Consider a group of Harvard Business School students on graduation day.

In one possible world, they each individually decide to go out into the world and make as much money as possible, for the good of humanity.

In the other, they meet and agree to go out into the world and make as much money as possible, for the good of humanity.

Are these two different? Well, it seems that in the first, each says "I am going out to get rich". In the second, "We are going out to get rich". We-intentionality is different to I-intentionality. — Banno

I was thinking how language is unnecessary for we-intentionality. For example, my dog and I both have mental representations of ‘going for a walk’, though our respective mental models of ‘going for a walk’ may differ to some degree. I can have the intention to walk the dog and as I prepare for that activity there will be some point where Red (my dog) will recognize the cues and we will then have we-intentionality. So I guess the institution of walking that we share is represented by a sequence of events involving a leash, shoes, a hat, and other signs. The signs are representations with intention but not the thing represented so are fictional.

If someone told me they were going to duplicate and replace my brain with a mechanical one (and dispose of the organic one), I would consider that death. However, if they could replace it incrementally and guarantee I was conscious the whole time, I don't consider that death, Does anyone else share this intuition? — RogueAI

I don’t think it matters at all if you were conscious. We lose consciousness all the time and still manage to retain our identity. A more interesting question is if the copy were altered somehow, think Manchurian candidate, and your new self wouldn’t realize the difference. The perfect sleeper agent.

One act of censorship is a thousand-fold more destructive than any sentence ever uttered. — NOS4A2

And Putin gave the order, “Nuke the fuckers.”

You said you sincerely hope his ideas have not been absorbed by today’s atheistic thinkers, which implies that you have an understanding of his philosophy of Will to Power. Can you summarize what it consists of? — Joshs

I’m skeptical if even the Neitch himself could do that to everyone’s satisfaction. I also suspect that may be by design.

One can’t understand his theory of art without first understanding his larger philosophical project, becuase the two are co-determinative. — Joshs

Of course art is related to aesthetics but we’re really talking about aesthetics, right?

You said his theory of art was unoriginal, and his theory of art is derived from his main thesis, Will to Power. — Joshs

I still don’t know what his theory of art is. Can you explain it?

Regarding aesthetics, people have been having sublime aesthetic experiences and transcending the duality of good and evil for thousands of years.

That explains why you think he’s unoriginal — Joshs

??? I never said he was unoriginal.

Do you think Nietzsche’s ideas as a whole have been absorbed, at least by most atheistic thinkers? — Joshs

I sincerely hope not.

How would this work? — Tom Storm

It doesn’t, but in theory it would be a movement away from materialistic rationalization (efficiency, calculability, predictability, and control) and towards well-being and meaning, but not capital M Meaning, because as the Neitch infamously said, God is dead.

Aesthetics to counteract rationalization in society, essentially.

It's nothing new this day and age, is what I meant.

Jackson, being about as useful as Anne Frank's drum-kit, forced me to seek the answer for myself so I let my fingers do some googling and discovered after a few minutes of reading that the Nietch thought something to the effect that aesthetic experience might just fill the God-shaped hole left in the wake of modernity or, to put it another way, serve as the key to unlock the iron cage of reason.

Nietzsche famously proclaimed that “only as an aesthetic phenomenon is existence and the world eternally justified.”

I suppose this was revolutionary thinking back in the old-timey days of the nineteenth century.

Riddle? Just say you did not understand it. — Jackson

:grin: I thought that’s what I did say. No help?

The idea that art is about production goes back to Aristotle:

"Now action is for the sake of an end; therefore the nature of
things also is so. Thus if a house, e.g., had been a thing made by nature, it would
have been made in the same way as it is now by art; and if things made by nature
were made not only by nature but also by art, they would come to be in the same
way as by nature. The one, then, is for the sake of the other; and generally art in
some cases completes what nature cannot bring to a finish, and in others imitates
nature." (Aristotle, Physics; 199a9-19)

Notice, "art...completes what nature cannot bring to a finish." — Jackson

I was never good with Greek riddles.

Maybe the meaning is that art is the creative act? If so, I’ll point out that creativity isn’t exclusive to art production, and also that art can be reproduced without creativity.

it is about meaning and the production of meaning. — Jackson

I just don’t see how this is in any way a radical idea.

What you mean or the history? Please elaborate either way.

Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN.

He said an aesthetics of production is needed because people only talk about the aesthetics of reception. — Jackson

What does that mean?

Just when I think you can’t be any more despicable you outdo yourself, this time characterizing a large group of people, literally millions across the globe, as violent murderers.

I suppose if you weren’t so ignorable you’d be banned from this site.

In Arab culture, for example, it means more “to make a statement” – a person states with his willpower that such and such axiom is true and he will live his life in accordance with it. From a scientific point of view it is nonsense, yet from evolutionary one seems rather beneficial. — stoicHoneyBadger

Why exactly is it beneficial? You say that it “seems” beneficial. Perhaps it is not.

Figurative with the belief that it ought to be literal?

What do you think I’m saying? — NOS4A2

I think the word is homogenization, or maybe more accurately, colonialization.

The culture lines should be erased — NOS4A2

Are you saying what I think you’re saying?! :grimace:

There is no end in development. It's a constant procedure. — dimosthenis9

Rather it’s the futile eternal recurrence of a hamster wheel, right? No progress is possible.

Mine [interpretation] is that Will to Power refers to ourselves. To power over our drives. To become the absolute Creators of our New Self. A higher spiritual-intellectual self. — dimosthenis9

It seems to me that the point of a higher spiritual-intellectual self and “power over our drives” is, in a word, liberation. This would require that we defy will to power rather than bend to it. But Nietzsche doesn’t want to do that and promotes an inegalitarian ideology.

A legal order thought of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle between power complexes but as a means of preventing all struggle in general perhaps after the communistic cliché of Dühring, that every will must consider every other will its equal—would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness. — On the Genealogy of Morals, FN

An aside - is the idea of a will to power an example of foundational thinking which FN purports to blow up? — Tom Storm

Given the above, I think it is.

So yeah I do find it extremely crucial as for us to be developed more. — dimosthenis9

Developed in what way and to what end? There are all sorts of wills, such as:

• Will to truth (philosophy)
• Will to pleasure (utilitarian)
• Will to meaning (religion)
• Etc.

If will to power is the one will to rule them all (and in the darkness bind them), then just like in Lord of the Rings, will to power is the will that needs to be taken to the forge from whence it came, the fires of Mount Doom, and destroyed in order for us to be free. But, unlike Tolkien’s story, will to power is held to be the fountain of all life so to destroy it is to destroy life, and that would be rather counterproductive.

How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? — Haglund

:chin: :chin: :chin:

Don’t have to be in full agreement or understanding to appreciate others in various ways. I’m sincerely curious about what you’ve been saying about drives and self-control. I guess it’s implied that you think self-control is desirable, that it’s good in some way, but it’s unclear what exactly the benefit is.

Will to Power and how strong it might be will decide how big that part could become. As to gain more and more control over ourselves. — dimosthenis9

Reminds me of Lord of the Rings. One ring to rule them all! What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable?

I recall that Napoleon was considered a megalomaniac Überdouche. Wouldn’t the world be better off without such creatures?

conformistHoneyBadger senior and crew were apparently highly successful in color coding your compliant ass. Again I wonder, isn’t the Überdouche supposed to be a leader and not a mindless follower?

Once upon a time there was a man named Frank. In all appearance Frank was like any man, often wearing jeans and a raggedy old t-shirt he bought at Brittany Spears concert back in 1998, and in the manner of any dude would frequently scratch his balls, in public. But inside, behind the shallow facade performed for the public eye, Frank was gentle, sensitive, and downright emo to the core. People who got to know him, really know him, would say the that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this figuratively, of course.

One day while downing brewskies with his buds in the man cave, Frank felt a sharp pain in his chest. His unhealthy mannish lifestyle had finally caught up with him and he was having a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and, long story short, eventually got a heart transplant. The donor was young woman that was killed in a motorcycle accident the day before. After the transplant, people who got to know Frank, really know him, would say that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this literally, of course.

Fear not, dimo, that which does not cancel Nietzsche makes him grow stronger. :strong:

purposely obtuse — Harry Hindu

Forgive me, I got tired of endlessly repeating the same point, that a discussion between gender and sex is natural and quite common.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.
— praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful".
— 180 Proof — Hanover

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps @180 Proof can rescue my dignity.

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect. — Harry Hindu

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! :blush:

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering. — Harry Hindu

A noble patron of postmodern thought would stand with standpoint theory.

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious. — Hanover

I was simply trying to determine your meaning about alcohol being toxic, which is still not obvious to me.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. — Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”
— praxis

This what is called a figure of speech. — Harry Hindu

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings. — Harry Hindu

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement.

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. — Hanover

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” I can only assume that’s a faith based moralization on your part. Chemo therapy, for example, is highly toxic but can be beneficial nevertheless and for that reason can be considered good. Plants and animals produce toxins as defense mechanisms or survival strategies. That’s not evil, in my opinion. We bombard the planet with poisons to kill pests. Is that evil? I might agree that it is in that case.

Perhaps you consider intoxication evil. If so, why? Is it because it influences our thinking, judgment, inhibitions, reflexes, etc.? If a religion doesn’t have any influential power, if no one drinks the Kool-Aid, then it’s probably about as meaningful as a Seinfeld rerun, amusing in the moment but quickly forgotten. If religion does have influential power, if we can be ‘under the influence’ of religion, then by your own definition it is evil.

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. — Hanover

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens).

My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard? — Hanover

Not all drinkers drink the Kool-Aid to excess, but for the ones who do there are countless horror stories (think Jim Jones).

Why must I worship at your alter? — Hanover

This is a false equivalency, as though you’re saying that it’s impossible to feel pleasure (or whatever benefit alcohol offers) without drinking.

If not a man, then what? Some other sex? — NOS4A2

I assume it means a lack of maturity, or perhaps past maturity, or some other gender. Just looked it up and as of today there are 72 genders, so there's plenty to choose from. :grin:

gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real. — Harry Hindu

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”