The Blind Dice-Thrower

In response to:Philosophy Day

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 02:31:48 +0100

But if she is any of those things, she isn't actually a nun is she? So she could disguise herself as a nun. She would be a non-nun disguising herself as a nun. You're relying on using "nun" in two different ways. I don't think there's any way for an x to diguise itself as an x given the definition of "disguise" I used. You could just rely on a different definition, perhaps one where to disguise yourself as something is merely to make others believe you are that thing. So in that case I would be disguising myself as a blogger right now by actually being one. But that doesn't seem like disguise to me.

In response to:Philosophy Day

Fri, 20 Nov 2009 00:02:32 +0100

Ture. Let's say then that she is a novice, who a lay person would describe as a nun. What if she passed herself off as having taken her full vows?

Or, as a novice trapist who'd taken only a partial vow of silence, decided not to correct someone who had assumed she had taken her final vows. Could her silence amount to a disguise?

In response to:Philosophy Day

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 19:01:14 +0100

Hmmm. We could only truly say that "a nun can disguise herself as a nun" if in that sentence we mean two different things by "nun" and "nun". If in the first case we really meant "Carmelite nun" and just shortened it to "nun" and in the second instance we really meant "Sister of Notre Dame" and shortened that to "nun" as well, that wouldn't really be fair on the reader who is reasonable to presume that, at least within the very same sentence, two instances of the same word must mean the same thing. So I would still say a nun cannot disguise herself as a nun unless you're playing linguistic tricks.

In response to:Philosophy Day

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:59:11 +0100

I believe all your answers are correct, though I can't be certain.

In response to:Philosophy Day

Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:55:39 +0100

What if a Carmelite nun decided to pretend to a Sister of Notre Dame?

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 19:31:01 +0200

There is nothing awry about it. This piece I wrote about a year ago isn't an attempt at philosophy, so I haven't bothered to defend it as that would take work and there isn't enough of value actually depending on it. I find it amusing how so many people like yourself have come to attack this piece and at the same time think of yourself as taking part in some philosophical debate! You feel like I haven't read Schopenhauer or Kant. Well your feelings are wrong. So you should try to change that. I'm sure I could name a few hundred philosophers since Nietzsche that you haven't read, and had you read them you would no longer consider Nietzsche a good philosopher.

You say I should try reading Nietzsche. I have tried and there isn't enough meaningful content. That doesn't necessarily mean he is wrong, it just means he is a bad philosopher whose meaning is even further diluted by the need for translation. (When I say he is wrong, I am usually saying that what those who are regarded as the best interpretors of his work report him to say is wrong) Not being fluent in German I can't pretend to have understood him fully anyway, so all of this is approximation. And that makes it satisfactory for inclusion on an internet blog. It's not my fault that when I published this, nobody else on the internet had taken the subject of Russell on Nietzsche seriously either. Thankfully I've been relegated all the way down to 97th for the search term "Russell Nietzsche" so I shouldn't expect too many more amateurs like yourself coming here and trying to do philosophy.

I do have a slight suspicion that we mean different things by "philosophy", such that it is possible for me to consider Nietzsche a bad philosopher and others (mostly lay people) to consider him a good philosopher. You say you have read Russell and found him disappointing, and I have no reason to think you misunderstood him because he is a very clear author (at the other end of the spectrum to Nietzsche). So you could only have found him disappointing if you just weren't interested in the things he was writing about, i.e. what I and most of the good universities consider to be philosophy. If Russell wrote about it, that's a pretty good indicator that that thing is philosophy. If there are many interpretations of an author's work then that is a good indicator that if it is philosophy, it is bad philosophy. I doubt you have ever had a conversation with somebody else who had read Nietzsche where you actually agreed upon what Nietzsche meant. You may think you did but this is because you weren't brave enough to delve into the intricacies of it, instead just flapping about on the surface within the scope of a hundred different interpretations. Just because you've read a few cryptic translations by poets and sophists who claim to be philosophers, don't be so quick to claim to know what philosophy is. Had I received formal education on the works of Nietzsche and Schopenhauer first I might never have learned what philosophy is.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Sat, 17 Oct 2009 17:08:23 +0200

There are two things awry here. Fist: you're regurgitating i.e your opinion is not your own but rather an idea of Russell's you've appropriated. This is very parochial, you should try harder being a philosophy student...philosophise!
Two: You haven't actually read any Nietzsche and that devalues your critique, also I feel you haven't read any Schopenhauer or Kant either which makes me wonder what they actually teach you these days...

Don't be so quick to dismiss people on their reputation, get to grips with their writing...I've read Russell and he has been extremely disappointing hence why I went to Hume and then eventually to the aforementioned.
Try reading, it makes all the difference.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Sun, 13 Sep 2009 19:38:18 +0200

Yet another massive misreading of Nietzsche. I am always intrigued as for the reasons why Bertrand (and all his followers it appears) harbour such deep distaste for Nietzsche's philosophy.

If one actually reads Nietzsche he would find therein a very passionate denounciation of nationalism, especially german nationalism, a praise for the jews, an utter condamnation of anti-semitism, a profound love and affirmation of life and the world and a yearning hope that sounds almost entirely christian towards its end.

It is sort of sad how no one ever quotes Kant on his utterly racist views, yet Nietzsche gets the blame for all the 20th century's problems and his philosophy get discredited based purely on ad-hominem arguments. Even Russell could do better than to simply slander the man, and at least try to deconstruct his philosophy, instead of puting on a ridiculus pantomime to shame his "opponent" (a dialogue between Buddha, God and Nietzsche? Really?).

I guess he missed all the passages on Nietzsche's calls for a world-politics, ridding the world of petty nationalist bickerings and colonialist warfare. His calls for the saviour "who must come" to rid us of nihilism that is drowning the human race. His affirmation of life in the face of all adversity.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Wed, 09 Sep 2009 04:50:54 +0200

I hope I'm not too late into this whole thing, but... I think Nietzsche's philosophy is ridiculously popular right now, mainly because certain quotes of his pack an emotional and rebellious punch with the nihilistic young people of today. I'm not saying that everyone who likes him has no knowledge of his writings, but many people just hear "God is dead" and think: "Wow, I hate religion too! This guy is awesome!"

Anyway, I just wanted to say, kudos for standing up for what you believe, in spite of all the silly Nietzsche fanboys. God knows, we're in the minority right now.

In response to:Napoleon's Changing Personality

Tue, 01 Sep 2009 09:38:51 +0200

Napoelon was a very complex person. Those who saw him with Betsy and the other children on St Helena simply saw a different side of him. "Personality" is a very limited concept - we are all different in different social situations.

I don't think your reading of his change of attitude to Britain is correct. If you believe that he still hated Britain you can find plenty of quotes from him on St Helena. If you believe that he was an admirer of Great Britain you can also find numerous quotes from him on St Helena.

In response to:Marshal Bernadotte

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 14:57:11 +0200

It's been suggested that Napoleon was most threatened by Bernadotte during his ascendancy to power, couldn't refuse him a promotion to marshal on merit, and was waiting for the first opportunity for Bernadotte to make a mistake so that he could dismiss him.

He was certainly one of the more able generals. Most of the marshals disobeyed Napoleon from time to time, because they had risen to these positions by making important battle-deciding actions on their own initiative. How many times did Ney disobey orders and incur Napoleon's wrath? And yet he was still with the Emperor at Waterloo where he made a number of terrible mistakes.

In response to:Marshal Bernadotte

Wed, 26 Aug 2009 10:01:56 +0200

Bernadotte or alias "Belle Jambe" was one of the worst Generals of Napoleon's army, he has been defined as slow and incompetent.
His bad line of conduct nearly compromised the battle of Jena in 1806, the same Bernadotte was sent away from Napoleon in the battle of Wagram in 1809.
At a certain point of the battle of Austerlitz, the victory could of beeen decided by the rapidity of the general Davout, the best general of Napoleon.
If it was Bernadotte, and not Davout the general that Napoleon was waiting for, The Lord of Europe could of lost the battle of Austerlitz.

In response to:My Favourite Female Singers

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 15:10:39 +0200

There isn't a different R&B/Soul/Jazz list. The truth is just that my path of musical enlightenment hasn't stretched far enough yet to include many performers of those genres. This thread is now over a year old and were I to write it again I would include Billie Holiday and Nina Simone, and a few other exotic singers like Yma Sumac and Buffy Sainte-Marie. The most important factor for getting on this list is to be singing songs that I actually like, not just to perform them well. I'm listening to Lady Soul by Aretha Franklin and it's undeniable that she has a great voice, but her style of music doesn't appeal to me that much. I'm not really a fan of jazz, big band or gospely music. But I can't rule out coming to like it in the future. I've probably only been developing my own musical tastes for about 12 years, each time finding a new musician by association to an old one or by them having a significant role in popular culture.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Fri, 05 Jun 2009 13:12:00 +0200

true. but russells analysis is simply naive and wrong - he considers nietzsche a bitter man, when readers of Ecce Homo, for example, know very well that he was not. he was thankful of the wrong that had been done to him, his illness, loneliness etc - part of his philosophy was about restoring a 'tragic' world-view, the 'tragic' man, whereby suffering is affirmed - he believed struggle and hardship was a nescessary, even desirable aspect of life. 'Out of life's school of war - what does not kill him makes him stronger.' (Twilight of the Idols) this is central to will to power, overcoming, the overman, eternal recurrence etc, you simply cannot understand nietzsche without considering it. and its something russell seemingly, inexplicably, missed or misunderstood. perhaps mistranslations? misinterpretations? its well known nietzsches philosophy was betrayed by his right-wing sister.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Thu, 04 Jun 2009 04:52:47 +0200

Hmmm... just read this afternoon the chapter on Nietzsche in Bertrand's book... I think Bertrand just dislikes Nietzsche too much and that makes his attack too emotional. Nietzsche's philosophy contains really interesting ideas, but sometimes he also gets emotional, specially when he attacks women. I think another reason why Russell hates Nietzsche so much is because of their different political views. About Nietzsche being similar to Hitler I think that's impossible by the simple reason that Nietzsche was a passionate individualist... His Uebermensche would never submit to any sort of authority, specially a facist one. His Uebermensch in the incarnation of anarchy, not facism. Anyway, another "problem" reading Nietzsche is that he is frequently poetic in his work... and because of that one understands in his words what one chooses, or is able to understand. Just like looking to an abstract painting... that's not a problem for those of us who like poetry, but certainly it makes him a hard nut to swallow for those looking for a clear explanation of his work. regards.

In response to:My Favourite Female Singers

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 16:19:35 +0200

Wow! What a most interesting selection, topped by Sandy Denny, little known outside of FC & Richard Thompson fans. This list would be tough for me, as I would sometimes struggle to separate sexy persona from sheer ability. The same way my wife would unflinchingly place Jack White atop the male list. It is, however, a favorite list, which entitles the listmaker to include Nico, if he so chooses.

Since the list included no qualifying terms, such as rock, folk, or even white singers, I am forced to ask: where is Aretha, Mavis Staples, Chaka Khan, Patti LaBelle, Tina Turner, Bessie Smith, or Billie Holiday? Just sayin, ethnical resemblance to the infield at Talladega Speedway. Please forgive/disregard if there is a separate R&B/Soul/Jazz list...

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Wed, 03 Jun 2009 01:09:14 +0200

First rule of Nietszche: one can only judge him after having read his works, not before.

Second: His 'immorality' can only be understood in context - in light of his psychology of the 'will to power', and the concepts of 'eternal recurrence;' 'the great Yes to life.' Whether he is 'immoral', or 'barbaric' is therefore irelevant in understanding him : in the Nietszchean world view morality is simply claims to power, and is therefore changeable given certain psychological, indeed, even physiological demands. Almost certainly for Nietszche, Russells attack would have been a living claim to power simply venturing to assert itself...'My will to power walks with the feet of your will to truth!' And to say that Nietszche espoused terror and suffering is not to slander him - that is, seen in context. How can it be? By virtue of his thought Nietszche stands outside of all moral posturing. His entire purpose in thought was to destroy morality - to expose its background. If you dismiss him on its basis you are nowhere near to understanding the degree of depth or introspection achieved by Nietzsche (something like the birth pangs of psychology).

But Nietszche asks us to think for ourselves - this is his greatest lesson, 'You are my believers, but what matter all believers?... Only when you have all denied me, will I return to you.' Part of the toll for such freedom is a 'revaluation of values'; the destruction of the higher world, the metaphysical, Plato's 'Good', God, Christianity... morality - 'and he is to be creator in good and evil, must first be destroyer and break values...'

This is certainly not pleasant. (There are few other things one can be certain of in regards to Nietzsche... except perhaps this - he is clearly one of the greatest writers, poets and philosophers of all time, and a man of real intelligence and integrity, even bravery). But how can he be understood to have 'made the world a worse place'? The world is simply 'as it is', as Nietszche shows us... the way we interpret it to ourselves later is something else...

O man! Attend!
What does deep midnight's voice contend?
'I slept my sleep,
'And now awake at dreaming's end:
'The world is deep,
'And deeper than day can comprehend.
'Deep is its woe,
'Joy—deeper than heart's agony:
'Woe says: Fade! Go!
'But all joy wants eternity,
'Wants deep, deep, deep eternity!'
(Thus spoke Zarathustra)

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 02 Jun 2009 14:58:13 +0200

Wow, you're such an overman, calling people imbeciles. You are no different than what you proclaim to hate.

In response to:The Popular But False Conception of Beauty

Sat, 23 May 2009 19:19:24 +0200

Nice article. I found it by coincidence. We have this phenomenon in Holland (Europe) too. The gossip about celebrity's is luckily not as extreme as in America, it's still in it's childshoe's.

What I make out of this article is that media is manipulation (oh, really? lol) and I see some connections with the NWO in it.

I find this part the most interesting:

"Why do women think it is beautiful to be extremely thin? The desire to be thin is thought of as a disease, it is so extreme. I think it has even been suggested that as well as killing you, extreme dieting to the point where one looks like the above supermodels will also make a woman unable to bear children. How could that ever be considered a variable of fitness? It clearly is the largest factor in being unfit. Perhaps there is some link between the fashion industry and the diet industry? Both are worth billions of dollars. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that shareholders in corporations like Vogue and Gucci also have invested in corporations that sell dieting advice and paraphenalia."

Thanks for posting and have a nice life! o/

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 05 May 2009 01:06:19 +0200

My post, "Russell on Nietzsche" is the most commented on post on this blog. It's currently the third entry on Google for "Russell Nietzsche". This post isn't much of an opinion piece but a statement of fact. Russell hated Nietzsche. How questionable is that? Some of the comments in this thread are quite informative and interesting, and the reason I haven't replied to them is because they seem to me quite commonsensical. But some of these commenters are imbeciles, like the above poster. It's neither here nor there whether Nietzsche liked or disliked the Jews. The fact is his ethics are compatible with justification of genocide. His philosophy didn't necessarily support the Holocaust but it did support mass-extermination, a policy which the German people had been practising for a thousand years in less extreme forms. While the rest of the Western world was being enlightened by people like Mill, Nietzsche promoted barbarism to a degree not seen in Europe for centuries. I freely admit that these attacks on Nietzsche's ethics (like Russell's) are philosophically unsupported, but I never claimed that the original post was anything more than ad hominem.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:02:52 +0200

I was just re-reading your essay and Jesus, man. You really have no idea what you're talking about.

I plead with you man, open your ears.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 05 May 2009 00:00:21 +0200

Seriously man, if you do prefer the philosophy of someone like Mill, (and I can see why anybody would) you need to shut your ego up and actually read Nietzsche.

Even Mill said "He who knows nothing of the opposing argument knows little of his own."

Get a grip on this holocaust nonsense as well. Nietzsche would have vehemently resented the holocaust. He frequently praised the Jews and practically ex-communicated with his sister when she married Forster the prominent anti-semite twonk.

If you think you are even slightly worthy of discussing philosophy, then get a fucking grip and open your ears.

Its for your own good.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Sun, 12 Apr 2009 18:36:34 +0200

I'm a continental student but find the debate Russell has with Nietzsche's work (and, through it, his own system) to be an enjoyable one. Some things should be clarified, however, with Nietzsche's position:
1) Nietzsche does NOT believe that all people are intrinsically, equally valuable. This is his own argument against consequentialist ethical systems. Without a dependent variable like equal value, Mill and other consequentialists are without a basis for ethical judgments. This is a worthwhile place for weighty criticism, and Russell's exploitation of this belief in UNDOUBTEDLY impacted by World War Two (History of Western Phil was published in 1945).
The publisher is right, despite his outrage at Nietzsche's system he has nothing more than ad hominem arguments to defeat Nietzsche.
Despite the previous posts that observe Nietzsche's greatness, his most significant contributions are in Metaphysics (in the spirit of Schopenhauer), and his prelude to Heideggerean exploration. Few, I think, would defend his ethical contributions.

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 07 Apr 2009 11:27:02 +0200

I enjoyed yours/russels critisism against N. Though I read N alot and constantly. You are wrong about one thing though. He was not an advocare of negativism. I wish you would consider not to hate him, he was a very polite and humble person with ideas that still change the way we think about life. Especially now then god is dead.

In response to:My Favourite Female Singers

Thu, 12 Mar 2009 04:48:18 +0100

Love the list of singers. Just discovered an acoustic/folk female singer at a local club in NYC. One of her songs is on itunes "Green Tile Wild". Her name is Marian Godwin and she was amazing live. Kind of reminds me of the singer Margo Timmins from Cowboy Junkies. The song is amazingly soulful as is her voice.

In response to:Most Haunted

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:42:15 +0100

That banana thing made me laugh - Jeezus, what an amazing scene that would be. I love ghost stories and what not but I am not really much of a believer (it's all good fun) and I just want to through things at Yvette and .. what is it David something? The flamboyant psychic who never once that I can remember spoke to a 'person' who existed in records.

One episode scared me and the crew senseless though. A camera guy went down into this sewer tunnel thing and when it got too narrow to proceed he shouted "Hello?" because there was a rock or some noise from the other end. A really REALLY morphed version of his voice answered back "Hello!" and I freaked lol. It must have been an echo, but it sounded so different than him. The one time Most Haunted paid off.

In response to:The Popular But False Conception of Beauty

Sun, 08 Mar 2009 09:34:51 +0100

Hi, I came by this article by accident and was intrigued.

Now, I don't exactly think that our generation is much worse than others, because all centuries take an ideal of beauty to an extreme point in which the woman must practically mutate her body. Whether it be wasp-waists, white skin, dilated pupils or thinness, it's something that will always be around. Because food is so accessible and cheap food is fattening, it's a sign of prestige almost to be fit and/or very thin because then you can afford healthy food and have the time to exercise, etc. etc. Whatever look is hardest to achieve naturally for a society is what's 'in vogue'.

I am a fan of 1920's movies and the whole child-like heroine, so I adore the looks of Lily Cole - almost ethereal. Not a fan of Moss though. I like women who have a unique look - there's unique pretty and generic pretty in my mind.

Lastly, I find women like Keira Knightly and Angelina Jolie pretty sure, but they weigh MAYBE 5 lbs more than your typical model. Models have to weigh 100lbs at least since 5 years or so ago, and the weight of most female stars is no more than 123 lbs on average. If you want a girl with a figure after all the clothing and belts etc. are gone, go with someone 128-135 (yes yes height must be considered).

In response to:Russell on Nietzsche

Tue, 03 Mar 2009 15:03:41 +0100

superiority, race, force of will without empathy or regard for humanity can only be prescriptions for human suffering. Nietzsche's work (sister or no sister) laid the framework for future generations to sieze power upon. He gave credence and justification to the stronger and as a result made the world a more cruel and barbaric place.

In response to:Musical Addiction

Thu, 19 Feb 2009 23:22:25 +0100

Check out the Sibelius Music website if you have 15 mins free. You need to get a free download, but there's a ton of free material to listen to (including around 300+ of my compositions).

http://www.sibeliusmusic.com/cgi-bin/user_page.pl?url=febland

In response to:My Favourite Female Singers

Fri, 13 Feb 2009 16:54:30 +0100

I've just researched her on the internet. I only heard one good recording of hers so far, a video of River Rat on YouTube, but I think I will look out for her album when it comes out as she does have a really good voice and her music is pretty rocking too. Thanks for the recommendation.