And you are free to think that those who commit acts of philosophy do so from a standpoint which is "outside one's temporal confines," but mental constructs are actually the same as cultural constructs. One merely exchanges the cultural construct for one's own philosophical context within which to masturbate mentally...both constructs are finite, both are inherently false.

mais non, mon frere! (chuckles @ my pomposity)-- the notion of the superman is darwinian in origin, if anything. not hegelian. and zarathustra is an awful book-- makes me think of a teenage comic book. zarathustra and his animals! (yuck). too mythical for my taste. thus i recommended beyond good and evil, in which he proceeds to smash all preexisting philosophy & proposes a project for the future philosophers. nietzsche always loved his zarathustra though. i find it unreadable.

The notion of the Superman is actually Christian in origin.

Read "The Antichrist." I love that book.

so, i'm not the only sane person here. i would like to add that introduction to objectivist epistemology is the most well thought out work on the subject of which i'm aware. also try atlas shrugged -- it is philosophy even though it's enshrouded in a work of fiction.

other than that, aristotle's organon is a must, since logic is the foundation of philosophy (and all human inquiry for that matter) . . . as are the nicomachean ethics and the physics. also, i seriously despise kant, but since he's so obscenely influential if you can try foundations for the metaphysics of morals or the critique of pure reason (although i would recommend reading prolegomena to any future metaphysics instead, since it's shorter and SLIGHTLY more intelligible) go for it, though be prepared to read summaries and go to outside sources for clarification.

for some somewhat lighter reading try plato's dialogues (namely, the apology, the crito, the meno, the phaedo, the symposium) or descartes's meditations. locke's essay concerning human understanding, berkeley's dialogues between hylas and philonous, nietzsche's thus spake zarathustra, hume's enquiry concerning human understanding, and js mill's utilitarianism are also all classics, though if you're conscious you'll find something objectionable in all of those.

really? i thought jerry siegel was a jew :D

seriously, what are you talking about? please explain...

Well, St. Paul has this idea of the natural man versus the spiritual man....It occurs in modern esoteric thought as well. It's the idea that if nature evolves, then so does the spirit. So, the new species will be "Homo Spiritualis," whereas now the common, unevolved folk which Nietzsche would call "the herd" are "Homo Sapiens."

See, I was all about to agree entirely, but saying all are inherently false is such a nihilistic statement I can't help but disagree. Show me something that couldn't, by some feat, be shown to be false. This doesn't make it false - but to work on the assumption that anything that could be construed as false is false only commits yourself to barbaristic nihilism.

!"£$% - You're a top poster, and I'm not wanting to start an argument (not that I am with anyone else on this thread, you understand), but saying Nietzsche 'smashes' philosophy and then conveniently disliking the books which don't fit your appreciation of Nietzsche (who was, for the most part, fairly consistent) strikes me as ignoring the general thrust of philosophy - no one 'smashes' anything, rarely does an idea not return on the whim of the zeitgeist. I've read papers saying Nietzsche has more in common with ancient Sufism and Buddhism than Western philosophy - and although I disagree with most of them, the philosophy student in me has to assert that all philosophy exists in a continuum, never exempt of context which is often the mis-apprehension of science rather than philosophy.

Anyway, to cut a long story short, you're all wrong apart from the bits where you say I'm a prick, and I'm going to bed.

*Edit - any criticisms of my articulation at the moment are spot on as well.

So, Christ became this "Homo Spiritualis" and according to St. Paul we can become the same. Nietzsche just hijacked the concept. But "The Antichrist" is more of a cultural commentary than it is philosophy, in my opinion. Nietzsche critiqued society and the church, and what he had to say was true...but I wouldn't take the phrase "God is dead" literally. After all, what is God?

st paul was (there is no other way to say this) a sick fuck. and he didnt believe we came from apes. hence, no tightrope. and nietzsche did a lot more than "criticize society and the church". the church was not the issue-- he was not luther-- but the whole heritage of judeochristian morality in life & politics & art & philosophy of course.


a bad idea

I read Nietzsche's book, so I can safely say that I know what I read and don't need your concise little summary. I also happen to like St. Paul. He gets a bad reputation, and perhaps you don't realize that many of the writings attributed to him were actually written by others using his name...This is confirmed by Biblical scholars. He was actually liberal for his time.

Also, I don't believe that we came from apes either. But I believe that our bodies evolved from apes.

That animated film, um, i think it's titled Waking Sleep, i watched that the other day. That's a bit neat. I would love to read up on philosophy but i have pretty limited resources. My public library doesn't even carry any P.K. Dick books. Not that he writes philosophy, it's just a shame. Uh, i'm too young.

F.A.Hayek
Ludwig von Mises
Nozick

Some good Hayek Articles to read before you try to get into his books are:
"The use of knowledge in society"
"Why I am not a conservative"
"Liberalism"
"Individualism: True and False"

oh man, how could i have missed this. sorry for the lack of a prompt reply. yes, i'm inconsistent and i'm certainly using a scandal-sheet style of writing here :D i've been around this board long enough to have learned the hard way that academic discussions are wasted on most people-- so yes, i exaggerate and make an ass of myself. sure, nietzsche was refuting idealism, etc etc-- i won't discuss that over the internet though-- the place is more suitable for jokes! does anybody *really* read to understand? you and a couple of others... most people just want to hear their own voice. but anyway, yeah, i don't like the style of zarathustra if thats the book you're refering to-- the ideas are fine, it's just the mythical dithyrambs that annoy me (and his animals! gack!) regardless of how much nietzsche loved it. maybe it's the translation that fucks it up. now, back to toilet jokes :D

Ace, good man.

You could vote in my excellent and amusing poll if you like - in fact, you could even throw in a reference to your genitals if you like. I know I did.

*Edit - Man? Is that so wiild an assumption?

I agree. We should be having fun. Why don't we all sit down together and sip some refreshing water!

how is anything inherantly false unless you ivoke the name and plan of god?

Hey! Have some refreshing water.