Comments by "Hallands Menved" (@Hallands.) on "Nietzsche and Psychology: How To Become Who You Are" video.

  1. Nietzsche was a mad, miserable, antisocial and pompous fool who, just like Descartes, never became aware of the consciousness as distinguished from the mind. That's why he was doomed to seek, seek, seek - and never find. He never discovered anything more than the thinking animal in himself and was stumped by the simplest social interactions. The consciousness is not limited to awareness of our thoughts. It also is aware of the body! This awareness is what we label "feelings". But since somewhere around the mid nineteenth century, man became so blinded by his prosperous capacity for thought as to loose sight of the importance of understanding feelings. Children began to be schooled in such a way as to lose the awareness of the body, i.e. they didn't learn to understand their own feelings. So, later on, despite huge advances in medicine, we didn't become more healthy. We just became more dependent on medications. By now the balance is beginning to shift back, but our emotions can seem almost foreign and overwhelming - sometimes gaining such momentum that we loose control. We have by determined educational tradition become emotionally moronic. Kierkegaard is another matter. He sought God with unbridled passion, but sought him outside himself only. He of course didn't descend into madness and delusions of grandeur (Übermensch)
    1
  2. Kop Ratte It's true I didn't have the inclination to study Nietzsche extensively, but his reference to the wisdom of the body will remain a discussion of survival instincts in lieu of the awareness of the consciousness. I do agree that our bodies are wise survivors, taught by millennia of evolution, but without conscious awareness existence easily becomes a battle between mind and body: One moment you think about your feelings, the next the clarity of your thoughts is muddled by feelings. Then you think that you think too much, but later the same day that you really ought to think before you act aso... Seeing this, you end up thinking that you must, like a superhuman, conquer your base nature - or indulge whatever feeling comes to the foreground - and you may begin writing handbooks on folly until you go bonkers from being quite the unrecognized genius - or, viewed from your surroundings, too obnoxious to socialize with...
    1
  3. Kop Ratte No, I have a friend who has a masters in philosophy and likes Nietzsche very much. Since we met three decades ago, I've been presented with a lot of material which I've dutifully studied, but on this subject we differ profoundly. I really don't like Nietzsche's world view. I like Kierkegaard's and Leibnitz's better, but since I some 14 years ago had the awakening miracle happen to me, I no more believe that rationale in any form presented by any philosopher can grasp the eternal, yet real miracle of Life. I now view different philosophies as trends of thoughts - more or less applicable to the current state of things - but no more than that. And as soon as they are adopted as guidelines for life, they fail - in my opinion. My view on religions parallel this approach. I love and trust the words of Jesus, because they unerringly point to the eternal, timeless consciousness, but I view all religions as attempts at sociological rules, inferior to the true belief in God, our eternal and present Father. But by "father" I understand the eternal, present and causative will that the forms in the universe be.
    1
  4. Kop Ratte You didn't catch precisely what I wrote about religions. Philosophy needs as a base minimum precision in debates. Happy New Years.
    1
  5. Kop Ratte No. I distinguish between ideologies of any kind and The Eternal Awareness of all forms, mental as well as physical, The One Consciousness itself being the only absolute possible in the universe - itself of No Form, timeless and all pervasive. I use the term "faith" for the human awareness of The No Form - the sine qua none for all possible forms - distinct from rules and images of religions. I see religions as attempts to hoard this powerful awareness in order to control the thinking of humans - or, at best, risky attempts of explaining the unexplainable, thereby dissing the eternal miracle which is Life's love of Life - and I therefore label Love the gravitational force of souls. 😊
    1
  6. Kop Ratte Never claimed uniqueness. Don't trust humility. I never claimed "no philosopher ever grasped aso." You're actually arguing with yourself, or rather with the concepts which spring to the forefront of your mind on the subject we touch upon. This started out with you correcting me for not liking Nietzsche, now you're berating me for lack of humility. So, are you the teacher or the pupil? Where's your humility? 😄
    1
  7. Kop Ratte No, no, no, no. I have no such knowledge. I didn't diss philosophers in general. I'm the same with them as with my neighbors and politicians. Some I like, some I don't, but it doesn't hinge on their political views or religion or skin colors or philosophy. You argue in order to convince yourself of some righteous superiority because you identify with some preferred mental precepts or concepts. I'm not arguing anything, but simply telling you or anyone else that there's a third way beyond either/or - black/white. The Who we are isn't a product of what we are. The unadulterated Now is very powerful. It can change humdrum to miracle...
    1
  8. Kop Ratte I said that no form nor system, be that physical or mental, can encompass the No Form, i.e. no ideology can express the cause of life. But we and all living beings can and do express the gift of life in many ways. The most beautiful and pleasing way is perhaps when an individual expresses himself in total accordance with his nature - which may be almost exactly the same as accepting ones fate?
    1
  9. Kop Ratte I was at peace all the time. But it's true. The sound of silence can't very well be described in words.
    1
  10. Kop Ratte Your compulsory, correcting rationale is beginning to seriously bore me. That's not what I'm talking about. I mean The Silence that is a background for any and all sounds. It's there whether sounds are audible or not. And I'm out.
    1
  11. What's "The Gay Science"? Never heard of such a thing. How can science be gay?
    1