Welcome to Gaia! ::

i just asked a simple question, why must everyone be so irrelevant? I must not have asked the question right, WHOS IDEAS DO YOU FIND YOURSELF MORE BELIEVING OUT OF ALL THE PAST PHILOSOPHERS??? my goodness people....and yes.....everyone follows a dead persons philosophy, otherwise...you wouldnt have your own....because everything you think and know, has already been written by someone else....and your thoughts are strongly influenced by what you have read and what you have been taught....sorry there is no escaping that.......

you were not one of the people I was directing my anger towards...... my humble apologies good sir

Saikoubi gives you a short bow, and smiles sweetly

Human cooperation is about aa reliable as an american congressman. It's sad really....but like they say, you give them an inch, they take a mile.....if this doesnt make sense.....perhaps I could clarify.....I asked a simple question that didnt require a whole MOUNTAIN worth of answers, just quick and easy....and everyone had to go all "noble," ....god i hate that....anyways...have a nice day!

For anyone who's read some of my recent posts within the guild, you may already know that I have become a devout follower of some of the teachings of Nietsche. His philosophies are very realistic and almost scientific. The first philosophy I've heard to explain the the creation of everything without mentioning God - and the short answer - it's due to an overload of static/potential energy within the universe. He also coined the phrase "God is Dead" based on the fact that man is losing his religion. He also had visions of what society would be like once we had advanced beyond the need for a God and based our society upon taking responsibility for our actions, our environment and each other rather than believing a higher power was taking care of everything. Almost stating that humanity is being negligent in it's responsibilities to take care of the Earth. I can tie everything back to scientific principles and other philosophers, which makes it seem even more plausable. Who's to say the solutions to the universe's problems and quandry's have not already been answered and we are all too focused on finding the answers to take the time to read the solutions that have already been thought out.

First, as is probably pretty clear by my name, I am a fan of Nietzsche.

But just in the interest of dipping into the argument over whether one can like a certain philosopher and still be an individual... (which also conveniently links to my claiming Nietzsche as my favorite)... I would like to respond to the discussion with some new ideas.

I personally think that one can be a follower of a specific philosopher. But within reason. I do not think that one can read a single philosopher and listen to their ideas without consulting outside thoughts or for that matter even making your own thoughts. I believe most good philosophers think that way, in fact. For a philosopher to write something and expect their points, their logic, their inferences, as the ONLY correct method of thought is foolhardy. It is making the individual feel that they are superior to others because their ideas are better than those of another. Honestly sit and think about the logic involved here. To claim supreme correctness wihtout the possibility of being incorrect is arrogant at best.

What I think philosophers, who are truly good at what they do, think about their ideas and present them to others as possibilities, not indisputable facts. For a reader to remain an individual, they must take the opinions and thoughts of one philosopher, or no philosophers just themselves, and create their own definition of what is truth. Some find a blueprint in the works of philosophers, but I don't think the true individual can find their own path through thought and life by listening and following every single thing stated by their choice philosopher.

It is for this reason that I find Nietzsche so fresh and interesting to read. He approaches those he is writing for with the skeptical point of view that almost all who read him will disagree with him (maybe in one place, more likely in many places). He doesn't attempt to utilize ironclad logic or reasoning. Rather he states the theory that as humanity further evolves on the mental level, that humanity will subdivide into two essentially different paths before subdividing again. He proposes that one group will remain reliant upon the morals, virtues, and teachings of others avoiding emotions and thoughts because they are "evil," while the other group of people will become what he calls "das Ubermacht," a.k.a. the "overman" who decides good and evil on a personal basis in such a way as is beyond the laws and morals seen by the masses of humanity, seeing beyond the concept of good and evil, to what will yield change and therefore a new form of "good."

This way of approaching philosophical thought that Nietzsche undergoes discussing, invovles the blaming of women as being animalistic, unequal to the stature of men in that they try to slow men's evolution. That the Christian religion is the ultimate evil, and that religion in general is fundamentally the enemy of the " ubermacht." On this point, do I STRONGLY disagree with Nietzsche though. While not religious myself, I am certainly not sexist. And this is how I think we all should view philosophical or religious texts, etc. View the text with open eyes (as this makes it easier to read wink )and open mind so that you take only what you view as important or relevant to yourself, so to create an individual persona for the self. Those points that are made which you do not agree with or dislike, ignore them and move on to other parts of the text.

Therefore, think of the thoughts of the ancient philosophers, the long dead, even the recently deceased, as all possible sources to inspire ideas within yourself. View them as a vehicle to further your own hybridized ideals. Don't take everything, or even anything, unless you feel it is interesting to yourself. For to reread these documents is not necessarily revisting the long past, for to reread them you are making them current by testing their ability to work in present tense situations, circumstances, and idealisms. Don't necessarily write off the accomplishments of the past thinkers as incapable of contributing to personal advancement. History has the potential to push the past into your conciousness to see if the past is something good, bad, or... "beyond good and evil."

philosophers just state idea's, most of the time that many people have had or would have had, they just said it first... sometimes there are those who have come up with something original and i applaud them for that, sometimes they see things that others don't and i value them for there insight...but most nah and some people just don't understand at all... i just like the new idea's, or old idea's presented in new ways, none is better then another because in the end there is always something missing and i don't think any of them have got it right yet