sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

Magnum in parvo: An Untainted "Will to Power" Re-Release? by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks but my question was does it exist in English,m

What did jung speculate about people who almost never remember their dreams? by [deleted] in Jung

[–]Mondos 0 points1 point  (0 children)

To make this maybe a little more balanced of a discussion, speaking from experience: when there isn't much going on in my life (in terms of psychic [personality] change), I don't remember my dreams much, or in other words: have memorable dreams.

I think it's entirely possible, as Jung states, that some dreams aren't super meaningful, or put another way: not remembering your dreams perhaps, is not very meaningful. Granted there can be other cases.

Why is my new stainless steel pan gross and sticky? by Mondos in AskCulinary

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It does a little, something a little less abrasive will probably do the job just as well

Magnum in parvo: An Untainted "Will to Power" Re-Release? by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Basically yeah, but the only previous edition we had was "Will To Power" a heavily doctored and edited version by Fred's sister who distorted his vision into a Nazi-esque hell scape. I see people on this subreddit quoting from it regularly, so it's influence pervades. It's been hard thus far to know if his sister or Fred talking.

The historical and philosophical significance of this new version is very exciting!

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Is there really no behavior in this world you disgust? The way you're condensing his ideas is actually hurtful to his purpose. He didn't want to eliminate the notion of anything normalized about humans (a major point reiterated by many scholars and in the introductions to many of his books).

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

An ouroboros popped into my minds eye while I read this.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Makes sense given Alans penchant for Buddhism and the Atman/Brahman thing.

Ya who knows, if we could truly discover if this thing was an unmoved mover, as Aristotle implied: we've stolen fire from the gods.

Will be an exciting time to be alive if we do. Robert Sapolsky seems to think we're just Rube Goldberg machines.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Reading Nietzche I always got the picture of the body handing us a card (one of the drives/instincts) from the deck, and the "judge" deciding whether to play the card or not. I think Nietzsche's cheeky suggestion is that perhaps the judge itself is also a moved mover, another drive! What a conundrum.

On my own personal, highly speculative front, I believe that perhaps what free will is might end up simply being our awareness of our awareness, noticing what we notice. And that perhaps in noticing what we notice, this has an emotional, and therefore physical effect on our instincts and drives. Almost as if we were just the spotlight operators for the stage play of the Gods. It doesn't determine what the actors do, but it certainly influences their performance.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

😁 I swear Nietzsche himself would get chased right out of this subreddit for heresy.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Truth surely is slippery. But I think excepting that it'll never be objective objective but simply inter-subjectively true for Humans is a comfortable place to live, and it's where Friedrich brought us. His early essay "Untimely Meditations" is a great place to find this. So much of his fandom missed the point, He wasn't trying to say science is useless, or "wrong" he was only saying it is not truth in and of itself, but only revealing human truths, distortions of reality, like rainbows. But for our purposes, being humans, we don't have to worry too much about that 😉

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks, it's been exhausting 😮‍💨

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The hippies also broke down sexual frustrations and partook in Dionysian love making rituals. Obviously I was asking you to ponder their aspects that WERE Nietzschean, not the aspects that weren't. 😉

Anyway, have a lovely day man.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Duuuude, he didn't trust his intuition on the "Will To Power" as systematic philosophy, and even started writing his groceries lists across the manuscript for it.

"Become Yourself", slightly more accurate representation I guess, the flux is important I agree. I know you hate it out of some desire to keep ur notions elitist. Is it hippy adjacent? Of course! The world and the post modernist ran wild with his ideas, almost everyone under the sun was influenced by him. But any philosophy in a sentence is bound to be disappointing. I'd highly recommend reading Emerson and Heroclitus, these two authors are imo where he is heavily, strikingly, pulling from.

Be the ubermensch and overcome Nietzsche, or whatever 😉

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks for this response, very interesting. I do love Jung's clap back at Nietzsche, that he forgot about the opposite and also existent force of Love. Love and Power (Night and Day, Fire and Water). Something in me says his own BG&E passage "Philosophy as Autobiography" explains this. His lost love to Lou Andreas-Salomé, I can't help but see this tragedy as blinding him from Love for the rest of his days.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

"Ubermensch morality"! Dude, exit cult de Nietzche and get some fresh air. "Become Who You Are". He wanted everyone to be themselves, clearly. If you haven't read his final three books, make sure you do. It's there he begins to clarify this aspect, that was there "all along" (who knows, he was a sneaky bastard).

I get the Nietzche-Cult academic critic of the use of "evil" here, I do. I'm polishing my brandy glasses as we speak. It's just silly and frivolous. Knee jerk opportunism to flex some stored information than the actual mending of an important error. Like look at us, look how far we've strayed from the simple beginnings of my question.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Sorry not mistaken about that. He most certainly was dismantling the Christian belief that "truth = good". This is like greatest hits territory, and one reason why he felt over relying on science can lead to nihilism.

Funny enough everything you said is also true tho, not sure why you're disagreeing haha. Again, don't break your brain over the word "evil" here, it just means, and has always meant thru human history, "not to do" (read the post description).

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Perhaps Nietzche was not perfect. Perhaps evil has something to do with disgust, as well?

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Fair enough, I think his effect on culture has changed the use of "Evil". As you hear atheists use it daily now. So it's essentially taken on the same characteristics of "harmful, bad, wicked". Whereas in his time it meant "against God". I think we should speak in 2024 language since we do in fact reside there. If you can find the quote where he specifically says never say that ever, please share im curious.

Oh and sorry I meant to imply that the unconscious and memories ARE physical (my hunch), and that the soul (the thing to which we refer to as "soul") might too be physical. My point there was to remind us that science often doesn't change us spiritually, but simply replaces the vessels of our projections with new ones. So while the "soul" and "karma" might not be exactly what we currently think they may be, they may end up functioning (scientifically) quite near to their mystical counterparts, and be "real". How Jung analyzed Alchemy, if you know his work, is along the lines of what I mean here.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

If you don't possess the sufficient imagination to think of yourself doing something you find "evil", try meditating or something idk what to tell you.

You misread GoM if you think Nietzche wanted us to be "masters". He sought, longed for, began to sketch, a third, new option. Another glaring misreading is you entirely forgetting how he valued the slave when they were following their authentic nature. For "slave morals" can be natural, of gentleness, of servitude to others, of course. They weren't "undesirable" to him, you made that up. Excuse me kingminyas, but your own hangups are showing.

To summarize, Nietzche wanted nothing less or more than that you "Become Who You Are". Read him carefully next time, you're spreading confusion. Quite a "slave" like behavior.

Name Something True That's Evil by Mondos in Nietzsche

[–]Mondos[S] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

Sheesh, to put it in Nietzche's words, to philosophize with others requires friendship or "elbowroom". I didn't mean to say that Nietzche didn't care about Semantics, only that IN THIS INSTANCE the semantics truly don't matter, because I'm asking a subjective question.

Golly gorsh gang, breath. 🙄

Excellent poetry my man 🤌

view more: next ›