<html><head><meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html charset=windows-1252"></head><body style="word-wrap: break-word; -webkit-nbsp-mode: space; -webkit-line-break: after-white-space; "><div>Jenseits von Gut und Böse - Friedrich Nietzsche [BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL]</div><div><br></div><div>Vorrede/Preface</div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><div>Vorausgesetzt, dass die Wahrheit ein Weib ist -, wie? [FN1] ist der Verdacht nicht gegründet, dass alle Philosophen, sofern sie Dogmatiker waren, sich schlecht auf Weiber verstanden? dass der schauerliche Ernst, die linkische Zudringlichkeit, mit der sie bisher auf die Wahrheit zuzugehen pflegten, ungeschickte und unschickliche Mittel waren, um gerade ein Frauenzimmer für sich einzunehmen? Gewiss ist, dass sie sich nicht hat einnehmen lassen: - und jede Art Dogmatik steht heute mit betrübter und muthloser Haltung da. Wenn sie überhaupt noch steht! Denn es giebt Spötter, welche behaupten, sie sei gefallen, alle Dogmatik liege zu Boden, mehr noch, alle Dogmatik liege in den letzten Zügen. Ernstlich geredet, es giebt gute Gründe zu der Hoffnung, dass alles Dogmatisiren in der Philosophie, so feierlich, so end- und letztgültig es sich auch gebärdet hat, doch nur eine edle Kinderei und Anfängerei gewesen sein möge; und die Zeit ist vielleicht sehr nahe, wo man wieder und wieder begreifen wird, was eigentlich schon ausgereicht hat, um den Grundstein zu solchen erhabenen und unbedingten Philosophen-Bauwerken abzugeben, welche die Dogmatiker bisher aufbauten, - irgend ein Volks-Aberglaube aus unvordenklicher Zeit (wie der Seelen-Aberglaube, der als Subjekt- und Ich-Aberglaube auch heute noch nicht aufgehört hat, Unfug zu stiften), irgend ein Wortspiel vielleicht, eine Verführung von Seiten der Grammatik her oder eine verwegene Verallgemeinerung von sehr engen, sehr persönlichen, sehr menschlich-allzumenschlichen Thatsachen. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;"><blockquote style="margin: 0 0 0 40px; border: none; padding: 0px;">SUPPOSING that Truth is a woman—what then? Is there not ground for
suspecting that all philosophers, in so far as they have been dogmatists,
have failed to understand women—that the terrible seriousness and
clumsy importunity with which they have usually paid their addresses to
Truth, have been unskilled and unseemly methods for winning a woman?
Certainly she has never allowed herself to be won; and at present every
kind of dogma stands with sad and discouraged mien—IF, indeed, it
stands at all! For there are scoffers who maintain that it has fallen,
that all dogma lies on the ground—nay more, that it is at its last
gasp. But to speak seriously, there are good grounds for hoping that all
dogmatizing in philosophy, whatever solemn, whatever conclusive and
decided airs it has assumed, may have been only a noble puerilism and
tyronism; and probably the time is at hand when it will be once and again
understood WHAT has actually sufficed for the basis of such imposing and
absolute philosophical edifices as the dogmatists have hitherto reared:
perhaps some popular superstition of immemorial time (such as the
soul-superstition, which, in the form of subject- and ego-superstition,
has not yet ceased doing mischief): perhaps some play upon words, a
deception on the part of grammar, or an audacious generalization of very
restricted, very personal, very human—all-too-human facts. </blockquote></blockquote><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div><span style="font-size: 11px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 11px;">[FN1] There has been a great deal of literature about Nietzsche's disastrous relationship in theory and in life, and some have argued that certain writings are stained by outright misogyny. For a critical review of this literature, Marilyn Pearsall's edited volume Feminist Interpretations of Friedrich Nietzsche (Re-Reading the Canon) (<a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/941408.Feminist_Interpretations_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche">http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/941408.Feminist_Interpretations_of_Friedrich_Nietzsche</a>) is a good place to start.</span></div><div><span style="font-size: 11px;"><br></span></div><div><span style="font-size: 11px;">In this particular case, I do not think that this is a problematic quote - the preface to Beyond Good and Evil. I do think it reveals the extent to which Nietzsche understood women as "the other" and foreign to his understanding and insights. And I think that those parts of his writings are an embarrassment that undermines the points he's trying to make.</span></div><div><br></div><div><br><div><div>On Nov 8, 2013, at 9:59 AM, Andrew <<a href="mailto:andrew@roshambomedia.com">andrew@roshambomedia.com</a>> wrote:</div><br class="Apple-interchange-newline"><blockquote type="cite"><p>"there is no good and evil, only fun and boring" - The Plague</p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Nov 8, 2013 1:39 AM, "spectral imix" <<a href="mailto:solarimix@yahoo.com">solarimix@yahoo.com</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<br>
A "Sith"-like attitude insists on an innate "goodness" and "badness" (or more appropriately "us-ness" and "them-ness") in everything. The "Jedi" understand that no object or action is intrinsically good or evil. Intention and effect matter, turning black and white into shades of gray. The fundamental difference between the sides is not "good" and "evil". (Everyone has the potential for both.) The real difference is between a desire to control one's environment for personal power and security, and the desire to serve the greater good of all. A "Sith" believes in him/herself, forming temporary alliances only for the purpose of gaining greater personal advantage. A "Jedi" seeks and fosters the good in everyone, risking and sacrificing personal safety and reputation to benefit the whole. Their actions may occasionally resemble each other but their motivations are very different.<br>
<br>
The "Jedi" mentality DOES have "absolutes" of a sort. The preservation of life (particularly intelligent life), freedom (physical and intellectual), justice (without regard to status) and the like are enduring values for "Jedi"-like people. But they understand that the universe is morally neutral, that often one value is pitted against another by the unscrupulous, and that sometimes the best that can be done is a moral compromise.<br>
<br>
The "Sith" prefer to concretize their "morality". Disloyalty to THIS leader is wrong. Partaking in THAT specific activity is evil. An uncensored discussion of social alternatives is morally decadent. Categorically, without exception, never mind the intent. A "virtuous" act is always "good". A troublemaker is always "bad".<br>
<br>
A "Jedi" can observe the ethical situation, note changes, and change his mind about a good idea implemented badly, or a disreputable strategy that actually produces good. A "Jedi" can apologize for being wrong. A "Sith" cannot afford to be inconsistent for fear of losing credibility. Any change in allegiance must be framed and propagandized to appear as part of the plan all along. The "Sith" is about appearances rather than reality. The world is never black and white, but the "Sith" pretends it is. That is what is meant by "dealing in absolutes"."<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
</blockquote></div>
_______________________________________________<br>sudo-discuss mailing list<br><a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss<br></blockquote></div><br></div></body></html>