Ah, see, I knew there was an Is Ought Fallacy in there somewhere... "Existence is, thus it ought to be good."

, so are you by saying "good should be" is more along the lines of maximizing good but minimizing bad? If so then I can see what you're saying.

Cause otherwise if you assume you can axe the bad. It's just never going to happen ever. Bad will always exist, and can never not exist, regardless if ot should not, it can only be minimized.

then you're not really making an argument just making a hypothetical that couldn't happen. If Bad shouldn't exist then niether should Good since they're linked. You can't deny half the equation and expect to exist.

You can't even detail a system of good without the bad. You use circular reasoning in your logic to assume Good and Bad can exist without the other.

Pretty simple to see
1. If only good should exist, and bad should not exist
2. Then in that scenario bad does not, and good has no contrast and begets no meaning
3. If good has no meaning then the statement "good should be" is meaningless and holds no value.

More or less, you've committed the is-ought fallacy...

You're deriving "ought" without properly addressing "is".

And you said be = exist.
Thus
good should exist
bad should not exist (to you)

You have a fundamental problem because bad exists.

We observe human nature and detail "good" and "bad" by detailing what exists already

Thus bad exists and thus "bad be," regardless of if it shouldn't or not.

It simply cannot not exist without altering human nature fundamentally.

How can bad not exist when what is good and what is bad is determined by what is within us? You can't reconcile the devaluation of Good by removing the valuation of what's Bad.

You've not presented a counter argument.

Make a p1 and p2 and C that necessarily follows.

My man, I proved it logically in my P1 P2 C statement.

Good and Bad should be. Since you can't have good without bad.

You're trying to sneak around that last bit of the conclusion.

You're like, I agree, but I think afterwards we kill that bad!

Not how logic works. That's ultimately a different conclusion and requires different premises.

It's idealic, you're pretending good should be and thus bad wont be. You're trying to kill off half of human nature by saying it shouldn't exist.

It will exist regardless because bad is intrinsic to human nature as we base it off of human actions (at least in part [nature is bad too]). It doesn't reflect reality.

Its like saying everyone should be white, or everyone should be muscular and fit.

What do you think is wrong with that definition, and do you have an alternative? — Philosophim

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.

For some, what is "good" is literally that which is deemed "bad."

No, because this means what shouldn't exist is "bad."

It "shouldn't" but it does.

And without that which shouldn't be there would be no Good. Due to a lack of evaluation.

The highest presentment of humanity seems always to be through crime.

Oedipus, Prometheus, Adam and Eve.

Well scams inherently feel bad but can be aimed at doing great things. A person who donates for x but that donation goes to y. There are historical examples, quite a few.

Oftentimes the overbearing weight of what is good creates bad. A certain tyranny and oppressiveness is formed out of its axioms in a sort of choking sense.

That produces inability in action, often through shame and guilt. Because humans are irrational even at the best of times.

Even if it does workout in logic, logic has its shortcomings in not exactly reflecting reality. Like communism could work... but humans invariably form into Heirarchies where a government is merely an organizing surface.

And since there will certainly be examples of "bad" humans in this "Good should exist" scenerio, and bad should not exist ... well, what then?

I agree with points 1 and 2. But wouldn't the conclusion be that good is what should be and bad is what shouldn't be? That is what I conclude here. — Philosophim

They exist together or not at all is my point.
And what's good for me may be bad for you.
Can you have a "Good" without defining "Bad" if valuation is done between opposites. Perhaps you mean, what is good should be what we manifest into reality? Cause Good and Bad are concepts behind actions. We can, with the right amount of will power prevent bad impulses. But what's stronger? Sometimes a person's will to survive. Because for them the Good is not starving but taking from someone.

Definitions:
Good - what should be
Existence - what is
Morality - a method of evaluating what is good — Philosophim

The whole error of the OP is in your definition of "good."

It's merely an occasion sentence.
Further morality also measures what is bad too.
And what is bad is often overcome in specific circumstances and labeled as Good.

Fact is you have yet to make an argument where the premises are true such that the conclusion necessarily follows.

Good and Bad are what should be,
The Good and The Bad are intrinsically linked, you cannot have a good example without a bad example.

P1:All concepts of evaluation require contrast between opposites.

P2:Good and bad are opposites that define each other

C:Therefore, all evaluations should be based on good and bad and can not exist as "good" alone. Thus, good is not what should be, but rather good and bad.

Again you're dishonest, I allowed for your own room for interpretation to your own perspective. But when you declare that as Nietzsche's own then you're wrong. Especially when Nietzsche's perspective clearly states otherwise. That's when you say "Nietzsche was wrong, I prefer Will to Life and Will to Pleasure" not "Nietzsche meant the complete opposite of what he said!"

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning. — DifferentiatingEgg

It wasn't until after you insulted me, by saying because I detail Nietzsche's perspective for Nietzsche's perspective that I'm not making sensible interpretations, did I decide to bury the axe in you; because it's clear the one who lacked any sensibility was you.

Where does he say that? We need the relevant quotes and the source of the original texts for the quotes at this point. — Corvus

You are as stupid as you are dishonest. You asked for the quotes idiot.

Pretty simple it logically follows that if you dont want sourced quotes dont say they are NEEDED and ask for them.

You've been practicing Fallacyophy, not Philosophy... or as a hedonist, maybe phallusophy... but certainly not Philosophy.

Can you though? You forgot that you even asked for direct quotes cause you got inflamed. Then you tried to insult me for not having a sensible interpretation, when from the get go, I knew your interpretation was complete dogshit and even said hey, if that's how you wanna look at it go for it. If I wanted to make you look like a complete dumbass then I'd have done so.

But like I said, you got butthurt then wanted to insult me because you couldn't handle being wrong... your desire to be right keeps you coming back. Moving the goal post, as to why you are "right" when really you're just little more than cripple expressing resentment. It's your whole reason for trying to even study philosophy. A severe insecurity over your low effort and low ability.

All you have shown us is you're terrible with Nietzsche, and a weak will that continually comes back to commit to fallacy after fallacy just to feel some sense of "right."

What it was, was that post of yours where you call for a sensible interpretation was your "triumphant moment" and I took that away from you, you've been desperately grasping for it since... fallacy after fallacy, because you give into compulsion and poor logic.

This is not my idea of enjoyable, this is how I handle your type though.

I'm burying the axe so you remember it's painful to insult me through fallacy, disrespect, and dishonesty. Isn't pain the history of morality? Isn't that why a good bit of the world has turned away from cruel and unusual punishment? Because people would inflict unspeakable acts upon the human?

Im on a forum about philosophy, that doesn't make me a philosopher. But I'm sure as hell more of one than you are language or not. I don't mind meeting passive aggression and disrespect with upfront language. It doesn't mean much of anything other than let people know up front about my displeasure.

If that bothers you then learn respect before being a backtracking disrespectful resentful worm.

Your way of discussion sounds like the uneducated gangs in the street fights, or drunkards in the pubs devoid of reasoning and logic. — Corvus

Precisely why I use it. Gives you a sense of false bravado thinking I'm just some "thug."

That you tried to slip an insult under the radar just shows a kind of low integrity. But overtness is a no no?

:lol:

You're not very good with logic are you?

You got butthurt the moment I corrected your notion of Nietzsche's philosophy aiming at long life and hedonism.

I was quite polite, and you demanded an interrogation ASKING FOR QUOTES FROM APHORISMS

Let's go back to show how much of a worm you truly are...

Where does he say that? We need the relevant quotes and the source of the original texts for the quotes at this point. — Corvus

Now fuck off. Oh... whoops...
Kindly have a long boring life of pleasure.

I gave you my interpretation straight away. That feeling of excitement, of feeling alive from living dangerously.

And I gave you the aphorisms to show how shit your interpretation was after you tried to insult me. Fact is, your interpretation is that through the lens of the type Nietzsche loathed. Mine is definitely what Nietzsche is referring to.

Your vain attempt to keep combating is reminisce of a dumptruck stuck in mud.

The fuck do you think philosophy is? Wildy misrepresenting the ideas of others? Daft. Hilarious you even consider yourself a philosopher, truthfully.

"Luuk maah, I made me a thut!"

And you came at me with "sensible interpretation" so check yourself.

The point is, you blustery gust, is that your philosophy doesn't mean shit when we are discussing Nietzsche's philosophy. :wink:

You're silly, an interpretation doesn't mean taking something to not even a legitimate bastardization, and then declaring what people think of Nietzsche's will to power is a misnomer because it doesn't fit your flavor.

There are good interpretations and bad. Your interpretation is terrible.

That would be like me saying the word German word Kaufhaus in English is a building of free charity. Get real.

I really didn't want to do this, but the reply feels relatively indignant especially with that dogshit you wrote at the end there attempting to insult my intelligence with the whole dogshit on sensible interpretation. So, we're going to axe that notion right here. And we will discuss why you're full of nonsense.

Your biggest mistake is trying to assume that your perspective is Nietzsche's own. You're taking your concepts and putting them into Nietzsche's as if what you think is what Nietzsche own thoughts were, as if Nietzsche said it... No, thats your wrong understanding of him. Instead of attempting to understand Nietzsche's perspective you let your own process of reification ruin it by distortion of his thoughts into something you can understand. Massive No No.

For Nietzsche the wiil is something that drives, it is a multiplicity of several drives. A drive isn't something we control, it's not exactly a desire, though a desire can form from not fulfilling a drive. So first and foremost, we can see the will to something is already a sensation.

So let us for once be more cautious, let us be "unphilosophical": let us say that in all willing there is firstly a plurality of sensations, namely, the sensation of the condition "AWAY FROM WHICH we go," the sensation of the condition "TOWARDS WHICH we go," — Nietzsche, from BGE § 19

Secondly we can see that in his first few aphorisms of BGE Nietzsche talks about the will to truth, or the will to delusion, thus there are a multiplicity of drives/wills and thus we can represent this Will to X. In your little dream world you equate Life and Pleasure to Power. And for Nietzsche this is an absolutely grotesque equation that he himself would despise as a hedonistic lastman nihilist. For the Last man has the WILL TO LIFE as his greatest drive. And the Hedonist has the Will to Pleasure as his greatest drive.

Make no mistake, Nietzsche's greatest examples of highest men are the beasts of prey who live life dangerously...

Man is a rope stretched between the animal and the Superman—a rope over an abyss.

A dangerous crossing, a dangerous wayfaring, a dangerous looking-back, a dangerous trembling and halting...

...The man looked up distrustfully. “If thou speakest the truth,” said he, “I lose nothing when I lose my life. I am not much more than an animal which hath been taught to dance by blows and scanty fare.”

“Not at all,” said Zarathustra, “thou hast made danger thy calling; therein there is nothing contemptible. Now thou perishest by thy calling: therefore will I bury thee with mine own hands.” ...

...For to-day have the petty people become master: they all preach submission and humility and policy and diligence and consideration and the long et cetera of petty virtues.

Whatever is of the effeminate type, whatever originateth from the servile type, and especially the populace-mishmash:—THAT wisheth now to be master of all human destiny—O disgust! Disgust! Disgust!

THAT asketh and asketh and never tireth: “How is man to maintain himself best, longest, most pleasantly?” Thereby—are they the masters of to-day.

These masters of to-day—surpass them, O my brethren—these petty people: THEY are the Superman’s greatest danger!

Surpass, ye higher men, the petty virtues, the petty policy, the sand-grain considerateness, the ant-hill trumpery, the pitiable comfortableness, the “happiness of the greatest number”—! — Thus Spoke Zarathustra

Do not bother attempting to ever correct me on Nietzsche again, especially since you think he was calling for Nihilistic Hedonism... No, that is your own will. Your misnomer of Nietzsche's will to power is his greatest disgust...

Another failure in consideration is that the beast of prey to be incited to the heights must overcome themselves in their opposite... So they temper their destructive capacity with the opposite extremes.

People have never asked me as they should have done, what the name of Zarathustra precisely meant in my mouth, in the mouth of the first immoralist;...
...Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth. — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Fatality, 3

From there we move to BGE 200:

The man of an age of dissolution...
...the finest examples of which are Alcibiades and Caesar (with whom I should like to associate the FIRST of Europeans according to my taste, the Hohenstaufen, Frederick the Second), and among artists, perhaps Leonardo da Vinci. They appear precisely in the same periods when that weaker type, with its longing for repose, comes to the front; the two types are complementary to each other, and spring from the same causes. — Nietzsche BGE § 200

... so let's back up a bit...
The will is a sensation...
So what is the SENSATION OF POWER?
THAT ELECTRIC FEELING OF EXCITEMENT...
The lightning that runs down your spine.

All of this aligns with Nietzsche's thought...
yours is indeed the massive lack of sensible interpretation.

Here's what Quine says about it in Pursuit of Truth Chapter 3 Meaning § 20:

"The difference between taking a sentence holophrastically as a seamless whole or by taking a sentence analytically term by term proved crucial in value matters. It is crucial also to translation. Taken analytically, the indeterminancy of translation is trivial and indisputable. It was factually illustrated in ontological relativity by the Japanese classifiers and more abstractly above by the proxy functions. It is the unsurprising reflection that the divergent interpretation of the words in the sentence can so offset one another to sustain an identical translation of the sentence as a whole it is what I call inscrutability of reference."

Basically meaning isn't tied to words, but the interplay of terms within the whole structure of the sentence. Hence there can be multiple valid translations all with the same final meaning (because the way the words reference each on in the structure of their translations equate to the same)...hence reference is inscrutable... because it's always changing.

I literally just used what you taught me in conversation... someone throwing a red herring in a debate because I mispoke on an accusation but didn't change the outcome of the conclusion either way...

Guy tried to say
"It's hard to have basic consistency with you, I'll be Kantian by the time I'm done."

I responded with "You're throwing out red herrings because you're afraid of answering the question cause you'll invariably have to use what I said originally and you tried to refute... and I had a discussion today that allows me to smh at your perception of Kant..."
And proceeded to dunk on him some more with what I mentioned on Berkeley and what you mentioned about Kant. That was a lot of fun ty!

He was, but I'm not very read on him, so it was an interesting insight. I'll be getting around to writing a large piece about Nietzsche here soon that will actually break down some of his trains of thought on certain topics in a pretty straight forward fashion.

I appreciate that answer as it gives quite an informative reference towards Nietzsche's "Will to Power," and what he had been considering.

So, while it is an empirical fact that universe pre-existed conscious beings, the way in which it exists outside of, or before, conscious beings is unknowable as a matter of principle, as the knowledge we have of it, which is considerable, is still held within that intellectual framework. — Wayfarer

What does this imply about the body then?

No, it comes from the Samuel Johnson anecdote, which is described in the OP. — Wayfarer

I was referring to that event in the OP. Apologies for the poor clarity there.

You're doing it, right here, right now...
There is no right or wrong approach to it truthfully.

The inherent limitations of logic allow for it to collapse inwards upon itself forming a self-referential (fractal, more or less) cave (Godel). I'm of the mind Berkeley was a bit of a fan of Heraclitus and his doctrine of opposites.

Logic can't produce evidence but it can rationalize it. Immaterialism is a practice of the mind's ability to rationalize. For Berkeley, this was more of a way to do mental push ups to strengthen his ability with empirisism. Berkeley doesn't consider the external world any less real. The people who take it that far and get frustrated by it fall in to his little mental game/exercise and I could rightly see him chuckling to himself in a fit similar to a mischievous child pranking the minds who perceived his works on immaterialism too literally. Berkeley's immaterialism was an exercise in overcoming of oneself in their opposite in my opinion. Much like Nietzsche and Zarathustra...

Have I made myself clear? ... The overcoming of morality by itself, through truthfulness, the moralist's overcoming of himself in his opposite—in me—that is what the name Zarathustra means in my mouth — Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, Why I am a Fatality § 3

.

Isn't this where the colloquial "go kick rocks" comes from? We say it to those who don't "get the picture" in otherwords. Absolutely hilarious to me picturing Berkeley in his jamjams muttering and cackling to himself "go kick rocks..." as he's writing down some ideas he knows will put a twist in someone's britches...

Though, interesting to me is that it seems Berkeley focused heavily on the opposite ends of the Apollonian spectrum. Where as Nietzsche's balance was between the Apollonian and Dionysian.

The point of the original post is we can be 100% certain of the sensations we experience but we can not be 100% certain of the cause of the sensations. — Art48

Have you tried analytic philosophy? A good deal of it is about overcoming this very notion which means very very little in the grand scheme of things. Fact is you cannot be 100% certain wtf is in your mind is your own either...

To assume so, just means you're a solipsist as per Wittgenstein's account of solipsism.

Cause thoughts come when they want and not when you wish they do. Which means something can be feeding you everything including fake experiences.

More or less, the mind isn't the end all be all. "I can't be certain this tree is a tree." Okay well, when you figure it out let me know mate.

The whole matrix solipsism thing is just like... "were really still discussing this ?" / simulation theory

Such a boring scifi gimmick imo.

And Newtonian mechanics are true, btw. His work isn't something you just get to toss aside cause you're a solipsist. You're quite bound by the mechanics he points out. Try going against them, you may not find yourself living very long...

But isn't "life and pleasure" far better than FELLING of power? Without life, there is no power, no sensation. Just nothing and blankness forever. That can't have anything to do with feeling of power or Good. What about pleasure? Isn't it what life is all about? — Corvus

Hey, just cause Nietzsche details his values doesn't mean you can't hold life and pleasure at a higher value. Nietzsche equates life to the will to power. So for him, it's like saying "Life" but "Life" in those moments when you get that sensation of lightning.

Nietzsche's a tricky little bietzche like that.

Renaming the apple.

We can start with Thus Spoke Zarathustra Prologue Section 3 that expresses the sensation caused by the "Lightning" through reification we can empathize with the notion of a "lick of electricity" if you've ever been electrocuted even from the slightest bit such as licking a D Battery:

Wo ist doch der Blitz, der euch mit seiner Zunge lecke?

From there we can move to something like The Antichrist Aphorism 2 what is good? Everything that is the FEELING of power.

2.

Was ist gut? – Alles, was das Gefühl der Macht, den Willen zur Macht, die Macht selbst im Menschen erhöht.

Then we can simply ask ourselves what is will? A desire, a potential, a stimulus within us, a sensation of something prejudged within us something we can predicate ourselves in.

Ah, very well, please permit me the time to produce a detailed (but straight forward) account for you, if you would. This way I give a more complete picture rather than leave you with questions since you're eager to challenge me for them.

I happen to find that comment hilarious cause its precisely the type of reification Quine is talking in the Inscrutibility of Reference. Through incipient reification you created a wedge into understanding Quine from your own bias.

The electrical sensation of that often comes in pleasure and life affirming activities. That sensation that runs down your spine when you feel empowered. That doesn't mean idolize a will to live a "long life of pleasure...", the last man seeks a long life of meaningless pleasures. This is why Nietzsche doesn't object to tyranny and especially self tyranny, to build a discipline, is but an art form to Nietzsche.

No, actually the will to power is a sensation above all, and certainly suggesting it is "Will to Life and pleasure," is the misnomer...



More than just one man wrote basically more or less that same notion, the question is why are you looking for it?

My girlfriend's sock was pulled off her foot in such a way that it looks like the head of a dead pig. I'd reckon there's more philosophy there, than in this entire post...

Perhaps the question ought to be who really has the time to "love" so many people if one is successful in loving one's own self?