For centuries people thought the "will" and the "ego" were genuine causes, facts about consciousness that explained action and responsibility. This is merely a projection of outdated psychology. Modern insight reveals that what we call "the will" doesn't cause action, motives are mere suruface ripples, and the Ego is a fiction of IT ( the body). Humans mistook these illusions for real quantums of force, and we built our metaphysics based upon them and projected it upon the world, turning the Ego into ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the conception of a "thing in itself..." a summary of one of the 4 great errors by Nietzsche in Twilight of Idols...

But also...

The Greatest Utility of Polytheism 143 Gay Science goes into this. "Not I, Not I, but as an instrument of my God did I do such a thing..." and "the individual set up for themselves their own ideals as Gods, Ubermensch, Heros, and subordinate undermen..."

And Ecce Homo on Inspiration, Nietzsche talks about how, Zarathustra, another Ego within Nietzsche held within himself... he speaks about how this ego waylaid him on his walks to become an unwitting mouth piece... it took him 30 days to write the first three sections in TSZ, 10 days a piece. The words flowed out of him and he just kept writing... there was no stopping to consider this or that and how to organize the book. He just knew from the get go... below are some snips from his discussion.

Has any one at the end of the nineteenth century any distinct notion of what poets of a stronger age understood by the word inspiration?...

There is an ecstasy so great that the immense strain of it is sometimes relaxed by a flood of tears, during which one's steps now involuntarily rush and anon involuntarily lag....

There is the feeling that one is utterly out of hand, with the very distinct consciousness of an endless number of fine thrills and titillations descending to one's very toes....

Everything happens quite involuntarily, as if in a tempestuous outburst of freedom, of absoluteness, of power and divinity....

Hope that helps.

lmao, so the 5'2 guy is grabbing the firearm for superiority out of inferiority. Thought you'd eventually see it my way. You're the kind of guy who doesn't like admitting basic things like "man, I'm at a disadvantage..."?

That's the whole point of a firearm to give advantage. It's pretty manly to accept you're in a position where you require superiority through firepower because you're inferior...

Objective moralist do "when you wish to minimize risk of injury in dealing with something undesirable."

Im not debating with anyone here. It's quite simple though, you pick up a fire arm when you require superiority...

The reasons why a person requires superiority vary widely... some times that feeling is "I need a firearm because I am truly an impotent worm who needs to feel superior to others...." like Kyle Rittenhouse, a pale criminal who thirsted for blood.

I'll summarize 1 of the great errors: the error of false causality.

For centuries people thought the "will" and the "ego" were genuine causes, facts about consciousness that explained action and responsibility. This is merely a projection of outdated psychology. Modern insight reveals that what we call "the will" doesn't cause action, motives are mere suruface ripples, and the Ego is a fiction of IT ( the body). Humans mistook these illusions for real quantums of force, and we built our metaphysics based upon them and projected it upon the world, turning the Ego into an ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the thing in itself...

aye, and they still grab a firearm because a bear is superior to man naturally...

THE FOUR GREAT ERRORS

Twilight of Idols, By Nietzsche...

Check it or don't, but it will perhaps answer you most deeply here...

All firearms are for Superiority by someone suffering from Inferiority.

The Left and the Right are little more than objective morals for people who build identity through externalized values. A puppet tied to strings."Woke and Antiwoke" are expressions of these impoverished mentalities of "Left and Right."

A painting is an image thats been appropriated by an artist and ran through an internal gauntlet by means of an invented self expression created from personal style to personal principles that tyrannize over said style, and adhoc additions that are required to bake in the appearance of genuineness from the artist.

Aristotle seems to be regarding the mind (viz., the thinking aspect of the soul) as 'unmixed' with the matter and that, for some reason, this mind is not real prior to knowing something. — Bob Ross

Not what I got from the passage... Aristotle is saying before a thought is SHAPED and comes into the mind... it has no form. Not that the two are seperate.

Just as Nietzsche details in Aphorism 17 of BGE. Thoughts come from this unformed place that we call "I" when really it's just that the unconscious body thinks. "I think" ... yet the thought came to you ... it was unformed, but within the multiplicity of the will. "I" is just the ego, the mask the body wears, but certainly "I" doesn't do the thinking. "I" is the form projected from the tyranny of that multiplicity of undercurrents. Perhaps you think "seperate" because of how dialectical your approach is? It seems a mistake to say Aristotle would seperate a dual orbit... when he is quite a famous case of "too little too much" between two opposites. But to even call these two opposites is too much also as they're one in the same, as Nietzsche details in BGE 2. It's more of a growth out of.

"I" is like the metaphysical attack surface of a person, it's a place where forms go to thrive or die. Hence why pluralism has become so big these days... because there are, in reality, so many fucking forms, anything is possible...

Wait, whats that, Schizo Analysis? a form of unformed forms formulating over different forms of a form in an unformulated manner? My gosh what will that do other than give a multiplicity of perspectives! Osh Kosh By Gosh! Perspective seems to be a fundamental condition of life... oh wait also in BGE.

And a mod can see how many times I edit and Update because all the forms of these words were mostly formless a moment ago before I spooled up the good old "I" for churning mental butter.

My man, I say it to piss you off, cause you're one of those types that's easily turned into a puppet. Cause I got 0 empathy for the bullshit of lastmen. But I will suffer a fool, for my own good health.

My man, you're grasping at straws. Empathy is sharing in the suffering of another sympathy means you recognize it that's pretty much it, regardless if you help or not.

Like bro, Im sympathetic to your cause but I'm busy with my own shit...

I mean, honestly, you're still you in PM, so the only way to cut through that bullshit is the lose the whole thinking you're a winning dominant philosopher when you're just addicted to being a simulacrum who pretends to do anything with philosophy at all. If you wanna cut theough the BS, dont post bullshit?

The hell do you think is gonna happen in a FORUM when you set out an idea for ALL its "philosophers," and wide opinions?

A whirlwind.

Of course this shows you admitting you're good at wheeling and dealing one on one to try and dominate the conversation by just saying the same thing over and over without adding any depth. Like you did with Moliere and I. To the point I decided to poison you against me because you're easy like that.

Hence my post so long ago in the shout box "I got the poison..."

Know what a radar is right?

Radars detect.

Sympathy means you can detect the problem, because you understand what's going on... doesn't mean you give a damn about helping.

Empathy is more than just the understanding of, but rather more of the action of feeling another's pain and helping thwm overcome it.

Sympathy is more like social radar, empathy is sharing in the pain of those who show up on that radar.

Only two? Lol. Guess we ought to tell the vast and varied philosophers there are only two rigid ways to think. Very dialectical of you.

"The will" is a misnomer and it certainly isn't free. The will is a word which almalgamates a number or even all our drives and forces behind an action into a single easy to use word/idea. Freedom of will may perhaps come down to whether one is strong enough to overcome harmful compulsions.

the unit created for that purpose.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it.

make that 16 pages now, but it's pretty simple gender is a mental status like nationalism, male or female nationalism. Sex is a physical status.

The particulars here, seem to be in decisions made from past experiences. In your example the choice was made by a past decision. But perhaps something occurs that makes you change that decision. Like some Icecream is 400 calories per serving, some are 100 calories per serving. You may decide that from now on you want to try something with less calories. So you update a decision preference. To decide means to kill off other options.

One does lose in choice if they go with the predecided factors but the choice was already made at some point. But limiting yourself to safe choices because you know you like that 1 option is how limited some people are. Sometimes we make choices not at the precipice of the moment. Where as true spontaneous choice in the matter requires us to be free from preformed decisions.

This is reminiscent of Nan-In's Cup of Tea story...
How can one be taught anything when their head is already convoluted by preformed decisions about that something.

Consider this: even dream experience is "real" enough to impart knowledge to the dreamer.

Nah, the superficial reality is created from a profundity of depth which ultimately seeks to express itself. What you see is what you get, in a manner of speaking.

Every book, the superficial mask of its author... every painting and every song too.

We're not like a car that just uses a shell to look cool.

That's cause you think reality is the "true world," not the real apparent world.

damn dude, imagine having to explain to someone in 2025 that rape is the nonconsensual penetration of the anus or vagina/penis with any body part or object however small. You don't require a penis to rape. Woman vs woman rape is rarer obviously than man vs woman Which is reasonable when you consider that men and women tend to find the opposite attractive, but roughly 1/4th of rapes in all-women's facilities occur by women raping other women.
But in your favor, that statistic alone goes miles... it shows you that males in a position of power will abuse that power to rape women more frequently. At a much higher ratio than women on women. And a trans male to female may feel that way, but also so too could female to male who haven't even had a phalloplasty. What if they're much stronger and the what not via transitioning on gear and working out?

Do you think someone without a natural penis can rape a woman? — Leontiskos

Duh, women can rape women.

Sex is only factually binary at the most basic and lowest level of analysis (Gamete vs Ova producers). From there, every other trait generally tied in alignment to sex can cross that line in the sand: chromosomal, gonadal, hormonal, phenotypic.

Even then there are plenty of symptoms that render some people congenitally unable to produce any gametes and thus...

Those who feel threatened by the last bit are those who throw their arms up in declaration "there can only be two!" like some twisted version of Highlander. While there are those whose radars don't even pick up because they don't use science in a way to deny the lives of others.

Who cares about the binary of sex anyway in the discussion about gender?

People still arguing about this? It seems pretty simple to me faith is an overcoming of some lacking in knowledge, and uncertainty, with a blank check that bridges an abyss, regardless of truth.

Looks like there was something to see here after all...

and what are you a mouthpiece for now?

well, seeing as Shawn was asking for insight, they're the one doing the digging, nothing being bestowed. You coming here all "nothing to see here folk, I didn't create this thread," is probably the dumbest bit of reification here...

When someone is asking about X Y and Z the proper response isn't "nothing to see here" in an attempt to police the forums from someone asking a question. :lol: The Philosophy Forum's own Cartman. If there's nothing here, why do you need to say anything at all about nothing being here?

Ah because you took his abstract question and attempt to turn into a concrete waste of time. But If Shawn finds even 180's notion on it useful then there obviously is something to see here, as it's their question that they're asking. Somehow you forgot that you're not Shawn.

There's something there but not much truthfully. What OP doesn't seem to realize is they're just crowning one slave morality they're bias for in favor of another. Left or Right is merely a new age dogma for people who can't think for themselves.

A mind independent world is precisely that old mischief of a "true world," vs. the reality of the apparent world rearing its ugly head yet again. The "true world," is actually the make-believe, whereas the real apparent world is the one we live in. The "true world," the one that adheres to all our systems, is merely a world that reality doesn't give a damn about. Nature is indifferent to that world, and thus No, you can not have a mind independent world. That's what Heaven is.

@Fire Ologist what do you make of the following:

Prose, poetry, theater all have music as their model and origin. That is the point upon which The Birth of Tragedy insists notably in the 5th and 6th aphorisms....

Among all experiences musical jubilation is obviously privileged, not because this jubilation privileges and distinguishes musical reality among all other realities, but because it has as its effect, in Nietzsche’s opinion, to arouse the approbation of all things indifferently. — Clément Rosset, Joyful Cruelty, pg 36&37

You're a musician to the core, what say you about the above on how music affirms all life indifferently and thus an exception for use as a method for philosophical discourse?

Not sure why you imply that 'metanoia' must involve only positive emotions. — boundless

It didn't say that it did, but it shows Jesus doesn't demand one to be repentant, but rather to achieve metanoia, a transformed mindset vs a bad conscience.

The bad ruminant cannot achieve joy because they're stuck with undigested feelings of shame and guilt.

Jesus has nothing to do with shame and guilt.

Thus... repentance is not a feeling Jesus demands of his followers.

Hence the "glad tidings" of Jesus.

I believe that repentance is also a process of healing and such a healing might involve potentially suffering — boundless

Suffering isn't an absence of joy or sadness...repentance is different from suffering also, attempting to equate the two as the same, well, of course we won't see eye to eye.

One doesn't need to repent in order to change ones ways...

The repentant criminal is none other than Nietzsche's "Pale Criminal" who hangs his head in shame and is now defined as the doer of one deed that not defines his identity, some deed that is an externalized anchor of the past...

Metanoia (μετάνοια) in Greek literally means a change of mind or a transformative rethinking. It implies an internal shift in perspective—almost existential—a turning toward a new way of being, seeing, or living. It’s often active, forward-facing, and creative.

Repentance, from Latin paenitentia (root of penitence), is soaked in guilt, punishment, and moral debt. It implies sorrow for wrongdoing, often linked to confession, penance, and shame. It's backward-facing, tied to regret.

Jesus seeks to transform through the Beatitudes, which are connected with Joy, not shame and guilt, as he didn't come to pass any judgements.

John 3:17 For God sent not his Son into the world, to judge the world, but that the world may be saved by him.

Then I highly suggest you begin to understand the secrets of Nietzsche's invention of the Dionysian Dithyrambs... as Metaphysical Poetry is what Nietzsche details as his magnum opus, his greatest gift to mankind...

In my lifework, my Zarathustra holds a place apart. With it, I gave my fellow-men the greatest gift that has ever been bestowed upon them. This book, the voice of which speaks out across the ages, is not only the loftiest book on earth, literally the book of mountain air — Ecce Homo

Added the above to showcase Nietzsche details TSZ as his greatest gift to mankind and magnum opus. The below details some about his artists metaphysics.

Already in the foreword to Richard Wagner, art—-and not morality—is set down as the properly metaphysical activity of man; in the book itself the piquant proposition recurs time and again, that the existence of the world is justified only as an æsthetic phenomenon. Indeed, the entire book recognises only an artist-thought and artist-after-thought behind all occurrences,—a "God," if you will, but certainly only an altogether thoughtless and unmoral artist-God, who, in construction as in destruction, in good as in evil, desires to become conscious of his own equable joy and sovereign glory; who, in creating worlds, frees himself from the anguish of fullness and overfullness, from the suffering of the contradictions concentrated within him...

I am convinced that art is the highest task and the properly metaphysical activity of this life, as it is understood by the man, to whom, as my sublime protagonist on this path, I would now dedicate this essay....

But, my dear Sir, if your book is not Romanticism, what in the world is? Can the deep hatred of the present, of "reality" and "modern ideas" be pushed farther than has been done in your artist-metaphysics? — Birth of Tragedy

Nietzsche's Dithyrambs are poems with metaphysical side-effects, their whole purpose is to take a self abnegated reader through a journey that overcomes their bad conscience and loathing of mankind. The dithyrambs are detailed by Nietzsche quite extensively, but nobody even takes this discussion seriously because "Nietzsche."

The Dionyso-musical enchantment of the sleeper now emits, as it were, picture sparks, lyrical poems, which in their highest development are called tragedies and dramatic dithyrambs... — Birth of Tragedy

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb...

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude...

Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery...

The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing? — Ecce Homo

The Gospels is longer than a page. And what do you got you panties in a twist for? I literally learned something here from you. Metanoia vs Repentance is even better than Penance vs Repentance.

Everything else is reified through Judaism.

I get what you mean but I do not know* of any Greek (or even Syriac) Christian author according to whom some kind of remedial suffering is not needed for salvation. — boundless

Doesn't make a difference what people think, unless they think they know better than Jesus, which goes to show they're fluffing their own ego at that point.

The text is the text, and well, we see that the authors of the original Greek Bible chose metanoia, so saying that you don’t know of any writers or authors... well, you're glossing over the facts of the words in favor of a poor translation through reification.

If you have children, here's hoping (facetiously) they don't learn a poor version of mathematics all because someone wanted to put their own spin on the concepts of math... 7+4 = 11 regardless of how you may want to twist it to some other value.

The only hell a person might go through is their own bad conscience, if they ever stoop that low to feel a bad conscience to begin with. Not by way of Jesus, as Jesus does not judge, for he was sent into the world as God's undying Grace. One need not feel any torment over past actions.