@NecromanticSin,
NecromanticSin;118028 wrote:any philosophers you can suggest otherwise?
I like Kant, and Schopenhaur in that age, Heidegger for helping me understand Kant...I even appreciate Nietzsche who made an issue of the fact, contrary to the enlightenment philosophers that people are not especially reasonable, but he was not alone in this...Baudelaire, Dostoyevsky, even Poe, in America were painting a picture, in a sense, as Van Gogh was in fact, of human perception and motivation beyond the frame of the rational...
As I heard for the first time in regard to ironwork, Those who can do do, and those who can't do teach... Nietzsche was a guy who could not do, and yet he offered no end of advice in regard to women as if one who knew...That too was hypocritical, but typical of sons raised by their mothers, who often hold women in contempt...
Philosophy is easy... Maintaining a normal adult relationship with a spouse for life is impossible, which means, very difficult... I don't mean to take this thread off track... I mean to say that the object of philosophy is somthing like normal, healthy social, or romantic relationships (the good life), and some success there qualifies anyone as a philosopher in my book... How does anyone tell anyone anything about life if the better part of life is unknown to them???
I wouldn't go to a skid row bum for marriage counciling, and I can't go to Nietzsche for anything...
---------- Post added 01-07-2010 at 07:44 AM ----------
Arjuna;118046 wrote:In the quote in the OP Nietzche says he hoped for some experiments in socialism so as to see how in it, life cuts itself off from its roots.
I think he made the same mistake rightist usually do about socialism: to imagine that there's any choice regarding it. The existence of socialism in our world, including the US, is not by choice. It's simply because unrestrained greed will reduce a society to a desperate wasteland that isn't worth living in... which is exactly what the European aristocracy predicted would happen with capitalism.
So yes: it does cut life off from its roots... in as far as one of the roots of life is greed.
Primitives were communistic out of necessity... We are very socialistic, but it is the socialism of poverty, which maximizes profits for a few...The real danger for us is anarchy...Look at the trillions of dallars of infrastructure built to serve factories that have packed up an moved to some other state, or country...No one can maintain it without a tax base, so there it deteriorates...For the capitalist, having fifty states means having the state of their dreams...Socialism is no more than the government of business, and the means of production....Since capital ungoverned governs all our lives, and to keep enterprise free we must shackle people, how can anyone accuse socialism of cutting life from its roots...The root of humanity is socialism...Law which is entirely given to the protection of inequality captured by legal theft, is the enemy of every community...Law turns all people into individuals, and without their common defense of rights they find themselves victims...But that was Nietzsche's ideal world...