Hey I'm just audience here. Audience may clap their hands, or boo at players or the judge :1orglaugh

I just booed at a pathetic attempt to collect sympathy points

very true....those minor points still put us on the opposite sides of the barricades, but at least we both know where we are coming from, at least I do understand Labret's position.

Nobody can make me love Arafat and what he stands for,
Nobody can make Labret love those innocents who are blown away,
this is a free country and everybody are free to express their likes and dislikes, nothing wrong with that.

The "judgement" was supposed to be on who presents beter arguments in the support of their position.

If I implyed "cretin" somewhere, I take it back,
you are NOT cretin or anti-semite,
you are just ANTI...
;-)))

i always have to laugh when i hear comments like this. a couple of things:

(1) Nietzsche died in the year 1900.
(2) he had a outspoken hatred of racism (including anti-Semitism) as can be seen in many of his writings/letters throughout his life.
(3) his unpublished work was edited by the nazis at the time they rose to power.

you can take quotes from the bible (for example) to argue for or against anything you like. saying Nietzsche was a proto-nazi is imo, laughable. He was clearly not racist. one of his most basic points was that you should not be held back from reaching your potential - racism goes against that ideal.

imo, you should probably read all of Nietzsche, and decide for yourself what is genius, and what is bs - keeping context in mind :) thinkers such as Sartre, Derrida, Foucault, Baudrillard and countless others have done (and will continue to do) just that.

blanket statements, and dismissal of important ideas is pretty useless in my opinion :)

post-modernism and existentialism (in it's current maturing form) likely would not exist with out Nietzsche's works. which of course may or may not matter to you.

I didn't call Nietzche "pro-nazi",
I called Nazies pro-Nietzche, BIG DIFFERENCE

as for JP Sartre...I am existentialist, and share his philosophy...

What I find ridiculous in Nietzsche is his egotist approach. Maybe it was sarcasm, I can't tell for sure. But given the poor poor life he had, he devoted all his life to writing books expressing his anger towards Christianity, morality, humanity etc

He was nothing else than a bitter man with a few fine ideas.

What I mean by being 'egotist' in his case, was his thinking that he somehow considered himself to be able to separate all the bullshit from his own 'idealistic knowledge of the world'.

Quiet, you told me yesterday I should'nt talk about Nietzsche if I haven't read him. Isn't this against Nietzsche's ideology itself, which you have sooo much respect for?

Isn't Nietzsche expecting us to explore everything and anything without being blinded by books or morality or church or laws etc etc. You made an anti-Nietzsche statement by saying i shouldn't discuss Nietzsche if I haven't read him

if that is your clarification, then you've (obviously) made no argument against Nietzsche at all. that's all i was getting at....

there is an intrinsic difference between exploration/interpretation of your world - and arguing over someone's specific philosophy.

for example: if your objective is to explore spirituality, it can be argued that you need to learn/explore that on your own.

if your objective is to argue the pros and cons of the Christian bible (for example), you should (again, obviously) be well versed in the bible in order to build any sort of argument.

i'm going to bed :)

well,
his followers tried,
his followers went for it,
his followers were killed and their country was ruined.

if this is NOT an bancrupt philosophy, than I don't know what is the bancrupt philosophy is...

Where can I see the list of intrinsic vs extrinsic ideas, things, objects so that I can be more prepared to start a discusiion with you in the future? :)

There is big disagreement in philosophy, for example, with questuons such as "what has intrinsic moral value in itself".

you guys still have 20 more min before the 1 day limit runs out. better hurry ...

Nietzsche has many followers. Sartre has much to say about him. all the Philosopher's i listed above -> all leaders in the field (and many, many others) included. myself (to an extent) included. and his ideas are discussed (in a massive way) in ALL univerisity level existential courses - as a very relevant, and often misunderstood genius. and fool.

the ideas of cyberphilosophy and post-modernism are strongly rooted in many of his ideas. of course (like i've said earlier) this may not mean anything to you.

your argument makes no real sense - you didn't address the point i made at all - you skipped around it. this is probably why you should read (and understand) Nietzsche before trying to argue against him.

let's replace intrinsic with fundamental. lol.

i think cuba sucks. never been there. know nothing about the country - except what i was fed on cnn. but i still say it sucks. and i won't bother to educate my self on the subject - my mind has already been made up.

so?

The best crop one can ever get is when one uses maneur as a fertilizer...
which still doesn't make it smell any better.

Quaran is a wonderfull book,
wonderful root,
so is Bible,
but I wouldn't call terrorists or inquisitors who come from that wonderful root
GOOD.

so you see,
it works both ways...

nothing wrong with healthy doze of Nihilizm
;-)))

sorry - I'll try to rephrase.

Couldn't I teach someone what is Cramer's rule without having to read Cramer himself?

Couldn't I talk about Adam Smith's ideas of free trade, not because I have read Adam Smith himself, but because I have read interpretations of Adam Smith's ideas of comtemporary economists?

Is the only way to be able to start discussing Nietzsche to read Nietzsche HIMSELF?

uh, no shit?

where did i ever said i supported the nazis? never. you insinuated that Nietsche is somehow 'bad' because the nazi's twisted his works.

and i think that's a joke.

i think he's an amazing Philosopher, with so much to offer. that's it.

in a nutshell:

me: Nietzsche good philopher.
you: look at his followers - must mean his phil is bankrupt.
me: you can take any text and interprete it to do whatever you want.
you: but I wouldn't call terrorists or inquisitors who come from that wonderful root GOOD.
me: huh?

there is no argument here. we both agree (it appears).

this is so obvious, it's laughable.

you wouldn't know any Nietzsche, and so would be unable to discuss it - if you've never read any. duh.

let's discuss XXXXX. i've never read anything he's written or discussed - but i want to argue for and against some of his points.

What if I read all the interpretations of Nietzsche's text in the whole fucking world but not Nietzsche himself... But you read only Nietzsche, but no interpretations whatsoever.

Who do you think has a more extensive knowledge of Nietzsche's work and influence?

I don't think the question is laughable at all..

sure it is.

and you never mentioned anything about interpretations until now. that's another question, certainly.

of course, learning from the source is preferable. imo ;)

and of course could/should be interpreted to included academic summaries/discussion.

hahahhahaha,
that's why I LOVE talking with smart people and ignore MORONS,
smart people are easier to reach consensus with
;-))

your right.

and to finish of the subject,
I find Labret and Quiet to be well articulated people, regardless of my agreements or disagreements with them.

welcome to TOP 5% of GFY
;-)))

Yes. Maybe what is causing the conflict here between us is more subtle than you realized in the first place

In my opinion no single human being is so intelligent and so objective that he could revise almost everything or anything in this world.

No single human being is so intelligent and objective (in today's world) that he could alone interprete a text of a great philosopher (for example, Kant) - without soon receiving any plausible criticism at all.

Nietzsche's mistake is that he probably considered himself such a wise man -> thus, my references to egotism

In reality, you need a wide variety of sources and interpretations in today's academic world. By reading Nietzsche and Nietzsche only you wouldn't necessarily know much about Nietzsche - unless you are an intellectual ubermench - which I doubt, so the best way is to use as many sources and interpretations as possible

Mika, welcome to the TOP 5% of GFY

it's interesting that you waited until now to mention interpretive texts.

*shrug*

i minored in Philosophy - and did well enough to be planning a master's next fall (years after i graduated). the entire idea of most master thesis is interpretation. if not, i'd just buy a copy of a book, and hand it in lol.

in general, if you think that you can get though a decent university with a very high average, without studying many different thinkers (regardless of subject) you are wrong. not saying that's your opinion though.

i have a very strong knowledge of many different areas of phil. i've gravitated towards existentialism, Nietzsche in particular. i am most interested in cyber philosophy - specifically it's impact on identity.

specialization is pretty common practice ;)

.

Yeah. How about THE judgement already?

XXXXXX is a walking whore dog.

I totally understand what you're saying..

but i'd hesitate to call those people "lefties" more "I've seen schindler's list and not liking israel sounds like anti-jewishness which is bad on tv sitcoms" naive type.. that only get's an inferred lefty stance because of the blanket "left=pro-minority right=anti-minority" thing.. I wouldn't grant such people the gravitas of a political leaning.. any "lefty" with knowledge of the situation would very much tend to be pro-palestinian.. with your noam chompskys and john pilgers leading the way.
i find that the right also has it's contingent of these people in the one liner "nuke all the towel-heads" department and don't really have a better grasp of the politics.. it's just easier for the knee-jerk left seeming guys to seem politicised for the anti-semetic accusations whereas the "nuke em all's" tend to just get ignored because of the baseness of it and being a non-accusational remark.