Three Seas Forum

the archives

dusted off in read-only


Sokar Auditor | joined 11 March 2006 | 119 posts

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 01 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

This is one of the reasons one doesn't start a discussion on Nietzsche..

Anyway..sympathy and religion are one for two reasons...
I don't think that I have to explain 'helping the fellow man' and such being a religious thing..and that this was encouraged by feelings of sympathy should be clear as well.. So here, sympathy is merely a tool for creating a mass...
The second, sympathy is as well a tool for controlling that mass.. It advocates the way of life, not only the 'helping the fellow man', but also living to such and such conditions, undergoing these and those pains.. It becomes a power over thought and action.

Indeed, religion does not have to be a classical religion in God, but also the modern variation, such as democracy or Human Rights.. It is a method inscribed to move the body and control the thought, or soul..

(This is not all from Nietzsche, rather a mould of authors I have read and who eventually made me think this is how one views sympathy <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> )

Now the second part..Nietzsche does show this sorrow..
It is mostly in the language..the use of words: sympathy and heart..the distiction between him and the others, the thinker and the mundane..finally also the last sentence: &quot;why do YOU want to have as HARD a time as I DO?&quot; These all indicate his feeling of sorrow..
To see why Nietzsche would be opposed to being understood..his desolation and loneliness..opposition of enlightenment and would want to read his books... There is too much there to say about this.

Now the final part..i wonder whether you are right..whether there is a certain priority to loss of 'blissful ignorance' rather than loneliness... Perhaps Nietzsche does want to show this..but then it would be a side-effect of loneliness.. The other way around! Otherwise it wouldn't fit into context of the book....

Final remark: &quot;Truly I wonder whether not all words are written in shame!&quot; or something like that..guess whose that is..? view post

Breaker of Horses and Men posted 01 May 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

Actually..I have kind of idolized him..he could live in his insanity... Unlike Conphas, he wasn't delusioned..he knew what he was and what others pretended to be... When I read the parts concerning Serwe, his madness got even more appealing..the parts about Achamian and Esmenet are to feel sorry for, with Cnaiur I didn't, he cut his own throat as a swazond and that something you idolise rather than pity...

Again, I am not sure why, but Cnaiur is by far the most intriguing character..he simply in his complexity..and complex in his simplicity... And there is something of madness that keeps you wondering....

I am afraid that the consult will change that, just as Kellhus did when learing the art of war from Cnaiur.. (then again, Cnaiur's madness reached a certain hight after that <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->) Anyway, I hope that this maddening character does not become a rational general of some sort in the next of the series..would truly ruin it for me... view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 02 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

No..i don't recollect Nietzsche saying that explicitly..though it would defenately be his thought...
We should not forget that prior to it becoming a societal thing, however, it was a religious doctrine..then again, our society is always based on religious 'values'..religion, after all, used to represent the society (which it still does to a certain extent)..

Now that for you this religious doctrine has become a societal necessity (a stronger community)..and though you question the knowledge of the doesn't take away that the roots are still in religion...

This can be a different discussion though..after all doesn't society base itself on many things from the passed..and how do we rightfully claim this not being a 'societal thing' even though its roots are religious..etc..etc... view post

Breaker of Horses and Men posted 02 May 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor comes the difference between idolising someone to such an extent where you simply disagree with something bad being said about the character..even if grounded...
Anyway..the reason for Cnaiur not quesitoning this idealogy is because it is present in the acts of the least that's how I see it in both actions of Kellhus and Moengus. And his military genius is evident from two aspects, again to me..first Kellhus wants to learn war through Cnaiur, not through Conphas, indeed perhaps because he knows how to manipulate him, whereas Conphas' vanity has always been an obstacle to that end... But also because he is of the People..they live war!
Second, there is a part I clearly remember where Caniur thinks to himself that if he would lead the battle of Kyuth? they would have won..but also Conphas himself acknowledges the strength of Cnaiur at a certain point to the end..when Caniur becomes his prisoner..where he laughs at him in disbelief that this man was the one he was afraid of..yet it is merely his vanity that takes over once again, rather the undestanding the circumstances... view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 02 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

You are quite right there..we could confuse the cause and effect rather easily..especially in this case... Yet, before I give further comment, I would like to know where you think morality comes being enforced by whatever institution you must imply that it is either created naturally, out of necessity..or being created by a certain 'force' other than religion, which usually would be out of 'will to power' or domination... The reason I want to know this is that there lies the reason for morality, which you tackle slightly, yet I would like to have a somewhat more depth in your thought..before I comment on your previous remark....

(I am not sure if I have a religion..though if I do, it is defenately not one in any of the 'Gods'; though your point of 'helping the fellow man' is not necessarily religious is well taken..) view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 03 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Seeing that this is your view on the origins of morality, I see that we are in complete opposition.. Morality, in my view is not does not have a biological part..only a social one...

That we empathise with our 'fellow man' is already an established morality in my is not an innate human nature..rather an established condition throughout the centuries... The social part is therefore not merely built on the biological here that morality originates in the first place..and indeed it does so out of necessity to make the community or grouping work... Here are of course some controversies again.. Freud thought that it was the pleasure instinct that made the primal father to subject his sons to work and toil..the argument goes further and further..but it is irrelevant now..the only thing imprtant here is that through this subjection laws arrise that restrict our sexuality and our pleasure instinct... Morality then, is a restriction on sexuality in order to make the community function.. Building on Freud, Marcuse tries to efface parts of these for example diminishing working hours and giving time for satisfaction of Eros etc..etc...

Thus rules are indeed introduced in order not to bash each other's skulls in when drunk..but this is only a secondary objectives..for in the first place, they are in place merely out of satisfaction of the primal father..the toil that the sons undergo must be enforced by rules so that he can experience pleasure... I think, personally, that Foucault is much better here, he faces the problem without looking into an abstract society, rather finding historical 'facts', or rather his interpretations of them.. His Discipline and Punish covers a certain study done by Kirchheimer (the study was done by two, I miss the first name and am not sure about the spelling of this one) who have found how laws have changed with the change of economy.. For example, modern laws are not necessarily less barbaric, though we have been taught this is not the will to punish less or in a more humane is rather the change in factors of economy and disciple that provide us with these new modes of punishment. Today, and this has been a prices since the French Revolution, we punish with a 'corrective measure', we demonise the punished without a view of damned, rather with a view of something going wrong and thus two ways we gain..we reintroduce the punished into the workforce..and we restrict the crime of multiplying..we 'condition' the bodies into such a way that they are willing to function to the will of the other..the state..or other authority... Compared to the previous punishment, for example slave economy..punishment was simply putting to work..there was no need for corrective measures as the punished was directly put into a workforce...

In any case, after this long rambling, it is still unclear which is the cause and which the effect..does the society or grouping impose morality, or is it simply enforcing it to a higher degree... I think it is the first one..yet it is a necessary means to establishing a society..and although we are restricted in our acts it still keeps us from 'bashing each other's skulls in when drunk'... Morality, in other words, is a necessary is an imposition with an aim of control and it is a lie... To live without it is a possibility..but I am not advocating that change as I have no alternative in mind yet...

PS As you see there is no Nietzsche in here, since I have to read his Genealogy of Morals..though I really wish to at some point... Further, I am not claiming to be right here and you being wrong..neither trying to convince you of me being right... It is just as you, a rambling on the books I have read, which have put me into this state of mind... view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 03 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Most of Freud is ineed bollocks..i don't agree with most of his writing and especially metapsychology... That's the reason I put Foucualt in it..which is more interesting to read, but also 'historical'.. <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> And as far as I know he is not deemed obsolete..perhaps some of his theories... (He thought that women smoking cigarettes were doing so thinking of a penis, so I see where he went wrong) In any event, even though I doubt the primal father and his will for timeless pleasure, I do agree with the restriction of sexuality through morality..for the purpose of the functioning of the community...

That empathy can be found in the brain I simply didn't know..that's not my field of interest... But this still doesn't take away the argument I propose..just needs a revision.. Even if empathy is biological, morality does not have to be..the link you make is of course plausible..but not necessarily true... I'll have to think more on the issue.. (Besides I wonder what else we can find in human brain, thirst for blood perhaps..?)

Also..since you tackle come they don't have it..? In other words, how do we get the biological substance in our brain..? and how can be sure that this biological substance does not come existence through community..? After all, there are plenty biological substances that come after certain activities..thus being natural..but not necessarily present... view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 04 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Again..since my knowledge on biology is rather limited..
Could we say that this substance has evolved due to our being in a community for centuries..millenia..? In other words..did we acquire this biological trait because we already live a community..or was it ever present and drove us, in a sense, to live together..? view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 04 May 2007 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Has anyone read anything from this author..? I got it as a suggestion from Amazon for buying the TFT there..then again..Amazon would suggest a lot of things don't fit... And I don't really trust the reviews there either... Besides that point..i've never heard of this author...

So if anyone read how far can I compare him to Scott Bakker..? view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 04 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

I'm simply trying to find more on the subject..not disputing natural morality as such..
While looking through my notes on Marcuse I have found that I touch on the subject of 'natural morality' myself.. Though I am looking at it in a non-biological sense..

I have never said that social groupings are constructions of man, or that communities are unnatural.. My question here is more of what do we perceive as natural at this point..that compassion 'is biological' is a given..but how does this biological trait come to existence..? view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 06 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Of always..i don't agree...
The Greek God Chronos used to eat his own children because of a prophecy that one of them will take his power.. This would mean that the nurturing instinct is primarily female! As for the man, this 'nurture instict' would mean a subjection to the younger son.. Freud, of course, connected this to sex..but it doesn't have to be <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->
In any case, similar things can be seen in lion packs..where the son takes over the pack for his own purpose and leaves the 'father lion' in complete idle state..or indeed, nurturing the young ones... But not out of his own will!
Another example would be the Spartan state..or the nomadic 'states'..where children are either thrown off the cliffs or left behind for their uselessness.. The nurture instinct, as you describe it so far, cannot be a biological trait for compassion.. So far, it seems a necessity! (For what exactly?)

On the other hand, I still say that I don't know enough on the subject itself, so I can't really counter your statement..perhaps you have other examples.... view post

Spoiler! Kellhus posted 07 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionSpoiler! Kellhus by Sokar, Auditor

Randal -&gt; If other instincts are also involved..then without disputing natural morality, one can argue that the inforcement of 'Religious Morality' into the society (the compassionate fellow man) is to be disregarded as such. The society might indeed function better by (re)inforcement of such values as morality..yet it does not have to be - one loses sight of what is natural and what is other words one is forced into a certain thought without realising this force!
The other insticts..Eros ke Thanatos..are left to the 'immoral'..they lose their value in that given society and the subsequent societies build on this mere compassionate moral doctrine.. (I am not saying this is necessarily a bad is merely a given direction not a chosen one..neither a willed one - thus it dissolves or even eliminates the other instincts and societies built on these instincts)

As it goes for men or women having a dominant nurture is recognised that women have a different perception than men (when monitoring the brain in some way) when they see a picture of a baby.. Yet, I have heard (thus am not sure) of tribes in Asia where the men nurture the children and the women go to work.. (this also supposedly happened prior to the domination of man over woman in the ancient times) In these societies the men would probably have a different perception than the women if shown a picture of a baby..
What I am trying to show is that an established society has or creates a certain biological is not necessarily 'naturally' present there but is a mere reflection... Compassion does indeed exist..and indeed it is natural..but is an inforcement of history!

On necessity I still have to think about..not a clear thought yet....

Finally..i don't mind you two ganging will only lead to more discussion in this lately dead forum.... view post

Truth and Context posted 07 May 2007 in Author Q &amp; ATruth and Context by Sokar, Auditor

I am not sure if this question has been asked before or even if this is the correct place to ask it..but has anyone found it..? I've been looking through google..but no helpful results... Anyone else more successful..? Or perhaps when Scott Bakker himself has time he could help out..? view post

Vogon Poetry posted 09 May 2007 in Member Written WorksVogon Poetry by Sokar, Auditor

I like your first poem..very nice..inspiring in its gloominess...
I'm surprised there are no replies though..perhaps there is little to comment on...

In any case, nice 'work'... view post

Truth and Context posted 10 May 2007 in Author Q &amp; ATruth and Context by Sokar, Auditor

Oh sorry..i kind of thought that the topic would be sufficient to get what I am talking about...
In the athour bio you can find this:

In the winter of 2000, he moved back to London, Ontario, to complete his dissertation, which is entitled Truth and Context.

I've been looking for it through google..but no success... view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 10 May 2007 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Oh..i've looked at it again and you are right..a mistake from my part...
It a triology (of course) with titles: &quot;The Blade Itself&quot;, &quot;Before They Are Hanged&quot; and &quot;Last Argument of Kings&quot; (supposed to appear in March 2008). Rather new athour Joe Abercrombie. view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 11 May 2007 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Hmm..perhaps I should take a look at him then..especially that secret &quot;mock Goodkind&quot; society seems very appealing...

The only down part is that I will have to wait another year to read the 3rd book..just as with PoN... view post

the bible is the solution posted 14 May 2007 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Sokar, Auditor

I suppose you want a certain debate on this issue..perhaps you could be a little more specific, since most of the people would directly deny that! view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 14 May 2007 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Just above you posted that quote of that quote at least partially true..? Does he indeed make important socio-political points..or explore the universality of the human condition..? view post

the bible is the solution posted 15 May 2007 in Philosophy Discussionthe bible is the solution by Sokar, Auditor

The &quot;told you so!&quot; comes to mind... view post

Gollancz S.F. posted 15 May 2007 in Literature DiscussionGollancz S.F. by Sokar, Auditor

Being interested in politics and philosophy..even in romans!..i guess it's useless...! view post

The idea of global beauty posted 31 May 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionThe idea of global beauty by Sokar, Auditor

Here is something I have been wondering for a while always...
While reading some aesthetic books (by which I also mean criticisms on social classes and their perception of art, mainly Bourdieu) I have come to wonder if there is something we can call a 'global beauty'. In other words, can we perceive something as beautiful, whether painting or book or music, as intrisically beautiful to the majority of the population of the world (hence 'global')...

I'll start myself..yes there is something like global beauty, even though most of research denies it.. As I mentioned Bourdieu..his main idea is that there are several factors which define our taste (in Distinction: As social critique on the judgement of taste)..parentling, their income, your income, your class etc. and etc.. The list is very long! But he classifies them under two categories: economic and cultural capital. Due to this diversity, his research finds that every distinction has a predisposition for a certain taste in music, art, books, films etc..
In any case, although this is rather valid (his research is truly elaborate and extensive), I think he fails to see that some things can be deemed beautiful to a large proportion, despite the inherent differences in class etc..

The how.. Another Frenchman <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> Baudelaire, defines beauty as mysterious, strange and evoking a sense of !unhappiness! This is something I have thought on for a while, and have to realise that beauty must evoke unhappiness to be beautiful. Such as love cannot be understood without feelings of being lost. Or as Khayyam said: &quot;Love that does not kill, is not love.&quot; beauty must have related feelings to all..feelings of unhappiness, or some sort of tragedy...

I am not mysself fully satisfied with this analysis, so I wonder what others think on global beauty... view post

What is going on in Iraq? posted 13 June 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Sokar, Auditor

I don't know much about religious conflicts and the reasons for them, since religion for me has been only a tool of the ones in power. What I do know about the difference about Sunni's and Shi'ites is that the latter confirm to yet another prophet, Ali, which the Sunni's deny. Of course, this is not the base for the conflict in any way, it is, as I have mentioned a mere tool for the populous..short version: indoctrination.

There are some comments however on the other topics raised here.

TheDarkness -&gt; democracy is not an import product indeed, I pretty much agree with what you say, except for the fact, which I think you support but simply don't mention, the US is not in Iraq for democracy reasons.

Eleazaras218, if you are still active -&gt; There is much you point out, most of it true. Except some minor details, China is not preparing for war, all states have an army for a purpose of war, they do not, however, go to war because they have an army (I can argue the opposite just as well <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->). And Russian threats are against Europe, they can't deal with the US directly as it would mean the destruction of both (I am really interested in seeing how people can still believe that the Cold War is over, it simply can't end, maybe the actors change, but the war is ever present, Herz calls this 'security dilemma').
There is something interesting you point out, the need to stay in Iraq in fear of losing it to Iran. This is not really true, it is even wrong. Iran has little interests in Iraq, except for spreading its own strength. By which I mean to show that Iran is an actor in politics (and thus defend itself from similar threats), rather than posses Iraq, annex it or whatever other use it can have for the country. The religious hype, yes hype!, has been for no other reason than to involve Iran into the conflict for the future 'demonisation' purposes. It is, after all, recognised, by the West, as a rogue state.
As it goes for why the US fights, the reasons are can! The US needs this war also more than the others (allies), although the allies are profitting from it just as well, though less. I don't want to go into this for too is a completely different topic on wars in general, so I'll summarise von Calusewitz in his own words: &quot;war is . . . a true political instrument, a continuation of political intercourse, carried on with other means&quot; and &quot;war is part of policy&quot;.

avatar_of_existence -&gt; I like your posts in other fields, wide knowledge there, but here you make a huge mistake. Iraq was not a religious state. There was a clear seperation of religion and state, that was one of the excuses for the Iran-Iraq war in the 80's as Iran has a religous state. Saddam was in clear opposition for this (and of course economics was the reason, I am just pointing out this important factor, maybe not that important after all).

Zarathunius -&gt; The US public got indeed suckered into much senseless belief, then again, the US government is good at this, it has been doing for a long while as you mention.
Nonetheless, you have not failed in Iraq and Afghanistan, the agenda has been reached, this continuation is a mere appeasement of the American public (we are a good state, honestly <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D -->).
Also, EU does have a greater Muslim population (percentatively?). But the riots in France were of a completely different nature, unless you simply want to show what the public is capable of if it disagrees with government action. I am not sure if they are more radical, but I wouldn't know, except for that they aren't in my experience.

Randal -&gt; Germany alone would have not succeeded probably, at least not easily, but France defenately would, and it wouldn't have been that lengthy, though defenately longer in conquest alone, I am not talking of 'peacekeeping'. The main reason is that they can't start such large scale wars withough consulting the other EU states, and that would have been too lengthy a process, and probably without success. As you say, they are too tied to others in their politics. Just to point out that France at least is not as powerless as it might seem. (personally, I think the reason lay in too much public awareness of the situation, political suicide as you say).

A continuation of the current -&gt; I don't think pride has anything to do with this political situation. Probably the estimates were not to continue the war to the present, at least not with the media still focusing on the events in Iraq, but it has never been simple pride (pride for what actually?). And it wasn't ignorace either, these have been deliberate actions (I can't stress enough on this!). There is plenty of theories for the war, by which I mean academically credible ones. Economy and politics combined, plus Israel's need for water supply (&quot;hydropolitics&quot;, I still have to look into this one). But in all these, there is a recurrent theme of security..the preservation of state supremacy.

Oh..and sorry for the lengthy post..there is little going on on the board... view post

What is going on in Iraq? posted 15 June 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionWhat is going on in Iraq? by Sokar, Auditor

Randal and I said, France is !indeed! too tied up..this doesn't take away that it could, completely on its own, win the war... Don't forget that the US just as well used its bases in Europe during the attacks..exactly the same logistics you say France does not have, the US didn't either (though US probably can have them through a much easier way)... Which is actually really funny, as although Germany opposed the war, they did provide all the necessary support, as in training snipers and indeed having the troops fly through Germany, quite hypocrite... Then again, which government isn't..? view post

Breaker of Horses and Men posted 23 June 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

LOL view post

Dissertation posted 13 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionDissertation by Sokar, Auditor

yes I am waiting for someone to point out its location for me as well... view post

&quot;Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo posted 22 July 2007 in Philosophy Discussion&quot;Have you ever met someone who is smarter than you?&quo by Sokar, Auditor

Interesting..I posted that a long time ago... And I have apparently grown more convinced of my own ideas...

Compare that question to this one:

&quot;Have you ever met someone who loved more than you..&quot;

I reckon/figure <!-- s:D --><img src="{SMILIES_PATH}/icon_biggrin.gif" alt=":D" title="Very Happy" /><!-- s:D --> this one will have fewer &quot;yes&quot;-es.. But the questions are quite the same... view post

Dissertation posted 22 July 2007 in Philosophy DiscussionDissertation by Sokar, Auditor

I am not sure about the copyright laws..but if you can get a hold of it..could you possibly post it (scan the document or perhaps there is an online version)... view post

Breaker of Horses and Men posted 09 October 2007 in The Great Ordeal [supposed]Breaker of Horses and Men by Sokar, Auditor

the fact that we can identify with his case and understand his psychoses is down to Scott's skill as a writer

Actually this is most probably because we all have momentary lapses into insanity. Scott writes great, true, but our identification has nothing to do with that..

I think that knowing you are beyond any hope of redemption in your own heart is the basis of the worst kind of insanity

Again, quite the opposite is least that's what I think... When you know you are beyond any redemption (not Christian way), you find peace with yourself, as you realise that nothing will change that. It is the extreme case of willing that is the cause of insanity (which I think is more applicable to Caniur, though I don't agree with it either).

Then again, I am simply speaking of my own experience, and I doubt that many perceive this the same way.

And something else.. I am not sure if Scott tried to depict our own society, which I think he did not, he simply took elements from it. But all these aspects of insanity, homosexuality, incest and what ever not, are simply morals imposed by the societies depicted in the novel. There can be no judging of these, as our judgment comes from our (I suppose mostly Western, though there is little differences) societies. Then again, I have read way too much Nietzsche in the summer, never mind my previous encounters with Foucault....

PS I am back for this one post, Cnaiur is simply the best character I have encountered. As I said somewhere, he is the most human of them all. view post


The Three Seas Forum archives are hosted and maintained courtesy of Jack Brown