Reply on "How do we convert from slave think to master think?"

OP I'm sorry, your understanding of his philosophy is quite limited. Nietzsche was not some niceguy libertarian who proposed self-actualisation into master and overman states for all (there is no 'we' in this, it was never meant to be a mass phenomenon) - he was a devoutly aristocratic reactionary who supported those with the CAPABILITY, the correct physiology, to self-actualise and lead + rule the herd. This is never made too clear unless you've read The Will to Power, but two points he makes (paraphrasing because on phone): "My philosophy aims not at an individualistic morality, but rather an ordering of rank", "The ideas of the herd should rule in the herd but extend no further".

and there is a reason those tribes had a greek foot formation (there are like 7 different)
My best friend is from greece. Thassos .

So he wanted the overman to energize the role of the masters with his capabilities. How about the masters/slaves start becoming more like the overman instead?

just keep being a slave. soon enough your thoughts will be of your master.

I agree with you on some levels but o don't see fear as the absolute enemy. Fear is simply our reaction to the unknown, and is important for knowledge, discovery, curiosity, creativity, and even basic survival. The system we are in wants us to fear things we can't do anything about, things they promise they will fix without mentioning it was their doing in the first place. I don't really see fear as the enemy, I think ignorance is the enemy, fear is just a natural response to the unknown.

Cheers bro. I want to visit the black forest in germany one day. Will do it during oktoberfest.

I'd say fear must be overcome. May sound edgy but its pain must be felt to truly conquer it. Sugarcoating 'negative' concepts with positive words would be the same logic that is applied by the religions to deal with the issue.

I honestly think it's like rhythm, you got it or you don't. It's not about making all slaves masters or vice versa. There will always be slaves and there will always be masters. I think Nietzsche was more so describing the way of things than prescribing what should be. On a side for anyone more studied in his work than I, wouldn't the rejection of idealism in a sense be an ideal?

Even go so far that these ideas roughly describe a kind of genetic divergence in humanity itself. There are those who seek protection in the group, the communals, and those who leave this security behind to either suceed gloriously or fail miserably, the individualists. Would cite the one study on the effects of DRD4 gene variants on 'political views' done in Singapore (as Asians show some peculiar versions of said gene) ... could easily delineate communal or individualistic personalities by one single gene variant (of course, in interaction with other genes the picture might be much more complicated).

This correlates with different reproductive strategies ... either play it save and have modest but calculable sucess or go full risk and either spread your genes like crazy or end your direct lineage in one glorious fuckup. Might even be influenced by humanity's 'recent' evolution, split between agriculturalists and those who stayed semi-nomadic pastoralists (continuation of hunter-gatherer lifestyle in a way).

I believe that some people are dependent on dominating and others are dependent on getting dominated. Both are going to die without an independent overman to energize them and at the same time independent overmen do not need masters/slaves and it is questionable if they benefit at all from their existence like it is so vice versa. For example in a fedual system you have noblemen who need to dominate, you have serfs who need to be dominated, and you have either knights (if they are in the noble class) or hunters (if they are not on the noble class), both noblemen and serfs need the knights and the hunters but the opposite is not true.

It's like a competition to who can feel the weakest. None of you are slaves, you are just whiny faggots.

Not quite; he didn't think morals to be infinitely flexible in terms of how one's valuations can change. Thus there is a barrier for masters and slaves alike - neither is necessarily capable of facing the eternal recurrence. And there are many in both groups who are.. incapable of being capable.

That sounds alot like R/K selection theory. I do think there is something to the theory. Our political positions and life choices are very hard to change even if we are given good reasons as to why we are wrong. If this was the result of some sort of gene expression, it would do alot to explain that.

i missed the thread earlier, thats some good recommendations. Overcoming fear is what it's all about, and the left in politics all they do is place fear roadblocks. be the hero that breaks a few of those blocks and others will be inspired, x1000.

You are right, he wasn´t, and I never said he would be. nonetheless the question was how to get to master think and thats what I did.
Thank god my knowledge of his philosophy is limited, otherwise i wouldn´t be able to grow on it. But I can assure you I read all of the book he and his sister published (i think).
Since you seem to have a higher understanding in this, would you explain why his knowledge shouldn´t be used for the public and the greater good of humanity?

Yes, I do suspect something in that regard ... the theory is nice but maybe too oversimplified to account for the 'true' causes of this divide. But in the end everything boils down to reproductive strategy ... that's the whole reason for 'adaption' after all. Although adaption sounds too proactive, it is simply survival of the least inadequate given certain conditions.

We tend to look at the feudal system as the strong dominating the weak because it did eventually evolve to be a system like to that, but if you look at how the "great houses" or the "nobility" came about it was usually through some heroic deed or being successful at organizing or trading ect. People showed some form of excellence that provided benefit to others, and the others bestowed honors and titles and so forth on them. It started out as a symbiotic relationship. As people became more posts wealthy, decadence set it, and a rigid aristocracy formed that kept others from rising, then the mad game of thrones power plays we think of began. The same thing has happened with democracy.

There is no 'should not' to it - it's that 'humanity' (I doubt you read the book because he says , verbatim "'Humanity' does not advance. It does not even exist") is not physically capable of using his philosophy for their benefit. A privilege of the fortunate and strong his thought will remain - even fewer who read him truly understand him.

Also I highly doubt your solution for eliminating language is possible as Anna Wierzbicka's natural semantic metalanguage implies no proper human language can do without them. That isn't even getting into linguistic anthropology and the inescapability of a sacred/profane dichotomy (see Durkheim, Gans, etc etc)

Anyway I need to sleep, cya

interesting !
not all fear is bad, your right.
But what would happen if there was no fear?
Do you think people would be to naive?

I think people would be dead. You wouldn't run from a lion without fear. You wouldn't hide from a storm. Hell you wouldn't even gather a food surplus because you wouldn't be scared of starving. We'd all die without fear.

I live in the black forrest, border to switzerland, alemanic tribe. have fun there, hope you enjoy it!

I know the fedual system was favoring masters and democracy was favoring slaves. However the ideal fedual system and the ideal democracy is always energized by overmen (heroic deeds for example), however it is always bound to decadence because the centre is not on the overman on the masters/slaves. The fedual system for example was the first one that favored masters so much that the extreme class of it came to be favored (jews and banksters) leading to corruption. In the end in both systems the masters/slaves and their extremes come to have the prominent role while the overmen ostracised up to the point the whole thing chokes on itself.

thanks!

This just seems like babbling to me, but some people think the same about things I wright, so I can't know for sure. It seems to me that slave-think is only a consequence of, purposefully or not, needing or seeking validation from others, or needing or seeking knowledge from others. Master-think would be the ability to have both of these without other people, if "master" is only defined as having power, else master-think -is- slave-think. Defining power by absence of fear is still to be subject to fear. Fear is irrelevant.

write* always with the bad timing...

I don't think the Overman has been born yet. I honestly think we are the last men, and we collectively wasted our chance to produce something great. We have discovered happiness, and then we blink.

I take the Socrates route by assuming I know nothing. This should always be the default assumption. From this state of being one should, theoretically, begin attempts to discern the truth of any dialogue or subject until they are satisfied with their own conclusion.

The problem with this approach is that eventually you realize that you do know something, you know that you know nothing, so you've invalidated your position.

it is about the pictures you have been programmed to the words.
not about sugarcoating anything.
when you hear a word and have a negativ picture in your mind programmed to it you will feel fear

No the overmen are always there because nothing can exist without them. Thats why civilizations collapse and everyone wonders why they fell when they were at their height (according to master/slave perspective on it). It was because overmen were ostrasized or they looked on the whole thing so unfavorably that they refused to energize it.

When it comes to certainties about ourselves we can discern with great accuracy whether we know something about ourselves or not. I think there is great benefit to this state of mind. Chiefly this state of being requires a person to constantly challenge their own position for flaws in their own logic. So in a way it isn't at all problematic to realize that by assuming you don't know anything you know that you don't know. I would say it is especially beneficial for someone who is accustomed to absorbing information without ever verifying it.

Thus spoke the slave (;

>forget the history for it will only repeat through selffullfilling prophacy. only who forgets the past can live the future.

fuck off. we should learn from history

Well there have been regimes trying to benefit from it before...
Nothing is impossible althought it might be very hard, Thanks for your thoughts,
cya

I agree. Learning from history is so important.

We haven´t yet.
Still there is hope

Hysterical :DD

I'll say this though, the idea of power is very important as OP stated. (((They))) make us think they are extremely powerful, to the point of being unbeatable, so we don't even try. It's all smoke and mirrors. like OP said we should use language that empowers us so that we can use that power to topple those who claim to be our masters.

Do you think so?
maybe this have just been dominant slaves?
Overmen as I see them aren´t necesseraly leaders. but more like boundless men

Exactly. America is a jewish shithole bound to collapse without their wandering cowboy for example.

we should, we don´t, we avoid. history rhymes

maybe I´m wrong, but what did you learn from history?

thx mate

its not "the jews" come on bro. a lot of them are jewish but not all jews are evil. Thats what got my grandpas best friend into Dachau concentration camp

Do you know who spock is ?
you have to be analytical.
Psychopaths for example dont feel any fear. and they can survive.
hunger is no fear.
but i have to admit its not all fear just the fear which has an unavoidable conseqence.
(there is no name for that)

Im talking about the typical merchant. It can be the white version of it too. Point is USA ostracized their overman wandering cowboy or whatever and everything is centered on everyone else. And USA (just like europe) is dying because of it.

yes i know :(
there is a song called "die gedanken sind frei"
which means our thoughts are free, as long as they dont controle our thoughts there is still hope for the next revolution. bookprint lead to the french revolution, internet will lead to the american evolution

Both american and european I hope. Russia too or no? lol

We were defeated by america, our revolution can only start if america allows it.
what do you think about morning dawn or how its called, you know this right wing party. Are you afraid they could rise to power?

Not really. America will have its own civil war because their inner politics are shit it will be our chance to rearm ourselves. And both europeans and americans citizens will be pretty red pilled and possibly on good terms because of the demographics threat.

I dont follow the politics here really. Im just expecting a some war to happen with turkey which I will evade for many reasons.

>I must not fear. Fear is the mind-killer. Fear is the little-death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone past I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain.”-Dune

beautiful!

tf do you think we are leaf
this is Jow Forums, which excusively deals in confirmation bias

>independent entity.
Doesn't exist. Can not exist. And neither does the overman yet. The most we can aspire to be is prefatory men as he described it. And that is more than enough struggle for us to bear.

t. merchant

No, this is literally what Nietzsche said user. We are at a stage where it is still not possible.

I hope your right.

As far as I understand nietzsche wanted to boost the master class. But independent entity exists. Only dependent entities will say it doesnt.

One can be optimistic lol.