Kyberean wrote:
> detect. At the level of the mind and the spirit,
> however--and that is what is at issue here--there
> are vastly more differences than there are
> similarities.
This is metaphysical mumbo-jumbo. I'm no egalitarian, but a great deal of philosophy is like religion: it's for flattering the ego or mental gymnastics, not for arriving at the truth.
> Pace the equally misnamed
> Enlightenment, which seems to be where this
> particular species of idiocy took firm root, the
> common term human is utterly inadequate to
> encompass these differences.
The term does the job it's intended for.
> Neither do I overestimate the capacities of the
> so-called human race; rather the opposite. I
> believe that the majority of those who identify so
> strongly with the term human are unconscious
> automata, mere reactive creatures that are,
> without external direction, capable of very
> little.
I don't think the average unconscious automaton (whatever "unconscious" means) identifies strongly with the term "human". These questions simply don't occur to them.
> I also know, however, that there are
> exceptions among them, and that such general
> proclamations of "universal human weakness",
> although perhaps flattering to the particular weak
> person who, seeking solace and company, utters
> them, are utterly unfounded.
Does Nietzsche ever appeal to women? This obsession with "strength" and "weakness" smacks of a male inferiority complex. We are all weak and transient in the face of the universe, as CAS recognized. Humans can only feel strong in relation to those creatures or things with little power, i.e. other humans, animals, certain aspects of the environment.
> Speaking of exceptions, I should add that I find
> both compelling and quite plausible Nietzsche's
> concept of the Uebermensch, or Superhuman. The
> Superhuman does not represent a full flowering of
> humanity, such that one would be justified in
> accusing Nietzsche of humanism.
Heaven forfend. H.G. Wells has a good line here in
Food of the Gods:
Quote:...it is easier to hate animate than inanimate things, animals more than plants, and one's fellow-men more completely than any animals.
But by hating or despising them, we demonstrate their power over us and our inability to escape our evolved psychology.
> To the contrary:
> The Superhuman bears as much relation to humanity
> as humanity does to the ape. The Superhuman is
> alien, terrifying, and, if it should ever appear,
> it would likely prey upon, and perhaps even
> eliminate, humanity proper.
Then it would be subhuman, not superhuman.
> As Nietzsche states,
> (I am quoting from memory here), "What is the ape
> to man? A laughingstock. What will man be to the
> Superhuman? A laughingstock".
Is that your attitude to apes? Why laugh at something for being what it naturally is? Laughter is very often the product of ignorance and secret fear.
> Granted, the
> Superhuman is merely a disquieting spectre lurking
> at the horizon of humanoid evolution, but it lurks
> there, nonetheless.
As a power fantasy.
> Quote:that share the attribute of "curiosity"
> with most other animals, notably obvious for
> example in dogs, fishes. Natural science studies
> over the last few hundred years have made us
> arrogant in belief of mankind's own selfimagined
> super brilliance.
>
> I think that what has actually happened is that
> most humans now practice what psychologists call
> "basking in reflected glory". They take credit for
> the acts of a comparatively small group of
> creative and powerful artists, scientists,
> warriors, scholars, and statesmen, and then
> grossly and incorrectly attribute these
> achievements to the race as a whole.
Flowers need roots and leaves, but again I think you're attributing thoughts and feelings to the average person that he or she simply doesn't have. Celebrities and power-units like sports teams are far more important to them than "great men".
> Quote:Some individuals are more intelligent than
> others too, but from a little larger perspective,
> just shortly removed away from mankind, these
> differences are only marginal.
>
> I could not possibly disagree with you more. The
> difference in intelligence and in innumerable
> other qualities, between, say, a Lovecraft or a
> Clark Ashton Smith and the average crack house
> inhabitant is far from "marginal".
All of them are the products of forces beyond their control, and no virtue attaches to HPL's and CAS's superiority, where they are in fact superior.
I can't see anything Nietzschean in CAS, but I can in REH, where I'd diagnose it as a reaction to being bullied as a child. CAS didn't fear his own weakness like that and didn't worship his own ego and self, because he had the Buddhist (or Humean) understanding that it didn't truly exist.
Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 29 Nov 05 | 06:34PM by Ghoti23.