a much-maligned lady!
>>25624224this is on 'psychopaths,' not 'genius.'
>>25624244the img needn’t direct the conversation. in any case it’s an excerpt from an essay titled ‘on genius’.
>>25624224What’s this from? I’ve read it before.Basically it’s wrong about the character of all three
>>25624269feel free to elaborate.
>>25624278They were men at the vortex of mass world forces, to speak of them as “con-men” is anachronistic. Alexander is legendary as in Plutarch - Plutarch’s account is edifying reading. Hitler is, or was, our civilization’s concept of Satan, but this is false. I don’t know much about Napoleon. Goethe admired his daemonic quality - Schopenhauer thought he was a wicked scoundrel but just like any man (only more intelligent and active of achieving what the will of any man would want) - Hitler was a devoted reader of Schopenhauer. Nietzsche thought highly of Napoleon though in part in differentiate from Schopenhauer (yea-saying)
But I fee like I read in this book. Who is it?
>>25624312Alexander's cutting the gordian knot was an offence to tradition. It was his defiance of ancient custom that brought ruin on the Greek civilisation. The excerpt talks about character, not historical importance. Nor does the admiration of Goethe or Nietzsche amount to a character reference.Genius is a Latin (not Greek) word and implied the primitive creative power which a man is born with and accompanies him throughout life. His sense of love and power of instinctive thought. The adjective ‘generous’ was formed from it; genial & genuine were other formations. A Roman who behaves foolishly or evilly was said to have ‘defrauded his genius’. In the following page Caesar is offered as a counterexample.
>>25624224Rightfully so? (I don't know who she is.) She doesn't know that they didn't have children, and calling them con-men is so retarded it's practically blasphemous. She just doesn't get it.
>>25624508someone likes Caesar a lot
>>25624312Do you really think this bunch of pseudo intellectual bullshit you just spouted counters the original argument in any way? So Hitler read Nietzsche, yes and? According to most scholars he completely misunderstood every part of it. But i'm sure you're the only one who's right on this. Get fucked.
>>25624541What's the difference between that guy's post and the book page you posted? Both are equally supported by facts.
>>25624541I said he read Schopenhauer lol. He was more Wagnerian than Nietzschean. Tell me the name of the book. No reason to get so triggered. Are your an Israeli and offended I questioned the sanctified evil of Hitler, foundation of your country? Look, Voldemort isn’t real and you’ll be fine without him. Tell me the name of the book. Is it Kretchmer?
>>25624538I wouldn’t say a lot
>>25624522she was one capt. Robert Graves
>>25624312>Hitler was a devoted reader of SchopenhauerIf Hitler was even remotely basing his ideology on Mr. Scoopenhammer that would mean Hitler was a nihilist misanthrope who was actually trying to get as many people killed because he hated humanity, making him an more of an efilist than anything else
>>25624538It is said of Caesar that he was a man to women and a woman to men.
>>25624224>polemic works where the author instantly reveals themselves to be poorly educatedBoth Napoleon and Alexander had sons
>>25626259Yes Schopenhauer famously taught “kill everyone”
