Reply With Quote
It's customary to give attribution here, but if you want everyone to think you said it, there's no need.
Try some preparation H for that butthurt, greyforest.
It's customary to give attribution here, but if you want everyone to think you said it, there's no need.
Whether or not other thinkers agree or disagree - I think that if you look at what's happening today, you definitely see what ol' Fritz has been talking about. Hierarchical structures imposed by people with power reinforce themselves to the benefit of those with power and to the detriment of those without it. The powerless, in turn, resent those with power by demonizing them: kill the evil bankers etc. etc. etc.
Fair enough. Didn't think anyone would actually attribute that to me though.
Not everyone reads Nietzsche.
I think the world already adjusted and shipped those jobs somewhere else.
From one of those articles I linked: 70+% with high school education had jobs in 1970, about 41% do today.
So then you end up with the dilemma. Not everybody that skips school can start their own business, or be successful if they try (and drive only gets you that far).
The best thing that Nietzche ever said was that the strongest society can be measured by the amount of parasites it could support. I thought that was rather brilliant.
Unfortunately.
Capability =/= Right, in my eyes. The problem with that thinking is that it's a s game, in which there is no ending. There's always someone with a bigger gun out there, and a system of morality that defines "moral authority" as "whoever has the biggest gun at the moment" is rather worthless as a code of values to live by.
Butthurt:
Try some preparation H for that butthurt, greyforest.
That butt hurts so bad it left the thread and never came back for another assraping.
You're right - that's why "systems of morality" come up with words like "fairness," "equality," "ethics," etc.
You're not really disputing the underlying facts. You're just saying that's a pretty ty existence. Welcome to reality.
LOL good ing point.
I actually agree with greyforest that DR's account, while noble, inspirational, thrilling and well intended, is just a tree in the forest.
I thank DR for taking the time, but there's no magic bullet out there. If we're going with anecdotes, I've seen people pour their heart and souls into business endeavors, and not make it. Or people that thought they made it, only for some economic crisis to come around and tilt their plan upside down, and leave them at square zero again. It's a complex world out there.
Trying to equate animal thought to rational humans is fallacious. He also tries to conflate "strength manifesting as strength" with "might makes right".There is nothing very odd about lambs disliking birds of prey, but this is no reason for holding it against large birds of prey that they carry off lambs. And when the lambs whisper among themselves, "These birds of prey are evil, and does not this give us a right to say that whatever is the opposite of a bird of prey must be good?" there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument -- though the birds of prey will look somewhat quizzically and say, "We have nothing against these good lambs; in fact, we love them; nothing tastes better than a tender lamb." -- to expect that strength will not manifest itself as strength, as the desire to overcome, to appropriate, to have enemies, obstacles, and triumphs, is every bit as absurd as to expect that weakness will manifest itself as strength.
You could take the same paragraph above and use it to justify rape.
See how easy is becomes to justify such a practice?There is nothing very odd about attractive women disliking rapists, but this is no reason for holding it against rapists that they rape attractive women. And when the attractive women whisper among themselves, "These rapists are evil, and does not this give us a right to say that whatever is the opposite of a rapist must be good?" there is nothing intrinsically wrong with such an argument -- though the rapists will look somewhat quizzically and say, "We have nothing against these good attractive women; in fact, we love them; nothing feels better than a tender attractive woman." -- to expect that strength will not manifest itself as strength, as the desire to overcome, to appropriate, to have enemies, obstacles, and triumphs, is every bit as absurd as to expect that weakness will manifest itself as strength.
The thing people don't ever seem to realize is that parasites come in two varieties: small (people on welfare, elderly people, disabled to where they cant work, etc etc), and behemoth (politicians, lobbyists, bankers, etc etc).
The behemoth parasites just always point blame to the small ones, when really its a pot meets kettle situation.
Taking from society more than you give to it is being a parasite, and it occurs at every economic strata in huge scales.
Last edited by greyforest; 10-20-2011 at 01:25 PM.
I think you missed the point of the quote, Ln.
Yes, but Neitzche/Rand seemingly conflate the two.
I've been in reality all along. But thanks for the welcome anyways.
You would think humans can act better than raw animals... the problem is with the people that subscribe to the notion that they don't have to.
Feel free to illuminate then. Speaking in your own words might make that easier.
The point of the quote is that humans, and nature, has and will always be predatory.
I think the error is in thinking that humans can act better than animals. Last I checked, ants never built little ant Auschwitz's.
We're animals. Thinking that we're somehow noble and "above it" is just naivety.
Full of simple minds. The simplifying power of thought is its chief attraction.
Nobody is saying we're not animals. But we're certainly above any other non-human animal. The fact that we're posting here, and that we're rationalizing Nietzche is just part of that confirmation.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
