I guess, my point is, the vast majority of who I am prefers not even "thinking" but rather "doing" ... the only reason I practice philosophy and logic is so when I have to think, I can out think others. I prefer not thinking though. I'm relatively immune to feeling shame and guilt.

Perhaps I even missed the points of your discussion really. What I mostly got from reading your post, was that "Damn this guys lives by a ton of rules (that I don't)."

For example when I sit down in a room, I don't observe things and think about them... I just observe things, dont read the text on em, don't care that its a book or a chair or a flower, I don't match nouns to things, I don't put everything in its place with its labels...

The things I like all involve muscle memory to "think" to feel your way through something. Anything where I can leave my mind be at rest so it can be everywhere all at once...

You're probably not used to arguing formally, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt — fdrake

Very true. I don't even know what it means...

When you say something like this, you need to distinguish right from immoral. — fdrake

Do you? Seems more like a tanget to get off track... If I want to murder a charity worker who happened to do something that ended up killing my family... but morality said they go free... guess what's going to happen?

I will burn that persons world to the ground. And I'll feel good doing it. Because it will be the desired quality of what I want...

Might has always made right...

Whether it's the tyranny of masses or the tyrant.

All morality is baked in through thousands of years of grotesque punishment...

Capital Punishment and Lethal Injection are Okay after all...

So if someone injects themself lethally into another person's life... ah only the State gets to decide for you... No. I solve my own problems without the need of a state...

Morality and immorality are merely soft limits that I consider only occasionally. — DifferentiatingEgg

To kill a charity worker out of revenge may be immoral, doesn't mean it wasn't right...

Like giving Socrates hemlock for corruption of the youth.

Hard limits means all killing is wrong and people would be incapable of breaking the hard limit. Soft limits are bypassed with a certain regulation regarding when it's correct.

People who pretend morality is a hard limiter are *rigid* because they're mechanical and predictable in action.

There is always a time and place for the animal in man to run wild.

You're providing no reason for anyone else to care about what you're saying. — fdrake

In otherwords you need a reason to care...

Same here, it's just not your reasons.

And perhaps you care about certain things in a certain light because you accept the premise that part of what's in you is utter shit that needs repression and ignoring. And I reject it that premise.

It's not that you disagree with me lol... it's how you do.

See this is that rigidity I'm talking about... if not this then must be that...what is a criminal other than a man qilling to go into danger to get what they need?

Your rigidity suggests that because I only consider what my life demands that my life demands only me...

Logic collapses in on itself and is circular. Just as the selfless person is acting based off their own desirous needs, so too is the selfish person.

I'm glad I know how to drive a straight line down a curved road.

Honestly, it's hard to detail. Something like "out of sight out of mind." Morality and immorality are merely soft limits that I consider only occasionally.

Mostly because morality imposes immorality upon the human, the human which came before either. Morality details what part of YOU is utter shit that needs to be killed off.

No part of me is trash, nor will any part of me be killed off for anyone other than me and my own purpose.

Sure I have decisions I live by, but even then they're soft limiters...

The highest and most powerful are always above the law and out of sight of the law. Just as the highest presentment of man always comes through some Crime or another. Because they are the people who assume rights to new values outside the norm of equality...

We all break laws, some of us just don't reslly care about them to begin with... let the ones who are intimidated the law be intimidated. If I want to do something, I'll likely do it... except maybe things like acting on the urge to drive my car through a building...

More or less, if I were a hacker I'd be a greyhat.

Ultimately, there's an opposition between understanding and judging. The more you understand, the harder it becomes to judge. — frank

That's an opposition between prejudice and understanding. A Judge is a Judge because they understand the diction of the law.

not really sure what to make of your post other than I am glad that I don't live by such superfluous rigidity as you detail in your post. The way you detail life within it is very strange to me.

Dude, you're still a novice with his material.

If you want the pedantic version of that let me know and I'll take you to school.

It's obvious you don't know the very important detail that Nietzsche bases the Superman and Amor Fati off of Christ's example... mostly because you've not really read Nietzsche's works he flat out tells you how he admires Christ. And it wasn't until Nietzsche, 200 years after the Earthquake at Port Royal, did Christ regain his image as God's grace, to accept all men, mad or not.

When you live by laws that say half of you is shit and must be repressed and ignored... you only come out as a crippled halfman...who denies even their humanity... there is no divorce between Christ and others, even the insane and murderous... just as a person should affirm all that is within them amd temper the most destructive bits from the extremes of our opposites.

Just came across something... so in 1981 Quine redefines his definition of Observation Sentences (which drive meaning) to adjust for the fact that there aren't "shared neurons" (shared stiumulus) between two individuals... but rather to reflect much like the chart I gave...

Before redefining he appealed to sameness of stimulus between speakers. The new defines observation sentences for the single speaker:

If querying the sentence elicits ascent from the given speaker on one occasion it will elicit ascent likewise on any other occasion when the same total set of receptors is triggered... — Quine, Pursuit of Truth, § 15 Stimulation Again

Thus to ascent to the definition of "Good" as "Desired Quality" one must first have stimulated the original node (Good) then node 0 (Adjective [first left]) then to node 01 (Desired Quality [first right after first left])

So the total set of receptors in this case are "Good -> Adjective (Node 0) -> Desired Quality (Node 01)" Thus trying to swap meaning through a different set like "Noun (node 1)" -> "Moral Principle (node 11)" isn't logical because it groups a different total set of receptors.

It is, so I apologize for being rude while not actually understanding where you're coming from. I had assumed we were closer in perspectives.

I'd have to adopt your "manuals of translations" which at too vastly different than my own to be compatible. We have different world transfiguring mirrors is all. Consider this... you know how two mirrors create the infinite reflection? Any point of consciousness occurs between two reflecting surfaces... the next gradation over is only slightly out of sight, it's only marginally shifted. Images from a point n gradations away become smaller and smaller and more and more out of perspective the greater n becomes. We may have started close together in mind at birth but we went our seperate ways early on.

You seem to not understand what I am arguing here. — MoK

That's exactly what I said...

it is kinda funny to look about this room I'm in and think about all the physical things here having 0 properties that interact with physics. It makes everything seem alien... which could also be a reason we have a hard time even seeing eye to eye... so perhaps I simply cannot perceive your perspective on things.

I can't understand your perspective doesn't really mean I ought to attempt to refute it. I had assumed I understood where you were come from. — DifferentiatingEgg

My knowledge comes from the terrestrial world... your perspective is too alien form that though, so I can't really perceive it.

I see, I wasn't aware Quine dropped modality... but I suppose it makes sense as he adopts meaning from the whole of the sentence... the bit in Pursuit of Truth doesn't suggest he drops it persay, but that modality isn't important to the meaning of a word because meaning is derived from the sentence as a whole.

Also, double dang New Foundations is Dense as f... hehe... yeah, I'm just now dipping the tips of my toes into Set Theory, kinda started in the middle... it seems with paradoxes and infinities, but I'm picking it up, it's much more taxing than I thought, like when I first picked up Nietzsche... I'm having to learn things that would have made this easier had I already understood them.

Been great learning it though, cause it's all really great tools for mental pushups and the ability to take a scalpel to language. In such a way that provides one with a certain mastery of its use. I never even fathomed using math to understand language in such ways. One can literally set it up like an equation. Sure, I've done sentences in with logical operators before, but I hadn't even considered:

Sentence = (conditional) + Subject + Predicate +(modifiers). (As a basic example)

Consider physics... then your argument physically falls apart...

More or less you're trying to make a hilariously bad argument that God is everything.

And you think your prior faith counts as arguments towards this... even after everyone shat all over your tremendously terrible logic.

Work on making a single working argument first, before moving to the next step...

Rather than cluttering TPF with feverdream thoughts that don't logically proceed the next.

I also love how you're suggesting that physical can KNOW, cause some how it's got a mind of its own... which destroys your own prior argument... "the mind is the uncaused cause..." even here you admit I was right...

Though... it is kinda funny to look about this room I'm in and think about all the physical things here having 0 properties that interact with physics. It makes everything seem alien... which could also be a reason we have a hard time even seeing eye to eye... so perhaps I simply cannot perceive your perspective on things. But:

if a thing can occur in an atomic fact the possibility of that atomic fact must already be prejudged in the thing. — Wittgenstein, Tractatus 2.012

Thus the potential for change is already prejudged within the physical body...

But, considering I can't even understand where you're coming from, these are simply my objections to your truths. Carry on if you will it. Just because I can't understand your perspective doesn't really mean I ought to attempt to refute it. I had assumed I understood where you were coming from.

Ill do one Grigone and 'Grigone' etc etc

It has to do with transitivity and referencing. Basically I'm saying Quine used math to inform on linguistics.

my bad, I kinda got lost in my own tanget, but what I was getting at is that I believe Quine ended up taking inspiration from the mathematical logic that appears in the study of paradoxes and infinities and (more) to inform on his logical modeling of linguistics... I wasn't trying to detail what Quine's model expressed, but I had noticed there were a lot of similarities between my current philosophy class and Quine's approach.

All it ever was: an invitation for you to expose yourself. You already know I don't need you to elaborate.

You can't even detail a thing about his philosophy though.

Evaluations, in essence, are not values but ways of being, modes of existence of those who judge and evaluate, serving as principles for the values on the basis of which they judge. This is why we always have the beliefs, feelings and thoughts that we deserve given our way of being or our style of life. — Deleuze

If one is not willing to participate in a discussion are they ready to discuss?

Dictionary Definitions from Oxford Languages · Learn more
will·ing
adjective
ready, eager, or prepared to do something.
"he was quite willing to compromise"
Similar:
ready
prepared
disposed

His style certainly isn't for everyone.

No need to participate in a discussion you're not prepared for.

Gustave Le Bon, and Edward Bernays shed a ton of light on this too. Which is even more evolved to this day with the internet. And other world wide communication abilities to disseminate information at a blink of an eye.

And it's not always a malicious thing, it's a neutral tool really... but when you get people who utilize ressentiment to gain power, we basically end up with politicians advocating for life denying sentiments and injecting that into the masses... or perhaps it was already there, just enabled.

Also, I wanted to point out, although metaphysics gets discredited a lot, one can use it strictly as a discipline to help sharpen their mental ability, like a workout routine. It's when someone makes metaphysics the womb of being that it really gets pushed towards being discredited.

And also, of note, many people use Science in the Us vs Them approach... as a means of life denying dogma... to reject supernatural claims...hell to even make unsavory claims about the natural too.

projecting your self loathing on the forums like edgy Dorkneo is doing detracts from the forums even more.

His only interests in this thread is his powerlessness, he doesn't have much control outside of it. It's the only place he can say everything is shit, while forcing it upon others through his obstinance.

The case against suicide is that he's too powerless to even do that... hence why he's here projecting self loathing. Cause pain is a production of desire.

"It's me, and so it's mine. . . ." Even suffering,
as Marx says, is a form of self-enjoyment. Doubtless all desiring-production is, in
and of itself, immediately consumption and consummation, and therefore,
"sensual pleasure." — Deleuze

I mean dude was so triggered by the name Nietzsche it's all that was under his microscope. The whole concept of the Greek overcoming their idolizing of Suicide the main point of the post and of the thread and of me coming here... completely washed over because guy saw that NIETZSCHE said it.

Not even sure one should waste their time on philosophy if they're that poor at comprehension...

Normally you slap someone twice to break them out of hypnosis... you know the meme of Batman slapping the F out of Robin?

How does "I hate Nietzsche so I wont overcome suicide through finding my own transfiguring meaning in life" make any sense? As pretty much all civilizations have done this, hence why all nations have their own table of values which are different than their neighbors... all because they've found some type of values that made life worth living.

Take the advice of every culture: "life is worth living under a certain value system..." So make one's own system, if one is too much of a lazy nihilist, well stfu and don't complain about it here... it's not appropriate here to begin with. Dorkneo projecting his self loathing onto the forums.

Regardless if Nietzsche discusses it or not. It makes no difference... Nietzsche is the remainder that's round down to zero on this.

Can't get it to post here but I tossed it up on imagebb: https://ibb.co/5hP4c2yX

From the Tip of the pyramid to get to "desired quality" the modality to get there is linear ... an we can say to get there you go down a left branch (0) and a right branch (1) so traveling a linear path we get to 01: "desired qualities". Which is an adjective of Good. If we travel from the tip to the right twice 1 & 1 we end up at spot 11 at moral principle, which is a noun of good...

You can not logically reference or interchange definitions of Good at position 01 and 11 with the other... due to the fact that they're on completely seperate branches.

Ordinals are used to order Infinities ...
And since words and sentences are basically infinite, you can use the ordering styles of ordinals for linguistics and I believe that's what Quine is doing.

trigger? More like yap on and on and on completely missing the fucking point... which is why you're probably crap with understanding Nietzsche....

The moral of the damn story is FIND SOMETHING WORTH YOUR FUCKING TIME... jesus christ...

The point from Nietzsche was a method of delivery...

That you're even focusing on Nietzsche is the mootest point ...A unicorn can say it... it doesn't matter... imagine your penis saying it:

Find a damn hobby, that makes your time on earth worth fucking while... what a mind blowing concept I know...

Learn to comprehend what the fuck is even being said, and learn to focus on the subject matter... it wasn't fucking Nietzsche...

Hrm, well that didn't work. Guess I'll find another place to host the picture I just made.

Row 1: Good
Row2 forked into: Adjective Noun
Row3 contains 2 definitions forked under adjectival form of good (1.thorough and 2. Desired Quality) and 2 definitions forked under noun form of good (3. an advantage 4. a moral principle)...

Just because you can use a linear modality to reach adjective definition 2:"desired quality/should be" doesn't mean you can logically reference the noun definition 4 "a moral principle" when your argument details definition 2. There's no transitive property between definitions 2 and 4 through linear modality...because they travel down different forks all together...

probably not, most of its probably your head there from other sources or even intuition. Just, I'm not shining a light well enough to connect the dots on how they align.

In math when we say 1 is less than 2, and 2 is less than 3 and then say 1 is less than 3, we're showing a transitive property in logic... according to a linear modality of referencing the points 1 2 and 3. We can say 1 is lesser in relation to 3...

The biforking model top of the model is a fork... ^ each left branch from a fork is 0 and each right fork is a 1

So row 1 would be 0 on the left side of for, 1 on the right row 2 would have a fork coming from side 0 and a fork coming from side 1 both are labeled the same 0 to 1 left to right...

You end up with a pyramid of forks... fork 0 0 0 would follow all the left forks, and all spots on that path are linked by a line upon the forking branch from the tip of the pyramid to far left extreme of the pyramid base, if you took the path 1 1 1 youd take the right forking path all the way to the right extreme of the pyramid base... traveling down the points 1 1 1 in row 1 then 2 then 3 all follow a path on a line and all reference each other with transitivity between row 1 and row 3... such that whats in row 2 proceeded row 1 and what's in row 3 proceeded row 2 ... but if you go down the far left, even though you're using linear modality the third spot on 0 0 0 the far left base of the pyramid, doesn't mean we can cross reference between spot 3 on path 000 and spot 3 on path 111 at the far right base... because there's no transitivity betwen the spot at 111 with the spot at 000. I can make a picture if needed, would probably make it way easier to understand hat I'm saying.

What follows when we cross reference say a word, using the wrong modality might be like a categorical error or fallacy of equivocation...if say row 3 ended up as 3 different definitions of the same word ...

Which is to say... say you used X logic to get to a definition of a word... a word that had 8 ways to be used across the different parts of speach it could cover...

All 8 definitions would rest in row 3 of this pyramid we just constructed...

That doesn't mean each definition can be used as a reference for the word in the sentence.

I understand where you're coming from when you bring this up...

Which might also be a polite way of saying that only certain sensitive or bright people understand FN — Tom Storm

But, I'm more of the mind of dedication to intellectual integrity, and by that, I clear my mind and go in to see what Nietzsche says, I consider his words with extreme care to come from the angles he sets out in his philosophy and psychology. Bright has little to do with my ability, I had always prejudged in my self the dogged determination to break down, how ever slowly, through repetition through constantly discussing and reading other philosophers on Nietzsche or just reading them in general and something comes to mind to brings me back to revisit Nietzsche. I easily have over 20,000 hours handling his work across two decades. The gradation of understanding grows over time for those serious enough. The trick is to not assume Nietzsche's a dumbass simply because you're uncertain wtf he's saying at first...

Why should someone who is suicidal care for Nietzsche - can you make that case? I am interested. And the trick here, I think, is to explain what Nietzsche does in his work that makes it useful for this application. — Tom Storm

If you go back to my initial comment here, you'll see the notion I even brought up, which is the Wisdom of Silenus, did I ever say care about Nietzsche? No, what I said, was Nietzsche's observation on history about how the Greeks overcame idolizing the notion of suicide... overcame the wisdom of Silenus.

It's a hint that hey, maybe you could do the same fucking thing if entire civilizations did it... so bitching about Nietzsche as Darkneos did, was ultimately a lazy red herring.

And you... maybe there might be room for considering your disposition towards life if the following is how you feel deep down:

Yes. Even sooner. Given the shorter I live, the less I have to relive. — Tom Storm

Telling us you hate your life without telling us ...

Amor Fati

fair enough, the audience Nietzsche wrote for was selective. In fact the 4th part of TSZ was initially only disseminated to his close friends.

If you contemplated Nietzsche's Heaviest Burden you would want to commit suicide?

The heaviest burdern: Suppose you had to live your life exactly as it were innumerable countless times... would that proposition be a teeth gnashing nightmare? Or would the proposition suddenly take hold of you, sure that you begin considering: "What in this moment, must I begin doing, how should I begin living, such that the proposition to live this life countlessly more times over and over again, infinitly exactly as it were, becomes such that it is greatest blessing you've ever heard?

That is Nietzsche's heaviest burden...

If you would commit suicide under such a contemplation, then ... one prejudges in the atomic fact of their life that suicide is the key... the only prejudice they're pursuing...which is nihilism. The prejudice that life isnt worth living is nihilism.

2.012 Tractatus...

Also cause you suck at understanding Nietzsche doesn't mean everyone does... and Kaufmann's understanding of Nietzsche is actually altered through the incipient reification of his project to move Nietzsche away from association with the Nazi. Kaufmann did a stellar job, but it also blinded some of his analysis. Like in his discussion on Borgia... Kaufmann is confused about Nietzsche's formulation for Highermen.

And Kaufmann's Translation of TSZ is so sterile it kills the dithyramb all together... a note I found recently from the Nietzsche Sub Reddit: Hitler on Nietzsche:

Of course, I value Nietzsche as a genius. He writes possibly the most beautiful language "That German literature has to offer us today, but he is not my guide." — Hitler

Kaufmann sterilizes the beauty of the tyranny demanded by the dithyrambs flow in rhythm and rhyme cause he didn't like the singsong musical feeling of TSZ. An absolutely appalling grotesquerie of a translation ... because that's exactly what a dithyramb is, music in literary form that dissolves the mind of the reader into the self abnegated state of Dionsysian Oneness...

The whole of Zarathustra might perhaps be classified under the rubric music...The whole of my Zarathustra is a dithyramb in honour of solitude, or, if I have been understood, in honour of purity. Thank Heaven, it is not in honour of "pure foolery"! He who has an eye for colour will call him a diamond. The loathing of mankind, of the rabble, was always my greatest danger.... Would you hearken to the words spoken by Zarathustra concerning deliverance from loathing?

What language will such a spirit speak, when he speaks unto his soul? The language of the dithyramb. I am the inventor of the dithyramb. Hearken unto the manner in which Zarathustra speaks to his soul Before Sunrise (iii. 48). Before my time such emerald joys and divine tenderness had found no tongue.

Before Zarathustra there was no wisdom, no probing of the soul, no art of speech: in his book, the most familiar and most vulgar thing utters unheard-of words. The sentence quivers with passion. Eloquence has become music. Forks of lightning are hurled towards futures of which no one has ever dreamed before. The most powerful use of parables that has yet existed is poor beside it, and mere child's-play compared with this return of language to the nature of imagery.

In the Dionysian dithyramb man is incited to the highest exaltation of all his symbolic faculties; something never before experienced struggles for utterance—the annihilation of the veil of Mâyâ, Oneness as genius of the race, ay, of nature. The essence of nature is now to be expressed symbolically; a new world of symbols is required; for once the entire symbolism of the body, not only the symbolism of the lips, face, and speech, but the whole pantomime of dancing which sets all the members into rhythmical motion. Thereupon the other symbolic powers, those of music, in rhythmics, dynamics, and harmony, suddenly become impetuous. To comprehend this collective discharge of all the symbolic powers, a man must have already attained that height of self-abnegation, which wills to express itself symbolically through these powers: the Dithyrambic votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! — Nietzsche

So when you come up in here being all "who know what N be talking bout..." well guess what, I possess a deep understanding of Nietzsche. And I can thread the production of his thoughts across the corpus of his work, fragments, and personal letters.

I feel this has, perhaps something to do with "Ordinals"... I've been listening to Quine's Pursuit of Truth, which brings up Modalities and I believe also Substitutivity, I will transcribe what he says in each section and add to them here word for word.

But in my paradoxes and Infinities course, I'm currently going over the different modalities of Ordinals which order Infinities in certain ways... and further, there is an intersection here with linguistics. The powerset of words is greater than the set of words because there are more sets of words (sentences) than there are individual words.

Modalities and referencing in math as it is with language... make a biforking chart for example to row 3... what happens down line 0 0 0 is linear and the modality is linear there is a transitive property that a is proceeded by b and b by c and the a is proceeded by c ...logically... but when we try to reference point 000 and point 110 or even 111 as if they were the same as point 000 simply because they're on the same row doesn't mean it will create a bijection from points 000 to 111 or 110 if we're declaring a linear modality while referencing things outside of the modality.

Should probably take your own advice...

Thinkers just debate logical arguments. Debating what we should call a thought process like 'process philosophy' is a waste of time. Either the argument a person presents is logically sound or it isn't. Most people aren't going to care what you label it, especially on these public forums. This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy. — Philosophim

Since you felt like personally attacking everyone here...

sure, you entered the debate by claiming you're bored and not working on solving real issues of philosophy

This is a debate for bored people who aren't working on solving real issues of philosophy. — Philosophim

Thus, your work on your bunkaf thankfully off the front page argument, which can be reduced to absurdity n ways till sunday, isn't a real issue of philosophy...

By your own projection...

lol, Mr. IS-OUGHT himself...

:clap: :lol:

Instead, we need to look ahead and ask : where does this process lead us? :smile:


*1. Us vs Them : — Gnomon

True, but we can also look backwards:

Nietzsche already warned us of this whole us vs them debacle-->that since the death of God has occurred, the new idol has become the state and the politicians the new priests for their Left/Right dogma and a feeling of political superiority is none other than the sensation of psychological superiority. By people who, deprived as they are of experienceing power, are forced to find their compensation in a vicarious winning, to not experience powerlessness.

More or less I think a lot of these issues predate Nietzsche, as we see Nietzsche advocates for much of these, in a manner, from his studies.

Even holism... the interconnected whole rather than an antithesis of values...

Biggest problem with Dogma is that it can't die in a democratic setting, it is required to reign in control of the masses.

It shouldn't even be a topic. Take it to a university instructor. So you can actually learn something about a logical argument...

This is you stringing words together and saying "Look my words make a sentence and thus it is"

You have such a fragile ego you can't be bothered to learn how to make proper premesis.

It's fine to believe these words. But it's all faith my friend, it's all faith.

No you don't have an argument

Your form is shit you cant even detail it...

You have no argument is the point...

Take a basic logic class to learn how to construct an actual argument. There are plenty of free courses on logic out there.

You need validity and soundness, you're missing both.

The conclusions of premises necessarily follow from premises...

Not a half assed "could be" or "maybe" ... but absolutely necessarily follows...