His only crime was publishing information. Any detractor or hater or persecutor is such because the information was not to his liking. — NOS4A2

Poke the crocodile, get eaten.

which would not have happened if it had not been released. The denial here is of the need for effective journalism in a democracy. — Banno

Yes. The First Amendment protects journalists, and the spirit of it might have been extended to Assange, but the information about that war crime was classified. It would have eventually been unclassified and made available. Exposing it in the way Aasange did potentially compromised American agendas.

As it happened, he continued to be a pain in the ass, exposing CIA hacking tools and so forth.

That leaves me non-plussed. Perhaps if you go over what we've discussed again, you will see the point. — Banno

I'm already aware that embracing a Utopian vision is dangerous. I thought you might have insight about that.

This is about global warming, not God.

Collateral murder shows the US doing badly, but instead of taking it on board and seeking to improve it has resorted to belligerent denial. — Banno

That's not true. The authenticity of the data was confirmed by the US military and a public discussion about the legality of the action took place.

For a start, not to think faith a virtue. — Banno

How would that help?

I'm not sure what that means. This is the sort of thing they want to discuss with him.

side benefit of being able to get revenge upon the dude who exposed the US to be a bunch of murderous fucks. — Streetlight

It only helps the US for people to believe that. There's no downside.

Your point? — Streetlight

They want information.

They know how he got that data. I don't think they have the CIA leak or the Clinton source.

Lol, "believing the US government". Yeah sorry I don't believe genocidal empires. — Streetlight

They don't care what you believe.

But I do. The US used to be better than this stuff — Banno

When?

I've shown that complete trust or confidence in someone or something does not only lead to hope, but to other less palatable activities. — Banno

Absolutely. What's the secret to avoiding the bad outcomes?

You guys never seem to know when to believe the US government and when not to. They don't care about war crimes.

So here we have an odd commonality between an evil and a good. Both depend on faith. — Banno

Other things that are like that include tools and medicine. Every medicine is also a poison.

The pope's view was that faith is about healing.

If pressed for an example you just resort to a no true Scotsman fallacy. We've already seen that the pope disagrees with you, so, no. .

Supposedly we're already in the sticky phase (where it's happening because it's happening).

Every day another bank ceo announces that were going into a recession, as if they're trying to tell everyone not to expect continued inflation and stop buying stuff.

They probably want to ask him how he got the Clinton data.

Are you saying that Deleuze did not understand Schopenhauer? — Joshs

I'm saying Deleuze wouldn't know Schopenhauer if he was bitten in the ass by him. Actually, I don't know anything about Deleuze. He may have dwelt profoundly with S the way N did.

Schopenhauer was a hard determinist, so there's no denying the Will in that sense.
— Tate

What assumptions must be made about the nature of the will in order to argue that it must be denied in a Buddhist-like pose of nothingness? — Joshs

Beats me. What do you think?

and does hard determinism not presuppose metaphysical assumptions about the nature of the real? — Joshs

It's about the ways we're bound to think. Discussions of the real get tossed to Kant.

Tate

Deleuze argues that Schopenhauer’s pessimism is a result of thinking Will as representation and illusion. — Joshs

No, in WWR, he pictures Will as the thing-in-itself.

I don't understand that quote from Deleuze.

Schopenhauer does not inaugurate a new philosophy of the will in any of these respects. On the contrary, his genius consists in drawing out the extreme consequ-ences of the old philosophy, in pushing the old philosophy as far as it can go. — Joshs

His Will is what moves everything. Your body is how you represent it.

Limiting the will is therefore not going to be enough for Schopenhauer. The will must be denied, it must deny itself. — Joshs

Schopenhauer was a hard determinist, so there's no denying the Will in that sense.

According to Nietzsche the philosophy of the will must replace the old metaphysics: it destroys and supersedes it. Nietzsche thinks that he produced the first philosophy of the will, that all the others were the final avatars of metaphysics.“ — Joshs

I don't think you understood Schopenhauer. Go back and get the vibe of it. Then come back and examine N.

should you choose to let it happen? — TheSoundConspirator

Of course not

The idea of purely mechanical materialism is only true in its limitation. — Gregory

What do you mean?

The real question is that are people aware of this? Do they understand how inflation works? It's been a long time, 40 years, that the nation (meaning the US) has been on a high inflation environment. — ssu

And the last episode launched the neoliberal era. If we go into stagflation, which would mean the Fed's interest rate hikes don't bring inflation under control, we'll head into stagflation. What policy changes would follow that?

Sounds like you have a bit of a chip on your shoulder.

He's talking about S's idea that the will is the thing in itself. S eventually decided against that.

N is here agreeing with Kant.

Most of the quote you posted isn't contra Schopenhauer. I didn't say he was a faithful disciple, but you seemed to be asserting that N turned against S in general. I don't think so.

Plus he had a huge mustache.

I checked in with some professors on reddit. In some ways the later N is opposed to Kant, but he never strayed from basic Kantian metaphysics, that is, we don't know the world as it is.

You're putting it a little too strongly, in other words.

Also opposition to his metaphysics, which Nietzsche thought was too close to Kantian idealism( his notion of will , for instance). Nietzsche considered himself to be making a radical break with metaphysics , and he thought Schopenhauer remained attached to it. — Joshs

I missed that. Where does he shoot down Kant?

Freddy only opposes Artie's conclusions, I think, not his pessimistic premises. — 180 Proof

For Schopenhauer, the only way to keep the will active is by, well, creating drama, problems to be solved, evil to be overcome.

Nietzsche’s point is that what Schopenhauer is calling evil is only evil in a Christian framework (or some other life abdicating ideology).

According to him, our ancestors enjoyed a different set of values which lauded the very things we condemn.

Yes, a touchstone, and also an adversary. Nietzsche’s starting point is in opposition to Schopenhauer. — Joshs

Opposition to Schopenhauer's pessimism, yes.

It occurs to me I've never considered N to be anything but a philosophical[ (though not scientific) naturalist, — 180 Proof

If by that, you mean he didn't incorporate supernatural causes into his philosophy, yes.

For N, truth is always a metaphor, though, so he certainly wasn't a physicalist. His touchstone was Schopenhauer.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

What I've been trying to say is that the two directions don't have to be in conflict. They can work together.

Engineering is an activity where the two work hand in hand.

Optimism and hope have the direction of fit from thought to word. Hope involves expectation and desire.

That notion of direction of fit is exactly what is needed to make sense of hope. — Banno

That makes sense.

In contrast, there are beliefs that reverse this process, such that the world is made to fit the thought. Faith is of this sort. — Banno

You could probably use the word that way.

Jim's faith in his ability to fly finally resulted in his death.

The Sierra Club's faith in the justice system paid off.

In cases like these the element of desire is apparent. Augustine longed to convert to Christianity for years before he did. This longing and his subsequent success at believing are mysterious to me. I almost want to say he was lying to himself, but I don’t know.

This usage isn't as interesting to me as the one mentioned earlier.

Suzy was certain that she'd won the lottery, but she was wrong.

Suzy believed her shoes allowed her to fly, but she installed a net below her window just in case.

It's all in how you glop the words together.

Russia is simply redistributing wealth through force according to its ideas of what belongs to whom.

Given this forum's political leanings one might expect a lot more understanding for this course of action. — Tzeentch

If they would redistribute with the welfare of everyone in mind, they would be our heroes.

Belief here ceases to be a rational act in the face of evidence or convention, and becomes an act of assertion, the expression of the will to power, the command "This is how things are!"

What would we call such belief? — Banno

I don't know. Possibly delusional.

Going back to faith as a movement toward healing (as laid out by the pope), reaching out for a solution (as @unenlightened said) is reflexive for a child. That same action is done as an adult in the face of unknowing.

Solutions to global warming are like the existence of God in that there is an evidentiary problem. There is no evidence that there is no God. There is no evidence that we can't address global warming.

The more one looks at the way the language is used, the more one sees that faith has to do with an ethical life, and the evidence that supports faith is the way one lives oneself, not the way the world works. — unenlightened

yes yes yes

Or madness takes a form of hope. I think the god depicted in that particular story is a deity who abuses its power. — Tom Storm

Have you read Fear and Trembling?

In cults people often radiate happiness as a consequence of 'knowing' that god's will is being fulfilled and that they are part of a system of transcendent meaning that will deliver a great destiny and reward. The world they know is exactly as it is meant to be, all has been provided for. I suppose my overarching point is that perhaps not all optimism is worth having. — Tom Storm

Ha. In Fear and Trembling, Kierkegaard says Abraham had the hope that takes the form of madness.

Sometimes maybe madness is needed.

While the subject of faith is pretty vast and be approached in various ways, an elementary observation is one doesn't need faith when it comes to facts or 'what is'. — skyblack

In a way, you do. When Kierkegaard talks about having faith in your own acceptableness, think about the emotions that keep you from embracing that. Emotions are usually the thing that clouds your vision. An act of faith can involve putting those emotions to the side.