Jump to content
MXDebate

Nietzsche is full of kitsch

Recommended Posts

I love kritiks that tell me how I think. If plan is send AIDS medicine to Africans, your K then assumes that I would be sad if there were no more AIDS victims. What's the A2 2AC "We want AIDS victims to disappear"? "Nuh-uh! You don't! We know what's in your subconscious!"...? What about affirmatives that don't claim "moral obligations"?

 

 

 

 

So is the impact sickness of the mind, or justification of genocide in the name of pursuing moral obligations? Or is that what the sickness of the mind is?

 

Well, if plan is to send AIDS medicine in africa obviously i would be talking about it in a differnet context since i am talking about it in context (sort of) of the rez. But in that case we can look at a number of things.

So there are two worlds, the apparent and the real (world of being and world of becomming - although i don't like to use those terms and they mean slightly different things). Your aff sees the real world as having no AIDS as i would assume the medicine would cure the africans of AIDS. Well, first of all you assume this utopian ideal that you can solve for Africans with AIDS which in itself is absurd, so then you say well, we only help 50% of the people, we are realistic. This brings about a number of questions, your 1ac constructs the ideal being as one that has no AIDS, where the plans solvency worked and cured them of AIDS, so then what happens to those thave AIDS? Do they fail at life, do they accept their existence, do you just say sorry? Your ideal figure of life without AIDS is one that some with AIDS cannot grasp, so they are valued as less than those whom the plan solved for. There are more in depth reasons i can give if you want.

 

 

On moral obligations: Think of it this way, the aff changes the sq, it doesn't accept it and deems it "evil", ultimately condemning the evil into the abyss. Once again, the aff sees this "real world" which struggles against the apparent world. You deem certain institutions, factions, organizations ---- which are all inhereny ---- as being unworthy because they prevent you from reaching your ultimate goal, your utopian ideal your aff assumes. Once again this allows you to eradicate your barriers in order to achieve your goal. You try to take out parts of life in order to make life better, nietzsche argues that everyone is part of the whole, life is in fact the whole within itself, life just is. It doesn't matter really wether you claim a moral obligation or not, it ultimately comes down to the same thing, but moral obligations are way easier to lock into a link.

 

of course they are plenty of other links, such as securitization and others, but this is mostly in context of my own interpretation.

 

On impacts: I am not quite famiar with the term sickness of the mind so i can't exactly tell you; there are many names for the same thing. The impact i run is the grand march (an internal link for the impact) and this card from Deleuze & Guattari that talks about micro-fascism as the negation of pos difference in which the repression of becoming is the precondition for every act of macro-political violence in history. When difference becomes something to be negated, the result is death and another impact is that the attempt to control positive difference is the worst form of aesthetic violence because it makes our lives something ugly. Basically passive nihilism- the worst form of suffering.

 

hope that helps

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
i know... tell me what the 'real impact' of the sicknesses of the body are (e.g. diseases), then that'll give me a clue as to what kind of answer you'll accept in impacting the sicknesses of the mind.

 

(nietzsche would say that both sicknesses accompany weakness, and the most important moving-toward value of life is strength - a la will to power.)

 

 

One can hear echoes of Kierkegaard in Nietzsche's discussions of sickness. A decadent person will invariably respond to sickness in the wrong way and the sickness will become, in a sense, "unto death." A person with the right will or characteristics will heal themselves of sickness and become stronger for it. The first few pages of Ecce Homo lay this out rather clearly.

 

Thus, the impact of spiritual sickness, in a decadent, is despair (Kierkegaard), or nihilism (Nietzsche). Nihilism, of course, is the ultimate sin for Nietzsche.

 

I always felt that this was a suspiciously dialectical argument for somebody like Nietzsche.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
your mention to the joy of trying to fix the world (I believe its called jouisance by psychoanalytics) etc. sound a LOT like Zizek / Lacan and less about Nietzsche.... but what do I know, I don't really read any of them

 

would anyone care to explian how the alternative..which is do NOTHING

solve any of the case...or is the point simply that the case doesn't need to be solved, we should just fuck it and live?

 

Depending on how your run Nietzsche, you can run the alternative a new different ways.

 

1. Alt = do nothing. Embrace life as it is and love fate. Meaning, obviously, Amor Fati.

 

When using this alt, the neg states they win because they give life meaning. In essence, the affirmatives impacts of suffering are inevitable. By looking at the world as a huge problem that needs to be solved, one denies the fact that they actually cannot do ANYTHING to solve for any of those problems. Nietzsche states the the person using such morality loses all value to life and purpose in life because, as the world is shit, the person spends his time worrying about this shit. Meaning that he just becomes so depressed about the shit that he can never solve. So, in essence, instead of working to help himself and fix his own life, he makes himself miserable by only worrying about the suffering. So, vote neg to give life meaning and because non of the affirmatives impacts can ever be solved for.

 

2. Alt = embrace Master Morality and the Will to Power-

 

You run this in a K of slave morality. This is how I run my K.

 

It is very similar to the alternative to the Amor Fati, except frazed a little differentely. Instead of stating "do nothing and love fate", we say "embrace Master Morality", meaning change your view of good. Define good in relation to power. This means that we, instead of attempting to alleviate the suffering of all of the individuals in the status quo, work to make ourselves more powerful.

 

While running Nietzsche this way, you would say that the affirmative embodies master morality. By stating that the plan is good because it decreases the suffering in the status quo, which is bad, the aff is telling you that the aff is good because it is not bad. The aff gives no definition for what makes something good, just that it opposes what is bad. This view of the world create ressentiment, when one stops working to improve his own life. When the aff solves suffering, they teach the world's populous that they need not work to make their own lives better. In effect, people get so used to others riding their lives of suffering that they stop attempting to make themselves better and stronger. The impacts are the same as the Amor Fati alt.

 

i know this is insanely oversimplified, but its a basic explanation of some of the different alts.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
While running Nietzsche this way, you would say that the affirmative embodies master morality. By stating that the plan is good because it decreases the suffering in the status quo, which is bad, the aff is telling you that the aff is good because it is not bad. The aff gives no definition for what makes something good, just that it opposes what is bad. This view of the world create ressentiment, when one stops working to improve his own life. When the aff solves suffering, they teach the world's populous that they need not work to make their own lives better. In effect, people get so used to others riding their lives of suffering that they stop attempting to make themselves better and stronger. The impacts are the same as the Amor Fati alt.

 

a couple comments

 

first--In the first sentence of my quote did you mean master morality or slave morality? Nietzsche despised the slave revolt of morality, so you would claim that they embody this slave morality right? I think that's a typo but please clarify.

 

Second--Could you explain ressentiment? I've never quite gotten that idea...

 

Third--if you use the link above (the aff defines good just as not bad, rather than it's own ideal), how does the alternative of embrace the will to power solve back? I get how it embraces the idea to make ourselves stronger and live a better life, but how does that create an idea of good? Or do you mean to say that good post alt is strength?

 

Thanks!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the standard way of running nietzsche in debate appears to me to link to itself, for one, and to completely ignore important implications of his work... nietzsche doesn't say one should reject the herd mentality; what he tries to show is that those who think they're masters are really slaves to the hidden masters, who're the artists, creators, philosophers, etc., sowing the seeds of the over-man. if'n nietzsche had said what most kritikers say he says, he'd embody the very ressentiment he writes about, because he'd imagine a different better world and despair that the world wasn't conforming to his ideal. rather he claims we must accelerate the managerial processes, encourage those who think they're masters to keep on thinking they're in charge, since they're unwittingly causing their own downfall and the ascendency of something prettier. what we're really dealing with here is this existentialist reduction of nietzsche and the dismissal of his concrete political lines of flight. but i suppose i can't complain. if you're going to misinterpret, then go right ahead. in whatever case, you'll get what's coming to you. (please see chapter six of klossowski's 'nietzsche and the vicious circle'.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"The homogenizing of European man is the great process that cannot be obstructed: one should even hasten it." - nietzsche, will to power #898

_

zizek writes there are three main readings of nietzsche: a traditional one, a modern one, and a postmodern one. first, there's the nietzsche of the return to premodern aristocratic warrior values against decadent judeo-christian morality. second, there's the hermeneutics of doubt and ironic self-probing. and lastly, there's the aesthetic play of appearances and differences.

klossowski effectively turns this three-part distinction on its head; he writes of three interpretations of the all-important doctrine of the eternal return: (1) either the doctrine of the eternal return selects in and through itself, apart from any conscious or unconscious intervention or else the return was revealed to nietzsche so that a conscious and voluntary selection might intervene (as it has been revealed innumerable times). (2) if it's been revealed numerous times, it doesn't matter, because the experience of nietzsche at sils-maria poses the question with a new urgency. (3) either the selection depends on the disclosure, or it's a selection that will take place in secret and undertaken in the name of this secret, i.e. a political project.

notice how these correspond to zizek's dictonomy. an eternal return which goes on without any need of us, or uses us only as its tools, is postmodernity - the play of appearances and differences that move through us without our conscious intervention (memes in a simulacrum). in the modern version, we're still not in charge, but our self-probing is what's important (oddly enough, this is

: 'you've already made the choice; you're here to try to understand why you made it'). lastly, however, is an eternal return that's still capable of calling us to a willed project of training and selection (one that can/may or cannot/may not change the future, dependent on what we do).

what klossowski demonstrates is that this last option - the nietszchean political project - has nothing to do with any traditionalism: that's the misreading of nietzsche that we must resist. chapter six, p114:
 

 

Nietzsche's 'aristocratism' has nothing to do with a nostalgia for past hiearchies, nor, in order to realize this aristocratism, does he appeal to retrograde economic conditions.


(remember also that the over-man isn't an individual, but a state of being/becoming.)

instead of returning to the past, nietzsche is focused on untimely interventions which sow the seeds of a neo-barbarian collective ready to push the empire over its breaking point. there's no room for either nihilism or nostalgia here - it's a practical creativity that's most needed. this will happen due to a necessary excess, a surplus of industrialism that won't fit into the general interest. p119:
 

 

The importance of increasing gregariousness and the growth of populations is only the obverse side of the industrial phenomenon. If there are more and more needs to satisfy, even if new needs imply a so-called 'rise in the standard of living', they are vulgarized by their very multiplication as well as by their satisfaction - a new form of gregariousness.

Nietzsche registers the distant moral and social consequences of this phenomenon with the precision of a seismograph. As exploitation developed, it demanded, under the pretext of a massive (and thus average) saturation, that completely conditioned reflexes be substituted for the appetitive spontaneity of individuals on a vast scale. Consequently, it also arrogated to itself the 'moral' and 'psycho-technical' mission (inherited from the essentially punitive element of the economies of the two world wars, which were prototypes of planetary planning) of exterminating any impulse that might induce human nature to put its 'useful' specificity at risk by seeking that which exceeds it as an agent: namely the most subtle states of the soul, which are capable of inducing a rapture that surpasses congenital servitude, and therefore of producing an intensity that corresponds to the impulsive constraint of its own phantasms - even if they are themselves due to this congenital servitude, thus magnified...

{S}uch is the luxury (but such is also culture) - the 'aristocratism' which, according to Nietzsche, must be represented by at least one group, one particular case, not as a fraction of humanity but as its surplus (and hence, for the totality, as an exterminable, shootable, odious leech). This group or particular case - if it wants to assume a surplus existence - can live only in the distance it must maintain, morally speaking, from the totality, drawing its strength from the indignation, hostility and reprobation heaped on it by the totality, which necessarily rejects its own 'surplus', since it is unable to see it as anything other than a rebellious, sick, or degenerate fraction of itself.


it's here we get to the point of realizing who really wears the pants in the societal hierarchy: it's not the rulers (capitalists, militarists, bureaucrats); it's the rare souls hidden among the masses, so-called parasites, who're cultivating an insurrection that's waiting for the right time to erupt. this dispenses with all the guilt trips thrown at those labeled 'non-productive'. it affirms imperial structures as essentially self-destructive. it displays the positivity of being isolated and useless - provided one has the spiritual discipline to do so. and there's the rub: there's a big difference between disciplinary training and a taming that's akin to domestication. in fact, that distinction is what makes the political project of experimentation necessary in the first place -- p99:
 

 

If the meaning of all eminent creation is to break the gregarious habits that always direct existing beings towards ends that are useful exclusively to the oppressive regime of mediocrity - then in the experimental domain to create is to do violence to what exists, and thus to the integrity of beings. Every creation of a new type must provoke a state of insecurity: creation ceases to be a game at the margins of reality; henceforth, the creator will not re-produce, but will itself produce the real.


what does this mean for the nietzsche kritik? - that claiming we shouldn't say should (a self-refutation in itself) is only half the story. the love of fate brings us back to the concrete question of the fate of our cultures, but specifically, for nietzsche's debaters, it's not an excuse for incoherence... it's a challenge of direct action: will you remain a game at the margins of reality, satisfied to reproduce the dominant discourses? or will you put forth real experiments in terror?

if you don't relate to any of this, if you're not up to the task, then be glad... you're one of the herd.

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

there's three poems by charles bukowski which condense some of the ideas in the preceeding two posts: the first is strongest of the strange, the second is hug the dark, and the third is the genius of the crowd.

 

_

 

you wont see them often

for wherever the crowds are

they

are not.

 

these odd ones, not

many

but from them

come

the few

good paintings

the few

good symphonies

the few

good books

and other

works.

 

and from the

best of the

strange ones

perhaps

nothing.

 

they are

their own

paintings

their own

books

their own

music

their own

work.

 

sometimes i think

i see

them- say

a certain old

man

sitting on a

certain bench

in a certain

way

 

or

a quick face

going the other

way

in a passing

automobile

 

or

there’s a certain motion

of the hands

of a bag-boy or a bag-

girl

while packing

supermarket

groceries.

 

sometimes

it is even somebody

you have been

living with

for some

time-

you will notice

a

lightning quick

glance

never seen

from them

before.

 

sometimes

you will only note

their

existence

suddenly

in

vivid

recall

some months

some years

after they are

gone.

 

i remember

such a

one-

he was about

20 years old

drunk at

10 a.m.

staring into

a cracked

new orleans

mirror

 

face dreaming

against the

walls of

the world

 

where

did i

go?

 

_

 

 

turmoil is the god

madness is the god

 

permnanent living peace is

permnanent living death.

 

agony can kill

or

agony can sustain life

but peace is always horrifying

peace is the worst thing

walking

talking

smiling,

seeming to be.

 

don't forget the sidewalks

the whores,

betrayal,

the worm in the apple,

the bars, the jails,

the suicides of lovers.

 

here in America

we have assassinated a president and his brother,

another president has quit office.

 

people who believe in politics

are like people who believe in god:

they are sucking wind through bent straws.

 

there is no god

there are no politics

there is no peace

there is no love

there is no control

there is no plan

 

stay away from god

remain disturbed

 

slide.

 

_

 

 

there is enough treachery, hatred violence absurdity in the average

human being to supply any given army on any given day

 

and the best at murder are those who preach against it

and the best at hate are those who preach love

and the best at war finally are those who preach peace

 

those who preach god, need god

those who preach peace do not have peace

those who preach peace do not have love

 

beware the preachers

beware the knowers

beware those who are always reading books

beware those who either detest poverty

or are proud of it

beware those quick to praise

for they need praise in return

beware those who are quick to censor

they are afraid of what they do not know

beware those who seek constant crowds for

they are nothing alone

beware the average man the average woman

beware their love, their love is average

seeks average

 

but there is genius in their hatred

there is enough genius in their hatred to kill you

to kill anybody

not wanting solitude

not understanding solitude

they will attempt to destroy anything

that differs from their own

not being able to create art

they will not understand art

they will consider their failure as creators

only as a failure of the world

not being able to love fully

they will believe your love incomplete

and then they will hate you

and their hatred will be perfect

 

like a shining diamond

like a knife

like a mountain

like a tiger

like hemlock

 

their finest art

 

_

 

here's a spoken word version of the latter:

 

here's another of nietzsche's bastard children:

http://www.guba.com/watch/3000026166

... one of my favorite bits starts at about 1h:02m with his emphasis on "excess".

 

and here's a bukowskian apocalyptic vision to match:

 

_

 

oh by the way ishamael, "they will consider their failure as creators only as a failure of the world" is a profoundly nietzschean explanation of what sparks ressentiment.

Edited by Lazzarone

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm kind of new with Nietzsche. I'm trying to figure out the best way to answer "nietzsche = genocidal jackass", and other stuff like "embracing suffering is just a mask for genocide, rape, holocaust, etc." Recently I've just been like 1. we dont prevent you from taking action- just as long as you act for the joy of acting instead of trying to abolish something you hate. 2. links to K, destroys lifes aesthetic value, read cards to answer moral obligation. What are the most persuasive answers to genocide and impacts like that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

we don't defend nietz, only the alt text

saying "no" to life - the denial of being o/w genocide

no impact to genocide. there is no great arbitrer of the universe who gives a shit whether humans live or die. this, really is the crux of the argument. Just ask them "why" their said impact is bad.

 

why's genocide bad? kills people

Why's that bad? it's immoral to do so

so? morals are good

why? because they exist

why? because god is real and he cares about morals

 

The aff would win if you conceded that...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm kind of new with Nietzsche. I'm trying to figure out the best way to answer "nietzsche = genocidal jackass", and other stuff like "embracing suffering is just a mask for genocide, rape, holocaust, etc." Recently I've just been like 1. we dont prevent you from taking action- just as long as you act for the joy of acting instead of trying to abolish something you hate. 2. links to K, destroys lifes aesthetic value, read cards to answer moral obligation. What are the most persuasive answers to genocide and impacts like that?

 

 

can you think of any genocide that wasn't started because of some moral bullshit? that's the best answer, makes it another link into the K.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay apparently there is a lot of confusion. The alt that I hit was essentially do nothing ("Affirm life").

Now the base of the argument (complete barebone) is that joy and suffering are polar opposites, we know what one is because the other exists. So if either joy or suffering stopped existing the other would also. The aff plan has harms or "the sufferings" that they try and end. By ending these "harms" they have negated life because now life has no joy because there is no suffering, e.g. the aff creates nihilism.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Okay apparently there is a lot of confusion. The alt that I hit was essentially do nothing ("Affirm life").

Now the base of the argument (complete barebone) is that joy and suffering are polar opposites, we know what one is because the other exists. So if either joy or suffering stopped existing the other would also. The aff plan has harms or "the sufferings" that they try and end. By ending these "harms" they have negated life because now life has no joy because there is no suffering, e.g. the aff creates nihilism.

 

 

that is the argument simplified to the most extreme.

 

aff negates pos. difference, do nothing/affirm life embraces difference. negating difference is bad b/c it allows for genocides and such to occur, look at the other posts above. but i don't really think there is much confusion in this thread, the arg you hit is a pretty basic nietzsche shell.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No it wasn't I was simplyfying(sp?) it becasue some seemed to misunderstand it, however I did say it was complete barebone.

 

That is true.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the crux of the issue to me is how and why genocides happen, and if we agree with agamben (or ardorno before him), then we cannot separate events like the holocaust from humanism, or the 'civilizing' process of modernity - it's not in fact an aberration or a hiccup in this process; it's fundamental to this process. (if your opponents pretend genocides only happened in the past, then they're not paying a wit of attention to current events.) nietzsche's alternative of the overman is post-humanist. it does advocate the creation of an elite, but not one (i.m.o.) defined by race or gender or even class -- nietzsche is principally interested in free spirits (building 'hothouses for rare and choice plants'). note the way both bukowski or deleuze discuss 'the strongest of the strange' or 'ordinary people who make the pass' (anti-oedipus, round page 135): this is nietzschean, and it's an inverted artistocraticism, but it's not white supremacist or male chauvanist. no, what's genocidal (as i explain a little above) is the reduction and/or elimination of exceptions to service the comforts of the mediocre herd. read the compliments n. gave to the jews and you'll see why a nazi germany had to treat them as the evil parasite.

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1412481&postcount=32 : klossowski : "{T}he 'aristocratism' which, according to Nietzsche, must be represented by at least one group, one particular case, not as a fraction of humanity but as its surplus (and hence, for the totality, as an exterminable, shootable, odious leech). This group or particular case - if it wants to assume a surplus existence - can live only in the distance it must maintain, morally speaking, from the totality, drawing its strength from the indignation, hostility and reprobation heaped on it by the totality, which necessarily rejects its own 'surplus', since it is unable to see it as anything other than a rebellious, sick, or degenerate fraction of itself."

 

http://www.cross-x.com/vb/showpost.php?p=1390414&postcount=140 : virilio : "In Germany, labor service will be made mandatory in 1928; those who try to avoid it become objects of scorn, social exclsion or denunciation, as the deserter or shirker was in time of war. In 1934, the completely standardized work camps become detention camps; and they will be transformed into concentration camps, into death camps, in the face of public apathy, without anyone even bothering to remove their original motto: 'Arbeit macht frei.'"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chaloupka writes evidence indicating that fear causes us to not be at the top of our games intelligence wise--thus preventing us from deterring nuke war and future conflicts. I was wondering if Nietzsche or any Nietzsche authors write anything to that extent, indicating that by embracing nihilism, not trying to create an Appollonian world, and not fearing anything people will be able to pass better policies and solve case. Also, how come people have yet to lose value to life considering people have feared NW and conflict for ages. For Foucault its easy to say that the impacts have already happened and are getting worse and authors like Dean indicate that the next war will cause extinction, but I have yet to cocme across any such evidence by Nietzsche or anyone else indicating we're losing value to life now and its going to get worse if we don't reject the plan now etc. Is there anyway that conflicts like Iraq and the War on Terror give uniqueness to the kritik, because the only brink the K really has is the alternative in my mind, I'm no Nietzsche expert (which is why I'm posting here because I'm sure someone like Lazzarone or synergy or someone has a good answer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I have a question, what impacts do most of you use for Nietzsche Kritiks? Any cites in particular?

 

-G.

 

Dehumanization, No value to life

 

Dehumanization>death

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
could I beat a nietzche K on "morality is good and exists now'

 

That would depend on what morality you are talking about when you're saying that it is "good" and is a reason to not listen to Nietzsche...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Winning "Morality Exists Now" does nothing. It obviously exists; that's a faucet of the link story.

 

If you argue that it is good, you will mostly likely have to reposture the reason why it is good. Simply saying that morality is good because it allows us to approach objective Truth or because it represents a more honest world would not be responsive. If you simply said that your morality has utility and that this utility outweighs or somehow overcomes the negation of life Nietzsche and secondary authors accuse utilitarianism of, then I think it would be a convincing reason the K was wrong.

 

It is too difficult to take Nietzsche head-on because you would have to win that Truth exists and that attempting to seek it is good. That's a lot to do in 8 minutes and it probably won't line up with your aff well. To reposture your morality as one of utility and then to claim that is good however, allows you to sidestep the discussion of the liegitimacy of your morals and minimize the link to the direct effect of the knowledge production of the 1AC rather than of objective Truth on the whole.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yo, once-ler, do you have any input on this:

 

Chaloupka writes evidence indicating that fear causes us to not be at the top of our games intelligence wise--thus preventing us from deterring nuke war and future conflicts. I was wondering if Nietzsche or any Nietzsche authors write anything to that extent, indicating that by embracing nihilism, not trying to create an Appollonian world, and not fearing anything people will be able to pass better policies and solve case. Also, how come people have yet to lose value to life considering people have feared NW and conflict for ages. For Foucault its easy to say that the impacts have already happened and are getting worse and authors like Dean indicate that the next war will cause extinction, but I have yet to cocme across any such evidence by Nietzsche or anyone else indicating we're losing value to life now and its going to get worse if we don't reject the plan now etc. Is there anyway that conflicts like Iraq and the War on Terror give uniqueness to the kritik, because the only brink the K really has is the alternative in my mind, I'm no Nietzsche expert (which is why I'm posting here because I'm sure someone like Lazzarone or synergy or someone has a good answer).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The latter part of what you're saying sounds like you're asking if there's brink evidence to Nietzsche in which case the answer would be no.

 

As to the first part, I don't know what John would say but when we hit him last he did not claim that the K solved case. In all actuality claiming the neg solves case when reading Nietzsche gets you into a couple potential areas where you would link to yourself. It's easier and safer to just say X peice of evidence means case doesn't matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...