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

You can not say the will to power has existed from eternity and it comes from nothing.

It is essential for all matter and energy to have a will, for example the magnet: he knows where he wants and where he doesn’t want to go!
For example, N in one of his early letters says that the storm he had to experience has an “unfettered will”. The will is always in something material and it is matter!

And magnetism could be the smallest form of matter/energy.

The will to power is your “thing in itself”. But Nietzsche clearly says that the term force is the basic term about energy (matter, because today there is no difference between energy and matter) and that it is impossible to imagine an infinitely big or small force, which means there is no infinitely small or big center of energy. And there is no metaphysical energy!

Thus, the matter changes it’s form, when for example, two smallest centers of energy, say two smallest, equally small centers of magnetism unite.

There is no metaphysics. Everything is physical. Your thing in itself is deprived of force and thus it doesn’t exist for Nietzsche.

“An Stelle der Religion und Metaphysik die Lehre der Ewigen Wiederkehr (dies als Mittel der Auswahl und Züchtung” - Nietzsche (unfortunately I don’t have the original source for this quote but it can be found in few minutes)

Nietzsche clearly says that Religion and metaphysics are to be REPLACED with the ER as an utility for selection and upbringing - obviously Sauwelios and his commander have done a negative selection of them selves, and have taken an anti-Nietzschean position! Also in GM or EH N calls for the “victor over god and nothingness”, but Pigelios knows all this, he can quote everything N published!

Yes you can: it has come from nothing, i.e., it has not come from anything, i.e., it has not come at all, i.e., it has always been there.

And where did I contradict him in that regard?

Not in the popular sense of the word “metaphysical”, no…

That is a popular distinction. In the true sense, however, the difference between physics and metaphysics is that the former studies specific physical phenomena, whereas the latter studies physical phenomena in general or (in other words) the totality of physical phenomena.

Yes, it has always been in everything material! And you have the need to deny that, you nay-sayer!
You say it has always been in nothing! LOL LOL LOL
You can not say it has always been in everything, because you must say NAY-EVERYTHING!

NAY SAYER!!!

Nietzsche has blown all metaphysics away! And you are the only physical phenomenon that is worth nothing! - The parasite!

Wrong.

Wrong.

Only in the popular sense of the word “metaphysics”. How often must I repeat that? Was Commander Merlin right when he called you a complete ignorant moron?

The WTP IS POPULAR! IDIOT!

The ladder FC…

Remember it has many rungs.

I want you to respond to Cezar’s accusation, which is at a level that is below the surface.

I only keep coming back because I admire the fact that you and yours are coming up with what seems to be an original piece of philosophy.

I want to see how strong it is…

I’m still waiting for aletheia to formulate it without rambling. In the meantime, will you try?

What you call “original philosophy” is nothing but the ascetic ideal!
The belief in nothing just to buy time for recovery.

Honesty choses death rather than audience when it is not possible to act!

With pigs I am talking pigly(one must struggle against the enemy which is apparently huge in numbers)! All utilitarians believe in nothingness. That is why they are so modest. They are going to sell the entire “original philosophy” to the Chinese. They are already making requests to the “lazy Europeans” and wont give money “until their pockets are empty” - so one can make demands to the beggars.

That is called “to live at any costs”.

Anybody still waiting for junkies from Holland to rephrase the term of nothingness?

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

However, it keeps you from seeing certain angles (that as a Nietzschean purist, you are better off without). I am hoping FC will adress those angles. If he would only respond…

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.

Am I on the right track?

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!

Seriously, Dude?

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.

Nietzsche did say that… Not about decadents though. He said it about those who wish for death. Perhaps they are the same…

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.

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.

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

If being a Nietzschean purist means not understanding evolution, like “Cezar”, then I’m proud to not be a Nietzschean purist.

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?

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?

“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”)?

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.