»REAL philosophy! Why can't you be TOLD what the matrix is?«

I think that certain things can be wrong. For example if I say the matrix is a parody of "guards guards" by Terry Pratchett and that Neo represents the character "Carrot" then I may be able to get somewhere with a comparison, but when it comes down to it I would be wrong because the whole comparison is absurd.

Nietzsche certainly wouldn't say that his work can be interpreted any way you want. His writings are not working towards the same aims as philosophers like Plato and Kant, in fact he criticises them both quite explicitly.

He criticises Kant's metaphysics of morals for trying to suggest that morality was fixed and self-evident through reason. As for Plato, noone would agree with Nietzsche less in the history of philosophy than Plato. The very idea that there is a fixed truth upheld by a God in heaven or an otherworldly being or a world of the pure forms is completely abhorrent to Nietzsche. For him these ideas are a life denying distancing of oneself from reality,

Your idea that Jung is similar to Nietzsche is not so far wrong. Jung says he does not believe in a God, he knows God. Nietzsche's denial of God would be harder to apply to such a conception of God as Jung posesses. Although, I know close to nothing about Jung I have heard that he was sceptical about free will (he has a dialogue with a kind of alter ego discussing whether he creates his own thoughts any more than he creates his own perceptions of the external world". Nietzsche's idea of the will to power is an attempt by the individual to break out of the eternal recurrence, no matter how impotent such an attempt may be.

The madman.— Have you not heard of that madman who lit a lantern in the bright morning hours, ran to the market place and cried incessantly: "I seek God! I seek God!"— As many of those who did not believe in God were standing around just then, he provoked much laughter. Has he got lost? asked one. Did he lose his way like a child? asked another. Or is he hiding? Is he afraid of us? Has he gone on a voyage? emigrated?— Thus they yelled and laughed.

The madman jumped into their midst and pierced them with his eyes. "Whither is God?" he cried. "I will tell you. We have killed him—you and I! All of us are his murderers! But how did we do this? How could we drink up the sea? Who gave us the sponge to wipe away the entire horizon? What were we doing when we unchained this earth from its sun? Whither is it moving now? Whither are we moving? Away from all suns? Are we not plunging continually? And backward, sideward, forward, in all directions? Is there still any up or down? Are we not straying as through an infinite nothing? Do we not feel the breath of empty space? Has it not become colder? Is not night continually closing in on us? Do we not need to light lanterns in the morning? Do we not hear nothing as yet of the noise of the gravediggers who are burying God? Do we smell nothing as yet of the divine decomposition?—Gods, too, decompose! God is dead! God remains dead! And we have killed him!

How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives,—who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? There has never been a greater deed,—and whoever is born after us, for the sake of this deed he will belong to a higher history than all history hitherto!"— Here the madman fell silent and looked again at his listeners: they, too, were silent and stared at him in astonishment. At last he threw his lantern to the ground, and it broke into pieces and went out. "I have come too early," he said then; "my time is not yet. This tremendous event is still on its way, still wandering—it has not yet reached the ears of men. Lightning and thunder require time; the light of the stars requires time; deeds, though done, still require time to be seen and heard. This deed is still more distant from them than the most distant stars—and yet they have done it themselves!"—

It has been related further that on the same day the madman forced his way into several churches and there struck up his requiem aeternam deo. Led out and called to account, he is said always to have replied nothing but: "What after all are these churches now if they are not the tombs and sepulchers of God?" —

341.
The greatest weight.— What, if some day or night a demon were to steal after you in your loneliest loneliness and say to you: "This life as you now live it and have lived it, you will have to live once more and innumerable times more; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and sigh and everything unutterably small or great in your life will have to return to you, all in the same succession and sequence—even this spider and this moonlight between the trees, and even this moment and I myself. The eternal hourglass of existence is turned upside down again and again—and you with it, speck of dust!"— Would you not throw yourself down and gnash your teeth and curse the demon who spoke thus? Or have you once experienced a tremendous moment when you would have answered him: "You are a god and never have I heard anything more divine!" If this thought gained possession of you, it would change you as you are or perhaps crush you; the question in each and every thing, "Do you desire this once more, and innumerable times more?" would lie upon your actions as the greatest weight! Or how well disposed would you have to become to yourself and to life to crave nothing more fervently than this ultimate eternal confirmation and seal? —

this stuff is weirding me out guys....

Agent Zero wrote:

this stuff is weirding me out guys....

What the hell is weirding out? Sounds painful.

its weird....to the extreme, weirding me out is like saying, thats really crazy.

You are talking about Nietzshe right? He eventually had a breakdown, what do you expect?

He's an insane genius, lol!

Fatpie42, you make excellent points. I don't necessarily agree with them all, but I cannot refute them, so I concede. I'll try not to take offense from now on!

I am curious, where and for how long have you been studying? I was a music student in college, so all of my studies of philosophy and the like have pretty much been on my own. I have been seriously considering going back to University (somewhere, I know not where) lately, just to study philosophy and religion etc. Especially after the discourses in which I have been involved here in forum!

Are not all true geniuses insane? After all, sanity is only what the status quo decides it is. We're all a little insane, after our fashion, in our own way. What we might call 'normalcy' is just the average of all our neuroses. Personally, I would be most honored to be considered an insane genius! Maybe someday! lol

Damn
I was lost in the other thread so long I have neglected to keep up here.
Ill go back as far as I can. Wmakes us different is our will but that is what imprisons us. Being locked away in a prison where we create the walls to "separate us from the pack". What is special is to dive into the abyss and realize that it never existed.

I do not agree that Nietzsche was aiming for the "superhuman". In fact I think the essential meaning behind Nietzsche is that life is all encompassing. That it cannot be categorized separately to individuals but is beyond any type of division.
Here is a quote I think is perfect

Quote:

Above all, Nietzsche believes that living things aim to discharge their strength and express their "will to power" -- a pouring-out of expansive energy which, quite naturally, can entail danger, pain, lies, deception and masks.

Nietzshe believed that all things had a place in the entirety of the life experience. He seemed to lash out at those that would hold onto or promote a particular individual perspective of life experience. Beyond good and evil is a prime example of his view that you cannot split life into right and wrong.
----------------------------------------

Quote:

Thou outcast, who hast cast thyself out, thou wilt not live amongst men and men's pity? Well then, do like me! Thus wilt thou learn also from me; only the doer learneth.

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
-----------------------------------------

Great Post bEagle

-----------------------

Quote:

And, I implied this before, because it bugged me, but I see it again and again, so I might as well make it clear: I take exception and offense to the idea that ANY idea, or interpretation of philosophy, or of myth, or of the Matrix movies (with respect to their underlying philosophy) is "wrong."Say rather that one is mistaken, if you must. To say one is "wrong" (or otherwise belittle one) is an impediment, at best, and a detriment at worst, to knowing oneself.

Thats a little Nietzsche, but this is where he is wro....ahem.."mistaken". His own personal beliefs do not fall inside the parameters of his own philosophy.
You are also mistaken in your belief that you preach tolerance, and the use of the word wrong offends you.
Remember, the more you learn the less you know. In order for us to grow in any way there has to be an acceptance of all that has gotten us to the stage from which we are growing. That encompasses everything. From society's greatest horrors, to its greatest triumph.
The Matrix trilogy is a great example. Would Neo have been able to initiate the new cycle of the matrix without his counterpart(smith) to help him along the way?

Jim Morrison is the Reincarnation of Neitzsche

I think Neitzsche hit the nail on the head in some ways. And in others he may have spoke too much about the chains that he felt that bound him and society that he forgot that he almost had them taken off. But perhaps his place in the scheme of things is that spark that will allow someone else to open their minds to an unaltered view of reality.

If the doors of perception were cleansed everything would appear to man as it is: Infinite. --William Blake

What we percieve about the notion of self, and the world in which we live is a shared illusion that we all agree to be experiencing.

Good stuff guys

You don't seem to realise that becoming solitary and denying the current society and its current values is the first step before a new society can develop.

In Thus Spake Zarathrustra "On bestowing virtue"

"A thousand paths are there which have never yet been trodden; a thousand salubrities and hidden islands of life. Unexhausted and undiscovered is still man and man's world.

Awake and hearken, ye lonesome ones! From the future come winds with stealthy pinions, and to fine ears good tidings are proclaimed.

Ye lonesome ones of today, ye seceding ones, ye shall one day be a people: out of you who have chosen yourselves, shall a chosen people arise:- and out of it the Superman.

Verily, a place of healing shall the earth become! And already is a new odour diffused around it, a salvation-bringing odour- and a new hope!"

Thanks DesmondE for you feedback.

There is something not wholesome about “setting apart”. Neo was not out there to set himself apart. There is nothing super about that. It is the most ordinary instinct to try to set oneself apart. It can derail into the investment in the most pretty expression of individuality, at the cost of the precious common link. It can culminate in the race/struggle of greedy empires, violent terrorists, cruel dictators, pompous priests and vain philosophers. This “setting apart” is nothing but mediocrity that matrix movies aptly termed as pursuit of “Smiths and Jones” Heard a saint from India saying that cancer is “few loosing the memory of the whole”. Cancer sets itself apart pretty well from the very rest it thrives on.

The insight, one consciousness, implies a subtle precious link with the whole. The true super instinct is investing in that link. All the enlightened sages felt that charge and expressed that in their teachings. Krishna said, “I am that which is filled into everything and beyond”. Jesus said, “If you lift the stone I am under it, if you cleave the wood, I am in it” That really is inspiring.

I feel, the isolation or party frenzy, riches or poverty, strength or weakness are not the ends in themselves and are pointless if the connection to something big and whole is missing or not stressed enough.

I'm very sorry, I'm not sure what you are trying to say. It sounds like you are against individuality because it encourages tyranny. I'm not sure how you can come to such a bizarre conclusion.... *shrugs*

Individuality is not a problem if it is not end in itself. I am against glorifying individuality while dismissing the greater good and whole. I am not particularly for or against becoming solitary either. Without the connection, mere solitude and individuality are superficial and empty behavioral traits of no consequence. Again, it is that connection and not these superficial attributes that need to be stressed. That is why I guess, many including Jesus glorified the thrill feeling connected.

bEagle wrote:

Heard a saint from India saying that cancer is “few loosing the memory of the whole”. Cancer sets itself apart pretty well from the very rest it thrives on. The insight, one consciousness, implies a subtle precious link with the whole. I feel, the isolation or party frenzy, riches or poverty, strength or weakness are not the ends in themselves and are pointless if the connection to something big and whole is missing or not stressed enough.

Nicely put. Individualism shouldn't be goal in itself. Like the man who set fire to the temple of Artemis just becuse he wanted to be famous. Individialism no-matter-what can be really destructive.

It is good when individuals govern the society, but not when they reign it over. I think it was Ghandi who said something like: "I have to follow my people, they are well ahead of me." although he was considered to be the leader.

And actually, Fatpie, I would support the conclusion that too much emphasis on individuality may lead to the tyrany, especially in a society that relates quite a lot freedom to money and where there is over-accumulation of wealth in the hands of few people. If these few people pursue and excercise their individual freedom without responsibility to the rest of the society (like that they can influence the government, for instance by bribes, and such Gov. then works not for the benefit of society, but for the benefit of few influnetial individuals), that may easily result in tyrany.

In Orwell's words: "Freedom is slavery" (in his dystopian world of "1984" it could be interpreted like this: great freedom of few members of inner party, results in slavery of the rest of the society. The point was that this motto was being explained to the people differently by propaganda - that they are becaming slaves of their freedom, therefore freedom was forbidden and punished and those "rulers" lived apart of the society and talked to the people just by controlled tv)

It's interesting book and you can find there similarities to the matrix too.

Also the other motto: "War is peace" can be applied to matrix because war was a means of controll over the society, precisly as it was with Zion - the war (and function of the One) was just a fiction to keep the system running. Although the people really fought, the purpose of the war was not to win (from machine point of view), but to keep the people fighting and hide the true - that they are actually slaves.

Hmm, I came a bit astray as usuall but still, what do you think?

First of all (just to be pedantic - sorry, I'm just like that): In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the inner party are just as enslaved by the society they have created as anyone else is.


Secondly (and more importantly) I think to simply call Nietzsche's philosophy "individualism for its own sake" is to oversimplify and completely misunderstand his work. His major concern is over the way Christianity and other modern religions are organised. He feels that such organisation of society is suffocating and slows society's ability to change and adapt.

Nietzsche is not saying let's change society for the sake of change. He is saying that we should not be afraid of change and we should welcome difference. The superman is the ultimate aim of mankind and if we refuse to submit to change then mankind will remain small - crushed by what Nietzsche calls the ultimate man:

(Thus Spake Zarathustra - Prologue)

I tell you: one must still have chaos in one, to give birth to a dancing star. I tell you: ye have still chaos in you.

Alas! There cometh the time when man will no longer give birth to any star. Alas! There cometh the time of the most despicable man, who can no longer despise himself.

Lo! I show you the last man.

"What is love? What is creation? What is longing? What is a star?"- so asketh the last man and blinketh.

The earth hath then become small, and on it there hoppeth the last man who maketh everything small. His species is ineradicable like that of the ground-flea; the last man liveth longest.

"We have discovered happiness"- say the last men, and blink thereby.

They have left the regions where it is hard to live; for they need warmth. One still loveth one's neighbour and rubbeth against him; for one needeth warmth.

Turning ill and being distrustful, they consider sinful: they walk warily. He is a fool who still stumbleth over stones or men!

A little poison now and then: that maketh pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.

One still worketh, for work is a pastime. But one is careful lest the pastime should hurt one.

One no longer becometh poor or rich; both are too burdensome. Who still wanteth to rule? Who still wanteth to obey? Both are too burdensome.

No shepherd, and one herd! Everyone wanteth the same; everyone is equal: he who hath other sentiments goeth voluntarily into the madhouse.

"Formerly all the world was insane,"- say the subtlest of them, and blink thereby.

They are clever and know all that hath happened: so there is no end to their raillery. People still fall out, but are soon reconciled- otherwise it spoileth their stomachs.

They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health.

"We have discovered happiness,"- say the last men, and blink thereby.And here ended the first discourse of Zarathustra, which is also called "The Prologue", for at this point the shouting and mirth of the multitude interrupted him. "Give us this last man, O Zarathustra,"- they called out- "make us into these last men! Then will we make thee a present of the Superman!" And all the people exulted and smacked their lips. Zarathustra, however, turned sad, and said to his heart:

"They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears.

Too long, perhaps, have I lived in the mountains; too much have I hearkened unto the brooks and trees: now do I speak unto them as unto the goatherds.

Calm is my soul, and clear, like the mountains in the morning. But they think me cold, and a mocker with terrible jests.

And now do they look at me and laugh: and while they laugh they hate me too. There is ice in their laughter.

DesmondeE made a great point about oneness. Your response to that, kind of drifted into deifying individualism over the connection mentioned by him. I don’t know if you intended that, but in last post you clarified that for you also the individualism is not an end in itself and the argument ends there.

One has to respect and share Nietzsche’s concern over the repression organizations cause and change is very important. The change too needs to be driven by the connection to people and the society as whole. Titek pointed out a perfect example of leadership of Gandhi in that respect.

Someone can abuse/misinterpret Nietzsche’s message of individualism to justify greed and vanity if the importance of connection is obscured. Solitude also without deep connection is mere isolation of a bum. It is the connection I feel that needs to be underlined in all teachings. Nietzsche surely felt depth, but seem to be struggling to bring it to the people. “They understand me not: I am not the mouth for these ears” kind of suggests that. Anyway, it is good poetry.

Desmond E was claiming that Nietzsche did not care about the superman (though it is Nietzsche's major piece of philosophy). He seemed to be claiming that Nietzsche does not care about society as a whole, but simply about the individual rebelling against the rest of society. I was showing evidence that Nietzsche believes that one is necessary as an aid to the other.

I cannot even see the word "oneness" in Desmond E's last post... *shrugs*

As I have said before, I haven't read enough Nietzsche to really form an opinion about him and his work, but from the little I have read (Thank you, Fatpie42 for your posts and references and links) It seems to me that Nietzsche somehow got off-track. Even the reason for his nervous breakdown, perhaps.

Philosophers (at least, the classical ones, the initiates) usually come to the conclusion that "All is One," and that to understand that, the psyche must transcend individuality. To put it more specifically:

The primal syzygy (the first duality) was Consciousness and psyche; Consciousness became aware that it existed, but did not know how, or why it existed. So it began to examine itself. Because Consciousness was One, it was the subject that was doing the examining; it could not look at itself until it had something to examine, an object. Thus was psyche created and the primal syzygy was born. Through a series of further syzygies, we come to the Many, all connected through psyche to the One. The analogy that Plotinus uses is that of a circle. The center of a circle is, by definition, one point - Consciousness/the One. The circumference, which is made of Many points, represents humanity/the body/the physical world. Thus did Consciousness conceive the Cosmos.

The innumerable radii of the circle are psyche, or many psyches, if you want. Psyche descends from the One to the body. It is the fortune of Mankind to move psyche BACK to the center of the circle of self, becoming One again, actually, reuniting the Many with the One. (like Smith and Neo)

"We see but through a glass darkly..." Your signature, Fatpie42, is somewhat ironic, given your apparent devotion to individualism. Here, Paul is referring to yet another Mystery analogy. The One can be considered as Light; if you reflect a light on the surface of rippling water, you see Many lights. When we still the water, the One light is reflected back perfectly, as it is. We, who are presently far removed from the light, see the light "as a dim image in a mirror," but when we return to the One, we will see it "face to face."

There are references in many myths to someone "looking back;" the two which come to my mind most readily are Lot's wife and Orpheus. If psyche returns to individuality, instead of continuing along the path to the One, the result is clear: the goal is lost. Orpheus lost Euridice for ever, and Lot's wife became "a pillar of salt" (Salt is also a symbol for the element earth, which is in turn a symbol for the body).

It seems to me that maybe Nietzsche looked back. At any rate, I have to admit, I have a hard time putting much stock in the philosophies of a man whose own ideas caused him to go mad; that is not the point of philosophy. The Gnostic (I have referred primarily to Pagan Gnosticism in this post, but all forms of Gnosticism convey this same idea, one way or another) idea of "All is One" is, to me, most appealing, most comforting, and most likely to bring peace at last to Man.

Can you help me understand why individualism is preferable to the Oneness of All? Or am I also misunderstanding individualism according to Nietzsche?

Ignoring the fact that I only have this quote because it looks cool and it is found in the anime Ghost In The Shell, I am not so sure that your interpretation is obvious.

Paul is talking about God. What we see of God now is like looking at a dim image in a mirror, but when we are resurrected we will be able to look at God face to face. If you see God as being everyone's consciousnesses united then you are right. I think God is more than just all human beings united. I think God is something in itself, even without us.

Fatpie, I love the way you ignore my questions....

I've never studied philosophy in a school, so I don't know...: Don't you learn in philosophy that most of the philosophers speak metaphorically, in parables and allegories? Or is it taught that everything should be taken literally? Anyway, there are so many other references Paul made which indicate his Gnostic/Mystery Initiate tendencies... it only stands to reason that the above quote is no different.

I would ask you what makes you so sure that Paul is NOT talking about the Ineffable Mystery. But, of course, there's no point in asking, because the question is not mine to ask.

It is yours.

I did not deny that Paul could be interpreted that way. I merely meant that in the context of how Paul speaks at the time it is unlikely that he MEANT it that way.

Paul is not a philosopher.

Most philosophers speak literally. That is what makes Nietzsche special.

I disagree with the notion that most philosophers speak literally. But that's my prerogative, I suppose.

I also disagree that Paul was not a philosopher, in the sense that he was a lover of wisdom, which is what the word means.

Oh, well. Cheers!