ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, WTP)

This is the main board for discussing philosophy - formal, informal and in between.

Moderator: Only_Humean

Forum rules
Forum Philosophy

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:11 pm

You can not give me a name. You don't know me enough. You don't even show anything that you presumable know what I don't know!

On the other side you side with those who have shown ignorance to many things I have addressed, like the ascetic idealism, the nothingness in form of the terms nirvana or god etc. Everything is to be found in Anti-Christ.

It should be set a death-punishment upon those who DARE to claim to "know" somebody but avoid to explain the ideas mentioned and despite those facts they claim Nietzsche was an idiot and has overseen something.

Those western slaves want to have it easy. They want to place their lazy ass on nothingness and stop thinking once for all times.

Those simpletons are ready to defend nothingness because for them the idea of stopping thinking sounds like a paradise and they will reformulate and rephrase it billion times rather than learn something new, because that is what decadence is: laziness and unwillingness to change.

We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Faust » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:15 pm

We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!


Seriously, Dude?
User avatar
Faust
Unrequited Lover of Wisdom
 
Posts: 16726
Joined: Sat May 21, 2005 6:47 pm

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:24 pm

Cezar wrote:You can not give me a name. You don't know me enough. You don't even show anything that you presumable know what I don't know!

On the other side you side with those who have shown ignorance to many things I have addressed, like the ascetic idealism, the nothingness in form of the terms nirvana or god etc. Everything is to be found in Anti-Christ.

It should be set a death-punishment upon those who DARE to claim to "know" somebody but avoid to explain the ideas mentioned and despite those facts they claim Nietzsche was an idiot and has overseen something.

Those western slaves want to have it easy. They want to place their lazy ass on nothingness and stop thinking once for all times.

Those simpletons are ready to defend nothingness because for them the idea of stopping thinking sounds like a paradise and they will reformulate and rephrase it billion times rather than learn something new, because that is what decadence is: laziness and unwillingness to change.

We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!


I don't know you, but I know you enough to know that as soon as you detect metaphysics or any other anti-Nietzschean... spirit... you are already done giving the benefit of the doubt.

I see that things often have many names, and often they will use one because they are not yet developped enough to get off of it. If the name of Value Ontology is ontology, or metaphysics, or christian, it is only it's name yet. It has yet the opportunity to outgrow them and it is this that I wish to give FC the chance to do.

If you are truly willing to deny the name of nietzschean purist, and want my death, I will agree to a deathmatch. That is the kind of respect I have for you.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:25 pm

Faust wrote:
We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!


Seriously, Dude?


Nietzsche did say that... Not about decadents though. He said it about those who wish for death. Perhaps they are the same...
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:25 pm

Faust wrote:
We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!

Seriously, Dude?

Actually, Nietzsche says "perish!" rather than "kill yourself!" (Antichrist 2); and not to decadents, but to "the weak and failures" (ibid.). He says almost every man is decadent for about half his life, not to mention women.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:31 pm

I don't know what exactly is your "purist", but if that is more a follower than Nietzsche self and if you are willing to die for it, then si-vu-play.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:32 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Faust wrote:
We know Nietzsches wish to decadents: kill yourself! And we shall even help them!

Seriously, Dude?

Actually, Nietzsche says "perish!" rather than "kill yourself!" (Antichrist 2); and not to decadents, but to "the weak and failures" (ibid.). He says almost every man is decadent for about half his life, not to mention women.


Yes, but women and children don't try to take the upper hand, they are obedient, while real decadents want to rule directly!
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:34 pm

pezermeregild wrote:Cezar, you are a Nietzschean purist, and that is the reason i respect you.

If being a Nietzschean purist means not understanding evolution, like "Cezar", then I'm proud to not be a Nietzschean purist.


Agreed on the Aletheia comment.

Ok Sawelios, I'll take a crack at it.

Value onthology, as I have come to understand it, states that every existing thing exists only becuase of the act of valuing and self-valuing.

If an apple exists, it exists because it is being valued as an apple by a self-valueing entity, and that entity values it in reference to the apple's own self-valuing, eg. having the collection of elements that provokes an identification on the part of the valuer.

I personally attach a person's, say my, valuing needs as being determined by survaval needs and evolutionary pressures. I value the apple, because it has nutrients that are beneficial to my survival, as well as other reasons.

Without me to value it, an apple wouldn't be an apple, because it wouldn't be valued as such. But the self-valuing elements in it that provoked my valuing would still exist, and perhaps others that didn't provoke that exist too.

So "self-valuing" does not mean self-valuing, but having a collection of elements that provokes other entities to value it as a self, e.g., an apple?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:38 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:Cezar, you are a Nietzschean purist, and that is the reason i respect you.

If being a Nietzschean purist means not understanding evolution, like "Cezar", then I'm proud to not be a Nietzschean purist.




I can say it in one sentence what evolution is about and show it on primitive organisms in one picture, and you?
What can you reach with your dialectical speculations? Isn't dialectics the last weapon in the hands of the weak? Isn't a decadent typically weak?
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:42 pm

Cezar wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Faust wrote:Seriously, Dude?

Actually, Nietzsche says "perish!" rather than "kill yourself!" (Antichrist 2); and not to decadents, but to "the weak and failures" (ibid.). He says almost every man is decadent for about half his life, not to mention women.

Yes, but women and children don't try to take the upper hand, they are obedient, while real decadents want to rule directly!

"Real" decadents... Where is the distinction between real and merely apparent decadents to be found in Nietzsche?

"Finally: woman! One-half of mankind is weak, typically sick, changeable, inconstant---woman needs strength in order to cleave to it; she needs a religion of weakness that glorifies being weak, loving, and being humble as divine: or better, she makes the strong weak---she rules when she succeeds in overcoming the strong. Woman has always conspired with the types of decadence, the priests, against the 'powerful,' the 'strong,' the men---." (WP 864.)

That the priests are the type of decadence, i.e., the type that is decadent as a whole or in general, does not mean that they are more "real" decadents than others, e.g., women; after all, women are not a type, but a gender. And as for wanting to rule directly: when do priests ever rule directly, and not by proxy ("god")?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:44 pm

Cezar wrote:I don't know what exactly is your "purist", but if that is more a follower than Nietzsche self and if you are willing to die for it, then si-vu-play.


Purist: One who is unwilling to deviate from or think outside of whatever he/she is a purist about.

That's what I meant.

Still disagree? Dont say please, it is disgraceful of the challenger.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:46 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Agreed on the Aletheia comment.

Ok Sawelios, I'll take a crack at it.

Value onthology, as I have come to understand it, states that every existing thing exists only becuase of the act of valuing and self-valuing.

If an apple exists, it exists because it is being valued as an apple by a self-valueing entity, and that entity values it in reference to the apple's own self-valuing, eg. having the collection of elements that provokes an identification on the part of the valuer.

I personally attach a person's, say my, valuing needs as being determined by survaval needs and evolutionary pressures. I value the apple, because it has nutrients that are beneficial to my survival, as well as other reasons.

Without me to value it, an apple wouldn't be an apple, because it wouldn't be valued as such. But the self-valuing elements in it that provoked my valuing would still exist, and perhaps others that didn't provoke that exist too.

So "self-valuing" does not mean self-valuing, but having a collection of elements that provokes other entities to value it as a self, e.g., an apple?


No, self-valuing, as I have come to understand it, is different and distinct from valuing of another, um, thing.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:47 pm

In this specific case I have used the term "real" to mark a harmful being who is more of a criminal (criminals are decadents too) and has no perspective of growth or dependency like women or children. Real in the sense of "finished".

The priest is maybe 50/50. "Strong but sick". Decadents are weak. And in the case of the Jews priests have not ruined the society. If they were fully harmful they would not allow a king to raise up.

In GMIII priests are defending the healthy people from the hate of the sick...
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:49 pm

Cezar wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:Cezar, you are a Nietzschean purist, and that is the reason i respect you.

If being a Nietzschean purist means not understanding evolution, like "Cezar", then I'm proud to not be a Nietzschean purist.

I can say it in one sentence what evolution is about and show it on primitive organisms in one picture, and you?

It's not about what it's "about", but about how it works. You don't understand how it works, as is witnessed by your comments in that Nietzsche contra Darwin thread I linked to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread).


What can you reach with your dialectical speculations? Isn't dialectics the last weapon in the hands of the weak?

Not necessarily in the hands of the weak, but in the hands of those who have "no other means"; "who have no other weapons [or: arms] anymore"; who have "to enforce [their] right" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 'The Problem of Socrates', section 6). And yes, as Weary Locomotive said, we Nietzscheans are the Jews of today.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:50 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Cezar wrote:I don't know what exactly is your "purist", but if that is more a follower than Nietzsche self and if you are willing to die for it, then si-vu-play.


Purist: One who is unwilling to deviate from or think outside of whatever he/she is a purist about.

That's what I meant.

Still disagree? Dont say please, it is disgraceful of the challenger.


Maybe a slave may to"deviate" without a reason. You look like a Chinese who holds compassion higher than truth. So let's make it short, if you have something to tell me in 4 eyes then leave this place. I am no more your teacher.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:51 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Agreed on the Aletheia comment.

Ok Sawelios, I'll take a crack at it.

Value onthology, as I have come to understand it, states that every existing thing exists only becuase of the act of valuing and self-valuing.

If an apple exists, it exists because it is being valued as an apple by a self-valueing entity, and that entity values it in reference to the apple's own self-valuing, eg. having the collection of elements that provokes an identification on the part of the valuer.

I personally attach a person's, say my, valuing needs as being determined by survaval needs and evolutionary pressures. I value the apple, because it has nutrients that are beneficial to my survival, as well as other reasons.

Without me to value it, an apple wouldn't be an apple, because it wouldn't be valued as such. But the self-valuing elements in it that provoked my valuing would still exist, and perhaps others that didn't provoke that exist too.

So "self-valuing" does not mean self-valuing, but having a collection of elements that provokes other entities to value it as a self, e.g., an apple?

No, self-valuing, as I have come to understand it, is different and distinct from valuing of another, um, thing.

Then what is it? How is it succinctly defined?
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:54 pm

Cezar wrote:In this specific case I have used the term "real" to mark a harmful being who is more of a criminal (criminals are decadents too) and has no perspective of growth or dependency like women or children. Real in the sense of "finished".

Not a decadent, then, but a "decasus"---a failure.
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:56 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Cezar wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:If being a Nietzschean purist means not understanding evolution, like "Cezar", then I'm proud to not be a Nietzschean purist.

I can say it in one sentence what evolution is about and show it on primitive organisms in one picture, and you?

It's not about what it's "about", but about how it works. You don't understand how it works, as is witnessed by your comments in that Nietzsche contra Darwin thread I linked to (at the bottom of page 2 of this thread).


What can you reach with your dialectical speculations? Isn't dialectics the last weapon in the hands of the weak?

Not necessarily in the hands of the weak, but in the hands of those who have "no other means"; "who have no other weapons [or: arms] anymore"; who have "to enforce [their] right" (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, 'The Problem of Socrates', section 6). And yes, as Weary Locomotive said, we Nietzscheans are the Jews of today.


Stop speculating and adapting to yourself everything I say! I see in your Darwin thread only jokes!
Give exact examples from the past, give individuals or types of people who represent evolution! Extract their actual "work" if you want to call it so. But don't be so obscure like a beggar. Evolution does not happen only in one being! It is a principle that is able to produce too many new arts. And you must show it in all of them and also show why does it happen in a very short time! Darwin was in the triangle MAlthus-Darwin-Marx. They are all 3 animalists. But animals are spiritually dead and so they can say nothing about evolution.

Women are typical dialecticians.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 7:59 pm

Cezar wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:
Cezar wrote:I don't know what exactly is your "purist", but if that is more a follower than Nietzsche self and if you are willing to die for it, then si-vu-play.


Purist: One who is unwilling to deviate from or think outside of whatever he/she is a purist about.

That's what I meant.

Still disagree? Dont say please, it is disgraceful of the challenger.


Maybe a slave may to"deviate" without a reason. You look like a Chinese who holds compassion higher than truth. So let's make it short, if you have something to tell me in 4 eyes then leave this place. I am no more your teacher.


To play on this thread, you over-value yourself.

I am glad that you don't wish to pursue your challenge.

Your weakness is not lack of compromise, as you may think that I think, but rather lack of subtlety.

Now please stop posting on my thread (post-nietzschean value system), as we don't seem to have a relationship any longer.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:02 pm

Cezar wrote:Give exact examples from the past, give individuals or types of people who represent evolution!

:lol:
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:04 pm

Sauwelios wrote:Then what is it? How is it succinctly defined?


As I have come to understand it (and I will keep saying that untill FC clarifies if I am on the right track or not), self valuing is a little more abstract than valuing of something other. My self-valuing is my, um, existence, prior to valuing. What makes me something that can be valued. This part I feel less confident about than the valuing of other things part.
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:08 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Then what is it? How is it succinctly defined?

As I have come to understand it (and I will keep saying that untill FC clarifies if I am on the right track or not), self valuing is a little more abstract than valuing of something other. My self-valuing is my, um, existence, prior to valuing. What makes me something that can be valued. This part I feel less confident about than the valuing of other things part.

And rightly so.

Your reasonability alone makes you rank higher than "Cezar".
"Someone may object that the successful revolt against the universal and homogeneous state could have no other effect than that the identical historical process which has led from the primitive horde to the final state will be repeated. But would such a repetition of the process--a new lease of life for man's humanity--not be preferable to the indefinite continuation of the inhuman end? Do we not enjoy every spring although we know the cycle of the seasons, although we know that winter will come again?" (Leo Strauss, "Restatement on Xenophon's Hiero".)
User avatar
Sauwelios
Philosophical Supremacist
 
Posts: 7179
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:09 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
To play on this thread, you over-value yourself.

I am glad that you don't wish to pursue your challenge.

Your weakness is not lack of compromise, as you may think that I think, but rather lack of subtlety.

Now please stop posting on my thread (post-nietzschean value system), as we don't seem to have a relationship any longer.


What challenge? Where? How? What compromise? You see, you pussy like the excitement to talk to me, that is all.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:12 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Then what is it? How is it succinctly defined?

As I have come to understand it (and I will keep saying that untill FC clarifies if I am on the right track or not), self valuing is a little more abstract than valuing of something other. My self-valuing is my, um, existence, prior to valuing. What makes me something that can be valued. This part I feel less confident about than the valuing of other things part.

And rightly so.

Your reasonability alone makes you rank higher than "Cezar".


I see nothing but a silent shitting in your panties from both of you.

On the other hand Nietzsche's creators are creating an empire in the midst of anarchy!

And you are those poor shitty anarchists!
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

Re: ILP thread on value-ontology (starting with Nietzsche, W

Postby Cezar » Wed Nov 09, 2011 8:13 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Cezar wrote:Give exact examples from the past, give individuals or types of people who represent evolution!

:lol:



I guess you laugh at your self.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot]