Neitzsche devised (or consolidated, at least) the philosophy of nihilism which bases itself off the principle that there is no intrinsic value or meaning in existence. To me, this is quite demonstrably correct but it seems more of a starting point than the focus of an entire philosophy. Philosophy necessarily starts from the premise that "God is dead" because how can a lover of wisdom believe that which is demonstrably untrue?
I like the word "demonstrably".
Rammstein's videos are all watchable, but some are more watchable than others. They can be divided into three categories:
Supremely watchable Includes videos such as Haifisch, Ich Will and Pussy
Reasonably Watchable Includes videos such as Du Hast, Sonne and Mutter
Watchable Includes videos such as Ich Tu Dir Weh and Links 2 3 4
I do not argue against the existence of a God or gods or any other conceivable higher power when I say that "God is dead". Instead, I mean that God in a Judeo-Christian-Islamic sense cannot be taken as literally true - even if there is a higher power, our contemporary understanding of it is based on interpretations of a series of books that were written and compiled by people as a means of explaining their own existence in a frequently hostile and inscrutable world. This is all readily apparent simply by objective reading.
This is not to say that all religious texts are evil - there are some passages that are quite humanitarian and indeed form the basis of our own legal system. However, once you start to pick and choose from a religious text the passages that suit you best, you cannot possibly accept that as an objective reality. You can persuade yourself otherwise, and many do, but ultimately you are simply describing the reality you would like to live in, not the one you do live in.
Reflecting on a discussion with Anna as to whether female feminists are entitled to sometimes hate men. We agreed that it was understandable but I felt that it was counterproductive to the feminist cause. Anna felt that this was irrelevant as not everyone can be a political entity at all times and that sometimes people have emotions.
The overwhelming perception of feminism (among men, at least) is that it is comprised of bigoted man-haters who blame men for all problems experienced by women/all of humanity ever. This has some basis in fact but in no way represents the huge majority of feminists, yet it sticks in people's heads because it is so exceptional and noticeable. As a result, the cause of feminism is set back by alienating so many potential supporters.
If a woman has had a bad experience with a man/men, and chooses to blame ALL men for this, this is understandable. However, from a feminist perspective, should she be expected to move beyond this and create a more realistic, inclusive viewpoint? In my belief, she definitely should. First, to do otherwise is contrary to the definition of feminism. Second, if a woman cannot be expected to be bigger than her personal prejudices, then we cannot expect the same from men. If neither side refuses to meet the other halfway and set aside personal feelings instead of shared ethics, nothing gets achieved. Feminism will never achieve anything meaningful until men become feminists too, and if some of the most vocal feminists are those who openly despise men then we cannot expect men to sign up under their flag.
Till Lindermann is a really excellent individual.
Love is there for everyone. Hate is there for those with an excessive preoccupation with themselves.
Feminism really needs a name change. It's hardly an inclusive and egalitarian title for a movement whose entire purpose is to be inclusive and egalitarian.