Don't Mourn The Dead In Blacksburg

[JColtrane]

Wow! You guys have had like 15 posts in the past 5 minutes...

Let me just weigh in on a minor point and say that using the term "the herd" to distinguish yourself from the rest of society is just plain silly. I mean, in doing that, you're basically just following Nietzsche, and just in another herd that likes to think it's separate. It's just a little ironic that you're trying to separate yourself while using a term that obviously identifies yourself with a specific group.
So stop doing it, I command you!!!

 

[Scourge of God]

I make no claim on being independent of others (and anyone who does is either a fucktard or a looney). But I am a member of a pack rather than of a herd. There are subtle but significant differences at work.

 

[JColtrane]

Hmm...I don't think Nietzsche would have wanted to be part of a pack or a herd. I think there is an important balance between finding truth in a philosopher and becoming so enraptured with a philosopher that one refuses to see the errors in his or her works. If you're entire worldview stands or falls based on whether one thinker is right, you've got problems. Every thinker has weaknesses (and I'm sure Nietzsche would admit he had plenty)

 

[Blowtus]

Views of world events (and, you know, pretty much everything else) are inherently reactive. There is literally no viewpoint that can be held about these events that is not a response to something else that exists independently of the person holding a particular viewpoint.

Remember when I said that these events didn't take place in a vacuum? That applies here as well. The 'independence' of thought is a measure of where it is situated within a discursive framework, not whether it is unrelated in any way to any other viewpoint. By your standard, only the delusional can have 'independent' thought, because everyone else is merely "responding" to reality.

No. I judge the incident in question based on the aggregate of all my interaction with, and understanding of, others. How those others judge this specific incident is of no (miniscule, to be pedantic) import, given the breadth of all my previous experiences. My judgement is not affected by the vagaries of 'the herd' mentality on this specific point.

You suggest to me that the judgement (and subsequent influencing) of those judging the incident in a specific manner (the herd) is the main point to factor in to your own judgement of the incident. You raise inflammatory points of little worth (mourning the killer and the like) in response to what you view as 'the herds' points of little worth. My own view is formed based on more than simply 'the herds' response to this specific incident. If sometimes I appear to sympathise with such a herd, and other times deride, I empower myself in the eyes of others as a 'free thinker', capable of understanding the position of both sides, and influenced more in my decisions from a sense of internal logic developed (from my interactions in the world) over time, not based on the whimsies associated with a particular event. That is what is meant by 'independent thought', of course it is not independent in the absolute sense of the term.

Not true. My position is based on my reading of the facts of the case, what others believe matters only inasmuch as the movement of the herd makes it necessary to actually voice dissenting opinions.

Great - this sounds a little contrary to the following however, where my interpretation of it has you disregarding the 'independent thought' for the sake of having a view contrary to the despised herd.

Events like this don't take place in a vacuum. There's no real way of seperating the events of April 17, 2007 from the "Blacksburg Massacre" of the media coverage. If you mourn or show sympathy, regardless of your personal motivations, you're only strengthening a particular interpretation of the event that is being promulgated by the media. Whatever YOU mean by it, it will simply be lost in the 'consensus' meaning created from whole cloth by the media.

Have you even bothered to read what I actually wrote? A positive example was built in to the fabric of the original argument. I don't demand that you agree with me, but I do ask that you represent my arguments honestly if you're going to attack them.

A fair request, no doubt



Jcoltrane - I'm not particularly familiar with Nietzsche (or any specific philosopher) but I thought the 'herd' term was fairly clear and obvious in it's intent...? If all that is required for association with some other group, is an ability to group 'the average' of society in a specific manner, then I don't see that it would be a particularly cohesive or worthwhile grouping

 

[Scourge of God]

Blowtus,

I invite you to go back and read what I originally wrote and then try to see how that could POSSIBLY fit in the box you're trying to stuff it in.

 

[Scourge of God]

Hmm...I don't think Nietzsche would have wanted to be part of a pack or a herd. I think there is an important balance between finding truth in a philosopher and becoming so enraptured with a philosopher that one refuses to see the errors in his or her works. If you're entire worldview stands or falls based on whether one thinker is right, you've got problems. Every thinker has weaknesses (and I'm sure Nietzsche would admit he had plenty)

When did this become about Nietzchean infallibility (other than in your own mind)?

 

[JColtrane]

Eh, the terminology you use, the type of polemical and deliberately offensive arguments you try to make, and your desparate need to have a different opinion than everyone else.
Sorry to get personal, but you did ask

 

[Blowtus]

Blowtus,

I invite you to go back and read what I originally wrote and then try to see how that could POSSIBLY fit in the box you're trying to stuff it in.

Well, there's 2 of us trying to stuff it in that box, maybe I should see if I can find anyone notable to help

 

[Norsemaiden]

Wow! You guys have had like 15 posts in the past 5 minutes...

Let me just weigh in on a minor point and say that using the term "the herd" to distinguish yourself from the rest of society is just plain silly. I mean, in doing that, you're basically just following Nietzsche, and just in another herd that likes to think it's separate. It's just a little ironic that you're trying to separate yourself while using a term that obviously identifies yourself with a specific group.
So stop doing it, I command you!!!

Are these the choices: be part of the herd, part of a pack, be a loner or be a leader?

 

[Έρεβος]

Are these the choices: be part of the herd, part of a pack, be a loner or be a leader?

I think by pack Scourge means any smaller group of like-minded individuals that are independent individually but simply have been led to the same general conclusions; while the herd are mental drones with no more capacity for independent thought than vermin, their entire world-view being based upon that of the present part of the herd they are located. Leaders are in packs, as are loners; they can also be in the herd.

 

[Έρεβος]

Hmm...I don't think Nietzsche would have wanted to be part of a pack or a herd.

Why not? His ideas have formed the leading ideas of a pack, ideas that have helped many to understand the world and themselves, and to think individually. He may have been at the head of the pack, but he surely was in a pack, and there is no reason he would have "not wanted to be part of a pack."

 

[MetalBooger]

Loners are in packs? Explain, are these so called "packs" therefore not social units?

Just to avoid any external scholars, i would say a pack has a leader who is part of that homogeneous group, hence the reason a wolf leads wolves, a herd has a leader that, providing a certain level of legitimacy(say through elections) is an elite and stands apart from the masses. Packs have a more aggressive and minimalistic connotation, while herds are thought of as "catch-all", therefore while a pack may be more appealing to a minority, to appeal to the general population its required that to maintain order and societal stability people must fall in line under an elite herder. Both have hierarchies, and therefore conformed under an elite.

Mental drones exist in both, as we see when see in many animalistic packs, as well as the apathetic in democracies, however as we also see, the vast majority are also very volatile and individualistic. Simply look at revolutions in Russia and France, where we see volatile large scale individualism run rampant, packs and herds flourish, however to maintain order and stability, a elite was chosen to rule. And another herd was created.

 

[Scourge of God]

Eh, the terminology you use, the type of polemical and deliberately offensive arguments you try to make, and your desparate need to have a different opinion than everyone else.
Sorry to get personal, but you did ask

1. What does that have to do with Nietzsche?

2. How does holding beliefs consonant with a well-established worldview shared by millions illustrate a "desperate need to have a different opinion"? You're basically projecting your beliefs about nationalism onto me and others, rather than actually bothering to understand the beliefs that are actually being expressed.

 

[JColtrane]

1. Based on my experience with people that try to "follow" Nietzsche, that's what I've run into. In my opinion the best way to accomplish what Nietzsche was attempting to advocate is to just do your own thing, form your own opinions, not to deliberately try to think about the world the way he did.
2. My post really didn't have anything to do with "nationalism," just what I think is a misinterpretation of one of my favorite philosophers.
Personally, I cringe when anyone uses Nietzschean terms to describe how they think about the world. And I think he would have cringed at it too.
Lastly, I think this thread is evidence of you deliberately taking an opposite and offensive view to society. Simply the way you phrased it (Don'tMourn the Dead in Blacksburg)is evidence of an attempt to be ingratiating, not a well thought-out argument.
If your argument is truly rational, then you won't have to tell anyone to follow it.

 

[Imp!]

Seems pretty funny to sympathise with the shooter because he is a result of his society, at the same time as you lambaste the victims as being worthless because of their own socially driven (supposed) incompetence.

What a great point.

Sympathize with the loser and his guns, he couldn't handle what society did to him (oh the horrors!), but fuck those who came to school and got shot, you know they exhibited no bravery at all so fuck 'em...

So the victim was the shooter. Victim of his circumstance 'eh? Why didn't he exhibit some bravery and rise above his circumstance? Those kids you (Scourge of God) consider cowardly didn't all rise up, and you consider them cowards, is that shooter a coward for letting society push him to the point he went to? You paint victims as cowards, but the "real" victim here is not a coward, why?

 

[Scourge of God]

So now we can't use the same vocabulary as a given philosopher without offending against basic standards of independence? What are we to do, write in Esperanto to make sure that no linguistic convergence occurs? Are you even aware of the context of Nietzsche's word choices, for instance, that 'the herd' wasn't a Nietzschean contrivance, but a term with a long history in aristocratic and anti-democratic (and anti-modernist) writing?

If your argument is truly rational, then you won't have to tell anyone to follow it.

This is possibly the single most inane argument I've ever seen advanced in this forum. What part of, you know, the entirety of human history suggests to you that rational, logical arguments will succeed among the general population without any need for them to be promoted? Hell, what makes you think that they'll succeed even if they ARE promoted?

 

[Scourge of God]

What a great point.

Sympathize with the loser and his guns, he couldn't handle what society did to him (oh the horrors!), but fuck those who came to school and got shot, you know they exhibited no bravery at all so fuck 'em...

So the victim was the shooter. Victim of his circumstance 'eh? Why didn't he exhibit some bravery and rise above his circumstance? Those kids you (Scourge of God) consider cowardly didn't all rise up, and you consider them cowards, is that shooter a coward for letting society push him to the point he went to? You paint victims as cowards, but the "real" victim here is not a coward, why?

Cho took action, likely poorly thought out and irrational action, but action nonetheless (which takes real, if misplaced, courage. His 'victims' waited passively for death, and stood by while it was dealt out methodically to others. That's pretty much the definition of cowardice.

 

[Imp!]

Ah, that clears it up. I think he is still a coward though. I'm just thinking about all the times he could have stood up for himself, ended his "misery" and all that, but he didn't. What's to say those kids would have done nothing had they been given the real chance? Maybe those kids did nothing now, but because of what happened, they go on to become advocates for gun safety and all that happy crap? I'd think you would think they were cowards still. It seems Cho still is the coward, he didn't do anything about the situation he was in at the moment, and given enough time he planned something out, comfortably in his home or wherever, away from the crap that bothered him. Whatever bothered him wasn't dealt with. The bully that picked on him or whatever, it wasn't dealt with, he was petrified, same as those kids. Given the chance though, with enough time, he was able to come up with something... He's just as cowardly in not facing his circumstances...

BTW, I see you guys have moved far away from the beginning of the discussion here, sorry for stopping the progress...

 

[JColtrane]

So now we can't use the same vocabulary as a given philosopher without offending against basic standards of independence? What are we to do, write in Esperanto to make sure that no linguistic convergence occurs? Are you even aware of the context of Nietzsche's word choices, for instance, that 'the herd' wasn't a Nietzschean contrivance, but a term with a long history in aristocratic and anti-democratic (and anti-modernist) writing?



This is possibly the single most inane argument I've ever seen advanced in this forum. What part of, you know, the entirety of human history suggests to you that rational, logical arguments will succeed among the general population without any need for them to be promoted? Hell, what makes you think that they'll succeed even if they ARE promoted?

I don't really think that any of the first part of your post addressed my argument at all. I think you missed the point. Anyone after Nietzsche who refers to "the herd", it's obvious what the reference is to. Let's not pretend here. The previous history of the word is irrelevant to my argument. I'm just saying it's incredibly ironic and contradictory to think oneself an individual apart from "the herd" when one is just following someone else.

The second part of my post was in the context of this forum. It being a philosophy forum, it seems perfectly sane to me to think that we can all judge an argument for ourselves and don't need to be told what to do by you (what an incredibly presumptous thing to do, by the way). Anyways, I'm curious as to what your solution would be outside of this forum? How much control should a person be allowed to exert on another?

 

[Blowtus]

I don't really think that any of the first part of your post addressed my argument at all. I think you missed the point. Anyone after Nietzsche who refers to "the herd", it's obvious what the reference is to. Let's not pretend here. The previous history of the word is irrelevant to my argument. I'm just saying it's incredibly ironic and contradictory to think oneself an individual apart from "the herd" when one is just following someone else.

I brought the term up in the thread, I had no prior concept of it's Nietzsche-ian meaning or relevance. It's just a handy term for those who (consider themselves to) think more to describe those who are more likely to just accept without thought.