ellauri038.html on line 137: Tässä lie Nietzschelle tullut kyllä joku sekaannus. Zarathustra oli manikealainen dualisti, hyvät vastaan pahat asetelman pääteoreetikko, siis orjamoralisti. Nietzsche ei ollut vaan paha vaan myös huono, ja vieläpä ruma kuin rengin räkä räystäällä. Kun hyvä ja paha taistelee, ruma saa istua vaihtopenkillä. Nietzsche kertakäyttönenäliinaan tai Nietzsche hihaan, älä toisten naamalle, niin puhui Zarathustra. Jos sua heidegger, älä ainakaan husserl kohti. Jää karanteeniin ja soita teholle jos on Weberiä. Aufforderung zum Tanz, senniminen Arabia-mukikin on olemassa, jossa puput halaavat. Jöhnskö taisi pitää Max Weberistä? Varmaan kun se oli samanlainen kaiken ymmärtäjä. Max oli 20v Nietzscheä nuorempi, ihan eri sukupolvea, ja paljon liberaalimpi, mut vankka porvari. No, se saa jäädä odottamaan pureskeluvuoroaan.
ellauri099.html on line 57: Newly understanding that his beauty will fade, Dorian expresses the desire to sell his soul, to ensure that the picture, rather than he, will age and fade. The wish is granted, and Dorian pursues a libertine life of varied amoral experiences while staying young and beautiful; all the while, his portrait ages and records every sin.
ellauri110.html on line 147: On the other hand, Swift was profoundly mistrustful of attempts at reason that resulted in either hubris (for example, the Projectors satirised in A Tale of a Tub or in Book III of Gulliver's Travels) or immorality (such as the speaker of A Modest Proposal, who offers an entirely logical and wholly immoral proposal for cannibalism). The Houyhnhnms embody both the good and the bad side of reason, for they have the pure language Swift wished for and the amorally rational approach to solving the problems of humanity (Yahoos); the extirpation of the Yahoo population by the horses is very like the speaker of A Modest Proposal.
ellauri146.html on line 646: The opinion has been often stated that Edgar Allan Poe was bizarre and amoral; that he was a lover of morbid beauty only; that he was unrelated to worldly circumstances-aloof from the affairs of the world; that his epitaph might well be: “Out of space-out of time.”
ellauri159.html on line 772: To the description of the ideal perimeter-keeper outlined above, Donovan assigns four “tactical virtues”: strength, courage, mastery, and honor. These are “simple, amoral, and functional virtues” — “the practical virtues of men who must rely on one another in a worst case scenario.” They are “amoral” because they are crucial to the success of any gang — no matter if what they’re fighting for is right or wrong. Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are the attributes needed in a team of Navy SEALs just as much as a family of Mafioso. If you’ve ever wondered why we are fascinated by gangsters, pirates, bank robbers, and outlaws of all stripes, and can’t help but think of them as pretty manly despite their thuggery and extralegal activities, now you know; they’re not good men, but they’ve mastered the core fundamentals of being good at being men. So they are good men, though they are bad men. I mean.
ellauri192.html on line 283: THIS same bias extends to literary forms. We look in vain on the Nobel register for the experimental, formally subversive, controversial movements and texts that distinguish modernism. No Surrealist has been rewarded, no major Expressionist, no poet or playwright out of the seminal world of Dada or absurdism (Andre Breton, Hugo Ball, Gertrude Stein). The boat is not to be rocked. On august occasion, lyric eroticism and even sorrowful homosexuality are admitted to Parnassus. Radical sexual play in style, in ''amoral'' revaluation, are vetoed. The liberating sensualists, such as John Cowper Powys, supreme in English fiction after Hardy, are left out. Colette is nowhere to be found. Her heir in sensuous contrivance, Nabokov, was blackballed.
ellauri244.html on line 597: Here in my opinion is the only imaginative prose-writer of the slightest value who has appeared among the English-speaking races for some years past. Even if that is objected to as an overstatement (there is me, after all), it will probably be admitted that Miller is a writer out of the ordinary, worth more than a single glance; and after all, he is a completely negative, unconstructive, amoral writer, a mere Jonah, a passive acceptor of evil, a sort of Whitman among the corpses. Paizi Whatman oli peräreikämiehiä.
ellauri274.html on line 57: Laureenska syyttää venäläisiä koulunkäyneitä talousliberaaleja "moraalisesta kuuroudesta", kun ne vaan oljentelevat diktaattori Putinin suojissa sensijaan että rynnistäisivät barrikaadeille puolustamaan länsiblokin etuja. Laureenska, mukamoralistinen kuurosokea, ei muka huomaa ize ollenkaan kenenkä asialla se on juoxemassa, kasvattamassa länkkärien hiilijalanjälkeä ja avustamassa fossiilisten polttoaineiden tuhopolttoa yhteen hiileen puhalluxella. Ei tää ole mikään ideologinen kamppailu vaan tavanomaista räkytystä reviirien rajoilla. (Tai nojaa, ideologiatkin on vaan tätä samaa materiaalipulaa, sanois Marx-veljexet.)
ellauri340.html on line 641: Päinvastoin kuin Peter Handske, Janne kolumneissaan nimesi avoimesti syyllisexi serbit ja kutsui heidän toimintaansa Bosniassa aggressioksi ja kansanmurhaksi. Baudrillard piti Yhdysvaltain johtamaa Persianlahden sotaa "ei-tapahtumana " tai "tapahtumana, jota ei tapahtunut". Tämän ilmeisen pelleilyn seurauksena Baudrillardia syytettiin laiskasta amoralismista, kyynisestä skeptisismistä ja berkelialaisesta subjektiivisesta idealismista. Kaikki syytöxet olivat oikeita. Baudrillard oli huolissaan lännen teknologisesta ja poliittisesta vallasta ja sen kaupallisten etujen globalisaatiosta ja siitä, mitä se tarkoittaa kunnollisen WW2 tyyppisen rökityssodan mahdollisuudelle. Huoli taisi olla ennenaikainen.
ellauri444.html on line 62: The Spy Who Came in from the Cold portrays Western espionage methods as morally inconsistent with Western democracy and values. At its publication during the Cold War, the moral presentation of The Spy Who Came in from the Cold rendered it a revolutionary espionage novel by showing the intelligence services of both the Eastern and Western nations as engaging in the same expedient amorality in the name of national security. Le Carré also presents his Western spy as morally burnt-out. The espionage world of Alec Leamas portrays love as a many-splendored thing that can have disastrous consequences for those involved. Good does not always vanquish evil in Leamas' world, a defeatist attitude that was criticised in The Times. What the hell do you think spies are? Moral philosophers measuring everything they do against the word of God or Karl Marx? They're not. They're just a bunch of seedy squalid bastards like me, little men, drunkards, queers, henpecked husbands, civil servants playing "Cowboys and Indians" to brighten their rotten little lives. Do you think they sit like monks in a cell, balancing right against wrong? Yesterday I would have killed Mundt because I thought him evil and an enemy. But not today. Today he is evil and my friend.
xxx/ellauri116.html on line 394: Mikäs se nyt oli? Ainiin se 1700-luvun romaani, mulla taitaa olla se, vaikken ole lukenut. A French epistolary novel by Pierre Choderlos de Laclos, first published in four volumes by Durand Neveu from March 23, 1782. It is the story of the Marquise de Merteuil and the Vicomte de Valmont, two narcissistic rivals (and ex-lovers) who use seduction as a weapon to socially control and exploit others, all the while enjoying their cruel games and boasting about their talent for manipulation. It has been seen as depicting the corruption and depravity of the French nobility shortly before the French Revolution, and thereby attacking the Ancien Régime. The book has also been described as merely a story about two amoral people.
xxx/ellauri410.html on line 470: Christians, Jews and Muslims are all seen to act contrary to the principles of their faiths – as indeed the prologue by Machiavel hints. In it, the ghostly character Machiavel expresses the cynical view that power is amoral, saying "I count religion but a childish toy, and hold there is no sin but ignorance."
xxx/ellauri442.html on line 385: We (the Swiss) argue that the definition of humor in the VIA classification does not include the negative forms of humor. Thus, mockery, ridicule, and sarcasm cannot be considered overuse of (morally good) humor (as understood in the classification) but should rather be considered the immoral or at least amoral misuse of humor skills. Sarcasm and cynicism (which had been distinguished qualitatively from other comic styles) have been shown to be negatively correlated with life satisfaction.
13