The puritanical fanatics of conscience

http://etext.library.adelaide.edu.au/s/schopenhauer/arthur/
this website gave my knownledge "the face is the thought of nature, beauty is a general conception of nature".
How to kill a monster?
The monster is responsible of our slavery, it has power which is supplied by us (our body).
The power is not unlimited but as long as we are alive, the monster keeps attacking us with illusions until it has no more force.
Enjoy its attack! Enjoy being confused and loser! Enjoy losing time and status, you need to enjoy in any condition.
The illusion that other people exist and are meaningful - should be tortured. We must feel the truth that can only be felt when we are fighting, rather than learning.

Nietzsche said :
The eagerness and subtlety, I would even say craftiness, with which the problem of the "real and apparent world" is dealt at present throughout Europe, furnishes foods for thought nd attention; and he who hears only a Will to Truth in the background and nothing else, could not certaintly boast of the sharpest ears. In some rare and isolated case, it may have really happened that such a Will to Truth - a certain extravagant and advanturous pluck, a metaphysician's ambition to the forlorn hope- has participated therein, which in the end always prefers a handful of "certainty" to the whole cartload of beautiful possibilities; and there may even be puritanical fanatics of conscience, who prefer to put their last trust in a sure nothing, rather than in an uncertain something. But that is Nihilism, a sign of despairing, mortally wearied soul, notwithstanding the courageous bearing such virtue may display.

I spent time with the dog asking "what is the meaning of others?", no meaning, there is in myself the game.
All these conscience is object in the game.
You are not real, so your sisters also. No human is real, all are illusions. Nothing noticed by the eyes and widom is real.
Emotion makes you doubt when you should not, make you believe when you should not.
You must use your emotion of love of everything, even unjustice - to overcome fear, worry, stupidity, disharmony.

Don't use reason to justify your action, you don't need motivation to do sth.
If your voice tells you to be or to do, you need to obey. But if the voice of others tells you sth, you should only listen to your own voice.
Now I don't have idea, I need to wait until idea come. Just by opening my mind naturally, I can have ideas.
So much dangers in life, one can't avoid, being creative does not guarantee safety, but you should be Nature, so that the illusion about "reality is real" disappears.
Life is the game Starcraft, you are not directly affected by others, they can only affect your race. You need to be the most creative to comfort yourself to the Nature law.
You are imaginative and your race will be strong, the other races will copy your ideas, but they can't defeat you without being stronger.
So enjoy this true competition: no copyright, no patent, only genius. No one can copy genius, that's what is developed rather than learned.
Life is Starcraft, you are nothing important but only workers under control of Nietzsche. I should forget the ego, and other people, for they are just A.I. characters in the game. I am the reincarnation of Nietzsche (not yet completely)
What I want to know is something precious from the best.
It's now 2 PM, I haven't arrive to get out of the dream. I want to be creative and successful but I fear that will make people giving me more attention which will reduce my freedom and talents.
I fear that people will come and ask me about my succeed, they will ask me about my method, how to make a good software and website.
The program show jerk character, there must be some more discovery.
After playing Starcraft for a while, I see other planet where interesting things happen. But I can't be efficient enough. I can't remember the instructions.

I am so lazy, I will be forced to be laborious. If I volunteer, I don't want to be defeated. I don't want to summit.
Be creative and genius, that is the only book which will overcome fears and worries. Have the belief the future is the present. No thing new will happen, I beared all and I don't want to avoid bearing.
Life is the game Commandos, you control several men to complete a destruction. Death seems to you light, but you can't realize that you are also controlling several character in life.
You won't understand what is the game and the gamer. All is unclear until you reach the highest degree of creativity and talent.
I play Starcraft, all these men listen to me, they are not lazy become I am their conscience. I don't feel painful, I am so outside. My only way to communicate with the body is the eyes.
What hppens to my side is unimportant, I am playing to enjoy and experience rather than to win, to preserve superiority.
Life is the game Starcraft:
you need to build arms quickly to outperform your deadly opponents.
if you don't understand the control and functionf of a building, it would be a disadvantage
you need to be fast and instinctive, you will gain understanding quickly by daring to fail.
some play the game just to win, the correct way of playing it is to learn from the present.
what happen to your side is unimportant, you can be destroyed, but you still enjoy because of the way you played the game.
You will joyfully restart the game after you realize that the situation is unwanted.
So play the game with creativity and genius, you are the master of a race, you will fight joyfully without any expectation.
Your opponents must see your strengh and they must increase theirs to match with yours. If they don't then the game will be too easy.



We should be creative, imaginative, brave and love everything. We should be unjust because God is also unjust. We can't love everything as we should, so we need to fight without pity against stupidity and laziness. That is what I used to say but I can't implement these important morals in my life game.
Life is a game, you get bored with it then you leave the computer and return when it's more interesting. You have many game to choose, you can avoid the consequences of your actions by terminating the game by yourself.
You scream with energy when you are creative, you get angry when you are unsuccessful.
Better suffer than to make yourself suffer: better let Nature torture you, than to resist against Nature.
You should be ready to lose and to receive. Have your mind open and flexible. You won't be dirty because others consider you as dirty.
God said to love everything even the rage and suffering.
2AM already, too fast, I haven't thought about stock market, it's dangerous?
My life is over, new game now.
I am so stupid, inseting a CD without reading it, removed it out like if I checked it.

You can't stop a dream, I tried so hard for an year without being able to stop having bad dreams which hinder my sleep.
I advise to continue sleeping without fear of the future, don't be ashamed even if your neighbours know that dream and despise you. You are not what is powerless.

I am drived by a voice within to not repeat for time saving.
Just reading and searching a bit about where is questions with few answer, the voice started to cry.
Make a good website, your neighbours will know about your achievement. They will want you to be their teacher and guide. You will have more work because you are more able and successful.
Some people avoid thinking because "I can't think" (they said).
I heard the scream of the dogs, they are awake when most people sleep.
Life is not sweetness, it's danger and suffering. You must shape yourself to life, you must be creative like water, you must be generous like the sun. Be unjust like God.
Life is the game Second Life, you are a character, other characters mean nothing since they are powerless to harm you. Everything become meaningless when one is powerful.
You are powerful because you are outside the "life" game, you are powerful over all beings.


A voice in me said: I't time losing to try selecting links: that's because I try not to lose time by going fast that I lose more time.
I denied to be intelligent and acted like a coward, because I fear of creating a revolution or a surprise for people who belong to the herb for a long time.
I need creativity but used force and time to solve a problem, that is my mistake not to be brave to face the unknown danger.
I can believe in ghost, why not in peace for the creative one?

dung.sff@gmail.com
http://youwillovercomethefearofachievement.blogspot.com
This is a problem because you are not aware of the reality which is: nothing is out of the game, you are just playing a game (not living).
You are sitting in heaven, the earth is unreal, it's just a landscape in the game.
You move your character, other characters are also controlled by you. The objective and mission of the game is to have fun. So don't worry, nor regret. Just be creative and imaginative, only so you can have fun in this game.
What other people mean to you if not nothing? For others are just object in the game like your character.
Traditional games consist of moving one side, other side is moved by the computer or other people. In the universal game, everything is moved by god who does not need friend.
<--- Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary --->
acquiesce
verb
[V] ~ (in sth) (formal) to accept sth without arguing, even if you do not really agree with it:
Senior government figures must have acquiesced in the cover-up. * She explained her plan and reluctantly he acquiesced.
Overcome your raging, it's your strengh, nature does not allow selfishness. Don't protect your work, but rise people's strengh.
<--- Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary --->
acquiesce
verb
[V] ~ (in sth) (formal) to accept sth without arguing, even if you do not really agree with it:
Senior government figures must have acquiesced in the cover-up. * She explained her plan and reluctantly he acquiesced.


I can't use ASCII in gedit, I also feel angry because of being unsucceedful.
http://www.phim.unibe.ch/comp_doc/c_manual/C/master_index.html
I am so ignorant, even forget to copy URL before switching to gedit.
I even forget what I just said to write down.
I fear of what I want.
This webpage has 2 part, I discover new operators.
I am so stupid to the pint I can't recall where is the curly bracket.
I forget what I just said about doing or correcting something.
NIETZSCHE'S SOCRATES THE ORIGINS OF PHILOSOPHY IN ENVY AND RESENTMENT by John S Moore Among the possible responses to the story of Socrates's life and death are various forms of ambivalence. To read a passage like his answer to the pleas of his friend Crito can provoke conflicting emotions. While his unconcern at his imminent execution must be admirable, more controversial is his acceptance of the verdict of his countrymen. In his enthusiasm for the laws of his city he implicitly reserves the right to condemn others. In this respect he seems no friend of liberty as it is usually understood today. If he had fled to Thebes or Thessaly, as his friends begged him to do, plenty of people would have supported his action. This seems to argue against the idea that the Greek's attachment to his city state was something essentially alien to the modern mentality. A different form of ambivalence comes out in Hegel, who in his History of Philosophy approves both the condemnation of Socrates, as well as Socrates himself. He sees this conflict between two valid positions as tragedy. To a modern liberal, Hegel's view may reveal a typically sycophantic attitude towards authority. His peculiar conception of tragedy can seem ignoble, identifying with the chorus rather than with the hero. The very idea of thought evolving by means of contradiction can seem itself slavish, accepting the possibility of a complete change of mind, as a child might. Nietzsche also expresses ambivalence. Though he is usually seen as strongly anti Socratic, we may still speak, to quote a chapter heading in Kaufmann's famous study, of 'Nietzsche's admiration for Socrates'. Both Nietzsche and Socrates denounce acquiescence in the dogmas of their age. Neither is tolerant of the complacent assumption of a right to one's own opinions. Arguing Socratically one finds fault, insisting on the need to be guided by sound concepts. Socrates queried the dogmatic wisdom of the genius or sage, as well as the pronouncements of those who passed for the moral guides of his society. In establishing the necessity for rational argument, he set the foundations of future philosophy and science. Those with the power to influence opinion found their right to a respectful hearing radically undermined, as no opinion unprepared to defend itself in the face of dialectic was permitted to remain in place. The attack on authority is something with which Nietzsche must surely sympathise, for it is something he does himself. For the sage we can read Richard Wagner, for the sophists, the journalists of modern Europe, for Socratic dialectic, the doctrine of will to power. If we follow Socrates we make reason our ultimate authority in all things. The worth of a conviction is not related to the intensity with which it is held. We can subject some of the most fundamental assumptions of our culture to experimental investigation. This means questioning what, at our own stage of historical development, is assumed to be unchallengeable. This was Socrates's achievement in Greece and why he was such a central figure. In securing it his character was as important as his ideas. If the image we have of him is partly Plato's literary embellishment, this shows that Plato responded to the same needs. However sound a thinker's arguments seem to himself, however deeply compelling his convictions, other people have their own concerns, with well defended opinions. In face of public indifference, to rely solely on the logic of his reasonings would lead to intolerable frustration. In addition to perfecting his ideas, Socrates needed to influence his contemporaries by working on them psychologically. This is one explanation for the dramatic structure he built of his personality. Passionately concerned to persuade, the ideas alone were not enough. His death played an important part in promoting his views. Martyrdom is historically one of the strongest arguments of all. Strong reservations about Socrates's influence appear in Nietzsche's first book, the Birth of Tragedy. On the view put forward there, the curbing of the Dionysian, the spread of rationality, especially since the time of Socrates, up through the Alexandrian era, led to a progressive weakening of the springs of creativity, to decadence, shallow rationalism, and the eventual demise of the Hellenic spirit that thrived in tragedy and the presocratic philosophers. A similar process was occurring in modern western culture, as the onesided rationalism of the enlightenment culminated in such shallow schemes as utilitarianism, with its bland disregard of the instinctual basis of life. Nietzsche continued to attack Socrates in his later works, though on shifting grounds. There were many in fifth century Athens who felt that it was rationalism itself that was destructive and dangerous, as men forsook the wisdom enshrined in tradition for the uncertainties of speculation. Himself associated with the sophist movement; Socrates was put to death for impiety and corrupting the morals of Athenian youth. Nietzsche saw him as the initiator of a decadent movement in a different sense, the subverter of the brilliant sophist culture, even if he was the saviour of Greek civilisation which had been set on a self destructive course. Socrates took on the task of correcting the dangers of individualistic excess, not by a return to the traditional order, but by means of rational argument. He rejected the authority of the poets in saying, 'not by wisdom do poets write poetry, but by a sort of genius and inspiration'. In applying the methods of philosophy to ethical questions, he established a reputation as one of the most original and seminal minds in history. Nietzsche saw him as trying to curb the violence of instinct by means of argument. Socrates argued that the pursuit of socially desirable moral virtue necessarily follows from a direct understanding of one's own real interests, which turn out to be incompatible with the unrestrainedly egoistic passion which governed many of his contemporaries. Nietzsche saw one effect of this as to set up an artificial ideal by which real life was to be weighed and found wanting. The underlying motive of such a standard was to alter some of the power relationships within society. Those who attack established values may generally be thought of as suffering, in some way or other, from the existing order, and aiming to replace the old values with others more personally advantageous and congenial. Nietzsche lays stress on Socrates's physical ugliness and plebeian descent, factors contributing to a resentment of the existing order. It is conceded that such complications add to the interest of life. As Plato portrays him, Socrates is greatly superior to his sophist opponents, and he seems to have raised rational discussion to a new level of effectiveness. Nietzsche says that he invented a new 'agon', a contest, a mental form of fencing or wrestling. The aristocratic happiness hymned by the poet Pindar was that of the Olympic victor, a conscious power ideal, achieved through formalised athletic contest. In the modern world we still have Olympic victors, as we still have dictators. We still have athletes who value athletic triumph above life and health. But many would say that such triumph palls beside that of a winner of minds by rational persuasion, such as Socrates. His standard of reference was argument rather than dogma, and his claim to our respect is based on his ability in this. So it might on the face of it seem an obviously excellent thing that the ability to defend one's position logically should have become, with Socrates, a newly important factor in determining power and status. As with the older shift in power from chief to medicine man, it might seem highly desirable that power should be in the hands of the intelligent rather than the physically strong, rich and brutal. However, Nietzsche identifies dangers in setting up an ideal in criticism of what appear to be natural human responses and reactions. Given the Socratic reform, the requirement for rational justification, there is a danger that those in a weak position should succeed, by means of clever argument and propaganda, in so exalting the virtues and values of weakness as to paralyse the natural expression of strength. On a superficial interpretation of his criticisms, Nietzsche wanted to invert this in favour of instinctual values. A crude Nietzschean might argue against Socrates's attempt to alter the pecking order of society in favour of the philosopher that it replicates priestly censorship, restricting natural aristocratic power. Against this one might object that philosophy itself can easily be thought of as the highest expression of aristocratic power. Excluding current standards and values from the power struggle hardly seems consistent with a noble ideal. In a passage in one of his last books, Twilight of the Idols, Nietzsche explains that Socratic dialectics cannot work as a cure for decadence because Socrates personally was himself extremely decadent, plagued, on his own admission, by abnormally vicious instincts, which he needed to bring under close control. Nietzsche wants to prove his own case in a way that he believes Socrates does not prove his. There are obvious parallels to be made between Nietzsche's own scheme and Socrates's rationalistic programme. So what does he mean by saying that Socrates was a typical decadent and therefore his programme could not have succeeded? Is it that Socrates meant to tyrannise like Wagner? Could Nietzsche do better than Socrates? In Socrates's day he was a pioneer, so influence of individual personality was so much the greater. Reason to a great extent just meant his will. For all his changes of mind, Nietzsche's work can be seen as continuous, right from his first published writings. Certain core aims remained, though subject to constant clarification. He showed a progressive repudiation of unexamined authority, and particularly of the identifiable idea that one ought to submit to such authority. To understand what is most distinctive in him it is essential to remember his beginnings as a Wagnerite. Wagnerism he once felt to be identical with the master values he always supported. It was only later, looking closer, that he discerned in it submission and servitude. The reason for this change was that he had come to reject beliefs that he once held. Looking superficially, he saw in Wagnerism heroic freedom, and profound emotional liberation. With closer examination, these vanish, and it appears to contain an unwarranted demand to accept particular doctrines. Nietzsche began his literary career with the Dionysian philosophy of the Birth of Tragedy. Everything after may be seen as a progressive clarification, taking the self conscious enjoyment he called affirmation as his central aim. With greater understanding the concepts deployed in his first book are insufficient to procure this, and the demand to retain them has a contrary effect. They reveal a repressive quality which was not seen before. To justify such perceptions, further concepts are needed. Such development was to culminate in the discovery of the will to power. The elucidation of concepts changes the feeling we have about them. The reason why some particular thought or idea appears oppressive is all to do with other things that appear to us to be true. Here lies the relevance of the epigram that a will to a system is a lack of integrity. This statement is not meant as an attack on the idea of the unity of truth. It refers to a vice common in the history of thought, the erection of some inspiration of one's own into a dogmatic authority, so betraying the sceptical motive from which it originated. One prefers to shore up a theory identified with one's own prestige and authority, rather than pursuing the critical impulse to the point of maximum precision. Before he became committed to Wagner and Schopenhauer, Nietzsche's belief was in Protestant Christianity. His original dissidence, was in his rejection of this. The idea of Christianity came to be seen as a pressure to believe. Wagnerism and Hegelism, he eventually interpreted in a similar way. Progressively every unexamined subjection to received ideas is identified as oppressive. In rejecting the Christianity of his childhood in the light of a new standard he accepts as true, he identifies a force which has to be rejected. His anti Christianity is remarkable mainly for its intensity. He does not see Christianity as just a false theory. From his perspective he finds something else in it, something quite other than how it appears to its believers. He is in continuous argument against doctrines that he rejects, seeing them not simply as rejected doctrines, but as seductive forces requiring constant vigilance, still threatening to demoralise. That he finds servility in these, is attributable to a progressive discrimination that does not eliminate the continuing pressure of the doctrine. You are unaware of its tyranny until you begin to move away from it. Then you come to see such tyranny as one of the most important elements in the life of the world. But this perspective has to root itself against the continually refined assaults of sophisticated argument. Morality of the weak is Nietzsche's term for a vicious principle that operates as a demoralising inhibition. The insidious suggestion that attaches guilt to independent thought or action, appears to serve the interests of those in a weak position, as well as the tyrant who wants to maintain his authority. Such effects are only perceptible with discrimination. One may not perceive power as such when one has no motive to oppose it. Nietzsche as Wagnerite was subject to Wagner's power, but not to a morality of the weak, for his own desires were not repressed by his attachment. Only in becoming aware of the availability of alternative interpretations of the same experience would he see the restriction involved in submitting to this. The position I am taking up here takes its departure from Nietzsche's interpretation of Socrates in terms of envy and resentment. It is often asserted that Nietzsche was consistently hostile to Socrates. His attitude was more complex. Even in 'The Birth of Tragedy', where Socrates is blamed for a shallow rationalism that destroyed the Aeschylean tradition, he is also seen as initiating the scientific movement, which is by no means something Nietzsche wishes to condemn unequivocally. A denunciation of Socrates perhaps makes sense on the Dionysian, Wagnerian, position with which Nietzsche was initially associated and which he came to repudiate in the strongest terms as he developed the idea of the will to power. On the will to power theory, to attack Socrates for exercising his will seems singularly pointless. What could be the ground for such an attack? From this perspective comes a more positive view of Socrates's vital importance for the whole course of western civilisation, both in the manner of his argument and the drama of his death. Nietzsche writes in Twilight of the Idols (p 34). 'To have to combat one's instincts, that is the formula for decadence: as long as life is ascending, happiness & instinct are one'. He is referring to Socrates, of whom he wrote a few lines previously:- (p32)- 'His case was after all only the extreme case, only the most obvious instance of what had at that time begun to be the universal exigency: that no one was any longer master of himself, that the instincts were becoming mutually antagonistic'. It does not matter whether we think of Socrates's decadence as his vicious instincts, or the fact they needed to be controlled. The reason why Socrates own decadence prevents him from being able to cure decadence is that the results of his dialectical method were too dependent on his own personality. This is why his personal decadence is potentially harmful. The cure he offers depends upon submission to himself as doctor. Socratic dialectic, like Wagnerian art, means the domination of a particular mind. With Plato this clever dialectics becomes revelation of 'truth'. The truth that is to be revealed is known to some extent by intuition as well as by rational argument. In Human All Too Human (§261), Nietzsche pointed out the tyrannical urges of the Greeks. Every Greek, he suggested, desired to tyrannise over other people. Philosophers too, desired this, which explains much in Plato. Only Solon said he despised individual tyranny, though he sublimated his tyranny as a lawgiver. Plato became frustrated and extremely embittered in old age, as a result of the thwarting of his tyrannical urge. Even his idea of the state as something that promotes virtue seems an unpleasant, oppressive and totalitarian thought, reached by a series of sophisms. Plato in Laws strikes us by the intensity of his will to control. Here he is less interested in an ideal of enlightenment. By Laws he seems to have shed Socrates in more ways than one. In Plato the tyrannical motive gained through application of dialectic a new self assurance. Someone like St Augustine of Hippo may be considered the regrettable heir of this. If Socrates showed a way of subverting the classical from within, Augustine took it to its limit. However, this was far from the only way that Socrates's influence was exerted. One line may go - Plato, Neoplatonism, patristic theology, mediaeval Catholicism. But there is also a line, which includes Alcibiades, and the sceptics of the later academy like Carneades. We tend to think of Socrates as the moraliser Plato presents, but he insisted that the only thing he knew was that he knew nothing, as well as being very fond of Alcibiades. One modern view (see Gerald Bruns) influenced by Gadamer's hermeneutics, is to view Socrates primarily as explicating the oracle's judgement that he was the wisest of men, and the effects of his daimon. His being was given by the oracle, and this is something he needs to explicate. This we might call his will to truth. This is a different angle from the Nietzschean. It sees Socrates as if equipped with a destiny, over which he has little choice. Such a view takes him away from the aggressive will to power where Nietzsche places him. Dislike of established power and desire to overcome it can be recognised as entirely acceptable motives. To hold that all resentment is intrinsically falsifying is mere mystification. Where envy and resentment lead to falsification, they are to be deplored. Directed against unsubstantiated authority, they provide a motive to uncover new truth by showing the untenability of some accepted position. Where this can be demonstrated there is a clear advance in knowledge. On Nietzsche's mature interpretation, Socrates was engaged in a comparable project to his own, that of trying to overcome the decadence of his society. Nietzsche claimed to be able to explain why Socrates could not and did not succeed. Socrates's method of argument, in those early days, rather than establishing objective standards, only succeeded in replicating an aspect of his own personality, his personal solution of moral restraint, the only way in which he could flourish. Whoever argued with Socrates would be dominated by his superior cleverness. Because he was personally decadent, he was no suitable model. Nietzsche's own proposal is not open to the same objection, despite often-expressed opinions to the contrary. The decadence he was essentially concerned to combat, the threat that he envisaged, was demoralisation through morality of the weak. The undermining of strength comes about through falsification of reality, dishonest limitation of possibility. In a decadent culture, the pressure is on for you to embrace and affirm inferiority and mediocrity, so denying and betraying your own knowledge. The solution is the perspective of universal will to power, that exposes the falsification that has taken place. Such a perspective is independent of whatever personal defects pertain to the person who conceives it. The objection to Socrates is not that he resented authority and wanted to replace it with true knowledge, it is that true knowledge is not what he achieved. Reason = virtue = happiness is not a sound equation. What passed for knowledge was only imitation of himself. This is the only reason why his personal decadence is an issue. In resisting authority in the furtherance of one's own ambition, resentment is an acceptable motive. There is no need to differentiate between types of resentment, some of which are intrinsically good and some of which bad, as some Nietzsche commentators have done, shifts to which they are led by abandoning the concept of truth. Understanding where Socrates went wrong is an important key to Nietzsche's idea of a solution. Nietzsche does not simply invert Socrates's position and tell everyone to follow their impulses. He has no interest in you following your impulses where they are hostile to his own achievement. He does not propose, as an alternative to Socratic restraint, some abstract idea of nature or liberation. Freedom to say and think what you like is limited by what you admit to be true. The standard Nietzsche wants to establish is a knowledge that thwarts the expression of some people's ambition to tyrannise and falsify. I am aware that this is almost the mirror image of many current interpretations. To some it will seem outrageous to trace the motive for philosophy in envy and resentment. What about solving philosophical problems? The point to be made is that if we accept the authority expected of us there are no remaining philosophical problems. We accept the solutions of our elders and betters, learning to think what we are told we ought to think. Those envious persons who resent the authority of established wisdom, refuse to do this. The assumption of sage like wisdom is characteristic of certain schools of philosophy today. There is pressure to accept the authority of the guru or pundit. There is no progress unless this is challenged to defend itself by sound argument. Arbitrary speculation may give us thought as brilliant and fascinating as the best of the presocratic philosophies. Where it remains poetry one can respect and admire it. Resentment arises when it makes demands on our belief. Nietzsche emphasised how Wagner's undeniable power to transport his devotees into a wonderful world owed as much to his contentious claims as a prophet as to his many artistic talents. The twentieth century has seen some opposition to Socrates and what he is thought to have achieved. There are those who want to undo what he did, from the author of 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance', to a major figure like Heidegger. Some want to enlist Nietzsche in service of such an end, seeing him as unequivocally on the side of the creative genius against the restraining reason. But this is where he started from, and from where he was all the time moving away. Nietzsche had studied the creative genius at close range in Wagner. He identified a tyrannical and deceiving urge, which he considered unhealthy. Similar considerations explain what made Socrates decadent, and the significance of his decadence. A 'healthy' person in this sense is content with an open expression of desire. He does not mean to deceive or to be deceived. For Nietzsche, tyranny, will to deceive and unhealthiness are interrelated concepts. An ambition to impose one's own tastes on others, by deceiving them about other options that are available is tyrannical, dishonest and the mark of an unhealthy ambition. Such 'unhealthiness' is simply this, not a degenerative condition contaminating creative expression. The perspective of the will to power is meant to secure against it. It looks for the facts that undermine the tyranny of others. It does not set up a tyranny of its own. Thus inoculated we can accept Socrates. Socrates is where philosophy proper begins, where a halt is put upon the power of the sage and his wisdom is challenged. What motive is clearer and more rational than a straightforward resentment of such authority? From the viewpoint of will to power it is more or less meaningless to deplore it. Where argument is good enough it compels. Thenceforth thought is constrained, progress in knowledge is possible, there is a check upon the unlimited power to create 'truth' by fiat. The desire to persuade, the pure Socratic impulse, this new agon, is an explicit desire for power. One tries to achieve influence over the minds of others by revealing the inconsistencies of their ideas. Argument is a channel for gaining power, the effort to change other people's patterns of thought into one's own patterns of thought. With philosophy comes the idea of the unity of truth. Plato continues Socrates's aggressive impulse. The alternative is a non-aggressive vision that apparently involves subjection to some form of tradition. The earlier Greek culture that was replaced by the Socratic revolution arguably contained a traditional psychological wisdom, which was lost. While to admirers of Aeschylus this may seem a great shame, several of Aeschylus's plays have survived, and it is unhelpful to speculate whether there were any more works of genius likely from that quarter. If we project ourselves back into Socrates's particular time, we see the pretensions he faced, which have parallels in later ages. Perhaps the Aeschylean tradition might have continued, as something beautiful and profound. But we recall that many people today, including fascists and communists, also aim to create a profound and beautiful world. If we want to wreck their visions, it is not because we can prove, theoretically, that they are not beautiful or deep. In modern civilisation various ideals of so called health are held up, against so called resentment. If we oppose them out of our own resentment and ambition, this too may further scientific progress. Even if is true that the scientific attitude has brought us to the edge of disaster, it still offers the terms in which we can think of possible ways forward. The scientific truth that emerges is what we appeal to in the case of argument. It is what ambition gets a hold on. Without such a reference point ambition hardly suffices for philosophy. The point is not to go back to something presocratic. In our own situation we react against what offends us. To that extent we are 'reactive'. We want to overthrow our enemies, in the first place destroy their power over our own minds. We can hope to do this in a non-deceiving way, the way of discovery, rather than of obfuscation. Then, having satisfied our resentment, we may enjoy our triumph and relax, playfully yielding ourselves to whatever enjoyment is on offer, at least as much as that promised by the tyrannical system from which we have dissented. To accept happiness on our enemy's terms would be weak and submissive. Not that we are to remain content with philosophy in its present practice. Traditionally philosophy proceeds by collapsing distinctions. Even much Nietzsche interpretation involves some typically philosophical idea such as that we can do without morality, or the concept of self or truth. Philosophy in this sense is 'paradoxical'. It still continues, despite heroic attempts to overcome it. The most ingenious solutions to philosophical problems can hardly be final when alternatives are always springing up. This presents a problem that Kant, Hegel, Hume, claimed to have faced and settled centuries ago. It refused to go away, and Wittgenstein was much concerned with it. The undecidability of metaphysics has been well established, and yet metaphysics still goes on as so much apparently futile argumentation. The motive to reach finality is a kind of aggression directed against intellectual authority, greater than that required to play the game and produce more competing theories. The resentment that initiated philosophy is also the striving to bring it to an end. BIBLIOGRAPHY Nietzsche: - The Birth of Tragedy and the Genealogy of Morals. tr. Golffing. New York 1956 Human All Too Human. tr. Faber & Lehman. Lincoln 1984 Twilight of the Idols and the Antichrist. tr. Hollingdale Harmondsworth (Penguin) 1968 The Birth of Tragedy and the Case of Wagner tr. Kaufmann. New York 1967 Bruns, Gerald L: - Hermeneutics, Ancient and Modern. New Haven. Yale University Press. 1992 Nehamas:- Nietzsche a Life as Literature. Cambridge Mass. 1985 Kaufmann:- Nietzsche Philosopher Psychologist Antichrist Princeton 1974 Plato:- The life and Death of Socrates tr. Tredennick Harmondsworth (Penguin) 1969 The Collected Dialogues. ed Hamilton & Cairns Princeton 1963 return to home page my writing email john.jsm@gmail.com

http://www.linuxprinting.org/show_printer.cgi?recnum=HP-LaserJet_1020
So many choices, I need to use a program that I can't compile. So I look for the name of the software for yum.
I need to play well like Pavilion, I will. The consequences I am bearing.

I lost time to try to understand and learn, it should be creative, the world is god's game rather than ours.
You need to increase your talents, try to make somethings that will make people want to discover about you (Britney is an exemple).
Silence of symptoms does not mean that there is no problem.
I am creative and will return to myself. What I am at present is not myself.
I don't love what my sisters love, I have different tastes.

You don't accept to be talented because of other people. You don't want to be superior.
I and you are not different, distinct, separated...
I am separated but I consider "I" as perfect, united, one.
I must accept that others are but me, and unclearness.
http://www.photoshopsupport.com/tutorials/jennifer/blog-templates.html
Invisible due to the color, I will make my blog 100hits perday. I fear of that, people will do something I don't want.

http://answers.yahoo.com/question/
This page offer ad for my blog.
I can't say what I am feeling.
Why losing time writing unnecessary things.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20070406221623AAy5bO1&r=w&pa=FZptHWf.BGRX3OFMhjJVUmawLOkBu2r.MLciziGsVZ40ir6dYA--&paid=answered#JsxXP2DBJXfL5eM4170_
I don't want to waste, by eating, I am wasting. My existence is not what it should be for fear of the unclear "others will be shocked".
I experienced the effect of my succeed in stock market, people still let me peace because they think I am just lucky.
Why my sister asked me about stock market with such timidity? I am so powerless to decide disobedience.
http://euklid.mi.uni-koeln.de/c/mirror/mickey.lcsc.edu/%257Esteve/c13.html
This page is what help me to understand why I "rage" when I think about being better to solve the knee and bone problems: I should simply change the code, use pointers for efficiency.
http://www.gidforums.com/t-9893.html
Previously I visited a website that forces me to pay in order to view the answer. I hope this will help my inability.

You day-dream when you believe that you exist and people exist.
You are awake when you see that life is the game Second Life. You are a character, others are other characters, you are worriless because you don't care about the future.
The future is the term that dreamer talk about, people dream because they are unable to create, to be creative.

Now I'm writing, far away people are lifting heavy load of rice, my existence is possible thanks to their sacrifice of health.
Now I also need to sacrifice what I call temporarily "self-qualities"
I received the unbelieved result: Max Payne run. It's not I can't bear the slowness that I quit: my sister needs to be creative, never dealt too long with something.
I see problems, but that's a game. Here is Second Life. I fear of telling people this advise. I fear of changing them fatally, I am them.

I love smoking pot, I use it all the day so that no one can make me angry.
I also advise people to smoke, only so they can have creativity and braveness.
I am ready for everything because my feelings of fear and worry disappear.
Without smoking, I worry about the consequences of my actions, I can't risk myself, I don't want to be succeedful.
So I smoke to have these coward feeling away.

I think that poison is a good tool, with it, you will be brave and daring because you can suicide at any time, avoiding being tortured mentally.
The blood is just the environment for your expression (life), you are not your blood, nor your brain: all these are your house.
The house does not belong to you, nor it belongs to others; it is just a temporary place (level) , you will leave it for heaven.
Don't live in that small house, expand yourself, make the weather beautifull.

I listen to a guide to diagnose patient with eyes, laxity of the lids.
Answering in yahoo is timelosing, but we can do it witout losing time by having rest and do other thing like reading hearing.
I missed a chance to read all message from the young day of mine, I really what to read them.
I will make a program able to enter download.com today.

A little of dream on bed, without imagination because of fear.
The side without a knight won, that's strange moves which lead to vixtory, not sound moves.
I took time to remove the mucus from my eyes, it's not infection but inadequate combination of tears.
The black side make no mistake in the begining, able to attack.


I woke up too late, being on bed awake for a long time, I think today, I will be free.

I decided to write codes, but I don't think that I can wake up. so I need to turn off the computer and begin the struggle with tiredness.
I am in between: I don't want real achievement, succeed; the gamer want! But why his person does not obey him? It's the challenge of the game. The gamer must kill evils rather than to co-exist with evil.

I am interested in chess, I want then to see some match, but I can't be too much interested in learning, I should be imaginative, be what I reject, that is the monster which rejects creativity because it love learning.
I see floaters, I should not write for others, nor for myslef, but do the needed things.


Life is the game Neighbours from Hell:
you are fuzzily in that game, however the true you is not conscious of itself.
you take dangers by entering evil's domain and annoy the evil with your creativity and imagination.
you can't be touched by things in the game as some fictions suggest.
don't ever thing that the evil and greedy will come out of the game and touch you.
all what these evils targets is the person you control.
when you ask "what persons I control?" , you won't be able to answer, because only you know the answer, the conscious and herb in what society called "you" can't know "why it's safe to do anything in the game"
In Neighbours from Hell, I have been caught and beated, the evil jumped on my body, beat me with its fish, and took my neck: let it tortue my mind more and more, I am not a mind which can be tortured.

You need to understand that you ask "what is the meaning of life?" because you can't accept the only meaning of life, i.e. illusion, dream, and game...

Don't be cheated by the concept of "me", you must know that you are not you but the holy spirit (the gamer). You must know that others (your mother, sisters) are not meaningful and are not objects, they are not anything more than these A.I person in the game.
The holy spirit is not A.I., it's the programmer and the gamer.

Do you feel something when you are creative? That is the contrary of knowing, to know is to feel only what you should feel:
-to fear when the danger is related to the present
-to fight when it's time, not to fight when it's over
-to feel good today, tomorrow there is no more existence
-there is no future, if you can overcome the illusion "future" then you know what you should know.
-there is future because there is events, but in reality : events are just dreams, you are part of the dream.

I have phobia of achievement, more exactly it's phobia or aversion of being talented.
What I need to do now? I want to answer definitly that nothing bad will happen to me when I am at full power.

Other answers are quite knownledge intensive, I am creative but I have a fear of achievement. How to overcome these feelings?
http://www.changethatsrightnow.com/fear-of-success.asp?SDID=7155:1965
I read this many times with different interpretations, I guess that you need to be creative and "eat as many as possible", I want to be in that after world.
I lost, I will let him wait 6 hours until he resign to take the victory.

This op played with me patiently, my grand-mother talk alone when I am thinking.
The game is too equal, if I don't be creative now, I can't win.

I passed the morning without being able to convince me that life is chess.
How to get rid of this seed tick? I can't see it, I touch my skin and feel painful.
I feel something small has got into my skin, it stayed there for a long time and I hope it will disappear by itself.
You tell me "hello", I watch you and think with forgetfulness.
Let us chat, I want to chat because I can discover something, but if you don't want, I go making a program.
He told me that he will go sleeping and will come back to win gainst me. That is funny because he discovered my trick, his will to power won't let him resign, even if he lost nothing, he can go doing some program.

I think resigning will make me learn nothing, I will taste this feeling of desire to be superior.

I am losing, I let him wait , I don't like adjourned game, but I will make life chess. No thing can kick me out of such illusion.

Life is chess, no one can approach you, but the position is presented for you. The more difficult the position, the more you will be creative and bold to solve. Some fear of difficulty that's why they don't play but only defend.
I will play this match as a definite attempt to make creativity unhindered.

I started learning about programming with a slow progress, because I think that I should learn to use functions and knownledge.
When I tried to learn Assembly, I give up because it's complicated, too much knownledges to learn and understand. Sometimes, I read again and again an explanation without understanding.

Now, I found a precious experience: if I can go back in the past, I'll tell myself to be careless about knownledges, to be imaginative and creative, to accept the limitation of knownledge, but not to accept the limitation of stupidity.

I want to know if you have had similar experience, tell me what wound has made you stronger.

Ichi is strong, he can push policemen and outran others, but still he needs money from parents.
I just want to know what you feel, and suggest me some ideas, I'll teach and solve the problem of fearing to achieve myself. My problem is "I want to be good, but I don't want to be at my best, so I am between, servile".

Please teach me to be able to understand things, I should solve problems at ease, difficult things become enjoyable to deal with. You make me feel "fun" because you are not lukewarm between answer and not answer.

I am a creativity, now I want to be creativity. A creativity can't last, it will be extinguished. Can you teach me some advises for life?

I play chess to learn "life", I want to live life like chess, but I don't think life is chess, it has more meaning and preciousness. I want to post this too early, maybe one always want to be a center, or maybe one want to expand: to talk and receive answer.

I want to talk with you, but all the garbage from channels make me fear that your messages will be unnoticed. So I ask channel 1 how to turn off all channel, but they answer unseriously.
I want to get attention, my friends know that. They also want to be unique and "shining". Chess is life, you play with creativity not with knowledge or concentration.
Have you played Neighbours from hell? It's life, you achieve and ready for dangers.
I can easily win this match but I don't want, I fear of your feelings and ego and greed.
I am from Vietnam, that's why I have problem with to achieve or not to achieve.
I always forget a method, I apply a method blindly.
Soon I will lose, I will play until the end because I can still be in the other side.
May I lose on time, I will let him wait and I will learn something: even chess teach me to calculate rather than to strain, I need to achieve.
I calculated wrongly, due to too much concentration but lack of geniusness.
Typing an answer, can't find good thing to say, it's loss of time.


I am someone who is more able than who is at present. Most of us can be better because of the education. That is easy to be good at stock market, don't prepare but calculate.
I see things easy when I am creative, when I'm servile and knowledge-based it's the contrary.
I feel itching because someone commanded me to scratch.

There is someone else in my mind, he blinds me with illusion and weaken me, I can't know who am I?
It took me an year to realize Nietzsche, But time is an illusion.
I realize that speech thought is not always possible.

Please teach me programming (interesting tips and secrets).
He told me that I am not selfish, I realized that I should choose the possible road.
So I decided not to make to much succeed, he may believe that I'm stupid and will not follow me like papparrazzi anymore. I don't want him to be better, am I selfish?

The power of money and achievement will make him use violence to have .
He will not accept to learn by himself, he want the best way, i.e. to be teached. It's always faster if you are teached by GOOD teacher.
Then he came back , I try to hide away, but he come close to me and ask "what should I buy?". He scared me, I said "I don't know".
The game is continuing without seeable mistake. Soon, bad things will happens to me. I don't care, my op win is as happy as I win.
Things is in favor of me, but in the next match, I may lose. Whatever happen to me (my side) will not bother me, I always enjoy.
I thought a bit about how things will be but I can't see due to the cloud "clearness".
So I won, the op can touch me to release his anger.
I don't think he can touch me, he can only touch himself.
Today I must have my eye open, I will run away from the world of the blind and no longer will I be affected by fear of being blind again.
I am in a dangerous position, that is the straining that lead me to badness, not creativity.
That is the rule of chess, that will be the rule of life, for me, life is no more than chess.
Life is not chess, it has some meanings, some event must not happen: like the happiness for the one you want to surpass.
Caro-kann reminds me about the days when I love knowledges and my strengh based on knownledge which make me feel unable when facing programming.
I discovered that I am basically like the others, I want to give few and that's why I am servile.
People who slack often will come to me and ask with timidity, they don't dare asking from my father.
I answer him "teach me to be good", he does not answer and ask what am I good at.
He want me to confirm what I confirmed.
My brother seeing my succeed in stock market asked me to teach him, it feared me so much, I want not to share.

I imagine that I will lose peace if I achieve, I am so weak that's why I fear. Peace achieved by hiding is not peace, peace is to deal with the mission, take risk. If it's gameover, you can restart.
These people is of imprtance to me, I think about them as object to overcome. I feel their greed.
It's difficult to accept a long match.
I feel inconveniece to switch between touchpad and keuboard.
Through a long cable, the information is geniusly sent to the server.
People will be interested in me. I will be questioned, but that's just projection, let see if the truth will not be: they will ignore me and increase their levels.
Thinking in words, I decide a move that I think will increase my strengh. What is the others in this game? Chesspieces.
I decided an attact without caring about safety, maybe such genius will end in unwanted scenario. But anyway I am pleased with defeat.
My opponent can't profit of my fault, who is he?
I will lose, I lost so much material, the position is not much advantagous. I only win if the op make mistake. That's not happy winning. Happy wining must be a game like life and a life like a game.
I always fear because I am unable to calculate deeper, I also resign too early.
Looking at the dog lying in the court, I feel that I should be something careless about others and ascetic.
I made so much mistake in my sacrifice, now I will lose. May be I will play other chess better with more mute calculation.
I lost because I don't calculate but only go for the beautiful: I want to act good without creativity?
I want to be incontack with my opponents, I don't want to end relationship.
Today I must be on road, there should be no more persuasion. Tomorrow, I must start to achieve, like I start to make the neighbours angry.
I will finish the trick and end up without pain, if I need to restart again, it would be very nice since it's different start-over.
I see my potential for achievement. But the reasons stand against creativity.
My life does not affect me.
I am thinking about a sacrifice, I will use all my potential in this match, rather than straining myself.
I always think in a wining position, it's too much proud. I should think objectively.
I spent a moment to think without finding the winning combination. It should be doubtable if I found.
I passed too much time thinking without a good decision, I can't destroy my opponent so if I seek to, I'll lose time.


Repeat an activity until reaching proficiency.
A guy talk about buddhism, something about the sun... I do not understand and also I need to care about my writing because I fear people will read and have bad opinion about it.
All the advise seemingly come from people who want to keep their precious secret that they paid dearly to possess. They don't want to share, can someone share with me, don't tell me "find yourself", or "there is no short way". I know that I must suffer in order to learn something, but you who suffered can tell me?
Today will again be a wasteful day, I fear of creativity's expression (achievement). I played and passed "barbecue time", it's a game of achievement and preventing others from touching your person.
Practise seems to be the solution for the problem, it seems unsolid and temporal. But maybe it's the road to ever-lasting enlightenment.
Learn by doing, I can't read and think to be convinced about playing the game.
I can't pass life to hide in the wardrobe. I need to go out and achieve, live in danger. Anything happen in the game is not "should be avoided", but is "face it". Achievement is the mission.
I invited a guy to play, I need to guide him on how to match, but because of the feeling "lose time", I write to my diary which will be read by many. I fear of the readers' opinion so I lose my freedom in writing.
My mind is "dull" when I write,


The game is life, you enter to play at the utmost talents, you are alone playing the game. Nodanger and undesirable things can catch you. You play at the utmost creativity as how you created the game.

I told them about love of what we created, they teach me sarcasm. I feel no more freedom when I do something for others.
I "fear" of losing because I don't realize how I often lose. If I want to get visibility, just be good programmer.
The experience: the sister asked about a secret, it make me fear that this will happen again. They will see how I achieve and ask me to achieve like me. It's thief!
A guy censored me, I want to be free from "weakness", from working for another.
I run out of ideas after a while, it's annoying to have feelings.
Desires come to me about a narrow topic.
In life, when you don't agree with something, that's because you don't think deep enough.
Each time I try to write something, I feel freeless. Caring about others' opinions.