It's not a matter of not being able to experience what someone/thing else experiences. The puzzle is why anything has any subjective experience at all. — Patterner

A point Quine gets into, the concept of shared stimulation is odd, because as Quine states, there is no homology of nerve endings shared between us, we could see the same thing and be stimulated in vastly different ways.

Nietzsche on the Intrinsic Perversion of Reason...
The example he gives is a man who details his long life was due to his light diet...

On the other hand Nietzsche details:

the prerequisites of long life, which are exceptional slowness of molecular change, and a low rate of expenditure in energy, were the cause of his meagre diet He was not at liberty to eat a small or a great amount. His frugality was not the result of free choice, he would have been ill had he eaten more. He who does not happen to be a carp, however, is not only wise to eat well, but is also compelled to do so. — Nietzsche, ToI

We often attribute an effect as a cause due to a belief in free will.

If you're the spiritual type, so be it. Though, I can't say much about the spirit world, never believed in it. I used to believe in free will, but I realized the concept was odd when someone kicked me in the teeth with the question "free from what?" And perhaps that may relate to your quandary here.

You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

But if you need a hint... look to the stars, the trees, the grass, or the poo from your ...

Thought isn't metaphysical. It's not metaphysics.

I think so long as something plays by physics it will be considered physical.

More precisely, there is no mental substance, but there are irreducibly mental ways of grouping physical states and events to detail these mental states and events.

What I find hilarious is how the modal ontologist believe they've revitalized modal ontology... when half of the garbage they say is literally in Aristotle's bit "On Interpretation." Like come on guys thats 2400 years old known already... example: Kripke says "uhh yeah we gotta ground our definitions!" :lol:

I mean, there's testimony evidence that Bigfoot is real. *shrug* I'll go with Hume's knock on testimony—necessarily the weakest form. So unless you're trying to convince Christians, who already believe that anyways, you're going to have an up a steep mountain fight on your hands.

I would love it if someone ended my "woke." I woke up at 245 wet in a pickling sweat so I jumped in the shower, and have been up every hour since! :groan:

Well, I don't exactly know how they work, I'm a soulless swine here to dine up thine! Now give me what is mine!...

But, I would imagine, since Kant extended the life of Christianity with renewed belief in the "thing inside itself," that that is one way a soul could work.

The soul is the illusion of "ding an sich." That false reasoning we've projected upon the world as real.

like I said, the solution is you finding your own fucking way... you're just a poor reader...

Otherwise go find a religion to tell you how to think... duh...

And furtherstill...

I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here. — kirillov

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all.

So when you go back to my first post... "Affirm the demands of your life." Obviously went right over your head.

N paved the way for modern understanding of psychology... no psychologist today considers the will a cause...

Maybe pick up psychology and you'll find your solution?

Art?

Music?

Science?

You find it...

Not us for you. That's the cowardly compromise...

Unless of course that's what you want deep down? Some else to lord over you. That's fine, even N says those who thrive in such ways ought to live that way...

Who here knows you enough after 4 posts to even give you a solution to your own problems?

cough up his solution...

Let's see what you got... a whole lot of nothing, hence you never offered one. Can't use the one I gave (finding his own way).

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music.

byebye *waves*

Those who cannot find their own life affirming path are as Nietzsche details the reason why mankind has become sick...

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans—we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death—our life, our happiness.... We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?—The man of today?—“I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in”—so sighs the man of today.... This is the sort of modernity that made us ill

So more or less you came here out of a compulsion to feel superior when you're mostly a worm who doesn't even understand wtf this guy is asking.

Tsk tsk, twas fun though.

Feel better. xoxo

Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him, and his detail of the worst readers fits here (with the OP)... and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. So maybe stop being a worst reader yourself? I literally spelled it out for him, the solution is affirm the demands of your own life... which is a personal thing, done for centuries before N. N's just the first one to discuss it at least in such a direct manner.

Looking for objective answers from N is like trying to find non whites at a KKK rally. I think one ought to keep a few aphorisms from BGE in mind when discussing the will to power... namely the term "will" for Nietzsche isnt how tou use it... thats merely the "Sanctas Simplicitas" of the multiplicity of undercurrent and forces that the word represents. First and foremost the will to power are sensations and the will is not a cause... as you portray here.

A summary of one of the four great errors of reason Nietzsche talks about with cause and effect in Twilight of Idols:

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

Every subterranean force is its own power that commands the body... how they all work together... well, it's a lot to consider, but just because they place demands on the body doesn't mean these actions are even attempted.

The more opposing forces within oneself the greater their will to power is.

Consider Nietzsche saying Life is Music and Life is Will to Power. Certainly doesn't mean music is will to power for everyone. Even though music does affirm the lives of everyone indifferently.

The Birth of Tragedy... out of what? The Spirit of Music...

And Tragedy was the ultimate form of life affirmation to the Greek antiquity.

Every culture has its own music.

The Gay Science...
Literally Nietzsche's works on the knowledge of life affirming gaiety...

i mean most people dont want me to droll on and on about N's views.

Donald Davidson's "Anomalous Monism": mental events are identical to physical events while maintaining that there are no strict, exceptionless laws that govern mental phenomena (mental anomalism). So every mental event is also a physical event, and that mental events cannot be predicted or explained by physical laws, and vice versa.

For Nietzsche, the approbation of life comes through Music. But also, you have a few things I would like to discuss upon. I will edit this post soon with more to say.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life...

Creation is Nietzsche's "politics" away from the State (we can see this in The New Idol) and it is creation that is the most valuable life affirming tool. Creation allows the creator to hold up a transfiguring mirror that affirms the demands of their life.

For Nietzsche in particular, we can see from the Birth of Tragedy and the Gay Science that "life is music" and that all the philosophers from Socrates to Kant had "wax in their ears."

In the attempt at self criticism of Birth of Tragedy, we can see Nietzsche details himself at the time of the writing that the book is made up first and foremost from the thoughts and after thoughts of an artist...

This means Nietzsche considers himself an artist as he wrote it. He realized that the book was badly written and changed his angle a bit, to diacuss the affirmation of life in a more universal sense based out of perspective of the beholder. Hence by the time we get to the prologue to BGE we have that "perspective is the fundamental condition of life."

As you've detailed suffering is quite an integral part of N' philosophy, and I have a great quote from N himself as to why suffering is integral, and it's more or less that it itself is transfiguring...

It will be surmised that I should not like to take leave ungratefully of that period of severe sickness, the advantage of which is not even yet exhausted in me: for I am sufficiently conscious of what I have in advance of the spiritually robust generally, in my changeful state of health. A philosopher who has made the tour of many states of health, and always makes it anew, has also gone through just as many philosophies: he really cannot do otherwise than transform his condition on every occasion into the most ingenious posture and position,—this art of transfiguration is just philosophy....It is great pain only, the long slow pain which takes time, by which we are burned as it were with green wood, that compels us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths, and divest ourselves of all trust, all good-nature, veiling, gentleness, and averageness, wherein we have perhaps formerly installed our humanity. I doubt whether such pain "improves" us; but I know that it deepens us. — Nietzsche, § 3 of the Preface to the second edition of GS.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10).

Look up agrarian republic...?

Heh... what a weird post for the 21st century. *shrug* I don't even know how to step backwards in human psychology to begin thinking like this. Perhaps the OP should learn more about modern psychology. You're projecting your own misconceptions upon the world and taking them as Truth...

But that is my point. By this means I am making clear the sense in which perspective is essential for any judgement about what exists — — Wayfarer

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable, the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” — Theodore Lessing, in Jewish Self-Hate.

Nietzsche on the OP's psychology:

On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

11

The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality—these two words "bad" and "evil," how great a difference do they mark, in spite of the fact that they have an identical contrary in the idea "good." But the idea "good" is not the same: much rather let the question be asked, "Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus:—just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new colour, a new signification, a new appearance. — Genealogy of Morals 10/11

Further still this is what Nietzsche means in AC 24... on how Christians cherish Antisemitism and don't realize it's just one more step in the Judaic equation... where the virtue of calling things evil begins to back bite itself out of a different perspective... as the final consequence of the psychology of Judaism.

OPs taking the psychology of Judaism and inverting it back upon itself. Which is where anti semitism arises. Not that OP is one. But he's traversing that slippery slope.

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

But also...

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hope that helps.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE FOUR GREAT ERRORS

Twilight of Idols, By Nietzsche...

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

All firearms are for Superiority by someone suffering from Inferiority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A whirlwind.

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

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

Know what a radar is right?

Radars detect.

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

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

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

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

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

the unit created for that purpose.

Time is a unit of measurement. Pretty much it.

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

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

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

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