The Truth, and honesty, ah, a difficult couple, at best. As a friend of mine used to say: “Honesty is the best policy, but most people don’t like to pay the premiums.”. There is something really dangerous in an honest man, you can’t cheat him! He will not be seeking more and more material things which will stay here, when he dies, but rather more and more of the Truth of “That, That Is, Is.”. What can one do with someone who doesn’t need more? They are not only thinking outside the box, they have probably thrown away the box in order to get a better view.
Maybe it leads to a nihilistic viewpoint, but what about if it leads to a clean slate with co-dependent arising, as just one possibility, or if the view becomes one of not the multiplication of various forms and systems, but rather the continual division of a single entity? Am sure there are other viewpoints, but those are both definitely outside most people’s boxes.
the chief problem with this effort is the effort in it -- the subtext read between every line being that the speaker is aiming for the very goodness of truth that he is undermining in the very undermining of it, and the philosophers who will succeed in undermining it will achieve and verify it -- as they already have -- they are the poets and artists, and Nietzsche should just eat his heart out that he couldn't quite make it there. Or give himself credit for laying down philosophy at this low plateau as the artists and poets climb high above that blowhard Zarathustra. This critique is in no way tongue in cheek it is as violent a protest against the reams of bullshit and physical violence and false aggrandizement and deception that is impossible to redeem by any paradox and simply reflects expresses and furthers cynical contempt of the human mind and creation itself, which Nietzsche opposed however deceptively or not. what are you doing with your life? why are you here? if to provoke comments like this good, just as Nietzsche is good for getting us to where we know better why to hate him than before he existed. everything is good when kissed to let it fly and bad when grasped to cash in on and there is such good and bad but there are no literal criteria in art. there are many trojan horses and spies so well camouflaged even the elect would be fooled if that were possible. only when the eye is clear is the body full of light, and vice versa. the apparent worst and most obvious, as Nietzsche says, could be the best and subtlest, but there is a difference however minimal between the two. there is shared knowledge in time and trust. there is redemption however only glimpsed once for a split second in a lifetime. there is everything that ever was in laughing self-reflection. the killing of the word only provokes the vampire to more blood sucking. just teach it to say over and over I am not a vampire and language will fake it til it makes it or just keep faking it better and better and maybe that's even better. Far from an approver of masks, nietzsche is like a chimp you raise lovingly and one day he sees a crack in your mask and tears your face off. in crude American baseball, you bat the ball out of the ballpark, but in delicate soccer and basketball (the crude American is also most delicate of all) you only have your own body, and if you come up against a boundary you must stop on a dime. That's the game Nietzsche. You're on the wrong field.
Nietzsche's work questions rigid notions of truth, not to destroy them, but to make people think outside the box. Nietzsche would probably agree with you about what poets can offer...
he most certainly in this passage does not just question he openly tears apart in hopes to destroy not just rigid notions of truth but truth itself -- even as he is clearly guided by his ardent belief in it -- I'm telling the truth that there is no truth he as much as says. It is a distrust of the naming of it -- like the Jewish prohibition against naming God, the very prohibition an affirmation of his existence. But at a certain point it's time to grow up or get cured of your obsessive compulsive disorder and just use the name and take it with a grain of salt. Otherwise you can only speak with forked tongue in dangerous misleading contradictions as you are basically discrediting language and tying it in nots (I'll leave typo as it is apt) that eventually strangle you and drive you literally crazy. And not just you, but the entire culture. I suggest you reflect very hard on what it is you are disseminating. It is by now very old and stale. Thank you for inviting conversation.
The Truth, and honesty, ah, a difficult couple, at best. As a friend of mine used to say: “Honesty is the best policy, but most people don’t like to pay the premiums.”. There is something really dangerous in an honest man, you can’t cheat him! He will not be seeking more and more material things which will stay here, when he dies, but rather more and more of the Truth of “That, That Is, Is.”. What can one do with someone who doesn’t need more? They are not only thinking outside the box, they have probably thrown away the box in order to get a better view.
They make a difficult couple for sure! And yes, the risk is probably to throw away the box, which probably leads to a nihilistic point of view...
Maybe it leads to a nihilistic viewpoint, but what about if it leads to a clean slate with co-dependent arising, as just one possibility, or if the view becomes one of not the multiplication of various forms and systems, but rather the continual division of a single entity? Am sure there are other viewpoints, but those are both definitely outside most people’s boxes.
the chief problem with this effort is the effort in it -- the subtext read between every line being that the speaker is aiming for the very goodness of truth that he is undermining in the very undermining of it, and the philosophers who will succeed in undermining it will achieve and verify it -- as they already have -- they are the poets and artists, and Nietzsche should just eat his heart out that he couldn't quite make it there. Or give himself credit for laying down philosophy at this low plateau as the artists and poets climb high above that blowhard Zarathustra. This critique is in no way tongue in cheek it is as violent a protest against the reams of bullshit and physical violence and false aggrandizement and deception that is impossible to redeem by any paradox and simply reflects expresses and furthers cynical contempt of the human mind and creation itself, which Nietzsche opposed however deceptively or not. what are you doing with your life? why are you here? if to provoke comments like this good, just as Nietzsche is good for getting us to where we know better why to hate him than before he existed. everything is good when kissed to let it fly and bad when grasped to cash in on and there is such good and bad but there are no literal criteria in art. there are many trojan horses and spies so well camouflaged even the elect would be fooled if that were possible. only when the eye is clear is the body full of light, and vice versa. the apparent worst and most obvious, as Nietzsche says, could be the best and subtlest, but there is a difference however minimal between the two. there is shared knowledge in time and trust. there is redemption however only glimpsed once for a split second in a lifetime. there is everything that ever was in laughing self-reflection. the killing of the word only provokes the vampire to more blood sucking. just teach it to say over and over I am not a vampire and language will fake it til it makes it or just keep faking it better and better and maybe that's even better. Far from an approver of masks, nietzsche is like a chimp you raise lovingly and one day he sees a crack in your mask and tears your face off. in crude American baseball, you bat the ball out of the ballpark, but in delicate soccer and basketball (the crude American is also most delicate of all) you only have your own body, and if you come up against a boundary you must stop on a dime. That's the game Nietzsche. You're on the wrong field.
Nietzsche's work questions rigid notions of truth, not to destroy them, but to make people think outside the box. Nietzsche would probably agree with you about what poets can offer...
he most certainly in this passage does not just question he openly tears apart in hopes to destroy not just rigid notions of truth but truth itself -- even as he is clearly guided by his ardent belief in it -- I'm telling the truth that there is no truth he as much as says. It is a distrust of the naming of it -- like the Jewish prohibition against naming God, the very prohibition an affirmation of his existence. But at a certain point it's time to grow up or get cured of your obsessive compulsive disorder and just use the name and take it with a grain of salt. Otherwise you can only speak with forked tongue in dangerous misleading contradictions as you are basically discrediting language and tying it in nots (I'll leave typo as it is apt) that eventually strangle you and drive you literally crazy. And not just you, but the entire culture. I suggest you reflect very hard on what it is you are disseminating. It is by now very old and stale. Thank you for inviting conversation.