JavaScript is required to use Bungie.net

Forums

originally posted in:Secular Sevens
11/8/2013 8:40:44 PM
42
You're a tard
English

Posting in language:

 

Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Care to back that up?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • With a name such as yours, I cannot take you seriously. Are you a troll?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • No.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Okay, well in America. An anarchist would usually not be arrested unless they did something harmful against another person.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That's because in America we have freedom of speech.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • You know why... Your view on capitalism is so beyond skewed, there's no reason to even talk about it.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I didn't even present a view on capitalism in the OP... If you told me how my view on capitalism is skewed - as you have never done before - then I would be more inclined to take what you say seriously.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I have on multiple occasions, that's how I know it's so so skewed even tho you said nothing about it in the OP. Altho the last sentence says a lot about your view on capitalism. You're just... The most edgiest... Hipster I know...

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • No you haven't. You make a statement, I offer some kind of rebuttal and you just result to juvenile insults or 'lol'. And the last sentence is true. It's a generally accepted statement among social anarchists. Anarchy is the rejection of hierarchy, exploitation and coercion. Most anarchists believe these are also a result of capitalism as well as the State.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/8/2013 9:00:28 PM
    Juvenile insults or lol? Please, we've had this discussion several times, only to make me realize you're ideology is the most impractical utopian land I've ever heard of. And the fact I think you're the most edgiest kid on the planet, is a compliment. Take it for what it's worth.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • See you're doing it now... Anarchy is not Utopian - I don't know where you get that from, and instead of actually addressing the point I made you're just reiterating that you think I'm edgy. If you have nothing contributory to say then don't talk to me.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by cxkxr: 11/8/2013 9:12:51 PM
    Okay, you mention how "the state's" (whom you don't "technically call the state") job is to direct the economy. Elaborate on whom would be "elected" to direct said economy in an anarchic world, and elaborate how that way of "governing" would be upheld. Elaborate on how the equal distribution of wealth would be achieved, without some form of hierarchy. And I'm well aware anarchy isn't utopian, which is why this notion that everyone would somehow voluntarily accept this system and stay within the boundaries of it, is extremely impractical, [i]especially[/i] in a lawless world. The notion of commie anarchy marxism is full of holes, bc it entails that everyone is equal, when the reality is, no two people are equal.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]which is why this notion that everyone would somehow voluntarily accept this system and stay within the boundaries of it, is extremely impractical[/quote] I didn't say everybody one would. However, in a sense, this is also an advantage to a certain degree. Say you had a bunch of fascists in an anarchist society, they could go and form their own fascist commune. Although I don't think the militarism would sit well with their neighbours. [quote]especially in a lawless world.[/quote] Anarchy isn't lawless. [quote]The notion of commie anarchy marxism[/quote] I don't think that's a thing. [quote]bc it entails that everyone is equal[/quote] No it doesn't - not in mathematical terms. I'm a big fan of anti-egalitarian philosophies; people are better than others. I'm particularly a fan of Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • [quote]I'm particularly a fan of Nietzsche's idea of the Ubermensch.[/quote] lol

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Care to elaborate?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • You're just so edgy

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Because I agree with a philosopher? SO F­UCKING EDGY, RIGHT?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • When it's Nietzsche, yeah.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Why? Considering Nietzsche is one of the most esoteric and controversial philosopher, you'd be hard-pressed to find a general consensus on Nietzschean philosophy. But why does an admiration of Nietzsche in particular make me edgy?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Seggi: 11/8/2013 10:25:52 PM
    [quote]Why? Considering Nietzsche is one of the most esoteric and controversial philosopher, you'd be hard-pressed to find a general consensus on Nietzschean philosophy. [/quote] And you think that fact is in your (or his) favour?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I'm talking in terms of specifics. There isn't a general consensus on how important the Ubermensch was, or whether he was an individualist anarchist, or whether he preferred master morality. But the foundations are still there. The anti-egalitarian values, the existence of the idea of the Ubermensch, the opposition to normative ethics etc etc. It's what makes him interesting. I can call myself an admirer of Nietzsche and still have personal views which don't necessarily contradict what he believed(as you can with any philosopher, really). This is, however, all based on the assumption that I totally agree with him.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • He's interesting, sure, and for all his intentional obfuscation he certainly makes a good enough writer, but the juvenile individualism of the overman doesn't render it a worthwhile concept.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • That depends to what extent you consider 'individualism' to be relevant. Nietzsche was more a thinker on how relationships between individuals are causes of X or Y as opposed to individualism being superior to collectivism. It also depends on how you define Ubermensch. I don't think Nietzsche would've considered someone who acted totally egoistically, to the degradation of others, as an Ubermensch.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • I think individualism is very relevant, even if it's conceptualised solely as a driving force toward desirable consequences. The framing of the last man is basically equivalent to that episode of Everybody Loves Raymond where Frank whines about how the kids' sports team doesn't keep score. [quote]It also depends on how you define Ubermensch.[/quote] Then, putting aside the gulf between the possible interpretations of Nietzsche's ideas, how do you define it?

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

  • Edited by Mister Sparkles : 11/8/2013 11:46:38 PM
    [quote]I think individualism is very relevant[/quote] I agree. I'm just stating that, as much as individualism is a driving force, the ultimate application of the Ubermensch ideal was a solidification of the idea of the flourishing of higher people. 'Higher' people is totally subject to interpretation. If we want to understand what he meant, we need to look beyond individualism. He said in, I think, Thus Spake Zarathustra that healthy people will spontaneously perform healthy (generous, selfless, happy, kind etc) acts. Once your own self-interest and character is cemented, you will act in such a way that benefits others and thus brings you a sense of happiness. Well, considering who Nietzsche considered to be Ubermensch I would agree with how stanford.edu puts it:- Mental resilience. Solitary - a person will see other people as instruments for their own betterment (I take issue with this point. I think stanford.edu takes this idea of individuality and solitude to an unnecessary level. It seems as to imply that Nietzsche would scorn personal and emotional relationships). A sense of self-reliance and responsibility in a pursuit of their goals and projects. Life-affirming - as to be expected. And finally self-reverence.

    Posting in language:

     

    Play nice. Take a minute to review our Code of Conduct before submitting your post. Cancel Edit Create Fireteam Post

You are not allowed to view this content.
;
preload icon
preload icon
preload icon