I've applied for Social Security Disability. I do not want to contribute anything to society. Nothing. I have a very deep-rooted anger and hatred toward people and society in general. I've suffered too many traumas.
A good story: When I was in the 7th Grade I was trying to grow my hair long, like Axl Rose. One day, when I wasn't paying attention, a skinny little punk put a fist-sized wad of bubblegum in my hair. I had to go to the nurse's office so they could cut it out with scissors and pull out whatever was left with a comb. It took them at least a painful, humiliating hour to fully remove all of the gum. Knowing how humiliated I must have been they closed the door so the other children could not look in. The whole time the two nurses said to one another: "God, these kids are so terrible. God, these kids are so horrible." My hair was ruined. The little punk had violated my life to such an extent that I had to change my hairstyle for him.
When I found this boy I shoved him face-first into a brick wall. A female teacher ran up to me: "What are you doing?" I tried to explain the situation to her. "But you just can't go around shoving people. You can't put your hands on people!" She sent me to the principal's office and I was disciplined. That was just one of many equally traumatic events. After such a traumatic event it is easy to understand why I spent all of my time dreaming of a big city like New York or Los Angeles where I could be myself and both famous and anonymous. Like a gay kid I had to run away from a small-minded suburban environment. My only incentive against murdering one or more of my classmates was the hope of a better future. I, of course, would have been completely justified in torturing and killing gum-boy's entire family to the last living member.
But more than anything, such incidents permanently prejudiced me against average and ordinary people. THEY (not people like me or Nietzsche) are the CRUEL. Their mediocrity would be forgivable if they were not so cruel. But being that they are cruel and that they possess strength in numbers, all of their flaws are entirely unforgivable. If every mediocrity on earth had to die for me to experience the slightest touch of happiness, that would be perfectly acceptable and even desirable.
Which brings me to the Tom Hanks of Philosophy - Bertrand Russell - and his cowardly critique of Nietzsche. I presume Lord Russell did not know what it was like to have a fist-sized piece of bubblegum lodged in one's hair and perhaps that is why he is so quick to attack Nietzsche and defend the Herd. Russell writes of Nietzsche: "He admires certain qualities which he believes (perhaps rightly) to be only possible for an aristocratic minority; the majority, in his opinion, should be only means to the excellence of the few and should not be regarded as having any independent claim to happiness or well-being. He alludes habitually to ordinary human beings as the 'bungled and botched' and sees no objection to their suffering if it is necessary for the production of a great man." And? So? Your point is? And why should I care about the Herd? And is that not exactly what I have been saying since long before I had ever even heard of Nietzsche?
Not only that, but there is so much more to Nietzsche. Nietzsche's philosophy is more about self-overcoming and perpetual self-development (not to mention his metaphysics, his criticisms of history and philosophy, his doctrine of the Eternal Return, etc...) than it is about wielding power over the others. He continues to "explain" Nietzsche's philosophy to the uninitiated: "True virtue, as opposed to the conventional sort is not for all, but should remain the characteristic of an aristocratic minority. It is not profitable or prudent; it isolates its possessor from other men; it is hostile to order, and does harm to inferiors. It is necessary for higher men to make war upon the masses, and resist the democratic tendencies of the age, for in all directions mediocre people are joining hands to make themselves masters."
Okay Lord Hanks, his ethical stance is not "profitable"? What are you, a philosopher or a shopkeeper?
It is not prudent? Nietzsche's whole philosophy takes joy in laughing in the face of prudence, especially your kind of prudence. Did you skip his aphorisms on the Dionysian?
The possessor of this virtue is already isolated from other men - whether he likes it or not.
It is "hostile to order"? Of course it is to a boring logician such as yourself.
It does harm to inferiors? So what?
And, yes, I make war against the masses every day simply by not owning a cellphone.
The Obamas are always speaking in the plural - they love the words "we" and "us".
And, well, are not the mediocre masses already our rulers? Just flick on the t.v. (which I also don't have.)
At the end of his shallow critique of Nietzsche he throws in a quick cheap shot: "What are we to think of Nietzsche's doctrines? How are they true? Are they in any degree useful? Is there in them anything objective, or are they the mere power-phantasies of an invalid?"
Well, it must have escaped you Lord Hanks that you are practicing the same sort of "English" utilitarian thinking that Nietzsche so despised. He would have hated you even more than he hated J.S. Mill because at least J.S. Mill was original!
"How are they true?" Nietzsche was a PERSPECTIVIST. Your "true" would not have mattered to him. In this sense, again, he was a more sophisticated and daring thinker than you.
"Are they in any degree useful?" NIETZSCHE WAS NOT A UTILITARIAN!!!!!! He would not want his teachings to be "useful" to most. It would be better for them to be "useless" than to be used by people like you. Didn't you get that or were you too busy making small-dick jokes about a brilliant dead man?
"Is there in them anything objective?" See above. Perspectivism. I know that doesn't jibe well with your MATHEMATICALLY BORING logician mind.
"The mere power-phantasies of an invalid?" Now you show your true colors, your true CRUEL colors you smarmy Tom Hanks hypocrite! Yes, I had power-phantasies too. I pretended to be Axl Rose, Arnold Schwarzenegger and Mike Tyson because that was the only way I could survive day to day.
He finishes his chapter on Nietzsche with a fictional dialogue between Nietzscha and Buddha that almost made me vomit: "If Buddha and Nietzsche were confronted, could either produce any argument that ought to appeal to the impartial listener? We can imagine them appearing before the Almighty, as in the first chapter of the Book of Job, and offering advice as to the sort of world He should create. What could either say?
Buddha would open the argument by speaking of the lepers, outcast and miserable; the poor, toiling with aching limbs and barely kept alive by scanty nourishment; the wounded in battle, dying in slow agony; the orphans, ill-treated by cruel guardians; and even the most successful haunted by the thought of failure and death. From all this load of sorrow, he would say, a way of salvation must be found, and salvation can only come through love.
Nietzsche, whom only Omnipotence could restrain from interrupting, would burst out when his turn came: 'Good heavens, man, you must learn to be of tougher fibre. Why go about snivelling because trivial people suffer? Or, for that matter, because great men suffer? Trivial people suffer trivially, great men suffer greatly, and great sufferings are not to be regretted, because they are noble. Your ideal is purely a negative one, absence of suffering, which can be completely secured by non-existence. I, on the other hand, have positive ideals: I admire Alcibiades, and the Emperor Frederick II, and Napolean. For the sake of such men, any misery is worthwhile. I appeal to you, Lord, as the greatest of creative artists, do not let Your artistic impulses be curbed by the degenerate fear-ridden maunderings of this wretched psychopath.'
Buddha, who in the courts of Heaven has learnt all history since his death, and has mastered science with delight in the knowledge and sorrow at the use to which men have put it, replies with calm urbanity: 'You are mistaken, Professor Nietzsche, in thinking my ideal a purely negative one. True, it includes a negative element, the absence of suffering; but it has in addition quite as much that is positive as is to be found in your doctrine. Though I have no special admiration for Alcibiades and Napolean, I, too, have my heroes: my successor Jesus, because he told men to love their enemies; the men who discovered how to master the forces of nature and secure food with less labour; the medical men who have shown how to diminish disease; the poets and artists and musicians who have caught glimpses of the Divine beatitude. Love and knowledge and delight in beauty are not negations; they are enough to fill the lives of the greatest men that have ever lived.'
'All the same,' Nietzsche replies, 'your world would be insipid. You should study Heraclitus, whose works survive in the celestial library. Your love is compassion, which is elicited by pain; your truth, if you are honest, is unpleasant, and only to be known through suffering; and, as to beauty, what is more beautiful than the tiger, who owes his splendour to his fierceness? No, if the Lord should decide for your world, I fear we should all die of boredom.'
'You might,' Buddha replies, 'because you love pain, and your love of life is a sham. But those who really love life would be happy as no on can be happy in the world as it is.'"
EXCUSE ME WHILE I GO VOMIT! BLECCCCCCCHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Not only does this dummy not understand Nietzsche, but he doesn't even understand Buddhism! Could you imagine if Lord Hanks had picked on Nietzsche while he was alive and sane. Verbally, Nietzsche would have ripped him a new one and made him look outrageously weak, stupid, ignorant, ridiculous, and hypocritical.
Why don't you go stick gum in someone's hair, Lord Russell? That's more YOUR speed you hypocrite!
A quick guide for knowing the Tom Hanks' of the world:
Axl Rose = Nietzsche
Slash = Lord Russell
Mike Tyson = Nietzsche
Evander Holyfield = Lord Russell
Me = Nietzsche
My Sister = Russell
In the end it's just a clash of personalities: Analytic Conformists and Mad Poets. Apollo vs. Dionysus. I'm still in the latter category.
But still, THEY are the cruel. Not us.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment