It sounds like you're describing the source of inspiration, the part of a person that's undefined and so the realm of pure potential. Is that close?

Perhaps 'creator' and 'creation' would be closer, but the nature of the expression is a mystery, not something analyzable. Just as it is a mystery as to exactly what a work of art reveals about its creator, and also as to how it is even possible that it is an expression of her spirit (although I think we know it is). — John

Well what's the relationship between a human psyche and spirit?

So Kant's 'empirical', the 'for us', is for Schopenhauer 'representation' and Kant's 'transcendental, the 'in-itself' is for Schopenhauer 'will'? — John

He did want to say that the thing-in-itself is the Will, but he later backed off of that and agreed with Kant that it's unknowable.

So, I would say that we can determine what the world is, in the empirical sense, but we cannot determine what spirit is. — John

But in lesser ways we can follow the course from thesis/antithesis to synthesis, right?

Human
Male -- Female
Both
Human

But in each of these lesser cases, the starting point is itself a product of analysis. The scheme leads us to contemplate the Big Kahuna, and in that's how we end up with the concept of the Absolute, which lays somewhere beyond the mind's grasp. There is no vantage point on it.

If you say it expresses itself as the world, hasn't it been analyzed to speaker and expression?

Causes are not observed as such, though. Don't we understand causes to involve energy exchanges which can never be directly observed but can only be inferred? — John

After it's all said and done, Schopenhauer has only mapped out the contours of thought. He has pointed out certain statements that are indubitable. But what does the way we're bound to think (as indicated by indubitability) have to do with the way the world is? What would your answer be?

Not equate. Cause and effect are two sides of the same coin. They can't be independent of one another. The existence of an effect means there must be a cause. If a thing is a cause, there must be an effect. Cause and effect are bound together. That they appear separate is the result of an act of analysis.

Is he consistent? He's not an analytical philosopher that's for sure. I find his philosophy kind of dream-like.

I've been assuming he's using "subject" the way Schopenhauer did (since he was a big Schopenhauer fan). For S, subject and object are interdependent (in a Hegelian sort of way). A subject is any actor (whether conscious or not). An object is acted upon. Cause and effect.. closely related situation.

Was N phenomenalist? Again, I've assumed that since he was a Schopenhauer fan, he was basically Kantian (particularly the TA).

Good question. I read it a long time ago. I'm not overly in need of a re-read. Seems like the text would be on the internet somewhere.

I know this was an earlier remark but I've been away, pardon me. This (quote) is of course the view Thrasymachus expresses in Book 1 of the Republic, but which Socrates argues against. To me the 'noble', whether Platonic or Aristotelian, version of the good is not overtly that might is right. It may have an underlying assumption that the stratification of society is unquestioned, and the top layer are the most virtuous or 'good', but that would be different. — mcdoodle

N mentions Rome repeatedly as the image of master-morality. I think of Marcus Aurelius' view: what's good is a healthy, joyful expression of one's potential. Weakness in general (to the extent it's counter to nature) is a state of disease. So was Marcus Aurelius saying that slavery is inherently a sign of failure? I don't remember if he said that or not.

I think there are other ways to describe the dual/opposing moral frameworks N wants to point out. I'm not sure the Rome/Jew scenario holds too much water. If it's just a way to insinuate the situation, then yes, ok.

I've been wondering whether the analytic distinction between power-over and power-to is at all useful in this debate. Slave morality seeks to overturn the power-over order of things. Master-morality seeks a space in which to exercise power-to. — mcdoodle

But slave morality ends up being a perpetual angst. There's never any acceptance and never any attempt to actually change things. The slave just sits everyday bitterly complaining. I think the possessor of slave morality is happy that way. He or she doesn't really want things to change and certainly doesn't want the world to be perfect (because then what?) The master-moralist would be happy in a perfect world.

That wasn't exactly using your suggestion.. I'm still thinking about it.

It was on TV, so it has to be true.

Well. it's the best seller now. I don't know how long it has been.

Since inauguration, Amazon's #1 best seller is Orwell's 1984.

Your concept of social conservatism is from the 1950's. PM me if you want to talk about it further.. if not, vaya con dios.

Sorry, Ag. I live in the so-called Bible Belt. It's my family, so I think I know them. You don't understand the US culture at all. You've been identifying with the wrong country all this time. :(

No this way of life isn't common in your country actually. It's common just in the very developed and progressive places like NY, California, etc. The rest of the country, the largest share of the country in geographic terms actually, lives quite traditionally still for the most part. — Agustino

I have no idea how you got that impression, dude, but it's wrong.

I'm just going to assume you're being serious here, dude. I gather you wouldn't be able to tolerate the way of life that is now common in my world. Nobody's asking you to. You live your way, we'll live our's, OK?

When he says the lightning is a subject which causes the flash, I don't think he exactly means animism.

Like if I say a baseball broke the window, the baseball is depicted as an actor. But there's definitely a link between the way we talk about any unconscious actor and the Big Kahuna: the conscious actor. Schopenhauer reasoned that there is only one will. Every actor is a manifestation of it.

Since men also dominate the lower end of the spectrum, most reckless idiots are therefore men. — Emptyheady

Men who start small businesses are twice as likely to fail as women. Yet Steve Jobs was a man. True.

Under feminism, women become more important than marriage, more important than the status and desires of men. Authority of their lives passes to them. They are understood to independent agents of their own volition. In the context of marriage, relationships and social positions, it involves working with their decisions rather than being passive actors who just fill a desired social outcome. — TheWillowOfDarkness

(Y) Insightful. Marriage is the hub of the whole thing.

Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that the knowledge required to predict the outcome is not employed? — tom

It's not unknowable. Likely unknown, though.

Does that mean that if you believe determinism you then necessarily believe the universe contains zero randomness? — Michael Gagnon

Lottery winners are chosen randomly. A computerized random number generator uses the quartz crystal clock. In these cases "random" means a choice was made without any plan or scheme for choosing. The knowledge required to predict the choice is not available. I don't assume that because I can't predict the outcome that it has no cause.

True.

Those shoes will deform your toes. It's crazy!

I don't know. I'm definitely not the person to answer that question. :)

I just don't agree with the view that social constructs account for all gender disparity. — m-theory

I don't either. I used to have this half-assed theory about psychological differences. But I'm Gen-X. In my lifetime the old ways were mostly gone, but the ghost of patriarchy was still there. It was a pretty confusing scene. My generation is too soon to be trying to see what women can be when they're free of patriarchy.

I don't know how things are now. I know the generations that followed mine were more androgynous than we were.

So, are you really in favor of people thinking whatever makes the most sense to them or not?

The comment was about the STYLE of filling male roles, not that females can't fill male roles, or males can't fill female roles. If women and men were both drafted here the way they are in Israel, being a female soldier would be routinized. It isn't in the US.

If you find my style preferences to be an affront, then I say, that is too fucking bad. — Bitter Crank

You're right. Your aesthetics are your business. So do you disapprove of men in drag?

I remember being sensitive to this. Instinctively, I wore a dress and dress shoes and pantyhose.. the whole nine yards.. for the first few years I worked at AT&T. I didn't want people to think I was trying to be a man. After I got my creds, I started wearing whatever I wanted.

This probably isn't exactly the speech she gave, but it was along these lines:

Sojourner Truth (1797-1883): Ain't I A Woman?
Delivered 1851
Women's Convention, Akron, Ohio

Well, children, where there is so much racket there must be something out of kilter. I think that 'twixt the negroes of the South and the women at the North, all talking about rights, the white men will be in a fix pretty soon. But what's all this here talking about?

That man over there says that women need to be helped into carriages, and lifted over ditches, and to have the best place everywhere. Nobody ever helps me into carriages, or over mud-puddles, or gives me any best place! And ain't I a woman? Look at me! Look at my arm! I have ploughed and planted, and gathered into barns, and no man could head me! And ain't I a woman? I could work as much and eat as much as a man - when I could get it - and bear the lash as well! And ain't I a woman? I have borne thirteen children, and seen most all sold off to slavery, and when I cried out with my mother's grief, none but Jesus heard me! And ain't I a woman?

Then they talk about this thing in the head; what's this they call it? [member of audience whispers, "intellect"] That's it, honey. What's that got to do with women's rights or negroes' rights? If my cup won't hold but a pint, and yours holds a quart, wouldn't you be mean not to let me have my little half measure full?

Then that little man in black there, he says women can't have as much rights as men, 'cause Christ wasn't a woman! Where did your Christ come from? Where did your Christ come from? From God and a woman! Man had nothing to do with Him.

If the first woman God ever made was strong enough to turn the world upside down all alone, these women together ought to be able to turn it back , and get it right side up again! And now they is asking to do it, the men better let them.

Obliged to you for hearing me, and now old Sojourner ain't got nothing more to say. — https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/mod/sojtruth-woman.asp

That was sort of my point.
It is not social constructs that account for some gender disparities.
For example most men are not willing or interested in being stay at home parent compared to women.
That simply is not as validating to most men compared to women. — m-theory

There definitely are biological differences. Historically, black women in America allowed white men to see that the behavior of white women wasn't nature, but culture. Without a comparison of that kind, how would we tell the difference?

Are you fucking kidding me?

I think you miss the point, — Emptyheady

Awesome! What's the point? That culture has nothing to do with gender disparity?

Men should be less ambitious and successful, so that we can become more equal. — Emptyheady

Sounds like the voice of frustration to me. I know Unenlightened gets pissed off if one focuses on the why instead of the what.. but especially with stuff like this.. the why is the only interesting aspect of it (to me).

So if you got the impression at some point that you aren't allowed to ask this kind of question or that it would be wrong to think the way you do -- I'm genuinely sorry about that. You have a right to think whatever makes the most sense to you.

It would be a little ironic if you didn't go about it with a little intelligence, for instance in paying attention to what you can and can not do with statistics, but otherwise.. explore away.

Personal anecdote that may fit in: I worked at AT&T for ten years. In that time I saw a number of women drop out of electronic engineering to raise their kids. One was my boss's boss's boss. She was supposed to keep going up the line to NY. She quit. I heard she bought an amusement park, but wanted to spend more time with her kids.

I didn't quite know what to make of that, especially as I watched the trend. I myself quit to go off and explore living in a van or in the woods. I eventually became a massage therapist, and then a nurse. I lived the life I wanted. There's no doubt about that. I hope you do too.

BTW.. why are you focusing on this question so much?

Eh.. There's been a statistically significant rise in IQ's of American children and teenagers through the 20th Century. Your reasoning binds you to the proposition that Americans changed biochemically during that time period.

Could be.

I had a boyfriend who had the foot-fetish. That's one I really don't get.

He knocked a maid down the steps one time.

What I don't get is: what's up with Germany? Why so many great philosophers?

I should have quoted this in the OP. It's the passage I was pondering. The more I read of GoM, the more clear it becomes that N is saying that morality is tied up with language about interiority and immateriality. In the moral realm, negation is not the simple flip it is in logic. It's a potent emotional rejection of what is (and so of the world.) It's this rejection of the world that manufactures the soul.

And just exactly as the people separate the lightning from its flash, and interpret the latter as a thing done, as the working of a subject which is called lightning, so also does the popular morality separate strength from the expression of strength, as though behind the strong man there existed some indifferent neutral substratum, which enjoyed a caprice and option as to whether or not it should express strength. But there is no such substratum, there is no "being" behind doing, working, becoming; "the doer" is a mere appendage to the action. — Nietzsche, Geneology of Morals

I invited you to suspend judgment of the world for a few seconds and try to understand how it comes to be the way it is.

Instead you berate me for berating you. Awesome.

The perspective of a fellow world-citizen: you've never been like me. When I was in my 20's I was thinking all the same things you are now, but I was so angry about it, it was tearing me apart.

You've never been that angry. You were never driven to try to understand why the world is the way it is. That's why you now act like you just discovered Marxist alienation. Your answer to why it's this way? Everybody is asleep.. except of course for you. To my mind, that's little more than mental masturbation.

N mentions original sin, but doesn't explain that it was originally a Greek idea, not Jewish. The concept, as portrayed in Agamemnon, is inherited resentment. Abuse is like a pebble in a pond sending out waves of resentment over time and space.

Jesus is an image of a guy who isn't ensnared in it. I'm suggesting that every little bit of letting-go disintegrates ego.

OK. Thanks!

So yes, Nietzsche acknowledges and respects the providence of the terms, but his usage of them is philosophical and not historical — StreetlightX

Nietzsche is translating history. Why would you disagree with that?