i think this will descend into flames and lockage.

Really? too bad i was hoping we could have a civil talk on this.

Despair?

Sounds like something from Andromeda TV show.

---

so first you must realize that feelings and that stuff are all chemicals and electircty in our brains and bodies

---

Sorry DSQ, as interesting a subject as this is, that statement brings us into the realms of Religion. I really would like to have this conversation (amongst several others) but it would just turn into a flame war on TLR.

Never seen the show, so no copmmens here. Anyway, I do believe that you can downgrade any feeling to the two aforementioned purposes, as can you nearly universally apply Freud's theories. They're so easily applied and seem right because they are simple and indeed do have some reason. However, even though the reproduction and survival instincts are indeed a major driving force in our behavior (who - I'm talking to males - have'n experienced 'spermotoxicosis'? ), but human feelings cannot really be simplified to that extent. Thus, Nietsche's statement in question is only partially right - our feelings do include those two factors but are not limited to them. That's my opinion (on the other hand, I just love trying to prove to younger people that what they call 'love' is but chemistry plus the reproduction instinct )

Life is sexually transmitted

There are people that don't already know this? The world's getting scarier by the day...

@FD the andromeda tv show used Nietsche Philsophy to make that race.

@gromit, if this gets locked there is always msn!

but if you name any feeling i can and will tell you how it helps you survive or reprouduce. i never really believed in a 'real' love. but that does not mean we cannot enjoy 'love'. i am not saying love does not exist, it just is not what we often make it out to be. oh and Zlo, i agree it is fun to make people relize love is chemistry and such, even though i am young myself .

wow. Nietzsche. what a great guy.

a proto-Nazi, obsessed with and in love with his sister, he was a dilettante in almost all his endeavours and a professional virgin. only ever had experience of one woman, a prostitute from whom he contracted syphilis which drove him mad.

like I say, great guy.

however not without value. the "Will to Power" was the direct philosophical correlation of Freud's psychological insights, and an extension of Darwinian thinking. Unf it left itself wide open for abuse, as the mere use of the term "Ubermann" indicates.

his sister was a monster, devoted to Hitler, and undertook q a few insane racial experiments herself, some many years before the Nazis.

if you can keep a clear separation between what N wrote and what came of his writings, it''s q interesting and def has it's place in modern philosophy, although the emotional appeal of nihilism works best on depressives and misanthropes. But he was utterly irresponsible and in his own lifetime allowed his work to be grossly misinterpreted and misused. oh and he's not q as original as you might think, a lot of his stuff was based on Kant

@DSQ: perhaps I haven't expressed myself clearly enough: that's what I say to tease people, and it doesn't mean I believe it myself. in fact, it's real easy to overrule: if the statement (i.e. love is all about chenmistry and reproduction), then all you'd be concerned about would be sex. There'd be no reason to care about (or for) the person if he/she becomes temporarily or permanently unable to reproduce, and such things as faithfulness or devotion would be absolutely unacceptable (in fact, you wouldn't even be able to understand what it is). Still, the reality is different. So again, yes the statements are true, but they represent only a few pieces of the puzzle.

Life is sexually transmitted

Thanks taw never knew alot of that... damn nazi's

@DSQ: now, stop blaming national socialists for everything (it's kinda popular now, second only to Arabs). Do you think that if NSDAP did not come to power, his works would be that different? It's neither the first nor the last example of how people start building generalizations (then - philosophy) that are based on their personal experience. I guess it's a typical feature of human nature - if I think this way, then it should be, at least partielly, universal. I do not wish to belittle Nietsche - far from it, it's just that he wasn't perfect, as no philosopher was.
P.S. I guess drinking and philosophy are too closely related to be discussed in a normal way, so I shut up and return to my beer before I become totally incomprehensible

Life is sexually transmitted

i don't like Politcal discussions i'll wait to next year when i can vote and might pay a bit more attention to it

the Nazi stigma still makes it very difficult to discuss Nietzsche; he's been anathema for years. And for a lot of people the first time they heard of him was that Andromeda rubbish. I rolled about laughing when I heard they had "Nietzsheans" - but as least they're presented as racial-purists and jackboot fascists.