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...?

Heh... what a weird post for the 21st century. *shrug* I don't even know how to step backwards in human psychology to begin thinking like this. Perhaps the OP should learn more about modern psychology. You're projecting your own misconceptions upon the world and taking them as Truth...

But that is my point. By this means I am making clear the sense in which perspective is essential for any judgement about what exists — — Wayfarer

There is only one emergency exit—to make sense of this suffering and make it bearable, the Jew must believe that his fate has within it a particular purpose: “God disciplines those he loves.” — Theodore Lessing, in Jewish Self-Hate.

Nietzsche on the OP's psychology:

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—the former an imitation, an "extra," an additional nuance; the latter, on the other hand, the original, the beginning, the essential act in the conception of a slave-morality—these two words "bad" and "evil," how great a difference do they mark, in spite of the fact that they have an identical contrary in the idea "good." But the idea "good" is not the same: much rather let the question be asked, "Who is really evil according to the meaning of the morality of resentment?" In all sternness let it be answered thus:—just the good man of the other morality, just the aristocrat, the powerful one, the one who rules, but who is distorted by the venomous eye of resentfulness, into a new colour, a new signification, a new appearance. — Genealogy of Morals 10/11

Further still this is what Nietzsche means in AC 24... on how Christians cherish Antisemitism and don't realize it's just one more step in the Judaic equation... where the virtue of calling things evil begins to back bite itself out of a different perspective... as the final consequence of the psychology of Judaism.

OPs taking the psychology of Judaism and inverting it back upon itself. Which is where anti semitism arises. Not that OP is one. But he's traversing that slippery slope.

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..." a summary of one of the 4 great errors by Nietzsche in Twilight of Idols...

But also...

The Greatest Utility of Polytheism 143 Gay Science goes into this. "Not I, Not I, but as an instrument of my God did I do such a thing..." and "the individual set up for themselves their own ideals as Gods, Ubermensch, Heros, and subordinate undermen..."

And Ecce Homo on Inspiration, Nietzsche talks about how, Zarathustra, another Ego within Nietzsche held within himself... he speaks about how this ego waylaid him on his walks to become an unwitting mouth piece... it took him 30 days to write the first three sections in TSZ, 10 days a piece. The words flowed out of him and he just kept writing... there was no stopping to consider this or that and how to organize the book. He just knew from the get go... below are some snips from his discussion.

Has any one at the end of the nineteenth century any distinct notion of what poets of a stronger age understood by the word inspiration?...

There is an ecstasy so great that the immense strain of it is sometimes relaxed by a flood of tears, during which one's steps now involuntarily rush and anon involuntarily lag....

There is the feeling that one is utterly out of hand, with the very distinct consciousness of an endless number of fine thrills and titillations descending to one's very toes....

Everything happens quite involuntarily, as if in a tempestuous outburst of freedom, of absoluteness, of power and divinity....

Hope that helps.

lmao, so the 5'2 guy is grabbing the firearm for superiority out of inferiority. Thought you'd eventually see it my way. You're the kind of guy who doesn't like admitting basic things like "man, I'm at a disadvantage..."?

That's the whole point of a firearm to give advantage. It's pretty manly to accept you're in a position where you require superiority through firepower because you're inferior...

Objective moralist do "when you wish to minimize risk of injury in dealing with something undesirable."

Im not debating with anyone here. It's quite simple though, you pick up a fire arm when you require superiority...

The reasons why a person requires superiority vary widely... some times that feeling is "I need a firearm because I am truly an impotent worm who needs to feel superior to others...." like Kyle Rittenhouse, a pale criminal who thirsted for blood.

I'll summarize 1 of the great errors: the error of false causality.

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 an ideal models of "being." Resulting in a massive inherited error: believing in the spirit and the mind as if they were causes via the thing in itself...

aye, and they still grab a firearm because a bear is superior to man naturally...

THE FOUR GREAT ERRORS

Twilight of Idols, By Nietzsche...

Check it or don't, but it will perhaps answer you most deeply here...

All firearms are for Superiority by someone suffering from Inferiority.

The Left and the Right are little more than objective morals for people who build identity through externalized values. A puppet tied to strings."Woke and Antiwoke" are expressions of these impoverished mentalities of "Left and Right."

A painting is an image thats been appropriated by an artist and ran through an internal gauntlet by means of an invented self expression created from personal style to personal principles that tyrannize over said style, and adhoc additions that are required to bake in the appearance of genuineness from the artist.

Aristotle seems to be regarding the mind (viz., the thinking aspect of the soul) as 'unmixed' with the matter and that, for some reason, this mind is not real prior to knowing something. — Bob Ross

Not what I got from the passage... Aristotle is saying before a thought is SHAPED and comes into the mind... it has no form. Not that the two are seperate.

Just as Nietzsche details in Aphorism 17 of BGE. Thoughts come from this unformed place that we call "I" when really it's just that the unconscious body thinks. "I think" ... yet the thought came to you ... it was unformed, but within the multiplicity of the will. "I" is just the ego, the mask the body wears, but certainly "I" doesn't do the thinking. "I" is the form projected from the tyranny of that multiplicity of undercurrents. Perhaps you think "seperate" because of how dialectical your approach is? It seems a mistake to say Aristotle would seperate a dual orbit... when he is quite a famous case of "too little too much" between two opposites. But to even call these two opposites is too much also as they're one in the same, as Nietzsche details in BGE 2. It's more of a growth out of.

"I" is like the metaphysical attack surface of a person, it's a place where forms go to thrive or die. Hence why pluralism has become so big these days... because there are, in reality, so many fucking forms, anything is possible...

Wait, whats that, Schizo Analysis? a form of unformed forms formulating over different forms of a form in an unformulated manner? My gosh what will that do other than give a multiplicity of perspectives! Osh Kosh By Gosh! Perspective seems to be a fundamental condition of life... oh wait also in BGE.

And a mod can see how many times I edit and Update because all the forms of these words were mostly formless a moment ago before I spooled up the good old "I" for churning mental butter.

My man, I say it to piss you off, cause you're one of those types that's easily turned into a puppet. Cause I got 0 empathy for the bullshit of lastmen. But I will suffer a fool, for my own good health.

My man, you're grasping at straws. Empathy is sharing in the suffering of another sympathy means you recognize it that's pretty much it, regardless if you help or not.

Like bro, Im sympathetic to your cause but I'm busy with my own shit...

I mean, honestly, you're still you in PM, so the only way to cut through that bullshit is the lose the whole thinking you're a winning dominant philosopher when you're just addicted to being a simulacrum who pretends to do anything with philosophy at all. If you wanna cut theough the BS, dont post bullshit?

The hell do you think is gonna happen in a FORUM when you set out an idea for ALL its "philosophers," and wide opinions?

A whirlwind.

Of course this shows you admitting you're good at wheeling and dealing one on one to try and dominate the conversation by just saying the same thing over and over without adding any depth. Like you did with Moliere and I. To the point I decided to poison you against me because you're easy like that.

Hence my post so long ago in the shout box "I got the poison..."