'Mortal as I am, I know that I am born for a day. But when I follow at my pleasure the serried multitude of the stars in their circular course, my feet no longer touch the earth.'
 
HomeCalendarFAQSearchMemberlistRegisterLog in

Share | 
 

 Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
AuthorMessage
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 11:56 am

Pezer wrote:
I knew you were full of shit with the comparison thing.



I knew you were full of shit when you cited Dawkins as a leading philosopher. What don't you get about it? My definition of philosophy: the comprehension of all human activity in its totality, the union of art, morality, science, ethics, etc. Dawkins never accomplished that- ergo... What do you want me to do? List every literary work that I know of which does accomplish it? Or are you satisfied with those few of my favorites which I named?



Get fucking real, would you please? You seem to think that all philosophy is, is "thinking real hard about stuff."

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:05 pm

Whether your philosophy is true or not, it must be evolutionarily viable in order to remain.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:10 pm

Your mechanisms of denial are boring me. Either you see the obvious truth of evolution, or you continue to find creative ways to misconstrue it.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:12 pm

Evolutionarily viable? You can't apply a natural selection like criteria to philosophies. What exactly is your standard for their being viable? Truth or falsehood? Beauty or ugliness? Strength or weakness? Comprehensiveness or depth? What? What the fuck does evolutionarily viable mean in relation to philosophies? And what do you mean by remain? Remain in existence or remain active? Plenty of philosophies that are no longer very socially active still exist. I can go read them right now. And they can be re-awakened at any time due to the longevity of the written word.



I see the truth of evolution in relation to biological existence, sure. But as I have just pointed out and have been pointing out- in relation to ideas I do not.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:17 pm

Surely you don't mean by the term evolutionarily viable that they can be set within some place in history. How could they possibly lack that capacity? But do not confuse content and form. My place in history only influences the language and words I use- the form and expression, of my idea. Nietzsche's Will to Power is just another name for what I call the excess of self-consciousness, Schelling called it "evil," Plato called it Eros. Form, form, form, but forever the insoluble, unity of content.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:19 pm

The task as Goethe said- of philosophy, is to rethink the same ideas, in the old Platonic sense, wedding them with our individual lives and fathoming within their image, as by a mirror, the sum of human existence, expanding it from particular to universal scope.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:22 pm

There is my basic premise once again, friend. The ideas of philosophy do not evolve, or change. They are immutable. I am a new Platonism. I have said it many ways, and argued it by many means, and I will continue to defend philosophy from those who would want to reduce its nobility and scope, that would aim to make it just another scholastic jigsaw puzzle.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:23 pm

But they are one and the same. First came the evolutionary pressure for ideas, then came the ideas. Evolution is exatcly that-outside-which-there-is-nothing. To be evolutionarily viable, a philosophy has to help people strive by being understood, and by no means do the succesful and the understanding have to be the same people. Remaining in any way, the un-fashionable works you read as much as gossip. Evolution would indicate, for example, that no philosophy stands alone, but is always an off-shoot of some other philosophy. In practice, that is how things are.

Content and form? But those are evolutionary creations!

I am not saying that you are wrong, I am saying that you are right, and that evolutionary theory can explain why you are right.

 

___________
dionisius against the cross...
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:32 pm

Stop turning evolution into some metaphysical concept. What evolutionary pressure for ideas? There is no such thing. They do not influence human survival one way or another. Wars are not fought over ideas, they're fought over material things.


It is not evolutionary pressure, but the structure of human consciousness, that generates ideas, and that peculiar structure (which I have written a nearly 800 page book explaining, and spoken of as the daemonic) leads to a peculiar formation of ideas. To have a subjective existence, to possess a subjective consciousness like we do, an animal requires that particular structure. It is teleological: the only telos in all of nature. You either have that daemonic structure or you don't- if you do, you get what we humans get, a philosophizing, subjective, erotic mind. If you don't, what do you get? Just a really smart animal. That telos is the bridge that must be crossed to acquire the kind of consciousness we humans have. Any alien being that exists in space which is intellectually realized will be exactly like us in terms of its psychology.

To get to reason you have to go through the structure of consciousness and self which operates in us human beings. I, in my books, have shown how reason and philosophy depend on a particular kind of self-consciousness to be formed, a particular structure we call subjectivity. I have also made many posts on this forum about it, I am not about to explain it all right here. But those are my premises. Anyway, no hard feelings. Think what you want, it doesn't matter to me.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 12:53 pm

All of that fits into the purview of evolution.

Your ideas themselves about philosophy, I respect, but they do not contradict evolutionary theory, and the realization of this remains philosophical.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:03 pm

Evolution is just the idea of a process by which production occurs, how things happen, what is their genesis. The method of evolution is that of natural selection: competition due to limitation of resources and necessities. This competitive natural selection occurs within its own method: reproduction of form. This is genetic.

Now, how do ideas generate, how are they produced? Not by that same process. Ideas, as Parodites notes and as has been written on this site numerous times by him and I, are teleological, they originate based on ends and purposes, they are not ex post facto, they are ex ante. "Evolution", which is just to say the process of natural selection that arises via active competition among genetically reproducing organisms, is only ex post facto. It cannot contemplate ends, it has absolutely no purpose, it ariese entirely "accidentally", abd it does not arise based on a contemplation of possibility-as-such, which is what an idea is: an idea is a mental object, an image-relation in the mind that is an expression of logos, of rational relation that is totalizing of what it relates. Its genesis is entirely different from the genesis of organic life-forms, and its structure is also entirely different, again, because its function is very different.

 

___________
"The highest-order danger is articulated speech." --Jordan Peterson

Aw Shit, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW59yai0_I

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:05 pm

It is not my aim to contradict it. But it ends where man begins, that is all. An end is no contradiction. To me the human intellect is the product of a structure of self-consciousness. While that structure may have been evolved, it must remain the same on any planet, any time, anywhere in order for what we call reason and intellect to emerge. When it arises, everything else is teleological. Our psychology, politics, all the philosophical ideas, etc, have all developed teologically, immutably, and by necessity, in accordance with that structure, and cannot be changed. Our human fates have been determined already. The human story, too, has already been told, in its entirety, from first to last. It's over. We must only retell it, in our own ways, comprehending in the image of universal life our particular lives. The excess, the fullness of human life, can be re-told forever. We can only, perhaps, become more aware of it, see it more clearly, as the languages we use become more and more precise. Man, it can be said, has not yet even begun to live, in that sense. I believe in true creation, in speech uninfluenced by our place in history, but I must also therefor believe in true fate, and a creation whose subject must remain the same- this human story.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:12 pm

An idea is a unity born out of the present-moment as a virtual plane bridging the past and the future, as Deleuze said. This virtual plane is literally an extraction of conditions of possibility based on the past being projected, imaginally, which is to say as a pure rational form, a logos, upon the future. Ideas are the past being seen through a vision of the future. They are an apotheosis, a 'pure creativity' and rational construct. The logic of life qua biological evolution and the logic of ideas, of mind and philosophy, are very different sorts of logics, they operate differently, they arise differently, they act differently, and they produce different sort of consequences and possibilities.


That being said, of course ideas build upon what came before them -- this is not evolutionary, it is a different sort of construction, one for which we don't really have a name.

 

___________
"The highest-order danger is articulated speech." --Jordan Peterson

Aw Shit, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW59yai0_I

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:18 pm

Again, that is all true. And still, if I had enough money, I could make you an evolutionary map of the brain, down to which mutation made the disturbance, and each step would necessarily follow certain principles. Even though there is no contradiction here, I wonder if you guys and philosophers in general give proper weight to a predictable system that applies to every fundamental step of the intellectual process.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:20 pm

In fact, now I see that I do contradict you on one front: you believe that logic and reason are teleogical. The truth is unimaginably more unscrutable and fucked up.

Teleology is chemical, how about that?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:32 pm

Individual organisms do not evolve. Evolution occurs over generations, from one to the next. There are two elements here to this evolution: natural selection, and random mutation. The latter is not necessary to evolution, but it is necessary to the great and even endless diversity of life; the former is the 'engine' of evolution that is just an accounting of the many different constraining limits, both retarding and potentiating, that condition the reproduction of genetic material from one generation to the next.

 

___________
"The highest-order danger is articulated speech." --Jordan Peterson

Aw Shit, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW59yai0_I

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:38 pm

Ok, now think about the time you were talking about the role of time in psychological processes. Evolution works on more than one level of time, like physics. It causes difference in manifestation, but the principles at work are the same.
Back to top Go down
View user profile
CosmicSelector



Posts : 7
Join date : 2012-08-30
Location : Lost

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:42 pm

Capable wrote:
Individual organisms do not evolve. Evolution occurs over generations, from one to the next. There are two elements here to this evolution: natural selection, and random mutation. The latter is not necessary to evolution, but it is necessary to the great and even endless diversity of life; the former is the 'engine' of evolution that is just an accounting of the many different constraining limits, both retarding and potentiating, that condition the reproduction of genetic material from one generation to the next.

How can natural selection act upon an organism unless random mutation has occurred? I don't see how random mutation isn't necessary to evolution. There is no deliberate mutation, just random mutation that either benefits an organism so that it might pass on it's genes or it doesn't and organism stands less chance of passing on it's genes. EDIT* Or do you simply mean not necessary to the concept of evolution, change over time, as it might be applied elsewhere, and not specifically to biological evolution?*

As I mentioned, I am not very philosophically versed, but what do you think about Sam Harris' work on Free Will, or a lack of it? This might lend to what Pezer was saying about evolution having, or at least, the current product of evolution, having an undeniable affect on your ideas, maybe to a point where you can only have certain ideas, purely on the basis of your physiology. Though, does this really make a difference?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 1:47 pm

CosmicSelector wrote:
Capable wrote:
Individual organisms do not evolve. Evolution occurs over generations, from one to the next. There are two elements here to this evolution: natural selection, and random mutation. The latter is not necessary to evolution, but it is necessary to the great and even endless diversity of life; the former is the 'engine' of evolution that is just an accounting of the many different constraining limits, both retarding and potentiating, that condition the reproduction of genetic material from one generation to the next.

How can natural selection act upon an organism unless random mutation has occurred? I don't see how random mutation isn't necessary to evolution. There is no deliberate mutation, just random mutation that either benefits an organism so that it might pass on it's genes or it doesn't and organism stands less chance of passing on it's genes. EDIT* Or do you simply mean not necessary to the concept of evolution, change over time, as it might be applied elsewhere, and not specifically to biological evolution?*

As I mentioned, I am not very philosophically versed, but what do you think about Sam Harris' work on Free Will, or a lack of it? This might lend to what Pezer was saying about evolution having, or at least, the current product of evolution, having an undeniable affect on your ideas, maybe to a point where you can only have certain ideas, purely on the basis of your physiology. Though, does this really make a difference?


Two different genetic codes would still compete with each other even if neither were subject to genetic mutation during reproduction. Natural selection just means that the organism better able to survive will beat out the organism that is less able to survive, in the long run. This survivability factor is, of course, based primarily on the conditions of the environment to which the organisms are subject.

I am only familiar with Sam Harris from a TED talk he did on "science can answer moral questions", which is in the References forum here. If you think he has any pertinent ideas on free will that shed light here, please elaborate them for me and indicate why you think they may be relevant.

 

___________
"The highest-order danger is articulated speech." --Jordan Peterson

Aw Shit, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW59yai0_I

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:03 pm

Pezer wrote:
Again, that is all true. And still, if I had enough money, I could make you an evolutionary map of the brain, down to which mutation made the disturbance, and each step would necessarily follow certain principles. Even though there is no contradiction here, I wonder if you guys and philosophers in general give proper weight to a predictable system that applies to every fundamental step of the intellectual process.


You operate on the errant assumption that a description is an explanation. Philosophy explains; what you are talking about is a description. The relation between philosophy and science is merely aesthetic. Showing me where the neural development occurred to birth an idea does not "explain" the idea. Philosophy is concerned with essence, apparently you only know... appearances.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 2:10 pm

Besides, you are missing the point. The human intellect does not evolve any longer. If any change occurred in the brain that altered the structure of self-consciousness I have been speaking of, we would lose our capacity to reason. The intellect is locked in its final condition. Evolution is over for it, it is done. Do you understand that? It cannot be evolved any further without being destroyed. And its development is now oriented teleologically, for reasons already mentioned. That's the point. Evolution is a process- only a process. And in man that process can go no further, it has ended. Even if you made an AI, it would need this human structure of self-consciousness to be able to reason, and only one form of intellect would be available to it, so it wouldn't be able to think any better than a human, merely faster.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Thrasymachus
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 2831
Join date : 2011-11-03
Location : Hell

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 5:11 pm

Pezer wrote:
Ok, now think about the time you were talking about the role of time in psychological processes. Evolution works on more than one level of time, like physics. It causes difference in manifestation, but the principles at work are the same.


I've been developing an idea recently about temporal processing in the brain, I am not sure that is the idea you mean. Can you clarify what you mean by "the role of time in psychological processes"?


What makes you think that the principles in psychology are the same as those at work in genetic reproduction? To me they seem dissimilar and I see no rational or empirical cause to think they are the same. Much of our "psyche" is governed by instincts and emotions that we have inherited as a consequence of our evolutionary past, that is certainly true; however, what we are talking about are ideas, not emotions or heuristics. What many people call thinking is just emotion and heuristic, that is true, but that is not what I mean when I say "thought" or "ideas", rather I am focusing in on the aspect of these which is rational-logical, which is a pure abstraction (form as a content), and most importantly which is teleological. What you are saying is only one small part of the overall picture of human consciousness. To the extent that humans are merely animals, you are correct (although as Parodites points out, a description and an explanation are two different things); however, to the extent that humans are "more than" merely animal, which is to say a different sort of animal, a rational, teleological, creative and philosophical animal, you are incorrect. The principles of self-consciousness, philosophical consciousness, are different than those of animal consciousness, and to the extent that human psychology is governed by the former, evolution does not and cannot serve as an explanatory principle here, it merely explains the ground from which telos, logos, "rational man" has emerged in his self-awareness.

I wonder, what do you think an idea is? How do you account for the role of language, of reason and logos, and of imagination, in ideation? Do you see the role of these as the same across both ideation and emotion? Do you believe that all thinking is heuristical?


I think what you may be saying is that psychological processes are the result of what has emerged as a consequence of evolution, i.e. our Homo sapien bodies and brains? It is true that our basic physiology was produced via natural selection. However, this does not equate with, "the principles at work are the same". Something which emerges as a consequence of one process and logic can certainly go on to become defined and governed by entirely different processes and logics.


Basically, you are stating an assumption of yours here but not offering any evidence or rational argument in defense of it. Your assumption is that, as you say, the principles at work are the same (for the body and the "mind", physical and mental phenomena). You think this single universal principle is evolution, which can explain everything... but where is your argument in defense of this? So far you have just asserted it.


 

___________
"The highest-order danger is articulated speech." --Jordan Peterson

Aw Shit, https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=RIW59yai0_I

"I count him braver who overcomes his desires than him who conquers his enemies; for the hardest victory is over self." --Aristotle
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Parodites
Tower
Tower
avatar

Posts : 749
Join date : 2011-12-11

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Wed Sep 05, 2012 9:52 pm

Besides, until the universe itself has been proven to be the result of an evolutionary process of some kind, with other "competing" universes, I would just go ahead and keep evolution as a principle restricted to the biological sciences. It doesn't really help explain anything else, as I have noted- especially with regard to the human intellect.

 

___________
A sik þau trûðu


Nisus ait, "Dine hunc ardorem mentibus addunt,
Euryale, an sua cuique deus fit dira cupido?"

Have the gods set this ruling passion in my heart,
or does each man's furious passion become his god?
- Virgil.


It is not opium which makes me work but its absence, and in order for me to feel its absence it must
from time to time be present.-- Antonin Artaud
Back to top Go down
View user profile Online
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Thu Sep 06, 2012 4:30 pm

I'll take it from the top and re-asses your objections after.

Let's consider evolution: what could it tell us when Nietzsche wrote about science as a kind of philosophical joke? It could tell us that metaphysics as a whole no longer has the foothold it abused for so long: the origin of life. In fact, fuck the rest of my post, consider that. Isn't that, in itself, a philosophical insight of undescribable proportions?
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Pezer
builder
builder
avatar

Posts : 721
Join date : 2011-11-15

PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   Thu Sep 06, 2012 5:27 pm

How it is possible that evolution is not at work in the formation of intellect?

What you call "ideas that are transmitted in different words," evolutionary theory calls "available instincts reacting to evolutionary pressures."
Back to top Go down
View user profile
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism   

Back to top Go down
 
Scientific Progress and Nietzscheanism
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 2 of 3Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Before The Light :: Tree :: Interpretation :: Nietzsche Campfire-
Jump to: