yeah, it's as if they're not actually professional swordspeople or ubermensch with psychokinetic powers.

it's almost as if they're putting on a show for us and actual safety does come first.

It's funny that for allegedly being the ubermensch, the highest-ranking Nazis all looked like a bunch of dweebs.

That's a rather speculative argument your making. We don't know exactly what was and wasn't said between the bikers and the driver. The bikers alleged this dude was giving quite a bit of back and forth and we don't know exactly what threat is made to provoke him driving over the bikes and escalating the whole thing. I never said that this was caused by lane splitting I was using it as an example from my own experience to make a point about some car drivers attitude and behaviour towards us.

The impression I get (and this is just a hunch like anyone else's including YOURS) is that this dude was talking shit and the bikers initially stopped him to make it clear he was in no position to be making threats (which lets face it would have been a foolish move for anyone). It's entirely possible that this whole thing could have been diffused at that point (and maybe not we don't get to see or hear the altercation).
Maybe this dude was just scared and calling the police, maybe he was directly antagonizing them as he did so as the bikers claim.

At no point have I done anything but condemn the bikers actions, I was merely trying to elucidate a different perspective and find a more informative angle than just "these bikers be dicks". They are people too (albeit ones of dubious moral character)


Are you familiar with the concept of holding two irreconcilable truths simultaneously to gain a deeper insight?

That's what I was doing here, I'm sorry I failed to make that more clear to you (language alone can be a clumsy way to communicate)

There's a veritable mountain of historic, behavioural and situational factors at work here, one of them is the basic resentment and animosity you subconsciously accumulate against a certain kind of car driver by simply being a biker. Other include mob dynamics, lifelong neuroses and inhibition control etc. etc.

When we say things like "fag gangs with knives" and make no attempt to understand their behaviour we get nowhere. In fact its worse than that, we go backwards as the simplistic black and white level untermensch/ubermensch relationship serves simply to fuel the same kind of situation in the future. That distinction exists but only works if derived dialectically rather than dualistically. (to paraphrase you need to be a bigger less emotionally compromised man/woman than these people or it will continue to happen. It's not a matter of who's right and wrong so much as "what failed and why?".)

I keep trying to not disagree with you because to a large extent I don't, I just don't believe in fixed perspectives. Your not wrong, but it does not invalidate the majority of what I'm trying to say/do. This is how higher synthesees or argument and understanding are derived. Someone had to chime in for the other side otherwise no-ones ideas have a chance to expand, on this occasion the duty fell to me and Chingy (not for the 1st time).

Dialectic logic > Aristotelian Logic

>> ^ctrlaltbleach:
Its depressing to me however to believe that some people were born to live a miserable life just to die and show nothing for it. Some people don't even make it past childhood thats not fair and its very disheartening. And what about people who are enslaved and tortured their whole lives by cruel masters?

Isn't it more depressing to believe in a God who would sit around and let that shit happen?

I think my main reason for believing there is a god is that my mind cannot cope with the thought of their being nothing when I die.

What was it like before you were born? It wasn't that bad was it? I wouldn't mind going back to that state when I die. Also, living in heaven for eternity would suck. You'd get bored after a few million years and the rest of eternity would be fucking hell.

Also, anyone read what Nietzsche had to say about the death of God, Nihilism, and the Ubermensch?

Nietzsche here points out one of the things I really dislike about most modern atheists--Richard Dawkins, etc. Most of them reject Christianity, but nonetheless adopt values derived from Christianity--and don't bother really trying to question it or put it on some kind of philosophical grounding. Were they really to look closely at it, many of their moral tenets would evaporate like mist in the sunlight.

While I dislike Sam Harris in general, his remarks on morality are essential for an intellectually honest atheism. He proposes that we ground morality on scientific rationality and analysis of neuroscience and psychology. Which at the very least gives an atheist standing to make moral claims.

However, I do not believe that this will, as Harris hopes, be sufficient for a society wide morality or the end of moral dispute. There are too many lines of attack one can take. Nietzsche himself, for example, would raise the point that the scientific attitude Harris espouses is simply a manifestation of the will to nothing--the inversion of the will to power caused by socialization into a society that limits freedom of action, and overall an unhealthy way to be. It is out of the will to nothing that Judaism arose, he claims, and then later Christianity. In fact, he even says that the scientific attitude arose as the victory of the will to nothing over lingering elements of the will to power in Christianity.

To overcome nihilism, we must overcome the will to nothing. And so much for Sam Harris, if we're to follow Nietzsche's schema.

Beyond that, a couple of interesting notes.

The fact that the Madman carries a lantern is a reference to Diogenes of Sinope, one of the founders of the Cynic school of Greek philosophy. (Really more of a way of life than a school, though.) He was famous for living in a tub and carrying a lantern wherever he went. He was perceived as crazy, but all he was really trying to do was show the Athenians how ridiculous and irrational their customs and values were. The connection with questioning the values of modern man is obvious.

It isn't necessarily clear that Nietzsche thought the Ubermensch was an actual man who would live, or an ideal to strive for. It's essential to keep this ambiguity in mind when talking about the Ubermensch.

Nietzsche imagined the "ubermensch". The reality is Hitler and Kevin Federline.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'aryan, ubermensch, nazi, history' to 'aryan, ubermensch, nazi, history, hitler' - edited by twiddles