NationStates Jolt Archive

The greatest lesson to come out of the Sixties was the knowledge that things don’t change. Revolutions don’t work. Rebellions don’t really happen. All that happens is that the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society. Indeed, the Sixties was when freedom suffered its final defeat. Now there is no one who is free, no one who is privileged. We all slave under the lash of those old lies, ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’, lost in the delusions of some long dead frenchmen. I can almost hear them cackle knowingly on the breeze.

All men are born equal, under equal laws and equal rules. Or not. In truth, there is no one who has benefited from this new age. The poor are still poor, but convinced of the virtue of their poverty. The rich are still rich, but they cannot enjoy their wealth – what tax does not deny the liberal conscience renders bitter. And the true working class, the middle ground, does what they have always done; strive pointlessly for their own brief benefit and the briefer benefits of their children.

We have nothing left to fight for, which is the greatest horror of our age. War is freedom. Conflict is the unlocking of chains, the breaking of bounds. We become animals in our lawlessness, every crossed boundary a scar on our minds, war wounds painted red with symbolic martyrdom. Since the Eve of Destruction life has become a null. Our wars are no longer grand, pointed things, our struggles possess no ideal. With nothing Good or Right to fight for (for such things do not exist) we pick out our feeble territories-of-thought and squabble over meaningless materials. Our ‘Democracy’ does not demand we fight for; merely against. We define ourselves by what we are not. Black people aren’t white. Women aren’t men. Homosexuals aren’t straight. Or the other way perhaps? White people aren’t minorities. Men are not homemakers. Straight people aren’t sinners. Conservative, liberal, conservative… we have been given the holy writ of our perfect, equal states and now must quibble the interpretation. We are fanatics of the religion of freedom and have missed the point as surely as a suicide bomber or a gay-bashing priest.

What can we do? Nothing, for ourselves. We do not have the wit to be philosophers nor the conviction to be martyrs. Look upon your victory, West, and die: For your struggles have been ended with the grace of your own success. Our might-be heroes shrug; Our warriors are but robots, with no zeal for fuel. We have convinced ourselves that we are the pinnacle of human triumph and therefore there is nothing left to learn, nothing to strive for. The ‘barbarians’ beat at our gates. They are ‘primitive’. They are ‘fanatics’. Most shocking and terrifying of all, they ‘believe’. They have seen our perfect society and with unmitigated gall found it lacking. LACKING! Here they could have FREEDOM! JUSTICE! EQUALITY by god! Are these not the greatest of virtues? Are these not the only things worth striving for?

Perhaps the most bitter irony of Post-modernism and all the other filth that has congealed at this, the end of our civilisation, is that we must respect that both our states-of-mind are right and wrong, both equal. Perhaps they might find virtue in ‘loyalty’, ‘faith’, ‘unity’ and ‘honour’, these disgusting ideas we have consigned correctly to the rubbish heap of our history. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn…

Of course not.

Ignore me; it’s all been said before.

[/rant]

...the knowledge that things don’t change. ... the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society.

**stops reading**

That is a change.

Is that so?

Too many big words in there..

So, um, I agree with you........?

Or do I?

Too many big words in there..

So, um, I agree with you........?

Or do I?
I'd say don't. Just, y'know...for kicks.

Simonist']I'd say don't. Just, y'know...for kicks.
mmk

Hell No! You don't make any sense!

I just eat some tacos. *nod*

The greatest lesson to come out of the Sixties was the knowledge that things don’t change. Revolutions don’t work. Rebellions don’t really happen. All that happens is that the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society. Indeed, the Sixties was when freedom suffered its final defeat. Now there is no one who is free, no one who is privileged. We all slave under the lash of those old lies, ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’, lost in the delusions of some long dead frenchmen. I can almost hear them cackle knowingly on the breeze.

All men are born equal, under equal laws and equal rules. Or not. In truth, there is no one who has benefited from this new age. The poor are still poor, but convinced of the virtue of their poverty. The rich are still rich, but they cannot enjoy their wealth – what tax does not deny the liberal conscience renders bitter. And the true working class, the middle ground, does what they have always done; strive pointlessly for their own brief benefit and the briefer benefits of their children.

We have nothing left to fight for, which is the greatest horror of our age. War is freedom. Conflict is the unlocking of chains, the breaking of bounds. We become animals in our lawlessness, every crossed boundary a scar on our minds, war wounds painted red with symbolic martyrdom. Since the Eve of Destruction life has become a null. Our wars are no longer grand, pointed things, our struggles possess no ideal. With nothing Good or Right to fight for (for such things do not exist) we pick out our feeble territories-of-thought and squabble over meaningless materials. Our ‘Democracy’ does not demand we fight for; merely against. We define ourselves by what we are not. Black people aren’t white. Women aren’t men. Homosexuals aren’t straight. Or the other way perhaps? White people aren’t minorities. Men are not homemakers. Straight people aren’t sinners. Conservative, liberal, conservative… we have been given the holy writ of our perfect, equal states and now must quibble the interpretation. We are fanatics of the religion of freedom and have missed the point as surely as a suicide bomber or a gay-bashing priest.

What can we do? Nothing, for ourselves. We do not have the wit to be philosophers nor the conviction to be martyrs. Look upon your victory, West, and die: For your struggles have been ended with the grace of your own success. Our might-be heroes shrug; Our warriors are but robots, with no zeal for fuel. We have convinced ourselves that we are the pinnacle of human triumph and therefore there is nothing left to learn, nothing to strive for. The ‘barbarians’ beat at our gates. They are ‘primitive’. They are ‘fanatics’. Most shocking and terrifying of all, they ‘believe’. They have seen our perfect society and with unmitigated gall found it lacking. LACKING! Here they could have FREEDOM! JUSTICE! EQUALITY by god! Are these not the greatest of virtues? Are these not the only things worth striving for?

Perhaps the most bitter irony of Post-modernism and all the other filth that has congealed at this, the end of our civilisation, is that we must respect that both our states-of-mind are right and wrong, both equal. Perhaps they might find virtue in ‘loyalty’, ‘faith’, ‘unity’ and ‘honour’, these disgusting ideas we have consigned correctly to the rubbish heap of our history. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn…

Of course not.

Ignore me; it’s all been said before.

[/rant]

dude, you need to get laid.

dude, you need to get laid.
But just think about the potential that would be lost if all this pent up....whatever, was let out. Would we get any more philosophical rants that the majority of thread-perusers don't actually read through?

Well, yeah, actually, we would......lots of them.....as usual.....um, nevermind then, carry on....

Simonist']But just think about the potential that would be lost if all this pent up....whatever, was let out. Would we get any more philosophical rants that the majority of thread-perusers don't actually read through?

Well, yeah, actually, we would......lots of them.....as usual.....um, nevermind then, carry on....

I'll have you know, I read the whole thing through. Seems to me like he's one of them upper class "I'm too old to be emo but I still need something to feel bad about" jerks. A year in the good ol' Army ought to straighten him out.

All men are born equal, under equal laws and equal rules. Or not. In truth, there is no one who has benefited from this new age. The poor are still poor, but convinced of the virtue of their poverty. The rich are still rich, but they cannot enjoy their wealth – what tax does not deny the liberal conscience renders bitter. And the true working class, the middle ground, does what they have always done; strive pointlessly for their own brief benefit and the briefer benefits of their children.

. . .

What can we do? Nothing, for ourselves. We do not have the wit to be philosophers nor the conviction to be martyrs. Look upon your victory, West, and die: For your struggles have been ended with the grace of your own success. Our might-be heroes shrug; Our warriors are but robots, with no zeal for fuel. We have convinced ourselves that we are the pinnacle of human triumph and therefore there is nothing left to learn, nothing to strive for.


Ignore me; it’s all been said before.

[/rant]

Welcome to the triumph of autonomy. If you don't like it, you can blame modern philosophy for giving us the idea that we are not just parts of a system, but something of value in ourselves. Neitszche was probably the greatest advocate of this movement, and in so doing he appears to have defeated himself.

How eloquent.

In truth, oppression will always exist while there is the possibility of the capability for individuals to dominate or influence other individuals.

Someone here said that the fact that oppression falls more heavily on another section of society as time fetters on is in fact a change. I would ask is it though?

Is it true change or is it merely a new shape for the same old phenomena. Oppression still exists, does it not? Is it true that all that is really different is the identity of the oppressed and the oppressor.

And are we trully free? Are the questions regarding freedom and oppression really necessary to discuss considering that we may in the end have never been free at all? Are we not bound to this fleshy cage and our interactions with others? Are we not a prisoner of our own existence? Is that a bad thing?

These are all interesting questions.

I'll have you know, I read the whole thing through. Seems to me like he's one of them upper class "I'm too old to be emo but I still need something to feel bad about" jerks. A year in the good ol' Army ought to straighten him out.
Nah, he has a point. :p

I'll have you know, I read the whole thing through. Seems to me like he's one of them upper class "I'm too old to be emo but I still need something to feel bad about" jerks. A year in the good ol' Army ought to straighten him out.

Or it may merely prove his theories....

Nah, he has a point. :p

Notwithstanding, a year in the army will do him a world of good.

Notwithstanding, a year in the army will do him a world of good.
Unless he convinces his fellow soldiers of his theories, and they all end up slitting their wrists. :)

These are all interesting questions.
Moral dilemmas always pose the best of questions, and perhaps some of the most confounding ones. Some don't even have answers to begin with...or at least not ones we can attain with any certainty.

Unless he convinces his fellow soldiers of his theories, and they all end up slitting their wrists. :)

hmm...that might not be very good for the war on terror. alright, just deport him, then.

Moral dilemmas always pose the best of questions, and perhaps some of the most confounding ones. Some don't even have answers to begin with...or at least not ones we can attain with any certainty.

Indeed. Perhaps there are many answers.

hmm...that might not be very good for the war on terror. alright, just deport him, then.
Hey I agree with him...you deport him!

Indeed. Perhaps there are many answers.
It's just a question of how far off the mark we truly are...

It's just a question of how far off the mark we truly are...

The only thing I could be trully sure of is that we as humans are too limited to understand the whole truth; only a facet of it.

Almost everything Abomination posted sounds right (to me) or at least it doesn't sound wrong (yes, there IS a difference).

But has it ever been better? Or at least been different from that?
Humans aren't perfect, if they were, we could call ourselves God and quit living. And so human societies aren't perfect and will never be.
Yes, perhaps things will never change (if you look at the whole great thing called humanity). Perhaps everything we think good and pure turns out to be nothing better than the opposite. But if we really start believing in this, that nothing ever really changes, that the wheel of injustice etc. never stops turning, that WE, individuals as well as the whole, can't change even the tiniest bit of it, then we should better buy us a gun, point it at our forehead and pull the trigger.
Maybe we're all doomed (some way or the other), but if we believe in this, then we Certainly are.

We can't be perfect (and if we could we shouldn't be), but we should try to be it (and try again if it doesn't work). So, hey, maybe there is no change. But you never know.

The only thing I could be trully sure of is that we as humans are too limited to understand the whole truth; only a facet of it.
As much as I love moral dilemmas, my perfectionist side wishes we could answer them with absolute certainty. :/

Abomination, I don't know how or why you thought the plebian masses that plague NS General would possibly respond to this with any intelligence (well maybe a few of them) but don't make that mistake again.

NS General is a debate forum, not a philosophers' forum. We philosophers strive for inquiry and intelligence, these debaters strive simply to prove the other wrong and stupid.

Do you call us the "plebian masses"? You and Abomination must be some kind of aristrocrat, else "Plebian masses" would be the wrong term to use.

Do you call us the "plebian masses"? You and Abomination must be some kind of aristrocrat, else "Plebian masses" would be the wrong term to use.
Even so, he mispellt it. It's plebeian.

Good to know. Though I don't think a spelling error disqualifies Bjornoya as either an aristrocrat or a philosopher. Even Kant was known to make an error from time to time.

Good to know. Though I don't think a spelling error disqualifies Bjornoya as either an aristrocrat or a philosopher. Even Kant was known to make an error from time to time.
When you are attempting to condescend someone, it's best to do it well, although I agree. ;) Anyway, when I correct spelling, I do it merely to spread the knowledge. Not to humiliate, unless in defensive. I am a spelling Nazi. :(

Wich is the best way to correct. Very pedagogical (speaking as the teacher I'm trying to become).

Wich is the best way to correct. Very pedagogical (speaking as the teacher I'm trying to become).
The problem is that some people may take it as an offence, so I have to contain myself. :) Good luck with your endeavours.

Thank you.

If the correcting doesn't sound like: You stupid bastard! Look what you've done!
then no serious writer will take it as an offense (and the others can be ignored.)
But you're right. In an open forum like this right spelling should not be the most important thing (I know what I'm talking about. I have enough problems with the correct spelling of this monstrum you call a language :) )

If the correcting doesn't sound like: You stupid bastard! Look what you've done!
then no serious writer will take it as an offense (and the others can be ignored.)
But you're right. In an open forum like this right spelling should not be the most important thing (I know what I'm talking about. I have enough problems with the correct spelling of this monstrum you call a language :) )
I had not noticed you are German. What is it you wish to teach anyway?

As for the language, English is itself in many ways descended from the same root as German, ancient Germanic. Not that that helps you much. :p

Nope, it doesn't. Todays German is as far removed from ancient Germanic as is English (and it doesn't help a bit when it comes to spelling, especially not with all those latin and (even more) french bits in it :) ).

It's German and Geography for Gymnasium (Highschool).

Nope, it doesn't. Todays German is as far removed from ancient Germanic as is English (and it doesn't help a bit when it comes to spelling, especially not with all those latin and (even more) french bits in it :) ).
They say English is still more Germanic than anything else, but I guess they forget to mention that this still means substantial differences between languages anyway.

It's German and Geography for Gymnasium (Highschool).
You must have nerves of steel.

Moral dilemmas always pose the best of questions, and perhaps some of the most confounding ones. Some don't even have answers to begin with...or at least not ones we can attain with any certainty.
Every question has an answer (and this answer is single and absolute), otherwise it wouldn't be a "question", but a "statement" or "gibberish." Sometimes, it is just a matter of no one having found the answer (or had the guts/will to propose that solution and carry it through).

Every question has an answer (and this answer is single and absolute), otherwise it wouldn't be a "question", but a "statement" or "gibberish." Sometimes, it is just a matter of no one having found the answer (or had the guts/will to propose that solution and carry it through).
Yep, more or less what I stated. On the second bit, that is also equally true. Some solutions are perhaps too offensive to some people's senses, or would render them unpopular if they carried them out. A somewhat vexing problem is separating the true questions from the gibberish.

I'm not sure about the "single answer". Aren't there questions which allow more than one right answer/sollution?

And no, my nerves are not made of steel. I'm afraid ,my hairs will have turned all grey before I'm 35.

I'm not sure about the "single answer". Aren't there questions which allow more than one right answer/sollution?
I think what he meant was that questions with no answer/solution are hardly questions at all.

Ok, that's right. It sounded to me like "One question, one answer and nothing more".

Ok, that's right. It sounded to me like "One question, one answer and nothing more".
Or not, having re-read it, that is what he said. :p

I'm not sure about the "single answer". Aren't there questions which allow more than one right answer/sollution?
That's not a question then. It might be a set of questions or it could be nonsense. If the question doesn't mean anything, eg "what flavor is blue", then you can produce an infinite number of answers. A true question, however, requests a specific fact about the nature of something, eg "how old am I?", "what is the terminal velocity of a 270 lb man wearing nothing but a pink sport jacket?", "why did I just ask that last question?", and so it has only one correct answer (that fact).

That's a very limitating view on the nature of questions. Not every serious question must be aimed at the nature of something.
I would also count "which way do I take, the left one or the right one? as a true question. And, according to the circumstances, the answer could either be right or left.
Even if the answer IS a fact the answer may depend on the answering person.

The answers for "Which color does the ocean have?" might range from black to dark and light blue to green.

But, from a scientific point of view you are right. Every question should be answered by only one answer (the fact)(eg the wavelength of the light, reflected by the ocean). It's us humans who complicate the whole thing.

It's late over here and I'm tired, so this might be the wrong time for me to discuss such fundamental questions.
Good night, everyone.

That's a very limitating view on the nature of questions. Not every serious question must be aimed at the nature of something.
I would also count "which way do I take, the left one or the right one? as a true question. And, according to the circumstances, the answer could either be right or left.
Even if the answer IS a fact the answer may depend on the answering person.
Yes, but in your example question, the phrase "based on my current circumstances" is implied. If Todd asks me that question, and I decide that I should tell him which way Dave should take, then Todd will go the wrong direction, end up in a bad part of town, be clubbed on the back of the head, and raped in an alleyway.
The answers for "Which color does the ocean have?" might range from black to dark and light blue to green.
Once again, at any one particular instant in a particular area, there is one color. If you fail to specify where and when (and if there is no implied location and time), then the question is meaningless.
But, from a scientific point of view you are right. Every question should be answered by only one answer (the fact). It's us humans who complicate the whole thing.
Humans complicate the situation only when they refuse the answer, and then they only complicate it for themselves. The Universe did just fine without us for billions of years, and so it logically follows that reality doesn't need humanity to keep it abreast of what is what.

Ignore me.
Done.

Done.

If you had done so you would not of posted this, would you?

Slightly nihilistic (ok extremely) not Nietzchien (Nietzche-esk?). You've immitated his style but not his philosophy. I disagree with almost everything you've said.

Slightly nihilistic (ok extremely) not Nietzchien (Nietzche-esk?). You've immitated his style but not his philosophy. I disagree with almost everything you've said.
Present counter-arguments then?

Present counter-arguments then?

I'm at work, I will when I have a moment.

The greatest lesson to come out of the Sixties was the knowledge that things don’t change. Revolutions don’t work. Rebellions don’t really happen. All that happens is that the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society. Indeed, the Sixties was when freedom suffered its final defeat. Now there is no one who is free, no one who is privileged. We all slave under the lash of those old lies, ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’, lost in the delusions of some long dead frenchmen. I can almost hear them cackle knowingly on the breeze.

All men are born equal, under equal laws and equal rules. Or not. In truth, there is no one who has benefited from this new age. The poor are still poor, but convinced of the virtue of their poverty. The rich are still rich, but they cannot enjoy their wealth – what tax does not deny the liberal conscience renders bitter. And the true working class, the middle ground, does what they have always done; strive pointlessly for their own brief benefit and the briefer benefits of their children.

We have nothing left to fight for, which is the greatest horror of our age. War is freedom. Conflict is the unlocking of chains, the breaking of bounds. We become animals in our lawlessness, every crossed boundary a scar on our minds, war wounds painted red with symbolic martyrdom. Since the Eve of Destruction life has become a null. Our wars are no longer grand, pointed things, our struggles possess no ideal. With nothing Good or Right to fight for (for such things do not exist) we pick out our feeble territories-of-thought and squabble over meaningless materials. Our ‘Democracy’ does not demand we fight for; merely against. We define ourselves by what we are not. Black people aren’t white. Women aren’t men. Homosexuals aren’t straight. Or the other way perhaps? White people aren’t minorities. Men are not homemakers. Straight people aren’t sinners. Conservative, liberal, conservative… we have been given the holy writ of our perfect, equal states and now must quibble the interpretation. We are fanatics of the religion of freedom and have missed the point as surely as a suicide bomber or a gay-bashing priest.

What can we do? Nothing, for ourselves. We do not have the wit to be philosophers nor the conviction to be martyrs. Look upon your victory, West, and die: For your struggles have been ended with the grace of your own success. Our might-be heroes shrug; Our warriors are but robots, with no zeal for fuel. We have convinced ourselves that we are the pinnacle of human triumph and therefore there is nothing left to learn, nothing to strive for. The ‘barbarians’ beat at our gates. They are ‘primitive’. They are ‘fanatics’. Most shocking and terrifying of all, they ‘believe’. They have seen our perfect society and with unmitigated gall found it lacking. LACKING! Here they could have FREEDOM! JUSTICE! EQUALITY by god! Are these not the greatest of virtues? Are these not the only things worth striving for?

Perhaps the most bitter irony of Post-modernism and all the other filth that has congealed at this, the end of our civilisation, is that we must respect that both our states-of-mind are right and wrong, both equal. Perhaps they might find virtue in ‘loyalty’, ‘faith’, ‘unity’ and ‘honour’, these disgusting ideas we have consigned correctly to the rubbish heap of our history. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn…

Of course not.

Ignore me; it’s all been said before.

[/rant]

Your post errs because it mentions the symptoms without correctly identifying the disease.

The truth is that the Sixties proved the exact opposite of what you have said. Revolutions can and do happen, and people can be made the better for them. Forty years ago the system of government in this country allowed de jure repression of millions of American citizens, or more accurately, human beings entitled to fundamental liberties by our social contract and by nature. Today, that de jure repression has been replaced with much more irregular and inconsistent de facto repression. It is undoubtedly true that many of our social policies hurt those who society most needs to serve: there are more African-American men in prison than in the workforce, for instance. It is also undoubtedly true that our society has made great strides in aiding those who need it most: the number of African-American households living in poverty, for instance, has dropped from 50% of all households to 25%. African-Americans can now vote without fear. Women not only have a choice whether or not to go to become a lawyer or an engineer. In short, it is unquestionable that a revolution has occured in the last forty years, and it is equally unquestionable that good has come by it.

The problem is not that there are no revolutions to be had, but that we became disillusioned before we saw our efforts through. Instead, those on the right and the left each followed foolish deviations from the truth. The right became enamored with the idea of cold, hard profit, and were willing to undermine all that we had done in pursuit of it. The left increasingly fell under the sway of those who argued that truth is merely my own personal perspective; forgetting in their haste to change the system that you cannot possibly justify the gains of minorities without according those minorities an absolute right to equal treatment. Those that rejected either of these philosophies increasingly fell under the dogmatism of blind, inerrant literalism of whatever book they deemed holy.

In short, both sides forgot what it meant to be virtuous, and instead pursued their own liscentious notion of freedom. For the right, freedom meant the right to be as greedy as necessary, without any ability on the part of society to hinder you or to claim what you deemed "yours". For the left, freedom meant the right to never have society impose their will upon you through subjective notions of "right" and "wrong", in spite of the fact that "right" and "wrong" are the only secure foundations for many leftist aims. Because both sides forgot what it meant to be free, both sides increasingly deviated from pursuit of liberty. That, then, is the true cause of the ill you speak of, not an absence of the good in today's world, but the absence of knowledge of the good.

The OP is in italics; I of course am in bold.

The greatest lesson to come out of the Sixties was the knowledge that things don’t change. Revolutions don’t work. Rebellions don’t really happen.

Revolutions and rebelions don't happen? I think anyone can name at least one revolution where "stuff" happened and there was change. How would a revolution have to occur in your opinion so that it really "happened"? People learned this from the 60's? I thought that was the time of the birth of American counter-culture? Are you even from the 60's?

All that happens is that the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society. Indeed, the Sixties was when freedom suffered its final defeat. Now there is no one who is free, no one who is privileged.[I]

You will have to define tyranny here, I assume you are being metaphoric, and I will posit that what you alude to as being "tyranny" will not seem as dire once you give it an accurate description. Pseudo-philosophical rants do not get heard in real tyranies. As to freedom being defeated.... again define freedom, is it being free of bondage? Or is it being free of coersion? Or is it being free of determinism? Then once you have defined it, show how it ceased to be. No one is priveledged? What do you define a priveledge as? The things I think of as priveledges people in the real world do have. What is a priveledge as you know it, which no one lays claim to?

[I]In truth, there is no one who has benefited from this new age. The poor are still poor, but convinced of the virtue of their poverty. The rich are still rich, but they cannot enjoy their wealth – what tax does not deny the liberal conscience renders bitter. And the true working class, the middle ground, does what they have always done; strive pointlessly for their own brief benefit and the briefer benefits of their children.

What would be considered a benefit to you? Does playing a video game that is fun surfice? What is this "New Age" you speak of? The age of aquarius? The industrial or information revolutions? The Bush Administration? There will always be the poor, but are they the same poor, and are they starving? Is there any mobility out of poverty? The rich don't enjoy their wealth because of taxes? Damn than give it to me! If I were a rich man and they taxed me for 9 billion dollars and only left me 1 billion I think I'd still be having a good old time. As for the middle class striving pointlessly, is the acheivement of benefit for ones own self and kin pointless? I always thought of it as a self-sufficient and self reinforcing value/goal.

We have nothing left to fight for, which is the greatest horror of our age.

We have plenty to fight for, and are currently doing so everywhere you look (even on this forum). Even if we didn't have anything, this would hardly be a horror. Too much Fight Club, man.

War is freedom. Conflict is the unlocking of chains, the breaking of bounds. We become animals in our lawlessness, every crossed boundary a scar on our minds, war wounds painted red with symbolic martyrdom. Since the Eve of Destruction life has become a null. Our wars are no longer grand, pointed things, our struggles possess no ideal.

Poetic, yet philosophically unfounded, look I can do it too:
Despair! For all is become sorrow,
A virgins smile is a skull on the morrow,
work before pain, pain before death,
painfull gasp precedes last breath,
An endless burden in a world of toil,
We come, we cry, then lie in the soil.

Fair, no? And yet it's emo hogwash if you think it really describes the entirety of the world.


With nothing Good or Right to fight for (for such things do not exist) we pick out our feeble territories-of-thought and squabble over meaningless materials.

Nietzche was an existentialist, not a nihilist. He posited that we create our values; not that they don't exist. He was also was a materialist, and like many other materialists found value in a non spiritual (spirit; immaterial substance) universe. He was a laughing lion, not a crying bitch.

-snip more poetic emotion-

Perhaps the most bitter irony of Post-modernism and all the other filth that has congealed at this, the end of our civilisation, is that we must respect that both our states-of-mind are right and wrong, both equal. Perhaps they might find virtue in ‘loyalty’, ‘faith’,‘unity’ and ‘honour', these disgusting ideas we have consigned correctly to the rubbish heap of our history. Maybe, just maybe, there is something to learn…

Disgusting ideas? What virtue or vice exists then that doesn't nauseate you?

To those who momentarily feel depressed by such pseudo-philosophical musings, I say take a nap, when you wake up, eat a cookie or something else delicious. Then do something fun, ie, play with a puppy. You will feel much better. Life will be worthwhile again. You won't care about what some nihilist thinks he has proven on paper.

As for nihilists; all nihilists who remain nihilists to the bitter end are suicides, for there is a difference between living and existing.

Slightly nihilistic (ok extremely) not Nietzchien (Nietzche-esk?). You've immitated his style but not his philosophy. I disagree with almost everything you've said.

After reading through what he wrote, it didn't remind me much of Nietzsche or existentialism either. And as an existentialist, I also disagree with virtually everything he said.

Present counter-arguments then?

Even though this wasn't directed at me, and since I do agree with the person who it was directed to, I thought I would go ahead and analyze the post based on Nietzschien existentialism. Here goes...

The greatest lesson to come out of the Sixties was the knowledge that things don’t change. Revolutions don’t work. Rebellions don’t really happen. All that happens is that the yoke of tyranny falls more heavily on a different section of society. Indeed, the Sixties was when freedom suffered its final defeat. Now there is no one who is free, no one who is privileged. We all slave under the lash of those old lies, ‘liberté, egalité, fraternité’, lost in the delusions of some long dead frenchmen. I can almost hear them cackle knowingly on the breeze.

A hallmark of existentialism, and particularly that of Nietzsche, is that things do change. Nietzsche expected complete internal and personal change, as we see advocated all throughout Thus Spoke Zarathustra with the Overman. You can hardly turn a page in that work without some reference to radical change. In section five of Zarathustra's Prologue we see Zarathustra state in reference to the Overman, "I say to you: one must still have chaos in oneself to give birth to a dancing star. I say unto you: you still have chaos in yourselves." And it becomes even more clear in the chapter On The Three Metamorphoses (the title is pretty self-explanatory here) which is all about radical change; not just internally but radical change in regards to the world around you as well.

The most ironic thing in this first section of your post is that you spoke of everyone being under the "yoke" of the government - in the same work we've been covering, in the chapter titled On The Way of the Creator, Nietzsche stated, "You call yourself free? Your dominant thought I want to hear, and not that you have escaped from a yoke. Are you one of those who had the right to escape from a yoke? There are some who threw away their last value when they escaped from servitude." The yoke Nietzsche was referring to here was that of religion and/or government. The very "yoke of tyranny" that you spoke of. And yet to Nietzsche, it was inconsequential. Having or not having this yoke didn't change a thing. If you still have this "yoke of tyranny" and this lash pounding down on you, it is because you didn't make the existential decision to throw off your yoke. Not because it is impossible, and not because everyone is under this yoke like you claim.

Since Thus Spoke Zarathustra applies mostly to Nietzsche's concepts of the Overman, it may not seem to address your statements about if revolutions work or not. Now, the fact that we've had working revolutions and rebellions in history since the 60s all throughout the world should give a pretty concrete example that they do work, and I'm not sure why the 60s would be applicable as evidence that they don't work, so we really don't need any philosophical arguments that say "nuh uh, they do too." History has shown us that they continue to work today. I'd still like to point out that Nietzsche did believe in rebellions and revolutions working and massive ideological changes in society as a result. One hallmark of Nietzsche's writings that illustrated this point is what he wrote about God.

In Nietzsche's Second Essay in the Geneaology of Morals he wrote, "This man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal...this Antichrist and antinihilist; this victor over God and nothingess - he must come one day." Keep in mind that this was the response to an essay entirely dedicated to religion and beliefs in deities - and how they will actually fall. Nietzsche believed in a very real and upcoming revolution in the moral and religious paradigm, and dedicated a large portion of his writings to it.

The most contrary thing to Nietzsche's philosophy in this first section was the statement that no one is free. One of the things that characterizes existentialism is freedom; its very difficult to create a situation that says "no one is free" and align it with any form of existentialism. Nietzsche defined the truly free man, and he stated this was the superior man as well.

"What is the seal of attained Freedom? No longer being ashamed in front of oneself." - Seventy-Five Aphorisms, 275, The Gay Science.
"We discover the ripest fruit is the soverign individual, like only to himself, liberated again from morality of custom, autonomous and supramoral (for "autonomous" and "moral" are mutually exclusive), in short, the man who has his own independent, protracted will and the right to make promises... This emancipated individual, with the actual right to make promises, this master of a free will, this soverign man - how should he not be aware of his superiority over all those who lack the right to make promises and stand as their own guarantors..." - Geneaology of Morals, Second Essay

Hopefully this helps clear up some misconceptions about Nietzsche. I'll address the rest later when I'm not so tired. Enjoy.

Some very good responses, particularly those relating directly to Nietzsche and his philosophy. I haven't read all of his works yet, though this sounds far closer to the message he was trying to convey.

Now, whilst Nietzsche was particularly opposed to religion, I think his ideas can be extended to any notions or entities that act in similar fashion; ie that make a human blind and dogmatic.

A point to note out though: privilege means private law. It was special rights that rulers accorded to certain followers of theirs for whatever reason they deemed necessary. Privileges in this literal form are rare in Western societies, if not almost obsolete.


A bit off topic: does anyone know any good, contemporary works justifying the basis of Human rights? I know that Sartre wrote on the matter, and so did many others, but is there anything particularly substantial written nearer to the present?

"A slightly Nietzschean Rant"

Oh for God's sake! Get OVER yourself! Besides, Nietzsche was an idiot.

Besides, Nietz[sch]e was an idiot.

Indeed, and a brutish authoritarian who idolized slavery and massacres.

Indeed, and a brutish authoritarian who idolized slavery and massacres.
So anything useful he said is worthless then?

"A slightly Nietzschean Rant"

Oh for God's sake! Get OVER yourself! Besides, Nietze was an idiot.
Least he could spell his name twice in a row with out getting tripped up.

dude, you need to get laid.
Indeed! That, and a big dose of...

http://xs74.xs.to/pics/06131/prozac1.jpg (http://xs.to)

Least he could spell his name twice in a row with out getting tripped up.
:p

I changed it, you doof! :p

Indeed, and a brutish authoritarian who idolized slavery and massacres.
You know, I've explained to you at least three times why this isn't true, but you have never listened to me. Why is that?

Some very good responses, particularly those relating directly to Nietzsche and his philosophy. I haven't read all of his works yet, though this sounds far closer to the message he was trying to convey.

Now, whilst Nietzsche was particularly opposed to religion, I think his ideas can be extended to any notions or entities that act in similar fashion; ie that make a human blind and dogmatic.

A point to note out though: privilege means private law. It was special rights that rulers accorded to certain followers of theirs for whatever reason they deemed necessary. Privileges in this literal form are rare in Western societies, if not almost obsolete.


A bit off topic: does anyone know any good, contemporary works justifying the basis of Human rights? I know that Sartre wrote on the matter, and so did many others, but is there anything particularly substantial written nearer to the present?

20th century political philosophy is not my specialty, but offhand the only people I can think of who justify human rights in modern writing are Rand and Martin Luther King Jr. Most recent political philosophy either tends to be dismissive of rights (Strauss), casts it in terms of larger values (Rawls), or simply offer descriptive characterizations of rights (Kelsen, Hart). The dominant view today in legal theory is that of legal realism, which simply does not mix well with the Lockean notion of abstract rights and privileges inherent in the individual.

20th century political philosophy is not my specialty, but offhand the only people I can think of who justify human rights in modern writing are Rand and Martin Luther King Jr. Most recent political philosophy either tends to be dismissive of rights (Strauss), casts it in terms of larger values (Rawls), or simply offer descriptive characterizations of rights (Kelsen, Hart). The dominant view today in legal theory is that of legal realism, which simply does not mix well with the Lockean notion of abstract rights and privileges inherent in the individual.
Hmm I'll look into them, thanks. :) I wonder what the justification behind Human rights is then. :confused:

Hmm I'll look into them, thanks. :) I wonder what the justification behind Human rights is then. :confused:

Same as it was in Locke's day: people have the right to life because in the state of nature, it is a given that a rational person would fight to the death to preserve his life. By extension, it is also a given that he will fight for the liberty and material property necessary to sustain that life.

Just because Locke is an aging thinker doesn't mean that his 2nd Treatise on Government isn't still the seminal work in liberal political thinking.

Same as it was in Locke's day: people have the right to life because in the state of nature, it is a given that a rational person would fight to the death to preserve his life. By extension, it is also a given that he will fight for the liberty and material property necessary to sustain that life.

Just because Locke is an aging thinker doesn't mean that his 2nd Treatise on Government isn't still the seminal work in liberal political thinking.
I see. I'll look into it.

You know, I've explained to you at least three times why this isn't true, but you have never listened to me. Why is that?

You have?