Ah, I can't attest to ever being any one of those three things in my life, but I'd ask myself, would my impulse be to punish the life presented before me? Remember our legal system's main tenet is supposedly "innocent before proven guilty." Barring some of the ridiculous laws (drugs specifically,) as a juror, I'd have no impulse to punish someone, but would punish them if they intentionally harmed an innocent fellow human being.
Note this also ignores hidden "mock" trials which we probably have no idea of their existence, and governments (perhaps individuals) taking law/punishment into their own hands (war, assassination etc) which are all abominable
Man that's good stuff. I don't care what anyone does really unless they intentionally harm someone. I'd still have a battle whithin myself about judgement though.
I wonder what the soldiers who after a while see behind the curtain think.
You write very well if that's not a quote. For a second I thought it was Nietzsche. He's the man. Someone once told me Kierkegaard was the man. I got one of his books and read a page and then went and put the Simpsons on.
Haha thanks brother... not Nietzsche, yours truly. As long as each individual (juror) has a battle within himself (like you say) instead of falling to preconceived notions and tricks of the prosecutor (while leaning towards innocence,) we can only hope the verdict is fair. I wouldn't be surprised if many jurors treat trials as another one of their sources of entertainment wishing they had popcorn to go with the show though. It's a mad world...
I know after being more active on these boards for a few months, that we have a few ex-soldiers who began as zealous patriots but claim to now understand they were mere pawns of the powerful fighting unjust wars. I am sure that's a more extreme ideology change and that obviously doesn't happen to them all.
nietzche - "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?... All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."
Now that's the extreme post-human technocratic interpretation (I am currently at a loss for what this movement is called, not transcendence)
I rather interpret it as mastery of animal instinct, or the overcoming of animal instinct. After all, isn't a lot of our problems due to these instincts. Think fear, lust, power, conformity, subjugation by the "alpha" and many others.
All ape like characteristics if you ask me. But we can converse intellectually, and invoke human morality such as this very moment in time. Sometimes the negative characteristics get the best of us ( me definitely included ) but I can only hope to minimize or eliminate the negatives. I think the point is that human is not so distinct from ape. And to veer further away from human isn't necessarily to become cyborgs or immortal, but to simply become less animal than we already are (and animals we surely still are)
Why do you rush to the conclusion of immortality and self-modifying cyborgs?
TLDR: overman = a less animal hu-man, not a cyborg (at least not necessarily, but this is my interpretation)
8 comments
3 s70n3834r 2015-12-08
Vengeance is mine, sayeth The Lord.
Judge not, that ye may not be judged.
2 76superdave 2015-12-08
Dig it! I can't imagine being a judge, or prosecutor, or even juror. I don't want my decisions to mess with anyone's lives that hard.
8 The_Noble_Lie 2015-12-08
Ah, I can't attest to ever being any one of those three things in my life, but I'd ask myself, would my impulse be to punish the life presented before me? Remember our legal system's main tenet is supposedly "innocent before proven guilty." Barring some of the ridiculous laws (drugs specifically,) as a juror, I'd have no impulse to punish someone, but would punish them if they intentionally harmed an innocent fellow human being.
Note this also ignores hidden "mock" trials which we probably have no idea of their existence, and governments (perhaps individuals) taking law/punishment into their own hands (war, assassination etc) which are all abominable
1 76superdave 2015-12-08
Man that's good stuff. I don't care what anyone does really unless they intentionally harm someone. I'd still have a battle whithin myself about judgement though.
I wonder what the soldiers who after a while see behind the curtain think.
You write very well if that's not a quote. For a second I thought it was Nietzsche. He's the man. Someone once told me Kierkegaard was the man. I got one of his books and read a page and then went and put the Simpsons on.
7 The_Noble_Lie 2015-12-08
Haha thanks brother... not Nietzsche, yours truly. As long as each individual (juror) has a battle within himself (like you say) instead of falling to preconceived notions and tricks of the prosecutor (while leaning towards innocence,) we can only hope the verdict is fair. I wouldn't be surprised if many jurors treat trials as another one of their sources of entertainment wishing they had popcorn to go with the show though. It's a mad world...
I know after being more active on these boards for a few months, that we have a few ex-soldiers who began as zealous patriots but claim to now understand they were mere pawns of the powerful fighting unjust wars. I am sure that's a more extreme ideology change and that obviously doesn't happen to them all.
Nietzsche is definitely a genius!
1 Horus_Krishna_2 2015-12-08
nietzche - "I teach you the overman. Man is something that shall be overcome. What have you done to overcome him?... All beings so far have created something beyond themselves; and do you want to be the ebb of this great flood, and even go back to the beasts rather than overcome man? What is ape to man? A laughing stock or painful embarrassment. And man shall be that to overman: a laughingstock or painful embarrassment. You have made your way from worm to man, and much in you is still worm. Once you were apes, and even now, too, man is more ape than any ape... The overman is the meaning of the earth. Let your will say: the overman shall be the meaning of the earth... Man is a rope, tied between beast and overman—a rope over an abyss ... what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not an end."
obscurant BS
3 Riiume 2015-12-08
I interpret this as meaning I must transform myself into an immortal, self-modifying cyborg, otherwise Nietzche will be disappointed.
1 The_Noble_Lie 2015-12-08
Now that's the extreme post-human technocratic interpretation (I am currently at a loss for what this movement is called, not transcendence)
I rather interpret it as mastery of animal instinct, or the overcoming of animal instinct. After all, isn't a lot of our problems due to these instincts. Think fear, lust, power, conformity, subjugation by the "alpha" and many others.
All ape like characteristics if you ask me. But we can converse intellectually, and invoke human morality such as this very moment in time. Sometimes the negative characteristics get the best of us ( me definitely included ) but I can only hope to minimize or eliminate the negatives. I think the point is that human is not so distinct from ape. And to veer further away from human isn't necessarily to become cyborgs or immortal, but to simply become less animal than we already are (and animals we surely still are)
Why do you rush to the conclusion of immortality and self-modifying cyborgs?
TLDR: overman = a less animal hu-man, not a cyborg (at least not necessarily, but this is my interpretation)