Debating topics

[Occhidiangela]

"Oh trust me, a part of me agrees with you on that. However, I also believe that the individual can become stronger through the contemplation of their place in the world. No one stimulates more thought in that regard than Nietzsche. In many ways, despite its seeming lack of 'synthesis', as you put it, I do find his philosophy of the will to be persuasive and informative - even in my daily life."

It will strengthen you if via contemplation you grow. Some folks just rot through the process of too much navel gazing. Balance.

I would suggest that in some minimal sense, he managed to actually accomplish his goal. The modern language of philosophy and, more importantly, politics has clearly been heavily influenced by his work. While it may be a stretch to say that he 'created' these modern metaphorical systems, one can certainly see his influence in any number of modern political and philosophical discourses (particularly with regard to power structures in international relations, e.g. Neo-Marxist/Neo-Gramscian, Foucault, etc.).

Yes. He made an impact in how people frame their problems and social systems. I am familiar with Marx, less so with Foucault for the simple reason that I am NOT a philosophy major. I am, by choice, a man of action. The thinking and pondering bit a bonus that helps flesh in the interstices.

Occhi

PS: The Beer fills in its own interstices, but that 's a topic for another time.

Cheers! :D

[Archon_Wing]

I can think of one con, and that is we would exclude a large portion of the internet, particularly those of the b.net and diablo community, from posting here. That would be important since this site covers games around that area. They might have actualy something useful to contribute to the community.

Example: http://www.battle.net/forums.shtml

Also, it is possible that trolls promote forum unity. When a troll strikes, forum members will often band together to excorise the troll, as can be seen in this chain of posts. One could say that such idiocy is benificial and even necessary, as it reduces petty inter-lurker squabbles, making the community better for all. This trend can be seen in forums throughout the internet.



* ...
*Obviously not prepared for real debate*
*Runs away from the inevitable storm of potatoes and fruits that will be hurled at me. *

Arguing for something you don't believe in is more fun, although it can be really hard to get started!

[Occhidiangela]

Which was crafted by Bolty, what the Lounge is all about, and if you are a veteran of the Insane Days of a couple or three years ago where buffoons a plenty invaded the board, the standards of the Lounge that I referred to are germane to the topic.

If we attract a few very sharp new participants, good! We as a community have a great relationship with the Amazon Basin, who have many sharp posters. Quality counts.

If any of us wants to scan the BNET boards for interesting ideas, seeking for inputs from Evl~Teletubby or Bigun(ALE) on the Diablo II HC board, we can alert the community to good ideas and interesting points. For that matter, I used to scan diabloii.net quite often. IN that ocean of input were some pretty good little guides and some excellent advice.

Filtering our water, so to speak, is good for our health. ;)

Occhi

[Guest]

I though i made it clear that I wasnt refering to that the anti-christian.

IF you beleive badness/wrongness can exist as an element of character then Nitezsche was bad.(I suppose you could believe badness exist only as an element of action.)
Notice I said "bad" not evil, which would some sort of metaphysical judgment.

As to the concept of "dumb" your just playing a game of semantics. Its lame to attack my use of the word "dumb" but not address what I went on to say it represented.

Obviously he was intelligent. I was using dumb in the context of what some people call "common sense". He became so embroiled in the details of his subject that he let himself ignore the obvious foundation of the subject. I call that dumb - choose what evername for it you like.




Being that you tried to refute me without actually saying anything about the Nitezsche I suspect you really hvae no handle at all on the subject.
-you addressed my point of calling him bad by injecting extraneous religious concepts
-you addressed my other point by argueing the semantics of "dumb".
Your last sentence is basically saying nothing at all.


Sorry but I have little patience for anyone who refutes other peoples positions but only on the basis of "the subject is to complex to make judgments".

[Chaerophon]

1.) You cannot just call someone "bad". From what reference point are you analyzing his character as 'bad'? If it is merely subjective and random, then your perspective is about as valid as is anyone else's and we have no reason to accept your authority on the subject.

2.) Most conceptions of 'goodness' and 'badness' have some ethical root in either discourses of religion/spirituality or societal norms. Some argued that you could arrive at such characterizations through the use of reason, i.e. 'golden rule' arguments (to keep it simple and stay, for the time being, away from those nasty intuitionists). Given what you've told us, your "bad" is potentially just as metaphysical in character as is your "evil". As of yet, it is a normative judgment, and you should probably defend it with some reasons.

3.) You cannot celebrate the notion that believing "I am part" (as you put it) is inherently 'good' without some kind of reason. It is not evidence in itself. It may seem so to you, but you should probably question exactly where that comes from. I'm not saying that you are necessarily wrong; however, what I am saying is that it is not proof in itself.

G.E. Moore, an intuitionist, once argued that the notion of 'good' could be intuited and yet it was entirely indescribable. He argued, if I recall correctly, that it was an all-encompassing intuition in the sense that common-sense beliefs about the world are correct as they are. In his view, "the purpose of philosophy is not to debate their truth, but rather to seek an appropriate analysis of their significance". He argued that good is "a simple, non-natural, indefinable quality of certain things" which all humans can identify if they but choose to consult their intuition. I don't put much stock in this notion because in my view, it is entirely relativist - that being said, he attempted to avoid such perils by pointing to the ignorance of certain popular moralities of certain intuitable truths. Perhaps this is something like where you are coming from?

Classical Socratic philosophy depended on the notion that virtue and goodness were discernible through the use of reason and that only through the endless pursuit of knowledge and wisdom could one determine 'the good' and what was 'just'. In the end, however, even Plato/Socrates make appeals to the notion of a spirit in making their case and so it loses some of its empirical character. Munkay will probably start arguing with me right about....now. :D

Anyways, without any malice; please, let us know.

[Guest]

1.) You cannot just call someone "bad". From what reference point are you analyzing his character as 'bad'? If it is merely subjective and random, then your perspective is about as valid as is anyone else's and we have no reason to accept your authority on the subject.

I think most people feel pretty comfortable calling Hitler bad.

[Chaerophon]

I think most people feel pretty comfortable calling Hitler bad.

The Nazis didn't.

Then again, I'm not saying that he wasn't, in fact, "bad". However, Nietzsche is not Hitler and even in critiquing Hitler, it doesn't hurt to know 'why' you feel that he was bad. After all, if you were going to debate a neo-Nazi, arguing that he "is just bad" probably wouldn't be very convincing! Ghostiger must assume that, in some respects, I am defending Nietzsche, and so, in simply articulating that "he's just bad", he has made no strides in convincing me of his point.

[Guest]

I do agree that you may hold the "bad" does not exist, but then I said that. I say bad in the sense of being "wrong" - pervasively utterly wrong.

Also I dont say he must be bad/wrong but rather if you accept the notion that anyone can be bad, then his position means he must fit the catagory.

The existentialist position itself is inherently bad/wrong relative to all else that exists(it wouldnt be wrong to existentialist, but of course the point is moot to the existentialist.) This is demonstrable and obvious.

[Griselda]

Godwin's Law

The fact that Hitler has been mentioned often means that it's about time for a thread to end.

(I like this particular entry for Godwin's because of the nice corollaries. I've seen Enki's and NialScorva's in action, but thankfully James' corollary doesn't seem to apply to forums that I read.)

[Chaerophon]

there is also a widely-recognized codicil that any intentional invocation of Godwin's Law for its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

:o :ph34r:

[Griselda]

I don't think it means that mentioning Godwin's Law will be unsuccessful (though it usually is). I think it means you can't simply post "Hitler" in every thread you dislike in an attempt to end discussion.

Here's why I like to mention Godwin's law:

The law's memetic function is not to end discussions (or even to classify them as "old"), but to make participants in a discussion more aware of whether a comparison to Nazis or Hitler is appropriate, or is simply a rhetorical overreach.

It would be nice if, in general, people take a second to reconsider before bringing Hitler into a debate.

[Guest]

Unreal was mistaken of course in that the fact most people judge Hitler bad has no bearing on whether or not he was bad.

But to his credit unreal used Hitler as an object to point out an legitimate consensous. as oppposed to the more spurious uses of "Hitler" normally found where people make ugly analogies, play advocate to some aspect of his.

[Assur]

Hi

Seeing as this thread started out with the request for discussion topics and turned into a discussion about Nitzsche/philosophy.

Nitzsche died mad, a result of syphilis! As regards philosophy a quote by Bismarck "the great matters of our day will not be decided by debate, but by blood and iron"

[Griselda]

That's why I didn't reply directly to him. I'm not commenting on his specific post, just the fact that every online reference to nazis now reminds me of Godwin's law (well, except for those unlucky times when I might be dealing with actual neo-nazis- then I'm *not* thinking about Godwin's law, of course).

[Chaerophon]

I've had enough experience with philosphy students in Heidelberg, stupid lower-class pricks, if you offer them the threat of physical violence all their talk just vanishes into thin air. Philosophy, at least as it is thaught nowadays, is just empty talk. Get real, the AK-47 is for most people the solution to most problems.

Well... ok.

Is that supposed to be some kind of questioning of my manhood? My "worldliness"? Where does the 'lower-class pricks' bit come into play? I'm not some kind of flaky waif, wasting away all of my days idly at a desk. I'm a former junior hockey player - at only 5'10" I presently have the second most penalty minutes in the history of my league (along with four all-star game appearances). In some senses I would say that that makes me a "man of action". I like to work on cars - I've built a 12 second IROC. I can tune any carb. I work out four-five days a week. I worked construction jobs from age 15-20. I work 20-25 hours a week despite an extremely busy full-time school schedule. I've travelled extensively in Europe - on my own buck. While I may look up and wonder at times, my head is firmly attached, and certainly not in the clouds.

I'm not even a philosophy major - my major is political science, and while it is theory oriented, my general goal is to understand international relations of power and apply it in policy recommendations / research. I am keenly interested in philosophy because I want to better understand the nature of my own existence - not to "solve the world's problems". If discussing it online can help me to better understand my hobby, then that's what I'll do. I'm plenty "real" in my daily life, and if I enjoy the company and debate of the Lounge as a place to engage in higher pursuits, I don't really think that you have any right to get your nose out of joint. If you don't like it - don't read it!

[Occhidiangela]

Ghostiger, how about adding a little depth, and a little clarity, to your commentary. Not asking for "War and Peace" but for a bit more flesh on the bones of your arguments framework.

This is demonstrable and obvious.

That is the tool of one either too lazy to better explain his position, or unable to. If you are going to be lazy, why bother at all?

You complain in another post that I play a semantic game with "dumb." I found the descriptive of Nietzsche as dumb to be completely inappropriate, vague, and completely uninformative. Brevity is a good thing, if you take great care in choosing your terms. To converse on this topic requires a bit more precision in expression than you have yet shown. You appear to understand Nitezsche reasonably well, however, your presentation is muddy and vague.

How about, for the benefit of the discussion, going past the opening sentences to a paragraph, a complete thought, the one that never seems to emerge.

Your audience eagerly awaits. :)

Occhi

[Guest]

"Nietzsche is dumb because he could never come to terms with the simplicity of this perspective, in fact he never quite could even embrace it.
Instead he took ugly concepts build solidly on existentialism and then tried to apply to to a more broad perspective."


You responded to this by implying I could have meant "mute" when I saiid "dumb". You could very reasonably attack the fullness of what I said, either for its content, incomprehesibility or brevity - but that not what you did.

Anyway I already more fully addressed the point in talking to Chaerophon(who commented on the content rather than the sematics).

[Occhidiangela]

If you are too lazy to proof and edit a single sentence, how can I take you seriously?

Occhi

[Chaerophon]

I would say that that is, indeed, a fair question, Ghostiger.