I don’t disagree with you there. Especially in this day and age where hygienic products can literally combat that more effectively than clothing!

Doesnt Deleuze detail a thought like an event that is subject to various forces? A thought is like a transverse of connections across multiple machines desiring machines?

From Anti-Oedipus:

Every "object" presupposes the continuity of a flow; every flow, the fragmentation of the object. Doubtless each organ-machine interprets the entire world from the perspective of its own flux, from the point of view of the energy that flows from it: the eye interprets everything—speaking, understanding, shitting, fucking—in terms of seeing. But a connection with another machine is always established, along a transverse path, so that one machine interrupts the current of the other or "sees" its own current interrupted.

I'll dig up a few more.

Twilight of Idols has the 4 great errors concerning causality. Maybe something from there can help out, but good luck, should be an interesting OP once you flesh your thoughts out on it.

the whole reason they wear all those layers is to protect their beauty... there's a reason why so many of the men in the middle east have boils and cysts it's because the dirt is baked into a powder by the sun this powder is finer than any sand and it easily clogs pores. People forgot the utility of the dress code for religious codes.

I'm not sure if contingent mental pathways are the same for everyone so it's kinda hard to detail mental to mental. It's not like pool, where you're "slapping balls around" (as I like to detail it). This starts running into Quine. Even if you say one thought causes another, the reference of each thought is inscrutable, so we can’t pin down in general what the causation amounts to beyond the idiosyncratic modality of belief.

Funny enough, I started saying that while playing pool with my wife. Which is kinda a double entendre if you get my drift... though, I think William James details it more like a flow state? Kinda like what's occuring to me right now.

Thinking about your question-> not like playing pool-> slappin balls around -> thinking about the phrase I made up to make my wife laugh while playing pool-> thinking about that double entendre -> giggling like a child -> thinking about flow states....

In a sense we're each our own little closed system capable of reconciliation with others to share understanding.

Julian Jaynes has an interesting part in his book that you may find interesting towards your question.

Metaphor and Language

Let us speak of metaphor. The most fascinating property of language is its capacity to make metaphors. But what an understatement! For metaphor is not a mere extra trick of language, as it is so often slighted in the old schoolbooks on composition; it is the very constitutive ground of language. I am using metaphor here in its most general sense: the use of a term for one thing to describe another because of some kind of similarity between them or between their relations to other things. There are thus always two terms in a metaphor, the thing to be described, which I shall call the metaphrand, and the thing or relation used to elucidate it, which I shall call the metaphier. A metaphor is always a known metaphier operating on a less known metaphrand. I have coined these hybrid terms simply to echo multiplication where a multiplier operates on a multiplicand.

It is by metaphor that language grows. The common reply to the question “what is it?” is, when the reply is difficult or the experience unique, “well, it is like—.” In laboratory studies, both children and adults describing nonsense objects (or metaphrands) to others who cannot see them use extended metaphiers that with repetition become contracted into labels.2 This is the major way in which the vocabulary of language is formed. The grand and vigorous function of metaphor is the generation of new language as it is needed, as human culture becomes more and more complex.

A random glance at the etymologies of common words in a dictionary will demonstrate this assertion. Or take the naming of various fauna and flora in their Latin indicants, or even in their wonderful common English names, such as stag beetle, lady’s-slipper, darning needle, Queen Anne’s lace, or buttercup. The human body is a particularly generative metaphier, creating previously unspeakable distinctions in a throng of areas. The head of an army, table, page, bed, ship, household, or nail, or of steam or water; the face of a clock, cliff, card, or crystal; the eyes of needles, winds, storms, targets, flowers, or potatoes; the brow of a hill; the cheeks of a vise; the teeth of cogs or combs; the lips of pitchers, craters, augers; the tongues of shoes, board joints, or railway switches; the arm of a chair or the sea; the leg of a table, compass, sailor’s voyage, or cricket field; and so on and on. Or the foot of this page. Or the leaf you will soon turn. All of these concrete metaphors increase enormously our powers of perception of the world about us and our understanding of it, and literally create new objects. Indeed, language is an organ of perception, not simply a means of communication....

Wisdom is a style of perceiving things. Self awareness, for example, takes wisdom not intelligence.

You can learn calculus (intelligence) but not know how to apply it to the real world (wisdom). Just as you can read Nietzsche or Jung, but not know wtf they are talking about because there's a certain symbolic expression they use with metaphors that generally goes right over most people.

How well you can discern another philosopher's language game takes wisdom.

I wouldn't say bitter, at least not yet. The results of suffering from frustrations can manifest in quite a few different ways, some positive some negative.

Though let's put it like this, you came here projecting shame onto those who are pretty, including those insecure enough to buy a certain look. And you even tried pretending that "wisdom and integrity" wasn't the past few thousand years' obsession with "the good" since Plato, precisely because you're obsessing over beauty. To me this spells out that you have undigested internalizations. Undigested internalizations often turn into venom.

So you’re either not very studied in philosophy (not a bad thing), or if you are studied in philosophy you allowed this feeling to blind you. I'm an immoralist, I'll call it as I see it but not to employ shame or guilt. I invite you to read section 46 (XLVI) of Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra the section is titled The Vision and the Enigma.

Read it as many times as it takes for the effect to dawn on you. Part one starts in a Skeptical tone which finishes in a Triumphant tone that gets one ready to attack the riddles of the Vision and the Enigma that Nietzsche presents in part 2. And who gives a damn if reality doesn't work the way in part 2 as Nietzsche details it in the Vision it's fictional story that symbolically speaks to intuition, not consciousness. In fact if you're already consciously aware of the effect because I told you, rather than you discovering the meanings of the Vision amd the Enigma for yourself, then I could completely ruin the effect for you.

So read it as many times as it takes.

https://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/1998/pg1998-images.html#link2H_4_0053

What have you read from Nietzsche's yea-saying period and what have you read from Nietzsche's nay-saying period? Thus Spoke Zarathustra wont make a whole lot of sense or speak to your intuition until you have a decent handling of both branches.

Just as man is the rope between the animal and the Superman, Zarathustra is the chord between Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods...

John 15:4-5
Abide in me, and I in you. As the branch cannot bear fruit of itself, unless it abide in the vine, so neither can you, unless you abide in me. I am the vine: you the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing.

Just as Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil 2, and in Birth of Tragedy 1:

For all the value which the true, genuine, unselfish man may be entitled to, it might be possible that a higher and more fundamental value for everything in life must be ascribed to appearance, the will for deception, self-interest, and desire. It might even be possible that whatever creates the value of those fine and respected things exists in such a way that it is, in some duplicitous way, related to, tied to, intertwined with, perhaps even essentially the same as those undesirable, apparently contrasting things. Perhaps!

And from BoT we can see from his first Aphorism that the dual orbit exists in such a way that there is a bridge linking the two values together... hence why in the Prologue Zarathustra declares what is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal (the goals are the branched ends of the values, the Left/Right, the Good/Evil, the Bad/Good, the Ignoble/Noble)

Man is the vine, the bridge, between the branches of his valuations. One does not exist without the other and both values ultimately stem from the creator of the values.

The bear fruit from Zarathustra one must abide in him, and to do so one must develop an understanding of both Nietzsche's yea-saying and nay-saying periods with a discerning eye.

From Gay Science:

Vademecum—Vadetecum.

Attracted by my style and talk
You'd follow, in my footsteps walk?
Follow yourself unswervingly,
So—careful!—shall you follow me.

I actually understand you, the signal strength is loud and clear. And I agree, both sides of the spectrum use it as a weapon against the other. Whereas some don't give a damn about the political nature of the movement, they are simply self aware, awake to their own demands on life, yet they're caught in the crosshairs in a way that alienates them from genuine and authentic interaction with those who have tried to weaponize self awareness as "woke," which is a very large portion of society on the left or right.

And you're right preaching diversity doesn't really do anything but create a prejudice for equality, how many people actually want to admit they are a dei hire/promotion? That their advantage comes from nothing important to the position? It's literally a way of fighting back against prejudice with prejudice and solves absolutely nothing. As you said it literally adds to the divide of us vs them.

That's cause you're here politicizing over other people's self awareness.

What would happen if people started demonizing your traits and qualities as trash and shit to be stamped out of society? Suddenly you would be the point of contention in the lives of others for simply living your life the best way that you know how.

There never will be an end of woke, it's the history of the fucking world... "we don't like X so fucking kill it!" Ressentiment at it's finest. The word woke is just a modern mask for people to discriminate against others.

The term woke was originally used in philosophy as in those who are self aware, as in those who don't slumber their lives away to the status quo of some falsified world. For those awake and aware of this falsified world.

There will always be people who are awake and aware of this falsified world we live in. You used to get burned at the steak for simply being awake and aware.

Now it's a bunch of lazy fucks not minding their own business, attempting to assert their objective dogshit upon others as if that's the burning at the steak.

Their life, their rules, not yours. Ya feel?

Lol, beauty is coveted because it is rare. There is a style SUPERFICIAL that is born from PROFOUNDITY. What does a body say about a "soul?" Much of a body tells us about the person. Whether they stuff too many calories into their gullet beyond their capacity for energy expenditure, whether they get too little in comparison with their energy expenditure, whether they're insecure about themselves and need cosmetic surgery. How good their hygiene is. Fashion sense adds to that, a person can be a walking piece of art, and there are artful types indeed. Selecting the right clothing enhances the superficial profundity or even highlights a sort of giving up. There's a lot one can tell about a person from their outward appearance.

What would life be like in a world where wisdom and personal integrity were the ideals that were instilled as the greatest good — unimportant

That's the history of the last 2000+ years lol. I'm gonna guess that you're obviously suffering from not being aesthetically desirable compared to others.

well, I do agree with you that there is a sort of "hero worshipping" going on that elevates a criminal archetype. And Nietzsche does give a sort of hard praise to criminals in a sense that they are often well equipped to survive harsh conditions that occur once they get extradited from society. Conditions that would generally break a weaker man.

I've done some studying on Hip Hop and the Nihilism which can be found in Rap music. I've checled it from the academic side and straight from KRS-One's mouth.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238086364_I_See_Death_Around_the_Corner_Nihilism_in_Rap_Music

I'll have to go over some of this stuff again but like theres a bit of a nuance to what Gangsta Rap is all about, which is like they sing about the Nihilism they live and it resonates with others, but the whole goal is to go from Ganster to Rapper, to become a Master of Ceramonies... been pukled in multiple directions since rereading the initial post. But I'll try to keep up and delve back into some of the research I have done in the past.

It's my hypotheses that humanity is tired of being shackled, this existence we live... the historical pathway in which humanity developed... isn't divine providence... we live in a falsified world controlled by a few through codified bunk and manipulating of the masses in subtle ways.

Does anyone remember how easy it was to get laid when the internet became semi mainstream? I was a teenager, and it was like the anonymity of online and just asking up front you had 75% chance of a yes... a certain oppression that caused a repression of our own humanity was uplifted.

There are still places where polycules and the Dionysian orgies happen like The Crucible in DC. There was a sexual Renaissance that occured for nearly a decade, and then all the horror stories caught up to the collective unconscious of all the people gone missing and crazy shit that happened. The whole LGBTQ+ stemmed from that Renaissance.

The criminal represents a part of humanity that's taboo. And for some it represents a sort of freedom from the metaphysical chains that bind them.

The "Nietzschean Hero" isn't a "hero as per Nietzsche," it's a fictional hero inspired by Nietzsche. — Count Timothy von Icarus

Fair enough, another recent one that people have been worshipping then is Judge Holden from Blood Meridian.

And yeah, I can see what you're talking about now. Let me go back through the OP with that in mind.

Let's get the story straight with Nietzsche, the only Hero to Nietzsche was the tragic hero. He repudiates Carlyle's Hero cult. Further still, Nietzsche doesn't glorify crime for the sake of crime, and thirdly, the Aristocratic and Slave are Typologies not Hierarchies.

But more importantly what is missed here is that Nietzsche advocates for all of human nature, and details that the systematic killing off of the Dionysian instincts in man is what has made man sick through cherishing cowardly compromise and lazy peace.

We can see from Nietzsche's Birth of Tragedy onward that Nietzsche has this idea of the dual orbit of opposites that overcomes each other in their opposite inciting each other to higher and higher births, reconciling the worst of the destructive properties of both forces in a dual orbit over a mutual bridging. This becomes the very framework of Nietzsche's philosophy.

heterogeneous tendencies run parallel to each other, for the most part openly at variance, and continually inciting each other to new and more powerful births, to perpetuate in them the strife of this antithesis, which is but seemingly bridged over by their mutual term...

the Delphic god [(Apollo)], by a seasonably effected reconciliation, was now contented with taking the destructive arms from the hands of his powerful antagonist. This reconciliation marks the most important moment in the history of the Greek cult: wherever we turn our eyes we may observe the revolutions resulting from this event. It was the reconciliation of two antagonists, with the sharp demarcation of the boundary-lines to be thenceforth observed by each — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy

This is how Nietzsche details the height of Greek culture, through equal parts Apollonian and Dionysian forces. And the Height of the Human in general...

After Nietzsche's early experimental writing phase, Nietzsche sets up the Framework of his philosophy in this very manner which he details in

Ecce Homo:

BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL:"THE PRELUDE TO A PHILOSOPHY OF THE FUTURE"

1

My work for the years that followed was prescribed as distinctly as possible. Now that the yea-saying part of my life-task was accomplished there came the turn of the negative portion, both in word and deed: the transvaluation of all values that had existed hitherto, the great war,—the conjuring-up of the day when the fatal outcome of the struggle would be decided. Meanwhile, I had slowly to look about me for my peers, for those who, out of strength, would proffer me a helping hand in my work of destruction. From that time onward, all my writings are so much bait: maybe I understand as much about fishing as most people? If nothing was caught, it was not I who was at fault There were no fish to come and bite. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

In Nietzsche's yea-saying period he attempts to make the penultimate in yea-saying... In Nietzsche's nay-saying period he attempts to create the penultimate in nay-saying. Thus Spoke Zarathustra is the Chord that intertwines both periods into a Dionysian Dithyramb.

We can see Nietzsche detail the typeology of the higher and lower types in Gay Science, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, Beyond Good and Evil Genealogy of Morals, and more...

The ignoble nature is distinguished by the fact that it keeps its advantage steadily in view, and that this thought of the end and advantage is even stronger than its strongest impulse: not to be tempted to inexpedient activities by its impulses—that is its wisdom and inspiration. In comparison with the ignoble nature the higher nature is more irrational:—for the noble, magnanimous, and self-sacrificing person succumbs in fact to his impulses, and in his best moments his reason lapses altogether. An animal, which at the risk of life protects its young, or in the pairing season follows the female where it meets with death, does not think of the risk and the death [>>this is why mankind is sickened on lazy peace and cowardly compromise too afraid of the risks it takes to discover something new, to be that bridge to the future, to be that bridge to strange new vista<<]; its reason pauses likewise, because its delight in its young, or in the female, and the fear of being deprived of this delight, dominate it exclusively; it becomes stupider than at other times, like the noble and magnanimous person. — Nietzsche, Gay Science

Continuing with these quotes we come to 260 in BGE where we can see Nietzsche detailing the two types of morality that rises from the two different types of man, but also that the higher and mixed civilizations arise from an attempt of reconciliation between the two types... there's that bridging through reconciliation again...

In a tour through the many finer and coarser moralities which have hitherto prevailed or still prevail on the earth, I found certain traits recurring regularly together, and connected with one another, until finally two primary types revealed themselves to me, and a radical distinction was brought to light. There is MASTER-MORALITY and SLAVE-MORALITY,—I would at once add, however, that in all higher and mixed civilizations, there are also attempts at the reconciliation of the two moralities, but one finds still oftener the confusion and mutual misunderstanding of them, indeed sometimes their close juxtaposition—even in the same man, within one soul.... The noble type of man separates from himself the beings in whom the opposite of this exalted, proud disposition displays itself he despises them. Let it at once be noted that in this first kind of morality the antithesis "good" and "bad" means practically the same as "noble" and "despicable",—the antithesis "good" and "EVIL" is of a different origin. The cowardly, the timid, the insignificant, and those thinking merely of narrow utility are despised; moreover, also, the distrustful, with their constrained glances, the self-abasing, the dog-like kind of men who let themselves be abused, the mendicant flatterers, and above all the liars:—it is a fundamental belief of all aristocrats that the common people are untruthful. "We truthful ones"—the nobility in ancient Greece called themselves. It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to MEN; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to ACTIONS; it is a gross mistake, therefore, when historians of morals start with questions like, "Why have sympathetic actions been praised?" The noble type of man regards HIMSELF as a determiner of values; he does not require to be approved of; he passes the judgment: "What is injurious to me is injurious in itself;" he knows that it is he himself only who confers honour on things; he is a CREATOR OF VALUES. — Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil

Below from Genealogy 10, we can see that Nietzsche details yet again that the Noble type of man maintains a BRIDGE to his love... while the weak cherish the onslaught of their enemies.

...the vindictive hatred and revengefulness of the weak in onslaughts on their enemies....
What respect for his enemies is found, forsooth, in an aristocratic man—and such a reverence is already a bridge to love! He insists on having his enemy to himself as his distinction. He tolerates no other enemy but a man in whose character there is nothing to despise and much to honour! On the other hand, imagine the "enemy" as the resentful man conceives him—and it is here exactly that we see his work, his creativeness; he has conceived "the evil enemy," the "evil one," and indeed that is the root idea from which he now evolves as a contrasting and corresponding figure a "good one," himself—his very self!

11

The method of this man is quite contrary to that of the aristocratic man, who conceives the root idea "good" spontaneously and straight away, that is to say, out of himself, and from that material then creates for himself a concept of "bad"! This "bad" of aristocratic origin and that "evil" out of the cauldron of unsatisfied hatred — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals

The word "Superman," which designates a type of man that would be one of nature's rarest and luckiest strokes, as opposed to "modern" men, to "good" men, to Christians and other Nihilists — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

For Nietzsche the Highest type of man comes from acknowledging all of their human nature, not trying to kill off half of it, which is the aim of morality... to kill off half of our human nature.

This is why Zarathustra doesn't come down from the mountain and begin murdering his enemies... because he maintains that bridge to love for a possible reconciliation with his enemies. And it is in this that Nietzsche only ever details the Superman becoming a reality...

See how Zarathustra goes down from the mountain and speaks the kindest words to every one! See with what delicate fingers he touches his very adversaries, the priests, and how he suffers with them from themselves! Here, at every moment, man is overcome, and the concept "Superman" becomes the greatest reality,—out of sight, almost far away beneath him, lies all that which heretofore has been called great in man. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo

Why? Because as Nietzsche details in Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

What is great in man is that he is a bridge and not a goal: what is lovable in man is that he is an OVER-GOING and a DOWN-GOING. — Zarathustra

It’s quite obvious this Ishay Landa doesn't really have a deep grasp on Nietzsche's works.

So as we can see Nietzsche creates two distinct opposing periods because both of these periods are the totality of Nietzsche himself... as Nietzsche details in BGE 2 that two opposing forces are intertwined with each other through a chord that ties them together, making them all fundamentally one in the same as whatever creates the two values... these two values do not exist as an antithesis of values, one value grows out of the other value.

We can see this notion in the Gospels of The Bible, even with John 15:5 "I am the vine. You are the branches: he that abideth in me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without me you can do nothing."

And just like John 15:5 the dual orbit is nothing without the other to overcome in their opposite and insite each other to higher and higher births. The branches of Nietzsche's works are those two Yea-saying and Nay-saying periods, the Vine that weaves them all together is his Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Just as MAN is the ROPE between the ANIMAL and SUPERMAN.

The Gospels is one of the greatest influences on Nietzsche's philosophy. It is where he gathers his concept of the Overman and Amor Fati from. From the example of Jesus Christ and his psychology of The Glad Tidings that Nietzsche details in AC 33 and AC 39.

Thanks, that is how I see AI, but I think my brain is becoming dysfunctional and never using AI is not going to make things better. But like using a walker, it could extend my ability to do what I want to do. — Athena

Well, noone ever said you cannot discuss with AI and collect your thoughts and feelings. I think they mostly don't want you to ask a question and then just copy and paste direct from the AI. But, do be aware AI make mistakes too and could mislead you down a path of AI hallucinations.

In otherwords, you probably souldn't use it as an authority, but instead use it as a personal assistant.

The whole "Woke" debate is dumb, the majority of people for and against it use it as a vehicle to drive their politics one way or the other. It's like the section in Thus Spoke Zarathustra "Chastity," where Nietzsche details chastity is a virtue for most, but for some it's simply a practice they don't even think about it's just that they're so busy with other things away from sex, a certain innocence in one's own becoming rather than a projection on how one ought to live. In this way, the debate becomes a proxy battlefield of politics, but for those who experience it personally, it's not about ideology, it's a style of becoming...

Transitioning genders for example is a psychical need that manifests similarly to the conception of "Free will" such that it follows an equation roughly similar to "'I am 'free' and 'IT' must obey"... It's a manifestation of the need for control over oneself in a world that very much tells you to deny your instincts through objective morals that attempt to determine for you how one OUGHT to live. This burden of ought attempts to shackle someone to one side of a political stance (Left/Right being a newer manifestation of objective dogmas since the proverbial death of God). Both sides attempt to detail what is good/evil and offer their versions of reward/punishment through acceptance/rejection. It turns life into a courtroom.

And yet those individuals who experience "woke" as a lived personal experience don't give a damn about your Left/Right views on it. For them, it is a style of innocence in becoming that occurs out of a necessity in which there is no guilt, sin, or "wrongness." It is more of a fundamental condition of their existence. It is neither sinful nor virtuous, it's merely a manifestation of becoming. The projection of guilt by both sides (from conservatives: "unnatural," from progressives: "immoral not to affirm") both miss the point: they moralize what is, at root, the individual's personal experience of becoming, innocent, and innocence in their instincts.

I like to think of AI as a medical device; like a brace or a crutch that takes the burden off the musculoskeletal frame. Over time this unburdening is detrimental to the muscles that normally carry the weight, causing a certain amount of atrophy. Similarly AI is like a crutch but for your own thoughts if you use it to do your thinking for you.

Personally I feel OP was right just wasn't good at expressing what they meant we can see this in their reply to Lionino:

In other words, those that think they're not using straw person arguments but actually are would see this as a paradox. — Echogem222

Some person thinks:

"Every opponent I argue against argues only stupid, oversimplified positions."

To prove this the person always rewrites their opponents arguments in stupid, oversimplified ways.

Which amounts to: To prove my claim, I must falsify my claim. A Paradox.

My fault, that was a little vague. I meant when others DO reciprocate such a feeling. Not that anyone here is.

maybe it brings you a sense of Joy to feel that way, especially when others reciprocate.

This forum knows how to beat dead horses that's for sure. How many posts does this forum have that discuss all this already? Pretty much every God post is this same back and forth. Haven't we learned already? There is no communication here, just people talking at closed gateways. Why waste time on what other people believe? It's pretty much the same people: with the same adamantine, unchanging, determinism... Yall just kicking rocks.

"God is Good!" <-> "No, God is Evil!"

:point: :ok:

It's not a matter of not being able to experience what someone/thing else experiences. The puzzle is why anything has any subjective experience at all. — Patterner

A point Quine gets into, the concept of shared stimulation is odd, because as Quine states, there is no homology of nerve endings shared between us, we could see the same thing and be stimulated in vastly different ways.

Nietzsche on the Intrinsic Perversion of Reason...
The example he gives is a man who details his long life was due to his light diet...

On the other hand Nietzsche details:

the prerequisites of long life, which are exceptional slowness of molecular change, and a low rate of expenditure in energy, were the cause of his meagre diet He was not at liberty to eat a small or a great amount. His frugality was not the result of free choice, he would have been ill had he eaten more. He who does not happen to be a carp, however, is not only wise to eat well, but is also compelled to do so. — Nietzsche, ToI

We often attribute an effect as a cause due to a belief in free will.

If you're the spiritual type, so be it. Though, I can't say much about the spirit world, never believed in it. I used to believe in free will, but I realized the concept was odd when someone kicked me in the teeth with the question "free from what?" And perhaps that may relate to your quandary here.

You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

But if you need a hint... look to the stars, the trees, the grass, or the poo from your ...

Thought isn't metaphysical. It's not metaphysics.

I think so long as something plays by physics it will be considered physical.

More precisely, there is no mental substance, but there are irreducibly mental ways of grouping physical states and events to detail these mental states and events.

What I find hilarious is how the modal ontologist believe they've revitalized modal ontology... when half of the garbage they say is literally in Aristotle's bit "On Interpretation." Like come on guys thats 2400 years old known already... example: Kripke says "uhh yeah we gotta ground our definitions!" :lol:

I mean, there's testimony evidence that Bigfoot is real. *shrug* I'll go with Hume's knock on testimony—necessarily the weakest form. So unless you're trying to convince Christians, who already believe that anyways, you're going to have an up a steep mountain fight on your hands.

I would love it if someone ended my "woke." I woke up at 245 wet in a pickling sweat so I jumped in the shower, and have been up every hour since! :groan:

Well, I don't exactly know how they work, I'm a soulless swine here to dine up thine! Now give me what is mine!...

But, I would imagine, since Kant extended the life of Christianity with renewed belief in the "thing inside itself," that that is one way a soul could work.

The soul is the illusion of "ding an sich." That false reasoning we've projected upon the world as real.

like I said, the solution is you finding your own fucking way... you're just a poor reader...

Otherwise go find a religion to tell you how to think... duh...

And furtherstill...

I interpreted him in the way that can be helpful to work on issue I presented here. — kirillov

No you didn't... you literally said "I don't like N's solution..." so you interpreted his philosophy in a way that wasnt helpful to you at all.

So when you go back to my first post... "Affirm the demands of your life." Obviously went right over your head.

N paved the way for modern understanding of psychology... no psychologist today considers the will a cause...

Maybe pick up psychology and you'll find your solution?

Art?

Music?

Science?

You find it...

Not us for you. That's the cowardly compromise...

Unless of course that's what you want deep down? Some else to lord over you. That's fine, even N says those who thrive in such ways ought to live that way...

Who here knows you enough after 4 posts to even give you a solution to your own problems?

cough up his solution...

Let's see what you got... a whole lot of nothing, hence you never offered one. Can't use the one I gave (finding his own way).

You didn't even know N's solution... you made one up... N never prescribes a solution. N's solution for himself was music.

byebye *waves*

Those who cannot find their own life affirming path are as Nietzsche details the reason why mankind has become sick...

Let us look each other in the face. We are Hyperboreans—we know well enough how remote our place is. “Neither by land nor by water will you find the road to the Hyperboreans”: even Pindar,[1] in his day, knew that much about us. Beyond the North, beyond the ice, beyond death—our life, our happiness.... We have discovered that happiness; we know the way; we got our knowledge of it from thousands of years in the labyrinth. Who else has found it?—The man of today?—“I don’t know either the way out or the way in; I am whatever doesn’t know either the way out or the way in”—so sighs the man of today.... This is the sort of modernity that made us ill

So more or less you came here out of a compulsion to feel superior when you're mostly a worm who doesn't even understand wtf this guy is asking.

Tsk tsk, twas fun though.

Feel better. xoxo

Nietzsche says bad readers haven't read him, and his detail of the worst readers fits here (with the OP)... and dude's post is about a solution to his wrong idea on N's philosophy. So maybe stop being a worst reader yourself? I literally spelled it out for him, the solution is affirm the demands of your own life... which is a personal thing, done for centuries before N. N's just the first one to discuss it at least in such a direct manner.

Looking for objective answers from N is like trying to find non whites at a KKK rally. I think one ought to keep a few aphorisms from BGE in mind when discussing the will to power... namely the term "will" for Nietzsche isnt how tou use it... thats merely the "Sanctas Simplicitas" of the multiplicity of undercurrent and forces that the word represents. First and foremost the will to power are sensations and the will is not a cause... as you portray here.

A summary of one of the four great errors of reason Nietzsche talks about with cause and effect in Twilight of Idols:

For centuries people thought the "will" and the "ego" were genuine causes, facts about consciousness that explained action and responsibility. This is merely a projection of outdated psychology. Modern insight reveals that what we call "the will" doesn't cause action, motives are mere suruface ripples, and the Ego is a fiction of IT ( the body). Humans mistook these illusions for real quantums of force, and we built our metaphysics based upon them and projected it upon the world, turning the Ego into ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the conception of a "thing in itself..."

Every subterranean force is its own power that commands the body... how they all work together... well, it's a lot to consider, but just because they place demands on the body doesn't mean these actions are even attempted.

The more opposing forces within oneself the greater their will to power is.

Consider Nietzsche saying Life is Music and Life is Will to Power. Certainly doesn't mean music is will to power for everyone. Even though music does affirm the lives of everyone indifferently.

The Birth of Tragedy... out of what? The Spirit of Music...

And Tragedy was the ultimate form of life affirmation to the Greek antiquity.

Every culture has its own music.

The Gay Science...
Literally Nietzsche's works on the knowledge of life affirming gaiety...

i mean most people dont want me to droll on and on about N's views.

Donald Davidson's "Anomalous Monism": mental events are identical to physical events while maintaining that there are no strict, exceptionless laws that govern mental phenomena (mental anomalism). So every mental event is also a physical event, and that mental events cannot be predicted or explained by physical laws, and vice versa.

For Nietzsche, the approbation of life comes through Music. But also, you have a few things I would like to discuss upon. I will edit this post soon with more to say.

In Birth of Tragedy N details more or less early on that the approbation of life comes through creators creating a faith and hanging that faith over a people such that the faith serves their way of life...

Creation is Nietzsche's "politics" away from the State (we can see this in The New Idol) and it is creation that is the most valuable life affirming tool. Creation allows the creator to hold up a transfiguring mirror that affirms the demands of their life.

For Nietzsche in particular, we can see from the Birth of Tragedy and the Gay Science that "life is music" and that all the philosophers from Socrates to Kant had "wax in their ears."

In the attempt at self criticism of Birth of Tragedy, we can see Nietzsche details himself at the time of the writing that the book is made up first and foremost from the thoughts and after thoughts of an artist...

This means Nietzsche considers himself an artist as he wrote it. He realized that the book was badly written and changed his angle a bit, to diacuss the affirmation of life in a more universal sense based out of perspective of the beholder. Hence by the time we get to the prologue to BGE we have that "perspective is the fundamental condition of life."

As you've detailed suffering is quite an integral part of N' philosophy, and I have a great quote from N himself as to why suffering is integral, and it's more or less that it itself is transfiguring...

It will be surmised that I should not like to take leave ungratefully of that period of severe sickness, the advantage of which is not even yet exhausted in me: for I am sufficiently conscious of what I have in advance of the spiritually robust generally, in my changeful state of health. A philosopher who has made the tour of many states of health, and always makes it anew, has also gone through just as many philosophies: he really cannot do otherwise than transform his condition on every occasion into the most ingenious posture and position,—this art of transfiguration is just philosophy....It is great pain only, the long slow pain which takes time, by which we are burned as it were with green wood, that compels us philosophers to descend into our ultimate depths, and divest ourselves of all trust, all good-nature, veiling, gentleness, and averageness, wherein we have perhaps formerly installed our humanity. I doubt whether such pain "improves" us; but I know that it deepens us. — Nietzsche, § 3 of the Preface to the second edition of GS.

We can see that suffering doesn't necessarily improve us. And Nietzsche details this further in Genealogy... as slave morality often arises out of those who suffer, and fail to disgest the internalization of that suffering. Where as the noble moralities always spring from the triumphant affirmation of ones own demands... (GoM 10).

Look up agrarian republic...?