. So, to an example Nietzsche returns to often, ancient Athens, there we see an endless cycle of social wars, the lower classes rising up to depose an aristocracy or vice versa. Even a great figure like Solon, given a historical chance to reshape his culture's values, faced constraint to his freedom on all sides from the rifts between Athen's classes. And of course, a cycle that leads to periods of violent dictatorships on a regular basis (aristocratic or popular), has the effect of constraining freedom as well.

I find what you said agreeable. I was never out to prove a point. I just thought the subject would be interesting.

I think we can agree HIS STORY gave the impression that one man led and the rest followed. That is just too simple and perhaps not the best explanation of reality. I lean towards sociology and that we all play a part in history. Some leaders bring out the best in us and some bring out the worst in us and some are just ignored.

When it comes to Nietzsche I think he had a few million followers who never read a thing he said. Some of his ideas were picked up and carried completely out of context and this was very much part of the Nazi period with all its violence and finally war.

A simple by-product of human tribalism is the tendency to project upon leaders or innovators all sorts of magic powers or extraordinary attributes of self-creation and individualism and to celebrate them like demigods. Or even as the incarnation of egregious and preternatural malevolence.
— Tom Storm

I don't understand the "controversy." Some individuals may be considered "great." Clearly, it doesn't follow from this that "we" are "great." Neither does the fact that "we" are great mean that each of us are "great." — Ciceronianus

That was a nice play on the meaning of greatness.

For me, the subject is just something to think about because in the process of thinking the small thought grows, like a piece of bubble gum gets bigger when our saliva blends with it. Then as we chew on it it gets smaller again. Hopefully, we find a small peppercorn of truth that is worth our effort. I am just totally amazed by what happens to our thinking when we share our thoughts. I think this is what Jefferson and Cicero, meant by "the pursuit of happiness" that began in China, India, and Greece 2,500 years ago.

What do you like about that talk of enemies and war? Maybe this subject deserves another thread? I see value in Sun Tzu's "The Art of War" and Daniele Bolelli's "On the Warrior's Path" and Roman soldiers in their short, metal, and leather uniforms are a real turn on, but I just don't resonate with Neitschz. You know when you pick up a book it is an unpleasant chore to read, instead of a pleasure.

Strange how we react differently to different subjects and authors, but I am unaware of any woman who likes Nietzsche. I think there is something about being male that makes Nietzsche attractive?

I apologize for getting defensive over Nietzsche's works. I'm high functioning on the spectrum. High — Vaskane

No problem at all. It is an honor to converse with someone who is well-informed and my goodness you brought some very interesting concepts into this discussion!

With that information, I can see there is so much more to explore and I am drowning in books not knowing which one I want to focus on, but the information about Jews is very exciting!!! Like I need one more thing to think about. :chin: Even though I think the mythology of the God of Abraham is one of the worst things to happen to humanity, I almost worship Daniel Kahneman. "Daniel Kahneman is an Israeli-American author, psychologist and economist notable for his work on hedonic psychology, psychology of judgment and decision-making. He is also known for his work in behavioral economics, for which he was awarded the 2002 Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences. Wikipedia"

Makes me want to dig deeper into the religion and search for what has inspired these men. While the intellectual history of Germany is also very impressive. What a petri dish of great thinking! Oh dear, too many thoughts. When the Hebrews transitioned from nomadic herders to farmers it was a moral crisis. No longer did they share everything in common. Property ownership became vital and that led to a war god when those with the most powerful god won the wars. And here you come with "God is dead"! :gasp:

How about sitting in a large mountain cabin with a spread of food and trying to unravel all of this? My head is swimming in thoughts!

I love the mention of projecting ourselves into others. :starstruck: Back to Socrates and the cave and determining what is real. Back to Nietzsche, how do we know our enemy? Are we sure we are not projecting ourselves into the "enemy"?

Postmodernists, feminists, and certain strands of communitarian thought reject in general what they take to be the Enlightenment's inadequate conception of selfhood and individuality — Isaac Kramnick

I found this very interesting to read because I tend to think the opposite. Usually I associate "communitarian thought" with the Enlightenment.

Even though it doesn't seem like it at face value, all these currents of thought aim to reconstruct the world. And to do it, they ultimately place the individual as the spearhead of change.
Maybe not postmodernism, which maybe is more like a simply de-constructive current? But feminism and "communitarian thought" seek to de-construct what they see as wrong and replace it with what they see is right, which happens to be individualized (feminists prefer the individualizing characteristic of "female", while the other prefers the characteristic of "being able to organize the community")

That's precisely what the libertarians reject in the Enlightenment, to turn it around for a second here. If an individual is preferred, that hurts the liberties of certain other individuals.

Is this so? Any thoughts?

What do you like about that talk of enemies and war? — Athena

In general I do not like talk of enemies and war, but like it or not talk of enemies and war are at the root of our culture and history.

Nietzsche uses a language and ideology intended for other purposes and turns it against itself. The struggle is turned inward. It becomes a matter of self-knowledge.

Nietzsche takes an exhortation from the Greek poet Pindar:

Become who you are.

To know and to be who you are is a struggle. It takes honesty. We too easily lie to ourselves about ourselves. And honesty takes courage. The warrior's virtue.

To become who you are requires becoming an enemy to that which you come to hate about yourself. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who, unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false.

Nietzsche takes an exhortation from the Greek poet Pindar:

Become who you are.

To know and to be who you are is a struggle. It takes honesty. We too easily lie to ourselves about ourselves. And honesty takes courage. The warrior's virtue.

To become who you are requires becoming an enemy to that which you come to hate about yourself. Nietzsche uses the analogy of the art of the sculpturer who, unlike the painter who adds to a blank canvas, removes all that is extraneous, superfluous, and false. — Fooloso4

Now that is something to talk about. Shall we begin with why a mother must hate herself and how this is going to help her?

I am 77 years old and most of my time is spent with older people. Some of us agree that we are just beginning to get things figured out. None of us want to go back to the mentality we had when we were young and I don't think I want to go back to a time before computers and the internet. The people I know are not into the forums but I think on-line forums are the most important part of my life right now. How is a younger person or a person without modern communication technology supposed to know much of anything? What history should they know to have perspective? How do the young go about knowing who they are before they have the life experience that is essential to knowing?

I am all in favor of virtues but really war? Do you think war makes a man a better husband and father? How does war benefit women and children? Hum, I think we need a thread to get deeply into the value of war and being a warrior to question why it has been so much a part of our history. How about mountain climbing? I think there is value in putting our lives on the line, but maybe we want to do this in a way that is not destructive? It might even be said, it takes more courage to face life than run up a hill with a machine gun while bullets are flying everywhere.

Thank you for pushing the subject. I need to know more about the virtues of a warrior before I say more so I picked up a book and it is exactly what I need to read to a man who has been bedridden for months because of a stroke. He has given up and somehow I have to reach his spirit that can turn him around because the process of decline and death is very slow. Warning, if a person is not willing to fight for his/her life make sure there is a "Do Not Resuscitate" request registered because if a person does not have that, everything will be done to keep the person alive and living may mean being bed ridden and completely incapable of caring for oneself and living out the rest of life without the ability to communicate. I don't think my friend would have chosen to live if he knew what he knows now. Anyway, what I read in the book tonight might help. But so far, nothing I read will help a mother be a better mother and so that mentality may not serve the whole of society.

Shall we begin with why a mother must hate herself and how this is going to help her? — Athena

A mother hating herself and a mother hating something about herself are not the same. The latter is a practice of love, the former need not be. If it is, it is misdirected. I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, as the artist of my own life, the form it has taken is not something foreseen or foreknown.

How do the young go about knowing who they are before they have the life experience that is essential to knowing? — Athena

The potential therein contains the beauty and comedy of youth, but also the potential for tragedy. Whether it be one or the other is a great but often overlooked theme of philosophy.

Do you think war makes a man a better husband and father? — Athena

This, at least in part, depends on what one is battling against, but in the most common usage of the term, for most I do not think it does and often just the opposite. "The Things They Carried", by Tim O'Brien is a book about war that might speak to you. It is a short book about war and what those who go to war carry to and from it, written by someone who does not like war.

Warning, if a person is not willing to fight for his/her life make sure there is a "Do Not Resuscitate" request registered because if a person does not have that, everything will be done to keep the person alive and living may mean being bed ridden and completely incapable of caring for oneself and living out the rest of life without the ability to communicate. — Athena

A living will is an important document. It is one thing to fight for life, but in some circumstances one should not have to fight to die.

A mother hating herself and a mother hating something about herself are not the same. The latter is a practice of love, the former need not be. If it is, it is misdirected. I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. To borrow a phrase from Thoreau, as the artist of my own life, the form it has taken is not something foreseen or foreknown. — Fooloso4

That is an interesting distinction. I never thought of that before.

I don't know if I understand the form that life has taken is something unforeseen, but I remember a few times I was totally surprised by a turn my life had taken. And here is a problem I have with Neitzche. I don't think we should look inside to determine who we are. Number one, in our younger years, we don't know enough about life to know if we are fish or fowl. We need to experience life to learn what turns us on and what infuriates us. A coach or a teacher can make a huge difference in how we see our potential.

For darn sure women's lib changed my experience of being a woman. I crashed from being a Mother Goddess to "just a housewife". It is not all about what we were born with. How we were parented, and the station of life we were born into, and the period of history we were born into affect our knowledge of life and ourselves.

Very important to me is how the child is educated. A child who does not learn how to have good moral judgment, and does not learn of virtues and principles is not a well-educated human.

Pray tell, what is to be learned by looking inward?

I don't know if I understand the form that life has taken is something unforeseen ... — Athena

Perhaps for some their life unfolds in predictable ways, either by their own choice or that of others, but when you say that you were totally surprised by a turn your life had taken, this is something unforeseen. So too, what someone will experience, having a coach or teacher influence us, and how they will influence us was unforeseen.

Number one, in our younger years, we don't know enough about life to know if we are fish or fowl. — Athena

I do not think we are clay to be molded by experience to become whatever we will become. Influence flows in both directions. What we experience plays a role in shaping us, but we are born with particular propensities that play a role in how we experience things, which in turn plays a role in how these propensities develop.

Who we are shapes who we become, and who we become determines who we are. This is the process of becoming. At best we become true to ourselves at our best. Traditionally western philosophy gives priority to being. Nietzsche rejects the idea of fixed natures in favor becoming, of possibilities. of potential.

Pray tell, what is to be learned by looking inward? — Athena

How can we tell what is to be learned by looking inward unless we look inward?

I am not a mother, but I was "Mr. Mom" back when this was either a joke or something seen as suspicious or wrong. — Fooloso4

For darn sure women's lib changed my experience of being a woman. I crashed from being a Mother Goddess to "just a housewife". — Athena

I supported Womens' Lib and that resulted in me becoming "Mr. Mom" - a single parent - for a while. But life moved on in unexpected but welcome ways.

Don't look back. Something might be gaining on you.

How can we tell what is to be learned by looking inward unless we look inward? — Fooloso4

I said we start life as empty bases and living is about filling ourselves with knowledge. What do you think is inside us that we need to be aware of? I know Socrates said something about needing to know ourselves, but you are making me think about this. I feel pretty strongly that most of what has benefitted me has come from the outside, not the inside. On the other hand, I also wish my mother had been self-aware. So this really is a question about what we are shooting for.

Not all cultures emphasize the individual. Being a member of the tribe is more important than individuality in some tribes. I imagine myself working on a pyramid in Egypt and doing so with love for the pharaoh and being a part of something that involves everyone. I can think of myself in other primitive situations where just the challenge of surviving gets all my attention. Or there is the Buddhist bent of being egoless. I think of death and being one with the universe. What is that separates us from God/the universe, but our illusion of being separate?

This is a moment to surprise. I thought I knew what I thought but I am not at all sure I do know what I think. :chin: