Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [existlist] Nihilism and the aesthetics of evil?

Expand Messages
  • Mattlzpf@aol.com
    ... juxtaposing Nietzsche and Lecter. Lecter s behavior cannot be traced back to some childhood trauma [thereby disconnecting his moral responsibilty]. He is
    Message 1 of 8 , Nov 4, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      >>>>>>Here, in my opinion, Hibbs is more or less right on the money in
      juxtaposing Nietzsche and Lecter. Lecter's behavior cannot be traced
      back to some childhood trauma [thereby disconnecting his moral
      responsibilty]. He is quite self-conscious about the choices he
      makes. He does, indeed, see himself as "beyond good and evil"; he is
      Nietzsche's Uberman taken to its most surreal extreme.>>>>>>>>

      Wrong. We can be quite sure that this is no where near what Nietzsche
      intended as beyond good and evil (even Lecter's disconnection of morals).
      Nietzsche explains beyond good and evil in many ways, one as a master of
      virtues. This quote may also help, "What is done out of love always occurs beyond
      good and evil."-N. Friedrich's philosophy contributed to "the blond beast"
      about as much as he contributed to your bad and bewildered argument.

      >>>>>>>>Here,
      there is little or nothing that can be done but to track down these
      amoral monsters, lock them up and throw away the key...or execute
      them if their crimes are of a capital nature.>>>>>>>>>>

      Well I suppose if we use your idea of beyond good and evil we could be
      justified in such treatment. But then, we would be hypocrites if we being
      beyond good and evil were to punish those others who are beyond good and evil.
      Maybe what you mean is that neither we nor Lecter are beyond anything and are
      still at the judging hand of what is good and evil. In this case, we shall
      still be hypocrites for executing those because they have committed executions.
      The problem here is clearly your misconception of what it is to be beyond
      good and evil.

      >>>>>>> In other words, it is not the "aesthetics of
      evil" that pollutes the world but the "anesthetics of evil". We live
      in a contemporary culture that saturates us with violence---in
      movies, in music, in video games, on television...in the cartoons
      kids watch!! It reaches the point where its effects cease to be
      apalling at all. It becomes, instead, the "cool" special effects
      that pop culture automaton children internalize like breathing in
      and out.>>>>>>>>

      This could also be seen as a catharsis model where the violence is
      released through one's watching media. If criminal behavior is indeed a revolt
      against some ideal of society I would like to posit that it is not the
      "aesthetic of evil" nor the "anesthetic of evil" but the "ascetic ideal". Human--the
      animal--had no meaning until the ascetic ideal came about. The idea that
      through the ascetic ideal, human finally has a reason to exist (that is to suffer)
      and is not nonsense. Unfortunately this creates a will that runs counter to
      life. "rather than want nothing, man even wants nothingness." This may be
      what the revolt is against. The evil in society today is speaking for us all in
      demanding a new meaning--a purpose that is something.

      --MATT_C



      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • George Walton
      Matt, Aside from the Bible perhaps there are few other collections of fiction [which, of course, is what most philosophers publish] nearly as open to
      Message 2 of 8 , Nov 5, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        Matt,

        Aside from the Bible perhaps there are few other collections of fiction [which, of course, is what most philosophers publish] nearly as open to interpretation as Nietzsche's aphoristic hodgepodge from hell. I am, for example, reading a recent anthology, Nietzsche, Godfather of Fascism?, which is a veritable smorgasbord of quotes "proving" Nietzsche was and/or was not not "responsible" for Adolph and Benito's "interpretation" of the "blond beast" and the "will to power" as manifestations of a Historical Destiny "beyond good and evil".

        So, in no way, shape or form is Lecter a stretch re Nietzsche's conception of the Oberman. Or is he your own rendition of The Last Man, instead?

        "Beyond good and evil" is just philosophical bullshit, in my opinion. It is the sort of thing invented by scholastic minds that actually presume philosophy has anything substantial to say about human moral interactions. It doesn't. Nietzsche is one of the "good guys" only because, unlike Kant and Spinoza and Descarte and Hegel and Fitche and Lebiniz and Plato and all those other transendental ethical birdbrains, he situated human morality in actual existential contexts rather than up in the clouds.

        So, how about laying out in more detail your own misconception of being "beyond good and evil"? Only scrap the abstractions, okay? Situate it, instead, in an actual human moral conflict. Then we shall see if you are as smart as you think you are.

        I'll presume that by "ascetic ideal" you are only being ironic. Again, we shall have to flesh it out by entertaining the folks in here out in the real world. I suspect, however, in proposing that, through the lens of contemporary evil, we learn that What Society Needs is "a new meaning----a purpose that is something" I am dealing yet again with someone who reads philosophy as though it were physics.

        Biggie






        Mattlzpf@... wrote:
        >>>>>>Here, in my opinion, Hibbs is more or less right on the money in
        juxtaposing Nietzsche and Lecter. Lecter's behavior cannot be traced
        back to some childhood trauma [thereby disconnecting his moral
        responsibilty]. He is quite self-conscious about the choices he
        makes. He does, indeed, see himself as "beyond good and evil"; he is
        Nietzsche's Uberman taken to its most surreal extreme.>>>>>>>>

        Wrong. We can be quite sure that this is no where near what Nietzsche
        intended as beyond good and evil (even Lecter's disconnection of morals).
        Nietzsche explains beyond good and evil in many ways, one as a master of
        virtues. This quote may also help, "What is done out of love always occurs beyond
        good and evil."-N. Friedrich's philosophy contributed to "the blond beast"
        about as much as he contributed to your bad and bewildered argument.

        >>>>>>>>Here,
        there is little or nothing that can be done but to track down these
        amoral monsters, lock them up and throw away the key...or execute
        them if their crimes are of a capital nature.>>>>>>>>>>

        Well I suppose if we use your idea of beyond good and evil we could be
        justified in such treatment. But then, we would be hypocrites if we being
        beyond good and evil were to punish those others who are beyond good and evil.
        Maybe what you mean is that neither we nor Lecter are beyond anything and are
        still at the judging hand of what is good and evil. In this case, we shall
        still be hypocrites for executing those because they have committed executions.
        The problem here is clearly your misconception of what it is to be beyond
        good and evil.

        >>>>>>> In other words, it is not the "aesthetics of
        evil" that pollutes the world but the "anesthetics of evil". We live
        in a contemporary culture that saturates us with violence---in
        movies, in music, in video games, on television...in the cartoons
        kids watch!! It reaches the point where its effects cease to be
        apalling at all. It becomes, instead, the "cool" special effects
        that pop culture automaton children internalize like breathing in
        and out.>>>>>>>>

        This could also be seen as a catharsis model where the violence is
        released through one's watching media. If criminal behavior is indeed a revolt
        against some ideal of society I would like to posit that it is not the
        "aesthetic of evil" nor the "anesthetic of evil" but the "ascetic ideal". Human--the
        animal--had no meaning until the ascetic ideal came about. The idea that
        through the ascetic ideal, human finally has a reason to exist (that is to suffer)
        and is not nonsense. Unfortunately this creates a will that runs counter to
        life. "rather than want nothing, man even wants nothingness." This may be
        what the revolt is against. The evil in society today is speaking for us all in
        demanding a new meaning--a purpose that is something.

        --MATT_C



        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]


        Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

        Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

        TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

        Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


        ---------------------------------
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • Mattlzpf@aol.com
        Whatever it is you are reading you may as well be reading the tabloids because they re about just as truthful. I know of many scholarly texts that will
        Message 3 of 8 , Nov 8, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          Whatever it is you are reading you may as well be reading the tabloids
          because they're about just as truthful. I know of many scholarly texts that
          will explain Nietzsche's personal views and feelings on what you are having
          trouble with, these include letters he wrote to friends and family. I am
          telling you with the most seriousness, Nietzsche was in no way a fascist or a
          contributor to any type of fascist dictator (unless accidentally). His philosophy
          is usually smothered in irony and his concepts attack the conditional mode of
          thinking that society cannot escape. This is the reason why so many people
          don't understand his philosophy, aside from the fact that most people don't read
          him enough to see the techniques he uses to make his points. He's not like
          Aristotle who will give you a list of premises and conclusions.
          I really enjoy philosophizing but this ranting and debating, as if
          democratic true believers of such strong ideologies who feel the world is real
          and must be impacted by strong people, is far from any actual theoretical
          progress and becomes horrible nonsense cluttered by subjective real world (yours or
          mine?) fuss. Personally, I think you have no business doing philosophy and
          judging by your quick hitting demands and authoritative tagging your Sermon on
          the Mount has unfortunately just begun.

          --MATT_C
        • George Walton
          Matt, I have no idea who you are addressing your comments to. I can only hope, perhaps, it might be me. Nietzsche s glorification of the Roman Empire, Pilate,
          Message 4 of 8 , Nov 8, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            Matt,

            I have no idea who you are addressing your comments to. I can only hope, perhaps, it might be me.

            Nietzsche's glorification of the Roman Empire, Pilate, and what Daniel W. Conway calls his "imperial aspirations" speak volumes about one aspect of his philsophy. His contempt for "the herd" another. His veneration of the aristocratic Ubermen, yet another.

            Nietzsche lived in la la land like most philsophers who imagine the ideas they think up inside their heads bear an actual resemblance to the far, far, far more complex and convoluted world around us. Unlike Heidegger, however, Nietzsche was not around when Adolph was playing Death Camp with literally millions of lives. So, we will never really know for sure what he might have had to say, right?

            Is he "responsible" for fascism? No, in my opinion, of course not. His ideas were twisted all out of shape by those looking for an "intellectual" rationalization to carry our their own mangled metaphysical myopia. The Nazis, after all, embraced Shopenhauer and Kant, as well...but few manage to attach their philosophies to the gas chambers.

            Still, Nietzsche's philosophy was largely a meglomanical rant. And though he shuddered to imagine what lesser minds than his might do with it [his own revelations regarding the 20th century being far more prescient than either Nostradamas or the Bible] what the hell did he really expect with his increasingly more frenetic fulminations about the "meek" inheriting the earth?

            Biggie


            Mattlzpf@... wrote:
            Whatever it is you are reading you may as well be reading the tabloids
            because they're about just as truthful. I know of many scholarly texts that
            will explain Nietzsche's personal views and feelings on what you are having
            trouble with, these include letters he wrote to friends and family. I am
            telling you with the most seriousness, Nietzsche was in no way a fascist or a
            contributor to any type of fascist dictator (unless accidentally). His philosophy
            is usually smothered in irony and his concepts attack the conditional mode of
            thinking that society cannot escape. This is the reason why so many people
            don't understand his philosophy, aside from the fact that most people don't read
            him enough to see the techniques he uses to make his points. He's not like
            Aristotle who will give you a list of premises and conclusions.
            I really enjoy philosophizing but this ranting and debating, as if
            democratic true believers of such strong ideologies who feel the world is real
            and must be impacted by strong people, is far from any actual theoretical
            progress and becomes horrible nonsense cluttered by subjective real world (yours or
            mine?) fuss. Personally, I think you have no business doing philosophy and
            judging by your quick hitting demands and authoritative tagging your Sermon on
            the Mount has unfortunately just begun.

            --MATT_C

            Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
            Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
            (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)

            TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
            existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

            Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.


            ---------------------------------
            Do you Yahoo!?
            Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard

            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
          • Mattlzpf@aol.com
            In a message dated 11/8/2003 11:15:41 AM Pacific Standard Time, ... Nietzsche wrote to his sister telling her that she is defaming his good name by marrying an
            Message 5 of 8 , Nov 16, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              In a message dated 11/8/2003 11:15:41 AM Pacific Standard Time,
              iambiguously@... writes:


              > So, we will never really know for sure what he might have had to say,
              > right?
              >


              Nietzsche wrote to his sister telling her that she is defaming his
              good name by marrying an anti-semite. Then he said that he was appalled that a
              person could actually have such prejudice.

              --MATT_C


              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
            • C. S. Wyatt
              ... good name by marrying an anti-semite. Then he said that he was appalled that a person could actually have such prejudice. ... Nietzsche did far more than
              Message 6 of 8 , Nov 16, 2003
              • 0 Attachment
                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Mattlzpf@a... wrote:
                > Nietzsche wrote to his sister telling her that she is defaming his
                good name by marrying an anti-semite. Then he said that he was
                appalled that a person could actually have such prejudice.
                >
                > --MATT_C


                Nietzsche did far more than write to his sister. For several months
                they did not speak. It was quite evident he would have nothing to do
                with his brother-in-law, nor the social/political movement he represented.

                Sadly, as I note on teh web site for this group, when Nietzsche's
                health began to decline he refused help from his sister. His sister
                begged Nietzsche to move with her and her husband to Paraguay with the
                intention of forming a commune. Nietzsche would do nothing of the
                sort. (And, in the end 'Lisabeth would ruin Nietzsche's name by
                speaking to Nazi groups.)

                It's ironic that Nietzsche's last days were spent confused and in the
                care of his sister and her nationalistic husband. I think he might
                have considered it a form of Hell to share a house with such a man.

                I hope to expand all the information on the Web site in time.
                Nietzsche might have been a tad sloppy with his early works, but he
                was a man of integrity and honor.

                - CSW
              Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.