The evil of superiority.

[TheVisionofEr]

As someone who can think I must confess to somewhat despising you. As is the usual case in all superiority here on the earth.

Liar. Not 'somewhat' - you can't stand me.
People who worship lies hate the truth
thus people who both hold and speak truth
above all else.

Interestingly, the Nazis didn't make any official claim to superiority, not to say supramacy. Did you ever study their legal code? Alles was dem Volke nützt, ist Recht, alles was ihm schadet ist Unrecht. This says that what is of use to the German people is good. And what slows their roll, bad.

i. Nazism begins with Muhammad killing "unbelievers" for not "believing" he was receiving messages from an angel
ii. Muhammadans, like the Jews before them, believe a single book is the most "supreme" document on the face of the planet,
not to mention that the idol of Islam Muhammad (who was involved in pedophilia, polygamy, warlordry and genocide) is taken to be
the greatest role model for all of humanity, for all of time.
iii. Identity politics begins with "believer vs. unbeliever" viz. "us vs. them" and perpetual conflict, blaming and scapegoating.
iv. ~1.6B Muhammadans are being lied to by their own leaders re: where the original qibla was and/or where Islam actually began.
v. The expression you quoted is 100% Nazi supremacism "us good them bad" the same "believer vs. unbeliever" root.

I know not to "believe" that you can think....

By the way, the ability to think and make correct judgments is not a matter of vague guessing. Or "belief," so-called.

Correct judgements begins with correct view. If you can't see things for what they are ie. deny facts about reality,
your "thinking" will have nothing to do with the reality as such.

The ability to think is not a mental process, it is a conscious one: to inquire.
Who? What? Where? Why? When? How? If?

Science implies a faculty of inquiry.
Conscience implies the same: only as (or applied to) the self 'con'.
Choice includes what questions to ask, what beliefs to try/test/falsify etc.
Consciousness is the ongoing state of this.

"Belief" is not a conscious process. "I believe... " is the same as saying "I don't know..." because that is what "belief" means: unknown to any degree of certainly, however taken as and/or acted upon as 'true'. What happens if a person "believes" something that is not true, such as... they are in possession of the most supreme document on the face of the planet esp. that instructs them to kill unbelievers until there are none left?

The only thing they have is to point their fingers elsewhere and blame others. Adam did the same to Eve: he could not account for his own actions, hence the scapegoating religions of the world, including Islam which does this religiously, are nothing but the fall from humanity into barbarism, so it is reflected in their religion of cutting heads off. All because they can't stand people who actually use them, as they never learned to use their own, given they call themselves "believers" which, for reasons above, is not a conscious process.

"Lriar. Not 'somewhat' - you can't stand me.
People who worship lies hate the truth
thus people who both hold and speak truth
above all else."

Well, I would distinguish despising, as in Aristotle's advice to "despise often," from forms of animosity. Herzl, for instance, said the Jews were beenifited from having a proper enemy, thus allowing them to develop themselves properly on their peculiar superiorities or qualities. He was speaking in the context of the post-Dryfus Affair. When the belief in equality under cosmopolitan liberal laws was broken.

"Nazism begins with Muhammad killing "unbelievers" for not "believing" he was receiving messages from an angel
ii. Muhammadans, like the Jews before them, believe a single book is the most "supreme" document on the face of the planet,
not to mention that the idol of Islam Muhammad (who was involved in pedophilia, polygamy, warlordry and genocide) is taken to be
the greatest role model for all of humanity, for all of time.
iii. Identity politics begins with "believer vs. unbeliever" viz. "us vs. them" and perpetual conflict, blaming and scapegoating.
iv. ~1.6B Muhammadans are being lied to by their own leaders re: where the original qibla was and/or where Islam actually began.
v. The expression you quoted is 100% Nazi supremacism "us good them bad" the same "believer vs. unbeliever" root"

It seems better to start from some solid issue. For instance, Walther Rathenau says that no one in Germany wanted the Weimar Constitution, named for the compromise between French liberalism and Prussian culture signaled by Gothe (with his association with Weimar.) By hoisting an alien political system on Germany, the French produced a nasty situation.

"Correct judgements begins with correct view. If you can't see things for what they are ie. deny facts about reality,
your "thinking" will have nothing to do with the reality as such."

Well, the modern way of dealing with that is the so-called fact/value distinction. Belief is suspended because reproducing accuretly a series of events, an experiment, is called fact or knowledge. Bur, as soon as the experiment comes into human life, out if the laboratory, the belief about it's value comes in. Ergo, the contestation or violence of politics.

[TheVisionofEr]

Well, properly, I would say that despising excludes attacking. Attacking implies some regard.

Do you just make shit up as you go? Are you aware you're doing that?

Guy seems to have dedicated his life to formally studying philosophy, but in the end 95%+ of that knowledge is pretty worthless. Not even his fancy way of speaking, or all the drama he came up with, can change that. Must be pretty maddening, huh

Useless for what? You are very thoughtless.

[Atla]

Do you just make shit up as you go? Are you aware you're doing that?

Guy seems to have dedicated his life to formally studying philosophy, but in the end 95%+ of that knowledge is pretty worthless. Not even his fancy way of speaking, or all the drama he came up with, can change that. Must be pretty maddening, huh

Useless for what? You are very thoughtless.

Dunno, didn't use that word.

[Gary Childress]

Thus, to be superior, not to say supreme, is to attack the common by a spontaneous characteristic or drive.

Stupidity also despises and attacks... perhaps even more so.

Well, properly, I would say that despising excludes attacking. Attacking implies some regard.

I disagree. In my experience, "despising" and "attacking" generally go hand in hand. And attacking generally implies a lack of "regard" for the one being attacked.

[Sculptor]

The superior despise the lower forms of their genus. Those with weakness in the area of their exclusionary primacy. Thus, to be superior, not to say supreme, is to attack the common by a spontaneous characteristic or drive.

So you think this is "evil" then?

What about the superiority of evil
The practice of evil so often seems to win dividends that practicing so seldom does?

[nothing]

It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

Knowledge only serves to negates belief-based ignorance(s). Knowledge is not the be-all end-all. That would be consciousness.

It is possible to believe any/all things as possible, thus as having a variable grade(s) of truth hence existing as possible truths. Thus belief precedes any/all trying/testing/falsifying any/all belief(s) not (necessarily) true, thus becoming knowledge.

" I know not to believe ... " is thus as a root of any knowledge-based "tautology".

[Eodnhoj7]

It is not possible to have an all knowing state, it is only possible to believe all things as having different grades of truth hence existing as truths. This belief is the acceptance of a phenomenon for what it is as existing.

Knowledge only serves to negates belief-based ignorance(s). Knowledge is not the be-all end-all. That would be consciousness.

And what is "consciousness" without describing it and thus manifesting it as a subset of knowledge?

It is possible to believe any/all things as possible, thus as having a variable grade(s) of truth hence existing as possible truths. Thus belief precedes any/all trying/testing/falsifying any/all belief(s) not (necessarily) true, thus becoming knowledge.

" I know not to believe ... " is thus as a root of any knowledge-based "tautology".

Knowledge regresses to belief....all knowledge is justified belief

1. Knowledge is fact.
2. Fact is individuation.
3. Individuation is particulation.
4. Particulation is analysis.
5. Analysis is pattern production.
6. Pattern production is awareness.
7. Awareness is assumption.
8. Assumption is imprinting.
9. Imprinting is acceptance.
10. Acceptance is belief.
11. Knowledge is belief.

[TheVisionofEr]

Guy seems to have dedicated his life to formally studying philosophy, but in the end 95%+ of that knowledge is pretty worthless. Not even his fancy way of speaking, or all the drama he came up with, can change that. Must be pretty maddening, huh

Useless for what? You are very thoughtless.

Dunno, didn't use that word.

What word do you suppose it is meant to translate?

[TheVisionofEr]

Stupidity also despises and attacks... perhaps even more so.

Well, properly, I would say that despising excludes attacking. Attacking implies some regard.

I disagree. In my experience, "despising" and "attacking" generally go hand in hand. And attacking generally implies a lack of "regard" for the one being attacked.

In any case it is a way of speaking. In discourse to stick to terms and to speak scientificaly amounts to the bare possibility of each person saying the same thing in the same respect, or not talking over or past one another.

What Herzl points to is the situation where because of the extra-legal a imosity on the Jews in Europe a homogeneous society was not possible. But, the active tension of the opposing forces produced the nessesity to work out the Jeuden Frage in a manner that lead to Zionism being thought through with sufficient intensity to lead to the energies that brought Isreal into exsistence.

From the point of view of the Jews the term Aryan has no further content than non-Jewish (cf. Leo Strauss).

By despise I mean such things as Aristotle's saying that those who want a "why" for being just must simply be excluded from the start as the non-gentelmen. One may often, despising, give no answer to a rougish person.
Considering them "beneath notice."

To hate shows a high estimation of the stature of the other. Since they can not be ignored. But, rather, one wants their extermination.

[TheVisionofEr]

The superior despise the lower forms of their genus. Those with weakness in the area of their exclusionary primacy. Thus, to be superior, not to say supreme, is to attack the common by a spontaneous characteristic or drive.

So you think this is "evil" then?

What about the superiority of evil
The practice of evil so often seems to win dividends that practicing so seldom does?

No. I'm not passing judgment on whether it is evil/very harmful or not. But, rather, raising the subject matter for discussion.

I mean, pearls before swine is what it amounts to. Which is not obviously evil at all. But a condescension or consession to reality. Fools are always amoung us, they won't learn, thus must be wholly ignored or despised. In every endevour of life. That is a plausible account of the best strategy. Others try to overcome the watchword and risk having the Pearl of wisdom kicked around into the gutter.

In some this behaviour is instinctive. In others it is raised to a matter of principle. The modern mania for equality makes it ripe for the violence of political contestation.

[Sculptor]

The superior despise the lower forms of their genus. Those with weakness in the area of their exclusionary primacy. Thus, to be superior, not to say supreme, is to attack the common by a spontaneous characteristic or drive.

So you think this is "evil" then?

What about the superiority of evil
The practice of evil so often seems to win dividends that practicing so seldom does?

No. I'm not passing judgment on whether it is evil/very harmful or not. But, rather, raising the subject matter for discussion.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

[Gary Childress]

Well, properly, I would say that despising excludes attacking. Attacking implies some regard.

I disagree. In my experience, "despising" and "attacking" generally go hand in hand. And attacking generally implies a lack of "regard" for the one being attacked.

By despise I mean such things as Aristotle's saying that those who want a "why" for being just must simply be excluded from the start as the non-gentelmen. One may often, despising, give no answer to a rougish person.
Considering them "beneath notice."

To hate shows a high estimation of the stature of the other. Since they can not be ignored. But, rather, one wants their extermination.

Well, I suppose there are different ways people may act toward a person they despise. For some despising can lead to attacking. For others, it can simply mean one doesn't attack the despised but rather keeps his or her emotions to him or herself. However, in either case, I would say despising implies that the one despised is somehow regarded as problematic by the one who despises them. If you truly don't regard the other person in any way whatsoever, then I see no reason to even despise them. You just don't think about then at all. So I would say that despising also implies some regard toward the one despised.

[Atla]

Useless for what? You are very thoughtless.

Dunno, didn't use that word.

What word do you suppose it is meant to translate?

Not quite the same thing when it comes to philosophy, is it.

[TheVisionofEr]

So you think this is "evil" then?

What about the superiority of evil
The practice of evil so often seems to win dividends that practicing so seldom does?

No. I'm not passing judgment on whether it is evil/very harmful or not. But, rather, raising the subject matter for discussion.

If you do not regard evil as harmful then what is it?

Well, it raises a question about the regulatory ideal. By analogy with the pearls-before-swine issue, these days people talk a great deal about individualism and collectivism. And claim China does not respect the unlimited value of individual life, as in the recent report that people were made to starve to death on lock down for the general good. This, however, is a juxtipostion of the explicit western ideal, unlimited value of life, with the supposed de facto happenings in China. The de facto issue in the western countries can never rise to the ideal since it is impossible to distribute all resources in every case to a dying person. There must by "cost benifit analysis," to speak somewhat crasely.

So, should one strive to educate those who refuse or are recalcitraintly opposed to learning, as an ideal? It's not clear which is the good path. To obey the reality or "is" or to, rather, attempt to use the "ought" or ideal for the good, even towards transforming the "is" or human nature. To despise all the time is perhaps realistic, but harsh to the ear. Though, maybe it is not realistic, if reality is maliable.

[TheVisionofEr]

I disagree. In my experience, "despising" and "attacking" generally go hand in hand. And attacking generally implies a lack of "regard" for the one being attacked.

By despise I mean such things as Aristotle's saying that those who want a "why" for being just must simply be excluded from the start as the non-gentelmen. One may often, despising, give no answer to a rougish person.
Considering them "beneath notice."

To hate shows a high estimation of the stature of the other. Since they can not be ignored. But, rather, one wants their extermination.

Well, I suppose there are different ways people may act toward a person they despise. For some despising can lead to attacking. For others, it can simply mean one doesn't attack the despised but rather keeps his or her emotions to him or herself. However, in either case, I would say despising implies that the one despised is somehow regarded as problematic by the one who despises them. If you truly don't regard the other person in any way whatsoever, then I see no reason to even despise them. You just don't think about then at all. So I would say that despising also implies some regard toward the one despised.

There are often problems in introducing "logic." The earth stands still, yet it spins at a ginormous rate of motion. A manifest contradiction! Reality is better fit to language, usage, than "logic." Or, at least more inteligable.

In the Aristotle example Aristotle can't help but be aware that some people raise the question about why one should act rationaly. He was the head of a school. The de facto meaning is exclusion from the school. Or, as it is stated somewhere in Kafka, a continual discussion about the topic would amount to letting those non-gentelmen into the school (and validating their point.)

Incidentally, it is sometimes maintained that Hitler was satisfied with the plan to expell the Jews prior to his meeting with a certain Grand Mufti, who said if you do they will come bother us. However false, it poses a hypothetical of despising rather than hating or "viciousness."