And how we talk about that seems to be the most contested thing. — Paine

Do you mean what is natural is contested or the contest of different philosophies or different interpretations of Nietzsche?

If you are calling the advances in knowledge over time the world breaking through then I see no problem, but if you mean "reciprocally responsive interaction" I don't see where he makes such a claim.

I don't recall him saying anything about the limits of reality.

They are not capable of anything beyond our models which produce them — Joshs

A computer capable of self-learning is able to do more than the programs that produce them.In addition, they are capable of doing what we are not. In any case, the article is about the limits of human knowledge, not IA.

For myself, the celebration of war and struggle in Nietzsche's writings is hard to listen to on this side of the Shoah. I have no interest in washing his hands of the responsibility he bears for his rhetoric. — Paine

I think his rhetoric is unfortunate, but a large part of the danger lies in taking what he says out of its philosophical context.

Heraclitus "the obscure", one of Nietzsche's spiritual progenitors, said:

War is “father of all, king of all” (Fragment B53)

This is echoed in Nietzsche's will to power. It is not simply a matter of man against man, it is the way of all of nature, all of life.

We should also look at what he says about one's best and worst enemies, struggle, contest, and conflict. It is not simply.

Provincialism dressed up in sophisticated clothing is still provincialism.

Wolpeet gives the impression the world can ‘break through’ from outside this reciprocally responsive interaction to affect us directly, but if it did it would be invisible and irrelevant to us. — Joshs

What does he say to give you that impression? It is not a matter of the world breaking through but of our expanding what we know. That has limits, but they are our limits not the limits of reality.

Saying our machine are smarter or dumber than us is like saying the spider web or birds nest is smarter or dumber than the spider or bird. — Joshs

Poor analogy. Spider webs and bird nests are not capable of self-learning or self-improvement.

A physical reality can never ‘far exceed our own’ , given that physical reality is the set of goal-oriented interactive performances of humans on our environment — Joshs

This is not a given, it is a concept of reality that you endorse. It misses the point. It is as if a dog or paramecium (his examples) claiming that physical reality is the set of goal-oriented interactive performances of dogs or paramecium on their environment. The fact that we can entertain and express such ideas does not mean that reality is limited to what we think and do. It may be only "a sliver of reality".

Our devices, like our world , can never be ‘beyond us’. — Joshs

Our devices may someday be beyond us. In some ways they already are. Our world is not of our making and not in our control. It is not ours in that it controls the shots and we have limited power to change that. The world does not answer to us.

Those who view mythology as untruths probably miss the point of this large corpus of ancient wisdom. — Agent Smith

It is not so simple:

The myth of the metals in the Republic is called a "noble lie".

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27) — Fooloso4

Aristotle said that poetry is more philosophical and serious than history, because poetry tends to give general or universal truths while history gives particular facts. The poet is a "maker of stories" (Poetics, 145b)

In so far as such stories are not factual, they are fabrications. But they represent more general or universal truths than a description of some particular thing that happened at some particular time.

Plato's myth of the metals is called a lie because it is a fabrication. It did not happen. Socrates is a maker of stories. The truth of the story is that we are not all equal by nature.

If you feel defeated it is only because you have defeated yourself.

See what Nietzsche says about one's best and worst enemies. You are your own worst enemy. It need not be that way. Zarathustra asks if you are up to the task.

In support of what you say, from the link you provided:

In any case we can escape from this external way of thinking only as we realize in thought and act that democracy is a personal way of individual life; that it signifies the possession and continual use of certain attitudes, forming personal character and determining desire and purpose in all the relations of life. Instead of thinking of our own dispositions and habits as accommodated to certain institutions we have to learn to think of the latter as expressions, projections and extensions of habitually dominant personal attitudes.

I just heard a segment on the radio talking about Nure-onna (wet woman). Given your interest in the Japanese and mythology I thought this was an interesting coincidence.

So, you threaten to leave, come back, then claim to leave officially, then come back. You tell me you will not discuss anything with me, then respond to me.

I win? Does that mean you will take your ball and go home?

Why have you made this contentious and personal? Are you not able to engage in disagreement over a text without becoming petulant?

It really is farcical isn’t it? — Xtrix

I reliabel source of amusement. Unfortunately, there are a significant number of people who agree with him and people in positions of power, shameless toadies, who attempt to aggrandize their power by kissing his ass.

I just received a PM from Tate:

I'm not interested in discussing anything with you.

Unfortunately for him, this is a public forum. I will continue to post as I see fit.

The myth of the metals in the Republic is called a "noble lie".

The muses tell Hesiod that they speak lies like the truth (Theogony 27)

More so an undying hatred for the establishment uniparty and the State — NOS4A2

Right. The Trump Party, where loyalty to the leader must be pledged and demonstrated, where even minimal descent will be punished, where there is no State only the whims and desires of Trump is a much better option.

You already shared a link where that topic was discussed. — javi2541997

The links I provided are to things I posted [that is, wrote] on the forum.

I do not agree with the claim in the link you provided that:

The purpose is to put myth to the epistemological test to ensure that it arises from validated true belief, the hieros logos (sacred tales).

The short answer, I think, is that myths provide answers that reasoned discussion fail to provide. Their effectiveness lies, at least in part, in providing beliefs that are taken by the listener to be true. Rather than validated true belief, Timaeus, in his own works, gives us "likely stories (ton eikota mython)". It should be noted that Socrates remains silent.

The question of why Plato used mythopoesis is interesting.

Do you know other examples about mythopoeic? — javi2541997

Plato's Phaedo. A detailed discussion:here

Plato's Timaeus. Discussed in far less detail here

One way to give meaning to life is to condemn some aspects of the present and claim that something better is coming.

This is Christian eschatology. It's Marxism. It's any kind of progressivism. The painful parts of the present gain meaning in that they're part of a bridge to a better world. — Tate

See above:

... what both Lampert and Rosen are getting at is that the expectation of the Übermensch sounds messianic. (emphasis added)

In line with this I would argue that a) this can be regarded as another of Nietzsche's inversions of Christianity ... — Fooloso4

Except the Übermensch might not arrive. Instead there may be the last man. But ...

b) it is consistent with the eternal return in so far as a messianic figure is a recurring theme.

... to will the eternal recurrence of the same ...
— Tate

What does it mean to will something that will happen whether one wills it or not? Is it more than passive acceptance? — Fooloso4

What is the dangerous crossing? — Tate

I addressed this in a previous post.

Z says:

Mankind is a rope fastened between animal and overman – a rope over an abyss. (7)

This reminds us of Aquinas' claim that man is higher than the animals and lower than the angels.

Nietzsche accepts the idea of higher and lower beings but rejects the idea of a fixed order of beings ascending to the transcendent.

Later he says:

There are manifold ways and means of overcoming: you see to it! But only a jester thinks: “human being can also be leaped over.” (159)

This, I think, refers back to Paul's promise of death and rebirth:

... it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body; there is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body ... (1 Corinthians 15:44)

More generally, Paul's hatred of the body. As if we can by a leap of faith become spiritual bodies -sōma pneumatikos. — Fooloso4

That's indoctrination! — unenlightened

Yeah, that occured to me, and in a school that was influenced by Dewey's educational philosophy!

Ken Klukowski, co-author of "The Blueprint: Obama's Plan to Subvert the Constitution and Build an Imperial Presidency", attempts to defend himself. Solid evidence we cannot believe any of the January 6th committee findings.

But it is what conservatives accuse him of, and what they favour themselves, but presumably call by another name. — unenlightened

Yes, that is how I see it as well.

quote="unenlightened;736247"]As if by magic, conservative and progressive align with wealth and poverty, because the poor want to get rich and the rich want to stay rich.[/quote]

I think it is more a matter of the wealth and poverty of power and influence, something money can't always buy. We were told in school that the US is a classless society, but one thing conservatives wish to conserve is class structure and its privileges.

They’ve lied. — NOS4A2

Right, whatever supports Trump is the truth, whatever exposes him and what he has done is a lie.

Even people like William Barr seem no longer able to maintain this illusion.

Humpty Trumpty had a great fall. And all the would be king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Trumpty together again.

You cite show trial. — NOS4A2

The investigation uncovered FACTS, which are not to be mistaken for "alternative facts", that is, alternatives to the facts.

The unchanging truth is not their doctrine? — unenlightened

It is.

Someone should let them know that indoctrination with the unchanging truth is what education is supposed to be; its the transmission of culture, and so the conservation of conservatism. — unenlightened

Indoctrination with unchanging truth is not what education is supposed to be according to Dewey. The situation is analogous to the conflict between Socrates and Athens, or more generally, philosophy and the city. Should we simply accept the gods of contemporary conservatism or call them into question as part of the tradition of free inquiry and deliberation? Put differently, what is it we wish to conserve?

The transmission of culture, which Dewey is in favor of, does not mean the unquestioned acceptance of some particular set of values that are only a part of our pluralistic culture.

What is the alternative?

You cite an article from August 20, 2021, ten months before the June 8, 2022 hearings began. The committee hearings did provide evidence that it was a coordinated attack.

They do not see it that way. What Dewey calls arrest and fixations, being cut off from the ongoing process, they call the unchanging truth.

I don't accept "the Bible says" or "Jesus says" as a valid argument. — Art48

Either do I, but I assume Chris does accept what it says, and if not, that may well be a matter of choice, just as is your choice not to accept it.

That’s an obfuscation of my position. — NOS4A2

You are well practiced in obfuscation.

If you want to know my position you can ask for it. — NOS4A2

Why? You have already made it clear.

When reading Trump’s speech he uses the word “fight” numerous times, and in no instance is the word used literally like you pretend he did. — NOS4A2

The thing about Trumpspeak is that he always attempts to leave room for plausible deniability. But his actions belie this attempt to render it innocuous. Why did he not attempt to immediately put a stop to this "one tiny riot"? In the speech he gave the next day why didn't he condemn their actions? Why did he edit the draft of the speech to eliminate criticism of their actions?Some committee findings.

Trump assumed “everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard”. — NOS4A2

Right, that is what someone would assume when they are armed to the teeth.

The ones who gave anyone the idea that something besides a rally was going to occur was the press — NOS4A2

He was warned

I don't accept the idea you can chose what to believe. — Art48

Faith and belief are not the same, but related. Faith is also related to trust and acceptance. Since we are talking about Christian faith:

And we have come to believe in Christ Jesus, so that we might be justified by faith ... (Galatians 2:16 ...)

One who does not believe will not have faith, but one can believe and still not have faith. Many claim to believe in Jesus in one way or another, but not live by faith.

Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and do not doubt ... (Matthew 21:21)

If faith is not a matter of choice then what does this mean? Some might see in this the doctrine of predestination, but if it is not a matter of choice then why does he tell them this?

Edit:

... many Christians say faith is a gift of God. — Art48

That it is a gift need not mean it is something given to you without you having a choice in the matter. A gift can either be accepted or rejected.

I'm asking people who believe what Chris says is OK but what Alex says is insulting to explain their reasoning. — Art48

Speaking personally, it is true that I do not accept Christianity because I lack faith. A simple statement of fact. It may be true that I lack intelligence but would find it insulting if someone told me that. Faith is a matter of choice. Intelligence is not.

Your senses perceive (actual) physical values, but your mind conceives (probable) metaphysical meanings. — Gnomon

It seems to me that you are confusing perception with a theory of perception. You begin with a questionable assumption that perception is passive reception, and thus a dualism of perception and conception. In addition, you are importing a questionable claim of metaphysical meaning that may or may not play a role in how one conceives of something seen.

The problem is, we do not know what Jesus said. We only know of the varied and conflicting things said by those who regard themselves as Christians. If we compare Paul and John we hear very different things, that is, providing our ears are open.

Chris's claim is true, if you accept how faith is described in the NT, but false if you accept a different standard of faith. A Jew or Muslim, for example, does not lack faith but do not accept certain Christian beliefs. Telling them they lack faith would be rude, but telling someone who lacks religious faith that they lack faith is not rude unless it is meant to imply a personal shortcoming.

Alex's claim betrays his/her own ignorance. There are plenty of highly intelligent people who are believers, and so factually wrong. It is rude to tell someone they lack intelligence.

A statement may be a truthful expression of what someone thinks, but that does not mean that they think is not thereby wrong. To think something and to express it are two different things. To think it might not be rude but to express it might be.

Again, I do not know what the motivations were, and nowhere did I claim it was or was not intended to be used. — NOS4A2

So to clarify your position, you do not know why the rioters were there or what they were doing or what would have happened if security measures failed.

Since you do not know you cannot say that there was no real threat to members of Congress or to the process of certifying the election results.

Since you do not know their motivations you do not rule out the possibility that they were there for a tour, a picnic lunch, and a photo op to take selfies with Pence and members of Congress.

Since you do not know the only rational option is to minimize the whole thing as nothing more than "one tiny riot" that, unforeseen, broke out amongst a group of peace-loving patriots armed to the teeth. That Trump telling them to "fight like hell" was part of his "extremely calming speech". Besides , he said: “I wasn’t involved in that" (Interview with Laura Ingraham).

They were there on a tour. They just forgot the visiting hours. Honest mistake. — Xtrix

True, but there is more to it. The rumor was that Pence was going to bring a picnic lunch for everybody. Understandably they went in search of it and had to break a few doors and windows and heads to find it. No free lunch? Hang him!

Dewey is the main target of conservatives who oppose "progressivism". The irony is that some of these same conservatives are great admirers of Lincoln.

Dewey emphasizes the importance of public education for democracy. Conservatives call this indoctrination. The centra point of the difference at issue can be seen in Dewey's claim that:

All ends and values that are cut off from the ongoing process become arrests, fixations. They
strive to fixate what has been gained instead of using it to open the road and point the way to new and
better experiences.

I know what threat means — NOS4A2

Evidently you do not:

An “actual threat” that didn’t turn into an actual hanging wasn’t much of an actual threat, I guess. — NOS4A2

I just do not pretend to know someone’s motivations. — NOS4A2

A threat and the motivation behind it are two different things.

Do you really believe there was a lynch mob there conspiring to hang the Vice President? — NOS4A2

You say you do not pretend to know someone's motivations, but do pretend to know the mob's motivation when you claim that a noose and scaffolding was not intended to be used.

The scaffolding did not appear by magic. You might argue that it was symbolic, but the thing about an angry mob is that otherwise rational people will do things they would not do under other circumstances. I see no reason not to think that there was a lynch mob there. It may have been small to start, but if the mob had gotten hold of Pence it seems likely they would have hanged him.