## Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's mission

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

### Record of Bauber's failure;a discourse on Goebbel's mission

Bauber Lives Through the Inability to Think through an exchange, and the flight into emotion by a blushing interlocutor

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons, therefore the "Ich" is prior to the "Du". When the infinite power of society obliterates nature, the "Ich" rules over the "Du" (concern for the advantage of the genetic other, the "Du" that shares one's genes, is defeated forever). According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature vanished under the human "ego's" "will" or "sorrow" or "eros"), can the issue first be faced.

Guide wrote:

Modern society controls human beings, not with kinship relations, but with rules which are indifferent to persons,
Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?

According to Goebbels, it is indispensable to overcome this situation. However, only through the decision to admit the problem of overcoming society exists (just as once nature was subordinated), can the issue first be faced.
But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.

“Do you mean the rules do not distinguish between individuals - iow who may have different skills or intelligences or whatever?”

In former times there were different laws for the different classes of society. But, now, it is said that the law about, viz. sleeping in an alley, will be applied to rich and poor, high and low, alike.

The issue of intelligence and skill is like that of money and power, those are issues that concern outcomes, rather than the starting position.

“But he was instrumental in creating society that wanted radical control over everyone. Sure, there were certain distinctions, based on some categories (and not on a wide range of other possible categories). But everyone had to do and act in the same ways. And within your category - so not just Jewish or Aryan but men women, citizens - there was extreme rigitity. IOW rules indifferent to persons. Of course you may simply be picking out Goebbel's single belief, finding it useful, but it seems an odd appeal to authority, given the rest of his beliefs, and then perhaps the response will help me understand the position you are taking, since I find the OP here vague.”

Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution. Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals? And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”). To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation.

Guide wrote:
Apes do favours to their ‘near and dear’, it is supposed to have a fitness bonus for evolution.
Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate?
Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?
This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).
Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.
Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation
Could you extend and paraphrase this?

“Sure, and social mammals can extened this near and dear quite broadly. Goebbel's and Hitler being no exception. To an ape a nation is a radical hallucination of kinship. The Anschluss even more far out there. Forming a pact with Japan as intelligible as William Blake's prints. So kindship gets extended far away from other primates, but going beyong the Third Reich's definitions of kinship is degenerate?”

Let’s leave aside this “imagined communities” stuff. I think that is a childish nonsense thesis based on ignorance of the situation. The issue is that a break with the instincts is achieved. Laws come in producing homogeneity of feeling for the “Ich”, each one comes to be their own, the “Du” is set aside as something secondary. A third stage opens up, it is called by Kant freedom. We make a decision to the third stage. The issue of the Volk, as against Universal Human Beings, is a question for freedom. This has to do with the question of different “prejudices” as Nietzsche called them, which suit different so-called cultures. The same prejudices don’t suit all the people on the earth in the same way, so the Nation, the Volkisch, is a reasonable answer, not merely a chauvinistic preference of a jingoistic “nationalist”.

Can we say that nature sought “radical control” over animals?
This is no parallel. We might be able to say that when a certain male became the head male of a group of chimps and using his allies enforced a lot of restrictions on the whole troop, micromanaging all sorts of chimp behavior, punishing exceptions other groups do not focus on much, iow taking radical control on a bell curve of troop control rules, then we might have some kind of parallel.

That would only be so if the laws were made arbitrarily. The laws are parallel to the “radical control” of nature. But, here, we are speaking of a third stage, an impersonal “radical control”, but not by nature or law.

And then, the nomos or convention gains “radical control”. The convention says that the law should be applied with indifference to the advantages gained by favouring one’s friends and family (nepotism is meant to be excluded, ergo, the “Ich” must not favour its most favoured “Du”).
Sure, and while the Nazis personally pulled whatever shit they wanted and treated certain racial and political groups terribly, they were after all Socialists and had a whole boatload of rules that everyone was to follow. These were not libertarians or anarchists.

That’s not a question of Principle. It’s not sufficient to discredit the Catholic Church that the Borgia Popes were corrupt. Or, the Jacobians that the revolution devoured its children during the Terror.

To a high degree this was achieved by the way the competition for work divided people into a homogeneous mass of workers, and a few owners of the places people work. The situation in Goebbels' Germany. The legal contract becomes the main law and levels all evolutionary advantageous in the sense of preferring near and dear. The “radical control” of contract relations over homogeneous masses is then the difficulty the “authority” here cited speaks to. That solution was of “radical control” of a guide or person who expresses the National character. Ergo, from rigid natural law, to rigid contract law, to genius of the people. The issue is then that if one is in harmony with the “rigid” control, if one wants to do things that way, there is no command and obey. It is like knowing the right way to play chess, one wants to follow the rules if they lead to exemplary play which suits one’s character.
Sure, and playing Crazyhouse or anti-chess would probably have been considered decadent. So many things were seen as the right way. The right way to stand, the right music to listen to, the right facial expression. It was a radically controlling culture.

Every society strictly enforces behavioral prohibitions in a way that feels like “radical control” to whoever does not agree. One can say only that in some societies one can be legally charged or even killed for disagreeing. But, this is true in the Liberal Societies too, think of those who favour ISIS, or a few generations ago, the Soviet Union. The question of what is a reasonable prohibition, and what is oppression, is relative to the regime and the character of the citizens.

However, my intention is not to support the particular Nazi path. But, to examine the basic issue of this three stage problem. The third stage is the question, where the natural and the social are outstripped, man must own his situation
Could you extend and paraphrase this?

This links up to Kantian freedom, which has to be reinterpreted because of the existence of the cultures. One can review the statement of the American Anthropology Association opposing Universal Human Rights. Ergo, opposing the belief in summa ratio, perfect and universal reason.

Then, the the lazy "Karpel Tunnel"'s beautiful heart chilled the ardor for philosophic discourse under the shadows of the public houses with this embarrassing response:

Your lack of clarity puts you on the boundary to being a waste of time. (I know, I know. You assume that any failure on your part to communicate clearly is the fault of those you 'guide') But here, in response to Mr. R. your just another Goebbelist thug, bye.
Guide

Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:20 am