Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL  (Read 108400 times)

the-Q-card

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #560 on: November 27, 2011, 04:40:14 AM »

[...] This is known as trolling. Most serial bullies are also serial attention-seekers. More than anything else they want attention. It doesn't matter what type of attention they get, positive or negative, as long as they can provoke someone into paying them attention. [...]


Awesome - could you expand a bit?


Exactly, I would also need a little bit more explanation - anyone?
When I woke up this morning my girlfriend asked me, 'Did you sleep good?' I said 'No, I made a few mistakes.'

palikari

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #561 on: November 27, 2011, 05:25:53 PM »

[...] In a democracy, I am committed to two principles: 1. the will of the majority (the State); 2. My own will. Unfortunately, there is no necessary reason why these two principles should ever coincide! Clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of the government -- a kind of political darwinism. The herd triumphs once again, this time under the banner of the state. The better the State is organized, the duller humanity will be. As little State as possible!


That may be true, but you should not forget that we are not really living in a "democracy" - as you may have read it here by now, America's version of political liberal "morality" is a vague belief in science resting atop an uneasy and heterogeneous combination of Enlightenment, materialist/Protestant and pagan values. As a country, America celebrates stupidity in order to help people ignore the dissonance between their belief that America is a democratic nation with civil rights and the fact that it is an Orwellian totalitarian state derived from lessons learned in the "great experiments" of Fascism and Stalinism.

In fact, the connection to Hitlerism is not only revealed in its propaganda terminology but also in myriad tendrils, personal and institutional, from the silverware used by the Bushes at the Skull and Bones club, which counted Hitler among its previous owners, to loans made from Prescott Bush to Nazi Germany after 1942, to the practice extreme methods of torture and killing by the state intelligence apparatus (albeit it often outside national boundaries and by proxy.)

It may just be that people ruling us have taken themselves for Nietzsche's Superman, as this post describes it:


[...]

While Nietzsche's emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche's freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.

Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche's philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. [...]


fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #562 on: November 27, 2011, 05:34:38 PM »
I'm all for looking at government and society through the eyes of a skeptic, but that is paranoid nonsense.   
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

Maurizio

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #563 on: November 27, 2011, 10:58:12 PM »

[...] America's version of political liberal "morality" is a vague belief in science resting atop an uneasy and heterogeneous combination of Enlightenment, materialist/Protestant and pagan values.


Exactly - the people ruling this country do not hold any values, nor do they believe in anything, for that matter - they believe in nothing!

Wolsey

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 3
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #564 on: November 29, 2011, 10:46:30 PM »

It may just be that people ruling us have taken themselves for Nietzsche's Superman, as this post describes it:


[...]

While Nietzsche's emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche's freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.

Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche's philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. [...]



The Darwinian idea of "the survival of the fittest" is simply a struggle for existence -- for life rather than death. The exceptional life-forms may well be poorly adapted to survive. The history of evolving forms shows that happy accidents are eleminated, the more highly evolved types lead nowhere; it is the average and below types which invariably ascend. This simple biological progression is no progression at all -- it leads to the victory of the herd.

Charles Darwin writes in "The Descent of Man" that a tribe which consisted of many members who were always ready to give aid to each-other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. Nietzsche reversed this scenario. Let the tribe sacrifice itself, if necessary, to preserve the existence of one great individual. It is not the quantity but the the quality of humanity that we must seek to increase. He goes on to say, "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them!" A struggle, not for existence (Darwin), but rather a struggle for greatness -- and with that, a struggle for power. This highly undemocratic view of humanity as a kind of "raw material" out of which a few great individuals will emerge, leads to one's political views, which are far from ordinary...

Now, if my own will happens to coincide with the will of the group, this is just a happy accident, which raises the so-called paradox of democracy. In a democracy, I am committed to two principles: 1. the will of the majority (the State); 2. My own will. Unfortunately, there is no necessary reason why these two principles should ever coincide! Clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of the government -- a kind of political darwinism. The herd triumphs once again, this time under the banner of the state. The better the State is organized, the duller humanity will be. As little State as possible!



palikari, I don't think it's a matter of "having taken themselves for" - I tend to believe that Nietzsche's philosophy is all power, and how to find oneself in such a position, disregarding any values, ethics, morality, and so on - so, if certain people ARE in power, then they are his "Supermen," regardless of the fact that they may, in actuality, be dumbasses!

This is just my hunch on the issue, so if you guys have any better interpretations on the matter, go ahead and let us know..

apostille

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 4
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #565 on: December 01, 2011, 09:42:07 PM »

Anything more substantial to say?!


Hayde, is it "Hayde" your real name? The reason I am asking is because I've known people with the name "Haydee," but have never seen anything like yours.. Just curious, you know..


Believe it or not, there was a woman whose name was Hayde! - I mean, "Hayde!" literally, the punctuation mark included as part of her name at the end! Never had seen something like that, neither most of you have, I guess .. of course, pretty much everywhere where her name was written down they forgot to include the exclamation mark! :)

appropriate

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 6
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #566 on: December 02, 2011, 10:23:44 PM »

[...]

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason.


They say LSD induces an experience that will make you appreciate exactly what Fromm talks about here - being one with the nature, the Whole.

a d m i n i s t r a t o r

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 5
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #567 on: December 03, 2011, 03:55:37 AM »

[...]

Beyond a simple condemnation of authoritarian value systems, Fromm used the story of Adam and Eve as an allegorical explanation for human biological evolution and existential angst, asserting that when Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of Knowledge, they became aware of themselves as being separate from nature while still being part of it. This is why they felt "naked" and "ashamed": they had evolved into human beings, conscious of themselves, their own mortality, and their powerlessness before the forces of nature and society, and no longer united with the universe as they were in their instinctive, pre-human existence as animals. According to Fromm, the awareness of a disunited human existence is a source of guilt and shame, and the solution to this existential dichotomy is found in the development of one's uniquely human powers of love and reason.


They say LSD induces an experience that will make you appreciate exactly what Fromm talks about here - being one with the nature, the Whole.


What?! Being one with nature, with the ANIMALS?! What the @ # ! * are you talking about man?!

fortook

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 644
    • View Profile
Re: INSTITUTIONAL DENIAL ABOUT THE DARK SIDE OF LAW SCHOOL
« Reply #568 on: December 03, 2011, 11:31:52 AM »
Its Fromm.  Nature =everything, not just animals.  A synonym is, maybe, existence.  It makes sense.  Its not a concrete concept and is a crazy kool idea.
"Thank you for inviting me, Mrs. Palin." "Thank you for cutting your mullet, Levi."

F. Korbee

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 7
    • View Profile
Re: Nietzsche's 'Masters'
« Reply #569 on: December 06, 2011, 10:12:49 PM »


[...]

While Nietzsche's emphasis on free will might seem to rescue humanity from the degrading philosophies of environmental or biological determinism, it does nothing of the sort. It only elevates a small elite of humanity, whom Nietzsche called the Superman, or more literally, Overman. Nietzsche's freedom was freedom only for these Supermen, the creative geniuses (like himself) who would rise above the hoi polloi. He had nothing but disdain for the masses, whom he thought incapable of exercising true freedom. What Nietzsche contemptuously called the herd instinct of the masses fitted them for nothing other than submission to the domination of the Superman.

Despite its stress on freedom, then, Nietzsche's philosophy is really a philosophy that aims at enslavement. Power ultimately decides not only who rules politically, but also what counts as truth. Nietzsche rejected any form of fixed truth or morality, thus undermining the very notion of humanity and human rights. [...]



The Darwinian idea of "the survival of the fittest" is simply a struggle for existence -- for life rather than death. The exceptional life-forms may well be poorly adapted to survive. The history of evolving forms shows that happy accidents are eleminated, the more highly evolved types lead nowhere; it is the average and below types which invariably ascend. This simple biological progression is no progression at all -- it leads to the victory of the herd.

Charles Darwin writes in "The Descent of Man" that a tribe which consisted of many members who were always ready to give aid to each-other and to sacrifice themselves for the common good, would be victorious over most other tribes; and this would be natural selection. Nietzsche reversed this scenario. Let the tribe sacrifice itself, if necessary, to preserve the existence of one great individual. It is not the quantity but the the quality of humanity that we must seek to increase. He goes on to say, "A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men. Yes, and then to get around them!" A struggle, not for existence (Darwin), but rather a struggle for greatness -- and with that, a struggle for power. This highly undemocratic view of humanity as a kind of "raw material" out of which a few great individuals will emerge, leads to one's political views, which are far from ordinary...

Now, if my own will happens to coincide with the will of the group, this is just a happy accident, which raises the so-called paradox of democracy. In a democracy, I am committed to two principles: 1. the will of the majority (the State); 2. My own will. Unfortunately, there is no necessary reason why these two principles should ever coincide! Clearly, the individual will is forfeit to the demands of the government -- a kind of political darwinism. The herd triumphs once again, this time under the banner of the state. The better the State is organized, the duller humanity will be. As little State as possible!




Nietzsche's Masters: he says that every 'higher' or noble culture began with barbarians, 'predatory' humans who conquered either the 'more well-behaved, peaceable' ones or 'crumbling cultures'. They establish an 'aristocratic' class, based in ideas of a natural hierarchy between people, who dominated by their stronger will to power. This class is the origin of ideas of 'nobility'. The aristocratic class – Nietzsche has in mind the aristocratic societies of ancient Rome and Greece – faced challenging conditions, wars with other societies, the threat of revolt by those oppressed. These conditions made for strong, unified people with a harsh and intolerant set of values. Such a class has no qualms about using 'lower' human beings for its own ends; this is itself understood as 'justice' and 'natural'. The whole of society is understood to exist for their sake, for the sake of what is great and noble.