GRGR (15): Good & Evil (was Enzian...)

[Terrance F. Flaherty]

rj wrote:
> 
> TF
> > Yes, Nietzche or the Sophist Protagoras---the father of
> > relativism. Or Michel Foucalt, another sophist.
> 
> When you label someone a Sophist I assume that you are accusing them of
> sophistry (def: "a method of argument that is seemingly plausible though
> actually invalid or misleading", with the insinuation that the person
> "uses clever or quibbling arguments that are fundamentally unsound" --
> Collins). It's an insult, isn't it? I don't think it accurate or
> productive to discard the entire substance of the works of these men in
> this manner. It would seem to be a very reductionist approach, not in
> the spirit of Critical Pluralism at all.

No, absolutely not. As I have explained in the past here, I
am not using the term sophist as an insult. I have stated
this several times. Sophist, as I use the term here is not
"sophism" as you define it above. The sophists were
philosophers in ancient Greece. As I said recently, the
Sophists got a bad rep from Plato and Aristotle and this is
very unfortunate because the Sophists are as a group one of
the foundations or MAJOR  philosophical schools in Western
thought. Protagoras and the other Greek Sophists are
critical to our understanding of Western Philosophy. I do
not quote from Nietzche because I want to discard his work
or the work of Foucalt or any other philosopher. The point
is that these philosophers agree on certain fundamental
ideas at the very heart of philosophy. Of course they take
different form and this is why I noted the difference
between Nietzche and Protagoras. Nietzche quotes from the
Sophists all the time. He disagrees with Plato, because he
is not a Platonist or neoPlatonist, he often agrees with the
Sophists, because his philosophy is essentially Sophistic. 

> 
> > What I find in Nietzche and the  so called "Neo-Nietzcheans"
> > is Freudian conflict. And I believe that Pynchon rejects
> > this irreconcilable conflict in favor of a dialectic
> > (religious dialectic, directly opposing Freud and CO.). The
> > best example I can think of is Pointsman's "Yang AND Yin."
> 
> Conflating Nietzsche & co with Freud is another strategy merely aimed to
> discredit. I do agree, though, that in all the mandala stuff in *GR* it
> is perhaps Jung, and archetypism (both psychoanalytical and literary),
> which are influential.
> 
> best


I am not conflating Nietzche and Co with Freud. I would not
discredit Freud. I have defended Freud (not that he needs
defending) on this list several times. 


Yes, I agree that Jung's archetypes influenced GR. Makes
perfect sense for several reasons we can discuss. 

TF