Zarathustra
Let Go Of Your Team
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2009
- Messages
- 8,110
^okay fine my statement is not necessarily true. you win the logic war.
seriously. you do.
I just didn't want to have the logic war. I wanted to get a point across that was pretty damn simple. If you didn't focus on the fact that it isn't necessarily true in every single case, you would have understood what I meant fine.
I guess I got all pissed off because it seemed like you were sitting there refreshing until you could find a post with some wording you can find a logical flaw with. Well, that's great, and I'm sure you can prove your points that way...but you miss the substance of other people's opinions and ideas by throwing out 95% of what they mean.
You don't seem like a stupid guy, and I guess it just seemed childish to me that you chose not to spend a bit of mental energy intuiting the meaning I was trying to convey.
The issue was not that I didn't understand what you were trying to say, it was that I found tons of problems (or possibly just one major problem) with your construction.
I wasn't just nitpicking.
I genuinely don't think it's fair to say that our morals are completely defined by external factors, nor, to a lesser degree of acuteness, that our morals are so determined by external factors that we should deem "independent morality" a contradiction in terms.
That's all... and I don't think it's at all an unfair point to make...
I think any truly intelligent person would want to be wary of closing their mind regarding that assumption.
You seem like an intelligent guy to me, and, as such, I genuinely believed you were walking down a path that you ought to reconsider.
My original point before getting sidetracked was that I found it odd that people were acting as if whether or not a person is an ubermensch was so completely binary. Nothing in anyone's explanation gave me any reason to believe it wouldn't just be a spectrum. So, can't this thread just be boiled down to "people that are beyond some arbitrary threshold in the multidimensional space of ubermenschness"?
In my opinion, that spectrum would be something like Heidegger's idea of authenticity: with inauthentic on one side, and authentic on the other.
Also, in my opinion, I believe they were both really just expressing the self-importance of their own Fi values.
It would basically, translated into typological terminology, be like saying:
Authenticity : Inauthenticity
Fi : Fe
or
Fi = Authenticity
Fe = Inauthenticity
There is a potential deeper contradiction in there as well (it's actually essentially the same one I pointed to earlier about MLK), but that's life, ain't it?
Dissoi Logoi...