Is any ex truly out?

[Gottabrain]

I'm with TAJ on this one.

What is it that some men like about Nietzsche, anyway? He was such a misogynist, I can't stand him. Here's some examples:

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. - Fredrich Nietzsche

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality. - Friedrich Nietzsche

You are going to women? Do not forget the whip! - Friedrich Nietzsche

Sure, he could be witty sometimes, but always with such a dark, negative spin, too.

The man obviously had some serious problems in his interpersonal relationships. His writings say "PERSONAL FAIL" all over them. Not someone anyone would seek out for advice on getting along with others or having a happy relationship.

Kind of like Hubbard that way.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

I'm with TAJ on this one.

What is it that some men like about Nietzsche, anyway? He was such a misogynist, I can't stand him. ...

It was the 19th century. You wouldn't have liked ANY of the men. Nietzsche was actually better than most.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

It was the 19th century. You wouldn't have liked ANY of the men. Nietzsche was actually better than most.


Mark A. Baker

Lol! You have a point, but it's clear in Nietzche's writings that some of the men treated their women like goddesses and put them on pedestals and Nietzsche didn't like that a bit.

Obviously, neither viewpoint is correct, they're both so extreme. It does make it difficult for any modern woman to respect Nietzsche, though, when his comments about over half the population were so far off the mark.

Jesus had a way cooler attitude, despite living centuries earlier. Paul the Roman was terrible, though.

 

[TheRealNoUser]

What about Homo Novis?

 

[Gottabrain]

You clearly possess depths which I do not claim fully to know.


Mark A. Baker

Thanks, Mark. I think. :confused2: Je sens la même manière au sujet de vous.

 

[Lone Star]

Nonetheless, I don't confuse passion which arises from suffering with reason. They are not even remotely similar and arguments based on passion should not be accorded the same respect as reason as such are innately non-rational.


Mark A. Baker

Passion was the foundation of movements such as the Crusades, Nazism, Bolshevism then Stalinism, Hezbollah, Al Quaeda, Christian Fundamentalism, etc...

What's wrong with that?


"Come now, let us reason together," saith the Lord. --Isaiah 1:18

 

[HelluvaHoax!]

There are plenty of others who are fascinated with the destructive aspects of hubbard's writing. For myself, I prefer to look at how scientology practices can be used to benefit myself and others. That is what interested me in the topic originally. Moreover, I have no personal interest in seeking to destroy others. And unlike some, I am not and have never been on any type of crusade. Not my thing. Mark A. Baker

Oh yeah, those 8,700 posts you made promoting the good results people can attain (the same wins you would want others to have as your own) using L. Ron Hubbard's spiritual technology would not be a "personal interest" or a "crusade". lololol

Cool, wishing you success on your upcoming book when it comes out. A dictionary with made-up definitions for words should be extremely useful for people who get into situations where things they have said or written do not make any sense.

 

[uniquemand]

What about Homo Novis?

Never met the guy, and what's your problem with homos?

 

[uniquemand]

I'm with TAJ on this one.

What is it that some men like about Nietzsche, anyway? He was such a misogynist, I can't stand him. Here's some examples:

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. - Fredrich Nietzsche

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality. - Friedrich Nietzsche

You are going to women? Do not forget the whip! - Friedrich Nietzsche

Sure, he could be witty sometimes, but always with such a dark, negative spin, too.

The man obviously had some serious problems in his interpersonal relationships. His writings say "PERSONAL FAIL" all over them. Not someone anyone would seek out for advice on getting along with others or having a happy relationship.

Kind of like Hubbard that way.

He absolutely loved women, especially his sister.

Listen, I LOVED Nietzsche, which is why I named my son Zarathustra. The reason I loved his writing is because it was a challenge to conventional thinking. Yes, he was addled with syphilis, but come on, it's not his fault the bitch was sick!

 

[Lone Star]

He absolutely loved women, especially his sister.

Listen, I LOVED Nietzsche, which is why I named my son Zarathustra. The reason I loved his writing is because it was a challenge to conventional thinking. Yes, he was addled with syphilis, but come on, it's not his fault the bitch was sick!

 

[Gottabrain]

He absolutely loved women, especially his sister.

Listen, I LOVED Nietzsche, which is why I named my son Zarathustra. The reason I loved his writing is because it was a challenge to conventional thinking. Yes, he was addled with syphilis, but come on, it's not his fault the bitch was sick!

Apparently his sister was about as sharp as a bowling ball. After Nietzsche's death, she hired someone to teach her his philosophy, but after a few months the man gave up and said it was impossible.

Not a good example to the man.

I do admire Nietzsche for his unwavering fight against anti-semitism in Germany at a time when it was rampant. He also introduced some new concepts to Philosophy.

S

 

[Veda]

I'm with TAJ on this one.

What is it that some men like about Nietzsche, anyway? He was such a misogynist, I can't stand him. Here's some examples:

Ah, women. They make the highs higher and the lows more frequent. - Fredrich Nietzsche

When a woman has scholarly inclinations there is usually something wrong with her sexuality. - Friedrich Nietzsche

You are going to women? Do not forget the whip! - Friedrich Nietzsche

Sure, he could be witty sometimes, but always with such a dark, negative spin, too.

The man obviously had some serious problems in his interpersonal relationships. His writings say "PERSONAL FAIL" all over them. Not someone anyone would seek out for advice on getting along with others or having a happy relationship.

Kind of like Hubbard that way.

"Goodness and badness... have no other basis than opinion."

Hubbard. Axiom 31​

Ubermensch, Superman, Homo Novis, Clear, Operating Thetan, Kha Khan, Total Freedom, Total Power

Interviewer: "What about your second wife?"

Hubbard: "I never had a second wife."

 

[Gottabrain]

Ubermensch, Superman, Homo Novis, Clear, Operating Thetan, Kha Khan, Total Freedom, Total Power

Interviewer: "What about your second wife?"

Hubbard: "I never had a second wife."

Thanks, Veda.

Seems to me that some of Nietzche's thinking and literature affected German attitudes at the time that led to World Wars I and II. The concept that there would be a rise of a race of superheroes, etc. And yet he was against antisemitism. Yet the Germans latched onto both ideas in a terrible combination.

Very destructive thinking. And false.

Genetic research has proven that limiting genetic lines weakens them and results in a concentration of the worst physical illness and characteristics. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbreeding
Whether its dogs that are overbred and consistently have poor hips and unpredictable temperaments, Queen Victoria's hemophilic genetic line or Charles II's genetic physical, intellectual, sexual, and emotional problems, the evidence is solid that only by diversity do people or breeds become stronger and healthier.

 

[uniquemand]

Nietzsche's thoughts on the ubermensch were very misunderstood. He used a lot of allegory, and referred to them as being "blond beasts", or some such, and Hitler took that to mean germanic with blond hair. Nietzsche was not a prophet, he wasn't predicting the coming of godlike beings. He was describing the function of a person who achieved enlightenment and acted from that perspective, with no superpowers (though in his allegory, the superpowers were sometimes present, as in "Thus Spake Zarathustra").

What lesser minds made of a great mind's work is not Nietzsche's problem. It'd be like blaming the Buddha for atrocities that a Buddhist (or someone who thought they were a Buddhist) did in his name.

 

[Veda]

Nietzsche's thoughts on the ubermensch were very misunderstood. He used a lot of allegory, and referred to them as being "blond beasts", or some such, and Hitler took that to mean germanic with blond hair. Nietzsche was not a prophet, he wasn't predicting the coming of godlike beings. He was describing the function of a person who achieved enlightenment and acted from that perspective, with no superpowers (though in his allegory, the superpowers were sometimes present, as in "Thus Spake Zarathustra").

What lesser minds made of a great mind's work is not Nietzsche's problem. It'd be like blaming the Buddha for atrocities that a Buddhist (or someone who thought they were a Buddhist) did in his name.

All night arguments about Nietzsche have been occurring in college dorms for a long time - almost as long as arguments about Ayn Rand and Objectivism. Nothing has ever been resolved.

By the way, the answer to the question: "Is any ex truly out?" is "Yes."

Those with a social conscience, and with an understanding of the Scientology labyrinth, may choose to help others to also be free of Scientology.

 

[Gottabrain]

Nietzsche's thoughts on the ubermensch were very misunderstood. He used a lot of allegory, and referred to them as being "blond beasts", or some such, and Hitler took that to mean germanic with blond hair. Nietzsche was not a prophet, he wasn't predicting the coming of godlike beings. He was describing the function of a person who achieved enlightenment and acted from that perspective, with no superpowers (though in his allegory, the superpowers were sometimes present, as in "Thus Spake Zarathustra").

What lesser minds made of a great mind's work is not Nietzsche's problem. It'd be like blaming the Buddha for atrocities that a Buddhist (or someone who thought they were a Buddhist) did in his name.

Of course Nietzsche was not responsible for how people interpret things to suit their own prejudices and short-mindedness, but the concept was flawed in the first place.

Also, don't you think this is a bit shocking?

"With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is... it is also the deepest, born out of an innermost wealth of truth..." - Ecce Homo, Preface, Para 4, trans. Walter Kaufmann

Doesn't that sound JUST like L Ron Hubbard?

And just like L Ron, Nietzsche focuses on a 'supreme will to power' and considers the best characteristics of humanity and Christianity, things such as compassion, human pity and mercy, to be weaknesses. They even died similarly.

It's no surprise that German militants found it inspirational. I would not want a world of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, nor a world of OTs, nor any of these inhuman sort of people who consider power is the be all and end all.

I think it's quite immature, actually.

 

[Mark A. Baker]

Doesn't that sound JUST like L Ron Hubbard? ...

No. Nietzsche was supremely literate and original in his thought. And it doesn't require agreement to appreciate his work.


Mark A. Baker

 

[Gottabrain]

No. Nietzsche was supremely literate and original in his thought. And it doesn't require agreement to appreciate his work.


Mark A. Baker

Original for its time - definitely. And he certainly was literate. Many of his views are Darwininian, though, without modern genetic research to disprove his Ubermensch ideas.

It may not be popular but it is a genetic fact that diversity causes strength, not the other way around. Building an entire philosophy around that would be something new and refreshing. Want to have a go?

Striving to greater heights is, in itself, a good concept.

Added: By the way, he and Darwin lived at the same time period. Darwin was older and Nietzsche displays a lot of Darwin influence.

 

[uniquemand]

Of course Nietzsche was not responsible for how people interpret things to suit their own prejudices and short-mindedness, but the concept was flawed in the first place.

Also, don't you think this is a bit shocking?

"With [Thus Spoke Zarathustra] I have given mankind the greatest present that has ever been made it so far. This book, with a voice bridging centuries, is not only the highest book there is... it is also the deepest, born out of an innermost wealth of truth..." - Ecce Homo, Preface, Para 4, trans. Walter Kaufmann

Doesn't that sound JUST like L Ron Hubbard?

And just like L Ron, Nietzsche focuses on a 'supreme will to power' and considers the best characteristics of humanity and Christianity, things such as compassion, human pity and mercy, to be weaknesses. They even died similarly.

It's no surprise that German militants found it inspirational. I would not want a world of Nietzsche's Ubermensch, nor a world of OTs, nor any of these inhuman sort of people who consider power is the be all and end all.

I think it's quite immature, actually.

Remember, the comments about the book were by Walter Kaufman, not by Nietzsche.

Understanding what he meant by "the will to power", IMO, is an endeavor. He wasn't talking about a desire for godlike superpowers. Instead, he was talking about the capacity to form intentions, IMO, and to then execute your will, rather than suffering Hamlet-itis.

Misunderstanding is common of him, both by his translators and by the editors, and by the public.

Zarathustra, the "Overman", wasn't supposed to be some sort of inhuman killing machine, or incapable of warmth. Instead, he was supposed to see the truth of things, not be affected by appeals to emotion (in the logical fallacy sense, not in the sense of being insensate to emotion). You don't have to like Nietzsche, and I can understand that, though I have liked a lot of what he wrote, I certainly objected to things, also. Been a while, so it's hard to be more specific, but if you ARE going to comment on him, please do so with the same erudition you'd give to commentary on psychology or scientology.

 

[Gottabrain]

No. Nietzsche was supremely literate and original in his thought. And it doesn't require agreement to appreciate his work.


Mark A. Baker

I like this:

"Henceforth, my dear philosophers, let us be on guard against the dangerous old conceptual fiction that posited a "pure, will-less, painless, timeless knowing subject"; let us guard against the snares of such contradictory concepts as "pure reason," absolute spirituality," "knowledge in itself": these always demand that we should think of an eye that is completely unthinkable, an eye turned in no particular direction, in which the active and interpreting forces, through which alone seeing becomes seeing something, are supposed to be lacking; these always demand of the eye an absurdity and a nonsense. There is only a perspective seeing, only a perspective "knowing"; and the more affects we allow to speak about one thing, the more eyes, different eyes, we can use to observe one thing, the more complete will our "concept" of this thing, our "objectivity," be. But to eliminate the will altogether, to suspend each and every affect, supposing we were capable of this -- what would that mean but to castrate the intellect?

from Nietzsche's The Genealogy of Morals, s III.12, Walter"

This is more in line with what I think.

Can't say I'm flash on his negatives views of what I see as the best characteristics of mankind. Nietsche didn't believe in compassion and love. Maybe he didn't experience it much in his life, maybe he shunned it, but I don't know any higher redeeming or healing trait than love - to provide that support & be supported, to see someone glow and grow and to know you were part of it. To receive it and share it - Ahhh... that is where the will is eliminated and we experience that sense of being part of something so much higher, so much bigger, the beautiful interaction with others and all conflict disappears.

Perhaps Nietzsche strived all his life for this one thing, but he was blocked from his own philosophy from obtaining it. Sad.