“They saw their injured country's woe;
The flaming town, the wasted field;
Then rushed to meet the insulting foe;
They took the spear, - but left the shield.”
Unfortunately innocent passers-by have no way of ruling out that you are a genuine idiot, and therefore we might feel obliged to treat you with patience and care. Why would you enjoy wasting such well-intentioned efforts?
You are an idiot, sir! And you would be an idiot even if what you said were true and Fj were another one of those 'genuine idiots' who keep a blog, as you so colorfully described. And i will tell you why...
...because you do not know how to distinguish between your own affairs and those of others. A person should open his mouth only in praise and never in censure, unless the person he is speaking to be his friend and he had his welfare in mind. But you, as you yourself say, are merely a passer-by and, therefore, cannot be his friend. Nor can you have his welfare in mind.
...Were it a political blog, i would have still understood. For, when it comes to political affairs, it falls upon all of us to say publicly what is true and just no matter how unpleasant ... as it were, all citizens were friends of each other and had each other's welfare in mind. But, like i said, it is not a political blog. Therefore, my 'innocent passer-by, you were wrong to speak as you did and only showed what a pompous ass you are by doing so.
FJ can perhaps quote every verse of Theognis of Megara, but i will quote just one, which is rather pertinent to the issue at hand:
Too many tongues have gates which fly apart Too easily, and care for many things That don't concern them. Better to keep bad news Indoors, and only let the good news out.
P.S. Forgive me, FJ, if i was guilty of any discourtesy to your commentor there ... or, if you must, then blame not me but the wine and the mood. ;)
It's not an argument, it's a question. Or so it was -- now it's an evasion.
I ask you why you do it, and you say that I do the same thing. I do not reject that idea, but if it's so there's no guarantee that it's for the same reason, as you imply. And still, you reply but not to answer.
So it often is with you and many types of question. Perhaps you simply prefer to imply knowledge than to reveal (possess?) it -- perhaps there-in lies the answer to my first question? This is where even you must drop your claim to symmetry, for here we surely differ: I love revealing knowledge. You are gnomic; I value clarity.
You wish to trigger some epiphany in the innocent through your pretence at idiocy? Is that really your intention? It's possible I suppose, but seems a rather unlikely strategy, and one fraught with the risk that you spend a large fraction of your life acting like a dick to no purpose.
Though, i must say, it's some beautiful writing: "...to trigger some epiphany in the innocent through your pretense, et al..." I only wish he would use it to some better purpose than to call out 'idiots'. heh.
Thank you both (if you be distinct persons) for the compliments, and I take on board the rebukes. But nicrap, I don't call FJ out for being an idiot, but for pretending. And I do not raise this issue at a stranger's blog out of the blue, but after observing him dance this particular jig more than once apparently for my benefit (or to my detriment as the case may be). I still don't know why. Maybe he wishes to teach me to distrust the sincerity of my interlocutors. If so, that is cynicism which I make no bones about resisting.
I would in any case prefer fruitful conversation to interminable jousting.
Happy meeting, Jez. Yes, i realized later that you two may have had a history of which i may not have been aware. However, it seems to me, that when we have nothing good to say of someone, we had better keep silent.
Be as it may, it is all one. We are all enquirers here, even though our ways may be different. As to interminable jousting, as you call it, perhaps this might answer your 'question':
Infinite Too Is a Kind of Nihilism:
"Where does the meaning of a word lie? The question becomes of supreme importance once we realize that language is our sole means of access to the world, and of making it intelligible to ourselves. Truth in this context becomes the sole matter of meaning. So, for instance, when i am told that Earth is round, what i grasp from it of the world depends on what i mean by the words, ‘earth’, ‘is’, and ‘round’, both independently and in conjunction with each other. Now even until a century ago, people saw nothing problematic with it. For them, there was a simple correspondence between a word and the thing (an object or an idea) denoted by it, that is to say its meaning. Whether it was arbitrarily given (subjective) or inhered in itself (objective), it did not matter. Either way we all knew exactly what a word meant. But all this changed after Saussure. After him and Derrida in particular, we know that the meaning of a word arises in difference (with the other words surrounding it). And not just within a given structure or discourse (synchrony) but also with all that has been said, and will be said, throughout History (diachrony). Meaning in this context becomes forever deferred and, as it were, ready to explode, since never fully 'determined'.
What this ‘knowledge’ has done for us is that it has liberated us from the tyranny of meaning, that is to say a singular, privileged meaning; in other words, of truth itself, and whatever effects of power are associated with it. Since meaning is forever deferred, therefore it is also plural, even infinite. And infinite too is a form of chaos, as you may easily conceive. A kind of nihilism. So, when you say ‘pun’ (or, as another might put it, free association of ideas) and see merely ‘clever’, i see the serious possibility for constant subversion, and at the same time of endless celebration."
I look forward to having many more conversations with you, and of more fruitful character. :)
P.S. Needless to say, Fj and i are two very distinct persons, though often mistaken for each other. :)
When one man loves another, which is the friend—he who loves, or he who is loved? Or are both friends? From the first of these suppositions they are driven to the second; and from the second to the third; and neither the two boys nor Socrates are satisfied with any of the three or with all of them. Socrates turns to the poets, who affirm that God brings like to like (Homer), and to philosophers (Empedocles), who also assert that like is the friend of like. But the bad are not friends, for they are not even like themselves, and still less are they like one another. And the good have no need of one another, and therefore do not care about one another. Moreover there are others who say that likeness is a cause of aversion, and unlikeness of love and friendship; and they too adduce the authority of poets and philosophers in support of their doctrines; for Hesiod says that 'potter is jealous of potter, bard of bard;' and subtle doctors tell us that 'moist is the friend of dry, hot of cold,' and the like. But neither can their doctrine be maintained; for then the just would be the friend of the unjust, good of evil.
Thus we arrive at the conclusion that like is not the friend of like, nor unlike of unlike; and therefore good is not the friend of good, nor evil of evil, nor good of evil, nor evil of good. What remains but that the indifferent, which is neither good nor evil, should be the friend (not of the indifferent, for that would be 'like the friend of like,' but) of the good, or rather of the beautiful?
But why should the indifferent have this attachment to the beautiful or good?
...for his hatred of my pretentiousness was not a sign of an indifference.
When I write, it is in the sincere hope that I be of interest to some reader. I would like to trust that my comments' replies are borne of the same motivation. Is that a vain hope?
You often reply to me with no intention to reward my interest. Please stop it, and explain it if you wish.
If the blog-owners who host your attacks shared the joke I would seek none, but it seems they often don't which makes your "behaviour" antisocial. I can't comment on the pathology of it.
"One speaks of the "profound injustice" of the social pact; as if the fact that this man is born in favourable circumstances, that in unfavourable ones, were in itself an injustice, or even that it is unjust that this man is born with these qualities, that man with those... The underprivileged, the decedents of all kinds are in revolt on account of themselves and need victims so as not to quench their thirst for destruction by destroying themselves... How can I help it that I am wretched ! But somebody must be responsible, otherwise it would be unbearable !" - Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" (1901) #765
Unfortunately innocent passers-by have no way of ruling out that you are a genuine idiot, and therefore we might feel obliged to treat you with patience and care. Why would you enjoy wasting such well-intentioned efforts?
ReplyDeleteNot very introspective, are you jez? To not be able discern your own "intentions". Tis a shame, really.
ReplyDeleteGnothi Seauton!
Noted. Now answer the question, if you can.
ReplyDeleteHow can I? The premise is flawed. Innocent passers by wouldn't comment.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWhy would you enjoy wasting such well-intentioned efforts?
ReplyDelete"How many times does the length of its legs a flea jump?" ;)
Forgive the cheek, FJ. In an impish mood. :)
ReplyDeleteSounds like a calculation that jez would be VERY musch interested in. ;)
ReplyDeleteAh, but he is accusing you of the same... answer him, my friend! Show him you that, like Socrates, you are also truly of Foxton. ;)
ReplyDelete...that, like Strepsiades, he too cries out: "Ah! great Zeus! what a brain! what subtlety!" ;)
ReplyDeleteI believe that I already have. An "innocent" passer by would not feel compelled to comment.
ReplyDelete...and Pheidippides, you ARE in a mood.
ReplyDeleteNotice, jez, how nicrap characterized the "units" of his calculation. You could learn much from him.
ReplyDeleteLet me answer him, sir, because as i said and you confirm, i really am in a mood. But let me first brew myself a kuppa. :)
ReplyDeleteTake your time. Jez appears to possess an infinite patience, bordering on the pathological.
ReplyDeleteps - He also needs time to do some "opposition research". ;)
ReplyDeletewhat is it about comment that implies guilt?
ReplyDeleteI love Google Blog Search, don't you?
ReplyDeleteYour use of the word "innocent"?
ReplyDeleteOoops. Sorry nicrap. I'll leave this argument to you.
ReplyDelete*bows out, vowing to restrain his typing fingers*
@ Jez
ReplyDeleteYou are an idiot, sir! And you would be an idiot even if what you said were true and Fj were another one of those 'genuine idiots' who keep a blog, as you so colorfully described. And i will tell you why...
...because you do not know how to distinguish between your own affairs and those of others. A person should open his mouth only in praise and never in censure, unless the person he is speaking to be his friend and he had his welfare in mind. But you, as you yourself say, are merely a passer-by and, therefore, cannot be his friend. Nor can you have his welfare in mind.
...Were it a political blog, i would have still understood. For, when it comes to political affairs, it falls upon all of us to say publicly what is true and just no matter how unpleasant ... as it were, all citizens were friends of each other and had each other's welfare in mind. But, like i said, it is not a political blog. Therefore, my 'innocent passer-by, you were wrong to speak as you did and only showed what a pompous ass you are by doing so.
FJ can perhaps quote every verse of Theognis of Megara, but i will quote just one, which is rather pertinent to the issue at hand:
Too many tongues have gates which fly apart
Too easily, and care for many things
That don't concern them. Better to keep bad news
Indoors, and only let the good news out.
P.S. Forgive me, FJ, if i was guilty of any discourtesy to your commentor there ... or, if you must, then blame not me but the wine and the mood. ;)
It's not an argument, it's a question. Or so it was -- now it's an evasion.
ReplyDeleteI ask you why you do it, and you say that I do the same thing. I do not reject that idea, but if it's so there's no guarantee that it's for the same reason, as you imply. And still, you reply but not to answer.
So it often is with you and many types of question. Perhaps you simply prefer to imply knowledge than to reveal (possess?) it -- perhaps there-in lies the answer to my first question? This is where even you must drop your claim to symmetry, for here we surely differ: I love revealing knowledge. You are gnomic; I value clarity.
And forgive the bad phrasing as well, as it is rather crowded where i am right now. :)
ReplyDeleteHow can it be an evasion if the premise of the question was flawed?
ReplyDeleteAnd as for being in "possession" of knowledge, I claim none.
I am "barren"... a mere midwife to those who labour with thought.
ReplyDeleteI am not gnomic.
ReplyDeleteSo if you are seeking to rob me of my "treasure", know in advance, that I have none. :(
Once again, I have been proven a liar.
ReplyDeleteSorry nicrap!
*sighs*
You wish to trigger some epiphany in the innocent through your pretence at idiocy? Is that really your intention? It's possible I suppose, but seems a rather unlikely strategy, and one fraught with the risk that you spend a large fraction of your life acting like a dick to no purpose.
ReplyDeleteYep. That does seem a rather unlikely strategy.
ReplyDeletebtw - I really do appreciate your wonderful sentiments, nicrap. Thankyou for offering them. :)
ReplyDeleteHeh. No problem.
ReplyDeleteThough, i must say, it's some beautiful writing: "...to trigger some epiphany in the innocent through your pretense, et al..." I only wish he would use it to some better purpose than to call out 'idiots'. heh.
He is rather bright, nicrap... but lacks focus.
ReplyDelete*sigh*
Thank you both (if you be distinct persons) for the compliments, and I take on board the rebukes. But nicrap, I don't call FJ out for being an idiot, but for pretending. And I do not raise this issue at a stranger's blog out of the blue, but after observing him dance this particular jig more than once apparently for my benefit (or to my detriment as the case may be). I still don't know why. Maybe he wishes to teach me to distrust the sincerity of my interlocutors. If so, that is cynicism which I make no bones about resisting.
ReplyDeleteI would in any case prefer fruitful conversation to interminable jousting.
Happy meeting, Jez. Yes, i realized later that you two may have had a history of which i may not have been aware. However, it seems to me, that when we have nothing good to say of someone, we had better keep silent.
ReplyDeleteBe as it may, it is all one. We are all enquirers here, even though our ways may be different. As to interminable jousting, as you call it, perhaps this might answer your 'question':
Infinite Too Is a Kind of Nihilism:
"Where does the meaning of a word lie? The question becomes of supreme importance once we realize that language is our sole means of access to the world, and of making it intelligible to ourselves. Truth in this context becomes the sole matter of meaning. So, for instance, when i am told that Earth is round, what i grasp from it of the world depends on what i mean by the words, ‘earth’, ‘is’, and ‘round’, both independently and in conjunction with each other. Now even until a century ago, people saw nothing problematic with it. For them, there was a simple correspondence between a word and the thing (an object or an idea) denoted by it, that is to say its meaning. Whether it was arbitrarily given (subjective) or inhered in itself (objective), it did not matter. Either way we all knew exactly what a word meant. But all this changed after Saussure. After him and Derrida in particular, we know that the meaning of a word arises in difference (with the other words surrounding it). And not just within a given structure or discourse (synchrony) but also with all that has been said, and will be said, throughout History (diachrony). Meaning in this context becomes forever deferred and, as it were, ready to explode, since never fully 'determined'.
What this ‘knowledge’ has done for us is that it has liberated us from the tyranny of meaning, that is to say a singular, privileged meaning; in other words, of truth itself, and whatever effects of power are associated with it. Since meaning is forever deferred, therefore it is also plural, even infinite. And infinite too is a form of chaos, as you may easily conceive. A kind of nihilism. So, when you say ‘pun’ (or, as another might put it, free association of ideas) and see merely ‘clever’, i see the serious possibility for constant subversion, and at the same time of endless celebration."
I look forward to having many more conversations with you, and of more fruitful character. :)
P.S. Needless to say, Fj and i are two very distinct persons, though often mistaken for each other. :)
He thinks I'm pretending. Now isn't that simply precious? :)
ReplyDeleteWe were indeed fortunate to have such an unpretentious guest visit us.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletefrom the Jowett summary of Plato's "Lysis"
ReplyDeleteWhen one man loves another, which is the friend—he who loves, or he who is loved? Or are both friends? From the first of these suppositions they are driven to the second; and from the second to the third; and neither the two boys nor Socrates are satisfied with any of the three or with all of them. Socrates turns to the poets, who affirm that God brings like to like (Homer), and to philosophers (Empedocles), who also assert that like is the friend of like. But the bad are not friends, for they are not even like themselves, and still less are they like one another. And the good have no need of one another, and therefore do not care about one another. Moreover there are others who say that likeness is a cause of aversion, and unlikeness of love and friendship; and they too adduce the authority of poets and philosophers in support of their doctrines; for Hesiod says that 'potter is jealous of potter, bard of bard;' and subtle doctors tell us that 'moist is the friend of dry, hot of cold,' and the like. But neither can their doctrine be maintained; for then the just would be the friend of the unjust, good of evil.
Thus we arrive at the conclusion that like is not the friend of like, nor unlike of unlike; and therefore good is not the friend of good, nor evil of evil, nor good of evil, nor evil of good. What remains but that the indifferent, which is neither good nor evil, should be the friend (not of the indifferent, for that would be 'like the friend of like,' but) of the good, or rather of the beautiful?
But why should the indifferent have this attachment to the beautiful or good?
...for his hatred of my pretentiousness was not a sign of an indifference.
When I write, it is in the sincere hope that I be of interest to some reader. I would like to trust that my comments' replies are borne of the same motivation. Is that a vain hope?
ReplyDeleteYou often reply to me with no intention to reward my interest. Please stop it, and explain it if you wish.
My behaviour owes no explanations.
ReplyDeleteIf the blog-owners who host your attacks shared the joke I would seek none, but it seems they often don't which makes your "behaviour" antisocial. I can't comment on the pathology of it.
ReplyDeletePhysician, heal thyself.
ReplyDeleteAntisocial behaviour is ordinarily not treated but punished. You intend perhaps to punish me? Or the blog-owners? Anyway, warden, guard thyself.
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDelete:)
ReplyDeleteGood point. But...
ReplyDeleteHe who is punished is never he who performed the deed. He is always the scapegoat.
Nietzsche, "Daybreak - Thoughts on the Prejudices of Morality" (1881). 252
"One speaks of the "profound injustice" of the social pact; as if the fact that this man is born in favourable circumstances, that in unfavourable ones, were in itself an injustice, or even that it is unjust that this man is born with these qualities, that man with those... The underprivileged, the decedents of all kinds are in revolt on account of themselves and need victims so as not to quench their thirst for destruction by destroying themselves... How can I help it that I am wretched ! But somebody must be responsible, otherwise it would be unbearable !"
ReplyDelete- Friedrich Nietzsche, "The Will to Power" (1901) #765
The "herd" punishes "anti-social" behaviour. The "herd" hates "exceptionalism".
ReplyDeleteAre you here to "Mooo!" at me, jez?
ReplyDelete...or are you simply upset because you don't like being "Mooo'd"?
ReplyDeleteHungry?
ReplyDeleteI cannot restate my intentions any more clearly. (they are unrelated to Moi-ing)
ReplyDeleteGood.
ReplyDeleteI enjoy a good story, provided it isn't accompanied by boorishness.
ReplyDeleteFor like Giovanni, I am unrepentent in my views.
ReplyDelete