XPost: 24hoursupport.helpdesk, alt.politics.scorched-earth, uk.politics.misc   
   XPost: uk.legal, alt.politics.uk   
   From: abelard3@abelard.org   
      
   On Thu, 23 Feb 2017 03:34:11 -0800 (PST), saracene   
    wrote:   
      
   >On Thursday, February 23, 2017 at 11:22:42 AM UTC, abelard wrote:   
   >   
   >>   
   >   
   >> >So if I understood his work I would agree with it IYVHO?   
   >>   
   >> i've no idea...   
   >> you are not at the point of 'understanding' it....   
   >   
   >You fucking half-baked snippa, your only test of whether i understand it is   
   whether I agree.   
   >   
   >>let another   
   >>     100 years onward....so it is moot   
   >>   
   >> >> that you turn to critics who also, who like yourself have insufficient   
   >> >>     depth to understand the real works is foolish...   
   >> >>   
   >> >> it's just part of why you don't learn   
   >> >>   
   >> >Read my paper. You probanbly own't click on the link so here it is.   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >   
   >> >This paper was presented to the sixth annual conference of the Friedrich   
   Nietzsche Society, September 1996.   
   >> >   
   >> >NIETZSCHE CONTRA PSYCHOANALYSIS   
   >> >   
   >> >In Civilisation and its Discontents, Freud writes of society   
   >>   
   >> 'society' does not do 'binding'....'society' is not a person   
   >>   
   >> why would i continue when you start with a logically nonsense   
   >   
   >I know you use a very funny idea on logic. Doublethink I thknk we can call it.   
   >>   
   >>   
   >> >as binding people together by by means of Eros, so stimulating a lot of   
   aggressive urges which are denied satisfaction, and which therefore turn   
   against the self in the form of guilt, which makes for unhappiness. Despite   
   resemblances to ideas floated    
   in the Genealogy of Morals, this position is crucially different from   
   Nietzsche's doctrine of will to power. In his mature philosophy, Nietzsche's   
   interest was focussed not so much upon direct speculations about happiness and   
   how to achieve it, as upon    
   the threat faced to the individual from demoralising ideas. This sets him   
   against the pessimism of Freud's view.   
   >>   
   >> you can't read minds...neither can nietzsche   
   >   
   >You really are stuck in a groove.   
   >>   
   >> define 'will to power'   
   >   
   >Elsewhere in my work.   
      
   you simply don't have the ability or knowledge   
      
   you tirade is drivel...based on unsound semantics   
      
   you can make sentences but you cannot make sense...   
       that is why your posts interest me...   
      
   i listen to newsnight (and many other sources) for similar reasons...   
      
   >> define 'satisfaction'   
   >> define 'aggressive urges'   
   >>   
   >> the blather is interminable   
   >> 'doctrine' indeed   
   >>   
   >> why would i read on??   
   >   
   >Becasue you've got nothing better to do and you could learn a lot.   
      
   i have plenty better to do...like study your behaviour...   
      
      
   like reading up a real problem with some jews...   
       eg circumcision...   
      
   'the only instance i know of where physicians are explicitly   
       delegating responsibility to persons(parents) for irreversible   
       surgery to persons with no medical credentials' 277   
      
   yet female genital cutting is now illegal in the uk...   
      
   as i finish a book(not wikipedia) on the subject...   
       'marked in you flesh', glick...a jew far better informed and   
       educated than yourself...   
      
      
      
      
   --   
   www.abelard.org   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)