“Parasite” is definitively a specialised species evolved to derive its nutrition, and or live part of it’s life cycle through the medium of a host species, at the cost to the host.
When people call a Foetus a “parasite” they are using the term as a metaphor, not a literal use of the word.
You might as well call all children parasites for the same reason as call a Foetus one.
But that would be an insult through exaggeration.
I see. Anytime someone asks why superior/inferior are not pertinent to any evaluation, you get the typical douchebag pavlovian reactions of Nazi, Cult, Fanatic. When you display such maturity, how can I not want to read your thread again?
KTS is about preserving the Indo-European heritage and when your short term memory can move to a wider event horizon than Nazism and discrediting with Goodrich-Clarke, be sure to look up Plato on the periakteon (Republic, 518C-D).
“The sun is the paradigm of the sensory and of metaphor: it regularly turns (itself) and hides (itself)… Thus, metaphor means heliotrope, both a movement turned toward the sun and the turning movement of the sun.” (Derrida)
The heliotropic nature of the Turning Sun is the paradigmatic metaphor, the metaphor of metaphor. Metaphor “brings across” the truth of its non-truth, of the hidden, of the concealed that language can never directly apprehend.
Metaphor is what allows one to turn through language to presence the absence that can never be fully represented. Hence the Black Sun. But of course given how you believe in Absolutes, and god-worshipping, never look past beyond those Dead Sea Scrolls and the Thou Shalts to command you on how to think.
The Black Sun inside which is a dharma chakra inside which is a triskelion are all symbolic of the poetism and fluidity of the Indo-European mind and the metaphoric spirit of its engagement with the world.
His objection to Hitler was that he was not Hitleresque enough, not German enough, not National-Socialistic enough, and not that he was merely anti-Jewish, or merely just pro-Greek.
A critique of modern science is one more example of how scientific thinking is impossible without evaluations that need superior/inferior to hypothesize.
Do you deny Philosophy itself is part Science, part art?
Brilliant. And your value being informed by…?
Deselection out of the gene-pool?
And this way of interpreting Evolution was not meant to prescribe something about the nature of our existence? Is it just another observation among the many you and shit-Smears parade? Keep going.
You are right Yuujin, Christianity came to be in some of the most difficult conditions we can imagine. What we know of concentration camps is mild compared to what the early Christians had to endure. It was not that man could now afford this luxury of loving everyone, but that he was forced, in certain corners, to look at the value of a human being separately of politics, and on principle. And on this road, we encounter the truth that whatever you love, you are loving yourself along with it.
What I am saying is that what you call God is necessary not only to explain love, but also existence itself.
Except we have chosen not to call it God anymore, and to try to understand it.
Science does not explain existence. But existence can, to a degree, explain itself. We are existing entities, we are the judge of what it means to exist.
Who should have any better conception of what it means to exist than we?
I do not mean to draw you into a lecture about how love can be perceived as manifest existence on a human scale - for this you would have to accept that the term valuing even as related to love can mean something done by not only man, but also by what we call an atom, or anything that we refer to as an object.
I do not believe, at all.
Fundamentally I either know or know not.
But I can choose to trust.
If I trust, I value something in terms of my own circle. This circle is my positive reaction to myself through the world as I become myself again and again. I am this perpetuating positive self-(re)act, and so is every other entity. I “believe” (see) that this is what man has called “God” throughout the ages. But I really don’t care much for belief that requires that some scientific truths aren’t true. I trust in investment, and I don’t care if science can explain my returns.
Is it really just that?
The question you’re asking cannot be answered by evolution. If you want your answer, you have to look into Nietzsche’s philosophy, specifically, you have to understand how the Will to Power works. Evolution is a useful theory, but not for the kind of questions you’re asking.
The core motivation of all human (and also non-human) behavior is growth. Living beings (and also non-living beings i.e. dead things) are fundamentally egoistic and they live with the aim of growth (the ultimate goal being reaching the limit of growth.)
Growth presupposes opposition: whenever something grows something else shrinks.
All motivation is oppositional in its essence: in order to move, that is to say, grow, a force has to oppose another force.
In order to benefit from opposition – to grow – a force has to be stronger than the opposing force (the strength of force is determined by its constitution.)
All motivation, then, can be explained in terms of opposition. The question „why is he doing that?“ should be replaced with a question „what force is he opposing by doing that?“ Or, if you don’t like the negative connotation the word opposition carries with itself, you can replace the question with a question such as „what does he gain by doing that and what does he lose?“
There are two kinds of opposition: internal and external.
Internal opposition has an internal force – a force belonging to the master force – as its opposition and is thus clearly self-destructive (or decadent, to stay consistent with Nietzsche’s terminology.) It is kind of like a cancerous growth. In Nietzsche’s terminology, the internal opposition is called reaction.
On the other hand, external opposition has an external force – a force residing outside of the master force – as its opposition and is thus clearly healthy. In Nietzsche’s terminology, the external opposition is called action.
So let’s take some examples to understand how this works.
A man who plays Russian roulette: what are his motives?
Or rather: what force is he opposing and what is he mastering/growing by doing so?
Possible explanations:
He is opposing his painful life. In this way, he’s growing balls, but since he’s opposing his pain, and since his pain is a symptom of an internal struggle between his own forces, his own abilities, he’s at the same time shrinking, and shrinking far more than he’s growing, because he’s opposing, and thus losing, his other abilities that he has developed over time. Clearly, this is reactive (Nietzsche calls it „tyranny of the instinct“ and the internal struggle the man is opposing „anarchy of the instinct“.)
He is opposing the risk of death. In this hypothetical scenario, the opposition is purely external for no internal force is opposed (in reality, however, it is questionable whether there has ever been a case of Russian roulette that has been purely an external opposition and not just a case of cancerous/tyrannical courage.) In this case, the man is growing his balls while losing absolutely nothing of himself. Clearly, this is active (Nietzsche calls it „self-mastery“.)
Now, if you want to figure out why people possess abilities that they possess, why they oppose what they oppose and not something else, you have to apply Nietzsche’s genealogical method and look at the entire history of the struggle between forces. There is no other way around it.
Now, your question: why do people engage in „loving“ behavior that does not advance the prosperity of the species?
Quite simply because people live in order to grow, not to „preserve the species“ – nobody lives to „preserve the species“. Such a far-reaching goal is too complex even for our modern brains, let alone for our ancestors whose brains were so simple they weren’t even able to imagine such a goal. Goals, it should be noted, are consequential: people do not start with a goal and then chase after it, rather, their goals arise out of their inner constitution, as a result of the relationships between forces/abilities they consist of. A peacock, for example, does not grow his train in order to „impress the ladies“, he grows it simply because that’s what he can do, because that’s the place where he feels his strength. The „fitness indicator“ and the whole „showing off“ business that Sauwelios is talking about is merely a consequence, not a goal, or to speak more definitely, a goal that followed, a consequential goal (but maybe not even that, I don’t know much about peacocks’ brains.)
And what about love? Do we love in order to „preserve the species“? Not really. We love those things that give us opportunity to grow – that’s all.
But there is active and reactive love.
For example:
It is not possible for a modern human to actively love a defective child. It may be possible in theory, it may be possible that such a human could one day exist – but I doubt it. In order for a modern human to be able to „love“ such a child, the thought of abandoning the child must create an inner struggle powerful enough for him not to be able to endure it, so powerful that he would have to turn against it, to oppose it, and by doing so, create a launch pad for his reactive love. By reactively loving the defective child, the man would continue growing, but this growth would be a cancerous one, turned inwards, against his own forces/abilities, against instincts that frighten him.
You see, no need for theism to explain such behavior. And no need for evolution either. After all, evolution, just like all other sciences, just like Christianity that it vehemently opposes, is reactive, for it always looks at the world from the third-person perspective, from the point of view of passive observer who stands outside of the activity that it tries to analyze. Just look at Sauwelios’s posts: he has managed to reduce everything to fucking posturing!
How many children do you have?
It is also not possible for reactive people to realize they are reactive (:
“Pavlovian”? You’re such a liar. Or do you really not realize I know who you are, “brownshirt”?
Your post made me realize that Nazis are ultimately fanatics, exactly in the sense Nietzsche describes in AC 54. Your “Aryanosophy” is your backbone.
I just linked to it because it connects religion and the need for identity.
I wonder why you came to visit me here again…
Didn’t Moody say “Indo-European” was just the PC word for “Aryan”?
Such preservationism, by the way, is very Jewish and thereby the opposite of philosophical.
Postmodern Nazi psychobabble.
You mean, just like Satyr does not belong to the Satyr-type? You never got back to me on that.
Too much of a Berber?
Ah, but what did Heidegger mean by “National-Socialism”? “[T]he encounter of planetarily determined technology and modern man.” (Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics.) In other words, man’s encounter with modern science–the science you so deeply misunderstand.
Philosophy seeks to be a rigorous science: it is love of science, in the literal sense of the word “science”. That sense, however, is not the sense in which it’s used in the phrase “modern science”:
[size=95]“It is not the victory of science that distinguishes our nineteenth century, but the victory of scientific method over science.” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 466, Kaufmann’s translation.)[/size]
Modern science represents the victory of scientific method over science. There is no science, no knowledge, in modern science; just methodicality, generalization, systemization.
Philosophy is the methodical generalization of the philosopher’s solipsistic experience into a system, a “cosmos”. It’s the assertion that all is art, eros, valuation, will to power.
Modern science–which is not philosophy–does not attach value to anything.
My objective value–which is what you’re inquiring into–must be a rational value. The only rational value is the value of valuation itself. My value, then, is informed by my valuation.
Do you think Nietzsche’s death with no offspring was a comment on his value?
Nietzsche has many memetic children.
Some have been fertilized by him and given birth to beautiful offspring.
Others act as dry wombs, gestating his noetic sperm, but giving birth to unfit, infertile, hybrids, like mules.
Can a human spermatozoa fertilize a chimp ovum?
We speak of him because he has birthed many children.
His value is pragmatic.
What about you?
Is your value theoretical?
Still gestating another load?
My ambition is to be to Nietzsche what Bacon or Descartes was to Machiavelli. I think Strauss was his Bacon. I, then, will have to provide the “physics” for Strauss’s “New Atlantis”.
[size=95]“Mathematical physics makes Descartes the ‘Architect’ who ‘has laid all the foundations and raised the main walls’ of the new edifice.” (Lampert, Nietzsche and Modern Times, pp. 153-54.)[/size]
In other words, my ambition is to be the Aristotle to Nietzsche’s or Strauss’s Socrates or Plato…
[size=95]“Necessity, human nature, the experience of the soul, and the phenomena of the heavens give every cycle a definite beginning, direction, and end–which is philosophy. Aristotle had reports about ancient Chaldean and Egyptian philosophy and suspected the existence of a pre-Homeric Greek philosophy; and he had reports about cataclysms. Hence the Socratic phase of the cycle, which culminated in Aristotle himself, was not the first or the last philosophic phase. Yet his own accomplishment in perfecting this philosophy means that he will be followed by an age of darkness, but an age of darkness that will be the beginning of new cycles and new movements that will end again (at least in some cases) in a philosophic phase. Assuming that the heavens and the human species are eternal, there will be an infinite number of such cycles in the future just as there must have been an infinite number of them in the past.” (Mahdi, Alfarabi and the Foundation of Islamic Political Philosophy, “Religion and the Cyclical View of History”.)[/size]
I’ve been called many names even on KT by KT members of being other characters; you are welcome to think whatever you want about me. I can’t be responsible for your pre-judices. It takes a religious fanatic when philosophically challenged to engage in personality cults than deal with the questions and ideas before him. The Black Sun and whatever, was brought up by you, not me, and ironically you claim I have no objectivity for asking you about objectivity in your evaluations. Typical. pots and kettles.
Irrelevant in my case or to my post.
Satellites…
Your summations in your linked post are precise and clean, except the context you applied them to was real assinine.
Whoever said that has it wrong; I.E. is a cultural term, while Aryan is its metaphysical expression.
The philosophical is about self-efficiency and efficiency is also knowing the limits of one’s digestive power before dilution. If Philosophy is maximal politics, then the political is about the knowledge and sanctity of boundaries.
Just because I quoted Derrida, its postmodern? What a simplistic commie you are.
And you quoting Heidegger was not?
Pavlovian knee-jerkism masquerading as objectivity in Philosophy. Whose philosophy is motivated by fanatic religious zeal of justice-for-all after PCing it with the same soft rational tone of Strauss? If there is a religious fanatic here, its you. We ‘Nietzscheans’ know what a difference tone imparts to receptivity of ideas, dont we?
Did you miss me? I told your friend Fixed too I suffer from eye-pain, can’t come to forums often. But you can think I was real intimidated by you.
With enough abstraction, I can render even you within the Satyr type… get it? He misses you on KT, you are his fav. pet.
See if this tempts you because there is a dangerous shark lurking in the current most assuredly out to get you…
http://knowthyself.forumotion.net/t1664-put-satyr-in-his-place-thread
I would have gone for Spartan…
Exactly. His complaint was it remained at the level of kitsch without going deep enough… the same criticism he also applied to dear Nietzsche and his ‘nihilistic’ will-to-power…
The priorities of a political leader demanding urgent actions works on a different contingent standard to the foundations demanded by a philosopher and a well-grounded theoretical perspective. Everyone does their own duty and must be evaluated from their perspective.
Nietzsche too critized the germans of his time for not being german enough; go ahead and say he was anti-german, and not just being antigerman. But I know you wont.
No, the question was about how science was used by you in your reply on evolution stating Science does not make value judgements. Ridiculous.
I don’t want to get bogged down in these tit for tat word games.
Yes, and so saying science does not make value judgements in positing superior/inferior hypotheses is your modern relativization of science and your championing modern science.
No. Not the methodical generalization, but methodical evaluation of one’s experiences. Objective filtering.
Thanks for clarifying you are a champion of modern science. Its what I wanted to know.
So you are a Hypocritical modern scienceologist, because the value of valuation depends on superior/inferior evaluations yet.
Are you comparing yourself to Nietzsche?
More important is what he thought about himself. He was honest enough to write no victor believes in chance and free-spirits were in danger of being extinguished in the throng of the abortions and the undermen. In TSZ he writes to the effect that even if you have been failures you can still see to it that you prolong the hope in others to prepare them as bearers of the overman. He called planting his hopes as seeding his children. But did he deceive himself that this was only his consolation?
Is everyone as capable of Nietzsche of breaking history into twos and carving their memetic fitness? What did he say about Exceptions lording over the Rule, imbecil? For all your reading and quote-rich posts, why do you give me the impression you are clueless about Nietzsche, simpleton? Go for the exception right away when faced with an argument, one brilliant douche you are!
Did he want no woman or did no woman want him? Was the ideal of Cosima enough of a cosy consolation too?
Funny that shit-Smears does not want or believe in procreation either because he’s too HAPPY with his hedonistic lifestyle claiming Philosophy is not about value-judgements, and you don’t think reproductive success is an indicator of fitness value with your idealism, claiming Science is not about value-judgements.
You see how you two mirror each other. Materialsm <> Idealism
later.
To the OP -
Atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist. That’s the criteria of Atheism.
Atheism is not an explanation of anything, and isn’t intended to be. Atheism is a description.
Atheists however, may have their own explanations of love. These explanations are not a reflection of Atheism, but of the individual.
You ought ask -
How do Atheists explain love?
This last sentence is interesting, as it’s very “cassian”: cassie also used to use the word “than” when it was not grammatically warranted. I’m sure you’re not her, though, as she said she was not a white supremacist.
You and I both know you’re lying when you deny being “brownshirt”. (I just typoed a good Satyrical insult version of that name, by the way.) I was actually the one who pointed you to Satyr, although only half-heartedly. He then became your new man, your new Moody.
This makes no sense.
I don’t think so.
It’s “asinine”. You really don’t speak high English… Fixed Cross suspects you’re Spanish, which makes sense considering the name we first knew you under, back in 2001.
Metaphysical no less! How profound.
Oh, I never said philosophy could do without such Jewishness…
Nope.
Nope.
Terribly.
Nope.
Not interested.
I was alluding to this: http://www.history.com/news/study-suggests-adolf-hitler-had-jewish-and-african-ancestors
See below.
I was talking about modern science, not philosophy as rigorous science. You may learn about the difference from my essay on an essay of Strauss’s, which cassie, at least, has already read: http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2427749#p2427749 (paragraph 4).
Don’t tell me that’s all you meant… In any case, you’re confusing value judgments with factual judgments here. I suppose you might call the latter “truth value judgments”, but that only obscures the distinction that’s being made. All judgments are value judgments in that sense, even as all things, including so-called “artificial” things, are natural in a sense. (Also, the value judgments made by science are probability value judgments, not truth value judgments, but that doesn’t change what I’ve just said.)
Philosophy in Nietzsche’s sense is what I said it was: see BGE 9.
So was Nietzsche: “Hurray for science!” (Hoch die Physik!)
Anyway, I don’t see how what you’re quoting from me “clarifies” that. I do attach value to things.
How is that? Can you give an example?
Not necessarily.
The exception is part of the same continuum as the rule. If Nietzsche’s death with no offspring was no comment on his value, it means death with no offsping is not necessarily a comment on one’s value. No need to call names when you’re being pwned.
I do think philosophy is about value judgments. Also, I’m not a proletarian.
P.S.: “Fitness value” is a new term introduced by you; see the phrase “truth value” above.
I’m not a WS, but an Aryanist. Not every “white” that counts.
Satyr? I’ve known him forever.
I’m brownie, I’m cassian, I’m cau-cassian, I’m moody, I’m satyrical, I’m also sauuuuu wel behaved… don’t insult me pls.
Irony has been lost on you, hasn’t it? There’s a reason I typed that as-ass-inine-as-in… go figure.
Many kinds of Jewishness as Strauss would have made you familiar. If we stuck to Nietzsche, the priestly spirit in the genealogy of Philosophy was evaluated Aryan and vice-versa.
I am sure there are also Scientific reports proving Beethoven was black and Nietzsche was a Polish jew.
It is all I meant.
Demarcating what is fact and not fact is a value judgement.
And the value you attach is the claim that Science does not value, and that makes you very modern.
You say the criterion of your scientific objectivity is the value of valuation itself while claiming that science does not make value judgements. Connect the dots and you get my remark.
What an eel-wriggler you are, Worm.
Shame.
“Not necessarily” is not how science makes general claims and offers objective descriptions, Worm. Preserving yourself at all costs is so religiously jewish. And don’t tell me what to do, luv. I’ll have you as I please.
I think we are done.
Ah, so you are probably cassie.
Is the word “Irony” also “ironic” here? You’ll know what I mean if it is.
A truth value judgment?
Either you really don’t understand, or you’re just pretending. I hope for your sake it’s the latter and for mine it’s the former.
The statement “The chicken has survived thus far, but the dodo has not” is a statement that, according to modern science, may be said to have truth value (supreme probability value). However, the word “not”, though a negation, does not mean that the second part is negative in the sense of a value judgment in the narrow sense (bad or evil). After all, the statement can be rephrased, with no loss of factual meaning, as “The dodo has gone extinct, but the chicken has not.” The statement does not say that survival or extinction is good. Such a statement would not be one that according to modern science can be said to have truth value. This is what I meant by my statement “Science does not make value judgments.” Do you understand?
You’re confusing two senses of the word “science” that I’ve already expressly distinguished in this thread. The first is philosophy as rigorous science; the second is modern science. Apply this distinction and you might get my remark.
That’s not a denial.
If action does not necessarily equal minus reaction, then science cannot make the general claim that action equals minus reaction. Just a high school example.
Of course. It is simply part of the same mechanism. Because it is not designed to any specific purpose it is unlikely that the traits would be precise enough to ONLY extend to offspring. In fact it is not DESIGNED AT ALL. That's the whole point. There are other reasons why the trait would be useful too. Comradeship and companionship, the herd instinct all contribute to the value of people sticking together for protection. Now if a god was to design such a trait then one might assume it would be a damn sight better - or more focused. But love can be directed to country, group, family, cars, ice creams. It just an tendency of attraction.
You only misunderstand evolved traits if you only see them as if they were FOR something in particular. That is not the case. Traits, however imprecise they are are preserved by nature because they in some way do not impede the reproduction of viable progeny. Traits even if seemingly “poorly designed” persist because the organism carrying the gene also persists.
Perhaps not at that moment ~~ after all, we’re only human and fallible ~~ but sometime after the fact if’ they are self-examining kind of people they will.
Those though who are always reactive, instead of “responding” reasonably, may never see it because they gain something from being that way.
That would mean they are fundamentally active, hence not really reactive.
That it is impossible to actively love a defective child means that nobody desires a defective child, which also means, that nobody genuinely loves a defective child. Did anyone ever say to himself “I cannot wait to raise a defective child”? This has nothing to do with evolution, or rather, one does not have to invoke evolution in order to explain such a behavior. Our inner constitution determines what is healthy for us, and if you’re at bottom healthy, you wouldn’t want to be surrounded by anything unhealthy, your own children including.
Healthy people are selective: they only want that which is sufficiently related to them. Everything else is destructive for them.
It is our need for consistency that limits us here.
I’d rather live a life without wife, children and friends for the sake of consistency, rather than an inconsistent life for the sake of wife, children and friends. Not saying I do not want these things, I’m simply saying I want them to fit me, to complete me, not the other way around.
Magnus Anderson
When you used the term “reactive” above, I was thinking in terms of responding without awareness and forethought.
I wouldn’t necessarily use the terminology “fundamentally active” - as it could point to someone with energy, interests, etc…one who is not lazy or just plain boring. Just thought I’d put that in there.
.
Just for myself, I abhor the use of the word ‘defective’ when speaking of a child. Things are defective, things which we buy and sell, which we use in our homes. Children are just created not made perfectly…as most of us are flawed.
Aside from that, it’s true that no one would wish to have a child with special needs. From the point of view of loving parents, that would stem also so the child would have the most happy and fruitful life that it could.
To "genuinely love’ a child with special needs means to care for that child to the utmost with love, compassion, understanding and attention. To genuinely love is not the same as sentimentality and feeling - it is not an easy thing to do. It would take a "genuinely loving’ human being.
.
I don’t quite understand why you even put this in here.
Just a bit of advice here - at least for now, you better not have any children. You’d make a lousy parent - but that’s just my perspective based on your words here.
But perhaps you have some unconscious phobia about germs. Could that be possible? 
I can go along with this, say, if you’re speaking in terms of human relationships. We choose those, if we’re intelligent and self-aware, those who share the same values which we do, those who for the most part are mentally stable and normal., those who we sense and know that we are compatible with. At the same time, we might veer slightly away from those qualities if we see something really different and unique but not totally off the wall.
Can you explain what YOU mean by consistency. I’m probably wrong because I don’t know what was in your mind to say but that seems to be a contradiction in light of what you wrote above but I might be misinterpreting you.