Philosophy is Friendship

Fixed Cross,

I never thought that you were calling me scum, Jakob.

I just don’t understand how if we see value, someone becomes scum? Isn’t that a strong word to use?
That being said, not wanting to be hypocritical, I imagine there are some who I can look on as scum.
But why would you associate someone with scum who just comes from a different perspective from you or maybe didn’t have the same breaks as you did/do and who is just struggling, let’s say as a result of his/her war experience?

I suppose that I’m just growing horns and a tail or maybe I always had them.
The Satan in me is thriving that’s all.

PB - Yes, of course. I cant endure unequals around me. Havent you noticed that about me?

He’s the most powerful resisant Ive encountered since Sauwelios. Who is a long time close friend.
Pezer has taught me as much about myself as I have taught him about himself; rather, our extremely pressure-laden project has caused both of us immense stress and erupted often in violent arguments, the most violent ones Ive had with anyone except Sauwelios (friends argue far more violently than adversaries, as the stakes are higher); this has taught disciplined.

If you take from the videos that Pezer is less than I am in rank, if thats what you take from the thread where we write down phrases and make memes out of them, you are in an alternate universe, you see nothing of us that is real.

Pezer does not take shit. He is so immensely proud that he can actually see what I am.

If youve seen the lengths Turd has gone through to try to make me feel pain and shame, youd see “scum” is mild. He has lost a part of his humanity and takes that out on me. It’s fucking horrifying to imagine his inner world. But Ive tried all along to be polite to him and to engage him in sensible things.

He’s just convinced me that he is fundamentally incapable of decency.

I call scum those who inflict deliberate harm on people evidently out to bring light and love.
Every sane person here knows I am arrogant but a very generous and bright guy only out to make peoples lives better.

Everyone sees Turs is out to ruin peoples days.

How is he not scum? Why do we have the word scum if not to designate Turd?

:mrgreen: You go girl.

Fixed Cross wrote:

As for the first part, I don’t think that’s necessarily true. They may not be equal in certain things, like looks, intelligence, et cetera but as long as they see their selves as equals where it counts, friendship can go there.

As for the second part,

Well, that is certainly not a view which came from nowhere. lol That’s a sado-masochistic dynamic but certainly not a friendship.
That’s more a symbiotic relationship - or a co-dependency…not the ideal friendship. The so-called master needs the slave just as much as the slave needs the master. I daresay that in some cases the master needs the slave even more to feel superior. The slave may eventually rebel against this wonderful master just as those slaves which are our emotions can eventually rebel against us.

Aside from that, you may be having unconscious fantasies of an S&M relationship, Jakob. Be very very careful there. :evilfun:

Equals keep each other in check. Sauwelios is certainly your equal. He is able to refine your position, and you, in turn,are able to build back off of that.

Point me to one video or thread(where Pezar is speaking) where he shows that he understands your position and is able to elaborate on it in an equally elegant manner. From everything I’ve seen and read, he could at best be called a disciple (and not a very disciplined one at that).

Being proud and offering resistance is good, but doesn’t necessarily make one an equal. And you can talk Pezar up all you want, but that just proves you’re loyal, not that he’s your equal.

I mean only equals in power.
All have different power-attributes. But where friends measure is a general strength of will, which also translates to intelligence, wit, courage, ambition, etc. Pezer and Sauwelios are the most courageous men Ive personally met. Capable and Parodites are also courageous in a way that makes me regard them as pure heroes, as fit for the company of gods.

This is my morality. I just seek friends, equals. And I’ll reshape the world to make that happen if I have to. And I do.

As Parodites said; “If you are not commanding in this world you are being commanded.”
I want only friendships with those who thoroughly understand this. Anyone else, I could not trust with my life. And that is what friendship amounts to and is tested by, that kind of trust.

If a man does not know that trust, he is less of a man for it.

When I was in the filmacademy I saw a couple of friendships like that. Yes, surely that is far from ideal. It’s friendship for lesser people.
Theatre students also tend toward such travesties.
They still feel like they’re friends.
But obviously it’s not up to my standard, nor would it produce philosophy.

Neither are they unconscious, nor are they strictly fantasies. But I wont be exposing them here. It has little to do with philosophy…

Good thing you’re able to perceive that.

Our talk videos provide no such intensity. When were in the middle of a real argument neither of us is exactly reaching for a camera.
Just read Pezers positions here (as Filmsnob) and on BTL. How is he not resisting what I propose?

He’s loyal to me because I’m the most powerful person he knows. I’m loyal to him because he’s the most powerful person around. We’re very clear about that. Of course we share certain values and aims – but on this level, power and values are truly aspects of the same thing.

I do have rank on him philosophical-technically and scientifically, I feel I have philosophical and scientific rank on everyone alive including Zizek as well as the guys at Cern (so I could not give less about what a dude like Satyr tries to tell you) but he outranks me in qualities such as aristocratic outlook, straightforwardness, conciseness, important forms of bullshit-detecting; and there is a very important set of qualities that pertains to personal life in which I find in this guy the first one who actually has a spine.

Trust that very little of what goes on in any friendship makes it to video.

I could fairly say that Pezer is the only one I ever knew that talks down on me when I’m actually being weak. Most others mistake my greatest strengths for weaknesses, which causes a contempt so steep in me that Ive come to regard the human race as very heterogenous in quality and no longer consider each human an entity per se; one needs to earn this in my eyes, by displaying degrees of integrity, consistency, honesty. If not, I dont trust that such a person is able to really experience him or herself; I believe rather it is a function of some general pathos that goes around like the flu.

A friend, to me, needs to exist. Most people don’t. They are ephemeral phenomena relying for ground on truer valuings.
You’d faint in vertigo if you could see from my position. From where Im standing it is no longer wise to look all the way down.
Still, I am braver than I am wise.

That is why you guys still have the pleasure of Fixed Cross -bashing. I know that behind it is often genuine curiosity and ambition.
So maybe my courage is just a radical, long term wisdom.

Surely, this is a sign of mental illness.

…surely, this is a very big claim for any person to make.

Really?

To claim that you are superior in philosophy and science to anyone alive is not crazy?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

Small people cant make big claims.

It’s very common, actually its a general rule, that scientific genius is hated and condemned as mental illness by the frustrated academics and the pol pot wannabes and other birth control glitches.

Maybe you should ask Pezer whether you “have philosophical and scientific rank on everyone alive including Zizek as well as the guys at Cern”.

Let’s see what he says.

And let’s ask Sauwelios as well.

Jeez Phyllo… I see that my attempt at tactfully broaching the matter passed you by. #-o

Not everyone here is small fry Fixed, and the people I know who are very big fry would never demean anyone by lauding over them like that.

No… mental illness is condemned as mental illness, while the frustrated academics and the pol pot wannabes continue being frustrated academics and pol pot wannabes.

I’m hoping that one of his friends is reading this thread and comes to the realization that something needs to be done.

That’s it. That’s the only reason I posted. I doubt that they would listen to me if I PM them directly.

He spends far more time trying to save the face he never had (he’s a very poor thinker, this is a fact, no jealousy here) than thinking.

The more you try to shake his delusional self-value, the more delusional he becomes.

Instead of showing (that he can think, argue, rationally defend his position, etc) he is telling (that he can think, argue, rationally defend his position, etc when cameras are off.)

I never saw him engaged in a serious thought. 99.99% of the time he is either spamming this board with non-philosophical stuff (e.g. what pezer said), spamming it with pseudo-philosophical stuff (e.g. the philosophy of animals, can you believe it, now even animals have philosophy) or he is talking about himself (how great he is, how others don’t understand him, etc.) What kind of serious philosopher does that?

I have nothing but contempt for this man.

You have to admit that it has gone beyond ego or excessive self confidence. He needs a little help from his friends.

That’s not what he said. He said he felt he had philosophical and scientific rank etc. Anyway, I certainly don’t think that feeling is far from the truth. His statement reminds me of this:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9_vYz4nQUcs 3:17-4:56 (Note that it should say “can only be attained” instead of “can only be used” (and “Thinking” instead of “the Thinking”).)

Now compare what perpetualburn said with what Heidegger says about “direct dialogue”:

“He [Sauwelios] is able to refine your [Fixed Cross’s] position, and you, in turn,are able to build back off of that.”

Thus in a quite recent Facebook discussion in which both Fixed Cross and myself participated (the third participant was a loyal defender of the status quo), I said:

::

It’s obviously not true that Thales only had his mind as a tool. He also had his senses, and the tools of modern science are basically just tools that amplify the senses (e.g., microscopes and telescopes). Now I was aware that there’s another challenger than history to the premises of philosophy–namely the exact sciences–, but contrary to the challenge of history, I don’t take that challenge seriously. I think it’s very naive to think that “a chemistry lab [can] help [us] figure out what all this stuff is actually made of”. For all their high-tech tools, modern scientists seem to have lost their mind. Daniel Dennett, for example, does not even seem to understand the problem of qualia! It makes me suspect that he is himself a mindless zombie.

Against quantum mechanics, I pose quale organics. Mystical? I think it’s the opposite–although, even if we retain the notion of a universal human nature, we must say that it points to “a humanity that, though it belongs to man as man, is not open to every man, since what he is necessarily he is not necessarily unless he knows that that is what he is necessarily.” (Benardete, The Bow and the Lyre, page 87.) It seems that only the fewest have the courage to see human nature, indeed nature as a whole, for what it is. Nietzsche, by the way, rigorously used so-called “scientific” method to establish the nature of nature, as I wrote in that thread I linked to:

“I think Nietzsche beats modern ‘scientific’ man at his own game by arriving at the doctrine of the will to power out of ‘the conscience of method’ (Beyond Good and Evil, aphorism 36). The instincts and taste of modern times, according to him, ‘would even rather bear with the absolute coincidentiality, indeed the mechanistic nonsensicality of all occurrences, than with the theory of a power-will transpiring in all occurrences.’ (Genealogy of Morals, Second Treatise, section 12.) Nietzsche conquers the modern conquest of nature by arguing convincingly that the nature of nature is conquest.”

The conquest of nature was originally understood as the conquest of non-sense and chance, of coincidence. But coincidence is now–with Nietzsche–seen as the coinciding, the clashing, of wills to power. But even more than most human beings, most other beings are hardly aware of what they really are. As Aldous Huxley puts it: “[In The Tibetan Book of the Dead,] the departed soul is described as shrinking in agony from the Clear Light of the Void, and even from lesser, tempered Lights, in order to rush headlong into the comforting darkness of selfhood as a reborn human being, or even as a beast, an unhappy ghost, a denizen of hell. Anything rather than the burning brightness of unmitigated Reality–anything!” (The Doors of Perception.)

But the philosopher’s cruel nature impels him to realize the true nature, not only of himself, but of all other people as well–and also of all beasts, all plants–all “things”… Apparently they want to be ruled, rather than having to rule themselves, take responsibility themselves. The philosopher takes the responsibility for the existence of all beings, for his whole universe. He first makes them truly exist: for the unexamined life is not only not worth living, it does not even exist… But examining existence in this way means finding it to be alive–alive and kicking. This is why it suffices for the eternal recurrence to be a myth. A myth is something positive: you don’t mythologize what you don’t deem worthy of monumentalizing. What matters is that the philosopher deems his whole universe worthy of being eternalized. […]

It’s easy to get caught up in philosophy and lose sight of what one man needs one day in September.

Philosophy is not an end, it is a means.