To address a few things:

I think you're doing an injustice to stoicism to suggest it is based on cowardice. Self-control isn't fear. — Hanover

First, flight in this case, I only use in the sense of turning away from the self, not necessarily fear though that could also be the case.

We see things differently, is all. I don't see natural spontaneous acts of stoicism the same as a stoic who makes a systematic dogma out of stoicism even if it is solely for themselves.

Systematic stoicism is done out of a compulsion towards stoicism towards an illusion of control, which is a sort of self tyranny of turning away from the self. A turning away from our own humanity. That doesn't mean we don't owe much to these phenomenological systems, for many systems provide methodology to live by and to live for. But for me, stoicism is the spirit of the hermit at the door, at the peep hole, pressing their body up against the gateway of communication, tyrannizing over the locks, bolts, and hinges. Being an anchorite and hermit can bring oneself, much self-awareness, much honey, as Zarathustra might say. But ultimately, I see it as the iron mask, from Man in the Iron Mask, of masks.

It certainly takes more courage to leave the gateway of communication open at all times. And there is control with speech through ones own ability to articulate and express themselves. There is both silence and control in communication. Through one's own light and superabundance of personal power a blinding halo forms, spring-storms that build fields of sentences that a person can vanish within.

To me, systematic stoicism is a compulsory overwriting of impulsion that instills a deeper, more persistent, harder to resist urge that one constantly gravitates back to because it's comfortable there over a shallower brief momentary impulsion that's easier to resist, as it exhausts itself.

In any event, the lack of manliness (which seems to be the way you're using "animal" here) — Hanover

"Manliness" —I detailed nothing of the sort— humans are animals and as such we're scientifically classified under the kingdom of animalia. To be human is to embody both our animal instincts and our higher, rational faculties. It's not about denying our animal nature but integrating it into a more profound and conscious existence. In this sense, stoicism, while offering valuable tools for navigating the complexities of life, risks overlooking the primal, emotional, and spontaneous aspects of being human—those parts of us that cannot simply be controlled or suppressed.

I find that systematic stoicism, by demanding strict control over one's impulses, can sometimes turn our inherent humanity into something abstract, reducing the richness of emotional experience to a set of rules. There’s wisdom in moderation, but there’s also beauty in embracing the full spectrum of what it means to be human—our vulnerability, our passions, and our unpredictable, sometimes messy, impulses. By seeking to overwrite these, one might risk losing touch with the depth of human existence. It’s not cowardice or weakness to feel deeply—it’s part of the very essence of being human.

In conclusion, while stoicism offers much to the self-disciplined and rational person, it should not, in my view, be made into a dogma that dismisses the full range of human experience, including the more instinctual, emotional, and relational aspects. Life is complex and multifaceted, and it’s this complexity that I believe we must not shy away from. The spirit of the hermit at the door can teach us much, but the open door—facing the world and all its unpredictability—can teach us even more.

Nothing to do with the Ubermensch.

Philosopher X says two things...

1. He who says it best knows it best.

2. We ought to restore man before we restore extinct animals. (He's suggeating men have grown weak)

Since Philosopher X says those 2 things and Nietzsche is lauded by the intellectual elite as "he who says it best" (and thus by Philosopher X first statement, knows it best)...

Then Nietzsche stating that Philosophy domesticates man signifies that Philosopher X's "we ought to restore man" would mean that Philosopher X ought to stop domesticating himself through philosophy if he wants to actually restore man.

Because to Nietzsche (he who says it best) to restore man would be to leave philosophy behind.

In other words, you can't truly restore man (the man in ones self) and be a philosopher (because philosophy domesticates man away from his natural state).

It was in response to the Time Magazine "The dire wolf is back." ... they were trying to say something philosophically deep.

will respond, a bit occupied atm.

I wonder how many mentions you get for the houra spent moderating the forums or whatever other work one may be doing... oh practically 0. But without the higher mention ratio... they obviously haven't contributed.

I confess to being totally baffled how anyone as well informed as you seem to be could consider early Zionism to be some sort of kumbaya "let's all get together and build a better world" movement. — EricH

My man, I know Zionism was always to steal land from those who occupied it. I know a lot of the nasty little secrets about Zionism, but I also don't blame Nietzsche for all the dumbasses who ruin his philosophy and psychology. Just as I don't blame Zionism for the idiots who ruined what Zionism was supposed to be, that image of what it could be under its greatest advocates and constituents.

Is this like karma farming? Lol, whatever it is it's dumb as it doesn't take in account threads created with total comments under them. Any many other statistics. Mostly just an exercise in massaging an ego.

Now we know Banno, whilst at the hinge of submitting something is pondering how many replies he can get with every post. :lol: Fragility.

"I have an Idea, everyone in the world should follow my idea." The ego on this guy is unbelievable.

For sure. Kids are going to be kids, and overall those that simply don't sit down and stfu get labeled as trouble makers. Asking too many questions, and being a child in any sense of their creative imagination is more or less frowned upon.

I did my 9th Grade AP Biology science fair project on this... you'll find that the cure was created before there was a diagnosis of ADHD. Ritalin was actually discovered by accident by a Swiss pharmaceutical firm, Ciba Giegy or something like during the 1940's and I think it wasn't until the early 1970s that it was noted as effective for people who had "ADHD" some new diagnosis.

I personally feel like certain technologies with screens that provide boatloads of stimulation cause the brain to develop in a certain way such that sitting down and quieting the mind to a stage of silence becomes neigh impossible for a child who develops a need for the dopamine dump from being over stimulated.

So when the child is in an understimulated state, their nonquieted mind begins wandering, whats thi...wait what's tha... ooo John farted... wait, but that question I wanted to ask. You know how some philosophers say those who can't stand quiet is due to their inability to confront themselves. The child isn't so much aware of this of course. And the medications for ADHD aren't recommended for anyone under the age of 25 due to the negative side effects manifesting more, and altering the neuroplasticity of the child more drastically than an adult which affects them even after they choose to quit.

I was on those medications for a decade as a child. The only way for me to over come them and the other medications was to explosively force myself out of them.

For sure, I purposefully equivocated magic to a different version of the word than what you were using. But it also highlights what I feel about the concept of magic: the shock and awe of perceiving what is incomprehensible to us.

One of the best things about children is that you get to reexperience the magic of the world through their eyes.

I believe for example the case that the Barbarian man, as it is detailed by the Greek, to be the man who lives completely without the privacy of a household life.

The Dionsysian Barbarian for example, was often depicted as the Satyr.

"Source? It was revealed to me on my walk." :cool:

Yup.

The Therapeutae branched out of the Essenes.

And Philo Judeaus Hellenized much of the OT with Plato's teachings. So we can see the wish to overcome Greek and Roman values by this appropriation of values such that the stories share aspects of the Greek and Roman myths to make transition from one easier. The hero of Tragedy is always the Dionsysian Hero and this hero is always represented in the form of the Apollonian. Hence why Jesus shares so many traits with Dionsysus. Also why Christmas is actually Bacchanalia. Bacchus = Dionsysus. The very essence of the transvaluation of values.

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide. — DifferentiatingEgg

There were primative monasteries to Christianity which radical followers of Judaism would meet in on the Sabbath and worship: namely the Therapeutae.

The way to make something really stand out in history and to catalyze reality behind the words is to propagate ideas, (propaganda) then cause an event to Crystalize Public Opinion.

And Philo Judeaus' work Die Vita Contemplativa shows these groups and points to these monasteries to Christ that were in existence before the legendary figure of Christ reared head as a human.

And he lived during that period of time. Not some 2000 years afterwards looking back.

History always progresses linearly, it doesn't make leaps.

The man Jesus Christ was merely a man, not a God, and not the myth. He played a role in a real life dramatic TRAGEDY (as in the Greek art). The most brilliant Theater the world has seen: Jesus the Tragic Hero.

Though, I may pick up the book you recommend just to get a solid detailing of the Man, rather than the myth of the man, the myth of the Messiah, that existed 1500+ years before the man...

Bro lmao thats a fail at history. Judaism's myth prepared the legend of the Messiah well in advance.

Christianity catalyzed around the figure because the myth was already propagated far and wide.

Ah, you're trying to give me a historical account of a man...

I'm talking of the myth of the avatar of God, as the Bible frames him...

Christianity was prepared hundreds of years in advance of someone who took the name Jesus. The myth of Jesus was pre sime human taking the name Jesus Christ.

Please tell me you don't think some guy popped into existence and then Christianity was developed around HIM... when the concept of the Jewish Messiah was in the OT, some 1500+ years prior, that had radical sects devoted to the Messiah...

Have you read the Gospels? That's all I'm concerned with when it comes to Christ. How much is his work inclusive of the apostles? If it doesnt align with the equation of Christ's life, who cares?

Oh, well, Paul doesn't give an account of the Life of Jesus Christ he gives his own doctrine... "Pauline Doctrine"

Jesus has his own equation.

Sin is the divorce of man from God (just as absurdity is the divorce of man from himself)

Nothing comes between Jesus and another, he loves all, and can bridge any divide, towards even to those who were his greatest enemies.

Paul's Doctrine has zero to do with the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ.

You should probably read Foucault. Madness and Civilization if you want to understand a bit more on that.

After Port-Royal, men would have to wait two centuries—until Dostoievsky and Nietzsche—for Christ to regain the glory of his madness, for scandal to recover its power as revelation, for unreason to cease being merely the public shame of reason.

But at the very moment Christian reason rid itself of the madness that had so long been a part of itself, the madman, in his abolished reason, in the fury of his animality, received a singular power as a demonstration: it was as if scandal, driven out of that superhuman region where it related to God and where the Incarnation was manifested, reappeared, in the plenitude of its force and pregnant with a new lesson, in that region where man has a relation to nature and to his animality. The lesson’s point of application has shifted to the lower regions of madness. The Cross is no longer to be considered in its scandal; but it must not be forgotten that throughout his human life Christ honored madness, sanctified it as he sanctified infirmity cured, sin forgiven, poverty assured of eternal riches....
...Coming into this world, Christ agreed to take upon himself all the signs of the human condition and the very stigmata of fallen nature; from poverty to death, he followed the long road of the Passion, which was also the road of the passions, of wisdom forgotten, and of madness. — Foucault, Madness and Civilization

Nietzsche's Equation is Amor Fati, which Mirrors the Glad Tidings, and the Superman is made reality when you suffer the fool...

"Und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet"

"nothing is more Jewish than Jesus!" — Count Timothy von Icarus

Duh, Jesus was a Jew, but he flat out rejects Judaism.

When was the last time either of you read the Gospels?

He came unto his own, and his own received him not... But as many as received him, he gave them power to be made the sons of God, to them that believe in his name. John saw Jesus coming to him, and he saith: Behold the Lamb of God, behold him who taketh away the sin of the world. — John, Chapter 1

Jesus was rejected by his own and he abolished the entire doctrine of sin, reward, and punishment of Judaism. Because Jesus assumes the right to new values, just as the Greek men of antiquity. Hence why Nietzsche vibes with Jesus.

Thanks for bringing up the discussion, I hadn't got the connection quite yet in my mind, it was there, as a "hintegedanke" but this solidified the bridge for me. Appreciate it.

Hannah Arendt mentions that on page 31 or so...? The government became the right bearer of necessity rather than the individual. The social was to make a more calculable man, easier to control, a norm of society that all think similarly through the collective housekeeping of society.

It opens his theory to criticism and lends his polis an anti-social quality rather than a social one. Further, the master/slave relationship is a matter of convention rather than of nature. — NOS4A2

The proportion varied and is certainly exaggerated in Xenophon's report from Sparta, where among four thousand people in the market place, a foreigner
counted no more than sixty citizens (Helknica iii. 35). — Reference 23 in Human Condition

I feel Aristotle perhaps reified the notion that master and slave was a natural thing because of how few citizens there were which were actually considered as equals. The private realm of Citizens was part of the ruling class because each house had its own "army of slaves," which was a wide array of craftsmen, to law makers and of course the common slave.

Every citizen was of the ruling class. Not just the tyrant alone...

Every citizen his own king, where as the social is more like one big family controlled by the Nation State. The Nation State monopolizes power and violence.

Where as Power and Violence was seen as a necessity to the Greek.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenomenon, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world. This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. — Hannah Arendt

The social man of today is just a tamed domesticated house cat compared to the political man of the Greek. The political man of the Greek assumed the rights to his own values...

Hence the greatest utility of polytheism Joyful Wisdom 143 Nietzsche:

The Greatest Utility of Polytheism.—For the individual to set up his own ideal and derive from it his laws, his pleasures and his rights—that has perhaps been hitherto regarded as the most monstrous of all human aberrations, and as idolatry in itself; in fact, the few who have ventured to do this have always needed to apologise to themselves,[Pg 179] usually in this wise: "Not I! not I! but a God, through my instrumentality!" It was in the marvellous art and capacity for creating Gods—in polytheism—that this impulse was permitted to discharge itself, it was here that it became purified, perfected, and ennobled; for it was originally a commonplace and unimportant impulse, akin to stubbornness, disobedience and envy. To be hostile to this impulse towards the individual ideal,—that was formerly the law of every morality. There was then only one norm, "the man"—and every people believed that it had this one and ultimate norm. But above himself, and outside of himself, in a distant over-world, a person could see a multitude of norms: the one God was not the denial or blasphemy of the other Gods! It was here that individuals were first permitted, it was here that the right of individuals was first respected. The inventing of Gods, heroes, and supermen of all kinds, as well as co-ordinate men and undermen—dwarfs, fairies, centaurs, satyrs, demons, devils—was the inestimable preliminary to the justification of the selfishness and sovereignty of the individual...

Hence Sisyphus was actually rewarded with with his own demigod status of the ideal representing Eu Prattein, because in life he was the definition of Aristeuein from assuming the rights to his own values and triumphantly affirming those demands of his own life, besting multiple gods.

The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon. — Nietzsche, from Genealogy of Morals 10

Well, Arendt states that the Social class was vastly different in Rome than in Greek... lemme pull it up.

Fair. Fair. I thought maybe you were asking because of some section you may have read vs the whole.

Hannah Arendt's "The Human Condition," will answer this for you. There are various free PDFs you can find online. You'll have to enter into a different constellation of thought to understand where Aristotle is coming from.

Relationships end in the Polis because that is the Public Sphere of Equality. The private house hold is where the inequality of relationships was housed.

Godless and hedonistic men of power do get a bad rap, but that's because they're godless and hedonistic, not because they're wealthy. — BitconnectCarlos

Nietzsche clearly isn't talking about Hedonism. And your God can sucketh. It's all just a fable anyways. A fable that details the most bogus bullshit, like men living 900 years, and how everyone was incestuous in their culture. Which is funny considering humans were around long before the Israelites and thus they weren't just fucking their own sisters to birth all of humanity... that's a much much older tale that has nothing to do with the Jews.

Not at all Jewish, but closer to the message of the gospels. Some Christians do consider Jesus as "peak Judaism" though so it could fit. — BitconnectCarlos

People who haven't read the Bible obviously.

The idea that people's standing depends on their goodness has been common across a lot of cultures throughout history. — Count Timothy von Icarus

"Good" is always subject to the culture's table of values though. So you didn't really say much about an objective good.

I misunderstood. You wrote "To dismantle this pathetic fallacy, I've devised a thought experiment." You meant a pathetic fallacy, not the pathetic fallacy. — T Clark

Fair enough, I'll change that for clarity.

That being said, I would characterize calling an argument pathetic as what you call "cheap rhetorical tactic." Pot criticizing kettle, philosophically speaking. — T Clark

Eh, okay, just your opinion, and not a very reasonable one, just like a fallacy is bad (pathetic) reasoning.

My basic point is that an appeal to emotion in this particular case is appropriate. It's not a fallacy at all — T Clark

That I have to explain to you, and Philosophim what a damn fallacy is and you both have been here for how long again? (8 and 5 years and you both don't know what a fallacy is) It's evidence to suggest your unwillingness to learn.

An appeal to emotion fallacy is used to persuade someone you're right by appealing to emotion rather than the use of logical discussion. We can see the dilemma that occurs through logical discussion and the appeal to emotion fallacy attempts to bypass the logical dialogue all together.

The etymology of Arya is "the rich and powerful" ...
The Mitanni kingdom, with its Indo-Aryan aristocracy, adopted Hurrian language and culture, and they were known for their chariot warfare, which was also used (the culture of Arya) by the Babylonian Empire...

Who held the Jews captive, and were damned by God—Genesis 15:13-15

Thus...

Human history would be too fatuous for anything were it not for the cleverness imported into it by the weak—take at once the most important instance. All the world's efforts against the "aristocrats," the "mighty," the "masters," the "holders of power," are negligible by comparison with what has been accomplished against those classes by the Jews—the Jews, that priestly nation which eventually realised that the one method of effecting satisfaction on its enemies and tyrants was by means of a radical transvaluation of values, which was at the same time an act of the cleverest revenge. Yet the method was only appropriate to a nation of priests, to a nation of the most jealously nursed priestly revengefulness. It was the Jews who, in opposition to the aristocratic equation (good = aristocratic = beautiful = happy = loved by the gods), dared with a terrifying logic to suggest the contrary equation, and indeed to maintain with the teeth of the most profound hatred (the hatred of weakness) this contrary equation, namely, "the wretched are alone the good; the poor, the weak, the lowly, are alone the good; the suffering, the needy, the sick, the loathsome, are the only ones who are pious, the only ones who are blessed, for them alone is salvation—but you, on the other hand, you aristocrats, you men of power, you are to all eternity the evil, the horrible, the covetous, the insatiate, the godless; eternally also shall you be the unblessed, the cursed, the damned!" — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 7, First Essay

Who cares it's a completely moot tanget and red herring from the fact of Genesis 15:13-15 That God damns anyone with power over the Jew, this shows their logic in hating those more powerful than them... this places the emphasis on the weaker type.

You take Nietzsche's meaning to be "all Jews are weak slaves," or something like that due to some reason, of which there are many you're doing so for.

Obviously doesn't know a damn thing about repressed instincts which cause for the greatest spasmodic explosions of compulsion in which one cannot control themselves.

Cruelty when practiced in moderation tempers its most destructive elements...

This has been part of psychology for the last 200 years at least... how you're blind to it just shows you're not very educated on the human condition.

That's always the problem with dogmatists... too obstinate to see beyond what was issued to them.

Yahweh is the Supreme Cruelty... hence why those who dont follow the equation of Jesus will remain under God's angry judgements, John 3:17... Most of Nietzsche's main points in philosophy and psychology is more or less a copy to the equation of Jesus' Glad Tidings.

God damns anyone with power over the Jew...
Genesis Chapter 15 line 13-15

Nothing to contradict though.

I suspect Nietzsche is taking certain biblical ideas, ignoring evidence to the contrary, and then overstating these ideas and then attributing them to a shadowy priestly class behind the text and then taking liberties in describing the social context of those shadowy priests, as if they were writing against a noble and proud aristocracy. — BitconnectCarlos

Everything Nietzsche details in his genealogy essay 1 can be found in the Old Testament. In Genesis alone at that.

That God confuses the languages of Good and Evil, and that the powerful who enslave shall be the damned etc etc, the cunning of these slaves, like Abram fucking over Pharoah because he was a coward to admit his marriage etc etc...

Whereas talking with you in this post is objectively pointless. Have a good day and bring a better attitude next time. — Philosophim

You didn't even know what a fallacy was until I explained it to you just now...

Do you realize the irony of what you did here? Isn't this statement an appeal to emotion, popularity, and begging the question? — Philosophim

Nope, at least not in a fallacious way. For it to be an appeal to emotion fallacy, it would have to manipulate emotions to persuade you're right. Where as the thought experiment present the dilemma between two moral rules. I'm not making an appeal to persuade of correctness. Im showing the moral dilemma which shows my correctness: the damned if you do, damned if you don't scenario, not persuading with a fallacious appeal. — DifferentiatingEgg

And I addressed your other points in the OP, your fallacy isn't effective, it's just trash. It's annoying that you think it's a good argument. Seriously you need to brush up on basic logic. The reason it's not effective is yes, at times, killing a child could be considered good. And you use it in conjunction with your argument on an objective morality in an attempt to persaude me away from my subjectivity on morality. Thus a fallacious appeal for an objective morality vs subjective morality.

because talking with you is relatively pointless. It's like talking at a brickwall. Your other talking points are as I said, pointless.

You confuse the question "So if I desire to murder a child is that good?" as proof of an objective morality. — Philosophim

Except that's what you were arguing for so, no, no I was not confused about anything.

Quite true - especially considering that Chomsky was born in 1928 - 30 years after these events. — EricH

Not an obvious goof, Chomsky became active in Zionism under the same Supranational intentions pre-Nakba. And only afterwards turned away from Zionism. The obvious goof is you trying to challenge me with only a quick Wikipedia scan...

I was connected to a considerable part of the Zionist movement which was opposed to a Jewish state. It’s not too well known, but until 1942 there was no official commitment of Zionist organizations to a Jewish state. And even that was in the middle of World War II. It was a decision made in the Hotel Biltmore in New York, where there was the first official call for a Jewish state. Before that in the whole Zionist movement, establishing a Jewish state was maybe implicit or in people’s minds or something, but it wasn’t an official call.

The group that I was interested in was bi-nationalist. And that was not so small. A substantial part of the Kibbutz movement, for example, Hashomer Hatzair, was at least officially anti-state, calling for bi-nationalism. And the groups I was connected with were hoping for a socialist Palestine based on Arab-Jewish, working-class cooperation in a bi-national community: no state, no Jewish state, just Palestine. — Chomsky

There were over 200 delegates at the First Zionist Conference and the program waw adopted unanamously. — EricH

Nope...

The Basel Program was drafted by a committee elected on Sunday 29 August 1897[1] comprising Max Nordau (heading the committee),[2] Nathan Birnbaum, Alexander Mintz, Siegmund Rosenberg, Saul Rafael Landau,[3][2][4] together with Hermann Schapira and Max Bodenheimer who were added to the committee on the basis of them having both drafted previous similar programs (including the "Kölner Thesen").[1]

The seven-man committee prepared the Program over three drafting meetings.

You should probably read your sources.

Spectators are spectating.

In 1942, an "Extraordinary Zionist Conference" was held and announced a fundamental departure from traditional Zionist policy[21] with its demand "that Palestine be established as a Jewish Commonwealth."[22] It became the official Zionist stand on the ultimate aim of the movement. — Your source.

So we see in 1942 is when they announced a departure from the traditional Zionist policy. To create a commonwealth for the Jews. Rather than an inclusive supranational state.

The big problem here is I'm considering the philosophers who delve into Zionism vs you considering non-philosophers. For example, Trump is a Zionist. Who doesn't really know a damn thong about Zionism other than "Jewish Homeland in Israel." Which is what most Zionists are... doesn't mean they know shit about Zionism. I know more about the history of Zionism than most Jew.

Basic talking points vs the philosophy behind it.

It's like saying you know all of Kant because you know the talking points: "Thing inside itself", "Categoical Imperatives," "Deontology" and "Apriori Faculty!" ... Here, I'll throw your claim of reality right back at you...

I don't know where you get this notion, but it has no relationship with reality. — EricH

"Get real bruh."