Beauty no accident.

What Nietzsche thought of beauty as it related to the ancients and germans. I found this very interesting today.

47

Beauty no accident. -- The beauty of a race or a family, their grace and graciousness in all gestures, is won by work: like genius, it is the end result of the accumulated work of generations. One must have made great sacrifices to good taste, one must have done much and omitted much, for its sake--seventeenth-century France is admirable in both respects--and good taste must have furnished a principle for selecting company, place, dress, sexual satisfaction; one must have preferred beauty to advantage, habit, opinion, and inertia. Supreme rule of conduct: before oneself too, one must not "let oneself go." The good things are immeasurably costly; and the law always holds that those who have them are different from those who acquire them. All that is good is inherited: whatever is not inherited is imperfect, is a mere beginning.
In Athens, in the time of Cicero (who expresses his surprise about this), the men and youths were far superior in beauty to the women. But what work and exertion in the service of beauty had the male sex there imposed on itself for centuries! For one should make no mistake about the method in this case: a breeding of feelings and thoughts alone is almost nothing (this is the great misunderstanding underlying German education, which is wholly illusory), one must first persuade the body. Strict perseverance in significant and exquisite gestures together with the obligation to live only with people who do not "let themselves go"--that is quite enough for one to become significant and exquisite, and in two or three generations all this becomes inward. It is decisive for the lot of a people and of humanity that culture should begin in the right place--not in the "soul" (as was the fateful superstition of the priests and half-priests): the right place is the body, the gesture, the diet, physiology; the rest follows from that. Therefore the Greeks remain the first cultural event in history: they knew, they did, what was needed; and Christianity, which despised the body, has been the greatest misfortune of humanity so far.

I like it because it's good for my vanity. ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

and Christianity, which despised the body, has been the greatest misfortune of humanity so far.[/CENTER]

---

Is it really necessary to criticize Christianity for the millionth time. Plus this shows your ognorants, God made us in his image. Unfortunately I cannot outright call you an intolorant, ignorant bigot, but you sure are acting like one.

I did not write that. I'm not that crazy to be that offensive. ~;)

That's from Nietzsche's Twilight of the Idols.

I see you are offended though, I suggest you don't read that book.

As for man being made in god's image is not really right. God is a believed in as a spirit, not in any physical shape. This is not paganism. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

As for man being made in god's image is not really right.

---

well, in the first book of moses, it literally says "God created man in his image", and after all, the bible is the words of God, no?

BP your love affair with Nietzsche is growing tiresome I can barley understand him therefore how good can the man honestly be

I disagree. People can be beatiful if their parents are unactractive, or even ugly if their parents are beatiful.
Case in point: men are not beatiful. Yet there are many beatiful women out there. ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

BP your love affair with Nietzsche is growing tiresome I can barley understand him therefore how good can the man honestly be

---

In my experience, to read Nietzsche is not like reading other poets or philosophers. Nietzsche uses metaphors and allegories and spins the languages beautifully (I really recommend reading him in german, since it'll make his works much more like poesi, than philosophy). What Im trying to say is, that you dont just sit down and read 200 pages. Read one or two pages and reflect upon - and supplement your reading with secondary litterature as well, that'll greatly increase your experience. However, if you are able to, I suggest wait with the secondary litterature untill you have form an opinion about his works. Dont go biased to it, read it for what it is - then read someone elses opionions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by strike for the south

BP your love affair with Nietzsche is growing tiresome I can barley understand him therefore how good can the man honestly be

---

There is a grain of truth in that statement. ~D

Beautiful traits are those that show health, fertility and disease resistance.

What we find beautiful is viable partners for our offspring.

I can't agree with that. We find anything that reflects our Selves beautiful. ~:)

Nope I'm hetro. ~:cool:

*sigh* I never took you for a shallow person. I'm a heterosexual too, but that doesn't mean that I don't see beauty in other things then females. Beauty comes from within the person himself because without him it doesn't exist. That's why it's a reflection of the Self.

It's a representation of something within you. So if you find your wife beautiful it's not necessarily because she is beautiful to everyone, like me. She's not. It's because it's an ideal in your mind that makes that person someone beautiful.

There is a direct link between what we find beautiful and what is fertile and healthy.

Scientists have found things like high checkbones (and other indicators of beautry) are related to disease resistance.

A whole raft of reserach out there shows that we are attracted to healthy mates.

On the other hand emotionally we look for someone who we can get along with, this often means similar life experiences and or outlooks on life.

I would go along with the more evolutionist pov. What we see/perceive as beauty has to do with evolutionary advantages. Nearly everything we find beautiful relates to the golden ratio, phi (1:1.618).

Its not so much philosophical as it is biological imo.

I find everything beautiful as long as they

1. Have black hair
2. Are about 5'7
3. Have big Lips
4. Have 34DD
5. are loaded
6. And there name is Anglina Jolie
:gorgeous: :pimp: :gorgeous:

I find my notebook rather beautiful..... ~;)

It's both. One cannot escape his culture, and neither his own body.

Perhaps we should seperate the concepts of biological beauty, which is most likely unconsciously inspired by instincts, and other, more abstract beauties?

As I can find a book beautiful as different than a lady's beauty.

And hey, for those who deny a man his right to be beautiful, remember that there are a lot of beautiful boys in anime. ~:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

well, in the first book of moses, it literally says "God created man in his image", and after all, the bible is the words of God, no?

---

Yes but if you read the little interpretation behind the main text, you'll notice that this means the soul and not the physical image, wich was it's first meaning. But think what will happen to christianity if they interpreted this literally. Let's say the hipotetical case in wich an Alien comes, is he the image of God too? That'll be nuts. Even looking at our own history, taking any given time, let's say the Crusades, chirstians hated muslims, so they couldn't say that the image was physical, because that'll make muslims sons of God too. Back on topic, though this post is not to attack christianity, i tottaly agree with Nietzche, the moral of Chrisitianity has always been based formally on the soul (wich leaded to many absurd ends) and that made many people unhappy. The flesh and the matter is what makes us what we're not an idea of being beatiful based on some superstision. Now: What is being physically beatiful? Well maybe chemistry has some word or two about that, mainly because the decision is on the couple the next human, the fellow man, and not in the mirror.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

Perhaps we should seperate the concepts of biological beauty, which is most likely unconsciously inspired by instincts, and other, more abstract beauties?

---

Well, why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

As I can find a book beautiful as different than a lady's beauty.

---

That's just a question of personal taste with, maybe, a dash of fetishism. ~;p

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AntiochusIII

And hey, for those who deny a man his right to be beautiful, remember that there are a lot of beautiful boys in anime. ~:)

---

Baaaaad reference, but still a cultural (or subcultural) expression.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

There is a direct link between what we find beautiful and what is fertile and healthy.

---

Unless you are pervert fashion designer, which is reason why fashion models are not beautiful but looking like skinny young boys. :balloon2:

Fertility line of reason should mean beauty ideal includes wider hips for woman to give birth. :bow:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

Nietzsche uses metaphors and allegories and spins the languages beautifully (I really recommend reading him in german, since it'll make his works much more like poesi, than philosophy).

---

Indeed.

I found an interesting comment by Johannes Hirschberger on him:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Johannes Hirschberger

Bei keinem Philosophen ist die Gefahr so groß, daß der Leser sich von der Sprachmusik berauschen läßt und sich mit großen Worten zufrieden gibt. Was man da für Tiefe hält, ist oft genug nur Stimmung und Affekt, die zu suggerieren Nietzsche ein Meister ist.

---

I will try to translate:

"With no other philosopher there is such a danger that the reader gets intoxicated by the music of the language and is content with great words alone. What is perceived as depth, is often just sentiment and emotion -and Nietzsche is a master in evoking these."

When reading the text that was quoted to start this thread (and even more so when reading the German original of the text) I tend to agree with this assessment.

Style over actual content - and I have to admit that I am a bit undecided whether the text is just a lengthy introduction to deliver an attack on Christianity in the end, or whether the last sentence is a kind of afterthought along the lines of "BTW, did I already tell you today that I hate Christianity?".

BTW, considering how some patrons seem to idolize certain philosophers, the title of this specific work of Nietzsche ("Götzendämmerung" in German) has a nice ironic touch.

Oh, well... ~:handball:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Style over actual content - and I have to admit that I am a bit undecided whether the text is just a lengthy introduction to deliver an attack on Christianity in the end, or whether the last sentence is a kind of afterthought along the lines of "BTW, did I already tell you today that I hate Christianity?".

---

Nietzsche had to deal with a different kind of Christianity than we are dealing with today. It was practically all-pervasive in ruling circles, academia and public life. Christian notions underpinned just about any debate, even in philosophy. For someone to go and sweat Christianity out of his system, to rid his mind of all those deeply-ingrained religious notions on which children in his day and age were raised from day one, was a heroic effort. I have do doubt that it contributed to his eventual descent into psychosis. He was a true hero -- which should not deter us from criticising Nietzsche in turn, of course. More than any other nineteenth century philosopher Nietzsche paved the way both for a comprehensive criticism of Christianity and for a modern philosophy that acknowledges God's death or absence and tries to absorb the consequences for ontology, ethics, and society at large. We are still struggling with this, witness the many discussions of ethical issues and their religious connotations in this forum alone. So let us take our hats off for this great thinker and poet, then rip him to pieces if need be; Nietzsche himself would not expect to be spared.

Yeah Nietzsche was a hero. No other philosopher has had as much influence on other postmodern thought. He is the incarnation of Schopenhauer without the worthless pessimism, therefore the best. ~D
Nihilism without the circular logic and skepticism.

Also people didn't listen to him until waaaay after he died. Everything he wrote was for him first and foremost. Very few other people read his work back then. The world was not ready for his poeticly written, vitriolic attacks on herd morality and christianity.

BP how old are you?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Also people didn't listen to him until waaaay after he died.

---

Not to go off topic, but isn't kind of sad that people, whether it be a great mind, poet, painter, or world leader rarely get any credit till they are dead. I wonder how these posthumously famous people would feel about their fame, whether it would be that of pride or disgust?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

(..) his poeticly written, vitriolic attacks on herd morality and christianity.

---

Speaking of which, a bit more perspective on Nietzsche could not hurt. Nietzsche himself struggled with more than just the absence of God. What made his work (and sanity) much more problematic is the notion that man had actually killed God with his bare hands, or at least that is how it felt to him. Apart from the sentation of a horrible loss, he felt a profound guilt as well which he expressed in the famous words from Thus Spoke Zarathustra:

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. Where shall we, murderers of all murderers, find consolation? That which was the holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet possessed has bled to death under our knives. Who will wipe this blood off us? With what water could we purify ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we need to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we not ourselves become gods simply to be worthy of it?

And while we are on the subject of herd mentality: as a socialist I have learned a lot from Nietzsche's detailed dissection and scathing criticism of socialism, which he held to be just another spring-board for the physically, socially and intellectually weak in their fight against the strong, energetic, individualistic mindset he advocated. Reading Nietzsche on that subject when I was, oh, 20 years old or thereabout definitely put me off all revolutionairy dreams and rhetoric. Many notions of a 'better' society are secretly or openly based on revenge, jealousy and irrational hatred. Nietzsche alerted me to that. A truly great mind.

Reading anything by Nietzsche in its English Translations is like reading the writtings of an individual who had severe mental problems and was trying to capture them down on paper.

It leads one to question the rationality of his work.

Quote:

---

Nietzsche endured periods of illness during much of his adult life. In 1889, after the completion of Ecce Homo, his health rapidly declined until he collapsed in Turin. Shortly before his collapse, according to one account, he embraced a horse in the streets of Turin because it had been flogged by its owner. Thereafter, he was brought to his room and spent several days in a state of ecstasy writing letters to various friends, signing them "Dionysus" or "The Crucified." He gradually became less and less coherent and almost entirely uncommunicative. His close friend Peter Gast, who was also an apt composer, observed that he retained the ability to improvise beautifully on the piano for some months after his breakdown, but this too eventually left him.

The initial emotional symptoms of Nietzsche's breakdown, as evidenced in the letters he sent to his friends in the few days of lucidity remaining to him, bear many similarities to the ecstatic writings of religious mystics; however, this comparison is merely provisional and does not propose to demonstrate any supposed views held by Nietzsche. These letters remain the best evidence available for Nietzsche's own opinion on the nature of his breakdown. Nietzsche's letters describe his experience as a radical breakthrough in which he rejoices, rather than laments. Most Nietzsche commentators find the issue of Nietzsche's breakdown and "insanity" irrelevant to his work as a philosopher, for the tenability of arguments and ideas are more important than the author. There are some, however, including Georges Bataille, who insist that Nietzsche's mental breakdown be considered.

---

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nietzsche

One should note this when reading and attempting to follow Nietzsche philisophy. Or you can try reading the writtings of any severely depressed individual and get an understanding of this unique problem of irrational thought. Try it sometime its more troubling then reading Nietzsche.

Nietzsche went insane because he had intense migranes, and poor vision from crappy neural connections, not because he simply thought he had killed god. That was a metaphor anyways.

I don't know why we are talking about nietzsche, this was about beauty. All the christians are so offended by that last part, I don't think they want to read the rest of that book. Especially avoid this one: the anti-christ ~D

Anyways I only wanted this to be about beauty and how it is cultivated with the generations. If there weren't painters advance their craft before michelagelo, michelangelo wouldn't have learned how to paint. If we all let ourselves degenrate, we only do a dis-service to the future generations.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Nietzsche went insane because he had intense migranes, and poor vision from crappy neural connections, not because he simply thought he had killed god. That was a metaphor anyways.

---

Don't get defense Byzantine Prince its not an attack on Nietzsche - just that one must question the rationality of Nietzsche philisophy. Going insane the way Nietzsche did comes from more then intense migranes and poor vision.

Quote:

---

I don't know why we are talking about nietzsche, this was about beauty. All the christians are so offended by that last part, I don't think they want to read the rest of that book. Especially avoid this one: the anti-christ ~D

---

The discussion must include Nietzsche philisophy since you primarily quoted him in your very first post, with very little of a way of direction by you on what way you wanted the discussion to procede.

Oh by the way I have read Nietzsche - and find him very confusing and sometimes enlightened. But its not a philisohy I buy wholesale into like you seem to.

Quote:

---

Anyways I only wanted this to be about beauty and how it is cultivated with the generations. If there weren't painters advance their craft before michelagelo, michelangelo wouldn't have learned how to paint. If we all let ourselves degenrate, we only do a dis-service to the future generations.

---

Then you should of considered writing it like this verus just quoting Nietzsche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Reading anything by Nietzsche in its English Translations is like reading the writtings of an individual who had severe mental problems and was trying to capture them down on paper.

---

I refuse to believe you are discounting over a hundred years of Western philosophy on the basis of some Wiki blurb. Well, I guess that is the World Wide Web for you: no historical perspective, no depth of analysis, no notion that mankind has often progressed in many ways thanks to the contributions of neurotics and psychotics (Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Marcel Proust anyone?).

Never mind that Nietzsche was a professor, a poet, a great author and an inspiration for generations; all we need to know is he embraced a horse in Turin in order to declare him insane. The epochal contribution of one man to philosophy and the arts, reduced to the ramblings of an idiot.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Nietzsche went insane because he had intense migranes, and poor vision from crappy neural connections, not because he simply thought he had killed god. That was a metaphor anyways.

---

Did you dissect his brain? And besides; who says people with migraine and bad eye-sight can' t be geniuses, genius?
:dizzy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

I refuse to believe you are discounting over a hundred years of Western philosophy on the basis of some Wiki blurb. Well, I guess that is the World Wide Web for you: no historical perspective, no depth of analysis, no notion that mankind has often progressed in many ways thanks to the contributions of neurotics and psychotics (Michelangelo, Isaac Newton, Marcel Proust anyone?).

---

Not from just a Wikipedia blurb Adrian - and I did not say I discount him either. Those are your words not mine. Try reading again, you discover that I stated one must consider this when reading Nietzche and question the rationallity of his work.

Whats the problem Adrian are you assuming that someone must only believe what you want them to believe for the reasons you want them to believe it. I question Nietzsche because of my experiences with mental health and some of its conditions. Remember something there - my wife is bi-polar and a rapid cycler at that. I have read her journal at her request. Some of it matches the style of Neitzsche's writtings in my opinion. Neitzche reads like a smart philisophical verision of my wife's severe depression thoughts. So get real before accusing others of such garbage when you are jumping to conclusion about how I think and what I beleive.

Then Nietzsche philisophy does not seem to match anything other then his own thoughts in my opinion. However it seems that some would like to attack those you question the works of Nietzsche - worse then it seems the expressed opinions already on this board

Quote:

---

Never mind that Nietzsche was a professor, a poet, a great author and an inspiration for generations; all we need to know is he embraced a horse in Turin in order to declare him insane. The epochal contribution of one man to philosophy and the arts, reduced to the ramblings of an idiot.

---

Again try reading what is stated not what you assume is being stated. One must question Nietzsche philisophy - just like all philisophers state - they want you to question their philisophy. I question Nietzsche philisophy for many reaons - one being that fact that he was indeed mentally ill and suffered from it throughout his life - it leads to the irrational ramblings that I see in his writtings.

LOL - its just to funny. Attack Christianity - but don't question a philisophy from an individual with proven mental illness and reads (in english anyway) sometimes like its the writtings of an irrational thought process.

Yep get real - if one can question the sanity of Religious thoughts - then one can question the sanity of any philisopher and philisophy. Nietzsche was just a man with all our failings - he was no better and no worse then any other philisopher out there. I find much of his work worthy of discussion - but not much of it worth following. But that is my opinion - and I am entitled to it just like you are entitled to yours without being attacked by someone who for one misread what is wrote, and two has no idea of where I was coming from.

And there you have it.

Why should I even take you seriously. You can't spell philosophy right if your life depended on it. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

And besides; who says people with migraine and bad eye-sight can' t be geniuses

---

Yeah! Who said that?!?! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Attack Christianity - but don't question a philisophy from an individual with proven mental illness and reads (in english anyway) sometimes like its the writtings of an irrational thought process.

---

Who says you shouldn't question him? I wrote that we should question him, if need be 'rip him to pieces', remember? So much for that strawman.

You wrote that all of Nietzsche's writing consisted of capturing his mental problems on paper. That would reduce his ideas to mere reflections of madness.

I contend that his mental problems were compounded by his philosophical insights, in particular his notion that man is basically on his own in this universe and that ther is no consolation either in this life or after it. But whatever his mental state was (and there is a continuing debate about this; not about Nietzsche's eyesight at all, but about whether he contracted syphilis in later life and was in the so-called 'tertiary phase' of the disease) we should never discount his ideas on the basis of that embrace in Turin and everything that it represents. His ideas should be judged on their own merits.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Why should I even take you seriously. You can't spell philosophy right if your life depended on it. :laugh4:

---

I have made the same lame jokes about Redleg's spelling in the past until I realised what a jerk that made me, so I apologised to Redleg.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Yeah! Who said that?

---

You did, smart-bum. Well, you suggested it, right?
Or I may have confused you with Redleg... ~;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sjakihata

BP how old are you?

---

I think BP answered your question ... kind of :shrug: :

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Why should I even take you seriously. You can't spell philosophy right if your life depended on it.

---

@BP: I guess reading the works of philosophers did not have as a positive impact on your debating qualities as one might expect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Or I may have confused you with Redleg... ~;)

---

YEAH!!!!

But you are forgiven. ~:cheers:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clagane

I guess reading the works of philosophers did not have as a positive impact on your debating qualities as one might expect...

---

Actually reading Nietzsche I have learned that dialectics is a poor speaker's only way out of an already dire positioning situation. HEHE.

Also i fail to see what debating has to do with philosophy.

@Byzantine Prince: Of course beauty is no random thing. Although your post contains some errors, for example: "whatever is not inherited is imperfect" is wrong - many random factors also accounts for part of the natural selection both before and after civilization was invented.

Anyway, the simple principle why you consider any living woman attractive is because of the advantage of having an urge telling you to mate only with the best possible matches of women. Thus, evolution makes you think those that'll give you the best offspring are the most beautiful women.

Of course, this doesn't mean there aren't cases of instinct-exploiting, which often evolve repeatedly in evolution. If someone who isn't an appropriate match has an appearance which is attractive, that person can in the short term exploit the urges to find a beautiful matching woman as partner and in the short term have offspring with several partners. However, they do not last in the long term because the having several partners in a small flock means less genetic variation because the others didn't take an as large part in the reproduction and creating of the next generation. This explains why there are very few women which are considered beautiful by almost every man.

Also, one can conclude that the better a person is at judging whether a person of the opposite sex is an appropriate partner, a good combination with the own genes, the better the person will do in the long-term in evolution. Therefore, the instinct-exploiting behaviors are limited.

So we have two reasons why beauty exists and isn't just accident: 1. evolution makes us think women are beautiful if they have a good genetic matchup to our genes, 2. some individuals in a population will always exploit the lack of causality* in those instincts, and survive just because of their beauty, their beauty is their reason why they can exist.

It's a lot more complex than this, but in conclusion it's a natural part of evolution for us to consider some women more beautiful than others and for everyone to have a slightly different taste.

* By lack of causality in instincts I mean that instincts aren't triggered by exactly the factor that SHOULD, logically, trigger them, but by something different. For example animals may be more sexually active in the summer because it's best to get the offspring in the spring when there's most food available. The logical trigger would be to know when you are exactly 9 months before a boom in food, but you can't know, so evolution has been forced to find any trigger which existed at the same time - i.e. the strong sunlight in the summer, all the green vegetation, or the heat. Thus, the instincts can be fooled to give the result increased sexual activity even if it isn't summer, if heat, vegetation or strong light appears under other circumstances.

@Steppe Merc:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

I disagree. People can be beatiful if their parents are unactractive, or even ugly if their parents are beatiful.
Case in point: men are not beatiful. Yet there are many beatiful women out there.

---

That's a good point, but evolution doesn't only work in a single level of generations. A generation which looks good and gets a good-looking offspring will do better sexually than a generation which looks good and gets ugly children or one that looks ugly but gets good-looking children and so on. The fact that someone who is slightly uglier than the most beautiful person in a generation also gets an offspring under normal circumstances means that even those who temporarily during generations look less beautiful aren't removed. This is one of the most important aspects of evolution - allowing less beauty and survivability survive over generations despite it's failures, because the variation is the only way a species can evolve to adapt itself to a different environment if necessary.

Re man made things being beautiful: It's because we want to make things look as beautiful as possible. Of course, the differences in taste here are important to remember. It's interesting to see that most artists who are considered geniuses got their inspiration from nature. Hence the thought that the reason for instincts for seeing beauty in other things than the opposite sex is in order to consider safe environments beautiful.

Re other natural things than the members of the opposite sex being beautiful: This is harder to answer, but thinking something is beautiful is the same as feeling well in the presence of it, mostly. So we might think of natural environments in which we feel good as beautiful.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Also i fail to see what debating has to do with philosophy.

---

I was referring to the discrepancy in intellectual quality between your preferred reading material on one hand and your response to Redleg on the other hand.

BTW, you misspelled my name...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

BTW, you misspelled my name...

---

Don't you see the beauty in that? :sunny:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

Don't you see the beauty in that? :sunny:

---

Only if it wasn't by accident. :wacko:

Uhm ... wait ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

Only if it wasn't by accident. :wacko:

Uhm ... wait ...

---

:happy2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

. His ideas should be judged on their own merits.

---

And are you assuming I didn't - how very insightful of you.

I actually find Henry David Thoreau a better philisopher then Neitzche.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Walden by Henry David Thoreau

THIS IS A delicious evening, when the whole body is one sense, and imbibes delight through every pore. I go and come with a strange liberty in Nature, a part of herself. As I walk along the stony shore of the pond in my shirt-sleeves, though it is cool as well as cloudy and windy, and I see nothing special to attract me, all the elements are unusually congenial to me. The bullfrogs trump to usher in the night, and the note of the whip-poor-will is borne on the rippling wind from over the water. Sympathy with the fluttering alder and poplar leaves almost takes away my breath; yet, like the lake, my serenity is rippled but not ruffled. These small waves raised by the evening wind are as remote from storm as the smooth reflecting surface. Though it is now dark, the wind still blows and roars in the wood, the waves still dash, and some creatures lull the rest with their notes. The repose is never complete. The wildest animals do not repose, but seek their prey now; the fox, and skunk, and rabbit, now roam the fields and woods without fear. They are Nature's watchmen — links which connect the days of animated life.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Why should I even take you seriously. You can't spell philosophy right if your life depended on it. :laugh4:

---

Good I shall continue to misspell the word just to amuse you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Also i fail to see what debating has to do with philosophy.

---

Because debating is the essence of philosophy.

Quote:

---

Because debating is the essence of philosophy.

---

Gah! You were supposed to continue to misspell it, to annoy him. ~;)

Quote:

---

That's a good point, but evolution doesn't only work in a single level of generations. A generation which looks good and gets a good-looking offspring will do better sexually than a generation which looks good and gets ugly children or one that looks ugly but gets good-looking children and so on. The fact that someone who is slightly uglier than the most beautiful person in a generation also gets an offspring under normal circumstances means that even those who temporarily during generations look less beautiful aren't removed. This is one of the most important aspects of evolution - allowing less beauty and survivability survive over generations despite it's failures, because the variation is the only way a species can evolve to adapt itself to a different environment if necessary.

---

Yeah good point, I wasn't really thinking about the big picture.

About Nietcheze's writing, I had difficulty in understanding it although I read a good deal of different style books, but I think it's probably just because of the format and the translation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I actually find Henry David Thoreau a better philisopher then Neitzche.

---

He doesn't even come close to being as influencial and powerful as nietzsche or even lessr philosophers then nietzsche like Heidegger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Because debating is the essence of philosophy.

---

Then apparently you haven't read nietzsche.

Let's see what did I say about that [meaning dialectics]:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Actually reading Nietzsche I have learned that dialectics is a poor speaker's only way out of an already dire positioning situation. HEHE.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

He doesn't even come close to being as influencial and powerful as nietzsche or even lessr philosophers then nietzsche like Heidegger.

---

LOL - then you have not read much of Thoreau. Nor did you understand my statment. You should of noticed the key word of I.

Quote:

---

Then apparently you haven't read nietzsche.

---

Its more likely I don't agree with Nietzsche's philosiphy.

debate is indeed the essence of philisophy (happy Steppe)

Quote:

---

Let's see what did I say about that [meaning dialectics]:

---

The statement about philosophy being a debate is not a poor speakers way out of an dire position. It is what all philosophy is about - debating views to develop a base. Philosophy is the pursuit of wisdom - one can not obtain wisdom without debating with others on matters of importance. Or are you also trying to state Socrates was a poor speaker?

The word - dialectics actually means this

Quote:

---

Main Entry: di·a·lec·tic
Pronunciation: "dI-&-'lek-tik
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English dialetik, from Middle French dialetique, from Latin dialectica, from Greek dialektikE, from feminine of dialektikos of conversation, from dialektos
1 : LOGIC 1a(1)
2 a : discussion and reasoning by dialogue as a method of intellectual investigation; specifically : the Socratic techniques of exposing false beliefs and eliciting truth b : the Platonic investigation of the eternal ideas
3 : the logic of fallacy
4 a : the Hegelian process of change in which a concept or its realization passes over into and is preserved and fulfilled by its opposite; also : the critical investigation of this process b (1) usually plural but singular or plural in construction : development through the stages of thesis, antithesis, and synthesis in accordance with the laws of dialectical materialism (2) : the investigation of this process (3) : the theoretical application of this process especially in the social sciences
5 usually plural but singular or plural in construction a : any systematic reasoning, exposition, or argument that juxtaposes opposed or contradictory ideas and usually seeks to resolve their conflict b : an intellectual exchange of ideas
6 : the dialectical tension or opposition between two interacting forces or elements

---

You have committed a logic fallacy. I will let you figure out which one it is.

Many who want to follow his philosophy often don't want to hear reasonable debate when they whole heartly agree with Nietzsche's philosophy. If you question his philosophy you are attempting to argue yourself out of a poor postion.

A vicous cycle now developes. Question Neitzsche's philosophy and your conducting a dialectical, which is not a debate to discover wisdom and knowledge but is a poor speaker's only way out of an already dire positioning situation, therefor Neitzsche's philosophy rules supreme for those who believe his philosophy. While all other philosophies are a poor comparision to his.

Yeah right.

So if the essence of philosophy is not debate what is it?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I actually find Henry David Thoreau a better philisopher then Neitzche.

---

The Thoreau quote is nice and rustic, but it has nothing to do with philosophy. I suspect that is precisely why you put it in here, then waited to see if Byzantine Prince would take the bait.

Guess what? ~:cool:

I am glad we agree that Nietzsche’s writings can not be reduced to the word salad of a sophisticated schizophrenic. I am happy to discuss any of his ideas in the light of his middle-aged madness, but I have yet to read one article that establishes a clear link between any of his his symptoms and any particular idea expressed in his books.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by AdrianII

The Thoreau quote is nice and rustic, but it has nothing to do with philosophy. I suspect that is precisely why you put it in here, then waited to see if Byzantine Prince would take the bait.

Guess what? ~:cool:

---

I am glad you saw it for what it was. Kind of funny wasn't. I should of used Thomas Jefferson - it would of been even better considering his rebuttal to the comment.

Quote:

---

I am glad we agree that Nietzsche’s writings can not be reduced to the word salad of a sophisticated schizophrenic. I am happy to discuss any of his ideas in the light of his middle-aged madness, but I have yet to read one article that establishes a clear link between any of his his symptoms and any particular idea expressed in his books.

---

Ah but one must consider if the ideas expressed could of been influenced by his mental condition. Which was indeed my point regardless of how poorly I expressed it earlier.

If I was more studied in Philosophy and the works of Nietzsche I might attempt such a comprasion - but my knowledge in both Philosophy and yes even Mental Health are woefully inadequate to attempt such a comprasion (SP) on anything other then the surface thought of one must consider it when studing his philosophy. Like I stated earlier I find the English Translations of his writings often very difficult to follow. It might be different if I read the native language of Nietzsche, but since I don't I have to go with the English Translation..

Did it have an impact on his writing and his philososphy or did the thoughts rambling inside his brilliant mind influence the speeding up of whatever caused his insanity. I don't think anyone will ever be able to answer that question. But the knowledge of his condition and the way he wrote (ie especially the translation aspect of it) leads one to question some of the rationale behind his philosophy. It could of all been part of his design - he was that brillant and that deep of a thinker - or it could of soley an accident of the translation into English. But I find certain aspects of his writings often to be confusing to me, and some actually to be completely irrational.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

Also i fail to see what debating has to do with philosophy.

---

Debating is to philosophy what a steak knife is to a steak.
Not always needed but a useful way to get bite sized chunks and remove gristle.

What is a better way of examining and determining the (subjective and nominative) value of philosophy?

After all if this part of philosophy is about the body there must be better ways to understand outside of debate.

Nice little analogy there Pape... ~D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

A vicous cycle now developes. Question Neitzsche's philosophy and your conducting a dialectical, which is not a debate to discover wisdom and knowledge but is a poor speaker's only way out of an already dire positioning situation, therefor Neitzsche's philosophy rules supreme for those who believe his philosophy. While all other philosophies are a poor comparision to his.

---

You don't have convince other people all the time. Convince yourself, that's enough. Dialectics is pointless. If there's anything I learned from the org is that I learned nothing by arguing and debating. I don't care if you agree with that or not, that was my experience.

This is about beauty damn it! Show me beauty!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince

You don't have convince other people all the time. Convince yourself, that's enough. Dialectics is pointless. If there's anything I learned from the org is that I learned nothing by arguing and debating. I don't care if you agree with that or not, that was my experience.

This is about beauty damn it! Show me beauty!

---

If your not willing to debate or be convinced about what someone precieves to be beauty - then there is absolutely nothing for you to experience in the discussion.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - one must convince others that what they see is beauty or its not. The mind of man is a very beautiful thing - with the ability to think beyond the here and now, the ability to think about the rational and approach the logical and the irrational. Paintings are an interpation (SP) of the artists viewpoint - sometimes its one of beauty for the artist - other times its something else. What I find beautiful in a painting might not be the same for you.

However one can argue that the passage that I quoted from Walden by Thoreau is describing the beauty of the experience he had with solitude and the forest. His use of words to describe his emotions and his experience could be described as beautiful - but again it would require one to think beyond the physical and paint the picture in one's mind.

Without the willingness to debate your ideas - there is absolutely no wisdom gained from what you have convinced yourself to be the truth, either for yourself or others. Therefor you will be committing another fallacy. Once again I will leave it up to you to discover which one.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Prince.

This is about beauty damn it! Show me beauty!

---

This is beauty damnit

https://img358.imageshack.us/img358/...20028vu.th.jpg