Learn how to insult, you trolling waste of time, space, and attention.

(On second thought, if you're going to insult me, can you at least be more creative than either you have been or my above take was? Thanks--if I'm going to be mindlessly insulted by a poor shut-in with no life or purpose in the world I'd like the reading material to at least be something different...)

Finally, some brevity.

That was your most cogent post ever.

It's a good habit, you pseudo-intellectual scatter-brain.

Keep it up.

Christ.

I spoke(typed) too soon.

Try to organize your "thoughts" BEFORE you hit "Post reply". That will eliminate your incessant double-posting.

bump.

Aren't you going to thank me for my advise, obi?(in ten thousand words or more.lol.)

Obiwan,

For the sake of hilarity, could we totally change the topic from the issues of anarchy (which have gone a little towards the tangential truthfully) and focus on the question of why people who have no interest in something, still find an unstoppable need to interject? This is more psychological than philosophical, but originally all branches of science were within the realm of philosophy :)

Also, to add to the discussion of anarchy (and opposite ideas)...

While reading the previous posts I don't think anyone mentioned Michel Foucault. In his book Crime and Punish he discusses the panopticon; the ultimate form of societal control and the basis for designs of prisons, schools, and other institutional buildings/power systems.

The panopticon in its purest form (for those curious) is a doughnut shaped building with cells (or rooms) compartmented in the ring. In the center of the ring is a courtyard, and at the center of that is a tower. Any person in one of the rooms cannot see into the tower, but the tower can see into all of the rooms simultaneously.

Obviously there is a multitude of points that can be made about and using this design. But the two I want to focus on are:
1. This type of set up creates the exact opposite of the anarchy discussed here - there is total control by "tower dweller" and those in charge of the complex itself. This big brother status grants power over the 'inmates' because the inmates know they are being watched and that none of their activities can go unnoticed. The mind-bender arises when you think about what modern institutions are designed around this principle, and we see how much control (and lack of any possible anarchy) there is. Can you name a few besides our public schools? There are many.
2. The notion of big brother is a perceived notion. The greatest achievement of the panopticon is that no one actually needs to be in the tower!! It is simply the perceived idea of being watched that keeps the inmates in check (that and punishment for a few cases to be used as examples for the rest). Think of the US policy on wiretapping: they have the ability to listen in to everything (both theoretically and practically speaking). So even though we know that they probably aren't listening in to our conversation to grandma, we must still wonder, and sometimes we behave as if we are being 'watched' anyway. Fascinating state of affairs for a people that pride themselves on freedoms, rights, and effectively, the ability to incite anarchy-like situations (what some would call riots, and others would call the Tea Party, but that's your choice :D).

@maple leaf:

I'll thank you for your adviCe as soon as you learn to spell it properly...come on, man, if you're going to knock me for spelling error's in a 10,000 word response, the least you can do is get your tiny post right...

@kislikd:

That sounds like a very poignant point you're making...tell me, what do you think about such people?

Also, on the subjecy of anarchy:

Huh...I had just barely heard of that design idea, ie, designing something so all of it faces a watcher's building like a guard tower, but I didn't know that was Foucault, I haven't read much of him (though I will say that while I do like his literary theory that the author, rather than domineering over his work, is merely a sort of creater of discoursivity and the first voice and a very poignant voice to speak in such a way, rather than being the last word on everything, and I DON'T like his identifying himself as "a Nietzschean," I love Nietzsche and even I won't dop that, to announce that you group yourself in with Nietzsche like that and follow his ideas to the point of it becomina group, that's contrary to what the old Ubermensch wanted, he wanted independent thought from his readers, not his readers to stop mindlessly following one ideal and to start mindlessly following him.)

But certainly it does speak to the sad state of education that schools are, in fact, roughly structured that way in many places...

Out of curiosity, to those interested, tell me if you approve or disapprove of the following, currnt educational conventions:

-bells to mark periods in the day a la a factory
-standardized testing
-grouping students' grade-wise by age
-traditional classroom alignment with one teacher in front of rows of students
-standardized requirements to pass
-An equal turn at activities regardless of talent

Because aside from the first one--it's really not that detrimental--I LOATHE those conventions.

I think standardized testing and standardized curiculum is a JOKE--kids learn merely what to bubble in on a test, not what to DO with that information besides, or, more importantly, why they should CARE about that information. Everyone here knows I love Shakespeare even more than I love Nietzsche, but given the choice between a kid having "Hamlet" shoved down their throat with study questions and bubble-in tests and required, standard essays in standard format about a standard topic relating to the story in a standard way or the kids not reading Shakespeare...I'd rather the latter. It puts kids off Shakespeare, the way it's taught in school that way, and then they lose interest and lose Shakespeare--and possibly a good deal more of literature after him--and all that which within those works can make life so much more fulfilling or contemplative or just plain entertaining. I think that this lack of interest in Shakespeare at the high school level outside of drama programs--guess what I did in high school, albeit very so-so...I was pretty good at playing comedic characters and very good at improv, but that was part of the thing, I couldn't remember lines or blocking as well and had to improv lines a lot, lol--is also due to the plays they teach and the presentation of said plays as well; "Hamlet" and "Romeo and Juliet" SHOULD NOT BE TAUGHT IN HIGH SCHOOLS ON THE WHOLE. Most kids are going to have a hard enough time learning Shakespearean English--I never did, but then English is just really my thing, on the flip side I'm wondering if I failed basic Algebra in college AGAIN lol--and starting them off with "Hamlet," one of Shakespeare's msot complex works, is just a bad idea; "Romeo and Juliet" was considered somewhat cliche even in its day, and nowadays, as every other love comedy or tragedy tries to borrow from it in some capacity, most teens will just laugh at it...not a bad play, but not one that will work to get kids into Shakespeare. "Macbeth," in my opinion, is a far better choice, as it's one of Shakespeare's shorter works, still one of his Top 10 best, and has a TON of gore and violence, so that'll attract kids...on the flip side I'd like comedies taught a bit more, as the language is less elevated--making for a good point for kids to break in--and the stories still poignant, but "A Midsummer night's Dreamn," the most-often-taught comedy, SHOULDN'T BE, not because it's good, but, again, the kids are trying to break into this, and now they have to learn both Shakespeare AND all the conenctions the story has with Ancient Greece AND follow one of the wackier plots in Shakespeare's canon, which is hilarious...if you already know how to read Shakespeare or if you see it live. I'd suggest instead "Much Ado About Nothing." And finally...KIDS MUST MUST MUST MUST MUST SEE SHAKESPEARE PERFORMED LIVE IF HE'S GOING TO BE TAUGHT! It's absurd how many teachers teach him out of a book and that's it..that's not how Shakespeare meant his plays to be experienced! That's like reading the script for the original "Star Wars" instead of watching it as a kid...so much is lost. Anb it must be seen LIVE--we all know kids nod off in the back of the class during films (I did so plenty in my day, though usually not in English class, I loved that...conversely, I still DO nod off most of the time in Math 070...I don't even want to, I just literally get put to sleep by hearing that stuff for two hours on end) or talk or pass notes, and besides, it's just not the same, not the same energy and electricity. Not enough kids have ever gone to live theatre, either, something Europe trounces America on...they still appreciate theatre over there, whereas the mainstream here does not. I guarantee if you take kids to a GOOD, LIVE production of a rolicking Shakespeare comedy, they're going to enjoy the energy, the time out of school, and really get something out of it...rather than bubbling in "C" on their answer sheet.

And all the rest of those I hate as well, those current conventions...

Naturally, given the length of the posts on the first page. I am going to ignore all posts following Obi's opener.

So, lets get this started. Hobbes was retarded, he says that everyone is selfish, and so we need a dictator to control us (of course this is simplifying it) but he didn't take into account 1 simply fact:
The dictator is one of us, so therefore the state in his world, will be run by people who only care for themselves and will go out of the way to better life for him, which would mean making life miserable for everyone else, and because he's the dictator, he has full power.

That being said, I am fascist, so I have come to the same conclusion as Hobbes, but for different reasons. Hobbes talked about the need to be controlled because if you don't you will go on a blood sucking rampage to better yourself. In other words be controlled to protect yourself from others, and others from you. I think you need to be controlled to protect yourself from yourself. This goes back to my theory (which I partially posted in your failing democracy thread a few months ago) that the average man is retarded, of course here on webdiplomacy, it is a safe assumption to say that we are not the common man, webdiplomacy is fulled with strategic geniuses who do not make up the common man. But most people are, try to have any of these philosophical debates with anyone. The average man will become confused and disinterested with probably at least half of the philosophy weekly debates. Its simply because they don't have the intelligence capacity to participate in them. It is that reason that democracy falls the common voter is retarded, and as a result, the common politician is retarded. (Look at half the members of Senate and Congress, you know its true).
That is why I hate democracy, because I don't want the village idiot to decide the election.
Now if we turned to anarchy, Hobbes would effectively be right, but once again for the wrong reasons. Here are a few:
1. Evolution: There are two types of species, a species that lives in packs (or herds etc) or a species that lives rouge (I am to drunk and tired to even know if there is a correct term for a species that lives, hunts etc by itself). In every species that lives in packs, all have an alpha leader of the pack. The alpha is the leader of the pact, and is charged with the duty of finding food and protecting the pack. This is the same as any government in history other then today. In this pack, the leader isn't elected, he is chosen based on his genetics, he is the strongest person in the pact. He is not elected, and the animals follow him without question. They rely on him, and he provides. Now say that all the alphas (which make up approx 5% of each pack) suddenly disappeared, the leader would be common folk, the tribe would die relatively quickly, finding it harder to find food, and more vulnerable to enemy attacks. Now before going on to humans, lets first look at the rouges, simply because they are the exception to the rule, rouges don't have leaders, they are affectively an anarchy governments and are self sustaining, and for them it works. Now humans clearly are not rouge, we are a very social creature, we hunt in packs, and we lived, back when this shit still applied to us, in small tribes, and back then, we were like any other animal, we had a tribal leader who wasn't elected, but chosen based on strength. We are one of the animals that require a strong leader to guide is through our troubles, so evolution has taught us to be against anarchy. And even if we went into anarchy, a new government would just reform, as following our natural instincts someone would take over using force, and force everyone to do everything for him.

2. Greed and Sloth. I am not Christian and I think the 7 deadly sins are retard but they do have a point. The 7 deadly sins and sins that we naturally commit, that instincts tell us to do. It is these 2 that prevent anarchy from working. In our modern society, half the jobs in the developed world are useless, they don't but food on the table. In an anarchy they wouldn't be used, as there would be no money. In otherwords, in anarchy we would all be farmers/hunters. Assuming all technology would remain, we would fall from sloth, as people would stop working all together. Assuming we lost all technology, anarchy would fall from greed, for someone would use force to make a new government.

3. Regression. Anarchy is very regressive due to sloth. For a power plant worker, there would be no reason to go to work, not only would it be dangerous and tiring, but it wouldn't give you any income. The only reason to go to work would be to give electricity to people you don't know, so in other words sacrificing your self for little reason. Sure there would be some people in this world prepared to do that but well over 90% wouldn't. In otherwords people would stop working at that powerplant, and given time, there would be no electricity, so every job that required electricity couldn't happen.
Same analogy with oil, we would loose cars and tractors. We would go back to the stone age, and then have the tribal villages set up.

I'll post the rest later.

@obi - Good one.

I sit corrected.

That doesn't make you any less of a pseudo-intellectual scatter brain, though.

Now, go take your Ritalin.

hey schizophrenia is no laughing matter. lol

@mapleleaf:

Most people STAND corrected...but I guess between spamming me and wasting waste of your life watching the most pathetic team in Canada you MUST be exhausted a need a good sit down, eh?

@Fasces349:

While I wholeheartedly agree with you that democracy is, more often than not, a corrupted government elected by fools--one of my favorite quotes, and by an interpreter of Mr. Nietzzsche, no less, Mr. H.L. Menken, "The common man's a fool"--I cannot quite believe that FACISM is better...even Plato's Republic, which is pretty totalitarian (and somewhat communist, I suppose, in some interpretations, the pooling of resources for the "good of the State") would stop short of outright facism, I think, and even if we were to claim it didn't...even if man's a cruel animal--and I'd agree he's at least a selfish one, though gloriously so--I can't imagine the perfect government being one of absolute cruelty, that seems akin to taking an already scalding-hot cup of tea in the microwave for ten minutes.

It'll overflow, burn through so much, cause immense harm and little to no good, and possibly even shatter the cup itself.

The panopticon was a design of Jeremy Bentham's, a Utilitarian. Foucault's analysis is a critique of the design and it's direct and metaphorical invasion of nearly every aspect of our society. The name of Foucault's book is "Discipline and Punish", not to be confused with Dostoyevsky's "Crime and Punishment". Foucault is clearly a Nietzschean (in spite of Obi's jealous desire to keep Nietzsche all to himself), his method is genealogy and his goals are practically identical (the awakening and empowerment of the herd).

Nietzsche did not consider himself an ubermensch, but rather as a sort of prophet of the ubermensch. There cannot be one ubermensch in isolation, the creation of the ubermensch is a societal transformation, a process which Nietzsche imagined was only just begun with the pronouncement of the death of God, the end of superstition (metaphysics), the AWAKENING of the herd. But clearly, there was a miscalculation there on Nietzsche's part. The herd was not transformed, at least not in the way he expected. Power secularized, the methods of subjugation changed, became the modern state. Where previously, God was in the tower watching us, now power (the State) is in the tower, and that is the target of Foucault's critique, and indeed the unifying vein which runs through Continental Philosophy ever since Nietzsche.

"we see how much control (and lack of any possible anarchy) there is"
I don't think Foucault's point was that anarchy is not possible, but that we should be aware of this structuring of society, recognize the loci of power, and through this knowledge be empowered to resist. The Wikileaks discussion is clearly in this vein, as the most extense application of the panopticon is our government, with it's secret and largely independent organizations that spy on us, and one of the most important and useful methods of resistance to the panopticon is transparency (blowing the roof off that tower and letting the light shine in; if we can see inside the tower, the tower loses almost all of it's importance). But the model is so ingrained and predominant you can see the towers within the towers within the towers... The police have internal affairs departments. Who's watching them? This is true both in American-style representative democracy and in the command economy as defended by Putin.

This is one of the advantages of the system of anarchy I advocate. It is completely transparent (there is no centralization of power into a secretive monolithic "tower", and as much as is possible without the (theoretical but likely impossible) disintegration of all levels of human organization including the family, power is diffused.

In direct opposition to this vein of thinking is what is being advocated here by fasces, an account which is quite surprising in its rare and open recognition of it's aims (the increase and extension of the structures of subjugation). What is odd is that he happily embraces the term fascism, identifies with it, where usually this line of thinking seeks to disguise itself. As I already suggested, his logic is an open recognition of what is also behind Putin's defence of command economy and what is behind those that advocate the necessity of secrecy in the Democratic state, reducing democracy to a sham illusion which pacifies the electorate with a superficial gesture of allowing them to vote, while keeping the electorate completely in the dark (subjugated) about the functioning and machinations of the state as an entity separate from and imposing itself upon the electorate. Either you believe that humans (and indeed you yourself) have the capacity to be awakened and act and take direct responsibility for those actions, or you seek to control the population (and yourself) either through the illusions of American-style democracy or through more direct means of oppression / subjugation.

@ obi - Well, you're back in "form".

I am aware of the usual expressions, thank you.

It's called humour.

Not unlike your intellectual pretensions.

Here's a thought.

Grow up, get yourself two university degrees, and get back to me.

Now, fuck off.

I wholly object to your statement that I want to "keep Nietzsche all for myself."

Did I not just say that to be a Nietzschean is a contradiction, to miss the point of Nietzsche?

Nietzsche wanted people to DISAGREE with him, to accept some ideas, yes, but also to accept debate, and so if you follow Nietzsche dogmatically enough to call yourself a "Nietzschean" you've missed the point of NOT HOLDING A DOGMA...

I've stated time and again here that aside from Nietzsche my favorite thinkers are David Hume and, for ethics, John Stuart Mill--a man Nietzsche LOATHED and called "a blockhead!" I DISAGREE WITH NIETZSCHE THERE! I feel he's WRONG! I agree that Utilitarianism CAN lead to the sort of mediocrity that Nietzsche despised, but I also think that, properly adapted, the subjectivity and looser moral compass it allows for fits Nietzsche's perspectivism rather nicely...again, you'd have to adopt it, but I think it can work, and if I were asked to give MY ethical stance, that'd be it--a Modified Utilitarian, in that while I believe the greater good IS the good that matters, I disagree wholeheartedly with Mill when he says "everyone counts for one." That a boozehound counts the same as Beethoven is bullshit (to give a nice bit of alliteration there.) ;)

I agree with Nietzsche there are people of higher and lower worths in different fields, but disagree when he says that a Theory of Utility can only inspire mediocrity.
I agree with Mill that the greatest possible good should be the goal of any and all human action, but disagree when he says "everyone counts for one."
I agree with Hume in his infamous passage "On Miracles" (if you've never read it, I HIGHLY recommend it) but disagree with him that the idea of a higher power is TOTALLY out of the question, for as he points out, we can only experience the world empircally, and so it seems to me that if we can only experience the world empirically and empiricism cannot turn up a trace of a God or higher power this would show the limits of empiricism and NOT disprove the existence of a God if it has already been admitted that empiricism is limited and there may be knowledge beyond that we simply cannot experience, that doesn't apply to human experience as per our limits.

I mix and match, mcbry...YOU have been the one so far to only use one person, Nietzsche, whereas *I* have already used TWO people, Nietzsche and Hobbes...and with one man saying "the state is a poison" and the other claiming that the only way out of a miserable state of nature is a hugely powerful state, I'd say I'm not being dogmatic in my useage of EITHER man...

obi, you fixate on the barely relevant and ignore the essence. Your thesis that in order to be nietzschean, you must disagree with him is absurd to the point of idiocy. He was provocative, he attacked just about everything he could find under the sun in his day and age. But he wasn't provocative for nothing, he didn't just throw a whole pile of verbal diarrhoea on the page for you to come along and pick and choose what you wanted and pretend you're the best Nietzschean of all precisely in the measure in which you disagree with him. He was trying to provoke the overcoming of that old regime, that old metaphysics, that old subjugation. Now the game has changed in the details but continues in its essence, hence my discussion of Foucault (in obvious contradiction to your claim that I only use Nietzsche, I talk about Nietzsche because you brought him up, not because I'm incapable of discussing other thinkers) and indeed one of the major currents of Western philosophy since Nietzsche. You hang Foucault (one of the more notable thinkers of the 20th century and who you freely admit to knowing almost nothing about) out to dry because he identified himself as a Nietzschean. It would have been rather obtuse of him to fail to recognize his debt to the thinkers that came before him, don't you think? That doesn't make him a dogmatist.

Rather than offering your opinions about everything under the sun including things you obviously have almost no familiarity with, then defending those opinions to the point of absurdity, why don't you focus on asking questions about what you don't understand? Here I'll quote Nietzsche for the first time in this forum and then dedicate myself to taking the good advice he offers. I hope you do the same.:

"On the whole, scientific methods are at least as important as any other result of research: for it is upon the insight into method that the scientific spirit depends: and if these methods were lost, then all the results of science could not prevent a renewed triumph of superstition and nonsense. Clever people may learn as much as they wish of the results of science - still one will always notice in their conversation, and especially in their hypotheses, that they lack the scientific spirit; they do not have that instinctive mistrust of the aberrations of thought which through long training are deeply rooted in the soul of every scientific person. They are content to find any hypothesis at all concerning some matter; then they are all fire and flame for it and think that is enough. To have an opinion means for them to fanaticize for it and thenceforth to press it to their hearts as a conviction. If something is unexplained, they grow hot over the first notion that comes into their heads and looks like and explanation - which results progressively in the worst consequences, especially in the sphere of politics. For that reason everyone should now study at least one science from the bottom up: then he will know what method means and how important is the utmost circumspection." Mixed Opinions and Maxims [129]

@obi: I never said that I wanted a cruel government oppressing the people, thats communism not fascism. I am, as I have said, very right wing. I believe in high social and economic freedoms, but the reasons why I am fascist is my racist and economic policy's are very right wing, making me fall under the fascist view point. However I do not support the holocaust or the economic policy's of Hitler/Mussolini. Pinochet is the best example of a good leader, imo.
I'm not a total douche or anything, I just believe that the most intelligent person (who wants the job) in the society should be the leader (aka, most qualified for the job), rather then have the people elect it or have no leader at all, such as in anarchy. I also believe that there should be an almost unrestricted free market. That is my anarchist side. The reason I like capitalism is the efficiency it provides, the influence of markets on the productivity of the work force is good. You can see that in genetics some people are more superior to others, so even though its based purely on luck, if he can provide more to society, society should give him more to reward him. Its cruel, but its the reality of life. Communism doesn't work, democracy doesn't work, anarchy doesn't work. Fascism is the only stable, progressive, safe and efficient ideology.

Pinochet was a disaster economically for Chile. Skyrocketing unemployment, massive inflation and debt ($14 billion in debt). It was only when Pinochet readopted some of the 'socialist' (not really socialist, but Keynesian) policies of his predecessor that the Chilean economy recovered.

You're essentially not a fascist at all, since the national component is essential to fascism (Pinochet was not a fascist). The economy, under fascism, is corporatist (a third way between capitalism and socialism) and aimed toward developing the nation. Capitalism does not prioritize the nation at all. It's entirely individualist and cosmopolitan (global) in orientation, whatever companies succeed - succeed. If 30% of the national economy goes under, so be it, so long as individuals are gaining bigger profits it's what must happen.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chile_under_Pinochet
Wikepedia suggests otherwise.

Yeah, but right-wing dictatorship. What is that called other then fascist.

I hate corporatism and am capitalist. So yes I am not techinacally fascist, but its the closest thing to me.

"1. Evolution: There are two types of species, a species that lives in packs (or herds etc) or a species that lives rouge (I am to drunk and tired to even know if there is a correct term for a species that lives, hunts etc by itself). In every species that lives in packs, all have an alpha leader of the pack. The alpha is the leader of the pact, and is charged with the duty of finding food and protecting the pack. This is the same as any government in history other then today. In this pack, the leader isn't elected, he is chosen based on his genetics, he is the strongest person in the pact. He is not elected, and the animals follow him without question. They rely on him, and he provides. Now say that all the alphas (which make up approx 5% of each pack) suddenly disappeared, the leader would be common folk, the tribe would die relatively quickly, finding it harder to find food, and more vulnerable to enemy attacks. Now before going on to humans, lets first look at the rouges, simply because they are the exception to the rule, rouges don't have leaders, they are affectively an anarchy governments and are self sustaining, and for them it works. Now humans clearly are not rouge, we are a very social creature, we hunt in packs, and we lived, back when this shit still applied to us, in small tribes, and back then, we were like any other animal, we had a tribal leader who wasn't elected, but chosen based on strength. We are one of the animals that require a strong leader to guide is through our troubles, so evolution has taught us to be against anarchy. And even if we went into anarchy, a new government would just reform, as following our natural instincts someone would take over using force, and force everyone to do everything for him."

While it's true that most social animals operate on some sort of hierarchy, your alpha leader caricature of nature is just that, a caricature. The zoological reality is much more complex and full of fascinating counterexamples. Firstly, I would say that nature is a pretty terrible basis for government. Alphas are not "chosen", they fight for their dominance, and dominance conflicts are typically settled by physical strength, not intelligence or leadership capabilities. While it is true that they sometimes take on a protective role against predators or intruders, they can hardly be said to be looking out for the wellbeing of the rest of the group when they exhibit incredibly selfish behaviour, monopolizing reproductive opportunities and resources.

Secondly, in "higher" social mammals, such as monkeys and primates, the social hierarchy is much more complex, and it is not uncommon for alpha males or females to be superseded by coalitions of less dominant individuals. Secondly, by no means does the death of the alpha spell doom for their group. In a particular case of a baboon tribe that wandered across a tuberculosis infected garbage heap, all the aggressive alpha males died because they gorged themselves, leaving only scraps for the females and more passive males. The result was not some castrated or headless society, but rather a very egalitarian and peaceful society that banded together to rebuff intruder alpha males, and even assimilated some of them.

http://www.journals.uchicago.edu/doi/pdf/10.1086/504162

Lastly, I'd have to agree with Putin's evaluation that you are not actually a fascist. If you believe in a free market, then you are not supporting the nationalistic top-down model espoused by fascists. I mean, if your fascist government isn't going to intervene in the market, then it practically has less state power and influence than most Western nations do currently.

Generally fascism was a transformative movement, whereas conservative dictatorships mostly wanted to preserve the existing social conditions and the status quo. I could be wrong, but that's how I understand Gionvanni Gentile's Doctrine of Fascism and German National Socialism. Many fascists were nearly as hostile to the social effects of capitalism as they were to Marxism. In fact, the German National Socialists were ardent environmentalists.

@obiwanobiwan

A paraphrase sanctioned by you, and a quote by you:

"Dogma is going to far. You have a right to believe what you want, but don't tell other people what to think."

"As far as a Good Side/ or Dark Side of Freedom goes, however, I must disagree on the grounds...well, I don't think there IS "good" or "darkness" inherent within actions
ANY actions."

You seem to have contradicted yourself, obi.
You see, you have stated "...but don't tell other people what to think." In your posts, the reason for this statement is quite clear: people SHOULD not tell other people what to think. You do not make it a matter of your own personal opinion. Rather, you make it a universal MORAL principle. Letting people think for themselves is GOOD. Telling them what to think is WRONG.

To tell someone what to do is an action. That is undeniable. It seeks to have a direct effect on those spoken to.

Yet, you say, "well, I don't think there IS 'good' or 'darkness' inherent within actions
ANY actions." Telling people what to think is an action. But, since there is no inherent darkness (aka WRONGness) in any actions, telling people what to think cannot have an "inherent" darkness to it.
Yet it is very clear that you consider that inherent darkness to be present in telling people what to think.
Here's another quote from you:

"For my action to be "evil" there must be a STANDARD of evil which exists, and there is none unless you want to point to religion, and as I've already mentioned I view that as dogma and thus a fair moral code for you to apply to YOURSELF but not to others..."

This quote is the essence of your self-contradiction. You insist that there is no moral absolute, that to have a moral absolute one must have a religious dogma, to which you object. You say that a religious dogma (or any dogma, for that matter) is morally reprehensible, because it applies a moral code to others as well as yourself.
Well, guess what? You just applied a moral code to others in that statement. You applied it to all others who would apply moral codes to others.

You've created a moral code that you not only apply to yourself, but also to others.

Explain yourself.


PS That's so weird. I'd never heard of Foucault in my life until I took a college English course that ended one week ago. Now he pops up here, and the Panopticon too! That was what we read, the chapter entitled "Panopticism"!
In French, does he also fail to use periods, or is that just the translator?

PPS I think obi was saying that one canNOT be Nietzschian, since to follow him would be UNnietzschian, and to reject his ideas would also be rejecting Nietzschianism, and therefore be UNnietzschian as well.

PPPS You know, I have to concentrate in order to be able to pronounce "Nietzsche" at all (the German pronounciation, that is. I intend to become fluent in German). The "tz," pronounced like "zz" in Pizza is immediately followed by "sch," pronounced like "sh" in English. The combination never happens in English.

PPPPS obi, if you like star TREK so much, why did you choose as your user name the name of a character from star WARS?

PPPPPS obi, I just realized that I imagine you as being about 6'3" with curly brown hair. Completely arbitrarily, too. Is that at all accurate?

I'm not here to talk about monkeys. Are you a man or a monkey?

"I'm not a total douche or anything" So you're sort of a douche?

"That's so weird. I'd never heard of Foucault in my life until I took a college English course that ended one week ago." Yeah, it's funny what you run up against in the process of getting an education.

"I think obi was saying that one canNOT be Nietzschian, since to follow him would be UNnietzschian, and to reject his ideas would also be rejecting Nietzschianism, and therefore be UNnietzschian as well."

Yes, I think that's what he's saying too. That's why I think what he's saying is borderline retarded. And you? What are you saying?

But since we've started talking about monkeys, I saw a BBC documentary in which they had a piece on chimpanzees. They filmed a carload of chimpanzees. Periodically, some of the males from the troupe would organize and march through the jungle in single file. As they approached the border with their rivals' territory, they'd slow and emphasize stealth. They'd infiltrate the enemy's territory. When they found the enemy, they divided. Some of them took up positions to cut off a retreat. Once in position, others rushed out and pounded on the roots of the trees in which the enemy had taken refuge and screamed, generally increasing the panic. The fastest and strongest rushed in and engaged. In the documentary, they captured a youngster. They dismembered it and shared it amongst themselves. It was clear that eating their enemies was not an essential part of their diet, and that some of them were not too happy about having to eat another chimpanzee. But they did it anyway, at least touching their mouths to the bloody parts in a symbolic gesture, the meaning of which should be clear to even a chimpanzee: fascism sucks.

"While it's true that most social animals operate on some sort of hierarchy, your alpha leader caricature of nature is just that, a caricature. The zoological reality is much more complex and full of fascinating counterexamples. Firstly, I would say that nature is a pretty terrible basis for government. Alphas are not "chosen", they fight for their dominance, and dominance conflicts are typically settled by physical strength, not intelligence or leadership capabilities. While it is true that they sometimes take on a protective role against predators or intruders, they can hardly be said to be looking out for the wellbeing of the rest of the group when they exhibit incredibly selfish behaviour, monopolizing reproductive opportunities and resources."
Hence why I said, it should be the most qualified person gets the job.

"Secondly, in "higher" social mammals, such as monkeys and primates, the social hierarchy is much more complex, and it is not uncommon for alpha males or females to be superseded by coalitions of less dominant individuals. Secondly, by no means does the death of the alpha spell doom for their group. In a particular case of a baboon tribe that wandered across a tuberculosis infected garbage heap, all the aggressive alpha males died because they gorged themselves, leaving only scraps for the females and more passive males. The result was not some castrated or headless society, but rather a very egalitarian and peaceful society that banded together to rebuff intruder alpha males, and even assimilated some of them."
I didn't say the death of alpha, I said the death of all alpha's. In a pack of wolves, there are normally more then one wolfs who has greater strength the all the other wolves, and it is those wolves that fight for the control of the pack. If you run out of strong leaders, it becomes much harder for the pack to sustain itself.

"Lastly, I'd have to agree with Putin's evaluation that you are not actually a fascist. If you believe in a free market, then you are not supporting the nationalistic top-down model espoused by fascists. I mean, if your fascist government isn't going to intervene in the market, then it practically has less state power and influence than most Western nations do currently."
Exactly, I am very pro decentralization, and yet I am branded as a fascist simply because I think elections are a waste of time and they do more bad then good.

"So you're sort of a douche?"
Yes. Alot of my ideology's would be considered evil, and my lack of emotion or feeling towards individuals makes me sorta douchee. I care more for the society as a whole then the individual.

"Alot of my ideology's would be considered evil" -- seems you get a kick out of that.

@mcbry:

"Your thesis that in order to be nietzschean, you must disagree with him is absurd to the point of idiocy."

As I said that to be a Nietzschean AT ALL is to miss the point of Nietzsche's idea of NOT being a follower or adhering to a dogma...your take on my thesis is NOT correct, NOT what I said, thus making IT an example of idiocy.

And WOW...you're putting ME to shame on that "overuse of Nietzsche" angle...

You've quited Friedrich multiple times now and no one else!

I referenced Shakespeare, Hume, and Mill as well AT LEAST...

Have you no other ideas in your satchel, or do you cling to Nietzsche alone? Because if you do, again, you've missed the point of a man who was entirely against people being followers...

If you allow Nietzsche to be such a Master over your thoughts, so dominant to the point you reference no one else, then surely you're a SLAVE to the man...

And what was that theory on morality he had...something about Masters and Slaves...the dominant and the submissive...the great Greeks who forged their own path and the Judeo-Christians who submitted to one book, one word...what'd he call that again?