what I find really interesting is Nietzsche's discusses the spasmodic release of repressed instincts:

It was man, who, lacking external enemies and obstacles, and imprisoned as he was in the oppressive narrowness and monotony of custom, in his own impatience lacerated, persecuted, gnawed, frightened, and ill-treated himself; it was this animal in the hands of the tamer, which beat itself against the bars of its cage; it was this being who, pining and yearning for that desert home of which it had been deprived, was compelled to create out of its own self, an adventure, a torture-chamber, a hazardous and perilous desert—it was this fool, this homesick and desperate prisoner—who invented the "bad conscience." But thereby he introduced that most grave and sinister illness, from which mankind has not yet recovered, the suffering of man from the disease called man, as the result of a violent breaking from his animal past, the result, as it were, of a spasmodic plunge into a new environment and new conditions of existence, the result of a declaration of war against the old instincts, which up to that time had been the staple of his power, his joy, his formidableness. — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals 2nd Essay § 23

Why I find this interesting is that after 2000+ years of repressing the feminine instinct, were now suddenly experiencing an explosion in transgenderism in part due to humanity proving to be shallow in instinct. Being "mistaken in the fundamental problem of 'man and woman,' to deny here the profoundest antagonism and the necessity for an eternally hostile tension."

dang then this post should be deleted.

We can go over Russell's poor analysis of Nietzsche if you'd like. Although Nietzsche was a disciple of Dionsysus, he clearly states in HATH Book 2 that the highest presentment of man was under the doctrine of Athena. Athena the Wise, Athena the Serpent, Nietzsche's Serpent, the Serpent that is known for the fall of man under the Semites...

Just as Russell's inaccuracy in detailing the Tractatus... Russell left a rather laughable critique on Nietzsche, thinking Nietzsche was a misogynist.

“…he wasn’t…”

You said what is not. You didn’t say what is. So nothing to discuss in this whole passage besides me. — Fire Ologist

You don't want to hear "what is" about Nietzsche, doesn't mean I won't point out what you said about Nietzsche was halfassed at best. That you've no interest in why it's half assed, that's on you. So we'll reiterate the next point.

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective. — DifferentiatingEgg

Haven’t twisted one word. — Fire Ologist

Never said you did, I said you've barely got an understanding of Nietzsche especially from the Dialectical point of view.

Not inclined to offer specifics with someone who just asserts “ correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible” both as if I didn’t know that and as if it was enough to support your overall assessment of what there is to know about Nietzsche. — Fire Ologist

...I said Nietzsche utilized Jesus as a basis for the Ubermensch because of equation of Jesus's life in the gospels which is vastly different than the Judaism errr "Christianity" of the Disciples...

And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations... — DifferentiatingEgg

You wanted to talk about the disciples equation of Christ...rather than Christ's equation...

but he rejects so many of the things we do, for which we need to be forgiven to become his friends — Fire Ologist

But we can see that even Christ brings those who sets the laws of God aside into the Kingdom of Heaven, and as you've shown through Christ aka God, we're already forgiven... is wasted breath. We're already forgiven for following the equation of Jesus...

In the whole psychology of the “Gospels” the concepts of guilt and punishment are lacking, and so is that of reward. “Sin,” which means anything that puts a distance between God and man, is abolished—this is precisely the “glad tidings.” Eternal bliss is not merely promised, nor is it bound up with conditions: it is conceived as the only reality—what remains consists merely of signs useful in speaking of it.

The results of such a point of view project themselves into a new way of life, the special evangelical way of life. It is not a “belief” that marks off the Christian; he is distinguished by a different mode of action; he acts differently. He offers no resistance, either by word or in his heart, to those who stand against him. He draws no distinction between strangers and countrymen, Jews and Gentiles (“neighbour,” of course, means fellow-believer, Jew). He is angry with no one, and he despises no one. He neither appeals to the courts of justice nor heeds their mandates (“Swear not at all”).[12] He never under any circumstances divorces his wife, even when he has proofs of her infidelity.—And under all of this is one principle; all of it arises from one instinct.—

[12]Matthew v, 34.

The life of the Saviour was simply a carrying out of this way of life—and so was his death.... He no longer needed any formula or ritual in his relations with God—not even prayer. He had rejected the whole of the Jewish doctrine of repentance and atonement; he knew that it was only by a way of life that one could feel one’s self “divine,” “blessed,” “evangelical,” a “child of God.” Not by “repentance,” not by “prayer and forgiveness” is the way to God: only the Gospel way leads to God—it is itself “God!”—What the Gospels abolished was the Judaism in the concepts of “sin,” “forgiveness of sin,” “faith,” “salvation through faith”—the whole ecclesiastical dogma of the Jews was denied by the “glad tidings.”

The deep instinct which prompts the Christian how to live so that he will feel that he is “in heaven” and is “immortal,” despite many reasons for feeling that he is not “in heaven”: this is the only psychological reality in “salvation.”—A new way of life, not a new faith.... — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 33

Do keep in mind Nietzsche feels pretty much only Christ was a Christian... (AC 39)

We got this bit here of you accusing Nietzsche of being a slave moralist:

That is to say ...

I’m telling you, Nietzsche was high priest of a new religion with Zarathustra as prophet — Fire Ologist

A priest is the highest form of slave moralist... Nietzsche wasn't a slave moralist, but rather a higher human who affirmed the demands of his own life.

The dance is real. We need both Apollo and Dionysius to discern the human (therein lies the metaphysics, but forget I said anything if “metaphysics” is such a dirty word in Nietzsche’s mouth - I’m sure Nietzsche would curse me for accusing him of ever saying something metaphysical, right?.) — Fire Ologist

In tragedy the Dionysian hero is represented in the Apollonian form.

It's actually of this world and a phenomenon that occured in reality thus not metaphysics... Socrates was the final death of Tragedy... (Parmenides>Euripides>Socrates) Plato comes after... so it's Plato who flips it on it's head... Not Nietzsche... you see it from the slave moralist perspective so you saw it from Plato's point of view...

See what I mean?

You keep saying Nietzsche flipped it over... but Nietzsche points to "them" flipping it over ... so we can logically say Nietzsche's flipping it right side up... by your analogy...

And I showed that's the case with the whole bit on Plato...

while in all productive men it is instinct that it is the creative-affirmative force, and consciousness acts critically and dissuasively, in Socrates it is the instinct that becomes the critic and consciousness that becomes the creator" — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy § 13

Seeing instinct as the creative life affirming force is one of those forces behind Nietzsche's mask that brought about Nietzsche. One you probably understand instinctally as a musician... but confuse through your concept of beauty created through consciousness...? (Socrates > Plato>...>You)

Even Euripides was, in a certain sense, only a mask: the deity that spoke through him was neither Dionysus nor Apollo, but an altogether new-born demon, called Socrates. This is the new antithesis: the Dionysian and the Socratic, and the art-work of Greek tragedy was wrecked on it. — Nietzsche, Birth of Tragedy 12

You don’t ask what I think, but, the quote from Deluze is a metaphysical claim. — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know what you think, I know what you said. Saying Nietzsche was a metaphysician when he wasn't doesn't matter what you think about that. It's like trying to explain why 2+2 = 5. I don't need to know the logic behind it.

I disagree that refuting what I am saying is helping you bring that across. — Fire Ologist

The point being you should revisit Nietzsche's works, not disclose what I know. Especially when you're going to try and write a half shitpost on Nietzsche from a base dialectical perspective.

I know. You don’t understand what I am saying. I am the oxymoron - I know and love Nietzsche and Christ. You won’t allow that to be the case. — Fire Ologist

Actually if we go back, we can clearly see you're the one who denies Nietzsche's correct evaluation of Christ's equation with the Judaism in the rest of the Bible... You won't allow Nietzsche's interpretation to be the case. This is one way you start twisting Nietzsche. You should try self abnegation before handling his works.

How do you know my values? Maybe you don’t know what a Christian really is. In my view, a Christian is NOT 99.99 percent of those who call themselves Christians, including myself, so how do you know what my values or sense of beauty or good is? — Fire Ologist

I dont need to know your values to know that you don't understand Nietzsche's values... thats why you said he was impoverished and unable to understand beauty. Thus his understanding of beauty is so far beyond you comprehension it's alien to you.

Do you have any masks?? Don’t you see Mietsche through your own masks? Or are you the reincarnation of Buddha?

If you say you have no masks, you’re blind or a liar; if yes, then what is the point of focusing only on mine? — Fire Ologist

Logic dictates me bringing it up that I do... the point was literally in the words... you choose not to see Nietzsche from his modality, rather through your own caricature.

More or less, I told you to revisit Nietzsche and do so under the forces that brought him about... not your own, from the slave moralist's point of view.

As Deleuze explains adequately enough, you find contradiction and metaphysics within Nietzsche's works because it reflects your mask.

"Interpretation reveals its complexity when we realise that a new force can only appear and appropriate an object by first of all putting on the mask of the forces which are already in possession of the object." Deleuze

This is our difference. There's nothing of self importance in being able to critique a person's inability with understanding Nietzsche. You have a personal reading of Nietzsche, I'm not doubting that. I'm not attacking your personal relationship with Nietzsche's works. Im mostly critiquing as you said and obviously from your own mask...

But he was a horrible judge of others (Christ, Kant, Hegel, Socrates, Napoleon, etc). He would not deny his own biases, and he let them color all he made of Christianity, of morality, of science and of most other philosophers. So he was a bad judge of himself as well...

He was a metaphysician (of the Apollonian and the Dionysian), a truth seeker, a new type of moralist...

He was impoverished at identifying beauty and good... — Fire Ologist

Before that you made him sound like a oxymoron of hypocrisy and is just such a base way of examining Nietzsche through the antithesis of values... which he rolls his eyes at.

Nietzsche wasn't a metaphysician at all, Nietzsche values in Beauty and Good simply don't match your own hence you don't understand Nietzsche's values of Beauty and Good...

You see him through your own mask...

You have yet to go beyond your reification of Nietzsche...

But I don’t see the point of battling wits in internet Nietzsche camp. — Fire Ologist

The point is you say things that are more so said about common caricatures of Nietzsche's work.

And Nietzsche was wrong about a lot of what he thought being Christ-like means for the Christian. It’s freedom and God’s power, like God’s will through us, like a Will to God’s power and glory…but again, enough with the fables. — Fire Ologist

There you go again, refusing to interpret his complexity not by the forces behind Nietzsche's mask (as Nietzsche did with Zarathustra), but rather interpretation through your own... it's for reasons like this that make it all too easy to spot "not Nietzsche," but rather a caricature there of. To get at the essence of Nietzsche

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...the votary of Dionysus is therefore understood only by those like himself! — Nietzsche

If you want me to get into the nitty gritty of it all, I'm more than happy. Most here seem to find it pedantic though.

You can win there too if it has to be a competition. — Fire Ologist

Shoot, what did I win? A participation trophy? Lol

Blessed are the poor in spirit. Blessed are the meek. Turn the other cheek. Not my will, but thine be done — Fire Ologist

And his will in the Gospel speaks to a very specific equation...Jesus loved even those who would kill him. He did not divorce himself from even his greatest negations...

“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven."

Notice that even those who set aside these laws are still going to be in the Kingdom of Heaven? Because no distance comes between him and others...even those who set aside his laws...because he has come to save them from the laws. In the kingdom of heaven the values are reversed from the real world...where the greatest presentment of man comes through a crime of some kind...

Admittedly so. I approach Nietzsche as I approach all philosophy, with gaiety. Screw any deeper understanding of a mankind who has no progress to speak of since Cane and Abel first debated out their solutions. — Fire Ologist

Well, that's an interesting outlook

Thanks for offering to take me to school but my blissful love of the Nietzsche I know, as just another dude who contradicted himself, and had weaknesses, as much as all the rest, serves me fine. — Fire Ologist

Nietzsche made observations about things, suggesting contradiction and hypocrisy suggest him prescribing a way for people to follow which he himself is adamantly against to the point he tells you to fuck right off to find your own way that's right for you because that is Nietzsche's way...

Nietzsche openly discusses his weaknesses none of which are contradictory to his philosophy or psychology he details a life of living between two opposites and attempting to overcome the weaknesses within him... Overcoming isn't about denial of weakness... its about accepting its there in the first place, and accepting it as a part of you that you cannot simply call "Evil" and exercise it from human existence...

God doesn’t accept all men — Fire Ologist

God doesn't give a fuck about accepting all men... Jesus does. And according to the God stories... Jesus was sent to Earth by God to save humanity from the laws of God presented by Moses.

Christianity (which is synonymous with Christ in the true Christian, the saint) doesn’t call us to be nihilistic rejectors of this life (Nietzsche was wrong), but to participate in the fulfillment of its promises. — Fire Ologist

No it's not... huge reason why the account of the life of Jesus Christ in the Gospels is vastly different than the rest of the Judaism the disciples populated the Bible with... the very Judaism that Jesus rejected.

—I shall go back a bit, and tell you the authentic history of Christianity.—The very word “Christianity” is a misunderstanding—at bottom there was only one Christian, and he died on the cross. The “Gospels” died on the cross. What, from that moment onward, was called the “Gospels” was the very reverse of  what he had lived: “bad tidings,” a Dysangelium.[14] It is an error amounting to nonsensicality to see in “faith,” and particularly in faith in salvation through Christ, the distinguishing mark of the Christian: only the Christian way of life, the life lived by him who died on the cross, is Christian.... To this day such a life is still possible, and for certain men even necessary: genuine, primitive Christianity will remain possible in all ages.... Not faith, but acts; above all, an avoidance of acts, a different state of being.... States of consciousness, faith of a sort, the acceptance, for example, of anything as true — Nietzsche, The Antichrist § 39

Is it okay if I twist things about you and declare it to the world? Nietzsche would simply turn his head and wait for an opportune time to dunk on you, if he ever cared to do so in the first place. That is to say, you'd have to be worth his time and even worth befriending for him to even discuss you in the first place.

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