The Nietzschean Cauldron

[quote="Myki2"]

First : we can put 7 billions peoples in a state of the size of texas( it will look like tokyo)
Secondo : hyper civilized country like japan for example loose 1 million person per yer, with very low fertility'+ women can have children later, so more of them wait longer
Tertio : Without that it would be very mean to not giving life to new human beings you are selfish damn XD
Quatro : like the universe is not big enough lol damn i wanna see your house pls


Well, if you want to live like a sardine then go ahead on.


I met a couple (man and woman) from France yesterday.  I was having lunch was a friend and three people came in the eatery.  The couple were dressed in biker's clothes and the other person dressed casual.  The couple had caps on and I tried to identify the symbols on the caps but I couldn't.  So I had to ask the guy about them.  He said they were here vacationing from France.  We talked (in English) for a short while then I let him go so he could get prepared to eat.

As my friend and I were leaving I said "Let the good times roll" in French (learned it from listening to Cajun music) and both gave a monster smile.

Fixed Cross wrote:

As for the noble prize, it may have to do with that Capables science hasnt been published. What Ive seen evoked very directly literally the thought that a noble prize would be inevitable.

But he repressed it back into the deep probably because it was too dangerous.

Hehehe. There's still a chance for you. I mean, after all, Obama got the Peace Prize for being Black.

Fixed Cross wrote:

Nobel prize, pardon

No, you were right. It was the noble prize.

Fixed Cross wrote:

There is no meaning to Nietzsche except to replace the ambition to God with a greater ambition.

Short, sweet and directly to the point. You done good.

Quote :

For consciousness to perpetuate itself indefinitely through time, it would have to become a 'product' of changing circumstances.

Why you try to think the unthinkable, Nietzsche never did that, dont go in zones that are subjected to the allegory of plato's cave, your will cross that bridge when you'll get there.

Quote :

I dont reject it, I just dont see it as a Nietzschean concept

I know that you know how a "Nietzschean concept" can be tricky, dont try to see his philosophy like something fixed, uncontrollable, he gave us a tool that evolve by himself, "his "mind tool" is programmed to reach more power.

Quote :

or goal that I have.

Life is like a box of chocolate

Quote :

there is no Dasein

"Nietzsche Killed me"   Martin Heidegger.

Quote :

As for the noble prize, it may have to do with that Capables science hasnt been published.

Well when it's get done, i will thank's him greatly because of him we will build sentient robots, and then i will tell him, Dude !! i tought you were agaisnt transhumanism ?

Quote :

hat Ive seen evoked very directly literally the thought that a noble prize would be inevitable.

Well i will be happier than him at that moment and you can imagine why lol anyway good luck with your nobel prize and please invest your million dollars in longevity, that would be sweet !

Quote :

Masters of the Earth; those who can handle our philosophy.

The fusion of Nietzsche and transhumanism is the best way from my point of view.

Quote :

to replace the ambition to God with a greater ambition.

There is nothing more ambitious than becoming God, anyway "God" is just a term to describe an absolut power reached by an entity in a given time.

Quote :

my point is just that this isn't philosophically significant

agree to disagree

Quote :

It's simply impossible to imagine

That's my friend, that doesnt sound like music to my ears at all, i have this exact opposite quote has tatto :p

"It's intricately possible to imagine" Myki2

Quote :

I would accept the gift of ten thousand years

It's not like after having this gift you could not divorce a year later xD

Quote :

I have defined my own transhumanism

Don't worry, we have even a mormons transhumists association, i'm sure you gonna find your place somewhere hihih

Quote :

I am a transhumankindist.

You always were, we all are, in a very paradoxal way, the prejudice of words, we all together, just want a better world whatever "a better world" look like.

Quote :

Well, if you want to live like a sardine then go ahead on.

I think you missed all my very valid (food toughtly) points lol

Myki2 wrote:

Quote :

Well, if you want to live like a sardine then go ahead on.

I think you missed all my very valid (food toughtly) points lol

I didn't miss them, I just ignored them so I would have to argue with you.

Quote :

I didn't miss them, I just ignored them so I would have to argue with you.

You mean you wanna talk about urban agencement on a scale of a solar system ?

Easy let's do it xD

Myki2 wrote:

Quote :

I didn't miss them, I just ignored them so I would have to argue with you.

You mean you wanna talking about urban agencement on a scale of a solar system ?

Easy let's do it xD

I can talk about solar electric systems as I have a system for my fish ponds pumps as well as solar on my Honda that is an electric conversion.

But we won't do that here. For me there are too many people in the cities. I need my space. Don't fence me in, you know.

Quote :

For me there are too many people in the cities.

Cities are the most important part of human interactions !

Guys are we done on Nietzsche ?
Are we done, on you, lying to yourself that you don't wan't to celebrate life for some millions of years...at worst :p

If yes i really wish to start to talk about my favorite subject :

€€€ £££ $$$ your real god, you feel me ?

I suppose we can accept donations.

Quote :

I suppose we can accept donations.

philosophers don't need money !

Whichever you please.

"Merry Christmas, I'm in it for the business..." Ganga Thieves

Quote :

Whichever you please.

"Merry Christmas, I'm in it for the business..." Ganga Thieves

Great

Myki2 wrote:

Guys are we done on Nietzsche ?
Are we done, on you, lying to yourself that you don't wan't to celebrate life for some millions of years...at worst :p

If yes i really wish to start to talk about my favorite subject :

€€€ £££ $$$ your real god, you feel me ?

What? You are going to give me money? No thinks, I have enough for my needs. Give it to someone more needy than myself. You should be able to find about four billion people in that category.

Like I said before, we have hardly even started with Nietzsche.

Quote :

four billion people in that category.

They dont need, a human body can live 50 days without food, don't worry for them, its all good !

Myki2 wrote:

Quote :

four billion people in that category.

They dont need, a human body can live 50 days without food, don't worry for them, its all good !

Great optimism!

A girl just posted this on facebook



I liked it.

Some earlier BGE studies of mine conducted around the time I forged VO. Insights both trivial and crucial included in a mix of typical Fixed Crossian exploitation; toward seeing how science is a prejudice.

http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=175717#p2229917

Quote :

I am approaching this ominous book for the first time without a mask, finally feeling up to its logic. Having found something of a strategy, I dare to approach the thunderstorm frozen in time of N's mind, not aiming to challenge it, but to identify with it as a torch the metaphysical framework of our present physical world and its ruling thoughts. My position is necessarily that of one perceived as lacking in standards - I write and think unbound and unanointed.

[size=90]
1.
The will to truth, which is still going to tempt us to many a daring exploit, that celebrated truthfulness of which all philosophers up to now have spoken with respect, what questions this will to truth has already set down before us! What strange, serious, dubious questions! There is already a long history of that—and yet it seems that this history has scarcely begun. Is it any wonder that at some point we become mistrustful, lose patience and, in our impatience, turn ourselves around, that we learn from this sphinx to ask questions for ourselves? Who is really asking us questions here? What is it in us that really wants “the truth”? In fact, we paused for a long time before the question about the origin of this will—until we finally remained completely and utterly immobile in front of an even more fundamental question. We asked about the value of this will. Suppose we want truth. Why should we not prefer untruth? And uncertainty? Even ignorance? The problem of the value of truth stepped up before us—or were we the ones who stepped up before the problem? Who among us here is Oedipus? Who is the Sphinx?* It seems to be a tryst between questions and question marks. And could one believe that we are finally the ones to whom it seems as if the problem has never been posed up to now, as if we were the first ones to see it, to fix our eyes on it, and to dare confront it? For there is a risk involved in this—perhaps there is no greater risk.[/size]

My writing is a minefield, a barbaric brew of accusations and incantations, assertions and punishments and generally loud exclamations. My native tongue is better equipped to make such seem inevitable and hence logical. Verexcuseer meneer, ik meende het immers niet zo kwaad!
Beyond Good and Evil: the heretics commentary.

The elimination of all idealistic values in Europe, wishful thinking made impossible on the continent, but lives on in exaggerated form in America which in turn infects Europe. Consequences unforseen by Nietzsche?? Split of moral consciousness, master-slave dialectic emerges between America and Europe, while whole of the Eastern world wallows in pagan feudalism under the banners of impossibility. and The question of life and science was asked by technocratic imposition of blind destruction. Machines as devils - humans as machines - Imposition the objective on human valuation. This objectivity, as it had been established, turned to become the questioner of man. Value a dead object. Man, however continued to exist - confused, but greatly inspired by this freedom as well.

Jakob wrote:

[size=90]
2.
“How could something arise out of its opposite? For example, truth out of error? Or the will to truth out of the will to deception? Or selfless action out of self-seeking? Or the pure sunny look of the wise man out of greed? Origins like these are impossible. Anyone who dreams about them is a fool, in fact, something worse. Things of the highest value must have another origin peculiar to them. They cannot be derived from this ephemeral, seductive, deceptive, trivial world, from this confusion of madness and desire! Their basis must lie, by contrast, in the womb of being, in the immortal, in hidden gods, in ‘the thing in itself’—their basis must lie there, and nowhere else!” This way of shaping an opinion creates the typical prejudice which enables us to recognize once more the metaphysicians of all ages. This way of establishing value stands behind all their logical procedures. From this “belief” of theirs they wrestle with their “knowledge,” with something which is finally, in all solemnity, christened “the truth.” The fundamental belief of the metaphysicians is the belief in the opposition of values. Even the most careful among them has never had the idea of raising doubts right here on the threshold, where such doubts are surely most essential, even when they promised themselves “de omnibus dubitandum” [one must doubt everything]. For we are entitled to doubt, first, whether such an opposition of values exists at all and, second, whether that popular way of estimating worth and that opposition of values, on which the metaphysicians have imprinted their seal, are perhaps only evaluations made in the foreground, only temporary perspectives, perhaps even a view from a corner, perhaps from underneath, a frog’s viewpoint, as it were, to borrow an expression familiar to painters. For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps!—But who is willing to bother with such a dangerous Perhaps? For that we must really await the arrival of a new style of philosopher, the kind who has some different taste and inclination, the reverse of philosophers so far, in every sense, philosophers of the dangerous Perhaps. And speaking in all seriousness, I see such new philosophers arriving on the scene.[/size]

Opposition of values as a pathological condition: parallel to Freud: repression / idealization.

[size=90]"[W]e can understand how our most cherished objects -our ideals- stem from the same perceptions and experiences as those we most abhor, and how originally the two differed from each other only by virtue of slight modifications." [Sigmund Freud, essay on Repression, 1915][/size]

Real value, as we understand it now is not in opposition to anything at all - as we understand now that value can only be positive. And the substance of such real value is irreconcilably far removed from opposing metaphysical values, as it is rather a process than an object. Value after all is in valuation, which is a physiological occurrence.

It is precisely by the attempt at negative valuation that repression occurs, pushing the positive value (truth) of an experience or drive out of the frame of truth as the moral logic is able to construct it. Thereby such negatively valued (made impossible) activity becomes, according to Freud, fixated - the drive (flux) is arrested by representing it as an idea, which can be repressed. Interesting to note: drives canot be repressed without ideation. (explanation of the dream-realm)

However, the energetic substance is not eliminated by its dissociation from the subject: it emerges as displaced, thoroughly irrational emotion. Art as the attempt to reunite emotion with repressed drives (making emotion "rational", true) via investing libidinal valuation into imagery representing the repressed.

Jakob wrote:

[size=90]
3.
After examining philosophers between the lines with a sharp eye for a sufficient length of time, I tell myself the following: we must consider even the greatest part of conscious thinking among the instinctual activities. Even in the case of philosophical thinking we must re-learn here, in the same way we re-learned about heredity and what is “innate.” Just as the act of birth merits little consideration in the procedures and processes of heredity, so there’s little point in setting up “consciousness” in any significant sense as something opposite to what is instinctual—the most conscious thinking of a philosopher is led on secretly and forced into particular paths by his instincts. Even behind all logic and its apparent dynamic authority stand evaluations of worth or, putting the matter more clearly, physiological demands for the preservation of a particular way of life—for example, that what is certain is more valuable than what is uncertain, that appearance is of less value than the “truth.” Evaluations like these could, for all their regulatory importance for us, still be only foreground evaluations, a particular kind of niaiserie [stupidity], necessary for the preservation of beings precisely like us. That’s assuming, of course, that not just man is the “measure of things” . . .[/size]

Highlighted phrase is still the "immoral" point in contemporary philosophy, as physiology pertains to individuality. This is a rarely trodden terrain, as "all are equal" goes, which is to say as much as that the individuality (in all it's particularities) does not really exist.

What valuation does our physiology, our particularity, demand of us? Hint at answers in general: uncontrollably popularity of drug and alcohol use, uncontrollable exploitation of other intoxicating means such as "entertainment" centered around violence and sex: our particular physiology is addressed by the most universal stimuli. A kind of selection is taking place: who stands up most powerfully to the onslaught on the instincts?

A kind of breeding, or preparation to this, is going on: unclear whether this is conscious activity by "artist tyrants" using "superior means of deception" [Will to Power 960] with a certain purpose, or simply consequences of economics, inevitably resulting in a new, more opportunistic type of man.

Clear is that whatever has control, philosophy as practiced by scholars and respected thinkers stands outside of it, the immorality (the lack of moral aesthetics) of it is cause to physiological reality once again being repressed. This time however what is being repressed may well be the opposite of what was previously repressed: a kind of automatic, neurotically induced reversals of values - without a conscious (re)valuation of values.

Jakob wrote:

[size=90]4.
For us, the falsity of a judgment is still no objection to that judgment— that’s where our new way of speaking sounds perhaps most strange. The question is the extent to which it makes demands on life, sustains life, maintains the species, perhaps even creates species. And as a matter of principle we are ready to assert that the falsest judgments (to which a priori synthetic judgments belong) are the most indispensable to us, that without our allowing logical fictions to count, without a way of measuring reality against the purely invented world of the unconditional and self-identical, without a constant falsification of the world through numbers, human beings could not live—that if we managed to give up false judgments, it would amount to a renunciation of life, a denial of life. To concede the fictional nature of the conditions of life means, of course, taking a dangerous stand against the customary feelings about value. A philosophy which dares to do that is for this reason alone already standing beyond good and evil.[/size]

Question: Is Nietzsche's suggestion that to let go of the fiction of numbers means a denial of life justified? Are there no alternative fictions possible, perhaps less 'untrue'? To assume the contrary seems to be a synthetic a-priori judgment as well. Is logic not perhaps an imperfect, uncompleted method of thinking-the-real? (What is "real" after all if not us, as experiencing and cognitive "faculties" to our "selves"?)

Jakob wrote:

[size=90]5.
What’s attractive about looking at all philosophers in part suspiciously and in part mockingly is not that we find again and again how innocent they are—how often and how easily they make mistakes and get lost, in short, how childish and child-like they are—but that they are not honest enough in what they do, while, as a group, they make huge, virtuous noises as soon as the problem of truthfulness is touched on, even remotely. Collectively they take up a position as if they had discovered and arrived at their real opinions through the self-development of a cool, pure, god-like disinterested dialectic (in contrast to the mystics of all ranks, who are more honest than they are and more stupid with their talk of “inspiration”—), while basically they defend with reasons sought out after the fact an assumed principle, an idea, an “inspiration,” for the most part some heart-felt wish which has been abstracted and sifted. They are all advocates who do not want to call themselves that. Indeed, for the most part they are even mischievous pleaders for their judgments, which they baptize as “Truths,”—and very remote from the courage of conscience which would admit this, even this, to itself, very remote from that brave good taste which would concede as much, whether to warn an enemy or friend, or whether to mock themselves as an expression of their own high spirits. That equally stiff and well-behaved Tartufferie [hypocrisy] of old Kant with which he enticed us onto the clandestine path of dialectic leading or, more correctly, seducing us to his “categorical imperative”—this dramatic performance makes us discriminating people laugh, for it amuses us in no small way to keep a sharp eye on the sophisticated scheming of the old moralists and preachers of morality.* Or that sort of mathematical hocus-pocus with which Spinoza presented his philosophy—in the last analysis “the love of his own wisdom,” to use the correct and proper word—as if it were armed in metal and masked, in order in this way to intimidate from the start the courage of an assailant who would dare to cast an eye on this invincible virgin and Pallas Athena—how much of his own shyness and vulnerability is betrayed by this masquerade of a solitary invalid!*[/size]

The opposite of the mathematicians approach, as shown here.

Excerpt: "[The] thinker however ponders the mind like a general scopes the battlefield, keenly observes how it compares to the positions of others, visionaries who have established knowledges and/or are still making paths of their own. When genius strikes, and it always does if one keeps oneself positioned, a possibility for an advancement relative to the other positions makes itself known. An increase of power to incorporate."

The word "genius" here is the opposite of "inspiration" as Nietzsche uses it. The former refers to detection of a new possibility within a given context, the latter refers to an idea for the incorporation of which a new way of arranging the relevant context has to be devised.

Question: Were Newtons and Einsteins universalizing laws perhaps also conceived as "heart felt wishes" for the world to be one? There is a certain morality to both of their thinkings - "action = reaction" as well as the notion that all things are relative to each other, and that light is the absolute - both seem to connect seamlessly to religious ethics. Could another scientist also have discovered something else to be true, something contradicting our present science? The answer seems to be no. What does this say about the valuation of intuition and divinity, the religious zeal of our most valued pair of thinkers? Moreover, what does this say about our belief in their science?

Jakob wrote:

Science is a double-edged sword, and so far we have only used it to chop... no stab-and-slice combo's have been learned... except of course in economical circles, morally oblivious masters of markets, the posthumous friends Nietzsche might not have been very happy to have... Relying now on fancy, then on logic - the objective logic of fancy combined with the subjective logic of their own will to power draws the world in motion just as the double edged moon moves the tides and fertilizes, feeds and reaps the market.

Why can science not act like this of itself? Why not take great leaps of faith, and merge with original science of the human soul, the naturalistic healing arts? Why would scientists refuse to study this? There is only one answer - Newton believed in The One God. He was afraid to sin.

Jakob wrote:

[size=90]6.
"Gradually I came to learn what every great philosophy has been up to now, namely, the self-confession of its originator and a form of unintentional and unrecorded memoir, and also that the moral (or immoral) intentions in every philosophy made up the essential living seed from which on every occasion the entire plant has grown. In fact, when we explain how the most remote metaphysical claims in a philosophy really arose, it’s good (and shrewd) for us always to ask first: What moral is it (is he —) aiming at?"[/size]

What moral are we aiming at? Assuming that we would know - what kind of philosophy might be created to be a soil?

(Who is this "we" I speak of? I mean of course in first instance I. I may only pretend to have allies.)

[size=90]"Consequently, I don’t believe that a “drive to knowledge” is the father of philosophy but that knowledge (and misunderstanding) have functioned only as a tool for another drive, here as elsewhere. But whoever explores the basic drives of human beings, in order to see in this very place how far they may have carried their game as inspiring geniuses (or demons and goblins), will find that all drives have already practised philosophy at some time or another — and that every single one of them has all too gladly liked to present itself as the ultimate purpose of existence and the legitimate master of all the other drives."[/size]

Is this true? All drives have had their day in the sun? It would be useful to concisely list such drives and the philosophies derived from them.

[size=90]"For every drive seeks mastery and, as such , tries to practise philosophy. Of course, with scholars, men of real scientific knowledge, things may be different —“better” if you will — where there may really be something like a drive for knowledge, some small independent clock mechanism or other which, when well wound up, bravely goes on working, without all the other drives of the scholar playing any essential role. The essential “interests” of scholars thus commonly lie entirely elsewhere, for example, in the family or in earning a living or in politics."[/size]

But then, the scholar isn't the scientist who discloses laws.
Such a law-discloser is typically obsessive and personally involved in his thinking as a philosopher. Let's propose that we see Newton, Darwin and Freud as philosophers willing a certain type of morality, or at least ethics of thought, just as philosophers do. The scientist much be included into an understanding of willing-thinking by philosophy, otherwise philosophy is powerless towards science.

[size=90]"Indeed, it is almost a matter of indifference whether his small machine is placed on this or on that point in science and whether the “promising” young worker makes a good philologist or expert in fungus or chemist — whether he becomes this or that does not define who he is. By contrast, with a philosopher nothing is at all impersonal. And his morality, in particular, bears a decisive and crucial witness to who he is — that is, to the rank ordering in which the innermost drives of his nature are placed relative to each other."[/size]

And which drive is on top of the pyramid in the scientific genius? Many have said it is wonder. As opposed to the scholar who is, if to be designated in such terms at all, a camel, the scientific genius may be classified under the child-archetype.

The will to truth can be achieved only by way of removing dualistic thinking, removing all subjective opinions, and by removing all the knowledge we presently know.

Basically, we have to erase the chalk board. We begin with a clean slate. From this point we can view (observe) the objective truth.

From this point we can begin to place value (usefulness to us) on the objective.

Doing this we can then return to our subjective view (preferences) of our reality.

Quote :

The will to truth can be achieved only by way of removing dualistic thinking, removing all subjective opinions, and by removing all the knowledge we presently know.

Basically, we have to erase the chalk board. We begin with a clean slate. From this point we can view (observe) the objective truth.

From this point we can begin to place value (usefulness to us) on the objective.

Doing this we can then return to our subjective view (preferences) of our reality.

Yes ! Beatifull sweetly said

Accepting our selfishness fully transform us paradoxaly in someone generous, because you understand the full rainbow of the emotions of others,  by thinking a lot about how improving your own life , you reach new idea's that can be usefull for other to improve their own life !
I see this as an absolut genorosity and... how paradoxal the world can be...

Myki2 wrote:

Yes ! Beatifull sweetly said

Accepting our selfishness fully transform us paradoxaly in someone generous, because you understand the full rainbow of the emotions of others,  by thinking a lot about how improving your own life , you reach new idea's that can be usefull for other to improve their own life !
I see this as an absolut genorosity and... how paradoxal the world can be...

Thanks. I don't place too much importance on the "selfish" concept because most of it is basically survival instincts anyhow. And yes, once our survival is secure we can move on to other aspects of life as a humane (sharing, supporting, etc) human.

I picked the "useful/useless (to me)" concept up a while back trying to minimalize my dualistic thinking. What might be useless to me may very well be useful for others.

Quote :

A girl just posted this on facebook



I liked it.

That's how i see internet ! and didnt born too soon !

Quote :

What might be useless to me may very well be useful for others.

Not in the absolut view of it