Yep, that's a "no no". Nevertheless, the passage under Nietzscheanism is
false (there never really has been any sort of "nietzscheanism" and if
so than that would indicate that Nietzsche was writing for himself, as
the site's definition beholds, when indeed he was trying to explain
intellectual maturity and how to deal with it, while asserting an
inescapable conundrum between slave morality and will to power). This
sort of affair is not my ball game. I was just bringing the website out
to prove my point, that feminism asserts particular negative
generalization. I would like to confine the discussion to that for now,
in that we have rival theories whose basic root words are themselves
problematic. Never mind that it is so, but that these can alter the
logic of a given theory it becomes crucial to correct such a theory.
-Peter
false (there never really has been any sort of "nietzscheanism" and if
so than that would indicate that Nietzsche was writing for himself, as
the site's definition beholds, when indeed he was trying to explain
intellectual maturity and how to deal with it, while asserting an
inescapable conundrum between slave morality and will to power). This
sort of affair is not my ball game. I was just bringing the website out
to prove my point, that feminism asserts particular negative
generalization. I would like to confine the discussion to that for now,
in that we have rival theories whose basic root words are themselves
problematic. Never mind that it is so, but that these can alter the
logic of a given theory it becomes crucial to correct such a theory.
-Peter