Education

Throughout Gandhi's work, he discusses education. My question is - how can advances in culture and technology be made with the most minimal educational background? With only an elementary level of education - potential would be completely stunted. This seems to be a common theme - restraining society's potential. I understand that Gandhi wishes to go back to weaving and spinning (see page 80), but what about the rest of the world? Would India just be frozen in the past while countries surrounding it would thrive and flourish with new technologies and ideas and cultures? I don't think that all citizens would accept this life - there would have to be some sort of dissent among various sectors of society.

Caste vs Varna System

I'm not really sure how I feel about these two systems.

I would imagine that it would only hold back the participants and prevent them from reaching anywhere near their potential.

"The varna system is ethical as well as economic. It recognizes the influence of previous lives and of heredity. All are not born with equal powers and similar tendencies...no time would be lost in fruitless experimentation, there would be no soul-killing competition, a spirit of contentment would pervade society and there would be no struggle for existence." page 231

I disagree. I understand the importance of tradition and honoring the lives of our ancestors...but not to the extent that one is inhibited by them. Perhaps not all are "born with equal powers" but just accepting the role that your parents and grandparents have accepted seems a little defeatist to me. True, no time would be "lost" on "fruitless" experimentation, but isn't that what life is all about: understanding your potential and acting on it? Granted, society would be very orderly and organized, but filled with rather unhappy citizens.

Gandhi 1

As I begin reading our first assignment in Gandhi, I have to say that perhaps a little background on the situation that is being discussed would be helpful. I have never really researched or discussed any of Gandhi's work before and I'm a little lost as to why he's writing this work. Example - at first I wasn't quite sure what "Home Rule" was...However, this was clarified with "All our countrymen appear to be pining for National Independence." pg 5

Another question - who is the "reader"? I assume that Gandhi is the "editor", but the reader, at least so far, has not been identified. Is it Gandhi asking himself questions that will open for his prepared answers? Or is it someone entirely different actually asking these questions as an interview?

Stream of Consciousness

I've begun to notice that Nietzsche writes sometimes in a bit of a stream of consciousness style. Different parts seem to jump out at me...I wonder if he did any re-writes or any editing or just wrote as he would talk in a conversation.

pg 143 - "'Consequently' I hope I shall be granted this 'consequently'; at any rate, I don't want to bother to prove it."

pg 153 - "No! Don't come to me with science when I ask for the natural antagonist of the ascetic ideal..."

pg 155 - "No! this 'modern science' - let us face this fact! - is the best ally the ascetic ideal has at present..."

I wish Nietzsche could have been filmed while writing this. I can see him getting really flustered and upset as he writes furiously about those horrendous ascetic priests.

Mechanical Activity - The Blessing of Work

Alright. With this passage, I completely agree and understand what Nietzsche is pointing out. These essays are all over the place and I agree sometimes and completely disagree other times.

Passage on page 134, Section 18 " It is beyond doubt that this regimen alleviates an existence of suffering...human consciousness is small!"

It is completely true. At least for me, when I'm upset...I focus on something entirely different. I work away my problems. I bake away my problems. I run away my problems. It's so hard to face them and struggle with them. It's so much easier just to ignore them and bury oneself in something else. And all kinds of behaviors stem from this concept - obsessive eating, over-exercising, focus on minute detail, overworking, hurting yourself - all these things make you think of something else. These activities force you to pay attention to something else.

It's like with little children. If they're whining and crying about something...pull out something sparkly or new or fun to play with: something to distract them...and they completely forget about whatever they were upset about. Works every time.

Sickness

I'm not really sure that I agree with what Nietzsche's saying about sick people. Actually, I'm pretty sure that it's way too extreme and doesn't really make any sense and isn't at all logical.

"The sick woman spares nothing, living or dead; she will dig up the most deeply buried things." pg 123.

I think Nietzsche goes a little too far with the "hell hath no fury like a scorned woman" piece here.

The part about how sick people "crave to be hangmen." pg 123. Whoa. I really don't believe that sick people - in my head I'm thinking sick people with an actual bodily illness, not a mentally ill person - are "ready to...make one pay." I really don't understand why he thinks this.

This entire passage is a lot more accessible...but the theory that he is trying to demonstrate is a little extreme. I can't seem to be able to formulate some way to try and refute his theory...but I know that something just doesn't make sense.

What is the Third Something?

Nietzsche shows on page 96 that he is, in fact, NOT advocating nihilism. He tries to show that this "man of the future" will get out of the trap that society has caught the rest of us in. It's a very contradictory passage. He seems to advocate nihilism in the beginning of the essay, but now, he makes it clear that he is not.

The last sentence of Chapter 24: "This man of the future, who will redeem us not only from the hitherto reigning ideal but also from that which was bound to grow out of it, the great nausea, the will to nothingness, nihilism; this bell-stroke of noon and of the great decision that liberates the will again and restores its goal to the earth and his hope to man; this Antichrist and antinihilist; this victor over God and nothingness - he must come one day. -

This is a pretty intense assertion. It's a little confusing. What is this man going to be able to do? How will he "liberate the will"? What will give him that power/ability? Who is it going to be?

The last bit:"he must come one day," sounds rather prophetic and messiah-ish. Who is this man of the future and what is he advocating?