Extended Discussion on Personal Views

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
(the way I see it) The slight problem with banning is that this is primarily a Magic site, not a political site, so really this whole forum is just for a little "diversion" for those who choose to enter it. If this was primarily a political site, I'd probably be more vigilant about this sort of thing...
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
Gizmo -- Sure, DUke's writing is a bit 'heavy' - like a safe dropped from the 5th story, perhaps - but if you take your time and go through it, his ideas are clear and understandable. A lot more clear than most academic writers in the field.

One of the reasons I like to browse through the CPA is exactly because there is a proliferation of voices, and because these voices can reason in a more or less adult and interactive fashion. I also value the intelligence and maturity of many of the posters here.

If DUke turned every discussion on, say, U/G Madness to the 'sub humanity of the majority', then, sure, consider booting his bum. But isn't that why there is a seperate board for political / whatever else discussions in the first place? It's because we want to have divergent opinions and abnormal writing .... what is the joy in having everyone rattling on "Yes, I agree w/ eveything you say"? I want action!

DUke -- A couple of points. (1) When you finish your book, put it on the shelf under a heavy weight. Don't look at it for a year. Let it 'mature'. Then read it cover to cover, and you'll probably find tons of things that you're glad never saw the light of day. I wrote some 300+ pages of an unfinished fiction novel, and ended up leaving it for some time. When I re-read it, wow, did a lot of it suck ass.

(2) What exactly do you propose to do about the, shall we say, 'minimal standards' of the masses? Do you subscribe to the idea that war is a cleanser? Or do you think it possible to shock people out of their lethargy so that they begin to actually think about what they are doing, begin to try and acheive some sort of self awareness other than being part of the web of mass culture and mass feeling?

(I believe that this is a problem in our overly materialistic world - "happiness" is found in new objects and in other, transitory people.)
Do you feel anger towards those you deem subhuman because they live their lives in a bubble of self interest, or because their self interest has the potential to affect your world? Or is it that you resent the fact that morons ( and there are a lot of them ) have essentially the same status as yourself, that their opinions have the same right to be heard as your own? Or that they can shout louder and with more voices than you?

(3) The 'freezing' of scientific or other progress. . . surely that is the sort of thing that should be avoided? After all, many of the thinkers and doers are involved in technological development.


Finally, I would like to comment on the general slant of your posts. I get the feeling that you would like to see the rule of the philosopher-king of Plato, someone who could seperate the wheat from the chaff. Is this why you resent the Arab rulers? Because they have the potential to be that king, yet lack the courage (or inclination) to do so?

The problem with that is the king would have to possess almost superhuman judgement, clarity of thought, moral fibre and a transcendence of the earth - ness of the world. Which is why for every <insert large number here> dictators and ho - hum despots, you get one that shines. Possibly people like Augustus Caesar come to mind. But it is far easier to fail in the task of being a superb ruler than to succeed.

Look at Hitler, since you mentioned him earlier. He had the potential of being the greatest ruler of the 20th century, and indeed, in the beginning, he did great things. The German economic recovery after WW1, the repudiation of the unfair Treaty of Versialles, the recovery of lost German territory, the unification of Germans in a single country come to mind. Yet he too fell to the world. I don't mean the Allies, but worldly things. Greed for territory he didn't really need. Hate for the Jews, a people that didn't matter anymore.
I can go on, but I think we all get the idea.

The saying "absolute power corrupts absolutely" is a tad worn out, but apt. We are made of this Earth, and it attracts us continually, in so many ways. Part of the struggle to become more 'human' is to overcome the animal inside, and we all fail sometimes.

I doubt that anything but a computer would be able to rule both alone and incorruptible.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...
Astran:

When you finish your book, put it on the shelf under a heavy weight. Don't look at it for a year. Let it 'mature'. Then read it cover to cover, and you'll probably find tons of things that you're glad never saw the light of day. I wrote some 300+ pages of an unfinished fiction novel, and ended up leaving it for some time. When I re-read it, wow, did a lot of it suck ass.
Good advice. But you know, I have been writing essays and songs for about 4 years now. I know that method, and it works. :) But you see, these new "ideas" of mine are the result of looking back towards some unflattering work of mine. Surely enough, I will put off the finished work for at least 6 months and then re-examine it to see if it sustains the fury and heaviness that I really want to inflict.
Astran:

What exactly do you propose to do about the, shall we say, 'minimal standards' of the masses? Do you subscribe to the idea that war is a cleanser? Or do you think it possible to shock people out of their lethargy so that they begin to actually think about what they are doing, begin to try and achieve some sort of self awareness other than being part of the web of mass culture and mass feeling?
War is a cleanser, however, the kind of war we might need is not a war in a sense "Bush is going after Iraq" type of war. It is more of a raising the standards above the skies, way to the sun, where only select few are able to reach. Sure, it is like this today, but it is built with the wrong conscious and intentions behind it: it allows the rich and the self-seeking to reach the stars; we simply have to change the system to allow only intellectual and creative thinkers to climb that high. This is the cleaning method. It is simple: are you intelligent, are you able to create instead of just siphon from the world's ideas and call them "opinions"? Are you spirited? Do you have the willingness? - these standards will keep down all the current land-crawlers, the retards, the idlers, and all those "good citizens." To be a "good citizen" is to receive what you deserve - you have an "opinion" on things? Good! Who does not? But it is your most profound thought, your most latent spiritedness that will help you ascend to a higher status. To simply be "born" is still a mistake, even today! Every child is born as a mistake: first, to gratify the breeders in the acting of conceiving a child, and second, to escape the world and busy themselves with the child. Their child is a mere puppet to them. Every individual is a mere puppet, first for his family, and then for the world. All puppets will remain puppets, no matter how ambitious they are, and for that, they must be kept from ascending to a status where they are able to influence the world's direction. You are simply born, but you have to be born again, born out of yourself for your own control, born to obey yourself and command your will. All of education should focus on determining who belongs to the subhuman and who belongs to the human species - and each shall be treated differently after they had been defined. The few humans will have the ability to climb, while the other-humanly will have the ability to live their lives as happily as they want, but without the single power or voice to make a single difference. They will not have a single Yes or No to utter, because they are merely puppets and clones of each other - they are subhuman, unable to determine anything, lack all will, all spiritedness, and all needed passion to create and lead.

The first standards to rise are the standards of education - all of education. Failures, idleness, uncreativity, and puppetness will fall because of these standards - these stands must be made as sharp and unforgiving prejudices against all such subhumans. And after all, if you are unable to ascend with your own wings, why should you ascend in the first place? You will be made to fall! And whether you like it or not, that is something beyond your control.
Astran:

Do you feel anger towards those you deem subhuman because they live their lives in a bubble of self interest, or because their self interest has the potential to affect your world? Or is it that you resent the fact that morons ( and there are a lot of them ) have essentially the same status as yourself, that their opinions have the same right to be heard as your own? Or that they can shout louder and with more voices than you?
I feel no anger. With all honesty, I am not a person who hates, dislikes, or feels "anger" towards others. It is people who feel angry, dislike, and hate, and they believe it is natural to feel these. I feel rage, not towards people, but towards myself...for being unable to overcome the hatred and anger of these people: my "love" to them still keeps me enchained with pitying ideas, with compassion. But as we know it, before we make this change we desire...compassion and pity will be the last thing on our minds, and the ascension of the world shall be the first. And really, it seems to me it is few combinations of each of those things you listed - but my overall feeling is: how can it be that we let the wrong type of people climb? And why! It is out of our "control"? Nothing is out of our control - it is we who simply desire to integrate ourselves to the order of the social life, the social standards, to play the game of "living" that seems to have grown so popular. It is we that still feel compassion and pity towards these people and towards ourselves as well, we let ourselves be drowned by the trampling herds, by their protests, by their Yes's and No's, by their opinions, by their "freedoms." When do we simply turn away from such lacking, from this social integration which tries to erase all identities and equalize us, the unequal, the different, the inferior and the superior!
Astran:

Finally, I would like to comment on the general slant of your posts. I get the feeling that you would like to see the rule of the philosopher-king of Plato, someone who could separate the wheat from the chaff.
Very good observation on your part. But I must say: no, it is not my attention to have a Philosopher-King. Plato's idea sounds generous, but it does not take into consideration the movement of time - all greatness dies, like I already said. A system must be built to allow greatness to greatness at all times, and dismay all other parasites. The Philosopher-King is a one time hero, what after him? How is it secured that only such people will arrive to the state of king? Plato, as it seems to me, had himself in mind when he invented his ideas - he had himself as the Philosopher-King. He wanted to rule, and I will say this: his lust for ruling really reached its pinnacle when Socrates was put to death - he wanted to overrule, or as it is more consisted with Plato, he secretly wanted revenge against the majority – the Philopher-King is his revenge against the majority. I must say: the majority are worthy of such revenge, they deserve it. But the problem still comes before us: how do we sustain any rule if the environment constantly changes, as with technology and medical science, which directly affect the lusts of the majority? We have to at least slow down the social evolution, but it is my desire to bring to halt. Are we not satisfied with what we have yet? Do we still demand more, more perfection, more easiness…rather, this is the lust of idlers and the subhuman! We, we others ought to be content with what we have so far…and believe me, we have too much. With a changing atmosphere, we cannot set a certain foundation. Look at the United State’s constitution, for example, which has gone so many revisions that it is not really the foundation that it once were. Can there be a such thing as “constitution” or “morality” or “law” while life morphs? If not, how can we built a constitution in which only the great ascends? Such a constitution is bound to falter with time…and all of our work, therefore, is futile. Because of this moprhing, there simply cannot exist any real set foundations - everything shifts, and everything is subjected to change. Sure, humanity changes, but it only changes in such radical ways when it cowers to science. A science like a beast - out of control and is controling humanity. It is limiting humanity with the limitations of "natural laws." Everything else is overlooked and underestimated. Our "life" today is a life so controlled and lacking, uncreative and idle, and we have our sciences to thank...

Astran:

The 'freezing' of scientific or other progress. . . surely that is the sort of thing that should be avoided? After all, many of the thinkers and doers are involved in technological development.
That is a good point. What is the purpose of Science? To make life easier, to make it grow more idle, to make look simpler and stupider. The degeneration of humanity is science. What? Science is meant to “preserve” the species? What species are we speaking about? The subhuman? Or the human? The subhuman will not stop until it obtains perfect health and perfect conditions: some even long for immortality, and thus they have their “God.” The others, the humans, they are not as in love with appearances and disguises as these humans: they are not so in love with the simplicity of science. So you will die at age 50 instead of 90? Do you really want to live to your 90’s? Do you want to even live to your 60’s? It seems to me that the creative and productive life does not fear death, because it does not fear itself – when one experiences thought, when one experiences life in its full glory, when one satisfies his lusts and experiments with desires…what is there left to do? Rather, death is nothing more than the wonderful slumber that awaits the creative minds. But this same death is the haunting specter that plunges the subhuman into vivid extremes: they have created their metaphysics out of it, and then their immortality of the soul, indeed, while creating a “soul,” then they brought their filthy Heaven and their dispassionate God – all of these are the works of fear and wanting. Each of them is a symptom of a life that had degenerated. They exclaim to me of “faith” as if faith was nothing more than “denial.” Such empty rhetoric they utter so readily!

Astran:

Look at Hitler, since you mentioned him earlier. He had the potential of being the greatest ruler of the 20th century, and indeed, in the beginning, he did great things. The German economic recovery after WW1, the repudiation of the unfair Treaty of Versialles, the recovery of lost German territory, the unification of Germans in a single country come to mind. Yet he too fell to the world. I don't mean the Allies, but worldly things. Greed for territory he didn't really need. Hate for the Jews, a people that didn't matter anymore.
Hitler is subhuman. I commend him, however for his passion and his apathy. His fanaticism intrigues me – all of life is fanaticism, and all of us, human and subhuman, desire fanaticism and extremes – every social construct and social status, everything “entertaining” to us is necessarily extreme and fanatic, and only then do we deem it “good.” But his fanaticism slowly grew into deep shallowness and blindness, and he too, it seems to me, began to lust for power, and more power, infinitely. And this is the error of every greatness: when it begins to lust for more. Whatever this “more” is, it is the end of greatness and the beginning of subhumanity, the beginning of a desire that cannot be fulfilled: all “more” wants” more,” infinitely and without direction, without restriction, without anything to guide it but this “more.” Science is a more. Happiness, as the majority knows it, is a more. And with that I will throw in power, and even religion. They are the sickness of wanting more. More of what? More of infinity. And infinity is futility.

And look now:

How futile is man today? How superflous! That we are able to discuss him and dissect him so easily - he is that simple, that empty, lacking all the complex limits that the human brain is able to push and destroy. This rather pathetic man is what we have to show for our species? Shame on us!

...and notice, when we speak of our species, not many dare speak of themselves - they lack selves - what they speak of is the "high peaks of humanity," the "great" scientists, the "great" philosophers. These "great" people are not great - they are mere humans, it is the other subhuman that does not recognize itself, and thus believes it is "great" when a thing ascends above it: instead, they ought to feel ashamed for being of so much lacking that these humans appear "great" to them. They are only great because the majority are herd-like, sick, lusting, and dispirited.

...most people do not know what "greatness" is - how might they recognize it when they see it? They don't - they, again, simply follow the herd, and call "great" whatever has been called "great" for the past.
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
DUke -- Your ideas are interesting. Nevertheless, the problem with a lot of what you are on about is that it is not necessarily that people are inherently stupid - even the thickest heads can demonstrate surprising cunning at times - but that people are (1) herd animals (2) lazy. This causes people to become wrapped up in mass culture and worldly things, and to neglect their own intellectual and spiritual (self-awareness) well being. We (I mean the majority) are too concerned about how we appear and interact with others to realise this.

The herd animal aspect is important. It has taken us far, granted. Evolutionarily, a close knit group has far better chances of survival than a person on his / her own. But it also represses those with ability. I think of my mother, for example. She studied inorganic chemistry, cum laude'd, and did extremely well in anything academic. Where is she now? Plugging away in a lab, with people infinitely her mental inferiors her bosses, promoted over her. Why? Herd mentality. Because she is socially inept, unable to 'get along' with everybody else, she has been pressed down, and kept there. And I suspect it is so with many similar cases.

Laziness is a spin-off of well - being and culture. The better off you are, the less incentive there is to 'go for it' and the more there is to relax and vegetate. But of course, because we are herd animals, we can't allow others to surpass us, even if that surpassing would do essentially nothing to our status / wellbeing. Thus we obstruct others from acheiving their potential, out of casual spite. I speculate that that is why there is a casual attitude (judging from what I hear ) to education in America. There is so much wealth and prosperity that there is no HUNGER left in people, none of the spark that says 'I must achieve or die'.

That is why people like Arhar like America. Having emigrated from Russia (If I remember correctly) and probably possessing comparitively little to those already here, his 'spark' has allowed hard work to reap dividents for him.

I agree with you. There should be some way to facilitate the rise of those who have the spark, who have the intelligence. BUT, I think that IF they have enough guts, they will largely find a way up regardless. I laughed when you said you were studying Economics. If I wanted to have 'power' and advance my position to a point where I could be untouchable, yet touch others, I would have done exactly the same. Things like Art , Philosophy may make you happy, but they'll make you end up in the poor - house. I studied Art.... :(

A final remark to leave you with.

Remember, the 'herd' can help as well as hinder. Civilization consists of the herd, with each person plugging away at her own insignificant little job and life, yet the interconnectedness of all means that the result of this activity is collectively greater than anybody on their own. In its own way, each comparitively insignificant activity (compared to a Nietzche, Kant or Plato) is as significant as that of one of the 'greats' < dodges thrown objects > because it provides a support base from whence the great intellect can flourish. Einstein, for example, would never have done a damn thing if he had had to make his own shoes, grow his own food, walk to wherever he wanted to go... the mundane weight of the world was in that sense lifted from him by the effects of the herd.

And from the herd come philosophers and talents, people who were previously insignificant. In that respect the subhuman and human is a state of mind, not so much a genetic condition. (Although I believe genes do have at least some bearing on the matter).

To reiterate : you are correct in saying there must be a way to make the greats rise, and to acheive their rightful place. However, could we not start by raising the standards for 'the masses', getting a global culture of learning and possibly introspection in place? The power of the herd is great and synergistic. If it were possible to change the culture of a people so that thinkers and creators were respected, admired and rolemodels, then perhaps we would see them rise to the top in greater numbers and in greater quality than ever before. The 'Golden Age ' of the Greeks is one such time..

Why destroy the herd when we can use it, even if one doesn't feel part of it?
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Because she is socially inept, unable to 'get along' with everybody else, she has been pressed down, and kept there. And I suspect it is so with many similar cases.
I'm not sure what you're saying here - is it your mom should be promoted despite her being socially inept?
 
A

Astranbrulth

Guest
Spiderman -- What I'm saying is that being socially competent is often a greater consideration for promotion etc. that actual competence at the job at hand. This is why there are so many oinkcreepers about. Because they know that if they are more 'popular' with the powers that be, then it is an easier ride to the top.

However, I'm not saying that social competence is irrelevant; being able to interact with others in 'team' situations is important. One should just try and seek out jobs more suited to one's personality, I guess, but it's not always possible.
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
"often a greater consideration"? That's such a broad generalization that I am skeptical right off the bat.

I'm sure it works that way at some places, just as I'm sure it doesn't work that way at others. Being "good at your job" is probably not enough is the position you're seeking is a management type position. There may be a lot of oink kissers when they should be competent but likewise there's probably a lot of "tech-minded" people (for lack of a better word) who cannot relate to their subordinates and thus resentment builds up.

Obviously the best fit would be one who is tech-able AND socially-able. And if you have one who is 90% tech and 10% people and one who is 50% tech and 50% people, the latter is probably a better match for a leadership position. If it was solely a higher technical position, the former would be a better match. There's just too many variables.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

And here I am again, feeling confined between little minds and little thoughts.

Do you people seriously believe that some one who is "socially inept" is "born that way"? Or do you believe that there is really a thing as "evil" or "immoral"? Every little notion you perceive of a person is an extension of two factors: the pressure and the oppression placed on him, and second, the way in which he decided to treat those pressures. It, however, begins where unfairness, maltreatment, and the many stings of very little people that draws out our "antisocial" manners...or to put it more delicately, it is the overall antisocial atmosphere, the elitists cults, whether political, religious, or those of "good communities," it is they who isolate individuals, and instead, create a collective conscious, a crowd, a "majority." Everything that a majority utters, believes, and does, no matter what it is, is a falsification of something more subtle, something more sincere, something less fanatical, something more truthful, something truthful at all! Every majority is deception, a masquerade, and a lack of self and self expression. Only then, having departed himself, can one find it in his heart to "belong" somewhere...

...and truly, not many like the taste of loneliness. Today, the willingness to belong, even if one desires to a simple and single "lover," is to an extent an avoidance of one's self. Love is a drowning today, and childbearing, and the good "responsibility" that a couple undertake is the drowning of the self, the escape, to venture off, away, beyond one's self...

...and thus we have our cowards today, we have our "spiritualists," and new-age world-peace advocates, we have our liberators, all who try to make the world a one crowd, or as I see it, one prejudice against all true individuality, true liberty, against all truthfulness. Because all majorities are falsifications, and world-peace has as its greatest goal the will to falsify everything by deluding it with the lacking "freedom of opinion," by the filthy democracy, created and sustained by subhumans, for subhumans, against life itself and for the living, the living that is based on principles of pleasure and leaps to infinity...a living that is futility.

There is no nihilism here, but...the majority is a falsification. The majority does not exist, as "it" is not composed of life, but composed of mindless individuals. The majority is a ghost, a hovering conscious that has no roots but the roots of weakness and "selflessness." It is a wing only getting stronger, it is a calm before the storm...it is hysterical and mad, and fanatical and sick, and it is only raging today, albeit, underhandedly and secretly...

Being "socially inept" is not only a cause of itself, but also an effect, returning back to how society treats individuals, or...how society, and the world, has since its dawn declared its war against everything new, everything individual, everything true, everything that moves on its own course.

I cannot begin to speak of crimes, or "criminals," and their "evil" deeds. I cannot even begin to speak of "terrorism," which is more sincere and more clean, as it is a lash against majorities, against "innocent" majorities. A simple examination and we see how truly innocent any of these majorities are.

They are ignorant, they are stupid, they are selfless, they are a...majority. They are a statistic, a number, and nothing more, nothing worthy of anything more. There is no smell of innocence about them - they smell like the very spirit of decay and death...they smell like a lie, a major, profound lie. Do not begin to speak to me of "innocent citizens." There are no such beings. Innocent is when one find it in his heart not to belong to the lies and falsifications, to the cowardly crowds, to culture and tradition - innocence is childish, it is not well-aware of wrong and right, it is beyond morality. The simple notion that these "innocent citizens" are conscious about anything that moves towards a different goal, towards a higher goal...the simple observation we make when we see how they detest anything that flies higher than them by calling it "evil," "unlawful"...the simple sadness and tears we cry when we see these crimes committed against life...instantly and without a doubt we diminish all "innocence" about these majorities. And with all honesty, these majorities are...falsifications. They are as much of victims as they are criminals. They are as much of sad and pitiful cases as they are the spiders who sustain every wrong we see and detest today, with confining, thick webs that weave and reweave all bad habits and bad manners, all stupidity, again and again, like a poison. We, we others, have been poisoned!

Most of them do not realize their belonging to the majority, they do not realize that they are the majority. They think the majority is a physical existence. Majority is a subconscious, it is a ghost, and it is a collective conscious…it is a collection of deceptions.

Today, it seems to me that everyone detests and wants to rid or overcome the “majority,” without knowing who the majority are or what it is – little is known that most of these people, most of these rebels and independents, are the leaders of these majorities. You see, even at this hour, even now, I see the dawn of the evil onto light – eventually the world will call itself free, in that it had established its ever-wanted, every-wanton world peace, and yet, everyone in the world will despise the world and despise all majorities and all crowds, everyone will deem himself an “individual.” Even now, we can simply reverse the shallowness of these individuals, and simply and very logically say: anyone who is calling himself “free” is the most unfree, simple because the concept of “free” has been contaminated and undergone many changes, many filthy changes by the hands of these majorities, that “free,” today, belongs to the majority. If you are free, you are the majority.

At the end, the very end and final days of humanity…the evil onto light will be the only and ultimate truth: good is, ultimately, all that is falsified, insincere, and ungreat…at those days, “evil” is good. It is not a philosophy or way of life, it is not living...it is a nature to come, it is the life to come, it is life...we are seeing its birth today...

The day will come when goodness will be called evil, when goodness will be punished if it is seen wandering freely, it will be susceptible and feared. At those days, subhumanity and all of its glories will be called the ultimate good. Only a direct, merciless, apathetic inversion will correct this, only the greatest evil onto light - during those days, good must by all means become evil, be willing to be called evil...
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
The day will come when goodness will be called evil, when goodness will be punished if it is seen wandering freely, it will be susceptible and feared. At those days, subhumanity and all of its glories will be called the ultimate good. Only a direct, merciless, apathetic inversion will correct this, only the greatest evil onto light - during those days, good must by all means become evil, be willing to be called evil...
Makes sense to me. It's only logical that "society" as we know it will be torn asunder by threats of outside interference and the only hope will be from internal interference...

-Ferret

"I'm still waiting to see which side will be more fun to play for..."
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
Philosophy counts .... Logic is the best part, by far. See "A New Kind of Science" by Peter Wolfram for more on that.

Kim Il Jong must go. Not for moral reasons (there's that), but because he supplies arms to the enemies of The West, and plenty thereof, and he's a nutcase.

Israel won't mind if we tank into Damascus and Teheran on the way to Pyongpeng, but we won't.

Blue is dead as a doornail in Onslaught Block Constructed, and all the Pemmin's Auras (anagram for "I am Superman") and Stifles won't ressusitate it.

Sartre gave philosophers a bad rep. He was obviously in it for the poontang.
 
D

DÛke

Guest
Rakamir:

Sartre gave philosophers a bad rep. He was obviously in it for the poontang.
LOL

I noticed that too - if you just read Being and Nothingness, it is quite a fancy rip off from Martin Heidegger’s Being and Time. Sartre, in a way, deceived himself. This is especially too ironic...considering the subject matters of Being and Nothingness and his views on "self-deception."

I am especially annoyed how Sartre proclaimed himself as an "existentialist," consequently, putting an end to existentialism...just like God, who put an end to the faith of man, when he decided to introduce the volatile religions. Some matters, like faith, spirit...and..."existentialism"...are not to be spoken of or defined - doing so destroys them.

Every religious man who claims to be faithful is the most divine liar on this Earth today. Any man who is "spiritual" is a liar...any one who is "free" is a liar...any rebel, liberator, "good" person is a liar too. And I speak this with utter seriousness. They are dishonest people...all of them.

Yes, quite sharp generalization...suppose it is true, however! Suppose that they are liars! Suppose that they deceive themselves at every opportunity, that they cling to their God only out of desire - desire to live eternally, desire to direct revenge towards their enemies...suppose these are the reasons to their faith! Yes, let us suppose that they have attained faith only after attaining hate towards others, only after making enemies and after betraying themselves! Every right to generalize them is earned - they are generalized because they are all the same regarding spiritual matters, which are not really spiritual, but lustful, desiring, longing, wanting, and avenging matters...matters of laziness...matters of "relinquishing" the world...matters that posses no challenge between man and existence – their faith is this: “I am faithful…and now, let me live my life.”

Let me define faith very briefly, hoping to do some justice to it, hoping to clean it a little after it ran through the filthy hands of religious men: faith – it is the constant challenge between man and existence, or man and the universe, not between man and God...a challenge to understand the meaning, if there was any meaning at all. God’s existence is irrelevant by every sense of the world. Only when you desire a favor, a miracle, only when you hide your revenge towards the world, and your hatred to others, only when you believe you are righteous over many, that you are “saved” without a doubt…only then would you conjure up your “God.” This is not faith – it is debauchery. Faith is an infinite challenge between man’s limited life and experience and existence or the universe. To be able to pass one’s life in joy having stood at the edge before this challenge, that is faith. Faith is not “believing” or “knowing.” Faith is doubt, thought, and not knowing. As soon as the light of certainty dawns, as soon as one believes to have grasped a “truth,” he has killed all faith. There are no truths. There are no certainties. Religions, insofar, assert themselves as infallible certainties, as “word of God,” yes…religion declares God! – in the light of this post…how unfaithful are they! How unchallenging to man’s experience and existence…how lazy and decadent such concepts grow, for they offer man nothing but a hideout, a sanctuary of bad feelings where all cowards, all liars, all the unfaithful run and hide, in the name of God and faith.

Does God exist? Does it matter?...verily, it matters to the unfaithful and to those who seek themselves in the material world.

Please! Do not deprive me from the pleasure of assailing all agnostics as well! And please...do not think I will leave "atheists" untouched! All garbage must be sorted, analyzed, and then burned. I want fresh air, after all...an air unharassed by foul words and falseness.
 
P

phantmjokr

Guest
Duke,

You're gonna cut us to sophistry or hemlock?

Interesting as well that while you laud philosophers you have very keen opinions about them individually as well. Certainly this is not a particularly condemning contradiction only that in your case it is interesting. This may or may not have been the Ferrett's point...

At some point you, or anyone, can flush all of philosophy down the toilet. Again this isn't to say that philosophy is without merit only that it doesn't touch on all things. Hitler may have been a legitimate point as a philosopher but there may be an argument about the many that knowingly took a bullet in opposition. Many that I'm rather sure came from a gamut of philosophical and religious backgrounds. Of some I'm sure they weren't more comtemplative of the matter than a feeling of "this is wrong" right before the lights went out. Is that philosophy?

This might lead us to Camus...

Or of course a fatal wreck into the only tree in the middle of nowhere...

It may be merely a symptom of posting to this board and that you are simply going with the stream, but against what has been said I find your output scattered and uneven. Not that you aren't without hope as an author/philosopher but simply that you need a LOT of work.

Good Luck in a post modern world. You are to be unfortunately left with nothing much new to say but simply a struggle to get people, the poor majority that you talk of, to notice your ideas considering that you work them out to a concise conclusion of truth.

Will
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Whow!

You're from Desoto, Missouri? - I know it does not say it under my name, but I am from Imperial, Missouri. That's...too close...:)
phantmjokr:

You are to be unfortunately left with nothing much new to say...
And that is where everyone of you people come into play and tell me that there is "nothing new to say." That you lack the reason, that you even lack the artistry and the spirit to look down towards the modern world, and not just so, but look at its very bottoms, at its very proclaimed statures, at its so-called "liberties," at its so-called "world peace movement," at its "spirituality," at its "science." O! How I am pained! How I am nauseated! How I am begrimed! There is much left to say...there is much left to predict, much chance to foresee, much dice to roll, much coins to flip...there is a warning to be made! - what? You say this sounds like a prophesy? There is no prophecy here! There is no reason either, not reason alone anyway. There is much spirit and artistry.

That you might lack the sight to see beyond and down towards the people, that you might lack the ability to, indeed, look down towards people, because of your so-called "good nature," your so-called "good morals," your "good faith," your "open-mind," because of your all-too-proclaimed "tolerance of others," that could be the reason for your inability. Yet you can be a great man with a greater vision. But who am I to judge at all - it seems to me that every coward of society is able to utter to me the same thing: "it has all been said." Do you know...do you know how much I laugh at that? Much has been said! But O how all the more that is left unsaid, that is left enshrouded and in silence between the words of so-called ethicists and "philosophers."

There is much assumption in this "all been said," supposing, from the beginning, that anyone here, anyone, knows what has been said!

Do not confuse me with modern-day fools and liberators, with modern "philosophers." They belong to the world, hence, their philosophy is for the world. My "philosophy" is mine and mine alone - all followers are fools, and all are selfless, for they lack the greatest thing: to follow their own instincts. My philosophy is mine and mine alone...and anyone who dares put his paws on it will be burned - there is no room for dirt, and to agree with me is a dirty manner...

...I reflect it as a "universal" and "eternal" truth, and that is the purpose, hence, I long for a one who is greater than I not in reason, but in spirit and in artistry, to be able to deny me and put me down to complete shame, not with childish world-love arguments, not with crowd-loving, coward-loving arguments! No! I want to be looked down at by a one who is greater than I...

...and to find it out who is greater than I, I must find my greatest greatness, to reach all my limits, to push every "evil" (which is every good) to its farthest corner that you cannot begin to recognize good from evil - I want to go far, for I am extreme, bloody, and fanatical by every sense of the word. I am unreasonable, I am all the more unreasonable towards confied and confining minds...and such minds are many, such minds so love to believe that "everything has been said."

I have principles! But behold! How all principles are necessarily fanatical! I have goals! But behold! How all goals, in order to be achieved, must become objects of fanaticism and unreasonable reason!

That people are weak and yielding, that they are "tolerant," that is a laugh I have been laughing all my life - they lack all principles, that is all: they are not "tolerant." No! They lack principles, that is all. They are pathetic.

I must find and devour my greatness, to make sure that he who looks down on me, he who is able to make me feel like an insect to be looked down at, he...to make sure that he is greater than I.

Will it be a man, a woman, will it be a God? It does not matter to me.

I do not want to be called or even suggested to be a "philosopher." There is no philosophy here. There is only art. There is only everything, therefore, that is opposite of philosophy...

Why?

Because "reason" has been made obscure and muddled, it has been contaminated by the foul words of the many. It seems to me that every fool is capable of "reason" - he thinks he can argue well by presenting "facts" and "data" from media, from some sources...and he points at those and call them his "reasons." No! Salva mea! That is not reason! That is keen thievery, and a treachery towards one's self!

...and then there are those who do not give a damn about a matter, they think that by avoiding political, religious and philosophical disputes, they are being "good people." Fools, that is what they are to me, that is what they are, for they fear life, they fear words, they fear being misunderstood, and that is, they fear loneliness, they fear isolation, they fear all moments which forces one to think - is it possible that they fear truthfulness as well, therefore? Verily, it is hard to think amongst crowds and crowded places - one's voices loses itself, one's spirit divides itself as it longs to "see the other sides of the argument," at the end, one only speaks what the crowd wants. To speak truthfully, first, one needs to have shaken off all bad habits and all longing to belong to crowds and cowarded places, to be as far away from nation-love, majority-love, and public-opinion love - one must shake off the disease that is the majority, the subhuman.

But artistry! That is my reason. No fool is an artist - look at them: they are as far from creativity, as from talent and spirit as can be. It is art that separates us, today, and not reason. It is passion that defines man contra subman, not reason - the subman, too, thinks he can reason...but he cannot think he is an artist, he will have to work to show his artistry, and first, he will have to posses an enflaming imagination that is raw and desiring, but the modern man avoids work at every opportunity - and thus we happily distinguish between the decay of the subman versus the ever-striving of the man. Passion over reason, desire over logic, spirit over science, those are my reasons. What are yours?

My ability to “win” these arguments is of no concern at all – what concerns me is that art is winning over all so-called “facts,” over all “reason.” There is a chance left in the world, therefore, that man will triumph over subman, because there is a weapon that I have against him, and it is higher spiritedness. As I have shown, over and over again, higher spiritedness defies reason and logical arguments…you simply cannot refute it, at best, you can curse me and then leave.

…and that is the goal! Because reason and logical arguments belong to the majority, and that is, they belong to the subman.

I am not the sophist. They are the cowards and the political leaders that rule the world - they are the majority of the "good citizens," those are the sophists. They are, with their "reason," the poison.

Maybe we will meet over a cup of coffee sometimes? :D

"Spirit will triumph over man."

And by the way, if you are willing to look at me as a "philosopher," or more over, as a "traditional" philosopher...you will not find any reasonable arguments. Why? Because I do not construct systems like Kant, or lead you astray with dialectical nausea like Plato. At the end, of course, like I said...there is no philosopher in me - there is only an artist who paints against philosophy
 

Spiderman

Administrator
Staff member
Sorry for the sidetrack, but phantmjokr, you registered in 2000 and posted now? Are you an old member coming back or is this an "alias" of a current member? Just curious...
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

Spiderman...

...for some reason, I'm thinking Rando.

No offense, phantmjokr - Rando is strange and posses few sub-handles himself...anyone from Missouri is under suspicion. :)
 
P

phantmjokr

Guest
Indeed a second look and your outlook smacks of Rand. Did you see the documentery on her life. By the interviews it seems she was mostly misunderstood...

...and I think you underestimate the hermit...

"If consequences dictate a course of action perhaps I should play god and shoot you myself"

It's better when its loud.

You are also aware of Godel's Incompleteness Theorem? Certainly and idea that rocked western philosophy but which has ties to the ancient Zen Koan.

Yes, I registered in 2000 and don't normally surf the CPA but was informed of this discussion by a friend. And, yes, I live in DeSoto MO.

Will
 
D

DÛke

Guest
...

I do not even know who Rand or Godel are, much less, anything about their lives, philosophies, theories...

I do not watch much television - maybe an hour a day, at max. I am not into any modern philosophies, and certainly not into anything, no matter what it is, that has any ties with religion, religious thought, or any of the many sages and what have you. I keep an open mind about philosophy and philosophers...but very few interest me...I simply doubt that Rand or Godel will inspire the slightest flame, the slightest curiosity, the slightest new thought that I have not fathomed and entertained already.

It is interesting to hear that someone out there is basing theories on ancient concepts. I do not pretend that such is noble, or holy, or wise. And I do not call it an invention or an act of individuality.

I call it an act of desperation.

I call it weakness.

I call it laziness.

No matter how profound, no matter how new, no matter what it says.

I want a mind that has reinvented itself on its own, and therefore, a mind that has lived and felt the entire history...I am sure, too sure, that I am misunderstood when I say that I demand such a mind...

...what do you expect? What do you think of that demand? - can you even answer such a question? No - it requires that single demanded mind to reply to and understand the demand.

...it does not require a man who reads a lot, who posses elephant ears, a monstrous mouth, but a pea-sized brain.

...it does not require a man who is an "intellectual."

It requires a real man - a human who has lived life, who has learned on his own, and not betrayed himself the value and joy of hardship, of struggle, of suffering and pain.

I denounce all theories that posses ancient roots. I denounce all nobility earned not by experience, but by acquaintance, by digesting the ancients, by digesting the popular and the new.

We are not ancients. We are living in today.

We need all new values. We need to wipe the smell of the old away. We even need our own grounds to plant our roots in.

We need no…Americans – the human decadence screams at every corner of America, the human disease, the human hysteria in its crudest form, the sicknesses of minds who have no aim but the aims of pleasure, who seek nothing but pleasure, who know nothing but pleasure – minds that fail to be great, thus demand democracy to match themselves with those few whom are great; minds that fail to be great, therefore, demand a system as utilitarianism to serve them on the expense of the few, and with those few, on the expense, therefore, of the true. Foul is the mouth that utters democracy and more foul is the mouth that utters “American liberation.”

Offend a European: mistake him from an “American.”

God is...unnecessary. America…Americans…are…unnecessary. Christ and his libertine followers, Mohammad and his slaves, the stink of the Jews…they are…unnecessary. The rottenness of tradition and cultures, the ever-new smell of the sciences that flies faster than man, in haste, away from all values, and man is left dragged behind, carrying with him a decayed God, useless morals that are unfit for this very fine day, and a so-called “tradition” and “culture” – like a jigsaw puzzle with all wrong pieces forced together!

Fine was the weather and beautiful was the day, the day that I burned my (un)Holy books and betrayed all cultures.

Thus I am a pinch - just a pinch - cleaner than the ordinary subhuman garbage lot.
 
P

phantmjokr

Guest
That you are unfamiliar with Godel and Rand, well, has just for me created a perch.

As to why let us use music as an example. For a base there are only two approaches that are of interest. The knowledgeable and the unknowledgable. Let's let them be represented by Jazz and Punk Rock.

Punk Rock has meaning which leaps to us from the passion of which you speak. It is also unschooled. Juvenile. Certainly at times it throws itself upon the wall whereby the artist cannot commit to production that of which they would like...

Jazz, at this time, comes from the schooled, and by the learning of technique. Of course it can become stilted from this schooling but too can overcome this stifling effect whereby the artist can convey exactly what they mean.

You are, or seem to be telling me that you are a punk rock philospher that needs no audience...or that you are scholar of philosophers who IMHO has missed more than a few important ones.

You may have made up your mind about things but that is certainly not the appearance that you give.

I must run at the moment with this unfinished...but I will be back.

Will
 

Ferret

Moderator
Staff member
Originally posted by phantmjokr
That you are unfamiliar with Godel and Rand, well, has just for me created a perch.

As to why let us use music as an example. For a base there are only two approaches that are of interest. The knowledgeable and the unknowledgable. Let's let them be represented by Jazz and Punk Rock.

Punk Rock has meaning which leaps to us from the passion of which you speak. It is also unschooled. Juvenile. Certainly at times it throws itself upon the wall whereby the artist cannot commit to production that of which they would like...

Jazz, at this time, comes from the schooled, and by the learning of technique. Of course it can become stilted from this schooling but too can overcome this stifling effect whereby the artist can convey exactly what they mean.
Will
All new syles of music (like styles of philosophy) start out w/ the best of intentions, but eventually become commercialized seeking mindless followers. Soon you have the originator and the millions of sheep and posers that follow it. True original thought cannot be derived from simple buzzwords but from a lifetime of experiences and shunning that which is rammed down your throat. Studying philosophy is okay - if you want to see how crazy these other people were. Developing your own philosophy - for yourself and not for others to ponder - is the only true path to enlightenment...

-Ferret

"...and people wonder why I got such terrible grades in philosophy in college..."
 
R

Rakamir

Guest
Developing your own philosophy - for yourself and not for others to ponder - is the only true path to enlightenment...

-Ferret

Absolutely, though a reading of Plato's Republic and Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand and Machiavelli's The Prince, not to mention the Encylopedia Brittanica's bio of Machiavelli's life, wouldn't hurt. Also, read what Neo-Platoism is in the Brittanica as well, for it has influenced our culture strongly. Just a tip.

My personal philosophy is that people will act, subconsciously and conciously, in those ways that lead to the survival of the species as a whole, starting with themselves, but not always. Three Kings and City Slickers almost got it it right, and can in fact be deduced from my "Secret of Life," above.

The word "selfish" is horribly mis-used in Western Culture, perhaps just in America. It's often meant to mean "very selfish," or putting one's self above and beyond all others. Indeed, even the most altruistic among us act "selfishly," but in a good way. By taking care of themselves, they live on to help others.

Heroes, on the other hand, act in a "self-less" manner, sometimes sacrificing their own lives (see: Sept. 11) for the good of others (i.e., our species), even if they risk not living to help another day.

Atheists have the greatest faith of all, DUke. They BELIEVE in "nothing," which I find to be retarded, without proof.

Agnostics cannot be analyzed, DUke. They come in too many flavors, except perhaps to say, they lack Faith; requiring proof. One might as well try to analyze The Reform Party. Impossible. :)
 
Top