This society to repressive to human nature!!!

[Cointelpro_Papers]

Maybe it's because I grew up reading Neitzsche, and Hume, or maybe it's because my first book was "Will to Power", but I gotta say this society is repressive the very nature of the human. It puts constant temptations, and chances in front of us, and then scolds us and tells us to stay away.

The society that was founded on stopping and smelling the flowers, and having loving thine enemy, seems a little unsavory. It seems like it denies everything that individuals could ever dream of, but at the same time tells us to be individuals. The very idea of a society like this seems hypocritical. It was created to bring everyone together, and for everyone to live the same way, but then it tells us not to conform, and to be our own person, but I say that is impossible in this society. If you live for yourself, then people call you narcissistic, or some kind of asshole. It makes you conform to this bullshit.

This society destroys the individual, and to this human that is the most important concept. I am the Ubermensch, I need to dominate my environment, and so does every other human on this planet, It's just realizing that, that takes work. It is not evil to think your better than other people, it is not evil to hate other people. It is not evil to not care about every human. It is human nature. Instead of denying embrace it, and you will live a much better life.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

1. Wow, this post was a flop

ahhhhhhhh

[Wonk]

4. What were you expecting, kid? Instant gratification?

If you want to actually have a hope of coming across as an Ubermensch try fixing your grammar a bit when you rant ;-)

You might want to check this out, too: http://www.stanford.edu/~pj97/Nietzsche.htm

Notice my use of the word "too" instead of "to"? You learn something new everyday, at least if you're paying attention as you live your life. If you ever think you know everything there is to know then rest assured that you're an idiot.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

6. Ha.

Never was one for grammer and spelling, just don't care about that crap. And I find people that do, to be neurotic and obsessive.

I never said I know everything, or even hinted at it, and it seems you are displacing life lessons on me. Only the wise realize how little they actually know.

[The Lone Liberal]

2. Flop? Nope, I read and agree with you.

Good thoughts. I shall think on them tonight.

[plcdude]

48. there are

a few of us in this state, not many I admit but a few and proud.

[classics]

3. So your saying dominance is the natural order?

And we should behave like pack animals to reach happiness? That excercising all the negative beliefs about others you were programmed with as a young 'individual' somehow proves your independence?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

5. No, not at all.

NOt behave as pack animals, because we are no longer pack animals. But yes, having your own beliefs, and accepting them is a large step to individuality among other things. And we weren't programmed to have bad beliefs about others when we were young, atleast I wasn't. Infact I was programmed to do the exact opposite.

[number9]

7. any society is detrimental to individual human nature

even sharing your life with someone is detrimental to human nature.
We are born selfish, try to learn societal norms, become less selfish.
become more like shelfish. nothing in there - bonk bonk. that's progress? you can't escape society because you have needs that translate into wants that become habits. Caring about others isn't natural. it's societal.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

10. What is wrong with selfishness?

[number9]

11. nothing

born alone - die alone - anything in between is sweet temporary memory. We are ants scurrying around trying to find a way to serve our masters (god, jesus, budha, bush, the guy you work for, the woman you want to conquer). that's it. no kafkaesque ending - well maybe.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

13. There in lies the problem,

they live for other people, not for themselves. I am NOT an ant scurrying around, nor am I trying to serve a master.

[BurtWorm]

18. Well what are you doing hanging around here for, superman?

Seriously? If you're self-sufficient, why are you socializing with us herd animals?

[blondeatlast]

28. nevermind

nm

[Cointelpro_Papers]

46. You got the Ubermensch all wrong.

Seriously.

[BurtWorm]

49. Sorry to sound flip about it

but I was responding to all the sounds you were making about society crushing individualism. It seems to me that humans are social animals, and the worship of the individual is worship of a red herring. I do believe in a balance between individual rights and responsibilities, but I think it's a fundamental error to view humans as essentially individuals in conflict with society. We are where we are, for better or for worse, because of our sociability. We even need to be social, I would say. Our capacity for language alone almost demands it of us.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

51. Why are we social animals though?

IN a society like this, for the individual to thrive he must become social. While there might be a little bit of sociability in the human, I would venture to say that alot of the sociability going on is for the sake of the individual. Why do kids socialize, why do adults, it all goes back to the individual. I think the society forgets to recognize that their is no such thing as a altruistic deed, and especially in social situations. It is all for personal gratification and advancement.

We need to be social, because we have been taught by society that we cannot be happy if we are alone, maybe it is in our genetics now. To function in this society properly we must interact with others, and the best way to learn how to do that is to make many friends at a young age. It is all for the individual.

[BurtWorm]

55. Think of other primates

It's way down deep in our genes. Apes are social animals. We live in groups. This society is just a blink in the eye of human history.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

56. ha

your justification is other primates? Ha.

We lived in groups to further the individual, and they were hardly comparable to the society, we have today. But then again the groups could have been confined to the family, and probably was for the majority of the 3 million years, so that would not make us "social animals".

[BurtWorm]

57. You're wrong

Humans seem to have been in social groups, like chimpanzees and gorillas, for as long as there have been humans.

How could language have developed as it did without a social structure to support it?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

59. Language didn't exist untill about 10,000 years ago,

and that is a liberal estimate. If we are so social, what happened to the other 2,990,000 years? And when was the last time we found a group of humans together? Why is that when humans are trapped in ice, they are always alone, or when they are killed in the desert?

[BurtWorm]

63. Because when you're alone on the ice or in the desert,

you're at greater risk for being trapped.

As far as language goes, this was in Tuesday's NY Times:

<begin cite>

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/07/15/science/15LANG.html?pagewanted=2

One of the first linguists to tackle this question was Dr. Derek Bickerton of the University of Hawaii. His specialty is the study of pidgins, which are simple phrase languages made up from scratch by children or adults who have no language in common, and of creoles, the successor languages that acquire inflection and syntax.

Dr. Bickerton developed the idea that a proto-language must have preceded the full-fledged syntax of today's discourse. Echoes of this proto-language can be seen, he argued, in pidgins, in the first words of infants, in the symbols used by trained chimpanzees and in the syntax-free utterances of children who do not learn to speak at the normal age.

In a series of articles, Dr. Bickerton has argued that humans may have been speaking proto-language, essentially the use of words without syntax, as long as two million years ago. Modern language developed more recently, he suggests, perhaps with appearance of anatomically modern humans some 120,000 years ago.

The impetus for the evolution of language, he believes, occurred when human ancestors left the security of the forest and started foraging on the savanna. "The need to pass on information was the driving force," he said in an interview.

<end cite>

[Cointelpro_Papers]

65. Okay, but this is one sceintist, with a new idea.

And if we are so social, why would a women be alone in the desert? Wouldn't people be with her, and if so, why didn't they get killed too. And when your trapped by an avalanche in the mountains, are yo utelling me that a social creator would be in the mountains alone?

[BurtWorm]

66. You missed the first sentence of my last post

Maybe if they hadn't been alone, they would have been buried by others in their groups, like most other people of their times.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

68. Hmm, so it's just coinsidence that every human

we've found has been alone? And if they were burried, they would ahve a better chance of surviving 3 million years. So, if we were social, and burried our dead why don't we find more today?

[BurtWorm]

69. Where is your evidence that "every human we've found

has been alone?"

[Cointelpro_Papers]

70. personal experience

Do you remember ever hearing about them finding a group of people? or more than one at a time?

[BurtWorm]

71. I've heard about burial groups, yes.

I've also heard that any one set of bones surviving as long as some of these have is a miracle. They have to undergo a process of petrification that most bones rot before getting a chance to go through.

If you're curious about corroborating your theory that humans are fundamentally individualistic and anti-social, you should probably do a little research into paleo-anthropology. But be prepared to have your illusions shattered.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

72. Na, it's more of a philsophical question,

and burial site i would venture to say happened in the past 50,000 years. And yeah it's a process that is rare, I was waiting for you to bring that up. But for the few that survived, they were alone.

[BurtWorm]

73. No. It's not a philosophical question.

If you're interested in the truth, you can't just cogitate over it. You have to look at the physical evidence.

Of course if you're only interested in proving to yourself what you already believe, there is no need to try to get closer to the truth.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

74. I put truth above everything else,

but their is no proof yet, and if their is I will research it, and be skeptical, like I do with all things. Then I will discontinue my beleifs, or reaffirm them.

[BurtWorm]

75. Christians claim to put the truth above all else as well.

But they, too, have set themselves the task of proving that what they believe is true.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

76. I find funny that it that I am defending a belief

that is supported by just as much fact as yours. And that you're comparing me to the dogma of a church.

[BurtWorm]

78. I thought you just admitted that you're not interested in facts

You view this as a philosophical question, which I take to mean, you think it can be solved by reason alone. But I say that if you use that method, you're unltimately relying on unexamined faith that you have the materials necessary, at hand, to "solve the problem." So instead of finding out what scientists in the field know about early humans, you guesstimate that language is merely 10,000 years old, and that human burial somehow preceded this development by 40,000 years, even though that would mean humans started interring each other without the benefit of being able to communicate what they were doing. If you're serious about getting at the truth about this stuff, you won't leave anything to guesstimation. And you certainly won't approach the material thinking you know what you're going to find out.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

79. Philosophy is not "unexamined faith",

and i'm sorry to hear anyone say that it is. Well, right now it is impossible to know one way or another, while i said it was 10,000 years, well not me but Carl Sagan, and your scientist said it ws 120,000 means that we do not know. And you are telling me that I am not valuing the truth because I made a decision, but you also made a decision so I could say the same about you. Hmm, but then again you think talking is a preresiquite to burial, and it would be impossible to bury someone if you couldn't talk to them. But hey, if we were using syntax, which really isn't talking, then maybe we could?

We do not know if the big bang happened, but many scientist believe it did happen, which mean they bring philosophy into the equation. But as you said it's just unexamined faith, and they aren't trying to find the problem. Science grows with knowledge, I would think you would recognize that. Why we blieve today we know tomorrow, thus is the nature of science.

[BurtWorm]

80. Why make a decision about something you can't possibly know?

Why not wait, like every other scientist, until we know more? I cited "my" scientist to back up my claim that language is more ancient than 10,000 years old. (I can't believe Carl Sagan would have thought people had only been speaking a handful of millennia before they began to record history, but if you give me a cite, I'll have no choice but to believe you.)

You mentioned in the first post that you grew up reading Hume. I think you should read him again. He's rather strict about what we can say we know, isn't he?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

81. It is foolish to take Hume seriously,

and I think it was in Cosmos, he talked about how we've only been speaking language for 10,000 years. I don't need a cite.

What, philosophy Hume? We can't prove or disprove Hume, so why should I even bother to form opinions about him?

[BurtWorm]

91. Is it foolish to take you seriously, too?

If so, I'm no fool. ;-)

[Cointelpro_Papers]

94. I was waiting for the decline in the argument

here it is. But I think you might be joking so...

[BurtWorm]

101. Did this "argument" decline with *my* post?

I thought it declined when you disowned Hume as an influence, though you cited him in the very first post. Or did you mean something else by "not taking Hume seriously?" Something like "Hume was just kidding, and so am I?" In which case, am I not right in not taking you seriously? And if I am, how could a valid statement that I made be the basis for the decline in the "argument?"

Just a few thoughts to ponder.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

103. Ha,

The statement about Hume is not hard to interpret, but you seem to want to manipulate it to your opinion. Hume's philosophies are what I would consider nothing more than something to think about, and yes he did influence me. He sparked my love for philosophy, and reading, and knowledge. Hume wasn't kidding, but it seems a little illogical to be an existentialist, it's more of candy for my mind. Although their is truth behind what he says, he seems a little exessive.

I never disowned him as an influence, and you know what i meant.

The time frame of Language development is really irrelevant, either way we went 2.5 million years with nothing, grunting and pointing. Family, and maybe a little tribe at the most, but their was nothing close to what we have today, no polical system, and certaintly not much order. Is this what you were talking about when you said "groups" of humans?

[BurtWorm]

104. Hume wasn't an existentialist

And you have to back up your assertions about a lack of order in early human--there's no other word--societies. True, there was no infrastructure other than what nature provided. That doesn't mean there was no order.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

105. You my friend are right,

I was reading an article about Kierkegaard when I wrote that.


OKay, 3 million years ago, we were not homosapiens, but rather Homo Erectus, or Homo ergaster, or atleast nearly two million years ago we started seeing Homo Erectus, and the Homo Habilis didn't arrive untill 2.5 million years ago, and before that the genus homo didn't exist.

No doubt that by the time the Homo Sapien came on the scene, we had semi-complex sociopolitical systems, but I find it hard to believe that a creature with the mental capacity just above a chimp could form any structured system of society, but rather the structure would not be decided by the Habilis, but rather by nature. And as such we can see that the chimp does not have "tribe's" or other structure, but rather close family, and locational groups, usually maxing out at about 6 primates, that are unorganized except for what nature provides. I would hardly consider 6 Habilis, or even 15 habilis a sociopolitical structure.

[BurtWorm]

106. Six to fifteen of anything is not an individual either

The point being that all a society needs is two or more individuals. It does not have to be formally structured, it only has to function consistently as one organic whole.

But I'm very, very glad that you a) admitted an error, and b) seem to have done some research and it seems to have done you good!

[Cointelpro_Papers]

107. Well, I don't agree with your definition of society,

or atleast, yours definatley conflicts with the modern society.

Six to fifteen might not be an individual, but non the less it's purpose goes back to furthering the individual.

Then it is agreed that they had no political structure, and the social was a product of nature.

[BurtWorm]

108. Society and Associate are cognates

They come from the latin word socius, companion.

Modern society is just one form. When I say we're social, I mean we're companionable, which means we tend to live in groups.

[greyl]

85. 10,000 years is an ignorant estimate.

Not a liberal one at all.

Of course we'd need to define language and separate out the proto-languages, but even then, we'd find evidence of written complex language that approaches 20,000 years old.
120,000 years ago is indeed a conservative minimum estimate for when a modern language was first used by humans.

...and I have no idea how a notion so divorced from the original topic is even important. :)

[BurtWorm]

92. It has to do with the question of human sociability

Mr. counter-intelligence pro seems to believe that humans are essentially individuals and anti-social. I suggested that our language proficiency contradicts that. Language is fundamentally social. Sociability is written in our genes.

[greyl]

93. I agree

We definitely evolved in clans, tribes, etc...

[Cointelpro_Papers]

95. 20,000 years?

I really doubt that, any proof, for my benefit?

Basic sounds and syntax is not language. Grunting to get someone's attention is hardly a language.

[Wonk]

12. When you ignore our mutual self-interest then you are a threat.

Are you an anarchist? Just curious.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

54. Exactly, society was created for the individual.

But it has progressed into something that harms the individual.

Everything we do is for us, it's just a matter of figuring out if you can hate, and go to bed free, or if society has indoctrinated you so much that you must love to get good sleep. It is a laborious superfluous task to make yourself believe the way society has taught you to, and the worst thing is you don't even know that the indoctrination is happening.

[inthecorneroverhere]

8. Ach, Nietzche!

Although I'm not exactly into the "Will to Power," or Nietzchean philosophy, there's an interesting point made in your post. It's the one where society puts up all kinds of temptations in front of the person, and then prohibits them.

Hollywood is a pretty darn good example of that. "We'll show you all kinds of titillation on the screen....but then there's that Puritan 'don't you dare' do this at home."

Actually, I would like Hollywood to make more movies that promote positive values like taking care of, rather than hurting, one's fellow man. Not religious values, mind you, just general positive values.

What's Nietzche's take on individualism? Would have been interesting if Nietzche and Ayn Rand had been alive at the same time.

edit: remove typo

[Cointelpro_Papers]

9. Individualism,

Is what Neitzsche is all about. Will to Power, and Ubermensch both deal with individual domination, but keep in mind that the best individual gets to dominate, so if your not that you're nothing to neitzsche.

He wrote a whole book about Zarathustra teaching foolish men how to dominate other men. Thus Spoke Zarathustra

I'm not really a fan of Rand, I prefer the old school philosophers like Nietzsche. But I really haven't read much of rand yet.

[inthecorneroverhere]

14. more Q's

I see Nietzche and Rand as rather different. Is this just a perception?

Certainly, neither of them were 'Christians' and both of them would have also violently disagreed with Marxism. Do you know anything about how Nietzche related to Marx? Nietzche lived from 1844-1900 and Marx lived from 1818-1883, so they overlapped quite a bit. Debates between them would have been really interesting.

I have always associated Nietzche with a sort of cultural conception of the 'Ubermensch' that is only distantly related to economics. By contrast, Rand's philosophy is very much tied to free-market economics and opposition to the Soviet form of state socialism. Rand believed in the 'virtue of selfishness' and in the importance of purely individual decisions and action.

Of course, Nietzche believed that the German intellectual-athlete was the Ubermensch. It seems that Nietzche believed that a group of people representing a group of (self-conceived) Ubermenschen could take collective action that would be greater than the sum of the individuals' own actions. Is this correct? I don't believe that he thought that the individual should always act on his (her) own.

I looked Nietzche up in Stanford's dictionary of philosophy and it seems that his philosophy is not _just_ about individualism. It says "Friedrich Nietzsche was a German philosopher of the late 19th century who challenged the foundations of traditional morality and Christianity. He believed in life, creativity, health, and the realities of the world we live in, rather than those situated in a world beyond. Central to Nietzsche's philosophy is the idea of "life-affirmation," which involves an honest questioning of all doctrines which drain life's energies, however socially prevalent those views might be. Often referred to as one of the first "existentialist" philosophers...

It looks like Nietzche was also interested in things such as sports and the like. He saw sports as a sort of virtue? I don't believe Rand was interested in this.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

[number9]

15. what about the world only existing as my senses see it

debunked somewhat, but still interesting. It gives a reason for the selfishness we are born into and die into. Why should I even attempt to see the world through someone elses eyes? It only interrupts my thoughts and expressions.

[inthecorneroverhere]

20. problem is....

....it has been 'debunked somewhat.' :silly:

Interestingly, many of the debunkers were Nietzsche's contemporaries in the field of the sciences.

I still don't think Nietzsche was a total individualist.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

47. It is a misconception to think that Ubermensch's would

be interested in taking over the world, and enslaving the people. They dominate their enviornment, and improve things for themselves by themselves.

The problem with the Ubermensch taking collective action, is that one Ubermensch would be stronger than the rest, and thus dominate the rest. An Ubermensch would not enlist an army to take over a country, or even a group of people, the Ubermensch works alone. The Ubermensch would be so great that in our society it would be elected through our democracy. Thinking of the Ubermensch in the terms of groups, or organizations is wrong, Ubermensch works on a individual basis dominating people through contact. He would neither enlist the help of other Ubermensch nor enslave the people and become a dictator, because that would require the help of an army. He would take office just as the rest of us do.

[BurtWorm]

16. Where does "your environment" end and "mine" begin?

What's the difference between being an Unbermensch and being a narcissist?

[number9]

17. if the world only exists in my mind

there is no environment to encroach on your perception.

therefore there is no difference in your mind, unless you choose to make it so.

[BurtWorm]

19. Deep.

[Exultant Democracy]

21. You are missing the most important point,

puppies are so darn cute. You don't hate puppies.... do you?

[number9]

22. puppies do tend to crap a lot where they want

therefore I own no puppies. Don't hat'em - don't care about'em at all.

[Exultant Democracy]

23. I know when I have been bested.

you win this round #9, you win this round :mad:

[greyl]

24. "Ubermensch" is a bullshit term born of our culture.

The problems you speak of have been covering the earth at an exponential rate for the past 10,000 years, ever since our culture began.

Our culture wasn't founded on stopping and smelling the flowers and loving thine enemy. It was founded on "Ours is the One Right Way to Live, and if you don't live like us we will destroy you."

It's total bullshit to think that every human on the planet wants to dominate their environment. That is a psychosis peculiar to our culture. Neitzsche spoke from within our culture about our culture.

[number9]

25. neitzche was from a different culture and a different time

his psychosis was undoubtedly different from the current one.
Every human on the planet doesn't want to dominate everything, but there can be no doubt that everyone wants to dominate their little piece of the planet. Home, work, spouse --- how many truly live in harmony with all without a feeling of wanting to in some way change it?

[greyl]

26. No he wasn't of a different culture.

Slightly different time in the grand stage of 3 million year old humanity maybe, but definitely the same culture.

edit: "how many truly live in harmony with all without a feeling of wanting to in some way change it?

That's peculiar to our culture. There are plenty of cultures left on the planet that don't have members who feel that way.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

35. They don't feel that way, because they've been repressed.

They don't feel that way because if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It as been stolen from them by repression, and oppression.

I'm suprised top hear you say that turn of the century Germany is the same as present day America. The technological changes alone have changed the culture tremendously, not to mention the advancments in government, and the liberalness of the society.
The Ubermensch is classless, and timeless, it doesn't matter where you live or when, humans have the will to power, and the Ubermenshc will triumph.

[greyl]

84. What?

Can't you see our point of agreement? I know that our culture doesn't "work" for humanity. In just several thousand years it has shown that over and over again. Take a creative step out of reach of our culture's siren song to see it.

Our immediate problem is defining what I mean by our culture, so here: Taking your definition to the extreme, hip-hop culture and beatnik culture are totally different. The definition I use is at the opposite end of that spectrum. A culture is a people enacting a story. Technology, nationality, language, clothing, and scientific knowledge have nothing to do with it. A 1935 Duesenberg and a 2003 Saturn VUE have differences, but their similarities place them securely and wholly within the same classification - "automobile".

Now again, Nietzche was speaking of our culture from within our culture, with zero awareness of any other culture.

"The Ubermensch is classless, and timeless, it doesn't matter where you live or when, humans have the will to power, and the Ubermenshc will triumph."

That statement is precisely the vision of our culture. You can't see it because you are so thoroughly steeped in it. The following statements describe the vision that our culture has been enacting for 10,000 years.

"The earth was made for man, and man was made to rule it. In order for man to rule it, man must first conquer it. Ours is the One Right Way to Live, and if you don't live like us we will destroy you."

Sounds a bit "Ubermenschy" now doesn't it?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

102. NO, it does not sound Ubermenschy,

And the earth was not made for man, and man was not made to rule it. But yes in order for man to rule he would first have to conquer.

Why would you assume I have been jaded by this culture, the Ubermensch and Nietzsche is contradictory to this culture. And my quote is nothing like the imperalistic jargon you presented after it. I'm talking about human to human interactions, as well as human to animal interactions. I still stand firm that Humans have a will to power, and the Ubermensch will triumph. And still Nietzsche is not of this culture, like I said before turn of the century Germany can hardly be compared to present day America.

It seems that you think an Ubermensch would be some kind of evil dictator, and that Humans will to Power will act as a catylist for oppression and destructions, but this is not the case. Their's a difference between owning and creating your destiny through societal means, which an Ubermensch would do, and a usurper usurping control of everything through an army.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

36. They don't feel that way, because they've been repressed.

They don't feel that way because if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It as been stolen from them by repression, and oppression.

I'm suprised to hear you say that turn of the century Germany is the same as present day America. The technological changes alone have changed the culture tremendously, not to mention the advancments in government, and the liberalness of the society.
The Ubermensch is classless, and timeless, it doesn't matter where you live or when, humans have the will to power, and the Ubermenshc will triumph.

[Name removed]

37. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

38. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

39. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

40. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

41. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

42. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

45. They don't feel that way because of repression.

They don't feel that way because if they did they wouldn't be able to do anything about it. It as been stolen from them by repression, and oppression.

I'm suprised to hear you say that turn of the century Germany is the same as present day America. The technological changes alone have changed the culture tremendously, not to mention the advancments in government, and the liberalness of the society.
The Ubermensch is classless, and timeless, it doesn't matter where you live or when, humans have the will to power, and the Ubermenshc will triumph.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

34. Well, it's not a matter of every person actually

dominating their environment, but rather everyone wanting to. And the drive to do this would be different in everyone. In some it would be almost non-existant, but in the Ubermensch it would be an awesome force.

To tell the truth our society was not founded on "our way or the highway", infact it was founded on creeds that are completely contradictory to that. It was founded on tolerance, and freedoms, it quickly turned to my way or the highway, but originally it wasn't meant to be that way.

It's total bullshit to think that any human on the planet wants to bow down to a master, and live their life like sheep. It might take some time for each individual to figure that out, some might never realize that, but it's in us all, to triumph the individual.

But, I don't even know why i'm arguing this, you say it is a product of our culture, but Nietszche doesn't even come from our culture, so this is pointless.

[JVS]

27. Society is not about individual gratification

It is about the survival of the whole.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

31. But it is human nature,

hence the repression.

[Loonman]

29. Humans are violent and warlike by nature

Every good humanitarian act is countered by an atrocity.

Death and destruction is our legacy, it's in the source code.

[DrGonzoLives]

30. Human nature

So, if society shouldn't repress human nature, why should we have laws? We shouldn't I be able just to slit the throat of anyone I don't like? Or keep a few women captive for those lonely nights? Or steal some credit cards when I need some money?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

32. Where did I say it was human nature to

slit throats, and hold women captive? And to tell the truth society doesn't stop that, it just punishes those activities, because of the social contract.

[Wonk]

50. The post that started this thread can be read that way

"It is not evil to think your (sic) better than other people, it is not evil to hate other people. It is not evil to not care about every human. It is human nature. Instead of denying embrace it, and you will live a much better life."

So, you hate or disregard other people in general, and that's a good thing?

These guys probably felt the same way. Pollute the environment, poison folks (Ha! Suckers!), make easy money, damn interfering cops trying to stop them. :eyes:

Why are you here? I'll ask again, because you didn't answer before, are you an anarchist?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

52. Why should I care about people that I hate,

why should I waste time on trying to form my thoughts to being "good"? It is a laborious task, and unnecessary.

Polluting the environment hurts me, poisoning people hurts me, and making easy money can hurt me. Polluting the environment hurts me for the obvious reasons, I need it to survive, and to be happy. I don't poison folks because I would go to jail, and might regret it at a future time, and I don't make easy money because I could go to jail, and become an outcast.

If it cannot hurt me then all do it. Are people nice to you for your sake, or so they can sleep at night, with a free conscious? Do people give charity because they can, or rather so they can feel good, and go to heaven? Everything you do, you weigh the pros and the cons, not for other people, but rather for yourself. I see no cons with pissing off a few people I don't like, or feeling hatred, and disregaarding certain people. Maybe you do, maybe you want to be a "good" person as society has defined that, and you must love everyone to do that, or maybe your religion demands that. I don't know, but if you don't hate, and don't disregaard, it's for your sake, not for theirs.

[greyl]

87. edit: moved to the end. nt

-

[Cointelpro_Papers]

33. Where did I say it was human nature to

slit throats, and hold women captive? And to tell the truth society doesn't stop that, it just punishes those activities, because of the social contract.

[nothingshocksmeanymore]

53. The individual would still be digging a hole and burying his shit

Society working as a community made all the conveniences possible. Rules for the common good have been around as long as agriculture and other conveniences for survival have.

The INDIVIDUAL is fine to a certain extent but anyone who thinks they live in an individual world needs to be medicated.

[Nikia]

58. It is a balance

Humans are both selfish and have the need to be sociable. I keep on swinging back and forth on my opinion of individualism. As a more introverted type, I often feel that other people impede my efforts and have always hated working in groups for that reason. I often have disgust for "herd" mentality. On the otherhand, I have a few people who I really like that I would do anything for and I miss when I am away from them. I prefer being pleasant to people and do not want anyone to be in pain, be it physical or emotional. I like to like others too and am happier that way. I think there is room within society to use our individuality positively and that most great achievements for society have been made at least initially by individuals. I think in some ways U.S. society has become more individualistic. Living in a town far from where I grew up, I often feel anonymous in most of my outside interactions. It is your choice if you to be anonymous and have few connections outside of work and family. I think it is wrong to go around actively hating others, especially those who have caused you no harm.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

60. Why is it wrong for me to hate someone, that I meet on the street,

or sit by on the bus, or the waiter that waits on me?
The only reason, would be my conscious, am I wrong?

[DrGonzoLives]

61. Why is it right?

Just because it is your instinct doesn't make it right. Why are you so insistent on living in a world completely devoid of any kind of moral compass?

Tell me, if my first reaction to the idiot in front of me who is taking too long taking an order is to knock him out and move ahead, should I do it? Is it OK?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

62. Well, you would have to consider the effects it would have on you.

For one the guy would probably sue you, and you wouuld go to jail, and all that crap. Not to mention that fact that is completely different than feeling an emotion.

It is write, because I am not gonna hide my emotions, or mask them for the sake of somebody else. I have morals, I wouldn't kill someone, but their's a big difference between snubbing someone, and shooting someone. Why do you group all things that you preceive to be immoral together? Why would you even think for a second that hating someone is wrong?

[DrGonzoLives]

64. Hating someone for no reason is completely irrational

Why are you so ready to defend your ability to hate? Are you that full of piss and vinegar and hatred? That is not "write," you know.

You have a very anarchist view of the world. Be good to avoid punishment. Otherwise, just make yourself happy. I suggest you read up on "Governing Dynamics," that is, when the group does what is best for the group, the group benefits. That's called evolution. What you describe would bring nothing but decay and chaos.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

67. Well, did i say my hate was unwarrented?

And by me hating someone, it hurts no one at all. I suggest you read some john stewart mills, if it is in the privacy of my home and hurts no one, then their is nothing wrong with it.


So, you suggestion to me is to get rid of my individuality and love everyone, because society tells me to. I suggest you read some Nietzsche, mabye Thus Spoke Zarathustra, or the will to power.
Or even for that matter Rousseau's social contract.

[Wonk]

77. Have you shown why it is? You seem to vaguely hate all that isn't you.

I bet you'll "hate" me for posting these links, but I suggest you check them out.

Tiring of Nietzsche

(snip)

Another unfortunate aspect of Nietzsche's character is his apparent misogynism, which appears quite often. "Sieze forcibly the wench for whom you feel", he says in the Gay Science. In Zarathustra he tells us that if you are to go unto a woman, be sure to bring a whip.

All of this is tracable back to Nietzsche's pathetic and wretched state of insecurity and poor health. One gets the impression that he is putting up an arrogant front in order to compensate for his dread over social life. If he were ever to go unto a woman with a whip, nine times out of ten the woman would take the whip away from him. Nietzsche was in reality a very timid and modest man. It is in his day-dreams that he is a warrior, an "artist-tyrant" of the most noble fibre.

I'm forced to conclude that, based on Nietzsche's ideas as he presents them, that he is decidedly anti-democratic.




and
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame11.html
http://www.winternet.com/~mikelr/flame29.html

[Cointelpro_Papers]

82. Thus is the spirit of "Thus Spoke Zarathustra",

lighthearted, and comical. When I read it, it made me laugh, and Nitezsche was lauhing when he wrote it.

The line you speak of is in the first book 18th chapter, "On old and Young Women." It is the last line of the chapter except for "thus spoke Zarathustra". And the line before it reads, "Then I said: "Women, give me your little truth." And Thus spoke the little old woman: " You are going to women? Do not forge the Whip"

Before that, the women meets Z in the woods, and says you speak to women much, but never about women. Z replies, I only speak about women to men. She says i'm old and will forget, so Z starts to speak about women. "Everything about woman is a riddle, and everything about woman has on solution: that is pregnancy. Man is for woman a means: the end is always the child. But what is woman for Man?

"A real man wants two thing: danger and Play. Therefore he wants woman as the most dangerous plaything.... Woman withstands children better than man does, but man is more childlike than women. In a real man, a child is hidden--and wants to play. Go to it, women, discover the child in man!...Let man fear woman when she hates: for deep down in his soul man is merely evil, while woman is bad." Z talks about how the perfect thing for women is true love, and her perfect day is when she first obeys her true love.

Then the woman thanks him and tells him he knows about women, and offers him a gift, but he should hold his hand over its mouth, else i will cry, this little truth.
And then comes this "misogynism" you speak of.

I assume you havn't read this book, or for that matter any Nietzsche, because you would understand that it was a humorous thing. But you wouldn't know that because you go to google and find a insane quote from Nietzsche and instantly believe it.


I appreciate you bring this up, it gave me a chance to debunk Niezsche for the misguided. Thanks.

[Wonk]

83. "I appreciate you bring this up, it gave me a chance to debunk Niezsche"

I must seriously question the reading and writing comprehension skills of someone who'd write that in their own thread promoting Nietzsche. Thanks for the laugh, though.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

96. So, you can't say anything about my post, sorry, left out one word

So you attack my typing skills?

appreciate you bringing this up, it gave me a chance to debunk the precieved Niezsche.

I thought that was implied from the whole post, but I guess not. And thanks for being so petty

[Name removed]

89. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[greyl]

90. waaa? are you kidding?

How can you tell?

[Cointelpro_Papers]

97. I think it is against the rules to follow DUers

from post to post harassing them. If you think I'm Higgs take it up with administrators and quit harassing me. I feel how I feel, but anyway why would I explain to someone that does nothing but follow me around and try to discredit me?

[greyl]

86. It's not about right or wrong.

It's about what works.
Is it evolutionarily viable for humans to act that way? We haven't made it this far (3 million years) behaving that way. Evolution only cares about the sex life of your DNA, but you have to be alive for your DNA to have a sex life. ;)

[Cointelpro_Papers]

98. You think Cro Magnum man is much more civilized than I do.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

99. You think Cro Magnum man is much more civilized than I do.

[Cointelpro_Papers]

100. You think Cro Magnum man is much more civilized than I do.

[umcwb]

109. FYI,

Its "Cro Magnon" man.

http://www.mnh.si.edu/anthro/humanorigins/ha/cromagnon.html

[greyl]

88. A diagnosis

taking into account the entirety of this thread, and not implying that you are "ill". :)

You are acting out the conflict between intellectual and social values that took place during the Victorian era, and to a lesser extent in the 1960's.
The 19th century Victorian moral codes were trying to "control" biological moral codes. Feeling good mattered less than acting good, indeed keeping up appearances was considered the peak of human endeavor. But the Victorian social code had unwittingly made an enemy of intellect. Along came the intellectuals who proclaimed that all this social hoopla, the appearance of goodness, had no genuine value. The intellectuals new that it was immoral for society to control the intellect which leads to the notion that it is moral for the intellect to control society.
The battle began, and the intellectuals won. Witness the over a hundred years of stellar intellectual growth while society struggles for coherence.
I mentioned the 60's because of your attitude about repressive society which was obviously a banner for the social revolutions in that decade, and because you seem to say that it is moral for you to do what feels good to you. That is the voice of biological value which the "drop-outs" of the 60's revelled in as an affront to both social codes and intellectual codes to a lesser extent.
The hippies, peaceniks, and drop-outs were largely correct in their choice of bastions to reduce to rubble, but they lacked 2 things.
1. Power within the system to put into place mechanisms that would prevent their advances from degenerating into nothingness.
2. The awareness that it is immoral for biological codes to devour intellectual codes. Intellectual patterns are a higher level of evolution than both biological and social patterns.

Sooo, it's 2003. Good luck. :)
I'm glad you're a democrat.

[Name removed]

110. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.