Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (109 of them)
Neitzche suffers from the same misdirected bad reputation as Machiavelli. Are anti-gun lobbyists fascists or killers merely because they expose the bullshit ideology of the NRA for what it is? False morality should always be pointed out.

Tim, Monday, 13 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

But Neitsche bought into his delusions.

anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Not a fascist (the most boring cliche used by people who haven't read more than 10 pages of Nietzsche), and not a bad writer, actually I would say he is one the best writer ever. And yes Freud clearly was influenced by Nietzsche. Not too sure if N. was a muso though ;)

I buy into my own delusions too :)

Omar, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

I have read Man and Superman. The whole fucking thing. I still think he is facist. Maybe i will read it again . Sources for the Freud thing please.

anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

e represents a philosophical school that had never been given the legitimacy of thought before. It's complete anti-humanism, dressed up as super-humanism. With the delusion that there can be something greater than humans, he advocates a return to a brutal, power driven method of existence. Throw us to the wolves, and the ones who survive are supermen.

anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Look, I say this in a kind way ;) but what is this Man and Superman thing? I don't remember a book with that title. Sources? Too little time I'm afraid but if you're really interested you could do a bit of searching on the web using Nietzsche + Freud + influence. Maybe I'm going to sneak a query right now.

Omar, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

My copy of will to power is titled Man and Superman . So is Davids. I may be wrong.

anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Fuck it . I am so wrong and stupid. I know nothing . I can no longer bullshit. Let me go back and reread. then i will get back to you Omar.

anthony, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

Don't worry Anthony ;)

Within a couple of minutes I find, Freud on Nietzsche:

"a philosopher whose guesses and intuitions often agree in the most astonishing way with the laborious findings of psychoanalysis."

you find that quote and further reading at this site

did that link work? Also for an interesting connection see Foucault's rather good essay 'Nietzsche, Freud, Marx'.

Omar, Tuesday, 14 August 2001 00:00 (sixteen years ago) Permalink

six months pass...
A few months too late but so what.

Yes I'm afraid N was an unapologetic misogynist. I'm not really sure what a fascist is so I won't comment on that.

As for being a depressive or a joyful fellow, he was both. I haven't come across a single book or article that's mentioned it but it seems obvious to me that N was a Manic Depressive. He experienced delusions of grandeur well before the onset of syphillis.

72% classic for the exuberant "manic" stuff e.g. The Gay Science and Thus Spake Zarathustra and 28% dud for the misogyny.

Btw, Man and Superman is a play by George Bernard Shaw.

Chris, Friday, 1 March 2002 01:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

four months pass...
Thread Revival:

"We children of the future, how could we be at home in this today? We feel disfavor for all ideals that might lead one to feel at home even in this fragile, broken time of transition; as for its "realities", we do not believe that they will last. [...] We "conserve" nothing; neither do we want to return to any past periods; we are not by any means "liberal"; we do not work for "progress"; we do not need to plug up our ears against the sirens who in the market place sing of the future: their song about "equal rights", "a free society", "no more masters and servants" has no allure for us. [...] Is it not clear that with all of this we are bound to feel ill at ease in an age that likes to claim the distinction of being the most humane, the mildest, and the most righteous age that the sun has ever seen? [...] We who are homeless are too manifold and mixed racially and in our descent, being "modern men", and consequently do not feel tempted to participate in the mendacious racial self-admiration and racial indecency that parades in Germany today as a sign of a German way of thinking [...]. [...] The hidden Yes in you is stronger than all Nos and Maybes that afflict you and your age like a disease; and when you have to embark on the sea, you emigrants, you, too, are compelled to this by -- a faith!


Alternatively: suggest good books for beginning to make sense of Nietzsche. Esp. in relation to Heidegger and the overcoming of metaphysics; poetry; the 'homeless' condition.

alext, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

blimey n. is a LOT easier to make sense of than fkn heidegger!! i wd start with the books he wrote himself...?

mark s, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

wow! the hidden Yes in you!

mark s i was not aware that the Spotted Dastoor had such a specialization.

alext there's a book called Discourse Networks by Friedrich Kittler that puts Nietszche at the fulcrum of the great see-saw between classical and modernist modes of thinking, a marker for the modern project of identifying points of failure as the defining characteristics of a system. it's a very good book and wild to read because it's a German spin on French theory, with all German primary (and secondary) sources. though I'll be danged if I can understand it all. $5 American for anyone who can tell me what a 'norn born' is.

Tracer Hand, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Thanks Tracer -- I'll have a look for it. To clarify my earlier q.s re: mark's comments, there's lots of v. interesting work on the place of N in the political and philosophical developments in H's work in the 30s and 40s, but I'm not so clear on how H's N relates to other people's N or to N himself. (I find N tougher than H, personally.) But I have found an excellent-looking article by Howard Caygill which I think clears some of this stuff up. I was more wondering whether anyone had read and found useful eg. Simmel, Klossowski, Bataille, Vattimo or Deleuze on N. since all have famous books in (more-or-less recent) English translations which might serve by way of introduction. My introduction was via Jackie D and H of course, before getting stuck into the originals some time last year.

alext, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

Nietzche is the specific cure for a small list of personality ailments. The same could be said for rhubarb. For those in a state of ruddy health, Nietzche is pedantic, tedious, and as overblown as a bullfrog. The same could be said for Thoreau.

Little Nipper, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

little nipper that is the best post of the day!!

mark s, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

nietzsche is da uberfag

Queen of the young uns who ask what exactly is rimminG, Tuesday, 2 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

"Sexual love betrays itself most clearly as a lust for possession: the lover desires unconditional and sole possession of the person for whom he longs; he desires equally unconditional power over the soul and over the body of the beloved; he alone wants to be loved and desires to live and rule in the other soul as supreme nad supremely desirable. If one considers that this means nothing less than *excluding* the whole world from a precious good, from happiness and enjoyment; if one considers that the lover aims at the impoverishment and deprivation of all competitors and would like to become the dragon guarding his golden hoard as the most inconsiderate and selfish of all 'conquerors' and exploiters; if one considers, finally, that to the lover himself the whole rest of the world appears indifferent, pale, and worthless, and he is prepared to make any sacrifice, to disturb any order, to subordinate all other interests -- then one comes to feel genuine astonishment that this wild avarice and injustice of sexual love has been glorified and deified so much in all ages -- indeed, that this love has furnished the concept of love as the opposite of egoism while it actually may be the most ingenuous expression of egoism"

K-blimey I'm enjoying this book!!!

alext, Friday, 5 July 2002 00:00 (fifteen years ago) Permalink

six years pass...

Where's a good place to start with Nietzsche? 'Birth of Tragedy'? or 'Zarathustra'?

Chelvis, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

sorry wrong thread

provincial rube. Which you are (negotiable), Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

On the contrary...

Ich Ber ein Binliner (Tom D.), Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

right thread

harbl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

oops :(

harbl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:32 (nine years ago) Permalink

Best place to start is Twilight of the Idols then maybe Beyond Good and Evil.

NickB, Thursday, 23 October 2008 11:59 (nine years ago) Permalink

depends on where you're coming from and what you want out of it

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 12:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah but then Twilight of the Idols would probably be a good place to start for anyone. Maybe also Ecce Homo, for further lols and springboarding into other areas. I wouldn't start with either Birth of Tragedy (unless you feel like tracing the development of his thought in detail) or Zarathustra.

Merdeyeux, Thursday, 23 October 2008 13:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

beyond good and evil, then genealogy, then gay science, then zarathustra, and then, well, whatever you like I guess....

jackl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 13:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'd say The Gay Science.

ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

i started with genealogy of morality and i think its as good a place to start as any--pretty good summation of ntz's late thoughts on religion, politics, morality, to some extent 'metaphysics'

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:30 (nine years ago) Permalink

i think gay science and zarathustra are great places to start, so im not sure why people are saying not to, but its fair to point out that theyre very 'poetic' and not quite as direct as something like birth of tragedy or genealogy

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

sometimes i tell people to start with Heidegger's lecture course on nietzsche just to spite them.

ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:36 (nine years ago) Permalink

what a mean intellectual trick to play on them u bad grad student

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:38 (nine years ago) Permalink

you know, come to think of it, that's not a bad place to start!

ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 14:44 (nine years ago) Permalink

He does have some valid points, but when he expands on women... I run for cover.

^^^ this is OTM

ℵℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜ℘! (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:01 (nine years ago) Permalink

In many cases, to be sure, "peace of soul" is merely a misunderstanding—something else, which lacks only a more honest name. Without further ado or prejudice, a few examples. "Peace of soul" can be, for one, the gentle radiation of a rich animality into the moral (or religious) sphere. Or the beginning of weariness, the first shadow of evening, of any kind of evening. Or a sign that the air is humid, that south winds are approaching. Or unrecognized gratitude for a good digestion (sometimes called "love of man").

^ I still love shit like this tho looool

ℵℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜℜ℘! (Curt1s Stephens), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Read Walter Kauffman's book(s) on him(incl. the _Existentialism from Dosteovsky to..._). Kauffman also did the better translations of the guy.

Kauffman's zinger: "Everything Nietzsche knew about women was second-hand and third-rate."

Somewhat unrelated note, but Kauffman taught the guy whose classes on philosophy/existentialism I took as while still a young dorkling at Michigan.

obama cyber leader (kingfish), Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:05 (nine years ago) Permalink

Definitely the Genealogy of Morality. I teach it in my Intro courses almost every semester. Skip Book II on first reading, though; that's not where the action is.

Euler, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:06 (nine years ago) Permalink

there is hell of action in book II--

We Germans certainly do not think of ourselves as an especially cruel and hard-hearted people, even less as particularly careless people who live only in the present. But just take a look at our old penal code in order to understand how much trouble it takes on this earth to breed a “People of Thinkers” (by that I mean the European people among whom today we still find a maximum of trust, seriousness, tastelessness, and practicality, and who, with these characteristics, have a right to breed all sorts of European mandarins). These Germans have used terrible means to make themselves a memory in order to attain mastery over their vulgar basic instincts and their brutal crudity: think of the old German punishments, for example, stoning ( — the legend even lets the mill stone fall on the head of the guilty person), breaking on the wheel (the most characteristic invention and specialty of the German genius in the realm of punishment!), impaling on a stake, ripping people apart or stamping them to death with horses (“quartering”), boiling the criminal in oil or wine (still done in the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries), the well-loved practice of flaying (“cutting flesh off in strips”), carving flesh out of the chest, and probably covering the offender with honey and leaving him to the flies in the burning sun.

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

definitely the grossest essay in the book

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:08 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw if ur looking for good secondaries i recommend this bad boy highly:

i like kaufmann a lot, and appreciate what he did for american nietzsche scholarship, but i think he misses a lot of what is totally awesome about nietzsche's thought.

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:13 (nine years ago) Permalink

Putting the Bosch back into the Boche up there.

NickB, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:16 (nine years ago) Permalink

I'm pretty fond of the end of Book I, when he quotes Aquinas and Tertullian to the effect that Christians long to see the wicked tortured eternally in hell, and so they're just as fond of power and cruelty as the "beasts of prey" Nietzsche favors. But in 1.5 hours I will teach the part of Book III on the Assassins to our majors, and that is probably my favorite bit in anything N wrote.

Euler, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:21 (nine years ago) Permalink

surprised by the lack of BGE love!

jackl, Thursday, 23 October 2008 16:25 (nine years ago) Permalink

thanks max that looks like a good read!

ryan, Thursday, 23 October 2008 20:48 (nine years ago) Permalink

i like BGE. also i have kaufmann's philosopher psychologist antichrist book and it's v. good and made me smarter

horrible (harbl), Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

yeah but u dont like peter gabriel so is ur opinion really worth anything at all

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

jk like i said i like kaufmann i just think sticking with kaufmann solo is going to give u a very one-sided reading

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:11 (nine years ago) Permalink

btw robert allison who wrote "reading the new nietzsche" is also the editor of this way cool little book:

which i have never finished

max, Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:15 (nine years ago) Permalink

Our publisher just quoted Nietzsche in the monthly letter he sends out announcing who won the cartoon contest.

Dr Morbius, Thursday, 23 October 2008 21:29 (nine years ago) Permalink

School me on this eternal return business. Isn't it just another afterlife we're being offered?

NickB, Friday, 24 October 2008 08:07 (nine years ago) Permalink

not really, just a lot more of THIS life.

ryan, Saturday, 25 October 2008 03:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

milo i havent read anything solomon's written except for an essay on nietzsche and postmodernism which (imo) is quite a good reading of nietzsche and quite a bad reading of 'postmodernism.'

max, Saturday, 25 October 2008 15:22 (nine years ago) Permalink

i highly recommend this website for the pictures running down the right hand margin:

max, Saturday, 25 October 2008 15:24 (nine years ago) Permalink

The pride connected with knowing and sensing lies like a blinding fog over the eyes and senses of men, thus deceiving them concerning the value of existence.

Are designations congruent with things? Is language the adequate expression of all realities?

Without art we would be nothing but foreground and live entirely in the spell of that perspective which makes what is closest at hand and most vulgar appear as if it were vast, and reality itself.

max, Saturday, 25 October 2008 15:27 (nine years ago) Permalink

We have no dreams at all or interesting ones. We should learn to be awake the same way — not at all or in an interesting manner.

Only by forgetting that he himself is an artistically creating subject, does man live with any repose, security, and consistency...

Between two absolutely different spheres, as between subject and object, there is no causality, no correctness, and no expression; there is, at most, an aesthetic relation...

max, Saturday, 25 October 2008 15:31 (nine years ago) Permalink

seven months pass...

You have called,
Lord, I rush
With circumspection
To the steps of your throne.
Glowing with love,
Your glance shines into
My heart so dearly,
So painfully:
Lord, I come

I was lost,
lurching drunken,
Tossed to hell and torment -
You stood from afar:
Your glance met me often
So ineffably,
So movingly: now I come gladly.

I feel a shudder
From the sin, the
Abyss of night
And dare not look backward.
I cannot leave you -
In the terrible nights
I look at you sadly
And must hold you.

You are so gentle,
Faithful and sincere,
Genuinely earnest,
Dear saviour image for sinners!
Quell my desire -
My feelings and thinking -
To immerse myself, to devote myself
To your love.

-- Nietzsche, 1861

ogmor, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 06:14 (eight years ago) Permalink

19th Century German wrote religious poem whilst schoolkid shocker.

I Got Great Gusto, but Only Some I Can Trust Yo (Noodle Vague), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 07:02 (eight years ago) Permalink

19th c. German whose Vater was a priest.

Enemy Insects (NickB), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 08:03 (eight years ago) Permalink

Old Nietszche the preacher.

Enemy Insects (NickB), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 08:04 (eight years ago) Permalink

Oh fuck typo.

Enemy Insects (NickB), Tuesday, 2 June 2009 08:05 (eight years ago) Permalink

Have a bone: spot the difference with another 'religious poem' from a 19th Century German youth -

Ah! that life of all the dead,
Hallelujahs that I hear,
Make my hair stand on my head,
And my soul is sick with fear.

For, when everything is severed
And the play of forces done,
When our sufferings fade for ever.
And the final goal is won,

God Eternal we must praise,
Endless hallelujahs whine,
Endless hymns of glory raise,
Know no more delight or pain.

Ha! I shudder on the stair
Leading to perfection's goal,
And I shudder when I hear,
Urging me, that death-bed call.

There can only be one Heaven,
That one's fully occupied,
We must share it with old women
Whom the teeth of Time have gnawed.

While their flesh lies underground
With decay and stones o'ershovelled,
Brightly hued, their souls hop round
In a spider-dance enravelled.

All so skinny, all so thin,
So aethereal, so chaste,
Never were their forms so lean,
Even when most tightly laced.

But I ruin the proceedings
As my hymns of praise I holler.
And the Lord God hears my screamings,
And gets hot under the collar;

Calls the highest Angel out,
Gabriel, the tall and skinny,
Who expels the noisy lout
Without further ceremony.

I just dreamed it all, you see,
Thought I faced the Court Supreme.
Good folk, don't be cross with me,
It was never sin to dream.

-- Marx, sometime pre-1837

ogmor, Tuesday, 2 June 2009 08:28 (eight years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

The moment you've been waiting for!

Ned Raggett, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 14:33 (six years ago) Permalink


ban drake (the rapper) (max), Tuesday, 10 May 2011 14:38 (six years ago) Permalink

karl lagerfeld is an intersting guy.

Introducing the Hardline According to (jim in glasgow), Tuesday, 10 May 2011 14:41 (six years ago) Permalink

actual unintentional typo.

Introducing the Hardline According to (jim in glasgow), Tuesday, 10 May 2011 14:41 (six years ago) Permalink

can't wait 2 read in its entirety

am0n, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 14:48 (six years ago) Permalink

...and this finally fulfills my prediction of Nietzsche as the favourite philosopher of haidressers and tailors of the new millennium. :)

Marco Damiani, Tuesday, 10 May 2011 15:47 (six years ago) Permalink

one year passes...

rereading him now I wonder whether The Birth of Tragedy is really the most vivid, powerful, and unsettling thing he ever wrote.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 May 2012 01:16 (five years ago) Permalink

in a career full of vivid, powerful, and unsettling things.

Exile in lolville (Alfred, Lord Sotosyn), Thursday, 24 May 2012 01:16 (five years ago) Permalink

aw, thought this would be a joey barton revive

pet tommy & the barkhaters (darraghmac), Thursday, 24 May 2012 01:26 (five years ago) Permalink

four years pass...

Been wrestling with this guy's ideas and their implications for nearly 10 years now and I think that ultimately although I see the force in a lot of/perhaps all of what he says, I can never bring myself to feel wholeheartedly 'on his side'. I can't help but still hope for refutations of at least parts of his worldview even though I doubt that this is possible (and is certainly not something I'm capable of myself).

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:29 (eleven months ago) Permalink

he wasn't even totally on his side. that's his secret. his final advantage.

Treeship, Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:31 (eleven months ago) Permalink

For the sake of full disclosure I'm not and never have been a Christian, and don't believe in any kind of God, so that's not the direction I'm coming at it from.

Perhaps I can draw it out a bit like... I can't help but suspect that those who avowedly consider themselves progressive/liberal/left-leaning while also proclaiming themselves as Nietzscheans must either be cherry-picking in their readings or else just comfortable living with a hefty dose of cognitive dissonance.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:34 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Or to try and be more precise (and yeah I'm aware it might sound challopsy and also the sort of 'old chestnut' dilemma that most people will have gotten over/laughed off years ago) I find it very hard to see how someone can be committed to reducing or removing inequality whilst also accepting central Nietzchean concepts. That's sort of where I'm at - viz a viz my framing of it above I'm not sure I'd even consider myself as progressive or liberal (probably not liberal?) but I do believe in equality. But I'm not sure you can square off commitment to equality with a conception of human beings as naturally divided into the strong and the weak.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:41 (eleven months ago) Permalink

I'll acknowledge (in case it wasn't bloody obvious anyway) that the rise of the alt-right has reawakened my concern about these issues, because I do feel there's a strongly Nietzchean flavour to a lot of alt-right discourse (albeit that yes, before anyone jumps in and points this out, it's complicated because alt-right discourse also contains significant elements of ressentiment that Nietzche would have identified and criticised).

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:50 (eleven months ago) Permalink

For example, the backlash against the discourse of privilege which is strong on the alt-right seems to me to be very similar to Nietzche's framing of and attack on slave-morality.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 17:52 (eleven months ago) Permalink

See also the uncomfortable resemblance between Nietzche's framing of his works as handbooks for the strong to recover and avow their strength and our contemporary culture of PUA and ~alpha male~ self-help guides.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:14 (eleven months ago) Permalink

Gorilla Mindset: A Book For Free Spirits

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:15 (eleven months ago) Permalink

There's probably some dumb psychological test you could do where you get people to read On The Genealogy Of Morals and then ask if they come away from it seeing themsleves as a master or seeing themselves as a slave.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:16 (eleven months ago) Permalink

I will probably come to regret all of the above posts very shortly - but sometimes it feels helpful to put my thoughts into writing in this way.

The boy who cried 'wolf' in a crowded theatre (Mr Andy M), Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:19 (eleven months ago) Permalink

there are tactics for overcoming racism that don't involve using guilt to impose a slave morality on the oppressor class. left wing nietzscheans would probably frame the issue that way.

Treeship, Sunday, 11 December 2016 18:22 (eleven months ago) Permalink

four months pass...

Freedom of will and isolation of facts. – Our usual imprecise mode of observation takes a group of phenomena as one and calls it a fact: between this fact and another fact it imagines in addition an empty space, it isolates every fact. In reality, however, all our doing and knowing is not a succession of facts and empty spaces but a continuous flux. Now, belief in freedom of will is incompatible precisely with the idea of a continuous, homogeneous, undivided, indivisible flowing: it presupposes that every individual action is isolate and indivisible; it is an atomism in the domain of willing and knowing. – Just as we understand characters only imprecisely, so do we also facts: we speak of identical characters, identical facts: neither exists. Now, we praise and censure, however, only under this false presupposition that there are identical facts, that there exists a graduated order of classes of facts which corresponds to a graduated world-order: thus we isolate, not only the individual fact, but also again groups of supposedly identical facts (good, evil, sympathetic, envious actions, etc.) – in both cases erroneously. – The word and the concept are the most manifest ground for our belief in this isolation of groups of actions: we do not only designate things with them, we think originally that through them we grasp the true in things. Through words and concepts we are still continually misled into imagining things as being simpler than they are, separate from one another, indivisible, each existing in and for itself. A philosophical mythology lies concealed in language which breaks out again every moment, however careful one may be otherwise. Belief in freedom of will – that is to say in identical facts and in isolated facts – has in language its constant evangelist and advocate.

Human, All Too Human, book 3, paragraph 11

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:16 (six months ago) Permalink

Right on.

jmm, Wednesday, 10 May 2017 16:30 (six months ago) Permalink

he has some good stuff about lol numbers too

AdamVania (Adam Bruneau), Wednesday, 10 May 2017 17:10 (six months ago) Permalink

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.