I didn’t defend any arguments — T Clark

Never said you did, was clarifying that arguments aren't for proselytizing. I clarified that people here defend illogical positions because "OTHERS DONT UNDERSTAND" not because their own logic is flawed... that style of defense is hollow and just re-preaching hollowness.

Prove you’re smarter than Thomas Aquinas. — T Clark

You mean prove myself smarter than Aristotle's Prime Mover?
Do you want me to point out why arguments from presupposition that begs question are bad? I mean, at least make it a presupposition that doesn't beg any questions...

Cut out arguments... sure... but arguments aren't for proselytizing others, they're for making reason-based decisions. Philosophim said "Arguments are for proselytizing."

Continued defense of illogical arguments because "people don't get it [because OPs poor logic]" is basically a bump, and a way of just re-preaching the same illogic.

metaphorically speaking, yeah. But also, I don't have a problem with what you're trying to prove. I have considered similar notions, especially in the case of Eternal Recurrence... I personally am unconvinced by your argument, but I will admit I had equivocated your meaning here:

I did it. Please read the OP. — MoK

Thought you were saying you made an argument for God. Because I thought you made it as a parallel to say this this thus that (about God).

Arguments are for others to join your outlook on life. — Philosophim

Pretty sure that's the exact definition of proselytizing...


See above.

I think it's impossible to live a life of pure reason. It's okay to have faith in things. Faith is a powerful tool.

Dr Jung: "Yes, he has lost the body. You know, from the primitive's point of view the spirit that is always about with no body is forever seeking one, and as soon as they touch a body they go into it and imagine that it is their own. But they only cause possessions. Spirits crave food in order to be active in this world. Therefore, in Homer, Ulysses kills the sheep and pours out the blood for the ghosts; and only those to whom he wants to talk does he allow to drink of it. And as soon as the ghosts have drunk blood, they can speak with an audible voice. They become active. They make themselves understood. They are tangible, visible when they add material substance to their spiritual existence. Now, all spirits want bodies; they are crazy without bodies."

And yes, other minds are floating in space. They are in the place where your body resides. — MoK

So they require the body to interact with reality? That's why it creates physical?

Why would the mind need to create a body if it already exists?

Curious mostly.

Your OP is convoluted to me, a muddle of poor reasonings which you defend to insanity. So I wanted the plain words of what you're asserting.

The mind is a substance that exists within spacetime. — MoK

So there are disembodied minds floating about in our 3d space... where are they? (Mind before Body)

Or are they only found after the birth of a body?

I can't follow your argument it's like an ironmaiden on my mental faculties...

But that could be cause I don't really understand what you're trying to say in plain words...

Or is the mind like "mana"? How mana is this pre body substance?

If the mind is uncaused, then does it require a body?

So you're just talking about disembodied minds that exist pre growth of the body?

Same difference. Realm of 0 evidence.

What's funny is that you're arguing that God is the uncaused cause and experience is physical... Thus God as the uncaused cause has no experience... lmao

And if you try to argue, God is everything... I really hope you do cause then we get really fun fallacies to throw at you with the basis that God is now physical mind and experience all as 1... which then goes back to my initial argument here...which you so vehemently denied

I don't want to strip you of your beliefs or faith. That's the thing as to why I'm even frustrated with you. You refuse to accept after everyone here has given you good reasons to doubt your bad reasoning. Reasoning you don't even need as it defeats the purpose of faith.

Ever heard of Einstein's definition of insanity?

I got a Categorical Syllogism for you:

Faith in God requires belief without reason-based thought (which you still dont have)

A logical argument for God is an attempt to provide reason-based thought.

Therefore using reason-based thought for God is necessarily a showing of a lack of faith in God.
..

You NEED the argument to BE... because you have NO FAITH in your beliefs...

I did it. Please read the OP. — MoK

Lmao... no.

Fact is you're proselytizing an illogical argument for God because of your lacking faith in God... hence the need of an argument for God.

Where are your objections that I didn't answer? — MoK

They're there, what you can't see them? They're an uncaused cause, you gotta find em bro...

Already have...your hubris is thinking you're the smartest mind in the history of the world..
Fucking absurd really...

 If you could make a logical argument for a mind outside the body then you've done the one thing that all greater minds than you could not do... create a logical argument for God. Consequently no logical arguments for God exist.

And you're nowhere close.

Put your argument up at a university. Do it.

You're just proselytizing at this point.

if you could make a logical argument for a mind outside the body then you've done the one thing that all greater minds than you could not do... create a logical argument for God.

You realize that just because you say "No" to other people doesn't mean you've made a defense of things right? Funny you're still going on in circles here...

Obviously you think the mind is prebirth. Nothing to argue here with that.

It's like saying I have a phantom penis the size of a whale that noone can see or verify...it was prebirth too.

It was an uncaused cause.

what I find really interesting is Nietzsche's discusses the spasmodic release of repressed instincts:

It was man, who, lacking external enemies and obstacles, and imprisoned as he was in the oppressive narrowness and monotony of custom, in his own impatience lacerated, persecuted, gnawed, frightened, and ill-treated himself; it was this animal in the hands of the tamer, which beat itself against the bars of its cage; it was this being who, pining and yearning for that desert home of which it had been deprived, was compelled to create out of its own self, an adventure, a torture-chamber, a hazardous and perilous desert—it was this fool, this homesick and desperate prisoner—who invented the "bad conscience." But thereby he introduced that most grave and sinister illness, from which mankind has not yet recovered, the suffering of man from the disease called man, as the result of a violent breaking from his animal past, the result, as it were, of a spasmodic plunge into a new environment and new conditions of existence, the result of a declaration of war against the old instincts, which up to that time had been the staple of his power, his joy, his formidableness. — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals 2nd Essay § 23

Why I find this interesting is that after 2000+ years of repressing the feminine instinct, were now suddenly experiencing an explosion in transgenderism in part due to humanity proving to be shallow in instinct. Being "mistaken in the fundamental problem of 'man and woman,' to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension."

dang then this post should be deleted.

We can go over Russell's poor analysis of Nietzsche if you'd like. Although Nietzsche was a disciple of Dionsysus, he clearly states in HATH Book 2 that the highest presentment of man was under the doctrine of Athena. Athena the Wise, Athena the Serpent, Nietzsche's Serpent, the Serpent that is known for the fall of man under the Semites...

Just as Russell's inaccuracy in detailing the Tractatus... Russell left a rather laughable critique on Nietzsche, thinking Nietzsche was a misogynist.

“…he wasn’t…”

You said what is not. You didn’t say what is. So nothing to discuss in this whole passage besides me. — Fire Ologist

You don't want to hear "what is" about Nietzsche, doesn't mean I won't point out what you said about Nietzsche was halfassed at best. That you've no interest in why it's half assed, that's on you. So we'll reiterate the next point.

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg

Haven’t twisted one word. — Fire Ologist

Never said you did, I said you've barely got an understanding of Nietzsche especially from the Dialectical point of view.

Not inclined to offer specifics with someone who just asserts “ correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible” both as if I didn’t know that and as if it was enough to support your overall assessment of what there is to know about Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist

...I said Nietzsche utilized Jesus as a basis for the Ubermensch because of equation of Jesus's life in the gospels which is vastly different than the Judaism errr "Christianity" of the Disciples...

And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations... — DifferentiatingEgg

You wanted to talk about the disciples equation of Christ...rather than Christ's equation...

but he rejects so many of the things we do, for which we need to be forgiven to become his friends — Fire Ologist

But we can see that even Christ brings those who sets the laws of God aside into the Kingdom of Heaven, and as you've shown through Christ aka God, we're already forgiven... is wasted breath. We're already forgiven for following the equation of Jesus...

In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.

The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”).[12] He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.—

[12]Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”

The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith.... — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33

Do keep in mind Nietzsche feels pretty much only Christ was a Christian... (AC 39)

We got this bit here of you accusing Nietzsche of being a slave moralist:

That is to say ...

I’m telling you, Nietzsche was high priest of a new religion with Zarathustra as prophet — Fire Ologist

A priest is the highest form of slave moralist... Nietzsche wasn't a slave moralist, but rather a higher human who affirmed the demands of his own life.

The dance is real. We need both Apollo and Dionysius to discern the human (therein lies the metaphysics, but forget I said anything if “metaphysics” is such a dirty word in Nietzsche’s mouth - I’m sure Nietzsche would curse me for accusing him of ever saying something metaphysical, right?.) — Fire Ologist

In tragedy the Dionysian hero is represented in the Apollonian form.

It's actually of this world and a phenomenon that occured in reality thus not metaphysics... Socrates was the final death of Tragedy... (Parmenides>Euripides>Socrates) Plato comes after... so it's Plato who flips it on it's head... Not Nietzsche... you see it from the slave moralist perspective so you saw it from Plato's point of view...

See what I mean?

You keep saying Nietzsche flipped it over... but Nietzsche points to "them" flipping it over ... so we can logically say Nietzsche's flipping it right side up... by your analogy...

And I showed that's the case with the whole bit on Plato...

while in all productive men it is instinct that it is the creative-affirmative force, and consciousness acts critically and dissuasively, in Socrates it is the instinct that becomes the critic and consciousness that becomes the creator" — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 13

Seeing instinct as the creative life affirming force is one of those forces behind Nietzsche's mask that brought about Nietzsche. One you probably understand instinctally as a musician... but confuse through your concept of beauty created through consciousness...? (Socrates > Plato>...>You)

Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demon, called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 12

You don’t ask what I think, but, the quote from Deluze is a metaphysical claim. — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know what you think, I know what you said. Saying Nietzsche was a metaphysician when he wasn't doesn't matter what you think about that. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 5. I don't need to know the logic behind it.

I disagree that refuting what I am saying is helping you bring that across. — Fire Ologist

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective.

I know. You don’t understand what I am saying. I am the oxymoron - I know and love Nietzsche and Christ. You won’t allow that to be the case. — Fire Ologist

Actually if we go back, we can clearly see you're the one who denies Nietzsche's correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible... You won't allow Nietzsche's interpretation to be the case. This is one way you start twisting Nietzsche. You should try self abnegation before handling his works.

How do you know my values? Maybe you don’t know what a Christian really is. In my view, a Christian is NOT 99.99 percent of those who call themselves Christians, including myself, so how do you know what my values or sense of beauty or good is? — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know your values to know that you don't understand Nietzsche's values... thats why you said he was impoverished and unable to understand beauty. Thus his understanding of beauty is so far beyond you comprehension it's alien to you.

Do you have any masks?? Don’t you see Mietsche through your own masks? Or are you the reincarnation of Buddha?

If you say you have no masks, you’re blind or a liar; if yes, then what is the point of focusing only on mine? — Fire Ologist

Logic dictates me bringing it up that I do... the point was literally in the words... you choose not to see Nietzsche from his modality, rather through your own caricature.

More or less, I told you to revisit Nietzsche and do so under the forces that brought him about... not your own, from the slave moralist's point of view.

As Deleuze explains adequately enough, you find contradiction and metaphysics within Nietzsche's works because it reflects your mask.

"Interpretation reveals its complexity when we realise that a new force can only appear and appropriate an object by first of all putting on the mask of the forces which are already in possession of the object." Deleuze

This is our difference. There's nothing of self importance in being able to critique a person's inability with understanding Nietzsche. You have a personal reading of Nietzsche, I'm not doubting that. I'm not attacking your personal relationship with Nietzsche's works. Im mostly critiquing as you said and obviously from your own mask...

But he was a horrible judge of others (Christ, Kant, Hegel, Socrates, Napoleon, etc). He would not deny his own biases, and he let them color all he made of Christianity, of morality, of science and of most other philosophers. So he was a bad judge of himself as well...

He was a metaphysician (of the Apollonian and the Dionysian), a truth seeker, a new type of moralist...

He was impoverished at identifying beauty and good... — Fire Ologist

Before that you made him sound like a oxymoron of hypocrisy and is just such a base way of examining Nietzsche through the antithesis of values... which he rolls his eyes at.

Nietzsche wasn't a metaphysician at all, Nietzsche values in Beauty and Good simply don't match your own hence you don't understand Nietzsche's values of Beauty and Good...

You see him through your own mask...

You have yet to go beyond your reification of Nietzsche...

But I don’t see the point of battling wits in internet Nietzsche camp. — Fire Ologist

The point is you say things that are more so said about common caricatures of Nietzsche's work.

And Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of what he thought being Christ-like means for the Christian. It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables. — Fire Ologist

There you go again, refusing to interpret his complexity not by the forces behind Nietzsche's mask (as Nietzsche did with Zarathustra), but rather interpretation through your own... it's for reasons like this that make it all too easy to spot "not Nietzsche," but rather a caricature there of. To get at the essence of Nietzsche

For once the entire symbolism of the body, not only the symbolism of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantomime of dancing which sets all the members into rhythmical motion...the votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! — Nietzsche

If you want me to get into the nitty gritty of it all, I'm more than happy. Most here seem to find it pedantic though.

You can win there too if it has to be a competition. — Fire Ologist

Shoot, what did I win? A participation trophy? Lol

Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are the meek. Turn the other cheek. Not my will, but thine be done — Fire Ologist

And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Notice that even those who set aside these laws are still going to be in the Kingdom of Heaven? Because no distance comes between him and others...even those who set aside his laws...because he has come to save them from the laws. In the kingdom of heaven the values are reversed from the real world...where the greatest presentment of man comes through a crime of some kind...

Admittedly so. I approach Nietzsche as I approach all philosophy, with gaiety. Screw any deeper understanding of a mankind who has no progress to speak of since Cane and Abel first debated out their solutions. — Fire Ologist

Well, that's an interesting outlook

Thanks for offering to take me to school but my blissful love of the Nietzsche I know, as just another dude who contradicted himself, and had weaknesses, as much as all the rest, serves me fine. — Fire Ologist

Nietzsche made observations about things, suggesting contradiction and hypocrisy suggest him prescribing a way for people to follow which he himself is adamantly against to the point he tells you to fuck right off to find your own way that's right for you because that is Nietzsche's way...

Nietzsche openly discusses his weaknesses none of which are contradictory to his philosophy or psychology he details a life of living between two opposites and attempting to overcome the weaknesses within him... Overcoming isn't about denial of weakness... its about accepting its there in the first place, and accepting it as a part of you that you cannot simply call "Evil" and exercise it from human existence...

God doesn’t accept all men — Fire Ologist

God doesn't give a fuck about accepting all men... Jesus does. And according to the God stories... Jesus was sent to Earth by God to save humanity from the laws of God presented by Moses.

Christianity (which is synonymous with Christ in the true Christian, the saint) doesn’t call us to be nihilistic rejectors of this life (Nietzsche was wrong), but to participate in the fulfillment of its promises. — Fire Ologist

No it's not... huge reason why the account of the life of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is vastly different than the rest of the Judaism the disciples populated the Bible with... the very Judaism that Jesus rejected.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium.[14] It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Is it okay if I twist things about you and declare it to the world? Nietzsche would simply turn his head and wait for an opportune time to dunk on you, if he ever cared to do so in the first place. That is to say, you'd have to be worth his time and even worth befriending for him to even discuss you in the first place.

I guess, my point is, the vast majority of who I am prefers not even "thinking" but rather "doing" ... the only reason I practice philosophy and logic is so when I have to think, I can out think others. I prefer not thinking though. I'm relatively immune to feeling shame and guilt.

Perhaps I even missed the points of your discussion really. What I mostly got from reading your post, was that "Damn this guys lives by a ton of rules (that I don't)."

For example when I sit down in a room, I don't observe things and think about them... I just observe things, dont read the text on em, don't care that its a book or a chair or a flower, I don't match nouns to things, I don't put everything in its place with its labels...

The things I like all involve muscle memory to "think" to feel your way through something. Anything where I can leave my mind be at rest so it can be everywhere all at once...

You're probably not used to arguing formally, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt — fdrake

Very true. I don't even know what it means...

When you say something like this, you need to distinguish right from immoral. — fdrake

Do you? Seems more like a tanget to get off track... If I want to murder a charity worker who happened to do something that ended up killing my family... but morality said they go free... guess what's going to happen?

I will burn that persons world to the ground. And I'll feel good doing it. Because it will be the desired quality of what I want...

Might has always made right...

Whether it's the tyranny of masses or the tyrant.

All morality is baked in through thousands of years of grotesque punishment...

Capital Punishment and Lethal Injection are Okay after all...

So if someone injects themself lethally into another person's life... ah only the State gets to decide for you... No. I solve my own problems without the need of a state...

Morality and immorality are merely soft limits that I consider only occasionally. — DifferentiatingEgg

To kill a charity worker out of revenge may be immoral, doesn't mean it wasn't right...

Like giving Socrates hemlock for corruption of the youth.

Hard limits means all killing is wrong and people would be incapable of breaking the hard limit. Soft limits are bypassed with a certain regulation regarding when it's correct.

People who pretend morality is a hard limiter are *rigid* because they're mechanical and predictable in action.

There is always a time and place for the animal in man to run wild.

You're providing no reason for anyone else to care about what you're saying. — fdrake

In otherwords you need a reason to care...

Same here, it's just not your reasons.

And perhaps you care about certain things in a certain light because you accept the premise that part of what's in you is utter shit that needs repression and ignoring. And I reject it that premise.

It's not that you disagree with me lol... it's how you do.

See this is that rigidity I'm talking about... if not this then must be that...what is a criminal other than a man qilling to go into danger to get what they need?

Your rigidity suggests that because I only consider what my life demands that my life demands only me...

Logic collapses in on itself and is circular. Just as the selfless person is acting based off their own desirous needs, so too is the selfish person.

I'm glad I know how to drive a straight line down a curved road.

Honestly, it's hard to detail. Something like "out of sight out of mind." Morality and immorality are merely soft limits that I consider only occasionally.

Mostly because morality imposes immorality upon the human, the human which came before either. Morality details what part of YOU is utter shit that needs to be killed off.

No part of me is trash, nor will any part of me be killed off for anyone other than me and my own purpose.

Sure I have decisions I live by, but even then they're soft limiters...

The highest and most powerful are always above the law and out of sight of the law. Just as the highest presentment of man always comes through some Crime or another. Because they are the people who assume rights to new values outside the norm of equality...

We all break laws, some of us just don't reslly care about them to begin with... let the ones who are intimidated the law be intimidated. If I want to do something, I'll likely do it... except maybe things like acting on the urge to drive my car through a building...

More or less, if I were a hacker I'd be a greyhat.

Ultimately, there's an opposition between understanding and judging. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge. — frank

That's an opposition between prejudice and understanding. A Judge is a Judge because they understand the diction of the law.

not really sure what to make of your post other than I am glad that I don't live by such superfluous rigidity as you detail in your post. The way you detail life within it is very strange to me.

Dude, you're still a novice with his material.

If you want the pedantic version of that let me know and I'll take you to school.

It's obvious you don't know the very important detail that Nietzsche bases the Superman and Amor Fati off of Christ's example... mostly because you've not really read Nietzsche's works he flat out tells you how he admires Christ. And it wasn't until Nietzsche, 200 years after the Earthquake at Port Royal, did Christ regain his image as God's grace, to accept all men, mad or not.

When you live by laws that say half of you is shit and must be repressed and ignored... you only come out as a crippled halfman...who denies even their humanity... there is no divorce between Christ and others, even the insane and murderous... just as a person should affirm all that is within them amd temper the most destructive bits from the extremes of our opposites.

Just came across something... so in 1981 Quine redefines his definition of Observation Sentences (which drive meaning) to adjust for the fact that there aren't "shared neurons" (shared stiumulus) between two individuals... but rather to reflect much like the chart I gave...

Before redefining he appealed to sameness of stimulus between speakers. The new defines observation sentences for the single speaker:

If querying the sentence elicits ascent from the given speaker on one occasion it will elicit ascent likewise on any other occasion when the same total set of receptors is triggered... — Quine, Pursuit of Truth, § 15 Stimulation Again

Thus to ascent to the definition of "Good" as "Desired Quality" one must first have stimulated the original node (Good) then node 0 (Adjective [first left]) then to node 01 (Desired Quality [first right after first left])

So the total set of receptors in this case are "Good -> Adjective (Node 0) -> Desired Quality (Node 01)" Thus trying to swap meaning through a different set like "Noun (node 1)" -> "Moral Principle (node 11)" isn't logical because it groups a different total set of receptors.

It is, so I apologize for being rude while not actually understanding where you're coming from. I had assumed we were closer in perspectives.