Law School Discussion

Nine Years of Discussion
;

Author Topic: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!  (Read 3557 times)

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #60 on: July 25, 2007, 12:20:18 AM »
"

I'm afraid that 
my
penis size,
short,
I'm afraid.


Say no more.  I cracked the code...

Yeah, there's your "really logical person." Right there.


There are none so blind as those who will not see...

"He seemed therefore confident, that instead of Reason, we were only possessed of some Quality fitted to increase our natural Vices; as the Reflection from a troubled Stream returns the Image of an ill-shapen Body, not only larger, but more distorted."

Enough. Please.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Can't we all just agree on that?



So intolerance isn't bad?  Or the guy who inspired hitler?


"A prince who does not find it beneath him to say that he takes it to be his duty to prescribe nothing, but rather to allow men complete freedom in religious matters--who thereby renounces the arrogant title of tolerance--is himself enlightened and deserves to be praised by a grateful present and by posterity as the first, at least where the government is concerned, to release the human race from immaturity and to leave everyone free to use his own reason in all matters of conscience. Under his rule, venerable pastors, in their role as scholars and without prejudice to their official duties, may freely and openly set out for the world's scrutiny their judgments and views, even where these occasionally differ from the accepted symbol. Still greater freedom is afforded to those who are not restricted by an official post. This spirit of freedom is expanding even where it must struggle against the external obstacles of governments that misunderstand their own function. Such governments are illuminated by the example that the existence of freedom need not give cause for the least concern regarding public order and harmony in the commonwealth. If only they refrain from inventing artifices to keep themselves in it, men will gradually raise themselves from barbarism."

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~mgamer/Etexts/kant.html


Does anyone here think for themselves?  Or do they just cut and paste other people's ideas?   :(

You haven't answered my question.

SJ101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #61 on: July 25, 2007, 12:58:02 AM »

I'm afraid that 
my
penis size,
short,
I'm afraid.


Say no more.  I cracked the code...

Yeah, there's your "really logical person." Right there.


There are none so blind as those who will not see...

"He seemed therefore confident, that instead of Reason, we were only possessed of some Quality fitted to increase our natural Vices; as the Reflection from a troubled Stream returns the Image of an ill-shapen Body, not only larger, but more distorted."

Enough. Please.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Can't we all just agree on that?



So intolerance isn't bad?  Or the guy who inspired hitler?

Fascism is actually a form of militant nationalism. That Nietzsche's writings were cherry-picked and misinterpreted to support its ideas is unfortunate, especially since the concepts of race and state, and the blending of the two that nationalism represents, are entirely antithetical to the more Enlightenment-rooted, and fundamentally individualized,  philosophy that Nietzsche expounded.

Furthermore, the line "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is from act II of Hamlet, and honestly I don't see how this is too controversial - in fact, all its saying, I think, is that if you are looking or some sort of external, metaphysical validation for your own moral beliefs, you are doomed to a life of frustration and confusion. Ultimately, good and bad are subjective concepts. Nietzsche simply argued that the ubermensch (or Over Man) would be able to overcome the knowledge of the underlying arbitrariness of such concepts by accepting their arbitrariness, and in the process no longer be afraid to use his willpower to overcome fear, and become something entirely new.

Interestingly, Nietzsche never said what this new sort of person would be. Probably because he did not know. Most of what we know about his conceptualization of the Over Man comes from the contrast that is drawn in Thus Spake Zarathustra with the so-called Last Man.

Now, Nietzsche's idea is certainly open to criticism. Probably the best critique I've encountered of the ubermensch is in the character of Judge Holden, in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Holden is certainly not a Nazi, but he is the most horrifying villain in American literature nonetheless.

Although Nietzsche's philosophy is forever doomed to be linked with fascism, as I said the link is unfortunate, because I, like most people who actually have taken the time to figure out what he is saying, just can not see how you can say 'this leads to fascism' in any intellectually honest way. EDIT: While it is true that the journey from relativism to nationalism is fairly short, as I've tried to make clear, relativism is a lot older than Nietzsche (think Hobbes, for instance), and it's not really what he was talking about anyway.

EDIT: interestingly, the two reasons that a link between Nietzsche and Nazism is so often assumed have very little to do with Nietzsche's writings. His sister was the big problem - she was a Nazi, and edited and wrote introductions to a number of his texts after his death that radically changed their meaning. Another problem was translation: the predominant English translations of his writings for the first half of the 20th century were written by one Thomas Common, and they were really, really bad. In fact, you can probably blame Common for introducing the term "Superman," which came to be associated with Nazis and is a total basterdization of the German ubermensch , into the pop culture lexicon.

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #62 on: July 25, 2007, 01:28:24 AM »

Fascism is actually a form of militant nationalism. That Nietzsche's writings were cherry-picked and misinterpreted to support its ideas is unfortunate, especially since the concepts of race and state, and the blending of the two that nationalism represents, are entirely antithetical to the more Enlightenment-rooted, and fundamentally individualized,  philosophy that Nietzsche expounded.

Furthermore, the line "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is from act II of Hamlet, and honestly I don't see how this is too controversial - in fact, all its saying, I think, is that if you are looking or some sort of external, metaphysical validation for your own moral beliefs, you are doomed to a life of frustration and confusion. Ultimately, good and bad are subjective concepts. Nietzsche simply argued that the ubermensch (or Over Man) would be able to overcome the knowledge of the underlying arbitrariness of such concepts by accepting their arbitrariness, and in the process no longer be afraid to use his willpower to overcome fear, and become something entirely new.

Interestingly, Nietzsche never said what this new sort of person would be. Probably because he did not know. Most of what we know about his conceptualization of the Over Man comes from the contrast that is drawn in Thus Spake Zarathustra with the so-called Last Man.

Now, Nietzsche's idea is certainly open to criticism. Probably the best critique I've encountered of the ubermensch is in the character of Judge Holden, in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Holden is certainly not a Nazi, but he is the most horrifying villain in American literature nonetheless.

Although Nietzsche's philosophy is forever doomed to be linked with fascism, as I said the link is unfortunate, because I, like most people who actually have taken the time to figure out what he is saying, just can not see how you can say 'this leads to fascism' in any intellectually honest way. EDIT: While it is true that the journey from relativism to nationalism is fairly short, as I've tried to make clear, relativism is a lot older than Nietzsche (think Hobbes, for instance), and it's not really what he was talking about anyway.

EDIT: interestingly, the two reasons that a link between Nietzsche and Nazism is so often assumed have very little to do with Nietzsche's writings. His sister was the big problem - she was a Nazi, and edited and wrote introductions to a number of his texts after his death that radically changed their meaning. Another problem was translation: the predominant English translations of his writings for the first half of the 20th century were written by one Thomas Common, and they were really, really bad. In fact, you can probably blame Common for introducing the term "Superman," which came to be associated with Nazis and is a total basterdization of the German ubermensch , into the pop culture lexicon.

"For it is most true that Cicero saith of them somewhere; that there can be nothing so absurd but may be found in the books of philosophers."

- Thomas Hobbes, paraphrasing Cicero

JusAccrescendi

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 287
    • AOL Instant Messenger - JusAbstinendi
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #63 on: July 25, 2007, 01:47:37 AM »
I'm pretty sure Nietzsche was talking about Christopher Reeve in Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Talk about being prescient.

Jedi Master made me laugh. Gold star.
I have studied and thoroughly mastered the laws of logic. So to argue that I sometimes violate the laws of logic in ordinary conversation would be like arguing that some physicist circumvents the laws of physics in everyday life.

http://www.lawschoolnumbers.com/display.php?user=jusabstinendi

Zenith Electronics Corp.

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 281
    • AOL Instant Messenger - BLFGmiii
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #64 on: July 25, 2007, 01:48:14 AM »
"A man cannot be comfortable without his own approval."

"I didn't attend the funeral, but I sent a nice letter saying I approved of it."

-mark twain

Lindbergh

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 4358
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #65 on: July 25, 2007, 02:34:59 AM »

I'm afraid that 
my
penis size,
short,
I'm afraid.


Say no more.  I cracked the code...

Yeah, there's your "really logical person." Right there.


There are none so blind as those who will not see...

"He seemed therefore confident, that instead of Reason, we were only possessed of some Quality fitted to increase our natural Vices; as the Reflection from a troubled Stream returns the Image of an ill-shapen Body, not only larger, but more distorted."

Enough. Please.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Can't we all just agree on that?



So intolerance isn't bad?  Or the guy who inspired hitler?

Fascism is actually a form of militant nationalism. That Nietzsche's writings were cherry-picked and misinterpreted to support its ideas is unfortunate, especially since the concepts of race and state, and the blending of the two that nationalism represents, are entirely antithetical to the more Enlightenment-rooted, and fundamentally individualized,  philosophy that Nietzsche expounded.

Furthermore, the line "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is from act II of Hamlet, and honestly I don't see how this is too controversial - in fact, all its saying, I think, is that if you are looking or some sort of external, metaphysical validation for your own moral beliefs, you are doomed to a life of frustration and confusion. Ultimately, good and bad are subjective concepts. Nietzsche simply argued that the ubermensch (or Over Man) would be able to overcome the knowledge of the underlying arbitrariness of such concepts by accepting their arbitrariness, and in the process no longer be afraid to use his willpower to overcome fear, and become something entirely new.

Interestingly, Nietzsche never said what this new sort of person would be. Probably because he did not know. Most of what we know about his conceptualization of the Over Man comes from the contrast that is drawn in Thus Spake Zarathustra with the so-called Last Man.

Now, Nietzsche's idea is certainly open to criticism. Probably the best critique I've encountered of the ubermensch is in the character of Judge Holden, in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Holden is certainly not a Nazi, but he is the most horrifying villain in American literature nonetheless.

Although Nietzsche's philosophy is forever doomed to be linked with fascism, as I said the link is unfortunate, because I, like most people who actually have taken the time to figure out what he is saying, just can not see how you can say 'this leads to fascism' in any intellectually honest way. EDIT: While it is true that the journey from relativism to nationalism is fairly short, as I've tried to make clear, relativism is a lot older than Nietzsche (think Hobbes, for instance), and it's not really what he was talking about anyway.

EDIT: interestingly, the two reasons that a link between Nietzsche and Nazism is so often assumed have very little to do with Nietzsche's writings. His sister was the big problem - she was a Nazi, and edited and wrote introductions to a number of his texts after his death that radically changed their meaning. Another problem was translation: the predominant English translations of his writings for the first half of the 20th century were written by one Thomas Common, and they were really, really bad. In fact, you can probably blame Common for introducing the term "Superman," which came to be associated with Nazis and is a total basterdization of the German ubermensch , into the pop culture lexicon.


Okay, so intolerance and hate aren't bad unless we individually, personally, consider it to be so? 

That's good to know.  It does signficantly weaken the sentiment displayed on your avatar, though. 

Personally, I do believe in objective good and evil, which is why I oppose people who kill gays, etc., even if they feel it's okay.  We may determine objective good and evil through our our own perceptions, but that doesn't make them purely subjective.

I also don't think it's really that difficult to tie Nietzsche to fascism, given certain principles in his writings, and the abandonment of traditional morality, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. 

(You way want to read Crime and Punishment for another critique of Nietzsche's ideas, though.)

SJ101

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 96
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #66 on: July 25, 2007, 02:48:39 AM »

I'm afraid that 
my
penis size,
short,
I'm afraid.


Say no more.  I cracked the code...

Yeah, there's your "really logical person." Right there.


There are none so blind as those who will not see...

"He seemed therefore confident, that instead of Reason, we were only possessed of some Quality fitted to increase our natural Vices; as the Reflection from a troubled Stream returns the Image of an ill-shapen Body, not only larger, but more distorted."

Enough. Please.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Can't we all just agree on that?



So intolerance isn't bad?  Or the guy who inspired hitler?

Fascism is actually a form of militant nationalism. That Nietzsche's writings were cherry-picked and misinterpreted to support its ideas is unfortunate, especially since the concepts of race and state, and the blending of the two that nationalism represents, are entirely antithetical to the more Enlightenment-rooted, and fundamentally individualized,  philosophy that Nietzsche expounded.

Furthermore, the line "there is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so" is from act II of Hamlet, and honestly I don't see how this is too controversial - in fact, all its saying, I think, is that if you are looking or some sort of external, metaphysical validation for your own moral beliefs, you are doomed to a life of frustration and confusion. Ultimately, good and bad are subjective concepts. Nietzsche simply argued that the ubermensch (or Over Man) would be able to overcome the knowledge of the underlying arbitrariness of such concepts by accepting their arbitrariness, and in the process no longer be afraid to use his willpower to overcome fear, and become something entirely new.

Interestingly, Nietzsche never said what this new sort of person would be. Probably because he did not know. Most of what we know about his conceptualization of the Over Man comes from the contrast that is drawn in Thus Spake Zarathustra with the so-called Last Man.

Now, Nietzsche's idea is certainly open to criticism. Probably the best critique I've encountered of the ubermensch is in the character of Judge Holden, in Cormac McCarthy's Blood Meridian. Holden is certainly not a Nazi, but he is the most horrifying villain in American literature nonetheless.

Although Nietzsche's philosophy is forever doomed to be linked with fascism, as I said the link is unfortunate, because I, like most people who actually have taken the time to figure out what he is saying, just can not see how you can say 'this leads to fascism' in any intellectually honest way. EDIT: While it is true that the journey from relativism to nationalism is fairly short, as I've tried to make clear, relativism is a lot older than Nietzsche (think Hobbes, for instance), and it's not really what he was talking about anyway.

EDIT: interestingly, the two reasons that a link between Nietzsche and Nazism is so often assumed have very little to do with Nietzsche's writings. His sister was the big problem - she was a Nazi, and edited and wrote introductions to a number of his texts after his death that radically changed their meaning. Another problem was translation: the predominant English translations of his writings for the first half of the 20th century were written by one Thomas Common, and they were really, really bad. In fact, you can probably blame Common for introducing the term "Superman," which came to be associated with Nazis and is a total basterdization of the German ubermensch , into the pop culture lexicon.

I also don't think it's really that difficult to tie Nietzsche to fascism, given certain principles in his writings, and the abandonment of traditional morality, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion. 


When Nietzsche said "God is dead," he wasn't trying to kill him. To his way of thinking, he was simply stating the obvious. In other words, "traditional morality," which is linked to religious principles that were, to his way of thinking, unadaptable to the modern world, was already gone. Personally, I have an easier time seeing fascism as one of humanity's attempts to deal with what could rightly be termed a moral void that the departure of religion created. Nietzsche's Over Man was another way. In other words, I see concurrent development, not a case of one leading to another.

Also, nietzschean philosophy is not so morally relativistic as it might first appear. Theoretically, the Over Man's belief in his right to impose morality would be strong enough that, to him, morality would be essentially objective, or at least more so than the alternatives, which Nietzsche viewed as futile attempts to preserve draconian metaphysical principles.

Hank Rearden

  • LSD Obsessed
  • *****
  • Posts: 8615
  • Zurich is stained
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #67 on: July 25, 2007, 02:51:43 AM »
I don't see how any of this is making it easier for poor Hizzla Pimp to focus. 
CLS '10

The appropriateness of Perpetua would probably depend on the tone of the writing.  When I used it, I (half playfully) thought the extra space made the words sort of resonate.

Tatarin

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 16
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #68 on: July 25, 2007, 02:53:41 AM »
If you are looking for motivation look no further then :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ny4YpBgq_Pk&mode=related&search=

PNym

  • Sr. Citizen
  • ****
  • Posts: 781
    • View Profile
Re: FCUK! CANNOT FOCUS!
« Reply #69 on: July 25, 2007, 02:55:59 AM »

Enough. Please.

There is nothing good or bad, but thinking makes it so. Can't we all just agree on that?


I disagree with that assertion, if that assertion is used to justify an acceptance of moral nihilism.

I agree that moral standards are subjective and *relative* across cultures, but I also think that the preponderance of some moral standards across numerous civilizations suggests that these moral standards are necessary for civilization to be established.

C.S. Lewis noted this in the last part of "The Abolition of Man." See http://www.columbia.edu/cu/augustine/arch/lewis/abolition4.htm.

Some moral standards are certainly relative. For example, various religions and cultures have had differing attitudes towards moneylending throughout history; Jews, for whom this commercial activity had at times had been their only available profession due to laws barring them from other economic activities, have had fewer cultural prohibitions against moneylending than Muslims, for whom the devout must follow the rules of shar'ia finance.

But just because some moral standards are relative doesn't mean that all moral standards are equivalent.

If someone cuts you off at a traffic light and you get out of your car and shoot him in the head, you're free to argue that your moral standards condone this reaction. I, on the other hand, will condemn you, and hope the police lock you up for a long time, because such behavior threatens the social fabric.

Furthermore, suggesting that holding all moral standards to be equivalent ("there is no good or bad" but mere "thinking makes it so") is a morally superior position than holding moral standards to not be equivalent is a contradictory position.

Moral standards (good vs. bad) in a culture allow people to expect that their fellow man's behavior will be somewhat bounded, and that some of the goals and values that they personally cherish are equally valued by other people, enough so for groups of like-minded persons to work together towards a common goal.