From: "Juan Cruz" <juancarloscruz-AT-hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Freddy My Love Date: Wed, 19 Jul 2000 17:48:29 GMT well, even Nietzsche and even Jesus Christ said that whoever wants to do something has to let go of other things. What I am trying to say is that Nietzsche was such and avid reader, that reading and studying so much sucked most of his calories/energies which he didn't have for other activities. In other words, regular popular guys who follow a normal life, engage, get married have kids, etc. do not engage themselves or do not let themeselves get overwhelmed by so much work/studying or any other hobbie. Nietzsche lived, ate and digested books, so maybe (I am not sure) it's just a hypothesis, maybe again mabye that is one of the reasons why most great thinkers and great men do not fall in love deeply. etc. >From: "Chand B. Rangwani" <orpheus-AT-india.crosswinds.net> >Reply-To: nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >To: nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu >Subject: Freddy My Love >Date: 19 Jul 100 10:00:17 +0500 > >Have been wondering about old Freddy's attitude towards love. I know he >would have liked to be in love, because he wrote lyrically of ice cream in >his letters! And he loved the love poesy of Rilke and Hoelderin so much. > >I think he had a simplistic notion which saw eros, agape and philia as the >same. For Zarathustra I think love was inculcating self-improvement in the >other. "For what does he know of love who has not been obliged to despise >just what he loved." > >This is quite the same as the early aesthetic Kierkegaard for whom the >purpose of love was to make the other more interesting, more like oneself, >more for oneself, because as K said, he was too intelligent, too >existentially bored (anomie) by the common love of women. > >In this I feel, both were short-sighted. In their lives, both would react >to a person's shortcomings and walk away instead of accepting them as >equals and then working towards mutual support. To free oneself from chains >is one thing, but to free oneself from freedom is quite another! Nz warned >us about the vanity of the liberated, but I think he succumbed to the same >in his own life. No one was good enough! > >The basic premise of eros is to start with the notion that the other is >equal, worthy. Romanticism worked in the 12th c because the socially >oppressed women were treated as equals by their lovers. But look at Freddy. >He writes: "You have not the remotest conception of what it means to be >closely related to the man and to the destiny in whom the question of >millenia has been decided - I hold, quite literally, the future of mankind >in my hand." > >Love entails the strength to accept and then love something which is not >part of us and can probably never be. Like de Beauvoir puts it: "It is only >as something strange, forbidden, as something free, that the other is >revealed as an other. And to love him genuinely is to love him in his >otherness and in that freedom by which he escapes. empathy at its best >preserves, yet seeks to know the `strangeness', respects the boundary >between self and the other that the `forbiddenness affirms, does not seek >to assimilate or obliterate the freedom." > >On that count, which sounds pretty good to me, I think the entire edifice >of Nz's thought would collapse. For what would loving oneself - truly, >deeply (and not egoistically as Nz'eans are wont to do) imply then? That if >you have Nz'ean strength, you would love everyone, apply Nz's perspectivism >to other people's way of living. So why do Nz and his disciples always seem >so full of hatred, of judgmentality? And could anyone clarify (with a >little creativity) how a typical Nietzschean romance would go! > > > > > > --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu --- > ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com --- from list nietzsche-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---
Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005