I'm not really in topic anymore since this should be one of the first posts, but here it goes;

"Normal people" can't "die out", since "normal people" are the majority of the larger mass. Thus, they always exist. They only change.

Enough said...

Sorry for this topic turn [some people always come the same topic ].

I haven't read "Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn". Only fragments, but not enough to say you're 'right' or 'wrong'. I can only describe my interpretation.

The fascinating at Nietzsche is for me his thought transformation and the evolution of his thoughts. In my opinion he never claimed to suppress 'the weak' or that only 'the strong' should dominate and rule this world. he only analyzed his enviroment (in his era). The only (but pronounced) 'advice' he gave was his Zarathustra and his foggy way to become an 'overman'. But that is not a mass event with success guaranty, it's only his sense of spiritual evolution. A lonely, 'self-refering' evolution (In this context i can suggest you Safranski's book about Nietzsche's thoughts, preconditioned you are interested in). I understand N's thoughts as very 'objective' and 'honest'. I don't read him to adopt his understanding of truth. I like him for his uncompromising way of thinking and the radical changes in this way.

No, I haven't read a whole book by him. What I read parts of is "Über Wahrheit und Lüge im außermoralischen Sinn" and that was enough for me. I don't like his style to interpret a fight into basically everything, even though some of his observations about the human nature seem to be fitting.

a short comment to my questions above: I don't ask them to convince you afterwards that your meaning is absolut false but I'm interested if you read a book of him or a treat about his thoughts or saw a tv broadcast etc.

Edited by Abe at 13:52 on December, 02nd 2002

From where do you got these interpretation? Or from where do you got your knowledge to came to this interpretation?

Edited by Abe at 08:14 on November, 29th 2002

It is asocial in one way: he considers these 'weak' people inferior, some kind of usurpors who don't belong where they are. So at the same time he critisizes one kind of order (which he considers unjust), he supports another 'natural order' in humankind which is almost identical, only with reversed roles.

In my opinion his definition of 'strong' is not an asocial or toltalitarian way of thinking because it's directed against the people who only claim power to balance their 'weakness' and that's a dangerous behaviour.

P.S. excuse my rusty english.

Yes, the analysis might be similar. Nietzsche always looked at things from the point of view of the 'strong' though, thus his partly weird conclusions...

Ok, there you are right. I partly missunderstood you. However the comparison with Nietzsches thoughts was in this context not so wrong, is it not so?

Edited by Abe at 16:11 on November, 28th 2002

I compared my example with the theory you tried to apply to it. 'caring' and 'uncaring' are my words in reference to my example. The aequivalents would be 'weak' and 'strong', and that is what I denied.

It's not only between 'caring' and 'uncaring'. It's the domination, that arises from this 'mal energy'. Or differently expressed: The intention ist not an unselfish but they are (unknowing) afraid of being disadvantaged so a egoistical reason is the impulse.

Following that logic, the weak ones would be the 'caring' people of my example and the 'uncaring' ones are the strong ones. That however, does not make sense since the people who do show dedication are the ones who are able to dominate and feel superior, and to a certain extent, they do 'rule' the life there. And the rest (i.e. the 'strong' ones) aren't even all that worried about it.... (extremism is the correct spelling by the way)

His thoughts were no command or order, only a realization, packed in a verbalism.
'weak' is not to understand as a physically disadvantaged person but as a man who feels himself psychical disadvantaged and so he cultivates hate and uses this hate as energy source, e.g. political extrimism (right word?).

Just that I don't think the 'strong' should 'arm themselves' against the 'weak'. The conclusions are completely different.

Your personal observations, Mr Creosote, reminds me to Nietzsches thoughts that the 'strong' must arm themselfes against the 'weak'. In my opinion your and his experiences are in this case very similar. Very fascinating and 'objective' thoughts, but unfortunately they were poisened and abused by a very sick man of the history...

Not quite, but I think being active in politics would be way too depressing for me... It's not that I personally don't give a damn, but giving a damn just doesn't seem to make a difference in the end, more precisely I mean it won't take you very far in politics, so instead of copying someone else's 'strong convictions' just to suck up to them and then eventually turning your back on them when the opportunity arises, I think 'fading into the background' is the better option... And it's a vicious cycle, too: the media are in the hands of the same 'abnormal' people that become full-time politicians, and they brainwash generation after generation of 'normal' people into cynical bastards such as myself, thus only strengthening their own position...
I know this is getting way off-topic, and I may have had a few drinks too much last night , but I still think this makes sense, somewhat...

Again, another interesting point, but not fully fitting. Not all of the people I'm talking about are 'revolutionary' types - many are also extremely conservative, they're wearing suits and ties already. A very dangerous type of people if you ask me...

Why should you go to University if not to meet weird and frightening people?

Seriously though, I understand what you're saying, but believe it or not, if you look at 80% of those people in about ten years' time, you'll find them happilly wearing suits and ties, some of them probably in public offices advocating conservative policies and trying very had to forget they were radicals in their youth.
I suppose there's a time for everything and that somehow the weird, unwashed, yet politically aware youths of today will be the world leaders of tomorrow, while the normal people will just fade into the background. Now there's a comforting thought for you...

That sounds very logical, it doesn't explain why most people on that 'low level' look so strange! Many of them look as if their last bath or shower has been more than a year ago, some dress up like parrots (I'm talking about the colours ) an so on. Not exactly the best prerequisites for politics. At the same time, they are anything but charismatic, they stutter, they're afraid to raise their voice in front of bigger audiences! That all contradicts your theory...

I agree with NetDanzr, the only way you can even get noticed in politics is to either have a lot of money, or just be completely extremeist. Unfortunately, extreme views are usually not a good answer, as they are very ignorant most of the time...

Tuss