Tuesday, December 26, 2017
Tuesday, July 11, 2017
A passing thought on Philosphy
After taking course work and reading on my own some of the works of the better know philosophers, I have come to my own opinion on this subject in general. Most all the great philosophies of these philosophers are generally no more that two paragraphs at most. In fact most are basically two to three sentences. The rest is commentaries to explain and defend what they have said. Some of the time they will spend the rest of their life explaining and defending a statement.
I find this interesting to me and just an observation on my part.
I find this interesting to me and just an observation on my part.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
Superman, overman underman
If you have studied philosophy you will know who wrote this theory and have you own viewpoint on it. I am going to look at it and give my take on it. It most likely will be similar to many others, but hey this is my blog and I get to write my viewpoints.
Nietzsche wrote this theory in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the year 1883. It is a book that read like a fictional novel. He filled this work it what feels like to me to be allegory's. For me it made the whole book a slow read. Not as bad as a straight forward philosophy type of book, but still slow. However, if you look through his complete works, he was developing this theory or chain of thoughts at least over a very extended period. It was not until later on in the aforementioned book that he laid it out more completely. The problem for this was that Nazis Germany took it as their own thanks to his sister rewriting it to fit the needs of someone she admired, of course this was after the death of her brother. She had gained control of all his writings. It has taken decades for the real, original writings to make it back into the academic world for studying. All I can say is that this is a good thing. Friedrich Nietzsche has been misunderstood and misinterpreted for a very long time.
So how do I view his overman/underman theory? I think that when you read it in the story form, I think it was an attempt to put forth an idea that individualism needed to come back into vogue. Instead of being sheep to the churches and governments will, to think for oneself. I think he was so frustrated with what he saw at that time in history with Germany's government and others and the Churches influence that he came up with his story and hide his philosophy in it. I do not believe that the modern accepted convention on what he meant is accurate. I fully believe in my reading and re-reading he was approaching this not as Superior person forcing others down and those accepting being inferior to the other. But I look at it more as it being a individual and how you interact with others.
Lets start with the overman. In main stream thinking, this was Nietzche's person who would be more self centered and only concerned with themselves at the cost of others they interact with, whether work, home or play. But he would also do all he could to enhance humanity at the same time. So I guess as I understand all my collegiate textbooks he was both for the greater good of humanity and for himself along the way. I say this because he is going to establish his own values and he is going to apply them to others, not even realizing that he is imposing his will and value on others. But at same time he, in my opinion does not do it in the "I am superior to you so obey" like I have read. It was this type of interpretation that led to the Nazis adopting it this philosophy. For me it is rather a form of confidence and desire to control ones own destiny against the outside influence of the government, the churches and the employers that try to force you to bend to their needs. So the superman is a person in my thinking that refuses to be controlled but stands up for themselves, there beliefs, their family, their needs. He strives to achieve and to push beyond what he is allowed and expected to do.
His view on the underman was a little more clear cut for me as I can identify with him at different times in my life. He is the guy that lets other hold him down from achieving. Who accepts his position in life and feels that he has to do whatever he is told. He feels there is no recourse. Frankly he is afraid. He lets fear of loosing what he has prevent him from getting what he wants, even what he deserves. He does not question authority and in a way lets other make his decisions for him.
But lets take this to the next step in how I see it, it is a internal thing. The viewpoint of "Who am I" That is what I really think Nietzsche was trying to get at. I think he was trying to say how we perceive our self and how we see ourselves is how we will interact with others. If we see ourselves as weak, under-educated or anything in a negative way we project that. In projecting that we allow others to treat us as we think we should be. In the case of being negative and feeling worth less than others we become his underman, as I laid out above. IF we are see in our self as a confident, educated, able to get things done type of person, as an example, then we become the overman. If we carry that a step further and push back against those that do not believe in a person or in what they can do, and achieves and goes beyond, to me they are moving into the area he was trying to express as superman.
For me it all comes down in this theory that Nietzsche was putting forth a self realization philosophy. That we are only who we see our self as and that is how others will also see us. That we are capable of more than what outside influence decide what we are or try to make us. That it was not, as in his story, for some other entity to decide but for us, ourselves to decide. That there is no shame in what you decide whether underman - overman or superman as long as it was your own choice.
Another way to look at it in simplistic terms is the underman has not mastered himself, but is more or less submissive to themselves. The overman, has master himself to a certain point but is still somewhat in bondage to themselves. The Superman has attained self-mastery and is holding themselves in a high state of value to themselves. They have become fully self-aware.
This is just my take and interpretation of this one small part of Nietzsche's writings.
Nietzsche wrote this theory in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra in the year 1883. It is a book that read like a fictional novel. He filled this work it what feels like to me to be allegory's. For me it made the whole book a slow read. Not as bad as a straight forward philosophy type of book, but still slow. However, if you look through his complete works, he was developing this theory or chain of thoughts at least over a very extended period. It was not until later on in the aforementioned book that he laid it out more completely. The problem for this was that Nazis Germany took it as their own thanks to his sister rewriting it to fit the needs of someone she admired, of course this was after the death of her brother. She had gained control of all his writings. It has taken decades for the real, original writings to make it back into the academic world for studying. All I can say is that this is a good thing. Friedrich Nietzsche has been misunderstood and misinterpreted for a very long time.
So how do I view his overman/underman theory? I think that when you read it in the story form, I think it was an attempt to put forth an idea that individualism needed to come back into vogue. Instead of being sheep to the churches and governments will, to think for oneself. I think he was so frustrated with what he saw at that time in history with Germany's government and others and the Churches influence that he came up with his story and hide his philosophy in it. I do not believe that the modern accepted convention on what he meant is accurate. I fully believe in my reading and re-reading he was approaching this not as Superior person forcing others down and those accepting being inferior to the other. But I look at it more as it being a individual and how you interact with others.
Lets start with the overman. In main stream thinking, this was Nietzche's person who would be more self centered and only concerned with themselves at the cost of others they interact with, whether work, home or play. But he would also do all he could to enhance humanity at the same time. So I guess as I understand all my collegiate textbooks he was both for the greater good of humanity and for himself along the way. I say this because he is going to establish his own values and he is going to apply them to others, not even realizing that he is imposing his will and value on others. But at same time he, in my opinion does not do it in the "I am superior to you so obey" like I have read. It was this type of interpretation that led to the Nazis adopting it this philosophy. For me it is rather a form of confidence and desire to control ones own destiny against the outside influence of the government, the churches and the employers that try to force you to bend to their needs. So the superman is a person in my thinking that refuses to be controlled but stands up for themselves, there beliefs, their family, their needs. He strives to achieve and to push beyond what he is allowed and expected to do.
His view on the underman was a little more clear cut for me as I can identify with him at different times in my life. He is the guy that lets other hold him down from achieving. Who accepts his position in life and feels that he has to do whatever he is told. He feels there is no recourse. Frankly he is afraid. He lets fear of loosing what he has prevent him from getting what he wants, even what he deserves. He does not question authority and in a way lets other make his decisions for him.
But lets take this to the next step in how I see it, it is a internal thing. The viewpoint of "Who am I" That is what I really think Nietzsche was trying to get at. I think he was trying to say how we perceive our self and how we see ourselves is how we will interact with others. If we see ourselves as weak, under-educated or anything in a negative way we project that. In projecting that we allow others to treat us as we think we should be. In the case of being negative and feeling worth less than others we become his underman, as I laid out above. IF we are see in our self as a confident, educated, able to get things done type of person, as an example, then we become the overman. If we carry that a step further and push back against those that do not believe in a person or in what they can do, and achieves and goes beyond, to me they are moving into the area he was trying to express as superman.
For me it all comes down in this theory that Nietzsche was putting forth a self realization philosophy. That we are only who we see our self as and that is how others will also see us. That we are capable of more than what outside influence decide what we are or try to make us. That it was not, as in his story, for some other entity to decide but for us, ourselves to decide. That there is no shame in what you decide whether underman - overman or superman as long as it was your own choice.
Another way to look at it in simplistic terms is the underman has not mastered himself, but is more or less submissive to themselves. The overman, has master himself to a certain point but is still somewhat in bondage to themselves. The Superman has attained self-mastery and is holding themselves in a high state of value to themselves. They have become fully self-aware.
This is just my take and interpretation of this one small part of Nietzsche's writings.
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Are we facing a new triumvirate
What is a triumvirate you might ask? Some will, anyway, it is not used much these days. So lets see what a dictionary says: A triumvirate (Latin, triumvirātus, from trēs three + vir man) is a political regime dominated by three powerful individuals, each a triumvir (pl. triumvirs or triumviri). The arrangement can be formal or informal, and though the three are usually equal on paper, in reality this is rarely the case.
The first one of this political arrangements as history has recorded it was Cesar, Crassus and Pompey. They came to a violent end. Cesar chased Pompey till he tried to hide in Egypt. He hide there until they, the rulers, beheaded him to try to keep Cesar from taking them over. That didn't work. Then Crassus help incite the assassination of Cesar only for him to die later. The second was Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. Octavian later known as Augusta Cesar, was the cause of Antony and Lepidus deaths. I believe they had a similar fates. You see a pattern here.
Now history does not say there is any others, but i say there was a third and i believe a possible fourth is forming, The third is in current modern history. This triumvirate was the trio of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. They loosely meet the require of three powerful people ruling a large area with the same political goal and beliefs in mind. Like the first two all but one ended up dead. Hitler, it is assumed, by his own hands in a bunker, Mussolini by the public. Hirohito though survived and led his country to recovery. This was only through the grace of General MacArthur. Oddly the other powerful leader holding the same political belief, General Franco of Spain, only wanted Spain not world control. He also survived.
My last one I noted at the start is the possibilities of another one forming. Now this is a loose interpretation of the word, but it applies in this case just as well as any other. I believe that Trump, Putin, and Jinping are in the process of become a joint political power. It appears that while they are from three different countries they all have the same intention in their sphere of influence and a willingness to work together. While all three have different forms of governments they control, and different spheres of influence that clash at times, they all have economic powers and needs that the rest of the world can supply. They all are rich in their own right, all gained by less than above board means. They all except Trump at this point have an opportunity to be in power for a infinite period of time.
While this is all supposition it fits perfectly into this time in history and the prevailing conditions happening world wide. Time will tell. I will have to update this as Trumps first term progresses. Of course this is just a humble opinion.
The first one of this political arrangements as history has recorded it was Cesar, Crassus and Pompey. They came to a violent end. Cesar chased Pompey till he tried to hide in Egypt. He hide there until they, the rulers, beheaded him to try to keep Cesar from taking them over. That didn't work. Then Crassus help incite the assassination of Cesar only for him to die later. The second was Antony, Lepidus, and Octavian. Octavian later known as Augusta Cesar, was the cause of Antony and Lepidus deaths. I believe they had a similar fates. You see a pattern here.
Now history does not say there is any others, but i say there was a third and i believe a possible fourth is forming, The third is in current modern history. This triumvirate was the trio of Hitler, Mussolini and Hirohito. They loosely meet the require of three powerful people ruling a large area with the same political goal and beliefs in mind. Like the first two all but one ended up dead. Hitler, it is assumed, by his own hands in a bunker, Mussolini by the public. Hirohito though survived and led his country to recovery. This was only through the grace of General MacArthur. Oddly the other powerful leader holding the same political belief, General Franco of Spain, only wanted Spain not world control. He also survived.
My last one I noted at the start is the possibilities of another one forming. Now this is a loose interpretation of the word, but it applies in this case just as well as any other. I believe that Trump, Putin, and Jinping are in the process of become a joint political power. It appears that while they are from three different countries they all have the same intention in their sphere of influence and a willingness to work together. While all three have different forms of governments they control, and different spheres of influence that clash at times, they all have economic powers and needs that the rest of the world can supply. They all are rich in their own right, all gained by less than above board means. They all except Trump at this point have an opportunity to be in power for a infinite period of time.
While this is all supposition it fits perfectly into this time in history and the prevailing conditions happening world wide. Time will tell. I will have to update this as Trumps first term progresses. Of course this is just a humble opinion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)