The thing is, you don't suffer from an insecurity there though... so why would you feel attacked? I'll assume you're wiser than the average person, I'd wager that studying philosophy has brought you many insights into who you are, such that your identity ia drawn from within rather than reifying with external concepts which passively form a reactionary identity, because the external values come with strings attached...

More or less, you're not an impoverished mentality. Thus you don't feel attacked. That doesn't mean, that masculinity isn't reprimanded currently. Just because it's not on your radar doesn't mean it's not occurring.

The ancient Greek would see our current society as Barbaric because the social has absorbed the old concept of privacy...there is no more private realm of necessity, inequality and necessary inequality... society and the social now deprives us of natural states of world and parts of our animal nature.... misogyny is so damn ripe because there's a constant society wide distribution that man and masculinity is shit through a deleveling of masculine values. A society wide deprivation of masculinity due to the fact that femininity is having a spasmodic explosion from being held captive, from being viewed as something to be exercised, viewed as shit for so long under the Semitic way of life...

The emergence of society—the rise of housekeeping, its activities, problems, and organizational devices—from the shadowy interior of the household into the light of the public sphere, has not only blurred the old borderline between private and political, it has also changed almost beyond recognition the meaning of the two terms and their significance for the life of the individual and the citizen.

This is not merely a matter of shifted emphasis. In ancient feeling the privative trait of privacy, indicated in the word itself, was all-important; it meant literally a state of being deprived of something, and even of the highest and most human of man's capacities. A man who lived only a private life, who like the slave was not permitted to enter the public realm, or like the barbarian who had chosen not to establish such a realm, was not fully human. We no longer think primarily of deprivation when we use the word "privacy," and this is partly due to the enormous enrichment of the private sphere through modern individualism. However, it seems even more important that modern privacy is at least as sharply opposed to the social realm—unknown to the ancients who considered its content a private matter-—as it is to the political, properly speaking.

The decisive historical fact is that modern privacy in its most relevant function, to shelter the intimate, was discovered as the opposite not of the political sphere but of the social, to which it is therefore more closely and authentically related. The striking coincidence of the rise of society with the decline of the family indicates clearly that what actually took place was the absorption of the family unit into corresponding social groups.

It is decisive that society, on all its levels, excludes the possibility of action, which formerly was excluded from the household. Instead, society expects from each of its members a certain kind of behavior, imposing innumerable and various rules, all of which tend to "normalize" its members, to make them behave, to exclude spontaneous action or outstanding achievement.

We find these demands in the salons of high society, whose conventions always equate the individual with his rank within the social framework. What matters is this equation with social status, and it is immateri al whether the framework happens to be actual rank in the half-feud al society of the eighteenth century, title in the class society of the nineteenth, or mere function in the mass society of today. The rise of mass society, on the contrary, only indicates that the various social groups have suffered the same absorption into one society that the family units had suffered earlier; with the emergence of mass society, the realm of the social has finally, after several centuries of development, reached the point where it embraces and controls all members of a given community equally and with equal strength. But society equalizes under all circumstances, and the victory of equality in the modern world is only the political and legal recognition of the fact that society has conquered the public realm, and that distinction and difference have become private matters of the individual. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition.

Resentment from the masses, people project their powerlessness outwards, just as Nietzsche describes of the powerless in Gay Science (359 & 379) and Genealogy (First Essay 10, and practically all of the Second Essay) ... So the world has a bunch of weak resentful types from the masses feeling their manhood is threatened through this explosion and favoritism of femininity. And it's not just men, even some women are on board oddly enough.

Yall just neglecting Hannah Arendt huh? Probably why yall ain't even ready to have this conversation. Too focused on masculine feminine to see the whole change. Just a bunch of floppy penis presenting themselves to others, rather than understanding the entire shift of thoughts from the old constellations of thought to now that make up the new constellations of contemporary thought. It'll be like me trying to teach you all about Sisyphus from the Grecian perspective vs from the Christian perspective and yall just bitching about how I'm wrong because you only know the contemporary story vs its original from the Greek perspective.

Ironically, this David Moore doesn't know what irony is.

Apologies for skipping much of the conversation. A real life tragedy in motion over my way. That aside, I believe Hannah Arendt's The Human Condition does an amazing job at filling in the vital details here from the ancient Grecian values of koinonia and idios, shifting over time, due to figures like Aquinas improperly substituting the Roman word Social (which has no meaning in Grecian thought, because all animals are social, and thus it is a limitation of necessity on all biological life) for the concept Koinonia was the beginning of the betrayal in shifting away from the ancient way of thought... so I'll leave this from Arendt's book for others to mull over, before this she goes over the betrayal of Vita Activa in favor of Vita Contemplativa...

The profound misunderstanding expressed in the Latin transla- tion of "political" as "social" is perhaps nowhere clearer than in a discussion in which Thomas Aquinas compares the nature of household rule with political rule: the head of the household, he finds, has some similarity to the head of the kingdom, but, he adds, his power is not so "perfect" as that of the king. 11 Not only in Greece and the polls but throughout the whole of occidental an- tiquity, it would indeed have been self-evident that even the power of the tyrant was less great, less "perfect" than the power with which the paterfamilias, the dominus, ruled over his household of slaves and family... Although misunderstanding and equating the political and social realms is as old as the translatio n of Greek terms into Latin and their adaption to Roman-Christian thought, it has become even more confusing in modern usage and modem understanding of society.

The distinction between a private and a public sphere of life corresponds to the household and the political realms, which have existed as distinct, separate entities at least since the rise of the ancient city-state; but the emergence of the social realm, which is neither private nor public, strictly speaking, is a rela- tively new phenomenon whose or igin coincided with the emer- gence of the modern age and which found its political form in the nation-state. What concerns us in this context is the extraordinary difficulty with which we, because of this development, understand the deci- sive division between the public and private realms, between the sphere of the polls and the sphere of household and family, and, finally, between activities related to a common world and those related to the maintenance of life, a division upon which all ancient political thought rested as self-evident and axiomatic.

In our understanding, the dividing line is entirely blurred, because we see the body of peoples and political communities in the image of a family whose everyday affairs have to be taken care of by a gigantic, nation-wide administration of housekeeping. The scien- tific thought that corresponds to this development is no longer political science but " national economy" or "social economy" or Volkswirtschaft, all of which indicate a kind of "collective house-keeping"; 13 the collective of families economically organized into the facsimile of one super-human family is what we call "society," and its political form of organization is called "nation." 14

We therefore find it difficult to realize that according to ancient thought on these matters, the very term "political economy" would have been a contradiction in terms: whatever was " eco- nomic," related to the life of the individual and the survival of the species, was a non-political, household affair by definition. 16 Historically, it is very likely that the rise of the city-state and the public realm occurred at the expense of the private realm of family and household. 16 Yet the old sanctity of the hearth, though much less pronounced in classical Greece than in ancient Rome, was never entirely lost. What prevented the polis from violating the private lives of its citizens and made it hold sacred the bound- aries surrounding each property was not respect for private property as we understand it, but the fact that without owning a house a man could not participate in the affairs of the world because he had no location in it which was properly his own. 17

Even Plato, whose political plans foresaw the abolition of private property and an extension of the public sphere to the point of annihilating private life altogether, still speaks with great reverence of Zeus Herkeios, the protector of border lines, and calls the horoi, the boundaries between one estate and another, divine, without seeing any contradiction. 18 The distinctive trait of the household sphere was that in it men lived together because they were driven by their wants and needs. The driving force was life itself—the penates, the household gods, were, according to Plutarch, "the gods who make us live and nourish our body" 19—which, for its individual maintenance and its survival as the life of the species needs the company of others. That individual maintenance should be the task of the man and species survival the task of the woman was obvious, and both of these natural functions, the labor of man to provide nourishment and the labor of the woman in giving birth, were subject to the same urgency of life. Natural community in the household there- fore was born of necessity, and necessity ruled over all activities performed in it.

The realm of the polls, on the contrary, was the sphere of free- dom, and if there was a relationship between these two spheres, it was a matter of course that the mastering of the necessities of life in the household was the condition for freedom of the polls. Under no circumstances could politics be only a means to protect society —a society of the faithful, as in the Middle Ages, or a society of property-owners, as in Locke, or a society relentlessly engaged in a process of acquisition, as in Hobbes, or a society of producers, as in Marx, or a society of jobholders, as in our own society, or a society of laborers, as in socialist and communist countries. In all these cases, it is the freedom (and in some instances so-called freedom) of society which requires and justifies the restraint of political authority. Freedom is located in the realm of the social, and force or violence becomes the monopoly of government.

What all Greek philosophers, no matter how opposed to polls life, took for granted is that freedom is exclusively located in the political realm, that necessity is primarily a prepolitical phenome- non, characteristic of the private household organization, and that force and violence are justified in this sphere because they are the only means to master necessity—for instance, by ruling over slaves—and to become free. Because all human beings are subject to necessity, they are entitled to violence toward others; violence is the prepolitical act of liberating oneself from the necessity of life for the freedom of world.

This freedom is the essential condition of what the Greeks called felicity, eudaimmla, which was an objective status depending first of all upon wealth and health. To be poor or to be in ill health meant to be subject to physical neces- sity, and to be a slave meant to be subject, in addition, to man- made violence. This twofold and doubled "unhappiness" of slavery is quite independent of the actual subjective well-being of the slave. Thus, a poor free man preferred the insecurity of a daily-changing labor market to regular assured wo rk, which, because it restricted his freedom to do as he pleased every day, was already felt to be servitude (douleia) , and even harsh, painful labor was preferred to the easy life of many household slaves. — Hannah Arendt, The Human Condition pg 27-31

Real life pulling me away. Hope that helps moving forward in the discussion.

I mean, read Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden from Gay Science and Vision from the Vision and the Enigma. Clearly deterministic. 341 GS, to live your life exactly as it were over and over again ad infinitum...

The Heaviest Burden.—What if a demon crept after thee into thy loneliest loneliness some day or night, and said to thee: "This life, as thou livest it at present, and hast lived it, thou must live it once more, and also innumerable times; and there will be nothing new in it, but every pain and every joy and every thought and every sigh, and all the unspeakably small and great in thy life must come to thee again, and all in the same series and sequence—and similarly this spider and this moonlight among the trees, and similarly this moment, and I myself. The eternal sand-glass of existence will ever be turned once more, and thou with it, thou speck of dust!"—Wouldst thou not throw thyself down and gnash thy teeth, and curse the demon that so spake? Or hast thou once experienced a tremendous moment in which thou wouldst answer him: "Thou art a God, and never did I hear anything so divine!" If that thought acquired power over thee as thou art, it would transform thee, and perhaps crush thee; the question with regard to all and everything: "Dost thou want this once more, and also for innumerable times?" would lie as the heaviest burden upon thy activity! Or, how wouldst thou have to become favourably inclined to thyself and to life, so as to long for nothing more ardently than for this last eternal sanctioning and sealing?— — Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden/Greatest Weight

The main question here is... if you were to gnash your teeth... then what must you begin doing in the gateway of this moment such that the idea becomes truly beautiful to you?

What Nietzsche is detailing there, in what you bring up, is more or less that a systematic approach isn't a guarantee of a specific outcome. What makes me who I am doesn't mean it will make you the same as me if you lived my life. That's why Nietzsche stresses for you to find your own path vs attempt to follow in the footsteps of others.

The book is over 1000 pages, quite meticulous and the arguments powerfully stated; looking beyond Nietzsche's philosophical texts towards his letters and other written material. The book changed my outlook on Nietzsche. Even if you will not fundamentally agree with Losurdo (who does not claim that Nietzsche should be discarded, by any means), I think there is a lot to grapple with. Highly recommend. — Maw

Seems like hot garbage by a dumbass who doesn't realize Nietzsche's so far from Nationalism it's pathetic... Otium is far from Eugenics that the this loserdo interprets Nietzschean values from.

his celebration of slavery, of war and colonial expansion, and eugenics — Maw

If you think Nietzsche celebrates any of that from the Nationalist view point rather than from the individual view point such as colonial expansion then it's quite obvious you've missed the mark on Nietzsche as he is quite overtly against those concepts in any form of Nationalist expression of them...

To impose slavery upon others is to impose slave morality upon them... it shows this 1000 page book is a blustery blunder. Specifically denying the life of anyone in slavery to an objective perspective and outcome, which is literally the definition of what Nietzsche declares as slave morality.

Really just goes to show what you're interested in...

although I wouldn't use "predetermined" — wonderer1

I mean, maybe you should...

“Look at this gateway! Dwarf!” I continued, “it hath two faces. Two roads come together here: these hath no one yet gone to the end of.

This long lane : it continueth for an eternity. And that long lane forward—that is another eternity.

They are antithetical to one another, these roads; they directly abut on one another:—and it is here, at this gateway, that they come together. The name of the gateway is inscribed above: ‘This Moment.’

But should one follow them further—and ever further and further on, thinkest thou, dwarf, that these roads would be eternally antithetical?”—

“Everything straight lieth,” murmured the dwarf, contemptuously. “All truth is crooked; time itself is a circle.”

“Thou spirit of gravity!” said I wrathfully, “do not take it too lightly! Or I shall let thee squat where thou squattest, Haltfoot,—and I carried thee HIGH!”

“Observe,” continued I, “This Moment! From the gateway, This Moment, there runneth a long eternal lane BACKWARDS: behind us lieth an eternity.

Must not whatever CAN run its course of all things, have already run along that lane? Must not whatever CAN happen of all things have already happened, resulted, and gone by?

And if everything have already existed, what thinkest thou, dwarf, of This Moment? Must not this gateway also—have already existed?

And are not all things closely bound together in such wise that This Moment draweth all coming things after it? CONSEQUENTLY—itself also?

closely bound together in such wise that This Moment draweth all coming things after it? CONSEQUENTLY—itself also?

For whatever CAN run its course of all things, also in this long lane OUTWARD—MUST it once more run!—

And this slow spider which creepeth in the moonlight, and this moonlight itself, and thou and I in this gateway whispering together, whispering of eternal things—must we not all have already existed?

—And must we not return and run in that other lane out before us, that long weird lane—must we not eternally return?”— — Nietzsche, TSZ, The Vision (and the Enigma)

If all things hitherto and heretofore have come to pass, than there is never a wrong choice in the gateway of this moment.

Eternal Recurrence is one of Nietzche's riddles for overcoming the bad conscience.

I left out the Enigma, which is another step, which covers Amor Fati, which leads to the transfigured being, the higher human:

No longer shepherd, no longer man—a transfigured being, a light-surrounded being, that LAUGHED! Never on earth laughed a man as HE laughed! — same as above

it will not tarry — jufa

Tarry it has an tarry it shall.

Dogma imprisons the individual to an exclusively private life; to a life of a foreign subjectivity of their own singular experience. To live an entirely private life would be to deprive things essential to a truly human life....

A philosophy of life which does not arrive, as did Nietzsche, at the affirmation of Eternal Recurrence, as the highest principle of all life simply does not know what it is talking about... — Hannah Arendt

“Bridge” implies you might see the other side just needing a bridge you don’t see to get there. — Fire Ologist

What of the creator who has faith in their work working beforehand?

But what I did was take Nietzsche's equation for man (a rope over an abyss) and said faith is very much the same. I find it an interesting parallel.

Well, it's not my desire to try and take that perspective from you. I assumed poorly, that you took it more seriously.

Well, it's not my desire to try and take that perspective from you. I assumed poorly, that you took it more seriously.

Faith is a style of guiding principle, a phenomenological structure that paves a path forward, a bridge over an abyss...

@Fire Ologist

I'd like you to add your perspective to that, as I'm quite interested in it. I have a sort of faith that you may see what I did there...

You're still a dualist who denies men and women come from a man and woman and thus genetic material of both is in the one. I don't give a fuck how you wanna hocus pocus your words you still sound dumb, it's literally why I said you think a little man is in sperm and the woman is just an incubator for man because you think: "Man is only male DNA." Little more than archaic metaphysics... which means under the same model, since woman is only female DNA, women reproduce asexually via an unfertilized egg.

You know what's interesting about humans is our cells show we likely came from two single celled organisms forming a symbiotic relationship. The cell and the mitochondria... the mitochondrial dna is always from the mother. The first man always had a mitochondria too because we came from something before male female pairing...furthermore it's characteristics towards dna are more similar to bacterial dna.

I wouldn't doubt that to be the truth as I was teasing you from the way your perspective seems to me. Sex isn't as simple as binary antithesis. Simone de Beauvoir's "The (Second) Sex" will bring you more up to speed on the pluralists conception of sex. I don't really care to waste time on detailing it to you because it's going to take a deep dive for you really, which Simone de Beauvoir has already provided. You either know it or you don't. What I was suggesting to you is that you don’t even have a your own generational understanding of sex... fr the age you live in but some archaic definition that needs a damn update.

I wouldn't say continuous fluidity... every flow has its breaks think something along the lines of anima and animus, which are symbolic for the unconscious femininity (in males) and masculinity (in females) due to the persons genetic material still coming from both man and woman... the genetic material a man takes from his mother is inherently feminine. And inside the man...doesn't mean his sex is some hybridization... just means there is genetic material within you that is fundamentally feminine in origin. Even if it's expressed in the form of man...

Sex is a concept to express a style of differentiation... human sex always comes from a plurality that differentiates, into a singular plant. But the roots of the flowering plant are always established in the plurality.

its kinda actually easy to understand you're a dualist who believes in the antithesis of values so it's nearly impossible for you to fathom beyond such a concept of two completely different un related types... that you thomk man and woman are.

You're a 1699 representative of sperm... that thinks there's a little man inside sperm that only grows inside a woman and doesn't combine with female genetic material to become a human... you think the little man in sperm becomes a man without a female egg.

In the 21st century though, we know sperm and egg combines and a person is both a combination of male and female genetic material from their father and mother... thus, they are part male and part female regardless of whichever sex they're statistically dominated by.

No

To build a better picture of what I'm discussing, let's first discuss another way Nietzsche uses the rope metaphor (other than the rope between animal and the overman). That is: "cultivating one's garden"

Think of that which intertwines two opposites as the roots of a plant that grows out of the soil of two (or even more) antagonistic forces.

The roots of the plant man are statistically dominated within the male soil, with some roots in the female soil (because the opposites are enmeshed by the intertwining of opposites by the roots of the plant), however it's almost always the case that the roots within the feminine for man are partitioned in a noncommunicating sense and vice versa.

And to be certain the most complete human beings recognize within themselves their combined genealogy, rather than "man is man with nothing inherited by woman and vice versa."

They are equally human was my point. — Gregory

And for Nietzsche the rope between two things makes them essentially one and the same, it's what he calls the dangerous perhaps. (BGE 2)

Thus human is the rope between man and woman. Because of the teleological cause.

men and women are equal — Gregory

Lol, no one is equal to any other person... we're all different, even clones would differentiate.

It's all about free will. — Gregory

Oh yeah? Free from what?

How many little terrible things that female do in their hearts and feelings throughout the day. More then men i surmise. — Gregory

So much for free will... you surmise that women have more terrible thoughts with their free will all day because of being woman.

Which means a difference between man and woman and that means man and woman aren't equal...

The relationship between body and mind exists only at the level of description. There is no specific relationship between the two — Wolfgang

Sigh... more disembodied minds... would really love seeing evidence of this.

Why type so much junk if you're just going to ruin it with silly shit like this?

*shrug*

We're dealing with emergence from the body ... but no specific relationship between the mind and body... wat :chin:

It’s called parable... Nietzsche is speaking in parable.

Before the Semites women weren't viewed as sin, corruption, and basically uttershit shameful... it was the Semites who detailed woman as shit.

Athena is the Goddess of War and Harsh Wisdom, she is associated with Owls and Snakes...

In the story of Genesis, the Snake is a complete reversal of the values of Athena. When become synonymous with sin and corruption. In HATH Nietzsche details at 415 That the love idolatry practiced by women was originally an intelligent device to reign in man. Though after centuries of becoming accustomed to it forgot the origin of the device and became ensnared and deceived by ot more than men.

At HATH 411 we see that Nietzsche details the perfect woman as a higher type of humanity than the perfect man.

Because having lost their way, women have come down from an elevation to be caged by man. (BGE 237A)

Now back to 23 on Corruption: here Nietzsche details that for the past 2000+ years corruption has been blamed upon woman and the feminine instinct, but Nietzsche critiques this by saying on thw contrary the feminine instinct is not responsible for corruption but rather the highest art of enlightenment through the birth of tragedy.

Nietzsche further details the patriarchal structure of how man keeps woman caged through her idolatry of love. Being more deceived by the device than men, man turns this upon women by creating the ideal of woman which women mold themselves to in order to obtain love. (GS 68) Further still, Nietzsche details the Semitic way of that in action through parable:

Will and Willingness.—Some one brought a youth to a wise man, and said, "See, this is one who is being corrupted by women!" The wise man shook his head and smiled. "It is men," he called out, "who corrupt women; and everything that women lack should be atoned for and improved in men—for man creates for himself the ideal of woman, and woman moulds herself according to this ideal."—"You are too tender-hearted towards women," said one of the bystanders, "you do not know them!" The wise man answered: "Man's attribute is will, woman's attribute is willingness—such is the law of the sexes, verily! a hard law for woman! All human beings are innocent of their existence, women, however, are doubly innocent; who could have enough of salve and gentleness for them!"—"What about salve! What about gentleness!" called out another person in the crowd, "we must educate women better!"—"We must educate men better," said the wise man, and made a sign to the youth to follow him.—The youth, however, did not follow him. — Nietzsche, GS § 68

How to "educate" men to not corrupt women, well, one critique of Nietzsche I have is he offers few solutions, and the ones he does offer aren't exactly straightforward and prone to poor interpretations especially now that so many people have learned to read.

But that’s not all you said, and the picture you create of what a person is doing when they believe something absent logical proof behind it (faith), makes it sound like, in order to believe anything without absolute proof behind it, one has to resist or be in a state of resisting all reason. — Fire Ologist

What I was trying to say is like instead of absolute faith, you're now in the realm of educated guess... which is a combination of faith and knowledge, and knowledge isn't faith. I have admitted to equivocating a shift from absolute faith to an educated guess as necessarily a decrease in faith. But I decides that just because someone gains knowledge doesn't mean the faith is diminished. It means their perspective is now maybe 90% faith and 10% knowledge instead of absolute faith (100% faith) only if they converted faith into knowledge would it be a decrease of faith. But gaining knowledge about about something doesn't necessarily mean a decrease in faith.

All I'm saying is I don't care if others learn from this or not, I have. Ultimately, I came here to develop my evaluations by having others help fill gaps in my knowledge. Some people have, some people haven't. People came here to express a multiplicity of view points, I don't care who is necessarily saying what, I take the view points, let them all rattle around in my head in a hurricane of different thoughts, not all are left standing.

A lot of people just say stuff because they want their faith to be knowledge... I really don't care. Faith isn't knowledge. And attempting to prove faith via knowledge turns faith into knowledge. Thus now it's not faith. Faith is an absence of knowing. Just as knowing is an absence of faith. Perspective, our world view, etc etc arises from knowledge and faith.

If you want to pretend faith shares identity with a bunch of other concepts so you can cross reference them and interchange them in conversation via equivocation go for it, but I like to make my words more finite...

If I tell you how to eat and workout to lose weight, you still don't know the nutritional and dietary knowledge or even the fitness knowledge. If you act on the information I give you, you're working on faith that what I'm saying is going to actually work... because you don't know... after it works for you, you adopt the equation because you now know the equation works. Yeah you still dont know why it works, but you know it works... it's like learning applied calculus. Faith in calculus vs knowledge of applying calcus are two different things.

The question the OP asks is, Can the sound believer hold “god exists” — Fire Ologist

That's one equivocation of it aye.

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze

Sometimes it's best to leave an argument ambiguous so it brings out everyone's understandings. It allows for a multiplicity of interpretations. Doesn't mean you need to accept them all. Hell, I barely even understand who said what to me in this conversation... I'm taking what bits I find useful to deepening the nuance of my evaluations. It's not like my evaluation of faith will directly affect your life in any way. That isn't to say your evaluation is useless. But rather it's just not mine, and that's fine. There have been some interesting and productive developments within myself from the discussion here on various fronts.

If other people have gained from it, so be it, but ultimately I have, and that's mostly what matters to me. I don't care how obstinate others are...

The Human Condition by Hannah Arendt
The Second Sex by Simone de Beauvoir
Skimming Nietzsche as I always do through the insights of post Nietzsche philosophers I'm currently reading.
The Pursuit of Truth by Quine
Nietzsche and Philosophy by Deleuze

And in the process he, and you, took for granted that believing (faith) had something to do with reason — Fire Ologist

No, faith still has nothing to do with knowledge and rationalism or reasonable reason. Faith is belief nothing more. It is a gap in knowledge filled by belief.

DiffEgg, “just to shit on people?” Come on man. — Fire Ologist

Shit on, critique, who gives a f "oh the word Critique is good, but shit one, come on man!"

As for Anslem and Aquinas, they're both people who clearly have a need to justify their faith. It's like he would need to justify to himself why his wife loves him ... or why he loves his wife...

Kinda dumb imo... the fuck do I need to justify my love for my wife to anyone?

"SEE SEE SHE DOES LOVE ME!" Sounds a lot like doubt...

"SEE SEE, GOD DOES EXIST! YOU SEE MY FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT, PRAISE BEFORE GOD HE DOES EXIST!" Pretty much a desperate desire imo.

Noone of real faith needs to do that... just saying.

And the fact that they would publish fallacies as logical arguments shows the desperation imo.

Regardless of how much faith they had, their desire to turn it into logic was greater.

I'm sure there were Nazi that had faith in their reasoning too... saying faith is reason because of bad reasoning is just saying faith is faith... cause that's what poor reasoning is: faith.

An educated guess is a mix of knowledge and faith, faith being the gap in knowledge behind the educated guess. If you got faith the educated guess will work its because you can perhaps visual and bridge the gap of knowledge. You never know until you're capable of demonstrating said thing multiple times with accuracy.

Quine actually has something pertinent to say about this... I'll have to go through the pursuit of truth again, I'll find it and post it. But it was something about evaluating where you went wrong in experimentation...

Guys seriously... If Nietzsche declares Tragedy the most beautiful art, and effeminacy is responsible for bringing it about, then we can clearly say Nietzsche is a god damned champion of the feminine...
On Corruption Gay Science 23:

Secondly, a society in which corruption takes a hold is blamed for effeminacy: for the appreciation of war, and the delight in war, perceptibly diminish in such a society, and the conveniences of life are now just as eagerly sought after as were military and gymnastic honours formerly. But one is accustomed to overlook the fact that the old national energy and national passion, which acquired a magnificent splendour in war and in the tourney, has now transferred itself into innumerable private passions, and has merely become less visible; indeed in periods of "corruption" the quantity and quality of the expended energy of a people is probably greater than ever, and the individual spends it lavishly, to such an extent as could not be done formerly—he was not then rich enough to do so! And thus it is precisely in times of "effeminacy" that tragedy runs at large in and out of doors, it is then that ardent love and ardent hatred are born, and the flame of knowledge flashes heavenward in full blaze. — Nietzsche

This is why for Nietzsche the highest presentment of man is under the feminine goddess of war... because of the feminine traits that temper the destructive qualities of the masculine...

Just because you're so used to seeing him bash the Semitic conception of "woman" doesn't mean you're assigning Nietzsche's belief correctly... you're assigning his critique about something that irks him as his belief...

There's a reason noone has challenged this thread. And any accusations of Nietzsche being overtly masculine to the point of undermining the feminine well, you're all wrong and I can throw the proof at anyone here until they are drowning in it.

And do note Effeminacy is the feminine instinct in man... Ariadne... that keeps man's minotaurs at bay. So the most destructive parts of masculinity doesn't break them.

There is always at least a double orbit going on for Nietzsche.

Dude, do you honestly know how much thought I even put behind my OP? This isn't some big issue to me. I started as a way to shit on people constantly defending their bloated fallacies and delusions, without budging due to a style of intellectual obstinance...

Hit me with your link. Do you know how often I even think about faith? Pretty much 0 because when it's something I have faith in, I have faith in it. I don't ever have a need to ever justify my faith to anyone. Not even myself.

its like that train game whisper in one ear the story is morphed to the next passing... eventually after 3000 or so years of Christian handling of the story Sisyphus has become tied to meaningless action because the Sabbath is Holy... In Sisyphus's day Eu Prattein was holy (Vita Activa). Vita Contemplativa was for the shameful.

Hannah Arendt discusses this at great length (Vita Activa and the reversal of its value). Through that ancient lens, we know Sisyphus was happy. There was no punishment. Instead of languishing in the underworld to rot away in stagnant contemplation, he got to live Eu Prattein/Vita Activa for eternity. Not sure if "living your ideal" for eternity is "punishment." Seems like the winning proposal from Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden...

Doing what you love over and over again.

"The human condition of labor is life itself." Hannah Arendt on the ancient perspective of Vita Activa (Human Condition). So Sisyphus was "punished" with life it self...

Okay so you think Santa Clause is big in Iran...

No? Why? Different Values? Ah...

Apply here...

Sisyphus was, in fact, like Autolycus and Prometheus, a widely popular figure of folklore—the trickster, or master thief.

He was popular for his excellence. Weird that a thief and trickerster would be popular vs infamous... because those were virtues then.

Its not appeal to Nietzsche... ffs it's literally an ancient Grecian Ideal... that you refuse to acknowledge... activity = happiness and somehow you think Sisyphus's eternal activity is mindless and meaningless because you refuse to accept that we know Sisyphus is happy because of Eu Prattein...

You gotta look at the situation from the Grecoan Ideal... not yours. Step outside your reification of the Sisyphus story that's been passed down via Christian scholars...

Do you think Santa Clause is big in Iran?

Sisyphus was punished for his defiance rather than rewarded, that punishment being condemned to rolling a boulder endlessly up a hill, only to have it roll back down again. That's what I meant by the reference. Albert Camus' The Myth of Sisyphus recast him as a heroic figure as an embodiment of human resilience and defiance against absurdity but I never found it persuasive. — Wayfarer

Camus simply does what Nietzsche does repackage Christian psychology with the Myth of Sisyphus. Absurdity is the secular notion of Sin. Still not the Grecian notion. There was no bad conscience, ressentiment, or responsibility in Sisyphus's day. That is fundamentally a Judaeo-Christian morality. We don't have to imagine Sisyphus as happy. He was a Noble who exemplified Eu Prattein. We know he's happy. Thus we know it's not punishment. Because activity = happiness.

Read it more carefully.

86. In the background of all their personal vanity, women themselves have still their impersonal scorn—for "woman"

You'll see quite clearly Nietzsche knows how to differentiate between women and this "woman" that women have scorn for...

The same "woman" Nietzsche discusses in BGE 232-239. I always found it weird that readers cant differentiate between the two... he literally uses an A instead of an E. The trick is noticing when he says woman is blah blah blah it's not women are it's about "woman." The Semitic ideal of woman...

it is pointless, in a way, sisyphean — Wayfarer

Erm... that's the Christian mythology of Sisyphus not the Grecian... I would perhaps place my faith in the Grecian perspective of the myth...that is Sisyphus is a Greek Noble who lived to the Grecian ideal of Eu Prattein and became a demigod of his own ideal... for outsmarting Zeus and Thanatos.

Attention again should be paid to the almost benevolent nuances which, for instance, the Greek nobility imports into all the words by which it distinguishes the common people from itself; note how continuously a kind of pity, care, and consideration imparts its honeyed flavour, until at last almost all the words which are applied to the vulgar man survive finally as expressions for "unhappy," "worthy of pity" (compare δειλο, δείλαιος, πονηρός, μοχθηρός]; the latter two names really denoting the vulgar man as labour-slave and beast of burden)—and how, conversely, "bad," "low," "unhappy" have never ceased to ring in the Greek ear with a tone in which "unhappy" is the predominant note: this is a heritage of the old noble aristocratic morality, which remains true to itself even in contempt (let philologists remember the sense in which ὀιζυρός, ἄνολβος, τλήμων, δυστυχεῑν, ξυμφορά used to be employed). The "well-born" simply felt themselves the "happy"; they did not have to manufacture their happiness artificially through looking at their enemies, or in cases to talk and lie themselves into happiness (as is the custom with all resentful men); and similarly, complete men as they were, exuberant with strength, and consequently necessarily energetic, they were too wise to dissociate happiness from action—activity becomes in their minds necessarily counted as happiness (that is the etymology of εὖ πρἆττειν)—all in sharp contrast to the "happiness" of the weak and the oppressed, with their festering venom and malignity, among whom happiness appears essentially as a narcotic, a deadening, a quietude, a peace, a "Sabbath," an enervation of the mind and relaxation of the limbs,—in short, a purely passive phenomenon — Nietzsche, from GoM 10

Now now, I know it hurts that you of all people had to offer up a Nietzschean counter. But what's the best way to drum up conversation? To allow for a plurality of interpretations thus you leave the original syllogism ambiguous... :joke:

The pluralist idea that a thing has many senses, the idea that there are many things and one thing can be seen as "this and then that" is philosophy's greatest achievement, the conquest of the true concept, its maturity and not its renunciation or infancy. For the evaluation of this and that, the delicate weighing of each thing and its sense, the estimation of the forces which define the aspects of a thing and its relations with others at every instant - all this (or all that) depends on philosophy's highest art - that of interpretation — Deleuze, Nietzsche and Philosophy pg 4

That you of all people put on Nietzsche's mask is a "win" for me.

The syllogism itself took less than 60 seconds of pondering... but look how much conversation it's drummed up. I don't care about it being perfect... and in the process I've learned things. I already addressed that it was an ambiguous syllogism that allows for tons of equivocation.

Section 27 of Pursuit of Truth may be of interest to you from this regard. Quine speaks of responsible and irresponsible beliefs.

Is it supposed to be hard? ED?

or they grew out of each other. Still an excellent counter argument! The best in the thread imo.

The most faithful will be seeking to disprove that god exists. — Banno

Cunning reversal, they are the faithful that overcome themselves in their opposite? To inciting to higher and higher... Nietzsche would be very proud of this from YOU of all people Banno.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium. It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true— — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Aka Nietzsche's foundation for Amor Fati from the Gay Science 276. Aka even if it doesn't bring you to love them, it will move you in the direction in which Nietzsche details the superman becoming a reality... to overcome your destructive and divisive animal nature, in suffering with them from them by simply looking the other direction "und mit ihnen an ihnen leidet." Faith of faith isn't faith, but "faith of a sort..."?