![]() ![]() Thrasymachus felt that, in that being a moral nihilist, that justice is only insoasmuch the powers that be practice justice just as much as those ruled beneath, and whichever party was stronger, should enact injustice to those who are ruled or are ruling. The subject of justice, whether it be in the writings of Rousseau or Henry George always felt there was a need to be fair in society, whether ruled or ruler. What price is this? Because Thrasymachus was almost too steep a price to pay. One thing that they mostly believed was that education should be available to everyone, but at a price. ![]() But no one in the history of philosophy seems to take the Sophists as seriously as they should as they've been mostly relegated to the dustbins of ancient history after Socrates. Sophists, people were encouraged to jeer and cheer and clap during their orations, this of the little we know. a pure form of sophistry that was boiled in the cauldrons of the Greek pantheon, he seemed to get a thrill out of his "two minutes hate". However with Nietzsche's objective and active nihilism, in Thrasymachus we get actual nihilism, the reverse of the dialectic between Hegel and Gentile. Now the little we know about him is that moral nihilism entails that, 1.Įverything is subjective and 2. It seems, as if, moreover, that Thrasymachus was not only a descent of Nietzsche, Schopenhauer and Cioran, but also Machiavelli and Hobbes. Injustice, Thrasymachus was about idealistic injustice. ![]() But in metaphysical terms and ethical terms, nihilism can be power, with this power you can stand toe to toe with an adversary in war, whereas Machiavelli was more into pragmatic ![]() When we think of nihilism, we often think of a pictureless void, no contents, no matter, just pure nothingness. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |