The Nietzschean Cauldron

You're welcome.

Quote :

And what is your definition of intelligence? And how do you know that no one has surpasses N in terms of it (something you would have no way of knowing, incidentally).

Please address this somehow.

Intelligence = how much you understand the reality

Do you know who surpass Nietzsche ??, oh my god please tell me

Quote :

get it !!!!!

Quote :
Your Value is immortality

your word for "the vision of the power" is value !


Very close. A good image.

that wasnt very close or good image, that was the perfect expression

Myki2 wrote:

Do you know who surpass Nietzsche ??, oh my god please tell me

Someone wrote:


"Philosophy, then, is essentially the stimulation of the real ego, the synthesizing and creative self, the self that lives, desires, and dies, which is worn away in the struggle of eternity and time, love and desire, by the ideal ego; that self which disunites, polarizes, and reflects, and the difficulty of philosophy is the seeming inability to relate the two, it is the fact that no eternity is able to express the beauty and the languishing of time, nor is time, in its last bitter extremity, able to express the absolution of the eternal, for the human self intuits within both terms some substance after its own nature, and which belongs to a still higher order of things in which the meaning of time stands of itself, and the meaning of the eternal is untouched by the walks of time. The real ego experiences the fullness of its life and will only in fleeting moments throughout the course of its existence, and it is this ideal ego which is the heart into which it lays this fullness. Nietzsche comes beautifully close to my conception in the thought of the eternal recurrence, yet he fails to draw out the excess inherent in the conceptions of time and the eternal and, thereby unable to transfer it to a higher field of discourse, he only succeeds in equating the two concepts. His thought perhaps succeeds in inducing a stimulation of the real by the ideal ego, but does not satisfy the real demand of genuine morality.

While the artist wants to stamp the eternal with the image of time, to extend the sphere of the living and perishing consciousness so as to encompass all the breadth of creation, mainly by way of realizing harmonies within the order of nature, the philosopher wants to stamp time with the image of the eternal, to contract his consciousness to a single point, to the ego, so as to encompass it by thought, mainly by dissolving those harmonies and relations, by introducing contrariety and antithesis into the orders of nature and thereby unriddling the impassioned and bodily existence in which he feels himself condemned back into the mute regions of thought. In this way he is afforded objectivity, a view beyond himself and the narrow bound of his egoic consciousness, so that he might comprehend the idea behind phenomenal appearance. True morality, on the other hand, which has been only profaned by the mocking idols of merely human happiness and virtue, in comparison to whose ardor the truths of man are only velleity and convenience, wants neither to extend the border of the egoic consciousness or to contract it, but rather to contract the creation itself by realizing the principium individuationis, the essence of the will, by means of the will. Stimulated by the ideal ego through philosophy, by the thought of the eternal soul, the real ego aims to lay into it its fullness and life, and realizes a morality. All moral realities thereby inevitably create their own objects, as love creates beauty, hope creates happiness, and freedom creates justice. The moral problem is the problem of realizing in the image of the eternal the meaning of the struggle of time and mortality. When beheld with this hopeless and yet necessary question in one's mind, all the virtues and the sins of man become equally insufferable and petty folly.


One would not ask of a dog that it should become more of a dog, nor would one rebuke a dog for being any less of a dog than it should be. All animals live in accord with their fundamental nature, while man rarely rises up to the stature of his own humanity, and the far extremity of his own destiny remains unknown to him. Man alone fails to be what he is. Yet, he still cannot stoop below himself. He cannot even abandon himself and feed on wild grass with the oxen. "I could not become a beast, let alone an insect," cries Dostoyevskian man, and it is a quite genuine lamentation. Bereft of Gods and Men, the individual is consigned to eternal isolation; unable to find any real object outside of himself upon which to direct his most vital power, he would find no contentment even provided all the breadth of the creation, nor is he able to "read in the tongues of heaven the meaning of the earth," to speak with Holderlin. The real moral question is precisely this, the question of the relation between the living ego and the ideal ego, between individual man and universal humanity; the question which plays about the impotent prose of Kant, the question which he could never answer. In Kant the attempt to relate transcendental and empirical apperception, to unite the original consciousness of man as a particular subject, as a being in possession of a soul, as a self, to the consciousness of this self enduring throughout time and its many changing experiences, constitutes the form which the question assumes, and in which it could not be answered. The primal commandment of philosophy, Know Thyself, assumes as its foundation the primal commandment of true morality, Be Thyself, and neither taken alone or taken individually does either precept allow us to gain any deeper understanding of ourselves. Alas, there is so much virtue in man! But so little insight. So much knowledge! But so little sanctity."

--https://beforethelight.forumotion.com/t195-the-principle-of-the-new-philosophy

who said that ?

The reference is here at our website, I am sure you can figure it out. I gave you the citation link after all.

Suffice to say, you should study the various writings here... Nietzsche is great, but philosophers were never meant to worship idols. Nietzsche wants you to surpass him. Every philosopher longs for only one thing above all others: to be surpassed.

Quote :

Nietzsche is great, but philosophers were never meant to worship idols. Nietzsche wants you to surpass him. Every philosopher longs for only one thing above all others: to be surpassed.

You are absolutly right but who talking about worshiping Idols ?

Dont you love your favorite musicien ?? god bless armin van buuren

I guess it's a question of what you want to get out of reading a philosopher. Love is good for a while, yes. But love can also blind, and impose strange limits on us.

The lover will accept anything for the sake of that love. We should only be prepared to love Truth like that.

Quote :

I guess it's a question of what you want to get out of reading a philosopher. Love is good for a while, yes. But love can also blind, and impose strange limits on us.

The lover will accept anything for the sake of that love. We should only be prepared to love Truth like that.

Yes i agree that's deep.

truth is our value

Quote :

I guess it's a question of what you want to get out of reading a philosopher.

well power would be a good answer i think

The part that N did not get time to explicate is what a powerful being does with his power.
That is where self-valuing comes in.

The philosophy of love that was presented in part is a form of deep power reflecting on itself to experience a pure Truth - a state of great emotion.

Where do we go with the Earth?

The mountain of Nietzsche is high and steep. I can only offer ropes from peaks and fires in the distance, as I will not go down on the side where you are - I want to be on the side where I am.

Immortalism has not won me over because it has not yet found an Earthly way of justifying itself.

What if everyone becomes immortal? Life would become a perpetual warzone when too many beings are alive.

Rich people would kill a lot of less rich people to take the space to be immortal.

Immortality is a luxury of the Masters of the Earth. But who is the master of the Earth?

You are on a site built on a specific philosophy. Your explanation was quite a bit less than I gave it credit for - I am too generous, like Zeus, and equally angry if one proves less than I thought even for a second. Vision is not the issue. Value is the issue.

Breath is not vision - it is Value. Breathing is not seeing. It is a knowing, yes. Knowing is already much better than Seeing.

The knowing of a power.

Its Certainty.
Its Condition.
Its Part.
Its Lot.
Its Daemon.
Its Nature.
Its Aim.
Its Name.
Its Truth.
Its Will.
Its Curse.
Its Death.
Its Resolution.
Its Structure.
Its Cause.
Its Benefit.
Its Rank;

The Truth will set you free from itself and give you to yourself.

Power that feels itself superior to all challengers wants only to give of itself.
And it takes pleasure in taking away all that contradicts it in those it favors.

It takes pleasure in causing hazardous conditions for good feelings, because good feelings that dont enjoy the cliffs are worthless to a man.

You folks were busy last night while I slept.

I'll catch up where appropriate.

Fixed Cross wrote:

One may in functional terms very well say that the self exist; but I then maintain that self-worth equals self. There is no self without self worth. It would instantly fall apart.

I see the Ego as that which is per definition defensive, whereas the self-worth is generous. They must co exist under the command of the Self-worth. Predominantly egoic behavior often damages self-worth - it gives a quick boost and then a structural disadvantage, ill will.

Since generosity dominates my spectrum of values, I can undefensively applaud Zarathustra's proclamation of the death all the gods, as I see it as a means for him to bring his greatest gift: the Superman.

Which in very arcane terms is a shift from valuing-as-such, to valuing valuing-as-such.

I think you spoke to that very well. Likely better than I ever have.

Fixed Cross wrote:

a Value is potentiating. It is a mother principle.

Taoist note: Tao is considered the Mother of all things.

Fixed Cross wrote:

You get it.

Vision is thus not only what we see, but what we want to see - which is all we are able to see.

Hehehe. Get rid of the "what we want to see" and you will have the truth. I know, that's a hard one.

Myki2 wrote:

May be with Nietzsche's help we can all get along after all....

Nice observation!

Fixed Cross wrote:

Loyalty among the Selfish - that is a valuable bond.

Hehehe. You get so Taoist at times. (Loyalty amongst thieves.)

Fixed Cross wrote:

Myki2 wrote:

Quote :

"Like who?"

How can you understand the will to power "perfectly" and ask this question  at the same time?

Follow through Nietzsche's logic: he posited above him: the Superman. Is not the Superman of higher intelligence than he himself?

And if so, then who is to say there aren't stages between N and the Superman, that also surpass N?

N's philosophy requires that N is himself surpassed.

That was nicely said. And accurate from my perspective.

Capable wrote:

Don't worry I'm not here to ban anyone. Anyway this is getting good.

Thank you Capable. Yes, the discussion is getting very interesting.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Obviously any Nietzschean takes on the responsibility of making the Superman... that is axiomatic.

Exactly. Nietzsche never claimed to be a superman. But he did point to the path that one could travel toward attaining that condition of being.

Myki2 wrote:

I won this all debat don't lie to yourself that's bad for your consciousness

I told you before to stop that shit about winning and losing. The only losers are the ones who close their mind to alternate perspectives.