Nietzche was a freemason, not an atheist

[dr steam]

[quote

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GnFci5UQKuU
http://youtu.be/GnFci5UQKuU[/quote]


LOL

Sympathy For The Devil (Orchestre National de Barbes)

Sympathy For The Devil (Orchestre National de Barbes) - YouTube

Sympathy For The Devil (Orchestre National de Barbes) - YouTube

Bossa n'Stones - Sympathy for the Devil

Bossa n'Stones - Sympathy for the Devil - YouTube

Bossa n'Stones - Sympathy for the Devil - YouTube

[lizzyking]

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1059973687

[ego_death]

Originally Posted by goosesounds

Actually, the illuminati-freemason and formed satanist and occultist Aliester Crowley

Crowley was not a freemason. Freemason's and Illuminati are completely different things. Have you actually read any of Crowley's work? He basically exposes the methods the Illuminati are using to control us, which is essentially what Crowley calls magik.

Blows my mind how many people on this forum have not even done actual research into men like Crowley. Or actually read any of his work. Crowley opened my eyes to a lot of things.

[jaryth]

Originally Posted by dr steam

It is perhaps a little early to conclude if it is based only on a picture of him as a 17 year old boy who might just think it is smart to play Napoleon.
Incidentally was the Nazis also very interested in him and that does not make him to a Nazi so more factual evidence would be decisive for this postulate

Simply I find him have too little faith to be a Freemason but I acknowledge he has often trends to the dark side

By the way it perhaps just me or is Ringo a bit uncomfortable with the situation.?

I am much more inclined to follow along the lines of a similar resolution. It may be, circumstantially, so that Nietzsche was interested in the occult and occult practices; however, what certain users on this board seem to have failed to realize is that Nietzsche and his general philosophy was a celebration of two 'culture-altering' human and (incidentally) historical phenomena.

Better still, to be ever more so to the fore, Nietzsche was much anti-Kantian for what he deemed was both Kant's representational perspective and cadre of pure and/or "transcendental" reason as well as Kant's moral arguments for the existence of not only a thinking/dreaming deity (a la Descartes' ontological and metaphysical model - which many of you posters seem to advocate) which emphasized autonomy in the traditionally understood sense of the term: subject-relative representation or sentient-agency. In contrast to Kant, of which Nietzsche was (presumably) well-versed, Friedrich Nietzsche found the conclusions of much of Kant's work to be a failure - this failure only intensified by the fact that as he (Nietzsche himself) notes "... and he was a contemporary of Goethe. Friedrich Nietzsche admired Goethe, and rightfully so; the man was a highly successful polymath. Be this as it may, on what evidence we are given, Goethe's status as a mason and possible member of the Bavarian Illuminati may have merely been the kindling flame of interest for Nietzsche. But there is certainly no evidence that I have come across. My presumption: taste or fashion. Nietzsche admired Goethe, and perhaps took an interest in the occult (as we all on this board do at some point).

As for Napoleon, well, I would love to learn more of his connections to the Dutch banking alliance - that is, if anybody has anything to add.

Let us keep this thread going.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

http://forum.davidicke.com/showthrea...post1059973687

3. Clean My Wounds - YouTube

3. Clean My Wounds - YouTube

YouTube (Short URL)

YouTube (Short URL)

[jaryth]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytCAdN4HvMs
http://youtu.be/ytCAdN4HvMs

I am quite familiar with Nietzsche's philosophy; it was not that with which I am concerned. I would just enjoy a four hour long documentary on Nietzsche being a Reptilian humanoid. His knowledge of occult gestures was obviously taken from the titanic Germanic and Eastern personalities such as Goethe, but that is where (again, I believe) that the connection ends. The problem with a lot of Nietzsche interpretation is the result of a fundamental flaw, suffered even from the worshiped - justly, perhaps - scholar Walter Kaufman.

In my opinion, from the "mid-period" onward, Nietzsche took a step back from an academic approach to philosophy; furthermore, I believe that he may have considered a proverbial 'fork-in-the-road' in philosophy and where it was headed. (It is interesting, LizzyKing, that you send me a link providing certain texts about Nietzsche which, I believe, make the same mistake - but hey, I like ya already.) Either way, Nietzsche may have in fact observed that philosophy, if it were genuine in its pursuit, was to "overcome" the metaphysical disposition of the academics since Plato (Socrates): the human being as a tool of representation. This, incidentally, I follow to assert that the early influence of Schopenhauer on Nietzsche was profound (Schopenhauer being extremely big on much of Kant's Transcendental Doctrine of Elements, particularly Section III Chapter II. Of the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding - this played a huge rule in the former's central thesis in his The World as Will and Representation). Nietzsche seems to say, 'Well, hold on a second. You don't mean to tell me that during Plato's 'quest for truth' and Aristotle's naturalistic metaphysical interpretation of "human being", up until the critically successful Kantian Doctrine of Elements - from Descartes to Leibniz - that there has not been a philosopher "brave enough" (Nietzschean terminology) to consider that a notion of mind as ambassador to a causal 'outer-world', res extensia by Descartes metaphysics and ontology, by way of representation - of mind as state rep (as it were) of the world, of being - was worthy of reconsideration? There hasn't been one famed soul, if you will, who should take a review of De Anima? And if not, especially for Nietzsche, there could only forever be the [I]possibility[I] of he, the 'overman'.

In Goethe, Nietzsche may have found the profundity of a philosophy, as ideally and historically embodied in the pre-Socrates such as Heraclitus or Parmenides - for these philosophers, for Nietzsche (and, in a sense, me as well) had a certain common insight. Goethe, in his works on color, attacks Plat's epistemic theories of perception, which, sense around the time of Hegel, has been considered as not the capturing, but the seizing of particular qualities or forms (as I am certain that all on the board are most familiar with); this meets with praise in the final section of Twilight of the Idols in Nietzsche. Nietzsche also loved ancient muthos and allowed the influence of an pre-philosophic sort, possibly an influence from Goethe, from whom some of the most profound Germanic poetry, prose, literature, philosophical interpretation, natural science, occult study (along with Herder and others), and stood (if anything) as a dominant cultural opposition to Kant and Hegel, later Schopenhauer. This may have been Nietzsche's interpretation of Goethe. Goethe was much into the occult, and he continues to influence, even indirectly in Aleister Crowley or even Jordan Maxwell and Icke on symbology. But I doubt Nietzsche to have been a free mason.

As somebody stated earlier, he probably had a tough time getting out on guy's night, anyway.

... Also to speak of any person as "Consciousness" bugs me. Somebody help me out with that.

[ragnarok]

"What does not destroy me, only serves to make me stronger."

"unless it turns my brain to mush and leads me to spend the end of my days not knowing what day of the week it was." he should have added.

[jaryth]

Originally Posted by ragnarok

"What does not destroy me, only serves to make me stronger."

"unless it turns my brain to mush and leads me to spend the end of my days not knowing what day of the week it was."

Best post.

[jaryth]

I am the master of grammatical errors, IN THIS THREAD.

[ragnarok]

I'm certain there'll be a challenger along soon.

[jaryth]

Whew.

[dr steam]

Originally Posted by jaryth

But I doubt Nietzsche to have been a free mason.

It is also my opinion.


"And when we mix up this world of symbols with the world of things as though the symbols existed "in themselves," then we are merely doing once more what we have always done: we are creating myths."

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by jaryth

I am quite familiar with Nietzsche's philosophy; it was not that with which I am concerned. I would just enjoy a four hour long documentary on Nietzsche being a Reptilian humanoid. His knowledge of occult gestures was obviously taken from the titanic Germanic and Eastern personalities such as Goethe, but that is where (again, I believe) that the connection ends. The problem with a lot of Nietzsche interpretation is the result of a fundamental flaw, suffered even from the worshiped - justly, perhaps - scholar Walter Kaufman.

In my opinion, from the "mid-period" onward, Nietzsche took a step back from an academic approach to philosophy; furthermore, I believe that he may have considered a proverbial 'fork-in-the-road' in philosophy and where it was headed. (It is interesting, LizzyKing, that you send me a link providing certain texts about Nietzsche which, I believe, make the same mistake - but hey, I like ya already.) Either way, Nietzsche may have in fact observed that philosophy, if it were genuine in its pursuit, was to "overcome" the metaphysical disposition of the academics since Plato (Socrates): the human being as a tool of representation. This, incidentally, I follow to assert that the early influence of Schopenhauer on Nietzsche was profound (Schopenhauer being extremely big on much of Kant's Transcendental Doctrine of Elements, particularly Section III Chapter II. Of the Deduction of the Pure Concepts of the Understanding - this played a huge rule in the former's central thesis in his The World as Will and Representation). Nietzsche seems to say, 'Well, hold on a second. You don't mean to tell me that during Plato's 'quest for truth' and Aristotle's naturalistic metaphysical interpretation of "human being", up until the critically successful Kantian Doctrine of Elements - from Descartes to Leibniz - that there has not been a philosopher "brave enough" (Nietzschean terminology) to consider that a notion of mind as ambassador to a causal 'outer-world', res extensia by Descartes metaphysics and ontology, by way of representation - of mind as state rep (as it were) of the world, of being - was worthy of reconsideration? There hasn't been one famed soul, if you will, who should take a review of De Anima? And if not, especially for Nietzsche, there could only forever be the [I]possibility[I] of he, the 'overman'.

In Goethe, Nietzsche may have found the profundity of a philosophy, as ideally and historically embodied in the pre-Socrates such as Heraclitus or Parmenides - for these philosophers, for Nietzsche (and, in a sense, me as well) had a certain common insight. Goethe, in his works on color, attacks Plat's epistemic theories of perception, which, sense around the time of Hegel, has been considered as not the capturing, but the seizing of particular qualities or forms (as I am certain that all on the board are most familiar with); this meets with praise in the final section of Twilight of the Idols in Nietzsche. Nietzsche also loved ancient muthos and allowed the influence of an pre-philosophic sort, possibly an influence from Goethe, from whom some of the most profound Germanic poetry, prose, literature, philosophical interpretation, natural science, occult study (along with Herder and others), and stood (if anything) as a dominant cultural opposition to Kant and Hegel, later Schopenhauer. This may have been Nietzsche's interpretation of Goethe. Goethe was much into the occult, and he continues to influence, even indirectly in Aleister Crowley or even Jordan Maxwell and Icke on symbology. But I doubt Nietzsche to have been a free mason.

As somebody stated earlier, he probably had a tough time getting out on guy's night, anyway.

... Also to speak of any person as "Consciousness" bugs me. Somebody help me out with that.

Wow, lots of food for thought in that post. Thanks for the reply. You seem much much more intimate with the philosophers than myself. I mostly peck here and there and occasionally make some seemingly odd (but perhaps meaningful) connections.

Walter Kaufman as an interpreter? Do you have an opinion on Arthur Danto?

Arthur Danto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Arthur Danto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Arthur Danto - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

& some samples: http://bit.ly/la9o4Y

"... Also to speak of any person as "Consciousness" bugs me. Somebody help me out with that."

I'm not sure what you are referencing, I must have missed something.

[zyphus]

Originally Posted by lizzyking

Wow, lots of food for thought in that post. Thanks for the reply. You seem much much more intimate with the philosophers than myself. I mostly peck here and there and occasionally make some seemingly odd (but perhaps meaningful) connections.

Walter Kaufman as an interpreter? Do you have an opinion on Arthur Danto? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arthur_Danto & some samples: http://bit.ly/la9o4Y

"... Also to speak of any person as "Consciousness" bugs me. Somebody help me out with that."

I'm not sure what you are referencing, I must have missed something.

It seems to me that Walter Kaufman was merely a translator of many books by Nietzsche ,just about all of them. HE did a good job in translating them right,nothing more. Not as Nietzsche's sister had forged adding many things of the Nazis,
of which Nietzsche had no part in since he was born in 1844 and died at the beginning of 1900.
I am sure he was Not a freemason, since the book atributed to him THE WILL TO POWER was never edited by Nietzsche since he ewas in an asylum, he had written a few notes for a book he might write in the future.

Elizabeth Nietzsche, came from a christian family, and in the 1930's when Hitler took power, Nietzscche was dead by then in the 1900, but she did his brother a bad favor to his name, descrited him with the nazis. It took many years to clean his name from that, and still some people beleive that lie.

He did not believe in THE WILL TO POWER, by susperman he meant someone who can think going beyond his five senses (as he perceived the massess)

I say again he was NOT a mason, because, that has nothing to do with intellectual reasoning.

HE did condemn Christianity, saying it was corrupt and much more, which many do like to read. HE said that the last Christian died on the cross.

Nietzsche did not believe in organized religion, and that goes of course for the Masons. Although he was a GErman he said the germans were people that thought less by the day. Of courser somehow he must have perceived that a WWII was too come, which is why he talked about NIHILISM " the most unkning of all guests". Nietzsche thought that we required NEW VALUES, " re-valuation of all values" and being a Mason surely revaluates nothing from his point of value, quite the opposite.
Many things have been atributed to him which were never true.

[jaryth]

Actually, I am completely unfamiliar with Danto. My aesthetic beliefs are well-rooted, if you will, in ontology and ontological matters (even thanatos). Kierkegaard's aesthetic theses are much contrary to Hegel's, which Danto seems to favor; might I suggest that you look into some of Kierkegaard's work on aesthetics which - in my opinion - is an integral (that was a poor choice of words) piece of philosophy concerning aesthesis. His aesthesis is influential to me, as it seems influential to the more "contemporary" thinkers of who I take interest in reading. Anyway, bottom line: aesthesis is one of my personal favorite branches of philosophy.

Back to the topic of this thread ... Kaufman interprets Nietzsche in several publications.

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

Wikipedia (Thumbnails)
Wikipedia (Thumbnails)

I have the Kaufman translation of The Gay Science, in which he provides a moderately lengthy preface and introduction. He also has an anthology and research - what I call "[insert proper name] for dummies" - work called Nietzsche: Anti-Christ, something, something. As a translator, he was superb. He wrote a critique of religion which I see at bookstores but always avoid. Perhaps I should pick it up.

But if you are new to Nietzsche, Lizzy, I would just like to remind you that the dude was no prophet, and, at least in Texas (where I live), he is held in such a regard - often for reasons political! ... Just like a scholar to promulgate the efforts of politics, eh?

[jaryth]

Zyphus makes a solid point. See his post.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by jaryth

Actually, I am completely unfamiliar with Danto. My aesthetic beliefs are well-rooted, if you will, in ontology and ontological matters (even thanatos). Kierkegaard's aesthetic theses are much contrary to Hegel's, which Danto seems to favor; might I suggest that you look into some of Kierkegaard's work on aesthetics which - in my opinion - is an integral (that was a poor choice of words) piece of philosophy concerning aesthesis. His aesthesis is influential to me, as it seems influential to the more "contemporary" thinkers of who I take interest in reading. Anyway, bottom line: aesthesis is one of my personal favorite branches of philosophy.

Back to the topic of this thread ... Kaufman interprets Nietzsche in several publications. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_...philosopher%29

I have the Kaufman translation of The Gay Science, in which he provides a moderately lengthy preface and introduction. He also has an anthology and research - what I call "[insert proper name] for dummies" - work called Nietzsche: Anti-Christ, something, something. As a translator, he was superb. He wrote a critique of religion which I see at bookstores but always avoid. Perhaps I should pick it up.

But if you are new to Nietzsche, Lizzy, I would just like to remind you that the dude was no prophet, and, at least in Texas (where I live), he is held in such a regard - often for reasons political! ... Just like a scholar to promulgate the efforts of politics, eh?

I'm not particularly new to Nietzsche, yet as I mentioned, I am not all that intimate with the philosophers insofar as their intellectual intercourse (which I recognize is important, if one is to be a serious student of philosophy; their works didn't emerge from a vacuum). Philosophy is just another area of interest I peck at, along with others. So I enjoy hearing the thoughts of those who are more familiar with the vast body of philosophical thought out there, when I involve myself in such a discussion. Occasionally I have an epiphany of sorts, in spite of my lack of scholarship. I'm delighted this is turning into a thread of some substance, in spite of the ludicrous starts


Kierkegaard seems popular with those of faith who have dabbled in existentialism and made the proverbial "leap", unless I'm mistaken?

I've only been over a couple of Nietzsche's works piecemeal, the more common fare (Beyond Good and Evil, Zarathustra....)

I haven't even read the Gay Science, perhaps I will though.

If you meet the Buddha on the road....

The Buddha's tragedy:
He died a philosopher -
’They’ made him a God.
See, 'They' did it again!


~ Robert G. Brown




-------


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Gay...God_is_dead.22

.

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by jaryth

Zyphus makes a solid point. See his post.

I did.

*nods* I'm not surprised to learn some of Nietzsche's works were coopted and deranged by the Nazis by making a tool of his sister. Nietzsche was held in high regard by Germans, so it was practical to contrive such an association for the sake of popular appeal.

[jaryth]

Kierkegaard holds sway with protestants, yes. I am more into his aesthetic work. I am in no way a Christian, and one could only speculate that Kierkegaard was so staunchly anti-Hegelian that Christianity's statutes seemed more to his preference. The funny thing is that this usually comes up a lot in conversation - Kierkegaard's christianity; and, to be honest, from the works of his that I have read, Christianity has very little to deal with it, but I am only familiar with Either/Or and The Sickness Unto Death. I read Fear and Trembling and wrote a book report on it during my senior year in high school (I went to a Christian Academy) and also wrote a report on a Kurt Vonnegut novel. How have I gotten to this point?

Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil is one of my favorite books. The preface alone spells it for the need to move, if philosophy is to be associated with Plato, Descartes, &c., to consider a move toward what a sort of neo-Kantian, philosophical science scholar named Hilary Putnam (solid analytic logician; great essayist) has called 'anti-philosophy'. But Nietzsche is so famous that I am sure you could watch that shitty feature film about he during his middle period; or you could check out the BBC special on him, which includes interviews and 'bio-historical' info. I would like to continue this thread, but I don't want to end up discussing existentialism: one of conceptual scholarship's most deserved blunders; I don't want to end up at Sartre. But yeah, to quote the preface of Beyond Good and Evil (I hope that you could appreciate the analogy):

Supposing truth to be a woman ... is the suspicion not well founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women?

Just a laugh. I believe that our exchanges may lead me to read through some sections of BGE tonight. haha

[lizzyking]

Originally Posted by jaryth

Supposing truth to be a woman ... is the suspicion not well founded that all philosophers, when they have been dogmatists, have had little understanding of women?

Just a laugh. I believe that our exchanges may lead me to read through some sections of BGE tonight. haha