If that's the case then he ought to poke his nose into Jung's seminar on Nietzsche's Zarathustra... it actually goes through much of what he's asking about just by discussing various mythologies and symbols and their changes in meanings through the years. From the mythology of the Zoroastrians, to the Helenic Greek, and other cultures in years beyond those ages like Rome in discussing Mithraism etc etc.

Like a ghost for example is symbolic for someone who is so mentally absorbed by some trauma that they wither away. It's why Ghosts require an offering of the body via blood to partake in the world of the living... it's like when someone is so possessed it takes great hunger pains to momentarily distract them from their grief, to perhaps eat.

Classic Example, the wailing banshee... is the ghost of a mother who lost her baby.

It’s a grammatical seduction—the grammar forces a subject ("things") and then smuggles in an inner "within themselves." To project the "I" away from "it" the body. More or less the anti-realism of Christ.

 a feeling of being at home in a world in which no sort of reality survives, a merely “inner” world, a “true” world, an “eternal” world.... “The Kingdom of God is within you”.... — Nietzsche, AC § 30

What is a fiction in a world where appearance is perhaps more important than "truth?"

Is it any wonder you're so missing the picture with Nietzsche...

To comprehend this collective discharge of all the symbolic powers, a man must have already attained that height of self-abnegation, which wills to express itself symbolically through these powers: the Dithyrambic votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! With what astonishment must the Apollonian Greek have beheld him! With an astonishment, which was all the greater the more it was mingled with the shuddering suspicion that all this was in reality not so very foreign to him, yea, that, like unto a veil, his Apollonian consciousness only hid this Dionysian world from his view.

the ground of metaphysics I'm referring to is the principle of intelligibility. It has many different names. — Sirius

Ascetic Socratism, decadence, self-hate, life-denying...

Perhaps try understanding someone before misrepresenting their position. Seems you lost understanding at "fiction." Whatever rhetoric you project into my brief statement about MY THOUGHTS, which I already clarified, just goes to show how much of a munchkin you're being. Reduce Nietzsche? I'm pretty sure I told you he's many faceted

Nietzsche has many facets — DifferentiatingEgg

, is it any wonder a person often only finds in something the bs they put into it in the first place?

Then that's a terrible reading of Nietzsche — Sirius

Nah, you're just trying to reify what I'm saying through your filters and it's not registering because, you simply haven't the right optics for understanding. A similar but all together different set of stimulus receptors after all.

Nietzsche has many facets, that metaphysics is fictional doesn't mean it doesn't exist within thought...it's conceptual device created by humans.

As to knowing your Nietzsche it's obvious you didn't get his take on grammar

Nietzsche on Truth as a seduction via grammatical construction:

Suppose truth is a woman, what then? Wouldn't we have good reason to suspect that all philosophers, insofar as they were dogmatists, had a poor understanding of women, that the dreadful seriousness and the awkward pushiness with which they so far have habitually approached truth were clumsy and inappropriate ways to win over a woman? It's clear that truth did not allow herself to be won over. And every form of dogmatism nowadays is standing there dismayed and disheartened - if it's still standing at all! For there are mockers who assert that they've collapsed, that all dogmatisms are lying on the floor, even worse, that they're at death's door. Speaking seriously, there are good reasons to hope that every dogmatism in philosophy - no matter how solemnly, conclusively, and decisively it has conducted itself - may have been merely a noble and rudimentary childish game, and the time is perhaps very close at hand, when people will again and again understand just how little has sufficed to provide the foundation stones for such lofty and unconditional philosophical constructions of the sort dogmatists have erected up to now - any popular superstition from unimaginably long ago (like the superstition of the soul, which today, in the form of the superstition about the subject and the ego, has still not stopped stirring up mischief), perhaps some game with words, a seduction by some grammatical construction, or a daring generalization from very narrow, very personal, very human, all-too-human facts. — Preface BGE

Of which he goes through several of these seductions through the opening of BGE...

And furtherstill we see in books like Twilight of Idols Nietzsche details that grammar shapes how we view the world in Reason in Philosophy...

Nothing indeed has exercised a more simple power of persuasion hitherto than the error of Being, as it was formulated by the Eleatics for instance: in its favour are every word and every sentence that we utter!—Even the opponents of the Eleatics succumbed to the seductive powers of their concept of Being. Among others there was Democritus in his discovery of the atom. “Reason” in language!—oh what a deceptive old witch it has been! I fear we shall never be rid of God, so long as we still believe in grammar. — Twilight § 5 Reason in Philosophy

How is it that grammar creates Gods? By the way we end up categorizing things. The "will", or "nature" or "God" all unify a multiplicity of experience stimuli into a single word—a daring generalization—that exists as is, as the thing in itself...you can check out more on that via BGE 19 and 24, and Twilight: The Four Great Errors § 3 The Error of False Causality.

what's all this Jazz about Wittgenstein? I guess you thought I'm quoting him or something? Sorry homie, mostly my thoughts from reading Nietzsche (and Others) while considering the Platonic representation of words and how words shape human psychology... if those thoughts are like ole Witty's then he probably gathered a good deal from Nietzsche.

After a period of time, I fell into an overwhelming emptiness. I noticed that doing things and expressing myself in a certain way did not make me any "happier", so I thought that I was doing something wrong. It wasn't that I thought I haven't found that one thing that will fill up an empty bucket inside me. It was that there wasn't a bucket to fill up at all. And I really stressed out myself to the maximum, if you get what I mean. Feeling unworthy of everything, feeling incapable, frustrated, confused, trapped inside a reality I thought I was not built for. So, what one might describe as pain, came early. And I do not want to get graphic here. The existential torture and solitude was at its peak. Well, it still is but I'm more aware. This emotional anxiety, fatigue, confusion, dread felt as more real than anything I've ever felt before. — GreekSkeptic

Nietzsche details this as The Hour of Great Contempt.

the greatest thing ye can experience? It is the hour of great contempt. The hour in which even your happiness becometh loathsome unto you, and so also your reason and virtue.

The hour when ye say: “What good is my happiness! It is poverty and pollution and wretched self-complacency. But my happiness should justify existence itself!” — Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Things like substances, essences, and unchanging truths, are mostly just fictional. Metaphysics is mostly "what a human says about a thing." A reification through grammar. A grammatical seduction.

not gonna lie, I stopped reading at around group rights and said ... "man, that message 'trans rights = human rights,' really went over dude's head, probably just like BLM." That's when I realized there's probably some other prejudice at play.

Isn't this called the GI Bill? :P

when one holds even in some part to the moral "mihi ipisi scripsi" (I write for myself), I believe that begins to give birth to their own language games, which is generally how most philosophers seduce others, through their grammatical construction...

It could be like bug bounties, in software? I suppose a problem there would be having to pay people to sift through all the bad answers.

A professor will never be given tenure if they play a Socratic role of constant truth seeking. — ProtagoranSocratist

I don't see that as a problem at all.

I would say that quoting yourself, from a book as if the book were right simply out of merely existing, shows that in a doubletime fashion. I've been learning to just let people have their crazy thoughts. For the sake of not being banned, but still wanting to contribute on occasion when I finally catch something pertinent to me, and my life, then I decide if it's even worth my time discussing with people depending on who those people are. Which everyone is fair game after a certain cool down period. Some people have longer cooldown cycles than others.

Np, but figured I'd add that imo, more or less, the predicament of modernity comes down to man taming himself. Turning away from his instincts.

The task now, as John Vervaeke spells it out in his Awakening from the Meaning Crisis is to rediscover a living integration of science, meaning, and wisdom—to awaken from or see through the divisions that underlie the meaning crisis. — Wayfarer

This is where Nietzsche details that any long obedience in the same direction seems to always reveal something worth living for, as it is that long obedience which begins the process of building a transfiguring mirror. We can see this as early at Birth of Tragedy 3, but also in his later periods in aphorisms like 188 of Beyond Good and Evil.

The problem as always, is: that people adapt lies to fulfill the testimony of their senses. Such as the "truly" good. They formulate out of the prejudice of their conscious, what/how/when/who such and such ought to be. Anything not fitting within their platonic representations about the world are deemed as that sin that drives distance between they and another. The good grows out of the bad, and vice versa depending on how you initially posit values. They are all fruits on a plant, but very different plants all together. But all you'll find with metaphysicians is that such cannot be... but that they must consist within two completely distinct realms of "being," in that antithesis of values "Good" and "Evil." Because they see "becoming" is an illusion of the senses...

Biologically, no. They are emasculated men who have injected themselves into their own platonic representation of "Das Weib."

All philosophy is a style of Sophist-ication

Philosophy, for most, is generally a type of rationalization of ones own prejudices in an attempt to harmonize oneself to oneself, as well as an attempt to project one's views upon the world.

that's an interesting question... we could detail psychology as a middle ground between the two disciplines, but it's obvious that psychology isn't the dialogue between philosophy and psychiatry...and perhaps it's even more of an intersection between all three disciplines. I would say, at the least, that the dialogue between psychiatry and philosophy is concerned with: what is the self, what is mental illness, and what is healing? Psychology is the middle man, that operational zone between the two disciplines where philosophical problems are translated into methods, therapies, and experiments, as a medium of translation between psychiatry's "medicinal cause" and philosophical "meaning."

They ask her one question after each time she awakens, however: What is the probability that the coin shows heads?

Seems like a trick question.

The probability remains the same every time they flip the coin after she wakes.

But if she wrote the tally down, then she'll see heads written for the tally 100% of the time. But since it's the coin toss that's all that matters.

You’re right that to say “truth is a maintenance project of cognition” is itself an epistemic claim. But that doesn’t undermine my point... it reinforces it. The fact that I can’t step outside the framework of justification to make my claim is precisely what I mean when I call truth a “maintenance project.” To describe truth is always to participate in it, never to stand above it.

When I point to dementia or schizophrenia, I’m not saying they reveal “the essence of knowledge” from some Archimedean standpoint. I’m saying their breakdowns highlight the contingency of the boundaries we ordinarily take for granted. You call this “confusing the breakdown of knowledge with the nature of knowledge.” I’d say: the breakdown discloses the nature. Knowledge is not a mirror of eternal structures; it’s the fragile activity of maintaining categories against the ever-present possibility of their collapse. We can never stand outside the scaffolding of the framework and measure it. We can only ever uphold it from within, patching and justifying where need be.

In that sense, I’m not dismissing epistemology but radicalizing it: epistemology is not the neutral arbiter between “distorted” and “genuine,” but itself part of the scaffolding, an instrument of maintenance that only works for as long as the categories hold. Our claims about knowledge are bound up in the same fragile maintenance they describe.

The deepest conceit of philosophy: that metaphysics and epistemology are about the world as it is.

Every epistemology carries within it a metaphysics, just as every metaphysics presupposes an epistemology. Philosophy often speaks of metaphysics as if it were an eternal architecture of reality, but “disorders” such as dementia or schizophrenia reveal that both epistemology and metaphysics rest on fragile, human scaffolding. When the mind deteriorates, the capacity to know and the categories of what is known collapse together: soap and marinara no longer belong to distinct orders, voices leak from thought into the world, self and other lose their boundary. What this shows is that metaphysics is not an independent order of being, nor epistemology a neutral method of knowing, but two faces of the same fragile ordering principle — a set of boundaries the mind must uphold to make sense of experience. When those boundaries dissolve, what we call “absurd” is simply lived reality; what we call “truth” is revealed as a maintenance project of cognition itself.

Yet epistemology and metaphysics both are really about the world as the mind can sustain. Consequently not about the world as is.

Whereas I may not completely agree with your take... I know that what you experience in a dream has very real consequences upon your own muscle memory even while awake. To not take dreams seriously is mostly a failure of self awareness. They don't fit into the rigid Dawgma of the Bruh who beholds and subsequently denies them.

mostly playing devil's advocate with the stuff I'm stuffing into muscle memory.

We don’t need epistemology to know; epistemology is an after-the-fact rationalization of what life already does. Epistemology is like a priest arriving after the festival, declaring rules for the dancing that already happened.

We knew long before we invented epistemology. Epistemology is only the fevered dream of a mind that cannot trust its own eyes, its own blood, its own joy.

Epistemology is a conceptual retrojection. Epistemology is the dualistic philosopher’s revenge on life: he invents rules for knowing after the fact, then declares life itself illegitimate without them.

The so-called “problem” only arises if you think consciousness is a thing-in-itself, via divorcing mind from body, rather than a function of life. It's a "hard problem" because the people who think this way are literally trying to make sense of what Camus details as "the absurd."

"This divorce between man and this life, the actor and his setting, is properly the feeling of absurdity." Page 3 MoS.

The “hard problem” is not consciousness, but the philosopher’s estrangement from life.

One can simply create a way of thinking, and affirm it by living by that method. It's legitimate because it's a way of life that works for many. It's like religion, in that sense. Doesn't make it a very worthwhile way of thinking though... that whole inner outer world thing has lead so many thinkers astray, from Plato to Kant, and even still more beyond them like Dennet.

I don’t think I would trust Plato's realm of ideas. It was cute thing to suppose we are a recession of internalizations apart from an externalized world... but this is merely all of Plato's reification of his own Allegory of the Cave.

Once you posit that “we” are minds looking out at a separate “external world,” you already presuppose the very dualism Plato needed for his argument. He built a metaphysics out of a psychological stance (our experience of being conscious, reflective, and mediated). And everyone bought into it, just as they bought into Kant, for the very same reasons (mostly).

You yourself are skirting around the fallacy of conceptual retrojection in using modern ideas to express something we have observed long beforehand. Though it doesn't make you "wrong" but perhaps there is a better, more primative way of detail what an idea is? Something along the lines of inspiration?

Inspiration doesn’t presuppose a two-world ontology. It’s not “a copy of a transcendent Form.” It’s closer to breath (in-spirare = to breathe into), a surge of force or affect that wells up and gives shape to thought or creation.

Comedy: the New "Way to Slay."

How many Platonists does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

None... lightbulbs in the world of appearance are but dim shadows of the eternal form of the Lightbulb, which always shines perfectly in the realm of ideas. All they do is argue about whether you're seeing a bulb or not.

Justified True Beliefs, isn't that mostly rhetorical clothing for our instincts? Reasons are post-hoc rationalizations of our drives. A life-preserving fiction that looks backwards at that which has already been done. And doesn't change that fact whether justified or not. Who needs to believe when one can simply create and affirm that which is created?

isn't this whole forum armchair philosophers? The main problem here is everyone is stuck on Platonism. Which makes for that boring pretentious armchair philosophy of metaphysicians. You know, the ones that like to consider the "brain in a vat," without rolling their eyes at such a weak thought experiment. Epistemological philosophy is practiced by those peacocks who like to hide their peacock feathers from view while they call that their pride.

You're gonna have to make what you want in life.

a simple way to imagine it is as if your body is filled with millions of broadcasting stations. But reduce the wording however you want?

Causality seems to me to be something that is multifaceted. Causality in humans is different than say when heat causes water to boil. In humans, causality is more like gradations of transversely communicating probabilities across a multitude of drives and physiological mechanisms. This is ola key concept of Quine's inscrutability of reference... that no two humans share a homology of receptors that "shared stimulus" doesn't reslly exist, so "causality" in you would have different stimulus pathways.

Fuhgeddaboudit

Banno, it's a bit obvious that Badenusthra came to engage with a poorly developed rhetoric in lieu of Nietzsche's writings. And certainly while not in any alignment with the topic or Nietzsche's thoughts, but in a manner seeking to discredit the man as not very careful with intellectual integrity. Reciprocating in kind is showing an active suffering with others from themselves. A bridge to one's love.

An absolute gold fragment of Nietzsche's...

Ζοννυξος (= Διονῡσος in the Lesbian-Aeolian dialect. Originally probably Dionysus). This leads to a stem nek i.e. nekyς, νεκρος, etc. — neco.

Dionysus is Hades according to Heraclitus.

Curet cult of Zeus originally.

Ζοννυξος ist "der todte Zeus" oder der "tödtende Zeus" — Zeusjäger = Ζαγρευς und ὡμηστής. — NF: 1869, 3[82]

Which fits with Dionysus' myth, the myth of death, dismemberment, sacrifice, and rebirth. And another version of overcoming one self in their opposite. This is also why Nietzsche even subsumes a certain framework of the psychology of Christ into his "Noble" type. Because Christ is Dionysus too.

We can see these sentiments in AC 33 and AC 39, which the sentiments in AC 39 even arise directly in the preface of AC.

I don't think you need other people to justify your actions for you.