Reads more like Nietzschean bullshit to me. Call me a Hegelian, where truth exists thru a human dialectical, thought providing each the freedom to throw their own excrement against the wall to call art. What is it they called it…oh yeah, the rankings of “superfluous men,” that’s where this, and the selective breeding crap is coming from.
In the real world, men who accomplish earn the right to affect a dialectic. Hegel noted Napoleon nearly apologetically. We could look at Musk, or even Trump. The biblical rebuttal was David, who certainly wasn’t “equipped” but has a friggin statue sculpted oh him by Michelangelo.
You remind me of Jim Rome’s rule: have a take and don’t suck! There’s your line…
This appears to me to be sophistry in the most negative sense.
Perhaps I am missing the point.
Before a discussion on the topic of virtue can commence, virtue must be at least roughly sketched out. The idea that somehow virtue requires education in the formal sense or material possessions is almost incomprehensible, unless the author has a concept of virtue which is entirely novel.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we will carry nothing out. Therefore if we have food and clothing we should with that be content."
Reads more like Nietzschean bullshit to me. Call me a Hegelian, where truth exists thru a human dialectical, thought providing each the freedom to throw their own excrement against the wall to call art. What is it they called it…oh yeah, the rankings of “superfluous men,” that’s where this, and the selective breeding crap is coming from.
In the real world, men who accomplish earn the right to affect a dialectic. Hegel noted Napoleon nearly apologetically. We could look at Musk, or even Trump. The biblical rebuttal was David, who certainly wasn’t “equipped” but has a friggin statue sculpted oh him by Michelangelo.
You remind me of Jim Rome’s rule: have a take and don’t suck! There’s your line…
This appears to me to be sophistry in the most negative sense.
Perhaps I am missing the point.
Before a discussion on the topic of virtue can commence, virtue must be at least roughly sketched out. The idea that somehow virtue requires education in the formal sense or material possessions is almost incomprehensible, unless the author has a concept of virtue which is entirely novel.
"Now godliness with contentment is great gain. For we brought nothing into this world, and it is certain we will carry nothing out. Therefore if we have food and clothing we should with that be content."
Excellent
Excellent read. You’re spot on about nearly every point.
Have you read/skimmed Alamariu’s Selective Breeding and the Birth of Philosophy?
Nice. Thanks.