Science > Physics > Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part I - Introduction
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Rick Sobie" |
| Date: |
01 Nov 2003 03:03:06 AM |
| Object: |
Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part I - Introduction |
I thought I would make a small series of posts regarding
post post modern philosophy to give Noam Chomsky something
to talk about before he passes on, besides linguistics, (or
what I like to call, 'talking about talking').
I would have liked to give Ayn Rand the opportunity to criticize
my work as well, but she passed on in 1982.
But in our modern day, these two people I suppose, have risen
above the rest, transcribing with eloquence, their insights into
the subject of modern philosophy, as few others have.
I remember not long ago, perhaps 15 years, when we were developing
the Internet - many within earshot of this post have been around as
part of this electronic communication movement for many years,
and you might remember that one of our original goals was to bring
higher education to the masses.
Not only to bring higher education, but to allow the greatest number
of young minds, to come into contact, with the best scientific minds
available.
To allow the many, to be enlightened, by the best minds we had.
And I am pleased to report that thanks to the hard work and
dedication of many people, who have worked for virtually no
compensation over the years, save for the sheer joy of the
endeavor, that we are making good progress in that regard.
For example, if you are a user of the peer to peer networks,
you may have noticed that it has expanded, to include, such
things as speeches, and lectures, and books.
You can hear Ayn Rand give a long lecture to the cadets at
West Point, in her own words, and hear the emotion as she
thanks America, for being a paragon of freedom in a world
overshadowed by communism.
You can hear Noam Chomsky, go on and on about almost everything
under the sun, but most of all you can hear the truth, coming
from a man, who knows some truth, in a world of media manipulation
and spin.
You can hear other great people as well, right through history
from the dawn of radio. Great leaders as they declare war on
other countries, and other great scholars, and speakers, and
religious men, like Martin Luther King Jr. speaking out for
freedom, as they fought against oppression to help shape our world.
And you can hear lectures on philosophy, even as narrated by
Charleton Heston, with his deep soothing Moses-like voice.
I recommend that you take the time to search these things out.
For it is surely one of the best things in our world today for
anyone, who enjoys, what Aristotle called the highest good,
contemplation.
I think you will find, that philosophy is not that dry boring
subject that it is often referred to as, in fact it is filled
with wisdom, the goal of which has always been to bring mankind,
to a higher level of thought, with the ultimate goal of increasing
his/her happiness, or increasing the level of civilization
in this world.
Philosophy and physics have always gone hand in hand. So I thought
I would post my series here in the off chance you might glean
a little something or get a new perspective or idea that you could
apply in your own work.
If it offends you in any way, or is not your cuppa tea, then merely
pass it by.
I will be discussing some of the more notable philosophers in
the past, the basic ideas, notions and concepts they put forth,
and how it agrees or disagrees with post post modern philosophy.
(It is sort of a tradition in a way)
In no particular order.
The first philosopher I will be discussing is a fairly controversial
philosopher. A man who lived around the time of Charles Darwin.
Someone who Bertrand Russell had very little use for.
But someone who has found great praise in various camps, and
in places such as Europe. (And by camps I am not particularly referring
to 'concentration camps' - literally)
I have always been a harsh critic of this man. But lately I am seeing
a little something there that I had previously missed from
Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche
=*=
.
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 04:48:43 AM |
|
|
The first philosopher I will be discussing is a fairly controversial
philosopher. A man who lived around the time of Charles Darwin.
Someone who Bertrand Russell had very little use for.
But someone who has found great praise in various camps, and
in places such as Europe. (And by camps I am not particularly referring
to 'concentration camps' - literally)
I have always been a harsh critic of this man. But lately I am seeing
a little something there that I had previously missed from
Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche
Many educated people have a negative first impression of Nietzsche,
because they find him transparent.
That is to say, they look at his life, and see that he was a man
who became a literary professor at an early age, then went
to war as a soldier, and came back with health problems
which plagued him for the rest of his life.
They see him as a sickly little man, who supped on milk
living in a small room, plagued with dysentery, and
migraine headaches. One who spent the last 10 or so
years of his life, as a broken man, deranged, insane,
and incoherent, suffering ironically from syphilis,
garnered likely from a prostitute, the one and only time in
his life, he ever got laid.
Almost friendless, he sat in his dark little room,
with his little eye glasses inches away from his paper,
scribbling feverishly by candlelight for hours at a time,
suffering from insomnia, and filled with potions and drugs,
to ease his pain and discomfort.
Not a pretty picture of a man, who brought us the Übermann!
The Over man or superman. The image of a man that was
embraced by Hitler and his Nazis.
In fact Hitler and Nietzsche had a lot in common.
Both died in a state of insanity from syphilis.
Both were funny looking little men.
Both admired and promoted the Aryan Übermann image.
Neither were religious.
Both were very eloquent and inspirational.
Hitler could whip a crowd into a fervor like no other.
Take the time to listen to a speech or two of his on peer2
and you will see what I mean. Even if you do not speak German,
you will feel the power, the vigor, the intensity, the
nationalistic pride and boastfulness. That admiration,
of the Übermann. Man as god.
Perhaps partly because the German language lends itself well
to such intensity, but you can certainly feel the aggression,
the will, to power.
The will to power. That was Nietzsche's explanation for why the
world is, as it is. (Or was as it was)
But few people when studying Nietzsche take into consideration
the time in which he lived.
They examine him from all perspectives, but fail to realize that
it was his simple reflection of the work of Charles Darwin,
that caused him to proclaim God is dead.
He felt that Darwin had solved the puzzle and Christianity would
not recover from the new information, and that would lead
to the end of Christianity, and then to feelings of nihilism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nihilism
So he expanded on the Darwinian philosophy to the point where
natural selection, meant survival of the fittest, and feeling
exonerated or freed by Darwin from religious philosophy, he
was then free to imagine man as god. Man who had to answer
to no higher power than himself.
But his line of thought was not all negative.
He merely wanted mankind to realize their true potential.
Unfortunately, he was a little over the top. Like Hitler in a way.
For him, it was all or nothing. It was not sufficient to just say
that he recognized the will to power in living things, he would say,
that it was ALL the will to power!, that everything else was false,
and there is no higher and there is no other, and sieg heil!
You get my drift. He was passionate about his beliefs. And
an extremist.
He could not say that Christianity over the ages had at times
led mankind astray. He would say that Christianity as an organized
religion was the GREATEST crime against humanity ever seen on
the face of the earth!.
You can almost picture him sweating away, scribbling feverishly,
in his half lit room, on the verge of exhaustion.
That is likely what you would have seen, had you been there.
But part of that is also his cultural upbringing. I have known
people who are passionate about their beliefs like that.
It is not uncommon. It comes from having the feeling that you
hold the key to a very important truth and the people,
well, they just won't listen, or they just don't get it.
Often it is not the people who are to blame, but rather the
one who is trying to make his point who is failing to give
you the complete story. Perhaps the background, of their idea,
or its origin. As was the case here.
He would say that he disliked Schopenhauer,
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/SCHOPEN.HTM
and wanted to give mankind some more positive outlook, or
perhaps introspection, so that mankind would not look to
nihilism, but rather might reach for new strength,
new will, and become more. To become harder, tempered like steel,
able to face the world without fear or doubt in his abilities.
To grasp firmly his crown as king of beasts and sit on his
throne at the top of the food chain, proud, and free.
A nice notion. And you know that mankind needs a little inspiration
once in a while to help him get up in the morning. To help
him get up for work, or to motivate him to try and take over the
world, that sort of thing.
But even with all that might is right philosophy. And the will to
power, well, as history relates, the allied forces kicked their butt.
With their reliance on God for their strength, (their father
O'Flahtery's right up there on the front lines with them),
with their pin up pictures of Greta Garbo, with Bob Hope and the USO,
http://www.thewarpage.com/uso.html
and Cecil B. Demille selling them Lux beauty soap via the air waves -
propping them up, giving them all their support, and reminding them
that if they lose this war, their freedom, their way of life,
might be lost forever, they ganged up on them, and won the war,
for 'the Gipper'. Or something like that.
I used to think, that Nietzsche was just a bitter little man,
who was mad at God, for making him sickly and weak. One who
wished he had been born an Übermann himself.
But as I reflect more on his work over the years I see that
deep down inside, Friedrich Nietzsche, was a humanist.
Who was influenced by the people of his time. People like Charles
Darwin.
And that although he was an extremist, he did have a good sense
of what freedom is.
Unfortunately, what he didn't realize, was that religious philosophy
is much deeper than it appears on the surface, and it too encompasses
the right of man to be free.
How free?
Well we have a saying in post post modern philosophy.
It doesn't matter what you say, and it doesn't matter what you do,
He loves you just the same. That leaves you free to do whatever
you want. You then find that you were never really caged
by religion after all. And that inside of you is not only
the will to power, but the will to be the sort of person
who _you admire. And that leads to a sense of ownership
in your life, and a sense of responsibility. Given the
choice to be one type of person or another, chances are you
will choose the good. The fact that your life will be
more enjoyable and more pleasurable and more positive if you
make this choice, is just coincidence, I am sure. :-)
=*=
.
|
|
|
| User: "ZZBunker" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 07:32:14 PM |
|
|
(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:<fcMob.245064$6C4.93715@pd7tw1no>...
The first philosopher I will be discussing is a fairly controversial
philosopher. A man who lived around the time of Charles Darwin.
Someone who Bertrand Russell had very little use for.
But someone who has found great praise in various camps, and
in places such as Europe. (And by camps I am not particularly referring
to 'concentration camps' - literally)
I have always been a harsh critic of this man. But lately I am seeing
a little something there that I had previously missed from
Mr. Friedrich Nietzsche
Many educated people have a negative first impression of Nietzsche,
because they find him transparent.
But, since Russel's philosophy didn't have a use for ANY education,
his philiosophy is called undemann rather than the symmetrically
diposed ubermann of the hands-across-the-channel, mail-it-in
Euro retart philosophers.
That is to say, they look at his life, and see that he was a man
who became a literary professor at an early age, then went
to war as a soldier, and came back with health problems
which plagued him for the rest of his life.
They see him as a sickly little man, who supped on milk
living in a small room, plagued with dysentery, and
migraine headaches. One who spent the last 10 or so
years of his life, as a broken man, deranged, insane,
and incoherent, suffering ironically from syphilis,
garnered likely from a prostitute, the one and only time in
his life, he ever got laid.
Almost friendless, he sat in his dark little room,
with his little eye glasses inches away from his paper,
scribbling feverishly by candlelight for hours at a time,
suffering from insomnia, and filled with potions and drugs,
to ease his pain and discomfort.
Not a pretty picture of a man, who brought us the Übermann!
But, as philosophers go, he was pretty tame.
He couldn't quite reach the heights of the
similiar French Napoleanic Philosophers.
Or as history will record them:
The Leave It To Beaver Overachievers.
The Over man or superman. The image of a man that was
embraced by Hitler and his Nazis.
Hilter didn't embrace any image of a man.
His ENTIRE philosophy can be summed up in two words:
The Reich.
In fact Hitler and Nietzsche had a lot in common.
Both died in a state of insanity from syphilis.
Both were funny looking little men.
Both admired and promoted the Aryan Übermann image.
Neither were religious.
Both were very eloquent and inspirational.
Hitler could whip a crowd into a fervor like no other.
Take the time to listen to a speech or two of his on peer2
and you will see what I mean. Even if you do not speak German,
you will feel the power, the vigor, the intensity, the
nationalistic pride and boastfulness. That admiration,
of the Übermann. Man as god.
Perhaps partly because the German language lends itself well
to such intensity, but you can certainly feel the aggression,
the will, to power.
The will to power. That was Nietzsche's explanation for why the
world is, as it is. (Or was as it was)
But few people when studying Nietzsche take into consideration
the time in which he lived.
They examine him from all perspectives, but fail to realize that
it was his simple reflection of the work of Charles Darwin,
that caused him to proclaim God is dead.
He felt that Darwin had solved the puzzle and Christianity would
not recover from the new information, and that would lead
to the end of Christianity, and then to feelings of nihilism.
http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=nihilism
He may have felt many things, but obviously ddn't read
much of Darwin. Since Darwin was one the first to
reclaim that God is alive, after he claimed that
God is dead.
So he expanded on the Darwinian philosophy to the point where
natural selection, meant survival of the fittest, and feeling
exonerated or freed by Darwin from religious philosophy, he
was then free to imagine man as god. Man who had to answer
to no higher power than himself.
But his line of thought was not all negative.
He merely wanted mankind to realize their true potential.
Unfortunately, he was a little over the top. Like Hitler in a way.
For him, it was all or nothing. It was not sufficient to just say
that he recognized the will to power in living things, he would say,
that it was ALL the will to power!, that everything else was false,
and there is no higher and there is no other, and sieg heil!
You get my drift. He was passionate about his beliefs. And
an extremist.
He could not say that Christianity over the ages had at times
led mankind astray. He would say that Christianity as an organized
religion was the GREATEST crime against humanity ever seen on
the face of the earth!.
Yeah but he wasn't the first and he certainly won't be the
last to say that. Since like all Germans he lived pretty close
to French dorks. Who claimed that God is dead and alive
more times than NAZIs can Sieg Heil to their reborn
Hilter-scientoids.
You can almost picture him sweating away, scribbling feverishly,
in his half lit room, on the verge of exhaustion.
That is likely what you would have seen, had you been there.
But part of that is also his cultural upbringing. I have known
people who are passionate about their beliefs like that.
It is not uncommon. It comes from having the feeling that you
hold the key to a very important truth and the people,
well, they just won't listen, or they just don't get it.
True, but he couldn't quite reach the heights
of Kant, who was more insane than both Neitzche and Hilter.
Often it is not the people who are to blame, but rather the
one who is trying to make his point who is failing to give
you the complete story. Perhaps the background, of their idea,
or its origin. As was the case here.
He would say that he disliked Schopenhauer,
http://www.island-of-freedom.com/SCHOPEN.HTM
and wanted to give mankind some more positive outlook, or
perhaps introspection, so that mankind would not look to
nihilism, but rather might reach for new strength,
new will, and become more. To become harder, tempered like steel,
able to face the world without fear or doubt in his abilities.
To grasp firmly his crown as king of beasts and sit on his
throne at the top of the food chain, proud, and free.
A nice notion. And you know that mankind needs a little inspiration
once in a while to help him get up in the morning. To help
him get up for work, or to motivate him to try and take over the
world, that sort of thing.
But even with all that might is right philosophy. And the will to
power, well, as history relates, the allied forces kicked their butt.
With their reliance on God for their strength, (their father
O'Flahtery's right up there on the front lines with them),
with their pin up pictures of Greta Garbo, with Bob Hope and the USO,
http://www.thewarpage.com/uso.html
and Cecil B. Demille selling them Lux beauty soap via the air waves -
propping them up, giving them all their support, and reminding them
that if they lose this war, their freedom, their way of life,
might be lost forever, they ganged up on them, and won the war,
for 'the Gipper'. Or something like that.
I used to think, that Nietzsche was just a bitter little man,
who was mad at God, for making him sickly and weak. One who
wished he had been born an Übermann himself.
But as I reflect more on his work over the years I see that
deep down inside, Friedrich Nietzsche, was a humanist.
Who was influenced by the people of his time. People like Charles
Darwin.
And that although he was an extremist, he did have a good sense
of what freedom is.
Unfortunately, what he didn't realize, was that religious philosophy
is much deeper than it appears on the surface, and it too encompasses
the right of man to be free.
How free?
Well we have a saying in post post modern philosophy.
It doesn't matter what you say, and it doesn't matter what you do,
He loves you just the same. That leaves you free to do whatever
you want. You then find that you were never really caged
by religion after all. And that inside of you is not only
the will to power, but the will to be the sort of person
who _you admire. And that leads to a sense of ownership
in your life, and a sense of responsibility. Given the
choice to be one type of person or another, chances are you
will choose the good. The fact that your life will be
more enjoyable and more pleasurable and more positive if you
make this choice, is just coincidence, I am sure. :-)
But the will-to-power philosophy redied with Feynmann,
who wasn't so much insane as other scientists,
as just a complete idiot.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 10:10:17 AM |
|
|
(Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:<fcMob.245064$6C4.93715@pd7tw1no>...
An essay which certainly raises the literary tone of sci.physics,
where it was cross-posted. Much to comment on, I will only comment on
one measure:
With their reliance on God for their strength, (their father
O'Flahtery's right up there on the front lines with them),
with their pin up pictures of Greta Garbo, with Bob Hope and the USO,
http://www.thewarpage.com/uso.html
and Cecil B. Demille selling them Lux beauty soap via the air waves -
propping them up, giving them all their support, and reminding them
that if they lose this war, their freedom, their way of life,
might be lost forever, they ganged up on them, and won the war,
for 'the Gipper'. Or something like that.
Which suggests that WWII was some kind of contest of motivation, or
the will -- which would fit naturally into your thoughts. Well, the
Americans certainly didn't lack will, but neither did the Germans ...
at least until the bulk of their regular army had been defeated. I
see this more as an economic contest: the German motivation may have
been just as strong as the allied motivation, and their weapons
individually were as good or better: they were simply over-extended
and in the end out-produced and out-numbered. Can you imagine a
country the size of Germany trying to take on the United States and
Russia simultaneously? It's nuts -- even aided by their equally long
on will, short on manpower and raw material ally, Japan.
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 05:15:30 PM |
|
|
(Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.0311010810.1c00f657@posting.google.com>...
Which suggests that WWII was some kind of contest of motivation, or
the will -- which would fit naturally into your thoughts. Well, the
Americans certainly didn't lack will, but neither did the Germans ...
at least until the bulk of their regular army had been defeated. I
see this more as an economic contest: the German motivation may have
been just as strong as the allied motivation, and their weapons
individually were as good or better: they were simply over-extended
and in the end out-produced and out-numbered. Can you imagine a
country the size of Germany trying to take on the United States and
Russia simultaneously? It's nuts -- even aided by their equally long
on will, short on manpower and raw material ally, Japan.
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
COMMENT:
Mad, but not *quite* so mad as all that, for war isn't a simply a
matter of numbers. Hitler had been outnumbered in the large swatch of
Europe that he had taken before the Summer of 41, but German
technology had been equal to the task. He felt that largly aggrarian
Russia, full of low tech Slavs and peasants (which it was) and devoid
of any real military command since Stalin had killed them all (which
he had) was ripe for the picking, sort of like Italy vs. the
Ethiopians. Which it very, very nearly was. But Hitler underestimated
Russian progress in heavy manufacturing. And Hiter shouldn't have
divided his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy,
particularly after he found out about that nastiest surprise of
Russian heavy industry, the T-34 tank. But he did. And yet still
ALMOST made it before the Russian winter.
Had Hitler taken Russia, he might have been able to hold off the US.
Had he neuralized England too, he certainly would have been able to
hold off the US. The US was too far away, and that was what Hitler was
counting on when he declaired war on it. But not being able to
neutralize England allowed the US to operate in Europe, and that
sealed Hitler's fate early.
Only three mistakes screwed Hiter's England campaign: he
underestimated radar and the Spitfire, he bombed London instead of
continuing to concentrate on Spitfire airfields even after the the
radar+Spitfire's performance was known, and finally his campaign for
submarine neutralization of England failed due to German trust of
Enigma, which had been broken (allowing sub positions to be known).
If Hiter had abandoned Enigma for one-time pad encryption,
concentrated on England's airstrips in 40, then driven all-out for
Moscow in 41, he'd have been left with his full forces and Russian
fuel to fight off the US in North Africa. And no doubt, with his
distance advantage and plenty of fuel, could have done it. Which would
have left him master of all Europe until late 1945.
Following which the US would systematiclly have atom-bombed Germany
off the map, flying off aircraft carriers. Wups. Another wild card.
So it's just as well for Germany that Hiter didn't screw up. He'd
still have failed, and Germany would have been in even worse do-do by
the end of 1946.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 09:57:07 PM |
|
|
(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote in message news:<79cf0a8.0311011515.7609fc77@posting.google.com>...
nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.0311010810.1c00f657@posting.google.com>...
....
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
COMMENT:
Mad, but not *quite* so mad as all that, for war isn't a simply a
matter of numbers. Hitler had been outnumbered in the large swatch of
Europe that he had taken before the Summer of 41, but German
technology had been equal to the task.
Yes ... in the beginning, it certainly went for him like Alexander.
He felt that largly aggrarian
Russia, full of low tech Slavs and peasants (which it was) and devoid
of any real military command since Stalin had killed them all (which
he had) was ripe for the picking, sort of like Italy vs. the
Ethiopians. Which it very, very nearly was. But Hitler underestimated
Russian progress in heavy manufacturing. And Hiter shouldn't have
divided his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy,
particularly after he found out about that nastiest surprise of
Russian heavy industry, the T-34 tank. But he did. And yet still
ALMOST made it before the Russian winter.
Had Hitler taken Russia, he might have been able to hold off the US.
Had he neuralized England too, he certainly would have been able to
hold off the US. The US was too far away, and that was what Hitler was
counting on when he declaired war on it. But not being able to
neutralize England allowed the US to operate in Europe, and that
sealed Hitler's fate early.
Only three mistakes screwed Hiter's England campaign: he
underestimated radar and the Spitfire, he bombed London instead of
continuing to concentrate on Spitfire airfields even after the the
radar+Spitfire's performance was known, and finally his campaign for
submarine neutralization of England failed due to German trust of
Enigma, which had been broken (allowing sub positions to be known).
If Hiter had abandoned Enigma for one-time pad encryption,
concentrated on England's airstrips in 40, then driven all-out for
Moscow in 41, he'd have been left with his full forces and Russian
fuel to fight off the US in North Africa. And no doubt, with his
distance advantage and plenty of fuel, could have done it. Which would
have left him master of all Europe until late 1945.
Following which the US would systematiclly have atom-bombed Germany
off the map, flying off aircraft carriers. Wups. Another wild card.
So it's just as well for Germany that Hiter didn't screw up. He'd
still have failed, and Germany would have been in even worse do-do by
the end of 1946.
Ok ... you're right. Obviously not quite so mad. His "madness" ...
hmm ... I really succumbed to popular cliche is using this epithet ...
consisted mainly in what the ancients would recognize as hubris: a
common but limited human failing, well known among those in power. In
particular he would have had advisors ... or could have had ...
telling him most of what you say in hindsight in real time, except
that of course he ignored them or killed them. Much of what we call
his "madness" could be labeled "evil": sane pursuit of nasty goals.
OTOH his progress in hubrishood ... very Macbethean ... was possibly
aided by the degeneration of syphillis. Or did the OP just make this
up?
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Steve Harris" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
02 Nov 2003 09:49:05 PM |
|
|
(Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>...
OTOH his progress in hubrishood ... very Macbethean ... was possibly
aided by the degeneration of syphillis. Or did the OP just make this
up?
I don't know of any good reason to believe it.
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
Well, as Mati says, if Germany had controlled all of Europe and
neutralized England, too, they might have had more resources to divert
to a Manhattan style project. Or the new class of sub they were
working on and never quite got out (a real nasty one). Or a fleet of
ME-262's, instead of just a few, which would have completely sealed
off European air cover.
As you know, the US invented the A-bomb twice (in just over two
years!) and in parallel. Even if the Germans had figured out the true
cross section of graphite, or maybe even made for themselves (instead
of getting it from Norway) enough D20 to run CANDU style weapons Pu
production reactors (which seems the likely route to me, considering
what program they had), they were looking at a monster project. They
could have skipped our Oakridge, but would still have had to have
built their equivalent of Hanford and Los Alamos. With no real
apparent threat from the US (they didn't know about OUR bomb program)
would they have done it? Perhaps they'd have found out about the
Manhattan project from captured Russian documents, so the race might
have been on as early as 42 if they had taken Russia and Russian
hadn't got all the spy stuff burned.
Now you make a good point that the first couple of bombs were 5 ton
monsters dropable only by B-29's, and there would have been no place
to launch these from against Fortress Europe. So obviously we can't
just replace Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Berlin and Munich or whatever
in August of 45-- you're right there. Some miniaturization is required
to get the bombs into B-25s or something that can fly off an Essex
class carrier. Another year? And if Hitler is smart enough to really
get his jet aircover into place, now you have to wait until you have a
jet bomber and jet escort to deliver the bomb, so you're out to 1947
anyway. And meanwhile Hilter may know you have the bomb and may be
racing to make his own, so it's nip and tuck indeed.
Of course, when Hitler gets his own bomb, his own delivery problems
against the U.S. are far worse than ours against him. We've got 100
aircraft carriers by the end of 1945; Hitler has zip. And we can
launch jets from carriers by July 1946.
SBH
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
03 Nov 2003 06:20:54 AM |
|
|
In article <79cf0a8.0311021949.f86b4b@posting.google.com>,
(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message
news:<2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>...
OTOH his progress in hubrishood ... very Macbethean ... was possibly
aided by the degeneration of syphillis. Or did the OP just make this
up?
I don't know of any good reason to believe it.
From the descriptions in _The Rise and Fall..._ of his behaviour,
it sure sounded like he was taking a lot of drugs--especially from
the behaviour that earned him the nickname of "carpet eater".
<snip>
/BAH
Subtract a hundred and four for e-mail.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
02 Nov 2003 10:11:10 PM |
|
|
In article <79cf0a8.0311021949.f86b4b@posting.google.com>, (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) writes:
nulldev00@aol.com (Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>...
OTOH his progress in hubrishood ... very Macbethean ... was possibly
aided by the degeneration of syphillis. Or did the OP just make this
up?
I don't know of any good reason to believe it.
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
Well, as Mati says, if Germany had controlled all of Europe and
neutralized England, too, they might have had more resources to divert
to a Manhattan style project. Or the new class of sub they were
working on and never quite got out (a real nasty one). Or a fleet of
ME-262's, instead of just a few, which would have completely sealed
off European air cover.
As you know, the US invented the A-bomb twice (in just over two
years!) and in parallel. Even if the Germans had figured out the true
cross section of graphite, or maybe even made for themselves (instead
of getting it from Norway) enough D20 to run CANDU style weapons Pu
production reactors (which seems the likely route to me, considering
what program they had), they were looking at a monster project. They
could have skipped our Oakridge, but would still have had to have
built their equivalent of Hanford and Los Alamos. With no real
apparent threat from the US (they didn't know about OUR bomb program)
would they have done it? Perhaps they'd have found out about the
Manhattan project from captured Russian documents, so the race might
have been on as early as 42 if they had taken Russia and Russian
hadn't got all the spy stuff burned.
Now you make a good point that the first couple of bombs were 5 ton
monsters dropable only by B-29's, and there would have been no place
to launch these from against Fortress Europe. So obviously we can't
just replace Hiroshima and Nagasaki with Berlin and Munich or whatever
in August of 45-- you're right there. Some miniaturization is required
to get the bombs into B-25s or something that can fly off an Essex
class carrier. Another year? And if Hitler is smart enough to really
get his jet aircover into place, now you have to wait until you have a
jet bomber and jet escort to deliver the bomb, so you're out to 1947
anyway. And meanwhile Hilter may know you have the bomb and may be
racing to make his own, so it's nip and tuck indeed.
Of course, when Hitler gets his own bomb, his own delivery problems
against the U.S. are far worse than ours against him. We've got 100
aircraft carriers by the end of 1945; Hitler has zip. And we can
launch jets from carriers by July 1946.
I'll just mention here that there is a book titled "What If" (was
trying to find my copy but apparently some kind soul borrowed it:-)),
dealing with just such topic. It is a collection of articles, by
historians, who try to identify "historical turning points" and
predict what could happen would events work out slightly differenctly.
Highly speculative, of course, but fascinating reading nevertheless.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
01 Nov 2003 10:45:44 PM |
|
|
In article <2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>, (Edward Green) writes:
sbharris@ix.netcom.com (Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote in message news:<79cf0a8.0311011515.7609fc77@posting.google.com>...
(Edward Green) wrote in message news:<2a0cceff.0311010810.1c00f657@posting.google.com>...
...
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
COMMENT:
Mad, but not *quite* so mad as all that, for war isn't a simply a
matter of numbers. Hitler had been outnumbered in the large swatch of
Europe that he had taken before the Summer of 41, but German
technology had been equal to the task.
Yes ... in the beginning, it certainly went for him like Alexander.
He felt that largly aggrarian
Russia, full of low tech Slavs and peasants (which it was) and devoid
of any real military command since Stalin had killed them all (which
he had) was ripe for the picking, sort of like Italy vs. the
Ethiopians. Which it very, very nearly was. But Hitler underestimated
Russian progress in heavy manufacturing. And Hiter shouldn't have
divided his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy,
particularly after he found out about that nastiest surprise of
Russian heavy industry, the T-34 tank. But he did. And yet still
ALMOST made it before the Russian winter.
Had Hitler taken Russia, he might have been able to hold off the US.
Had he neuralized England too, he certainly would have been able to
hold off the US. The US was too far away, and that was what Hitler was
counting on when he declaired war on it. But not being able to
neutralize England allowed the US to operate in Europe, and that
sealed Hitler's fate early.
Only three mistakes screwed Hiter's England campaign: he
underestimated radar and the Spitfire, he bombed London instead of
continuing to concentrate on Spitfire airfields even after the the
radar+Spitfire's performance was known, and finally his campaign for
submarine neutralization of England failed due to German trust of
Enigma, which had been broken (allowing sub positions to be known).
If Hiter had abandoned Enigma for one-time pad encryption,
concentrated on England's airstrips in 40, then driven all-out for
Moscow in 41, he'd have been left with his full forces and Russian
fuel to fight off the US in North Africa. And no doubt, with his
distance advantage and plenty of fuel, could have done it. Which would
have left him master of all Europe until late 1945.
Following which the US would systematiclly have atom-bombed Germany
off the map, flying off aircraft carriers. Wups. Another wild card.
So it's just as well for Germany that Hiter didn't screw up. He'd
still have failed, and Germany would have been in even worse do-do by
the end of 1946.
Ok ... you're right. Obviously not quite so mad. His "madness" ...
hmm ... I really succumbed to popular cliche is using this epithet ...
consisted mainly in what the ancients would recognize as hubris: a
common but limited human failing, well known among those in power. In
particular he would have had advisors ... or could have had ...
telling him most of what you say in hindsight in real time, except
that of course he ignored them or killed them. Much of what we call
his "madness" could be labeled "evil": sane pursuit of nasty goals.
OTOH his progress in hubrishood ... very Macbethean ... was possibly
aided by the degeneration of syphillis. Or did the OP just make this
up?
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
Well, that's gettin into lots of "what if"s, and you can formulated a
variety of scenarios.
First of all, I'll second Steve's opinion that the war was Hitler's to
win, in 1941. The Soviet stat and the Soviet Army were in total
disarray at that time. Specifically, the morale of the Soviet army
was virtually nonexistant. That the Soviet casualties exceed 3
million over the first 6 months of fighting is a well known fact, what
is less often mentioned is that more than half of these casualties
were POWs. That tells you a lot.
So, how did Hitler manage to botch it? Through a combination of two
monumental errors.
The first one can be described as "psychological". At the onset of
the war the population of Western USSR, especially the Ukraine,
practically welcomed the Germans, as liberators. These people were
sick and tired of 20 years of communist rule and could've been counted
on as faithful allies, even providing much needed troops. However,
the Germans treated them as cattle. The German behavior there was so
brutal as to turn them from symphatizers to enemies, on short notice
and, more important, it sent the message to the Soviet troops still
fighting that surrender is not an option. You can safely say that
throughout the war it was primarily Hitler, not Stalin, that provided
the Red Army with the motivation it needed.
As for the second, this was a classical strategic "hubris" error.
Finding it difficult to decide between the two major targets, Moscow
on one hand and Ukraine and the oil fields beyond it on the other,
Hitler decided to go for both, in effect getting neither. Seeing how
close he managed to get to both, though, it is a safe bet that it was
within his power to get either one, separately.
Now, would this have happened and the campaign in Russia wrapped up by
winter 1941 (or even summer 1942), the Germans could at that point all
their might, backed by the manufacturing power of the whole continent,
on England. And they would no longer have been inferior in terms of
resources and manufacturing capability.
So, back to the atomic bomb. Yes, the Germans were working on it, but
they were way behind (2-3 years). They didn't consider this to be a
high priority project and given the pressures they faced from 1943 on,
it dropped even lower on the priority list. So, what would happen
would they've managed to wrap up the land war in Europe by 1942. It
is possible that at this point, freed from the need to support
enormous land war, they would assign higher priority to the bomb and
get it earlier. Or, that feeling victorious, they would perceive no
urgency and let this slide even further. Your guess is as good as
mine, here.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Edward Green" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
02 Nov 2003 03:40:02 PM |
|
|
wrote in message news:<YZ%ob.58$_4.10809@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>, (Edward Green) writes:
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
Well, that's gettin into lots of "what if"s, and you can formulated a
variety of scenarios.
First of all, I'll second Steve's opinion that the war was Hitler's to
win, in 1941. The Soviet stat and the Soviet Army were in total
disarray at that time. Specifically, the morale of the Soviet army
was virtually nonexistant. That the Soviet casualties exceed 3
million over the first 6 months of fighting is a well known fact, what
is less often mentioned is that more than half of these casualties
were POWs. That tells you a lot.
So, how did Hitler manage to botch it? Through a combination of two
monumental errors.
The first one can be described as "psychological". At the onset of
the war the population of Western USSR, especially the Ukraine,
practically welcomed the Germans, as liberators. These people were
sick and tired of 20 years of communist rule and could've been counted
on as faithful allies, even providing much needed troops. However,
the Germans treated them as cattle. The German behavior there was so
brutal as to turn them from symphatizers to enemies, on short notice
and, more important, it sent the message to the Soviet troops still
fighting that surrender is not an option. You can safely say that
throughout the war it was primarily Hitler, not Stalin, that provided
the Red Army with the motivation it needed.
That does look remarkably foolish in hindsight -- also fits in with
his hubris. Who needs the stinking Ukranians? Kill them all. From
my limited military reading I believe lots of conquerers ... including
Alexander, the Romans and the Mongols ... adopted the opposite tack:
do not hinder me, and I will treat you decently: oppose me, and I will
show no mercy. A conquerer who has utter disdain for any and all
combinations of enemies will not bother, and therefore ... d'uh ...
has to fight all enemies to the death.
As for the madman leading a small country against great ones ... I
guess the right word might be "leverage". Alexander started from a
ridiculously small power base in Macedonia, and Greece looks too puny
to stand up to Persia ... you can no doubt supply many examples --
military equivalent of buying real estate with no money down.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
02 Nov 2003 06:14:11 PM |
|
|
In article <2a0cceff.0311021340.fc3f9f5@posting.google.com>, (Edward Green) writes:
mmeron@cars3.uchicago.edu wrote in message news:<YZ%ob.58$_4.10809@news.uchicago.edu>...
In article <2a0cceff.0311011957.376d03d5@posting.google.com>, (Edward Green) writes:
ALternate end game scenario might not have been so easy. Wasn't
Hitler also working on a bomb? Also, our delivery of bombs to Japan
was essentially unopposed reconaisance flights which, just incidently,
dropped atomic bombs on their heads. Delivery would be a little more
tricky to an intact fortress Europe. His empire might have persisted,
and Reagan in the 80's would have been facing down the Third Reich
rather than the Soviets.
Well, that's gettin into lots of "what if"s, and you can formulated a
variety of scenarios.
First of all, I'll second Steve's opinion that the war was Hitler's to
win, in 1941. The Soviet stat and the Soviet Army were in total
disarray at that time. Specifically, the morale of the Soviet army
was virtually nonexistant. That the Soviet casualties exceed 3
million over the first 6 months of fighting is a well known fact, what
is less often mentioned is that more than half of these casualties
were POWs. That tells you a lot.
So, how did Hitler manage to botch it? Through a combination of two
monumental errors.
The first one can be described as "psychological". At the onset of
the war the population of Western USSR, especially the Ukraine,
practically welcomed the Germans, as liberators. These people were
sick and tired of 20 years of communist rule and could've been counted
on as faithful allies, even providing much needed troops. However,
the Germans treated them as cattle. The German behavior there was so
brutal as to turn them from symphatizers to enemies, on short notice
and, more important, it sent the message to the Soviet troops still
fighting that surrender is not an option. You can safely say that
throughout the war it was primarily Hitler, not Stalin, that provided
the Red Army with the motivation it needed.
That does look remarkably foolish in hindsight -- also fits in with
his hubris.
Yes, it does.
Who needs the stinking Ukranians? Kill them all. From
my limited military reading I believe lots of conquerers ... including
Alexander, the Romans and the Mongols ... adopted the opposite tack:
do not hinder me, and I will treat you decently: oppose me, and I will
show no mercy.
You could even add, at the head of the list, "support me and you'll
get a share of the loot". Works.
A conquerer who has utter disdain for any and all
combinations of enemies will not bother, and therefore ... d'uh ...
has to fight all enemies to the death.
Yes. And this does not work, in the long run.
As for the madman leading a small country against great ones ... I
guess the right word might be "leverage". Alexander started from a
ridiculously small power base in Macedonia, and Greece looks too puny
to stand up to Persia ... you can no doubt supply many examples --
military equivalent of buying real estate with no money down.
It may work, if you're you've good manpower and you're playing your
cards smart. Cpnsider the example of the Muslims, in the 7th century,
starting from a small power base in Arabia and building up a huge
empire. Of course, they also benefitted from existing empires
(Bizantium and Persia) suffering from internal rot. Probably
Alexander benefitted from similar circumstances.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool,
meron@cars.uchicago.edu | chances are he is doing just the same"
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Alfred Einstead" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
02 Nov 2003 04:33:49 AM |
|
|
(Steve Harris sbharris@ROMAN9.netcom.com) wrote:
Had Hitler taken Russia, he might have been able to hold off the US.
until the Manhattan Project (whose purpose was to develop weaponry
that would utterly and completely exterminate Nazi Germany, before
the Nazis ruined the opportunity by wimping out at the last minute)
was completed
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Robinson" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
03 Nov 2003 07:15:57 PM |
|
|
Edward Green wrote:
rsobie@nospamtelus.net (Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:<fcMob.245064$6C4.93715@pd7tw1no>...
An essay which certainly raises the literary tone of sci.physics,
where it was cross-posted. Much to comment on, I will only comment on
one measure:
With their reliance on God for their strength, (their father
O'Flahtery's right up there on the front lines with them),
with their pin up pictures of Greta Garbo, with Bob Hope and the USO,
http://www.thewarpage.com/uso.html
and Cecil B. Demille selling them Lux beauty soap via the air waves -
propping them up, giving them all their support, and reminding them
that if they lose this war, their freedom, their way of life,
might be lost forever, they ganged up on them, and won the war,
for 'the Gipper'. Or something like that.
Which suggests that WWII was some kind of contest of motivation, or
the will -- which would fit naturally into your thoughts. Well, the
Americans certainly didn't lack will, but neither did the Germans ...
at least until the bulk of their regular army had been defeated. I
see this more as an economic contest: the German motivation may have
been just as strong as the allied motivation, and their weapons
individually were as good or better: they were simply over-extended
and in the end out-produced and out-numbered. Can you imagine a
country the size of Germany trying to take on the United States and
Russia simultaneously? It's nuts -- even aided by their equally long
on will, short on manpower and raw material ally, Japan.
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
Let's not forget the U.S., with all its power and material wealth could not defeat North Vietnam
supported by the Chinese. Same idea, I think.
--
Paul Robinson "Above all else... We shall go on..."
"...And continue!"
"If the lessons of history teach us anything it is
that nobody learns the lessons that history teaches us."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - Part II - - Nietzsche |
04 Nov 2003 11:03:22 PM |
|
|
In article <2a0cceff.0311010810.1c00f657@posting.google.com>, says...
rsobie@nospamtelus.net (Rick Sobie) wrote in message news:<fcMob.245064$6C4.93715@pd7tw1no>...
An essay which certainly raises the literary tone of sci.physics,
where it was cross-posted. Much to comment on, I will only comment on
one measure:
With their reliance on God for their strength, (their father
O'Flahtery's right up there on the front lines with them),
with their pin up pictures of Greta Garbo, with Bob Hope and the USO,
http://www.thewarpage.com/uso.html
and Cecil B. Demille selling them Lux beauty soap via the air waves -
propping them up, giving them all their support, and reminding them
that if they lose this war, their freedom, their way of life,
might be lost forever, they ganged up on them, and won the war,
for 'the Gipper'. Or something like that.
Which suggests that WWII was some kind of contest of motivation, or
the will -- which would fit naturally into your thoughts. Well, the
Americans certainly didn't lack will, but neither did the Germans ...
at least until the bulk of their regular army had been defeated. I
see this more as an economic contest: the German motivation may have
been just as strong as the allied motivation, and their weapons
individually were as good or better: they were simply over-extended
and in the end out-produced and out-numbered. Can you imagine a
country the size of Germany trying to take on the United States and
Russia simultaneously? It's nuts -- even aided by their equally long
on will, short on manpower and raw material ally, Japan.
Rather than a contest of the will, maybe a cautionary tale about being
led by a madman.
One thing is certain, he could really whip up a crowd,
and motivate people. Anthony Robbins, has nothing on Adolf.
I think that with Nietzsche, he looked at Darwin and
saw the death of Christianity. He then feared that mankind
would be left with a form of extreme realism, that would rob
mankind of their spirit and cause them to face the cold hard
reality of life, with nothing to prop them up. Nothing to inspire
them, and nothing to give them hope.
So he set out to strengthen the will of man, in his attempt
to harden men, in order that they would not become fatalists.
Fall prey to extreme skepticism - nihilism.
His idea was that mankind had the will to survive, and that
could be expanded on to the point where it could become the will
to achieve, the will to overcome, the will to be, the will to act,
the will to power.
After all, if man is on his own, he would have to be much stronger
and learn to be more self dependant. And then if he is on his own,
then why not reach for all that you ever wanted. Live without
consequences. If all that is required in survival of the fittest
is to be fit, then be super fit. Become an super man, a
emperor perhaps, a great unstoppable barbarian warrior who
uses all his faculties, to get whatever he wants, without
fear of success or failure. No more moral judgements, no more
false morality period, or this silly notion of the weak inheriting
the earth. Where is this weak inheriting the earth in survival of
the fittest? Then he decided that Christianity had duped Europe
into believing in things which had no basis in fact in light
of Darwinian evolution, and survival of the fittest.
Man as god. Sort of the extreme version of 'be all that you can be'.
It is natural then that Hitler would adopt this philosophy, to
give it a try and see if it didn't pay off.
If you have Kazaa Lite, (and some 286 million people do) so the
chances are you have the ability to download this...
"Copy of Adolf Hitler - Completely crazy NAZI Speech.mp3"
It is hilarious, but people when motivated by great orators,
are given the inspiration to try.
Without Martin Luther King Jr. Black America might still
be sitting at the back of the bus, or on separate buses.
Have you heard him speak? With that waivering inspiration
just pouring out of him.
Malcolm X probably wondered why he could never get a following
like that. Jesse Jackson probably wonders the same thing.
There is something in mankind, that is moved by the greatness
of the human spirit. But when it is eloquently phrased,
and spoken with meaning, and feeling, the masses have
are moved by it. It plays on their spiritual human nature.
The inborn desire, to be part of a great group, and do great
things for some great purpose. Perhaps self sacrifice is involved,
or displays of courage, or valor or honor, but it the desire to
rise up, and become more than they have ever been before.
There are two literary events which conquered the world.
The first, was Plato speaking on the death of Socrates.
(Allow me to paraphrase)
"Such was the end of my friend, which I can truly say,
was the wisest, and most just, of all men, that I have ever known."
The entire story is well worth the read. It was the impetus,
that spawned Catholisism.
The second, which some would say trumped that offering,
was the death of Jesus on the cross.
(Paraphrased again)
"And God so loved the earth, that he gave his only begotten son"
Here we see that with Platonic love, Socrates sacrifices himself
for his ideals. He takes the poison, because he feels that the state,
government by the people, which he believes in, must be supported,
even at the cost, of his own life.
He sacrifices himself for the state.
Then to trump that took quite an effort by literary scholars.
But the image of God's son, coming to earth, sacrificing himself,
to free mankind from sin, and his father God himself, also
not interfering, but allowing his son to be sacrificed.
"My God my God, why have thou forsaken me?"
You see it must have been felt necessary to also include
God himself making a sacrifice for man.
The ultimate sacrifice. In an effort to inspire mankind, to
make sacrifices for mankind as a whole.
Rather than merely go for the role of super emperor, with
the 60 lushious babes, peeling grapes, peasants at your feet,
feeding the conquered to lions for amusement, and then simply
offing yourself out of boredom in the end or setting the city
ablaze.
It seems as though the world conqueror, always ends up with
emotional problems, or becomes insane, dies a horrible death,
by the sword with which he lived.
But even John F. Kennedy an idealist was murdered.
Martin Luther King Jr. - murdered.
Mahatma Gandi - murdered.
So I think it is probably a dangerous business to try and
change the world by reason as well.
Has anyone trumped the death of socrates and the death of Christ?
A burning buddhist? A suicide bomber? Baby Jessica in the well?
I think there is a way. There is something that could top
that in terms of the heights of humanity.
But I would rather not say what it is.
I think that some things are better left unsaid, and undone.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
04 Nov 2003 11:33:23 PM |
|
|
Here are two great speeches that you should listen to as example
of what it takes to motivate people to greatness...
Here are two terrible speeches. One of which may make you angry,
but I will ask you to put that anger aside for now..
One is by Bush Sr. Lying through his teeth like a snake.
Yes Clinton lied about lying, and lied about a *****,
but this deception runs really deep by Bush Sr.
But his delivery, is condescending, that is the issue here...
And this is his son, reading the teleprompter...
George W. Bush Speech _ Lee.mp3
Sorry, it is truly a pathetic attempt to read a speech
that someone else wrote, and it lacks conviction...
Even with the patriotic singing in the background
does little to help the speech. Which is truly pathetic.
He tries again with the speech to the nation, and
does succeed in portraying a little more sincerity,
but it is still too contrived.
George W Bush_s Speech to N.mp3
Here are two great speeches, which speak for themselves...
al pacino - Any Given Sunday- Peace With Inches Speech.mp3
Speeches - Martin Luther King Jr, I Have A Dream.mp3
I will tell you someone who can deliver a good speech.
He has been in training. The next Prime Minister of Canada.
He did a pound the podium speech during his audition
for the job a year and a half ago, and it was quite good.
(The subject matter was some silly inconsequential
thing, but the delivery was superb) Paul Martin.
Watch for him. He is no Dwight D. Eisenhower,
or Teddy Rosevelt, but he can give a speech a damn sight
better than Knute Rockne. ;-)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 12:10:34 AM |
|
|
Here are two great speeches, which speak for themselves...
al pacino - Any Given Sunday- Peace With Inches Speech.mp3
Oh and Al, one more thing. If you want them to get the
pitch forks and head for the bastile, you walk away
from the mike on the seig heil. If you want to leave them
feeling the true greatness of the thing in and of itself,
you walk at the "That's football guys, that's all it is"
And Nena, the same advice for you as for Bon Jovi,
follow the theme, and stick to the theme.
The instrumental part of 99 luft ballons doesn't work.
The rest is truly fabulous.
With Bon Jovi,
I wasn't there when you were helpless,
I wasn't there when you were down and out,
I didn't mean to miss your birthday baby,
I wish I'd seen you blow those candles out.
Yah baby you know my hands are dirty~
but I wanted to be your valentine~
Fantastic lyrics. But losing it a bit here...
I'll be the water when you get thirsty baby,
when you get drunk I'll be the wine...
Then loses the theme, the tempo, and falls flat
with the rest.
Stick to the theme, keep the tempo, and
as Stephen King says, edit edit edit.
Both great songs, but they could have been
brilliant. Inspirational to the extreme.
see One by U2 Keeps the theme, the mood, the mix
the tempo, and the crowd goes absolutely wild.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 12:29:53 AM |
|
|
Want one more great one?
Elvis greatest hits comeback tour, 69.
He does a song right in the middle
This is an example where you can switch tempo, but only when
doing a medley...
"Oh I wish I was in the land of cotton (with accompaniment
patriotism flooding the area)
O Dixieland where I was born... look away to Dixieland.
(little drummer boy from the American Revolution in the
background, the orchestrat kicks in...)
Glory Glory Haleleuja (orchestra building leaning on Christianity)
thing)
So hush little baby don't you cry, you know your daddy's bound
to die...(well heck shucks darnit, don't die Ol Yeller,
please don't die)
(Girls are screaming in the audience now)
and the orchestra builds to the crescendo...
Glory Glory Hallelueja.... his truth goes marching onnnnnnn~
his truth goes marching on~
And the crowd goes wild.
(They don't call him the Kang for nothing.)
He knew what made people feel the greatness of the human spirit
and he knew how to push their buttons. Down on one
knee, with his sparkly suit, sweat dripping from his face,
arm going round, (The cool Elvis. Not the fat drugged up
Elvis :)
Inside of people. Is something more, than just a computer brain
my friends.
Life does have a purpose.
-*-
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 12:46:41 AM |
|
|
OK last one for oration 101...
So who is the best orator of all time?
Is it Winston Churchill, with his "We will never give up the island"
No, but he's up there, with his dignified steadfast eloquence,
but no, the very best is oddly enough, Boris Karloff.
You might have heard the worst of him in The Monster Mash,
and every Christmas listen to the Who's of Whoville sing
Bahoo Doray, which is not bad, that will outlive Jim Carey's
Grinch (Sorry Jim)
but listen to him do "The Tell Tale Heart" by Edgar Alan Poe,
and
Old Time Radio (OTR) - Inner Sanctum (1952-06-22)
- Birdsong For A Murderer (With Boris Karloff).mp3
and you will come to know geatness.
Great oration, not necessarily great inspiration.
It was the quality of his voice and his diction.
A deep voice, and when he does the innocent man, in extraordinary
circumstances, his sincerity is impeccable.
Why Malcolm X could never be Martin Luther King Jr.?
He never made it, to the mountain.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cook" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 02:05:23 AM |
|
|
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:l11qb.300429$pl3.46630@pd7tw3no...
OK last one for oration 101...
So who is the best orator of all time?
Is it Winston Churchill, with his "We will never give up the island"
No, but he's up there, with his dignified steadfast eloquence,
but no, the very best is oddly enough, Boris Karloff.
You might have heard the worst of him in The Monster Mash,
and every Christmas listen to the Who's of Whoville sing
Bahoo Doray, which is not bad, that will outlive Jim Carey's
Grinch (Sorry Jim)
but listen to him do "The Tell Tale Heart" by Edgar Alan Poe,
and
Old Time Radio (OTR) - Inner Sanctum (1952-06-22)
- Birdsong For A Murderer (With Boris Karloff).mp3
and you will come to know geatness.
Great oration, not necessarily great inspiration.
It was the quality of his voice and his diction.
A deep voice, and when he does the innocent man, in extraordinary
circumstances, his sincerity is impeccable.
Why Malcolm X could never be Martin Luther King Jr.?
He never made it, to the mountain.
a few speechs
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/speech.htm
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 09:09:56 PM |
|
|
In article <vqhc1olm4m3t97@news.supernews.com>, says...
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:l11qb.300429$pl3.46630@pd7tw3no...
OK last one for oration 101...
So who is the best orator of all time?
Is it Winston Churchill, with his "We will never give up the island"
No, but he's up there, with his dignified steadfast eloquence,
but no, the very best is oddly enough, Boris Karloff.
You might have heard the worst of him in The Monster Mash,
and every Christmas listen to the Who's of Whoville sing
Bahoo Doray, which is not bad, that will outlive Jim Carey's
Grinch (Sorry Jim)
but listen to him do "The Tell Tale Heart" by Edgar Alan Poe,
and
Old Time Radio (OTR) - Inner Sanctum (1952-06-22)
- Birdsong For A Murderer (With Boris Karloff).mp3
and you will come to know geatness.
Great oration, not necessarily great inspiration.
It was the quality of his voice and his diction.
A deep voice, and when he does the innocent man, in extraordinary
circumstances, his sincerity is impeccable.
Why Malcolm X could never be Martin Luther King Jr.?
He never made it, to the mountain.
a few speechs
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/speech.htm
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
Gee, you must be one of those nihilists that Nietzsche
warned us about.
Pearls before swine, and beer before wine.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cook" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
05 Nov 2003 10:18:09 PM |
|
|
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:8Yiqb.313595$6C4.170509@pd7tw1no...
In article <vqhc1olm4m3t97@news.supernews.com>,
cook368NOSPAM@ameritech.net says...
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:l11qb.300429$pl3.46630@pd7tw3no...
OK last one for oration 101...
So who is the best orator of all time?
Is it Winston Churchill, with his "We will never give up the island"
No, but he's up there, with his dignified steadfast eloquence,
but no, the very best is oddly enough, Boris Karloff.
You might have heard the worst of him in The Monster Mash,
and every Christmas listen to the Who's of Whoville sing
Bahoo Doray, which is not bad, that will outlive Jim Carey's
Grinch (Sorry Jim)
but listen to him do "The Tell Tale Heart" by Edgar Alan Poe,
and
Old Time Radio (OTR) - Inner Sanctum (1952-06-22)
- Birdsong For A Murderer (With Boris Karloff).mp3
and you will come to know geatness.
Great oration, not necessarily great inspiration.
It was the quality of his voice and his diction.
A deep voice, and when he does the innocent man, in extraordinary
circumstances, his sincerity is impeccable.
Why Malcolm X could never be Martin Luther King Jr.?
He never made it, to the mountain.
a few speechs
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info/speech.htm
http://www.net-kooks.no-ip.info
Gee, you must be one of those nihilists that Nietzsche
warned us about.
Pearls before swine, and beer before wine.
No, I'm one of the realists your mom warned you about.
Pearls an swine,
Whine, whine, whine.
Perceptual analyses:
"the complex interaction between phonetic, phonological, and lexical
information"
you said "Boris Karloff" I proved not
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
06 Nov 2003 10:38:24 PM |
|
|
In article <vqjj3jj5ors631@news.supernews.com>, says...
No, I'm one of the realists your mom warned you about.
Pearls an swine,
Whine, whine, whine.
Perceptual analyses:
"the complex interaction between phonetic, phonological, and lexical
information"
you said "Boris Karloff" I proved not
Nihilists, we are on to you now. And you thought you were just
being cool with all that over-zealous sketicultism. All the
while, beneath our breath, we have been whispering to each
other...("what a bunch of nihilists, and you know what,
they probably don't even know they are either")
Well the cat is out of the bag now. No sense trying to defend
yourself with words like phonological. Here turn around,
let me see the back of your shirt....
Yup, just as I supsected. There is a piece of paper with
'nihilist' written on it, stuck to your back.
tsk...tsk...tsk.
Know how we knew? It is easy. Anyone who calls someone a troll,
or a kook is probably a nihilist. The other dead giveaway is
nihilists make this silly sound when they bang their heads on
their desks. It sounds like this 'plonk'.
And to make matters even worse, sometimes you can even hear an echo
when they do it!
tsk..tsk..tsk...
And no Carlos Mencina is not as funny as George Lopez...
george lopez - right now,right now- new comedy cd.mp3
pendeyho (sp)
.
|
|
|
| User: "Michael Cook" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
07 Nov 2003 02:23:06 AM |
|
|
"Rick Sobie" <rsobie@nospamtelus.net> wrote in message
news:4lFqb.327792$6C4.65657@pd7tw1no...
In article <vqjj3jj5ors631@news.supernews.com>,
cook368NOSPAM@ameritech.net says...
No, I'm one of the realists your mom warned you about.
Pearls an swine,
Whine, whine, whine.
Perceptual analyses:
"the complex interaction between phonetic, phonological, and lexical
information"
you said "Boris Karloff" I proved not
Nihilists, we are on to you now. And you thought you were just
being cool with all that over-zealous sketicultism. All the
while, beneath our breath, we have been whispering to each
other...("what a bunch of nihilists, and you know what,
they probably don't even know they are either")
Well the cat is out of the bag now. No sense trying to defend
yourself with words like phonological. Here turn around,
let me see the back of your shirt....
Yup, just as I supsected. There is a piece of paper with
'nihilist' written on it, stuck to your back.
tsk...tsk...tsk.
Know how we knew? It is easy. Anyone who calls someone a troll,
or a kook is probably a nihilist. The other dead giveaway is
nihilists make this silly sound when they bang their heads on
their desks. It sounds like this 'plonk'.
And to make matters even worse, sometimes you can even hear an echo
when they do it!
tsk..tsk..tsk...
And no Carlos Mencina is not as funny as George Lopez...
george lopez - right now,right now- new comedy cd.mp3
pendeyho (sp)
Oh Christ! Ok, it's "Boris Karloff"
I was wrong, I am an idiot!
Just ask any one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
07 Nov 2003 11:10:52 PM |
|
|
In article <vqmlr06psqlg80@news.supernews.com>, says...
Oh Christ! Ok, it's "Boris Karloff"
I was wrong, I am an idiot!
Just ask any one
Well, since you were so good as to admit that you may have been
mistaken, I am willing to budge just a little, in actuality,
in the category of oration, which by strict definition is
a pompous podium pounding speech, perhaps Hitler is the runner up
with extra points for fanatical zeal and Martin Luther King Jr.
gets the gold.
Apparently according to Robin Williams, Winston Churchill,
was often too drunk to speak, and as such someone from the BBC
often delivered his speeches in his stead. So he may be
disqualified.
Narration. Boris Karloff.
Stand Up. Is just too close to call. Robin Williams HBO special
in New York...
"This is a code blue, Gilligan is down, I repeat Gilligan is down.
Step away from the chip sir!"
Was pretty good.
Carlin? I don't know. He's OK I guess.
George Lopez, (putting on red vest from Target) basically,
basically, he is pretty good.
Brian Reagan, the first time I heard him, I laughed and laughed.
The guy from 'Something about Mary', you know, the
"There are no five minute abs' guy, he does stand up,
I listened to him today at work. Was sort of Ok, but he also
made me somewhat embarrased to be Canadian.
Jim Carey?
"Yes, Canada, it was frozen wasteland. There was much work to
be done, if we were to survive the elements" Not bad.
I think that it is a close race between George Lopez, and
Robin Williams. With Brian Reagan getting the bronze.
But there are lots that are worth listening to.
In the acting category, you can't beat Bogey and Bacall,
in Casablanca. (Produced by Cecil B. Demille of Lux theatre,
brought to you of course by LUX beauty soap yada yada yada)
Live radio, in front of 30 million people, for an hour.
Bacall blew one line. Bogey never missed a cue.
Compare that to George Dubya and his terrorist series.
Or his economic series. "Many of our imports, come
from other countries"
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
06 Nov 2003 11:11:19 PM |
|
|
In article <4lFqb.327792$6C4.65657@pd7tw1no>, says...
And no Carlos Mencina is not as funny as George Lopez...
george lopez - right now,right now- new comedy cd.mp3
On what do I base this assumption you ask?
Listen carefully to the both of them.
One is sitting with the crowd telling stories, not afraid,
not offended, neither offending anyone, just having fun.
In fact, he is not ashamed of his own heritage. He finds
the humor in being a Mexican in America. And it comes off
in such a way, that almost any second generation immigrant
can identify with him. Being born into a country, with immigrant
parents. It is funny stuff.
Carlos, on the other hand, seems to be ashamed of being Mexican,
is afraid of being seen as a racist, and comes across as being
somewhat bitter and jaded. He feels hard done by or something.
He has his moments, but his baggage gets in the way.
George Lopez on the other hand, is merely having fun, and
projects sincerity.
Some of the good ol boys from Texas are quite funny as well.
There might be something in the water down there or maybe its
the tequila.
'You might be a redneck', and 'here's your sign', and
the rest of that silly redneck, and lovin' it stuff.
I came across another guy, that cracked me up as well.
He was a Scottish comedian. I couldn't believe it.
He was half way finished before I realized, wait a sec,
this guy is really a Scott!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Rick Sobie" |
|
| Title: Re: Post Post Modern Philosophy - oration 101 |
04 Nov 2003 11:46:55 PM |
|
|
In article <DY%pb.299812$pl3.30694@pd7tw3no>, says...
Here are two great speeches that you should listen to as example
of what it takes to motivate people to greatness...
Here are two terrible speeches. One of which may make you angry,
but I will ask you to put that anger aside for now..
One is by Bush Sr. Lying through his teeth like a snake.
Yes Clinton lied about lying, and lied about a *****,
but this deception runs really deep by Bush Sr.
But his delivery, is condescending, that is the issue here...
I guess it helps if I give you the speech itself...
Speech - President George Bush - The Bombing Of Iraq.mp3
And while I am at it, and just to make sure that some people
see how topical this subject is for sci.physics,
notice how Pink Floyd, took Stephen Hawking's voice
and turned it into something more, in the song,
Pink Floyd - Keep Talking.mp3
Now give a listen to Feynman, no wait, is Roger Waters still around?
Does anyone know if Roger Waters is still around?
What about Bill Murray? Is Bill still around? Robin Williams?
Anybody. Please, someone. (Just kidding Richard.)
So, when are we going to hear Penrose?
-*-
[...Und fuehlten sich gleich angemacht.. | | | | | |
