Do you agree with this quote from Waking Life?

[PeterMaclellan]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to agree. Can a human who doesn't ask or care about the great questions of life really that sentient?

 

[The Nihilist]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to agree. Can a human who doesn't ask or care about the great questions of life really that sentient?

Plato would agree with you, and Nietzsche would slap you and call you a fool and yell that you haven't understood anything that he has said.
According to him, the thinking life is for the weak who have been unable to find satisfaction through strength. So, they invent another realm of meaning and ideas and all that nonsense, and they call that the superior world, and in that way they draw satisfaction. I am inclined to agree. Put down your books. Go play outside. Fight. Fornicate.

 

[hybrid]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

in a manner of speaking, it's possible.

some humans had acquired knowledge that others cannot possibly learn even within their 10 lifetimes.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to agree. Can a human who doesn't ask or care about the great questions of life really that sentient?

it is said that an intelligent person will sooner or later ask questions like " what is life, why i am here or who am i", but it doesn't mean that those who dont bother to seek the answers is not sentient.

like life, sentience can be expressed in different ways.

a philosopher can be very cold hearted while an ignorant person can be warm and very loving. or vice versa

.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Plato would agree with you, and Nietzsche would slap you and call you a fool and yell that you haven't understood anything that he has said.
According to him, the thinking life is for the weak who have been unable to find satisfaction through strength. So, they invent another realm of meaning and ideas and all that nonsense, and they call that the superior world, and in that way they draw satisfaction. I am inclined to agree. Put down your books. Go play outside. Fight. Fornicate.

Nietzsche was a little radical . He probably did that because he personally could not achieve it through his multiple injuries and illnesses. I guess he held disdain for people who openly chose to writing indoors rather then writing outdoors and walking around experiencing the world. He found that they were missing something important, to him complete disregard for living within without conformity, and without experience was completey ignorant. He felt that they were cheating themselves out of a very important part of human experience, cheating him out of the fact that he was telling them they were missing something and never-the-less did not listen to his uplifting optimistic message that lies within his pessimistic, and sometimes angry assaults upon the structure of the individual in society.

I must agree, without experience, no philosophy is accurate.

 

[LostFound1986]

I don't agree at all. Both Plato and Neitzsche were born into privilaged situations in which they had the opportunity to persue these great questions. Plato would be the first to recognise the necessity and priority of ordinary, functional workers in a society even though his utopia would be ruled by philosopher-kings. Plato and Neitzsche were both of course extrodinary thinkers whom through genius and luck survived the test of time and made massive contributions to culture. The whole drive though of western civilization has been the gradual recognition of the equality of everyone and that given the opporunity, many can excell and enrich society all the more. The difference between Plato and Neitzcshe and the avarage human being is that the former had enough to eat and were secure enough in their daily needs to be able to soar above these every day concerns.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Thoughts? I'm inclined to agree. Can a human who doesn't ask or care about the great questions of life really that sentient?

You don't need to be a Plato or a Nietzsche to ask or care about the great questions of life. I find that most everyone does.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Nottingham40]

I agree, I feel I am of the quality of Plato in the sense I feel that other humans are slow and dull witted in comparison(namely women). But, that doesnt make me better then those people. For example I cant start in a NFL Game.

 

[The Nihilist]

I don't agree at all. Both Plato and Neitzsche were born into privilaged situations in which they had the opportunity to persue these great questions. Plato would be the first to recognise the necessity and priority of ordinary, functional workers in a society even though his utopia would be ruled by philosopher-kings. Plato and Neitzsche were both of course extrodinary thinkers whom through genius and luck survived the test of time and made massive contributions to culture. The whole drive though of western civilization has been the gradual recognition of the equality of everyone and that given the opporunity, many can excell and enrich society all the more. The difference between Plato and Neitzcshe and the avarage human being is that the former had enough to eat and were secure enough in their daily needs to be able to soar above these every day concerns.

Oh please. Take this marxist nonsense back to your small liberal arts college that specializes in women's studies.
Nietzsche would slap you and yell at you if you included him in that business about the equality of everyone.

 

[LostFound1986]

Lol Nietzsche was a volatile, brooding, unhappy and eventually insane man. For someone who advocated a hedonistic amoral embrace of power and self-centredness, he didn't do all that well. Plato may well have towered over most of us, but it's Nietzsche who most deserves the chimpanzee label.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Lol Nietzsche was a volatile, brooding, unhappy and eventually insane man. For someone who advocated a hedonistic amoral embrace of power and self-centredness, he didn't do all that well. Plato may well have towered over most of us, but it's Nietzsche who most deserves the chimpanzee label.

Are you a feminist or something?

 

[LostFound1986]

Why would you ask? I don't think I've mentioned gender specifically. Though if we're defining feminism as the belief that women should be treated as equal to men then yes, I am.

 

[The Nihilist]

Why would you ask? I don't think I've mentioned gender specifically. Though if we're defining feminism as the belief that women should be treated as equal to men then yes, I am.

No, I'm definitely picking up on the vibe too. Not the early man-hating feminists, either. Not Marilyn Frye. The more recent, marxist feminists. I forget their names.

 

[ExistencePrecedesEssence]

Feminism goes much more thorough then just equality for women.

Have you even read Nietzsche's rhetoric?

 

[quatona]

The difference between Plato or Neitzsche and the average human being is greater then the difference between the average human being and a chimpanzee.

Do Plato and Nietzsche even have a common anchestor?

 

[Mysticus]

Lol Nietzsche was a volatile, brooding, unhappy and eventually insane man. For someone who advocated a hedonistic amoral embrace of power and self-centredness, he didn't do all that well. Plato may well have towered over most of us, but it's Nietzsche who most deserves the chimpanzee label.

Nietzsche was not necessarily amoral. He felt that for a person to live to their full potential they must realize their own morals... meaning not blindly living by the morals put upon us by societal norms, which were typically structured into society by religious ideals and fanatic supports of such ideals.

As for going insane... if you lived with untreated syphilis you would likely go insane too.

 

[LostFound1986]

I think the main issue I have with Nietzsche is that I see his ideas as a regression to a more individual but less cooperative way of life. I realize that this happened at a time when many areas of life were constricted, largely due to developments within Christianity, and therefore the ideas of Nietzsche were a product of a certain time and probably did some good. The thing is I cannot see how the philosophy of Nietzsche is particularly practical or useful today, where I believe greater understanding and respect needs to be cultivated across cultural and ethnic barriers. I think Nietzsche advocates a selfish lifestyle contary to the community spirit that first allowed humanity to build these amazing social systems we have today.

 

[Mysticus]

I think the main issue I have with Nietzsche is that I see his ideas as a regression to a more individual but less cooperative way of life. I realize that this happened at a time when many areas of life were constricted, largely due to developments within Christianity, and therefore the ideas of Nietzsche were a product of a certain time and probably did some good. The thing is I cannot see how the philosophy of Nietzsche is particularly practical or useful today, where I believe greater understanding and respect needs to be cultivated across cultural and ethnic barriers. I think Nietzsche advocates a selfish lifestyle contary to the community spirit that first allowed humanity to build these amazing social systems we have today.

In accordance to the philosophy put forth by Nietzsche, if one is able to realize their own moral ethics they would achieve what he called "Super-man" or what would be better described as Super-person... which is to say that he or she has achieved an understanding of the primal ethic that allowed us to live as a society to begin with. Such was a call to action, a revolution in light of a corrupt societal structure- something that is needed today in this very country... aka US of A.

 

[LostFound1986]

Well though you say that, I would not call the US a corrupt societal structure. There are areas where I prefer how things are done in my country, but in general I think the US is a good example of how to unlock the potential of people and facilitate rich and free lives for its populace.

 

[Mysticus]

Well though you say that, I would not call the US a corrupt societal structure. There are areas where I prefer how things are done in my country, but in general I think the US is a good example of how to unlock the potential of people and facilitate rich and free lives for its populace.

So are you saying that a system which caters to a very small minority of families controlling the majority of wealth within the system is not corrupt? In the US a common citizen has the "freedom" to choose what to buy, while being bombarded by media that suggests what products are best to buy. A media owned and controlled by those very corporations and associated affliliates. While exhibiting monetary gains that are had at the cost of our environment and personal health for generations to come.

And pointing out other corruption throughout the world does not counter my argument. To do so means you didn't get Nietzsche's point to begin with.

You are born free, then you become a citizen.

 

[LostFound1986]

Now I didn't say the US was perfect. Those objections you noted could be said of even the most forward thinking nations in the world. The basis of my point was that presumably if we follow Nietzsche's advice and find this primal ethic, would it not necessitate a radical removal of the current social systems in favor of better ones? And this has never worked before. Even if such a revolution would be needed to overhaul the lives of millions and make them better, it wouldn't do to start such a thing in one of the top nations when it comes to freedoms, such as the US.