What you mean or the history? Please elaborate either way.

Art for art’s sake, if that’s your meaning, predates FN.

He said an aesthetics of production is needed because people only talk about the aesthetics of reception. — Jackson

What does that mean?

Just when I think you can’t be any more despicable you outdo yourself, this time characterizing a large group of people, literally millions across the globe, as violent murderers.

I suppose if you weren’t so ignorable you’d be banned from this site.

In Arab culture, for example, it means more “to make a statement” – a person states with his willpower that such and such axiom is true and he will live his life in accordance with it. From a scientific point of view it is nonsense, yet from evolutionary one seems rather beneficial. — stoicHoneyBadger

Why exactly is it beneficial? You say that it “seems” beneficial. Perhaps it is not.

Figurative with the belief that it ought to be literal?

What do you think I’m saying? — NOS4A2

I think the word is homogenization, or maybe more accurately, colonialization.

The culture lines should be erased — NOS4A2

Are you saying what I think you’re saying?! :grimace:

There is no end in development. It's a constant procedure. — dimosthenis9

Rather it’s the futile eternal recurrence of a hamster wheel, right? No progress is possible.

Mine [interpretation] is that Will to Power refers to ourselves. To power over our drives. To become the absolute Creators of our New Self. A higher spiritual-intellectual self. — dimosthenis9

It seems to me that the point of a higher spiritual-intellectual self and “power over our drives” is, in a word, liberation. This would require that we defy will to power rather than bend to it. But Nietzsche doesn’t want to do that and promotes an inegalitarian ideology.

A legal order thought of as sovereign and universal, not as a means in the struggle between power complexes but as a means of preventing all struggle in general perhaps after the communistic cliché of Dühring, that every will must consider every other will its equal—would be a principle hostile to life, an agent of the dissolution and destruction of man, an attempt to assassinate the future of man, a sign of weariness, a secret path to nothingness. — On the Genealogy of Morals, FN

An aside - is the idea of a will to power an example of foundational thinking which FN purports to blow up? — Tom Storm

Given the above, I think it is.

So yeah I do find it extremely crucial as for us to be developed more. — dimosthenis9

Developed in what way and to what end? There are all sorts of wills, such as:

• Will to truth (philosophy)
• Will to pleasure (utilitarian)
• Will to meaning (religion)
• Etc.

If will to power is the one will to rule them all (and in the darkness bind them), then just like in Lord of the Rings, will to power is the will that needs to be taken to the forge from whence it came, the fires of Mount Doom, and destroyed in order for us to be free. But, unlike Tolkien’s story, will to power is held to be the fountain of all life so to destroy it is to destroy life, and that would be rather counterproductive.

How can we make our own reasons for life and the universe? — Haglund

:chin: :chin: :chin:

Don’t have to be in full agreement or understanding to appreciate others in various ways. I’m sincerely curious about what you’ve been saying about drives and self-control. I guess it’s implied that you think self-control is desirable, that it’s good in some way, but it’s unclear what exactly the benefit is.

Will to Power and how strong it might be will decide how big that part could become. As to gain more and more control over ourselves. — dimosthenis9

Reminds me of Lord of the Rings. One ring to rule them all! What’s the point of this self-control? Why is it good or desirable?

I recall that Napoleon was considered a megalomaniac Überdouche. Wouldn’t the world be better off without such creatures?

conformistHoneyBadger senior and crew were apparently highly successful in color coding your compliant ass. Again I wonder, isn’t the Überdouche supposed to be a leader and not a mindless follower?

Once upon a time there was a man named Frank. In all appearance Frank was like any man, often wearing jeans and a raggedy old t-shirt he bought at Brittany Spears concert back in 1998, and in the manner of any dude would frequently scratch his balls, in public. But inside, behind the shallow facade performed for the public eye, Frank was gentle, sensitive, and downright emo to the core. People who got to know him, really know him, would say the that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this figuratively, of course.

One day while downing brewskies with his buds in the man cave, Frank felt a sharp pain in his chest. His unhealthy mannish lifestyle had finally caught up with him and he was having a heart attack. He was rushed to the hospital and, long story short, eventually got a heart transplant. The donor was young woman that was killed in a motorcycle accident the day before. After the transplant, people who got to know Frank, really know him, would say that he “has the heart of a woman.” They meant this literally, of course.

Fear not, dimo, that which does not cancel Nietzsche makes him grow stronger. :strong:

purposely obtuse — Harry Hindu

Forgive me, I got tired of endlessly repeating the same point, that a discussion between gender and sex is natural and quite common.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning.
— Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.
— praxis

Does "religion" make the believer's life "meaningful"? No more, it seems to me, than alcohol makes the alcoholic's life "meaningful".
— 180 Proof — Hanover

Hmmm, well now, seems I’ve gotten myself into quite the pickle. :brow:

Perhaps @180 Proof can rescue my dignity.

You didn't read the definition:

Figure of speech: a word or phrase used in a non-literal sense for rhetorical or vivid effect. — Harry Hindu

Oh I read it alright. Perhaps you will be kind enough to read my definition:

Meaning: what is meant by a fucking word, text, concept, or action! :blush:

And we can work that out if the other person isn't insistent that their view is the only right view, hence my questions to you that you avoided answering. — Harry Hindu

A noble patron of postmodern thought would stand with standpoint theory.

You're going to have to go back and re-contextualize this whole alcohol discussion. I have no personal opposition to drinking alcohol and your pointing out there is no decontextualized meaning of the word "toxin" is obvious. — Hanover

I was simply trying to determine your meaning about alcohol being toxic, which is still not obvious to me.

This began as a comparison of alcohol to faith as in either could offer meaning. — Hanover

I can’t tell if you’re kidding.

For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”
— praxis

This what is called a figure of speech. — Harry Hindu

Figures of speech convey meaning, and in this case, what it means to be a man.

Also, this is implying that what makes one a man or a woman is society or others' view of you, not yourself based on your personal feelings. — Harry Hindu

It implies that our own view and the view of others may not align or be in agreement.

The critical distinction between your analogizing faith to alcoholism is that alcohol is being used in the analogy as an intoxicant, making it definitionally a toxin and an evil. — Hanover

This is a strange statement for me because I don’t consider intoxication or toxins “evil.” I can only assume that’s a faith based moralization on your part. Chemo therapy, for example, is highly toxic but can be beneficial nevertheless and for that reason can be considered good. Plants and animals produce toxins as defense mechanisms or survival strategies. That’s not evil, in my opinion. We bombard the planet with poisons to kill pests. Is that evil? I might agree that it is in that case.

Perhaps you consider intoxication evil. If so, why? Is it because it influences our thinking, judgment, inhibitions, reflexes, etc.? If a religion doesn’t have any influential power, if no one drinks the Kool-Aid, then it’s probably about as meaningful as a Seinfeld rerun, amusing in the moment but quickly forgotten. If religion does have influential power, if we can be ‘under the influence’ of religion, then by your own definition it is evil.

You have offered an opinion as to what "seems to you," which is how you think things must seem to me, namely that I derive the same sort of benefit an alcoholic receives from his drink. I'm telling you that I don't. It's different. — Hanover

The similarity is in your dependence. You say yourself that it gives your life meaning. If that’s the case then you’re dependent on it. Without if you would feeling the sting of nihilism (analogous to delirium tremens).

My faith doesn't cause me to wreck my car, divorce my wife, lose my job, and destroy my liver. In fact, it causes me no internal strife. So how do you assess what my faith does to me from your vantage point at your keyboard? — Hanover

Not all drinkers drink the Kool-Aid to excess, but for the ones who do there are countless horror stories (think Jim Jones).

Why must I worship at your alter? — Hanover

This is a false equivalency, as though you’re saying that it’s impossible to feel pleasure (or whatever benefit alcohol offers) without drinking.

If not a man, then what? Some other sex? — NOS4A2

I assume it means a lack of maturity, or perhaps past maturity, or some other gender. Just looked it up and as of today there are 72 genders, so there's plenty to choose from. :grin:

gender doesn't exist except as sexual stereotypes in one's mind. Sex is what is real. — Harry Hindu

What is it that really defines a man or woman, the question seems to be. Sex alone doesn’t seem to cut it, particularly in less liberal perspectives. For instance, if a man were to act too feminine in a very macho culture they may not be considered a man and it wouldn’t be at all unusual for them to be told directly that they’re “not a man.”

And religions give reasons for the universe and life in it? If that what you’re saying, it’s just another way of saying that we make our own reasons for the universe and life in it. Honestly, I think the reasons that religions offer are rather childish, and worse than childish, they are largely meaningless.

Science describes, analyzes, observes, models, hypothesizes, theorizes, etc. Religion give the reasons. — Haglund

Can you rephrase this in a way that doesn’t force me to ask a series of questions in an attempt to discover what you’re talking about?

That phenomena/words fall short of accurately describing/pinpointing noumena/referents doesn't say anything about the nature of noumena/referents. To illustrate, yep, the word "religion" is no good for philosophizing but that, in no way, means there's no such thing as an essence to religion.

“Don't mistake the finger pointing at the moon for the moon.” — Agent Smith

Right, the moon is not the pointing fingers (religions). It is not religion and doesn’t need religion to be seen.

A similar Buddhist saying is something like, “don’t eat the menu.” This wouldn’t be a saying if it weren’t commonplace for folks to eat menus rather than the food it advertises, metaphorically speaking. This is because actual ‘food’ is not essential in religion. Only the menu’s and pointing fingers are essential because that is what binds people together.

Feminine does not mean female… — I like sushi

It means possessing characteristics associated with women, like the qualities mentioned earlier, but are not exclusive to women, and that is the point, that we can make a natural distinction between gender/sex.

God is dead. God remains dead. And we have killed him. How shall we comfort ourselves, the murderers of all murderers? What was holiest and mightiest of all that the world has yet owned has bled to death under our knives: who will wipe this blood off us? What water is there for us to clean ourselves? What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent? Is not the greatness of this deed too great for us? Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of it? — Nietzsche

Gotta love the Nietch.

You have no idea what people mean by spirit? — Jackson

Consulting my trusty dictionary again, I see that spirit is defined as: the nonphysical part of a person which is the seat of emotions and character; the soul.

Now we're getting somewhere!

God is soul without a body, like a dead person.

So, "spirit" to you means physical? — Jackson

I'm afraid that I am also ignorant about the nature of spirits as well. Please enlighten me.

Where did those definitions say God is a physical entity? — Jackson

Nowhere. It also does not define God as a non-physical entity.

God

• (in Christianity and other monotheistic religions) the creator and ruler of the universe and source of all moral authority; the supreme being.
  
  
• (in certain other religions) a superhuman being or spirit worshiped as having power over nature or human fortunes; a deity.
  "a moon god"

Nope. What dictionary did you use?

You don't believe God is a physical entity. — Jackson

I'm asking how anyone (myself included) could know whether or not God is a physical entity. I honestly don't know. If I did know, or were somehow persuaded to think one way or the other, I would not ask.

What definition of God makes it a physical entity? — Jackson

I haven't asserted that God is a physical entity. I asked how anyone could determine that God is not a physical entity.

Science can only address the world as physicality. Since God is not asserted to be a physical entity, science would have nothing to say about it. — Jackson

How did the asserter’s determine that God is not a physical entity? Did they perform scientific tests?

When an white person tries to act like a black person they are ostracized for culture appropriation. How is it not sexual appropriation when a man acts like a woman? — Harry Hindu

When it’s not an act, obviously.

The point that I was trying to make is how we naturally distinguish gender/sex, contrary to what NOS seemed to be suggesting.

Indipendent? It makes you wonder who comes up with these. — NOS4A2

That's how they spell it in Kersplakistan, goofy Europeans. :smirk:

Anyone can alter his mannerisms, behavior, and dress to appear feminine, but acting can only go so far. — NOS4A2

I'm talking about characteristics like being aggressive or submissive, competitive or cooperative, etc