One of the temptations we must avoid in this task is believing that engaging in this task with intellectual rigor means that we check our hearts at the door.
Combing our heart with our mind is what we must do in her opinion. We can use science and numbers improve a lot of things. If our invention or idea contributes to the hegemonic imagination, was it worth creating? By using emotions and intellect we can tear away at hegemonic imagination.
The laws of the written style were then the same as those of the spoken style; and these laws depended partly on the surprising development and refined requirements of the ear and larynx; partly on the strength, endurance, and power of the ancient lungs. In the ancient sense, a period is above all a physiological whole, inasmuch as it is comprised in one breath. Such periods as occur in Demosthenes and Cicero, swelling twice and sinking twice, and all in one breath, were pleasures to the men of ANTIQUITY, who knew by their own schooling how to appreciate the virtue therein, the rareness and the difficulty in the deliverance of such a period;—WE have really no right to the BIG period, we modern men, who are short of breath in every sense! Those ancients, indeed, were all of them dilettanti in speaking, consequently connoisseurs, consequently critics—they thus brought their orators to the highest pitch; in the same manner as in the last century, when all Italian ladies and gentlemen knew how to sing, the virtuosoship of song (and with it also the art of melody) reached its elevation. In Germany, however (until quite recently when a kind of platform eloquence began shyly and awkwardly enough to flutter its young wings), there was properly speaking only one kind of public and APPROXIMATELY artistical discourse—that delivered from the pulpit. The preacher was the only one in Germany who knew the weight of a syllable or a word, in what manner a sentence strikes, springs, rushes, flows, and comes to a close; he alone had a c
Germans have lost the sound to sing, figuratively according to him. They can't replicate the original sounds because they forgot. he likes German music but just not the one written at his time. I'm still confused on why he put this. I'm guessing to keep verbal information around.
. At the same time religion gives inducement and opportunity to some of the subjects to qualify themselves for future ruling and commanding the slowly ascending ranks and classes, in which, through fortunate marriage customs, volitional power and delight in self-control are on the increase. To them religion offers sufficient incentives and temptations to aspire to higher intellectuality, and to experience the sentiments of authoritative self-control, of silence, and of solitude. Asceticism and Puritanism are almost indispensable means of educating and ennobling a race which seeks to rise above its hereditary baseness and work itself upwards to future supremacy. And finally, to ordinary men, to the majority of the people, who exist for service and general utility, and are only so far entitled to exist, religion gives invaluable contentedness with their lot and condition, peace of heart, ennoblement of obedience, additional social happiness and sympathy, with something of transfiguration and embellishment, something of justification of all the commonplaceness, all the meanness, all the semi-animal poverty of their souls.
Nietzsche is trying to say people want purpose in their lives and most use religion as a purpose. I think he says that people follow religion blindly because it make them purposeful. He also says people have used religion to attain power because people follow blindly.
It is to be hoped, indeed, that LANGUAGE, here as elsewhere, will not get over its awkwardness, and that it will continue to talk of opposites where there are only degrees and many refinements of gradation; it is equally to be hoped that the incarnated Tartuffery of morals, which now belongs to our unconquerable "flesh and blood," will turn the words round in the mouths of us discerning ones. Here and there we understand it, and laugh at the way in which precisely the best knowledge seeks most to retain us in this SIMPLIFIED, thoroughly artificial, suitably imagined, and suitably falsified world: at the way in which, whether it will or not, it loves error, because, as living itself, it loves life!
The words that standout are obviously simplified and language. Nietzsche is saying that we have simplified everything around us into language. Language is understandable to everyone and we are able to comprehend things. The downside is we forget ignore a lot.
1) Rules do not carry within them their own legitimation
If rules don't legitimize themselves, what does? I have no idea what any of this means. My best guess is that people can make up whatever rules they as long as it follows their game. Every time they change the rules, they change their game. If you can't legitimize rules, is there a game still, or does it make the meta narrative fall apart?
In the ordinary use of discourse - for example, in a discussion between two friends - the interlocutors use any available ammunition, changing games from one utterance to the next: questions, requests, assertions, and narratives are launched pell-mell into battle. The war is not without rules, but the rules allow and encourage the greatest possible flexibility of utterance.
When we talk to someone we know, we are always using language games. This is important because the conversational game encourages outside the box thinking, and allows people to truly express what they want to express.This applies to our understanding of philosophy in general. There should be obvious guidelines, but people should be able to say what they think without major consequences to better understand philosophy.