How can anything want power? How can anything not want power?
Even you with your “thing in itself” want Nothing and can simply not stop wanting.
And even your nothing is a will to power, because every decadent is losing power against his own will and the Nothingness means wanting to stop the loss of power! Nothing = 0 loss of power. - It is still a will to power.
And knowledge is power.
And decadent is hedonist.
And hedonists are forgetful.
How can Value Ontology apply itself? Where is it better than science?
I will probably make a case for science as soon as you answer, be ready.
If the attempt to understand “self-valuing” necessarily leads to its genealogy, then it rests on that.
So Pezer is wrong, and self-valuing is not subordinate to valuing, but the other way 'round?
But it amounts to nothing. Nothing is literally no thing, so nothingness—the reification of nothing—is literally no-thingness.
As I said, pure flux would be nothing. But your flux is no pure flux, it’s only relatively fluxious.
Where is there “otherness” in will acting on will?
There is no subject of will to power. The will to power is encroaching subjects, or force moving outward from centers. The phrase “encroaching units” is not an answer to the question “who wants power?” or “who feels pleasure?”
And how can anything posit itself? I’ve asked this question, in different forms, multiple times already, but this suggestion of absurdity has been conveniently ignored.
“Itself” already refers to its being, so this is circular, absurd.
Well, I don’t care whether it’s logically prior or only logically more fundamental; all I care about is whether it’s logical.
I would agree if you said that valuing presupposes a value-standard. What I disagree with is the notion of “positing itself as a value-standard”, or “self-valuing”—as that is circular, absurd.
And what is “flat time-space”?
This last part is nonsense: “it, which is a valuing in terms of it, which is a valuing in terms of it, which is…”
More nonsense: see my previous post.
Wrong: will to power cannot be further analysed (e.g., as “will” and “power”).
Only a teeny weeny bit, e.g.: “Now that I have demystified the will to power, philosophy/philosophers may actually begin acquire power.”…
The latter is actually not Nietzschean.
The nature of man cannot be found in the “lower” species from which he originated (e.g., the ape, in the narrower sense), but just as little in the “higher” species that will supposedly originate from him.
Nothing is fundamental to itself.
Sauwelios – Flat time space is un-curved time space. That shouldn’t be too difficult to understand.
“There is no subject of will to power. The will to power is encroaching subjects, or force moving outward from centers. The phrase “encroaching units” is not an answer to the question “who wants power?” or “who feels pleasure?””
Of course it is. Either that or you believe in a metaphysical bond between these units, i.e. in God.
““And how can anything posit itself? I’ve asked this question, in different forms, multiple times already, but this suggestion of absurdity has been conveniently ignored.””
How can anything exist if it does not posit itself? The notion “it is simply there” is what is absurd. There is no “simply is”. There is only acting, positing. And I have answered the question, several times: by accident, enabled by the absence of its active impossibility.
This is logic, driven to its extreme. Which means not to rely on it faithfully, expecting it to give you the answers. Logic can only naturally flow forth in explanation to the extent that we expect that the universe is part of a duality, a yes and a no.
I have subjected logic to the term which’ meaning is fundamental to it: value.
“Nothing is fundamental to itself.”
Thank you. I will file this statement, along with “will to power cannot be further analysed.” under “Sauwelian law”, and may use this file in the future to explain why a certain type of thought cannot attain to value-ontology.
Cezar – Was labert der Honk?
Pezer – Better than science? No, furthering science, from a bringer of objectivism/nihilism to a handmaid of philosophy.
It’s as difficult to understand as curved time-space, of course. And I think that’s impossible to understand, as the mathematical equations that formulate it cannot be imagined: http://xkcd.com/895/.
How so?
What’s absurd about it?
There simply is no “simply is”?
What bullshit.
Which we must do, as is implied in everything you say.
Which is because it does not leap into irrationality (mysticism), as you do.
Your theory has emerged again in my mind as completely valid, and worthy of at least most of the importance you and yours give it.
I like the way science gets valued, it works. It remains to be seen to what detail what part of science adheres to value ontology, doesn’t lose the ability to be its handmaiden.
I still don’t connect with the importance of the “yes and the no”, the truth of what you say about it seems to me not to be self evident, and not to be essential to the logical cohesion of the… theory?
What trully stands out is this: “How can anything exist if it does not posit itself? The notion “it is simply there” is what is absurd. There is no “simply is”. There is only acting, positing. And I have answered the question, several times: by accident, enabled by the absence of its active impossibility.”
But I value it only after slicing off the “only” and “enabled by the absence of its active impossibility.” Why go beyond? Outside? Wherefore comes the idea that you can know such a thing? Or even infer it? If, like you sway(edit-say) (and I agree), logic is an expansion and not a discovery, an uncovering?
This, I think, makes up for the small part of your pride in this theory that I find unwarranted.
I think FC and I are back to our disagreement about the question “Why is there something, and not rather nothing?”—which may be called a fundamental disagreement in at least that Heidegger called that question “the fundamental question of philosophy”. To me, the question is meaningless, as by definition something (Ger. Seiendes, “being” (nominalised present active participle)) can only be, not not be, and nothing cannot be.
I’m starting to come around to this…
To me it is also meaningles, but for a different reason. And i think FC thinnks along these lines too:
It is meaningless because it presents no value, there is nothing useful in that question.
Heidegger also called the question “What is Being [Sein, present active infinitive]?” “the fundamental question of metaphysics”, and understood philosophy as metaphysics. In the past, however, FC has disagreed with me that the fundamental question of philosophy and that of metaphysics are essentially one and the same. But if I’m right, then FC can be understood as a true Heideggerian: for according to Heidegger, Nietzsche only answered “the guiding question of metaphysics”, “What is being [Seiendes]?”, and not the fundamental or grounding question (Grundfrage); FC however claims to have answered the latter question.
I disagree. I think he claims to have perfected the former. And the latter just follows logically. Namely: Things exist. Why? Because we see them. Well, value them.
So we value them before they exist?
edit-see next post
There is no time involved. The exist and we value them. We value them and they exist. We know they exist, because we value them. Therefore, in our valuing, they exist only in as far as we value them. Otherwise, we’re in non-human territory. This is why the enfasis is in usefulness, because otherwise you are just wondering how many angels fit on the point of a needle.
Okay, I can live with that. I doubt though that that’s all that FC is saying.
Maybe… i usually get about 90% fidelity to what he says.
Something exists; there is an is. Is is.
Now what?