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

But as you may see, this note is from 1883. The “subjects” he mentions in that second quote from 1887, for example, need not be organic.

But on page 1 of this thread, you said:

There are only two alternatives: either something was always there, or it came from nothing (which is technically saying the same thing, by the way). You simply replace a God That has always existed with a God That “created Himself from nothing”…

Well, first off, I don’t think it can be explained (to say that it emerged out of nothing is no more an explanation than to say that it always existed—see above), and second, the notion of “subjects that will” is subject to Nietzsche’s critique of the concept “subject”:

“If the innermost essence of being is will to power, if pleasure is every increase of power, displeasure every feeling of not being able to resist and dominate; may we not then posit pleasure and displeasure as cardinal facts? Is will possible without these two oscillations of Yes and No? But who feels pleasure?.. But who wants power?.. Absurd question, if the essence is itself power-will and consequently feelings of pleasure and displeasure! Nonetheless: opposites, obstacles are needed; therefore, relatively, encroaching units…” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 693, entire.)

This may be a good occasion to start reading a book I recently acquired. It’s titled The Quantum Nietzsche.

http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2084622#p2084622

This has something to do with a stupid ILP topic where underage (irresponsible) people bash about NOTHING.

Or maybe you just don’t understand it—like this one: http://www.ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.php?p=2130810#p2130810.

I understand perfectly well that the source of all metaphysics is weakness!
Something that you obviously avoid to think of like the dog avoids the wolf.

You have nonsensed my son, who can save you now?

“Metaphysics” in the popular sense of the word, or in the true, Aristotelian sense?

Aristotle was not so true. They both, Aristotle and Plato were offering things that didn’t belong to them. Copy-cats. I didn’t even read anything from them about metaphysics. One must save his eyes for better things.

I wasn’t talking about the content of Aristotelian metaphysics. I was talking about the meaning of the term “metaphysics” in Aristotelianism. Nietzsche’s doctrine of the will to power is metaphysical in that sense: it’s a teaching about existence as a whole.

Nietzsche’s WTP is not a teaching as a whole!

Nietzsche in the teaching of the ER clearly says there are centers of energy and combinations of those centers, and he clearly denies anything “whole”.

There is a stupid chaos from which fckn stars are born!

Perpetuum mobile!

Yes: that there are only such centers and combinations of those centers.

So what? You can specify what they are so you can distinguish what is impossible, or what?

Again that sht “thing in itself”?

Is that Nietzschean? Is it you idiot?

Sauwelios ist die Sau which will rather believe in Nothing than not to believe. Ende Gelände.

To the question of “What is Cezar contributing to this thread?” the answer is “Opposing it in a simmilar way as Nietzsche might have opposed it.”.

The accusation that you are using metaphysics and thus continuing christianity is a Nietzshean one. What is your answer?

Nietzche wasn’t perfect. He had some points though, which some people can find useful.
We shouldn’t look at only a man when we are dreaming and forming ideas.
I don’t think Nietzche’s goal was to guide the world or provide a system like that.
Religious figures would like everyone on the planet to follow their ideology word for word,
in hopes that that would cause some sort of eutopia. But N didn’t do that. So when someone
tries to get that out of Nietzche, an ‘ontology’, they will have to make most of it up themselves.

“One is necessary, one is a piece of fatefulness, one belongs to the whole, one is in the whole,—there is nothing which could judge, measure, compare, or sentence our being, for that would mean judging, measuring, comparing, or sentencing the whole… But there is nothing besides the whole!” (Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, “The Four Great Errors”, section 8.)

This world is the will to power—and nothing besides! And your yourselves are also this will to power—and nothing besides!” (Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 1067.)

This world is the whole is will to power and nothing besides.

We experience life in fragments, and to save time, we take that fragmentation literally.
Humans aren’t the smartest creatures in the universe, depsite what christianity says about earthly life.
So we are going to get it wrong.

Although separation isn’t a reality, it is a very common idea.
It has some value… untrue things can have value still.

The world is a whole without unity, without spirit, without a Being, that has been said too. There is nothing but physics of the will to power in this world!

No metaphysical unity, no “holy spirit” and a trash like that!

Is that clear?

You got the point for the second time.

Exactly: a metaphysical whole. But neither as sensorium nor as “spirit” a unity, no… :mrgreen:

What kind of circus is this?

Obviously the will to power theory is also an ontology… this is all too silly.

Sauwelios – Self-valuing makes possibile and necessary the dynamic of pleasure and displeasure. Pleasure and displeasure can only be understood in terms of self-valuing. I must interpret N’s proposition that (unaccompanied by explanation how ) they should be fundamental (to a universe of force) as an attempt to mask the fact that he did not know how the will to power could logically be interpreted as fundamental.

The will to power only explains interaction. It is the passive principle, conditional to the active principle of self-valuing.

If you wish to give to the mechanism of self-valuing the name God you are welcome to do so, but I won’t accompany you there. I take God as a term for the inconceivable. Now that the worlds past/origin has been made conceivable, God can only exist as the future.

So, the metaphysical will as whole wants the perpetuum mobile although it is a nonsense?

Therefore you too want nonsense although it produces you a lot of suffering, like hanging on the cross etc.?

You have fallen in love (amor fati) with suffering as such and you are ready to deny the world for that reason. That is quite nihilistic.

I suppose fc is moody lawless or commander or whatever and he doesn’t need to prove anything, he is English.

However, Nietzsche was not for nonsense as the goal of life but for the ability to endure the nonsense through the creation of the overman.

One can “not only concede but love a fair amount of accidents and nonsense”, but one does not chose nonsense as the goal, like you do.

A decadent is forced to believe in nonsense, therefore he can’t take control over his existence. He suffers from that, but he is too weak to take his life in his own hands.

Now children, go play in the sand or on your computer…