The inherent limitations of logic allow for it to collapse inwards upon itself forming a self-referential (fractal, more or less) cave (Godel). I'm of the mind Berkeley was a bit of a fan of Heraclitus and his doctrine of opposites.

Logic can't produce evidence but it can rationalize it. Immaterialism is a practice of the mind's ability to rationalize. For Berkeley, this was more of a way to do mental push ups to strengthen his ability with empirisism. Berkeley doesn't consider the external world any less real. The people who take it that far and get frustrated by it fall in to his little mental game/exercise and I could rightly see him chuckling to himself in a fit similar to a mischievous child pranking the minds who perceived his works on immaterialism too literally. Berkeley's immaterialism was an exercise in overcoming of oneself in their opposite in my opinion. Much like Nietzsche and Zarathustra...

Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I am a Fatality § 3

.

Isn't this where the colloquial "go kick rocks" comes from? We say it to those who don't "get the picture" in otherwords. Absolutely hilarious to me picturing Berkeley in his jamjams muttering and cackling to himself "go kick rocks..." as he's writing down some ideas he knows will put a twist in someone's britches...

Though, interesting to me is that it seems Berkeley focused heavily on the opposite ends of the Apollonian spectrum. Where as Nietzsche's balance was between the Apollonian and Dionysian.

The point of the original post is we can be 100% certain of the sensations we experience but we can not be 100% certain of the cause of the sensations. — Art48

Have you tried analytic philosophy? A good deal of it is about overcoming this very notion which means very very little in the grand scheme of things. Fact is you cannot be 100% certain wtf is in your mind is your own either...

To assume so, just means you're a solipsist as per Wittgenstein's account of solipsism.

Cause thoughts come when they want and not when you wish they do. Which means something can be feeding you everything including fake experiences.

More or less, the mind isn't the end all be all. "I can't be certain this tree is a tree." Okay well, when you figure it out let me know mate.

The whole matrix solipsism thing is just like... "were really still discussing this ?" / simulation theory

Such a boring scifi gimmick imo.

And Newtonian mechanics are true, btw. His work isn't something you just get to toss aside cause you're a solipsist. You're quite bound by the mechanics he points out. Try going against them, you may not find yourself living very long...

But isn't "life and pleasure" far better than FELLING of power? Without life, there is no power, no sensation. Just nothing and blankness forever. That can't have anything to do with feeling of power or Good. What about pleasure? Isn't it what life is all about? — Corvus

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning.

Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that.

Renaming the apple.

We can start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue Section 3 that expresses the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:

Wo ist doch der Blitz, der euch mit seiner Zunge lecke?

From there we can move to something like The Antichrist Aphorism 2 what is good? Everything that is the FEELING of power.

2.

Was ist gut? – Alles, was das Gefühl der Macht, den Willen zur Macht, die Macht selbst im Menschen erhöht.

Then we can simply ask ourselves what is will? A desire, a potential, a stimulus within us, a sensation of something prejudged within us something we can predicate ourselves in.

Ah, very well, please permit me the time to produce a detailed (but straight forward) account for you, if you would. This way I give a more complete picture rather than leave you with questions since you're eager to challenge me for them.

I happen to find that comment hilarious cause its precisely the type of reification Quine is talking in the Inscrutibility of Reference. Through incipient reification you created a wedge into understanding Quine from your own bias.

The electrical sensation of that often comes in pleasure and life affirming activities. That sensation that runs down your spine when you feel empowered. That doesn't mean idolize a will to live a "long life of pleasure...", the last man seeks a long life of meaningless pleasures. This is why Nietzsche doesn't object to tyranny and especially self tyranny, to build a discipline, is but an art form to Nietzsche.

No, actually the will to power is a sensation above all, and certainly suggesting it is "Will to Life and pleasure," is the misnomer...



More than just one man wrote basically more or less that same notion, the question is why are you looking for it?

My girlfriend's sock was pulled off her foot in such a way that it looks like the head of a dead pig. I'd reckon there's more philosophy there, than in this entire post...

Perhaps the question ought to be who really has the time to "love" so many people if one is successful in loving one's own self?

Nice assist, appreciated.

Not necessarily. And just repeating the same argument just repeats the same fallacy. *shrug* I don't need to repeat the same rebuttal, as it still stands.

Of course it is, it suffers from the is-ought leap of logic, you'd need an additional premise that connects the initial descriptive with the final prescriptive. "We should increase existence" is not logically supported by the premise.

Except the argument you made is from presupposition on "what is good" among quite a few others. Which if we're going into logic ... well, let's not forget that fallacy.

Opinions change overtime, and well, could you imagine a time where there is too much existence?

I read the OP. I find it a suitable adaptation of "Selflessness is Selfishness." People that don't enjoy it probably just don't like the idea of "Objective Morality."

The question here is are some philosophies "more true" (objective) than others? — Benj96

Fact is: the populace determines how "objective" something is in reality.

Is existence good? — Benj96

That's subjective. Which for Philosophim, it is. All philosophies are the prejudice of the philosopher who creates them, and although this isn't a philosophy, it could be the root of one. All philosophies are "wrong" in a sense that they are produced out of a limitation of life experiences beheld by its creators.

Fair enough, but I suppose the biggest issue with all philosophy is that any philosophy is the prejudice of the philosopher who admits them. Therefore every philosophy is not "right" or "wrong" in this regard as they end up building a world view for themselves. The strength of any interpretation comes from how closely it follows the philosopher's own point of view on these prejudices. Even the interpretation that occurs from the text to the reader in the text's native tongue.

Philosophies are all just modes of thinking that other people tend to adopt. Especially when a certain mode resonates with their own experiences and prejudices.

More than one person has come here suggesting this post is you projecting your difficulty with the material upon others. That's probably worth noting.

Basically if I wanted to understand from Wittgenstein's point of view, wouldn't I stay within Wittgenstein's framework? Rather than assuming from some point external to Wittgenstein's framework?

For example, in the "Was Schopenhauer Right" thread or whatever the full name is, people are using Schopenhauer quotes to clarify Schopenhauer's position... Even @schopenhauer1 is guilty of clarifying Schopenhauer with Schopenhauer, which seemingly makes him the butt of his own criticism? It's okay for him to do but not others. This whole thread seems like a pointless argument to establish "Superiority."

Is it not the same with nearly any philosopher? If I wanted to clarify Schopenhauer's position, would I quote Plato's or Descartes'?

At a glance I can tell it will be an interesting read. But I must run along and chase my wild hounds elsewhere at the moment! I'll be back, but I see why you directed me here "existences."

If existence is inherently good then that would mean, as something fundamental to existence, perspective is also good, which means the only objective morality must be to respect the subjective over the objective, which means one must build many bridges.

I cannot remember a single time in Nietzsche's work where he references a pluralist idea or notion of truth. Not a single time; in fact, he thought it was nonsense (just like pretty much every other philosopher out there). — Bob Ross

I'm sorry that you feel that way, but here, allow me to demonstrate a few times that he does:

Ecce Homo;

first section of Why I Write Such Excellent Books:

I am one thing, my creations are another... But I should regard it as a complete contradiction of myself, if I expected to find ears and eyes for my truths to-day: the fact that no one listens to me, that no one knows how to receive at my hands to-day, is not only comprehensible, it seems to me quite the proper thing. I do not wish to be mistaken for another—and to this end I must not mistake myself. — Nietzsche

first section of Why I am a Fatality:

I refuse to be a saint; ... But my truth is terrible: for hitherto lies have been called truth. The Transvaluation of all Values, this is my formula for mankind's greatest step towards coming to its senses—a step which in me became flesh and genius... — Nietzsche

Beyond Good and Evil section 231:

In view of this liberal compliment which I have just paid myself, permission will perhaps be more readily allowed me to utter some truths about "woman as she is," provided that it is known at the outset how literally they are merely—MY truths. — Nietzsche

I like to use the metaphor "everyone dies alone" as a thought experiment that can aid in the clarity, and it informs upon Amor Fati too. The metaphor "everyone dies alone," implies that dying, despite any physical presence of others, is an inherently solitary experience. Noone can truly share or fully partake and understand another person's death experience. The metaphor emphasizes the idea of existential isolation, which reflects a broader existential reality of our individual lives: that we too are truly isolated, no matter how close we may feel to another, we can never truly understand all of another's life experiences that has lead them to who they are at a given moment in time.

This is one of the reasons why Nietzsche says "what is great in man is that he is a bridge."

And since Existential Isolation is a topic spoken about by several philosophers, I'm doubtful that you're capable of seeing beyond your bias without someone prying it open. So I bid you and your objective world good day for I've not come here to suffer from THAT old wives' tale.

“my truth”, “your truth”, “their truth”, etc. is patently incoherent; and no legitimate philosopher will back that kind of idea because they know it is nonsense. — Bob Ross

We are just different, you and I, I find Nietzsche to be a legitimate philosopher. Though he is quite a complexity I suppose.

1. A belief is a (cognitive) stance taken on the trueness or falseness of a proposition; and
2. Beliefs make moral propositions true or false. — Bob Ross

Again you're not explicitly framing the statements in the context of moral subjectivism. Moral subjectivism holds that moral propositions have no objective truth values independent of individual belief. So my subjective belief doesn't mean I believe it's a universal value. You see you're stuck in this objective "True" or "False" mode. There isn't a "True" or "False" to a subjective moralist. You have your way I have my way, but as for the right and correct way, that does not exist.

They're all the same argument, or it seems that way to me, and that's why I was getting at your bias definition for belief and truth. I'm not suggesting that having a bias is bad, but there's not an inconsistency in moral subjectivism once you get beyond the notion of "True" and "False." If I came to you and said your belief is false because it's not my truth, then I'm being objective.

Why take that sick child to a hospital if you know that God can make him whole? — Vera Mont

Why did Kevin Kostner crawl away from his medical treatment in the beginning of Dances with Wolves?

Yes but from your bias on truth being objective, you're conflating that a moral subjectivist would conflate their truth as objective fact with #2 hence you find it inconsistent. You're equating Moral Subjectivity to Moral Objectivity which a person who is a morally subjective wouldn't do.

Ironically, Dawkins still made God the center of his universe ... but this isn't the case for all Atheist.

Here's how prayer works, in my opinion:

When someone has a "moment" with prayer, this is an affirmation of one own existence that resonates internally. A passionate "yes" to their own needs. If you believe God gave you such an ability for a reason, then who needs to waste time even arguing in the first place? Faith goes where fact dare not, bridging many a void.

I do not wish to read through the whole discussion, so my apologies if this has already been addressed:

1. A belief is a (cognitive) stance taken on the trueness or falseness of a proposition; and
2. Beliefs make moral propositions true or false. — Bob Ross

1 is your bias of the word belief, and certainly not mine, nor does it account for the history of the word, merely your own understanding of it.

Autobiographies are somewhat of a rarity in general. Thankfully for us all, Nietzsche was merciful enough and left us a very significant one, Ecce Homo. Ecce Homo is a gateway into Nietzsche's own insights on his books, and the Dionysian dithyrambs. The dithyrambs are Nietzsche's greatest invention and by far the least understood; a simple search of these forums indicates no one has ever brought this up:

The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, p. 26

Directly following this Nietzsche indicates, in my opinion, what is the greatest significance of his work:

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?

The book Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a dithyramb concerning deliverance from one's own loathing. Hopefully, by the end of this post I will have detailed why this is the ultimate significance of his work...

The following two quotes are additional context Nietzsche provides from Ecce Homo:

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music. At all events, the essential condition of its production was a second birth within me of the art of hearing. — p. 97

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. — p. 109

So what exactly is a dithyramb? Well, first, we can ruminate upon what Nietzsche said about TSZ to begin with.... It is a book, and it is music, thus it follows that a dithyramb is music in literary form. To understand, more fully, what a dithyramb is we can consult Nietzsche's first book The Birth of Tragedy. In the second aphorism of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche suggests an intense visceral reaction occurs: "in the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature." To put it plainly, the dithyramb is literary music that incites one into a certain state of heightened intelligence and creativity.

So now that we know what a dithyramb is, I will point out how dithyrambs work. In aphorism 16 of The Birth of Tragedy, Nietzsche details how the art of music distinguishes itself from all other art, based off the influence of Schopenhauer, such that music is the direct copy of the will of the artist. Such that Thus Spoke Zarathustra is a copy of the will of Zarathustra, or as Jung might suggest, a copy of the will of the archetype of the "wise old man."

TLDR: Go learn something you're super passionate about, and then go back and read the right dithyrambs, and be incited into the state of heightened intelligence and creativity, what kind of thoughts will flood you then? This, in my opinion, is Nietzsche's ultimate secret of Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

Nihilism can cause ennui which can eventually lead to dissatisfaction with life ...

How about I decide what opportunities I miss out on? Rather than someone else telling me what I can and cannot do?

Sure, sounds like Wittgenstein's approach is more of a style of marriage between science and philosophy, where as Russell and the others were more in the line of trying to make a baby out of science and philosophy?

not sure how to delete a post but it posted a few times

As an atheist, I don't mind declaring: God gives purpose, which is generally something to live for...

I'll accept that defense, thank you for the insight. I decided to pick up the text and got an audiobook of it also. Would you say Wittgenstein was attempting to bridge the gap between the disciplines of science and philosophy?

Not quite, I'm here to learn, not debate. Zen's insight was enough of a glimmer to find a path I could get behind. A simple deflection isn't going to convince someone who has a healthy skepticism now will it? Thanks for the SEP post by the way. The replies to it were actually more interesting but without it, you and zen wouldn't have had that little exchange.

Enter Greek Mythology cause this is how many of them thought? Time is a Circle that repeats all things have happened all things will happen. Giving you the ultimate freedom to act as all possibilities have and will play out. It's quite a comforting thought in my opinion, should one allow the emotions of such an idea take hold. The trick is not being a spirit of gravity to the point you're like a Bill Burr joke character "DATS NOT HOW REALITY WORKS!" like a positivist would. To actually experience the effect just put a little faith into the words themselves and suspend your disbelief.