Important Message

You are browsing the archived Lancers Reactor forums. You cannot register or login.
The content may be outdated and links may not be functional.


To get the latest in Freelancer news, mods, modding and downloads, go to
The-Starport

Nietsche

This is where you can discuss your homework, family, just about anything, make strange sounds and otherwise discuss things which are really not related to the Lancer-series. Yes that means you can discuss other games.

Post Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:12 pm

you're such a clever man; and you send me chocolate too.

of course the same western standards are applied. but now due to self-same western global domination, they are also global standards. they are applied however somewhat differently (well until recently)

the racial purity element is not as strident as it was, but racism is still there, and the notion that white anglo-saxons are in some way superior to other races. OJ simpson trial, OJ photos were blackened up. people of mixed race have their skin lightenbed to appear more "white" Advertisers in non-white countries depict the aping of western fashions and lighten up the skin tones, saw a LOT of this in N. Africa. Chinese and Indians adopt old english names as these are the names their former colonial oppressors had. and of course there's the current perjoratitive against anyone or anything from an arab background. I was talking to an american business colleague the other day, a man i don't class as a friend but I've known him for some time, and we wer talking about plane fares and i happened to mention that you can get a good deal from Emirates and great service, he responded in a horrified amnner that he'd NEVER go on an arab airline. i just shook my head and walked away.

I strongly suggest a read of J.M.Roberts "the Triumph of the West" (not to be confused with Nietzsche's contemporary Oswald Spengler's book "the Decline of the West"

I once heard a speech by Maggie Thatcher *spits* in which she rattled on about will to overcome and all that guff; i remembered N as I was listening to her Nuremberg style polemic. Nietzsche had a brief period of popularity in the 80s as the "greed is good" gang fixed on various bits of his writings.

Post Thu Oct 07, 2004 1:30 pm

ah the joys if philosphy me dad is one so i can soak it all up, i half expected that when i came home this thread would be locked or filled with hate! good job guys you are making this work to much to read and i have a head ache i will get back to you gents


Edited by - [UTFDSQrn on 10/7/2004 2:31:21 PM

Post Fri Oct 08, 2004 7:20 pm


The fact that you don't believe in souls is obvious from your opening post...
Is it? You're assuming again .

Post Fri Oct 08, 2004 8:38 pm

no he is right, i dont believe in souls.

Post Fri Oct 08, 2004 11:24 pm

so you're still sticking with this one idea you've glossed from Nietzsche that all "feelings" are just electro-chemical impulses and are part of the evolutionary process of humans and are posited on survival/breeding necessities from our animal past?

but you haven't answered any of our questions. and where does the creative impulse fit into your argument? what has Art or Music or, indeed, Philosophy got to do with survival?

just what Nietzsche have you actually read? I don't think it can be that much tbh. You're missing a LOT of his main points (don't worry about it though, everyone misreads N the first time)

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 12:17 am

Sentience could rarely be replicated, the chemical (yes chemical, not electrical. the electrical impulses are just byproducts of thought) processes have an effect on the emotions, but the ability to express these emotions in a rather beatiful manner (poetry, visual arts, music) is what truly sets us apart from animals, not abstaining from feeling carnal desires.

Just to stray off topic...
There is also an deep rooted belief in our society that anything that is to do with the physical side of love is wrong, earning heavy restrictions in our society, yet violence and hate are easily accepted. It puzzles me that the ultimate exspession of love is considedered immoral, but getting a gun and shooting someone who doesn't agree with your point of view is considered moral... *sigh* things could be worse though...

-:-
I used to be a guy called Cosmic Viator

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:02 am

First taw, why i did not answer is cus i live a aful life style were i go to bed at 3 am and get up at 7 am, so often i am very tired, also a friend has been buggin me bout this 24/7 so i sometimes cannot deal with it, i will get back to you on this

okay art music Philsophy (i know to much bout the latter )these are not feelings, i did not say everything is based on those 2 things only feelings, to qoute my 8 grade teacher "sure read Nietsche i know you able to BUT remeber Nietsche is the guy who is easiest to misunderstand" so i hope i have answered that if not, tell me what you want!

Edited by - [UTFDSQrn on 10/9/2004 8:05:29 AM

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:45 am

I was referring to the "creative impulse"

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:11 am

I disagree with neitzche (that's how you spell it, DSQrn) on the second point. He completely animalizes human nature. In a simple animal societal structure, yes survival and reproduction are the primary concerns, and even were in human society until the axial period, at which philosophy really begins and the upper class (simply because those saturated pigs were the only ones in any position to spend time thinking) starts to wonder about how best to spend the brief period of consciousness that is life. From that point forward (perhaps excluding the european dark ages), society is not based on power and reproduction solely but also relevance, knowledge, and wisdom. And the constant struggle of government to create a fairer life for the general population, but we all know thats a lost cause. Even with communism and socialist despotism.

Also, the fact that feelings and such are chemicals in your bloodstream and brain does not make them any less valid.

And I'm wondering how Neitzche justifies grief as being a motivator to reproduce or survive. To me it seems that attachment to someone and the subsequent sadness that follows his/her death is inpractical and the very opposite of motivating survival or procreation. Its simply a complex emotion that is carried in animals increasingly as you move up the evolutionary scale (e.g. pigs, apes, monkeys, dolphins, dogs, cats, and elephants all possess this quality of emotion separate from practical use)

Edited by - Wilde on 10/9/2004 11:21:02 AM

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 10:28 am

Also, the fact that feelings and such are chemicals in your bloodstream and brain does not make them any less valid. last time i checked, he never said they were less valid

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 5:14 pm

Or this could not be real at all and we're all figmets of something's imagination

The argument is similar to that of the Conciousness, where does it reside? what is it? how do we measure it? no-one has yet come up with an answer to any of these questions because NO-ONE knows!

As for the soul argument, we could take a complete tangent idea:
Take the matrix point of view, the person inside the computer is the physical body, while the parson hooked up to the simulation is the soul, or is just our soul looking on. When we die, we could say that the concoussness shifts from our physical body to the soul, which then detaches from the body and romas around doing things. From this point of view, it could be said that, while we are alive, the soul is useless to us...
Just an idea, im not saying i belive it, its just the delusions of a 15-year-olds mind

Although i disagree with N's ideas, hes missing a factor: it should read: 'To survive, repoduce, and enjoy life' the third, rounding up the remaining emotions(Hatred, irritation, etc.) because that is what thier purpose is, to make life more enjoyable. they dont serve to help us survive or reproduce in any way that i can dicern

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:31 pm

what I meant by that was that the thought is irrelevant. "They're chemicals in your brains!" Neitzche's point is...?

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 7:33 pm

Arania, enjoyment has nothing to do with it. Neitzche specifically did not include such things on his list of what feelings are based around.

I really think you're giving more credit to the Wachowski brothers than they deserve. They wrote a cool action movie which utterly failed on the philosophical level, and instead of motivating people to examine the illusion present in their psyches it encouraged the asinine belief that the illusion is in reality itself, not in how we view it. "is the table REALLY there?" "Your senses could be fooling you!" and other bull like that.

Edited by - Wilde on 10/9/2004 8:36:48 PM

Post Sat Oct 09, 2004 9:11 pm

Gavin, the sooner we realize that they are chemicals is the sooner we can better understand them.

Post Sun Oct 10, 2004 1:12 am


no he is right, i dont believe in souls.
But his statement seemed to implay that *I* didn't believe in souls either .

Return to Off Topic