Timeline for Can Nietzsche's overman be thought of as a centripetal force?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S Jul 19, 2017 at 13:57 | history | suggested | Hilbert7 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
correct name
|
| Jul 19, 2017 at 13:52 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Jul 19, 2017 at 13:57 | |||||
| Jul 19, 2017 at 0:19 | history | edited | user25714 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:58 | comment | added | user25714 | @Not_Here "ppp" is 'puhsing a personal philosophy" hehe | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:57 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:42 | answer | added | Cort Ammon | timeline score: 4 | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:38 | comment | added | Not_Here | @idiotan I have no idea what that comment means but it sounds like you took what i said negatively. I'm just trying to help you make the question more clearly stated so that somebody will answer it. If you feel like this question states exactly what you are asking then, of course, you're under no obligation to make any edits. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:31 | history | edited | user25714 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
deleted 40 characters in body
|
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:31 | comment | added | user25714 | @Not_Here cool, if it's not self evident i'll elide in case of ppp | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:30 | comment | added | Not_Here | I'm also incredibly confused as to what the "Dependent on 'history'" sentence means. Why are you putting it in quotes, what significance does using it in quotes have? I am sure that it makes sense to you but it is not evident to anyone else who reads it. Are you saying you're skeptical of the concept of history, are you saying that history is untrustworthy? I don't think there's enough context for other people to understand what that sentence means. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 23:00 | comment | added | user25714 | @jobermark thanks for the comment, ofc. @ conifold, the history comment is meant to be the enlightening component ha. all that time, spent... | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 22:57 | comment | added | user9166 | As I see it, the notion of the overman does nothing to contain anything or anyone or bring them together. If anything, it is the opposite -- a genuinely centrifugal force. The overman would be less like another overman than any man is like another man. The opposing concept is 'the herd', which allows society to enclose them and hold them together, and one of the defining characteristics of the overman is to not be subject to that force. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 22:40 | comment | added | Conifold | It is unclear to me what "overman as a centripetal force" means in a philosophical context, this can be interpreted in any number of ways, and you do not say what you have in mind beyond the phrase itself. So unless someone used those exact words, "overman as a centripetal force", it is unclear how to answer your question. And even if someone did it may not be what you mean. Also, "Dependent on 'history', how that works..." sentence is perplexing, what does it mean? | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 22:26 | history | edited | user25714 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 30 characters in body; edited tags; edited title
|
| Jul 18, 2017 at 22:23 | comment | added | user25714 | @Conifold what do you mean less metaphorically(not being sarcastic, i just am unsure what you're asking for)? thanks for the physics comment (?) but it's a metaphor, so not sure that it matters? | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 21:31 | comment | added | Conifold | Could you explain less metaphorically what "mapping Nietzshe's overman as a centripetal force" means? By the way, the idea of "opposing forces at work" does not work with this metaphor. The centrifugal force is fictitious, the centripetal force actually "works" against the body's own inertia, not against another force. I suppose, Nietzshe would have liked the idea of working against own inertia, but then any force does that, not necessarily centripetal. | |
| Jul 18, 2017 at 20:47 | history | asked | user25714 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |