Hi Meno,
Don’t worry about it. I do not see you as having pre-empted me.
Perhaps I might have used a different expression.
What I was implying there was that because THERE IS Life we see the Universe as actually requiring it. It’s like putting the effect before the cause.
Is there another expression for that?
The semantic relativity about it is one level of conscious effect that perhaps perscribes it, while revealing deeper levels of inscriptions; making descriptions almost literally poetic, in as much those levels are not usually available.(literally).
Perhaps this is, what Nietzsche tried.to bring out.
Can you point me to what Nietzsche said about the above? I would be interested.
Specifically no, but his use of aphorisms signify some effort on his part to express some state of belief which may not be available directly.
As far As that goes, an expert in Nietzche may perhaps have a specific aphorism which confirms this. I will try to find something in the interim.
I haven’t begin to look, but primarily the will to power shows a his attempt to overcome the differences alluding to the semantic structures implicit in textual representation of explicit Darwinian differences , where from his search for meaning.But will search, Arc for befitting aphorism [s].
Found one in ‘Will to Power’, s635; walter Kaufmann ed
it comes.closest in the dynamic between praxis and process that seems credible as an analogy.
It’s long and I have no capacity to transpose with a Samsung phone.
Is God the “sense” you are speaking of?
Maybe a higher power would be a better way to put it.
Phylo thanks for.the paraphrase.
Why? Are you afraid of the word “God”?
It’s not that except that spelled backwards God is dog
What is the “sense” you are speaking of then?
Thank you again.
I think, he means “nature” in a way of pantheism (“nature <=> God”) by avoiding the word “God”.
Or he is just joking.
Actually it’s not really a joke, it only appears as such with a purpose, to show the indigenous way that the difference, subtly estranged shades of meaning. That reverse spelling creates an unintended meaning, is the very contrary views not.accomodatong but creating what Nietzsche calls a.Pathetic rejection of both: the central idea of.‘god’ and the what Armenius calls a pantheism
They are not reconciable meaningfully because their genesis are far removed from each other. [From Nietzsche’ s Sleep]
As far as I understand it its neither an acceptance or rejection, but a pathetic understanding of an unresolved state of being.
So the “sense” which “‘makes’ life”, as you said, is “a pathetic understanding of an unresolved state of being”? Or what?
The word ‘makes’ is the conjuctive which introduces the difference, which is intrinsic in the higher purpose, where by the confusion arises.
That that is the produced the pathetic nature of neither/nor, into the equation-A throwback into Descartes’ contribution into Hegelianism , [either/or] for that matter, -the tacit nature of the Inversion- or, the logic of contraries, points to it Yes,
that isnwhats meant here. A clear nihilization of process, of a synthetic result of lower types of goal setting.
That inaccessibility is.geared toward a select, is an inescapable condition here, and thus the resistive misapprehension. The resistive pathetic sense has to be based on condition of maximising the differential distance, sorrily and necessarily leaving behind more and more relevant connections, leaving more vacuous space and resulting in more aphoristic connections. This is the bases of the Wil to Power.
Yes, Your observation of this sense appears correct, as far as I can tell.
The original thesis, ‘Does life make sense’,.the vernacular points to -commonnsense.of the common sense, linguistic Sessseur-Ian post modern type signaling type, and the problem with that has been demonstrated by the deconstruction of meaning by the infinite regression of the concept-‘sense data’
The unresolition of that bears actual witness to Nietzche’s prophetic use of ‘pathetic’
Let us also not forget, Meno, that spelled backwards L I V E becomes E V I L.
I often muse on that.
Anyway, dogs can be quite faithful though I am an agnostic and a skeptic.
~~ and ~~
There are many, who by their moral perception, believe that living truly can be evil.
That is an aphorism? I thought that they were short and to the point.