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...

Let's do one even better

P1) Words and Ghost exist and they are subject to change

P2) Ghost are due to existence of words and the change in the state of the words is due to existence of Ghost

C1) Therefore, words and ghost cannot be the cause of their own change because of overdetermination (from P1 and P2)

To show you can substitute different words for physical and end up with with the same conclusion... thus not an argument...

You can replace mental with Sun... and the same conclusion works out...

my god were talking about the FORM of your premises

Not the words used ...

The shit form allows for any words to be used.

Cause they don't actually make an argument.

Whennyou have proper form you cannot substitute words.

P1) Physical and experience exist and they are subject to change
P2) Experience is due to the existence of physical and the change in the state of physical is due to the existence of an experience — MoK

P1) Mental and experience exist and they are subject to change

P2)Experience is due to existence of mental and the change in the state of the mental is due to existence of experience

C1) Therefore, mental and experience cannot be the cause of their own change because of overdetermination (from P1 and P2)[/quote]

Just saying stuff doesn't make it an argument... see? Your argued concludes multiple ways depending what word you place in it. All youve done is create sentences that connect and lead words to other words you want to emphasize...

P1, P2, P3, P4

You make observations and theories in every premise. Every theory taken per premise is seen as fundamentally solid logic... when you could just as easily replace the word physical with mental and it would read exactly the same... and make the same assumptions in each line...

Your premises are theory not yet established.

They have to be just observations not observations and theories in 1 statement...

Conclusions settle theories... you can't be like theory theory proof...

That's not an argument for the mind... an argument states something necessarily follows logically... you're just saying something...

The majority of your premises are Observation and Theory sentences... massive nono. Read Quine.

Fair enough but faith isn't meant to be argued... but rather believed because of a complete lack of evidence... and as you have 0 evidence for minds existing outside the body... we will have to unmask this for what it is and leave it at that: faith, not an actual argument.

You couldn't even detail what slave morality is.

He literally defines you with its definition:

The revolt of the slaves in morals begins in the very principle of resentment becoming creative and giving birth to values—a resentment experienced by creatures who, deprived as they are of the proper outlet of action, are forced to find their compensation in an imaginary revenge. — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 10

On the other hand...

Every aristocratic morality springs from a triumphant affirmation of its own demands, — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 10

Where as we can see the slave compulsively attempts to deny the fundamental condition of life: perspective...

the slave morality says "no" from the very outset to what is "outside itself," "different from itself," and "not itself": and this "no" is its creative deed. — Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals § 10

You can't even detail a single thing and obviously didn't know Nietzsche wasn't against compassion, hence:

Not to mention his care depended on people not following it — Darkneos

So his care depends on resentful people? :roll:

Nietzsche's Amor Fati is based off of the Glad Tidings of Jesus Christ...

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

Tell me about his philosophy. Watching youtube videos about the Ubermensch certainly wont fill you in...

What is a single basic point of Nietzsche's philosophy?

You are aware that Nietzsche details the only time the Superman becomes a reality is when he points to Zarathustra suffering with others from themselves...?

No cause you're obviously too heavy handed to know the difference between pity and compassion.

You're a low disciplined nihilist with a youtube reference of Nietzsche's philosophy. Lame, and thus... not even worth "arguing" with.

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

You've not made a single argument other than you know very little about Nietzsche. And that you try to be edgy "the case against suicide" here's the case against it for you: you're still here cause you're what Nietzsche refers to as a last man...

I am defending a new version of substance dualism — MoK

Basically, more or less you think the mind exists free of the body.

read the rest then?

I mean, with all due respect, *hammer emoji* *nail emoji* *coffin emjoi* one could not imagine a grander thesis... how am I to argue such infinite wisdom? You win. :party: :clap:

Oh, tells us of that philosophy if you're so great at knowing Nietzsche's philosophy better than he himself...
What precisely didn't he live out?

I'm absolutely certain you've a lack luster knowledge of Nietzsche's philosophy to suggest that he himself would know it less than you.

Fine if you chose not too, but really all you've declared here is that you're too lazy to attempt to tackle Nietzsche. That your transfiguring mirror is sour.

"Everything is shit beneath me."

Certainly is with that reifying entry wedge into everything.

the mind is an emergent property within our flesh. That doesn't mean it's seperate. It grows out of... there's unconscious and consciousness. We can see there are gradations from the body of purely structural for Form...then it becomes more superfluous...through the CNS and unconscious, and then, thoughts arise from the unconscious body into the consciousness... consciousness is perhaps the internalization of our senses...

The mind exists within the flesh.

The man spent his life knowing he would die early due to his life long medical conditions that were similar to his fathers...and he even overcame serious physical injuries, while being crippled by some life long hereditary conditions most likely falling under the umbrella of CADASIL.

He overcame and became a world influencing philosopher who is still highly relevant to this day...

You just sound like the Narrator of the Aleph... a nihilist.

How can seeing something truamatize a person?

The wisdom of Silenus is real but find yourself a transfiguring mirror...

The same impulse which calls art into being, as the complement and consummation of existence, seducing to a continuation of life, caused also the Olympian world to arise, in which the Hellenic "will" held up before itself a transfiguring mirror. Thus do the gods justify the life of man, in that they themselves live it—the only satisfactory Theodicy! Existence under the bright sunshine of such gods is regarded as that which is desirable in itself, and the real grief of the Homeric men has reference to parting from it, especially to early parting: so that we might now say of them, with a reversion of the Silenian wisdom, that "to die early is worst of all for them, the second worst is—some day to die at all." — Nietzsche

So with that we come to what Nietzsche details in Beyond Good and Evil

The essential thing "in heaven and in earth" is, apparently (to repeat it once more), that there should be long OBEDIENCE in the same direction, there thereby results, and has always resulted in the long run, something which has made life worth living; for instance, virtue, art, music, dancing, reason, spirituality—anything whatever that is transfiguring, refined, foolish, or divine. — Nietzsche

So find something that transfigures your outlook...
It's subjective to you. But Nietzsche says most people don't even know their way into or out of that labyrinth in his day, I'd assume that holds true today also.

experience doesn't need to be a substance to alter us... lol wild assumption but okay...

"Experience alters us, as all nutrition, which does not aim merely to conserve, as all physiologist know..."

Experience alters neuroplasticity and neuroplasticity reinforces itself.

Emergence is when something emerges between dimensions...Emergence comes from thebidea of our extremely fractal biology... and we can show that the patterns of emergence of a fractal are between dimensions.

If you take a line and double it you have 2 copies ... 2¹ ... take a square and double the sides of it you end up with 4 copies ... 2² ... take a cube and double the sides of it and you end up with 8 copies or ... 2³ ...

The line is 1 dimension 2¹
The square is 2 dimensions 2²
The cube is 3 dimensions 2³

We see that when we double the sides of something we end up with number raised to some power depending on the dimensions of the object...

So we end up with 2^d = number of sides after the doubling process

where d is the dimension of the object

Take the Sierpenski's Gasket, a fractal. Every time you double the sides you get 3 copies... so we end up with an equation of:

2^d = 3

To solve for d utilize the property of logarithms ... ln of 3 divided by the ln of 2 = d
d = 1.5 something something...

Thus fractal emergence is something that occurs between dimensions... a 3d body with fractal biology with have emergent properties that exist nested between 2d and 3d... so it's a phenomenon that occurs nested within our fractal biology.

Emergence doesn't end up in Epiphenominalism

The problem here is you're unaware of reification. Since you don't know what Emergence is, you equate it to monism...

Fortunately for me there's not a big empty internal cavernous extra dimension space within the human body where the mind is. Thoughts don't exist in a vacuum. There's a physical object utilizing the laws of physics to create everything that occurs in your mind. Every thought you have is physically tradeable by an EKG... thought requires physics and biology to work because it's substantial. Doesn't mean thought is a lego block in my mind.

Thought isn't a thing that occurs freely.

I certainly did, you're asserting that the mind has no affect on the physical that's simply not true, from my position, as the mind incites physical production within the body.

Mind and Body are parallel heterogeneous productions born of the same cause: the CNS. That doesn't equate to monism.

Patterns of neural activity occur when the brain processes input/information, whatever we wanna call it, from the mind and or the external world. Patterns of neural activity are specific arrangements and sequences of electrochemical signals that occur within the brain's network.

Experience is encoded and processed by the brain through a complex biological network.

A person can physically sense a phantom limb... like say you pretend to shock the phantom arm of where a person believes their phantom limb is currently at (a limb that exists due to the dynamic model created by processing experience) it will register on an EKG as if they were shocked. In otherwords it is completely immaterial and causes a physiological stimulus.

But you cannot deny its existence and the fact that it affects the physical such as the brain. My question is how experience can affect the brain? — MoK

Not trying to deny it's existence. Experience affects the brain through things like neuroplasticity. Which is pretty much a self referential and self affirming as experience even reinforces it's own self through the genesis of neuroplasticity, which makes it more and more likely something will be utilized.

That is very ambiguous to me. To me, that is a definition of knowledge. Do you mind elaborating? — MoK

Something isn't known until it's in the muscle memory...

For example, you don't know 5x5=25 if you have to solve 5x5 every time...

Knowing 5x5 = 25 automatically, without conscious thought, is the result of muscle memory.

I don't understand what you mean by that and how that could be relevant to the discussion. — MoK

What it is saying is that what we experience in the external world affects even our internal world. But also that what we experience in our internal world affects our external world also. As in, it's a two-way street. Experience isn't just a "physical" phenomenon...