don't know. How do you move up from the numberline? Invent a way. — RogueAI

Don't have to. If you can see the number line, you're already above it. I mentioned this earlier, but my keen insight was ignored. :cry:

We can change the words we use to set out how things are. And we can change how things are to match the words we use. — Banno

Morality usually appears to be the former. Morality is about what our values should be. Slavery is immoral whether it's conventional or not (obviously).

So your turn. What's Nietzsche's theory of truth?

I have to say, I think it's sad that when asked on a philosophy forum what Nietzsche's eternal return means to you, you have nothing to say.

If the road goes infinitely away from the present moment for the future and past, just do what the mathematicians did with imaginary numbers: Find a way to move up instead of just back and forth. — RogueAI

How do you move up?

In my world responding to what you said is discussing it with you. — Fooloso4

Cool. So I guess you were asking of Nietzsche's theory of truth undermines itself. Nietzsche is on Wittgenstein's ladder and I think he was aware of that. When you get to the top, you toss the ladder because you've discovered the limits of language and it's sunk in as to what this means.

If you can think about what I just said there and engage in a friendly way, great. If all you want to do is launch an assault, save it. I'm not interested in that kind of discussion.

Fourth, what is metaphorical has some meaning. — Fooloso4

Of course. It's probably not cosmological though. I can't imagine how someone would fit that into the rest of Nietzsche's works. If you're among those who look at it that way, I'd be glad to hear how you do it.

I guess my question would be: do you actually want to discuss this with me? Or did you just want to present your view and be done with it? I'm happy either way.

You first. — Fooloso4

Sure. I'm waiting for a GSW (gun shot wound) to the chest, so I'll make it short. He believed that truths are metaphors. Think about what that implies about the return.

Thanks for the advice, but I am not looking for suggestions about something I have been doing for many years — Fooloso4

Cool. Immersed as you have been in Nietzsche, how would you describe his attitude to truth?

Try to take my comments about your behaviour seriously. You really haven’t absorbed it at all. — Jamal

I think the best plan would be for me to keep my comments to myself.

What I find disappointing is your unwillingness to discuss what you discovered. — Fooloso4

Understanding Nietzsche's view of truth is fundamental to understanding him in general. I think you'll be very gratified if you look into it. Really.

That’s how I read it too. You were asked to justify what you said and instead of answering you assumed a posture of superior knowledge to completely dismiss your interlocutor. — Jamal

I think Nietzsche's view of truth is fundamental to understanding him. It's best taken him from the horse's mouth rather than a snippet from someone who's typing on their phone while at work.

Try to imagine the best in people before you settle on nasty.

He knows some of the idiots who support him are unhinged and will riot if he's arrested — Michael

I guess they could march around somewhere. I wouldn't expect a lot of death and destruction.

Sounds like you have fun with Nietzsche ahead of you.
— frank

That was a contemptuous reply. I sense an underlying animus is underway. — Paine

Wow, you really misread that. Digging in to discover Nietzsche's theory of truth was fascinating for me.

What are his ideas about the nature of truth that makes this seem unlikely? — Fooloso4

Sounds like you have fun with Nietzsche ahead of you. :grin:

Whether or not the eternal return is cosmology is an open question — Fooloso4

Seen in the light of his ideas about the nature of truth, it seems unlikely.

Trump has warned of "death and destruction" if he is arrested. I think he has control of an asteroid and is able to direct it towards the earth. :grimace:

Between the two roads is the gateway "this moment". But it is always this moment. This moment is neither the past or the future, and so in what sense is there a return? — Fooloso4

For me, Nietzsche and Kierkegaard go hand in hand, explaining one another. The eternal return is related, but not identical to Kierkegaard's repetition.

Time is cyclical. Birth, youth, maturity, old age, and death are everywhere. Everything goes through this same circle over and over.

But if this was all, there would be no way to be conscious of it. That consciousness requires a contrast, an opposition. In this case the opposing idea is eternity: the limit of time going forward and backwards. When we see the cyclic nature of time, we have stationed ourselves in eternity. This is all phenomenology. It's not an attempt to do cosmology. The only truth we have about the world at large is metaphors.

This would explain the reaction of “wow, so money doesn’t exist!” when someone realizes it’s conventional — Jamal

Money does require grounding in the form of a powerful state or a stable bank, both of which stand apart from the general population, much as a God stands apart from humanity, guaranteeing values.

I recently came across a young Chinese person on the internet who was excitedly exclaiming that the yuan should replace the US dollar as the primary currency of global trade. We can't just choose that, though. We've tried and it doesn't work. It will change when China overtakes the US as the heart of the global economy.

On the other hand, in a sense we do decide, through the market, to put prices on them, i.e., they do not have prices purely by virtue of their use to us, but also by virtue of their inclusion in a social practice of exchange on the basis of money, which is based on conventional behaviour—playing the game. After all, they can be provided without charge, if we decide not to put prices on them. — Jamal

Price reflects the relationship between supply and demand. Demand will be there whether we arrive at a price or give it away. I think demand is fundamentally rooted in biology.

So the question to the OP is: how much more real does value have to be to be really real? — Jamal

The statement I read into it could be thought of in terms of the private language argument.

In the argument, replace the individual who struggles to maintain meaning with a private language with a community that struggles to maintain the meaning of values which are all chosen by the community itself. Since the community can change its values on a whim, there's no way to take any particular set of values seriously.

The point of this thought experiment is not to show that values don't exist, but rather that values depend on an image of an external, unchanging grounding. When I say "external" I mean external to the human community.

And where do those basic values come from? Instinct? Learning? Experience? Physiological reaction? I guess all of those tossed together into the blender of our cognitive machinery. — T Clark

It could be that to the extent we value rightly, we're in tune with the Mind of God. But coincidentally, all the little parts of your body act like they're in a community and they work all day long to make the community endure. Each one gives freely to the others what it can, and takes back in turn. Maybe all this good will bubbles up into the realm of the psyche as value.

Sure. My point was simply that it's an attitude - and suggesting that this is common to all values. I'm not suggesting that attitudes are always chosen. I'm not sure wha that would mean.

Direction of fit is not so much about choice. — Banno

I agree. I was reading the OP as having to do with choice. I may have misunderstood.

Perhaps. Does it follow then that food and shelter have a value that is found in the world, as opposed to being given by us? It seems to me that the value of shelter is a consequence of our wants and needs, as opposed to being found in the brut fact of the shelter. That we "do not have control" of such wants and needs does not make them a thing found in the world.

All this by way of saying that a desire for shelter is an attitude we adopt towards shelter, as opposed to a discovery we might make about shelter.

One cannot point to the value of a shelter in the way one can point to it's roof. — Banno

You're saying that since the value of shelter isn't a part of the shelter, but rather an aspect of our relationship to it, value is dependent on us. That's true, but I don't remember adopting an attitude towards a roof in the rain. That need has just always been there.

The only way to be in a position to choose would be if I'm prepared to go without necessities and die. Then I could say I gave the shelter its value when I decided to live. But having decided to live, there I am, bound to my needs just as surely as I'm bound to the rules of this world.

But we do decide to give value (in fiat currency denominations) to even dire necessities. If you don't pay your water bill, the city will eventually cut off your supply. One could die if the happened. Tough, says the city, Tell your children to pay their bills. Ditto for heat. No money? Sorry, no food for you! Homeless? No money? The great outdoors awaits you. (Or, more likely the great — BC

You're saying we do have a choice in whether we value necessities because we choose to value our own lives. I'll buy that.

It is interesting to examine the "'art' market". Jack puts paint on canvas in an organized way and takes it to a gallery. The gallery owner gives it a "value"; let's say $3,000 dollars. The factors the art dealer considers extend beyond the 'art' itself; there is the matter of income for the gallery, the future value of Jack's art work (since he is "an up and coming artist"), the 'art' market (where buyers seem to be interested in paintings of car wrecks, like Jack's), and so on. — BC

It's all psychological. At present, the world's banking system is threatened by a devaluation of "floating" profit and loss. It's virtual value. It's not real, but it really threatens people's well being.

This virtual value is basically what banks create. It's possible because of the fundamentally abstract nature of money.

Well, I'm supposed to be outside playing.

Take up ↪BC's point. Money only has value because we say so. Therefore money doesn't exist?

It's a stupid argument — Banno

The counter argument would be that money doesn't have value, strictly speaking. It represents value in a standardized way. Without a functional economy where a peice of currency can be traded for food, shelter, etc., the currency couldn't be given value by fiat (that's roughly true, anyway).

We don't decide to give value to food and shelter, so in this case value is rooted in basic needs and desires which we don't control.

If value can be given at whim, it can just as easily be removed at whim, and so is insubstantial. That's an approximation of a common intuition about it, anyway.

The US simply should look just why it's health care costs are so insanely more than in any other country. — ssu

They have. I mean doctors have. I think the theory at this point is that Americans are unusually unhealthy. Not sure why, but I'm sure the American Sugar Association isn't helping. They actively squash research that clearly shows the dangers of over doing sugar.

Oh, it’s all “making it easier for voters to vote”. The censorship, altering state laws, social media censorship all makes sense now. — NOS4A2

There was a little pandemic going on at the time. But yes, the establishment wanted him out. He was too much of a wild card (idiot).

Powell announced a moderate rate increase in response to signs the economy is warming. Now we'll see if it's enough to chill the economy without bringing down any banks.

I remember one of best reason given by some guy to vote Trump: with Trump as president the press will do their job. With Hillary they will be her lap dog. — ssu

There's probably some truth to that. The one I saw that sticks with me is a young woman living in West Virginia where the demise of coal mining left a lot of people in poverty. She saw a vote for Clinton as a vote for the status quo. Voting for Trump meant at least trying to improve things.

That still doesn't make him a good US president, — ssu

I don't think NOS wanted him to be a good US president. He wanted Trump to break the system and create the conditions for a revolution. In another century NOS would have been a communist.

For it is one of the most admirable qualities of the demagogue that he forces men to think

That's true.

I’m not confident he will be convicted or not because the entire system is stacked against someone like Trump — NOS4A2

He's done fairly well for himself in spite of that.

I am suspicious of the system and anyone who earns a living from it. — NOS4A2

I assume you aren't talking about mailmen. Politicians are an odd breed. A true politician doesn't have much of a moral compass. She's just looking for prominence. But in a democratic system, the way to gain prominence is to please the people. That means politicians do pay attention to what the people want. A prime example is Biden's present support for tuition reimbursement. He wouldn't be supporting that except that it became apparent that in order to secure the electorate, he would have to move left.

Likewise, Trump's success showed that Republicans need to move toward being a little more anti-Semitic and racist in order to keep their voters. Thus DeSantis freely brings up Soros as a way to attack Democratic NYC. It couldn't be more plainly anti-Semitic, but it's working for him. If it wasn't he would back off of it.

And then you have Trump. He's not a politician. He's not trying to please the people. What do you think he's trying to do?

The state is only after protecting its own interests and Trump goes against those interests. — NOS4A2

The state is something larger than any particular generation. It's not the kind of thing that acts on its own. A state is basically a kind of legal technology. Think of it as a kind of animal that, having evolved, is very successful. That's why you have to go hunting moose near the arctic circle to get away from them. They're incredibly successful at this time.

The establishment is a different thing. It's a generational cohort that has found itself with the power to protect its power. An establishment doesn't usually get super rigid and reactionary unless they think their power is in danger. Our present establishment has no fears. They're not particularly worried about Trump because he can't really do the kind of damage he might like to do.

Trump wouldn't be facing charges now if he hadn't directed his lawyer to violate campaign finance laws and then subsequently publicly distance himself from that lawyer. That pissed Cohen off and he's been trying to get revenge ever since. As people close to Trump explain, Trump has a tendency to create conflict and war for himself. Even if it's not there, he'll create it. It's just his personality.

If you give someone money and they do with it what they want it’s your fault for giving them money. — NOS4A2

Ok. So you don't think Trump should be prosecuted for this particular law because it's unjust. You're suspicious that the charges are politically motivated (by a grand jury). At the same time, you're confident that since he hasn't been convicted of any crimes up until now, he won't be found guilty this time either.

Don't worry about people frothing at the mouth. It doesn't matter.

Because they are stupid laws — NOS4A2

Why are they stupid? They're supposed to protect doners so you don't give me money to run for alderman only to find that I spent your money on donuts.

I believe in justice and prosecuting someone for non-violent vices such as a campaign finance violations is unjust — NOS4A2

Prosecuting someone for violating campaign finance laws is unjust? Why?

It depends on the law because I do not believe in most of them. — NOS4A2

And that's what I figured it was really coming down to with you: you're an anarchist, so you don't support any type of prosecution for anyone.

Oh dear. You can curate and string together as many of my quotes as you wish and give yourself exactly the story you want to hear. It’s a telling habit. Still, two impeachments, dozens and dozens of investigations, and here you are empty handed with nothing to show for the wasted efforts, tax dollars, and time you’ve spent as a true believer. — NOS4A2

Just putting aside mouth frothing, if there's evidence that he violated the law, he should be prosecuted. I'm sure you agree with that.

“I have no interest in getting involved in some manufactured circus by some Soros-DA,” DeSantis said at a news conference Monday,
NBC

I guess this is a Soros-DA:

"Bragg is from Harlem, and grew up on Striver's Row.[2] In an interview with The American Prospect, Bragg noted that he had been "deeply affected by the criminal justice system – most directly through three gunpoint stops by the NYPD."[3] He graduated from the Trinity School[4] before attending Harvard College. He graduated from Harvard cum laude with a Bachelor of Arts in government in 1995[2][5] and earned his Juris Doctor from Harvard Law School, where he was an editor of the Harvard Civil Rights–Civil Liberties Law Review.[5][4]"

-wikipedia

oops

nice post. :up:

I mean your faith is cute, — unenlightened

This is me. I need to visit the barber.