Clothes what - Page 11

that probably comes with like 500 pages of reading in a translated text. I don't know if N would call them ubermensches or not but there have been many geniuses recognized by N throughout his work, Goethe, Napoleon, Dostoevsky, some roman dudes I forgot the name of, I think Horace was one, and then some more obvious ones, Beethoven, Homer, Caesar etc, lots more.

On August 31 2010 19:59 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On August 31 2010 17:57 zulu_nation8 wrote: - The concept of Ubermensch itself honestly doesn't matter that much. It's basically a metaphor that embodies many recurrent N themes; importance of the agonal instinct, creating new values to replace old ones, etc.. this. I think it's impossible to understand most of the book if you haven't read any previous N work. In fact that's probably the only reason that copies of the book where given as gifts to German soldiers during WWI Loco, distance from others is indeed essential for N in order to have the flourishing of exceptional people (the bridge to the Übermensch---> humanity's new and life affirming goal, after the death of god). I don't see why this sort of distance is something that should be viewed as wrong by default,as I assume that you imply here   On August 31 2010 11:34 Loco wrote: So far I have not been impressed with his idea of the Ubermensch, which as Cioran has put, is naive, and could only come to life from someone observing men from a distance rather than living with them, and if there has been anything close to it in reality it has been Marcus Aurelius. I'm also curious about why Cioran found the whole theme naive

He talks about it in 'The Trouble With Being Born', I have the book in French though so I will try to translate as best as I can.

"To a student who wanted to know where I was at in relation to the author of Zarathustra, I responded that I had stopped practicing it a long time ago. Why? He asked. Because I find him to be too naive...

I reproach him his enthusiasm and up to his fervor. He only destroyed ideals to replace them for others. A fake iconoclast, with sides of an adolescent, and a virginity I don't know, what innocence, inherent to his career of solitude. He has only observed men from a distance. Had he watched them from close up, never would he have been able to conceive nor laud the overman, loony vision, laughable, if not grotesque, chimeric or whimsical that could only surge from the mind of someone who hadn't had the time to grow old, to know detachment, the long serene disgust.

Much closer to me is a Marcus Aurelius. No hesitation from me between the lyricism of frenzy and the prone of acceptation: I find more solace, and even more hope, next to a weary emperor than next to a dazzling prophet. "

My favorite artist and philosopher Austin Osman Spare was of a similar opinion. He claimed that the Greek Pantheism created the greatest men, "nearest yet to the Ideal State, (whatever its drawbacks)", and that the Superman died with them.

To be clear, the Stoics believed we were social animals and we had a duty toward others, they were against distancing oneself from the world. This is why I have preferred them to Buddhists or Hindus for example. They are concerned with their own personal salvation, it is a selfish act, while the Stoics were first and foremost humanists and they would never consider that, they would be more apt to say that if there is a salvation it is through mankind. The Stoic didn't need to retreat in his monastery to practice his philosophy and work towards becoming a sage, he did it while facing adversity and smiling at whatever 'bad' things happened to him. Maximus from the movie Gladiator when being sent to his death and reciting a Marcus Aurelius saying comes to mind.

he doesnt really explain why

On August 28 2010 19:27 zulu_nation8 wrote: Show nested quote + On August 28 2010 19:10 Baal wrote:   On August 28 2010 16:35 zulu_nation8 wrote: I gave those examples to show people do stuff for a variety of reasons, the examples aren't meant to be taken literally. I also don't understand how following fashion is irrational? I just showed you some hypothetical reasons. Iop didn't explain very well why he spends a lot of money on clothes, his hobby certainly extends beyond mere function. But in response you and Loco basically called him a shallow, materialistic person for liking clothes. Maybe a bit too harsh? (I know he attacked you personally) Just because someone buys a $100+ pair of jeans doesn't mean his self-worth revolves around material possessions. People get disposable income, some like to buy shit with it. Who cares? following fashion is irrational, it serves no purpose but to segregate people who dont (fit in a social circle) as i stated earlier fashion is clearly not about pure aesthetics since its whimsy and what is hideous today will be great in 1 year. It is just like jewerly it serves not purpose but to show off wealth, class etc. maybe the purpose it serves them doesn't agree with your values. Irrational isn't the right word, their purpose merely follow a different kind of rationality. That's not to say humans do shit for the fuck of it all the time, maybe someone does like fashion just for the fuck of it. But usually people do have reasons for hobbies People sometimes buy jewelery just to look good or maybe even as an investment, etc. Just because someone views life different than you doesn't make it less right.

They dont agree with my values because most of my values are based on rationality (not indoctrinated by culture as u said previously), there is no such thing as different rationality, reason is one if this is not true then give me a reasonable explanation why people choose to wear jewelry?

And dont give me the reason of this one lonely man in burma who once had a golden ring, i mean society as a whole why do society desire jewelry by any other reason that is not to show off wealth...

Your previous argument as investment is irrational because you like to keep investments in a safe place, not carry them around increasing the chances of being stolen

jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value.

On September 01 2010 06:12 byrnesam wrote: jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value.

What? im not talking about the golden ring of your dead grand grand mother, i mean what you can buy right now in Tiffany Co.

On September 01 2010 07:30 Baal wrote: Show nested quote + On September 01 2010 06:12 byrnesam wrote: jewellery can hold sentimental value for the holder and is a lot less intrusive than other effects that may carry the same value. What? im not talking about the golden ring of your dead grand grand mother, i mean what you can buy right now in Tiffany Co.

The ring your great grand mother wore was once just a ring in a shop.