Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 23:57:28 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Fwd REDUX: On Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.02.13


--0-1068835663-1029826648=:57485


 
 davesgirlkay wrote:
To: Philosophy-Ancient-AT-yahoogroups.com
From: "davesgirlkay" 
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:31:41 -0000
Subject: [Philosophy-Ancient] Re: Fwd: On Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.02.13

KIM (Srinifuji):

some questions here - 

1. I think its more than 'group-mindedness' he attacks... 

GARY C MOORE:

That may well be a better word except I am saying that all groups are is just "group-mindedness", that there is no objective reality to them other than in each person's mind. And even here saying "each person's mind" must be seen as problematic because there is no way I can know what is in "each person,' much less whether or what kind of mind they or you have. I just have (your) words! And 'words' are never and nowhere near the full context of your living 'mind'.

KIM (Srinifuji):

. . . rather of an inherent Judaeo-Christian Morality...

GARY C MOORE:

As I'm sure you know that is what Nietzsche has written whole books attacking.

KIM (Srinifuji):

Also, do you not think that N.'s views are an exposition of his reflections on Feminine 
Morality, else why compare truth to woman in the first place?)

GARY C MOORE:

Good point! And it gives me a chance to more fully say what I think Nietzsche is saying. I described the typical view of woman behind, but not necessarily constituting, Nietzsche's remark as, "So when he says, Truth is a woman, he certainly is saying that truth is wilely, secretive, beguiling, and deceitful like a woman is suppose to be", is this not ALSO EXACTLY the nature of Nietzsche's irony and satire? Is he not exactly "wilely, secretive, beguiling, and deceitful"? In essence, what he is saying is, "I am lying, and you are just going to have to go find the 'truth'of things for yourself!"


KIM (Srinifuji):
2. 'You can never oppose "society" because there is no such 'thing'.'
That is a brilliant view; but from a Nietzschean perspective (i.e. 
ackowledging Nietzsche's own statement that his phil. is for the few),
does not society constitute a common Morality, for which reason N. 
coined the term - "herd Morality" ? Does not his phil. of "a Yes, a 
No, a straight line and a goal" imply a double affirmation - 
affirming the Yes that one embraces and the No that one opposes? 
Therefore, that all things are Necessary when seen from a Height to 
PRESERVE the antagonism, rather than to harmonize them?

GARY C MOORE:

You are right as long as you keep in mind that there are two 'herds': 1) the dearly held concept of the 'many' (which can only be one person and one person and . . .) that the "herd" is an objective reality opponents much fearfully deal with, and 2) the real 'herd' which is only one small individual's ideal of himself as powerful through joining with others. There is no such objective reality as "joining." It is just an empty word.

KIM (Srinifuji):

3. Does the basic difference between Nietzsche and Aristotle then 
rest in the context of Necessity?

GARY C MOORE:

You might say the difference is that Nietzsche wants to destroy all rules, supposedly for a "transvaluation of all values" -- but that in actuality kind of contradicts his whole project doesn't it if all he wants to do is institute another, his, set of rules? -- whereas Aristotle says we much live with and make more consistent the sets of rules we find we are born into.

KIM (Srinifuji):

I hope I was 
not out of line Sir, asking you of those Holderlin fragments?

GARY C MOORE:

Not at all. I actually need somehow to get back to it and maybe you have pushed me in that direction. But please don't call me sir. When I was in the Army, the sargeant, when new recrutes called him "SIR!" ( and all sargeants do this!), always screamed in utter fury, "DON"T CALL ME SIR!" They did NOT like officers, and for VERY good reasons.


'Sincerely'

Gary C. Moore



---------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
HotJobs, a Yahoo! service - Search Thousands of New Jobs
--0-1068835663-1029826648=:57485

HTML VERSION:

 davesgirlkay wrote:

To: Philosophy-Ancient-AT-yahoogroups.com
From: "davesgirlkay"
Date: Mon, 19 Aug 2002 20:31:41 -0000
Subject: [Philosophy-Ancient] Re: Fwd: On Bryn Mawr Classical Review 04.02.13

KIM (Srinifuji):

some questions here -

1. I think its more than 'group-mindedness' he attacks...

GARY C MOORE:

That may well be a better word except I am saying that all groups are is just "group-mindedness", that there is no objective reality to them other than in each person's mind. And even here saying "each person's mind" must be seen as problematic because there is no way I can know what is in "each person,' much less whether or what kind of mind they or you have. I just have (your) words! And 'words' are never and nowhere near the full context of your living 'mind'.

KIM (Srinifuji):

. . . rather of an inherent Judaeo-Christian Morality...

GARY C MOORE:

As I'm sure you know that is what Nietzsche has written whole books attacking.

KIM (Srinifuji):

Also, do you not think that N.'s views are an exposition of his reflections on Feminine
Morality, else why compare truth to woman in the first place?)

GARY C MOORE:

Good point! And it gives me a chance to more fully say what I think Nietzsche is saying. I described the typical view of woman behind, but not necessarily constituting, Nietzsche's remark as, "So when he says, Truth is a woman, he certainly is saying that truth is wilely, secretive, beguiling, and deceitful like a woman is suppose to be", is this not ALSO EXACTLY the nature of Nietzsche's irony and satire? Is he not exactly "wilely, secretive, beguiling, and deceitful"? In essence, what he is saying is, "I am lying, and you are just going to have to go find the 'truth'of things for yourself!"

KIM (Srinifuji):
2. 'You can never oppose "society" because there is no such 'thing'.'
That is a brilliant view; but from a Nietzschean perspective (i.e.
ackowledging Nietzsche's own statement that his phil. is for the few),
does not society constitute a common Morality, for which reason N.
coined the term - "herd Morality" ? Does not his phil. of "a Yes, a
No, a straight line and a goal" imply a double affirmation -
affirming the Yes that one embraces and the No that one opposes?
Therefore, that all things are Necessary when seen from a Height to
PRESERVE the antagonism, rather than to harmonize them?

GARY C MOORE:

You are right as long as you keep in mind that there are two 'herds': 1) the dearly held concept of the 'many' (which can only be one person and one person and . . .) that the "herd" is an objective reality opponents much fearfully deal with, and 2) the real 'herd' which is only one small individual's ideal of himself as powerful through joining with others. There is no such objective reality as "joining." It is just an empty word.

KIM (Srinifuji):

3. Does the basic difference between Nietzsche and Aristotle then
rest in the context of Necessity?

GARY C MOORE:

You might say the difference is that Nietzsche wants to destroy all rules, supposedly for a "transvaluation of all values" -- but that in actuality kind of contradicts his whole project doesn't it if all he wants to do is institute another, his, set of rules? -- whereas Aristotle says we much live with and make more consistent the sets of rules we find we are born into.

KIM (Srinifuji):

I hope I was
not out of line Sir, asking you of those Holderlin fragments?

GARY C MOORE:

Not at all. I actually need somehow to get back to it and maybe you have pushed me in that direction. But please don't call me sir. When I was in the Army, the sargeant, when new recrutes called him "SIR!" ( and all sargeants do this!), always screamed in utter fury, "DON"T CALL ME SIR!" They did NOT like officers, and for VERY good reasons.

'Sincerely'

Gary C. Moore