I think the old man might have shown her a photo of me.
Do you even read?
I said YOU are in a far more advantageous position than I, and NOT that I had an advantage over you !
Your insecurity is making you paranoid. Whatever your impression maybe of Satyr even after my telling you he's a gentleman, your impression of me is absurd.
Lyssa: That's a 15 page post, I'll read it later as you "winning" someone isn't the immediately concerning topic here.
Highlights of the Mo - Sauwelios debate:
Quote :
"Mo:
I meant "mythopoetic". Here's why: Nietzsche is a fictionalist. The value of a fiction is its pragmatic value, not its truth. To be valuable, you have to actually believe the fiction. Consider this passage about what's required for that:
Nietzsche wrote: “How can we make things beautiful, attractive, and desirable for us when they are not? And I rather think that in themselves they never are…from artists who are really continually trying to bring off such inventions and feats…we want to be the poets of our life” (GS 299)
Art serves the function of 'make-believe'.
/
Sauw:
Nietzsche thinks that in themselves things are never beautiful, attractive, or desirable. This then is one of Nietzsche's truths; not one of his myths. If he just considered it another myth he would not be a 'fictionalist'. Paradox.
Thus Nietzsche's argument rests on the following premises.
1. Nothing else is "given" as real except our world of desires and passions, and we cannot get down, or up, to any other "reality" besides the reality of our drives. a. Thinking is merely a relations of these drives to each other.
2 = Occam's Razor.
4. We recognize the will as efficient, we believe in the causality of the will. a. At bottom our faith in this is nothing less than our faith in causality itself.
7. "Will" can affect only "will"---and not "matter" (not "nerves," for example).
10. Our entire instinctive life is the development and ramification of one basic form of the will---namely, of the will to power, as my proposition has it; all organic functions can be traced back to this will to power and one can also find in it the solution of the problem of procreation and nourishment---it is one problem.
Statements # 1, 4, and 10 are psychological insights. Statement # 2 is a necessary practical principle of science. Statement # 7 naturally follows from statement # 3, where it was already concluded that the so-called "material" world was itself nothing besides will.
Apart from one necessary practical principle, then, Nietzsche's entire argument relies on psychological insights. One can really only question it, then, by questioning the accuracy of those insights.
Life-promotion, life-enhancement, for Nietzsche, is enhancement of power. Not fictional, but actual enhancement of power. Creation of values, valuation, is the expression of what enhances one's power, one's feeling of power. Power, the feeling of power, is therefore always what is valued; the evaluation of power as valuable is not just a valuation, but the fundamental fact, to speak with Strauss. The view that the world is will to power is both an interpretation and the fundamental fact.
/
Mo:
Nietzsche thinks that in-themselves things are not valuable because it makes no sense to ask what an "in-itself" thing is like. BGE36 is an exercise in myth-creation, as I've said.
1. You wouldn't want to judge the will to power idea by how it predicts reality, and Nietzsche surely doesn't. In fact, if you were judging in that way, then the will to power idea would be completely irrelevant according to Nietzsche because science (and the belief in the rule governed, law abiding, physical universe) predicts reality the best that's ever been done. Particular scientific theories come and go, but they're all underwritten by the belief that nature abides by physical laws. That framework allows us to predict reality, and use it to our advantage. But the belief in a law abiding physical universe is precisely what the will to power idea replaces. Do you think we're going to be able to make faster cars now when we think of the world as will to power? That's ridiculous, and not Nietzsche's contention.
Nietzsche uses 'cause' and 'effect' as conventional fictions. Nietzsche writes, "one should use ‘cause’ and ‘effect’ only as pure concepts, that is to say, as conventional fictions for the purpose of designation and communication—not for explanation (BGE 21)". In BGE36, according to interpretations present earlier in this thread, 'cause' and 'effect' were being reified---that is, applied to nature as it is 'in-itself', you could say. Nietzsche writes, "One should not wrongly reify ‘cause’ and ‘effect,’ as the natural scientists do" ---but that's exactly what was being done by Sauwelios before. He's changed his tune a bit, but he still seems to think will to power is characterization of some noumenal realm---which is preposterous.
Yes, I'm aware that Nietzsche thinks Christianity at no time comes into contact with reality. I would only add that neither does he think his doctrine of will to power does either. I've provided quotes for that position. They occur almost right before BGE36. Hence my comment that Christianity is not somehow less 'true' (in a traditional sense) than will to power. To the extent that Nietzsche values anything empirical, it is because it is more valuable for this life. That's his whole schtick.
If you want to say that BGE36 is Nietzsche's 'truth', you can... but you'll need a vastly different conception than the traditional one (i.e., Platonic correspondence).
ultimately it is the value for life that decides whether Nietzsche endorses some posotion. If it was harmful to life, or Nietzsche thought it was, Nietzsche would reject it.
I'm a master psychologizer, like Nietzsche. If you wanted a piece of psychologizing about why Nietzsche seems to embrace science in some parts, it is because it appears as directly opposed to Christianity (though, he later says it's not). Since Christianity puts all value in another world, it consequently removes value from this one. Science, being directly opposed, must do the exact opposite. Hence its value. That's roughly a piece of my own conjecture. I don't mind providing it, since you provide nothing else either. The important point is that you hold Nietzsche to what he actually says, which I've quoted above. And can provide many more quotes to the same effect.
/
Sauw:
But how can it enhance the will to power in one if the will to power is a fiction?...
One knows only how one experiences something. One does not know in how far the way one experiences it corresponds with the way it is in itself. One does not even know whether the thing even exists outside of one's mind
/
Mo:
Then why are you arguing that will to power is a characterization of reality as it is 'in-itself'? You are just a bundle of contradictions.
/
Sauw:
You still didn't get it. I wasn't asking how the will to power can affect us if it's a fiction. Of course fictions can have an effect on us. What I was asking is how anything can have an effect on our will to power if the latter is a fiction.
/
Mo:
Things that aren't really, truly, 'out-there', impact us all the time for better or worse.
/
Sauw:
Then your answer would be obviously nonsensical.
/
Mo:
What's nonsensical (besides your question) is how often you contradict yourself and continue on as if you hadn't. It's one thing to be arrogant, it's another to be arrogant when there's absolutely no justification for it---you are the latter. How can you say things like this:
1.
Sauwelios wrote:One knows only how one experiences something. One does not know in how far the way one experiences it corresponds with the way it is in itself. One does not even know whether the thing even exists outside of one's mind.
2.
Sauwelios wrote:No. I believe, and I think Nietzsche really believed, that he had found the truth---though it could never be adequately expressed by humans
These contradictions are so blatant that I've long ago stopped taking you seriously. How can one not know what's outside your head, and also believe you've found the truth...????
/
Sauw:
I have practical reasons for not being a solipsist. In fact, as I've said, my "leap to faith" (namely to the faith that solipsism is false) followed from my will to power!
So, that takes care of the last sentence of 1: "One does not even know whether the thing even exists outside of one's mind." I do not know that solipsism is false, but I be-lieve that it is. So without that sentence, do 1 and 2 still contradict one another? I think not.
a. All views are interpretations. [This is basically what I said in 1, without said sentence.] b. The view that all views are interpretations is itself a view. [by definition] c. The view that all views are interpretations is a correct interpretation [from a and b] d. Interpretation is an act of the will to power. [The only sensible interpretation of interpretation is as an act of the will to power.] e. The view that all views are acts of the will to power is a correct interpretation. [from c and d] f. We do not know that anything else than views exists. [This is basically what I said in said sentence.] g. We do not know that anything else than acts of the will to power exists. [from e and f]
/
Mo:
Yes, 1 and 2 still contradict each other. (And to 'believe' is to think you know). I suggest you resolve the contradiction by retracting one of the statments---take your pick, they're both preposterous.
I don't understand why you wrote anything else in your last post. But here's an elementary lesson in logic:
1. c does not follow from a and b. 2. a and b lead to outright paradox---which isn't a good thing.
3. #1 is a statement of solipsism---do you want to defend that? 4. #2 flies in the face of a ton of quotes (that I've provided) where Nietzsche tells us his aim isn't "truth" (Such as BGE 1, 9, 22, 34), the Notebook passages I quoted above, in particular from autumn 1885/6, and really, do I need to search the thread for the rest..? Oh wait, it also flies in the face of all the quotes you've provided, as well. lol.
/
Sauw:
I'm a substance monist, yes. I believe there's only will to power.
/
Mo:
3. Define 'truth'. Depending on how you define it, you may make some sense of the claim that BGE36 is Nietzsche's truth. As long as by 'truth' you don't mean the opposite of 'error'---there's good textual support for that.
This is a straightforward contradiction, according to what we usually mean by 'truth'. Whatever 'truth' means, it isn't usually just a matter of "what's in your head".
You would have to ignore all the quotes I've cited in this thread to still think that BGE36 is an 'explanation' of the world. You would have to ignore the quote in my last post (to you) to think that BGE36 should be approached from any other way than through the lens of Nietzsche's values.
/
Sauw:
1. "One knows only how one experiences something. One does not know in how far the way one experiences it corresponds with the way it is in itself."
2. "I believe, and I think Nietzsche really believed, that he had found the truth---though it could never be adequately expressed by humans[.]"
1 can be rephrased as, "all views are interpretations". This then becomes the first premise of my argument:
a. All views are interpretations. b. The view that all views are interpretations is a correct view. [It's a view by definition, and correct according to a.] c. The view that all views are interpretations is a correct interpretation [from a and b] d. Interpretation is an act of the will to power. [The only sensible interpretation of interpretation is as an act of the will to power.] e. The view that all views are acts of the will to power is a correct interpretation. [from c and d]
/
Mo:
On the one hand you want to say that BGE36 is true, and on the other you want to say that it's just what's in Nietzsche's head. (That's what you said). How do you justify the truth of the conclusion, then? Or are you going to allow anyone at all to deny it for any reason at all, so long as that happens to be what's in THEIR head?
/
Sauw:
What I "want to say" is not that BGE 36 is true, but that it's probably true, and thereby probably not just in Nietzsche's head.
/
Mo:
On what basis are you saying that it's probably true?
/
Sauw:
On the basis that all views are probably interpretations (a), that interpretation is probably an act of the will to power (d), and that we do not know that anything else than views exists (f).
/
Mo:
On what basis are you saying that the statement ('All views are probably an act of will to power') is probably true?
/
Sauw:
That would be e, so on the basis of a and d.
/
Mo:
Sauwelios,
I'm asking you about the truth of a premise, not it's validity within an ordering of premises. An argument can be logically valid, and have a false conclusion---if a premise is false.
So, again:
On what basis are you saying that the statement ('All views are probably an act of will to power') is probably true? Or if you prefer; on what basis are you saying that the statement 'Interpretation is an act of the will to power' is probably true?
The place where I'm taking you should be obvious. Any criteria of truth you use will have to either appeal outside of Nietzsche's mind, or else be liable to be rejected as false for any reason whatsoever (including the time of day) so long as it's not 'in my head' also.
/
Sauw:
I. All views are probably interpretations. II. Interpretation is probably an act of the will to power. III. All views are probably acts of the will to power.
This is the syllogism you're inquiring into. III is based on I and II, so it's I and II whose truth value you're inquiring into.
I is probably true because we know that some views are interpretations, but know of no evidence whatsoever that some views are not. II is probably true because there is no more probable reason for interpreting something than in order to gain power over it (to employ it, to put it into one's service, etc.).
/
Mo:
Sauwelios,
I measure truth against reality, often. Which means that's it's not just "what's in my head"---contra you, apparently.
I'm asking you about the truth of a premise in order to emphasize the trap you're in and are pathetically trying to ignore.
You can't tell me that the statement 'interpretation is an act of will to power' is probably true because we probably interpret to gain power. That begs the question. You've just repeated the original statement in slightly different words. And if you can't tell me under what criteria the premise is true, then how do you expect me to convince you it's false? (I mean, other than the vast textual support I've cited to the effect that Nietzsche isn't aiming at truth in BGE36).
I'm asking you about the truth of the premise, because you think we can't know anything outside our minds. So, your criterion of truth is either 1. going to appeal outside your mind (thus, a contradiction), or 2. it's not going to appeal outside your mind, in which case I can falsify it only by telling you it's not also "in my head".
I personally think it conflicts with the notion that "we create values", that "free-spirits are creators of value", and the idea that "the world is inherently value-less". Nietzsche seems to think that the world is just there, that there is no value 'in-itself'. I've given a number of quotes for that. But if you can build an argument to the conclusion that the world itself determined Nietzsche's valuations, or something like that, then by all means: go for it.
WTP is not intended to be an approximation of, or explanation of, reality. It's intended to be an interpretation of reality. For an idea of the difference, check out BGE 14.
The traditional notion of truth, when Nietzsche refers to it, has to do with correspondence---either to Platonic forms, or sense-experience. It's in this sense that BGE 36 is not intended to be literally 'true'. I think though, that with a different conception of truth, you can say more.
According to what I've been saying all along, anyone who wants to defend the 'truth' of this passage has missed the point. I think WTP is probably closer to a guide to life that can overcome nihilism than an ontology---but in order to believe in the guide to life, you need a story---a fiction---a convincing one, otherwise you'll never take the idea that you have the power to create value seriously. The priests needed a way to harness the nobility, to make them submit, etc---but without a story involving after-lifes and whatever, none of that was possible. And then God died. Nietzsche needs a way to harness the scourge of sick nihilism---here's *part of his story. What I've been trying to point out in this thread, is that if you think WTP is a characterization of reality, well then it conflicts with all kinds of passages about the concept of 'will' and 'causality'---not to mention Nietzsche's general trend away from metaphysical speculation. Not to mention, I think my reading is the best fit for Nietzsche's own theoretical nihilism, general anti-realism, and the hypothetical form of the passage. Not to mention, as I've indicated, Nietzsche gives hints about how he wants to be read---and I think I've found and provided them. Currently, I've been trying to understand this passage with my head. If I satisfy myself that I'm right about the motivation behind the passage, I might try to understand it with my heart. I can play the game of 'make-believe'. My warning to Sauwelios, is that he doesn't have a way out---because he's a fanatic. He doesn't listen to reason, he ignores my citations, and he doesn't care that he contradicts himself. He's the Jehovah Witness of Nietzscheans."
Anyways, I dominate Sauwelios, or anyone else, on Nietzsche.
Indeed, you did. All the more, goes to show, why Satyr's right to call you out on your victory dance.
I mean how tough is it really to "dominate" someone who claims to be a substance-monist and refers to the WTP as akin to the spinozaic substance?!!
How tough is it really to "dominate" someone who is claiming a pedophile philosopher is superior to a non-pedophile non-philosopher as a Nietzschean project?!!!!
Not only did Apaosha call sauw. out on his stupidity;
Apaosha wrote:
Also interesting.
The aspect of being a philosopher would then make a pedophile superior to a "non-pedophile male Aryan heterosexual non-philosopher"?
Sauwelios is now a secular humanist, trying to reconcile Nietzsche with his new-found Jewishness. His feminine psychology was obvious from the beginning when Sauwelios adored his master, not wanting to leave his shadow. These days he's trying to turn his spiritual mate into a "good man", so as to consummate the marriage with a Judeo-Christian ceremony, modernized into something more New Age nondenominational.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Sauwelios is now a secular humanist, trying to reconcile Nietzsche with his new-found Jewishness. His feminine psychology was obvious from the beginning when Sauwelios adored his master, not wanting to leave his shadow. These days he's trying to turn his spiritual mate into a "good man", so as to consummate the marriage with a Judeo-Christian ceremony, modernized into something more New Age nondenominational.
He's gone from worse to worst.
Saying a pedophile philosopher is a more legitimate Overman than a non-pedophile non-philosopher [philosophy for phiosophy's sake - a Platonic Form] makes him stupid right there.
Beyond that, why would I want to assess him further?!
He's claiming Spinoza and Hume are more genuine philospphers than Nietzsche was, because they determined a "whither and what for" for society than N. ??!!
No, he's not a secular humanist; he's gone more progressive - he's arguing for secular-Overhumanist!
Yes...secular humanism is this towards a progression towards the deification of what it means to be human, by detaching it from the earthly. This is represented in his attitude about sex, and the pedophile position...in line with the current trend towards the spiritualization of sexuality by detaching it from its evolutionary purpose.
A philosopher free from the worldly, from nature/past: a visionary futurist.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
Yes...secular humanism is this towards a progression towards the deification of what it means to be human, by detaching it from the earthly. This is represented in his attitude about sex, and the pedophile position...in line with the current trend towards the spiritualization of sexuality by detaching it from its evolutionary purpose.
A philosopher free from the worldly, from nature/past: a visionary futurist.
Exactly.
And he's extending that position by claiming the secular-Overhumanist as a product irrespective of any history, race, sex or whatever orientation, and that "such past" is only "arbitrary" in the "final analysis" to him.
His position is the emergence of the Overman has no bearing to any particular history. As long as one preaches the rule of philosophy as supreme, that is good enough Overman material. Doesn't matter, if its Jesus or a pedophile.
This would be ok if it was his position; that retard is claiming this as his Nietzcheanism.
It's because he hasn't understood Nietzsche, internalizing him, but only knows Nietzsche, needing someone to interpret him for him.
It's one reason I try not to discuss reality through some other mind, some proxy, in an endless debate over what this mind thought or why he said it and what it means...like Bible studies. If the thinker, the mentor, has not been internalized, by connecting you to a world you can perceive and validate on your own, then you get stuck in this endless debate over words.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
To connect his to the thread topic...Sauwelios has been consumed, by a cadaver, rather than consuming and assimilating it, into his own existence.
Being consumed by a dead mind can only occur when said dead man attains existence through a mediating mind. Once consumed by Nietzsche, through his writings, he becomes consumed by the others consumed or were consumed by the same body. He disappears in otherness. And you can also see this in his attitude towards my positions on the absence of absolutes. He begins with the ONE, which is the typical starting point. Animal perceives absolutes as the first step towards their negation - the manimal must see ones everywhere. Negation requires a more sophisticated consciousness.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
To connect his to the thread topic...Sauwelios has been consumed, by a cadaver, rather than consuming and assimilating it, into his own existence.
Being consumed by a dead mind can only occur when said dead man attains existence through a mediating mind. Once consumed by Nietzsche, through his writings, he becomes consumed by the others consumed or were consumed by the same body. He disappears in otherness. And you can also see this in his attitude towards my positions on the absence of absolutes. He begins with the ONE, which is the typical starting point. Animal perceives absolutes as the first step towards their negation - the manimal must see ones everywhere. Negation requires a more sophisticated consciousness.
Thanks for bringing it full circle.
If I linger on it, the stupidity of Sauw. is such that in his secular-Overhumanist position to cull away a species of Philosophers of any stripe as his N.-Socratic project, pedophiles included, in the name of a "just society" towards all humanity, he has just Inverted everything Socrates stood for exoterically - pedophilia is the most un-Socratic position from the man who exoterically equated virtue = good = happiness.
Its literally hilarious to me then, when Sauw. says there Tiresias is his favourite - what could be more comically ironic than the blindness of this Sauw. praising a blind man! I laugh.
Stomach-predation in this case is when you predate so much, you don't realize what you are putting in your mouth will be your own defecation at some point, and claiming if its edible, then its nourishment.
You churn out so much knowledge, that it ends up inverting and making faeces out of you...
I mean how tough is it really to "dominate" someone who claims to be a substance-monist and refers to the WTP as akin to the spinozaic substance?!!
It's a common view that 'will to power' is Nietzsche's ontology. (E.g., Ruediger Grimm, Wolfgang Muller-Lauter, Richard Schacht, to name a few). My view about this is unsettled. If it is, then I think it is subtly different than a traditional substance ontology. Would you like to share your own thoughts..?
Quote :
Now imagine, dominating such a turk as proof of your power!
I said that I had dominated you, as well.
Quote :
Socrates would straight away puke, without asking you to justify what comes out of your face.
That doesn't sound like Socrates...
Quote :
Stomach-predation in this case is when you predate so much, you don't realize what you are putting in your mouth will be your own defecation at some point, and claiming if its edible, then its nourishment.
Well said.
perpetualburn
Gender : Posts : 955 Join date : 2013-01-04 Location : MA
And the noble-hunter as I present him, even Rarer among the rare. A jewel.
So are only some philosopher's noble-hunters? Are all noble-hunters necessarily philosophers?
_________________ And here we always meet, at the station of our heart / Looking at each other as if we were in a dream /Seeing for the first time different eyes so supreme / That bright flames burst into vision, keeping us apart.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I mean how tough is it really to "dominate" someone who claims to be a substance-monist and refers to the WTP as akin to the spinozaic substance?!!
It's a common view that 'will to power' is Nietzsche's ontology. (E.g., Ruediger Grimm, Wolfgang Muller-Lauter, Richard Schacht, to name a few). My view about this is unsettled. If it is, then I think it is subtly different than a traditional substance ontology. Would you like to share your own thoughts..?
My position is between yours and Sauwelios'.
I do not believe in Sauwelios' take of it as a value-absolutism "the reality", but I wouldn't call it a 'fictionalism' either, which presupposes some true ground, and because it has a "pragmatic" value, but because it also has an "aesthetic" value.
It is as you described in one of your replies to him - it is a poeisis, and N. himself was aware it was only an interpretation among interpretations, but the most superior one so far.
Quote :
Quote :
Now imagine, dominating such a turk as proof of your power!
I said that I had dominated you, as well.
Yes; twice.
Is it really urgent? Are you bursting and do you have to relieve yourself right away? Then take a piss by all means. Then find me the quote where I claimed anywhere I was the best N. scholar/reader/interpreter/philosopher, other than my stating I read him religiously.
If its not urgent though, wait till you are something more than one who dominated sauwelios, and your declarations have some weight for me to take them seriously.
Here's what you should do (in order):
1. Read the entire KTS corpus 3 times, (although the Dungeon never, is fine). 2. Ask me for a selection of secondary sources and good books to read. 3. Read the entire Satyr corpus here twice. 4. For other unpublished works, listen to his videos. 5. Read every citation I have made in this forum twice, (do not sweat and rub it off my hanky) 6. Do not puke and hold it all in, (hold my hands and ask me to stroke you, if needs be) 7. Increase tolerance level, not expecting everyone to debate you with the Socratic approach. 8. Surrender to a faith there are no Don Quixotes fighting windmills here, no matter how it appears such to your eyes, (do not trust your eyes in those moments and promise yourself so) 9. Understand, I reserve the right to everything at all times. 9.1. Never break a girl's heart with double-stds. They make her lips quiver with incommunicable rage and sorrow and make the cultivation manuals go beserk and hysterical-like. (to prevent such unjustifiable glitches, practice strict abstinence till further notice, although porn is allowed at all times and may even be necessary if you're to remain cocky and all smart-a--) 10. After that, I'll have some kind of a test to check and these steps may need to be repeated.
Quote :
Quote :
Socrates would straight away puke, without asking you to justify what comes out of your face.
That doesn't sound like Socrates...
If he can get physically aroused at the sight of what is pleasing, its logical to assume he would get equally physically aroused at the sight of what is... no?
I do not believe in Sauwelios' take of it as a value-absolutism "the reality", but I wouldn't call it a 'fictionalism' either, which presupposes some true ground, and because it has a "pragmatic" value, but because it also has an "aesthetic" value.
Nietzsche used the term 'fiction' often, (perpectival fictions), without presupposing something beyond all perspective, right? I can't remember if I meant anything more than he did by calling him a fictionalist. Yes... aesthetic value... I agree with that.
Quote :
Here's what you should do (in order):
1. Read the entire KTS corpus 3 times, (although the Dungeon never, is fine). 2. Ask me for a selection of secondary sources and good books to read. 3. Read the entire Satyr corpus here twice. 4. For other unpublished works, listen to his videos. 5. Read every citation I have made in this forum twice, (do not sweat and rub it off my hanky) 6. Do not puke and hold it all in, (hold my hands and ask me to stroke you, if needs be)
If only I had an infinite amount of time... Do you mind if I skip #1?
Quote :
7. Increase tolerance level, not expecting everyone to debate you with the Socratic approach. 8. Surrender to a faith there are no Don Quixotes fighting windmills here, no matter how it appears such to your eyes, (do not trust your eyes in those moments and promise yourself so)
Lyssa.
I would fight a windmill knowing it wasn't really a monster, and even, perhaps, without expecting it to engage me in the Socratic method... but, if you ask me to unquestioningly surrender to faith, then you either think little of me, or else little of yourself. And if you think nothing of me, then why even bother typing this post to me? And if the latter, there's no reason for it, either.
Quote :
9. Understand, I reserve the right to everything at all times. 9.1. Never break a girl's heart with double-stds. They make her lips quiver with incommunicable rage and sorrow and make the cultivation manuals go beserk and hysterical-like. (to prevent such unjustifiable glitches, practice strict abstinence till further notice, although porn is allowed at all times and may even be necessary if you're to remain cocky and all smart-a--)
With all my politeness, I haven't bowed to you.
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I do not believe in Sauwelios' take of it as a value-absolutism "the reality", but I wouldn't call it a 'fictionalism' either, which presupposes some true ground, and because it has a "pragmatic" value, but because it also has an "aesthetic" value.
Nietzsche used the term 'fiction' often, (perpectival fictions), without presupposing something beyond all perspective, right?
Did he call himself as one?
Quote :
Quote :
Here's what you should do (in order):
1. Read the entire KTS corpus 3 times, (although the Dungeon never, is fine). 2. Ask me for a selection of secondary sources and good books to read. 3. Read the entire Satyr corpus here twice. 4. For other unpublished works, listen to his videos. 5. Read every citation I have made in this forum twice, (do not sweat and rub it off my hanky) 6. Do not puke and hold it all in, (hold my hands and ask me to stroke you, if needs be)
If only I had an infinite amount of time... Do you mind if I skip #1?
I was playing. Its not like you bowed to me, or my poor heart could command you... As you wish...
Quote :
Quote :
7. Increase tolerance level, not expecting everyone to debate you with the Socratic approach. 8. Surrender to a faith there are no Don Quixotes fighting windmills here, no matter how it appears such to your eyes, (do not trust your eyes in those moments and promise yourself so)
Lyssa.
I would fight a windmill knowing it wasn't really a monster, and even, perhaps, without expecting it to engage me in the Socratic method... but, if you ask me to unquestioningly surrender to faith, then you either think little of me, or else little of yourself.
Did you just butcher my wry humour subjecting it to your literalism? Really I was asking you all that? As if I "I" did not use the words "unjustifiable", "glitches", "to prevent"....
Anyway. Point being like how you "inattentively" changed/read/read-into my saying "Satyr's eloquent critique" to your saying "Satyr's elegant critique"... Maybe the one who is seeing windmills is really You? Assuming you really don't get it and are not pretending as though you don't get it, I'll say this much, again. Simply put, the tense knot between you and Satyr is in your understandings of nihilism. To him, arriving at a Thing, an End, is a nihilism - "if the world had a stable state to reach, it would have already been reached, but..." [pps. N.]
For you, going about unanchored in the world, infinitely regressing is a Nihilism, and so you think positing an "for its own sake", "an ends in itself", "just because" is being non-nihilistic.
This is upto you and him to sort it out in that thread.
Instead of treating "what comes out of his face" as "puke", you would do yourself good to regard he is no idiot and is perhaps talking after fully considering your position, even though I know its tempting to paint him as such.
Quote :
And if you think nothing of me, then why even bother typing this post to me? And if the latter, there's no reason for it, either.
If you are trapped in either/or, is it my problem?
My saying, "as someone more than who's dominated sauwelios" translated immediately to "I think NOTHING of you?"
I commented on your other thread because I acknowledged your care for your name.
But be that way. I love freebie self-exposures like that...
Quote :
Quote :
9. Understand, I reserve the right to everything at all times. 9.1. Never break a girl's heart with double-stds. They make her lips quiver with incommunicable rage and sorrow and make the cultivation manuals go beserk and hysterical-like. (to prevent such unjustifiable glitches, practice strict abstinence till further notice, although porn is allowed at all times and may even be necessary if you're to remain cocky and all smart-a--)
With all my politeness,
And with all of mine, I would say, if you were drunk and butt-naked and I spanked you and your hat fell off, I would pick it up for you and put it back on your head.
I would say, Think.
I would say, why would I want you bowed, when the sight of virginal lands and ownerless horses is a kind of protracted pleasure... not every pretty flower needs to be plucked...
I would say, I was the person who told you, be better than Satyr... why wouldn't I say be better than me too?! You have dominated me, now do better than me.
Or did you just want to do it for the Nookie??.... Mo...Nooqi...?
I would say, I like seeing men keep their hat on.
Quote :
I haven't bowed to you.
That's my boy...
MO......lon labe... "come and get it"..... whenever you are re-E -E -E -EA -dy...
I would fight a windmill knowing it wasn't really a monster, and even, perhaps, without expecting it to engage me in the Socratic method...
Did you just butcher my wry humour subjecting it to your literalism?
I think you butchered my humour, Lyssa.
Quote :
Maybe the one who is seeing windmills is really You?
Maybe. I'm looking at you. I hope you're wrong...
Quote :
Simply put, the tense knot between you and Satyr is in your understandings of nihilism. To him, arriving at a Thing, an End, is a nihilism - "if the world had a stable state to reach, it would have already been reached, but..." [pps. N.]
An 'end' means a purpose or goal. Without one, you are a 'nihilist'. --Can you think of anyone else who has ever meant anything different by that term, in the entire history of philosophy?
You quoted N from WtP, when he was talking about eternal recurrence. You do know that 'end' (as in a stable final state) is not the same thing as 'end' in the sense of a purpose/goal---which is clearly the state that I've always meant it in, and which is obvious from my posts... Nietzsche has ends, as well...
Quote :
I would say, I was the person who told you, be better than Satyr... why wouldn't I say be better than me too?!
Why? Why...Why Mr. Anderson, why do you persist? Here the Neo line delivered by a moron, playing the part of the dark stranger in the corner: "Just because" with a raspy brooding voice.
The "Because I choose to" an expression of Will, is turned into the infantile expression of exasperation. The turd wanted to play the part of Nietzschean overman, the Neo, the new man. But he has a Hollywood movie to imitate, and so it becomes a shallow expression of resolve, and superficial egotism.
_________________ γνῶθι σεαυτόν μηδέν άγαν
Lyssa Har Har Harr
Gender : Posts : 8965 Join date : 2012-03-01 Location : The Cockpit
I would fight a windmill knowing it wasn't really a monster, and even, perhaps, without expecting it to engage me in the Socratic method...
Did you just butcher my wry humour subjecting it to your literalism?
I think you butchered my humour, Lyssa.
Yea? I guess I don't know the things I do in my hysteria. That must be it.
Quote :
Maybe. I'm looking at you. I hope you're wrong...
On the other hand, I know Your blue eyes can't go wrong...
And lo. Mo declared to Sauwelios;
"I'm a master psychologizer, like Nietzsche."
Quote :
Quote :
Simply put, the tense knot between you and Satyr is in your understandings of nihilism. To him, arriving at a Thing, an End, is a nihilism - "if the world had a stable state to reach, it would have already been reached, but..." [pps. N.]
An 'end' means a purpose or goal. Without one, you are a 'nihilist'. --Can you think of anyone else who has ever meant anything different by that term, in the entire history of philosophy?
You quoted N from WtP, when he was talking about eternal recurrence. You do know that 'end' (as in a stable final state) is not the same thing as 'end' in the sense of a purpose/goal---which is clearly the state that I've always meant it in, and which is obvious from my posts... Nietzsche has ends, as well...
And that's why Satyr said, if you've been paying attention,
"The common retard will attack you on a point that makes him/her feel bad about self, and the choices (s)he has made. They will isolate a word, and focus on it, avoiding the context, or how it applies in a general context...within a broader perspective. He will insist that the word, and the concept it refers to, is self-contained, self-referential, the end itself.
The object/objective will be obsessed over...detaching it from all other collateral considerations, so as to bring about a desired outcome.
The common retard will attack without having a clue what your positions are, admitting that he cannot be bothered with trying to understand, or with going through text...which is always too much. If you are brief, you are not clear, if not, you are verbose. He prefers the snippet, the soundbite, the brief, simplistic, encapsulation, to get to the meat of the problem they are facing, by disconnecting it from the world at large. The word becomes the all-inclusive concept....the END. He uses it to imply an understanding he cannot demonstrate...and so he refuses to go beyond it. The common retard will demand you pay special consideration to him and his arguments, though he has not bothered to show the same towards yours. He skims, and when he believes he understood, he attacks, then expecting you to not skim through his ramblings, which have little, if anything, to do with what you are saying, and why you are saying it."
In his metaphysics, man is not "in" the world, like he is to you perhaps, but man IS the interactivity that IS the world..., and so I was trying to point to out given how the world hasn't come to an end, positing an "ends in itself", a "just because" to explain deriving value-standards, given as you stated, value is the relation between man and the world as it is, is a Nihilism, that you would realize or at the least understand what he was taking about if you had read his Whole metaphysics instead of demeaning anything he said as "puke" rightaway just because you couldn't be bothered to read the whole material put out here, and expecting him to explain everything when he already has...
Quote :
Quote :
I would say, I was the person who told you, be better than Satyr... why wouldn't I say be better than me too?!
Can you take your own advice?
Depends on who's asking... someone who takes a coward for a mentor who even tries to justify that cowardice with more cowardice as facetiousness? hmm. I'm just placing my opinion here since you demonstrated to care for your name,,, but don't look at me,, I'm just another windmill...
Jeez....let's file this moron under douche-bag, including Imbecile(I am MENSA), and shit-Smears(I am Happy and da real shit, and you are all theory), and the Mag the brown cow (I could have been MENSA, if I cared), and every other idiot I've ever come across who was so insecure with who they are that they had to state what they hoped was clear, to the other.
Let's declare victory, pat our own backs, because we cannot actually show what we think we are....and so we settle for stating it.
