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.

It’s meant to be irrational.

the only true expression of pi is that Janus is J's Anus

What's it matter? We're grasping pi...

there is no true way to express pi is all...

Well, according to I need memos.

Well, that's another joke, because he sure fooled you and your homeboy Russel...

My joke is rimshot cheese shit eating grin opportunity strikes... yours and Banno's joke is different and I definitely didn't think about it at all, until being pinged by Banno.

My comment is the joke. That it's hard for you to understand, well, I can understand that. Nietzsche too is hard for you to grasp.

Taking literally the ruthless implications of Nietzsche's anti-democratic thinking—his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

Oh, right colonial expansion and eugenics isn't about Nationalism at all... :roll:

The fact dude even suggest Nietzsche celebrates those things is straight trash.

That the masses prop up the higher social rank is what Nietzsche details for OTIUM... not eugenics... The Superman isn't about domination over others...it isn't about literally breeding a new type of man.

How the fuck is suffering with them from them (the only time Nietzsche declares the superman becoming reality) the same as breeding a new type of superman?

the type "Superman" already exists...

The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes...

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

You insulted Nietzsche with that donk post about Nietzsche... Maybe read Nietzsche vs someone's work about Nietzsche which lead you astray. Also, I'm sitting here watching my father waste away in hospice. I was bitter.

Is the number pi beyond our grasp? — frank

It's an irrational number after all.

I'm generally opposed to victim searching, where folks go out and try to convince others they are oppressed or downtrodden. — Hanover

I dont feel oppressed or down trodden from it either, personally. I hardly even care about the fact that I'm a man, I barely consider it at all, generally only when something inqures my gender/sex.

Doesn't mean I can't see the necessity for the profoundest antagonism between man and woman attempting to assert itself within humanity...

The fact that feminism and feminity is being advocated so hard... for every action there is an equal but opposite... every hero/heroine has their enemy.

Just as slaves rose up against the values of the masters who ruled them, woman too is rising up against the constellation of the past few thousand years.

Which is certainly one of the issues Nietzsche has with feminism that dictates "woman as such." It's just another dogma. A slave morality for women, for the most part, just as Nietzsche considers Science a slave morality for most practitioners, as it's their way to deny others their beliefs based off of some calculations or another...

The thing is, you don't suffer from an insecurity there though... so why would you feel attacked? I'll assume you're wiser than the average person, I'd wager that studying philosophy has brought you many insights into who you are, such that your identity ia drawn from within rather than reifying with external concepts which passively form a reactionary identity, because the external values come with strings attached...

More or less, you're not an impoverished mentality. Thus you don't feel attacked. That doesn't mean, that masculinity isn't reprimanded currently. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean it's not occurring.

The ancient Greek would see our current society as Barbaric because the social has absorbed the old concept of privacy...there is no more private realm of necessity, inequality and necessary inequality... society and the social now deprives us of natural states of world and parts of our animal nature.... misogyny is so damn ripe because there's a constant society wide distribution that man and masculinity is shit through a deleveling of masculine values. A society wide deprivation of masculinity due to the fact that femininity is having a spasmodic explosion from being held captive, from being viewed as something to be exercised, viewed as shit for so long under the Semitic way of life...

The emergence of society—the rise of housekeeping, its activities, problems, and organizational devices—from the shadowy interior of the household into the light of the public sphere, has not only blurred the old borderline between private and political, it has also changed almost beyond recognition the meaning of the two terms and their significance for the life of the individual and the citizen.

This is not merely a matter of shifted emphasis. In ancient feeling the privative trait of privacy, indicated in the word itself, was all-important; it meant literally a state of being deprived of something, and even of the highest and most human of man's capacities. A man who lived only a private life, who like the slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian who had chosen not to establish such a realm, was not fully human. We no longer think primarily of deprivation when we use the word "privacy," and this is partly due to the enormous enrichment of the private sphere through modern individualism. However, it seems even more important that modern privacy is at least as sharply opposed to the social realm—unknown to the ancients who considered its content a private matter-—as it is to the political, properly speaking.

The decisive historical fact is that modern privacy in its most relevant function, to shelter the intimate, was discovered as the opposite not of the political sphere but of the social, to which it is therefore more closely and authentically related. The striking coincidence of the rise of society with the decline of the family indicates clearly that what actually took place was the absorption of the family unit into corresponding social groups.

It is decisive that society, on all its levels, excludes the possibility of action, which formerly was excluded from the household. Instead, society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior, imposing innumerable and various rules, all of which tend to "normalize" its members, to make them behave, to exclude spontaneous action or outstanding achievement.

We find these demands in the salons of high society, whose conventions always equate the individual with his rank within the social framework. What matters is this equation with social status, and it is immateri al whether the framework happens to be actual rank in the half-feud al society of the eighteenth century, title in the class society of the nineteenth, or mere function in the mass society of today. The rise of mass society, on the contrary, only indicates that the various social groups have suffered the same absorption into one society that the family units had suffered earlier; with the emergence of mass society, the realm of the social has finally, after several centuries of development, reached the point where it embraces and controls all members of a given community equally and with equal strength. But society equalizes under all circumstances, and the victory of equality in the modern world is only the political and legal recognition of the fact that society has conquered the public realm, and that distinction and difference have become private matters of the individual. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition.

Resentment from the masses, people project their powerlessness outwards, just as Nietzsche describes of the powerless in Gay Science (359 & 379) and Genealogy (First Essay 10, and practically all of the Second Essay) ... So the world has a bunch of weak resentful types from the masses feeling their manhood is threatened through this explosion and favoritism of femininity. And it's not just men, even some women are on board oddly enough.

Yall just neglecting Hannah Arendt huh? Probably why yall ain't even ready to have this conversation. Too focused on masculine feminine to see the whole change. Just a bunch of floppy penis presenting themselves to others, rather than understanding the entire shift of thoughts from the old constellations of thought to now that make up the new constellations of contemporary thought. It'll be like me trying to teach you all about Sisyphus from the Grecian perspective vs from the Christian perspective and yall just bitching about how I'm wrong because you only know the contemporary story vs its original from the Greek perspective.

Ironically, this David Moore doesn't know what irony is.

Apologies for skipping much of the conversation. A real life tragedy in motion over my way. That aside, I believe Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition does an amazing job at filling in the vital details here from the ancient Grecian values of koinonia and idios, shifting over time, due to figures like Aquinas improperly substituting the Roman word Social (which has no meaning in Grecian thought, because all animals are social, and thus it is a limitation of necessity on all biological life) for the concept Koinonia was the beginning of the betrayal in shifting away from the ancient way of thought... so I'll leave this from Arendt's book for others to mull over, before this she goes over the betrayal of Vita Activa in favor of Vita Contemplativa...

The profound misunderstanding expressed in the Latin transla- tion of "political" as "social" is perhaps nowhere clearer than in a discussion in which Thomas Aquinas compares the nature of household rule with political rule: the head of the household, he finds, has some similarity to the head of the kingdom, but, he adds, his power is not so "perfect" as that of the king. 11 Not only in Greece and the polls but throughout the whole of occidental an- tiquity, it would indeed have been self-evident that even the power of the tyrant was less great, less "perfect" than the power with which the paterfamilias, the dominus, ruled over his household of slaves and family... Although misunderstanding and equating the political and social realms is as old as the translatio n of Greek terms into Latin and their adaption to Roman-Christian thought, it has become even more confusing in modern usage and modem understanding of society.

The distinction between a private and a public sphere of life corresponds to the household and the political realms, which have existed as distinct, separate entities at least since the rise of the ancient city-state; but the emergence of the social realm, which is neither private nor public, strictly speaking, is a rela- tively new phenomenon whose or igin coincided with the emer- gence of the modern age and which found its political form in the nation-state. What concerns us in this context is the extraordinary difficulty with which we, because of this development, understand the deci- sive division between the public and private realms, between the sphere of the polls and the sphere of household and family, and, finally, between activities related to a common world and those related to the maintenance of life, a division upon which all ancient political thought rested as self-evident and axiomatic.

In our understanding, the dividing line is entirely blurred, because we see the body of peoples and political communities in the image of a family whose everyday affairs have to be taken care of by a gigantic, nation-wide administration of housekeeping. The scien- tific thought that corresponds to this development is no longer political science but " national economy" or "social economy" or Volkswirtschaft, all of which indicate a kind of "collective house-keeping"; 13 the collective of families economically organized into the facsimile of one super-human family is what we call "society," and its political form of organization is called "nation." 14

We therefore find it difficult to realize that according to ancient thought on these matters, the very term "political economy" would have been a contradiction in terms: whatever was " eco- nomic," related to the life of the individual and the survival of the species, was a non-political, household affair by definition. 16 Historically, it is very likely that the rise of the city-state and the public realm occurred at the expense of the private realm of family and household. 16 Yet the old sanctity of the hearth, though much less pronounced in classical Greece than in ancient Rome, was never entirely lost. What prevented the polis from violating the private lives of its citizens and made it hold sacred the bound- aries surrounding each property was not respect for private property as we understand it, but the fact that without owning a house a man could not participate in the affairs of the world because he had no location in it which was properly his own. 17

Even Plato, whose political plans foresaw the abolition of private property and an extension of the public sphere to the point of annihilating private life altogether, still speaks with great reverence of Zeus Herkeios, the protector of border lines, and calls the horoi, the boundaries between one estate and another, divine, without seeing any contradiction. 18 The distinctive trait of the household sphere was that in it men lived together because they were driven by their wants and needs. The driving force was life itself—the penates, the household gods, were, according to Plutarch, "the gods who make us live and nourish our body" 19—which, for its individual maintenance and its survival as the life of the species needs the company of others. That individual maintenance should be the task of the man and species survival the task of the woman was obvious, and both of these natural functions, the labor of man to provide nourishment and the labor of the woman in giving birth, were subject to the same urgency of life. Natural community in the household there- fore was born of necessity, and necessity ruled over all activities performed in it.

The realm of the polls, on the contrary, was the sphere of free- dom, and if there was a relationship between these two spheres, it was a matter of course that the mastering of the necessities of life in the household was the condition for freedom of the polls. Under no circumstances could politics be only a means to protect society —a society of the faithful, as in the Middle Ages, or a society of property-owners, as in Locke, or a society relentlessly engaged in a process of acquisition, as in Hobbes, or a society of producers, as in Marx, or a society of jobholders, as in our own society, or a society of laborers, as in socialist and communist countries. In all these cases, it is the freedom (and in some instances so-called freedom) of society which requires and justifies the restraint of political authority. Freedom is located in the realm of the social, and force or violence becomes the monopoly of government.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenome- non, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world.

This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. To be poor or to be in ill health meant to be subject to physical neces- sity, and to be a slave meant to be subject, in addition, to man- made violence. This twofold and doubled "unhappiness" of slavery is quite independent of the actual subjective well-being of the slave. Thus, a poor free man preferred the insecurity of a daily-changing labor market to regular assured wo rk, which, because it restricted his freedom to do as he pleased every day, was already felt to be servitude (douleia) , and even harsh, painful labor was preferred to the easy life of many household slaves. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition pg 27-31

Real life pulling me away. Hope that helps moving forward in the discussion.

I mean, read Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden from Gay Science and Vision from the Vision and the Enigma. Clearly deterministic. 341 GS, to live your life exactly as it were over and over again ad infinitum...

The Heaviest Burden.—What if a demon crept after thee into thy loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to thee: "This life, as thou livest it at present, and hast lived it, thou must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to thee again, and all in the same series and sequence—and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and thou with it, thou speck of dust!"—Wouldst thou not throw thyself down and gnash thy teeth, and curse the demon that so spake? Or hast thou once experienced a tremendous moment in which thou wouldst answer him: "Thou art a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over thee as thou art, it would transform thee, and perhaps crush thee; the question with regard to all and everything: "Dost thou want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon thy activity! Or, how wouldst thou have to become favourably inclined to thyself and to life, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing?— — Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden/Greatest Weight

The main question here is... if you were to gnash your teeth... then what must you begin doing in the gateway of this moment such that the idea becomes truly beautiful to you?

What Nietzsche is detailing there, in what you bring up, is more or less that a systematic approach isn't a guarantee of a specific outcome. What makes me who I am doesn't mean it will make you the same as me if you lived my life. That's why Nietzsche stresses for you to find your own path vs attempt to follow in the footsteps of others.

The book is over 1000 pages, quite meticulous and the arguments powerfully stated; looking beyond Nietzsche's philosophical texts towards his letters and other written material. The book changed my outlook on Nietzsche. Even if you will not fundamentally agree with Losurdo (who does not claim that Nietzsche should be discarded, by any means), I think there is a lot to grapple with. Highly recommend. — Maw

Seems like hot garbage by a dumbass who doesn't realize Nietzsche's so far from Nationalism it's pathetic... Otium is far from Eugenics that the this loserdo interprets Nietzschean values from.

his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

If you think Nietzsche celebrates any of that from the Nationalist view point rather than from the individual view point such as colonial expansion then it's quite obvious you've missed the mark on Nietzsche as he is quite overtly against those concepts in any form of Nationalist expression of them...

To impose slavery upon others is to impose slave morality upon them... it shows this 1000 page book is a blustery blunder. Specifically denying the life of anyone in slavery to an objective perspective and outcome, which is literally the definition of what Nietzsche declares as slave morality.

Really just goes to show what you're interested in...