Slave Morality vs. Master Morality

[Anonymous No.20801724]

[Anonymous No.20801730]

>>20801724
How?

[Anonymous No.20801800]

>>20801730
Slave morality: someone is good because they are meek and don't desire power

Master morality: someone is good because they aren't afraid of using and gaining power

The hobbits are a perfect example of slave morality. Just short little farm village people that don't want anything but to go back to their farm. Their mediocrity and zero interest in power is their greatest virtue. Even Aragorn, from an ancient lineage of kings, accepts his position as a responsibility rather than actually wanting to be king.

The starks on the other hand are only successful when they don't act by slave morality. Only when they're not meek and don't run from power.

[Anonymous No.20801835]

>>20801724
We just had this thread.

[Anonymous No.20801893]

>>20801800
>Their mediocrity and zero interest in power is their greatest virtue.
They managed to save the world. Bravery and cunning are their greatest virtues.

[Anonymous No.20801928]

Nietzsche: Power good, me think powerful thoughts, me good and powerful, yes only strength matters

Also Nietzsche: WAHHHH I’M BATSHIT INSANE AND CATATONIC NOW SOMEBODY SAVE MEEEEEEEEEEEEE

Great “philosophy” chiefs

[Anonymous No.20802028]

>>20801893
They saved the world because of they were the only ones who did not desire power.

[Anonymous No.20802059]

>>20802028
So?

[Anonymous No.20802123]

>>20802059
Seeing power as bad and being meek and mediocre as good is quintessential slave morality.

[Anonymous No.20802138]

>>20802123
Frodo and co had characteristics of both.

[Anonymous No.20802360]

>>20801835
The Dunning Krugers are salty about getting intellectually wreacked.
It's a false dichotomy spewed by the Nietzche cultists.

[Anonymous No.20802374]

>>20801724
>>20801800
>t. Bloviating retard preaches the scriptures of Nietzche
Next you'll be telling me death is a construct while in the same breath claim that power is an absolute.

[Anonymous No.20802464]

>>20801724
I fucking love slave morality.

[Anonymous No.20802585]

>>20802138
Frodo did yes. Which is why he fails and his loyal servant had to save him.

[Anonymous No.20802726]

>>20802374
You are the perfect example of a slave, still seething about being shown how retarded you are like a week ago.

[Anonymous No.20804093]

>>20801724
Are boys making threads now?

[Anonymous No.20804242]

>>20802726
You are the perfect example of a Dunning Kruger.
>everyone who disagrees with me is the same person
>its only a dichotomy if I say so and only in the very specific context I dictate.
You're arguing a false dichotomy because you're very stupid and treat Nietzche like scripture. You can't even define power.

[Anonymous No.20804601]

>>20804242
I don't even agree with him about most of the conclusion of this stuff. That's not the issue. I would love if you could provide some new perspective but that will never happen. I enjoy different opinions and perspectives, what I despise is slaves like you and your vapid reddit tier posts that say nothing but restating your assumptions over and over. You are all the same person, really. Your thoughts are fed to you from the same sources and all sound exactly the same. You don't even have a clue what you're criticizing and don't want to find out.
The only directive my direct experience implies is the "pursuit of power" that apparently drove the evolution of my body and mind. There's no absolute claim there, it's an observation that needs to be accounted for if you want to justify any claims as absolute.

[Anonymous No.20806064]

>>20801928
Not my problem he went schizo and failed to live by them. The writings take a meaning of their own.

[Anonymous No.20806071]

>>20801800
>someone is good because they aren't afraid of using and gaining power
Do you really think that is what GRRM is saying?

[Anonymous No.20806080]

stop posting this shitty ass thread

[Anonymous No.20806081]

It’s not even a question which one will still be read, talked about, and remembered for eons to come. One could hardly expect the other to even be relevant past 2040

[Anonymous No.20806088]

>>20804601
You say nothing about why is posts are bad, you are just spouting buzzwords you can't even define. Losten, nothing you say matters, not even to you because you don't actually exist. You are a slave who can't even hold on to convictiobs and shy away twiddling your thumbs and furrowing your brows when people point out your inconsistency and incoherence.

[Anonymous No.20806105]

>>20801800
>The starks on the other hand are only successful when they don't act by slave morality.
Everything bad that happens to Starks follows from Catelyn's fuck ups - in which she fancies to be a leader, a moral judge and a good example, better than all those around her, but the consequences of her actions prove that all of it was merely a delusion. Same concept is amplified in Cercei, Varys, Ramsey, Tywin, Lysa, Stannis, Daenerys, Jon Connington, Euton. etc.

Every other guy exercising power things that they have the rules figured out and are doing the Right Thing or the Reasonable Thing or the Deserved thing or the Proper Thing with it, while in reality they are just making bad decisions on limited information pandering to their own psychological issues and short-sighted self-interests and getting facefulls of shit resulting from said bad decisions.

[Anonymous No.20806126]

>>20806105
That is just the way of life. Everybody desires power in some way and those who do it for their egotistic own sake aren't better off, see Geoffrey. Ethics is what matters more, and that is in essence a form of domination.

[Anonymous No.20806389]

>>20806088
Is this incoherent post by an illiterate retard supposed to say something other than "I am completely incapable of basic reason"? Can you elaborate on what it's trying to say?
Why don't you ask for elaboration if you're confused? Why are you making posts about subjects you don't know anything about and have no interest in finding anything out about?

[Anonymous No.20806448]

>>20806071
Yes? Just look at ned stark he had a chance for victory had he not been so hesitant.

[Anonymous No.20806459]

>>20801800
slave morality isn't when you don't desire power, it's when you openly shun power and lie to yourself because you're envious of powerful people

[Anonymous No.20806482]

>>20806448
Tywin Lannister was far more interested in power than Ned and his legacy crumbles after his death. The North still fights for the Starks, they are going to war to save who they think is Ned's daughter from the Boltons' clutches. In ASOIAF power isn't everything.

[Anonymous No.20807078]

>>20804601
>I enjoy different perspectives except those perspectives that highlight the false dichotomy I'm shilling.
The only assumption I make is people who think slave mentality is a robust absolute are retarded and you keep proving me correct.
>>20806088
This anon gets it
>>20806389
Define power: protip, you can't.
You don't have an argument you have buzzword laden bloviatiion and a false dichotomy you support with the scriptures of Nietzche.
You're worthy of mockery because you're incapable of sincere discussion...you lack the intellectual capacity.

[Anonymous No.20807093]

>>20806459
You're like that kid who learns karate but the only way you can demonstrate what you know is if you make someone stand in a specific position for your moves to work.

[Anonymous No.20807103]

>>20806448
Ned Starks sin was mercy

[Anonymous No.20807141]

>>20806105
Its all because Catelyn SWORE to the gods that she would love and cherish jon snow if they let him survive a severe illness as a baby.
She broke her vow and cursed her children as a result

[Anonymous No.20807149]

>>20802028
This isn't even true. Frodo fails in his quest because he chooses power at the end. Gollum too chooses power. It is only by grace that the ring is finally destroyed. And GRRM is a lapsed Catholic; he is absolutely not writing a fantasy series about how might makes right.

[Anonymous No.20807207]

>>20807141
Anon, the only one of her children who's dead is the one she buzzed around - Robb. The rest of them are alive and except for Rickon mostly fine, largely THANKS to being wa the fuck away from her. I don't think it's the Old Gods, more probably it's her.

[Anonymous No.20807217]

>>20807149
>Frodo fails in his quest because he chooses power at the end. Gollum too chooses power.
That's what I said.

[Anonymous No.20807225]

>>20807207
I didnt say cursed to death, but all of her kids get maimed and/or fucked up. Of course the crown jewel of any lady wife would be the eldest son, who gets murdered in front of her.

[Anonymous No.20807239]

>>20807149
Frodo did all that was physically possible for a mortal being. He didnt fail, he brought the ring to the place and time it needed to be. The grace you refer to is as basic and uncontrollable as the gravity that makes the ring fall into the pit. Its like saying sinking a three pointer to win the game is failing because gravity made the ball go in, not the player.

[Anonymous No.20807644]

>>20801800
Mofo, with ring involved, there aint to power. The cons outweight pros with large margin.

Frodo's mentaal strength comes from the fack that he could withstand the lure of the hex for remarkable time.

[Anonymous No.20807654]

>>20801800

Mofo, with ring involved, there aint no power. The cons outweight pros by large margin.

Frodo's mental strength comes from the fact that he could withstand the lure of the hex for a remarkable amount of time.

[Anonymous No.20807670]

>>20801800
Starks don’t want power they want justice and idealism to a fault.

[Anonymous No.20807683]

>>20807670
And justice and idealism are slave morality.

[Anonymous No.20807902]

>>20807078
>people who think slave mentality is a robust absolute are retarded
I explicitly said many time it's not an "absolute".
Like binary thinking in general it's like a measuring stick we impose on our experience. A way to quantify things, split our overwhelming experience into manageable units.
>Define power
I can try to relate to you what the idea is but if you make no effort to relate to what's said you will get nothing out of it. It's not a formal idea nested in strict logic. It's a reference to observations.
The only imperative I can deduce from the direct experience is the imperative of "life", the imperatives I and apparently every animal have been born with. I don't know for sure about the animals but I do know my own direct experience, it's the only thing I really know.
The instinct I have that apparently everything else has too is something I can relate to ideas like evolution. "Power" in this context is a label for the thing that gave me and apparently everything else this instinct to enact my will over things, to take control of this experience. It's the reason why we're motivated to do things like construct formal logic, to enact our will.

[Anonymous No.20808264]

>>20807902
Formal logic has nothing to do with imposing will. Formal logic is a system for preserving knowledge and culling fact from fiction. Computers and aircraft are Formal logic.
Power is a wishy washy concept. Master and slave is a wishy washy concept. People in Power are usually slaves to the systems that keep them in power. Slaves just pick the cotton and their minds are free.
Nietzche was a drug addict, stop treating his ideas as fact.

[Anonymous No.20808281]

>>20807683
You
Are
Retarded
>Hurr de durr just rape my 9 year old without consequences

[Anonymous No.20808391]

>>20808264
>for preserving knowledge and culling fact from fiction
For what purpose? Humans made it to serve their will, to have more power over the world. That's formal logic not the phenomena that our ideas of logic represents/maps. The new point from this guy is that it's possible that what logic represents is also shaped by that same fundamental goal. We can't be sure, only the fundamental phenomena that dictates the goals that compelled us to seek knowledge, the "power" remains.
>wishy washy
Everything that's not binary can be called wishy washy but it's clear what we're doing when we reduce the world to binaries. It's not honest to pretend it's a representation of absolute and final truth. We can represent everything describable using computers using binary logic but the resolution to finely represent things is derived from having billions of binary logic gates, that results in barely creating a representational image of a thing we can perceive. It's not the actual thing.
>People in Power are usually slaves to the systems that keep them in power
Suddenly when you think the metaphoric way of communicating with impressions instead of strict definitions serves your ideological presuppositions then they're fine.
You reduce the idea of power into a purely hierarchical thing. I'm talking about power over the world which can mean being able to order people around but that's just one example and one way of being able to exert your will over your experience. Knowledge gives me more power over the world. That's apparently why big brains evolved. Life uses its power over the world to extract material from it and create more life.

[Anonymous No.20808641]

>>20808391
>I don't know the difference between methods of vetting and preserving truth and applying truth
>I don't understand logic and axiomatic reasoning
>you don't get to apply strict reasoning like that reeee
Dunning Kruger: you got it bad.
Define power: you didn't.

[Anonymous No.20808819]

>>20808641
>I don't understand logic and axiomatic reasoning
I know you don't. I spent my life applying strict logic reliably with considerable success, any misconceptions I may have shared with you about how logic works are in the distant past due to training by actually testing my logic. That my logical models that are testable now tend to work before any testing means my models in general probably reflect reality somewhat.

Notice how you're not engaging with the post again. There was a thread of thought there, I engaged with your points about the history of formal logic. You ignore all threads of thought or common ground you could actually work from to reach an understanding and returned back to your spam about deferring to formal logic as a way to disprove any criticism of formal logic. If define power axiomatically the point is lost, you haven't learned anything, no meaning has been conveyed.

[Anonymous No.20808829]

>>20801724
what did you expect? Tolkien was a Christian.

>>20801800
I think a lot of this was heavily influenced by WW1. Frodo looks a lot like a stand-in for Tolkien (though not entirely, just hints of his experience). He is orphaned, taken in by a learned man that teaches him about the world, and gets enlisted into a war. I think Tolkien did say that Sam was influenced by the common soldiers he saw on the front, because he felt an affinity for them since they carried the weight of the war. And of course Tolkien himself was sent back to England due to illness, and in the end Frodo is so spiritually injured by the burden of the ring that he gets on a boat to the land across the sea. The destruction of the ring WAS supposed to represent a denial of power, since Tolkien felt that the pretty pointless power struggle of the great nations of Europe had caused the evils of the war. So the heroic subversion of that was for little people who only wanted peaceful lives to symbolically reject power.

[Anonymous No.20808840]

>>20808819
>my models in general probably reflect reality somewhat
But you're gonna jump on the word "reality" there instead of trying to understand anything. "Define reality".
My models in general probably reflect what they model somewhat. I can be modelling a completely hypothetical context like one defined within a computer. These all rest within a phenomena that I can only use through constructed intermediaries like formal logic. I don't need constructed intermediaries for my direct experience, the thing I know first hand is dominated by the "will to power" as in the prime directives of living things.

[Anonymous No.20808871]

>>20801800
Nah. Both stories make the same point. Power for power's sake is retarded. Power for virtue's sake is based

[Anonymous No.20808901]

>>20808819
I have a degree in math and computer science. I'm literally an expert on logic: you're retarded.
You
Can't
Define
Power
Your premis is invalid.
You haven't used correct formal logic once. You're arguing a false premise.
>>20808829
>retarded bloviating.
Embarrassing. The cult of Nietzche is truly dedicated to espousing stupidity.
Define power. Go on, do it.

[Anonymous No.20808918]

>>20808840
>but I can't define power
>minor detail, because I say so

[Anonymous No.20808952]

>>20808901
>I'm literally an expert on logic
You're only conditioned by things you were told, you don't actually think. I've applied it reliably for decades and refined my mastery of it to a point you dream of. You have ideas someone told you work but you don't understand how they work, their history or their weaknesses.
>You haven't used correct formal logic once
I have been very explicit that when you're discussing Nietzsche trying to describe these ideas like "power" using formal logic would be doing you a disservice, you would understand what they guy was talking about less.
These are criticisms of logic based on things like how formal logic historically developed. You keep demanding I formulate those criticisms using the very tool he's pointing out the weaknesses of. All you do is repeat this demand, you add no thoughts, hints to thoughts, references, hypotheticals, grunts and points. Nothing but demands that I use axiomatic logic, the very thing in question.

[Anonymous No.20808973]

>>20808952
>you were conditioned to use rigid logic and to be pragmatic
Correct. You, however, are objectively retarded.
>you still haven't used correct formal logic
Define power midwit. You can't, because you are stupid.
Try again.
Define power and perhaps I may give you some sort of respect. As it stands you're just a cultists spewing scripture devoid of understanding.

[Anonymous No.20808986]

>>20808973
>Define power
I can try to relate to you what the idea is but if you make no effort to relate to what's said you will get nothing out of it. It's not a formal idea nested in strict logic. It's a reference to observations.
The only imperative I can deduce from the direct experience is the imperative of "life", the imperatives I and apparently every animal have been born with. I don't know for sure about the animals but I do know my own direct experience, it's the only thing I really know.
The instinct I have that apparently everything else has too is something I can relate to ideas like evolution. "Power" in this context is a label for the thing that gave me and apparently everything else this instinct to enact my will over things, to take control of this experience. It's the reason why we're motivated to do things like construct formal logic, to enact our will.

[Anonymous No.20809002]

>>20808986
>the foundation of my argument is a thing I can't define
>nooooo, you just aren't trying to relate
>my dichotomy is based on strict logic but all the underpinnings are subjective and hazy, don't notice the foundations!!!!
You got problems.

[Anonymous No.20809020]

>>20808973
>you were conditioned to use rigid logic and to be pragmatic
You were conditioned to worship ideas you don't understand as dogma, as holy truth that can never be assailed in any way.
You did eventually accept there is a difference between your map and this "objective truth" it supposedly represents but reluctantly and then in your posts you immediately reverted to acting as if there is no difference and your ideas map it all completely.
How relevant are your degrees and ideas to your precious truth when I dominate you on every level when it comes to navigating life and actually applying the ideas you claim to be the authority on?
>>20809002
>the foundation of my argument is a thing I can't define
It's not an argument. It's not nested in logic. It's an observation nested in direct experience. This "philosophy" is the same philosophy cavemen had, it's the philosophy of flatworms. Humans are lost in abstractions, they don't know how to use their tools, they confuse their maps with the territory.
>my dichotomy is based on strict logic
What are you referencing? Dichotomies are simplifications of complex phenomena into manageable units like I already said.

[Anonymous No.20809055]

>>20809020
>you can't replicate endlessly computers and their software
Yes I can.
>You can't prove chemistry after you're dead
I absolutely can
>your formal logic can't tame reality
Bitch, I conquered light and gravity
>the power dichotomy isn't my argument
Oh, ok, ummmmmm master slave is about what than? Words and ideas devoid of reality? You seem a master at that.
>trying to simplify the complex! How dare you...except master slave because...just because

[Anonymous No.20809098]

>>20809055
>you can't replicate endlessly computers and their software
What is the relevance? Surely there's a thought process behind this but it doesn't relate to anything I said.
>your formal logic can't tame reality
You conflate everything said wildly to serve the conclusion you already decided, conflating everything like that is not formal logic. You don't even know how to use the thing you keep deferring to.
In the previous post I was talking about your lack of understanding of logic and its weaknesses, not trying to claim logic is useless. I referenced how useful it is many times but you ignore it, blind to everything that doesn't fit your dogma. Completely deranged in a fantasy world separate from anything said to you. I know for a fact you never applied your supposed education practically in a competent way, you're completely incapable.
>the power dichotomy
Is something that exists purely in your mind. Nothing I said or Nietszche said relates to the deranged idea you have of what this means. Again you conflate everything wildly based on vague associations, you're still assuming "power" specifically and exclusively references the dynamic between a master and a slave. Another thing I tried to correct many times but you just ignore it and continue arguing for your fantasies.
Master - slave morality relates more to resentment, it's about social issues and practical ethics. It's not the same idea at all as the criticism of logic as a product of the "will to power".

Logic is a product of an animal. The perspective vs truth meme shows you how formal logic can for example be "taming" a limited aspect of truth.
It's descriptive power is not adequate for everything I directly experience like "qualia" or whatever, the direct experience itself. You keep claiming your ideas are all encompassing but they only are if you deliberately ignore everything that doesn't fit your preconceptions, exactly like you do when you "read" my posts.

[Anonymous No.20809105]

>>20801800
slave and master morality aren't extant, they bear specific historical reference to periods of Jewish enslavement, and Nietzsche himself does not extend their use beyond these periods. and, what's even worse, the whole irony, in fact the entire POINT of the book in which Nietzsche sets up this dichotomy is that slave morality DEFEATED master morality in a pure practical-historical power calculus, and Nietzsche himself was aa far as one could be from directly advocating for "master morality" as some kind of institution. go actually read Genealogy of Morals and then come back to this shitty, disgusting, shameful thread you have made

[Anonymous No.20809122]

>>20809098
>formal logic and the ability to apply objective logic doesn't apply to my argument
Obviously.
>you conflate my inability to define power with my inability to apply formal logic.
Indeed I do.
>power dichotomy isn't remotely related to the master/slave relationship
Um... ok.
Right.
So, basically you're suffering from PMS.

[Anonymous No.20809130]

>>20801724
Virtue vs Cope

[Anonymous No.20809155]

>SLAVE MORALITY IS BAD BECAUSE, IT UHH JUST BECAUSE IT IS OKAY?

[Anonymous No.20809180]

>>20801724
GOT is a childish view created by a narcissistic view of a man who doesn't believe in God so his world doesn't believe in good and truth
The Lord of the Rings is a story about truth, beauty, friendship, and love conquering evil, ugliness, hatred, and corruption created by a man who believes in God and his love for those who believe him so his world believes in truth, altruism, and nobility.

This is the only truth.

[Anonymous No.20809184]

>>20809122
>power dichotomy isn't remotely related to the master/slave relationship
It's related but you conflate the ideas in an incredibly retarded way. It doesn't matter if you understand the basics of axiomatic logic but can't apply it at all and conflate all the elements involved dishonestly to serve whatever conclusion you want.
I already told you everything you should need not to conflate these ideas but you still do. Someone who disagrees but understands somewhat would be able to at least argue against something relatively similar to what I'm arguing for after this much explanation given.
>inability to define power
I can define power in many ways. The best definitions for any concepts involve analyzing its history and etymology. None of that is relevant to the idea of "will to power". It's not about the desire to subjugate as many slaves as possible or whatever you seem to be implying. You apparently made up some deranged power fantasy based on your rotten instincts and demand I defend that while ignoring everything I do say.
Strict definitions don't usually relate to how we use words in practice, meaning is derived from built up context. I used the word "power" in three different contexts in the previous line and each one relating subtly different meaning. First it was "power", the supposedly undefined word you want a definition for, second was the idea from Nietszche that is not formally defined, third was colloquially based on historical use.

[Anonymous No.20809219]

>>20809105
Op will obviously ignore this. Stop trying to cockblock my fun poltard.
>>20809184
>The master slave dichotomy doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of power even though it is based on the idea of having power and being under the influence of power
Ummmmmmmm... ok
>I can define power in many ways but nine of them will support my argument so I won't even try.
So, there is no such thing as the master slave morality in any definable way that matters. K, got it.

[Anonymous No.20809256]

>>20809219
why do you say i'm a /pol/tard? Genealogy of Morals narrates how slaves used morality as a weapon to destroy those physically stronger than themselves (which OP would know, if he had read it): Nietzsche isn't about prescribing, he's just about historical hot takes, so please don't think that because i used the J-word that i have anything other than, like Nietzsche, the deepest admiration and respect for God's Chosen People

[Anonymous No.20809274]

>>20809256
Jews live to spew godless woman hating subversion on /pol/. Nietzche is the epitome of those ideals. Who else but a jew would understand Nietzche preached the subversion of power than a jew who thrives on soft power. You're a poltard alright, but not the good kind.

[Anonymous No.20809275]

>>20809219
>doesn't really have anything to do with the definition of power even though it is based on the idea of having power
It does but it's not the same idea.
If you would have clarified the deranged context you're working in instead of repeating demands we could have gotten somewhere earlier. I thought you were talking about the "will to power" and criticisms of logic as you should have been able to tell by me constantly referencing it as a criticism of logic, that part is not a formal idea.
To serve the points about master - slave morality I can define power if I want to. We can use traditional ideas of power as in ability to do something, in this case specifically affect the physical world.
I would summarize slave morality as something like framing the world in terms of external oppressors instead of your own abilities and inabilities but I'm not really sure. He used examples more than definitions and I'm not as interested in this idea as the will to power idea.

The master-slave morality thing is not about arguing for slavery. Why do you seem to think that and why not reveal that you're arguing against these fantasies before?
He did argue against our emotional revulsion to slavery but he also pointed out that it doesn't help the master to rely on slaves, it causes him spoil and decay. I'm firmly against slavery because it's a force of decay. I'm not more powerful by promoting slavery, my will is not served by it and neither are my genes that apparently are the source of my will.

[Anonymous No.20809288]

Please just goddamn read the Genealogy of Morals and take in the words. Stop reading your political ideology into the words (that goes for all of you both marxists/progressives and chuds). Just look at the goddamn words it isn't difficult and yet I see the most ridiculous perversions of such simple concepts
>dude slave morality is when you are religious, religious people are da REAL slaves
>dude master morality is when you go to the gym or kill people

[Anonymous No.20809300]

>>20809274
>woman-hating
oh? this came more or less ex nihilio. who hurt you, anonette?

[Anonymous No.20809307]

>>20809275
I'm not interested in arguing your scripture.
You're a good goy though.
>>20809256
The Jew, ironically, gets it.

[Anonymous No.20809311]

>>20809256
This is philosemitic bullshit. You can't say that God's Chosen People conquered Rome when it was Christians that did that and the "Chosen" today still reject Jesus which would mean they forfeit Christian historical achievements. The ethno-religious Jews didn't do shit against Rome, Jesus didn't start a national revolution against Caesar, just such a silly position to take

[Anonymous No.20809318]

>>20809300
>Didn't read Human, all to human
You're bad at this.

[Anonymous No.20809340]

>>20809311
Oh boy... you are reeeaally bad at connecting the dots. Augustus let the jews into Rome... it began to crumble IMMEDIATELY after.
The slaves destroyed the empire and the worst off were those poor Persians.

[Anonymous No.20809346]

>>20809307
>I'm not interested in arguing your scripture.
What have you been talking about this whole time? Why do you infect forums devoted to dialogue with your cancer mister computer science degree? A reddit sterotype made flesh and proud of it.

[Anonymous No.20809361]

>>20809311
but the Jews invented the tactic of denaturing their national God in order to use him to subvert the oppressing power, a tactic that Christ merely extended (further generalized). this is what Nietzsche says, at least

>>20809318
i'm not saying Nietzsche didn't hate women, but it seems kinda irrelevant to this particular discussion and like it's a rather personal issue for you.

[Anonymous No.20809362]

>>20809340
So you mean the political conquest of Rome was a Jewish conspiracy or something? Honestly I know nothing about that one way or the other I thought you were talking about the conquest of Roman religion/spirit through Christianity

[Anonymous No.20809364]

>>20809346
I've been openly mocking you. This was never a debate, you fall on your face at the basics.
The Jew is correct, master slave has specific historical context. You're obviously too dumb so I just kicked you around intellectually. For funzies. Now the rabbi is here so I actually have to think.

[Anonymous No.20809382]

>>20809364
>I've been openly mocking you
I correctly identified you as a dishonest subversive from the start. You desperately refuse the accusation until it suits you when suddenly you're proud of being cancer.
You don't know how to think coherently, you will always just follow your conditioned biases mindlessly like this post demonstrates.
Originally you kept spamming shit about how you have absolute knowledge of divinely revealed objective truth. Didn't even mention master-slave morality in most of your posts. You will always reframe anything said to you however it suits you with no hint of honesty which is what I've been telling you from the beginning.
Now that you've admitted it we can talk about my original questions regarding your willful dishonesty. What goal you think it serves to undermine sincere dialogue?

[Anonymous No.20809387]

>>20809361
>Jews spew woman hate on /pol/
>no no no says the jew, that's just you!
Nice try Moshi. Human all to human has a chapter dedicated to how awful woman are according to Nietzche. Did you just not read it or are you just lyin?
>>20809362
Rome went into rapid decline after letting the jews in. The debasing of the currency and massive immagrant problem are the jews favorite subversion tactics.

[Anonymous No.20809397]

>>20809387
I can rant about how awful women are. I can also do the same about men.
In the context of organizing societies women are way more awful.

[Anonymous No.20809401]

>>20809382
No, I was totally honest and never lied once. You're just really stupid.
Your logic is trash and your understanding of Nietzche is sophomoric.

[Anonymous No.20809408]

>>20809387
i'm genuinely confused rn. Nietzsche was a misogynist, granted. i am agreeing with you 100 on that. what i don't understand is what his misogyny has to do with this discussion of master/slave morality

[Anonymous No.20809425]

>>20809401
>No, I was totally honest
As in demanding definitions that fit your preconceptions with no context is not strictly a lie. It's a dishonest tactic meant to undermine sincere dialogue.
You admitted one post ago that you weren't sincerely engaging with anything I said then one post later you say you weren't being dishonest.
>Your logic is trash
This is the important bit. You have no handle on logic at all as it is. If you learn even a tiny bit from my criticisms of your deranged thought process you will be more competent in life. My track record is verifiable, yours does not exist. You didn't even try to play around with logic as an exercise which you had plenty of opportunities to do, you're not interested in it. All you've been interested in doing is spamming dogma that's irrelevant to anything either I or Nietzsche said.

[Anonymous No.20809430]

>>20809180
Don't care Catholicism is slave morality.

[Anonymous No.20809431]

>>20809300 <---oy vey!
>>20809408
Learn how to back track a thread kid.

[Anonymous No.20809440]

>>20809425
>in asking for a foundation for your argument
Which you still can't provide
>I have no handle on logic
I know, which is why I assumed PMS
Let's try this: define slave

[Anonymous No.20809445]

>>20809431
what are you on about dude? you're the one who brought up his misogyny, i was quoting you, and i'm literally begging you to tell me the relevance of the comment i quoted, because i at this point i do indeed feel like i am taking crazy pills

[Anonymous No.20809464]

>>20809440
>Let's try this: define slave
In what context? For what purpose? What's my "argument" that involves the word "slave"?
When I apply my idea of master-slave dichotomy in literary interpretations on internet threads? In that context a slave is someone motivated by resentment instead of something that aligns more productively with his biological imperatives like a "master" or "creator".

[Anonymous No.20809468]

>>20809445
>I still don't know how this website works
Obviously. I'm not going to spoon feed you the thread because you're too dumb to backtrack links. Feel bad about being incompetent.

[Anonymous No.20809473]

>>20809464
>When I apply my idea of master-slave dichotomy in literary interpretations on internet threads?
I didn't even actually do this btw but I'm willing to pretend for the sake of argument.
I did reply to incoherent posts where some guy just kept spamming his dogma about how he has access to "objective truth" through logic.

[Anonymous No.20809484]

>>20809464
So, you can't define slave.
Mk.
>master slave morality
OK what's a slave
>that depends
Soon what's a master
>that depends
Oh ok...so, you're just full of shit and making things up as you go along while totally ignoring the historical context
>nnoooooooo it's robust logic reeee

[Anonymous No.20809492]

>>20809473
>samefagging
Pathetic

[Anonymous No.20809507]

>>20809361
>but the Jews invented the tactic of denaturing their national God
This is some ultimate conspiracy theory stuff and doesn't even make sense, is "the Jews" supposed to be both Jesus AND the Jews that killed him? I mean if you draw no distinctions anywhere you can make all sorts of theories but it seems a tad ridiculous to do so

[Anonymous No.20809520]

>>20809484
Why isn't the definition good enough? It's an analogy based on the historical concept, not saying the hobbits or whatever were literal slaves.
Note that I didn't even actually do this. I'm not the one using these vague ideas for literary analysis. I replied to your posts about "objective truth". You almost never mentioned the words master or slave in the 500 posts you spammed.
>that depends
Yes, all words rest in context, meaning is established by building context. I gave you an example before where "power" had three different meanings in one line. These are absolute basics that you're pretending you don't understand to undermine dialogue. You're not employing some kind of productive rhetorical device, you're just spreading incoherent cancer and teaching people how to be illiterate like you.
>>20809492
Do you sincerely think I'm pretending to be someone else? Is this an example of your illiteracy or dishonesty? Did you not understand or is it le epic mocking (which is definitely not the same as dishonest subversive cancer)?

[Anonymous No.20809522]

>>20809507
He's actually paraphrasing Nietzche. This whole thread is about the jews and their slave morality bro...according to Nietzche.

[Anonymous No.20809537]

>>20809507
The Christians were part of the same subjugated class as Jews had been under Rome early on, "slaves" until Constantine.
However these softer ideas and appeals to plebs that could be criticized all the same as the Christian versions were spreading under the prosperity of Rome anyway, Caesar was a sort of Christ-like figure that distinguished himself from previous kings/tyrants through mercy and appealing to the masses. Killed by the people he "saved" and his martyrdom founded the actual empire, he didn't do it himself, his death did.

[Anonymous No.20809539]

>>20809522
Where is that in Neetch? Not doubting that he said something weird like that cause he flip flops a lot on his characterization of Jesus but I wanna read it over again

[Anonymous No.20809545]

>>20809430
And Atheism isn't? It's quite a sad state that want your life to be consumed by sleepwalking through life and enjoying hedonism. But one day, you will find God and his good graces. I believe it.

[Anonymous No.20809547]

>>20809520
>why is my inability to define something but talk about that thing good enough.
Are you a chatbot? I'm having a hard time believing you're an actual person lacing this much self awareness.
>power has three different meanings but master and slave is in opposition and well defined
Oh OK.

Also, yes, I sincerely believe you're retarded enough to respond to your own posts.

Define master: you can't
Define slave: you can't
Define power: you can't
.
.but definitions have nothing to do with formal logic!

[Anonymous No.20809550]

>>20809105<
>>20809539
Read the thread newfag.

[Anonymous No.20809562]

>>20809547
>power has three different meanings
In only one line. Because text analysis depends on context. It's a huge and ancient subject with a lot of things to consider.
>but master and slave is in opposition and well defined
When did I say this? In what post did I defend this position or imply it's valid? I can point you to multiple posts where I said the opposite explicitly and many more that imply it.
>Also, yes, I sincerely believe you're retarded enough to respond to your own posts.
I clarified what I was saying by replying to my post. You assumed I was pretending to be someone else because of your complete inability to analyze any text, even simple internet posts. This really is functional illiteracy.
>Define master: you can't
In what context? In what statement? Can you quote me the statement you want clarified?
>the only thing that exists is axiomatic logic
That explains why you can't read. You're unable to analyze any text at all on any level except through strict axiomatic logic? You believe words have definitive absolute definitions that define all their possible meanings in all situations? How can you pretend to know anything about logic while acting like a deranged burger fundamentalist?

[Anonymous No.20809581]

>>20809537
No. The Jews were recognized as a sovereign church in 0 ace/bce by Augustus while the Christians were still persecuted. The "jews," cannanites really also still heald Judeah. Constantine didn't rise to power for another 320 years after Agustus let the jews into Rome.

[Anonymous No.20809595]

>>20809562
>I can't define master or slave
Obviously.
So basically you're saying you can't define slave, master or morality and are wondering why I'm relishing humiliating you.
>>20801724
Slave:can't define
Vs
Master:also can't define
Morality:..ya, can't define that either
Continue.

[Anonymous No.20809596]

>>20809581
The point of the post was the "slave" status of Christians. They were still the subjugated underclass fighting up.
>is "the Jews" supposed to be both Jesus AND the Jews that killed him
In the context of how these ideas from Jewish slaves ended up taking control of Rome. If you add stuff about it being some conscious, cooperative act as if Jews and Christians had a secret pope that's you adding that instead of exploring what could be really meant.

[Anonymous No.20809619]

>>20809595
>So basically you're saying you can't define slave, master or morality and are wondering why I'm relishing humiliating you.
I gave you many definitions already. You called them insufficient and refused to elaborate on why. Whenever we go down some thread of thought that might lead somewhere you deliberately subvert any progress and revert back to autistic meaningless demands.

>When I apply my idea of master-slave dichotomy in literary interpretations on internet threads? In that context a slave is someone motivated by resentment instead of something that aligns more productively with his biological imperatives like a "master" or "creator".
Here's one definition. What's wrong with it? The thing you mentioned is it's not the historical definition of slave, this criticism makes no sense because nobody is saying the hobbits were literal slaves.

You won't engage with anything in this post, you'll just demand an autistic definition like a burger fundamentalist that doesn't have a basic understanding of language or logic. If you're mocking anyone it's the American people with this insensitive portrayal of a braindead stereotype.

[Anonymous No.20809622]

>>20809468
preening conceited ass and fucking retard who's actually too stupid to explain himself, a dangerous combination. and go jack off you sexless cretin, i can tell you're sweating from the adrenaline of calling people newfags

[Anonymous No.20809628]

>>20809596
>I'm going to imply things you didn't say
Christians were executed and the jews had a temple in Rome moron. The jews weren't slaves under Augustus, they were a recognized religion. Christians, meanwhile, were hunted and killed for the next 50 years or so.
You're either willfully lying or just really stupid.

[Anonymous No.20809636]

>>20809622
>Explain because following links is beyond me
No. Stay mad newfag.

[Anonymous No.20809638]

>>20809628
>I'm going to imply things you didn't say
What did I imply?
>Christians were executed and the jews had a temple in Rome
What does that change about anything I said? Do you think I'm saying there was no distinction between them? Why do you think that? You must be the same illiterate burger.

[Anonymous No.20809639]

>>20809636
have sex

[Anonymous No.20809645]

>>20809550
that's just some other guy's post, I was lookin for Neetch's words. I assume it's somewhere in gen of morals?

[Anonymous No.20809662]

>>20809619
>I gave definitions
>a slave is someone motivated by resentment
Oh, ok, what's a master?
>someone not motivated by resentment
..?
So the jews are motivated by resentment...you know, I agree with you.
But what if I resent the jews and they resent me? Who's the slave? Without a master can you have a slave? Is the resentment the master?
..

[Anonymous No.20809667]

>>20809662
>Is the resentment the master?
That's an example of a perspective that provides some insight but not using any ideas inspired by Nietzsche.

[Anonymous No.20809682]

>>20809596
>jews and Christians had a secret pope
Um, no. They hated each other
>jews were slaves in Rome just like Christians
No, the jews were allowed to worship and Christians were executed
>>20809638
So basically you get off on being an insincere liar or you're just really dumb and don't know shit about history. Could be both.
>>20809639
>Muh dick
I expect no less from a tourist that doesn't understand the board.
>>20809645
>I can't even spell Nietzche correctly

[Anonymous No.20809691]

>>20809662
This is a thread about meme literary analysis. I did not make the claims you autistically argue against and neither did anyone else. I explicitly told you that many times. Relating hobbits to slaves is not some objective, empirically verifiable idea.
I can argue for both and relate either books to either slave or master instincts. That is instincts derived from what I consider weakness and relate that to "slave morality" or instincts derived from what I call a healthy will and relate that to "master morality". You can talk about the flaws in that but the flaws are not that I didn't strictly define "slave" like an autist and get lost in formalities instead of saying anything.

[Anonymous No.20809696]

>>20809682
you don't even know which anon is which, you're so horny and flustered (kinda cute desu). you really need to have sex

[Anonymous No.20809703]

>>20809667
>can't define master
>resorts to Sophistry
Oh my, you're desperate

[Anonymous No.20809711]

>>20809682
>jews and Christians had a secret pope
Replying to a post explicitly saying they did not.
>insincere liar
There is no chance you're sincere about this reply about the secret pope. You already admitted you're a subversive. I'm very interested in understanding why you go around subverting dialogue.
>jews were slaves in Rome just like Christians
Jews were invaded and subjugated in multiple rebellions.
>So basically
What are you talking about though? Why do you never reference what you're actually talking about and instead expect me to just know whatever deranged shit you made up in your head? There's no chance you have a degree in anything.

[Anonymous No.20809718]

>>20809703
>can't define master
I really sincerely want to discuss this idea you have. Let's start with basics. Do you think you normally work from strict definitions when you read text?

[Anonymous No.20809747]

>>20809696
I don't care is more accurate. You're all obviously stupid.
>>20809691
>everyone I dis agree with is the same person
You're retarded.
>it's a meme and it's all relative
>but Nietzche is correct in that master slave thing
Again your retarded
>I'm so not butthurt about getting intellectually blasted I'm going to keep posting this thread
The irony is I had nothing to do with destroying you the first two times you retards started this. It's just so easy to dab on you retards I see why those other anons did it

[Anonymous No.20809750]

>>20809718
>do you own a dictionary
Yes. Four actually.

[Anonymous No.20809756]

>>20809711
What rights did Jews have under Augustus in 3ace vs Christians. Prove to me you aren't retarded. As it stands you're really demonstrably stupid or a liar.

[Anonymous No.20809761]

>>20809747
>I don't care is more accurate. You're all obviously stupid
wow, are you blushing right now? so sulky and petulant, raito-kun. it's sounding more and more like you really need to have sex

[Anonymous No.20809765]

>>20809747
>everyone I dis agree with is the same person
Everyone who spams the same posts over and over is. I can work from the assumption that you're not even though you clearly are.
>but Nietzche is correct in that master slave thing
In what master slave thing?
You're not engaging with what I say or what Nietzsche says.
>>20809750
Wow. I thought this was a meme, like a joke to make fun of Americans. All you need to get over this is to learn a second language.
It's blowing my mind that you really are the absolutely mindless golem I imagined as if it was a funny meme.
>>20809756
>What rights did Jews have under Augustus
What claim that I made does this relate to?

[Anonymous No.20809777]

>>20809761
>>20809765
>get absolutely destroyed intellectually
>resort to petulantance
Ahahhahhahahahhahahahahha
Hahhahahahhahahhaha
Worth it. I just saw the end of the second attempt at the cult of Nietzche trying to run this lame discourse. Imagine running a thread three times and getting btfod in every one by total random.
Cope. That's all you have left is cope.
Hahhahahah.
Go on. Continue
Oh, this is too rich

[Anonymous No.20809785]

>>20809750
So you're an actual fundamentalist, literalist burger Christian? It's even weirder to me if you're not a burger Christian and somehow adopted these recent ideas about literary analysis through cultural osmosis.
Will you tell me if you are or not for the sake of curiosity and helping us both progress as people?
>>20809777
Let's relate the hobbit to feminist-theory next. What triggers you so much about inquiry and playing around with ideas?

[Anonymous No.20809787]

>>20809777
>petulantance
you're say such adorable things, you're probably equally as adorable irl. i'm surprised you can't find a girl to have sex with

[Anonymous No.20809798]

>>20809785
>I'm going to ignore the whole thread and start from scratch because fuck continuity
OK, so your in Belgium? Lots of really garbage posters post from Belgum. The Dutch have a better grasp of history...no, I'm not Christian, so tit for tat are you wait, Polish?

[Anonymous No.20809803]

>>20809787
>me irl

[Anonymous No.20809817]

>>20809798
>>I'm going to ignore the whole thread and start from scratch because fuck continuity
That's what you do in every post. You can continue the thread from here >>20809765 by for example expanding on what claims you think I'm defending.
Or here:
>I can argue for both and relate either books to either slave or master instincts. That is instincts derived from what I consider weakness and relate that to "slave morality" or instincts derived from what I call a healthy will and relate that to "master morality".
I can talk about the noble spirit of Gandalf who seeks power over the world and uses it create beauty in it and stop decay.
What purpose does it serve replying to something like that with a demand about some strict definition of "noble" or "power"? That's not engaging with the analysis, not even critically. It's just derailing the whole enterprise and making sure no insights or useful perspectives are found.

[Anonymous No.20809818]

>>20809803
ahahahahahahaha jesus well no fucking wonder if you look like that, holy shit kid, you gotta lift a weight or go for a run, troon out, at least shitpost from a treadmill or something, gottdamn boy

[Anonymous No.20809832]

>>20809798
>no, I'm not Christian
I find it hard to believe but I'll still assume you're not lying.
I could tell what country you're from in the first guess for a reason. It's not just because it has the most posters. Your country has infected the entire planet with this same subversive cancer you're infecting this thread with. My nation, the national religion and all traditions have been severely undermined by cancer from America. My frustration isn't about some small disagreement about what some dead guy said. It's about the pure destructive cancer that you have become. I really am trying to help you overcome it but also analyzing the phenomena for myself.

[Anonymous No.20810328]

>>20801800
It’s clear you never read the books.

[Anonymous No.20811535]

>>20809818
>being this new

[Anonymous No.20811560]

>>20809832
>can't make any valid arguments
>resorts to crying about boogimen
There is no disagreement, I'm calling you out for saying stupid shit.

[Anonymous No.20811573]

>>20809817
>I don't need to know what words mean to use them properly.
Yes you do
>what I consider weakness
>what I consider strength
>what I consider moral
Yes, your a post truth subjective populist. EG retarded and incapable of making a coherent argument.
>hurr de durr I just have to say someone has power and you're supposed to agree without explanation
This is why it's soo easy to openly mock you.

[Anonymous No.20811611]

>>20811573
>Yes you do
Why do you think this? If this were true you wouldn't be able to do anything, children wouldn't be able to learn languages.
Read up on how to read. You really are functionally illiterate like 99% of Americans.
One of the few claims I did make is that meaning of words rests on the context they're used in. I gave you examples of this in this thread.
Can you engage with this at all or anything? Have you never even heard of this idea?
If words need strict definitions why can I use them differently than how they're defined and still convey meaning? How do you imagine children learn languages when you think using these deranged premises? Not from context?
You even used "slave" allegorically yourself in this thread. Not by the definition but to create an impression that relates certain behavior patterns.
>what I consider weakness
If you were sincerely trying to understand the ideas I point to you would make some attempt to do so and you would relate concepts like weakness to what was already established. Weakness is inability to enact your will, take control over your experience whatever that experience "objectively is". I shouldn't have to explain all the obvious things that follow and if you don't understand then ask sincerely instead of pretending you have "arguments" instead of lack of understanding.
>I just have to say someone has power
Can you expand on what you're confused about and in what context? In the spirit of actual sincere dialogue? I'm not going to give you some absolute, all encompassing definition for words that work in all contexts. That doesn't exist, the dictionary is descriptive to give you an idea of common usage. Dictionaries became a thing long after language was a thing.