Ummm...
I'm NOT a leftwinger.
I'm NOT a rightwinger. (Unless you're talking hockey, wanted to play there as a kid!) ;)
And I'm NOT a Nietzschean, for as I'v said before, to say "I am a Nietzschean" is to miss the point of the wriotings of a person who wanted to DISPELL dogmas and people all clustering around one person like that...I know Foucault used the term to describe himself, and while I don't feel strongly about his work one way or the other, I DO feel strongly he missed a basic point of Nietzsche's work if he thinks he can be a disciple of someone who entitled a book "The Antichrist."
I'm NOT a gibbering imbecile posing as an intellectual.
I've already said this, but I'll say it again to be clear:
I am a person, like any of you, and I just happen to have a strong and incredibly driving passion towards literature and theatre and philosophy, such that it is the goal of my life to try and produce something worthwhile in one of those fields, and as I've said before, THIS POST is not of that wroth, nor have any of my posts been, not has anything I have yet written, I would guess (I don't klnow, I've never tried to publish any of my finished works.)
For me this 1. Fun 2. Sometimes enlightening and engaging when others come with great insight and their own opinions 3. A way for me to try out ideas I have to see how well I can defend my viewpoints and its strengths and weaknesses and listen to others, os it's also a learning experience, and 4. It's FUN.
I don't pretend to be or pretend this to be anything else--so if you are intent on slapping labels on me or treating me as if I'm someone who acts as if he knows everything and knows nothting, you'll be severely dissapointed, as quite frankly I have already stated that I learn here, and so DON'T act is if I know everything...
But by that same token, when I post my opinion...pretty hard to give your opinion with any confidence or conviction and NOT believe you know what you're talking about in regards to your point, so you'll forgive my not stammering.
Anyway, onto the actual questions someone posted:
@Fasces:
And I HAVE gone over that at length, Fasces, but you don't seem to listen or you reject my position; if it's the latter then you need to tell me, as I'm keeping my position until it's successfully challenged--why would I dump it just to dump it if I really believed in it?--and if it's the former, here it is again:
In my scenario AND in my definition, "a Mozart" is ALREADY ESTABLISHED AS SUCH. That is, it is no mystery if there is a Mozart on the tracks or not, if he is truly a Mozart then he is clearly there and already evident as a Mozart as he has ARLEADY established himself as being such through works that have had REACH, that have had an AFFECT, that have had INFLUENCE.
Amongst the 100 workers, there might be a man named Shakespeare and one named Salieri and one named Steinbeck, but because these men have NOT published their works, and so their works HAVE NO REACH, they are NOT established as Mozart figures and can only be treated as worker figures, because OTHEREWISE we would have to assume that EVERYONE is or could be, at any moment, a Mozart, and well...
*When everyone's special, NO ONE IS.*
So there you have it, my position and your issue answered--there is NOT likely to be a Mozart in the 100 deaths as there are in the 1, as the 1 is the ONLY ONE who is a Mozart figure, and the rest are workers forever unless they someday become Mozarts, and even then, they are not Mozarts at the moment I killed them, and showed me no signs of their ever BECOMING a Mozart...
So unless you want to tell me that a worker was writing the lines of "Hamlet" all along the rails as he laid them down, I cannot and do not consider them to be Mozarts, and so the only one to lose is the one, and the hundred workers are the hundred and cannot be considered Mozarts, not at the time when this decision needs to be made who to save.
@baumhaeuer:
You have a correct interpretation of my view--with one exception.
As far as RIGHTS go, I stand by Locke and Jefferson, there is no problem LEGALLY in the phrase "All men are created equal,' that's a good basis for government, and so NO, a Mozart doesn't get away with the murder of five workers just because he's a Mozart.
LEGALLY they have equal rights, for three reasons:
-It is a system which LEGALLY creates inequality that risks losing greatness; all people deserve the same basic potential in life that the law and givernment can provide, and so to deny a population of people that equality in favor of others isn;t only wrong but illogical as not only have we now potentially sacrificed a great many potential Mozarts when there was no need to (giving someone an education is NOT the same as deciding who must die, whith a split-second to choose, in a train accident, so we can afford to treat all newborns as if they have the potential to become a Mozart) but on the TOHER SIDE, to treat the children that are deemed Mozart-possibilities higher than the others BEFORE they rightfully earn distinction by actually becoming a Mozart is illogical and goes against the basic principle that you ACQUIRE your status as a Mozart, it is not innate.
-To treat a Mozart differently leagally than another is to raise class structures, which I'm not too keen on, but at any rate there's no reason to make them more rigid, and to do so through an act that would certainly seem unjust at that
-To NOT give everyone equal rights at the start is to imply that some are already worth more than others, and that would defeat the notion that man has a base of greatness from which he may build, which I, for the most part, agree with, man DOES have a base of potential greatness when born, and so it's a race in life to see who becomes the greatest; I would add that this base, over many generations, does rise, however, as we may sense the human race, even minutely, raising on the whole, so where once the discovery of the Pythagorean Theorem was enough to catapult Pythagorous to a status that we remember, today billions know that theorem, even folks like ME who are HORRIBLE at math! Hence, man's overall undertstanding and greatness-level in regards to mathematical brilliance and comprehension has risen, and so the base, too, has risen.
As for my "Mozart" being an Ubermensch...he is and he isn't, he's certainly strongly influenced by that idea and by George Bernard Shaw's idea, but they're not direct analogues (ie, I don't entirely agree with Nietzsche that "man" is but a bridge between Animal and Superman, and I certainly don't agree with the eugenics theories of Shaw, though in all fairness to the latter eugenics WAS a popular idea in the early 20th century due to fears of over-population and overuse of resources, and Shaw never said he wanted to practice it based on race or ethnicity or religion, but rather simpy by analyzing every person every so poften and, humorously enough "asking them to justify their existence." XD A bad idea and one we can't excuse Shaw of, it was a poor idea and definitely the blackest mark on what's otherwise an increible career and life that spanned over 90 years and over 60 plays--and that's just his PLAYS, he was unbelievably prolific in his writing--but it wasn't racially charged and it was something of a product of his time, so we can at least understand somewhat why Shaw said what he said, even if we cannot agree with it at all or necessarily "forgive" Shaw for saying it.)
The Artist--what I simply refer to the Mozart figures in my writings--is really not an "artist" in the way you or I normally think of an artist.
He is not a mere painter or sketch artist or musician or writer; an Artist may be a scientist or a social reformer or what have you.
An Artist is someone who CREATES and creates in and on the world around them.
Nietzsche said there are Masters and Slaves in morality.
Clint Eastwood said "There's two kinds of people in this world, my friend--those with loaded guns, and those who dig."
And to me there are those who treat existence as their canvas and the palces and people of the world as their palette and try to distinguish themselves amongs the herd while simultaneously trying to help others to attain their status--the Artist--and then the herd of people and physical facts and buildings and files and paperwork and whatnot that leaves so much of the rest of the work a blur--the Art.
The Master has no LEGAL domain over the Slave for Nietzsche.
And the same for Eastwood's Loaded Gunman over the Men With No Loaded Gun.
And the Artist has no legal domain over the Art.
All three merely have a prominence about them, and it's this prominence that often leads to their perceived dominance.
Southeastern European Tm Fiesta Game
, 36hrs/turn, full press, NOT anon.
)
)
)
)
