putting that on the ole reading list. Appreciate you.

Facts are historical. — tim wood

That's exactly the point of me pointing to the fact in Nietzsche's WtP 258

My leading doctrine is this: there are no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. The origin of this interpretation itself lies beyond the pale of morality.

What is the meaning of the fact that we have imagined a contradiction in existence? This is of paramount importance: behind all other valuations those moral valuations stand commandingly. Supposing they disappear, according to what standard shall we then measure? And then of what value would knowledge be, etc. etc.??? — Nietzsche, WtP 258

Leads directly into Nietzsche

develop[ing] this idea further in Human All Too Human, again in Joyful Wisdom/Gay Science, in TSZ&BGE, and in Genealogy, all the way through to will to power. — DifferentiatingEgg

From the second aphorism of HATH, and I explain this in the other post also (

We can see Nietzsche discusses this very concept as early as HATH (Aphorism 2), all the way to Ecce Homo and Antichrist... Which even Peter Gast gets right in WtP... — DifferentiatingEgg

), had you read the aphorisms you'd see...

Inherited Faults of Philosophers:...A lack of the historical sense is the hereditary fault of all philosophers...there are no eternal facts, as there are likewise no absolute truths. Therefore, historical philosophising is henceforth necessary, and with it the virtue of diffidence. — Nietzsche HATH § 2

So you see, I did discuss it, just not directly point to it... but fact is, there wasn't a wrong interpretation in that other than you thinking you had me on a wrong interpretation...

Nice, thank you for that additional gradation. What book is that in?

Some people ready many books, some people read a quality selection of books many times. For example, since January Ive read and listened to Quine's Pursuit of Truth like 6 times. Once is never enough for my methodology.

regardless, thanks for the tip about the drafts section. :up:

I implore you to actually read Nietzsche?

T Clark brought me up to speed. Already mentioned I have a walking desk.

that has nothing to do with Nietzsche... and I've been reading everything but Nietzsche lately... because I've already developed a careful mastery of Nietzsche.

Besides, as T Clark says, the new discussions get saved as drafts in the drafts section.

I'd wager you are, regardless. Especially since you attempt to throw around the foundation of their thought so readily... a quick search of a few key terms and yeah... you're knee deep homie... hence "Christian."

Getting to the bottom of why TPF doesn't have a standard Save as Draft function is the point. There's one post I could find about drafts and Jamal said he would see about getting it implemented...

So the only information I had to go off of was that Jamal could see if a save as draft feature could be implemented for the inbox... So I made the post to see if it could be implemented for the website.

Questioning something isn't whining dumbass. But I can see how a "Christian" could confuse the two...

Ah, well, I suppose that could help.

Well, thankfully, I remember the "form" of my post is like BGE 19, 24, 9, 19 something something BoT Through Will to P.

that is the stone age... and Im using my phone. Geesh, sitting at a desk pools the blood. And although I have a desk I can walk at and notes I can type in there on my phone... no... I think I'll raise the question as to why this place can't do save as draft functionality when comments are saved... I guess TFP is just hosted by a company not owned by the owner of TFP.

Personally, my experience with hardcoded is that you can often figure a creative way around the hardcoded limitations.

Heh, well consider what a state does: presents pretty much a standard to live by while building a structure to govern people who can't govern themselves... that isn't to say that there aren't those that do... but by and large most fail at governing themselves. They look to the state to provide solutions.

Intension is the total set of receptors intrinsic to the physical form of a word.

One cannot use words without knowing the meanings — Corvus

True, though, ultimately the meaning of a word is dependent upon the sentence it shows up in.

Because I see that Quine has read Nietzsche and I see Quine attempting to overcome aspects Nietzsche would harp on doesn't mean I see everything through Nietzsche. That means I know Nietzsche's phrases and when I read it in another author, I'm like "ah, hes read Nietzsche." Because it's a stimulus that triggers a total set of receptors...

Just as I realized Quines philosophy is based on Set Theory and Mathematics to inform him on linguistics... with hardly any ability in set theory none the less. I simply realized that what I was learning about Ordinals is how Quine orders linguistics from the top down. His "total set of receptors" was the same as the total set of nodes in which one can say this references that

1. I'm going to throw shit on you vs. 2. I'm going to throw "shit" on you... what am I referring to by "shit" in number 2? I'll give you three guesses. If you can not get it right, then it's likely cause it's incoherent because I quoted shit... and thus, modality and reference do not trigger all the same set of receptors from De Re vs De Dicto.

That I detail every language as its own quotational account... well, you cannot know wtf "hintegedanke" means without knowing it in German because there is no word for it in any other language, or even "Aristeuein" for that matter but for the Greek. Even without that... how many words are there for a Bird? In other languages? I don't know... and I dont even know 1/10th or probably 1/100ths of all the words for Bird... the different modality of a language can render something incoherent just as a quotational account...

Unless you know the meaning within that modality... the same total set of receptors wont fire...

And thus if I switch modalities from English to French w/ That oiseau is flying... the plane? the insects, ... what exactly is flying when I don't know what "oiseau" is? I can make an educated guess based on faith and "what I know that can fly?"

Thus modalities have a certain resisting against identity when substituted...

The modalities of necessity and possibility are not overtly mentalistic, but still they are intensional, in the sense of resisting substitutivity of identity. — Quine's Pursuit of Truth.

If that's opaque then I can see why you take Russel's boneheaded criticism of Nietzsche. Because you're out here substituting your meanings and words for Nietzsche's own...

And as Wittgenstein shows us, every philosopher has his own language, a language that you have to familiarize yourself with otherwise you wont know wtf they're saying.

by the nature of the question, it appears to me that you're thinking I'm saying they're already stealing all the money. What I'm saying is the state loves to take the excess of power and productivity of a person and turns it into fiat money that represents a style of power and productivity within a given post-phenomenalist structure.

That fiat money isn't printed for public serivce is because your politicians aren't really giving a damn about that vs other interests.

The state literally already takes everything from the people, money is generally a superfluous representation of power, power and productivity stolen by the state.

Not sure what's so hard to understand

30 Modalities The modalities of necessity and possibility are not overtly mentalistic, but still they are intensional, in the sense of resisting substitutivity of identity. Here again we have the interplay between de dicto and de re. Thus ‘nec (7 < the number of the planets)’ is true de re, since nec (7 < 9), but false de dicto...

28 Propositional Attitudes: (1) There are some whom Ralph believes to be spies, not just that (2) Ralph believes ‘∃x(x is a spy)’. If rendered quotationally, (1) goes incoherent. (3) ∃x(Ralph believes ‘x is a spy’). The quotation in (3) is just a name of a string of seven letters and three spaces; its ‘x’ has nothing to do with the outlying ‘∃x’. (1) ascribed belief de re; quotation ascribes it de dicto. Between (1) and (2) we sense the vital difference between spotting a suspect and merely believing, like all of us, that there are spies. — Quine's Pursuit of Truth.

Quite simple... de dicto is incoherent cause it's a quotational account, so who knows what exactly he's referencing...

You cant tell which total set of receptors are triggered for the words in a quotational account... hence the popularity of disquotation. Apollonians flock to disquotation because of its form.

But in truth, every language is a quotational account... what observation sentences are true for every person in the world are very few. Even science as its truths delve deeper and deeper. Overturning older ways for the newer, better, faster, stronger method...

In reading Quine, there are times when the man will use phrases direct from Nietzsche, that trigger a total set of receptors (example "leading to strange new vistas") and it's my belief that Quine would consider his own perspective from his opposite under the mask of Nietzsche, to scrutinize his works. To overcome this problem of subjectivity from "Stimulus to Science."

There are no facts, there are only interpretations — Arcane Sandwich

I dont give a fuck if AS(s) Boy isn't even here... heres the facts. WHO THE FUCK SAID THERE ARE NO FACTS ONLY INTERPRETATION? Nietzsche said there are no MORAL FACTS ONLY MORAL INTERPRETATION OF PHENOMENON...

When you're a retard who doesn't read Nietzsche, perhaps you shouldn't comment on trying to refute Nietzsche. There's a reaaon Ole boy AS was posting 33 times a day... Nietzsche spells it out: Powerlessness.

I swear, middling fuck wits thinking they know something...

My leading doctrine is this: there are no moral phenomena, but only a moral interpretation of phenomena. The origin of this interpretation itself lies beyond the pale of morality. — Nietzsche, WtP

We can see Nietzsche discusses this very concept as early as HATH (Aphorism 2), all the way to Ecce Homo and Antichrist... Which even Peter Gast gets right in WtP...

"I hate Nietzsche, so I want to try and refute something Nietzsche doesn't even say." 99% of "Bannos/Low calibre Russels" in the world.

Though, I suppose if you fancy a shit interpretation... don't be surprised when you end up covered in the shit of your own poor interpretation.

pretty simple, the first law of Thermo Dynamics pretty much says everything can neither be created nor destroyed, but that what is changes form.

Nothing to be sorry about.

The law of conservation of humans

Humans can neither be created or destroyed, but they can change forms.

A baby isn't created, just a changing of forms of matter.

The law of conservation of shit

Shits can neither be created or destroyed, but they can change forms...

"I'm eating this 'shit' so my body transforms it into that shit which I'll shit out as a pile of shit..."

You can sub anyword for energy and it's more or less true.

Better yet, Life is neither created or destroyed...

Or light for that matter...

But wait God does those things?

So apparently energy can be created or destroyed. According to any true Christian perspective.

I dont know the answer either. ALL that I'm getting at is it seems odd to make a very obvious law that says details the definition of limitless is to be without limits.

your question and assertion is in reference to perpetual motion. Trying to pretend it's not because I didn't reference it in my assertion is just you being a troll.

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible? — flannel jesus

What about friction, heat loss, things like that? When a machine loses energy, it doesn't just lose it into the void, it gets transferred to other things in its immediate environment.

The concept of energy doesn't dictate that energy is really lost, if you want to relate entropy to energy, entropy is more about patterns of distribution of energy. — flannel jesus

this is why you're a lying sack of poop...

Certainly implied.

Well you're definitely asserting something here:

What about friction, heat loss, things like that? When a machine loses energy, it doesn't just lose it into the void, it gets transferred to other things in its immediate environment.

The concept of energy doesn't dictate that energy is really lost, if you want to relate entropy to energy, entropy is more about patterns of distribution of energy. — flannel jesus

Is motion perpetual without limits?

What? I don't understand what you mean. Could you clarify? Why are you saying such a thing to me without referencing anything I said? I don't understand.


->If you can't remember what you said, go back and read it.

You asked like 5 times, every time I respond is quite clear and simple. If you're incapable of even understanding that, then perhaps this place isn't for you. Playing dumb is just a troll tactic. So you'll be trolled right back.

Then perhaps leave these forums. Obviously your limits are many. Your understanding would be without limit if you weren't limited. Just as motion would be limitless without limitation. If you cannot see that, well, carry on. *waves a shooing hand*

Trolling like fuck I see...

Can you think of a different reason why perpetual motion machines would be impossible — flannel jesus

IE "Can you think of any reason why limitless become limited"

The law of everything is that it's limitless without limits.

ANY THING IS FUCKING LIMITLESS WHEN YOU REMOVE THEIR LIMITS.

A little imagination would be all it took to understand vs obstinance. But, just my opinion.

More or less, it's kinda all too obvious to say "x is limitless were there nothing making it limited..."

Not a huge gap at all, just perhaps a lack of understanding on your behalf:

It is at work everywhere, functioning smoothly at times, at other times in fits and starts. It breathes, it heats, it eats. It shits and fucks. What a mistake to have ever said the id. Everywhere it is machines—real ones, not figurative ones: machines driving other machines, machines being driven by other machines, with all the necessary couplings and connections. An organ-machine is plugged into an energy-source-machine: the one produces a flow that the other interrupts. — Deleuze, Anti-Oedipus, Pg 1

Pretty simple...

"Motion is perpetual because only other things kill it off."

In that same vein of thinking... "life is immortal because only other things kill it off."

Okay all life is immortal... doesn't matter that other things kill you off... life would be immortal otherwise...

Literally the perspective of perpetual motion...

"Cause other things kill me off other than me, Life is never ending."

Physics aside, this whole thread was determined. Determined thoughts about the topic and what needs to be expressed by the determined individuals within the topic. A need to try and bring science into even... out of a need to refute others... doubtful there are truly passionate scientists here. Just ones looking to talk about the concepts behind the science for other purposes than science. Science as objective dogma... Because the mind is a tyrant.

a standard ploy that denies God some facet and experience or another that denies God omnimity.

Only if you relegate madness as a domain of God...

Ah, "Fecal Freakal," I understand.

The Left Rights - Take a Shit

I doubt anyone here can muster much, if any critique of my knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy and psychology. His thoughts are like trees, with roots trunks branches and fragments, all of which details Nietzsche's thoughts. Not my concept of Nietzsche's thoughts.

Which joke - that π is beyond our grasp or that Nietzsche is difficult? — Banno

Sad, that you think that worth writing. — Banno

Doesn't realize that shame/guilt doesn't work on someone who understands Nietzsche.