Most/Least Favorite Philosopher and Why?

[Imran Siddiqui]

Will to power means will to dominate and control. You Nietzsche apologists yell whenever someone makes a comparison with totalitarianism or Nazism, but this is a true and accurate comparison. How is a desire to control not compatable with Nazism? They are in perfect harmony.

Nietzsche is about power, control, and domination. As has been said, his is not an egalitarian philosophy, he does not intend it for all human kind (if he did he'd be a fool, because everything would break down). Therefore he intended it for a few, or perhaps one, to fufill their will to power through dominating the others. This is totalitarianism.

I don't know how to slowly explain this to you so you get it. Nietzsche believes EVERYONE has a will to power, that every has a will to dominate. And this will to power creates PROBLEMS. Like GePap said, the will to power creates things like religion which Nietzsche hates. To simply go aroung saying 'Will to power, Will to power, Nietszche is evil' is being total dumb! If Neitszche believed everyone should indulge in the Will to Dominate, then he'd approve of religion, because that the what the weak do to themselves so they can dominate something.

In fact, Nietszche wants people to free themselves from this herd and live life. He wants the people to leave the will to dominate themselves. He wants them to take control of their own lives.

And his anti-traditionalism argument is also an anti-domination idea. Tradition is what dominates. It is what the elites have put in place. People must break through this according to Nietszche.

Nietzsche says there is an innate Will to Power, but it must be used correctly, and not wrong. Just like capitalist philosophers say greed must be used correctly and not wrongly.

Yes, it isn't for everyone, but to say that means Neitszche leads to totalitarianism, which is completely and utterly rails against when talking about the herd is just totally foolish to say.

Hitler had a grand, wonderful, Nietzschian omelette he thought up

You mean including a political philosophy based on making everyone sheep in the herd?

When FN says the powerful need to dominate and control, is it any surprize when someone like Hitler amasses power and does just that?

He kind of says EVERYONE needs to dominate and control, because it is inherant in everyone.

All are inseperable from the flawed philosophies they sprung from.

Like O.B. said, does that robber baron capitalism is inseperable from Adam Smith?

[Oncle Boris]

Imran:

Now I hope you'll stop arguing with him if he doesn't get it now. If he can't, he can't.

But then I have to... even though it is painful... to congratulate you on a job well done.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But then I have to... even though it is painful... to congratulate you on a job well done

Nice quip about the industrialists in the 18th Century, btw... and no, that wasn't painful at all .

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

I don't know how to slowly explain this to you so you get it. Nietzsche believes EVERYONE has a will to power, that every has a will to dominate. And this will to power creates PROBLEMS. Like GePap said, the will to power creates things like religion which Nietzsche hates. To simply go aroung saying 'Will to power, Will to power, Nietszche is evil' is being total dumb! If Neitszche believed everyone should indulge in the Will to Dominate, then he'd approve of religion, because that the what the weak do to themselves so they can dominate something.

In fact, Nietszche wants people to free themselves from this herd and live life. He wants the people to leave the will to dominate themselves. He wants them to take control of their own lives.

And his anti-traditionalism argument is also an anti-domination idea. Tradition is what dominates. It is what the elites have put in place. People must break through this according to Nietszche.

Nietzsche says there is an innate Will to Power, but it must be used correctly, and not wrong. Just like capitalist philosophers say greed must be used correctly and not wrongly.

Yes, it isn't for everyone, but to say that means Neitszche leads to totalitarianism, which is completely and utterly rails against when talking about the herd is just totally foolish to say.

He kind of says EVERYONE needs to dominate and control, because it is inherant in everyone.

Ok, speaking of people being "totally dumb" lets examine this ridiculous post of yours. You twice said that the will to power was for everyone and twice said it wasn't. Uh... what? I bolded your contradictory points in the quote above. Hopefully this will help you figure out your own twisted arguments. Hopefully you'll realize that you make no sense.

It makes no sense because no sense can be made of these arguments. If EVERYONE (as you emphatically put it) is charged to dominate and control, who the hell do you think they are going to dominate and control? You get mad when I suggest this world will create people who are dominated and controlled. It is absolute lunacy (no wonder Nietzsche was nuts) to suggest everyone should control others, and at the same time suggest no one should be controlled. This is impossible! It is a paradox.

[Berzerker]

OBoris -

Berzerker, when you ask me to provide these "contracts", you are showing your profound misunderstanding of the abstract level of Rousseau's works.

If you are going to claim people have a contract to hand you (and your state) their money to pay for a welfare system, then I'd like to see the contract and not some "abstraction". I'll take your answer as an admission no such contract exists and that makes what you (and Rousseau?) advocate plunder.

And also, your comments showed you missed the entire difference between possesion and property. One can possess his body, but does not own it.

Then who does?

In short:

That'll be a first

Rousseau, idealist tradition, abstract state of nature.
Hobbes, materialist tradition, historical state of nature.

Between all of this, one thing remains: Rousseau's thoughts on the nature of property and the real meaning of benefitting from your own work are brilliant. I'm not writing another 1500 words essay here, but put simply: you can benefit from all of your work, but only YOURS; in no way can you justify not giving someone at least what he would get in a state of nature.

But you don't advocate me benefitting from all my labor, you want a cut of my labor to pay for a welfare state. And in a state of nature, I'd still have only what I worked for while a welfare state seeks to benefit me for not working.

The only thing left for you: read Rousseau and think about it. And yes, I've put Bastiat on my short-term to read list.

Nah, I'm not into "abstractions" masquerading as contracts which are then used to "justify" plunder.

[Imran Siddiqui]

You twice said that the will to power was for everyone and twice said it wasn't.

ARGH! 'For' and 'part of' are two different things! Do you realize, say, that everyone is greedy and that it may not always be the best thing? FN realized that everyone is looking to dominate. Everyone is looking to gain power. FN wants people to use that INHERANT will to power for creative things, destroying the old traditions, which prevent people from living fully. If the traditions aren't destroyed the inate will to power will result in the weak trying to dominate themselves by denying themselves 'life' through religion, etc. and following what the herd thinks is the proper way to dominate one's self.

HOWEVER, FN'S WILL TO POWER isn't for everyone. Everyone cannot be supermen, because some people simply aren't creative enough. They aren't willing to leave their comfy spot in the herd. (ie, his Will to Power is a bit different from the innate Will to Power)

It is absolute lunacy (no wonder Nietzsche was nuts) to suggest everyone should control others, and at the same time suggest no one should be controlled.

One wonders if you actually pay attention to our arguments or just post whatever the Hell you feel like? The Will to Power is innate, just as self-interest is inate. However, the Will to Power should be used for creative roles, for betterment.

It's not everyone 'should' control others, it's that they can't do no other!

edit:

THIS may help:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche/

Above all, Nietzsche believes that living things aim to discharge their strength and express their "will to power" -- a pouring-out of expansive energy which, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks. As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank ranging from the noble to the plebeian: some moralities are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles; some are more suitable for subordinate roles. So what counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is strong, healthy, powerful and overflowing with ascending life, or whether one is weak, sick and on the decline.

[Oncle Boris]

Originally posted by Berzerker
OBoris -

At last something you got right.

If you are going to claim people have a contract to hand you (and your state) their money to pay for a welfare system, then I'd like to see the contract and not some "abstraction". I'll take your answer as an admission no such contract exists and that makes what you (and Rousseau?) advocate plunder.

That's the whole point. For people to tolerate someone else's property in the beginning, there had to be a contract. If there was no 'contract', then property in itself is a plunder, which is no better.
Put it another way: the law is a contract. There must have been some point where law did not exist. In the times prior to this, there was no property. So if property appeared with law, and that law is a contract, then property is.
Only possession- ie the physical state needed for your survival. Possession is an amoral state. Property is moral as it involves respect of a contract and consciousness. That's why animals only possess.

But you don't advocate me benefitting from all my labor, you want a cut of my labor to pay for a welfare state. And in a state of nature, I'd still have only what I worked for while a welfare state seeks to benefit me for not working.

I do. As in you can benefit from all the cherries you can pick up yourself. If you have someone else picking up cherries for you and that you are not paying him enough for his survival, you are breaching the conditions of the contract of property. He can then use force against you if he wishes to.

Nah, I'm not into "abstractions" masquerading as contracts which are then used to "justify" plunder.

I used to think just like you. I'm not saying 'follow blindly Rousseau's lessons'. Just read him and make your own mind. Rousseau is a brilliant man whose influence, in the French tradition, is comparable to Hobbes'. Both are dated, but both are unavoidable too. Bastiat is a minor thinker. Not that it implies he must be wrong; but deliberately ignoring Rousseau can only be detrimental to the overall quality of your philosophical culture.

Remember, too, I am not that good in English, and given that I am translating something I read in French a while ago, I may not be the man's best 'messenger'.

[Berzerker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

At last something you got right.

That's the whole point. For people to tolerate someone else's property in the beginning, there had to be a contract. If there was no 'contract', then property in itself is a plunder, which is no better.

Why does my dis-respect for your property mean you plundered me to obtain your property? You're making a leap there that is illogical...

Put it another way: the law is a contract. There must have been some point where law did not exist. In the times prior to this, there was no property. So if property appeared with law, and that law is a contract, then property is.

Law = contract, no law = no contract (ignoring the fact that for most of human history autocrats were the law). How did you fit property in there? Property didn't appear with law, it preceded law. Property appeared the first time some guy built a hut on uninhabited land. Property appeared the first time some guy picked up a stick or rock and fashioned it into a tool.

Only possession- ie the physical state needed for your survival.

That does not compute. I don't need my computer to survive but I still count it as a possession/property. Now, there is a minor difference between the two, property conotes ownership whereas possession doesn't require it; e.g., I can possess a baseball during a game without actually owning it. But for this discussion, the two are synonymous.

Possession is an amoral state. Property is moral as it involves respect of a contract and consciousness. That's why animals only possess.

Possessions can be moral or immoral when people are involved just as property (because they are synonymous), but not amoral. Animals are not relevant to the discussion...

Property - 1 a : a quality or trait belonging and especially peculiar to an individual or thing b : an effect that an object has on another object or on the senses c : VIRTUE 3 d : an attribute common to all members of a class
2 a : something owned or possessed; specifically : a piece of real estate b : the exclusive right to possess, enjoy, and dispose of a thing : OWNERSHIP c : something to which a person or business has a legal title d : one (as a performer) under contract whose work is especially valuable.

Synonyms - Synonyms ownership, dominion, possession, possessorship, proprietary, proprietorship.

I do. As in you can benefit from all the cherries you can pick up yourself. If you have someone else picking up cherries for you and that you are not paying him enough for his survival, you are breaching the conditions of the contract of property. He can then use force against you if he wishes to.

Why can he use force? I'm not forcing him to pick cherries. If he doesn't think I'm paying enough, he can stop picking cherries for me or negotiate for more pay.

I used to think just like you. I'm not saying 'follow blindly Rousseau's lessons'. Just read him and make your own mind. Rousseau is a brilliant man whose influence, in the French tradition, is comparable to Hobbes'. Both are dated, but both are unavoidable too. Bastiat is a minor thinker. Not that it implies he must be wrong; but deliberately ignoring Rousseau can only be detrimental to the overall quality of your philosophical culture.

I don't need to read Rousseau, I've been reading your posts. The reason Bastiat is a "minor" thinker is because he is in a small minority who believe plunder is plunder even if it's "legal". If the popularity of a message makes one a major or minor thinker, then some of the greatest thinkers the world has seen were mass murderers.

[BeBro]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As he views things from the perspective of life, he further denies that there is a universal morality applicable indiscriminately to all human beings, and instead designates a series of moralities in an order of rank ranging from the noble to the plebeian: some moralities are more appropriate for dominating and leading social roles; some are more suitable for subordinate roles. So what counts as a preferable and legitimate action depends upon the kind of person one is. The deciding factor is whether one is strong, healthy, powerful and overflowing with ascending life, or whether one is weak, sick and on the decline.[/q]

I still think he´s wrong

[GePap]

OzzyKP:

Let me try to lay out the problem with your annalysis this way:

Why did Hilter do what he did? You may say he did it out of a whish to create a new German race and some new Reich, thus meeting the criteria of a creator- but why did HItler want to create? Was it s simple whim? Was it becuase he had pride in Germany and wanted to make an even better one?

NO, he was doing it out of fear, out of humiliation, out of hate. He was trying to overcome those forces he saw as greater- if the German race is so powerful, how on earth could the "Jew" dominate them? If they are so grand, the highest peak of creation and power- why do they need to fear Jews? Why lash out against them? As I, and agathon have said, Nietzsche viewed cruelty and punishement as the reserve of the weak, NOT the strong. The strong need not punish- for he knows the weak can not hurt him, so why waste his time?

Hitler and his Nazi movement is driven out of the bases elements of the slave morality- a bunch of weak, disgraced, angry men lashing out at their percieved persecutors. They could not possibly be overmen, nor could they possibly create an overmen. What model would these pathetic men use to create better men, but their own twisted views of what the strong should be? But they were not strong thmselves (not internally, in spirit), so they woul make a flawed model.

And what they were trying to create was an abomination that would subjugate the will to power of the indviduals into one single will, but a will not based on the whish to create, but at best-subjugate in the same old slave mentality.

For all the trappings of Nazi strength-the base mentality is one of fear, one of weakness. A strong German race would have zip to fear from anyone else- so why would they need to politically dominate? And enemy would undoubtledly be defeated if they struck, so why bother? The great hero savors and honors his greatest enemy for only this eneycould give them a fight worthy of their skill- he does not revile this enemy and attempt to exterminate.

For this simple reason Nietzsche personally would never have acepted or espoused something like Nazism.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I still think he´s wrong

That's fine . As long as you understand the arguments correctly and believe he is wrong, I won't begrudge you to accept Nietzsche. But he is a very eye-opening philosopher. This will to power stuff is ok, but what I really find interesting is his ruminations on if there is one 'truth'.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

As in you can benefit from all the cherries you can pick up yourself. If you have someone else picking up cherries for you and that you are not paying him enough for his survival, you are breaching the conditions of the contract of property. He can then use force against you if he wishes to.

THE PARABLE OF THE FIELD

The farmer ascends the platform followed closely by an armed Communist Party member carrying a red flag. "Comrades," the farmer begins, "I have been asked by the party to raise the minimum wage I pay you for harvesting my field. I am told that paying $10 a day for harvesting is not enough and that you need more to provide a decent living for yourself and for your family. Let me tell you what I propose to do. I propose to split the harvest with you 50-50. Each one of you on the average harvests $100 worth of crops per day. Thus each of you should be able to make $50 on your portion of the harvest. Congratulations, each of you shall soon be rich!"

The assembled field workers gave up a mighty cheer and soon flooded into the fields to the work. At the end of the day they returned to split their harvest with the farmer and to sell their half to the merchants. Because of their eagerness, virtually all the field workers harvested far more than $100 worth of crops. Many harvested as much as $200 worth. The field workers went home that night with as much as $100 in their pockets, and their wives and children rejoiced.

But near the end of the day, a guilty looking field worker approached with nothing in his basket to share with the farmer. The farmer asked, "What happened? Why you have you brought me no crops to share?"

The field worker replied, "I fell asleep under a shady oak tree and only now woke up."

The farmer said, " Then you should go home with nothing today."

The worker cried out, " But how can I feed my family? You should at least pay me my $10 wages that I would have gotten for reporting the work and going into the field."

The farmer shook his head no. The field worker then turned to the Communist party number standing next to the farmer and pleaded with tears, "Help me! Help Me!" He said. "We all need a living wage. We all need to support our families. Help! Help!"

The Communist Party member pulled his gun, turned to the farmer and said, "I warned you that you needed to pay you field workers more, and that each should be paid a living wage. You have ignored my orders. Now you shall die, you filthy running-dog capitalist landlord."

And with that, the Communist Party member pulled the trigger. The farmer fell dead, a victim of his own greed.

[Harry Tuttle]

I love Communists. They help me reaffirm how right my beliefs are every day. By their logic:

1) If I don't share the benefits of my hard work I am evil and therefore invite violence.

2) Because I have worked harder for something I must give it up.

3) A is not A. In fact it is B, C, D, and possibly purple.

4) There are no such things as trade or free will.

5) Everything earned is plundered.

6) I must give/sell/loan something to someone because they think it is their right to have what I have.

7) Decisions are best not left up to the people, but to others who know what the people need.

8) Logical statements are only based on my sense of logic. Your so-called definitions and scientific fact are only an interpretation of your general world outlook of what is reality.

9) You have declared that I am wrong. I will now resort to swearing, screaming, performing a raving tantrum, and then declaring you are an imperialist pig bent on owning what I have.

10) You give two craps about what I say and what I own.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Harry Tuttle

1) If I don't share the benefits of my hard work I am evil and therefore invite violence.

Didn't you watch Sesame Street? Co-operation works.

2) Because I have worked harder for something I must give it up.

That's what capitalism does. It does not recognize the value of your labour and alienates you from what you produce.

3) A is not A. In fact it is B, C, D, and possibly purple.

People disagree with Rand about this for reasons that have nothing to do with communism and everything to do with her inadequate grasp of logic.

4) There are no such things as trade or free will.

Eh? Free will is a problematic idea, not just for Communists.

5) Everything earned is plundered.

No.

6) I must give/sell/loan something to someone because they think it is their right to have what I have.

No. Only if it is in fact their right.

7) Decisions are best not left up to the people, but to others who know what the people need.

All governments do that to some extent.

8) Logical statements are only based on my sense of logic. Your so-called definitions and scientific fact are only an interpretation of your general world outlook of what is reality.

No/

9) You have declared that I am wrong. I will now resort to swearing, screaming, performing a raving tantrum, and then declaring you are an imperialist pig bent on owning what I have.

And communists are the only people guilty of this sort of thing.

10) You give two craps about what I say and what I own.

[Harry Tuttle]

Originally posted by Agathon

See #9

[Kuciwalker]

That's what capitalism does. It does not recognize the value of your labour and alienates you from what you produce.

Explain how being allowed to keep what I make with my labor doesn't recognize te value of my labor...

[Harry Tuttle]

and Big Bird never seived Ernie's rubber ducky and reapportioned it out to Elmo.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by skywalker
Explain how being allowed to keep what I make with my labor doesn't recognize te value of my labor...

But you don't keep it. Your boss takes it.

[Imran Siddiqui]

But you've agreed with your Boss to keep that certain amount. Unless you want to create your own car factory, and I doubt that is even an option.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Sandman
But you don't keep it. Your boss takes it.

Only if you LET HIM. Or would you say "ok, I'm not going to let you give stuff to your boss"?

[Agathon]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

That's what capitalism does. It does not recognize the value of your labour and alienates you from what you produce.

Explain how being allowed to keep what I make with my labor doesn't recognize te value of my labor...

Say in a firm everyone works equally hard to produce a good. But the firm is owned by some person who inherited it and does no work at all.

The people who do the work receive as much as they can bargain for, usually not much, and the lazy good for nothing owner makes all the money. That's a problem with capitalism, it encourages this sort of behaviour since it's end is to place yourself in a position to receive but not work.

Given that about 2/3 of high wealth is inherited and because once you have a lot of money it is hard to lose it unless you are completely stupid or very unlucky, capitalism rewards indolence.

It's funny how people complain about the pittance that they have to pay welfare bums, when worthless drug addict rich kids are living off their backs.

[Agathon]

Moreover capitalism values human life only as a commodity, labour. As such it is immoral. Human beings are to be treated as ends in themselves not commodities. The market system compels people to sell themselves because all the other goods are already owned.

Locke has an interesting variant on capitalism in that he believes that everyone must be compelled to leave some property commonly available so that new arrivals can make their own way in the world. Of course he lived in a world where a surplus was freely available if one took it from natives or other un-persons.

Has anyone seen Far and Away? There's a repugnant land grab scene in that which one set of victims of capitalism grab up land stolen from other victims of it.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
But you've agreed with your Boss to keep that certain amount. Unless you want to create your own car factory, and I doubt that is even an option.

Yes, but if the alternative is to starve then you aren't really free to disagree.

Freedom to starve is not a freedom worth fighting for or defending. The world does not naturally belong to anyone, property rights are a cultural fiction which we are free to change.

This land is my land, this land is your land. - well spoken by a real American Communist.

[DAVOUT]

But the firm is owned by some person who inherited it and does no work at all.

The people who do the work receive as much as they can bargain for, usually not much, and the lazy good for nothing owner makes all the money. That's a problem with capitalism, it encourages this sort of behaviour since it's end is to place yourself in a position to receive but not work.

You are obsessed by this idea which seems to summarize all your understanding of the economy. Running a business is not as simple as you believe, and distributing from the first day all the income to the workers would always results in a quick failure. Coop business always fail because they never anticipate the future need of cash for investments, or unexpected events, or slowdown.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

Coop business always fail because they never anticipate the future need of cash for investments, or unexpected events, or
slowdown.

Really? Always fail? I don't think so.

It's not an economic point, it's a moral point - about desert and reward.

Think again.

[DAVOUT]

Originally posted by Agathon


Really? Always fail? I don't think so.

It's not an economic point, it's a moral point - about desert and reward.

Think again.

I am so sorry, I should not have entered a philosophical debate.

You have all right to affirm ideas in total contradiction with reality. I was just referring to actual experiences which have sadly demonstrated my statement. All coop and mutuals have been wiped out or taken over in the last 20 years, not only in continental Europe.

[Agathon]

Originally posted by DAVOUT

I am so sorry, I should not have entered a philosophical debate.

You have all right to affirm ideas in total contradiction with reality. I was just referring to actual experiences which have sadly demonstrated my statement. All coop and mutuals have been wiped out or taken over in the last 20 years, not only in continental Europe.

With all due respect, you should have followed the debate instead of just leaping in. And in my experience people that talk about ideas being in "contradiction with reality" are usually those who have run out of them. And using universal quantifiers (like always) in empirical statements about the social sciences is for the most part to be avoided since they are not "hard" sciences.

What's being talked about is the moral basis of the system of goods distribution. Some people (like Objectivists and Libertarians) think that the free market system is an inherently moral system, others (virtualyl everyone else with a distinct position) do not. That is a philosophical question, not an economic question.

The questions of desert are prior to the questions of how we are to achieve as close to that as is practically feasible. You are taking a position on pragmatics, rather than fundamentals or, to use, colloquial terms, you are putting the cart before the horse.

[DAVOUT]

I reiterate, more deeply, my apologies.

As an extremely poor excuse, I would like to mention that I was induced to participate by your sentence

the lazy good for nothing owner makes all the money.

which I wrongly understood as referring to the reality, when it was obviously a deep philosophical assumption, probably located in the cart (or am I wrong again?)

[Elok]

I will not post WHY I dislike Nietzsche at the moment, because I have reason to believe that I am seriously hammered. But he's on my no-list too.

[Berzerker]

That's a problem with capitalism, it encourages this sort of behaviour since it's end is to place yourself in a position to receive but not work.

Gee, that sounds like a welfare state where some sit on their butts only to be supported by those who do work.