Who are the real wild animals?

[puto]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You can read Nietzsche, sympathizing with his points or you can reel at the implications and seek change. So it’s not enough to merely say, read it. It would seem you sympathize with it, or at least show indifference.
That's not how you read Nietzsche.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The point is: Apathy you exude, only while your life’s not threatened, and as such ensures that it shall be, if not, then your progeny. Your argument, as to what men have been/are, obliterates reason as well as earths finite life. Our argument of reason insists on the growth of man and ensures finite life, and ultimately, our own best interests. Change starts with wide spread commonality in thinking.

Have I heard any proposals for action? No, just emotive moralizing from those who live in comfort. See any valuable wild animals where Bill lives?
The proposal for action is self evident! STOP! That's it! Pure and simple, STOP!

And I would be the last to attempt to deny you that right, but your point seemed to indicate he was out of line for doing so, if so, make up your mind.

My point with Bill is he loves to emote without solution. News is not philosophy.
You, like some simpletons, believe that philosophy requires complex, convoluted, back and forth, in and out wording that often only speaks of an imaginary realm in the minds of those that use it as a self stroking mechanism. "Look at me I can impress with my understanding of language as if it actually has anything to do with the existence of everything, see how I 'back and froth...' whoops that didn't make any sense whatsoever, oh well, they'll never know, they'll have to take the same dosage of psychedelics that I did to catch it, look how impressive my word smithing is, I'm a philosopher despite the fact that some percentage of the time I talk myself into a state of frenzied nonsense." I say that a philosophy can exist in a single sentence. or even a single word. Being Compassionate, Understanding, Loving, Giving, etc., in their 'definitions', can be said to be moral philosophies in and of themselves.

Often all that jibber jabber is purely a smoke screen, case in point:

Time has changed the game. The old timers lived in old times, relatively, animals were plenty and humans were few. Relatively, modern day man is overwhelming and animals are few. Today demands, we finally get off our asses, the times of taking life for granted are over, or else we’re over! For your sake, I hope you’re not an obese meat eater.

I'm not but in the near future I guess the meat-eater will have the substance in abundance as we'll be growing it. So I guess you think that it was okay for us to slaughter the animals then but not now? You want a truly outrageous extinction event, look up what the Yank recently did to the passenger pigeon, they even proudly caught the last flock knowing it was such. Why do you think the extinction of many major life forms will make a major difference to our survival? I admit it'll change a lot of stuff, kill a bunch of us, but stop our growth, I doubt it.
The problem with selfishness is that it blinds it's users to the inevitable foolishness of it's embracing. I'm telling you that the current state of mans mentality, which has been going on since day one, is indicative of his cup eventually running over. PERIOD! And this topic is merely one of many of the causals/indicators.

Agreed, you’ll never get me to argue against education.

Nice to know we agree on something.
Reread your response in this entire message and notice that after this point, of "MY" agreeing with "YOU," your inflection subtly changes.

You can read Nietzsche, sympathizing with his points or you can reel at the implications and seek change. So it’s not enough to merely say, read it. It would seem you sympathize with it, or at least show indifference.

Nope, just seeking to be the passing-over one but suspect we're all blinkers.
"...the passing-over one..."???

Haven’t you noticed that Bill seems to prefer inciting the riots and rarely participates in them? He says what he says so we’ll fill in the blanks. He tends to be a topic starter, not that he fails to make his point, which can often be seen in the topics themselves. In this particular thread he’s so much as said that he believed that his reasons are self evident. Seriously, what points does the word ‘extinction’ bring to your mind anyway?

That 99% of all species that have been are.
That's a pretty bland emotionless response to annihilation; do you suffer from DPD?

I doubt he has any blanks there but it'd be nice, if he does, if he'd answer a question or two about his thoughts. So why do people keep saying Man is the wild animal when this implies that the wild animals behave 'badly' in some way? Do they think that Man is doing something that another self-conscious animal would not do in our place? Do they think the poacher is killing for fun?
All that matters is that it's stupid! OK, maybe ignorant is more appropriate. Many animals are at the brink of extinction/extinct because of myth.

Your point would seem to sarcastically indicate your belief in his inability. While my seemingly defense of him does not, as it simply provides an answer to your thought, in the interim.

Don't hold your breath waiting.
I think Bill does fine. As I said before, here at PNF we have spice in the variety of people. Bill I can handle, he's OK and adds an element of surprise. Some should sign up with "Nasty People Anonymous." I know that I tend to be abrasive sometimes as well, in terms of loosing my patience and not dealing with my frustration appropriately. But I'm also probably one of the few that can look in the mirror and honestly face themselves. Anyway, I like Bill for being Bill! And he can be just a potent in causing one to think!

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You can read Nietzsche, sympathizing with his points or you can reel at the implications and seek change. So it’s not enough to merely say, read it. It would seem you sympathize with it, or at least show indifference.
That's not how you read Nietzsche.

Sometimes I fudge a little to make a point. But since you're telling me how I should read him, how do you read Nietzsche?

[puto]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You can read Nietzsche, sympathizing with his points or you can reel at the implications and seek change. So it’s not enough to merely say, read it. It would seem you sympathize with it, or at least show indifference.
That's not how you read Nietzsche.

Sometimes I fudge a little to make a point. But since you're telling me how I should read him, how do you read Nietzsche?

By what you bring to it, and that cost me a lot of money, and time to write. Maybe I should have not written that, but I did.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance wrote:
You can read Nietzsche, sympathizing with his points or you can reel at the implications and seek change. So it’s not enough to merely say, read it. It would seem you sympathize with it, or at least show indifference.
That's not how you read Nietzsche.

Sometimes I fudge a little to make a point. But since you're telling me how I should read him, how do you read Nietzsche?

By what you bring to it, and that cost me a lot of money, and time to write. Maybe I should have not written that, but I did.

Well I'm sorry I offended your respect for Nietzsche with my point making process. I hope you're not jobless like me.

Happy Holidays!

[Arising_uk]

The proposal for action is self evident! STOP! That's it! Pure and simple, STOP!

Seriously!? Why would the poacher do such a thing? Would you have stopped if asked when you produce stuff that was designed to kill and mutilate your fellow man? And you wish an African to do so when the benefit is probably a couple of normal months wages?

You, like some simpletons, believe that philosophy requires complex, convoluted, back and forth, in and out wording that often only speaks of an imaginary realm in the minds of those that use it as a self stroking mechanism. "Look at me I can impress with my understanding of language as if it actually has anything to do with the existence of everything, see how I 'back and froth...' whoops that didn't make any sense whatsoever, oh well, they'll never know, they'll have to take the same dosage of psychedelics that I did to catch it, look how impressive my word smithing is, I'm a philosopher despite the fact that some percentage of the time I talk myself into a state of frenzied nonsense." I say that a philosophy can exist in a single sentence. or even a single word. Being Compassionate, Understanding, Loving, Giving, etc., in their 'definitions', can be said to be moral philosophies in and of themselves.
Often all that jibber jabber is purely a smoke screen, case in point:

You are talking to the wrong philosopher, as I have little time for the postmodernist and pretty much zilch for the deconstructuralist. This is not to say that I don't accept that what they do is philosophy, just that I disagree with much of it. Not least the waffle they use to promote themselves.

The problem with selfishness is that it blinds it's users to the inevitable foolishness of it's embracing. I'm telling you that the current state of mans mentality, which has been going on since day one, is indicative of his cup eventually running over. PERIOD! And this topic is merely one of many of the causals/indicators.

"Causals/indicators" of what? You think Mankind's History is not boom and bust? You're just unhappy that you may be in a bust?

Reread your response in this entire message and notice that after this point, of "MY" agreeing with "YOU," your inflection subtly changes.

I have and I think it in your 'mind'. As I never said "MY" or "YOU" just "we".

"...the passing-over one..."???

Hmm... I think, upon a philosophy forum, if you do not understand this reference then you should hesitate before confidently saying how Nietzsche should be read and understood.

That's a pretty bland emotionless response to annihilation; do you suffer from DPD?

Is it an acronym for an aversion to acronyms? Who's being annihilated?

All that matters is that it's stupid! OK, maybe ignorant is more appropriate. Many animals are at the brink of extinction/extinct because of myth.

Then they'll be joining the other 99% of those that have lived and become extinct, see any shortage of life? Now it may well be animals we don't like but still life.

Which "myth" are you referring to?

I think Bill does fine. As I said before, here at PNF we have spice in the variety of people. Bill I can handle, he's OK and adds an element of surprise. Some should sign up with "Nasty People Anonymous." I know that I tend to be abrasive sometimes as well, in terms of loosing my patience and not dealing with my frustration appropriately. But I'm also probably one of the few that can look in the mirror and honestly face themselves. Anyway, I like Bill for being Bill! And he can be just a potent in causing one to think!

I understand why Bill adds spice, its that he's allowed to here that I like about this site, as in many places he'd just be banned. Its that he's a politico that, in my opinion, just adds his piccys to win over an audience to his political 'religion' that gets my philosophical goat. I could cope with it if he didn't keep insisting that he has an idea of what 'philosophers' and philosophy has talked about. Now I could be kind and think that maybe he is embarking late upon the stupidity that is those who think they want to philosophize, but his responses to questions mark him clearly as one who has a politico-religious belief system that he is proselytizing. As such I think most of his posts are motivated by ulterior motives despite his pride in his name.

Given what you said elsewhere I hope the font size helps, as its killing me.

Rather than change your font have you thought of using the visual software aids for the hard of-sight-built into your OS? Even Linux must have such things.

[SpheresOfBalance]

The proposal for action is self evident! STOP! That's it! Pure and simple, STOP!

Seriously!? Why would the poacher do such a thing? Would you have stopped if asked when you produce stuff that was designed to kill and mutilate your fellow man? And you wish an African to do so when the benefit is probably a couple of normal months wages?
Now that I've gotten your OK.

You assume you know a poacher. You assume I've built and designed human killing machines. You assume he does it for wages. You assume that killing is OK if it's for wages. You assume that my solution is not OK because it's not your way. You assume you know the way of a poacher. You assume that money is a good thing somehow. You assume you know the correct way. You assume that humankind knows what they're doing!

You, like some simpletons, believe that philosophy requires complex, convoluted, back and forth, in and out wording that often only speaks of an imaginary realm in the minds of those that use it as a self stroking mechanism. "Look at me I can impress with my understanding of language as if it actually has anything to do with the existence of everything, see how I 'back and froth...' whoops that didn't make any sense whatsoever, oh well, they'll never know, they'll have to take the same dosage of psychedelics that I did to catch it, look how impressive my word smithing is, I'm a philosopher despite the fact that some percentage of the time I talk myself into a state of frenzied nonsense." I say that a philosophy can exist in a single sentence. or even a single word. Being Compassionate, Understanding, Loving, Giving, etc., in their 'definitions', can be said to be moral philosophies in and of themselves.
Often all that jibber jabber is purely a smoke screen, case in point:

You are talking to the wrong philosopher, as I have little time for the postmodernist and pretty much zilch for the deconstructuralist. This is not to say that I don't accept that what they do is philosophy, just that I disagree with much of it. Not least the waffle they use to promote themselves.
Your sensing waffling could also be due to the assumption of understanding. But, OK!

Then I submit that Bill has a philosophy just like every other human, and he's just one that you fail to see eye to eye. Which is your right, but I think that in the spirit of fair play, you should give way to his right to speak as well as yours. During the Internets 'Blue Ribbon' campaign a wise leader of the movement said that: 'you don't really believe in freedom of speech until you fight for the right of your worst enemies right to speak freely.'

The problem with selfishness is that it blinds it's users to the inevitable foolishness of it's embracing. I'm telling you that the current state of mans mentality, which has been going on since day one, is indicative of his cup eventually running over. PERIOD! And this topic is merely one of many of the causals/indicators.

"Causals/indicators" of what? You think Mankind's History is not boom and bust? You're just unhappy that you may be in a bust?
No, I'm unhappy because mankinds current course is a bust along with a lot of other things. To ask the question "of what?" indicates that you have not read all my inclusions in this thread, which I demand you do before you ever engage me again in this thread, then your question shall be answered. I shall not be forced to reiterate for every lazy Tom, Dick, Harry and Arising_uk that comes along.

Reread your response in this entire message and notice that after this point, of "MY" agreeing with "YOU," your inflection subtly changes.

I have and I think it in your 'mind'. As I never said "MY" or "YOU" just "we".
Do you even know what inference is? I guess you had another problem with that mean old circular dictionary again, huh?

Look, I'm sorry for the sarcasm but, do you understand the implications of A being nastier with B after B consistently disagrees with A in light of A being nicer to B only after B agrees with A on a particular? That was my allusion. And I submit that in light of my inference, had you taken notice, it would have allowed for a higher level of argument between us. But we seem stuck here with my need of continued reiteration, which is swiftly becoming monotonous. I once thought I'd be a good teacher, but I'd suck, because I become impatient and frustrated when I feel I'm beating my head against the wall. Maybe it's because I no longer exercise and have become a couch potato. But I digress, in allowing you to see me more clearly.

"...the passing-over one..."???

Hmm... I think, upon a philosophy forum, if you do not understand this reference then you should hesitate before confidently saying how Nietzsche should be read and understood.
It seems that everything I say escapes you. My point was, for the second time, your statement to Bill seemed to indicate your sympathy with Nietzsche's Will to Power (selfishness) as if it was something to be proud of and embrace. I was wondering do you agree with this quote of Nietzsche:

"Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

I think he kept his head where the sun doesn't shine, how about you?

That's a pretty bland emotionless response to annihilation; do you suffer from DPD?

Is it an acronym for an aversion to acronyms? Who's being annihilated?
Well I'm sorry you have an aversion to acronyms. Look it up! As to annihilation read the topic; and then man follows.

All that matters is that it's stupid! OK, maybe ignorant is more appropriate. Many animals are at the brink of extinction/extinct because of myth.

Then they'll be joining the other 99% of those that have lived and become extinct, see any shortage of life? Now it may well be animals we don't like but still life.
It would seem that you don't have a clue.
Which "myth" are you referring to?
It wouldn't matter if I told you, Obviously you're not seriously into this conversation, either that, or you really are flighty.

I think Bill does fine. As I said before, here at PNF we have spice in the variety of people. Bill I can handle, he's OK and adds an element of surprise. Some should sign up with "Nasty People Anonymous." I know that I tend to be abrasive sometimes as well, in terms of loosing my patience and not dealing with my frustration appropriately. But I'm also probably one of the few that can look in the mirror and honestly face themselves. Anyway, I like Bill for being Bill! And he can be just a potent in causing one to think!

I understand why Bill adds spice, its that he's allowed to here that I like about this site, as in many places he'd just be banned.
I agree! This is one of the most mature sites I've ever had the privilege of visiting. I don't necessarily mean the people in the forums but the Mod and any other administrative entities hat may visit. My hats off to them. It would seem that death threats are the only no-no and rightfully so! This is the kind of moderation I'd expect from a Philosophy site, IMHO. Mature despite the immaturity. Discussion can be heated. Yes this forum is a breath of fresh air, you can almost believe that you're really free.
Its that he's a politico that, in my opinion, just adds his piccys to win over an audience to his political 'religion' that gets my philosophical goat. I could cope with it if he didn't keep insisting that he has an idea of what 'philosophers' and philosophy has talked about. Now I could be kind and think that maybe he is embarking late upon the stupidity that is those who think they want to philosophize, but his responses to questions mark him clearly as one who has a politico-religious belief system that he is proselytizing. As such I think most of his posts are motivated by ulterior motives despite his pride in his name.
It matters not, he deserves the same amount of indulgence you expect.
Given what you said elsewhere I hope the font size helps, as its killing me.
Thanks. Hey I'm sorry I'm such a pain. It would seem that you and I are largely incompatible. I think it would be better if you stopped engaging me as some of your comments really piss me off and I'm afraid I'll berate you even more. I need to start exercising again.
Rather than change your font have you thought of using the visual software aids for the hard of-sight-built into your OS? Even Linux must have such things.What my OS has is laughable. And these binocular glasses are no fun either.

[puto]

Nietzsche's Will to Power (selfishness) as if it was something to be proud of and embrace. I was wondering do you agree with this quote of Nietzsche:

"Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

I think he kept his head where the sun doesn't shine, how about you?

Nietzsche is often misquoted,or quoted out of context.

[SpheresOfBalance]

Nietzsche's Will to Power (selfishness) as if it was something to be proud of and embrace. I was wondering do you agree with this quote of Nietzsche:

"Women are considered profound. Why? Because we never fathom their depths. But women aren't even shallow."

I think he kept his head where the sun doesn't shine, how about you?

Nietzsche is often misquoted,or quoted out of context.

And you 'know' this because you were there when he said it???
I'm constantly amazed at how many people around here 'ALLUDE' to their 'ABSOLUTE' 'knowledge' of what a person, that died before they were born or that they NEVER met, said or meant when they couldn't possibly.

(A funny story: one of my professors told me how he was fired by Britannica, because of his insistence of the inclusion, of the fact that George Washington died of syphilis.)

(A funny thought: Have you ever entertained the various implications of the fact, that the most commonly used bible today, is called the "King James Version?")

But if it alludes to you're being right, by all means!

All I'm saying is that it's more correct to say something like:

It is believed that Nietzsche is often misquoted, or quoted out of context, such that it's difficult to know what he actually said.

Now that's correct!

In this circumstance, it all comes down to a choosing a particular source over a particular source, and who is to say which source is accurate? I believe the source that lends credence in this case, is aligned with the way he died, as that of a madman! I submit that he always was a madman and it just took time to manifest itself as it did.

I submit that of the three Viennese schools of psychotherapy:

Alfred Adler's individual psychology (will to power). {thanks to Nietzsche}
Sigmund Freud's pleasure principle (will to pleasure).
Victor Frankl's logotherapy (will to meaning).

That all the tyrants (dictators) that have ever existed, i.e., Genghis khan, Ramses II, Napoleon, Hitler, etc. clearly fall under the 'will to power' type of human (lizard like if you will; reptilian).
In the 'will to power' is born chaos and anarchy and is only embraced by the psychotic; megalomaniacal.

I would think it unusual that he saw the 'will to power' as contrasted by religion if it weren't for the fact that in his time the church was still in power and Psychology was in it's infancy. And if you believe his philosophy aided in bringing the church to it's knees, I might agree. But now that it's fallen I suggest his false philosophy has done it's job and it's time to move on, realizing that the will to power is nothing more that the will of the psychotic!

The way I see the bible is that the only parts worth anything are those that would seem to say that love, understanding and acceptance of one another are paramount. All the rest is pure crap! And no the church should never have been in power, actually no one should be in power.

What most of the citizens that are along for any particulars ride, seemingly fail to understand, is that nothing under the sun is black and white, and as such neither is any philosophy or school of thought. For instance, if one is anti organized religion, it's a fools game to align oneself exactly parallel to their complete doctrine, which potentially contains a plethora of seemingly related, yet actually unrelated points, just because you share that singular view on religion. Anyone's take is a mixed bag of color and must be seriously scrutinized to find the color of truth.

I for one am happy to say that I could be successfully psychoanalyzed by utilizing the other two Viennese schools of psychotherapy as mentioned above. I have no will to power, only the will to peacefully coexist, contemplating truth (meaning), find happiness (pleasure) and to give something to humanity (so that I may live forever) Sure I'm selfish too, but only at the ever increasingly lesser expense of everything, as I learn. And no it's not a slave mentality, come and try to take it, all things being equal, one on one, face to face, hand to hand.

[puto]

I read to the part where you called him a 'mad man', and turned you off. Why may you ask, because you really don't know Nietzsche, do you?

[SpheresOfBalance]

I read to the part where you called him a 'mad man', and turned you off. Why may you ask, because you really don't know Nietzsche, do you?

No! I believe I know the 'true' why, because you fear peoples words. You're close minded! You've found that you're in love with him as if you knew him well and was one of his closest contemporary peers, in this belief you are stroking yourself, which is based upon your assumption of understanding him and you want to protect that relationship at all costs. It seems that you don't want to loose that loved one that you found in a 'book!'

I fear no ones words. I just don't like talking to people that (try to?) wear you down by constantly requiring reiteration and that require the covering of ground already covered, because my eyes are bad and I can't touch type. So far the longest message I've created took me well over 3 hours, now that's dedication, in the face of my physical hurdles.

To be honest I have not read him completely, merely excerpts; as material riches have been of consequence for many, many years.

Of what I know, I still say he was wrong, and although it was in response to his 'will to power,' I believe the idea of a 'will to meaning' is a more accurate model of human psyche, at least for those that are sane. Power opens the door to evils potential, no matter who wields it.

[puto]

SpheresOfBalance
der Wille zu macht. Where did the later phrase originate Then if you want to play who knows Nietzsche, lets play.

[SpheresOfBalance]

SpheresOfBalance
der Wille zu macht. Where did the later phrase originate Then if you want to play who knows Nietzsche, lets play.

That kind of question, i.e., Where did the phrase originate?, What date was it first published?, Where did he attend university?, Means absolutely nothing, as you could teach a monkey to answer those types of questions, as they're just so much parroting. Memorization isn't necessarily indicative of understanding. The true test of understanding would be to take one of his sentences or paragraphs and reiterating it's meaning in your own words (paraphrase).

And by the way you spelled it incorrectly. A video game spells it the way you did; are your fingers getting tired? If so I recommend an ergonomic keypad/controller/joystick. The real way you spell it is: "der Wille zur macht." You and the video game people forgot an 'r.'

But you know whats really funny, you didn't openly challenge me until I said:

To be honest I have not read him completely, merely excerpts...

It would seem that you're not very confident! Unlike you, I tend not to challenge one armed men to a duel.

Look I'm sorry, really. I really don't mean to be mean when I point out these things. It's just that it's easy for me to see motive in various contextual phrases.

[puto]

Look, I'm going to let it go: because I have studied Nietzsche, and Existentialism for years, on the college level. “Better know nothing than half-know many things." Friedrich Nietzsche

[SpheresOfBalance]

Look, I'm going to let it go: because I have studied Nietzsche, and Existentialism for years, on the college level. “Better know nothing than half-know many things." Friedrich Nietzsche

"Spending your entire life studying only one thing 'can' make you an expert on understanding that one thing, but you shall 'never' understand life, because to study life means to study 'everything.'" --Spheres Of Balance--