imurray

Haha. If you were to see the numerous unfinished projects that I'm way over my head in strewn about the shop, you might not say I'm all that practical. Although I'm familiar with Bateson's hierarchies and not Rand's, hierarchies in themselves are a nice way of representing relationships. However, I also like Deleuze's idea of a rhizome where there is not the same sense of subjugation of one relationship to another. I'm not sure exactly what's meant by those assertions, but I'm pretty sure she or anyone else could just as easily claim the bottle of Purell Instant Hand Sanitizer sitting on my desk as proof of them also. No offense to Ms. Xray as I don't know enough about her assertions to pass judgment. I just think it's a symptom of the kind of thinking/arguing we (to include me) tend to "like" to do. Clever beasts that we are ;)

20 Pages in and the debate on Altruism is anything but settled. Does anyone else see irony in this? Here are my two cents, if anyone is interested. Headnote: The following ideas do not represent a systematic attempt "settle the debate on altruism". 1. The Collective vs. The Brotherhood. When you imagine the general population of the planet, how do you conceive of it? Where do you draw the line between friend "one of us" and other "one of them"? The way that we think of others, i.e., the perception of our relationships with others, plays a considerable role in how we rationalize our motivations for taking action or not taking action for the sake of another. If one imagines oneself as enmeshed in a brotherhood (or a group of "friends") that individual may be more inclined to consider the possible repercussions or benefits to themselves of not acting or acting for the sake of another. On the other hand, one who imagines oneself as part of a collective may be more inclined to consider the possible repercussion or benefits to society. The latter may be defined as a generic "general benevolence" while the former is closer to being the more specific forms of altruism, egoism, or both (mostly a mix of both). What's of interest here is that while the actions taken by each individual might be identical the rationalization behind their motivations for acting changes. Of course, there are other was of imagining the population. I just wanted to outline two possible ways of seeing oneself as part of the "whole". 2. Multiple motives. Can an action for the sake of another be both altruistic and selfish? Why not? If I help my wife wash her car, for example, all of the following are true for me: I want her to have a clean car, I want the car to be clean, I feel a sense of pride after I've cleaned the car, I like cleaning cars, I like making her happy, I like to help her, etc. and these might also be true: I would rather have finished watching the football game first, I would like to have taken a nap, I feel guilty letting her do it alone, etc. 3. Does it even matter? Or can it be "settled"? I suspect the answer to both is "no". The reason an individual does something for another individual is, you guessed it, highly individualized. Not to mention that the terms altruism and egoism are themselves dialectical, I'd argue that neither extreme is possible in practice.

That will lead to laziness. Unfortunately, what ineptly passes for primary education is laughable today. I have good friends who are clients and have 18-20 years in the NY City High School "system" which is essentially in total collapse. The new buzz word out of the Federal Department of Dis Education is the obiwan the diminishing's Secretary of Education is buying into the new "racism" bullshit which is "cultural racism." I will be putting up a topic thread on it later. I am glad that you are being challenged. I wonder whether Nietzsche, Rand or any thinker/philosopher/authoress/propagandist truly welcomes criticism. I was only in the actual presence of just a few, and in Ayn's case, she did not even consider criticism of her ideas as far as I observed. Adam I can only speculate as to whether or not Nietzsche would welcome criticism. I don't think any thinker is ever happy to receive criticism when they feel that they are being misunderstood. In Nietzsche's case I think his writing demands it and that creates a whole different scenario; one in which he, through psychological and rhetorical tropes, remains the "puppet master" so to speak. Put slightly differently, he expects this type of "critical" reader because he knows it is necessary to one's understanding of his work. He needs to move you and in my mind this is at least one way he accomplishes that. I can see the same concept, applied differently, in Kierkegaard through indirect discourse and his use of pseudonyms. Not all philosophy demand to be read objectively as Jules states above (or insinuates above). And sometimes what you think is there and clear is just not what it seems. In fact if you were to do that or assume that with someone like Kierkegaard you'd be in big trouble - I think the same goes for Nietzsche. Sometimes a text demands working from a radically different ontological foundation than one is used to. How can you understand what Nietzsche is talking about if you work from an ontological foundation that is different from the one in which he is working? Invariably the reading will change as the perspective changes (not to mention the messy business of different translations). I'm not saying that one shouldn't subject Nietzsche to those types of readings, in fact they often yield interesting results, but we need to be aware of the ground we're standing on when we're drawing our conclusions. Are we on top of the mountain or down in the abyss?

Having been both and then teaching at the university when I was 20 and a graduate student... trust me neither category has anything to do with spelling or intelligence. I think you are correct. Adam What a peculiar simile... Hi Adam, Technically his argument is correct, but that's because he was arguing with himself. I didn't say any of those things that he credited to me. It is a peculiar simile. All that I meant by it was, in my opinion, he knew how to provoke people with words (although I believe the particular reaction varies between individuals); sometimes he fired with the accuracy of a sniper and sometimes he just sprayed his bullets. I certainly make no claim to be an expert on Nietzsche - this is just the reading that I find most compelling having already taken many other approaches to include the approach Stephen recommended above. I'd like to make it clear what I mean by "experience". I'm not advocating that one should read Nietzsche as fiction or not try to understand what he is saying, merely stating that I find it interesting to examine what the text is doing to me or trying to do to me as I read it. I agree that this can be considered a "sense of life" issue as Jules put it, but in the sense that he's trying to make us aware of our way of being in the world and shake us up a bit - hence what I meant by the term "uncomfortable". All I mean by "reverence" is I don't believe Nietzsche would have wanted his readers to read his work uncritically - to take him at his word or to regard his work as scripture that was only to be understood and not questioned. I wouldn't put it past him to purposely offend his readers to insure that they didn't begin to worship him - many of his ideas came from his own contempt for his former teachers and the philosophers of the day - is it too much of a stretch to think that he might try to recreate that tension between teacher and student, text and reader? Maybe it is, but I think it's at least worth thinking about. That's what I mean when I say I'm interested in the experience of reading him and I believe he was aware of the relationship and interaction that takes place at the interface of the text and the reader. I hope this clears things up. Again, I don't need to be right or really understood - who am I after all? Also, I agree that age has nothing to do with intelligence or spelling, but sometimes experience counts. I was the best student in my class throughout high school and was rarely challenged even my teachers - once I met my intellectual peers and intellectual superiors at college I realized that many of my arguments were lazy - I'd just never been called on them. I was merely pointing that out to Jules, not to condemn him, but to share some of the wisdom that can come with getting older. Ian

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it. Jules, How do you think Nietzsche would have regarded a person who couldn't spell his name? Sorry, you kind of had that coming. You make an interesting case here and if I were arguing from the perspective of objective rationality I would agree with you - maybe. However, I was arguing for a phenomenological reading of Nietzsche (it may have been confusing because I argued for a phenomenological reading using objective rationality - in an attempt to place my argument in the context of a site dedicated to Ayn Rand), which is quite different and, in my opinion, closer to the type of reading he intended. I personally don't find it interesting to read Nietzsche searching for his intent or the "true" meaning of his words, e.g. for his meaning of "reverence". The basis of my argument is that Nietzsche can't be read as one would read traditional philosophical texts. I view reading Nietzsche as an experience and that "experience" is precisely what I'm interested in probing. Aside from that, I don't think you had enough to go on to gauge my understanding of "reverence" or to make some of the other claims you've made about my comprehension of Nietzsche. I wasn't talking about reverence as "the respect of society" as you attributed to me before using it as your main argument against my understanding of Nietzsche. Please, while I can sometimes sound condescending in my writing (my apologies to Stephen) I do try to limit my arguments to what others have actually said. Ian Ian, It wasn't your academic prose. It was what you actually said that was offensive. I'm not picking on your style, so don't pick on my spelling (I don't know why you have to keep pointing it out). I am not a graduate student. I am a freshman in college. You frankly used "reverence" as some sort of mob-respect issue. And actually, the "s.o.b" remark was the least offensive thing you said. You can probe Nietzsche all you want, but I don't care to probe what you mean. True, Nietzsche can't be read exactly as other philosophers, but his work is not pure fiction, so it can't be read just for the "experience." It is primarily didactic. You don't have to search for Nietzche's "true" meaning or intent. If you're reading objectively and the passage is clear, it's either there or it's not. I don't care to argue about your understanding of Nietzsche. I just found what you said offensive. I'm afraid we're not talking about the same thing. I apologize if what I said was offensive to you. As far as spelling which you claim I kept pointing out - I only mentioned it once as a joke. My advice to you, as a college freshman, would be to carefully read what someone has written before entering into an argument. I would have been happy to explain what I meant by "reverence" if you had asked for clarification and then you would have known I was not using it as a mob-respect issue. You will learn as you go through college that when you're arguing with people who know what they're talking about they will call you on these "straw man" arguments (for instance I never claimed that Nietzsche should be read like a work of fiction - why did you assume that?). I'm operating with a vocabulary that you may not be used to (as I am not used to the vocabulary I encounter here); you have to realize that we probably are not coming from the same philosophical background. Sorry if this is harsh, but it is worth showing a little respect to people if you want to learn something from them. If you don't regard me as a person you can learn from or if your goal is merely to assert your intellectual superiority (perhaps you think you are the Ubermensch)then you are going to be very unhappy with some of the responses you get. Just my two cents. I've presented at and attended many conferences and have dealt with many types of people and those who show respect, listen, and try to understand almost always get the same in return. Finally, I welcome any intellectual argument and freely admit that I may not be right and will admit when I am not or have accidentally misconstrued what others have said. I'd be happy to continue this with you, but since you "don't care to probe my meaning" it seems rather pointless. I enjoy hearing what others have to say as I am always looking for new ways of exploring ideas. Ian

Ian, I don't think you are the type of reader Nietzche had in mind. Nietzche would not consent to making himself an object of self-contempt. Though his style can be war-like or "uncomfortable," it is largely a sense of life issue. And I don't think you understand reverence in the way Nietzche meant it. He would not regard reverence as respect due from everyone. He is not trying to win friends or the respect of society. He regards this as "the mob" and reverence as something quite apart from it. Jules, How do you think Nietzsche would have regarded a person who couldn't spell his name? Sorry, you kind of had that coming. You make an interesting case here and if I were arguing from the perspective of objective rationality I would agree with you - maybe. However, I was arguing for a phenomenological reading of Nietzsche (it may have been confusing because I argued for a phenomenological reading using objective rationality - in an attempt to place my argument in the context of a site dedicated to Ayn Rand), which is quite different and, in my opinion, closer to the type of reading he intended. I personally don't find it interesting to read Nietzsche searching for his intent or the "true" meaning of his words, e.g. for his meaning of "reverence". The basis of my argument is that Nietzsche can't be read as one would read traditional philosophical texts. I view reading Nietzsche as an experience and that "experience" is precisely what I'm interested in probing. Aside from that, I don't think you had enough to go on to gauge my understanding of "reverence" or to make some of the other claims you've made about my comprehension of Nietzsche. I wasn't talking about reverence as "the respect of society" as you attributed to me before using it as your main argument against my understanding of Nietzsche. Please, while I can sometimes sound condescending in my writing (my apologies to Stephen) I do try to limit my arguments to what others have actually said. Ian

Thank you Selene, I'm studying in Massachusetts.

Stephen, Thank you for the warm welcome. Please don't mistake my rather academic prose for abrasiveness. If I choose to reply to a comment it is out of respect for the ideas and to hopefully provoke the kind of responses that you shared here. I would not reply if my intention was to merely assault a person's point of view without hope of gaining something from the exchange. I will concede that reading and rereading Nietzsche's works can lead to a greater understanding. That being said, in my opinion, it is more interesting and perhaps more revealing to study what's happening in Nietzsche at the interface of text and reader than to extrapolate answers to conventional questions of philosophy. I'm more interested in what his text is "doing" or attempting to "do" to his reader through the written word and the often uncomfortable relationship forged between reader and text that ultimately leads one into new and undefined territory. I often read Nietzsche as a primer to working with other philosophers as I find that it opens me up to new ideas and ways of being with the text. Perhaps this is the wrong place to introduce myself, but I can always re-post this elsewhere. I'm a graduate student who is interested primarily in rhetorical studies. I am most familiar with the works of Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, Heidegger, Foucault, Aristotle and Dewey; to a lesser degree Bateson, Bergson, and Plato; and to a much lesser degree Arendt, Hegel, and Kant. I have a soft spot for the so-called existentialist and find their ways of shaking foundations to be particularly useful. I'm here because my studies thus far have been skewed away from the Objectivism of Rand and I'm always up for learning a new perspective. Ian I like the preface to the Antichrist: "This book belongs to the most rare of men. Perhaps not one of them is yet alive. It is possible that they may be among those who understand my "Zarathustra": how could I confound myself with those who are now sprouting ears?—First the day after tomorrow must come for me. Some men are born posthumously. The conditions under which any one understands me, and necessarily understands me—I know them only too well. Even to endure my seriousness, my passion, he must carry intellectual integrity to the verge of hardness. He must be accustomed to living on mountain tops—and to looking upon the wretched gabble of politics and nationalism as beneath him. He must have become indifferent; he must never ask of the truth whether it brings profit to him or a fatality to him… He must have an inclination, born of strength, for questions that no one has the courage for; the courage for the forbidden; predestination for the labyrinth. The experience of seven solitudes. New ears for new music. New eyes for what is most distant. A new conscience for truths that have hitherto remained unheard. And the will to economize in the grand manner—to hold together his strength, his enthusiasm… Reverence for self; love of self; absolute freedom of self… Very well, then! of that sort only are my readers, my true readers, my readers foreordained: of what account are the rest?—The rest are merely humanity.—One must make one's self superior to humanity, in power, in loftiness of soul,—in contempt." Friedrich W. Nietzsche. He loves to taunt his readers! To be honest, I'm not sure whether he's being literal here or not. I tend to think that he could use psychology as a soldier uses a gun. It seems to me that he's trying to impose a specific mindset on his readers; perhaps transferring his contempt to us by making himself the object of it. Who can read this and not think "this guy is narcissistic s.o.b.!" It makes me ask: "what author would want their reader to go into their work with this mindset?" I don't know the answer, but my guess is someone who doesn't want to be read with any sort of reverence.

Stephen, Certainly I agree that you must read Nietzsche first, but I strongly disagree with the rest. To read Nietzsche literally in search of his intent would be a prime example of "context dropping." Nietzsche didn't intend for his texts to undergo the kind of reading and analysis you've proposed; to stay true to his intentions would be to abandon the reductionist agenda of turning his philosophy into a neat system where each text fits nicely throughout his ouvre. Your advice would be akin to using deconstruction to understand the meaning of the Constitution, that is, disregarding the meta-discourse of the text itself. To read Nietzsche as he intended and to understand him (more importantly, to actually get something out of him) one needs to first recognize and accept the most basic concepts at play within his texts. If one were to follow your suggestion they'd end up exactly where they began and, if nothing else, Nietzsche intended to move us. Ian