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 Fixed Cross » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:07 pm

pezermeregild wrote:I think, and I hope, that FC here is obeying Parmenides (with whose philosophy value-ontology shares much), or at least concurring with him, that nothingness is inaccesible "even to the gods."

I-rrelevant.

The problem is that in all its irrelevance to what exists, as it obviously does not exist itself, the notion of it still needs to be explained (away). We can only do this by approaching the limit of existence, and this must be done by approaching existence, equally, as a notion.

The usefulness of the formulation I've found lies in its way of identifying the notion of existence in similar terms as the notions we have of thought, consciousness; -- the notions of the means by which we understand being are made equal to the notions of being following from these means.

The metaphysics / physics dichotomy can no longer exist under this terminology, equally the difference between ontology and epistemology is eliminated - so may the immunity of science to philosophy be broken.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

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

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 15, 2011 5:23 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
Indeed. Its particular structural nature, its structural integrity.

Then the question is how one maintains that.

By it being selected - in first instance, by itself, by its particular activity, namely, selecting.
The tendency to maintain structural integrity is selected (as traits are in evolution).
Selecting means no active 'picking' of course - but that all that does not have/fit this tendency dies off.

A couple of questions, arising from my desperate attempts to make sense of this passage.

1) Does the word "by" in the first sentence mean the same thing in all cases? Or does it mean "by means of" in the last case?
2) Does the word "selecting" in the last sentence refer only to the being-selected from the first two sentences, or also to the selecting from the first sentence?


Strange, indeed, to imagine an accident erupting from no-thingness. As I said, the only ground for this is the lack of its impossibility.

And what about the possibility of its never having erupted, but always having existed?

That is essentially only another way of putting it, as in chaos / no-thingness there is no time.

But we're talking about what, according to you, erupted from chaos/no-thingness...
Last edited by Sauwelios on Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Sauwelios » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:12 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:Then the question is how one maintains that.

By it being selected - in first instance, by itself, by its particular activity, namely, selecting.
The tendency to maintain structural integrity is selected (as traits are in evolution).
Selecting means no active 'picking' of course - but that all that does not have/fit this tendency dies off.

A couple of questions, arising from my desperate attempts to make sense of this passage.

1) Does the word "by" in the first sentence mean the same thing in all cases? Or does it mean "by means of" in the last case?

Actually, it must mean "by means of" in the first case, because of the word "it[s]".
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Tue Nov 15, 2011 6:28 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:I think, and I hope, that FC here is obeying Parmenides (with whose philosophy value-ontology shares much), or at least concurring with him, that nothingness is inaccesible "even to the gods."

I-rrelevant.

The problem is that in all its irrelevance to what exists, as it obviously does not exist itself, the notion of it still needs to be explained (away). We can only do this by approaching the limit of existence, and this must be done by approaching existence, equally, as a notion.

The usefulness of the formulation I've found lies in its way of identifying the notion of existence in similar terms as the notions we have of thought, consciousness; -- the notions of the means by which we understand being are made equal to the notions of being following from these means.

The metaphysics / physics dichotomy can no longer exist under this terminology, equally the difference between ontology and epistemology is eliminated - so may the immunity of science to philosophy be broken.


I don't know FC... I mean I really dig this explanation, but I don't think that nothing lies at the limits of existence as understood by understanding conciousness and thought. Beyond that, there is, as opposed to is not.

Otherwise solipcism, which is as fallacious a concept as the omnipotent, creator god, and for perhaps for the same reason.
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 Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:01 pm

How does [being] maintain its structural integrity?
By it being selected - in first instance, by itself, by its particular activity, namely, selecting.
The tendency to maintain structural integrity is selected (as traits are in evolution).
Selecting means no active 'picking' of course - but that all that does not have/fit this tendency dies off.

A couple of questions, arising from my desperate attempts to make sense of this passage.

1) Does the word "by" in the first sentence mean the same thing in all cases? Or does it mean "by means of" in the last case?

I understand the difficulty. It is confusing as we now move beyond what I have proposed as logically fundamental, i.e. the fundamental term of language. I think that pezemeregild is has reason, and the confusion arises by positing an originating out of nothingness.

The best I can explain it is that there no difference between the fundamental thing, its activity, and the object of this activity. Whether I make of it a subject, object of a subject or verb objectifying the subject to itself, it describes the same.

2) Does the word "selecting" in the last sentence refer only to the being-selected from the first two sentences, or also to the selecting from the first sentence?

I mean that it is being selected (survives as form) by its selecting (continuing, 'building' on what survives).
This may seem like reverse logic, but I think that this actually does describe being as becoming, also life as evolution.

And what about the possibility of its never having erupted, but always having existed?

That is essentially only another way of putting it, as in chaos / no-thingness there is no time.

But we're talking about what, according to you, erupted from chaos/no-thingness...

Yes, this presents logical difficulties (I must note that to relate being to nothingness is unnecessary for my theory to pertain to being) but sill I want to pursue it to see where it leads. Let me phrase it in a couple of ways. What has erupted is time. Since there is logically nothing before time (nothing is what is before time), this eruption is the first existing thing, and I think it is fair to say that it is the only thing, that it persists. There is only an erupting. The eruption is time and being itself.

Self-valuing must then be seen as being the root/seed of this erupting, and valuing in terms of self-value as it's 'body', its growth / becoming / substantiating. The self-valuing is it's not-nothingness, the 'mechanism' whereby it is rooted in its existence. The thereby enabled valuing-acquiring, the will to power, is what grows from this root.
Last edited by Fixed Cross on Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:09 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:The best I can explain it is that there no difference between the fundamental thing, its activity, and the object of this activity. Whether I make of it a subject, object of a subject or verb objectifying the subject to itself, it describes the same.


This much I'm cool with. But you are right that I am having a lot of trouble with the "something out of nothing."

If you told me that the "nothing" doesn't really matter much anyway, I would be cool there too.
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 Fixed Cross » Wed Nov 16, 2011 3:21 pm

pezermeregild wrote:I don't know FC... I mean I really dig this explanation, but I don't think that nothing lies at the limits of existence as understood by understanding conciousness and thought. Beyond that, there is, as opposed to is not.

Fair enough. I am pursuing this to test/establish the limits of logic, with its division into yes and no, as it pertains to being. To formulate the yes in such a way that the no is demonstrated, not just calculated, to be excluded.

I suppose different minds have different approaches to the question "why being and not rather nothing?" Some minds will think it nonsensical to even propose nothing. Others will ponder a lifetime over the horrible absurdity.

The concept 'objectively not existing' is a strange one.
The strong do what they can, the weak accept what they must.
- Thucydides
Image
Before the Light - Tree of Life Academy - Thought of a Rune (film by Pezer)
User avatar
Fixed Cross
Doric Usurper
 
Posts: 7887
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 12:53 am
Location: the black ships

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:02 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:I don't know FC... I mean I really dig this explanation, but I don't think that nothing lies at the limits of existence as understood by understanding conciousness and thought. Beyond that, there is, as opposed to is not.

Fair enough. I am pursuing this to test/establish the limits of logic, with its division into yes and no, as it pertains to being. To formulate the yes in such a way that the no is demonstrated, not just calculated, to be excluded.

I suppose different minds have different approaches to the question "why being and not rather nothing?" Some minds will think it nonsensical to even propose nothing. Others will ponder a lifetime over the horrible absurdity.

The concept 'objectively not existing' is a strange one.


Indeed!

I think we see eye to eye, or at least, within a reasonable logical gap, we have agreed to disagree (on this issue, which I still think has no great import on your overall theory)
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 16, 2011 4:33 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Fixed Cross wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:I don't know FC... I mean I really dig this explanation, but I don't think that nothing lies at the limits of existence as understood by understanding conciousness and thought. Beyond that, there is, as opposed to is not.

Fair enough. I am pursuing this to test/establish the limits of logic, with its division into yes and no, as it pertains to being. To formulate the yes in such a way that the no is demonstrated, not just calculated, to be excluded.

I suppose different minds have different approaches to the question "why being and not rather nothing?" Some minds will think it nonsensical to even propose nothing. Others will ponder a lifetime over the horrible absurdity.

The concept 'objectively not existing' is a strange one.

Indeed!

I think we see eye to eye, or at least, within a reasonable logical gap, we have agreed to disagree (on this issue, which I still think has no great import on your overall theory)

If you will read back the discussion, you will see that it is what his "overall theory" rests on...
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:52 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:Indeed!

I think we see eye to eye, or at least, within a reasonable logical gap, we have agreed to disagree (on this issue, which I still think has no great import on your overall theory)

If you will read back the discussion, you will see that it is what his "overall theory" rests on...


I don't think you get the theory enough (by your own admission) to really say much about it. Saying that it computes and explains away nothingness is hardly resting the theory on it. Unless I am very wrong.
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 16, 2011 4:52 pm

Fixed Cross wrote:How does [being] maintain its structural integrity?
By it being selected - in first instance, by itself, by its particular activity, namely, selecting.
The tendency to maintain structural integrity is selected (as traits are in evolution).
Selecting means no active 'picking' of course - but that all that does not have/fit this tendency dies off.

A couple of questions, arising from my desperate attempts to make sense of this passage.

1) Does the word "by" in the first sentence mean the same thing in all cases? Or does it mean "by means of" in the last case?

I understand the difficulty. It is confusing as we now move beyond what I have proposed as logically fundamental, i.e. the fundamental term of language. I think that pezemeregild is has reason, and the confusion arises by positing an originating out of nothingness.

The best I can explain it is that there no difference between the fundamental thing, its activity, and the object of this activity. Whether I make of it a subject, object of a subject or verb objectifying the subject to itself, it describes the same.

Let me try to rephrase it:

"A being maintains its particular structural nature by being selected. In the first place, it is selected by itself, or rather, by its particular activity, which is the selecting of other beings."

But if the particular activity of beings is the selecting of other beings, then "selecting" does mean an active picking.

And if we relate this back to what you said before, we get this:

"A being posits a value system, in which a relation may take place, in which otherness is to be dominated/subjected to as (in terms of) self. This positing of a value system it does by maintaining its particular structural nature. And this in turn it does by being selected. In the first place, it is selected by itself, or rather, by its particular activity, which is the selecting of other beings."

It strongly appears that the domination of/subjection to otherness is the selection of other beings. This would make your "explanation" wholly circular. And indeed, after the first sentence of the last paraphrase, you originally said:

"Relating without disintegrating requires firm value-positing. Willing to power demands firmness of self-value."

So value-positing requires not disintegrating ("maintaining its structural nature"), and not disintegrating requires value-positing!


That is essentially only another way of putting it, as in chaos / no-thingness there is no time.

But we're talking about what, according to you, erupted from chaos/no-thingness...

Yes, this presents logical difficulties (I must note that to relate being to nothingness is unnecessary for my theory to pertain to being) but sill I want to pursue it to see where it leads. Let me phrase it in a couple of ways. What has erupted is time. Since there is logically nothing before time (nothing is what is before time), this eruption is the first existing thing, and I think it is fair to say that it is the only thing, that it persists. There is only an erupting. The eruption is time and being itself.

So Being is Erupting, i.e., a Breaking-forth, but not a Breaking-forth from anything, but a Breaking-forth that has not begun and will not end---i.e., that has no root or fruit.
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 16, 2011 4:58 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:Indeed!

I think we see eye to eye, or at least, within a reasonable logical gap, we have agreed to disagree (on this issue, which I still think has no great import on your overall theory)

If you will read back the discussion, you will see that it is what his "overall theory" rests on...

I don't think you get the theory enough (by your own admission) to really say much about it. Saying that it computes and explains away nothingness is hardly resting the theory on it. Unless I am very wrong.

What I've been doing here is trying to "get" the theory, if possible, by getting to the bottom of it, if any. Nobody else has done anything of the sort in this thread! So if you "get" the theory, please explain it clearly. I asked the same of aletheia, but haven't heard from her since.
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:10 pm

Sauwelios wrote:So if you "get" the theory, please explain it clearly.



Value Ontology, as I have come to understand it, is a description of what the existence we inhabit is; or more accurately, how it is. Since it is a description of a current, observable state of affairs, it gives little importance to its genesis (nothingness, Jehova, some unknowable or as yet unknown something, whatever).

It describes the existence of individual entities, each defined by the act of valuing and self-valuing. An important thing to grasp here (which I think you are having trouble with) is that self-valuing is subordinate to valuing. Entities self-value as a result of valuing. First, there is a need to value, a valuing principle. Out of that need springs self-valuing, as the entity needs to be a coherent whole, or a distinct something, to efficiently value and gain profit from that act of valuing.

This is why existene has shape, why things are things instead of a confused mass of whatever. It is because we value it, and value each self-valuing thing as a thing. We value them as self-valuing because what we observe is the concentrated efforts, or valuing, of a single thing. An atom values the energy around it in a way that translates into our valuing it as an atom, so with the electrons, the molecules and a chainsaw.

A description of shape/s, how the shape/s is/are, and how the shape/s come/s to be.
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 16, 2011 5:43 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:So if you "get" the theory, please explain it clearly.

Value Ontology, as I have come to understand it, is a description of what the existence we inhabit is; or more accurately, how it is. Since it is a description of a current, observable state of affairs, it gives little importance to its genesis (nothingness, Jehova, some unknowable or as yet unknown something, whatever).

But what FC claims is that it's not just a description, but an explanation...


It describes the existence of individual entities, each defined by the act of valuing and self-valuing. An important thing to grasp here (which I think you are having trouble with) is that self-valuing is subordinate to valuing. Entities self-value as a result of valuing. First, there is a need to value, a valuing principle. Out of that need springs self-valuing, as the entity needs to be a coherent whole, or a distinct something, to efficiently value and gain profit from that act of valuing.

Okay. So first, there is a need to value---no valuing yet. But in order to value, an entity has to value itself. So in order to value, it has to value... How is this not circular?


This is why existene has shape, why things are things instead of a confused mass of whatever. It is because we value it, and value each self-valuing thing as a thing. We value them as self-valuing because what we observe is the concentrated efforts, or valuing, of a single thing. An atom values the energy around it in a way that translates into our valuing it as an atom, so with the electrons, the molecules and a chainsaw.

So we value it as valuing, not as self-valuing...
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 5:53 pm

Sauwelios wrote:But what FC claims is that it's not just a description, but an explanation...


I really think you are splitting hairs here. Plus, this is my interpretation, not straight from FC. I think what's important here is that there is no great need to understand the genesis, only the how is the focus.

Sauwelios wrote:Okay. So first, there is a need to value---no valuing yet. But in order to value, an entity has to value itself. So in order to value, it has to value... How is this not circular?

As I said, if you look at it as a description of a current state of affairs instead of a description of where the world started/starts, this will become more acceptable. The first thing is the need, which we know about because we know that we(humans), as entities, value out of need. And that is really the genious of this ontology, that it incorporates human perception into existance itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things.

Sauwelios wrote:So we value it as valuing, not as self-valuing...


We value it as valuing, and therefore self-valuing.


*Pending approval by the developpers of the original theory.
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 16, 2011 5:55 pm

A little more about the relationship between self-valuing and valuing:

Self-valuing is subordinate to valuing. Almost a sub-category of valuing.
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 16, 2011 5:59 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:But what FC claims is that it's not just a description, but an explanation...

I really think you are splitting hairs here. Plus, this is my interpretation, not straight from FC. I think what's important here is that there is no great need to understand the genesis, only the how is the focus.

Sauwelios wrote:Okay. So first, there is a need to value---no valuing yet. But in order to value, an entity has to value itself. So in order to value, it has to value... How is this not circular?

As I said, if you look at it as a description of a current state of affairs instead of a description of where the world started/starts, this will become more acceptable. The first thing is the need, which we know about because we know that we(humans), as entities, value out of need. And that is really the genious of this ontology, that it incorporates human perception into existance itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things.

Sauwelios wrote:So we value it as valuing, not as self-valuing...

We value it as valuing, and therefore self-valuing.

And in what way is all this different, not to say superior, to the will to power doctrine?
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:05 pm

Sauwelios wrote:And in what way is all this different, not to say superior, to the will to power doctrine?


In my humble-est of opinions, the will to power is very specifically a psychological concept. Value ontology takes elements from it to form an ontological system.

Apples and Oranges.
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 16, 2011 6:08 pm

I think the revolutionary claims of the theory are grounded in a misunderstanding of the will to power doctrine. In order to will power over an entity, one must first value that entity, right? But the will to power is at the root even of interpretation: to interpret the "confused mass" ("the chaos of sensations", as Nietzsche puts it) as things is already an act of the will to power. And is not the valuation of an entity the interpretation of that entity as valuable?
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Sauwelios » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:09 pm

pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:And in what way is all this different, not to say superior, to the will to power doctrine?

In my humble-est of opinions, the will to power is very specifically a psychological concept. Value ontology takes elements from it to form an ontological system.

Apples and Oranges.

That is indeed a most humble opinion.

"[T]he genious [sic] of this ontology [is] that it incorporates human perception into existance [sic] itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things."

That is exactly what Nietzsche does in, e.g., section 36 of his Beyond Good and Evil.
"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: 7182
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 7:07 pm
Location: Amsterdam

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

Postby Pezerocles » Wed Nov 16, 2011 6:31 pm

Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:And in what way is all this different, not to say superior, to the will to power doctrine?

In my humble-est of opinions, the will to power is very specifically a psychological concept. Value ontology takes elements from it to form an ontological system.

Apples and Oranges.

That is indeed a most humble opinion.

"[T]he genious [sic] of this ontology [is] that it incorporates human perception into existance [sic] itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things."

That is exactly what Nietzsche does in, e.g., section 36 of his Beyond Good and Evil.


Wow... I had not read that passage before. (In all honesty, I have been kind of stuck on "The Antichrist" with Nietzsche after having read "Human, all too Human" because I am afraid that it might be impossible to write something even better than those two. Obviously I have been very mistaken.)

So, Nietzsche did propose a... kind of ontology. But inasmuch as it still requires a sort of metaphysical "will", the will to power doctrine differs from value ontology. The latter attempts at an objective description, while Nietzsche's is ultimately subjective.

(I am still too humble as regards Nietzsche to talk of one being superior to the other. I am not convinced that objectivity has any inherent superiority to subjectivity, whereas I am increasingly convinced that subjectivity is the only legitimate angle, and that the more objectivity it incorporates, the more powerful it becomes.)

I hope this explains how, while I refrain from calling it superior, I certainly find value ontology to be... Valuable!
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 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 4:26 am

Sauwelios wrote:
pezermeregild wrote:
Sauwelios wrote:And in what way is all this different, not to say superior, to the will to power doctrine?

In my humble-est of opinions, the will to power is very specifically a psychological concept. Value ontology takes elements from it to form an ontological system.

Apples and Oranges.

That is indeed a most humble opinion.

"[T]he genious [sic] of this ontology [is] that it incorporates human perception into existance [sic] itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things."

That is exactly what Nietzsche does in, e.g., section 36 of his Beyond Good and Evil.


But also without denying the (human)will. In fact there is nothing, no "thing in itself", no "matter", no "energy", but only will. There is no "thing", and consequently there is no "thing in itself"!!! - All is subjective!
Nietzsche incorporates will and perspective! You deny the will! You are slaves of the "perspective" which is not even yours - moral Christian or Buddhist fanatics! - Opportunists! In ancient Greece morals were not an imperative until the end of the 4th BCE religion has become an instrument of manipulation in the hands of the masses and powerful men were persecuted as "heretics" out of hate. Modern philosophy with its "ontology" is nothing but a hunt against "witches", "heretics" and the likes...
Nietzsche never said in BGE36 anything about a "metaphysical will"! There is no "meta" because there is no PHYSICAL!

Nietzsche, BGE 36 wrote:"Will," of course, can affect only "will"— and not "matter"


So, there is no will-matter relationship, because there is no matter.
Last edited by Cezar on Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:16 am, edited 1 time in total.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

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

Postby Pezerocles » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:16 am

Cezar wrote:
That is indeed a most humble opinion.

"[T]he genious [sic] of this ontology [is] that it incorporates human perception into existance [sic] itself without requiring humans to be the only existing things."

That is exactly what Nietzsche does in, e.g., section 36 of his Beyond Good and Evil.


But also without denying the (human)will. In fact there is nothing, no "thing in itself", no "matter", no "energy", but only will. There is no "thing", and consequently there is no "thing in itself"!!! - All is subjective!
Nietzsche incorporates will and perspective! You deny the will! You are slaves of the "perspective" which is not even yours! Opportunists!
Nietzsche never said in BGE36 anything about a "metaphysical will"! There is no "meta" because there is no PHYSICAL!

Nietzsche, BGE 36 wrote:"Will," of course, can affect only "will"— and not "matter"


So, there is no will-matter relationship, because there is no matter.


Hmm...

The way you keep a simplistic view of a concept that is very complex is illumintaing in many ways. I have come to resent your ability for it, but I am greedy enough to learn from what you say anyway.

But I will, now, begin to question you.

If we assume that nothing is “given” as real other than our world of desires and passions and that we cannot access from above or below any “reality” other than the direct reality of our drives—for thinking is only a relationship of these drives to each other—: are we not allowed to make the attempt and to ask the question whether this given is not a sufficient basis also for understanding the so-called mechanical (or “material”) world on the basis of things like this given. I don’t mean to understand it as an illusion, an “appearance,” an “idea” (in the sense of Berkeley and Schopenhauer*), but as having the same degree of reality as our affects themselves have—
From the mentioned passage in BGaE


There IS a physical... or at least a real. A something. A something that applies itself. Not just human, but something that the human is a complex developpment of.

as a more primitive form of the world of affects in which everything is still combined in a powerful unity, something which then branches off and develops in the organic process (also, as is reasonable, gets softer and weaker—), as a form of instinctual life in which the collective organic functions, along with self-regulation, assimilation, nourishment, excretion, and metabolism, are still synthetically bound up with one another—as an early form of life?


This second part is still refered to by what I wrote above, but I quoted it seperately because... well, don't you see it?

FC, tell 'em.
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 » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:19 am

Nothing applies itself.

The will is discovered only out of interaction with other wills.

Of course you resent, you are a slave.
Cezar
Thinker
 
Posts: 571
Joined: Tue Oct 19, 2004 1:27 am

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

Postby Pezerocles » Thu Nov 17, 2011 5:27 am

Cezar wrote:Nothing applies itself.

The will is discovered only out of interaction with other wills.

Of course you resent, you are a slave.


Ah, don't be cranky.

Your use of willing is looking mighty similar to FC's use of valuing...
Pezerocles
Led Zeppelin Satanist
 
Posts: 3559
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2011 1:54 am

PreviousNext

Return to Philosophy



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users