Brant Gaede Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 Janet, you got the Lindbergh kidnapping-murder mixed up with another famous case.I'd rather have a link to the B.B. essay on N.If you're not concerned with the dialectic of truth and falsity, what are you arguing about?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The two college-boy murderers were Leopold and Loeb, in Chicago in the 20s. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is loosely based on their story. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 11, 2012 Share Posted February 11, 2012 The two college-boy murderers were Leopold and Loeb, in Chicago in the 20s. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is loosely based on their story.Darrow went for a bench trial by pleading them guilty. His speech on the death penalty was one of the most powerful that he ever gave. It included this statement: "This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university?"Fascinating. They were sentenced to life plus 99 years. Here is an excellent website on the case:http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/ When you hit the link, the page jumps out at you with "I teach you the overman." Over one of the boys pictures in a stark daguerreotype picture.Adam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 The two college-boy murderers were Leopold and Loeb, in Chicago in the 20s. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is loosely based on their story.Darrow went for a bench trial by pleading them guilty. His speech on the death penalty was one of the most powerful that he ever gave. It included this statement:"This terrible crime was inherent in his organism, and it came from some ancestor... Is any blame attached because somebody took Nietzsche's philosophy seriously and fashioned his life upon it?... It is hardly fair to hang a 19-year-old boy for the philosophy that was taught him at the university?"Fascinating. They were sentenced to life plus 99 years. Here is an excellent website on the case:http://www.leopoldandloeb.com/ When you hit the link, the page jumps out at you with "I teach you the overman." Over one of the boys pictures in a stark daguerreotype picture.AdamAh selene. The fantastic crime. Babich asks Nietzsche why he after he upraided the New Testament of its dangerous rhetoric that he didn't consider the dangerousness in his own anti-semitism rhetoric.And in Abnormal Foucault's 1974 Lectures at the College de France that included bizarre crimes as they interfaced with criminal justice, psychology, and abnormal which invited the medical profession into the game. The great intersection. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) Janet, you got the Lindbergh kidnapping-murder mixed up with another famous case. I'd rather have a link to the B.B. essay on N. If you're not concerned with the dialectic of truth and falsity, what are you arguing about? --BrantI can't give you the link because it downloads another PDF copy everytime I click on it. So put this in google searchthe genalogy of morals and right readingand it's the 3rd one down. If you put - Clark Babich Nietzsche - in google search you will come up with lots more. There's a perfect one for x-ray who made the comment about fear/horses and the way she dug out the meaning by inversion. Babich does the same with "become who you are" attributed to Nietzsche after Pindar. She does the same on it.BTW Babich and x-ray are doing a genealogy when they do this. This is what Foucault spent his academic life doing. When he wasn't dressed in leathers, going off on his motorcycle to s/m clubs. Or bath houses in SF for which he is constantly criticized by lesser scholars than he.Why is this method so ridiculed around here?Did your successful correction about the murders improve the content of what I said or did it improve the intent of what I said? Or did it just show that I misremembered? Or or or or........ Edited February 12, 2012 by seymourblogger Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PDS Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 Somewhat off topic: the thought of 77 year old former Student of Objectivism writing these interesting--albeit somewhat obtuse--comments about the connections between Rand and Neitzche, and from the lovely hamlet--nay backwater-- of Springfield, Missouri at that, gives me hope for mankind. Seriously. Pretty cool stuff, and I mean no condescension in saying so.I hope when I am 77 I am in the arena slinging ideas around like my new friend Seymourblogger, although I confess to an aspiration that I will have a shorter signature line while doing so.Having now read the entirety of this thread and most of s-blogger's remaining "body of work" on this site, I hereby retract everything about my statement above [except the part about the shorter signature line]. Never saw the mean streak coming, I am afraid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (Said to Brant):Did your successful correction about the murders improve the content of what I said...Absolutely.... or did it improve the intent of what I said? Who the hell knows or cares?Communication 101: Airily dismissing concern for correct facts, especially while pontificating, condemning and consistently getting facts wrong, is a way to destroy ones credibility. People tend to tune out everything a person with no credibility says--both baby and bathwater.In this case, the person with no credibility is directly to blame for his or her lack of being taken seriously. It's not the public's fault seeing how concern with presenting correct facts is an easily learned skill. It's a nobrainer to fix this.The message might be good (or not), but if the messenger sucks at communicating, nobody hears it.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 (Said to Brant):Did your successful correction about the murders improve the content of what I said...Absolutely.... or did it improve the intent of what I said? Who the hell knows or cares?Communication 101: Airily dismissing concern for correct facts, especially while pontificating, condemning and consistently getting facts wrong, is a way to destroy ones credibility. People tend to tune out everything a person with no credibility says--both baby and bathwater.In this case, the person with no credibility is directly to blame for his or her lack of being taken seriously. It's not the public's fault seeing how concern with presenting correct facts is an easily learned skill. It's a nobrainer to fix this.The message might be good (or not), but if the messenger sucks at communicating, nobody hears it.MichaelThere is a difference between information and knowing. The Japanese do not have a word for "communication' at which you are so adept at. Not.Just think you got me to use up one of my posts. and now I can't edit anything I say or I can't repost the edited version. A pity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 12, 2012 Author Share Posted February 12, 2012 Somewhat off topic: the thought of 77 year old former Student of Objectivism writing these interesting--albeit somewhat obtuse--comments about the connections between Rand and Neitzche, and from the lovely hamlet--nay backwater-- of Springfield, Missouri at that, gives me hope for mankind. Seriously. Pretty cool stuff, and I mean no condescension in saying so.I hope when I am 77 I am in the arena slinging ideas around like my new friend Seymourblogger, although I confess to an aspiration that I will have a shorter signature line while doing so.Having now read the entirety of this thread and most of s-blogger's remaining "body of work" on this site, I hereby retract everything about my statement above [except the part about the shorter signature line]. Never saw the mean streak coming, I am afraid.Not to worry. It's just mirroring. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 There is a difference between information and knowing.The distinction is a good one, but I'm not the one constantly asking people why they don't understand me.Heh.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xray Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 True and false belongs to the dialectic, the world of opposites. We are no longer in that world anymore. I would like to test that using a simple example:"This forum is called Objectivist Living". Is this statement true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I read years ago after Foucault's death that he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS. Nietzschean?--Brantbeyond the beyond Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
seymourblogger Posted February 13, 2012 Author Share Posted February 13, 2012 I read years ago after Foucault's death that he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS. Nietzschean? --Brant beyond the beyondWhatever is said about anyone or anything by the media is simply credible. anything is credible. There is no true and false, only credibility. You can contradict the false all you want. You can demonstrate proof, facts, counter-facts and all that occurs is ping-pong. As Candidate John Kerry found out when he was swift-boated. This is why celebrities now have constant 24/7 damage control.The recent movie Carnage by Roman Polanski is not about child sex abuse but it is about the Discourse he was tried in in the US. There are many facts in his case, credibility pro and con, true and false, and no one will ever know the story. I have my interpretation of it, but that's al it is: just my interpretation.The same is demonstrated right here.In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless. Continue to use it in your arguments whenever you choose. Just as doctors continued to use leeches for bleeding very ill patients long after they were known to have no value except a negative one. And doctors who refused to wash their hands while assisting childbirth because "gentlemen" did not have "dirty" hands. Your statement about Foucault is a typical smear tactic to discredit someone's work, that has nothing at all to do with his work. Women know all about this as improper clothing can get them raped so it is their own fault for going out there dressed like that. For someone like you to splatter something like that about Foucault, credible whatever he did or did not do, only says something about you. Not Foucault. Just you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 The two college-boy murderers were Leopold and Loeb, in Chicago in the 20s. Alfred Hitchcock's Rope is loosely based on their story.From Woody Allen's Annie Hall:Alvy Singer: I think, I think there's too much burden placed on the orgasm, you know, to make up for empty areas in life.Pam: Who said that?Alvy Singer: It may have been Leopold and Loeb. Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless. You think the word "fuck" is meaningless? Maybe you should try a different discourse.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George H. Smith Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 There is no true and false, only credibility. You can contradict the false all you want. You can demonstrate proof, facts, counter-facts and all that occurs is ping-pong. The same is demonstrated right here. If there "is no true and false," then how can one "contradict the false"? How can one contradict something that does not exist?I know it is pointless to ask you questions like this, since your "discourse" allows you to revel is self-contradictions and gibberish. If you made even a minimal effort to write coherent statements, you would not get ridiculed so much. But that would be like asking a bear to use toilet paper. Even if you gave him a roll, he wouldn't know what to do with it.Ghs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 deleted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I read years ago after Foucault's death that he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS. Nietzschean? --Brant beyond the beyondWhatever is said about anyone or anything by the media is simply credible. anything is credible. There is no true and false, only credibility. You can contradict the false all you want. You can demonstrate proof, facts, counter-facts and all that occurs is ping-pong. As Candidate John Kerry found out when he was swift-boated. This is why celebrities now have constant 24/7 damage control.The recent movie Carnage by Roman Polanski is not about child sex abuse but it is about the Discourse he was tried in in the US. There are many facts in his case, credibility pro and con, true and false, and no one will ever know the story. I have my interpretation of it, but that's al it is: just my interpretation.The same is demonstrated right here.In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless. Continue to use it in your arguments whenever you choose. Just as doctors continued to use leeches for bleeding very ill patients long after they were known to have no value except a negative one. And doctors who refused to wash their hands while assisting childbirth because "gentlemen" did not have "dirty" hands.Your statement about Foucault is a typical smear tactic to discredit someone's work, that has nothing at all to do with his work. Women know all about this as improper clothing can get them raped so it is their own fault for going out there dressed like that.For someone like you to splatter something like that about Foucault, credible whatever he did or did not do, only says something about you. Not Foucault. Just you.Is that the "truth"?--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Pontious Pilate: Then you're a King?Jesus: It's you who say I am! I know the truth, and find that I get damned!Pontious Pilate: But what IS truth? Not easy to define! We both have truths! Are yours the same as mine? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I read years ago after Foucault's death that he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS. Nietzschean?--Brantbeyond the beyondYou were right in a previous post Brant, modern medicine is amazing..I thought giving birth after death was pretty amazing but sex after death - just wow.Carol-yeah, you did construct the sentence right, but you gave me that opening by not punctuating enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
9thdoctor Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 In fact there is no truth. It has become just a word. Like fuck. Meaningless.You think the word "fuck" is meaningless? Maybe you should try a different discourse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Janet is going nutzo over on SOLOP replying to posts here since she's used up her five today.Michael, you are a devil!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
caroljane Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 INTERSECTION AHEADCan it be that a crucial conjunction of the Yesterday and Tomorrow has occurred in the dialectic right here on OL and it has been shrewdly observed only by moi? Has no one noticed the deep pulsing throbbing regularity with which Janet *(Tomorrow's Woman) ends her posts with "a pity." - a catchphrase that will je predict will become the "Who is John Galt" of the Randeitschian New World Order? And how this resonates with the weekly pity of Mr T (Yesterday's Man)??Note that while Mr T pitied only fools who were trying to thwart or escape the A-team, Janet transcends the outmoded mold and pities not just fools, not just individuals, not just all of humanity but situations, misdirected screenplays, unproduced movies -- entities which previously had narrowly been perceived as inanimate objects, or even nonexistent entities ... Je ne suis pas capable de l'encompasser - even a Babette Bichon - frise could barely begin to understand the implications...truly c'est la fin de Baudiddley. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selene Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Geez...Can't we all stick to Merican anglish heer for us hillbillies that liked that thar gun video with the Marlboro dude! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I read years ago after Foucault's death that he went to Mexico for sex with boys knowing he had AIDS. Nietzschean?Brant,Do you have a source for that?I started to Google it and see you mentioned it to this same poster in almost the same words back in September of last year on SLOP. (She ignored it back then from what I skimmed.)I'm not interested enough in Foucault to devote much time to digging, but if you have a source, I would be interested in looking at the controversy.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now