Philosophy is Friendship

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.

Times (and drugs) have changed… I’m inferring to now, not then, so the philosophers of old can rest easy.

That’s not what I’m looking for from my music… that’s you.

I have never seen the term EDM being used… either for e-invites or e-flyers, but I do see the terms Dance Music or Electronic being used. I will post some examples when I find them.

…if you want to buy a piece… yes, to enjoy a piece… no, you don’t.

I liked the track… I still like the track. Would you prefer I didn’t?

Like friendship, right? Why you are ignorant of both.

‘Friendship’ emerges from the emotions of bonding which would in general facilitate survival and continuation of the human species.
Philosophy is not friendship in any significant sense.

The “Philosophy of Friendship” will generate greater utility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendship
One can add a philosophical spin to the above.

Friendship is ontological if anything is. Ask Contra Nietzsche. It’s what produced armed forces.

Nietzsche, but also most other happy philosophers (like Liebniz), often addressed their most poignant points at friends. Gotta mean somethin’.

Indeed Pezer
all who have read philosophers know this is so. Look just at the Greeks.

You are only the second responder to be on point, not surprising - the rest, besides often clearly lacking in knowledge of friendship, seems to have read “friendship equals philosophy” … lolwut.

Jakob,

Is the motivation behind resistance always about trying to prove that one is someone’s equal?

What does this mean?

I don’t know, Jakob but it seems to me by the above statement – I intuit that if someone is loyal because the other is so powerful, then that loyalty hinges on something which is lacking in the self and which that self needs to be a part of.
How can a friendship be based on that? If someone loses power, than what happens to the friendship? What is there to make it constant?

Powerful in which way? That’s a very nice affirmation BUT it’s only subjective thinking on your part, no?

Can you explain this, Jakob?
What is your personal power used for? Is a sense of power the most important factor in your life?

lol Do you really feel that way about yourself, Jakob? How do we get to be so courageous in our vanity and so cowardly in our humility?
Yes, you are brilliant in some ways and extremely knowledgeable. Perhaps you are like Lucifer in a sense bearing his light but like Lucifer and his pride and arrogance, there could be a fall waiting in the wings.
Do you not see anyone as more than you - Pezer aside?

He may just need to work on the phrase which I colored.
I understand the need for human beings to be affirmed but why do you feel the need to be above?
Aristocratic outlook? Is Pezer the guy in the videos with you?
What do you mean by aristocratic outlook? Can you define that. I can google it but I’d rather have your vision of him.

Pezer is the very first person who you have ever come across who has courage?

What is a hero, anyway?

I am simply proud and happy to have found a few people that estimate me properly, people who I can properly estimate without insulting them; high souls. There is only pride and happiness involved with that. It is a huge privilege.

As you know, we Nietzscheans do not frown on power. On the contrary.
‘Friendship’ based on anything else is a parasitical state.

All people love power, power is what people love in others; if they aren’t fearful wretches, in which case they love others weaknesses.
You, Arc, too love only power. I can see you.

Haha.

No, dear, that is subjective thinking on your part.

Who of us two has been spending time with Pezer?
I am sure you can see the fallacy in your thinking here.

Power sets goals; ‘my’ power uses ‘me’ to set and attain goals.
I recommend a reading of Nietzsche, Arc, I am sort of worried about this ignorance of what a Nietzschean philosopher means when he says “power”.

Shall we start a book study on a Nietzsche volume?
We used to do that back in the day on the Nietzsche Campfire. There is so much to be explained.

As my great friend Arthur Schopenhauer said: “With people of limited ability modesty is merely honesty. But with those who possess great talent it is hypocrisy.”

I am no moron, I would not say such extravagant things if I wasnt helplessly sure, had not become sure over time through experience, a lifetime of discussing with scientists, philosophers, priests, shamans, politicians, and so many other types… that no one else has a fucking first clue what do do with the matters that were brought to light in the 1930’s. [edited out some education history that may be perceived as bragging] I have always been forced to consider other minds remarkably puny and unprepared, simply because of how dumbstruck they always are when I address a matter; it is as if I am the only one who addresses the most humbling and scary matters of the mind head on.

No,thats exactly what it is.

Yes, Arc, I fully mean what I say, and to be honest, any person - let me say any man, who responds to such a claim with axiomatic disdain for such pridefulness, who isnt tempted to inquire why I feel this way - is less than human. Such men are precisely what fascism is; what Pol Pot was. Such mean are truly vermin to me. Lower, in all the literal senses, than all other mammals.

the human mind gives rise to strengths, but mainly to weaknesses; it is after all so apt to fear, to be jealous, to dread itself. I see people like Phyllo, I see how hollow they are, I see them daily with their grey faces.

I can’t say too much about that, as per aristocratic code - but just pay attention to his way of standard-bearing.

Not at all, you quite dramatically misread!

There is nothing wrong with pride so as long it is realistic. Your pride, however, is not realistic. You are quite simply delusional.

Don’t bother playing the “you don’t know me” card, because I do know you. I do know you because you do nothing on this forum but make yourself known. You are a narcissist who does nothing but talk about himself.

Very sad that you still try to defend yourself by appealing to “they just jealous” argument.

Jealous exactly of what? of delusions of grandeur?

Tell me, what is there to be jealous of?

The point is to be realistic not to merely remain unaffected.

Feelings are a superficial phenomenon. With a simple neurosurgical intervention, you can produce any kind of feelings you want. Indeed, pills would be enough. If you know how to do it, even meditation would be enough.

It thus makes no sense to pride yourself in how unaffected, how free from negative feelings, you are.

You just make yourself look like a fool.

The point is to master reality not to run away from it.

Running away from it is no challenge.