Beast or god?

[Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean]

He who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god. - Aristotle

To go without company, whatsoever. To be an island. What state of being can one attain?

When one dreams, the impressions and ideas we take as reality are transformed or discarded. Control and apprehension are both greater than in waking life but our character is there, essentially unchanged. Man has believed down the ages, that his dreams contain an insight into psychic generators most privy.

Without the enforcement of the normie's empty grasp at existence, would one come to a "lucid dream" of reality?

No more clumsy attempts at putting significant to signifier. Instead, reality perceived with all the multiplicities apparent through words. The ambiguity inherent in language now seen, no longer a proposition of the philosophers but a means to the infinite.

Yet... to lose the human vitality of conversation with a friend or the easy familiarity of kin. What does it mean to become a beast?

[Guest]

It's a worthless topic. Do it, or don't do it. You won't get anything from pontificating.

[stair_fail]

What does it mean to become a beast?

Dropping a 50 bomb on wasteland without using OMA/noob tube combo.

[Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean]

It's a worthless topic. Do it, or don't do it. You won't get anything from pontificating.

Tranny logic.

How do you know this if you have not "pontificated"?

[Guest]

What does it mean to become a beast?


I think you should read "The Giaour" written by Lord Byron. There is a description of title character. In his early life he was strong, brave and cruel, living the fullest. But after he lost his love he started looking for peace. He didn't need any company and was even scary for many people. He was still intelligent and strong too. That's what I think the beast is.

[Guest]

It's a worthless topic. Do it, or don't do it. You won't get anything from pontificating.

Tranny logic.

How do you know this if you have not "pontificated"?

The first point is not an argument, and there is a difference between pontification and thinking. I am not the guest you replied to, and I feel sympathy for you, being a curious man like yourself, but it is definitely true that you should never think of this topic again.

[blanched_chards]

OP took the Aristotle quote out of context. "The Philosopher" didn't make a positive statement that people who enjoy solitude are beasts or gods, rather he intended to prove that the state arises naturally from humanity because all humans have social instincts.

The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.

[Guest]

Um allein zu leben, muss man ein Thier oder ein Gott sein - sagt Aristoteles. Fehlt der dritte Fall: man muss Beides sein - Philosoph…

[august]

Yet... to lose the human vitality of conversation with a friend or the easy familiarity of kin. What does it mean to become a beast?

[Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J2uNRvAOnw&t=10s]

Some people liked this film, some didn't. If you have seen it, putting the obvious critiques aside, what did you think of how the story, including the above scene specifically, addresses the question: what does it mean to become a beast?

There are two points at which the respective scenes briefly draw attention to the books in the main character's cell. Generally, the books are mostly those cliche 'prison' books that have become a trope in American film. 

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/j9iIMlZ.jpg]

[Image: https://i.imgur.com/T9clmw9.jpg]

The earlier scene comes at a point in the film when the main character is undergoing a transformative process from who he was in his previous life (a do-gooder, family-oriented everyman) into 'the human animal' that abandons everything as a means to survive. Among the books shown in the later scene, there are two in particular that seem to be made intentionally apparent to the audience which were either not present or not visible before: the Bible and Nietzsche's selected works. At this point, he has become the top guy, the "shot caller" ... but only after having paid the most incredible price. A life solitary. Is this to become a beast? Or, considering the possible allegory of the two additional books shown later on, is it not rather to become a god?

[Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean]

It's a worthless topic. Do it, or don't do it. You won't get anything from pontificating.

Tranny logic.

How do you know this if you have not "pontificated"?

The first point is not an argument, and there is a difference between pontification and thinking. I am not the guest you replied to, and I feel sympathy for you, being a curious man like yourself, but it is definitely true that you should never think of this topic again.

Beginning to agree with august and The Green Groyper on the worthlessness of guest posts.

Trannies (except Zed?) don't question their assumptions and resist such questions from others, just as you are doing.

"Pontificating" is pejorative in contemporary usage but for when context indicates otherwise.

Make a longer post actually explaining your point. (I'll read it.) Until then, I consider both you and your posts, retarded.

[Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean]

OP took the Aristotle quote out of context. "The Philosopher" didn't make a positive statement that people who enjoy solitude are beasts or gods, rather he intended to prove that the state arises naturally from humanity because all humans have social instincts.

The proof that the state is a creation of nature and prior to the individual is that the individual, when isolated, is not self-sufficing; and therefore he is like a part in relation to the whole. But he who is unable to live in society, or who has no need because he is sufficient for himself, must be either a beast or a god: he is no part of a state. A social instinct is implanted in all men by nature, and yet he who first founded the state was the greatest of benefactors. For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all; since armed injustice is the more dangerous, and he is equipped at birth with arms, meant to be used by intelligence and virtue, which he may use for the worst ends.

No, I did no such thing.

The point of the thread was to ask if one can be successful in deleting, or as a stopgap, minimizing, what is "of society" in one. If by doing so, one goes above and ceases to be "human", that would be a great victory, to me. It is man's true task, to overcome himself.

Do you not wish that you could get rid of the normie-brained remnants that bind and silence you?

[Striped_Pyjama_Boy_Nietzschean]

putting the obvious critiques aside, what did you think of how the story, including the above scene specifically, addresses the question: what does it mean to become a beast?

I have now read the synopsis on Wikipedia. It doesn't change my opinion of criminals.

I think criminals are longhoused. They resemble ns with their gangs and "codes" and "respect". It's tribal behavior. The lone outlaw is little better; for he is still determined by society. He is not a hermit, walking sandy shores alone in contemplation and need.

A life solitary. Is this to become a beast? Or, considering the possible allegory of the two additional books shown later on, is it not rather to become a god?

Your post has got me thinking if Aristotle means "beast" as in "beast of burden" or "retard", neither of which would be outcomes for one of us attempting to excise "normie-brained remnants".

[Guest]

"I will ask a question about something I could simply verify myself one way or another"
"I will post needlessly on it without experience"
"I am very intelligent"

"How does it feel to have sex? How does it feel to eat? How does it feel to murder a man?"

"I am very intelligent."