Newspapers

I disagree with Ghandi on his idea about what a newspaper should be he states, " One of the objects of a popular newspaper is understand popular feeling and give expression to it; another is to arouse among the people certain desirable sentiments..."(5). My understanding of a newspaper has always been that it should be display the sentiments of the populace, but it should be impartial. It should not arouse desirable sentiments. I think what Ghandi is referring to is spreading propaganda. This is not done in the spirit of free ideas.

The fortunate vs. unfortunate

Often throughout The Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche discusses two distinctive groups: the fortunate, well-off, nobles, etc... and the unfrotunate, downtroden, the commoners etc... Nietzsche argues that "[priests] are all men of ressentiment, physiologically unfortunate and worm-eaten...inexhaustible and insatiable in outbursts against the fortunate and happy...(124). In this instance, he describes the priest as someone who alters the "food chain". By making the well-off (whatever that means) appear undesirable in some way, he can make the less-well off feel better about themselves. Thus, he makes the well off feel flawed. I agree in society there may be some sort of "food chain" even thought noblity does not exist in our time. Certain wealthy people, attractive people, more athletic people are held in higher esteem than others that have less of one of these desired qualities. But, priests do not downgrade simply one of these qualities, they preach against using these advantages well-off people have in an abusive way. Preists argue that these advantageous qualities are not evil in themselves, but could be used for a greater good to help others.

Priestly Asceticism

Nietzsche continues to denounce priestly asceticism saying, "... such a self-contradiction as the ascetic appears to represent, 'life against life,' is, ... a simple absurdity(120). He argues that priestly asceticism is contradictory to human nature because it inhibits our natural feelings and desires. He argues that living one's life against his natural instincts is wrong. I disagree with this idea because I think that certain inhibitions enhance our nature. A basic example would be abstaining from drugs. Drugs may be appealing to our nature and be stimulating, but they cloud our perception. When we don't take drugs, we are much more productive, healthier and happier people.

I also think having the ability to control our nature is what makes human nature distinctly human. Animals cannot control their instincts. Humans control where and when they go to the bathroom, when they sleep and other behaviors. Animals on the other hand just react to stimuli. They flee if there is a predator, they eat when hungry , they defecate where they want and they mate whenever and wherever they want. There are no rules and restrictions to limit behavior in animals. I think if we indulged in our desires, we would actually be going against human nature and become more like animals. Thus, when Nietzsche criticizes priests for preaching to go against one's natural desires, I think he is criticizing human nature instead of protecting it.

Nietzsche explains, "[Christians] are miserable, no doubt of it, all these mutterers and nook counterfeiters...they tell me their misery is a sign of being chosen by God; one beats the dogs one likes best; perhaps this misery is also a preperation, a testing, a schooling,...something that will one day be made good with huge payments of gold, no! of happiness"(47). Nietzsche is discussing the Christians ideas about what action to take when one is wronged. He is saying that Christianity tells us to turn the other cheek. Nietzsche believes that this is weakness. Christians turn the other cheek beacause they cannot fight back. My problem with Nietzsche's thinking is that he reduces people to the "weak" and the "strong". It's as though people are like animals to Nietzsche in natural selection. The more fit species overtakes the less fit and so on. Again, I don't see this in human nature. Part of what separates humans from animals are abstract concepts like compassion and understanding. I feel that inb general, most people do not jump to take advantage of the weak. They would instead go and try to help others. We cannot say this of everyone. Of course their are those in society who do go after others and try to take advantage of them in one way or another. But, for the most part, I feel that people in our society care about one another and are more likely to help one another than to hurt one another.

Birds of Prey

Nietzsche states that scientists believe that, " ... the strong man is free to be weak and the bird of prey to be a lamb - for thus they gain the right to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey."(45). I think what Nietzsche is saying with this bird of prey-lamb analogy is that the strong take advantage of others beacause it is a part of their nature. When Nietzsche states that "...they gain the righ to make the bird of prey accountable for being a bird of prey' he is saying that scientists are wrong for trying to change the nature of the strong. In my opinion the strong should not take advantage of the weak. This is because no one could ever be the strongest person. Therefore, one will always be living in fear of the stronger person that could take advantage of them. It would be better, to get rid of this fear by everyone respecting each other. If we justify the strong taking advantage of the weak what kind of society would we have? Everyone would always be looking over their shoulder. No one would trust each other.

Atheism

According to Nietzsche, " ... [man] ejects from himself all his denial of himself, of his nature, naturalness, and actuality, in the form of an affirmation, as something existent...as God..."(92). Nietzsche believes that the concept of God is very distant from man and in fact the exact opposite of man. Nietzsche believes that God violates man's nature and that being Christian violates ones true nature. I don't think being Christian goes against one's nature. Man's nature is not to steal, kill, lie and cheat. I know I have no way to prove this, but I think people have more of a judeo-christian nature than Nietzsche thinks. All the time there are random acts of kindness during tragedies and disasters. I think Nietzsche is overly cynical.

Guilt

In On the Genealogy of Morals, Nietzsche associates appreciation of ancestors as gods with a feeling of guilt. This guilt is what the present generation owes the first generattion for the creation of their society. I disagree with this viewpoint for Christianity. This may be true asian religions where ancestors are worshipped. In Christianity, we don't worship Adam and Eve. God is our god. According to the bible, Adam and Eve are our ancestors. According to Nietzsche, " The conviction reigns that it is only through the sacrafices and accomplishments of the ancestors that the tribe exists-and that one has to pay them back with sacrafices and accomplishments : one thus recognizes a debt that constantly grows greater, since these forebears never cease, in their continued existence as powerful spirits, to accord the tribe new adavantages and new strength(89).

Nietzsche uses analogy of Heraclitus

Heraclitus was a mythical greek figure who was punished to role a rock up a hill that always rolled back down for eternity. Nietzshe uses this analogy with religion, because he believed that religion was futile. Nietzshe states that "[man] gives rise to an interest, a tension, a hope, almost a certainty, as if with him something were anouncing and preparing itself..."(85). Nietzsche believes that man prepares himself during this life to gain eternal life. He mentions the Heraclitus analogy to imply that this effort is futile. Nietzshe does this because he was an athleist and because he was against all religion.

Race Association in The Genealogy of morals

Nietzsche discusses the different inabitants in italy and how even looks come into play with good and evil. Blond haired people were considered "fair" or good and dark haired people were bad. They were unlike the"fair" haired nobles. This an example of the nobility judging themselves as good and the outsuders as evil.

Father of all evil

i was surprised when nietzsche referred to god as the father of all evil. In modern times it may not be surprising, but in Nietzsche's time people in general were more religous. Im sure this caused an uproar during Nietzsche's time.

Nietsche

Throughout the reading for this friday, Nietszche talks about how the words associasted with good come from what the ability considered good for them and not the common man. For example, when one says something was a noble deed, they mean it was honorable and good. However, noble is derrived from nobility and this supports Nietszche's argument.

Annie

I watched the preformances at the Musicians Institute. i thought it was creative to take the song "Smooth Criminal" from Alien Ant Farm and make a poem out of it. Personally I don't really like the song, but it takes a lot of creativity and talent to write a poem to the beat of the song and make it funny. Heres the song on you tube.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hxeNZOLNh4c

Funny poem

I thought one of Rives' poems was pretty funny. It was the one about the balloon people. i thought he was pretty creative to take what he saw in that picture and come up with that crazy story about kite people and baloon people. He talked about them like they actually existed. He says," This was the temple that they built, and it was here that they worshipped (Ransacked and made unholy by the Kite People in the Second Consecutive Year of Low Wind.)." i never would have come up with that story from that picture. i just would have thought the shack was a shack.