A lot of my marginalia when reading BGE was just "Freud?" "Freud?"

I think your write up is overly poetic. It’s certainly true that Freud was inspired by Nietzche. Both Kierkegaard and Nietzche are typically called proto-existentialists, the reason being that they both are arguing about not subjecting to nihilism. Most of his cultural attacks are towards Christianity and Nazisim. The Apollonian and Dionysian is a balance between rationalism and art. I’d have to re-read it, but I think this could be read on an attack to people effectively in the analytic school of thought.

Yeah. Another redditor linked an article and just the abstract was illuminating. I had no idea…

Nietzsche is so fundamental to Freud that he routinely lied about never having read Nietzsche because he was scared of finding his theories already present in N's work (which is somewhat true).

There’s no evidence that Nietzche read Kierkegaard

> nothing more then to

Did you mean to say "more than"?
Explanation: No explanation available.
Total mistakes found: 382
^^I'm ^^a ^^bot ^^that ^^corrects ^^grammar/spelling ^^mistakes. ^^PM ^^me ^^if ^^I'm ^^wrong ^^or ^^if ^^you ^^have ^^any ^^suggestions.
^^Github
^^Patreon

Given the facts around what happened in Portland he's the biased one.

Is your philosophical exisistentialism faulty? Lacking? And/or leaving your sense of whole unfulfilled? Try our Albert brand volumes!

When only Camus will do! Absurdly riveting...

Nietzsche focuses more on the collective than the individual soul though; he was a fusion of identities and disciplines: philosopher, poet, psychologist, historian, sociologist, theologian...

Also, this is beautiful <3

"the synthesis of the Apollonian and the Dionysian. Not the overgrown reason or oppressive morality of the excessive Apollonian. And not "that horrible mixture of sensuality and cruelty" that characterised much of the Dionysian festivals of the ancient world. Nietzsche's ideal is the fusion of these two forces. The Apollonian as the contained — as the sails; the Dionysian as the great dynamic natural force infusing this container and filling these sails. The goal is a fusion of the conscious and unconscious that leaves us with a deep love of life in all its suffering and its joys."

I can respect Kierkegaard, but I'll always turn to Sarte or Camus when I'm in need.

that's very nice, dear

Maybe he's right and you're actually the one that's biased? No, no, that couldn't be it 🤔

If this is the case then he would have to share that title with Carl Gustav Jung.

Kierkegaard is my favorite. Nietzsche took his work and changed it quite a bit. Not sure if I agree to the extremes Nietzsche took existentialism towards.

[removed]

Yeah makes some reading of their work feel tedious and you get lost and bored.

I don’t think so. Freud was so much about repression being the root of neurosis. He was for more unbridled expression, more decadence.

The issue is that this is not a science-based thing; it’s philosophy. Either the woman has bodily autonomy, or the potential child does. There’s no way of reconciling them both, and, even in medical terms, “resembling a human” wouldn’t be what makes them “a living person”—it would be higher brain function.

>I think thats silly tbh . Museums have old paintings of artists who’ve done awful things back in the day, yet people still line up to go see them .

To me, this seems to ignore important context. People go to museums to see famous art made by both bad and good people, yes. However, doesn't it seem that the historical significance plays a large role, as well?

Let's take Picasso as an example. He was famously abusive and misogynistic. His most famous pieces, however, depict scenes from the era of World War 2, among other topics. If we're looking at a modern artist like Spacey, in comparison, I think we have to consider a few key differences:

1a. Spacey's still alive, and it might feel more like you're directly supporting a person accused (and who admitted in this case) to doing some pretty bad things compared to viewing a dead guy from history's works

1b. The money spent to view the dead guy's work is likely going to a museum or organization with a mission of preserving and displaying a variety of historical pieces, rather than seeing a new Spacey movie knowing some of the proceeds go directly to him

2. Spacey's work has arguably less historical value when looked at overall

3. Society has advanced, and what it tolerates from artists has changed. Evolving standards in society is generally a good thing (slavery is bad now, more women have rights, torture is a no-no, etc.)

>I know some people who will stop listening to actual good music because of (possibly false) allegations.

Follow up to this point: do you find it silly if a Jewish person hears Kanye say he likes Hitler and decides they don't want to listen to any Kanye music anymore?

1. (A) I would argue that there is no difference between art and any other tangible object. The meaning behind art is derived from reality, so actual objects will always have the compacity to be "art". The no true Scotsman fallacy is at play here. (B) your analogy about how art is pointing at 1 individual and using them for branding while companies aren't is a bad analogy in my opinion. It is more accurate to compare the star a actor with representatives and CEO's which are synonymous with the branding of a company. What I mean is when a movie says "come see billy in the new movie", you change it to "come see billy the rapist", so you ought to make that same leap with companies. Blood diamonds are a popular example.
2. This is where I part ways because I call BS when people want to be ethical some times well more like less than .00001% of the time. There is a name for it but I don't want to be rude. The argument here isn't equivalent either. An artist abuses someone in the past outside of the move what ever, compared to an artist actively raping someone on set. That's the difference between drama cycles and businesses do to the fact that business models have exploitation baked in.

&#x200B;

(conclusion) I consider old presidential speeches to be art do to the historical element that has been introduced "ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country" as an example of something that's so unimaginable in todays world. I say this because there are some really bad people that gave speeches

Right? It’s neat to see the other side of the coin.

Haha and I studied philosophy but not psychology! (Okay it was just a minor, but I focused on the classics and German existentialism).

Fun crossover episode we just had.

“This would lead to some absurd consequences – if the state has an interest in protecting potential persons, then they would have an interest in banning products like contraceptives or procedures like vasectomies. But surely, at least for now, this is not what the Court suggests.”

This is where I stopped reading. How absolutely moronic. There’s an obvious difference between aborting potential and preventing potential. That the author just calls this an “absurdity” without any recognition of that material difference undermines his entire analysis.

I feel like there are even more needed terms, namely a distinction between when a group of cells become a potential human.

literally nothing -> literally a handful of cells indistinguishable from other cells in the body -> multicellular tissues beginning to differentiate from other cells/resembling a human

Remember that Lou-Andreas Salome was a dear friend to Freud and that he had a lot of respect for her, so it is very evident why many of Nietzsche's ideas are in Freud's works.