This section needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. By December he had developed the principles of his theory.
The Romans, of course, killed many Jews, and expelled them from Jerusalem and their Temple, but they did not actually try to exterminate them.
Perhaps genocide would have been too much for Nietzsche.
But exactly how would he object to it? He could not say that mass murder was intrinsically unjust, since that is absurd. The most he could do would be to say, "You're letting them get to you too much. Couldn't Nietzsche just say, "Why not? And, as Nietzsche says, the "welfare of the human species" may be at stake.
Like a last signpost to another way Napoleon appears, that most unique and anachronistic man, the problem of the noble ideal made flesh in him. Hitler always thought that Napoleon had failed for being insufficiently ruthless. Was Hitler's own failure the result of too little or too much ruthlessness?
The only comparison we could make would be with Stalin, who was certainly at least as ruthless, but more patient and devious. Stalin's creation was more successful and more durable than either Napoleon's or Hitler's, and his own power more absolute and extensive.
He got to kill more people and even died in bed. At the end of the passage above, before the ones about Rome and Napoleon, what more we get is the idea that strength cannot but manifest itself as strength, i. A quantum of strength is equivalent to a quantum of urge, will, activity, and it is only the snare of language of the arch-fallacies of reason petrified in languagepresenting all activity as conditioned by an agent -- the "subject" -- that blinds us to this fact.
But no such agent exists; there is no "being" behind the doing, acting, becoming; the "doer" has simply been added to the deed by the imagination -- the doing is everything. The "doing" is all that there is. So not only cannot Hitler be blamed for being "evil," since that term is only used by the miserable, impotent, and mean, but he cannot even be said to have had a choice in the matter, since the idea of choice itself is an "arch-fallacy" perpetrated by the miserable, impotent, and mean just so that they can blame the strong for acting in their instinctively strong way.
Small wonder, then, that the repressed and smoldering emotions of vengeance and hatred have taken advantage of this superstition [i.
|Untangling the Tale of Ada Lovelace—Stephen Wolfram Blog||Darwin wrote about species being engaged in a competitive Struggle for Existence.|
|D'Abbadie, Arnauld||Preface to the Third Edition by Charles Darwin Introduction will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and had been separately created.|
|A selection of "Central Spiritual Insights" gleaned from Christian sources||Frank Bangay and Spare Change Books.|
Thus they assume the right of calling the bird of prey to account for being a bird of prey. We can hear the oppressed, downtrodden, violated whispering among themselves with the wily vengefulness of the impotent, "Let us be unlike those evil ones. Let us be good.
And the good shall be he who does not do violence, does not attack or retaliate, who leaves vengeance to God, who, like us, lives hidden, who shuns all that is evil, and altogether asks very little of life -- like us, the patient, the humble, the just ones.
Usually the context of this move is an attempt to remove the individual from political calculation and so make a totalitarian assimilation of the individual to the political whole obvious and natural, and to justify the use of police-state force to "reeducate" individuals and break the hold of "institutional" racism, classism, and heterosexism.
They each are happy to eliminate the Kantian self which is the subject of rights and dignity for all persons, even the bovine masses.
Where Nietzschean ruthlessness cooperates with Leftist ideology, as in the person of Stalin, it is the true and odd combination of everything of which Nietzsche approved with everything that he detested.
Unlike Stalin himself, modern academics, perhaps following in the theoretical footsteps of people like Herbert Marcuse the oxymoronic Freudian Marxistcan without hesitation embrace both.
Nietzsche's Darwinian affirmation of life seems to have its limits.Darwin made attempts to open discussions about his theory with his close scientific colleagues.
In January Darwin sent a tentative description of his ideas in a letter to Lyell, then prepared a "Pencil Sketch" of his theory. He worked up his "Sketch" into an "Essay" in , and eventually persuaded Hooker to read a copy in January Spot the fakes!
Darwin is often quoted – and as often misquoted.
Here are some sayings regularly attributed to Darwin that never flowed from his pen. will here give a brief sketch of the progress of opinion on the Origin of Species. Until recently the great majority of naturalists believed that species were immutable productions, and . A riveting tribute to Charles Darwin's life and ideas in celebration of his th birthday.
Charles Darwin's ideas resonate deeply in Western culture today, and his theory still lies at the heart of modern scientific evolutionary research. Articles [Back to top] FitzRoy & Darwin.
A letter, containing remarks on the moral state of Tahiti, New Zealand, &c. South African Christian Recorder. Text Image PDF F Geological notes made during a survey of the east and west coasts of S. America, in the years , , and , with an account of a transverse section of the Cordilleras of the Andes between Valparaiso and.
Religion was almost universally practiced by people living in "the West" prior to the impact of such things as Charles Darwin proposing a Theory of Evolution of Species.