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

postmodernism

Expand Messages
  • kyrstinakre
    postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an illusion . is the subject an illusion? akre
    Message 1 of 22 , Mar 2, 2009
    • 0 Attachment
      "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
      illusion". is the subject an illusion?

      akre
    • Bernard Joseph Guerrero
      Are you verifying if the subject is really an illusion, or you were suppose to mean objects, not subjects? Clearly, for postmodernism, the subject is. Cheers!
      Message 2 of 22 , Mar 3, 2009
      • 0 Attachment
        Are you verifying if the subject is really an illusion, or you were suppose to mean objects, not subjects?

        Clearly, for postmodernism, the subject is.



        Cheers!
        Bernard




        ________________________________
        From: kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...>
        To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
        Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:54:49 AM
        Subject: [existlist] postmodernism

        "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
        illusion". is the subject an illusion?

        akre



        ------------------------------------

        Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining nothing!

        Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links




        Try cool new emoticons, skins, plus more space for friends.
        Download Yahoo! Messenger Philippines now!
        http://ph.messenger.yahoo.com

        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
      • louise
        I m still assimilating the experience of a lecture I heard last Wednesday, hosted by the university Classics Department at Durham. The speaker, Martin Ruehl,
        Message 3 of 22 , Mar 3, 2009
        • 0 Attachment
          I'm still assimilating the experience of a lecture I heard last
          Wednesday, hosted by the university Classics Department at Durham. The
          speaker, Martin Ruehl, under his succinct title, "Greeks, beasts,
          supermen: Nietzsche's anti-humanist philhellenism", shed a great deal
          of light, for me anyway, on the context in which Nietzsche contended
          with his immediate German contemporaries and predecessors, in
          philosophy and related fields. The question of subsequent postmodern
          critique and interpretations was raised early on, in connection with
          the concept of self, and traced back to the ancient idea of "normative
          function", allowing for the reality of self, but also for its unstable
          nature. In addition, the question of whether there be any
          transhistorical continuity in human nature was referred to the
          superficial way in which change was brought about by Christian slave-
          morality, with a cross-reference to Marx, and the idea of shedding
          false consciousness. In general, Nietzsche was presented as
          challenging the Kantian, Enlightenment values of a universal humanity,
          in favour of a conscious double-standard, and that the very
          term, 'superman', names the transcendence (which is exclusively
          masculine) of the underlying human species-being. This transcendence,
          if I understand the argument correctly, arises from the duality of
          slave- and master- morality. The implicit idea here is that not
          everyone can be an end, but some must be means to an end, a profoundly
          anti-humanist stance. All of this, though, is rooted in an awareness
          (most Germanic and philhellenic) that for the Greeks, and for
          Nietzsche's sense of the higher man, the fact of labour is undesirable,
          indeed a disgrace. These themes are explored in "The Greek State"
          (1872) and "We Philologists" (1875). Even the merest sketch of two or
          three lines of argument in the lecture is a reminder of how wide-
          ranging and contrary to humanist and liberal trends Nietzsche's thought
          really is.

          Louise

          --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "kyrstinakre" <kyrstinakre@...> wrote:
          >
          > "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
          > illusion". is the subject an illusion?
          >
          > akre
          >
        • kyrstinakre
          thank you, louise. ~akre
          Message 4 of 22 , Mar 3, 2009
          • 0 Attachment
            thank you, louise.

            ~akre


            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "louise" <hecubatoher@...> wrote:
            >
            > I'm still assimilating the experience of a lecture I heard last
            > Wednesday, hosted by the university Classics Department at Durham. The
            > speaker, Martin Ruehl, under his succinct title, "Greeks, beasts,
            > supermen: Nietzsche's anti-humanist philhellenism", shed a great deal
            > of light, for me anyway, on the context in which Nietzsche contended
            > with his immediate German contemporaries and predecessors, in
            > philosophy and related fields. The question of subsequent postmodern
            > critique and interpretations was raised early on, in connection with
            > the concept of self, and traced back to the ancient idea of "normative
            > function", allowing for the reality of self, but also for its unstable
            > nature. In addition, the question of whether there be any
            > transhistorical continuity in human nature was referred to the
            > superficial way in which change was brought about by Christian slave-
            > morality, with a cross-reference to Marx, and the idea of shedding
            > false consciousness. In general, Nietzsche was presented as
            > challenging the Kantian, Enlightenment values of a universal humanity,
            > in favour of a conscious double-standard, and that the very
            > term, 'superman', names the transcendence (which is exclusively
            > masculine) of the underlying human species-being. This transcendence,
            > if I understand the argument correctly, arises from the duality of
            > slave- and master- morality. The implicit idea here is that not
            > everyone can be an end, but some must be means to an end, a profoundly
            > anti-humanist stance. All of this, though, is rooted in an awareness
            > (most Germanic and philhellenic) that for the Greeks, and for
            > Nietzsche's sense of the higher man, the fact of labour is undesirable,
            > indeed a disgrace. These themes are explored in "The Greek State"
            > (1872) and "We Philologists" (1875). Even the merest sketch of two or
            > three lines of argument in the lecture is a reminder of how wide-
            > ranging and contrary to humanist and liberal trends Nietzsche's thought
            > really is.
            >
            > Louise
            >
            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "kyrstinakre" <kyrstinakre@> wrote:
            > >
            > > "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
            > > illusion". is the subject an illusion?
            > >
            > > akre
            > >
            >
          • kyrstinakre
            postmodernism is the thought of a crisis of the subject. the subject is fragmented. by asking that question, i was meaning: do we, in this list, consider true
            Message 5 of 22 , Mar 3, 2009
            • 0 Attachment
              postmodernism is the thought of a crisis of the subject.
              the subject is fragmented.

              by asking that question, i was meaning:

              do we, in this list, consider true the theory of a fragmanted subject?
              are we fragmented subjects?

              perhaps this theory can be true. then, what is to be done by it?


              ~akre


              --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Joseph Guerrero
              <bjeg2000@...> wrote:
              >
              > Are you verifying if the subject is really an illusion, or you were
              suppose to mean objects, not subjects?
              >
              > Clearly, for postmodernism, the subject is.
              >
              >
              >
              > Cheers!
              > Bernard
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > ________________________________
              > From: kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...>
              > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
              > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:54:49 AM
              > Subject: [existlist] postmodernism
              >
              > "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
              > illusion". is the subject an illusion?
              >
              > akre
              >
              >
              >
              > ------------------------------------
              >
              > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining
              nothing!
              >
              > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links
              >
              >
              >
              >
              > Try cool new emoticons, skins, plus more space for friends.
              > Download Yahoo! Messenger Philippines now!
              > http://ph.messenger.yahoo.com
              >
              > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              >
            • eupraxis@aol.com
              If by Subject you mean something like in Descartes, then there is no Subject as such for either Modernism or Post-Modernism. Not since Kant. Wil ... From:
              Message 6 of 22 , Mar 3, 2009
              • 0 Attachment
                If by Subject you mean something like in Descartes, then there is no Subject as such for either Modernism or Post-Modernism. Not since Kant.



                Wil




                -----Original Message-----
                From: kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...>
                To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                Sent: Tue, 3 Mar 2009 4:28 pm
                Subject: [existlist] Re: postmodernism


























                postmodernism is the thought of a crisis of the subject.

                the subject is fragmented.



                by asking that question, i was meaning:



                do we, in this list, consider true the theory of a fragmanted subject?

                are we fragmented subjects?



                perhaps this theory can be true. then, what is to be done by it?



                ~akre





                --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, Bernard Joseph Guerrero

                <bjeg2000@...> wrote:

                >

                > Are you verifying if the subject is really an illusion, or you were

                suppose to mean objects, not subjects?

                >

                > Clearly, for postmodernism, the subject is.

                >

                >

                >

                > Cheers!

                > Bernard

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > ________________________________

                > From: kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...>

                > To: existlist@yahoogroups.com

                > Sent: Tuesday, March 3, 2009 6:54:49 AM

                > Subject: [existlist] postmodernism

                >

                > "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an

                > illusion". is the subject an illusion?

                >

                > akre

                >

                >

                >

                > ------------------------------------

                >

                > Please support the Existential Primer... dedicated to explaining

                nothing!

                >

                > Home Page: http://www.tameri.com/csw/existYahoo! Groups Links

                >

                >

                >

                >

                > Try cool new emoticons, skins, plus more space for friends.

                > Download Yahoo! Messenger Philippines now!

                > http://ph.messenger.yahoo.com

                >

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

                >


























                [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
              • nr_rajkumar
                There is a very strong possibility.  There are times when I think that out of millions and trillions of possibilities, why me and how  me - what is the
                Message 7 of 22 , Mar 4, 2009
                • 0 Attachment
                  There is a very strong possibility.  There are times when I think that out of millions and trillions of possibilities, why "me" and how "me" - what is the basis of this selection continued existence?  I have also thought about "change" and (assumed) "ownership" as the driving force of experience.  Perhaps some form of conditioning has taken place based on reward and punishment on the root "I" - apparently all of it assumed to be real, rest of it based on and driven by the values assumed by me.  Like a seed taking a root in the soil, or a current or turbulance in the river.
                   
                  NRR


                  --- On Tue, 3/3/09, kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...> wrote:


                  From: kyrstinakre <kyrstinakre@...>
                  Subject: [existlist] postmodernism
                  To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                  Date: Tuesday, March 3, 2009, 4:24 AM






                  "postmodernists tell us that the subject or the self, itself, is an
                  illusion". is the subject an illusion?

                  akre
















                  [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                • jimstuart51
                  Louise, I find what you write very interesting. Let me focus on this section of your post (47265): In general, Nietzsche was presented as challenging the
                  Message 8 of 22 , Mar 4, 2009
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Louise,

                    I find what you write very interesting.

                    Let me focus on this section of your post (47265):

                    "In general, Nietzsche was presented as challenging the Kantian,
                    Enlightenment values of a universal humanity, in favour of a conscious
                    double-standard, and that the very term, 'superman', names the
                    transcendence (which is exclusively masculine) of the underlying human
                    species-being. This transcendence, if I understand the argument
                    correctly, arises from the duality of slave- and master- morality. The
                    implicit idea here is that not everyone can be an end, but some must be
                    means to an end, a profoundly anti-humanist stance. All of this, though,
                    is rooted in an awareness (most Germanic and philhellenic) that for the
                    Greeks, and for Nietzsche's sense of the higher man, the fact of labour
                    is undesirable, indeed a disgrace. These themes are explored in "The
                    Greek State" (1872) and "We Philologists" (1875). Even the merest sketch
                    of two or three lines of argument in the lecture is a reminder of how
                    wide-ranging and contrary to humanist and liberal trends Nietzsche's
                    thought really is."

                    I agree with this interpretation of Nietzsche. Some sections from his
                    books do suggest that the `lower' types of human beings –
                    those who naturally embrace the slave morality – can be treated as
                    means by the higher individuals and not as ends in themselves. As you
                    say, this is a direct challenge to Kant's Enlightenment values of a
                    universal humanity.

                    Perhaps you will not be surprised when I say that I completely agree
                    with Kant on this issue. Whilst Nietzsche had many profound, insightful
                    and true things to say, his anti-humanist rejection of the idea that all
                    human beings ought to be treated as ends and never as means was one of
                    his worst and ill-judged views.

                    Jim





                    [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                  • louise
                    ... Jim, Yes, if I were to be po-faced about it, I would agree with you. Nietzsche, however, is a rhetorical and poetical thinker, not someone with views .
                    Message 9 of 22 , Mar 4, 2009
                    • 0 Attachment
                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                      >
                      >
                      > Louise,
                      >
                      > I find what you write very interesting.
                      >
                      > Let me focus on this section of your post (47265):
                      >
                      > "In general, Nietzsche was presented as challenging the Kantian,
                      > Enlightenment values of a universal humanity, in favour of a conscious
                      > double-standard, and that the very term, 'superman', names the
                      > transcendence (which is exclusively masculine) of the underlying human
                      > species-being. This transcendence, if I understand the argument
                      > correctly, arises from the duality of slave- and master- morality. The
                      > implicit idea here is that not everyone can be an end, but some must be
                      > means to an end, a profoundly anti-humanist stance. All of this, though,
                      > is rooted in an awareness (most Germanic and philhellenic) that for the
                      > Greeks, and for Nietzsche's sense of the higher man, the fact of labour
                      > is undesirable, indeed a disgrace. These themes are explored in "The
                      > Greek State" (1872) and "We Philologists" (1875). Even the merest sketch
                      > of two or three lines of argument in the lecture is a reminder of how
                      > wide-ranging and contrary to humanist and liberal trends Nietzsche's
                      > thought really is."
                      >
                      > I agree with this interpretation of Nietzsche. Some sections from his
                      > books do suggest that the `lower' types of human beings –
                      > those who naturally embrace the slave morality – can be treated as
                      > means by the higher individuals and not as ends in themselves. As you
                      > say, this is a direct challenge to Kant's Enlightenment values of a
                      > universal humanity.
                      >
                      > Perhaps you will not be surprised when I say that I completely agree
                      > with Kant on this issue. Whilst Nietzsche had many profound, insightful
                      > and true things to say, his anti-humanist rejection of the idea that all
                      > human beings ought to be treated as ends and never as means was one of
                      > his worst and ill-judged views.
                      >
                      > Jim

                      Jim,

                      Yes, if I were to be po-faced about it, I would agree with you. Nietzsche, however, is a rhetorical and poetical thinker, not someone with 'views'.

                      Louise



                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      >
                    • jimstuart51
                      Louise, In response to my complaint that Nietzsche s anti-humanist `view that the `lower types of human beings - those who naturally embrace the slave
                      Message 10 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                      • 0 Attachment
                        Louise,

                        In response to my complaint that Nietzsche's anti-humanist
                        `view' that "the `lower' types of human beings - those who
                        naturally embrace the slave morality – can be treated as means by
                        the higher individuals and not as ends in themselves", you replied:

                        "Yes, if I were to be po-faced about it, I would agree with you.
                        Nietzsche, however, is a rhetorical and poetical thinker, not someone
                        with 'views'."

                        I'm not sure what you mean by saying Nietzsche was a `rhetorical
                        thinker'. Does that mean he did not actually mean what he wrote, and
                        that we should not take his `views' seriously?

                        To say he was a `poetical thinker' implies he wrote philosophy
                        as poetry. Again, does that mean we need not take what he said
                        seriously? In my view, a repugnant thought, whether expressed in prose
                        or poetry remains a repugnant thought.

                        Further, existentialism is a genre of philosophy and not a genre of
                        poetry. I am not primarily interested in the beauty of Nietzsche's
                        writings. I am more interested in their truth or falsity.

                        Admittedly it may only be the pedestrian, superficial thinker who has
                        `views' and that Nietzsche, rather than expressing views,
                        expresses his passions and his profound feelings, but even a higher type
                        like Nietzsche should be held to account for distasteful and hateful
                        ideas.

                        Jim

                        …. the po-faced one






                        [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                      • eupraxis@aol.com
                        Jim, Nietzsche never offers us the view that master values are in any way something that we ought to emulate, or that seeing folks as means rather than as ends
                        Message 11 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                        • 0 Attachment
                          Jim,

                          Nietzsche never offers us the view that master values are in any way something that we ought to emulate, or that seeing folks as means rather than as ends (he doesn't really say this at all) is a laudable position. What he is trying to show (in Genealogy...) is how the origin of common 'morality' was based on an epochal reversal of values such that the slave orientation becomes that which overturns the, as it were, natural way of the world by substituting slave values as good. This slave revolt is, according to him, the basic kernel of Christendom. In other words, he is demonstrating how we rationalize our morality to serve ourselves.

                          Wil








                          -----Original Message-----
                          From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
                          To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                          Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 7:01 am
                          Subject: [existlist] Re: postmodernism




























                          Louise,



                          In response to my complaint that Nietzsche's anti-humanist

                          `view' that "the `lower' types of human beings - those who

                          naturally embrace the slave morality – can be treated as means by

                          the higher individuals and not as ends in themselves", you replied:



                          "Yes, if I were to be po-faced about it, I would agree with you.

                          Nietzsche, however, is a rhetorical and poetical thinker, not someone

                          with 'views'."



                          I'm not sure what you mean by saying Nietzsche was a `rhetorical

                          thinker'. Does that mean he did not actually mean what he wrote, and
                          =0
                          Athat we should not take his `views' seriously?



                          To say he was a `poetical thinker' implies he wrote philosophy

                          as poetry. Again, does that mean we need not take what he said

                          seriously? In my view, a repugnant thought, whether expressed in prose

                          or poetry remains a repugnant thought.



                          Further, existentialism is a genre of philosophy and not a genre of

                          poetry. I am not primarily interested in the beauty of Nietzsche's

                          writings. I am more interested in their truth or falsity.



                          Admittedly it may only be the pedestrian, superficial thinker who has

                          `views' and that Nietzsche, rather than expressing views,

                          expresses his passions and his profound feelings, but even a higher type

                          like Nietzsche should be held to account for distasteful and hateful

                          ideas.



                          Jim



                          …. the po-faced one



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


























                          [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                        • jimstuart51
                          Wil, You write: Nietzsche never offers us the view that master values are in any way something that we ought to emulate, or that seeing folks as means rather
                          Message 12 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Wil,

                            You write:

                            "Nietzsche never offers us the view that master values are in any
                            way something that we ought to emulate, or that seeing folks as means
                            rather than as ends (he doesn't really say this at all) is a laudable
                            position."

                            I don't agree with you. Surely he was in the business of
                            `re-evaluating all values'. Further he talked of
                            `higher' types of individuals, of noble, healthy individuals.
                            These are value-laden terms.

                            I read Nietzsche's philosophy as in part prescriptive and not just
                            descriptive.

                            Jim
                          • eupraxis@aol.com
                            Jim, Well, I fear that you may miss the forest for the trees in that case. But the case can be better made (?) by me by asking if you see anywhere in
                            Message 13 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                            • 0 Attachment
                              Jim,

                              Well, I fear that you may miss the forest for the trees in that case. But the case can be better made (?) by me by asking if you see anywhere in Nietzsche's writings where he really praises cruelty or promotes the same.

                              Now that is not to say that Genealogy is not a cold and confrontational work, the most so in N's corpus, in fact. But it is a genealogy, not a text on ethics. Nietzsche's overall 'prescription', to use your term, is to understand yourself as a repository for slave morality. It is the same idea as his critique of Euripides' Orestes tragedy: at a certain point in society, there is a will to intercede in matters of justice, etc., with a transcendent exception which sees motivation as an extenuating circumstance, thereby reversing the focal point of adjudicating guilt to the guilty. ?

                              Wil




                              -----Original Message-----
                              From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
                              To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                              Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 7:48 am
                              Subject: [existlist] Re: postmodernism


























                              Wil,



                              You write:



                              "Nietzsche never offers us the view that master values are in any

                              way something that we ought to emulate, or that seeing folks as means

                              rather than as ends (he doesn't really say this at all) is a laudable

                              position."



                              I don't agree with you. Surely he was in the business of

                              `re-evaluating all values'. Further he talked of

                              `higher' types of individuals, of noble, healthy individuals.

                              These are value-laden terms.



                              I read Nietzsche's philosophy as in part prescriptive and not just

                              descriptive.



                              Jim


























                              [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                            • jimstuart51
                              Wil, I will attempt to locate some quotes where Nietzsche suggests that the higher individual is free to use the lower individual as a means to his own
                              Message 14 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                              • 0 Attachment
                                Wil,

                                I will attempt to locate some quotes where Nietzsche suggests that the higher individual is free to use the lower individual as a means to his own (higher) ends. I know I have read such passages, but some of my Nietzsche notes are misplaced.

                                So in the mean time I have to admit that my view is not proved. However, my view does seem to be fairly common. Witness Louise's post 47265 in which she reported it as the view of Martin Ruehl whom she heard give a lecture entitled "Greeks, beasts,
                                supermen: Nietzsche's anti-humanist philhellenism". To quote from Louise's post:

                                "In general, Nietzsche was presented as challenging the Kantian, Enlightenment values of a universal humanity, in favour of a conscious double-standard, and that the very term, 'superman', names the transcendence (which is exclusively masculine) of the underlying human species-being. This transcendence, if I understand the argument correctly, arises from the duality of slave- and master- morality. The implicit idea here is that not everyone can be an end, but some must be means to an end, a profoundly anti-humanist stance."

                                Of course Martin Ruehl could be just as wrong as me on this issue.

                                Jim
                              • mary.josie59
                                ... at a certain point in society, there is a will to intercede in matters of justice, etc., with a transcendent exception which sees motivation as an
                                Message 15 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@... wrote:

                                  at a certain point in society, there is a will to intercede in matters of justice, etc., with a transcendent exception which sees
                                  motivation as an extenuating circumstance, thereby reversing the focal point of adjudicating guilt to the guilty. ?

                                  Wil,

                                  Just finished reading J.M. Coetzee's "Age of Iron" and revisiting the concept of responsibility to history, justice, home/land, and wondering why individuals assume they can repair past injustices to indigenous peoples through their own self-destruction. The history of nations is the history of invasions. We can absolve ourselves, because we weren't present when the long chain of motivations began. I'd like to hear more about this "transcendent exception."

                                  Mary
                                • louise
                                  Jim, The point at issue for me is the subjectivity of response to philosophical thought for each individual thinker. It is always, I suppose, rather perilous
                                  Message 16 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Jim,

                                    The point at issue for me is the subjectivity of response to philosophical thought for each individual thinker. It is always, I suppose, rather perilous for a relative outsider like myself to attend a public lecture in which the accomplished scholarship of the academic world is set forth. Even the very fact of Nietzsche's widespread publication and certainly the popularisation of his ideas is intrinsically a danger. He was hardly joking, when he announced the destructive power of his thought. Was he issuing a warning? Was he unconcerned about the results of his thinking? I hardly suppose that likely.

                                    As I recall, it was in the "Untimely Meditations" that he expressed his hope that German culture might be renewed by the dedicated efforts of a hundred men. His aim was not to reach the masses, and my own aim is to understand [participate in] the intent of his creativity. The way I am using language to describe my activity (in the preceding sentence) is mystical, though not supernatural. I personally simply cannot read his philosophical statements as directly transferable to a politico-social domain, nor to a scientific or technocratic one (and I would emphasise the adverb, 'directly'). If such an act of abstraction were possible to me, then I might be able to read his work as containing 'views' that were 'hateful'. It is beyond my capacity to imagine this, however. He is a philosopher who writes from a foundation of the transforming of consciousness. To that extent, there is a certain religious quality, and he does mention that he enjoys friendly relations with the unassuming and undogmatic Christians of his acquaintance.

                                    This evening I have taken up "Thus Spake Zarathustra" again, beginning at the beginning, which seems to me more beautiful and uncanny than I have ever found it before. Whatever a man writes, comes out of his particular brain, and is a kind of world in itself.

                                    Louise

                                    --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > Louise,
                                    >
                                    > In response to my complaint that Nietzsche's anti-humanist
                                    > `view' that "the `lower' types of human beings - those who
                                    > naturally embrace the slave morality – can be treated as means by
                                    > the higher individuals and not as ends in themselves", you replied:
                                    >
                                    > "Yes, if I were to be po-faced about it, I would agree with you.
                                    > Nietzsche, however, is a rhetorical and poetical thinker, not someone
                                    > with 'views'."
                                    >
                                    > I'm not sure what you mean by saying Nietzsche was a `rhetorical
                                    > thinker'. Does that mean he did not actually mean what he wrote, and
                                    > that we should not take his `views' seriously?
                                    >
                                    > To say he was a `poetical thinker' implies he wrote philosophy
                                    > as poetry. Again, does that mean we need not take what he said
                                    > seriously? In my view, a repugnant thought, whether expressed in prose
                                    > or poetry remains a repugnant thought.
                                    >
                                    > Further, existentialism is a genre of philosophy and not a genre of
                                    > poetry. I am not primarily interested in the beauty of Nietzsche's
                                    > writings. I am more interested in their truth or falsity.
                                    >
                                    > Admittedly it may only be the pedestrian, superficial thinker who has
                                    > `views' and that Nietzsche, rather than expressing views,
                                    > expresses his passions and his profound feelings, but even a higher type
                                    > like Nietzsche should be held to account for distasteful and hateful
                                    > ideas.
                                    >
                                    > Jim
                                    >
                                    > …. the po-faced one
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    >
                                    > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                    >
                                  • louise
                                    ... I would hate an interpretation of my own to be mistaken for that of an academic scholar. It is my strong suspicion that to compress the arguments in the
                                    Message 17 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "jimstuart51" <jjimstuart1@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Wil,
                                      >
                                      > I will attempt to locate some quotes where Nietzsche suggests that the higher individual is free to use the lower individual as a means to his own (higher) ends. I know I have read such passages, but some of my Nietzsche notes are misplaced.
                                      >
                                      > So in the mean time I have to admit that my view is not proved. However, my view does seem to be fairly common. Witness Louise's post 47265 in which she reported it as the view of Martin Ruehl whom she heard give a lecture entitled "Greeks, beasts,
                                      > supermen: Nietzsche's anti-humanist philhellenism". To quote from Louise's post:
                                      >
                                      > "In general, Nietzsche was presented as challenging the Kantian, Enlightenment values of a universal humanity, in favour of a conscious double-standard, and that the very term, 'superman', names the transcendence (which is exclusively masculine) of the underlying human species-being. This transcendence, if I understand the argument correctly, arises from the duality of slave- and master- morality. The implicit idea here is that not everyone can be an end, but some must be means to an end, a profoundly anti-humanist stance."
                                      >
                                      > Of course Martin Ruehl could be just as wrong as me on this issue.

                                      I would hate an interpretation of my own to be mistaken for that of an academic scholar. It is my strong suspicion that to compress the arguments in the way I have done is probably not wise. Anyway, it is open to all who are interested and have the resources, to read one or more of Martin Ruehl's books and make up their own minds on his theses. L.

                                      >
                                      > Jim
                                      >
                                    • jimstuart51
                                      Wil, I was also intrigued by your final sentence which Mary picked out from your post. I wasn t sure if this was supposed to be Nietzsche s thought, or whether
                                      Message 18 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        Wil,

                                        I was also intrigued by your final sentence which Mary picked out from your post.

                                        I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be Nietzsche's thought, or whether it was your own. If Nietzsche's, where in his works does he express it?

                                        Jim



                                        --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:
                                        >
                                        > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:
                                        >
                                        > at a certain point in society, there is a will to intercede in matters of justice, etc., with a transcendent exception which sees
                                        > motivation as an extenuating circumstance, thereby reversing the focal point of adjudicating guilt to the guilty. ?
                                        >
                                        > Wil,
                                        >
                                        > Just finished reading J.M. Coetzee's "Age of Iron" and revisiting the concept of responsibility to history, justice, home/land, and wondering why individuals assume they can repair past injustices to indigenous peoples through their own self-destruction. The history of nations is the history of invasions. We can absolve ourselves, because we weren't present when the long chain of motivations began. I'd like to hear more about this "transcendent exception."
                                        >
                                        > Mary
                                        >
                                      • jimstuart51
                                        Louise, Thank you for your reply. I think you are probably more in tune with Nietzsche s concerns and aims than I am. I agree with you that he was primarily
                                        Message 19 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                        • 0 Attachment
                                          Louise,

                                          Thank you for your reply. I think you are probably more in tune with Nietzsche's concerns and aims than I am.

                                          I agree with you that he was primarily concerned with the potential for the individual in his pursuit of excellence, and hardly concerned at all with social and political policy, except in so far as these hindered the higher individual's spiritual development.

                                          Over recent months I have been reflecting on his account of ressentiment, as the chief `sin' of the sickly and weak individual. The healthy, strong, noble person has a generosity of spirit without a hint of ressentiment.

                                          Jim
                                        • eupraxis@aol.com
                                          Jim and Mary, Yes, the phrase transcendental exception is my own term, although the idea is Nietzsche s, or is at least highly indebted to him. Orestes
                                          Message 20 of 22 , Mar 5, 2009
                                          • 0 Attachment
                                            Jim and Mary,

                                            Yes, the phrase 'transcendental exception' is my own term, although the idea is Nietzsche's, or is at least highly indebted to him.

                                            Orestes killed his mother, a crime and a curse worse than any other. He is hunted and tormented even by the Furies. Finally he is to be executed for the crime. At this point Euripides employs the device of Dues Ex Machina, whereby Apollo appears and saves Orestes by appeal. Extenuating circumstances, you see. His mother was behind his father's death. Orestes was righting a wrong. But intentional matricide is still unforgivable.

                                            Now this marks a radical break from prior eras. Formerly, the guilty were guilty. One cannot erase the guilt by appeal to some other factor, except by alibi or proof of innocence. But Orestes actually killed his mother, and he is very upfront about it. Were others guilty, as well, of associated crimes? Very well, then; but they will only be added to the list of criminals, and Orestes is still a matricide.

                                            But this is not what Apollo pleads. Rather, he wants another whole universe of values to intercede as if from a higher level or from another dimension. This new dimension sees the very same data, but from what appears like a greater vantage. But why is it a greater vantage? Why isn't it just a weakening of the law? Unless, that is, that IS the vantage.

                                            Any attempt to describe the new dimensionality will have recourse to 'enlightened' notions. The person that we try to convince seems to us like someone who cannot see a deeper meaning to things. But there really isn't any way to completely rationalize this 'romantic' extension of justice.

                                            What this means is that factual guilt is mitigated by a transcendental exception. This transcendental exception is a rationalization to overturn the world of sheer brutal necessity with something like the notion of mercy. But whenever mere ontology becomes conjoined with that dimensionality, with that romanticism, even ontology itself seems empty without that 'goodness' implicit in its metaphysics, and it thereby becomes forever the general perspective of those for whom mercy is much hoped for from existence.

                                            Wil








                                            -----Original Message-----
                                            From: jimstuart51 <jjimstuart1@...>
                                            To: existlist@yahoogroups.com
                                            Sent: Thu, 5 Mar 2009 6:04 pm
                                            Subject: [existlist] Re: postmodernism


























                                            Wil,



                                            I was also intrigued by your final sentence which Mary picked out from your post.



                                            I wasn't sure if this was supposed to be Nietzsche's thought, or whether it was your own. If Nietzsche's, where in his works does he express it?



                                            Jim



                                            --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, "mary.josie59" <mary.josie59@...> wrote:

                                            >

                                            > --- In existlist@yahoogroups.com, eupraxis@ wrote:

                                            >

                                            > at a certain point in society, there is a will to intercede in matters of justice, etc., with a transcendent exception which sees

                                            > motivation as an extenuating circumstance, thereby reversing the focal point of adjudicating guilt to the guilty. ?

                                            >

                                            > Wil,

                                            >

                                            > Just finished reading J.M. Coetzee's "Age of Iron" and revisiting the concept of responsibility to history, justice, home/land, and wondering why individuals assume they can repair past injustices to indigenous peoples through their own self-destruction. The history of nations is the history of invasions. We can absolve ourselves, because we weren't present when the long chain of motivations began. I'd like to hear more about this "transcendent exception."

                                            >

                                            > Mary

                                            >


























                                            [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
                                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.